*****************************************************************
08/11/06 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 14.190
*****************************************************************
   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 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear row boosts 'failing' Iranian president
2 Guardian Unlimited: S. Korea Wary of Sanctions Against North
3 US: [NukeNet] Nuclear Power Alternatives
4 US: Boston Globe: Romney outlines energy plan mixing conservation, a
5 US: SF Indymedia: American Bar Association rebukes president
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
6 US: [NukeNet] Virginia hearing Aug. 16 on new reactors' water
7 US: voiceofsandiego.org: Nuclear Power's Promising Future
8 US: voiceofsandiego.org: Nuclear Power Under-Utilized
9 US: voiceofsandiego.org: Letters... Nuclear Power Shrouded in Secrec
10 US: Rutland Herald: Governor's stand focuses attention on energy pol
11 US: NRC: In the Matter of Fpl Energy Duane Arnold, Llc; (Duane Arnol
12 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice
13 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Receipt and 
14 US: NRC: In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company; (Turkey P
15 US: NRC: In the Matter of Florida Power And Light Company (St. Lucie
16 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeti
17 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee on E
18 US: NRC: In the Matter of FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station
19 CMMWO: New PBMR applications, test facilities progress
20 CMMWO: Pilot PBMR fuel plant on the horizon
21 CMMWO: How PBMRs work
22 THISDAY ONLINE: Nigeria pushes for nuclear power
23 Russia Newswire: OMZ Creates Joint Working Group with Nuclear and 
24 US: PRN: On-Site Voluntary Search Reveals Small Quantity of Tritium 
25 UPI: Britain fines two nuclear operators
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
26 US: UPI: Security lapses at Seabrook nuclear plant
27 The Times of India: N-plants turned into fortresses after US alert
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
28 BBC: Workers (Dounreay Exposure)
29 FOXNews.com: No Damage Feared After Radioactive Steam Leak at
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
30 US: Brampton Guardian: Nuclear waste stored in trailers 
31 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Don't trash Nevada 
32 Pahrump Valley Times: Nevada loses latest bid to derail Yucca       
33 Pahrump Valley Times: Agency chief says Yucca plans not necessary   
34 reviewjournal.comL AIRSPACE: Air Force negotiating Yucca rights
35 IndyStar.com: Leaving Las Vegas? Dems don't need Nevada | 
36 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Chairman defends leaving n-waste in states wh
37 Strategic Security Blog: Plutonium Reprocessing: two steps forward, 
38 US: AU ABC: Uranium demand predicted to rise. 
39 US: Bradenton Herald: Tallevast gets free medical check-ups
40 US: AU ABC: Govt policy holding back uranium exploration - miner
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
41 DOE: DOE Announces Successful Removal of Nuclear Material from Polan
42 DOE: USDA-DOE Announce Keynote Speakers for National Renewable Energ
43 Inside Bay Area: Sandia OKs new Livermore boss
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear row boosts 'failing' Iranian president

Simon Tisdall in Tehran

Friday August 11, 2006

[The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at a press 
conference in Shanghai. Photograph: Elizabeth Dalziel/AP] The 
Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Photograph: Elizabeth 
Dalziel/AP
   
 Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is preparing to confront
the US and United Nations security council over Iran's nuclear
activities partly to distract attention from the country's
worsening economic problems, sources in Tehran have said.

Iran's hardline government said it would respond by August 22 to
a western compromise package designed to defuse the dispute over
its nuclear activities. But diplomatic sources said that while
expressing readiness to continue negotiations, Mr Ahmadinejad
was opposing concessions on the issue, which has become key to
maintaining his support following his disputed election victory
one year ago.

"People say it's Ahmadinejad who's the problem," a western 
diplomat said on Friday. "Even the Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali 
Khamenei) favours some kind of deal. But this is Ahmadinejad's 
flagship issue. People like the way he has stood up to the 
Americans and he isn't going to throw that away."

Leila, a Tehran resident who, like other interviewees, asked not
to be identified, said: "If the US had not made such a big thing
of the nuclear issue Ahmadinejad would have been in big trouble
by now. He could have been overthrown. He's achieved nothing in
the past year. The economy is very bad. Everyone is poor."

Ali, a graduate in part-time employment, said it was very
difficult for young people to find good jobs in a country where
two-thirds of the 70 million population are under 30.

"Ahmadinejad promised to do all sorts of things. But he hasn't
done anything. He promised to share out the oil revenue. Look at
the price of oil now! Where's all that money going? There's no
economic management in this country. It's inefficient. It's
corrupt," Ali said.

"Ahmadinejad loves all the international attention. He's making
the most of the nuclear issue to distract attention from the
failures of the economy."

A recent Zogby International/Reader's Digest poll, conducted by
telephone from outside Iran, found strong public support for the
government's position that Iran has an "inalienable right" to
develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Sixty-seven percent
also agreed with Mr Ahmadinejad that the state of Israel should
not exist, with only 9% disagreeing.

But 41% of respondents said making the economy more efficient
was more important than nuclear capabilities or regional issues,
with 27% disagreeing.

The economy is coming under increasing public scrutiny despite
official controls on newspapers and restricted access to the
internet. An estimated 80% of all economic activity is under
direct government control or managed through cooperatives known
as bonyads, often dominated by well-connected clerics. In
contrast, 80% of the population works in the private sector.

Critics say US sanctions, which have discouraged foreign
investment and technology transfers, cannot be wholly blamed for
Iran's economic backwardness. There are also complaints that
taxpayers' money allegedly being sent to Hizbullah in Lebanon
would be better spent at home.

Particular concern is focusing on oil-rich Iran's lack of
refining capacity. It has a petrol shortfall of 30m litres a
day, which is made up by expensive imports. Critics also note
its failure to keep up with IT and e-commerce developments. A
recent UN report ranked Iran 98th in the world in e-government.

The finance minister, Davood Danesh-Jafari, promised this week
that privatisations ordered by Ayatollah Khamenei in 2004 would
be speeded up. "We need to change the status quo," he said.

One plan is to offer discounted shares in the bigger state
companies to the 8 million most needy Iranians, in line with Mr
Ahmadinejad's redistributive "Islamic socialism". But the idea
has hit trouble because few poor people have cash to spare to
buy even discounted shares and the companies are usually making
a loss.

"Since the privatisation process ... failed to produce the
desired results, one question that arises is how the present
administration intends to move forward in containing the role of
the state," said a daring commentary published by Iran Daily.
"Mr Ahmadinejad and his aides have pledged to deliver and
improve the quality of life of the millions who voted them to
office. With oil revenue at its highest in almost three decades
... the nation hopes the economy will turn around without delay."
 
28.04.2006: Iran's nuclear programme

[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: S. Korea Wary of Sanctions Against North
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday August 10, 2006 8:46 PM
 	
AP Photo SEL102 
By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer 

YONGSAN GARRISON, South Korea (AP) - South Korean President Roh
Moo-hyun expressed reservations Thursday about possible new U.S.
sanctions against North Korea over its recent missile tests, a
visiting U.S. congressional delegation said. 

Roh ``felt a carrot was more useful with the North Koreans than
a stick,'' House International Relations Committee Chairman
Henry Hyde said after meeting with the South Korean president.

``He expressed a lack of enthusiasm for more sanctions.'' 
The North test-fired seven missiles last month, including a new
model believed to be capable of reaching parts of the United
States. The move prompted the U.N. Security Council to pass a
statement criticizing the July 5 tests and calling on all member
nations to halt weapons-related dealings with the country. 

Washington lifted a range of financial sanctions against North
Korea in 1999 after it agreed to a self-imposed moratorium on
long-range missile tests that it broke with its latest launches
- fueling speculation the sanctions might be renewed. 

Hyde urged the United Nations to be more active in dealing with
North Korea, which also has boycotted international talks on its
nuclear weapons program since November. 

``We thought that's what it was, the U.N., an organization to
solve these serious international disputes,'' Hyde said. ``Let's
go, U.N., and do something useful.'' 

The international talks on the North's nuclear program are
hosted by China and also include the United States, Japan,
Russia and South Korea. 

Hyde also said Roh promised to resolve an issue over the lack of
an aerial bombing range for U.S. military pilots based in South
Korea. The U.S. military has complained about the shortage of
training facilities, meaning it must send its pilots abroad to
practice. 

The range complaint comes amid a debate in South Korea over
whether it should retake wartime command of its troops from the
United States. 

Under military procedures in place since the Korean War began in
1950, the U.S. commander in South Korea assumes control of the
South Korean military in the event of war. About 29,500 U.S.
troops are based on the peninsula, which remains technically in
a state of conflict because the war ended in 1953 with a
cease-fire, not a peace treaty. 

Roh has pressed for the South to retake wartime command, but has
drawn strong criticism from a group of former defense ministers
who say the country lacks the capability to do so. 

Critics have claimed the government should seek parliamentary
approval for the proposed command transfer, but Roh's chief
security adviser Song Min-soon argued Thursday in comments to
reporters that such a process was not necessary. 

Meanwhile, South Korea decided Thursday to provide official aid
to the North to help it recover from last month's devastating
floods, officials said. The move came despite Seoul's earlier
decision to suspend aid following the North's missile launches. 

North Korea on Wednesday had officially requested help from the
South, raising hopes for improvement in inter-Korean relations
that went sour when North Korea strongly protested the South's
decision to halt rice and fertilizer supplies to the
impoverished state after the missile tests. 

--- 
Associated Press Writer Jae-Soon Chang in Seoul contributed to
this report. 	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
 3 [NukeNet] Nuclear Power Alternatives
 
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:45:41 -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

<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

<http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess>http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess
http://nuclearwaste-theroyprocess.blogspot.com/

Nuclear Power Used Up More Energy
Than It Delivered To Society !

"At the end
of forty years of the US nuclear power program
by 1991, this energy- 381302 MW-yrs  -delivered to
society is still less than the gross cumulative
energy invested in nuclear plant construction and
maintenance of 489174 MW-yrs! "

Energy audit of nuclear fuel cycles

     By R. Ashok Kumar,
B.E,M.E(Power),Negentropist,Flat 1/13, Telec
Officers' CHS.,Ltd.,Plot 30, Sector 17, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai-400705. Tel:7896209.
<mailto:rakumra@yahoo.com>rakumra@yahoo.com

  <clip>
  It must be noted that a number of surprises
have caused retrofits and replacements like the
steam generator premature replacements and the
replaced  radioactive steam generators enclosed in
costly sarcophages worldwide. These have
enormously increased the energy invested in these
white elephants.
--------------
Wavemill Technology
<http://www.wavemill.com/technology.htm>http://www.wavemill.com/technology.htm
-------------
New Solar  Power
SA solar research eclipses rest of the world
<http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=116&art_id=vn20060211110132138C184427>http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=116&art_id=vn20060211110132138C184427
-------------
Letter to the Editor,

The aim of nuclear power is spent fuel rods (nuclear waste) from
which weapons are made. Atom bombs, easier are dirty bombs,
so-called depleted uranium ordinance, not electricity, That is why
40 sovereign countries have nuclear power.

Dr. John Gofman says there is no safe dose of man-made ionizing
radiation. We should not add to it with new nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power is the most dangerous form of electricity. It is the
heat which makes steam that powers electric generators. Albert
Einstein once said, "Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil
water".

Liability is paid by the tax payer under the Price/Anderson Act.
Electric rate payers subsidize nuclear power and waste disposal.
There is big money and political power in nuclear waste, in killing
people, in a toxic regime. Nuclear power pollutes the environment
and will not stop global warming according to studies.

<http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess>http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess
-----------------
(Posted for educational and research purposes only,
  in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107).

_______________________________________________________________________
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

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 4 Boston Globe: Romney outlines energy plan mixing conservation, alternate supply - 

Boston.com

+ Romney outlines energy plan mixing conservation, alternate
supply Associated Press Trying to stave off power shortages and
high electricity costs, Gov. Mitt Romney on Friday unveiled a
plan to both reduce demand and increase supply in Massachusetts.
Glen Johnson 

[The Associated Press] 

By Glen Johnson, AP Political Writer  |  August 11, 2006
 
BOSTON --Trying to stave off power shortages and high
electricity costs, Gov. Mitt Romney on Friday unveiled a plan to
both reduce demand and increase supply in Massachusetts.

Within the next month, Romney will require more efficient energy
use in state buildings, increased use of biofuels in the state
automobile fleet and the creation of a lottery in which prizes
will be awarded to consumers who buy energy-efficient equipment.

During the fall, Massachusetts will request proposals for wind
and biomass power-generation facilities at state buildings and
on state land, convene a summit on advanced energy technologies
and seek a decision on siting offshore LNG receiving terminals.

Romney opposes an onshore facility proposed for Weaver's Cove in
Fall River, but he has voiced support for a plan to create an
offshore terminal on Outer Brewster Island at the edge of Boston
Harbor.

More broadly, through a mix of executive orders and legislation
he will request from the House and Senate, the governor will
seek to establish a "negawatts" program in which utility
companies pay customers who reduce their energy use, support the
establishment of "selective" wind power projects and work with
businesses and universities to create deep water offshore wind
farms.

The governor opposes the Cape Wind plant proposed for Nantucket
Sound, which he says is a pristine, nationally-known tourist
destination. But he supports similar projects in Princeton, Hull
and other Massachusetts locations.

Romney also plans to seek market-based electricity pricing, in
which consumers would pay more for running appliances and other
electrical devices at peak periods, while paying less at
off-peak times. Overall bills would not rise, he said, but
consumers would have an incentive to consume power during
lower-cost periods.

The governor said the plan is necessary to avoid rolling
blackouts in the future such as those recently experienced in
California and to ensure the state's electricity demand does not
exceed its capacity, which is predicted to occur in 2013.

Romney said adopting the proposal could help the state avoid
paying subsidies the federal government has threatened to charge
to boost power company revenues and encourage them to build more
plants in Massachusetts. The companies have been reluctant to
build new plants because the state's relatively low electricity
prices mean insufficient returns. The subsidies have been
projected at $10 billion over the next 10 years, but reducing
demand would eliminate the need for new plants, Romney said.

"The alternative is powerplants, with additional cost, with
additional pollution, with a long permitting process and the
potential of higher and higher electric rates in Massachusetts,"
Romney said at a Statehouse news conference.

A spokesman for MASSPIRG, a public advocacy group that focuses
on state power issues, did not immediately return calls or an
e-mail seeking comment on the plan.

Sue Reid, a staff attorney at the Conservation Law Foundation,
called for swift implementation of Romney's proposal.

"To effectively confront the climate-change crisis and meet our
energy needs, we need to do everything the governor is proposing
on efficiency, conservation, clean energy and more," she said.

In rolling out such a large-scale proposal only five months
before he leaves office, Romney conceded he will not be around
to see all of it enacted. Indeed, in answering a question about
the plan, the potential Republican presidential candidate
indicated he has been thinking about energy issues elsewhere in
the country.

The Romney plan does not call for the construction of any new,
conventional power plants, but the governor said "the nation is
going to have to explore nuclear power sources again."

The problem, he said, is disposing of the waste, an issue that
has plagued President Bush after Nevadans accused him of
flip-flopping on a campaign promise to bar storage of nuclear
waste at the federal government's Yucca Mountain facility.

Romney said seeking a safe way to dispose nuclear waste
dovetails with his plan, which calls for greater cooperation
between the state, private industry and local universities to
develop alternate energy supplies and clean forms of energy
disposal.

"I'm hopeful that as we invest in this energy sector, that here
in Massachusetts we'll find ways to dispose of or to reuse the
waste that comes from nuclear power plants," the governor said.

 © Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
*****************************************************************
 5 SF Indymedia: American Bar Association rebukes president

 by Kenneth J. Theisen Thursday, Aug. 10, 2006 at 1:59 PM

 President Bush has issued more than 800 signing statements 
challenging laws that he has signed. This is more than all other 
presidents combined. The American Bar Association has rebuked the 
president on this vast misuse of presidential powers. 

On January 24, 2006, the American Bar Association (ABA) issued a
press release stating that, “Presidential signing statements
that assert President Bush’s authority to disregard or decline
to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law
and our constitutional system of separation of powers…” The
press release was publicizing a report by a blue-ribbon ABA task
force which was created in June 2006 to examine the “changing
role of presidential signing statements” under the Bush
administration. On August 8, 2006, the ABA’s House of Delegates
overwhelmingly approved the report by voting to call on
President Bush and future presidents not to issue signing
statements that claim the power to bypass laws, and it called on
Congress to pass legislation to outlaw the practice. 

The ABA declared that it “opposes, as contrary to the rule of
law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, the
misuse of presidential signing statements by claiming the
authority…to disregard or decline to enforce all or part of a
law the president has signed, or to interpret such a law in a
manner inconsistent with the clear intent of Congress.” The
ABA’s outgoing president, Michael Greco, stated, “The
constitution says the president has two choices: either sign the
bill or veto it. And if you sign it, you can’t have your hand
behind your back with your fingers crossed.” 

Despite the administration’s claim that the use of signing
statements is “respectful” of Congress, it is clear that the
Bush regime has abused the use of signing statements in a grab
for more power at the expense of the legislative and judicial
bodies. Signing statements have traditionally been used by
presidents to elaborate the view of the president on the
particular law that was being signed. According to the task
force report, “[F]rom the inception of the Republic until 2000,
Presidents produced fewer than 600 signing statements taking
issue with the bills they signed. According to the most recent
update, in his one-and-a-half terms so far, President George
Walker Bush…has produced more than 800.” The report found that
Bush’s signing statements are “ritualistic, mechanical and
generally carry no citation of authority or detailed
explanation.” 

As one example it cited a law requiring the Attorney General to
submit to Congress a report any time that official or any
officer of the Department of Justice established or pursued a
policy of refraining from enforcing a federal statute. The
president in his signing statement insisted he had the authority
to withhold such information whenever he deemed it necessary,
thus defeating the very purpose of the law. 

The task force also noted that Bush’s signing statements where
he refused to carry out laws included, “Congressional
requirements to report back to Congress on the use of the
Patriot Act authority to secretly search homes and seize private
papers, [and] the McCain amendment forbidding any U.S. officials
to use torture or cruel and inhumane treatment on prisoners.” 

Other examples of signing statements where Bush has indicated
his refusal to comply with the law cited in the report include:
“bills banning the use of U.S. troops in combat against rebels
in Columbia; bills requiring reports to Congress when money from
regular appropriations is diverted to secret operations; two
bills forbidding the use of military intelligence of materials
‘not lawfully collected’ in violation of the Fourth Amendment; a
post-Abu Ghraib bill mandating new regulations for military
prisons in which military lawyers were permitted to advise
commanders on the legality of certain kinds of treatment even if
the Department of Justice lawyers did not agree; bills requiring
the retraining of prison guards in humane treatment under the
Geneva Conventions, requiring background checks for civilian
contractors in Iraq and banning contractors from performing
security, law enforcement, intelligence and criminal justice
functions.” 

He also stated his refusal to carry out the law that requires
“that government scientists transmit their findings to Congress
uncensored, along with a guarantee that whistleblower employees
at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission will not be punished for providing information to
Congress about safety issues in the planned nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain…” One may ask what the
administration is trying to hide from Congress. But then secrecy
within the Bush administration seems to be regular practice in
order to hide it misdeeds. “The less the public knows the
better” seems to be the slogan among Bush officials. 

Immediate past ABA President Michael S. Greco in the press
release regarding the report stated, “This report raises serious
concerns crucial to the survival of our democracy. If left
unchecked, the president’s practice does grave harm to the
separation of powers doctrine, and the system of checks and
balances, that have sustained our democracy for more than two
centuries. Immediate action is required to address this threat
to the Constitution and to the rule of law in our country.” 

It is significant that the ABA which represents more than
400,000 lawyers in the U.S. has taken this step to rebuke the
Bush regime’s regular practice of using signing statements to
undermine the law. The ABA is far from a liberal organization.
Yet the highest body of the ABA has recognized that the Bush
administration has pushed the limits in its regular challenge to
the separation of powers doctrine. 

It is ironic though when its solution to the problem is to have
Congress pass laws to prevent such abuse. If Congress actually
summons the courage to pass such a law, I can see Bush attaching
a signing statement to it that says he will not enforce this
law. As can readily be seen by some of his past signing
statements, he is not above doing so. 

A brief look at the Bush regime’s justification for its use of
signing statements, as well as a look at some of the signing
statements that have been issued, is in order to see just how
far Bush has tried to put himself above the law. 

In June of this year, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michelle
Boardman testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing
on signing statements. She argued, “Respect for the legislative
branch is not shown through veto. Respect for the legislative
branch, when we have a well-crafted bill, the majority of which
is constitutional, is shown when the president chooses to
construe a particular statement in keeping with the
Constitution, as opposed to defeating an entire bill that would
serve the nation.” Of course Bush has shown such “respect” for
Congress some 800 times. 

Boardman further claimed that the president can bypass any law
if it conflicts with the Constitution, even when “the Supreme
Court has yet to rule on an issue, but the president has
determined that a statutory law violates the Constitution.” In
responding to this remarkable interpretation of presidential
powers, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold accurately stated that
the Bush administration has “assigned itself the sole
responsibility for deciding which laws it will comply with, and
in the process has taken upon itself the powers of all three
branches of government.” 

It is beyond frightening to learn that President Bush, who has
bragged about not even reading the newspapers, feels he has the
competency to determine when laws are constitutional and further
will decide which laws to ignore and which to enforce. I doubt
that he has ever read a full court opinion on any constitutional
case. But then a man who claims to get directions from god must
have extraordinary powers beyond the comprehension of the rest
of us mere mortals. 

An overview of some of the signing statements and their impact
is even more frightening. Earlier in the year, Congress voted to
outlaw torture in interrogations by U.S. agents. The Bush regime
fought the passage of the law arguing that the president needed
flexibility to waive the ban to prosecute the war on terrorism.
Congress passed the law without such a waiver clause. When Bush
signed the law, he issued a signing statement that claimed he
had the power as commander-in-chief to waive the ban when
necessary to protect national security. In effect he made the
law unenforceable defeating the will of Congress. He has also
attached signing statements challenging other bills related to
torture. Apparently our president wants to use torture whenever
he deems it necessary. And given the history and frequency of
the use of torture under the regime at prisons operated by the
U.S. around the world, it is apparent why the Bush regime would
want to ignore these laws. (As I write this, it has come to
light that the Bush administration has drafted amendments to the
War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policy makers
from criminal charges for authorizing humiliating and degrading
treatment of detainees.) 

Bush also has attached signing statements to bills requiring
reports to Congress when money from regular appropriations is
diverted to secret operations. Bush considers such reports as
undermining his commander-in-chief role and thus refuses to
comply by making the required reports. The Constitution invested
the “power of the purse” in Congress. But Bush has apparently
re-interpreted this specific delegation in the Constitution
granting Congress the power to determine how taxpayer money is
spent with extremely negative consequences. 

For instance Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward disclosed
that in July of 2002 Bush diverted $700 million into Iraq
invasion planning from appropriations that had nothing to do
with Iraq without informing Congress that it was being used to
plan an attack on Iraq. In fact the diversion took place at a
time when the Bush regime was falsely claiming that it was
seeking “diplomatic solutions to the problem of Iraq.” How much
other money has been diverted and for what purposes is
impossible to tell as it is clear Bush has no intention of
making the required reports to Congress. Has money been diverted
into Iran invasion planning? Maybe some has been used to finance
the emergency shipments of weapons to Israel for the invasion of
Lebanon. By ignoring this law, Bush can shuffle money around
without being subject to any oversight. 

It is clear from reviewing Bush’s extensive use of signing
statements that the regime has an expansive view of presidential
power. Any laws that place restrictions or requirements on the
president’s role as commander-in-chief will surely have a
signing statement attached to them. And unfortunately Bush sees
his commander-in-chief role as having a lot of power given that
he claims we are in a “war against terrorism.” This view allows
a national security state which not only justifies wars
throughout the world, but virtually unlimited spying and power
here at home. Any actions necessary to “prosecute” the war can
be justified under this view. 

Vice-president Dick Cheney articulated the view of the
administration in a December 2005 press conference which he
staged to defend the regime’s warrantless wiretapping. He said,
"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam
during the 1970s, served, I think, to erode the authority I
think the president needs to be effective, especially in the
national security area. ... the president of the United States
needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will,
in terms of the conduct of national security policy. He then
urged the reporters to read a 1987 minority report from the
congressional Iran-Contra Committee when he said, “If you want a
reference to an obscure text, go look at the minority views that
were filed with the Iran-Contra Committee…I think [they] are
very good in laying out a robust view of the president’s
prerogatives with respect to the conduct of especially foreign
policy and national security matters.” 

Back then, Cheney was the ranking Republican on the joint
committee looking into the Iran-Contra scandal. He was also one
of the chief architects of the minority report issued by the
committee. Instead of blaming those in the Reagan administration
who broke the law, the report put the blame on Congress for
passing laws that the administration felt obliged to flout in
the interest of national security. The report argued that such
laws were an unconstitutional intrusion of the president’s war
powers. To quote the report, “Judgments about the Iran-Contra
affair ultimately rest upon one’s views about the proper roles
of Congress and the president in foreign policy…The fundamental
law of the land is the Constitution. Unconstitutional statutes
violate the rule of law every bit as much as do willful
violations of constitutional statutes.” In the view of the Bush
regime, the president is clearly vested with the power to decide
which laws are constitutional and which infringe on his powers.
Of course this virtually negates the role of Congress and the
Supreme Court and creates an imperial presidency. 

What really is at stake? The ABA has recognized that Bush’s
abuse of signing statements “undermine the law” and as the past
president of the ABA states, threatens “our democracy.” The
position of the ABA is a positive development. But new laws as
urged by the ABA will not prevent the horrors planned by the
Bush regime. The regime has already shown its contempt for so
many laws by openly violating them. 

The only way to prevent an imperial presidency and country in
which Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice, Hadley, and a few
others make all the decisions for the rest of the world is to
remove the Bush regime from power as soon as possible. The U.S.
is now waging wars or proxie wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon
and Palestine. The regime is planning war against Iran. Here at
home the survivors of Katrina are still suffering. Countless
other crimes of the regime could also be listed if space
allowed. The abuse of signing statements is just part of the
regime’s plans to operate a dictatorship which acts in the
interest of a few at the expense of the vast majority. It is
just one more reason why the world can’t wait one more day to
drive the Bush regime from power now! 

Kenneth J. Theisen is an organizer with The World Can’t Wait!
Drive Out the Bush Regime! 

*****************************************************************
 6 [NukeNet] Virginia hearing Aug. 16 on new reactors' water
 
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:45:29 -0700

NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

This is an alert about a public hearing in Louisa County, VA next 
week about the water impacts of Dominion's plan to build new 
nuclear reactors... Wednesday, August 16th, at Louisa County 
Middle School in Mineral, VA!

Please attend if you can, and pass this on to folks who care 
about clean energy for Virginia!


Subject: CAN YOU HELP? Public hearing next week on water impacts 
of new reactors in Virginia

If you havent heard, wanted to let you know about this public 
hearing in central Virginia next week. Its the meeting we 
requested on the water impacts of building new reactors at North 
Anna in central Virginia. People will also be mentioning the 
waste and security impacts of new reactors, and how renewable 
energy can meet Virginia's needs instead 

http://www.citizen.org/documents/RenewableEnergyVirginia.pdf


Ive attached one of the alerts Public Citizen has been sending 
out about the hearing. Could you possibly send out a version to 
any Virginia lists you have and anyone else you think it might be 
good to let know this is going on? Were making a large number of 
phonecalls and have sent postcards, but we could really use help 
in getting the word out. Im sure there are tons of things not 
answered by this email, so please let me know if you have 
questions.

Melissa Kemp Organizer Energy Program Public Citizen 215 
Pennsylvania Ave SE Washington, DC p: 202.454.5176 
<mailto:mkemp@citizen.orgmkemp@citizen.org www.citizen.org/cmep


Subject: [CMEP] Speak Out! Attend Public Meeting on New Reactors in 
Virginia Next Wednesday!
August 8, 2006


Attend August 16th Public Meeting About New Reactors at North 
Anna! Fight for a clean, safe, and truly sustainable future for 
Virginia! We need your voice!

Water resources in Louisa County, Virginia are already stressed. 
Dominion's proposal to add a new reactors will do irreparable 
damage -- only you can stop it. Attend the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality's (DEQ) meeting next Wednesday August 16th. 
Topics will be:

    * Serious impacts of Dominion's proposed new reactors on our water 
 resources
    * Innumerable down sides to building new nuclear reactors
    * Solutions renewable technologies provide and why the reactors meet 
 corporate needs not resident's needs

What: Public Hearing About Impacts of Proposed Reactors
When: Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Time: 7:00 PM (Open house information session to begin at 6 PM)
Where: Louisa County Middle School
1009 Davis Hwy. Mineral, VA 23117

-For more on these water impacts and other problems with nuclear power 

<http://www.democracyinaction.org

*****************************************************************
 7 voiceofsandiego.org: Nuclear Power's Promising Future

Contributing Voices... 

By Elie A. Shneour

Thursday, Aug. 10, 2006 | 

It will no doubt surprise you to know that the United States is 
the largest producer of electricity from nuclear power in the 
world. And that represents only 20 percent of its electricity 
production. France produces almost 80 percent of its electrical 
energy through nuclear power, making their famous high-speed TGV 
trains economically feasible. In the United States, 80 percent of 
electricity is generated by petroleum, coal, natural gas and 
hydroelectric sources. Among these, coal is by far the worst 
environmental pollutant. Studies by the Harvard School of Public 
Health indicate that coal toxic wastes cause at least 15,000 U.S. 
premature deaths a year. It will surprise you even more to know 
that in addition to sulfur, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, 
nitrogen oxides and a whole host of other toxic substances such 
as mercury that contaminates fish, coal-fired power plants are 
also a major source of radioactive releases into the environment.                              

In fact, Richard Rhodes, the author of landmark books on the
history of nuclear development and Denis Beller, a nuclear
engineer and technical staff member at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory, "The Need for Nuclear Power, Foreign Affairs," Vol
75 pp. 30-44 [2000] have calculated that "a 1,000
megawatt-electric (MWe) coal-fired power plant releases about
100 times as much radioactivity into the environment as a
comparable nuclear power plant ... The uranium released by a
single 1,000 MWe coal plant in a year includes about 74 pounds
of uranium-235 -- enough for at least two atomic bombs." Of
course it would be complex and expensive to isolate that
uranium, and plutonium could be bred from that coal-derived
uranium as well, and that it could actually be done.

If the San Diego reader, who is burdened by the highest
electricity rate in the nation, accepts what I write here, the
first question is likely to be: If this is true, why has nuclear
power suffered such disabling political and economic
disadvantages in the United States? Here are some of the reasons:

+ Existing laws force nuclear utilities to engage in lengthy and
costly licensing procedures and make very expensive investments
not required of coal-powered plants;

+ If coal utilities had to meet the same criteria of safety as
nuclear power ones, the cost of electricity derived from burning
coal would no longer be cheaper than nuclear generated
electricity. But there were other even more cogent reasons for
the strenuous resistance to nuclear powered plants in the United
States, and the fault is attributable in great part to the
nuclear power industry of the time.

+ Following World War II, nuclear power loomed large with a
bright future in the United States. The word spread that nuclear
generated electricity would be so cheap that it would not even
have to be metered. This is a preposterous example of how
nuclear power in the United States was so outrageously oversold.
The cost of making electricity from every resource is but a
small fraction of the cost of distributing it. 

San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station   

+ Four companies competed for the building of U.S. nuclear power
plants. They were Babcock &Wilcox, Combustion Engineering,
General Electric and Westinghouse. All of them had to learn how
to build them virtually from scratch.Unfortunately, antitrust
laws and misplaced competitive pressures made it impossible for
these companies to exchange information, and the learning curve
of each of them had to be replicated the hard way, by repeating
the same mistakes over and over again.

+ The result was nothing short of a spreading economic disaster.
The cost of building these plants, some with expensive defects,
escalated out of control and a few never went on line.

+ The accident at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania in 1979
although well contained, doomed the U.S. nuclear power industry
for decades to this day.

The conclusion has to be that nuclear power has an important
role to play in the future given the forecast of escalating
power consumption worldwide. Earth warming will soon demand that
there be a stop to the pollution from the burning of petroleum,
coal, natural gas and biomass. The renewable resources are not
renewable without serious environmental penalties. Hydroelectric
power, for example, is hardly renewable when the dams inevitably
silt-in. Solar, wind and geothermal sources are very dilute
forms of energy collection requiring them to be concentrated to
yield costly usable energy. Making photovoltaic cells for solar
collectors, making concrete, transporting it and pouring it for
windmills, make profligate use of energy and generate pollution.

Replacing the 80 percent of non-nuclear energy now consumed in
the United States alone with "renewable resources" would demand
huge expenditure of money, large land surfaces and generate at
least as much if not more pollution than is now expended for
generating power with petroleum, coal, natural gas and
hydroelectric means.

There have been major advances in the generation of safe nuclear
power since 1990. If the proliferation issue can be resolved, it
is possible to recycle up to 90 percent of the radioactive
wastes. Nuclear power today offers a promising and viable
solution to the fast growing energy needs of the future.

Elie Shneour is research director &president of Biosystems
Research Institute. He is also involved in San Diego regional
and in national issues involving science in domestic and foreign
affairs. Agree? Disagree? Send a letter to the editor. 			 	

Reader Feedback
 
Comments so far on this story:

Shirley Vaine wrote on August 11, 2006 10:04 AM:""electricity is
just a fleeting byproduct from nuclear power, the actual product
is deadly radioactive waste that last forever" the ageing
nuclear plant in San Diego emitts unknown amounts of radioactive
materials, which are inhaled by populations near San Onofre and
down winders. there is no solution for the tons of nuclear waste
that sits in overcrowded spent fuel pools on a fragil earthquake
coastline, that will remain on site forever, because there is no
safe place for the waste. Oct 4th Dr. Caldicott will appear in
San Diego, discussing why Nuclear Power is not the answer." 

Glenn McCoy wrote on August 11, 2006 12:50 AM:"Another reason
for the decline of nuclear power in the US was purely
economical, and affected all manner of power production.
Electricity demand dropped precipitously after the 1974 Opec
Production crises. Consequently, this so drastically affected
energy projections, that many plants, both fossil and nuclear
were delayed or cancelled. This preceded Three Mile Island, but
TMI masked the effect." 

A. Lewis wrote on August 10, 2006 8:34 AM:"Mr. Shneour, I hope
that in a future column you will discuss the proliferation issue
more in depth (I consider it the #1 holdup to nuclear power
being seen as environmentally friendly, as non-proliferation
policies prevent recycling spent fuel, leaving it instead to
decay for thousands of years). However, I don't know that I can
agree with your assertion that renewables generate as much
pollution as coal and petroleum--let's see some hard numbers.
The future of the energy landscape, as I see it, will hold roles
for many different resources, with the most polluting methods
used least." 
 
  Copyright © 2006 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.    
*****************************************************************
 8 voiceofsandiego.org: Nuclear Power Under-Utilized

Letters... 

By Carol Law, Encinitas

Thursday, Aug. 10, 2006 | 

Re: "Nuclear Power's Promising Future" 

I have long been a strong supporter of preserving the 
environment. Nuclear power plants are a tool toward that 
preservation which we are under-utilizing, as the article pointed 
out. Where would Japan and other developed countries be without 
it? The disaster at Chernobyl has been given way too much sway by 
certain groups. The Russians were mired down in an ocean of 
financial and economic disaster as we now know. The government 
did not commit sufficient funds for inspection and maintenance at 
Chernobyl or anyplace else. Or, if they did, those funds went 
elsewhere. Corruption ran rampant as we learned, post-Cold War.                                                                 

Let's stop fighting wars for oil and cease our plans to desecrate 
some of the last pristine spots on earth in our endless lust for 
oil.

There are other ways to go, with nuclear, methane, the improved, 
modern coal mining methods, solar, wind power, hydrogen and fuel 
cells. None stand alone, and we will always need a great deal of 
oil. But less, if we find a wider variety of energy tools to go 
along with it. We must broaden our national and global 
imagination if there's to be an earth left we'd want our great 
great grandchildren to live in. 

  Copyright © 2006 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.    
*****************************************************************
 9 voiceofsandiego.org: Letters... Nuclear Power Shrouded in Secrecy
 
By Richard Dittbenner, J.D., San Diego

Thursday Aug. 10, 2006 | 

Shneour's rosy story >of the supposed bright promise overlooks 
the unpleasant other facts of the nuclear power story.                                                                

Nuclear power is the "golden goose which fouls its own nest."
The author overlooks the billions of dollars necessary to mine,
processes, transport, use, and ultimately dispose of radioactive
materials. The author ignores the increased concerns associated
with this industry.

The relationship between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
and the industry it regulates is incestuous. The NRC places a
shroud of secrecy over much of what goes on within nuclear power
plants and does not disclose radiation leaks it determines for
itself would not harm the public. It opposes full disclosure
lest the extent of problems within the industry undermine public
confidence in the industry.

And, that does not even begin to address the secrecy surrounding
the nuclear power generated by the US Navy aboard its submarines
and carriers in San Diego Bay.

Whether it is the US Navy or the NRC overseeing nuclear
reactors, both have a history of suppression of information
about accidents until they are reported in the press. Both
suppress information about accidents yet seek to have us accept
on faith that their stewardship of it is beyond reproach.

Until there is a change in this culture of suppression of
information about accidents, it is inconceivable that citizens
of our democracy can have an enlightened discussion about the
real value and cost of nuclear power. 

  Copyright © 2006 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.    
*****************************************************************
 10 Rutland Herald: Governor's stand focuses attention on energy policy

Rutland Vermont News & Information
 	 	 	 	 	 
August 11, 2006 

By Vermont Press Bureau   

MONTPELIER — Gov. James Douglas said Thursday he supports an
initiative to increase the amount of renewable power used in
Vermont, a day after Democratic challenger Scudder Parker
repeated his accusation that the administration is failing to
plan for the state's energy future.

Many of the ideas Douglas endorsed in a news conference are ones
he initially opposed or urged caution on in the last two years,
environmental advocates and Democratic lawmakers pointed out.

"The administration works very hard to balance its strong
support for renewable energy within the larger picture of energy
planning and economic development," said Jason Gibbs, a Douglas
spokesman. "The governor has done an excellent job of achieving
that balance."

Douglas said Thursday he would like the state to participate in
the "25 by 25" initiative, a two-year-old national project that
seeks to have one-fourth of the country's energy come from
renewable sources on farms, forests and ranches by 2025.

Douglas has said the amount of power industrial-sized wind
turbines could generate in Vermont is not worth the price of
developing the state's mountaintops.

Wind power is one of the "25 by 25" project's six main renewable
energy resources. The others are biofuels such as ethanol,
increased efficiency, and power derived from solar, hydro power
and geothermal sources.

Including power from the massive Hydro-Quebec project, Vermont
leads the nation in its use of electricity derived from
renewable sources. But the state still consumes a lot of fuel in
cars and other places, Douglas said. And contracts with the
Canadian power company begin to expire within a few years.

"I am an enthusiastic supporter of energy-efficiency," Douglas
said.

His administration proposed increasing the budget of the state's
main energy-efficiency program by 50 percent this year, while
environmental advocates argued the budget could be tripled.

The state's Public Service Board ultimately increased the budget
by 75 percent, noting that spending more on the program might be
cost effective in the future.

Douglas also said he supported the state's clean energy fund,
which uses money from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant's parent
company, Entergy, to support renewable power projects.

But that fund — and a large part of the money to support it —
came out of a legislative negotiation with Entergy, over
administration objections, lawmakers said.

"We made that part of our legislation and part of the
negotiations," said Senate President Pro Tem Peter Welch,
D-Windsor, now a candidate for the U.S. House. "There was a
degree of apprehension in the administration about those
negotiations."

Douglas also praised the state's "net metering" program, which
allows homeowners, farmers and others to "sell" back to
utilities the power they produce through alternative energy
projects.

He said he would like to craft a program allowing schools and
municipalities in Vermont to use the net metering program and
other renewable energy programs to cut costs.

Lawmakers expanded the net metering program this year, despite
early reservations by the Douglas administration.

Indeed, several of the initiatives Douglas praised Thursday are
ideas Parker developed or worked on, either when he was in the
Legislature, at the Department of Public Service or as the head
of Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, the Democrat
said in a telephone interview.

Douglas' news conference amounted to "a ringing endorsement of
Parker initiatives," Parker said with a laugh.

"This is the triumph of packaging over performance," Parker
said. "This administration failed to take the initiative to buy
the dams on the Connecticut River and resolutely opposed any
large-scale, cost-effective, wind projects."

"He has not treated any of these as major components for a major
energy strategy for the state of Vermont," Parker said.

Douglas acknowledged wanting to move more slowly than lawmakers
on many of the renewable energy initiatives lawmakers have been
pushing for two years. "We have to be cautious," he said. "We
worked with legislators to craft compromise initiatives."

Douglas said politics was one reason legislators wanted to move
faster on some of the initiatives.

"There are always legislators in a political environment who
want to outdo the governor," he said.

Paul Burns of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group took a
different view of Douglas' role in energy initiatives in the
Statehouse.

"After opposing a number of initiatives in the Legislature, he
ultimately signed on to watered-down compromises," Burns said.

Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, chairman of the House Natural
Resources and Energy Committee, said he is happy to hear of the
governor's support for renewable energy.

"This has been a priority for the legislature despite concerns
by the administration early on," Dostis said.

Douglas' endorsement of the "25 by 25" initiative came a day
after Matthew Rubin, a state wind developer, said opposition by
the administration and the board effectively has killed large
wind development in Vermont.

Douglas said that while he opposes large-scale wind projects in
Vermont, he supports small-scale wind generation.

However the amount of power generated by such turbines is so
small, it could take as many as 1,500 of the devices to equal
the electricity from one large turbine, Dostis said. "I don't
know how we are going to do it without large-scale wind," Dostis
said of meeting the goal of increasing renewable energy
production.

No single source of power is going to meet that goal, Dostis
said. "That is why it is so important to have all of them on the
table and have all of them developed and why that should include
some industrial- size wind turbines," he said.

*****************************************************************
 11 NRC: In the Matter of Fpl Energy Duane Arnold, Llc; (Duane Arnold 
 
                        FR Doc E6-13121 
[Federal Register: August 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 155)] 
[Notices] [Page 46246-46247] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11au06-103]                         
 
Energy Center); Order Approving Application Regarding Proposed 
Corporate Merger I FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC (FPL Energy Duane 
Arnold or the licensee) is a holder of Facility Operating License 
No. DPR-49, which authorizes the possession, use, and operation 
of the Duane Arnold Energy Center (the facility). FPL Energy 
Duane Arnold is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
 
[[Page 46247]] Commission (NRC or Commission) to operate the 
facility. The facility is located at the licensee's site 8 miles 
northwest of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
 
II By application dated January 20, 2006 (the application), FPL 
Energy Duane Arnold requested that the NRC, pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.80, consent to the proposed indirect transfer of control of 
the license to the extent currently held by FPL Energy Duane 
Arnold. The other co-owners of the facility, Central Iowa Power 
Cooperative and Corn Belt Power Cooperative, are not involved in 
this action.
 
According to the application filed by FPL Energy Duane Arnold, 
FPL Energy Duane Arnold will continue to own a 70 percent 
ownership interest in the facility.
 
As stated in the application, in connection with the proposed 
merger of FPL Energy Duane Arnold's ultimate parent company, FPL 
Group, Inc. (FPL Group), and Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 
(CEG, Inc.), FPL Group will become a wholly owned subsidiary of 
CEG, Inc. At the closing of the merger, the former shareholders 
of FPL Group will own approximately 60 percent of the outstanding 
stock of CEG, Inc., and the premerger shareholders of CEG, Inc., 
will own the remaining approximately 40 percent. In addition, the 
CEG, Inc., Board of Directors will be composed of fifteen 
members, nine of whom will be named by FPL Group, and six of whom 
will be named by the current CEG, Inc.
 
Approval of the indirect transfer of the facility operating 
license was requested by FPL Energy Duane Arnold pursuant to 10 
CFR 50.80. Notice of the request for approval and an opportunity 
for a hearing was published in the Federal Register on February 
22, 2006 (71 FR 9172). No comments or petitions to intervene were 
received.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, 
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of 
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its 
consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the 
application by FPL Energy Duane Arnold and other information 
before the Commission, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed 
merger and resulting indirect transfer of control of the license 
will not affect the qualifications of FPL Energy Duane Arnold as 
holder of the facility license, and that the indirect transfer of 
control of the license as held by FPL Energy Duane Arnold, is 
otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, 
regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant 
thereto.
 
The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation 
dated August 3, 2006.
 
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i and 184 of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 
2201(b), 2201(i) and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, It Is Hereby Ordered 
that the application regarding the proposed merger and indirect 
license transfer is approved, subject to the following condition: 
Should the proposed merger not be completed within one year from 
the date of issuance, this Order shall become null and void, 
provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, 
such date may in writing be extended.
 
This Order is effective upon issuance.
 
For further details with respect to this Order, see the 
application dated January 20, 2006, and the safety evaluation 
dated August 3, 2006, which are available for public inspection 
at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One 
White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC 
Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who 
do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC 
PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, 
or by e- mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 
3rd day of August 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor 
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-13121 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 12 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice
 
                        FR Doc E6-13123 
[Federal Register: August 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 155)] 
[Notices] [Page 46248-46249] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11au06-105]                         
 
In accordance with the purposes of sections 29 and 182b. of the 
Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee 
on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on September 
7-9, 2006, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of 
this meeting was previously published in the Federal Register on 
Tuesday, November 22, 2005 (70 FR 70638).
 
Thursday, September 7, 2006, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White 
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening 
Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open): The ACRS Chairman will make 
opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
 
8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: Final Review of the License Renewal 
Application for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (Open): 
The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions 
with representatives of the NRC staff and Nuclear Management 
Company, LLC regarding the license renewal application for the 
Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant and the associated NRC 
staff's final Safety Evaluation Report.
 
10:15 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Lessons Learned from the Review of the 
Early Site Permit Applications (Open): The Committee will hear 
presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the 
NRC staff regarding the lessons learned from the review of the 
early site permit applications for the Grand Gulf, North Anna, 
and Clinton sites.
 
12:45 p.m.-2:45 p.m.: Draft Final Revision to 10 CFR 50.68, 
``Criticality Accident Requirements'' (Open): The Committee will 
hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives 
of the NRC staff regarding the draft final revision to 10 CFR 
50.68, ``Criticality Accident Requirements''.
 
3 p.m.-4 p.m.: State-of-the Art Consequence Analysis (Open): The 
Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff regarding the staff's plans to 
perform a state-of-the art consequence analysis for each site and 
compare the results with those in NUREG/CR-2239, ``Technical 
Guidance for Siting Criteria Development''.
 
4 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: EDO Response to the ACRS Report on the Review 
of Ongoing Security-Related Activities (Closed): The Committee 
will hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff 
regarding the June 29, 2006 response from the NRC Executive 
Director for Operations (EDO) to the comments and recommendations 
included in the April 24, 2006 ACRS report on Review of Ongoing 
Security-Related Activities.
 
Note: This session will be closed to protect information 
classified as National Security information as well as safeguards 
information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b( c) (1) and (3)]. 4:45 
p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open/Closed): The 
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters 
considered during this meeting.
 
Friday, September 8, 2006, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White Flint 
North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks 
by the ACRS Chairman (Open): The ACRS Chairman will make opening 
remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting.
 
8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Risk-Informed Criteria for Societal Risk 
(Open): The Committee will hear a report by and hold discussions 
with the cognizant ACRS member regarding risk-informed criteria 
for societal risk.
 
10:45 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Draft Report on the Quality Assessment of 
Selected NRC Research Projects (Open): The Committee will discuss 
a draft ACRS report on the quality assessment of the NRC research 
projects on Containment Capacity Study at Sandia National 
Laboratories and on Molten Core Coolant Interaction Study at the 
Argonne National Laboratory.
 
11:45 a.m.-12 Noon: Subcommittee Report (Open): Report by and 
discussions with the Chairman of the ACRS Subcommittee on 
Thermal- Hydraulic Phenomena regarding industry perspectives on 
PWR sump performance issues that were discussed at the August 
23-24, 2006 Subcommittee meeting.
 
1 p.m.-2 p.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the Planning and 
Procedures Subcommittee (Open): The Committee will discuss the 
recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee 
regarding items proposed for consideration by the full Committee 
during future meetings. Also, it will hear a report of the 
Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters related to the 
conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated workload and 
member assignments.
 
2 p.m.-2:15 p.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and 
Recommendations (Open): The Committee will discuss the responses 
from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and 
recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and letters.
 
2:30 p.m.-4 p.m.: Preparation for Meeting With the NRC 
Commissioners
 
[[Page 46249]] (Open): The Committee will discuss topics of 
mutual interest for ACRS meeting with the NRC Commissioners that 
is scheduled for Friday, October 20, 2006.
 
4:15 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open/Closed): The 
Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports.
 
Saturday, September 9, 2006, Conference Room T-2b3, Two White 
Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.: 
Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open): The Committee will continue 
discussion of proposed ACRS reports.
 
12:30 p.m.-1 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open): The Committee will 
discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities 
and matters and specific issues that were not completed during 
previous meetings, as time and availability of information 
permit.
 
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings 
were published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2005 (70 
FR 56936). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written 
views may be presented by members of the public, including 
representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting. 
Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the 
Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if 
possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow 
necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of 
still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting 
may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined 
by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside 
for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the Cognizant ACRS 
staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the 
schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as 
necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons 
planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if 
such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience.
 
In accordance with subsection 10(d) Public Law 92-463, I have 
determined that it will be necessary to close a portion of this 
meeting noted above to discuss and protect information classified 
as National Security information as well as safeguards 
information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and (3). Further 
information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting 
has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's 
ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements 
and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Mr. 
Sam Duraiswamy, Cognizant ACRS staff (301-415-7364), between 7:30 
a.m. and 4:15 p.m., ET. ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, 
and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document 
Room at , or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from the 
Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's 
document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site 
at  or ding-rm/doc- Videoteleconferencing service is available 
for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to 
use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. 
Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), 
between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., ET, at least 10 days before the 
meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals 
or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for 
telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and 
facilities that they use to establish the videoteleconferencing 
link. The availability of videoteleconferencing services is not 
guaranteed.
 
Dated: August 7, 2006.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E6-13123 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Receipt and 
 
                        FR Doc E6-13124 
[Federal Register: August 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 155)] 
[Notices] [Page 46245] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11au06-100]                         
 
Availability of Application for Renewal of James A. FitzPatrick 
Nuclear Power Plant (Facility Operating License No. Dpr-59) for 
an Additional 20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated 
July 31, 2006, from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., filed 
pursuant to Section 104(b) (Operating License No. DPR-59) of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations Part 54 (10 CFR Part 54), to renew the 
operating license for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power 
Plant. Renewal of the license would authorize the applicant to 
operate the facility for an additional 20-year period beyond the 
period specified in the current operating license. The current 
operating license for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power 
Plant (DPR-59) expires on October 17, 2014. The James A. 
FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant is a boiling- water reactor 
designed by General Electric. The unit is located near the town 
of Lycoming, New York. The acceptability of the tendered 
application for docketing, and other matters including an 
opportunity to request a hearing, will be the subject of 
subsequent Federal Register notices.
 
Copies of the application are available for public inspection at 
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland, 20582 or electronically from the NRC's Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room under Accession Number ML062160486. The ADAMS Public 
Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. In addition, the 
application is available on the NRC Web page at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati 
on.html. while the application is under review. Persons who do 
not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing 
the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR 
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, extension 301-415-4737, or by 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. A copy of the license renewal application 
for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, is also 
available to local residents near the James A. FitzPatrick 
Nuclear Power Plant at the Penfield Library (Selective 
Depository), Reference and Documents Department, State University 
of New York, Oswego, New York 13126.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of August 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Pao-Tsin Kuo, Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-13124 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 14 NRC: In the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company; (Turkey Point 
 
                        FR Doc E6-13125 
[Federal Register: August 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 155)] 
[Notices] [Page 46245-46246] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11au06-101]                         
 
Plant, Unit Nos. 3 And 4); Order Approving Application Regarding 
Corporate Merger I Florida Power and Light Company (FPL or the 
licensee) is the holder of the Facility Operating Licenses, Nos. 
DPR-31 and DPR-41, which authorize the possession, use, and 
operation of the Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4 (the 
facility). FPL is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or Commission) to operate the facility. The 
facility is located at the licensee's site in Miami-Dade County, 
Florida.
 
II By application dated January 20, 2006 (the application), FPL 
requested that the NRC, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, consent to the 
proposed indirect transfer of control of the licenses for the 
facility.
 
According to the application filed by FPL, the facility is wholly 
owned by FPL.
 
As stated in the application, in connection with the proposed 
merger of FPL's parent company, FPL Group, Inc. (FPL Group), and 
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (CEG, Inc.), FPL Group will 
become a wholly owned subsidiary of CEG, Inc. At the closing of 
the merger, the former shareholders of FPL Group will own 
approximately 60 percent of the outstanding stock of CEG, Inc., 
and the premerger shareholders of CEG, Inc., will own the 
remaining approximately 40 percent. In addition, the CEG, Inc., 
Board of Directors will be composed of fifteen members, nine of 
whom will be named by FPL Group, and six of whom will be named by 
the current CEG, Inc.
 
Approval of the indirect transfer of the facility operating 
licenses was requested by FPL pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80. Notice of 
the request for approval and an opportunity for a hearing was 
published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2006 (71 FR 
9170). No comments or petitions to intervene were received.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, 
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of 
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its 
consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the 
application by FPL and other information before the Commission, 
the NRC staff concludes that the proposed merger and resulting 
indirect transfer of control of the licenses will not affect the 
qualifications of FPL as a holder of the facility licenses, and 
that the indirect transfer of control of the license as held by 
FPL, is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, 
regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant 
thereto.
 
The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation 
dated August 3, 2006.
 
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 
2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, It is 
hereby ordered that the application regarding the proposed merger 
and indirect license transfer is approved, subject to the 
following conditions: (1) FPL shall provide the Director of the 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a copy of any application, 
at the time it is filed, to transfer (excluding grants of 
security interests or liens) from FPL to its parent, or to any 
other affiliated company, facilities for the production, 
transmission, or distribution of electric energy having a 
depreciated book value exceeding ten percent (10%) of FPL's net 
utility plant, as recorded on its books of accounts.
 
(2) Should the proposed merger not be completed within one year 
from the date of issuance, this Order shall become null and void, 
provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, 
such date may, in writing, be extended.
 
This Order is effective upon issuance.
 
 
[[Page 46246]] For further details with respect to this Order, 
see the application dated January 20, 2006, and the safety 
evaluation dated August 3, 2006, which are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible 
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the 
Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e- mail 
to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day of 
August 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor 
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-13125 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 15 NRC: In the Matter of Florida Power And Light Company (St. Lucie 
 
                        FR Doc E6-13126 
[Federal Register: August 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 155)] 
[Notices] [Page 46246] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11au06-102]                         
 
Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2); Order Approving Application 
Regarding Proposed Corporate Merger I Florida Power and Light 
Company (FPL or the licensee) exclusively holds Facility 
Operating License No. DPR-67 and co-holds Facility Operating 
License No. NPF-16, which authorize the possession, use, and 
operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (the 
facility). FPL is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or Commission) to operate the facility. The 
facility is located at the licensee's site in St. Lucie County, 
Florida. II By application dated January 20, 2006 (the 
application), FPL requested that the NRC, pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.80, consent to the proposed indirect transfer of control of 
the licenses to the extent currently held by FPL. The Orlando 
Utilities Commission of the City of Orlando, Florida, and the 
Florida Municipal Power Agency collectively hold a 14.9 percent 
ownership interest in St. Lucie Unit 2, but are not involved in 
this action.
 
According to the application filed by FPL, St. Lucie Unit 1 is 
wholly owned by FPL and St. Lucie Unit 2 is 85.1 percent owned by 
FPL.
 
As stated in the application, in connection with the proposed 
merger of FPL's parent company, FPL Group, Inc. (FPL Group), and 
Constellation Energy Group, Inc. (CEG, Inc.), FPL Group will 
become a wholly owned subsidiary of CEG, Inc. At the closing of 
the merger, the former shareholders of FPL Group will own 
approximately 60 percent of the outstanding stock of CEG, Inc., 
and the premerger shareholders of CEG, Inc., will own the 
remaining approximately 40 percent. In addition, the CEG, Inc., 
Board of Directors will be composed of fifteen members, nine of 
whom will be named by FPL Group, and six of whom will be named by 
the current CEG, Inc.
 
Approval of the indirect transfer of the facility operating 
licenses was requested by FPL pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80. Notice of 
the request for approval and an opportunity for a hearing was 
published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2006 (71 FR 
9171). No comments or petitions to intervene were received.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, 
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of 
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its 
consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the 
application by FPL and other information before the Commission, 
the NRC staff concludes that the proposed merger and resulting 
indirect transfer of control of the licenses will not affect the 
qualifications of FPL as holder of the facility licenses, and 
that the indirect transfer of control of the licenses as held by 
FPL, is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, 
regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant 
thereto.
 
The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation 
dated August 3, 2006.
 
III Accordingly, pursuant to sections 161b, 161i, 161o, and 184 
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 
2201(b), 2201(i), 2201(o), and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, It is 
hereby ordered that the application regarding the proposed merger 
and indirect license transfers is approved, subject to the 
following conditions: (1) FPL shall provide the Director of the 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a copy of any application, 
at the time it is filed, to transfer (excluding grants of 
security interests or liens) from FPL to its parent, or to any 
other affiliated company, facilities for the production, 
transmission, or distribution of electric energy having a 
depreciated book value exceeding ten percent (10%) of FPL's net 
utility plant, as recorded on its books of accounts.
 
(2) Should the proposed merger not be completed within one year 
from the date of issuance, this Order shall become null and void, 
provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, 
such date may, in writing, be extended.
 
This Order is effective upon issuance.
 
For further details with respect to this Order, see the 
application dated January 20, 2006, and the safety evaluation 
dated August 3, 2006, which are available for public inspection 
at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One 
White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC 
Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who 
do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC 
PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, 
or by e- mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 
3rd day of August 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor 
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-13126 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 16 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on 
 
                        FR Doc E6-13129 
[Federal Register: August 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 155)] 
[Notices] [Page 46249] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11au06-106]                         
 
Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee 
on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on September 6, 
2006, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b ( c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel 
matters that relate solely to the internal personnel rules and 
practices of the ACRS, and information the release of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 
Wednesday, September 6, 2006, 11 a.m.-12 Noon The Subcommittee 
will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The 
Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Sam Duraiswamy (telephone: 301-415-7364) between 7:30 a.m. 
and 4:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, 
so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the 
meeting that are open to the public.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged 
to contact the above named individual at least two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in 
the agenda.
 
Dated: August 7, 2006.
 
Antonio F. Dias, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E6-13129 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 17 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, Subcommittee on Early 
 
                        FR Doc E6-13130 
[Federal Register: August 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 155)] 
[Notices] [Page 46249-46250] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11au06-107]                         
 
Site Permits; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Early 
Site Permits will hold a meeting on September 6, 2006, Room 
T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 
Wednesday, September 6, 2006--1 p.m. Until the Conclusion of 
Business The Subcommittee will review and develop 
``Lessons-Learned'' items as a result of the three (North Anna, 
Grand Gulf, and Clinton) early site permits reviews. The 
Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff, Dominion Nuclear North Anna, 
LLC (Dominion), System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI), Exelon 
Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), Southern Nuclear Operating 
Company, Inc. (Southern), and other interested persons regarding 
this matter. The
 
[[Page 46250]] Subcommittee will gather information, analyze 
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and 
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. David C. Fischer (telephone 301/415-6889) five days prior to 
the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be 
made. Electronic recordings will be permitted.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged 
to contact the above named individual at least two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to 
the agenda.
 
Dated: August 7, 2006.
 
Antonio F. Dias, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E6-13130 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: In the Matter of FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station,
 
                        FR Doc E6-13131 
[Federal Register: August 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 155)] 
[Notices] [Page 46247-46248] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11au06-104]                         
 
Unit No. 1); Order Approving Application Regarding Proposed 
Corporate Merger I FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (FPL Energy Seabrook 
or the licensee) is a holder of Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-86, which authorizes the possession, use, and operation of 
the Seabrook Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook or the facility). FPL 
Energy Seabrook is licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or Commission) to operate the facility. The 
facility is located at the licensee's site 13 miles south of 
Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
 
II By application dated January 20, 2006 (the application), FPL 
Energy Seabrook requested that the NRC, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, 
consent to the proposed indirect transfer of control of the 
license to the extent currently held by FPL Energy Seabrook. The 
other co-owners of the facility, Hudson Light & Power Department, 
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, and Taunton 
Municipal Light Plant, are not involved in this action.
 
According to the application filed by FPL Energy Seabrook, FPL 
Energy Seabrook will continue to own an 88.23 percent ownership 
interest in the facility.
 
As stated in the application, in connection with the proposed 
merger of FPL Energy Seabrook's ultimate parent company, FPL 
Group, Inc. (FPL Group), and Constellation Energy Group, Inc. 
(CEG, Inc.), FPL Group will become a wholly owned subsidiary of 
CEG, Inc. At the closing of the merger, the former shareholders 
of FPL Group will own approximately 60 percent of the outstanding 
stock of CEG, Inc., and the premerger shareholders of CEG, Inc., 
will own the remaining approximately 40 percent. In addition, the 
CEG, Inc., Board of Directors will be composed of fifteen 
members, nine of whom will be named by FPL Group, and six of whom 
will be named by the current CEG, Inc.
 
Approval of the indirect transfer of the facility operating 
license was requested by FPL Energy Seabrook pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.80. Notice of the request for approval and an opportunity for 
a hearing was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 
2006 (71 FR 9173). No comments or petitions to intervene were 
received.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, 
shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of 
control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its 
consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the 
application by FPL Energy Seabrook and other information before 
the Commission, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed merger 
and resulting indirect transfer of control of the license will 
not affect the qualifications of FPL Energy Seabrook as a holder 
of the facility license, and
 
[[Page 46248]] that the indirect transfer of control of the 
license as held by FPL Energy Seabrook, is otherwise consistent 
with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued 
by the Commission pursuant thereto.
 
The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation 
dated August 3, 2006.
 
III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 161b, 161i and 184 of the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 
2201(b), 2201(i) and 2234; and 10 CFR 50.80, it is hereby ordered 
that the application regarding the proposed merger and indirect 
license transfer is approved, subject to the following condition: 
Should the proposed merger not be completed within one year from 
the date of issuance, this Order shall become null and void, 
provided, however, upon written application and good cause shown, 
such date may in writing be extended.
 
This Order is effective upon issuance.
 
For further details with respect to this Order, see the 
application dated January 20, 2006, and the safety evaluation 
dated August 3, 2006, which are available for public inspection 
at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One 
White Flint North, Public File Area 01 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike 
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland and accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC 
Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who 
do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC 
PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, 
or by E- mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 
3rd day of August 2006.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor 
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E6-13131 Filed 8-10-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 19 CMMWO: New PBMR applications, test facilities progress

Creamer Media's Mining Weekly Online, South African Mining News

'Brent Hegger'

 South Africas cutting-edge nucleartechnology, the pebble-bed 
modularreactor (PBMR), is attracting interest for process-heat 
applications.

We have a team working on technicalconcepts and a business case
for usingPBMRs for several process-heat applications, including
desalination, hydrogen production, and multipurpose industrial
and resource-extraction applications, and we hope this will be
finished by October, reveals PBMR construction projects group
project director Brent Hegger.

Desalination would be a spin-off of process-heat plant
applications of the PBMR, he points out.

(On process-heat applications for the PBMR, see Engineering News
March 31, 2006.) Weve always believed that
process-heatapplications would be as big a market for the PBMR
as power generation, he affirms.

The development of the PBMR programme continues with further
major milestoneslikely to be achieved in the remainder of this
year.

The heat-transfer test facility (HTTF) iscurrently under
construction at the new nuclear engineering building on the
campus of the North West University (NWU), in Potchefstroom.

The HTTF will comprise two modules, namely the high-pressure
test unit (HPTU)and the high-temperature test unit (HTTU).

The first module, the HPTU, should becommissioned by September
while the second, the HTTU, is scheduled for commissioning in
July next year, he reports.

NWU has played a major role in research, development, test and
evaluation for the PBMR programme, and hosts the Pebble-Bed
Micro Model facility (PBMM).

The misnamed PBMM  its actually quite large  allows the
simulation of virtuallyall aspects of the PBMR outside of the
actual reactor.

The HTTF will simulate key aspects of the reactor itself.

The HPTU and the HTTU will both be simulations of parts of the
reactor, and will both serve to demonstrate one of the
mostimportant characteristics of the PBMR  its passive
cooling, explains Hegger.

The two units will verify the PBMRspassive heat removal
mechanisms.

One of the attractions of the PBMR is thatit cannot have a
meltdown  if all the cooling and control systems fail, it
cannot overheatbeyond 1 400 ÚC and would effectively shutitself
down.

Meanwhile, the Helium Test Facility (HTF) is nearing completion
at the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation complex at
Pelindaba.

The HTF uses helium to test most of the major components of the
PBMR.

Commissioning of the first phase of the HTF will take place in
September; the facility will be developed in three phases, he
states.

With the construction of the HTF, we achieved 200 000
injury-free hours, although an unfortunate incident resulting in
a workers breaking his little finger while torquing a bolt has
interrupted the excellent record so far, he recounts.   
    
Published: 2006/08/11     

  Author: Keith Campbell
Portfolio: Senior Contributing Editor
E-mail: newsdesk@engineeringnews.co.za  
*****************************************************************
 20 CMMWO: Pilot PBMR fuel plant on the horizon

 Creamer Media's Mining Weekly Online, South African Mining News

  The PBMR company is busy with the process of declaring its
detailed baseline design for the pilot fuel plant to supply the
Pebble-Bed Modular-Rector (PBMR) demonstration power plant (DPP).

Were already in the market for acquiring equipment relevant to
the production of nuclear fuel, highlights PBMR construction
projects group project pirector Brent Hegger.

This process will probably continue for the next nine to twelve
months, he reports.

The pilot fuel plant will be built at the South African Nuclear
Energy Corporation (Necsa) complex at Pelindaba, but
construction will not start until the PBMR company gets all the
necessary licences and permits from the Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the National Nuclear
Regulator.

 Once we have all these appro- vals, we are looking at a
24-month building programme for the pilot fuel plant, he states.

This will be followed by an extensive commissioning period
culminating in delivery of qualified fuel to meet loading of the
pebble-bed demonstration reactor. The engineering procurement
and construction management contract for the plant has been
awarded to Uhde of South Africa, part of the ThyssenKrupp
Engineering group, in Germany.

At this time, it would be speculative to confirm a date for the
start of operations at the plant, which must be aligned to the
start of the DPP commissioning, he cautions.

The fuel for the PBMR will be in the form of spheres, composed
of a uranium-dioxide core, enveloped by layers of carbon and
silicon carbide, all coated with graphite.

Each sphere will be about 60 mm in diameter.

The pilot fuel plant will manu- facture these spheres using low-
enriched uranium imported from abroad, at this stage from Russia.

Although South African is a uranium-mining country, there is
currently no enrichment capacity in this country  the
enrichment capacity developed during the 1970s and 1980s was
completely destroyed in the early 1990s.

Initially, the pilot fuel plant will produce about 270 000
spheres a year, but it will have a built-in pro- vision to
double this, reveals Hegger.

 The pilot fuel plant will have about 50 operations staff.

The companys fuel division could ultimately employ several
hundred, including research and development staff.

While the pilot fuel plant will initially support just the DPP,
it will subsquently also serve to support the first commercial
sales of the PBMR.

But, even at 540 000 spheres a year, it still would not be a
commercial plant, although it would be big enough to support our
early sales, he explains.

In time, we would need to develop a commercial plant, which
would probably produce between one-million and two-million
spheres annually, he elucidates.

Commercial fuel plants will be highly automated  more so than
the pilot plant.   
    

Published: 2006/08/11     Printer friendly: [View this article
  Author: Keith Campbell
Portfolio: Senior Contributing Editor
E-mail: newsdesk@engineeringnews.co.za  

*****************************************************************
 21 CMMWO: How PBMRs work
                        
 Creamer Media's Mining Weekly Online, South African Mining News

  Although derived from German technology, successfully
pioneered by that countrys AVR reactor, which operated from
1960 to 1989, South Africas version of the Pebble-Bed Modular
Reactor (PBMR) incorporates locally-developed, unique, and
patented innovations, especially with regard to the power
conversion system. The result is that South Africas PBMR is now
far in advance of the orginal AVR. Indeed, last year, the chief
scientific adviser to the British government, Sir David King,
stated, I personally think that the PBMR is a very advanced
design. The PBMR gets its name from the form of its fuel, which
comes in spheres, each some 60 mm in diameter, and the modular
configuration of the commercial plant. These fuel spheres, or
pebbles, are fed into the reactor  which is shielded by a
graphite moderator. With helium used as coolant, the fission
pro-cess in the uranium dioxide in the pebbles heats the helium,
which leaves the reactor chamber, and, in the direct-cycle
South African design, expands over the power turbine that drives
the generator. The gas leaving the power turbine is then cooled
by a precooler before being compressed and cooled again by the
intercooler before it is finally compressed to the final 9 MPa
opera-ting pressure. The energy remaining in the gas, after
leaving the power turbine, is exchanged to the gas leaving the
compressor in a recuperator before returning to the reactor. The
intercooler and recuperator ensure that a high effciency is
obtained from the direct cycle configuration.

Meanwhile, the fuel pebbles are continuously cycled through the
reactor until its specified burn-up condition has been achieved.
A fuel pebbles final burn-up condition is achieved after about
six passes through the reactor and is then regarded as spent
fuel. The spent fuel is stored in specially designed storage
tanks where it can be kept for the 40-year operating life of the
plant. One of the main safety features of the PBMR is that it
cannot reach a meltdown state  even if all the cooling
mechanisms and shutdown systems should fail. This is achieved by
the geometric layout of the reactor that ensures low energy
density in the core during upset conditions, and the reactors
negative temperature coefficient would effectively shut itself
down. A PBMR module consisting of a single reactor is relatively
small in terms of output, at about 400 MWth and 165 MWe. The
commercial PBMR plants consist of multiples of modules,
increasing the power output versus plant footprint and size.

As is now well known, the Germans also sold PBMR technology to
China during the 1970s, although, for reasons unknown, the
Chinese progressed slowly with the technology, although they now
have a small, 10 MWth, prototype gas-cooled reactor, using
pebble fuel, running. Both the South African and Chinese plan to
have full-scale demonstration plants come into operation after
2010. As Chinas domestic energy demand is so great (they will
have to install a minimum of 20 000 MWe of power by 2020, with
the result that any Chinese production of pebble-bed-type
reactors will be entirely soaked up by their domestic markets
for many years, if not decades), the South Africans and Chinese
have realised that they are not competi-tors and early last year
signed a memorandum of understanding on cooperating in the
development of HTR technology. The Chinese HTR technology is
believed still to be close to the original German technology. In
contrast to the South African design, the German/Chinese system
uses an indirect cycle where water is heated in a separate
circuit through a gas-to-water heat exchanger generating steam
that drives the power turbine. As with the PBMR, the gas is
heated in the core through the fission process in the fuel and
then passed through a heat exchanger, or steam generator, where
water running in a separate circuit is heated to superheated
steam. This steam is then used to power steam turbines, before
being cooled back into water and recycled again according to the
conventional steam cycle. The South African PBMR as well as the
Chinese design falls into the category of high-temperature
gas-cooled reactors (HTR for short), but the difference is that
the South Afircan version is a world first in using a
recuperative Brayton direct cycle. Whether in its South African
or Chinese forms, these reactors are not the only modular HTR
designs being developed. The rival modular HTR design to the
PBMR is the Gas Turbine Modu-lar Helium Reactor (GT-MHR); this
is being developed by an international consortium led by General
Atomics, of the US, and OKBM, of Russia. This would employ
prismatic fuel instead of pebble fuel, pris-matic fuel being
composed of hexagonal blocks, each about 35 cm wide and 75 cm
high. The GT-MHR will use a pris-matic core and a closed-cycle
gas turbine, with a thermal power of about 600 MWt and a net
electrical output of some 280 MWe. Interestingly, the initial
use of the GT-MHR is proposed to be a means of consuming
plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons while also generating
electricity  a specialised application not rivalling the PBMR 
but future development is aimed at a purely commercial version
which would use low enriched uranium fuel, that could be a rival
to the PBMR. Japan already has an operational prototype
prismatic HTR  the High-Temperature Engineering Test Reactor,
which achieved initial operational capability in 1998. It is
intended to support the development of high-temperature process
heat and closed-cycle gasturbine technology. The South Africans
and the Chinese are both convinced that the pebble-fuel design
is far superior to the prismatic-fuel design, as it allows daily
on-line refuelling while the reactor is running at full power,
thus requiring maintenance shutdown only once every six years.
In contrast, the GT-MHR requires regular shutdowns for
refuelling purposes as for conventional nuclear power plants.
The main advantage of all modular HTR designs is that they
assure the retention of their radioactive fission products by
inherent and passive means. This offers the promise of
economically-competitive electricity generation with
modestly-sized units, which would be suitable for construction
and use in both developed and developing countries. Their
combination of small plant size in commercial configuration and
high-temperature potential also makes them suitable for nonpower
generation applications, such as the production of process heat
in petro-chemical and hydrogen-generation applications.
Provided all goes well, in 10 to 15 years, the PBMR could turn
out to be a big winner, forecasts King.   
    
  Author: Keith Campbell
Portfolio: Senior Contributing Editor
E-mail: newsdesk@engineeringnews.co.za  

*****************************************************************
 22 THISDAY ONLINE: Nigeria pushes for nuclear power

The Atomic Energy Commission

/www.thisdayonline.com

 08.10.2006

Last week, President Olusegun Obasanjo inaugurated the board of
Nigeria Atomic Energy Commission (NAEC), signaling the nation’s
desire to explore and exploit the benefits of atomic energy for
the socio-economic development of the country. 

The move, no doubt, is a welcome development, considering the
apparent   shortcomings of the country’s energy policy mix. The
president himself captured this in his speech on the occasion
when he said: "We have activated the focal point and specialised
agency of government, which will serve as the vehicle mandated
by law to promote, co-ordinate and streamline the implementation
of our national nuclear energy  programme. It also further
confirms the strong belief that with sustained consistency, the
frontiers of development are within the reach of any determined
and committed society driven by science and technology, and
imbued with the vision to uplift its citizenry to a state of
prosperity."

That was well spoken except that the activation that the
President spoke of is coming, as it were, near the end of his
administration. For an agency that was first set up in 1976,
NAEC has had no traction in terms of realising its enormous
potential to move the nation’s energy sector forward.

Nonetheless, if the government would give the agency the
attention it deserves, so much can still be achieved in the
foreseeable future.

As President Obasanjo rightly observed, in addition to
electricity generation, the nuclear energy project will also be
useful for other civilian uses like food security, irrigation,
scientific research, medicine and in the manufacturing industry.

It is no wonder therefore that dozens of countries around the
world are embarking on nuclear energy projects regardless of the
concerns of the more industrialized nations over possible abuse
of the scheme for military purposes. Nigeria must be mindful of
this in executing its own project. One way to do this is to
comply with the rules of all existing protocols to which it is a
signatory.

The president has already charged the federal ministries of
science and technology, power and steel, and justice to develop
the requisite framework for the project. They must take this
charge seriously and pursue it to  logical conclusion. 

The NAEC could also take advantage of the new policy of the
United States - the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - that
favours the use of nuclear electricity while guarding against
the conversion of atomic power for military purposes. 

The agency need not be reminded that the threat of nuclear
weapons proliferation is a thorny issue in international
diplomacy today, one that makes global peace even more fragile.

It is, therefore, crucial that it is seen to be mindful of the
controversy surrounding nuclear programmes. Since Nigeria's
foreign policy abhors belligerence, we expect that the NAEC
would respect the provisions of the Nuclear Non-proliferation
Treaty of the United Nations (UN).

If that is done, the agency should execute the onerous task of
lifting the country out of its present antiquated energy
profile. It is sad to note that while much of the world has
embraced nuclear technology to improve their standard of living,
particularly in energy supply, Nigeria still depends heavily on
hydro-electricity. Even the experiment with gas-powered
electricity is yet to make the desired impact. Here, then, is
the chance to overcome our perennial problem of epileptic power
supply. There is no excuse for failure since the president heads
the NAEC  Board. 

Even so there has been concern over the advisability of the
president himself taking up such an arduous responsibility in
addition to his busy schedules. The president is already heading
a number of such special task forces including the ministries of
defence, petroleum resources and that for Coastal Areas
development.  It would require super-human endowments to cope
effectively with the demands of these responsibilities. But,
whichever way the president chooses to supervise the NAEC, he
should not lose sight of the momentous duty before his
government. The nuclear energy agenda should not be allowed to
become dormant, like some other projects embarked upon in the
past by government. Rather, it should be speeded up so that
Nigeria can begin to reap the enormous benefits derivable from
it. 

© Copyright 2000-2006 Leaders & Company Limited
*****************************************************************
 23 Russia Newswire: OMZ Creates Joint Working Group with Nuclear and 
Energy Machine Building and Gazprombank

Date:     11/08/2006                                                  

MOSCOW – OMZ (Uralmash-Izhora Group) (RTS: OMZZ; LSE: OMZD;
OTC: UHMVY), reports that on 8 July 2006 it created a working
group jointly with Nuclear and Energy Machine Building OJSC and
Gazprombank ZAO, OMZ’s financial consultant, with the aim of
finding the most effective means of cooperation between state
and private companies in the nuclear energy machine building
sector.
 
The Board of Directors of OMZ stresses the leading OMZ role in
this process. Sergey Skaterschikov, independent member of the
Board of Directors, OMZ, said: “The Board of Directors of OMZ
formed in June 2006 is working now on the development of the
company’s strategy. It is aimed at raising the company’s
value and strengthening of its competitive advantages in
metallurgy, heavy engineering and special engineering. The Board
of Directors plans to formulate and communicate the main
directions of the Group’s strategic development by late
autumn, including core alliances and other potential deals.”
 
Currently OMZ is focused on a program related to the
optimization of business processes. The program is aimed at
raising the company’s efficiency and investment
attractiveness. Implementation of the program was one of the key
factors in the positive trend of OMZ performance in 2005.
 
OMZ (Uralmash-Izhora Group) is one of the largest Russian heavy
industry enterprises. It specializes in engineering, production,
sales and maintenance of equipment and machines for the nuclear
power industry, and also in the production of special steels and
rendering of industrial services. The company includes OMZ
NPPEQ, OMZ-Specstal, OMZ-Mining Equipment and Engineering,
OMZ-Uralmash and OMZ-Non-Core Business divisions. OMZ
divisions’ facilities are located in Russia (Uralmash and
Izhorskiye Zavody) and the Czech Republic (Skoda Steel and Skoda
JS).					   							 								 								 				

About OMZ                                                       

OMZ (Uralmash-Izhora Group) is one of the largest heavy industry 
enterprises in Russia. It specializes in engineering, 
manufacturing, sales and maintenance of plant, equipment and 
machinery for the nuclear power industry, and also producing 
special steels and providing industrial services. The company 
comprises the divisions of OMZ NPPEQ, OMZ- Spetsstal, OMZ-MINEQ 
and OMZ Uralmash-Promuslugi, located in Russia – at Uralmash 
and Izhorskiye Zavody – and in the Czech Republic – at Skoda 
Steel and Skoda JS.                                                                                                                             

© 2004-2006 Russia Newswire   
*****************************************************************
 24 PRN: On-Site Voluntary Search Reveals Small Quantity of Tritium at Kewaunee Power Station 
     
PR Newswire

This is the logo for Dominion (NYSE: D), the United States' 
largest fully integrated natural gas and electric power company. 
The company's major subsidiaries are Dominion Energy, Dominion 
Exploration &Production, Dominion Retail, Dominion Virginia 
Power, Dominion North Carolina Power, Dominion East Ohio, 
Dominion Peoples, and Dominion Hope. Dominion's headquarters is 
in Richmond, Va. For more information, visit the company's 
Internet site atwww.dom.com. (PRNewsFoto/Dominion) 

RICHMOND, VA UNITED STATES 06/12/2006
   
* No threat to public or station employees
* Findings limited to small area underneath station site
* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, state and counties notified

    CARLTON, Wis., Aug. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- Dominion said Friday 
it has found a small quantity of tritium in samples of water 
taken from a location directly beneath Kewaunee Power Station. 
The tritium found in this case poses no threat to station 
employees or the public. Other monitoring programs have found no 
indication of that minor level beyond a small area underneath the 
station.

    (Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20000831/DLOGO )

    Tritium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen and is 
also produced by nuclear reactor operations. It is commonly found 
in water and generally is not considered hazardous. The samples 
containing small quantities of tritium are not from a drinking 
water source.

    The company is evaluating the possible source of this 
tritium, which was detected in water samples obtained as part of 
an enhanced voluntary monitoring program initiated by the nuclear 
industry.

    The findings were reported to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission as well as officials of Wisconsin, Kewaunee County and 
Manitowoc County.

    Dominion (NYSE: D) is one of the nation's largest producers 
of energy, with an energy portfolio of about 28,000 megawatts of 
generation. Dominion also serves retail energy customers in 10 
states. For more information about Dominion and electrical 
safety, visit the company's Web site at http://www.dom.com. 
SOURCE Dominion


Related links:

+ http://www.dom.com
 Photo Notes:http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20000831/DLOGO
AP Archive: http://photoarchive.ap.orgPRN Photo Desk
photodesk@prnewswire.com
 
Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 UPI: Britain fines two nuclear operators
     
   United Press International - NewsTrack - 

8/11/2006 5:56:00 PM -0400
 
LONDON, Aug. 11 (UPI) -- Britain has fined two nuclear plant
operators $3.8 million each over spillage of radioactive
materials. 

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority fined BNG Sellafield after
a mixture of radioactive fuel and concentrated nitric acid
leaked from a pipe at its Thorp reprocessing plant, the Guardian
reported Friday. 

The NDA also fined the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
for a spill while radioactive liquid was being mixed with cement
at Dounreay. 

"The NDA has made clear its absolute commitment to the highest
standards for health and safety, security and protection of the
environment and expects contractors to deliver sustained
excellence in (these areas)," the NDA said in a statement.


© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 26 UPI: Security lapses at Seabrook nuclear plant
     
   United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 

8/11/2006 2:12:00 PM -0400

The NRC is proposing a $65,000 fine. 

Service Employees International Union reported Aug. 9 that 
Florida Power and Light, which owns and operates Seabrook, 
subcontracts security at the facility to the Wackenhut 
Corporation, a subsidiary of London's Group 4 Securicor. 

Wackenhut is the U.S. government's largest contractor for private 
guards. Wackenhut currently has multi-million dollar contracts 
with a number of federal agencies, including the Department of 
Energy. 

Wackenhut security personnel guard nearly half the nation's 
commercial nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons sites, where 
there have +been numerous security problems reported. 

The NRC fine was issued for Florida Power and Light failing to 
"maintain complete and accurate records of test results." 

The Department of Homeland Security recently terminated 
Wackenhut's $9.6 million annual contract to protect its 
Washington headquarters. 

Service Employees International Union Director of Property 
Services Stephen Lerner said, "Wackenhut has again demonstrated 
an inability to play by the rules and provide adequate security. 
Until the NRC takes action against this irresponsible contractor, 
the public can have little confidence that our nation's nuclear 
facilities are safe and secure."

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
 27 The Times of India: N-plants turned into fortresses after US alert

12 Aug, 2006| Updated at 							0120hrs IST       

Srinivas Laxman

MUMBAI: Soon after the US embassy issued a warning about a
possible terror attack on government establishments in New Delhi
and Mumbai, the nation's 25 nuclear installations — where
security had already been tightened in the wake of the Mumbai
blasts — have literally turned into fortresses. 

"We are further scaling up security and it has now become
visible," an official at Kalpakkam atomic units at Kalpakkam
near Chennai told TOI. As part of this exercise, about 30
commandos are being air dashed from New Delhi to Kalpakkam,
where security is now handled by the CISF. 

The nuclear establishment at Kalpakkam consists of five units.
These are the Madras Atomic Power Project, Indira Gandhi Centre
for Atomic Research, some facilities of the Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre, the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor project and
the Safety Research Institute which is part of the Atomic Energy
Regulatory Board. 

According to nuclear experts, some of these units are of
strategic importance and, therefore, could become targets for
terror groups. Indian nuclear establishments are particularly
attractive terror targets because they serve both the military
and civilian sectors. 

"The process of separation, which is the main part of the
Indo-US deal, is not complete and most nuclear power plants at
the moment also have some defence role," an expert said. 

To cite an example, the third and fourth units of Tarapur Atomic
Power Station near Mumbai are outside the civilian list. 

The expert claimed that in the event of a terror strike damaging
a reactor, the surrounding population could be exposed to high
radiation. 

Nuclear scientists, however, rebuff this claim and maintain that
in the remote possibility of such an attack, the reactors are
designed to remain intact and there will be no radiation leak. 

A nuclear scientist even speculated that the US may have issued
the terror warning in order to have some say in the security
arrangements of India's nuclear units. 

Authorities are taking no chances. At BARC in Mumbai, the most
sensitive atomic installation in the country since it's a
nuclear weapon laboratory, security has been further tightened.
"We have gone on a special alert and are taking no chances,"
said an official.   
        
Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 28 BBC: Workers (Dounreay Exposure)
 
Last Updated: Friday, 11 August 2006
 
[Dounreay Nuclear Power Plant]                                  

The two workers from Dounreay are waiting the results of tests                                                          

Two workers at Dounreay are undergoing tests following concerns 
they have been exposed to a radioactive metal. 

The checks follow the results of routine biological samples taken 
from individuals who work in the nuclear site's fuel cycle area. 

One works for site operator the United Kingdom Atomic Energy 
Authority and the other for a contractor. 

A Dounreay spokesman said it could take some time before 
follow-up test results for plutonium were known. 

The suspected intake of plutonium has been reported to the 
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety 
Executive.                                                       



*****************************************************************
 29 FOXNews.com: No Damage Feared After Radioactive Steam Leak at
Japan Nuclear Plant - 

Friday, August 11, 2006                                                                                                                          

TOKYO — A negligible amount of radioactive steam released at a 
nuclear plant in northern Japan escaped outside the compound, but 
there is no fear of damage to environment, operator Tokyo 
Electric Power Co. said Friday.          
	 	 		 			 			 				 
An increase in the level of tritium was detected during an air 
sampling outside the plant on Sunday, and the operator later 
found out that radioactive material was leaking in steam from the 
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, about 240 kilometers 
(150 miles) northeast of Tokyo, the company said.
 			 			 				 			 			 				 
The amount of the leak, however, was negligible and left no 
damage to the environment outside the plant, it said.
 			 			 				 					 





*****************************************************************
 30 Brampton Guardian: Nuclear waste stored in trailers 

North Peel Media Group:  Brampton Guardian  | 
    
Friday, August 11th, 2006     
    
Photo by BRYON JOHNSON
 
These trailers on the property of Mississauga Metals and Alloys 
on Sun Pac Boulevard contain radioactive processing waste, the 
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has confirmed. As well, 
the commission says the use of trailers to store the waste meets 
CNSC regulations.   

Nuclear waste stored in trailers 
Trailers at MM contain radioactive processing waste 

PAM DOUGLAS 

A citizen's group dropped a nuclear waste bombshell at city
council last week, telling councillors that tractor trailers
sitting on a local company's property contain radioactive waste. 
People Against Radioactive Contamination (PARC) made the
revelation. 

A spokesperson for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)
has confirmed that 25 tractor-trailers outside Mississauga
Metals &Alloys (MM) on Sun Pac Boulevard contain "radioactive
processing waste", although they would not reveal how much of it
is in the trailers. 

"The trailers contain radioactive processing wastes," according
to CNSC spokesperson Sunni Locatelli. "The exact inventory of
nuclear substances or materials in the trailers is considered
prescribed information and as such is not publicly available." 

She also said using the trailers as storage for the waste meets
CNSC regulations. 

"In its current state, the mildly radioactive contaminated
materials are not combustible," Locatelli said. "In their
current location, the materials stored in the trailers on the
property pose no health hazard to workers or the general
public." 

CNSC officials have also said that MM has resumed "conventional"
metal recycling operations on site. CNSC officials inspected the
site July 17 and confirmed that MM is working to meet the
requirements of the order that shut down the entire plant in
June over fire hazard concerns. 

One of the requirements to allow resumption of recycling of
non-nuclear contaminated metal was to remove nuclear material
from the building and secure it on site, and that has been done
by storing the waste in the trailers, according to CNSC
officials. A security guard is on site 24 hours a day, seven
days a week. 

PARC, formerly the Citizens for a Nuclear Free Peel, raised
alarm about how much waste is on site, how long it has been
piling up, and who would be responsible for cleaning it up if MM
closes its operations, goes bankrupt or suffers a major
incident. 

MM has been importing radioactive-contaminated metal since 1998.
The company's business is to "recycle" that metal, extracting
the radioactivity so the metal can be re-used. 

The byproduct-- radioactive processing waste-can be returned to
the source, or sent to a nuclear waste facility, according to
the CNSC, the licencing agency for the nuclear portion of the
business. 

"Their licence allows them to possess it (radioactive waste),"
said Aurele Gervais. 

PARC spokesman Jaipaul Massey-Singh asked city councillors to
immediately enforce the outside storage bylaw violations at the
site, noting the city has already started going that route. 

He also raised concern about the possibility of radioactive
waste being discharged into the sanitary sewer system, saying a
regional bylaw allows that to happen. 

However, Region of Peel Director Mark Schiller said regional
officials believe PARC is misinterpreting the region's bylaw
governing discharges into sanitary sewers. The region is
reviewing its wording and will respond to city council on the
issue, he said. 

PARC brought an expert to Brampton from Montreal last week to
tell councillors about concerns surrounding zirconium, the
handling of radioactive materials and radioactive waste. Dr.
Gordon Edwards told councillors, as far as he can see, MM's
proposal to put an incinerator on site to burn material
contaminated with low levels of radiation is an "experiment". 

"It's the first time this type of incinerator has been proposed
in a community. Why is this being done in a community with a
sizable population around it?" he asked. 

It's the same question being asked by Brampton Mayor Susan
Fennell. 

"It's not been hard in the City of Brampton to rally around this
issue as a frightening concern," Fennell said. "What is really
going on there and how can we get rid of it? We have dedicated
two staff members to work on this issue." 

She told PARC city staff is "fully focused on the questions that
you have asked." 

"We are going to work together to solve this problem. I wish we
didn't have this challenge," she said. 

MM's CNSC licence expires on Sept. 30, and PARC and the city are
calling for a public hearing before it is renewed. CNSC
officials say a licence renewal is reviewed and issued by a CNSC
designated officer, but comments from the public are welcome. 

Despite PARC's concern that MM does not have an export licence
to get rid of unwanted contaminated material, CNSC's Locatelli
said MM currently has two export licences authorizing them to
return to a supplier radioactive contaminated scrap metal that
has not been processed, and miscellaneous contaminated waste
(waste containers, plastic, wood) to the original suppliers of
the contaminated scrap metal. 

In June, the CNSC shut down MM after an inspection uncovered
"numerous" fire code violations and inadequate environmental and
human health protections. Two recent fires at the plant sparked
the inspection. 

The company has temporarily put on hold its environmental
assessment for expansion and an incinerator to burn low-level
radioactive waste.
 
  © Copyright 1996-2005
*****************************************************************
 31 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Don't trash Nevada 

Today: August 11, 2006 at 7:48:16 PDT 

Northeastern governors oppose a temporary storage plan for 
nuclear waste
 
A group of Northeastern governors is opposing a U.S. Senate bill
that proposes to temporarily store nuclear waste nearer the
reactors that produce it. 

According to the Associated Press, the Coalition of Northeastern
Governors has written a letter protesting the Senate spending
bill that calls for regional storage of spent nuclear fuel in
states that generate commercial nuclear power. 

The provision - added by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid,
D-Nev.; Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah; and Energy Committee Chairman
Pete Domenici, R-N.M. - specifically bars using Nevada or Utah
as temporary storage sites. 

A site in Utah has been named as a potential interim dump. 

But Nevada is where these Northeasterners want the waste they
created to be buried. They fear temporary sites will delay the
opening of a permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain. And,
they say, the bill's timetable would result in "a hastily
created network" of temporary facilities without allowing enough
time to determine whether such storage is safe. 

These governors seem unable - or unwilling - to see that haste
and safety concerns are the very reasons Yucca Mountain isn't
being built. 

It is not a safe place to store high-level nuclear waste, and
the government has been trying to cut corners and massage data
to build it anyway. Those who are creating this waste back East
can just keep it. 

Nevada is not the nation's nuclear trash heap. 


All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 32 Pahrump Valley Times: Nevada loses latest bid to derail Yucca         
 
Aug. 11, 2006 

 By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON, D.C. --Nevada suffered a setback Tuesday as its 
latest attempt to derail the government's plans for a Yucca 
Mountain nuclear waste repository was rebuffed.
 
A three-judge federal court panel declined a Nevada lawsuit 
charging that the Energy Department had violated environmental 
law and federal procedures when it formed a strategy to ship 
radioactive spent fuel to the Nevada site. "We conclude that some 
of Nevada's claims are unripe for review and the remaining claims 
are without merit," Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in a 
26-page opinion filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit. 

Henderson was joined in the ruling by Judges Harry Edwards and
A. Raymond Randolph. The judges heard oral arguments last
October. 

The ruling preserves the status quo for the Yucca project. The
Department of Energy is studying a 318-mile corridor from
Caliente across rural Nevada in which to build a railroad to the
proposed repository site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

"We are very pleased with the court's decision," said Craig
Stevens, a DOE spokesman. "The court's ruling today upheld the
transportation aspects of the department's comprehensive
environmental impact statement for the Yucca Mountain Project." 

Joe Egan, Nevada's lead nuclear waste attorney, said state
officials are evaluating whether to appeal the ruling. Egan said
the state disagreed with the court's reasoning that it was
premature to challenge DOE on elements of its railroad plans. 

"It is really clear that having ruled against us in such
draconian fashion it just seemed they didn't want to do anything
to upset Yucca Mountain," Egan said. 

Stevens said DOE attorneys are evaluating the decision for
possible impacts on other parts of the project. For instance,
DOE is weighing a possible alternative railroad line to the
repository through the Walker River Paiute reservation in
western Nevada. 

DOE also has made other changes since the Nevada lawsuit was
filed last year, including initiating redesigns for canisters
that would carry nuclear waste to the repository. 

"DOE has radically altered its transportation plans," Egan said.
"The net effect is that it has gone ahead and started a new
analysis. In a sense they have rendered their previous analysis
moot." 

In the court's ruling, Henderson wrote that DOE was within its
authority in how it managed environmental impact studies and
other documents that supported its transportation planning. 

"We conclude that DOE's analysis of the environmental impacts of
its rail corridor selection in its (final environmental impact
statement) is adequate," Henderson wrote. 

"It is well settled that the court will not 'flyspeck' an
agency's environmental analysis looking for any deficiency no
matter how minor," the judge wrote. 

The court declined to consider other issues raised by the state,
saying it was too early and DOE had not yet made final decisions
on them. 

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said
the state's options may be limited.
 
"I doubt the Supreme Court would take review and I don't think
it would be worth petitioning the entire court," said Tobias,
formerly a professor at the Boyd School of Law at UNLV. 

Rulings made by judicial panels may be reconsidered by all the
judges in the appeals circuit.
 
But Tobias said Henderson and Randolph, who were placed on the
court by President George H.W. Bush, and Edwards, who was
installed by President Carter, "are very much representative of
the court and I think it is pretty unlikely" that other judges
would reconsider their ruling.
 
In the 10 months since oral arguments, Nevada officials and
attorneys had expressed confidence the state would prevail on at
least some of its arguments. They said Tuesday they were
surprised and disappointed.
 
"We all thought it was one of our best cases." said Bob Loux,
director of the state Agency for Nuclear Projects. "Obviously
this would have brought everything in the transportation arena
to a halt."
 
Loux said the state would likely file new lawsuits later on the
matters that the court said were premature to be considered at
the present time.
 
The state has two other active cases pending related to Yucca
Mountain, although neither are major.
 
Oral arguments are set for September in Washington where the
state is challenging a federal regulation dealing with
repository licensing.
 
In a second case, state officials have filed a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit in federal court in Reno seeking to
obtain a copy of DOE's draft license application for the
repository.
 	 	 	 	     
For comment or questions, please e-mail 
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 33 Pahrump Valley Times: Agency chief says Yucca plans not necessary     

Aug. 11, 2006 

LOUX BELIEVES YUCCA WILL NEVER BE LICENSED       

CARSON CITY -- Nevada officials have objected to the U.S.
Department of Energy's plans to build a "road to nowhere" along
with other construction projects at Yucca Mountain, saying the
work is illegal and unnecessary.
 
DOE and its Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management have
submitted a draft environmental assessment proposing a wide
range of infrastructure improvements at Yucca Mountain, the site
about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas proposed by DOE for the
nation's first high-level nuclear waste repository.
 
Bob Loux, executive director for Nevada's Agency for Nuclear
Projects, outlined Nevada's objections to this proposal in a
letter sent this week to Dr. Jane Summerson, an environmental
assessment document manager for DOE, according to an Aug. 8
prepared statement.
 
Loux summed up the two main reasons why Nevada contends the
entire proposal is unnecessary: "First, if DOE does not receive
a license, or DOE's application is further delayed, this project
will spend millions of dollars for only a tiny return. Second,
the no-action alternative appears capable of fulfilling all of
the stated project purposes.
 
"The proposed action contained in the draft EA (environmental
assessment) is unnecessary, unjustified and lacking in legal
authority," Loux concluded in the letter. "The proposed
facilities and infrastructure can only be justified to support
the construction and operation of a Yucca Mountain repository,
something that is not permitted under law until DOE has received
a construction authorization from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission."
 
Loux said Nevada officials and others have raised enough
scientific and safety concerns about the Yucca Mountain Project
over the years that he believes the site will never be licensed
to hold nuclear waste. As a result, he said DOE's proposed
multimillion-dollar construction program would be the real waste.
 
"This plan could only be justified if the Yucca Mountain
repository is approved, waiste and there is no certainty that
will ever occur," Loux said. "In short, the EA does not credibly
explain why DOE is pursuing these improvements."
 
In addition to new buildings, power lines and other
infrastructure on the Yucca site, DOE proposes to build about 25
miles of new and replacement roads during a two-year
construction period. Loux said one of the more unnecessary parts
of DOE's plan calls for a two-lane, 36-foot-wide paved road to
the crest of Yucca Mountain, "even though no scientific work has
been done on top of the mountain.
 
"This is really a road to nowhere," he said.
 
Nevada also objects to the increased use of groundwater the DOE
plan would require. Loux said DOE's proposal would require using
more water than DOE has said in court proceedings that it needs,
and more than the state has allowed the federal agency to use at
the site.
 
He said DOE is also being misleading when it cites "the health
and safety of its workers, regulators and visitors" to the Yucca
Mountain site as the main reason for its planned construction
projects. In fact, he said the director of the Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management told the U.S. Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee as recently as Aug. 3
that DOE's plans for new infrastructure at Yucca Mountain are
unrelated to health and safety issues.
 
The two-year, multimillion-dollar construction program is also
more significant than DOE has suggested, according to Loux.
 	 	 	     
For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2006 
*****************************************************************
 34 reviewjournal.comL AIRSPACE: Air Force negotiating Yucca rights

Aug. 11, 2006

DOE has proposed controlling 229 square miles around site        

By STEVE TETREAULT<br>STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- The Air Force confirmed Thursday it is negotiating 
airspace rights over Yucca Mountain to balance pilot access to 
the Nellis Air Force Range and security at the nuclear waste site 
that has been proposed nearby.
 
As part of its plan to build a repository for highly radioactive 
used nuclear fuel, the Department of Energy has proposed 
controlling use of 229 square miles of land now managed by other 
federal agencies surrounding the Yucca site.
 
The department also is seeking to designate a "no-fly zone" as 
part of the project. Ward Sproat, director of the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told Congress last week 
the restricted flight area would be 4 miles in radius centered on 
the mountain.
 
In a statement Thursday, the Air Force confirmed its officials
and DOE counterparts are negotiating flight rules over the
repository.
 
"Air Force and DOE representatives in Nevada continue to discuss
potential control measures to accommodate both agencies'
missions," the service said in a statement issued in response to
a reporter's query.
 
Negotiators "are still working together to refine mutually
acceptable control measures to limit or preclude any operational
impact on Air Force flying missions in the Nevada Test and
Training Range.
 
"We remain optimistic agreement will be reached such that any
control measures will have no appreciable impact on Air Force
operations," the statement said.
 
The Air Force's willingness to talk about flight controls near
Yucca Mountain appears to represent a shift in thinking. In
September 2003, top Air Force officials said that restrictions
on aircraft operating in the Nellis Air Force Range airspace
"will negatively impact our readiness activities."
 
"Overflight restrictions are untenable," Air Force Secretary
James G. Roche and chief of staff Gen. John Jumper said in a
letter to congressional leaders. They described the Nellis
training range as a "national treasure" that enables the
military to practice large-scale operations.
 
Air Force officials at the Pentagon and in Nevada could not be
reached on Thursday. Talks are being held in the state between
DOE representatives in Las Vegas and Air Force liaison officers
at the Nevada Test Site, officials said.
 
"They are our neighbors and we will be working with them on air
restrictions, there is nothing wrong with that at all," DOE
spokesman William Greene said of the Air Force.
 
The Air Force controls 3.1 million acres and 12,000 square miles
of airspace over southern and central Nevada that it uses for
testing and munitions training, electronic combat, and
air-to-air combat exercises. Flight programs are operated from
Nellis Air Force Base.
 
Nevada officials who oppose the Yucca project have criticized
the idea of allowing DOE to set flight rules on the Air Force.
At a Senate hearing last week, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said it
set "a very dangerous precedent."
 
The Energy Department is seeking to restrict flights near the
repository to buttress its licensing bid before the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, said Bob Loux, executive director of the
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.
 
As part of its licensing process, DOE has studied the
probabilities and potential outcomes of plane crashes at the
Yucca site, where canisters of highly radioactive material will
be kept above ground as well as within a warren of mountain
tunnels."The NRC wants some definitive proof they have this
issue covered," Loux said. "If they have a no-fly zone or
whatever that is all related to satisfying the NRC."
 
Loux said he expected prolonged talks between DOE and the Air
Force. There is sentiment among officers at Nellis Air Force
Base against Yucca flight restrictions, he said, based on
conversations between officers and state representatives.
 	   
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
*****************************************************************
 35 IndyStar.com: Leaving Las Vegas? Dems don't need Nevada | 

Opinion                                                 

August 11, 2006  
 Ken Bode 

For reasons not entirely comprehensible, the Democrats have 
decided to add a little sex and glitter to the 2008 presidential 
contest. To reduce the longstanding lock held by Iowa and New 
Hampshire on the opening events of the campaign season, the 
Democrats' rules committee voted to wedge the Nevada caucuses in 
between those states.
        
This will be some fun! Instead of following candidates around the 
cornfields and county fairs of Iowa in the summer and the snowy 
hills and villages of New Hampshire in the winter, reporters will 
be required to measure the future leaders of what we once called 
The Free World against the backdrops offered by the Las Vegas 
Strip. The TV brethren will add to their stock shots the casino 
lights, spinning roulette wheels, miles of slot machines and, of 
course, the marvelous bodies who cavort about the stages of the 
casinos and strip joints. What else is there in Nevada? Well, 
there are legalized brothels and nuclear waste; these, too, for 
reporters and candidates to explore.

But first, let's examine the motives behind this move. For years 
the press and public have complained that Iowa and New Hampshire 
have vastly too much influence on presidential nominations in 
both parties. Beginning even now, the candidates and reporters 
are spending every spare weekend in those states; when the actual 
voting begins, the race often is over once Iowa and New Hampshire 
have had their say. In an effort to grab part of the action, 
other states have rushed to move up their primaries and caucuses 
to the point that the system is now dangerously "frontloaded." A 
presidential nominating process that ran from February through 
early June is now over in three or four weeks, far less time than 
the voters need to sort through the 10 or so candidates in each 
party.

Why Nevada? For the same reason other states move up: to grab 
some attention and influence in the process. Sen. Harry Reid is 
arguably the most powerful Democrat in Washington. Reid wants his 
state at the top of the schedule and he used his muscle to get it 
done. Reid was unimpressed by the reservations expressed by some 
rules committee members, namely that they ought to seek a state 
that is a little more economically diversified. Nevada is a 
single-industry state. It survives because of legalized gambling 
and the tourism, sex and entertainment surrounding it. Nevada's 
congressional delegation exists almost entirely to protect the 
legislative interests of the "gaming industry."

Unquestionably, the early states have an important edge on policy 
questions. Since Ronald Reagan, and probably before, New 
Hampshire Republicans have demanded that presidential candidates 
"take the pledge," meaning sign a promise not to raise taxes 
under any circumstances. In Iowa, candidates of both parties have 
had to promise to support farm subsidies for the development of 
ethanol, fuel from corn. Over time, the ethanol special interest 
has resulted in a thriving industry, though it took $70-a-barrel 
oil for it to happen.

What local issues might be addressed in Nevada? Well, the 
candidates might talk about the system of legal brothels by 
county option, a system that has worked there for 50 years. Or, 
they might be asked about the efforts of sex workers in Las Vegas 
to form a union. Or, do they support the idea of putting EDT 
machines for cash withdrawals for welfare and food stamps in 
grocery and liquor stores, as the gaming industry has proposed? 

It is said that the Democratic Party has a moral values problem. 
Adding images of flying dice and spinning slot machines with the 
surrounding sex industry isn't likely to help.

There is also the question of Yucca Mountain, which the Energy 
Department has designated as the dump site for America's nuclear 
waste. Nevada has fought and lost in Congress and the courts to 
block the thousands of tons of spent fuel and high-level defense 
waste heading its way by train for a final resting place in the 
moonscape of rural Nevada. Every candidate will have to have a 
position on Yucca Mountain, and to please the Nevada voters it 
will have to be against the waste dump.

Reid's hare-brained idea will embarrass the entire Democratic 
Party. The best solution in the short run is for the presidential 
candidates to ignore the Nevada caucuses and stick to the old 
schedule.

Bode, a former senior political analyst for CNN, is the Pulliam 
professor of journalism at DePauw University. Contact him at 
kenbode@depauw.edu.

Copyright 2006 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved                                                  
*****************************************************************
 36 Salt Lake Tribune: Chairman defends leaving n-waste in states where it's produced
 
  Article Last Updated: 08/11/2006 03:48:18 PM MDT  

  By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune  
     
  Posted: 3:56:20 PM- WASHINGTON - Senate Energy Committee
Chairman Pete Domenici defended a plan to create temporary
nuclear waste storage sites - while prohibiting the waste from
coming to Utah - as a key piece of a nuclear waste strategy. 

    The Coalition of Northeastern Governors sent Domenici,
R-N.M., a letter last week arguing that storing waste in as many
as 31 states would be more expensive and less secure than a plan
to bury it permanently at Yucca Mountain, Nev. 

    But Domenici argued that Yucca Mountain, which is 19 years
behind schedule, won't open until 2017 and it will take another
23 years to move existing waste to the site. There needs to be,
he wrote in a letter to the governors, a practical interim
solution. 

    "I am interested in a solution that will keep the Yucca
Mountain project moving, but also acknowledges the need to
safely deal with spent fuel until the project is completed," he
wrote. 

    Interim storage would also give the Energy Department time
to develop technology to recycle nuclear waste, reducing the
amount of waste that will have to be buried at Yucca Mountain,
Domenici wrote. 
    
Domenici's proposal, backed by Senate Minority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, is included in an
energy spending bill pending in the Senate. It would create
temporary storage sites, but would require that the waste stay
in states that generate nuclear power. Regional sites are also
on option under the plan. 

    The plan also prohibits storage in Nevada or Utah, which
would scuttle plans by Private Fuel Storage to park 44,000 tons
of spent nuclear fuel on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian
Reservation, about 50 miles from Salt Lake City. 

    The Northeastern states are the largest consumers of nuclear
generated power. For example, nuclear reactors produce more than
70 percent of the electricity in Vermont, and more than half in
New Jersey.   
                  
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 37 Strategic Security Blog: Plutonium Reprocessing: two steps forward, one step back.

A project of the Federation of American Scientists
 					   					   						<img
"http://www.fas.org
 
The administration has submitted a $250M request to Congress to 
start work on a plutonium recycling program as part of its Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, proposal. Trying to figure 
out exactly what the proposal is has been like trying to nail 
Jell-o to the wall. Whatever criticism is raised, DOE responds 
that, no, it isn’t quite that. So I was getting a good picture 
of what GNEP was not but could not figure out what it was. 


Part of last year’s appropriation required that DOE produce a
reporton what they intended to actually do. Although months
late, the report at least had a more or less specific proposal
that outside analysts could critique. The plan was to take waste
from light water reactors (that is, the normal nuclear reactors
producing electricity around the country today), separate it
into three parts: the comparatively innocuous uranium, the
fission products, and the plutonium and other heaviest elements,
or transuranics. The uranium would be sent to a low-level waste
repository (although there is some argument about that), the
fission products would go to a long-term geological repository,
presumably Yucca Mountain, but that too is not absolutely
certain, and the plutonium and other transuranics would be
completely burned up as nuclear fuel in a “close-cycle”
reaction. Since the transuranics will not work well as fuel in
current light-water reactors, for every three light water
reactors, we would have to build one fast-neutron reactor to
burn the waste. [See, for example, the three bullet points at
the top of p. 4 or the graphic on p. 11 of the report linked
above.] Fast-neutron reactors have been built in the past but
never successfully commercialized. 

	As I have written elsewhere, this idea makes good sense, in
theory. The reason this is a bad idea is not that it violates
the laws of physics but because the engineering, economics, and
timing don’t work. It might be a good idea 70-100 years from
now, but not now. 

	Even with those limitations, the proposal in the DOE report
made more sense than the alternative, partial recycling as
practiced by the French. One of the primary advocates of
closed-cycle reprocessing is Phillip Finckof Argonne National
Laboratory and, when he argues for closed-cycle reprocessing, he
points out that it should not be confused with what the French
are doing today, a process that has limited advantages and great
costs. Summariesfrom the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
state: “The second option, termed "limited recycling" by Dr.
Finck, is currently in use in France, Japan, and the United
Kingdom. The process, called PUREX, separates the plutonium and
uranium from the waste stream where they are re-used as fuel in
a commercial nuclear reactor. However, since the spent
plutonium/uranium fuel is not recycled again and the other
fission products are not recycled at all, this limited recycling
process only results in a 10% reduction in the total volume of
produced waste. In addition, there are concerns that an
increased supply of concentrated plutonium creates a risk of
nuclear proliferation.” In a briefingpresented on the Hill,
Frank von Hippelof Princeton, a strong opponent of closed-cycle
reprocessing, even included a slide called “Where Finck and I
agree,” in which he cites Finck’s comments that the French
recycle-once approach has insufficient benefits. 

Well, with that as background, yesterday DOE held a telephone
press conference on Thursday to announce what seems to be a
proposalto essentially reproduce the French approach, plus a
fast burner reactor program that would allow a later move to a
closed cycle. An additional twist is that at the press
conference Assistant Secretary Spurgeon cited a studyby The
Boston Consulting Group, which was working for the French
plutonium reprocessing firm Areva, that argues that reprocessing
and recycling through light-water reactors was economically
sound. Not surprisingly, this analysis is far more optimistic
than the National Academy of Science’s studyor the Harvard
study. But then the Boston report contains this disclaimer: 

“This report was prepared by The Boston Consulting Group at
the request of AREVA. BCG reviewed publicly available
information and proprietary data provided by AREVA, but did not
undertake any independent verification of the facts contained in
those source materials. Changes in these facts or underlying
assumptions could change the results reported in this study. Any
other party using this report for any purpose, or relying on
this report in any way, does so at their own risk. No
representation or warranty, express or implied, is made in
relation to the accuracy or completeness of the information
presented herein or its suitability for any particular
purpose.” 

'nuff said.
 
Posted by Ivan Oelrich on August 11, 2006 01:14 PM | Permalink 
 
*****************************************************************
 38 AU ABC: Uranium demand predicted to rise. 

11/08/2006. ABC News Online

Market analysts believe the overseas demand for uranium
yellowcake could rise to unprecedented levels in the next decade.

 Patersons Securities stockbroker David Johnson predicts the
growing shortage of fossil fuels and the pollution caused by
coal could result in a boom in nuclear energy.

 He says the huge Chinese market may become a key customer for
Australian uranium to meet its growing energy needs.

 "China is growing rapidly - it's very much faster than the rest
of the world and they require huge quantities of energy to
achieve that," Mr Johnson said.

 "They have to increasingly turn to nuclear energy to generate 
the electricity that's required and on that basis you could see 
very rapid growth for uranium." 



*****************************************************************
 39 Bradenton Herald: Tallevast gets free medical check-ups

08/11/2006 | 

Lockheed offers exams to residents of infected location

 DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer 

TALLEVAST - Lockheed Martin Corp. announced a medical support
program Thursday that will offer free medical examinations for
Tallevast residents. 

Lockheed is providing the independent medical program to help
answer residents' questions about their health, said Gail Rymer,
company spokeswoman. 

Lockheed established the Tallevast Community Health Trust Fund
to underwrite the project through the Bank of New York. 

Both the fund and the medical support program will be
independently administered to remove them from any connection
with Lockheed, Rymer said. 

Rymer was unable to give specifics about the program because it
was being independently administered, but she says that exams
would be provided by Manatee and Sarasota doctors. 

The medical program is under the director of Dr. Raymond
Harbison and Dr. Steve Morris, physicians on the faculty of the
University of South Florida in Tampa. 

USF is not connected in any way with the free medical exam
program, said Anne Delotto Baier, director of public affairs for
Health Sciences at USF. 

Early on, Lockheed announced the medical support program would
be run through USF, but Baier said the free exam service did not
fit into the university's research model for programs. 

"It's not a research program," said Baier. "They are not trying
to find out if there was or was not an exposure problem." 

Messages left for Harbison and Morris were not returned as of
late Thursday. 

Harbison's specialty is in the areas of toxicology and risk
assessment, said Giffe Johnson, a graduate assistant who has
volunteered to help with the Tallevast exams. 

Lockheed announced the program in the latest edition of its
newsletter, Tallevast.info, released late Thursday. 

Residents will receive a confidential, one-on-one examination by
a physician and counseling will be provided to those who need
more information to make decisions relating to follow-up care,
the newsletter said. 

Participation is voluntary. 

Lockheed will not have access to exam records at any time, the
article said, even for those residents involved in lawsuits
against the company. 

Tallevast leaders did not return requests for comment. Tallevast
sits atop a 200-acre plume of toxic waste traced back to a
former beryllium machining plant Lockheed once owned. The
contamination was discovered in 2000 when Lockheed was
conducting an environmental audit in preparation for selling the
property. 

Although Lockheed reported the pollution to county, state and
federal authorities, it was not required by law to inform the
public until a clean-up plan was in place, even though some
residents relied on private wells for drinking water, that were
later found to be contaminated. 

Residents learning about the toxic waste in the fall of 2003
when drilling rigs moved into their neighborhood to sink
monitoring wells to determine the extent of the plume. 

Lockheed also announced it was relocating the Information Center
to the Tallevast Commerce Center at 1144 Tallevast Road on 

Sept. 1. 

Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be
reached at 745-7049 or at . 

Tallevast Medical Support Program 

*****************************************************************
 40 AU ABC: Govt policy holding back uranium exploration - miner
 
ABC North West WA | Local News | Story 
 Friday, 11 August 2006. 11:30 (AEDT)Friday, 11 August 2006.

 A mining company which has found uranium deposits in the
Kimberley, in northern Western Australia, says the WA Premier's
tough stance on the controversial resource is holding back its
exploration activity. 

Speaking at the Diggers and Dealers conference in Kalgoorlie
earlier this week, Premier Alan Carpenter said uranium mining
would not take place under his Government. 

The Premier says some federal Liberal MP's have earmarked
Western Australia as a location for uranium waste disposal. 

The managing director of Northern Star Resources, Charles
Wilkinson, says in the short-term, the Premier's stance means
they cannot accelerate exploration activity. 

"In the longer-term we're sort of in the greenfields, which is
in the very early stages of our uranium exploration," Mr
Wilkinson said. 

"So we view it very much in the terms of a three to five, even
10 year time frame, to delineate a resource that we can exploit
and mine. So, in the longer-term we see that things may change." 

*****************************************************************
 41 DOE: DOE Announces Successful Removal of Nuclear Material from Poland
 
  August 10, 2006
 
Largest Amount of HEU Removed and Secured Under NNSAs Threat
Reduction Program 

WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energys National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced today that 40
kilograms (about 90 pounds) of highly enriched uranium (HEU)
have been safely returned to Russia from Poland.  The secret
operation was a joint NNSA mission with Poland, the Russian
Federation and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 
NNSA fully funded the activity and provided the technical
support necessary. 

Every time we are successful in securing weapon grade nuclear
material and vulnerable stockpiles of high-risk, radiological
materials, we increase our security at home and around the
world, said Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman.  This is
another example of the international community working
collectively to reduce the threat of terrorism. 

The two-day operation was the largest removal of Soviet-origin
fresh (unirradiated) HEU since the inception of NNSAs Global
Threat Reduction Initiative two years ago.  The shipment was
part of the prioritized, accelerated schedule in support of the
Bush-Putin Bratislava Joint Statement on Nuclear Security
Cooperation. 

At the Maria research reactor at the Institute of Atomic Energy
in Otwock-Swierk, Poland, the HEU was loaded into five
specialized transportation containers while NNSA technical
experts and IAEA safeguards inspectors observed.  The canisters
were airlifted under guard from an airport near Warsaw to a
secure facility in Dimitrovgrad , Russia.  The material will be
down blended into low enriched uranium (LEU), which is less
attractive for proliferation purposes.  

Previously, NNSA upgraded the Maria reactors physical
protection systems where the HEU was being stored.  In 2009, the
United States will assist Poland with the conversion of the
reactor from the use of HEU fuel to the use of the less
proliferation-attractive LEU fuel. 

In concert with efforts to eliminate and remove nuclear material
in Poland, NNSA is also working to provide security upgrades for
locations with high-activity radioactive material, which could
be used for dirty bombs.  In Poland, NNSA has completed work
at 37 sites with radioactive material and upgrades are underway
at an additional six locations. Earlier this month, NNSA
announced that more than 5,500 curies of radiological cobalt-60
and cesium-137, enough material for at least five dirty bombs,
were removed from Chechnya and safely returned to Russia for
protection. 

The mission of NNSAs Global Threat Reduction Initiative is to
secure, recover and/or facilitate the disposal of high-risk,
vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials around the world
as quickly as possible.  To date, approximately 230 kilograms of
HEU have been returned in 14 shipments to Russia from Serbia,
Bulgaria, Libya, Uzbekistan, Latvia, the Czech Republic, and
Poland.  

Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a semi-autonomous
agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for
enhancing national security through the military application of
nuclear science.  NNSA maintains and enhances the safety,
security, reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; works to reduce
global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the
U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and
responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the United
States and abroad.  Visit http://www.nnsa.doe.gov/ for more
information. 

Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 Bryan Wilkes, 
(301) 221-3746 Al Stotts, (202) 586-7371     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General 
*****************************************************************
 42 DOE: USDA-DOE Announce Keynote Speakers for National Renewable Energy Conference
 
  August 10, 2006
 
WASHINGTON, DC - Keynote speakers have been confirmed for
Advancing Renewable Energy: An American Rural Renaissance, a
conference hosted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that will take place October
10-12, 2006, at Americas Center in St. Louis, Missouri. 

Advancing Renewable Energy is designed to help create and
strengthen partnerships and strategies necessary to accelerate
commercialization of renewable energy industries and
distribution systems, the crux of President Bushs Advanced
Energy Initiative.  Leaders from government and industry will
address renewable energy topics such as Building Supply and
Distribution, Encouraging Demand, Adapting and Building
Infrastructure and Creating Effective Market Models and
Partnerships. 

In addition to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman and Agriculture
Secretary Mike Johanns, the following conference keynote
speakers have been confirmed to date:  
  + Vinod Khosla, Founder of Khosla Ventures, Former Co-Founder
of Sun Microsystems, and Former Partner of Kleimer, Perkins,
Kaufield & Byers, a venture capital firm 
  + Robert W. Lane, Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief
Executive Officer, Deere and Company 
  + Patricia A Woertz, President, Chief Executive Officer, and
Member of the Board of Directors, Archer Daniels Midland Company 
  + James R. Woolsey, Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton, and
Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency  

Attendance is open to the public. Anyone involved with renewable
energy is encouraged to attend, including: transportation,
finance, and investment officials; other Federal and State
Government officials; and elected officials.  All attendees must
register for the conference, including press, who may attend
without charge. Attendees and press can register online at
www.AdvancingRenewableEnergy.com. 

Media contact(s): DOE: Craig Stevens (202) 586-4940 USDA: Ed Loyd 
(202) 720-4623     [ ]   

  U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | e/General 
*****************************************************************
 43 Inside Bay Area: Sandia OKs new Livermore boss

Article Last Updated: 08/11/2006 07:33:35 AM PDT  

By Meera Pal, MEDIANEWS  
     
  LIVERMORE — Paul Hommert, a former manager at
Sandia/California National Laboratories, is returning to take
over as leader of the Livermore facility. 

On Aug. 25, Hommert will replace retiring vice president Miriam
Mim John as both vice president of Sandia/California and as
leader of its Homeland Security and Defense Strategic Management
Unit. 

Im very excited for the opportunity to return to Sandia, said
Hommert, 56. 

I think Ive had the opportunity in my Sandia career and in the
United Kingdom and Los Alamos to develop a pretty broad
background within the nuclear weapons program and outside the
nuclear weapons program. 

In announcing Hommerts appointment, Sandia National Laboratories
Director Tom Hunter said Thursday that, Paul brings a wealth of
experience from his time at Sandia and especially from his time
at the Atomic Weapons Establishment and Los Alamos. 

He is acknowledged across the (National Nuclear Security 
Administration) community as one whose leadership provides 
competence, commitment and integrity to any position. 

To that, Hommert added Thursday: I am very familiar with the 
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory program and I can bring some 
perspective to how Sandia and Livermore need to work together 
going forward, particularly during this dynamic period in the 
weapons program. 

Since 2003, Hommert has been the leader of the applied physics 
division at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. 

He oversees 350 scientists, engineers, and support personnel 
working on nuclear weapon design and assessment, weapon 
performance and weapons science. 

Hommert began at Sandia in 1976 and held different positions for 
the lab and Lockheed Martin Corp., which operates Sandia. 

As a Sandia director, he was the head of the labs Engineering 
Sciences organization. 

He moved to the United Kingdom in 2000 as director of research 
and applied science at the Atomic Weapons Establishment for 
Lockheed Martin. 

Hommert said he will have to reacquaint himself with Sandias 
current direction when he takes over later this month. 

We are facing a dynamic external environment, Hommert said. 
"'It is less likely a dramatic change and more likely to mature
the labs position to deal with the external changes going on
around us. 
  
 © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy  
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************