*****************************************************************
03/16/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.63
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 Guardian Unlimited: Major Powers Agree on New Iran Sanctions
2 Reuters: Iranian leader's trip to New York OK with U.N.
3 Reuters: CHRONOLOGY: Iran's nuclear program
4 Reuters: British nuclear plans serious setback - Iran envoy
5 Reuters: ANALYSIS: Major powers gradually raise pressure on Iran
6 Reuters: FACTBOX: Highlights of draft resolution on Iran sanctions
7 UPI: Analysis: Attacking Iran -- Part 1
8 UPI: Outside View: Russia resumes Bushehr work
9 Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Offers Power Generators to N.Korea
10 AFP: US says NKorea financial dispute resolved
11 AFP: US lawmakers threaten to block NKorea's removal from terror lis
12 UPI: Outside View: US rogue state U-turn
13 US: FR: NRC: Application for a License To Export Major Components of
14 RIA Novosti: will be able to evade U.S. ABM system
15 IRNA: Int'l Atomic energy agency wants India to join convention on s
NUCLEAR REACTORS
16 US: [NukeNet] Activists get tiny voice in nuclear hearings
17 [NukeNet] Cover-up of Uncontrolled Criticality Incident
18 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Assessment for Millstone Nuclear Plant
19 Guardian Unlimited: Russians Plan More Nuclear Power Reactors
20 World Nuclear News: PBMR under consideration for synthetic fuels
21 DAILY YOMIURI: Govt to give Shika N-plant extra checkup
22 Daily Yomiuri: Shika case raises N-concerns / Firm may have hid acci
23 US: NRC: NRC Issues First-ever Early Site Permit For Clinton Site in
24 Daily Yomiuri: Employee revealed cover-up
25 RIA Novosti: Russia to shift energy focus on nuclear power - Ivanov
26 US: Platts: Excelon's Clinton receives NRC's first-ever early site p
27 Radio Prague: Nuclear safety authority to present report on Temelin
28 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC rejects Mass. attempt to stop VY's rel
29 US: UPI: Exelon gets from early permit from NRC
30 US: AlterNet: How Reporters Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Nuclea
31 Japan Times: Hokuriku hid '99 reactor criticality accident
32 US: New London Day: NRC To Meet Thursday With Dominion, Nuclear Coun
33 US: TCPalm: NRC, FPL to meet on plant safety review
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
34 US: FR: DHHS Exposure investigation Cleveland Oh
35 US: UPI: Feds want cities to map radiation sites
36 US: FR: DHHS: Exposure investigation at Allied Chemical facility in
37 US: NAS: Committee to Review the NIOSH Respiratory Disease Research
38 US: STPNS: Veteran To Talk About Depleted Uranium, Socorro, New Mexi
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
39 US: AU: Herald Sun: Fever for uranium
40 Guardian Unlimited: Feds: $26.9 Billion for Yucca Mountain
41 US: RIA Novosti: Russia's TVEL corp. to ship nuclear fuel to Vietnam
42 US: NRC: NRC Announces Opportunity to Request a Hearing on Operating
43 US: Chillicothe Gazette: GNEP meeting location moves to Piketon High
44 US: Times-News: Nuclear reprocessing meeting draws large eastern Ida
45 JOJCC: Dump-site process 'needn't be thwarted by council'
46 US: FR: NRC: Request to Amend a License To Export Radioactive Waste
47 US: Daily Herald: EnergySolutions pulls dump expansion request
48 ITAR-TASS: Russia to set up uranium enrichment center - Ivanov
49 US: KNDO/KNDU: CH2M Hill Sets Waste Transfer Record
50 US: Deseret News: EnergySolutions, Huntsman reach N-waste accord
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
51 KnoxNews: Safety at Y-12 questioned
52 KnoxNews: Y-12 building evacuated after uranium chip fire
53 Seattle PI: Hanford's half-life gets longer and longer
54 Hanford News: Reach center hires official; Manager will run all acti
55 Hanford News: Radioactive waste piping continues; Newer tanks hold w
56 Hanford News: Rep. Hastings pushes for B Reactor preservation
57 UPI: DOE submits spending plan to Congress
58 lamonitor.com: Nuclear project faces opponents
59 NAS: Project: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology
60 NewsBlaze: Remarks As Prepared for Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay S
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Guardian Unlimited: Major Powers Agree on New Iran Sanctions
From the Associated Press
Friday March 16, 2007 8:46 AM
By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Six major powers sent a strong signal to Iran
that they remain united in seeking to rein in its nuclear ambitions,
compromising on a sanctions package to step up pressure on the
Islamic republic to suspend uranium enrichment.
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed to ignore any sanctions
and said the Security Council has ``no legitimacy.'' Yet he asked to
speak to the U.N.'s most powerful body before it votes on the
package, which is likely to be approved unanimously given it already
has support from five veto-wielding members - the United States,
Russia, China, Britain and France.
Thursday's agreement on the sanctions package culminated more than
two weeks of negotiations that included Germany. While the proposed
package is modest, the six nations regarded it as a success because
of the difficulty they have had coming to terms on Iran in the past.
South Africa's U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, the current council
president, said the 10 council members not involved in the
negotiations would need time to consider the proposed sanctions. A
vote is not expected before late next week.
Kumalo said U.N. rules require the council to consider Iran's
request to address the council before its vote. The council will
take up the request on Friday, he said.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that as a U.N. member, Iran
``should have a right to participate in any deliberations of any
organization of the United Nations.''
The proposed sanctions would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the
assets of 28 individuals and organizations involved in the country's
nuclear and missile programs. The package also calls for voluntary
restrictions on travel by the individuals subject to sanctions and
on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government.
The United States and its allies accuse Iran of seeking to develop a
nuclear arsenal. Iran denies the charge but refuses to suspend
uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for a nuclear
reactor or the material for a nuclear weapon.
Tehran's defiance also provoked U.N. sanctions in December, when the
Security Council ordered all countries to stop supplying Iran with
materials and technology that could contribute to its nuclear and
missile programs and to freeze assets of 10 key Iranian companies
and 12 individuals related to those programs.
Iran responded by expanding its enrichment program.
``These threats won't have one iota of effect on the strong will of
the Iranian nation,'' Ahmadinejad said at a rally Thursday in the
central city of Meibod. ``You cannot force the Iranian nation to
retreat'' on its nuclear program, the official Islamic Republic News
Agency quoted the president as saying.
Like the December resolution, the new draft asks U.N. nuclear chief
Mohamed ElBaradei to report to the council in 60 days on whether
Iran has suspended its enrichment activities.
``In 60 days from now if we have no answer, we will have more
sanctions,'' said French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin.
While the United States and the Europeans wanted tougher measures,
they knew only a modest package would win over Russia and China,
which have strong commercial ties with Iran.
``We would like to see the entire council on board,'' acting U.S.
Ambassador Alejandro Wolff said. ``Our goal is to do this as early
as possible.''
The proposed new draft would freeze the assets of 15 additional
individuals and 13 additional organizations and companies.
Seven of the individuals are top officers of Iran's Revolutionary
Guard and three of the organizations are affiliated with the elite
military corps, oversees vital Iranian interests, including oil and
natural gas installations and the nation's missile arsenal,
according to the annex to the draft resolution.
The draft resolution would ban Iran from supplying, selling or
transferring ``any arms or related material.'' All countries would
be prohibited from buying Iranian weapons. But there is no ban on
Iran buying arms though the draft calls on all nations ``to exercise
vigilance and restraint'' in supplying tanks, combat aircraft and
other heavy weapons.
In the financial area, it calls on all governments and financial
institutions not to make any new commitments ``of grants, financial
assistance, or concessional loans'' to the Iranian government
``except for humanitarian and developmental purposes.''
There is no travel ban, but all countries would be asked to exercise
``vigilance and restraint'' on the entry or transit through their
territory of the individuals whose assets have been frozen and to
report to a U.N. committee on those who show up.
---
Associated Press Writer Sarah DiLorenzo contributed to this report
from the United Nations
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
2 Reuters: Iranian leader's trip to New York OK with U.N.
Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:18PM EDT
By Evelyn Leopold
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. Security Council on Friday
accepted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's request to defend
his country's nuclear program when the 15-nation body votes on arms
and financial sanctions against Tehran.
The Iranian leader wants to address the council before members raise
their hands on the resolution but no date has been set for a vote,
said South African U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, this month's
council president.
"We transmitted the letter containing the request from the (Iranian)
ambassador that his president wants to lead the delegation," Kumalo
said. "We haven't received one objection." Since we told all 15 this
will happen I am assuming this will happen."
A draft resolution introduced to the council on Wednesday would ban
all Iranian arms exports but not imports and freeze financial assets
abroad of 28 individuals, groups and companies. These include the
state-owned Bank Sepah and some commanders of Iran's Revolutionary
Guard Corps.
The measure requires Iran to halt uranium enrichment and the
processing of nuclear fuel within 60 days after passage or face the
possibility of additional sanctions.
The United States has to issue a visa for Ahmadinejad. State
Department spokesman Sean McCormack could not say whether a visa
would be issued but noted that Washington had "in the past issued
visas for him as well as his traveling party when they have gone to
the U.N."
The United States and leading European nations suspect Iran is using
its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop weapons but
Iranian leaders insist the program is to generate electricity.
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
3 Reuters: CHRONOLOGY: Iran's nuclear program
Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:36PM EDT
(Reuters) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday
derided any new U.N sanctions resolution saying it would not stop
Tehran's nuclear work, a local news agency reported.
Following are events since Iran's nuclear program first came to
light. Iran says the program is purely peaceful but the West fears
it is attempting to produce nuclear weapons.
August 2002 - Exiled opposition National Council of Resistance of
Iran reports uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and heavy water
plant at Arak.
June 2003 - IAEA report says Iran failed to comply with nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
December 2003 - Iran signs protocol allowing snap inspections of
nuclear facilities.
February 2005 - President Mohammad Khatami says no Iranian
government will give up nuclear technology program.
September 2 - IAEA report confirms Iran has resumed uranium
conversion at Isfahan.
January 10, 2006 - Iran removes U.N. seals at Natanz enrichment
plant and resumes nuclear fuel research. Continued...
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
4 Reuters: British nuclear plans serious setback - Iran envoy
Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:51AM EDT
By Sophie Walker
LONDON (Reuters) - Iran, under fire from Western powers over its
atomic program, on Friday criticized Britain's plans to renew its
nuclear arsenal as a "serious setback" to international disarmament
efforts.
"Britain does not have the right to question others when they're not
complying with their obligations" under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's envoy to the
International Atomic Energy Agency, said at a conference.
Britain's parliament backed Prime Minister Tony Blair's plans to
renew the country's Trident nuclear weapons system on Wednesday.
Opposition votes helped Blair survive a major rebellion by members
of his own party.
Some within Blair's Labour party had argued that the decision would
send the wrong message to states such as Iran and North Korea, which
have drawn strong international pressure over their own nuclear
programs.
Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful, not to make weapons, but
faces new U.N. sanctions after refusing to halt potentially
weapons-related nuclear fuel work.
"It is very unfortunate that the UK, which is always calling for
non-proliferation ... not only has not given up the weapons but has
taken a serious step toward further development of nuclear weapons,"
Soltanieh told a conference examining the Trident decision.
Blair argued Britain must renew its nuclear weapons because
potential threats from countries such North Korea and Iran or
terrorists armed with nuclear weapons made it unwise and dangerous
to disarm. Continued...
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
5 Reuters: ANALYSIS: Major powers gradually raise pressure on Iran
Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:30PM EDT
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite Iran's defiant pursuit of its nuclear
program, major powers say their unified support for U.N. sanctions
is forcing Tehran to rethink its strategy and new penalties agreed
this week will raise that pressure even more.
Many Western officials believe it may be impossible to persuade the
rising Middle East power to halt its two-decade campaign to develop
nuclear weapons capability. So they are working to delay Tehran's
mastery of uranium enrichment and nuclear weapon production as long
as possible.
"I don't see any signs that the political elite in Tehran are
prepared to give up their ambitions to acquire a nuclear weapons
capability ... but I do think it's possible that (the major powers)
can succeed in buying some time. Everybody has a tacit interest in
stretching out this process," said Gary Samore, vice president at
the Council on Foreign Relations.
"The Europeans, Russians and Chinese genuinely fear another war. ...
They would like to get past the presidency of (George W.) Bush," he
said.
The U.N. process has been messy, exposing rifts among Germany and
the five permanent Security Council members -- the United States,
Russia, China, Britain and France -- leading the effort to curb
Iran's ambitions.
Although they have often stumbled over their own competing strategic
and business interests, on Thursday they agreed on a second U.N.
sanctions resolution after only two weeks of debate, compared to
several months for the first resolution.
RUSSIAN ROLE Continued...
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
6 Reuters: FACTBOX: Highlights of draft resolution on Iran sanctions
Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:56AM EDT
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Following are highlights of a draft
resolution on Iran, which were presented to the 15-member U.N.
Security Council on Thursday for consideration. A vote is
anticipated next week.
The text, obtained by Reuters, was drawn up by Germany and the five
permanent Security Council members -- the United States, Britain,
France, Russia and China.
It penalizes Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment work,
which can be used in a bomb or for peaceful purposes. The draft is a
follow-up to a December 23 resolution that imposed trade sanctions
on Iran's sensitive nuclear materials and froze the assets of
Iranian individuals and companies.
The new draft:
* Tells Iran again to suspend work on enrichment-related and
reprocessing and heavy water-related reactor projects, to be
verified by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. It
asks the agency to report within 60 days about whether Iran has
complied.
* Decides to extend an assets freeze to additional groups, companies
and individuals engaged in or supporting sensitive nuclear
activities or development of ballistic missiles. On the new list are
the state-owned Bank Sepah and firms controlled by Iran's
Revolutionary Guards Corp.
* Imposes an embargo on conventional weapons Iran can export but
calls on states to "exercise vigilance and restraint" in shipping
any heavy weapons to Iran.
* Calls on nations and international financial institutions not to
enter into new commitments for "grants, financial assistance and
concessional loans" to Iran except for "humanitarian and
developmental purposes." Continued...
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
7 UPI: Analysis: Attacking Iran -- Part 1
United Press International - Energy -
3/16/2007 8:36:00 AM -0400
By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent
WASHINGTON, March 16 (UPI) -- Uncertainties surrounding a potential
attack on Iran are plentiful, especially whether the tension over
its nuclear program will lead to violence. But the price of oil
would likely skyrocket to record heights and the regional and global
oil markets would have to hang on for the ride.
"If there's just an attack on nuclear facilities, and it's limited
and Iran limits its response, even then I still think you're seeing
oil probably at $80 (a barrel)," said Saad Rahim, manager of PFC
Energy's country strategies group. Oil settled at around $61
Thursday.
"Now if you actually hit Iran's oil facilities and you take the 2
million barrels per day off the market right now, and especially if
you get reverberations from the region, and you take another couple
million barrels off the market because of that, then you easily see
$100 (a barrel)," Rahim said.
"We are talking about a region where over a quarter of the world's
oil comes out of," Rahim said. "This type of situation I think would
be unparalleled even for that region in terms of its direct impact
on the oil trade and flow."
The U.N. Security Council will soon take up new sanctions, aimed at
forcing Iran to end the uranium enrichment program capable of
fueling both nuclear power plants and weapons.
Iran says its nuclear program is for energy only, not a bomb. But
international inspectors say Tehran doesn't provide enough
information to qualify that claim. Iran and the United States say
they want to negotiate, though shutting enrichment facilities is a
U.S. prerequisite Tehran won't meet. Iran wants to be able to fuel
its future nuclear power plants instead of relying on outside
suppliers. But enrichment was a stealth program until 2002, which is
why Iran's critics paint it with bomb motives.
The military option by the United States, Israel, and/or any
coalition, has not been ruled out.
"A military action will have a military response," Iran's top
negotiator, Ali Larijani, said Thursday.
Violence could surface either in conventional combat or via Iranian
proxies around the region and world. People would die, both in and
out of Iran; that's the only sure thing. As for the oil market, the
only variable analysts and experts agree on is the price will
increase.
"At least a month to several months, we'd see oil prices at
unprecedented levels," said Cliff Kupchan, director of Europe &
Eurasia for the business risk analyst Eurasia Group, "both because
of likely disruption and because of geopolitical tremors."
Iran exports about 2.3 million of the 3.8 million bpd of crude it
produces. "Iran is already facing some very serious challenges in
addressing its oil production decline in many of its larger fields
and participation from the international community will be
instrumental to help offset this decline and develop new fields,"
said Colin Lothian, senior Middle East analyst at Wood Mackenzie.
U.N. sanctions and the threat of attack hinder progress, he said.
"You would have to assume that all exports (of oil from Iran) would
stop," said James Placke, senior associate for Cambridge Energy
Research Associates, who says an attack would add $10 a barrel to
the price pumped higher by the tension, talk of and lead up to war.
That would severely threaten Iran's budget, perhaps another prompt
to look at its options for retaliating, none inconceivable and none
guaranteed.
Of the 85.9 million bpd the world consumes, 15.5 million heads to
market through the Straits of Hormuz, which Iran could attempt to
choke. It has threatened to, and threats are enough to scare the oil
market.
This would have a limited effect, since the U.S. military could
clear the way for tankers in a matter of days, but it would force
the global oil market to eat up more of its limited spare capacity,
tightening the market and pressing prices.
Then there are Iran's neighbors. Shiites, or Muslims in general,
anywhere could respond to a call to arms. Iraq could be deluged,
adding untold numbers to the battlefield the U.S.-led coalition is
struggling with already, and Iraq's fragile oil sector could be held
hostage. That's another 2 million barrels a day taken out of the
market.
"You could conceivably see, depending on the scope of the initial
attack on Iran and what their capabilities are after the dust has
settled, you could see them potentially going after installations in
Qatar or the United Arab Emirates, or even Saudi Arabia," Rahim
said. "And that would have a huge impact on global oil markets."
Kupchan said that would be likely only if those states assisted or
didn't condemn an attack on Iran. But Iranian allies already on the
outs with the United States and its allies -- like Hezbollah in
Lebanon, Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, or cells hidden
worldwide -- would likely react. Oil hit record levels this summer
as those two actors battled Israel.
Analysis: Attacking Iran -- Part 2
By BEN LANDO
UPI Energy Correspondent
WASHINGTON, March 16 (UPI) -- The nuclear plant in Bushehr, which
a Russian firm is building, is perhaps the lone part of Iran's
nuclear program not accused of being used for weapons aims,
though it could be once it has been fueled and if Tehran diverts
the fuel. But it still is a potential target if diplomacy fails
and Iran is attacked.
While the U.N. Security Council prepares new sanctions, Iranian
negotiators were in Moscow this week, trying to defuse a feud
with Bushehr's contractor.
Atomstroyexport, the state-run Russian nuclear export firm, says
Tehran is behind on payments for the $1 billion facility. Iran
says Russia is slowing progress on its first nuclear plant as
part of international pressure.
"Russia does not want another war in the Middle East," said Cliff
Kupchan, director of Europe & Eurasia for the business risk
analyst Eurasia Group. "They have lots of multiple and
contradictory interests in Iran, from wanting to really corner
the Iranian civilian nuclear market...substantial conventional
arms relationships, substantial interest in coordinating
(natural) gas exports."
Russia has limited U.N. sanctions, but "they are willing to do
what they can bilaterally to send a message that enough is
enough," Kupchan said.
While Russia wants to ensure Iran's nuclear program remains on an
internationally accepted course, both for Bushehr specifically
and Iran's economy as a whole, "the Iranians care much more about
obtaining an indigenous fuel cycle than they do about Bushehr,"
Kupchan said.
Atomstroyexport officials are to travel to Tehran to continue
negotiations. The company will still build Bushehr, work it says
has been slowed by lack of payment. Fuel for the plan won't be
delivered this month as scheduled; it has been delayed until an
unspecified time when Atomstroyexport deems Bushehr
technologically ready to accept it, the Russian news agency RIA
Novosti reports. Under contract terms, Russia would also retrieve
the fuel once it was used, eliminating proliferation concerns.
The plant won't come online in September either.
Tehran says its nuclear program is purely for energy purposes,
aimed at giving it the capability to be entirely self-sufficient.
It has signed onto international agreements that allow it to
proceed, though much of Iran's program was operating stealthily
until 2002, causing the international community to question
compliance with the pacts.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, said earlier this month that though inspectors
haven't found Iran using its nuclear program for bombs, Tehran is
still too secretive about the program as a whole.
"Quite a few uncertainties still remain about experiments,
procurements and other activities relevant to our understanding
of the scope and nature of Iran's program," ElBaradei said in a
statement to the IAEA Board of Governors. "This renders the
Agency unable to provide the required assurance about the
peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program."
The U.S. military can locate only a few dozen of the unknown
facilities that make up Iran's nuclear program. They are all
targets in an attack, as is Iran's military structure and
possibly oil facilities.
The impact on Iran's nuclear program, spread out and buried to
keep it safe, depends on how advanced it is at the time of the
attack.
"It is inconceivable that they would not have prepared for such
an eventuality," said Jon Wolfsthal, senior fellow at the Center
for Strategic and International Studies. "The question is not
could a military strike stop Iran's program, but could it delay
it and delay it enough to make a strike worthwhile."
"Anything that forces (Iran) to change gears could have an effect
on when their nuclear program comes to fruition," Wolfsthal said.
"But at the same time, I could see a scenario where you could
bomb, Iran restarts their program, and moves ahead much more
quickly, because they no longer have to fear international public
reaction. It might in the end accelerate Iran's nuclear program."
Beyond the bombs, chemicals from the nuclear program being
attacked would add to the death toll. "You would have local
contamination but you wouldn't have a radioactive release,"
Wolfsthal said. "You wouldn't have anything like a Chernobyl."
"Anybody who's likely to be killed by the bomb is likely to be
affected by the gaseous cloud," he said, adding "a small
criticality" is possible, "a small release of radiation when
uranium gets together in an uncontrolled way," though not on the
scale of a nuclear bomb exploding.
Bushehr isn't guaranteed a target, since it is being built by
Russia to provide electricity and has little application for
weapons unless nuclear fuel was diverted from it, though a hit
could be an expensive step back for Iran.
"It becomes on the target list when there's fuel there," said
Kupchan, "and it becomes an active target when Iran doesn't send
the fuel back to Russia. Then it's a serious target."
(Comments to energy@upi.com)
*****************************************************************
8 UPI: Outside View: Russia resumes Bushehr work
United Press International - Energy -
3/16/2007 8:54:00 AM -0400
By TATYANA SINITSYNA UPI Outside View Commentator
MOSCOW, March 16 (UPI) -- The executives of the Russian company
Atomstroyexport have decided to resume work on the Bushehr nuclear
power plant in Iran, which was suspended two months ago because of
the Iranians' failure to pay.
The Russians have explained this unexpected decision by the fact
that the lack of funding has triggered a major crisis in the
project's implementation. Specialists have begun to leave the site
because of the project's inactivity and vague prospects, and
suppliers have suspended deliveries of equipment.
"The absence of resolute measures could substantially damage the
project. We cannot afford to wait anymore for Iran's decision,
because any delay may trigger irreversible consequences," said
Vladimir Pavlov, head of Atomstroyexport's managing body for the
construction of the Bushehr NPP.
This is a typically Russian decision - any other country would be
unlikely to make such a sacrifice and work for free, hoping that its
partners will regain their conscience and sense of justice.
These events show that Tehran long ago rolled up the Persian carpet
that it laid out for Moscow in 1995 when it agreed to complete the
construction of the plant, which had been abandoned by Germany's
Siemens. As a result, Russia now has to walk on the rough terrain of
reality. The dispute surrounding the Iranian construction site has
been smoldering among the managers of the Bushehr project.
The two sides' positions have remained the same - Russia believes
that a further delay in construction would automatically suspend the
plant's commissioning, scheduled for September. Iran is sensitive
about any change in the deadline, and insists the plant should start
producing nuclear fuel in March, under the current schedule.
Mohammad Saidi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization,
said in no uncertain terms that though the Bushehr project had
financial and technical problems, they would only get worse if
Russia failed to supply Iran with nuclear fuel by this March. This
statement has an obvious political motive - to get fuel that the
plant is not yet ready to accept. But no declarations ensure nuclear
fuel supplies. Pavlov said that "fuel will be delivered to the
Bushehr plant in accordance with the relevant technological
regulations - half a year prior to commissioning, and not a day
before."
On the one hand, it is clear why the Iranians are nervous - they are
sick and tired of the delays in construction, which has been going
on for more than 30 years. The Germans let them down when they left
an almost completed plant in 1980 because of the Iranian-Iraqi war
(1980-1988), and now the Russians have become difficult.
But it makes no sense looking for culprits in the Bushehr project.
It has been delayed for objective reasons. Considering how unusual
the project is, the Russians' job was never supposed to be easy. The
project has no engineering analogues in the world. The Russians had
to complete what was started by a foreign mind. In the 1990s, Russia
experienced serious social, political and economic upheavals in the
wake of the Soviet Union's disintegration. Its experts would take
any job in order to keep up their skills. Unfortunately, the
contract to complete the Bushehr project was legally inadequate, and
generated all kinds of financial discrepancies.
The plant's shelled building had been exposed to the sun and the
winds of the desert for 15 years when the Russian experts arrived in
Bushehr. Still, scattering desert snakes and completing the
construction was not the hardest thing to do. It was much more
difficult to deal with the plant's equipment. Siemens had already
brought in 35,000 units of equipment, but many were useless. In the
course of an enormous engineering study, a joint Russian-Iranian
commission accepted no more than 5,000 units. They had to be adapted
to the Russian project, but this was difficult because of
differences in size and configuration. New equipment was also
required.
During the 12 years of Russia's presence in Bushehr, the
international situation has undergone a dramatic change. The
attitude to Iran is very different now. The United States has
accused Tehran of developing nuclear weapons. Many Westerners have
been worried about the construction of a nuclear plant on the
Persian Gulf coast. Russia has been presented with different bills
for cooperation with Iran, though construction of a nuclear power
plant is a peaceful and legal business under international law.
Today, the United States has been building up its forces in the
Persian Gulf area and considering the option of taking military
action against the "rogue country." If it does so, Russia's
interests will come under threat. What are the chances of an
American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities?
"I believe Washington is seriously considering this option now -
recent developments show that a military option is becoming more and
more likely," said Anton Khlopkov, an expert at the PIR Center for
Policy Studies, a nonproliferation think tank.
Countries with interests in Iran are bound to ponder their response
to a potential American attack. The Russian government is no
exception.
"They have been analyzing all possible scenarios of events not only
on Russia's borders, but also in more remote regions that have a
major influence on developments along the perimeter of those
borders. If there is a massacre in Iran, the territories adjacent to
Russia will be seriously affected," Khlopkov said.
Pavlov said that 2,000 Russian experts were working at the project.
When asked how much time he would need to evacuate them in the event
of hostilities, Pavlov gave a short reply: "I'm sure that will not
happen."
There is no doubt that in the event of a crisis Russia will take
care of its citizens. But would the Americans dare to strike
Bushehr? This is what Khlopkov thinks on this score: "If hostilities
break out, I don't think that Bushehr will be a priority target
because a strike at it would also be directed against Russian
citizens. Bushehr has nothing to do with the program of developing
nuclear weapons. Iran cannot use the project's technologies to
develop nuclear weapons, and American experts have already
acknowledged this fact. I hope that the U.S. will make a sober
decision on whether to strike or not. Diplomatic solutions have not
yet been exhausted, and it is necessary to continue searching for
them."
--
(Tatyana Sinitsyna is a commentator for the RIA Novosti news agency.
This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are
written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of
important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect
those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an
open forum, original submissions are invited.) --
(Comments to energy@upi.com)
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
9 Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Offers Power Generators to N.Korea
Updated Mar.16,2007 08:27 KST
Working group talks on energy and economic aid to North Korea on
Thursday saw the U.S. offer Pyongyang power generators for
civilian use if it shuts down its nuclear facilities. At the
Beijing talks, the director of Asian economic affairs at the U.S.
National Security Council, Kurt Tong, told North Korean chief
negotiator Kim Myong-gil, a minister in North Korea¡¯s UN
mission, that Washington can offer electric generators for
purposes like operating hospitals.
South Korea's chief nuclear negotiator Chun Yung-woo, who chairs
the energy working group, said that the U.S. will also
participate in an initial energy aid program to provide 50,000
tons of heavy fuel oil to the North in return for Pyongyang¡¯s
shutdown of nuclear facilities.
z U.S. chief nuclear negotiator Christopher Hill, who is in
Beijing to attend a plenary session of the six-party talks and a
working group meeting, talks to reporters on leaving his hotel on
Thursday./Yonhap
The U.S. is considering purchasing the power generators with
money from the federal budget and delivering them to the North
via NGOs that conduct humanitarian work there like the Eugene
Bell Foundation. Under the terms of the Feb. 13 six-party
agreement, North Korea will be given 50,000 tons of heavy fuel
oil if it takes initial steps to disable its nuclear facilities.
The South Korean government plans to send the oil to North Korea
in three shipments late this month or early next month, when
International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors return to the
North.
Meanwhile, an Australian diplomat said Thursday that North Korea
appears to be shutting down and sealing the Yongbyon nuclear
facilities. Peter Baxter, head of the Australian Foreign Ministry's
North Asia Division, visited North Korea for four days beginning on
Sunday at the head of an Australian government delegation. On the
way home, the delegation stopped over in Beijing, where Baxter,
without mentioning details, told reporters, "I heard nothing in my
discussions with the North Korean officials to indicate that they
were backtracking from that or seeking to impose new conditions
outside of those which have been discussed in the six-party process."
(englishnews@chosun.com )
*****************************************************************
10 AFP: US says NKorea financial dispute resolved
by Charles Whelan Fri Mar 16, 1:11 AM ET
BEIJING (AFP) - US negotiator Christopher Hill said Friday that a
dispute over financial sanctions against North Korea had been
resolved, clearing the way for progress in dismantling its
nuclear weapons drive.
Speaking before a fresh round of six-nation disarmament talks, Hill
said a US decision that could unlock 25 million dollars of frozen
North Korean funds had met one of Pyongyang's key demands.
"I think they want assurances that the financial issue is resolved,"
Hill told reporters in Beijing.
"Frankly I think it has been resolved," he said. "We have already
resolved it persuant to our obligations."
Hill, who had breakfast with Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN
nuclear watchdog, said he hoped to hold talks later in the day with
Chinese officials to allay their concerns.
In a ruling late Wednesday, the US Treasury Department barred US
banks from dealing with Banco Delta Asia, a Macau-based institution
it said had laundered money for the reclusive regime in communist
North Korea.
But crucially, the move allows Macau authorities to decide what to
do with the cash that has been frozen there since the United States
imposed financial sanctions on North Korea in 2005.
North Korea has not publicly responded so far, but China, which
hosts the six-party talks and is Pyongyang's closest ally, said it
deeply regretted the US decision, and Hill sought to be reassuring.
"I hope to see the Chinese sometime today," he said. "I think we are
just trying to explain some of the modalities and procedures about
how this has been resolved."
Hill confirmed that a senior Treasury official, Daniel Glaser, was
going to Macau, a former Portuguese colony, which returned to China
in 1999, for talks with officials over the weekend, and could
include a stopover in Beijing.
The financial sanctions issue was one of the major oustanding
hurdles to a February 13 accord under which Pyongyang promised to
begin shutting down its nuclear programme within two months in
exchange for energy aid and diplomatic concessions.
A follow-up round of disarmament negotiations, which group the two
Koreas, China, the United States, Russia and Japan, begins here
Monday.
Preparatory working groups have already started, including one
Friday that is aimed at setting up a permanent dispute resolution
and security mechanism for North East Asia.
North Korea's chief nuclear negotiatior Kim Kye-Gwan is expected to
arrive here Saturday.
ElBaradei, for his part, emerged Wednesday from a rare visit to
Pyongyang saying North Korea had told him it was committed to
disarmament as long as the financial sanctions issue was resolved.
It was his first trip to the North since International Atomic Energy
Agency inspectors were thrown out of there in December 2002.
North Korea conducted its first atomic test in October last year but
under global pressure signed the February 13 deal.
Under the accord, North Korea has 60 days to close down its main
Yongbyon nuclear facility in exchange for 50,000 tonnes of heavy
fuel and diplomatic concessions.
South Korea would provide the initial 50,000 tonnes while the United
States would share the cost of the first shipments to the North,
South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported late Thursday.
The North would eventually receive the equivalent of one million
tonnes of fuel aid if it completely disbanded its nuclear weapons
programme.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
11 AFP: US lawmakers threaten to block NKorea's removal from terror list -
Fri Mar 16, 1:59 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Three senior lawmakers from US President
George W. Bush's Republican party have warned they would resist
any attempt to prematurely remove North Korea from a list of
state sponsors of terrorism.
North Korea's removal from the list published annually by the US
State Department is a critical component of an accord reached among
six nations on February 13 under which the Stalinist state would
begin dismantling its nuclear weapons program.
It requires the United States to "begin the process of removing the
designation of the DPRK (North Korea) as a state sponsor of
terrorism" as the two nuclear rivals discuss normalization in
relations.
But the three Republican legislators from the House of
Representatives, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (news, bio, voting record),
Edward Royce and Donald Manzullo (news, bio, voting record), sent a
letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging caution in
Washington's diplomatic approach to resolving the nuclear crisis
with Pyongyang.
They said in a statement they "would resist any attempt to
prematurely remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of
terrorism."
The trio cited issues of North Korea's missile technology
proliferation, "continuing" counterfeiting of US currency and past
abductions of US, Korean and Japanese citizens.
"The State Department's list of terrorist states cannot be used as a
bargaining chip in diplomatic negotiations. It will ultimately lead
to a greater threat to American security in the future," the three
cautioned in the letter.
"The expeditious removal of the DPRK from the State Department's
annual list of state sponsors raises serious concerns over the
integrity of the list, which has gained additional relevancy in a
post-September 11th world," they said.
Ros-Lehtinen, Royce and Manzullo said that in order to remove North
Korea from the list, the United States must require Pyongyang to
cease any involvement in terrorist activities at least for four
years.
It should also resolve all outstanding cases of past terrorist
activities, including kidnapping cases, and a reported assassination
of a South Korean diplomat in Vladivostok, Russia, in 1996, and
abide by international anti-terrorism agreements.
"Until these requirements are met, there is no guarantee that North
Korea will not revert to activities that have earned it the
designation as a state-sponsor of terror," the letter concluded.
Under the February 13 accord, North Korea agreed to close and seal
its key Yongbyon nuclear facility -- long suspected to be the center
of its nuclear program -- within 60 days and admit UN nuclear
inspectors in return for 50,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil.
Both the United States and Japan are holding normalization talks
with North Korea under separate working groups established under the
accord reached in six-party talks that also included South Korea,
Japan, Russia and China.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 UPI: Outside View: US rogue state U-turn
United Press International - Security & Terrorism -
3/16/2007 8:56:00 AM -0400
By VLADIMIR SIMONOV UPI Outside View Commentator
MOSCOW, March 16 (UPI) -- Talks between high-ranking U.S. and North
Korean officials started in New York on Monday. They may lead to the
U.S. diplomatic recognition of the country which used to be the
worst enemy of the United States.
On Saturday, the United States is planning to hold an international
conference on settlement in Iraq with the participation of Iran and
Syria, which Washington once blacklisted as the "axis of evil".
This about-face of American diplomacy is all the more astounding
since it took place in a matter of a month and a half. In middle
January, (Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice reassured the Senate
that the United States would not go for any bilateral diplomatic
contacts with North Korea, Iran or Syria until they became
reasonably flexible on disputable issues. The U.S. Secretary of
State described the policies of these countries as "extortion"
rather than diplomacy.
This "extortion" is still in place, and it is Washington that has
become flexible. Recently, the six negotiators, including the United
States, reached agreement with Pyongyang under which North Korea
promised to shut down its main nuclear reactor in exchange for food
and fuel. Likewise, an invitation to take part in the Iraqi
conference has come as a surprise to Tehran, and moved Damascus to
the point of calling this initiative a "partial step in the right
direction."
Indicatively, these preludes to talks with the enemy were invariably
preceded by its public criticism for intrigues against American
interests.
Nobody could match Rice in the U.N. Security Council in her demands
for tough sanctions against North Korea after its nuclear test in
October. In the case of Iran and Syria, she also preceded the
invitation to the conference in Baghdad with a package of
confrontation-provoking speeches, and accused Tehran of
collaboration with the Shiite militants in attacking U.S. troops. To
sum up, each time dessert followed the bitter pill.
Meanwhile, the United States has been building up its positions for
future talks with the "axis of evil." But this was not its sole
purpose: Rice and her soul mates had to demonstrate anger at the
rogue countries to ward off accusations of inappropriate leniency to
America's old-time foes.
These accusations are somewhat justified. Since the start of war in
Iraq in 2003, the U.S. Administration and the political elite have
been split into two camps -- those who want to talk to the "axis of
evil" and those who are ready to deal with friends only.
The first group was represented by such patriarchs of diplomacy as
Henry Kissinger, members of the Iraq Study Group James Baker and Lee
Hamilton, and Rice herself, who has been backed in the last few
weeks by her new deputy John Negroponte. The isolationists include
Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations John Bolton, and other ideologists of the Project for the
New American Century.
The opponents of dialogue with the enemy triumphed in the first year
of the Iraqi war, but the recent developments at the remote
frontlines have dramatically reduced their control over foreign
policy.
The recent news has dealt a heavy blow at the isolationist clan -- a
group of top-ranking officers, advisers to Gen. David Petraeus, the
new commander of the American troops in Iraq have come to the
conclusion that the United States has six months to win the war in
Iraq. Otherwise, it will sustain a defeat like it did in Vietnam.
The November mid-term elections to the Congress have shown that the
majority of Americans do not support those who are prone to
defending national interests abroad with tanks rather than talks.
Last but not least, now that their term is expiring, President
George W. Bush and his administration are increasingly concerned
with their place in history.
In Washington's official view, the "axis of evil" continues to
exist, and has not become any better. But the American doctrine of
isolating objectionable countries has proved to be
counterproductive. Talking to friends is great, but talking to
enemies is sometimes vitally important.
(Vladimir Simonov is a political commentator for RIA Novosti.
Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do
not represent those of RIA Novosti.)
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
13 FR: NRC: Application for a License To Export Major Components of a Nuclear
Utilization Facility
Doc E7-4866
[Federal Register: March 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 51)]
[Notices] [Page 12637-12638] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16mr07-100]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(1) ``Public notice of receipt of an
application,'' please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has received the following request for an export license.
Copies of the request are available electronically through ADAMS and
can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html at the NRC Homepage.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be
filed within 30 days after publication of this notice
[[Page 12638]]
in the Federal Register. Any request for hearing or petition for leave
to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the
applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive
Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520.
In its review of the application for a license to export major
components of a nuclear utilization facility as defined in 10 CFR Part
110 and noticed herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health,
safety or environmental effects in the recipient nation of the facility
to be exported. The information concerning the application follows.
NRC Application for License to Export
Major components of a nuclear utilization facility
Description of facility End use Country of destination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Applicant: Westinghouse Reactor Coolant Pumps For electricity Republic of South
Electric Company. (RCPs) and RCP Motors and generation at the Korea.
other nuclear power plant Shin-Kori Units 3 and
equipment for use in the 4 nuclear power
construction of two (2), reactors.
1400 MWe pressurized water
reactors (PWRs).
Date of Application: February 21,
2007.
Date Received: February 26, 2007.
Application Number: XR171.
Docket Number: 11005673.
Dated this 5th day of March 2007 at Rockville, Maryland.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Margaret M. Doane,
Deputy Director, Office of International Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-4866 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
14 RIA Novosti: will be able to evade U.S. ABM system
Opinion & analysis - Russia
16:47 | 16/ 03/ 2007
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) - The
Russian leaders have apparently formulated their so-called
asymmetrical reply to the comprehensive American anti-ballistic
missile (ABM) program. Russia's measures will also be comprehensive,
and they appear to be quite well structured.
The United States is working to deploy a global ABM system that
would be effective against intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBMs) and intermediate-range missiles with a range of up to 5,000
km (3,107 miles).
Leaving aside arguments concerning which possible adversary might
launch such missiles against U.S. territory, I must still say that
Russia has a good reason to be alarmed by Washington's plans to
deploy its ABM systems and early-warning radars in Europe.
There are two aspects to this problem.
First, Russia will take asymmetrical measures. Just like the Soviet
Union did during the Strategic Defense Initiative (commonly called
Star Wars) period, Russia will focus on strengthening and improving
its offensive nuclear missile capability.
This is a logical choice, considering two factors.
For one, offensive weapons will have the upper hand over defensive
systems for a long time yet. Therefore, the current standards of
military technology will prevent ABM systems from intercepting the
required majority of incoming ICBM warheads equipped with evasion
systems.
And then, the improvement of offensive arms with a view to evading
ABM defenses will remain, in the foreseeable future, the cheapest
reply to the deployment of such defenses, whose creation will cost
Washington some $60 billion by 2015. Although Russia's defense
budget is several times smaller than the American one, it can
nevertheless maintain superiority in terms of cost-effectiveness and
feasibility.
Second, recent events have shown that a potential large-scale
military conflict would most likely involve intermediate missiles
supported by aircraft. This means that now is the time to consider
designing aerospace theater-defense systems.
Such comprehensive fifth-generation aerospace systems, incorporating
anti-air and anti-space defense elements, can be created at Russia's
Almaz-Antey corporation. First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov,
a possible presidential candidate and former defense minister,
announced the news at a meeting of Russia's Defense Industry
Commission in late February.
The new systems, primarily those designed to combat theater-level
ballistic missiles, will incorporate the best elements of the S-300
(NATO reporting name SA-10 Grumble) family of low- to high-altitude
surface-to-air missile systems, and of the S-400 Triumph systems
that are to be put on combat duty in 2007.
General of the Army Vladimir Mikhailov, commander-in-chief of the
Russian Air Force, said at a meeting with foreign air force attaches
on March 13: "We are working on a new air defense system that will
be considerably better than the S-400. We have laid the groundwork
to move from theory to practice."
If the Russian concept of replying to the U.S. ABM challenge is
implemented in accordance with the state armaments program, Moscow
will have the requisite offensive and defensive capability to repel
a potential aerospace attack by 2015.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
15 IRNA: Int'l Atomic energy agency wants India to join convention on spent
fuel safety -
New Delhi, March 16, IRNA
India-IAEA-Fuel Safety
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it continues to
persuade India to become a party to the joint convention on safety
of spent nuclear fuel from its atomic reactors.
New Delhi has been maintaining that spent fuel from the reactors is
only a resource material and not waste.
The convention is an instrument that deals with the safety of
management and storage of radioactive waste and spent fuel in
countries with or without nuclear power.
Visiting IAEA Deputy Director General T Taniguchi told reporters in
Mumbai, India's business capital, Thursday that India is party to
all safety conventions of the nuclear watchdog, except the one on
safety of spent fuel and radioactive management, said a Zeenews
report.
Till date, 43 countries, including Iran, the US and Russia, have
signed the joint convention, said Taniguchi, who is on a four-day
visit to India.
There is a global harmonization that is emerging in nuclear safety
and security aspects and networking efforts are needed to support
this , he said and asked New Delhi to sign the key convention.
Atomic Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman S K Sharma, who
accompanied Taniguchi for his meeting with Atomic Energy Commission
Chief Anil Kakodkar on Monday, said Kakodkar told the IAEA official
that "We do not consider spent fuel as waste but a resource material
for producing electricity".
*****************************************************************
16 [NukeNet] Activists get tiny voice in nuclear hearings
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:45:51 -0800
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2007/03/15/031biznuke.html
By MARGARET NEWKIRK
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/16/07
Georgia environmental groups will have a seat at the legal table as Southern
Co.'s Georgia Power tries to get federal permits for two new nuclear units
at Plant Vogtle near Augusta.
But it isn't much of one.
A three-judge Atomic Safety Licensing Board handling Southern Co.'s nuclear
expansion application ruled Thursday that six environmental groups can have
legal standing in the process of permitting Southern Co.'s new reactors.
But the groups will only be able to argue about the effect new plants could
have on fish and water quality in the Savannah River.
The board refused to grant them legal standing to argue about a range of
other issues, including broader public energy policy and the continuing lack
of a permanent place to store the nation's nuclear waste.
"We've got a pinkie finger in the door," said Sara Barczak, of the Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy.
The groups are the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Atlanta WAND,
Savannah Riverkeeper, Center for a Sustainable Coast, Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League and Turner Environmental Law Clinic.
Southern Co.'s proposed reactors are part of a wave of similar planned
projects across the country, particularly in the South.
Barczak said other environmental challengers have fared worse.
Challengers ended up with no legal standing in the process of permitting new
nukes in Mississippi. In Virginia, they were limited to arguments related to
the effects new nuclear plants would have on just one kind of fish.
Georgia Power does "not believe the intervenors have identified genuine
issues of fact or law that are material to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's licensing process," spokesman John Sell said.
"We believe that all relevant issues have been handled appropriately in the
early site permit application," he said. "We'll continue through the legal
process."
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
17 [NukeNet] Cover-up of Uncontrolled Criticality Incident
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 15:11:20 -0800
The article below in today's Asahi Shimbun newspaper covers the most
spectacular example in a growing list of malpractices and cover-ups at
nuclear power plants in Japan that have been exposed in the last few
months. (Articles for Nuke Info Tokyo will be uploaded onto CNIC's web
site sometime in the next week or two.)
During a periodic inspection 3 control rods at the Shika-1 nuclear
power plant (BWR, 530 MW) dropped out, leading to a 15 minute
uncontrolled criticality incident. At the time, the heads of both the
pressure vessel and the containment vessel had been removed.
No report given after reactor hit critical state
03/16/2007
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN
Hokuriku Electric Power Co. failed to report to the government that one
of its nuclear reactors had temporarily reached a self-sustaining chain
reaction in 1999, company officials said Thursday.
The critical state was reached at the No. 1 reactor of the Shika Nuclear
Power Plant in Ishikawa Prefecture at around 2 a.m. on June 18 that year
after three control rods slipped from their proper positions.
The rods failed to return to their proper places, and nuclear fission
continued for about 15 minutes before the rods were repositioned to
their correct state. This meant the 540,000-kilowatt boiling-water type
reactor was out of control during that period.
No one was exposed to radiation.
On the decision of the power plant's chief, Hokuriku Electric did not
report the incident to the government.
Officials of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency at the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry described the incident as "extremely grave."
The agency suspects the company may have violated reactor-related laws
that mandate reports about certain reactor incidents.
The agency on Thursday ordered the company to shut down the reactor and
to submit a detailed report on the 1999 incident.
"This greatly jeopardizes trust toward the operation of nuclear reactors
in Japan," Kiyoshi Sakurai, a commentator on technology issues, said.
He said there was a recent problem with one control rod in a reactor in
operation, but an incident with three rods falling out of place should
never happen.
According to Hokuriku Electric officials, covers on the reactor were
open for a regular inspection at the time, and all 89 control rods were
inserted into the core from below the reactor, a state that ensures the
reactor remains halted.
Preparations were being made to test the reactor's function to stop.
However, three rods fell from their position when the valves of a
water-pressure control rod drive system were being closed, although they
should have stayed open.
A manual from Hitachi Ltd. wrongly stated that the valves should be
closed for the test, officials said.
Leaks were found in the hydraulic control rod drive mechanism. Safety
valves intended to release water pressure remained closed, indicating
that the three rods were forced out under pressure from the water.
After the rods failed to rise into position, a nuclear reaction started
and reached a critical state, according to the power company.
A warning system indicated an increase in neutrons that trigger fission,
but a safety system failed to activate and the control rods remained out
of position. Workers then manually operated the valves to return the
rods to the core 15 minutes later.
The incident was discovered in interviews with workers as part of an
in-house probe.
The government ordered companies to conduct the investigations following
a number of falsified data cases by power companies that have come to
light since last fall.
The criticality at the reactor was not entered in the operation log
book, and there is no evidence that workers informed the next shift
about the incident.(IHT/Asahi: March 16,2007)
*****************************************************************
18 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Assessment for Millstone Nuclear Plant at Two
Public Meetings Scheduled for March 22
News Release - Region I - 2007-007 -
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I
475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406
www.nrc.gov
CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330
Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s annual assessment of
safety performance at the Millstone nuclear power plant, in
Waterford, Conn., will be the subject of two public meetings on
Thursday, March 22.
At 3 p.m., NRC staff will meet with representatives of plant owner
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., to discuss the assessment, which
covers the period from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2006, and was documented
in a March 2nd letter to the company. The session will take place in
the Lelan F. Sillin, Jr., Training Center, located at the plant on
Rope Ferry Road.
Then at 6 p.m., NRC staff will present the review results to
Connecticut’s Nuclear Energy Advisory Council (NEAC) at
Waterford Town Hall, 15 Rope Ferry Road in Waterford.
Before both meetings are adjourned, NRC staff will be available to
answer questions from the public on the performance of the Millstone
plant, as well as the role of the NRC in providing oversight of
plant safety.
“Each year we take a step back to size up plant performance
during the previous calendar year, with the overarching goal of
ensuring that facilities are achieving the levels of safety that are
essential to protecting the public and the environment,” said
NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins, who noted the agency
also conducts mid-year assessments of performance. “At the
meetings on March 22, members of the public will receive information
about how we go about that review process for Millstone and other
nuclear power plants across the nation. The NRC staff will also be
prepared to answer questions from attendees.”
The annual assessment letter for Millstone is available on the NRC
web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/mill_2006q4.pdf.
Notices for the meetings, with agendas attached, are available in
the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) under accession numbers ML070670489 and ML070670485. ADAMS
is accessible via the agency’s web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is
available by contacting the NRC’s Public Document Room at
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at PDR@NRC.GOV.
Overall, the Millstone plant operated safely during 2006. The NRC
utilizes color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators
to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with
“green” and then increase to “white,”
“yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the
safety significance of the issues involved. Because all of the
performance indicators for Millstone Units 2 and 3 were determined
to be “green” and there were no inspection findings
greater than “green” at the end of 2006, the plant will
receive the baseline, or routine, level of inspections in 2007.
The NRC staff did identify five “green,” or of very low
safety significance, inspection findings with documented
cross-cutting aspects in the area of problem identification and
resolution in 2006. The findings were cross-cutting in nature, that
is, they were commonalities in several areas of performance
associated with operability determinations. However, the NRC staff
determined that Dominion appropriately responded to the issues
through a range of corrective actions.
Also, a “white” performance indicator for Unit 2 in the
area of shutdowns (automatic or manual) with loss of normal heat
removal was closed out during the third quarter of 2006 following a
root cause evaluation by the company and a supplemental inspection
by the NRC.
Routine inspections are performed by three NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region
I Office in King of Prussia, Pa., and the agency’s
headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant performance
to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are Unit 3 containment
sump modifications, radiological safety, dry cask storage of spent
fuel and emergency preparedness.
Current performance information for Millstone 2 is available on the
NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MILL2/mill2_chart.html.
Current performance information for Millstone 3 is available on the
NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MILL3/mill3_chart.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 16, 2007
*****************************************************************
19 Guardian Unlimited: Russians Plan More Nuclear Power Reactors
From the Associated Press
Friday March 16, 2007 7:01 PM
MOSCOW (AP) - Government officials said Friday that Russia will
build two nuclear reactors annually through 2015, and increase to
four a year by 2020 in an effort to sharply increase atomic power
generation, according to Russian news agencies.
First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, one of two likely
contenders to succeed President Vladimir Putin in next year's
election, said Russia should not rely exclusively on dwindling oil,
gas and other hydrocarbons.
``The need to diversify our energy balance is obvious,'' Ivanov was
quoted as saying by ITAR-Tass, Interfax and RIA Novosti.
Russia has 31 reactors at 10 nuclear power plants, accounting for 16
percent to 17 percent of its electricity generation. Putin has
called for raising the share of nuclear-generated power to at least
25 percent by 2030.
Ivanov said that Russia will launch two 1,000-megawatt nuclear
reactors a year under a program for which the government has
allocated $26 billion through 2015.
``Nuclear industry must become a backbone of Russia's modern energy
sector,'' Ivanov was quoted as saying.
Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Nuclear Power Agency, said
that starting in 2016, Russia will be building three reactors a year
and four annually beginning in 2020, the agencies said.
In recent years, Russia has overcome a public backlash against
nuclear power that followed the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, and the
government has supported efforts to revive the industry.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
20 World Nuclear News: PBMR under consideration for synthetic fuels
16 March 2007
PBMR Pty has held talks with Sasol concerning the use of its Pebble
Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) in the production of synthetic fuels.
South African PBMR Pty is also discussing the advanced reactor's use
in extracting oil sands.
PBMR is a small helium-cooled reactor, which its development
company, PBMR Pty, says is intrinsically safe. Rated at 400-500 MWt,
the modular units could be employed in 'packs' to deliver that
thermal power to industrial facilities, generate 165 MWe of
electricity each, or a mixture of both.
PBMR Pty's Tom Ferreira confirmed to WNN that Sasol has inquired
about using the reactor in its synthetic fuel production. One of
Sasol's gas-to-liquid (GTL) products, GTL diesel, is a
cleaner-burning vehicle fuel essentially made from atmospheric
oxygen and natural gas. The manufacturing process, however, is
energy intensive and is usually powered by heat from on-site
combustion of natural gas and electricity from the grid. Using
dedicated nuclear reactors to provide the electricity and heat would
reduce the overall carbon impact of the fuels, while reducing
natural gas consumption by 30%. Sasol also use the same process to
make GTL naphtha, a paraffinic fuel for ethylene production.
PBMR Pty have identified the Hybrid Sulfur Thermo (HyS) process of
manufacturing hydrogen from water. Ferriera said that 750 degreee
Celsius heat produced by PBMR could power this process, producing
streams of oxygen and hydrogen from an input of water.
The carbon impact of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels could also be
reduced by employing nuclear heat. Current CTL technologies use
coal, water, electricity, hydrogen and oxygen as feedstock. Ferreira
suggests that a PBMR could provide all those inputs except coal for
very low emissions of carbon dioxide.
Sasol's chief executive, Pat Davies, said: "Obviously we are keen to
pursue technologies to help us reduce our carbon footprint."
In addition, Ferreira told WNN that his company had held talks with
other oil companies, particularly in Canada: "An opportunity exists
to provide nuclear-generated process steam to the oil sands
industry."
Ferreira said the use of PBMR to generate steam would not entail
extra regulatory implications, but that extra regulation would be
required for installation in a hydrogen production facility. This is
something yet to be fully addressed. Furthermore, the employment of
nuclear reactors by traditionally non-nuclear companies would
require serious consideration from safety authorities. It is
possible that new expert non-electricity nuclear operating companies
could be spun-off from existing nuclear organisations, but there are
no plans for this yet.
PBMR Pty is currently preparing to start construction on a
demonstration PBMR unit at the Koeberg site in South Africa, which
already hosts two pressurized water reactors. Construction should
start in 2008 with operation in 2012. South African authorities
foresee constructing a fleet of 24 PBMR units for electricity
generation between 2016 and 2030.
Further information
PBMR Pty
Sasol
WNA's Nuclear Power in South Africa information paper
WNA's Non-Electricity Uses of Nuclear Energy information paper
WNN: Not 'if' but 'when' for nuclear oil sands
*****************************************************************
21 DAILY YOMIURI: Govt to give Shika N-plant extra checkup
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency will conduct a rigorous
checkup ahead of a scheduled regular checkup on a nuclear reactor in
Shikamachi, Ishikawa Prefecture, where a criticality accident in
1999 was covered up.
Three control rods inserted from underneath into the reactor core
slipped out during a regular checkup, causing the reactor to
reactivate. However, the operator, Hokuriku Electric Power Co., did
not report the accident at the Shika nuclear power station to the
government, and the cover-up was only discovered Thursday.
The company suspended operation of the nuclear reactor at 6:27 a.m.
Friday, after being instructed by the government to do so. Three
officials from the Ishikawa prefectural government and Shikamachi
town government inspected the reactor at 9 a.m. and confirmed it had
completely stopped.
The government has been conducting safety inspections on the No. 1
and No. 2 reactors, and will start even more thorough checkups from
Monday.
An electric generation turbine at the No. 2 reactor was damaged due
to a design error by Hitachi Ltd., and the reactor has not been
operating since July. Repairs will be completed in April and
operations will resume after an inspection by government officials.
===
Plant head ordered cover-up
The head of the power station decided the criticality accident
should be covered up, it has been learned.
Company sources also said a procedure manual on how to open and
close water pressure adjustment valves contained errors, which led
the control rods to drop.
The test manual compiled by Hitachi and the power company
incorrectly instructed that the valves should be closed, when
instead they should be opened in preparation for accidents, as in
this case.
)
The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun
© The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
22 Daily Yomiuri: Shika case raises N-concerns / Firm may have hid accident
to ensure public trust in reactor
The revelation that a criticality accident that took place in 1999
at the Shika Nuclear Power Station in Shikamachi, Ishikawa
Prefecture, resulted from a series of human errors has increased
concerns that slacker safety measures in place during safety checks
could lead to a future disaster.
The findings also have prompted the question of why Hokuriku
Electric Power Co. concealed such a serious incident.
During a meeting Thursday to discuss details of the accident with
Kenkichi Hirose, director general of the Nuclear and Industrial
Safety Agency of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, Hokuriku
Electric President Isao Nagahara reportedly received some candid
advice from the former.
Hirose is said to have told Nagahara, "It's regrettable that an
incident like this wasn't reported immediately," and to have ordered
the company to investigate the cause of the accident and ensure
measures were in place to prevent a recurrence.
Nagahara later told reporters: "I think employees at the time
believed not reporting the incident wouldn't become a problem. I
think they also wanted to keep quiet about it so officials in head
office wouldn't find out."
He added, "I think there's a feeling among workers that head office
won't understand some of the [technical] issues."
The incident occurred on June 18, 1999--two months before the
company received approval from the local government to construct a
second reactor at the power station, and against the backdrop of an
ongoing lawsuit demanding that operations be halted at the No. 1
reactor.
The incident also took place about three months before another
serious accident at a plant run by JCO Co., a nuclear fuel
processing firm in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture. Some observers
believe that had the accident at Shika Nuclear Power Station been
made public, the JCO accident could have been prevented.
At a press conference in Kanazawa on Thursday, a Hokuriku Electric
executive revealed that the head of the power station at the time
had said he believed public trust in nuclear power may have been
seriously damaged if the accident was made public, especially as it
happened shortly after problems with an emergency power generator.
However, the former head reportedly said he did not recall the
matter during the company's internal investigation, the executive
added.
The accident occurred while operations at the reactor were halted
for annual checks.
Shika's No. 1 reactor is a boiling-water reactor. Control rods for
this type of light water reactor are inserted and removed using
water pressure controlled by a drive unit beneath the reactor's
pressure vessel.
To affix a control rod after insertion, workers must adjust the
valves controlling the water pressure.
While workers were preparing for a test involving the quick
insertion of one of the control rods, an operational error and valve
malfunction occurred simultaneously, leading to an uncontrolled
chain reaction that lasted 15 minutes.
The accident was only discovered during recent internal
investigations into the falsification of data at nuclear power
plants, which the government instructed power firms to conduct on
all nuclear, thermal and hydraulic power plants.
In January, Tokyo Electric Power Co. found that workers at
Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station in Niigata Prefecture
concealed the failure of emergency equipment to cool the reactor
core of the No. 1 reactor during a regular inspection by the
government in 1992. As a result, the reactor passed the inspection.
A further two cases of emergency shutdowns at reactors also were
found to have been concealed, while Tohoku Electric Power Co. found
similar efforts to conceal problems.
In November, NISA ordered the internal investigations in the wake of
revelations that data had been falsified at nuclear plants operated
by TEPCO and Chugoku Electric Power Co. The results of all
investigations are due to be submitted later this month.
Observers believe the series of problems experienced by TEPCO and
Hokuriku Electric will make it difficult for other power firms
compiling reports to continue to hide serious incidents. They also
believe that as this is the first time for internal investigations
to be undertaken on such a large scale, it is possible that more
cases of past wrongdoing will surface.
The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun
© The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: NRC Issues First-ever Early Site Permit For Clinton Site in Illinois
News Release - 2007-07-035 -
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 has issued the first-of-a-kind
Early Site Permit (ESP) to the Exelon Generation Co. for the
Clinton ESP site near Clinton, Ill.
Successful completion of the ESP process resolves many
site-related safety and environmental issues, and determines the
site is suitable for possible future construction and operation
of a nuclear power plant. Exelon filed its ESP application
September 25, 2003. The permit is valid for up to 20 years.
During that time, Exelon must still apply to the NRC for a
Combined License to build one or more nuclear plants on the site
before any significant construction can occur.
The NRC continues to work on three other ESP applications; Grand
Gulf in Mississippi, North Anna in Virginia and Vogtle in
Georgia. The staff has completed its technical review of the
Grand Gulf and North Anna applications. The Grand Gulf
application is before the Commission for its decision, and the
North Anna application is currently the focus of a hearing by the
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB). The staff expects to
issue a draft environmental impact statement and initial safety
report on the Vogtle application by late summer.
The NRC staff’s technical review of the Clinton ESP
application covered issues independent of a specific nuclear
plant design, such as how the site’s characteristics affect
plant safety, environmental protection, and plans for coping with
emergencies. The staff issued a final safety evaluation for the
Clinton ESP in February 2006, and a final environmental impact
statement in July 2006. The ASLB conducted a hearing on the
matter and ruled Dec. 28, that the permit could be issued. The
Commission on March 8 directed the staff to issue the permit.
Copies of the Clinton ESP and related documents are available on
the agency’s Web site at this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/clinton.html. The
documents are also available for inspection at the NRC’s
Public Document Room in Rockville, Md., and at the Vespasian
Warner Public Library in Clinton.
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 16, 2007
*****************************************************************
24 Daily Yomiuri: Employee revealed cover-up
An employee working at the No. 1 reactor of Hokuriku Electric
Power Co.'s Shika Nuclear Power Plant at the time of a
criticality accident in June 1999 blew the whistle on the
company's failure to report it, it has been learned.
The company set up an internal facility inspection committee in
December under instructions from the Nuclear and Industrial
Safety Agency of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry.
The committee surveyed several hundred engineers at the plant in
Shikamachi, Ishikawa Prefecture, asking them if there had been
any inappropriate operations at the facility and other related
questions.
Out of those questioned, one employee said, "It seems as though a
criticality accident was covered up."
The committee continued to question relevant people, including
the informant, and was able to confirm Tuesday there had almost
definitely been a cover-up. The information was released
Thursday. )
© The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
25 RIA Novosti: Russia to shift energy focus on nuclear power - Ivanov
13:12 | 16/ 03/ 2007
MOSCOW, March 16 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian government will review
its energy strategy in April to increase the share of nuclear power,
hydroelectric and coal industries in power generation, the first
deputy prime minister said Friday.
Russia is likely to experience an energy deficit in the future if it
continues to rely on thermal power generation mainly based on
non-renewable reserves of natural gas.
"The nuclear power industry must become a solid foundation for power
generation in Russia if we want to reduce our dependence on natural
gas," said Sergei Ivanov, addressing the collegiate of the Federal
Nuclear Power Agency (Rosatom).
"We must diversify our fuel and energy balance and develop efficient
technologies to ensure energy security and increase competitiveness
in our economy," he said.
Russia has 31 operating power reactors at 10 nuclear power plants
(NPPs) with a total installed capacity of 23.2 MWe. The average
current share of NPPs in electricity generation is 16.5 percent.
Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Rosatom, said Friday that Russia is
planning to put in service three power reactors annually starting
2016, and in 2018-20 this number could increase to four.
Ivanov, who recently was entrusted with the important task of
supervising the country's nuclear power and defense industries, said
a new executive body will be formed in the near future to take
centralized control over the civilian nuclear power sector following
the merger of four existing nuclear power "dinosaurs" - TVEL,
Techsnabexport, Rosenergoatom and Atomstroyexport.
The State Duma, the lower house of Russia's parliament, passed in
January a presidential bill to reform the country's nuclear power
sector and to facilitate its development.
"We are going to establish a holding company, Atomenergoprom, which
will assume control over the civilian nuclear power sector," Ivanov
said, adding that
Atomenergoprom, which will be wholly controlled by the government,
is expected to be a large full-cycle corporation engaged in
activities ranging from uranium extraction, fuel fabrication and
electric power generation, to the construction of nuclear power
plants, both domestically and abroad.
Ivanov also said Friday that Russia could expand its uranium ore
production and become third in the world in terms of identified
uranium ore reserves in the future.
A 2006 report Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand,
jointly prepared by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), estimates the identified
amount of conventional uranium resources to be about 4.7 million
tons.
The report places Russia ninth on the list of countries that possess
largest reserves of uranium ore with 172,000 tons (over 3% of global
supply).
RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
26 Platts: Excelon's Clinton receives NRC's first-ever early site permit
Washington (Platts)--15Mar2007
Exelon received an early site permit for its Clinton site in Illinois at a
ceremony held March 15 at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. About 50
people attended the ceremony to mark the agency's issuance of a first-ever
ESP, which allows Exelon up to 20 years to reserve the site for future
construction of a nuclear power plant.
Among those attending were NRC Office of New Reactors Director
William Borchardt, who signed the permit;
NRC Executive Director for Operations Luis Reyes; Deputy
Executive Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs William
Kane;
Exelon Nuclear Vice President of Project Development Marilyn
Kray; DOE's Rebecca Smith-Kevern;
two representatives of Clinton;
and other Exelon and NRC staffers.
Exelon currently operates a 1,077-MW BWR at the Clinton site.
The permit resolves certain site suitability, environmental and
emergency planning issues.
It is considered a partial construction permit and authorizes
limited preconstruction activities. Exelon will have to apply for
a combined construction permit-operating license before it can
begin actual plant construction.
Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
27 Radio Prague: Nuclear safety authority to present report on Temelin faults -
[16-03-2007] By Pavla Horakova
The Temelin nuclear power plant in South Bohemia never seems to
leave the front pages. It is criticised on a regular basis by the
Czech Republic's fiercely anti-nuclear neighbour Austria as well
as domestic opponents of atomic energy. They say it's dangerous
because it combines western operating technology with old Soviet
design. Two leaks of slightly radioactive cooling liquid in
recent weeks prompted Industry Minister Martin Riman to call for
a personal meeting with the heads of Temelin's operator CEZ and
the State Authority for Nuclear Safety.
Temelin nuclear power plant
Heads did not roll on Thursday as some had perhaps expected,
including Environment Minister Martin Bursik of the Green Party who
had called for the dismissal of the head of the nuclear safety
authority, Dana Drabova. Mr Bursik was also present at the meeting
on Thursday and said Ms Drabova should be held accountable for
Temelin's technical faults. Industry and Trade Minister Martin Riman
disagrees and says Temelin is safe.
"The events had no effect on nuclear safety. They did not occur
during the operation of the power station but during a planned
downtime. They were caused by human error. As a result the station
management and CEZ management adopted a set of measures. They are
part of a broader system of safety measures at the Temelin nuclear
power plant."
Nevertheless, the four participants of Thursday's meeting agreed
that the power company CEZ and the State Authority for Nuclear
Safety would submit a comprehensive report in a month's time listing
all the technical faults at Temelin since it began operating and
also the reactions of the nuclear safety authority to them.
Environment Minister Martin Bursik says the report will show how
efficient the body is.
Martin Riman, Dana Drabova, Martin Bursik, photo: CTK
"An overall assessment of the functioning of the nuclear safety
body, its independence, its professionalism and above all the
authority it can assert over the CEZ power company cannot be done on
the basis of one or two events but we need an overview of all the
faults that have occurred at Temelin."
In a month's time, government ministers will discuss the Temelin
report and decide on potential personnel changes. The head of the
State Authority for Nuclear Safety, Dana Drabova, says she is
prepared to accept the cabinet's decision.
"I agree with Deputy PM Bursik that it is necessary for us to be
able to show and defend the results of our work. The submission of
the report will be a good opportunity for that. If we succeed, we'll
be glad and if we fail it will be up to the government to decide
what steps to take."
[16-3-2007 17:00 UTC]
Radio Prague, Vinohradska 12, 120 99 Prague 2, Czech Republic
tel: +420-2-2155 2900, fax: +420-2-2155 2903 © Copyright
1996-2007 Radio Prague, All Rights Reserved E-mail: cr@radio.cz
*****************************************************************
28 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC rejects Mass. attempt to stop VY's relicensing
By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff
Friday, March 16
BRATTLEBORO -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled today that
the Massachusetts attorney general can't ask for a stay in the
license renewal process of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant
"because it is not a party to the proceeding."
The Massachusetts attorney general had contended that the storing of
spent fuel for an additional 20 years would have significant
environmental impacts. It submitted a petition for intervention
challenging Entergy, the owners of Vermont Yankee, and its
environmental report for failing to include an analysis of the
long-term effects of storing spent fuel.
In January, the five-member Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied
appeals by the attorney general calling into question previous
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board denials of the attorney general's
contentions.
"In each of the challenged decisions, the licensing board found the
contention inadmissible," wrote the commission, in its January
decision.
"The Mass AG's motion has not shown any basis for us to reconsider
the ruling," wrote the commission in its finding released Thursday.
A motion for reconsideration, wrote the commission, must demonstrate
"compelling circumstances, such as the existence of a clear and
material error in a decision."
The commission wrote that the attorney general's argument "goes to
the supposed 'ambiguity' concerning the decision's finality. She has
not demonstrated a 'clear and material error' in our affirming the
two board decisions we were reviewing."
The attorney general had appealed the January decision, and at the
same time, submitted a request for rulemaking that would ask the NRC
to consider the environmental effects of spent fuel during the
generic environmental impact statement process.
The rulemaking petition is before the NRC and it could take up to a
year for the agency to make a decision. The attorney general had
asked the NRC to suspend the relicensing process until the
rulemaking petition is heard.
"The petition for rulemaking is a more appropriate avenue for
resolving (the) generic concerns about spent fuel fires than a
site-specific contention in an adjudication," wrote the commission.
Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311,
ext. 273.
MNG Corporate Site Map
*****************************************************************
29 UPI: Exelon gets from early permit from NRC
United Press International - Energy -
3/16/2007 1:03:00 PM -0400
ROCKVILLE, Md., March 16 (UPI) -- Exelon Nuclear announced it
received an Early Site Permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Friday.
The permit, given during a signing ceremony at the NRC office in
Rockville, Md., is the first permit of its kind in the industry. It
allows Exelon to reserve the property near the Clinton Power Station
in Clinton, Ill., for a potential new reactor for up to 20 years.
While it also resolves site suitability, environmental protection,
and emergency preparedness issues associated with the site, it does
not authorize construction of a new plant.
"The issuance of the permit demonstrates the viability of the
application process, which is a significant contribution to the
industry's efforts for licensing new plants," said Chris Crane,
president and chief nuclear officer of Exelon.
If the Chicago company decides to build a plant, it has to apply for
a Combined Operating License, allowing construction and operation of
a nuclear power plant. That licensing requires a separate process
involving additional public input.
Plant construction depends on finding a solution to the used fuel
disposal issue, community acceptance, the right reactor technology
and favorable economics, Crane said.
Exelon began the permit process in 2002 and filed its application
with
the NRC on Sept. 25, 2003. The Clinton site, Exelon said, was
selected because it originally was designed for two units, but only
one was built. Also, the area already has an established workforce
and it's location is conducive to easy electricity generation and
distribution.
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
30 AlterNet: How Reporters Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Front Groups
By Diane Farsetta, Center for Media and Democracy.
Posted March 16, 2007.
We're having a lopsided discussion on energy issues in America
because the nuclear industry has funded it that way.
"We just find it maddening that Hill & Knowlton, which has an $8
million account with the nuclear industry, should have such an
easy time working the press," concluded the Columbia Journalism
Review in an editorial in its July / August 2006 issue.
The magazine was rightly bemoaning the tendency of news outlets
to present former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore and former
EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman as environmentalists who support
nuclear power, without noting that both are paid spokespeople for
a group bankrolled by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI
represents nuclear power plant operators, plant designers, fuel
suppliers and other sectors of the nuclear power industry. Hill &
Knowlton is NEI's public relations firm, though it's not the only
firm working to build support for nuclear power.
Thanks in part to an ongoing, multifaceted PR push -- along with
very real concerns about energy prices, rising energy demand, aging
infrastructure, sustainability and global warming -- nuclear power
is attracting serious attention from reporters and policymakers
alike. The question is whether a vital public debate over energy
choices is being skewed by deep-pocketed interests with a dog in the
fight.
The dangers of such distortions are especially acute at the state
and local levels. That's where efforts to extend the licenses of
existing nuclear power plants, to maintain or expand nuclear
waste storage facilities, and to site new proposed nuclear power
plants, are made or broken. And that's where pro-nuclear
campaigners appear to be focusing, adopting the mantle and
tactics of community groups while steadfastly refusing to provide
details on their operations.
Persistence Pays Off
All manner of businesses promote themselves every day, but the
nuclear power industry's need for good PR is tremendous. No new
nuclear plants have been ordered in the United States since 1979,
the year of the Three Mile Island meltdown. The Yucca Mountain
national repository for nuclear waste -- originally scheduled to
open in 1998 -- is now slated to begin accepting waste in March
2017. Experienced nuclear engineers are becoming scarce; nearly 30
percent of the industry's workforce "will be eligible to retire
within five years," the Scripps Howard News Service reported in
April 2006. And even with what one Forbes columnist described as
"all this corporate welfare," potential "investors remain wary of
construction risks" for new nuclear power plants, explained an
energy sector analyst.
The industry's future is so precarious that Exelon Nuclear's head
of project development warned attendees of the Electric Power
2005 conference, "Inaction is synonymous with being phased out."
That's why years of effort -- not to mention millions of dollars
-- have been invested in nuclear power's PR rebirth as "clean,
green and safe."
The nuclear power industry has been promoting itself as part of
the solution to global warming for a decade. Industry
representatives appeared en masse at a 1998 climate change
conference in Buenos Aires, according to environmental consultant
Alan Tate. "They inundated the international negotiators,
including with what appeared to be a number of front groups like
Students for Nuclear Power," he told reporter Liz Minchin. By
2005, nuclear industry spokespeople were "giving much more
polished performances at climate meetings and negotiations."
Entergy's Vermont Yankee nuclear power station
Entergy, which owns and operates 10 U.S. nuclear power plants, has
worked with the PR giant Burson-Marsteller for at least five years.
In April 2002, Entergy's communications director told O'Dwyer's PR
Daily that the firm had been hired "mainly for the Indian Point
issues" -- the security and environmental concerns raised by the
company's Indian Point nuclear power plant, located outside New York
City -- "but its work now includes handling the overall image of the
company." In 2003, Entergy created the "Coalition Against Shutting
Down Vermont's Electricity Options" and spent $200,000 to oppose a
citizen campaign to close the company's Vermont Yankee nuclear plant
in 2012.
And then there's NEI, which exists to do PR and lobbying for the
nuclear industry. In 2004, NEI was embarrassed when the Austin
Chronicle outed one of its PR firms, Potomac Communications
Group, for ghostwriting pro-nuclear op/ed columns. The paper
described the op/ed campaign as "a decades-long, centrally
orchestrated plan to defraud the nation's newspaper readers by
misrepresenting the propaganda of one hired atomic gun as the
learned musings of disparate academics and other nuclear-industry
'experts.'"
In January 2006, NEI signed an $8 million contract with Hill &
Knowlton. The objectives included developing "a national coalition
that would 'activate and expand on' existing nuclear energy
supporters, engaging employees, shareholders, academics, health
experts, and environmental organizations," and "'pre-empting and
offsetting' criticism from opponents," wrote the Holmes Report. With
the firm's help, NEI launched what is possibly its greatest PR
triumph, almost exactly two years after the op/ed controversy.
Building the Nuclear CASE
The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy) held its inaugural
press conference on April 24, 2006, just two days before the 20th
anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster. CASEnergy
is fully funded by NEI, and supported by Hill & Knowlton, along with
the polling firm Penn Schoen & Berland.
CASEnergy is not the first business-funded coalition to support
nuclear power. In May 2001, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce formed the
Alliance for Energy & Economic Growth, "to support proposals
that boost [energy] supply, promote investment in the energy
infrastructure, encourage alternative energy sources and efficiency
without mandates, and fund programs to help low-income energy
consumers." The pro-nuclear alliance, whose steering committee
includes NEI, hired former Congresswoman and Vice Presidential
candidate Geraldine Ferraro to lobby for the Yucca Mountain waste
repository. But the alliance never received the attention that
CASEnergy is now enjoying.
From a November 2005 action (Source: Greenpeace)
That's due in large part to the choice of Patrick Moore, a
media-savvy and polarizing figure, as CASEnergy's co-chair and
most public spokesperson. As he explained at the group's launch,
Moore's role is to "speak and write to press the group's agenda,
as well as to coordinate efforts," reported Nucleonics Week. His
past work with Greenpeace has proved an irresistible hook for
many reporters, even though his association with that group ended
in 1986. Moore has now spent more time working as a PR consultant
to the logging, mining, biotech, nuclear and other industries
(since at least 1991, or 16 years) than he did as an
environmental activist (from 1971 to 1986, or 15 years).
"Part of the thinking, surely, was that the press would peg
[Moore and fellow co-chair Christie Whitman] as dedicated
environmentalists who have turned into pro-nuke cheerleaders,"
reasoned the Columbia Journalism Review. The magazine added, "in
some stories, columns and editorials, the San Francisco
Chronicle, the Boston Herald, the Baltimore Sun, the Richmond
Times-Dispatch, the Rocky Mountain News, The New York Times, and
CBS News all referred to Moore as either a Greenpeace founder or
an environmentalist, without mentioning that he is also a paid
spokesman for the nuclear industry."
Both NEI and Moore decline to say how much he's paid; Whitman
won't answer that question either. Presumably, the nuclear
industry feels it's getting its money's worth. A Nexis news
database search on March 1, 2007 identified 302 news items about
nuclear power that cite Moore, since April 2006. Only 37 of those
pieces -- 12 percent of the total -- mention his financial
relationship with NEI.
Industry representatives don't just showcase Moore to reporters.
In response to a safety question at a public debate on nuclear
power in Madison, Wis., on December 7, 2006, NEI's Lisa
Stiles-Shell said, "Patrick Moore, the former co-founder of
Greenpeace -- he's now very in favor of nuclear power -- often
brings up an example of the Bhopal incident in India, 1986 -- a
huge chemical accident. ... It was a disaster. But the response
was not, 'We have to close down the chemical industry.' The
response was, 'We have to make the chemical industry safer.' And
that's exactly what nuclear has done, after Chernobyl and after
Three Mile Island." She did not disclose Moore's paid position
with NEI. When I asked about it, Stiles-Shell responded, "You
can't change his mind with money."
Current Greenpeace leaders and other environmental activists have
repeatedly distanced themselves from Moore and questioned his
claims. Greenpeace advisor Harvey Wasserman recently wrote,
"Moore exaggerates his role in Greenpeace and his credentials as
a scientist to serve as a public relations hack." But these
protestations have mostly been ignored. When they are raised,
Moore dismisses them as further proof of the irrationality of his
former colleagues.
Taking It to the States
What debate there has been about Moore's nuclear advocacy has
focused on media coverage and national-level issues. Meanwhile, "a
large part of CASEnergy's work" has proceeded "at the state and
local level," as Nucleonics Week reported in April 2006. "The group
is planning four or five 'state-level launches,'" added the trade
publication, quoting a low-profile CASEnergy spokesman -- and Hill &
Knowlton senior vice-president of corporate communications -- Don
Meyer.
"Much of [CASEnergy's] work will be aimed at increasing public
backing and winning support at the 'very local level' for plant
siting and licensing," Environment & Energy News wrote the same
month, also quoting Meyer. In September 2006, National Journal
reported that CASEnergy "will hit the road this fall with town
hall meetings, local press events, and such in New Hampshire,
Iowa, Illinois, and Michigan."
And hit the road they have.
Patrick Moore
In October, Patrick Moore headlined a CASEnergy event in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa. He was joined by local officials and representatives
of business and labor groups at the Duane Arnold Energy Center, the
state's only nuclear power plant. Moore "called on Iowans to join
the CASEnergy Coalition," according to the group's press release,
which referred to the event as "Iowa's CASEnergy kick-off."
Some "15 members of the Iowa House of Representatives Democratic
caucus back the [CASEnergy] coalition," reported the Cedar Rapids
Gazette. One legislator told the paper that "the coalition doesn't
necessarily expect its efforts to yield another nuclear plant in
Iowa," but the state's "first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses
put the group in a position to influence a change in national energy
policy." That's surprising, as federal policy already provides
billions of dollars in nuclear industry subsidies, including for new
nuclear power plants.
Moore was in Detroit the following month, calling on "Michigan
residents to join the CASEnergy Coalition." That event was billed
as CASEnergy's "Michigan kick-off" and also included a state
legislator and representatives of local business and labor
groups. Crain's Detroit Business noted that the pro-nuclear event
came as the state's public service commission was readying its
comprehensive energy plan for the governor.
Patrick Moore has been much busier than these -- the only events
listed on the CASEnergy website -- suggest. He's brought his
pro-nuclear road show to at least 10 other U.S. cities since last
April. (See related SourceWatch article.) And CASEnergy isn't the
only industry-funded group talking up nuclear power around the
country.
In November 2006, Moore traveled to Yonkers, N.Y., to support
extending the Indian Point nuclear power plant's license until
2035. Also appearing at the pre-Thanksgiving event were Entergy
staffers, Rudy Giuliani (whose Giuliani Partners firm works for
Entergy), and members of the New York Affordable Reliable
Electricity Alliance (NY AREA). In January 2007, Moore was in
Montpelier and Brattleboro, Vt., to speak with the Vermont Energy
Partnership. In February, he returned to New York, to address NY
AREA's "2007 Energy Day at Albany."
One Big, Happy, ProActive Family
The New York and Vermont pro-nuclear groups have more in common
than Moore's attention. Both list Entergy, which operates nuclear
plants in both states, as a member. And both groups' websites
were registered by the same Virginia-based PR firm, ProActive
Communications.
ProActive has provided other services for NY AREA, including
designing the group's website, logo and newsletter, as well as a
presentation template and DVD packaging (for a video titled, "The
Power Behind a Growing New York"), according to the firm's
website. In November, NY AREA promoted a video news release
featuring Moore that credits "ProActive production services,"
along with the broadcast PR firm MultiVu, in its opening frames.
(See video below. Around the same time, NY AREA also had an audio
news release with Moore, but only MultiVu is listed on the "story
summary.")
ProActive Communications provided a similar range of website and
design services -- and a very similar look -- to a third
pro-nuclear group, the Boston-based Massachusetts Affordable
Reliable Electricity Alliance (Mass AREA), again according to the
firm's website. Mass AREA's members also include Entergy, which
runs the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass.
ProActive founder and president Mark Serrano refused to comment
on his firm's work for Mass AREA, NY AREA or the Vermont Energy
Partnership. After asking me to submit questions by email, he
responded that my questions "relate to assumed business
relationships. Discussing these matters with you or anyone else
is not appropriate."
Yet the role of ProActive Communications and of Entergy is clear.
ProActive lists among its specialties "coalition programs,"
"grassroots mobilizations," and "editorial [media] outreach."
ProActive's program director, James Knubel, joined the PR firm
after serving as senior vice-president for Entergy Nuclear
Northeast. ProActive's Serrano does double duty as NY AREA's
president, while ProActive communications director Paul Steidler
also serves as NY AREA's media contact. Steidler joined the PR
firm after leading the education reform project at the Alexis de
Tocqueville Institution, an industry-funded think tank.
(Steidler's name and bio were removed from the ProActive website
shortly after I contacted the firm.)
NY AREA didn't respond to an interview request. Entergy
spokesperson Jim Steets confirmed that the company was
"instrumental in the founding of New York AREA," but said he
didn't know "how much of New York AREA's funding comes from
Entergy." He added, "There's no question that there's a strong
association" between Entergy and NY AREA, but as "membership has
grown, we've become just another dues-paying member." NY AREA is
comprised of "independent-minded people, with interests of their
own," he stressed.
Steets described ProActive Communications' work for NY AREA as:
"If there are events or messages, things that we should attend or
that people who agree with us might want to attend, ProActive is
helpful in organizing the grassroots campaign that would
demonstrate that there are people who subscribe to this [NY
AREA's] mission. They're skilled in grassroots organizing and
advocacy, very similar to what the groups who oppose us do."
Phillip Musegaas, a staff attorney at Riverkeeper, a New
York-based environmental group that opposes the Indian Point
plant, disagrees. NY AREA and similar groups "do the public a
disservice by the fact that they're subsidized by Entergy," he
said. "We're straighforward with our campaign, on the other
side." Musegaas added, "Exelon, Entergy and other large companies
have a lot of money to spend on PR. They do that directly with
Burston-Marsteller and Giuliani Parnters, and less directly with
these local groups."
Mass AREA communications director Joyce McMahon explained that
her group is "not tied to NY AREA" and is "not just about nuclear
issues." She verified that ProActive Communications does
consulting work for Mass AREA, but declined to describe that
work. McMahon also confirmed that Entergy helps fund Mass AREA,
but said the group's other members also contribute, each giving
an amount relative to its size.
Vermont Energy Partnership executive director Amanda Ibey also
stressed that her group isn't focused solely on nuclear power. In
an email, she wrote, "We have prepared a number of issue briefs
on such topics as hydro power, energy efficiency, nuclear power,
LICAP [incentives to keep New England-based generators],
transmission infrastructure, and wind power." Ibey described the
group as "member-funded" and would not comment on its
relationship with ProActive Communications. She did explain that
Patrick Moore "is paid by the group" as an adviser, but the
"terms are proprietary. We do not work with the Clean and Safe
Energy Coalition."
An Industry-Driven Grassroots
Are Vermont Energy Partnership, Mass AREA and NY AREA
Entergy-funded astroturf, or fake grassroots groups? Each
publicly lists its membership, including Entergy, on its website.
And each counts among its members local businesses, unions and
individuals that presumably don't stand to benefit directly from
policies favorable to nuclear power.
Of course, all businesses, groups and individuals have the right
to organize and express their views. But the negative impact of
this nuclear industry-driven PR is already clear. Plans to build
new nuclear power plants are inching forward, while serious
questions and concerns -- not to mention alternative energy
policies -- receive little attention. On March 8, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission issued its first site approval for a new
nuclear plant in over 30 years. Exelon now has 20 years to apply
for a license to build a new reactor in Clinton, Ill.
Entergy and NEI spend millions of dollars doing media outreach,
under their own names. Both spend millions more to lobby federal
officials. From 1998 to 2004, Entergy spent $13.5 million and NEI
spent $9.7 million on federal lobbying, according to the Center
for Public Integrity's LobbyWatch database.
But both, while using solely their own names, failed to garner
significant public support. So both formed "coalitions" and
"alliances," designed to deliver essentially the same pro-nuclear
message. Unlike the funders behind classic front groups, NEI and
Entergy admit their role in CASEnergy or NY AREA, Mass AREA and
Vermont Energy Partnership, respectively. But that disclosure is
done in a whisper, with a nod and wink, and sloppy reporting
takes care of the rest.
The end result is the same -- instead of a fully informed and
vigorous public debate on complex energy issues, the United
States is having a lopsided discussion. And the nuclear power
industry isn't just dominating it; it has several seats at the
table.
Tagged as: nuclear industry, media, pr
Diane Farsetta is the Center for Media and Democracy's senior
researcher.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
31 Japan Times: Hokuriku hid '99 reactor criticality accident
Web japantimes.co.jp
Friday, March 16, 2007
Radiation exposure denied; no coverup record kept
Kyodo News
Hokuriku Electric Power Co. failed to report a criticality
accident involving a 15-minute uncontrollable nuclear chain
reaction in 1999 in Ishikawa Prefecture, the government and the
utility revealed Thursday.
No radiation leaked and no one was injured in the accident, which
occurred at the No. 1 reactor of the Shiga nuclear plant during a
scheduled inspection, the government's Nuclear and Industrial Safety
Agency said.
Hokuriku Electric Power, which announced that it didn't keep records
or report the accident involving the self-sustaining nuclear fission
chain reaction to the local and central governments, apologized and
pledged to investigate and ensure a similar accident doesn't occur.
1999 also saw a criticality accident that claimed three lives in
Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, and exposed people in the area around the
JCO Co. plant to radiation, and a shipload of so-called MOX fuel
sent back to England after revelations that the processor, British
Nuclear Fuels Ltd., had faked shipment safety data.
In the Hokuriku accident, no report was made because no workers were
exposed to radiation and the measured radiation level was low, Vice
President Takashi Matsunami told reporters at the company's Ishikawa
branch in the city of Kanazawa.
"We truly apologize for not reporting such a serious incident,"
Matsunami said. "At the moment, we don't know whether company
executives were involved in concealing the case." But he added that
the decision to cover up the accident was made by the nuclear plant
chief and people in the field at the time.
The accident occurred around 2 a.m. on June 18, 1999, when workers
mishandled a system to control water pressure for moving reactor
control rods, resulting in three of the 89 rods falling apart and
part of the reactor core going critical.
The reactor failed to shut down automatically because of the broken
rods, leading to a 15-minute uncontrollable self-sustaining nuclear
chain reaction, until the rods were inserted manually.
The lids of both the reactor's containment and pressure vessels were
removed at the time, but the state nuclear safety watchdog said it
has been notified that no workers were exposed to radiation and no
radiation leaked outside the building.
The agency, which is under the Ministry of Economy, Trade and
Industry, said the incident may have violated the Nuclear Reactor
Regulation Law, adding that the Shiga plant's chief at the time knew
what had happened. The agency Thursday ordered the utility to shut
down the No. 1 reactor and conduct a thorough check.
The accident was revealed after Hokuriku Electric, along with other
power utilities, began thorough inspections of nuclear plant
operations late last year, following a spate of coverups of reactor
faults.
Tokyo Electric Power Co. and Tohoku Electric Power Co. were also
found to have covered up emergency shutdowns of reactors. But
Hokuriku Electric's hiding a critical accident is the most serious,
said an agency official in charge.
In September 1999, hundreds of residents near a nuclear plant in
Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, as well as plant and rescue workers, were
exposed to radiation when workers sidestepped safe operating
procedures and, using buckets, put nearly eight times the normal
amount of uranium into a container, causing a critical accident that
took 20 hours to control and claimed three workers' lives.
Thursday's news jolted local residents, and prompted the Shiga
government to criticize the operator.
Kenichi Doushita, who heads a group seeking in a lawsuit to suspend
the operation of the plant's No. 2 reactor, said, "I'd like to hear
what excuses will be offered by Hokuriku Electric."
The Japan Times
*****************************************************************
32 New London Day: NRC To Meet Thursday With Dominion, Nuclear Council
theday.com ]
Published on 3/16/2007
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will discuss Millstone Power
Station's annual performance report with Millstone owner Dominion
next Thursday.
The NRC has found that safety concerns at Millstone over the past
year have been adequately addressed and require no extra federal
oversight.
NRC staff will meet with Dominion representatives to discuss the
agency's 2006 assessment at 3 p.m. at the Lelan F. Sillin Jr.
Training Center at Millstone on Rope Ferry Road.
At 6 p.m., the NRC will meet for a similar discussion with the
Nuclear Energy Advisory Council at Town Hall.
Before both meetings are adjourned, NRC staff will be available to
answer questions from the public, as well as the role of the NRC in
providing oversight.
The annual assessment letter for Millstone is available on the NRC
Web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/
OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/mill_2006q4.pdf.
— Patricia Daddona
Waterford
Privacy Policy | Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200 | New London,
CT | © 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co. 104
*****************************************************************
33 TCPalm: NRC, FPL to meet on plant safety review
50 Plus Lifestyles
March 15, 2007
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a meeting with
Florida Power & Light Co. officials March 27 to discuss the
commission's 2006 safety review of the St. Lucie County nuclear
plant. The meeting is open to "public observation" which,
according to the NRC, means its staff will answer questions form
the public at the end of the session. The St. Lucie plant
operated safely last year, the NRC said, with "all inspection
findings being of very low safety significance." The meeting is
scheduled for 3 p.m. at the St. Lucie Energy Encounter Building,
6501 S. A1A, Jensen Beach.
© 2007 Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. Site Users are subject to
our Privacy Policy and User Agreement.
Contact TCPalm.com at Feedback@tcpalm.com | Subscribe | Contact Us |
*****************************************************************
34 FR: DHHS Exposure investigation Cleveland Oh
Doc 07-1273
[Federal Register: March 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 51)]
[Notices] [Page 12617-12618] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16mr07-65]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Final
Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the
Special Exposure Cohort
AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice
concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of
employees at the Harshaw Harvard-Denison Plant in Cleveland, Ohio, as
an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On
February 1, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the
Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an
addition to the SEC:
Atomic Weapons employees who were monitored or should have been
monitored while working at the Harshaw Harvard-Denison Plant located
at 1000 Harvard Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio from August 14, 1942
through November 30, 1949, and who were employed for a number of
work days aggregating at least 250 work days or in combination with
work days within the parameters established for one or more other
classes of employees in the Special Exposure, Cohort.
This designation became effective on March 3, 2007, as provided for
under 42
[[Page 12618]]
U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on March 3, 2007, members of this
class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members
of the Special Exposure Cohort.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of
Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati,
OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number).
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV.
Dated: March 12, 2007.
John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 07-1273 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-M
*****************************************************************
35 UPI: Feds want cities to map radiation sites
United Press International - NewsTrack -
Published: March 16, 2007 at 8:08 PM
WASHINGTON, March 16 (UPI) -- Federal officials are asking U.S.
cities for an inventory of radioactive materials that would be used
to flag illegitimate radiation sites.
USA Today says federal officials would use the map as a baseline
that would help in the detection of dirty bombs.
Once all legitimate sites are flagged, supersensitive radiation
detectors could be used to detect any new radiation blips.
The Department of Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection
Office says the survey is recommended for all cities that face a
high risk of terrorist attack, the newspaper said.
Homeland Security and Energy Department officials met with emergency
responders in Chicago and Springfield, Ill., this week as part of an
effort to convince dozens of cities to use federal anti-terrorism
grant money to pay for the surveys, the newspaper said.
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
36 FR: DHHS: Exposure investigation at Allied Chemical facility in Il.
Doc 07-1274
[Federal Register: March 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 51)]
[Notices] [Page 12617] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16mr07-64]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Final
Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the
Special Exposure Cohort
AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice
concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of
employees at the Allied Chemical Corporation Plant in Metropolis,
Illinois, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.
On February 1, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the
Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an
addition to the SEC:
Atomic Weapons employees who were monitored or should have been
monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation while working at Allied
Chemical Corporation Plant in Metropolis, Illinois, from January 1,
1959 through December 31, 1976, and who were employed for a number
of work days aggregating at least 250 work days or in combination
with work days within the parameters established for one or more
other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.
This designation became effective on March 3, 2007, as provided for
under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on March 3, 2007,
members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice,
became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of
Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati,
OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number).
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to OCAS@CDC.GOV.
Dated: March 12, 2007.
John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 07-1274 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-M
*****************************************************************
37 NAS: Committee to Review the NIOSH Respiratory Disease Research Program
PIN: DELS-O-04-01-D
Major Unit:
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Institute of Medicine
Sub Unit: Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
RSO: Holmes, John
Subject/Focus Area:
Project Scope
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
has requested that the National Research Council and the Institute
of Medicine review as many as 15 of its programs with respect to
their impact, relevance, and future directions. Each program review
will be conducted by a separate committee. The NRC will convene the
Committee to Review the NIOSH Respiratory Disease Research Program.
The committee will examine the following issues for the Respiratory
Disease Research Program:
(1) Progress in reducing workplace illnesses and injuries through
occupational safety and health research, assessed on the basis of an
analysis of relevant data about workplace illnesses and injuries and
an evaluation of the effect that NIOSH research has had in reducing
illness and injuries.
(2) Progress in targeting new research to the areas of occupational
safety and health most relevant to future improvements in workplace
protection.
(3) Significant emerging research areas that appear especially
important in terms of their relevance to the mission of NIOSH.
The committee will evaluate the Respiratory Disease Research Program
using an assessment framework developed by the NRC/IOM Committee to
Review the NIOSH Research Programs. The evaluation will consider
what the NIOSH program is producing as well as whether the program
can reasonably be credited with changes in workplace practices, or
whether such changes are the result of other factors unrelated to
NIOSH. For cases where impact is difficult to measure directly, the
committee reviewing the Respiratory Disease Research Program may use
information on intermediate outcomes to evaluate performance.
Sponsors: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
The approximate starting date for this project is July 1, 2006.
A final report will be issued at the end of the project
(approximately 12 months from the starting date).
Project Duration: 12 months
Provide FEEDBACK on this project.
Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to
schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the
public.
Committee Membership
Meetings
Meeting 1 - 10/26/2006
Meeting 2 - 12/05/2006
Meeting 3 - 03/22/2007
Reports having no URL can be seen
at the Public Access Records Office
Email: info@nas.edu
*****************************************************************
38 STPNS: Veteran To Talk About Depleted Uranium, Socorro, New Mexico
March 16, 2007
Herbert Reed Thomas Guengerich photo
By John Larson for Mountain Mail
SOCORRO, New Mexico (STPNS) --
A U.S. Army veteran of the war in Iraq will be speaking Friday night
at the Socorro Public Library.
Staff Sergeant Herbert Reed of the New York National Guard said he
was exposed to Depleted Uranium while serving in Iraq in 2003, and
that he has had numerous health problems because of the exposure
which the Army and Veteran’s Administration refuse to treat.
Reed believes he breathed in DU contaminated dust while patrolling a
bombed out train depot in Samawah.
“Personnel from the Dutch army yelled at us to get out of the area,
that is was contaminated and not safe,” Reed told the Mountain Mail.
“Not too much later I was experiencing pain and other symptoms.”
Reed said his gums bleed and a tumor has been removed from his
thyroid.
“I have rashes erupting everywhere and the itching is constant,” he
said. “I have migraines everyday, and my joints ache constantly.”
Reed said he told doctors at Walter Reed Army Hospital that there
was something terribly wrong in his body, but they refused to test
him for depleted uranium poisoning while he recovering from wounds.
“They told me there was no test for it.” he said. “But myself and
seven other guys with me in the 442nd Military Police Company, the
ones in Samawah, ended up going to Germany where doctors there
tested us all positive for DU poisoning.”
He said everyday he takes several medications for his symptoms,
inclding morphine, methadone, a muscle relaxant, an antidepressant,
a stool softener, Viagra for sexual dysfunction, and Valium for his
nerves.
“I have to take the morphine every four hours for pain,” he said.
Reed, a 20-year veteran of the New York police department, said the
U.S. military and the V.A. still refuse to investigate the
possibility of depleted uranium poisoning of American troops.
He is currently touring New Mexico as a Depleted Uranium Vet test
bill is being debated in the Senate.
Reed will be speaking at the Socorro Public Library at 7 p.m.
Friday, March 16.
© 2007 Mountain Mail Socorro, New Mexico. All Rights Reserved. This
Copyright © 2007 SmallTownPapers, Inc. Source content copyrighted by
publisher. All rights reserved. Use subject to License Agreement
*****************************************************************
39 AU: Herald Sun: Fever for uranium
NEWS.com.au |
Mandi Zonneveldt
March 17, 2007 12:00am
THE price of uranium soared past $US90 a pound this week, with
shares in most of Australia's uranium explorers following its
stunning trajectory.
Those with projects of any substance have watched their market
capitalisation balloon in the past 12 months.
A glance at eight of the key players reveals an average share price
appreciation of 145 per cent, with three -- Summit Resources,
Marathon Resources and Pepinnini Minerals -- up by more than 400 per
cent.
Goldman Sachs JB Were this week predicted the price of uranium would
continue to hover about $US90 a pound this year, rising to $US95 a
pound in 2008 -- but others have suggested it could break the $US100
mark.
But the soaring price of yellowcake is not the only thing propelling
the share prices of uranium juniors north.
The looming prospect of a change in government policy is weighing
heavily on the minds of investors.
The debate about nuclear energy is getting hotter every day and
Australia is home to the world's largest resources of the nuclear
fuel.
The Labor Party is due to reconsider its ban on new mine
developments at its national conference next month, with most
anticipating a change that will pave the way for new mine
developments.
Australia's fourth uranium mine, the Honeymoon project in South
Australia, is due to begin production next year. It has been allowed
to go ahead because it was approved in 2002 when the Liberal Party
was in power in SA.
BusinessDaily takes a look at who might be the next to go nuclear.
© Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10).
*****************************************************************
40 Guardian Unlimited: Feds: $26.9 Billion for Yucca Mountain
From the Associated Press
Friday March 16, 2007 11:46 PM
By ERICA WERNER Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - It will cost $26.9 billion to build and operate
the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump through 2023, the Energy
Department said Friday in a new cost calculation.
The department did not release a new figure for the total life-cycle
cost of the Nevada project, estimated several years ago at $58
billion. The department plans to recalculate that figure in May and
it almost certainly will rise, said Edward F. ``Ward'' Sproat,
director of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive
Waste Management.
The $26.9 billion figure, about in line with recent estimates,
assumes that the department meets its goal of opening the repository
in March 2017, Sproat told reporters on a conference call.
``It is our best estimate at this stage of the game as to what the
total program's going to cost. We think it's an accurate
projection,'' he said.
That 2017 opening date is a best-case scenario and Sproat cautioned
it will slip if the department does not get the money it needs each
year for the dump. In recent years the department's budget goals
have not been met, partly because of opposition from Sen. Harry
Reid, D-Nev., who now has even more power as Senate majority leader.
The nuclear waste dump planned for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas
is supposed to hold at least 77,000 tons of radioactive nuclear
waste from civilian reactors and Defense Department activities. It's
encountered a number of problems since Congress approved it in 2002,
from political opposition and lawsuits to a controversy over
government scientists not complying with quality control
requirements.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
41 RIA Novosti: Russia's TVEL corp. to ship nuclear fuel to Vietnam
17:34 | 16/ 03/ 2007
MOSCOW, March 16 (RIA Novosti) -- TVEL, Russia's leading producer
and supplier of nuclear fuel for power plants, said Friday it will
deliver fuel for a research reactor in Vietnam in September.
A corporation spokesperson said a relevant contract was signed
between TVEL, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Dalata Research
Center, Vietnam on March 15.
Under the contract, 36 rods of VVR-M2 LEU fuel (enriched to less
than 20%) will be delivered to the Vietnamese research reactor in
September to replace the highly enriched uranium (HEU) (enriched to
36%) fuel being used there.
Earlier, nuclear fuel was exported under the REFTR program to
research reactors at Czech Technical University and the Tajoura
Nuclear Research Center in Libya (TREWDRC).
The Novosibirsk Chemical Concentrate Plant, a subsidiary of TVEL,
will produce VVR-M2 fuel for the Vietnamese research reactor.
RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
42 NRC: NRC Announces Opportunity to Request a Hearing on Operating
License for Mox Fuel Plant in South Carolina
News Release - 2007-07-036 -
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 is announcing the opportunity to
request a hearing on a proposed license for Shaw Areva MOX Services
to operate a mixed-oxide fuel fabrication facility at the Department
of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
Shaw Areva, formerly known as Duke, Cogema, Stone & Webster,
submitted its application for the operating license Sept. 27 and
supplemented it Nov. 7. The NRC staff has determined that the
application contains sufficient information for the agency to begin
its detailed technical review. The applicant submitted a
non-proprietary version of the application, which may be viewed on
the NRC Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/mox/licensing.html.
Normally, the technical review and the opportunity to request a
hearing would have been announced at the end of December. However,
because the federal government was operating under a continuing
resolution that fixed spending at Fiscal Year 2006 levels, those
actions were delayed. Now that the NRC has received its funding for
FY 2007, the review will proceed.
NRC staff will hold a public meeting April 12 in Aiken, S.C., to
discuss the technical review process and the opportunity for members
of the public to request an adjudicatory hearing. Details of the
meeting will be announced closer to that date.
The MOX facility, which will be owned by the Department of
Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration, is part of
a bilateral effort between the United States and the Russian
Federation to convert supplies of surplus weapons-grade plutonium
into more proliferation-resistant forms by blending it with uranium.
Converting the plutonium into MOX fuel will enable it to be used in
commercial reactors to generate electricity. In the United States,
only those reactors authorized by the NRC will be permitted to use
MOX fuel.
The NRC issued a construction authorization for the facility March
30, 2005. During that licensing review, the NRC staff completed an
Environmental Impact Statement on the construction and operation of
the proposed facility. That report is available on the NRC Web site
at the above address. Information on various public meetings held
regarding the MOX facility is also available there.
A notice of opportunity to request a hearing was published today in
the Federal Register. The deadline for requesting a hearing is May
14. Petitions may be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected
by the license and who wishes to participate as a party in the
proceeding.
A request for hearing and a petition for leave to intervene must be
filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff. Requests may also be submitted by facsimile to
(301) 415-1101 or e-mail to HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov. A copy should
also be submitted to the NRC Office of General Counsel, by facsimile
to (301) 415-3725 or e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.
Information on the NRC’s hearings process is available at this
Web address:
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 16, 2007
*****************************************************************
43 Chillicothe Gazette: GNEP meeting location moves to Piketon High
www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH
Friday, March 16, 2007
Due to interest in the public meetings for the siting analysis of
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, the Southern Ohio Nuclear
Integration Cooperative is announcing a location change for
Tuesday's meeting.
The meeting will be from 6 to 9 p.m. at Piketon High School, and
light refreshments will be served.
Town hall meeting set for Tuesday
The League of Women Voters is conducting a town meeting at 7 p.m.
Tuesday at the Christopher Conference Center, 20 N. Plaza Blvd.
The following subjects will be discussed: downtown revitalization
and preservation, tourism and economic development and art and
recreation.
Come and hear what makes Chillicothe unique. Everyone is invited,
and refreshments will be served.
Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette
All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
44 Times-News: Nuclear reprocessing meeting draws large eastern Idaho crowd
Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID
Last modified on Friday, March 16, 2007 3:45 PM MDT
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho - Most of the 350 people who attended a public
hearing about bringing additional nuclear facilities to eastern
Idaho to reprocess spent nuclear fuel favored the idea.
But some at Thursday's event questioned the benefits of the plan and
said more time was needed to discuss the issue before making a
decision.
The U.S. Department of Energy initiative _ the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership _ wants to recycle spent nuclear fuel and reduce the
amount of waste requiring permanent disposal.
The plan also aims to tackle nuclear proliferation concerns through
a program that would provide nuclear fuel to developing countries
that agree not to process their own.
Supporters of the plan say it would reduce the world's dependence on
fossil fuels, while providing a practical way to meet the world's
exploding energy needs.
The facilities would create thousands of jobs to whichever of the 13
applicants in eight states ends up with the facilities. A series of
public hearings like the one in Idaho Falls have already been held
at many of the other possible sites.
"Obviously, we're seeing the mobilization of a lot of people in
support of this," said Richard L. Black, associate deputy assistant
secretary in the DOE's Office of Nuclear Power Deployment, the Post
Register reported.
Eastern Idaho is already home to the Idaho National Laboratory, an
890-square-mile federal nuclear research area.
"All of us are proud of our work here over the years," said John
Flinn, president of the INL Retired Employees Association. "We
pioneered technologies that will be the building blocks of the GNEP."
Beatrice Braillsford of the Snake River Alliance, which opposes the
project, said the group doesn't believe it's a recycling plan or a
research project. She also said the Department of Energy is making a
decision too quickly.
"This process is important," she said. "Fifteen months doesn't
actually give a lot of time for dialogue."
The department wants to build a reprocessing plant for spent nuclear
fuel, a reactor to use the fuel to generate electricity, and a
center for research and development.
Two more public hearings are planned, one in Washington, D.C., and
another in Hood River, Ore.
Information from: Post Register, http://www.postregister.com
A service of the Associated Press(AP)
Copyright © 2006, Lee Publications Inc.
daily at 132 W. Fairfield St., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee
Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises.
*****************************************************************
45 JOJCC: Dump-site process 'needn't be thwarted by council'
John O'Groat Journal and Caithness Courier:
17 March, 2007
publicly that they will not have a national repository and the
Scottish Executive has a policy of not taking waste from anywhere
else? These would be major blockers on any development."
Mr MacDonald, whose Highland Council ward includes Dounreay,
replied: "These things are not in place forever. If there was to be
a need, a case would be made to change these policies."
Mr MacDonald drew an analogy with domestic waste whereby the
council's remit is to look after its own waste, yet sends most of it
to Peterhead.
"To move the council from its current stance would not necessarily
be easy, as we're in the north end and areas like Lochaber, Skye and
Nairn may well have a different view," he said. The council would
also have a role as the planning authority, he added.
However, Mr MacDonald felt that the current policies should not
prevent a bid being explored. "This is something that would be a
hurdle which would have to be overcome," he said. "It would have to
be tested if and when a proposal came forward."
DSG members had earlier grappled with the question of identifying
the community which would decide whether or not to declare an
interest in siting the dump. Mr MacDonald suggested the Dounreay
travel-to-work area in Caithness and north Sutherland.
Caithness kirk representative the Rev Ronnie Johnstone said it was
vital the decision was not left to councillors. "The last body you
would want to make this decision is the Highland Council," he said.
HIE Caithness and Sutherland representative Carol Gunn said the
community affected by the rundown of Dounreay does not necessarily
coincide with those who would be affected by a repository.
DSG secretary June Love pointed out that efforts are currently being
made to define the community directly affected by Dounreay's
proposed new low-level waste dump. She believed that the same
criteria could be applied to delineating the community relevant to
the national repository.
James Anderson, Caithness representative of NFU Scotland, suspected
the current Government consultation was a sham as it already knew
the site it wanted to develop.
CoRWM member Professor Brian Clark did not accept this was the case.
Prof Clark said: "I genuinely believe that the Government accepts
that the way it has tried to approach this issue in the past has
been a failure.
"I do not think they have fingered somewhere which they think has
the right geology and is set to go there. I think that is the last
thing on their agenda."
Prof Clark, retired professor of environmental management and
planning at Aberdeen University, had earlier said the days of "DAD"
(decide, announce and defend) or "DADA" (decide, announce, defend
and apologise) are over. He told the meeting that CoRWM is seeking
to emulate successful approaches other countries have made in
identifying nuclear waste facilities.
"We believe very, very strongly in giving communities the chance to
volunteer with an option to get involved in discussions but with the
right of veto up to a certain stage."
He said the veto could not be open-ended, to prevent potential
abuse. "Otherwise, you could have a community putting itself
forward, taking the goodies and then deciding to pull out of the
process."
Prof Clark said CoRWM was contesting the Government's desire for the
invitation to be extended to all areas, irrespective of the
suitability of the local geology. "We think that is an absolute
nonsense and a waste of time, money and effort," he said.
He was unhappy too at the benefits paid to a host community being
described as a "bribe". The package, he said, reflected the
community's role in serving the national interest.
Prof Clark said the process envisaged by CoWRM seeks to emulate the
successful formats applied in other countries where there has been
competition for nuclear waste dumps "In Sweden, they had two or
three communities vying with one another to be chosen," he said.
"There's also going to be one community in Belgium saddened as they
are not going to be selected for a repository going ahead there."
The key, he said, was for the authorities to take time to spell out
what is involved and not to try to force the process through too
quickly.
Fellow CoRWM member Mary Allan feels it is essential that
communities considering whether to declare an interest get the
maximum amount of information about the repository plans.
Mrs Allan, a lecturer at North Highland College UHI's Dornoch
campus, pointed out that the community benefits would not only be
economic and infrastructural – she said help would also be
given to improve the area's "self-image".
Caithness Against Nuclear Dumping was set up in the wake of Nirex's
ultimately abortive interest in Dounreay as a potential dump site in
the early 1990s. A test-bore programme on the site and geological
tests in the surrounding area provoked widespread protests
throughout the Highlands.
In a referendum held in Caithness at the time, 73 per cent voted
against Nirex getting the go-ahead. CAND insists the outcome of a
ballot today would be little different.
At a CoRWM consultation meeting in Thurso last year, CAND
co-chairman Hamish Pottinger dubbed the committee "Nirex's second
cousins".
CAND is against the "hole-in-the-ground" option and supports waste
being kept in secure, long-lasting stores at the sites where it was
produced until an acceptable disposal route becomes available.
There is, however, growing support for a review of whether people in
the Far North would be interested in the proposal. The Highland
Council's Caithness area convener, Councillor David Flear, recently
called for a debate on the issue.
He said at the time: "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."
* Residents objecting to the prospect of living next to a low-level
nuclear waste dump at Dounreay have won a place on the site's
community liaison body.
Householders at the small settlement of Buldoo have formed a group
to represent their concerns about the proposed £110 million
development. They have already objected to the application lodged by
the UKAEA for planning consent for the dump.
Dounreay Stakeholder Group, at its meeting on Wednesday evening,
agreed to invite the new residents' forum to be represented by its
chairperson, local sub-postmistress Deirdre Henderson. Other new
members approved were Linda Smith, Dounreay-based operational chief
inspector with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, and Willie Calder,
chairman of Scrabster Harbour Trust. Mr Calder takes the place of
Brian Leonard.
At the earlier annual general meeting of DSG, local Highland
councillor Alastair MacDonald was re-elected as chairman, a post
which carries an annual remuneration of £5000.
In his annual report, Mr MacDonald said it had been a very busy year
for members of the group.
He stated: "I think the stakeholder group has now established itself
well in representing community interests. Some members might have
thought that we were just a talking shop but we have moved on to
another phase. I think the group has a good standing in the area and
is well recognised outwith Caithness."
Bob Earnshaw, chairman of Thurso Community Council, was re-elected
as vice-chairman.
DSG, which replaced the long-established Dounreay Local Liaison
Group, has spent almost £24,000 in the current financial year.
iain-grant@ukf.net
All content copyright 2007 Scottish Provincial Press Ltd.
*****************************************************************
46 FR: NRC: Request to Amend a License To Export Radioactive Waste
Doc E7-4870
[Federal Register: March 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 51)]
[Notices] [Page 12637] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr16mr07-99]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(C) ``Public notice of receipt of an
application,'' please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission has received the following request to amend an export
license. Copies of the request are available electronically through
ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room
(PERR) link http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html at the NRC
Homepage.
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be
filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene
shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S.
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520.
The information concerning this amendment request follows.
NRC Export License Application
Description of material
Material type Total quantity End use Recipient country
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Applicant: AREVA NP Class A License to be amended Metals to be Canada
Inc. radioactive to extend expiration decontaminated
Date of Application: December waste in the date to 12/31/2010 and uranium to
1, 2006. form of and change licensee be disposed of
Date Received: December 5, 2006 contaminated name Total quantity at AECL Chalk
Application No.: XW007/02 metals. of contaminants River Ontario.
Docket No.: 11005292. authorized for export
remains 3.0 kilograms
of uranium-235 (5.0 w/
o maximum) contained
in 60 kilograms
uranium.
Licenses originally issued to
Framatome ANP, Inc.)
Dated this 7th day of March 2007 at Rockville, Maryland.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Margaret M. Doane,
Deputy Director, Office of International Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-4870 Filed 3-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
47 Daily Herald: EnergySolutions pulls dump expansion request
Central Utah's Newspaper
Friday, March 16, 2007
The Associated Press
SALT LAKE CITY -- Gov. Jon Huntsman and EnergySolutions announced a
compromise Thursday in the expansion of a radioactive-waste dump in
Utah's west desert.
EnergySolutions is withdrawing its application to the state's
Radiation Control Board to nearly double the amount of waste it can
store at the site in Tooele County.
In return, Huntsman said he won't oppose the expansion in a letter
to the Northwest Interstate Low-Level Waste Compact.
The agreement will cap waste storage capacity at the landfill to
amounts already approved under existing permits, keeping an
additional 117 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste
from coming to Utah.
"I've stated consistently from the beginning of my term in office
that Utah should not be a dumping ground for radioactive waste,"
Huntsman said at a news conference. "This tower of radioactive waste
is not created by Utahns and not wanted by Utahns."
EnergySolutions, which got its start as Envirocare of Utah in 1988,
can still fill the space that is not being used at the facility. But
the company is withdrawing its application to get the site
designated a "super-cell" storage facility.
A telephone message seeking comment from EnergySolutions was not
immediately returned.
Huntsman said EnergySolutions officials approached him to discuss
his threat to block the super-cell application. Signing the
agreement avoids a costly, lengthy legal battles for both parties,
he said.
Also under the agreement, the state won't block a request from the
company to convert a portion of the landfill from uranium mill
tailings storage to storing other types of low-level waste. The
volume of the waste allowed under the original permit -- 3.6 million
cubic yards -- won't change.
"There is no net gain there," said Dianne R. Nielson, director of
the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. "In fact there will be
a slight net loss because they'll have to put some sort of barrier"
between the two types of waste.
Huntsman said the agreement is only linked to the recently passed
Senate Bill 155 in that it stirred his concern about waste volumes
at the landfill. The bill, which Huntsman allowed into law without
his signature, lets EnergySolutions manage its waste piles without
getting state approval for every change at its mile-square facility
in Clive, about 70 miles west of Salt Lake City.
Although she had yet to scrutinize the details of the agreement,
Vanessa Pierce, executive director of the Healthy Environment
Alliance of Utah said it appeared to be a victory for Utahns.
EnergySolutions has no capacity limit under the original permits.
"We did not anticipate this would happen," Pierce said. "The fact
that Huntsman is really trying to nail down a cap is significant."
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A1.
Copyright © 2007 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises
*****************************************************************
48 ITAR-TASS: Russia to set up uranium enrichment center - Ivanov
16.03.2007, 15.21
MOSCOW, March 16 (Itar-Tass) - Russian First Deputy Prime
Minister Sergei Ivanov said that setting up international uranium
enrichment centers was one of Russia’s priorities.
“Such a center is already being established at the Angarsk
chemical electrolysis plant,” he said at a meeting in the Federal
Agency for Nuclear Energy on Friday.
He explained that the “essence of the functioning of such a
center is that the broadest possibilities will be provided to our
partners for participating it its work, but the uranium
enrichment technology belongs to us and only to us”.
Ivanov stressed that “practical steps without precedent have been
made for organizing work of the center”.
“For the first time in the Soviet and Russian practice, an
enrichment plant has been taken off the list of especially secret
facilities and opened for the application of IAEA guarantees,” he
said.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store
*****************************************************************
49 KNDO/KNDU: CH2M Hill Sets Waste Transfer Record
Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA |
RICHLAND, Wash.- CH2M Hill Hanford Group set a new record for the
transfer of tank waste.
Since October, nearly 4.5 million gallons of radioactive and
chemical waste has been transferred within Hanford's double-shell
tank system.
The contractor is trying to get all the waste out of single-shell
tanks because some of them are leaking into the groundwater.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All
Rights Reserved.
For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy
and Terms of Service.
*****************************************************************
50 Deseret News: EnergySolutions, Huntsman reach N-waste accord
Friday, March 16, 2007
Deal keeps volume at current levels, the governor says
By Steve Fidel Deseret Morning News
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said Thursday that he and
EnergySolutions struck a deal that maintains the volume of low-level
nuclear waste the company brings to Utah at current levels,
something he has sought since the Legislature passed a controversial
waste bill last month.
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.
Huntsman said the agreement follows his administration's past
efforts to keep dangerous waste. He noted nixed plans to bring more
mustard gas to Utah for disposal or store hot nuclear waste on the
Goshute reservation.
"There's not much I can do about waste streams agreed to by my
predecessors," he said. "We are changing the culture of what is
acceptable in the state."
Off the table is EnergySolution's application with the state
Radiation Control Board to expand the company's low-level waste
storage repository in Tooele County by 117 million cubic feet.
In exchange, EnergySolutions will be able to take 96.2 million
cubic feet of capacity for uranium milling by-product waste and use
that space to store low-level nuclear waste. EnergySolutions must
meet technical and legal requirements in making that conversion.
Vanessa Pierce, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance
of Utah, said the agreement took her by surprise. "We're pleased
with what we heard today," she said. "Because the governor put his
foot down, they're withdrawing their application to double the waste
out there."
The agreement likely presents no immediate change in
EnergySolutions' Utah operations, which has enough unused capacity
in its west desert repository to last an estimated 15 years, Pierce
said. Several gubernatorial administrations will come and go in that
time. "Now, we need to make sure future administrations are as
vigilant," she said.
EnergySolutions CEO Steve Creamer and the governor signed an
agreement on the terms Thursday. In a statement, Creamer said his
company is proud of its safety and compliance record and its
facilities are "national assets serving the American people.
"The agreement we have reached preserves the respective rights
and interest of Governor Huntsman and EnergySolutions," Creamer said.
Huntsman took heat from environmental groups and some news
media for not vetoing SB155, a bill the Utah Legislature passed that
took the Legislature and the governor out of the approval process
for requests to expand EnergySolutions' Tooele County landfill. Only
state regulators would consider such requests.
Huntsman said he did not sign the bill "out of protest"
because of the likelihood a veto would be overridden. He also saw
the bill as less threatening than was popularly believed by its
opponents.
Huntsman said he would send a letter to the Northwest
Interstate Low-Level Waste Compact, of which Utah is a member,
stating his intent to limit the volume of waste coming into Utah.
Congress established the compact, which gives governors of eight
participating states authority to limit waste coming into their
individual states. Huntsman said invoking that authority would
likely have initiated a lengthy, costly legal battle with the waste
industry.
Just knowing about the plan to petition to the compact drew
EnergySolutions to the bargaining table, Huntsman said.
E-mail: sfidel@desnews.com
© 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
51 KnoxNews: Safety at Y-12 questioned
Feds say declining conditions may put workers, public at risk
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
March 16, 2007
OAK RIDGE - A federal safety board is questioning the safety of
enriched uranium operations at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant,
saying workers and the public could be at risk.
A.J. Eggenberger, chairman of the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board, said he was concerned about deteriorating
conditions at the 9212 Complex - the plant's main production
facility where highly enriched uranium is processed for nuclear
warheads. He called for regular reports to verify the safety of
structures, systems and equipment.
In a March 13 letter to the National Nuclear Security
Administration, Eggenberger cited a couple of recent uranium spills
as an example of problems at the 60-year-old facility.
"The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is concerned that
continued operations in the aging 9212 Complex involve significant
safety risks to workers and the public," he wrote in the letter to
Tom D'Agostino, acting administrator of the NNSA.
The NNSA is a part of the U.S. Department of Energy and oversees the
nation's nuclear weapons facilities. The federal safety board
reviews conditions at defense-related nuclear facilities and has two
full-time staff members assigned at Y-12, but the board has no
actual enforcement powers.
There have been ongoing discussions between the safety board and the
NNSA about ways to upgrade 9212 until a replacement facility is
constructed. The old facility at Y-12 does not meet the structural
requirements for high-hazard nuclear facilities, including
protection against earthquakes. In addition, the process systems
involve old equipment in frequent need of repair.
The Uranium Processing Facility, a proposed $1 billion project that
would replace 9212, is still in the early design stages.
According to the defense safety board, it's likely that Y-12 will
need to operate 9212 for at least 15 more years.
"To ensure public health and safety in the interim, the board
believes that an annual assessment of operations in the 9212 Complex
should be performed to verify that its systems, structures, and
components remain in an acceptable, reliable and safe condition,"
Eggenberger wrote.
He asked for a briefing within the next six months on NNSA's plans
to assess the safety of Y-12's uranium-processing operations.
Kevin Smith, the deputy federal manager at Y-12, said Thursday he
believes current operations at 9212 are safe.
"We wouldn't operate it unsafely," Smith said in a telephone
interview. "That's a given. That's a responsibility we have to our
workers and the public.
He said federal officials were still evaluating the letter from the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Asked about Eggenberger's statement that continued operations in
9212 involve significant safety risks, Smith said he thought the
board chairman may have been referring to long-term concerns.
"We'll have to make sure we understand exactly what the defense
board meant by that," Smith said. "Let me just say this. We believe
this facility is safe at this time. We're going to continue to
monitor it, and we will stay intimately involved with the defense
board."
Eggenberger said federal managers at Y-12 did a review last year to
identify "facility improvements" needed to ensure continued safe
operations.
Those recommendations, however, primarily addressed the "operational
reliability" of 9212 and did not "adequately address the systematic
and extensive upgrades that would be required to operate this
facility for an extended period of 10 or more years," the safety
board chairman said.
Eggenberger said the NNSA has stated that major modifications to the
structure and processes at 9212 would be "impractical" because of
the high cost and also because construction "could significantly
disrupt important national security missions." He said the safety
board agreed with those arguments and advocates a "regimen of
increased vigilance and close observation" to ensure safe operations
at Y-12.
"However, the board remains concerned that the 9212 Complex may
reach a point in the near future where adequate safety cannot be
assured without significant investments to upgrade safety systems,"
Eggenberger wrote in his letter.
Bob Alvarez, a former DOE official who authored an October 2006
report highly critical of Y-12's uranium safety, applauded the
letter from the safety board.
"There needs to be some major attention to the deteriorating
conditions of this plant," Alvarez said Thursday. "It's a real
serious problem. The nuclear safety program inside of DOE is just
broken."
The National Nuclear Security Administration would rather spend its
money building new facilities than fixing old process systems, such
as those at 9212, Alvarez said in a telephone interview from his
home in Maryland.
"There's always been fierce opposition to upgrading these
facilities. Safety gets short-changed. It's a victim of competing
priorities," he said.
Smith called 9212 a "legacy" facility that has some issues
associated with its age, and he said there are continuing
assessments of safety at the old operation. "It will have to be a
living document," he said.
The federal official declined to comment on whether two spills of
enriched uranium solution last month could have, and should have,
been avoided. "I'm not an expert in that area," he said, promising a
response later.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
52 KnoxNews: Y-12 building evacuated after uranium chip fire
No injuries or facility damage reported
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
March 16, 2007
OAK RIDGE - A uranium chip fire was quickly extinguished
Thursday, but the "operational emergency" forced the daylong
evacuation of a facility at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant.
Mike Monnett, the public affairs chief for BWXT, the plant's
contractor, said there were no injuries to workers or damage to
Building 9204-2E, where the fire occurred. None of the workers
were contaminated with the radioactive material, he said.
About 150 people normally work in the Y-12 building, which is
commonly referred to as Beta-2.
The fire occurred at 9:36 a.m. as workers were transferring uranium
chips from one container to another. The uranium shavings ignited
when exposed to air, according to multiple reports by BWXT.
Although the uranium fire was extinguished with powdered graphite,
workers were not allowed to return to Beta-2 for the rest of the day.
"They're still doing some monitoring and assessments," he said. "We
want to make sure that building is absolutely safe before we send
anybody back in."
The emergency status was "terminated" at 6:06 p.m.
Activities at the rest of the warhead-production plant returned to
normal earlier in the day, Monnett said.
BWXT said "appropriate protective actions" were taken for Y-12
employees who were not involved in the emergency response. No such
precautions were necessary for people outside the plant's
boundaries, the contractor said.
According to BWXT, operational emergencies are "major unplanned
events or conditions that represent a significant degradation in the
level of safety at a facility and that require time-urgent response
efforts from outside the facility."
Uranium is pyrophoric, which means it can ignite when exposed to
air, and workers try to keep the shavings from machining operations
in special containers to prevent combustion. But uranium fires still
occur on occasion at Y-12.
"We try to ensure they're extremely uncommon," Monnett said.
On Wednesday, Y-12 employees participated in an emergency drill in
which a uranium fire was part of the test scenario. "It was very
similar (to Thursday's incident)," Monnett said.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
53 Seattle PI: Hanford's half-life gets longer and longer
The Hanford cleanup saga is longer-lived than a chunk of
plutonium-239. On the heels of the announcement that the nuclear
reservation's top-two managers are retiring soon, others at the
sprawling south-central Washington cleanup site are looking to
bring new radioactive waste to the site, in fact recharging the
whole Hanford mission.
Hanford pelicans. Josh Trujillo/P-I
After doing duty in WWII as the site of the world's first full-sized
nuclear reactor, the raison d'etre of Hanford in the post Cold War
years focused on cleaning up the mushroom cloud-sized mess left
behind.
Now, according to the Tri-City Herald's Annette Cary:
The Department of Energy is considering the Hanford nuclear
reservation among other sites across the nation for a center to
recycle used nuclear fuel, a reactor to burn the recycled fuel to
reduce waste and produce electricity and a research center for the
project...
The Bush administration has proposed (the Global Nuclear Energy
Partnership) as a way to reduce the amount of waste that must be
disposed of from nuclear reactors, to increase energy production
without the greenhouse gas of fossil fuels and to help limit access
to weapons-grade nuclear material elsewhere in the world. As part of
GNEP's international reach, fuel services would be supplied
worldwide for generating nuclear energy without spreading enrichment
and reprocessing technologies.
The program could help bring power to a huge segment of the world
living in poverty, said Gerald Woodcock, speaking for the Eastern
Washington Section of the American Nuclear Society.
Using Hanford facilities that taxpayers already have paid for makes
economic sense, he said.
"Recognize that Hanford can walk and chew gum at the same time," he
said. Cleanup and a fuel recycling program can complement each
other, he said.
That's got some folks buzzing about the possibility of restarting
the Fast Flux Test Facility, a reactor that's been going through
death throes longer than a bad actor in a schlocky horror flick.
But there's been little news lately about the progress of the
construction of a gazillion dollar plant (estimates may vary) that
will turn millions of gallons of radioactive waste to glass, glass
that in theory will go to Yucca Mountain, a mythical repository
where old radioactive material retires to decay in peace.
Taxpayers are spending approximately $2 billion a year to clean up
Hanford. That's more money than the federal government earmarks each
year for the nation's entire Superfund program.
If all of this has whetted your Hanford appetite, check out "Arid
Lands" a new documentary on Hanford and the Tri-Cities region being
shown soon in Seattle and Portland.
Posted by Lisa Stiffler at March 16, 2007 9:45 a.m.
Lisa Stiffler: P-I environmental reporter
Robert McClure: P-I environmental reporter
101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000
Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
©1996-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
54 Hanford News: Reach center hires official; Manager will run all activities related
to raising money
This story was published Thursday, March 15th, 2007
Michelle Dupler, Herald staff writer
Officials overseeing development of the Hanford Reach
Interpretive Center think they've found the man who can raise the
$20.5 million they need to build their tribute to Mid-Columbia
geology and history.
The Richland Public Facilities District, in conjunction with the
Reach board, have hired Ken Gibson of Metro Parks Tacoma as its
fundraising campaign manager. He starts April 16.
Gibson will be paid $75,000 a year to organize and coordinate all
activities related to the fundraising campaign for the building,
said Ron Hicks, Reach executive director.
He'll also work with the fundraising steering committee made up of
Tri-City leaders and co-chaired by Battelle Senior Vice President
Len Peters and Herald Publisher Rufus Friday.
Gibson has a long history of working with nonprofit organizations
including the Metro Parks Foundation, Point Defiance Zoological
Society, Pacific Science Center and Seattle Children's Museum.
The Reach interpretive center is intended to serve as the gateway to
the Hanford Reach National Monument, as well as highlight the
natural history of the region and Hanford's role in ending World War
II and winning the Cold War.
Design and construction of the building and exhibits are expected to
cost $40.5 million, with about $20 million already coming from
local, state and federal government sources.
Officials involved with the project hope to raise enough money to
start building next year. Hiring a campaign manager is a critical
step toward accomplishing that goal, Hicks said.
"We're really excited," he said. "It will be great to have him on
board."
The members of the fundraising committee are: Rich Emery, Community
First Bank; Bill Lampson, Lampson International LLC; Kris Watkins,
Tri-Cities Visitor & Convention Bureau; Jim Watts, Friends of the
Hanford Reach; Diehl Rettig, Rettig, Osborne, Forgette LLP; John
Neill, Banner Bank; George Garlick, Garlick Enterprises; Jack
Briggs, Friends of the Hanford Reach; Mark Spears, CH2M Hill; Ron
Gallagher, Fluor Hanford; Vicki Gordon, Gordon Brothers; Sid
Morrison, former U.S. Representative; Diane Hoch, Sigma Financial
Group; Richland City Councilwoman Rita Mazur; Mayor Jim Beaver,
Kennewick; and Franklin County Commissioner Frank Brock.
© 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
55 Hanford News: Radioactive waste piping continues; Newer tanks hold waste awaiting
treatment
This story was published Friday, March 16th, 2007
Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
Hanford workers have moved enough radioactive waste through two-
and three-inch underground pipes in recent months at the tank
farms to fill six Olympic-size swimming pools.
"It's akin to sucking a milkshake through a straw," said Jerry
Long, CH2M Hill Hanford Group vice president for waste feed
operations. "But it's a seven-mile straw."
More than a quarter of the waste was pumped through underground
pipes for seven miles, and other waste has been routed through a
complicated system that jogs around underground equipment and
goes through valve pits that serve as switching stations.
It's part of a project to ensure the best use of Hanford's 28 newer
underground tanks, all with double shells to prevent leaks. As 149
leak-prone single-shell tanks are emptied, the waste is stored in
the newer tanks to await treatment.
The tank farms, or fields of underground tanks, hold 53 million
gallons of some of Hanford's worst waste contaminated with
high-level radiation and hazardous chemicals left from the past
production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program.
"Ecology appreciates the effort the field crews made," to transfer
4.5 million gallons of the waste among double-shell tanks since Oct.
1, said Jeff Lyon, tank waste project manager for the Washington
State Department of Ecology, the regulator on the project.
"They do have limited resources, limited double-shell tank space and
a very complex system," he said.
Part of the problem is that work has been under way to empty the
waste from old tanks in the S Tank Farm in the 200 West Area of
Hanford. But the 200 West Area has just three double-shell tanks to
receive the waste and the storage tank has to be carefully chosen to
ensure chemical compatibility of waste.
To allow the older tanks in the 200 West Area to be emptied, some
waste has to be pumped seven miles - part of that uphill - to the 25
double-shell tanks in the 200 East Area.
"We're pleased with the preparation and coordination that occurs
prior to and during these transfers," said Zack Smith, acting deputy
manager for Hanford's Department of Energy Office of River
Protection.
Much of the work to transfer the waste is in the preparation, Long
said. That includes pressure testing the piping system. The system
uses a pipe within a pipe - so any potential leak is contained - and
includes a detection system within the outer pipe. The valve pits
also have leak detectors.
The diameter of the pipes is kept small to maintain a strong flow
and keep solids from settling out of the liquids.
The transfers are done with 12 to 15 people monitoring the waste
movement with computers around the clock. The largest seven-mile
transfer of 806,000 gallons took about 10 days.
"As the pace of retrieval from single-shell tanks accelerates, our
double-shell tank waste program has to accelerate as well," said
Mark Spears, CH2M Hill president.
CH2M Hill expects to complete 17 transfers this fiscal year, more
than has been transferred since cleanup began at Hanford. In
addition to the two seven-mile transfers that moved 1.2 million
gallons between the 200 West Area and 200 East Area in central
Hanford, workers have completed six transfers of waste among tanks
within each area.
© 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
56 Hanford News: Rep. Hastings pushes for B Reactor preservation
This story was published Friday, March 16th, 2007
By the Herald staff
As the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation prepares to
consider whether to name Hanford's B Reactor a National Historic
Landmark, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., reminded the Department of
Interior of his strong support for the project.
Supporters of the reactor want it saved as a museum, and
designation as a National Historic Landmark would give it another
layer of protection. Any proposed action that could affect the
integrity of the reactor first would have to be discussed with
the National Park Service.
"The B Reactor - the world's first full scale plutonium production
reactor - is a treasure not just to the local community in my
district, but also to the entire nation," wrote Hastings in a letter
to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne.
It was built in just 11 months during the race to produce an atomic
weapon during World War II, Hastings wrote.
© 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
57 UPI: DOE submits spending plan to Congress
United Press International - Energy -
3/16/2007 6:17:00 PM -0400
WASHINGTON, March 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Energy
submitted the $23.598 billion spending plan to Congress Friday, for
the remainder of the 2007 fiscal year.
The spending plan allows $45 million increase over the FY'07
request. The Continuing Resolution, signed by President Bush Feb.
15, added the new funds and required that a spending plan be
submitted to Congress within 30 days of enactment.
"We intend to use that to continue our development of the scientific
workforce in the United States," said Undersecretary Ray Orbach.
The department's spending plan includes $1.5 billion for the Office
of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The $300 million increase
will fund biomass, solar and advanced vehicle battery projects.
"The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management will spend
$445.5 million in FY '07 and will perform the critical path
activities needed to produce a high quality Yucca Mountain license
application for submittal to the NRC no later than June 30,2008,"
Spurgeon said.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory will receive $100 million
increase in funding for its projects as well. Increases at NREL
include $20 million for its biorefinery researching ethanol; $16
million for advanced thin-film photovoltaic manufacturing equipment
to reduce the cost of solar panels and $63 million to build a
research facility on the campus.
An emphasis is being put on carbon capture and sequestration, with
the program getting a 55 percent increase to $100 million, said DOE
Acting Undersecretary Dennis Spurgeon. The funds will help to
expedite the start of projects involving large scale carbon dioxide
injection field tests, Spurgeon said.
The Office of Science and the Office of Environmental Management
also received funding increases to follow through with the
president's American Competitiveness Initiative and clean up of Cold
War-era nuclear facilities.
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
*****************************************************************
58 lamonitor.com: Nuclear project faces opponents
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor
Officials in charge of a major construction project at Los Alamos
National Laboratory said they were working at night excavating the
foundations for two buildings next to the Plutonium Facility.
Persistent critics of the project said the work was running behind
schedule and facing political challenges in Washington.
Tori George, division leader for environmental restoration, gave a
brief review of the environmental processes that have been
accomplished and those that remain.
Craig Bachmeier, managing construction on the first phase, said that
it was "a little behind schedule," with about 16 percent of the
project completed.
Bachmeier's presentation emphasized efforts that have been made to
obtain a Silver Certification under the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) program of the U.S. Green Building
Council.
According to the project's most recent sustainability analysis, 29
of the 33 LEED points needed for the certificate.
Scott Kovac of Nuclear Watch New Mexico noted that a milestone for
preparing an air-permit application that was scheduled for last May
is still on the calendar for early next year.
The meeting reflected continuing disagreements among the major
participants.
"I didn't think the meeting was very helpful," said Greg Mello of
the Los Alamos Study Group.
Among the shortcomings and unfinished design features, he mentioned
ventilation issues at odds with the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety
Board recommendations and unsolved problems with plans for a
plutonium storage vault.
A formal settlement among several public interest groups, the New
Mexico Environment Department, and the laboratory in September 2005
divided the air permit application for the project into two parts:
one for the non-radiological phases of a laboratory-office building
and project equipment, and the other for a nuclear facility that
might have various roles in manufacturing triggers for nuclear
weapons and advanced nuclear fuel research, depending on decisions
yet to be made by the laboratory's supervisors, the National Nuclear
Security Administration.
The parties basically agreed not to contest or require public
hearings on the first two phases of the project, building the "light
lab" and procuring the project equipment, but agreed that the air
permit for the "heavy lab" - the Nuclear Facility - would be subject
to public hearings and appeals.
The whole complex, with a price tag estimated between $745 million
and $975 million is meant to consolidate operations involving
plutonium and highly enriched uranium.
The current Chemical and Metallurgy facility is due to be retired in
a few years and its radiological activities transferred to the
Nuclear Facility, "the heavy lab" collocated inside a security
perimeter with the Plutonium Facility.
In his notes from the meeting, Kovac noted that the administration's
request for CMRR funding is "reduced" for next year.
The budget request stated, "This allows more time to evaluate the
near- and long-term roles" of the CMRR Nuclear Facility in relation
to the long term plans of the whole complex.
Mello added that in a recent round of talks in Washington, "Our
sources indicate this facility has been badly wounded in the budget
process and is about to be put on hold."
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, led a ceremonial groundbreaking for the
project in January 2006, having kept the project alive despite
opposition from House appropriators.
The meeting Wednesday was the third meeting in the semi-annual
schedule that the parties to the settlement agreed upon, but the
environmental groups have complained the laboratory makes minimal
attempts to publicize the meetings.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
59 NAS: Project: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology
Roadmap for DOE's Office of Environmental Management
PIN: NRSB-O-06-03-A
Major Unit:
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Sub Unit: Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board
RSO: Crowley, Kevin
Subject/Focus Area: Environmental Issue
Project Scope
A National Academies committee will provide technical and strategic
advice to the DOE-EM's Office of Engineering and Technology to
support the development and implementation of its cleanup technology
roadmap. Specifically, the study will identify:
o Principal science and technology gaps and their priorities for the
cleanup program based on previous National Academies reports,
updated and extended to reflect current site conditions and EM
priorities and input form key external groups, such as the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,
Environmental Protection Agency, and state regulatory agencies.
o Strategic opportunities to leverage research and development from
other DOE programs (e.g., in the Office of Science, Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and the National Nuclear
Security Administration), other federal agencies (e.g., Department
of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency), universities, and the
private sector.
o Core capabilities at the national laboratories that will be needed
to address EM's long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges, especially
at the four laboratories located at the large DOE sites (Idaho
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, and Savannah River National
Laboratory).
o The infrastructure at these national laboratories and at EM sites
that should be maintained to support research, development, and
bench and pilot scale demonstrations of technologies for the EM
cleanup program, especially in radiochemistry.
The committee will provide findings and recommendations, as
appropriate, to EM on maintenance of core capabilities and
infrastructure at national laboratories and EM sites to address its
long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges.
Project Duration: 16 months
Provide FEEDBACK on this project.
Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to
schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the
public.
Committee Membership
Meeting 1 - 03/12/2007
Reports having no URL can be seen
at the Public Access Records Office
Email: info@nas.edu
*****************************************************************
60 NewsBlaze: Remarks As Prepared for Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell
Thank you Rose for that kind introduction. And a special thank you
to the Carnegie Moscow Center for putting together this morning's
event.
Non-governmental organizations like the Moscow Center do unique work
that plays a very important role in civil society. The Carnegie
Institute has been instrumental in bringing together the thought and
opinion leaders of Russia in support of democracy and freedom.
You and others took a leading role in the transformation of
political discourse here over the past 15 years. And it will be you
who help keep the political and opinion leaders accountable by
convening experts, fostering debate, and performing crucial research
that addresses some of our world's most important public policy
challenges. I commend you for it and I thank you for having me.
One individual who personified the important role that reformers can
make, even against staggering odds, was the former Russian Admiral
Nikolai Yurasov. I recall meeting the Admiral about five or six
years ago back in the U.S. He was a great and early advocate for
nuclear nonproliferation and he helped to strengthen the U.S. -
Russian partnership in this area.
His work began opening the door to a number of opportunities for the
Department of Energy. I think fondly of him and express my
condolences to his family.
The strategic rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union
was the most important foreign policy dynamic in the second half of
the 20th century, without question. It defined our relationship and
separated the world into groups...aligned with...aligned
against...or not aligned at all.
But that time is over. In the 21st century, our relationship must
not be defined by a rekindling of our strategic rivalry of old, but
instead by a new strategic partnership. A partnership defined by our
joint leadership on the world's greatest challenges. And right now,
there is no greater challenge than energy.
Perhaps some would say that is an overstatement. I don't think so.
And I would like to tell you why.
Energy necessarily underpins almost every other major challenge we
face.
The development and success of national economies - a matter
critically important to addressing the poverty and despair that
breeds terrorism - will depend, in large part, on whether or not
nations have secure and affordable supplies of energy.
And ensuring that this continued development is achieved in a clean
and environmentally sensitive way, and in a way that allows us to
effectively address the challenge of global climate change, will
depend on the decision we make about how to source and consume our
energy.
And each nation's sense of national security will depend in large
part on having stable and diverse supplies of energy. Energy
security cannot be separated from national security.
And when one looks at the great potential that nuclear power can
play in addressing these issues, we can add in a further issue:
energy security cannot be separated from our nonproliferation and
counterterrorism policies related to fissile material.
These issues matter. How Russia leads on these issues matter. And
perhaps there is no area in which Russia and the United States
together can have a greater impact than on energy.
In some of these areas, like nonproliferation policy, the United
States and Russia have a rich track record of cooperation on which
to build...I would like to talk about that today.
On broader matters of energy policy, our partnership is still
emerging. Frankly we, in the United States, see areas of great
concern about what is happening here, but we also see areas of great
opportunity. I will talk about that as well.
But first, let me speak to our collaboration and cooperation on
nonproliferation and on reducing the threat of loose nuclear
material. Some of our greatest achievements of the last 15 years
have been in this area.
U.S. - Russian cooperation is making an important difference, and is
helping to keep our respective nations, and nations around the
world, safe.
Three years ago, Russia joined the U.S. and others in support of UN
Security Council Resolution 1540, which mandated that states work to
prevent terrorist organizations from building or otherwise acquiring
nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.
Following those efforts, Presidents Bush and Putin, last summer,
announced the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. This
initiative unites more than a dozen like-minded nations who are
taking pro-active steps to help reduce the threat of nuclear
terrorism. The participating nations are developing and implementing
plans that will improve security of their nuclear and radioactive
substances, keep financial resources away from terrorists, prepare
to thwart terrorist attacks, and to respond to them if necessary.
Russian and U.S. leadership is making this progress possible. And
this is just one example.
In addition, we have also been working together to secure nuclear
materials here in Russia, and two years ago, we agreed to accelerate
the timetable for that work to have it completed by 2008. This will
not be an easy task, but it is vital to the world's security that we
get it done and done soon.
Just this past January, the National Nuclear Security
Administration, an arm of the Department of Energy, announced that
it had begun upgrading the ninth and final Russian nuclear warhead
site that it was assigned under the Bratislava Agreement. This work
will protect against the risk of theft or attack by terrorists, and
include installing physical protection systems, such as intrusion
detection sensors, access controls, and hardened defensive positions.
The NNSA has previously provided security upgrades at 61
military-affiliated sites in the Russian Federation, and has
contracts in place to install security systems at 23 additional
sites in the next two years.
However, while we are making substantial progress in securing
nuclear materials, we need to make more progress in the disposal of
excess plutonium within our borders.
Seven years ago, the United States and Russia reached an agreement
that we would each dispose of 34 metric tons of excess weapons-grade
plutonium. But to date, none of this plutonium has been disposed of.
In the U.S., we have a site that is ready to begin construction.
However, much of the political capital that we are expending to
implement this policy is due to the fact our legislators - our
Congress in the United States - doubt Russia's commitment to the
agreement or cite the lack of a credible plan that Moscow is
committed to.
We, at the Department of Energy, are trying to allay those concerns
and hold up our end of the bargain. And, in accordance with our
current budget, we are preparing to begin construction on our
facilities in August. However, the Russian Federation must also move
forward and join us in eliminating this dangerous and potentially
deadly material.
In these areas we must accelerate our progress, because progress
here - on matters of nonproliferation - will continue to strengthen
the foundation for partnership on broader matters of energy policy.
This is the second area in which I believe our strategic partnership
can have a long and profound impact.
At the Department of Energy, we have an independent bureau that
makes energy forecasts, known as the Energy Information
Administration. The EIA predicts that energy demand will increase by
70% over the next 25 years. More dramatically, they predict a
doubling of world consumption of electricity during that same
period. Much of the growth, of course, will come from the developing
economies around the world.
With these stark facts as background, last summer the Group of Eight
nations met in Saint Petersburg, under Russian leadership, and
committed to a Plan of Action on Global Energy Security. And each
country agreed that the development of transparent, efficient and
competitive global energy markets - markets with a certain
investment climate and fair and predictable regulatory regimes -
were the best way to achieve our common objectives.
The United States and Russia will naturally have different
perspectives on exactly what this plan means. That is not
surprising...the U.S. is the world's largest net consumer of energy
and Russia is the world's largest net producer. So, we won't always
agree.
But I think I understand why Russia agreed to these principles.
Russia wants to advance its dominant role as an energy supplier to
the world. Russia wants to mature its energy sector to take full
potential from its incredible natural wealth. And further, I believe
Russia wants to increase the share value of its energy companies,
and desires the benefits that will accrue from collaboration with
privately-owned international companies. I would cite, as a great
example the collaboration that exists with ConocoPhillips and Lukoil.
New development in the oil and gas sector in Russia will require new
technology, foreign capital, and the experience and best practices
of the world's leading energy companies. And the greatest success in
this area will require a transparent marketplace, a certain
investment climate, and fair and predictable regulatory regimes.
However, this is still a work in progress.
The world has watched as the Russian government has taken greater
and greater control over Russia's energy resources, while private
entities have been marginalized. Foreign investors have stood on the
sidelines, waiting for Russia to clarify the law on strategic
industries and terms for developing its subsoil resources. We have
viewed with alarm as foreign companies have been subject to the
arbitrary application of uncertain regulations, and new demands for
payment of unexpected tax liabilities. And of course these
developments are threatening to potential new investment, but even
more damaging to what I perceive to be Russia's long-term interests.
There was great hope that the technically challenging development of
the Shtokman field would be an opportunity for foreign companies to
broaden their investment partnerships in Russia - and for years we
were led to believe this would be the case. But now it appears
foreign companies will not be allowed to participate on an equity
basis. But again, perhaps this is still a work in progress.
Recently, the United States has been vocal in our concerns on many
of these issues, not because we want to limit Russia's global energy
leadership, but because we want to encourage and expand it. What
Russia does matters. It matters to the world. It matters to the U.S.
And it matters to global energy security.
By maintaining an open marketplace with a fair and level playing
field, Russia can ensure its continued energy leadership, and
together, our two nations can serve as an example to others.
When it comes to the US-Russian relationship, every area of concern
seems to carry with it the greater potential for opportunity. And in
no area is there more opportunity than in the nuclear energy arena.
Our countries, and perhaps more importantly, our two Presidents,
share the view that we can work together to provide safe, clean
nuclear energy to growing economies all over the world in a manner
that will also serve and advance the world's nonproliferation
interests.
Recently, your President delivered a very tough speech in Munich on
the state of world affairs from his perspective.
His blunt criticism of the U.S. received a strong and effective
rebuttal from U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates the following day
and I do not desire here to go into that matter further.
But in another part of his speech, that wasn't as widely covered, he
outlined his great desire to work together with the U.S. towards
this shared goal of safely expanding nuclear energy.
President Putin said, and I quote, "The present international legal
principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear
fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons
want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy
independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be
quickly transformed into nuclear weapons. This creates serious
international tension..."
From there, President Putin went on to say, "Last year Russia put
forward the initiative to establish international centres for the
enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such
centres not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries
where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy.
Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee
that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these
centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under strict IAEA
supervision. The latest initiatives put forward by American
President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian
proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and
equally interested in strengthening the regime of the
non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
deployment. It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and
missile capabilities that must act as leaders in developing new,
stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work.
We are engaged in consultations with our American friends."
That is very true and in fact that is what we are doing and why I
came to Russia this week.
At about the same time that President Putin put forth his program,
President Bush forwarded a similar policy initiative in the United
States called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP.
This initiative will develop the technologies that could further
spur a nuclear expansion by recycling used fuel, while at the same
time addressing spent fuel disposition and nonproliferation concerns.
Under GNEP, fuel supplier nations would commit to operating both
nuclear power plants and fuel production and handling facilities.
They would then provide fuel services to user nations who would
operate the nuclear power plants themselves.
If supplier nations can provide the fuel services in a commercially
attractive form - and from a diversity of suppliers - it will reduce
incentives for nations to acquire sensitive fuel cycle technologies,
reduce stockpiles of separated plutonium, enable proliferation
resistant reactor technology, and strengthen safeguards technology.
We welcome Russia to this strategic partnership and look forward to
working with them on the policy and technology necessary to bring
the developing world clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy in a
proliferation resistant manner.
Moving forward, our joint cooperation in the spread of nuclear
energy will, indeed, be a tremendous development; and one that could
literally change the world.
No one could've imagined, even 20 years ago, that our two nations
would be working together - in partnership - on ways to expand
nuclear energy to the world. This is the result of a maturing of our
relationship that has seen old Cold War fears melt into an era of
new opportunity.
Just a generation ago, it was inconceivable to think of a world
where Russia and the United States were not enemies, but were
allies, and great partners.
Now as 21st Century partners, our nations can push each other
forward. We are already making significant progress on energy
expansion and non-proliferation issues - and we must see this
continue.
And by moving forward together on matters such as energy efficiency,
expanding the use of alternative energy, and cultivating a fair,
open, and transparent energy market, our two nations can continue to
make a difference in the world.
And years from now, rather than our relationship being remembered
for the vices of the past, it will be remembered for the virtues of
our future.
That is what I see. That is what I hope for. And that is what we, in
the United States, are committed to.
Thank you.
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:
*****************************************************************