*****************************************************************
04/03/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.79
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran fires naval missile into nuclear debate
2 Las Vegas SUN: Blix: Iran Years Away From Nuclear Bomb
3 BBC: US and UK try to break Iraq
4 IRNA: IAEA inspectors due in Iran next week -
5 IRNA: IAEA still responsible to probe into Iran case: Soltaniyeh
6 Korea Herald: N.K. may have over six nukes: LaPorte
7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea Has Six Nuclear Weapons: LaPorte
8 Korea Times: NK Believed to Have 6 Nukes: Ex-USFK Chief
9 Times of India: France denies nuclear fuel to India -
10 FT.com: Tony Blair: in office, but not in power
11 AFP: Merkel announces massive investment in German energy research -
12 UPI: India to talk safeguards with IAEA
NUCLEAR REACTORS
13 US: [NukeNet] NUKES MAKE YOU FAT
14 S Korea/Indonesia, Australia/China NPP Deals
15 US: Las Vegas SUN: Obama Strikes Out at Bush's Energy Policy
16 Deutsche Welle: Nuclear Power Tiff to Dominate Merkel's Energy Summi
17 US: TCPalm: Spurgeon prepares to re-energize nuclear power
18 US: Bradenton Herald: Nuclear plants are the answer
19 US: Philadelphia Inquirer: Laying waste to nuclear myths
20 US: MiamiHerald.com: NRC joins probe into hole found in Turkey Point
21 US: NRC: NRC Sends Augmented Inspection Team to Review Equipment Dam
22 US: Rutland Herald: Half-way to full power boost, nuke plant feels 1
23 Xinhua: South Korea, Indonesia to cooperate in nuclear energy
24 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, Monticello Nuclear Generating P
25 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Revised Meeting N
26 US: NRC: NRC Announces New Head of Nuclear Regulatory Research
27 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting of the ACR
28 US: NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Amergen
29 US: courant.com: Millstone 2 Goes Offline
30 US: The Mercury: Exelon unveils plans to store spent fuel rods
31 US: csmonitor.com: Nuclear-plant security: Is it enough? |
32 csmonitor.com: Hot job in Germany: nuclear engineer |
33 US: PRN: NEI: Nuclear Energy Industry Maintains Near-Record Levels o
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
34 BBC: Fife beach radiation report due
35 US: DOD: Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
36 US: Herald Sun: China uranium exports to start 2010
37 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Labor divided over uranium deal -
38 AU ABC: Senator under fire over NT nuclear waste dump plan
39 US: AU ABC: Environment Centre criticises China uranium deal
40 Bellona: UK Government OKs sale of BNG by BNFL
41 Salt Lake Tribune: Yucca planning to apply in 2008, open 2020
42 US: The Dispatch: Perchlorate Plume Dissipating
43 US: AU ABC: Beattie to take uranium lead from federal ALP.
44 US: PittsburghLIVE.com: Officials: Site is safe for radioactive ash
45 US: AFP: China deal to break open Australian nuclear industry
46 US: AFP: US stops short of backing Australia-China uranium deal
47 US: NEWS.com.au: China uranium exports to start 2010
48 US: NEWS.com.au: Uranium bubble growing
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
49 Knox News: ORNL will excavate hot zone in 2007
50 DOE: DOE Appoints Stephen Eule As Director of the Climate Change
51 DOE: Energy Department Provides $140.3 Million to Low-Income
52 DOE: U.S. and India Sign Historic Agreement on FutureGen Project
53 Las Vegas SUN: Much ado about a big bang
54 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Chairs
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Guardian Unlimited: Iran fires naval missile into nuclear debate
Robert Tait in Tehran
Monday April 3, 2006
The Guardian
Iran sent a bellicose message to the west yesterday amid the
delicate diplomacy surrounding its suspected nuclear weapons
programme, by firing what it called the world's fastest
underwater missile.
Coming amid a week of Iranian war games in the Gulf, yesterday's
test appeared to raise the stakes in the nuclear stand-off, which
entered a new phase last week after the UN security council gave
the Islamic regime 30 days to halt uranium enrichment activities
or face possible punishment. Iran says it will not abandon its
nuclear programme, which it says is peaceful.
State television footage showed a missile, fired from a ship,
obliterating a target after travelling rapidly just below the
water's surface.
The missile, said to have a top speed of 225mph, carries a
powerful warhead designed to destroy large submarines, said
General Ali Fadavi, deputy head of Iran's navy. He added: "Even
if enemy warship sensors identify the missile, no warship can
escape from this missile because of its high speed."
Last Friday, Iran test fired a stealth missile with a range of
25 miles which its defence chiefs claim has the ability to hit
multiple targets and avoid radar.
On yesterday's Jonathan Dimbleby programme, the US secretary of
state, Condoleezza Rice, insisted America was committed to
resolving the nuclear row diplomatically. "Iran is not Iraq. I
know that's what's on people's minds. The circumstances are
different," she said. "However, the president of the United
States doesn't take his options off the table."
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
2 Las Vegas SUN: Blix: Iran Years Away From Nuclear Bomb
Today: April 03, 2006 at 10:26:21 PDT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
OSLO, Norway (AP) - Former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans
Blix said Monday that Iran is a least five years away from
developing a nuclear bomb, leaving time to peacefully negotiate
a settlement.
Blix, attending an energy conference in western Norway, said he
doubted the U.S. would resort to invading Iran.
"But there is a chance that the U.S. will use bombs or missiles
against several sites in Iran," he was quoted by Norwegian news
agency NTB as saying. "Then, the reactions would be strong, and
would contribute to increased terrorism."
Blix said there is still time for dialogue over Iran's nuclear
enrichment program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful
purposes but the West fears is part of a secret nuclear weapons
program.
"We have time on our side in this case. Iran can't have a bomb
ready in the next five years," Blix was quoted as saying.
Blix, also a former head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, urged the United States to take its time, as it is doing
in a similar nuclear standoff with North Korea.
"The U.S. has given itself time and is negotiating with North
Korea, while Iran got a very short deadline," he was quoted as
saying.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
3 BBC: US and UK try to break Iraq
Last Updated: Monday, 3 April 2006
[Jack Straw and Condoleezza Rice in Baghdad]
Jack Straw and Condoleezza Rice travelled to Baghdad from the UK
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and UK Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw have said it is down to Iraq's people, no-one else, to
choose a leader.
However, they said the process to do so must be speeded up.
The pair made the remarks at a joint news conference in Baghdad,
on the second day of a surprise visit.
They coupled their remarks with praise for Shia leader Grand
Ayatollah Sistani, whom they said had been a voice of restraint
amid Iraq's unrest.
Iraq's political parties have been wrangling over forming a new
government since December's election.
Mr Straw said the aim of the US-led coalition which invaded Iraq
in March 2003 had always been the formation of a sovereign
government.
He said while those coalition members did not have the right to
impose a government on Iraq, the deaths of their troops meant
they did have the right to call on Iraqis to choose one as soon
as possible.
[Man walking past picture of Grand Ayatollah Sistani ] Grand
Ayatollah Sistani was described as an anchor for Iraqis
His sentiments were echoed by Ms Rice who said that although she
and Mr Straw knew that Iraqi leaders had already been working
hard for change, not simply spending their time jockeying for
government positions, more must be done.
"It is time to agree on those positions after the Iraqi people
braved the terrorists to go to the polls," she said.
Both foreign secretaries were full of praise for Iraqi Shia
spiritual leader Grand Ayatollah Sistani for the guidance and
restraint he had brought to the Shia people amid the continuing
violence.
"He is an anchor for that community as well as all Iraqis," Ms
Rice said.
Sticking point
On Sunday, the pair, who travelled to Baghdad after Ms Rice's
two-day stay in Britain hosted by Mr Straw, held talks with
Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari and President Jalal
Talabani.
There is mounting pressure on Mr Jaafari, of the majority Shia
alliance, to stand down as prime minister.
Mr Jaafari was chosen as prime minister by the ruling Shia-led
bloc after it won December's election.
But Kurdish and Sunni Arab parties have rejected the nomination
and have threatened to boycott a government unless he withdraws.
The delay in forming a government is thought to be partly
responsible for fuelling the increasing sectarian violence which
has struck since February's bombing of a key Shia shrine in
Samarra.
Last week senior Shia politicians said US ambassador to Iraq,
Zalmay Khalilzad, had told them US President George W Bush
"doesn't want, doesn't support, doesn't accept" the retention of
Mr Jaafari.
Mr Jaafari responded by saying the comments undermined Mr Bush's
commitment to democracy in Iraq.
The White House has denied the US is backing away from Mr
Jaafari.
*****************************************************************
4 IRNA: IAEA inspectors due in Iran next week -
Tehran, April 3, IRNA
Iran-IAEA-Nuclear
Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are
scheduled to arrive here next week to conduct their regular
inspections of Iran's nuclear sites, a senior Iranian nuclear
official said Monday.
Iran's Ambassador to the IAEA Ali-Asghar Soltaniyeh told IRNA
the inspectors are to visit various nuclear sites, Natanz
facility in particular.
He added the inspections are taking place on the basis of
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards.
"Despite the March resolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran has
not suspended its cooperation with the agency and the IAEA
inspectors have paid regular visits to the country," he said.
Iran will continue to carry out its undertakings towards the
IAEA, he said.
"There will be no halt with regards to Iran's carrying out its
undertakings towards the IAEA," Soltaniyeh added.
*****************************************************************
5 IRNA: IAEA still responsible to probe into Iran case: Soltaniyeh
Tehran, April 3, IRNA
Iran-IAEA-Nuclear
Iran's nuclear dossier has not been referred to the UN Security
Council and the International Atomic Energy (IAEA) is still
responsible to probe into the case, Iranian Ambassador to IAEA
Ali-Asghar Soltaniyeh said on Monday.
He told IRNA that IAEA will go ahead with its examination of
Iranian nuclear program and IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei will
present his report to the Board of Governors on nuclear program
of Iran next month.
"Just a copy of ElBaradei's report to the Board of Governors
will be sent to the Security Council," he added.
He said Iran's nuclear program differs from that of North
Korea, adding, "North Korea pulled out of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) and prevented the IAEA inspections.
"Iran will not suspend its cooperation with the IAEA. The
agency's inspectors conduct their regular inspections to Iran's
nuclear facilities regularly."
The official stated, "As ElBaradei has previously announced,
Iran made no diversion from peaceful nuclear program.
"Iran's nuclear activities particularly research and
development in Natanz are under the IAEA supervision and
ElBaradei's report confirmed this fact."
Soltaniyeh pointed to a statement from Iran's Supreme National
Security Council (SNSC) and said, "The statement pointed to a
resolution adopted by the IAEA Board of Governors last March
which called on Iran to suspend its enrichment work and ratify
the Additional Protocol.
"Despite the US expectations which intended to pass a
resolution against Iran, such an event did not happen following
opposition from China and Russia.
"The statement stressed that the IAEA is responsible to probe
into Iran's nuclear program since there is no legal base for the
Security Council to discuss Iran's case."
*****************************************************************
6 Korea Herald: N.K. may have over six nukes: LaPorte
Leon J. LaPorte, former commander of the U.S. Forces Korea, said
yesterday that he thinks North Korea has more than six nuclear
weapons and possessed between three and six before 1994.
The weapons were manufactured before a 1994 agreement framework
reached in Geneva between the North and the United States,
LaPorte said in an interview with a domestic daily correspondent
in Washington.
Under the agreement, Pyongyang agreed to stop its suspected
nuclear development program. In return, the U.S., South Korea
and Japan promised to build light water reactors, with the
majority funding coming from Seoul.
Dismissing opinion from inside South Korea that any threat from
North Korea has been removed, LaPorte stressed the Korea-U.S.
alliance is necessary for deterring danger from the North.
The retired general also warned that the Korea-U.S. alliance
will be "tested" in the future as opponents of it may exploit it
as an issue for political ends.
LaPorte added the alliance will be a crucial issue in South
Korea until next year's presidential election.
Regarding Korea's recovering wartime operational control of its
forces from the United States, LaPorte said it may be a
time-consuming issue. He said both sides have agreed to take
sufficient time towards achieving the command transfer once a
roadmap is established.
(davidpooh@heraldm.com)
By Jin Dae-woong
2006.04.04
*****************************************************************
7 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea Has Six Nuclear Weapons: LaPorte
Home> National/Politics Updated Apr.3,2006 20:35 KST
The former commander of the U.S. Forces Korea, Leon LaPorte,
says North Korea already has between three and six nuclear
weapons. The retired general claimed the weapons had been made
before the 1994 Geneva Agreement, in which the North pledged to
freeze its nuclear activities, and added the number must have
grown by now.
He made the remarks in an interview with the JoongAng Ilbo
newspaper. Noting that North Korea has a 1.2 million-strong
military and the capability to fire a missile over Japan, the
general said he did not agree with the assessment that the North
no longer poses a threat. He emphasized that the South
Korea-U.S. Alliance is crucial as a deterrent against the North.
Arirang News
*****************************************************************
8 Korea Times: NK Believed to Have 6 Nukes: Ex-USFK Chief
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times
By Jung Sung-ki Staff Reporter
North Korea is believed to possess as many as six nuclear
weapons, a former chief of the U.S. military in South Korea has
said.
In an interview with the Joongang Ilbo on March 31, retired Gen.
Leon J. LaPorte, former commander of the United States Forces
Korea (USFK), reiterated the significance of maintaining a solid
South Korea-U.S. military alliance capable of deterring any
aggression by a nuclear-armed North Korea.
North Korea had up to six nuclear weapons in 1994 when it agreed
to freeze all related programs, but the number is likely to have
risen, LaPorte told the vernacular daily. Under the 1994 Geneva
Agreed Framework, North Korea promised to freeze its nuclear
activities in return for a set of light-water reactors financed
mainly by South Korea.
Citing the North¡¯s 1.2 million-strong armed forces equipped
with advanced, long-range missiles that could reach Japan and
parts of U.S. soil, LaPorte said the North¡¯s military threat in
the region remains despite the inter-Korean exchanges in recent
years.
LaPorte, the longest-serving USFK commander, handed over three
flags, from the USFK, the United Nations Command (UNC) and the
South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC), to his successor
Gen. B. B. Bell on Feb. 3.
The former four-star general ended his 38-year military career
at a farewell ceremony in Texas on March 31.
LaPorte has called for patience in South Korea regaining
wartime operational control of its military from the U.S.
military until the country¡¯s military capability improves
enough to achieve a ``self-reliant¡¯¡¯ defense posture.
Seoul and Washington are engaging in full discussions on South
Korea¡¯s wish under an agreement made at their annual defense
ministers¡¯ meeting in Seoul last October to exercise unilateral
authority to control its armed forces in case of war.
South Korea reclaimed the authority to control its military
during peacetime in 1994. But wartime control has remained with
the U.S. since the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Last week, the two allies signed an accord to form a joint
panel to study a ``roadmap¡¯¡¯ for the wartime command transfer.
The panel is to report the study results at this year¡¯s defense
chiefs¡¯ meeting in Washington, D.C. this October
LaPorte also asked South Korea to participate in U.S.-led,
multinational anti-terrorist drills in the Middle East, citing
Seoul¡¯s growing economy and enhanced international status.
Recently, Washington requested Seoul dispatch Korean troops to a
multinational training exercise for peacekeeping missions to be
held in Mongolia this summer.
About 29,500 U.S. soldiers are stationed here as a deterrent
against the North. Under Washington's plan to reorganize its
global forces the number of troops here is to be reduced to
25,000 by 2008.
gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr 04-03-2006 17:25
Retired Gen. LaPorte
*****************************************************************
9 Times of India: France denies nuclear fuel to India -
[ Monday, April 03, 2006 04:16:59 pmPTI ]
VASCO: As India prepares to hold talks with the Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG), its key member France on Monday said it
would help in generating consensus for the Indo-US nuclear deal
there but ruled out providing uranium till 'green signal' from
the 45-nation group.
French Ambassador in New Delhi Dominique Girard said his country
was looking forward to industrial cooperation in nuclear field
with India in the backdrop of a Joint Statement issued by the
two countries recently during the visit of President Jacques
Chirac.
"This (Indo-US nuclear agreement) is an excellent deal. We are
quite happy with it," he told a select group of reporters here
during his visit to witness start of week-long Indo-French Naval
exercises 'Varuna II' off the Goa coast.
On the requirement for NSG's endorsement of the deal, the envoy
said "We will help in that (building of consensus) as much as we
can."
Supporting India's quest for civilian nuclear energy to meet its
growing needs, he hailed its track record. "We feel India should
have better access to civilian nuclear technology and materials
because of its behaviour, because of its non-proliferation record
and because it is a democracy."
Consensus within NSG and its endorsement of the Indo-US deal is a
key requisite for allowing international community to resume
trade in nuclear field with India.
Under the deal, the US is responsible for building consensus for
the deal in the NSG. Russia and Britain will also be helping in
this process.
The French envoy's comments assume significance as they come just
ahead of India beginning talks with NSG on the nuclear issue.
Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) Chairman Anil Kakodkar will
travel to Vienna this week to present New Delhi's case before the
NSG and talk about India-specific safeguards for civilian nuclear
facilities as per the Indo-US agreement.
Asked whether France, like Russia, would be ready to give uranium
to India's fuel-deficient reactors like Tarapur till consensus
could be evolved at the NSG, Girard ruled it out. "It is
contingent upon the NSG and its green signal," the French
Ambassador said.
He said Russia could supply uranium to Tarapur Atomic Power
Reactors (TAPS) as it has been doing so earlier also. Moscow has
provided 60 metric tonnes of uranium to TAPS to prevent it from
shutting down. About 20-25 metric tonnes of the consignment has
already reached India.
About the next steps in the Indo-French cooperation after
issuance of the Joint Statement on nuclear issue, Girard said
Paris was looking forward to "actual cooperation, industrial
cooperation".
"But everything is possible after NSG's green signal," he said.
Noting that France had always been advocating the need for
civilian nuclear cooperation with India, Girard said the Indo-US
deal will give boost to supplies of nuclear material and
technology to New Delhi.
Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For
*****************************************************************
10 FT.com: Tony Blair: in office, but not in power
Comment & analysis / Editorial comment -
Published: April 3 2006 03:00 | Last updated: April 3 2006 03:00
Less than a year after Tony Blair won a historic third general
election victory, the prime minister is in trouble. He no longer
commands a guaranteed parliamentary majority, while the police
are investigating accusations that his government offered
business tycoons peerages to keep his party afloat. It is time,
say his growing band of critics, for Mr Blair to stand down and
hand over to Gordon Brown, the prime minister in waiting.
To his many admirers around the world, such criticism must be
baffling. In the US, Mr Blair is seen as a trusted partner of
President George W. Bush, an ally of unshakeable resolve. In
Europe, Britain's economic dynamism is the envy of leaders who
lack the strength or will to carry through much-needed reforms
in their own countries.
Yet it is the former relationship that has done so much to put
the prime minister under siege. The invasion of Iraq and the
failure to find weapons of mass destruction have eroded trust in
Mr Blair. This process shows no sign of ending as the situation
in Iraq continues to deteriorate, and makes it harder for the
prime minister to rebut other charges made against his
government.
The prime minister has already said he will step down before the
next election - though he appeared last week to express regret
over the announcement. But there are increasingly insistent
calls for an early departure, rather than a handover in two
years. This would allow the government to make a fresh start
under the leadership of Mr Brown, chancellor of the exchequer.
Mr Blair is in danger of finding himself "in office, but not in
power" - the charge levelled against Sir John Major, his
Conservative predecessor. But the probability is that a change
of leader would do nothing to rescue a government whose ruling
party has become tired of power. Too many of Mr Blair's
backbenchers seem to have concluded that opposition is
preferable to the challenges of running the country.
Those who call for the early departure of Mr Blair must weigh
the prospects of further reform under Mr Brown. The chancellor
is responsible for raising taxation to levels last seen in the
1980s, and for a proliferation in regulation that reflects his
belief in the efficacy of state action. On key battles over the
health service and education, Mr Brown has been less committed
to market incentives than Mr Blair, more convinced that equal
outcomes can best be achieved by government fiat.
This matters when many Labour reforms are still being
implemented. The National Health Service faces critical
challenges as payments for treatment come into effect this year,
exposing inefficient and wasteful managements. The latest
education bill is permissive rather than prescriptive, needing
Downing Street push to ensure that new types of school are
created and local authority uniformity ended.
New challenges loom, of great concern to Britain's businesses.
They include pension reform, where the Turner report has set out
an ambitious agenda to raise the state pension, reduce
means-testing, increase the retirement age and create a new
national pension scheme to encourage saving. Mr Brown has
opposed the direction of travel, preferring to raise
means-testing benefits on which more than half the population
will eventually come to depend.
Energy security is another, where decisions are urgently needed
to replace Britain's ageing nuclear power stations. Climate
change commitments mean new nuclear capacity is needed that will
be fiercely opposed by many Labour supporters. The alternative
of an expansion in renewable energy sources would force up costs
for business, damaging UK competitiveness.
The problem for Mr Blair is that he is losing the authority
needed to drive through such changes. If it turns out to be the
case that he cannot pass the legislation needed to prepare
Britain to meet the challenges of the 21st century, it would be
better that he went. So far, however, the case for pressing for
Mr Blair's departure remains to be made.
After eight years in opposition, the Conservatives are prepared
to support measures that are necessary for modernising the
country. David Cameron, their new leader, is in touch with
modern Britain and understands the necessity to overhaul the
Tories. More important, he realises voters have moved away from
tribal party allegiances and no longer respect opposition for
opposition's sake.
It was Conservative votes that secured passage of the education
bill despite a Labour rebellion. His team have made clear they
will adopt a similar approach on other measures, including
nuclear power and pensions. Mr Blair, therefore, can continue
with a reform agenda, because parliamentary defeat is less
likely.
It may yet turn out that the cash for coronets scandal is the
prime minister's undoing. But for now, his continuation in
office offers the best hope for further reform. Mr Blair should
therefore continue to press ahead with whatever majority he can
construct - and Mr Cameron should continue to offer Tory support
for changes that are to Britain's benefit.
© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2006. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: Merkel announces massive investment in German energy research -
Mon Apr 3, 5:43 PM ET
BERLIN (AFP) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the
country's big energy companies had pledged billions of euros of
investment in the sector in coming years to help Germany reshape
its energy policy.
"The business world has promised to invest 30 billion euros in
infrastructure and new plants by 2012," Merkel said.
"We can expect investment of 33 to 43 billion euros (40 to 52
billion dollars) in renewable energy sources," she added.
Merkel was speaking at the close of a meeting with industry
leaders on formulating a new energy policy, which she hopes will
make Germany less reliant on foreign suppliers and help contain
rising energy prices.
She said the government would between now and 2009 set aside two
billion euros for funding energy research in a bid to bolster
the country's use of renewable energy.
Merkel's stated aim is to draft a new energy policy by the end
of next year that will map out Germany's approach until 2020.
"We agree that our objective should be to limit our dependence
on imported energy, to prevent increases in the energy price and
to take into account the environmental challenges," Merkel said.
She said three working groups would be formed to draft the new
energy policy and industry players and the government would hold
a follow-up meeting in September.
The conservative chancellor's decision to hold an "energy
summit", as Monday's meeting has been dubbed here, is seen as
motivated by rising energy prices and Russia's gas war with
Ukraine, which affected supplies to Europe.
Economy Minister Michael Glos and Environment Minister Sigmar
Gabriel said earlier that heavy reliance on mineral oil meant
that Germany and the European Union" /> European Unionwould
remain dependent on "politically unstable supply regions".
Mineral oil remains the main source of German energy, supplying
36 percent of the country's energy needs. Gas serves as the
second biggest source at 22.7 percent. The country imports
roughly a third of its gas from Russia.
Merkel said the meeting also touched on nuclear energy, which
Berlin has pledged to phase out by 2020 and notably on ways to
replace it.
"We will speak of this again in the coming months, with a
measure of controversy I suppose," she added.
Merkel is seen as cautious on the politically divisive issue.
But industry players are pushing for an extension of the
deadline and say nuclear energy cannot be discarded if the
country wants to become less dependent on imports.
Monday night's meeting comes amid a heated debate in the
European Union on protectionism and forging a common energy
policy in which Merkel has proven outspoken.
At an EU summit in Brussels last month, she warned: "The (EU)
internal market cannot work unless electricity can flow freely
and if we can agree on European champions and not think strictly
in national terms."
Germany and Italy have respectively accused Spain and France of
trying to block foreign takeovers.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
12 UPI: India to talk safeguards with IAEA
United Press International - Energy -
4/3/2006 8:24:00 AM -0400
NEW DELHI, April 2 (UPI) -- India will discuss nuclear
safeguards under the Indo-U.S. deal with the global nuclear
watchdog this week.
Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission,
is to visit Vienna this week for talks with the International
Atomic Energy Agency on a safeguards accord proposed under the
Indo-U.S. civilian nuclear agreement to pave the way for the
resumption of supply of nuclear fuel for its reactors.
Kakodkar, The Hindu newspaper said Monday, will also meet with
IAEA representatives, to discuss an additional protocol agreed
upon in the deal.
"The plan to separate India's civilian nuclear facilities
provides for an India-specific safeguards agreement to be
negotiated with the IAEA," the Indian foreign ministry said.
India has long sought such a pact as it is neither a member of
the nonproliferation treaty nor a part of Nuclear Suppliers'
Group. Kakodkar will endeavor to ensure an agreement with the
IAEA is under way ahead of a tripartite agreement with the
United States.
"This process would involve the understanding as well as putting
forth India's position on the nuances of the India-specific
safeguards," said the foreign ministry. IAEA safeguards disallow
the sale of nuclear material for weapon programs.
India has received the first part of a 60 metric ton shipment of
Russian enriched uranium for its stalled Tarapur nuclear power
plant, which is already under international safeguards.
"The first consignment of 20-25 metric tons of uranium which has
arrived from Russia at the nuclear fuel complex will be
delivered to the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. at an
appropriate time," the Indian Atomic Energy Commission said.
The commission said the current fuel supply is expected to last
for eight months.
"With the Russian supply of 60 metric tons of uranium, the plant
will have fuel for the next five years," said S. Thakur,
executive director of NPCIL.
© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
13 [NukeNet] NUKES MAKE YOU FAT
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 15:03:39 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
http://www.rabble.ca/everyones_a_critic.shtml?x=26069
Are nukes making you fat?
46e42.jpg
46e64.jpg
Could radioactive iodine from nuclear tests and power plants be the reason
so many North Americans are overweight? The evidence is surprising.
>by Penney Kome
October 7, 2003
Is America's nuclear policy making you fat? This is a deadly serious
question. Nuclear materials emit radioactive iodine, which has been linked
with thyroid damage. Thyroid disorders, recently discovered to occur twice
as frequently as previously believed, are linked with weight gain.
Therefore, this question: is U.S. nuclear policy adding inches to our
waistlines?
Let's start with your thyroid. According to the American Association of
Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), “Thyroid hormones play a vital role in
the overall body function. Although relatively small, the thyroid gland
produces a hormone that regulates the body's overall metabolism — the rate
at which the body produces energy from nutrients. It influences the heart,
brain, liver, kidneys and skin and affects muscle strength, reproductive
functions and appetite.”
I'll repeat those key points: the thyroid regulates both metabolism and
appetite — two factors out of kilter in most overweight people.
In January 2003, AACE revised longstanding guidelines for diagnosing
underactive thyroids, and now estimates that, “Thyroid disease affects 1 in
10 Americans (more than diabetes and cancer combined), yet half of those
affected remain undiagnosed.”
Radioactive iodine is the first and fastest-traveling element released in
any nuclear “event” (whether an explosion or a leak), as the U.S.
government tacitly acknowledged when it encouraged cities to stockpile
potassium iodide pills against the possibility that terrorists might target
one of the 103 nuclear power plants in the U.S.
Here is how Dr. Rosalie Bertell explained the connection between nukes and
thyroids: “...Radioactive iodine is routinely released in small quantities
by nuclear power plants and in large quantities by nuclear reprocessing
plants. It is not part of the natural human environment...If radioactive
iodine (I 131 or I 129) is ingested with food it will enter the blood and
tend to accumulate in the thyroid....
“...A mild exposure experienced by a large population could cause a
decrease in average thyroid hormone levels and an increase in average body
weight, such as is occurring now in the North American population....The
connection between this pollution and the overweight problem has,
unfortunately, never been seriously researched.”
Dieters around the world are yelling, “Well, why not?”
Nukes and health issues
Although there is much reliable research on the effects of radioactive
contamination, most of it inexplicably overlooks the relationship to weight
gain. Bertell's work tends to focus on leukemia and other cancers. Dr Helen
Caldicott says that her latest book, The New Nuclear Danger, exposes the
connection between nukes and “an epidemic of cancers, leukemias and
congenital diseases.” The European Committee on Radiation Risk reported in
January 2003, that nuclear weapons tests and power plant accidents before
1989 were responsible for up to 65 million deaths worldwide. Again, the
ECRR focused on the same old cancers, leukemia and birth defects. Nothing
about getting fat.
Okay, we all know that plutonium is screamingly toxic. Inhale a thousandth
of a gram and it will kill you fast, and probably all the people around you
too. The U.K. Royal Society added a new wrinkle with its March 2002 report
that soldiers who encounter depleted uranium shells on the battlefield (in
Iraq, Afghanistan or Kosovo) could have their kidneys shut down “within
days.” So? Dead is dead. If you're dead, you don't have to worry about
staying on your diet.
The thing is, you can never diet away radiation exposure. A February 2003
report in the New Scientist magazine indicated that every single cell in
our bodies contains a “human geiger counter,” recording radiation traces
that last our entire lifetimes. We might not even know when we've been
exposed, but our cells remember.
If your thyroid is out of whack, even dieting twice as hard might not work.
Anyone who has ever tried to maintain a household, a career and a social
life on 1200 calories a day will recognize that this is a really, really
serious issue. It's bad enough that the Bush administration is making
countries around the world mad at the U.S. by withdrawing from
international treaties and going into Iraq all alone. But do they have to
sabotage everybody's weight loss plans too?
Who's been exposed?
You may wonder if all North Americans have really been exposed to
radiation. The Center for Disease Control says yes, in a report released in
February 2003. “Any person living in the contiguous U.S. since 1951 has
been and continues to be exposed to the remnants of fallout from nuclear
testing.”
With a narrow mandate to study the health effects of 1950s atmospheric
weapons tests, the CDC does not refer to nuclear power plants at all in
this project. But a map from Women for Peace shows 1767 nuclear
contaminated or potentially contaminated sites distributed all across the
U.S. including nuclear power plants, weapons factories, missile silos and
nuclear waste dumps.
In addition to the existing contamination, invading armies have strewn
depleted uranium shells all over Iraq, Afghanistan and the former
Yugoslavia. The U.S. Congress has just approved $200 million for a new
generation of nuclear weapons. U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney has talked
about building 410 new nuclear power plants. Even if we don't blow
ourselves up, we're going to be up to our oversize butts in radioactive dust.
What, is the U.S. government funded by shares in Weight Watchers?
Dieters of the world, unite! Contact your legislators right away, and
demand an investigation into the relationship between nuclear pollution and
those stubborn extra pounds. You have nothing to lose but your extra weight!
Penney Kome is an author and journalist and is currently Chair of The
Writers Union of Canada.
Posted for educational and research purposes only,
- in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 -.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
Attachment Converted: 46e42.jpg: 00000001,150013af,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 46e64.jpg: 00000001,150013b0,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
14 S Korea/Indonesia, Australia/China NPP Deals
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:47:58 -0400
Mothersalert: http://www.mothersalert.org
http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html
The cancer is spreading [no pun intended]:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-indonesia-korea.html
South Korea to Help Develop Nuclear Power in
Indonesia
a.. E-Mail
b.. Print
c.. Save
By REUTERS
Published: April 3, 2006
Filed at 5:06 a.m. ET
Skip to next paragraph
JAKARTA (Reuters) - South Korea, one of the
world's biggest oil and liquefied natural gas
importers, wants to help Indonesia develop nuclear
power, South Korea's Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon
said on Monday.
``We hope that both Indonesia and Korea will be
able to conclude a nuclear energy cooperation
agreement as soon as possible,'' Ban told a joint
news conference with Indonesa's Foreign Minister
Hassan Wirajuda.
``We are one of the countries with high tech
technology and know-how in this area,'' he added.
Nuclear power plays an important role in providing
an alternative source of energy in South Korea,
which imports all of its oil and liquefied gas.
According to the London-based World Nuclear
Association, South Korea currently has 20 nuclear
reactors providing some 40 percent of the
country's electricity.
Wirajuda welcomed the possible cooperation but
gave few details of the plan.
``We visualise that one day Indonesia, too, should
develop nuclear energy and certainly Korea is an
important potential partner,'' Wirajuda added.
Ban, who is pitching to succeed Koffi Annan as the
next United Nations secretray general, said he
asked for Indonesia's support.
``There is a wide-ranging consensus of opinions
among the member states of the United Nations that
the next secretary general... should come from
Asia''
``I need your support and I'll be honoured if i'll
be elected secretary general of the United
Nations. I will be fully commited to work for the
entire world community,'' he said
Wirajuda made no comment on the issue, but as a
member of ASEAN -- which groups countries in the
Southeast Asia region -- Indonesia may support the
nomination of another Asian contender, Thailand
Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-australia-china.html
Australia, China Sign Uranium Trade Deal
a.. E-Mail
b.. Print
c.. Save
By REUTERS
Published: April 3, 2006
Filed at 2:54 a.m. ET
Skip to next paragraph
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia and China signed a
nuclear safeguards deal on Monday that set the
stage for huge uranium exports to Beijing for its
power industry, but Canberra said the trade was
unlikely to start for some years.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and
his Chinese counterpart, Li Zhaoxing, signed the
nuclear safeguards deal in the presence of
visiting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Australian
Prime Minister John Howard.
``Given China's high projected growth in
electricity demand over the coming years, there
are clear environmental benefits in diversifying
from fossil fuels to low greenhouse-emission
technologies such as nuclear power,'' Downer said
in a statement.
China is expected to build 40 to 50 nuclear power
plants over the next 20 years and needs steady
supplies of uranium. Its own uranium stocks are
dwindling, not very rich and difficult to extract.
Australia has about 40 percent of the world's
known uranium reserves, but it will only export to
countries that have signed
the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and
who also agree to a separate bilateral safeguards
deal.
India also wants to buy uranium from Australia,
but has not signed the NPT and Howard has said he
was not planning to change his strict uranium
trade policy just because New Delhi signed a
nuclear technology deal with the United States.
The U.S.-India deal agreed last month requires New
Delhi to separate its military and civil nuclear
facilities and open civilian plants to inspections
in return for U.S. nuclear fuel and technology,
but still needs approval from the U.S. Congress.
Australia only has three operating uranium mines,
owned by BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and General
Atomics of the United States, and Resources
Minister Ian Macfarlane has said big uranium
exports to China were unlikely to start until
2010.
Macfarlane said China's predicted uranium
consumption was estimated at 20,000 tons a year,
while Australia currently produced only about
10,000 tons a year from its existing three mines.
He said extra capacity would be needed to supply
China.
``WORLD LESS SAFE''
Australia has 19 bilateral nuclear safeguard
agreements covering 36 countries, including the
United States, France, Britain, Mexico, Japan,
Finland and South Korea.
The NPT requires the five nuclear-weapon states --
Russia, the United States, United Kingdom, France,
and China -- not to transfer nuclear weapons,
other nuclear explosive devices, or technology to
non-nuclear-weapon states and non-NPT countries.
``I'm firm in the belief that with the considered
effort of both countries, China-Australia
relations and cooperations will yield rich
fruits,'' Wen told a lunch at Parliament House.
About 25 human rights protesters gathered out the
front of Parliament House in Canberra in
opposition to Wen's visit, including a former
Chinese diplomat who granted residency in
Australia after he first sought political asylum.
Minority Australian Greens party politician
Christine Milne said Australia was putting money
before human rights and global security by
allowing communist China to import uranium.
``Make no mistake -- selling Australian uranium to
China will make the world less safe,'' Milne said
in a statement.
Australia and China are also negotiating a free
trade deal and Wen said the two countries had
agreed to accelerate talks.
``That is in the next one or two years China and
Australia should work together to strive for
breakthroughs on major issues related to the FTA
negotiation ... to lay the foundation for the
arrival of an overall agreement,'' Wen said.
Howard praised Wen and said that the nuclear and
other deals signed on Monday highlighted the
countries developing ties.
``You represent a leader of a remarkable nation
which is destined to play an even greater role in
the affairs of the world and a nation with which
Australia seeks to build an ever closer, more
effective and more permanent partnership,'' Howard
said.
Some analysts say the safeguards deal with China
will test Australia's skills at juggling growing
ties with Asia's emerging power and its strong
alliance with the United States, which is wary of
Beijing's military and economic ambitions.
*****************************************************************
15 Las Vegas SUN: Obama Strikes Out at Bush's Energy Policy
Today: April 03, 2006 at 10:6:5 PDT
By DAVID ESPO ASSOCIATED PRESS
CHICAGO (AP) -
Sen. Barack Obama accused the Bush administration Monday of a
"stubborn refusal" to attack the causes of climate change, and
said tougher fuel standards, stricter curbs on oil imports and
more investment in cleaner energy are essential to avert global
catastrophe.
"Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real
plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and
then skipping out on the 12-step program," the Illinois Democrat
said. He referred to one of the principal themes of President
Bush's State of the Union address Jan. 31.
"It's not enough to identify the challenge. We have to meet it,"
Obama said in remarks prepared for the annual luncheon of The
Associated Press, held on the opening day of the Newspaper
Association of America's convention.
Obama said the government should provide tax breaks and loan
guarantees to show the way toward greater use of environmentally
friendlier energy sources.
He cited several pieces of legislation he has introduced in
Congress, including one to help defray the auto industry's costs
of investment in more fuel-efficient cars. It calls for the
federal government to pick up a portion of the costs automakers
pay for retiree health care, so long as companies use some of
the savings to retool their factories.
Obama said the Big Three domestic automakers spent $6.7 billion
on retiree health care costs in 2004.
"It's a win-win proposal for the industry - their retirees will
be taken care of, they'll save money on health care and they'll
be free to invest in the kind of fuel-efficient cars that are
the key to their competitive future," he said of the
legislation.
"As gas prices keep rising, the Middle East grows ever more
unstable and the ice caps continue to melt, we face a
now-or-never, once-in-a-generation opportunity to set this
country on a different course," Obama said.
He said the country should reduce oil imports by more than 7.5
million barrels a day by 2025, a cutback two-thirds greater than
the administration's target of 4.5 million barrels.
The fuel economy standards should be raised 3 percent a year
over the next 15 years, beginning in 2008, Obama said.
The use of corn-based ethanol in fuel should be encouraged, he
said, supporting tax breaks for companies to install the
necessary tanks on their cars and for consumers who use E85, a
blended fuel.
"Unless we free ourselves from a dependence on these fossil
fuels and chart a new course on energy in this country, we are
condemning future generations to global catastrophe," said the
first-term Democrat.
Obama had nothing but criticism for Bush's efforts on the issue.
"When it comes to finding a way to end our dependence on fossil
fuels, the greatest vacuum in leadership, the biggest failure in
imagination and the most stubborn refusal to admit the need for
change is coming from the very people who are running the
country," he said.
He accused the president of failing to follow up on his State of
the Union statement that America is too dependent on foreign
oil. "I was among the hopeful. But then I saw the plan," he
said.
More broadly, he said, the "administration's record on climate
change is almost legendary ... Just recently, this is the
administration that tried to silence a NASA scientist for
letting the rest of us know that, yes, climate change is a
pretty big deal."
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
16 Deutsche Welle: Nuclear Power Tiff to Dominate Merkel's Energy Summit
| Germany DW-World.de
| 03.04.2006
[Nuclear power plants provide about a third of Germany's
electricity] Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:
Nuclear power plants provide about a third of Germany's
electricity
German Chancellor Angela Merkel will meet with ministers and
industry chiefs on Monday to plot strategies for long-term
energy security. Nuclear power will likely heat up the debate.
Amid concern about Europe's dependence on Russian and Middle
Eastern oil and gas, sharp disagreements over the role of
nuclear power still rage in Germany. Chancellor Merkel, Economy
Minister Michael Glos and Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel
are scheduled to meet with top managers from German utilities
and other major firms in the chancellor's office in Berlin on
Monday evening. It will be the first of a series of summits and
working group meetings aimed at developing strategies for the
next 15 years.
"We must understand that we have a task that reaches far beyond
this parliamentary term, so all subjects will be on the table
and different opinions will certainly be exchanged on some
points," Merkel told reporters on Monday before the meeting.
Representatives of labor unions and consumer groups, as well as
Klaus Töpfer, the head of the United Nations Environment
Program, have also been invited to the talks.
[German Chancellor Angela Merkel ] Bildunterschrift:
Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: German
Chancellor Angela Merkel
Nuclear power will be a hot topic
"Nuclear power will also be on the agenda," said Jürgen
Rüttgers of the Christian Democratic party (to which Merkel
belongs) and premier of North Rhine-Westfalia. "The Social
Democratic party and Green party can't ignore the question of
where 30 percent of our energy in Germany is to come from in the
future," said Rüttgers, referring to the amount nuclear plants
have supplied until now.
The country's Christian Democrats (CDU) and Social Democrats
(SPD) have been divided over nuclear power. Recent threats by
Russian gas giant Gazprom to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine if
it did not pay higher prices prompted conservatives near Merkel
to demand that Germany slash a planned phase-out of nuclear
energy in Germany.
The gradual shutdown of all Germany's nuclear power plants was
agreed upon in 2000 by the government of former SPD Chancellor
Gerhard Schröder and his then-coalition partners, the Greens.
Despite Germany's increasing dependence on Russian gas --
Gazprom and two German firms are building a gas pipeline from
Siberia to Germany -- the SPD are firm on the phase-out and
forced the conservatives to back their line in a coalition
agreement after last year's elections.
But pro-nuclear conservatives have not given up. A paper for the
summit authored by Christian Union parliamentarians said that
nuclear energy "remains a competitive and CO2-free form of
energy that is absolutely essential for the foreseeable future."
Alternative energies are a long-term goal
Germany has 17 nuclear power plants, with nuclear reactors
providing 30 percent of the electricity the country's 82 million
people require. Some states, however, use a much higher
percentage of atomic energy and strongly oppose the phase-out.
[One of Germany's 110-meter-high offshore windmills in the North
Sea] Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der
Bildunterschrift: One of Germany's 110-meter-high offshore
windmills in the North Sea Christian Wulff, conservative state
premier of Lower Saxony, said Germany's precarious economic
recovery could not handle an increase in already-high power
costs. We need an appropriate energy mix that is not based on
ideology but on technology, environmental friendliness and
price," he said in an interview with the Bild am Sonntag
newspaper.
Environment Minister Gabriel of the SPD disagreed and told the
Welt am Sonntag paper that there was no need for nuclear energy
and that even coal, used to produce half of Germany's
electricity, was undergoing a "renaissance." He also said that
"by 2020 it will be possible to cover 20 to 25 percent of our
energy demand with renewable sources."
The center-left SPD and conservative CDU/CSU -- as "grand
coalition" partners in government -- do agree that Germany must
boost investment in environmentally friendly alternative sources
of energy.
DW staff (als)
+
DW-WORLD: EU Leaders Move Ahead on Common Energy Policy
European Union leaders opened a second day of summit talks
Friday, downplaying discord over resurgent protectionism in the
25-nation bloc whilst trumpeting agreement on a new common
energy policy.(March 24, 2006)
+
DW-WORLD: G8 Split on Nuclear Power in Energy Talks
G8 countries were divided Thursday on ways to ensure long-term
world energy security, as the EU admitted its members had
diverging views on ambitious plans for developing nuclear power
being pushed by Russia and the US. (March 16, 2006)
+
DW-WORLD: Germany's Solar Explosion
Q-Cells AG, a maker of solar cells, became the latest
alternative energy company to make its debut on the German stock
exchange on Wednesday, with its shares showing warm gains on
their first day of trading. (October 7, 2005) Audios and videos
on the topic
+
Video: Energy summit discusses Germany's future energy options
+
Video: Passively-heated houses help to consume less energy Your
Comments
+
Feedback: What do you think Germany should do about its energy
supply? Send us an e-mail. Please include your name and country
in your reply.
*****************************************************************
17 TCPalm: Spurgeon prepares to re-energize nuclear power
['Photo'] SAM WOLFE
sam.wolfe@scripps.com
Dennis Spurgeon, who will be sworn in today as assistant
secretary of energy for nuclear energy atthe U.S. Department of
Energy, talks about nuclear energy at his Orchid home on
Thursday.
By ED BIERSCHENK
April 3, 2006
ORCHID — In his new position with the U.S.
Department of Energy, Dennis Spurgeon plans to do all he can to
spur a rebirth in the nuclear power industry.
The retired industry executive was scheduled to be sworn in
today as the assistant secretary of energy for nuclear energy, a
newly created position within that agency.
In an interview Thursday, Spurgeon discussed his views on the
nuclear industry, why it fell out of favor, and why he feels its
time to start building more plants — a position still vigorously
opposed by many environmentalists concerned about safety and
disposal of nuclear waste.
While Spurgeon said safety is always a concern, he contends
nuclear plants from the very beginning have been very secure
facilities. In regard to spent fuel — which he doesn't consider
nuclear waste — Spurgeon spoke of reusing this material that
might otherwise have to be stored thousands of years in a
repository.
Reprocessing of such material has been advocated by various
political leaders, especially those in Nevada opposed to a
proposed Yucca Mountain repository for nuclear waste.
Dennis Spurgeon
• Scheduled to be sworn in today to the post of assistant
secretary of energy for nuclear energy at the Department of
Energy.
• Previously served as an executive with several companies. A
graduate of the Naval Academy and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, he served as a captain in the Navy.
Energy conservation
Spurgeon agrees that conservation is needed and the U.S. can do
better in that regard through more energy efficient products and
producing vehicles that get better gas mileage.
"But still when you put that all together and you get it all
done, to improve the standard of living here and around the
world you are going to consume more energy; and our choice is
how we are going to produce that energy."
Nuclear energy
"I believe nuclear energy is the single most important source of
energy that we have that can produce base load electric power
without emitting greenhouse gases and, therefore, can be
extremely important to our country's future.
"That's not to take anything away from the other renewa´ble
energy sources. We need them all. We need every bit of solar
energy we can produce, we need every bit of wind en´ergy, we
need every bit of ge´othermal energy. But when you add all of
those together, they still don't have the capa´bilities to
produce the quanti´ties of electricity that we need for our
economy."
Global impact
"You have many areas of the world — and we're just seeing it in
China — where, as economies grow, for them to produce the goods
and serv´ices, they need energy. Then their people all of a
sudden want to have the benefit of a higher standard of living
and with that higher standard of living you need to be able to
produce the energy that will al´low them to have it. You can
correlate the standard of living and energy consumption."
New plants
"I think we will see hundreds (of new plants), but it's not
hundreds all of a sudden, but over the next 10-20-30-40 years."
His role
"I am going to do everything in my power to help this indus´try
build new plants in this country. That's my job. I'm not here to
go around as some kind of government inspector that's trying to
hold people up. Mine is the opposite. I'm going to ask people
what's keeping them from building a plant, and then I'm going to
try and find a way to try and remove that roadblock."
Q
Q: Why has the nation largely turned away from nuclear power?
A: Spurgeon said when he first went to Washington in the 1960s
there was great optimism about the role nuclear energy would
play in the nation's future.
"There were many nuclear plants ordered, and we were
anticipating by the end of the last decade, by 2000, we would
have some 300 to 400 nuclear plants in use in the United States;
and those were the projections and that's how we were going to
be able to meet our energy demand."
Instead, Spurgeon said there has not been a new nuclear plant
ordered in the past 30 years. He points to three issues that
caused the reversal:
• The 1973 oil embargo dramatically increased the price of
gasoline, home heating oil and ultimately electricity, and
caused people to conserve. When the utilities needed to generate
less electricity, they scaled back their construction plans and
many of their orders for nuclear plants were canceled or
stretched out.
• In the late 1970s, interest rates soared, causing nuclear
energy to become more costly and less competitive, resulting in
scaling back of plans to build new plants.
• "Then you have Three Mile Island. Now, Three Mile Island —
from a public-health standpoint — had a negligible impact. No
one got a high exposure of radiation or any such thing from
Three-Mile Island; but from an industry standpoint, it had a
devastating effect.
"Because now everything comes to a stop while you re-evaluate
the safety systems in reactors, and there were a great many
changes that were made and required on new plants under
construction."
These new requirements stretched out the construction projects,
causing costs to go up and nuclear energy became less
competitive, said Spurgeon.
Q: President Bush and others have talked of this being a time of
nuclear renaissance. Do you think people feel that way?
A: Spurgeon said he received a lot of support from people at a
recent party in Orchid where people voiced their belief in the
need for more nuclear energy.
"It's very much in the forefront now, I think, of people's
thoughts. Some of the environmental community that might have
been quite opposed are now beginning to realize that you cannot
just say no to energy because you are going to have to have it.
So how do you produce energy in the most environmentally
sensitive way?"
Contact TCPalm.com at Feedback@tcpalm.com | | | |
*****************************************************************
18 Bradenton Herald: Nuclear plants are the answer
| 04/03/2006 |
Energy problems have become a way of life. It's time to take
stronger corrective action instead of pussyfooting around. There
are many angles to these problems and they did not develop
overnight; there also are many solutions. Our lust for oil is
the greatest problem, and also, our dependence on natural gas
and coal is abominable.
What are the answers? Conservation is a must. Also, solar
energy, wind power and ethanol are all-important alternatives,
but their large-scale production is not enough to solve our
problems. Nuclear energy is absolutely necessary, a must.
In a joint statement on global warming, the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences last year issued the following key points
prepared by 11 leading international science bodies:
• Significant global warming is occurring.
• It has caused increases in sea levels, retreats of glaciers
and changes in many biological systems.
• Most warming in recent decades can likely be attributed to
human activities, largely from developed countries.
• Action taken now to reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases
will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change.
• Failure to implement reductions now will make the job more
difficult in the future.
Our political officials in Washington, D.C., don't seem to be
doing anything or very little to lessen global warming.
In regard to nuclear energy, new technologies are expected to be
tested shortly by the federal government. If this technology
works, it could vastly reduce the amount of spent nuclear waste
to be buried at Yucca Mountain. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is a
convert for nuclear power. So is Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
He is quoted recently as saying, "Nuclear issues are being
forced on us by the realities of life." And, "we are being
blackmailed by those who produce fossil fuels that we import,
and more traditional domestic energy production poses risks to
the environment."
Even Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., appears to be coming around his
thinking because of a possible reduction in the amount of spent
fuel to be stored at Yucca Mountain. It has been determined that
Yucca Mountain is suitable for long-term isolation for spent
nuclear fuel. This facility will remain open and closely
monitored for 100 to 300 years. If there is ever a problem,
casks containing the used fuel can be removed and the problem
corrected.
Public support for nuclear energy is high. A survey done by
Bisconti Research Inc. last summer showed 72 percent of
registered voters approved of nuclear energy, 71 percent of
self-described environmentalists, 66 percent of Democrats, 82
percent of Republicans and 78 percent of independents.
The demand for energy is increasing and will continue to do so
in the future. Last year it was reported that China is set to
build 40 nuclear generating units within 15 years. Although the
United States has the largest number of nuclear units, 19
countries get a greater percentage of their total electricity
from nukes than we do.
We need to move ahead now in the installation of nuclear plants
and greatly reduce our thirst for oil.
Clarence G. Troxell of Parrish is a retired executive in the
utilities industry.
Clarence G. Troxell
Commentary
*****************************************************************
19 Philadelphia Inquirer: Laying waste to nuclear myths
| 04/03/2006 |
Opinion
By Gilbert J. Brown
During the ongoing debate on nuclear waste, at least four
fallacies seem to have become accepted as truths. At a time when
America can't afford to foreclose any carbon-free energy option
in meeting the increasing demand for electricity, untruths could
become an excuse for obstructionist foot-dragging on nuclear
energy. I offer the following four myths and the realities.
Myth No. 1:Spent fuel is nuclear waste.
The uranium fuel used in nuclear power plants to produce
electricity becomes "spent" after it has given up a fraction of
its potential energy through the fission process. About 52,000
metric tons of it are being stored at power plant sites in the
United States.
Spent fuel is an extremely valuable resource, not waste. It
contains uranium and plutonium that can be extracted and
recycled to make reactor fuel for generating electricity. This
would extend uranium resources and help nuclear power meet the
nation's increasing need for clean energy. Countries including
France and Great Britain have been doing such reprocessing for
decades. The processors and users of the resulting uranium and
plutonium fuel have maintained an exemplary safety record.
Myth No. 2:U.S. utilities never intended to have their spent
fuel reprocessed.
Many did. In fact, reprocessing technology invented in the
United States was used to recycle fuel during the 1970s. In
1979, President Jimmy Carter banned its use, on grounds that
plutonium removed from spent fuel might get into the hands of
irresponsible governments and lead to the proliferation of
nuclear weapons. We stopped, but France and others did not.
Although President Ronald Reagan overturned the ban in 1981,
reprocessing has not been considered cost-effective in the
United States. That could change, with rising energy prices and
advanced technologies.
The absence of reprocessing in the United States, however, has
placed nuclear power plants in the position of storing more
spent fuel than expected, for longer than originally intended.
Decommissioned reactors such as Yankee Rowe and Maine Yankee
also must store their spent fuel. The government was legally
required to take possession of the spent fuel by 1998, but it
still has not done so. Now, efforts are under way to establish a
national storage site for the spent fuel.
Myth No. 3: If reprocessing is revived in the United States,
there would be no need for a deep-underground waste repository
at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Reprocessing would remove the reusable uranium and plutonium,
which makes up more than 95 percent of the spent fuel, and
thereby significantly reduce the amount of material that can
truly be called nuclear waste. These remaining waste products
still will need to be stored in the Yucca Mountain repository.
That said, one advantage of reprocessing is that it removes the
need for any additional repositories after the first one is
built.
Myth No. 4: The government cannot afford to pursue both
reprocessing and construction of the Yucca Mountain repository.
The cost of developing reprocessing will be stretched out over
many years, or even decades. It will need to be both
proliferation-resistant and economical, and will require focused
research, development and demonstration. In the meantime,
progress is being made on licensing and construction of the
Yucca Mountain repository. That project needs to be completed,
so nuclear waste from both power plants and the defense program
can be stored there.
Because nuclear power produces no greenhouse emissions and is
essential in the battle against global warming, we must move
ahead with research on reprocessing for the long term, but not
try to bring it back prematurely or divert funds from the Yucca
Mountain project. We can indeed take care of the wastes. In the
short term, we need to develop more nuclear power.
Gilbert J. Brown (gilbert_brown@uml.edu) is a professor and
coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at University of
Massachusetts Lowell.
*****************************************************************
20 MiamiHerald.com: NRC joins probe into hole found in Turkey Point cooling system
| 04/03/2006 |
By ELAINE DE VALLE edevalle@MiamiHerald.com
Federal investigators began work Monday to help determine
whether a hole drilled into a cooling system for one of the
nuclear reactors at the Turkey Point power plant was an honest
mistake or an act of sabotage.
The reactor -- one of two at the Miami-Dade County power plant
-- had been shut down for routine refueling and maintenance on
March 5, FP&L spokeswoman Rachel Scott said.
Workers discovered the 1/8-inch hole Thursday during a series of
tests and inspections scheduled before bringing the unit back
online, Scott said. There was little risk of danger, officials
said.
There was no question that the hole was manmade, Scott added.
''It was definitely done intentionally, we just don't know if it
was someone who thought they were drilling in the right spot or
if it is something else,'' Scott said. ``These types of tools
are in that area. There's a lot of maintenance going on.''
The power company's investigation, as well as the damaged
equipment, is being reviewed by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
inspection team, which arrived over the weekend and began to
work Monday, said NRC spokesman Roger Hannah.
''Mostly they are going to be reviewing the circumstances
surrounding the damage to the pipe, talking to some people and
looking at it from a technical standpoint,'' Hannah said. ``The
plant has already repaired that particular pipe and we'll also
look at FPL's response and a number of other issues.''
''Because the plant was coming out of a refueling outage, the
water in this particular pipe was not heated up nor was it at
pressure. There was really very little possibility of the plant
continuing to start up without this leak being noticed,'' he
said.
``The procedures allowed them to identify the leak before they
got anywhere close to operating power.''
Scott, the FP&L spokeswoman, said the hole was repaired and
tests show that the pipe is not longer leaking water. She said
the reactor could be returned to service by the end of this
week.
It is the second time in two months that inspectors from the
national agency have been to Turkey Point. In February, an NRC
team was here to look at security issues.
''It relates to the security plan. There were some issues that
we wanted to look at,'' Hannah said, declining to give details
because they are about security.
''Some of those are still open issues but they are not issues
that directly affect the security of the plant. We feel
confident that they are implementing the security at the plant
appropriately,'' Hannah said.
The two water pressure nuclear reactors at Turkey Point are shut
down every 18 months for refueling.
Customers should not be affected by the routine shutdown, Scott
said. The power plant's second nuclear unit as well as two units
powered by oil and natural gas were fully operational, she said.
*****************************************************************
21 NRC: NRC Sends Augmented Inspection Team to Review Equipment Damage at Florida Nuclear
Power Plant
News Release - Region II - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-011
March 31, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D.
Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is sending an Augmented
Inspection Team (AIT) to review equipment damage at Unit 3 of
the Turkey Point nuclear power plant. The damage was reported by
Florida Power & Light Company, which operates the plant near
Florida City, about 30 miles southeast of Miami. The AIT
inspection will include an evaluation of the cause of the
equipment damage, including the possibility that it was damaged
intentionally.
An AIT is formed to review the circumstances surrounding more
significant issues at NRC-licensed facilities. The NRC
inspection team includes specialists from the agencys Region II
office in Atlanta. The team is expected to spend about one week
at the site before returning to the regional office where the
information they have gathered will be analyzed and evaluated.
"Our inspection team will review the companys own investigation
as well as independently assess the extent of the equipment
issues and the companys response," said NRC Region II
Administrator William Travers.
Travers said that because Unit 3 was shut down and the plants
procedures led to the discovery of the damage early in the
process of starting up, the actual safety significance was low.
Last revised Monday, April 03, 2006
*****************************************************************
22 Rutland Herald: Half-way to full power boost, nuke plant feels 110 percent
Rutland Vermont News & Information
April 3, 2006
By DAVID GRAM The Associated Press
MONTPELIER — The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant appeared to be
performing well Sunday, one day after the reactor was brought up
to 110 percent of the power output for which it was originally
designed, a spokesman said.
"We started increasing power at 8:30 yesterday (Saturday)
morning," plant spokesman Robert Williams said. That came a day
after getting approval from federal regulators to do so.
Williams said the 34-year-old plant had reached 110 percent of
its original capacity at 6:30 p.m. Saturday — that's halfway to
the 20 percent power increase for which state and federal
regulators gave final approval in February.
Williams said the plant appeared to be operating without
problems. "So it's going very well."
The nuclear plant, in Vernon in Vermont's southeast corner, won
permission to increase its power output from a rated capacity of
540 megawatts to 650 megawatts.
In approving the 20 percent power increase, the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission agreed with plant owner Entergy Nuclear's
plan to perform the increase in four increments of 5 percent
each, with at least four days of testing and systems checks
between each one.
After the plant reached 105 percent of original capacity on
March 4, instruments picked up new sounds from a steam line
coming off the reactor. That prompted concerns that Vermont
Yankee might be heading for the sort of trouble that some other
nuclear plants that have tried to increase power have
experienced.
That problem is cracking in a key plant component called the
steam dryer, which removes moisture from the steam the plant
makes before it is sent to the turbines that generate
electricity.
Rather than a four-day halt in the power increase process, plant
and NRC personnel took four weeks to study what the sounds being
made by the steam line might mean.
Plant officials said last week that they had satisfied
themselves that the sounds were not a cause for major concern.
The NRC concurred on Friday and gave its permission for Vermont
Yankee to take the next step in the power increase process,
pushing the plant from 105 percent to 110 percent of original
capacity.
"At this current plateau, the plant is producing an additional
53 megawatts for the New England electrical grid," Williams said
in a prepared statement issued Saturday evening. "The 53
megawatts is enough to power approximately 53,000 homes."
He said Sunday that if all goes well, Vermont Yankee should be
ready to be ratcheted up to 115 percent of its original capacity
by Wednesday evening. That could put it on track to achieve its
new full power limit by Sunday, April 9.
*****************************************************************
23 Xinhua: South Korea, Indonesia to cooperate in nuclear energy
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2006-04-03 20:09:35
JAKARTA, April 3 (Xinhua) -- South Korea and Indonesia will
cooperate in the development of nuclear energy soon, ministers
of the two countries said here on Monday.
The statement was made by visiting South Korean Foreign and
Trade Minister Ban Ki-Moon and his Indonesian counterpart Nur
Hassan Wirajuda at a join press briefing after their meeting.
"South Korea offers Indonesia the development of nuclear
energy, including development for electricity," said Wirajuda.
South Korea would provide technical and physical assistance,
said the minister.
Wirajuda said that Indonesian President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono was impressed by the development of nuclear technology
in South Korea.
"We are following with keen interest progress made by Korea
in nuclear energy," he said, without giving further detail.
On the same occasion, South Korean Minister Ban Ki-Moon said
that the cooperation could be materialized soon and Indonesia
could get benefit from it.
"We want nuclear energy cooperation (with Indonesia) as soon
as possible," he said.
Ban said that his country was one of the countries with high
technology and know how in this area ,"I hope that as one of the
areas for future cooperation that Indonesia can benefit from
such our know how and technologies."
Minister Ban Ki-Moon said that South Korea may be a good
market for the energy product from Indonesia, as his country now
only produce 42 percent of the total electricity consumption.
Indonesia is South Korea's largest trading partners and the
largest investment destination among Asian countries.
South Korea is the fifth largest trading partner of
Indonesia, while Indonesia is South Korea's ninth largest in the
area of investment. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant;
FR Doc E6-4778
[Federal Register: April 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 63)]
[Notices] [Page 16599-16601] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03ap06-79] [[Page
16599]]
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of
an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-22, issued to
the Nuclear Management Company, LLC (the licensee), for operation
of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), located in Wright
and Sherburne Counties, Minnesota.
The proposed amendment would revise Section 4.3, ``Fuel
Storage,'' of the MNGP Technical Specifications to allow for
installation of an additional temporary 8 x 8 (64-cell)
high-density spent fuel storage rack in the spent fuel pool to
maintain full core off-load capability.
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its
analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration.
The NRC staff's own analysis, done in accordance with the
standards of 10 CFR 50.92, is presented below: (1) Does the
proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The temporary spent fuel rack would have essentially the same
design purpose, function, standards, and quality as the permanent
fuel racks already in place in the spent fuel pool. Other than a
slight increase in storage capacity and the resultant slight
increase in spent fuel heat generation, there is no other change
to the original design and method of operation of the spent fuel
pool. Since there is no other change to plant equipment or method
of operation, there is no change in the probability of occurrence
of an accident, and no change to the accident scenario previously
analyzed for the MNGP licensing basis and previously evaluated by
the NRC staff.
(2) Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously
evaluated? No. The proposed amendment does not introduce new
equipment operating modes, nor does it alter existing system and
component design beyond the installation of the temporary spent
fuel storagerack. Accordingly, the proposed amendment does not
introduce new failure modes, nor does it alter the equipment
required for accident mitigation. The postulated accident
scenarios previously evaluated are not changed in any way.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any accident
previously evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in
the margin of safety? No. The proposed amendment would allow the
licensee to install a temporary spent fuel storage rack in the
spent fuel pool. Other than this change, which will be reviewed
by the NRC staff, the licensee is proposing no other changes to
other analytical models, assumptions, parameters, or acceptance
criteria. Accordingly, the proposed amendment does not involve a
significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
its own analysis above, it appears that the three standards of 10
CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to
determine that the proposed amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days of the date
of publication of this notice will be considered in making any
final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should
circumstances change during the notice period such that failure
to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or
shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license
amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period,
provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. The final
determination will consider all public and State comments
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish
in the Federal Register a notice of issuance and provide for
opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects
that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to
intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating
license and any person whose interest may be affected by this
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a
petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with
the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing
Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult
a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web
site, .
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is
filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically
explain the reasons
[[Page 16600]] why intervention should be permitted with
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1)
The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property,
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in
the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to
those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish
those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include
sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with
the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions
shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment
under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven,
would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor
who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least
one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the
conduct of the hearing.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the
requested amendment involves no significant hazards
consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it
immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing.
Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the
amendment. If the final determination is that the requested
amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any
hearing held would take place before the issuance of any
amendment.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001,
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier,
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ; or (4)
facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101,
verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent
to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that
copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission
to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to . A copy of the request for
hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent
to Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President, Counsel & Secretary,
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street, Hudson, WI
54016.
The Commission hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding
on an application for a license amendment falling within the
scope of section 134 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(NWPA), 42 U.S.C. 10154. Under section 134 of the NWPA, the
Commission, at the request of any party to the proceeding, must
use hybrid hearing procedures with respect to ``any matter which
the Commission determines to be in controversy among the
parties.'' The hybrid procedures in section 134 provide for oral
argument on matters in controversy, preceded by discovery under
the Commission's rules and the designation, following argument,
of only those factual issues that involve a genuine and
substantial dispute, together with any remaining questions of
law, to be resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. Actual
adjudicatory hearings are to be held on only those issues found
to meet the criteria of section 134 and set for hearing after
oral argument.
The Commission's rules implementing section 134 of the NWPA are
found in 10 CFR part 2, subpart K, ``Hybrid Hearing Procedures
for Expansion of Spent Fuel Storage Capacity at Civilian Nuclear
Power Reactors.'' Under those rules, any party to the proceeding
may invoke the hybrid hearing procedures by filing with the
presiding officer a written request for oral argument under 10
CFR 2.1109. To be timely, the request must be filed together with
a request for hearing/petition to intervene, filed in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.309. If it is determined a hearing will be held,
the presiding officer must grant a timely request for oral
argument. The presiding officer may grant an untimely request for
oral argument only upon a showing of good cause by the requesting
party for the failure to file on time and after providing the
other parties an opportunity to respond to the untimely request.
If the presiding officer grants a request for oral argument, any
hearing held on the application must be conducted in accordance
with the hybrid hearing procedures. In essence, those procedures
limit the time available for discovery and require that an oral
argument be held to determine whether any contentions must be
resolved in an adjudicatory hearing. If no party to the
proceeding timely requests oral argument, and if all untimely
requests for oral argument are denied, then the usual procedures
in 10 CFR part 2, Subpart L apply.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment dated March 7, 2006, which is available
for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One
White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site, .
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
[[Page 16601]] Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of
March, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peter S. Tam, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch
III-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-4778 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
25 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Revised Meeting Notice
FR Doc E6-4781
[Federal Register: April 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 63)]
[Notices] [Page 16601] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03ap06-80]
The agenda for the 531st ACRS meeting, scheduled to be held on
April 5-8, 2006, has been revised as noted below. Notice of this
meeting was previously published in the Federal Register on
Thursday, March 23, 2006 (71 FR 14724).
The discussion of the topic on the Application of the TRACG Code
for ESBWR Stability scheduled to be held on Thursday, April 6,
2006 between 2:30 and 4:30 p.m. is now scheduled between
8:35-10:30 a.m. as requested by the NRC staff. The discussion of
the item on Draft Final Regulatory Guide on fire protection
scheduled to be held on Thursday, between 8:35 and 10 a.m. is now
scheduled between 3 and 4:30 p.m. The times for other items
scheduled for Thursday, April 6, 2006, previously published in
the Federal Register, have been adjusted as noted in the revised
agenda to facilitate effective use of the Committee's time. A
revised agenda is posted on the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/
ding-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/agendas).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, ACRS,
(Telephone: 301-415-7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., ET.
Dated: March 28, 2006.
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-4781 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
26 NRC: NRC Announces New Head of Nuclear Regulatory Research
News Release - 2006-04
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
No. 06-044 April 3, 2006
of Brian W. Sheron as Director of the Office of Nuclear
Regulatory Research (RES). The appointment is effective May 1,
2006, and follows the retirement of Carl J. Paperiello.
In this position, Sheron will oversee the agencys regulatory
research programs, which help resolve important safety issues,
evaluate industry initiatives, enhance understanding of new
technologies, identify needed enhancements to NRC regulations
and contribute to a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory
framework. The office also works cooperatively with the U.S.
Department of Energy and other federal agencies, the U.S.
nuclear industry and universities, and international partners.
Sheron joined the NRC in 1976 as a nuclear engineer in the
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). From 1980 to 1987,
he served in a number of progressively more responsible
positions within NRR including Deputy Director, Division of
Safety Review and Oversight. From 1987 to 1994, he worked in RES
before returning to NRR, where he served as Director, Division
of Engineering and Associate Director for Project Licensing and
Technical Analysis. Most recently, Sheron served as Associate
Director for Engineering and Safety Systems.
Prior to joining the NRC, Sheron worked on the Clinch River
Breeder Reactor Project with the former Atomic Energy Commission
and former Energy Research and Development Administration.
Sheron graduated from Duke University in 1969 with a B.S. degree
in Electrical Engineering. He received his M.S. degree in
Nuclear Engineering in 1971 and his Ph.D. in Nuclear Engineering
in 1975, both from the Catholic University of America.
Last revised Monday, April 03, 2006
*****************************************************************
27 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Meeting of the ACRS
FR Doc E6-4784
[Federal Register: April 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 63)]
[Notices] [Page 16601] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03ap06-81]
Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment;
Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Reliability and
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) will hold a meeting on April
28, 2006, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Friday,
April 28, 2006--8:30 a.m. Until 12:30 p.m. The Subcommittee will
hear the status of the Risk Management Tech Spec (RMTS)
Initiative 4b, ``Use of Configuration Management for Determining
Technical Specification Completion Times, Related to the Use of
Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) and Risk Monitoring Tools.''
The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions
with representatives of the NRC staff and industry regarding this
matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official,
Mr. John G. Lamb, (Telephone: 301-415-6855) five days prior to
the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be
made.
Electronic recordings will be permitted.
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and
4:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged
to contact the above named individuals at least two working days
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to
the agenda.
Dated: March 28, 2006.
Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
[FR Doc. E6-4784 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; In the Matter of Amergen
FR Doc E6-4785
[Federal Register: April 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 63)]
[Notices] [Page 16598] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03ap06-78]
Energy Company, LLC; License Renewal for Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station March 28, 2006.
Before Administrative Judges: E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman, Dr. Paul
B. Abramson, Dr. Anthony J. Baratta. Notice of Hearing
Application for 20-Year License Renewal This proceeding concerns
the application by AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (``AmerGen'') to
renew its operating license for the Oyster Creek Nuclear
Generating Station (``Oyster Creek'') for twenty years beyond the
current expiration date of April 9, 2009. In response to the
September 15, 2005, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing (70 FR
54,585 (Sept. 15, 2005)), two Requests for Hearing and Petitions
to Intervene were filed on November 14, 2005. One Petition was
filed by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
[hereinafter referred to as New Jersey], and the other Petition
was filed by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service
(``NIRS''), Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, Inc., Grandmothers,
Mothers and More for Energy Safety, New Jersey Public Interest
Research Group, New Jersey Sierra Club, and New Jersey
Environmental Federation [hereinafter referred to collectively as
NIRS]. On December 9, 2005, this Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board was established by the Commission to preside over the
proceeding.
On February 27, 2006, this Board issued a Memorandum and Order in
which we (LBP-06-07, 63 NRC --, -- (slip op. at 2) (Feb. 27,
2006)): (1) denied New Jersey's Request for Hearing and Petition
to Intervene; \1\ and (2) granted NIRS's Request for Hearing and
Petition to Intervene. We concluded that NIRS's contention was
admissible to the extent it challenged AmerGen's aging management
program for measuring corrosion in the sand bed region of the
drywell liner (id. at 33); however, it was not admissible with
respect to the areas above or below the sand bed region (id. at
32-33 & nn.27, 28).\2\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \1\ Although New Jersey established standing, the
Board concluded that it failed to proffer an admissible
contention.
\2\ On February 7, 2006, NIRS filed a Motion for Leave to Add
Contentions or Supplement the Basis of the Current Contention,
which AmerGen and the NRC Staff opposed. On March 22, 2006, this
Board issued a Memorandum and Order denying NIRS's Motion
(LBP-06-11, 63 NRC -- (slip op.) (Mar. 22, 2006)).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- In light of the foregoing, please take notice that a
hearing will be conducted in this proceeding. The hearing will be
governed by the informal hearing procedures set forth in 10 CFR
part 2, subpart L (10 CFR 2.1200-.1213). During the course of the
proceeding, the Board may conduct an oral argument (id. Sec.
2.331), may hold pre-hearing conferences (id. Sec. 2.329), and
may conduct evidentiary hearings (id. Sec. 2.1207).\3\ The
public is invited to attend any oral argument, pre-hearing
conference, or evidentiary hearing unless otherwise ordered by
the Commission (id. Sec. Sec. 2.327-.328). Notices of these
sessions will be published in the Federal Register and/or made
available to the public at the NRC Public Document Room, located
at One White Flint, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland, and through the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \3\ The parties to this proceeding are advised that
they will be contacted in the near future by the Board's law
clerk for purposes of setting up a scheduling conference (10 CFR
2.332; 10 CFR Pt. 2, App. B (II), Model Milestones for Hearings
Conducted Under 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- Additionally, as provided in 10 CFR 2.315(a), any
person not a party to the proceeding may submit a written limited
appearance statement setting forth his or her position on the
issues in this proceeding. These statements do not constitute
evidence, but may assist the Board and/or parties in defining the
issues being considered. Persons wishing to submit a written
limited appearance statement should send it by mail to the Office
of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. A
copy of the statement should also be served on the Chairman of
this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board by mail to the Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. At a later date, the Board
may entertain oral limited appearance statements at a location or
locations in the vicinity of the Oyster Creek facility. Notice of
any oral limited appearance sessions will be published in the
Federal Register and/or made available to the public at the NRC
Public Document Room and on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov.
Documents relating to this proceeding are available for public
inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room or electronically
from the publicly available records component of NRC's document
system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS may contact the NRC Public Document
Room reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209 or
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. It is so ordered.
For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.\4\
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- \4\ Copies of this Notice of Hearing were sent this
date by Internet e-mail to counsel for: (1) AmerGen; (2) New
Jersey; (3) NIRS; and (4) the NRC Staff.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------- March 28, 2006.
E. Roy Hawkens, Chairman, Administrative Judge, Rockville,
Maryland.
[FR Doc. E6-4785 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
29 courant.com: Millstone 2 Goes Offline
April 3, 2006
Associated Press
WATERFORD -- The Millstone 2 nuclear reactor has been shut
down after the discovery of a faulty water pump in a backup
safety system, the company said Sunday.
The problem was discovered Wednesday during routine maintenance,
and the reactor was shut down Saturday, said Pete Hyde, a
spokesman for Dominion Nuclear Connecticut.
"Because it's a backup safety system, we wanted to be cautious
and so we gradually brought the unit offline," he said.
There was no abnormal release of radiation during the shutdown,
and no danger to the public, he said.
The pump is part of a backup system that would cool down the
steam generation unit if a problem occurred, he said.
Hyde could not say when the reactor would be back online.
Interact with The Courant:
> Email Reader Rep. Karen Hunter with comments.
courant.com is Copyright © 2006 by The Hartford Courant
*****************************************************************
30 The Mercury: Exelon unveils plans to store spent fuel rods
News - 04/03/2006 -
Mike Castiglione, mcastiglione@pottsmerc.com
LIMERICK -- With storage space for spent fuel at Exelon’s
Limerick Generating Station running low, and the government’s
answer for a national storage facility perhaps more than a decade
away, the plant is moving forward with a solution of its own.
The spent fuel rods, which contain some radiation and are stored
underwater inside the nuclear plant, would be housed above ground
on the plant’s property.
Exelon officials released information about their "dry cask
storage system" at a recent Pottstown Environmental Advisory
Council meeting.
"Existing storage capacity for spent fuel at Limerick is running
out," Project Manager Kevin Carrabine said. "We have no place
left to turn using the existing storage option, which is spent
storage pools inside the power plant."
As a result, Exelon will build a dry cask storage facility
within a secured area on its Limerick plant site. Construction
of the project could begin later this year. The new storage
system will be in use by 2008.
Across the country, 34 other commercial power plants use the dry
cask system, including four other Exelon nuclear facilities.
Fifteen additional plants are looking into dry cask storage
technology.
Under federal mandate, the Department of Energy must provide a
permanent repository for the spent fuel produced by the nation’s
power plants. That repository, proposed at Nevada’s Yucca
Mountain, was supposed to be ready by 2012 but has been delayed
by environmental concerns and political opposition.
Spent fuel is in the form of half-inch uranium pellets, which
are stacked in 12-foot fuel rods. A group of 64 fuel rods makes
up what’s called a fuel assembly. The stainless steel dry casks
can hold 61 of these fuel assemblies. The storage pad will hold
24 casks, which will store spent fuel until 2013. The pad can be
expanded to hold additional casks until 2020.
Officials are hopeful Yucca Mountain will be ready by 2015, but
critics of nuclear energy say that is an optimistic estimate.
The project was first proposed during the Carter administration
and has missed several key deadlines for completion.
Should the repository be delayed beyond 2020, Carrabine said the
issue would become a matter of real estate, meaning more space
would need to be added to store additional spent fuel.
"There will be no effect on the public for spent fuel storage,"
Carrabine said.
Carrabine said the pad would be under continual security
surveillance.
"With the geographic area that is around Limerick Generating
Station and the layout of the site, we believe it is extremely
secure," Exelon spokeswoman Beth Rapczynski said.
Carrabine referenced a video where a cask inside a
transportation canister was struck by a locomotive at 80 miles
an hour. That same cask was then subjected to three hours of jet
fuel fire with "no breach of the transportation canister."
Members of a community group objected to the assertion that the
casks were unbreachable.
As proof, Alliance for a Clean Environment referenced other
videos, specifically footage of a 1998 U.S. Army weapons test
that shows a missile blasting a hole through a cast-iron cask
wall from a 2-mile distance.
"(The casks) are durable for the types of missiles that we’re
required to analyze for regulations," said Bill Bracey, a
spokesman for Transnuclear, the company designing the casks. "It
would be a very hard target to hit from two miles out. These
pads are very small targets for aircraft, if you look at the
scale of the size of them compared to the targets hit on Sept.
11."
Critics in attendance raised additional questions about security
and Exelon’s long-term plans should a national repository not be
ready by 2020.
"I left the meeting feeling quite uncomfortable," Susan Burke
said. "It is clear to me that Exelon has no long-term plan."
Exelon is planning to hold public forums to familiarize area
residents with its plans for spent fuel storage.
©The Mercury 2006
Copyright © 1995 - 2006 All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
31 csmonitor.com: Nuclear-plant security: Is it enough? |
April 04, 2006 edition
By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science
Monitor
NEW YORK If the terror attacks of 9/11 taught one lesson, it
was that America must make itself less vulnerable to attack by
air - perhaps nowhere more urgently than at the nation's 103
nuclear power plants, given their potential for inflicting
massive casualties and destruction if hit by a plane loaded with
fuel.
Yet 4-1/2 years later, those plants are little safer from air
attack, say critics. And squabbling has set in over what the
security standards should be.
Some antiterror experts are concerned the current criteria do
not require nuclear plants to be protected against a threat
equal to the one posed by the 9/11 hijackers, particularly if
they attack again by air. A report to be released Tuesday by the
Government Accountability Office is also critical of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), finding that it has not increased
standards enough to ensure plants are genuinely secure, but only
as much as industry officials believed was necessary.
Those officials counter that nuclear power plants are already
the nation's best-protected critical infrastructure. They say
the government's current security requirements for nuclear power
plants, which are designed to protect from ground assaults, are
already too burdensome. As for an assault by air, the industry
is relying on the Transportation Security Administration - the
government agency designed to prevent terrorists from hijacking
another commercial jet.
After tightening requirements for plant security in February
2002, the NRC is now reviewing those standards before making
them permanent. Known as the Design Basis Threat (DBT), they're
considered "sensitive" information and not made public. But
enough is known about them that they're prompting fresh
scrutiny, particularly because the nuclear industry is poised
for its first major expansion in a generation.
"If the industry wants nuclear to have a viable future and
substantially expand its footprint in the US, it has to invest
some serious money in security," says Charles Ferguson, science
and technology fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in
Washington and coauthor of "The Four Faces of Nuclear
Terrorism." "If there's any kind of attack on one of these
facilities, it could torpedo any plans for future expansion."
Underlying this security debate are two diametrically opposed
views of nuclear power plants' likelihood of becoming a
terrorist target and the amount of destruction that would result
if one were attacked.
Critics say that terrorists consider nuclear power plants to be
top targets because they could cause mass casualties,
particularly if they're close to a large population center like
New York City. They note the 9/11 commission report found that
Mohammed Atta, who piloted one of the planes into the World
Trade Center, had "considered targeting a nuclear facility," as
did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
The nuclear power industry says that nuclear facilities are so
well fortified and have so many redundant backup systems that
there's little probability of mass casualties. After 9/11, the
industry spent more than $1.25 billion upgrading its security
operations and increased its armed guard force from 5,000 to
more than 8,000.
Stephen Floyd, vice president of regulatory affairs for the
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in Washington, acknowledges that
nuclear power plants are potential targets. But he argues
they're less likely to be hit than other, less-fortified
critical infrastructure, like a chemical plant.
According to knowledgeable sources within the industry and the
NRC, the upgraded DBT requires that plants be able to repel an
attack from five or six well-armed terrorists, possibly working
in conjunction with an insider or two. That's twice as many as
they had to handle before 9/11. But the plants are not required
to be protected against an attack by a rocket- propelled grenade
or a large truck bomb, or to provide antiaircraft artillery or
advance radar-based protection against an air attack.
Critics say plants should be protected against a threat at least
equivalent to the one on 9/11, when 19 well-trained terrorists
attacked from the air. "Because of the lame DBT, the threat that
they have to guard against is totally unrealistic. The security
is nowhere near as robust as it should be," says Peter Stockton,
a senior investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, a
Washington-based watchdog group. "If they don't have to be to
the level of 9/11, they should at least be able to repel a squad
size force [of about 12 or 13]."
While the industry won't comment on the specifics of the DBT, it
says it already meets the 9/11 threshold. Mr. Floyd of the NEI,
the lobbying arm of the nation's private nuclear power plants,
notes that the 19 hijackers did not attack en masse; rather,
three to four terrorists commandeered each plane for four
separate attacks. He also says the current requirements, such as
the thickness of the containment walls around the reactors and
spent fuel-rod pools, already provide enough protection against
RPGs. And he says those walls are thick enough to sustain a
head-on attack from a jet, although that's contested by critics.
"Through the FAA and the North American Defense [Aerospace]
Defense Command, they do have procedures and protocols in place
now for interdicting flights much better than they did prior to
9/11," says Floyd. "There's a fair amount of increased
protection there."
But critics say this denies the risks the country faces. For
instance, the Indian Point nuclear power plant is 35 miles north
of midtown Manhattan. A 2004 report by the environmental group
Union of Concerned Scientists found that if it were attacked, in
a worst-case scenario as many as 44,000 people could be killed
by a massive release of radiation.
"Nuclear plants are devices that are filled with absolutely
immense amounts of radioactivity, and it stays inside the
reactor only so long as the coolant operates," says Daniel
Hirsh, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a
California-based nuclear watchdog group. "That gives the
terrorists the ability to use very primitive technologies to
turn our nuclear plants against us, very similar to the use of
box cutters on jumbo jets."
The industry says such thinking is alarmist. "There's nobody
who's stronger than we are," Floyd says. "If they're being
critical that the nuclear industry cannot totally withstand a
terrorist attack, I shudder to think of what that means for the
rest of the critical infrastructure that hasn't done a tenth of
what we have done."
The NRC is expected to finalize the upgraded security
requirements by the end of the year. "The NRC is very serious
about security," says Holly Harrington, spokeswoman for the
commission.
[(Map)]
SOURCE: NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION; AP
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
32 csmonitor.com: Hot job in Germany: nuclear engineer |
Europe from the April 04, 2006 edition
Leaders Monday advocated for atomic energy, but few young
scientists are entering the field.
By Valerie Volcovici | Contributor to The Christian Science
Monitor
OSNABRUCK, GERMANY Undeterred by the fact that Germany has
decided to phase out its nuclear energy capacity by 2021, Phillip
Schumann is pursuing his career goal of becoming a manager at one
of his country's 17 nuclear plants.
"I believe that within the next 20 years, Germans will realize
that nuclear energy will be necessary for our energy security,"
said the electrical engineering student at a nuclear industry
fair here in February. "Although I am in the minority now, I am
optimistic about the future for nuclear energy in Germany."
[(Photograph)]
PHASE-OUT: This nuclear plant in Obrigheim, southern Germany,
closed last spring as part of a 2001 government decision to phase
out nuclear energy by 2021. ALEX GRIMM/REUTERS
Mr. Schumann added that he was encouraged by recent statements
such as German Economics Minister Michael Glos's call for a
rethink of Germany's planned nuclear phase-out after the
Russia-Ukraine gas dispute in January exposed the vulnerability
of Europe's energy supply.
Across Europe, such reassessments of nuclear power are beginning
to creep back onto the political scene. Even in antinuclear
Germany, leaders raised the issue at a summit Monday on
long-term energy policy.
Although many are skeptical about a nuclear revival, there is a
growing expectation that the lifetimes of Germany's operational
nuclear power plants could be extended to as much as 40 years.
However, the country's nuclear workforce is imminently
approaching a "retirement cliff," creating a pressing need for
young nuclear engineers.
In 2001, not a single student graduated with a degree in nuclear
engineering, a study by Germany's Society for Reactor Safety
found. And as soon as 2010, 1,700 qualified new graduates will
be needed to replace the latest wave of retirees at Germany's
nuclear power plants, government agencies, and research
facilities, according to the Competence Network on Nuclear
Technology.
To address the personnel problem, the German Atomic Forum
(DAtF), a nuclear industry group, started hosting in 2002
twice-yearly recruitment "colloquia," such as the mid- February
session in Osnabruck, to attract young people to the field. The
DAtF has been particularly interested in targeting students like
Schumann, who study more general sciences, such as physics or
electrical engineering, but lack specialization in nuclear
technologies.
"Many young engineers believe that there is no future for them
in the nuclear industry, but what they don't realize is that
even if the phase-out policy remains, there will be jobs for at
least another generation," says Dieter Marx, executive manager
of the DAtF. He added that given Germany's high unemployment
rate, the industry should be attractive because any qualified
candidate will almost certainly be guaranteed a job.
As nations like China and India pave the way for the next
generation of nuclear power plants, Chancellor Angela Merkel - a
former physicist - has defended the merits of preserving or
prolonging the use of nuclear energy in order to maintain
Germany's global role as innovator and intellectual exporter.
"In my view, an ideologically motivated nuclear phase-out does
not reflect economic demands," said Mrs. Merkel ahead of last
September's general election. "For me, the question is, how can
Germany - with its technical know-how - profit from this export
potential?"
But since Merkel's conservatives formed a "grand coalition" with
the Social Democrats after the election, she has insisted that
her administration will respect the nuclear phase-out negotiated
under her predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, and his coalition
partner, the Green Party. However, conservative members of
parliament have publically advocated for nuclear energy, calling
it "absolutely essential for the foreseeable future" in a
position paper for Monday's summit.
The public is largely opposed to nuclear despite the fact that
it accounts for roughly one-third of Germany's electricity
supply. In a January Eurobarometer survey, only 17 percent of
Germans said that they believe their government should
prioritize nuclear energy development, compared with 27 percent
in Finland, where construction began late last year on Europe's
first new nuclear reactor in decades.
Of the 24 nuclear power plants currently under construction
worldwide, 18 of those are located in Asia, according to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). China is planning to
build 28 new reactors over the course of the next few decades.
India, meanwhile, has eight nuclear plants under construction,
and plans to expand its nationwide nuclear capacity 10-fold by
2022.
If Germany loses its position as a leader in the nuclear field,
some worry that could lead to a decline in the standard of
nuclear engineering worldwide, as safety and quality - the
hallmarks of the German nuclear industry - are sacrificed for
faster pace and cheaper construction.
"Once German technology is replicated elsewhere, production and
expertise become cheaper," says Johannes Scharrer, a project
manager at Westinghouse's German subsidiary. "In China and
India, they do not have the constraints of the kind of safety
standards we have in Germany, and the quality of facilities will
be worse."
Though in the minority among their classmates and compatriots,
the young scientists at the Osnabruck colloquia hope the
national debate will become less emotional and more rational.
"Maybe now that we have Chancellor Merkel, who was once a
physicist, leading the government, we can have a rational and
scientific debate about nuclear energy in Germany," said
Christian Boggenberger, a physics student at Munich's Technical
University attending the job fair.
" Material from the wires was used in this report.
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
33 PRN: NEI: Nuclear Energy Industry Maintains Near-Record Levels of
Safety and Operating Performance
PR Newswire
ALT="http://www.nei.org" TITLE="http://www.nei.org">
WASHINGTON, April 3 /PRNewswire/ -- U.S. nuclear power plants
continued to operate at high levels of safety and efficiency in
2005, according to plant performance indicators compiled by the
World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO).
For the fourth time in the past five years, the U.S. nuclear
energy industry's unit capability factor -- a measure of
efficiency -- topped 90 percent. The 90.3 percent capability
factor for 2005 was within one percentage point of the 91.2
percent record set in 2002 and matched in 2004. Unit capability
factor is the percentage of maximum electricity a plant can
supply to the electric grid, limited only by factors within the
control of plant managers.
Excellent levels of efficiency at nuclear power plants, which
supply electricity to one of every five U.S. homes and
businesses, produced a near- record 783 billion kilowatt-hours
(kwh) of electricity. This nearly equaled 2004's all-time record
electricity output of 789 billion kwh, despite the fact that more
than 40 percent of the nation's 103 nuclear reactors conducted
scheduled refueling outages last spring, as compared to only 25
percent with refueling outages in spring 2004.
The nuclear energy industry similarly sustained near-record
levels of safety and operating performance in areas including
safety system performance, worker safety, unplanned automatic
plant shutdowns, and programs to protect workers from radiation
exposure.
"The stellar 2005 performance indicators exemplify the nuclear
industry's ability to achieve excellence over a period of many
years," said Frank L. "Skip" Bowman, the Nuclear Energy
Institute's president and chief executive officer. "These
performance measures clearly demonstrate that the United States
continues to be a world leader in safe and secure nuclear plant
performance."
The performance data compiled by WANO is analyzed by the
Atlanta-based Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), which
promotes excellence in U.S. nuclear power plant safety and
operations. INPO uses the data to help set challenging benchmarks
of excellence against which safety and plant operation can be
measured. Other highlights of the nuclear energy industry's
performance in 2005 include:
Unplanned Automatic Reactor Shutdowns: The median industry value
was zero per plant for the second year in a row and the eighth
time in the past nine years. In 2005, the industry experienced
the fewest number of unplanned automatic shutdowns since WANO
began collecting data. In 2003, the only year in this recent span
when the median industry value was not zero (0.8 per plant),
unplanned shutdowns at nine plants occurred during the Aug. 14
blackout that affected much of the Midwest and East Coast.
Safety System Performance: For the 11th straight year, 94 percent
or more of key safety systems met industry goals for
availability. The three key standby safety systems are two main
cooling systems and back-up power supplies used to respond to
unusual situations.
Last year, 96 percent of the key safety systems met their
availability goals. Nuclear power plants are built with redundant
safety systems and backup power supplies so these systems are
available, if needed, even when maintenance is being performed on
a similar system or component.
Unplanned Capability Loss: The 2005 median value of 1.6 matches
the record set in 2001 and is below the 2005 industry goal of 2.
Unplanned capability loss measures how much a plant is off line
or unable to produce electricity due to power reductions,
unplanned shutdowns or outage extensions. A low value reflects a
plant's successful equipment performance and material condition
programs.
Worker Safety: The nuclear industry is acknowledged as one of the
safest working environments, and U.S. nuclear plants continue to
post a very low industrial accident rate. In 2005, the industry
had only 0.24 industrial accidents per 200,000 work-hours, a
near-record low. This is better than the industry goal set for
2005. Statistics from other industries through 2004, as compiled
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, show that it is safer to work
at a nuclear power plant than in the manufacturing sector and
even many other sectors.
Collective radiation exposure: The WANO indicators showed that
collective radiation measurements for plant employees remained
well below federal safety standards, even though the industry's
performance at pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) was slightly
higher than 2004. This is due in large part to equipment upgrades
that position these plants to have their licenses to operate
extended for an additional 20 years. Boiling-water reactors
underwent equipment upgrades as well and saw a small increase in
collective exposure to workers in 2005 over the previous year.
To view charts of the WANO performance indicators for U.S.
nuclear power plants, go to the Nuclear Data section of NEI's web
site at http://www.nei.org.
The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's
policy organization. This news release and additional information
about nuclear energy are available on NEI's Internet site at
http://www.nei.org.
The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations is based in Atlanta and
was established by the nuclear industry in 1979 to promote the
highest levels of safety and reliability -- to promote excellence
-- in commercial nuclear plant operations.
The World Association of Nuclear Operators was created in 1989 to
consolidate the efforts of nuclear operators worldwide to enhance
the safety and reliability of operating nuclear power plants.
SOURCE Nuclear Energy Institute
Web Site: http://www.nei.org
Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved.
A United Business Mediacompany.
*****************************************************************
34 BBC: Fife beach radiation report due
Last Updated: Monday, 3 April 2006
[Dalgety Bay]
The study has examined whether warning signs should be displayed
The first indications of the risks posed by radioactive
contamination at a Fife beach are expected on Tuesday.
The Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa) will present
its initial findings and recommendations after a study of the
foreshore at Dalgety Bay.
The agency has spent £50,000 examining the extent and
implications of possible contamination from WWII aircraft parts.
NHS Fife said the health risks were low but advised anyone
touching material from the beach to wash their hands.
Sepa has been discovering more radioactive items at Dalgety Bay
than at Sandside Beach, near the Dounreay nuclear plant in
Caithness.
Wartime aircraft
More than 90 radioactive items were found at Dalgety Bay during
monitoring of the area last year.
This compared with more than 50 particles discovered during
monitoring of Sandside Beach.
However, Sepa said a different kind of radioactivity had been
found in Fife.
The study aimed to assess the chances of people swallowing or
breathing in the particles and whether warning signs should be
displayed.
The radioactivity is believed to have come from the luminous
dials of wartime aircraft, which are thought to have been dumped
there after the war.
*****************************************************************
35 DOD: Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction
FR Doc 06-3158
[Federal Register: April 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 63)]
[Notices] [Page 16564] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03ap06-46] [[Page 16564]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary
AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
ACTION: Notice of advisory board meeting.
SUMMARY: The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will hold the third public
meeting of the Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction
(VBDR). The VBDR was established at the recommendation of the
National Research Council report, entitled ``Review of the Dose
Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.''
The report recommended the need to establish an advisory board
that will provide suggestions for improvements in dose
reconstruction and claim adjudication procedures. The goal of
VBDR is to provide guidance and oversight of the dose
reconstruction and claims compensation programs for veterans of
U.S.- sponsored atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from 1945-1962;
veterans of the 1945-1946 occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Japan; and veterans who were prisoners of war in those regions at
the conclusion of World War II. In addition, the advisory board
will assist VA and DTRA in communicating with the veterans.
Radiation dose reconstruction has been carried out by the
Department of Defense under the Nuclear Test Personnel Review
(NTPR) program since the 1970s. DTRA is the executive agent for
the NTPR program which provides participation data and actual or
estimated radiation dose information to veterans and the VA.
Board members were selected to fulfill the statutory
requirements mandated by Congress in section 601 of Public Law
108-183. The Board was appointed on June 3, 2005, and is
comprised of 16 members. Board members were selected to provide
expertise in historical dose reconstruction, radiation health
matters, risk communications, radiation epidemiology, medicine,
quality management, decision analysis and ethics in order to
appropriately enable the VBDR to represent and address veterans'
concerns.
The Board is governed by the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), PL 92-463, which sets forth
standards for the formation and conduct of government advisory
committees. DATES: Thursday, June 8, 2006, 8:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m.
and 3-5 p.m., including a public comment session from 1 to 2:30
p.m.; and Friday, June 9, 2006, from 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. and
2:30-3:45 p.m., including a public comment session from 1:30-2:30
p.m. ADDRESSES: Omni Austin Hotel Downtown, 700 San Jacinto
Street, Austin, TX 78701.
Agenda: On Thursday, the meeting will open with an
introduction of the Board. The following briefings will be
presented: ``BEIR VII: Epidemiology and Models for Estimating
Cancer Risks'' by Dr. Ethel Gilbert: ``Summary of Findings on
Beta Dosimetry and Uncertainty From the Academy's Report on Dose
Reconstructions for Atomic Veterans'' by Dr. Thomas Gesell;
``NTPR Dose Reconstruction and Veterans Communication
Activities'' by Dr. Paul Blake; and ``VA Radiation Claims
Compensation Program for Veterans'' by Mr. Thomas Pamperin.
On Friday, the four subcommittees established during the
inaugural VBDR session, will report on their activities since
January 2006. The subcommittees are the ``Subcommittee on DTRA
Dose Reconstruction Procedures,'' the ``Subcommittee on VA Claims
Adjudication Procedures,'' the ``Subcommittee on Quality
Management and VA Process Integration with DTRA Nuclear Test
Personnel Review Program,'' and the ``Subcommittee on
Communication and Outreach.'' The Board will close with a
discussion of the Subcommittee reports, future business and
meeting dates. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Veterans'
Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction hotline at 1-866-657-VBDR
(8237).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: May be found at http://vbdr.org.
Dated: March 28, 2006. L.M. Bynum, OSD Federal Register
Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-3158 Filed
3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
*****************************************************************
36 Herald Sun: China uranium exports to start 2010
[04apr06]
news.com.au network Source: AAP
ALTHOUGH China and Australia have signed a deal on uranium
potentially worth billions of dollars, it will not be until 2010
before exports begin.
Even though Australia has about 40 per cent of the world's known
uranium reserves, the country's mines will not have the capacity
to meet China's insatiable appetite for energy until 2010.
Nonetheless, doubts about the stringency of the safeguards for
the uranium remain.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, in Australia on a four-day visit,
promised Australian uranium would only be used for peaceful
purposes.
But the Australian Democrats say that even the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has concerns about China's
inspections regime.
The Australian Greens say there is no real way to ensure
Australian uranium is not just a replacement for Chinese stocks
diverted to a nuclear weapons program.
Meanwhile, the Labor Party is gearing up for a debate on whether
to end the party's no new uranium mines policy.
Some elements of the party are calling for an overhaul of the
policy, but others harbour concerns about the environmental cost
and nuclear proliferation implications of such a move.
© Herald and Weekly Times
*****************************************************************
37 Sydney Morning Herald: Labor divided over uranium deal -
National - smh.com.au
April 3, 2006 - 7:00PM
More divisions have opened within Labor ranks over whether to
end the party's no new mines policy on uranium mining.
Australia and China have signed a deal allowing China to import
Australian uranium.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who is visiting Australia, has
promised the uranium will be used for peaceful purposes only.
Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says while Labor supports the
agreement, many Australians would feel uneasy about it.
And he says the government has missed an opportunity to use
Australian uranium sales to mobilise an international group
devoted to nuclear non-proliferation.
Industry groups are concerned that Labor's policy not to approve
any new mines could put the deal in jeopardy should a federal
Labor government be elected.
But Mr Beazley said the policy was specifically designed to
eliminate the need for a Labor government to cancel agreements
already in place.
He says there's no rush for Labor to come up with a new policy.
"In terms of the supplies that will be demanded of us, our
current mines will produce more than enough in the medium term
to handle the demands that will come through from China," Mr
Beazley told reporters.
"So we have the opportunity to look at this sensibly and
carefully."
Mr Beazley said Labor would be the world's biggest supplier of
uranium following the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine.
"The issue is not whether we sell it - the issue is the terms
and conditions under which we sell it. And those terms and
conditions have got to have in focus now non-proliferation," he
said.
The issue will be put to the party's national conference, to be
held early next year.
Labor's resources spokesman Martin Ferguson has called for a
policy change so states can open up new mines.
But Labor's environment spokesman Anthony Albanese says the
problems of cost, safety and nuclear proliferation still remain.
"There's certainly no push from the rank and file of the Labor
Party for a change in policy," Mr Albanese told ABC radio.
"I'm yet to see a single branch resolution calling for change."
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has expressed reservations
about allowing uranium miners to compete with coal miners in the
world's energy market.
Opposition trade spokesman Kevin Rudd said Mr Beattie would be
bound by the decision of Labor's national conference.
"Peter Beattie like the rest of us is subject to the decisions
of our national conference of the party," Mr Rudd told
reporters.
A number of companies are exploring for uranium in Queensland,
but the state has not exported any since the Rio
Tinto-controlled Mary Kathleen mine near Mount Isa was shut down
in 1982.
Mr Beattie said he did not want to undermine the lucrative coal
industry but would await the verdict of the ALP conference.
"I will be guided by ALP policy and that won't be debated at a
state level, it will be at a national level," Mr Beattie told
reporters in Canberra.
"We will do whatever it takes to get jobs and opportunities for
Queensland, but I'm not going to see the Queensland coal
industry, which has a lifetime of 300 years ... undermined."
AAP
*****************************************************************
38 AU ABC: Senator under fire over NT nuclear waste dump plan
Monday, 3 April 2006. 18:40 (AEDT)Monday, 3 April 2006. 17:40
The Arid Lands Environment Centre (ALEC) in Alice Springs in
the Northern Territory says it is inappropriate for the Federal
Government to imply a nuclear waste dump will be built there
regardless of suitability tests.
ALEC nuclear campaigner Nat Wasley says Environment Minister
Senator Ian Campbell has indicated the facility will go ahead
despite the outcomes of scientific assessments and community
feedback.
Ms Wasley says the Minister needs to be more impartial before he
has seen any test results.
"From now on we're really going to be holding them accountable
that they're consulting thoroughly with the communities that
live around the area," he said.
"Communities living in Katherine and Alice Springs, the whole
Northern Territory and as many people in Australia as we can to
keep a check on this process.
"In the last week the company's only just been awarded a tender
to start the site assessment so the three proposed sites - two
are quite close to Alice Springs and they actually haven't begun
to process the site survey yet - so actually they might find at
the end of this period that none of those sites are suitable for
a nuclear waste facility," she said.
*****************************************************************
39 AU ABC: Environment Centre criticises China uranium deal
Tuesday, 4 April 2006. 07:28 (AEDT)Tuesday, 4 April 2006. 06:28
The Northern Territory Environment Centre says a nuclear
safeguard agreement signed between China and Australia is not
worth the paper it is written on.
Prime Minister John Howard and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao signed
the pact yesterday.
The agreement ensures there are international inspections of
Chinese nuclear facilities and that Australian uranium is only
sold to electricity companies.
The environment centre's Peter Robertson says China does not
have the systems of transparency in place to be trusted with any
Australian uranium.
"The only thing that the Australian Government can do, if it's
got any concern for the environment or humanity, is to cancel
the agreement to supply uranium to China," he said.
He says the pact is a grab-the-cash-and-run-style agreement.
"China is a serial offender in terms of its irresponsible
conduct, in terms of spreading nuclear technology, nuclear
weapons and we don't believe Australia has any capacity to
regulate the use of uranium once it arrives in China," he said.
*****************************************************************
40 Bellona: UK Government OKs sale of BNG by BNFL
Britain’s embattled BNFL group has gained the right to sell
British Nuclear Group (BNG), its subsidiary clean-up operation,
meaning the groupwhich is best known for its decommissioning
activities at Britain’s Sellafield site–will now become a
private entity.
2006-04-03 11:48
The right to put the group up for sale came last week from the
Britain’s secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry Alan
Johnson, which runs the UK’s recently-formed Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority or NDA, which has the responsibility
of safely decommissioning the UK’s aging nuclear sites, one of
which is Sellafield.
BNFL’s Chief Executive Michael Parker greeted the news
enthusiastically.
“The sale is a positive strategic move for both the business and
our employees. It gives the business the opportunity of
increased performance and at the same time gives our employees
increased career opportunities and the chance to earn a better
future, “ he said in a statement last Thursday.
“We now look forward to working closely with the […] NDA to
develop the criteria against which preferred bidders will be
selected. I expect that there will be significant interest from
potential purchasers.”
Lawrie Haynes, British Nuclear Group’s Chief Executive, said: “A
strong British Nuclear Group means strong competition and that
can only be good news for the NDA and the UK taxpayer. The
stronger we are, the better placed we are to safely deliver what
I call ‘Big V’, that is the value we can create for UK taxpayer
by reducing the overall lifetime bill for cleaning up the UK’s
nuclear legacy.
He added that BNG would deliver this value by making real
progress in safely cleaning up the sites, actively managing the
supply chain while at the same time demonstrating our clear
commitment to the communities in which BNG operates.
“The right buyer will enable us to complement our skills with
theirs to create a powerful player in the global nuclear
clean-up market and ‘raise the bar’ in terms of subsequent
competitions. This delivers enhanced value to the NDA by
accelerating nuclear clean-up in the UK,” said Haynes.
There are as yet no clear buyers for BNG, but media speculation
has indicated that Fluor, Halliburton and Bechtel are eyeing the
group.
Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
41 Salt Lake Tribune: Yucca planning to apply in 2008, open 2020
Article Last Updated: 04/03/2006 12:55 AM MDT
Controversy: Director says the goal is to open the plant in the
shortest and safest way possible
By Erica Werner The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The official who oversees Yucca Mountain said
last week that he expects the Energy Department to submit a
license application for the nuclear waste dump during the 2008
fiscal year and open the facility in Nevada by 2020.
But Paul Golan, who took over last May as acting director of
the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,
acknowledged that the contentiousness over Yucca Mountain will
never be put to rest.
''This will always be a controversial program. It always will
be. Even after it's done,'' Golan said in an interview with The
Associated Press.
''And what we're trying to do is point the ship in the
direction - safer, simpler, more reliable,'' he said. ''And by
our actions demonstrate that this is a path that will allow the
repository to open in the shortest amount of time and the
safest, most reliable way.''
Since taking over, Golan has announced plans to seal nuclear
waste at reactors in canisters that could be put directly into
the ground to minimize possible safety risks. He's announced
that work by government scientists who apparently flouted
quality control standards is being redone, even though he's not
found flaws with the science itself.
Now Golan's department is preparing to unveil legislation to
smooth the path for completing the project. Energy Department
officials have said the bill will contain provisions to ensure
funding for Yucca Mountain and to create a permanent site for
the repository by withdrawing from public use the land where it
is dug into the desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Golan said the much-anticipated bill probably will contain
other changes too, but he wouldn't say what. He said the
department ''has an open mind'' on the idea of interim storage
of nuclear waste at other federal sites until Yucca Mountain can
be completed.
Golan refused to say when the bill will be released. Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman said in early March it would be ready
within the month, and Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici,
R-N.M., said this week he'll likely file his own bill if the
administration doesn't produce one quickly.
Already 55,000 metric tons of commercial and defense waste is
accumulating at sites around the country, and Yucca Mountain is
authorized to hold only 70,000 tons unless there's a legislative
change. Golan said the department is beginning the process -
mandated by law - of preparing to report to Congress on the need
for a second nuclear waste repository.
But acknowledging the political controversy any such proposal
would encounter, he joked, ''You don't want it in your
backyard?''
Energy Department officials have said their planned
legislation, along with the administration's new plan to study
reprocessing nuclear waste - something that stopped in the 1970s
because of proliferation concerns - could delay the need for a
second dump indefinitely.
''If we can actually get a little bit better on closing the
fuel cycle here, that's going to be very important in minimizing
the volume of future waste that we're going to have to deal
with,'' Golan said.
Golan's past assignments have included managing cleanup of
the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in Colorado, and he
keeps a well-thumbed copy of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act within
easy reach in his office.
No matter what happens, he said, Yucca Mountain will be
needed.
''It's not a question of if. We've already established a need
for a geologic repository,'' Golan said.
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
42 The Dispatch: Perchlorate Plume Dissipating
The Editor
Monday, April 03, 2006
By Matt King
San Martin - South County's perchlorate plume is dissipating and
unlikely to expand into Gilroy, according to a new report on the
plume issued by the Olin Corp.
Olin is responsible for the 9.5-mile plume that stretches from
the company's former road-flare factory in Morgan Hill through
San Martin and east of Gilroy.
In its most recent round of well tests, only 31 of more than 800
wells tested above 6 parts per billion, California's public
health goal for the contaminant known to interfere with thyroid
activity. Almost all of those wells were within a mile or two of
the factory site.
The report, which is part of the cleanup order issued to Olin
last year by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board, analyzes perchlorate levels in hundreds of wells in 2004
and 2005.
It concludes that the contaminant is falling rapidly enough in
most areas to make efforts to contain the plume unnecessary,
outside of a small area immediately surrounding the site.
Hector Hernandez, a regional board engineer overseeing cleanup
efforts, said his agency agrees with Olin's characterization of
falling perchlorate levels, but will not make a decision on any
clean-up or control measures until the company submits a final
clean-up proposal later this year.
"We generally agree with this at this point, but we have to wait
and see the clean-up plan and what they actually propose,"
Hernandez said. "Now that we're seeing the plume adequately
delineated, we're seeing what the trend is."
Perchlorate levels have been falling steadily since the
contamination was revealed in 2003. More than 1,000 wells were
polluted, but the number with concentrations above the public
health goal has fallen sharply. The number of wells with levels
at or above 6 ppb has dropped from 198 to 31 in the last year or
so.
The cause of the drop is unclear. Hernandez said it could be due
to rainfall and natural dilution, pumping and clean-up of the
earth at the factory site. He said monitoring will be necessary
for many years to ensure that levels don't go back up if there's
a draught or some other change in the groundwater basin.
Why You Should Care
Perchlorate is a salt known to interfere with thyroid activity.
It's the water supply in Morgan Hill and San Martin, but not in
Gilroy. A new report from the polluter says a downward trend in
perchlorate levels indicates Gilroy is safe from a potentially
harmful contamination.
Matt King covers Santa Clara County for The Dispatch. He can be
reached at 847-7240 or mking@gilroydispatch.com.
*****************************************************************
43 AU ABC: Beattie to take uranium lead from federal ALP.
04/04/2006. ABC News Online
Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he will be guided by
federal Labor's policy on uranium mining in the future.
Mr Beattie is opposed to uranium mining in Queensland because
he says it would jeopardise the state's booming coal industry.
The Prime Minister's historic export deal with China has caused
division within the federal Labor Party - some MPs are pushing
for an end to its long-held 'no new mines' policy, while others
are resisting the change.
Mr Beattie says it is an issue for the ALP national conference.
"It's largely impossible for the Commonwealth to overrule the
state on these things but I'd be guided by ALP policy and that
won't be debated at a state level, it will be at a national
level," he said.
"We will do whatever it takes to get jobs and opportunities for
Queensland but I'm not going to see the Queensland coal industry
- which has a lifetime of 300 years - I'm not going to see that
undermined."
*****************************************************************
44 PittsburghLIVE.com: Officials: Site is safe for radioactive ash
[Pittsburgh Tribune-Review]
By Wynne Everett
TRIBUNE-REVIEW NEWS SERVICE
Monday, April 3, 2006
State officials are trying to ease the fears surrounding plans
to dump 12,000 cubic meters of uranium-contaminated ash in a
landfill used for regular household waste.
State Rep. Joe Petrarca, D-Vandergrift, has arranged a meeting
today between state Department of Environmental Protection
Secretary Kathleen McGinty and residents opposed to the plan for
the radioactive ash from long-closed Armstrong County nuclear
fuels processing plants. The residents want the ash taken to a
low-level nuclear disposal site instead of an Elk County
municipal landfill.
The ash was contaminated between 1977 and 1984 by wastewater
from plants in Apollo and Parks Township. The federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission discovered uranium in the ash during a
1993 survey of the former treatment lagoon in Allegheny
Township, Westmoreland County. The NRC posted nuclear radiation
warning signs around the lagoon and ordered the Kiski Valley
Water Pollution Control Authority not to remove the ash.
In 2005, the NRC surveyed the site again. Instead of measuring
the contamination in the lagoon ash, the agency measured the
radioactive dose a person would receive if exposed to the
material.
Saying the exposure would be within acceptable standards, NRC
officials declared the ash "unregulated" and asked the DEP to
oversee the site's cleanup.
In the fall, residents opposed to the disposal thwarted a plan
to dump the ash to a municipal landfill in East Huntingdon
Township, Westmoreland County. Last week, the Kiski Valley
sewage authority tried again, opening a new set of bids from
trucking companies and landfills willing to handle the ash.
Elk County officials said the ash is likely headed to Onyx
Greentree Landfill in Fox Township.
"Anytime you say radioactive, people's ears perk up," said Bekki
Titchner, Elk County recycling coordinator who also oversees
solid waste issues there.
"Basically, we're telling people they have to trust what the
state and federal government is saying."
Because state and federal agencies regard the lagoon ash as no
different from the 4,000 tons of household waste dumped into the
Onyx Greentree Landfill everyday, local authorities can do
little to stop it, Titchner said.
Tom Haley, of Allegheny Township, a retiree who worked for 11
years at the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. in Apollo as
a nuclear scientist, said activists fears' about contamination
are unwarranted.
"Radioactivity is everywhere," Haley said.
People encounter radioactivity when getting an X-ray or going
into the sunshine, he said.
Haley said the fly ash from coal-burning power plants also is
radioactive and is commonly used in building materials.
A 1997 study by the United States Geological Survey showed coal
ash averages 10 to 30 parts per million of uranium. The ash in
Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control Authority's lagoon has 12
to 425 parts per million.
Taking the lagoon ash to a low-level nuclear waste site would be
needlessly expensive, Haley said. The authority plans to spend
about $900,000 to move the ash to a municipal landfill. Shipping
it to a nuclear-waste site could cost as much as $17 million,
said one nuclear-waste expert who helped to clean up
contaminated soil from other sites.
Haley and Petrarca said residents should trust government
scientists to know how much exposure is safe.
Leechburg resident Patty Ameno, who has led the campaign against
the dumping, wants DEP to rescind its permit for the ash removal
plan, due to start in May. She also hopes to enlist Elk County
residents to protest the disposal plan.
Wynne Everett can be reached at weverett@tribweb.comor (724)
226-4676.
Images and text copyright © 2006 by The Tribune-Review
Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
45 AFP: China deal to break open Australian nuclear industry
Monday April 3, 02:56 PM
CANBERRA (AFP) - Australia and China have signed a landmark
nuclear safeguards pact, opening the way for massive exports of
uranium to fuel China's booming nuclear power industry.
Critics have charged that the deal, which officials said would
take several years to result in actual shipments of Australian
uranium to China, also paves the way for regional instability
and environmental problems.
But Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Australian Prime Minister
John Howard insisted safeguards existed to ensure the uranium
would be used safely and for non-military purposes only.
At a joint press conference with Howard, Wen said China was a
responsible member of the international community and would
abide by the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency and
the principles of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
"The agreement we entered today has provided safeguards for the
peaceful purposes of our nuclear cooperation," China's number
two leader said.
Howard, whose country holds some 40 percent of the world's known
uranium reserves, said he was confident the safeguards agreed to
Monday would ensure no nuclear material was used for military
purposes.
"I am satisfied that the safeguards that are there will be
enforced and on that basis the agreement has been signed,"
Howard said.
Howard also hinted that the government could intervene if
Australia was unable to meet uranium demand from China which
experts say would double current exports of 20,000 tonnes of
uranium as the Asian powerhouse drastically expands its nuclear
power network.
Labor Party governments in Australian states and territories
have until now blocked the further expansion of the uranium
industry by refusing to allow more than three mines to open.
But Howard said there were signs that this policy was
"crumbling" and that the government could "in the fullness of
time" examine what other capacities the national government had
to increase supply.
Speaking earlier, Resources and Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane
said it was unlikely that much uranium would be sent to China
before 2010.
"Australia is already fully committed in terms of uranium
production through until about 2008, bearing in mind that the
signing of this agreement means that this is really only the
start of the process," he told ABC radio.
"Realistically in terms of any significant quantity we are
probably looking at some time past 2010."
Wen, on a four-day visit to Australia to secure energy and trade
deals, said the two countries would work together to enhance
cooperation on the completion of a free trade agreement and that
increasing high-level visits between the two nations were
discussed.
"In the next one or two years China and Australia should work
together to strive for breakthroughs on major issues of free
trade agreement, to lay the groundwork for overall agreement,"
Wen said.
Howard said his discussions with Wen had covered the range of
political and economic issues, remarking that the transformation
of Canberra's relationship with the Communist state over the
past decade had been remarkable.
"Of all the ... major relationships Australia has with other
countries, none has been more completely transformed than the
relationship with China over the last 10 years," he said.
Howard acknowledged that real differences remain between
Australia and the communist government in Beijing, which is
widely accused of human rights violations, but said these should
not be a barrier to improving relations.
"The best way to build the relationship further is to continue
doing what China and Australia do best and that's to understand
our fundamental differences, to be realistic about those
differences, but nonetheless focus on the areas of common
interest where we can fully cooperate," he said.
Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
46 AFP: US stops short of backing Australia-China uranium deal
Tuesday April 4, 06:39 AM
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said that there were
adequate safeguards in Australia's agreement to sell uranium to
China for its fast-developing nuclear energy sector, but stopped
short of supporting the deal.
"I would note that it's subject to an agreement on safeguards,
which addresses the issue of how the fuel will be used," Adam
Ereli, deputy State Department spokesman, told reporters.
But he did not say whether Washington backed the deal.
"Well, it's not a question of the US supporting or not
supporting. This is a deal between Australia and China," he
said.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Chinese Premier Wen
Jiabao witnessed Monday the signing of a bilateral nuclear
safeguards agreement in Canberra, paving the way for the uranium
exports.
Critics have charged that the deal, which officials said would
not result in shipments for several years, opens the way for
regional instability and environmental problems.
Ereli noted that China was a member of the nuclear Non
Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
"So this is an agreement that I think meets every reasonable
standard. And that's how we see it," he said.
Wen and Howard insisted safeguards existed to ensure the uranium
-- which can be used to fuel nuclear weapons -- would be used
safely and for non-military purposes only.
The deal came amid a broader strengthening of economic ties
between China and Australia, a key US ally in the Asia-Pacific.
Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
47 NEWS.com.au: China uranium exports to start 2010
Breaking News 24/7 -
From: AAP
April 04, 2006
ALTHOUGH China and Australia have signed a deal on uranium
potentially worth billions of dollars, it will not be until 2010
before exports begin. Even though Australia has about 40 per
cent of the world's known uranium reserves, the country's mines
will not have the capacity to meet China's insatiable appetite
for energy until 2010. Nonetheless, doubts about the stringency
of the safeguards for the uranium remain.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, in Australia on a four-day visit,
promised Australian uranium would only be used for peaceful
purposes.
But the Australian Democrats say that even the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has concerns about China's
inspections regime.
The Australian Greens say there is no real way to ensure
Australian uranium is not just a replacement for Chinese stocks
diverted to a nuclear weapons program.
Meanwhile, the Labor Party is gearing up for a debate on
whether to end the party's no new uranium mines policy.
*****************************************************************
48 NEWS.com.au: Uranium bubble growing
Breaking News 24/7 -
From: AAP
By Patrick Lion
April 04, 2006
URANIUM stocks have surged higher on the back of speculative
buying again, heightening analysts' fears the sector's boom
could turn into a bubble. The yellowcake buying spree
intensified after China yesterday signed a deal with the Federal
Government to tap $100 billion worth of nuclear fuel for power
generation.
Australian Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said local
companies could be shipping uranium to the Asian powerhouse
within four years.
Analysts believe yellowcake producers BHP Billiton
(bhp.ASX:Quote,News) and Rio Tinto (rio.ASX:Quote,News) --
through Energy Resources Australia (era.ASX:Quote,News), the
nation's largest exporter of uranium -- are best positioned to
benefit from the China deal.
However, there are doubts about the share price rises by many
junior exploration stocks since last year.
The hype continued yesterday. South Australian explorer Marathon
soared 24 per cent or 26 to $1.33 on volume of 3.8 million
shares.
Summit Resources, essentially a punt on the Queensland Government
changing its mining ban policy, added 5 per cent or 6 to $1.33.
"The whole junior (explorer) situation has gone completely mad at
the moment," said Gavin Wendt, a resource analyst at Fat
Prophets.
"It's obviously very positive for Australian companies . . . but
I don't see what that does for all these grassroots explorers."
At the top of analysts' concerns are companies such as South
Australian newcomer Toro Energy, which listed at 25 on March 23
and has watched investors pump its share price up 504 per cent
to $1.26 yesterday.
Two more explorers, the Giralia-backed U308 and Gladiator
Resources, are expected to float in the coming months.
As with many popular yellow stocks, Toro Energy has limited cash
flow prospects because it is just an explorer. The big money
comes from production. Because of this, the surge in uranium
prices to about $US40 a pound -- some analysts are saying it
could eventually hit $US100 a pound -- is useless to explorers.
Stock Resource analyst Steve Bartrop said the market had got
ahead of itself. "There really is a sense that this is a
bubble," he said. "A rise like Toro Energy's just tells you that
people aren't looking at the fundamentals of the company but
just want to get some sort of exposure to uranium."
Australia has about 40 per cent of global uranium reserves but
meets just 20 per cent of the demand partly because of the
Federal Government's three mines policy.
ABN Amro Morgan Asset Management portfolio manager Neil
Boyd-Clark said while some explorers might convert their
potential into greater things, many would fade away without any
success.
Paladin Resources, which has soared 509 per cent over the past
year to $5.38 yesterday, was one explorer realising its
potential through its operations in Namibia.
"For investors, it's a bit like going to the races because
they're gambling as opposed to investing," Mr Boyd-Clark said.
"There are a lot of hoops to jump through and it's a big gulf
between being an explorer and a profitable mining company."
*****************************************************************
49 Knox News: ORNL will excavate hot zone in 2007
Core samples of radioactive soil to be removed from site this May
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
April 3, 2006
OAK RIDGE - Five years after a cleanup effort was abandoned
because of dangerous radiation levels, federal contractors are
again making plans to excavate an underground zone of highly
radioactive soil in the middle of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Bechtel Jacobs Co., the U.S. Department of Energy's environmental
manager, and subcontractors will begin taking core samples from
the area in May to verify the nuclear constituents and evaluate
potential hazards.
Excavation of the site, with removal of about 200 cubic yards of
soil, is tentatively scheduled to begin in November 2007, said
Dennis Hill, a spokesman for Bechtel Jacobs.
The long preparation time is necessary to do the soil analyses,
award a contract for excavation and train workers for the
project, Hill said.
The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has been monitoring
the plans and raised a number of technical issues in late 2005,
concluding that DOE's contractor had not "planned adequately"
and was not prepared to carry out the project. Bechtel Jacobs
reportedly satisfied the concerns during the past couple of
months and got the board's approval during a March 6 meeting in
Washington, D.C.
The hot zone is in ORNL's historic district, where some of the
lab facilities date back to the World War II Manhattan Project.
The radioactive contamination is attributed to a leaking
pipeline once used to transfer liquid nuclear wastes between
processing facilities and an underground storage tank, known as
Tank W-1A. In 2001, workers attempted to remove the radioactive
soil and the underground tank.
"After removal of about three-quarters of the contaminated
soils, an area with higher-than-expected radiological
contamination was found," a safety board report said.
The potential radiation doses to workers were unacceptable,
ranging from 400 millirems per hour to 6 rems per hour. The high
end was more radiation than nuclear workers are allowed to get
in a year's time.
"The remediation was suspended, the excavation was backfilled,
and the facility was subsequently declared an inactive waste
site," the report said.
Workers involved in the upcoming sampling effort will be
outfitted with "Class C" personal protective equipment, Hill
said. That equipment includes "full-face air-purifying
respirators, inner and outer chemical-resistant gloves, hard hat
and disposable chemical-resistant outer boots," he said.
Respirators won't be used during sampling unless the continuous
radiological monitors indicate they are needed, Hill said.
A subcontractor team of Commodore Advanced Sciences and Science
Applications International Corp. will conduct the sampling.
A contract will be awarded later for soil excavation and tank
removal, Hill said. Worker protection for excavating the site
won't be determined until the soil samples have been
characterized, he said.
The old waste tank was emptied of its contents years ago, but
rainwater has infiltrated the tank since then and must be
removed, Hill said. The contaminated water will be transferred
to other ORNL waste systems, he said.
Some of the radioactive soils containing plutonium and other
long-lived elements known as transuranics will be shipped to the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico for disposal. Others
soil characterized as low-level radioactive waste will be sent
to a nuclear landfill on DOE's Oak Ridge property. The old tank
also will be sent to the local landfill.
During the excavation of soil, a tent-like enclosure will be
erected over the site with filters to keep any airborne
contaminants from leaving the area, Hill said.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
Other E.W. Scripps sites:
*****************************************************************
50 DOE: DOE Appoints Stephen Eule As Director of the Climate Change
Technology Program
March 31, 2006
WASHINGTON , D.C. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today
announced the appointment of Stephen D. Eule as the Director of
the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) in the Office of
Policy and International Affairs. With his depth of
experience in science, environmental and energy policy issues,
Steve will provide invaluable counsel to the Department and this
Administration as we work to bring the latest in climate change
technology to the forefront, Secretary Bodman said. As
director of the CCTP, Mr. Eule will coordinate the federal
governments technology research and development (R&D)
activities. Through a multi-agency structure, Mr. Eule will
oversee a comprehensive, sound, multi-year R&D program plan for
the development of climate change technology, specifically in
regards to climate change goals and objectives. The advanced
climate change technologies we are working on have the potential
to fundamentally change the way we produce and use energy, Eule
said. It is an exciting time to be at the Department of Energy,
and I look forward to furthering the ambitious goals of the
program. CCTP is organized under the auspices of the
Cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology
Integration (CCCSTI), established by President Bush on February
14, 2002. CCTP was authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Before joining the Department of Energy in June 2003, Mr.
Eule spent a decade working in various public policy positions.
He spent several years in the U.S. House of Representatives,
first as a professional staffer; then subcommittee staff
director with the Committee on Science; and later as legislative
director in the personal office of Representative Nick Smith
(R-MI). Mr. Eule also served in former New Jersey Governor
Christie Todd Whitmans Washington, D.C. office as an
environmental analyst. Prior to that, Mr. Eule worked with the
Orkand Corporation as an energy consultant to DOEs Energy
Information Administration. His experience also includes a
stint with the Heritage Foundation, where he served as an
assistant editor on the book Free Market Energy. Mr. Eule is
also currently involved in managing DOEs participation in the
Climate VISION program and the Asia-Pacific Partnership for
Clean Development and Climate, and represents DOE at various
international climate change forums. Mr. Eule graduated with
his Bachelor of Science degree in biology from Southern
Connecticut State College and earned his Master of Arts degree
in geography from The George Washington University.
Media contact(s): Daniel Morales, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
51 DOE: Energy Department Provides $140.3 Million to Low-Income
Families for Home Weatherization
April 3, 2006
Funding is first installment of $243 million in total
weatherization grants for FY 2006
WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary
Samuel W. Bodman today announced $140.3 million in weatherization
program grants to 31 states and the Navajo Nation to make energy
efficiency improvements in homes of low-income families;
weatherization can reduce an average homes energy costs by $358
annually. Total Fiscal Year 2006 funding is $243 million and
will provide weatherization to approximately 96,560 homes.
Weatherizing your home is a valuable way to save
energy and money, Secretary Bodman said.
The Department of Energys weatherization program will help
nearly 97,000 families make their homes more energy efficient.
For every dollar spent, weatherization returns $1.53 in energy
savings over the life of the measures. DOEs weatherization
program performs energy audits to identify the most
cost-effective measures for each home, which typically includes
adding insulation, reducing air infiltration, servicing heating
and cooling systems, and providing health and safety diagnostic
services. Other benefits of weatherization include increased
housing affordability, increased property values, job creation,
lower owner and renter turnover, and reduced fire risks.
In 2005, DOE helped weatherize more than 92,000 homes.
On average, Americans spend 3.5 percent of their income on paying
energy bills, but for lower-income households the costs average
14 percent. These costs can include anything from heating and
cooling their homes to running the lights, computers and other
appliances that need electricity.
DOEs weatherization program grants are distributed by state
energy offices through more than 900 local agencies. Every
state, the District of Columbia, the Navajo Nation and the
Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona will receive weatherization
grants this year. Awards announced today are for the 31 states
and the Navajo Nation that begin their weatherization year on
April 1.
The remaining 19 states and the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona
will receive funding during the latter half of 2006.
FY 2006 Weatherization grants are as follows:
Alabama $2,724,123
Alaska $1,734,314
Arkansas $2,202,800
California $7,085,364
Connecticut $2,759,107
Delaware $612,727
Florida $2,592,639
Georgia $3,339,105
Hawaii $234,987
Idaho $2,076,784
Indiana $6,762,132
Iowa $5,153,879
Kansas $2,706,214
Louisiana $1,997,309
Maine $3,240,063
Massachusetts $6,938,192
Michigan $15,446,624
Mississippi $1,850,660
Montana $2,623,349
New Hampshire $1,593,171
New Jersey $5,266,959
New York $21,818,047
Ohio $14,242,973
Oklahoma $2,831,669
Oregon $2,921,655
Rhode Island $1,253,702
South Carolina $1,982,643
Texas $6,607,385
Vermont $1,353,926
Washington $4,688,820
West Virginia $3,320,985
Navajo Grant: $362,433
For more information, please visit
http://www.eere.energy.gov/wip.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
52 DOE: U.S. and India Sign Historic Agreement on FutureGen Project
April 3, 2006
U.S. and India Sign Historic Agreement on FutureGen Project
India to Participate in Worlds First Integrated CO2
Sequestration and Hydrogen Production Research Power Plant,
FutureGen Initiative
NEW DELHI, INDIA The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced
the signing of an agreement with India that makes it the first
country to join the U.S. on the government steering committee
for the FutureGen Initiative. FutureGen is an initiative to
build and operate the worlds first coal-based power plant that
removes and sequesters carbon dioxide (CO2) while producing
electricity and hydrogen.
Adding India to our list of partners is an exciting step for
the FutureGen project, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman
said. The success of FutureGen will lead to the
environmentally clean use of coal to power economies around the
globe.
Todays signing follows President Bushs March 2 - 4 trip to
India, during which he and Indian Prime Minister Singh first
announced the joint agreement on FutureGen. India will
contribute $10 million to the FutureGen Initiative and Indian
companies are also expected to participate in the private sector
segment.
On behalf of the United States, Department of Energy Assistant
Secretary Jeffrey Jarrett signed the agreement. Signing for
India was the Honorable R. V. Shahi, Secretary, India Ministry
of Power.
This is a milestone event that builds on our work with the
public and private sectors to build the first zero-emissions
power plant, said Jeffrey Jarrett, DOE Assistant Secretary for
Fossil Energy. FutureGen is an important component of
President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative, which could help
revolutionize the way we power our cars, homes, and businesses.
FutureGen could allow the world to use advanced coal technology
to fuel our planet in an environmentally conscientious way.
Indias participation in the $1 billion FutureGen project builds
upon the U.S.India Energy Dialogue launched in May 2005. That
agreement aims to increase U.S.India trade and investment in
the Indian energy sector.
The FutureGen Initiative is a ten-year effort announced by
President Bush in 2003 to integrate advanced coal gasification
technology, hydrogen from coal, power generation, and carbon
dioxide capture and geologic storage. The success of FutureGen
will assure that coal, a low-cost, abundant, and geographically
diverse energy resource, continues to globally supply
exceptionally clean energy.
Secretary Bodman has invited government members of the
international Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF) to
become active participants in the FutureGen project. The CSLF
is a voluntary climate initiative that includes 20 developed and
developing nations plus the European Commission. CSLF members
are engaged in cooperative technology development aimed at
enabling the early reduction and steady elimination of the
carbon dioxide. India is the first CSLF member to participate
in FutureGen.
FutureGen will initiate operations around 2012 and will be the
first plant in the world to produce both electricity and
commercial-grade hydrogen from coal, simultaneously.
Virtually every aspect of the 275 megawatt prototype plant will
be based on cutting-edge technology. Technologies planned for
testing at the prototype plant could ultimately lead to power
plants that are fuel-flexible and capable of multi-product
output and electrical efficiencies over 60 percent. And they
could provide future electric power generation with zero
emissions, including carbon dioxide, which is only 10 percent
higher in cost than electricity without the capture of carbon
dioxide.
FutureGen will emit virtually no airborne pollutants; solid
wastes will be converted to commercially valuable,
environmentally benign products; and carbon gases will be
captured before they escape into the atmosphere.
FutureGen is a public-private partnership involving DOE and a
broad, open consortium of industrial coal producers and electric
utilities (FutureGen Industrial Alliance), as well as state
governments and international participants. The FutureGen
project will be supported by the leading U.S. sources of
technology and innovation: universities, national laboratories,
and industry.
For more information on FutureGen visit
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/futuregen/inde
x.html.
Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
53 Las Vegas SUN: Much ado about a big bang
Photo: Mushroom cloud
Today: April 03, 2006 at 8:37:54 PDT
Non-nuclear experiment at Test Site raises uproar
By Launce Rake Las Vegas Sun
Oh, what fraidy-cats we have become.
Fifty years ago, news that a nuclear blast would send up a
radioactive mushroom cloud visible from Las Vegas would have
been cause for celebration.
We would have mixed atomic-themed cocktails and served them at
bomb-viewing parties while we waited in sunglasses for the
blinding flash from the Nevada Test Site.
Today, however, we are alarmed by plans for a non-nuclear
explosion at the Test Site, 65 miles to the northwest. The
planned June 2 blast would fill the sky with a mere cloud of
dust — which prevailing winds would probably carry away from Las
Vegas.
The explosion of 700 tons of ammonium-nitrate and fuel-oil
would not send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas, would not be
radioactive, and would not be heard, felt or seen in the urban
area, Defense and Energy department officials said.
Also, officials said the size of the blast pales in comparison
to above-ground nuclear blasts conducted from 1951 through 1962
at the Test Site. There have also been larger non-nuclear tests
at the Test Site and other test ranges in the West.
Nonetheless, when news of the new test broke Thursday, we
panicked. Democratic Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid asked
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for a briefing.
“I am concerned that tests of this magnitude have been planned
without providing Nevadans with any information about the
possible impact on their health and safety,” Reid said Friday.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Las Vegas, and state Sen. Dina Titus, a
Democratic candidate for governor, expressed concerns about
radioactive dust kicked up from the test.
Indeed, visitors who watched the nuclear blasts from the Test
Site years ago saw a pink “snow” falling from the sky after the
explosion.
Energy Department spokesman Darwin Morgan said kicked-up
radiation should not be a concern with the new explosion because
it “is going to take place in an area that has not been used for
atomic testing.”
So there. If the Energy Department says it, it must be true.
In which case, why don’t you mix us another atomic cocktail,
bartender.
Launce Rake can be reached at 259- 4127 or at
lrake@lasvegassun.com.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
54 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board Chairs
FR Doc E6-4770
[Federal Register: April 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 63)]
[Notices] [Page 16572] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr03ap06-50]
Meeting 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) Chairs. The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770)
requires that public notice of these meeting be announced in the
Federal Register.
DATES: Thursday, April 27, 2006. 8:15 a.m.-5:15 p.m. Friday,
April 28, 2006. 8:15 a.m.-12 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Cumberland House Hotel, 1109 White Avenue, Knoxville,
Tennessee 37916. (865) 971-4663. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas E. Frost, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,
(202) 586-5619.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the EM SSAB is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda Thursday, April 27, 2006 8:15 a.m. Welcome and
Overview, and review of meeting objectives, agenda, and ground
rules.
8:45 a.m. Update on Waste Disposition Strategy. 10 a.m. Break.
10:15 a.m. Lessons Learned from Closures Sites. 11:15 a.m.
Discussion of the FY 2007 Budget. 12 p.m. Public Comment Period.
12:15 p.m. Lunch. 1:15 p.m. Invited James Rispoli, Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management.
2 p.m. Invited Charlie Anderson, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management.
2:30 p.m. Break. 2:45 p.m. Round Robin: Top Three Site Issues.
2:45-3:30: Each Board has five minutes to present top three site
issues.
3:30-4: Questions and discussion of issues presented.
4 p.m. Public Comment Period. 4: 15 p.m. Discussion of Any
Proposed Project from the Chairs. 5 p.m. Review of Day's
Discussion and Friday's Agenda. Friday, April 28, 2006 8:15 a.m.
Opening. Welcome and summary of Thursday's work. 8:30 a.m.
Briefings by DOE/EM Staff. 9:15 a.m. Discuss possible product(s)
to send to DOE or any issues that may warrant follow up.
10:45 a.m. Break. 11 a.m. EM SSAB Organizational Issues. 11:30
a.m. Public Comment Period. 11:45 a.m. Meeting Wrap-Up. 12 p.m.
Adjourn. 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 Doug Frost at the
address above or by telephone at (202) 586-5619. Requests must be
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The
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 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 by calling Doug Frost at (202) 586-5619 and will be
posted at http://web.em.doe.gov/public/ssab/chairs.html. Issued
at Washington, DC, on March 28, 2006.
James N. Solit, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-4770 Filed 3-31-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************