***************************************************************** 12/28/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.306 ***************************************************************** 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: UNSC resolution makes Iran stronger 2 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Resolution has no impact - Velayati 3 UPI: Analysis: Israel's options vs.Iran's bomb 4 Korea Times: Foreign MinisterˇŻs US Trip to Center on Nukes 5 Korea Times: Too Early to Resume Aid to N. Korea 6 UPI: Yearend review: N. Korea in standoff 7 Korea Herald: Foreign minister to visit U.S. 8 US: 100+ organizations call on new Congress to shift energy funding 9 US: Inside Bay Area: Governor pushes for tech research 10 IPS-English CHALLENGES 2006-2007: Nuclear Disarmament Gets NUCLEAR REACTORS 11 The Herald: British Energy shares surge on reactor restart 12 thewest.com.au: Report recommends shift to nuclear power 13 US: NRC: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Stateme 14 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 15 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment an 16 US: NRC: In the Matter of Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National 17 Deutsche Welle: Bulgaria in Nuclear Quandary as EU Entry Nears 18 US: NRC: Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommitte 19 US: NRC: Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance; Notice of Availabili 20 globeandmail.com: Stelco woos county for nuclear land deal 21 Reuters: Czech govt will not build new N-plants -Bursik 22 AU ABC: Nuclear report to be released. 23 US: The State: Duke increases stake in S.C. nuclear plant 24 US: Charlotte Observer: Officials unsure why N.C. nuclear reactor qu NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 25 US: NIOSH: ABRWH 1-11-7 public meeting 26 Guardian Unlimited: 10 People Showing Signs of Polonium-210 27 Mos News: Russia Dismantles Nuclear Submarines on Schedule - NEWS - 28 US: OpEdNews: Say No to the Divine Strake NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 29 RIA Novosti: Liquid waste reprocessing plant inaugurated in Russia's 30 US: GilroyDispatch.com: Perchlorate Plan Lacking 31 Korea Times: Kyongju Divided Over Radiation Waste Facilities 32 News & Star: Nuclear firm denies delay claim 33 Lahontan Valley News: Letter: YUCCA MOUNTAIN WILL ONE DAY BE A REALI 34 Whitehaven News: Insurers face bill for Thorp shutdown 35 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Report backs uranium industry - PEACE 36 US: USATODAY.com: N.D. nuke site may reopen as museum - US DEPT. OF ENERGY 37 Knox News: Nudged into nowhere 38 SF New Mexican: Delayed cleanup may cost taxpayers ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: UNSC resolution makes Iran stronger 2006/12/28 Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani said on Wednesday that the anti-Iranian UN Security Council resolution is among arrows that has been aimed by the enemy to undermine the Islamic Republic of Iran. "Such exhausted behaviors and tactics will make us stronger; today, the world is increasingly awakened and getting more resentful of America," said Larijani in an interview with reporters on the sidelines of his meeting with Iraqi Minister of Economy Bayan Jabr on Wednesday. Larijani said that recently, an American official said the resolution was issued to humiliate Iran. When the American official was asked about ineffectiveness of such behaviors in the past, he said 'though such behaviors have not functioned well over the past 27 years, we are doing something else behind the stage', added Larijani. "The literature of a country, which claims to be superpower and the so-called master of global affairs and activities, is such that it speaks of launching a global move to humiliate another country," ridiculed Larijani. He said today, regional conditions require more prudence and rational behavior and radicalism is no longer effective. The official said the Islamic Republic of Iran has accepted NPT and carried out its nuclear activities under the IAEA supervision adding anybody refuses to officially recognize the rights has in fact done a grave mistake and his conduct would create problems. As for operation of 3,000 new centrifuges, Larijani said Iran has in the course of talks been stressing that its nuclear policies are consistent with global system and 'if rights of our nation are not recognized we will continue our work'. He said the IAEA had been informed of operation of the systems and nothing has been concealed. "We are now going through early stages and the time for initiation of final works would be announced soon." On Iran's one-billion-dollar aid to Iraq, Larijani said Tehran had already started forwarding the assistance. It had been decided to provide Iraq with necessary credit for spending on the development and educational projects whose implementation was deemed necessary by the Iraqi government, he added. Elsewhere in his remarks, Larijani said there are good economic ties in fuel and power exchange and cargo transit between the two naturally united neighbors of Iran and Iraq. Larijani also thanked the Iraqi officials for readiness to secure release of the two Iranian diplomats detained by the American forces. He criticized the Americans for their 'unworthy' behavior which runs contrary to the international norms and regulations and hoped the diplomats would soon be freed. Jabr for his part told reporters that he is visiting Iran to ink a memorandum of understanding for extension of a one billion-dollar credit for spending on development projects in Iraq. He said he was carrying a message from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to Iranian officials regarding capture of two Iranian diplomats by Americans in Iraq. He then pointed to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani's message to Iranian officials on condition of the two captive Iranians and said Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zibari too had in a letter stressed freedom of the two Iranians who had travelled to Iraq with diplomatic passports. He hoped that the two would be released as soon as possible. mk Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 2 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Resolution has no impact - Velayati 2006/12/28 Islamic Revolution Leader's Advisor on International Affairs Ali Akbar Velayati said on Thursday that the UNSC anti-Iran resolution will have no impact on national nuclear program. In an exclusive interview with IRNA, he said the resolution was not unexpected for the Islamic Republic of Iran adding that the fate of national nuclear program has nothing to do with issuance or non-issuance of such resolutions. "The resolution cannot prevent us from our Research and Development (R) program and we will go ahead with science and technology," he said. The recent UNSC's measure was the outcome of lobbying of western countries mainly America and Britain which advocate more political and economic pressures on Iran, he underlined. The UNSC has adopted double-standard policy in dealing with Iran's nuclear program, he said adding that the resolution was issued when the Zionist regime had admitted having nuclear arms while the Islamic Republic of Iran has reaffirmed commitment to N PT. M.H.Z Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 3 UPI: Analysis: Israel's options vs.Iran's bomb United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 12/28/2006 3:37:00 PM -0500 By JOSHUA BRILLIANT UPI Israel Correspondent TEL AVIV, Israel, Dec. 28 (UPI) -- At a recent conference in Tehran Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted Israel's days are numbered. The Zionist regime will "vanish," he declared. Last year he said Israel should be "wiped out." Analysts maintain Iran needs a year or more to produce 25 kilos of enriched uranium for a first nuclear bomb. That bomb might be ready by the end of the decade. Israel has been trying to mobilize the world to block Iran. "We hope... the world will pull itself together and act firmly to block the danger in time," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Thursday. The United Nations' Security Council has taken "an important step in the right direction," he added. There is another venue. Former minister Dan Meridor headed a government-appointed committee that recently recommended a defense policy for the next decade. It devoted 50 of its 250-page report to an examination of ways to deal with the nuclear threat. Meridor discussed it with the prime minister, the defense minister and the Mossad intelligence service. Parts of it are so secret that even the military's General Staff was not apprised of it. Maj. Gen. in the reserves Yaakov Amidror, who dealt with the threat during his military career, said at a recent discussion in Tel Aviv that Israel has two options. "None are good, each one is difficult and each one is dangerous," he said. One is to stop the Iranians by force. It would be a much more difficult task than Israel's attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. The Iranian facilities are farther away. Israel would need "very, very accurate intelligence" to hit the "network of installations" spread over a wide area. Some installations are located in underground tunnels, he added. Attacking Iran is tantamount to signing an open check because the minute Teheran will have a bomb, it will retaliate, he warned. The alternative is to accept the fact Iran will be a nuclear power and focus on defense. Israel would need an "active defense system" including missiles that could intercept Iranian attacks. It already has the Arrow ballistic missile interceptor and might want the United States to provide more weapons and deploy naval systems off its coast. It would have to invest energy and funds in preparations for subsequent, more advanced Iranian missiles. "There is no human possibility of building a system that is 100 percent safe," Amidror stressed. Israel is very small, most of its population is near Tel Aviv, so every nuclear attack could cause terrible damage. Israel would therefore need a deterrent that the Iranians would know that if they attack, Israel will retaliate so forcefully that, "There won't be any Iranians left to count their dead," Amidror said. However, some experts doubt Israel can deter what they described as the ideology that Ahmadinejad and other Iranians espouse. Deterrence worked during the Cold War because the U.S. and Soviet leaders were rational, but Shiite-Muslims might be different. Some Iranians, including Ahmadinejad, believe that the imam who disappeared 1,000 years ago is about to return. Bloodshed will speed his coming and then the Muslims will rule the world. Should Israel then try to join NATO? Meridor's committee considered the idea. It would limit Israel's options, he said. "I don't think that in any military alliance one side (in this case, Israel) can take action without the other side (its partners) agreeing, or else you (Israel) will not be protected by the results," he maintained. "Israel's deterrence is. ...built on our capabilities that I think are quite impressive .... and on the readiness and ability to take an action based on this capability," he added. The country's enemies believe the United States is committed to defend it. "Is a formal alliance such an important addition? ... The enemy should know that I am the man, or the government, that is going to defend my people even at this or that cost and I don't think that an official alliance will add much to that," he said. Professor Uzi Arad who was responsible for research in the Mossad and later top adviser to the then Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, advocated "maximum deterrence." Israel should threaten to strike "everything and anything of value," he said. Should Israel threaten to hit their leadership? Yes. Their holiest sites? Yes. Everything together? Yes, Arad recommended. However Isaac Ben-Israel, a retired major general who heads Tel Aviv University's Security Studies Program doubted deterrence would succeed. A nuclear bomb that would explode on board a ship at Haifa port would kill some 5,000 people, he said. "What rational Israeli leader would drop a bomb on Teheran knowing that another (Iranian) missile would come?" Would Prime Minister Ehud Olmert "Do something in which tens of thousands of people would be killed in addition (to those 5,000)? .... Deterrence doesn't exist for long unless (antagonists) ... can totally destroy each other," he added. An effective preemptive strike is possible, Ben-Israel continued. Building a nuclear bomb is a process of many stages, one leading to another. There is no need to attack all the installations involved. It is enough to hit one of the links, and if Iran has two nuclear programs underway, then two spots, he said. Underground tunnels are not bomb proof. Ben-Israel, who planned the bombing of the Iraqi reactor, said its core was surrounded by 2X2X2 meters of reinforced concrete at a depth of 36 meters. It was destroyed a quarter of a century ago, he noted. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 Korea Times: Foreign MinisterˇŻs US Trip to Center on Nukes Hankooki.com > The Korea Times By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Song Min-soon said in Seoul on Thursday that he will visit Washington next week to discuss ways to move forward with the six-party talks aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear programs. The United States is the second country Song will visit, other than South and North Korea, that is involved in the denuclearization talks. He returned from a two-day visit to Tokyo on Wednesday. His plans for traveling to China and Russia are not yet decided, ministry officials said. During his four-day stay in Washington starting Jan. 3, Song plans to meet with his U.S. counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, and other ranking officials from the White House and the Pentagon to discuss bilateral issues, such as modifying the U.S.-South Korea alliance, as well as to exchange opinions on the six-party talks. The latest round of talks, resumed after 13 months, ended on Dec. 22 without any further meetings scheduled. But Song said the denuclearization dialogue bore some fruit. ``Even though the parties failed to reach a detailed approach, they had in-depth discussions on initial steps in implementing the Sept. 19 joint statement,'' he said in a weekly press briefing. In September last year, the six participating nations jointly issued statement of principles, in which the North pledged to abandon its nuclear programs in exchange for economic aid and security guarantees. ``Participants in the talks, including us, offered detailed proposals to the North and its delegates went to Pyongyang with a promise to review them,'' Song said. ``I hope they will make an early return to the talks with a wise answer after reviewing them in a realistic manner.'' Song said it was also meaningful that financial experts from Washington and Pyongyang exchanged views on the knotty issue of the United States' blacklisting a bank in Macau for its alleged role in helping North Korea launder money. ``They exchanged not only information but also questions on what they want to know,'' he said. ``I hope that they will meet again later in January to satisfy each other's demands.'' The venue for the second round of the talks is not yet decided. Kim Gye-gwan, the North's top nuclear negotiator, indicated that he prefers Beijing to New York, according to a South Korean newspaper that conducted an exclusive interview with Kim on Dec. 23. After being blacklisted in September last year, Banco Delta Asia severed ties with Pyongyang and froze North Korean assets worth $24 million. Pyongyang interpreted this as an example of Washington's ``hostile'' policies aimed at isolating North Korea from the global financial system. 12-28-2006 17:45 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Song Min-soon ***************************************************************** 5 Korea Times: Too Early to Resume Aid to N. Korea Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation By Lee Jin-woo Staff Reporter Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung on Thursday said North Korea should make more progress in the nuclear disarmament talks before South Korea can resume its aid shipments to Pyongyang. ``There are several preconditions to our resuming the halted aid shipments. To name a few, more progress in the six-party talks and the resumption of stalled inter-Korean talks as well as more favorable public sentiments toward helping the North,'' Lee said during his first press conference at the ministry in Seoul. Soon after the Stalinist state's test-firing of seven ballistic missile in July, Seoul suspended its assistance, including some 500,000 tons of rice and 100,000 tons of fertilizer. Since the historic inter-Korean summit in 2000, the South has provided the North with more than 2.4 million tons of rice. Lee's predecessor, former Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok had hinted that Seoul would resume the aid shipment if the North returns to the six-party talks, but the new minister ruled out the possibility of immediately resuming the aid program. Lee took office on Dec. 11 despite objections from the main opposition Grand National Party (GNP). Lee pointed out the National Assembly's recent decision to cut next year's budget for the Inter-Korean Cooperation Fund from 650 billion won to 500 billion won. The government fund has served as a lifeline for cross-border business projects, such as the Kaesong Industrial Complex and the Mt. Kumgang tourism program, and Seoul's economic aid to the impoverished North. The minister said the decision reflects public sentiment on the North's nuclear threat. Lee renewed his call for restarting inter-Korean dialogue to restore the soured ties between the two Koreas. ``The year 2007 should serve as a very important opportunity for us to initiate a peace process on the Korean Peninsula,'' Lee said. ``In order to do so, inter-Korean talks should resume and play a crucial role.'' Ever since the 19th inter-Korean Cabinet-level talks came to an abrupt end last July, relations between the two Koreas have been strained. After the North's underground nuclear test on Oct. 9, tensions increased further. Lee dismissed speculations that the Roh Moo-hyun government is working on an inter-Korean summit ahead of next year's presidential election. ``As far as I know, the government is not making any efforts to hold the summit,'' Lee said. The minister also promised to provide related documents and press releases both in Korean and English to help foreign reporters better understand the government's efforts toward peace on the Korean Peninsula. Pyongyang returned to the nuclear negotiations following its first-ever underground nuclear blast, but the China-hosted talks ended last week without any significant progress. 12-28-2006 18:02 Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung ***************************************************************** 6 UPI: Yearend review: N. Korea in standoff United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 12/28/2006 7:17:00 AM -0500 By LEE JONG-HEON UPI Correspondent SEOUL, Dec. 28 (UPI) -- North Korea has described 2006 as a "historic year" to build up its military capabilities, boasting its nuclear test in October. But the impoverished country had to sacrifice its struggling economy to build atomic bombs, which could lead to another economic crisis, with strengthening international sanctions. Defying worldwide appeals and threats of tougher sanctions, North Korea conducted an underground nuclear bomb test on Oct. 9, which put the Asian-Pacific region on full alert. North Korea made clear its nuclear weapons are aimed at coping with "U.S. nuclear threats," saying the test was a "self-defensive" measure against "the U.S. daily increasing nuclear threat and financial sanctions." The North called the nuclear test as "a historic event as it greatly encouraged and pleased the (North) Korean People's Army and people that have wished to have powerful self-reliant defense capability." The country also used the nuclear test to promote the personality cult for its leader Kim Jong Il, praising him as the "sun of the 21st century" who transformed the country into a "Kangsong Taeguk," or a great country with a powerful military and economy. Signboards with slogans declaring North Korea a nuclear power appeared in the street corners of Pyongyang. They include: "Let us make shine forever our becoming a nuclear power, a historic incident in the 5,000 years of our people's history" and "Long live the celestial Gen. Kim Jong-Il, who has established a world-class nuclear power!" With nuclear bombs in hand, North Korea returned to the long-stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear drive in December, but it stood much firmer in the negotiations, coming up with a long list of demands, which included lifting of all international sanctions and help in developing a nuclear power industry. Pyongyang also called for the United States to drop its "hostile" stance and stop targeting the offshore bank accounts of the North's leaders. In addition, insisting it be treated as a full-fledged nuclear power following the test, the North demanded the six-nation talks be transformed into negotiations over mutual arms reductions that would also deal the reduction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The six-party talks, held after a 13-month hiatus, ended with no progress, and even failed to set a date for a next round, raising skepticism over the framework of the multilateral talks aimed at persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear programs. The stunning nuclear test came three months after North Korea launched a volley of missiles in July, including long-range weapons. Some analysts raise the possibility that North Korea conduct a second nuclear test or launch a ballistic missile which could be equipped with a nuclear warhead and may be capable of reaching the continental United States. "The North's nuclear test that followed missile launches was a carefully calculated move to raise the stakes in the standoff with the United States," said Lee Jung-chul, a North Korea specialist at Seoul's Soongsil University. "After the nuclear test, the North has a sense of national pride as a nuclear-armed country," said Paik Hak-soon, a North Korea expert at South Korea's private Sejong Institute. In its latest edition, Rodong Sinmun, organ of the North's ruling Workers' Party, described 2006 as "historic year" in which its military power was sharply increased, saying the nuclear test was one of the greatest achievements the country made this year. "Our country has been turned into an eternal invincible fortress which any formidable enemy dare not invade as we possess powerful war deterrent able to reliably ensure regional peace and security," the state newspaper said. Rodong also defined 2006 as a year of a great leap forward in which the cause of building a "Kangsong Taeguk" of Juche (self-reliance) has been put on a higher stage of development and broad vistas opened up for the country and the nation. But the North is facing another "painful march under trial" as the international community is implementing wide-raging sanctions under Resolution 1718 adopted by the U.N. Security Council in October. The North launched the first "painful march" campaign after the abrupt death in 1994 of the country's national founder Kim Il Sung and subsequent economic crisis and famine which caused a sharp rise in refugees leaving the country. Many analysts warn the North could face its worst winter since the mass famines of the mid-1990s which killed hundreds of thousands in the mid-1990s as South Korea and other donators have suspended food and economic aid to the North following its nuclear test. United Nations aid agencies warn North Korea is facing a major food crisis as many countries move to cut assistance after the nuclear test. Still worse, severe flooding during the summer decimated the North's food production. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 Korea Herald: Foreign minister to visit U.S. Foreign Minister Song Min-soon will visit Washington on Jan. 3-6 to hold talks with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "I plan to meet Secretary Rice and other senior officials to discuss pending bilateral issues and the security problem on the Korean peninsula," Song told reporters at a weekly press briefing yesterday. The two countries face a crucial year ahead to mend their strained alliance and coordinate steps to tackle North Korea's nuclear threat. "(The six-party talks members) discussed in depth how to implement the Joint Statement and especially the measures each member must take in the first preparatory stage," Song said, referring to the weeklong nuclear negotiations that ended without significant result in Beijing last week. "It was meaningful that the United States, North Korea and China had the opportunity to discuss how to solve the issue of Banco Delta Asia." Washington's financial embargo against the Macau-based bank, suspected of laundering and circulating counterfeit currency allegedly produced in North Korea, continues to hinder progress in the nuclear negotiations. North Korea has demanded an immediate lifting of the sanctions. Finance officials from the United States and North Korea are likely to gather in Washington for a second round of talks in January. The foreign minister said North Korea returned from the talks telling the other members that it will review the specific proposals presented by the United States and other parties. The United States wants North Korea to first freeze its plutonium-producing Yongbyon reactor in return for a security guarantee. The next step would be North Korea opening its nuclear facilities to international inspectors in return for discussions on economic aid. "We hope that North Korea would return to the talks at an early date with a realistic proposal," Song said. The multilateral framework is hosted by China and joined by the two Koreas, the United States, Japan and Russia. Speaking on his Japan visit this week, Song said his counterpart Taro Aso will come to Korea in the near future and continue their discussion about the future of bilateral relations. (angiely@heraldm.com) By Lee Joo-hee 2006.12.29 ***************************************************************** 8 100+ organizations call on new Congress to shift energy funding from nuclear/fossil to renewables/efficiency Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:32:47 -0500 X-Sender-Host-Name: X-DSPAM-Result: mail; result="Innocent"; class="Innocent"; probability=0.0000; confidence=1.00; signature=N/A X-Spam-Class: HAM SUSTAINABLE ENERGY NETWORK

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY NETWORK

8606 Greenwood Avenue, #2; Takoma Park, MD 20912 301-588-4741; sustainable-energy-network@hotmail.com

 

 

News Release

 

102 BUSINESSES, ORGANIZATIONS URGE CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS TO SHIFT R&D FUNDS IN FY'07 BUDGET FROM NUCLEAR AND FOSSIL FUELS TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMS

 

For Release: Wednesday, December 27, 2006

 

Contact: Ken Bossong 301-588-4741

 

WASHINGTON DC -- In a letter delivered today to congressional leaders, 102 business, consumer, environmental, energy policy, and other groups urged that federal energy research and development funds be shifted from fossil fuel and nuclear power programs to those supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency.  The letter specifically proposes changes in the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY'07) budget for the U.S. Department of Energy, which the 110th Congress is expected to consider shortly after convening on January 4.

 

The groups noted that "a shift in federal funding from mature and/or polluting technologies to cleaner, safer, and sustainable energy sources offers the best option for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing oil imports, and addressing the nation's other pressing energy and deficit-reduction needs within the constraints of a very tight federal budget."

 

The groups' proffered recommendations include the following:

 

* Fund all core DOE renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at no less than the FY'06 appropriated levels unless otherwise indicated below;

 

* Restore the DOE geothermal research program to at least its historic level of $27.5 million;

 

* Restore the DOE advanced and incremental hydropower research program to at least its historic level of $5.0 million;

 

* Restore and maintain policy, research, development and demonstration funding for the DOE Distributed Energy program at the FY'06 level of $60 million;

 

* Fund the DOE State Energy Program at the at the U.S. Senate FY'07 level of $49.5 million;

 

* Fund the DOE Buildings Technologies program at the U.S. Senate FY'07 level of $95.3 million; and

 

* Fund the DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program at the House and Senate

FY'07 level of $148 million.

 

To "offset the very modest increases in the sustainable energy accounts we are proposing as well as to reduce the size of the federal budget deficit," the groups recommended that the following programs be targeted for cuts:

 

Nuclear Power R&D:

 

* Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (FY'06 budget was $60 million)

 

* Nuclear Power 2010 (FY'06 budget was $66 million)

 

* Generation IV (FY'06 budget was $55 million)

 

* Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative (FY'06 budget was $25 million)

 

Fossil Fuel R&D:

 

* Clean Coal Initiative (FY'06 budget was $50 million)

 

* FutureGen program (FY'06 budget was $18 million)

 

* Oil Technology Research and Development Program (FY'06 budget was $65

million)

 

* Ultra-deepwater Drilling Research and Development Fund (FY'06 budget was $50 million)

 

The full text of the letter and list of signers follows.

 

============================

 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PROGRAM PRIORITIES AND FUNDING LEVELS IN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET

 

December 27, 2006

 

Dear Representative/Senator:

 

We, the 102 undersigned business, environmental, consumer, energy policy, and other organizations, are writing to offer our recommendations for funding levels in key federal energy programs as you develop the final Fiscal Year 2007 (FY'07) appropriations legislation.

 

We believe that it is essential to sustain funding at or above historic levels (i.e., FY'06 and earlier) for the core renewable energy and energy efficiency programs in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as well as in

other federal agencies.   Therefore, in general, we support what we

understand to be Congress' intent to fund programs in FY'07 at the FY'06 level and view that as a good starting point for DOE’s sustainable energy programs.

 

We also note that as work progressed during this past year on the FY'07 appropriations bills, consensus was reached between the Congress and the White House to expand a number of sustainable energy programs as well as launch several new energy efficiency and/or renewable energy initiatives.

We believe these programs and funding levels should be a part of the final

FY'07 appropriations bill.

 

However, we recognize - and fully support - Congress' desire to not increase overall spending limits and, in fact, to move towards significantly reducing the size of the federal budget deficit.

 

Therefore, we recommend that any increases in the funding levels for the federal energy efficiency and renewable energy programs be offset by commensurate, or greater, reductions in selected fossil fuel and commercial nuclear power program accounts.

 

We believe that a shift in federal funding from mature and/or polluting technologies to cleaner, safer, and sustainable energy sources offers the best option for curbing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing oil imports, and addressing the nation's other pressing energy and deficit-reduction

needs within the constraints of a very tight federal budget.    

 

Our specific recommendations include the following:

 

* Fund all core DOE renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at no less than the FY'06 appropriated levels unless otherwise indicated below;

 

* Restore the DOE geothermal research program to at least its historic level of $27.5 million;

 

* Restore the DOE advanced and incremental hydropower research program to at least its historic level of $5.0 million;

 

* Restore and maintain policy, research, development and demonstration funding for the DOE Distributed Energy program at the FY'06 level of $60 million;

 

* Fund the DOE State Energy Program at the at the U.S. Senate FY'07 level of $49.5 million;

 

* Fund the DOE Buildings Technologies program at the U.S. Senate FY'07 level of $95.3 million; and

 

* Fund the DOE Solar Energy Technologies Program at the House and Senate

FY'07 level of $148 million.

 

We further recommend that these proposed budget figures be viewed as the starting point for higher funding levels in the FY'08 budget for DOE's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.

 

Some DOE programs have been identified by non-partisan groups as wasteful and unjustified federal expenditures.  We believe these can be cut to more than offset the very modest increases in the sustainable energy accounts we are proposing as well as to reduce the size of the federal budget deficit.  These programs include, but are not necessarily limited to, the

following:

 

Nuclear Power R&D:

 

* Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (FY'06 budget was $60 million)

 

* Nuclear Power 2010 (FY'06 budget was $66 million)

 

* Generation IV (FY'06 budget was $55 million)

 

* Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative (FY'06 budget was $25 million)

 

Fossil Fuel R&D:

 

* Clean Coal Initiative (FY'06 budget was $50 million)

 

* FutureGen program (FY'06 budget was $18 million)

 

* Oil Technology Research and Development Program (FY'06 budget was $65

million)

 

* Ultra-deepwater Drilling Research and Development Fund (FY'06 budget was $50 million)

 

Finally, it is important that Congress include clear language restricting the DOE's ability to reprogram funds in a manner that would thwart Congress' intent. 

 

Enclosed with this letter is some supplementary information providing a bit more detail on each of these recommendations.

 

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these recommendations with you in greater detail and we appreciate your consideration of these views.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Sylvia Zisman

Abolition Now Campaign

Springfield, NJ

 

Rochelle Becker

Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility

San Luis Obispo, CA

 

Bill Prindle, Deputy Director

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy Washington, DC

 

Michael Connett

American Environmental Health Studies Project Burlington, VT

 

Peter Alexander, Executive Director

Biodiversity Project

Madison, WI

 

Bob Lawrence, President

Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc.

Alexandria, VA

 

Mary Sullivan, Communications Coordinator Burlington Electric Department Burlington, VT

 

Jennifer Schafer, President

Cascade Associates

Washington, DC

 

Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director

C-10 Research and Education Foundation

Newburyport, MA

 

Jane Williams

California Communities Against Toxics

Rosamond, CA

 

Lois Gibbs, Executive Director

Anne Rabe, Campaign Coordinator,

Center for Health, Environment & Justice Falls Church, VA

 

W. Donald Hudson, Jr.; President

Chewonki Foundation

Wiscasset, ME

 

Chris Fried, M.E.

Chris Fried Solar

Vineyard Haven, MA

 

David Hughes, Executive Director

Citizen Power

Pittsburgh, PA

 

Sal Mangiagli, Board Member

Citizens Awareness Network, CT Chapter

Haddam, CT

 

Deb Katz

Citizens Awareness Network

Shelburne Falls, MA

 

Janet Greenwald

Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping Albuquerque, NM

 

S. (Ziggy) Kleinau, Coordinator

Citizens for Renewable Energy

Lion's Head, Ontario

 

Burl Haigwood

Clean Fuels Development Coalition

Bethesda, MD

 

Aaron C. Jones

Clean Power Co-op

Van Nuys, CA

 

Carlos Rymer

Coalition for Global Warming Solutions

Union City, NJ

 

Scott Denman

Collaborations

Takoma Park, MD

 

John Runkle

Conservation Council of North Carolina

Raleigh, NC

 

Custom County Builders

Spring Valley, NY

 

John Davidson Miller, Editor

Daily Grind

New York, NY

 

Mitzi Bowman, Coordinator

Don't Waste Connecticut

New Haven, CT

 

Kathleen Rogers, President

Earth Day Network

Washington, DC

 

Mary Beth Brangan and James Heddle

Ecological Options Network

Bolinas, CA

 

Thea Harvey, Executive Director

Economists for Peace and Security at the Levy Economics Institute Annandale on Hudson, NY

 

Carol Werner, Executive Director

Environmental & Energy Study Institute

Washington, DC

 

Peter Montague, Executive Director

Environmental Research Foundation

New Brunswick, NJ

 

Ben Mancini

EV Solar

Chin Valley, AZ

 

Judi Poulson

Fairmont, MN Peace Group

Fairmont, MN

 

Karl Gawell, Executive Director

Geothermal Energy Association

Washington, DC

 

Bruce K. Gagnon, Coordinator

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space Brunswick, ME

 

Casey Coates Danson, President

Global Possibilities

Los Angeles, CA

 

Mark R. Stover

Good Company Associates

Austin, TX

 

Christopher LaForge

Great Northern Solar

Port Wing, WI

 

Bradley Angel, Executive Director

Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice San Francisco, CA

 

Dawn Falleur, Director

Green Environmental Coalition

Yellow Springs, OH

 

John Coequyt

Greenpeace USA

Washington, DC

 

Rick Reed, President

Hawaii Solar Energy Association

Honolulu, HI

 

Vanessa Pierce, Executive Director

HEAL Utah

Salt Lake City, UT

 

Daniel Rynberg

Home Defense Inc.

Yarmouth, ME

 

Neal Hundt

Hudson Valley Progressive Democrats

(Hudson Valley), NY

 

Rita Schenck, Executive Director

Institute for Environmental Research and Education Vashon, WA

 

Guy Wolf

La Coalition for Peace and Justice

Stoddard, WI

 

Nancy E. Kasper, Susan Peterson Gateley

Lakeshore Environmental Action

Wolcott, NY

 

Paul Gallimore, Director

Long Branch Environmental Education Center Leicester, NC

 

Richard Komp PhD., President

Maine Solar Energy Association

Jonesport, ME

 

Gladys Schmitz, SSND; Coordinator

Mankato Area Environmentalists Board

Mankato, MN

 

Peter Lowenthal

MD-DC-VA Solar Energy Industries Association Bethesda, MD

 

Jill McElheney

Micah's Mission (Ministry to Improve Childhood & Adolescent Health) Winterville, GA

 

Agnes Reynolds RNC

National Disease Clusters Alliance, and

Women's Health Staff RN - Hartford Hospital Hartford, CT

 

Hunter Lovins

Natural Capitalism Inc.

Eldorado Springs, CO

 

Judy Treichel, Executive Director

Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force

Las Vegas, NV

 

David Radcliff

New Community Project

Elgin, IL

 

Carolyn and Roy Treadway

No New Nukes

Normal, IL

 

George Crocker, Executive Director

North American Water Office

Lake Elmo, MN

 

Wells Eddleman, Staff Scientist

North Carolina Citizens Research Group

Durham, NC

 

Susan Penn, Acting Director

Northcoast Environmental Center

Arcata, CA

 

Don Andre

Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development Seattle, WA

 

Alice Slater

Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, New York

New York, NY

 

Dave Kraft

Nuclear Energy Information Service

Chicago, IL

 

Wendy Oser

Nuclear Guardianship Project

Berkeley, CA USA

 

Michael Mariotte, Executive Director

Nuclear Information & Resource Service

Takoma Park, MD

 

Helen Caldicott, M.D.; Founder and President Nuclear Policy Research Institute Washington, DC

 

Jack & Felice Cohen-Joppa, editors

Nuclear Resister

Tucson, AZ

 

Dr. Kathleen Sullivan, Coordinator

Nuclear Weapons Education and Action Project Educators for Social Responsibility Metro New York, NY

 

John LaForge

NukeWatch

Luck, WI

 

Chris Daum, President

Oasis Montana Inc.

Stevensville, MT

 

Philip Tymon, Administrative Director

Occidental Arts and Ecology Center

Occidental, CA

 

Lucy Duff, Co-coordinator

Peace & Justice Coalition

Prince George's County, MD

 

Vicki Baker

People's Environmental Network of New York Jamesville, NY

 

Bruce A Drew, Steering Committee

Prairie Island Coalition

Minneapolis, MN

 

Michele Boyd, Legislative Director

Public Citizen - Energy Program

Washington, DC

 

Henry W. Peters, Director

Radiological Evaluation and Action Project, Great Lakes Ewen, MI

 

Qadwi Bey, CEO

R.A.Energy International, Inc.

Cleveland, OH

 

Michael Welch

Redwood Alliance

Arcata, CA

 

Michael Vickerman

RENEW Wisconsin

Madison, WI

 

William "Bill" LaBine, owner

Renewable Energy Works!

Avon, NY

 

Susan Shapiro, Esq.

Rockland Friends United for Safe Energy

Palisades, NY

 

Helen Ingles, IHM, Chief Financial Officer Leadership Council for the Sisters Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Monroe, MI

 

Rhone Resch, Executive Director

Solar Energy Industries Association

Washington, DC

 

Coral Mills, Programs Director

Solar Living Institute

Hopland, CA

 

William Sinkin, Chairman

Solar San Antonio

San Antonio, TX

 

Dennis Miller, Vice President

Solena Group

Washington, DC

 

Scott Sklar, President

The Stella Group, Ltd.

Washington, DC

 

Elizabeth Mozer

Stop Uranium Mining

Montclair, NJ

 

Stuart Magruder, AIA, USGBC

Studio Nova A Architects, Inc.

Los Angeles, CA

 

Ken Bossong, Executive Director

SUN DAY Campaign

Takoma Park, MD

 

Rona Fried

SustainableBusiness.com

Huntington, NY

 

Bob Walker

Sustainable Energy Resource Group

Thetford Center, VT

 

Mark A. Peterson, Certified Energy Manager/Partner Sustainable Success LLC Clementon, NJ

 

Donna Lomangino, President

Throwplace Ltd./Throwplace.com

Washington, DC 20007

 

Anna Aurilio, Director of the Washington, DC Office U.S. Public Interest Research Group Washington, DC

 

Wayne Bocher

UWL Environmental Council

La Crosse, WI

 

Adam Conlin

UWL Progressives

La Crosse, WI

 

John Blair, President

Valley Watch, Inc.

Evansville, IN

 

Patrick Sweeney, Director

Western Organization of Resource Councils Billings, MT

 

Chris Herman, owner,

Winter Sun Design

Seattle, WA

 

Jayne Lyn Stahl, Founder

Writers-at-Large

Ventura, CA

 

================================

 

SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILS ON RECOMMENDED INCREASES IN FEDERAL RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND PROPOSED OFFSETS

 

GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH PROGRAM:

 

While the President’s FY07 Budget proposed to terminate the DOE Geothermal Research Program, both the House and Senate supported restoration of funding but at different levels.  DOE research could produce significant breakthroughs and provide much needed improvements in technology, information, and efficiencies.  Restoration of the DOE Geothermal Research Program should be a policy priority for the 110th Congress.

 

The Department’s own internal planning has shown that increasing the DOE Geothermal Research Program would produce substantial benefits.  According to DOE reports, a geothermal program funded at $50 million annually “would produce…a substantial acceleration in the adoption of geothermal energy”

achieving 40,000 MW of economical resource availability by 2020.  By achieving this level of production some 20 years earlier than would be possible under a business-as-usual approach, cumulative program costs would be reduced by $100 million!  The increased program funding would also “allow new technologies to be adopted even more quickly and enable the Program to pursue a wider range of technology options.”  (Geothermal Technologies Program, Strategic Plan, August 2004).

 

Geothermal research was specifically authorized by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in Subtitle C, Section 931(a)(C), and is authorized by the Geothermal Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Act at 30 USC 24, Section 1101 et seq.  Increased funding for geothermal research has been recommended by both the National Research Council’s review of DOE’s renewable energy programs and the recent report of the Geothermal Task Force of the Western Governor’s Association’s Clean and Diversified Energy Advisory Committee. 

 

Historically, the program has been funded at an average of $27.7 million annually (between 2002 and 2005).  We strongly recommend that DOE’s geothermal research program be restored in FY2007 to this level or higher.

 

For More Information:

Karl Gawell, Geothermal Energy Association 202-454-5264; karl@geo-energy.org

 

=================================

 

ADVANCED AND INCREMENTAL HYDROPOWER PROGRAM:

 

Background:  Hydropower is a domestic, clean, renewable energy resource that is a solution to reducing U.S. dependence on foreign energy sources and national greenhouse gas emissions.  Hydropower R&D also promotes U.S.

competitiveness in the global market for these new technologies.

 

In order for hydropower to achieve its full potential, support is needed to encourage the development and deployment of new emerging hydropower technologies – ocean wave, tidal and in-stream hydrokinetic, and to increase capacity at existing facilities through the development and installation of the “next generation” of hydropower equipment.

 

Congress recognized the need for research, development and deployment of new advanced technologies when it included Title IX, Section 931 in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directing the Secretary of Energy to:

 

“conduct a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application for cost competitive technologies that enable the development of new and incremental hydropower capacity, adding diversity of the energy supply of the United States, including: (i) Fish-friendly large turbines.

(ii) Advanced technologies to enhance environmental performance and yield greater energy efficiencies. (…)  The Secretary shall conduct research, development, demonstration, and commercial application programs for – (i) ocean energy, including wave energy (…) and (iv) kinetic hydro turbines.”

 

Hydropower R&D provides a benefit, not only for the industry, but for the federal hydropower system (which accounts for half of the hydropower generation in the U.S. and where new advancements could also be deployed), as well as for the American electric consumer.

 

Request:  $5 million for the purposes of funding a program to promote research and development of new advanced hydropower technologies and incremental hydropower capacity.

 

Proposed Language:  For inclusion in any FY ‘07 Energy & Water Appropriations bill, omnibus appropriations bill or continuing resolution:

 

“A sum of $5,000,000 for FY 2007 is appropriated under Title IX, Section

931 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to fund research and development of new advanced hydropower technologies, such as wave and tidal and conduit power and in-stream hydrokinetic, and to increase incremental hydropower capacity through new technology advancements.”

 

For More Information:

Linda Church Ciocci, National Hydropower Association 202-682-1700, ext.22; linda@hydro.org

 

=================================

 

SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM:

 

The Department of Energy's own studies have found that, with federal R&D investment, solar power could be broadly competitive on a simple economic basis with fossil fuels by 2015.  However, the federal solar R&D budget has steadily declined over the past decade, from $120 million in FY 1995 to $84 million in FY 2006.  In particular, the solar water-heating budget has sustained heavy cuts and received less than $3 million in funding in FY 2006.

 

The loss of funding for America's world-class research facilities and cost-sharing initiatives has set back our nation's competitiveness in the global marketplace for clean energy.  In 1998, the US lost market leadership of the solar industry to Europe and Japan, and now manufactures just 8% of global demand.  Japan funds solar research at levels four to five times higher than does the US, while Germany more than triples US funding. 

 

To reverse this trend and position the US as the global leader in solar energy development, the House and Senate both passed FY 2007 appropriations bills that would have increased the DOE Solar Energy Technologies program budget to $148 million.  We strongly urge the 110th Congress to adopt this level of funding for federal solar research.

 

For More Information:

Rhone Resch, Solar Energy Industries Association 202-682-0556, ext.4; rresch@seia.org

 

=================================

 

OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

Biomass:

 

For BioPower, maintain programmatic areas for Biopower RD&D which includes modular electric and thermal systems, co-firing technology validation, and resource mapping. For Biofuels, retain focus on cellulosic conversion and process technologies for alcohols and biodiesels.

 

Wind:

 

Insure that the small wind RD&D program is retained in the overall Wind RD&D Program and honor commitments on cost-shared RD&D with industry.

 

For More Information:

Scott Sklar, The Stella Group, Ltd.

202-347-2214; solarsklar@aol.com

 

=================================

 

DISTRIBUTED ENERGY:

 

Clean, efficient Distributed Energy and Combined Heat and Power (DE/CHP) mitigate climate change and foster energy independence.  Our request is

simple: restore and maintain policy, research, development and demonstration funding for the Department of Energy’s Distributed Energy program at the FY 2006 level of $60 million.

 

· $35 M to be appropriated for the Distributed Energy Technology Research program. The Distributed Energy Technology Research program improves the energy and environmental performance of distributed technologies (turbines, microturbines, engines, desiccants, chillers, and heat

exchangers) so that the Nation can have more energy choices to achieve a more flexible and smarter energy system. 

 

· $25 M to be appropriated for the System Integration and Cooling, Heating and Power (CHP) program.  The System Integration and Cooling, Heating, Power (CHP) activity develops highly-efficient integrated energy systems that can be replicated across end-use sectors which will help demonstrate an R&D objective or address a technical barrier.  The activities integrate power producing prime movers that generate heat and utilize it for domestic hot water, steam, and/or thermally activated technologies that drive absorption chillers and/or desiccant units. These systems will reduce energy costs and emissions by using energy resources more efficiently. Funding also supports the growing network of regional application centers and national research deployment activities.

 

In addition, advanced interconnection equipment needs to be validated that can receive inputs from a set of DG devices separately or in aggregate to feed into the electric grid.

 

These appropriations do not represent new program initiatives.  They represent important demand side DE/CHP applications that are not present in the current FY 2007 budget.  It must be noted that they cannot be effective if they are subject to diversion or reprogramming for other priorities, so they should be made with adequate specific directions by Congress to insure they remain targeted at the DE programs specified in the FY 2006 budget.  Note, too, that the Distributed Energy Program moved from EERE to OEDER in 2006. 

 

For More Information:

Paul Bautista, U.S. Combined Heat & Power Association 301-320-2505; paul.bautista@comcast.net

 

=================================

 

STATE ENERGY PROGRAM:

 

The State Energy Program (SEP) is one of the few connections between the states and the federal government on energy matters.  SEP provides funds to state energy offices to support energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in all sectors of the economy.

 

A recent study by Oak Ridge National Laboratory concluded that for every federal dollar invested in SEP, over $7 is saved in energy costs and almost $11 in non-federal funds are leveraged.

 

The President's request for FY'07 was $49.5 million, which was the level provided in the Senate Energy & Water Bill.  The House-passed funding level was $25 million.  The FY'06 funding level was $36 million.  We support funding at the Senate level of $49.5 million for FY'07.

 

For More Information:

Jeff Genzer, National Association of State Energy Officials JCG@dwgp.com

 

==========================

 

OTHER ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

Given the slow attrition over the past several years in the energy efficiency areas such as Buildings, Transportation and Industrial R&D, we believe that the FY'06 levels (or the higher levels recommended elsewhere) should be the starting point for the 2008 budget for EERE.

 

The Buildings, Industrial and Transportation areas are, generally, in good stead with a continuing resolution at the FY06 level; however, there are some subprogram areas that are jeopardized.  In Building Technologies, we recommend an additional $8.5 million specifically for building and appliance standards, building codes and standards and Energy Star.  In Industrial Programs, we recommend an additional $13 million split evenly between Industries of the Future crosscutting and Industries of the Future Specific.  In Transportation, we continue to be concerned about cuts in materials technology and Clean Cities, and urge an additional $13 million.

 

For More Information:

Jennifer Schafer, Cascade Associates

202-554-5828; jasca@bellatlantic.net

 

=================================

=================================

 

RECOMMENDED OPTIONS FOR BUDGETARY OFFSETS

 

ADVANCED FUEL CYCLE INITIATIVE:

 

The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is the DOE’s program to restart reprocessing in the United States.  Despite first introducing this program ten months ago, DOE has yet to provide Congress with a coherent program plan and a comprehensive lifecycle analysis.  In its FY2007 Energy and Water Appropriations report, the House accurately stated that “the Department of Energy has failed to provide sufficient detailed information to enable Congress to understand fully all aspects of this initiative, including cost, schedule, technology development plan, and waste streams from GNEP.”  Under the guise of a reprocessing research and development program, DOE received $80 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative in FY2006. Since FY 2001, reprocessing research has already received $466 million, with no appreciable results. In FY2007, DOE requested $250 million for AFCI to start the process for building demonstration reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and fast reactor facilities. DOE now wants to build a full-scale reprocessing plant and fast reactor instead.

 

For More Information:

Michele Boyd, Public Citizen

202-454-5134; mboyd@citizen.org

 

Michael Mariotte, Nuclear Information & Resource Service 301-270-6477; nirsnet@nirs.org

 

=============================

 

NUCLEAR POWER 2010:

 

This is DOE’s program to subsidize half the cost of new reactor license applications.  Nuclear Power 2010 has received $186 million since FY2001, and the expenditure of these funds is highly questionable.  In its FY2007 Energy and Water Appropriations report, the Senate expressed “significant concerns with the financial conduct of the industry consortium [NuStart]”

and chided DOE “to instill fiscal discipline.” NuStart, which had a combined profit of more than $26.1 billion in 2005, received $260 million from DOE for only two applications, neither of which has been submitted to the NRC at this time. In comparison, the total budget for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the premier renewable research laboratory in the U.S., was only $209.6 million in FY2006. The DOE received $66 million for the Nuclear Power 2010 in FY2006, and the Bush Administration requested $54 million in FY2007.

 

For More Information:

Michele Boyd, Public Citizen

202-454-5134; mboyd@citizen.org

 

Michael Mariotte, Nuclear Information & Resource Service 301-270-6477; nirsnet@nirs.org

 

==========================

 

GENERATION IV:

 

This is the DOE’s program to subsidize half the cost of developing new reactor designs.  A single design, depending on the type of reactor, is estimated to range from $610 million to $1 billion. None of the new commercial reactors currently being proposed in the United States are Generation IV technologies.  The DOE received $55 million for the Generation IV in FY2006, and President Bush requested $31.4 million in FY2007. Of the $48 million appropriated in the Senate FY2007 bill, $40 million were earmarked for the research and design of a single nuclear power plant that is supposed to produce hydrogen to be constructed in Idaho. This program has received $147 million since FY2001.

 

For More Information:

Michele Boyd, Public Citizen

202-454-5134; mboyd@citizen.org

 

Michael Mariotte, Nuclear Information & Resource Service 301-270-6477; nirsnet@nirs.org

 

===========================

 

NUCLEAR HYDROGEN INITIATIVE:

 

This is the DOE’s program to develop the technologies for producing hydrogen using nuclear energy.  Hydrogen may have a long-term potential to help reduce the country’s reliance on foreign oil, but using nuclear power or fossil fuel to produce hydrogen makes a mockery of these clean energy goals.  The DOE received $25 million for the Nuclear Power 2010 in FY2006, and President Bush requested $18.7 million in FY2007. This program has received $42.1 million since FY2003.

 

For More Information:

Michele Boyd, Public Citizen

202-454-5134; mboyd@citizen.org

 

Michael Mariotte, Nuclear Information & Resource Service 301-270-6477; nirsnet@nirs.org

 

============================

 

CLEAN COAL INITIATIVE + FUTUREGEN PROGRAM:

 

Since 1984, the Department of Energy has been invested more than $2 billion in so called "clean coal" technology research and development.

The program subsidizes private industry in its effort to develop cleaner burning coal technologies by providing matching federal funds for research and development.  The so-called "clean coal" projects waste millions of taxpayer dollars each year on duplicative research that the coal industry should conduct with private sector funding or that has already been done.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released at least seven reports documenting waste and mismanagement in the Clean Coal Technology Program.  The fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill contained $50 million for the presidents Clean Coal Initiative and $18 million for the FutureGen program.

 

For More Information:

Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth

877-843-8687; EPica@foe.org

 

============================

 

OIL TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM:

 

The oil and gas industry received an estimated $65 million in fiscal year

2006 through the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Oil Technology Research

and Development Program.[1]    The program focuses on the exploration and

production of crude oil in the United States with the goals including the promotion and enhancement of oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic and the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.  ExxonMobil alone spent $600 million in research and development in 2004.  Section 965 of the Energy Policy Act of

2005 contains additional authorizations for the program.

 

[1] http://www.fossil.energy.gov/aboutus/budget/06/FY2006_Budget_.html 

 

For More Information:

Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth

877-843-8687; EPica@foe.org

 

==============================

 

ULTRA-DEEPWATER DRILLING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUND:

 

Ultra-deepwater Drilling Research and Development Fund

 

This provision was added to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 conference report after the conference committee was gaveled closed.  It creates a

$1.5 billion oil research and development program for ultra-deepwater drilling, $500 million of which comes from oil royalties, to fund new drilling techniques for oil and gas companies over the next ten years. 

 

For More Information:

Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth

877-843-8687; EPica@foe.org

 

 ***************************************************************** 9 Inside Bay Area: Governor pushes for tech research Money from global competitions would be used for alternative energy, supercomputing, medical research By Steven Harmon and Ian Hoffman, MEDIANEWS STAFF AND STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated: 12/28/2006 02:44:30 AM PST SACRAMENTO — Fearful of losing the states edge in high-tech research to other states, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday a $95 million proposal for medical, environmental and technological research that could create, among other things, the worlds fastest supercomputer, and solidify the Bay Area as the nations hot spot for high-tech innovation. The outside competition is fierce, administration officials warned, because states, such as Michigan and Florida, are investing millions in life sciences, and computer and alternative fuels technology. So, what were doing, said H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the states finance department, is combining the leverage the state dollars are having, along with private and other dollars, and were pushing some real big chips into the center of the table with this effort. Most of the money — $75 million — would stake the University of California in national and global competitions for big-game funding in alternative energy and supercomputing. This will allow us to win competitions that are on the scale of a half a billion dollars, said UC president and physicist Robert Dynes. Schwarzeneggers pitch will likely earn a receptive response from the Democratic-controlled Legislature when he includes it in his budget proposal next month. If so, the Bay Area could be a big winner. The money would serve as ante in three competitions, together worth $1 billion from the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and private energy giant BP, which is scouting locations for a $500 million energy biosciences institute to advance biofuels technology. All told, roughly $1 billion is in play, and a California sweep would turn the Bay Area into a global capital for supercomputing for years and do the same for either the Bay Area or the San Diego region in alternative energy. Nearly one-third of the governors Research and Innovation Initiative — $30 million — would go toward building a new research building for the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratorys Helios Project, the brain- child of lab director and Nobel laureate Steven Chu. Chu has been persistent with lawmakers and other scientists on the dangers of global warming and the need for immediate action on energy efficiency and new, carbon-free energy supplies. Creating new technologies is really a necessity, he said Wednesday. The Helios lab, at 100,000 square feet just outside the Berkeley lab fence, would assemble experts in genetics, synthetic biology, nanomaterials and other fields to devise new photovoltaic cells and harness the methods that nature uses in plants, insects and microbes to turn sunlight into energy. Chu likened the approach to big projects to develop radar, the atom bomb and the transistor. You get the most bang for your buck and the most progress if you create a little beehive of activity, he said. Chu said he has secured close to $50 million for Helios from private sources. But the biggest chunk of funding announced Wednesday — $40 million — is being dangled by California at the 11th hour of BPs competition to create its biofuels institute. Other contenders include MIT and in the United Kingdom, the University of Cambridge and Imperial College of London. If BP chooses either Berkeleys bioenergy consortium or a similar team in the San Diego area, the governor is proposing to use the additional bonds to build or expand alternative- energy research facilities such as the Helios lab for dedication to the biosciences institute. If were so fortunate as to get BP, well just build a BP wing, so to speak, Chu said. The governor also is proposing giving $5 million to a California team vying for a petascale computer, 1,000 times faster than most supercomputers today and three times faster than the worlds most powerful. That machine, made by IBM and known as Blue Gene/L, sits in a carefully cooled, white-tiled room at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratorys Terascale Simulation Facility. It is fully devoted to simulating the physics of nuclear weapons detonations. Scientists at University of California, San Diego, and the San Diego Supercomputer Center are teaming up with the Livermore and Berkeley labs to propose building a new Blue Gene-like machine in the same building, but faster, smaller, more energy efficient — and wholly devoted to unclassified science. Competing teams have formed at other supercomputing centers in Illinois and Pennsylvania and at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. The National Science Foundation will decide who will get the grant by next summer. It enables us to do things we cant do with the current gener- ation of computers, said Bruce Darling, executive vice president for University Affairs at the University of California. We can develop better earthquake-predicting models, find ways of improving our building codes, develop better drugs for people with diseases. The current generation of supercomputers operate at a trillion calculations per second; the next generation would be a thou- sand times faster — at a quadrillion operations per second. This is a cornerstone for future innovation, Darling said, laying the foundation for developments that will be a daily part of our lives in 20 to 30 years, much in the way investments made 30 years ago brought the Internet and the World Wide Web. The goal of the research, Darling said, is to make sure pro- ducts reach the public for every- day use. We want to build the kind of research and human capital pool that will sustain California well into the future, Darling said, making sure these innovations and technologies are translated into the marketplace because otherwise citizens wont benefit. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, called the investment in the Helios Project smart, saying it would help combat the threat of global warming and be a boon to the states economy. The remaining $19.8 million would be spread among the California Institutes for Science and Innovation, which focuses on information technology, wireless communications, biotechnology and nanosciences. The institutes are housed at UC campuses around the state and work with government and industries. Contact Steven Harmon at or (916) 441-2101. Contact Ian Hoffman at or at (510) 208-6458. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 10 IPS-English CHALLENGES 2006-2007: Nuclear Disarmament Gets Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:50:48 -0800 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 ROMAIPS AP WD IP NU YE=20 CHALLENGES 2006-2007: Nuclear Disarmament Gets Critical Praful Bidwai NEW DELHI, Dec 28 (IPS) - If prospects for nuclear weapons reduction took= a turn for the worse in 2006 the New Year holds out little hope for cont= aining proliferation.=20 In October 2006, eight years after India and Pakistan crossed the nuclear= threshold, the world witnessed yet another breakout, when North Korea ex= ploded an atomic bomb and demanded that it be recognised as a nuclear wea= pons-state. Talks aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear we= apons, in return for security guarantees and economic assistance, collaps= ed last week.=20 In 2006, the ongoing confrontation between the Western powers and the Isl= amic Republic of Iran over its nuclear programme got dangerously aggravat= ed. The United Nations Security Council imposed harsh sanctions on Iran b= ut these may prove counterproductive. =20 Tehran dismissed the sanctions as illegal and vowed to step up its =94pea= ceful=94 uranium enrichment programme. It added one more cascade of 164 u= ranium enrichment centrifuges during the year and is preparing to install= as many as 3,000 of these machines within the next four months. (Several= thousands of centrifuges are needed to build a small nuclear arsenal.)=20 Developments in South Asia added to this negative momentum as India and t= he United States took further steps in negotiating and legislating the co= ntroversial nuclear cooperation deal that they inked one-and-a-half years= ago. The deal will bring India into the ambit of normal civilian nuclear= commerce although it is a nuclear weapons-state and has not signed the N= on-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Meanwhile, India and Pakistan continued to test nuclear-capable missiles = and sustained their long-standing mutual rivalry despite their continuing= peace dialogue. Looming large over these developments in different parts of Asia are the = Great Powers, led by the U.S., whose geopolitical role as well as refusal= to undertake disarmament has contributed to enhancing the global nuclear= danger in 2006.=20 According to a just-released preliminary count by the Federation of Amer= ican Scientists, eight countries launched more than 26 ballistic missiles= of 23 types in 24 different events in 2006. They include the U.S., Russi= a, France and China, besides India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. =94One can list other negative contributing factors too,=94 says Sukla Se= n, a Mumbai-based activist of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and P= eace, an umbrella of more than 250 Indian organisations. =94These include= U.S. plans to find new uses for nuclear armaments and develop ballistic = missile defence (=94Star Wars=94) weapons, Britain's announcement that it= will modernise its =94Trident=94 nuclear force, Japan's moves towards mi= litarisation, and a revival of interest in nuclear technology in many cou= ntries.=94 =94Clearly,=94 adds Sen, =9461 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the wo= rld has learnt little and achieved even less so far as abolishing the nuc= leus scourge goes. The nuclear sword still hangs over the globe. 2006 has= made the world an even more dangerous place. The time has come to advanc= e the hands of the Doomsday Clock.=94 The Doomsday Clock, created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, pub= lished from Chicago in the U.S., currently stands at seven minutes to mid= night, the Final Hour. Since 1947, its minute hand has been repeatedly mo= ved =94forward and back to reflect the global level of nuclear danger and= the state of international security=94. The Clock was last reset in 2002, after the U.S. announced it would rejec= t several arms control agreements, and withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic M= issile Treaty, which prohibits the development of =94Star Wars=94-style w= eapons. =20 Before that, the Doomsday Clock was advanced in 1998, from 14 minutes to = midnight, to just nine minutes before the hour. This was primarily in res= ponse to the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in May that year. The closest the Clock moved to midnight was in 1953, when the U.S. and th= e USSR both tested thermonuclear weapons. The Clock's minute hand was set= just two minutes short of 12.=20 The lowest level of danger it ever showed was in 1991, following the end = of the Cold War and the signature of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty = between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The Clock then stood at 17 minutes= to midnight. =94The strongest reason to move the minute hand forward today is the infl= amed situation in the Middle East,=94 argues M.V. Ramana, an independent = nuclear affairs analyst currently with the Centre for Interdisciplinary S= tudies in Environment and Development, Bangalore.=20 =94Iran isn't the real or sole cause of worry. It's probably still some y= ears away from enriching enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb. But there= is this grave crisis in Iraq, which has spun out of Washington's control= . And then there is Israel, which is a de facto nuclear weapons-state and= is seen as a belligerent power by its neighbours in the light of the gri= m crisis in Palestine. All the crises in the Middle East feed into one an= other and aggravate matters,=94 adds Ramana. At the other extreme of Asia, new security equations are emerging, partly= driven by the North Korean nuclear programme.=20 =94Today, this is a key factor not only in shaping relations between the = two Koreas, but the more complex and important relationship between North= Korea, China, Japan and the U.S.=94, holds Alka Acharya, of the Centre o= f East Asian Studies at the Jawaharlal Nehru University here.=20 Adds Acharya: =94The U.S. has failed to resolve the North Korean nuclear = crisis diplomatically. North Korea's nuclear weapons programme will spur = Japan and South Korea to add to their military capacities. There is a str= ong lobby in Japan which wants to rewrite the country's constitution and = even develop a nuclear weapons capability. Recently, Japan commissioned a= study to determine how long it would take to develop a nuclear deterrent= .=94 Japan has stockpiled hundreds of tonnes of plutonium, ostensibly for use = in fast-breeder reactors. But with the fast reactor programme faltering, = the possibility of diversion of the plutonium to military uses cannot be = ruled out. Similarly, South Korea is likely to come under pressure to dev= elop its own deterrent capability. =94Driving these pursuits are not just nuclear calculations, but also geo= political factors,=94 says Prof. Achin Vanaik who teaches international r= elations and global politics at Delhi University. =94The U.S. plays a cri= tical role here because of its aggressive stance and its double standards= . It cannot convincingly demand that other states practise nuclear abstin= ence or restraint while it will keep it own nuclear weapons for 'security= '. Eventually, Washington's nuclear double standards will encourage other= countries to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities too.=94 In particular, the joint planned development of ballistic missile defence= weapons by the U.S. and Japan is likely to be seen by China as a threat = to its security and impel Beijing to add to its nuclear arsenal. Adds Vanaik: =94The real danger is not confined to East Asia or West Asia= alone. The overall worldwide impact of the double standards practised by= the nuclear weapons-states, and especially offensive moves like the Prol= iferation Security Initiative proposed by the U.S. to intercept 'suspect'= nuclear shipments on the high seas, will be to weaken the existing globa= l nuclear order and encourage proliferation. The U.S.-India nuclear deal = sets a horribly negative example of legitimising proliferation.=94=20 =94A time could soon come when a weak state or non-state actor might cons= ider attacking the U.S. mainland with mass-destruction weapons. The kind = of hatreds that the U.S. is sowing in volatile parts of the world, includ= ing the Middle East, could well result in such a catastrophe,'' Vanaik sa= id.=20 The year 2006 witnessed a considerable weakening of the norms of nuclear = non-proliferation. Until 1974, the world had five declared nuclear weapon= -states and one covert nuclear power (Israel). At the end of this year, i= t has nine nuclear weapons-states -- nine too many.=20 No less significant in the long run is the growing temptation among many = states to develop civilian nuclear power. Earlier this month, a number of= Arab leaders met in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and decided to start a joint = nuclear energy development programme. =94Although this doesn't spell an immediate crisis, nuclear power develop= ment can in the long run provide the technological infrastructure for bui= lding nuclear weapons too,=94 says Ramana. =94The way out of the present = nuclear predicament does not lie in non- or counter-proliferation through= ever-stricter technology controls. The only solution is nuclear disarmam= ent. The nuclear weapons-states must lead by example, by reducing and eve= ntually dismantling these weapons of terror.=94=20 ***** +Like Mushrooms =FB IPS special coverage (http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/nuclear/index.asp) +Doomsday Clock (http://www.thebulletin.org/doomsday_clock/timeline.htm)=20 (END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/NU/YE/SC/PB/RDR/06)=20 =20 =3D 12280845 ORP006 NNNN ***************************************************************** 11 The Herald: British Energy shares surge on reactor restart MARK SMITH December 28 2006 Shares in British Energy yesterday surged almost 3.5% after the Scotland-based nuclear power generator said it had restarted its Hartlepool-1 reactor after a lengthy repair outage. The company, which has its headquarters in Livingston, also said it expects to return both reactors at the power station to full output soon. Shares in British Energy, which is still reeling from a collapse in its market value after warning that repair work on the nuclear station at Hunterston in Ayrshire and Hinkley in Somerset would take until the end of March, climbed back 17.5p to 526p, valuing the company at almost Ł3bn. Its share price plummeted by some 25% in October, when it announced the problems with cracked boiler pipes at the Ayrshire and Somerset plants. The 605-megawatt Hartlepool-1 reactor was shut down on September 23 to repair its cooling water pipe system. Then Harlepool-2 closed down two days later for similar repairs and was re-started last week. A spokeswoman yesterday commented: "Both units are running normally. "The intention is to run them both at full load." She added that the cooling pipe work had been completed on both reactors. British Energy, which is capable of providing a fifth of the UK's electricity needs, said recently that the impact of repairs on output in the year to March 31 was still within its range of expectations. The company needed a state bail-out in 2002 after a slump in power prices and a big nuclear clean-up bill drove it to near collapse. It has bounced back, helped by a sharp recovery in prices, although it has been dogged by repeated outages. The government is looking to sell all or part of its 65% stake in the company, which it took on after agreeing to shoulder Ł5bn of plant decommissioning liabilities in a debt-for-equity deal completed in January 2005. British Energy said last month, however, that its repair and output problems were likely to affect the timing of any sale. It runs eight nuclear power stations, including Torness in East Lothian, and one coal-fired plant. © All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 12 thewest.com.au: Report recommends shift to nuclear power 28th December 2006, 22:03 WST ...Australia's first nuclear power plants could be operating within a decade, says the author of a government-commissioned report recommending a shift to nuclear. Prime Minister John Howard is expected to launch the final instalment of a report into the use of coal-fired power plants and climate change on Friday. Head of the inquiry Ziggy Switkowski said Australia's demand for electricity was expected to more than double by 2050, The Daily Telegraph newspaper reports. To meet this demand, two-thirds of existing power stations would need to be substantially upgraded or replaced, and the nation already mined double the amount of uranium required for consumption, Dr Switkowski said. The former Telstra chief also recommended subsidising the cost - which was between 20 and 50 per cent more than coal-based power - through carbon taxes. Federal Treasurer Peter Costello has said any nuclear industry would have to stand alone, without subsidy. Critics of the report said the energy task force was stacked with pro-nuclear members. AAP 'thewest.com.au' 'The West Australian' is a trademark of West Australian Newspapers Pty Ltd 2006. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 NRC: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement FR Doc E6-22239 [Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)] [Notices] [Page 78232-78234] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28de06-119] for the Decommissioning of the Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, New Field, New Jersey AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI). SUMMARY: Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation (SMC) submitted a decommissioning plan (DP) (ML053190212) on October 21, 2005, that proposes radiological remedial actions that would allow the material license to be amended to a long term control license for the SMC facility located in New Field, New Jersey. By a letter dated January 26, 2006, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notified SMC that the DP was being [[Page 78233]] rejected due to technical deficiencies. On June 30, 2006, SMC submitted a supplement (ML061980092) to its DP. In a letter dated October 18, 2006, the NRC accepted the DP for review. The NRC, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS will examine the potential environmental impacts of the proposed decommissioning plan for the SMC facility. DATES: The public scoping process required by NEPA begins with publication of this NOI and continues until January 31, 2007. Written comments submitted by mail should be postmarked by that date to ensure consideration. Comments mailed after that date will be considered to the extent practical. ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit comments to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Mail Stop: T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001. Please note Docket No. 40-7102 when submitting comments. Commentors are also encouraged to send comments electronically to ShieldalloyEIS@nrc.gov, or by facsimile to (301) 415-5397, ATTN.: Gregory Suber. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general or technical information associated with the license review of the SMC decommissioning plan, please contact: Ken Kalman at (301) 415-6664. For general information on the NRC NEPA process, or the environmental review process related to the SMC decommissioning plan, please contact Gregory Suber at (301) 415-1124. Information and documents associated with the SMC project, including the SMC decommissioning plan and supplement (submitted on October 21, 2005 and June 30, 2006 respectively), are available for public review through our electronic reading room: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Documents may also be obtained from NRC's Public Document Room at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1.0 Background SMC submitted a decommissioning plan and an environmental report for its Newfield, New Jersey facility to the NRC on October 21, 2005. The NRC will evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with SMC facility in parallel with the review of the decommissioning plan. This environmental evaluation will be documented in draft and final Environmental Impact Statements in accordance with NEPA and NRC's implementing regulations at 10 CFR Part 51. 2.0 SMC Newfield Facility The SMC operated a ferrocolumbium manufacturing process at its facility in New Field, NJ. Raw materials included ores which contained licensable quantities of 10 CFR Part 40 source material (natural uranium and thorium.) In 2001, SMC notified the NRC of its intent to decommission the plant because principal activities authorized by the license (SMB-743) had ceased. SMC proposes decommissioning part of the site for unrestricted release and maintaining a portion of the site under a long term control license. 3.0 Alternatives to be Evaluated No-Action--For the no-action alternative, the NRC would not approve the decommissioning plan. The site would remain subject to the present source material license. This alternative serves as a baseline for comparison. Proposed action--The proposed action involves approving the decommissioning plan and amending the license to allow long-term storage of source material at SMC's site located in New Field, NJ. Under SMC's proposal, part of the site would be released for unrestricted use while part would be maintained under a long term control license. Other alternatives not listed here may be identified through the scoping process. 4.0 Environmental Impact Areas To Be Analyzed The following areas have been tentatively identified for analysis in the EIS: --Land Use: Plans, policies and controls; --Transportation: Transportation modes, routes, quantities, and risk estimates; --Geology and Soils: Physical geography, topography, geology and soil characteristics; Water Resources: Surface and groundwater hydrology, water use and quality, and the potential for degradation; Ecology: Wetlands, aquatic, terrestrial, economically and recreationally important species, and threatened and endangered species; Air Quality: meteorological conditions, ambient background, pollutant sources, and the potential for degradation; --Noise: ambient, sources, and sensitive receptors; Historical and Cultural Resources: historical, archaeological, and traditional cultural resources; Visual and Scenic Resources: landscape characteristics, manmade features and viewshed; Socioeconomics: demography, economic base, labor pool, housing, transportation, utilities, public services/facilities, education, recreation, and cultural resources; Environmental Justice: potential disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations; Public and Occupational Health: potential public and occupational consequences from construction, routine operation, transportation, and credible accident scenarios (including natural events); Waste Management: types of wastes expected to be generated, handled, and stored; and Cumulative Effects: impacts from past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions at, and near the site(s). This list is not intended to be all inclusive, nor is it a predetermination of potential environmental impacts. The list is presented to facilitate comments on the scope of the EIS. Additions to, or deletions from this list may occur as a result of the public scoping process. 5.0 Scoping Meeting One purpose of this NOI is to encourage public involvement in the EIS process, and to solicit public comments on the proposed scope and content of the EIS. The NRC held a public scoping meeting in Newfield, New Jersey, to solicit both oral and written comments from interested parties. Approximately 150 people attended the meeting. Scoping is an early and open process designed to determine the range of actions, alternatives, and potential impacts to be considered in the EIS, and to identify the significant issues related to the proposed action. It is intended to solicit input from the public and other agencies so that the analysis can be more clearly focused on issues of genuine concern. The principal goals of the scoping process are to: --Ensure that concerns are identified early and are properly studied; --Identify alternatives that will be examined; --Identify significant issues that need to be analyzed; [[Page 78234]] --Eliminate unimportant issues; and --Identify public concerns. The scoping meeting began with NRC staff providing a description of the NRC's role and mission. NRC staff gave a brief overview of the licensing process followed by a brief description of the environmental review process. The bulk of the meeting was reserved for attendees to make oral comments. 6.0 Scoping Comments Written comments should be mailed to the address listed above in the ADDRESSES Section. The NRC staff will make the scoping summary and project-related materials available for public review through our electronic reading room: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The scoping meeting summaries and project-related materials will also be available on the NRC's SMC Web page: http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/smcfacility.html (case sensitive). 7.0 The NEPA Process The EIS for the SMC facility will be prepared according to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the NRC's NEPA Regulations at 10 CFR Part 51. After the scoping process is complete, the NRC and its contractor will prepare a draft EIS. A 45-day comment period on the draft EIS is planned, and public meetings to receive comments will be held approximately three weeks after distribution of the draft EIS. Availability of the draft EIS, the dates of the public comment period, and information about the public meetings will be announced in the Federal Register, on NRC's SMC Web page, and in the local news media when the draft EIS is distributed. The final EIS will incorporate public comments received on the draft EIS. Signed in Rockville, MD. this 20th day of December 2006. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory F. Suber, Acting Branch Chief, Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E6-22239 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 14 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc E6-22240 [Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)] [Notices] [Page 78229-78231] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28de06-117] of No Significant Impact for License Amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 09-25420-01, for Termination of the License and Unrestricted Release of the U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey--BRD Facility In Gainesville, Florida AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Lawyer, Health Physicist, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania; telephone 610- 337-5366; fax number 610-337-5393; or by e-mail: . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Byproduct Materials License No. 09- 25420-01. This license is held by U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey--BRD (the Licensee), for its Florida Integrated Science Center (the Facility), located at 7920 NW 71st Street in Gainesville, Florida. Issuance of the amendment would authorize release of the Facility for unrestricted use and termination of the NRC license. The Licensee requested this action in a letter dated August 11, 2006. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51). Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate with respect to the proposed action. The amendment will be issued to the Licensee following the publication of this FONSI and EA in the Federal Register. II. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The proposed action would approve the Licensee's August 11, 2006, license amendment request, resulting in release of the Facility for unrestricted use and [[Page 78230]] the termination of its NRC materials license. License No. 09-25420-01 was issued on January 29, 1998, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 30, and has been amended periodically since that time. This license authorized the Licensee to use unsealed byproduct material for purposes of conducting research and development activities on laboratory bench tops. The Facility is situated on a 28 acre parcel of land located within a 600 acre property owned by the University of Florida. The property is used by the University's Fisheries Department and is surrounded by residential areas. Within the Facility, use of licensed materials was confined to Room 15, a 450 square feet room within the 28,000 square feet building, and a 64 square feet storage shed. By April 2006, the Licensee had ceased licensed activities and initiated a survey and decontamination of the Facility. Based on the Licensee's historical knowledge of the site and the conditions of the Facility, the Licensee determined that only routine decontamination activities, in accordance with their NRC-approved, operating radiation safety procedures, were required. The Licensee was not required to submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC because worker cleanup activities and procedures are consistent with those approved for routine operations. The Licensee conducted surveys of the Facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that it meets the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release and for license termination. Need for the Proposed Action The Licensee has ceased conducting licensed activities at the Facility, and seeks the unrestricted use of its Facility and the termination of its NRC materials license. Termination of its license would end the Licensee's obligation to pay annual license fees to the NRC. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The historical review of licensed activities conducted at the Facility shows that such activities involved use of the following radionuclides with half-lives greater than 120 days: hydrogen-3 and carbon-14. Prior to performing the final status survey, the Licensee conducted decontamination activities, as necessary, in the areas of the Facility affected by these radionuclides. The Licensee conducted a final status survey of the Facility on September 22 and October 24, 2006. The final status survey report was submitted to NRC with the Licensee's letters dated October 25 and November 6, 2006. The Licensee elected to demonstrate compliance with the radiological criteria for unrestricted release as specified in 10 CFR 20.1402 by using the screening approach described in NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' Volume 2. The Licensee used the radionuclide-specific derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs), developed there by the NRC, which comply with the dose criterion in 10 CFR 20.1402. These DCGLs define the maximum amount of residual radioactivity on building surfaces, equipment, and materials, and in soils, that will satisfy the NRC requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted release. The Licensee's final status survey results were below these DCGLs and are in compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) requirement of 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC thus finds that the Licensee's final status survey results are acceptable. Based on its review, the staff has determined that the affected environment and any environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' (NUREG-1496) Volumes 1-3 (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). The staff finds there were no significant environmental impacts from the use of radioactive material at the Facility. The NRC staff reviewed the docket file records and the final status survey report to identify any non-radiological hazards that may have impacted the environment surrounding the Facility. No such hazards or impacts to the environment were identified. The NRC has identified no other radiological or non- radiological activities in the area that could result in cumulative environmental impacts. The NRC staff finds that the proposed release of the Facility for unrestricted use and the termination of the NRC materials license is in compliance with 10 CFR 20.1402. Based on its review, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the Facility and concluded that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action Due to the largely administrative nature of the proposed action, its environmental impacts are small. Therefore, the only alternative the staff considered is the no-action alternative, under which the staff would leave things as they are by simply denying the amendment request. This no-action alternative is not feasible because it conflicts with 10 CFR 30.36(d), requiring that decommissioning of byproduct material facilities be completed and approved by the NRC after licensed activities cease. The NRC's analysis of the Licensee's final status survey data confirmed that the Facility meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted release and for license termination. Additionally, denying the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the no-action alternative are therefore similar, and the no-action alternative is accordingly not further considered. Conclusion The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action is consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred alternative. Agencies and Persons Consulted NRC provided a draft of this Environmental Assessment to the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control for review on November 20, 2006. On November 20, 2006, the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control responded by e-mail. The State agreed with the conclusions of the EA, and otherwise had no comments. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is of a procedural nature, and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed action. On the basis of this EA, the NRC finds that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and that preparation of an environmental impact statement is not warranted. Accordingly, the NRC has determined [[Page 78231]] that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents related to this action are listed below, along with their ADAMS accession numbers. 1. NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance;'' 2. Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart E, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination;'' 3. Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions;'' 4. NUREG-1496, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC- Licensed Nuclear Facilities'' 5. Department of Interior, Termination Request Letter, dated August 11, 2006 [ML062280486] 6. Department of Interior, Deficiency Response letter, dated September 19, 2006 [ML062640363] 7. Department of Interior, Deficiency Response letter, dated October 25, 2006 [ML063050464] 8. Department of Interior, Deficiency Response letter, dated November 6, 2006 [ML063170366] If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to . These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia this 19th day of December 2006. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 1. [FR Doc. E6-22240 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Assessment and FR Doc E6-22241 [Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)] [Notices] [Page 78231-78232] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28de06-118] Finding of No Significant Impact for Proposed Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC Irradiator in Honolulu, Hawaii AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability of opportunity to provide comments. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC (Pa'ina or the applicant) license application, dated June 27, 2005. The draft EA is being issued as part of the NRC's decision-making process on whether to issue a license to Pa'ina, pursuant to Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 36, ``Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators.'' The license would authorize the use of sealed radioactive sources in an underwater irradiator for the production and research irradiation of food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical products. The proposed irradiator would be located immediately adjacent to Honolulu International Airport on Palekona Street near Lagoon Drive. The irradiator would primarily be used for phytosanitary treatment of fresh fruit and vegetables bound for the mainland from the Hawaiian Islands and similar products being imported to the Hawaiian Islands as well as irradiation of cosmetics and pharmaceutical products. The irradiator would also be used by the applicant to conduct research and development projects, and irradiate a wide range of other materials as specifically approved by the NRC on a case-by-case basis. The NRC staff will also hold a public meeting to present an overview of the draft EA and to accept oral and written public comments. The meeting date, time and location are listed below: Meeting Date: Thursday, February 1, 2007. Meeting Location: Ala Moana Hotel, 410 Atkinson Drive, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814, Hotel Telephone number 808-955-4811. Informal Open House: 6 p.m.--7 p.m. NRC Overview Presentation: 7 p.m.--7:30 p.m. Question and Answer: 7:30 p.m.--8 p.m. Comment Session: 8 p.m.--9 p.m. Prior to the public meeting, the NRC staff will be available to informally discuss the proposed Pa'ina project and answer questions in an ``open house'' format. This ``open house''' format provides for one- on-one discussions with the NRC staff involved with the preparation of the draft EA. The draft EA meeting officially begins at 7:00 PM and will include: (1) A presentation summarizing the contents of the draft EA and (2) an opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft EA. This portion of the meeting will be transcribed by a court reporter. Persons wishing to provide oral comments will be asked to register at the meeting entrance. Individual oral comments may have to be limited by the time available, depending upon the number of persons who register. Additionally, the NRC will set up a toll-free telephone number that interested members of the public may use to participate. Details of the toll free telephone number will be provided in a public notice prior to the meeting. Please note that comments do not have to provided at the public meeting and may be submitted at any time throughout the comment period as described in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this notice. DATES: The public comment period on the draft EA begins with publication of this notice and continues until February 8, 2007. Written comments should be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Comments submitted by mail should be postmarked by that date to ensure consideration. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practical. A public meeting to discuss the draft EA will be held as described in the SUMMARY section of this notice. ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit comments to the Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Please note Docket No. 030-36974 when submitting comments. Comments will also be accepted by e-mail at NRCREP@nrc.gov or by facsimile to (301) 415-5397, Attention: Matthew Blevins. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Blevins, Environmental Project Manager, Environmental and Performance Assessment Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Mail Stop T7-J8, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-7684; e-mail: mxb6@nrc.gov [[Page 78232]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received a license application from Pa'ina Hawaii, LLC, that, if approved, would authorize the use of sealed radioactive sources in an underwater irradiator for the production and research irradiation of food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical products. The proposed irradiator would be located immediately adjacent to Honolulu International Airport on Palekona Street near Lagoon Drive. The irradiator would primarily be used for phytosanitary treatment of fresh fruit and vegetables bound for the mainland from the Hawaiian Islands and similar products being imported to the Hawaiian Islands as well as irradiation of cosmetics and pharmaceutical products. The irradiator would also be used by the applicant to conduct research and development projects, and irradiate a wide range of other materials as specifically approved by the NRC on a case-by-case basis. The NRC has completed its initial evaluation of the proposed irradiator against the requirements found in the NRC's regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 36, ``Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators,'' (i.e., 10 CFR Part 36). Typically, the licensing of irradiators is categorically excluded from detailed environmental review as described in the NRC regulations at 10 CFR 51.22(c)(14)(vii). However, the NRC staff entered into a settlement agreement with Concerned Citizens of Honolulu, the interveners in the adjudicatory hearing to be held on the license application. The settlement agreement included a provision for the NRC staff to prepare this draft EA and hold a public comment meeting in Honolulu, Hawaii prior to making a final decision. The complete draft EA is available on the NRC's Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/materials.html and by selecting ``Pa'ina Irradiator'' in the Quick Links box. Copies are also available by contacting Matthew Blevins as noted above. II. EA Summary The purpose of the license request (i.e., the proposed action) is to authorize Pa'ina Hawaii to use sealed radioactive sources in a pool irradiator to be located adjacent to the Honolulu International Airport, Honolulu, Hawaii. Pa'ina's license request was previously noticed in the Federal Register on August 2, 2005 (70 FR 44396) with a notice of an opportunity to request a hearing. The staff has prepared the draft EA in support of its review of the license application. The staff considered impacts to such areas as public and occupational health, transportation of the sources, socioeconomics, ecology, water quality, and the effects of aviation accidents and natural phenomena. During routine operations the dose rate at the surface of the irradiator pool is expected to be well below 1 millirem/hour. Considering the location of personnel and operational practices of the irradiator, it is unlikely that an employee could receive more than the occupational dose limit which is 5,000 millirem/ year. The expected dose rates outside the building are expected to be indistinguishable from naturally occurring background radiation, therefore it is unlikely that a member of the public could receive more than public dose limit which is 100 millirem/year. For the shipment of the radioactive sources, the maximum dose is also expected to be very small: 0.04 mrem/year. The staff also considered alternative treatments such as fumigation with methyl bromide and heat treatments. The staff completed consultations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition the staff is providing interested members of the public, the applicant, and State officials with an opportunity to comment on the draft EA. The complete draft EA is available on the NRC's Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/materials.html and by selecting ``Pa'ina Irradiator'' in the Quick Links box. Copies are also available by contacting Matthew Blevins as noted above. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action will comply with the licensing requirements found in 10 CFR Part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation'' and 10 CFR Part 36, ``Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators.'' Occupational and public exposure to radiation will be significantly less than the limits in 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC staff has prepared this draft EA in support of the proposed action to issue a license to Pa'ina Hawaii for the possession and use of sealed radioactive sources in an underwater irradiator for the production and research irradiation of food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical products. On the basis of this EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and the license application does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: Pa'ina License Application; ML052060372; NRC Draft Environmental Assessment, ML063470231. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of December, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gregory Suber, Acting Section Chief, Environmental Review Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E6-22241 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: In the Matter of Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National FR Doc E6-22243 [Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)] [Notices] [Page 78228-78229] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28de06-116] Enrichment Facility);Order Modifying License For Additional Security Measures (Effective Immediately) I Louisiana Energy Services (LES or the Licensee) is the holder of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-2010 for the National Enrichment Facility (NEF) issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 70. The Licensee is authorized by its license to construct and operate a uranium enrichment facility in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70. The LES license was issued on June 23, 2006, and is due to expire on June 23, 2036. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, N.Y., and Washington, D.C., 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. 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 measures are required to be implemented by the Licensee as prudent measures to address the current threat environment. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, set forth in the Attachments 1 and 2 \1\ of this Order, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, to provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and 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 some of the requirements set forth in Attachments 1 and 2 \2\ to this Order may already have been initiated by the Licensee on its own. It is also recognized that some measures may need to be tailored to specifically accommodate the specific circumstances and characteristics existing at the licensee's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on safe operation. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \2\ To the extent that specific measures identified in the Attachments to this Order require actions pertaining to the Licensee's possession and use of chemicals, such actions are being directed on the basis of the potential impact of such chemicals on radioactive materials and activities subject to NRC regulation. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- In light of the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that the Additional Security Measures must be embodied in an Order, consistent with the established regulatory framework. In order to provide assurance that the Licensee is implementing prudent measures to achieve an adequate level of protection to address the current threat environment, Materials License SNM-2010 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202 and 70.81, I find that, in light of the circumstances described above, the public health, safety, and interest, and the common defense and security require that this Order be immediately effective. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 53, 62, 63, 81, 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 and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that Material License SNM-2010 is modified as follows: A. The Licensee shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Order. The Licensee shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachments 1 and 2 to the Order and shall complete implementation, unless otherwise specified in Attachments 1 and 2 to this order, no later than 6 months prior to facility operation. B. 1. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission, (1) if it is unable to comply with any of the requirements described in the Attachment, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in its specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the Licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or its license. The notification shall provide the Licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If the Licensee considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 and 2 to this Order would adversely affect safe operation of its facility, the Licensee must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, 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 Attachments 1 and 2 in question, or a schedule for modifying the facilities 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. The Licensee shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in the Attachment. 2. The Licensee shall report to the Commission when it has achieved full compliance with the requirements described in the Attachment. D. Notwithstanding any provision of the Commission's regulations to the contrary, all measures implemented or [[Page 78229]] actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. The Licensee's response to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, above shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 70.5. In addition, the Licensee's submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with the Order issued on August 28, 2006, requiring a program for protecting Safeguards Information. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 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 Material Safety and Safeguards, 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 Material Safety and Safeguards, and the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement, at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Suite 23T85, Atlanta, GA 30303-8931, and to the Licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the Licensee. Because of possible 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 2.309. 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 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. An Answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this Order. Dated this 20th day of December, 2006. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E6-22243 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 17 Deutsche Welle: Bulgaria in Nuclear Quandary as EU Entry Nears | 28.12.2006 DW-World.de Deutsche Welle Bulgaria in Nuclear Quandary as EU Entry Nears [Two of the Kozloduy reactors are likely to fall prey to the EU entry accords] Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Two of the Kozloduy reactors are likely to fall prey to the EU entry accords As a precondition for joining the EU, Bulgaria pledged to shut off two working nuclear reactors by Jan. 1. But the country is dragging its heels – with reason, some say. To date, Bulgaria has been the biggest electricity exporter in the Balkans. The Kozloduy nuclear power plant, 200 kilometers (125 miles) north of Sofia on the Donau river, puts out energy for Albania, Greece, Macadonia, Romania, Serbia, Kosovo, and Turkey. But this situation will end when Bulgaria joins the EU. Even though the plants at Kozloduy have been deemed safe by EU experts, under the terms of the country's accession accord, the reactors must be shut down. The result is likely to be costly all around. Bulgaria will not only lose bilions of euros in export revenues, but electricity may become scarce, and costs are likely to soar. 'Like a funeral' Greece and Macedonia have already complained about the future of their resources. “I feel like I'm at a funeral," said the acting director of the Kozloduy plants.“The units are in perfect condition." [At work in Number 3: soon to close?] Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: At work in Number 3: soon to close? In its heyday, the atomic power plant at Kozloduy had six Soviet-built reactors in its network, including four older, 440 megawatt ones, and two newer ones that produce 1000 megawatts. A precondition for EU membership in the postcommunist era was turning off reactors 1 and 2 in 2002. This came about after the seven leading industrial countries, the G7, decided to shut down all first-generation reactors. The question of whether to shut down reactors 3 and 4 was open for a while. Then Bulgaria and the European commission agreed upon the 2006 shut-down date. Recent survey have showed three quarters of Bulgarians opposed to shutting down the reactors. A citizens' committee to save the atomic power plant estimated losses of up to 10 billion euros, due to missing revenue, higher costs for possible energy imports, and the cost associated with shutting down the reactors. 'Legal obligation' Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov told a radio interviewer he was worried about securing energy sources for the Balkans, and fostered hopes for an extension of the shut-down deadline for Kozloduy. He appears likely to be disappointed, according to Roland Kobia, who is responsible for nuclear policy in the European commission Energy department. “The situation is very clear," Kobia said. "Bulgaria has a legal obligation to shut down the plants, according to the terms of the EU entry agreement. There is nothing to debate about." Yet it seems that Bulgaria has indeed held out hope for a reprieve – or at least the possibility to put off the shut down. It spent hundreds of millions of euros to invest in a system to bring up the reactors' security systems to levels meeting EU recommendations. A report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) attested that the reactors, rehabbed in 1980 and 1982 were as secure as others that were just as old – and still allowed to operate in other EU countries. Danger for the Balkans In 2003, Bulgarian regulators issued operating licenses for Kozloduy 3 and 4 until 2010 and 2012, and according to EU controllers, all recommendations were "adequately approached." Further oversight of Bulgaria was deemed unnecessary. [Despite extensive rehabbing, the plants must still close] Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Despite extensive rehabbing, the plants must still close The electricity produced in Bulgararia plays a significant role in providing energy for the Balkans, according to the European Parliament. They also said that "closing Koslodui blocks 3 and 4 would destroy the delicate energy balance in a region that continues to be economically and politically unstable." But the European commission insists on sticking to the EU entry accords, which state that all reactors of that generation must be shut down. For its part, the Bulgarian government has put up very little resistance, since opening up energy talks again would delay EU entry for the country by at least a year. Safety warning Yet there are those, even in Bulgaria, who agree in principle with the EU. Georgi Kastchiev, who was the head of the Bulgarian atomic energy agency between 1997 and 2001, welcomed the shut-down. The move to close first-generation plants is "very good for safety." The expert reports on Kozloduy 3 and 4 may have been very diplomatically formulated, Katschiev said, but he urged a closer look at the details: the security calculations were made under "realistic assumptions." But for the best possible security, the calculations should be made under what is called "conservative assumptions" – which means assuming that all possible security-system errors occur at the same time. “The reconstruction improved the situation in many ways," said Kastchiev. “But having a first-generation reactor is really like having an old car. Whatever you do, you can't change it over entirely to modern technologies." The same goes for for western models as well as Russian-built reactors, Kastchiev clarified. Aarni Kuoppamäki (jen) 2006 Deutsche Welle ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: Advisory Committee On Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Subcommittee FR Doc E6-22244 [Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)] [Notices] [Page 78234] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28de06-120] Meeting On Power Uprates; Revised A portion of the ACRS Subcommittee meeting on Power Uprates (Browns Ferry Unit 1) scheduled to be held on Tuesday and Wednesday, January 16-17, 2007 at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B3, Rockville, Maryland will be closed to discuss information that is proprietary to General Electric, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and their contractors pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(4). All other items pertaining to the meeting remain the same as published previously in the Federal Register on Thursday, December 21, 2006, 71 FR 76707. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) between 7:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET). Dated: December 21, 2006. Michael R. Snodderly, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. E6-22244 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 19 NRC: Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance; Notice of Availability FR Doc E6-22248 [Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)] [Notices] [Page 78234-78235] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28de06-121] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the availability of two volumes of NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance.'' The first volume is ``Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees'' (NUREG-1757, Vol. 1, Rev. 2), which provides guidance for planning and implementing the termination of materials licenses. The second volume, ``Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria'' (NUREG-1757, Vol. 2, Rev. 1), provides guidance for compliance with the radiological criteria for termination of licenses. The guidance is intended for use by NRC staff and licensees. It is also available to Agreement States and the public. ADDRESSES: NUREG-1757 is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room, NRC's Headquarters Building, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland. The Public Document Room is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. NUREG-1757 is also available electronically on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1757 / , and from the ADAMS Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Duane W. Schmidt, Mail Stop T-7E18, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-6919; e-mail: dws2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In September 2003, NRC staff consolidated and updated the policies and guidance of its decommissioning program in a three-volume NUREG series, NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance.'' This NUREG series provides guidance on: planning and implementing license termination under NRC's License Termination Rule (LTR), in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E; complying with the radiological criteria of the LTR for license termination; and complying with the requirements for financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning and timeliness in decommissioning of materials facilities. The staff periodically updates NUREG-1757, so that it reflects current NRC decommissioning policy. In September 2005, the staff issued, for public comment, Draft Supplement 1 to NUREG-1757, which contained proposed updates to the three volumes of NUREG-1757 (70 FR 56940; September 29, 2005). Draft Supplement 1 included new and revised decommissioning guidance that addresses some issues with implementation of the LTR. These issues include restricted use and institutional controls, onsite disposal of radioactive materials, selection and justification of exposure scenarios based on reasonably foreseeable future land use, intentional mixing of contaminated soil, and removal of material after license termination. The staff also developed new and revised guidance on other issues, including engineered barriers. The staff received stakeholder comments on Draft Supplement 1 and prepared responses to these comments. The stakeholder comments and the NRC staff responses are located on NRC's decommissioning Web site, at [[Page 78235]] http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/decommissioning/reg-guid es-comm.html. Supplement 1 has not been finalized as a separate document; instead, updated sections from Supplement 1 have been placed into the appropriate locations in revisions of Volumes 1 and 2 of NUREG-1757. Volume 1 of NUREG-1757, entitled ``Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees,'' takes a risk-informed, performance-based approach to the information needed and the process to be followed to support an application for license termination for a materials licensee. Volume 1 is intended to be applicable only to the decommissioning of materials facilities licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72 and to the ancillary surface facilities that support radioactive waste disposal activities licensed under 10 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 63. However, parts of Volume 1 are applicable to reactor licensees, as described in the Foreword to the volume. Volume 2 of the NUREG series, entitled, ``Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Characterization, Survey, and Determination of Radiological Criteria,'' provides technical guidance on compliance with the radiological criteria for license termination of the LTR. Volume 2 is applicable to all licensees subject to the LTR. The staff plans to revise Volume 3 of this NUREG series at a later date, and that revision will incorporate the Supplement 1 guidance that is related to Volume 3. NUREG-1757 is intended for use by NRC staff and licensees. It is also available to Agreement States and the public. This NUREG is not a substitute for NRC regulations, and compliance with it is not required. The NUREG describes approaches that are acceptable to NRC staff. However, methods and solutions different than those in this NUREG will be acceptable, if they provide a basis for concluding that the decommissioning actions are in compliance with NRC regulations. Congressional Review Act (CRA) In accordance with the Congressional Review Act (CRA) of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget. Dated at Rockville, MD, this 19th day of December, 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning & Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E6-22248 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 20 globeandmail.com: Stelco woos county for nuclear land deal POSTED ON 28/12/06 New plant proposed for Nanticoke site Canadian Press HAMILTON -- Stelco is offering land it owns in Nanticoke, Ont., as the site of a new nuclear power plant. The idea is contained in a letter the steel giant sent to the seven Haldimand County councillors, including Mayor Marie Trainer, earlier this month. In the letter from company manager Frank Harrison, who oversees the sale of Stelco land, he calls it "an exciting opportunity" for Haldimand and urges council to pursue the idea. The plant is being proposed to go on 833 hectares of land west of Stelco's Lake Erie plant and near the Nanticoke Generating Station. Stelco's proposal comes as the provincial Liberal government looks at building a new nuclear station to replace coal-fired plants -- including Nanticoke -- that it is aiming to close by 2014. Ms. Trainer said yesterday she's not opposed to the idea, given that it would provide jobs and taxes once the province closes Nanticoke. But she said that Haldimand wouldn't buy the land. Mr. Harrison could not be reached for comment. Ms. Trainer said any bid to open a nuclear generating station should be put to local voters. "I think it should be decided by more than council. I would like the residents themselves to make up their minds." © Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. 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 --> ***************************************************************** 21 Reuters: Czech govt will not build new N-plants -Bursik 28 Dec 2006 13:54:34 GMT28 Dec PRAGUE, Dec 28 (Reuters) - A deal to form a three-party centre-right Czech government contains a pledge not to build any new nuclear power stations, Green Party leader Martin Bursik said on Thursday. "It (the deal) is worded in a way that the government will not support, nor plan the construction of new nuclear units," Bursik told reporters after the deal was signed on Thursday afternoon. State-owned power utility CEZ runs two reactors with combined capacity of 2,000 megawatts at the Temelin nuclear plant which has caused friction with environmentalists in neighbouring Austria. CEZ has been mulling an expansion of its nuclear generation capacity. Nuclear energy is re-emerging as the possible solution for growing energy needs at the time of high fossil fuel costs and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. ***************************************************************** 22 AU ABC: Nuclear report to be released. 29/12/2006. ABC News Online The final report of the Prime Minister's taskforce on nuclear energy will be released later this morning. The chairman of the Prime Minister's nuclear review, Dr Ziggy Switkowski, released the panel's draft report last month. It said nuclear power could be flowing to Australia's energy grid within 10 to 15 years and suggested 25 nuclear reactors could be operating by the year 2050. Dr Switkowski described nuclear power as a practical option for producing electricity in Australia, but noted it would cost up to 50 per cent more than coal or gas fired power. A review panel, led by Australia's chief scientist, said the draft report underestimated the challenges Australia would face if it chose to expand its nuclear activities. The Prime Minister will release the final report in Sydney later this morning. ***************************************************************** 23 The State: Duke increases stake in S.C. nuclear plant 12/28/2006 WASHINGTON  A subsidiary of Duke Energy said Wednesday it would spend $158 million to increase its stake in an S.C. nuclear station. Duke Energy Carolinas will acquire the additional stake in Unit 1 of the Catawba Nuclear Station  a stake equivalent to about 154 megawatts  from Saluda River Electric Cooperative, the company said. Duke already owns 25 percent of Catawbas unit 1. Its stake will grow to more than 38 percent as a result of Wednesdays investment. Saluda is selling the remainder of its 19 percent interest in the Catawba unit to North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. for $42 million. Shares in Duke closed down 2 cents at $33.17. ***************************************************************** 24 Charlotte Observer: Officials unsure why N.C. nuclear reactor quit 12/28/2006 | PROGRESS ENERGY Company says public safety not an issue in shutdown at plant Associated Press SOUTHPORT - One of two reactors at Progress Energy's Brunswick Nuclear Plant will remain offline indefinitely after an automatic reactor shutdown was triggered Christmas morning, plant officials said. The reason for the automatic shutdown of the Unit 2 reactor -- at 5:39 a.m. Monday -- was not immediately clear. It did not require declaration of any of the four emergency classifications indicating a level of risk to the public, company spokesman Mike McCracken said. "This is a production issue for us, not a public safety thing," McCracken said. McCracken said Unit 2 will remain offline into 2007, but wouldn't offer any specifics. Brunswick Unit 1 continues to operate at 100 percent power, he said. When the incident occurred, Unit 2 was operating at 65 percent power pending inspection and maintenance work on one of its recirculation water pumps. The pump is one of two that channel thousands of gallons of water per minute into the reactor, where it is converted into steam and fed into an electricity-producing turbine. McCracken and Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said it was possible the shutdown was related to the reduced level of power. "All reactors are designed to trip based on signals they get from a variety of monitors," Hannah said. "At the time that it happened, they were operating at reduced power. Because they were operating at reduced power, it may not have provided them the proper signal." ***************************************************************** 25 NIOSH: ABRWH 1-11-7 public meeting FR Doc E6-22380 [Federal Register: December 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 249)] [Notices] [Page 78210-78211] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28de06-87] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) In Accordance With Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Announces the Following Committee Meeting of the ABRWH: Time and Date: 11:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Thursday, January 11, 2007. Place: Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing. The USA toll free dial in number is 1.866.643.6504 with a pass code of 9448550. Status: Open to the public, but without a public comment period. Background: The Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines which have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule, advice on methods of dose reconstruction which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule, advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program, and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire on August 3, 2007. Purpose: The Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, provide advice on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. Matters To Be Discussed: The agenda for the meeting includes SEC Petitions for Monsanto and General Atomics; Update on Rocky Flats SEC Working Group activities; Working Group/Subcommittee Updates; Individual Dose Reconstruction Reviews; [[Page 78211]] future Plans and meetings; conflict of interest issues; and Board working time. The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate. In the event an individual cannot attend, written comments may be submitted. Any written comments received will be provided at the meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below well in advance of the meeting. Due to programmatic matters, this Federal Register Notice is being published on less than 15 days notice to the public (41 CFR 102-3.150(b)). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Lewis V. Wade, Executive Secretary, NIOSH, CDC, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, Telephone 513.533.6825, Fax 513.533.6826. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Elaine Baker, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. E6-22380 Filed 12-27-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P ***************************************************************** 26 Guardian Unlimited: 10 People Showing Signs of Polonium-210 From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday December 28, 2006 7:46 PM AP Photo JRL130 LONDON (AP) - Ten people have shown signs of low-level exposure to polonium-210, the rare radioactive element that killed one-time Russian intelligence agent Alexander Litvinenko, British health authorities said Thursday. The Health Protection Agency said those affected had not suffered enough exposure to cause illness in the short term, and the long-term risk was also very small. Seven of those who tested positive were staff from the Pine Bar in London's Millennium Hotel, which Litvinenko visited on Nov. 1, the day he became ill, the authority said. Litvinenko, a Kremlin critic who lived in London, died of poisoning from radioactive polonium-210 in a London hospital on Nov. 23. In a deathbed statement, he accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of ordering his murder, allegations which the Kremlin has dismissed. British police say they are treating his death as murder and have conducted investigations in both London and Moscow. Around a dozen London sites have been tested for traces of the rare polonium-210. A spokeswoman for the Health Protection Agency said 3,837 people had called health authorities with concerns that they may have been contaminated. A total of 670 cases had been followed up and 486 urine samples tested. However, the risk to the general public from polonium-210 was ``likely to be very low,'' said the spokeswoman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with authority policy. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 27 Mos News: Russia Dismantles Nuclear Submarines on Schedule - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM Created: 28.12.2006 13:55 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 13:55 MSK MosNews According to the Russian federal nuclear power agency 148 out of 197 decommissioned Soviet-era nuclear submarines have been dismantled, RIA Novosti news agency reported December 28. Russia has signed cooperation agreements on the disposal of decommissioned nuclear submarines with the US, Britain, Canada, Japan, Italy and Norway. An official said Russia dismantles 18 nuclear submarines annually noticing that it costs about $7 million to dismantle one nuclear submarine. ’We will scrap all decommissioned nuclear submarines by 2010,’ Sergei Kiriyenko, who heads Russia’s nuclear agency, said in November. Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM [Đĺéňčíă@Mail.ru] ***************************************************************** 28 OpEdNews: Say No to the Divine Strake December 28, 2006 at 08:22:52 by Andrew Kishner Pulling no punches with their announcement made on the eve of the Christmas holiday weekend, the Pentagon agency that is planning the Divine Strake for the spring of 2007 has come clean about their test. Sort of. In the agency's Friday announcement, the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency confessed that the radioactive fallout from historic tests at the Nevada Test Site which will be "resuspended from the detonation [of Divine Strake]...may, therefore, contribute radiological doses to the public." Merry Christmas folks. You just got gifted a dirty bomb. What? What did you say? The Pentagon said the test is safe....that the exposure to radioactive particles will be safe. Uh-huh. Right. I've heard that before. Before you buy this used car salesman's pile of dung, you might want to get a second opinion. Shop around for other assessments. Listen to what environmental groups are saying. Clearly, the agencies that have been sending us radioactive presents from the Nevada Test Site since 1951 don't have the best track record when it comes to honesty. What you can do is while you are doing your pre- or post- Christmas shopping, drop by your local bookstore and pick up a dictionary and look up the term alpha or beta particles. The fallout that the Divine Strake blast will eject up into the atmosphere will consist of long-lived radioactive alpha, beta and gamma particles. The Pentagon is only telling you about the external exposure to gamma particles, which can penetrate the skin. Since we all breathe and eat, there is a frightening danger associated with this dirty bomb – alpha and beta radiation - that the Pentagon is not telling you about. That is called internal radiation. When in our bodies, alpha and beta radioactive particles can start a horrific process of slowly murdering adjacent cells that can eventually lead to genetic defects, immune deficiency, leukemia, or cancer. Folks, there's no gift receipt with Divine Strake. You can either take it or hand it back to the giver. I, for one, don't want a lifetime of worries about my health. I don't want to be wondering next year or in ten years if the radioactivity ejected from the Divine Strake test of 2007 is eating away at my insides. This is one present that I won't accept this holiday season. Mr. Kishner is founder of www.StopDivineStrake.com. Contact Author Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2006 ***************************************************************** 29 RIA Novosti: Liquid waste reprocessing plant inaugurated in Russia's north 28/ 12/ 2006 MOSCOW, December 28 (RIA Novosti) - A liquid radioactive waste reprocessing plant has been commissioned in Russia's northwestern Murmansk Region, the country's nuclear power generating monopoly said Thursday. Rosenergoatom's press service said the plant, designed for the reprocessing of liquid radioactive waste from region's Kola nuclear power plant (NPP), went on stream following nine years of construction and six months of operating tests. Company head Sergei Obozov said no other country has the new technology to be used at the facility, adding that it was developed by Russian experts. The company said earlier the new technology allows for purifying nuclear water at a higher degree, resulting in a considerable reduction of radioactive waste. Liquid radioactive waste from the almost-full storage facilities at the Kola NPP will be treated by converting it into a solid form, which is more convenient for all stages of handling -- storage for 300-500 years, shipment and final disposal. "Liquid radioactive waste will be passed through special filters to accumulate all radioactive substances, mainly cesium and cobalt," he said. "As a result, the volume of radioactive waste will be reduced some 100-fold." State-run Rosenergoatom runs a total of 31 power-generating units at 10 of Russia's nuclear power plants. © 2005 RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 30 GilroyDispatch.com: Perchlorate Plan Lacking Gilroy California Thursday, December 28, 2006 News that unsafe perchlorate contamination levels have been found on a private well west of Monterey Road in Morgan Hill indicates the chemical's nine-mile plume has further dispersed from the southeast section of Tenant Avenue. And that means the contamination is larger and more widespread than originally thought. For years, we have believed the plume extended from the most contaminated area of Olin Corporation's now-defunct road-flare plant on Tenant Avenue south past Masten Avenue into San Martin and near the Gilroy border. With the news of a contaminated well west of U.S. 101, it means Olin's party line isn't the complete truth. Perhaps Olin hasn't known how extensive the contamination is, but discovery of the private well with almost 9 parts per billion of perchlorate contamination - well above the state's public health goal of 6ppb - indicates more work is needed on Olin's and the Santa Clara Valley Water District's part to clearly define the scope of the cleanup operation. The State Department of Health Services, the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the California Environmental Protection Agency, newly elected congressman Jerry McNerney and Assemblyman John Laird should hold a perchlorate summit in South Valley. Olin has to take complete responsibility for fouling our water supply. If there's an alternate explanation backed by science, let's hear it. Residents should not have to tolerate perchlorate in their drinking wells. Olin is lucky the state has adopted the 6ppb standards when other states like Massachusetts have adopted a more stringent 2ppb. Olin's recent cleanup proposal of the plant's most polluted areas indicates it could take almost two years to complete, and its plan fails to address the chemical's poisoning of the dirt around the plant. Most concerning is that the private well is near an area served by a pair of large wells supplying water to about 250 homes. Will the water in that part of town remain safe? San Martin Neighborhood Alliance President Sylvia Hamilton, who's also chairwoman of the Perchlorate Community Advisory Group, rightly declared to staff writer Tony Burchyns: "I don't think we've done enough work to be sure of its boundaries." Olin must pay for more work to clearly delineate the contamination area, address contamination in the soil and come up with a quicker and more detailed cleanup effort that identifies where the pollution is located. Olin made a huge mess, it's high time the company cleaned it all up. ***************************************************************** 31 Korea Times: Kyongju Divided Over Radiation Waste Facilities Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation By Bae Ji-sook Staff Reporter Citizens of Kyongju, North Kyongsang Province, have been clashing among themselves for more than four days over the location of a large office complex to be built in the area. The office complex is linked to the construction of a nuclear waste plant. About 3,000 policemen are guarding a local nuclear power plant, which the protestors warned must stop operating if the government does not listen to their requests. On Wednesday police detained for questioning six protestors, who are suspected of having burnt rubber tires and broken windows. More than 500 protestors joined the rally initially, but the number increased rapidly to about 19,000 on Tuesday. The problem started when the citizens of Kyongju agreed to allow the building of a radiation waste management plant in the area. The plan the citizens agreed to also included the construction of the Korea Hydro &Nuclear Power's main office in the area. The city Mayor Baek Sang-seung said if the eastern Kyongju citizens would agree to build the plant, the office would also be built in the area. The building itself will cost 120 billion won. Once the building is built, its 2,000 workers and their families as well as 20,000 subcontractors would move to the region, and are expected to spend more than 60 billion to 70 billion won a year, with a total economic effect of 3.6 trillion won. Some 89 percent of the citizens voted to build the plant. It is to be built in eastern Kyongju, a rural area of the city. However, regarding the building of the main office, the citizens in the central city and eastern Kyongju citizens disagree. The eastern Kyongju citizens said the building should be situated near the plant, and they said that's the only reason they agreed accept the radiation waste facilities in their neighborhood. The central citizens, on the other hand, said the building must be built in the central city because there are many facilities there, and it can spread the economic effects that way. Seol Young-hee, the spokesperson of the inducement committee, said that building in the central city is the only way the whole city could benefit from the project. ``If the workers find out that there is no educational facilities or cultural attractions around, they will leave their families in Seoul or Ulsan, wouldn't they? Then the economic effect will decrease,'' she said. Both sides have held rallies recently to talk about their ideas. Last Sunday the central citizens obtained 100,000 signatures to support their idea. The 19,000 eastern citizens have protested against the central citizens' idea by breaking windows and jamming the roads with vans and trucks. Right now, both sides are waiting for the company's final decision. The company, however, has no idea where it will build the office building. ``Because Kyongju is full of historical sites, we have asked the city to propose locations for us,'' Choi Kyo-seo, the company's PR manager, said. He said the company has the right to make the final decision. ``I think there were some communication problems between the city government and the citizens. We are supposed to finish the moving plan by Jan. 2., but I think it will take more time,'' he added. As the two sides struggle with each other, the final decision day looms. The location selection is to take place before the end of the year, and the city government is busy working on the case. ``It is a big business, and I hope someone could try a bit to settle the matter. This is a chance of a lifetime for the city,'' a city official, who refused to give his name, said. 12-28-2006 18:03 ***************************************************************** 32 News & Star: Nuclear firm denies delay claim Published on 28/12/2006 By Chris Story BRITISH Nuclear Group officials yesterday denied reports that Sellafield’s Thorp reprocessing plant is to face a further delay in reopening. The Independent newspaper claimed on Saturday that it will be at least the summer before the troubled section of west Cumbria’s Sellafield complex would again be operational because of further technical problems. But a BNG spokeswoman denied that the summer was a target and said Thorp remained on track to open at the beginning of the new financial year in April. Engineers are currently performing checks on Thorp’s evaporator system – an operation which will take some time to complete because of its complex nature. The Thorp plant has been shut since a radioactive leak was discovered in April 2005. Its reopening has been hit by a series of setbacks. BNG remains optimistic that the Thorp will reopen – despite the fact it is scheduled for permanent shutdown in March 2011 – and begin shearing or chemical separation next year. Anti-nuclear campaigners have savaged the plans and claimed the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority should explain its decision to the public. Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (Core) claim Thorp was reprocessing an average 600 tonnes of spent fuel annually, but would have to reach an annual 1,000-tonne mark to meet NDA targets. BNG was fined ÂŁ500,000 for allowing highly radioactive liquid to leak from a pipe at Thorp last year. The leak went undetected for more than eight months. ***************************************************************** 33 Lahontan Valley News: Letter: YUCCA MOUNTAIN WILL ONE DAY BE A REALITY December 28, 2006 Reference Mr. Strolin's letter of Dec. 25 regarding Yucca Mountain. I wonder what crystal ball he was gazing into remarking the only thing inevitable about the Yucca program is its ultimate end. The government has spent billions on that hole and one way or another the end result will be nuclear waste stuck in that mountain. All those so-called watchdog agencies around the state claiming to be experts are just make work projects prolonging the inevitable and wasting money. I spent 30 years in government service and I know exactly how they operate. What they want they eventually get, regardless of whatever. I suggest Nevada let them dump at Yucca. However, sock it to the waste makers and Uncle Sam and let them spend big bucks for the privilege. It's coming Nevada, one way or another. Bert E. Washer Fallon All contents © Copyright 2006 lahontanvalleynews.com Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard - 562 North Maine Street - Fallon, NV 89406 ***************************************************************** 34 Whitehaven News: Insurers face bill for Thorp shutdown Published on 28/12/2006 By Alan Irving THE Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is hoping its insurers will pay the millions of pounds it will cost to “fix” Thorp. The reprocessing plant has been shut since April 2005 following a massive radioactive liquor leak. It might not reopen until April 2007 at the earliest. Although the NDA owns Thorp and the rest of Sellafield, the site continues to be operated by the British Nuclear Group. At Carlisle Crown Court recently, BNG was fined ÂŁ500,000 for safety breaches leading to the massive radioactive liquor leak which has left the reprocessing plant closed since April 2005. Many workers have had to be redeployed and some sent on “behavioural courses” to prevent a recurrence of one of the most serious incidents in Sellafield’s history. The NDA is thought to be losing ÂŁ40 million of its income through Thorp’s long shutdown and despite its big order book there was speculation that the plant might stay closed for good. However, the authority now says it wants to re-open Thorp once it gets clearance on safety from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. The enormous cost of putting Thorp back in working order has still to be finalised but once the final figure is worked out the NDA told The Whitehaven News it would file a claim to its insurance company to try and recover the millions of pounds involved. Lord Truscott, the DTI’s parliamentary under secretary of state, told Parliament: “The costs associated with the temporary closure of Thorp due to the incident in April 2005 are subject to an insurance claim by the NDA. The costs therefore cannot be disclosed at this time.” The Thorp insurance claim is believed to be unprecedented in the nuclear industry. Sellafield’s former owners, BNFL, said: “In the past where an incident has been caused by neglect or through or own fault we have not made a claim, although we have claimed for things such as storm damage on the site.” The NDA hopes the fact that it is the owners and BNG the plant operators will be a key factor in making a successful claim. A spokesman said: “We won’t submit a claim until we get the final safety clearance for a re-start but hopefully our insurances will meet the costs of putting things right.” The authority has already “recouped” ÂŁ1 million from BNG as a penalty for failing to operate Thorp efficiently. With checks to make sure there is no problem with the type of evaporator which has already stopped Magnox reprocessing, Thorp is not expected to re-start until next April at the earliest. However, a decision could be made in the next few weeks. INVESTMENT bank NM Rothschild has been chosen to handle the sale of one of the first “slices” of BNFL. The sale will see the site licences for Magnox reactors handed to the private sector. Just before Christmas BNFL announced it has begun the sale of its reactor sites management business, which manages the safe delivery of operations and decommissioning at 10 nuclear sites across the UK, on behalf of the NDA. The sale will be of the entire share capital of a new wholly-owned business called Reactor Sites Management Company, which is responsible for the management of the Magnox reactor sites. Magnox Electric Limited, the holder of a nuclear site licence for each of the NDA’s Magnox reactor sites, will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reactor Sites Management Company and therefore will be included in the sale. Prospect, Britain’s biggest nuclear union, fears that a big NDA budget cut coupled with the loss of Thorp revenue could slow down decommissioning and affect jobs starting with contract and agency staff. n NDA budget blow: Page 2 ***************************************************************** 35 Sydney Morning Herald: Report backs uranium industry - www.smh.com.au Mark Davis Political Correspondent December 29, 2006 AUSTRALIA should move quickly to export more uranium and could generate significant environmental benefits by developing a greenhouse-friendly nuclear power industry, a report for the Federal Government says. The Prime Minister is expected to make public today the final report from a taskforce that has been examining whether Australia should move further into the nuclear fuel cycle. The taskforce, headed by the former Telstra chief executive Ziggy Switkowski, issued a draft report in November calling for a major expansion of uranium mining in Australia while offering more qualified backing for domestic uranium processing and nuclear power. It is understood the final version of the report, which was handed to John Howard last week, confirms most of the conclusions from the earlier draft while including considerably more material to support its findings. Mr Howard will use the report to continue his campaign to persuade state Labor governments to remove restrictions on approving new uranium mines under the ALP's no-new-mines policy. Mr Howard says there should be a community debate over expanding the uranium industry and has suggested nuclear power generation would have environmental benefits by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, has pledged to push for a change in the ALP policy against expanding uranium mining but will face opposition from the party's Left. However, Labor's factions are united in opposing nuclear power, and the Opposition has said it will campaign against the Government on the issue at the next federal election. Today's report will give Mr Howard ammunition for this debate. It is understood to estimate that Australia could double its earnings from exporting uranium oxide to more than $1 billion a year by the end of the decade. Production in Australia is set to rise from the record 12,360 tonnes of yellowcake last year to more than 20,000 tonnes by 2014-15. The report says growth in global demand for uranium to fuel nuclear power industries provides Australia with a timely opportunity to expand the mining if barriers such as skills shortages and state government restrictions were removed. It points to a strong increase in exploration activity in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory and concludes that there are many areas with the potential to yield uranium in coming years. On the issue of whether Australia should allow local uranium conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication, the report says this could more than quadruple the value of locally mined uranium. But the report expresses doubts about the feasibility of a full-blown uranium processing industry in Australia, saying access to enrichment technology would be a big barrier. It is more positive about the feasibility of a local nuclear power industry, saying that if regulatory barriers were surmounted nuclear reactors could be generating electricity in Australia within 15 years. Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 36 USATODAY.com: N.D. nuke site may reopen as museum - Updated 12/28/2006 7:54 AM ET By Judy Keen, USA TODAY COOPERSTOWN, N.D. — The two keys that had to be turned simultaneously to launch Minuteman nuclear missiles were stored in a small red steel box secured with two combination padlocks. The keys are gone, but the red box is still here in one of the remaining relics of the Cold War, the tense era when the United States and the Soviet Union aimed nuclear warheads at each other. This steel-reinforced launch control center is the last of 15 once scattered across eastern North Dakota. Until the doors here closed in 1997, Air Force officers were on duty around the clock, prepared to use secret codes and those keys to send missiles from underground silos on the prairie toward the Soviet Union. Now this facility could become a museum, but the State Historical Society of North Dakota faces a one-year deadline and a fundraising challenge. By Dec. 31, 2007, the historical society must raise $1 million to turn the site into a museum and set up an endowment to operate it. Otherwise, the Air Force will dismantle it. Save America's Treasures, a federal program, has given a $250,000 grant to the project. Merl Paaverud, director of the historical society, says he hopes the North Dakota Legislature will match that amount when its 2007 session begins Wednesday. That would leave $500,000 to raise. A museum would preserve "a whole era of our lives that really needs to be taught," he says. This area, which has been losing population for years, also would benefit, says Becky Meidinger, development specialist for Cooperstown, population 1,100. "Tourism could have a huge economic impact on our area," she says, "and this could be our flagship." Firepower at fingertips This Missile Alert Facility a couple of miles north of Cooperstown is named O-0 (called Oscar Zero). Like the other 14 once in this area, it includes an above-ground building and an underground launch control center. Each was linked by buried cables and a radio network to 10 unmanned, underground silos containing an intercontinental ballistic missile with three nuclear warheads. All 150 missiles are gone. One missile silo, called November 33, survives southeast of Cooperstown. The rest were imploded in the 1990s after the United States and Russia agreed in the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty to reduce their nuclear arsenals. Graffiti at the entrance to Oscar Zero's launch control center marks the date it was closed: July 17, 1997. A departing airman added the Latin phrase In Aquilae Cura: "In the care of eagles." From the road, Oscar Zero looks almost ordinary. A one-story building contains offices, seven bunk rooms, a kitchen, dining room, TV room and rec room with racks of magazines from 1996 and 1997. The building is surrounded by several odd antennas and a big gate. Inside, an elevator descends 40 feet, then opens between two capsule-shaped pods with floors that are suspended on giant cables to ensure stability in case of a nuclear blast. Each capsule has a 3-foot-thick door weighing several tons for protection from a nuclear attack. One capsule contains backup generators and filters that would have kept pure air flowing, if needed. The entire facility cost more than $1 million in the 1960s, when the Cold War was at its peak. It was built "in a mad, mad hurry," says Larry Vetter, who maintains it. The launch control center capsule is entered through a short tunnel. Inside, two officers were always on duty, so one rogue airman couldn't start a nuclear war. A sign outside says "No-lone zone. Two-person concept applies." There's a tiny bathroom, a narrow bunk and two consoles with electronic gear and rows of lights indicating the missiles' status. The consoles are 18 feet, 2 inches apart  too far apart for one officer to turn both keys and launch up to 10 nuclear missiles. The air is a little musty, and the equipment seems primitive compared with today's high-tech military gear. The red chairs have seat and shoulder belts the officers would have fastened if an attack was imminent. A round escape hatch is high on a windowless wall. 'Snapshot' of the past Oscar Zero has been part of Keith Monson's life since it was built. Monson, the chairman of the Cooperstown-Griggs County Economic Development Corp., remembers "being taught when we were kids to get under our desks" if there was a Soviet attack. He sees the facility as a cornerstone of the community's future. "It's a snapshot of what they were talking about on the news every night," he says. "This would be one of the major go-to spots in North Dakota." Philip Parnell, 46, an administrator at the University of North Dakota, worked inside the launch control center from 1986-1990 as an Air Force lieutenant, then captain. He was one of the officers entrusted with a launch key. There were scores of checks that had to be made during each shift, Parnell says, but duty inside the launch control center could be tedious. "On some days, it seemed like a very big deal to be here, and on some days, it was just the job that you went to," he says. "You had to try to forget sometimes about how dangerous and important this whole thing was." Paaverud envisions Parnell and other veterans of Oscar Zero giving tours or describing it on videotape for visitors, who would watch a simulation of a launch alert and the insertion of the two launch keys. After visiting here, they could drive to the nearby missile silo. Maybe an actual Minuteman III could be displayed, he says. Parnell says it's essential to save Oscar Zero. "It's a part of history that we really don't want to get rid of," he says. "It shows that we were determined to win  and we did." Posted 12/27/2006 10:32 PM ET Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 37 Knox News: Nudged into nowhere Officials unsure what to do with radioactive tanks long parked near ORNL By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com December 28, 2006 OAK RIDGE - The government has invested a fortune in the cleanup of Melton Valley, which - considering its inglorious past as a dumping ground for all things nuclear - might be better named Meltdown Valley. Workers have plugged wells, capped landfills, drained waste ponds and injected grout in cracks and crevices in an effort to halt the spread of radioactive contamination. They have torn down old buildings, hauled away junk and excavated "hot spots" that couldn't be cleaned or contained. But there are times when federal contractors don't know what to do. That's the case with five big tanks underneath a three-sided shed a few miles from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. They've been sitting there for decades, unadorned except for a collection of signs that warn of the radiation hazards. According to John Owsley, the state's environmental oversight director in Oak Ridge, the tanks - and their radioactive contents - don't fit neatly into any of the normal categories for disposal. They're stuck in nuclear nowhere. "It doesn't quite meet the definition of high-level waste, and the activity is too high for it to be disposed of as low-level waste," Owsley said. Therefore, the tanks will stay where they are, alongside a dusty gravel road, while DOE and its contractors and environmental regulators explore the options. The tanks were brought to ORNL back in the 1960s from the Atomic Energy Commission's operations in Hanford, Wash. The commission was a predecessor of today's U.S. Department of Energy. Four of the tanks were used for rail shipments of highly radioactive liquids drained from waste tanks at the Hanford site, and ORNL was extracting the cesium-137 to prepare radioactive sources for medical and industrial uses. At one time, the Oak Ridge lab manufactured about 90 percent of the world's cesium sources. "These tanks are loaded with ion-exchange resins," said Paul Clay, deputy general manager of Bechtel Jacobs Co., DOE's environmental cleanup manager in Oak Ridge. Those resins would bind the radioisotopes, such as the cesium-137, he said. Once the shipments arrived at ORNL, workers would "elute" the tank with ammonium nitrate to unbind the radioactive cesium, which was then extracted from the nitrate solution, Clay said. The fifth tank was a modified transfer tank that was used at ORNL when the lab was processing reactor slugs from the government's Savannah River Site in South Carolina. The steel tanks are lined with lead for shielding purposes, and they weigh 38,000 to 42,000 pounds apiece when empty. They still contain the resins and the residual radioactivity from the earlier operations, which took place mostly between 1961 and 1968. The removal of the tanks is the last remaining project that's part of the Melton Valley Record of Decision, a legal document signed years ago by DOE, the state of Tennessee and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That document set timetables and deadlines for completing certain cleanup actions under the Superfund law. DOE and the regulatory agencies have tentatively agreed to exempt that project from the ROD. The parties are expected to sign the waiver, called an "Explanation of Significant Differences," in the near term, but the difficult issues of the hot tanks still have to be dealt with in some way. "We do periodic monitoring around them to make sure there isn't any leaks or anything like that," Clay said during an interview at Bechtel Jacobs' offices. "They seem to be very much intact." Because the tanks contain extensive shielding within their structure, the external radiation is relatively minor, Clay said. Concrete barriers have been erected in front of the open shed to protect them from vehicles traveling in the valley, which contains burial grounds, old reactors awaiting cleanup and other things associated with ORNL's early nuclear operations. "That's just so any nobody runs into them and disturbs the integrity of them," Clay said. "That's where they are today." The original plan was to fill the tanks with grout and dispose of them in a nuclear landfill, perhaps at the Nevada Test Site. But after doing more research on their origins and the contents, Bechtel Jacobs, DOE and the environmental regulators decided that wasn't plausible - or legal. According to Clay and Owsley, the waste may qualify for a special category called "waste incidental to reprocessing," which is outlined in DOE Order 435. That means it is not high-level waste, which directly relates to the processing of hot reactor fuel, but it's still associated with processing activity. In this case, the Oak Ridge material has a lineage that come from the high-level nuclear waste tanks at Hanford. The likeliest path forward is to remove the highly radioactive materials from the tanks, stabilize them at DOE's transuranic waste processing facility on Highway 95 and ultimately send them for disposal at an underground waste repository near Carlsbad, N.M. That is if the packaged waste meets the acceptance criteria at the New Mexico facility, which is called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. If that happens, the tanks could be cleaned up as best possible, filled with grout, and perhaps disposed of at the nuclear landfill on DOE's Oak Ridge reservation. As Clay noted, however, "That's all speculation at this point." It's not clear when that might get accomplished or whether Bechtel Jacobs, whose contract is due to expire at the end of 2008, will still be an Oak Ridge contractor. "The whole thing is contingent on how long it takes to evaluate the waste" and determine if it qualifies under DOE Order 435," Clay said. "Some folks have told us it could take a year and a half. We'll just have to see." Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. MICHAEL PATRICK NEWS SENTINEL A sign warning of radiation hazards adorns a chain in front of two of five tanks stuck in a nuclear nowhere while sitting in a three-sided shed a few miles from Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The tanks were brought to ORNL in the 1960s from the Atomic Energy Commission’s operations in Hanford, Wash. ['' border='0'] MICHAEL PATRICK NEWS SENTINEL Paul Clay, deputy general manager of Bechtel Jacobs Co., the Department of Energy’s environmental cleanup manager in Oak Ridge, explains the tanks’ status. 2006 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 38 SF New Mexican: Delayed cleanup may cost taxpayers Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:41 pm By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican Federal taxpayers might have to shell out $120,000 in fines because of delays in the cleanup of a 1950s-era dump in Los Alamos. The money will likely go to the state of New Mexico. The New Mexico Environment Department is demanding a $90,000 late fee from officials at the National Nuclear Security Administration and Los Alamos National Security LLC, for their failure to submit a report on time. The report can't be finished until the dump at Los Alamos National Laboratory is cleaned up. The NNSA, a federal agency, has already paid the department a $30,000 fine for the same problem. The NNSA is managing the cleanup project. At issue is the cleanup of an ash pile where classified documents and other waste was burned in the 1950s. Samples taken from the ash pile have shown the presence of lead and cadmium. The project will likely be finished in the next few months, weather permitting, NNSA officials said. Governing these fines and cleanups is a consent order, or legal agreement, between the state, the federal government and the lab managers. "The consent order is clear," NNSA attorney Lisa Cummings said. "...There's no question we did not get a report in on Sept. 12, and we still have not delivered that report." And there's no question the consent order gives the department the right to ask for that money, she said. The agency was notified of the second, $90,000 fine on Dec. 7 by James Bearzi of the state Hazardous Waste Bureau. Bearzi said the money is due in January. "We don't dispute the 90K, and we're trying to finish the job as soon as possible," NNSA Environmental Manager Mat Johansen said. Cummings said these are the first stipulated penalties the agency has paid since the consent order was signed in March 2005. She also said two snowstorms have slowed work on the cleanup project. Workers have also located a hand grenade, an artillery shell and asbestos during the cleanup, which slowed the project as well. Environment Secretary Ron Curry said environmental managers at the lab "show a consistent pattern of disrespect toward the consent order. ... We expect more from the lab, and the people of New Mexico demand and deserve more." State law requires the money from the fines go to a hazardous waste emergency fund, department spokeswoman Marissa Stone said. That money is to be used to clean up chemical spills and leaks, for example. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or . Comments are not allowed on this story at this time. Please check the open for comments page for details. Terms of Use | ©2006, Santa Fe New Mexican ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************