*****************************************************************
08/22/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.197
*****************************************************************
   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 Korea Times: Light Water Reactors
2 US: [NYTr] Clinton and Obama: Wed to Nuclear Terrorism
3 US: KXNet.com: Romney In A Day: Dodge, Avoid, Flip, Flop, Flip-Flop 
4 US: newsobserver.com: Energy law tune-up in pipeline
5 US: CITIZEN-TIMES.com: Renewable energy use gets a nudge
6 US: Guardian Unlimited: Senior Diplomats Retaking Foreign Policy 
7 Daily Times: Japan wants Pakistan to sign NPT
8 Political Affairs Magazine: Australia: Howard Government Dumps Nucle
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
9 US: NRC: NRC Amends its Regulations to Require E-Filing In All Agenc
10 MDN: Power consumption hits record as Japan swelters in heat wave -
11 Daily Yomiuri: TEPCO asks companies to cut power use 
12 Indiatimes: Don't take precipitating action, hear us out on N-deal -
13 Bangkok Post: Govt plans for nuclear power by 2020
14 US: NRC: NRC Announces Opportunity to Request Hearing on Application
15 US: Burlington Free Press: Cooling tower problem forces Vt. Yankee t
16 US: Rutland Herald Online: Yankee cooling tower fails
17 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY cuts output after cooling failure
18 US: NRC: Public Meeting Notice of Nuclear Energy Institute/U.S. Nucl
19 US: CLA: Georgia Power takes a fresh look at nuclear power
20 Reuters: Japan's Hitachi may invest in India nuclear sector 
21 US: WNN: Yankee site returned to public use
22 Reuters: New nuclear power said too costly and risky | UK | 
23 Hemscott: Japan's TEPCO takes emergency step to meet power demand 
24 Hemscott: Areva denies report China reactor order cancelled 
25 US: lawjobs.com Career Center: Duane Morris Partner Rides Second Wav
26 Japan Times: Close Niigata nuclear plant for good - scientists 
27 CBC News: County residents to vote on nuclear power plant
28 US: NRC: Contributions of Structural Mechanics to the Science of Nuc
29 US: Wilmington Star-News: Tritium not found in nuclear plant area | 
30 US: Government Executive: Lawmakers propose nuclear plant no-fly zon
31 AU: Herald Sun: Nuclear power | 
32 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard guarantees local nuclear vote - 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
33 Iraq's Environment minister blames DU for cancer surge
34 BBC NEWS: Nuclear site workers plan strike
35 US: DHHS: Public Health Assessments and Health Consultations Complet
36 US: CDC: ABRWH meeting
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
37 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Sleeping with the enemy
38 US: Platts: Fenoc awards cask storage system contract to Holtec
39 US: reportonbusiness.com: Oversupply sinks price of uranium
40 Las Vegas SUN: Romney dodges questions on Nevada nuclear waste dump
41 US: Times Union: Forget a nuclear waste solution in election year --
42 barrow in furness: Cash package call for N-waste dumping
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
43 Aiken Today: DOE official discusses future of SRS
44 DOE: DOE Awards $3.8 Million in Funding to 38 U.S. Universities 
45 Hanford News: Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Award for RF Radiation In
46 Chillicothe Gazette: Formation of citizens advisory board proposed f
47 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern
48 DOE: Environmental Management Advisory Board Meeting
49 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg
50 EPA: Proposed Approval of the Central Characterization Project's 
51 Knoxville News Sentinel: The Oak Ridge vision is a frequent look bac
52 Knoxville News Sentinel: ORNL disputes IG report on nuke workers mon
53 Knoxville News Sentinel: Proposed Y-12 facility could cost $3.5 bill
54 lamonitor.com: Introducing MaRIE
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Korea Times: Light Water Reactors

   Opinion    

   08-22-2007 17:56 

By Lee Byong-chul

The differences between North Korea and the U.S. have been recently
drawn out in sharp tension over the light water reactors (LWRs)
issue, perhaps more so than in any previous tit for tat. Pyongyang
considers the LWRs as the impending issue for the present, while
Washington thinks of it as one for the future.

Despite their vividly shared split in terms of diplomatic strategy,
however, it goes without saying that the LWRs would stand in the way
between the United States and North Korea, as the two have already
experienced bitterly.

An international consortium had been building two light water
reactors in North Korea to be used for power under the 1994 Geneva
Agreed Framework at a cost of more than $5 billion, most of it
financed by South Korea. But the project was all of a sudden aborted
in 2002 when the U.S. accused the North of operating a secret
uranium enrichment facility.

In mid-2002, the Bush administration reportedly obtained clear
evidence that North Korea had acquired material and equipment for a
centrifuge facility that, if complete, could produce enough
weapons-grade uranium for two or more nuclear weapons per year.

Furthermore, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization
(KEDO), which was established under the Clinton administration to
build the LWRs, had been derided and finally killed by the Bush
administration along with the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework, since
Washington and Pyongyang alike were dogged in their positions on the
LWRs.

Many South Korean conservatives were and still are frankly
contemptuous of the provisions of the LWRs, which they regard as
softheaded. In contrast, liberal groups have strategically
highlighted the peaceful use of nuclear energy _ not the weapons
program _ that North Korea urgently needs while debating the destiny
of the LWRs.

In the view of the Bush administration's national security staff,
who underscore the continued importance to strengthened
nonproliferation efforts, the LWRs are certainly looming threats _ a
set of deadly challenges that are likely to emerge from North Korea.

Bush rightly worried in the West Point address in 2002 that even
weak states and small groups could attain the catastrophic power to
strike great nations such as the U.S., if the spread of nuclear and
biological weapons, along with ballistic missile technology,
occurred.

Did North Korea sense, however, an old truth that a single-issue
policy would likely tend over time to yield to the more complex
mosaic of a state's aggregate foreign policies?

Kim Gye-gwan, the North Korea's top nuclear envoy, first made an
assertive request on July 21 that LWRs be urgently provided in
compensation for dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

He assumed urgency and deserved timely attention. At the same time,
Kim's comments implied that the dismantlement of the nuclear program
would likely take place in parallel with the resumption of
construction of the LWRs.

In other words, North Korea has forced U.S. policymakers to find an
appropriate balance between evidently conflicting objectives with
respect to nuclear non-proliferation and privileged diplomacy.

Expending considerable diplomatic and political resources in a
largely half-baked effort to dismantle the nuclear weapons
facilities to date, the U.S. reconfirmed that the LWRs issue was one
that it would discuss only after denuclearization on the Korean
Peninsula was completed.

Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator of the six-party talks,
refuted Kim's claim on July 23 by referring to the September 19,
2005, statement: ``At an appropriate time we are prepared to discuss
the subject of the provision of light water reactors to the
DPRK.’’

He also pointed out that the appropriate time is when North Korea
gets out of its dirty nuclear business and returns to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) from which it withdrew in 2003, before
subsequently declaring itself to have nuclear weapons.

South Korea also took the same stance as the U.S. with regard to the
provision of the LWRs. A South Korean official who refused to be
named said, ``The time to offer LWRs will be the most difficult
issue since the September 19 statement, but it is not the kind of
thing that is negotiable.’’

Then, he predicted that it would be technically impossible to
provide the LWRs to North Korea unless it disabled its entire
nuclear weapons program and returned to the NPT.

Yet an expert's expressiveness stands in sharp contrast to the
seasoned public official.

A senior analyst on North Korea, who once worked for the South
Korean government said on the condition of anonymity, ``I think I am
not alone in feeling that the U.S. holds the key of whether or not
to resume the LWRs. But the timetable for their provision needs to
be more detailed and set up in accordance with each stage of
denuclearization to be made by the North.’’

And he took pains to point out that the principle of action for
action should apply to the LWRs issue as well, as long as the
cardinal rule for their supply requires North Korea to separate its
civilian nuclear power reactors and open them to international
inspections.

In order for the rule to be effective, in the end, the United States
might need to make other concessions, since Pyongyang is likely to
strike its demand to be able to reprocess spent fuel for the
reactors on the civilian side, which has raised much concern in
Washington about opportunities to generate weapons-grade plutonium
for the country's military arsenal.

Thus, it is my judgment that the phased provision of the LWRs could
be the touchstone for the idea that a broader strategic cooperation
with North Korea would be good for the United States in the long run.

In other words, if neither one is satisfied with the status quo, it
is necessary to consider selective cooperation and selective
opposition, depending on which suits the interests of Washington and
Pyongyang, as if they had allowed a young North Korean access to an
American education.

A clear lesson has emerged _ the LWRs can be resisted and delayed,
but cannot be denied.

Lee Byong-chul is a senior fellow at the Institute for Peace and
Cooperation, a nonpartisan policy advisory body based in Seoul. He
can be reached at bcleebc@gmail.com.


*****************************************************************
 2 [NYTr] Clinton and Obama: Wed to Nuclear Terrorism
 
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:10:55 -0400


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Common Dreams - Aug 20, 2007
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/20/3298/

Clinton and Obama: Wed to Nuclear Terrorism

by Joseph Gerson

I was in Hiroshima, participating in the World Conference against
Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs, when the latest barrage of nuclear madness
flailed out from the U.S. presidential campaign trail. Almost inured to
Bush's romance of ruthlessness and believing that almost anything else
can only be an improvement, people from nations across the world were
shocked and angered by Obama's and Clinton's recent nuclear madness.

It remains to be seen how badly Barrack Obama's self-inflicted wounds 
will be. First he played cowboy sheriff and G.W. Bush - threatening 
unilateral military attacks against a sovereign and already fragile 
nation - Pakistan, but attempted to soften the blow by pledging not use 
nuclear weapons against Al Qaeda. Someone was planning to hit South 
Waziristan with nuclear weapons? He then further demonstrated 
incompetence and ignorance by saying that he would not use nuclear 
weapons against civilians. Nuclear weapons can be used without 
inflicting Hell on earth and taking countless civilian lives? Has he
not heard of fall out or considered the fact that the U.S. tactical (as 
opposed to "counter-value" strategic) nuclear weapons include many 
Hiroshima-size A-bombs?

Hillary Clinton then went on to confirm what many long suspected: that 
in its approach to the world, terrorizing U.S. first strike nuclear 
weapons are always on the table, saying "I don't believe that any 
president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or 
non-use of nuclear weapons." That means that U.S. presidents should 
never remove the nuclear threat when dealing with other nations.

This is consistent with other statements she has made on her 
presidential campaign trail. Last February, as she was leaving the New 
Hampshire high school where she had just formally launched her campaign 
with a carefully staged event, a young peace activist caught her going 
out the door. She asked Senator Clinton, "When you say that all options 
must be on the table with Iran, do you really mean that we should be 
threatening all of that country's women and children with genocide?"
The Senator's chilling response was, "I meant what I said."

The Obama and Clinton statements - like President Bush's nuclear
threats and campaign to post-modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal and
vastly expand the U.S. nuclear weapons production infrastructure -
violate commitments the U.S. has made in the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, and they stand in stark defiance of the International Court of
Justices' advisory ruling on the use and threatened use of nuclear
weapons.

They also reflect the banality of evil. Regardless of what their 
personal beliefs about the existence and actual use of nuclear weapons 
may be, to rise to the pinnacle of power of a nuclear-enforced empire, 
they and other aspiring politicians have found it necessary to 
demonstrate that they are tough enough to defend the empire with
nuclear weapons. You can't build or maintain an empire without
terrorizing people across the planet.

However, like symbolic politics, engaging in the banality of evil 
results in true evil. Statements and threats create expectations. When 
their bluffs are called George Bush and future U.S. presidents may 
believe it necessary to back up their words by carrying out their 
threats. Since the nuclear annihilations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 
during international crises, confrontations and wars, every U.S. 
president has prepared and threatened to initiate nuclear attacks --- 
primarily to maintain U.S. hegemony in East Asia and the Middle East - 
most recently during the run up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In 
several cases: The Cuban Missile Crisis, the 1976 "Ax Incident" in the 
Korean Demilitarized Zone, and Bill Clinton's 1994 nuclear threat 
against North Korea the world came perilously close to nuclear
catastrophe.

These U.S. threats and the refusal of the U.S. and other declared 
nuclear powers to fulfill their Article VI Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty commitment to negotiate the complete elimination of their
nuclear arsenals are the primary forces driving nuclear weapons
proliferation, which in turn, further increased the dangers of nuclear
war.. As Mohamed El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy
Commission and Nobel Laureate Joseph Rotblat frequently reminded us,
because no nation will long tolerate an equal imbalance of terror,
ending nuclear "hypocrisy" and moving to abolish all nuclear weapons is
the only way to prevent proliferation.

Understandably other nations want to redress this imbalance - most by 
demanding implementation of Article VI of the NPT. Some, however,
having given up on the NPT, have sought or seek their own deterrent
nuclear arsenals: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and now possibly Iran.

To stanch nuclear madness in Washington, Iran's apparent nuclear
weapons program, and the possibility of nuclear weapons proliferation
across the Middle East and elsewhere, political candidates and the rest
of us should be singing a different tune: The U.S. and other nuclear
powers must honor their "irrevocable" commitment to implement Article
VI of the NPT, beginning with credible steps to fulfill the 13 steps
agreed at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. Ratifying the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty and negotiating a Fissile Materials Cut Off Treaty
would be a start. The U.S. must also cease turning a blind eye toward
Israel's provocative and genocidal nuclear arsenal and actively join
the campaign for the creation of a nuclear weapons free zone in the
Middle East as called for in the 1995 NPT Review Conference and by Arab
nations since then.

These are hardly radical notions. Even the war criminal Henry
Kissinger, Reagan Secretary of State George Shultz, and Clinton
Secretary of Defense William Perry have concluded that the embrace of
the nuclear double standard is a losing strategy and have called for
the U.S. to honor its Article 6 abolition commitments. Another world is
truly possible.

[Joseph Gerson is with American Friends Service Committee.]
 
                                 *
=================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective     *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us          .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012      http://www.blythe.org
.  List Archives:      https://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.  Subscribe:    https://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================
*****************************************************************
 3 KXNet.com: Romney In A Day: Dodge, Avoid, Flip, Flop, Flip-Flop Again |

KXNet.com North Dakota News

Aug 22 2007 12:00AM http://democrats.org/blog.html

Yesterday Mitt Romney made his first trip to Nevada, where 
residents got their first taste of his flip-flopping ways.

On Yucca Mountain, which the Bush Administration has designated 
as a place to store spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, 
Romney attempted to dodge the issue:

Asked his position on Yucca Mountain, a project adamantly opposed 
by Nevada and most voters in the state, the former Massachusetts 
governor suggested that he might be sympathetic to Nevada's 
fight, but fell short of taking a firm stance.

Jon Ralston, columnist for Las Vegas Sun Politics, called his 
article "The silky smooth, almost human Mitt Romney."

� Immigration: When I asked him how his tough stance, amplified in a
new radio ad, might fly here, where so many illegal immigrants work
in key industries, he pivoted and said: "We�re not going to cut off
our nose to spite our face. We�re not going to say we�re going to
hurt our own economy. We�re going...to gradually and humanely
replace illegal workers to the extent that they�re in an enterprise."

Humanely? That�s the kind of word that is used at animal shelters 
when talking about euthanasia and yet somehow here seems tough 
and sensitive.

� Health care: The man who signed a universal health care bill as 
governor with an admiring Teddy Kennedy looking on was having 
none of my suggestion that he and Hillary Clinton of 1994 were 
very simpatico.

View the Original Blog Post at http://democrats.org/blog.html


Dickinson News - KXMA | Bismarck News - KXMB | Minot News - KXMC |
Williston News - KXMA
*****************************************************************
 4 newsobserver.com: Energy law tune-up in pipeline

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Gov. Easley is concerned about the unintended consequences of
alternative fuel requirements

John Murawski, Staff Writer

Gov. Mike Easley's signature is barely dry on a new law that
requires tapping energy alternatives to help meet the state's
soaring power demand. But the governor and renewable energy
advocates already are plotting changes to the sweeping new policy.

Easley worries that the new law is too ambitious and could promote
the development of dirty alternative fuels. Some advocates say the
law is just a first step and will require fine-tuning to increase
the state's use of energy alternatives.

Easley signed the new law Monday, making North Carolina the first
state in the Southeast to require electric utilities to use
renewables and efficiency programs.

Progress Energy and Duke Energy will have to meet 12.5 percent of
their retail electricity demand through renewables and efficiency by
2021.

Even before he signed the law, Easley hinted that he had
reservations about its unintended consequences. He suggested it may
be necessary to scale back the requirement when the General Assembly
meets next year.

"It may be more aggressive than we can achieve in this first year or
two," Easley said last week. "It's very aggressive. Rather than
looking for a 3 [percent] or 4 percent renewable energy portfolio,
[it's] at 12.5 percent."

The most significant overhaul of the state's energy policy in more
than two decades, the new law came after six months of negotiations
that struck a delicate balance between the conflicting interests of
utilities, environmentalists and other groups. Lawmakers modified
the legislation gingerly for fear of collapsing the complex deal.

But some environmentalists went along with the compromise agreement
only reluctantly, awaiting a future opportunity to revise a law they
see as a work in progress.

Meanwhile, further debate at the state level could be trumped by
federal policy. Congress is considering a federal renewable and
efficiency requirement. The federal version has already passed the
House of Representatives and would impose a 15 percent standard,
which would preempt the state's new requirement.

Utility officials have said that the state's new energy policy could
help some customers save as much as 15 percent on their electricity
bills if they adopt conservation programs. Both Progress Energy and
Duke Energy are developing programs that could pay financial
incentives to customers who invest in energy-efficient appliances,
seal leaky air conditioner ducts and take other measures to save
energy.

But all customers would pay extra to compensate utilities for lost
revenue and and other costs associated with developing the
conservation programs and renewables. For a residential customer,
the new law caps the annual cost at $10 a year through 2011, at $12
a year through 2014 and at $34 a year thereafter.

Possibility for Progress

Progress Energy President Bill Johnson said Tuesday that company
officials are trying to determine how they will meet the new law.
One aspect would allow utilities to fulfill renewable standards by
buying certificates that support out-of-state renewable projects.

"I think it's very aggressive. We are trying to figure out how we
would do it and how much of it would be required through renewable
energy certificates," Johnson said. "We just helped get this thing
passed. We're not out there trying to undo it."

The new law requires the best available emissions standards for
biomass incinerators, and also charges state regulators to ensure
that renewables don't harm the environment or public health.

"The whole purpose of the bill is to find a clean alternative toward
energy independence," said Seth Effron, a spokesman for the
governor. "It is not to find an equally unhealthy alternative."

Environmental worries

A number of environmental groups oppose the law because it makes it
easier for utilities to finance coal-burning power plants and
nuclear power plants, potentially saving 20 percent on the cost of a
multibillion-dollar construction project. Utilities will now be able
to start paying the financing costs before the plants are completed
and put into use. The cost of a power plant would be paid by utility
customers through higher bills.

In addition to biomass pollution concerns, environmentalists are
also worried that the law's provision promoting fuel from hog waste
does not protect water quality and toughen public health standards
for the state's hog producers. They hope to plug this loophole.

The advocates expect that in the next year, as the state taps into
renewables and efficiency, evidence will prove what the
environmentalists have long believed: that North Carolina has
tremendous potential to develop energy alternatives instead of
building power plants.

"It's absolutely not too aggressive; if anything, it's too timid,"
said Michael Shore, senior air policy analyst at N.C. Environmental
Defense. "We could have a 15 or 20 percent renewable portfolio."

Less than 2 percent of the state's electricity now comes from
renewables and efficiency programs.


Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at 829-8932 or
john.murawski@newsobserver.com.


Easley says the 12.5 percent goal might be too aggressive.

� Copyright 2007, The News & Observer Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 5 CITIZEN-TIMES.com: Renewable energy use gets a nudge

Asheville, NC   

N.C. law pushes utilities to use some alternate sources

by Jordan Schrader, JSCHRADE@CITIZEN-TIMES.COM

published August 22, 2007 12:15 am


RALEIGH � A fraction of the electricity powering North Carolina
homes five years from now could have its origins inside a pig.

A law signed Monday by Gov. Mike Easley requires electric utilities
to use renewable energy sources like sunlight, wind and even swine
waste to meet the state�s growing power demand and cut down on
greenhouse-gas emissions.

Now that North Carolina has joined in, exactly half of the states
have such laws. Congress is mulling a similar measure.

Web Extras: Multimedia & Related Content

Gov. Mike Easley on renewable energy bill (1,440 KB)
Study of state policies on the issue of renewable energy (752 KB)

�We�re seeing a dramatic upswing in the interest in renewable energy
from the general public,� said Dave Hollister, co-founder of
Sundance Power Systems in Mars Hill, �and ultimately what�s going to
happen is, if the utilities don�t do it, the people are going to do
it anyway, and the utilities are going to be left on the sideline.�

But states� success in meeting their goals and the cost to consumers
remains to be seen.

And lawmakers stand to lose political support from
environmentalists, as North Carolina�s did, by trying to satisfy
industry.

Around the nation

North Carolina will require utilities to produce 7.5 percent of
their electricity using renewable energy resources by 2021 and
satisfy another 5 percent of demand with either more renewables or
reduced energy use.

Renewable resources are defined differently in each state but are
primarily cleaner alternatives to coal and do not produce as much
greenhouse gas. The utilities can build generating plants
themselves, or they can contract with firms such as Sundance Power
Systems, Hollister�s company in Mars Hill.

�We had wind and solar and wave power industries contacting us,
chomping at the bit to get here,� said Oregon�s Sen. Brad Avakian, a
Democrat, �and I just have no question this is going to be a great
new industry for the state.�

For Texas, fulfilling the targets for renewable energy production in
its 1999 law has been quite literally a breeze. With abundant
wide-open space for windmills, the state met its earliest goal and
has raised its target to about 5 percent of the state�s demand by
2015.

Texas� law is expected to keep 3.3 million tons of carbon dioxide,
or the output of about 750,000 midsize cars, out of the atmosphere
every year, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Such resources don�t exist everywhere. Roughly a third of states
with the laws don�t appear to be on track to comply with them, said
Barry Rabe, University of Michigan public policy professor.

Renewable sources are required to satisfy 20 percent of California�s
energy thirst by 2010.

�Clearly, they�re not going to get there,� Rabe said. That raises
the question of whether states will adjust their goals downward or
use taxpayers� money to subsidize those efforts, he said.

Massachusetts companies in 2005 met their interim requirement of 2
percent, according to a state report this year, in part because
they�re allowed to pay the state in lieu of actually producing all
of the renewable energy.

But Rabe said local opposition to a planned wind farm in Nantucket
Sound shows it can be difficult to find sites to produce the power.

Following the states� lead, the U.S. House voted this month for a 15
percent standard for electric utilities nationwide. The requirement
would go to President Bush for approval if it makes the cut when the
House and Senate merge their energy legislation.

Cost to consumers

It�s uncertain how the laws will affect electrical rates, Rabe said.

The North Carolina law allows an increase in a home energy bill of
up to $34 a year. Utilities predict more than $1 billion in higher
rates over a decade.

But that doesn�t count the effects of energy-efficiency measures in
the law that, according to a study by Boston consulting firm La
Capra Associates, could instead end up saving consumers hundreds of
millions of dollars by reducing their energy use.

Some states have set individual standards for certain resources,
usually expensive ones that otherwise might not be used, Rabe said.

�Politically, (mandating use of specific resources) is a way to
build support because you�re guaranteeing market share to a range of
providers,� he said. �But you�re adding to the risk of increasing
overall cost.�

North Carolina�s law sets such standards for solar power (0.2
percent of demand by 2018), poultry waste (900,000 megawatt hours by
2014) and hog waste (0.2 percent by 2018), in addition to its
overall target for all renewable sources. Utilities are required to
meet an interim goal within five years.

Help for utilities

Environmentalists like Richard Fireman, western region director for
N.C. Interfaith Power and Light, are skeptical of using such
untested fuels derived from animal waste, and they wrinkle their
noses even more at lawmakers� concessions to power companies.

The same law that encourages alternative fuels also clears the way
for new coal and nuclear plants.

Helping utilities build traditional plants only worsens global
warming, Fireman said.

�We�re under a time constraint here before we pass several tipping
points that are going to prevent us from really mitigating climate
change,� said Fireman, who powers his Mars Hill home in part with
solar panels.

The law, formed in negotiations among legislators, environmental
groups and the utilities themselves, lets companies seek to raise
rates while building new plants, to recover sooner the interest they
pay on construction costs.

Rabe said other states are discussing similar measures as they craft
standards.

Electric utility interests donated more than $884,000 to statewide
campaigns in North Carolina ahead of the 2004 elections, out of $68
million raised, according to the National Institute on Money in
State Politics.

Duke Energy spokeswoman Paige Sheehan said the booming state needs
traditional power alongside renewable energy.

Contact Jordan Schrader via e-mail at jschrade@gannett.com

credit: Kim Barto, KBARTO@CITIZEN-TIMES.com

Richard Fireman, of Mars Hill, powers his home with solar panels. A
law signed by Gov. Mike Easley requires utilities to use renewable
energy sources to meet power demand and cut down on emissions.


Copyright � 2007 Asheville Citizen-Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: Senior Diplomats Retaking Foreign Policy 

Wednesday August 22, 2007 8:31 AM

By MATTHEW LEE Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senior career diplomats are retaking control of 
key elements of U.S. foreign policy and have begun to assert 
significant influence as the Bush administration enters its 
waning months eager to salvage a legacy marred by the Iraq war.

  Since assuming the helm at the State Department in 2005, 
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has installed veteran foreign 
service officers with more than 200 years of collective 
diplomatic experience in seven critical posts from the Middle 
East to South Asia and the Far East.

    By contrast, their immediate predecessors had just 72 years 
of combined experience and five of them were Republican political 
operatives with limited or no background in diplomacy, according 
to an Associated Press survey of senior agency appointees.

    While the departure of prominent conservative hawks, 
including Donald H. Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz from the Pentagon 
and John Bolton from the State Department, is well-documented, 
the quiet climb to influence of Rice's choices for top jobs has 
been less public even as they have started to steer new courses.

    As the administration winds down, Rice, who has been 
President Bush's top foreign policy adviser since the 2000 
campaign, has entrusted them with the hands-on, day-to-day 
running of U.S. diplomacy in the most volatile regions and 
nations of the world:

    -Afghanistan: Where Taliban insurgents and al-Qaida militants 
continue to pose a threat while the country is on track for yet 
another record opium poppy harvest.

    -Iraq: Where judgments on the president's so-called ``surge'' 
strategy are due next month.

   -Iran: Which has increasingly vexed Washington with its 
alleged support for insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, its 
nuclear program and backing for militant anti-Israeli groups.

    -North Korea: Which is now moving toward shelving its nuclear 
weapons programs.

 -Pakistan: Where al-Qaida has regrouped in lawless border areas 
and embattled President Pervez Musharraf is facing domestic 
political upheaval ahead of elections.

 Among those wielding increasing power are Deputy Secretary of 
State John Negroponte, who entered the foreign service in 1960, 
and Nicholas Burns, the third highest-ranking diplomat as 
undersecretary of state for political affairs and a foreign 
service officer for 24 years.

 Others include the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, a 
36-year foreign service veteran; the Washington-based Iraq 
coordinator David Satterfield, with 27 years under his belt; and 
30-year diplomat David Welch, who is the assistant secretary of 
state for Near Eastern affairs.

  Further afield, Christopher Hill, the assistant secretary for 
East Asia and the Pacific who holds the North Korea portfolio, 
joined the foreign service in 1977 as did Richard Boucher, the 
assistant secretary of state for Central and South Asia, which 
covers nuclear-armed foes Pakistan and India along with 
Afghanistan.

   The top deputy, Negroponte, replaced Robert Zoellick, the 
former U.S. trade representative, and Colin Powell's deputy, 
Richard Armitage, neither of whom were foreign service officers.

 With a career spanning four decades and four continents, 
Negroponte has served as an ambassador multiple times, including 
in Iraq and as the U.S. permanent representative to the United 
Nations. He was also briefly the director of national 
intelligence.

  Burns, a former State Department spokesman and ambassador to 
NATO, took over from career diplomat Marc Grossman. He has 
assumed a much more influential position than his low-key 
predecessor, charting the course for a peaceful solution to the 
threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions and its activities in 
Iraq and Afghanistan

   Burns is a primary player in negotiations with Israel over a 
$30 billion, 10-year boost in U.S. military aid and with Saudi 
Arabia and other Gulf states for massive new arms deals designed 
to help them counter growing Iranian assertiveness in the region. 
In addition he led recent talks that cemented a major civilian 
nuclear deal with India.

   On Iraq, Crocker, along with the top U.S. general in Iraq, 
David Petraeus, will be critical in determining the 
administration's course with a joint report on progress due next 
month. A war skeptic in the first Bush administration, Crocker is 
seen by many both inside and outside government as an honest 
assessor who will not sugar coat his findings.

   In Baghdad, he replaced Zalmay Khalilzad, a journeyman 
political appointee in numerous Republican administrations and 
Bush's first ambassador to Afghanistan who is now at the United 
Nations although he is not a foreign service officer.

    Satterfield and Welch both replaced veteran diplomats - James 
Jeffrey, now at the National Security Council, and William Burns, 
now ambassador to Russia - but have seen the stature of their 
portfolios rise as Rice focuses on Iraq in particular and the 
Middle East in general.

  Welch will be in Libya this week to lay the groundwork for a 
visit by Rice to the former pariah state that could take place in 
October.

 The changes have perhaps been most dramatic in Asia, where Hill 
and Boucher have taken over areas that cover virtually the entire 
continent from Kazakhstan to Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

   The pair were the only two assistant secretaries of state to 
be invited to Camp David earlier this month to participate in a 
long-range policy strategy session with Bush.

       In East Asia, Hill replaced James Kelly, an academic and 
Hawaii-based business consultant who served in the Reagan-era NSC 
and Pentagon and during whose term North Korea expanded its 
nuclear weapons development.

     On Hill's watch, thus far, North Korea has come back to the 
negotiating table and shut down its Yongbyon nuclear facility. 
Talks on normalizing relations between the United States and 
North Korea are due to begin soon.

  In South Asia, Boucher, another former State Department 
spokesman, replaced Christina Rocca, a former CIA officer who had 
been a foreign policy adviser to Republican Sen. Sam Brownback.

  Boucher has toed a delicate line, particularly in Pakistan, 
where Musharraf, a critical U.S. ally in the war on terrorism is 
beset by internal political problems.

   A proponent of Musharraf sharing power with his political 
foes, Boucher returned from the country over the weekend after 
following up on a late-night Rice call to the president that 
likely dissuaded him from declaring a state of emergency two 
weeks ago.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 7 Daily Times: Japan wants Pakistan to sign NPT

Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 August 23, 2007 

By Sajjad Malik

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan should sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) and ensure proper implementation of a non-proliferation
regime, said Japanese Defence Minister Yuriko Koike here on
Wednesday.

�Pakistan should sign the NPT and Japan will continue to talk with
Pakistani authorities in this regard,� Koike told a press conference
after her talks with President General Pervez Musharraf, Prime
Minister Shaukat Aziz and Defence Minster Rao Sikander Iqbal. She
said Japan was against nuclear proliferation and wanted all
countries to join the NPT. �We will continue discussions with
Pakistan to join the NPT,� she said, adding that Japan was concerned
about the North Korean atomic weapon programme.

Koike said Japan would continue assisting Pakistan for the
consolidation of democracy and offered cooperation to improve its
social sector.

She praised Pakistan�s role in the war on terror and said Islamabad
could benefit from Japanese facilities to combat terrorism. �Our
facilities in the Arabian Sea are not only for the US, but all
countries fighting the war on terror can use these facilities,� she
said.

About her meetings with the Pakistani leadership, she said the war
on terror and regional and international issues were discussed. She
said Japan supported Musharraf�s enlightened moderation. Koike said
Pakistan�s role in the war on terror was not properly projected and
there were misconceptions about it. She said the international
community should recognise Pakistan�s contribution in the war
against terrorism.
Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 8 Political Affairs Magazine: Australia: Howard Government Dumps Nuclear Safeguards

 August 2007 � Ban Nuclear Weapons

By The Guardian (Australia) 

 8-22-07, 9:27 am

The Howard Government has effectively dumped any commitment it might
have had to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by allowing
the sale of Australian uranium to the Indian Government. Its action
threatens not only the Treaty but also peace and stability in the
Asian region.

The NPT was written almost 40 years ago. Its primary objective is to
limit the number of new nations obtaining nuclear weapons. It
acknowledges the right of nations to use nuclear technology for
peaceful purposes. Just as importantly, it calls on existing nuclear
weapons powers to disarm. In the intervening years, the US has
sabotaged efforts to reduce its arsenal. It has used the treaty as a
�club� of nuclear weapons states in which it has pre-eminence in
terms of technology and sheer destructive capability.

India, Pakistan and Israel have neither signed nor ratified the
Treaty, even though 189 nations are party to it. North Korea signed
it, but later withdrew from the agreement.

The border conflict between India and Pakistan is an international
hotspot which has already threatened to erupt into nuclear warfare.
Nevertheless, the Howard Government has agreed to the sale of
Australian uranium to India, despite the fact that this would
violate the NPT, would increase the probability of future armed
conflict between India and Pakistan turning into nuclear warfare,
and is likely to spark an Asian nuclear arms race.

A clear motivation for the government�s move is the wish by major
western powers to alienate China from its neighbors. China will no
doubt be incensed that the fragile security situation in the region
is set to be disrupted by the enhancing of the capacity of one of
its nuclear powers. The US has just signed a deal for nuclear trade
with India.

The conditions of the US deal include the inspection of Indian
nuclear power plants, but not nuclear military facilities. This
renders the inspection requirement meaningless. The US deal would,
however, uphold the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which
imposes penalties on nations carrying out nuclear tests. This is
where Australia steps in. The Australian deal imposes no test ban
requirements, and therefore undercuts the CTBT, because Australia
could still �legally� supply India with uranium even if it conducts
nuclear tests.

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has attempted to excuse
the failings of his government�s deal by stating that it would be
based on India�s promise not to use the Australian uranium for
weapons manufacture, and on inspection of the uranium at the nuclear
energy facilities concerned.

However, as Greens Senator Christine Milne has pointed out, the
uranium sale proposal would allow the Indian Government to use its
existing stocks of uranium for weapons production, while still
keeping the Australian uranium for nuclear power generation in
accordance with its promise to the Howard Government.

The Howard Government�s decision to abandon the NPT is part of a
pattern of policies which has been evident since it took power 11
years ago, and is based on the government�s commitment to serve the
interests of a group of major corporations which is dominated by the
mining industry.


For example, the government�s global warming policies give major
financial and political support to the introduction of unproven
�clean coal� technology and nuclear power generation, despite the
unacceptable delays and the huge costs and risks involved in these
processes. It recently used the threat of global warming as an
excuse to abandon the policy which banned the opening up of new
uranium mines. Its primary motivation for taking over land held by
Northern Territory Aboriginal communities is to facilitate the
mining of uranium and the establishment of a nuclear waste dump.

Even the government�s seizure of the Murray Darling river system
reeks of an attempt to gain access to major water sources for use in
the very thirsty nuclear power generation industry. And now the
government is even willing to dump the NPT, in order to further the
interests of the uranium mining industry.

Senator Milne commented �If the deal follows the US lead, it will
mean dropping Australia�s commitment to both the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It
will free up India�s other supplies of uranium to be channeled into
its nuclear weapons program, which the deal will not restrict in any
way.�

Senator Milne warned that the government�s deal with India is �a
seismic shift in foreign policy which has tremendous implications
for global security�.

Footnote: Prakash Karat, General Secretary of the Communist Party of
India (Marxist), has issued a statement defending the long-standing
opposition of the Left parties in India to the nuclear co-operation
agreement with the United States. �We do not share the views of the
BJP (extreme right-wing opposition party) on the matter, since their
approach has been to bargain with the United States for a favorable
nuclear adjustment while accepting the status of a subordinate ally
of the US. The six-year record of the (previous)BJP-led government
was infamous for its kowtowing to the US.�

From The Guardian

newcatcher@cpusa.org
*****************************************************************
 9 NRC: NRC Amends its Regulations to Require E-Filing In All Agency Hearings

News Release - 2007-106 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs 
Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: 
opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its 
regulations to require electronic submissions in almost all 
agency hearings, consistent with the existing rules governing the 
high-level radioactive waste repository application proceeding. 
The rule will become effective Oct. 15, 2007, and will apply to 
new proceedings noticed on or after that date.

   The Commission expects the new rule will allow NRC 
adjudicatory proceedings to be expedited and the costs reduced.

 Under the new rule, documents in agency adjudications would need 
to be electronically submitted through the agency&rsquo;s 
Electronic Information Exchange to the E-Submittal system. 
Exceptions would be made to allow paper filings if parties can 
show &ldquo;good cause&rdquo; not to file electronically. For 
more information about the E-Submittal system or to file 
electronically, go to: 
http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html.

 The new rule builds on developments in the federal courts as 
well as previous NRC rules and creates a uniform system for 
electronic submissions. Since 2001, the NRC has encouraged power 
reactor licensees to submit documents either through an 
electronic information exchange system or on CD-Rom. In 2003, the 
NRC issued a final rule that allowed licensees, vendors, 
applicants and members of the public to submit documents, 
including Freedom of Information Act requests, in an electronic 
format. Almost all parties in adjudicatory proceedings currently 
file by electronic mail, but also must submit paper copies of 
their filings. This rule eliminates the paper copy requirement. 
The final rule and related documents are available through the 
NRC&rsquo;s rulemaking Web page, at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov

NRC news releases are available through a free list server 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.

August 22, 2007
*****************************************************************
 10 MDN: Power consumption hits record as Japan swelters in heat wave -

MSN-Mainichi Daily News

Power consumption in Japan reached a record of nearly 3.42 
billion kilowatts on Tuesday as soaring temperatures prompted 
residents to switch on air conditioners, the Federation of 
Electric Power Companies of Japan said.

Federation officials announced that the power usage for the 10 
power companies the federation represents reached 3,419,917,000 
kilowatts, breaking the previous record set in 2001 of 
3,392,200,000 kilowatts.

On Tuesday, the high temperature in Nagoya reached 37.2 degrees 
Celsius, and power consumption for the Chubu Electric Power Co. 
reached a record 523.28 million kilowatts. Shikoku Electric Power 
Co. also marked a record of 112.65 million kilowatts. (Mainichi) 
Click here for the original Japanese story


August 22, 2007

Have your say in the MSN-Mainichi Daily News Readers' Forum


Copyright 2005-2006 THE MAINICHI NEWSPAPERS. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 11 Daily Yomiuri: TEPCO asks companies to cut power use 

Tokyo Electric Power Co. has embarked on emergency electricity
supply measures for the first time in 17 years, asking large
companies to cut electricity consumption amid a surge in electricity
usage in the Tokyo metropolitan area resulting from the continued
heat wave, the company said Wednesday.

TEPCO has requested 23 companies known to be heavy users of
electricity, such as chemical companies and those dealing with
nonferrous metals, to cut down on their energy usage by between
150,000 kilowatts and 200,000 kilowatts from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., the
company said.

All the companies agreed to cooperate, but by 3 p.m. the amount of
electricity they had cut was just 120,000 kilowatts.

TEPCO has already started the emergency operation of the Shiobara
hydroelectric power station in Nasu-Shiobara, Tochigi Prefecture,
whose operations had been suspended, and has asked Hokkaido Electric
Power, Tohoku Electric Power and Chubu Electric Power companies, to
divert power to Tokyo and neighboring prefectures to secure an
additional 1.4 million kilowatts.

TEPCO made the power-saving request for the first time since Aug.
24, 1990, based on supply-demand adjustment contracts under which
TEPCO can reduce the supply of electricity to large-scale users in
the case of power shortages.

On Wednesday, the mercury climbed as high as 37 C in Otemachi,
Tokyo, and 38 C in Kumagaya, Saitama Prefecture. As the sizzling
weather boosted the use of air conditioners, electricity demand
reached 61.47 million kilowatts at 3 p.m., surpassing this summer's
previous record, registered Tuesday.

TEPCO raised its forecast for Wednesday's electricity demand by 1.5
million kilowatts to 61.5 million kilowatts compared with the
previous day.

Operations at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station were
suspended in the wake of the major earthquake that hit Niigata
Prefecture in July, reducing TEPCO's maximum supply to 62.5 million
kilowatts as of Wednesday morning.

The company has launched the emergency measures as the reserve
capacity of electric supply has reached only 1 million kilowatts.
Some large-scale users may be forced to cut down on their scale of
operations, observers said.

TEPCO Vice President Takashi Fujimoto said during a press conference
Wednesday that the electricity demand of the day was expected to
exceed 61 million kilowatts in the morning.

The Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry's Natural Resources and
Energy Agency on Wednesday also asked industries and households to
try to cut down on energy usage by turning up the preset
temperatures of air conditioners, and not using lighting during the
daytime.

* The Daily Yomiuri
*****************************************************************
 12 Indiatimes: Don't take precipitating action, hear us out on N-deal - Govt

22 Aug, 2007, 1544 hrs IST, PTI

NEW DELHI: With Left parties sticking to its tough position on the
Indo-US civil nuclear deal, government on Wednesday told them to
refrain from taking any precipitating decision before "hearing us
out".

It fielded Minister for Science and Technology Kapil Sibal for the
job who said "misgivings" about the deal had arisen out of
"preconceived notions" which could be addressed during a discussion
in Parliament.

He said the Indo-US civil nuclear deal would not be operationalised
before December next year and exuded confidence that negotiations
with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would go on as
scheduled in September.

The Left parties want a halt to operationalization of the deal and
negotiations with IAEA and NSG until objections to the agreement
were taken care of.

Sibal rubbished the contention that the 123 agreement bound India to
the Hyde Act, the American law on the deal, and the pact did not
allow transfer of reprocessing and heavy water technologies as
"assured" by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Parliament.

Launching a spirited defence of the deal, he said the Prime Minister
had given an assurance about uninterrupted supply of nuclear fuel,
nuclear power reactors and reprocessing rights "which are granted in
the 123 Agreement".

"The 123 Agreement goes much further than the Prime Minister's
assurances to Parliament," Sibal told reporters here.

Copyright � 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 13 Bangkok Post: Govt plans for nuclear power by 2020

August 23, 2007

Atomic energy seen as efficient, cost-effective

Singapore _ Thailand plans to generate 4,000 megawatts of nuclear
power by 2020 under a plan to find alternative sources of energy, a
senior Energy Ministry official said yesterday.

Deputy permanent secretary for energy Kurujit Nakornthap told an
Asean energy business forum in Singapore that the government needs
seven years from 2007 to develop safety standards, establish the
regulatory framework and train the necessary personnel. Another six
years would be needed after that to complete the plant's
construction, he added.

The decision to include atomic energy in its long-term development
plan was made because nuclear energy is recognised as efficient and
cost-effective, and emits no carbon dioxide.

Nuclear safety issues are expected to feature prominently in talks
among Southeast Asian ministers in Singapore today, as more
countries look to nuclear as an alternative amid soaring oil prices,
diplomatic sources said.

Energy ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(Asean) will hold a one-day meeting _ first among themselves and
then with counterparts from China, Japan and South Korea.

Energy ministers from Australia, India and New Zealand will join the
meeting later in the day, the Singapore government said in a
statement.

Diplomatic sources said a key topic will be safety issues, following
a move by several countries in the region to build nuclear plants to
meet growing electricity needs and reduce dependence on oil and
natural gas.

In addition to Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam have announced plans
to tap nuclear energy, but environmentalists have warned about
safety risks as the region does not have the expertise to operate
such plants and deal with nuclear waste disposal.

The Thai government has not decided on the location of the plant but
Ranong, Chumphon and Surat Thani, all close to the sea in order to
supply water to the plant, have emerged as possible sites.

The armed forces recently offered their Sattahip naval base in Chon
Buri as a possible site if other sites face opposition, but the
offer could not be confirmed.

� Copyright The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd. 2007 Privacy 
*****************************************************************
 14 NRC: NRC Announces Opportunity to Request Hearing on Application to 
Renew Operating Licenses for Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant

News Release - 2007-107 - 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today announced the opportunity 
to request a hearing on an application to renew the operating 
licenses for the Vogtle nuclear power plant, Units 1 and 2, for 
an additional 20 years.

 The Vogtle plant has two pressurized water reactors located 
about 26 miles southeast of Augusta, Ga. The plant owner, 
Southern Nuclear Operating Co., submitted the renewal application 
June 29. The current operating licenses for Vogtle expire Jan. 
16, 2027, for Unit 1 and Feb. 9, 2029, for Unit 2.

      The NRC staff has determined that the application contains 
sufficient information for the agency to formally 
&ldquo;docket,&rdquo; or file, the application and begin its 
technical review. Docketing the application does not preclude 
requesting additional information as the review proceeds; nor 
does it indicate whether the Commission will renew the licenses.

 The Vogtle application for license renewal is posted on the NRC 
Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/v
  ogtle.html. An NRC review schedule for Vogtle will also be 
posted soon. License renewal reviews typically take 22 months 
with no hearing, or 30 months with a hearing.

 A notice of opportunity to request a hearing was published 
yesterday in the Federal Register. The deadline for requesting a 
hearing is 60 days after publication of the notice. Petitions may 
be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the license 
renewal and who wishes to participate as a party in the 
proceeding. Background information regarding the hearing process 
was provided by NRC staff to members of the public during a 
public information session conducted yesterday near Vogtle.

 A request for hearing and a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Requests may also be 
submitted by facsimile to (301) 415-1101 or e-mail to 
HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov. A copy should also be submitted to the NRC 
Office of General Counsel, by facsimile to (301) 415-3725 or 
e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.

  Information about the license renewal process can be found on 
the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html

======================================================================

NRC news releases are available through a free list server 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007
*****************************************************************
 15 Burlington Free Press: Cooling tower problem forces Vt. Yankee to reduce power

  burlingtonfreepress.com  |  Burlington, Vermont
 
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
 
By David Gram The Associated Press

MONTPELIER -- The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant was forced to reduce
its power output by at least half on Tuesday after staff at the
Vernon reactor detected problems with one of its two cooling towers.

Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's regional office for the Northeast, said the problems
did not raise a safety concern at the plant.

But he said if allowed to fester, they likely would cause the plant
to violate its state water discharge permit by spilling more heated
water back into the Connecticut River.

The problem "does not affect the safe operation of the plant,"
Sheehan said Tuesday. "They're really just there to comply with the
state discharge limits."

Wooden components and piping had failed in one of the towers, said
Sheehan and Robert Williams, spokesman for plant owner Entergy
Nuclear.

The plant reduced power by 60 percent of its usual, 610-megawatt
output, and that repairs "will take several days, at least," Sheehan
said. The power reduction comes during a time of year when demand is
relatively heavy on the New England power grid.

The plant's power reduction target actually was 50 percent, Williams
said, but it would reduce power below that level temporarily.

Vermont Yankee's cooling towers are not of the iconic bell-shape
recalled from the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. Rather, they are
two rectangular-shaped banks of 11 cooling towers apiece, each bank
50 feet high, 40 feet wide and 300 feet long, Sheehan said.

River water is taken into the plant to cool various components. In
winter, it is sent directly back to the river. In summer, some is
sent to the cooling towers, where it is allowed to fall through the
tower much like rain, cooled by fans pulling air into the tower from
the outside.

The cooling towers became embroiled in controversy two years ago, as
Vermont Yankee was seeking approval -- eventually received -- to
increase its power output by 20 percent.

The plant also won approval to increase water temperatures in the
river near the plant by 1 degree above previously set limits,
arguing that failing to get that permission would cause it to have
to use its cooling power more, driving up costs.

Arnie Gundersen of Burlington, a former nuclear industry engineer
and now an industry critic, said he was not surprised the plant was
experiencing problems in the cooling towers. He said the type of
towers used at Vermont Yankee had been prone to collapse at other
power plants and refineries where they are used.

He said the plant's 20 percent power boost left it needing to use
more cooling water, creating "additional rain and additional weight
on the towers." Before the plant increased its power output from 540
to 610 megawatts, the problems seen Tuesday "probably wouldn't have
happened," Gundersen said.

Sheehan said the problem began to come to light late last week when
plant technicians heard rubbing that he said originated with a fan
in one of the cooling towers. When they inspected the noise, they
found some "degradation" in some of the wood that makes up most of
the structure of the towers.

The NRC spokesman said the problem was "sagging" in parts of the
wooden structure. "I don't know if I'd characterize it as rotting,
but more sagging, deformation in some of the wood," he said of the
material that was installed before the plant opened in 1972.

Copyright �2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 16 Rutland Herald Online: Yankee cooling tower fails

August 22, 2007

By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff

VERNON � An inside portion of one of 22 cooling towers at Vermont
Yankee failed Tuesday, forcing the plant to cut power production by
more than 50 percent.

Robert Williams, spokesman for plant owner Entergy Nuclear, said the
plant would cut power even more in order to investigate and repair
the problem.

"The river water piping and the series of screens and supports
failed � and fell to the ground," Williams said.

Williams refused to say whether the damage to the wooden cooling
tower was related to the plant's 2006 power uprate, when the plant
boosted power production by 20 percent to 610 megawatts.

Neither Entergy nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had any
estimate on how long the repairs would take or how long the plant
would be working at reduced power.

If the problems are traced back to the additional stresses from the
power uprate, it comes too late for a Vermont ratepayer-protection
agreement, which expired earlier this month, Williams said.

Vermont regulators had negotiated the ratepayer-protection agreement
to cover unforeseen problems associated with the uprate, but the
plant has been operating without incident for almost 18 months at
the higher level.

Vermont Yankee provides about one-third of all the electricity used
by Vermont consumers or about half of its normal production. The
rest of it is sold by Entergy on the open market.

At the time of state hearings about the proposed power uprate the
New England Coalition raised concerns about the effects the
additional stresses would place on the cooling towers. The coalition
predicted problems ahead for the original 1972 structures.

"I hate to say, 'I told you so, I told you so, I told you so,' but I
told you so," said Raymond Shadis, senior technical advisor for the
anti-nuclear environmental group. Shadis said the Vermont Yankee
tower collapse came despite an in-depth inspection by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in 2005, which gave the towers a clean bill of
health.

One of the coalition's expert witnesses at that time, nuclear
industry critic Arnold Gundersen of Burlington, a former nuclear
engineer who wrote his master's thesis on cooling towers, said that
similar cooling towers at other types of power plants and refineries
had collapsed.

Gundersen said he had been told that Entergy had "heard noises for a
week" before Tuesday's collapse.

"This would not have happened for another 10 years if not for the
uprate," Shadis said.

Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
said she didn't know why the problem with the cooling tower wasn't
discovered before the collapse.

"That's one thing we will investigate," she said. "We need to
understand what happened."

Scenci said that Entergy's review of the problem was already in
progress, and she said that the plant was stable.

The affected tower is one of 11 in two banks of cooling towers that
are in operation at the plant from May to October, when the
temperature of the nearby Connecticut River rises and is unable to
provide all the cooling necessary for the reactor. The towers, which
send plumes of steam high into the air some summer days, are made of
Douglas fir, according to Shadis.

Each of the two banks of towers, or cells, are 50 feet tall, 40 feet
wide, and stretches 300 feet long. They are located on the southern
edge of the plant, near the Connecticut River.

Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com.


   � 2007 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 17 Brattleboro Reformer: VY cuts output after cooling failure

BRATTLEBORO, VT

By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff

(Zachary P. Stephens/Reformer)<br><br> Smoke rises from the cooling
cells, one of which is partially hidden by trees at Vermont Yankee
nuclear power plant in Vernon, Tuesday afternoon. One bank of the
cells had to be shut down due to structural failure.


Wednesday, August 22

BRATTLEBORO -- Structural problems in one of the banks of cooling
fans at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant forced operators to dial
back on the facility's power output.

Though the cause for the failure of one of the plant's 22 cooling
towers has not yet been determined, said a spokesman for the power
plant, he assured the public that shutting down 11 of the fans
doesn't affect safety.

"Vermont Yankee is coming down to 50 percent to investigate and
repair damage to one of the 11 sections in one of our two river
water cooling towers," said Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont
Yankee. "The river water cooling tower is constructed with wooden
beams and some of these beams and the river piping in that section
failed."

There are two banks of 11 fans -- or cells -- that comprise the
alternate cooling system at the plant. Main cooling is achieved by
pushing river water through the system and returning it to the river.

The cooling tower banks are 50 feet high, 40 feet wide and 300 feet
long, said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.

Even though air temperatures have been less than seasonable
recently, river temperatures have remained warm, meaning the 
plant has to rely on the massive fans to cool water before 
returning it to the river.

"We must stay within our river water temperature discharge limit,"
said Williams.

"During warmer weather, when the river approaches a certain maximum
temperature, they need to use the cooling towers to ensure water
being discharged doesn't exceed 74 degrees," said Sheehan. "The
towers are considered nonsafety related. The plant can still operate
safely without them."

"This type of tower has a history of failing," said Arnie Gundersen,
an former industry insider and Burlington high school teacher who
wrote his master's thesis on cooling towers and has testified for
the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution which has questioned
the integrity of the cooling towers.

He called the towers "a wounded knee design," which, under very high
stresses, "have been known to fail catastrophically, toppling like
dominoes."

Increasing the load on the towers with an uprate of 540MWe to 650MWe
added to the already stressed-out structures, said Gundersen.

"They knew they were old," he said, and that's what the recent
discussion in Vermont Environmental Court about raising the overall
temperature of the Connecticut River by 1 degree was all about.
"They don't want to stress those towers out."

"They were concerned about the structural integrity of the towers,"
agreed Ray Shadis, a technical consultant for NEC, who added "there
are safety implications. To have one part fail and not assume that
the entire structural integrity is at issue is really pushing your
luck."

A study conducted by a consultant hired by Entergy that cleared the
cooling towers for operation under uprate conditions was seriously
flawed, said Diana Sidebotham, the president of NEC.

Some of the faults of the study, she said, included not conducting a
physical examination of tower cells, inadequate documentation on the
breaking strength of tie rods and did not adequately address the
effects of aging, moisture or cooling system chemicals on the wood.

"This has been one of the our issues from way back," she said, as it
has been for the Connecticut River Watershed Council.

David Deen, a river steward for the watershed council, said the
failure was "a little bit of I told you so."

"We brought this up at the uprate," he said. "We asked that they be
required to do a system analysis on the cooling towers. That was
rejected by the state's public services board."

The tower cooling system is made up of 22 fans, a deep water basin,
pumps and pump motors and heat exchangers. A header pipe carries
heated water to the top of the cooling towers where it is sprayed
upon "fill," corrugated metal that acts like a radiator. The fan
blows down on top of the fill. The whole assembly is supported by a
wooden structure.

The NRC's Sheehan said the problem came to light late last week,
when plant technicians heard rubbing sounds coming from one of the
fans. A visual inspection revealed some of the wood structure
housing the fan had fallen to the ground, said Williams, resulting
in broken beams and what appears to be a hole in the side of the
assembly.

"They owe it to themselves to thoroughly examine these structures,"
said Gundersen, adding that wood is actually better than metal "but
you have to have a program in place to replace the wood."

Williams said the fans get "periodic surveillance," but Gundersen
said internal bracing makes the bank of fans impossible to walk
through so inspections are done with remote cameras.

"There are no visual inspections," he said Gundersen. "You can only
see where the cameras can go."

One of the cells, which is part of the plant's safety system, has
not been affected by the cooling fan shutdown, said Rob Williams,
spokesman for Vermont Yankee. This cell is considered "seismically
qualified" to withstand an earthquake or other natural phenomena.
Its function is to cool the plant down during an emergency.

With a reduction in power production, Vermont utilities, such as
Central Vermont Power Supply and Green Mountain Power, which buy
electricity from Vermont Yankee, might have to buy power from the
spot market to meet the state's demands. But until the state has had
a chance to evaluate the effects of the power output decrease, no
one really knows what the effect will be on ratepayers' pocketbooks.

"Whatever the condition of the plant, we are getting real time
information," said David O'Brien, the commissioner of the state's
Department of Public Services.

Right now, with Central Vermont Power being "long on power," or
having more than is needed, reducing Yankee's power output "may or
may not" end up costing ratepayers more money, he said. "We need to
get a full sense of what the ramifications are."

Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311,
ext. 273.

*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: Public Meeting Notice of Nuclear Energy Institute/U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission Working Groups

FR Doc 07-4132

[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)] 
[Notices] [Page 47084] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au07-150]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Solicitation of interest in working group participation.

DATES: August 23, 2007.
    Time: 8 a.m.
    Location: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Executive Boulevard 
Building, 6003 Executive Boulevard, Rooms, EBB-1-B13 and EBB-1-B15, 
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Smith, Project Manager, 
Technical Support Branch, Special Projects and Technical Support 
Directorate, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, MS EBB2-C40M, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 
492-3234; fax number: (301) 492-6521; e-mail: jas4@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a public workshop with 
the Nuclear Energy Institute and other stakeholders on June 14, 2007, 
to discuss certain implementation issues related to the implementation 
of subpart H of 10 CFR part 70: (1) Part 70, Appendix A Reporting, (2) 
refinement of the definition of Uranium Solubility under part 70, (3) 
the use of Digital Instrumentation and Control in safety and process 
settings, (4) the Sec.  70.72 Facility Change Process, and (5) the 
possible Enforcement Policy Revisions.
    Of the path forward for each of these five issues, four included a 
short term resolution to address the problem via small working groups 
comprised of industry and NRC representatives producing a product 
(white paper) which would ultimately be reviewed/approved by management 
representatives from both NRC and NEI and/or Industry representative 
management with an opportunity for members of the public to participate 
if desired. The exception to this small working group approach was the 
resolution of the issues associated with the use of Digital 
Instrumentation and Control in safety and process settings. Since this 
issue was far reaching, that could impact other nuclear arenas, some 
already addressing this area already pursuing research in this area, it 
was proposed that industry participate in the current steering 
committees involved in addressing these issues and NRC will facilitate 
interested industry members admission/seating on these committees so 
that their interests can be heard.
    In addition to the small working group approach, for Enforcement 
Policy Revisions, a multiple day public workshop in Region II with 
participation by the NRC's Offices of Enforcement and General Counsel 
should be held to establish the limits to what can be changed in the 
Enforcement Policy by the small working group.

II. Summary

    The purpose of this notice is to provide notice of the date and 
location of the first kickoff meeting of these small working groups as 
these white papers are developed. The number of persons participating 
in these groups will be limited to one or two; therefore, the first one 
or two person expressing interest in a particular group will have 
priority for participation in the working group; however, all meetings 
of these groups will be noticed and open to the public. Please contact 
the staff contact listed above to express your interest in 
participating in one or more of these working groups.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of August 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Deborah A. Jackson,
Chief, Technical Support Branch, Special Projects and Technical Support 
Directorate, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of 
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 07-4132 Filed 8-20-07; 11:47 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 19 CLA: Georgia Power takes a fresh look at nuclear power

Creative Loafing Atlanta

Nearly two decades after its last reactor went online, the electric
utility warily eyes a return to technology that once drove it to the
brink of bankruptcy

BY SCOTT HENRY
08.22.07

Longtime environmental lobbyist Neill Herring remembers cutting 
his teeth in the early '70s as a volunteer activist in Atlanta, 
opposing the licensing of a new nuclear power plant on the banks 
of the Savannah River.

Even in that era of sit-ins and "Ecology now" posters, Herring 
didn't fall back on the emotional arguments favored by what he 
termed the "radiation fear crowd." Instead, he attacked the 
bottom line.

Georgia Power

An average of 43 million gallons of water escapes from the Plant
Vogtle cooling towers each day in the form of steam.

  info


* Drafted by the Governor&rsquo;s Energy Policy Council, the State
  Energy Strategy is intended to help state agencies balance
  Georgia&rsquo;s future economic development with environmental
  concerns. To read the State Energy Strategy, click here.
* For energy-efficiency tips for homeowners, click here. The
  Southface Energy Institute is a nonprofit group that promotes
  energy efficiency through education, research, advocacy and
  technical assistance.


Georgia Power hadn't justified its proposed Plant Vogtle nuclear
facility, he explained in testimony to state utility regulators,
because the company hadn't sufficiently studied safer, less
expensive options, such as energy conservation and other renewable
resources. In fact, he argued, if the state would only force its
namesake power producer to find ways to curb growth in energy
demand, the plant wouldn't be needed at all.

Too costly. Unnecessary. And there were less risky alternatives. The
message couldn't compete with utility lobbying clout. Plant Vogtle
&ndash; about half an hour south of Augusta &ndash; was approved
but, because of calamitous cost overruns, only two of the planned
four reactors were built.

Now, three decades later, the state is adding new population at a
furious pace, and nuclear energy is being widely touted as an
antidote to global warming. Again, Georgia Power is looking to the
atom. Again, the site is Vogtle. And, again, the company has
momentum on its side.

Yet, Herring says, the arguments against a Vogtle expansion remain
essentially the same. Georgia Power still has done little to explore
renewable energy resources or, even more obviously, to take
advantage of what he calls the "low-hanging fruit" of energy
efficiency. At the same time, the company sells power to Florida
that could be used to serve Peach State residents. And the threat of
environmental damage to the Savannah River is even more serious
today than it was in the '70s.

But, again, the question of Georgia's nuclear future comes down to a
big unknown: cost.

While Georgia Power officials claim advances in nuclear-plant design
have made construction relatively quick and inexpensive, the company
has yet to give state regulators a firm estimate of the eventual
price tag for Vogtle. Since no new nuclear plants have been built in
the United States in the last 30 years, many scientists and industry
watchers aren't convinced meaningful estimates are even possible.

Says Sam Shelton, director of research for Georgia Tech's Strategic
Energy Institute: "The bugaboo with nuclear energy is that nobody
knows how much it's going to cost because no contractor will build
on a fixed-price contract."

Thus, the decision on how to meet Georgia's future energy needs
carries an unknown element of risk &ndash; and the stakes could
hardly be higher. If Georgia Power takes a gamble on nuclear and
finds itself in another money pit at Vogtle, it's conceivable that
utility rates could soar and the economic development of the entire
state could suffer.

Despite the proposed Vogtle expansion, the admittedly jaded Herring
theorizes that the company is simply keeping its options open.

"There is reason to believe that Georgia Power doesn't really want
to build Vogtle 3 and 4, but they're trying to keep their
shareholders happy," he says. "They'd much rather build coal plants
because nuclear is a crapshoot &ndash; they have no idea what these
plants will cost."

These are heady days for nuke boosters.

Ronald Reagan was still in his first term when the last new U.S.
plant was green-lighted, but the current atmosphere in Washington
suggests all systems are go for a full-scale revival of nuclear
energy. Call it the Al Gore Effect: Political pressure to reduce
greenhouse gases is getting stronger at the same time that
population growth, bigger houses and more gadgets are pushing up
demand. As a result, the nation's energy producers are looking for
new sources of power that won't expose them to future taxes or
penalties for spewing carbon, which is believed to be the main
contributor to global warming.

Until recently, that role was largely filled by natural gas, a
comparatively clean fuel that doesn't require building the kind of
large, expensive plants needed for coal or nuclear. But since 2000,
the price of natural gas has shot through the roof, making it by far
the least cost-effective fuel to burn. Many gas-fired plants in
Georgia are switched on for only a few hours each summer to help the
state's utilities meet spikes in peak electricity demand.

Although the state is home to more than 30 gas-fired power plants,
Georgia Power's corporate parent, the Southern Co., has never been
much for clean energy. The Atlanta-based company is the country's
second-largest utility operator, with 71 power plants and
subsidiaries in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi. It's also one of
the nation's most visible opponents of pollution controls, carbon
regulations and even the notion of human-induced climate change.

"The Southern Co. has long been the poster child for denying global
warming," says Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy. "Among utilities, it's known for being
the most regressive."

And among the most influential. The company is the largest utility
lobbyist in Washington, where it led the charge to repeal federal
laws requiring clean-air upgrades on older coal plants. Its
executives and political action committees rank among the richest
sources of campaign contributions.

In Georgia, its influence is even more pronounced. Last year, Ed
Holcombe, a longtime Georgia Power lobbyist, was named chief of
staff to Gov. Sonny Perdue &ndash; adding to the widely held belief
that Southern Co. is the most powerful corporation in the state. And
the utility has long had an iron grip on the Public Service
Commission, the five-member elected board responsible for regulating
utilities. In the Legislature, Georgia Power has successfully used
its influence to fight environmental regulations; in the PSC, it's
brushed aside calls to increase energy efficiency. Says Smith: "The
PSC is so far up the butt of the utilities that it won't do anything
to rock the boat."

Google Maps

Plant Vogtle, where Georgia Power has proposed two new reactors, is
on the Savannah River south of Augusta.

But the long years of polluting with impunity may be coming to a
close. The prospect of steep new federal carbon penalties is pushing
many utilities, including the Southern Co., to reconsider their
reliance on coal.

With gas plants on the decline and global warming looming as a
crisis of potentially epic proportions, it's not hard to also find
scientists, politicians and editorial writers scrambling onto the
nuclear bandwagon. Even many environmentalists, most prominently
Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore, support nukes as an alternative to
greenhouse-gas-producing coal plants.

"Because of global warming, a lot of people who once opposed nuclear
have crossed over," says Nolan Hertel, a Georgia Tech nuclear
engineering professor who advocates fission as a safe energy source.
"And utilities like their nuclear plants because they're much
cheaper to operate than fossil-fuel plants."

Nuclear energy also has gotten strong support from Congress and the
White House. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended a '50s-era law
limiting corporate liability for nuclear mishaps, streamlined the
plant-licensing process and, most notably, earmarked billions of
dollars in federal subsidies for the first six new nuclear plants.

The effect on the energy industry has been roughly equivalent to
firing a starter pistol at the beginning of a marathon. At last
count, 32 new reactors are being proposed from Maryland to Idaho.
And just last month, the U.S. Senate approved a new energy bill
containing a hidden provision for tens of billions in additional
loan guarantees to nuke builders.

Georgia Power first floated the nuclear option two years ago. Last
month, the company received unanimous PSC approval for a long-range
plan that calls for meeting increased statewide energy demand with a
Plant Vogtle expansion. The commission decision allows the utility
to charge back to ratepayers an estimated $51 million in licensing
and preconstruction expenses &ndash; money it can keep even if the
new reactors are never built.

On the surface, Vogtle looks to be on the fast track. But the world
of energy production and regulation moves with excruciating
deliberateness. The PSC's July vote is only a first step. Even if
Vogtle wins final approval, the first new reactor wouldn't be up and
running until 2015, at the earliest.

Complicating matters, the PSC has mandated that Georgia Power can't
proceed until it provides persuasive evidence that nuclear is the
most cost-effective option for future power production. If the
utility can't prove its case &ndash; or if another company shows it
can meet Georgia's energy needs at a lower price &ndash; then the
Vogtle expansion may not happen, says PSC Chairman Bobby Baker.

"It's not a done deal that the next plant built in Georgia will be
nuclear," Baker says.

March 16, 1979, saw the opening of The China Syndrome, a thriller
about an unscrupulous, corner-cutting power company bent on covering
up design flaws at its nuclear plant. Just 12 days later, a partial
core meltdown at Three-Mile Island outside Harrisburg, Pa., spelled
the end of the first era of nuclear-plant construction in the United
States.

The demise of plant building wasn't due simply to heightened fear of
radioactive fallout; the larger factor was runaway costs associated
with meeting constantly shifting regulations imposed by government
officials whose single-minded goal was that another Three-Mile
Island not happen on their watch.

One of the biggest victims of that nuclear winter was Georgia Power.
When construction began on Vogtle in 1974, the company's
rose-colored estimate was that four powerful reactors could be built
for $680 million &ndash; a considerable savings over the $934
million spent to construct half as many nuke units at South
Georgia's Plant Hatch.

By early 1979, Southern Co., like many utilities, was reeling from
the national energy crisis. In the flurry of new regs that followed
Three-Mile Island, Vogtle became a financial disaster zone. Design
specs were redrafted, scrapped and redrafted again. Construction was
halted as costs soared into the billions, but the company had no
means of recouping its investment unless the plant went operational,
so the plan was scaled back to two reactors and building resumed.

By the time Vogtle was completed in 1989, Georgia Power had spent 15
years and $8.4 billion &ndash; more than 20 times the original
per-unit cost &ndash; and narrowly avoided bankruptcy. In those
days, when the utility finished a construction project, it presented
the final tab to the PSC for approval to pass the cost on to energy
customers. But, in face of such an outrageous sum, the PSC ruled
that the company had to eat $1 billion of the cost overruns.

Georgia Power has since gotten state law changed to ensure that, so
long as the company is deemed "prudent" in its cost projections, it
will be able to recover its capital investments &ndash; along with a
healthy 12 percent profit margin &ndash; by raising rates.

Vogtle was the last major power plant built by Georgia Power, but it
enabled the company to produce more than enough energy to satisfy
customer needs. So, with the PSC's assent, the utility has sold
sizable amounts of excess electrical capacity across state lines
over the years. One unit at Macon's huge coal-fired Plant Scherer,
the fifth-largest power generator in the United States, was sold
outright to Florida Power & Light. And last fall, without asking the
PSC's permission, Georgia Power renewed a long-term contract to
provide the Florida utility with 1,000 megawatts of capacity, nearly
equal to the energy produced by one of the existing reactors at
Vogtle.

As Herring puts it: "Other utilities, whose states wouldn't allow
them to build over-capacity plants, came shopping for power in
Georgia. We pay higher rates so Florida can have air-conditioned
beach homes."

Georgia Power now has taken the position that the state's sharply
rising population growth calls for a major new plant by 2016.

"If we don't get an additional 500 megawatts a year in base-load
capacity, we can't guarantee that we can meet the energy needs of
Georgia," says utility spokeswoman Carol Boatright.

In the next few months, she says, the company expects to file a
formal bid for a Vogtle expansion, complete with the planned energy
capacity, the construction time line and the estimated construction
cost. After that, it will be up to the PSC to decide whether new
nukes are a cheaper option than a different kind of plant.

Some environmentalists argue that the utility hasn't made a
compelling case for any kind of new plant &ndash; at least, not
until it looks at putting a lid on energy consumption. On average,
Georgia residents use 25 percent more electricity per capita than
the rest of the country.

One reason for that is cheap power.

"In Georgia," Baker explains, "the principle driving regulation of
the energy industry has always been on keeping rates low, but
keeping the price low is not going to encourage folks to use less of
something."

Joeff Davis

Dennis Creech, executive director of the Southface Energy Institute,
explains how such simple measures as insulating duct work in homes
can reduce the demand for energy.

Smith explains that another reason for the state's profligate power
consumption is that, for Georgia Power, waste is good business.

"If everyone runs their air conditioner with the windows open, the
company makes more money," he says. "The Southern Company has been
so hostile in fighting energy efficiency because it views it as lost
revenue, which is a perverse disincentive."

If energy efficiency sounds like crunchy, feel-good lifestyle
choices, like carpooling and remembering to turn off the light when
you leave a room, you're still stuck in the '70s. Nowadays,
efficiency involves investments in updated technology &ndash; better
insulation, A/C regulator switches, compact fluorescent light bulbs,
Energy Star appliances, etc. &ndash; that result in a direct,
calculable reduction in energy consumption.

"The good news is that Georgia wastes so much energy now that
efficiency is a cheaper solution than building a new plant," says
Dennis Creech, executive director of the Southface Energy Institute,
a nonprofit group that promotes energy efficiency.

"We're not telling people they have to sit in the dark," he adds.
"What we're saying is that they should install energy-efficient
lighting and appliances."

More to the point, the state could direct utilities to offer
financial incentives to customers who make energy-saving
investments. It's called "demand-side management": Instead of
spending money building power plants to continually expand the
supply of electricity, a utility can control demand by spending
money to retrofit customers' homes with better duct work and
up-to-date insulation.

Years ago, California stopped permitting new power plants in favor
of reducing demand on existing plants through efficiency programs.
The result is that electricity rates are about twice as high as in
Georgia, but per capita consumption is less than half.

"I don't pay a utility rate; I pay a bill," Creech says. "Georgia
Power says we have some of the lowest rates in the country, but we
have high bills because of inefficiency."

So how big a difference could efficiency make in Georgia? A recent,
state-commissioned study estimated that as much as 24 percent of
future demand could be avoided through energy-efficiency programs.
The study concluded: "Georgia has not invested in energy efficiency
as vigorously as most states. In fact, Georgia is one of a small
number of states in which energy efficiency programs are barely in
evidence."

In the subsequent State Energy Strategy, the Governor's Energy
Policy Council &ndash; a group of 22 mostly business-friendly Perdue
appointees &ndash; recommended that Georgia, "as its highest
priority, should aggressively pursue all cost-effective energy
efficiency opportunities."

Georgia Power recently launched a $43 million efficiency plan
involving commercial tax incentives and consumer thermostat upgrades
that it estimates will reduce about 5 percent of the current energy
demand. By contrast, California utilities have earmarked $2 billion
for efficiency programs.

Creech calls the Georgia initiative a "modest first step" and notes
that there has never been much political will for the PSC or state
lawmakers to push the company to do more.

"We're one of the worst states in the country in terms of public
policy to promote energy efficiency," he says. "And this is not a
liberal vs. conservative issue. Texas has some very aggressive
policies to promote efficiency."

But most Georgia politicians have generally turned up their noses at
the idea of an aggressive push to reduce demand. Even Baker, a
Republican who's considered a pro-consumer commissioner, isn't ready
to use the power of the government to push Georgia residents into
making sometimes costly appliance upgrades.

"Why should someone have to subsidize me so I can go out and buy a
programmable thermostat?" he says. "I have a problem with the
philosophy that Big Brother needs to help people make these choices."

Still, Baker says he will watch how similar programs fare in other
states.

"Sometimes it's best not to be out front leading the charge," he
says. "Sometimes the most prudent thing is to monitor what's being
done around the country so we can implement tested programs that are
known to work."

Even if Georgia Power caught the efficiency bug, the company would
likely explore the Vogtle expansion. After all, efficiency is likely
only to slow the rising demand for energy. And the utility's heavy
dependence on coal means it still needs to prepare for what is
likely to be a less carbon-friendly future.

Currently, about 70 percent of Georgia's electricity comes from
burning coal in huge, old plants, such as Scherer, which has been
ranked the nation's dirtiest in terms of carbon emissions. And
Southern Co. regularly finds itself among the nation's top two or
three companies in greenhouse-gas emissions.

But the company may soon be forced to start cleaning up its act. Ask
any industry watcher who's been paying attention in the past few
years and he'll tell you carbon restrictions are on the way. Even if
the Democrats don't take the White House next year, many energy
experts say the political support is overwhelming for a federal
limit on commercial CO2 emissions.

"The tipping point has passed on carbon caps," agrees Tech's
Shelton. "It'll happen in the next three years, max."

And when it does, it could take one of two basic forms, explains
Derik Broekhoff, a senior energy expert with the World Resources
Institute, a Washington think tank. One scenario has the nation's
utilities effectively starting from the status quo, with the mandate
that they cut emissions by a certain percentage each year or trade
carbon "allowances" with companies able to meet their goal. It's a
scheme that does little to reward companies that have already
invested in cleaner technologies.

In the other scenario, the feds would set stricter clean-air
standards and auction off a finite number of carbon allowances.
Heavy polluters that couldn't meet the new standards would need to
buy more allowances, sharply driving up operating costs.

"A utility with a lot of old-fashioned coal plants, like the
Southern Co., could find it more expensive to limit emissions under
a cap-and-trade system," Broekhoff says.

The resulting rate hikes could hurt the state's ability to attract
employers, stunting job growth. Theoretically, two new Vogtle
reactors could allow Georgia Power to shift some production away
from coal, thus insulating itself from future penalties that may
come down the pike.

Joeff Davis

Public Safety Commission Chairman Bobby Baker listens to testimony
from a utility lawyer at a rate-setting hearing.

Not so fast, says Sara Barczak, safe energy director for the
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. Barczak says the utility is
again ignoring some preferable alternatives.

"In the long run, there will be a need for new power generation in
Georgia, but we feel nuclear is the worst option because of the
unknown costs and the radioactive waste," she says.

Not that Georgia has a superabundance of options. Contributing
scarcely 2 percent of the state's electricity, hydroelectric power
is already maxed out. Natural gas is too pricey and, while cleaner
than coal, produces carbon of its own. The prospect of solar energy
is dubious, wood-derived ethanol is just beginning to be explored
and off-shore wind power is still regarded as a question mark.

For large-scale power production in the Peach State, the choices
seem limited to nuclear and coal. But Barczak says the PSC should
insist Georgia Power consider not simply the cheapest options, but
cleaner ones as well. New "clean-coal" technology &ndash; a process
known as IGCC, in which coal is transformed into a gas before it's
burned &ndash; screens out many common pollutants and makes it
easier to capture the CO2 before it goes up the smokestack, she says.

"When you're talking about building a new power plant," Barczak
says, "the lesser of all the evils is an IGCC coal plant."

The most familiar knock against nuclear energy is that there's never
been a permanent solution for dealing with radioactive waste. It's
an argument that's as valid today as it was 30 years ago. Spent fuel
rods are still stored in on-site containment vessels at Vogtle and
Hatch, just as they are at the nation's 102 other nuclear
facilities. Meanwhile, the Yucca Mountain waste dump in Nevada is
little closer to opening than when it was first proposed 20 years
ago.

The heightened threat of terrorism is also cited as a reason to back
off nuke building, but by most accounts, new plant designs are much
less vulnerable than existing facilities. And innovations in safety
features have largely muted concerns over an accidental core
meltdown at a new plant.

Instead, the most immediate environmental impact of doubling the
size of Vogtle would be added strain on the Savannah River.

All power plants that generate energy from heat &ndash; which is to
say, nearly all power plants &ndash; need lots of water: Coal plants
use it to turn giant steam turbines, and nuclear plants to cool
their reactors. Plant Branch, a spectacularly thirsty, 1960s-era
coal-fired plant an hour southeast of Atlanta, sucks an average of
more than a billion gallons a day out of Lake Sinclair, but it pours
back all but 4 million of those gallons. Vogtle draws a
comparatively small 85 million gallons a day from the Savannah
River, but about half of that water &ndash; 43 million gallons
&ndash; is lost to evaporation in the thick cloud of superheated
steam rising out of the plant's iconic cooling towers.

"If Vogtle were to operate four reactors, the plant would use more
water than all the residents of Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah
combined," Barczak says. "We'd be pursuing the most water-intensive
energy option there is."

Vogtle already has a negative impact on the river ecosystem, Barczak
notes, because the water it returns to the river is warmer and
contains less oxygen than it did when it was withdrawn. And the loss
of river volume &ndash; intensified by the ongoing statewide drought
&ndash; allows brackish sea water to wash farther inland where the
river meets the Atlantic Ocean, raising saline levels in the
sensitive Savannah Wildlife Refuge.

"When you're talking about increasing the capacity for one of the
biggest water consumers on an already impacted river, that's a red
flag," Barczak says.

In March, the federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board determined
that the potential threat to the Savannah River was great enough to
warrant further study by Southern Co. The mandate may end up doing
little to halt the Vogtle expansion, but for now, Barczak will take
that small victory.

Even nuclear proponents such as Tech's Hertel concede that one giant
hurdle is the absence of a domestic nuke-building industry. The
United States has a shortage of nuclear engineers and few companies
with the experience of making the highly technical equipment that
goes into building a plant, he says. When an existing plant needs a
replacement part these days, it typically orders it from France or
Japan.

Those two countries have also shown, he says, that nuclear-plant
construction can be streamlined, delivered on time and on budget.
France's success at building plants allows it to sell energy to
other countries.

"In the U.S., every plant was custom-built, but now they have
standardized designs so parts are interchangeable," Hertel says.

But Herring says any lessons learned from France &ndash; where
nearly 80 percent of the electricity is generated by 56 identical
nuke plants &ndash; don't translate so well to our country. The
French power grid is a nationalized, nonprofit, single-operator
system with the government assuming all risk.

"Comparing us to France isn't apples and oranges," he says. "It's
apples and coal."

Even if the billions of dollars in federal subsidies and loan
guarantees now on the table help make America's transition back into
nuke building possible, that money is only available to the first
half-dozen plants out of the gate, notes David Lochbaum, director of
nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Meaning, he
says, many of the proposed plants will probably not get past the
blueprint stage.

"There are a lot of companies competing for the subsidies in the
energy bill," he says. "I wouldn't want to be the president of the
company that's seventh in line."

Although standardization of plant design is essential to the revival
of the industry, Lochbaum says, the energy bill actually discourages
that by stipulating each proposed plant use different technology.
Georgia Power plans to use a Westinghouse-designed reactor at
Vogtle, while other companies have selected models from GE and
Mitsubishi, as well as a new, terrorist-proof design from a French
firm, Areva.

As for the question of what a new nuke costs, Lochbaum points to the
Tennessee Valley Authority. Last year, the public utility restarted
a unit at its Browns Ferry, Ala., plant that had been mothballed for
22 years &ndash; at a cost of nearly $2 billion.

"That suggests to us that the TVA board decided it couldn't build a
brand-new reactor for close to $2 billion," he says.

"If you're in the ballpark of $2 billion for a 1,000-megawatt
reactor, then you can stay competitive with some non-nuclear
options," Lochbaum explains. If not, then building nuclear plants
will continue to require generous government subsidies to be
financially viable.

It's anybody's guess whether Vogtle will be among the first six
plants to make it across the finish line. Even as he awaits Georgia
Power's formal permit application, the PSC's Baker says the company
would be smart to hedge its bets.

"They realize there's a mad rush to build nuclear plants, and
they're proposing using a design that's never been built before, so
it may make sense for them to sit back and see how the technology
shakes out," Baker says.

Georgia Power spokeswoman Boatright confirms that the company does,
indeed, intend to file a backup plan this fall in case Vogtle
doesn't work out &ndash; a plan that doesn't involve energy
efficiency.

So what's the company's fall-back option?

Creative Loafing Atlanta
384 Northyards Blvd., Suite 600
Atlanta, GA 30313-2454

404-688-5623 (main)
404-614-3599 (fax)

�1996-2007 Creative Loafing Media All Rights Reserved.



*****************************************************************
 20 Reuters: Japan's Hitachi may invest in India nuclear sector 

Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:19PM IST


NEW DELHI (Reuters) - Japan's Hitachi Ltd may invest in India's
nuclear energy sector, its chief executive officer said on Wednesday.

"We will consider," Kazuo Furukawa, president and CEO of Hitachi,
told reporters when asked whether his company was interested in
investing in India's nuclear energy sector.

He said nuclear energy was vital for power supply.





� Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.




*****************************************************************
 21 WNN: Yankee site returned to public use

21 August 2007

Most of the site of the former Yankee nuclear power plant near Rowe,
Massachusetts, has been released by regulators for unrestricted
public use.

How the Yankee site looked at the end of 2006. Used nuclear fuel dry
storage casks can be seen on the left (Image: Yankee)
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said in a statement that
its release action completed the decommissioning of the majority of
the site, where the nuclear power plant itself stood. The NRC said
that residual radiation dose to anyone at the site would not exceed
25 millirem (0.25 mSv) per year, compared to the natural US
background level of 300 millirem (3 mSv) per year.

The Yankee plant was a 185 MWe pressurized water reactor built by
Westinghouse between 1957 and 1960. It was then operated by owners
Yankee Atomic Electric Company until October 1991. It is now the
tenth US nuclear power plant site to be released to the public.

About five acres (2 ha) of the former site is still under NRC
regulation. That portion is the dry store of used nuclear fuel which
awaits a permanent storage site.

It is currently American policy to develop a permanent geologic
storage site for all the nation's used nuclear fuel within Yucca
Mountain in Nevada. Detailed development of the facility, which
would contain up to 70,000 tonnes of high-level radioactive wastes
from power generation, industry and the USA's military nuclear
programs, is still underway.

Although Yucca Mountain was originally envisaged to operate from
1998, progress has been rather disappointing and it is now thought
that it could begin to accept shipments of used nuclear fuel from
sites such as Yankee only in 2017. The Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management is preparing documentation on the
design of the store to be presented to NRC as part of a licence
application expected in June 2008.

Further information

Yankee Nuclear Power Plant

WNA's Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities information paper
*****************************************************************
 22 Reuters: New nuclear power said too costly and risky | UK | 

Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:45AM BST

LONDON (Reuters) - Building more nuclear power plants is too slow,
costly and risky to help the fight against climate change and energy
security, a UK environmental think-tank the New Economics Foundation
said on Wednesday.

Some countries, including Britain, are considering building a new
generation of nuclear power stations to cut carbon emissions from
power generation and reduce dependency on imported fossil fuels.

But, according to a report published by the foundation on Wednesday,
the costs involved in building new reactors is up to three times
higher than supporters of such plants say.

"Nuclear power has been promoted as a solution to climate change and
an answer to energy security. It is neither," the report concludes.
"As a response to global warming it is too slow, too expensive and
too limited."

Rather than wasting time and money on atomic energy, Britain and
other countries concerned about rising carbon emissions should spend
more on renewable energy sources that can deliver the carbon cuts
more quickly, safely and economically, it said.

The think tank rejects the government's cost estimate of 2.2-5.0
pence per kilowatt hour of power produced by new nuclear power
plants, instead putting the cost at 3.2-7.5 p/kWh.

A report by Poyry Energy Consulting on Monday said the commercial
case for building new nuclear power plants in Britain was shaky and
that none would be built without a high and long-term cost attached
to emitting carbon dioxide.

The report's author, Poyry director Andrew Nind, said the
foundation's cost estimate was too high. "The bottom half of the
range in broadly reasonable," he said.

� Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. | Learn more about Reuters

*****************************************************************
 23 Hemscott: Japan's TEPCO takes emergency step to meet power demand 

TOKYO - Japan's largest energy company, Tokyo Electric Power Co,
(TEPCO) on Wednesday took rare emergency measures to address an
imminent electricity shortage in the country due to the suspension
of its earthquake-hit nuclear power plant and a a strong surge in
customer demand.

TEPCO spokesman Masayuki Yamato said the company will revive a
hydraulic power plant north of Tokyo Wednesday afternoon while it
also requested major customers to curb the use of electricity in
line with clauses in their contracts.



'We have decided to take the measure as electricity demand is
expected to hit this year's high for the second straight day today,'
Yamato said.

Temperatures last week hit an all-time high of 40.9 degrees Celsius
(106 degrees Fahrenheit) in parts of Japan. Demand is soaring this
week as factories and offices resume operation following summer
holidays.

An earthquake last month shut down the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant, the
world's largest nuclear facility which supplies 10 percent of
TEPCO's electricity.

Japanese nuclear authorities expect the plant northwest of Tokyo to
be offline for about a year for safety checks, although the UN
International Atomic Energy Agency said last week the plant had no
major safety problems.

afp/mb - mb/mb

COPYRIGHT

Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research
*****************************************************************
 24 Hemscott: Areva denies report China reactor order cancelled 

PARIS (Thomson Financial) - Areva denied a report by campaign 
group Sortir du Nucleaire that a proposed order for two European 
pressurised water nuclear reactors to be built at Yangjiang, 
China has been cancelled.

'According to reliable information,' the campaign group 'can 
reveal that China has definitively cancelled its project to build 
two French EPR reactors at Yangjiang, in Guangdong' province, it 
said in a statement.

An Areva spokesman said: 'We recently mentioned advanced 
discussions. They are continuing.' Andrew.Newby@Thomson.com an/gp


COPYRIGHT

Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research




*****************************************************************
 25 lawjobs.com Career Center: Duane Morris Partner Rides Second Wave of Nuclear Power

Duane Morris' Charles W. "Chuck" Whitney

Chuck Whitney says nuclear power is the new green as plant costs go
down, consumption goes up and global warming looms

Meredith Hobbs
Fulton County Daily Report
August 22, 2007


Nuclear power is making a comeback, and Charles W. "Chuck" Whitney
is a believer.

Six months ago, Whitney, the Atlanta managing partner of Duane
Morris, started a nuclear power practice for the Philadelphia-based
firm.

There has not been a contract signed for a new nuclear power plant
in the United States in 30 years, but now the time is right, said
Whitney, 61, who is a veteran of the Georgia Power team that finally
got the Plant Vogtle reactors built in the late 1980s. Costs are
down, and concern over global warming means people are looking for
alternatives to fossil fuels as power consumption continues to
increase, he said.

He said several power plant suppliers and contractors interested in
building nuclear power reactors have become clients, but declined to
name them.

In the United States, the nuclear power industry was written off as
dead around 1987, following the Chernobyl disaster the year before,
Whitney said. Chernobyl confirmed many people's fears about the
safety of nuclear power in the wake of the 1979 accident at Three
Mile Island, where a reactor had a partial core meltdown.

But Whitney said the enormous cost overruns for the last wave of
nuclear power plants, not safety fears or anti-nuclear protesters,
were what killed off the U.S. nuclear power industry. He spent the
latter half of the 1980s getting the Plant Vogtle reactors built
amidst massive construction delays and skyrocketing costs, first as
a lawyer for Troutman Sanders, then in-house at Georgia Power, which
he followed with a decade as an executive for the utility and its
parent, the Southern Co.

Times have changed. Last month, Georgia Power received permission
from the state Public Service Commission to build two additional
nuclear reactors at Vogtle, near Augusta, and is expected to apply
for the necessary license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

This year and next, the NRC expects to receive 27 license
applications for new nuclear plants.

The last U.S. nuclear power reactor to go online was Watts Bar Unit
1, near Spring City, Tenn., which finally began operation in 1996,
almost 23 years after construction started. Security concerns caused
delays, and design changes midway ratcheted the cost up to $6.2
billion, making it the most expensive nuclear reactor ever built.

In a sign of the times, the Tennessee Valley Authority decided Aug.
1 to complete Watts Bar Unit 2, which it had abandoned half-built in
1985. The TVA shut down its entire nuclear power program that year
amidst runaway costs, safety concerns, whistleblower actions and
anti-nuclear protests.

Still, the United States has more nuclear power plants operating --
104 -- than any other country. Nuclear energy supplies 20 percent of
our electricity, a distant second to coal, which supplies about 70
percent. Locally, Georgia Power's energy mix is about the same.

Many other countries have continued investing heavily in nuclear
power. China, India, Japan and Finland have been building plants and
developing reactor technology, to name a few. The European Union
gets 30 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. France, which
has very little fossil fuel, relies on the highest proportion, with
a whopping 80 percent of its electricity coming from nuclear.

The newer generation of plants is far cheaper to build and safer to
operate because of improvements in their technology and
manufacturing, Whitney said.

GLOBAL WARMING

Growing worries about global warming have intensified interest in
alternatives to fossil fuels, including nuclear. Nuclear power is
clean, emitting heat as a byproduct of power generation instead of
carbon dioxide the way coal and gas plants do. In addition to
greenhouse gases, coal-fired plants produce smog-making nitrogen
oxides and particulate matter as well as mercury and sulfur dioxide,
which creates acid rain.

"People are concerned. A lot of former nuclear opponents have come
out in favor of nuclear power -- not because of the economics but
because it makes better environmental sense," Whitney said.

But cost is the trump card for nuclear power, he added.

Time is very big money in building reactors, he said. Since the
capital costs are very high, any delays can quickly escalate
financing costs, as happened in the 1980s. These days, a reactor can
typically be built in a mere four-and-a-half years, according to the
Nuclear Energy Agency.

A 1,000-megawatt unit, about the size of the ones at Vogtle, costs
$1.5 to $2 billion, compared with about $1.2 billion for the
same-size coal-fired plant with scrubbers, Whitney said.

Nuclear plants still cost more to build, but the fuel cost is a lot
cheaper. As capital costs continue to decrease, the price per
kilowatt hour is approaching that of coal, he said.

In the United States, which has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the
environmental and health costs of burning carbon are not factored
into the price of coal and gas, he added. If the country institutes
a carbon tax, it would add a significant cost penalty to burning
fossil fuels.

"With feasible design and construction -- and a carbon tax -- it's a
no-brainer," he concluded.

Whitney acknowledges the obvious problem with nuclear power --
namely, what to do with the spent fuel. At present, spent fuel rods,
which are 18 feet long and two inches across, are stored in
underground pools or above-ground casks on reactor sites.

WASTE REPOSITORY NEEDED

"The idea was to keep them there a couple of years until the Feds
built the central spent fuel repository that they promised back in
1971," said Whitney. "Can you spell Yucca?"

Yucca Mountain, Nev., the proposed site of the repository, is at
least a decade from being operational -- if ever. Whitney noted that
anti-nuclear activists strongly oppose a central radioactive waste
facility, because they think it's an accident waiting to happen as
well as a prime target for terrorists.

To meet the demand for more electricity, nuclear power opponents
advocate investing in energy conservation and renewable fuels. To
get its proposal for two more nuclear reactors approved by the PSC
last month, Georgia Power also included modest plans to increase
energy conservation (by encouraging consumers to use low-wattage
lightbulbs, insulate water heaters and the like) and produce more
power from renewable sources such as solar, wind and biomass.

But the small scale of renewable power plants and their intermittent
operation, which depends on the wind blowing or the sun shining,
comes nowhere close to meeting the increasing demand for
electricity. They can add spot electricity to the power grid, but
can't make up the core power supply, Whitney said.

Georgia Power produces 18,000 megawatts of electricity. The Vogtle
reactors generate 1,200 megawatts apiece, compared with only perhaps
30 megawatts for a typical renewable plant.

"We need power, and we need big baseload power plants. Nuclear is
the best way. It's not perfect, but it's the best of the imperfect
choices," Whitney said. "The technology is good. We can think our
way into an energy-secure and environmentally sane future -- and it
won't be with windmills or dams."

Whitney said he got into nuclear power through "an accident of time
and place."

In 1980, he was a third-year associate at Troutman Sanders when he
was asked to handle whistleblower complaints for Georgia Power on
the Vogtle reactors then under construction. The utility asked him
to work exclusively on the problem-plagued Vogtle project in 1984,
handling construction issues, just before he became a partner at the
firm. Construction had been shut down for design modifications, such
as redoing all the wiring, to address safety concerns after Three
Mile Island, he said. A couple of years later, he left Troutman
Sanders to work directly for Georgia Power on-site at Vogtle. Unit 1
started operating the next year, in 1987, followed by Unit 2 in 1989.

After getting Unit 2 going, Georgia Power stopped building nuclear
power plants. Whitney spent another 10 years in senior management
for the Southern Co. "I got to refinance all the debt we took on
with Vogtle," he said.

In 1998 he returned to lawyering, this time at Jones Day, and a year
later he opened the Atlanta office of Duane Morris.

When one of his clients asked if he would be around in 2016 when its
planned nuclear plant would be licensed and ready to build, Whitney
said no, but it got him thinking.

"If you'd checked in with me in 1989 and asked when the next wave of
nuclear plants would start, I would have said, 'When hell freezes
over,'" he said. "We never thought we'd do another one of these. All
the guys who did them are gone -- retired."

The same is true of the nuclear plant engineers and builders. "Those
guys are all in Florida, getting the early-bird special in Naples,"
he said with a laugh.

By 2016, Whitney also plans to be retired, possibly in Florida, so
he started thinking about putting a nuclear group together to handle
the coming wave. He's kept his hand in over the years, he said, by
working on operating and regulatory enforcement issues for existing
plants.

He e-mailed Duane Morris' roughly 650 lawyers to find out if anyone
had worked on nuclear plants. "I got 30 or 40 responses. Of those,
10 or 15 guys had driven by a nuclear plant on their way to the
courthouse to try another case," he said.

From the rest, he's put a 27-lawyer group together. A lot are in San
Francisco, where they litigated construction matters for Bechtel in
the last wave of nuclear power. Four are nuclear engineers who do
intellectual property work. Almost all of them are in their late 50s
to mid-60s.

Whitney is targeting nuclear plant engineers, contractors and
equipment providers as clients, explaining that owners like Southern
Co. or TVA already have longstanding relationships with law firms.

He said that the only reason he's still around for the second wave
of nuclear power is because he rode the first wave when he "was
young and in over [his] head." Now he's hoping the same will happen
for his firm's younger lawyers.

*****************************************************************
 26 Japan Times: Close Niigata nuclear plant for good - scientists 

japantimes.co.jp    Web
 
Wednesday, Aug. 22, 2007

RISK OF ANOTHER QUAKE DEEMED TOO GREAT

Close Niigata nuclear plant for good: scientists

Kyodo News

A group of scientists and engineers called Tuesday for the 
closure of the quake-hit Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant 
in Niigata Prefecture, citing the possibility of another huge 
earthquake in the area.

A detailed investigation of the nuclear plant, beginning with the
inside of the No. 1 reactor's pressure vessel, and a scientific
examination of the ground of the site should be carried out, the
statement said. "However, these should not be carried out on the
assumption that the plant will be restarted," it added.

The plant has not operated since it was damaged by the July 16
magnitude-6.8 quake.

"As long as we cannot confirm how badly the plant was damaged, it
should remain shut down," Hiromitsu Ino, a professor emeritus at the
University of Tokyo, who belongs to the group, told a news
conference while releasing the statement.

"We have to enable a more open discussion without ruling out the
possibility of closing the plant," though there is a general belief
the plant will be restarted, he added.

Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report
saying there is no significant visible damage to the nuclear power
plant, while suggesting that a detailed examination should continue
on the No. 1 reactor vessel, core and fuel.


The Japan Times
*****************************************************************
 27 CBC News: County residents to vote on nuclear power plant

Last Updated: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 | 9:29 AM MT

Woodlands county council voted Tuesday to hold a plebiscite on a
proposal to build Alberta's first nuclear power plant just north of
Whitecourt.

County Coun. Leanne Caron said she expects the vote will be held
within a month and voters will say "yes" to nuclear power.

Energy Alberta Corp. has already bought land just north of
Whitecourt, within Woodland County's borders.

Bernard Krohn, a Fort Assiniboine resident who organized a public
meeting on the plant, said residents need time to review both sides
of the issue before they vote.

"There seems to be a tremendous push that this process run ahead,'
he said.

Earlier this month, the county retracted a letter of support for the
$6.2-billion plant, saying council still supports the idea but needs
more time.

Alberta Energy's ambitious plan is to build two 1,100-megawatt
nuclear powered generation plants in northwestern Alberta, the first
such plant in the province.

The two-year-old company partnered with Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd., the federal Crown corporation and maker of Candu reactors, to
provide the science and expertise. It also lined up a bank for
financing and started collecting potential clients.

The only other community that has expressed an interest in housing
the reactor is Peace River.

Energy Alberta officials have said the plants could be built in
eight to 10 years, would provide a stable supply of electricity and
would not produce much greenhouse gas.

Copyright &copy; CBC 2007
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: Contributions of Structural Mechanics to the Science of Nuclear 
Regulation, NRC Commissioner Peter B. Lyons

Speech - 07-039 - 

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 
301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web 
Site: Public Affairs Web Site

Contributions of Structural Mechanics to the Science of Nuclear 
Regulation Dr. Peter B. Lyons, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission

at the 19th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in 
Reactor Technology

August 13, 2007

It is an honor to speak to you during the 19th International 
Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology 
(SMiRT-19). I am extremely pleased to share my perspectives on 
the role of this conference in the renewed global interest in 
nuclear energy and to discuss some of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission&rsquo;s (NRC) future challenges. I especially want to 
recognize the efforts of Vernon Matzen, conference chairman, and 
his committee in the planning and execution of this conference. 
SMiRT-19 is taking place at a time of significant change in the 
global outlook of the industry. The technical issues related to 
design, manufacturing, and construction are becoming more 
important, similar to the situation in the early 1970s. These 
conferences, which bring together the world&rsquo;s experts from 
the structural mechanics community who are involved in the 
design, construction, and operational phases of nuclear power, 
have a significant role to play in readiness of this industry and 
its regulators.

    The need for global cooperation on nuclear safety is an 
urgent matter, because nuclear energy can no longer be regarded 
as a strictly domestic matter for any individual country. Nuclear 
power is now a truly international industry, from the mining of 
the uranium ore, through nearly all the following steps of the 
fuel cycle. Furthermore, the regulatory and industrial 
infrastructures are now very different from those of the early 
1970s, including the use of new materials, new construction and 
fabrication methods, and the associated new structural mechanics 
challenges. Based on lessons from our past licensing and 
regulatory experiences, we have a new, improved, licensing 
process. The combination of the standardized design 
certification, early site permit, and combined construction and 
operating license has contributed significantly to the interest 
in and feasibility of new nuclear projects in the United States. 
The NRC is continuing to improve our licensing regulations. 
Recent changes to our Part 52 regulations will further enhance 
our effectiveness and efficiency.

  The new regulatory scheme has undergone its first tests, with 
the review of early site permits at four locations. We have 
issued early site permits for Clinton and Grand Gulf, and are 
working on an early site permit for North Anna. Four reactor 
designs are certified, with three more in various stages of 
consideration. Later this year and for the first time in 30 
years, the NRC expects to receive up to seven license 
applications to build and operate new nuclear plants. Eleven 
additional applications are expected in 2008. To date, we have 
received letters of interest from several potential applicants, 
which indicate that NRC may expect that first plant completion to 
be followed by as many as 30 others. We have even received part 
of the first combined operating license to be filed. These 
numbers change frequently, so stay tuned for further 
developments. The U.S. manufacturing and industrial capacity to 
support new construction has been significantly diminished since 
the 1970s and 1980s. The number of U.S. companies certified by 
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) to produce 
N-stamped parts has dropped by almost a factor of five since 
1980. We also face a challenge in ensuring the quality of the 
thousands of smaller parts and materials that are manufactured in 
other parts of the world. The construction of a commercial 
nuclear plant today involves pumps, valves, motors, fans, 
pipes&hellip; and even bolts&hellip; that may be produced by any 
number of companies&mdash;both private and 
state-owned&mdash;around the world. The close scrutiny that 
regulatory agencies can enforce on major manufacturers to assure 
that quality components are produced is challenging to achieve 
for a vastly greater number of sub-vendors that supply parts and 
materials to the manufacturers.

  The International Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code 2007 version 
was just released and establishes rules of safety governing the 
design, fabrication, and inspection of boilers, pressure vessels, 
and nuclear power plant components during construction. A section 
also provides requirements for (1) containment systems and 
transport packagings for spent fuel and high-level radioactive 
waste; and (2) concrete reactor vessels and containment. Some of 
you attending this conference probably participated in that 
recent and very important work.

    The issue of constructing an advanced reactor around the 
world raises the importance of international communication and 
collaboration to a new height. This communication is necessary at 
regulatory, operational, and supply chain levels. A good example 
of international regulatory cooperation is the Multinational 
Design Evaluation Program, or MDEP. The MDEP is an initiative to 
enhance regulatory cooperation and, where feasible and desirable, 
to converge on common regulatory requirements and review 
practices associated with the design reviews of new reactors. 
Conferences like SMiRT enhance a common understanding of 
technical issues and facilitate communication and resolution, 
such that a design can be safely constructed at many locations 
under different regulatory requirements. In this regard, a common 
understanding of regulatory practices in different countries is 
important.

  The issue of aircraft impact has obviously taken on new 
visibility in the post-9/11 world. While aircraft impact was 
considered in earlier designs in the context of accidental 
accidents, the explicit consideration of sabotage in designs 
raises a significant challenge for us all. Sharing of technical 
knowledge is vital to guard against such threats; however, it is 
also important that the security of sensitive information is 
maintained. In April 2007, in support of this issue, the NRC 
unveiled the third in a series of major steps to enhance the 
post-9/11 security of nuclear power plants. The agency proposed a 
rule that would require each applicant for a new reactor design 
to assess how the design, to the extent practicable, has greater 
built-in protections to avoid or mitigate the effects of a large 
commercial aircraft impact, making them less reliant on operator 
actions than existing plants. That approach allows designers to 
evaluate potential competing technical factors, such as the 
response to earthquakes and passive safety systems, while at the 
same time addressing aircraft impacts. These assessments should 
look at areas such as core cooling capability, containment 
integrity, and spent-fuel-pool integrity. The Commission 
emphasized that seeking security assessments and examining how 
designs can be improved is consistent with the traditional 
approach the NRC has taken to so-called 
&ldquo;beyond-design-basis-events,&rdquo; which are considered to 
have such low probability of occurrence that design features to 
address them can meet realistic analysis criteria. These are 
events with conditions exceeding the stresses imposed by the 
&ldquo;design-basis-event&rdquo; conditions for which plants are 
required to be analyzed according to strict and prescriptive 
rules. Design-basis-event conditions include large pipe breaks, 
fires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and floods. Assessing a 
new reactor in the early design stages can enable modifications 
to reduce the need for operator mitigation actions in the event 
of an airplane crash. In an August 1985, NRC Policy Statement, 
&ldquo;Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and 
Existing Plants,&rdquo; the NRC said it expected future reactor 
designers to build in more safety features to cope with so-called 
severe accidents that went beyond the design basis. However, it 
did not require specific features, leaving that to plant 
designers. In the subsequent decades, reactor designs submitted 
to and approved by the Commission have achieved substantial 
safety improvements to address such 
beyond-design-basis-accidents.

   To quote NRC Chairman Dale Klein&rsquo;s comment on issuing 
the proposed rule for public comment, &ldquo;This is the most 
recent step in a broad, proactive effort to improve the security 
of reactors initiated by the NRC after Sept. 11, 2001. We need 
more technical analysis to understand how to address this.&rdquo; 
In my view, this proposed rule will give us the opportunity to 
assess and make changes to new reactor designs early in the 
design process. I should note that many of the challenges that 
will be reviewed in these assessments fall within the scope of 
the structural mechanics issues explored in this conference.

  Along with the challenges associated with anticipated 
construction of new reactors of advanced designs, the prospect of 
the next generation of nuclear power plants involving 
technologies such as high-temperature and liquid-metal reactors, 
derived from the Next Generation Nuclear Plant and the Global 
Nuclear Energy Partnership initiatives, raises a different set of 
challenges to this community. The designs will involve new 
materials and different operational and accident conditions. In 
recognition of strong programs in other countries related to 
these technologies, codes and standards will have to be developed 
with an international perspective.

  Despite the nuclear renaissance, the most important issue is 
still the safety of operating reactors. This conference will help 
us maintain this focus. Our experiences have shown that the 
understanding of aging and degradation mechanisms, timely 
detection through inspection technologies, and implementation of 
effective remedial measures are vital to maintain safety 
throughout the operating life. Operation beyond the current 
60-year, license-renewal periods may also be sought and would 
challenge our knowledge of aging phenomena.

       Other initiatives also use structural mechanics, such as 
modification to 10 CFR 50.46a, regarding improved safety through 
a more risk-informed approach for addressing double guillotine 
breaks of the largest reactor coolant pipes, which can allow 
better utilization of water supplies and optimization of safety 
systems to better cope with more likely events than the large 
loss of cooling accident. If a new version of 50.46a is approved, 
it will depend heavily on our ability to maintain very low 
likelihood of breaks in pipes greater in diameter than the 
so-called transition break size and on our understanding of and 
ability to detect flaws and degradation in large pipes.

   The incorporation of risk perspectives also raises challenges 
in realistically characterizing the performance of structures, 
systems, and components when subjected to beyond-design-basis 
environments. It is particularly difficult to characterize 
failure modes of passive components that can experience 
beyond-design-basis conditions for which the failure data can not 
be realistically obtained. This community will plan a significant 
role in establishing realistic assessments of passive component 
performance to enhance our progress toward risk-informed 
regulation. The recent NRC experiences, related to risk-informing 
the pressurized thermal shock rule to assure reactor pressure 
vessel integrity, highlight the benefit of risk-informed 
considerations and probabilistic methods.

   Natural hazards are another area in which knowledge continues 
to evolve, and we continue to learn from each significant event 
worldwide. The December 2005 tsunami is a case in point. It is 
leading to rapid development in the state-of-the-art of 
prediction, propagation, and early warning systems. The 
implementation of performance-based seismic siting approaches in 
a recent early site permit also reflects a substantial change 
from the deterministic perspective of early years. The recent 
earthquake in Japan will provide important data to the entire 
nuclear community. SMiRT is a forum for both understanding and 
analyzing external hazards and developing safe designs to resist 
these hazards.

 Let me now switch to the subject of human capital. Both the NRC 
and the industry are facing critical shortages of experienced 
staff. No nuclear reactor can operate without trained and 
dedicated people who have made safety a priority. Regulatory 
bodies must also have trained and knowledgeable staff. The global 
growth in nuclear power compels all of us to focus on training 
the next generation of construction workers, electricians, 
welders, engineers, operators, managers and regulators. You may 
be aware that the NRC is engaged in strenuous efforts to increase 
our staff by a net of 600 people to handle the increased workload 
of new plant applications and other nuclear regulatory business. 
Obviously, we cannot simply hire people off the street and send 
them out to be nuclear power plant regulators the next day. Even 
when hiring people with substantial experience in industry, we 
have found that it takes 6 months to a year of training before 
they begin thinking and acting like regulators. For recent 
university graduates, it takes one to two years.

 Perhaps one of the most important roles that conferences like 
SMiRT can play is in the area of knowledge management. The SMiRT 
conference planners may even consider accepting this as one of 
their challenges. These conferences, which began at the time of 
the design and construction of the current generation of plants, 
can provide historical perspectives on technical issues and 
lessons learned. Knowledge management is viewed as critical in 
the United States, and both the NRC and U.S. industry are 
exploring and implementing strategies for effective knowledge 
management programs. Your conference also affords opportunities 
for this professional growth and networking that are vital 
components of knowledge management. This is particularly 
important to the NRC, as we assimilate many engineers who are new 
to the nuclear field and strive to create a new generation of 
regulatory experts.

     As I&rsquo;ve indicated, the NRC considers participation in 
conferences such as SMiRT to be vital for many reasons. Among 
these reasons, it is consistent with agency policy to have 
effective outreach efforts with our diverse stakeholders. It is 
also important that we share information related to our research 
and regulatory initiatives, get feedback on them, and receive new 
perspectives from research conducted around the world. Our 
interest is evident from the diverse NRC staff presentations at 
this conference. The topics presented cover issues related to 
operating reactors, licensing of new reactors, and waste disposal 
facilities. One common thread in these presentations is 
consideration of risk-informed and performance-based approaches.

    I challenge all participants of this conference to move 
beyond knowledge sharing and to promote common understanding of 
issues among stakeholders with diverse perspectives, researchers, 
regulators, operators, and designers. This will facilitate 
development of universal implementation strategies, which could 
encourage the use of standardized designs worldwide and help to 
enable consensus and improved approaches to address safety 
issues.

 NRC speeches are available through a free list serve 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC 
homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail 
notifications are sent to subscribers when speeches are posted to 
NRC's Web site.


August 20, 2007
*****************************************************************
 29 Wilmington Star-News: Tritium not found in nuclear plant area | 

StarNewsOnline.com |

Published August 22. 2007 3:30AM

Progress Energy officials answer questions at public open house

By Shelby Sebens Staff Writer shelby.sebens@starnewsonline.com

Southport | No surprises means good news for the Brunswick Nuclear
Power Plant.

Progress Energy announced at a town meeting Tuesday night that it
has not detected any levels of tritium off its site or in the
public's drinking water from samples taken from 26 newly dug wells.

Several Progress Energy officials were available to answer questions
from the very few members of the public who showed up for the open
house and information session at Progress Energy's Visitors Center.

Tritium, a radioactive isotope of the element hydrogen, was found in
May in two on-site manholes. The plant invited nearly 100 nearby
residents to a meeting in late June to inform them of the discovery.

Initially, the plant determined there was no tritium outside the
plant or in the public drinking water. Testing of the wells has
confirmed that finding, Progress Energy officials said.

Progress Energy has tested wells that go as deep as Brunswick
County's main drinking water aquifer and found no traces of tritium.
The Environmental Protection Agency allows 20,000 picocuries per
liter of tritium in drinking water.

The tritium found at Brunswick Nuclear seeped from a stabilization
pond that regularly receives the radioactive isotope from the
plant's cooling turbine building. Tritium occurs naturally in the
atmosphere and, at low levels, is a harmless byproduct of nuclear
facilities.

However, as with all ionizing radiation, exposure to tritium can
increase the risk of developing cancer, according to the EPA.

The plant is no longer using that stabilization pond and is in the
process of determining a permanent change to the facility.

The plant split its samples with the state and Nuclear Regulatory
Commission from wells ranging in depth from 7 feet below grade to
150 feet.

"To this point, our results are quite close," said Dale Dusenbury,
emergency response and environmental branch manager for the state
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Radiation and
Protection Division.

The plant will continue monitoring the wells indefinitely.

"We want to monitor to make sure nothing unusual happens," Tim
Silar, hydrogeologist, said.

The nuclear industry has launched an initiative to better
communicate with the public since millions of gallons of radioactive
water were released at the Exelon nuclear power plant in Braidwood,
Ill., Dusenbury said.

"There is a national effort throughout the industry," he said.

Shelby Sebens: 755-7963 shelby.sebens@starnewsonline.com

*****************************************************************
 30 Government Executive: Lawmakers propose nuclear plant no-fly zones 

www.GovernmentExecutive.com

By Jon Fox Global Security Newswire August 22, 2007

Lawmakers representing New York have introduced a bill that would
permit the head of homeland security to declare no-fly zones around
certain nuclear power plants, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
sees little need for such a measure.

In a post-Sept. 11 world nuclear power reactors are seen as
potential targets for terrorist attacks that could have disastrous
consequences should radioactive material be released into the
environment. Just 35 miles north of Manhattan, the Indian Point
power facility seems to embody this concern.

As the owners of the Indian Point reactors seek renewed licenses to
operate for the next three decades, New York's attorney general
filed a legal brief supporting demands that federal officials in
making their decision consider terrorism risks and the feasibility
of evacuating the surrounding area.

Westchester County officials in New York have appealed the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's refusal to alter criteria considered in
relicensing power plants.

In the meantime, Democratic New York Reps. Nita Lowey, Eliot Engel,
and Maurice Hinchey have sponsored a bill that could keep planes
away from any nuclear power plant within 50 miles of an urban area
where more than 15 million people live.

The bill would allow but not require the homeland security secretary
to designate no-fly zones around nuclear plants in those regions. It
does not call for a specific security circumference.

"Al-Qaeda has publicly asserted that they have considered targeting
nuclear facilities, and we don't know what method that would be,"
said Lowey spokesman Matt Dennis. "That just poses an unacceptable
risk."

Dennis noted that one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center
on Sept. 11, 2001, flew over the Indian Point site.

According to the Sept. 11 commission report, original al-Qaeda plans
for the 2001 attacks included a total of 10 planes with nuclear
power plants in the set of targets.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, however, is not particularly
concerned about a scenario in which a plane strikes a reactor.
"These are naturally robust facilities that are meant to withstand
many types of natural disasters," said spokeswoman Holly Harrington.
"Studies have shown that there's a low likelihood that it would
penetrate to the extent that it would be a public safety hazard."

Dennis said that argument is less than convincing. "These facilities
were not built to withstand that and we can't know for sure," he
said.

While there are presently no no-fly zones, the Federal Aviation
Administration has issued a notice for pilots "that basically tells
them not to linger around nuclear power plants," Harrington said.

If a plane or helicopter were perceived as a threat to a power
plant, military jets could be scrambled. "We do have a lot of close
communication with NORAD," she said, referring to the North American
Aerospace Defense Command.

Given the location of some power plants, a no-fly zone could be
"highly disruptive" to air traffic, she added.

The New York lawmakers' legislation has been referred to the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Even if approved in
Congress and signed by the president, it seems unlikely to be used
by the Homeland Security Department.

"The department has done an extraordinary amount of work with the
various entities that regulate nuclear facilities," said agency
spokesman Russ Knocke, indicating that the department is satisfied
with the current security measures. "We've struck the right the
balance in risk management of high consequence sites."

Since 2001, plans to protect commercial nuclear reactors have
incorporated expanded threat scenarios with a greater number of
terrorists attacking by land or possibly over water. The commission
rejected a suggested requirement that private reactor security
forces be prepared to defend against armor piercing ammunition and
rocket-propelled grenades. The guidelines do not require facilities
to prepare for an air attack.

In April, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed a rule that
companies apply to certify new nuclear reactor designs assess what
the impact of a commercial airplane striking the structure would be.

At research reactors, where there is often highly enriched uranium
that could be weapons usable, federal official have issued rules
requiring additional fingerprinting and background checks of those
with access to the facilities.

Regarding threats posed by aircraft, it is "important to not lose
sight of the effort that's been made to harden our aviation sector
since 9/11," Knocke said. "There are extraordinary layers of
security in the aviation sector that have been put in place."

Knocke would not comment specifically on no-fly zones surrounding
nuclear reactors.


(C) 2007 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
*****************************************************************
 31 AU: Herald Sun: Nuclear power | 

NEWS.com.au |

August 22, 2007 06:39pm

DEPUTY Prime Minister Mark Vaile has contradicted John Howard over
nuclear power, promising that all local communities will be given a
vote before any reactor is built in their area.

The Prime Minister last week refused to guarantee that a public vote
would be held before any reactors were built, saying site decisions
would be up to commercial investors, not governments.

But Mr Vaile today said Australians who were opposed to nuclear
energy should be able to vote against it in local plebiscites.

"We can say up-front that local communities will have a direct say
on whether or not any (nuclear energy) development takes place in
their area, even to the extent of having a binding local
plebiscite," Mr Vaile said.

He said the Nationals supported the coalition's push for nuclear
energy and uranium sales.

But Nationals candidate Sue Page was allowed to champion
anti-nuclear views if that was best for her constituency, Mr Vaile
said.

Dr Page, who will contest the marginal NSW seat of Richmond in the
coming federal election, has raised concerns over nuclear energy.

He said Dr Page could cross the floor if she wanted to.

"If Sue feels strongly about this she can say: 'Well, I will
advocate, in my local community, in 20 years' time when the question
arises, that we don't have something here', and she's quite entitled
to argue that."

Labor leader Kevin Rudd said the Government could not have it both
ways.

"Mr Howard's 25 nuclear reactor plan for Australia is clear-cut. No
role for government, Mr Howard says, in deciding location, this is
entirely a commercial decision," Mr Rudd said.

"Four weeks before an election, we have the National Party trying to
wriggle out from under (the Liberal Party). It's time for Mr Howard
and Mr Vaile to come absolutely clean on their nuclear reactor plan
for the country and their plans for locations."

Mr Rudd said if Labor won this year's federal election, there would
be no nuclear reactors in Australia.

Share this article What is this?

� Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10).
*****************************************************************
 32 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard guarantees local nuclear vote - 

www.smh.com.au

August 23, 2007 - 9:00AM

Prime Minister John Howard has guaranteed local communities the
final say on any proposed sites for nuclear reactors.

But the value of the promise is doubtful, with Mr Howard saying any
such proposals were at least 10 to 15 years away.

Mr Howard, 68, would have to win this year's election and then at
least another three, overtaking his hero, Sir Robert Menzies, as
Australia's longest-serving prime minister, to be in government to
ensure the promise is honoured.

"My government has decided there will be binding local plebiscites
conducted in communities where power stations are proposed to be
built. This would follow extensive community consultation," Mr
Howard said in a statement.

"Power stations would only be constructed if they were commercially
viable and satisfied strict environmental, non-proliferation, health
and safety requirements."

Mr Howard's promise comes a week after he told federal parliament
that commercial investors would decide where nuclear reactors were
built.

But Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile on Wednesday floated the idea
of public votes in an interview with AAP.

A top-level report to the federal government this year said a
network of 25 nuclear reactors would be needed around the country to
meet power demand.

Labor has consistently called on the government to say where those
reactors would be built.

Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett said Mr Howard had done
another about-face on nuclear reactors.

"John Howard simply cannot be trusted on nuclear reactors and waste
dumps. He will say anything to get elected," Mr Garrett said.

"The only way to guarantee there will be no nuclear reactors or
waste dump in your local community is to elect a Rudd Labor
government."

But Mr Howard said Australia had to consider adding nuclear power to
its energy mix if it was serious about addressing climate change.

"(It is my) opinion that in 10, 15, 20 years time, public opinion
will have shifted on this issue and people will see nuclear power as
a very sensible alternative," Mr Howard told reporters.

Treasurer Peter Costello agreed.

"I don't think anything like this should be done without full
consultation of the local community," Mr Costello told ABC radio.

"The local community has every right to be consulted in a
plebiscite."

But independent federal MP Tony Windsor queried Mr Vaile's record on
promising communities a vote on controversial issues, following his
failure to deliver a similar promise to farmers on bulk wheat export
provisions.

"For Mr Vaile to now say he would have a plebiscite to determine the
location of 25 nuclear power plants is very thin on credibility and
country residents should be very wary," Mr Windsor said in a
statement.

Labor's infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese said Australians
wanted a straight answer on where nuclear reactors would be located.

"We now have a multiplicity of positions, what Australians want is a
clear answer to the question: 'Where will these 25 nuclear reactors
be located?'," Mr Albanese told ABC radio.

� 2007 AAP Brought to you by

Copyright � 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald.
*****************************************************************
 33 Iraq's Environment minister blames DU for cancer surge
 
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:17:52 -0500 (CDT)


Iraq's Environment minister blames DU for cancer surge
   
  http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=558604
   
  2007-07-24 | Iraq's environment minister blamed (Monday) the use of depleted
uranium weapons by U.S. forces during the 2003 Operation Shock and Awe for
the current surge in cancer cases across Iraq.
Iraq's environment minister blamed Monday the use of depleted uranium
weapons by U.S. forces during the 2003 Operation Shock and Awe for the
current surge in cancer cases across Iraq.

As a result of "at least 350 sites in Iraq being contaminated during
bombing" with depleted uranium (DU) weapons, Nermin Othman said, the nation
is facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7,000 to 8,000 new ones
registered each year.

Speaking at a ministerial meeting of the Arab League, she also complained
that many chemical plants and oil facilities had been destroyed during the
two military campaigns since the 1990s, but the ecological consequences
remain unclear.

"Our ministry is fledgling, and we need international support; notably, we
need laboratories to better monitor air and water contamination," she said.
   
  For more information on depleted uranium visit;
   
  International Coalition to Ban Depleted Uranium Weapons (ICDUW)
  http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/
   
  and the Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU)
  http://www.cadu.org.uk/
*****************************************************************
 34 BBC NEWS: Nuclear site workers plan strike

Last Updated: Wednesday, 22 August 2007, 09:48 GMT 10:48 UK

UKAEA said safety at the site would not be affected by strike 
action

Decommissioning at a nuclear site in Caithness looks set to be 
disrupted after union members among the workforce voted to strike 
next Wednesday.

They are in dispute with operators, the UK Atomic Energy 
Authority (UKAEA), over the current year's pay claim.

Almost 87% of GMB members have backed industrial action and 90% 
supported an overtime ban at Dounreay.

The GMB's national officer Mick Rix said feelings were running high
about what he said was the authority's failure to make a pay offer.

Previous ballots by two other unions have also shown a substantial
majority in favour of industrial action.


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 35 DHHS: Public Health Assessments and Health Consultations Completed; 
April 2007-June 2007

FR Doc E7-16548

[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)] 
[Notices] [Page 47042-47044] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au07-115]                         


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

[ATSDR-234]

 

AGENCY: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces those sites for which ATSDR has 
completed

[[Page 47043]]

public health assessments and health consultations during the period 
from April 1, 2007, through June 30, 2007. This list includes sites 
that are on or proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List 
(NPL) and includes sites for which assessments or consultations were 
prepared in response to requests from the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Cibulas, Jr., Ph.D., Director, 
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation, Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E-32, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (404) 498-0007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The most recent list of completed public 
health assessments and health consultations was published in the 
Federal Register on May 8, 2007 [72 FR 26119]. This announcement is the 
responsibility of ATSDR under the regulation ``Public Health 
Assessments and Health Effects Studies of Hazardous Substances Releases 
and Facilities'' [42 CFR Part 90]. This rule sets forth ATSDR's 
procedures for the conduct of public health assessments under section 
104(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and 
Reauthorization Act (SARA) [42 U.S.C. 9604(i)].

Availability

    The completed public health assessments and health consultations 
are available for public inspection at the ATSDR Records Center, 1825 
Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia (not a mailing address), between 8 
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday except legal holidays. Public 
health assessments and health consultations are often available for 
public review at local repositories such as libraries in corresponding 
areas. Many public health assessments and health consultations are 
available through ATSDR's Web site at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHA/index.asp.
 In addition, the completed public health assessments are 

available by mail through the U.S. Department of Commerce, National 
Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, Virginia 22161, or by telephone at (800) 553-6847. NTIS 
charges for copies of public health assessments. The NTIS order numbers 
are listed in parentheses following the site names.

Public Health Assessments Completed or Issued

    Between April 1, 2007, and June 30, 2007, public health assessments 
were issued for the sites listed below:

NPL and Proposed NPL Sites

New York

Peninsula Boulevard Groundwater Plume--(PB2007-107915); April 24, 2007.

North Carolina

Blue Ridge Plating Company Site--Evaluation of Surface Soil, Dry 
Sediment, and Surface Water Data--(PB2007-109821); May 18, 2007.

Utah

Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th PCE Plume--(PB2007-107912); April 18, 2007.

West Virginia

Allegany Ballistics Laboratory--(PB2007-111686); May 21, 2007.

Non-NPL Petitioned Sites

Alaska

Galena Airport (a/k/a USAF Galena Air Force Station)--(PB2007-109917); 
May 21, 2007.

New Jersey

Mercer Rubber Company Site--(PB2007-107914); April 25, 2007.

Oregon

Red Rock Road--(PB2007-109919); May 30, 2007.

Health Consultations Completed or Issued

    Between April 1, 2007, and June 30, 2007, health consultations were 
issued for the sites listed below:

Alaska

Interior Alaska Indoor Shooting Range; June 18, 2007.

Arizona

Arsenic Exposure from Private Drinking Water Wells; April 16, 2007.

Arkansas

County Road (CR)--109--Pesticide Contamination of Groundwater in 
Mississippi County Well 3; May 16, 2007.

California

A1-Lube Division of Far Best Corporation Facility; May 4, 2007.
Evaluation of Hydrogen Sulfide Migration at Twin Lakes Beach and 
Adjacent to the Santa Cruz Harbor; June 6, 2007.
Former California Zonolite/W.R. Grace & Company Site; June 11, 2007.
Germain's Seed Company; May 11, 2007.

Colorado

Crown Market--Public Health Implications of Indoor Air Residential 
Exposures via Vapor Intrusion and Outdoor Occupational Exposures via 
Soil Vapor--Evaluation of Former Leaking Underground Storage Tanks at 
Crown Market; June 12, 2007.
Schlage Lock Company--Analysis of Untreated Residential Ground
Water Wells in the Widefield Aquifer; April 4, 2007.
Schlage Lock Company--Evaluation of Current and Future Fish Consumption 
from Willow Springs Pond; May 1, 2007.

Florida

1529 West LaSalle Street Site Property; April 3, 2007.
Evaluation of Fish from St. Joe Bay--Exposure Investigation; May 15, 
2007.
West LaSalle Street Site--Indoor Air Testing--Exposure Investigation 
Report; May 11, 2007.

Illinois

Adept Tool and Machine Company, Site 121; May 4, 2007.
Minerva Mine 1; May 4, 2007.

Iowa

Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Rail Yard Targeted Brownfields 
Assessment; May 31, 2007.

Kansas

Soil Data Review for the Former Neodesha Refinery Site and Nearby 
Properties; June 25, 2007.

Minnesota

University of Minnesota Stadium--Thermal Treatment of Creosote-
Containing Soils; June 13, 2007.

Mississippi

Dupont Delisle Plant (a/k/a Dupont E. I. De Nemours and Company, 
Incorporated)--Exposure Investigation Report; April 4, 2007.

New Hampshire

8-10 Railroad Avenue; June 18, 2007.
All American Barber Shop; June 20, 2007.
Landmark Apartments; May 3, 2007.
The Costume Gallery; June 20, 2007.

New Jersey

Analysis of Cancer Incidence Near the Former Mercer Rubber Company 
Site; April 25, 2007.
Kiddie Kollege--Mercury Exposure Investigation Using Serial Urine

[[Page 47044]]

Testing and Medical Records Review; June 13, 2007.
Sal's Auto Repair; April 4, 2007.
Topps Cleaners Site--Public Health Implications and Interpretation of 
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) Exposure in Indoor Air; April 4, 2007.

New Mexico

Grants Chlorinated Solvents Plume Site; April 10, 2007.

New York

Great Kills Park--Gateway National Recreation Area; May 31, 2007.

Ohio

Laugh and Learn Daycare; June 18, 2007.
Washington County Air Quality; June 18, 2007.

Oregon

North Morrow Perchlorate Area--Exposure Investigation Report; April 18, 
2007.

Pennsylvania

Crown Industries Site; June 12, 2007.
Langner Enterprises Site (Residential Wells); June 14, 2007.

Tennessee

Hardeman County Landfill (a/k/a Velsicol Chemical Corporation); April 
16, 2007.
Pesticide Contamination in a Home; April 19, 2007.

Utah

An Investigation of Cancer Incidence in Census Tracts--1251.03, 
1251.04, 1258.04, 1258.05, 1258.06, 1259.04, 1259.05, and 1259.06, 
1978-2001; June 15, 2007.

Washington

Evaluation of Selected Metals in Geoduck Tissue from Tracts 09950 and 
10400; April 18, 2007.
Progress Elementary School--Evaluation of Soil Contamination; June 21, 
2007.

West Virginia

Holder Chemical Corporation--Exposure to Chemicals in Groundwater; June 
14, 2007.
Krouts Creek Site--Vapor Intrusion; June 14, 2007.
Nitro School Dioxin Site--Dioxin in Dust in Schools and Community 
Center; April 18, 2007.

Wisconsin

Primary School Campus of St. Katharine Drexel School--Vapor Intrusion 
at a School; June 20, 2007.

    Dated: August 15, 2007.
Kenneth Rose,
Director, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, National Center 
for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry.
 [FR Doc. E7-16548 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-70-P


*****************************************************************
 36 CDC: ABRWH meeting

FR Doc E7-16557

[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)] 
[Notices] [Page 47045] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au07-117]                         

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 or Advisory Board)

    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:

    Name: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    Audio Conference Call Time and Date: 11 a.m.-4 p.m., EST, 
Tuesday, September 4, 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 Advisory 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 Advisory 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 Advisory 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, most recently, August 3, 
2007, and will expire on August 3, 2009.
    Purpose: This Advisory 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, advising the Secretary 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 conference call 
includes: Report of Board Member Votes Recorded Since the Last Board 
Meeting; Update on Rocky Flats Follow-Up Actions; Update on SC&A 
Review of TBD 6000 and General Steel Industries Appendix; Report on 
SC&A Contract Talks for FY08; Discussions of Initial Steps for a 
Board Contractor for FY09 and Beyond; Report on Privacy Act 
``Clearance'' Procedures; Update on Letters to DOE and DOL on 
Chapman Valve; Work Group Updates; Status of and Plans for Future 
Board Activities; and Board Working Time.
    The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.
    Recommended changes to the agenda from the Office of General 
Counsel resulted in the Federal Register notice being published less 
that fifteen days before the date of the meeting.
    Because there is not a public comment period, written comments 
may be submitted. Any written comments received will be included in 
the official record of the meeting and should be submitted to the 
contact person below well in advance of the meeting.
    Contact Person for More Information: Dr. Lewis V. Wade, 
Executive Secretary, NIOSH, CDC, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, 
OH 45226, Telephone 513.533.6825, Fax 513.533.6826.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining 
to announcements of meetings and other committee management 
activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and 
Disease Registry.

    Dated: August 16, 2007.
Michael Tropauer,
Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E7-16557 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P


*****************************************************************
 37 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Sleeping with the enemy

Today: August 22, 2007 at 7:7:1 PDT

Las Vegas and North Las Vegas join group pushing for Yucca Mountain
dump

In a purported effort to bring business to Nevada, Las Vegas and
North Las Vegas have joined with supporters of the planned nuclear
waste dump at Yucca Mountain.

And, stunningly, city officials seem to have no problem with that.

As reported Tuesday by Jeff German and Steve Kanigher in the Las
Vegas Sun, the cities are members of the Nevada Alliance for
Defense, Industry and Business, a group with a stated purpose of
bringing scientific, high-tech and defense contractors to Southern
Nevada.

The group's membership, however, wants to do more than that. Group
leaders have long supported plans to dump highly radioactive waste
into Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The group is supported by the Energy Department and has a list of
members that form a "Who's Who" of repository supporters, including
Yucca contractor Bechtel SAIC Co. and former Gov. and nuclear
industry lapdog Bob List.

Clark County didn't join the group because it "promotes Yucca
Mountain as an economic opportunity," said Irene Navis, who leads
the county government's opposition. "We would not want to be part of
a group that sends out that message."

Even though the cities oppose Yucca Mountain, they apparently see
the Nevada Alliance as a business development group. Chris Knight,
Las Vegas' director of administrative services, said the city and
the alliance "have a common ground, and we don't see a mixed message
on the Yucca Mountain issue."

The alliance certainly is clear about its message, echoing the
standard - and asinine - pro-dump claim that bringing deadly waste
to Nevada is good for the economy. The alliance even offers 10
"fact" sheets on its Web site, including one that describes the
"financial benefits" of the proposal.

The cities' belief that they can be with this group and still be
against Yucca Mountain is ludicrous. This is an issue of principle.
They should drop their memberships immediately.

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 38 Platts: Fenoc awards cask storage system contract to Holtec

Fenoc awards cask storage system contract to Holtec

Washington (Platts)--21Aug2007

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., or Fenoc, has awarded a contract to
Holtec to provide cask systems for dry spent fuel storage at Perry, Fenoc said
August 21. The contract is for delivery of 16 Hi-Storm 100 casks and MPC-68
storage canisters in three campaigns, a Holtec International spokesperson
said, with the first six casks to be delivered in time for loading to begin in
early 2010. The storage facility will be designed to accommodate 80 cask
systems. Holtec and Fenoc both declined to disclose the value of the contract.

     Perry is scheduled to begin constructing the storage facility in spring
2008, Fenoc said. Holtec also will supply licensing, engineering and site
services, one Hi-Trac 125 transfer cask, an on-site transporter, and
associated ancillaries, according to the vendor. The equipment will be
manufactured by Holtec Manufacturing Division. Holtec said height limitations
involving the crane hook and the truck door required Holtec to design a new
"zero profile transporter," which the cask vendor is seeking to patent, to
move the loaded casks from the pool building to the outside storage pad.


Copyright � 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 39 reportonbusiness.com: Oversupply sinks price of uranium

YURIY HUMBER

Bloomberg News

August 22, 2007

The radioactive metal fell $15 (U.S.) to $90 a pound, Roswell,
Ga.-based Ux said Monday in its Ux Weekly report. The decline is the
biggest ever recorded by Ux. The price of uranium for immediate
delivery has dropped 35 per cent since trading at a record $138 a
pound in June.

"Maybe in the fourth quarter we'd look for uranium to move up, but
it could head lower before it goes higher," Glyn Lawcock, head of
resources research at UBS AG in Sydney, said yesterday, adding he is
"surprised" at the extent of the drop.

Record high prices have spurred increased supplies of uranium since
the first half, when there was a shortfall. Current supplies of
uranium oxide concentrate, or yellowcake, are five times demand,
consulting company TradeTech LLC said on July 27.

The Department of Energy stopped collecting bids last week for an
auction of 200 tons of uranium hexafluoride, a processed form of the
metal equivalent to 519,000 pounds of yellowcake.

"The activity surrounding this event has had noted impacts on
analyst predictions and, in turn, on participants' perceptions of
how this market could move," Ux said.

Uranium for delivery in December on the New York Mercantile Exchange
fell $2, or 2.9 per cent, to $68 a pound on Monday. The futures have
dropped 50 per cent in New York in the past month.

Kevin Smith, head of commodity trading at New York-based Evolution
Markets Inc., said spot prices aren't likely to fall much lower. "I
have buyers in the low $90s, so there is support there," he said.

Cameco Corp., the largest uranium producer, fell on the Toronto
Stock Exchange yesterday, extending the stock's decline this year to
18.2 per cent. Uranium One Inc., which is developing South Africa's
largest uranium deposit, declined 4.39 per cent.

Uranium stocks will have "another rough week," UBS's Mr. Lawcock
said.

TradeTech LLP, which provides a rival pricing service, had a record
weekly drop of $15 a pound in the week ending Aug. 10.

Cameco

Close: $38.61 (Cdn.), down 64�

Uranium One

*****************************************************************
 40 Las Vegas SUN: Romney dodges questions on Nevada nuclear waste dump

August 21, 2007

By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY

Associated Press Writer

LAS VEGAS (AP) - In his first public campaign stop in southern
Nevada, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney dodged
questions about his stance on the construction of a nuclear waste
dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Asked his position on Yucca Mountain, a project adamantly opposed by
Nevada and most voters in the state, the former Massachusetts
governor suggested that he might be sympathetic to Nevada's fight,
but fell short of taking a firm stance.

"I'm a federalist, I believe in the authority of states and clearly
Nevadans have a lot to say about this and other policies," Romney
told reporters after meeting with campaign volunteers in Las Vegas.

"My position is I'm not going to do anything that puts the health or
well-being of Nevadans at risk," he said, adding, "It's something
I'm going to look at further as the results of the study that's
ongoing are provided."

Yucca Mountain is a politically tricky issue for presidential
candidates trying to woo Nevada voters, who have newfound clout
thanks to an early caucus on Jan. 19. Some, including Romney's
opponent, Arizona Sen. John McCain, have supported the dump. Others
come from states with large number of nuclear power plants and face
pressure to find a place to store waste from those plants.

Romney's top rival, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, has said
he's concerned about safety at Yucca Mountain, but will not rule out
continuing its development. McCain says he sticks by his votes in
the Senate, calling it an issue of national security.

Romney made his comments while standing next to former Nevada Gov.
Kenny Guinn, a Romney backer and longtime opponent of the dump.
Guinn said he believes his candidate would come around on the issue.

"I know the data he's going to be looking at will give him the basis
on which he can make a decision that he'll be very proud of as he
spends more time with Nevadans and hears what they have to say about
it," Guinn said.

The dump was originally scheduled to open in 1998, but has been set
back repeatedly by lawsuits, money shortfalls and scientific
controversies. The DOE's current best-case opening date for the
dump, which would hold 77,000 tons of waste, is 2017, though the
Energy Department has said 2021 is more likely.

Despite Nevada's key spot on the nomination calendar, Republican
candidates have spent little time campaigning in the state. This was
Romney first public event in southern Nevada, the state's population
center. He held his first public event in the state in rural
northeastern Nevada last week. From Las Vegas, he was scheduled to
go to Reno to meet with members of an Olympic bid committee and
raise money.

Despite the sparse campaigning, Romney is leading the GOP field in
Nevada, according to the most recent public polling. The governor, a
member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, noted
Tuesday that his identification with state's large and politically
active LDS community might be a factor.

"Well, you know, it's probably not been considered a plus for my
campaign to be a member of my church, but I certainly hope it's
going to be plus in Nevada," he said. "I don't know, I think most
people vote based upon their political perspective of the issues of
the day."

In comments to campaign volunteers, Romney portrayed himself a
candidate running to change Washington and said his aim was to
strengthen America's military forces, economy and families.

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 41 Times Union: Forget a nuclear waste solution in election year -- 

Albany NY

First published: Wednesday, August 22, 2007

An Aug. 14 letter to the editor wanted 100 percent assurance of the
safety of nuclear power plans and an answer to the question on
disposal of nuclear waste? There is no 100 percent assurance of
anything -- safety in coal mines or buying uncontaminated toys for
our children. Can we be 100 percent sure that the media is not
misleading the public on nuclear safety issues?


  
On the question of disposal of nuclear waste, I suggest that the
media get Congress and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada
to conclude the safety studies on the proposed storage of wastes at
the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. There is a solution to the waste
problem, but it won't be addressed during an election campaign.

The public as usual will be left holding the bag in the resolution
of our serious energy crisis.

SHERWOOD DAVIES

All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2007, Capital Newspapers
Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y.
*****************************************************************
 42 barrow in furness: Cash package call for N-waste dumping

Published on 22/08/2007

WEST Cumbrian communities around Sellafield could be in line for a
cash boost if extra nuclear waste is stored on their doorstep.

Councillors are to lobby the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority ahead
of any decisions to store further nuclear material at sites like
Drigg’s Low Level Waste Repository.

A panel of Copeland councillors say they would insist upon a series
of community offset packages to benefit communities around the
Sellafield sites before giving their blessing to further disposal.

And the cash boost could see hundreds of thousands of pounds pumped
into the area.

It could mean more money becomes available for the likes of local
schools, leisure facilities and community centres.

One proposal suggested by David Moore, a borough councillor and
chairman of the West Cumbria Sites Stakeholder Group, is to set up a
fund to which community groups could bid for grants.

He said: “Any community packages would have to be sizeable with
funds made available to not only the borough council but towns and
parishes too.

“These packages would have a ripple effect benefiting those
closest to the sites in question first then heading outwards.

“If this area is to take more waste then the investment from
operators and contractors has to be substantial.

“Without these community investments additional nuclear waste
disposal nearby would not be considered.”

His comments follow a recent borough council meeting where the issue
of intermediate level waste storage was discussed.

Councillors agreed a further report should be submitted to them once
a consultation timetable for ILW storage had been established.

The NDA says it cannot take a fully informed decision on the best
approach to ILW interim storage until Westminster decides on the
long-term management arrangements for ILW, such as plans for deep
geological disposal.

In terms of radioactivity, almost two thirds of UK ILW is stored at
Sellafield currently.

But borough councillors say they would oppose any increase in
capacity at the LLWR in Copeland until a community package to help
the local community is agreed.

The council says community offset packages need to recognise the
length of time that the local community will be affected by
potential detriments.

Earlier this month it was announced that a preferred bidder for the
contract to operate the LLWR has been found.

The Washington Group, a US led consortium, has been told that
community offset packages would be a condition of any contract they
win.

View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital
reproduction, just like the printed copy at
www.nwemail.co.uk/digitalcopy
*****************************************************************
 43 Aiken Today: DOE official discusses future of SRS

AikenStandard.com

Wed, Aug 22, 2007

James Rispoli, assistant secretary of Energy for Environmental 
Management, left, was the guest speaker at Tuesday evening's CNTA 
dinner.

By JOSH VOORHEES Staff writer

The Savannah River Site, and with it the Aiken community, will play
a "viable and robust role" in the Department of Energy's plans for
the foreseeable future, a high-ranking federal official said Tuesday
evening while speaking at a dinner in Aiken.

James Rispoli, assistant secretary of Energy for Environmental
Management, addressed a crowd consisting mostly of leaders in the
local nuclear community while speaking at the Citizens for Nuclear
Technology Awareness event.

Rispoli touched on a number of topics dealing with his office of
Environmental Management and SRS, including his belief that the
site's H-Canyon ? where disposition of legacy nuclear materials
occurs ? should remain operational until 2019.

"It is a natural asset that needs to continue to operate," he said,
noting that a recent business case study he reviewed confirmed his
belief.

While the work being conducted at H-Canyon is important in itself,
Rispoli said, it also is vital because it utilizes one of the site's
most valuable resources.

"We don't want to lose the skilled and trained workforce," he said,
adding that the work being done on uranium disposition will
translate well into future plutonium disposition work.

While his visit to the area came during the budget-cycle for DOE,
Rispoli was unable to address the specifics of how much money his
office is requesting because those numbers are currently embargoed.
However, he did point to a five-year plan released by the department
last February that he said would be a good indicator to its upcoming
budget requests.

According to that plan, said Rispoli, the Environmental Management
office will receive a little less than $6 billion in the upcoming
budget, down from more than $7 billion several years ago. However
the upcoming budget will serve as a low point in the five-year
financial plan for the office, with the budget rebounding in
subsequent years.

Rispoli also said that the Request for Proposal (RFP) for
contractors hoping to operate the Liquid Waste program at SRS should
be available "in the foreseeable future" and that the department was
currently evaluating the proposals it received for the Management
and Operations contract at the site.

He also took the opportunity to praise many involved in the site
leadership, including site manager Jeffrey Allison and Citizen
Advisory Board chair Karen Patterson, before answering questions
from those in the audience.

Contact Josh Voorhees at jvoorhees@aikenstandard.com.

� 2005 The AikenStandard. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 44 DOE: DOE Awards $3.8 Million in Funding to 38 U.S. Universities 
for Nuclear Research Infrastructure

August 22, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC � The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today
strengthened its commitment to advancing nuclear power by awarding
$100,000 to 38 universities to enhance nuclear research and
development (R&D) under President Bush�s Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership (GNEP).  The one-time GNEP University Readiness awards
total $3.8 million in funding and will include upgrading
laboratories; improving reactor facilities; purchasing
state-of-the-art equipment; providing increased faculty support and
further enhancing nuclear-related curricula.  GNEP is part of a
President Bush�s Advanced Energy Initiative and aims to close the
nuclear fuel cycle by reducing proliferation risks, reducing waste
and further increasing energy security around the world.

�Increasing research expertise and bolstering infrastructure at
America�s universities will position our scientists and engineers to
support the expansion of clean and economical nuclear power in the
United States as well as to encourage the development of advanced
fuel cycle technologies,� Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy
Dennis Spurgeon said.  �Supporting our educational institutions is
essential to ensure that the United States continues to lead the
world in development of safe and secure nuclear technology.�

The GNEP University Readiness awards will directly enable a
university to compete in future GNEP R&D solicitations and
contribute to a new generation of engineers and scientists necessary
for expanding nuclear power - a safe, reliable source of
emissions-free energy.  These GNEP University Readiness awards
follow the Department�s funding opportunity announcement in March
and DOE�s thorough review of all applications since the June
deadline.

This funding is part of $15.2 million that DOE has awarded to
universities that provide nuclear energy programs in fiscal year
2007.  These awards also support President Bush�s American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) announced in 2006, which commits to
doubling the federal commitment to research programs in the physical
sciences over the next 10 years.  ACI aims to increase investments
in the next generation of scientists, engineers and educators to
keep America at the forefront of science and innovation.

The universities receiving awards include:

Clemson University
Colorado School of Mines
Cornell University
Georgia Tech
Idaho State University
Kansas State University
Livingstone College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
North Carolina State University
Ohio State University
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania State University
Prairie View A&M University
Purdue University
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center
South Carolina State University
Texas A&M University-Kingsville
Texas Engineering Experiment Station
University of California, Berkeley
University of Cincinnati
University of Florida
University of Idaho
University of Illinois
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts Lowell
University of Michigan
University of Missouri, Columbia
University of Missouri, Rolla
University of Nevada Las Vegas
University of New Mexico
University of Pittsburgh
University of South Carolina
University of Tennessee
University of Texas at Austin
University of Utah
University of Wisconsin
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

Read additional information on this announcement, GNEP and nuclear
R&amp;D programs.

Media contact(s):
Angela Hill, (202) 586-4940 


Department of Energy to Award $16 Million for GNEP Studies


DOE Seeks Industry Participation for Engineering Services to Design
Next Generation Nuclear Plant


North American Energy Ministers Take Further Action on Energy
Security and the Environment


 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403

*****************************************************************
 45 Hanford News: Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Award for RF Radiation Injury Below
Thermal Exposure Level

This story was published Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007

PRNewswire-USNewswire

MARSHFIELD, Vt. - The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the Alaska 
Workers' Compensation Board decision awarding an AT&T equipment 
installer 100% disability due to his exposure to radiofrequency 
radiation (RF) at levels slightly above the FCC RF safety limit. 
The award is based on psychological and cognitive effects of RF 
over-exposure. This decision is significant because the FCC RF 
limit protects only against heating and ignores other adverse 
biological effects at much lower levels.

The RF exposure level in question was well below FCC's recognized
level of "thermal" harm. FCC contends there are no scientifically
established harmful health effects below the thermal threshold. The
Board decision concurs with medical experts who found adverse RF
health effects from exposure occurring above the FCC safety limit
but below the thermal threshold. This decision could hold
significant financial impact for the wireless industry going forward.

The Court found:

Because substantial evidence supports the board's findings and
because the board's procedural decisions did not deprive AT&T of due
process, we affirm the superior court's judgment that affirmed the
board's ruling.

This decision opens the door for disability claims from millions of
wireless industry or maintenance workers who experience occupational
exposures to operating antenna arrays and have suffered similar
cognitive and neurological symptoms. The FCC requires no on-site
radiation measurements to document RF safety compliance. Millions of
worksites host camouflaged operating antenna arrays where no RF
safety program is carried out.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 46 Chillicothe Gazette: Formation of citizens advisory board proposed for enrichment plant
oversight

www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH

Wednesday, August 22, 2007   

By LOREN GENSON Gazette Staff Writer

Opponents of Piketon uranium enrichment plant activities now may 
have an advisory role in actions taken by the U.S. Energy 
Department.

"We have been calling for this for years," said Geoffrey Sea, of 
the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group (SONG). "Piketon is the only 
(Department of Energy) site that has never had a Citizens 
Advisory Board. It's also one of the poorest in terms of income."

At an update meeting of environmental cleanup efforts conducted by
the Energy Department, project manager Bill Murphie discussed the
importance of public input in plant decisions. "The local citizens
groups need to get together," Murphie said. "We have had citizens
groups form at other (Department of Energy) sites and we can put
them in touch with you. But the business groups need to get together
alongside the citizens groups to be credible."

Dan Minter, vice chairman of the Southern Ohio Diversification
Initiative (SODI) board of directors which supports businesses in
Southern Ohio, said his group would be happy to work with Sea's
group to form a local stakeholder group.

"This is something we could have had five years ago. It would have
provided more information before the situation becomes so
emotionally charged," Minter said. "But I think we can work together
with these other groups and I think we're going to have to make this
work."

While SONG applauded the opportunity for input, some members worried
the goals of groups like SODI would undermine citizens' interests.

"I don't believe having a group like SODI involved with a (Citizens
Advisory Board) would be fair because they are only involved to
promote their own interests," said Lorry Swain, of SONG.

Minter said his company does promote local businesses, but his goals
are not in conflict with local citizens.

"Many members of SODI are important, well-respected, upstanding
citizens in the community," Minter said. "The goal is to think
regionally and bring good businesses and well-paying jobs to the
region."

The formation of a Citizens Advisory Board of local stakeholders
group can be done with as much or little assistance from the
Department of Energy as the group decides. Murphie cautioned that
the more involvement the Energy Department had, the more rules and
regulations would have to be followed.

"We would prefer to stay out of the group," Murphie said. "If you
come to us and want money and support, there will be a list of rules
you will have to fall under."

So far, no solid advisory board has been formed, but Sea said SONG
would be poised to begin one soon, and he had even begun to draft a
list of those who should serve.

"We've provided the (Energy Department) a long list of people who
need to be included as stakeholders, including environmental
groups," Sea said. "Hopefully, we can have an advisory board
eventually over the whole site, not just the (Energy Department)
actions."

(Genson can be reached at 772-9369 or via e-mail at 
lgenson@nncogannett.com)

Originally published August 22, 2007 Print this article E-mail this

Bill Murphie, manager of the U.S. Department of Energy's 
Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, points out Tuesday where 
various projects stand in relation to other DOE projects during a 
meeting at the OSU Endeavor Center in Piketon.

Copyright �2007 Chillicothe Gazette
*****************************************************************
 47 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern 
New Mexico

FR Doc E7-16551

[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)] 
[Notices] [Page 46973-46974] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au07-57]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


AGENCY: Department of Energy.

[[Page 46974]]

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Northern New Mexico. 
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) 
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: Wednesday, September 19, 2007. 2 p.m.-8:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Santa Fe Community College, Jemez Complex, 6401 Richards 
Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Menice Santistevan, Northern New 
Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite 
B, Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or e-
mail: msantistevan@doeal.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste 
management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

2 p.m.--Call to Order by Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Christina 
Houston.
    Establishment of a Quorum.
    Welcome and Introductions, Rosemary Romero.
    Approval of Agenda.
    Approval of Minutes of July 25, 2007, Board Meeting.
2:30 p.m.--Board Business/Reports.
     Old Business, Rosemary Romero.
     Report from Chair, J.D. Campbell.
     Report from Department of Energy, Christina Houston.
     Report from Executive Director, Menice Santistevan.
     Other Matters, Board Members.
     New Business.
3 p.m.--Break.
3:15 p.m.--Committee Business/Reports.
    A. Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance and Remediation 
Committee, Introduction of Recommendation 2007-03, Pam Henline.
    B. Waste Management Committee, Update on Spring NNMCAB Sponsored 
Forum, Ralph Phelps.
    C. Approval of Final Fiscal Year 2008 Committee Work Plans.
4:15 p.m.--Reports from Liaison Members.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Rich Mayer. DOE, George 
Rael.
    Los Alamos National Security, LLC, Sue Stiger.
    New Mexico Environment Department (NMED), James Bearzi.
5 p.m.--Dinner Break.
6 p.m.--Public Comment.
6:15 p.m.--Consideration and Action on Recommendation 2007-03.
7 p.m.--Presentation on Proposed Responses to the 17 National Academies 
of Sciences' Recommendations Regarding Groundwater Monitoring Issues at 
Los Alamos National Laboratory.
8 p.m.--Round Robin on Board Meeting and Presentations, Board Members.
8:15 p.m.--Recap of Meeting: Issuance of Press Releases, Editorials, 
etc.,
    Rosemary Romero.
8:30 p.m.--Adjourn, Christina Houston.

    This agenda is subject to change at least one day in advance of the 
meeting.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Menice Santistevan at the address or 
telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days 
prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include 
the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer 
is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate 
the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public 
comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their 
comments.
    Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the U.S. Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be 
available at the Public Reading Room located at the Board's office at 
1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM. Hours of operation for the 
Public Reading Room are 9 a.m.-4 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Minutes 
will also be made available by writing or calling Menice Santistevan at 
the Board's office address or telephone number listed above. Minutes 
and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.org
.

    Issued at Washington, DC on August 16, 2007.
Rachel M. Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-16551 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


*****************************************************************
 48 DOE: Environmental Management Advisory Board Meeting

FR Doc E7-16552

[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)] 
[Notices] [Page 46974-46975] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au07-58]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Advisory Board (EMAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this 
meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Thursday, September 13, 2007. 8 a.m.-4 p.m.

ADDRESSES: La Fonda on the Plaza, 100 East San Francisco Street, Santa 
Fe, New Mexico 87501.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terri Lamb, Designated Federal 
Officer, Environmental Management Advisory Board (EM-13), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585. Phone (202) 586-9007; fax (202) 586-0293 or e-mail: 
terri.lamb@em.doe.gov.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to provide the 
Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management with advice and 
recommendations on corporate issues confronting the Environmental 
Management Program. The Board will contribute to the effective 
operation of the Environmental Management Program by providing 
individual citizens and representatives of interested groups an 
opportunity to present their views on issues facing the Office of 
Environmental Management and by helping to secure consensus 
recommendations on those issues.

Tentative Agenda:
    8 a.m. Welcome and Overview.
    8:15 a.m. Los Alamos Site Office Presentation.
    8:45 a.m. EM Program Update.
    9:30 a.m. Roundtable Discussion.
    9:45 a.m. Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board 
Presentation.
    10 a.m. Roundtable Discussion.
    10:15 a.m. Break.
    10:30 a.m. Environmental Compliance Assessment Program Overview.
    11 a.m. Roundtable Discussion.
    11:15 a.m. Public Comment Period.
    11:30 a.m. Lunch.
    1 p.m. Board Business and Committee Reports.
     Approval of March 6-7, 2007, Meeting Minutes.
     Organizational Efficiency

[[Page 46975]]

Subcommittee.
     EMAB Communications Team.
     Small Business, Acquisition, and Project Management.
     Employee Recruitment and Retention.
     Discretionary Budgeting.
     Technical Uncertainty and Risk Reduction.
     New Business.
     Roundtable Discussion.
     Set Date for Next Meeting.
    3:30 p.m. Public Comment Period.
    4p.m. Adjournment.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Terri Lamb at the address or telephone 
number above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting 
and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in 
the agenda. Those who call in and register in advance will be given the 
opportunity to speak first. Others will be accommodated as time 
permits. The Board Chair is empowered to conduct the meeting in a 
fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. 
Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum 
of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available at http://www.em.doe.gov/stakepages/emabmeetings.aspx
 for viewing and copying. 

Minutes will also be available by calling Terri Lamb at (202) 586-9007.

    Issued at Washington, DC on August 17, 2007.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-16552 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


*****************************************************************
 49 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge 
Reservation

FR Doc E7-16553

[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)] 
[Notices] [Page 46975] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au07-59]                         

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge 
Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 
86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be 
announced in the Federal Register.

DATES: Wednesday, September 12, 2007. 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, 
Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, 
EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 
576-5333 or e- mail: halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site 
at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make 
recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste 
management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda: The presentation topic will be an ``Update on 
Corehole 8.''
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the 
agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone 
number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the 
meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the 
presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is 
empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the 
orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment 
will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
    Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Information Center at 
475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, TN between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, or by writing to Pat Halsey, Department of Energy Oak 
Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, or 
by calling her at (865) 576-4025.

    Issued at Washington, DC on August 16, 2007.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-16553 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


*****************************************************************
 50 EPA: Proposed Approval of the Central Characterization Project's 
Remote-Handled Waste Characterization Program at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory

FR Doc E7-16612

[Federal Register: August 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 162)] 
[Notices] [Page 47023-47026] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr22au07-103]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0643; FRL-8458-5]

 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of public comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or we) is announcing 
the availability of, and soliciting public comments for 45 days on, the 
proposed approval of the radioactive, remote-handled (RH), transuranic 
(TRU) waste characterization program implemented by the Central 
Characterization Project (CCP) at Los Alamos National Laboratory 
(LANL). This waste is intended for disposal at the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico.
    In accordance with the WIPP Compliance Criteria, EPA evaluated the 
characterization of RH TRU debris waste from LANL-CCP during an 
inspection conducted the week of May 8, 2007. Using the systems and 
processes developed as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) 
Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) program to characterize RH TRU waste, EPA 
verified whether DOE could adequately characterize RH TRU waste 
consistent with the Compliance Criteria. The results of EPA's 
evaluation of the LANL-CCP program and its proposed approval are 
described in the Agency's inspection report, which is available for 
review in the public dockets listed in ADDRESSES. We will consider 
public comments received on or before the due date mentioned in DATES.
    This notice summarizes the waste characterization processes 
evaluated by EPA and EPA's proposed approval. As required by the 40 CFR 
194.8, at the end of a 45-day comment period EPA will evaluate public 
comments received, and if appropriate, finalize the reports responding 
to the relevant public comments, and a final report and approval letter 
to DOE.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0643, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail to: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.
     Fax: 202-566-1741.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0643. The Agency's policy is that all comments received will 
be included in the public docket without change and may be made 
available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
at http://www.regulations.gov.

    As of September 22, 2006, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) Public 
Reading Room will be temporarily inaccessible to the public until 
November 6, 2006, due to construction. Public access to docket 
materials will still be provided. We strongly encourage you to visit 
the EPA Dockets Web site frequently (http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
) in order to receive the latest status concerning the 

Public Reading Room and public access to docket materials.
    If you wish to obtain materials from a docket in the EPA/DC, please 
go first to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) and obtain 

electronic copies. If the materials are listed in the docket index but 
the documents themselves are not available in Regulations.gov, please 
call (202) 566-1744 or e-mail the applicable Program Office Docket.
    EPA Docket Center operations will still continue during this 
period. In addition to electronic access through regulations.gov, 
public inspection of docket materials will be available by appointment 
during this period. Appointments may be made by calling (202) 566-1744 
or by e-mailing the appropriate Docket Office.
    If you wish to hand deliver comments during this period, you may 
drop them off between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern 
Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays 
at the EPA Headquarters, Room 6146F in the EPA West Building located at 
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    EPA visitors are required to show photographic identification and 
sign the EPA visitor log. After processing

[[Page 47024]]

through the X-ray and magnetometer machines, visitors will be given an 
EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times, and be escorted to Room 
6146F to drop off comments.
    If you have any other questions concerning the temporary closing of 
the EPA/DC Public Reading Room, you may call (202) 566-1744 between the 
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    These documents are also available for review in hard-copy form at 
the following three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New 
Mexico: in Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, Hours: Monday-Thursday, 
10 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday-Saturday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m.-5 
p.m., phone number: 505-885-0731; in Albuquerque at the Government 
Publications Department, Zimmerman Library, University of New Mexico, 
Hours: Vary by semester, phone number: 505-277-2003; and in Santa Fe at 
the New Mexico State Library, Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., 
phone number: 505-476-9700. As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 
part 2, and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies 
of any docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged 
for photocopying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rajani Joglekar or Ed Feltcorn, 
Radiation Protection Division, Center for Federal Regulations, Mail 
Code 6608J, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9601; fax 
number: 202-343-2305; e-mail address: 
joglekar.rajani@epa.gov or feltcorn.ed@epa.gov.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of 

the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk 
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM 
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.

II. Background

    DOE is developing the WIPP, near Carlsbad in southeastern New 
Mexico, as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive 
waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. 
L. 102-579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201), TRU waste consists of 
materials that have atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half-lives 
greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100 
nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of 
the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the 
production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and 
sludges.
    TRU waste is itself divided into two categories, based on its level 
of radioactivity. Contact-handled (CH) TRU waste accounts for about 97 
percent of the volume of TRU waste currently destined for the WIPP. It 
is packaged in 55-gallon metal drums or in metal boxes and can be 
handled under controlled conditions without any shielding beyond the 
container itself. The maximum radiation dose at the surface of a CH TRU 
waste container is 200 millirems per hour. CH waste primarily emits 
alpha particles that are easily shielded by a sheet of paper or the 
outer layer of a person's skin.
    Remote-handled (RH) TRU waste emits more radiation than CH TRU 
waste and must therefore be both handled and transported in shielded 
casks. Surface radiation levels of unshielded containers of remote-
handled transuranic waste exceed 200 millirems per hour. RH waste 
primarily emits gamma radiation, which is very penetrating and requires 
concrete, lead, or steel to block it.
    On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification 
decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63 FR 
27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's 
radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, Subparts B 
and C.
    The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that (1) 
Prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any site other 
than the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) until the EPA 
determines that the site has established and executed a quality 
assurance program, in accordance with Sec. Sec.  194.22(a)(2)(i), 
194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization activities 
and assumptions (Condition 2 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 194); and (2) 
(with the exception of specific, limited waste streams and equipment at 
LANL) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP (from LANL or 
any other site) until EPA has approved the procedures developed to 
comply with the waste characterization requirements of Sec.  
194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA's 
approval process for waste generator sites is described in Sec.  194.8 
(revised July 2004).
    Condition 3 of the WIPP Certification Decision requires EPA to 
conduct independent inspections at DOE's waste generator/storage sites 
of their TRU waste characterization capabilities before approving their 
program and the waste for disposal at the WIPP. EPA's inspection and 
approval process gives EPA (a) Discretion in establishing technical 
priorities, (b) the ability to accommodate variation in the site's 
waste characterization capabilities, and (c) flexibility in scheduling 
site WC inspections.
    As described in section 194.8(b), EPA's baseline inspections 
evaluate each WC process component (equipment, procedures, and 
personnel training/experience) for its adequacy and appropriateness in 
characterizing TRU waste destined for disposal at WIPP. During an 
inspection, the site demonstrates its capabilities to characterize TRU 
waste(s) and its ability to comply with the regulatory limits and 
tracking requirements under Sec.  194.24. A baseline inspection may 
describe any limitations on approved waste streams or waste 
characterization processes

[[Page 47025]]

[Sec.  194.8(b)(2)(iii)]. In addition, a baseline inspection approval 
must specify what subsequent WC program changes or expansion should be 
reported to EPA [Sec.  194.8(b)(4)]. The Agency is required to assign 
Tier 1 (T1) and Tier 2 (T2) to the reportable changes depending on 
their potential impact on data quality. A T1 designation requires that 
the site must notify EPA of proposed changes to the approved components 
of an individual WC process (such as radioassay equipment or 
personnel), and EPA must also approve the change before it can be 
implemented. A WC element with a T2 designation allows the site to 
implement changes to the approved components of individual WC processes 
(such as visual examination procedures) but requires EPA notification. 
The Agency may choose to inspect the site to evaluate technical 
adequacy before approval. EPA inspections conducted to evaluate T1 or 
T2 changes are follow-up inspections under the authority of Sec.  
194.24(h). In addition to the follow-up inspections, if warranted, EPA 
may opt to conduct continued compliance inspections at TRU waste sites 
with a baseline approval under the authority of Sec.  194.24(h).
    The site inspection and approval process outlined in Sec.  194.8 
requires EPA to issue a Federal Register notice proposing the baseline 
compliance decision, docket the inspection report for public review, 
and seek public comment on the proposed decision for a period of 45 
days. The report must describe the WC processes EPA inspected at the 
site, as well as their compliance with Sec.  194.24 requirements.
    EPA previously issued a preliminary approval of DOE's general 
framework for characterizing RH waste on March 26, 2004 (Docket A-98-
49, Item II-B2-21). This approval requires DOE to provide site-specific 
RH waste characterization plans and characterization procedures for EPA 
approval prior to implementing them for characterizing RH waste.

III. Proposed Baseline Compliance Decision

    EPA has performed a baseline inspection of RH TRU waste 
characterization activities at LANL-CCP (EPA Inspection No. EPA-LANL-
CCP-RH-5.07-8). The purpose of EPA's inspection was to verify that the 
RH waste characterization program implemented at LANL-CCP for 
characterizing RH TRU, retrievably-stored, debris waste is adequate for 
the 16 RH waste canisters. EPA evaluated whether the RH waste 
characterized meets the regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 194.24.
    This inspection was different from previous RH baseline inspections 
conducted at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and Argonne National 
Laboratory East (ANL-E) (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0881), as 
well as previous contact-handled (CH) baseline inspections. Generally, 
EPA's RH and CH baseline inspections evaluate WC programs for technical 
adequacy and when approved the TRU sites would continue to implement 
the approved program components to characterize additional wastes on an 
ongoing basis. However, the characterization activities within the 
scope of this inspection had occurred at LANL in the 1990's and were 
completed prior to this inspection. This inspection's sole focus was to 
evaluate the records that had been assembled to document WC activities, 
including recently performed modeling, interpretation, and further 
calculations based on previously-generated RH measurement data for a 
LANL RH debris waste stream No. LA-MHD03.002. There will be no further 
waste characterization activities relative to this waste, and this 
proposed approval is directed to a discrete set of canisters within 
this LANL RH debris waste stream, as supported by the documentation the 
EPA inspection team evaluated during this inspection. Note that this is 
a retrospective approval of LANL RH debris waste characterization 
activities knowing that no additional RH debris waste will be 
characterized by LANL CCP in the future based on this baseline 
approval.
    The purpose of the LANL-CCP RH WC inspection was to evaluate the 
adequacy of the site's WC programs for 16 canisters in a single RH 
debris waste stream for disposal at WIPP. The 16 canisters of RH debris 
in this waste stream were generated from the examination of fuel pins 
at the LANL Chemical, Metallurgical Research (CMR) facility from 1970 
through 1984. In the early 1990's, wastes derived from examination of 
these fuel pins were loaded into 364 1\1/2\-gallon steel cans that were 
welded shut. These 364 cans were later assembled into 12 canisters and 
four other canisters were assembled with bulk-loaded debris from the 
same activities. The WC activity examined during the inspection was 
acceptable knowledge (AK) for these 16 canisters of RH retrievably-
stored TRU debris (S5000) waste. CCP has assured EPA that these 16 
sealed canisters will be disposed of ``as is'' at WIPP and will not be 
repackaged with any other RH debris waste.
    The EPA inspection team determined that the records documenting 
LANL-CCP's RH WC program represented activities that were technically 
adequate. EPA, therefore, is proposing to approve the LANL-CCP RH WC 
program for the 16 RH TRU canisters in LANL RH Waste Stream No. LA-
MHD03.002 evaluated during this baseline inspection described and 
documented in this report. The approval includes the following:
    (1) The AK process for 16 canisters of RH retrievably-stored TRU 
debris in the waste stream designated LANL RH Waste Stream No. LA-
MHD03.002.
    (2) The radiological characterization (RC) process using dose-to-
fissile gram, dose-to-curie (DTC), curie-to-dose and modeling-derived 
scaling factors for assigning radionuclide values to 16 canisters of RH 
retrievably-stored TRU debris in one waste stream, designated as LANL 
RH Waste Stream No. LA-MHD03.002 and documented in CCP-AK-LANL-501, 
Revision 0 and detailed in this report.
    Since no additional WC activities that will occur relative to the 
16 canisters of RH debris waste, changes to the WC activities evaluated 
during the baseline inspection are not expected to occur. Accordingly, 
this report does not list any tiering (T1 or T2) designations relative 
to this waste and waste characterization components proposed for the 
approval.

IV. Availability of the Baseline Inspection Report for Public Comment

    EPA has placed the report discussing the results of the Agency's 
inspection of LANL-CCP in the public docket as described in ADDRESSES. 
In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the public 45 days to 
comment on these documents. The Agency requests comments on the 
proposed approval decision, as described in the inspection report. EPA 
will accept public comment on this notice and supplemental information 
as described in section 1.B. above. EPA will not make a determination 
of compliance before the 45-day comment period ends. At the end of the 
public comment period, EPA will evaluate all relevant public comments 
and revise the inspection report as necessary. If appropriate, the 
Agency will then issue a final approval letter and inspection report, 
both of which will be posted on the WIPP Web site.
    Information on the certification decision is filed in the official 
EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for review in 
Washington, DC, and at the three EPA WIPP informational docket 
locations in New

[[Page 47026]]

Mexico (as listed in ADDRESSES). The dockets in New Mexico contain only 
major items from the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, plus those 
documents added to the official Air Docket since the October 1992 
enactment of the WIPP LWA.

    Dated: August 16, 2007.
Elizabeth Cotsworth,
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
[FR Doc. E7-16612 Filed 8-21-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


*****************************************************************
 51 Knoxville News Sentinel: The Oak Ridge vision is a frequent look back 

By Frank Munger (Contact)

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

No place celebrates its history quite like Oak Ridge, and I can
think of few places that celebrate it more often.

Just when you think the Atomic City has run out of 50th and 60th
anniversaries to commemorate, up comes a new one.

What now? The U.S. Department of Energy is holding a
“commemoration event” Sept. 12 to recognize the 60th year of
DOE’s Oak Ridge office. That time period, of course, includes the
reign of DOE’s federal predecessors — the Atomic Energy
Commission and the Energy Research and Development Administration.

According to information distributed by DOE, the Oak Ridge office
was established on Sept. 15, 1947, by the AEC.

Current and former Oak Ridge Operations employees, as well as
contractor employees who worked in the current Federal Building or
the earlier “Castle on the Hill,” are invited to the festivities.

The event will be held at 1:30 p.m., and DOE spokesman Walter Perry
said agency officials are trying to get the word out to as many
people as possible. Perry said DOE is hoping several hundred will
attend.

Former feds and contractor associates in the Federal Buildings are
asked to call the public affairs office if they’re planning to
share cake and a few memories that day.

The telephone number is 865-576-0885.

It should be interesting to see who shows up. In addition to current
DOE Manager Gerald Boyd, who has held the post since January 2003,
there are a number of former Oak Ridge managers still living: Bob
Hart, Joe La Grone, Jim Hall and Leah Dever.

There also are a bunch of people who served as acting manager, such
as Mike Holland for six months in 2002.

U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., is scheduled to be the keynote
speaker. There also will be a time capsule buried at the site as
part of the ceremonies.

DOE won’t say what’s to be included in the capsule —
hopefully, no taxpayer dollars or radioactive waste.

---

The standing union joke during contract negotiations with any of the
federal contractors in Oak Ridge is that the “ghost at the
table” is the Department of Energy.

In other words, DOE (or the National Nuclear Security
Administration, the agency sub-unit that oversees the nuclear
weapons complex) runs the show behind the scenes and ultimately
makes the decisions, even if contractor companies are reportedly
doing the negotiating.

According to Randy Lawson, president of the International Guards
Union of America, DOE was more than a ghost during the IGUA’s
recent contract negotiations with Wackenhut Services.

“The spirit came alive this time,” he said.

Lawson said DOE informed union officials “up front” that if they
didn’t agree to a two-week buffer before beginning a strike
(should the contract not be ratified) that money needed to assemble
a contingency guard force in Oak Ridge would come out of the pot
available for guards. That cost was estimated at $138,000 a day, he
said.

DOE was active on other issues as well, he said.

Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant,
responded, “We were not involved in the negotiations.”

---

As noted in a story earlier this week, the massive cleanup project
at the K-25 uranium-enrichment is falling further behind schedule.

Some reasons for the delays are obvious, especially when work was
shut down after a worker fell through a floor in early 2006. The
cleanup strategy was then altered significantly to include a bunch
of new safety measures.

Bechtel Jacobs Co., DOE’s cleanup manager, would not say if the
investigation and ultimate arrest of Roy Oakley, a former
maintenance worker charged with trying to sell classified equipment
from the site, has had an impact.

“We have no comment in any regard concerning the Oakley case,”
said BJC spokesman Dennis Hill.

Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the
News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at
munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion
section of knoxnews.com.

� 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 52 Knoxville News Sentinel: ORNL disputes IG report on nuke workers monitoring 

By Frank Munger

Originally published 11:32 a.m., August 22, 2007

OAK RIDGE — A new federal audit identified problems with the way
nuclear workers are monitored for exposures at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and the East Tennessee Technology Park.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s inspector general released the
report today.

Auditors found that more than 65 percent of radiological workers
sampled by auditors at ORNL did not receive all of their scheduled
bioassay tests, were not tested at the prescribed frequency or were
not tested for all of the radioactive materials to which they might
have been exposed.

The biological sampling is used to evaluate whether workers have
absorbed radioactive materials. It supports other types of radiation
monitoring for workers most likely to be exposed.

UT-Battelle, the managing contractor at ORNL, disputed the finding.

“In this case, the report apparently confused a voluntary testing
program with a much more stringent monitoring program that ORNL has
had in place for years,” ORNL spokesman Billy Stair said.

“Extensive air monitoring and radiation surveys indicated that
none of the staff involved was at risk for the exposure, and thus
many felt no need for further individual testing.”

At ETTP, a former uranium-enrichment facility being cleaned up by
Bechtel Jacobs Co., about 20 percent of nuclear workers were not
tested at the frequency they should have been for all the
radioisotopes at their work sites, the report said.

On the positive front, the audit showed that workers at the Y-12
nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge were being tested properly.

The review at ORNL indicated that some workers in radiological areas
were not showing up for tests even after being notified of the
requirement, and sometimes canceled appointments were not
rescheduled or the rescheduled tests were missed as well.

“For example, one individual only met two of seven required tests
over a 14-month period,” the report said. “During this time
period the individual worked in areas where she was potentially
exposed to isotopes such as iodine-131, which may increase a
person’s risk for developing thyroid cancer.”

At the East Tennessee Technology Park, some employees were not
tested for all isotopes specified in the federal site’s work
permits or tested at the frequency required, the IG audit found.

“For example, four of these individuals were not scheduled in a
timely manner and, as a result, over 25 percent of the required
tests for uranium isotopes were at least three weeks delinquent,”
the report said.

John Shewairy, a DOE spokesman, said a “number of mechanisms
including air monitoring, radiation screening, and the use of
dosimetry monitors” are in place at the Oak Ridge facilities and
provide “radiation detection and protection capability for our
workers.”

“The safety and well-being of our workforce is paramount,”
Shewairy said.

“Our contractors are in full compliance with the stringent and
mandatory DOE requirements as provided for by the references cited
in the Department's response to the IG audit — a response that was
included in the IG audit report itself.”

More details as they develop online and in Thursday’s News
Sentinel.

� 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.

*****************************************************************
 53 Knoxville News Sentinel: Proposed Y-12 facility could cost $3.5 billion 

New cost figures dwarf previous estimate

By Frank Munger

Updated 02:48 p.m., August 22, 2007

OAK RIDGE — Federal officials have approved the start of
preliminary design work on a new production center for the Y-12
nuclear weapons plant, and a Y-12 spokesman acknowledged this week
that the cost of the proposed project could reach $3.5 billion —
far more than previous estimates.

Steven Wyatt, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security
Administration in Oak Ridge, said there is no firm price tag for the
Uranium Processing Facility at this point, but he acknowledged that
the cost range for the project is $1.4 billion to $3.5 billion.

The highest previous estimate disclosed publicly was $2 billion,
which Y-12 general manager George Dials reported during a meeting
with the News Sentinel earlier this year. At the time, Dials said
the working estimates ranged from $1.4 billion to $2 billion. When
first proposed a few years ago, Y-12 officials said they expected
the UPF to cost about $1 billion.

In an e-mail response to questions about UPF earlier this week,
Wyatt confirmed that Oak Ridge officials recently received the
go-ahead for Critical Decision-1, which is federal parlance to begin
preliminary design work on a major construction project.

The Uranium Processing Facility would replace the main 9212
production complex at Y-12, which manufactures nuclear warhead parts
— specializing in so-called secondaries, the second stage of
thermonuclear weapons. UPF is considered a key part of the
modernization program at Y-12.

A new storage facility for weapons-grade uranium is already under
construction at Y-12. According to plant officials, the storage
facility — known formally as the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials
Facility — is about 60 percent complete. The current cost of that
project is $549 million, which is more than twice the initial
estimates.

Clay Sell, the deputy secretary of energy, gave Y-12 permission to
proceed with preliminary design work on UPF following a July 25
presentation in Washington, Wyatt said. A formal authorization
letter from Sell is expected soon, he said.

Work on the preliminary design is now under way, Wyatt said.

According to Wyatt, the currrent cost range for the UPF allows
“significant consideration” for uncertainties and unknowns.

“The actual cost baseline for the project will not be developed
until preliminary design is mature enough to objectively quantify
the scope and validate the total estimated cost,” the federal
spokesman said.

Establishing a “performance baseline” for the project, which
includes an official cost estimate, is a pre-requisite to getting
approval of Critical Decision-2, tentatively scheduled for 2010. The
actual project is not likely to be completed until 2015 or beyond,
based on earlier reports by Y-12 officials.

“Based on the process used to develop the cost range, it is
reasonable to anticipate that the project's baseline will be set at
a number between $1.4 billion and $3.5 billion,” Wyatt said.

Wyatt said the UPF is an important project, from both a production
and a safety standpoint.

“UPF will replace the heart of the Y-12 manufacturing complex,
moving operations from 60-year-old facilities with outdated
equipment into a new consolidated facility,” he said. “The new
facility will have enhanced facility safety and worker health
features designed into the facility and processes.”

The cost, however, is sure to bring additional controversy to the
big project.

Peace activists have already protested the billions of dollars being
spent on Y-12 modernization, saying there is no need for new weapons.

Even one of the plant's biggest supporters, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp,
R-Tenn., recently said there has to be a cap on spending — even on
national security projects. Wamp said the government needs to look
at ways to control escalating costs, as well as look at creative
ways to finance the big projects — perhaps looking outside the
traditional funding mechanisms through Congress.

Two major new facilities at Y-12, the Jack Case Center and the New
Hope Center, which collectively will provide offices for about a
third of the Y-12 work force, were built via private financing.
Those facilities were developed by Lawler-Wood of Knoxville and are
leased to BWXT, the government's managing contractor at Y-12.

More details as they develop online and in Thursday’s News
Sentinel.

� 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.

*****************************************************************
 54 lamonitor.com: Introducing MaRIE

The Online News Source for Los Alamos

Lab unveils signature facility plan

ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor

Los Alamos National Laboratory staked out a claim to its future
Tuesday as top officials announced the intention to develop a new
Signature Science Facility - named MaRIE.

With a bow to Marie Curie - the only person to win Nobel Prizes in
two disciplines, physics and chemistry - the acronym stands for
"Matter-Radiation Interactions in Extremes."

LANL Director Michael Anastasio and Principal Associate Director
Terry Wallace talked with employees about plans for the new facility
at an all-hands meeting.

Still in its earliest stages, the idea came out of a "bottom-up"
planning process that began with an invitation for proposals from
across the laboratory, followed by workshops and further evaluations
and discussions.

The participatory process will continue into the future with
internal scoping workshops and input from the outside community.

Discussions have begun with lab sponsors, including the Department
of Energy's Office of Science and with the National Nuclear Security
Administration, Wallace said, with an eye to getting into the 2009
budget cycle.

It would not be unusual for a major project like this to take a
decade or more to come to fruition, he added.

The framework for the decision, Wallace said, was the desire to have
a "cutting edge facility" that would be "an attractor" for future
scientists, that would "serve the mission" of the laboratory and
would be "flexible" enough to encompass an evolving mission into the
future.

"With a commitment to be the premier national security science
laboratory for the twenty-first century, square in the middle of
that are the kinds of things MaRIE will do," Wallace said.

The facility would continue the laboratory's research in radiation
in different forms, building upon the long history and foundation of
the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF) that came on line in
1972 and the current major experimental science facility, the Los
Alamos Neutron Scattering Center (LANSCE).

LANSCE is used in nuclear weapons experiments related to maintaining
and certifying the nuclear weapons stockpile and by a growing
community of academic and industrial researchers across the country
and around the world.

The facility makes use of a powerful linear accelerator that
accelerates protons to 84 percent of the speed of light.

In a process called spallation, neutrons are scattered when a proton
from the beam collides with a nucleus. The neutrons in turn can be
used to look inside the molecules of target materials under varying
pressures, temperatures and other conditions.

Internal structural properties of biological materials, the effects
of fatigue in metal alloys and the molecular processes of chemicals
at high temperatures are suitable subjects for neutron science to
probe.

An evolution of LANSCE, particularly the Lujan Center, a
user-facility open to the public, would add new capabilities and
help modernize aging equipment, according to LANL officials.

Los Alamos was a participant in a $1.4 billion project to build a
state-of-the-art Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge,
Tenn., that opened in 2006.

Wallace said MaRIE would complement the capabilities in Oak Ridge
and that both LANSCE and SNS have unique specialties and are
currently oversubscribed with experiments waiting to be performed.

 
� 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************