***************************************************************** 03/09/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.57 ***************************************************************** 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 AFP: EU leaders clinch climate change deal - 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, Russia Nuclear Talks Founder 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Urges Russia to Ship Uranium Fuel 4 Guardian: Comment is free: Iran: it's not about energy 5 AFP: China, Russia voice new reservations about tighter UN sanctions 6 AFP: Netanyahu urges tough sanctions on Iran over nuclear issue - 7 Digital Chosunilbo: USFK Chief Warns of N.Korea's Nuclear Capability 8 Digital Chosunilbo: Pyongyang's Nuke Envoy Says China Using N.Korea 9 Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea-Japan Normalization Talks Collapse 10 Reuters: China warns distrust tests N.Korea nuclear talks 11 The Hindu: N-deal will not fuel arms race: U.S. 12 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Keeping government open 13 AFP: US-India nuclear deal not moving rapidly as expected 14 Guardian Unlimited: Government faces high court challenge over Tride 15 Guardian Unlimited: We don't need Trident, we need a whole new plan NUCLEAR REACTORS 16 US: GNEP standing room only 80% against 17 The Australian: Generation Y says why not go nuclear 18 The Australian: One big happy nuclear family 19 Guardian Unlimited: EU Leaders Agree to Cut Greenhouse Gases 20 Guardian Unlimited: Split on nuclear power threatens agreement on gl 21 Sydney Morning Herald: Ill wind puts climate change on top of agenda 22 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo ideas hit funding problem 23 Times of India: Kaiga nuke plant becomes operational in TN 24 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: SLO County can't afford recommended Diablo 25 RIA Novosti: UN nuclear agency backs Lithuania's NPP plans 26 US: Platts: Texas court ruling could affect stranded cost recovery, 27 BBC NEWS: Live video for nuclear demolition 28 London Times: Europe agrees to embrace nuclear option in battle to s 29 US: recordonline.com: Indian Point says leave radioactive waste alon 30 US: Energy Business Review: Nuclear power: labor shortages loom - 31 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Risks of nuclear waste facility in Piketon 32 World Nuclear News: Suez to "own and operate" nuclear plants 33 US: Journal News: Indian Point leaks still fuel debate 34 US: Chicago Tribune: Exelon gets reactor site OK 35 Xinhua: Japanese gov't adopts new basic energy policy 36 Hamilton Spectator: High cost of nuclear energy disputed 37 Indian Express: Civilian nuclear ties top the agenda of India-US tal 38 Reuters: EU challenges world with climate change plan 39 UPI: Analysis: Breakthrough in Brussels 40 US: UPI: NRC approves first new nuclear plant site 41 UPI: Chirac changes position on EU energy plan 42 Prague Daily Monitor: Czech official dismisses Austrian criticism of 43 UK: Hemscott: RWE to take legal action to extend life of Biblis A nu 44 AU ABC: Clean energy set to push up electricity bills 45 times and star: Nuclear Academy to be launched today 46 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Europe Takes the Lead in Fighting Climate Change - NUCLEAR SECURITY 47 Guardian Unlimited: Congo nuclear chief held over uranium sale 48 AFP: DRCongo nuclear centre officials arrested over uranium smugglin 49 US: Times Union: Atomic plant guards seek a degree of security NUCLEAR SAFETY 50 US: Helena Independent Record: An unmistakeable message? 51 US: Bennington Banner: Moran makes entrance in Stamford (du) 52 US: Rocky Mountain News: Atomic veterans plead case 53 US: Cibola County Beacon: Calling all Post 71 uranium workers NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 54 US: [epa-impact] Removal of Low-Activity Contamination 55 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Hold Hearing on Proposed 56 Pahrump Valley Times: More Yucca documents to be released 57 US: The Sun News: Be heard: Don't let more nuclear waste in (P Moore 58 US: ARIZONA DAILY STAR: Waste management symposium moves to Phoenix 59 Economic Times: Nuclear fuel, the last option- 60 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet in Rockvill 61 US: KCPW: Gov Says Not Signing Waste Bill was "Protest Vote" - 62 US: PDT: Opinions vary at DOE meeting 63 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Crowd speaks out on future of Piketon site 64 US: Ruidoso News: Nuclear fuel reprocessing and GNEP: What they are 65 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Perchlorate hearings postponed by sta 66 US: Reuters: US to sell 15,300 tons of radioactive nickel scrap 67 UPI: Analysis: Yucca work reviewed, redone 68 US: Bradford Publishing: State, county officials tour West Valley 69 Scotland: JOGJCC: Re-examine nuclear waste policy, says minister 70 times and star: Thorp re-opening delayed again PEACE 71 US: Reduce, not Replace, our New Nuclear Weapons US DEPT. OF ENERGY 72 [NYTr] Nuclear Lab Backs Down 73 Pahrump Valley Times: Test site board plans session 74 DOE: DOE Selects 13 Solar Energy Projects for up to $168 Million in 75 Hanford News: Bill would bolster technology parks: Some high-tech 76 Hanford News: DOE proposes $1.9 billion for Hanford work: Funds 77 Inside Bay Area: Arms race ends in bitter lab fallout 78 News10.net: Tracy Man Wins Fight Over Weapons Testing 79 UPI: U.S. nuke agency unveils performance pay 80 KnoxNews: Y-12 may make parts for controversial warhead 81 KnoxNews: Two Y-12 uranium leaks probed 82 AP: 2 spills force uranium processing shutdown at Y-12 plant 83 WBIR.COM: Oak Ridge possible site for nuclear waste recycling center 84 NewsBlaze: DOE Seeking Input on Alternative Uses of Nickel Inventory ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 AFP: EU leaders clinch climate change deal - by Giles Hewitt Fri Mar 9, 8:11 AM ET BRUSSELS (AFP) - European Union leaders clinched a landmark climate change accord on Friday that set a binding target for renewable energies to make up 20 percent of overall EU energy consumption by 2020. Talks at an EU summit had broken up overnight with divisions over the issue of "renewables," but by late Friday morning leaders had agreed a compromise that accorded member states a degree of flexibility in achieving their individual national targets. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency, said the agreement would usher in a new era in the fight against global warming. "It has been possible to, as it were, open the door to a new dimension of European cooperation for years to come in the area of energy and combatting climate change," Merkel said. The accord commits the European Union to making renewable energies, such as solar and wind power, the source of 20 percent of the bloc's energy consumption by 2020. The leaders also pledged to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. Merkel said she felt "no little satisfaction that today we are able to go for such ambitious and credible targets". European Commission President Jose Manuel Barosso lauded what he described as an "historic" agreement that would carry a global impact. Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic which are heavily dependent on carbon energy sources like coal, had complained that the binding renewable energies target was overly ambitious and prohibitively expensive. To bring those states on board, the agreement stressed that "differentiated national overall targets" would be set, "with due regard to a fair and adequate allocation" that took into account the potential of each member state. Thus, those countries whose exploitation of renewable energies is already well advanced would take up the slack left by the others to ensure the overall bloc-wide target is met. However, that will entail tough negotiations as to how much of the burden each member state will have to bear. "I have assured them that we will do this in all fairness and seeking the acceptance of each member state on these objectives," Barroso said. "There has to be flexibility. Different nations have different conditions," Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt told reporters. "For instance, we can easily meet the renewable target in Sweden -- in fact we are above it. But others are having substantial difficulties," Bildt said. The accord represents a minor victory for France by having nuclear power recognised as one way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The text noted the European Commission's assessment of the contribution of nuclear energy in "meeting the growing concerns about safety of energy supply and carbon dioxide emissions reductions." However, it also highlighted safety concerns stating that "nuclear safety and security" should be "paramount in the decision-making process". Barroso said he believed the final agreement comprised "the most ambitous package ever agreed by any institution or any group of countries" to combat climate change. But he stressed that the steps taken at the summit marked just the beginning of what would be a long and complicated process. "What we are proposing is overall targets for Europe, but afterwards we have to take into consideration the different national situations to come with specific proposals," Barroso said. Green groups have criticised the 20 percent reduction target for carbon emissions as inadequate. "A 30 percent reduction is needed for the EU to meet its own objective of keeping the global temperature increase below two degrees Celsius," Friends of the Earth said in a statement. "Adopting the lower target (20 percent) for the EU makes it unlikely that countries like the USA and Australia will come forward suggesting a target of 30 percent for themselves," it said. Copyright 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran, Russia Nuclear Talks Founder From the Associated Press Friday March 9, 2007 4:16 PM By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) - Talks between Russian and Iranian nuclear officials over delayed payments for nuclear fuel destined a Russian-built power plant ended Friday without apparent resolution and each side suggested the other was negotiating in bad faith. The vice president of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammed Saeedi, said in remarks carried by state-run Vesti-24 television that his country was ready to provide more funds to enable the September launch of the Bushehr plant. He called on Russia to deliver uranium fuel this month, as earlier agreed. But a Russian official familiar with the negotiations between the countries said Iranian officials refused to sign a document promising the increased payments, and the official indicated Russia would not ship uranium fuel this month as expected. The official, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks, said the disagreement would delay the launch. Saeedi's statement followed three days of talks in Moscow that failed to resolve the financial dispute over the plant's construction. Russia said last month that Iran in recent months had paid only a fraction of the required monthly payments of $25 million for construction work at the plant, and that the payment delays would push back both the reactor's launch and the uranium fuel deliveries. Iranian officials rejected the Russian claims that they had failed to meet the payment schedule, and suggested Russia was caving in to international pressure amid the continued standoff over Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment activities that some governments say are part of an effort to develop nuclear weapons. While Iran emphasizes that it has the legal right to develop an enrichment program to generate nuclear power, the U.N. Security Council - which includes Russia - has called on the country to end enrichment activities because of fears it could misuse the process to produce fissile material for warheads. Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Urges Russia to Ship Uranium Fuel From the Associated Press Friday March 9, 2007 11:31 AM MOSCOW (AP) - A top Iranian nuclear negotiator urged Russia on Friday to ship nuclear fuel this month for a Russian-built power plant, and promised to increase funding for the project after tense talks at which Russian officials complained of insufficient financing. The vice president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammed Saeedi, said in remarks carried by state-run Vesti-24 television that Tehran was ready to provide more funds to enable the nuclear plant in the Iranian city of Bushehr to be launched in September as planned. He called on Russia to deliver uranium fuel for the plant this month, as earlier agreed. Saeedi's statement followed two days of talks on a financial dispute over the plant's construction. Russia said last month that Iran in recent months had paid only a fraction of the required monthly payments of $25 million for construction work at the plant, and that the payment delays would push back both the reactor's launch and the uranium fuel deliveries. Iranian officials rejected the Russian claims that Tehran had failed to meet the payment schedule, and suggested Moscow was caving in to international pressure to take a tougher line on Iran amid the continued standoff over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment activities that some governments say are part of an effort to develop nuclear weapons. Saeedi's statement Friday appeared to indicate that Iran was ready to make some concessions in order to accelerate the fuel deliveries. Iran has been eager to get the uranium fuel, but Russian officials said it would only be delivered six months before the plant's launch. Irina Yesipova, a spokeswoman for Atomstroiexport, the state-run company Russian building the Bushehr plant, told The Associated Press that the two parties would issue a joint statement later Friday. While Iran emphasizes that it has the legal right to develop an enrichment program to generate nuclear power, the U.N. Security Council - which includes Russia - has called on Tehran to end enrichment activities because of fears it could misuse the process to produce fissile material for warheads. In Vienna on Thursday, delegates to a 35-nation meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency approved the suspension of 22 nuclear technical aid projects to Iran as part of U.N. sanctions. Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian: Comment is free: Iran: it's not about energy guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Matthew Yglesias Noam Chomsky argues that saber-rattling with Iran is all about oil. But such arguments are nothing more than useful idiocy for the warmongers. Matthew Yglesias March 9, 2007 5:00 PM | Printable version As George W Bush's administration contemplates blundering forward into a war with Iran - complete with a nonsensical plan to construct an unlikely alliance of Sunni Arab states, Israel, the United States, and (most hilariously) the Iranian-backed political parties in charge of Iraq - important elements of the American left seem determined to once again play their usual role of useful idiots for the war party. Thus, Noam Chomsky assures us, the issue with Iran is (of course!) oil. Or, as he phrased it for Guardian readers, as if to underline the lack of originality: "for the US, the primary issue in the Middle East has been, and remains, effective control of its unparalleled energy resources." In short, contrary to the superficial appearance that a new administration took power in January 2001 and, when granted a political opportunity by the events of September 11, 2001 began implementing a series of disastrous new policies - of which the heightened conflict with Iran is just one - everything is simply continuing on as it has been for decades. "Washington's worst nightmare," Chomsky informs us, "would be a loose Shia alliance controlling most of the world's oil and independent of the US." Similarly, the administration "has been unable to establish a reliable client state" in Iraq "and cannot withdraw without facing the possible loss of control of the Middle East's energy resources." It remains "unlikely that the Bush administration will attack Iran" but nevertheless, the United States "may be seeking to destabilise Iran from within" and will achieve "predictable success in Europe" with its bid to "pressure others to join US efforts to strangle Iran economically." Chomsky goes on to present a cogent analysis of the strategic logic behind the Iranian nuclear program and point out, correctly, that if the United States were inclined to engage in good faith negotiations with Iran, the dispute on this point could likely be settled. He offers us, however, absolutely no reason why an American voter or policymaker should be inclined to support such a policy. Indeed, while styling himself a radical opponent of the status quo, his analysis of the dynamics in the region is curiously identical to the one underlying the very policies he claims to be opposing. To Bush, like Chomsky, the United States and Iran are locked in a zero-sum struggle for control over oil. To Bush, like Chomsky, rolling back Iranian influence in its neighborhood are vital to American national security and economic prosperity. To Bush, like Chomsky, America is all-powerful and can easily succeed at swatting back the Iranian fly. To Bush, like Chomsky, Bush is a clever and brilliant leader full of subtle and cunning schemes to manipulate events inside Iran. To Bush, like Chomsky, Bush's policies are continuous with those employed by past presidents to render the United States the richest and most powerful nation on earth. And so on. Chomsky's analysis, indeed, is precisely why people have supported Bush-style policies. Chomsky-style analysis promised us that Bush's pet war with Iraq would be brilliantly managed by cunning imperialists who would bring home vast oil riches from the battlefield that kept our country rich and strong. The truth, however, is more like the reverse. Bush's policies are daft. Neither he nor his top advisers has any clue what they are doing. They don't understand the region. They don't understand global economics. They don't understand either American or Middle Eastern history. They are paranoid hyper-nationalists perfectly capable of mishandling a proliferation scenario in an energy-poor country like North Korea as they are of mishandling one in an energy-rich country like Iran. The country is being run by dangerous ideologues who don't know what they're doing. The reason the United States should reach a compromise with Iran is precisely that our two countries aren't locked in a desperate clash of interests and Americans don't have any reason to fear Iran becoming a leading power in the region, as demographics and geography indicate that it should. Today, congressional Democrats have finally united around a plan to end American military involvement in Iraq and deprive Bush of the authority to initiate a war with Iran. Foes of the status quo should be supporting such efforts, not arguing that their success will somehow end up denying Americans the energy resources we need to drive our cars and light our houses. Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: China, Russia voice new reservations about tighter UN sanctions on Iran - by Gerard Aziakou Fri Mar 9, 5:38 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - Russia and China expressed fresh reservations on Friday about a UN draft resolution under discussion to tighten sanctions against Iran for its controversial nuclear fuel work. Vitaly Churkin, Russian ambassador to the United Nations, presented a mixed picture after a new round of talks Friday with his counterparts from the United States, China, France, Britain and Germany. "There are some (issues) on which we are quite close, there are some on which there are still some serious concerns and differences," Churkin told reporters after the discussions at Britain's UN mission in New York. His Chinese counterpart Wang Guangya said Beijing "has a number of difficulties with the elements (of the draft resolution) but also others also have difficulties." The new measures, which would tighten sanctions adopted by the council in December in the face of Tehran's nuclear defiance, include a travel ban on officials involved in illicit nuclear work, an arms embargo, financial sanctions and possible restrictions on export credits to Iran. "We had serious discussions especially on the five areas where there are some different views ... as to whether we can narrow our differences," Wang said. "So now the agreement is to refer it back to capitals to see if there is the need to work further during the weekend." He said Beijing's "main difficulty is with the financial and trade sanctions against Iran because we fear that we are not punishing the Iranian people, we should punish Iran for the activities in the nuclear field." "Any sense that this is designed to penalize the Iranian people is completely mistaken," US acting ambassador Alejandro Wolff said. "We look forward to meeting probably at least one more time in the next days before we are ready." Wang also said that the Chinese want to focus on restricting Iran's sensitive nuclear and missile areas while the Western sponsors of the resolution "see the need to expand it to an arms embargo." Asked when a draft might be agreed by the six powers, Churkin replied; "I think we have a good chance next week but for us the substance is more important than the speed." One diplomat close to the discussions said the six ambassadors were considering briefing their colleagues from the Security Council's 10 non-permanent members Monday. At the State Department in Washington, spokesman Sean McCormack sought to play down the differences among the six envoys. "I think we're going to be able to work through everybody's issues. It's just a matter of talking them through and getting a draft that's acceptable to the P5 and then also that the (council's non-permanent members) can sign on to," he added. According to "elements" of the draft, which were obtained by AFP, the text would stipulate that "Iran shall not export any arms or related material and further decides that all states shall prohibit the procurement of such items from Iran by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft." The document, dated March 3, has been discussed by the six ambassadors on instruction of their governments since Monday. It proposes banning "new commitments for grants, loans and credits to the (Iranian) government and state-owned institutions, except for projects for a primarily humanitarian purpose." China however expressed reservations about this point, according to the document. China and Russia also voiced reservations about another paragraph urging" vigilance and restraint" in government financial aid for trade with Iran. The two countries also had concerns about a proposal to extend an assets freeze to "entities, owned or controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Corps (IRGC)" and take measures to prevent "all transactions or the provision of any technical assistance, training or financial assistance" to entities involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Among new people added to the list of Iranian officials subject to financial or travel sanctions are key IRGC officers such as Iran's deputy interior minister for security affairs General Baqer Zolqadr, IRGC deputy commander Brigadier General Morteza Rezaie and the chief of the joint staff, Vice Admiral Ali Ahmadian. The proposed text would give Iran 60 days to comply with repeated UN demands that it freeze uranium enrichment or face "further appropriate measures" (economic sanctions) under Article 41 of the UN Charter. The December sanctions were adopted by the 15-member Security Council after Tehran refused to freeze a uranium enrichment program that could produce fuel for nuclear power stations but also material to make atomic bombs. Iran denies it is seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and insisting it has a right under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to conduct uranium enrichment for electricity generation. Copyright 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 AFP: Netanyahu urges tough sanctions on Iran over nuclear issue - Fri Mar 9, 1:53 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Israel's right-wing opposition, urged in a US television interview that Iran must be placed under "massive" economic pressure over its disputed nuclear program. Asked if he would back military action against Iran if it acquired nuclear weapons, Netanyahu said: "That would be kind of late, don't you think?" "I mean the whole idea is for the international community to do everything in its power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons," he told CNN television in an interview on Thursday. Netanyahu said outside powers could persuade Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government to halt its nuclear project through tough economic sanctions or even by toppling the regime. "It seems to me before people discuss a hypothetical military action against Iran there are plenty of other ways to make this regime stop, either bring down the Ahmadinejad regime itself or make it suspend the nuclear option by applying massive economic pressure on it," said Netanyahu, without elaborating. The comments from the former premier and Likud party leader came as the United States and other major powers weigh expanding punitive sanctions against Iran. The UN Security Council slapped sanctions on Tehran in December over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment work. During his visit to the United States, Netanyahu said he planned to discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions with Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. He said it was vital "to apply enormous and effective economic sanctions on this regime which is very vulnerable to economic sanctions." Netanyahu stood by previous comments in which he compared Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler, saying it was an "apt" description of an "apocalyptic, messianic and extreme regime that denies the Holocaust while they prepare another one." Iran presented an opportunity for the international community to apply the lessons of the Hitler era, he added. "What is the example of the 30s? It is that you must act in time." Copyright 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 Digital Chosunilbo: USFK Chief Warns of N.Korea's Nuclear Capability Updated Mar.9,2007 08:27 KST U.S. Forces Korea Commander Gen. Burwell Bell in a hearing at the U.S. House Armed Services Committee in Washington on Wednesday. /AFP-Yonhap The commander of the U.S. Forces Korea on Wednesday said North Korea is on track to become a moderate nuclear power, potentially by the end of the decade due to its plutonium production capability and an alleged uranium enrichment program unless a diplomatic settlement is reached. Gen. Burwell Bell was speaking in a hearing at the U.S. House Armed Services Committee in Washington. North Korea is reported to be pursuing a [uranium-based] weapons development program as an alternative route to nuclear weapons, Bell said. He said such a program could provide weapons-grade material even if North Korea agrees to halt plutonium processing." The remarks come amid reports that U.S. intelligence officials are no longer certain how far any North Korean uranium enrichment program may have progressed. Bell told senators the U.S. has asked South Korea to fully adopt the provisions of the Proliferation Security Initiative," a U.S.-led drive to intercept vessels suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction. "It is the United States desire that the Republic of Korea fully participate in this initiative." The USFK chief cited worries over the reduction of troops and military service cuts in accordance with Seoul's Defense Reform Plan 2020. "It is our hope that [South Korea] carefully consider these large force cuts unless they are matched by similar North Korean reductions, he said. The statement was unexpected, since Bell neither discussed the matter with Koreas Defense Ministry nor notified it. The 2020 Defense Reform Plan envisions cutting South Korean troops from about 680,000 to 500,000 by 2020, and Seoul recently decided to shorten compulsory military service by six months, from 24 for Army and Marines to 18 by 2014. There had so far been no overt negative comment from U.S. military leaders over the defense reform plan, which was announced in September 2005, apparently because President Roh Moo-hyun gave top priority to it over other defense policies. A source said, "So far, the U.S. military has expressed worries about it, but only below the surface. But Bell, an outspoken military leader, has sent it to the surface." North Korean soldiers engage in a drill in response to Korea-U.S. joint military exercises called Reception, Staging, Onward Movement and Integration(RSOI) on March 22, 2006 in Haeju, Hwanghae Province. /EPA But Bell was more moderate than in the past in his assessment of the military threat North Korea poses. "Economic difficulties have had a debilitating impact on training levels and conventional force readiness over the past decade. It does not enjoy the military support that it once did from either China or Russia. It is doubtful the North Korean military in its current state could sustain offensive operations against the South, he said. Bell expressed fear that that humanitarian aid and other project support from South Korea in the North are diverted for military purposes. Turning to perceptions among South Koreans of the threat, Bells said, As memories of American sacrifices in the Korean War fade, Korean citizens, seeking what they see as a more equal alliance relationship, question the importance of our long-standing alliance. Many raise the issue of [South Korean] sovereignty, and a desire for what they characterize as more self-reliance and independence." (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 8 Digital Chosunilbo: Pyongyang's Nuke Envoy Says China Using N.Korea Updated Mar.9,2007 08:34 KST North Korea's Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan/AP North Korea's Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan reportedly told North Korea specialists in the United States that China is only trying to use North Korea. Kim was in the U.S. for talks on normalizing bilateral ties. According to a diplomatic source, Kim made the remark during a welcome luncheon last Saturday and in a seminar on Monday, sponsored by the National Committee on American Foreign Policy (NCAFP) and the Korea Society. China has no great influence on North Korea, he was quoted as saying, adding the U.S. should not pin too great hopes on China in finding solutions to the nuclear problem. The chief nuclear negotiator said the U.S. over the last six years relied on China for the solution to the nuclear issue. What has it achieved? We have test-fired missiles and conducted a nuclear test, doing what we wanted to do. China has solved nothing, the source quoted him as saying. Pundits say Kim apparently wanted to stress to U.S. officials the importance of bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang. One North Korea expert in China said Kim finally got a chance to say what the North has long wanted to tell the U.S. about China. This was a strong message that North Korea wants direct talks with the U.S.," the expert said. Still, experts say Kim would not have made the remarks if North Korea didnt have reason to be miffed at China, possibly because Beijing consulted Washington first in preparing the six-party agreement reached on Feb. 13 and only tried to persuade North Korea afterwards. The North also apparently feels piqued that China, the real owner of the Macau-based Banco Delta Asia, cooperated with the U.S. in freezing North Korean assets worth $24 million in BDA accounts. Some analysts point out that North Korean diplomats including Kim Kye-gwan base their thinking on the Juche or self-reliance ideology of former North Korean leader Kim Il-sung. They say Kim Kye-gwan may simply have been expressing his own feelings in a somewhat crude manner during the meetings. Thus North Korea has also made it clear to China at every opportunity that it will refuse aid if it comes with political conditions attached. But the North Korea-Chinese strategic alliance is unlikely to weaken. Only this week, the reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong-il very publicly attended a party at the Chinese Embassy in Pyongyang. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 9 Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea-Japan Normalization Talks Collapse Updated Mar.9,2007 10:27 KST Talks on the normalization of diplomatic ties between North Korea and Japan collapsed on their second day in Hanoi on Thursday, a mere 45 minutes after the session started. The working group met under a Feb. 13 agreement reached in the six-nation nuclear talks in Beijing. North Korea on Thursday walked out in protest against Japans demand that Pyongyang resolve the issue of Japanese nationals abducted by the North in the 1970s and 80s. No date was set for the next meeting. The Japanese delegation chief Koichi Haraguchi said the two sides ended the first round of talks after stating their basic position and will continue to exchange views. North Korean top negotiator Song Il-ho told reporters that North Korea cannot accept Japans demand to tackle the abduction issue, which had been closed in 2002. Asked if North Korea will agree on a reinvestigation if other preconditions are met, however, Song said the North could launch a probe into the matter if Japan lifts economic sanctions, stops reining in the pro-Pyongyang General Association of Korean Residents in Japan or Chongryon, and starts atoning for abuses committed during its colonial rule of Korea. The talks collapsed due to the hardline approach of both sides. Japan refuses to back down on the abductions in consideration of public sentiment at home. North Korea, meanwhile, will not budge because it believes that it will damage its chances of getting compensation for Japanese colonial abuses if it caves in over the abductions. Japans Asahi Shimbun daily said North Korea appears to be playing a double game, paying lip service to the abduction issue to save the face of the U.S., which stressed the importance of the matter, but showing no real will to tackle it in negotiations with Japan. Lee Won-duk, a professor of Japanese affairs at Kookmin University, said North Korea is unwilling to address the matter seriously because it believes Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is politicizing it for domestic purposes. Lee added Pyongyang is holding out because it thinks that once it normalizes ties with the U.S., Japan will also have to drop its resistance. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 10 Reuters: China warns distrust tests N.Korea nuclear talks Fri Mar 9, 2007 11:39AM EST BEIJING (Reuters) - Deep distrust is challenging progress toward ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program, China's envoy to six-party disarmament talks said on Friday, following discussions with North Korea on a nascent deal. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, ring-master in the talks on Pyongyang's nuclear future, said he had hopes of progress in implementing a February 13 agreement offering North Korea aid and improved security in return for first steps to dismantling its atomic facilities within 60 days. But Wu warned that steps forward would not be easy as the two Koreas, China, the United States, Japan and Russia wrangle over how to proceed. "The countries involved suffer a serious lack of trust among them. That's the biggest problem the six-party talks must face," he told the official Xinhua news agency in an on-line interview (www.xinhuanet.com). Wu, who rarely makes public comments, likened China to a captain on a fractious ship. "The six-party talks are like a ship. The ship has six captains, and in the current stage we're executive captain." Wu said that earlier on Friday he had met North Korea's envoy to the talks, Kim Kye-gwan, fresh from New York where he held two-way negotiations with U.S. envoy Christopher Hill. The New York meeting focused on obstacles to normalization of ties between countries that have been bitter foes since the 1950-1953 Korean War. Washington has promised to look to establishing ties and easing financial sanctions on North Korea as part of the February agreement. This week, Japan and North Korea also held two-way talks aimed at easing the historic foes' current divisions focused on Pyongyang's abduction of Japanese citizens in years past. Continued... Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 The Hindu: N-deal will not fuel arms race: U.S. Friday, Mar 09, 2007 It provides no "incentives" to New Delhi's military programmes: Boucher Washington: Allaying apprehensions, the U.S. has said its civilian nuclear agreement with India provides no "incentives" to New Delhi's military programmes and will not in any way fuel an arms race in South Asia. "There have been a lot of studies and a lot of statements ? you heard them all during the debate ? about what this (nuclear deal) would do for India's military programmes, whether it would do anything at all. I still believe it would not; I do not think the incentives are there," Assistant Secretary of South and Central Asia Richard Boucher told lawmakers at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "As far as the potential for an arms race in the region, we have talked quite clearly to both India and Pakistan. Both of them tell us they do not want to see an arms race... they have no intention of starting one." ? PTI Copyright 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 12 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Keeping government open Today: March 09, 2007 at 7:3:14 PST Congress is considering a much-needed bill to strengthen the public's right to know Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the federal government has expanded what it wants kept secret and in the process has trounced on the letter and spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. In the name of fighting terrorism, the Bush administration has clamped down on releasing information and advised agencies to lower the threshold for keeping documents secret. Now, if there's even a hint of a concern about whether a document should be released, the information is considered confidential. Also, government officials have used loopholes in laws to ignore, deny or delay public requests for information. A bill being considered by a House committee, however, would give the Freedom of Information Act a significant and needed revision that would make government more accountable and more transparent. The bill would mandate that all government documents are presumed open. The government could still claim any number of privacy exemptions - such as those to protect national security, sensitive personnel information and trade secrets - to keep documents confidential, but officials would have to justify their decisions. It would also order the Government Accountability Office to regularly audit the Homeland Security Department to see if the secrets it is keeping truly deserve secrecy. There are other needed changes in the bill, such as tightening the requirements for government to respond to requests, holding officials accountable for violating the law and providing an ombudsman to help people solve problems with records requests. In this Bush era of secrecy, the bill is refreshing. It would help restore the public's right to know. We hope Congress agrees. All contents 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 13 AFP: US-India nuclear deal not moving rapidly as expected by P. Parameswaran Thu Mar 8, 11:29 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Efforts to implement a landmark US-India civilian nuclear deal are not moving as fast as predicted by Washington, nearly three months after US President George W. Bush signed it into law. Washington had initially expected the deal, allowing export of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, to take off six months after it was cleared by Congress and became law in December. But officials are now less optimistic, amid reports that the United States and India are bickering over the formulation of a bilateral agreement incorporating all technical details of the deal. New Delhi meanwhile has not formally negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) over a set of atomic safeguards which it should adhere to under the pact. Also, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) has not formally sanctioned the deal, under which Washington created a rare exception for India from US law, which prohibits nuclear sales to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) non-signatories. "Progress is being registered on all these fronts, perhaps not as rapidly as we might desire, but in a manner that is consistent with the complexity and weight of the issues under consideration," US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher told a hearing of the US House of Representatives this week. He said although he could not predict when the administration would be able to present the bilateral agreement to Congress for approval, "recent meetings with the Indian government give us reason to hope that the necessary steps can be completed this year." US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, a key negotiator of the deal, revised that his optimistic prediction in December that it could come into effect within six months. He set a new December 2007 target after talks with Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon in Washington last month. "The rosy scenarios months ago have darkened a little bit," Wade Boese of the nonpartisan Arms Control Association of the United States, told AFP. IAEA spokesman Peter Rickwood had told the association's publication, Arms Control Today, on February 16 that there has been "nothing beyond very informal talks" between the agency and India over the formulation of the safeguards and that "no sense" exists when actual negotiations might begin. Speculation is there is an internal debate within India on what type of safeguards it is willing to accept amid differences of opinion between the so-called hardline Indian nuclear administrators and the government. US negotiators reportedly gave an initial draft of the bilateral agreement, so called "123 agreement," to India last June and then a second draft last November. The United States expected negotiations on the second draft to resume in January, but India did not comment on it until February. Burns is expected to discuss the issue again in New Delhi this month. A US official familiar with the negotiations told Arms Control Today, a publication of the Arms Control Association, that "about five issues" remained unresolved between the two countries. They included India’s opposition to a trade termination clause if it conducts a future nuclear test and India’s demand for preapproved reprocessing rights for US-origin spent nuclear fuel. The United States has only granted the reprocessing rights India is seeking to Japan and the European consortium EURATOM. The chemical process separates uranium and plutonium from highly radioactive wastes in spent fuel. Once reclaimed, the material can be used again as reactor fuel or, in the case of plutonium, to make nuclear bombs. Washington stopped nuclear cooperation with India after it conducted its first nuclear test in 1974. Under the nuclear deal passed by Congress, if Indian conducts another nuclear test, the US president "must terminate all export and reexport of US-origin nuclear materials, nuclear equipment, and sensitive nuclear technology to India." AFP Photo: Graphic showing India's civilian nuclear reactors. Copyright 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: Government faces high court challenge over Trident Hne Mulholland and agencies Friday March 9, 2007 A Trident missile. Photograph: AP. Anti-nuclear campaigners have begun a legal challenge against the government's plans to renew the Trident nuclear weapons system. Lawyers for the Nuclear Information Service (NIS) have written to the foreign secretary and the defence secretary claiming that aspects of the government's white paper on Trident are "incorrect in law". Lawyers for the government now have 14 days to reply before the group decides whether to seek a judicial review, according to the group's solicitor. If the NIS does seek such a review, the case could reach the high court within six weeks. The move comes after NIS and Peacerights, another anti-nuclear group, sought legal advice over the renewal of Trident, with the full backing of other campaigners, including the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Phil Shiner of Public Interest Lawyers, solicitors for the NIS, said: "The government has completely misunderstood international law on two vitally important issues. "The first is that replacing Trident would be a clear breach of its obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including that it must move to disarm. "The second is that it can never threaten to use such a weapons system as it cannot discriminate between military objectives and civilians." He added that similar legal opinion had been issued by peace groups before the publication of the white paper in December, but the government had chosen to ignore it. Peacerights also obtained legal opinion from two barristers alleging that the government was wrong to assert that keeping a nuclear deterrent was "fully consistent" with Britain's international obligations. Failure to carry out a proper public consultation was "itself unlawful", the lawyers said. Tony Blair said in December that Britain had to keep an independent nuclear deterrent by building the new generation of the Trident nuclear system, costing up to 20bn over 30 years. But anti-nuclear campaigners and many left-wing Labour MPs are opposed to the plans, which they say could actually cost far more and would threaten world security. Di McDonald of NIS said ministers should accept the lawyers' assessment or face a legal challenge in the courts. "There has been no proper consultation on whether or not the UK needs nuclear weapons forever. "The government has no method of weighing the views of consultees, and is not reporting to parliament on the results of a consultation. "It is merely restating over and over again that it wants a new-generation nuclear weapons system. "This view is at odds with the majority, and at odds with building a safer world." Anti-nuclear campaigners will lobby MPs next Wednesday, ahead of the Commons debate and vote on the issue. Email your comments for publication to politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: We don't need Trident, we need a whole new plan | Comment | In the nuclear debate, the government has dismally failed to come up with any fresh ideas on non-proliferation Martin Kettle Saturday March 10, 2007 The historic vote for radical House of Lords reform triggers a cluster of good thoughts. First, that it was an object lesson in realistic progressive audacity; what looked risky before suddenly looks inevitable and sensible, constitutional reform's equivalent of the congestion charge. Second, that it ought to put an end - though it won't - to the ignorant claim that today's House of Commons is a supine shadow of its supposedly glorious former self. And, third, that MPs ought to show their muscle again on Wednesday by refusing to renew the Trident nuclear missile system prematurely. Next week's Commons debate about Trident ought to be a great existential political moment - and in some respects it cannot avoid being one. In the past, the government kept an exclusive grip on nuclear weapons policy decisions. Next week, rather remarkably, the Blair government has ceded that power to parliament. It would be churlish not to acknowledge the change - and foolish for MPs not to make something of it. Yet what exactly to do? Paradoxically the nuclear debate has rarely been so muted. The passions of Aldermaston or Greenham Common belong to other ages. There has been no surging revival of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Ministers betray no great anxiety about renewal, though Professor Philip Cowley thinks the Labour revolt next week may be the largest on a domestic issue since 1997 and will force the government to rely on opposition votes. Yet Tony Blair has said little since December, Gordon Brown less, and David Cameron nothing at all. The Liberal Democrat spring conference at least managed to generate some old-time religious heat on the issue, but the other parties have barely even gone through the motions. Reading Kenneth O Morgan's fine new biography of Michael Foot underlines the disjunction. For Foot's generation, nuclear disarmament was a sacred cause and a lifetime commitment. Today, by contrast, the Trident decisions seem almost technocratic. Extend the Vanguard subs for five or even 20 years or replace them? Three boats or four? In some respects, times really have moved on. Few people today argue, as many in CND used to, that Britain should set a moral example to the world by disarming - an impulse which, as AJP Taylor noted, owed a lot to enduring imperialist mindsets. Today's generation, sharing a more modest multilateralist view of Britain's place in the world, mostly recognises that arms control demands the long diplomatic slog rather than the grand bossy gesture. Yet there is still a latent impatience for something more than the fatalism of official thinking. Fresh ideas have been wilfully absent from the debate that reaches its climax on Wednesday. Both Blair and Brown remain haunted by domestic demons. They are forever scarred by the near-death experience suffered by Foot's unilateralist Labour party in 1983. With Labour support already falling, there is no appetite for reopening ancient wounds. They simply want to get the issue out of the way. As CND's exasperated - but no less unreconstructed - Bruce Kent complains, the government's position is: this is the world we're in, it's not ideal, so we are going to renew. To an extent, there are international as well as domestic reasons for that. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not just threaten a nuclear nightmare; he is also the living prototype of other unknown future madmen. George Bush's God-driven adventurism generates another uncertainty; perhaps paradoxically we may need the bomb to protect ourselves from the follies of such allies. Since public opinion narrowly but decisively thinks Trident should be replaced, what is the realistic alternative? Even so, scepticism towards immediate renewal riddled this week's defence committee report. The concession of next week's debate hints at a governmental guilty conscience, as last week's debate did on Lords reform. Fifty years ago, British progressives wanted to set an example to the world. So today they should be more practical. They should concentrate on two goals: first, to make Britain's defence and security posture a better expression of the place Britain should occupy in the modern world; and second, to do something effective to help turn back the alarming rising tide of global nuclear proliferation. The two goals are intimately linked - and the link is to strengthen the role of the European Union. The government's renewal plan does not encourage proliferation. But it does nothing proactive to encourage non-proliferation either. Yes, Britain has done a bit of welcome logistical tidying of our own stockpile. Yes, we have been active diplomatically with other EU powers in trying to curb Iranian nuclear ambitions. But the government shrugs its shoulders about wider non-proliferation issues because ultimately it is a consenting prisoner of US determination to be unconstrained by international agreement on defence. But then, as Iraq so painfully shows, our foreign policy is serving the same sentence. The real question that faces this country is how to move away from the place we have got ourselves on both security and foreign policy while continuing to play an engaged role in the world. The defence committee said this week that we need a much stronger narrative. But in truth we need a narrative - period - because at present there isn't one at all. The so-called anti-war movement has nothing to offer here, because it conflates all aspects of security and foreign policy into a hatred of intervention or military engagement of any kind - putting itself alongside Douglas Hurd or Henry Kissinger, to say nothing of Ahmadinejad. But the Labour government and Tory opposition have been no better. Both are terrified of speaking out for any kind of European defence or international strategy. In their heads, Rupert Murdoch always bars the way. The choice next week is not between Trident or no Trident, between keeping nuclear weapons or forsaking them. It's not even a costs question. The choice is between drifting along as we are and trying to carve a different, more modern and more effective security policy within Europe. There is absolutely no need to renew Trident now. There is every need to reconfigure British foreign and defence policy in a more European way. It all comes back in the end to the politics of realistic progressive audacity. martin.kettle@guardian.co.uk Email your comments for publication to: politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 16 GNEP standing room only 80% against Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:01:01 -0500 Several university professors also spoke in favor of GNEP, including University of Cincinnati Nuclear and Radiological Program Director John Christian. ?Portsmouth would be an excellent location for GNEP,? he said. ?It can be operated safely. It is not a waste dump and would make the United States and the world a safer place.? Mark Shanahan represented Strickland at the meeting. He said Strickland always has balanced the gaseous diffusion plant's economic benefit to the area a gainst worker safety. Shanahan also read a statement from Strickland. ?Unfortunately, the history of that facility teaches us that we must be very careful to ask all the right questions and to receive answers that can be trusted,? Strickland said in the statement. ?This project holds out the hope for a massive additional investment at the site and thousands of new jobs, if it is developed as promised. ?But it also holds out th e possibility that Piketon will become a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel rods from across the country.? Strickland said there is not enough information to decide whether the state should host a GNEP plant. He questioned possible environmental risks and wondered if the DOE or Nuclear Regulatory Commission would oversee it. Local nuclear activist Vina Colley said a GNEP plant would risk turning Piketon into a ?sacrifice zone? in which businesses would abandon. ?The site (diffusion plant) will never be cleaned up if they bring GNEP here, ? she said. But First National Bank of Waverly president Bob Foster said GNEP ?holds great possibilities for the economy.? Some of those who attended the meeting couldn't fit into the room and instead listened from the hallway.JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236.

***************************************************************** 17 The Australian: Generation Y says why not go nuclear * March 10, 2007 * Matthew Warren THEY are in their 20s, have never experienced recession or the Cold War, know of the Chernobyl nuclear accident only from history classes and may be the Howard Government's unlikely allies in the promotion of nuclear energy in Australia. A Newspoll survey conducted for The Australian last weekend revealed warming support for the idea of nuclear energy when cast in the context of a solution to climate change. About 45 per cent of Australians backed nuclear power while 40 per cent remain opposed, the strongest level of support since the issue re-emerged last year. Perhaps most surprising was the source of much of this support. The 18-35 year demographic was the strongest (49 per cent) in support of nuclear power as a climate change solution, but then obversely the most opposed demographic to nuclear power plants being built in their area. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred 21 years ago next month. The nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island power station in the US happened 28 years ago. The Cold War ended in 1989, the year those now aged 18 were born. Generation Y is made up of Australians under 30 who see these defining events as historical rather than life-changing. Their world has been shaped more by the September 11 terrorist attacks, Bali bombings and an era of prolonged economic growth and record low unemployment. Demographer Bernard Salt says he is not surprised by the more benign attitudes of 20-year-olds to nuclear energy in the context of climate change, describing them as the "new rationalists": fearless, Machiavellian and seemingly immortal, who see the world in black and white rather than shades of grey. "It doesn't surprise me at all that, faced with these two options, they'd take the lesser of two evils," Salt says. "They are commercial in their thinking and they are prepared to do deals to achieve some greater good." Salt says generation Y is the "quick fix" generation whose limited experience means it often doesn't see the complexities of issues, is engaged by slogans but has limited scope to adapt when things go wrong. "They haven't lived through the Cold War or understood the longer-term downside scenario," he says. Generation Y expert Roslyn Sayers says generations are shaped by global events -- world wars, famines, disasters -- which occurred in their lives between the ages of 17 and 23. She says while the Cold War and nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl may have been highly influential in setting the values and attitudes of middle-aged Australians, events like September 11 and terrorist attacks were likely to be more significant for this younger generation. "The baby boomers and mature generations will have certainly been shaped and formed by those nuclear disasters and therefore shaped and formed by their opinions," Sayers says. "For a lot of generation Y nuclear energy just means The Simpsons." Although many may not realise it, the dysfunctional performance of the fictional Springfield nuclear power plant in the cartoon series is for many in generation Y the main factual point of reference about how a power plant operates. Which perhaps explains why so few of them want one in their neighbourhood. Newspoll chairman Sol Lebovic warns of reading too much into one poll on nuclear energy, saying the change may be as much reflecting an evolving shift in the attitudes of Australians as the climate change debate evolves as well as the qualified nature of the question posed. He says the youth demographic shows signs of being conservative rather than green on key issues, which may help explain the level of support for nuclear power. The Australian ***************************************************************** 18 The Australian: One big happy nuclear family * March 10, 2007 FOR a while it looked as if John Howard had leaped too far ahead of public opinion on nuclear energy and got himself into serious electoral trouble. The ALP certainly thought so and at the last Labor national executive meeting eight days ago, approval was given to a draft letter for ALP candidates to frighten the life out of their constituents about a nuclear power station in their back yard. Howard and the Liberal leadership are convinced the benefits of being seen to be forward-looking with nuclear energy as a carbon-free energy source is a long-term winner with those concerned about a cataclysmic future from global warming brought about by the use of fossil fuels. There are, of course, Liberal MPs in marginal seats who are frightened of Labor's not-in-my-back-yard campaign. The Prime Minister's campaign for the past two years has been directed at a big-picture image of doing something practical about greenhouse gas emissions, with a view to metropolitan seats that worry senior Liberal ranks. Labor, as it battles accusations of being anti-job for adopting green policies and urging the the limitation of the coal industry through the Kyoto protocol, is trying to give way on some of its longstanding ideological positions and recognise the futility of a ban on new uranium mines. An expected change of policy at the national conference next month allowing new uranium mines in Australia could easily lead to the opening of several new mines through to 2012 in Queensland, South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, and the expansion of our $570million-a-year uranium export industry. That could lead to all sorts of jobs in prosperous mining areas and greenfield sites with high levels of indigenous unemployment - not to mention prolonging the resources boom. This is consistent with Labor polling on uranium mining being more acceptable than nuclear energy. The other side of Labor's coin is to run all the harder against nuclear power in Australia and conduct a populist not-in-my-back-yard campaign while promising to address the greenhouse gas emissions problem by ratifying the Kyoto protocol and lifting targets for renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Labor has polled people on the impact of a nuclear power station on their real estate values and found devastating results. Hence, the questions to Howard about whether he would allow a nuclear power plant in his own lower north shore Sydney seat of Bennelong. Howard steadfastly refused to rule it out, but there's little doubt a floating wind farm taking over Lavender Bay on the harbour or a pig manure bio-mass plant on the city foreshore would be taken equally askance. Historically the issue of nuclear power in Australia has been flirted with by various governments - Liberal and Labor - but opposed by the population on the basis of not wanting a nuclear plant nearby, the prospect of adding to radioactive waste and the sheer expense. Al Gore's Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth and the British Government's Stern report, which warned of the catastrophic economic and social impacts of man-made greenhouse emissions - "worse that the two world wars and the Depression combined" - have changed public perceptions around the world. Every peculiar local weather event is seen as a result of global warming. While a storm of public opinion was brewing, practical steps by governments around the world on nuclear energy, as well as self-interested actions undermining emissions-trading schemes, have combined to change the underpinnings of the nuclear industry. It's like a perfect storm building in disparate Atlantic nations. Nations with unimpeachable social progressive agendas, such as Sweden and Finland, are choosing to expand nuclear power; the British Labour Party, under greenhouse zealot Tony Blair, is considering renewing its nuclear power stations; neutral organisations such as the European Union are promoting safety in the former Soviet states; long-term nuclear nations such as France are providing waste treatment; and nuclear holocaust threats such as Russia and the US are moving towards recycling nuclear waste. The EU's attempts to establish a carbon-trading market and push a price incentive to cut greenhouse emissions have effectively failed. The price for a tonne of carbon has slumped from E33 ($56) to just a single euro per tonne after a second round of overallocating carbon credits. Even Brussels-based green groups such as the Climate Action Network are despairing and describe the lax credit allocation and market as "a major disappointment and worrying precedent". The Australian nuclear debate, such as it is, has missed these developments politically although the public appears to have raced ahead. According to the latest Newspoll survey, when asked about nuclear power linked to solving greenhouse gases there has been a dramatic reversal with more people supporting nuclear power than not for the first time. During the past four months support for nuclear power has risen from just 35 per cent in December to 45 per cent last weekend and opposition has fallen in the same time from 50 to 40 per cent. Previous Newspoll surveys in May and December last year had the highest support at 38 per cent and lowest opposition at 50 per cent with 40 per cent being "strongly opposed". The key difference stems from the question of trying to reduce greenhouse gases. While there was traditionally a higher level of support for nuclear energy among job-loving males, at 53 per cent, there was little support among health-conscious women, at 38per cent. Interestingly, support for nuclear energy was up at 49 per cent among 18-to-34-year-olds, suggesting a sharp awareness among younger Australians about greenhouse gas emissions. People are still overwhelmingly opposed to having a nuclear power plant in their back yard, with only one in four saying they would support a nuclear plant in their region. The strength of Labor's NIMBY campaign is political. Yet it is a dangerously narrow proposition given the speed with which popular opinion is shifting. In France, where 80 per cent of the domestic electricity comes from nuclear plants, there is now a PIMBY effect - Put It In My Back Yard. One of the key reasons to build a new, third nuclear plant at Flamanville in Normandy was positive lobbying from local councils, business and people wanting to add to the more than 10,000 direct jobs in the area dependent on the nuclear industry. There are court challenges to the planning for the plant but they are not locally popular. France has come to live with nuclear plants and the jobs and cheap electricity that go with them. France's leading-edge nuclear recycling and reprocessing plant at La Hague has encouraged French politicians and power generators to claim France has solved the nuclear waste problem. It is said to cut net waste by 95 per cent. The French are returning remaining waste locked in a vitreous mass to the customer. By about 2012 Australia will be accepting back its processed waste from the Lucas Heights nuclear research centre and will be confronted with a practical demonstration of nuclear recycling and waste storage. Sweden and Finland, bastions of social democracy and environmental protection, are also expanding their nuclear energy programs because they fear less snow will result in less hydroelectricity in Scandinavia and they don't want to contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. All these countries want energy security first and in a form that is greenhouse-friendly second. Of course, they are expanding their renewable energy sources with huge offshore wind farms, solar plants and solar thermal heating but they believe they cannot provide base-load electricity from these sources. These are some of the iron laws of energy logic - all nations, including the developing economies of India and China, want energy security. Even China is prepared to cut projected economic growth to cut greenhouse emissions. Fossil fuels and nuclear energy will provide the bulk of the world's electricity needs at least until 2050. If you accept the need for immediate action to reduce greenhouse gases a lot by 2050, you have to consider the options of expanding renewable energy sources, taking advantage of "low-hanging fruit" by lifting energy efficiency, developing clean-coal technologies, using more natural gas and using more nuclear energy. Howard's response to the Newspoll results this week was cautious and he still wanted to reassure the coal industry, which affects so many seats: "We have a future and growing demand for electricity and I think what over time is going to occur, if we are sensible, is that nuclear is going to be factored into that and it will contribute to the generation of electricity in the future and that will not necessarily mean that jobs are going to be lost in the coal industry." Australian politics is still sensitive to nuclear scares and coal industry job losses but the speed and strength with which the public has grasped concerns about global warming could override both sensitivities in the near future. The Australian ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: EU Leaders Agree to Cut Greenhouse Gases From the Associated Press Friday March 9, 2007 12:31 PM By PAUL AMES Associated Press Writer BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - European Union leaders on Friday endorsed binding targets to cut greenhouse gases and ensure a fifth of the bloc's energy comes from green power such as wind turbines and solar panels. The deal also noted the role nuclear power could play in tackling greenhouse gas emissions, an inclusion not welcomed by all leaders. ``We have time still to reduce global warming to below 2 degrees,'' Merkel said as she announced the plan that would require greenhouse gas emissions to be cut by at least 20 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 and ensure 20 percent of its power comes from renewable energy. ``We could avoid what could well be human calamity.'' Merkel said the agreement puts Europe at the forefront on the movement to combat global warming. ``This text really gives European Union policies a new quality and will establish us as a world pioneer,'' German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso called the measures ``the most ambitious package ever agreed by any institution on energy security and climate change.'' Merkel led negotiations on details of the package, which also states that by 2020, the EU wants to ensure 20 percent of its power comes from renewable energy and 10 percent of its cars and trucks run on biolfuels made from plants. European leaders hope their commitment to tackling climate change will encourage other leading polluters like the United States and China to agree on deep emissions cuts. Merkel plans to present those plans to a summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations that she will host in June. ``It is important that we can tell the G-8 members that Europe has made a real commitment,'' Merkel said. ``That gives us a measure of credibility.'' Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, said the agreement would put the spotlight on the United States, the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. ``The decision in Brussels puts an even greater level of attention on what will happen in the United States in the next few years,'' he said Nairobi, Kenya. The deal represents a compromise between nations that had demanded mandatory targets on clean energy and eastern European nations led by Poland and Slovakia that had argued that they do not have the money to meet such high targets for developing costly alternatives and preferred to stay with cheaper, but more polluting options such as coal and oil. While setting an overall 20 percent target for renewable energy, the agreement says individual targets will be allowed for each of the 27 EU members. ``A differentiated approach to the contributions of the member states is needed, reflecting fairness (and) taking into account national circumstances,'' the agreement says. It tasked the EU's executive Commission to establish national targets for each country. It also mentions solidarity between EU nations in times of energy supply crises from suppliers such as Russia, as demanded by the Poles. Many of the former Communist nations that joined the EU in 2004 lag behind their Western neighbors in developing clean fuel. Although their economies are growing fast, most are still struggling to catch up with the West and say they need more time to meet the 20 percent target. Cooler, landlocked countries such as Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic also argued that they were handicapped in developing wind, solar and water-based power sources, which recently gained wider use in countries such as Denmark and Spain. The deal contains a reference to the role of nuclear power, a demand of the French, Czechs, Slovaks and others who argued it could play a crucial part in helping Europe move away from carbon fuels. It says each EU nation should decide whether to use nuclear power, but takes note of a Commission report that says nuclear energy could contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and help alleviate worries about security of energy supply. It also stresses the need to improve nuclear safety. Austria, Ireland and Denmark did not want the EU to sanction nuclear power, and the German government is split over whether to develop atomic energy. ``Our Austrian attitude toward sustainable energy definitely does not include nuclear energy,'' Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik told reporters. Friends of the Earth said it was appalled by the mention of nuclear power. ``Nuclear energy is too expensive,'' said Jan Kowalzig, a campaigner with the group. ``Nations should invest more cleverly in developing other energy sources.'' He called the 20 percent target for renewables ``too low,'' but said the group was pleased it was binding. The leaders also agreed that EU nations should forge a common approach in dealing with its main foreign supplies of energy. The EU hopes to intensify imports from central Asia and Africa to reduce reliance on oil and gas supplies from Russia. They also want to diversify energy supply routes, a response to recent problems that saw Russia turn off the taps on pipelines carrying oil and gas westward. EU leaders asked regulators to develop a plan on opening the EU's internal energy market and overcoming problems such as overcharging and under-investment, which have been blamed for two major blackouts in the past year. They stopped short of endorsing a plan to split up national energy monopolies. The EU's environmental agenda is to be pursued in parallel with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, the U.N. treaty on climate change. The major EU economies have committed to cut greenhouse gases by 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, and want the United States to sign the treaty. The U.S. argues that Kyoto would hurt its economy and says the treaty should also apply to surging Asian economies like China and India. ---- Associated Press Writers Jan Sliva, Aoife White and Raf Casert contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 20 Guardian Unlimited: Split on nuclear power threatens agreement on global warming David Gow and Ian Traynor Friday March 9, 2007 A worker at the nuclear reactor factory in Chalon-sur-Saone, France. Nearly 80% of Frances power comes from nuclear plants. Photograph: Jacques Brinon/AP Divisions over nuclear power and renewable energy threatened to derail the EU's campaign to assume a global leadership role in the fight against climate change at the bloc's spring summit which began last night. Warning that "it is closer to five past midnight than five to midnight" for international measures to combat global warming, Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel, chairing the meeting, urged EU leaders to "deliver results for our grandchildren" by making Europe the world's first low-carbon economy via a unilateral 20% cut in its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. But France, backed by several east European countries, insisted carbon-free nuclear power be included within the EU energy mix and rejected Ms Merkel's proposal to make a 20% target for renewable energy binding on all 27 members. At his swansong summit, the outgoing French president Jacques Chirac insisted that he would only agree to binding energy targets if nuclear power were included and proposed that 45% of the mix come from non-fossil fuel sources. France gets 80% of its power from nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy, according to draft summit conclusions, is a choice for individual EU countries but France won backing for its stance against binding renewable targets from nine other countries, including the Czechs and Poles,who believe they will damage their economic growth. Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Germany formally oppose atomic energy. Ms Merkel, backed by Tony Blair, wants the EU to commit itself to the 20% cut before the G8 summit in early June where other industrialised countries and emerging economies, such as China, will be pressed to agree a 30% global cut to succeed the Kyoto protocol. Useful links Europa (EU homepage) European parliament Council of the European Union European commission European court of justice EU committee of the regions European Economic and Social Committee Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 21 Sydney Morning Herald: Ill wind puts climate change on top of agenda - www.smh.com.au March 10, 2007 China is coming to terms with its role in global warming, Mary-Anne Toy writes in Linfen. LIKE millions of other entrepreneurial Chinese trying to better their lives, Mr Tao and his wife borrowed money from friends and family and risked it all setting up a business. Ten years ago they moved to a small village on the outskirts of Linfen, a mining city deep inside China's biggest coal-producing province, Shanxi. Mr Tao was attracted to the village of Dong Ma Che because of its reputation as a successful fish- and duck-breeding centre under the secure administrative control of the Linfen police. He did not know that even then Linfen was on its way to international notoriety as the world's most polluted city, a label issued by the World Bank a few years ago. This did not mean much to Mr Tao until three years ago, when a cluster of new factories opened up less than a kilometre away on former farmland. Soon after that, Mr Tao's fish stopped breeding, the ducks stopped laying and the frogs, crabs and shrimp that used to inhabit his ponds began dying. When the western wind blows, the surface of Mr Tao's two ponds become dark, and clothing blackens. Mr Tao's five workers have been laid off. He still has 3000 ducks, but their egg-laying is irregular and dozens die each week. An agricultural expert friend from his home province of Zhejiang says the farm's declining productivity is not just due to the pollution surging from the smoke stacks of the new coking, steel and chemical mills next door. The whole environment is toxic, he told the Herald last week. As if on cue, dark, thick smoke starts belching from an older factory to the south of his farm. It is late afternoon, and Mr Tao says another nearby plant likes to wait for the cover of darkness to let off the worst of its emissions. "But it's the mornings I find the worst. Then, the air is choking," Mr Tao says resignedly. He has been told by the police to stop complaining about the pollution. The new factories provide jobs, he admits, but at what cost? These are the dilemmas facing China as it pauses, momentarily, to take stock of its position in the world. Poised to overtake Britain as the world's third largest economy, China is coming to grips with its role in global warming - and its responsibilities. The fight to contain global warming will be won or lost largely in China. Its massive dependence on highly polluting coal-fired power stations, which provide 70 per cent of its growing energy needs, means that it is predicted to overtake the US as the biggest emitter of global warming gases in 2009, a decade earlier than once thought. According to new data released this week by China's National Bureau of Statistics, the country's use of fossil fuels increased 9.3 per cent last year, the same rate as in previous years, with little signs of abating. While the rest of the world is reducing its reliance on coal, China's demand for coal has increased 18 per cent. A Chinese energy expert, Yang Fujiang, says no nation in history has industrialised as fast as China is today. It is completing the equivalent of a new coal-fired power plant every four days - and at the same time, investment in energy efficiency measures has been declining since the 1980s. "Maybe next year China will become the number one emitter," he says. Western industrialised nations - the US, Europe, Australia - caused the problem, and developing countries such as China hate being lectured by the US, in particular, about how poor countries like themselves should cut their emissions now, before they are able to industrialise, because the greedy West has already used up most of the world's resources. But the world can't wait for China and India - which together account for almost 40 per cent of the world's population - to get rich before they go green. This week scientists reported that Asia's growing air pollution is making the Pacific region cloudier and stormier, disrupting weather patterns along the US West Coast and into the Arctic. The Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, says that if China continues expanding its coal-fired power stations, its already severe water crisis will become "totally catastrophic". Professor Flannery says Australia and other developed nations must help countries such as China develop clean-coal technology in order to enable a fast phase-out of conventional coal-fired power stations. Australia, the world's biggest coal exporter, has been a big beneficiary of China's economic growth. Although Australia sells only 3 per cent of its coal to China, which has abundant coal reserves, the Chinese appetite for Australian resources has underpinned Australia's continued economic prosperity, creating record prices for iron ore, uranium and other raw materials. Michael Richardson, an energy and security researcher at Singapore's Institute of South-East Asian Studies, says the West has a duty and a self-interest to help developing countries such as China improve their energy efficiency. Japan last month announced it would spend $US2 billion helping its poorer neighbours develop energy-saving technology. Australia has a number of agreements with China in this area, the latest, a "clean coal taskforce", announced at the second annual East Asia Summit in the Philippines in January. In China, there are signs that its leaders are heeding what its own scientists are telling them: global warming is real, and is potentially devastating for China. Chinese scientists and officials have been increasingly blaming global warming for worsening China's natural disasters, from longer and more devastating typhoon and flood seasons to prolonged drought in other areas. A report in January suggested a 37 per cent reduction in wheat, rice and corn output by 2050. Mr Yang says the Chinese Government recognises it can no longer ignore the problem but it urgently needs to do much more, much faster. China must rein in its growth rate to 8-9 per cent a year, he says. "If it continues to be 10 per cent plus there is no way to cut energy consumption", he told a briefing in Beijing last week on China's energy challenges. The British Foreign Secretary's special representative for climate change, John Ashton, who has spent much of his diplomatic career working in and with China, says there is good reason to be concerned about China's soaring greenhouse emissions but, like Mr Yang, says attacks on China are counterproductive. "Anyone who goes to China and tells them what their business is is not going to get very far," Mr Ashton said. Such attacks would also be unfair. "The Chinese Government has become rapidly more aware about climate change, particularly because of the growing realisation that so much of its productive capacity is only a metre or two above sea level, such as around the Yangtze and Pearl rivers. "The reality is China is doing a number of things that put it right on the front rank of countries that are responding to this issue," Mr Ashton said. However, Pan Yue, one of China's most senior environmental officials, is harsher on his own country's record. Mr Yue, deputy director of the State Environmental Protection Administration which has been aggressively trying to push pollution control, with some success, to the top of the agenda, says although China signed the Kyoto Protocol and some 50 other international environment accords, it does little to honour them. The Premier, Wen Jiabao, in his annual work report to the nation at Monday's opening of the National People's Congress, China's parliament, spent a significant part of his speech enumerating the reasons why China must take a greener road to continued development. Gratifying as it is to have the leadership ostensibly back them, the environment agency still has little power to punish local officials for approving or continuing to allow polluting enterprises to operate. They lose as many battles as they win. with Liz Minchin Copyright 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 22 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Diablo ideas hit funding problem 03/09/2007 | By David Sneed dsneed@thetribunenews.com * County staff report on decision for Diablo Canyon Citing a lack of money and personnel, the county will not carry out the majority of recommendations recently made by a civil grand jury to improve public safety in the event of a radiation release at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. While the nonbinding grand jury report called "Diablo Canyon: San Luis Obispo's Katrina'" was laudatory of the county's emergency planning regarding the nuclear plant, it recommended four improvements. Most concerned increasing public information about emergency preparedness. "They're great ideas, but it comes down to funding and resource allocation," said Ron Alsop, a county emergency services coordinator who wrote the county's response to the grand jury report. The grand jury's most expensive recommendation is to upgrade a road between Avila Beach and Shell Beach so it can be used as an alternate evacuation route from Avila Beach, which is at greatest risk of being affected by a Diablo Canyon radiation leak. A road between Cave Landing Road in Avila Beach and Bluff Drive in Shell Beach was destroyed by landslides in 1995. It would cost between $5 million and $6 million to repair it to the point that cars could drive on it, Alsop said. As it is now, only people evacuating on foot would be able to use the road. "It is currently not feasible to reconstruct the road or bridge over the gap left by landslides," Alsop stated in his staff report to county supervisors, who will consider the county's response Tuesday. County administrators will also not follow another grand jury recommendation that calls for emergency preparedness information to be mailed annually to county households. Alsop said such a step is unnecessary because there is an abundance of emergency preparedness information from a variety of agencies available to the public, especially since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This includes a section in the AT&T telephone book tailored specifically for Diablo Canyon. "It sounds like a simple thing to do," Alsop said. "But it would just require us to have an increase in service level, which means going to the supervisors for more money." Funding is also a problem in carrying out a third grand jury suggestion. The county Office of Emergency Services is planning a workshop in June to give emergency planning information to institutional care providers. The jury recommended the workshop be expanded to include people with disabilities or their caretakers who live independently. Alsop is trying to line up state grants and other funding sources to expand the scope of the June workshop. Without it, an expanded workshop would be beyond the resources of the county Office of Emergency Services, he said. Last year, it cost the county $5,000 to put on an emergency planning workshop for 135 people, said Tracey Vardas, another emergency services coordinator. This year the county would like to expand it to 300 people to meet the grand jury's recommendation. It's not known how much that would cost. The county has already complied with a grand jury recommendation to issue an information sheet to county obstetricians and pediatricians about the thyroid-protecting drug potassium iodide. The grand jury also urged the county to make sure the Diablo Canyon information in the telephone book is accurate; that's been done, Alsop said. The county response to the grand jury is included in the board's consent agenda, which is reserved for noncontroversial items. Supervisors will not address the item specifically unless one of them asks to discuss it. What do you think of the county's decision? ***************************************************************** 23 Times of India: Kaiga nuke plant becomes operational in TN [ 9 Mar, 2007 1411hrs ISTPTI ] NEW DELHI: Kaiga nuclear power plant has become operational for generating 220 MW of electricity, government informed the Lok Sabha on Friday while saying nuclear energy was among various sources being tapped to meet the country's demands. At present, nuclear power accounts for mere three per cent of the total electricity generated in the country, Power Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde said in reply to questions. He said efforts were underway to increase this capacity and in this regard negotiations for agreement with the US were going on. Kaiga power plant in Tamil Nadu has started working since Thursday, the minister said, adding it will generate 220 MW of electricity. On power shortage in the country, he said theft was one of the major causes for it as it accounts for 48 per cent losses. He said power situation will improve if the theft is curbed and sought support of all in this regard. Shinde said the government had chalked out a number of short-term and long-term measures to help meet the electricity demand of the country. The long-term measures include creation of a national grid for optimum utilisation of generation capacity through inter-regional transfer of power, launching of 50,000 MW initiative for coordinated development of hydro sector and identification of sites for thermal capacity over 1,00,000 MW. Implementation of ultra mega power projects of 4000 MW each and procurement of hydro-electricity from Bhutan are also among the measures, he said. Copyright 2007Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 24 SignOnSanDiego.com: SLO County can't afford recommended Diablo nuke disaster prep ASSOCIATED PRESS 7:37 a.m. March 9, 2007 SAN LUIS OBISPO The county says it can't afford most of the grand jury recommendations to improve public safety if there's a Diablo Canyon nuclear plant radiation leak. While the civil grand jury report Diablo Canyon: San Luis Obispo's Katrina? praised the county's emergency planning in event of a radiation leak, it recommended improvements. The most expensive recommendation was an upgrade to the road between Avila Beach and Shell Beach so it can be used as an alternate evacuation route from Avila Beach. The county said the estimated $6 million cost was too expensive. County administrators will also not follow a recommendation calling for emergency preparedness information to be mailed annually to county households. They're great ideas, but it comes down to funding and resource allocation, said county emergency services coordinator Ron Alsop, who wrote the county's response to the grand jury report. The county has already complied with a grand jury recommendation to give information to obstetricians and pediatricians about the thyroid-protecting drug potassium iodide. Information from: The Tribune, www.thetribunenews.com Copyright 2007 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ? A Copley Newspaper ***************************************************************** 25 RIA Novosti: UN nuclear agency backs Lithuania's NPP plans 10:10 | 09/ 03/ 2007 VILNIUS, March 9 (RIA Novosti) - Lithuania's president has secured the support of the UN nuclear watchdog for the Baltic state's plans to continue its nuclear program after the closure of its Soviet-era nuclear power plant. European Union member Lithuania is to shut down the second reactor of its Ignalina NPP by late 2009, in line with EU nuclear safety requirements, and to build a new plant of about the same capacity of 3,600 MW by 2015, a project expected to cost $3-4 billion. "Lithuania, along with neighboring Latvia, Estonia and Poland, plans to build a third unit of the power plant," Valdas Adamkus said at a meeting with Mohammad ElBaradei in Vienna Thursday on the sidelines of the board session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These plans are part of another energy project to link the ex-Soviet state's power grid to that of neighboring Poland. ElBaradei backed Lithuania, which also plans to join the IAEA Board of Governors in 2007-2008, and promised it and the neighboring Baltic states support, including in storing radioactive waste. Under pressure from European countries, Lithuania decommissioned the Ignalina NPP's first power-generating unit in 2004. The decision made the Lithuanian energy sector more dependent on Russian natural gas supplies. The country could have run the NPP much longer, with the first and second units being operational until 2008 and 2032, respectively. The Ignalina NPP is similar to the one in Chernobyl, Ukraine, the scene of the world's worst nuclear accident in 1986. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 26 Platts: Texas court ruling could affect stranded cost recovery, AEP says Washington (Platts)--8Mar2007 A Texas District Court this week reversed part of a judge's ruling that found state regulators erred when they calculated the stranded costs of American Electric Power subsidiary AEP Texas Central as a result of its sale of an interest in the South Texas nuclear power plant, AEP said in a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Texas 250th District Court Judge John Dietz in February ruled that AEP's stranded-cost case should be remanded to the Texas Public Utility Commission of Texas on two points -- the calculation of costs stemming from the plant sale and the carrying cost rate specified in the April 4, 2006, PUC order. In that order, the PUC authorized AEP Texas Central to recover $1.804 billion in stranded costs and regulatory assets. In May 2005, AEP Texas Central completed the sale of its 25.2% share of South Texas nuclear station to Texas Genco and CPS Energy--the municipal utility in San Antonio -- for about $314 million, and shortly thereafter filed with the PUC for a "true-up" of the difference between the book value and the market value of that share. Dietz ruled that the PUC erred in using the "sale of asset" method for determining stranded costs following AEP Texas Central's sale of its share of the South Texas plant rather than the "excess cost over market" method of valuation, and he scheduled a hearing for March 22 on the use of the "excess cost over market" method. However, on March 6 the District Court issued a letter reversing Dietz' ruling on the plant sale and upholding the decision on the carrying cost rate, AEP said in the March 7 SEC filing. As a result of the District Court ruling, the March 22 hearing has been cancelled, AEP said. Because the court's decision did not alter the finding that the PUC erred in calculating the carrying cost rate specified in its 2006 order, it "could result in a material adverse change" to AEP Texas Central's recoverable costs if they are lowered on remand by the PUC, the company said. --Tom Tiernan, tom_tiernan@platts.com Copyright 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 27 BBC NEWS: Live video for nuclear demolition Last Updated: Friday, 9 March 2007, 13:11 GMT The towers have been a prominent feature for decades The demolition of the cooling towers at Chapelcross nuclear plant near Annan is to be broadcast live on the internet. The prominent landmark is to come down as part of the decommissioning process at the power plant. British Nuclear Group has confirmed that a webcam will be used to allow people to watch the event from home. BNG said the work would be carried out at a time when it would cause as little disruption as possible. There will be a series of road closures and exclusion zones set up to maintain public safety. Detailed information is expected to be issued before the demolition is carried out later this spring. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 28 London Times: Europe agrees to embrace nuclear option in battle to save the planet- March 10, 2007 David Charter and Rory Watson, Brussels The role of nuclear power in Europe received an unexpected boost yesterday as EU leaders hailed a landmark climate change deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and switch to renewable fuels. Environmentalists complained that an ambitious headline goal to cut Europe’s CO emissions by a fifth by 2020 had been weakened by concessions to the main nuclear nations and the biggest polluters in Eastern Europe. Nonetheless, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, will use the agreement struck at the spring EU summit in Brussels to put pressure on world leaders to follow suit when she hosts the G8 meeting in June. As well as agreeing in principle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, EU leaders pledged to ensure that 20 per cent of Europe’s energy will come from renewable sources by 2020. The commitment of all 27 member nations is legally enforceable by the European Court of Justice. Months of haggling will follow as diplomats argue over targets for individual countries. Each will contribute a different amount, and diplomats made clear that less would be expected of the heaviest-polluting former Communist countries. The Czechs and Slovaks had both complained that they had only just left decades of five-year plans behind them. In a sop to France and the Czech Republic, a country’s nuclear power capability will be taken into account when calculating national commitments to renewable energy. France produces 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power stations and insisted that this “noncarbon” source of fuel should be taken into consideration. French diplomats believe this will lessen the EU demand for more renewable sources such as wave, wind and solar power. Jacques Chirac, the outgoing French President, welcomed the deal as one of the top three achievements of the EU during his 12 years in the Elyse Palace. Tony Blair was also pleased with the concession towards the nuclear powers. The outcome will give a boost to his plans to rebuild Britain’s ageing nuclear power stations which suffered a setback last month when the High Court ruled that the consultation process was seriously flawed. Mr Blair said: “There is then the 20 per cent target on renewable energy. In setting that, there will be permission to look at the energy mix that countries have . . . including nuclear technology, which obviously helps the UK as well.” Environmentalists were less enthusiastic. Friends of the Earth said the targets were timid. A spokesman said: “Heads of States gave a modest boost to the uptake of renewable energies, but agreed that the EU should aim low on cutting greenhouse gases, and failed again to agree any concrete commitment towards reducing Europe’s appalling waste of energy.” Mr Blair and Mr Chirac were full of praise for the handling of the summit by Mrs Merkel, who faced strong opposition to her climate change ambitions from several nations, not least in eastern European countries such as Poland, which still rely heavily on fossil fuels. But she was determined to give herself the best possible leverage on members of the G8 to persuade them to follow suit and prepare a postKyoto global framework for cutting harmful emissions. President Chirac described the outcome as “one of the great moments of European history”. He said: “It was not easy, but Mrs Merkel achieved it with lots of intelligence and brio.” Key to any new global deal will be the United States, where Congress refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol, but also China, India and Brazil, which were all excused Kyoto targets because they were classed as developing nations in the 1990s. Yay! Nuke plants... they have no carbon footprint, just 10,000 years of lethal poison hidden in a hole somewhere. Great stuff, although after watching channel 4`s "Global warming swindle". I could not care less. We have got coal lets burn it. Climate prediction models my backside.........! Rob, West Bromwich, England Anyone who seriously thinks that our present and future energy requirments can be met by green methods is living in cloud cookoo land. No amount of windmills, wave power and any other green power sources will only scratch at the surface of our needs. Nuclear power, with all its inherent problems is still the only option to guarantee enough energy in the future - and changing light bulbs - get real Mrs. Merkel. E. Armstrong, Consett, England The Times and The Sunday Times. ***************************************************************** 29 recordonline.com: Indian Point says leave radioactive waste alone Saturday March 10, 2007 A draft copy of Indian Point's investigation into tritium leaking beneath the Unit 2 reactor says its best not to pump radioactive water.Times Herald-Record/GREG BRUNO By Greg Bruno Times Herald-Record March 09, 2007 Buchanan When is doing nothing better than decisive action? When "nothing" might slow the movement of radioactive waste. Owners of the Indian Point nuclear power station say the best way to deal with radioactive water leaking beneath the Westchester County plant is to leave the isotopes alone, and let nature take its course. During a four-hour update yesterday on efforts to find and patch sources of tritium and strontium-90 in ground water, plant engineers outlined plans they said will focus on monitoring, and make cleanup unnecessary. "Pumping is definitely not recommended and will not be pursued," said Don Mayer, special projects manager for plant owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast. "It would make a nonproblem a potential problem," he said. Since August 2005, plant engineers have worked to characterize the source and extent of two radioactive leaks beneath the riverside reactors. The first leak was found in connection with a cracked spent-fuel pool at Indian Point 2. That discovery led engineers to find low-levels of tritium-laced ground water beneath the pool. Results from test wells, underwater cameras and pool divers prompted Entergy to conclude the likely source is an old leak since patched, officials said yesterday. But that conclusion doesn't wrap a bow on the company's leak problems. Next door to the Indian Point 2 pool is another reactor, the now-defunct Indian Point 1. And beneath it, another leaking spent-fuel pool, this one spewing strontium-90. By themselves the radioactive leaks might not pose much of a cleanup problem. But together, Entergy says, they create a unique challenge: There's no way to pull one out of the ground without spreading the other. Not everyone agrees, of course. Phillip Musegaas, a staff attorney for Riverkeeper, who was not at the semiannual update, called the decision "absurd" when briefed by a reporter. "Leaving the contamination in the ground is unacceptable, because they basically mean you're going to leave it in the ground to leach into the Hudson River," Musegaas said. "They are making a big mistake as far as public perception is concerned. I don't think the public will accept that, and we certainly will not." While regulators have concluded contamination is reaching the Hudson, and state scientists plan to expand fish sampling this summer, they say the levels of radiation are miniscule and pose no threat to public health. Compared to the plant's legal discharge limit about 1,800 curies of tritium annually, for example the leaks are barely a measurable drop in the bucket. Still, state and federal regulators aren't ready to put their stamp of approval on Entergy's no-pump plan, which has not been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But even as tests continue, John White, an NRC branch chief for radiation inspection, hinted leaving the material in the ground might be the best option. "It you start pumping on Unit 2, there's a distinct possibility you could (cross) contaminate," he said. "It's not prudent to do that." Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York"s Hudson Valley and the Catskills. Phone: (845) 341-1100 ***************************************************************** 30 Energy Business Review: Nuclear power: labor shortages loom - 8th March 2007 By Anton Krawchenko The potential boom in nuclear construction looks likely to be hindered by labor shortages. Nuclear power is trumpeted as a solution to both security of supply and global warming concerns. Ten EU countries are currently constructing new plants or have announced plans for new build. The significant capacity expansion that is envisaged will, however, meet a major roadblock in the availability of nuclear engineers. 'Content French nuclear company Areva estimates that about 175 new nuclear plants will be built globally in the next 25 years. At a typical price of about E2 billion to E3 billion per plant, this means a worldwide investment of E350 billion to E525 billion will be required. Europe's current share of world nuclear capacity is 35%, with 155 nuclear plants in operation. If it is to maintain this share, it will have to build at least 61 new plants in the coming decades. Given supportive government frameworks, expensive gas and a high enough carbon price, there will be much private money available to fund this expansion. Skilled expertise, however, is so scarce that it will prove a major drag on efforts to expand nuclear capacity. France's construction boom began 30 years ago and many of the nuclear engineers who participated in that expansion have long since retired. Russia has nuclear engineering expertise, currently put to work in five separate new build projects. There is, however, a serious doubt as to whether Europe's frequently nuclear-skeptical voters would accept Russian expertise in any major program of new build. Japan has plenty of nuclear engineers of course. But, with its own program of new build in place, it is doubtful whether the country can serve as a major exporter of nuclear know-how. The US is also planning a major expansion in nuclear capacity. No new nuclear plants have been built in the US since the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. Yet 14 license applications were filed last year, after new government subsidies and tax breaks were adopted by the federal government in late 2005. In a sign of things to come, the US Navy is fretting over the inevitable skyrocketing salaries that will provoke an exodus of nuclear engineers currently working on the country's fleet of nuclear submarines. Clearly, even if the problem of funding mechanisms and public opinion can be overcome, labor shortages will soon emerge as a major obstacle to any significant expansion in nuclear capacity. 'End Intelliext 2007 Business Review ***************************************************************** 31 Chillicothe Gazette: Risks of nuclear waste facility in Piketon must be considered www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Friday, March 9, 2007 Editor, the Gazette: Do you realize our federal, state and local governments plan to build near Piketon, at the old atomic plant site, a high-level nuclear waste facility? High-level waste from nuclear reactors all over the country and the world will be shipped by truck and rail through neighboring communities to the Piketon plant for processing in a nuclear reactor and storage on the site. Do you realize there are five schools within 5 miles of the proposed nuclear waste site and 9,000 students attending school within 12 miles each day. The alternate proposed site is deep in desert volcanic caves at Yucca Mountain in Nevada (makes sense to me), but powerful western legislators are fighting against the project in their area. The Feds are trying to take advantage of our high unemployment rate. They dangle jobs in front of us expecting us to jump through hoops of fire like trained poodles, oblivious to the high risks involved. Have we completely lost our minds? James Caughlan Waverly ***************************************************************** 32 World Nuclear News: Suez to "own and operate" nuclear plants 09 March 2007 In reporting its 2006 results, the French energy trading company Suez has declared an objective for 2015-20 to own and operate new Generation-III nuclear plants. Suez is an energy trading company mainly concerned with electricity and natural gas, boasting 158,000 employees. On 7 March it reported revenues for FY 2006 of Eur4.5 billion ($6 billion), a 15.9% rate of organic growth. Grard Mestrallet, Suez chair and CEO said the results "prove the strength of the Suez business model" and that Suez' environmental division's operating income reached Eur1 billion ($1.3 billion) was "a sign of exceptional dynamism." As if buoyed by these successes, the report went on to include that "Suez has the firm intention of increasing its nuclear power generation capacities through the construction of new power plants in Europe in line with national public policies. The objective for 2015-20 is to own and operate new third-generation nuclear plants." In a Eur445 million ($584 million) investment, Suez intends to buy the remaining 1.38% of Electrabel, its Belgian subsidiary which owns and operates three pressurized water reactors at Tihange, while operating four more at Doel. However, nuclear expansion through Electrabel would not likely occur in Belgium, where a 2003 government act prohibited further nuclear build and limited the lifetimes of existing plants to 40 years. Suez is thought to be interested in projects such as the completion of Cernavoda 3 in Romania. Suez has another subsidiary, Tractebel, which carries out nuclear engineering work, and this is expected to be sold to Electrabel in the near future after consideration by the Suez board of directors. Any new nuclear plants that could be built elsewhere in Europe would help towards Suez' aim of increasing installed capacity by 23,000 MW to 75,000 MW by 2012. The bulk of the rest of the increase would likely come from investments in natural gas and liquified natural gas. Suez is in the process of preparing to merge with state-owned Gaz De France - a move which Mestrallet said "responds to an undisputed industrial logic." In talks over the merger, Suez have agreed with the Belgian government to sell 250 MWe of nuclear generating capacity to SPE, Belgium's second largest electricity producer. In addition, Suez and Electrabel agreed to make a long-term sales contract with SPE for another 285 MWe of nuclear capacity. Another part of the deal would see Suez swap 100 MWe of its Belgian nuclear capacity for SPE's 100 MWe share in the Chooz B nuclear power plant in France. Electrabel also promised to put 2400 MWe of non-nuclear capacity up for auction. ***************************************************************** 33 Journal News: Indian Point leaks still fuel debate (Original publication: March 9, 2007) Every story has at least two sides, right? Maybe more. The radiation leaks at Indian Point are no exception. That's been made clear in the past week with two detailed presentations on the subject, one by opponents of the plants and one by Indian Point officials. Interestingly, pretty much the only people who attended both events were government regulators and the media. The opponents led off March 2, with an all-afternoon session that included elected officials and experts who are working to shut the plants, followed by an evening town-hall-style meeting largely for the public to ask questions. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point, held its version yesterday, inviting elected officials and their representatives to listen to hydrology and radiation experts, most of whom rely on the company for a paycheck. Amid discussion at both meetings about where the radiated water leaking from Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2 was traveling underground and what its effects were, the state and federal regulators were the lone constant. Repeatedly at both meetings, those in charge of protecting our environment said there are no public health effects from the leaks because the amounts are so small. They also concur, for the most part, with the company's methods of dealing with the leak and the research results. Opponents say the leaks are harming the Hudson River and that not enough information is available about how much radiated water is mixing with groundwater on or near the Buchanan nuclear plants' site. Some have publicly subscribed to a New York City tabloid report that as much as 1 billion gallons of contaminated water sit in an underground Indian Point lake about the size of the Central Park Reservoir. Company officials say they were blindsided by the billion-gallon estimate and assert that the entire volume of water under the site - clean and contaminated -is less than 300,000 gallons. On that argument, the neutral hydrologists side with Entergy. Larry Rosenmann, an engineering geologist with the state Department of Environmental Conservation, stopped short yesterday of calling the billion-gallon calculation fiction but said that figure is nowhere close to what is actually there. "It makes no sense," Rosenmann said. "If you had a void that big (in the bedrock) we'd have seen it." Even Sergio Smiriglio, a hydrologist who presented at the earlier session, said he was puzzled by the Central Park Reservoir analogy when he heard it. "It's not really an empty bathtub," he said. "If anything, it's a bathtub filled with sand ... or rocks." However much contaminated water is in the ground, the biggest public health concern is how likely radiation is to get off site and into pathways that might end up in public drinking water sources, and in what amounts. Entergy officials acknowledge that the leaking isotopes - strontium 90 and tritium - are reaching the Hudson River, but they maintain that the amounts are a tiny fraction of what federal regulators allow. Opponents of the plant, like Philip Musegaas of Riverkeeper, say there are too many sources of those contaminants that are unmonitored, so there's no way to know how much radiation is reaching the Hudson. Company officials say no threat to the public health exists and that the amounts of radiation are so small that the problem is "minor," though they've spent millions of dollars to make sure. John White, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission official at yesterday's meeting, said his agency has looked closely at what is and what might be getting to the river and still thinks the public health effects are minuscule. What will become of the contamination and the leaks in the future is another area of disagreement between the nuclear plants' operators and its opponents. Entergy ultimately intends to clean and drain much of the possible source water, in spent nuclear fuel pools, as the company moves to dry storage. Beyond that, officials expect to leave the contaminant in their sites' soil and remove it as required when the plants are finally closed for good. Musegaas called that strategy faulty. "Riverkeeper is absolutely opposed to Entergy's plan to avoid cleaning up the groundwater pollution at Indian Point until the plant is decommissioned in thirty years," he wrote to The Journal News via e-mail. "If this were any other industry, the federal government would force it to stop the leaks and clean up its mess. Indian Point is being given a free ride by the NRC to continue with the status quo; pollute now, and maybe clean it up later." White and the state regulatory officials said they would wait until a final plan has been drawn up before commenting on that. So, there's plenty more to come on this subject. Earth Watch runs every Friday. Send your ideas or comments to Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. For other environmental news, log on to the Journal News' blog - "The Nature of Things." It's available at http://nature.lohudblogs.com/ * Greg, Somehow your printed article became corrupted, with many print doublings. I've corrected, and re-created it below, for the convenience of the readers: Every story has at least two sides, right? Maybe more. The radiation leaks at Indian Point are no exception. That's been made clear in the past week with two detailed presentations on the subject, one by opponents of the plants and one by Indian Point officials.Interestingly, pretty much the only people who attended both events were government regulators and the media. The opponents led off March 2, with an all-afternoon session that included elected officials and experts who are working to shut the plants, followed by an evening town-hall-style meeting largely for the public to ask questions. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point, held its version yesterday, inviting elected officials and their representatives to listen to hydrology and radiation experts, most of whom are currently contractors with Entergy. (except the government officials).Amid discussion at both meetings about where the radiated water leaking from Indian Point 1 and Indian Point 2 was traveling underground and what its effects were, the state and federal regulators were the lone constant.Repeatedly at both meetings, those in charge of protecting our environment said there are no public health effects from the leaks because the amounts are so small. They also concur, for the most part, with the company's methods of dealing with the leak and the research results. Opponents say the leaks are harming the Hudson River and that not enough information is available about how much radiated water is mixing with groundwater on or near the Buchanan nuclear plants' site. Some have publicly subscribed to a New York City tabloid report that as much as 1 billion gallons of contaminated water sit in an underground Indian Point lake about the size of the Central Park Reservoir. Company officials say they were blindsided by the billion-gallon estimate and assert that the entire volume of water under the site - clean and contaminated -is less than 300,000 gallons.On that argument, the neutral hydrologists side with Entergy.Larry Rosenmann, an engineering geologist with the state Department of Environmental Conservation, stopped short yesterday of calling the billion-gallon calculation fiction but said that figure is nowhere close to what is actually there. "It makes no sense," Rosenmann said. "If you had a void that big (in the bedrock) we'd have seen it." Even Sergio Smiriglio, a hydrologist who presented at the earlier session, said he was puzzled by the Central Park Reservoir analogy when he heard it."It's not really an empty bathtub," he said. "If anything, it's a bathtub filled with sand ... or rocks." However much contaminated water is in the ground, the biggest public health concern is how likely radiation is to get off site and into pathways that might end up in public drinking water sources, and in what amounts. Entergy officials acknowledge that the leaking isotopes - strontium 90 and tritium - are reaching the Hudson River, but they maintain that the amounts are a tiny fraction of what federal regulators allow. Opponents of the plant, like Philip Musegaas of Riverkeeper, say there are too many sources of those contaminants that are unmonitored, so there's no way to know how much radiation is reaching the Hudson. Company officials say no threat to the public health exists and that the amounts of radiation are so small that the problem is "minor," though they've spent millions of dollars to make sure. John White, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission official at yesterday's meeting, said his agency has looked closely at what is and what might be getting to the river and still thinks the public health effects are minuscule. What will become of the contamination and the leaks in the future is another area of disagreement between the nuclear plants' operators and its opponents.Entergy ultimately intends to clean and drain much of the possible source water, in spent nuclear fuel pools, as the company moves to dry storage. Beyond that, officials expect to leave the contaminant in their sites' soil and remove it as required when the plants are finally closed for good. Musegaas called that strategy faulty."Riverkeeper is absolutely opposed to Entergy's plan to avoid cleaning up the groundwater pollution at Indian Point until the plant is decommissioned in thirty years," he wrote to The Journal News via e-mail. "If this were any other industry, the federal government would force it to stop the leaks and clean up its mess. Indian Point is being given a free ride by the NRC to continue with the status quo; pollute now, and maybe clean it up later."White and the state regulatory officials said they would wait until a final plan has been drawn up before commenting on that.So, there's plenty more to come on this subject. Posted by: la_88 on Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:34 am Copyright 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. Use ***************************************************************** 34 Chicago Tribune: Exelon gets reactor site OK chicagotribune.com >> Business No commitment on adding Clinton unit despite federal ruling By Robert Manor, Tribune staff reporter. Bloomberg News contributed to this report Published March 9, 2007 Exelon Corp. cleared a significant regulatory hurdle Thursday in the potential construction of a second reactor at its nuclear plant in Clinton, Ill., although the company has not committed to ever doing so. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the Clinton location, in central Illinois, as a potential site for a new nuclear reactor. Known as an early site permit, it means the property has no physical barriers, such as an earthquake hazard, to serving as the location of a new nuclear reactor. Exelon is the first company to win an early site permit under a new approval system intended by the government to quicken the pace of nuclear development. "The early site permit is not permission to building anything," said NRC spokesman Scott Burnell. That would require a construction and operating license, which could take several years or longer to obtain. Burnell said the permit would speed up the process of building a new nuclear reactor, however. Exelon operates a single reactor at the Clinton plant. Exelon executives have repeatedly said they do not have a timetable for building a new reactor at Clinton or anywhere else. "Certain conditions would have to fall into place before Exelon would consider building a plant," said Marilyn Kray, an Exelon vice president. Kray said Exelon wants a workable solution to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, which remains intensely radioactive for thousands of years. She also said that community acceptance, the right reactor technology and the economics of the projects must all be favorable. The company, which operates the nation's largest fleet of nuclear reactors, is involved in several projects exploring the possibility of building new nuclear plant, which if completed would be the first to come on line in a generation. The Bush administration has made nuclear power a priority, and utilities around the country are working on expanding their nuclear-generating capacity. Billions of dollars in government subsidies are fueling the interest, as is the fact that a well-run nuclear plant is a very cheap source of electricity at a time when retail power rates are high. Fifteen applicants have announced proposals to build as many as 36 reactors, according to a tally by the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association. Building a reactor could cost $3 billion to $4 billion, Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear energy at the Energy Department, said in a congressional hearing this week. The high price, and a history of failures and cost overruns, has for decades deterred utilities from building nuclear plants. Copyright 2007, Chicago Tribune ***************************************************************** 35 Xinhua: Japanese gov't adopts new basic energy policy www.chinaview.cn 2007-03-09 20:26:49 TOKYO, March 9 (Xinhua) -- A new basic long-term energy policy which calls for promoting self-dependent petroleum development and expanding nuclear power generation was approved by the Japanese government on Friday, Kyodo News reported. According to the new policy, which will guide the country on energy-related issues in the some next 10 years, Japan will attach great importance to developing nuclear power and make it a key source of electricity. The policy says it is important for Japan to build more nuclear power facilities and accelerate the development of nuclear fuel recycling systems. The policy points out the necessity of strengthening the development of the oil industry, saying that the Japanese government intends to carry out active high-level diplomacy to facilitate efforts to develop oil. One of the main goals of the newborn policy is to secure sufficient energy resources for Japan, Kyodo said, quoting government officials. Editor: Yao Runping ***************************************************************** 36 Hamilton Spectator: High cost of nuclear energy disputed TORONTO STAR Electricity from nuclear power is not as expensive as opponents seem to think. The nuclear power debate has grey areas that need to be understood By Michael Ivanco The Hamilton Spectator (Mar 9, 2007) The debate over nuclear power is so polarizing that it is little wonder that people who are not experts in the energy industry do not know whom to believe. I'm writing about the articles recently on the nuclear power debate. As another scientist (I feel like I need to apologize for that) who knows a lot about the industry, I recognize that there are grey areas in this debate. However, it is frustrating to see some statements made that are absolutely not true, yet portrayed as fact. An example of a frequent one that was repeated in the opinion piece by Janet Fraser -- and I'm not blaming her because she heard David Suzuki say that same thing -- is that nuclear power is expensive. This is simply untrue. Ontario's experience notwithstanding, there is nothing inherently expensive about it. For example, countries in Europe that have very high concentrations of nuclear power generation, France (80 per cent) and Sweden (50 per cent), have among the lowest electricity rates (residential and industrial) on the continent. While there were cost overruns in Ontario nuclear projects, the six most recent Canadian nuclear projects, carried out overseas subsequent to Darlington, were delivered on budget and on time. Yet, even with the cost overruns on the Ontario projects, the most expensive electricity in Ontario is that produced by natural gas and wind power. These are facts that you will not read about on the websites of groups that oppose nuclear energy, but they are the facts and can be found on websites that don't care one way or another about the subject. There is no reason to doubt that David Suzuki's opposition to nuclear power is genuine and for the best of reasons. However, he does not have a monopoly on wisdom. The Society of Energy Professionals, a 7,000 strong group of engineers and scientists who work in the electricity sector in Ontario, of which I am a member, advocate aggressive conservation measures, expansion of wind power and other renewables and the use of biofuels to offset the carbon footprint of fossil-fired generation. In short, this is much the same path advocated by the Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace and others. However, our group also advocates a reliance on nuclear for baseload power generation in Ontario. It is the only economical, low-carbon footprint generation source available for baseload power generation. If you don't trust those who work in the electricity industry in Ontario, consider that there are other icons of the worldwide environmental movement such as Dr. James Lovelock (father of the Gaia hypothesis) and Stewart Brand (founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue) who have the exact opposite views on nuclear power that David Suzuki has. Lovelock is credited with changing the opinion of Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, on the subject. They do not work for the nuclear industry and have nothing to gain from supporting the technology. In their view expanding the use of nuclear power is the only way to make a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions without destroying the world economy. They see the opposition of other environmentalists to nuclear power as one of the biggest obstacles to solving the global warming problem, since they are proposing unrealistic solutions to real problems. They believe that opposing the most significant low-carbon electricity generation technology available is irrational if you believe that greenhouse gas emissions are the greatest threat to our species; akin to a drowning person refusing a rescue boat because they are afraid that it might spring a leak. You do not have to be against nuclear power to be an environmentalist. I, too, am concerned about climate change, have children whose future I would like to safeguard and live downwind of Nanticoke, yet I have no concerns about it being potentially converted to a nuclear power plant. If it were, it would eliminate about 20 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year, equivalent to taking about four million cars off of the road in Ontario; just about all of them in other words. There is nothing else that I have seen proposed that would come anywhere close to making that kind of difference. Dr. Michael Ivanco lives in Oakville. ***************************************************************** 37 Indian Express: Civilian nuclear ties top the agenda of India-US talks Saturday, March 10, 2007 HUMA SIDDIQUI NEW DELHI, MAR 9: Cooperation in civil nuclear energy will be on top of the agenda when US energy secretary Samuel Bodman meets energy officials in India this month. According to officials, a partnership with the US in the field of nuclear cooperation will help India the fifth-largest oil-consuming nation in the world in 2006 - to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and transform itself into an emission-free nuclear power for electricity generation. Bodman is scheduled to speak at a March 20-21 conference in New Delhi sponsored by the US Energy Association about investment opportunities in South Asia. Representatives from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Singapore and other countries are also expected to attend the conference. The US energy secretary is also expected to take up the matter of creating a strategic oil reserve with Indian officials. If they are moving along, well discuss how to use it, what its for, officials said. Under the civilian nuclear pact, the US has agreed to provide nuclear technological support to India with certain non-proliferation principles limiting the spread of dangerous nuclear materials. The deal, approved by the US Congress last year, paved way for American companies like General Electric Co and Westinghouse Electric Co to sell nuclear technology to India for the first time. State-run Nuclear Power Corp of India Ltd is the countrys sole nuclear generator. At present, the government has banned private investment in nuclear power generation. But with the civilian nuclear energy deal in play, India is looking to open up the sector. 2007: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 38 Reuters: EU challenges world with climate change plan Fri Mar 9, 2007 3:30PM EST By Ingrid Melander and Jeff Mason BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union leaders resolved on Friday to slash greenhouse gas emissions and switch to renewable fuels, challenging the world to follow its lead in fighting climate change. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the bloc's "ambitious and credible" decisions, including a binding target for renewable sources to make up a fifth of EU energy use by 2020, put it in the vanguard of the battle against global warming. "We can avoid what could well be a human calamity," she said after chairing a two-day summit, stressing the 27-nation EU had opened an area of cooperation unthinkable a couple of years ago. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso told reporters: "We can say to the rest of the world, Europe is taking the lead. You should join us fighting climate change." The EU package set targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming, developing renewable energy sources, boosting energy efficiency and using biofuels. In a move that will affect all of the bloc's 490 million citizens, the leaders called for energy-saving lighting to be required in homes, offices and streets by the end of the decade. Barroso argues Europe can gain a "first mover" economic advantage by investing in green technology but businesses are concerned they could foot a huge bill and lose competitiveness to dirtier but cheaper foreign rivals. Continued... Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 UPI: Analysis: Breakthrough in Brussels United Press International - Energy - 3/9/2007 12:27:00 PM -0500 By STEFAN NICOLA UPI Energy Correspondent BERLIN, March 9 (UPI) -- European Union leaders Friday agreed to binding targets to push renewable energy sources and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, in a decision that puts the body in the worldwide lead to fight climate change. German Chancellor Angela Merkel Friday, during her first leaders' summit as the EU's president, scored a huge victory when she managed to convince the 27 EU leaders to agree to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, even if the world's biggest polluters, the United States and China, don't follow the European example. Merkel also pushed through legally binding target to raise the share of renewable energy sources -- such as wind, solar, hydro and biomass energy -- to 20 percent of the body's overall energy consumption by 2020, and set the goal for biofuels to 10 percent of automobile fuel by the same date. The third binding goal will be to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent, also by 2020. "It's a breakthrough in the energy and climate policy of the European Union," Merkel, a former environment minister, said Friday in Brussels. She added the decision would put the EU in a pioneering role to fight climate change. In a Friday news conference announcing the results of the two-day summit, Merkel appeared relieved, even cheerful, and understandably so: The EU's commitment puts Merkel in an excellent position for climate protection negotiations at this June's Group of Eight summit in Heiligendamm, Germany. Merkel, besides holding the rotating six-month presidency, also chairs the G8, and she intends to press the United States, but also emerging economies such as Brazil, India and China, to agree to a 30 percent global cut in greenhouse-gas emissions to replace the Kyoto protocol after 2012. Fifty-two-year-old Merkel has had much persuading to do to get France and some of the Eastern European countries on board. Warning that "it is closer to five past midnight than five to midnight" for measures to combat climate change, Merkel Thursday -- on the first day of the Brussels summit -- urged her colleagues to "deliver results for our grandchildren." Yet France, led by President Jacques Chirac, had lobbied for nuclear energy to be included in the renewable energy mix as the source doesn't emit greenhouse gases. France gets roughly 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and the energy source has experienced a revival in the wake of rising oil and gas prices and increasing concerns of whether Russia remains a reliable energy supplier. The staunchest opposition, however, was directed against the binding nature of the renewable energy targets. Several Eastern European states argued it would be impossible for them to reach these targets. Merkel, chairing her first EU summit, managed to convince the governments by putting a promise of "differentiated national overall targets" in the final agreement to allow some countries to achieve the goals slower than others. There is light and shadow within the EU when it comes to renewable energy: Denmark gets nearly all of its electricity from wind and hydro power, while some of the Eastern European states still rely almost exclusively on oil and gas. Overall, renewables account for less than 7 percent of the EU's energy mix and the bloc is falling short of its existing 2012 targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The renewable energy industry, environmental groups and the European Parliament wanted the EU to go even further in its efforts to reverse climate change. EU lawmakers called on Merkel to set 30-percent targets, a goal that was torpedoed by European business leaders, who fear they will lose out to dirty but cheaper foreign-based energy sources. "As for climate protection, of course 20 percent is not enough given the high level of emissions that has already accumulated in the atmosphere," Susanne Droege, energy and climate change expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, a Berlin-based think tank, told United Press International in a telephone interview Friday. "Politically, however, this is a success and a strong signal. It was not always clear that Merkel would be able to push this through in light of substantial pressure from the European industry." -- (Comments to energy@upi.com) Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 40 UPI: NRC approves first new nuclear plant site United Press International - Energy - 3/9/2007 12:31:00 PM -0500 ROCKVILLE, Md., March 9 (UPI) -- U.S. nuclear regulators approved an early site permit for a nuclear reactor in Illinois, as part of a public-private partnership to increase nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thursday approved the permit for the Exelon Generation Co., based in Chicago, which has plans to add power to its existing Clinton site. Exelon submitted the early site permit application in September 2003. The permitting process is one of the new avenues the NRC is taking to streamline the regulatory process. The Exelon permit is the first. The U.S. Energy Department shared the cost for the process, as part of a government program aimed to assist companies through this untested and expensive process. "Government's role is to create an environment in which clean energy can flourish, and I'm proud to say that we're helping doing just that," said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in a statement following the announcement. The permit is valid for 20 years and is the groundwork for applying for and being granted a combined Construction and Operating License, also a new NRC tool. Entergy and Dominion Energy have also been working with the department on this permit, with NRC decisions expected this year. "History will record this day as one of the early milestones in the era of new nuclear power plant construction in the United States," said Frank "Skip" Bowman, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade arm. Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 UPI: Chirac changes position on EU energy plan United Press International - NewsTrack - Published: March 9, 2007 at 12:51 AM BRUSSELS, March 9 (UPI) -- French President Jacques Chirac has reversed his position on a binding renewable energy target for the European Union. Chirac made his support conditional on taking France's heavy reliance on nuclear power into account when setting national targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, The Financial Times reported. German Chancellor Angela Merkel backs a plan for a 20 percent reduction in EU emissions by 2020. German officials told the newspaper that she is now "cautiously optimistic" about an agreement. The plan, which also calls on the industrialized countries to cut emissions by 30 percent, is the most contentious issue facing the EU Summit meeting Thursday and Friday in Brussels. "The eyes of the world are upon us," she told her European colleagues as she opened the meeting in her capacity as president. "Can we deliver?" Merkel, who hosts a G8 meeting in June, plans to tell leaders there that the EU will agree to a 30 percent cut if other economic powers follow suit. Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 42 Prague Daily Monitor: Czech official dismisses Austrian criticism of Temelin - by Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / published 9 March 2007 CTK Temelín has suffered two leaks of radioactive water in the past two weeks. Prague, March 8 (CTK) - Dana Drabova, chairwoman of the Czech State Authority for Nuclear Safety (SUJB), dismissed today Upper Austrian governor Josef Puehringer's statement that the operator is not in control of the nuclear power plant in Temelin, south Bohemia, and reiterated that Temelin threatens no one. Puehringer criticised Temelin in reaction to yesterday's information about another defect in the plant that is situated some 60km from the Austrian border and that some Austrian and Czech environmentalists say is not safe. About 1,100 litres of slightly radioactive water leaked in the first unit of the Temelin nuclear power station that is currently shut down. This was the second water leak in Temelin in a week. On Tuesday last week, the power station reported a leak of 2,000 litres of slightly radioactive water. Incidentally, Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer was visiting the Czech Republic at that time. "I think that our office behaves rationally as it should," Drabova said on Frekvence 1 radio station. "I try very much to explain only things that are connected with safety, and in a way to calm down people because Temelin threatens no one, and therefore there is no reason for concern," Drabova said. She challenged Puehringer's assertion today that 101 defects have occurred in Temelin. "The fingers of one of my hands would suffice to count events with which the supervision would deal more deeply," Drabova said. She also reacted to the statement by Manfred Doppler, spokesman for Austrian anti-atom activists, that the removal of the consequences of the latest defect will take two weeks arouses the suspicion that the official information about the character of the defect was not truthful. She said that the period is really connected with the leak of boric acid that is needed to control and direct the fission chain reaction. It is very aggressive and therefore some parts of the reactor must be thoroughly cleaned up. She, however, dismissed Doppler's assertion that the acid leaked outside the reactor. Czech Trade and Industry Minister Martin Riman wants to discuss the latest defects and the overall safety situation in Temelin with Martin Roman, director general of the CEZ power company that operates the plant, and with Drabova next week. Drabova said on Frekvence 1 radio today that people rather than technology are behind the latest defects in Temelin. She said that it will be necessary to change the overall attitude in Temelin, and not to seek mistakes with individuals. This story copyright 2007 CTK Czech News Agency The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content. copyright 2007 monitor ce media services s.r.o. | all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 43 UK: Hemscott: RWE to take legal action to extend life of Biblis A nuclear plant BERLIN (AFX) - RWE AG said it is planning to take legal action if Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel stands by his rejection of RWE's application to extend the operating life of block A of its Biblis nuclear power plant. 'We see very good prospects for success', RWE Power unit head Jan Zilius said in a statement. Earlier, Gabriel said RWE's application will be rejected. 'RWE's application contradicts legislation,' Gabriel said, adding that RWE has four weeks to respond to the rejection and that a final decision will be made in November or December. Under current legislation, RWE is required to decommission Biblis A in 2008. The company said it wants to extend Biblis A's operating life until the end of 2011. judith.csaba@thomson.com dpa/jcs/jsa//cmr Copyright AFX News Limited 2007. All rights reserved. The copying, Copyright 2006 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 44 AU ABC: Clean energy set to push up electricity bills 09/03/2007 Electricity bills are set to rise as suppliers of clean renewable energy rely less on coal. Transcript VIRGINIA TRIOLI: Earlier this week Ziggy Switkowski told a business gathering that nuclear power would become far more competitive if the Federal Government put a price on carbon emissions. The makers of clean renewable power also want to see coal become more expensive to burn. At the moment less than 1 per cent of Australia's total power supply comes from clean sources like wind and solar. Our heavy dependence on coal power stations could change in the not-too-distant future, with suppliers of clean renewable energy saying they're ready to start replacing coal now. However, the coast of future electricity bills could come as a shock. John Stewart reports. JOHN STEWART: Steam power has been around for hundreds of years, but this steam doesn't come from coal. It comes from hot rocks, thousands of metres below the earth's surface. DR ADRIAN WILLIAMS, GEODYNAMICS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE: Well, the work they've done so far says that as we ramp up, we could have eight to 10 snowy schemes over the next 10 to 20 years. That's absolutely huge. JOHN STEWART: In a remote part of Australia SA's Cooper Basin, geothermal power, commonly known as hot rocks, is being used to generate power. It works like this. Wells are drilled up to five km underground. Water is pumped down to be super heated from the hot rocks. The water then returns to the surface and passes through a heat exchanger, heating another liquid which drives a turbine, creating electricity. There's no pollution and the water can be reused. ADRIAN WILLIAMS: Absolutely zero emissions. No emissions at all. From a environmental perspective it's great. There's no legacy, no long-term legacy. JOHN STEWART: But the Cooper Basin is a long way from Australian capital cities and the power would have to be transmitted hundreds of kilometres. According to those advocating geothermal power, the electricity generated from the hot rocks would cost about 40 per cent more than electricity produced from coal. ADRIAN WILLIAMS: We believe we'll be looking at generating costs at around $45 a megawatt hour. That's more expensive than today's coal but its comparable to today's power from gas. As soon as there's any sort of cost on carbon, it will be a very, very competitive option. JOHN STEWART: Apart from hot rocks, solar thermal is the other big ticket item currently being developed in Australia to produce clean power. Solar thermal uses mirrors to focus the sun's rays and heat liquids. It can produce steam for electricity or add energy to natural gas. WES STEIN, CSIRO SCIENTIST: It's certainly the sort of technology that could be used to supply a small town but it can also feed into a grid and from there, supply even large cities such as Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne. JOHN STEWART: In theory, if these mirrors covered 50 square kilometres, they could power all of Australia's energy needs. At the moment about 84 per cent of electricity in Australia is produced from coal. About 15 per cent comes from hydroelectric schemes and natural gas and less than 1 per cent comes from clean renewables, like wind and solar. Despite calls from some green groups to get rid of coal power plants altogether, CSIRO scientists say clean energy sources won't completely replace coal for many years. WES STEIN: I believe that something like a 50 per cent contribution of solar and renewables to Australia's energy mix by 2050 would be a good stretch target for the industry and certainly achievable as well. However, we are never going to get to that 50 per cent if we don't get to the 1 per cent first, and that 1 per cent is most crucial. JOHN STEWART: Scientists estimate that electricity produced from clean energy will cost twice as much as power from dirty coal. WES STEIN, CSIRO SCIENTIST: I see that eventually most of the zero emission technologies, whether they be renewables or coal, are all going to come down to around about that same sort of price point, which is roughly around about double where we are today. That's the price we are going to have to pay for a zero greenhouse gas emission. JOHN STEWART: The advocates of clean energy sources like solar, wind and hot rocks hope that power from coal will become increasingly expensive as more countries put a price on carbon pollution. Without a price on carbon, clean energy has little chance of competing with coal and pilot plants like these are unlikely to become a commercial reality. ***************************************************************** 45 times and star: Nuclear Academy to be launched today Published on 09/03/2007 A 19 MILLION Nuclear Academy at Lillyhall, near Workington, will be officially launched today. About 80 people from the community, education and industry are expected to attend the event, which will include a sod-cutting ceremony and will officially mark the start of construction. The academy is being built on a 7.3 hectare site near Lakes College West Cumbria. The two-storey building will have space for about 250 students, the first of whom will enrol in September. It will be a world-class centre of excellence and innovation for nuclear skills development and will work with schools and will provide NVQs, apprenticeships and foundation degrees. Courses will concentrate on training local people, including those already at Sellafield, to take advantage of job opportunities in the nuclear decommissioning sector. The new academy will be part of the National Skills Academy network, which is managed by the Learning and Skills Council with the Department for Education and Skills, the Sector Skills Development Agency and the Department of Trade and Industry. It is being developed in a partnership between the Northwest Regional Development Agency, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, West Lakes Renaissance and the British Nuclear Group. Construction and engineering firm Washington Group International has donated £20,000 towards maintaining a project office while building work is going on. www.timesandstar.co.uk/digitalcopy ***************************************************************** 46 SPIEGEL ONLINE: Europe Takes the Lead in Fighting Climate Change - EU Summit Breakthrough: March 09, 2007 By Carsten Volkery in Brussels The EU has reached what is being described as an historic agreement on climate protection. But the devil will be in the details of the implementation. Getty Images EU leaders are enjoying the calm after the storm of the summit. But will there be a pot of ecologically-friendly gold at the end of the resolution rainbow? "Ambitious." "Credible." "Qualitative difference." German Chancellor Angela Merkel was full of praise on Friday for the climate change agreement reached at the European Union spring summit. She said she is personally "very satisfied" -- even "happy" -- about the compromise. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso went even further in extolling the deal. He spoke of an "historic result" at the press conference called to announce that Europe's 27 member states had reached consensus. "We can say to the rest of the world, Europe is taking the lead," he said. "You should join us in fighting climate change." It wasn't just the deal itself that was praised either. Merkel herself became the object of admiration for her hard work in bringing seemingly irreconcilable positions together. French President Jacques Chirac gushed, "Ms. Merkel worked with intelligence and elegance." In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that "Ms. Merkel is doing an excellent job. She has a firm grasp on the details." At first glance, Merkel -- currently occupying the EU's rotating presidency -- and Barroso have a lot to celebrate. Everything they wanted to get passed got approved -- and even quicker than the day's agenda called for. For the first time in its history, the European Union has a comprehensive agreement on its climate and energy policy: * By 2020, CO2 emissions across Europe are to be cut by 20 percent as compared to 1990 emissions. * Renewable energy sources are to make up 20 percent of the EU's energy mix by 2020 -- up from their current 6.5 percent share. Just the beginning Merkel is therefore not wrong when she talks of a "qualitative breakthrough" and a "new dimension of European cooperation." Barroso rightly points out that this is the most ambitious climate protection program in the world. But the problems only really begin now. The Council has only formulated an abstract goal. The real struggle is reserved for the EU Commission, which now has to negotiate with each individual member state over its emissions and its energy mix. At the summit, Merkel has already had a foretaste of just how much each country defends its own interests, whether that is cheap coal (in the case of Poland) or nuclear power (in the case of France). The decision over renewable energy in particular led to heated discussions which could only be defused on Friday morning. France joined together with several Eastern European countries to create a front against the plan proposed by Germany, the UK, Italy and the Scandinavian countries to set a binding target. Hence the only thing which is now set down on paper is the number 20, and no country names -- in other words, nothing about who is making which sacrifices. But this last point could not have been expected at the summit. Merkel said that she had "no reason to assume that anyone wants to escape." But she admitted that the "hard negotiations" were still to come. The Commission now has a difficult task, she said, but one which is also doable. The nice thing, Merkel said with a grin, is that each member state sees itself as a special case. "Then they are all equal again." Barroso promised that binding draft laws would be presented by the end of this year. However this will be made more difficult by the fact that the EU has no formal competency for energy policies. That would only exist after the new constitution treaty had been ratified, he said, adding, "With the constitution it would be much easier." Barroso intends to use today's agreement to help push forward the stalled process towards approving a constitution. The heads of government have committed themselves politically, he said. The lack of power on the part of the Commission to implement the resolution could still turn out to be a problem. Barroso and Merkel do not have a convincing answer as to what the Commission will do should a country refuse to implement the agreement. The German chancellor said, somewhat grumpily, that she saw no reason to discuss that today. A signal to the G8 Merkel dismissed the suggestion that the agreement was merely a watered-down compromise that puts off important questions about renewable energy. She insisted, rather, that large changes are a product of incremental steps. With the agreement on basic principles, the countries have forged a new beginning, Merkel said. They have opened a door -- now it is a matter of designing the completely new room they've entered. Merkel also pointed out that the EU underwent a similar process with the Kyoto Protocol. First, the EU agreed to a collective reduction of greenhouse gases of eight percent before dividing up the burden among individual member states. The path towards renewable energy is based on that flexible approach. Denmark, for example, has already agreed to increase its percentage of renewable energy to 30 percent of its total energy use. Meanwhile, France will probably be allowed to include its carbon-free nuclear energy as part of its renewable energy total. Especially important for the European heads of government is the symbolic effect that the agreement will have on the rest of the world. Merkel hopes that momentum from Brussels will carry over to the G8 conference in June, where she hopes that the United States, China and India will also be open to voluntary emissions reductions. She already senses an increased awareness of climate change among the leaders of those countries. It's unclear, though, whether the rest of the world will really be influenced by the European climate agreement. Certainly the biggest culprits don't feel any moral pressure to change their ways. The change in tone in the US government has to do mainly with national security: America hopes to decrease its dependence on the conflict regions of the Middle East. China and India meanwhile continue to reject voluntary reductions in emissions, claiming that their economies need a fair shot at growth. Nevertheless, Merkel and Barroso are both feeling optimistic, a sentiment that's been hard to come by recently in the self-doubting corridors of Brussels. Barroso, for his part, sees today's conference as the beginning of a "virtuous circle". And at the end of that circle, he said, they just might find a new European constitution. ***************************************************************** 47 Guardian Unlimited: Congo nuclear chief held over uranium sale Chris McGreal, Africa correspondent Friday March 9, 2007 The head of the Democratic Republic of Congo's dilapidated and poorly guarded nuclear reactor plant has been arrested on suspicion of illegally selling enriched uranium, following the disappearance of large quantities of the material. The commissioner general for atomic energy, Fortunat Lumu, was detained on Tuesday along with an aide. Congo's state prosecutor, Tshimanga Mukeba, said Mr Lumu was being questioned about the disappearance of unspecified quantities of uranium in recent years. Mr Mukeba said Mr Lumu was suspected of "orchestrating illicit contracts to produce and sell uranium" but he did not name the alleged buyers. Le Phare newspaper reported that about 100 bars of uranium had disappeared from the small experimental reactor, the oldest nuclear facility in Africa. The uranium produced by the reactor in Congo's capital, Kinshasa, is enriched but not to weapons grade, although it could be used in a "dirty bomb" to spread radiation. The International Atomic Energy Agency and foreign governments have expressed concern about lax security at the plant, which the US has tried to get closed for a number of years. Two years ago the Congolese government denied reports that uranium was shipped to Iran. In 2000, Newsweek reported that a Kenyan middleman attempted to sell Congolese uranium to Saddam Hussein but the Iraqi leader was under too much international scrutiny to buy it. The IAEA has criticised standards at the site, which is often left unguarded and is protected only by a low fence and rickety gate. Although the reactor has been on standby for nine years, there are 98 bars of enriched uranium stored at the site, submerged in a pool underneath a padlocked metal grate or in the reactor. Two uranium rods disappeared from the facility in the late 1970s, one of which is believed to have been found in 1998 on its way to the Middle East via the mafia. The other was never recovered. The nuclear facility was founded in 1958 with help from the US because the then Belgian Congo provided the uranium used in the atom bombs dropped on Japan. It also handles uranium mined in the south of the country for export. In the chaos of the past decade of foreign invasion and civil war in Congo, illegal mining has boomed with thousands of Congolese make a living from using shovels and their bare hands to hack it from the earth. The IAEA has also told the Congolese of its fears that an accident at the facility could spread radiation into Kinshasa and contaminate the water supply. Agency officials have been particularly worried that the reactor is built in an area known for subsidence. One of the facility's walls was pierced by an unidentified metal projectile seven years ago that was variously identified as part of a missile or having fallen from a plane. Congo's nuclear scientists are optimistic, however. They say they hope to get the reactor working again soon for a range of uses from medical research to mine prospecting. Last year, the commission signed an agreement with a British firm, Brinkley Mining, for the nuclear facility to be used in prospecting for uranium. Useful links AllAfrica.com: Democratic Republic of Congo L'Avenir Friends of the Congo Congo Sans Frontieres UN Mission RCD Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 48 AFP: DRCongo nuclear centre officials arrested over uranium smuggling - Fri Mar 9, 6:05 AM ET KINSHASA (AFP) - Two officials from the Regional Centre for Nuclear Studies in Kinshasa have been arrested in a police inquiry over the illegal sale of uranium, DRCongo's general prosecutor told AFP. "The general atomic energy officer and director (of the centre), Fortunat Lumu, and another official are being questioned by judicial inspectors over the smuggling of a large amount of uranium," Tshimanga Mukeba said Thursday. No charges have yet been brought against the two officials who were arrested on Wednesday, he said, adding that "the judicial inquiry continues." In August 2006, an investigation by the British Sunday Times newspaper revealed the seizure in October 2005 in Tanzania of a major shipment of uranium 238, coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The country's government denied the report at the time. "The uranium mine in Shinkolobwe, in the southeast, has been officially closed since 1960 due to the high costs of exploration," said Henri Mova Sakany, a spokesperson for the interim government. "Today, the DRCongo does not have the capacity to treat uranium and has never sold any to Iran." Despite the official closure of the mine that had provided the uranium used in the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, hundreds of workers continue to illegally dig there. Copyright 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 Times Union: Atomic plant guards seek a degree of security Albany NY Demonstrations outside Knolls facilities center on pension plan dispute at heart of contract talks By ALAN WECHSLER, Business writer First published: Friday, March 9, 2007 MILTON -- Being quasi-military, the security police at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory were not about to let a little cold wind prevent them from a planned informational picket. So on Tuesday, about 40 protested for two hours at the Niskayuna lab in wind chills of around 30 below zero. Temperatures were only slightly warmer Thursday morning, when a similar-sized group marched outside the Kenneth A. Kesselring Site in Milton. "We had some cold feet, I must tell you," said Rich Cross, business agent at the union. Members of the Professional Security Employees Association Local 1 are protesting a pension plan that only three officers have been able to take advantage of since 1987. At the same time, 105 security officers have left to seek other jobs before reaching retirement age, he said. The problem is their current pension can't be drawn from until age 60 or after 30 years on the force. And the job requires a level of strength and agility that makes it tough to sustain as officers get older. Knolls cops have to carry 40 pounds of gear, including an M-16 rifle, a gas mask, a bulletproof vest, a sidearm and a full utility belt, Cross said. The requirements for the job, which include a twice-yearly shooting range test and physical fitness tests, have tripled since 9/11, he said. "You've got guys who have been there 25 years who are starting to break down," Cross said. "They can't do the running, their eyes are going, and they're being told, 'Sorry.' We gave them our youth, and now they don't want us anymore." The officers' last contract expired in September after four years. The top wage for KAPL officers is $22.49 an hour. Knolls is a government-owned, contractor-operated research and development facility that supports the U.S. Navy's nuclear propulsion program. Scientists test equipment for submarines, and Navy personnel train there. Anne LaRoche, a spokeswoman for KAPL, confirmed the labs were in negotiation with officers but declined to discuss details. She said the protests caused no disruption at the facilities. Security officers are paid through Lockheed Martin Corp., which runs security at the labs as a subcontractor for the Department of Energy. Officials at the aeronautics giant could not be reached for comment. Cross said the union has about 75 members, and around 26 workers on duty at any one time. Other Lockheed employees have a pension that takes effect after five years of employment, and allows those covered to retire at age 55, he said. Many police around the country can retire after 20 years of service, he said. All Times Union materials copyright 1996-2007, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, N.Y. ***************************************************************** 50 Helena Independent Record: An unmistakeable message? By MARTIN J. KIDSTON - IR Features Writer - 03/06/07 Eliza Wiley IR Staff Photographer - Chip Clawson of the Montana Depleted Uranium Education Project stands near the billboard he raised money to have installed for the month, in an attempt to increase public awareness of the dangers depleted uranium has on American veterans. The words are bright and unmistakeable, sitting high above Montana Avenue on the latest flashy billboard. Depleted uranium kills our troops, the message says, depicting an Abrams tank firing its cannon, along with a warning for ionizing radiation. The billboard doesnt mention the Helena Peace Seekers, a local anti-war group that has called the current conflict immoral and unjust. It does, however, list the groups new subsidiary, the Montana Depleted Uranium Project, which hopes to use the billboard to raise public awareness on the use of DU, which it says threatens the health of both U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. We have DU munitions being used by the military that are endangering our own troops, said Chip Clawson, a Vietnam-era veteran whos funding the billboard. These radioactive weapons are certain to devastate the future health of many troops and many civilians in the countries where weve used them. The groups members also want veterans returning from the war to get screened for the presence of uranium. House Bill 288 sought to provide members of the Montana National Guard with a DU health screening upon returning home. The bill was tabled due to funding questions. Clawson said the group has no current evidence that DU has adversely affected the health of any particular Montana soldier home from Iraq or Afghanistan. However, he said, he believes that will change in time. I have had some possibilities, but weve been unable to produce them, Clawson said. We have an incredibly high rate of veterans from the first Gulf War on disability. We believe DU is part of the problem. The Department of Veterans Affairs said DU possesses about 60 percent of the radioactivity of natural uranium. It poses a hazard if internalized, be it though shrapnel or inhalation. Testing DU for military use began in the 1960s. The material was first used in combat by the U.S. in the first Gulf War. Joe Foster, administrator of the Montana Veterans Affairs Division, said that in the four years the current war has been going on, no veteran health-care provider has filed a claim naming DU as the cause of illness. I sent out a memo a month ago, asking them if theyve processed any claim based upon depleted uranium, Foster said. There were none. It doesnt mean it hasnt happened to any of our soldiers. Its just that we havent seen it here in Montana. Even so, Foster said the VA will place information on its Website about DU, particularly the three levels of exposure, which range from being hit by a DU round to being in the general area of a DU incident. While veterans presented with level-one or level-two exposure to DU have that exposure documented in their medical records, those who experience a level-three exposure do not. I think what this group wants is to have anyone and everyone in theater tested for DU automatically, Foster said. That just cant happen unless they want to pay for it themselves. The link on Clawsons billboard sends viewers to the Gulf War Veterans Association. According to the groups own mission, its single goal is to obtain treatment for veterans who experience symptoms collectively known as the Gulf War Illness. The group claims that the number of Gulf War veterans suffering from the mysterious illness has spread to epidemic proportions. The group also claims that the government has turned its back on the nations defenders. Yet studies question whether the Gulf War Illness is even a real medical condition. A November 1996 article in the New England Journal of Medicine found no difference in hospitalization rates or self-reported symptoms between Persian Gulf vets and non-Persian Gulf vets. U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians have been exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of the use of DU munitions in Iraq, Clawson said. But many of our troops havent been told about this, nor have they been trained to minimize the long-term health risks. Reporter Martin Kidston can be reached at 447-4086, or at mkidson@helenair.com Copyright Helena Independent Record; a division of Lee Enterprises Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 Bennington Banner: Moran makes entrance in Stamford (du) By MARK E. RONDEAU, Staff Writer Article Launched: 03/09/2007 11:02:01 AM EST STAMFORD ? Rep. John Moran, a Democrat who represents the Windham-Bennington-1 district, came to the Stamford floor meeting Monday night to introduce himself to his constituents and give an update on legislation. November Moran, a Wardsboro resident, defeated two-term incumbent Philip Bartlett by just 12 votes in an election that underwent a recount. He is a member of the House General, Housing and Military Affairs Committee. In addition to housing and military affairs, this committee also deals with such things as liquor control, the lottery, and labor bills. The committee is considering about 35 bills, and several of them deal with the Vermont National Guard and veterans issues. ”There's some real concerns about the treatment of veterans when they return,” Moran said. “The attitude of our committee is now that the attention is on Iraq and Afghanistan, this is the time for us to pass legislation that will not forget our armed forces.” One bill being considered by the committee would help Vermont veterans exposed to depleted uranium and other hazardous materials during military service access to federal health services. Depleted uranium munitions and armor have been used extensively by the U.S. Armed Forces since the 1991 Gulf War. ”We have servicemen who have testified before our committee who have handled depleted uranium without any training in safety,” Moran said. “They have been around explosions that have used depleted uranium. We are trying to get a sense of what the health risk will be to them. There is no testing for them, so we're going to continue the uranium testing bill for the National Guard.” The committee also had dealt with inequities in the pay and benefits for National Guard members when they are called up for state duty as opposed to federal duty. ”When the National Guard is called up on state duty they do not get the same pay or benefits as if they get called up on federal duty,” he said. “So what we're trying to do is make it equitable.” Moran handed out a town meeting legislative update printed at his own expense. ”If you have questions or you have information you want me to have, please contact me,” he said. “Contrary to what people might think, I don't have a staff. I am it in terms of what I do. We have no offices, we are a citizen legislature, so my job calls for me to deliver a lot of things in a short period of time.” Moran has worked in the health care field for three decades and has at different times served on the Wardsboro Select Board. ***************************************************************** 52 Rocky Mountain News: Atomic veterans plead case Few are getting compensation, advocate says By Associated Press March 9, 2007 LAS VEGAS - Thousands of U.S. military personnel who witnessed nuclear bomb explosions at the Nevada Test Site and in the South Pacific should not be required to have their exposures reconstructed to receive compensation, a veterans advocate said. Despite attempts by defense and veterans agencies to estimate external doses of radiation-laced dust and sea water mist, exposure measurements weren't made in many cases, R.J. Ritter, commander of the National Association of Atomic Veterans Inc., said Wednesday. The dose reconstruction effort, like that for civilian Cold War nuclear workers, often results in denials of compensation claims for those who served honorably and were muzzled by secrecy oaths, Ritter told the Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction, meeting in Las Vegas. Ritter, of Houston, served aboard the USS Tawasa during a 1955 underwater atomic test off the coast of San Diego. He recalled that the mess hall was declared off-limits because of high radiation. "However, after we returned to port, we were told the incident did not happen," he said. Dr. James Zimble, chairman of the advisory board, said the board took seriously Ritter's remarks. The board makes recommendations to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ritter estimated that as many as 500,000 U.S. military and support personnel were exposed to radiation during nuclear weapons tests - including sailors on ships, pilots and airmen on planes that flew through radioactive clouds, and soldiers and Marines who huddled in trenches at the Nevada Test Site and were marched through fallout or landed by parachute in contaminated areas. Until Congress in 1993 lifted a ban on discussing those missions, atomic veterans were sworn to secrecy, Ritter told the Las Vegas Review-Journal prior to his presentation. "Secrecy. That's the big issue. With secrecy and deniability how can you go to the VA and seek a claim?" he asked. Ritter said only a fraction of some 25,000 claims since the early 1950s have resulted in payments. 2006 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 53 Cibola County Beacon: Calling all Post 71 uranium workers Thursday, March 08, 2007 GRANTS - Post '71 uranium workers who think they were exposed to uranium when they worked in the mines, mills or as transporters in the industry have the opportunity to try and garner assistance as a group. I think there should be a right to compensation, said Terri Chavez of Grants, who said one of her relatives worked after 1971 has experienced cancer and other ailments since the mines officially closed in the early 1980s. More than 100 people met on Tuesday evening at the Cibola County Convention Center at 515 High Street in Grants to obtain information and a survey. The survey would be used to compile statistics for federal legislators in upcoming legislation, Post '71 committee members said. Committee members stated that the Centers for Disease Control reported that companies registered about 300 people who have worked in the uranium industry after 1971. They asserted that the number of people was in the thousands. The volunteer committee members said the organization's Web site http://post71exposure.org showed that they do not guarantee compensation from any mine, mill or transporter, but people also need to agree to defend claims damages, costs and expenses for the site that they worked. Some people worked at more than one site and no longer live in the area, but are still eligible, committee members said. We took our clothes home and we washed them with our kids' clothes, said committee member Louie Martinez, who added that some people were exposed to radon for 20 years. Committee statistics coordinator Jacinta Hidalgo said volunteers will be available at a day-long survey workshop from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday, March 10, at the convention center. They will be available for anyone who needs help filling out the survey. Copies of the survey are also downloadable from the group's Web site. The survey is due by June 30, 2007, to the committee at P.O. Box 1591, Grants, NM 87020. The U.S. Department of Justice Web site showed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) was passed by Congress in 1990 and allowed fixed payments of $50,000 to individuals residing or working downwind of The Nevada Test Site; $75,000 for workers participating in above-ground nuclear weapons tests; and $100,000 for uranium miners. RECA was amended in 2000 to include uranium mill workers and ore transporters, to add more illnesses, to remove some restrictions and to lower the radiation exposure threshold for uranium miners. The 2002 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act added more provisions for eligibility and claims procedures. For example, it required that lung cancer be primary for all claimant categories. To date, more than a trillion dollars have been paid to claimants nationwide. Our goal is to bring attention to people sick and dying from radiation exposure, said Post '71 chairman Elizabeth Lucero. Announcement Post '71 volunteers for uranium exposure will be available at a day-long survey workshop from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday, March 10, at the Cibola County Convention Center at 515 High Street in Grants. For more information, visit http://post71exposure.org. By Ilene Haluska Copyright 2007Cibola County Beacon. ***************************************************************** 54 [epa-impact] Removal of Low-Activity Contamination Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 11:53:13 -0500 http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2007/March/Day-09/ ======================================================================= [Federal Register: March 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 46)] [Notices] [Page 10718-10719] >From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09mr07-60] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Logistics Agency Removal of Low-Activity Contamination AGENCY: Defense National Stockpile Center (DNSC), Defense Logistics Agency. ACTION: Notice of availability of environmental assessment and a draft finding of no significant impact for the removal of low-activity contamination. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Defense Logistics Agency announces the availability of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the removal of low-activity contamination resulting from storage of radioactive source material in the National Defense Stockpile of strategic and critical materials. Stockpiles of commodities containing source material have been removed from DNSC depots at Curtis Bay, MD and Hammond, IN. At the Curtis Bay Depot, the commodities containing source material (columbium/tantalum, thorium nitrate, tungsten ore and concentrates, thorium hydroxide, thorium oxide, monazite sand, uranium pitchblende ore, and sodium sulfate) were previously stored in 16 of the original 59 warehouses. Since the middle 1980s, over 19,000 drums of thorium nitrate were stored in three warehouses. Previously the thorium nitrate stockpile was stored for short periods in six other warehouses on the site. At the Hammond Depot, the commodities containing source material (columbium/tantalum, thorium nitrate, monazite sands, sodium sulfate, and tungsten ore and concentrates) were previously stored in two of the three warehouses on the site. Cleanup of any residual contamination from storage of the commodities containing source material is one task DNSC must complete before its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license can be terminated. Following evaluation of reasonable alternatives conducted by Oak Ridge National Laboratory on behalf of DNSC, DNSC proposes to remove residual contamination and transfer the contaminants to a regulated disposal site. This disposal will be performed in a manner that will be safe, secure, and environmentally sound and minimizes radiation exposure and potential for risk to workers, the public, and the environment. DATES: Comments on the draft FONSI received by April 9, 2007 will be considered when preparing the final version of the FONSI. [[Page 10719]] The EA and draft FONSI are available for review on the DNSC Web site (https://www.dnsc.dla.mil/EAandDraftFONSI.asp). Comments should be sent to Mr. Michael Pecullan, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 3229, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221. Comments may also be faxed to Mr. Pecullan at (703) 767-7716. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Pecullan, Phone (703) 767- Dated: March 6, 2007. Essie Schloss, Deputy Administrator, Defense National Stockpile Center. [FR Doc. E7-4234 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3620-01-P ------------------------------------------ http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/ ------------------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-485116N@lists.epa.gov OR: Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription. For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov ------------------------------------------ ***************************************************************** 55 NRC: Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to Hold Hearing on Proposed Uranium Enrichment Plant in Ohio News Release - 2007-032 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) will hold a hearing beginning March 13 in Rockville, Md., on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff’s review of a license application by USEC, Inc., to build and operate a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment plant near Piketon, Ohio. Three judges of the ASLB panel will hear testimony regarding the sufficiency of USEC’s application and the NRC staff’s licensing review regarding both technical safety and environmental impacts of the proposed facility. The board will consider whether the staff review conformed with NRC regulations and the National Environmental Policy Act, and whether the license should be issued, denied or appropriately conditioned. There are no contentions raised by members of the public before the board at this time. The hearing will begin at 10 a.m. on March 13 in the ASLB hearing room on the third floor of Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. Members of the public wishing to attend are urged to arrive early to facilitate security checks. The hearing will continue until March 19 and day-to-day thereafter until concluded. Portions of the hearing will be closed to the public when privileged information is discussed. Information about USEC’s application, including the NRC staff’s Environmental Impact Statement and Safety Evaluation Report, are available on the NRC Web site at this address:http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/usecfacility.html. The ASLB panel consists of administrative judges and administrative law judges with science, engineering or legal expertise, who are independent of the NRC staff. The board conducts adjudicatory hearings on matters in the licensing of nuclear reactors, nuclear materials, and nuclear material facilities such as the proposed USEC enrichment plant. Board rulings may be appealed to the five-member Commission that heads the agency. General information on the ASLB Panel can be found at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.html. Information on the NRC’s hearing process is available at: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/adjudicatory/hearing.html NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Friday, March 09, 2007 ***************************************************************** 56 Pahrump Valley Times: More Yucca documents to be released Mar. 09, 2007 BY STEVE TETREAULT Stephens Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy is preparing to make public more than 2 million Yucca Mountain documents, a government attorney said Monday in defusing at least one fight with Nevada over the nuclear waste site. When the documents are added to what already has been posted to a dedicated electronic database, DOE will have shared more than 3.3 million documents totaling 30 million pages, attorney Michael Shebelskie said at a Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearing. The documents will be made available within 60 days, Shebelskie told a panel of three NRC administrative judges. "We will have completed our review of those documents and in the interest of making public disclosure sooner rather than later we made that decision," Shebelskie said after the hearing. Nevada officials and attorneys said there may have been another reason: to head off yet another lawsuit the state was building against the Yucca project. "I don't think they are doing this because they are nice guys," said Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. "DOE began to believe we would have a claim." The documents include science and engineering studies that DOE plans to cite in its bid for an NRC license to store highly radioactive wastes within the mountain ridge 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The documents already have been formatted and loaded for the Yucca database that is managed by the NRC technicians. Administrator Dan Graser said once DOE gives the okay, the 2.148 million documents could be posted in "less than an hour." Last November, then-Gov. Kenny Guinn charged DOE was hoarding millions of documents, hiding them from Nevada consultants who sift through them for flaws and ammunition against the Yucca effort. Federal regulations allow DOE to wait until the database is officially certified before making the documents available, which may not be until the end of 2007. But Loux said the state was building a case that by waiting that long even if the documents were ready, DOE was depriving the state, Nevada counties, environmental groups and other interested parties of the right to examine them fully. "As a result we may have a claim in court that we were denied due process," Loux said. DOE spokesman Craig Stevens said Yucca project director Ward Sproat "committed last year to releasing documents in advance of certification. "This early release is a result of that commitment," Stevens said. webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 57 The Sun News: Be heard: Don't let more nuclear waste in (P Moore) 03/09/2007 | Opinion S.C. LEGISLATURE By Patrick Moore The hot issue keeping S.C. legislators warm this session is nuclear waste, and how much of it we will let other states dump into our backyard. The situation is admittedly more complicated than that, but at the end of the day the question remains: Will S.C. legislators change current law to allow nuclear waste from all across the country to be dumped in South Carolina for 15 more years? Would legislators change the law if they knew the regional compact they are proposing to amend was carefully and equitably crafted to allow waste to be accepted from states willing to share the benefits and burdens of nuclear power and not just from any state that needs a dumping ground? Would legislators change the law if they knew that the last time we opened up Barnwell to other states on the promise a new site would be developed in North Carolina, that no site was constructed, South Carolina's legislators withdrew from the compact and opened our state's doors to all states and their waste? Would legislators change the law if they knew that radioactive tritium is leaking over half a mile from the burial trenches into Mary Branch Creek, which flows to the Savannah River, due to archaic storage practices that would not be adequate for a municipal garbage dump built today? Would legislators change the law if they knew that disposal operators are currently guaranteed a 29 percent profit and that accepting waste from states outside of the compact would only increase the profit margin of Energy Solutions? I would like to think this sort of information would cause legislators to think twice about supporting legislation to change current law. I'd like to think a proposal with such questionable local and statewide economic benefits would receive greater scrutiny. I'd like to think this is not the kind of economic development that legislators are promoting at our Statehouse. S.C. citizens are the ultimate owners of the Barnwell site and will foot the bill for any financial and environmental problems that are currently dismissed as speculative or ignored altogether. History demonstrates that when nuclear waste, disposal dollars and S.C. politicians are involved, the best interests of our state do not always prevail. The last time the nuclear waste hit the fan, South Carolina allowed 37 states, instead of the eight signed on to the compact, to dump their waste at Barnwell. This occurred despite the fact that more than 75 percent of South Carolinians polled wanted access to Barnwell to remain limited. You may have heard that if the current compact is upheld, the increased fees charged for disposal would ultimately affect ratepayers. While this claim is questionable on its face, after some calculations from Duke Power's last rate case, you can expect about a .01 cent increase in your bill if the compact is upheld and disposal costs rise the projected $3 million to $4 million per year. If the legislation is changed, you will have 40,000 cubic feet of nuclear waste per year for 15 years. So, less than a penny every year or 600,000 cubic feet of waste, much of which will stay dangerous, and leak into your water table, for hundreds of years. Believe it or not, it is your decision. The writer lives in Columbia. ***************************************************************** 58 ARIZONA DAILY STAR: Waste management symposium moves to Phoenix www.azstarnet.com By Christie Smythe Tucson, Arizona | Published: 03.09.2007 After 33 consecutive years at the Tucson Convention Center, an international symposium on the management of radioactive waste is moving to Phoenix. Jim Voss, managing director of the Waste Management Symposium, said a litany of inconveniences - including a lack of hotel rooms Downtown near the convention center and a shortage of rental cars - prompted conference organizers to select a new location for the event, which was founded in Tucson. The conference, which is the world’s largest addressing the management of radioactive waste, attracts about 2,500 attendees from 35 countries, Voss said. Air travel was also a problem, Voss said. Flights to Phoenix are generally easier to find and less expensive for U.S. and international attendees than flights to Tucson, he said. Some attendees had been previously flying to Phoenix anyway to find rental cars because there was often not enough in Tucson, Voss said. “Tucson was simply not responding to the need,” he said. Jonathan Walker, President and CEO of the Metropolitan Tucson Convention & Visitors Bureau, said said the bureau has “been aware of their concerns, and we have been doing everything we possibly could to address those.” Copyright © 2007 ***************************************************************** 59 Economic Times: Nuclear fuel, the last option- Editorial V RANGANATHAN [ SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 2007 03:24:00 AM] India's current engagement with the US in dismantling the nuclear apartheid is hailed by the UPA government and the foreign policy establishment as a sign of Indias growing economic strength as well as recognition of the Vashisthtas of nuclear establishment, viz., the nuclear powers of the fact that India too has arrived. There are others, particularly the Left, which sees this as a needless kow-towing to the unipolar super power US, sacrificing national sovereignty and the lofty Nehruvian ideals of non-alignment. The truth however seems to lie elsewhere. It is to be noted that in the Indo-US nuclear agreement in the making the US Congress, through the Hyde Act, has made important exceptions to its general policy to enable India secure both technology and nuclear fuel. These include applying a waiver to the realities that India has conducted nuclear tests through the peaceful nuclear explosion route, that it is still having a weapons programme called the strategic programme, and the fact that India will not sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (The US and UK themselves have signed but not ratified CTBT), and is also not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). It has also agreed to Indias condition that only its civilian programme is open to full scope safeguards, i.e. inspection by International Atomic Energy Agency, but not its strategic programme. The benefit to India is expected to be the access to nuclear technology as well as nuclear fuel by lifting the ban on the sale of nuclear fuel to India by the Nuclear Supply Group. On both sides there is one rhetoric and a different reality. On the US side, the rhetoric is that Indias energy consumption is bound to increase, and the nuclear agreement will divert India to source a significant chunk of its energy needs from this, putting less pressure on oil which the Americans want to buy cheaply in the global market. This is a bit nave, for India does not use much oil for its electricity generation except in captive power plants and there is no great substitutability of electricity with oil in end use, save in railway traction. On the side of realpolitik, Indias advancement in the strategic sector to match Chinas nuclear arsenal would indeed suit the US in containing the emerging China which is bidding for the super power status, both economically and militarily. After all, just as recently as this month China reportedly tested anti-satellite weapon, and the US also has been carrying out ballistic missile defence system in East Asia ostensibly to constrain North Korea and possibly even China. On the economic front, it revives the nuclear power equipment manufacturing industry in the US, which has been languishing for the last 20-odd years with no orders ever since there has been a ban on expansion of nuclear electricity in the US. With lower value-added jobs migrating to India through the outsourcing route, and the US labour productivity growth reaching an all-time low of 1.6% last year, revival of the nuclear and weapons industry is just the high value-added replacement that it would be looking for. Now what is in the deal for India? Contrary to the popular perception and rhetoric that it would be a boost to the civilian nuclear programme, the economics is against it. A study done by me for the DAE about 34 years ago found that nuclear electricity is about twice as costly as coal-based thermal electricity. That conclusion even now stands by and large, except when you switch to much higher capacity plants like 1600 MW, from the present 220 MW units, bringing with it economies of scale. Even then the nuclear equipment industry is quite a bit oligopolistic and India is unlikely to get the plants at competitive prices. On the technology side, what India needs is the fast breeder technology using the thorium fuel cycle, which is abundantly available in the sands of Kerala, but no one in the world has this technology at a commercial scale, nor is it in their interest to develop it, because the other countries are not rich in thorium. India has a successful fast breeder test reactor but has not succeeded in making commercial reactors. So it is clear that what India needs is fuel and not the technology or the equipment, so much. And it also needs the fuel more for its strategic programme than for the civilian programme, when it has some 300 billion tonnes of coal and plenty of hydro and gas in the neighbouring countries of Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar and CIS countries. So the key question is how the 1-2-3 Agreement which will give the flesh and blood to the Hyde Act, will enable India secure the fuel for its strategic purposes. Fuel for the civilian purposes will only help India retain an option on nuclear electricity, without necessarily using it, unless the other sources like coal and gas become uneconomical through environmental constraints. Also since every gram of fuel for civilian purposes will be monitored and accounted for by intrusive inspections, it will have no use in the strategic programme. Thus the Indian political, atomic energy and foreign policy establishments must clearly confront this reality and provide an answer to the people of India. (The author is RBI Chair Professor, IIM Bangalore) Copyright 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 60 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet in Rockville, Maryland, March 20-22 News Release - 2007-033 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will meet March 20-22 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, topics of interest with NRC Commissioner Gregory Jaczko. In addition, the committee will be briefed on issues related to transportation canisters for spent nuclear fuel, the status of design activities related to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository for high-level radioactive waste and the decommissioning plan for the Shieldalloy site in New Jersey. The committee reports to and advises the Commission on all aspects of nuclear waste management. The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint North Building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. The session on Tuesday will run from 11 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; the sessions on Wednesday and Thursday will run from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Anyone requiring the use of video teleconferencing to observe the meeting should contact Theron Brown, at 301-415-8066 to ensure availability. A complete agenda is available on the NRC’s Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2007/ NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Friday, March 09, 2007 ***************************************************************** 61 KCPW: Gov Says Not Signing Waste Bill was "Protest Vote" - Mar 09, 2007 by Julie Rose (KCPW News) Utah's Governor is defending his decision to let a nuclear waste-related measure go into effect without his signature or veto. Critics have called Jon Huntsman's decision "spineless" and "wimpy." Huntsman sees otherwise: "I chose not to sign it as a protest vote," says Huntsman. "It would have been an easy thing to do a veto, but where does that get you? It's a message, but it doesn't get you anywhere. I wanted to make a statement, but I'm not sure everybody read the fine print of that statement." Huntsman says the fine print reiterates his opposition to storing high-level nuclear waste in Utah. He also promises to send a letter to the regional governing body for nuclear waste requesting they limit future volumes approved for disposal at the EnergySolutions site in Tooele. "To make sure that from a volume and measurement standpoint from a certain point in time we don't keep bringing it into our state," says Huntsman. The Governor also pledges to closely supervise state regulators and demand special reports concerning the quantities and types of waste EnergySolutions accepts. He also maintains that Senate Bill 155 merely made technical changes to the company's license and did not address the issues of volume or radioactivity which concern him most. Click here to listen to the full interview with Governor Jon Huntsman Junior on KCPW's Midday Metro. Email to a friendPosted in KCPW Newsroom, Legislative Coverage, and 2007 Legislative Coverage. Copyright 2007 KCPW 1. David Proctor said: Huntsman can say what he wants. He could have made a strong statement. Instead he sold out. Copyright 2006 KCPW ***************************************************************** 62 PDT: Opinions vary at DOE meeting Last modified: Thursday, March 8, 2007 11:33 PM EST By JEFF BARRON PDT Staff Writer PIKETON - Opinions were mixed at Thursday's U.S. Department of Energy public meeting regarding a possible nuclear waste recycling plant at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The meeting took place at The Ohio State University Endeavor Center. Pike County Commissioner Teddy West said he supported the idea for a study of the site to be part of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a President George W. Bush administration initiative. “We want good safe jobs here, he said. But a representative of Gov. Ted Strickland said Strickland does not want to turn the plant into a nuclear waste dump. The Southern Ohio Nuclear Initiative Cooperative wants to bring the plant to southern Ohio, saying it will provide jobs and benefit the area's economy. The plant would recycle spent nuclear fuel rods from across the country and be sold to nuclear power plants that produce electricity. The plant is still in the early planning stages. Piketon is competing with 12 other areas for the plant. The GNEP program actually has three parts - a nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced recycling reactor and an advanced fuel cycle research area. Only the first two would be built at Piketon, however. Several university professors also spoke in favor of GNEP, including University of Cincinnati Nuclear and Radiological Program Director John Christian. “Portsmouth would be an excellent location for GNEP, he said. “It can be operated safely. It is not a waste dump and would make the United States and the world a safer place. Mark Shanahan represented Strickland at the meeting. He said Strickland always has balanced the gaseous diffusion plant's economic benefit to the area against worker safety. Shanahan also read a statement from Strickland. “Unfortunately, the history of that facility teaches us that we must be very careful to ask all the right questions and to receive answers that can be trusted, Strickland said in the statement. “This project holds out the hope for a massive additional investment at the site and thousands of new jobs, if it is developed as promised. “But it also holds out the possibility that Piketon will become a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel rods from across the country. Strickland said there is not enough information to decide whether the state should host a GNEP plant. He questioned possible environmental risks and wondered if the DOE or Nuclear Regulatory Commission would oversee it. Local nuclear activist Vina Colley said a GNEP plant would risk turning Piketon into a “sacrifice zone in which businesses would abandon. “The site (diffusion plant) will never be cleaned up if they bring GNEP here, she said. But First National Bank of Waverly president Bob Foster said GNEP “holds great possibilities for the economy. Some of those who attended the meeting couldn't fit into the room and instead listened from the hallway. JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236. | Copyright 2007 The Portsmouth Daily Times | Top ***************************************************************** 63 Chillicothe Gazette: Crowd speaks out on future of Piketon site www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Friday, March 9, 2007 Getting an earful By ASHLEY LYKINS Gazette Staff Writer PIKETON -The parking lot at The Ohio State University Endeavor Center was packed Thursday night. The cars had carried people from all over Ohio, both near and far, who wanted to provide comment at a U.S. Department of Energy meeting. The public gathering was based on the programmatic environmental impact statement, a document being prepared for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative. The statement will assess the potential for certain locations -such as the Energy Department reservation in Piketon -to hold one or two types of GNEP facilities. One of these would be a nuclear fuel recycling center, which would separate the reusable material from used nuclear fuel from its waste. The other would be an advanced recycling reactor, which would demolish the radioactive parts of the fuel while generating electricity. About 60 individuals signed up to speak for about three minutes each, both for and against the location being studied as a possible site. "We want productive re-use of the site," said Jennifer Chandler, community and economic development director in Pike County. Chandler, a county resident, noted it would be one of the best ways to strengthen the economy and it would add to the "highly skilled work force." Pike County Commissioner Teddy West, of Wakefield, said his farm is adjacent to the Energy Department's facility. "I am for good, safe jobs ... for the community," said West, who is also on the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative board. "I do support the GNEP study." Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative partnered with the Piketon Initiative for Nuclear Independence to create the Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative, which was chosen to receive a federal grant to perform the study that will determine the Piketon site's usability for GNEP. Other individuals expressed their opposition to Piketon's being involved in the partnership. "We don't want a nuclear dump here in Piketon called GNEP," said Vina Colley, a former employee at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. "If this comes to pass, Piketon will become a sacrifice zone. The site will never be cleaned up if we bring GNEP in here." Colley, a member of Portsmouth and Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security, referred to concerns some members of the public have about nuclear material being transported to the region and kept permanently as waste. However, according to Greg Simonton, director of Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative, those fears are unfounded because construction of a recycling facility would be well under way before material would be brought in. Other residents weren't sure about their positions yet. "I'm kind of caught in the middle," said Curt Williams, of Stockdale. "As a union official, the part that is attractive is the jobs, and at the same time you have to assure safety." Williams also said he'd oppose the idea if there was a possibility of the site becoming a place for disposal. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's energy adviser, Mark Shanahan, said Strickland would also be opposed if the site became a "dump," but he also realizes the potential for thousands of new jobs. "He opposes turning the Piketon site into a spent nuclear fuel dump," said Shanahan, adding the governor has seen government decisions be made but never materialize. "We don't have enough information to make a decision." Geoffrey Sea, of the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group, said he believes the meeting made opposition clear. "We have demonstrated that the community is against this," he said. The meeting, which lasted about an hour longer than regularly planned, was good in that it began community dialogue, said Simonton. "Look at the local people who are familiar with the Piketon plant," he said. "The support is overwhelming. The criticism is based on misconceptions." Simonton said he noticed many of the critics were from farther away cities, such as Cincinnati and Athens. However, Sea said he thinks that is an "artificat of poverty in community." "Many of our supporters in Pike County don't have computers," he said, noting the lack of access to e-mail and time to spread the word. "It's not that people locally are not concerned."*** A SONIC meeting, one in a series, will be conducted 6:30 p.m. March 20 at the Endeavor Center and will provide information about GNEP and a forum for discussion. (Lykins can be reached at 772-9376 or via e-mail at anlykins@nncogannett.com) ====================================================================== In response to this comment, my daughter, (yes, that is my daughter in the picture), my daughter chose to attend this meeting of her own free will knowing that it would be 4 hours long and exceedingly boring. She actually wrote the slogan for the sign, the one she is holding. She is adamantly opposed to pollution and deeply concerned about nuclear proliferation. She is an active citizen who is concerned about the environment and public policy. But I guess that's a bad thing, right? Kids getting an education? She should be playing video games. Then she would know that nuclear energy is perfectly safe and not at all a bad idea. To answer the question, why would a parent bring his child to a meeting about nuclear waste? Because he cares about her future. The question should be, "Why would anyone in their right mind support a project like this...unless they had their hand in the till?" Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:32 pm ====================================================================== "I dont work @ USEC or have anything to do with USEC." But do you have 3 eyes, a tail, gills? Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:59 pm ====================================================================== Copyright 2007 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 64 Ruidoso News: Nuclear fuel reprocessing and GNEP: What they are saying Deanna Cheney For the Ruidoso News Article Launched: 03/08/2007 10:08:21 PM MST Proponents Proponents of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and President George Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership say the waste management program is a way the government can meet its obligation to the American people while being a good environmental steward. They describe GNEP as a comprehensive strategy to increase U.S. and global energy security, reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation and to encourage clean development around the world. Unlike plants which burn fossil fuels to produce electricity, nuclear and nuclear waste reprocessing does not contribute to global warming, proponents say. They contend that nuclear power is the only proven technology that can provide abundant supplies of base-load electricity reliably and without air pollution emissions of greenhouse gasses. Last year, the operation of U.S. nuclear power plants displaced 681.9 million metric tons of carbon emissions. GNEP plans to recycle spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors, in part, to decrease the toxicity of these fuels and the volume of waste requiring disposal. Since 1957, when the first nuclear reactor was built in the U.S., more than 30,000 metric tons of spent fuel have been accumulated and sits idle, treated as waste rather than a resource. Meanwhile, worldwide demand for electricity generated in nuclear plants is expected to double by 2030. In addition to addressing concerns associated with the use of fossil fuels, rising costs, utility price volatility, GNEP supporters say the plan promotes proliferation resistant technologies by providing fuel services to developing nations. GNEP will bring the benefits of nuclear energy to the world safely and securely without all countries having to invest in the complete fuel cycle, or enrichment and reprocessing. At the same time, GNEP will reduce the U.S. dependency on foreign oil. Online resource sites: www.gnep.energy.gov (U.S. Department of Energy), www.ans.org/ (American Nuclear Society), www.nei.org/ (Nuclear Energy Institute) Opponents Opponents say it is wrong to label the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel as "recycling" as the process does not neutralize or make safe radioactive waste. Rather, it divides the spent fuel into several streams. Some of those streams can be reused but some cannot and still must be stored until they radioactively decay enough to be buried in a permanent repository, such as that proposed at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Further, opponents contend that construction and operation of a nuclear reprocessing plant and next generation nuclear reactor will be taxpayer funded. They point to reprocessing plant construction in Rokkasho, Japan currently over budget by $10 billion, as one example. They also point to failure rates. Thus far, only one nuclear fuel reprocessing plant has been built and operated in the U.S - the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in West Valley, N.Y., that was operated from 1966-1972. After several reported fires, worker exposure to radiation, and a rate of production that was 1/6th of that projected, plant owners ceased operations. In current dollars and uranium equivalents, the plant produced about $20 million worth of fuel in six years but its clean-up and decommissioning have cost taxpayers $6 billion. After 31 years, the cleanup continues. Finally, opponents say GNEP will make nuclear weapons proliferation worse. Under the administrations of Presidents Ford and Carter, U.S. plans for spent nuclear reprocessing was halted and reaffirmed, respectively. Government administrators said reprocessing requires the stockpiling of plutonium and the "moving" of mixed-oxide fuels creating a heightened security threat. Online resource sites: www.ucsusa.org (Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions); www.energyactivist.org (Public Citizen's Energy Program); www.nirs.org (Nuclear Information and Resource Service) Copyright © 2006 Ruidoso News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 65 San Bernardino County Sun: Perchlorate hearings postponed by state In Brief 03-09-2007 Staff Reports RIALTO The dates for state hearings on the perchlorate contamination of Rialto's drinking water have been pushed back a few weeks. The all-day hearings were originally supposed to take place in late March and early April. But the parties all requested more time, State Water Resources Control Board spokesman William Rukeyser wrote in an e-mail. The hearings are now scheduled May 8-10 and 15-17 in the area. Los Angeles Newspaper Group Privacy Policy | MNG Corporate Site Map ***************************************************************** 66 Reuters: US to sell 15,300 tons of radioactive nickel scrap Fri Mar 9, 2007 3:41PM EST WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - The U.S. government wants to unload about 15,300 tons of radioactive nickel scrap, the Energy Department said on Friday, asking for industry input on how to do it safely. The nickel was recovered from equipment used to process enriched uranium at the department's facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Paducah, Kentucky. The department said the nickel would have restricted uses, which could include use in commercial nuclear power plants, Energy Department nuclear facilities or by the U.S. Navy. The department said it will solicit input from parties interested in the nickel through May 8. All qualified parties must show they have the proper licenses, personnel and equipment to accept any classified nickel scrap at an approved department facility and can transport, store and process the material. The nickel scrap would have to be turned into products suitable for use only in controlled government or commercial radiological applications and all byproducts and residual wastes would have to be disposed of by the buyers. Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 67 UPI: Analysis: Yucca work reviewed, redone United Press International - Energy - 3/9/2007 1:15:00 PM -0500 By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- The director of the Yucca Mountain Project says he's making the controversial quality assurance culture of the proposed nuclear waste repository in Nevada a priority as the U.S. Energy Department prepares to submit a license to open the facility. But the historical ignoring or tamping down of problems has deep roots, a former auditor says, and the results are still being felt. "If you were to ask me, 'So, given what you're doing this year, in 2007, and the work that's leading up to developing this license application, how much of it is new and how much of it is review and rework of work that's been done before?,' I don't have an exact number, but I'm betting ... at least 60 percent of the work we're doing this year ... work that's been done before," Edward "Ward" Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told reporters Tuesday at a briefing organized by The Energy Daily and the nuclear company Areva. The Energy Department says that by June 2008 it will submit an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to store radioactive waste created by nuclear plants and weapons inside Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "There's a fundamentally different approach by the senior management team than this program has ever had before," said Sproat, who's been on the job less than a year. "And we recognize that behaviors of managers below us have in the past been major contributors to some of these problems and we have made changes in those management teams." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has led the charge of members of Congress to oppose the site, which is also opposed by the Nevada state government and other groups. And, more than anything, they've been buoyed by claims the science behind the site won't wash. "For us, early on, we felt that we had identified almost all the major quality assurance problem areas that needed to be fixed," Kristi Hodges, a former lead auditor on the project, told United Press International during numerous interviews. "Instead of concentrating on fixing those issues, they concentrated on fixing quality assurance so we could no longer identify these problems." Hodges, who spent 17 years there at the project, resigned in August 2006. In February 2002, she decided to speak up, sending a complaint to the Energy Department's inspector general detailing circumstances surrounding the removal of a head quality assurance director from the project and the firing of the quality assurance program manager, "railroaded," she said, "after bringing evidence of malfeasance in project investigations" to Sproat's predecessor. "The managers oversaw audits for the Energy Department that were responsible for identifying significant deficiencies in areas software, data and models, including the very issues that eventually rocked the project when e-mails pertaining to falsification of data were discovered," she said. (A Labor Department investigation later found the firing of Mattimoe "extraordinarily egregious." Congressional hearings were held on the e-mails.) The Las Vegas Review-Journal filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the complaint from the inspector general in June 2002. More than four years later, the newspaper received it, though much was missing from the original hundreds of pages. In fact, spokeswoman Marilyn Richardson told the paper it was summarized into a "two- or three-page" document, sent to those at the project named in the complaint, but never fully investigated. "I didn't see anything that was insurmountable, except for politics and bad management," said Hodges, now a senior engineer for the Nevada Test Site, who still maintains multiple, inches-thick binders on the latest Yucca happenings. "These people (scientists) have done awesome work, world class work, it's just the politics won't let them...they never see their work come to fruition," Hodges said. "I don't think that the site is unsound. I just don't think they can prove that it is or is not," she said. "Until they acknowledge what they did to QA in the past, no one will believe current QA is good." In an August 2006 report, the Energy Department's inspector general wrote: "While progress has been made in the construction and licensing process at Yucca Mountain, the department has continued to experience quality control deficiencies, which could affect the ongoing design, analysis, and eventual licensing of the repository." Specifically, "quality assurance issues were not promptly identified, investigated, or resolved by the department;" "a corrective action program, implemented by the department as required by the NRC, was not effectively managing and resolving conditions adverse to quality;" and "as outlined in several OIG reviews over the past year, the DEPARTMENT must continue to improve quality assurance measures to assure the scientific reliability as well as the overall safety of the proposed repository." "Your characterization that a number of the issues around quality of the program originate with management behaviors and/or lack of management awareness and sponsorship for and demand for high quality is absolutely right on the mark," Sproat said, responding to a UPI question at the briefing. He says he's brought on a new team to focus on the quality assurance issues, ordered multiple assessments, and will soon develop "the get-it-right, fix-it-plan." (Comments to energy@upi.com) Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 68 Bradford Publishing: State, county officials tour West Valley Demonstration Project Saturday 10 March, 2007 Home > Times Herald > HOME > News By RICK MILLER, Olean Times Herald 03/09/2007 WEST VALLEY ? State and county officials toured the West Valley Demonstration project Thursday as word came of a possible change in thinking on the part of the U.S. Department of Energy over the nuclear waste cleanup. Among those touring the town of Ashford cleanup site were Cattaraugus County Undersheriff Timothy Whitcomb, county Environmental Health Director Eric Wohlers, Julie Sirianni of state Sen. Catharine M. Young?s office and Michael Briskey of state Assemblyman Joseph Giglio?s office. Mr. Wohlers, Ms. Sirianni and Mr. Briskey are members of the West Valley Citizen?s Task Force. Ms. Sirianni and Mr. Briskey were touring the site for the first time. Representatives from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) briefed those attending and led the tours. The state and federal governments are partners in the West Valley Demonstration Project cleanup, but they are at odds over the pace and extent of the cleanup. NYSERDA has filed suit in federal district court challenging the U.S. Department of Energy?s long-term cleanup plans. The federal budget for 2008 proposed by President Bush cuts the West Valley Demonstration Project by more than $20 million. It was budgeted for $79 million in the present year. The Department of Energy would like to see most of the cleanup at the site completed in 2010. The Department of Energy has proposed to ?rubble-ize? the process building where most of the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel was done between 1966 and 1972 when the Nuclear Fuel Services plant operated. Instead of removing the debris, the Department of Energy was considering leaving it in place and grouting, or cementing, it over. The building now holds 275 stainless steel containers that are 10 feet tall, two feet in diameter and filled with glass made from highly radioactive liquid wastes. The canisters are waiting for the day when they can be shipped to a federal repository ? possibly Yucca Mountain in Nevada. In the past week, however, the Department of Energy has begun to suggest it is seriously considering decontaminating the building and removing the debris after it is torn down. That is a welcome development to NYSERDA officials, who note this will make it possible to dig up soil beneath the process building that is contaminated with radioactivity. Officials have said the radioactivity is spreading in a plume toward creeks that empty into Cattaraugus Creek and Lake Erie, the source of drinking water for millions of people. State officials would like to see the radioactive plume addressed more aggressively by the Department of Energy because the further it spreads, the more costly the cleanup will be. Currently, there is some pumping and filtering of radioactivity from groundwater within the plume, as well as other less successful methods to slow its spread. There also is the issue of four underground steel tanks that once held radioactive liquids used in the original process. The tanks were used during the cleanup which has been ongoing since 1981 at a total cost of $2.2 billion. The Citizens Task Force, the Coalition on Nuclear Wastes at West Valley and NYSERDA officials have endorsed the removal of the tanks while the Department of Energy is considering filling them with grout or cement. The tanks contain highly radioactive residue. Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?s New York regional director suggested it would be best for the tanks to be removed. ?This is a state-owned facility,? Tom Attridge of NYSERDA?s West Valley staff told officials in a briefing. ?The Department of Energy is here to do a job. We have different motivations. DOE?s is to get the job done and get out. We?re going to stay here forever. Our job is to see that things are cleaned up.? The Citizens Task Force, created by the Department of Energy to get local input on the cleanup, has argued West Valley is not a good spot for long-term storage, Mr. Attridge said. More than 400,000 cubic feet of low-level waste has been shipped from the facility, with most going to a facility in Utah, said Sonja Allen of West Valley Nuclear Services, the prime contractor for the cleanup. The process of solidifying highly radioactive liquid wastes resulted in nearly 20,000 drums of cement made with much of the radioactivity removed, she said. The state-licensed disposal site for low-level nuclear waste is not addressed by the West Valley Demonstration Project, Mr. Attridge said during a tour of the site that included the black, plastic-covered, low-level disposal areas on the South Plateau. There are 14 trenches with low-level nuclear waste dating from 1963 to 1975. The state Department of Environmental Conservation prohibited further waste disposal after trenches overflowed with water contaminated with radioactivity in 1975. The massive tarps keep water from further infiltrating the site, which is also threatened by erosion. ?These are all different kinds of facilities that need to be managed,? Mr. Attridge said as the tour was ending. ?They are all actively managed and safe right now. We need to decide how to manage them in the future.? Bradford Publishing 2007 Copyright 1995 - 2007 Townnews.com All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 69 Scotland: JOGJCC: Re-examine nuclear waste policy, says minister John O'Groat Journal and Caithness Courier: By Gordon Calder Published: 09 March, 2007 A LOCAL Church of Scotland minister this week claimed the Highland Council's policy opposing nuclear waste being taken into the county may have to be re-examined. The Rev Ronnie Johnstone pointed out that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, in its final recommendations for the long-term management of the UK's intermediate-level waste, called for deep disposal underground. CoRWM also stated that communities interested in taking on the facility should volunteer to become a site for the waste. Mr Johnstone, speaking at a meeting of the Caithness presbytery in Thurso on Tuesday evening, posed a number of questions on the issue. The church and society convener wondered what is meant by a local community; what the incentives are to volunteer; and how a community's opinion is to be explored and established. "In Caithness, we have about 40 per cent of Scottish waste," said Mr Johnstone. "Do we have a moral responsibility for it, having benefited from 50 years of Dounreay? Does this mean that we should volunteer? If we do so, does this mean we are volunteering to accept waste from elsewhere? "At present, the Highland Council has a policy of resisting all attempts to import waste to the area. This policy needs to be re-examined. "CoRWM means that at long last a national repository is to be established. Do we retain our waste, i.e. volunteer, or do we insist our waste is sent elsewhere, forcing another area to volunteer? We are now in the consultation phase so we need to have a genuine and public debate on this issue." Mr Johnstone, the Thurso West minister, pointed out that presbytery had played its part in helping to resist attempts to dump the hulks of nuclear submarines in the North, but felt there were "particular issues" facing Caithness. Presbytery backed the report presented by Mr Johnstone and supported the call for a full debate on the issue. As previously reported, the Highland Council's Caithness area convener, Councillor David Flear, has taken a similar view. He stressed that he was not canvassing support for such a development but believed the matter needed to be addressed. At the time he said: "Caithness may feel that it has absolutely no interest in a waste facility, or that it may be interested depending on what the package is. I'd make clear this is not me in any way leading on this. I'm not pushing the case for or against – it's just that I feel it's a debate we need to have so the issue does not pass us by." A referendum held in Caithness a number of years ago was firmly against the area housing a national nuclear waste repository, with 73 per cent of those who responded opposing such a move. Caithness Against Nuclear Dumping insists local feelings have not changed since then and wants radioactive waste to be kept in secure, long-lasting stores at the sites where it has been produced until an acceptable disposal route becomes available. A spokesman for the Highland Council stressed yesterday that the local authority's long-established policy is to oppose any nuclear waste coming into the area. "Our view is that our own nuclear waste should be dealt with in retrievable above-ground stores but that no nuclear waste should be brought into the Highlands," he said. The spokesman also stated that any debate would have to be Highland-wide and not confined to Caithness. "Any change to policy would require to be taken by those people elected to represent the council." g.calder@nosn.co.uk All content copyright 2007 Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. ***************************************************************** 70 times and star: Thorp re-opening delayed again Published on 09/03/2007 THE reopening of Thorp at Sellafield has hit another delay. It is now not expected to be fully operational until the second half of the year. British Nuclear Group (BNG), which operates Thorp under contract to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, was given consent to restart operations from the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate on January 10. It was expected the plant could reopen in April after checks on equipment associated with liquid high level wastes were expected to have been completed. But BNG stated in its February newsletter that the equipment checks are not now likely to be completed until ‘the middle of 2007’. Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment (CORE) question why further investigations, which could prove costly and frustrating, are necessary – and being carried out so late after inspectorate consent has already been given. Thorp was shut down after a large-scale spillage in April 2005 where 83,000 litres of dissolved reactor fuel, containing uranium and plutonium, leaked undetected over an eight-month period. Its reopening has been set back numerous times as a result of the extensive work needed to clean up the area and modify the cells where the fuel was stored. Consent has also had to be won at every stage of the clean-up. Results of a probe about the leak published this week by the Health and Safety Executive heavily criticised management at the site. No-one was injured and no radiation escaped but the report said failings had included staff ignoring alarms. BNG was fined £500,000 last year after it pleaded guilty to breaching aspects of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. The HSE made 55 recommendations and actions for company improvements. A spokesman for BNG said many had already been implemented. He added: “The incident was regrettable and clearly should not have occurred in the first place. “The company appreciates that mistakes were made which led to the leak and enhancements to workforce training, operating instructions and responses to alarms have been made.” www.timesandstar.co.uk/digitalcopy ***************************************************************** 71 Reduce, not Replace, our New Nuclear Weapons Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:32:41 -0800 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Reduce, not Replace, our New Nuclear Weapons Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 12:48:30 -0500 (EST) From: Erin S. - Peace Action West Reply-To: bounces@bounces.democracyinaction.org To: rogerh@energy-net.org Become a Member >>> My Profile >>> TELL YOUR FRIENDS Dear Roger, Even Henry Kissinger agrees—America's nuclear stockpile is way too big. In a /Wall Street Journal/ op-ed earlier this year, Kissinger and other former foreign policy leaders of all political stripes argued that the U.S. should take strong leadership towards ridding the world of nuclear weapons, including our own. Despite bipartisan agreement that reducing the number of U.S. nuclear weapons is long past due, the Bush administration continues to stubbornly push forward with its plans for a new generation of nuclear weapons. Last week, it announced its selection of the design for the first new American nuclear weapon since the end of the Cold War. * Take action to stop this dangerous weapon. * Just like its "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests" initiatives, the administration has given its new nukes program a misleading name, the "Reliable Replacement Warhead", and claims once the U.S. spends billions on a new, "more reliable" nuclear weapon, the stockpile can be reduced. The Bush administration's not telling the truth--there's no need for a more "reliable" weapon. Recent scientific studies have proven our current stockpile will remain reliable for at least 100 years, if not longer. There's no reason not to begin reducing the current stockpile now. Building new nukes will only encourage other countries to do the same. Thanks to the activism of people like you we killed Bush's first new nukes proposal -- the nuclear "bunker buster." Now, we must again pressure Congress to halt another new dangerous program, the Orwellian-named "Reliable Replacement Warhead". In the next few months, Congress will decide whether or not to fund this weapon. *Will you contact your representative today and ask that they oppose it? * Let's stop this new nukes program before it starts. Sincerely, Erin Sikorsky-Stewart Political Director *Prevent the Spread of Cluster Bombs* Senator Feinstein (D-CA) calls these weapons "the lethal relics of war." *You can help end the practice of using these bombs in civilian areas by writing your Senator today. * Celebrate 50 years with us! This is a message from Peace Action West 2800 Adeline Street Berkeley, CA 94703 510.849.2272 ***************************************************************** 72 [NYTr] Nuclear Lab Backs Down Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 20:17:46 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Don Stacey - Mar 9, 2007 For Immediate Release San Francisco Bay View http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/07/18373823.php=20 San Francisco - Nuclear Weapons Lab Backs Down Bob Sarvey: We have achieved ... a major victory. by Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner (San Francisco) March 6, 2007 - Bob Sarvey, a Tracy, California citizen/activist looked at the plan of the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab and said that it was wrong. Today the giant nuclear weapons lab waited until the last minute and withdrew the controversial nuclear radiation spreading proposal. More... http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/07/18373823.php * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 73 Pahrump Valley Times: Test site board plans session Mar. 09, 2007 LAS VEGAS -- A public meeting hosted by the Community Advisory Board (CAB) for Nevada Test Site programs is scheduled for 5 p.m. Wednesday, March 14, at 7710 W. Cheyenne, Room 130, in Las Vegas. The meeting will include updates from the CAB's working committees and a Radiation 101 presentation by U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration staff. The CAB is comprised of Southern Nevada volunteer citizens who provide the U.S. Department of Energy Nevada Site Office Environmental Management Program with informed recommendations on environmental activities at the Nevada Test Site. The CAB sponsors bi-monthly public meetings and is chartered under DOE's Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board. webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 74 DOE: DOE Selects 13 Solar Energy Projects for up to $168 Million in Funding March 8, 2007 First funding awards for Solar America Initiative to make solar technology cost-competitive by 2015 LOWELL, MA - U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced the selection of 13 industry-led solar technology development projects for negotiation for up to $168 million (FY07-09) in funding, subject to appropriation from Congress. These projects will help significantly reduce the cost of producing and distributing solar energy. As part of the cost-shared agreements, the industry-led teams will contribute more than 50 percent of the funding for these projects for a total value of up to $357 million over three years. These cooperative agreements, to be negotiated, will be the first made available as part of President Bushs Solar America Initiative (SAI), a component of his Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), announced in his 2006 State of the Union Address. Secretary Bodman made todays announcement while visiting Konarka Global Headquarters in Lowell, Massachusetts, one of the selected solar energy project sponsors. Solar technology can play a crucial role in moving toward affordable net zero energy homes and businesses which combine energy efficiency and renewable energy produced on-site. Efficient buildings with solar power generation can help reduce peak demand and ease the need for expensive new generating capacity, transmission, and distributions lines as our economy grows, Secretary Bodman said. President Bushs AEI challenges Americans to change the way we power our nation. As an integral part of the AEI, the Solar America Initiative aims to bring down the cost of solar energy to make it competitive with conventional electricity sources in the U.S. by 2015. The SAI is also part of the Presidents commitment to diversify our energy resources through grants, incentives and tax credits and; aims to spur widespread commercialization and deployment of clean solar energy technologies across America, which would provide long-term economic, environmental, and security benefits to our nation. The teams selected for negotiation have formed Technology Pathway Partnerships (TPP), which include companies, laboratories, universities, and non-profit organizations to accelerate the drive towards commercialization of U.S.-produced solar photovoltaic (PV) systems. These partnerships are comprised of more than 50 companies, 14 universities, 3 non-profit organizations, and 2 national laboratories. DOE funding is expected to begin in FY07, with $51.6 million going to the TPPs. In addition, the projects announced today will enable the projected expansion of the annual U.S. manufacturing capacity of PV systems from 240 MW in 2005 to as much as 2,850 MW by 2010, representing more than a ten-fold increase. Such capacity would also put the U.S. industry on track to reduce the cost of electricity produced by PV from current levels of $0.18-$0.23 per kWh to $0.05 - $0.10 per kWh by 2015 a price that is competitive in markets nationwide. As part of a broader effort to highlight the Bush Administrations bold energy initiatives, today, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Andy Karsner traveled to United Solar Ovonic in Auburn Hills, Michigan to highlight these selections and the Solar America Initiative. Tomorrow, Under Secretary for Science Dr. Raymond L. Orbach will travel to Boeing in Sylmar, California to discuss todays selections and meet with representatives from the solar industry. Solar energy is a clean, abundant, widespread, and renewable energy source that can be used to increase electricity generating capacity while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions as compared to other energy conversion pathways. Photovoltaic-based solar cells convert sunlight directly into electricity. They are made of semiconductor materials similar to those used in computer chips. When sunlight is absorbed by these materials, the solar energy knocks electrons loose from their atoms, allowing the electrons to flow through the material to produce electricity. The process of converting light to electricity is called the photovoltaic effect. Teams Selected For Negotiations under the Solar America Initiative Amonix - A low-cost, high-concentration PV system for utility markets. This project will focus on manufacturing technology for high-concentrating PV and on low-cost production using multi-bandgap cells. Partners for the project include CYRO Industries, Xantrex, the Imperial Irrigation District, Hernandez Electric, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Spectrolab, Micrel, Northstar, JOL Enterprises, the University of Nevada Las Vegas, and Arizona State University. Subject to negotiations, DOE funding for the first year of the project is expected to be roughly $3,200,000, with approximately $14,800,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. Boeing - High-efficiency concentrating photovoltaic power system. This project will focus on cell fabrication research that is expected to yield very high efficiency systems. The partners for the project will be Light Prescription Innovators, PV Powered, Array Technologies, James Gregory Associates, Sylarus, Southern California Edison, NREL, the California Institute of Technology, and the University of California Merced. Subject to negotiations, DOE funding for the first year of the project is expected to be approximately $5,900,000, with approximately $13,300,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. BP Solar - Low-cost approach to grid parity using crystalline silicon. This projects research will focus on reducing wafer thickness while improving yield of multi-crystalline silicon PV for commercial and residential markets. Project partners include Dow Corning, Ceradyne, Bekaert, Ferro, Specialized Technology Resources, Komax, Palo Alto Research Center, AFG Industries, Automation Tooling Systems Ohio, Xantrex, Fat Spaniel, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Recticel, the Georgia Institute of Technology, the University of Central Florida, and Arizona State University. Subject to negotiations, DOE funding for the first year of the project is expected to be approximately $7,500,000, with approximately $19,100,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. Dow Chemical - PV-integrated residential and commercial building solutions. This project will employ Dows expertise in encapsulates, adhesives, and high volume production to develop integrated PV-powered technologies for roofing products. Partners include Miasole, SolFocus, Fronius, IBIS Associates, and the University of Delaware. Subject to negotiations, funding for the first year of the project is expected to be roughly $3,300,000, with approximately $9,400,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. General Electric - A value chain partnership to accelerate U.S. PV growth. This project will develop various cell technologies including a new bifacial, high-efficiency silicon cell that could be incorporated into systems solutions that can be demonstrated across the industry. Partners include REC Silicon, Xantrex, Solaicx, the Georgia Institute of Technology, North Carolina State University, and the University of Delaware. Subject to negotiations, DOE funding for the first year of the project is expected to be roughly $8,100,000, with approximately $18,600,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. Greenray - Development of an AC module system. This team will design and develop a high-powered, ultra-high-efficiency solar module that contains an inverter, eliminating the need to install a separate inverter and facilitating installation by homeowners. Research will focus on increasing the lifetime of the inverter. Partners include Sanyo, Tyco Electronics, Coal Creek Design, BluePoint Associates, National Grid, and Sempra Utilities. Subject to negotiations, DOE funding for the first year of the project is expected to be roughly $400,000, with approximately $2,300,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. Konarka - Building-integrated organic photovoltaics. This project will focus on manufacturing research and product reliability assurance for extremely low-cost photovoltaic cells using organic dyes that convert sunlight to electricity. Partners for this project include NREL and the University of Delaware. Subject to negotiations, DOE funding for the first year of the project is expected to be $1,200,000, with approximately $3,600,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. Miasole - Low-cost, scalable, flexible PV systems with integrated electronics. This project will develop high-volume manufacturing technologies and PV component technologies. Research will focus on new types of flexible thin-film modules with integrated electronics and advances in technologies used for installation and maintenance. Project partners include Exeltech, Carlisle SynTec, Sandia National Laboratories, NREL, the University of Colorado, and the University of Delaware. Subject to negotiations, DOE funding for the first year of the project is expected to be $5,800,000, with approximately $20,000,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. Nanosolar - Low-cost, scaleable PV systems for commercial rooftops. This project will work on improved low-cost systems and components using thin-film PV cells for commercial buildings. Research will focus on large-area module deposition, inverters, and mounting. Partners include SunLink, SunTechnics, and Conergy. Subject to negotiations, DOE funding for the first year of the project is expected to be roughly $1,100,000, with approximately $20,000,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. Powerlight - PV cell-independent effort to improve automated manufacturing systems. This project will focus on reducing non-cell costs by making innovations with automated design tools and with modules that include mounting hardware. Partners include Specialized Technology Resources and Autodesk. Subject to negotiations, first-budget period funding for this project is expected to be approximately $2,800,000, with approximately $6,000,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. Practical Instruments - Low-concentration CPV systems for rooftop applications. This project will explore a novel concept for low-concentration optics to increase the output of rooftop PV systems. The project will also explore designs using multi-junction cells to allow for very high efficiency modules. Project partners include Spectrolab, Sandia National Laboratories, SunEdison, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Subject to negotiations, funding for the first year of the project is expected to be roughly $2,200,000, with approximately $4,000,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. SunPower - Grid-competitive residential solar power generating systems. This project will research lower-cost ingot and wafer fabrication technologies, automated manufacture of back-contact cells, and new module designs, to lower costs. Project partners include Solaicx, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NREL, and Xantrex. Subject to negotiations, first-budget period funding for this project is expected to be approximately $7,700,000, with approximately $17,900,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. United Solar Ovonic - Low-cost thin-film building-integrated PV systems. This project will focus on increasing the efficiency and deposition rate of multi-bandgap, flexible, thin-film photovoltaic cells and reducing the cost of inverters and balance-of-system components. Partners include SMA America, Sat Con Technology Corporation, PV Powered, the ABB Group, Solectria Renewables, Developing Energy Efficient Roof Systems, Turtle Energy, Sun Edison, the University of Oregon, Syracuse University, the Colorado School of Mines, and NREL. Subject to negotiations, funding for the first year of the project is expected to be roughly $2,400,000, with approximately $19,300,000 available over three years if the team meets its goals. For more information on the solicitation and facts about the Solar America Initiative, visit: http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/solar_america/. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), signed by the President in August of 2005, provides incentives for purchasing and using solar equipment. Now extended through 2008, these incentives could provide a credit equal to 30 percent of qualifying expenditures for purchase of commercial solar installations, with no cap on the total credit allowed. EPAct also provides a 30 percent tax credit for qualified PV property and solar water heating property used exclusively for purposes other than heating swimming pools and hot tubs. Private property owners of qualified property could be eligible for a credit up to $2,000 for either property, with a maximum of $4,000 allowed, if both photovoltaic and solar hot water qualified properties are installed. More information on available incentives for solar installations is available at: http://energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_tax_credits. Fact Sheets 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 ***************************************************************** 75 Hanford News: Bill would bolster technology parks: Some high-tech business parks could get state grants This story was published Friday, March 9th, 2007 Chris Mulick, Herald Olympia bureau OLYMPIA - The state House and Senate this week approved separate versions of a bill to give special designations to certain high-tech business parks and make them eligible for state grants. The criteria for designation for what is being called an innovation partnership zone is somewhat limited and north Richland - one of six areas selected last year to draw up a proposal - appears to be a good candidate. "They had a very compelling story with how this would work in the real world," said Marc Baldwin, economic policy adviser to Gov. Chris Gregoire. "The Richland story was very detailed." House Bill 1091 was approved 96-0 Thursday and the Senate approved its version, Senate Bill 5090, 48-0, a day earlier. Key differences remain - the Senate version provides more money but with more conditions. But at its core the bills would allow communities to seek the designation and compete for grants that would be used for roads, utilities and other amenities needed for a developing business park. Carl Adrian, president of the Tri-City Development Council, said the unique designation also would help in recruiting new businesses. "It's a great marketing spin," Adrian said. "We think it sends a strong signal to the rest of the country and the rest of the world," Baldwin said. In order to gain the designation from the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, an area must contain a university, a nonprofit research institution or national laboratory and high-tech businesses linked to those research organizations. North Richland is a possible site for an innovation partnership zone due particularly to the presence of Washington State University Tri-Cities and the nearby Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. "I'm really excited about it," Rep. Larry Haler, R-Richland, said of the bill. "When I saw it, I said 'Boy, somebody must have had us in mind when they wrote this.' " Adrian said other areas in the Tri-Cities, namely Vista Field in Kennewick and the Pasco Processing Center, also could explore seeking the designation. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 76 Hanford News: DOE proposes $1.9 billion for Hanford work: Funds would include second year of full funding for vit plant This story was published Friday, March 9th, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy is proposing a $1.9 billion budget for the Hanford nuclear reservation in fiscal year 2009. That figure, which does not include administration costs, is down $42 million from the Bush administration budget request for fiscal year 2009. But it's up $15 million from what Hanford officials expect to have to spend this year. The $1.9 billion figure includes a proposed second year of full funding for construction of Hanford's massive vitrification plant. However, for the third year in a row, funding would be at a reduced level at Hanford's tank farms. The remainder of Hanford cleanup, under the DOE Hanford Richland Operations Office, would receive $935 million. That's up from $917 million expected this year, but down from $975 million in the Bush administration budget request for fiscal year 2008. The 2009 budget target figures were released Thursday at a Hanford Advisory Board committee meeting. Each spring DOE headquarters sends Hanford officials target budget numbers for the fiscal year two years ahead. Hanford officials respond with a detailed plan on how the money would be spent and usually requests more money be added for specific projects. This is a particularly confusing budget period because budgets for fiscal years 2007, 2008 and 2009 are being worked on at the same time, after Congress failed to pass a fiscal year 2007 budget for the Department of Energy before the start of the fiscal year last October. Fiscal year 2007 budget numbers are not expected to become final for several weeks. At the same time, Congress is beginning discussions on the fiscal year 2008 budget numbers proposed by the Bush administration, and DOE officials are beginning work on the fiscal year 2009 budget. The Washington Department of Ecology is concerned about spending at Hanford's tank farms, where 53 million gallons of radioactive and chemical waste are stored in underground tanks. Work to empty leak-prone single-shell tanks of radioactive waste has slowed and proposed budgets for the tank farm are not adequate to speed the work up, said Melinda Brown, external budget planner for the Department of Ecology's Nuclear Waste Program. DOE missed the legally binding deadline to have 16 single-shell tanks emptied by last September. It now has six of the tanks emptied. The tank farm budget for 2007, 2008 and 2009 under the most recent proposals would drop about $50 million from the 2006 budget. Much of that decrease comes from no money allocated for a project to test bulk vitrification as a technology to supplement the treatment of radioactive waste from the tanks at the main vitrification plant. Both processes would immobilize waste left from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program in a sturdy glass form for permanent disposal. More work needs to be done to resolve technical issues before a bulk vitrification pilot plant is built, according to DOE. Although the state is concerned about tank farm funding, funding of $690 million proposed for 2008 for the $12.3 billion vitrification plant is good news, Brown said. The administration budget request for 2008 for the remainder of the work at Hanford under the Richland Operations Office is $75 million above the target request given Hanford officials by DOE headquarters last spring. Before Hanford officials successfully made their case that more money was needed, they were warning that the fiscal year 2008 budget would be slim. More details on how Hanford officials propose to spend money in 2009 should be available in a month. Also in mid-April, Hanford officials will be asking the public for its priorities on how cleanup money should be spent in 2009. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 77 Inside Bay Area: Arms race ends in bitter lab fallout Some Los Alamos scientists predict Livermore facility will fail to produce new bomb By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated: 03/09/2007 05:03:04 AM PST Inside the top-secret passages of the nation's nuclear weapons labs, scientists talk of a renaissance, a glorious return to inventing hydrogen bombs after a 20-year hiatus. But at one lab ? Los Alamos, the place most linked in history with nuclear bomb design ? such talk is less a celebration than a snarl. For more than a year, leading bomb scientists at Los Alamos tried ignoring tumult at the lab over security problems and new, corporate management, and instead poured themselves into designing a paradoxical bomb ? one so reliably destructive that the nation would need fewer of them. For inspiration, Los Alamos' weaponeers invoked the Manhattan Project and devised what could have been the world's first wholly new, multistage warhead without resort to nuclear explosive testing. Some suggested this new "reliable, replacement warhead," or RRW, could be the lab's future, its salvation from years of troubles. But in the week since the Bush administration tapped competing scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to design the first nuclear warhead in a replacement arsenal, scientists at Los Alamos have recoiled angrily and flung accusations in anonymous Internet postings that the warhead design competition was tainted by politics and doomed to failure. In the latest incarnation of a public lab blog, "LANL: The Corporate Story," Los Alamos director Michael Anastasio ? former director of Livermore Lab ? is pilloried as a traitor to Los Alamos and its weaponeers. He is cast as an instrument of a long-running conspiracy to shut down the famed birthplace of the bomb. Elsewhere, Los Alamos staff wishes openly for Livermore's failure in developing the new warhead for the Navy's submarine-launched missiles. "Well, as an embarrassed LANL RRW team member, I believe our task should become to do all that we can to kill this program we (far more than LLNL) created," wrote one commentator who claimed to have worked on the Los Alamos design. "The sooner the Navy scuttles this, the better." Another scientist added: "LANL don't lose hope yet! Even though RRW officially went to LLNL, LLNL has a long history of proposing and winning programs only for LANL to pick up the program and complete the job. My opinion is that LANL should sit back and watch as LLNL falls on their face technically once again." Such rivalries and jealousies are a hallmark of nuclear bomb design, American style. Years ago, a Livermore designer put it this way: "The Russians are the competition, but Los Alamos is the enemy." But even veterans of the Cold War, when Los Alamos and Livermore bomb physicists fought bitterly for the right to design the latest nuclear explosive for the military, don't remember reading or hearing such naked venom. Former Los Alamos director Harold Agnew was taken aback. "We competed with Livermore, and we wiped them out, but you didn't hear them crying," Agnew said. "Once in a while they did win something, and we didn't cry about it. There was never any cry-babying on either side." The big difference, of course, is that Cold War designers often addressed their counterparts in starchy telegrams and memos. There was no e-mail, much less the anonymous wilds of the blogosphere. Paul White, a former weapons designer who is chief of national security planning and policy at Los Alamos, said, "The most disgruntled find a way of venting in that kind of venue." And there was a lot to vent, because Los Alamos has been under extreme scrutiny from Congress and transition to new management. "So in that atmosphere with everybody sort of hypersensitized, news of the RRW competition strikes a little harder," White said. In the Cold War, there also was plenty of work to go around. Not so today. The first of the new warheads, designated RRW-1, is intended as replacement for the most numerous nuclear explosive in the U.S. arsenal, a Los Alamos design called the W76. Other RRWs are proposed for every bomb and warhead in the U.S. arsenal but the next design competition is more than a year away and highly dependent on the success of RRW-1. That's one reason why Livermore scientists dropped their usual inclination toward novel, feature-packed bombs and turned to a well-tested warhead from 20 years ago as the basis for their design. When federal weapons officials at the Defense and Energy departments reviewed the two designs, Los Alamos won higher marks for innovation, ingenuity and another goal of the replacement warhead ? exercising a full range of scientific and production skills. But Livermore's design was judged more likely to be finished by 2012, meeting the target date for manufacturing the first warheads, according to Marty Schoenbauer, acting head of weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration. "The Livermore design had a shorter distance to go," he said. 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 78 News10.net: Tracy Man Wins Fight Over Weapons Testing Written for the web by Cornell Barnard, Reporter San Joaquin Valley air officials have revoked a permit allowing the federal government to test its nuclear weapons arsenal near Tracy after learning the bombs might contain radioactive material like uranium. Regulators said they were tipped off by Bob Sarvey, a longtime Tracy shoe repairman-turned-activist. "The pollution district agreed with me. There is a health risk there and a closer look is needed," Sarvey said. For years, Sarvey has documented activity at Lawrence Livermore Lab's Site 300 between Livermore and Tracy, where weapons testing has occured for more than 40 years. Last year, lab officials applied to air regulators to increase test explosions from 100 pounds per year to 350 pounds. Lab officials deny any public health risks. They said it didn't include the information in its original application because depleted uranium has such low levels of radioactivity. The lab said it will appeal. Copyright 2007 News10/KXTV ***************************************************************** 79 UPI: U.S. nuke agency unveils performance pay United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 3/9/2007 1:49:00 PM -0500 WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration has given more details about its planned experiment with performance related pay. The NNSA, a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy said in a statement Friday that it had initiated "a major project to improve the way that it attracts and retains its employees through the potential for higher pay." "With the recent approval of the proposed demonstration project by the Office of Personnel Management, employees at NNSA are on track to join the small, but growing, number of government personnel who work under 'pay banding,' which is the collapsing of the current 15 government pay grades into broader pay bands or groups. The new system will also give managers the ability to reward outstanding performance with extra pay," the NNSA said. "NNSA's dedicated federal workers at headquarters and throughout the country are the department's most important asset. This new plan will give us the management tools that we need to attract and retain the kind of talent that NNSA needs to continue to carry out our vital national security mission," said Thomas P. D'Agostino, NNSA's acting administrator. In the new plan, the NNSA said its managers would have "greater flexibility to set higher pay for their employees through appointments, promotions, and performance evaluations." "The long-term goal of this project is to improve NNSA's recruitment efforts so that it can compete for high-quality candidates through the use of higher-entry salaries," the agency said. "Over the next year, NNSA will roll out the new demonstration project that will impact about 2,000 of NNSA's 2,500 federal workers," the statement said. "The project is expected to last up to five years and, if it is successful, it could become a permanent alternative to NNSA's current personnel system." Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 80 KnoxNews: Y-12 may make parts for controversial warhead By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com March 9, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Bomb builders at the Y-12 National Security Complex supported the design of the controversial Reliable Replacement Warhead, and - if Congress gives the go-ahead - the Oak Ridge plant will eventually produce parts for the new warheads. "Y-12's role in a future manufacture of the RRW will involve the production of secondaries and supporting components," Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at Y-12, said in response to questions about the program. Secondaries are the second stage of thermonuclear weapons, also known as hydrogen bombs. The National Nuclear Security Administration announced last week that a design from Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National laboratories in California had been chosen for the Reliable Replacement Warhead. The RRW program is designed to replace some existing warheads with a new version that is highly reliable, adaptable to changing military needs and easier and safer to manufacture. But the effort is broadly challenged. Critics say it is expensive and unnecessary and violates the intent of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "I think it's totally without merit," said Ralph Hutchison, a peace activist who has monitored the U.S. weapons program and Y-12's activities for many years. "I think it will trigger a new global arms race." If the United States launches production of a new weapon system, other countries that have shown restraint may feel compelled to rev up their nuclear programs, Hutchison said. "We will not be able to paint all these people as evil, like we have Iran and North Korea. Eventually, we'll have to look in the mirror." Y-12 historically has produced parts for every weapon in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The proposed work on RRW would involve the Oak Ridge plant's "core manufacturing capabilities," Wyatt said. "Unlike past systems, the RRW will be less reliant on hazardous or exotic materials and difficult-to-make components, which is a real plus for future operations at Y-12," he said. "For now, our role is to work closely with the successful California design team, to share ideas and to learn more about future manufacturing requirements and schedules associated with this weapon system." Oak Ridge officials earlier acknowledged Y-12's supporting role on the RRW. About $1.2 million was spent locally on the project in fiscal 2006. Wyatt said this year's funding for RRW work at Y-12 is about $1 million, with a similar amount projected for 2008. "These budgets are expected to vary dependent upon planning schedules that are developed over the next several months," he said in an e-mail response to questions. The RRW would be the first newly designed weapon system in the post-Cold War era. The United States currently maintains its arsenal through a series of "life-extension programs," which analyze the condition of deployed units and refurbish parts on a periodic basis. The RRW also would be the first new warhead to be produced and certified without nuclear testing. The United States stopped underground nuclear testing in 1991. According to information distributed by the National Nuclear Security Administration, the RRW design program was the first time that production facilities in the U.S. weapons complex - such as Y-12 - "fully participated" in the design process. That was intended to ensure that the parts are easier to manufacture and maintain, the NNSA said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 81 KnoxNews: Two Y-12 uranium leaks probed No workers were contaminated; suspect tank being monitored By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com March 9, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Two spills of an enriched uranium solution forced the shutdown of a uranium-recycling process at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, a plant spokesman confirmed Thursday. Bill Wilburn said the secondary-extraction process would remain on "administrative hold" until plant officials can fully determine why the solution leaked from a storage tank inside a Y-12 building. Secondary extraction is one of six chemical processes that Y-12 uses to recycle highly enriched uranium, a key material in nuclear warheads. The first spill, involving more than 2 gallons of enriched uranium solution, was discovered Feb. 6 during a routine evening "walk-down" at the facility. A second spill of about 8 ounces was reported a week later in the same area. Wilburn said no workers were contaminated in either incident, and he said there was no threat of "criticality" - an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction. The suspect tank is being monitored every two hours to check for new leaks, he said. According to a report by staff of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, investigators determined that the first leak was coming from flange gaskets "in the upper glass portion of multiple tanks." Secondary extraction and other processes are linked to the product storage tanks, the report said. "Certain glass section flanges had previously been known to leak, and tank levels were purposely kept below the glass section of those tanks," the report said. One issue apparently under investigation is how the tank levels got up to the leak-prone areas. After the second spill of enriched uranium solution, some material was removed from the storage system to ensure that liquids would not "rise to the leaking flanges," Wilburn said. "Data is being collected in the field to determine the cause of the unexpected movement of liquid and to identify any actions to be taken to prevent it in the future," he said. BWXT, the government's managing contractor at Y-12, has instituted "configuration control," which prevents unauthorized changes to the chemical processes and equipment and tracks authorized changes, Wilburn said. The plant's wet chemistry program has been plagued with problems, some of some of which are attributable to old equipment, and there have not been sustained operations of all processes for more than a decade. Wilburn, however, was reluctant to call the latest problems a setback. "While it is certainly not where we would like it to be, it is one of the issues that we have to deal with in a complex system like the wet chemistry process. It's a challenge," he said. "As always our first priority is safety. When we encounter situations like this we have to identify them, analyze them, correct them, and move forward." Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 82 AP: 2 spills force uranium processing shutdown at Y-12 plant March 9, 2007 OAK RIDGE (AP) -- An official for a Department of Energy contractor says two spills of enriched uranium solution forced the shutdown of a uranium-recycling process at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant.BWXT spokesman Bill Wilburn says no workers were contaminated. The processing work at the Y-12 plant will remain on hold until officials can determine why the solution leaked from a storage tank inside the plant. This is one of six chemical processes Y-12 uses in recycling highly enriched uranium, a key material in nuclear warheads. The first spill involved more than two gallons of enriched uranium solution. It was discovered February 6 during a routine inspection. A second spill of about eight ounces was reported a week later in the same area. Y-12 makes parts for every nuclear warhead in the U.S. arsenal and also is the nation's primary storehouse for bomb-grade uranium. Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This All content Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and WATE. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 83 WBIR.COM: Oak Ridge possible site for nuclear waste recycling center By: Robin Murdoch, Reporter Last updated: 3/8/2007 10:22:31 PM The home of the Atomic bomb could soon become a temporary home for nuclear waste. "It's the type of project that would advance science and advance the countries ability to be self sufficient for generations," says Lawrence Young, President and CEO of the Community Reuse Organization of East Tennessee or Croet. Oak Ridge is one of 11 communities studying the feasibility of what's called a recycling center. Young adds, "Is it suitable from a geologic standpoint? Is it suitable from a transportation stand point? Is it suitable from a population density standpoint ? That's what we are trying to analyze now. Does it make sense to locate it here? Croet recently received a grant to conduct the study. It's part of the President's push to expand nuclear power. "This would be an opportunity to repackage it, to reuse it, make it less dangerous and ultimately ship off items that still remain dangerous to a permanent repository," says Young. The spent fuel would be brought in by road and by rail. Right now, there are two recycling center sites under consideration on the Oak Ridge reservation. Stephen Smith, Executive Director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in Knoxville which opposes the idea says, "This isn't as simple as recycling an aluminum can. It's a dangerous process that's never been done successfully in the United States." Young adds, 'The people are ultimately going to decide whether we are an appropriate site. If we meet all the criteria, it's meeting the criteria. It's the communities acceptance that's going to decide if it's appropriate for Oak Ridge and Knoxville or not." Croet plans to host several public meetings in hopes of educating the area on the issue. An issue that's proving to be controversial from all angles. The final stop for the radioactive waste would eventually be a site like Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It could be several years before a decision on Oak Ridge is made. Copyright 2007 WBIR-TV Knoxville ***************************************************************** 84 NewsBlaze: DOE Seeking Input on Alternative Uses of Nickel Inventory The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking input from industry representatives on the safe disposition of approximately 15,300 tons of nickel scrap recovered from uranium enrichment process equipment at the Department's Oak Ridge, TN, and Paducah, KY, facilities. The Expression of Interest (EOI), released today, will assist in DOE's evaluation of restricted uses of its nickel material for controlled radiological applications. These restricted uses could include use in commercial nuclear power plants, DOE nuclear facilities, or by the U.S. Navy. The Department will solicit input through May 8, 2007. All qualified interested parties will be required to demonstrate their ability to obtain all required authorizations, licenses, personnel, and equipment to (1) accept and declassify any classified nickel scrap at a DOE approved facility; (2) transport, store, and process radioactively-contaminated nickel at a licensed radioactive materials facility; (3) disposition the unclassified and decontaminated nickel scrap into products suitable for use only in controlled government and/or commercial radiological applications; and (4) disposition all byproducts and residual wastes. DOE will evaluate alternatives submitted through the EOI only for restricted and regulated use of its processed DOE nickel. DOE will determine its future acquisition plans, if any, after reviewing the responses to the request for EOI and consistent with the outcome of the appropriate environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. An information meeting in Oak Ridge, TN, is tentatively scheduled for April 3, 2007, for registered participants. An information meeting in Paducah, KY, is scheduled for April 5, 2007, and includes a short tour to view the inventory. For more information on the EOI or on the information meetings, access www.fedbizopps.gov. Source: U.S. Department of Energy judythpiazza@gmail.com Copyright 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************