***************************************************************** 08/03/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.183 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 [NYTr] Why the US Is Going Nuclear over Iran 2 BBC: Officials discuss Iran gas deal 3 IRNA: United Nation's resolution heightens mistrust of West, says Ir 4 Mos News: Russia Urges Iran to Meet Nuclear Deadline - 5 US: NIRS: Sustainable Energy Petition 6 Asia Times: US giving aid - and bombs 7 AFP: Political memoir sparks nuclear spy chase in India NUCLEAR REACTORS 8 [NukeNet] Global Warming Takes on More Nukes in U.S., Europe 9 US: [NukeNet] No-Nukes at SEE EXPO -- August 25, 26, 27 -- Western 10 US: [NukeNet] Heat Wave Shows Limits of Nuclear Energy 11 US: Global Warming "Solution"?: Hot Weather Causes Nuke Plants To Cu 12 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Watchdogs appeal Diablo renewal 13 BBC: Swedish nuclear reactors stopped 14 US: NRC: NRC Names Directors for New Reactors, National Materials Of 15 Aftenposten Nettutgaven: Safety fears at Swedish nuclear plants - 16 THERECORD.COM: Energy forum aims to change attitudes 17 THERECORD.COM: Nuclear power on the move 18 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 19 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 20 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 21 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 22 US: NRC: and 171, expanded defination of byproduct material 23 US: NRC: Notice of Denial of License Amendment Request of FMRI, Musk 24 US: Rutland Herald: Nuclear is not the answer 25 Prague Daily Monitor: Temelin staff fails to connect turbine to grid 26 CBC: Critics slam power authority's proposed budget boost 27 AFP: US says Pakistan's new nuclear reactor not very powerful - pres NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 28 US: [NukeNet] Sleeping guards at nukes 29 War Crimes, the Hush-Hush Energy Option, Tritium, 30 US: NRC: NRC, W.VA. Firm to Discuss Apparent Violations Involving Po 31 Radio New Zealand: Veterans group says French nuke test stance unten 32 US: Spectrum: Keep tabs on Divine Strake 33 US: Independent: Explosion delayed until sometime in '07 34 Cyprus Mail: No danger from uranium cloud’ 35 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nevada site may be out for the blast test 36 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Feds say bomb test months away 37 US: Deseret News: Divine Strake weapons test postponed for further NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 38 AU ABC: Beazley vows to repeal NT dump laws 39 PVT: Inquiring minds want to know: Was Yucca report ever written? 40 SF Chronicle: Nuke Dump Timeline Questioned 41 US: Spartanburg Herald-Journal: Nuclear waste 42 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Governors challenge nuke waste proposal 43 AZoM: Proposals to Bury UK's Radioactive Waste Should be Acted on Ur 44 TSN: Small hamlet offers itself as Spanish nuclear waste cemetary - 45 Kyiv Post: Rada approves Russian nuclear waste transits 46 Nevada Observer: "A Record Of Fraud": Berkley -- "No Basis In Realit 47 US: Portsmouth Herald: Lynch opposes storing nuke waste at Seabrook 48 Ensign: ENSIGN TESTIFIES AGAINST PROPOSED YUCCA BILL 49 Reid: Testifies against Yucca 50 US: PRN: Southern Company Represents Nuclear Industry Before Senate 51 Mos News: Ukraine Buys $201M Worth of Nuclear Fuel From Russia - 52 times and star: N-plant to offer Pechiney workers jobs 53 Whitehaven News: Bidders to gather for showdown 54 Whitehaven News: Sweeteners offered – with nuclear waste 55 Whitehaven News: 700 new Sellafield jobs 56 Australian: Labor 'to repeal nuke-dump laws' 57 Sydney Morning Herald: ALP to repeal nuke dump laws if elected - PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 58 DOE: DOE Awards $3.3 million for Advanced Remediation Technology Con 59 DOE: DOE Continues Path Forward on Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 60 Santa Fe New Mexican: Tech receives laser from Los Alamos lab 61 Hanford News: Fluor Hanford manager to get big thanks 62 Tri-City Herald: DOE faulted for late contracts 63 Inside Bay Area: Peace protests planned for A-bomb anniversary 64 lamonitor.com: County to investigate water cross contamination 65 lamonitor.com: Report addresses water rights, supply risk 66 Knox News: Spent nuclear fuel "recipe for disaster" 67 DOE: DOE Continues Path Forward on Global Nuclear Energy Partnership 68 Knox News: TVA asks for energy conservation during heat wave ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Why the US Is Going Nuclear over Iran Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 20:42:58 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Freedom Socialist Newspaper 27:4 - Aug-Sep, 2006 http://www.socialism.com/fsarticles/vol27no4/nuclear_iran.html Why the U.S. is going nuclear over Iran by Aabteen Omid The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has been developing nuclear power for a number of years. The government asserts that the purpose of Iran's program of enriching uranium is to develop energy, not weapons, and U.S. and European spy agencies have provided no evidence that this is not so. Yet, as with Iraq's nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction," the White House is using Iran's denied nuclear schemes to justify considering another invasion in the Middle East. In a rational world, no country should have nuclear arms. But it is boundless hypocrisy for the United States, the only country that has ever used nuclear bombs against an enemy, to present itself as the world's guardian against them. And, whatever nuclear goals Iran has, they are not what's behind the U.S. military threat. The neoconservatives who came to power in the U.S. five years ago have long had plans to invade both Iraq and Iran under one pretext or another. What the empire builders want is control over economic and geopolitical pivots around the world. Iran is surely one of these points. It dominates a vast oil-rich region from the Persian Gulf north to the Caspian Sea, an area from which Russia, China, Japan and Europe get their natural gas and oil. It is the world's fourth-biggest exporter of oil. It is a trade artery to the markets of Central Asia. It supports and funds Hamas in Palestine and influences Shi'a Moslems in Iraq and Lebanon. For 27 years, since the "embassy hostage crisis" during the Jimmy Carter administration, Iran assets worth $10 billion dollars have been frozen in U.S. banks, and Washington has shunned direct negotiations with Iran. Now, however, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she will join Russia, China and European allies in direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program. Why the change? For one thing, attacking Iran would jeopardize the concrete help the IRI has been giving to the U.S.-engineered occupation governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. For another, the U.S. is stretched thin militarily and stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. With sentiment against the merciless war on Iraq growing, administration officials know that they have little support for a similar undertaking in Iran -- not internationally and not domestically, even from the military establishment. For its part, the IRI regime has been suffering from instability for a long time. Recently there have been numerous outbursts, riots, and strikes, with unrest in Azerbaijan, demonstrations by women and students, and labor actions by factory workers and Tehran bus drivers. Millions of young people have no hope of decent jobs and rebel at fundamentalist restrictions. To stabilize its grip, the regime is using the issue of nuclear power as a rallying cry to heighten nationalist fervor. Neither Iranian nor U.S. workers, however, will put up with the manipulations of their regimes indefinitely. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 BBC: Officials discuss Iran gas deal Last Updated: Thursday, 3 August 2006 By John Sudworth BBC News, Delhi [Pipeline] The pipeline would carry natural gas from Iran to India Officials from India, Pakistan and Iran are meeting in Delhi to discuss proposals to build a gas pipeline linking the three countries. The project would carry natural gas more than 2,500 kms (1,562 miles) from Iran to India. Work could begin as early as next year. But there is disagreements about how much India and Pakistan should pay. The pipeline would be a huge boost for energy-starved India, which currently produces only half of the gas it needs. And the country's energy demands are expected to double within the next 15 years. Benefits to Pakistan The pipeline would also bring financial benefits to Pakistan, earning the country millions of dollars in transit fees. Earlier in May, talks between the three nations failed due to disagreement on the price of the gas. India wants to pay a fixed amount per unit delivered to its border. But Iran says the price being offered by India and Pakistan is half of what it is looking for and wants the cost to be linked to fluctuating international energy prices. If these issues can be resolved work could begin by the end of next year. The US had earlier opposed the project because of the financial and strategic benefits it would bring to Iran. But during a visit to Pakistan in March this year, President George Bush indicated that the US had dropped its staunch opposition to the pipeline. Mr Bush said he understood the need for natural gas in the region and that the US argument with Iran was over nuclear weapons. The project is estimated to cost $6bn. ***************************************************************** 3 IRNA: United Nation's resolution heightens mistrust of West, says Iran Islamabad, Aug 3, IRNA Pakistan-Iran-UN An Iranian official has said that the Islamic Republic was losing confidence in the international community after the UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding it stop sensitive nuclear work. According to the Pakistani newspaper Daily Times, Vice President Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie was speaking in Tokyo on Wednesday where he met Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, who urged Iran to regain the world's trust. A Japanese Foreign Ministry statement quoted the vice president as saying that Iran was seriously considering the comprehensive package of incentives drafted largely by European powers for Tehran to back down on the nuclear issue. But Mashaie reportedly said that the Security Council resolution heightens mistrust and strengthens the belief that Western countries are attempting to take away Iran's rights through pressure rather than dialogue. Mashaie, who is the head of Iran's Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization, is visiting Japan to open a major display of Persian historical relics. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has refused to back down on the nuclear issue or to give a prompt reply to the package of incentives. The UN Security Council voted 14-1 on Monday to demand that Iran give up sensitive nuclear activities including uranium enrichment by August 31 or face possible sanctions. Japan supported the resolution, despite close commercial ties with Iran where Tokyo has invested heavily in the oil sector. Separately Aso and visiting Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer urged Iran to respond quickly to the package. Aso said that message was passed on to Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki when he attended an Asian regional forum last week in Kuala Lumpur. "We told Iran it should not think that the international community would wait patiently for its response forever. Iran needs to make a swift response," Aso was quoted as saying by a Foreign Ministry official after talks with Downer. Iran needs to provide a positive response quickly. This issue requires close cooperation, Downer was quoted as saying. ***************************************************************** 4 Mos News: Russia Urges Iran to Meet Nuclear Deadline - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad / Photo: AFP Created: 03.08.2006 15:58 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 23:34 MSK Russian said today Iran must respect an August 31 deadline set by the UN Security Council for it to suspend uranium enrichment in order to avoid possible sanctions, Radio Free Europe reported Thursday. In a statement, the Foreign Ministry reminded Iran that, as a UN member, it has to implement Security Council resolutions. “As for the nature of the UN Security Council’s resolutions, it should be born in mind that under article 25 of the UN Charter all members of the organization agree to abide by Security Council resolutions and implement them,” the Foreign Ministry told the Itar-Tass news agency. “We are hoping that the Iranian side will respond properly to the calls addressed to it and no extra action by the UN Security Council will be required.” Earlier, Iran said that the UN Security Council resolution had no legal basis to rely on. According to the media reports one of the top Iranian officials slammed the UNSC resolution as “worthless”. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad consistently insists that it’s nuclear enrichment program is peaceful and stresses that the people of Iran are entitled to produce their own nuclear fuel. “The people of Iran, in accordance with international norms and laws, have the right to take advantage of peaceful nuclear technology,” Ahmadinejad told a news conference in Tehran Sunday, July 30. Russia and another veto-wielding member of the Security Council, China, have so far resisted Western proposals for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Western leaders are afraid Iran’s uranium enrichment program is a prelude to nuclear weapons production. Write us: info@mosnews.com Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 5 NIRS: Sustainable Energy Petition Nuclear Information and Resource Service - NIRS Alerts for A Sustainable Energy Future! Congress has passed the energy bill, which could give billions of your dollars to the nuclear power industry and other polluters. Now we must work to 1) prevent the appropriation of these funds by future Congresses and 2) work to block all new nuclear power projects--in the courts, before the agencies, and in the streets. Please support our efforts by contributing to NIRS. It's easy: click here and donate now. All contributions are appreciated. The Petition for a Sustainable Energy Future points the way Congress should go in developing energy policy: energy efficiency, renewable energy such as wind and solar, green hydrogen, increased mileage standards for vehicles and an end to nuclear power. We will deliver all signatures to each Senator when the next Congress begins work in January 2007. This gives us--and you--a lot more time to collect signatures and tell the next Congress what the American people really want in an energy policy--so keep the signatures coming! Please sign and ask your friends and colleagues to sign! You can also download the petition, print it and take it with you to meetings and events to obtain more signatures. Thank you! ___________ Note: NIRS survives on contributions from people who use and/or appreciate our services. You can donate online by clicking the Donate Now button above, or you may mail your tax-deductible check to NIRS. We thank you for your support. NIRS is located at 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912; 301-270-NIRS (301-270-6477); fax: 301-270-4291; E-mail NIRS. WISE-Amsterdam is at P.O. Box 59636, 1040 LC Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 31-20-6126368; fax: 31-20-6892179; E-mail WISE. Web: www.antenna.nl/wise. Our NIRS Southeast U.S. office is at P.O. Box 7586, Asheville, NC 28802; 828-675-1792, E-mail NIRS Southeast office. Worldwide NIRS/WISE relay offices. ***************************************************************** 6 Asia Times: US giving aid - and bombs By Thalif Deen NEW YORK - As Israel's bombing of Lebanon continues unabated into its fourth consecutive week, the United States says it stands ready to provide food, medicine and humanitarian assistance to the thousands of internally displaced Lebanese caught in the crossfire. But Washington has also decided to accelerate the supply of lethal weapons to Israel - "perhaps intended to kill the very Lebanese the United States is planning to feed and shelter", said one Arab diplomat at the United Nations. "It is US hypocrisy at its worst," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because his country receives millions of dollars in US economic aid. "The right hand obviously does not know what its left hand is up to. Or does it?" Irene Khan, secretary general of London-based Amnesty International, was equally harsh in her reaction. "It is ridiculous to talk about providing humanitarian aid on the one hand and to provide arms on the other. It is imperative that all governments stop the supply of arms and weapons to both sides immediately." Asked whether there is a contradiction between the two, US President George W Bush told reporters last week: "No. I don't see a contradiction in us honoring commitments made prior to Hezbollah attacks into Israeli territory." Bush also made an obvious slip when he said, "I am concerned about loss of innocent life, and we will do everything we can to help move equipment ... I mean, food and medicines, to help the people who have been displaced and the people who suffer." Amnesty quoted British media reports relating to two chartered Airbus A310 cargo planes landing at Glasgow's Prestwick airport; they were filled with GBU-28 laser-guided bombs (bunker busters) containing depleted-uranium warheads and destined for the Israeli Air Force. The planes landed for refueling and crew rest after flying from the United States. "Other reports claimed that the USA has requested that two more planes be permitted to land in the UK en route to Israel in the next two weeks," Amnesty said. "The reports said the aircraft will be carrying other weapons, including bombs and missiles." Khan said, "The UK government should refuse permission for its sea- and airports to be used by planes or ships carrying arms and military equipment destined for Israel or Hezbollah." Amnesty International has also written to British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett urging the government to suspend any sale or transfer of arms and military equipment to Israel. "We have already let the United States know that this is an issue that appears to be seriously at fault, and we will be making a formal protest if it appears that that is what has happened," Khan said. Meanwhile, New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has accused the Israelis of using artillery-fired cluster munitions in populated areas of Lebanon. "Cluster munitions are unacceptably inaccurate and unreliable weapons when used around civilians," HRW executive director Kenneth Roth said. "They should never be used in populated areas." Armed mostly with state-of-the-art US-supplied fighter planes and combat helicopters, the Israeli military is capable of matching a combination of all or most of the armies in Middle Eastern countries, including Iran, Syria, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The annual survey of US arms sales conducted by the Congressional Research Service shows a total of US$8.4 billion in arms deliveries to Israel between 1997 and 2004, with fully $7.1 billion or 84.5% coming from a single source: the United States. A major factor in this trend was the rise in US foreign military financing - outright grants to Israel - which now totals about $2.3 billion a year paid for by US taxpayers. Meanwhile, the pattern of attacks and the extent of civilian casualties show a blatant disregard of international humanitarian law by Israel and Hezbollah, Khan said. "Direct targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure and launching indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks amount to war crimes." Francis A Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, said the 192-member United Nations General Assembly must immediately establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Israel (ICTI) as a "subsidiary organ" under UN Charter Article 22. The ICTI would be organized along the lines of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY), which was established by the UN Security Council in 1993. "The purpose of the ICTI would be to investigate and prosecute Israeli war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide against the peoples of Lebanon and Palestine - just as the ICTY did for the victims of international crimes committed by Serbia and the Slobodan Milosevic regime throughout the Balkans," Boyle said. Furthermore, establishment of an ICTI by the General Assembly would serve as a deterrent on Israeli leaders, including the prime minister, defense minister, the chief of staff and Israel's other top generals in case they will be prosecuted for their further infliction of international crimes upon the Lebanese and the Palestinians, said Boyle, author of Biowarfare and Terrorism (Clarity Press: 2005) and Destroying World Order (Clarity Press: 2004). Without such a deterrent, he said, Israel might be emboldened to attack Syria with the full support of the US right-wing neo-conservatives, who have always viewed Syria as "low-hanging fruit", ready to be taken out by their joint aggression. Israeli media have reported that the Bush administration is encouraging Israel to attack Syria. If Israel attacks Syria as it did when it invaded Lebanon in 1982, Iran has vowed to come to Syria's defense. "This scenario could readily degenerate into World War III," Boyle warned. ''For the UN General Assembly to establish ICTI could stop the further development of this momentum towards a regional if not global catastrophe." (Inter Press Service) Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: Political memoir sparks nuclear spy chase in India by Penny MacRae Wed Aug 2, 11:51 PM ET NEW DELHI (AFP) - In India's rough and tumble political world he was always the "gentleman politician". But now, former foreign minister Jaswant Singh stands accused of sparking a spy chase that has gripped India in a bid to boost sales of his just-released memoirs "A Call to Honour". The book has launched India's media spycatchers on a hunt for the identity of a political "mole" who was supposedly in cahoots with the Americans and leaked word to Washington that India planned to declare itself a nuclear power in the 1990s. "The Mole Controversy -- The Nuclear Nexus," said India's biggest-selling news magazine India Today after Singh's book was published in July. It is already in its fourth printing. "Everyone loves a conspiracy," said Business Standard political columnist Aditi Phadnis. The mystery stems from a letter dated 1995 that Singh, who leads the main right-wing opposition party in the upper house of parliament, said was written by a US diplomat based in Delhi to a senator in Washington. The letter said the nuclear information came from a "senior person" with "direct access" to then Congress prime minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. It has triggered suspicion that a top-level bureaucrat or scientist may have been spying for the Americans. Singh, 68, who helped steer India through the nuclear standoff with rival Pakistan four years ago as foreign minister in the former Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government, initially said he would reveal the name only to Congress Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. He threw out clues about the mole's identity, such as saying he no longer lived in India. But Singh, a former military man whose memoirs are peppered with references to decency and honour, refused to "name names," saying, "I am actually not given to indecent exposure." Pressure on him has been mounting and Singh has been backtracking. He now says he does not know the identity of the mole. This earned him a stinging dressing down from the prime minister, who questioned his integrity, and calls for him to reveal the name in the interests of national security. "If he has the decency and the courage, he should name the person whom he is accusing of being a mole," said the prime minister. "You are levelling serious charges -- that we were being snooped (upon), he said in parliament. "If you have any evidence, you should name that person. If you do not name the mole, let the country draw its own conclusions," he said. Jaswant Singh alleges that the spy informed Washington about India's plan for a nuclear test in the mid-1990s. He says that subsequent American pressure forced India to postpone the test till 1998 when the BJP was in power. The issue the book raises of Americans allegedly spying on India comes at a sensitive time. Controversy has been growing over a deal with the United States to give India access to civil nuclear technology that critics say would give Washington too much leverage over New Delhi's security policy. "The Indian who betrayed his country may be listening to his own heartbeats, but his identity is not the only issue that matters," said India Today editor Prabhu Chawla, whose news magazine splashed the story on its cover. "Is the (Indian) current nuclear agenda independent of external influence? Has India (been) compromised?" he said. Meanwhile, Singh's parliamentary colleagues are taking shots at the elder statesman, noting that stirring up such a hornet's nest is most out of character for the ex-army officer. "Instead of doing like this, he should have requested MPs to each buy 50 copies of his memoirs," said parliamentary affairs minister P.R. Dasmunsi. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 8 [NukeNet] Global Warming Takes on More Nukes in U.S., Europe Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:20:35 -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) So much for nuclear power being the solution to global warming... Hot weather has caused more nukes to curtail power. Power has been reduced at: MN: Monticello (Xcel) MN: Prairie Island units 1 and 2 (Xcel) IL: Quad Cities (Exelon) IL: Dresden unit 2 (Exelon) PA: Limerick unit 2 (Exelon) Exelon's Zion reactor in Illinois also had some interesting heat-related damage. Hot-water related problems have also been plaguing reactors in Germany, Spain and France. See below for details. Mike Ewall Energy Justice Network 215-743-4884 catalyst@actionpa.org http://www.energyjustice.net ---------------------------------- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060801zion,1,4294213.story?coll=chi-news-hed Zion nuclear plant reports minor heat problem Tribune staff reports Published August 1, 2006, 7:34 PM CDT The excessive heat may be blamed for damaging a lightning device at the Zion nuclear power plant in the far northern suburb this afternoon, according to Exelon Nuclear, the plant's owner. A lightning arrester, a protective device for limiting surge voltages, "blew off" but there were no injuries, said Craig Nesbit, a spokesman for the energy company. The arrester, which was possibly damaged by the heat, did not cause an explosion or a fire, he said. Although the nuclear reactor at the site was shut down in 1998, power still flows through the plant and the incident did not affect service. Traces of radioactive tritium were discovered in groundwater at the shuttered plant last June. Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune ----------------------- http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16995685&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6 Nuclear plant cuts power to cool water Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com 08/02/2006 LIMERICK -- Not that you needed another example of how hot it is, but it's so hot that the area's nuclear power plant had to cut the amount of power it produces. Not because fewer air conditioners are running full blast, far from it. But to run at 100 percent capacity, which, until Tuesday, Exelon's Limerick Nuclear Generating Station had been doing, the water used to condense the steam that drives the generators back into water needs to be cool enough to get the job done. When the mercury reaches 98 degrees, as it did Tuesday at St. Pius X High School, it's hard to get the water cool enough to perform that vital function. So, at about 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, unit two at the plant was stepped back by 16 megawatts, just over 1 percent of its full 12,000 megawatt capacity, said Beth Rapczynsky, a spokeswoman for Exelon. The plant's massive cooling towers, visible for miles, take water from the Schuylkill River and use it to cool elements that come into contact with the steam used to drive the two giant electric generators at the plant. Once the steam condenses back into water, it is re-circulated through the reactor, where the nuclear reaction heats it into steam again to drive the generators. When the cooling water leaves its contact with the heat-exchange element, it is normally about 125 degrees and is air cooled in the towers down to about 95 degrees when it goes back to condense the steam. But when the air temperature is 95 degrees or hotter, the water in the towers is not cooled sufficiently to cool the steam fast enough to run the generator at peak capacity, Rapczynsky explained. The reduction is not unusual and has already occurred at many other nuclear plants across the country, particularly in the midwest where the heat wave has been going on for days, she said. It is happening in Europe as well. Reactors in Spain and France, which generates 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, have all been forced to cut output recently because the river water normally used for coolant is too warm, the New York Times reported. ©The Mercury 2006 ----------------------- http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-08-01T164415Z_01_N01446588_RTRIDST_0_UTILITIES-EXELON-QUADCITIES.XML&rpc=66 Exelon reduces power output at Illinois nukes NEW YORK, Aug 1 (Reuters) - With a heat wave warming the Mississippi River water used for cooling at the nuclear power plant in Quad Cities, Illinois, Exelon Corp. has cut the power at the plant about 19 percent, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday. The 867-megawatt Quad Cities reactors were producing about 700 megawatts of power each after the reduction. The plant uses river water to condense steam from the turbine before returning the condensed water back to the reactor, while the river water flows back to the river. With temperatures exceeding 90 degrees in the area around the plant, the hot river water can harm fish and other aquatic life and does not cool the reactor water as efficiently. Meteorologists forecast temperatures in the area around the plant would reach 93 degrees Fahrenheit, according to forecaster AccuWeather. This week, nuclear operators have reduced power output at several reactors due to high water temperatures including Xcel Energy Inc.'s Prairie Island 1 and 2, and Monticello units in Minnesota over the weekend, and Exelon's Dresden 2 unit in Illinois on Monday. The 1,734 MW Quad Cities station is in Cordova in Rock Island County, about 155 miles west of Chicago. There are two 867-MW units, 1 and 2, at the station. Each entered service in 1972. One MW usually powers about 800 homes but during a heat wave a megawatt powers fewer homes. Exelon's unregulated Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary operates the station for its owners, Exelon (75 percent) and Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s MidAmerican Energy Co. subsidiary (25 percent). Exelon owns and operates more than 38,000 MW of generating capacity, markets energy commodities, and transmits and distributes electricity (5.2 million) and natural gas (460,000) to customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------- http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1833620,00.html Heatwave shuts down nuclear power plants Juliette Jowit and Javier Espinoza Sunday July 30, 2006 The Observer The European heatwave has forced nuclear power plants to reduce or halt production. The weather, blamed for deaths and disruption across much of the continent, has caused dramatic rises in the temperature of rivers used to cool the reactors, raising fears of mass deaths for fish and other wildlife. Spain shut down the Santa Maria de Garona reactor on the River Ebro, one of the country's eight nuclear plants which generate a fifth of its national electricity. Reactors in Germany are reported to have cut output, and others in Germany and France have been given special permits to dump hot water into rivers to avoid power failures. France, where nuclear power provides more than three quarters of electricity, has also imported power to prevent shortages. The problems have come to light just weeks after Britain declared it will build a new generation of nuclear power stations, prompting opponents to claim the crisis proved nuclear reactors - although they emit no carbon dioxide greenhouse gases - are not the solution to the problem of global warming. 'The main problem they have is: How are they going to expand nuclear power when they are so vulnerable to such things as global temperature?' said Shaun Burnie, Greenpeace International's nuclear specialist. But Bruno Comby, president of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, said future power stations could have bigger cooling towers, or be built near the sea. 'The big problem the earth is facing today is global warming, it's not a one-degree local increase in [the temperature of] a river,' he added. The heatwave in Britain appeared to break last week, with the Met Office forecasting more normal summer weather this week. Today London and south-east England face a repeat of last week's heavy rains; for the rest of the week the country is expected to alternate between sunny spells, with warm temperatures and showers. However, hotter weather is set to return. 'We could be looking at some very warm weather coming back towards next weekend,' said meteorologist Andrew Sibley. Last week a series of power cuts in central London prompted fears of regular blackouts as global temperatures are predicted to keep rising, bringing more long, hot summers. EDF, the capital's main electricity supplier, said the problems were caused by a 'very unusual' combination of several faults and huge demand for air-conditioning. 'Over the weekend, our engineers are working round the clock to maintain power supplies to the area and avoid any further interruptions,' a company official said. Network Rail, the main rail infrastructure operator, said fewer speed restrictions were expected in cooler temperatures, although track temperatures can rise to 20C above the air temperature on hot days. ----------------------- http://www.lexpress.mu/display_article.php?news_id=69437 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=qw1153859421305B236 http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411368/796064 Power crisis as Europe heats up Jul 26, 2006 ...Spain's oldest nuclear power plant has been forced to shut after river water got too hot to cool the reactor. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 9 [NukeNet] No-Nukes at SEE EXPO -- August 25, 26, 27 -- Western Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:20:37 -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) Friends -- Join us at the Southern Energy and Environment Expo -- www.seeexpo.com -- August 25, 26, 27 -- 15 minutes south of downtown Asheville, North Carolina -- The Southeast Office of Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Western North Carolina Physicians for Social Responsibility and Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads will be creating an education / action space for Expo participants to learn more about the threat of new nuclear power reactors, new nuclear weapons, new nuclear waste plans -- all of which translate into more and worse nuclear shipments in our region! We will also be offering workshops on these issues -- see the schedule at: http://www.seeexpo.com/schedule.htm -- note -- check out the McGough Arena schedules for the no-nuke-related offerings. All around this education / action space on what we don't want will be booths, exhibits and workshops on the SOLUTIONS! Renewable / Green energy businesses and agencies, sustainability experts, local and organic food and building folks and a wide array of supporting organizations will make up the rest of the thousands of opportunities available. More than 5000 people visited the Expo in 2005 -- making it the largest alternative energy event in the South, and I hear, tied for second in the USA -- second only to the long-time Midwest Renewable Energy Fair in Wisconsin. Please plan to come check out this event and support the work of so many people in the South headed towards health, sanity and sustainability! In addition -- the Energy at the Crossroads Tour -- a collaborative effort of NIRS and the Canary Coalition with support from SEE Expo, will be making a "Stop" at the Expo -- mixing info, humor and time for discussion, the tour is building a movement across the South to challenge both new coal and new nuclear power plants. Come and check it out! Other helpful links: Expo home page: http://www.seeexpo.com/index.htm Directions & Accommodations: http://www.seeexpo.com/info.htm Limited TENT and RV CAMPING are available on-site...there are motels in the immediate area. Exhibitors: http://www.seeexpo.com/exhibitors.htm SEE you at the EXPO! Mary Olson Director of the Southeast Office Nuclear Information & Resource Service Southeast Office PO Box 7586 Asheville, NC 28802 828-675-1792 nirs@main.nc.us www.nirs.org NOTE NEW NATIONAL OFFICE ADDRESS AND PHONE: Nuclear Information & Resource Service (NIRS) / World Information Service on Energy (WISE) 6930 Carroll Ave, Suite 340, Takoma Park, MD 20912 301-270-NIRS fax 301-270-4291 nirsnet@nirs.org NIRS affiliated with WISE in 2000 -- 12 offices on 5 continents serving grassroots activists _______________________________________________________________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 10 [NukeNet] Heat Wave Shows Limits of Nuclear Energy Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:21:43 -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) As we have read, this is also happening here in the US. MoJo Heat Wave Shows Limits of Nuclear Energy: Inter Press Service News Agency, by Julio Godoy, July 27, 2006 The extreme hot summer in Europe is restricting nuclear energy generation and showing up the limits of nuclear power, leading environmental activists and scientists say. The heat wave since mid-June has led authorities in France, Germany, Spain and elsewhere in Europe to override their own environmental norms on the maximum temperature of water drained from the plants' cooling systems. The French government announced Jul. 24 that nuclear power plants situated along rivers will be allowed to drain hot water into rivers at higher temperature. The measure is intended "to guarantee the provision of electricity for the country," according to an official note. France has 58 nuclear power plants, which produce almost 80 percent of electricity generated in the country. Of these, 37 are situated near rivers, and use them as outlet for water from their cooling systems. The drought accompanying the hot summer has reduced the volume of water in the rivers, and might force some power plants to shut down. Under normal circumstances, environment rules limit the maximum temperature for waste water in order to protect river flora and fauna. "For many years now, French authorities have defended nuclear power arguing that it is clean energy, good for the environment, and that it will help combat global warming, for it does not emit greenhouse gases," Stephane Lhomme, coordinator of the environmental network Sortir du NuclĂ©aire (Phase Out Nuclear Power) told IPS. "Now, with global warming leading to extreme hot summers, we are witnessing that it is the other way round," Lhomme said. "Global warming is showing the limits of nuclear power plants, and nuclear power is destroying our environment." During the hot summer of 2003, French authorities had allowed nuclear power plants to drain excessively hot water into rivers, leading to considerable damage to flora and fauna, Lhomme said. According to the minutes of the National Surveillance Committee on water drained from reactors Aug. 21 and Sep. 3 2003, "hot water temperatures might have led to high concentrations of ammoniac, which is potentially toxic for the rivers' fauna." The minutes point to a European norm on the concentration of ammoniac in rivers, which France did not respect. Meanwhile France is importing some 2000 megawatts of power per day from neighbouring countries to compensate for shortages in production at nuclear power plants. While the French authorities have overridden their own environmental norms, in Germany energy providers have slowed down some nuclear reactors to limit waste water temperature and to protect flora and fauna. Reactors Kruemmel, Brunsbuettel and Brokdorf situated along the river Elbe which flows through Eastern and Northern Germany have all been slowed down. So have traditional fossil fuel power plants situated along the river Rhine. The nuclear reactors Isar 1 near Munich, and Neckarwestheim near Stuttgart have being authorised to drain hotter water into the nearby rivers than normally allowed. In Spain, the nuclear power plant at Santa Maria de Garoña, one of eight Spanish reactors, was shut down last weekend due to the high temperatures recorded in the river Ebro, into which the reactor drains the water used in its cooling system. The power plant, Spain's oldest, provides 20 percent of the electricity generated in the country. German energy expert Hermann Scheer says the situation shows a need for radical change in policy. "We must massively invest in renewable energy sources, and get rid of nuclear power as soon as possible," he told IPS. Scheer is president of Eurosolar, the European association for renewable energy resources, and winner of the 'Alternative Nobel prize' for his commitment to the environment. In France, nuclear scientist Hubert Reeves urged the government to "invest massively" in renewable energy resources. "We are behind many of our European partners such as Germany, Denmark and Spain in this matter, and cannot wait until the energy crisis reaches its climax to find an alternative to our present model," he told IPS. A crisis, he said, "is round the corner." Fossil energy sources are about to be exhausted, and "nuclear technology will not solve present problems within a reasonable period of time.we should abandon nuclear power and invest in alternative sources." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "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 ***************************************************************** 11 Global Warming "Solution"?: Hot Weather Causes Nuke Plants To Cut Power Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 11:25:33 -0400 X-Sender-Host-Name: elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Ewall" To: Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:08 AM Subject: [NukeNet] Global Warming Takes on More Nukes in U.S., Europe So much for nuclear power being the solution to global warming... Hot weather has caused more nukes to curtail power. Power has been reduced at: MN: Monticello (Xcel) MN: Prairie Island units 1 and 2 (Xcel) IL: Quad Cities (Exelon) IL: Dresden unit 2 (Exelon) PA: Limerick unit 2 (Exelon) Exelon's Zion reactor in Illinois also had some interesting heat-related damage. Hot-water related problems have also been plaguing reactors in Germany, Spain and France. See below for details. Mike Ewall Energy Justice Network 215-743-4884 catalyst@actionpa.org http://www.energyjustice.net ---------------------------------- http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-060801zion,1,4294213.story?coll=chi-news-hed Zion nuclear plant reports minor heat problem Tribune staff reports Published August 1, 2006, 7:34 PM CDT The excessive heat may be blamed for damaging a lightning device at the Zion nuclear power plant in the far northern suburb this afternoon, according to Exelon Nuclear, the plant's owner. A lightning arrester, a protective device for limiting surge voltages, "blew off" but there were no injuries, said Craig Nesbit, a spokesman for the energy company. The arrester, which was possibly damaged by the heat, did not cause an explosion or a fire, he said. Although the nuclear reactor at the site was shut down in 1998, power still flows through the plant and the incident did not affect service. Traces of radioactive tritium were discovered in groundwater at the shuttered plant last June. Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune ----------------------- http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16995685&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6 Nuclear plant cuts power to cool water Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com 08/02/2006 LIMERICK -- Not that you needed another example of how hot it is, but it's so hot that the area's nuclear power plant had to cut the amount of power it produces. Not because fewer air conditioners are running full blast, far from it. But to run at 100 percent capacity, which, until Tuesday, Exelon's Limerick Nuclear Generating Station had been doing, the water used to condense the steam that drives the generators back into water needs to be cool enough to get the job done. When the mercury reaches 98 degrees, as it did Tuesday at St. Pius X High School, it's hard to get the water cool enough to perform that vital function. So, at about 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, unit two at the plant was stepped back by 16 megawatts, just over 1 percent of its full 12,000 megawatt capacity, said Beth Rapczynsky, a spokeswoman for Exelon. The plant's massive cooling towers, visible for miles, take water from the Schuylkill River and use it to cool elements that come into contact with the steam used to drive the two giant electric generators at the plant. Once the steam condenses back into water, it is re-circulated through the reactor, where the nuclear reaction heats it into steam again to drive the generators. When the cooling water leaves its contact with the heat-exchange element, it is normally about 125 degrees and is air cooled in the towers down to about 95 degrees when it goes back to condense the steam. But when the air temperature is 95 degrees or hotter, the water in the towers is not cooled sufficiently to cool the steam fast enough to run the generator at peak capacity, Rapczynsky explained. The reduction is not unusual and has already occurred at many other nuclear plants across the country, particularly in the midwest where the heat wave has been going on for days, she said. It is happening in Europe as well. Reactors in Spain and France, which generates 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, have all been forced to cut output recently because the river water normally used for coolant is too warm, the New York Times reported. ©The Mercury 2006 ----------------------- http://today.reuters.com/stocks/QuoteCompanyNewsArticle.aspx?view=CN&storyID=2006-08-01T164415Z_01_N01446588_RTRIDST_0_UTILITIES-EXELON-QUADCITIES.XML&rpc=66 Exelon reduces power output at Illinois nukes NEW YORK, Aug 1 (Reuters) - With a heat wave warming the Mississippi River water used for cooling at the nuclear power plant in Quad Cities, Illinois, Exelon Corp. has cut the power at the plant about 19 percent, a spokeswoman said on Tuesday. The 867-megawatt Quad Cities reactors were producing about 700 megawatts of power each after the reduction. The plant uses river water to condense steam from the turbine before returning the condensed water back to the reactor, while the river water flows back to the river. With temperatures exceeding 90 degrees in the area around the plant, the hot river water can harm fish and other aquatic life and does not cool the reactor water as efficiently. Meteorologists forecast temperatures in the area around the plant would reach 93 degrees Fahrenheit, according to forecaster AccuWeather. This week, nuclear operators have reduced power output at several reactors due to high water temperatures including Xcel Energy Inc.'s Prairie Island 1 and 2, and Monticello units in Minnesota over the weekend, and Exelon's Dresden 2 unit in Illinois on Monday. The 1,734 MW Quad Cities station is in Cordova in Rock Island County, about 155 miles west of Chicago. There are two 867-MW units, 1 and 2, at the station. Each entered service in 1972. One MW usually powers about 800 homes but during a heat wave a megawatt powers fewer homes. Exelon's unregulated Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary operates the station for its owners, Exelon (75 percent) and Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s MidAmerican Energy Co. subsidiary (25 percent). Exelon owns and operates more than 38,000 MW of generating capacity, markets energy commodities, and transmits and distributes electricity (5.2 million) and natural gas (460,000) to customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------- http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1833620,00.html Heatwave shuts down nuclear power plants Juliette Jowit and Javier Espinoza Sunday July 30, 2006 The Observer The European heatwave has forced nuclear power plants to reduce or halt production. The weather, blamed for deaths and disruption across much of the continent, has caused dramatic rises in the temperature of rivers used to cool the reactors, raising fears of mass deaths for fish and other wildlife. Spain shut down the Santa Maria de Garona reactor on the River Ebro, one of the country's eight nuclear plants which generate a fifth of its national electricity. Reactors in Germany are reported to have cut output, and others in Germany and France have been given special permits to dump hot water into rivers to avoid power failures. France, where nuclear power provides more than three quarters of electricity, has also imported power to prevent shortages. The problems have come to light just weeks after Britain declared it will build a new generation of nuclear power stations, prompting opponents to claim the crisis proved nuclear reactors - although they emit no carbon dioxide greenhouse gases - are not the solution to the problem of global warming. 'The main problem they have is: How are they going to expand nuclear power when they are so vulnerable to such things as global temperature?' said Shaun Burnie, Greenpeace International's nuclear specialist. But Bruno Comby, president of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, said future power stations could have bigger cooling towers, or be built near the sea. 'The big problem the earth is facing today is global warming, it's not a one-degree local increase in [the temperature of] a river,' he added. The heatwave in Britain appeared to break last week, with the Met Office forecasting more normal summer weather this week. Today London and south-east England face a repeat of last week's heavy rains; for the rest of the week the country is expected to alternate between sunny spells, with warm temperatures and showers. However, hotter weather is set to return. 'We could be looking at some very warm weather coming back towards next weekend,' said meteorologist Andrew Sibley. Last week a series of power cuts in central London prompted fears of regular blackouts as global temperatures are predicted to keep rising, bringing more long, hot summers. EDF, the capital's main electricity supplier, said the problems were caused by a 'very unusual' combination of several faults and huge demand for air-conditioning. 'Over the weekend, our engineers are working round the clock to maintain power supplies to the area and avoid any further interruptions,' a company official said. Network Rail, the main rail infrastructure operator, said fewer speed restrictions were expected in cooler temperatures, although track temperatures can rise to 20C above the air temperature on hot days. ----------------------- http://www.lexpress.mu/display_article.php?news_id=69437 http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=qw1153859421305B236 http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411368/796064 Power crisis as Europe heats up Jul 26, 2006 ...Spain's oldest nuclear power plant has been forced to shut after river water got too hot to cool the reactor. __________________________________________________ _____________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 12 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Watchdogs appeal Diablo renewal | 08/03/2006 | In appeal of waste storage permit, Mothers for Peace cites previous violations in handling of hazardous substances By David Sneed dsneed@thetribunenews.com + Lawsuit by Mothers for Peace (PDF) The San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace has appealed a state decision to renew for another 10 years a hazardous waste storage permit for Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, citing past problems at the facility that resulted in nearly $200,000 in fines. The nuclear watchdog group is asking the state Department of Toxic Substances Control to update the plant’s permit to prevent future violations and reflect recent hazardous waste problems at other nuclear facilities across the country. The permit allows Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to store toxic substances, such as chemicals and corrosives, as well as low-level radioactive waste for as long as a year before it is shipped to permanent disposal facilities. The appeal has been referred to Watson Gin, deputy director of the department’s Hazardous Waste Management Program, who will review it to determine if it raises legitimate concerns. If so, he will reopen the permit to public comment and issue a ruling within a month, said Carol Singleton, department spokeswoman. Mothers for Peace referenced several violations that prompted $193,715 in fines against the utility in 2003. The violations listed by the state included failure to keep containers of hazardous waste closed, treatment of hazardous waste in an unauthorized unit and failure to keep proper records. "Mothers for Peace is dismayed that the very agency that found numerous violations at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant is willing to renew the hazardous waste facility permit," said June Cochran, a spokeswoman for the group. The group is also concerned about recent discoveries of leaking spent fuel storage tanks at five other nuclear facilities. The group is concerned that earthquakes could cause similar leaks at Diablo Canyon. Reach David Sneed at 781-7930. ***************************************************************** 13 BBC: Swedish nuclear reactors stopped Last Updated: Thursday, 3 August 2006 [Forsmark nuclear power plant (BBC)] Forsmark supplies one-sixth of Sweden's electricity Four of Sweden's 10 nuclear reactors have been shut down, following an electricity failure. The Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate, SKI, has been holding an emergency meeting, following the incidents at the Oskarshamn and Forsmark plants. The firm operating Oskarshamn, in southern Sweden, stopped two of its three reactors late on Wednesday, citing safety concerns. Last week, two reactors were also shut down at Forsmark, north of Stockholm. Safety checks The two reactors in Oskarshamn - about 250km (150 miles) south of Stockholm - were shut down after the operator said their safety could not be guaranteed. [map] Last week's shutdown in Forsmark - some 75km (46 miles) north of Stockholm - came after a short-circuit in a unit supplying power to the reactors. SKI spokesman Anders Bredfell told the BBC News website that the Forsmark incident ranked as a number two on the 0-7 scale used by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to classify nuclear incidents. "We can't say how long the reactors will remain shut down," he said. He stressed there was "no danger of a meltdown" at Forsmark. He said two of the four backup generators had failed to start there, but two were sufficient to run the plant's cooling system. In addition, the plant has gas turbines that can be used to supply power in an emergency, he said. On Friday SKI asked all of Sweden's other nuclear plants to prove that the same failure could not happen to them, Mr Bredfell explained. "The Oskarshamn reactors were shut down because they couldn't prove that the same thing couldn't happen there," he said. The IAEA was automatically informed about the Forsmark incident, and Sweden's response showed that the procedures for such incidents were working, he added. The environmental group Greenpeace in Sweden has urged the government to stop all nuclear reactors in the country. Sweden plans to phase out all of its reactors in the next few years. ***************************************************************** 14 NRC: NRC Names Directors for New Reactors, National Materials Offices 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. 06-099 August 3, 2006 Luis Reyes, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Executive Director for Operations, has announced the appointments of four program office directors as part of the agency's reorganization. Bill Borchardt will become Director of the Office of New Reactors (NRO) when that office is officially established in January. The Commission recently approved creation of NRO to prepare for an expected series of applications for new power reactor licenses. Borchardt is currently Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. Jim Dyer, currently Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), will remain in that post as the revamped office focuses on the effective regulation and safe operation of the nation's current fleet of commercial power reactors. Charles Miller will become Director of another new program office, provisionally to be called the Office of National Materials Program, that is expected to become operational in October. This new office will combine the Office of State and Tribal Programs (STP) with elements of the current Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) that deal primarily with materials licensing, rulemaking and decommissioning. Miller is currently Director of the Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, part of NMSS that will transition to the new program office. Jack R. Strosnider Jr. will continue as Director of NMSS with its new focus on the nuclear fuel cycle, from uranium processing through fuel manufacturing and reprocessing, transportation, and spent fuel storage and disposal. Biographical information on the four office directors is attached. Deputy directors and the remainder of the senior management for each office will be identified in the coming weeks. ### BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION ON NEW OFFICE DIRECTORS R. William Borchardt joined the NRC in 1983 as a Reactor Engineer in Region I. He has spent nearly his entire career in reactor regulation, including as a Resident Inspector at three nuclear plants, Director of the Inspection Branch Program, Associate Director for Inspection and Programs, and Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. He has also served as Director of the Office of Enforcement, and since April 2006 has been Deputy Director of the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. Mr. Borchardt holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from the U.S. Naval Academy and served as an officer in the U.S. Navy's Nuclear Power Program. Jim Dyer was appointed Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in 2003. He served previously as Regional Administrator for Region III from 1999-2003, and Deputy Regional Administrator in Region IV from 1997. He joined the NRC in 1983 as an Inspector in the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. Before joining the agency, Mr. Dyer worked as an engineering consultant and served as a submarine officer in the U.S. Navy from 1973 to 1977. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Chemistry from the University of California (Davis), a Masters in Business Administration from Frostburg State University in Maryland, and an Associate Degree in Accounting from Montgomery College. Charles L. Miller has served since 2003 as Director of the Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety in the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Since joining the NRC in 1980, Mr. Miller has held progressively important positions in reactor regulation, emergency preparedness and incident response, and materials regulation. He earned a Bachelors degree in Engineering from Widener University and Masters and Doctoral degrees in Chemical Engineering from the University of Maryland. Jack R. Strosnider Jr. was appointed Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards in 2004. Since joining the agency in 1976, Mr. Strosnider has held a variety of positions in the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, and the NRC's Region I office in King of Prussia, Pa. He holds a Bachelors Degree and a Masters Degree in Engineering Mechanics from the University of Missouri at Rolla and a Masters of Business Administration from the University of Maryland. Last revised Thursday, August 03, 2006 ***************************************************************** 15 Aftenposten Nettutgaven: Safety fears at Swedish nuclear plants - Aftenposten.no First published: 03 Aug 2006, 12:28 Norway Two reactors at the nuclear power plant in Oskarshamn were shut down on Wednesday night in response to an accident in Sweden last week. An accident here at the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden last week was called the most serious since Chernobyl. PHOTO: JANERIK HENRIKSSOn A construction error that may have been behind the accident at the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden last week may be present in all of the reactors in Sweden. The mishap at Forsmark on July 25 could, according to Swedish nuclear power consultant Lars-Olvo Höglund, have led to a meltdown of the reactor and radioactive fallout. Höglund called the incident the most serious since Chernobyl, an assessment somewhat disputed by authorities. The shutdown at the Oskarshamn plant came because management "could not guarantee security", Swedish newspaper Expressen reports. Two of three reactors at Oskarshamn were closed pending a check for the fault that affected the Forsmark plant. The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SKI) has asked for a thorough report from all nuclear reactors in the country after the Forsmark accident. "If it is the case that the error is present in the other reactors they will be closed today," SKI inspector Christer Karsson told Expressen on Thursday. A short circuit at Forsmark caused an immediate shutdown in one of three reactors. At this point cooling must begin at once but only two of four diesel generators began the automatic process of pumping water to carry this out. Höglund said that "only luck" prevented disaster, as all of the generators shared the same construction error. A nuclear disaster in Sweden would have serious consequences for Norway, far greater than Chernobyl, said nuclear physicist Nils Bűhmer at environmental group Bellona. "It is surprising that this happens in Sweden, which has an extremely strict safety system for their nuclear power plants. I have been to Forsmark myself and there is a large difference between safety thinking there and, for example, in Russian plants," Bűhmer said. "That such an accident can occur in a Swedish nuclear power plant - which has been considered the safest of the safe - shows that we can never be 100 percent sure about a nuclear power plant. This should get alarm bells to ring for those around the world that are considering new nuclear power plants," Bűhmer said. Aftenposten's Norwegian reporter Kristin Solberg Aftenposten English Web Desk Jonathan Tisdall Publisher: Aftenposten Multimedia A/S, Oslo, Norway.Telephone: +47 - 22 86 30 00. All rights, including copyright and database right, are owned by or licensed to Aftenposten Multimedia.© Aftenposten Multimedia. ***************************************************************** 16 THERECORD.COM: Energy forum aims to change attitudes INSIDER | BOB BURTT CAMBRIDGE (Aug 3, 2006) Three years after 10 million Ontario residents were left in the dark by a massive blackout Cambridge and North Dumfries Hydro is organizing a forum to promote solar energy and a conservation culture. The forum at the Cambridge School of Architecture will focus on solar energy, electricity conservation, the province's new standard offer contract, net metering and initiatives being offered by the hydro corporation. The forum will be held Aug.14 from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on the third floor of the school. The standard offer contract was introduced by the province earlier this year to provide subsidies to small producers who install solar or wind energy systems to help meet the province's energy needs. Net metering measures not only the energy used by small producers but the energy produced as well. Under that scheme homeowners are allowed to deduct the value of energy they produce from their regular bills. Conserving power and finding better ways to run the electricity system became hot topics in the wake of the August 2003 blackout. John Grotheer, the president of Cambridge Hydro, said the blackout wasn't caused by a lack of conservation, but rather because of poor maintenance and other issues in the United States. "But the week after, we did have to ask people to conserve rather dramatically," as the system got back on its feet. "It takes a lot of small pieces put together to change culture and habits." Grotheer said the province is better able to avoid blackouts now than they were a few years ago because of planning done by the Ontario Power Authority. But consumers still have a role to play. "I think it is more of a matter of saving energy so we reduce waste." By reducing demand at peak times, the province can avoid using more expensive types of generation such as natural gas. "There are plants that only run a few hundred hours a year because of environmental concerns and the price of the inputs so if they don't run them or run them less the price will be lower." Grotheer said homeowners have enjoyed lower prices for electricity this summer because of better planning to meet peak demand. Last July, the average price of power was 8.1 cents and this year it dropped to 5.2 cents per kilowatt. Fewer bouts of prolonged heat, fewer imports and having more nuclear facilities on stream this summer have all helped, Grotheer said. Grotheer will speak at a Cambridge forum about electricity constraints, the need for conservation and load shifting (using power at off peak periods) and alternative energy sources. Ian Rowlands, an associate professor at the University of Waterloo and an expert in solar energy will talk about the potential for electricity from solar photovoltaic panels and how much money can be generated by solar systems. The event is open to the public and those attending will receive free energy kits containing compact fluorescent light bulbs and other energy saving tips. 160 King St. East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5 519-894-2231 [Torstar Digital] [City Media Group] ***************************************************************** 17 THERECORD.COM: Nuclear power on the move | INSIDER | Cambridge-built steam generator readies for slow journey north KILLEEN KELLY BRENT DAVIS, RECORD STAFF Project manager Garry Astles of Babcock &Wilcox Canada stands near a steam generator bound for the Bruce Power nuclear plant. CAMBRIDGE (Aug 3, 2006) A mammoth steam generator making its way north from Cambridge today will be raising the roof on the Bruce Power plant in the coming weeks. The 100-tonne, four-storey generator is the first of 16 to be delivered as part of the nuclear reactor refurbishment at Bruce A Units 1 and 2 near Tiverton. The delivery demonstrates the magnitude of the project and shows work is moving along, Bruce chief executive Duncan Hawthorne said. "A lot of the work that's been done is not as visible to the community," he said. "These steam generators are mounted vertically inside the reactor, so what we have to do is cut holes in the roof of the building." One of the largest cranes in the world will be assembled on site to manoeuvre the old steam generators through the roof of the building and replace them with the new ones. Hawthorn called the process "a very complex technical undertaking." Complex, too, is the process of moving the generator 257 kilometres north from Cambridge's Babcock and Wilcox Canada plant to Bruce Power. A trip that normally takes two and a half hours will take about eight hours. Departure time is set for 5 a.m. today. Planning the routes and the necessary safety measures to meet Ministry of Transportation requirements alone took more than two years, said Ted Wilken, senior transportation contract manager at Babcock &Wilcox Canada. A "prime mover" multi-axle transport trailer with 96 tires will distribute the weight of the generator down the length of the trailer, Wilken said. The equipment will be loaded horizontally. Two police cars will accompany the truck as it moves through Palmerston, Harriston, Walkerton and Kincardine, averaging a speed of 35 to 40 kilometres an hour. "When we're in towns we're probably going to have to close off a couple of lanes at an intersection to get through, but we're talking about minutes," Wilken said. The steam generators are crafted primarily out of carbon steel and Inconel 800 -- an expensive chrome and nickel alloy, said Garry Astles, a senior project manager at Babcock &Wilcox. The steam created in the complex heating and cooling process within the generator powers the turbine that creates the electricity. "It's essentially a big kettle," Astles said. "When you get to the steam turbine there's essentially no difference between the fossil fuel plant when it was burning coal and the nuclear power plant." Babcock &Wilcox will produce all 16 generators for Units 1 and 2 by 2007 and will deliver an additional eight for Unit 3. When both units are refurbished and powered up, they will boost the station's output by 1,500 megawatts, which equals about 10 per cent of Ontario's average daily demand, Hawthorne said. Although the two reactors are expected to be feeding the grid by 2009, Hawthorne is concentrating on challenges that are closer at hand. "We have to manage ourselves around the winter weather," he said. "Obviously, we can't have these holes in the roof when we get our normal lake effect snow in Bruce County." kikelly@therecord.com NUCLEAR FACTS Nuclear energy provides 51 per cent of Ontario's electricity. Ontario has 20 of Canada's 22 reactor units. 80 per cent of all electricity-generating plants in Ontario will need to be refurbished or replaced in the next 15 to 20 years. 441 nuclear power reactors are operating in 30 countries. 27 new nuclear reactor plants are under construction. Canadian Nuclear Association 160 King St. East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5 519-894-2231 [Torstar Digital] [City Media Group] ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-12513 [Federal Register: August 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 149)] [Notices] [Page 44046-44048] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03au06-76] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 45-10414-01, for Unrestricted Release of the James Madison University's Miller Hall Facility in Harrisonburg, VA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas K. Thompson, Sr. Health Physicist, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; telephone (610) 337- 5303; fax number (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: tkt@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 45- 10414-01. This license is held by James Madison University (the Licensee), located at Harrisonburg, Virginia. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of Miller Hall, located on the James Madison University Campus, for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated November 28, 2005. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register. II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's November 28, 2005, license amendment request, resulting in release of Miller Hall for unrestricted use. License No. 45-10414-01 was issued in 1964, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use sealed and unsealed byproduct materials for purposes of conducting research and development activities on laboratory bench tops and in hoods, for teaching and training of students, and calibration of instruments. Miller Hall is situated on the James Madison University Campus in Harrisonburg, Virginia. Miller Hall is a 77,977 square foot building containing teaching laboratories and classrooms, research laboratories, office/storage areas, a large lecture hall and a planetarium. Miller Hall (the Facility) is surrounded on three sides by other James Madison University Campus [[Page 44047]] academic buildings and on the fourth side by Rockingham Memorial Hospital and Cancer Center. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to Rooms G21, G22, G22A, and 110. On May 10, 2005, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with its NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 30.36(g), the Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted use of Miller Hall. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of many radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted a historical site assessment of byproduct materials activities in the areas of the Facility affected by these radionuclides and determined that residual contamination from operations was unlikely. The Licensee conducted a final status survey on October 18, 2005. This survey covered Rooms G21, G22, G22A, 110, and the adjacent corridor. The final status survey report was submitted with the Licensee's amendment request dated November 28, 2005. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. NRC considers these DCGLs to represent levels that are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), and in compliance with the ALARA requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The Licensee's final status survey results for randomized samples were below these DCGLs, and are thus acceptable here for use as release criteria. Based on its review, the NRC staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Further, no incidents were recorded involving spills or releases of radioactive material at the Facility. Accordingly, there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has found no other radiological or non- radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Miller Hall facility described above for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d) requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Virginia Department of Health for review on March 23, 2006. On March 23, 2006, the Virginia Department of Health responded by email. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. [[Page 44048]] (1) Amendment request dated November 28, 2005 (ML053430158); (2) Additional information provided by the Licensee on January 13, 2006 (ML060190077); (3) Additional information provided by the Licensee on May 8, 2006 (ML061290167); (4) Federal Register Notice, Volume 65, No. 114, page 37186, dated Tuesday, June 13, 2000, ``Use of Screening Values to Demonstrate Compliance With The Federal Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' (5) Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' (6) Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;'' (7) NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities''. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA this 20th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety. Region I. [FR Doc. E6-12513 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 19 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-12514 [Federal Register: August 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 149)] [Notices] [Page 44048-44049] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03au06-77] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1990, for Unrestricted Release of the West Virginia University Institute of Technology's Engineering Classroom Building in Montgomery, WV AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betsy Ullrich, Senior Health Physicist, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; telephone (610) 337-5040; fax number (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: exu@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1990. This license is held by the West Virginia University Institute of Technology (the Licensee) for its Department of Physics, located at 405 Fayette Place in Montgomery, West Virginia. Issuance of the amendment would authorize Room 105 of the Department of Physics' Engineering Classroom Building (the Facility) to be released for unrestricted use. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated August 9, 2005. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register. II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's August 9, 2005, license amendment request, resulting in Room 105 (where licensed materials were used or stored) being released for unrestricted use. License No. SNM-1990 was issued on April 30, 1991, pursuant to 10 CFR parts 40 and 70, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use plutonium-239 and uranium for purposes of storage only until transferred to an authorized recipient. This license superceded License No. SNM-608 (issued June 14, 1965 to authorize the use of plutonium-239 sealed neutron sources for educational and research activities) and License No. SUD-869 (issued April 22, 1966 for use of natural uranium in sub-critical assemblies for educational and research purposes). The Facility is situated on the Licensee's 110-acre campus, which is located in a rural area. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to Room 105, which has approximately 47 square meters of floor area. On June 7, 2005, the Licensee ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of Room 105. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with its NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. Therefore, the Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC. The Licensee conducted surveys of Room 105 and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities in Room 105, and seeks its unrestricted use. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted in Room 105 shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclide with half-life greater than 120 days: Natural uranium. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the Room 105 areas affected by the use of natural uranium. The Licensee conducted surveys in Room 105 on June 7, 2005, and January 12, 2006, as reflected in the Licensee's amendment request dated August 9, 2005, and subsequent submittals. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR part 20 for unrestricted release. The NRC considers these DCGLs to be in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The [[Page 44049]] Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs, and are thus acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). Further, no incidents were recorded involving spills or releases of radioactive material at the Facility. Accordingly, there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has found no other radiological or non-radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility described above for unrestricted use is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity in Room 105 and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 40.42(d) and 70.38(d), requiring that decommissioning of source and special nuclear material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that Room 105 meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the State of West Virginia for review on May 17, 2006. On June 20, 2006, the State of West Virginia responded by electronic mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. (1) Letter dated August 9, 2005, transmitting the ``Final Status Survey for Decommissioning for West Virginia University Institute of Technology Engineering Classroom Building Room 105'' [ML052280399]; (2) Additional information in letters dated November 7, 2005 [ML053200348] and January 19, 2006 [ML060240555], and by facsimile February 10, 2006 [ML060470436]; (3) Federal Register Notice, Volume 65, No. 114, page 37186, dated Tuesday, June 13, 2000, ``Use of Screening Values to Demonstrate Compliance With The Federal Rule on Radiological Criteria for License Termination''; (4) Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination''; (5) Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions''; (6) NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities.'' If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 20th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E6-12514 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-12515 [Federal Register: August 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 149)] [Notices] [Page 44049-44052] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03au06-78] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Source Materials License No. SMA 1018, Approving Revision 2 of the Erosion Sediment Pollution Control Plan for Excavation of Wetlands Areas at the Whittaker Corporation's Facility in Transfer, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie McLaughlin, Health Physicist, [[Page 44050]] Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406-1415; telephone (610) 337-5240; fax number (610) 337-5269; or by e-mail: . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Source Materials License No. SMA- 1018. This license is held by Whittaker Corporation (the Licensee), for its Whittaker facility (the Facility), located at 99 Crestview Drive in Transfer, Pennsylvania. Issuance of the amendment would approve a revision to the license tie-down document, ``Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plan for Phase 1 and Phase 2 Activities at the Whittaker Remediation Site (ESPCP).'' The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated May 24, 2006. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register. II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would grant the Licensee's May 24, 2006, license amendment request, thereby approving Revision 2 of the ESPCP. Specifically, the ESPCP describes the Licensee's activities at the Facility that involve excavation and/or other forms of earth disturbance. The ESPCP also describes the engineering and programmatic controls the Licensee will implement during any such activities to minimize the potential for accelerated erosion and sedimentation. Accelerated erosion is the removal of surface soils by natural processes and human activity at a faster rate than would occur due to the natural processes alone. Sedimentation is the action of depositing sediment (e.g., soil) in a body of water. The proposed action would approve the Licensee's revision to the ESPCP to allow for excavation of material within Facility areas that are delineated as wetlands. The specific contents of the ESPCP are described in more detail in a later section of this report. License No. SMA-1018 was issued on December 15, 1969, pursuant to 10 CFR part 40, and has been amended periodically since that time. The license authorized the possession and use of unsealed source material (natural thorium and natural uranium) contained in ores used for minerals processing and as a contaminant that was isolated by the processing of scrap metal. The Facility originally consisted of a plant and a slag waste storage area. In 1974, the Licensee ceased licensed operations at the Facility, and initiated decommissioning of plant equipment and buildings. Waste slag, raw materials, feed-metal scrap, and contaminated building materials that were generated from the decontamination activities were placed in the slag storage area. The portion of the property housing the plant was released for unrestricted use in 1975, following the performance of a confirmatory survey by the NRC. An additional plant building was decommissioned in 1983 and released for unrestricted use in 1985. The plant is an active facility under a new owner (Greenville Metals), who is not associated with the Licensee. Greenville Metals processes and refines scrap and other metals to produce metal alloys and conversion products. Greenville Metals does not utilize NRC-licensed radioactive material, and is separated from the Whittaker property by metal fencing. The current Facility consists of the slag area, located on an irregularly-shaped, 5.9 acre strip of land, that is characterized by four sections according to topography and site use. Facility topography (prior to the initiation of decommissioning) had been built up through the repeated disposal of slag, scrap metal, debris, and foundry sand. The Facility is bordered by an access road to the north, Greenville Metals to the west and south, and the Shenango River to the east. The Facility is located within an industrial park. There are no buildings remaining (with the exception of temporary trailers supplied by the decommissioning contractor), and the surrounding area is primarily rural. In July 2004, the Licensee initiated decommissioning activities, involving excavation of the slag material and shipment to an authorized disposal facility. The NRC has required the Licensee to monitor the current Facility for signs of erosion from the time when it was used only as a storage area for the radioactive slag material. The slag piles had reached elevations of 20 feet or more above the adjoining river flood plain. The proximity of the Facility to the river, coupled with the steep slope of the slag piles were the initial motivation for implementing erosion controls to guard against offsite migration of contaminated material. When the Licensee commenced decommissioning activities, a more robust erosion control program was required. NRC approved the previous ESPCP revision with the most recent license renewal. The EA associated with that renewal was published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 179). The current and proposed ESPCPs describe the controls that are to be implemented during Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Facility decommissioning operation. Phase 1 involved the removal of staged debris and slag from a concrete pad located on the Facility, and is complete. Phase 2 involves excavation and removal of slag material from other Facility areas, and is currently in progress. The proposed ESPCP amendment involves excavation of material located within the site-delineated wetlands areas. As defined in the Clean Water Act (CWA), wetlands are, ``those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas [Source: 40 CFR 230.3(t)].'' Section 404 of the CWA establishes the program that regulates the discharge of material into U.S. waters, including wetlands. Activities within wetlands areas are evaluated and controlled through a permitting process, which grants approval of proposed actions. Significant activities are approved by individual permits. Activities that are determined to have minimal adverse effects may be granted a general permit. The program is developed and enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). State environmental agencies involvement may consist of assuming either the general permitting process or the entire permitting program. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) has assumed the authority for general permit reviews for proposed activities in wetlands within the Commonwealth. The current ESPCP is a part of the Licensee's NRC license. Amendments to the ESPCP require an amendment to the license. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of actions under their [[Page 44051]] jurisdiction. Although the decommissioning activities described in the proposed ESPCP do not differ from those already approved by the NRC in the licensee's current operating procedures, their application to Facility wetlands areas requires NRC to perform this assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed action. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee is no longer using licensed materials at the Facility, and has initiated site decommissioning. The Licensee is preparing a formal Decommissioning Plan (DP) that will describe the methods and procedures to complete decommissioning activities, and will submit the DP as a separate amendment request. Until the NRC approves the Licensee's DP, decommissioning activities must be performed in accordance with NRC-approved procedures. This amendment request involves such a procedure and the action allows the licensee to continue site cleanup activities until the DP is approved. In accordance with 10 CFR 20.1402, a site may be considered for unrestricted release if the residual radioactivity results in a total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) that does not exceed 25 millirem per year (mrem/yr). To meet this dose criterion, the Licensee must remediate (decommission) the Facility by removing and appropriately disposing of radioactive materials that result in a TEDE that is greater than 25 mrem/yr. The Licensee identified that radioactive materials are present in the subsurface soils of Facility wetlands areas. Removal of these materials is necessary to effect Facility decommissioning. The Licensee will follow the proposed ESPCP to provide protection to the affected wetlands and waterway while removing this material. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action Both the previous and the proposed ESPCP revisions provide a brief description of the site, its history and current activities, and topography and soil makeup. There is also no change to the method for preventing sediments generated from storm water runoff from entering the wetlands areas and the Shenango River. Installed silt fencing at the base of the slag pile slopes remains the control method for this situation. The fencing in some locations is 30-inch filter fabric reinforced with staked straw bales and 33-inch filter fabric supported by chain link fence in other locations. In addition to the silt fencing, which will remain installed both during and in-between excavation activities, weekly site walkdowns are performed during active excavation campaigns. The walkdowns include inspection and maintenance of the silt fencing and removal of any built up debris or sediment from the base of the fencing. Any necessary repairs to the fencing are reported to the appropriate Commonwealth agency. During periods of Facility inactivity (i.e., winter shut-down), the site walkdowns are performed monthly. The proposed action does not involve a change to the silt fencing use or design, or to the site walkdowns. The current ESPCP describes the delineation of Facility wetlands and certifies that slag and material removal from these areas will be performed by hand (i.e., heavy equipment will not be used and excavations will not be involved). The current ESPCP does allow for material excavation using heavy equipment within the Facility floodway areas, and specifies that such activities will only remove material from the floodway, and will not add any. The current ESPCP was submitted to the PADEP as a section of the Facility Restoration Plan, which was provided to meet the Commonwealth's requirements for approving Facility activities. The Commonwealth approved the current ESPCP and determined that the proposed activities had no significant environmental impacts, and qualified for a waiver from the permit requirements in accordance with 25 PA Code 105.12. NRC approved the current ESPCP as part of the most recent license renewal, as described previously in this report. The proposed activity amends the ESPCP to allow for excavation of material from within the Facility-delineated wetlands. The proposed ESPCP states that soil borings may be obtained from within this area using a boring machine, so that the soil may be analyzed for the presence of radioactive material. In addition, excavation of material within this area may be performed, and some trees removed so that radioactive slag within the root systems may be accessed and disposed. The ESPCP proposes to minimize the environmental impacts from these activities by: Extending the silt fencing to contain these areas; setting up the excavating equipment in non-wetlands areas and, to the extent possible, extending the reach of the arm so that only the bucket impacts the wetlands (i.e., rather than driving an excavator truck over the wetlands soil); and minimizing the amount of soil removed from the wetlands. The proposed ESPCP commits that the Licensee will restore the wetland, floodway, and riverbank upon completion of slag removal. The specific restoration activities will require PADEP approval and will be provided in a later ESPCP revision. The Licensee submitted the proposed ESPCP to PADEP as a revision to the Facility Restoration Plan. PADEP approved the revision on April 19, 2006, and again determined that the proposed activities qualify for a waiver from the permitting requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed activity will have a minimal effect on environmental resources. The activities described in the proposed ESPCP involve removal of material from within Facility wetlands areas, but the amount of material and the impact to these areas will be minimized to the extent possible. Additionally, the proposed activity provides for the use of engineering barriers (silt fencing) to prevent migration of sediment and contaminants into the river. The proposed activity involves only the removal of soil and slag material. The Licensee will not be adding material to the wetlands or waterway under this proposed action. Based on its review, the staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the proposed action is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would deny the amendment request for the proposed ESPCP. This alternative would result in no environmental impacts, but would prohibit the removal of contaminated material from the Facility wetlands areas. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 20.1402, requiring licensees to verify that residual radioactivity meets the radiological unrestricted release criteria. The Licensee may not be able to meet the unrestricted release criteria if the material in these areas is not removed from the Facility and appropriately disposed. Additionally, denying the amendment request would prevent the Licensee from completing decommissioning in the timeframe required by 10 CFR 40.42(h). The environmental impacts of the proposed action are not significant, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent NRC guidance and regulations. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes [[Page 44052]] that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to PADEP for review on June 9, 2006. On June 14, 2006, PADEP responded by email that PADEP staff involved with both radiation protection and with watershed management reviewed the EA. PADEP agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. Amendment request with Erosion and Sediment Pollution Control Plan Revision 2, dated May 24, 2006 (ML061570151); 2. Title 25, Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 105, ``Dam Safety and Waterway Management;'' 3. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 230, Section 404(b)(1), ``Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material;'' 4. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' 5. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, ``Domestic Licensing of Source Material;'' 6. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;'' If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 25th day of July. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Marie Miller, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E6-12515 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-12516 [Federal Register: August 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 149)] [Notices] [Page 44045-44046] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03au06-75] of No Significant Impact for License Termination for Esperion Therapeutics, Inc, Ann Arbor, MI AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. [[Page 44046]] ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Peter J. Lee, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532- 4352. Telephone: 630-829-9870; fax number: 630-515-1259; e-mail: pjl2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuing a license termination of Material License No. 21-32115-01 issued to Esperion Therapeutics, Inc. (the licensee), to authorize release of its Ann Arbor facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to terminate Byproduct Material License No. 21-32115-01 issued to Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., and release its Ann Arbor, Michigan facility for unrestricted use. On September 24, 1998, the NRC authorized the licensee to use labeled compounds such as hydrogen-3, carbon-14, phosphorus-32, phosphorus-33, sulfur-35, etc. for research and development. On May 17, 2006, the licensee submitted a license termination request to release its Ann Arbor facility for unrestricted use. The licensee has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402, ``Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted Use.'' The staff has examined the licensee's request and the information provided in support of its request, including the surveys performed to demonstrate compliance with the release criteria. The staff has found that the radiological environmental impacts from the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated in the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities'' (NUREG-1496). Additionally, no non-radiological or cumulative impacts were identified. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action and a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, the NRC concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: ML061390181 for the May 17, 2006, license termination request and ML062020314 for the EA summarized above. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 24th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region III. [FR Doc. E6-12516 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: and 171, expanded defination of byproduct material FR Doc E6-12517 [Federal Register: August 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 149)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 43996-43997] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03au06-18] RIN 3150-AH84 Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material; Meeting AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; meeting. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has published a proposed rule on the Requirements for the Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material (also known as the NARM rulemaking) for public comment (71 FR 42952; July 28, 2006). The public comment period runs from July 28 thru September 11, 2006. As part of the public comment process, the NRC plans to hold a transcribed public meeting to solicit comments on the proposed rule. The meeting is open to the public, and all interested parties may attend. The meeting will be held at the NRC's William Oldstead High-Level Waste Hearing Facility in Las Vegas, Nevada. During the comment period, comments may also be mailed to the NRC or submitted via fax or e-mail. DATES: August 22, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. (PT) in Las Vegas, NV. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the NRC's William Oldstead High- Level Waste Hearing Facility--Pacific Enterprise Plaza, Building No. 1, 3250 Pepper Lane, Las Vegas, Nevada 89120. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lydia Chang, telephone: (301) 415- 6319, e-mail: or Jayne McCausland, telephone: (301) 415- 6219, e-mail: of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001. Attendees are requested to notify Jayne McCausland, telephone: (301) 415-6219, e-mail: to preregister for the meetings. You will be able to register at the meetings, as well. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting is to obtain stakeholder comments on the Proposed Rule for Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material. Section 651(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 expanded the definition of byproduct material in Section 11e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to include certain naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM) and required the NRC to provide a regulatory framework for licensing and regulating NARM. The [[Page 43997]] proposed rule would require persons owning, using, or otherwise engaging in activities involving discrete sources of radium-226 or accelerator-produced radioactive material to comply with NRC regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Agenda: Welcome--10 minutes; NRC Staff Presentation on Proposed Rule Requirements--30 minutes; Public Comment--remainder. To ensure that everyone who wishes has the chance to comment, we may impose a time limit on speakers. Those planning to attend the meeting are encouraged to preregister for the meeting by notifying Ms. Jayne M. McCausland, telephone: (301) 415-6219, fax: (301) 415-5369, or e-mail: . If an attendee will require special services, such as services for the hearing impaired, please notify Ms. McCausland of these requirements when preregistering. Attendees at this public meeting will be subject to security screening prior to entering the hearing facility. Attendees should plan to arrive approximately 30 minutes prior to the meeting. There is no food or drink (other than water) allowed in the hearing facility. Parking in front of the building is limited, but ample street parking is available nearby on Pepper Lane and Sage Brush. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of July, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Charles Miller, Director, Division of Industrial, Medical, Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-12517 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 23 NRC: Notice of Denial of License Amendment Request of FMRI, Muskogee, FR Doc E6-12518 [Federal Register: August 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 149)] [Notices] [Page 44044-44045] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03au06-74] OK, and Opportunity To Request a Hearing AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of denial of license amendment request, and opportunity to request a hearing. DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by August 23, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. C. Shepherd, Project Engineer, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T7 E18, Washington, DC, 20555, telephone: (301) 415-6712; e-mail: jcs2@nrc.gov; fax number (301) 415-5398. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction FMRI is the holder of a source material license issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 40. By letter dated March 31, 2006 (ML060950342), FMRI submitted a license amendment application to the NRC requesting a modification of Materials License SMB-911, Condition 45, for its site located in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Condition 45 requires the licensee to update the financial projections in Tables 15-11 and 15-12 of its approved Decommissioning Plan (DP) from the current year through completion of decommissioning. The request would remove the requirement for updating Table 15-12 and replace it with: ``FMRI shall submit * * * Form 10-K for Fansteel Inc. within five business days after filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission and a representative shall be available to the NRC on an annual basis upon timely [[Page 44045]] request to discuss any matters disclosed in the Form 10-K.'' The NRC staff is denying FMRI's license amendment request because the proposed change does not provide assurance that the NRC will obtain sufficient information about FMRI's future financial ability to meet its decommissioning obligations under the approved DP, as more fully set forth in the staff's letter to FMRI dated July 27, 2006 (ML061710551). II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a license amendment to modify financial reporting requirements for FMRI. In accordance with the general requirements in Subpart C of 10 CFR Part 2, as amended on January 14, 2004, (69 FR 2182), any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party must file a written request for a hearing. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(a), a request for a hearing must be filed with the Commission either by: 1. First class mail addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications; 2. Courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays; 3. E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or 4. By 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. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b), all documents offered for filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to the proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or by rule or order of the Commission, including: 1. The applicant, FMRI, Inc., 10 Tantalum Place, Muskogee, Oklahoma 74403; and 2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of the General Counsel, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hearing requests should also be transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725, or by e-mail to ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov. The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), (d), and (e), must be met. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.304 (f), a document filed by electronic mail or facsimile transmission need not comply with the formal requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d), as long as an original and two (2) copies otherwise complying with all of the requirements of 10 CFR 2.304(b), (c), and (d) are mailed within two (2) days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2), a request for a hearing must be filed by August 23, 2006. In addition to meeting other applicable requirements a person other than FMRI requesting a hearing on this matter must state: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester; 2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1), a person other than FMRI requesting a hearing on this matter must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the license amendment request that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the request fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief. Contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer. Requesters/ petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so in writing within ten days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310. III. Further Information The license amendment request and any information referenced therein may be made available pursuant to a protective order and subject to applicable security requirements upon a showing that the petitioner has an interest that may be affected by the proceeding. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-12518 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 24 Rutland Herald: Nuclear is not the answer Rutland Vermont News & Information August 3, 2006 By CHAD SIMMONS On June 21, an opinion piece was penned by Peggy Farabaugh touting the need for Vermont Yankee and nuclear power to combat global warming. After researching her claims, I found these conclusions to be utterly irresponsible and in some instances completely false. The organization, Greenpeace International (www.greenpeace.org) fervently opposes the use of any kind of nuclear production and has done so since its inception. I can only assume Ms. Farabaugh was referring to Patrick Moore's opinion piece entitled "Going Nuclear" from The Washington Post dated April 16. What Ms. Farabaugh forgot to mention was that Moore in no way represents Greenpeace. While he was previously associated with the organization, Moore is currently a corporate consultant and co-chairman for the Clean Safe Energy Coalition (a pro-nuclear energy consortium) funded by the Nuclear Energy Institute (the trade association of reactor operators). Mr. Moore makes a lot of money promoting nuclear energy. This claim that Greenpeace supports nuclear is nothing more than complete misinformation. If others are interested in learning what Greenpeace really has to say about nuclear, read their catalogue of reports detailing the dangers nuclear energy poses. Secondly, in reference to the MIT/Harvard study that Ms. Farabaugh peddles as a clarion call for nuclear power, this is an extremely irresponsible representation of the study's true objective. The study's intent was not to give an accurate and realistic depiction of nuclear energy, but rather to give this painfully weak argument legitimacy. The primary conclusions reached by the study clearly specify that nuclear will not be a solution unless numerous factors align simultaneously and the natural world did not exist. The cost of their recommendations, for instance building 1,000 new reactors by 2050, would cost trillions of dollars and be heavily reliant on taxpayer subsides. Their conclusions dramatically underplay the deadly human and environmental impacts. Each new reactor built would produce approximately 20 million tons of carbon dioxide. The study recommends these reactors be once-through fuel cycles, as is the case with Vermont Yankee, which produces a large amount of radioactive nuclear waste. In the industry's more than 50-year history, there has been no active solution to waste disposal. The report does little to address how uranium will be dealt with. Uranium ore is a finite resource like oil and is extremely polluting. In short, this study serves little relevance within the reality of the global warming debate. Thirdly, Ms. Farabaugh's analysis (sadly, as does the MIT study) rests on the sole notion that global warming is about carbon emissions. I am saddened that this issue has been framed as such. The core issue of global warming is the negative human impact on the earth. To say otherwise is an oversimplification of a complex and urgent issue. The solution to this lies in humans finding harmony with the earth, not an attempt to bully it into submission. Finally, I am deeply concerned and disappointed that Ms. Farabaugh, as adjunct associate professor of environmental health and safety with Tulane University's School of Public Health distance learning program and member of the Vermont Energy Partnership, would use such sloppy research and deceive the public in the manner she did. I expect a great deal from our higher education institutions that prepare our future for what lies ahead. This is not what I nor the public had in mind and this does not bode well for the critical decisions that must be made by our citizens and representatives regarding energy production in Vermont and the United States. Nuclear energy is not a solution to global warming and is not a viable energy solution for the people of Vermont. The citizens of Vermont deserve the truth about nuclear and deserve efficient, safe and clean energy solutions for the future. Chad Simmons is a graduate student at the School for International Training in Brattleboro, studying citizen involvement within the nuclear energy debate. © 2006 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 25 Prague Daily Monitor: Temelin staff fails to connect turbine to grid - "http://www.praguemonitor.com Ceske Budejovice, Aug 2 (CTK) - The staff at the nuclear power plant in Temelin have connected the turbine of the second unit to the power grid early this morning but 20 minutes later the turbine was disconnected as its temperature rose slightly, Temelin spokesman Milan Nebesar told CTK. "The turbine's temperature rose by 2 degrees Celsius, and one of the protection systems automatically disconnected it," said Nebesar. When the turbine will be connected again will be decided later this morning. The second block had to be shut down on Monday night because of a leak in the turbine's regulatory oil system. The first unit is also shut down for refuelling. The second block was out of operation for five days in early July because of a defect on the generator switch. joz/er This story copyright 2006 CTK Czech News Agency. [The Prague Daily Monitor uses the CTK news service, which ***************************************************************** 26 CBC: Critics slam power authority's proposed budget boost "Radio-Canada" [CBC] [CBC.ca] CANADA | TORONTO Story Tools: E-MAIL | PRINT | Last Updated: Thursday, August 3, 2006 | 3:25 PM ET CBC News Ontario's power grid may have survived the recent heat wave, but a storm is now brewing around the agency in charge of the province's electricity conservation. The recently created Ontario Power Authority (OPA) has requested a $57-million budget next year, an 85 per cent increase over this year's budget. Opposition parties have condemned the move, saying there is no justification for a budget increase and little change will come from it. "This is empire building, yet you're still not going to have a viable electricity supply plan, or a viable electricity conservation plan," said NDP leader Howard Hampton. He said the the provincially owned agency has so far failed to produce a conservation plan to help Ontario when there is a tight supply of electricity. The agency was most recently involved in recommending the province invest $70 billion over the next two decades to ensure a stable energy supply for the future. Based on OPA's report, the provincial government unveiled a plan in June largely focusing on conservation, renewable energy and the building of new nuclear reactors. Others say the money will end up creating additional bureaucratic layers — in an organization that was never supposed to be bureaucratic. When Energy Minister Dwight Duncan set up the OPA 1Âœ years ago, he stated the agency would not be another bureaucracy. The goal was to create an agency to plan the province's future energy supply and create a culture of energy conservation. Duncan denied those  accusations, arguing a large part of the increase is going toward conservation programs, which are just beginning to ramp up efforts. OPA vice-president Mary Ellen Richardson said half of the increase will be invested in conservation efforts with the other half spent on an energy supply plan for the province. "We have an important mandate, and 2007 is an important year for the Ontario Power Authority and frankly the electricity system," she said. + August 3, 2006 | 6:35 PM EDT more » Copyright © CBC 2006 ***************************************************************** 27 AFP: US says Pakistan's new nuclear reactor not very powerful - press August 3, 08:33 PM US says Pakistan's new nuclear reactor not very powerful: press WASHINGTON (AFP) - The nuclear reactor being built in Pakistan is much smaller than a private arms control group has claimed and could simply be a replacement for the Khushab reactor that makes two nuclear warheads a year, The New York Times has reported. The US government's intelligence data shows that the new reactor is roughly the same size as the one functioning in Khushab, and not 20 times larger as the Institute for Science and International Security said in a technical assessment, goverment officials told the newspaper. International observers reacted with alarm after the Washington Post on June 24 reported the reactor's existence, citing the US-based private arms-control group. The group said satellite photos showed the heavy-water reactor could produce more than 200 kilogrammes (440 pounds) of weapons-grade plutonium a year. This would be enough to make 40-50 nuclear weapons every year. "We have consulted with our experts and believe the analysis is wrong," National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones told the NYT. "The reactor is expected to be substantially smaller and less capable than reported." Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior intelligence official said the United States has been tracking the new reactor for years. "This has been looked at for a long time and hasnt generated a lot of hand-wringing," the official said. "It could be a replacement," of Pakistan's existing nuclear reactor at Khushab. Institute president David Albright said he was "confident in our evidence and calculations," and reminded the daily of the US government's poor track record in analyzing its own intelligence, inviting it to present "the reasons it thinks we're wrong." The Times noted that the US government's more modest assessment could be in deference to Pakistan's role as a key US ally in the war against terrorism. Pakistan remains at the heart of an investigtion into a nuclear blackmarket headed by its disgraced chief nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, who confessed in 2004 to passing atomic secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri recently said the new nuclear reactor five years in the making was not a threat and would not spark an arms race with rival India. "It's nothing new, the world knows about it, the world knows that it's safe in our hands," Kasuri told AFP in an interview Friday at Asia's top security forum in Kuala Lumpur. Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 28 [NukeNet] Sleeping guards at nukes Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:21:26 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17000978&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18041&rfi=6 Security firm has had problems with sleeping guards Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com 08/03/2006 LIMERICK -- The disciplining of a security guard at the area's nuclear power plant last week was not the first time the company that provides security there has dealt with a sleeping guard problem. On July 26, Exelon Nuclear, which owns and operates the Limerick Generating Station, announced a guard had been relieved from duty after she had been found to be "inattentive" the day before. Exelon spokeswoman Beth Rapczynski confirmed the guard had been found sleeping and said this week that the guard is no longer in the employ of Wackenhut, which conducted the investigation of the incident and disciplined the guard. Wackenhut is a Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.-based security company with a division that specializes in nuclear power plant security and provides security at 30 plants across the nation, including all Exelon's nuclear plants. As such, Wackenhut's Nuclear Services Division provides security at Three Mile Island, which earlier this year was at the center of a series of news reports regarding sleeping guards. According to stories in The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, a total of five incidents of employees sleeping, including a supervisor in the control room, were investigated at Three Mile Island during a two-year period. In each case, as occurred at Limerick, the sleeping personnel were reported by other workers at the plant. In January of this year, The Patriot-News reported that an Oct. 17, 2005, memo sent to security supervisors from Wackenhut's head of security at Three Mile Island complained that veteran guards at the plant were "informing new hires of all the locations that they can hide and catch a quick nap." The newspaper also reported that sources had said the "inattentiveness could be linked to two factors -- long hours and boredom." Documents cited by the newspaper showed at least one officer had worked at Three Mile Island for 150 hours in a 14-day period. Seventy-eight workers at Three Mile Island filed a federal lawsuit against Wackenhut in January, alleging that for more than two years, the company had failed to pay them for overtime and other time owed them. By the end of February, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had begun an investigation into the sleeping incidents at Three Mile Island, but in March, NRC officials refused to release the results, citing the need to protect security procedures. The state got into the act in March when the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection began a series of twice monthly surprise inspections at the commonwealth's five nuclear plants. No incidents of "inattentiveness" were found in March. The attentiveness of guards at nuclear plants, and the hours they work, is a national issue as far as the Project for Government Oversight is concerned. The Washington, D.C. watchdog group told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as recently as December that the new work rules for nuclear plant security guards being considered by the NRC are worrisome. It warned that the NRC's consideration of using calculations of "group hours" as a way of monitoring how long guards work and allowing them to "self declare that they are too fatigued to work" could lead to problems. The group said it had found examples of guards who declare themselves too tired to work being fired, thus discouraging guards from pulling themselves from duty when they're too tired. Also, allowing "group hours" could lead to nuclear plant operators being "able to fudge how many armed security officers they have on shift by sneaking the unarmed officers, trainers, and, in some cases, clerical and managerial staff into the group with the armed responders. So, in their reporting, the utility can state that the group did not work more than 48 hours on average, when a number of individual armed officers may have worked more than 72 hours," according to a letter sent to the NRC chairman. The Project on Government Oversight also informed NRC that its investigation at Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant in Pennsylvania indicated a "high percentage" of security officers "worked between 60 and 72 hours per week." None of these issues have been alleged at the Limerick plant, and Rapczynski said of the sleeping guard: "We believe it was an isolated incident." A call seeking comment made late Wednesday to Marc Shapiro, senior vice president at Wackenhut, was not immediately returned. The corporate Web site described the Wackenhut Corp. as "the U.S.-based division of Group 4 Securicor, the world's second largest provider of security services." The company is based in England, has activities in more than 100 countries and has more than 38,000 employees. According to its Web site, the company's "Nuclear Services Division brings to the field of nuclear security an extraordinary reservoir of knowledge and expertise; it brings a firm corporate commitment; and it brings established standards of professionalism, integrity and quality service." Until recently, another division of Wackenhut provided security at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in Washington, D.C., but the contract was not extended after security lapses there were highlighted, Congressional Quarterly reported. ©The Mercury 2006 _______________________________________________________________________ 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 War Crimes, the Hush-Hush Energy Option, Tritium, Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:15:01 -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 August 2nd, 2006 Dear Readers, The United States is designing nuclear weapons for use in "tactical" strikes, pretending that civilians will not be harmed. Such thinking might only be misguided or ignorant, but I think it is an intentional blindness. Building nuclear weapons is, itself, a war crime. Using them is simply a more OBVIOUS war crime. Israel is using Depleted Uranium weaponry in Lebanon, along with concussive rounds, 2,000-lb bombs in cities and towns (which invariably kill everyone in a wide circle, and wound and maim many others in a wider circle), and, of course, they are using "Willie Pete." These are all war crimes, along with Hezbolla's use of Katusha rockets and suicide-bombers against civilians. So are assassinations, car bombings, environmental destruction, endless war, false excuses and a million other things. But they keep happening. Meanwhile, in energy and/or nuclear government agencies in the U.S., U.K., Russia, and elsewhere, the current global strife is seen as an OPPORTUNITY to spread "peaceful" nuclear power. British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited California this week to talk about energy with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but the details have not been released. That alone smacks of a pro-nuclear bias. Nuclear power is the hush-hush energy option, because it's technologically unworkable, uneconomic, and tends to be strongly (or not-so-strongly) opposed by most citizens and by all reasonable, knowledgeable, experts. So why talk about it? Below are some comments about my previous newsletter, and a complete resend of that newsletter. There is a correction concerning the source of the Helen Caldicott quote which was in the Carrie Dickerson letter. I have also included a very kind comment I was honored to receive from author, physician, and scientist Dr. Janette Sherman. Jack Shannon has expanded on his previous comments, so I've inserted them as well. I would also like to thank Dr. Conrad Miller for sending me his July 2006 newsletter, which quoted my Tritium article extensively, and which I intend to forward to this distribution list soon. In a previous letter, Dr. Sherman also commented very favorably on the tritium article, as has Dr. Judith Johnsrud and several other scientists. A link to the current version appears at the bottom of this newsletter. Lastly, I would like to thank Oscar Shirani for his recent correspondence. Mr. Shirani is in immediate need of a biographer, videographer, documentarist, and/or scriptwriter, producer, etc.. His is a stunning story of one man's fight against American Corporate and Federal corruption, corruption which has put millions of Americans at grave risk, and has tainted the energy policies of several nations. A whistleblower on nuclear Dry Cask Storage issues, Shirani has spoken at numerous events in Europe and America and has been quoted -- and misquoted -- around the world. Anyone who might be able to help with any of these projects should contact Shirani directly: Oscar Shirani Sincerely, Ace Hoffman Carlsbad, CA ============================================================ Two letters about my previous newsletter: ============================================================ To: "Helen Caldicott" Subject: RE: Strong firepower for you to use against nuclear power's misled or simply greedy proponents August 1st, 2006 Hi Helen, Of course, I'll be happy to send out a correction. And I can't wait to see the book. Yours, Ace At 12:57 PM 7/29/2006 +1000, "Helen Caldicott" wrote: >Russell, >The mistake in Carrie's good letter was that my book that she is using is >not NUCLEAR Madness, but the one about to be released NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT >THE ANSWER TO GLOBAL WARMING. >Can you send this correction out to your list please? >Many thanks >Helen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Subject: Re: Strong firepower for you to use against nuclear power's misled or simply greedy proponents To: Russell 'Ace' Hoffman This is some of the best I have seen in regard to nuclear power plants. Thanks for putting it together. Janette -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ============================================================ Original newsletter, with various corrections and additions: ============================================================ July 27th, 2006 Dear Readers, Enclosed is an excellent letter from Carrie Dickerson, with one significant correction (AS NOTED IN CAPS). Carrie is one of the most amazing (and oldest, at 90+ years) activists I know, and the author of Aunt Carrie's War Against BLACK FOX Nuclear Power Plant -- a war she won, by the way -- and practically single-handed, so don't think you can't -- but one that needs to be won again and again, all around the world. People are making money off your child's deformities, and their child's deformities, and your cancers, and your descendent's cancers. That is the problem with nuclear power. Also, an article about the recent G8 Conference and what you WEREN'T TOLD. This is the biggest, darkest secret that everyone needs to know -- the Russians are coming with mobile Chernobyls for you! Patriots of the Earth, Unite! Because those who would pollute this earth until it is a LIVING HELL for those who come later, will be able to do so very easily if we do not stop them (if I sound desperate, well, believe me, you are, too). Next is a letter to a reporter for the Philadelphia Inquirer, about the Limerick (PA) nuclear power plant's plan to poison the place with dry casks. David Lochbaum won't appreciate my comments, but I don't appreciate his in the article, either! (This letter includes an attachment which has been sent to this list previously.) Lastly is a suggestion for what to do with my tritium article from earlier this year. This article is especially relevant because the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories (CA) is trying to take a "small" step towards building a "FUSION" reactor (so "small" they are already more than a billion dollars over budget, and they've hardly done anything!). This fusion reactor, if they can get it to work, will combine tritium and deuterium (two "heavy" isotopes of hydrogen) and thus release energy like the sun does. But A) Where will they get the tritium? And B) How can they possibly think they can contain or convert all the tritium? They can't. Fusion reactors are perfectly workable -- in the sun and in theory on Earth. But real experience with fission reactors has proven that the theory and the practice will NOT be the same -- and, in fact, I believe it is a physical impossibility for fusion reactors to operate cleanly. It will not happen, ever. Alas. NOTE: A couple of months ago, I created an educational poster about IONIZING RADIATION which I sent two copies each to about 100 activists and activist organizations around the United States. I've heard back from many of you -- THANKS for the kind words, all! Over the next month I will try to mail out another couple of hundred copies, including around the world, to other activists I know, so if you've gotten something from me before (for example, my PROTECTING CALIFORNIA booklet last year), please be patient (unless you have an urgent need) and it will probably arrive in the next six weeks or so. If you want some now, or don't think you're on my physical mailing list, please send me your request! The poster was created for a museum in Barcelona, Spain, which is currently holding a six-month Chernobyl exhibit. I am delighted and honored to have a copy hanging in the museum (CCCB)! The poster is a colorized, 24 inch by 36 inch version of a famous poster from the 70s, with a few small technical changes. I'm sorry to say that I apparently neglected to mark all of the mailing tubes as "MEDIA MAIL" (a special postal rate which can be used for educational material) and so some of them may have arrived incorrectly marked "POSTAGE DUE." If yours did, please let me know and I'll refund the additional postage you had to pay for the posters to arrive (although actually, you shouldn't have had to pay it, as they were certainly NOT marked "First Class," but who knew?) Anyway, as long as I have posters, there is no charge for them. None. And I've got about 700 of them left, although about 400 of them were slightly damaged when shipped to me from the printer. Sincerely, "Ace" Hoffman Carlsbad, CA -------------------------------------------------------------------- There once was a nuke plant named Limerick Which made all the good locals very sick It hasn't melted down yet But you can make a safe bet Some day 500 miles downwind they'll curse Limerick! -------------------------------------------------------------------- ==================================================== Carrie Dickerson letter about nuclear power: ==================================================== Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:42:06 EDT Subject: Carrie Dickerson says: Nuclear Not Wanted (and dangerous) From: Thinkcivic@aol.com BG: The excellent letter below is a "photo", according to my computer. I had a terrible time copying and pasting it. I couldn't copy it into Word Perfect. I couldn't print it! Beware. [NOTE: ACE HAS TYPED IT IN; IT'S NOW IN TEXT FORM -- ACE] Apologies for duplicates. (in haste) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A number of recent articles have downplayed the dangers of nuclear power. This is clearly the beginning of a push to force nuclear power plants on us all. During a sojourn in the hospital, Carrie Dickerson was dismayed to discover how many of the staff were totally ignorant or misinformed about this issue. Please read Carrie's letter to the Claremore Progress and pass it on to anyone too young to remember what's wrong with nuclear power. Ask them to send it on too, please. Carrie Dickerson's July 21, 2006 letter to the editor of the Claremore Progress Date: 7/27/06 10:44:46 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: plemon@fugue.com Editor, In her [soon-to-be-released] book, NUCLEAR POWER IS NOT THE ANSWER TO GLOBAL WARMING, Dr. Helen Caldicott says, "The fuel cycle, including uranium mining, milling, enrichment, and fuel fabrication, building the nuclear power reactors, the transportation and storage of radioactive waste and decommissioning of old reactors, all create excessive amounts of carbon dioxide, the global warming pollutant." According to Washington based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS), "nuclear power plants are built to leak. They cannot operate without regular, deliberate releases of radioactive liquids, gases and particles (That cause cancer, leukemia and other untold health effects) into the environment during their routine, everyday operations. It does not take an accident." "Nuclear power is now by far the most expensive form of electricity," says Dr. Caldicott. On July 29, 2005, Congress approved a subsidy of $13 Billion for nuclear power resuscitation. All across the 60 years of the Nuclear Age, huge subsidies of taxpayers' money have been allocated to the nuclear industry, including the nuclear fuel cycle. The subsidies should be included in the cost. Again, I quote NIRS, "The Yucca Mountain site, approved as a national repository for used nuclear fuel, is known to be geologically unsuitable and seismically unstable. It is in the highest risk category for earthquakes, which have fractured the rock of the mountain, creating pathways for radioactivity to percolate to the groundwater below - a source of water for drinking and irrigation. "Moving tens of thousands of shipments of high-level wastes through 45 states and Washington, DC, for more than 30 years will not solve the problem. There would be about as much waste stored on site after Yucca Mountain is full as there is at those plants today." (Radioactive wastes have long half-lives -- some as long as 4.5 Billion years!) We should stop generating more nuclear waste until, if ever, a safe disposal solution can be found. [NOTE: THIS IS A TECHNICAL IMPOSSIBILITY AS MUCH AS RUNNING A NUKE WITHOUT DELIBERATE RELEASES IS. THE PLANTS MUST ALL BE SHUT DOWN. -- ACE] I am a member of a number of environmental organizations. We staunchly oppose nuclear power. There are numerous ways to create ample amounts of safe energy, without compromising all life. Carrie Dickerson, Claremore, OK =============================================== G8 Conference was about nukes -- but not the ones you think they were talking about: =============================================== NOTE: I hope Jack's wrong that "we deserve to be damned" but he probably knows better than I do, having designed nuclear power plants in his younger, more foolish years. -- ACE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jacksha1@aol.com Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:00:59 EDT Subject: Re: [NukeNet] New NIRS Factsheets: Nukes Not the Answer To: catalyst@actionpa.org, rstater@pipeline.com, rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com, richard.webb@t-online-de.smtp02.adnc.com, SibelDeniz@aol.com, Volega@cs.com Please send to your distributions. >To whom it may concern: > >Where is the Scientific/Engineering input. Are these rotten bastard >politician/businessmen going to make all of the decisions about nuclear >power. I worked in the nuclear industry for thirty years and can tell you >that the DOE/NRC are the most corrupt and rotten agencies in the >government, and that says a lot. These agencies along with the business >and political communities will guarantee an accident in this already >disastrous industry. Furthermore neither the DOE or NRC ever perform >required inspections and if they do it is simply a paper review. If one of >these reactors ever explodes millions of people will die within the blink >of an eye. We also have reactors in this nation that have neither >Emergency Core Cooling Systems. or Containment Vessels. Even if they did >there is zero evidence that either one would work as designed. Neither >have every been tested, simply because the experiments can't be done. If >any lying bastard from the DOE or NRC tells you they will work, tell them >they are goddamn liars. I will testify to these matters in court. > >It's about time we stopped pussy footing around with these cowards in the >DOE/NRC. They have been lying since the day of their inception and they >should be dragged into court to answer the millions of questions that the >thinking part of this world/nation must now ask. It is getting late and >the storm is starting to blow. It's about time we got into the action, >taking names and kicking ass. > >I am willing to take anyone from the industry on in any court in the land. >I have probably forgotten more about this industry than any of the present >or past employees ever knew. Pardon the language, but I am really getting >angry about this constant lying from the government, all the way up to >that nut in the White House. > >John P. Shannon, Major USMC [Retired] >Retired Nuclear Physicist/Nuclear Engineer/Nuclear Safety Engineer >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Jacksha1@aol.com From: Russell 'Ace' Hoffman Wow -- this absolutely is sickening. What a stupid species we must be... At 05:14 PM 7/22/2006 -0400, Jacksha1@aol.comwrote: >We are doomed! > >The decision to go with Nuclear Power is now being placed in the hands, >and heads of the most dishonest, corrupt, mean, disgusting bastards that >ever been placed on this planet, politicians, and businessmen, just like >Jack Welch. > >My God what have we done to ourselves? > >We hold up, as heroes, those people whose only contribution in life is >that they have made a lot of money, or lied their way into public office. > >We deserve to be damned! > >John Shannon > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 competitiveness 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 (AND URGE TO MAKE MONEY WITH AN UTTER LACK >OF CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS, ETC. - ACE). 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 =============================================== Letter to Sandy Bauers, Philadelphia Inquirer: =============================================== To: "Sandy Bauers" Subject: Re: Dry Cask Storage Versus Wet Pool Storage Versus Shutting the Reactors Down (etc.) July 27th, 2006 Dear Sandy Bauers, Your July 23rd, 2006 article on Limerick's plan to start using dry cask storage stated that either the NRC or Exelon or both (it's unclear which) claimed that there are no other options to dry cask storage. That's not true. Shutting the plant down is a reasonable option, the one that should be taken. I have included, below, several items related to dry cask storage which I hope will interest you. I have spoken on the subject at numerous public hearings, and have interviewed hundreds of scientists on related matters. I hope you will consider these comments carefully. I would like to note that some activists call David Lochbaum an "enabler" because of comments such as those published in your article. To contend that dry casks are safer than spent fuel pools is foolhardy at best, but at any rate, it is such "managing the risk" comments that hide the truth -- you are NOT choosing a safer alternative to spent fuel pool storage at all, because you (Penna) are choosing BOTH. For the terrorists, that's just peachy. Please feel free to contact me any time. Your article was sent to me by my father, a resident of the Philadelphia area. Sincerely, Ace Hoffman Carlsbad, CA ============================================================= Letter to Barbara Byron, California Energy Commission: ============================================================= To: "Barbara Byron" June 13th, 2006 Dear Ms Byron, Thank you for your email (shown below in its entirety). I stand by my comments 100%, including my assessment of your own relevant technical knowledge, and the idea that you do not consider me a human being, do not feel my ideas have any relevance in the real world, and that you have -- diligently -- failed to consider my presentations and comments, year after year after year, to the extreme danger and detriment of the citizens of California. I hope that your letter signifies a change in policy for the State of California, whom you represent to me on these issues. Regarding the quote you included in your response, the NAS made numerous assumptions regarding manners of dispersal which negate their conclusions. Those assumptions are not reflective of the real world. The total amount of spent fuel in dry casks versus the total amount in spent fuel pools is the question one must ask first, which you have skipped (your NAS quote goes straight to which one is bigger, not asking how many of each there are, or may be). There are a limited number of spent fuel pools and nobody expects to build more (unless they build more reactors), but we can keep building dry casks ad nauseam (pun intended), because they are much more cost-effective for the utility. A well-built new spent fuel pool would probably cost BILLIONS of dollars, or close to it. By the way, spent fuel pools above nuclear reactors, as with most Boiling Water Reactors, are inherently dangerous, and every one of those reactors should be shut down immediately and permanently for that reason alone. California's four Pressurized Water Reactors should be shut down immediately too, but not because the spent fuel pools are above the reactors. Rather, one good reason is because the Spent Fuel Pools are NOT inside the containment domes, and thus NOT protected very well from airplane strikes (have you checked the thickness of their roofs lately, in light of the "new" terrorism threats, as well as the STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY of those buildings after all these years sitting in the rust-inducing salty, irradiated air?). Of course, if California's reactors's spent fuel pools or dry casks were INSIDE the reactor containment dome, I doubt anyone would think it was safe to also operate the reactor! Well, that works out conveniently, since there is no reason to operate the reactors, anyway. Certainly not for electricity, which can be obtained other ways, as your own agency's reports on increases in energy production in the state over the past five years have proven incontrovertibly. Regarding your quote's assertion about how far the contents would spread and how much damage would be done, the amount of fuel in the release scenarios in any estimation by the NAS, the NRC, the DOE, or the CEC is invariably a tiny, tiny fraction of ONE dry cask or ONE spent fuel pool -- say, 0.07% or less -- thus, the quote's "total inventory" point is irrelevant and obfuscating. To talk about a release of several tons of fission products from a dry cask AS IF that is a scenario the NAS has actually considered is preposterous. Releases of such magnitude are considered either IMPOSSIBLE, or so unlikely as to make it unnecessary to calculate their consequences. Such arrogance sank the Titanic and doomed two space shuttles, so far. The cut-off point for Federal Nuclear Government Work is generally when "they" think something has a likelihood of less than one in one million, sometimes one in ten million. But who decides what those Las Vegas odds are? Pro-nuclear, biased "scientists" with plenty of "wriggle room" for "fudge factors," that's who! Ever hear of the book How to Lie With Statistics? It's the bible of the nuclear industry. Your quote -- you -- speak of TOTAL INVENTORIES while, mathematically, only acknowledging FRACTIONAL RELEASES. Furthermore, the damage done by radionuclides in minute quantities -- after a dispersal has become part of the "global background radiation burden" -- is a matter of serious and significant debate. Or to put it bluntly, that same NAS doesn't keep up to date with the current literature -- the scientific theories and statistical data -- and nor does the C.E.C., let alone the "Health Physics" community. Low level radiation is far more hazardous than the pro-nuclear industry assumes. California leads the way on understanding the hazards of second-hand ("low-level") cigarette smoke. We should be as enlightened about LLR. And as to the fission product inventories specifically, there are hundreds of isotopes of the full spectrum of elements in the Periodic Table in each spent fuel rod, and some of them are being released constantly from the fuel rods, and the public needs to be thoroughly and totally protected from these "irradiations" -- and told about them. Any place where dry casks are stored, there cannot be people. So when you talk about spreading them out, you are talking about stealing hundreds, then thousands, then tens of thousands of acres from Californians. And that's without an accident! Some of the radioactive spent fuel byproducts are radioactive for mere days, which of course means if they get out they are an immediate concern. Others last for thousands of years and will seep around the planet over time even if they don't disperse very far in the original accident. Of course, all the NAS scenarios you religiously believe in assume a miraculous cleanup can occur, even though real-life experience with radioactive spills SELDOM results in a successful COLLECTION of the waste: Most of the time, the waste is DISPERSED and this is considered the same as a true CLEAN-UP. But due to the health hazard at ATOMIC LEVELS from nuclear fission products, dispersal only makes identification of CULPRITS difficult if not impossible. It spreads the deaths out over time and distance, but IT DOES NOT SAVE LIVES. In any dry cask, a significant percentage of the original fuel load (Uranium-235) hasn't yet been split (that's why some people want to reprocess the stuff), and the reactions still continue -- hence all that decay heat, which, while several orders of magnitude less than the moment the fuel is removed from the reactor, is still a significant chemical and physical process -- including that it is destroying (irradiating) the zirconium cladding you mentioned, as well as the steel and concrete which the dry cask containers are built out of. They can't last forever, and they won't, but we have no backup plan in place for if they start failing earlier than your esteemed scientists -- who have been wrong so many times before -- expect. (Steam Generators were supposed to last, too.) Fission products continue to be created constantly by the spent fuel, albeit at a lower rate (from about three to six orders of magnitude lower) than when the fuel was in the reactor. Some of the radioactive isotopes with especially long half-lives are actually still increasing and will be for, perhaps (depending on the exact mix of any particular dry cask), centuries or even millennia to come. You cannot determine the health hazard of a radioactive substance from its half-life alone. You must also determine how it interacts with the environment and with the human body, and how ITS "radioactive daughter products" (if any) react, and THEIR daughter products, and so on. Of course, the NAS knows it all, I am to assume from your letter! Despite that fact that it was 50 years AFTER the dawn of the nuclear age that the scientific community actually agreed that there is no minimum threshold, no safe dose, of radiation! And even that "agreement" has not been fully accepted, and the exact details of the various mechanisms for damage are still largely unknown, but hey, that's science, isn't it? Imprecise. It is your legal responsibility to assume the worst, in all cases where legitimate scientific ambiguity exists. The nuclear industry has always assumed that things would work out in their favor, and hasn't been right once yet. Let me remind you that terrorism with nuclear weapons is not out of the question. Not impossible. Not even "unlikely." In fact, it's probably inevitable sooner or later that a nuclear weapon will be used against a civilian target. That could obliterate all your "little" dry casks -- the whole farm around Diablo Canyon or San Onofre. Even a "tiny" nuclear blast could open them all. The NAS didn't happen to mention that, did they? One tsunami could ALSO destroy the whole farm, too. Have you forgotten Bande Ache? Please see my addition comments immediately below. Sincerely, Ace Hoffman Carlsbad, CA ========================================================== Nuclear Terrorism against dry casks, nuclear power excursions, and related issues: ========================================================== Subject: How Cheney and friends use the complexities of nuclear power to pocket billions of dollars and destroy the planet May, 2006 It's taken more than 30 years, and well over 3,000 interviews (hundreds in person, thousands over the phone, and thousands more by email), but here's what I've learned: Nuclear power is really, really complicated. Duh? Duh, you say? Are you a nuclear engineer? If so, what portion of the whole puzzle did YOU study? I'll find an expert who's just as good. And if not, then please just step aside for the moment and watch the Biggies battle it out. Watch the pro-nuke "experts" dance from one reason to another to prove their point. That is, watch them give up on one reason we simply MUST have nukes only to argue something different, that you had already argued with them before. This is what they do. Circular arguments, with many steps (remember, nukes are complicated, right?). I did a couple of animation of nuclear power plants last year. They are extremely accurate depictions (see URLs, below), and even several pro-nuclear sources have described them as "excellent" and asked to use them to describe nuclear power to the public, to university students. Okay, that doesn't make me a nuclear scientist, but if you find me a pro-nuclear scientist and give me his arguments, I'll find another scientist who'se credentials are just as good to go over my answer if I need to, but I'll answer every one of his arguments. I've done it before and I'll do it again -- I'll let them argue for 50 pages and dozens of letters if it takes them that long to circulate around to their previous arguments (repeat themselves) or, as is MORE LIKELY, they end up arguing both sides of a coin, which show's they are being merely argumentative, which is not the same as debate. For example, most pro-nukers can be induced to argue FOR wind power within 10 pages of "debate" (utter gibberish on their part, mind you). No matter if they started out saying it couldn't work. Eventually you can always dance them around to admitting that renewables COULD work, if only. If only this, if only that. If only they weren't so ugly. If only they didn't kill birds. If only they didn't put a lake where a canyon or a flood plain used to be. If only, if only, if only. Then, when you turn the conversation to the specific, unique, and INTRACTABLE problems of nuclear power and say, "these are so much more serious than ANY of the arguments against renewable energy," the cycle starts to repeat itself, as they argue that wind power could never replace nuclear power because of this, and that, and so on. It's all hogwash. The latest voodoo reason to support nuclear power is fear of global warming. Not that global warming isn't a problem -- it's just that nuclear isn't the solution. It would take every issue of every week of this newsletter to describe all the problems nuclear power presents, but in this guest editorial, I'd like to concentrate on some immediate problems California (and many other states and countries around the world) are facing. First and foremost is the continued accumulation of ever-increasing mountains of nuclear waste -- so called "High Level Radioactive Waste," which is also known as "Spent Fuel," a term the nuclear industry likes, because it sounds so harmless. Well, it isn't harmless and worse, it cannot be safely contained for long periods with defying the laws of physics, which say that a radioactive breakdown is strong enough to break ANY chemical bond -- and not just any chemical bond, but thousands of them at once. By operating nuclear power plants, we are creating enormous problems for future generations. So-called "experts" STILL, after 50 years of knowing better, write about the possible creation of containment systems that will not break down, will not become radioactive themselves, will not fail, no matter how many years they are required to last. Other pro-nuke "experts" STILL, after 50 years of knowing better, talk about "rocketing the waste to the sun." Really, it's not been forgotten, and I'm talking about by so-called "rocket scientists." REAL "rocket scientists" who obviously are not statisticians, for statistically, after 50 years, we know that that method could not possibly reliably loft all 77,000 tons (or whatever the exact correct value is; one hear's so many different numbers) of high level radioactive waste out to space. It's preposterous. Still other "highly qualified experts" (I don't know WHO does the qualifying, but they get articles in high places so someone must) think that dumping the waste in tectonic subduction zones deep in the oceans is the answer. They're wrong on several counts, and their numbers are few, but they're out there. Glass vitrification is another dream, but the construction delays in the Hanford, Washington nuclear facility to try it might put the lid on the idea. It was a bad idea to begin with, but so is leaving that waste the way it currently is stored, in leaky tanks. Which brings us to San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. They are creating so-called "High Level Radioactive Waste" at the rate of about a ton every two days for the four reactors. There is now approximately ten million pounds of the HLRW stuff and it isn't being rocketed to the sun (thank goodness) or anything -- it's "just" sitting there. About five years after it is removed from the reactor, spent fuel can be removed from a pool where it is stored deep underwater, and placed in "dry casks." This transfer itself is a very dangerous operation. Every step -- and every added step -- is dangerous. By not having a long-term solution, we are adding lots of steps, every one of which carries an added grave risk. These dry casks are massive things, but not so massive that a terrorist cannot break them open. Not so massive that an earthquake, tsunami, or other natural disaster cannot harm them, although the utility will claim otherwise -- it's a lie. It's an engineering impossibility at the price / performance ratio they must work under to do what they claim they are doing AT A PROFIT. How so? A couple of inches of steel and a few feet of concrete just aren't enough to guarantee the job. And if a dry cask catches fire, it could easily be as bad as a meltdown of the nuclear reactor itself -- perhaps worse. Each dry cask holds about 1/4 of a full reactor's load of fuel, and if they catch fire, they cannot be put out with water -- it takes flooding them with noble gases, but no one can get close enough to do it (they won't live long enough to get close, if they try) and the casks are not being stored in pits where such a thing would even be possible, AND there is no automated delivery system for such a calamity, nor are there stores of such chemicals on site. What does the nuclear industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission do instead? They assume such a thing simply cannot happen. Really -- that's what they do. That's the fantasy-land they operate under. Their idea of a "worst-case scenario" very specifically does NOT include more than perhaps 0.01% percent of the fuel burning or escaping in any way, if that. Zero Point Zero One Percent. These "what-if" accident scenarios are utterly unrealistic. In reality, a dry cask fire can cause widespread death and destruction, just like a nuclear plant. Furthermore, by storing the dry casks so close to the nuclear reactors, IF a reactor accident occurs, both the spent fuel pools and the dry storage casks are vulnerable to secondary failures,. For example, some explosive accidents can throw the lid of the reactor half a mile into the air. The lid weighs about 20,000 pounds. If it lands in the spent fuel pool or on a dry storage cask, it would cause a secondary release of radiation that might be bigger than the first. Of course, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a way around this. They simply deny that such accidents are possible. They do this by designating such explosive deconstruction as being "outside the design-basis accident." In other words, the NRC simply refuses to admit that things can go that wrong. They believe, instead, that the safety systems and backup systems will work as designed, even though experience has shown that to be a baseless assumption. For example, the Monticello nuclear reactor had its main safety system UNAVAILABLE for nearly 30 years -- since the plant was constructed until just a few years ago -- because 32 shipping bolts were not removed from eight humongous bellows, when parts were installed at the plant during its original construction. And after that, the system was never tested or inspected. This is just one of many, many indications that the NRC is a lap-dog regulatory agency and the industry it regulates is dangerously incapable of meeting the incredibly high standards required by nuclear power. Both San Onofre AND Diablo Canyon -- all four of California's aging nuclear power plants -- are, for all intents and purposes, being completely rebuilt as we speak. By dividing the work up into pieces the full cost -- well over a billion dollars PER PLANT and probably two or three -- is made to appear in media reports as much smaller amounts, and the work is made to appear as little more than accelerated maintenance -- a seemingly good thing, eh? Well, it's a bunch of bull. What's going on is a complete rebuild ALMOST from the ground up, but a piece at a time. There are so many old wiring systems and parts in those plants, though, that no one that works there knows how the system really works -- I guarantee it (and I know quite a few employees and ex-employees at the plant, by the way). Here are some of the parts that have recently been replaced or probably will be soon, in one or more reactors at San Onofre alone: Steam generators, "heaters" (about 30 per reactor), reactor pressure vessel heads, one main rotor (there is one per reactor) had to be rebuilt after the fire in 2001. Hundreds of pumps, wiring systems, feedback loops and circuit boards (these are humongous things that have to be put in place with forklifts and cranes, nothing like a household circuit at all!). Yet, in the end, to call these reactors "like new" or even "newly refurbished" would be inappropriate, because, try as they might, there are still hundreds of systems which are corroding in place in the radioactive and salty, smog-filled environment in which these reactors sit. The parts replacement projects are mostly being done on a "when it fails, replace it" basis, rather than on a preventive-maintenance schedule. And what of the NRC? The industry is "self-regulated" -- they only do paperwork audits, 99% of the time that they do ANY audit at all. In California, the operation of our nuclear power plants continues, decade after decade, in opposition to the things Californians love. We do not love the risk from earthquakes, tsunamis, riots, or anything else, we live here IN SPITE of these risks. But risks are cumulative, and the added burden of nuclear power is a risk that has been foisted on the citizens of this state -- and on the planet -- through immoral and undemocratic manipulation of public opinion for the past half century. For example: Let's take a quick look at tritium: Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, with one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus. When it undergoes radioactive decay, it releases a beta particle -- which is just a very high-speed electron -- from the nucleus. As this happens, one of the neutrons (the one that ejected the electron) becomes a proton instead, and the atom becomes, not a very heavy hydrogen atom like it was, but a light helium atom. (Normal helium has two protons and two neutrons in its nucleus. Helium from tritium has two protons and ONE neutron in its nucleus.) Too technical? Sure, and the nuclear industry is counting on that. So I'll try to refrain for the rest of this commentary. Tritium is produced at -- and released into the environment from -- all nuclear power plants. Federal regulations are lax on tritium, because it would cost the nuclear industry billions, or shut them down, if they showed proper concern for tritium's hazards. Pro-nukers -- health physicists, specifically, the specialists who should know better -- will tell you (and have told me) that tritium's beta particle is relatively harmless, because it is a "low-energy" beta particle, as beta particles go. In fact, they might add, in low doses it might even be good for you. But find a BETTER expert to talk to (they do exist), and you'll learn that beta particles, when they are ejected from the nucleus of an atom (oh, here we go again!), "dump" all that excess energy that they get ejected with at "the end of their track." At the beginning of the track, the beta particle is traveling TOO FAST (a significant fraction of the speed of light) to be near another atom long enough to have much influence, but as the beta particle slows down, it stays in the vicinity of each atom it passes long enough to have a significant effect -- long enough to cause ionizing radiation damage. Now, of course, this IS certainly too technical for the average Californian -- I've been studying it for more than 30 years and it's hard for me, too. And thus we are frozen out of the discussion, accused of being emotional and unaware of the facts, or being just another California "whacko environmentalist." But there ARE experts who will back up what I've just written regarding tritium, and we need to start listening to them. Indeed, across the country there seems to be a renewed interest in the damage lowly little tritium can do. Tritium leaks have been found at several nuclear plants and local residents, despite official propaganda from the Feds, are scared. When the blackouts of '01 occurred here, the real reason was probably because three of our four nuclear power plants were "down and out" and the fourth one dropped out now and then and well. The "powers that be" in charge of power in California engineered the blackouts to "prove" that we need all the power, by any means, that we can get. And now, Southern California Edison (SCE), the operator of San Onofre Nuclear WASTE Generating Station (called SONGS, not SONWGS, officially, since the waste is ignored), is running millions of dollars worth of ads telling Californians that SCE is making major investments in proven green technologies such as WIND POWER. Yet at the same time, shills for their nuclear industry, such as academicians who were invited to speak to the California Energy Commission last year at rare public hearings (where testimony was NOT sworn, and much of it WAS useless), tell us that WIND POWER hasn't got a chance. Who's lying? Both are, and solely to make nukes look good. There is NO real effort to solve our energy problem with renewables, even though it is perfectly possible to do. Instead, the Bush Administration is pushing nuclear power like never before, with every trick in the book and several new ones, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's new policy to license both the construction AND the operation of a nuclear power plant at the SAME TIME, so that, after the billions of dollars and 5 to 10 years of construction, no citizen can oppose the plant before fuel is finally loaded (as happened at Shoreham on Long Island, New York, leaving a bitter, bitter taste in the Nuclear Mafia's mouth). (NOTE: I understand about 5% of the fuel was, in fact, loaded for a time. -- ACE) AND they have approved the licensing of new nuclear power plants on old sites -- even ones where the previous reactors have been "decommissioned" or perhaps NOT EVEN BUILT! (And "decommissioned, by the way, is a euphemism for grinding them up into radioactive dust and spreading them around the globe, and/or hauling them off in truckloads and trainloads to some waste dump somewhere, except, of course, for the "spent fuel," which just sits, vulnerable, on our coasts.) If California continues to insist on self-ignorance about this issue -- if we are fooled by the fear of global warming into supporting nuclear power (it's not a solution, as many highly technical articles by highly qualified experts has shown), we are in for a lot of hurt. A nuclear disaster would be the worst part of ANY accompanying earthquake, tsunami, or terrorist act. It would dwarf Katrina and 9-11 combined. It MUST be avoided, but the only way to do that is to wise up. Will we? Ace Hoffman Carlsbad, CA At 09:49 AM 6/13/2006 -0700, "Barbara Byron" wrote: >The National Academy of Sciences Public Report (2006) Safety and >Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage concluded (p. 68) that >dry cask storage has several potential safety and security advantages >over pool storage. > >"Less spent fuel is at risk in an accident or attack on a dry storage >cask than on a spent fuel pool. An accident or attack on a dry cask >storage facility would likely affect at most a few casks and put a few >tens of metric tons of spent fuel at risk. An accident or attack on a >spent fuel pool puts the entire inventory of the pool, potentially >hundreds of metric tons of spent fuel at risk." > >"The potential consequences of an accident or terrorist attack on a dry >cask storage facility are lower than those for a spent fuel pool. There >are several reasons for this difference: > >(1) There is less fuel in a dry cask than in a spent fuel pool and >therefore less radioactive material available for release, > >(2) Measured on a per-fuel-assembly basis, the inventories of >radionuclides available for release from a dry cask are lower than those >from a spent fuel pool because dry casks store older, lower decay-heat >fuel. > >(3) Radioactive material releases from a breach in a dry cask would >occur through mechanical dispersion. Such releases would be relatively >small. Certain types of attacks on spent fuel pools could result in a >much larger dispersal of spent fuel fragments. Radioactive material >releases from a spent fuel pool also could occur as the result of a >zirconium cladding fire, which would produce radioactive aerosols. Such >fires have the potential to release large quantities of radioactive >material to the environment." =============================================== Tritium URL: =============================================== So far, this article has stopped every pro-nuker dead in their tracks. One even offered me a "residency" at his university (Purdue), when challenged to either respond in detail (after telling me tritium was safe), OR offer me said residency. So why not see what YOU can do with it? I suggest you print it out and submit it at EVERY hearing as a supplement to your own written and / or oral testimony. Demand a technically accurate response. Submit this whole newsletter, too! Make 'em squirm and stammer and face the truth: Nuclear power is the highest folly of mankind (so far). Tritium explained: http://animatedsoftware.com/environment/tritium/2006/EPATritiumStandard.htm =============================================== Contact information for "Ace:" =============================================== ************************************************* ** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY ** Russell "Ace" Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer ** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936 ** (800) 551-2726 ** (760) 720-7261 ** Fax: (760) 720-7394 ** Visit the world's most eclectic web site: ** http://www.animatedsoftware.com ************************************************* IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please . Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line. ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: NRC, W.VA. Firm to Discuss Apparent Violations Involving Portable Nuclear Gauge News Release - Region I - 2006-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-044 August 3, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of a Morgantown, W.Va.-based company on Wednesday, Aug. 9, to discuss two apparent violations of agency regulations involving maintaining proper control of a nuclear gauge. The meeting, known as a predecisional enforcement conference, is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. at the NRC Region I Office, 475 Allendale Road in King of Prussia, Pa. It will be open to the public for observation and NRC staff will be available to answer questions afer the conference. The apparent violations by Triad Engineering, Inc., stem from an event on March 14, 2006. On that day, a Triad employee was transporting a portable nuclear density gauge in an open-bed pickup truck from the companys Purcellville, Va., field office to a temporary job site. The gauge, which contains small amounts of NRC-licensed radioactive material in sealed holders and is used for such purposes as measuring soil density, was stored in a locked transport container. The container had not been secured to the truck and the vehicles tailgate was not closed. As the truck turned onto a public roadway from the facilitys driveway, the container fell off the vehicle onto the roadway. The Triad employee did not realize this had occurred until two members of the public working nearby alerted him. The citizens also notified local police, who in turn contacted the local fire marshal. After recovering the device and returning it to the field office, company personnel performed checks and determined that the container and the gauge were not damaged. The event did not result in radioactive exposures to any members of the public. In response to the incident, the company has taken corrective actions that include mandatory refresher training for its employees. An NRC special inspection performed in May and June of this year to review the circumstances surrounding the event identified two apparent violations: (1) A failure to secure the gauge from unauthorized removal by using a minimum of two independent physical controls that form tangible barriers; and (2) a failure to secure the transport container to prevent shifting during normal transport conditions. The purpose of the Aug. 9th meeting is to obtain information to enable the NRC to determine what, if any, enforcement action is warranted. Examples of that information would be a common understanding of the facts, root causes of the event and corrective actions taken by the company. No decision will be made by the NRC staff at the session. Rather, NRC management will render a decision at a later date after considering the information presented during the meeting. Last revised Thursday, August 03, 2006 ***************************************************************** 31 Radio New Zealand: Veterans group says French nuke test stance untenable Radio New Zealand - Te Reo Irirangi o Aotearoa Posted at 1:50pm on 03 Aug 2006 A French nuclear test veterans group says the government's refusal to compensate test victims for their poor health is no longer sustainable. The group, AVEN, made the statement after a letter by a top medical researcher to a French safety official was made public in French Polynesia last week. A copy of the letter was presented to the assembly in Tahiti, detailing thyroid cancer cases linked to exposure to the French atomic weapons tests in the South Pacific. AVEN says this shows that the government's claim of the tests being clean cannot be sustained. France has so far refused to acknowledge a link between the tests and failing health. In contrast, the US recognises 31 diseases, including 25 types of cancer, as the possible result of exposure to nuclear tests. Copyright © 2006 Radio New Zealand International ***************************************************************** 32 Spectrum: Keep tabs on Divine Strake St. George Ut - www.thespectrum.com - The latest delay to detonate the 700-ton ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb, Divine Strake, until the early months of 2007 is a strong indication that not all was well with the planned test. Suspicions about the environmental safety from the low-yield nuclear simulation at the Nevada Test Site, 150 miles west of St. George, stemmed from questioning instigated by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and later by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. A lawsuit from the Western Shoshone Indians and Downwinders from Utah, in addition to public outcry, rightfully influenced the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the National Nuclear Security Administration's Nevada Site Office to withdraw its "finding of no significant impact" in an environmental assessment of the proposed test. The biggest open-air chemical blast ever purposed for explosion at the Nevada Test Site should not be forgotten; its intended objective as described in Department of Defense budget documents is to, "develop a planning tool that will improve the warfighter's confidence in selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage." Though the federal government has since denied the claim, it is evident the examination into developing new weaponry to destroy deeply buried, underground structures is the direct course of action it wants to take and means Divine Strake is not entirely off the boards, whether it is set off in Nevada or another location. Vigilance dedicated to its testing will not relent, which means neither should the local contingency with its legitimate outcry of opposition. It is important the public keep this issue at the forefront with fearless tenacity - as if lives depended on it - because they very well may be. Holding the government accountable for its actions is a duty not to be negated, especially when it comes to the health, safety and welfare of Southern Utahns and the state as a whole. Originally published August 3, 2006 Copyright ©2006 The Spectrum. ***************************************************************** 33 Independent: Explosion delayed until sometime in '07 August 2, 2006 By Kathy Helms Diné Bureau WINDOW ROCK — U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-2nd District, applauded an announcement Tuesday by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency that the Divine Strake non-nuclear explosion planned at Nevada Test Site could not be conducted until several months into 2007 at the earliest. The Divine Strake non-nuclear explosion is planned for Nevada Test Site where atomic testing was conducted largely in the 1950s and 1960s, thus raising health concerns that residual contamination could be disturbed and redeposited downwind by new testing, whether nuclear or non-nuclear. Reservations populated by Navajo, Hopi and Zuni tribes were not immune to radioactive fallout from the atomic tests, which basically blanketed the United States. However, to date, few tribal members have been compensated by the federal government as "downwinders." After reading Defense Department budget documents this spring, Matheson wrote to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency expressing concerns regarding the actual purpose and the health and safety ramifications of the proposed 700-ton conventional explosives detonation at the desert test site 65 miles north of Las Vegas. The bomb, consisting of 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, has been viewed by some as a covert way for the federal government to conduct "bunker buster" research. "The government has yet to provide environmental data regarding what the health risks are to communities downwind of the explosion. Absent that data, I think the postponement and announced intention to gather more information is tacit acknowledgement that uncertainty remains," Matheson said. Officials have confirmed that one purpose of the test is to validate modeling codes for designing a nuclear weapon, he said. The Divine Strake blast would be detonated in a shallow pit dug above an underground concrete tunnel. The site is about a mile from an area where six underground nuclear bombs were exploded in the early 1970s. Matheson said he shares the skepticism of Utahns when the government says testing is "safe," given the past history of government deception surrounding nuclear weapons testing in Nevada. A congressional briefing in late April validated Matheson's concerns about development and potential testing of new nuclear weapons, he said. Afterward, he said the budget documents before Congress and briefing information supplied by DTRA to congressional staff and media included statements about plans for new nuclear weapons. Two Western Shoshone tribes and individual Western Shoshone Indians and downwinders from Nevada and Utah filed suit in April asking a federal judge in Las Vegas to stop the above-ground blast which was to have been detonated June 23 after being rescheduled from June 2. The Western Shoshone tribes filed expert testimony from Dr. Thomas Fasy of Physicians for Social Responsibility in New York, and Richard Miller, a toxic exposures expert from Houston who authored the five volume "U.S. Atlas of Nuclear Fallout." Fasy wrote that "to a reasonable degree of medical and scientific certainty, the 'Divine Strake' explosion would disperse large amounts of radioactive particles into the atmosphere ... millions of citizens living downwind ... are at risk of inhaling particles." He said "it is virtually certain that this inhalation of radioactive particles would result in an increased frequency of a variety of cancers in the exposed populations. Moreover, the increased risk of developing cancers would be born disproportionately by the children living downwind." Miller singled out what he called the Department of Energy's "insufficient research regarding the health effects of many of the potential radioisotopes possibly buried in the soil" that might become suspended in the dust cloud as a result of the Divine Strake test. Both experts warned that "entire communities may be exposed to radioisotopes including alpha emitters know to cause cancer." The National Nuclear Security Administration withdrew its Finding of No Significant Impact in May related to an environmental assessment for the open-air test. DTRA had planned to conduct the test June 2, but postponed it for three weeks following questions from Matheson, U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., and other members of Congress. Shelley asked for written assurance that the proposed blast is not part of a program to develop new nuclear weapons, as she said had been alleged by some in the Defense community. The blast is expected to create a shock wave equivalent to an earthquake ranging from 3.1 to 3.4 on the Richter scale, which has the potential to stir up radioactive dust and debris. Wednesday August 2, 2006 the Gallup Independent feedback on this website and the paper in general. Send questions or comments to gallpind@cia-g.com ***************************************************************** 34 Cyprus Mail: No danger from uranium cloud’ By Jean Christou CYPRUS IS not in danger from a cloud of toxic depleted uranium from weapons allegedly being used by Israel against Lebanon, Health Minister Charalambous Charalambous said yesterday. Charalambous, responding to reports, and to a warning from the Green Party of the danger to Cyprus, said the threat was hypothetical. He said however that his Ministry was well prepared to face up to such a situation in case the theoretical threat turned into a potential threat to Cyprus. Depleted uranium is a chemically toxic and radioactive heavy metal used particularly in armour-piercing ammunition. They burn up on impact, creating a radioactive dust, the effect of which remains the subject of safety debates. Like other heavy metals, DU is toxic and constitutes a health risk independent of any residual radioactivity. Amnesty International (AI) has called on all governments to consider refraining from the transfer and use of DU weapons. “There is much controversy over their long-term effects. Some studies suggest that DU dust, which remains in the vicinity of targets struck by DU weapons, poses a significant health risk if inhaled or ingested. AI calls for a moratorium on their use pending authoritative conclusions on their long-term effects on human health and the environment,” a recent statement said. “According to media reports, the US is transferring GBU 28 bunker-buster bombs containing depleted-uranium warheads to Israel for use against targets in Lebanon,” Amnesty added. The Green party yesterday warned of the danger of DU but on Tuesday the Labour Ministry, which monitors air quality daily, said there was no reason for concern or panic. It said no notice had been received by international centres, which Cyprus is cooperating with and which monitor similar situation. The centres inform their members as soon as such a threat appears, the Ministry said.. ”The levels of radiation and concentration of dust in the atmosphere are being monitored by the Department of Labour Inspection and, according to data taken on a 24-hour basis, no increase of these numbers has been ascertained,” said a statement. Former state pathologist and military man, MEP Marios Matsakis told the Cyprus Mail yesterday that when radiation from DU weapons is released into the atmosphere it can be carried long distances and then it can settle down on everything and contaminates whatever it lands on and it remains radioactive for many years. “The Americans would say there is no danger but of course many eminent scientists say there is serious a health risk,” he said. “How much radiation travels is related to the prevailing conditions at the time. There are so many factors involved,” he added. But he also warned that there was not anything that could be done about it if it did happen. In 2001, Carla del Ponte, the chief prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, said that NATO's use of depleted uranium in former Yugoslavia could be investigated as a possible war crime. In 2003, the Uranium Medical Research Centre (UMRC) tested the urine of civilians in six different areas of Afghanistan four months after the American attacks and found that the urine had non-depleted uranium levels 400 to 2000 percent higher than normal. Several hundred Afghan civilians were found to have symptoms of radiation poisoning, such as joint pain, sleeping difficulties, headaches, memory problems, and disorientation. The effects on soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have also been documented. Four soldiers from New York's 442nd Guard Unit were confirmed to have inhaled uranium oxide exposure through tests conducted by the Uranium Medical Research Centre. Life Magazine reported a study conducted by the Department of Veteran Affairs which found that 67 per cent of post-Gulf War babies have serious birth defects or serious illnesses, such as missing eyes, limbs, and organs; fused digits; or organ malfunctions. The US Army confirmed they had used over 500 tons of uranium munitions just in the first two months in Iraq using GBU 28, a precision guided bomb. Israel has not admitted to using DU weapons in Lebanon but last week Washington sent a shipment of “bunker busters” to Israel through the Scotland that contained over 100 GBU 28's to use against targets in Lebanon. Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2006 ***************************************************************** 35 Salt Lake Tribune: Nevada site may be out for the blast test Article Last Updated: 08/02/2006 01:02:42 PM MDT Delayed again: Director of Pentagon agency to assess other locations By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune WASHINGTON - The Defense Department said Tuesday it won't conduct a massive weapons test known as Divine Strake until several months into 2007 at the earliest and it is considering moving the detonation from the Nevada Test Site to a new location. The Divine Strake test was originally planned for June 2 but was postponed indefinitely after a lawsuit was filed and members of Congress challenged the plans for the test. In late May, the National Nuclear Security Administration withdrew its initial environmental study while it rechecked the data. A few weeks later, the agency said the test would not go forward until September at the earliest. On Tuesday, the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) notified Rep. Jim Matheson that the test wouldn't go forward until "at least several months into calendar year 2007." "I think it's an acknowledgment that DTRA really didn't have the proof in hand to show that the test didn't create risk," Matheson said. "They said that it was safe, but when it came time to actually see the data it turns out they didn't have it. . . . [Now] they have to go back and do their homework and find out if it was safe." And James Tegnelia, director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, "has agreed to assess possible other sites for the experiment," agency spokeswoman Irene Smith said Tuesday. There was no indication where else the test might take place, but several similar blasts, some many times larger than Divine Strake, were conducted from 1977-91 at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch emerged optimistic from a meeting Tuesday with Tegnelia. "I believe he now clearly understands the unique sensitivities that the people of Utah have regarding this subject. I am also very pleased that DTRA will now consider moving the experiment to a different location." The Divine Strake test entails detonating 700 tons of explosives at the Nevada Test Site to measure the damage done to a tunnel by the blast and the 3.4-magnitude earthquake it would create. Defense Department documents said the test was designed to help war planners choose the smallest nuclear yield to destroy underground targets and minimize collateral damage, but the Pentagon later said the reference to a nuclear weapon was a mistake. The explosion would be roughly 50 times larger than the detonation of the largest conventional weapon in the U.S. arsenal and on par with small nuclear weapons. It would use the same explosive mixture that blew up the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, only about 280 times more of it. Environmental studies say dust from the blast could reach 10,000 feet above sea level. The decision to postpone the test came in mid-May after objections were raised by Nevada environmental officials, Hatch and Matheson, and a lawsuit was filed by an American Indian tribe in Nevada and the Utah Downwinders, who blame deaths and illnesses on exposure to Cold War nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. Their concern was that the explosion could throw into the air soil contaminated with radiation from past nuclear weapons tests, creating a health risk. "I suspect this thing is dead," said Bob Hager, the attorney representing the Indian tribe and Downwinders group. He has received more than 30,000 pages of documents from the agency that runs the Nevada Test Site, but he said only 22 were relevant to testing for contamination at the site. A status conference in the lawsuit is scheduled with government lawyers today. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 36 Salt Lake Tribune: Feds say bomb test months away Article Last Updated: 08/01/2006 06:05:14 PM MDT By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune Posted: 6:12:41 PM- WASHINGTON - The Defense Department said Tuesday it won't conduct a massive weapons test known as Divine Strake until several months into 2007 at the earliest and it is considering moving the detonation from the Nevada Test Site to a new location. The Divine Strake test was originally planned for June 2, but postponed indefinitely after a lawsuit and members of Congress challenged the plans for the test. In late May, the National Nuclear Security Administration withdrew its initial environmental study while it re-checked the data. On Tuesday, the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency notified Rep. Jim Matheson that the test wouldn't go forward until "at least several months into calendar year 2007." "I think it's an acknowledgment that DTRA really didn't have the proof in hand to show that the test didn't create risk," Matheson said. "They said that it was safe but when it came time to actually see the data it turns out they didn't have it. . . . [Now] they have to go back and do their homework and find out if it was safe." And James A. Tegnelia, director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, "has agreed to assess possible other sites for the experiment," agency spokeswoman Irene Smith said Tuesday. There was no indication where else the test might take place, but several similar blasts, some many times larger than Divine Strake, have been conducted since the early 1990s at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The Divine Strake test entails detonating 700 tons of explosives at the Nevada Test Site to measure the damage done to a tunnel by the blast and the 3.4-magnitude earthquake it would create. Defense Department documents said the test was designed to help war planners choose the smallest nuclear yield to destroy underground targets and minimize collateral damage, but the Pentagon later said the reference to a nuclear weapon was a mistake. The explosion would be roughly 50 times larger than the detonation of the largest conventional weapon in the U.S. arsenal and on par with small nuclear weapons. It would use the same explosive mixture that blew up the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, only about 280 times more of it. Environmental studies say dust from the blast could reach 10,000 feet above sea level. The decision to postpone the test came in mid-May, after objections were raised by Nevada environmental officials, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and Matheson, and a lawsuit by an American Indian tribe in Nevada and the Utah Downwinders, who blame deaths and illnesses on exposure to Cold War nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site. Their concern was that the explosion could throw soil contaminated with radiation from past nuclear weapons tests into the air, creating a health risk. "I suspect this thing is dead," said Bob Hager, the attorney representing the Indian tribe and Downwinders group. He has received more than 30,000 pages of documents from the agency that runs the Nevada Test Site, but he said only 22 were relevant to testing for contamination at the site. A status conference in the lawsuit is scheduled with government lawyers today. © Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 37 Deseret News: Divine Strake weapons test postponed for further study [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, August 2, 2006 Concerns about radiation put off blast until 2007 By Suzanne Struglinski Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — The controversial, government-sponsored weapons test known as Divine Strake has been put off at least until next year, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency announced Tuesday. The National nuclear Security Administration is still working on its environmental studies regarding radiation exposure related to the blast, but the Defense Threat Reduction Agency has stopped preparing the Nevada Test Site for the experiment, designed to produce ground motion and shock wave data on penetrating hardened and deeply buried targets. "The earliest point at which the Divine Strake experiment can be conducted would be at least several months into calendar year 2007," according to the agency announcement sent to congressional offices. The test was supposed to take place June 2, but a lawsuit filed by opponents pushed it off until June 23. Then the National nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the Nevada Test Site that is home to the experiment, withdrew an environmental assessment of the program, pushing it off to an undetermined date. The detonation of 700 tons of explosive ammonium nitrate and fuel oil slurry would have created a huge mushroom cloud and critics feared it would kick up radioactive fallout left from atmospheric and below-ground nuclear weapons tests and lead to the development of low-yield nuclear "bunker-buster" bombs. The proposed blast raised concerns by Utah and Nevada congressional delegations and prompted protest petitions by hundreds of people. Tuesday's announcement, which generated a cautious response by opponents who also felt validated by the delay, said the government would conduct the experiment only if it can be "conducted safely," according to environmental laws and if there is "a favorable court ruling." The agency said plans on public hearings, the exact schedule of the experiment and other actions will be determined. "This delay is reflective of a cancellation of the planned explosion," said Robert Hager, the plaintiffs' attorney in the case against the Defense Department on the test. "The agencies' pursuit of data regarding background radiation and global fallout is a dead-end path that will not put to bed public health concerns about re-suspension of radioactivity. People do not die from inhaling background radiation. "Until the agencies analyze what is in the soil, and disclose that data, this blast will never be allowed by the court." The agency may also opt to move the experiment somewhere else. On Tuesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, met with the agency's director, James Tegnelia, who told the senator that he would assess other locations for the blast. "I believe he now clearly understands the unique sensitivities that the people of Utah have regarding this subject," Hatch said. Dugway Proving Ground in western Utah had been on a short list for the experiment in the past but was eliminated because it did not meet the right geological requirements. Agency spokeswoman Irene Smith did not know if it would be reconsidered. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said the fact the government still has no data showing the possible health risks associated with the test coupled with its desire to get more information "is tacit acknowledgement that uncertainty remains" and he remains skeptical of any weapons test deemed "safe" by the government. Vanessa Pierce, program director at the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, said it is integral that the public is included to ensure that the experiment be done with the public's health and safety in mind. She said this did not happen decades ago and now people are living — and dying — with the consequences. "I think that the prior delays were 'PRpr' tactics meant to take the wind out of the public's sails in fighting against the project," Pierce said. But now this postponement shows that the government wants to make sure all the details are in place and it will comply with environmental laws before conducting the experiment, Pierce said. J Truman, a Malad, Idaho, man who grew up in southern Utah and directs the fallout victim advocacy group Downwinders, said, "I think this shows the power Utah Downwinders have achieved to where they can say, 'No,' and their politicians have to listen and act!" "No more days of being helpless guinea pigs in a deadly experiment," Truman said. Beyond the potential health effects associated with the blast, Pierce said the other main concern is the test's potential step toward developing new nuclear weapons, including mini-nukes. Pierce said the government has not be able to explain what else the test can be used for if not to build new weapons. Contributing: Joe Bauman E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 38 AU ABC: Beazley vows to repeal NT dump laws ABC Northern Territory | Local News | Story Thursday, 3 August 2006. 14:00 (AEDT)Thursday, 3 August 2006. The Federal Opposition Leader says if elected, he will overturn legislation that selects the Northern Territory as the preferred location for any nuclear waste dump. Kim Beazley is on a tour of the Northern Territory and will today visit the community of Wadeye. He says a location must be found for a mid-level nuclear waste facility. But Mr Beazley says he opposes the current legislation and is against the creation of any high level waste facility. "We will not use that legislation, we'll repeal it and we'll put something else in place," he said. "We do have to find an alternative location for that dump but we oppose that legislation." ***************************************************************** 39 PVT: Inquiring minds want to know: Was Yucca report ever written? Pahrump Valley Times - Aug. 02, 2006 By STEVE TETREAULT Stephens Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Nevada's senators say White House environmental advisers were supposed to have completed a new Yucca Mountain analysis by now, and they are demanding to know where it is. Federal law requires the White House Council of Environmental Quality to prepare impact studies to accompany proposed bills, the senators said. So Sen.'s Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., asked council Chairman James Connaughton in a letter Wednesday for the report on a Yucca Mountain bill that the Bush administration sent to Capitol Hill on April 5. "The CEQ must provide this analysis to Congress," Ensign said. The demand was viewed as a fresh shot across the bow of the Bush administration as the Nevada senators load new ammunition against the proposed nuclear waste repository. Aides said the senators suspect a report has not been written. Reid and Ensign would plan to bring that up at a Yucca Mountain hearing set for next Thursday before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "CEQ's analysis is necessary for members of Congress and the public to understand the impact and parameters of the proposal," Reid and Ensign said in the letter. A CEQ spokeswoman on Thursday declined to discuss the status of any Yucca Mountain report or to confirm whether one has been written. The spokeswoman would not say if the White House believes one was required or not. "We will be responding to the senators' letter and we will share the response after the senators see it," spokeswoman Kristy Hellmer said. The Senate committee is scheduled to examine a Bush administration bill that aims to clear away some of the obstacles that Energy Department officials say are holding up the repository project. The measure would reclassify the Yucca Mountain fund so DOE can gain access to funds needed for construction. It would withdraw the site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas from public land status, and would lift a 70,000-metric-ton cap on how much nuclear waste can be placed inside the mountain. The bill also would make it easier for DOE to claim water rights for the repository despite Nevada opposition. It also would expand the energy secretary's authority on nuclear waste transportation. For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 ***************************************************************** 40 SF Chronicle: Nuke Dump Timeline Questioned By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Thursday, August 3, 2006 (08-03) 13:28 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate committee chairman says the Bush administration's new timeline for opening the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada in 2017 ignores the possibility of lawsuits and delays. "Experience has shown that the schedule for Yucca is a slippery thing," Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., told the project's new director on Thursday. "My concern is that the new timetable does not include any margin for any further project delays by the (Energy Department), its contractors, or legal action by the state of Nevada all of which would cause DOE to miss these new deadlines," Domenici said at a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The dump originally was supposed to open in 1998. Last year, the department abandoned a 2010 deadline. Edward F. "Ward" Sproat, director of the department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said he understood Domenici's concerns about the latest timeline. "I'm not saying that was the most probable schedule. I said it was the best achievable schedule," Sproat said. Even if the 2017 scenario were to come true, Domenici said, there already would be enough nuclear waste at commercial reactors and defense sites to fill the Yucca Mountain site, and it would take until 2040 to move all that waste. Currently, there are more than 50,000 tons of nuclear waste piled up at commercial nuclear power plants in 31 states. The administration wants to lift the 77,000-ton storage cap on the dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas and allow as much waste as the mountain can safely hold  132,000 tons or more. Domenici said the solution also includes a new effort to recycle nuclear waste, as well as an interim storage plan he has proposed. Sproat has expressed doubts about the interim storage plan, saying it could take nearly as long to set it up as it would to begin moving waste to Yucca Mountain. The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 41 Spartanburg Herald-Journal: Nuclear waste Debbie Gruner, Spartanburg Published August 3, 2006 Article Options " I am writing regarding your July 28 editorial addressing Congress trying to kill funding for the mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) plant. Thank you for bringing this most recent development to our attention. I have been arguing the point for many years now that if we keep accepting radioactive waste from other states, we won't have any children left to educate. And education was the original arrangement since money received would be earmarked for education -- big ha-ha! So many programs have been started in the name of better education, and our educational system is still in terrible shape, with the programs being less than desirable for South Carolina. Is the Barnwell site no longer a cash cow? Must our responsible representatives now look for more money to replace dwindling revenues, or are they just greedy? I think our representatives actually couldn't care less about the environment, terrorism, jobs, etc., when dollar signs from Washington are dancing before their eyes, should the Yucca Mountain storage site in Nevada default. Washington has done nothing it promised regarding this matter so far, so why would we think the money would be forthcoming? Washington is receiving less resistance from our representatives than those in Nevada, who are fighting for their constituents. Please do not let this rest. Let's hold our representatives accountable. South Carolina is not large enough to handle everyone's waste forever, especially in a facility that was not designed for long-term storage. The ecological impact alone should be reason enough to fight Washington. ©2006 Spartanburg Herald-Journal | Staff directory ***************************************************************** 42 Brattleboro Reformer: Governors challenge nuke waste proposal By ANDY ROSEN, Reformer Staff Thursday, August 3 BRATTLEBORO -- Gov. James Douglas and other leaders are taking issue with a proposed change in national energy policy that could leave the state, instead of the federal government, responsible for long term storage of nuclear waste from Vermont Yankee. On Wednesday, the Coalition of Northeastern Governors sent a letter to the U.S. Senate expressing opposition to a proposed federal law that would change the government's approach to spent nuclear fuel storage. Right now, the U.S. Department of Energy is ultimately responsible for the waste produced at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants. For years, the plan has been to transport it and permanently store it at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The proposed change in the law would require commercial spent fuel to be stored at local or regional storage facilities in up to 31 states across the nation. The letter from the Coalition of Northeastern Governors expresses opposition to the change. In the letter, the governors concede that waste storage is a complex policy issue, but they say that the proposed federal legislation isn't the solution. "This provision sets a hasty timetable that does not allow adequate consideration of the many safety, security, environmental, infrastructure and transportation impacts associated with keeping these waste in current sites," the letter reads. Douglas heads energy policy for the coalition of governors. Jason Gibbs, spokesman for the governor, said the legislation, if it becomes law, would shift ultimate responsibility for waste storage away from the federal government. "It would implement storage requirements without any discussion with state leaders and local communities," he said. "Gov. Douglas thinks it's the wrong way to go." Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, said the plant does not oppose the legislation. "The interim storage has always been an option," he said. "It leaves open the possibility of recycling the fuel through reprocessing." Williams said that wouldn't be an option if spent fuel were immediately buried. New England Newspapers, Inc. » (802) 254-2311 » 62 Black Mountain Road » Brattleboro, VT 05301-9242 ***************************************************************** 43 AZoM: Proposals to Bury UK's Radioactive Waste Should be Acted on Urgently Proposals to bury the UK's existing radioactive waste deep underground should be acted on urgently and not delayed by calls for more scientific research said the - the UK national academy of science - in a report published Monday 31 July 2006. The Society published its response to the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's (CoRWM) draft proposals concerning the management of the UK's radioactive wastes, ahead of the expected publication of the Committee's final findings today. The Society said that the draft recommendations by CoRWM - an independent committee appointed by the Government - supported the scientific community's consensus that geological disposal is a "feasible and low risk option. " It voiced its concern that CoRWM's recommendation for more research and development into general uncertainties concerning geological disposal, "may appear inconsistent with CoRWM's conclusion that sufficient confidence can already be placed in the long-term safety of [this option]." Sir David Wallace, vice president of the Royal Society, said: "It is inevitable that a robust and flexible long-term management strategy will require further research, but this must not be used as an excuse to delay the implementation of a disposal programme, including the process of identifying suitable sites. "The nature of scientific knowledge is such that there will always be levels of uncertainty associated with any method of disposing of radioactive waste. However, there is considerably less uncertainty surrounding burying radioactive waste deep underground in stable geological formations than other options "It is important that we act with urgency because identifying appropriate sites and then consulting on and building these deep storage facilities will take decades. This time-lag means a long-term management strategy will require an interim storage period, as recommended by CoRWM. " The Society supports CoRWM's recommendation that an independent body is set up and oversees the staged decision-making process into site selection and beyond. The report says, "Such a body should have a much stronger science and engineering capacity than CoRWM and also have public engagement and education capability." Sir David said: "The management of radioactive waste is a national issue that will require a continuing need for an open public dialogue. This should form a vital part of the long-term management of radioactive waste as the process moves to selecting sites and beyond." Posted 3rd August 2006 AZoNetwork Sites | | | | Partners - AZoM - The A to Z of Materials and AZojomo - The "AZo Journal of Materials Online"...AZoM.com Pty.Ltd Copyright © 2000-2006 ***************************************************************** 44 TSN: Small hamlet offers itself as Spanish nuclear waste cemetary - Typically Spanish Spain News http://www.typicallyspanish.com By h.b. Thu, 03 Aug 2006, 03:41 The Mayor of Peque, Rafael Lato Lobato, on the land he has offered for the nuclear waste cemetery - Photo EFE The Partido Popular Mayor of the Zamora hamlet of Peque, with a grand total of 175 inhabitants, has offered the municipality to play host to Spain’s needed new nuclear cemetery. Rafael Lato Lobato, has been in contact with the Ministry for Industry and considers that the presence of the nuclear cemetery will stop the exodus of the population from his hamlet. The planned temporary nuclear waste cemetery has a budget of 1 billion € and would mean the creation of 300 jobs during the four of five years it would take to build. Once working it would have 110 direct employees, and would accept the waste from all of Spain’s nuclear power stations. © typicallyspanish.com ©1999-2006 typicallyspanish.com About| Privacy Policy | Site ***************************************************************** 45 Kyiv Post: Rada approves Russian nuclear waste transits by Orysia Kulick, Kyiv Post Staff Writer Aug 03 2006, 02:56 [In the midst of Ukraine’s continuing crisis in parliament, a big majority of lawmakers managed to ratify a controversial international agreement last week, whereby Ukraine will serve as a transit zone for nuclear waste moving between Russia and Bulgaria] © Courtesy photo Maryna Bondarenko, press secretary and political council member of Ukraine’s Green Party Amid Ukraine’s continuing crisis in parliament, a solid majority of lawmakers has managed to ratify a controversial international agreement, whereby Ukraine will serve as a transit zone for nuclear waste moving between Russia and Bulgaria. A total of 279 out of 450 MPs passed the 10-year trilateral accord on July 27, when most Rada watchers were busy wondering whether President Viktor Yushchenko would dismiss the legislature, which has been operating under a pro-Russian majority since earlier this month. Ukrainian government officials have publicly guaranteed the safety of the nuclear containers, which will carry fresh as well as spent nuclear fuel, but Ukraine’s Green Party and other environmentalists are not convinced. They argue that, given the condition of Ukraine’s railway system, people living along the transportation route will be subject to the risk of a nuclear accident. The trilateral agreement was signed on April 27, 2006 by Olena Mykolaychuk, head of Ukraine’s State Committee for Nuclear Regulation. According to the international accord, the Ukrainian leg of the transit route begins in Khutir Mykhaylivsky, a village in northeastern Sumy Region, which borders the Russian Federation. Fresh nuclear fuel from Russia then traverses Ukraine by train to Ukraine’s southwesternmost tip, the port city of Izmail in Odessa Region. From that point, it is loaded onto special container boats, which cross the Black Sea to the Bulgarian coast. In addition, spent nuclear fuel (or high-level radioactive waste) from Bulgaria’s Kozloduy plant is to be transported back to Russia along the same route for further processing. The negotiations between Bulgaria, Ukraine and Russia over the transport of fresh and spent nuclear fuel stretched out over the course of three years, beginning in 2002, reportedly due to difficulties with Russia and Ukraine reaching agreement. Marina Bondarenko, the press secretary and political council member of Ukraine’s Green Party, told the Post that the timeframe for signing and ratifying the international accord had effectively expired about a year ago, and that the renewal of talks in 2006 was a surprising development. “In the current political context, where parliamentary factions have taken four months to divide posts and portfolios, the speed and bizarre unity with which 279 deputies ratified this agreement was absolutely astounding,” said Bondarenko. Moreover, she noted that the state of Ukraine’s railway system, which is in dire need of upgrade and repair, as well as the risks associated with transporting nuclear materials across the Black Sea, call into question not only the April 27 accord but also the Ukrainian government’s overall energy policy. Bondarenko said that as Ukraine is a signatory to the Aarhus Convention (which the Rada ratified on Nov. 18, 1999), officials of the Ukrainian government are not only obliged only to inform, but also to consult, the public when making decisions on environmental issues. “We know of the route [from Izmail to Khutir Mykhayvskiy], but were the people who live in these areas informed that nuclear waste is going to be transported right past their windows, were they asked whether or not they agree to this, will the trains be marked with appropriate signs that indicate that hazardous materials are being transported alongside their homes?” According to Bondarenko, Ukraine’s parliament was quick to ratify the international environmental Aarhus Convention (which boasts 35 other signatories) but has not been very diligent in complying with it, especially in terms of informing the public. During the July 27 parliamentary session, when lawmakers ratified the trilateral agreement, the State Committee for Nuclear Regulation’s Mykolaychuk played down any risks from the nuclear transits. "Honestly, in more than 15 years of these kinds of transport, which began when Ukraine was not yet independent, there has been not one accident," she said. "In the event of an accident, according to Statute 8 of the Vienna Convention, the Russian or Bulgarian operator, with guarantees from their respective governments, will pay Ukraine for measures, clean-up efforts and environmental damages,” she added. Moreover, Mykolaychuk said, Ukraine stands to receive badly needed revenues from the transits. “According to information that I have, [Ukrainian state railway company] Ukrzalyznytsya made Hr 5.95 million [around $1.2 million] from transporting nuclear materials across Ukraine last year, and not just between Bulgaria and Russia. Moreover, Ukrzaliznytsya made Hr 2.7 million [over $500,000] from eight transports of nuclear material between Russia and Bulgaria, which were carried out at the request of the Russian and Bulgarian governments, while we finalized this trilateral agreement," she told lawmakers on July 27. Kozloduy is Bulgaria’s only nuclear power plant, with four operational reactors that generate around 40 percent of the country’s power output. Kozloduy has two additional reactors, but they were shut down in 2002 as part of Bulgaria’s negotiations to accede to the European Union. Brussels wants Bulgaria to close two more reactors at Kozloduy, arguing that the plant’s two kilometer proximity to the Danube River poses serious environmental risks, despite decades of safety improvements made by the Bulgarian government. TVEL Corporation, Russia’s largest producer of nuclear fuel, announced in a March 9 statement published on its web site that it will supply nuclear fuel to Bulgaria’s Soviet-designed power station until 2020. EU membership entails exporting fissile materials only to countries with the legal, regulatory and technical capability to process and manage the spent fuel safely, but EU officials have signaled that there are serious doubts about Russia’s capacity to manage its own radioactive waste, much less fissile materials imported from abroad.According to the European Commission’s website, Bulgaria is committed to closing two more of its four remaining operational reactors this year. However reports citing anonymous Bulgarian officials have suggested that Sofia will try to export as much spent nuclear fuel to Moscow as it can before completing accession negotiations with the EU. © 2004 - 2006, . Kyiv Post ***************************************************************** 46 Nevada Observer: "A Record Of Fraud": Berkley -- "No Basis In Reality" - Ensign Vol. 3, No. 19 August 1, 2006 DOE Says, "We Will Bring Nuclear Garbage To Nevada Beginning March 2017" by Johnny Gunn With no license in hand, with congressional investigations of wrongdoing continuing, Department of Energy (DOE) officials went before congress and declared they will be accepting nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain beginning March 31, 2017. Braggadocio? Nevada Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (D) calls it fraud. Berkley says the entire Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository "continues to be plagued by lingering scientific uncertainties and a record of fraud and mismanagement that will doom its chances of ever opening." The time plan as outlined by Edward F. Sproat, III, Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy before congress indicates the Yucca repository will be accepting waste on March 31, 2017. Sproat said the design for its license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be completed by the end of November 2007. That license application has been in the works for more than 20 years and is no closer to being completed today than it was in 1986. Waffling on how to get the high-level nuclear waste from production plants to Yucca has also been continuing for 20 years or more. According to Sproat, the final rail alignment environmental impact statement will be issued at the end of June 2008. It was just one month ago that DOE said they may not be building that rail line around the Nuclear Testing Facility in southern Nevada anyway. Sproat went on to say the rail line construction will begin on October 5, 2009 and will be completed and ready for use by the end of June 2014. Sproat appears to be on a tight rein from the White House and has changed his approach to congress considerably from just a short time ago when he questioned the viability of the Yucca project. Nevada Senator John Ensign (R) said "Once again DOE has set forth a timeline with no basis in science or reality." Ensign has worked with Nevada Congressman Jon Porter (R) in his investigation of allegedly fraudulent e-mails within DOE's Quality Assurance program. Ensign said recently, "DOE's scientific defense of the Yucca Mountain project, which has ranged from incomplete to fraudulent, has resulted in a consensus that alternatives to Yucca Mountain need to be considered." Hearings are continuing in congress led by Nevada Senator Harry Reid (D) and New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici (R). Reid believes that Yucca will never be licensed, and that the waste should remain on the ground at the nuclear power plants. He is pushing for legislation to that effect and believes the waste can eventually be reconstituted into usable fuel. The concept of Yucca Mountain as a repository for nuclear waste began in the 1980s during the cold war. Throughout the rest of the world nuclear power generation facilities handled their own waste, but in this country it was believed that the government could do it better, safer, and for less cost. More than 20 years later, the costs have gone through the roof, the safety question is part of the fraudulent e-mails that are being investigated, and it's become more than obvious the federal government can not do a better job of sequestering this highly dangerous volume of killer waste. "Strong scientific evidence has clearly demonstrated that Yucca Mountain will not protect Nevadans from deadly radioactive waste," says Berkley. A part of the program that DOE and the administration wants passed includes bringing high lever nuclear waste onto our shores from foreign nuclear energy projects. Yucca Mountain is finite in its capacity, and the U.S. nuclear energy facilities will overwhelm that capacity before the facility is even licensed. Berkley said, "I am amazed that at a time when we face an $8 trillion debt, there is apparently an endless supply of money to be spent on ... the plan to bury Nevada in nuclear waste." EPA standards for the casks that hold the waste and how long the waste must be protected, that is the environment being protected from the waste have not been finalized or even debated outside the beltway. Those standards must be a part of DOE's license procedure and that hasn't been accomplished. EPA standards currently in discussion have not been accepted by the scientific community. Sproat said the EPA standards will be included in the Supplemental EIS that he says will be issued at the end of May 2008. The EPA is under federal court orders to create these environmental standards, and at this time has failed to do so. Further court involvement is almost guaranteed on most of the issues that Sproat spoke so favorably of. On environmental issues, Senators Reid and Ensign are prodding the Council on Environment Quality (CEQ) to release the long-overdue and legally mandated environmental impact analysis of the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act, the proposal for dumping nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The act was presented to Congress in April of this year and is now four months late. "We are talking about the most dangerous substance known to man," said a joint press release from Reid and Ensign. "The people of Nevada need to know, and have a right to know, about the dangers associated with storing 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in our state, including the potential environmental impact," said Reid. "It would be irresponsible to rush to build a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain and transport so much dangerous material across the country without the public being informed of the public health and environmental hazards." A hearing is scheduled as we go to press, and "The CEQ must provide this analysis to Congress," said Ensign. "The people of Nevada have a legal right to know the environmental impact" of this storage. Ensign and Reid both called the waste the most hazardous material known to man. The implication from the demand is that DOE, the CEQ, and others in the federal government treat the waste as a household product that can simply be flushed down the toilet. Along with environmental problems, the State of Nevada has concerns over DOE's new approach to the casks that are to hold the high level nuclear waste. In a letter from Bob Loux, Executive Director, Nevada Office of Nuclear Projects, to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, he has serious concerns on the proposed single canister system for transport, aging, and disposal of the waste. This is a referral to a suggestion from the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board to the DOE over the same concerns. Loux says, "DOE doesn't really have a plan for making this new concept work." In his letter, Loux says, "The apparent spent fuel handling simplifications for DOE come at the price of substantially increased complexity and work at the reactor sites, both for the owners and for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission." Loux concludes, "On closer examination, even the touted simplifications for DOE may well disappear. We think it is essential that Congress understand this state of affairs." What most of this article points out in big red letters is simply this: DOE is no more ready to be licensed and operating than it was more than 20 years ago. The area is unstable according to a research paper written recently by scientists Chih-Hsiang Ho, Eugene I. Smith, and Deborah L. Keenan. Titled "Hazard area and probability of volcanic eruption of the proposed high-level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca," the three say "Abstract models that calculate the probability that a new volcano or a dike from a nearby eruption will intersect the footprint of the proposed high level nuclear waster repository are generalized based on a conceptual model developed for the space transportation industry. The proposed hazard area defined such that every new eruption that occurs there will disrupt the repository, plays a fundamental role in developing probability models." For an enlightened view of Yucca Mountain from a pure science perspective, read "Uncertainty Underground," edited by Allison M. Macfarlane and Rodney C. Ewing and published by MIT Press in Cambridge, Mass. In the introduction the editors point out, "the substantial uncertainty involved in predicting the future behavior of nuclear waste in a geologic repository." The book is a compilation of learned essays by some of the most knowledgeable scientists in the nuclear field.  ***************************************************************** 47 Portsmouth Herald: Lynch opposes storing nuke waste at Seabrook August 03, 2006 CONCORD (AP) -- Gov. John Lynch sent a letter Wednesday objecting to a proposal that could lead to long-term storage of nuclear waste at the Seabrook Station and Vermont Yankee power plants. A bill before the U.S. House of Representatives proposes establishing storage sites for used nuclear fuel at up to 31 state locations. Lynch wrote to U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, who heads the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, saying the proposal is wrong for the health and safety of the citizens of New Hampshire. He also said state ratepayers, like those in many other states, have paid millions to create one secure national storage site in Nevada and to change course now is a bad move. Print this Story Email this Story [discuss] Discuss this Story Copyright © 2006 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 Ensign: ENSIGN TESTIFIES AGAINST PROPOSED YUCCA BILL 08/03/2006 Ensign testified today before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act which pushes for nuclear waste to be deposited at the Yucca Mountain repository. “This bill doesn’t enhance the management and disposal of nuclear waste – it simply expedites it,” stated Ensign. “The bill tries to legislate around the scientific and safety flaws of Yucca Mountain because supporters of the project know that it will never be opened if current laws and regulations remain in place.” The proposed bill removes all Department of Transportation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Surface Transportation Board and state authority over the transportation of nuclear waste. “Congress has heard repeatedly from experts who acknowledge that the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository will never be built because of the numerous and insurmountable scientific, safety and technical problems with the site,” Ensign remarked. “The bill claims to protect the health and safety of the public. Instead it erodes it. It undercuts safeguards for both the transportation and storage of nuclear waste, leaving the public more vulnerable than ever.” The full text of his remarks can be read below. STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN Hearing on S. 2589, the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Thursday, August 3, 2006 Submitted for the Record I want to thank the Chair, the Ranking, and other members of the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony on S.2589, the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act. I find the stated purpose of the bill to be outrageous – considering its content. The stated purpose of this bill is to enhance the management and disposal of nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste, to ensure protection of public health and safety, and to ensure the territorial integrity and security of the repository at Yucca Mountain. This bill fails on all three fronts. First, this bill doesn’t enhance the management and disposal of nuclear waste – it simply expedites it. The bill tries to legislate around the scientific and safety flaws of Yucca Mountain because supporters of the project know that it will never be opened if current laws and regulations remain in place. Congress has heard repeatedly from experts who acknowledge that the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository will never be built because of the numerous and insurmountable scientific, safety, and technical problems with the site. In addition, nearly three decades of poor management and oversight have demonstrated that the vast body of scientific and technical work done by the Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors, is incomplete or moot due to constantly changing repository designs and plans which do not meet scientific standards. This legislation does nothing to correct those problems; it merely attempts to circumvent them. In fact, the bill changes the funding mechanism to remove Congressional control and eliminates much needed oversight of how taxpayer dollars are being spent on this project. It also scales back NRC licensing requirements and eliminates regulations with the idea of getting nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain as fast as possible, regardless of the potential consequences. With all the flaws apparent in the project to date, I believe it is disingenuous to claim that management and disposal will be enhanced by cutting corners and taking a “make it work” approach to the nations’ most hazardous waste. Second, this bill doesn’t ensure protection of public health and safety – it erodes it. It undercuts safeguards for both the transportation and storage of nuclear waste, leaving the public more vulnerable than ever. It removes all Department of Transportation (DOT), Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Surface Transportation Board, and state authority over nuclear waste transport so that DOE has sole control over a nuclear transportation scheme of unprecedented magnitude. Shipments of waste would be exempt from present and future DOT safe-routing regulations, from DOT safety regulations, and from NRC safeguards regulations. Furthermore, the bill would exempt material that is transported or stored in NRC-licensed containers or located at Yucca Mountain from federal, state, and local environmental requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This would eliminate the requirement that hazardous non-nuclear contaminants mixed with the nuclear waste be identified and treated according to RCRA. Clearly this evasion of RCRA could serve as a precedent that would impact future transuranic waste shipments to the WIPP facility, as well as DOE environmental clean-up and legacy management sites across our nation. In February of this year, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released its report on the dangers associated with transporting nuclear waste and advocated that states and local governments have a central role in any successful waste transportation program. This legislation directly contradicts that recommendation. It abolishes state, local, and tribal government transportation authority and circumvents involvement from other federal agencies, such as NRC, DOT and the Department of Homeland Security, which is currently called for under exiting law. According to DOE, 45 states, 700 counties, and 50 Native American tribes will be affected by the transport of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Common sense would dictate that giving away all transportation authority to DOE, rather than the agencies and communities directly affected, does not protect the almost 11 million people within a half mile of the transportation route. Third, this bill does not ensure the territorial integrity and security of Yucca Mountain. Instead, it jeopardizes national security by withdrawing land currently controlled by the Air Force and the Nevada Test Site. One of the premier test and training sites in the country, Nellis Air Force Base has a varied mission portfolio that is met only by the size and diversity of its ranges and capabilities. Similarly, the Nevada Test Site is the only location that offers safe, secure, and remote testing for defense systems and high-hazard operations. Not only does this legislation call for a land withdrawal from these two sites, it also hands DOE the rights to the airspace, giving a non-defense agency the right to dictate what missions and operations can be conducted. This is not a zero-sum game. Withdrawing land to ensure the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain meets NRC licensing guidelines would erode the integrity of Nellis and the Test Site. It is not prudent to risk our national security by limiting the ability of these unique assets for a project like Yucca Mountain, which remains riddled with problems and questions and is doomed for failure. We need to find another solution to our nuclear waste problem and this legislation is not it. Instead, we need to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to require the title to all spent nuclear fuel, stored in dry casks, to be passed to the DOE upon on-site transfer from storage pools to casks. Senator Reid and I introduced legislation to allow the DOE to assume liability of the waste onsite before it is transferred to Yucca Mountain. Conveying the title means that the DOE will have full responsibility for the possession, stewardship, maintenance, and monitoring of all spent nuclear fuel. The DOE would also be made responsible for various maintenance and oversight that would be associated with implementation. The fact remains that if Yucca Mountain was a workable, safe, and scientifically sound plan, it would not require legislation to move it forward. This bill only makes Yucca seem workable on paper by rolling back the many laws and regulations designed to protect the public health and safety of all Americans. ***************************************************************** 49 Reid: Testifies against Yucca Washington, DC Washington, DC— U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee today about the flawed Yucca Mountain proposal. Reid’s statement addressed the problems with the Administration’s bill, safety and security issues associated with the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, and Department of Energy’s handling of the project. “The Administration’s proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump would change the rules, break the law and prevent states from protecting their cities and people,” said Reid. “I will continue fighting to make sure the Yucca Mountain project never becomes a reality.” The full text of his remarks as prepared for delivery is below. ### STATEMENT OF Senator Harry REID Hearing on S. 2589, The Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act of 2006 Before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Thursday, August 3, 2006 Submitted for the Record I want to thank the Chair, the Ranking member, and other members of the Committee for the opportunity present testimony on this issue, which is very important to me, my home State of Nevada, and the rest of the country. Everyone knows that the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump is a dying beast. And it should die – it is a scientifically unsound project that would needlessly threaten the public health and safety of Americans everywhere. Even the administration knows this is a flawed, dangerous project. We can see this in the bill. It tells you everything that the administration knows is wrong with Yucca. They have sent us this legislation to change the rules, break the law and prevent states from protecting their citizens. If Yucca were scientifically sound – if it genuinely was a safe place to store nuclear waste – the administration would not need to gut the laws that regulate hazardous waste handling and transportation, clean air, water rights, public land laws, and environmental policy. If Yucca were scientifically sound, the administration would not need to preempt states’ rights. If Yucca were scientifically sound – if it was genuinely safe – we would not have this bill and we would not be here today. Let’s be honest, the administration is trying to prevent the states from protecting themselves and their citizens. It is important to remember that this proposal does not just affect or preempt Nevada, but your states as well. And not just in the area of transportation. For instance, the administration also wants to preempt the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for any Department of Energy facility where waste is transported or stored in Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed casks, such as the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico. If Yucca were scientifically sound and safe, DOE would not need to remove control of the project from the agencies with expertise – the Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and even the Department of Defense. Do my colleagues on the committee know that this bill subordinates the authority of the Department of Defense to that of the Department of Energy? No longer does DOD get to determine, when, where and how our flights are conducted at Nellis Air Force Base. The administration has determined that DOE will make those decisions for flights over the Yucca Mountain area. We cannot sacrifice our nation’s national security for this short-sighted proposal. What may be even worse is that Congress is being asked to approve the gutting of all these laws and authorities for a project without any details, with no assurance of its safety, no assurance of its viability, and no assurance of its long-term integrity. In fact, the administration has not even done the impact analysis of this proposal as required by the National Environmental Protection Act. We’ve been trying to get that analysis and clarification on what the administration is or is not doing, but have been given the runaround. Maybe that’s partly because DOE does not even have a final design for the facility. That is right – DOE has announced that it is completely redesigning the surface facilities, transportation methods and storage requirements. What are the details? We do not have them. The truth is – although DOE has never said so – if the Department truly intends to increase the amount of waste that can be stored in the mountain, DOE will have to redesign the facility itself. They are just saying trust us – do not ask any questions, just trust us. Trust DOE, the department that has had more than 20 years of quality assurance and control problems on this program, whose contractors have the same problems, both of which ignore them and let them continue? Trust DOE, the agency that does not care that data on water infiltration was falsified? Trust DOE? I don’t think so. Let me take a moment and address the USGS incident. DOE likes to make a lot of noise about the fact that the Department of Justice did not bring criminal charges against the employees who falsified the data. But let’s be clear: avoiding criminal indictment is NOT an exoneration. To meet the high burden of a criminal case, prosecutors would have had to prove that the employees made false statements with deliberate knowledge that the statements were false and that the statements had a material effect on the project. Of course the employees knew that the statements were false – we know that from their own emails, which have been released. However, prosecutors couldn’t prove that the statements had a material effect on the section of a site that had been selected years before. So these employees narrowly averted federal felony charges. That does not mean the data is accurate. False data is still false data. Worst of all, DOE has no intention of redoing the data. The threat of criminal prosecution may have passed, but the threat to public health remains. It is not surprising. Ward Sproat, who oversees the Yucca Mountain project, admitted in testimony before the House last month that DOE does not have the expertise to design and construct Yucca Mountain. DOE must rely on the expertise of its contractor – Bechtel. Bechtel – to whom DOE has given bonuses for substandard and incomplete work. Bechtel – the contractor that was under a stop work order because it ignored problems. Bechtel – the same company that ignored problems with the Big Dig, an action that has led to continuing safety problems and, tragically, the death of a motorist from the falling tunnel. It concerns me that it is Bechtel’s expertise upon which DOE is relying. But it is a metaphor for this entire project. I have grave reservations about nuclear power primarily because of the problems it generates in terms of spent nuclear fuel storage and transportation, the security and siting of nuclear power plants, and nonproliferation. I would like see these problems solved. I would like for nuclear power to be the panacea that some of my esteemed colleagues see it as. But nuclear power never will solve any problems unless we address and resolve these problems. That will never happen until we actually look for and find a scientific solution, a real solution, not a political solution, to these issues. I think that we can. I have faith in American ingenuity. America has the best minds in the world. I believe that if we truly focused on solving the real problems of spent nuclear fuel, we could. Let’s stop wasting time and money researching and redesigning Yucca Mountain. After more than 20 years we know that it will not work. Let’s start really trying to solve the problem of nuclear waste. What are we to do with the waste in the interim? We leave it on-site in dry cask storage, where it is safely and securely stored now and where the nuclear industry estimates it will continue to be safely stored for decades. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, dry cask storage is here to stay. And according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it’s safe for one to two hundred years. And, on-site storage saves money. DOE’s last estimate for Yucca Mountain, a low ball estimate, was $56 billion. Nevada estimates $100 billion. Dry cask storage is estimated to be, at the low end, $4.5 billion, up to $10.5 billion, tops. As NEI has shown us, with or without Yucca, on-site storage will be widespread. Let’s embrace this option while we search for other alternatives. We should stop wasting our time and money on Yucca Mountain and on an administration proposal that Mr. Sproat himself said it does not even need right now. We have too much to do. I challenge all my colleagues to sit down with me, as many on both sides of the aisle have already done, and begin discussing a scientifically sound solution to our nuclear waste problems. Let’s take the focus away from this dead project, and find real solutions to secure our energy future. Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia St, Site 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757 [ /] Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 702-388-5030 [ /] Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980 [ /] Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) ***************************************************************** 50 PRN: Southern Company Represents Nuclear Industry Before Senate Committee PR Newswire ATLANTA, Aug. 3 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Speaking before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources today in Washington, D.C., Barnie Beasley, President and CEO of Southern Nuclear Operating Company, a subsidiary of Atlanta-based Southern Company, expressed strong support of the Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act, S. 2589, on behalf of the nuclear energy industry. (Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20020207/SOCOLOGO) "In order to fully realize the benefits that nuclear power offers, a solution for the problem of disposal of used nuclear fuel must be found," Beasley told committee members. The fundamental problem with the failure of the federal government to remove used fuel from U.S. plant sites has not been the lack of authorizing legislation, Beasley said, but the failure to fund and implement current legislation. "While new legislation to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is important, it is even more critical that the federal government commit itself to the implementation of existing law," Beasley said. On July 19, the nuclear energy industry was encouraged by Department of Energy's announcement that it would submit a license application by June 30, 2008, and the "Best-Achievable" construction schedule that could have the repository begin receipt of used fuel in March 2017. While DOE's announcement of a schedule for licensing the repository is a significant development, the schedule will be difficult to achieve without congressional action. "The nation's policymakers must be confident that policies are in place to ensure the safe and secure storage and disposal of used nuclear fuel. Managing the nation's used fuel is a firmly established federal obligation and, as such, is a matter of broad national policy," Beasley said. In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences confirmed four decades of international scientific consensus that geologic disposal is the best method for managing used nuclear fuel. In 2002, Congress approved a geologic disposal site at Yucca Mountain. In the Energy Policy Act, Congress included provisions that encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants, illustrating confidence in the nation's ability to manage used reactor fuel in the future, and DOE has safely operated a geologic disposal site for radioactive waste near Carlsbad, N.M. Beasley told committee members that issues regarding the timing and certainty of performance by DOE of its used fuel management obligations should be resolved in proceedings on the repository, or in Congress. "Litigation of such issues in individual plant licensing proceedings is neither efficient nor appropriate. NRC has long recognized that individual plant licensing proceedings should not be burdened with debates over DOE's development of the repository. Congress should codify 'waste confidence' as called for in S. 2589, so that the NRC need not address this broad public policy matter in routine licensing proceedings," he said. Beasley also pointed out the billions of dollars that have been invested in the development of Yucca Mountain. "To date, consumers of nuclear power have committed more than $27 billion in fees and accrued interest into the fund, and continue to pay at a rate of $750 million each year. However, only some $9 billion has been spent on the project, leaving a balance in excess of $18 billion," Beasley said. "We believe it is important for the Congress to act to maintain the integrity of the Nuclear Waste Fund. We support amending S. 2589 to clearly define that only activities that directly contribute to meeting the federal government's obligation under the NWPA can be supported from the Nuclear Waste Fund. This includes expenditures related to transportation, storage, and disposal of used fuel and high-level waste," he said. The industry's top priority is for the federal government to meet its statutory and contractual obligation to move used fuel away from operating and decommissioned reactor sites. The government already is eight years in arrears in meeting this obligation, Beasley testified, and it will be at least another decade before the repository is completed. That failure is the subject of more than 60 lawsuits, which potentially expose the federal government to billions of dollars of judgments and settlements. Further delays in federal receipt and movement of used nuclear fuel and defense waste products will only add to utility damage claims, and, according to DOE, will increase taxpayer liability for defense waste site life-cycle costs and Yucca Mountain fixed costs. In conclusion, Beasley told the Senate committee, "We must never lose sight of the federal government's responsibility for civilian used nuclear fuel disposal, as stated by Congress in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The industry fully supports the fundamental need for a repository so used nuclear fuel and the byproducts of the nation's nuclear weapons program are safely and securely managed in a specially designed, underground facility. World-class science has demonstrated that Yucca Mountain is an eminently suitable site for such a facility, and enactment of S. 2589 is the critical pre-requisite to implementing our national policy for used fuel management." With 4.3 million customers and more than 40,000 megawatts of generating capacity, Atlanta-based Southern Company (NYSE: SO) is the premier energy company serving the Southeast, one of America's fastest-growing regions. A leading U.S. producer of electricity, Southern Company owns electric utilities in four states and a growing competitive generation company, as well as fiber optics and wireless communications. Southern Company brands are known for excellent customer service, high reliability and retail electric prices that are significantly below the national average. Southern Company has received the highest ranking in customer satisfaction among U.S. electric service providers for seven consecutive years by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Visit our Web site at http://www.southerncompany.com. SOURCE Southern Company Related links: + http://www.southerncompany.com/ Photo Notes: Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 Mos News: Ukraine Buys $201M Worth of Nuclear Fuel From Russia - MOSNEWS.COM Created: 03.08.2006 17:22 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 17:22 MSK Ukraine’s national atomic energy generating company Energoatom has transferred $201 million to Russia’s TVEL for fresh nuclear fuel it received from the beginning of 2006. “Fresh nuclear fuel is supplied, and spent fuel taken away according to the schedule,” Ukraine Fuel and Energy Minister Ivan Plachkov was quoted by RIA Novosti as saying at a parliamentary session on Thursday. Fuel has been delivered to nine of the15 power generation units of the Ukrainian nuclear power plants. Earlier TVEL was reported to sign a deal for nuclear fuel delivery to all 15 of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants in 2006. TVEL is one of the world’s biggest producers and suppliers of nuclear fuel for energy and research reactors in Russia and abroad. The corporation consists of 15 enterprises of the nuclear fuel cycle and auxiliary infrastructure. TVEL keeps 17 percent of the world’s nuclear power station reactors in operation. Write us: info@mosnews.com Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 52 times and star: N-plant to offer Pechiney workers jobs workington lake district Published on 03/08/2006 STAFF at Lillyhall firm Pechiney, due to close next summer, may be offered jobs at the Sellafield nuclear plant. Seven hundred new permanent nuclear jobs are in the pipeline, 300 of them on offer right away. Site operator British Nuclear Group already employs 8,500 but needs the extra staff to meet decommissioning targets. Most of the vacancies are in the nuclear clean-up area and spread right across the board. A BNG spokesman said that if things go to plan, an additional 400 may be required later in the year because they are accelerating decommissioning work. BNG began advertising the posts this week. Some priority may be given to the 160 workers who are losing their jobs at the Alcan Pechiney packing and aerospace factory at Distington. “We are approaching Alcan, asking for CVs from workers who may be interested in coming to Sellafield, then we can assess candidates and carry out interviews. There may be a lot of key skills at Alcan that can be adapted to the nuclear area,” the spokesman added. MP Jamie Reed said: “Whether it’s 700 jobs or 300, this is a tremendous boost not only to Sellafield but to the whole of the area, coming as it is right after the Alcan blow. “I applaud BNG’s approach to Alcan and also the trades unions to see what skills from the redundant workforce can be made available. I expect there will be a significant reservoir of skills which match many of the vacancies at Sellafield. “We must be aware of how recruitment campaigns can affect the local economy and the need to employ as many local people as possible in order to ensure long-term stability. However, this is an extremely encouraging sign and BNG’s decision should serve as a lesson for those companies interested in purchasing the company: safe operations come before all else and cannot be achieved on the cheap.” ***************************************************************** 53 Whitehaven News: Bidders to gather for showdown Published on 03/08/2006 By David Siddall ALL the bidders seeking to take over British Nuclear Group and Sellafield are to hold meetings within the next few weeks with leading investment bankers, N M Rothschild. Among those bidders to take over West Cumbria’s biggest employers will be powerful multinational Bechtel. This is despite the fact that Bechtel has seen all the confidential details of the costs and potential profits of BNG. The News has established that the Government had been kept informed about the decision by the board of the NDA to allow Bechtel to join the bids. This was despite an earlier covenant that Bechtel could not bid, as it had unfair advantage in that the company devised the NDA and had full access to all the financial figures. Two of the NDA board directors have worked for Bechtel in the recent past, one being Mark Leggett, the NDA commercial director. Lobbying hard on behalf of Bechtel is LLM Communications, which counts former advisers to Tony Blair on its list of directors. Last week Norman Baker the Liberal Democrat MP said: “My concern is the revolving doors and whether there is preferential treatment for companies.” Lobbying equally hard with their rival bid is Fluor Corporation, which has Lord Jack Cunningham’s Sovereign Strategies lobbying on its behalf. The News asked the NDA about the decision to open the door to a bid from Bechtel. They said: “Bechtel were originally contracted by the DTI to assist the Liabilities Management Unit in setting up the NDA, along with other specialist organisations such as Herbert Smith and Deloittes. “Bechtel helped to formulate the contracts with the incumbent contractors, to establish programme controls and to introduce the concept of the life cycle base line which provides a framework for contractors to develop a detailed understanding of the programme and cost for each site. “When the Bechtel contract was extended to assist the NDA in its early development after its launch on April 1, 2005 it was agreed that Bechtel could not bid for Tier 1 contracts before June 2008 if the NDA believed that they had an unfair commercial advantage. Consideration was given to this in April and our assessment — which we shared publicly — was that Bechtel has no unfair commercial advantage arising from its previous role in the creation of the NDA. “We reached this view for two principal reasons: much of the NDA’s thinking has evolved, especially in relation to any new contracts; and, also because many major contractors — and potential competitors — have already secured significant contracts or formed partnerships with BNG or UKAEA who have themselves unrivalled understanding of the sites they operate.” ***************************************************************** 54 Whitehaven News: Sweeteners offered – with nuclear waste Published on 03/08/2006 SWEETENERS will be offered to any community that agrees to take the nation’s medium-level radioactive waste from the nuclear industry, mainly Sellafield. Experts have recommended to the government that “a package of measures” should be offered to any community prepared to have a deep underground waste repository, subject to geology being sound and safe. Longlands, at Gosforth, was earmarked to become the UK’s first underground disposal site until Nirex lost a public inquiry to build a rock-testing laboratory there. This week’s new report from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) has sparked speculation that Longlands could be back under the microscope or even another area close to Sellafield, where 60 per cent of the waste is already stored above ground. But CoRWM has concluded that underground disposal, in specially constructed structures to protect the environment, is the best long-term option. Its draft recommendations argues that “to identify a site for geological disposal the government will need to secure from potential host communities a willingness to participate and that it should offer a package of measures to support participation”. Prospect, Britain’s biggest nuclear union, said that future site selection for any deep repository had to be done jointly with communities “and those affected by transportation, environmental, social, ethical and economic issues”. Seascale councillor David Moore, chairman of the West Cumbria sites (Sellafield, Drigg) stakeholder group, is sceptical about Longlands being suitable. He said: “There is a strong case to look at Sellafield itself, either on or off the site, but the remit should be widened, not just nuclear waste but new build such as a new reactor; there are opportunities to be explored. “As far as a deep underground repository is concerned, safety comes first which means the geology has to be sound. “Any special measures to benefit a host community has to be acceptable to local people so we would want a big package, we’re not talking peanuts. If we are to be the long-term disposal site for the whole of the UK then the package must reflect it.” Gosforth potter Dick Wright, who led the ‘No to Nirex’ campaign, said: “I don’t think Longlands will be re-visited. Before you get anywhere you have to demonstrate safety and it has already been established that this is an extremely doubtful site.” Gosforth Parish Council chairman Graham Hutson, a Sellafield chemist, said he thought the village was still split on the dump issue. “When Nirex pulled out there were people here who didn’t realise the sort of money they were putting in and other things they were in negotiations with us about. “If we are revisited then we would have to be absolutely convinced about safety before community benefits were even considered.” ***************************************************************** 55 Whitehaven News: 700 new Sellafield jobs Published on 03/08/2006 By Alan Irving SEVEN hundred new permanent Sellafield jobs are in the pipeline, 300 of them on offer right away. Site operators BNG already employs 8,500 but needs to add another 300 to the payroll immediately to meet decommissioning targets. Most of the vacancies are in the nuclear clean-up area and spread right across the board. A British Nuclear Group spokesman said yesterday: “There are 300 new jobs now, and if things go to plan an additional 400 may be required later in the year. This is due to the fact that we are accelerating work in decommissioning.” BNG began advertising the posts this week. Some priority may be given to the 160 workers who are losing their jobs at the Alcan Pechiney packing and aerospace factory which is closing down at Distington. “We are approaching Alcan, asking for CVs from workers who may be interested in coming to Sellafield, then we can assess candidates and carry out interviews. There may be a lot of key skills at Alcan that can be adapted to the nuclear area,” the spokesman added. BNG’s site programme for 2006-2007 identified a need to take on another 700 workers and a decision will be taken on whether to employ the extra 400 as work progresses. MP Jamie Reed told The Whitehaven News: “Whether it’s 700 jobs or 300, this is a tremendous boost not only to Sellafield but to the whole of the area, coming as it is right after the Alcan blow. “I applaud BNG’s approach to Alcan and also the trades unions to see what skills from the redundant workforce can be made available. I expect there will be a significant reservoir of skills which match many of the vacancies at Sellafield. “We must be aware of how recruitment campaigns can affect the local economy and the need to employ as many local people as possible in order to ensure long-term stability. However, this is an extremely encouraging sign and BNG’s decision should serve as a lesson for those companies interested in purchasing the company: safe operations come before all else and cannot be achieved on the cheap.” ***************************************************************** 56 Australian: Labor 'to repeal nuke-dump laws' This story is from our news.com.aunetwork Source: AAP August 03, 2006 LABOR will repeal legislation that imposes a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory if it wins government. But Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said there would still be a need for a nuclear waste facility and believed a site should be found "by negotiation". In Darwin on a whirlwind tour of the NT, Mr Beazley said the way the NT had been treated on the issue was "shocking". The Federal Government is moving ahead with plans for a nuclear waste repository in the territory despite its parliament passing legislation prohibiting such a facility. Three sites are being considered; Harts Range, 100km north east of Alice Springs, Mt Everard, also in Central Australia, and Fishers Ridge, near Katherine. In December, federal Parliament passed two Bills to override the NT's objection to the dump, after the SA government opposed the Federal Government's preferred site near Woomera. "We'll not use that legislation, we'll repeal it and we'll put something else in place," Mr Beazley told ABC radio. "We do have to find an alternative, a location for that dump, but we oppose that legislation." Mr Beazley said he believed it would be possible to find a solution to the problem of waste through negotiation. "There is a need for a nuclear waste dump and that ought to be talked through with the communities and done in a way that at the end of the day is based on a consensus," Mr Beazley said. "I oppose the way the NT has been treated on this. "If we are in a position because final decisions or substantial decisions have not been taken, contracts let and all the rest of it ... we will sit down and make our way through this issue to come to a conclusion that is not on the basis of an imposition." The Australian ***************************************************************** 57 Sydney Morning Herald: ALP to repeal nuke dump laws if elected - www.smh.com.au August 3, 2006 - 10:24AM Labor will repeal legislation that imposes a nuclear waste dump on the Northern Territory if it wins government. But Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said there would still be a need for a nuclear waste facility and believed a site should be found "by negotiation." In Darwin on a whirlwind tour of the NT, Mr Beazley said the way the NT had been treated on the issue was "shocking". The federal government is moving ahead with plans for a nuclear waste repository in the territory despite its parliament passing legislation prohibiting such a facility. Three sites are being considered; Harts Range, 100km north east of Alice Springs, Mt Everard, also in Central Australia, and Fishers Ridge, near Katherine. In December, federal parliament passed two bills to override the NT's objection to the dump, after the SA government opposed the federal government's preferred site near Woomera. "We'll not use that legislation, we'll repeal it and we'll put something else in place," Mr Beazley told ABC radio. "We do have to find an alternative, a location for that dump, but we oppose that legislation." Mr Beazley said he believed it would be possible to find a solution to the problem of waste through negotiation. "There is a need for a nuclear waste dump and that ought to be talked through with the communities and done in a way that at the end of the day is based on a consensus," Mr Beazley said. "I oppose the way the NT has been treated on this. "If we are in a position because final decisions or substantial decisions have not been taken, contracts let and all the rest of it ... we will sit down and make our way through this issue to come to a conclusion that is not on the basis of an imposition." © 2006 AAP + smh.com.au. ***************************************************************** 58 DOE: DOE Awards $3.3 million for Advanced Remediation Technology Contracts August 3, 2006 WASHINGTON, DC  The Department of Energys (DOE) Office of Environmental Management (EM) today awarded 12 contracts totaling $3.3 million to support the development of technologies that have the potential to reduce cleanup costs and increase the safety and efficiency of treating and disposing of radioactive waste. These contracts provide funding to small and large businesses and a university to develop technologies over a six month period. These awards allow for further development and evaluation of technologies that can lead to breakthroughs in how the Department implements its cleanup mission across the complex, said Assistant Secretary of Environmental Management Jim Rispoli. We look forward to evaluating how these key remediation technologies can help us meet our cleanup needs in the years to come. The Department received 39 proposals for performing work under Phase I of the contract of which 12 proposals were selected. Phase I proposed activities include: laboratory/pilot-scale test results, developing a technical approach for demonstration, scale-up and implementation schedule, detailed system design, and a detailed cost estimate for implementation in Phase II. The contractors and the focus of their advanced remediation technology work include: one university: the University of Texas for strontium immobilization in groundwater; four small businesses: ARES Corporation for single-shell heel removal, TMR Associates for tank heel removal, North Wind for subsurface characterization, and Commodore Advanced Sciences, Inc., for metals separation; and five businesses: Cogema Inc., (2 awards) for cold crucible induction melter and tank waste alumina recovery, THOR Treatment Technologies for treatment of Hanford and Savannah River site high level waste, Parsons Inc., (2 awards) for cesium removal and aluminum and chromium removal, Gas Technology Institute for submerged combustion melting, and ARCADIS G&M Inc., for groundwater remediation. The estimated cumulative contract value of these 12 six-month fixed price contracts is valued at $3.3 million, approximately $300,000 per contract. The Department will evaluate the proposals at the end of the six-month contract period and select those technologies which can provide the greatest benefit to the Departments cleanup mission for further development. Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General ***************************************************************** 59 DOE: DOE Continues Path Forward on Global Nuclear Energy Partnership August 3, 2006 epartment Announces $20 Million for GNEP Siting Studies and Seeks Further Coordination with Industry WASHINGTON, DC  The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced $20 million to conduct detailed siting studies for public or commercial entities interested in hosting DOEs Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) facilities. Entities could qualify to receive up to $5 million per site. DOE also announced that it is seeking expressions of interest to obtain input from U.S. and international nuclear industry on the feasibility of accelerating development and deployment of advanced recycling technologies by proceeding with commercial scale demonstration facilities, specifically a Consolidated Fuel Treatment Facility and an Advanced Burner Reactor. The siting studies and expressions of interest enable public and commercial entities to provide useful input to the Departments decision-making process for siting and building GNEP facilities in the U.S., DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. These are important steps forward for the GNEP initiative. GNEP, launched earlier this year as part of the Presidents Advanced Energy Initiative, aims to expand the use of nuclear energy to address the growing demand for energy. GNEP proposes private-public-international partnerships to develop advanced technologies to recycle used nuclear fuel, reduce wastes, and avoid misuse of nuclear materials. Based on international and private sector response to GNEP, the Energy Department believes there are advanced technologies available to recycle used nuclear fuel that may be ready for deployment in conjunction with those currently under development by DOE. In light of this information, DOE is investigating the feasibility of accelerating development and deployment of advanced recycling technologies by proceeding with commercial demonstrations of the technologies. The Department is considering a two-track approach to demonstrate technologies under GNEP. The first track involves deployment of commercial scale facilities for which advanced technologies are available now or in the near future. The second track would focus on further research and development on transmutation fuels (containing plutonium and minor actinides) technologies. Under the first track, DOE is currently considering two commercial scale facilities: a Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center, capable of separating used fuel into its usable and waste components; and an Advanced Burner Reactor which would convert transuranics into shorter-lived radioisotopes while producing electricity. Under the second track, an Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility announced earlier this year to support development of technologies to separate and fabricate the transmutation fuels for the Advanced Burner Reactor would be designed and directed through DOEs national laboratories and therefore, is not part of the siting studies or the industry-requested expressions of interest. Congress allocated $20 million in FY 2006 to DOE for siting studies of integrated recycling facilities, with a maximum of $5 million available per site. To be eligible for funding for siting studies, the proposed site must meet minimum criteria related to size, hydrology, electricity capacity, population density, zoning, water availability, road access, and seismic stability. Preference for award of funds for the siting studies may be given to sites where the applicant has demonstrated community and state support for the use of the site for GNEP facilities. Preference may also be given if the proposed site has the potential for supporting both facilities. Applications for financial assistance grants must be received by September 7, 2006. DOE anticipates announcing applications it will fund by the end of October 2006. Winning applicants will have 90 days to complete the site studies and submit required information to DOE. Information generated from the detailed siting studies may be used in an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will evaluate the potential environmental impacts from each proposed GNEP facility. At the conclusion of the EIS, DOE will make decisions about whether to move forward with the facilities, and if so, where to locate them. Both the Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center and the Advanced Burner Reactor could be located together. Industry-submitted expressions of interest on the recycling technologies are due to the Energy Department by September 8, 2006. The Department believes that industrys input is valuable in considering the configuration of GNEPs closed fuel cycle. Information gained from the expressions of interest will be used to create Requests for Proposals for the proposed Consolidated Fuel Treatment Facility and the Advanced Burner Reactor. A briefing to describe DOEs baseline plan and answer expression of interest-related questions will be held August 14, 2006, from 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. DOE requests that interested parties who wish to attend the briefing send an email to GNEP_EOI_RSVP@nuclear.energy.gov. The Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement for the siting studies and the Expressions of Interest may be found at: http://gnep.gov/. The specific location for the briefing on the request for expressions of interest also will be announced on the GNEP website, http://gnep.gov/. The Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement is also available at http://www.grant.gov/. The request for expressions of interest issued today will be published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2006. Additional information on DOEs nuclear energy programs may be found at: http://www.nuclear.gov. Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General ***************************************************************** 60 Santa Fe New Mexican: Tech receives laser from Los Alamos lab Thu Aug 3, 2006 5:28 pm By ASSOCIATED PRESS SOCORRO, N.M. (AP) - New Mexico Tech has received a $4.5 million laser that will primarily be used to cut and machine explosives. The laser was designed and built by scientists and engineers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and comes via Los Alamos National Laboratory. The specialized laser will allow Tech's Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center to cut and form materials with powerful, ultra-short pulses of energy lasting only a few hundred femto-seconds. A femto-second is one-quadrillionth of a second, which is one-millionth of one-billionth of a second. "The laser doesn't generate heat because the pulse is so incredibly fast," said Christa Hockensmith, the head of the research center's chemistry research and development laboratory. Hockensmith said both students and faculty will be able to use the laser, which is housed in two rooms. Researchers at Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque and Los Alamos lab also have expressed interest in using the laser for experiments, she said. Research using the laser could result in better ways to detect explosive devices at airports, borders and ports, Tech said in a news release. Hockensmith said that advances that come from using the laser also would allow new classes of explosives to be developed "that will be more powerful, safer to handle and more environmentally benign." The National Nuclear Security Administration, a semiautonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy, made arrangements for the laser to be housed at New Mexico Tech. ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions ***************************************************************** 61 Hanford News: Fluor Hanford manager to get big thanks This story was published Wednesday, August 2nd, 2006 By Mary Hopkin, Herald staff writer In a decade, John Umbarger has given more to the Tri-Cities than many people do in a lifetime. He created the Crystal Apple Award. He's collected used instruments to outfit the area's budding musicians. He's served on the boards of numerous community nonprofit organizations such as the Mid-Columbia Education Alliance. He's even dressed in a tutu to promote Junior Achievement. And on Thursday, he'll receive a big thank you. Umbarger, Fluor Hanford's manager of community programs, will be presented with the Leadership Tri-Cities 2006 Sam Volpentest Leadership Award. The public awards ceremony will be at 6 p.m. at the Stone Ridge Events Center, 5960 Burden Boulevard in Pasco. Connie Eckard, past president of Leadership Tri-Cities' alumni association, said the award is meant to recognize individuals who have a history of making positive contributions to the community. Umbarger's job allows him to work with businesses and organizations throughout the area, but he spends hundreds of additional hours beyond that volunteering in the community. Umbarger, who has a doctorate in nuclear physics, spent 26 years at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. He retired Jan. 30, 1997, from Los Alamos and three days later joined Fluor Hanford as deputy director of its Office of Economic Transition. Later Umbarger, who lives in Burbank with his wife Kathryn, was named manager of community programs, responsible for educational outreach, student intern programs and other programs. Debra Bowen, Junior Achievement's executive director, said Umbarger began helping students in the Benton-Franklin Juvenile Justice Center to finish their high school diplomas several years ago. "Even with his unusual exuberance, he quickly learned that Junior Achievement's traditional eight-week course didn't break the ice with these special students," she said. "He spent the entire year with the students - mentoring, supporting and believing in them." Bowen said in the end, 14 of the students earned their GEDs. Umbarger said he was stunned to learn he was the recipient of the ninth Volpentest Leadership Award. "There are too many wonderful people in the Tri-Cities who deserve it," he said. "Community is all about helping each other. You do it because you have an obligation to. When you are blessed with good health and riches, you share it with people, and hopefully they do the same." © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 62 Tri-City Herald: DOE faulted for late contracts Published Thursday, August 3rd, 2006 By Nathan Isaacs, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy needs to figure out how to award its contracts in a more timely manner, according to a government review released this week. The Government Accountability Office reviewed the timeliness of 31 contracts DOE awarded during fiscal years 2002-05, including a $1.6 billion contract with Washington Closure for the cleanup along the Columbia River corridor. The report comes as two of the Hanford nuclear reservation's four major contracts are about to expire. In September, Fluor Hanford's contract for cleaning for up the central plateau and CH2M Hill Hanford Group's contract for cleanup of the tank farms both expire. Those contracts are expected to be extended for up to two years while DOE goes through the process of awarding new contracts. Of all the reviewed contracts, only three were awarded on time -- complying with DOE's schedule -- and two were awarded more than two years late, including a Hanford contract, GAO said. Fourteen of them were awarded two months to a year late. Those delays can increase costs to DOE and the companies that compete for DOE work, the GAO reported. The agency recommended DOE develop better ways to measure its timeliness in awarding contracts and improve how it applies lessons learned from awarding contracts. The report mirrors similar recent GAO criticisms of DOE, including reports on a program to help ill nuclear workers and on its contracts with small businesses. In its written response, DOE said it improved the procurement process prior to the report's release. DOE generally agreed to the GAO recommendations, but did raise some issues. The 31 contracts reviewed were among 130 contracts, each worth $5 million or more, awarded during 2002-05. DOE awarded more than 5,000 contracts during that time, although most were below the $5 million threshold. The 31 contracts added up to $12 billion of $16.3 billion awarded in the 130 large contracts. DOE took issue with the number of contracts reviewed, pointing out they added up to less than 1 percent of the total awarded during that period. The agency also pointed out that the sample contained a number of contracts that didn't meet scheduled award dates because of factors outside DOE control -- including congressional intervention, changing budgets and changes in requirements or site conditions. DOE also stated in its letter that the scheduled dates were an internal planning tool that changed over time. The report is on the Internet at www.gao.gov/new.items/d06722.pdf. © 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 63 Inside Bay Area: Peace protests planned for A-bomb anniversary Article Last Updated: 08/03/2006 02:49:20 AM PDT Groups to demonstrate at Livermore Lab, Bechtel By Lea Blevins, STAFF WRITER LIVERMORE — Activist group Tri-Valley CAREs plans to join peace, faith, environmental and indigenous groups across the country to protest nuclear weapons on the anniversaries of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. This year marks the 61st anniversary of the bombings — Hiroshima on Aug. 6 and Nagasaki on Aug. 9. Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) will hold a peace camp at Del Valle Regional Park on Saturday, a protest and march at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on Sunday and another protest outside Bechtel Corp. offices in San Francisco on Wednesday. The protest is to encourage an end to nuclear weapons and war, focusing on facilities run by the Bechtel, which has been involved with nuclear research and is one of the operators of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The peace camp will open check-in at noon Saturday and will include discussions, music and reflection. Tri-Valley CAREs organizers are hoping the camp event will prepare demonstrators for protests on Sunday and Wednesday. Thats really to build a positive community of peace and also get people pre-pared," said Outreach Director Tara Dorabji. "We're really excited." On Sunday, protesters will gather at 8 a.m. near the intersection of Vasco and Patterson Pass roads, along the Livermore Lab's perimeter. Speakers will include Hiroshima survivor Keiji Tsuchiya, Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg and author Norman Solomon. The event also WILL include a march to the lab's gate. Lab spokesman David Schwoegler said the lab prepares for these types of events by beefing up security to assure that no employees or demonstrators are at risk. "Our primary concern is safety," Schwoegler said. "It's frustrating because it's costly." He estimated that $25,000 to $40,000 is lost each time there is a protest because of the added security. Agencies involved include lab officers, University of California Police, Livermore Police, the Alameda County Sheriff's Department, California Highway Patrol and Sandia National Laboratories officers. Schwoegler questioned demonstrators' choice to protest the Livermore Lab because no one at the lab deals with the national policy issues they are addressing, he said. The public is welcome to attend the peace camp and protests. For more information, go online to . Staff Writer Lea Blevins can be reached at or (925) 416-4819. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | ***************************************************************** 64 lamonitor.com: County to investigate water cross contamination Darryl Newman Monitor Staff Writer Los Alamos County will look into drilling efforts by Los Alamos National Laboratory in remote areas, as part of a move to better understand the possibility of aquifer contamination. The risk of cross contamination to the aquifer due to deep well sampling by the lab drew enough concern from the county council Tuesday night to warrant further investigation. In a joint meeting between the council and the Utilities Board, the council included a motion after it approved a 40-year long-range water plan that, in part, calls for the investigation of the risk of cross contamination Council Chair Mike Wheeler questioned the county's relationship with LANL and federal entities. "We need to know who is responsible for what," Wheeler said. "In regard to contamination issues, the county owns all the production wells. Federal lands in the past have posed potential contamination to our well fields. I see a great risk of contaminating the aquifers." Joanne Hilton, senior hydrologist with hired water consultants Daniel B. Stephens &Associates who helped to draft the document, said the most proactive course of action that the county could take involves working closely with LANL on water issues, which include frequent drilling by lab engineers. "There are potential risks for contamination," Hilton said. "If there are wells that the lab is not using anymore to gather information, then they should be sealed." County Attorney Peter Dwyer advised that council attempt to work with LANL officials to investigate the situation to avoid expensive legality issues. Councilor Mike Wismer recommended that the issue be identified in a separate motion. "It may be expensive to get into legal circumstances with this, but it is also expensive to clean up contaminated water," Wismer said. The Department of Energy needs to take more initiative to involve local governments, especially on issues of environmental importance. "It is now time for us to surface in this connection with them," Berting said. Members of the Utilities Board also spoke up. "We need to review transfer documents because there is specific language there on how we interact with the DOE and LANL on water," board member Chris Ortega said regarding a path forward. "I suggest we go back and look at that." Utilities Board Chair Robert Gibson commended the drafters of the water plan on their work. "This is a very thorough report and is one of the meatiest I've ever seen as far as having lots of useful information in it," Gibson said. "This demonstrates clearly that water us a significant factor when contemplating growth in the future." The Utilities Board voted unanimously to recommend the water plan, which includes using it for water planning and conservation purposes, to council for adoption. Council adopted the plan by a 5-0 vote and added a second motion that asks county staff to investigate the risk of cross contamination of the aquifer due to deep well sampling by LANL. In addition, county staff would return with a document that may be adopted at a later date. Councilors Nona Bowman and Jim Hall were absent. The county awarded a contract to Daniel B. Stephens &Associates in July 2005 to draft a 40-year long-range water supply plan. Public meetings addressing the plan were held in the fall of 2005 and a follow-up public meeting looking at preliminary findings of the plan was held earlier this year in March. Input from the meetings was taken into consideration as a preliminary plan was drafted and presented to the Utilities Board on June 8. The plan has been posted on the county's website since May 31. A follow up report on the 40-year long-range water plan, as recommended by the Utilities Board and approved by the county council, is planned for tomorrow's Monitor. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 65 lamonitor.com: Report addresses water rights, supply risk DARRYL NEWMAN, lareporter@lamonitor.com, Monitor Staff Writer To better understand the path that Los Alamos County should take in preparing for its future water supply needs, a recently adopted long-range water supply plan provides an overview of the water system in the county, back to the Los Alamos Boys Ranch, a school that was established in 1918. From its evolution as a school settlement to a scientific research center and later an incorporated county, Los Alamos has tapped into several different water resources. The long-range water supply plan covers at least 40 years that addresses several regulatory requirements regarding water rights and water conservation. Such a plan also allows the county to legally appropriate and preserve water that it cannot currently use, but will need in the future to meet projected requirements based on growth and other factors. In the water plan that was adopted by the county council on Tuesday, Daniel B. Stephens &Associates was specifically tasked with performing the following tasks, which include the following: + Analyze existing water supply, demand and compare supply to demand including evaluating risks to the supply; + Evaluate the age, condition and effectiveness of existing water production facilities and recommend alterations, replacements and improvements; + Develop a timeline for constructing facilities to begin using San Juan-Chama water to supplement the county's water supply; + Develop recommendations for long-term regional water supply; and + Support public involvement in the development of the plan. A hydrogeologic overview shares water recharge rates as well as aquifer depletion risks. Depletion of aquifers is one of two potential risks to the county's water supply. "Barring potential water quality issues, continued pumping of the regional aquifer at current rates is likely to be sustainable for hundreds of years," the report reads. "However, poorer quality of water is expected as wells begin to draw from greater depths." The report continues that pumping withdrawals from the Los Alamos supply wells averaged about 3,975-acre feet per year from 1949 through 1993. An acre-foot is the amount of water it takes to cover an acre of land one-foot deep, or 825,851 gallons. The additional impact of the Buckman well withdrawals - regional aquifer supply wells located just east of the county near the Rio Grande River - at their current rate is unlikely to significantly impact the rate of decline of the regional aquifer table beneath the county. "If users other than Los Alamos County and the City of Santa Fe begin pumping in the area, the cumulative impacts in relation to water levels and saturated thickness will need to be evaluated," the report states. The other potential risk to the county's water supply as identified in the report includes groundwater contamination. Since the early 1940s, "a wide array of chemicals" has been released into the canyons of the Pajarito Plateau from various operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory, according to the report. The releases have occurred through effluent discharges from water treatment facilities and other miscellaneous sources including sanitary septic systems and cooling towers and runoff from firing sites. Some examples of reactive contaminants released from LANL facilities include the following: strontium-90, americium-241, cesium-137, plutonium-238, 239 and 240, the report states. The report does note that most contaminants present in groundwater in Los Alamos County have concentrations largely below regulatory standards. Joanne Hilton, senior hydrologist with Daniel B. Stephens &Associates, addressed the county council Tuesday and expressed concern about higher than average chromium levels present in Los Alamos County groundwater. "This is an area of concern and I recommend that you work closely with the lab on addressing these issues," Hilton said. "We don't see an immediate threat to anyone but you probably should keep a lookout." Other water issues addressed in the long-range plan include water demand, water rights and a water conservation plan. The report is available for public review at Mesa Public Library and the KanDu Customer Service Center, located at the Municipal Building. The report is also located online at the county's website at www.lac-nm.us by clicking on the Department of Public Utilities link. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 66 Knox News: Spent nuclear fuel "recipe for disaster" By ASSOCIATED PRESS August 3, 2006 CHATTANOOGA — Environmentalists are worried about increased spent nuclear fuel stored at Tennessee Valley Authority power plants, calling the waste "a recipe for disaster." TVA officials, however, say the storage method is safe. Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Ala., with more than 1,400 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste stored in an elevated pool inside the plant, is among the nation's leaders in onsite spent nuclear fuel. "This waste is being piled up on the river banks, and the river is the drinking water source for thousands of people," said Stephen Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. "Couple that with the known terrorists' threats, and it's very discomforting." The material is placed in an elevated pool until it cools enough for the government to transport it to a permanent disposal facility, but it's unclear when that will happen. The new storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was delayed again last week until at least 2017. Another 37 metric tons of waste are being stored outside the plant along the Tennessee River. z TVA officials are not pleased with the delay at Yucca Mountain, but they say the stored waste is not a public threat. "The storage in dry casks is a proven, safe technology," TVA spokesman John Moulton said. "(The Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has licensed the storage facilities, so there are regulatory checks there." Waste also is being stored at other plants. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Soddy-Daisy has a full storage pool and outisde storage. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City will need dry-cask storage in about 12 years. The three plants combined store more than 2,500 metric tons of waste and radioactive fuel assemblies because there is nowhere else to keep it. "We sued (the U.S. Department of Energy), as did many other utilities, because they didn't start picking up the spent fuel," Moulton said. TVA's lawsuit was filed in 2001, and a federal court awarded TVA $34.9 million to help pay for onsite storage through 2005. TVA has paid about $758 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund for the building of a permanent storage site. Nationwide, there is about 55,000 metric tons of nuclear waste being stored, and it increases by about 2,000 metric tons a year, Nuclear Regulatory Agency officials said. ___ Information from: Chattanooga Times Free Press, http://www.timesfreepress.com ***************************************************************** 67 DOE: DOE Continues Path Forward on Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Department Announces $20 Million for GNEP Siting Studies and Seeks Further Coordination with Industry The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced $20 million to conduct detailed siting studies for public or commercial entities interested in hosting DOE's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) facilities. Entities could qualify to receive up to $5 million per site. DOE also announced that it is seeking expressions of interest to obtain input from U.S. and international nuclear industry on the feasibility of accelerating development and deployment of advanced recycling technologies by proceeding with commercial scale demonstration facilities, specifically a Consolidated Fuel Treatment Facility and an Advanced Burner Reactor. "The siting studies and expressions of interest enable public and commercial entities to provide useful input to the Department's decision-making process for siting and building GNEP facilities in the U.S.," DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. "These are important steps forward for the GNEP initiative." GNEP, launched earlier this year as part of the President's Advanced Energy Initiative, aims to expand the use of nuclear energy to address the growing demand for energy. GNEP proposes private-public-international partnerships to develop advanced technologies to recycle used nuclear fuel, reduce wastes, and avoid misuse of nuclear materials. Based on international and private sector response to GNEP, the Energy Department believes there are advanced technologies available to recycle used nuclear fuel that may be ready for deployment in conjunction with those currently under development by DOE. In light of this information, DOE is investigating the feasibility of accelerating development and deployment of advanced recycling technologies by proceeding with commercial demonstrations of the technologies. The Department is considering a two-track approach to demonstrate technologies under GNEP. The first track involves deployment of commercial scale facilities for which advanced technologies are available now or in the near future. The second track would focus on further research and development on transmutation fuels (containing plutonium and minor actinides) technologies. Under the first track, DOE is currently considering two commercial scale facilities: a Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center, capable of separating used fuel into its usable and waste components; and an Advanced Burner Reactor which would convert transuranics into shorter-lived radioisotopes while producing electricity. Under the second track, an Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility announced earlier this year to support development of technologies to separate and fabricate the transmutation fuels for the Advanced Burner Reactor would be designed and directed through DOE's national laboratories and therefore, is not part of the siting studies or the industry-requested expressions of interest. Congress allocated $20 million in FY 2006 to DOE for siting studies of integrated recycling facilities, with a maximum of $5 million available per site. To be eligible for funding for siting studies, the proposed site must meet minimum criteria related to size, hydrology, electricity capacity, population density, zoning, water availability, road access, and seismic stability. Preference for award of funds for the siting studies may be given to sites where the applicant has demonstrated community and state support for the use of the site for GNEP facilities. Preference may also be given if the proposed site has the potential for supporting both facilities. Applications for financial assistance grants must be received by September 7, 2006. DOE anticipates announcing applications it will fund by the end of October 2006. Winning applicants will have 90 days to complete the site studies and submit required information to DOE. Information generated from the detailed siting studies may be used in an environmental impact statement (EIS) that will evaluate the potential environmental impacts from each proposed GNEP facility. At the conclusion of the EIS, DOE will make decisions about whether to move forward with the facilities, and if so, where to locate them. Both the Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center and the Advanced Burner Reactor could be located together. Industry-submitted expressions of interest on the recycling technologies are due to the Energy Department by September 8, 2006. The Department believes that industry's input is valuable in considering the configuration of GNEP's closed fuel cycle. Information gained from the expressions of interest will be used to create Requests for Proposals for the proposed Consolidated Fuel Treatment Facility and the Advanced Burner Reactor. A briefing to describe DOE's baseline plan and answer expression of interest-related questions will be held August 14, 2006, from 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. DOE requests that interested parties who wish to attend the briefing send an email to GNEP_EOI_RSVP@nuclear.energy.gov. The Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement for the siting studies and the Expressions of Interest may be found at: http://gnep.gov. The specific location for the briefing on the request for expressions of interest also will be announced on the GNEP website, http://gnep.gov. The Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement is also available at www.grant.gov. The request for expressions of interest issued today will be published in the Federal Register on August 7, 2006. Source: U.S. Department of Energy judythpiazza@gmail.com Copyright © 2006, NewsBlaze, Daily News DOE Continues Path Forward on Global Nuclear Energy Partnership'> _ _ [Digg this story] ***************************************************************** 68 Knox News: TVA asks for energy conservation during heat wave Power demand will continue to be high through Friday By REBECCA FERRAR, ferrarr@knews.com August 3, 2006 TVA is asking residential and business customers to conserve energy as it continues to face the challenge of delivering electricity during record-high temperatures across the Eastern United States. TVA is calling on all customers to conserve by turning up thermostats and turning off unnecessary lights and appliances, especially from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. All TVA installations and TVA distributors have taken steps to conserve power. "Every amount of reduced usage helps as TVA, power distributors, industry and Tennessee Valley consumers work together to get through the current heat wave that is lingering throughout the service area," said Van Wardlaw, TVA vice president of transmission and reliability, in a statement. TVA met another system peak Tuesday of more than 31,600 megawatts, the highest power load ever in the month of August. TVA predicted a similar power demand for Wednesday. Power demand was expected to be high through Friday as TVA faces tight power supplies and hot, dry weather. For the third day in a row, TVA asked some large industrial customers to cut back on power usage. These are customers that get discounted electricity in exchange for a curtailment of power during peak power demand periods. TVA is interrupting the power of about 70 industrial customers. Making things tougher for TVA is that Watts Bar Nuclear Plant's Unit 1 reactor was shut down for repairs Monday, taking 1,165 megawatts of electricity offline. Business writer Rebecca Ferrar may be reached at 865-342-6357. © 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************