***************************************************************** 08/07/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.186 ***************************************************************** 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] Disinfo: Iran's "Plot to Mine Uranium" in Africa 2 BBC: Iran to ignore nuclear resolution 3 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: EU proposal, beautiful in face 4 IRNA: Iranian envoy reiterates Iran's peaceful N-right 5 IRNA: US aims to distance Iran from its neighbors - Rafsanjani 6 IRNA: Iran calls for dismantling of WMD - envoy 7 IRNA: Tehran to reply to EU incentives package in due time - Elham - 8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Korea-U.S. Alliance 'at Tipping Point' 9 US: AmericanHeritage.com: The Bomb - First Impressions 10 BBC: Pakistan nuclear report disputed 11 Asia Times: Indian government to stand or fall on nuclear deal 12 Sydney Morning Herald: NZ TV to show Rainbow Warrior plea clip - NUCLEAR REACTORS 13 US: [NukeNet] AP Energy Chief proposes nuclear plant incentives- 14 US: [NukeNet] Commission chairman suggests building a [nuclear] 15 US: [NukeNet] New Nuke Considered in Tennessee 16 US: [NukeNet] Nuclear power links to 'sham' energy review - Firm 17 US: [NukeNet] Third New Nuke Planned for Texas 18 US: NRC: New NRC Resident Inspector Assigned to Salem Nuclear Plant 19 US: DOE: Secretary Bodman Announces $2 Billion Federal Loan Guarante 20 US: NRC: Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al.; Denial of Petition for R 21 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th 22 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of 23 US: NRC: Duke Power Company LLC, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 24 US: DHHS: ABRWH: Corrections 25 US: Daily Herald: Radiation regulators looking for info about Tooele 26 Pacific Magazine: Nuclear Fallout Report Triggers Strong Reaction NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 27 US: Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Davis has diverse record from time at t 28 US: The Mercury: Maker of fuel rod storage casks cited PEACE 29 [NYTr] Scotland: Trident Ploughshares Board Arms Flight 30 [NYTr] "To Save Lives" - The Hiroshima Myth 31 Citizen Weapons Inspectors at Prestwick US DEPT. OF ENERGY 32 SF New Mexican: State probes contamination of lab well 33 FCW.com: DOE raises the bar on supercomputing 34 Daily Press: Historic nuclear-powered Savannah to get $1 million reh 35 DOE: Notice of Request for Expressions of Interest in a Consolidated 36 DOE: Notice of Request for Expressions of Interest in an Advanced 37 DOE: Biological and Environmental Research (BER); Federal Interagenc 38 KnoxNews: Uranium removal is expected to end soon ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Disinfo: Iran's "Plot to Mine Uranium" in Africa Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:32:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: olm.blythe-systems.com X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Tim Murphy (activ-l) - Aug 7, 2006 Look at this little gem below from the Murdoch (News International) owned Sunday Times in London. Despite the fact that Iran has it's own uranium deposits as many scholars, articles and news or analysis Web sites attest, the hoary old story of bad Muslim countries smuggling Uranium from Africa is still trotted out. Just Google and you get 311,000 hits. This Sunday Times story is so clearly a fabrication (no doubt based on some black op sting operation to provide plausibility) that one wonders why they bother... Why don't they tell more plausible lies... Like "Iranians busy mining uranium ore in Iran according to latest satellite resonance", they could even given us photo-shopped images like the ones they provided to Saudi Arabia purporting to show Iraqi tanks massed on their border in 1991. It just reeks of the transparent manipulation of public opinion... This is what journalism has descended to in the UK and on The Times under Murdoch. It seems that they are not cautioned by the failure of Niger-Iraq uranium forged evidence fiasco but encouraged to use the same old trope, this time without even showing us the forged documents to lend it any credibility at all. I guess the way you do it is to supply some training and Geiger counters to African port customs officials, then fly in some yellow cake and put it in a container along with some coltan, then get some local haulage company to take it to the port with some paperwork than can link it up with a shipping consignment to Iran.. And Bingo... The article weaves several disparate threads of disinformation into a seamless ball of lies, the theme is nuke terror Iran cheat nuke terror. USrael has hundreds of nuclear weapons plus delivery systems and even successfully hijacked a uranium shipment on the high seas in the 1968 "Plumbat Affair", a clandestine collaboration with West Germany in acquiring 200 tons of yellow cake (uranium oxide) but don't look at that, look at a country which has it's own uranium deposits and doesn't need to steal or import it but nevertheless is caught doing so. At least according to someone who will not reveal proof of this assertion for detailed scrutiny. After the last little joke using this line of fiction, do they think anyone would actually believe them unless they wanted to pretend it was credible as part of a get Iran now campaign? Maybe Nauru and the Marshall Islands will be shocked and awed with this dastardly plot, along with the UK of course. If they intercepted one shipment... there must have been others that got through... I bet George Galloway hired the boat and rowed it across the sea... and that Osama Bin Laden, disguised a Bedouin carpet trader, smuggled the uranium across the desert, stuffed up the asses of his camels. Seriously though, the main worry is that there is another WOT inside job/provocation in the pipeline... another 911/Reichstag fire... As if Lebanon is not enough. They are going to hit Iran... It is clear... When they do Bush's poll rating will double. -TM] *** The Sunday Times - Aug 6, 2006 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2300772,00.html Iran's plot to mine uranium in Africa By Jon Swain, David Leppard and Brian Johnson-Thomas IRAN is seeking to import large consignments of bomb-making uranium from the African mining area that produced the Hiroshima bomb, an investigation has revealed. A United Nations report, dated July 18, said there was "no doubt" that a huge shipment of smuggled uranium 238, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was transported from the Lubumbashi mines in the Congo. Tanzanian customs officials told The Sunday Times it was destined for the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, and was stopped on October 22 last year during a routine check. The disclosure will heighten western fears about the extent of Iran's presumed nuclear weapons programme and the strategic implications of Iran's continuing support for Hezbollah during the war with Israel. It has also emerged that terror cells backed by Iran may be prepared to mount attacks against nuclear power plants in Britain. Intelligence circulating in Whitehall suggests that sleeper cells linked to Tehran have been conducting reconnaissance at some nuclear sites in preparation for a possible attack. The parliamentary intelligence and security committee has reported that Iran represented one of the three biggest security threats to Britain. The UN security council has given Iran until the end of this month to halt its uranium enrichment activities. The UN has threatened sanctions if Tehran fails to do so. A senior Tanzanian customs official said the illicit uranium shipment was found hidden in a consignment of coltan, a rare mineral used to make chips in mobile telephones. The shipment was destined for smelting in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, delivered via Bandar Abbas, Iran's biggest port. "There were several containers due to be shipped and they were all routinely scanned with a Geiger counter," the official said. "This one was very radioactive. When we opened the container it was full of drums of coltan. Each drum contains about 50kg of ore. When the first and second rows were removed,the ones after that were found to be drums of uranium." In a nuclear reactor, uranium 238 can be used to breed plutonium used in nuclear weapons. The customs officer, who spoke to The Sunday Times on condition he was not named, added: "The container was put in a secure part of the port and it was later taken away, by the Americans, I think, or at least with their help. We have all been told not to talk to anyone about this." The report by the UN investigation team was submitted to the chairman of the UN sanctions committee, Oswaldo de Rivero, at the end of July and will be considered soon by the security council. It states that Tanzania provided "limited data" on three other shipments of radioactive materials seized in Dar es Salaam over the past 10 years. The experts said: "In reference to the last shipment from October 2005, the Tanzanian government left no doubt that the uranium was transported from Lubumbashi by road through Zambia to the united republic of Tanzania." Lubumbashi is the capital of mineral-rich Katanga province, home of the Shinkolobwe uranium mine that produced material for the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. The mine has officially been closed since 1961, before the country's independence from Belgium, but the UN investigators have told the security council that they found evidence of illegal mining still going on at the site. In 1999 there were reports that the Congolese authorities had tried to re-open the mine with the help of North Korea. In recent years miners are said to have broken open the lids and extracted ore from the shafts, while police and local authorities turned a blind eye. In June a parliamentary committee warned that Britain could be attacked by Iranian terrorists if tensions increased. A source with access to current MI5 assessments said: "There is great concern about Iranian sleeper cells inside this country. The intelligence services are taking this threat very seriously." * ================================================================ .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: Iran to ignore nuclear resolution Last Updated: Sunday, 6 August 2006 [Preliminary installation of a turbo generator at Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant. File photo] Iran says it has a right to pursue its nuclear ambitions Iran has vowed to pursue its nuclear programme, in its first official response to last week's UN resolution urging it to curb nuclear activities. Chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said Tehran would continue to develop nuclear energy within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Last week the Security Council said Iran faced possible sanctions if it did not stop uranium enrichment this month. Some members fear Iran may use the technology to build nuclear weapons. Iran says its motives are peaceful. "Our activities respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty... so we will not accept the suspension [of uranium enrichment]," Mr Larijani said. "They should know that such resolutions will not affect our determination. We will pursue the nuclear rights of Iranians which are enshrined in the NPT." Further discussions Mr Larijani also warned that sanctions would hurt the West more, leaving people there shivering from cold during the winter because of higher oil prices. The UN Security Council passed resolution 1696 by 14 votes to one on 31 July. It gives Iran until the end of August to suspend uranium enrichment and open its nuclear programme to international inspections. If Tehran fails to do so, the council will consider economic sanctions. But following objections by Russia and China to the specific mention of sanctions, further discussions will have to take place about what further steps to take. ***************************************************************** 3 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: EU proposal, beautiful in face 2006/08/07 Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Larijani said on Sunday that the European Union has offered a proposal which appears beautiful in face with different objectives which requiring precise examination. Asked about Iran's stance toward the EU package, he said that Iran accepts transparency in Iranian nuclear program, but, it will not agree to be deprived of its legitimate rights in line with Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Safeguards Agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "Iran is ready to hold constructive negotiations on national nuclear program to remove concerns of the other party. We believe in open negotiations and they should bring their demand of suspending uranium enrichment to the negotiating table. They should back their demands. We cannot overlook Iran's rights to nuclear energy," Larijani told reporters. "In negotiations with EU foreign policy and security chief Javier Solana in Brussels, we put forward several points. One: To go ahead with negotiations. Two: removing ambiguities in EU proposal to Iran to prepare the ground for negotiations. And if they are willing to have long-term cooperation with Iran, they should openly discuss all the fields of cooperation," Larijani said. "We have reminded them that the two parties should respect common grounds and paradigms to enable us to proceed with negotiations," he said. SAM Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. ***************************************************************** 4 IRNA: Iranian envoy reiterates Iran's peaceful N-right Moscow, Aug 7, IRNA Iran-Russia-Nuclear Iranian Ambassador to Russia Gholam-Reza Ansari on Monday reiterated Tehran's right to develop its peaceful nuclear program within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "Iranian President (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and other officials insist on the country's inalienable right to develop its nuclear programs within the framework of the NPT because this is a right guranteed under international agreements signed by Iran," Ansari said in an interview with the Russian newspaper `Gazeta' on Monday. "Tehran sees no legal reason to be denied this nuclear right," he added. Asked how Iran would react to possible sanctions that could be imposed on it by a United Nations Security Council resolution, he said that it will not be the first time since the victory of the Islamic Revolution (in 1979) that sanctions would be imposed on the country. "The United States and its allies have imposed sanctions on Iran several times," Ambassador Ansari said. "Despite these sanctions, the Islamic Republic of Iran has achieved great success in various fields including in accessing advanced technologies," he added. ***************************************************************** 5 IRNA: US aims to distance Iran from its neighbors - Rafsanjani , Khorassan Razavi Prov, Aug 7, IRNA -- The West, led by the United States, intend to create a wedge between Iran and its neighboring Islamic countries, Expediency Council Chairman Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said here Sunday. "The US opposes the Islamic Republic of Iran. Currently, it is working to cause discord and create a pessimistic view of our system in international circles," Rafsanjani said at a meeting with ulema and professors of Mashhad seminary. "We have an Islamic mission. Our message is Islam. The Islamic Revolution came as a clear message of the Holy Quran for the world." Referring to Iran's nuclear case, Rafsanjani blasted a resolution passed last Monday by the UN Security Council, saying "Superpowers have carried out a very nasty job using Iran's nuclear case as a pretext and issued a statement against us based on Chapter 7 of the UN Charter." He said the resolution had discredited the United Nations and other superpowers and revealed their true identity to the world. He said Israel's attack on a small country like Lebanon was a trick pre-scheduled by the US for the region. The EC chairman added that the Zionist regime's military offensive in Lebanon was a savage move planned by the US. "Those powers who speak of democracy, freedom and defense for human rights are happy with these ominous events. Pointing to the massive damage caused by the Zionist regime to Lebanon setting the country decades backward, he said "The effects of the war should be studied from different points of view, the most important of which is the damage that has been caused to its military by an Islamic move." ***************************************************************** 6 IRNA: Iran calls for dismantling of WMD - envoy Kuala Lumpur, Aug 7, IRNA Iran-New Zealand-Envoy Iran's Ambassador to New Zealand Kambiz Sheikh-Hassani said in Wellington on Monday that Tehran calls for dismantling of all weapons of mass destruction in the world. "(Former Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons of the US and Europe against the Iranian nation during the Iraqi- imposed war...We called for dismantling of weapons of mass destruction particularly dangerous weapons of the Zionist regime. "We have followed up this goal at the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) for several years," he said. Pointing to Iran's peaceful nuclear program, he added that "Iran' just demand for recognition of its rights is based on international law, rules and regulations. Tehran has so far acted within the framework of international regulations and safeguard agreements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "We believe the IAEA is the only legal source to study Iran's nuclear case. Interference of the United Nations Security Council has no legal base and just adds more complications to the issue." Referring to ongoing developments in Palestine and Lebanon, the ambassador said the events were indications of evil acts in its most destructive form. "Ongoing events are not limited to just Hizbollah, Hamas and arrest of three Israeli soldiers because the Zionist regime has imprisoned thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese for several years," he said. He added, "Tragedies of Gaza and Lebanon are aim to have a control over the regional and the entire world. "This hegemony is aim to overcome over developing states either through friendly channels or military occupation and economic and trade sanction." Sheikh-Hassani stated, "We warn that ongoing moves in Lebanon and Gaza can be regarded as a deadly prelude for very greater events at regional and international levels. "Mass use of military force, blind massacre and destruction will never bring in security, rather it will bear adverse consequences." 2327/2321/1414 ***************************************************************** 7 IRNA: Tehran to reply to EU incentives package in due time - Elham - Tehran, Aug 7, IRNA Iran-Government-Speaker Iran will respond to Europe's incentives package for suspension of its nuclear programs in due time, which could be on August 22 as previously announced, said government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham here Monday. Addressing domestic and foreign reporters at his weekly briefing, he said that Iran was studying the package carefully within the time period required to do so. "When they (Europeans) presented us the package, they said study it well and do not reject it," said the spokesman, regretting that the Europeans did not have the patience to wait until Iranian officials finished studying their new proposals but instead "passed a resolution against Iran." The Europeans, by hastily acting against Iran, show they cannot be trusted in their commitments, Elham said. "They (Europeans) have changed the rules of the game by passing a resolution against us," said the spokesman, adding that Western states ought to "be more trustworthy and take added measures to build confidence." Their behavior in this instance is clouding Tehran's trust in them, Elham said. Reiterating Iran's commitment to international law, rules and laws and regulations, he said Tehran would continue its peaceful nuclear activities within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). "We are still open to this incentives package and will give our response within due time," Elham stressed. ***************************************************************** 8 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: Korea-U.S. Alliance 'at Tipping Point' Home> National/Politics Updated Aug.7,2006 09:06 KST Just How Unbreakable Is the Alliance? 'Loudhailer Diplomacy' Is Bad for Korea Although North Korea launched the missiles last month, South Korea is intensifying efforts to lay out a roadmap in October for taking over wartime operational control of its troops from the U.S. Is that the fruit of the ¡°independent diplomacy¡± advocated by Roh Moo-hyun administration for the last three and a half years? Prof. Han Sung-joo of Korea University, who served as the current administration's first ambassador to the U.S., in an interview with the Chosun Ilbo said the Korea-U.S. alliance has reached a point where complete healing will be difficult. The interview was recorded on July 31 and Aug. 4. Thirteen former defense ministers recently raised concerns about taking back wartime operational control. If Korea exercises sole wartime control, what would become of U.S. Forces Korea and Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command? Since there will be a command each in charge of Korean and U.S. troops, the only option will be cooperation, similar to the current U.S.-Japan alliance structure. But contrary to that, Japan is on its way to unifying its command with that of U.S. -- an inevitable move since Korea has asked the U.S. for more rope and Washington has to consolidate military ties with Japan. What becomes of Korea¡¯s status in the international arena during the last three and a half years? Seven countries other than the members were invited to the G8 summit of industrialized nations in July. Korea was not among them, making it clear that the international community sees no need for a South Korean leader to attend. When you resigned as U.S. ambassador in December 2004, you rated the Korea-U.S. relationship as ¡°B.¡± How do you rate it now? I would hardly give it above C+. The U.S. seems intent on giving back wartime operational control and promoting cutbacks or withdrawal of the USFK: the Korea-U.S. alliance is on its way to weakening or dissolving. What do you think is the reason for the weakening of Korea-U.S. alliance and the isolation of Korea in the international arena. It¡¯s because of loudhailer diplomacy, whereby North Korea's assertion that its nuclear arms and missiles are designed as a deterrent is ¡°reasonable,¡±according to the president, and that the U.S.¡¯ N.Korea policy ¡°failed most¡± when Pyongyang fired the missiles, pace the unification minister. Such remarks, which have been increasing recently, do little to solve the problem. Is there any comment you want to make on Roh¡¯s security views? I think the thought that North Korea wants to have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction because of security worries and it will willingly give them all up is quite remote from the reality. Some pundits say the so called independent faction¡¯s win in early 2004 over the alliance faction in Korean diplomatic circles caused the current situation. Korean diplomacy didn¡¯t change because the independent faction won. It was because the president shared the thinking of the independent faction that the conflict arose in the first place. Some in Cheong Wa Dae have coined the slogan ¡°Pro-Americanism and Independence,¡± for the wartime operational control and the free trade agreement between two countries. Considering the personnel and atmosphere at Cheong Wa Dae, the phrase isn¡¯t surprising. Since the will for an FTA with the U.S. was rather a surprise, we¡¯ll see how strong that will is and how long it lasts. Could an improved relationship with China be an alternative to the Korea-U.S. alliance? If Korea uses China as something of a counterweight toward the U.S., or confronts Japan in alliance with China, two results will follow. If things go well, we will be used by China, and if things go badly, our position toward China will weaken. Japan is trying to advance its relations with China, so Korea could be isolated. Is there any way to heal the alliance and ease security concerns? We should try, but the complete healing will not be easy. In many cases, the U.S. has pretended to not to hear and smiled, but [the barrage of barbed remarks] builds up. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 9 AmericanHeritage.com: The Bomb - First Impressions Posted Monday August 7, 2006 07:00 AM EDT Newspapers announce the end of the war with Japan. (U.S. Department of Energy) Sixty-one years ago, on August 6, 1945, as the Enola Gay opened its bomb bay above Hiroshima, most Americans were enjoying a quiet Sunday afternoon. As Little Boy fell toward that city of 343,000, Fords and Packards rolled along peaceful country roads half a world away. When a pressure wave shot through Hiroshima with the speed of a bullet, children played stickball in the streets of Dayton and Peoria. And as a blue-white flash cooked the sky above Hiroshima to 18 million degrees Fahrenheit, American families sat down to Sunday roasts. Americans were hardly strangers to war in 1945. One in seven served in the military, and many more had lost loved ones. But practically no one, except for a handful of scientists and politicians, had any sense of the devastation that a new kind of bomb could wreak. That changed on August 7, when President Harry S. Truman announced the bombing of Hiroshima to an astonished public. Suddenly Americans knew that they possessed the most powerful weapon in the history of war. The nation awoke, in the words of a New York Times headline, with a sobering awareness of power. If sobered, few were immediately regretful. Most believed that only an unconditional surrender by Japan could end the war and shuddered at the predicted millions of casualties, both American and Japanese, from an invasion of that countrys mainland. Many were thankful that a single device had done the work of countless troops. In an initial poll, 85 percent of the country approved of the bombing. The publics support did not diminish its awe. Truman described the Manhattan Projectthe $2 billion spent, the 125,000 employees, the secret tests in the New Mexico desertto a stunned nation. He called it the greatest scientific gamble in history and apologized for its secrecy. The Wall Street Journal saw a potential source of energy, while coal and oil executives promised their shareholders that nuclear power wouldnt threaten their businesses. Others called for restraint and, although the word still lay years in the future, nonproliferation. This was all within a day of Trumans announcement. A supremely industrialized wartime nation was confronting how revolutionary the bomb was. One editorial declared the beginning of a chapter in human history in which the weird, the strange, the horrible becomes trite and obvious. Despite this sudden awareness, there was little talk in the beginning of the toll in Hiroshima. Eighty thousand Japanese had been killed instantly, and another sixty thousand would die from wounds and radiation. Trumans initial announcement on the radio said the bomb has been dropped on Hiroshima, a military base . . . because we wished to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. A subsequent White House press release also didnt address the number of dead but announced that the bomb had destroyed the citys usefulness to the enemy. It added, We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war. In the early days after the attack, only a few scattered voices objected. Most of them were religious. The Vatican and Catholic newspapers promptly denounced nuclear weapons. One minister in New York said, Our savage generation cannot be trusted and called the nuclear program a triumph of research, but also a superb symbol for the Age of Efficient Chaos. On August 7 the papers began to tell the story of the making of the bomb, a combination of futuristic science, brilliant large-scale management, and dramatic espionage. The key scientists quickly became celebrities. Many looked to Albert Einstein. Yet he proved strangely cagey, despite having asked President Franklin Roosevelt to pursue research on the possibility of atomic weapons in 1939. Einstein retreated to his sailboat on Lake Saranac in upstate New York and claimed to have only a little bit more interest in atomic bombs than the average citizen. Perhaps he felt some regret about his deadly council to Roosevelt. The press soon decided on the true inventors, principally the physicists Robert Oppenheimer, Edward Teller, and Lise Meitner. A typical political cartoon showed a scientist in a lab coat and thick glasses holding a tiny atomic bomb as a brutish figure labeled War stared greedily over his shoulder. And so the nation had a new kind of warrior hero. Before August 7, America had had GIs and generals like George Patton as their martial models; now men and women in lab coats killed more enemies than any soldier ever could. The nuclear project had been the ultimate New Deal undertaking, a vast public-works program conducted on the frontier of science and under the direction of the Army. And Americans were not the only ones to marvel at the achievement. A group of German physicists learned about the bombing of Hiroshima while held prisoner in England. Secretly recorded by the British government, they discussed their failure to win the atomic race. Werner Heisenberg, who had been the director of Nazi Germanys nuclear program, blamed a lack of trust in the relationship between the scientist and the state. Another observed that Americans are capable of real cooperation on a tremendous scale. The Nobel Prize winner Otto Hahn, after considering the terrible scale of the bombing and his own anti-Nazi views, declared to his fellow German scientists, I am thankful we didnt succeed. Jon Grinspan is a recent graduate of Sarah Lawrence College and lives in Philadelphia. American Historyfrom AmericanHeritage.com. Copyright 2006 American Heritage Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 BBC: Pakistan nuclear report disputed Last Updated: Monday, 7 August 2006 By Shahzeb Jillani BBC News, Washington [Pakistan's Shaheen 2 missile] Pakistan already has nuclear-tipped missiles The United States and Pakistan have disputed a recent report by a nuclear monitoring institute which says that Pakistan is building a new reactor. Last month, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security (Isis) published satellite images of the Khushab nuclear site. The report said that it could produce enough plutonium to make 40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year. The report sparked worldwide concerns, but both US and Pakistan downplayed it. The US said the administration was aware of the developments at the nuclear complex. And Pakistan's foreign ministry refused to comment on the charges, saying the Khushab nuclear site was well known. Wrong analysis But now for the first time the two governments have spoken out against the report. Last week, The New York Times quoted the US National Security Council spokesman, Frederick Jones, as saying that Isis analysis was wrong. "After assessing the Isis findings, the US government experts believe that the reactor is expected to be substantially smaller and less capable than reported," he said. A day later, the US State Department spokesman, Edgar Matthews, said "the reactor will be over ten times less capable" than estimated. Not true Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, Mahmud Ali Durrani, also dismissed the report saying the Isis analysis was "grossly exaggerated". In an interview to The Washington Times, he acknowledged for the first time that the plutonium from the reactor could be used for civilian or military purposes. But, "it's simply not true that it will increase our capability X-fold", the newspaper quoted him as saying. [Khushab map] The institute says it stands by its findings. In a fresh statement released on the Isis website the authors of the report, David Albright and Paul Brannan, said they remain convinced that the new reactor is capable of providing Pakistan plutonium "many times greater than its current annual output". Experts differ The expert opinion on the accuracy of the report and Pakistan's nuclear capability is divided. Michael Krepon, South Asia security analyst and President Emeritus of the Henry L Stimson Center, says he finds the Isis claim "surprisingly high". He is sceptical that anybody on the outside could claim to know more about a country's alleged nuclear activity than the many experts with direct access to sensitive classified information working for the government. But Leonard Weiss, a prominent non-proliferation expert and former US senate staff member who helped author many US non-proliferation laws, told the BBC he is not surprised "that Pakistan may be picking up the pace on increasing its nuclear arsenal". Isis is a well-known and highly regarded organisation within academic circles, specialising in nuclear proliferation. The organisation - and the authors of the report - tend to be inclined against any form of proliferation around the world. Under construction The Isis report said that the construction of the reactor at Khushab could bring about a dramatic increase in the size of the Pakistani and Indian nuclear arsenals. "The reactor under construction... could produce over 200kg of weapons-grade plutonium per year, assuming it operates at full power for a modest 220 days per year. "At four to five kilograms of plutonium per weapon, this stock would allow the production of 40-50 weapons a year," the report said. Isis published commercially available satellite photos which its analysts said appeared to show the plant under construction. The Washington-based organisation said that work apparently began some time after March 2000, but "work does not appear to be moving quickly". The report's authors said this could be because Islamabad is facing a shortage of reactor components or does not have the necessary weapons production infrastructure. Experts believe that the timing of the release of the report is significant, because it raises fresh concerns about an arms race in South Asia at a time when the US is on the verge of ratifying a deal which would give India greater access to American civilian nuclear technology. ***************************************************************** 11 Asia Times: Indian government to stand or fall on nuclear deal Delhi stakes all on nuclear deal with US By Siddharth Srivastava NEW DELHI - The Indian government will stand or fall on the Indo-US nuclear deal. Congress party president Sonia Gandhi has made it clear that the party backs Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and will be willing to put the government at risk if coalition partners, along with the official opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), move a "resolution" against the pact in parliament. It is well known that Gandhi is the final arbiter regarding policy matters to be followed by the Congress-led federal government headed by Manmohan. In the past, Gandhi has overruled Manmohan, for example, on the disinvestment of profit-making public-sector enterprises. But she is firmly behind him on the nuclear deal. The message was strongly conveyed by Gandhi during her meeting with Sitaram Yechury, a senior leader of the left-wing parties that support the government, at her residence last week. According to reports, independently confirmed by Asia Times Online, Gandhi told Yechury that any strong move in parliament against the government on the nuclear deal would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence. This would result in the Congress party seeking to dissolve parliament and holding new elections. Sonia reportedly told Yechury that the deal was in the national interest given the country's abysmal electric-power situation, and that the government is fully capable of ensuring that the country's sovereignty and independent decision-making is not compromised. She also emphasized that the party fully backs Manmohan, and there is no question of removing him from the post. On the same day that Yechury met with Sonia, Manmohan said that if the left goes with the BJP on the nuclear issue, "that will be the end of the day" for the government. Manmohan has tenaciously defended the pact in parliament. In the recent past there has been considerable speculation that elements within the Congress have been trying to impress Sonia that a new prime minister should be installed. A senior Congress leader told Asia Times Online that Sonia told Yechury that if Manmohan resigned, so would the rest of the government. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi, considered to be close to Sonia, said, "The UPA [United Progressive Alliance] as a whole shall not consider any resolution [in parliament] because we have full faith in the PM." Yechury has been in the forefront in arguing against the deal and has said parliament must come out with a "resolution, motion, declaration or sentiment" that has been supported by the BJP. That party's leader, Sushma Swaraj, said in parliament last week that the government should move a resolution reflecting the sentiments of the House that significant parameters of the deal would not be changed. Manmohan has been trying to assuage the left by impressing upon them that they should wait for the final version of the pact as worked out by the US Congress, while New Delhi will ensure that India's interests are safeguarded. Last week Manmohan told parliament: "The [US] House of Representatives has taken up the bill, and there is a Senate bill, and when there is difference between the two bills there will be a conference. I cannot say that I can predict what the US legislative process be. All I can say is if the process leads to an end product which is not consistent with what we have committed that would be the determining factor of what we can do." A day before the US vote, Manmohan assured parliament that his government will never compromise in a manner that is inconsistent with the July 18 Indo-US joint statement on civilian nuclear energy. "I have on more than one occasion shared our government's views in parliament that we will not compromise and that everything would be transparent," he said. Significantly, there seems to be dissension within the left ranks. Gurudas Dasgupta, who represents an important section of the left-wing parties, said after meeting with Manmohan, "We are not in favor of having a resolution with BJP, and neither are we aware of any such move. We have decided not to go with the BJP in any way." Regarding Mamohan's statement that the government would "go" if the left moved against it, Dasgupta said the prime minister "may be saying this in anguish". The Congress party has welcomed Dasgupta's statements. On the other hand, Yechury has been quite steadfast: "The government is shying away from disclosing facts, which is forcing the left to be more apprehensive. We cannot allow the country to be held hostage to US diktats, and the government must remove our fears by coming out with a statement which expresses the sense of the House." As things stand, it seems that the Congress party has called the left-wing parties' bluff and is tying to stand up to the full onslaught of its crucial coalition partners, without whose support the government won't survive. It remains to be seen how matters evolve over this week when Manmohan is expected to make a statement on the pact and whether the left continues its vociferous stance. The tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats by India and Pakistan as well as other matters related to two former foreign ministers of India, Jaswant Singh and Natwar Singh, has sidelined the focus on the pact for the moment. But this won't last long. It seems unlikely that the leftists will pull the plug on the government, comfortably placed as they are to enjoy considerable patronage and power without being actually responsible for it. Top business leaders, including such captains of industry as Reliance chairman Mukesh Ambani, make it a point to call on leftist leaders before any major policy announcements. Further, the left will be averse to providing any chance to the BJP to make a comeback. It may dislike the Congress, but it hates the BJP. The Congress, as a national party, seems to be tired of the stalling tactics of its coalition partners and has taken a "do or die" attitude, judged as it will be on its overall performance. Despite the noise at the federal parliament, the left has been at the forefront of inviting foreign investment and economic reforms in its bastion state West Bengal. Congress party stalwarts feel that such double standards will hurt the Congress prospects more as the party is answerable to a wider section of voter base, unlike the left, which is firmly ensconced only in two states (the other being Kerala). The clamor in parliament follows the strong approval of the nuclear deal by the US House of Representatives, with lawmakers voting 359-68 in favor. As per the proposed deal, the US can be involved in the development of civil nuclear power in India in exchange of New Delhi placing its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. The pact will allow India, a nuclear-weapons state, to purchase nuclear fuel and reactors for the first time in more than three decades. The deal was negotiated a year ago and announced in March. Putting the pact into effect required that the US Congress exempt India from certain sections of the US Atomic Energy Act. The opposition says that the US has "shifted the goal posts", and the terms of the agreement are not the same as they were earlier. Washington, meanwhile, has been trying to assuage Indian fears. US assistant secretary of state Richard Boucher is on a five-day visit to India for discussions on the nuclear deal to "pursue the agenda outlined by President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to advance Indo-US strategic partnership and review regional and global issues and common efforts to combat the scourge of terrorism", the US Embassy stated in New Delhi. Interestingly, Boucher arrived in Kolkata (capital of communist-run West Bengal) first. "The final legislation is important and I am confident that it will be on the lines of what President Bush agreed upon when he visited India," Boucher said in Kolkata. Boucher is to hold talks with New Delhi officials on the deal as well as deteriorating Indo-Pakistan relations consequent to the Mumbai blasts. Plenty more action awaits the Indo-US nuclear pact. Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist. (Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Sydney Morning Herald: NZ TV to show Rainbow Warrior plea clip - www.smh.com.au August 7, 2006 - 2:44PM Attempts by French spies Alan Mafart and Dominique Prieur to prevent TVNZ screening video footage of their guilty pleas have been quashed by the Court of Appeal. In a unanimous decision released Monday, three Appeal Court judges gave TVNZ permission to obtain and play footage of the agents pleading guilty to the manslaughter of Portuguese photographer Fernando Pereira in the 1985 Rainbow Warrior bombing. It was later revealed then-president Francois Mitterrand authorised the French attack on the ship, which had led Greenpeace's campaign against French nuclear tests on the Mururoa Atoll in the Pacific. TVNZ intended to show the footage on Monday evening, head of news Bill Ralston told NZPA. It was working on getting the tape into a broadcast-quality format. Lawyers for the French agents said they had no comment to make on the decision, which their clients had yet to be told about it. © 2006 AAP 2006-08-07 | Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 13 [NukeNet] AP Energy Chief proposes nuclear plant incentives- Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:05:10 -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) Do you think he already has 6 buyers in mind AmerGen /Exelon for example? chief proposes nuclear plant incentives Associated Press ATLANTA — The nation's energy chief announced a plan Friday to provide incentives to companies willing to build the first new nuclear plants in 30 years, offering $2 billion in federal insurance for construction of six plants. "I think it's time for the nation that invented this technology to reassert its leadership," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. The United States has 103 nuclear power plants in 31 states, but utilities have not proposed a new reactor since 1973. High costs and debate over where to store radioactive waste bogged down construction efforts, and a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant in 1979 in Pennsylvania put an end to plans for new reactors. Supporters of nuclear power have promoted it as a way to generate cheaper electricity without churning out greenhouse gases. Bodman said 12 utilities are expected to file papers over the next three years to build 18 reactors. The insurance plan would provide up to $500 million in coverage for the first two plants and up to $250 million for the next four plants. "This program is crucial, we believe, to reinvigorating the American nuclear power industry," Bodman told Georgia Power Co. employees during a visit to Atlanta. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 14 [NukeNet] Commission chairman suggests building a [nuclear] Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:02:11 -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) Here's a little longer, more involved story from the Fresno Bee. They do mention the law that forbids new nukes in CA in this one. MoJo http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/12533160p-13246664c.html Utility official thinks nuclear Commission chairman suggests building a power plant in Fresno. By George Hostetter / The Fresno Bee (Updated Wednesday, August 2, 2006, 4:15 AM) The Fresno Utility Commission's 11 members were directed by City Hall to unleash their imaginations in coming up with ideas to fix the financial mess at the Public Utilities Department. Commission Chairman John Hutson has taken this broad charge to heart; he wants the city to consider building a nuclear power plant at the city's waste-water treatment plant west of downtown. Hutson is urging the commission to study the feasibility of building a 400- to 600-megawatt plant as a possible long-term solution to the city's energy needs and the utilities' money problems. On average, one megawatt can provide electricity for 1,000 homes. Hutson says the plant could cost more than $1 billion to build. The idea is getting a mixed reaction among some commission members and a Fresno environmentalist, who says locally produced renewable energy is a worthy goal, but nuclear power is the wrong energy source. The waste-water treatment plant is the perfect site because of its size (about five square miles) and abundance of water (about 71 million gallons of treated water per day) for cooling the power plant, Hutson says. The power plant's electricity could be sold at little or no cost to Fresnans, while excess electricity could be sold at higher rates to power companies such as Pacific Gas & Electric Co., he says. The result, according to Hutson: plenty of cheap juice for Fresno air conditioners when the next heat wave hits, plenty of money to offset the need for future utility rate hikes (he estimates the plant could bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year), and another environmentally safe use for the treatment plant's water. The utility commission, created this summer by Mayor Alan Autry and the City Council, is charged with recommending solutions for financial problems at the Public Utilities Department. Autry appointed four members, and each City Council member appointed one. Hutson, one of Autry's appointees, says Fresnans should have an open attitude toward nuclear power. "I think Fresnans are aware that we're going to have to do things a little differently as we get to be a thriving metropolitan city," Hutson says. "I think they can appreciate looking at this idea, seeing how well it's going to work, and then make up their own minds." Hutson says he's well aware of nuclear power's controversial past in California and the United States. But, he adds, the times are changing: Japan and France depend on nuclear power for much of their electricity needs; nuclear power plants don't foul the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses; and big strides have been made in plant safety. "Those days of Chernobyl and stuff are things of the past," Hutson says. "They're safer than safe. You could live right next door to them." Kevin Hall, Sierra Club Tehipite Chapter air quality chairman, says Hutson "is on the right track" in searching for reliable, affordable and locally produced supplies of energy. But energy sources such as solar and biogeneration (tree prunings, for example) are the way to go, Hall says. "We could get there much sooner by using the renewable energy that's available to us," Hall says. One of the biggest hurdles to Hutson's idea is legality. The state isn't permitting new nuclear power plants until it can figure out how to dispose of spent fuel. The moratorium on nuclear plant construction in California dates back to the 1970s. The state's only two commercial nuclear power plants are at Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo (owned by PG&E) and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station between Los Angeles and San Diego (jointly owned by Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric). These plants generated nearly 13% of California's electricity in 2004, according to the state Energy Commission. It's hard to gauge whether Californians are ready for more nuclear power. "Recent developments both domestically and abroad suggest that a revival is taking place in the nuclear power industry," states "Nuclear Power in California," a March 2006 report prepared for the state Energy Commission. Yet, the report also notes: "There are no announcements of any plans or public pronouncements of interest in constructing a new nuclear power plant in California." Hutson says he has told most commission members of his idea and plans to pitch it at the next commission meeting Aug.9. He emphasizes that he merely wants the commission to consider the idea. The work needed to get a nuclear power plant built in Fresno would fall to others, he says. "If France can do it, by goodness, we can do it," Hutson says. The reaction to Hutson's idea is mixed among his commission colleagues. "I think it's something we should investigate," says Ashley Swearengin, an Autry appointee. "We all came to the table to think about long-term solutions." But two commission members worry that Hutson's idea will sidetrack the commission from its more pressing task of figuring out whether Fresno should raise garbage, sewer, water and community-sanitation rates. Gunnar Jensen, appointed by Council Member Tom Boyajian, said he wasn't sure whether Hutson was serious or "pulling my leg" when the two recently discussed Hutson's idea. "I think this is a very unfortunate distraction at a time when the commission is just starting to come together," Jensen says. Building a local nuclear power plant "is an interesting notion," says Ken Newby, appointed by Council Member Brian Calhoun. But, he adds, "when you mention the word 'nuclear,' you draw a lot of emotion immediately and that can be distracting to the issues at hand. We've already got our hands full." Council Member Cynthia Sterling, whose district includes the waste-water treatment plant, says she's "willing to listen" to Hutson. Among her reasons: the recent string of 110-degree-plus days and the havoc it wreaked on Fresnans' health. Hutson says he has spent about 100 hours studying nuclear power issues. He says that's enough to know there's a lot he doesn't know: for example, the Fresno plant's exact cost (Hutson says it could be more than $1 billion), how it would be administered (a municipal utilities district is one possibility), or how the legal and political hurdles would be cleared. But, Hutson adds, he's read enough to know that Fresnans should take a fresh look at nuclear power. Says Hutson: "I've been accused of being a liberal, left Democrat. But I certainly think this is something that deserves looking into." The reporter can be reached at ghostetter@fresnobee.comor (559) 441-6272. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "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 ***************************************************************** 15 [NukeNet] New Nuke Considered in Tennessee Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:02:15 -0700 X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61] X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61 X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-23/115401836170110.xml&storylist=alabamanews AP Interview: TVA set to pursue 2nd nuclear reactor at Watts Bar 7/27/2006, 11:32 a.m. CT By DUNCAN MANSFIELD The Associated Press KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — The Tennessee Valley Authority is ready to pursue completing a second nuclear reactor at its Watts Bar station — the site of the last nuclear plant to come on line in the United States — a top official said Thursday. Directors of the nation's largest public utility will be asked Friday to approve $20 million for a "detailed engineering study on Watts Bar 2 completion," TVA President and acting CEO Tom Kilgore told The Associated Press in an interview. "That doesn't mean that they are deciding to do Watts Bar 2," he said. "It means that we are asking them to spend money so that we can decide how much it would cost." Kilgore said a decision to finish the 1,160-megawatt reactor in Spring City, Tenn., about 50 miles south of Knoxville, would be independent of a consortium study into building a next-generation reactor at TVA's unfinished Bellefonte nuclear station in Alabama. "We will compare it to probably a new coal plant, to other options on nuclear, such as Bellefonte," Kilgore said. "But it is not an either-or on Bellefonte. It is more of timing with Bellefonte. In other words, we could finish Watts Bar 2 faster than we could finish Bellefonte." TVA believes it will need new base generation capacity by 2014. Construction on the Watts Bar station stopped in 1985 with the rest of TVA's nuclear program because of safety concerns. Construction later resumed on Watts Bar 1, which came on line in 1996 — the last nuclear reactor to start up in the U.S. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 16 [NukeNet] Nuclear power links to 'sham' energy review - Firm Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:02:10 -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) Nuclear power links to 'sham' energy review Firm that handled submissions 'misrepresented' benefits of atomic power Juliette Jowit, environment editor Sunday August 6, 2006 The Observer http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1838079,00.html Key consultants working on the government's controversial energy review, which recommended a new generation of nuclear power stations, have strong links to the nuclear industry, The Observer can reveal. Experts on both sides of the debate criticised the use of AEA Technology, formed by the privatisation of the Atomic Energy Authority, to handle hundreds of submissions to the review's public consultation earlier this year. The company has sold most of its nuclear businesses, but still has a nuclear waste unit, and senior executives and staff have links to the old authority and other parts of the nuclear industry. Critics claim objections to nuclear energy were ignored or misrepresented in AEA Technology's report. However, The Observer can reveal that the report found nuclear power got by far the lowest support of 15 energy options. The revelations will add to widespread criticism that the review, published last month, was a 'sham', designed to push through nuclear energy because it was favoured by the Prime Minister. Dai Davies, the independent MP whose question in the House of Commons forced ministers to reveal the identity of the consultants, said he was not anti-nuclear but was worried the company's industry links would undermine public confidence in the review. 'I wondered why it [nuclear] was being pushed and pushed and pushed,' said Davies, who stood as an independent after quitting Labour because he felt it had changed too much. 'Vested interests is the worry... Unless we are open and honest and debate openly, that suspicion is going to be with us for a long, long time.' David Moorhouse, chief executive of Lloyd's Register, the risk management group which has analysed risks in the energy industry, said he also does not oppose nuclear, but was worried about using a company 'whose livelihoods depended on nuclear up until their sale into the private industry'. He said: 'While AEA may have given this its absolute best and neutral approach, it doesn't smell like that to the average man.' Other experts who made submissions said they felt their evidence was underplayed and misrepresented; that there were concerns that ministers allowed only 12 weeks for the consultation; and that it was done before other important studies on nuclear waste and safety regulation were published. There was praise, however, for AEA's publication of a summary table of the most-supported low-carbon technologies, which showed that nuclear power was the only one of the 15 to get more opposition than support. The widest support was for wind power, solar and bio-fuels. Of the 18 responses included in the summary which commented on nuclear, 10 were opposed to the nuclear option and eight were in favour. The 10 opposing submissions were all from individuals, the eight favourable responses were all from organisation. 'There's a great gulf between what's in the review and what's in the submissions,' said Bob Everett, lecturer in renewable energy at the Open University. 'When I think of all the people who sent in submissions, I think they'll be very, very angry, but not surprised.' AEA Technology defended its professionalism, saying it wins work around the world because it has wide expertise beyond the nuclear industry and by 'being respected for the quality and independence of our work'. The company's clients include the European Commission, the World Bank and the UN. 'AEA Environment is a large independent environmental and energy consultancy,' it said. 'As well as covering the full breadth of environmental issues, we are acknowledged to be experts in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean coal technology. We are also acknowledged to have experience and skills in independently assessing the results of consultations on these and other environmental issues.' The DTI said AEA Technology was chosen to help with the review because of its 'experience of this kind of work and in a broad range of sustainable energy issues'. A spokesman also defended the resulting review. 'We considered evidence received on energy policy in the round - both demand and supply - and the outcomes are a balanced package of measures on energy efficiency, on renewables, on cleaning up fossil fuels and on nuclear energy,' he added. Last month Stephen Hale, the former special advisor to the previous Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, wrote in The Observer that the energy review was a 'sham' and the Prime Minister 'refused to consider the alternatives'. Since the review, nuclear power has suffered a number of set-backs. The Finnish government announced that construction of the first of a new generation of nuclear power stations in Europe, seen as an important forerunner for the UK, would be delayed by a year. During the recent heatwave nuclear reactors in mainland Europe have had to be shut down, and others allowed to release harmful hot water into rivers. The US-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service opposition group also reported uranium prices have risen 600 per cent in five years, threatening nuclear's traditional operating cost advantage. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "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 ***************************************************************** 17 [NukeNet] Third New Nuke Planned for Texas Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:02:13 -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) This on top of proposals for an experimental new reactor in Andrews county and new nukes at South Texas Project... http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/4088404.html Aug. 1, 2006, 11:04PM Amarillo developer wants to build nuclear plant Associated Press AMARILLO ­ An Amarillo developer is interested in bringing a nuclear power plant to this Panhandle city. Amarillo Power is proposing the plant that, pending regulatory approval, could be completed and online within a decade, according to a copyrighted story in today's Amarillo-Globe News. The proposal calls for a two-unit, 2,700-megawatt advanced boiled water reactor designed by General Electric, documents obtained by the newspaper through the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other sources show. A megawatt is enough power to serve between 700 and 1,000 homes. Amarillo Power is controlled by George Chapman, who did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment Tuesday. Though no location was disclosed in the documents, information in them indicated the "selection of the preferred site" would be made in the near future. The Amarillo area has long been home to Pantex, the nation's only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility. Tom Smith, director of the Texas office of Public Citizen, did not immediately return a call seeking comment about the proposed venture. The price tag for the nuclear power plant is unknown, but a similar proposal to add 2,700 megawatts at a South Texas Project nuclear power plant is projected to cost $5.2 billion for two GE reactors, according to Nucleonics Week newsletter. Last month, Princeton, N. J.-based NRG Energy Inc. announced in a news release that it had filed a letter of intent with the commission to increase the megawatts at the South Texas plant in Bay City. That nuclear plant has been providing power to more than 1 million homes in southeast and south central Texas since Unit 1 went into service in August 1988. The second unit began producing power 10 months later. On Monday, commission spokesman Dave McIntyre confirmed that Amarillo Power notified the federal agency of its plans in March, but asked the agency to keep the proposal confidential, which federal regulations allow. Within the past week, Amarillo Power sent the commission a letter saying it no longer considered the information proprietary. Before it obtains a license from the commission, Amarillo Power will seek financing to build the plant, documents show. Federal law requires the commission ensure a company meets financial qualifications to construct and operate a nuclear power plant. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: New NRC Resident Inspector Assigned to Salem Nuclear Plant News Release - Region I - 2006-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-045 August 7, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have selected Daniel L. Schroeder as the new senior resident inspector at the Salem nuclear power plant in Lower Alloways Creek Township, N.J. He joins NRC Resident Inspector Harry Balian at the two-unit site. Schroeder first joined the NRC in 2002 as a reactor inspector in the Regional Office. He has worked most recently as a resident inspector at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Delta, Pa. Prior to joining the agency he served as a commissioned officer in the Navy for six years, and as an engineer for BOC Gases. Dan Schroeder has the experience and commitment to safety that will help the NRC ensure that Salem conducts operations with the highest safety standards to protect public health and safety," said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins. Schroeder earned bachelors degree in physics from the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. He also completed the Navys nuclear power school. Each U.S. commercial nuclear plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. The Salem resident inspectors can be reached at 856/935-3850. Last revised Monday, August 07, 2006 ***************************************************************** 19 DOE: Secretary Bodman Announces $2 Billion Federal Loan Guarantee Program as Part of First Anniversary Celebration of Energy Policy Act August 7, 2006 Secretary joined Maryland Governor Ehrlich at ribbon-cutting for first State-owned E-85 fueling pump BALTIMORE, MD  U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today unveiled DOE program guidelines for a total of $2 billion in loan guarantees to help spur investment in projects that employ new energy technologies. Secretary Bodman made the announcement in Baltimore while joining Maryland Governor Robert Ehrlich at a ribbon-cutting ceremony opening Marylands first State-owned E-85 fueling facility. With these loan guarantees we hope to encourage creativity and ingenuity that will help us strengthen our nations energy security, Secretary Bodman said. Projects eligible to receive loan guarantees are vast and varied. We hope to spur investment in new renewable energy projects like solar and wind, as well as clean coal technologies and efforts that can convert cellulosic biomass into ethanol. The solicitation, which will be issued soon, will govern the first round of loan guarantee applications, valued at a total of $2 billion. In addition over the next several weeks, DOE will propose draft regulations for public comment that will govern future solicitations. The Department views this first round solicitation as a learning opportunity that will assist in building expertise before permanent regulations are developed. Loan guarantees will enable the Department to share some of the financial risks of projects that employ new or significantly improved energy technologies that avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Projects supported by loan guarantees will help fulfill President Bushs goals to diversifying the United States energy sources, while reducing the nations reliance on foreign sources of energy and encourage energy efficiency. The loan guarantee program was authorized in Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) that President Bush signed into law on August 8, 2005. The Energy Policy Act has set the country on a path forward to increasing clean energy sources that will power our robust economy for generations to come, Secretary Bodman said. Secretary Bodman is holding events around the country to highlight the first anniversary of the signing of EPAct. Todays event in Baltimore highlighted Marylands effort to use more home-grown fuel in their State automobile fleet. Secretary Bodman and Governor Ehrlich cut the ribbon opening the first E-85 fueling station for State vehicles. I applaud the work of Governor Ehrlich and his commitment to fuel more Maryland vehicles with home-grown E-85, Secretary Bodman said. By diversifying our energy mix, we strengthen our nations energy security, reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and provide employment for Americas farmers and biorefiners. As the State purchases new vehicles for its fleet, more and more of the cars, trucks and vans will run on alternative fuels, Governor Ehrlich said. With this new E-85 facility, and others planned for Annapolis and College Park, we are working to make our State fleet less dependant on fossil fuels. Additionally, the use of E-85 will further economic development, increase the viability of our farms, and keep our air and water clean. In addition to todays event in Baltimore, Secretary Bodman was joined at an event on Capitol Hill by Senator Pete Domenici and Congressman Joe Barton on July 26 to kick-off the first anniversary celebration of the Energy Policy Act. On August 2, the Secretary visited Illinois to announce $250 million for two new bioenergy centers, which will accelerate basic research on the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels. Later that day he traveled Cedar Rapids, Iowa, to tour a wind turbine manufacturer and highlight the Administrations efforts to improve wind energy technology and reduce the cost of wind generated electricity. This past Friday, Secretary Bodman visited Georgia Power in Atlanta, where he announced a total of $2 billion in risk insurance for the next six nuclear reactors that are built to protect against losses associated with bureaucratic and legal delays. Tomorrow in Washington, DC, the Department will issue a study that will outline congestion points in the electricity transmission grid that will help guide further transmission line construction. 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 ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al.; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking [Docket No. PRM-50-79] FR Doc 06-6723 [Federal Register: August 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 151)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 44593-44599] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07au06-13] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is republishing its December 19, 2005 notice (70 FR 75085) denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian and 3,000 co-signers on September 4, 2002, to correct errors and clarify the NRC's regulatory position. These changes do not affect the Commission's denial of the petition. The petition was docketed by the NRC on September 23, 2002, and was assigned Docket No. PRM-50-79. The petition requests that the NRC amend its regulations regarding offsite state and local government emergency plans for nuclear power plants to ensure that all day care centers and nursery schools in the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) of nuclear power facilities are properly protected in the event of a radiological emergency. ADDRESSES: Publicly available documents related to this petition, including the petition for rulemaking, public comments received, and the NRC's letter of denial to the petitioner, may be viewed electronically on public computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 01 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at: http://ruleforum.llnl.gov . Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing in the documents located in ADAMS, contact the PDR reference staff at (800) 387-4209, (301) 415- 4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-3224, e-mail MTJ1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In December 1979, the President directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), now part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to lead state and local emergency planning and preparedness activities with respect to jurisdictions in proximity to nuclear reactors. FEMA has responsibilities under Executive Order 12148, issued on July 15, 1979, to establish federal regulations and policies and to coordinate civil emergency planning within emergency preparedness programs. Consequently, FEMA is the lead authority concerning the direction, recommendations, and determinations with regard to offsite state and local government radiological emergency planning efforts necessary for the public health and safety. FEMA sends its findings to the NRC for final determinations. FEMA implemented Executive Order 12148 in its regulations outlined in 44 CFR part 350. Within the framework of authority created by Executive Order 12148, FEMA also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (58 FR 47966, September 9, 1993) with the NRC to provide acceptance criteria for and determinations as to whether state and local government emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented to ensure public health and safety. FEMA's regulations are further amplified by FEMA Guidance Memorandum (GM) EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children,'' and the ``Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation Methodology'' (67 FR 20580 dated April 25, 2002). The Commission's emergency planning regulations for nuclear power reactors are contained in 10 CFR part 50, specifically Sec. 50.33(g), 50.47, 50.54 and Appendix E. As stated in 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1), in order to issue an initial operating license, the NRC must make a finding ``that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency'' to protect the public health and safety. An acceptable way of meeting the NRC's emergency planning requirements is contained in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.101, Rev. 4, ``Emergency Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML032020276). This guidance document endorses NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants'' (ML040420012; Addenda: ML021050240), an NRC and FEMA joint guidance document intended to provide nuclear facility operators and Federal, state, and local government agencies with acceptance criteria and guidance on the creation and review of radiological emergency plans. Together, RG 1.101, Rev. 4; and [[Page 44594]] NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, provide guidance to licensees and applicants on methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the Commission's regulations for emergency response plans and preparedness at nuclear power reactors. Emergency plans for all nuclear power reactors are required under part 50, as amplified by NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 and applicable FEMA guidance documents, to have specific provisions for all ``special facility populations,'' which refers not only to pre-schools, nursery schools, and day care centers, but all kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-12) students, nursing homes, group homes for physically or mentally challenged individuals and those who are mobility challenged, as well as those in correctional facilities. FEMA GM 24, ``Radiological Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons,'' dated April 5, 1984, and GM EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children,'' dated November 13, 1986, provide further guidance. These specific plans should, at a minimum: Identify the population of such facilities; Determine and provide protective actions for these populations; Establish and maintain notification methods for these facilities; and Determine and provide for transportation and relocation. State and local Emergency Operations Plans and procedures are initially and periodically evaluated by FEMA. The plans are tested in a biennial emergency preparedness exercise conducted for each nuclear power station. If plans or procedures are found to be inadequate, they must be corrected. The NRC emergency preparedness regulations are predicated on State and local governments that participate in emergency planning assuming overall responsibility for ensuring the performance of off-site planning and preparedness activities. This predicate is appropriate since State and local governments have responsibility for public health and safety, and the authority to take actions to protect the public during an emergency. A radiological emergency is but one of the hazards for which a State and its local government entities may prepare. Emergency response is intended to be primarily local; the planning for that response must similarly reflect local capabilities, constraints, organizational relationships, statutes, regulations, and ordinance. The Commission's emergency preparedness regulations allow a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken during a radiological emergency where a State or local government tasks a non-governmental entity with emergency planning, preparedness, or response activities responsive to the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b), provided that the overall responsibility for demonstrating, with reasonable assurance, that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency continues to remain with the State and local governments. Onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power plants are evaluated against the planning standards established in 10 CFR 50.47(b) and 44 CFR part 350, as informed by supporting regulatory guidance and case law. The NRC and FEMA jointly developed NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,'' to provide guidance and acceptance criteria for the development of licensee and State and local government emergency plans. NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1 is incorporated by reference in 44 CFR 350.5 and the planning standards and related criteria therein are used by FEMA (now part of DHS) to review, evaluate, and approve State and local radiological emergency plans and preparedness. FEMA Guidance Memorandum (GM) EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children,'' identifies methods acceptable to DHS (previously FEMA) for showing compliance with the planning standards and evaluation criteria, to the extent they apply to school children. Methods different from those identified in GM-EV-2 can be found acceptable if they provide an adequate basis for FEMA to determine that the planning standards and evaluation criteria are met. The NRC will then base its licensing decisions, with regard to offsite emergency planning, on a review of the FEMA findings. The petition denial references GM-EV-2 in several locations as an example of existing regulatory guidance that satisfies the intent of the individual petition requests. However, the Commission recognizes that DHS may find alternatives, other than those identified in GM-EV-2, to be acceptable means for meeting the planning standards and the evaluation criteria in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1. Availability of Documents The NRC is making the documents identified below available to interested persons through one or more of the following: Public Document Room (PDR). The NRC Public Document Room is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Public File Area O-1 F21, Rockville, Maryland. Copies of publicly available NRC documents related to this petition can be viewed electronically on public computers in the PDR. The PDR reproduction contractor will make copies of documents for a fee. Rulemaking Web site (Web). The NRC's interactive rulemaking Web site is located at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Selected documents may be viewed and downloaded electronically via this Web site. The NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS). The NRC's public Electronic Reading Room is located at http://www/nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Through this site, the public can gain access to the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. NRC Staff Contact (NRC Staff). For single copies of documents not available in an electronic file format, contact Michael T. Jamgochian, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-3224, e-mail MTJ1@nrc.gov. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Document PDR Web ADAMS NRC staff ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-50-79)......... X X ML023110466 ............... Federal Register Notice--Receipt of Petition X X ML023050008 ............... for Rulemaking (67 FR 66588; Nov. 1, 2002). Federal Register Notice--Receipt of Petition X X ML040770516 ............... for Rulemaking; Correction (67 FR 67800; Nov. 7, 2002).............................. Public Comments, Part 1 and 2............... X X ML040770480 ............... Public Comments, Part 2 of 2................ X X ML040770544 ............... Additional Public Comments.................. ............... X ML041910013 ............... [[Page 44595]] Letter of Denial to the Petitioners......... X X ML053260004 ............... Public Comment (PEMA) on Dec. 19, 2005 FRN.. X X ML060680076 ............... Public Comment (DHS/FEMA) on Dec. 19, 2005 X X ML060860342 ............... FRN........................................ ML060730534 REG 1.101, Rev. 4, Emergency Planning and X ............... ML032020276 ............... Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors (July 2003)................................ NUREG-0654/FEMA REP-1, Rev. 1 Criteria for X ............... ML040420012 ............... Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (November 1980)............................ NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 Addenda (March X ............... ML021050240 ............... 2002)...................................... Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency X ............... ............... ............... Management (July 20, 1979)................. MOU Between FEMA and NRC Relating to ............... ............... ............... X Radiological Emergency Planning and Preparedness (June 17, 1993)............... FEMA GM 24, Radiological Emergency ............... ............... ............... X Preparedness for Handicapped Persons (April 5, 1984)................................... Radiological Emergency Preparedness (REP) ............... ............... ............... ............... Exercise Methodology (66 FR 47526-- September 12, 2001 and 67 FR 20580-April 25, 2002).................................. FEMA GM EV-2, Protective Actions for School ............... ............... ............... X Children (November 13, 1986)............... ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- The Petitioners' Request This petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-79) generally requests that the NRC establish new rules requiring that emergency planning for day care centers and nursery schools located in the Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) be in clued in the state and local government offsite emergency plans of all NRC nuclear power facility licensees. More specifically, the petition requests that the NRC amend its regulations to ensure that all children attending day care centers and nursery schools within the EPZ are: A. Assigned to designated relocation centers established safely outside of the EPZ. B. Provided with designated transportation to a relocation center in the event of an emergency evaluation. C. Transported in approved child-safety seats that meet state and federal laws as they pertain to the transportation of children and infants under 50 pounds in weight or 4 feet 9 inches to height. The petitioners also request that the following be mandated by NRC regulations: D. The creation and maintenance of working rosters of emergency bus drivers and back-up drivers for day care center and nursery school evacuation vehicles, and the establishment of a system for notifying these individuals in the event of a radiological emergency. These rosters should bed regularly checked and updated, with a designated back-up driver listed for each vehicle and route. E. Notification of emergency management officials by individual preschools as to the details of each institution's radiological emergency plan. F. Annual site inspections of day care centers and nursery schools within the evacuation zone by emergency management officials. G. Participation of day care centers and nursery schools within the EPZ in radiological emergency preparedness exercises designed to determine each institution's state of readiness. H. Creation of identification cards, school attendance lists, and fingerprint records for all children who are to be transported to a relocation center, to ensure no child is left behind or is unable, due to age, to communicate his or her contact information to emergency workers. I. Development by emergency management officials of educational materials for parents, informing them what will happen to their children in case of a radiological emergency, and where their children can be picked up after an emergency evacuation. J. Stocking of potassium iodide (KI) pills and appropriate educational materials at all day care centers and nursery schools within the EPZ. K. Radiological emergency preparedness training for all day care center and nursery school employees within the EPZ. L. Listing of designated relocation centers for day care centers and nursery schools in area phone directories, so that parents can quickly and easily find where their children will be sent in case of a radiological emergency. M. Establishment of toll-free or 911-type telephone lines to provide information about radiological emergency plans and procedures for day care centers and nursery schools within the EPZ. N. Creation of written scripts for use by the local Emergency Alert System (EAS) that include information about evacuation plans and designated relocation centers for day care centers and nursery schools. Public Comments The NRC received 55 public comment letters relating to this petition. Twenty-three letters supported granting the petition (mostly from citizens including three letters with 410 signatures), while 30 letters requested that the petition be denied. Those letters that supported denial of the petition were primarily from state and local governmental agencies, FEMA, and licensees. In addition, the NRC received a letter that discussed KI but did not take a position on the petition and a letter that strongly supports the development of all- hazards emergency plans for child day care facilities and nursery schools throughout the state but did not take a position on the petition. Subsequent to the December 19, 2005 notice of denial, the NRC received two letters and an E-mail commenting on errors and potential mischaracterizations in the published denial. More specifically; 23 Letters supporting the granting of the petition: 13 Comment letters from citizens supporting the granting of the petition. 1 Comment letter from a citizens group supporting the granting of the petition. 4 Comment letters from local governmental agencies or officials supporting the petition. 3 Comment letters with 410 signatures supporting the petition. 1 Letter from the petitioner supporting the petition. The petitioner also ``suggests a federal model that mirrors the Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, or Nebraska--* * *'' emergency plans for day care centers [[Page 44596]] and nursery schools, even though those state plans only meet about 30 percent of the elements requested by the petitioner, while meeting FEMA guidance. 1 Letter from eight local governments that agreed with the concepts of the petition but had reservations about some of the specific requests of the petitioners. 30 Letters asking the Commission to deny the petition: 4 Letters from two local governments located near the petitioners, and from two citizens to deny the petition but suggested that the day care centers and nursery schools should be responsible for developing their own emergency plans. 8 Letters from local governmental agencies to deny the petition for rulemaking because they felt that current regulations are adequate. 12 Letters from State governments including two letters from FEMA (Headquarters and Region 7) to deny the petition, based on the opinion that the petitioners' requests are adequately addressed in current regulations and guidance. 4 Letters from licensees or companies that own nuclear utilities, to deny the petition. 1 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) letter to deny the petition. 1 Letter representing six licensees to deny the petition. 1 Letter that discusses KI, but does not take a position on the petition. 1 Letter from the Special Assistant to the Governor of Pennsylvania withdrawing an earlier submitted letter and strongly supporting the development of all-hazards emergency plans for child day care facilities and nursery schools throughout the state. This letter did not express a position on the petition and was characterized by the NRC as supporting the petition. The Director of PEMA, on behalf of the Governor's office, subsequently challenged the NRC's characterization of the original letter as supporting the petition and requested the characterization be formally corrected. 1 Letter and E-mail from DHS/FEMA commenting on errors and potential mischaracterizations within the December 19, 2005, Federal Register Notice denying the petition. NRC Evaluation The Commission has reviewed each of the petitioners' requests and provides the following analysis: 1. The petitioners' first and more general request is that day care centers and nursery schools, located within the 10-mile EPZ, be included in state and local government offsite emergency planning. NRC Review The current regulatory structure already requires that day care centers and nursery schools be included in the offsite emergency planning for nuclear power plants. Consequently, no revision to 10 CFR part 50 is necessary. The Commission's emergency planning regulations, in 10 CFR 50.47, require the NRC to make a finding, before issuing an initial operating license, that there is ``reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.'' Implicit in this regulation is the requirement that offsite emergency plans be protective of all members of the public, including children attending day care centers and nursery schools, within the 10-mile EPZ. Joint NRC and FEMA implementing guidance, NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, states that emergency plans must provide specific means for ``protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement.'' NUREG-0654, Section II.J. and Appendix 4, as well as FEMA GM 24, ``Radiological Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons,'' dated April 5, 1984, also provide guidance. Children in day care centers and nursery schools are included in the category of persons needing special protection. FEMA GM EV-2, ``Protective Actions for School Children,'' was issued to provide guidance to assist federal officials in evaluating adequacy of state and local government offsite emergency plans and preparedness for protecting school children during a radiological emergency. This guidance is also intended for state and local government officials and administrators of public and private schools, including licensed and government supported pre-schools and day care centers, for developing emergency response plans and preparedness for protecting the health and safety of children in their charge. FEMA (now part of DHS) is the Federal agency responsible for making findings and determinations as to whether state and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is a reasonable assurance that they can be implemented. FEMA uses the guidance documents discussed above to make such findings. The NRC makes its finding as to whether the emergency plans provide a reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken under 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2). The NRC's findings are based upon FEMA findings and determinations in this area. The NRC would not grant an initial operating license if FEMA found that state and local government emergency plans did not adequately address day care centers and nursery schools. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(s)(2)(ii), if significant deficiencies in a state or local governments' off-site emergency plan were discovered after the operating license was issued, and those deficiencies were not corrected within four months of discovery (or a plan for correction was not in place), the Commission would determine whether the reactor should be shut down until the deficiencies are remedied or whether some other enforcement action would be appropriate. Based on this information and considering that the existing regulatory structure already has requirements addressing the facilities of concern to the petitioners, no revision to 10 CFR part 50 is necessary in response to the petitioners' general request. The more specific elements of the petition follow: A. Require that children attending day care centers and nursery schools be assigned to designated relocation centers established safely outside the EPZ. NRC Review The petitioners' requested revision to 10 CFR part 50 is not needed because the requested action is already covered by FEMA guidance documents. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 5) specifies that evacuation planning may be developed in three contexts: (1) Part of the existing radiological emergency plans; (2) a separate annex of an existing integrated plan for many types of disasters and emergencies; or (3) a separate evacuation plan for all of the schools in each school system. GM EV-2 specifies that schools officials should document in the plan the basis for determining the proper protective action (e.g., evacuation, early preparatory measures, early evacuation, sheltering, early dismissal or combination) including but not limited to, the name and location of relocation center(s), and transport route(s), if applicable and on an institution-specific basis. Furthermore, GM EV-2 specifies that local governments should ensure that appropriate organizational officials assume responsibility for the emergency planning and preparedness for all of the identified schools, including day care centers and nursery schools. Local governments should also ensure that the emergency planning undertaken by these organizations is integrated within the larger offsite emergency [[Page 44597]] management framework for the particular nuclear power plant site. FEMA assesses offsite emergency plans using this guidance when making a finding that a plan adequately protects the public. Under the MOU between FEMA and the NRC, the NRC defers to FEMA's expertise in offsite emergency plan requirements and assessments. B. Require that children attending day care centers and nursery schools be provided with designated transportation to relocation centers in the event of an emergency evacuation. NRC Review As previously discussed, FEMA (now part of DHS) is the federal agency responsible for making findings and determinations as to whether state and local emergency plans are adequate. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 5) specifies that school officials should document in their plans the basis for determining the proper protective action (e.g., evacuation, early preparatory measures, early evacuation, sheltering, early dismissal or combination) including but not limited to, the means for effecting protective actions and specific resources allocated for transportation and supporting letters of agreement if resources are provided from external sources, on an institution-specific basis. Furthermore, FEMA's GM EV-2 specifies that local governments should ensure that appropriate organizational officials assume responsibility for the emergency planning and preparedness for all of the identified schools, including day care centers and nursery schools. Local governments should also ensure that the emergency planning undertaken by these organizations is integrated within the larger offset emergency management framework for the particular nuclear power plant site. FEMA reviews emergency plans to ensure that this provision is addressed. Consequently, a revision to 10 CFR part 50 is not needed. C. Require that children attending day care centers and nursery schools be transported in approved child-safety seats that meet state and federal laws as they pertain to the transportation of children and infants under 50 pounds in weight or 4 feet 9 inches in height. NRC Review Requiring seat belts or child safety seats on school buses that may be used for evacuating schools is outside NRC statutory authority. Such a requirement would instead need to be promulgated by the Department of Transportation or appropriate state authorities. D. Require the creation and maintenance of working rosters of emergency bus drivers and back-up drivers for day care center and nursery school evacuation vehicles, and the establishment of a system for notifying these individuals in the event of a radiological emergency. These rosters should be regularly checked and updated, with a designated back-up driver listed for each vehicle and route. NRC Review The petitioners' requested revision to 10 CFR part 50 is not needed because NRC considers the existing requirements and guidance adequate for the evaluation of planning with respect to transportation resources, including drivers. FEMA's GM EV-2 (pp. 5-6) specifies that school officials should document in the plan the basis for determining the proper protective action including: Means for effecting protective actions; specific resources allocated for transportation and supporting letters of agreement if resources are provided from external sources; and, means for alerting and notifying appropriate persons and groups associated with the schools and the students, including the method for contacting and activating designated dispatchers and school bus drivers. Under the MOU between FEMA and the NRC, the NRC defers to FEMA's (now part of DHS) expertise in state and local emergency plan requirements and assessments. FEMA recently completed an emergency preparedness exercise at TMI and issued a final report on August 4, 2005. FEMA identified no deficiencies in this particular area. E. Require notification of emergency management officials by individual preschools as to the details of each institution's radiological emergency plan. NRC Review NRC considers that current NRC and FEMA (now part of DHS) requirements and guidance are adequate. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 5) identifies criteria by which an emergency plan will typically be acceptable if it fully addresses the emergency functions for the evacuation of, or other appropriate protective measures, for school children including licensed and government supported pre-schools and day care centers. Accordingly, local government should take the initiative to identify and contact all public and private school systems, including day care centers and nursery schools, within the designated plume exposure pathway EPZ to assure that both public and private school officials address appropriate planning for protecting the health and safety of their students from a commercial nuclear power plant accident. The planning of both the public and private school officials should be closely coordinated with that of the local government. Local governments should ensure that appropriate organizational officials assume responsibility for the emergency planning and preparedness for all of the identified schools. Local governments should also ensure that the emergency planning undertaken by these organizations is integrated within the larger offsite emergency management framework for the particular nuclear power plant site. As mentioned previously in response to issue ``A'', the evacuation planning may be developed in three contexts: (1) Part of the existing radiological emergency plans; (2) a separate annex of an existing integrated plan for many types of disasters and emergencies; or (3) a separate evacuation plan for all of the schools in each school system. GM EV-2 specifies that school officials should document in the plan the basis for determining the proper protective action (e.g., evacuation, early preparatory measures, early evacuation, sheltering, early dismissal or combination) including: Identification of the organization and officials responsible for both planning and effecting the protective action. Institution-specific information: --Name and location of school; --Type of school and age grouping (e.g., public elementary school, grades kindergarten through sixth); --Total population (students, faculty, and other employees); --Means for implementing protective actions; --Specific resources allocated for transportation and supporting letters of agreement if resources are provided from external sources; and --Name and location of relocation center(s) and transport route(s), if applicable. If parts of the institution-specific information apply to many or all schools, then the information may be presented generically. Time frames for effecting the protective actions. Means for alerting and notifying appropriate persons and groups associated with the schools and the students including: --Identification of the organization responsible for providing emergency information to the schools; --The method (e.g., siren and telephone calls) for contacting and providing emergency information on recommended protective actions to school officials; [[Page 44598]] --The method (e.g., siren, tone-alert radios, and telephone calls) for contacting and activating designated dispatchers and school bus drivers; and --The method (e.g., Emergency Alert System (EAS) messages) for notifying parents and guardians of the status and location of their children. Based on the above, the petitioners' requested revision to 10 CFR part 50 is not required. F. Require annual site inspections of day care centers and nursery schools within the evacuation zone by emergency management officials. NRC Review Inspections of day care centers and nursery schools are the responsibility of the individual state and are outside NRC statutory authority. The Commission sees no safety reason within the scope of its statutory authority to require annual inspections of day care centers and nursery schools. G. Require the participation of day care centers and nursery schools within the EPZ in radiological emergency preparedness exercises designed to determine each institution's state of readiness. NRC Review Current NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix E, Section F.2, permit exercises without public (including day care centers and nursery schools) participation. The Commission has determined that exercises can be adequately evaluated without the participation of schools or members of the public. This eliminates safety concerns for students, as well as the disruption of day care center and nursery school activities that might arise during exercise participation. In addition, as mentioned in the response to request ``E,'' pursuant to FEMA (now part of DHS) guidance, governments should take the initiative to identify and contact all public and private school systems, including day care centers and nursery schools, within the designated plume exposure pathway EPZ to assure that both public and private school officials address appropriate planning for protecting the health and safety of their students from a commercial nuclear power plant accident. The petition has presented no evidence that would cause the NRC to reconsider this determination. H. Require creation of identification cards, school attendance lists, and fingerprint records for all children who are to be transported to a relocation center, to ensure no child is left behind or is unable, due to age, to communicate his or her contact information to emergency workers. NRC Review State and local governments have the responsibility for ensuring that licensed day care centers and nursery schools have mechanisms in place for maintaining child accountability. FEMA (now part of DHS), as the authority on offsite emergency planning, has determined that it is unnecessary to require that such detailed mechanisms be a component of emergency plans. The Commission finds no safety reason to justify requiring such detailed mechanisms in its regulations. I. Require development by emergency management officials of educational materials for parents, informing them what will happen to their children in case of a radiological emergency, and where their children can be picked up after an emergency evacuation. NRC Review Current NRC and FEMA requirements and guidance adequately address this specific request. FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 2) specifies that the Emergency Alert System (EAS) notify parents of the status and location of their children in the event of an emergency. The Commission believes that parental notification via the EAS is adequate to assure that parents will be informed of their children's location following an emergency evacuation. J. Require socking of KI pills and appropriate educational materials at all day care centers and nursery schools within the 10- mile EPZ. NRC Review The Commission's regulations, specifically 10 CFR 50.47b.(10), require individual states to consider using KI in the event of an emergency. The regulations require that a range of protective actions be developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency workers and the public. In developing this range of actions, consideration was to be given to evacuation, sheltering, and, as a supplement to these, the prophylactic use of KI, as appropriate. Under this regulation, each individual state must decide whether the stockpiling of KI is appropriate for the citizens within its jurisdiction. Once a state decides to stockpile KI, it is incumbent on that state to develop a program for distribution. This program is reviewed by FEMA (now part of DHS) under the 44 CFR part 350 process. The petition did not provide information that would cause the NRC to reconsider this determination. K. Require radiological emergency preparedness training for all day care center and nursery school employees within the 10-mile EPZ. NRC Review The Commission believes that specialized training for day care center and nursery school employees is unnecessary because they would be using already established and distributed procedures for evacuation. Absent compelling information that specialized training for day care and nursery school employees would result in significant safety benefits that justify the additional regulatory burden, the Commission finds no safety reason to justify the requested revision to 10 CFR part 50. L. Require listing of designated relocation centers in area phone directories, so that parents can quickly and easily find where their children will be sent in case of a radiological emergency. NRC Review FEMA's GM EV-2 (pp. 2 and 4) specifies that offsite emergency plans are to identify relocation centers outside of the 10-mile EPZ for all schools, including day care centers and nursery schools. Some states list the relocation centers in telephone directories, some states identify the relocation centers in the yearly public information packages, and some states identify the relocation centers in their offsite emergency plans.\1\ The Commission believes that the current publication practices are adequate. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ See March 23, 2005 letter from Roy Zimmerman to Eric J. Epstein and March 24, 2005 letter from Roy Zimmerman to Lawrence T. Christian (available on NRC's ADAMS document system under the accession numbers ML050590344 and ML050590357, respectively). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- M. Require establishment of toll-free or 911-type telephone lines, to provide information about radiological emergency plans and procedures for day care centers and nursery schools within the 10-mile EPZ. NRC Review Although not required by NRC regulations or provided in FEMA guidance, all states provide a toll-free phone number in the yearly public information package where members of the public can acquire emergency preparedness information. The Commission sees no added safety benefits in revising its regulations to require something that all states are already doing. N. Creation of written scripts for use by the local Emergency Alert System [[Page 44599]] that include information about evacuation plans and designated relocation centers for day care centers and nursery schools. NRC Review FEMA's GM EV-2 (p. 6) specifies that a method is to exist (e.g., EAS) for notifying day care center and nursery school parents of the status and location of their children, in the event of an emergency. FEMA (now part of DHS) has decided that it is unnecessary to incorporate such a prescriptive requirement into its regulations and guidance, which allows the off-site response organizations the flexibility to develop adequate plans and procedures that best fit their specific needs, and the needs of the affected public that they are charged with protecting. The petition provided no evidence that the current method of notification is inadequate. As a result, the Commission sees no added safety benefit in requiring a written script. Commission Evaluation The evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the rulemaking requested by the petition with respect to the four strategic goals of the Commission follows: 1. Ensure Protection of Public Health and Safety and the Environment: The NRC staff believes that the requested rulemaking would not make a significant contribution to maintaining safety because current NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance already require inclusion of nursery schools and day care centers in state and local government offsite emergency plans. This was verified by the state governments that submitted comment letters which stated that day care centers and nursery schools are included in their offsite emergency planning and that this is not an issue requiring a change to the emergency planning regulations. As such, it is a potential compliance issue that can be resolved using the current regulatory structure. 2. Ensure the Secure Use and Management of Radioactive Materials: The requested regulatory amendments would have no impact on the security provisions necessary for the secure use and management of radioactive materials. The petition for rulemaking deals with the taking of protective actions for nursery schools and day care centers by offsite authorities, which is currently required by NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance. 3. Ensure Openness in Our Regulatory Process: The requested rulemaking would not enhance openness or public confidence in our regulatory process because the petitioners' requests raise potential issues of compliance with the existing requirements and guidance. The NRC staff does not believe that the contentions identify deficiencies in regulatory requirements. The Commission's regulations require that protective actions have been developed for the public, including day care centers and nursery schools. Existing guidance in NUREG-0654 and in GM-EV2 address the planning for this segment of the population. Appendix 4 in NUREG-0654, discusses ``special facility populations.'' Day care centers and nursery schools fall under the definition of ``special facility populations'' and as such, these populations should be included in the offsite emergency response plans. It should be noted, however, that 3000 members of the public co-signed the original petition for rulemaking. Additionally, 410 members of the public signed letters supporting the petition. This amount of public support reinforces the importance of NRC and FEMA's continued commitment to providing protection for the public in the event of an emergency which has always included day care centers and nursery schools. 4. Ensure that NRC Actions Are Effective, Efficient, Realistic and Timely: The proposed revisions would decrease efficiency and effectivensss because current NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance already adequately address the petition requests. Amending the regulations would require licensees and state and local governments to generate additional and more prescriptive information in their emergency plans, and the NRC and FEMA staffs would need to evaluate the additional information. The additional NRC staff and licensee effort would not improve efficiency or effectiveness. In addition, the NRC resources expended to promulgate the rule and supporting regulatory guidance would be significant with little return value. 5. Ensure Excellence in Agency Management: The requested rule would have no effect on the excellence in NRC management, but would increase licensee and state and local government burden by requiring the generation of additional, unnecessary, and burdensome information with little expected benefit because current NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance already adequately address the petition requests. This rulemaking would add significant burden on a national scale in order to address a potential local compliance issue. Reason for Denial The Commission is denying the petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-79) submitted by Mr. Lawrence T. Christian, et al. Current NRC requirements and NRC and FEMA guidance, provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection of all members of the public, including children attending day care centers and nursery schools, in the event of a nuclear power plant incident. Many of the specific requests of the petitioner are either already covered by regulations and/or guidance documents or are inappropriate for inclusion in NRC regulations due to their very prescriptive nature. The Commission does believe, however, that information obtained during the review of the petition does raise questions about local implementation of relevant requirements and guidelines. Accordingly, the NRC staff met with FEMA officials to assure an understanding of this issue for consideration by FEMA as reflected in separate letters to the petitioner and TMI-Alert Chairman, Eric Epstein dated respectively, March 23, 2005 and March 24, 2005.\2\ Copies of those letters are available through the NRCs ADAMS document system and can be located using accession numbers ML050590344 and ML050590357, respectively. The NRC staff will continue to work with FEMA to ensure emergency planning exercises are appropriately focused and provide adequate assurance regarding compliance with NRC and FEMA regulations and guidance. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \2\ FEMA did evaluate a May 3, 2005 Emergency Planning exercise at TMI. NRC understands that during this exercise FEMA reviewed aspects of emergency planning involving nurseries and day care centers. No deficiencies were identified by FEMA during the exercise. FEMA's final report on the exercise was issued on August 4, 2005. For these reasons, the Commission denies PRM-50-79. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of August, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 06-6723 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the FR Doc E6-12723 [Federal Register: August 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 151)] [Notices] [Page 44720-44721] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07au06-99] Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision. 2. The title of the information collection: ``Nuclear Material Events Database (NMED)'' for the Collection of Event Report, Response, Analyses, and Follow-up Data on Events Involving the Use of Atomic Energy Act (AEA) Radioactive Byproduct Material. 3. The form number if applicable: N/A. 4. How often the collection is required: Agreement States are requested to provide copies of licensee material event reports electronically or by hard copy to NRC on a monthly basis or within 30 days of receipt from their licensee. In addition, Agreement States are requested to report events that may pose a significant health and safety hazard to the NRC Headquarters Operations Officer within the next working day of notification by an Agreement State licensee. 5. Who will be required or asked to report: Current Agreement States and any State receiving Agreement State status in the future. 6. An estimate of the number of responses: 741. 7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 34. 8. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 756 hours, an average of approximately 1.0 hour per response for 711 events and 1.5 additional hours for 30 significant events, for all existing Agreement State reporting. Any new Agreement State would add approximately 21 event reports (including follow-up reports) per year or 22.5 burden hours. 9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 applies: Not applicable. 10. Abstract: NRC regulations require NRC licensees to report incidents and events involving the use, transportation and security of radioactive byproduct material, and source material, such as those involving radiation overexposures, leaking or contaminated sealed source(s), release of excessive contamination of radioactive material, lost or stolen radioactive material, equipment failures, abandoned well logging sources and medical events. Agreement State licenses are also required to report these events to their individual Agreement State regulatory authorities under compatible Agreement State regulations. NRC is requesting that the Agreement States provide [[Page 44721]] information to NRC on the initial notification, response actions, and follow-up investigations on events involving the use (including suspected theft or terrorist activities) of nuclear materials regulated pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act. The event information should be provided in a uniform electronic format, for assessment and identification of any facilities/site specific or generic safety concerns that could have the potential to impact public health and safety. The identification and review of safety concerns may result in lessons learned, and may also identify generic issues for further study which could result in proposals for changes or revisions to technical or regulatory designs, processes, standards, guidance or requirements. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by September 6, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150- 0178), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of August 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E6-12723 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of FR Doc E6-12724 [Federal Register: August 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 151)] [Notices] [Page 44721-44722] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07au06-101] Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-20, issued to Nuclear Management Company (the licensee), for operation of the Palisades Plant located in Van Buren County, Michigan. The proposed amendment would remove tri-sodium phosphate from the Palisades' containment. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's public document room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner/ requestor in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/ petitioner's property, [[Page 44722]] financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/ requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. Non-timely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI 54016, attorney for the licensee. If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 20, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Peter S. Tam, Acting Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-12724 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 23 NRC: Duke Power Company LLC, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and FR Doc E6-12725 [Federal Register: August 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 151)] [Notices] [Page 44721] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07au06-100] 3; Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) has granted the request of Duke Power Company LLC (the licensee) to withdraw its February 14, 2005, application for proposed amendments to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47, and DPR-55 for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, respectively, located in Oconee County. The proposed amendments would have revised the Technical Specifications to accommodate the replacement of the current analog- based reactor protective system (RPS) and engineered safeguards protective system (ESPS) with a digital computer-based RPS and ESPS. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2005 (70 FR 12907). However, by letter dated June 22, 2006, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated February 14, 2005, and the licensee's letter dated June 22, 2006, which withdrew the application for license amendments. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800- 397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Leonard N. Olshan, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-12725 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 24 DHHS: ABRWH: Corrections FR Doc E6-12735 [Federal Register: August 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 151)] [Notices] [Page 44700] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07au06-76] [[Page 44700]] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) Correction: This notice was published in the Federal Register on July 24, 2006, Volume 71, Number 141, page 41806. A public comment period has been added during the discussion of the Conflicts of Interest policies. To aid in the discussion, please see the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support Web site at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocasdose.html#drcoi . For Further Information Contact: Dr. Lewis V. Wade, Executive Secretary, NIOSH, CDC, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, telephone 513.533.6825, fax 513.533.6826. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: August 1, 2006. Alvin Hall, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-12735 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P ***************************************************************** 25 Daily Herald: Radiation regulators looking for info about Tooele County Monday, August 07, 2006 The Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY-- The state's Radiation Control Board wants to know how much hazardous waste has been disposed at a landfill in Tooele County. The board's request to staff came Friday after the landfill's former manager said the amount exceeds state law. Charles Judd, president of Envirocare from 1998 to 2002, said Utah law requires a rigorous approval process for a company that is growing by 50 percent or more. Envirocare got new owners in 2005 and now is known as EnergySolutions. The Clive landfill, 80 miles west of Salt Lake City, is one of only a handful that accepts low-level radioactive waste from nuclear-power plants and the health care industry. "We ought to know, in light of the allegations, what the statute permits," Radiation Control Board member Stephen Nelson said. Judd said EnergySolutions has never been required to go through a detailed, multistage process, which requires approval from lawmakers and the governor. The state's radiation director has approved 80 amendments during the company's 17 years of operation. Judd said he might take his complaint to the Utah Court of Appeals. EnergySolutions attorney Craig Galli said Judd and his company, Cedar Mountain Environmental, were not asking questions at the right time or in the right forum. He said Judd could have pressed lawmakers or the radiation board in the past. "They sat on their rights," he said. Separately, the Utah Supreme Court is reviewing a ruling from the radiation board that allows EnergySolutions to nearly double the size of its boundaries. A watchdog group, the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, claims the expansion is illegal. This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A8. Copyright © 2006 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises ***************************************************************** 26 Pacific Magazine: Nuclear Fallout Report Triggers Strong Reaction FRENCH POLYNESIA: Pacific Islands: PINA and Pacific Monday: August 7, 2006 (Oceania Flash) The publication of preliminary findings of a report last week by French scientific research institute INSERM on repercussions of French nuclear testing has triggered string reactions from local veterans associations and the French government alike. In a letter sent to French government delegate for nuclear safety, Marcel Jurien de la Gravière, INSERM's Florent de Vathaire, who conducted a survey on the French tests' possible repercussions on French Polynesia's public health, has reacted saying this was, at this stage, nothing but a letter". In his preliminary letter, which was copied to French Polynesia's President Oscar Temaru, de Vathaire (who is an epidemiologist at the cancer-specialised Gustave Roussy institute in Villejuif -France-) explains the latest survey was carried out between 2002 and 2005, on a panel of 229 French Polynesians who had had a thyroid cancer diagnosed between 1984 and 2002 and who were under 15 years of age at the time. "Our study shows that the nuclear tests carried out by France have very probably increased the number of thyroid cancers, but in a limited way. From our current assessment, of all thyroid cancers that appeared in French Polynesia between 1984 and 2002, about ten were due to nuclear testing", the French scientist concludes. "To me, this is not a scientific document. And a study on the consequences of nuclear testing requires, first of all, that the doses be assessed. Because it's the doses that can have an effect on health. And I still don't know what doses Mr de Vathaire has used for his study", Jurien de la Gravière said. Jurien de la Gravière visited French Polynesia in recent months in order to lead a "truth mission". He is scheduled to come back to French Polynesia in October this year. Last week, the French government also reacted to the INSERM letter, saying in substance that the study's results and recommendations would only be taken into account when it has been properly published in a scientific journal. But Jurien de la Gravière's most recent points, in reaction to the INSERM study, have in turn triggered reactions from scientist de Vathaire and local veteran association Moruroa e Tatou (Moruroa and Us) international coordinator John Doom. "This is not the first report from Mr de Vathaire. There was another study in 1994 and this one has been published and it mentions the cases of some thirty French Polynesian women who have suffered chromosome deformities and who are undergoing treatment at the Gustave Roussy cancer hospital. Everyone knows this. And I'm a little bit surprised of (Mr Jurien de la Gravière)'s reaction towards Mr de Vathaire, because the French ministry of Defence has always relied on INSERM and on this particular director of studies. Mr de Vathaire is a Research Director, he's not just any scientist", Doom told RFO in a television interview on Sunday night (Saturday Tahiti time, GMT-10). Pacific Magazine: - Publisher Floyd K. Takeuchi Tel: 808-534-7522 Fax: 808-537-9522 Pacific Magazine is published monthly by PacificBasin Communications, Inc. Founder: Bruce Jensen. Copyright 2002, 2003 PacificBasin Communications, Inc. Editorial, advertising offices at 1000 Bishop Street. Suite 405, Honolulu HI 96813. Telephone (808) 537-9500. Send all address changes to Pacific Magazine, P.O.Box 913, Honolulu HI 96808 or e-mail Pacificmagazine.net Copyright 2002 - 2004 PacificBasin ***************************************************************** 27 Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Davis has diverse record from time at the Capitol - Dateline Florida August 7, 2006 By CORY REISS H-T WASHINGTON BUREAU reissc@nytimes.com WASHINGTON -- A State Department official announced last month that Saudi Arabia would strip extremist material from school textbooks under pressure from the Bush administration. Many Florida voters would be surprised to learn that Rep. Jim Davis, a Democrat from Tampa, might deserve a little credit. Davis first introduced a resolution in 2002 demanding that the Saudi government revise its textbooks, which he saw as a root cause of extremism that produced most of the Sept. 11 hijackers. The bill went nowhere for four years, but Davis persisted until last December, when the House approved it with the help of Rep. Peter King of New York, the Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. "My goal was to pressure the administration to pressure the kingdom of Saudi Arabia," a pleased Davis said in a recent interview. But the Saudi education system is not exactly the burning concern that FCAT scores and student-teacher ratios are in his campaign for governor. As he travels the state in the month leading up to the Sept. 5 primary, Davis highlights a clutch of hotter issues from his nearly 10 years in the House, often his leadership in the congressional battles over Terri Schiavo and offshore drilling. His rival in the Democratic primary, state Sen. Rod Smith, paints Davis more as a patron of lost causes. Over Davis' objections, the House voted to send Schiavo's case to federal court and passed an offshore drilling bill in June that awaits final negotiations with the Senate. So far, voters are being asked to look at a few congressional issues and decide whether they see Davis' glass as half full or half empty. But Davis, 48 and the primary front-runner, has amassed a much deeper record since first being elected to Congress in 1996. A moderate Democrat who has spent his time on Capitol Hill in the minority, Davis' record is often qualified with ifs, ands or buts that nevertheless flesh him out. Davis, for example, votes with Democrats on almost all abortion questions, except his support for a late-term abortion ban. He supports the import of drugs from Canada, but he voted against a bill the House passed to allow it. He has a strong civil liberties record, but he supports a constitutional ban on flag burning. He said yes to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, but when asked whether he would support new nuclear reactors in Florida, he responded, "The devil's in the details." Family values Voters will search for similar limits in Smith's record. Critics say he has fared relatively well in a Republican-controlled chamber by compromising too much. "You have to probably be an idiot not to find something in there that you can twist," Stephen Craig, who teaches political science at the University of Florida, said of their records. Florida voters for decades embraced the often-nuanced views of one of the state's most popular politicians, Bob Graham. Davis is tying himself to the former governor and senator, who is the star in the congressman's first television ad. Former Rep. Dan Miller, a Bradenton Republican, said Davis and Graham are a lot alike in substance and style. "He's not the firebrand that certain members in our Florida delegation might be," Miller said of Davis. "He's not bombastic or anything like that." Davis scored an early victory with Graham when they passed legislation prohibiting nursing homes from evicting patients on Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor. A Tampa nursing home sparked the issue in 1998 by planning such a move against patients. "That kind of an issue both touches his sense of fairness and demonstrates his legislative skills to get something accomplished," Graham said in an interview. The bill, however, proved to be relatively uncontroversial, passing the House 398-12 and unanimously in the Senate. Known as a bridge builder during his eight years in the state House, two as speaker, Davis earned a similar reputation early in his congressional career. He worked to tighten the budget and opposed pork-laden spending bills, sticking to a platform of fiscal discipline. After stints on the Budget and Foreign Relations committees, Davis took a seat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, where he sits on subcommittees covering health, consumer protection and energy. He is not the most prolific of legislative authors, writing about 30 bills in the last 10 years, although he has co-sponsored scores more. With the exception of the Saudi education legislation, most of his bills have focused on a handful of items of specific importance in Florida, with mixed success. Davis, for example, passed an amendment in 2004 blocking new White House restrictions on travel to Cuba to visit family members there, but House and Senate negotiators removed it from a spending bill. In 2005, he tried again, sparking a fierce debate. "Everyone on the floor of this House of Representatives talks about family values here and at home," Davis said on the floor last June. "This is a chance to act on family values." Davis said he was not trying to end long-standing travel restrictions or the embargo. But Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, countered: "This amendment provides an economic lifeline to the dictatorship." The amendment failed by a razor thin 208-211. Common ground Carrying an 81 percent lifetime rating by the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and a 16 percent rating by the American Conservative Union, Davis is generally in line with most Democrats on big-ticket issues. But his support for his party is not automatic. He voted for the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq, although reluctantly, and he has backed subsequent statements of support while criticizing the war's management. He has opposed most of President Bush's tax cuts, except cuts for married couples, despite being more accepting of tax breaks in the first half of his congressional career. "The first question you ask on any tax proposal and any spending proposal," he said, "is how does it affect our ability as a country to pay down this massive federal debt?" Davis brought an interest in education with him from the statehouse. He passed legislation in 2000 starting a grant program for people who want to switch careers to become teachers. Like many Democrats, Davis opposes vouchers and supported the No Child Left Behind Act, which made standardized tests the basis for evaluating the performance of public schools and federal funding decisions. Some schools in Florida are feeling the pinch from the state's test this year, making both the federal law and the state Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test prominent issues. Asked to square his support of No Child Left Behind and his criticism of the FCAT, Davis said the test should be "principally used for diagnostic purposes." Long a free trade advocate and supporter of giving presidents Clinton and Bush the authority to negotiate deals without interference from Congress, Davis joined nearly all Democrats in opposing one of the biggest pacts in years, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. He said the deal did not come with enough money to train displaced workers for new jobs. Davis voted against the Medicare prescription drug bill in 2003. Older Americans are beginning to fall into a coverage gap that is forcing them to pay thousands out of their own pockets. If the cost is widely felt by this fall, that could help Democrats who fought the bill. But Davis broke with most House Democrats to vote against a bill in 2003 that would have allowed Americans to import prescription drugs from Canada and other countries. Davis said the legislation did not include adequate measures to ensure the safety of the medicine. The Senate did not pass the bill. With nuclear energy rebounding, it is possible the next governor would face that thorny issue. Davis supported construction of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, which many environmental groups oppose. But Davis could not say whether he would support a nuclear expansion in his state, arguing the decision would be case-specific. "I'm someone who looks for common ground," Davis said, "and I'm someone who stands my ground when I have to." Not for lack of trying Two of the most prominent issues on which Davis says, repeatedly, he stood his ground are Terri Schiavo and offshore drilling. In 2001, Davis led a Florida effort to postpone federal plans for leasing in a 6 million acre tract straddling waters off Florida and Alabama known as Lease Sale Area 181. The amendment passed 247-164. The next month, then Interior Secretary Gale Norton cited the show of strength as a reason she agreed to lease only waters in a strip west of the Alabama landline, postponing decisions about waters closer to Florida for another five years. Davis continued to play a leadership role on the issue, often with Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley, but he found himself battling uphill this year. In June, Davis led opposition to a bill that would end current drilling bans and replace them with a 100-mile buffer that states could lift if they want. The House passed it with support from the majority of Florida members. The Senate also passed a bill last week that could result in a new drilling regime. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Ocala, said Davis was intractable despite the best interests of Florida in order to preserve his environmental credentials for the gubernatorial race. Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., called Davis, "a moderate voice, but very hard hitting and strong in the area of protecting the oceans against oil drilling. This was a blow this year to have the coalition crack, but it wasn't for lack of trying on his part." Smith, Davis' primary opponent, gives the congressman some credit, but not too much. "I certainly commend him for fighting that issue," Smith said. "I hope he does succeed. I'm skeptical that he will have great influence on that." Smith and Davis have sparred over who deserves more credit for action against legislative intervention to keep Terri Schiavo alive. Smith was central in blocking legislative efforts to that effect in Tallahassee. Davis led a similar campaign last year in Congress, but he lost. Smith, however, concedes his position in the state Senate is not the same as Davis' in a 435-member U.S. House that has become exceedingly polarized. "Washington tends to be in gridlock," Smith said, "so I can't say I blame him for all the failures of policy because he's somewhat been victimized by a system where there is not coalition building." But Smith, who is touting his ability to build bipartisan coalitions, added: "Being in a situation of gridlock and failure is hardly a road map of how to be governor." Graham said Davis would have a head start on the governor's job given how many federal issues tend to play out in Florida, affecting immigration, homeland security and the military. With the gubernatorial candidates struggling to write plans that would reduce rising insurance prices in Florida, that issue is on the verge of breaking out of the state-only realm as well. Congress is showing an interest in regulating insurance markets and perhaps creating some kind of federal catastrophe fund. "Knowing Washington, how it works and how to influence it is a very valuable skill for someone who is going to be governor," Graham said. For now, however, Davis is being hit on the more than 250 votes he has failed to cast since he started his gubernatorial campaign. So far this two-year session, Davis is second on missed votes only to a House member battling Parkinson's disease. Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, former co-chairman of the moderate New Democrat Coalition with Davis, said voters should not make too much out of that. "It's inevitable. Jim's trying to do what he thinks is in the best interest of Florida," he said, "so he thinks him being the chief executive of Florida is pretty important right now." Last modified: August 07. 2006 3:45AM ***************************************************************** 28 The Mercury: Maker of fuel rod storage casks cited 07 August, 2006 LIMERICK -- The maker of the casks that will hold spent fuel from the Limerick Nuclear Generating Station was cited last month for violating a manufacturing procedure. During June inspections at two manufacturing locations in Japan, Kobe Steel Ltd. and Hitachi Zosen Mechanical Corp., inspectors for the Nuclear Regulatory Agency found a violation -- the failure to adequately measure the thickness of casks being manufactured there. The casks in question are not those destined for Limerick, said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. "They haven’t even started working on the Limerick casks yet," he said. The two Japanese manufacturers have been contracted by Columbia, Md.-based Transnuclear Inc., a subsidiary of the French company Areva, to build the casks. Transnuclear holds the license from the NRC for its NUHOMS cask system, which is the one that will be used at Limerick. Sheehan said the violation is a "level four violation," the lowest issued by the NRC. There are no fines involved as of yet. In a July 10 letter to Transnuclear President and CEO Tara Neider, NRC official Robert J. Lewis wrote that the company must respond to the violation and the response would be used "to determine whether further enforcement action is necessary." Neider said Friday the violation notice "had no impact on product quality." She said other than the paperwork issue for which the violation was received, "the NRC lead auditor said we were otherwise in compliance with NRC regulations and the quality of the construction is excellent." Beth Rapczynski, spokeswoman for Exelon, e-mailed the following statement after The Mercury forwarded a copy of the NRC notice to their offices Tuesday: "We were aware that Transnuclear was putting corrective actions into their processes surrounding the testing of thickness of steel, but we were not aware on Tuesday that it was going to be considered a notice of violation. "That is because a notice of violation is between Transnuclear (the licensee) and the NRC (the regulator. Transnuclear has fully briefed us on this issue and we are confident they are making the changes and improvements necessary to deliver us a quality, safe product," Rapczynski wrote. Despite these reassurances, David Kane, chairman of the Limerick Board of Supervisors, called the news of the violation "troubling." "Any time there is a violation with anything that has to do with those casks, it is a major concern to Limerick Township," Kane said. "We intend to contact NRC and Exelon and ask for a full explanation," he said. "We need to be sure there aren’t any more mistakes and that the rest of this project is mistake-free." The thickness of the casks is important because it is the first shield against the radiation and 400-degree heat the spent fuel will generate for years. The steel casks will rest inside a pre-cast concrete housing, the inside of which will be air-cooled through vents in the concrete. Sheehan said the violation notice does not necessarily mean that the thickness inspection did not take place, only that it was not property documented as NRC rules require. Neider said the thickness inspections were done and were documented. "It was just that the documentation that was done was inconsistent with what they are supposed to write down." She said "corrective measures" have already taken place at the Hitachi Zosen Mechanical Corp. yard where the violation occurred. She said that yard will play a part in the construction of the Limerick casks. "They do good work for us there," said Neider. The NRC inspection report notes that while construction on the casks for Limerick has not yet begun, "planning and material procurement is under way." The same is true of the "transfer cask" which will be used over and over to transfer the radioactive spent fuel from the 45-foot pool of water in which it now rests to the "dry casks," to be located outside the reactor building. The approval to build the concrete pad on which those outdoor casks will rest was issued July 27 by the Limerick Board of Supervisors. The approval was not an endorsement of the project, Kane has insisted several times. It was merely a land development approval which the board could not deny, due to the fact that Exelon Nuclear, the company that owns and operates the plant, had met all the legal requirements, he said. Some residents and a local environmental advocacy group have pushed for further precautions to be taken, particularly against a terrorist attack, but the NRC has made no change in its regulations. Exelon maintains it will follow NRC regulations. ©The Mercury 2006 Copyright © 1995 - 2006 Townnews.comAll Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 [NYTr] Scotland: Trident Ploughshares Board Arms Flight Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:48:06 -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 sent by mart BBC News - Aug. 7, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5251438.stm Bomb protesters board aircraft A spokesman for campaign group Trident Ploughshares told BBC Scotland three people had managed to get onto a US cargo flight. He said they were searching for evidence to suggest the plane was carrying bombs to Israel. On Sunday, four people were arrested after demonstrators broke through security fencing onto the main runway. It was reported last week that US military flights carrying bombs to Israel would no longer use any civilian airports in the UK for refuelling. The protesters describe themselves as "citizen weapons inspectors" and said they were searching for evidence to suggest the plane was en route to Israel carrying bunker busting bombs. Trident Ploughshares said seven people got through security fencing at the airport and got into the freight area, with three managing to get on board a US plane. It is claimed one of the protesters was sitting in the pilot's seat reading a manual when he was arrested. Strathclyde Police said seven people had been arrested at the airport on Monday morning and confirmed a number of protesters had been on board a plane. A spokesman for the airport said: "Glasgow Prestwick Airport is investigating the incidents, as are the authorities, and additional security resources have been in place since we became aware of a similar incident on Sunday morning which led to four arrests. "We are satisfied that our security measures are working effectively as these people were apprehended very quickly. "Aviation security is tighter than that of most other industries and security at Glasgow Prestwick Airport is consistent with the measures in place at other major airports in the UK." *** PA via Guardian Unlimited (UK) - Aug 7, 2006 http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,,1838939,00.html Prestwick protesters arrested for boarding US plane Police arrested seven anti-war protesters today after campaigners boarded a US plane at a Scottish airport to search for weapons bound for Israel. Two men and a woman were in custody after getting on what is understood to be a military plane at Prestwick airport, Ayrshire, in the early hours. Police confirmed that a further four people - two men and two women - were arrested at the airport, near Glasgow, at around 3.30am. The anti-nuclear campaign group Trident Ploughshares said its activists had boarded a US plane while carrying out an investigation into the British government's involvement in the transport of arms to Israel. The group named the members involved in this morning's action as Marcus Armstrong, 46, from Milton Keynes, Chris Bluemel, 35, from Southampton, and Angie Zelter, 55, from Norfolk. Sarah Lasenby, 68, from Oxford, Douglas Shaw, 56, and Jean Oliver, 48, both from Biggar, South Lanarkshire, and Matt Bury, 50, from Somerset, also took part in the investigation, it said. They were expected to appear in court tomorrow. Four people were arrested at the airport yesterday after breaking through security fencing and running onto the main runway. The latest incidents follow protests last weekend when two flights carrying hazardous material were diverted to RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), the body responsible for policing the transit of flights through civilian airports, said yesterday that it had given permission for the two US flights to stop at Prestwick last weekend but not for any others. "We have not issued permission for the carriage of any dangerous cargo to Israel," a spokesman said. Last month, President Bush apologised for having failed to ask permission from the British government for a plane carrying bombs bound for Israel to land at Prestwick airport. * ================================================================ .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 ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 30 [NYTr] "To Save Lives" - The Hiroshima Myth Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 13:35:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: olm.blythe-systems.com X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by reporter2 @mpinet.net (activ-l) - Aug 6, 2006 Lew Rockwell.com - Aug 2, 2006 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html The Hiroshima Myth by John V. Denson Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the "patriotic" political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to one million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90%) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war. The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable. The essential problem starts with President Franklin Roosevelt's policy of unconditional surrender, which was reluctantly adopted by Churchill and Stalin, and which President Truman decided to adopt when he succeeded Roosevelt in April of 1945. Hanson Baldwin was the principal writer for The New York Times who covered World War II and he wrote an important book immediately after the war entitled Great Mistakes of the War. Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy ". . . was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war . . . . Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, costs us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace." The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history dating back to 660 B.C. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the Emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Herohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their Emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The Emperor, Herohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, "Why then were the bombs dropped?" The author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here, but he states, "We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that 'On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimpson on what I had learned from Tokyo - they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.'" It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimpson reported this directly to Truman. Alperovitz further points out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor, with the exception of James Byrnes, along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership, urged Truman to revise the unconditional surrender policy so as to allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their Emperor. All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26, 1945. This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences. Another startling fact about the military connection to the dropping of the bomb is the lack of knowledge on the part of General MacArthur about the existence of the bomb and whether it was to be dropped. Alperovitz states "MacArthur knew nothing about advance planning for the atomic bomb's use until almost the last minute. Nor was he personally in the chain of command in this connection; the order came straight from Washington. Indeed, the War Department waited until five days before the bombing of Hiroshima even to notify MacArthur - the commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific - of the existence of the atomic bomb." Alperovitz makes it very clear that the main person Truman was listening to while he ignored all of this civilian and military advice, was James Byrnes, the man who virtually controlled Truman at the beginning of his administration. Brynes was one of the most experienced political figures in Washington, having served for over thirty years in both the House and the Senate. He had also served as a United States Supreme Court Judge, and at the request of President Roosevelt, he resigned that position and accepted the role in the Roosevelt administration of managing the domestic economy. Byrnes went to the Yalta Conference with Roosevelt and then was given the responsibility to get Congress and the American people to accept the agreements made at Yalta. When Truman became a senator in 1935, Brynes immediately became his friend and mentor and remained close to Truman until Truman became president. Truman never forgot this and immediately called on Brynes to be his number-two man in the new administration. Brynes had expected to be named the vice presidential candidate to replace Wallace and had been disappointed when Truman had been named, yet he and Truman remained very close. Byrnes had also been very close to Roosevelt, while Truman was kept in the dark by Roosevelt most of the time he served as vice president. Truman asked Brynes immediately, in April, to become his Secretary of State but they delayed the official appointment until July 3, 1945, so as not to offend the incumbent. Brynes had also accepted a position on the interim committee which had control over the policy regarding the atom bomb, and therefore, in April, 1945 became Truman's main foreign policy advisor, and especially the advisor on the use of the atomic bomb. It was Brynes who encouraged Truman to postpone the Potsdam Conference and his meeting with Stalin until they could know, at the conference, if the atomic bomb was successfully tested. While at the Potsdam Conference the experiments proved successful and Truman advised Stalin that a new massively destructive weapon was now available to America, which Brynes hoped would make Stalin back off from any excessive demands or activity in the post-war period. Truman secretly gave the orders on July 25, 1945 that the bombs would be dropped in August while he was to be in route back to America. On July 26, he issued the Potsdam Proclamation, or ultimatum, to Japan to surrender, leaving in place the unconditional surrender policy, thereby causing both Truman and Brynes to believe that the terms would not be accepted by Japan. The conclusion drawn unmistakably from the evidence presented, is that Brynes is the man who convinced Truman to keep the unconditional surrender policy and not accept Japan's surrender so that the bombs could actually be dropped thereby demonstrating to the Russians that America had a new forceful leader in place, a "new sheriff in Dodge" who, unlike Roosevelt, was going to be tough with the Russians on foreign policy and that the Russians needed to "back off" during what would become known as the "Cold War." A secondary reason was that Congress would now be told about why they had made the secret appropriation to a Manhattan Project and the huge expenditure would be justified by showing that not only did the bombs work but that they would bring the war to an end, make the Russians back off and enable America to become the most powerful military force in the world. If the surrender by the Japanese had been accepted between May and the end of July of 1945 and the Emperor had been left in place, as in fact he was after the bombing, this would have kept Russia out of the war. Russia agreed at Yalta to come into the Japanese war three months after Germany surrendered. In fact, Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945 and Russia announced on August 8, (exactly three months thereafter) that it was abandoning its neutrality policy with Japan and entering the war. Russia's entry into the war for six days allowed them to gain tremendous power and influence in China, Korea, and other key areas of Asia. The Japanese were deathly afraid of Communism and if the Potsdam Proclamation had indicated that America would accept the conditional surrender allowing the Emperor to remain in place and informed the Japanese that Russia would enter the war if they did not surrender, then this would surely have assured a quick Japanese surrender. The second question that Alperovitz answers in the last half of the book is how and why the Hiroshima myth was created. The story of the myth begins with the person of James B. Conant, the President of Harvard University, who was a prominent scientist, having initially made his mark as a chemist working on poison gas during World War I. During World War II, he was chairman of the National Defense Research Committee from the summer of 1941 until the end of the war and he was one of the central figures overseeing the Manhattan Project. Conant became concerned about his future academic career, as well as his positions in private industry, because various people began to speak out concerning why the bombs were dropped. On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publically quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a "toy and they wanted to try it out . . . ." He further stated, "The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment . . . . It was a mistake to ever drop it." Albert Einstein, one of the world's foremost scientists, who was also an important person connected with the development of the atomic bomb, responded and his words were headlined in The New York Times "Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb." The story reported that Einstein stated that "A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb." In Einstein's judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political - diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision. Probably the person closest to Truman, from the military standpoint, was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral William Leahy, and there was much talk that he also deplored the use of the bomb and had strongly advised Truman not to use it, but advised rather to revise the unconditional surrender policy so that the Japanese could surrender and keep the Emperor. Leahy's views were later reported by Hanson Baldwin in an interview that Leahy "thought the business of recognizing the continuation of the Emperor was a detail which should have been solved easily." Leahy's secretary, Dorothy Ringquist, reported that Leahy told her on the day the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, "Dorothy, we will regret this day. The United States will suffer, for war is not to be waged on women and children." Another important naval voice, the commander in chief of the U.S. Fleet and Chief of Naval Operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945, had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz was reported to have said in a press conference on September 22, 1945, that "The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia's entry into the war." In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war." It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower's assessment was "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing . . . to use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime." Eisenhower also stated that it wasn't necessary for Truman to "succumb" to Byrnes. James Conant came to the conclusion that some important person in the administration must go public to show that the dropping of the bombs was a military necessity, thereby saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, so he approached Harvey Bundy and his son, McGeorge Bundy. It was agreed by them that the most important person to create this myth was Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. It was decided that Stimson would write a long article to be widely circulated in a prominent national magazine. This article was revised repeatedly by McGeorge Bundy and Conant before it was published in Harper's magazine in February of 1947. The long article became the subject of a front-page article and editorial in The New York Times and in the editorial it was stated "There can be no doubt that the president and Mr. Stimson are right when they mention that the bomb caused the Japanese to surrender." Later, in 1959, President Truman specifically endorsed this conclusion, including the idea that it saved the lives of a million American soldiers. This myth has been renewed annually by the news media and various political leaders ever since. It is very pertinent that, in the memoirs of Henry Stimson entitled On Active Service in Peace and War, he states, "Unfortunately, I have lived long enough to know that history is often not what actually happened but what is recorded as such." To bring this matter more into focus from the human tragedy standpoint, I recommend the reading of a book entitled Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician, August 6, September 30, 1945, by Michiko Hachiya. He was a survivor of Hiroshima and kept a daily diary about the women, children and old men that he treated on a daily basis in the hospital. The doctor was badly injured himself but recovered enough to help others and his account of the personal tragedies of innocent civilians who were either badly burned or died as a result of the bombing puts the moral issue into a clear perspective for all of us to consider. Now that we live in the nuclear age and there are enough nuclear weapons spread around the world to destroy civilization, we need to face the fact that America is the only country to have used this awful weapon and that it was unnecessary to have done so. If Americans would come to recognize the truth, rather than the myth, it might cause such a moral revolt that we would take the lead throughout the world in realizing that wars in the future may well become nuclear, and therefore all wars must be avoided at almost any cost. Hopefully, our knowledge of science has not outrun our ability to exercise prudent and humane moral and political judgment to the extent that we are destined for extermination. [John V. Denson is the editor of two books, The Costs of War and Reassessing the Presidency. In the latter work, he has chapters especially relevant for today, on how Lincoln and FDR lied us into war.] Copyright ) 2006 LewRockwell.com * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 31 Citizen Weapons Inspectors at Prestwick Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 06:17:42 -0500 (CDT) X-Sender-Host-Name: chumbly.math.missouri.edu X-Spam-Class: HAM Hmmm!! -- while Hizbollah's missiles reportedly come from IRAN, the bunker-busters dropped in Lebanon carry a "Made in USA" trademark. =============== http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5251438.stm BBC Monday, 7 August 2006, Prestwick Airport Prestwick has become a focus for protests over cargo flights Seven people have been arrested at Prestwick Airport after protesters boarded a plane. A spokesman for campaign group Trident Ploughshares told BBC Scotland three people had managed to get onto a US cargo flight. He said they were searching for evidence to suggest the plane was carrying bombs to Israel. On Sunday, four people were arrested after demonstrators broke through security fencing onto the main runway. It was reported last week that US military flights carrying bombs to Israel would no longer use any civilian airports in the UK for refuelling. We are satisfied that our security measures are working effectively as these people were apprehended very quickly -- Prestwick Airport spokesman The protesters describe themselves as "citizen weapons inspectors" and said they were searching for evidence to suggest the plane was en route to Israel carrying bunker busting bombs. Trident Ploughshares said seven people got through security fencing at the airport and got into the freight area, with three managing to get on board a US plane. It is claimed one of the protesters was sitting in the pilot's seat reading a manual when he was arrested. 'GREATEST CONCERN' Strathclyde Police said seven people had been arrested at the airport on Monday morning and confirmed a number of protesters had been on board a plane. A spokesman for the airport said: "Glasgow Prestwick Airport is investigating the incidents, as are the authorities, and additional security resources have been in place since we became aware of a similar incident on Sunday morning which led to four arrests. "We are satisfied that our security measures are working effectively as these people were apprehended very quickly. "Aviation security is tighter than that of most other industries and security at Glasgow Prestwick Airport is consistent with the measures in place at other major airports in the UK." John Scott, Conservative MSP for Ayr, said he was extremely concerned about the lack of security at the airport. He said: "This is a matter of the greatest concern for the safety of the airport. "I don't think protestors are going about this the right way. I share their concerns this ordinance may have been going through this airport. "I believe that ordinance has stopped going through this airport. "I am concerned that the protesters are putting users of the airport at risk, the passengers, the staff and, indeed, themselves." ***************************************************************** 32 SF New Mexican: State probes contamination of lab well Mon Aug 7, 2006 10:14 pm By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican The New Mexico Environment Department is aggressively investigating chromium contamination in a monitoring well near Los Alamos National Laboratory, Secretary Ron Curry said in a recent interview. Chromium, which can cause cancer when ingested, was located at four times the drinking-water standard of 100 parts per billion in one monitoring well in Mortandad Canyon. The nuclear-weapons lab announced the discovery last December but said it had not polluted drinking water in the area. Curry said his department will complete an inquiry within the next six months before taking action. The department has the authority to fine the lab and enforce a historic consent order, or legal agreement, that calls for a massive environmental cleanup at the lab. "The environmental legacy at Los Alamos is one of the highest concerns that we have in the state, in many different areas: air quality, groundwater and surface water," Curry said. Curry said current lab director Michael Anastasio and other lab officials have visited him at his state office, which had never happened before. He gave the lab's new manager, Los Alamos National Security LLC, better-than-average marks for its attitude toward environmental cleanup. "Just in the short period of time that I've dealt with them, what I would give them as their approach ... I'd give them a B-minus," Curry said. "If you want to compare that with the previous administration, I'd give them a D-plus." The lab was formerly managed by the University of California. Curry also made clear that the state intends to regulate the nuclear-weapons lab from a position of power. "We're not their partner," Curry said. "We're the regulator." The consent order, signed by the state, the University of California and the federal Department of Energy last year, also applies to Los Alamos National Security LLC, Curry said. The purpose of the agreement is to investigate environmental contamination and clean it up. The Environment Department has not committed to an estimate of how many contaminated sites there are, nor the cost to clean them. But the lab has said recently that there are 764 contaminated sites left to clean up, at an estimated cost of more than $1 billion. Congress, not the state, is paying for the cleanup. Anastasio said he's met with Curry multiple times and that their interactions have been positive. "I am optimistic that the laboratory is building a strong working relationship with NMED, and we share NMED's commitment to protecting the environment," Anastasio said. Curry credited Los Alamos National Security with lobbying Congress to reinstate federal environmental-cleanup funds that had been targeted for a cut this year. He said his final grade for the company will be based on "looking at them as a regulator, and how well they comply with the consent order." Historically, Curry said, the lab has never had to be transparent in what they do. "And so what we're asking them as a state is to be transparent," Curry said. "Because again, they have to be transparent in what they're doing if they're going to continue to operate up there. They need to solve the legacy problems ... so that those legacy problems don't become even greater problems in the future." Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman @sfnewmexican.com. ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican, all rights reserved. Opinions ***************************************************************** 33 FCW.com: DOE raises the bar on supercomputing Computationally intensive research creates insatiable demand for faster supercomputers BY Aliya Sternstein Published on Aug. 7, 2006 The Energy Departments Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Cray announced a $200 million deal in June to complete the worlds most powerful supercomputer in 2008. The supercomputer, which Cray nicknamed Baker, will use optimized Advanced Micro Devices dual-core Opteron processors to reach a peak speed of a petaflop, or 1,000 trillion floating-point operations/sec (teraflops). In comparison, the average PC reaches speeds of about 0.0001 teraflops. Later in June, DOEs Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and IBM teamed to announce they had deployed the most powerful software computer code for the worlds current most powerful supercomputer, Blue Gene. The computer code, dubbed Qbox, will help researchers run science simulations deemed essential to national security. Researchers say the DOE labs race for greater supercomputing speed will generate new ideas and technologies for classified and unclassified science. Intellectual competition creates a perpetual game of leap frog, where each new system eclipses the previous leader, said Dan Reed, director of the Renaissance Computing Institute and a member of the Presidents Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). This friendly competition is both healthy and inevitable, Reed added. DOEs weapons program requires large, detailed models and large computing capacity. In unclassified research, access to high-performance computing systems benefits climate and atmospheric modeling, quantum chemistry and physics, materials science, engineering, and manufacturing. PCAST is conducting an assessment of the federal governments Networking and Information Technology Research and Development portfolio, which includes a multidecade road map for computational science. Software remains one of the great impediments in high-performance computing, Reed said. Our programming models remain very low level, software development costs are high, and great human effort is required to extract substantial fractions of peak performance from current systems. Reed said the solution is a sustained, coordinated software R&D program. Computing really is the third pillar of science, and its potential is limited only by our imaginations, he said. Petascale systems, such as the one in development at Oak Ridge, will expand research opportunities. It happens with each new order-of-magnitude increase in computing power, Reed said. There are already discussions of transpetascale systems, he added. Assembling systems with high-peak performance is relatively easy. The challenge for petascale systems is sustained performance rather than peak performance, Reed said. Were not there yet. Oak Ridge scientists will use the unclassified Cray supercomputer to solve problems in nanotechnology, biology and energy, Cray officials said. Industrial researchers will also get time on the system through a DOE program that grants academic and corporate institutions supercomputer access for computationally intensive research that has national interest. For instance, this year, guest researchers from Boeing and DreamWorks Animation SKG will run simulations to help design more efficient aircraft and improve computer animation, respectively. Theres an almost insatiable demand for computing power, Cray spokesman Steve Conway said. The more they can get, the better off the science is going to be. Lawrence Livermores Qbox operates at a level comparable to an online game with 300 million simultaneous players. With the Qbox application, Blue Gene achieved a sustained performance of 207.3 teraflops. Blue Gene, a classified machine, belongs to the National Nuclear Security Administration. The IBM-built Blue Gene provides analysis that NNSA needs to safeguard the nuclear weapons stockpile without going underground to test the weapons, said Dimitri Kusnezov, who leads NNSAs Advanced Simulation and Computing Program. The code enhancements for Blue Gene are critical to performing predictive simulations of nuclear weapons, Kusnezov said. These simulations are vital to ensuring the safety and reliability of our nuclear weapons stockpile. NNSA researchers are attempting to decipher the radioactive decay of materials buried decades ago. We have to figure out what aging means and then put [the material] under extreme conditions and see if [it] behaves like we think its going to behave, Kusnezov said. Before, we used to take [the materials] to Nevada and blow them up, he added. Thats why were pushing our computing so aggressively. Supercode named Qbox Herb Schultz, Blue Gene product manager for IBMs Deep Computing group, said the Qbox code will let scientists at the National Nuclear Security Administration simultaneously model more molecules than previously possible and discover never-before-observed molecular dynamics. The Q in Qbox stands for quantum, which refers to the codes quantum mechanical descriptions of electrons. The software is a type of first principles molecular dynamics (FPMD) code designed to visualize the properties of metals under extreme temperature and pressure. Qbox is tailored for nuclear testing, but the underlying FPMD code can run complex models on an atomic scale in a number of other disciplines, such as solid-state physics and nanotechnology. The same code could be used to study human proteins. Such spin-off benefits often accompany focused programmatic efforts to foster technology, said Dimitri Kusnezov, who leads NNSAs Advanced Simulation and Computing Program. This was certainly true for NASA during the years of the moon landing and is true today. IBM said the Qbox announcement should encourage other software vendors and researchers to develop groundbreaking software for the computing community. IBM shares its facilities with smaller software outfits that cannot afford to independently experiment with supercomputing software. Weve invested lab time for independent software vendors to come in and work their codes in our facilities, Schultz said. We think we can stimulate interest with this development in other unclassified applications elsewhere. FCW.com - DOE raises the bar on supercomputing Copyright 2000-2006 1105 Media Inc.. See our Privacy ***************************************************************** 34 Daily Press: Historic nuclear-powered Savannah to get $1 million rehab Hampton Roads, Virginia http://www.dailypress.com/ By the Associated Press August 7, 2006 NORFOLK, Va. -- The Savannah, the world's first nuclear-powered cargo and passenger ship, is being rescued from a floating graveyard in Virginia and restored as a possible museum. Colonna's Shipyard of Norfolk, Va., won a $995,000 contract to repair and spruce up the maritime relic, a national historic landmark that has been anchored for years among the rusting hulks of the James River Reserve Fleet, commonly known as the "Ghost Fleet." The sleek white behemoth, launched in 1962, will be towed to Colonna's on Aug. 15. The work is the first step in a government plan to remove the ship's inactive nuclear reactor, scrub remnant radiation, and prepare the ship for a new mission. "Without a doubt, the Savannah, with all its history, would be the most likely candidate for a successful museum," said Shannon Russell, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Maritime Administration, a federal agency that announced the contract with Colonna's last week. The Savannah arrived at the reserve fleet near Newport News in 1994, following a stint at a maritime museum in Charleston, S.C. At Colonna's, crews will check for hull leaks, install a floodlighting system, fix the onboard dehumidifying equipment, remove moldy carpets, and clean the interior. The job will take 60 days to complete, said Richard Sobocinski, vice president of contracts at Colonna's. The 596-foot Savannah, with sleek lines like a yacht, was a pet project of President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his Atoms for Peace program in the 1950s. It was intended to carry cargo but was largely a showpiece for nuclear propulsion. Its amenities included a swimming pool, a movie theater, a library, an upscale dining room and cocktail lounge, and 30 air-conditioned bedrooms for passengers. The 22,000-ton ship could sail at a top speed of 23 knots maximum. It was taken out of service in 1972, the victim of fuel costs and labor problems. After Colonna's, the Savannah will head for another yard for more preparations and maintenance, then spend two years at a nuclear-capable shipyard where the reactor core will be decommissioned, Russell said. Congress first appropriated money for the ship's cleaning in 2005 and has set aside about $5 million for the project, Russell said. The Savannah should be ready for a new home and a new purpose by 2010 or 2011, she said. Daily Press ***************************************************************** 35 DOE: Notice of Request for Expressions of Interest in a Consolidated FR Doc E6-12646 [Federal Register: August 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 151)] [Notices] [Page 44676-44679] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07au06-53] Fuel Treatment Center To Support the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership AGENCY: Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of request for expressions of interest. SUMMARY: Based upon feedback since the President of the United States announced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) in February 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking Expressions of Interest (EOI) from domestic and international industry in building spent nuclear fuel recycling and transmutation fuel fabrication capabilities. DOE contemplates locating these capabilities together in a Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center (CFTC) and seeks expressions of interest from potential domestic host sites. DOE is also seeking to define the interest of industry to build upon their proven capabilities and participate in demonstrating spent nuclear fuel (SNF) recycling technologies that meet GNEP goals. This EOI will help inform DOE's GNEP Program as to those issues that industry and potential host sites consider important to the ultimate construction of sustainable, commercial-scale SNF recycling technologies that meet GNEP objectives. The information gained from this EOI will be used to create Requests for Proposals (RFP) for the proposed CFTC. DATES: Interested parties wishing to submit an EOI should do so in writing by September 8, 2006, to ensure their input is considered. A briefing for respondents to learn about DOE's baseline plan and answer EOI-related questions will be held on August 14, 2006, 8 a.m.-12 p.m., in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The specific meeting location will be announced on the GNEP Web site, . Please indicate your interest in attending the briefing by sending an e-mail indicating your intent to attend to . It is recognized that GNEP is moving forward on an aggressive schedule that will task all of the responders' abilities to provide quality information in a short period of time. DOE believes that GNEP can help to revitalize the U.S. nuclear industry and improve its global competitive position. Early participation by industry in this effort will greatly maximize GNEP's success. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By postal mail, Mr. John F. Gross, Mail Stop: NE-2.4/Germantown, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119; by phone on 301-903-3918; by e-mail at . ADDRESSES: Please send all hardcopy Expressions of Interest to Mr. John F. Gross, Mail Stop: NE-2.4/Germantown, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119. Electronic versions of the Expressions of Interest may be submitted in pdf (portable document format) format by e-mail to . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, DOE has launched the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The broad goals of GNEP are described in the Report to Congress--Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program Plan issued May 2006, . A major element of GNEP is the development and deployment of advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies. In general, advanced recycling technologies focus on three operations: (1) Separate commercial LWR SNF into its usable and waste components. Spent nuclear fuel contains uranium, transuranics (plutonium and other long-lived radioactive elements), and fission products. The fission products are waste and make up less than five percent of the used fuel. Buildup of fission products within the fuel inhibits nuclear fission reactions so the spent fuel must be replaced with fresh fuel for continued operation of a nuclear reactor. The transuranics and uranium in SNF would be separated from the fission products and then fabricated into new fuel for a fast reactor to consume the transuranics and uranium while simultaneously recovering their energy content. The SNF recycling program would use advanced separation processes (e.g., Uranium Extraction Plus or other comparable processes). (2) Fabricate and recycle fast reactor fuel containing transuranic elements. Fabricating, testing, and qualifying fast reactor fuel containing transuranic and actinide elements (i.e., transmutation fuel), obtained from recycled spent fast reactor fuel, is required to provide fresh fuel for the reactor. After the qualification of transmutation fuel, the GNEP facilities would demonstrate recycle of fast [[Page 44677]] reactor transmutation fuel and eventually could include the construction of a separate transmutation fuel separations and fabrication facility. (3) Convert transuranics into shorter-lived radioisotopes while producing electricity. Fast reactors produce high-energy neutrons that can fission long- lived transuranics, thus converting the transuranics into shorter-lived radioisotopes. As the transuranics are consumed, significant energy is released that can be used to produce electricity from material that would otherwise be considered waste and potentially require disposal in a geologic repository. The Department initially announced an approach that would demonstrate technologies from the laboratory at engineering scale, prior to a second phase of commercialization. This initial approach is described in the Report to Congress--Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program Plan issued May 2006, . Following the announcement of the GNEP Program by the President, a number of foreign governments and private companies expressed interest in cooperating in the near-term with the Department in the development and deployment of advanced recycling technologies. Some of these entities indicated they are pursuing similar technologies and, in some cases, these technologies may be ready for deployment prior to those currently under development by the Department. In light of this information, DOE seeks to determine the feasibility of accelerating the development and deployment of advanced recycling technologies that would enable commercial scale demonstrations that meet GNEP objectives. These demonstrations would utilize industry expertise to build the well-understood stages of advanced technology for the separation of LWR SNF, and the construction and operation of a fast reactor, while designing in the modules for incorporating group separation of actinides, transmutation fuel production, burning, and recycling operations. This approach would involve two simultaneous tracks: (1) Deployment of commercial scale facilities for which advanced technologies are available now or in the near future and (2) further research and development on transmutation fuels technologies. This two-track approach could result in two commercial scale facilities, one of which is the subject of this EOI. These facilities are: Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center (CFTC; subject of this EOI)--a facility to separate the usable uranium and transuranics from spent light-water reactor fuel for use in fabricating fast reactor fuel. During the second track the CFTC would be augmented or a separate transmutation fuel separations and fabrication facility would be constructed to separate and fabricate fast reactor transmutation fuel. Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR)--fast reactor to use transmutation fuel and consume transuranic elements within the fuel and generate electricity. The ABR is expected to be qualified with conventional fast reactor fuel. Subsequently, the ABR would be used to demonstrate the feasibility of recycling fast reactor transmutation fuel. A third facility, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility (AFCF), will be designed and directed through DOE's national laboratories and will support development of the technologies required to separate and fabricate fast reactor transmutation fuel. The AFCF is not currently a subject of a Request for Expressions of Interest. CFTC Characteristics DOE prefers to constrain as little as possible this EOI on the fuel cycle pathway to meet GNEP goals. Industry's input is valuable in considering the ultimate technical and pragmatic configuration of GNEP's closed fuel cycle. Some rough parameters for considering the ultimate characteristics of a CFTC facility for the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program are set out below. They simply illustrate the type of information DOE is requesting in this EOI and respondents should not interpret the following information as a final decision from DOE on the CFTC's characteristics or the overall demonstration program. The responses to this EOI may significantly influence subsequent RFPs. Desired CFTC General Characteristics The complete CFTC would be designed to perform several key functions in support of GNEP technology development objectives, including: Separating reusable uranium and transuranics from spent light water reactor (LWR) fuel for use in fabricating fast reactor driver fuel. (An additional facility designed and directed through a DOE national laboratory will support development of the technologies required to separate and fabricate fast reactor transmutation fuel, i.e., fuel that is fabricated from uranium, plutonium, and other transuranics found in LWR spent fuel.) Demonstrating the separation of LWR and fast reactor SNF into their usable components and the fabrication of transmutation fuel from those components. Consuming transuranic elements in a fast reactor. See the Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR) EOI for a discussion of that element. Ensuring that facility designs meet U.S. standards for safeguards and security. Developing this complete system to support GNEP remains the central objective, drawing upon the expertise and capabilities of industry and international partners to achieve it. Further, The CFTC shall safely and reliably perform its LWR spent fuel process storage and separations functions as well as providing safe and reliable ABR driver fuel fabrication capabilities. The CFTC shall be capable of being licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and operated in accordance with NRC regulations. The CFTC shall incorporate design features and technologies to promote reliable system performance during normal operations and in response to postulated accident scenarios. The CFTC shall demonstrate improved spent fuel separations technologies. This shall be accomplished in a process whose end products are not pure plutonium or other weapons-grade fissile material. The spent fuel separations technology will be further enhanced by advanced safeguards and security monitoring technology. The CFTC will produce, through spent fuel separations, high-purity uranium for reuse as reactor fuel or disposal as low-level waste, transuranic fuel feed material for transmutation in a fast reactor, and fission products with reduced heat generation and radiotoxicity for long-term geologic disposal. The CFTC shall be designed such that the future cost of spent fuel receipt, separations process, product management, and fuel fabrication capabilities can be shown as an efficient component of an economical fuel cycle. It is desirable that the material remain throughout in as low a category as possible for attractiveness for use in a nuclear weapon and for safeguarding purposes. The CFTC shall fabricate the driver fuel (i.e., fuel for the initial startup core and subsequent refueling of the core in advance of the availability of transmutation fuel) for the ABR to initially generate power. [[Page 44678]] CFTC technologies shall be capable of commercial deployment. Example of Technical Characteristics of the CFTC Process storage capacity: Sufficient storage capacity should be included to support full-scale plant operation, including storage of spent fuel prior to separations as well as storage of the resulting separated material. Spent fuel separations throughput: Able to be increased to approximately 2,000 to 3,000 metric tons per year to support commercial operation. Separations technology: UREX+1a where major products include high-purity uranium, cesium and strontium, transuranics, spent fuel cladding hulls, and fission products. Alternative separation technologies with different product streams (e.g., different actinide separation efficiencies or distributions) may be proposed. Waste disposition strategies: Waste minimization is a priority and should focus on reducing radiotoxicity, half-life, heat generation, and minimize criticality concerns. Fast reactor driver fuel type: Oxide or metal based (depends on fuel type selected in related GNEP ABR EOI). Geographic The SNF processing and fuel fabrication operations may be collocated with ABR. Existing DOE or commercial facilities or new facilities may be addressed in the response. Regulatory Must comply with all environmental protection laws and regulations. Must be capable of being licensed under NRC regulations applicable to demonstration operations on privately owned land regardless of where the demonstration is sited. Content of EOI The following items identify the information that DOE is requesting in this EOI. All respondents are encouraged to provide information beyond that requested if it is believed to be beneficial to their responses. 1. Level of Interest and Proposed Scope of Interest Please describe how you believe DOE could accelerate successful demonstration of SNF integrated recycling technologies to advance the goals of GNEP. Describe the approach that you believe should be taken to accomplish this goal, including its benefits and risks, and describe your level of interest or potential participation. Also, provide a description of what you believe your approach does to advance the broad goals of GNEP (as described, for example, in the Background section). In particular, for the CFTC, DOE is interested in: a. What LWR spent fuel process storage capabilities, separations technology and throughput (initial and final), and fast sodium reactor driver fuel fabrication system characteristics would be proposed to achieve the CFTC mission? b. What set of separations process technologies are sufficiently mature to implement immediately and what proposed technologies or components require additional developmental work (e.g., advanced centrifugal contactors, advanced monitoring instrumentation) to achieve the CFTC mission? c. What are the key elements of the proposal's product and waste management strategies? Are there near-term strategies using existing technology as well as long-term strategies for improved waste minimization and product form as well as storage and disposition technologies envisioned? If so, specify the key elements of future improvements, their relative costs and their benefits. d. In addition to advanced separation processes, what technology development could be pursued to support spent fuel recycling consistent with the goals of GNEP? 2. Proposed Roles of Parties Involved Please identify who you believe the parties to such a venture should include and the role of each party. Parties could include U.S. Government and foreign government agencies, state and local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, domestic and foreign commercial firms (e.g., Architect & Engineering (A) firms, component manufacturers, electric utility companies, etc.) or any other entity you may identify that fits into your proposed solution. Your statement should clearly identify the role each party would play in ensuring the success of your proposition, whether direct or indirect. Examples of roles include, but are not limited to, providing financing, guaranteeing financing, A services, construction, facility operations, program or project management, regulatory compliance support, and hardware vendor. Provide an assessment of the benefit to the U.S. Government and GNEP of your proposed parties and their roles. Also, provide a description of the benefits that would accrue to each of the parties in this venture. Benefits could include, but are not limited to, financial gain, intellectual property, market position, facilities, education, and advancing policy goals. 3. Resources For each entity you have identified in Item 2 above, provide specifics describing the resources each party could provide to ensure the program's success. These resources may include, but are not limited to, financial, existing or new facilities, personnel (include a description of the type of personnel, e.g., technical, management, regulatory, financial, etc.), intellectual property, and leased equipment. 4. Proposed Contractual Vehicle Please provide a description of the contractual vehicle(s) you feel should be employed in furtherance of your approach. Examples may include, but are not limited to, contracts, financial assistance, Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, loan guarantees, other transactional arrangements. Please limit your suggestions to those contractual authorities already granted to DOE or other government agencies you identify. 5. Areas of Technology Development Required for Potential Commercialization Please identify what technical areas associated with your approach would benefit from additional research, development or demonstration activities, how and to what extent this research and development (R) would mitigate technical or technology risk, estimated timeframes to accomplish this R, parties performing the activities, and other technical issues that need to be addressed. 6. Government Furnished Data/Technology/Equipment Describe what, if any, government furnished data, technology, or equipment you would require to accomplish your defined approach. State whether you have any existing rights or license for the use of the data or technology, and if not, how you would pursue acquiring such rights. Confidentiality Confidential or business sensitive information contained in the submission must be identified and marked accordingly. DOE will protect this information from public disclosure to the extent permitted by law. This EOI is not a formal solicitation requesting proposals and does not represent a commitment by the [[Page 44679]] Government to award a contract. The Government does not intend to formally respond to information submitted in response to this EOI. The Government is not responsible for costs incurred to submit a response to this EOI, conducting other activities associated with pre- solicitation planning, or submitting a proposal in response to a solicitation, if issued. Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2006. Dennis R. Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy. [FR Doc. E6-12646 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 36 DOE: Notice of Request for Expressions of Interest in an Advanced FR Doc E6-12747 [Federal Register: August 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 151)] [Notices] [Page 44673-44676] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07au06-52] Burner Reactor To Support the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership AGENCY: Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of request for expressions of interest. SUMMARY: Based upon feedback since the President of the United States announced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) in February 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking Expressions of Interest (EOI) from domestic and international industry in building an Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR). An ABR in the United States would establish a fast reactor capability to be used to transmute fuel and consume transuranic elements within the fuel, generate electricity, and support implementation of GNEP. DOE is also seeking to define the interest of industry to build upon their proven capabilities and participate in demonstrating spent nuclear fuel (SNF) recycling technologies that meet GNEP goals. This EOI will help inform DOE's GNEP Program as to those issues that industry and potential host sites consider important to the construction of sustainable, commercial-scale SNF recycling technologies that meet GNEP objectives. The information gained from this EOI will be used to create Requests for Proposals (RFP) for the proposed ABR. DATES: Interested parties wishing to submit an EOI should do so in writing by September 8, 2006, to ensure their input is considered. A briefing for respondents to learn about DOE's baseline plan and answer EOI-related questions will be held on August 14, 2006, 8 am-12 pm, in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The specific meeting location will be announced on the GNEP Web site, . Please indicate your interest in attending the briefing by sending an e-mail indicating your intent to attend to . It is recognized that GNEP is moving forward on an aggressive schedule that will task all of the responders' abilities to provide quality information in a short period of time. DOE believes that GNEP can help to revitalize the U.S. nuclear industry and improve its global competitive position. Early participation by industry in this effort will greatly maximize GNEP's success. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By postal mail, Mr. John F. Gross, Mail [[Page 44674]] Stop: NE-2.4/Germantown, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington DC 20585-0119; by phone on 301-903-3918; by e-mail at . ADDRESSES: Please send all hardcopy Expressions of Interest to Mr. John F. Gross, Mail Stop: NE-2.4/Germantown, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119. Electronic versions of the Expressions of Interest may be submitted in pdf (portable document format) format by e-mail to . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background As part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, DOE has launched the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The broad goals of GNEP are described in the Report to Congress--Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program Plan issued May 2006, . A major element of GNEP is the development and deployment of advanced nuclear fuel recycling technologies. In general, advanced recycling technologies focus on three operations: (1) Separate commercial LWR SNF into its usable and waste components. Spent nuclear fuel contains uranium, transuranics (plutonium and other long-lived radioactive elements), and fission products. The fission products are waste and make up less than five percent of the used fuel. Buildup of fission products within the fuel inhibits nuclear fission reactions so the spent fuel must be replaced with fresh fuel for continued operation of a nuclear reactor. The transuranics and uranium in SNF would be separated from the fission products and then fabricated into new fuel for a fast reactor to consume the transuranics and uranium while simultaneously recovering their energy content. The SNF recycling program would use advanced separation processes (e.g., Uranium Extraction Plus or other comparable processes). (2) Fabricate and recycle fast reactor fuel containing transuranic elements. Fabricating, testing, and qualifying fast reactor fuel containing transuranic and actinide elements (i.e., transmutation fuel), obtained from recycled spent fast reactor fuel, is required to provide fresh fuel for the reactor. After the qualification of transmutation fuel, the GNEP facilities would demonstrate recycle of fast reactor transmutation fuel and eventually could include the construction of a separate transmutation fuel separations and fabrication facility. (3) Convert transuranics into shorter-lived radioisotopes while producing electricity. Fast reactors produce high-energy neutrons that can fission long- lived transuranics, thus converting the transuranics into shorter-lived radioisotopes. As the transuranics are consumed, significant energy is released that can be used to produce electricity from material that would otherwise be considered waste and potentially require disposal in a geologic repository. The Department initially announced an approach that would demonstrate technologies from the laboratory at engineering scale, prior to a second phase of commercialization. This approach is described in the Report to Congress--Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Program Plan issued May 2006, . Following the announcement of the GNEP Program by the President, a number of foreign governments and private companies expressed interest in cooperating in the near-term with the Department in the development and deployment of advanced recycling technologies. Some of these entities indicated they are pursuing similar technologies and, in some cases, these technologies may be ready for deployment prior to those currently under development by the Department. In light of this information, DOE seeks to determine the feasibility of accelerating the development and deployment of advanced recycling technologies that would enable commercial scale demonstrations that meet GNEP objectives. These demonstrations would utilize industry expertise to build the well-understood stages of advanced technology for the separation of LWR SNF, and the construction and operation of a fast reactor, while designing in the modules for incorporating group separation of actinides, transmutation fuel production, burning, and recycling operations. This approach would involve two simultaneous tracks: (1) Deployment of commercial scale facilities for which advanced technologies are available now or in the near future and (2) further research and development on transmutation fuels technologies. This two-track approach could result in two commercial scale facilities, one of which is the subject of this EOI. These facilities are: Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center (CFTC)--a facility to separate the usable uranium and transuranics from spent light-water reactor fuel for use in fabricating fast reactor fuel. During the second track the CFTC would be augmented or a separate transmutation fuel separations and fabrication facility would be constructed to separate and fabricate fast reactor transmutation fuel. Advanced Burner Reactor (ABR; subject of this EOI)--fast reactor to use transmutation fuel and consume transuranic elements within the fuel and generate electricity. The ABR is expected to be qualified with conventional fast reactor fuel. Subsequently, the ABR would be used to demonstrate the feasibility of recycling fast reactor transmutation fuel. A third facility, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility (AFCF), will be designed and directed through DOE's national laboratories and will support development of the technologies required to separate and fabricate fast reactor transmutation fuel. The AFCF is not currently a subject of a Request for Expressions of Interest. ABR Characteristics DOE prefers to constrain as little as possible this EOI on the fuel cycle pathway to meet GNEP goals. Industry's input is valuable in considering the ultimate technical and pragmatic configuration of GNEP's closed fuel cycle. Some rough parameters for considering the ultimate characteristics of an ABR for the GNEP Technology Demonstration Program are set out below. They simply illustrate the type of information DOE is requesting in this EOI and respondents should not interpret the following information as a final decision from DOE on the ABR's characteristics or the overall demonstration program. The responses to this EOI may significantly influence subsequent RFPs. Desired ABR General Characteristics The ABR is essential to perform key functions in support of GNEP technology development objectives, including: Providing a fast neutron reactor necessary to consume the transuranic and actinide elements contained in transmutation fuel, i.e., fuel that is fabricated from uranium, plutonium, and other transuranics found in light water reactor (LWR) spent fuel. Generating and providing electricity to a power grid and contribute to commercial sustainability. Thus, the ABR would consume transuranic elements in fuel made possible by other key elements of the technology program: separation of LWR and fast reactor SNF into their usable components and the [[Page 44675]] fabrication of transmutation fuel from those components. Consuming transuranic elements separated from LWR SNF. See the Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center (CFTC) EOI for a discussion of that element. Ensuring that facility designs meet U.S. standards for safeguards and security. Developing this complete system to support GNEP remains the central objective, drawing upon the expertise and capabilities of industry and international partners to achieve it. Further, The ABR shall safely and reliably perform its power generation and transmutation functions. The ABR shall be capable of being licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and operated in accordance with NRC regulations. The ABR shall incorporate design features and technologies to promote reliable system performance during normal operations and in response to postulated accident scenarios. The ABR shall be designed such that the future cost of electrical power generation using ABRs can be shown to be economical, with a goal of being competitive with Advanced Light Water Reactors, reasonably accounting for any externalities. ABRs shall be capable of generating power through the net destruction of transuranic material. The strategy for potential development of ABRs shall be made to be as affordable as possible without introducing undue risk into the development effort so as to place in serious jeopardy the potential to successfully achieve the ABR mission. To support timely implementation supportive of GNEP goals, the ABR system shall be capable of commercial deployment as early as possible. Example Technical Characteristics of the ABR Reactor neutron energy spectrum: Fast. Reactor technology: Pool-type sodium cooled. Power conversion technology: Steam-Rankine or Super- critical CO2 Brayton Cycle. Reactor fuel type: Oxide or metal based. Reactor unit thermal power: 500 MWt-2000 MWt. Electrical power from reactor unit: 200 MWe-800 MWe, generated electricity can be provided to a commercial power grid. For modular approach, technology for reactor unit should be scalable to higher power levels up to at least 1 GWe. The ABR would have the capability of being started on conventional fast reactor driver fuel, transitioned to full core operation on transmutation fuel, and provide a capability for transmuting minor actinide targets prior to this transition. Process storage capacity: Sufficient process storage capacity should be included to support full-scale plant operations, including storage of spent fuel prior to recycling. Geographic The reactor may be collocated with the SNF processing and fuel fabrication operations. This is not a requirement but rather a possibility. Regulatory Must comply with all environmental protection laws and regulations. Must be capable of being licensed under NRC regulations applicable to demonstration operations on privately owned land regardless of where the demonstration is sited. Content of EOI The following items identify the information that DOE is requesting in this EOI. All respondents are encouraged to provide information beyond that requested if it is believed to be beneficial to their responses. 1. Level of Interest and Proposed Scope of Interest Please describe how you believe DOE could accelerate successful demonstration of SNF integrated recycling technologies to advance the goals of GNEP. Describe the approach that you believe should be taken to accomplish this goal, including its benefits and risks, and describe your level of interest or potential participation. Also, provide a description of what you believe your approach does to advance the broad goals of GNEP (as described, for example, in the Background section). In particular, for the ABR, DOE is interested in: a. What reactor unit size (MWt) would be proposed by industry to achieve the ABR mission, and what reactor size would be proposed for the demonstration program (e.g., sub-scale, full-size module)? b. What set of reactor system technologies (e.g., basic type of fuel, reactor and power conversion technologies) is proposed to achieve the ABR mission? c. What would the general fuel qualification approach and schedule be for initial driver fuel and transmutation fuel? Identify the basic in-reactor tests and facilities that would be used to support fuel qualification. d. In addition to advanced reactor systems, what research and development (R) on near-term water-cooled reactor approaches could be pursued to support transmutation of transuranics consistent with the goals of GNEP? 2. Proposed Roles of Parties Involved Please identify who you believe the parties to such a venture should include and the role of each party. Parties could include U.S. Government and foreign government agencies, state and local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, domestic and foreign commercial firms (e.g., Architect & Engineering (A) firms, component manufacturers, electric utility companies, etc.) or any other entity you may identify that fits into your proposed solution. Your statement should clearly identify the role each party would play in ensuring the success of your proposition, whether direct or indirect. Examples of roles include, but are not limited to, providing financing, guaranteeing financing, A services, construction, facility operations, program or project management, regulatory compliance support, and hardware vendor. Provide an assessment of the benefit to the U.S. Government and GNEP of your proposed parties and their roles. Also, provide a description of the benefits that would accrue to each of the parties in this venture. Benefits could include, but are not limited to, financial gain, intellectual property, market position, facilities, education, and advancing policy goals. 3. Resources For each entity you have identified in Item 2 above, provide specifics describing the resources each party could provide to ensure the program's success. These resources may include, but are not limited to, financial, existing or new facilities, personnel (include a description of the type of personnel, e.g., technical, management, regulatory, financial, etc.), intellectual property, and leased equipment. 4. Proposed Contractual Vehicle Please provide a description of the contractual vehicle(s) you feel should be employed in furtherance of your approach. Examples may include, but are not limited to, contracts, financial assistance, Cooperative Research and [[Page 44676]] Development Agreements, loan guarantees, other transactional arrangements. Please limit your suggestions to those contractual authorities already granted to DOE or other government agencies you identify. 5. Areas of Technology Development Required for Potential Commercialization Please identify what technical areas associated with your approach would benefit from additional research, development or demonstration (RD) activities, how and to what extent this RD would mitigate technical or technology risk, estimated timeframes to accomplish this RD, parties performing the activities, and other technical issues that need to be addressed. 6. Government Furnished Data/Technology/Equipment Describe what, if any, government furnished data, technology, or equipment you would require to accomplish your defined approach. State whether you have any existing rights or license for the use of the data or technology, and if not, how you would pursue acquiring such rights. Confidentiality Confidential or business sensitive information contained in the submission must be identified and marked accordingly. DOE will protect this information from public disclosure to the extent permitted by law. This EOI is not a formal solicitation requesting proposals and does not represent a commitment by the Government to award a contract. The Government does not intend to formally respond to information submitted in response to this EOI. The Government is not responsible for costs incurred to submit a response to this EOI, conducting other activities associated with pre-solicitation planning, or submitting a proposal in response to a solicitation, if issued. Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, 2006. Dennis R. Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy. [FR Doc. E6-12747 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 DOE: Biological and Environmental Research (BER); Federal Interagency FR Doc E6-12748 [Federal Register: August 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 151)] [Notices] [Page 44679] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr07au06-54] Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Modeling AGENCY: Office of Science; Biological and Environmental Research (BER), Department of Energy, (DOE). ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: The annual public meeting of the Federal Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Modeling (ISCMEM) will convene to discuss new operational initiatives for FY 2007 as a result of the revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the participating agencies. DATES: August 24, 2006. Time: 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The American Geophysical Union (AGU) headquarters building, 2000 Florida Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquiries and notice of intent to attend the meeting may be faxed or E-mailed to: Dr. Robert T. Anderson, ISCMEM Chair, Office of Biological and Environmental Research SC-23.4 / Germantown Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290. Tel: 301-903-5549. Fax: 301- 903-4154. Todd.Anderson@science.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: Nine Federal agencies have been cooperating under a MOU on the research and development of multimedia environmental models for the last 5 years. The MOU establishes a framework for facilitating cooperation and coordination among the following agencies (the specific research organization within the agency is in parenthesis): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Engineer Research and Development Center): U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service); U.S. Department of Agriculture (Natural Resources Conservation Service); U.S. Department of Energy (Office of Biological and Environmental Research); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmosphere Administration; and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research); U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. These agencies are cooperating and coordinating in the research and development (R) of multimedia environmental models, software and related databases, including development, enhancements, applications and assessments of site specific, generic, and process-oriented multimedia environmental models as they pertain to human and environmental health risk assessment. Multimedia model development and simulation supports interagency interests in risk assessment, uncertainty analyses, water supply issues and contaminant transport. This MOU was just renewed by member agencies ensuring another 5 years of continuing collaboration and cooperation among the participating agencies in these areas. Purpose of the Public Meeting: The annual public meeting provides an opportunity for the scientific community, other Federal and State agencies, and the public to be briefed on ISCMEM activities and their initiatives for the upcoming year, and to discuss technological advancements in multimedia environmental modeling. Proposed Agenda: The ISCMEM Chair will open the meeting with a brief overview of the goals of the MOU, the activities of ISCMEM and changes in organizational operations as a result of the revised and renewed ISCMEM MOU. This introduction will be followed by series of invited presentations throughout the morning session focusing on topics of mutual interest to ISCMEM participants. The afternoon session will be largely devoted to discussing future goals and projects that will set the stage for collaborative interactions among ISCMEM participating agencies for the next 5 years. A detailed agenda with presentation titles and speakers will be posted on the MOU public Web site: http://www.ISCMEM.org . Meeting Access: The headquarters of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) is located at 2000 Florida Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009. The most convenient transportation to the meeting venue is via Metro. Please take Metro to the Dupont Circle Metro stop on the Red Line. Take the ``Q'' Street exit of the Dupont Circle station. Upon exiting the Metro station proceed North on Connecticut Avenue for about 3 blocks. Turn right onto Florida Avenue for about one-half block. AGU building is on the right. Please inform the security personnel upon entering the building that you are attending the public meeting on multimedia environmental modeling. The meeting room is on the ground floor to your left as you enter the building. Robert T. Anderson, Chair, Federal Interagency Steering Committee on Multimedia Environmental Modeling. [FR Doc. E6-12748 Filed 8-4-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 38 KnoxNews: Uranium removal is expected to end soon $27.7 million project finishing by end of year; cylinders shipped to Ohio By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com August 7, 2006 OAK RIDGE - The uranium road show is coming to a close. For the past couple of years, government contractors have transported thousands of uranium-loaded cylinders, one by one, from Oak Ridge to Piketon, Ohio. The U.S. Department of Energy is legally obligated to the state of Tennessee to remove all of the Oak Ridge cylinders by 2009. Although there have been some delays and complicating issues, it appears that deadline won't pose a difficulty. "About 650 remain, and they are expected to be shipped by the end of this calendar year," Dennis Hill, a spokesman for Bechtel Jacobs Co., said last week. The total cost of the project is estimated at $27.7 million. The cylinders contain depleted uranium hexafluoride, a legacy of uranium-enrichment operations that took place in Oak Ridge, beginning during the World War II Manhattan Project. They weigh 10-14 tons each. Ultimately, the toxic uranium compounds will be processed into a more stable form at an Ohio plant being constructed for that purpose. The first shipment was made on March 17, 2004. Since then more than 5,300 cylinders have been shipped to the Piketon facility. Visionary Solutions has a subcontract with Bechtel Jacobs to arrange and coordinate the transportation. For decades, the cylinders were stored in outdoor yards at the K-25 uranium-enrichment plant, which is now called the East Tennessee Technology Park. Many of the steel cylinders rusted or showed wear from the elements. Some of them required specially designed overpacks for added protection during the shipment on flatbed trucks. Also, some of the containers did not meet size or weight standards and needed an exemption from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Hill said DOE had granted all the special permits needed to complete the project. "There have been minor issues to work through on some of the overpacks and in coordinating with the receiver site, but generally all operations have proceeded as expected," Hill said. Shipments were delayed for months in late 2005 and early this year because of concerns that some of the older cylinders might contain traces of phosgene, a chemical warfare agent once stockpiled in the United States. Those concerns, however, were dismissed after records of the cylinders' previous usage were studied and additional inspections were conducted. The depleted uranium was the residual product left after processing at the old K-25 Site to concentrate and extract the fissile U-235 isotopes for use in weapons and nuclear reactors. The Oak Ridge plant produced almost all of the enriched uranium that was used in the U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 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: *****************************************************************