*****************************************************************
07/24/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.174
*****************************************************************
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 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI stresses on diplomacy
2 IRNA: Iran stays defiant on uranium enrichment
3 IRNA: Iran can become regional hub for electricity swap
4 AFP: Iranian leader looks to Central Asia energy links on Turkmenist
5 IRNA: MP: UNSC possible resolution against Iran may lead to suspensi
6 IRNA: No pre-condition acceptable in nuclear talks - Gov't spokesman
7 IRNA: US assertion that Lebanon war is war against Iran `a mistake'
8 AFP: Bank of China freezes NKorean accounts - SKorean MP -
9 IRNA: Left wants parameters for Indo-US nuke deal to be set by Parli
10 Guardian Unlimited: Report: Pakistan Working on Nuke Expansion
11 Sydney Morning Herald: Little time to fix eco crisis - Gorbachev -
NUCLEAR REACTORS
12 [NukeNet] Scotland: Revealed: G8 plan for global nuclear
13 US: IEER update: global warming & nuclear power, missing
14 US: Patriot News: Lawsuit gives peek inside security procedures at
15 US: NRC: NRC Establishing Office of New Reactors, Additional Region
16 BBC: Pakistan 'building new reactor'
17 US: NRC: NRC Completes Staff Review of Clinton Early Site Permit App
18 US: NRC: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of
19 US: NRC: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of
20 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
21 US: NRC: Union Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance
22 US: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Entergy
23 Thais News: Nuclear Power Plant” Issue Raised
24 Belfast Telegraph: PM passes the (nuclear) buck
25 AFP: Pakistan building powerful nuclear reactor - press
NUCLEAR SECURITY
26 Xinhua: China mulls US-Russia initiative to combat nuclear terrorism
NUCLEAR SAFETY
27 Scotsman.com: Radioactive scrap left lying for eight years
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
28 US: [NukeNet] Summary of Nuclear Waste Storage Provision in the
29 US: Australian: Qld cool on Beazley backflip |
30 US: Australian: Green groups slam uranium backflip
31 AU ABC: Anti-nuclear push to visit SA, NT sites
32 US: The Herald: Illegal nuclear waste lay for years
33 US: AU ABC: Beazley wants three mines policy scrapped.
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
34 DOE: DOE Selects 26 Universities to Assess Industrial Energy Efficie
35 The Enquirer: Wildlife getting comfortable where once poison ruled
36 The Enquirer: Final chapter for Fernald
37 The Enquirer: Adviser helped create site vision
38 The Enquirer: Mission accomplished: After 21 years, she can rest
39 The Enquirer: Retired supervisor now battles system
40 DOE: Agency Information Collection Extension
41 DOE: Proposed Agency Information Collection
42 Paducah Sun: Uranium concerns--Opinions vary on effects on creeks ar
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: IRI stresses on diplomacy
2006/07/24
01:22:06 È.Ù
The Islamic Republic of Iran considers the package of proposals
offered by the west as opening a window of diplomacy and
negotiation, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said.
He urged Europeans not to be influenced by countries,
particularly America which are not interested in resolving the
Iran's nuclear issue through talks, Elham told reporters at his
weekly press conference.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran regards negotiations as the only
solution to international issues, problems and ambiguities,"
Elham said.
He pointed to a statement of Supreme National Security Council
(SNSC) Secretary Ali Larijani on Thursday which said that "Iran
and the European side had agreed that Tehran would consider the
offer seriously and give its response thereafter." "We still
expect the Europeans to move in the path" agreed upon, Elham
concluded.
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
2 IRNA: Iran stays defiant on uranium enrichment
Mon Jul 24, 6:21 AM ET
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran " /> Iranhas reiterated it will not halt
sensitive uranium enrichment work -- which is at the centre of
fears the country could acquire nuclear weapons -- to resolve a
standoff with the West.
"We are ready to discuss anything in negotiations ... (but) we
will not accept any preconditions," government spokesman Gholam
Hossein Elham told reporters Monday.
"Negotiations should respect everyone's rights and be pursued
with equality and understanding," he said, adding that a halt to
enrichment would put Iran in a state of "inequity".
The comments came as a draft resolution was being circulated in
the UN Security Council which would require Iran to suspend all
uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities.
The five permanent Security Council members plus Germany decided
to send the Iran nuclear dossier back to the Security Council
after Tehran failed to respond to a package of incentives in
exchange for a suspension of enrichment.
Elham said that Iran "still considers the European offer a good
opportunity to sort out Iran's nuclear issue with dialogue and
diplomacy".
Iran insists it wants to enrich uranium solely to make reactor
fuel and argues that this is a right under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Iran would respond to
the nuclear offer by August 22.
Iran warned Sunday that it would retaliate against any Security
Council resolution ordering it to stop uranium enrichment.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
3 IRNA: Iran can become regional hub for electricity swap
, July 23, IRNA
Iran could turn into a hub for regional electricity exchanges by
rearranging its power transmission networks, said the head of
Electricity Market, Alireza Khojasteh.
"Given the country's suitable geographical location we could
easily link up with central Asian and ME countries and necessary
planning to implement this task is underway," English-language
newspaper `Tehran Times' quoted Khojasteh as saying.
Khojasteh recalled that Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq are
among the places that are in need of energy.
"At the moment, connection to Jordan, Syria, Turkmenistan and
Azerbaijan is a matter of improving the existing network links
via Iraq," added Khojasteh.
Given the current electricity situation, Iran's imports are
slightly higher than its exports.
Much of the electricity required for the nation's growing
industries comes from Armenia and Turkmenistan.
*****************************************************************
4 AFP: Iranian leader looks to Central Asia energy links on Turkmenistan visit -
by Anton Lomov Mon Jul 24, 5:16 AM ET
ASHGABAT (AFP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to
discuss energy links with his Turkmen counterpart Saparmurat
Niyazov on a visit aimed at boosting Tehran's influence in
Central Asia.
The two neighbouring states will try to set boundaries in the
Caspian Sea "to develop its hydrocarbon resources and
opportunities for supplying natural gas to Europe," Turkmen
state media said Monday, quoting an official statement.
An overall border agreement has eluded the five Caspian states
since the 1991 break-up of the Soviet Union, slowing development
of the area's vast energy resources.
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia have reached separate border
accords.
The hardline Iranian leader's visit despite an international
crisis over Iran
" /> Iran's nuclear programme and the conflict in Lebanon was
seen as a sign of the strategic importance Tehran attaches to
the region.
China, Russia and the United States have all vied for influence
in ex-Soviet Central Asia, an area with enormous energy
potential and a key crossing point to Afghanistan
" /> Afghanistan.
Iran is mainly involved with large-scale transport and energy
infrastructure projects in the region, as well as grassroots
cultural exchange and aid programmes.
"The fact that Ahmadinejad has not cancelled the trip... shows
that Iran attaches enormous importance to maintaining a strong
presence in Central Asia," said an Iranian political analyst,
who asked not to be named.
Ahmadinejad will travel to Persian-speaking Tajikistan on
Tuesday less than two weeks after US Defence Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld visited the tiny state to look at possibilities for US
access to military bases there.
"Iran is also sending the message that it hasn't been put on the
defensive. Ahmadinejad's first visit to Central Asia will show
that he won't be forced into a corner," he said.
The five permanent members of the UN Security Council could vote
on a resolution this week that would legally oblige Iran to
suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities,
officials said.
Leading international powers fear Iran is aiming to build
nuclear weapons, while Iran insists it only wants to make
reactor fuel to generate electricity.
Iran, the third biggest buyer of natural gas from Turkmenistan
after Russia and Ukraine, is also looking to boost imports from
this tightly-controlled mainly Muslim state.
Ahmadinejad and Niyazov, a president-for-life, will discuss
"questions of cooperation in the oil and gas sector, in
particular the plan to increase the deliveries of Turkmen gas
from eight billion cubic metres this year to 14 billion next
year," a Turkmen government official told AFP.
Iran is keen to present itself to Turkmenistan as a potential
transit route for natural gas and other goods, as Ashgabat looks
for energy export options that could bypass Russia.
Iran and Turkmenistan have already carried out a number of major
infrastructure projects, including the 139-million-dollar
Korpedzhe-Kurt Kui gas pipeline and the 167-million-dollar
Dostluk (Friendship) dam.
In Tajikistan, Ahmadinejad is set to inaugurate the Anzob
tunnel, a vital road link between the north and south of the
country whose completion was funded by Iran to the tune of 30
million dollars.
Iran's ambassador to Dushanbe, Nasser Sarmadi-Parsa, said
Ahmadinejad will be accompanied by key government ministers and
accords between the two states will be signed on economic
cooperation, road links and hydroelectric power.
Ahmadinejad and his Tajik counterpart Emomali Rakhmonov are also
set to meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Wednesday for talks
on "combating international terrorism, trade cooperation and
regional security."
Trade turnover between Iran and Turkmenistan was 900 million
dollars in 2005. The turnover between Iran and Tajikistan
amounts to around 38 million dollars, according to official
figures released last month.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
5 IRNA: MP: UNSC possible resolution against Iran may lead to suspension
of its NPT membership -
Tehran, July 23, IRNA
Iran-Boroujerdi-Resolution
Head of Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission
Alaeddin Boroujerdi in a meeting with the British Ambassador to
Tehran Geoffrey Adams said that any possible resolution to be
issued against Iran's nuclear programs by the UN Security
Council may result in the suspension of the country's membership
in NPT.
According to a report released by Majlis Media Department, he
said that the recent measure of the five permanent UNSC members
plus Germany (5+1) as well as the eight world industrial
countries (G8) aiming to change the process of Iran's nuclear
issue was an untimely and hasty decision.
Underlining that Iran is prepared for and welcomes talks on the
issue, he said, "Change of direction of Iran's nuclear problem
and issuing a resolution by the UNSC will not help solve it,
rather may lead to suspension of Iran's membership in NPT."
Expressing Iran's will to continue its nuclear activities
within the framework of NPT and according to its inalienable
right based on the content of the treaty, he declared the
country's readiness for further confidence building and
eliminating any doubts in the nuclear path.
Turning to the stance of Majlis and its crucial role in the
decision-making process in various fields, including foreign
policy, he urged the need to avoid any hasty decisions given the
suitable grounds for holding serious talks on the 5+1 group's
proposal.
Boroujerdi also referred to the role of parliaments in
eliminating the obstacles facing cooperation between countries
and doing away with inter-governmental misunderstandings and
said that exchange of views and inter-parliamentary
collaboration will pave the way for expansion of ties between
Iran and Britain.
For his part, Adams said that the proposal of the 5+1 group to
Iran is a good starting point to initiate another confidence
building process.
He hoped that Iran's positive response to the package of
proposal will prepare the grounds for constructive talks on the
issue.
The British diplomat said that the foreign troops in Iraq will
stay for a short while and hoped that once Iraq's domestic
forces manage to develop their capacities to promote peace, they
will pave the way for full withdrawal of foreign soldiers from
the country.
Adams pointed to the pains and sufferings of the civilians in
Lebanon falling victim to Israel's actions and urged that the
attacks on Lebanon should be stopped and the roots of the crisis
should be examined.
He said that favorable grounds currently exist for constructive
talks on the issue between Iran and Britain.
*****************************************************************
6 IRNA: No pre-condition acceptable in nuclear talks - Gov't spokesman -
, July 24, IRNA
--
Setting any pre-condition to talks on the country's nuclear
program would violate the rules of fair play in resolving issues
through negotiation, government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham
said here Monday.
Addressing domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly news
briefing, Elham reminded that Iran had repeatedly called for
negotiations in order to remove all concerns regarding its
nuclear activities.
"Tehran believes that all issues can be resolved through
negotiationm but will not accept any pre-conditions," stressed
the spokesman.
He further stressed the importance of negotiations on an equal
basis.
"Negotiations should respect everyone's rights and be pursued
by parties on equal standing and with understanding of each
other's demands," Elham said, adding that the halt to uranium
enrichment demanded by the West would put Iran in a position of
inequality and would derail negotiations.
As for the package of incentives offered to Tehran, Elham said
Iranian experts were mulling the incentives and would give its
reply in due time.
Iran's Supreme National Security Council's Secretary Ali
Larijani has said Iran would respond to the nuclear offer by
August 22.
"Iran has explicitly announced that it is committed to holding
negotiations within the framework of international rules," said
the spokesman, who hoped that the trend toward "rational and
appropriate decision making" would be followed.
*****************************************************************
7 IRNA: US assertion that Lebanon war is war against Iran `a mistake' - Elham -
Tehran, July 24, IRNA
Iran-Lebanon-Elham
Government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham here Monday said that
the United States and certain other countries were making "a
mistake" in saying that the current Israeli war on Lebanon is a
war against Iran.
"The (Zionist regime's) war is against all international and
human principles which should not be permitted," Elham told
reporters at his weekly press conference.
"The US lacks justification for its irrational support for the
Zionist regime. It is currently under international pressure.
"Washington sees Iran's hand wherever it fails. It shows that
there are two systems: a system committed to international law
which Iran is an example and the bullying system which the US
symbolizes."
The spokesman urged US officials not to blame others for its
failures.
"Today, Hezbollah is the symbol of resistance of the oppressed
Lebanese nation. Lebanon is a part of the Islamic world," he
said.
"This land belongs to all who are for peace, tranquility,
freedom and a rational and peaceful co-existence," he added.
Elham said an "attack on Lebanon is an aggression on all
international and human principles. Every country which respects
independence, territorial integrity and international rights
cannot be indifferent to the atrocities" (of the Zionist regime).
He termed as "vital" the international support for the
oppressed Lebanese people, saying "one cannot live without
feeling responsible for human life and for defending peace in
international relations." The spokesman said all regional states
feel such responsibility and urged all to take urgent steps to
stop the aggressions of the Zionist regime.
*****************************************************************
8 AFP: Bank of China freezes NKorean accounts - SKorean MP -
Monday July 24, 01:03 PM
- SKorean MP - UPDATE
SEOUL (XFN-ASIA ) - The Bank (NASDAQ: - ) of China has frozen
North Korean accounts in response to a US-led crackdown on
Pyongyang's alleged illegal financial activities, a South Korean
legislator said.
'I understand North Korea is even more frustrated because it
regards the freezing of its accounts in China as virtual
sanctions,' he said in an interview with the Munhwa newspaper.
In Beijing, the Chinese government and banking officials
refused to comment on Park's revelations.
Park, who has just returned from a trip to Washington, quoted
former and incumbent US officials as saying that Washington was
aware of China's move late last year when it accused Macau-based
Banco Delta of helping Pyongyang launder earnings from
counterfeiting US bank notes.
Park said that he had also heard that North Korea was suspected
of counterfeiting Chinese currency as well as US dollars.
'So China cannot but launch separate sanctions on
counterfeiting and money laundering by North Korea,' he said.
'I understand cooperation is under way between the United
states and China to stop North Korea's illegal activities.'
The US Treasury Department in September told US financial
institutions to stop dealing with BDA. A month later the US
blacklisted eight North Korean companies allegedly involved in
the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Pyongyang has responded to the US sanctions by boycotting
six-party talks aimed at ending its nuclear weapons program.
Park said that North Korea moved its accounts to other Chinese
banks after US officials launched an investigation into BDA.
'I understand the Bank of China stopped dealing with North
Korea as the US expanded its probe,' he said.
North Korea fears the US probe may affect its accounts in
Singapore, Austria, Switzerland and Russia, he said.
Officials in China declined to comment on Park's claims.
'If we have an answer we will tell you, if we don't have an
answer we won't tell you,' a Bank of China spokesman told Agence
France-Presse.
China's foreign ministry also declined to comment and an
official with the international affairs department of the
People's Bank of China, the country's central bank, had no
information on the matter.
Copyright © 2006 AFP AFX. All rights reserved. Republication or
*****************************************************************
9 IRNA: Left wants parameters for Indo-US nuke deal to be set by Parliament -
New Delhi, July 24, IRNA
India-US-Nuke deal
Urging Parliament to set the parameters for the government to
proceed on the Indo-US nuclear deal, the CPI-M on Monday
contended that the accord would restrict the country's nuclear
technology development in perpetuity and make its foreign policy
a "permanent hostage" to the US.
Like President George W Bush is bound by US Congress on how to
proceed with the Indo-US deal, the government "should be bound
by Parliament on the matter. Parliament must set the parameters
and clearly define the limits to which it can proceed in this
regard," CPI-M General Secretary Prakash Karat told reporters
here, a PTI report said.
Observing that the "sense of Parliament" on the matter was
essential, he said developments in the last few months have
"shown convincingly that this deal will not lift existing
embargoes on technology, will keep Indian foreign policy a
permanent hostage to the US and impose a host of discriminatory
restrictions on the Indian nuclear program."
"In the current form, the deal will not be acceptable to the
Indian people," Karat said, adding that Parliament should bind
the government as it has done on issues like Iraq and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
At the Left-UPA Coordination Committee meeting yesterday, the
Left parties gave enough hints about taking the government to
task in Parliament, saying the deal would compromise the
country's indigenous nuclear development program.
The crucial outside supporters of the UPA coalition are
demanding that all international treaties on major issues should
be ratified by Parliament.
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: Report: Pakistan Working on Nuke Expansion
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday July 24, 2006 6:01 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Independent analysts say Pakistan has started
work on a new reactor that could signal a major expansion of the
country's nuclear weapons capabilities, The Washington Post
reported.
The paper cited in Monday's editions an analysis by the
Institute for Science and International Security that said
satellite photos of Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site show
construction of what appears to be a reactor capable of
producing enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year.
It said an assessment by the Washington-based nuclear experts
concluded that would represent a 20-fold increase from
Pakistan's existing capabilities.
``South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could
lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons,
or at minimum, vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile
material,'' the institute's David Albright and Paul Brannan
concluded in the report, a copy of which the Post said it was
provided.
The paper said the assessment's key judgments were endorsed by
two other independent nuclear experts who reviewed commercially
available satellite images, provided by the company
DigitalGlobe, and supporting data.
The Post also quoted a senior Pakistani official, speaking on
condition of anonymity, as acknowledging that a nuclear
expansion was under way.
``Pakistan's nuclear program has matured,'' the official told
the Post. ``We're now consolidating the program with further
expansions.'' The expanded program includes ``some civilian
nuclear power and some military components,'' the official was
quoted as saying.
Pakistan and neighboring India, which also has nuclear weapons,
have never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
News of the developments in Pakistan comes as Congress gets
ready to take up a nuclear cooperation agreement between the
Bush administration and India in which India would get access to
sensitive U.S. nuclear technology in exchange for agreeing to
more stringent safeguards over its civilian nuclear reactors.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
11 Sydney Morning Herald: Little time to fix eco crisis - Gorbachev -
www.smh.com.au
July 24, 2006 - 12:19PM
Former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev says it's "five
minutes to midnight" in terms of the global environmental
crisis, with little if any time left to fix the damage already
caused.
Delivering a final ominous warning during the last day of the
Earth Dialogues forum in Brisbane, the man credited with
bringing an end to the Cold War said the world's only option was
to take immediate action.
The planet was already in the grip of an "environmental crisis"
that may be too late to fix.
Mr Gorbachev also condemned world leaders for what he said was
their failure to execute political will, saying high level
forums had not delivered on promises to address climate change,
pollution and other critical issues.
"When we speak of the environment, we say that the situation is
five minutes to midnight," Mr Gorbachev said.
"We are already in a global environmental crisis. The atmosphere
has been polluted and it has had an impact on the global climate.
"We see the shrinking of arable land, deforestation ... the
pollution of the ocean, this is already affecting our lives in a
very bad way.
"We have very little time (to act)."
The three-day forum at City Hall featured 66 speakers, including
four Nobel laureates, on issues such as climate change, economic
growth and poverty.
During that time Mr Gorbachev, with the help of his long-time
interpreter Pavel Palazchenko, issued a myriad of warnings about
the state of the world.
They included predictions a global lack of water and energy
supplies could spark wars, and that signs of a new arms race
were again emerging across the world.
He also issued advice for Queensland Premier Peter Beattie about
building dams and Prime Minister John Howard about the use of
nuclear energy - tread carefully.
Mr Gorbachev, who is now chairman of environmental lobby group
Green Cross International, also floated the idea of establishing
a branch of his international organisation in Brisbane.
He founded the group in 1993, and said he had been given the
impetus to carry on such work after facing many environmental
crises such as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
"But unfortunately we've had a number of failures in regards to
the environment," Mr Gorbachev said.
"The Rio (de Janeiro Earth) Summit (in 1992) has not lived up to
the expectations.
"The international water forums have not made sufficient impact.
"The millennium development goals adopted at the highest level
by heads of state and government at the United Nations also,
after five years, we see that there is a gap between words and
deeds.
"Not much has been done because of the lack of political will."
Mr Gorbachev urged politicians to act now to save the
environment.
"If we don't, then I think that the coming generations will look
at us and will say that we failed," he said.
Mr Beattie presented Mr Gorbachev with an Akubra hat and zinc
sunscreen to make him an "honorary Australian".
© 2006 AAP
Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
12 [NukeNet] Scotland: Revealed: G8 plan for global nuclear
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:35:06 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.sundayherald.com/56617
Sunday Herald - 09 July 2006
Revealed: G8 plan for global nuclear expansion
By Rob Edwards Environment Editor
----------
World leaders are planning a massive expansion of nuclear power in their
own countries and across the developing world, according to documents drawn
up for the G8 summit and leaked to the Sunday Herald.
An action plan for “global energy security” to be agreed in St Petersburg
next weekend envisages a network of nuclear fuel plants in G8 countries
combined with the widespread sale of reactors to developing countries – as
long as they promise not to use them for making nuclear bombs.
G8 leaders also want to resurrect fast breeder reactors, which are highly
controversial because they “breed” plutonium, a nuclear explosive. It was
this type of reactor that was pioneered, and abandoned, at Dounreay on the
north coast of Scotland.
Environmentalists accuse leaders of “double standards and dangerous
hypocrisy”. But the G8’s nuclear plans are likely to be backed by Prime
Minister Tony Blair, whose own much-heralded energy review favouring new
nuclear stations in the UK is due to be launched this week.
The G8 summit is due to take place in St Petersburg between July 15 and 17,
just over a year
after the leaders of the world’s eight most powerful countries met at
Gleneagles in Scotland. This time it will be led by Russian president
Vladimir Putin, who has put global energy security at the top of the agenda.
Confidential drafts of the energy “plan of action” drawn up by the
“sherpas”, the senior G8 officials who guide prime ministers and presidents
towards the summit, have been passed to the Sunday Herald.
One of the plan’s main aims is to spread nuclear power stations around the
globe.
The latest version of the action plan says: “Those of us who have plans
relating to the use and/or expansion of nuclear energy believe that its
development will promote prosperity and global energy security, while
simultaneously offering a positive contribution to the climate change
challenge.”
Improving the economic com petitiveness of nuclear power will “benefit all
nations”, the plan argues. But nuclear expansion has to be based, it says,
“on a robust regime for assuring nuclear non-proliferation and a reliable
safety and security system for nuclear materials and facilities”.
The idea is to keep the more sensitive nuclear facilities that can be
easily diverted for making bombs within the G8. Other countries would not
be allowed to enrich uranium fuel, or to reprocess spent fuel to extract
plutonium.
They will be permitted to run reactors to generate electricity but will
have to buy fuel enrichment and reprocessing services from G8 countries.
“Participation of developing countries in a ‘shared nuclear energy system’
through developing the network of international centres providing nuclear
fuel services could be a viable option for reducing their energy poverty
and bridging the energy gap,” the plan says.
At the same time, G8 leaders are proposing to bring back fast breeder
reactors, which were scrapped in Germany, France and the UK in the 1990s
because they were too expensive. They are designed to create and burn
plutonium and are much less reliant on imports of uranium.
The leaked action plan says: “A significant step in promotion of self-
sustainable nuclear power would be attained through the development of
innovative nuclear power systems based on closed nuclear fuel cycles with
fast neutron reactors.”
This is a dramatic change, since fast reactors have been off the political
agenda in Western countries for at least a decade. And it will run into
fierce opposition because of the risks it poses for international efforts
to control the spread of nuclear weapons.
“We’ve come to expect double standards and dangerous hypocrisy from the G8
but this year they are set to surpass themselves,” said Shaun Burnie of
Greenpeace International.
“On the one hand we have the endorsement and promotion of the most
dangerous nuclear technology ever conceived – plutonium fast breeder
reactors and reprocessing – while at the same time condemning the nuclear
proliferation threat from Iran and North Korea.”
WWF Scotland director Dr Richard Dixon added: “Incredibly, this rich boys’
club seems on course to peddle reactors to the Earth’s poorer nations, at
the same time as they are warning us how terribly dangerous the world is.”
Among the G8 countries, only Italy and Germany are sceptical of the nuclear
future. Russia, the US, Japan, Canada, France and the UK are all
enthusiasts and see great potential for increasing nuclear business.
Two versions of the G8 global energy security plan of action have been
leaked, one dated March 6 and the other May 12. On nuclear energy their
wording is similar in substance and there are no sections in brackets,
suggesting the text is not in dispute.
The drive for nuclear power is being led by Putin, who is keen to maximise
Russia’s technology expertise. He has a plan for mass producing reactors,
installing them on barges and selling them around the world as “floating
nuclear power plants”.
----------
Copyright © 2006 smg sunday newspapers ltd. no.176088
Back to
previous page
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
13 IEER update: global warming & nuclear power, missing
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:35:55 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
The latest issue of Science for Democratic Action has been posted to the
IEER web site: http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/14-2.pdf
d
It features interesting and timely articles, plus some fun items, including:
Insurmountable Risks: Can Nuclear
Power Solve the Global Warming Problem?
A summary of Brice Smith's
new book
Low-Carbon Diet for France: Hold the
Nukes
A summary of the IEER report on
how to phase out nuclear power in France while reducing CO2 emissions
The return of the nuclear messiahs
Editorial by IEER president Arjun Makhijani
Dangerous Discrepancies: Missing
Plutonium in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex?
A summary of the IEER
report on poor plutonium accounting at Los Alamos National Lab
Dear
Arjun column
"Dear Arjun, Are you anti-nuclear or pro-nuclear?"
It pays to increase your jargon
power with Dr. Egghead
The most fun vocabulary builder ever. Learn terms like carbon sequestration
and pyroprocessing.
Also check out these other items on the IEER site
www.ieer.org/latest/new.html :
The Environmental Transport of
Radium and Plutonium: A Review
IEER Report, June 23, 2006
Los Alamos Cleanup / Chernobyl [PDF]
Science for Democratic Action vol. 14 no. 1, April 2006
An
Update on Nuclear Power - Is It Safe? (Streaming video: requires
RealPlayer)
Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D., at
Policy
Maker Education: Course for Congressional Staff of Harvard Medical School,
April 19, 2006
Memo on Tritium
Review of Exelon Nuclear's Braidwood Generating Station Groundwater Issue:
Frequently Asked Questions , 20 March 2006
Press Statement of Arjun Makhijani
on the U.S.-India Nuclear Deal
3 March 2006
Nuclear Energy
Interview with Arjun Makhijani on NPR's Science Friday, February 24, 2006
Statement on Tritium
Prepared for a public forum on the discharge of tritium into groundwater by
an Illinois nuclear power plant, February 6, 2006
International Experience with
Reprocessing and Related Technologies
IEER Fact Sheet, January 25, 2006
A
Nuclear Incident "Worse Than Three Mile Island"
Interview with Arjun Makhijani on Living on Earth
regarding the partial meltdown at the Boeing-Rocketdyne nuclear facility
near Los Angeles, January 20, 2006
Disposal of Radioactive Waste in
France / A Readiness to Harm [PDF]
Science for Democratic Action vol. 13 no. 4, January 2006
The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal and
Iran
Arjun Makhijani's Interview with
India Abroad, December 28,
2005
Soil Cleanup at Los Alamos
National Laboratory: Sediment Contamination in the South Fork of Acid
Canyon (PDF)
IEER report by Brice Smith, Ph.D., November 29, 2005
IEER Comments on EPA
Proposed Rule for Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada
November 21, 2005
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Deals Blow to Depleted Uranium (DU) Disposal Plans
IEER press release, October 24, 2005
To unsubscribe from IEER Updates (less than one email per month on
average), simply reply to this email with "Remove" in the subject line.
Lisa Ledwidge
Outreach Director, United States, and Editor of Science for Democratic Action
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER)
PO Box 6674 | Minneapolis, MN 55406 USA
tel. 1-612-722-9700 | fax: please call
first | ieer@ieer.org | http://www.ieer.org
IEER's main office: 6935 Laurel Ave. Suite 201 | Takoma Park,
MD 20912 USA | tel. 1-301-270-5500 | fax 1-301-270-3029
*****************************************************************
14 Patriot News: Lawsuit gives peek inside security procedures at
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:36:15 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
LONDONDERRY TWP.
Protecting nuclear power plants
Lawsuit gives peek inside security procedures at TMI
Sunday, July 23, 2006
BY GARRY LENTON
Of The Patriot-News
When the federal government ordered the nation's nuclear power plants to
beef up security after Sept. 11, the owner of Three Mile Island hired a top
security consulting firm to help it figure out how to do it.
But Exelon Nuclear, which owns 10 nuclear plants, including TMI, Peach
Bottom and Limerick in Pennsylvania, balked at the $300 million cost of
Global Security's recommendations. So, in the spring of 2003, with only 18
months to go before an Oct. 29, 2004, deadline for compliance, Exelon
decided to develop its own plan -- which cost $100 million.
The company met U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements, but the
rush to finish the job and the cost-cutting measures rankled some of the
men and women who defend the plants from terrorist attacks, according to
John Jasinski, a former security chief for The Wackenhut Corp.
Jasinski served four years as director of nuclear operations for Wackenhut,
a position that put him in charge of security forces at Exelon's three
Pennsylvania plants and Oyster Creek, N.J. Exelon hired Wackenhut to
protect its plants.
He was fired last June. He filed a lawsuit against Wackenhut and Exelon
alleging he was let go because he pushed too hard to have security issues
resolved.
Company officials denied the allegation. Wackenhut attorney Donn
Meindertsma said Jasinski was fired because he refused to work with his
immediate supervisors.
The suit, settled out of court last week after two days of testimony,
provided a rare peek at security procedures inside this small portion of
Exelon's nuclear fleet.
Jasinski's court documents describe a company that tried to meet federal
security requirements as cheaply as possible, and the effect those
shortcuts had on worker safety and moral at the plants.
Guard towers built at the sites to give security officers better visibility
and lines of fire were viewed as unsafe and vulnerable to attack, according
to Jasinski.
"When they started to arrive in 2004, the Wackenhut security guards started
complaining about the [tower's] poor protection from small-weapons fire and
explosives," according to the complaint Jasinski filed with the U.S.
Department of Labor.
The towers use a spiral staircase to reach the command post. Officers
complained that the stairs were hard to get up and down because their
weapons and other gear frequently got caught in railings.
The stairs also were slippery. Global Security recommended concrete stairs
with landings, according to Jasinski.
There were other problems, too. Rain leaked through gun portals, making
floors and stairs slippery; water leaked into electrical outlets that were
positioned just below the portals; and heating and air-conditioning units
didn't work well.
Control panels used by the officers to operate vehicle barriers on the
ground were in the wrong place. Officers said they had to turn their back
to the vehicle checkpoints to operate the controls.
"Exelon's decision to go cheap on ... compliance led inevitably to
difficulties for the rank-and-file security staff, conflicts about how to
cope, tension about whether respondents could get away with the skimping,
and the formation of cliques and alliances that would stymie any team
effort to comply," the complaint said.
Ralph DeSantis, a spokesman for AmerGen, the Exelon subsidiary that
operates TMI, acknowledged some of the complaints raised by Jasinski, but
said they were corrected.
"We have now spent $150 million since Sept. 11. That's a major investment,"
he said.
TMI's security systems comply with NRC requirements, DeSantis said. The
problem is that the NRC refuses to say what those standards are, said David
Lochbaum, a nuclear safety expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a
Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group.
Before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the NRC required nuclear plants to
be capable of repelling an attack by four armed people with help from an
insider and carrying a bomb. After the attacks, the agency changed the
standard but cloaked it in secrecy.
Published reports, however, including one released in April by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office, suggest the NRC's requirements might not
be stringent enough to defeat a terrorist assault.
The NRC does not expect terrorists to use rocket-propelled grenades.
The GAO reported that the NRC downgraded some requirements after meetings
with industry representatives. Doing so, the GAO wrote, created the
appearance "that changes were made based on what the industry considered
reasonable and feasible to defend against rather than on what an assessment
of terrorist threat called for."
Current and former security officers at TMI, speaking on the condition that
they not be identified, said they could defeat the kind of terrorist attack
defined by the NRC.
"The problem," one officer said, "is that the [NRC requirement] isn't
exactly realistic."
The lookout posts are vulnerable to some of the heavier weapons terrorists
have been known to use, the officer said.
"Rocket-propelled grenades would turn the tower into a casket," he said.
GARRY LENTON: 255-8264 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^or glenton@patriot-news.com
©2006 The Patriot-News
© 2006 PennLive.com All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
15 NRC: NRC Establishing Office of New Reactors, Additional Region II Deputy Regional Administrator
News Release - 2006-09 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-096 July 24, 2006
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reorganizing its Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) to create an Office of New
Reactors (NRO) to ensure effective oversight of operating
nuclear power plants and prepare for the industrys interest in
licensing and building new nuclear power plants in the near
term. The agency is also adding a new organizational unit,
headed by a Deputy Regional Administrator for Construction in
its Atlanta office, to oversee inspections related to expected
new construction of nuclear facilities.
This change will ensure we maintain our focus on the safe and
secure operation of existing nuclear power plants, while
enhancing our effectiveness in processing the anticipated new
plant licensing workload, said Executive Director for Operations
Luis Reyes.
The new Deputy Regional Administrator position and
organizational unit in Atlanta will focus on the agencys
Construction Inspection Program, which was announced earlier
this year. This program will be responsible for the agencys
oversight of any new nuclear power plant construction for the
entire country. The reorganized Region II office will be better
equipped to carry out construction inspection activities while
maintaining its focus on ensuring safe operation of nuclear
power plants in Region II.
The Office of New Reactors should be established by January
2007. NRO will have full responsibility for licensing and
program oversight of new reactor activities. NRR will retain
full responsibility for licensing and program oversight for
activities related to the current operating reactors. The NRC is
expecting several applications for new nuclear power plants in
late 2007 and early 2008, with initial construction activities
soon thereafter.
Last revised Monday, July 24, 2006
*****************************************************************
16 BBC: Pakistan 'building new reactor'
Last Updated: Monday, 24 July 2006
[Pakistan's Shaheen 2 missile]
Neither India nor Pakistan has signed the NPT
A nuclear monitoring institute in the United States has published
satellite images of what it says is a new nuclear reactor being
built in Pakistan.
The Institute for Science and International Security (Isis) said
that it could produce enough plutonium to make 40 to 50 nuclear
weapons a year.
Pakistan's foreign ministry refused to comment on the charges,
saying the Khushab nuclear site was well known.
A spokeswoman said that Pakistan was not pursuing any kind of
arms race.
We were not the first to te nuclear weapons in this region... We
do not want an arms race in this region Pakistan foreign ministry
spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam The story that refuses to die
The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says Pakistan is unhappy
about Washington's recent agreement to share civilian nuclear
technology with India.
She says, contrary to the foreign ministry statement, analysts in
Islamabad have warned that unless Pakistan gets a similar deal,
or there is a policy of regional disarmament, conditions for a
new arms race could be created.
Under construction
The Isis report said that the construction of the reactor at
Khushab could bring about a dramatic increase in the size of the
Pakistani and Indian nuclear arsenals.
"The reactor under construction... could produce over 200kg of
weapons-grade plutonium per year, assuming it operates at full
power for a modest 220 days per year.
"At four to five kilograms of plutonium per weapon, this stock
would allow the production of 40-50 weapons a year," the report
said.
[Pakistani short-range nuclear capabl missile] Black market bombs
The scientist who confessed
Isis published commercially available satellite photos which its
analysts said appeared to show the plant under construction.
The Washington-based organisation said that work apparently began
some time after March 2000, but "work does not appear to be
moving quickly".
The report's authors, David Albright and Paul Brannan, said this
could be because Islamabad is facing a shortage of reactor
components or does not have the necessary weapons production
infrastructure.
Asked whether Pakistan was building a new reactor or expanding
its nuclear programme, Foreign Office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam
said she would not comment specifically.
"But Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state, it's a known fact. It
is also a known fact that Khushab is hosting nuclear facilities."
The Indian foreign ministry has not responded to the report, but
the US issued a statement urging Pakistan to refrain from
expanding its nuclear programme.
"We have been aware of these plans and we discourage any use of
that facility for military purposes, such as weapons
development," White House spokesman Tony Snow said.
Mr Snow said he did not know whether or not the US had sought
assurances from Pakistan that it would not use the new reactor to
produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Correspondents say that the timing of the release of the report
is significant, because it raises fresh concerns about an arms
race in South Asia at a time when the US Congress is on the verge
of ratifying a deal which would give India greater access to
American civilian nuclear technology.
Proliferation
One of Pakistan's foremost nuclear experts, AQ Khan, has been
confined to house arrest since he confessed in February 2004 that
he helped deliver nuclear bomb technology to countries including
North Korea, Iran and Libya.
The BBC's South Asia defence analyst Mahmud Ali says that Isis is
a well-known and highly regarded organisation within academic
circles, specialising in nuclear proliferation.
[Khushab map]
He says that the organisation - and the authors of the report -
tend to be inclined against any form of proliferation around the
world.
Neither Pakistan nor India have signed the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and both are believed by experts
to have substantial quantities of weapons.
India is reported to have 69 Prithvi and Agni ballistic missiles
- each with one warhead - plus many more bombs that can be
dropped by bombers.
Pakistan is thought to have 165 missiles of various versions of
its Hatf series of missiles - each with a warhead - plus bombs
capable of being dropped by air.
But experts say that because Pakistan uses a simpler
uranium-based warhead design - as opposed to the more
sophisticated plutonium version used by India - Islamabad is
eager to upgrade its arsenal.
*****************************************************************
17 NRC: NRC Completes Staff Review of Clinton Early Site Permit Application
News Release - 2006-09 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 06-097 July 24, 2006
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued its final
environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed Early Site
Permit (ESP) for the Clinton site, about six miles east of
Clinton, Ill. The report contains the NRCs finding that there
are no environmental impacts that would prevent issuing the ESP.
Combined with the recent issuance of a final Safety Evaluation
Report on the application, this marks the end of the staffs
technical review on the Clinton ESP, although additional steps
must be completed before the NRC reaches a final decision on the
matter.
The ESP process allows an applicant to address site-related
issues, such as environmental impacts, for possible future
construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site.
The Clinton application was filed Sept. 25, 2003, by Exelon
Generation Company, LLC. If approved, the permit would give
Exelon up to 20 years to decide whether to build a new nuclear
unit on the site and to file an application with the NRC for
approval to begin construction.
The NRC staffs conclusion is based on its independent review of
a report submitted by Exelon, taking into account consultations
with federal, state, tribal and local organizations, and
consideration of comments received during the public scoping
process. The staffs conclusions include a finding that there are
no obviously superior alternative sites, and that any adverse
environmental impacts from possible site preparation and
preliminary construction activities at Clinton could be
redressed.
The final EIS and related documents are available electronically
for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. They are also available on the
NRCs Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1815
/. In addition, the Vespasian Warner Public Library, located at
310 North Quincy Street in Clinton, will have a copy of the EIS
available for public inspection.
With the technical review complete, the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board Panel must conduct a mandatory hearing on the
matter before the Commission can reach a final decision on
issuing the permit. The NRC expects to finish this process for
the Clinton ESP by mid-2007.
Last revised Monday, July 24, 2006
*****************************************************************
18 NRC: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of
FR Doc E6-11672
[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 41845-41848] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24jy06-122]
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No.
NPF-42, issued to Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the
licensee), for operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station
(WCGS), located in Coffey County, Kansas.
The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification
5.5.9, ``Steam Generator (SG) Program,'' by
[[Page 41846]] changing the ``Refueling Outage 14'' to
``Refueling Outage 15'' in two places. This change would extend
the provisions for SG tube repair criteria and inspections that
were approved for Refueling Outage 14, and the subsequent
operating cycle, in Amendment No. 162 issued April 28, 2005, to
Refueling Outage 15, and the subsequent operating cycle. This was
proposed in the licensee's application dated June 30, 2006.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated;
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below: (1) Does the proposed change involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated? Response: No.
The previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure of
plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed change
that alters the steam generator inspection criteria do[es] not
have a detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant
structure, system, or component that initiates an analyzed event.
The proposed change will not alter the operation of, or otherwise
increase the failure probability of any plant equipment that
initiates an analyzed accident.
Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting
transients with consideration to the proposed changes to the
steam generator tube inspection criteria, are the steam generator
tube rupture (SGTR) event and the steam line break (SLB)
accident.
During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins
of the steam generator tubes will be maintained by the presence
of the steam generator tubesheet. Steam generator tubes are
hydraulically expanded in the tubesheet area. Tube rupture in
tubes with cracks in the tubesheet is precluded by the constraint
provided by the tubesheet. This constraint results from the
hydraulic expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between
the tube and tubesheet and from the differential pressure between
the primary and secondary side. Based on this design, the
structural margins against burst, discussed in [Nuclear Energy
Institute] NEI 97-06, Revision 2, and Regulatory Guide (RG)
1.121, ``Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR [Pressurized-Water
Reactor] Steam Generator Tubes,'' are maintained for both normal
and postulated accident conditions.
The proposed change does not affect other systems, structures,
components or operational features. Therefore, the proposed
changes result in no significant increase in the probability of
the occurrence of a[n] SGTR accident.
At normal operating pressures, leakage from primary water stress
corrosion cracking (PWSCC) below the proposed limited inspection
depth is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the
limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint.
Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected
from cracks within the tubesheet region. The consequences of an
SGTR event are affected by the primary-to-secondary leakage flow
during the event. Primary-to-secondary leakage flow through a
postulated broken tube is not affected by the proposed change
since the tubesheet enhances the tube integrity in the region of
the hydraulic expansion by precluding tube deformation beyond its
initial hydraulically expanded outside diameter.
The probability of a[n] SLB is unaffected by the potential
failure of a steam generator tube as this failure is not an
initiator for a[n] SLB.
The consequences of a[n] SLB are also not significantly affected
by the proposed change. During a[n] SLB accident, the reduction
in pressure above the tubesheet on the shell side of the steam
generator creates an axially uniformly distributed load on the
tubesheet due to the reactor coolant system pressure on the
underside of the tubesheet. The resulting bending action
constrains the tubes in the tubesheet thereby restricting
primary-to-secondary leakage below the midplane.
Primary-to-secondary leakage from tube degradation in the
tubesheet area during the limiting accident (i.e., a[n] SLB) is
limited by flow restrictions resulting from the crack and
tube-to- tubesheet contact pressures that provide a restricted
leakage path above the indications and also limit the degree of
potential crack face opening as compared to free span
indications. The primary-to- secondary leak rate during
postulated SLB accident conditions would be expected to be less
than that during normal operation for indications near the bottom
of the tubesheet (i.e., including indications in the tube-end
welds). This conclusion is based on the observation that while
the driving pressure causing leakage increases by approximately a
factor of two, the flow resistance associated with an increase in
the tube-to-tubesheet contact pressure, during a[n] SLB,
increases by approximately a factor of 6. While such a leakage
decrease is logically expected, the postulated accident leak rate
could be conservatively bounded by twice the normal operating
leak rate if the increase in contact pressure is ignored. Since
normal operating leakage is limited to less than 0.104 gpm (150
gpd) per TS 3.4.13, ``RCS Operational LEAKAGE,'' the associated
accident condition leak rate, assuming all leakage to be from
lower tubesheet indications, would be bounded by 0.208 gpm, twice
the normal operational leakage. This value is well within the
assumed accident leakage rate of 1.0 gpm discussed in WCGS
Updated Safety Analysis Report, Table 15.1-3, ``Parameters Used
in Evaluating the Radiological Consequences of a Main Steam Line
Break.'' Hence it is reasonable to omit any consideration of
inspection of the tube, tube-end weld, bulges/overexpansions or
other anomalies below 17 inches from the top of the hot leg
tubesheet. Therefore, the consequences of a[n] SLB accident
remain unaffected.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not introduce any new equipment, create
[any] new failure modes for existing equipment, or create any new
limiting single failures. Plant operation will not be altered,
and all safety functions will continue to perform as previously
assumed in accident analyses. Therefore, the proposed changes do
not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident
from any previously evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety? Response: No.
The proposed changes maintain the required structural margins of
the steam generator tubes for both normal and accident
conditions. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 97-06, ``Steam
Generator Program Guidelines,'' and RG 1.121, ``Bases for
Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes,'' are used as the
bases in the development of the limited hot leg tubesheet
inspection depth methodology for determining that steam generator
tube integrity considerations are maintained within acceptable
limits. RG 1.121 describes a method acceptable to the NRC for
meeting General Design Criteria (GDC) 14, ``Reactor coolant
pressure boundary,'' GDC 15, ``Reactor coolant system design,''
GDC 31, ``Fracture prevention of reactor coolant pressure
boundary,'' and GDC 32, ``Inspection of reactor coolant pressure
boundary,'' by reducing the probability and consequences of a[n]
SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe
conditions for tube wall degradation the probability and
consequences of a[n] SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety
factors on loads for tube burst that are consistent with the
requirements of Section III of the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Code.
For axially oriented cracking located within the tubesheet, tube
burst is precluded due to the presence of the tubesheet. For
[[Page 41847]] circumferentially oriented cracking, Westinghouse
letter LTR-CDME- 05-82-P, ``Limited Inspection of the Steam
Generator Tube Portion Within the Tubesheet at Wolf Creek
Generating Station,'' defines a length of degradation free
expanded tubing that provides the necessary resistance to tube
pullout due to the pressure induced forces, with applicable
safety factors applied. Application of the limited hot leg
tubesheet inspection depth criteria will preclude unacceptable
primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant conditions. The
methodology for determining leakage provides for large margins
between calculated and actual leakage values in the proposed
limited hot leg tubesheet inspection depth criteria.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in any margin to 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 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
[[Page 41848]] 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 the Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP,
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 June 30, 2006, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One
White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, .
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack Donohew, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-11672 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
19 NRC: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation; Notice of
FR Doc E6-11673
[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 41848-41850] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24jy06-123]
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating
License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of
an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42, issued to
Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (the licensee), for
operation of the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), located in
Coffey County, Kansas.
The proposed amendment would (1) delete the containment
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor from Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.15, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage
Detection Instrumentation,'' and (2) revise existing conditions,
required actions, completion times, and surveillance requirements
in TS 3.4.15 to account for the monitor being deleted. The
licensee submitted this amendment request in its application
dated June 26, 2006. This application revised the licensee's
application dated August 26, 2005, for which a notice of
consideration of issuance of an amendment to facility operating
license and opportunity for a hearing was published in the
Federal Register on October 25, 2005 (70 FR 61663).
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated;
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below: (1) The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Response: No.
The proposed change has been evaluated and determined to not
increase the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not make hardware
changes and does not alter the configuration of any plant system,
structure, or component (SSC). The proposed change only removes
the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an
option for meeting the OPERABILITY requirements for TS 3.4.15.
The TS will continue to require diverse means of leakage
detection equipment, thus ensuring that [RCS] leakage due to
cracks would continue to be identified prior to propagating to
the point of a pipe break and the plant shutdown accordingly.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident [previously evaluated]
are not increased.
(2) The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve the use or installation of
new equipment and the currently installed equipment will not be
operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system
interactions are created and no new processes are introduced.
The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already
considered in the design and licensing bases [for WCGS]. The
proposed change does not affect any SSC associated with an
accident initiator. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change
does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter any Reactor Coolant System
(RCS) leakage detection components. The proposed change only
removes the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor
as an option for meeting the OPERABILITY requirements for TS
3.4.15. This change is required since the level of radioactivity
in the WCGS reactor coolant has become much lower than what was
assumed in the USAR [(Updated Safety Analysis Report) when the
plant was licensed] and the gaseous channel [(monitor)] can no
longer promptly detect a small RCS leak under normal [operating]
conditions. The proposed amendment continues to require diverse
means of [RCS] leakage detection equipment with [the] capability
to promptly detect RCS leakage. Although not
[[Page 41849]] required by TS, additional diverse means of
leakage detection capability are available as described in the
Updated Safety Analysis Report Section 5.2.5. Early detection of
[RCS] leakage, as the potential indicator of a crack(s) in the
RCS pressure boundary, will thus continue to be in place so that
such a condition is known and appropriate actions taken well
before any such crack would propagate to a more severe condition.
Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request involves no significant
hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making
any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this
notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before
expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final
determination is that the amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the
amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period
should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such
that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in
derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take
action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or
the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No
Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will
take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need
to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, .
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1)
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property,
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in
the proceeding on the 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:
[[Page 41850]] (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 the Jay Silberg, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman LLP, 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 June 26, 2006, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One
White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, .
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack Donohew, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-11673 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
20 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting Notice
FR Doc 06-6443
[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 41850] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24jy06-124]
Agency Holding the Meetings: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dates: Weeks of July 24, 31, August 7, 14, 21, 28, 2006.
Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland.
Status: Public and Closed.
Matters To Be Considered Week of July 24, 2006 Wednesday, July
26, 2006 1:50 p.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting)
(Tentative) a. Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, unpublished April 27, 2006
Memorandum and Order (accepting the intervenor's and NRC Staff's
Joint Stipulation regarding two admitted environmental
contentions) (Tentative).
b. David Geisen, LBP-06-13 (May 19, 2006) (Tentative). c. Exelon
Generation Company, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP),
System Energy Resources, Inc. (Early Site Permit for Grand Gulf
ESP) (Tentative).
d. Florida Power & Light Co., et al., Docket Nos. 50-250-LT, et
al., International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' ``Petition
to File Motion to Intervene and Protest Out-of-Time'' and
``Motion for Hearing and Right to Intervene and Protest''
(Tentative).
Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of
International Programs (OIP) Programs, Performance, and Plans
(Public Meeting) (Contact: Karen Henderson, 301- 415-0202).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
1:30 p.m. Briefing on Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO)
Programs. (Public Meeting) (Contact: Barbara Williams,
301-415-7388).
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
Week of July 31, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of July 31, 2006.
Week of August 7, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled
for the Week of August 7, 2006.
Week of August 14, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of August 14, 2006.
Week of August 21, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of August 21, 2006.
Week of August 28, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings
scheduled for the Week of August 28, 2006.
* * * * * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to
change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call
(recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more
information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662.
* * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the
Internet at:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html. * * *
* * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with
disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable
accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need
this meting notice or the transcript or other information from
the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large
print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator,
Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at
DLC@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable
accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred
subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like
to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the
Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition,
distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is
available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic
message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: July 19, 2006.
R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-6443 Filed 7-20-06; 12:54 pm] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
21 NRC: Union Electric Company; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of
FR Doc E6-11674
[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 41843-41845] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24jy06-121]
Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a
Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission)
is considering issuance of an amendment
[[Page 41844]] to Facility Operating License No. NPF-30, issued
to Union Electric Company (the licensee), for operation of the
Callaway Plant, Unit 1, located in Callaway County, Missouri.
The proposed amendment would (1) delete the containment
atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor from Technical
Specification (TS) 3.4.15, ``RCS [Reactor Coolant System] Leakage
Detection Instrumentation,'' and (2) revise existing conditions,
required actions, completion times, and surveillance requirements
in TS 3.4.15 to account for the monitor being deleted. The
licensee submitted this amendment request in its application
dated June 29, 2006. This application revised the licensee's
application dated August 26, 2005, for which a notice of
consideration of issuance of an amendment to facility operating
license and opportunity for a hearing was published in the
Federal Register on February 28, 2006 (71 FR 10079).
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.92, this means that
operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated;
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented
below: (1) The proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
Response: No.
The proposed change has been evaluated and determined to not
increase the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated. The proposed change does not make hardware
changes and does not alter the configuration of any plant system,
structure, or component (SSC). The proposed change only removes
the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor as an
option for meeting the OPERABILITY requirements for TS 3.4.15.
The TS will continue to require diverse means of leakage
detection equipment, thus ensuring that [RCS] leakage due to
cracks would continue to be identified prior to propagating to
the point of a pipe break and the plant shutdown accordingly.
Therefore, the consequences of an accident [previously evaluated]
are not increased.
(2) The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve the use or installation of
new equipment and the currently installed equipment will not be
operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system
interactions are created and no new processes are introduced.
The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure
mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already
considered in the design and licensing bases [for the Callaway
Plant]. The proposed change does not affect any SSC associated
with an accident initiator. Based on this evaluation, the
proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated.
(3) The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction
in a margin of safety.
Response: No.
The proposed change does not alter any Reactor Coolant System
(RCS) leakage detection components. The proposed change only
removes the containment atmosphere gaseous radioactivity monitor
as an option for meeting the OPERABILITY requirements for TS
3.4.15. This change is required since the level of radioactivity
in the Callaway reactor coolant has become much lower than what
was assumed in the FSAR [(Final Safety Analysis Report) when the
plant was licensed] and the gaseous channel [(monitor)] can no
longer promptly detect a small RCS leak under normal [operating]
conditions. The proposed amendment continues to require diverse
means of [RCS] leakage detection equipment with [the] capability
to promptly detect RCS leakage. Although not required by TS,
additional diverse means of leakage detection capability are
available as described in the FSAR Section 5.2.5. Early detection
of [RCS] leakage, as the potential indicator of a crack(s) in the
RCS pressure boundary, will thus continue to be in place so that
such a condition is known and appropriate actions taken well
before any such crack would propagate to a more severe condition.
Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the amendment request involves no significant
hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the
date of 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,
[[Page 41845]] which is available at the Commission's PDR,
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http:// http://www.nrc.gov/ reading-rm/doc-collections/ cfr/. If
a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1)
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property,
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in
the proceeding on the 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,
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of
facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the John
O'Neill, Esq., Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 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 June 29, 2006, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One
White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference
staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail
to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of
July 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack Donohew, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-11674 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Entergy
FR Doc E6-11675
[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 41843] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24jy06-120]
Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) July 18, 2006.
Before Administrative Judges: Alex S. Karlin, Chairman, Dr.
Richard E. Wardwell, Dr. Thomas S. Elleman. Order (Setting Oral
Argument Schedule and Inviting Written Limited Appearance
Statements) On June 20, 2006, the Board issued an order
tentatively scheduling oral argument in this proceeding on
Tuesday, August 1, 2006, and Wednesday, August 2, 2006. That
order indicated that the time and location of the oral argument
would be set forth in a subsequent order.
The Board hereby orders and confirms that it will hear oral
argument from representatives of the petitioners, the applicant,
and the NRC Staff,\1\ commencing at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, August 1,
2006, in the multi-purpose room at Brattleboro Union High School,
located at 131 Fairground Road in Brattleboro, Vermont. As
necessary, oral argument will continue and recommence at 9 a.m.
on Wednesday, August 2, 2006. The Board plans to adjourn each day
no later than 6 p.m.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ The four petitioners are the Vermont Department of
Public Service; the Massachusetts Attorney General; the New
England Coalition (NEC); and the Town of Marlboro, Vermont. The
applicant consists of two entities, Entergy Nuclear Vermont
Yankee, L.L.C., and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. The
petitioners, applicant, and the NRC Staff are sometimes
collectively referred to as the ``participants.''
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- The oral argument will proceed as follows. First, we
will hear a short opening statement, limited to ten minutes, from
each participant. Second, the Board will hear argument on the
individual contentions listed below.\2\ Except where otherwise
specified, for each listed contention the petitioner will have a
total of twenty minutes, the applicant will have fifteen minutes,
and the NRC Staff will have ten minutes. Five minutes of a
petitioner's time will be reserved for rebuttal unless, at the
outset of argument on that contention, the petitioner chooses an
alternative allocation (up to a maximum of ten minutes rebuttal).
All time periods include the time for responding to questions
from the Board. For those contentions not listed below, no oral
argument is necessary in order for the Board to reach its
decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \2\ The participants are encouraged to enter into
stipulations that will serve to reduce or eliminate issues or
contentions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- In formulating their arguments, participants should
keep in mind that the Board will have read their pleadings and
should focus solely on the critical points in controversy as
those issues have emerged in the pleadings. The main purpose of
the oral argument is to allow the Board to clarify its
understanding of legal and factual points to assist it in
deciding the issues presented by the pleadings.
Oral arguments will be conducted in accordance with the following
schedule: 1. Call to order, introductory remarks. 2. Opening
statement by each participant. 3. State of Massachusetts
Contention 1. For this contention the petitioner will have a
total of thirty minutes, the applicant will have twenty minutes,
and the NRC Staff will have twenty minutes.
4. State of Vermont Contention 2. For this contention the
petitioner will have a total of twenty-five minutes, the
applicant will have twenty minutes, and the NRC Staff will have
ten minutes.
5. State of Vermont Contention 1. 6. State of Vermont Contention
3. 7. NEC Contention 1. 8. NEC Contention 2. 9. NEC Contention 3.
10. NEC Contention 4. 11. NEC Contention 5. 12. NEC Contention
6.\3\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \3\ The Board will not hear oral argument from any
participant on the contention proffered by the Town of Marlboro.
However the Town of Marlboro may want to use some of the ten
minutes allocated for its opening statement to address the issue
as to whether the town is an ``interested * * * local
governmental body'' within the meaning of 10 CFR 2.315(c).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- 13. Adjourn. Given that the purpose of this proceeding
is to evaluate the admissibility of the petitioners' contentions
and the legal issues presented in the participants' pleadings,
oral argument will only be heard from the participants. Members
of the public are welcome to attend and observe this proceeding.
As this is an adjudicatory proceeding, the Board intends to
conduct an orderly hearing and signs, banners, posters, and
displays are prohibited in accordance with NRC policy. See
Procedures for Providing Security Support for NRC Public
Meetings/Hearings, 66 FR 31,719 (June 12, 2001). All interested
persons should arrive early and allow sufficient time to pass
through security screening.
Oral limited appearance statements in accord with 10 CFR 2.315(a)
will not be heard on August 1 and 2, 2006. If contentions are
admitted after the oral argument is complete, then oral limited
appearance statements may be heard at a later date. In the
interim, interested individuals may submit written limited
appearance statements related to the issues in this proceeding.
Such written statements may be submitted at any time and should
be sent either by (1) mail to the Office of the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001,
Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, with a copy to
the Chairman of this Licensing Board at Mail Stop T-3F23, Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; (2) e-mail to the Office
of the Secretary at hearingdocket@nrc.gov, with a copy to the
Board Chairman (c/o Marcia Carpentier, mxc7@nrc.gov); or (3) fax
to the Office of the Secretary at 301-415-1101 (facsimile
verification number: 301-415-1966), with a copy to the Board
Chairman at 301-415-5599 (facsimile verification number:
301-415-7550).
It is so ordered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \4\ Copies of this order were sent this date by
Internet e-mail transmission to counsel or a representative for
(1) applicant Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, L.L.C., and Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc.; (2) petitioners Town of Marlboro,
Vermont, the Massachusetts Attorney General, the Vermont
Department of Public Service, and the New England Coalition; and
(3) the NRC staff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.\4\ Dated:
July 18, 2006 in Rockville, Maryland.
Alex S. Karlin, Administrative Judge.
[FR Doc. E6-11675 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
23 Thais News: Nuclear Power Plant” Issue Raised
A university recently floated the idea of producing “Nuclear
Power Plant” as an alternative to the shortages of electricity,
and power supply.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nikorn Mangkorntong (¹Ô¡Ã Áѧ¡Ã·Í§), Associate
Dean Faculty of Science, Chiangmai University, spoke during the
seminar concerning producing electricity by nuclear power plants.
Dr Nikorn said that Thailand should find alternative energy,
adding that the best alternative energy is Solar Cell. He,
however, said that Solar Cell does not work as its expenses are
too high.
Dr Nikorn further explained that countries in the western
hemisphere are resorting to the study of Nuclear Power Plant.
However, he warned that if the plants are not carefully managed,
it may lead to repercussions such as damages caused to the
communities.
Electricity can be produced by two types of reactors, namely
Nuclear Fission and Nuclear Fusion. He said that none of today's
technology can allow Nuclear Fusion to be produced. Therefore,
the only reactor used for producing electricity from a Nuclear
Power Plant is the Nuclear Fission, the process of splitting
atoms. The radiation created by Nuclear Power Plant does not harm
the environment.
National News Bureau
236 Wiphawadee Rd., Dindeang, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
Tel: (66) 2275 6290, (66) 2275 6213 Email : thaisnews@thai.com
-->
*****************************************************************
24 Belfast Telegraph: PM passes the (nuclear) buck
www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk
By Michael Harrison and Saeed Shah 24 July 2006
Tony Blair has pressed the nuclear button, but will the market
stump up the cash, ask Michael Harrison and Saeed Shah
The Government has ruled out subsidies for nuclear power or
market mechanisms such as a "nuclear obligation" requiring
suppliers to buy part of their needs from nuclear stations -
raising doubts as to how a new generation of reactors might be
built.
The nuclear lobby claims that a streamlined and shortened
planning and licensing regime is all that is needed to make a
new construction programme viable.
But City experts believe it will require government guarantees
before any private investors will put money into the nuclear
industry once again.
As recently as the 2003 energy White Paper, the Government said
that "the current economics of nuclear power make it an
unattractive option for new generating capacity".
That was after British Energy, the UK's biggest generator of
nuclear power, was saved from collapse only after a £5bn
Government bale-out, which left it as the majority shareholder
in the company.
But the long-awaited Energy Review, published earlier this
month, turned that assessment of three years ago on its head
declaring that "new nuclear stations would make a significant
contribution to meeting our energy policy goals".
The review did not spell out how many new nuclear stations might
be needed, but officials indicated that at least six new
1,000-megawatt stations would be required to prevent the UK
becoming excessively dependent on imported natural gas.
The review says: "It will be for the private sector to initiate,
fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants, and to cover the
full cost of decommissioning and their full share of long-term
waste management costs."
Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of the state-owned French
energy company EDF Energy and the man said to be instrumental in
persuading Tony Blair to sanction a new nuclear programme,
responded positively to the review, saying: "We are a step
nearer the possibility of investing in nuclear."
However, in the absence of some mechanism to prevent investors
losing all or most of their money, as British Energy did when it
went bust four years ago, City experts are sceptical of how much
interest there will be from the financial markets.
One senior investment banker closely involved in the energy
sector said: "It will require some form of subsidy, nuclear
obligation or long-term contract to convince private investors.
Without one of those three, I would be amazed if any bank would
be prepared to finance a new nuclear station. You would find it
difficult to get a gas station built, let alone a new nuclear
reactor."
Aside from speeding up the planning and licensing process, the
Government's approach to new nuclear appears to be to leave it
to market forces.
The review calculates it will cost £38 a megawatt hour to
produce electricity from a new nuclear station. That compares
with British Energy's current costs of £23 a megawatt hour and
current forward wholesale electricity prices of £50 an hour.
Assuming the price of gas stays around 37p a therm (equates to
oil at $$40 a barrel), nuclear build costs are £38 a megawatt
hour, and fossil-fuelled generators have to pay at least ¬10
(£6.90) for every tonne of carbon they produce, then, say DTI
officials, new nuclear will be cheaper than gas-fired and
considerably cheaper than offshore wind.
If the price of carbon crept up to ¬36 a tonne then each
1,000-megawatt nuclear station would generate a saving of £1bn
over its lifetime. And if gas rose to 60p a therm ($$70 barrel
of oil), each nuclear station would generate a net gain of
£2.8bn.
However, it will be for the capital markets to decide if it is
worth putting up the investment on this basis when there is no
guarantee what will happen to future wholesale electricity
prices or carbon costs.
Unlike gas, coal or renewables, nuclear is baseload and has to
run constantly. British Energy went bust after wholesale prices
collapsed and the cost of producing electricity from its eight
nuclear stations was greater than the price it could sell for.
At present, the carbon price is around ¬15 a tonne. At that
level, the net benefit of building a 1,000-megawatt nuclear
reactor would be more like £200m, which is a very small margin
to earn over a 40-year life span given the inherent risks and
huge uncertainties surrounding a new nuclear programme.
Adrian Ham, an independent consultant, says: "Blair says that
'the time is now' to make decisions about our energy future. But
they've left it to the market, which means there's nothing new.
It [the review] is a lot of fluff.
"We need more Government action. Left to itself, the market is
far from taking the right course in terms of the energy mix,
either from a carbon or strategic point of view."
Jim Watson, an energy expert at the University of Sussex, points
out that Britain can hardly continue to lecture the rest of
Europe about liberalising their markets if, at the same time, it
is proposing intervention here on behalf of nuclear.
He added: "We are in danger of repeating history. At the end of
the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher - widely thought to be a strong
Prime Minister - ordered a new generation of 10 nuclear power
stations. In the end, she got just one - Sizewell B. We fear
that this may be about to happen again."
Despite EDF being the most likely developer of new nuclear power
stations in Britain, Mr de Rivaz failed to get one thing he
wanted - government intervention to provide a minimum price for
carbon.
Europe's Emissions Trading System (ETS), for buying and selling
carbon credits, does not even extend beyond 2012 - a relatively
close horizon given how long it takes to build any sort of power
generation plant.
Nevertheless, EDF remains optimistic.
The review states: "The Government is committed to there being a
continuing carbon price signal which investors take into account
when making decisions ... the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
is here to stay beyond 2012 and will remain the key mechanism
for providing this signal.
"We will keep open the option of further measures to reinforce
the operation of the EU ETS in the UK should this be necessary
to provide greater certainty to investors."
The most bullish proponent of new nuclear stations is Areva, the
state-owned French reactor company which is building the
privately financed Olkiluoto plant in Finland - the first
"third-generation" reactor in the world.
Charles Hufnagel, a spokesman for Areva, insisted the company
was ready to build plant in the UK.
He said in Finland the project has received no subsidy, the
client is a private sector one and the electricity market in the
country is "totally free".
He added: "Nuclear players do not need any subsidy to put in
place nuclear that is market-friendly."
Olkiluoto and an EDF Energy plant just starting construction in
Normandy, Flamanville 3, are the only examples of European
nuclear build using third generation reactors. Each of these is
costing about £2.1bn to build.
Of course, the more that are built using this European
Pressurised Reactor design, the lower the costs. The Finnish
plant should start production at the end of 2009, while the EDF
facility is scheduled to begin commercial operations in 2012.
Given the nature of nuclear power, the up-front investment is a
much higher proportion of the total costs, as fuel is much
cheaper during operation than gas or coal.
It should take around 10 years to put in place a working nuclear
power station, given a smooth planning and licensing process.
© 2006 Independent News and Media (NI)
*****************************************************************
25 AFP: Pakistan building powerful nuclear reactor - press
Mon Jul 24, 7:43 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Pakistan is building a powerful new nuclear
reactor for producing plutonium, The Washington Post reported,
citing independent analysts.
"Satellite photos of Pakistan's Khushab nuclear site show what
appears to be a partially completed heavy-water reactor capable
of producing enough plutonium for 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a
year, a 20-fold increase from Pakistan's current capabilities,"
the Post said on its website, citing a technical assessment by
Washington-based nuclear experts.
If verified, the move would signal a potential new escalation in
the region's arms race, the newspaper said on Monday.
The construction site is adjacent to Pakistan's only plutonium
production reactor, a 50-megawatt unit that began operating in
1998, it said.
By contrast, the dimensions of the new reactor suggest a
capacity of 1,000 megawatts or more, according to the analysis
by the Institute for Science and International Security, it said.
Pakistan is believed to have 30 to 50 uranium warheads, "which
tend to be heavier and more difficult than plutonium warheads to
mount on missiles," the newspaper said.
"South Asia may be heading for a nuclear arms race that could
lead to arsenals growing into the hundreds of nuclear weapons,
or at minimum, vastly expanded stockpiles of military fissile
material," the institute's David Albright and Paul Brannan
concluded in the technical assessment, a copy of which was
provided to The Washington Post, the newspaper said.
The assessment's key findings were endorsed by two other
independent nuclear experts who reviewed the commercially
available satellite images, provided by Digital Globe, and
supporting data, it said.
In Pakistan, officials would not confirm or deny the report, the
Post said, but a senior Pakistani official, speaking on
condition of anonymity, acknowledged that a nuclear expansion
was underway.
"Pakistan's nuclear program has matured. We're now consolidating
the program with further expansions," the official was quoted as
saying.
The expanded program includes "some civilian nuclear power and
some military components," he said.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
26 Xinhua: China mulls US-Russia initiative to combat nuclear terrorism - FM
www.chinaview.cn 2006-07-24 15:36:40
Beijing, July 24 (Xinhua) -- China will carefully study the
new U.S.- Russian initiative to combat the nuclear terrorism, a
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said Monday.
"We welcome all efforts helpful to deepen international
cooperation and enhance the coordinated drive to deal with
nuclear terror," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu
Jianchao when asked to comment on the new Global Initiative to
Combat Nuclear Terrorism.
The initiative was announced by the presidents of the United
States and Russia in St. Petersburg on July 15. It called on
countries to improve accounting, control and physical protection
of nuclear material and radioactive substances as well as the
security of nuclear facilities, and prevent acts of nuclear
terrorism.
"Preventing nuclear terrorism is one of the most serious
challenges the international community faces in protecting world
peace and security," Liu said.
The spokesman said China would carefully study the U.S.-
Russian initiative. Enditem
BRUSSELS, July 15 (Xinhua) -- The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) on Saturday welcomed the U.S.-Russia global
program to combat nuclear terrorism, saying it can "make an
important contribution to improving international security".
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said in a
statement that all countries have a profound interest in helping
to prevent the acquisition, transport or use by terrorists of
nuclear or radioactive materials.
Editor: Mo Hong'e
*****************************************************************
27 Scotsman.com: Radioactive scrap left lying for eight years
Tuesday, 25th July 2006
A SHIPMENT of radioactive scrap metal that arrived in Scotland
eight years ago has been found to be still lying in storage,
awaiting a decision on its fate.
The cargo, which was shipped from Egypt to Coatbridge in
Lanarkshire in 1998, has become the source of a long-running
dispute between the UK and Egyptian governments over its
ownership.
According to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA),
the scrap had been brought to the UK to be disposed of, but when
it was found to have low levels of naturally occurring
radioactivity, it was decided it should be sent back.
A SEPA spokeswoman said: "Efforts have been ongoing to secure
the repatriation of the shipment, in line with guidance and
policy from Scottish Executive.
"This has involved protracted discussion and correspondence
between the exporter, the importer, the shipping line, the UK
government and the Egyptian authorities." Adding that SEPA was
awaiting clarification from Egypt on the return of the cargo,
she said that the environmental watchdog considered its content
"did not pose a hazard to people in the vicinity".
Elaine Smith, the MSP for the area, said: "It's completely
unacceptable that my constituents have to live with these
containers in their midst. Steps now have to be taken to ensure
it's taken back to where it came from."
This article:
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1070762006
Last updated: 24-Jul-06 01:16 BST
©2006 Scotsman.com| contact
*****************************************************************
28 [NukeNet] Summary of Nuclear Waste Storage Provision in the
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:35:28 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
>From Public Citizen -
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/newnukes/
Summary of Nuclear Waste Storage Provision in the FY2007 Senate
Energy and Water Appropriations bill (Sec. 313 of H.R. 2419)
The Senate version of the FY2007 Energy and Water Appropriations bill
(H.R. 2419), which was passed by the Senate Energy and Water
Appropriations Committee on June 29, 2006, contains an authorizing
provision that requires states with nuclear reactors to designate at least
one site in that state for “interim” waste storage, called a Consolidation
and Preparation (CAP) facility. Tucked into a large appropriations bill,
this provision would result in a sweeping change to the country’s nuclear
waste policy without hearings or public debate.
Despite the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) recent claim that Yucca
Mountain will begin receiving waste in 2017, the site is unsafe for
geologic storage of nuclear waste and the program remains mired in
scientific fraud and yet another design overhaul. The safest option over
the next century is to safeguard the waste at the reactor sites. While
the appropriations bill leaves open the possibility for existing reactor
sites to be named CAP facilities, it could actually result in an increase
in the number of sites where high-level nuclear waste is stored, as well
as needlessly increase transport risks to public health and safety. Moving
waste to yet another site in every state or to regional sites would not
eliminate waste storage at operating reactor sites, nor improve security.
This proposal would also give the DOE authority to site waste dumps over
the objections of state and local governments.
Timeline in the Bill
The bill provides only 9 months to choose sites “interim” storage sites,
potentially in all 31 states with nuclear power reactors, and a total of
only 3.5 years for siting and licensing of those sites.
Within 60 days of enactment: DOE must designate a Director of
Consolidation and Preparation (CAP)
Within 180 days of enactment: The CAP Director, in consultation with the
Governor of each state with nuclear power reactors, must evaluate the
“feasibility and desirability” of locating a CAP facility within the
state. The CAP Director must issue a report making recommendations to the
DOE Secretary regarding siting a CAP storage facility in each state with
nuclear power. The report must be published in the Federal Register for
public comment.
Within 90 days of the report: DOE, in consultation with the Governor of
each state with nuclear power reactors, must designate “an eligible site”
for a CAP facility within that state for spent fuel stored within that
state, unless the DOE determines that “the designation of such a site is
not feasible or desirable.” Thus, DOE could override a state’s choice for
a storage site or sites. Eligible sites include federal land or private
land purchased from a willing seller. Ineligible sites for a CAP facility
include a state designated for a geologic repository or with an approved
commercial dry cask interim storage site, as well as locations of National
Parks, Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and BLM lands. Therefore, the most
likely federal land would be at DOE sites, which is contrary to legal
agreements made with States and tribes. DOE has committed to cleaning up
these sites, not adding more pollution to them.
Within 90 days of the report: DOE may also determine that it is in the
national interest to locate a regional CAP facility and designate an
eligible site. A regional CAP facility cannot be in a state that has a
designated state-wide CAP facility.
Within 30 days of designation of a CAP facility: DOE must submit a license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), along with an
environmental report (as required by 10 CFR 72, subpart B and 10 CFR 51,
subpart A). The license is for 25 years and is nonrenewable. This
artificial limit, however, is unenforceable by 2010, the amount of
radioactive waste produced in the U.S. would fill up the Yucca Mountain
site, if it is ever opened, and reprocessing is highly unlikely to be
commercialized in the next several decades, if ever.
Within 32 months after receiving an application: NRC must issue an
environmental impact statement (EIS) and grant or deny a license.
Other provisions of the bill
DOE to take title to waste at shutdown reactors
DOE is required, upon request of the owner, to take title to the waste at
the site and take responsibility for the storage of the waste at the site
“until such time as the waste can be moved to another site for storage or
disposal.”
NAS conditions for safe transport not yet met
After getting a license to construct a CAP facility, DOE must take title
to the waste to be moved to that facility based upon the Acceptance
Priority Ranking (10 CFR 961). DOE must transport the waste from the sites
to the CAP facilities, subject to licensing and regulation by the NRC and
Department of Transportation under existing law. In a February 2006
report on the transport of spent nuclear fuel, the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) identified several vital issues that must be studied before
any large-scale shipments of irradiated nuclear fuel commence.
• The NAS recommended that “an independent examination of the security of
spent fuel and high-level waste be carried out prior to the commencement
of large-quantity shipments” [emphasis added].
• The NAS “strongly” endorsed full-scale testing of waste packages that
test the performance of the casks required under current regulations, as
well as under conditions that exceed these regulations. The NRC does not
currently require full-scale testing to license a cask design.
• The report concluded that “extreme accident conditions involving
very-long-duration fires could compromise” waste containers. The committee
recommended that the NRC do additional analyses of these scenarios and
“implement operational controls and restrictions” on shipments to reduce
the likelihood of conditions that would lead to such fires.
• The NAS expressed concerns about the DOE’s ability to plan and manage a
safe program, finding that “the challenges of sustained implementation
should not be underestimated.”
Design of CAP facilities
Design for the CAP facilities must use storage technologies that are
licensed, approved or certified by the NRC. DOE must amend the contracts
with utilities to reimburse utilities for transport storage systems
purchased by utilities if DOE determines that it is “cost effective” to
use these systems, as long as DOE does not have to spend any money
modifying those systems or to get additional regulatory approvals to use
them.
NEPA requirements
The provision defines issuance of a license as a major federal action
under NEPA. Prior to issuing a license, NRC must prepare a Final EIS,
which must analyze the impacts of transportation of waste to the CAP
facility, but can not consider the impacts of storage beyond the 25-year
license period. Given that the waste is likely to remain at these sites
for more than 25 years, this prohibition is merely an artificial cutoff to
facilitate licensing.
DOE’s activities (including site selection, assessments, license
applications, and construction and use of a licensed CAP facility) must be
considered “preliminary decisionmaking activities” for the purposes of
judicial review. DOE is not allowed to prepare an EIS or any
environmental review before conducting these activities. It also requires
that judicial review of the NRC’s EIS be consolidated with the judicial
review of the NRC’s licensing decision.
Funding
The bill authorizes $10 million each year from FY2007 to 2011 (a total of
$50 million). Title III (page 93) appropriates $10 million in FY2007 to
DOE to “promote the development of one or more” CAP facilities that are
“away from civilian nuclear reactors.”
DOE is authorized to use the Nuclear Waste Fund to identify, develop,
license, construct, operate, and decommission CAP facilities, as well as
for transport, treating, packaging or waste to be stored at a CAP
facility.
Legislates the Waste Confidence Rule
The bill legislates that this provision and the DOE’s obligation to
develop a repository “provide sufficient and independent grounds for any
further findings” by the NRC of “reasonable assurance” that spent fuel and
high level waste will be “disposed of safely and on a timely basis for the
purposes of the [NRC’s] decision to grant or amend any license to operate
any civilian nuclear power reactor.” This provision is politicizing what
should be a scientific and technical determination. While it could help
enable the licensing of new nuclear power plants by preventing members of
the public from raising concerns about the waste in the licensing process,
it does not change the reality that we do not have a viable, permanent
solution for nuclear waste.
Centralized “interim” storage is merely an illusion of a waste solution.
We urge Congress to reject this provision in the FY2007 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill and support onsite storage with stringent security
measures.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking
about peace."
Bush, June 18, 2002
"War is Peace"
Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984
Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA 93451
Cell: 805 296-0524
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
29 Australian: Qld cool on Beazley backflip |
This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP
July 24, 2006
QUEENSLAND Premier Peter Beattie has reacted cautiously to Kim
Beazley's announcement he will move to scrap the Labor Party's
no new uranium mines policy.
The Federal Labor Leader will formally announce the policy
backflip in a speech to the Sydney Institute tonight.
Ahead of his speech, Mr Beazley said he will seek a change to
Labor's platform at next year's national conference to replace
the no new mines policy with an approach based on the world's
strongest export safeguards.
Mr Beattie issued a brief statement tonight.
"I am very concerned about supporting the future of the coal
industry," he said.
"I will read Mr Beazley's statement and look forward to the
debate at the national conference which will determine the
party's position."
In April, Mr Beattie ordered bureaucrats to study whether mining
uranium would damage Queensland's lucrative coal industry.
The move represented a significant shift from his previous
staunch hostility to uranium mining on the basis of party policy
obliging Labor governments to block all new mine proposals.
The ALP adopted its three mines policy in 1984 to confine
uranium production to Ranger, Nabarlek and Olympic Dam mines.
*****************************************************************
30 Australian: Green groups slam uranium backflip
This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP
July 24, 2006
FEDERAL Opposition leader Kim Beazley's call for the ALP to
abandon its no new uranium mines policy is disappointing and
disturbing, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) said
today.
ACF nuclear campaigner Dave Sweeney said the policy change was
misguided and out of step with public opinion.
Greenpeace also voiced its concern tonight, saying the decision
was driven by internal ALP politics.
Mr Beazley announced his plan to scrap the party's 1984 "three
mines" policy that confined uranium production to the Ranger,
Nabarlek and Olympic Dam mines.
Mr Beazley is instead supporting a new approach based on the
world's strongest export safeguards.
But Mr Sweeney said the safeguards were "paper promises" only
and would not work, especially in today's climate of terrorism.
"Obviously it's a disappointing and disturbing development, we
are working hard across all political parties to pass on a
message that Australia's energy future relies on clean, safe
renewable energy ... and certainly doesn't rely on nuclear," Mr
Sweeney said.
"We believe that it's a very bad decision, it's a decision
that's out of step with the key concerns of the nuclear export
industry and the wider community.
"The current Labor policy recognises that there are serious and
unresolved issues of security, safety and weapons and waste, now
none of those things have changed. They remain serious issues
that are directly related to the export of uranium."
Mr Sweeney said a May Newspoll found 66 per cent of Australians
were opposed to new uranium mines in the country, together with
78 per cent of Labor voters.
Greenpeace energy campaigner Catherine Fitzpatrick said the
policy backflip was a "detour" away from achieving a safe, clean
energy future for Australians.
She said the change was disappointing and was more about
internal ALP politics than a mines debate.
"It's more a frustration that the ALP is not showing leadership
on how we move to a safe energy future," she said.
"We have to stand up and say that this really is a detour to the
energy security future that most Australians want."
© The Australian
*****************************************************************
31 AU ABC: Anti-nuclear push to visit SA, NT sites
ABC Alice Springs | Local News | Story
Monday, 24 July 2006. 12:25 (AEDT)Monday, 24 July 2006. 11:25
A group of anti-nuclear campaigners are on an outback education
tour of some of Australia's nuclear sites.
The tour, run by Friends of the Earth, will visit radioactive
waste tailings sites - the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia -
and possible radioactive dump sites near Alice Springs.
One of the campaigners, Michaela Stubbs, says the incident at
the Beverley mine, in north-eastern South Australia, highlights
the danger of the uranium industry.
"This is just another incident in a long history of leaks and
spills. These happen regularly and in this case it was extremely
unfortunate that those workers were exposed to drinking water
that was contaminated by radioactive substances," she said.
Last Thursday, a weak solution of uranium was accidentally put
into one of the Beverley mine's desalination units by a worker
during cleaning.
About 100 workers had access to contaminated water for about
three hours and tests revealed the water contained more uranium
than guidelines allow.
The company that runs the mine, Heathgate Resources, says it is
confident workers exposed to the water will not suffer any ill
effects.
*****************************************************************
32 The Herald: Illegal nuclear waste lay for years
Web Issue 2578 July 24 2006
ROBBIE DINWOODIE, Chief Scottish Political Correspondent
AN ILLEGAL nuclear waste consignment has been sitting in a
freight depot in central Scotland for four years after a
minister promised it would be removed, the local MSP claimed
yesterday.
Elaine Smith, Labour member for Coatbridge and Chryston, spoke
of her anger at discovering that nothing had been done after she
accepted in good faith ministerial assurances that the matter
would be dealt with.
The two containers of radioactive scrap metal arrived in the UK
from Egypt eight years ago and negotiations have been going on
since they were discovered to be contaminated to persuade the
Egyptian authorities to take them back.
That such a consignment was sitting in the Roadways Container
Logistics depot in Coatbridge was first drawn to Ms Smith's
attention five years ago, when she immediately demanded that it
be removed.
"While the arguments were going on about it being returned to
Egypt I wanted it removed to somewhere more appropriate for the
storage of contaminated radioactive waste than a freight depot
in the middle of Coatbridge," she said.
"I then wrote to Ross Finnie, the Environment Minister, in 2002
and was told it was being dealt with, an assurance I accepted in
good faith, so I am shocked and very angry to discover that
nothing has been done and I will be writing to the minister
again this week."
She said that at the same time that the Egyptian consignment
arrived in Britain through Felixstowe another similar load came
in from Singapore. Both arrived at a metals plant at Blantyre
which detected the fact that they were radioactive and refused
to accept them, with the result that they they ended up stuck at
the Coatbridge depot.
Ms Smith said the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency had
the Singapore consignment removed to a specialist site capable
of handling it in 2004, but this had not been done for the other
load because efforts were still going on to persuade the
Egyptians to take it back.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Executive said: "This is a
regulatory matter for Sepa. Work remains ongoing by Sepa to
return the Egyptian consignment to the country of origin. Sepa
has assured the executive that the consignment is contained and
does not pose any hazard."
The MSP said that while she accepted this assurance from Sepa,
the agency had for its part accepted the freight depot was not
the most appropriate place for material of this kind to be kept.
She also wanted to know why the ports where consignments first
arrive in the UK did not appear to have the ability to detect
when loads are radioactive, so they can be turned away at that
point, an issue she would be raising in her letter to Mr Finnie.
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
33 AU ABC: Beazley wants three mines policy scrapped.
24/07/2006. ABC News Online
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley wants to ditch the three mines
policy.
Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has announced he will move
to scrap the party's 'three mines' uranium policy.
He will put forward the proposal at next year's Labor Party
conference.
Mr Beazley says he expects there will be some opposition from
within the party.
"We are a democratic party, probably the last left in the
country," he said.
"We have open debates on these sorts of matters and arrive at
conclusions.
"I'm not doing this because I think it's easy, I'm doing it
because I think it is in the national interest."
Mr Beazley says it is an economically and socially responsible
move.
Under Mr Beazley's proposal a new uranium mine could be built if
it complied with tough safety standards.
The ALP adopted the three mines policy in 1984, confining
uranium production to Ranger, Nabarlek and Olympic Dam mines.
Mr Beazley says he will not support uranium enrichment or
nuclear power because doing that would be a policy of an "idiot".
Federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell says Mr Beazley has
done a backflip on the issue.
"He doesn't mind potentially mining more uranium, but has got
his head in the sand and doesn't even want there to be a debate
of nuclear, the future of enrichment, the future role of
Australia in the nuclear fuel cycle," he said.
Meanwhile Australian Greens leader Bob Brown says it is a
spineless move by the Opposition Leader.
He has drawn parallels with Mr Beazley's response to the Tampa
refugee crisis.
"In what was an immoral stand against refugees, this is an
immoral stand as far as the environment and Australia being
nuclear free is concerned," he said.
"Again Kim Beazley is lining up in the run to an election with
John Howard and the electorate won't appreciate that."
The mining industry says the federal Opposition Leader's
intention to change the policy is long overdue.
Kezia Purick from the Minerals Council says if successful, Mr
Beazley's move will give business more certainty.
"If they do change their policy, which industry is lobbying
that they will do at their national conference next year, then
it could send a clear message and a signal to industry that the
ALP is going to start to take and support the uranium industry,
which they haven't done in the past."
*****************************************************************
34 DOE: DOE Selects 26 Universities to Assess Industrial Energy Efficiency
July 24, 2006
Smart use of energy key to Americas industrial and
manufacturing competitiveness
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary
Samuel W. Bodman today announced the selection of 26
universities across the country for negotiation of award to set
up and operate regional Industrial Assessment Centers (IAC).
The centers will employ faculty and students to assist
small-to-medium sized American manufacturing plants to use
energy more efficiently. Based on DOEs Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Industrial Technologies Program
requirement, anticipated funding could be up to $6 million over
the next two years (FY07 and FY08).
Technologies and best practices are available today to help
U.S. industry use energy more wisely while significantly
reducing operating expenses, Secretary Bodman said. This
program represents a win-win situation for everyone involved -
for industry, for the participating students and universities,
and for America.
The IAC program is intended to train young engineers to better
understand how the role of energy efficiency and renewable
energy can play in manufacturing and industrial processes.
Participating students gain practical experience and hands-on
training in energy engineering.
The IAC program also helps Americas small- and medium-sized
manufacturers and industrial processors receive comprehensive,
energy assessments of their operations, performed at no cost.
For purposes of the assessments, DOE defines small and
medium-sized manufacturers as those with annual energy costs
between $100,000 and $2.5 million.
Universities were selected based on an evaluation of the merits
of their applications submitted in response to the subject
solicitation/funding opportunity announcement. More information
on the IAC program can be found at http://www.iac.rutgers.edu/
and
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/iacs.html.
The universities selected for negotiation of award are:
+ Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.
+ Bradley University, Peoria, Ill.
+ Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, Ga.
+ Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
+ Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Penn.
+ Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Miss.
+ North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.
+ Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Okla.
+ Oregon State University, Corvallis, Ore.
+ San Diego State University, San Diego, Calif.
+ San Francisco State University, San Francisco, Calif.
+ Syracuse University, Syracuse, N.Y.
+ Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tenn.
+ Texas Engineering Experiment Station, College Station, Texas
+ The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois,
Chicago, Ill.
+ The Curators of the University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.
+ The Regents of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
+ The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Ala.
+ University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio
+ University of Delaware, Newark, Del.
+ University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
+ University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, La.
+ University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass.
+ University of Miami, Coral Gables, Fla.
+ University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
+ West Virginia University (WVU) Research Corp. on Behalf of
WVU, Morgantown, W.V.
Media contact(s): Chris Kielich, (202) 586-5806 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General
*****************************************************************
35 The Enquirer: Wildlife getting comfortable where once poison ruled
Last Updated: 4:03 am | Sunday, July 23, 2006
BY PEGGY O'FARRELL | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER
CROSBY TWP - Nature is reclaiming the scarred earth as the
cleanup of the former Fernald uranium foundry comes to a close.
On land where visitors once worried about the chemicals they
might be exposed to, the biggest risks now are deer and geese
halting construction traffic.
More than 900 of the 1,030 acres are being turned into a nature
park.
Ideally, visitors will have no idea the wetlands, plains and
forest ecosystems were once a hazardous waste site, said John
Homer, who is heading up the restoration.
The park area won't include ballfields or playgrounds, but
hikers and birdwatchers can get a good long look at nature. The
goal is to turn back the clock and restore the land to the
ecosystems it would have held before the region was settled,
Homer said.
Dennis Carr, deputy project manager with Fluor Fernald, said the
park will add value to the community. "It's not just going to be
a sacrifice zone that a lot of these sites turn into," he said.
"It will have some value and, as time goes by, that value will
increase."
Cost for the restoration project is $14 million. Work includes
planting more than 28,000 trees and shrubs, restoring 520 acres
of native prairie and building 35 acres of wetlands. More than
500 plant species have been identified.
Even as chunks of the site still buzz with construction and
demolition equipment, three endangered species - the Indiana
bat, Sloan's crayfish and cave salamander - have been found in
the restored areas. Deer have made themselves at home, and
coyotes and foxes are finding their way in.
Nature lovers also are excited about the variety of birds the
site could attract once the restoration is complete.
"I think the potential is really great. It's going to be a
birding destination that people will really enjoy," said John
Ritzenthaler, director of habitat conservation for Audubon Ohio
in Columbus.
Canada geese are already on the site - and sometimes holding up
construction traffic - and red-winged blackbirds can be spotted.
But Ritzenthaler and Homer are more excited about species that
haven't been seen in Ohio in decades. Bobolinks and dickcissels,
both grasslands birds, have been seen in the prairie habitat.
So far, 120 bird species have been spotted on the land Homer
said.
One challenge Homer's team has faced has been replacing topsoil
in the restored areas.
Most of the topsoil on the site had to be removed because of
contamination. Bringing in new topsoil would have been too
expensive, so crews have used "yards and yards" of composted
yard waste.
The deer are another challenge: Workers have had to put fences
in some spots to protect young trees and shrubs from hungry deer.
"They're obviously feeling very comfortable knowing they're not
going to be harassed or shot," said Johnny W. Reising, the U.S.
Department of Energy's director of remediation management at the
site.
Between the deer and the geese, he said, "it's almost like a
very large golf course."
Ritzenthaler said he enjoys the symmetry of returning a
toxic-waste site to a preserve.
"It's very attractive to be able to return something to nature,"
he said.
E-mail pofarrell@enquirer.com
*****************************************************************
36 The Enquirer: Final chapter for Fernald
Last Updated: 10:11 pm | Sunday, July 23, 2006
Uranium plant goes from A-bomb cog to toxic site, and now to
nature park
BY PEGGY O'FARRELL | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER
CROSBY TWP. - The uranium foundry at Fernald was a key link in
the United States' nuclear weapons program for decades.
Born during the most frigid period of the Cold War, the
top-secret plant sprawled over 1,030 acres. Workers were warned
not to talk about what went on there.
The secrecy lasted until the mid-1980s, when accidents spewed
uranium into the air and some neighbors of the plant learned
their wells were contaminated.
A decade ago, officials and residents agreed on a $4.4 billion
plan to close Fernald and clean up the toxic atomic mess created
by 40 years of uranium processing.
That cleanup is coming to an end. Hundreds of buildings have
been leveled, thousands of tons of contaminated waste have been
shipped to Utah and Texas. Hundreds of acres are being reclaimed.
By September, managers at the site expect to finish the job.
Today's special report looks at what has been done to clean up
Fernald and what the relic from the Cold War arms race will look
like when the project is done.
FERNALD IS CLEAN
The Fernald uranium foundry was built in the 1950s to help the
United States defeat a clear-cut foe: The Soviet Union and its
growing nuclear arsenal.
Five decades later, a $4.4 billion project to clean up the toxic
stew left behind by almost 40 years of uranium refining is
drawing to a close.
The only clear-cut enemies now at the site - once the poster
child for America's nuclear-waste scandal - are the deer that
eat the young trees and shrubs planted to turn the Superfund
cleanup site into a natural area.
Fluor Fernald, the U.S. Department of Energy contractor handling
the cleanup, expects to finish by mid-September, putting the
final touches on a plan approved in 1996.
Just over 900 of Fernald's 1,030 acres are being turned into a
nature park that includes prairie, wetland and woodland
ecosystems, said John Homer, who oversees the restoration.
Birds not seen in Southwest Ohio in decades, including bobolinks
and dickcissels, are nesting on the site. Some endangered
species have taken up residence.
When the project is complete, the site will include a treatment
plant to remove contamination from the Great Miami Aquifer and a
visitors' center that will feature displays on the Cold War, the
uranium foundry and the cleanup project.
It's hard to say what happened at Fernald to make the site such
an environmental mess. Although it was impossible to forget the
destruction wrought by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in World War II, no one in Cold War America seemed
inclined to question what risks uranium - the raw material for
atomic energy - might pose.
Scientists didn't have years of data on health effects of the
radioactive ore. The urgency to contain the Soviets' atomic
arsenal might have overshadowed concerns about those long-term
risks.
Fernald's mission was top secret. Workers purified raw uranium
ore and molded it into ingots and other products that would be
turned into uranium at other sites.
Americans in the 1950s and early 1960s weren't inclined to
question authority, said Peter Robinson, a historian at the
College of Mount St. Joseph in Delhi. Some were too frightened
by the McCarthy era to speak up. Some were too tired after the
Great Depression and World War II, and embraced normalcy and
prosperity.
"Fernald is a fascinating symbol of the era," Robinson said. "It
helped protect the nation and reinvigorate and support the local
and national economy. It made us feel safer at the time in our
race with Soviet Union, but that safety and that prosperity came
with tremendous costs, both in terms of the environment and the
cleanup itself."
After the Vietnam War, Watergate and the near-catastrophe at
Three Mile Island, he said, people living around the foundry
were more than ready to stand up and demand answers when they
learned in 1984 what was hidden on the site.
CLOSING DELAYED
Lisa Crawford, 50, of Crosby Township, has watched the site
since 1984, when she learned her family's well was one of three
contaminated by uranium runoff from Fernald. She and her
husband, Ken, who lived across the road from the foundry, were
among the property owners who sued National Lead of Ohio, the
company that ran the foundry.
She's the president of FRESH (Fernald Residents for
Environmental Safety and Health) and a member of the Citizens
Advisory Board that has guided the cleanup.
The early years were excruciatingly slow.
"There were times we'd go to meetings and just be, like, 'It's
never going to happen.' But the last four, five years, it's all
really started to click. When you begin to see buildings go down
and water towers go down and waste being shipped offsite, those
are the milestones."
Once Fluor Fernald's work is done and approved, maintenance will
be turned over to S.M. Stoller Corp., a Colorado-based company.
There's not much left to maintain.
The Feed Materials Production Center - some 200 structures in
all - was torn down. Structures built to help the clean-up
project are being demolished now.
A barren chunk near the center of the site looks like the
surface of the moon. Three waste silos that held the worst of
the contamination once stood there.
Before the cleanup is finished, grass will be planted on that
ground.
Dennis Carr, now the deputy manager for the Fernald project,
came to work for the foundry in 1981 as a civil engineer
focusing on environmental issues. He went to work for Fluor
Fernald when it was awarded the cleanup contract.
A TOXIC 'MESS'
The site, he said, was a mess: 82,000 drums of radioactive waste
were stored on it, along with almost 1 million pounds of
radioactive waste filling six pits.
About 31 million pounds of uranium metal had to be removed, he
said.
As scary as the radioactive material was, it wasn't the biggest
danger, Carr said. "From day one, we knew the industrial hazards
were going to be the key element that had to be controlled," he
said.
Those hazards were the many chemicals used to process uranium,
and many of those chemicals were more dangerous than the uranium.
Another challenge crews faced was doing such a big job, removing
more than 120 million cubic feet of contaminated soil and toxic
sludge. When the cleanup was at its peak, about 3,000 workers
and their bulldozers and trucks were on the 750-acre site.
The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission - now the Department of Energy
- authorized building the foundry in 1949, the year the Soviets
tested their first atomic bomb.
Currently, the much-anticipated closure date keeps getting
pushed back a week or two at a time.
That's because thousands of details have to be managed as work
wraps up, said Jeff Wagner, a Fluor Fernald spokesman.
One detail Fluor and its subcontractors will have to deal with
until the site is turned over to the Department of Energy is
managing the construction vehicles.
Each piece of "yellow iron" has to be decontaminated before it's
sent to its next job. Crews are also dismantling parts of a rail
line.
HEALTH ISSUES LINGER
In addition to continued cleaning of the aquifer, one big piece
of unfinished business remains - the health care of workers
exposed to dangerous chemicals.
The chemicals they worked with - uranium hexafluoride, raw
uranium, anhydrous ammonia, nitric acid and a host of others -
were radioactive or toxic. Many were explosive.
Protective equipment was almost non-existent. Foundry workers
wore hard hats, boots and work gloves. Years later, cleanup
workers would go into production areas in full environmental
suits with respirators.
Now, many workers battle cancers they believe they got from
handling dangerous materials.
The U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Labor
set up a program to compensate former atomic workers who became
ill or died because of exposure to uranium, beryllium or other
materials.
Larry Elliott, of the National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health, said estimates of radiation exposure are based on
profiles of activities done at each site.
"We have a very good understanding of what occurred at these
sites," he said. "We have a lot of documentation and information
about processes, monitoring practices and programs."
None of the Fernald workers' claims that have been denied has
gone to court, he said. A petition from former workers, asking
to be considered a special group, is under consideration, he
said.
Elliott said his institute feels the program is fair and
accurate.
Gene Branham, president of the Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor
Council, started working at Fernald as a machinist shortly after
it opened. He thinks the compensation program is too slow and
complicated and wonders if the government is just waiting for
the former workers, many in their 70s and 80s, to die.
He filed for, and received, compensation for lung cancer.
The program has paid Fernald workers $37,854 in compensation
since 2001, plus $379,189 for medical bills for 255 cases of
radiation-induced cancer.
Program officials have reviewed 1,208 cases. So far, 261 have
been approved, and 668 have been denied.
In 2004, the Department of Labor established a second portion of
the compensation program that pays workers exposed to uranium
and other toxic substances for lost wages and disabilities.
PROUD COLD WAR WARRIORS
Fernald's mission was secret for decades.
Even though news stories at the time reported a uranium
processing plant being built, many Crosby Township residents
thought the site was a dog food factory. Seeing the red and
white checkerboard pattern on the Feed Materials Production
Center's water towers, they assumed Ralston Purina ran the
factory.
Employees had to undergo a background check and get special
security clearances. Signs inside the plants reminded them they
were "production soldiers" and cautioned them not to talk about
what went on at the foundry - not even with co-workers.
Most workers were veterans of World War II and Korea. They
believed they were fighting the good fight against the Soviet
Union on the homefront, said Rudy Crawford, who served in the
Army in World War II and worked at Fernald from 1951 to 1987.
"The Cold War was reality," Branham said. "There was a certain
pride and a great deal of secrecy for workers at Fernald."
But many workers felt they were viewed as the bad guys once the
toxic mess became known.
"The uranium production mission really ended on a sour note. In
reality, the average guy here working on the line didn't do a
bad thing. He did a great job," said Carr.
E-mail pofarrell@enquirer.com
[Lisa Crawford stands on top of the Soil and Disposal Facility at
Fernald, where tons of waste are being stored. The very waste
under Crawford's feet, now safely contained, changed her life
forever, and her decades of activism helped change the site.]
+ Graphic: Transforming Fernald (PDF)
As bad as uranium is, it wasn't the worst threat housed at the
old Fernald uranium foundry. Toxic materials on the site
included:
Uranium hexafluoride - A gaseous form of uranium that, when
combined with water, can form a corrosive hydrogen fluoride and
another compound called uranyl fluoride. It can be fatal if
inhaled. Risk from radiation is fairly low.
Hydrochloric, hydrofluoric and nitric acids - All corrosive
substances that can cause severe burns or death if inhaled or
ingested.
Anhydrous ammonia - A corrosive and explosive chemical that can
cause severe burns and, in some cases, frostbite. It can be
fatal.
Radon - A radioactive gas that is a byproduct of uranium, it can
cause lung cancer. Radon was a serious risk to workers cleaning
out the three waste storage silos at Fernald. Contractors built
a ventilation system to filter out the radon before they could
begin clearing out the contaminated waste.
Sources: U.S. EPA, Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease
Registry
[Two Fernald workers inspect uranium target element cores for the
Hanford plutonium production facility in Washington state. During
its heyday, workers handled toxic materials with little
protection.]
U.S. GOVERNMENT/UNDATED PHOTO
Two Fernald workers inspect uranium target element cores for the
Hanford plutonium production facility in Washington state. During
its heyday, workers handled toxic materials with little
protection.
[One of the last structures, used during Fernald's cleanup, is
roped off last week.]
THE ENQUIRER/CRAIG RUTTLE
One of the last structures, used during Fernald's cleanup, is
roped off last week.
[Cleanup at the former Fernald foundry is coming to a close, with
most of the toxic waste shipped to Utah and Texas. Buildings have
been leveled, and hundreds of acres at the site are being
reclaimed.]
THE ENQUIRER/CRAIG RUTTLE
Cleanup at the former Fernald foundry is coming to a close, with
most of the toxic waste shipped to Utah and Texas. Buildings have
been leveled, and hundreds of acres at the site are being
reclaimed.
Copyright © 1995-2006
*****************************************************************
37 The Enquirer: Adviser helped create site vision
Last Updated: 4:03 am | Sunday, July 23, 2006
PEGGY O'FARRELL | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER
Jim Bierer has been a science teacher in Ross Township and
Hamilton for 40 years.
Watching the transformation of the old Fernald uranium foundry
from toxic-waste site to nature preserve over the last 13 years
was right up his alley.
As member and now chairman of the 13-member Fernald Citizens
Advisory Board, Bierer helped shape the change.
"At the beginning, we needed to decide what the site was going
to look like when it was closed," said Bierer, 63. "We didn't
want it just be a wasteland with a fence around it. We wanted it
restored to be an undeveloped park. No development. No farms or
baseball diamonds, just a natural area."
His interest in the environment and a desire to make sure the
site was cleaned prompted him to join the advisory board when it
formed in 1993. He'd always been interested in the site
andfollowed news accounts of the 1984 uranium release and
contaminated wells.
It was years before Bierer and other advisory board members
realized just what they'd volunteered to do.
"I didn't realize what a big project it was going to be," he
said. "It was immense, from my point of view. I didn't think we
would ever get that place cleaned up. There were a lot of
hurdles that had to be jumped."
One hurdle was getting everyone involved - the U.S. Department
of Energy, state and federal environmental agencies, residents,
contractors and workers - to sit together at the table.
"We all kind of felt that the only way we're going to get this
thing done is for everyone to work together," he said.
The other hurdles were budget and deadlines.
To many observers - Bierer included, at times - the project
seemed to crawl. Once work started, decisions had to be made
quickly to keep the momentum.
"We ended up having to work very hard to make some
recommendations in a short period of time. It would have been
great if we'd had the luxury of being able to study things
longer. We didn't have that luxury," he said.
"We felt kind of rushed. But, in retrospect, I think we made
good decisions given the information that we had."
[Jim Bierer, chairman of the Fernald Citizen Advisory Board,
helped guide the restoration of the uranium foundry.]
*****************************************************************
38 The Enquirer: Mission accomplished: After 21 years, she can rest
Last Updated: 4:03 am | Sunday, July 23, 2006
BY PEGGY O'FARRELL | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER
The fight of her life is almost over and Lisa Crawford feels a
little bit of everything.
Relief, certainly.
Triumph.
A little sadness.
And a very real worry that she might be bored with no more
toxic-waste sites to clean up.
"I feel like I'm sending my kid off to college," the 50-year-old
community activist said.
As president of FRESH - Fernald Residents for Environmental
Safety and Health - Crawford has fought for so long to get the
former uranium foundry cleaned up she can't remember how long
it's really been.
"It's been an amazing 20-however-many years it's been," she
said, pausing to do the math. "Twenty-one years."
In 1984, residents who lived around Fernald learned that workers
accidentally had released more than 300 pounds of uranium dust
into the environment. They also learned that in 1981 three
residential water wells were contaminated.
"One of them was ours," Crawford said.
The fight to clean the site was on.
Crawford and her husband, Ken, were among the residents who
filed a class-action suit against the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) in 1985 to clean up Fernald.
"After that, we just became the biggest agitators and the
biggest troublemakers and we just raised holy living hell," she
said.
Until Crawford and her neighbors started pressuring the DOE and
National Lead of Ohio to clean up the site, Crawford had never
spoken in public. She had never even been on an airplane until
she flew to testify before Congress.
The process was slow.
Production at the site didn't end until 1989, and then cleanup
could finally take precedence.
"We spent most of the '90s doing regulatory paperwork crap," she
said.
She joined the Citizens Advisory Board, which helped guide the
cleanup.
Crawford said it was important to make sure everyone had a say:
Residents, federal regulators, environmentalists, even the
foundry workers, who had distrusted FRESH since the beginning.
The cleanup seemed to take forever, she said.
But in 1994, Plant 7 came down, the first production structure
to be demolished. Plant by plant, the old foundry started to
disappear. Trucks and trains constantly carried away
contaminated soil and toxic sludge.
When the water tower, long an ugly reminder of the site's
existence, came down in 2003, it was "stunning," Crawford said.
It's almost hard for her and other FRESH members to visit the
site now. Once the contamination they fought so hard to get rid
of is gone, their organization will be, too.
Residents have worried for years whether the contamination might
cause cancer or other sicknesses. The Crawfords, including son
Kenny, now 28, are all fine so far.
As hard as the fight has been, the future might be harder.
"Somebody said, 'What are you going to do now?' And I was like,
'God, I don't know.' "
E-mail pofarrell@enquirer.com
[Lisa Crawford's activism for two decades shed public light on
environmental damage around the foundry.]
THE ENQUIRER/CRAIG RUTTLE
*****************************************************************
39 The Enquirer: Retired supervisor now battles system
Last Updated: 4:03 am | Sunday, July 23, 2006
BY PEGGY O'FARRELL | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER
Rudy Crawford is battling skin cancer and prostate cancer. He
started at Fernald while it was under construction in 1951 and
retired as a foundry supervisor in 1987.
"I was there when they were putting up walls and bringing in
machinery," said Crawford, 79, of Harrison. "Then, even the
salaried men had to go push the big trucks out of the mud if
they got stuck."
The company line at Fernald's Feed Materials Production Center
was that the uranium the workers handled could never make anyone
sick.
"The most dangerous thing you could do with our uranium is drop
it on somebody's head," an official with National Lead of Ohio,
the company that operated Fernald, told a reporter in 1984.
Crawford knew better.
Decades later, he's helping the men he worked with try to prove
just how false the company line was.
Like many men who worked at Fernald, Crawford was a World War II
veteran who saw working at the foundry as a way to do his part
to win the Cold War.
His attitude changed over the years.
National Lead managers lied to workers about the risks they
faced, Crawford said, and hired "goons" to bully them into
working harder and keeping quiet about what they saw inside the
compound. Signs also reminded workers the plant's mission was
top secret.
The company did not respond to a call for comment.
Crawford retired after almost 35 years as a supervisor. National
Lead of Ohio's parent company, National Lead Co., changed its
name to National Lead Industries in the 1970s, and has faced
numerous lawsuits for its lead-based paint and other products.
Now, Crawford works with retirees to keep track of their
benefits and helps former colleagues get compensation from the
U.S. Department of Labor for cancers they believe they
contracted working at the plant.
He received compensation under a special program from the U.S.
Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Labor for former
atomic workers who became ill or died because of exposure to
uranium, beryllium or other materials.
He said too many former colleagues' claims are being denied. He
said federal officials didn't properly calculate how much
radiation workers were exposed to, and made the application
process too complicated.
He called the program "the biggest farce I ever did see" and
said it's designed to deny, not pay, rightful claims.
When friends tell him their claims were denied, he tells them to
re-file and helps them navigate the paperwork.
"I don't know how the second go-round will go," he said.
"I hope I can make it to the finish line," he said. "I've got a
big job, trying to help all these boys."
[Rudy Crawford says that workers at Fernald were lied to about
the hazards, and that the compensation system now is designed to
deny workers' medical claims.]
[This plate is one of the few reminders that Crawford and his
wife keep about Fernald.]
THE ENQUIRER/CRAIG RUTTLE
*****************************************************************
40 DOE: Agency Information Collection Extension
FR Doc E6-11710
[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 41787-41788] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24jy06-54]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Submission for Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
review; comment request.
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has submitted an
information collection package to the OMB for extension under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The package
requests a three-year extension of its Human Reliability Program
(HRP), OMB Control Number 1910-5122. The collections consist of
forms that will certify to DOE that respondents were advised of
the requirements for occupying or continuing to occupy a HRP
position. The HRP is a security and safety reliability program
for individuals who apply for or occupy certain positions that
are critical to the national security. It requires an initial and
annual supervisory review, medical
[[Page 41788]] assessment, management evaluation, and a DOE
personnel security review of all applicants or incumbents. It is
also used to ensure that employees assigned to nuclear explosive
duties do not have emotional, mental, or physical conditions that
could result in an accidental or unauthorized detonation of
nuclear explosives.
DATES: Comments regarding this collection must be received on or
before August 23, 2006. If you anticipate that you will be
submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the
period of time allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk
Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as
possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at 202-395-4650.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Jeffrey Martus,
IM-11/ Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Ave SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290. Or by fax at
301-903-9061 or by e-mail at Jeffrey. martus@hq. doe.gov.
Comments should also be addressed to: Sharon A. Evelin, Director,
IM-11/Germantown Bldg., U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290, and to: Kathy
Murphy, SP-1.22 Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy,
19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, Maryland 20874-1290.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon A. Evelin and Kathy
Murphy, at the addresses listed above in ADDRESSES.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This package contains: (1) OMB No.:
1910- 5122; (2) Package Title: Human Reliability Program (3)
Purpose: for DOE management to ensure that individuals who occupy
HRP positions meet program standards of reliability and physical
and mental suitability; (4) Estimated Number of Respondents:
11,500; (5) Estimated Total Burden Hours: 5,750; (6) Number of
Collections: The package contains five (5) information and/or
recordkeeping requirements.
Statutory Authority: Department of Energy Organization Act,
Public Law 95-91, of August 4, 1977.
Issued in Washington, DC on July 17, 2006.
Jeffrey Martus, Records Management Division (IM-11), Office of
the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-11710 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
41 DOE: Proposed Agency Information Collection
FR Doc E6-11712
[Federal Register: July 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 141)]
[Notices] [Page 41788] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr24jy06-55]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy invites public comment on a
proposed collection of information that the Department is
developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The
proposed collection of information is in an interim final rule
pertaining to standby support that was published in the Federal
Register on May 15, 2006.
DATES: Consideration will be given to comments submitted by
September 22, 2006. Comments may be mailed to the address given
in the ADDRESSES section below. Comments also may be submitted
electronically by e- mailing them to:
StandbySupport@Nuclear.Energy.gov. We note that e-mail
submissions will avoid delay currently associated with security
screening of U.S. Postal Service mail.
ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments, identified by the
term Standby Support--Paperwork Reduction Act Proposal-- by any
of the following methods: 1. E-mail to
StandbySupport@Nuclear.Energy.gov. Include RIN 1901- AB17 and
``Paperwork Reduction Act Proposal'' in the subject line of the
e-mail. Please include the full body of your comments in the text
of the message or an attachment.
2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
3. Mail: Address the comments to Kenneth Chuck Wade, Office of
Nuclear Energy, (NE-30) U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
The Department requires, in hard copy, a signed original and
three copies of all comments. Due to potential delays in the
Department's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S.
Postal Service, we encourage commenters to submit comments
electronically to ensure timely receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Chuck Wade, Project
Manager, Office of Nuclear Energy, NE-30, U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
(301) 903-6509 or Marvin Shaw, Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-52, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. (202) 586-2906.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Collection title: Standby Support for
Certain Nuclear Plant Delays.
Type of review: New collection.
OMB number: None.
Type of respondents: Sponsors of new advanced nuclear facilities.
Estimated number of respondents: Three to five per year.
Estimated total burden hours: 218.
Frequency of response: Single submission.
Abstract: On May 15, 2006, the Department published an interim
final rule to implement section 638 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 that authorizes the Secretary of Energy to enter into
Standby Support Contracts with sponsors of advanced nuclear power
facilities to provide risk insurance for certain delays
attributed to the regulatory process or litigation. (71 FR
28200). That rule contains the following recordkeeping
requirements that must be approved by OMB pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) before
sponsors can be required to comply with them: (1) Section
950.10(b) contains information collection requirements pertaining
to eligibility; (2) section 950.12(a) contains information
collection requirements pertaining to fulfillment of conditions
precedent to a Standby Support Contract; and (3) section 950.23
contains information collection requirements pertaining to
submission of claims for payment of covered costs under a Standby
Support Contract.
Request for Comments: Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the
Department invites comment on: (1) Whether the recordkeeping
requirements in the interim final rule are necessary; (2) the
accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who choose to respond. Additional information about the
Department's proposed information collection may be obtained from
the contact person named in this notice.
Sharon A. Evelin, Director, Records Management Division, Office
of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-11712 Filed 7-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
42 Paducah Sun: Uranium concerns--Opinions vary on effects on creeks around Paducah plant -
Paducah, Kentucky
By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com 270.575.8656
Sunday, July 23, 2006
A whistle-blower´s concerns about the dangers of uranium
contamination at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant have
rekindled debate about what is safe.
State regulators are aware of the problem but don´t consider the
uranium a threat to workers, neighbors or plant surroundings.
Some members of the plant´s citizens advisory board are
concerned enough to suggest an independent investigation.
The 54-year-old plant enriches uranium for use in nuclear fuel.
After losing his job as plant landfill manager in April, Gary
VanderBoegh has spent the last three months forwarding
environmental data to the Department of Energy, the Kentucky
congressional delegation, state and federal regulators, advisory
board members and others.
He also filed a Department of Labor complaint against DOE and
contractor Paducah Remediation Services alleging he wasn´t
rehired in retaliation for his speaking out about potential
radiation problems at the landfill. VanderBoegh said he received
an initial dismissal letter this past week, but said such
complaints typically are dismissed at first. He said he will
proceed with “the next step in the process.
VanderBoegh cites four years of Kentucky Division of Waste
Management records showing that water containing uranium
regularly flows into a ditch on the west side of the plant from
a pond that collects runoff from dirt stirred up during removal
of contaminated scrap metal. He said pond overflow worsened
recently during heavy rains.
His review of records shows 15 occasions in which the
concentration of uranium in the water ranged from 134 to 726
parts per million. A part per million is equivalent to a cup of
water in a swimming pool. Uranium contains low-level radiation.
There is no regulatory standard for the runoff, but the uranium
levels are from 4,467 to 24,200 times higher than the federal
drinking water limit of 30 parts per billion. A part per billion
is equivalent to a drop of water in a swimming pool.
The ditch flows into Big Bayou Creek, which runs northerly into
the West Kentucky Wildlife Management Area, onto private land
and eventually into the Ohio River. DOE previously replaced
neighboring private wells with municipal water because of plant
contamination, notably from the formerly used degreaser
trichloroethylene.
“I wonder how Cairo, Wickliffe, and Memphis will feel about
these levels of uranium in the waters heading toward their
communities as authorized by DOE? VanderBoegh said.
He restated his concerns Thursday night at a meeting of the
plant´s citizens advisory board and was asked to put them in
writing so the board can seek a written response from DOE.
Following a lengthy exchange involving VanderBoegh, board
members and regulators, DOE Paducah Site Manager Bill Murphie
said the plant waste management program is meeting health-based
permits.
“So, to the extent the question was asked, Do you think this is
safe? Do you think this is in compliance?´ The answer is yes, he
said.
Sen. Mitch McConnell and other federal lawmakers have referred
VanderBoegh´s concerns to regulatory agencies including the
Kentucky Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet. Cabinet
spokesman Mark York said state monitoring results from a runoff
point near the pond do not indicate high levels of
contamination.
“The data do not show a threat to the environment or human
health, York said.
There were no applicable standards for uranium several years ago
when the plant discharge permit was issued by the Kentucky
Division of Water, York said. “DOE has applied for renewal of
the permit. That is under technical review, and we´re developing
water quality-based requirements to be a part of that permit.
VanderBoegh estimates that nearly 20 pounds of uranium were in
Big Bayou Creek water on Jan. 31 during one of the heavier
concentrations. York said the state doesn´t measure the volume
of discharge because there is no separate monitoring point for
the pond.
Advisory board member Jim Smart said there aren´t enough health
criteria to understand the implications of the uranium. He
teaches at the University of Kentucky Engineering School in
Paducah, holds a doctorate in chemical engineering and was an
environmental engineer for many years with IBM.
“I´ve looked at a lot of the data, and it´s disturbing and
alarming, Smart said. “The red flags have gone up, and I think
it merits somebody looking into it much deeper than it´s gone.
I´d like to get this thing resolved.
Smart said the board should appoint a task force or hire an
independent evaluator to study the issue and make a
recommendation.
VanderBoegh also has complained to the board and others about a
25-acre solid waste landfill that he helped develop in the
mid-1990s and managed until April. The landfill is near Little
Bayou Creek, just north of Ogden Landing Road behind the plant.
In May 2004, DOE began accepting radiologically contaminated
waste into the landfill based on perceived low risk to human
health. VanderBoegh´s Labor Department complaint said rain
infiltrates the landfill cover and contacts the waste, resulting
in “radiologically contaminated leachate — liquid that
percolates through or drains from the waste.
The liquid must be stored in tanks until it is treated or
disposed of. State regulations require that the storage be
sufficient to handle 15 days of peak production during heavy
rain.
State officials inspected the landfill in March when DOE
contract workers were preparing to expand it. At that time,
VanderBoegh complained that expansion might cause the tanks to
overflow.
As a result, DOE evaluated the situation and reported there were
times when the 15-day level was exceeded even without expansion,
said Tony Hatton, assistant director of the Kentucky Division of
Waste Management.
“But in spite of that we´re not aware of any overflowing of any
outside leachate or of any uncontrolled leachate release to the
environment, he said.
DOE has used a combination of storage tanks and leachate
treatment to handle the situation, but must improve the storage
system to comply with regulations and meet its permit, Hatton
said.
“We don´t see any immediate threat to health or the environment
posed by this shortfall because DOE has treatment capacity to
address those potential issues until such time as any necessary
upgrades can be done, he said.
Although it is hard to quantify the radioactive substances in
the leachate, “I´d say they are relatively low levels, and that
leachate must meet limits set by the Division of Water, Hatton
said.
VanderBoegh and George Johnson, another former Paducah plant
waste management worker, have complained more than once to the
advisory board in recent months about drums of unauthorized
hazardous waste being received at the landfill, and problems
with waste certification.
Johnson said at a May 18 board meeting, and during an interview,
that he testified before a federal grand jury in 2002 as part of
a Department of Justice investigation into past environmental
practices at the plant. The probe stemmed from an ongoing
lawsuit by whistle-blowers other than VanderBoegh.
Advisory board member John Russell said during the meeting that
he was “very concerned there may not be sufficient DOE and
regulatory oversight over the waste going into the landfill.
Rachel Blumenfeld, chief operating officer for DOE´s Paducah
site office, responded that landfill workers are subject to
criminal liability for falsely certifying waste. “To the best of
my knowledge, those (waste-acceptance criteria) are being
complied with, she said.
David Williams of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in
Atlanta said he forwarded landfill complaints to EPA lawyers,
including those involved in the Justice Department probe.
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************