*****************************************************************
08/17/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.195
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 IRIB PERSIAN News: IRI places no value on UN resolution
2 IRNA: Indian gov't dismisses sell out charges over Indo-US nuclear d
3 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Rafsanjani: N-research continues
4 AFP: Iran envoy says call for enrichment halt 'not acceptable' -
5 AFP: US to press for quick UN sanctions if Iran refuses halt to
6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. to Move Quickly on Iran Sanctions
7 US: Courier-Journal: Quarry mentioned as blast test site
8 US: AFP: US judge halts warrantless wiretapping by NSA
9 AFP: Retired US generals, diplomats criticize Bush Middle East polic
10 US: UPI: UPI Energy Watch
11 Telugu Portal: India not to bow to US on nuclear deal
NUCLEAR REACTORS
12 US: Security Lapse at TVA’s Sequoyah Nuclear
13 Guardian Unlimited: Get rid of BE stake before it's burnt out
14 24.com: No sign of sabotage at Koeberg
15 US: MiamiHerald.com: Proceed with caution
16 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: San Onofre nuclear plant leaking
17 The Hindu: Reactor for nuclear submarine fully operational
18 Daily Yomiuri: Govt must take initiative in promoting N-power
19 US: Platts: Southern Nuclear moves toward potential new construction
20 Platts: BE finds more cracking at Hunterston B unit than expected
21 Independent: Cost of cleaning up nuclear sites is 'more than £70bn'
22 US: Connecticut Post: FERC to decide stranded cost deal
23 US: Hamilton Spectator: Nuclear power not a problem
24 TheStar.com: Nuclear heats up OPG profits
25 TheStar.com: Bruce Power applies to build reactors
26 US: NRC: Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006
27 US: NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
28 US: NRC: In the Matter of Certain 10 CFR Part 50 Licensees Who Trans
29 Scotsman.com: Performance woes add to safety fears at power station
30 People's Daily: IAEA provides Nigeria with nuclear facilities
31 globeandmail.com: Nuclear pitch for oil sands
32 US: theday.com: Watchdog Group To Assess Report On Radiation Concern
33 New Anatolian: Güler: Nuclear plants to go online after 2012
34 US: ajc.com: Don't cut corners on nuclear energy |
35 UPI: Analysis: Swedish mishap fuels nuke debate
36 Guardian Unlimited: India: No Changes to U.S. Nuclear Deal
NUCLEAR SECURITY
37 US: UPI: Lapse allows guns into Tenn. nuke plant
NUCLEAR SAFETY
38 US: [NukeNet] Tritium - Greed is good for a few
39 US: [NukeNet] Radioactive water found beneath San Onofre
40 US: DOD: Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction
41 US: AP Wire: Free lung cancer screenings available for nuclear worke
42 US: DHHS: Petition to designate workers as exposed
43 US: DHHS: Petition to designate workers as exposed
44 US: NRC: In the Matter of University of Florida, and All Other Perso
45 US: Las Vegas SUN: Company: Military tested explosives at southern I
46 Japan Times: Navy to put nuclear accident experts in Yokosuka
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
47 US: Deseret News: Ambiguity will remain in bill-veto procedures
48 Platts: UK Parliament warns nuclear cleanup costs to rise 'significa
49 Independent: Las Vegas bids to fuel growth by tapping into farmers'
50 News Wales: Warning on nuclear waste
51 US: Monticello Times: Dry storage is recommended for Nuclear Plant
52 US: Public Citizen: NIRS and Public Citizen Appeal LES Licensing
53 US: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Ash will go to Texas nuke facility -
54 US: WebWire: Regional storage facilities could handle nuclear waste,
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
55 Sun News: DOE, state working on agreement
56 Platts: US DOE plans to sell 700 metric tons of uranium to fund clea
57 Tri-City Herald: Company wins bid for reactor cleanup
58 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern
59 lamonitor.com: Draft SWEIS comment period extended
60 KnoxNews: Lung screenings offered to Y-12, ORNL workers
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IRIB PERSIAN News: IRI places no value on UN resolution
2006/08/16
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Wednesday said the
Islamic Republic of Iran sees no reason to suspend uranium
enrichment, but it is ready to convince the European party via
negotiations.
The Minister stated that IRI is willing to continue negotiations
on every issue mentioned in the Werstern package, adding that
the best way to remove ambiguity from Iran's peacefull nuclear
program is to continue negotiations.
"The United Nations resolution which demands Iran stop its
peacefull nuclear program has no legal basis and the Islamic
Republic of Iran places no value on it," said the senior
official, describing the resolution as politically-motivated.
Mottaki further said that the resolution was passed hastily as
if those who prevented UN resolution on establishing ceasefire
in Lebanon were quick to pass the resolution against Iran.
Mottaki asserted that the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond
to the offered package on the determined date.
FK
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
2 IRNA: Indian gov't dismisses sell out charges over Indo-US nuclear deal
New Delhi, Aug 17, IRNA
India-US-Nuke Deal-Govt
Rejecting the opposition charge of a sellout to the US on the
Indo-US nuclear deal, the government on Thursday made it clear
that it will not agree to any shifting of goal posts, fresh
conditionalities or deviation in the July 18 agreement.
While emphasizing there will be 'no capping' of India's
military nuclear program, based on the principle of credible
minimum deterrence, Indian Minister of State for External
Affairs Anand Sharma on Thursday said in Rajya Sabha that 'no
shifting or deviation from the July 18 nuclear deal will be
agreed to'.
Let there not be any 'misgivings or concerns' on this score,
Sharma said intervening in the short-duration discussion on
Indo-US nuclear deal in which opposition parties made scathing
attack on the Government for a 'sell out' compromising the
country's security interests.
Earlier, accusing the government of succumbing to fresh US
conditionalities on the nuclear deal, main opposition BJP on
Thursday demanded setting up of a Joint Parliamentary Committee
(JPC) to oversee the implementation of a resolution reflecting
the sense of Indian Parliament.
Opposing the 'fundamentally flawed' deal which would have a
'deleterious impact', senior BJP leader Yashwant Sinha said in
the Rajya Sabha that India cannot bend to the will of the US
Congress and this message should go loud and clear.
On Wednesday, Manmohan Singh tried to satisfy the
dissatisfaction among some of the country's nuclear scientists.
He held a closed door meeting with the principal Scientific
Advisor and the Atomic energy Chairman on the issue.
At the meeting, the prime minister made it clear that he would
be telling Parliament about his apprehensions about the shifting
of goal posts in the Indo-US nuclear agreement.
*****************************************************************
3 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Rafsanjani: N-research continues
2006/08/16
Head of the System's interests council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
on Wednesday stressed that Iran's peaceful nuclear research will
continue.
Rafsanjani told German ambassador to Tehran Baron Paul
Vonmaltzahn that talks on Iran's peaceful nuclear program should
not be limited to generalities, should be free from any publicity
and be held in a suitable atmosphere dominated by wisdom.
"to show peaceful nature of our nuclear programs, we have had all
types of cooperation, including allowing short notice and
intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency
but America and Western states failed to hide their ill
intentions and by their hasty moves, they threw many obstacles on
the way of access to mutual understanding," Hashemi said.
FK
Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center.
E-Mail: Webmaster@IRIBNEWS.ir
*****************************************************************
4 AFP: Iran envoy says call for enrichment halt 'not acceptable' -
Thu Aug 17, 6:39 AM ET
PARIS (AFP) - Iran" /> 's ambassador to Paris has reaffirmed that
international calls for his country to halt uranium enrichment
were "not acceptable", after Tehran said it would be prepared to
discuss a freeze.
"The suspension demand is one that has absolutely no legal
basis. It is a political demand that is not acceptable by our
public opinion or by parliament," Iran envoy Ali Ahani told
French radio RMC on Thursday.
"We do not believe in nuclear weapons at all because we do not
think they can guarantee our security, but we insist on the use
of these technologies for peaceful ends," he said.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Wednesday that
Tehran was ready to "discuss" a uranium enrichment freeze,
barely two weeks before a UN Security Council deadline to halt
the sensitive nuclear work or risk sanctions.
A day earlier however, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
outright rejected a UN Security Council resolution demanding
Iran suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment by
August 31 or risk possible sanctions.
The West, led by the United States, suspects Iran could be
trying to build nuclear weapons, charges denied by Tehran which
says its atomic program is for peaceful purposes.
Tehran has said it will respond on August 22 to an offer by the
five UN Security Council members, plus Germany, for a package of
incentives including cooperation and multilateral talks in
return for suspending enrichment.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
5 AFP: US to press for quick UN sanctions if Iran refuses halt to
uranium enrichment -
Thu Aug 17, 5:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States will move quickly for UN
Security Council action on sanctions against Iran" /> Iranif
Tehran refuses to halt uranium enrichment by the end of the
month, a senior State Deparment official said.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rejection this week of a UN resolution
demanding that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment activity by
August 31 was "not surprising."
He said the UN Security Council will take up sanctions under
resolution 1696 if the deadline is not met.
"We would want to move very quickly," he told reporters.
"In the event Iran does not give an answer to the Security
Council and does not comply with the conditions clearly
enunciated by the Security Council, I think we'll want to move
very quickly in the first part of September towards a debate in
Security Council about sanctions, and they will be
well-deserved, because this has gone on a long time," he said.
Under the resolution, International Atomic Energy Agency" />
International Atomic Energy Agencychief Mohamed ElBaradei would
first report on the status of the Iranian uranium enrichment
program.
The United States and other Western countries believe Iran is
enriching uranium to use as fuel for nuclear weapons. But Iran
insists the program is to make fuel for civilian reactors.
Iran has said it will reply by August 22 to a package of
incentives offered by the five permament members of the UN
Security Council plus Germany to halt its uranium enrichment
program.
Burns said the United States has an agreement with other
permanent members of the Security Council to seek sanctions if
Iran fails to comply and "we're heading for that kind of a
decision," he said.
Russia and China, however, were expected to argue in favor of
further negotiations. An earlier UN Security Council deadline
passed without action on April 28.
"I don't think it's a question of what the United States will
have to do to pressure countries. We have an agreement with
Russia and China and with the other members of the Council that
we will go to Chapter 7 sanctions," Burns said.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. to Move Quickly on Iran Sanctions
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday August 17, 2006 11:46 PM
AP Photo VAH102
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States intends to act next month to
have the United Nations impose penalties on Iran for refusing to
suspend its enrichment of uranium, a State Department official
said Thursday.
``They will be well-deserved,'' Undersecretary of State Nicholas
Burns told reporters. ``It's not a mystery to the Iranians what
is going to happen.''
U.S. officials did not specify the proposed punishment.
Beyond the nuclear program, Iran supports Hezbollah as well as
other terrorist organizations and has played a destabilizing
role in the Middle East, said a department spokesman, Tom Casey.
The Security Council has said Iran faces penalties if it does
not suspend uranium enrichment, an important step in making
nuclear weapons.
Iran has until the end of the month for an official response.
Tehran also had said it would reply by Tuesday to a proposal by
the United States and the European Union for concessions that
include Washington's supplying of some civilian nuclear energy.
Some critics urged the Bush administration to get on with
negotiations with Iran.
A group of 22 former military officials and retired diplomats
said President Bush immediately should open discussions.
Thursday's letter also cautioned against any consideration of
the use of military force.
``An attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences for
security in the region and U.S. forces in Iraq, and it would
inflame hatred and violence in the Middle East and among Muslims
everywhere,'' the letter said.
Iran contends its enrichment and other nuclear programs are
civilian in nature.
``We certainly want to give the Iranians the chance to take this
last opportunity to accept the offer that is on the table,''
Casey said.
Burns said the U.S. wants to moved quickly in September on the
proposed U.N. penalties. He said the role of Iran in the Middle
East has raised concerns among Arab and other countries about
Tehran's intentions.
``There is broadened concern about the policy of a country that
flexes its muscles,'' he said. ``Iran wants to be the dominant
country in the region.''
As for the cease-fire in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah,
Burns said Iran and Syria, the principal backers of the
Hezbollah militia, ``have a responsibility to respect the
peace.''
---
Associated Press writer George Gedda contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
7 Courier-Journal: Quarry mentioned as blast test site
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Environmentalists fear effects of 700-ton bomb
By Grace Schneider
With little fanfare, U.S. military officials and the operators of
a limestone quarry near Mitchell detonated 3,000-pound batches of
explosives in the summer of 2004 and in March 2005.
The blasts were part of an experiment by the federal National
Threat Reduction Agency to fine-tune ways to root out enemies and
powerful weapons nestled in limestone tunnels.
Although the tests largely escaped public attention, the same
Hoosier quarry was identified this month in a published report
as a possible location for a far larger experimental blast
involving hundreds of tons of explosives.
Rogers Group, the Nashville, Tenn.-based owners of the Mitchell
quarry, 30 miles south of Bloomington, disavowed any knowledge
about the Lawrence County operation being considered for the
larger blast.
But Indiana environmental groups are concerned nevertheless.
"Nobody can believe this. It's been a jaw drop," said Andy
Mahler, an activist who lives near Paoli. "People are appalled."
That concern was prompted by an Aug. 2 Las Vegas Review-Journal
story in which agency spokeswoman Irene Smith said that the
Rogers quarry in Mitchell and a missile range in White Sands,
N.M. -- both sites of smaller-scale tests -- were possible
locations for the larger explosion, set for next year.
That blast -- dubbed Divine Strake -- originally had been
planned for a 35-foot open-air pit dug into a limestone ridge at
the Nevada Test Site, a former nuclear weapons test range 85
miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Military scientists were preparing to fire off 700 tons of
ammonium nitrate and fuel oil to measure the impact on limestone
tunnels below. According to some estimates, such a blast would
have more than 200 times the force of the one that destroyed the
federal building in Oklahoma City more than a decade ago.
But a pending legal challenge by an Indian tribe and citizens in
Utah, as well as questions by Nevada environmental regulators
about potential radioactive fallout from previous tests, forced
the National Nuclear Security Administration to delay the
experiment.
When The Courier-Journal inquired this week about whether the
Mitchell quarry was an alternate site for Divine Strake, agency
officials were less forthcoming.
Smith was said to be unavailable, and another spokeswoman said
it's "premature" to identify any potential locations until an
assessment is completed.
The spokewoman, Cheri Abdelnour, couldn't say for sure when the
agency would make a decision. She said Divine Strake is now
tentatively scheduled for mid- to late 2007.
Indiana officials, including those with the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management, said they were unaware of the
previous tests at Mitchell, in which nitromethane was detonated.
Nor, they said, have they been contacted about the possibility
of the quarry being used in a larger experiment next year.
Jane Jankowski, a spokeswoman for Gov. Mitch Daniels, and Mark
Hayes, a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, said their
offices had not heard of such an effort.
Rogers' prepared statement said that the previous explosives
tests required no special permits because "blast levels were
lower than typical blasting for our crushed stone business."
Still, they employed seismograph monitoring devices to ensure
that the blasts remained within the mining guidelines.
The statement said the threat reduction agency "has not been in
contact with Rogers Group regarding Divine Strake testing."
Although the Pentagon has assured the public that the test is
not associated with the government's nuclear weapons program,
watchdog organizations remain skeptical.
Utah's largest newspaper, the Salt Lake Tribune, suggested in an
editorial earlier this year that Divine Strake might be a
"prelude to a new round of nuclear tests."
Marylia Kelley, executive director of the California-based
Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, which
monitors the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory east of San Francisco, said she doubts that the
Indiana site will be chosen.
She said that's because it would be expensive to install
monitoring and diagnostic equipment needed to study the blast,
which is already in place at testing sites in the West.
Mahler questioned how agency officials could plan the explosion
for next year given that a new location hasn't even been chosen.
Extensive environmental assessments would be needed, he said,
and citizens would have a right to comment under federal law.
Reporter Grace Schneider can be reached at (812) 949-4040.
Reporter James Bruggers contributed to this story.
Copyright 2005 The Courier-Journal.
*****************************************************************
8 AFP: US judge halts warrantless wiretapping by NSA
by Mira Oberman Thu Aug 17, 6:00 PM ET
CHICAGO (AFP) - A US judge halted warrantless wiretapping by the
National Security Agency and ruled that President George W. Bush"
/> overstepped his authority when authorizing an unconstitutional
program.
Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ordered a permanent injunction
barring the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which has been used
to monitor millions of US citizens.
"It was never the intent of the (Constitutional) framers to give
the president such unfettered control, particularly when his
actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in
the Bill of Rights," Taylor wrote in a 43-page opinion.
The ruling was immediately appealed by the NSA and the
injunction was temporarily stayed ahead of an appeals court
ruling.
The decision was a significant blow to Bush's attempts to expand
presidential powers in response to the terrorist attacks of
September 11. It comes just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled
that the Bush administration overstepped its authority in
setting up military tribunals to try war on terror detainees
held at a US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
"It's pretty sweeping," said Robert Bennett, a professor at
Northwestern University's law school, noting that the ruling
went beyond faulting the administration for violating
Congressional rules on wiretapping.
"The Bush administration is losing pretty regularly on
assertions that it's overstepping its authority."
The wiretapping suit was filed in Michigan by the American Civil
Liberties Union" /> on behalf of a number of journalists,
lawyers, scholars and rights workers who believed their
communications had been monitored. They argued that the program
prevented them from doing their work because people were afraid
to speak with them on the telephone or send e-mails that could
be monitored.
Taylor ruled that they had faced "irreparable injury" because
the surveillance program violated their rights to free speech
and protection from unwarranted searches.
The Bush administration had argued that it had the right to
conduct the program but that it would need to reveal state
secrets in order to prove it. Taylor ruled sufficient
information about the program had already been made public by
the administration.
"The public interest is clear, in the manner," she wrote. "It is
the upholding of our constitution."
The ruling was hailed by the ACLU.
"Today's ruling is a landmark victory against the abuse of power
that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration," said
Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.
"Government spying on innocent Americans without any kind of
warrant and without Congressional approval runs counter to the
very foundations of our democracy."
The White House sharply criticized the ruling and said the
program was "firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to
make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties."
"United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the
program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American
lives," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said.
"That' what the American people expect from their government,
and it is the president's most solemn duty to ensure their
protection."
Congress restricted the use of electronic surveillance of
citizens after the Watergate scandal which brought down
President Richard Nixon" /> .
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created a secret court
which has only denied three requests in nearly 30 years and
which allows law enforcement to initiate surveillance before the
warrant is obtained.
"It's not the most difficult statute to comply with but they do
have to have some reasonable belief that the person may commit a
crime," said Evan Camiker, dean of the University of Michigan's
law school, explaining that this ruling outlaws "fishing
expeditions."
Democrats said the ruling highlighted Bush's skewed priorities.
"Instead of poking holes in the constitution, the administration
should get back to plugging holes in our homeland security,"
said Representative Ed Markey, a senior member of the House
Homeland Security" /> Committee.
"Rather than griping about having to go to a FISA court for
legal clearance to wiretap potential terrorists, the Bush
Administration should fully inspect cargo put on passenger
planes and make sure that a nuclear bomb isn't sent on a
container ship to a major US port."
The ACLU is also filing suit against the telephone companies
which participated in the program in violation of their
obligations to customers.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
9 AFP: Retired US generals, diplomats criticize Bush Middle East policy
by Jerome Bernard Thu Aug 17, 6:42 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A group of former diplomats and retired
generals called on President George W. Bush" /> President George
W. Bushto open negotiations with Iran" /> Iran, warning that the
use of military force would have catastrophic consequences for
the region.
The open letter signed by 21 former senior officials comes amid
growing criticism of US refusal to deal directly with Iran and
Syria" /> Syriadespite crises in Iraq" /> Iraqand Lebanon.
"As former military leaders and foreign policy officials, we
call on the Bush administration to engage immediately in direct
talks with the government of Iran without preconditions to help
resolve the current crisis in the Middle East and settle
differences over the Iranian nuclear program," the letter said.
"We strongly caution against any consideration of the use of
military force against Iran. The current crises must be resolved
through diplomacy, not military action," it said.
It warned that an attack on Iran would have disastrous
consequences for the region and for US forces in Iraq, further
inflaming Muslim hatred and violence.
Among the signers were retired general Joseph Hoar, a former
commander of US forces in the Middle East, and Morton Halperin,
a former State Department director of policy planning.
Halperin accused the Bush administration of stifling debate on
Middle East policy "by accusing anybody that disagrees with it
of being disloyal or somehow helping the terrorists."
"This administration by refusing to talk to the Syrians, to the
Iranians, to the North Koreans has in my view jeopardized our
national security," he said in a teleconference with reporters.
The letter comes on top of a chorus of recent criticism by other
former officials, Democrats and Republicans, of the
administration's Middle East strategy.
Last week, former US ambassador to the United Nations" /> United
NationsRichard Holbrooke called for more active Middle East
diplomacy and talks with Iran and Syria in a opinion piece
published by the Washington Post.
Warning of merging crises in Lebanon and Iraq, he emphasized the
need to prevent "a chain reaction (that) could spread quickly
almost anywhere between Cairo and Mumbai."
"The only beneficiaries of this chaos are Iran, Hezbollah,
Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr, who last
week held the largest anti-American, anti- Israel" />
Israeldemonstration in the world in the very heart of Baghdad,
even as 6,000 additional U.S. troops were rushing into the city
to 'prevent' a civil war that has already begun," he said.
"This combination of combustible elements poses the greatest
threat to global stability since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis,
history's only nuclear superpower confrontation," he said.
Holbrooke, a Democrat, also called for sending more US troops to
Afghanistan" /> Afghanistanwhile redeploying some US troops in
Iraq to the Kurdish zones in the north, then proceed with a
phased drawdown of the remaining force.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Riceearlier
this month brushed off critics of the administration policies as
short-sighted.
Richard Haas, a former State Department official, found irony in
the government use of the word "opportunity" to describe the
crisis in the Middle East, and Richard Armitage, a former deputy
secretary of state, said Washington's irrational fear of talks
was a sign of weakness.
But Rice has continued to defend Washington's refusal to hold
high level talks with Syria about Lebanon, and says the crisis
in the region is evidence of the emergence of a "new Middle
East."
"The problem isn't talking to Syria, the problem is that Syria
doesn't act when people talk to them," she said.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
10 UPI: UPI Energy Watch
United Press International - Energy -
8/17/2006 3:00:00 PM -0400
By ANDREA R. MIHAILESCU UPI Energy Correspondent
Russian nuclear power sector eyes private investors
The Russian nuclear power sector said it wants to attract
investment from the private sector to help implement a major
program to launch new generating capacity, according to local
reports.
The Federal Atomic Energy Agency, or Rosatom, has secured a
cooperation agreement with the two largest aluminum producers in
Russia -- Russian Aluminum, owned by metals tycoon Oleg
Deripaska, and SUAL, one of the world's largest aluminum
producers, -- to conduct joint work on building nuclear plants
linked to aluminum plants.
Rosatom is looking to attract private investors to finance the
construction of the new nuclear capacity to meet growing demand,
but current Russian legislation only allows state financing of
the nuclear sector.
In the fall, the State Duma is considering passing draft laws to
allow for private investment in Russian nuclear plants without
taking part in the ownership of the plants, but with guarantees
of long-term electricity supplies at a fixed price.
The agreement does not address specific projects, according to
Russian media reports.
A Rosatom working group and the two aluminum companies are
working on preparing preliminary feasibility studies. The group
is expected to submit its first results by October, according to
local media reports.
Victor Vekselberg, Renova chief and SUAL co-owner, told
reporters Wednesday that Renova has received a proposal to act
as investor in the construction of a nuclear plant in Perm
territory.
"At the moment the project is more like a fantasy, but it may
very well become real. This is a viable idea and an interesting
proposal for us," Vekselberg said.
-0-
Caracas, Beijing near inking energy deals
Hugo Chavez, present Venezuela, plans to secure a series of
energy deals with China during his upcoming state visit to
Beijing next week, Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said
Tuesday.
The move is designed to increase oil sales to China to 200,000
barrels per day as China looks to diversify its suppliers and
Venezuela looks to acquire more customers from Asia.
The agreements will be for 18 oil tankers and 24 oil-drilling
rigs, Ramirez told reporters Caracas.
Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA expects to finalize a deal
with China National Petroleum Corp., the nation's largest oil
company, on the joint development of the Zumano oilfield in
eastern Venezuela.
During Ramirez's visit to Beijing last August, The two sides
already secured initial agreements for the Zumano oilfield and
for the joint surveying of the Orinoco Oil Belt Block Junin 4,
which the two companies started last October.
The Zumano area has proven reserves of 400 million barrels of
light and medium crude and 4 billion cubic feet of gas, PDVSA,
while the Junin 4 block is estimated to contain 20 billion
barrels of oil reserves, reported last August.
Chavez will start his official visit to Beijing on August 22,
the Chinese Foreign Ministry said.
-0-
Romanian, Iranian firms in oil rig dispute
Iranian state-owned Petroiran Oil Co. has filed a criminal case
in a court in Tehran on Monday against Romania's Grup Servicii
Petroliere, or GSP, on charges of hijacking an oil rig.
Petroiran maintains it was perfectly within its rights to move
the rig to Sharjah.
"We had permission from Iranian authorities to move the rig out
because we completed our contract in April. It is wrong on the
part of Petroiran to accuse us of hijacking the rig," Gabriel
Comanescu, president of Grup Servicii Petroliere, was cited as
saying by Gulf News.
"The rig had some technical problems and it needed 'annual
class' certification by Germanishcer Lloyd. It has been brought
to the anchorage area, three miles off Sharjah," he said.
Comanescu also noted the company already had approval to enter
the United Arab Emirates.
"We have no problems with the UAE because we are moving here
legally. Petroiran Oil Company has no legal right to urge any
one for the return of the Fortuna rig," Comanescu said.
--
Closing oil prices, Aug. 17, 3 p.m. London
Brent crude oil: $71.65
West Texas Intermediate crude oil: $70.70
--
(Please send comments to AMihailescu@upi.com)
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
11 Telugu Portal: India not to bow to US on nuclear deal
Posted by on 2006/8/17 10:14:48
New Delhi, Aug 17 (IANS) India said Thursday it would never bow
to any US pressure over its civil nuclear deal but showed no
enthusiasm for a "sense of the house" resolution on the subject
as sought by the opposition.
Minister of State for External Affairs Anand Sharma said
parliament had already been taken into confidence about the
nuclear agreement and said the government would only be bound by
a bilateral pact, not any US laws.
"This government has a transparent approach. India will not
accept any extra obligations (apart from the ones agreed to in
the July 2005 statement)," Sharma said told the Rajya Sabha
during an animated discussion on the nuclear deal.
"No legislation of any other parliament will be binding on us.
We will be bound only by a bilateral agreement on civil nuclear
agreement with the US," he asserted.
The minister was responding to Bharatiya Janata Party leader and
former external affairs minister Yashwnat Sinha's contention
that New Delhi had quietly accepted departures from the 2005
statement signed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US
President George W. Bush.
Sharma said the government would never compromise with India's
strategic nuclear weapons programme that has run into criticism
in the US.
"This government has a transparent approach. This is the third
discussion in parliament since the nuclear deal between India
and the US last year," he said.
But Sharma did not accept the opposition's increasingly shrill
demand for a "sense of the house" resolution on the
controversial nuclear deal.
"A sense of the house" resolution, its advocates say, will send
out a message loud and clear to the world that India will not
lower its nuclear deterrent and compromise its nuclear programme
and pursue an independent foreign policy.
The Indo-US deal's critics across the spectrum allege that it
will make India's indigenous nuclear programme subservient to
Washington's strategic interests.
Not convinced by the government's arguments, Sinha and Communist
Part of India-Marxist leader Sitaram Yechury made an impassioned
pitch for such a resolution that will set the parameters for
India's negotiations with the US on the deal.
Sinha also called a joint parliamentary committee to oversee the
implementation of the resolution.
"We can't remain mere spectators. India can't bend to the will
of the members of the US Congress," Sinha asserted.
"Departures have already been made from the July 2005 statement.
The government has accepted a watertight separation plan that
does not apply to nuclear weapon states. We have accepted the
safeguards agreement in perpetuity," he alleged.
"Above all, reciprocity and non-discrimination, the highest
pillars of the July 2005 agreement, have been turned on their
head," Sinha added.
Yechury questioned the very rationale of the civil nuclear
agreement and said if it was meant to promote energy security,
then the government was working on "fundamentally flawed"
premises.
According to Yechury, the projected increase in India's nuclear
electricity production would be only five percent in the next 10
years, and that it was too costly and unreliable an option to
gain energy security.
© 2006 TeluguPortal.Net | | | Powered by | |
*****************************************************************
12 Security Lapse at TVA’s Sequoyah Nuclear
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:18:31 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.pogo.org/p/homeland/ha-060802-nuclear.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 16, 2006
6:00 AM
CONTACT: Project On Government Oversight
Jennifer Porter Gore
jgore@pogo.org
Or Peter Stockton
202.347.1122
Security Lapse at TVA's Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant
WASHINGTON - August 16 - POGO has received a report of a security lapse
that occurred at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah Nuclear Power
Plant. Officials discovered last week that a sealed manufacturer's crate
that had sat in a warehouse for an undetermined amount of time contained
30 M-4 assault rifles, which are similar to semiautomatic M16 rifles.
The rifles had been delivered by a truck that entered the plant through
the vehicle entrance into the Protected Area.
If this is true then it raises a serious security concern for a minimum of
two reasons:
The weapons could have been delivered to an insider planning a hostage
situation or other violent action.
The crate could have contained explosives. The delivery should have at
least been stopped at the entrance and certainly not allowed to sit inside
the Protected Area for any period of time.
###
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I came to America because of the great, great freedom which I heard
existed in this country. I made a mistake in selecting America as a land of
freedom, a mistake I cannot repair in the balance of my lifetime." - Albert
Einstein, who would accumulate nearly 100,000 pages of FBI files before he
died.
"Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with
innocent blood": Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War, 1948
Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA 93451
Cell: 805 296-0524
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
13 Guardian Unlimited: Get rid of BE stake before it's burnt out
Nils Pratley Thursday August 17, 2006 The Guardian
[Sizewell B nuclear plant]
Sizewell B nuclear plant. Photograph: PA
Whoops, there goes another few hundred million quid from Treasury
coffers. The government's 65% stake in British Energy may still
be worth £6bn-plus, but yesterday's 4.5% fall in the company's
share price tells the story. British Nuclear, as it ought to be
called, is about to miss its operational targets for the third
year in a row. The stock market is having to acknowledge that
old, creaking assets can't be made efficient just by installing a
hot-shot power chief from America.
Chief executive Bill Coley spoke of "human performance issues",
by which he means staff cock-ups. It's a worrying phrase in the
mouth of a nuclear power operator, but we are assured safety was
not compromised. Output was. The target for the year has been
reduced from 63 terawatt hours (don't ask for the definition) to
between 61 and 63.
The difference may not sound much, but not long ago City
optimists were dreaming that British Energy might aspire to 80.
It is not going to happen. Seven of the eight nuclear stations
are gas-cooled and the plants simply do not work as efficiently
as those using water.
Naturally, none of these problems can be detected in British
Energy's profits, which will pass £1bn this year unless the
cock-ups become calamitous. Sky-high electricity prices disguise
everything. A year ago, the group was selling at £11.20 per
megawatt-hour; in the latest quarter it got £35.90; for the rest
of the year, two-thirds of output will be sold at £44.
That's the good news for the chancellor as he contemplates the
timing of the sale of part - maybe half - of the state's stake.
The advice here would be: get on with it. If British Energy is
incapable of becoming more efficient, then its shares are a play
on the oil price, which indirectly determines electricity
prices. Nobody is going to criticise Gordon Brown for selling
when oil is $70 a barrel.
It certainly wouldn't be his worst trade. That was the sale of
gold reserves in 1999 at the lowest prices seen in 20 years. He
can't do worse than that.
Rising rate of odds
Now the outlook for interest rates gets really blurred. Last
week's story was Mervyn King foretelling his own embarrassment.
The governor of the Bank of England implied it was odds-on that
inflation would rise above 3% at some point in the next couple
of years, obliging him to write an explanatory letter to the
chancellor. Another interest rate rise, and soon, seemed
inevitable.
Suddenly the hawks on the bank's rate-setting committee seem
less scary. The minutes of that early-August meeting that
increased rates to 4.75% are dotted with innocuous phrases.
There "would be time to reverse any increase should that prove
necessary", said one passage. Uncertainties about spare capacity
in the economy and about energy prices "would not become clear
until 2007 or beyond", said another.
Such qualified language, however, tends to be par for the course
in Bank minutes. Indeed, one central assumption - that few
secondary effects of inflation have been seen - is being
challenged by subsequent data. Pay data from the Office for
National Statistics (ONS) yesterday showed a 4.3% increase in
wages across the economy in June. For central bankers charged
with keeping inflation at 2%, that number is impossible to
ignore. True, unemployment also rose to its highest level since
2000, but the Bank's direct worry is inflation.
In that regard, today's retail sales figures for July take on
great significance. If they show strong growth, during a period
in which World Cup euphoria had presumably waned, then the case
for another rate rise is strengthened.
The bottom line remains this: King would look as if he had gone
soft if he warned of 3% inflation and then pulled the interest
rate lever only once.
Bonus bonanza
The most startling figure from the ONS yesterday was the
revelation that £19bn of bonuses were paid in Britain last year.
Yes, it was a thumping good year for City high-flyers, but one
suspects company executives outside the Square Mile more than
pulled their weight.
Each year the Guardian conducts an analysis of pay in FTSE 100
company boardrooms. One theme has been unmistakable in recent
years: bonus payments are accelerating.
The charitable interpretation is that rewards are being tied
more directly to performance. The sceptical view is that the
bonus system is being abused. The chance to earn a bonus worth
100% of salary will soon be the norm for our top executives. Has
there been a compensating fall in levels of basic pay? Of course
not. It's been a case of heads you win, tails you don't lose.
nils.pratley@guardian.co.uk
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
14 24.com: No sign of sabotage at Koeberg
Donwald Pressly
Cape Town - There was no evidence of any organised group of any
sort being the agent of an act of sabotage at Koeberg - which led
to the shutdown of the nuclear plant earlier this year - South
Africa's Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin told parliament
on Thursday.
Erwin was speaking after months of controversy over remarks he
made the day before the local government elections on March 1
that a bolt - found in the rotor and stator mechanisms at Koeberg
- "did not get there by accident". His statement was interpreted
as indicating that there had been sabotage.
Official opposition MP Hendrik Schmidt immediately accused Erwin
of making "an exceedingly reckless statement" which had been
crafted to have an influence on the elections - where the ruling
African National Congress (ANC) was under particular pressure in
the Western Cape.
ANC MP Peter Hendrickse argued that if he wished to influence the
elections, the minister - who was normally straight talking -
would have made the statement much earlier.
Referring to the incident on December 25 last year, Erwin said in
the National Assembly on Thursday: "The word sabotage generally
conveys such organised action by a group and our initial concern
was to eliminate such a serious possibility.
"It was also why I did not use the word sabotage as we had to
verify the existence or otherwise of a group before any such word
was appropriate. The non-existence of any such group has now been
conclusively established."
After the controversy over his initial remarks, he referred
instead to "human instrumentality".
Clarifying his statements Erwin said, in a prepared statement,
that: "This question has caused massive public interest. Of as
much interest has been whether I said that this was an act of
sabotage. I did not say this and all attempts I made to our
erudite media to say what I did say merely got me into deeper
linguistic difficulties."
The minister said the actual events "are clear and now very well
understood. When the generator was opened up a bolt was found in
it".
"This bolt should not have been there - it was of a type that
was used outside and not inside the generator and the Clean
Conditions Controls had been implemented they but had clearly
not prevented it being within the generator. This was an obvious
cause of concern."
Indicating that negligence by Eskom staff, rather than sabotage
was involved, the minister noted that he would "not comment on
individual persons who may have been the subject of any
investigation".
"To do so in the absence of any formal charge laid against them
would be an absolutely unacceptable action. Secondly, I will not
comment on employees who may be subject to any internal
procedures in the company for the same reasons.
"Thirdly I will not disclose information that may have
operational and security implications for Koeberg or the
transmission system," he said.
Defending the minister, National Assembly public enterprises
portfolio committee chairman and ANC MP Yunus Carrim noted that
Schmidt's reference to the bolt being in the generator was not
an accident "doesn't necessary mean sabotage".
He said that there had been no mention of sabotage by the
minister. He accused opposition members of reading prepared
speeches.
Carrim acknowledged that it was true that the loose bolt turned
into "a loose cannon".
*****************************************************************
15 MiamiHerald.com: Proceed with caution
08/16/2006 |
OUR OPINION: OLD NEMESIS HAUNTS RENEWED PUSH FOR NUCLEAR PLANTS
Nuclear energy is the future. This is the rationalization behind
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman's decision to provide incentives
to companies willing to build the first new nuclear plants in
the United States in 30 years. The government is offering $2
billion in federal insurance for six new plants. But this
initiative also needs more research. There still are no good
answers to the biggest problem that comes with nuclear energy --
where to dispose of the radioactive waste.
Nuclear energy is crucial for the U.S. economy and environment.
Reinvigorating the industry now would come at a time when energy
prices are escalating. Relatively little fuel is needed to run
nuclear-power plants, and they would generate electricity at
cheaper rates. Moreover, nuclear energy is the most promising
long-term approach to reducing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.
Some environmentalists believe nuclear energy is a viable
strategy to reduce greenhouse gases that contribute to global
warming. Additionally, these plants do not pollute the air with
harmful gases such as carbon monoxide, aerosols or photochemical
smog.
In addition to incentives for nuclear plants, the government
should look for ways to minimize the risk from nuclear waste.
Nuclear-plant construction was halted in this country after the
partial meltdown in 1979 at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.
Yet a bad historical event should be cause for improvement, not
a restraint on beneficial technology.
The government should proceed with deliberate caution in
developing new nuclear plants as it figures out how to dispose
of the waste that will be generated.
*****************************************************************
16 San Luis Obispo Tribune: San Onofre nuclear plant leaking
| 08/17/2006 |
No danger to public, feds say
Associated Press
SAN CLEMENTE (AP) - The retired reactor at San Onofre's nuclear
power plant has leaked several thousand gallons of radioactive
tritium for an unknown length of time, its operator said
Tuesday.
Initial tests showed levels of tritium in groundwater under the
retired reactor exceeds amounts recommended by the Environmental
Protection Agency for drinking water, but were lower than the
maximum annual leakage the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows
for nuclear power plants.
Tritium is a byproduct of the nuclear fission that produces
electricity. In high levels it can cause cancer or birth
defects.
"There is no danger to public safety," said Victor Dricks, the
commission's spokesman.
San Onofre's spokesman, Ray Golde, said the leak could have
started years ago, but noted that the nearest well for drinking
water is two miles uphill at Camp Pendleton.
Golde said that if the tritium washes into the ocean, it would
be diluted to levels safe for ocean users and aquatic life.
The reactor was retired in 1992. Crews demolishing it discovered
the leak last week, and the commission was notified Monday.
San Onofre officials said if additional tests confirm the
concentration of leaked tritium meets the commission's
standards, they would release the contaminated groundwater 11/2
miles offshore.
*****************************************************************
17 The Hindu: Reactor for nuclear submarine fully operational
Friday, Aug 18, 2006
T.S. Subramanian
Mini version of reactor to be built and fitted into the submarine
+ The reactor went critical towards the end of 2004
+ Mood upbeat about building of submarine
CHENNAI: The reactor for India's nuclear-powered submarine
project at Kalpakkam, near here, is working smoothly at its full
capacity of 100 MWe, informed sources said.
Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee inspected the project on July
18 while taking part in the 20th anniversary celebrations of the
commissioning of the Fast Breeder Test Reactor there.
The project is called the Advanced Technology Vessel (ATV)
programme.
The sources said the reactor, which went critical towards the
end of 2004, was fully operational now.
A miniaturised version of the reactor would be built and fitted
into the submarine.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited the ATV facility on
October 23, 2004, when he launched the construction of the
Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) there.
Substantial progress has also been made in building the
submarine's hull at Visakhapatnam, the sources said.
The ATV is a joint project of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
(BARC) of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), the Navy and
the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
The ATV has facilities at BARC in Mumbai, Kalpakkam, and
Visakhapatnam.
The mood is upbeat in these facilities about the progress made.
The fuel for the reactor, which is highly enriched uranium,
comes from the Rare Materials Project near Ratnahalli, near
Mysore.
Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication
*****************************************************************
18 Daily Yomiuri: Govt must take initiative in promoting N-power
: Editorial :
The Yomiuri Shimbun
In its plan for the long-term safe usage of nuclear power, the
Natural Resources and Energy Agency says the government will
promote nuclear power generation as a basic national strategy.
The agency made clear in the plan that the government will play
a leading role in the promotion of nuclear power generation
because it said the solution of problems related to the
maintenance and promotion of nuclear power generation will be
put off if the private sector, including electric power
companies, continues to have exclusive control over nuclear
power generation projects.
Under the plan, the agency will help electric power companies
maintain the ratio of nuclear power generation at at least 30
percent of the entire electric power supply. To realize this,
the agency proposes the establishment of a system to reserve
funds for building nuclear power plants. It also says the
government will take the lead in developing next-generation
nuclear reactors.
The agency specifies the promotion of the nuclear fuel cycle
project to effectively use spent nuclear fuel and sets the goal
of operating a fast-breeder reactor for commercial use by 2050
as a pillar of the project.
Expectations have been raised internationally over the potential
of nuclear power as a secure energy resource. European countries
and the United States have unveiled new government-led nuclear
power policies one after another. Japan should not lag behind
them in the promotion of nuclear power.
===
Consistency key
It is a long time since the deregulation of the electric power
industry began on the basis of market principles and allowing
the private sector to take the initiative. In its nuclear power
policies, the government's hands-off attitude has been
noticeable as it has pushed private sector-led liberalization.
Particularly in the nuclear fuel cycle project, there are those
in the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, which should be a
promoter of the project, calling for the project to be frozen
due to its high cost.
If the government fails to maintain a consistent attitude in its
nuclear power policies, the private sector will become cautious
about nuclear power projects. As a result, manufacturers of
nuclear power facilities could reduce their technological
investment, which could lead to a decrease in the number of
talented employees.
As is mentioned in the introduction to the agency's plan, it is
important to maintain consistency in nuclear power policies in
the medium- and long term.
The measures called for in the policy, such as personnel
training and promotion of research and development, should be
implemented steadily.
===
Plant operation rate too low
But there is cause for concern when we look at the current
situation of nuclear power generation. There are too many
problems hindering the operations of nuclear power plants, and
their operation rate remains low. The rate was below 60 percent
in fiscal 2003, 68.9 percent in fiscal 2004 and 72 percent in
fiscal 2005.
In consideration of global warming, the government intends to
raise the rate to more than 87 percent, but the current
situation is far from that goal. The operation of 12 reactors
has been suspended this summer.
Three reactors of Tohoku Electric Power Co.'s Onagawa nuclear
power plant in Miyagi Prefecture were shut down when it was
revealed that pipes in the reactors were too thin, leading them
to crack, and that a worker put control rods in the wrong place.
The ministry issued a strong warning to the operator.
There also was a problem that gives rise to concern over
technological capabilities. Chubu Electric Power Co.'s Hamaoka
nuclear power plant in Shizuoka Prefecture and Hokuriku Electric
Power Co.'s Shiga nuclear power plant in Ishikawa Prefecture
each shut down a reactor in June when blades of the
latest-designed turbines made by domestic manufacturers fell and
were damaged. The reactors were newly built, and the problem is
suspected to have been caused by mistakes in their design and
construction.
Without efforts to secure the safety of nuclear power plants and
maintain and improve nuclear-related technological capabilities,
the plan for the long-term safe usage of nuclear power will
fail.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Aug. 18, 2006) (Aug. 18, 2006)
© The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
19 Platts: Southern Nuclear moves toward potential new construction
Washington (Platts)--15Aug2006
Southern Nuclear Operating Co. took a major step toward
potentially building two Westinghouse AP1000s at its Vogtle site
by applying to NRC August 15, as promised, for an early site
permit. NRC's ESP review will determine the suitability of the
site and, if approved, would give Southern Nuclear up to 20 years
to submit an application to actually construct a new facility.
Southern Nuclear says there will be a need for more generation in
the southeast by 2015 and has begun the licensing process to keep
nuclear as an option for meeting future electricity demand. The
company says it will file a combined construction
permit-operating license application in March 2008.
The Vogtle site was originally planned for four units but only
two Westinghouse PWRs were built there.
Terms & Conditions
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
20 Platts: BE finds more cracking at Hunterston B unit than expected
London (Platts)--16Aug2006
British Energy expressed surprise at the level of boiler tube
cracking at one of its Hunterston B advanced gas-cooled reactor
units, or AGRs. BE said in its latest quarterly report published
August 16 that a boiler inspection at one of its twin Hunterston
B AGRs, currently down for a statutory maintenance outage, "has
in this last week indicated a level of boiler tube cracking above
that expected."
BE said the discovery meant there would be additional repair work
and an extension of the current outage, "plus additional work
next financial year" at the unit. BE did not identify the unit.
It warned that the unit is likely to operate at lower power on
return to service until next year's completion of further work.
The company said it expected to perform additional boiler tube
inspections at the other Hunterston B unit and at the two Hinkley
Point B units in the course of their planned outages this
financial year and next.
"The implications of these boiler tube issues ... are a matter of
current review both internally and with our regulator," said BE.
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
21 Independent: Cost of cleaning up nuclear sites is 'more than £70bn'
By Andy McSmith
Published: 17 August 2006
Cleaning up the sites of Britain's ageing or defunct nuclear
power stations will cost "significantly" more than the £70bn
estimate drawn up by the agency responsible, a committee of MPs
says. Its findings are a setback for Tony Blair, whose energy
policy relies on persuading people to accept a new generation of
nuclear power plants.
Each time inspectors have looked at sites such as Sellafield,
they have found new problems that have pushed up estimated
costs.
In 2002, when the Government was considering setting up a new
agency to handle nuclear waste, it was thought the taxpayer was
facing a total bill of £48bn over the long term. When the newly
created Nuclear Decommissioning Authority looked at the issue in
2004, it raised the figure to £56bn. Earlier this year, it
revised that figure to £70bn, but MPs on the all-party trade and
industry committee are convinced even that figure is too low.
The committee chairman, the Tory MP Peter Luff, said: "At a time
when the Government is committing to increasing nuclear power it
seems very unfortunate indeed there is this uncertainty in
dealing with the existing waste. It's not going to do anything
for public confidence in nuclear power."
The NDA's estimate of £70bn derives partially from its belief
that costs can be offset by running a sideline reprocessing and
selling spent fuel. But reprocessing fuel costs more than mining
new uranium, and groups such as Greenpeace have said an agency
whose job is to clean up nuclear waste should not be creating
more of it.
The first contracts for clearing up sites are being negotiated
and when work begins it is almost inevitable the contractors
will find more nuclear waste that has been stored and forgotten
for decades, the report says.
During the committee's investigation, it heard from angry
neighbours of nuclear sites, worried about the secrecy of any
clean-up.
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
22 Connecticut Post: FERC to decide stranded cost deal
Article created: 08/17/2006 04:44:05 AM EDT
ROB VARNON rvarnon@ctpost.com
Two state agencies and the owners of Connecticut Yankee Atomic
Power Co. added five years to an agreement to cover the
decommissioning costs of the nuclear plant in order to reduce
the $93-million-a-year bill to electricity customers.
The Department of Public Utility Control, the Office of
Consumer Counsel and the owners of Haddam Neck-based Connecticut
Yankee said Tuesday the annual fee will be reduced to $43
million. But the payments, which were to end by 2010, will be
extended to 2015. The United Illuminating Co. and Connecticut
Light &Power Co. are part owners of the nuclear plant.
Beryl Lyons, a DPUC spokeswoman, said the agreement must be
approved by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which she
expects to happen some time this year. UI spokeswoman Anita
Steeves said her company would not speculate on the impact to
bills until FERC reaches a decision.
"It's not mere spreading it out," said Joseph Rosenthal, the
Office of Consumer Counsel's principal attorney. The deal, he
said, will reduce the overall cost to consumers, following
FERC's most recent decision.
When Connecticut deregulated the power generation business, the
utilities that owned the plant, including the two state
companies, decommissioned it. But because the utilities couldn't
recoup all the costs of building the plant by the time they had
to shut down the plant, FERC allowed them to pass along those
so-called stranded costs to consumers.
In December 2005, FERC gave preliminary approval to Connecticut
Yankee to increase the amount of stranded costs its utility
owners could recover to $93 million per year.
But Rosenthal said it is doubtful people will see a drop in
their overall power bills next year, when this goes into effect,
because there are so many other costs that will be hitting them.
Bills are expected to increase by 5 to 6 percent because of new
federal rules aimed at encouraging competition. The rules
provide fiscal incentives to power generators to locate in areas
that are net importers of power. UI and CL also need to secure
new power contracts, which means the companies will pass along
the higher energy costs in the new contracts to consumers, he
said.
Kelley Smith, a Connecticut Yankee spokeswoman, said the yearly
fee includes the cost to store spent nuclear fuel. She said the
560-Megawatt plant has not produced power since December 1998,
but the owners have been forced to store the spent nuclear fuel
at the site because the federal government failed to open a
permanent storage facility.
CY and several other nuclear power plants have sued the U.S.
Department of Energy for failing to take possession of the spent
fuel, Smith said. A federal judge heard the case in 2004 and
Smith said a decision could be made this year.
At the heart of the storage issues is the energy department's
promise to provide a storage place in 1998. However, the
designated site, Yucca Mountain, Nev., has not been opened, and
Smith said it is not expected to take nuclear material until
2017.
But since the 1980s, electricity customers have been paying
billions of dollars to build a permanent storage site, Smith
said, and now those same customers are being asked to pay to
store fuel at nuclear plants.
Yucca Mountain is 90 miles north of Las Vegas. The state of
Nevada, along with some environmental groups, opposes the use of
the site.
Smith said CY will have to store the fuel longer than
anticipated and it hopes to win a settlement from the federal
government to cover those costs in the future. But until that
happens, it will have to maintain its license with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission as well as storage tanks for the spent
fuel, all at a cost to electricity customers.
CY started producing power in 1968, but in 1996 its owners
decided to shut the operation down because they thought it would
cost too much to operate in a new deregulated energy market,
Smith said. She added the expectations were no one would want to
buy a single-unit reactor like Connecticut Yankee because
maintenance costs would be too high.
Since deregulation has gone into effect, nuclear power plants
have consistently produced power for less than competitors that
use natural gas or oil, according to the U.S. Department of
Energy.
Rob Varnon, who covers business, can be reached at 330-6216.
©1999-2006 MediaNews Group, Inc. All rights reserved. This
*****************************************************************
23 Hamilton Spectator: Nuclear power not a problem
By Dr. Michael Ivanco, Society of Professional Engineers and
Associates, Mississauga
The Hamilton Spectator
(Aug 17, 2006)
Re: 'Europe: Feeling the heat; Glitches raise questions about
whether nuclear reactors are the right energy source' (Discover,
Aug. 12)
The impact of drought in Europe on electricity supply is not a
"nuclear" problem, as the writer suggests, rather it affects all
electricity generating stations that use a steam cycle: nuclear,
coal, gas and oil.
These account for over 80 per cent of all electricity generated
on our planet. While water shortages have caused some
thermo-electric plants to scale back production, it is important
to note that they have not been required to shut down.
During the heat wave that hit Europe in the summer of 2003, by
contrast, the contribution of wind-generated electricity to the
electrical grids was virtually zero, since the wind did not blow.
While the overall output of nuclear plants may vary slightly due
to other weather conditions, it will not drop to zero as some
renewable sources do.
The single largest nuclear facility in North America is in the
middle of the desert in Arizona and it does not suffer from any
drought-related setbacks, simply because water conservation was
built into its design.
There is no technical reason preventing future plants from being
built to minimize water usage.
1991-2006, The Hamilton Spectator. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 TheStar.com: Nuclear heats up OPG profits
Thu. Aug. 17, 2006. | Updated at 07:40 PM
DAVID COOPER/TORONTO STAR
The Pickering nuclear station.
ROMINA MAURINO CANADIAN PRESS
An increase in nuclear generation boosted Ontario Power
Generation's second-quarter profit to $143 million, up from $63
million a year earlier when the provincial utility booked a
big-one-time charge.
"We're especially proud of the fact that we have improved the
reliability and increased the production from our nuclear
generation," CFO Donn Hanbidge said in a conference call
Thursday.
"Under the system for pricing power in Ontario, this increased
production helps to hold down the prices paid by consumers."
The results were partly offset by lower Ontario spot-market
prices, as well as an increase in pension and other
post-employment benefit costs.
During the second quarter of 2005, OPG had recorded an
impairment charge of $63 million as a result of a decision keep
its two units at the Pickering A nuclear generating station off
line.
OPG's revenue before the effect of the Market Power Mitigation
Agreement was $1.35 billion, down from $1.37 billion last year.
Electricity generated totalling 25.5 terawatt hours equalled
that of the second quarter of 2005, with nuclear production
increasing by 19 per cent as a result of the return to service
of Unit 1 at the Pickering A nuclear generating station. It was
also affected by a shutdown of Unit 4 at the same station in the
second quarter of 2005.
Regulated-hydroelectric generation decreased due to lower water
levels in the Niagara and St. Lawrence watersheds and
unregulated-hydroelectric generation increased due to higher
water levels in the northwestern and eastern watersheds.
Fossil generation declined primarily as a result of lower
Ontario electricity demand and higher nuclear generation.
Looking ahead, the company is focusing on several projects for
new generation capacity, including the Niagara Tunnel project at
the Sir Adam Beck generating stations, which is currently
underway.
"This project will maximize the power the province obtains from
its share of the water in the Niagara river," Hanbidge said.
The company has also been directed by the Ontario government to
proceed with the 450 megawatt hydroelectric development on the
lower Mattagami river, and is developing the Portlands Energy
Centre, a 550 MW gas-fired, combined cycle station meant to
boost the power available in Toronto.
In a separate statement Thursday, Bruce Power said it had filed
an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to
prepare a site for the potential construction of new reactors at
its Bruce County facility.
Bruce Power is Canada's only private nuclear generating
company, and currently operates six units.
It's is a partnership among Cameco Corp. (TSX: ), TransCanada
Corp. (TSX: ), BPC Generation Infrastructure Trust — a trust
established by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System
— the Power Workers' Union and the Society of Energy
Professionals.
Ontario Power owns three nuclear plants, 64 hydroelectric
plants, five fossil-fuel utilities and three wind-power sites.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
25 TheStar.com: Bruce Power applies to build reactors
Thu. Aug. 17, 2006. | Updated at 11:21 PM
PMCANADIAN PRESS
TIVERTON Bruce Power has asked the country's nuclear watchdog
for permission to start planning for the construction of new
nuclear reactors.
Bruce first started the process in 2004 when it began to study
the feasibility of restarting Bruce A Units 1 and 2,
refurbishing its four Bruce B reactors when needed, and
potentially building new reactors.
"We have done a lot of analysis work over the last two years,
but to better define our options we now have to embark upon a
more formal evaluation process," said Duncan Hawthorne, Bruce
Power's president and CEO.
The application to build new reactors will be subject to review
under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which could
take up to three years to complete.
"While I believe we have many of the attributes that make our
site a good location for new build, it's really important, given
the magnitude of this decision, that we go through the formal
process to confirm that is the case," Hawthorne said.
Bruce Power currently operates six units and is in the process
of restarting two more at its 2,300-acre site, the source of
more than 20 per cent of Ontario's electricity.
Bruce Power will hold an open house with the local community on
Aug. 30 to discuss its plans.
The company's application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission comes as no surprise given Energy Minister Dwight
Duncan has directed the province's power authority to look into
building new reactors over the next 20 years.
Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All
*****************************************************************
26 NRC: Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03:
FR Doc E6-13559
[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices] [Page 47549-47550] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au06-93]
Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation
Alternatives (SAMA) Analyses; Solicitation of Public Comment
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Solicitation of public comment.
SUMMARY: NRC is soliciting public comment on its Proposed License
Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03 (LR-ISG) for
preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA)
analyses. This LR-ISG recommends that applicants for license
renewal use the Guidance Document NEI 05-01, Rev. A (ADAMS
Accession No. ML060530203) when preparing their SAMA analyses.
The NRC staff issues LR-ISGs to facilitate timely implementation
of the license renewal rule and to review activities associated
with a license renewal application.
Upon reviewing public comments, the NRC staff will evaluate the
comments and make a determination to incorporate the comments, as
appropriate. Once the NRC completes the LR-ISG, it will issue the
LR-ISG for NRC and industry use. The NRC staff will also
incorporate the approved LR-ISG into the next revision of
Supplement 1 to Regulatory Guide 4.2, ``Preparation of
Supplemental Environmental Reports for Applications to Renew
Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.''
DATES: Comments may be submitted by September 18, 2006. Comments
received after this date will be considered, if it is practical
to do so, but the Commission is to ensure consideration only for
comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to: Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Comments should be delivered to: 11545 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland, Room T-6D59,
[[Page 47550]] between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal
workdays. Persons may also provide comments via e-mail at
RLE@NRC.GOV. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents and
Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of
NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through
the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC Public Document
Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by
e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Richard L. Emch, Jr., Senior Project Manager, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC, 20555-0001; telephone 301-415- 1590 or by e-mail
at rle@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Attachment 1 to this Federal Register
notice, entitled Staff Position and Rationale for the Proposed
License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff
Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA) Analyses contains the NRC staff's rationale for publishing
the proposed LR-ISG- 2006-03. Attachment 2 to this Federal
Register notice, entitled Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff
Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe
Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analyses, contains the
guidance for preparing SAMA analyses related to license renewal
applications.
The NRC staff is issuing this notice to solicit public comments
on the proposed LR-ISG-2006-03. After the NRC staff considers any
public comments, it will make a determination regarding the
proposed LR-ISG.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of August 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pao-Tsin Kuo, Deputy Director Division of License Renewal, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Attachment 1--Staff Position and Rationale for the Proposed
License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance LR-ISG-2006-03: Staff
Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives
(SAMA) Analyses Staff Position: The NRC staff recommends that
applicants for license renewal follow the guidance provided in
Nuclear Energy Institute NEI 05-01, ``Severe Accident Mitigation
Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis--Guidance Document,'' Rev. A when
preparing their SAMA analyses. Rationale: The Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) developed a generic Guidance Document NEI 05-01,
Rev. A, to help clarify the NRC staff's expectations regarding
the information that needs to be included in SAMA analyses. The
NRC staff reviewed and concluded that NEI 05-01, Rev. A describes
existing NRC regulations, and facilitates complete preparation of
SAMA analysis submittals. The staff finds that utilization of the
guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Rev. A will result in improved
quality in SAMA analyses and a reduction in the number of
requests for additional information.
Attachment 2--Proposed License Renewal Interim Staff Guidance
LR-ISG- 2006-03: Staff Guidance for Preparing Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analyses Introduction A Severe
Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) analyses is required as
part of a license renewal application, if a SAMA analysis has not
already been performed for the plant and reviewed by the NRC
staff. SAMA analyses have been performed and submitted to the NRC
as part of all the applications for license renewal received by
the staff thus far. Therefore, this LR-ISG is being proposed
consistent with our goal to more efficiently resolve license
renewal issues identified by the staff or the industry.
Background and Discussion After receiving extensive requests for
additional information regarding the SAMA analyses, several
applicants for license renewal concluded that they did not fully
understand the kind of information that the NRC staff was
expecting to see in SAMA analyses.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) developed a generic guidance
document to help clarify the NRC staff's expectations regarding
the information that needs to be submitted in SAMA analyses. On
April 8, 2005, NEI submitted NEI 05-01, ``Severe Accident
Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis--Guidance Document.'' The
NRC staff reviewed this guidance document, and by letter, dated
July 12, 2005, provided comments on NEI 05-01. The NRC staff's
comments were discussed during a public meeting between NEI and
NRC on July 21, 2005.
On February 17, 2006, NEI submitted its NEI 05-01, Rev. A, dated
November 2005. The NRC staff reviewed and concluded that this
version fully resolved the NRC staff's comments. In addition, the
NRC staff concluded that NEI 05-01, Rev. A, describes existing
NRC regulations, and facilitates complete preparation of SAMA
analysis submittals.
Some applicants for license renewal have submitted SAMA analyses
using the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Rev A. The NRC staff
found improved quality in the submitted SAMA analyses and a
reduction in the number of requests for additional information
for those applications that followed the guidance provided in NEI
05-01, Rev. A.
Proposed Action The staff is proposing that applicants for
license renewal follow the guidance provided in NEI 05-01, Rev. A
when preparing their SAMA analyses. The staff finds that NEI
05-01, Rev. A, describes existing NRC regulations, and
facilitates complete preparation of SAMA analysis submittals.
Although this proposed LR-ISG does not convey a change in the
NRC's regulations or how they are being interpreted, it is being
provided to facilitate complete preparation of future SAMA
analysis submittals in support of applications for license
renewal. The NRC staff plans to incorporate the guidance provided
in NEI 05-01, Rev. A, into a future update of Supplement 1 to
Regulatory Guide 4.2, ``Preparation of Supplemental Environmental
Reports for Applications to Renew Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses.'' Because this LR- ISG provides a clarification of
existing guidance with no additional requirements, the staff did
not perform a backfit evaluation.
For those that are interested in reviewing NEI 05-01, Rev. A, the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Accession Number is ML060530203.
[FR Doc. E6-13559 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
27 NRC: Draft Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
FR Doc E6-13560
[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices] [Page 47548-47549] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au06-92]
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued for
public comment a draft of a new guide in the agency's Regulatory
Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make
available to the public such information as methods that are
acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of
the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in
evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data
that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits
and licenses.
The draft regulatory guide, entitled ``Guidelines for Evaluating
Fatigue Analyses Incorporating the Life Reduction of Metal
Components Due to the Effects of the Light-Water Reactor
Environment for New Reactors,'' is temporarily identified by its
task number, DG-1144, which should be mentioned in all related
correspondence. This proposed regulatory guide describes a method
that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in complying with
the agency's regulations in Title 10, part 50, of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50), ``Domestic Licensing of
Production and Utilization Facilities.'' Specifically, in
Appendix A to10 CFR part 50, General Design Criterion (GDC) 1,
``Quality Standards and Records,'' requires, in part, that
structures, systems, and components that are important to safety
must be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to quality
standards commensurate with the importance of the safety function
performed. In addition, GDC 30, ``Quality of Reactor Coolant
Pressure Boundary,'' requires, in part, that components that are
part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary must be designed,
fabricated, erected, and tested to the highest practical quality
standards.
Augmenting those design criteria, 10 CFR 50.55a, ``Codes and
Standards,'' endorses the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code for design of
safety-related systems and components. In particular, Section
50.55a(c), ``Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary,'' requires, in
part, that components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary
must be meet the requirements for Class 1 components in Section
III, ``Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant
Components,'' of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code.
Specifically, those Class 1 requirements contain provisions,
including fatigue design curves, for determining a component's
suitability for cyclic service. These fatigue design curves are
based on strain- controlled tests performed on small polished
specimens, at room temperature, in air environments. Thus, these
curves do not address the impact of the reactor coolant system
environment.
This draft regulatory guide provides guidance for use in
determining the acceptable fatigue life of ASME pressure boundary
components, with consideration of the light-water reactor (LWR)
environment. In so doing, this guide describes a methodology that
the NRC staff considers acceptable to support reviews of
applications that the agency expects to receive for new nuclear
reactor construction permits or operating licenses under 10 CFR
part 50, design certifications under 10 CFR part 52, and combined
licenses under 10 CFR part 52 that do not reference a standard
design. Because of significant conservatism in quantifying other
plant-related variables (such as cyclic behavior, including
stress and loading rates) involved in cumulative fatigue life
calculations, the design of the current fleet of reactors is
satisfactory, and the plants are safe to operate.
The ASME Section III design curves, developed in the late 1960s
and early 1970s, are based on tests conducted in laboratory air
environments at ambient temperatures. The original code
developers applied margins of 2 on strain and 20 on cyclic life
to account for variations in materials, surface finish, data
scatter, and environmental effects (including temperature
differences between specimen test conditions and reactor
operating experience).
However, the developers lacked sufficient data to explicitly
evaluate and account for the degradation attributable to exposure
to aqueous coolants. More recent fatigue test data from the
United States, Japan, and elsewhere show that the LWR environment
can have a significant impact on the fatigue life of carbon and
low-alloy steels, as well as austenitic stainless steel.
Two distinct methods can be used to incorporate LWR environmental
effects into the fatigue analysis of ASME Class 1 components.
The first method involves developing new fatigue curves that are
applicable to LWR environments. Given that the fatigue life of
ASME Class 1 components in LWR environments is a function of
several parameters, this method would necessitate developing
several fatigue curves to address potential parameter variations.
An alternative would be to develop a single bounding fatigue
curve, which may be overly conservative for most applications.
The second method involves using an environmental correction
factor (Fen) to account for LWR environments by correcting the
fatigue usage calculated with the ASME ``air'' curves. This
method affords the
[[Page 47549]] designer greater flexibility to calculate the
appropriate impacts for specific environmental parameters. In
addition, applicants have already used this method in their
license renewal applications.
The NRC staff has selected the Fen method, as described in
NUREG/CR-6909, ``Effect of LWR Coolant Environments on the
Fatigue Life of Reactor Materials.'' In particular, Appendix A to
that report, ``Incorporating Environmental Effects into Fatigue
Evaluations,'' describes a methodology that the staff considers
acceptable to incorporate the effects of reactor coolant
environments on fatigue usage factor evaluations of metal
components. In addition, NUREG/CR- 6909 provides a comprehensive
review of, and technical basis for, the methodology proposed in
this draft regulatory guide, including analysis of each parameter
affecting the fatigue evaluations.
The NRC staff is soliciting comments on both Draft Regulatory
Guide DG-1144 and NUREG/CR-6909. Comments may be accompanied by
relevant information or supporting data. Please mention DG-1144
and/or NUREG/CR- 6909 in the subject line of your comments.
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made
available to the public in their entirety through the NRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS).
Personal information will not be removed from your comments. You
may submit comments by any of the following methods.
Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
E-mail comments to: NRCREP@nrc.gov. You may also submit comments
via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol A.
Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov. Hand-deliver
comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.
Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301)
415-5144.
Requests for technical information about Draft Regulatory Guide
DG- 1144 may be directed to Hipolito J. Gonzalez at (301)
415-0068 or by e- mail to HJG@nrc.gov. Comments would be most
helpful if received by September 25, 2006. Comments received
after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so,
but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments
received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given,
comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion
in guides currently being developed or improvements in all
published guides are encouraged at any time.
Electronic copies of the draft regulatory guide are available
through the NRC's public Web site under Draft Regulatory Guides
in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ Electronic copies
are also available in ADAMS (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/.
ding-rm/.
Electronic copies of NUREG/CR-6909 are available through the
NRC's public Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/
docs4comment.html. NUREG/CR-6909 is also available through ADAMS
(http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, under Accession No.
ML061650347.
In addition, regulatory guides and NUREG-series reports are
available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland;
the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC
20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at (301)
415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 415-3548, and by
e-mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Requests for single copies of draft or
final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an
automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft
guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by
e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 415-2289.
Telephone requests cannot be accommodated.
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is
not required to reproduce them.
(5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of
July, 2006.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mark A. Cunningham,
Director, Division of Fuel, Engineering & Radiological Research,
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. E6-13560 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: In the Matter of Certain 10 CFR Part 50 Licensees Who Transport
FR Doc E6-13561
[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices] [Page 47545-47546] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au06-90]
Spent Nuclear Fuel Under the Provisions of 10 CFR Part 71 Order
Modifying Licenses (Effective Immediately) I.
The licensees identified in Attachment 1 (Redacted) to this Order
have been issued a specific license by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) authorizing the
possession of spent nuclear fuel and a general license
authorizing the transportation of spent nuclear fuel [in a
transportation package approved by the Commission] in accordance
with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR parts
50 and 71. Commission regulations for the shipment of spent
nuclear fuel at 10 CFR 73.37(a) require these licensees to
maintain a physical protection system that meets the requirements
contained in 10 CFR 73.37(b), (c), (d), and (e). II.
On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets
in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial
aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence
information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number
of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to
strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a
potential attack on a nuclear facility or regulated activity.
The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State
and local government agencies and industry representatives to
discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to
assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities.
In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive
review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements.
As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and
security plan requirements, as well as a review of information
provided by the intelligence community, the Commission has
determined that certain additional security measures are required
to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to
address the current threat environment in a consistent manner.
Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth
in Attachment 2 of this Order, on all licensees identified in
Attachment 1 of this Order.\1\ These additional security
requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements,
will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the
common defense and security continue to be adequately protected
in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain
in effect until the Commission determines otherwise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Attachments 1 and 2 contain Safeguards Information
and will not be released to the public.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- The Commission recognizes that licensees may have
already initiated many of the measures set forth in Attachment 2
to this Order in response to previously issued Safeguards and
Threat Advisories or on their own. It is also recognized that
some measures may not be possible or necessary for all shipments
of spent nuclear fuel, or may need to be tailored to accommodate
the licensees' specific circumstances to achieve the intended
objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe transport
of spent nuclear fuel.
Although the additional security measures implemented by
licensees in response to the Safeguards and Threat Advisories
have been adequate to provide reasonable assurance of adequate
protection of common defense and security, in light of the
current threat environment, the Commission concludes that the
security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with
the established regulatory framework. In order to provide
assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to
achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current
threat environment, all licenses identified in Attachment 1 to
this Order shall be modified to include the requirements
identified in Attachment 2 to this Order. In addition, pursuant
to 10 CFR 2.202, and in light of the common defense and security
matters identified above which warrant the issuance of this
Order, the Commission finds that the public health, safety, and
interest require that this Order be immediately effective.
III.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182
and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50 and
71, It is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that all
licenses identified in Attachment 1 to this Order are modified as
follows: A. All licensees shall, notwithstanding the provisions
of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply
with the requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order
except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set
forth in the licensee's security plan. The licensees shall
immediately start implementation of the requirements in
Attachment 2 to the Order and shall complete implementation by
September 1, 2006, unless otherwise specified in Attachment 2, or
before the first shipment after August 11, 2006, whichever is
earlier.
B.1. All licensees shall, by September 1, 2006, unless otherwise
specified in Attachment 2, or before the first shipment after
August 11, 2006, whichever is earlier, notify the Commission, (1)
if they are unable to comply with any of the requirements
described in Attachment 2, (2) if compliance with any of the
requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or
(3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the
licensee
[[Page 47546]] to be in violation of the provisions of any
Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification
shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief
from or variation of any specific requirement.
2. Any licensee that considers that implementation of any of the
requirements described in Attachment 2 to this Order would
adversely impact the safe transport of spent fuel must notify the
Commission, by September 1, 2006, unless otherwise specified in
Attachment 2, or before the first shipment after August 11, 2006,
whichever is earlier, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for
its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety
impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives
specified in the Attachment 2 requirement in question, or a
schedule for modifying the activity to address the adverse safety
condition. If neither approach is appropriate, the licensee must
supplement its response to Condition B1 of this Order to identify
the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with
attendant justifications as required in Condition B1.
C. 1. All licensees shall, by September 1, 2006, unless otherwise
specified in Attachment 2, or before the first shipment after
August 11, 2006, whichever is earlier, submit to the Commission a
schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described
in Attachment 2.
2. All licensees shall report by September 1, 2006, to the
Commission when they have achieved or plan to achieve full
compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 2.
D. Notwithstanding any provisions of the Commission's regulations
to the contrary, all measures implemented or actions taken in
response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission
determines otherwise.
Licensee responses to Conditions B1, B2, C1, and C2 above, shall
be submitted to the NRC to the attention of the Director, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation under 10 CFR 50.4. In addition,
licensee submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be
properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may, in writing,
relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration
by the licensee of good cause.
IV.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the licensee must, and any other
person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to
this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within
twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is
shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to
request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to
the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, and include a
statement of good cause for the extension.
The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents
to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or
affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law
on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies
and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued.
Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555- 0001, to the Assistant General Counsel for
Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; to the
Regional Administrator for NRC Region I, II, III, or IV, as
appropriate for the specific facility; and to the licensee if the
answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee.
Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United
States Government offices, it is requested that answers and
requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the
Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to (301)
415-1101 or by e- mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov, and also to the
Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile
transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the licensee
requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with
particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth
in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by the licensee or
a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission
will issue an Order designating the time and place of any
hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such
hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the licensee may, in addition
to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or
sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate
effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order,
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations,
or error.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the
provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty
(20) days from the date of this Order without further order or
proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has
been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be
final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not
been received.
This Order contains information collection requirements that are
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office
of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0012.
The burden to the public for the mandatory information
collections is estimated to average 500 hours per licensee,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the information collection. Send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of
these information collections, including suggestions for reducing
the burden, to the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T-5
F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail to
INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV; and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0012),
Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a request for information or an information
collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate
effectiveness of this order.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of August, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bruce A. Boger, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-13561 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
29 Scotsman.com: Performance woes add to safety fears at power station
Thu 17 Aug 2006
TORNESS was the UK's least efficient nuclear power station last
year, it emerged today.
The East Lothian station is also at the centre of safety fears
after documents released by the Nuclear Safety Directorate showed
that British Energy's Torness and Hunterston B plants have
serious flaws. Hunterston B reportedly has damage to its reactor
core, while it is thought Torness has similar problems, sparking
fears of a major radiation leak.
Meanwhile, British Energy, which meets a fifth of the UK's energy
needs, announced an 85 per cent rise in profits to £215 million
in the last quarter because of rising electricity prices.
But a warning came today that output targets could be missed due
to a growing number of unplanned stoppages.
More than 200 incidents at Torness saw output losses leap from
six per cent to 34 per cent - the highest in the UK. Losses at
Hunterston rose, meanwhile, from 10 per cent to 18 per cent.
British Energy chief executive Billy Coley said the losses were
disappointing. He added: "We are continuing to focus on improved
reliability."
Friends of the Earth Scotland warned the faults at the sites
increased the risk of a major incident.
Green MSP Mark Ruskell said: "The profits are artificial but the
safety issues are very real. Nuclear power is unreliable,
uneconomic and unsafe.
*****************************************************************
30 People's Daily: IAEA provides Nigeria with nuclear facilities
UPDATED: 07:42, August 18, 2006
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has provided
Nigeriawith nuclear facilities worth 50 million naira (about
390,000 U.S. dollars), the state-run News Agency of Nigeria
reported on Thursday.
The gesture was to assist the Center for Energy Research and
Training in Ahmadu Bello University in Zaria to establish a
national isotope hydrogen laboratory, Ibrahim Umar, director of
CERT, was quoted as saying.
He said the assistance was part of an agreement signed by
Director-General of the IAEA Mohammed El Baradei and the
Nigerian government last year.
Umar said the IAEA director-general promised to assist Nigeria
to expand and develop its peaceful nuclear programs in various
aspects and the donation was the first of such promises.
Source: Xinhua
Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
31 globeandmail.com: Nuclear pitch for oil sands
POSTED AT 7:22 AM EDT ON 17/08/06
DAVE EBNER Globe and Mail Update
CALGARY — An upstart Alberta company, which includes oil patch
heavy hitter Hank Swartout as a backer, has a deal with Atomic
Energy of Canada Ltd. to market the Candu nuclear reactor to
firms in Calgary looking to operate oil sands projects.
"Western Canada has to come to grips with atomic energy at some
point in time. It's an extremely clean-burning fuel," said Mr.
Swartout, chairman of Precision Drilling Trust and a partner in
the recently formed Energy Alberta Corp., where he provides what
he calls "quiet background help."
Energy Alberta, according to its lead partner, Calgary
businessman Wayne Henuset, has a two-year exclusive deal with
AECL to sell the Candu 6 reactor and the concept of nuclear
power to oil companies.
Talks with six firms have already happened and a bigger push is
now in the works, he said. Energy Alberta is targeting
developers of projects that use steam injection to recover
bitumen from the oil sands. That list is led by the likes of
EnCana Corp., Husky Energy Inc. and Total SA of France.
+ 3 reader comments | Join the conversation
Energy Alberta hopes to build a reactor worth about $3-billion
by 2014 to provide steam to support the production of 220,000
barrels of bitumen a day.
Mr. Henuset said the company would own the facility and sell
steam to several oil sands operators. He added that a poll the
company conducted of 500 Albertans found only about a third of
respondents opposed nuclear power.
"It's not something we're going to ram down throats, but it
makes sense," Mr. Henuset said.
A draft of an internal AECL memo outlined the two-year agreement
with Energy Alberta. Dennis Galange, an AECL vice-president,
stated: "This will enhance our ability to foster the required
Alberta government endorsement for Candu in the oil sands."
While Ontario is familiar with nuclear power, there was a
distinct anti-nuclear sentiment among Alberta politicians up to
last year, led by Premier Ralph Klein, who called it a last
resort before shifting his view more recently.
"We have to consider nuclear power," Mr. Klein said in April.
The Sierra Club of Canada wants the issue debated publicly and
believes it should be one of the main topics discussed in
hearings the provincial government plans to hold to assess the
future of the oil sands.
"AECL should be prepared to show up and say what they're up to,"
said Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club,
adding that because the federal government subsidizes AECL, it
has an added obligation to engage in such talks.
Mr. Hazell also noted that Ontario still carries the burden of
debt from investing in nuclear power projects that cost far more
than expected, and he questioned the value of the Candu reactor,
saying only one has been sold in Canada for years and the only
recent buyers have been China and Romania.
An AECL spokesman said the firm has to finalize the partnership
with Energy Alberta and wants to hone its strategic plan before
making public statements.
The prospect of nuclear power in the oil sands has been raised
quietly for the past several years after a 2003 study showed it
to be economically viable, compared with using natural gas to
generate power and steam.
Last year, Total said it would look at nuclear power. A company
spokesman at the time said it would be "foolish" not to consider
the option, adding that a team was investigating.
EnCana has said nuclear energy is among the potential options
but hadn't considered it closely. Yesterday, a Husky spokeswoman
said it would consider any fuel sources, but the company wasn't
at that stage in its planning as yet.
Mr. Swartout said Energy Alberta knows the pace of selling
nuclear power in Alberta will have to be slow.
"We have to be very cautious in how we approach people," he
said. "The knowledge of atomic energy in Western Canada is at a
very low level."
globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of Bell
Globemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, Canada
M5V 2S9
Phillip Crawley, Publisher --> -->
*****************************************************************
32 theday.com: Watchdog Group To Assess Report On Radiation Concerns At Millstone
Thursday, Aug 17, 2006
By Patricia Daddona Day Staff Writer\, Millstone\/business trends
E-mail: p.daddona@theday.com Phone No.: (860) 701 - 4324
Waterford The Nuclear Energy Advisory Council decided
Wednesday to review a critic's concerns about a state report
assessing radiation emissions from Millstone Power Station.
The panel also agreed to accompany former Millstone
whistleblower Paul Blanch, now a consultant to the nuclear
industry and actively studying radiation monitoring at a reactor
in Florida, to a meeting with Dr. Ed Wilds, the author of the
report and a radiation expert with the state Department of
Environmental Protection.
The council a watchdog group comprising public
representatives from Waterford, Groton, East Lyme, Woodbridge
and other towns initially had planned to review the DEP report
but, at Wilds' request, took it off the agenda. Council
Co-Chairman John Sheehan said Wilds, who has a seat on the
panel, had said he would not attend the meeting if the item were
on the agenda.
Over the past six months, Blanch told the panel, no one from DEP
has responded to his requests to discuss his comments about the
report's flaws.
Earlier this year, the report stated that Millstone is not the
source of elevated levels of radiation in past samples of goat's
milk used for testing by the DEP and Millstone owner Dominion.
The report also stated that the higher levels of radioactivity
are not harmful to the public. The commissioner of the state
Department of Public Health reviewed the report and said he was
satisfied with it.
Blanch was allowed to speak during the public participation
portion of the meeting at Town Hall.
The report is significantly deficient, he said.
The report found that elevated levels of the radioactive
isotope Strontium 90 could not have come from Millstone because
it was not accompanied by Strontium 89, an isotope known to be
emitted with it following nuclear fission.
Since Strontium 89 disappears from the atmosphere much more
quickly than its counterpart, however, and since the DEP did not
record when the samples were taken, it is possible if samples
were taken a year later, for instance that Strontium 89 could
have been present and come from Millstone, but simply wasn't
found since it had long since decayed, Blanch said.
You have a moral obligation to the public to review the
report, Blanch told the council.
Wilds did not attend the meeting, but one of his workers, Mike
Firsick, offered to take Blanch's questions in writing before
Wednesday night's meeting, Blanch said. Blanch said that was
unacceptable and that he would not meet with DEP without a
watchdog group member present.
Blanch also called for an independent review of the report,
which he has called for since he first raised questions about
it, both its conclusions and its accuracy. Some isotope levels
are recorded in the study's data as negative, he said, which
is impossible.
One watchdog group member, Robert Klancko of Woodbridge, raised
the possibility of seeking an independent review by one of the
members of the Connecticut Academy of Science and History. That
may not be possible, others said, because the group has a small
budget of $2,500.
p.daddona@theday.com Waterford
Privacy Policy | Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200 | New London,
CT | © 1998-2006 The Day Publishing Co. [Beacon Locator]
*****************************************************************
33 New Anatolian: Güler: Nuclear plants to go online after 2012
EkoTürk News Agency / Ankara
17 August 2006
Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Hilmi Güler announced
that the nuclear plants that Turkey plans to build will begin to
function after 2012.
Minister Güler said The nuclear waste produced by the reactor
are stored at the reactor site for ten years and then
transferred to provisional storage facilities. Under normal
circumstances, it will take 25-30 years before Turkey sends its
own waste to final storage facilities. Countries using nuclear
energy should be expected to bring their waste facilities into
function way before that .
Responding to a notice of question by Ýzmir deputy Hakký Köylü,
Minister Hilmi Güler informed that a preliminary study was
initiated in 2004 to determine the locations for nuclear plants
and that the criteria to determine the sites were advised by the
International Atomic Energy Agency and were finalized by
adapting the criteria utilized by advanced countries to Turkeys
circumstances.
Each potential site was evaluated according to 43 criteria
studied under four major categories of economy, engineering,
environment and sociology, said Minister Güler, stressing that
different sites in the Thrace and Black Sea Regions as well as
around Sakarya and Göksu rivers in Central Anatolia were assessed
according to earthquake hazard/faultline, cooling water, ground
structure and meteorology were particularlytaken into
consideration with different weights. Güler said Sinop site
turned out to be the most appropriate location according to these
assessments , adding It is estimated that Mount Yuca project
designed to store all the waste from the 104 nuclear reactors in
the United States will cost 57 billion US dollars between years
1983-2119. This brings the average annual cost to 400 million
dollars.
United States has generated 845 billion kWh electricity in 2003
through nuclear energy. The cost of waste on electricity in this
case is about 0.047 cent/kWh. Considering the fact that the cost
of nuclear electricity in the United States is about 3 cents/kWh,
one could assume that the cost of building and running a waste
facility would be around 5 in 10,000 of the cost of electricity
generation . Güler also provided the following information on
radioactive waste: Used nuclear fuel is kept for a long time in
deep water reserves after being taken out of the reactor both as
the radiation level is high and as it generates heat to the
extent that necessitates cooling off.
Used fuel will lose 99 percent of their radioactivity at the end
of ten years and radioactive material with long half-life within
the fuel remains. The material could stay safe as long as they
are taken care of within reserves or dry storage facilities. The
waste issue is considered to be resolved in technological terms
across the world and Turkey will follow the trail of other
advanced countries. The nuclear waste produced by the reactor are
stored at the reactor site for ten years and then transferred to
provisional storage facilities. Under normal circumstances, it
will take 25-30 years before Turkey sends its own waste to final
storage facilities. Countries using nuclear energy should be
expected to bring their waste facilities into function way before
that .
2006 The New Anatolian
*****************************************************************
34 ajc.com: Don't cut corners on nuclear energy |
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]
Published on: 08/17/06
It's no shock the region's largest electric utilities are seeking
to build new nuclear power plants. But it's outrageous for those
same companies to resist the kind of energy efficiency
improvements that could help save customers money and preserve
the environment.
This week, Southern Co. and its subsidiary, Georgia Power Co.,
filed site permits with federal regulators to add two generation
units at Plant Vogtle, a '70s-era nuclear facility near Augusta.
By doing so, they join a stampede of utilities nationwide lining
up for billions in federal tax breaks and other incentives to
build nuclear plants.
Georgia Power officials claim they haven't made a firm decision
to build any new plants, but want to "preserve the nuclear
option" because it could be a cleaner and cheaper fuel source
than coal or natural gas.
However, there are plenty of unresolved questions about the
viability of nuclear energy, not the least of which is how to
safely dispose of the highly radioactive wastes these plants
produce.
There are no questions, however, about the wisdom of the adage
"waste not, want not."
Both Southern Co. and Georgia Power have been urging the U.S.
Department of Energy to adopt weak efficiency standards for
electric transformers, the commonplace equipment mounted atop
utility poles that transforms high-voltage current flowing
through power lines to a lower voltage for use in homes and
businesses.
The difference between the industry-supported standards and
those backed by energy-efficiency advocates and the DOE's own
analysis may seem small. But because there are millions of
transformers in use, the potential impact is huge.
According to DOE, adopting a higher transformer efficiency
standard over 28 years could save enough power to meet the
electricity needs of 10 percent of American households for a
year. Although the companies contend more efficient transformers
would cost too much, it would also save consumers $1.7 billion
in electric bills during the same period and alleviate the need
to build seven new power plants.
If our energy needs are dire enough to require resurrecting
nuclear power as an option, surely they are dire enough to ask
utilities to be just as committed to conserving energy as they
are to generating it.
Lyle V. Harris, for the editorial board
© 2006 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution | Customer care|
*****************************************************************
35 UPI: Analysis: Swedish mishap fuels nuke debate
United Press International - Energy -
8/17/2006 12:36:00 PM -0400
By STEFAN NICOLA
UPI Germany Correspondent
BERLIN, Aug. 17 (UPI) -- The recent malfunction in a Swedish
nuclear power plant has refueled the debate in Europe over a
nuclear energy phase out and put the spotlight on a German plant
that critics say is in a worse condition than the one in Sweden.
Two generators of the Swedish Forsmark 1 reactor, roughly 120
miles north of Stockholm, malfunctioned during a power failure
July 25. Critics say the incident brought Sweden as closeclose
to a nuclear meltdown.
"It was sheer luck that this didn't lead to a catastrophe worse
than Chernobyl," Lars-Olov Hoglund, a former construction
manager at the Forsmark plant, told the Swedish daily newspaper
Svenska Dagbladet.
Officials dismissed the criticism, arguing there never was a
risk of a meltdown; but, the incident caused a daughter of
German energy giant E.on to shut down two more reactors with
similar technology.
Swedish politicians in the 1980s agreed to phase out nuclear
energy by 2010, but the date has been pushed back several times
because of dwindling other resources. The recent accident has
put nuclear energy back on the political agenda, also because
Swedes are voting for a new government this fall.
But earlier this year, Sweden said it planned to wean itself off
oil in 15 years without building new nuclear plants. A
government-backed panel said it wanted to replace all fossil
fuels with renewables. Sweden now gets most of its electricity
from nuclear and hydroelectric power. Renewbles currently
represent more than 20 percent of the energy mix.
The July 25 Swedish nuclear scare has traveled over the North
Sea into Germany, where a debate on whether to phase out nuclear
energy has been waging ever since Russian energy giant Gazprom
temporarily cut off Ukranian gas supplies until it agreed to pay
higher prices.
The former government of Social Democratic Party, or SPD, and
Green Party had agreed to shut down all of Germany's nuclear
power plants by 2021, a plan contested by Chancellor Angela
Merkel's Christian Democratic Union.
The incident in Sweden has caused SPD politicians, including
Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, to reclaim the need to hold
tight to the timeframe of the nuclear phase out.
Even Gabriel, however, while vowing to have double-checked all
German plants, said a similar incident in Germany was unlikely.
"We assume that there was retrofitting here in Germany after the
2004 incident that were not performed in Sweden," Greenpeace's
Heinz Smital said in a statement, referring to a short emergency
power outage in Germany's Isar 2 nuclear power plant two years
ago. "Nevertheless, the German atomic regulatory agency quickly
needs to clarify if a similar danger threatens local atomic
power plants."
On Wednesday, an environmental organization, the Deutsche
Umwelthilfe, announced the northern German nuclear power plant
of Brunsbuettel was even worse off when it comes to security
technology than the Swedish plant.
The plant's operator, Vattenfall, has said Brunsbuettel featured
no technical shortcomings, and a Forsmark-like incident was
unthinkable.
The Umwelthilfe has protested.
"The claim that an incident like in Sweden is impossible in
German reactors is definitely wrong," Umwelthilfe's Managing
Director Juergen Resch said in Berlin. "It would possibly happen
a bit differently than in Forsmark, but the reactor in
Brunsbuettel is less prepared to handle an incident than the one
in Forsmark."
Both parties have valid points, said Horst May, a spokesman for
the Society for Plant and Reactor Security, a
scientific-technical expert and research organization that
checks upon Germany's nuclear power plants and analyzes
incidents all over Europe.
"The emergency power system in Brunsbuettel is not up to latest
technical and scientific standards, and in 2003, the German
Reactor Safety Commission has recommended that the system should
be modernized," he said.
While he said he had not heard news the operator did follow the
recommendation, May said a Forsmark-equivalent incident could
indeed be ruled out, because the emergency power systems are
different in both cases. He pointed out that all information is
based upon current knowledge and that the incident is still
being analyzed.
"But there was no risk of a meltdown in Forsmark," he said.
Brunsbuettel was shut down from December 2001 until February
2003, after a hydrogen explosion near the water pressure
reactor. The operator at the time was criticized for not
shutting down the reactor; inspection authorities had to do so.
Government employees after the incident said the operator either
tried to obscure the incident or was lacking the expertise to
fully acknowledge it.
(Comments to energy@upi.com)
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
36 Guardian Unlimited: India: No Changes to U.S. Nuclear Deal
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Friday August 18, 2006 12:16 AM
By NIRMALA GEORGE
Associated Press Writer
NEW DELHI (AP) - India will not agree to any changes to a
landmark civilian nuclear cooperation deal reached with the U.S.
last year, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Thursday. Singh
made a detailed presentation to parliament on the deal after
opposition parties accused the government of succumbing to U.S.
pressures to limit India's nuclear program.
President Bush and Singh signed an agreement in July 2005
allowing U.S. agencies and companies to sell India nuclear fuel
and technology.
In return, India would have to strengthen nuclear safeguards,
allow international inspections of its civilian facilities, and
separate its civilian and military nuclear programs. Eight
reactors that India identified as military would remain
off-limits.
The U.S. House of Representatives approved the deal last month
but added stringent new clauses, including requiring annual
certification on the use of the technology and fuel for peaceful
purposes.
Singh said India will not accept ``external supervision'' of its
research and development work in the nuclear field of its
strategic programs.
``We have made it clear that India's strategic program is
outside the purview of the agreement,'' he said. ``We will stick
to the parameters of the agreement signed in Washington last
year and this alone will be the acceptable basis of nuclear
cooperation between India and the United States.''
Singh's lengthy defense of the nuclear deal followed angry
speeches from opposition leaders denouncing the nuclear
agreement.
The premier has come under increasing criticism from opposition
parties and his own allies, who are seeking assurances that
India's nuclear program would not be curbed by U.S. legislators.
``We have never been in doubt about the deleterious impact of
this deal,'' said Yashwant Sinha, a former foreign minister
belonging to the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party.
Other lawmakers expressed concern about changes to the terms of
the agreement, including a threat to revoke the deal if India
conducts a nuclear test.
India says the deal with the U.S. will allow it to overcome
severe energy shortages by using nuclear power to fuel its
booming economy, one of the fastest growing in the world.
The Bush administration says it will create business and jobs
for American companies and citizens and reward a friendly
country with a proven record of nuclear nonproliferation.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
37 UPI: Lapse allows guns into Tenn. nuke plant
United Press International - Energy -
8/17/2006 4:14:00 PM -0400
By BEN LANDO AND DONNA BORAK UPI Energy Correspondents
WASHINGTON, Aug. 17 (UPI) -- Poor safeguards at the Tennessee
Valley Authority's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant allowed M-4 assault
rifles to enter the facility unchecked and be improperly stored
in a secure zone, United Press International has learned.
The Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, located 18-miles north of
Chattanooga,
produces 26 percent of Tennessee's electricity and accounts for
65 percent of the state's total nuclear generation. Officials
acknowledged the security lapse at the facility, saying
personnel "inadvertently" transported the factory-sealed
shipment of weapons to an incorrect warehouse.
"They delivered the right cargo to the right people; it was
inadvertently taken to the wrong warehouse," TVA spokesman John
Moulton told UPI in a telephone interview Wednesday.
Moulton said TVA was expecting the shipment of weapons without
any ammunition for use by the private security personnel
contracted by Pinkerton Government Services, Inc. The weapons
were, however, inadvertently transported to the wrong warehouse,
rather than the armory section of the nuclear facility.
According to the Washington-based Project on Government
Oversight, an independent government watchdog, the cargo
contained 30 M-4 assault rifles. TVA declined to comment on the
weapons details citing security reasons.
A Pinkerton security employee with first-hand knowledge of the
incident told UPI on condition of anonymity Wednesday that the
brown cardboard box of weapons had been mislabeled and slipped
past numerous checkpoints at the nuclear site. Personnel at
Pinkerton were strongly discouraged to speak to the media, the
employee said.
"It should only take one, no less than two checkpoints to
identify it (the box of weapons)," the employee said. "(There
were) four chances for those weapons to be discovered on that
day and they weren't."
Numerous calls to Pinkerton and its parent company, Securitas
Security Services USA, Inc., and the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security were unreturned.
There has been varying accounts of when the incident happened.
TVA says the unchecked shipment arrived in late June, while POGO
says it arrived last week. The employee says the shipment
arrived on a Saturday in late July.
The employee said little has been done at the facility despite
repeated warnings of potential vulnerabilities made to
Pinkerton, TVA and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Complaints of possible threats to security, the employee said,
were "scoffed at."
"I told them that this very thing could happen," the employee
said. "I'm not the only one who has been singing this song.
"TVA and Pinkerton royally screwed up."
Moulton, of the TVA, said Pinkerton was not involved in the
incident.
Both Pinkerton and TVA have a hand in security operations at the
nuclear site. The security company is responsible for inspecting
shipments to the plant and TVA regulates security operations at
the site.
Although security personnel mishandled the cargo after delivery,
Moulton said that at no time were the weapons outside of TVA
control. It took 24 hours before TVA personnel discovered the
weapons, which were all accounted for.
Under TVA regulations, staff receiving shipments of weapons is
required to notify nuclear security. But in this case, nuclear
security was made aware of the package only after personnel
discovered the misplaced cargo the next morning, Moulton said.
The facility is now undergoing a review of security procedures
to determine if changes need to be made to the delivery system.
"We self-identified this matter for further evaluation to
determine whether there are changes that need to be made in the
receiving process," Moulton said. "We are evaluating that now."
The Pinkerton security employee said that before the incident,
policy did not require security officials to inspect all
packages with factory seals. Inspections were left to the
discretion of security officials, the employee said. Since the
security lapse, however, the inspection policy at TVA has been
revamped to include more mandatory searches on items delivered
to the site, the official said. But, the employee said, even
with the upgraded security policy on cargos, exceptions of some
cargo inspections still pose a risk.
Moulton said the NRC was reviewing the matter. The NRC declined
comment.
"Unfortunately, we don't comment on security at nuclear power
plants because we don't want to release any information that
might aid an adversary," Ken Clark, a spokesman for the NRC in
Atlanta, told UPI in a telephone interview Wednesday.
Clark said any security concerns at the nuclear site had been
addressed and there was "no imminent danger to the plant or
public safety."
Additional calls to the NRC to confirm its involvement in the
review of the incident at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant were not
returned.
This incident highlights the vulnerabilities of the nation's
nuclear power plants, said Peter Stockton, a spokesman for POGO.
"There are really terrible procedures allowing this to happen,"
he said in a telephone interview Wednesday.
Stockton said if disgruntled insiders knew about this
vulnerability and were able to bring weapons and explosives into
the nuclear facility, there may be irreparable damage.
"We're talking a whole lot worse than Three Mile Island," he
said. "If an insider knows where the target sets are, in other
words, the way to damage the reactor or to blow a hole in the
spent fuel pool, it would be a hell of lot worse than anything
we've ever seen in this country before."
(Comments to energy@upi.com)
© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved
*****************************************************************
38 [NukeNet] Tritium - Greed is good for a few
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:19:04 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Nukenet: Tritium
From the Patent application claim:
http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess/additional-uses-royprocess.html
Dr. Roy released his Roy Process to the press in 1979.
Scientists of a large company saw the Patent application under non-
disclosure agreements and said the Roy Process was "entirely feasible".
Dr. Roy was offered millions of dollars for the patent rights.
NOT to develop it...but to shelve it. Dr. Roy refused.
Then president Ronald Reagan signed
the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act which made "geologic isolation" (burial)
of nuclear waste, federal policy, putting viable alternatives in scientific
limbo.
Now after wasting hundreds of billions of tax payers money on junk science,
nuclear waste has leaked into our precious ground water.
Dr. Roy was right. There IS only one way to totally eliminate high level
nuclear waste and that is to transmute and denature it for good.
-----------------------
_______________________________________________________________________
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
*****************************************************************
39 [NukeNet] Radioactive water found beneath San Onofre
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:19:05 -0700
X-Nohoney: yes white-hard - relay H=adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (borg.energy-net.org) [63.203.231.61]
X-Sender-Host-Address: 63.203.231.61
X-Sender-Host-Name: adsl-63-203-231-61.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
X-Spam-Class: HAM-VERY-WHITELIST
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Radioactive water found beneath San Onofre
One substance tests 16 times higher than the EPA's allowable level.
Another federal agency sees no health threat.
By JOHN McDONALD and ANDREW GOOD
The Orange County Register
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/homepage/article_1246083.php
SAN ONOFRE - Radiation levels 16 times higher than allowed in drinking
water were discovered last week in groundwater beneath Unit 1 of the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which last operated in 1992.
As part of Unit 1's decommissioning, workers tested the water below and
found radioactive tritium at levels high enough to cause concern, plant
spokesman Ray Golden said.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor L. Dricks said there was no
public-health danger from the radioactive water. He said that annual
radiation exposure from natural sources is about 300 millirems a year.
Anyone in contact with the water found under San Onofre would receive
about 1/10 millirem of radiation exposure, he said.
However, the tritium levels found far exceed the Environmental Protection
Agency's standards, which differ from the commission's.
Two samples were taken of the water. One registered 50,000 picocuries per
liter, about two and a half times higher than the 20,000 picocuries per
liter level the EPA allows in drinking water. The second sample measured
330,000 picocuries, 16 times higher than allowed.
San Clemente officials said they were notified of the findings Wednesday
and independent water sampling is planned at city water sources.
"It concerns me," Councilwoman Susan Ritschel said. "We have a couple
drinking water wells (being tested) just to ensure there's no problem.
Even though it's quite a distance to the plant, we want to err on side of
caution."
Golden said that regular monitoring of water, soil and air on the plant's
perimeter showed normal radiation levels around the facility since 1968,
when the plant first opened. The closest drinking water wells are about
two miles from the plant, one in a residential area to the north and one
south at Camp Pendleton.
He said the water under the plant migrates toward the sea, away from the
wells. There was no indication radioactive water had reached the ocean.
About 10,000 gallons of the groundwater was pumped into an outfall pipe
that carries 1.6 million gallons per minute from the plant's cooling
system 8,600 yards into the ocean.
"If a surfer were in that water 24-7 for 365, he would get only 1
millirem," Golden said.
Plant officials are trying to determine what caused the water to become
radioactive. Golden said it was likely a leak in water used to cool the
reactor, water from the pool where spent fuel rods were stored or from
tanks of radioactive water used in replacing the reactor's fuel rods.
A major leak would have set off alarms, but a small leak over many years
would have gone undetected, Golden said.
It was uncertain how much water leaked, but it likely occurred between
1968 and 1992, when the plant was operating, Golden said.
Dricks said that 10 other nuclear power plants have reported radioactive
water beneath their containment structures.
He said the conditions are a concern to Nuclear Regulatory Commission
officials but to date none has amounted to a threat to public health.
San Clemente Councilman Steve Knoblock said he's uncertain of the extent
of the contamination.
"We're testing ground wells in San Clemente," he said. "It doesn't appear
at this point to be a health risk."
He said remediation efforts must be taken promptly.
"I get the impression from reports it's trace amounts. I suspect the test
well will be clear. This is stationary water 25 feet above sea level. It's
not going to be migrating. We're on it, watching," Knoblock said.
CONTACT US: 949-465-5424 or jmcdonald@ocregister.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I came to America because of the great, great freedom which I heard
existed in this country. I made a mistake in selecting America as a land of
freedom, a mistake I cannot repair in the balance of my lifetime." - Albert
Einstein, who would accumulate nearly 100,000 pages of FBI files before he
died.
"Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with
innocent blood": Gandhi, Non-violence in Peace and War, 1948
Molly Johnson
6290 Hawk Ridge Place
San Miguel, CA 93451
Cell: 805 296-0524
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
40 DOD: Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction
FR Doc 06-6984
[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices] [Page 47490] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au06-33]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
ACTION: Notice of advisory board meeting.
SUMMARY: The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will hold the fourth public
meeting of the Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction
(VBDR). The VBDR was established at the recommendation of the
National Research Council report, entitled ``Review of the Dose
Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.''
The report recommended the need to establish an advisory board
that will provide suggestions for improvements in dose
reconstruction and claim adjudication procedures. The goal of
VBDR is to provide guidance and oversight of the dose
reconstruction and claims compensation programs for veterans of
U.S.- sponsored atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from 1945-1962;
veterans of the 1945-1946 occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Japan; and veterans who were prisoners of war in those regions at
the conclusion of World War II. In addition, the advisory board
will assist VA and DTRA in communicating with the veterans.
Radiation dose reconstruction has been carried out by the
Department of Defense under the Nuclear Test Personnel Review
(NTPR) program since the 1970s. DTRA is the executive agent for
the NTPR program which provides participation data and actual or
estimated radiation dose information to veterans and the VA.
Board members were selected to the fulfill the statutory
requirements mandated by Congress in Section 601 of Public Law
108-183. The Board was appointed on June 3, 2005, and is
comprised of 16 members. Board members were selected to provide
expertise in historical dose reconstruction, radiation health
matters, risk communications, radiation epidemiology, medicine,
quality management, decision analysis and ethics in order to
appropriately enable the VBDR to represent and address veterans'
concerns.
The Board is governed by the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, which sets
forth standards for the formation and conduct of government
advisory committees. DATES: Wednesday, November 8, 2006, from 8
a.m.-12 p.m., 1:30-2:30 p.m., and 4-5 p.m. with a public comment
session from 2:30-3:30 p.m., and Thursday, November 9, 2006, from
8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. and 3:30-3:35 p.m., with a public comment
session from 2-3 p.m. ADDRESSES: Hampton VA Medical Center, 100
Emancipation Drive, Hampton, Virginia 23667.
Agenda: On Wednesday, the meeting will open with an
introduction of the Board. The following briefings will be
presented: ``Recent Activities and Actions of the Advisory Board
on Radiation and Worker Health'' by Dr. Paul Ziemer; ``Activities
and Actions of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental
Hazards'' by Dr. Henry Royal; ``Radiation Exposure Compensation
Act: Adjudication of Onsite Participant Claims'' by Mrs. Dianne
Spellberg; ``How Fears Affect Our Standing of Radiation and
Risks'' by Mr. Raymond Johnson; ``An Update on NTPR Dose
Reconstruction Program'' by Dr. Paul Blake; and ``An Update on VA
Radiation Claims Compensation Program for Veterans'' by Mr.
Thomas Pamperin.
On Thursday, the four subcommittees established during the
inaugural VBDR session will report on their activities since June
2006. The subcommittees are the ``Subcommittee on DTRA Dose
Reconstruction Procedures,'' the ``Subcommittee on VA Claims
Adjudication Procedures,'' the ``Subcommittee on Quality
Management and VA Process Integration with DTRA Nuclear Test
Personnel Review Program,'' and the ``Subcommittee on
Communication and Outreach.'' The Board will close with a
discussion of the Subcommittee reports, future business and
meeting dates. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Veterans'
Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction hotline at 1-866-657-VBDR
(8237).
Supplemental Information may be found at http://vbdr.org.
Dated: August 11, 2006. L.M. Bynum, OSD Federal Register
Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-6984 Filed
8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
*****************************************************************
41 AP Wire: Free lung cancer screenings available for nuclear workers
08/17/2006 |
Associated Press
OAK RIDGE, Tenn. - Thousands of current and former workers at
Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant
are now eligible for free lung cancer screenings.
The Atomic Trades and Labor Council and Queens College of the
City University of New York is coordinating the Worker Health
Protection Program, which offers the cancer screenings and other
medical exams.
Oak Ridge workers may have a greater risk of developing cancer
because of past exposure to radiation and other carcinogens.
Scans use low-dose computerized tomography, which can detect
some cancerous tumors that X-rays cannot detect.
Art Hensley was a former worker from K-25 talking up the program
at a Y-12 kickoff Wednesday.
Hensley, 71, said he considered himself to be in good health
when a scan under the same program detected a small node in his
left lung behind his heart. The cancer was in its earliest stage
and wouldn't have shown up on a chest X-ray.
Hensley is given an 80 to 90 percent chance of survival after
surgery removed the lower lobe of his lung. Had the cancer been
caught later, his survival chances would have dropped
significantly.
"I'm one of the luckiest people in the world to be alive,"
Hensley said.
The screening program has been available at K-25 and Department
of Energy plants in Paducah, Ky., and Piketon, Ohio, for the
past few years.
Approximately 6,200 workers or former workers have participated
in screenings, which detected 45 lung cancers - 36 of which were
still in the first stage of development, Dr. Albert Miller,
medical director for the Worker Health Protection Program, said.
About $2.7 million in funding has been set aside for the Y-12
and ORNL worker screenings, officials said.
The lung screenings are being offered to current and past
workers, 50 to 79 years old, who are former smokers or who may
have been exposed to radiation, beryllium or other hazards.
Participants may also be eligible for physical exams, including
chest X-rays, blood work and some other tests.
Information from: The Knoxville News Sentinel,
http://www.knoxnews.com
*****************************************************************
42 DHHS: Petition to designate workers as exposed
FR Doc 06-6985
[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices] [Page 47497] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17au06-48]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees
at Blockson Chemical Company (Also Known As Olin Mathieson),
Joliet, IL, To Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives
notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a
petition to designate a class of employees at Blockson Chemical
Company (also known as Olin Mathieson), Jolit, Illinois, to be
included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.
The initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated,
subject to a revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as
follows:
Facility: Blockson Chemical Company (also known as Olin
Mathieson).
Location: Joliet, Illinois.
Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All workers who worked in
Building 55 at the Blockson Chemical Company.
Period of Employment: January 1, 1951 to December 31, 1962.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office
of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46,
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a
toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by
e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV.
Dated: August 11, 2006. John Howard, Director, National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. 06-6985 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-M
*****************************************************************
43 DHHS: Petition to designate workers as exposed
FR Doc 06-6986
[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices] [Page 47498] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au06-49] [[Page 47498]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention
Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees
at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, To Be Included
in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives
notice as required by 42 CFR 83.12(e) of a decision to evaluate a
petition to designate a class of employees at the Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, to be included in
the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. The
initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated,
subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as
follows:
Facility: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Location: Los Alamos, New Mexico.
Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All Department of Energy
employees, contractors, and subcontractors employed in all Tech
areas.
Period of Employment: 1943-1975.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office
of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health, 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46,
Cincinnati, OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a
toll-free number). Information requests can also be submitted by
e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV.
Dated: August 11, 2006.
John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc.
06-6986 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-M
*****************************************************************
44 NRC: In the Matter of University of Florida, and All Other Persons
FR Doc E6-13562
[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices] [Page 47547-47548] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au06-91] [[Page
47547]]
Who Seek or Obtain Access to New Safeguards Information Described
Herein; Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal History Check
Requirements for Access to New Safeguards Information (Effective
Immediately) I The University of Florida (the Licensee) holds a
license issued in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of
1954, as amended, by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC
or Commission), authorizing it to engage in an activity subject
to regulation by the Commission. On August 8, 2005, the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) was enacted. Section 652 of the EPAct
amended section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting and a
Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) identification and
criminal history records check of any person who is to be
permitted to have access to Safeguards Information (SGI).\1 \The
NRC's implementation of this requirement cannot await the
completion of the SGI rulemaking, which is underway, because the
EPAct fingerprinting and criminal history check requirements for
access to SGI were immediately effective upon enactment of the
EPAct. Although the EPAct permits the Commission by rule to
except certain categories of individuals from the fingerprinting
requirement, which the Commission has done (see 10 CFR 73.59, 71
FR 33989 (June 13, 2006)), it is unlikely that many Licensee
employees are excepted from the fingerprinting requirement by the
``fingerprinting relief'' rule. Individuals relieved from
fingerprinting and criminal history checks under the relief rule
include Federal, State, and local officials and law enforcement
personnel; Agreement State inspectors who conduct security
inspections on behalf of the NRC; members of Congress and certain
employees of members of Congress or Congressional Committees, and
representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
or certain foreign government organizations. In addition,
individuals who have active federal security clearances have
satisfied the EPAct fingerprinting requirement and need not be
fingerprinted again. Therefore, in accordance with section 149 of
the AEA, as amended by the EPAct, the Commission is imposing
additional requirements for access to new SGI,\2\ as set forth by
this Order, so that the Licensee can obtain new SGI. This Order
also imposes requirements for access to new SGI by any person\3,\
from any person, whether or not a Licensee, Applicant or
Certificate Holder of the Commission or Agreement States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Safeguards Information is a form of sensitive,
unclassified, security-related information that the Commission
has the authority to designate and protect under section 147 of
the AEA.
\2\ ``New SGI'' means SGI generated subsequent to August 8, 2005,
the date of enactment of the EPAct. ``New SGI'' also means any
SGI, regardless of when it was generated, that is being accessed
by an individual who has never been previously granted access to
SGI.
\3\ Person means (1) any individual, corporation, partnership,
firm, association, trust, estate, public or private institution,
group, government agency other than the Commission or the
Department of Energy, except that the Department of Energy shall
be considered a person with respect to those facilities of the
Department of Energy specified in section 202 of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1244), any State or any
political subdivision of, or any political entity within a State,
any foreign government or nation or any political subdivision of
any such government or nation, or other entity; and (2) any legal
successor, representative, agent, or agency of the foregoing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- II The Commission has broad statutory authority to
protect SGI and prohibit its unauthorized disclosure. Section 147
of the AEA grants the Commission explicit authority to issue such
orders as necessary to prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of
safeguards information. Furthermore, section 652 of the EPAct
amended section 149 of the AEA to require fingerprinting and an
FBI identification and a criminal history records check of each
individual who seeks access to SGI.
In order to provide assurance that the Licensee is implementing
appropriate measures to comply with the fingerprinting and
criminal history check requirements for access to new SGI, the
Licensee shall implement the requirements of this Order. In
addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that in light of the
common defense and security matters identified above, which
warrant the issuance of this Order, the public health, safety and
interest require that this Order be effective immediately.
III Accordingly, pursuant to sections 104, 147, 149, 161b, 161i,
161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR parts 50
and 73, It is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that the
licensee and all other persons who seek or obtain access to new
safeguards information, as described above, shall comply with the
requirements set forth in this order.
A. No person may have access to new Safeguards Information unless
that person has a need to know the new SGI, has been
fingerprinted and undergone an FBI identification and criminal
history records check, which has been favorably decided, and
satisfies all other applicable requirements for access to SGI.
Fingerprinting and the FBI identification and criminal history
records check are not required, however, for any person who is
relieved from that requirement by 10 CFR 73.59 (71 FR 33989 (June
13, 2006)) or who has an active Federal security clearance.
B. No person may provide new SGI to any other person except in
accordance with condition III.A. above. Prior to sharing new SGI
with any other person, a copy of this Order shall be provided to
that person.
The Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, may in
writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon
demonstration of good cause by the Licensee.
IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the Licensee must, and any
other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an
answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order,
within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good
cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time
to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to
submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to
the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a
statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent
to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the
answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation,
specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the
Licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the
reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any
answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be
sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the
Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and
Enforcement at the same address, and to the Licensee if the
answer or hearing request is by a person other than
[[Page 47548]] the Licensee. Because of possible delays in
delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is
requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to
the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to and also to the
Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile
transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a person other
than the Licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth
with particularity the manner in which his/her interest is
adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria
set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by the
Licensee or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of
any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at
such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), the Licensee may, in addition
to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or
sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate
effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order,
including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on
adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations,
or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written
approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing,
the provisions as specified above in Section III shall be final
twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further
order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a
hearing has been approved, the provisions as specified above in
Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a
hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for
hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order.
Dated this 11th day of August 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bruce A. Boger, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-13562 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
45 Las Vegas SUN: Company: Military tested explosives at southern Indiana quarry
Today: August 17, 2006 at 12:1:0 PDT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
MITCHELL, Ind. (AP) - A company that operates quarries has
confirmed that the U.S. military tested explosives at one of its
southern Indiana limestone quarries, but said the blasts did not
violate federal guidelines.
A military spokeswoman said up to 1.5 tons of explosives were
detonated in July 2004 and March 2005 at Rogers Group's Mitchell
Quarry about 70 miles south of Indianapolis.
Margaret Angell, a spokeswoman with the Nashville, Tenn.-based
Rogers Group, said monitoring devices were used to make sure the
blast levels stayed within acceptable limits.
She said the tests followed rules of the federal Mine Safety and
Health Administration - the primary agency that regulates quarry
blasting.
"Blast levels were lower than typical blasting for our crushed
stone business," Angell said.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has halted its plans to
conduct a massive blasting test in the Nevada desert. That test
would use 700 tons of explosives, and Angell said Rogers Group
has not been asked to host the test at the quarry.
A spokeswoman for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency would not
say this week whether the Indiana site was under consideration
for the blast, called Divine Strake. Officials said the test
could help develop weapons to penetrate hardened, deeply buried
targets.
Jane Jankowski, spokeswoman for Gov. Mitch Daniels, said state
officials would "have a lot of questions" if the Indiana quarry
was asked to take part in the Divine Strake project.
Rogers Group was founded in Bloomington in 1908 and moved its
headquarters to Tennessee several years ago. It is the
seventh-largest crushed stone producer in the U.S. and has 1,900
employees in five states.
---
Information from: The Herald-Times, http://www.hoosiertimes.com
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
46 Japan Times: Navy to put nuclear accident experts in Yokosuka
Friday, Aug. 18, 2006
GEARING UP FOR NEW CARRIER Navy to put nuclear accident experts
in Yokosuka
YOKOSUKA, Kanagawa Pref. (Kyodo) The U.S. Navy is planning to
set up an emergency operations center in the event of an
accident involving the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier it plans
to deploy in 2008 to its base in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture,
sources said Thursday.
The navy has said the 102,000-ton USS George Washington has no
history of radiation leaks, but the plan calls for more than a
dozen experts on nuclear accident prevention to be permanently
assigned to the center.
The members will monitor reactor and radiation levels, gather
information and prevent radiation from spreading if an accident
occurs, they said.
The center will be located inside the base near the headquarters
for all U.S. naval forces in Japan. The navy plans to devise
effective disaster prevention scenarios by next summer and
conduct training for about a year before going into operation,
the sources said.
Although the navy has declined comment, the sources said it set
up a smaller emergency operations center in the past in
connection with about 20 nuclear submarines that visit the base
every year.
The United States has stressed the safety of the George
Washington, which will replace the conventional-powered USS
Kitty Hawk in 2008. It says the reactor would not be used while
the vessel is in the harbor and the impact of any accident would
be contained within the base.
But some experts have said an accident involving the carrier,
which has an energy output equivalent to a medium-size nuclear
plant, could kill up to 1.6 million people in and around
Yokosuka.
The Japan Times (C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
47 Deseret News: Ambiguity will remain in bill-veto procedures
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Utah Legislature
Josh Loftin Deseret Morning News
The Legislature probably has the final say in determining how a
bill vetoed during the general session is handled.
According to the Utah Constitution, any bill vetoed during
the first 35 days must be "reconsidered" by the end of the
session by whichever body, the House or Senate, originated the
bill. It must also pass both chambers by a two-thirds majority to
override the veto.
There is some ambiguity, however, about whether both
chambers have to reconsider the vetoed bill, and whether that
reconsideration has to include a vote on whether to override. On
both counts, members of the Constitutional Review Commission
seemed to agree that it was best left to legislative leaders and
the members of each body to decide, even if it meant that the
procedures were inconsistent session to session.
The issue was brought to the commission two months ago by
Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, in regards to SB70,
which was vetoed by Gov. Jon Huntsman during the 2006 General
Session. The Senate then voted to override, but the House
refused to even bring the bill to the floor for debate because
it lacked the votes to override.
If passed, the bill would have removed the governor's
single authority to stop low-level nuclear waste and hazardous
waste disposal by giving the Legislature the power to override
the governor's decision.
"The constitution clearly anticipates an action,"
commission member Roger Tew said. "Which action is left to
legislative prerogative . . . nobody has brought a good reason
why the current procedure is onerous. If it is brought up and
there are more nos than yeses to reconsider it, then it is done."
Although the issue was brought by Valentine, Rep. Sheryl
Allen, R-Bountiful, said that the in-session veto process was
not something that concerned many of her fellow House members.
While more consistency might be desirable, the fate of any
vetoed bill would still be determined by the overall support
among legislators.
Commission member Byron Harward said that deciding to not
even debate the bill is sufficient reconsideration and that the
constitution is intentionally vague about the exact procedure.
The only thing that is clear is that if nothing is done with a
bill that is vetoed during the session — with the exception of
the last 10 days — the bill dies.
"We're making a mountain out of a molehill," he said. "The
words, taken in the ordinary legislative meanings, mean what they
say."
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
48 Platts: UK Parliament warns nuclear cleanup costs to rise 'significantly'
London (Platts)--16Aug2006
The UK Trade and Industry Committee expects public costs of
decommissioning after 2006 to rise "significantly" on the GBP70.2
billion figure for this year, it said in a report published
Wednesday. The committee is formed of members of Parliament.
The committee said it thought costs would escalate due to
more work to be done at the Sellafield and Dounreay sites and
also because the nuclear industry seems reluctant to continue
with the reprocessing of spent fuel while this option remains
more expensive than buying new stocks of uranium.
The TIC also expressed doubts about whether facilities at
the old Magnox nuclear power stations, and the THORP and MOX fuel
reprocessing plants at Sellafield, could provide sufficient
income for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to pay for
decommissioning.
"We remain concerned about the continuing uncertainty over
the type and scale of the waste in the most problematic sites at
Sellafield and Dounreay. We are also sceptical about the ability
of NDA's assets to generate as much income as the Government
appears to assume," the committee said.
The committee also expressed concern that "uncertainties"
over UK funding into nuclear fusion research could restrict the
performance of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and
might prevent the UK from holding a leading position in the
sector.
The UKAEA's future also depends on the authority's ability
to win decommissioning contracts against "severe competition from
international companies," the TIC said, and so there is
"uncertainty about the future of UKAEA itself."
Reorganization of the NDA and UKAEA agencies was not the
best way to attract private-sector investors, the committee
warned.
"Nuclear fusion may or may not deliver its promise, but the
relatively small sums of money required to keep the UK fully
engaged in the possible development of commercially viable fusion
generation must be found. Nothing in the restructuring and
financing of UKAEA must prevent or inhibit the UK's full
participation in what is, potentially, an inherently safe and
virtually unlimited source of power, producing very low levels of
waste using freely available fuel sources,"the committee said.
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
49 Independent: Las Vegas bids to fuel growth by tapping into farmers' water
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Published: 17 August 2006
Nothing in the history of the American West epitomises the
unscrupulous greed and ambition of its settlers more than the
story of Los Angeles sucking the water supply out from under the
farmers of the Owens Valley in the eastern Sierra Nevada
mountains a century ago.
The fertile valley was reduced to a dustbowl so the City of
Angels could expand and turn into the sprawling metropolis it is
today.
Now history is threatening to repeat itself - this time in the
neighbouring state of Nevada, where the insatiable growth of Las
Vegas and its satellite cities is sparking a new water war with
the farmers and ranchers of the remote and beautiful Snake
Valley straddling the border of Nevada and Utah.
Water officials in Las Vegas are lobbying to build a pipeline to
carry more than one billion cubic feet of extra groundwater into
their city every year, at an cost of $1bn. The pipeline would be
the starting point of a larger project to pump almost eight
times that much water into Las Vegas from a large swath of
central and eastern Nevada.
The motivation for America's Sin City is clear: it has doubled
in size in 15 years and is expected to grow faster than any
other metropolitan area in the US for two more decades. It badly
needs water - for domestic use, but also for golf courses and
decorative fountains outside the garish casinos of the Las Vegas
Strip.
The new pipeline, officials argue, would provide enough water
for more than half a million new residents. (The current
population is around 1.6 million.) The downside for the Snake
Valley and the neighbouring Great Basin National Park is equally
clear, though.
"Rural life itself stands to be wiped out as a result of this
insatiable growth of Las Vegas," said Bob Fulkerson of the Great
Basin Water Network, which wants to halt the pipeline idea. "Who
benefits from that? The people who have always benefited in the
West, and that is the barons; the wealthy," he said. "Who loses?
The people without the means. It's not supposed to be that way."
After a tortuous lobbying process, the only thing still standing
in the way of the Southern Nevada Water Authority is a
three-week public hearing next month, during which state water
engineers will listen to testimony from both sides.
The Las Vegas lobby denies that its actions will suck the land
dry. The Snake Valley advocates, meanwhile, saythe inevitable
consequence of tapping the groundwater is that it will
eventually be drained - killing the livelihoods and culture of
ranchers and native Americans and blighting one of the
region.Activists argue that Las Vegas, a city with a reputation
for excess, would do better to think of water-conservation
measures. In other desert cities, such as Phoenix and Tucson,
conservation measures have reduced water consumption to around
110 US gallons per capita per day. Las Vegas, meanwhile,
consumes about 270 - and aims to reduce that figure only to
around 255 over the next 15 years.
"They are irrigating their golf courses and the fountains at the
Bellagio hotel with drinking water," he said. "In the desert,
people feel that is absolutely immoral. It's turning nature on
its head."
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
50 News Wales: Warning on nuclear waste
Environment
17/8/2006 -
17/8/2006
A Welsh Assembly member who chairs the environment committee
warned today that no nuclear power generation should be
commissioned until decisions are taken about how to deal with
radioactive waste.
Glyn Davies, Welsh Conservative AM for Mid and West Wales has
welcomed the report from the Trade and Industry Committee of MP's
about the importance of investing in research into the viability
of nuclear power. As the debate about developing new nuclear
power generating capacity has progressed over recent months Glyn
Davies, who is Chair of the National Assembly's Environment,
Planning and Countryside Committee, has called for more research
into how radioactive waste should be disposed of.
The Government's advisory committee on nuclear waste disposal has
presented to the National Assembly's Committee on two occasions
over recent months as it prepared its Final Report which was
delivered to the Governments of the UK last month. Following
several years work, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
(CoRWM), recommended to the Government that radioactive waste
should be buried deep in the earth - but that it may take up to
40 years to find a suitable site. This uncertainty about the way
ahead is the present position.
Last month the Westminster Government published its Energy
Review, which was widely reported as giving the 'green light' to
new power stations. However, the Government's insistence that the
private sector should carry the risks associated with new
generation, makes it very unlikely that it will go ahead without
more certainty about what to do about waste.
Commenting on the DTI Committee's recommendations, that the UK
should remain at the cutting edge of research into the viability
of nuclear power, Glyn Davies said:
"Because of the threat to our planet arising from climate change
we cannot afford to turn our back completely on nuclear power
which has the potential to facilitate reductions in carbon
emission. However, there must be a clear strategy about how we
deal with nuclear waste. Going ahead with development of new
nuclear power stations before we know how we are going to manage
radioactive waste is knowingly creating a terrible legacy for the
next generation. There must be more research and more firm
conclusions.
"We know that currently, the bill for clean up costs in the UK
are around a staggering 70 billion pounds - and we all expect
that figure to rise. This massive figure would be acceptable if
the way forward was clear - but it is not clear. The Government
still has no idea what to do about radioactive waste. The Trade
and Industry Committee is right to conclude that the UK cannot
afford to turn its back completely on nuclear power - and it
follows that there must be serious and continuing research into
its safety and security."
News Wales is published by copyright 1999-2004
Knighton, Powys LD7 1TD •
*****************************************************************
51 Monticello Times: Dry storage is recommended for Nuclear Plant
http://www.monticellotimes.com
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Kathleen Ostroot Managing Editor
By Kathleen Ostroot
According to Jim Alders, Xcel Energy's manager of regulatory
projects, the hearing examiner, Steve Mihalchick, administrative
law judge, issued a report giving a recommendation to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the building of a spent
fuel storage facility at the Monticello Nuclear plant.
Mihalchick, who is assigned to the case, is independent of the
state's utilities commission, which makes the decision to grant
permission to build the storage area.
"The environmental impact statement and other papers are
complete, so the commission can make a decision," Alders said.
Once the commission grants approval, the final decision will be
before the State Legislature this session.
In separate but related actions, Xcel asked the NRC to extend
its license until 2030, and for permission to build the
temporary waste storage facility.
Because the federal government's Yucca Mountain waste storage
facility in Nevada is not complete, further operation of the
Monticello Plant requires that the waste be stored onsite.
"It will be two or three decades before the stored waste can be
moved to the facility in Mojave Desert, Nevada," Alders said.
Xcel will store the radioactive spent fuel rods in 20-ton dry,
sealed steel canisters, and place those canisters within a large
concrete vault, that would be built near the plant's reactor
building.
"Such a storage facility is necessary if the plant is to
continue operating beyond 2010," said Alders.
The plant's current 40-year operating license expires that year,
which means, if the plant is not granted a license extension, it
will be decommissioned and shut down.
The plant operates a single unit boiling water reactor powered
by nuclear fuel. In such a configuration, a nuclear reaction in
the reactor core generates heat, which boils water to produce
steam inside the reactor vessel, which is then routed to turbine
generators and produces electrical power. The water is cooled in
a condenser and returned to the reactor vessel to be boiled
again. The cooling water is force-circulated by electrically
powered feedwater pumps. Emergency cooling water is supplied by
other pumps, which can be powered by diesel fuel.
PROPOSED SPENT FUEL STORAGE
At present, the spent fuel pool is located on the refueling
floor in the reactor building of the plant and is filled with
storage racks that hold the spent fuel assemblies and other
irradiated reactor components. The water in the pool is 37 feet,
9 inches deep. The pool is equipped with redundant cooling
systems to remove heat that is generated by the process. The
water above the spent fuel also provides a radiation shield. The
spent fuel pool provides an area to fill the casks with the
spent fuel.
Xcel estimates that 1,520 spent fuel assemblies would be
discharged from Monticello's reactor during operations between
2010 and 2030.
Xcel Energy proposes to use storage containers that each hold 61
spent fuel assemblies. In order for the plant to operate from
2010 through 2030, up to 30 storage containers will be
necessary, according to Xcel. The pool area is configured so
that a container can be lowered into the pool and assemblies
transferred to it for removal to dry storage or transport.
Currently, the Monticello plant's NRC license allows for storage
of up to 2,237 spent fuel assemblies in the current spent fuel
storage rack configuration. Eight of the licensed spaces are not
available because they do not meet the required dimensional
specifications, leaving 2,229 spaces available in the spent fuel
pool. Since 20 of the available spaces hold control rod blades,
there are 2,209 spaces available for spent nuclear fuel storage
in the spent fuel pool.
According to Alders, the spent fuel storage capacity at the
plant will be exhausted by 2010.
Transnuclear, Inc will provide the new storage facility proposed
by Xcel Energy. According to the Website www.transnuclear.com,
Transnuclear provides services for the "nuclear fuel cycle,"
including transportation, storage, and handling of spent nuclear
fuel, radioactive waste, and other radioactive materials. The
system it has proposed for the Monticello plant, the
Transnuclear NUHOMS 61 BT spent nuclear fuel container, storage
vault, and transport system, was licensed by the NRC in 2001.
The proposed dry spent fuel storage facility would consist of a
lighted area, approximately 400 feet long by 200 feet wide,
roughly 3.5 acres in size, located adjacent to the reactor and
generating building on the 2150 acre Xcel property.
The tallest structures would be the light poles, which are
approximately 40 feet tall. Two fences would surround the
facility, with a monitored, clear zone between them. Within the
storage area, spent fuel will be encased in a canister, placed
in a transfer cask for removal to modular concrete vaults, then
removed from the transfer cask and stored in the vault, which
will be placed on a reinforced concrete support pad, 18 to 24
inches thick. A small concrete building approximately 20 feet by
22 feet would be located within the installation to house
electrical equipment. The site and storage vaults would be
monitored with cameras, other security devices, and temperature
sensors. An access road would connect the storage facility to
the rest of the plant.
The selected dry spent fuel storage system will not generate
waste or pollutants. Because the canister and cask assembly is
sealed, welded, and decontaminated before leaving the reactor
building, little residual radioactive contamination is released
to the environment.
According to Alders, direct radiation from the storage system
will be released, but it will be limited to low levels.
Radiation doses to the population around the site will be
significantly below federal requirements, Alders said.
CERTIFICATE OF NEED
According to Minnesota statutes, approval is subject to
accepting a certificate of need by the Public Utilities
Commission. In any proceeding under this subdivision, the
commission may make a decision that could result in a shutdown
of a nuclear generating facility. In considering an application
for a certificate of need pursuant to this subdivision, the
commission may consider whether the public utility that owns the
nuclear generation facility in the state is in compliance with
statutes and the utility's past performance.
The plant must also show that the storage of spent nuclear fuel
in the pool and in dry casks at a nuclear generating plant is
managed to facilitate the shipment of waste out of state to a
permanent or interim storage facility as soon as feasible in a
manner that allows the continued operation of the plant
consistent with statutes.
The plant must also show that the demand for electricity cannot
be met more cost effectively through energy conservation and
load-management measures and unless the applicant has otherwise
justified its need.
"Denial of the certificate of need would cause an adverse
effect upon the future adequacy, reliability, safety, or
efficiency of energy supply to Xcel, Xcel's customers, and the
people of Monticello, the state of Minnesota and neighboring
states," said Alders. "Jobs would be lost and the economy would
be adversely affected."
To view a copy of the report visit
http://www.oah.state.mn.us/aljBase/250016407.rt.htm.
Copyright 2006, Monticello Times
*****************************************************************
52 Public Citizen: NIRS and Public Citizen Appeal LES Licensing
Decision to Federal Court
August 15, 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. Nuclear Information and Resource Service
(NIRS) and Public Citizen today filed papers with the U.S. Court
of Appeals in Washington, D.C., challenging the license granted
for the proposed Louisiana Energy Services (LES) uranium
enrichment plant by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC).
The NRC granted a construction/operating license for the LES
project, which would be located near Eunice, N.M., on June 23
following nearly three years of litigation by NIRS and Public
Citizen before an NRC Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the
NRC Commissioners. NIRS and Public Citizen believe that an
appeals court review of the case will reveal violations of
existing federal laws and regulations, and that the license will
be vacated.
The specific issues to be raised by NIRS and Public Citizen
will be contained in a brief to the appeals court that will be
determined by the courts schedule.
We believe the NRC made numerous mistakes in approving this
project for licensing, said Michele Boyd, legislative director
of Public Citizens Energy Program. We are confident that a
federal court without the bias of the NRC will agree.
It took LES nearly 17 years and moving from Louisiana to
Tennessee to New Mexico to get where they are today, said
Michael Mariotte, executive director of NIRS. But its going to
be a lot longer before this story is over. We believe the
outstanding issues surrounding the LES project remain so
compelling that the court will have no choice but to throw this
license out.
###
*****************************************************************
53 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Ash will go to Texas nuke facility -
By Wynne Everett
VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
Thursday, August 17, 2006
State and local authorities have reached an agreement with BWX
Technologies to remove uranium-contaminated lagoon ash from
Allegheny Township this year.
The deal will move the ash from the former wastewater treatment
lagoon at the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority's
plant to a hazardous and low-level nuclear waste facility in
Robstown, Texas.
The cleanup is scheduled to be completed by the end of December,
according to state officials.
The authority has been trying to move the 12,000 cubic yards of
ash since 1993.
Most recently, the removal plan has made news since the state
Department of Environmental Protection announced about a year ago
that the material posed no unusual danger to people and was safe
enough to go into a municipal landfill.
Public backlash killed two attempts to move the ash to
Pennsylvania municipal landfills.
In April, DEP reversed course and asked BWX Technologies to pay
for the lagoon ash to be removed to a hazardous or low-level
nuclear waste site.
Since then, state environmental officials, authority officials
and BWX Technologies have been negotiating the agreement
announced Wednesday evening.
The deal will send the ash to a site owned by US Ecology.
State Department of Environmental Protection contractors will
excavate the ash from the lagoon near the Kiski River and
transport it in specially lined trucks to a low-level
radioactive waste-processing facility in Wampum, Lawrence
County, a DEP news release said Wednesday night.
From there, the waste will go by train to Texas.
The cleanup will cost about $3 million, DEP officials said.
This is significantly higher than the $900,000 the authority
planned to spend on the landfill disposal plan last year.
The authority and BWX Technologies will split the $2.6 million
cost. The work DEP will contribute could cost as much as
$400,000, department spokesman Kurt Knaus said.
The state will try to recoup that money from "other responsible
parties," he said. This may include the federal government,
which contracted with Babcock &Wilcox to process the nuclear
material that contaminated the wastewater plant, Knaus said.
The ash was contaminated between 1978 and 1984 by uranium from
the former Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. (NUMEC) and its
successor companies, Atlantic Richfield and Babcock &Wilcox.
The companies manufactured nuclear material for military and
industrial use at sites in Apollo and Parks. The companies had a
contract with the authority -- the Kiski Valley's sewerage
treatment authority -- to treat wastewater from these sites.
According to lawsuits and claims filed with the federal
government, at least 400 area residents and former workers have
died or have illnesses caused by the nuclear-fuel processing
that happened at the sites.
Since B ceased operation in 1984, a succession of cleanup
projects have aimed to rid the former sites of contamination,
including the ash in the wastewater lagoon.
The pollution control authority sought to remove it in 1993 as
part of a routine decommissioning of the lagoon. The federal
Nuclear Regulator Commission stopped that cleanup plan, however,
ruling that the uranium-contaminated ash could not be moved.
In 2005, the NRC reversed its decision, declaring the ash no
longer a regulated material. The change was related to changes
in the way the agency measures radioactivity.
In 1994, the NRC measured the concentration of uranium in the
ash and ruled it was higher than acceptable levels for ordinary
landfill waste.
Today, however, the NRC measures uranium based on the dosage of
radiation a person would receive from the contaminated material.
Under the new measure, the lagoon ash is considered safe.
Residents and local cleanup activists disagreed. Pressure from
these groups led the state to create the new plan announced
Wednesday.
Wynne Everett can be reached at or (724) 226-4676.
Tribune-Review Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
54 WebWire: Regional storage facilities could handle nuclear waste,
researcher says
August 17, 2006
massachusetts institute of technology
Anne Trafton, News Office
The Bush administration is eagerly pushing nuclear power as a way
to help solve the U.S. energy crisis. But in its new plan for
nuclear waste management, the administration is taking the wrong
approach, says an MIT professor who studies the nuclear energy
industry.
"My hope is that over time, the administration will rethink its
priorities in this area," says Richard Lester, professor of
nuclear engineering and director of the Industrial Performance
Center.
In a recent article published in Issues in Science and
Technology, Lester argued that the Bush administration’s plan,
known as GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership), is not the
best way to encourage further development of nuclear energy.
GNEP, which President Bush announced earlier this year, is meant
to stimulate the nuclear industry by coming up with better ways
to manage spent nuclear fuel. The plan focuses on reprocessing
spent fuel, but Lester believes the administration should focus
on finding regional storage facilities for the nuclear waste.
Right now, uncertainty over how to deal with spent fuel, which
remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, is one
of the major obstacles to the construction of new plants.
Thousands of spent fuel rods are now stored in secure pools or
concrete casks located near nuclear plants, which is not
considered a long-term solution.
The administration has been pushing a plan to move all of the
nation’s spent fuel to a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
but that facility is not scheduled to open until at least 2017.
Many years and billions of dollars have gone into planning for
the repository there, over the protests of Nevada residents, and
success is still not assured. If the project fails, an
alternative will be needed. And even if it succeeds, spent fuel
will remain at nuclear power plants for decades before it can be
removed.
Several nuclear energy companies have sued the federal
government for failing to fulfill its contractual obligation to
remove spent nuclear fuel from their plants. That failure does
not bode well for construction of new plants, Lester said.
"If electric power companies can’t believe the government is
going to fulfill its obligations, it’s going to be a real
deterrent for them to go ahead with new power plants," he said.
In the meantime, the Bush plan calls for developing new
technology to reprocess spent fuel to recover usable plutonium
and uranium and eliminate other long-lived radioactive elements
known as actinides. But according to Lester, the government’s
efforts would be better focused on other solutions, such as
establishing a small number of regional facilities, where
nuclear plants could send their spent fuel to be stored safely
for several decades.
GNEP does not address the utilities’ spent fuel storage problem.
Instead, it "is being sold as a technical fix for three other
problems," Lester said, but "each of these problems is either
not as serious as the administration suggests or could be solved
in a different way that is less costly and less risky."
Those perceived problems are lack of space at Yucca Mountain;
the long life of radioactive material; and a potential shortage
of uranium.
Yucca Mountain, a ridgeline geological formation about 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, has already been tunneled in preparation
for waste storage. When Congress approved the Yucca Mountain
site, it put a 70,000-metric-ton limit on the amount of waste
that could be stored there, but there is room for much more if
Congress wants to raise the limit, Lester said.
Any effort to remove the long-lived radioactivity from the waste
would require construction of reprocessing plants, special
"burner" reactors and other nuclear facilities, which would be
costly and difficult to site. And even if these plants were
successfully built, it would be nearly impossible to eliminate
all of the long-lived radioisotopes in the waste, Lester says.
"When you really look at the technical feasibility of reducing
the toxic lifetime of waste, it has less potential than the
administration is claiming, and the costs and shorter-term risks
of doing it are significant," he said. Moreover, according to
Lester, there are other, less costly ways to reduce the
long-term risks of nuclear waste disposal that the
administration has ignored.
Supporters of GNEP also say that reprocessing spent fuel could
be necessary in the future if uranium becomes scarce, but
according to the 2003 MIT report, "The Future of Nuclear Power,"
there is enough uranium to last for several decades, even if
many new nuclear plants are built.
Lester said he is not opposed to research on new fuel cycle
technologies, but he argues that reprocessing will not be needed
for several decades, if then, and that to spend billions of
dollars over the next few years on demonstrating reprocessing
and related technologies, as the administration is proposing,
would not be a wise use of resources.
massachusetts institute of technology
web.mit.edu
massachusetts institute of technology 617-258-5402
thomson@mit.edu
*****************************************************************
55 Sun News: DOE, state working on agreement
08/17/2006
NUCLEAR WASTE
The Associated Press
AIKEN - A Department of Energy official at the Savannah River
Site says he is optimistic an agreement can soon be reached
between state and federal officials over the treatment of some
high-level nuclear waste.
"I'm talking a matter of weeks, not months," DOE manager Terry
Spears said at an SRS Citizens Advisory Board meeting Tuesday.
"It is not because of a lack of effort."
The DOE and the state Department of Health and Environmental
Control have wrangled since December over the best way to remove
some of the 36 million gallons of radioactive waste at the
former nuclear weapons site. The disagreement centers on some of
the waste that will be removed from tanks and buried at SRS.
The DOE has cut in half the amount of radioactivity it plans to
leave behind, but state officials are holding out for a renewed
commitment from Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.
The SRS Citizens Advisory Board set Tuesday as a tentative
deadline last month for the state and federal officials to work
out an agreement.
"I don't want to leave this hanging," said Bill Meisenheimer,
chairman of the advisory board's waste committee.
The waste is stored in 49 tanks at the site. The state, which
gives the federal agency permits to close some tanks, wants them
emptied by about 2020. The DOE already has missed deadlines to
close some tanks.
*****************************************************************
56 Platts: US DOE plans to sell 700 metric tons of uranium to fund cleanup
Washington (Platts)--14Aug2006
The US Department of Energy Monday said it wants to sell 700
metric tons uranium in the form of uranium hexafluoride to
continue to pay for the cleanup of DOE uranium inventories
contaminated with technetium-99.
Those interested in buying the uranium have until August 28
to submit proposals to DOE. The department said it expects to
award a sales contract by August 31.
The UF6 will be sold in seven lots of 100 metric
tons-uranium each, DOE said. The cleanup of the uranium will be
done by USEC at the company's Portsmouth, Ohio facility. DOE said
the cleanup effort is directly supported by 210 USEC workers and
indirectly by another 150-200 USEC workers. Uranium sales to pay
for the cleanup operation were authorized as part of the fiscal
2006 energy and water development appropriations act.
--Mike Knapik, mike_knapik@platts.com
Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill
Companies]
*****************************************************************
57 Tri-City Herald: Company wins bid for reactor cleanup
Published Wednesday, August 16th, 2006
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
Safety and Ecology Corp. has won a $23.5 million subcontract
from Washington Closure Hanford to clean up contamination around
Hanford's closed D and DR reactors.
The work includes cleaning up 15 well-documented burial grounds
for solid waste, 13 waste sites discovered more recently and
more than four miles of potentially contaminated water treatment
and sanitary sewer pipelines.
SEC will dig up, sort, package, load, weigh and transport about
900,000 tons of contaminated materials, reactor hardware and
construction debris from the cleanup sites to a container
transfer area, said Washington Closure. The materials will then
be hauled by Integrated Logistics Services Inc. to a Hanford
landfill for low-level radioactive waste.
SEC, a small business with headquarters in Knoxville, Tenn., and
offices in Richland, is known at Hanford for heading the team
that won the $235 million contract to decommission Hanford's
Fast Flux Test Facility in 2004.
DOE picked SEC for the FFTF work even though at the time it was
barred from bidding on work for Bechtel Jacobs at Oak Ridge,
Tenn., after dripping strontium 90, a radioactive waste, down a
public highway.
The FFTF contract award was successfully contested on unrelated
grounds, and the Department of Energy eventually dropped plans
to award a new small business the FFTF contract.
SEC had been cleared to do work at the Tennessee site by the
time it submitted its proposal to Washington Closure Hanford,
said Todd Nelson, Washington Closure spokesman.
"We have a strong local management team that will bring senior
leadership ... while implementing a culture that will exceed the
expectations for safety and performance," said Christopher
Leichtweis, SEC chief executive, in a statement.
The company is looking forward to becoming more integrated with
the Tri-City community with the expansion of its Richland office
and laboratory, he said.
All the bidders for the work near the D and DR reactors were
technically qualified, but SEC offered the lowest price, Nelson
said.
"This was a competitive procurement and set aside specifically
for small businesses," said Jon Fancher, Washington Closure
field remediation manager for the project, in a statement.
Washington Closure's contract requires it to subcontract 60
percent of the cleanup work along the Columbia River at Hanford.
Also, half the subcontracted work must go to small businesses.
The company submitted a list of 11 potential subcontractors on
the project. They include Tri-City businesses JUB Engineering,
American Electric, Permit Surveying, Pacific Mobile Structures,
DHD, Hertz, Delta Equipment and Cast Transportation. RCI of
Hermiston, Link Supplies of Tennessee and Big Top Structures of
Florida also were listed.
D and DR reactors operated from 1944 to 1967 to produce
plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Both have
been torn down to little more than their radioactive cores and
sealed up, or cocooned, to allow the worst of their radiation to
decay.
When the reactors were operating, tons of radioactive and
hazardous waste were produced, Much of it was buried in trenches
and covered with soil. That waste is being retrieved to meet
modern environmental standards.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
58 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern
FR Doc E6-13571
[Federal Register: August 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 159)]
[Notices] [Page 47491-47492] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17au06-37]
New Mexico AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New
Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86
Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be
announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Wednesday, September 27, 2006, 2 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
[[Page 47492]]
ADDRESSES: Jemez Complex, Santa Fe Community College, 6401
Richards Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Menice Santistevan, Northern New
Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B,
Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or
E-mail: msantistevan@doeal.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda 2 p.m. Call to Order by Deputy Designated
Federal Officer (DDFO), Christina Houston.
Establishment of a Quorum.
Welcome and Introductions by Chair, J.D. Campbell. Approval of
Agenda.
Approval of Minutes of July 26, 2006 Board Meeting.
2:15 p.m. Board Business/Reports. Election of Chair and
Vice-Chair for Fiscal 2007-2008, Board Members.
Old Business, Chair, J.D. Campbell. Report from Chair, J.D.
Campbell. Report from Department of Energy (DOE), Christina
Houston.
Report from Executive Director, Menice Santistevan.
Other Issues, Board Members.
New Business.
2:45 p.m. Committee Business/Reports. A. Environmental
Monitoring, Surveillance and Remediation Committee, Chris Timm.
B. Waste Management Committee, Donald Jordan. C. Ad Hoc Committee
on Bylaws and Administrative Procedures, Presentation of Proposed
Amendments for First Reading, Donald Jordan.
Reports from Liaisons.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--Rich Mayer.
DOE--George Rael.
Los Alamos National Security (LANS)--Andy Phelps.
New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)--James Bearzi.
3:45 p.m. Break. 4 p.m. DOE Los Alamos Site Office (DOE/LASO) and
LANS/Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Business, Ed Wilmot or
George Rael.
5 p.m. Dinner Break. 6 p.m. Public Comment. 6:15 p.m.
Consideration of Recommendation. 6:30 p.m. Presentation on
Environmental Restoration--LANL/DOE Staff.
7:30 p.m. Comments from Liaisons--DOE/LASO, LANL, EPA, NMED. 8
p.m. Round Robin on Board Meeting and Presentations, Board
Members.
8:15 p.m. Recap of Meeting: Issuance of Press Releases,
Editorials, etc., J.D. Campbell. 8:30 p.m. Adjourn, Christina
Houston. This agenda is subject to change at least one day in
advance of the meeting.
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements
pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at
the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also
be available at the Public Reading Room located at the Board's
office at 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM. Hours of
operation for the Public Reading Room are 9 a.m.-4 p.m. on Monday
through Friday. Minutes will also be made available by writing or
calling Menice Santistevan at the Board's office address or
telephone number listed above.
Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at:
http://www.nnmcab.org .
Issued at Washington, DC on August 10, 2006.
Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-13571 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6405-01-P
*****************************************************************
59 lamonitor.com: Draft SWEIS comment period extended
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
Monitor Staff Report
An extension has been granted to allow public comment on the
draft site-wide environmental impact statement (draft SWEIS) for
continued operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory until Sept.
20. The Department of Energy released the draft SWEIS, which lays
out the planned programs at LANL for the next five years and
evaluates the environmental impacts of those programs.
The document has not been finalized and it is still possible to
effect the contents.
DOE is required to both listen and respond to public comments
made about the draft SWEIS under the National Environmental
Policy Act.
All comments received on or before Sept. 20, will be considered.
One of the most dramatic shifts proposed in the draft SWEIS is
expansion of plutonium pit production. A plutonium pit is the
core of a nuclear bomb.
DOE seeks to raise the level of pit production from 20 to 80
pits per year, which will nearly double the amount of
transuranic waste produced.
Comments or requests for additional information may be submitted
electronically by e-mail to LANL_SWEIS@doeal.govor via facsimile
at 667-5948.
Copies of the draft SWEIS and the references cited are available
for review at the LANL research library, TA-3, Building 207. J.
Robert Oppenheimer Study Center at West Jemez Road and Casa
Grande Drive.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
60 KnoxNews: Lung screenings offered to Y-12, ORNL workers
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
August 17, 2006
OAK RIDGE - Art Hensley was in "perfect health," and he had
family genetics on his side. His father lived until he was 86
years old, and his mother is still around at 97. He saw little
need to have a lung-cancer screening being offered to former
nuclear workers.
"This program proved me wrong," Hensely said Wednesday at the
kickoff of a new screening program for current and former workers
at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory.
In Hensley case, a scan - using low-dose computerized tomography
- detected a small node in his left lung. It was behind his heart
and wouldn't have shown up in a chest X-ray. The cancer was in
its earliest stage, and a surgeon removed the lower lobe of his
lung. The 71-year-old is given an 80 percent to 90 percent chance
of survival.
If the cancer had been caught in a later stage, when symptoms
draw attention, the survival chances fall off the table.
"I'm one of the luckiest people in the world to be alive,"
Hensley told an audience at the Atomic Trades and Labor Council
offices, where a new screening unit has been set up.
Thousands of current and former workers at Y-12 and ORNL are
eligible for free lung-cancer screenings or other medical exams
under the new program, similar to one offered previously to
workers at the Oak Ridge K-25 plant - where Hensley worked - and
uranium-enrichment plants in Ohio and Kentucky.
The ATLC is coordinating the Worker Health Protection Program in
conjunction with Queens College of the City University of New
York.
ATLC is a labor group that represents union workers at Y-12 and
ORNL, but the program benefits are available to both hourly and
salaried workers at the plants. The U.S. Department of Energy is
funding the program, but union leader Kenny Cook said the
participating physicians and clinics are independent of DOE.
The Oak Ridge workers may be at greater risk because of past
exposures to radiation and other carcinogens.
U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., who spoke at the event, compared
the nuclear workers to today's military men and women. They
worked to support the nation during the Cold War, and they
deserve the government's support, he said.
"This is a good thing," Wamp said.
Dr. Albert Miller, medical director for the Worker Health
Protection Program, said low-dose CT scans have proved to be an
effective screening tool for lung cancer. He compared the
technology to mammograms and PSA tests to screen for breast
cancer and prostate cancer.
Over the past few years, the program evaluated 6,200 workers or
former workers at K-25 and plants in Paducah, Ky., and Piketon,
Ohio, Miller said. The scans detected 45 lung cancers, not any
of which had been previous identified, and 36 were still in the
first stage of development, the physician said.
About $2.7 million in funding has been set aside for the
screenings of Y-12 and ORNL workers, officials said Wednesday.
The program has two parts. The lung screenings are being offered
to current and past Y-12 and ORNL workers, 50 to 79 years old,
who are former smokers or who may have been exposed to
radiation, beryllium or other hazards. Former workers at the two
plants may also be eligible for physical exams, including chest
X-rays, blood work and some other tests.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
CANCER SCREENINGS Screening program for current and former
workers at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory is being offered. + To set up an appointment for lung
screenings, call 1-866-228-7226 + To arrange for a physical exam,
contact the Atomic Trades and Labor Council at 1-865-483-8471 or
1-800-906-2019
© 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************