***************************************************************** 03/21/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.67 ***************************************************************** 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 [southnews] Bolton: Iran Won't Give Up Nuke Ambition 2 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Nixes 'Excessive' Iran Sanctions 3 AFP: Dubai becomes Iran's business hub - 4 UPI: Walker's World: Can the U.N. fix Iran? 5 IPS-English NORTH KOREA: 'Back at Square One on Nuclear Issue' 6 Digital Chosunilbo: Macau to Transfer BDA Funds to N.Korea Wednesday 7 Reuters: FACTBOX-Key facts on North Korea and uranium enrichment 8 US: [NukeNet] Next: Nuclear-powered ethanol plants? 9 US: TomPaine.com: Edwards' 'Aggressive' Energy Plan 10 US: UPI: NNSA scraps W56, B61 nuke warheads 11 US: POGO: Executive Privilege: The Battles are Brewing 12 US: TomPaine.com: Mushroom-Clouded Thinking 13 US: UCS Media Alert: Safe Climate Act Best Chance to Avert Dangerous 14 RIA Novosti: Ukraine's new FM prioritizes contacts with Russia, U.S. NUCLEAR REACTORS 15 US: Raleigh Chronicle: State Senators To Discuss Nuclear Power Plant 16 DAILY YOMIURI: Ex-Shika N-plant head hid 1999 criticality incident 17 DAILY YOMIURI: N-plants need to share and share alike 18 RIA Novosti: Rosatom submits $5 bln nuclear safety program to govt." 19 US: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Westinghouse center goes to Cranberry 20 US: NRC: NRC Announces Hearing Opportunity and Intent to Develop 21 US: Journal News: Indian Point to test sirens today 22 AFTENPOSTEN: Nuclear plant threatened - 23 US: APP.COM: NRC serious about input on Oyster Creek renewal | 24 US: APP.COM: Pumps lost power at nuke plant | 25 US: CBJ: Regulators give Duke partial assurance on nuclear costs - 26 This is Dorset: Dont Bin Nuclear Advice Booklet 27 US: FR: NRC: Proposed Revisions to NUREG/BR-0006 and NUREG/BR-0007 28 US: FR NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice 29 US: Des Moines Register: As water grows scarce, nuclear power can he 30 Kyiv Post: US provides energy aid to Ukraine 31 Thanh Nien Daily: Vietnam hopes for nuclear power by 2022 - official 32 UPI: NEA, Russia sign nuclear pact 33 BBC: Lots of support for Bruce Power 34 AU ABC: Switkowski talks up nuclear benefits 35 US: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: $3M per year in tax breaks awaits Wes 36 US: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Westinghouse picks Cranberry - (For F 37 US: NewsBlaze : President Bush Discusses Energy Initiatives in Misso NUCLEAR SECURITY 38 US: NRC: Nuclear Gauge Reported Stolen in Philadelphia; Recovery of 39 US: UPI: Scientists ponder nuclear attack impacts 40 US: UPI: Everett probes nuke security breaches NUCLEAR SAFETY 41 US: Portsmouth Daily Times: Activist calls radium loss at plant scar 42 US: [NukeNet] Aerojet DU munitions plant initial health survey repor 43 [southnews] Two dead in nuclear submarine accident 44 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $13,000 Fine for Accurate NDE & Inspection, LL 45 Guardian Unlimited: Two dead in nuclear submarine accident 46 AFP: Two die in accident on nuclear submarine - 47 US: Boise Weekly: Abandonment of vets is a military tradition 48 US: FR: NRC: decon plan for PA site 49 Reuters: Two British sailors killed on nuclear submarine 50 US: Daily Herald: Help all U.S. downwinders NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 51 US: Sun News: Panel agrees to keep nuclear dump open 52 DAILY SOUTHTOWN: Applause for Lang column 53 RIA Novosti: Russia, Kazakhstan to sign deal on uranium enrichment c 54 RIA Novosti: Atomenergoprom could be established in May-June 2007 55 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Pike residents learn more on GNEP work 56 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Sorrell joins others on VY waste safety 57 US: Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions must start over if it wants f 58 US: Platts: Nukes to be 'engaged' in GNEP by last quarter of FY-07: 59 JGJCC: DSG preferred option would add 138m to clean-up cost 60 US: Daily Herald: More waste still an option 61 US: UPI: MIT expert: Not enough nuclear fuels 62 US: UPI: Fuel shortage limits U.S. nuke power plans 63 US: UPI: NNSA chief quizzed on nuke waste policy 64 US: The Courier: County approves issuance of bonds for waste facilit PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 65 KnoxNews: ORNL covets research role in nuclear energy program 66 DOE: Secretary Bodman in India Highlights Clean Energy Investment 67 DOE: Department of Energy Recognizes Top ENERGY STAR Partners 68 Tri-City Herald: Hanford increase smart move for DOE 69 Tri-City Herald: Vitrification pretreatment test plant in works 70 Daily Californian: Lab Traces Path of Contraband To Thwart Nuclear T 71 KnoxNews: ORNL helps on Vietnam reactor 72 KnoxNews: Y-12 completes dismantling of two warhead groups ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [southnews] Bolton: Iran Won't Give Up Nuke Ambition Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:44:27 -0500 (CDT) President Bush's former envoy to the United Nations says using military force against Iran would be preferable to allowing the country to acquire nuclear weapons. Bolton: Iran Won't Give Up Nuke Ambition Wednesday March 21, 2007 7:46 AM By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer NEW YORK (AP) - President Bush's former envoy to the United Nations says using military force against Iran would be preferable to allowing the country to acquire nuclear weapons. John Bolton gained a reputation for speaking out during his 17 months as U.S. ambassador to the world body. But his remarks Tuesday night were some of his boldest yet, especially concerning Tehran. ``I believe that ultimately the only real prospect of getting Iran to give up nuclear weapons is to change the regime,'' Bolton told reporters after an off-the-record speech to the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan policy research organization. How should this be done? ``By the force of the Iranian people themselves,'' Bolton replied. ``But if the alternative is a nuclear Iran, as unpleasant as the use of military force would be, I think the prospect of a nuclear Iran is worse.'' The U.N. Security Council is considering new sanctions against Tehran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fissile material for nuclear weapons as well as fuel for nuclear power plants. Tehran's reaction to U.N. sanctions imposed in December was to step up its enrichment of uranium. ``I think Iran's record is clear that they're never going to give up the pursuit of uranium enrichment,'' Bolton said, ``and I think that there's no disagreement within their leadership that that's the road to nuclear weapons.'' Bolton arrived at the United Nations in August 2005, a controversial figure appointed by Bush during a Congressional recess because he twice failed to be confirmed by the Senate. Still unable to get Senate backing, he stepped down in December. Now back at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, he says he's writing a book about his days at the U.N. titled ``Surrender is Not an Option.'' Published by Simon & Schuster, it is due out in November. Bolton also criticized the U.S. government for releasing $25 million in frozen North Korean assets held by a Macau bank suspected of helping North Korea launder money from counterfeiting and other illegal activities. The United States had promised to release the funds as part of international efforts to roll back the communist regime's nuclear weapons program. ``I think it's a signal of weakness,'' he said. ``It's a terrible signal to Iran and other would-be proliferators.'' The former ambassador also said it was time to contemplate regime change in Sudan, whose government is accused of inciting a conflict in the country's Darfur region that has killed 200,000 people and displaced 2.5 million since 2003. He said so many elements of Sudan are dissatisfied with the government that there would be a ``lot of candidates'' for undertaking regime change. __________________________________________ *Nations Propose Iran Sanction Amendments* *Wednesday March 21, 2007 4:31 AM* *By EDITH M. LEDERER* *Associated Press Writer* UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Indonesia, Qatar and South Africa have proposed amendments to a new U.N. resolution drafted by six world powers that would impose new sanctions on Iran for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. Ambassadors from the 15 Security Council nations held informal discussions at Britain's U.N. Mission Tuesday ahead of a meeting Wednesday afternoon to discuss possible changes to the text. Germany and the five veto-wielding permanent council nations - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - agreed on the modest package of new sanctions Thursday to step up pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. But the 10 non-permanent council members - including Indonesia, Qatar and South Africa - were not part of the negotiations and only received the draft Thursday to consider and propose changes. The Indonesian and Qatari amendments, which were not released, were described as ``workable'' by one council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because the talks were private. Indonesia's deputy U.N. ambassador Hasan Kleib told reporters as he left, ``Generally we don't like sanctions.'' South Africa's proposed amendments - if approved - would drastically weaken the draft resolution by authorizing a 90-day ``time out'' on all sanctions, dropping an embargo on arms exports, and eliminating financial sanctions targeting Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards and an Iranian bank. South Africa's U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, the current council president, said he didn't talk about his amendments at Tuesday's meeting but he did ask for clarifications about the political process and expanding the resolution beyond proliferation issues. The sponsors explained that the foreign ministers of the six countries backing the resolution would address these points in a letter, he said. Acting U.S. Ambassador Alejandro Wolff called Tuesday's session ``a good meeting'' that gave backers of the resolution the opportunity to explain their approach. In December, the Security Council voted unanimously to impose limited sanctions against Iran for its refusal to freeze uranium enrichment. It 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 - and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains defiant. The proposed new sanctions in the draft resolution would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in the country's nuclear and missile programs - about a third linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps. The package also calls for voluntary restrictions on travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, on arms sales to Iran, and on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government. ``I'm hopeful that we're close to a vote this week,'' Wolff said after Tuesday's meeting. ``There were some good ideas shared, some concerns. We will have to now take stock of others views and see which ones can be reflected without undermining the construct of this resolution.'' U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington ``We've reached out to the South Africans ... about our thinking behind the draft resolution as it stands now, and we will take a look at what might be included, from their proposed amendments, into the final draft resolution.'' A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the U.S. is confident that the major South African revisions will be eliminated and that the ``core principles'' of the resolution will be maintained. Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the sponsors offered to give the non-permanent members, who are elected for two-year terms, time to consider the draft and ``we believe not to overly rush things.'' ``We have to allow them to voice their concerns, and I'm sure in the end we're going to work it out,'' he said. --- Associated Press Writer Carley Petesch contributed to this report. ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Nixes 'Excessive' Iran Sanctions From the Associated Press Wednesday March 21, 2007 2:01 PM By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's foreign minister said Wednesday it will not support ``excessive'' sanctions against its economic partner Iran, as the U.N. Security Council drew closer to a vote on a new, harsher set of measures intended to push Tehran to freeze its nuclear program. Ambassadors from the 15 Security Council nations held informal discussions at Britain's U.N. Mission in New York ahead of a meeting later Wednesday to discuss possible changes to the draft resolution. Germany and the five veto-wielding permanent council nations - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - agreed on the modest package of new sanctions Thursday to step up pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to produce nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow ``will not support excessive sanctions against Iran,'' and added that the draft resolution has been softened at Moscow's behest. Lavrov also denied claims that Moscow had told Iran it would not deliver nuclear fuel for the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran unless Tehran complies with U.N. demands. ``There is no link whatsoever between the U.N. resolution ... and the implementation of the Bushehr project,'' he told lawmakers in the lower parliament house. The proposed new sanctions in the draft resolution would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in the country's nuclear and missile programs - about a third linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps. The package also calls for voluntary restrictions on travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, on arms sales to Iran, and on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government. Lavrov said an earlier, tougher version of the draft resolution that included broader restrictions on officials' travel and a ban on credits to Iran had been softened on Russia's advice. ``We ... have agreed to influence Iran by gradually applying proportionate pressure,'' Lavrov said. At Russia's insistence, neither the existing Security Council resolution nor the draft being discussed makes any mention of Bushehr. Lavrov said the Bushehr contract is in line with all international agreements aimed at preventing nuclear weapons proliferation. European and U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks said Tuesday that Moscow had bluntly told Tehran it would not ship fuel for Bushehr until Tehran freezes its uranium enrichment program, as demanded by the U.N. Security Council. Lavrov dismissed the claims as an ``unscrupulous trick.'' ``It's not the first time that we are seeing such an unscrupulous approach aimed at driving a wedge between us and Iran,'' he said. Russia has said fuel for Bushehr would not be supplied this month, as had been planned earlier, because of alleged Iranian payment delays that prompted Moscow to indefinitely postpone the Bushehr reactor's launch, which had been set for September. Russian officials also said that the number of workers at Bushehr had dwindled due to the funding shortage. Iran angrily denied falling behind in payments and accused Russia of caving in to U.S. pressure to take a tougher line on Tehran. Iranian state television on Tuesday described Russia as an ``unreliable partner,'' adding: ``It is clear that Russia has stopped construction of this plant under pressure and for political reasons.'' On Wednesday, Lavrov repeated Russia's assertions that Iran had dragged its feet on payments for Bushehr. ``Regrettably, our Iranian colleagues aren't telling the truth when they blame Russia for the financial problems which have emerged. Financial problems do exist, but they are linked to the Iranian side breaching an earlier-agreed schedule of payments,'' he said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: Dubai becomes Iran's business hub - by John Irish Wed Mar 21, 10:07 AM ET DUBAI (AFP) - "Dubai is the most Iranian of cities," said Mohammed Reza, an Iranian expatriate who has lived in the Gulf emirate across the waters from the Islamic republic since 1998. Not many could argue with him. It was Friday lunchtime and the 29-year-old engineer was about to enter the city's impressive turquoise-domed Imam Hussein mosque. Hundreds of his compatriots followed as the call to prayer echoed. In a city known for glass and steel skyscrapers and industrial free zones, this little enclave in one of Dubai's older districts could be known as Irantown. Adjacent to the mosque sits one of Iran's largest consulates. Opposite, people mill around an Iranian hospital ordained with intricate Persian scriptures. "Iranians were among the first to set up business in the United Arab Emirates," a federation of seven emirates, said Salah Salmeen at the Dubai Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DCCI). "The oil boom and development of shipping facilities to Iran created further opportunities for maximising trade between the two countries." According to the Iranian consulate in Dubai, at least 400,000 of the UAE's 4.1 million residents are Iranian. The numbers have almost doubled since 2003. Iran's status as an international pariah, which has increased since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election in 2005, has forced many nationals overseas. Heavy taxation and the difficulty of acquiring letters of credit have given businessmen few options but to seek opportunities elsewhere. "If an Iranian company deals with European companies, the European side is always more comfortable dealing with a Dubai-based company as the rules and regulations are not volatile like in Iran," said Mohammed Safavi, general manager at trading firm The Link. Located just 170 kilometres (105 miles) across the Strait of Hormuz, Dubai has become a satellite state for Iranian capital. The DCCI has 8,050 Iranian companies registered. The Iranian Business Council's (IBC) numbers are closer to 10,000 businesses, ranging from banking to real estate and oil. Iranians are also major investors in property developments. The DCCI estimates Dubai's non-oil trade with Iran was worth eight billion dollars last year, a 30-percent rise since 2004. "We estimate accumulated assets of Iranians in the UAE to be about 300 billion dollars, while trade between the UAE and Iran was about 11 billion dollars in 2006," said IBC vice-president Nasser Hashempour. Dubai has become so important to Iran that senior Iranian government officials are rumoured to have set up front companies in the emirate. "We've heard a lot about non-private sector companies or people belonging to the government investing in Dubai," said Hashempour. The UAE is by far Iran's largest global trade partner, with exchanges reaching nearly three times those with Germany. "Dubai is essential to Iran," said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, professor of political science at UAE University. "Iran needs Dubai more than the other way round... It can deal with the outside world from here and it will need it more and more if there are (trade) sanctions imposed (over Tehran's nuclear programme)." The conflict between Washington and arch-foe Tehran has put Dubai's relationship with its neighbour in the spotlight. At a recent conference in the emirate, Stuart Levey, US undersecretary at the Treasury, suggested the UAE would need to think carefully in the future. The United States, which is known to use Dubai as a listening post to monitor Iranian activity, is a staunch UAE ally. "We have been successful in balancing both sides," said Abdulla. "The Americans and Iranians know they have been given leeway here to do things they couldn't do elsewhere. I hope they do not tamper with the stability and security that this country is providing everybody." The UAE prides itself on its diplomacy, and relations with Iran are thriving despite a 30-year feud over three Gulf islands, which the UAE considers occupied by Iran. The federation, whose natives are mostly Sunnis, also sees the large presence of Shiite Iranians as another example of its social tolerance. "In terms of the Shiite-Sunni conflict, the UAE, with its large Iranian population, (shows) that it is possible to maintain a cohesive relationship between the two parties," said Narayanappa Janardhan, political analyst at the strategic think-tank Gulf Research Centre. "Dubai is a platform where you don't worry about sectarianism." Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 4 UPI: Walker's World: Can the U.N. fix Iran? United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 3/21/2007 10:47:00 AM -0400 By MARTIN WALKER UPI Editor Emeritus WASHINGTON, March 21 (UPI) -- The good news is that the second United Nations resolution imposing new sanctions on Iraq has been agreed by the P5, the five permanent members of the Security Council. The bad news is that these sanctions are mild. They threaten an embargo on Iranian weapons exports, which may actually save Iran money. Their main customers are Hezbollah and (if they can smuggle the arms successfully) Hamas, and their weapons come as gifts rather than as merchandise to be paid for. The proposed new sanctions also expand the list of individuals and organizations covered by an assets freeze and travel restrictions, including some individuals and bodies that are part of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Moreover, these sanctions will remain on hold pending the proposed visit to the United Nations of Iran's firebrand President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (along with an entourage of 38 aides to accompany him) to make his own appeal to the Security Council. There will also be a delay until the self-esteem of the South African government is suitably stroked. The South Africans, currently holding the rotating chairmanship of the Security Council, grumble that they have not been sufficiently consulted or respected by the P5 and so want to use their temporary status to hold things up and to put their own stamp on the measure. That, at least, is the charitable view, which is held mainly by the diminishing number of nations who are not disgusted at South Africa's refusal to countenance any serious action against the appalling regime of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Less charitable views at the United Nations suggest that the South Africans want to emasculate the sanctions in order to bolster their neutralist (perhaps that should be anti-American) credentials, and possibly to ensure future favors. South Africa is an oil importer, and that is something the Iranians have in abundance. The Indonesians are also being difficult, for their own reasons. That is the problem with the international community and the varying attitudes its members take toward Iran. An unusually frank and useful statement of this problem was recently published by Paolo Casaca, a Portuguese Socialist member of the European Parliament, who points out that the European attitudes toward Iran have been schizophrenic. While European Union governments have lined up, slowly but decisively against Iran's nuclear ambitions, its businesses have taken a rather different line. "European big business interests have placed money before our security and have twisted government policy, so many European taxpayers (who likely do it without even knowing) continue to lavish economic and financial support to the Islamic Republic of Iran," Casaca claims. "Indeed, the European Union has long been one of the largest trading partners of Iran, and as surprising as it might sound today, it has developed its operations and investments in Iran parallel with the development by Iran of its nuclear program." He notes that between 2003 and 2005, EU exports to Iran rose by almost one-third to $17 billion, while EU imports from Iran, mostly of oil, rose by nearly two-thirds to $16 billion in that period. Europe is Iran's main supplier of goods and makes up almost half of the country's total imports. Much of that commerce, Casaca notes, is subsidized by European governments who underwrite deals with and within Iran. Indeed, in some European nations such as Germany, the federal government export credit guarantees help finance German exports to Iran. The German government insures, through export guarantee programs, approximately 65 percent of the total German exports to Iran. After Germany, with about $7.5 billion of export guarantees, are Italy ($6.5 billion) and France ($1.4 billion). "If we cut our economic handouts to Iran, can we slow or stop Iran's own purchases and tests of long- and short-range missiles that can hit any Mideast nation and parts of Europe?" Casaca asks. "If we in Europe stop our lavish financial ties to Iran, can we help stop the flow of hundreds of millions in Iran's profits to dangerous terrorist groups around the world -- terrorist groups who have already recruited more than 25,000 people who say they want to become suicide bombers?" To the credit of the EU, these nations have put their short-term financial self-interest on hold in order to increase the diplomatic pressure on Iran. And to the credit of Russia, not always the most helpful of the P5 nations, the supply of nuclear fuel to Iran's Bushehr reactor has been stopped. The Bushehr reactor, supposedly for the peaceful purpose of delivering electric power, was originally a German project. But when the Germans pulled out, Russia took over the lucrative contract. Claiming that the Iranians are behind on payments, the Russians have downed tools, but they insist this has nothing to do with U.N. sanctions and solemnly pledge that no ultimatum has been delivered to Tehran to accept the U.N. Security Council's demand that Iran's enrichment of uranium be stopped. True or not, the political message to Tehran is clear. Russians and Europeans alike seem to be moving beyond the usual self-interested economic concerns to present a solid front against Tehran, with the clear demand that the U.N. threat of sanctions should be taken seriously. This is one of the more impressive acts of U.N. solidarity and effectiveness and reflects an impressive diplomatic effort by the United States. The question now is whether Iran is prepared to listen, and if not, whether the international solidarity at the United Nations will hold and whether the P5 can persuade the rest of the international community, starting with South Africa, to follow suit. These are all big questions, but for once there seems to be a real prospect of the United Nations acting on principle, with effect and alongside the United States. Any one of these three attributes would be remarkable, but for the United Nations to pursue all three at once is almost revolutionary. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 IPS-English NORTH KOREA: 'Back at Square One on Nuclear Issue' Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:53:32 -0800 Analysis by Peter Dhondt BRUSSELS, Mar 21 (IPS) - Is the Korean peninsula really heading for de-nuclearisation after last month's surprising deal? Experts like Han Sung-Joo, former South Korean foreign minister, remain sceptical and say it is ''unlikely that the North Korean regime will ever give up its nuclear weapons''. On Feb. 13 North Korea agreed to ”shut down and seal” within 60 days its Yongbyon reactor, the most important nuclear facility in the country. In return, the agreement hammered out at the six-party talks in Beijing says that North Korea will receive 50,000 tons of fuel or economic aid of equal value. Much more fuel or economic aid will follow when North Korea permanently disables all of its nuclear facilities, capable of producing material for nuclear weapons. The six countries engaged in the talks are the United States, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea. The agreement was hailed as a major breakthrough after months of tension that followed North Korean missile and nuclear bomb tests last year. Now, one month after the signing of the agreement, most things seem to be going to plan. Bilateral talks between North Korea and the U.S. and with South Korea are taking place, aimed at normalisation of relations and implementation of the agreement. Recent bilateral talks with Japan were discontinued because North Korea does not want to discuss the abduction of Japanese citizens in the 1970s and 80s. But on Mar. 19, the U.S. removed another major obstacle to the closure of the Yongbyon reactor by allowing 25 million dollars of frozen North Korean funds lying in the Banco Delta Asia in Macau to be transferred to a Bank of China account in Beijing. But does that mean real progress? ”Basically, we are back at square one. We are not in a better situation than in 1994, after the signing of the Agreed Framework ”, Han argued, speaking on Monday in Brussels at a panel discussion organised by the European Policy Centre and the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. On Oct. 21, 1994, the U.S. and North Korea signed an agreement obliging Pyongyang to freeze operation and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert nuclear weapons programme, in return for the building of two new reactors that could not be used to produce material for nuclear weapons. The agreement was only partially implemented and the building of the new reactors was halted. ”It has to be said that the new deal will likely freeze the production of plutonium by North Korea and that it opens the possibility of further talks, which might be the beginning of a real solution,'' said Han. ”But on the negative side, we now have the fact that North Korea has nuclear arms and has even tested them. They do not have to do away with them. Neither does the deal stop the enrichment of uranium. Maybe, the agreement only causes unjustified optimism, which will take away the pressure on Pyongyang. And it is possible that we are heading in the direction of an implicit recognition of the nuclear status of North Korea.” Other experts are more optimistic. ”A poor peace is better than a good war, a Russian saying goes”, said Leonid Petrov, another participant at the panel discussion in Brussels. Petrov is chair of Korean Studies at the Asia Centre of the Institut d'Etudes Politiques in Paris. ”It is the best deal that we could get at the moment. We now have to maintain the positive momentum. Obviously, both North Korea and the U.S. have to keep their promises. But there is also a need for enhanced engagement, starting from a positive vision for the Korean peninsula and for East Asia. Parties have to seek common grounds with Pyongyang and have to improve communication.” Will North Korea ever be willing to let go of its nuclear arsenal? ”We will still live with the North Korean nuclear weapons for a long time,'' Patrick Cronin, director of studies at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, said in Brussels. ”The proliferation crisis is not over, and we have to realise that we are dealing with a weak state that seems willing to trade some of the nuclear material it produces.” Han also thought it ”very unlikely” that North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons. ”No compensation is big enough for that. Nuclear weapons and the nuclear programme are seen by the regime in Pyongyang as a key to survival and as the most powerful bargaining tool it has. They will slowly dole out slices of concessions in fields like freeze, inspection and reporting before actually starting to dismantle facilities or weapons -- if it ever comes to that.” For now, the deal only wants North Korea to ”disable” facilities -- beginning with the Yongbyon reactor. Han did not foresee any immediate problems with that. ”North Korea will be playing the good boy in 2007. It is an election year in South Korea, and North Korea does not want to strengthen parties that are critical about the deal. Besides, North Korea does not have to do much to please the others, not even the U.S. If you are planning to buy any South Korean stocks, this is a good year to do so.” ***** +Bridges to Asia (http://www.ipsnewsasia.net/bridgesfromasia/) +POLITICS: 'Europe, Asia Can Show US the Multilateral Way' (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34693) (END/IPS/AP/WD/EU/IP/NU/CO/DV/PD/RDR/07) = 03211845 ORP015 NNNN ***************************************************************** 6 Digital Chosunilbo: Macau to Transfer BDA Funds to N.Korea Wednesday Updated Mar.21,2007 11:05 KST As the U.S. government has officially announced that it will unfreeze US$25 million in North Korean funds from the Macau-based Banco Delta Asia (BDA), the Macau government will reportedly transfer the money to a North Korean account on Wednesday. A source familiar with the BDA matter said on Tuesday, "The Macau Monetary Authority finished reviewing the data from Washington's investigation of the BDA, and it will transfer the whole amount, which is $25 million, into an account held by North Korea's Foreign Trade Bank at the Bank of China." Analysts say this is in line with an agreement between Washington and Pyongyang to conclude the matter before the six-party talks currently underway in Beijing are wrapped up. The Macau government is understood to be transferring the money via wire at the request of North Korea. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 7 Reuters: FACTBOX-Key facts on North Korea and uranium enrichment Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:26AM EDT (Reuters) - The United States has said North Korea must detail any involvement in enriching uranium as part of the next stage of a nuclear disarmament agreement reached at six-party talks in Beijing in February. Here are some key facts about uranium enrichment and North Korea: * HOW IS ENRICHED URANIUM LINKED TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS?: -- Highly enriched uranium, and plutonium, are the two materials typically used in the core of nuclear weapons. -- Enrichment means processing uranium to produce higher concentrations that can be used as reactor fuel or, at higher levels of purity, the explosive core of nuclear weapons. -- This uranium type or isotope, called U-235 to show its mass, forms about 0.7 percent of natural uranium ore, with much of the rest being the slightly heavier U-238 isotope, which is ineffective for energy and weapons. * HOW IS IT NORMALLY MADE?: -- The most popular technique uses cascades of gas centrifuges spinning at supersonic speeds. They exploit the difference in mass between U-235 and U-238 to separate them. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 [NukeNet] Next: Nuclear-powered ethanol plants? Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:05:50 -0800 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NukeNet] Next: Nuclear-powered ethanol plants? Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 10:16:22 -0500 From: Mike Ewall To: nukenet@energyjustice.net NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Pioneer Press, St. Paul, Minnesota: Business news Monday, March 19, 2007 http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_5474727 ENNGINEER TOUTS NUCLEAR-ETHANOL TAG TEAM Making ethanol requires a lot of heat. Nuclear power plants generate a lot of heat. So why not combine them to produce both electricity and renewable fuel? That unusual idea has surfaced in the nuclear industry, and some analysts think it makes sense, especially given the scale of today's large ethanol plants. "The conversion of corn to ethanol primarily requires low-quality, low-cost steam - something nuclear power plants are very good at producing," Sam Rosenbloom, a nuclear engineer in Maryland, wrote in the March edition of Nuclear News. Energy costs are an ethanol plant's second-largest expense, after corn, and the climbing price of natural gas has the industry searching for alternatives. Last month, a North Dakota ethanol plant began operations, using waste heat from a coal-burning power plant owned by Elk River-based Great River Energy. But ethanol and nuclear power? No U.S. operator has tried that, and a spokeswoman for Xcel Energy explains one reason why not. "Due to federal security regulations, locating at a nuclear plant would just be very, very difficult," said company spokeswoman Patti Nystuen. Still, Rosenbloom thinks erecting an ethanol plant nearby - beyond the security perimeter, and near a supply of corn - would be cost-efficient and energy-wise. There hasn't been much demand for a nuclear plant's low-temperature steam, he said. Then ethanol came along. - Tom Webb # # # _______________________________________________________________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 9 TomPaine.com: Edwards' 'Aggressive' Energy Plan Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards today is putting forth what he is calling an aggressive but achievable energy plan, elements of which mirror the kind of bold energy initiative that the Apollo Alliance has been urging presidential candidates to adopt. Edwards introduced the broad outlines of his plan on CNN this morning and was scheduled to unveil the details in an afternoon address at the Biomass Energy Conversion Center in Nevada, Iowa. His proposal combines clean energy production and conservation, with a goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Specifically, Edwards proposes: * Capping greenhouse gas pollution starting in 2010 with a cap-and-trade system. * Marshalling global cooperation in signing a new climate treaty that commits other countries—including developing nations—to reducing their pollution. In conju7nction with this treaty, Edwards would offer to share new clean energy technology with developing countries and, if necessary, use trade agreements to require binding greenhouse reductions. * Creating a New Energy Economy Fund that would support research and development initiatives, paid for by auctioning off $10 billion in greenhouse pollution permits and repealing subsidies for big oil companies. * Offset the demand for more electricity through efficiency savings during the next decade, instead of seeking to build more power plants. Edwards said that by creating markets for renewable energy, energy efficiency and advanced low- and no-emission vehicles, his plan could create 1 million new jobs. “If we do this the right way we can not only address global warming and climate change, but we can transform the American economy,” he said on CNN. The Apollo Alliance applauds the focus of the Edwards plan on economic development. By providing the right framework, we can ensure that our investment in the environment is also an investment in the workforce. What this proposal contributes to the policy debate is a dismissal of the false dichotomy between a strong economy and a clean environment. In its broad outlines, it has promise as a way to reduce America’s dependence on oil imports while spurring investment in America's manufacturers and increasing the disposable income of American families through energy savings. Plus, as Edwards said, "We need to ask Americans to be patriotic about things beyond war." Which begs a question for our current leadership in Congress: Why wait for 2008 when there are good proposals on the table ready for debate today? --Isaiah J. Poole | Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:26 PM * Edwards' 'Aggressive' Energy Plan March 20, 2007 * Dems Go Lukewarm on Global Warming March 19, 2007 * Wrong Shade Of Green March 15, 2007 * White House Runs Scandal Script March 14, 2007 * Debating The Farm Bill March 13, 2007 © 2007 TomPaine.com ( A Project of The Institute for America's Future ) | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | About Us | ***************************************************************** 10 UPI: NNSA scraps W56, B61 nuke warheads United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 3/21/2007 10:57:00 AM -0400 WASHINGTON, March 21 (UPI) -- The National Nuclear Security Administration said Tuesday it had dismantled three old U.S. nuclear devices. The NNSA, an agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, said in a statement that it had extracted "uranium components from two major nuclear weapons systems formerly deployed on U.S. Air Force missiles and aircraft." The work was carried out at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tenn., the statement said. "Y-12 workers successfully dismantled the last remaining piece of the W56, a nuclear warhead associated with the Minuteman II Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, and also completed the dismantling of two modifications of the B61, a strategic nuclear bomb," the NNSA said. U.S. President George W. Bush "is committed to having the smallest nuclear weapons stockpile necessary for national security needs. The final dismantlement of these two types of Cold War-era weapons components clearly demonstrates our dedication to reducing the size of the nuclear stockpile," said Thomas P. D'Agostino, NNSA's acting administrator. "These two achievements mark the first time in recent history that Y-12 has dismantled multiple nuclear weapons components in the same fiscal year -- this is a tremendous achievement and one that Y-12 should be proud of," D'Agostino said. "It is important that we take apart and safely dispose of the weapons that we don't need any more. Dismantlements help us to reduce security and storage costs." The NNSA said the dismantlement process involved four stages: "Retiring a weapon from active or inactive service; returning and storing it; taking it apart by physically separating the high explosives from the special nuclear material; and processing the resulting material and components, which includes demilitarization, reuse, declassification, recycling, and ultimate disposal." © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 POGO: Executive Privilege: The Battles are Brewing The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog: In Support of National Security Whistleblower Protections Popeyes Fishy Earmarks In Support of National Security Whistleblower Protections On the heels of revelations that the FBI violated its own rules when issuing national security letters for records on private citizens, a bureau official has now stated that he raised concerns about the process two years ago and was ignored by his superiors. The NY Times reported yesterday: The official, Bassem Youssef, who is in charge of the bureau’s Communications Analysis Unit, said he discovered frequent legal lapses and raised concerns with superiors soon after he was assigned to the unit in early 2005. Stephen M. Kohn, the lawyer for Mr. Youssef, said his client told his superiors that the bureau had frequently failed to document an urgent national security need — proving “exigent circumstances,” in the bureau’s language — when obtaining personal information without a court order through the use of “national security letters.” The Justice Department’s Inspector General released a report earlier this month detailing the FBI’s use of “national security letters.” Bureau Director Robert Mueller has generally agreed with the IG’s assessment that rules were violated, and the FBI’s General Counsel testified today on the matter before the House Judiciary Committee. The IG is scheduled to testify tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In a response to the developments, the President of the National Whistleblower Center issued the following statement: Bassem Youssef did the right thing by reporting NSL violations to his managers and fully cooperating with the Inspector General’s investigation. He is a loyal public servant who has put his loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and national security above his own career. He has paid a price. It is time for the FBI to stop its retaliation of Mr. Youssef. Youssef filed suit against the FBI in 2003, alleging that the bureau discriminated against him because of his Egyptian ethnicity. That lawsuit is currently ongoing and instances of retaliation against Youssef have been reported. His case is a clear example of why Congress should include national security employees under the Whistleblower Protections Act. After being ignored by his superiors, Youssef had no other options for reporting his concerns and, consequently, two years passed. Meanwhile, the civil liberties of private citizens were placed in jeopardy. -- John Pruett March 20, 2007 in Congressional Oversight, Whistleblower Protection | Permalink TrackBack TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/108150/17082770 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Support of National Security Whistleblower Protections: » In Support of National Security Whistleblower Protections from Radio Left The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog On the heels of revelations that the FBI violated its own rules when issuing “national security letters” for records on private citizens, a bureau official has now stated that he raised conce... [Read More] Tracked on Mar 20, 2007 7:00:12 PM ***************************************************************** 12 TomPaine.com: Mushroom-Clouded Thinking Devin Helfrich March 21, 2007 Devin Helfrich is a legislative assistant with the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington and works on defense and foreign policy issues. Over the past year, a group of nuclear physicists has been studying a site on the banks of a beautiful river. Hidden from international nuclear inspectors, they are drawing up plans for a new facility, possibly along this river, designed to perform research on plutonium and build new nuclear bombs by the year 2020. Where is this river? Is it the Volga in Russia, the Karun in Iran, or Kuryong-gang in North Korea? Actually, it was none of these. These scientists are all looking at the Savannah River on the border of South Carolina and Georgia, only a few miles from where Tiger Woods will be playing in the Masters Golf Tournament next month. Buried deep within the volumes of the Bush administration’s annual budget proposal is an initial request for funds to start rebuilding its nuclear weapons infrastructure—at a price tag of over $150 billion. One possible location for this new H-bomb plant is the Savannah River site in South Carolina. Why, in a world where the United States is legitimately worried about countries like Iran and North Korea building new nuclear weapons, is the Bush administration rebuilding its own nuclear weapons complex? While common in Washington, this type of hypocrisy is astonishing. In the early 1990s the Cold War ended and with it the “need” for a massive nuclear weapons program—or so sensible people thought. After initial reductions in the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems, the current administration has, since its early days in office, envisioned a revitalized role for nuclear weapons. As Thomas P. D’Agostino, acting under-secretary for nuclear security, National Nuclear Security Administration, testified to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on April 5, 2006, the administration’s plans “would restore us to a level of [nuclear weapon] capability comparable to what we had during the Cold War.” The administration has a grab bag full of justifications for this new bomb plant, called “Complex 2030” for the date the plan will be completed. If one doesn’t fit, try on another. At the forefront was the argument that the plutonium inside existing nuclear warheads would be susceptible to age-related failures, with the oldest rendered “unreliable” within two decades, and thus needing replacement. This assertion was recently proved inaccurate when a panel of scientists using the government’s own data concluded in a congressionally mandated report that plutonium within existing nuclear weapons would be “reliable” for a minimum of at least 85 years. Adjusting, the DOE line then began to focus on the claim that Complex 2030 and the new bomb plant are needed in order to continue downsizing the current weapons stockpile. The agency’s argument is that by rebuilding nuclear weapons facilities, DOE will feel confident in its ability to produce new nuclear weapons when needed, and thus be able to reduce the number of active warheads. This is a strange argument: A shiny new nuclear weapons complex that would be capable of pumping out 125 to 200 new nukes a year to help the U.S. reach the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. For those who don’t want new nuclear weapons, take heart. Money talks in Washington and the über-steep price tag for an obsolete weapon has many members of Congress doing a double take. Rep. Peter Visclosky, D.-Ind., chair of the House subcommittee that funds nuclear weapons, believes that there should be a thoughtful evaluation of “why the United States needs to build new nuclear warheads at this time.” Congress should step up and take on the legacy vested interests of this country’s half-century old nuclear weapons industry. As Robert Civiak, a former White House budget official in the first Bush and Clinton administrations stated , “The weapons labs are more interested in job security than national security.” Rather than let tens of billions of dollars slip out of the treasury for building the most dangerous weapon in human history, Congress should reevaluate U.S. nuclear weapons policy with an honest scrutiny. © 2007 TomPaine.com ( A Project of The Institute for America's Future ) ***************************************************************** 13 UCS Media Alert: Safe Climate Act Best Chance to Avert Dangerous Climate Change, Scientists Say March 20, 2007 More than 120 House members today will reintroduce the Safe Climate Act, which offers the best opportunity to protect future generations from the worst effects of global warming, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The bipartisan bill, spearheaded by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), calls for an 80 percent reduction of global warming pollution from 1990 levels by 2050, a cut that UCS scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. “The Safe Climate Act's reduction targets match the magnitude and urgency of the global warming threat,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at UCS. “This bill will help secure a healthy world for our children and grandchildren.” Global warming already is causing more severe storms, heat waves, droughts and speeding up the spread of water- and pest-borne diseases. Considerable scientific evidence indicates that an additional warming of 2 degrees Fahrenheit or more above today's levels would greatly exacerbate these and other dangerous threats to public health and the environment. Sustained warming above this level also poses the risk of large-scale, irreversible changes, including the extinction of many species and a sea level rise of as much as 20 feet resulting from the destruction of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. Alternatively, if the nations of the world cut global warming pollution sufficiently to prevent concentrations of heat-trapping gases from exceeding 450 parts per million (ppm CO2 equivalent), we may be able to keep further global average temperature increases below 2 degrees F and avoid the most damaging effects of global warming. Staying under the 450 ppm threshold would require cutting global emissions roughly in half from today's levels by mid-century. Given that the United States leads the world in both absolute and per capita emissions, Americans must achieve even deeper reductions. Because heat-trapping emissions remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, the world is facing an increase of more than 1 degree F no matter what policies are enacted. In other words, the globe is nearly half way to the threshold beyond which we could see the worst effects of climate change. That's why the federal government must act soon to achieve serious reductions in global warming emissions across all sectors of the economy. Congress currently is considering several climate change bills that call for varying levels of emissions reductions, but according to UCS experts the Safe Climate Act and the Senate's Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act – whose primary sponsors are Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) – provide the best chance of staying below a 2 degrees F temperature increase above today's levels. Both bills require a gradual but deep reduction of U.S. global warming emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Safe Climate Act would freeze global warming emissions at 2009 levels in 2010, and then reduce them by approximately 2 percent per year from 2011 to 2020. These cuts could be achieved using existing renewable energy, energy efficiency, and clean vehicles technologies, according to UCS. After 2020, the bill would require emissions cuts of about 5 percent annually, as more advanced technologies become widely available. To help achieve these reductions, the Waxman bill requires energy efficiency improvements, increased reliance on renewable energy, and cleaner cars. The bill also provides flexibility to help companies meet the pollution-reduction goals through a "cap-and-trade" program. In addition to protecting future generations from the worst effects of global warming, these policies also would help to reduce U.S. dependence on oil, improve air quality, and protect pristine places from oil drilling. For general media inquiries, please call our press office at 202-331-5420. Press Contacts: EMILY ROBINSON Press Secretary 202-331-5427 erobinson@ucsusa.org AARON HUERTAS Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-5458 ahuertas@ucsusa.org ELLIOTT NEGIN Media Director 202-331-5439 enegin@ucsusa.org © Union of Concerned Scientists Page Last Revised: 03/20/07 ***************************************************************** 14 RIA Novosti: Ukraine's new FM prioritizes contacts with Russia, U.S. 14:55 | 21/ 03/ 2007 KIEV, March 21 (RIA Novosti) - Ukraine's newly appointed foreign minister said Wednesday Russia and the U.S. are key partners for his country. Parliament approved President Viktor Yushchenko's nominee for foreign minister earlier Wednesday. Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the former economics minister, received 426 votes from Supreme Rada deputies. "Russia is an extremely important partner for us. Close contacts with Russia will be maintained," he said, adding that Ukraine's foreign policy in dealing with such a great country should be predictable. He also said the Ukrainian-U.S. dialogue should be preserved. "The level of dialogue should be maintained. Ukrainian foreign policy will not shun such global issues as terror, nuclear proliferation or global warming, and we will continue to support democratic values," Yatsenyuk said. He said EU membership is not an end in itself for Ukraine, adding that the real objectives are European values and reforms. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 15 Raleigh Chronicle: State Senators To Discuss Nuclear Power Plant From Staff And Wire Reports Tuesday, March 20, 2007 RALEIGH - A group called NCWARN as well as two NC State Senators are holding a public forum on Thursday March 22nd to discuss concerns about fire violations at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant located in New Hill, located off of US Highway 1 between Chapel Hill and Raleigh. Speaking at the public event will be NC Senators Ellie Kinnaird and Janet Cowell. According to NCWARN, also in attendance will be David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Paul Gunter, of the Nuclear Information and Research Service. The event is open to the public and will be held Thursday March 22nd at 7pm at the barn at Fearrington Village on Highway 15-501 between Pittsboro and Chapel Hill. The NCWARN group claims that Shearon Harris has been plagued with fire control problems for the past 14 years and that the plant even had a fire in 1989 that required 30 firefighters and shut down the plant for weeks. Progress Energy has claimed that the plant is in compliance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules. Built in 1987, the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant is a single Westinghouse designed pressurized-water nuclear reactor about 20 miles (30 km) southwest of Raleigh. The plant's 523 foot cooling tower can be seen from tall buildings in both Durham and Raleigh. After looking at other sites, the Shearon Harris site has been selected by Progress Energy as the site of a possible second reactor. :: A public event will discuss fire safety issues at the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant is open to the public and will be held Thursday March 22nd at 7pm at the barn at Fearrington Village on Highway 15-501 between Pittsboro and Chapel Hill. ***************************************************************** 16 DAILY YOMIURI: Ex-Shika N-plant head hid 1999 criticality incident The then director of Hokuriku Electric Power Co.'s Shika nuclear power station ordered employees not to report a criticality incident in 1999 to its head office, instead attributing the critical state to false signals activated intentionally for its regular inspection, sources said Wednesday. According to the sources, the former director held an emergency meeting immediately after the criticality incident at the No. 1 reactor of the power station in Shikamachi, Ishikawa Prefecture. At the meeting, he expressed his intention to conceal the criticality by claiming it only registered as such because of test signals being sent during an inspection. He told workers it was therefore not necessary to report the accident to Hokuriku Electric Power's head office. Several senior officials, including a deputy director and a shift supervisor, attended the meeting, but no one objected to the former director's decision. Sources said this meeting was the first stage at which officials settled on the decision to cover-up. During Hokuriku Electric Power's in-house investigation, the former director said he did not remember anything about the incident, while the company reported its head office did not receive a report on the incident from the power station. According to the sources, the meeting was held at an emergency headquarters room on the second floor of the power station's administration building after the criticality was brought under control at 2:33 a.m. on June 18, 1999. A video camera is usually installed in the meeting room, so a recording of gatherings can be sent to the head office in Toyama. However, the camera was switched off while the meeting was being held. From time to time the power station will send test signals to ensure that the machines are operating properly, a practice the former director allegedly took advantage of when ordering employees to cover-up the incident, the sources said. The original data covering the period of critical condition has not been recovered, and Hokuriku Electric Power has not ruled out the possibility that the data was intentionally destroyed. After retiring from the company, the former director took up a position as an executive at a nuclear power-related organization in the area. Hokuriku Electric Power's in-house investigation uncovered another monitoring document in which the word "inspection" was written over the section of the polygraph showing the abnormal critical state, in which the number of neutrons within the reactor increased precipitously. The daily log for that day left at the duty section only noted that the reactor operation was suspended, something that would usually be recorded when a regular inspection was taken place. The sources said the alterations suggest a series of efforts to cover up the incident after the emergency meeting. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 17 DAILY YOMIURI: N-plants need to share and share alike If the accidental slippage of control rods in nuclear power reactors during regular checkups, which was recently reported by electric power companies, had been immediately announced, the same problem at Hokuriku Electric Power Co.'s plant in 1999 possibly could have been prevented. The history of similar problems in the past did not serve as a lesson to prevent the criticality accident in the No. 1 reactor of Shika nuclear power station in Shikamachi, Ishikawa Prefecture. This is partly because electric power companies had been reluctant to share such information due to rivalry among manufacturers of nuclear reactors. Hiroyuki Ito, a division chief in charge of the operation of nuclear power plants at Tokyo Electric Power Co., admitted at a press conference Tuesday that information did not flow freely between the companies. "If we are accused of lacking awareness of the risk [of control rods slipping], we can't deny it," he said. In TEPCO's Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station, manuals to operate valves to control water flows had been revised by 1992 to prevent the occurrence of abnormally high water pressure that could lead to the slippage of control rods in the No. 1 reactor. But information about the risk was not conveyed to operators of the No. 3 reactor of Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power station, where the same kind of accident occurred in 1993. And in 2000, slippage of control rods occurred in the No. 1 reactor of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant due to errors in operating valves to control water pressure, though workers there should have known how to prevent such an accident. Though TEPCO asked Toshiba Corp. to analyze conditions that could lead to this type of accident, there was no evidence of the company having shared the information throughout the firm. The company could not even share the information internally, let alone provide the information to other electric power firms to create a system for preventing similar accidents. Not only TEPCO but also Tohoku Electric Power Co. and Chubu Electric Power Co. did not release such information, thus they could not work together to prevent the accident at the Shika plant. Electric power companies are not obliged to report accidents in which control rods slip to the government, unless they develop into a criticality accident. Consequently, the firms had a tendency to downplay problems that they did not need to report to the government. The rivalry between Toshiba and Hitachi Ltd., which manufactured the boiling light water reactors that caused the problems, obstructed the exchange of accident information among the firms. According to the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum, 32 of 55 nuclear reactors in the nation are boiling water reactors. Including joint works, Toshiba was involved in manufacturing 20 of the reactors and Hitachi was involved in building 17 of them. Mechanical problems are closely tied to manufacturers' technological information and patents. The two companies, and also the electric power industry as a whole, had reasons to be cautious about exchanging information. An official of an electric power company said, "It felt as if we needed to obtain permission to talk about anything if it could be perceived as sharing information beyond the walls of manufacturers and electric power firms." Spokesmen for both Toshiba and Hitachi said their firms did not share such accident information with rival companies, in principle. But the atmosphere has gradually changed since 2002, when TEPCO was found to have concealed other problems in its nuclear power plants. The companies concerned have improved their information databases about problems in nuclear power plants. In April last year, manufacturers of boiling water reactors and electric power companies established a liaison council, but it is still early days for this initiative. Prof. Yotaro Hatamura at Kogakuin University said: "It's just a decade ago when people in industrial circles began recognizing the importance of accumulating data on past accidents. At the time of the slippage problems, we couldn't blame a failure to learn from mistakes." However, Hatamura added that it was possible for the highest-ranking official in each of the plants to decide that the accident should be reported to others because a similar problem could occur in other nuclear plants. All five cases of control rods slipping took place inside boiling water reactors, due to errors in operating water pressure controlling valves. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency and electric power firms have instructed workers in nuclear plants to reexamine manuals and strictly follow work procedures. But it is doubtful whether this measure alone can prevent serious problems. As long as there is human involvement in the process, nuclear power plants should be designed on the assumption that human errors cannot be avoided completely. "Though we'll work at paying attention to processes for the time being, in the future facilities in the plant will be designed to eliminate human errors," Ito said. Four of the 32 boiling water reactors in the nation are improved types, in which control rods are moved up and down by screws. In the four reactors, a slippage accident like those recently found cannot occur. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 18 RIA Novosti: Rosatom submits $5 bln nuclear safety program to govt." 16:58 | 21/ 03/ 2007 NIZHNY NOVGOROD, March 21 (RIA Novosti) - The Federal Nuclear Power Agency (Rosatom) has presented the Russian government with a draft federal program, Nuclear and Radiation Security 2008-15, the Rosatom chief said Wednesday. "The program has been coordinated, and we hope that it will be approved in early April," Sergei Kiriyenko said, adding it is worth 131 billion rubles ($5 billion). The Russian government said earlier it will review its energy strategy in April to increase the share of nuclear, hydroelectric and coal power in energy generation. Russia is likely to experience an energy shortage in the future if it continues to rely on thermal power generation, which is mainly based on non-renewable reserves of natural gas. Russia has 31 operating power reactors at 10 nuclear power plants (NPPs), with a total installed capacity of 23.2 MW. The average current share of NPPs in electricity generation is 16.5%. Kiriyenko said last week that Russia is planning to bring online three power reactors annually starting 2016, and in 2018-20 that number could increase to four. Sergei Ivanov, recently put in charge of the country's nuclear power and defense sectors, said a new executive body will be formed in the near future to exercise centralized control over the civilian nuclear power sector following the merger of four existing nuclear power "dinosaurs" - TVEL, Techsnabexport, Rosenergoatom and Atomstroyexport. Ivanov also said Russia could boost its uranium ore production, eventually becoming the world's third-largest holder of uranium ore reserves. 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), places Russia ninth on the list of countries that possess the largest reserves of uranium ore, with 172,000 tons (over 3% of the global supply). RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 19 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Westinghouse center goes to Cranberry Butler County site picked over Monroeville; nuclear energy complex will employ 3,000 Wednesday, March 21, 2007 An artist's rendering of the planned Westinghouse headquarters and research facility in Cranberry. By Dan Fitzpatrick and Karen Kane When John Milius heard yesterday about Westinghouse Electric Co.'s decision to leave Monroeville and bring more than 3,000 jobs north to Cranberry, he called it a "great day for our region." "Westinghouse has been a pillar of the Pittsburgh area's economy for more than a century," said Mr. Milius, chairman of the Cranberry supervisors. "Cranberry is flattered to become the steward of that legacy." Westinghouse's plan to build a 775,000-square-foot, $140 million nuclear energy campus in Cranberry Woods, an office park at the corner of Interstate 79 and Route 228, was the subject of fist-pumping celebration yesterday in fast-growing Butler County -- and in Harrisburg, where state economic development chief Dennis Yablonsky hailed the move as "a huge win." Mr. Yablonsky cited the average salary of $70,000 that will be paid to at least 1,000 new workers that will come with the expansion, in addition to the 2,150 high-paid workers moving from Monroeville and Churchill, and the fact that the research facility could have been built in another state altogether, such as North or South Carolina. "It's a great story," Mr. Yablonsky said. Only Monroeville was not in the mood to celebrate. A local official involved in the effort to keep Westinghouse in that eastern Allegheny County town was "stunned" and "disappointed" by the decision. "It is like losing a family friend," said Chad Amond, president of the Monroeville Area Chamber of Commerce. "Westinghouse has been an integral part of this community for 35-plus years and losing them, it stings, it really does. It stings." Westinghouse is the largest employer in Monroeville, with 1,900 people, and its 585,000-square-foot campus is a major source of tax revenue for the Gateway School District. By the end of 2010, there's concern much of that will be gone. Westinghouse expects to be permanently established in Cranberry by then, and Monroeville leaders worry that local run-off business will vanish, too. "Westinghouse is our No. 1 client," said Lance Rihn, general manager of the Radisson in Monroeville. "It's 5,000 room nights per year with our hotel." The loss of such a large employer means "I just have to go out and find new business. It's going to impact the Monroeville area and community." The competition between two communities from separate counties was politically delicate from the beginning. Both offered to forgo taxes for 15 years and become one of Gov. Ed Rendell's Strategic Development Areas, free of all state, local, county and school district taxes. The package in Cranberry will save Westinghouse $3 million a year. While the economic development derby between Cranberry and Monroeville never got nasty, both sides had concerns about the other, and that tension was still there yesterday. Back in December, when Westinghouse narrowed its search to two sites, state Sen. Sean Logan, D-Monroeville, complained openly about the potential use of tax incentives to shift jobs from one part of the region to another. Asked about that yesterday, Mr. Amond of the Monroeville chamber admitted to mixed emotions. "We wish the folks in Cranberry nothing but the best as part of this deal," he said. "Having said that, it is difficult for us to really sing the praises of this decision as a step forward in terms of economic development in southwestern Pennsylvania. "Essentially what has happened is the pieces have been moved around the chess board. From a broader perspective, it is a great thing for Pennsylvania that Westinghouse stayed [in the state]. From a regional standpoint, it is difficult to argue there is a net gain to the region in making this move." He added: "It is a difficult pill to swallow to imagine that tax incentives are being used for that purpose. It is what it is." Mr. Yablonsky, secretary of the state Department of Community and Economic Development, said he understands Monroeville's disappointment but argues that it was better to keep the 1,000 new jobs than lose them to another state. "I believe we all have to think regionally about these kinds of things," he said. Cranberry was not exempt from competitive concerns, either. Some in that Butler County community were privately critical of the lobbying done for Monroeville by Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato, someone who defines himself as a regional politician. "Many of us were upset" by Mr. Onorato's actions, Butler County commissioners Chairman Scott Lowe said yesterday. "We in Butler County have always tried to promote regionalism. But, it seems like there are some in Allegheny County who have a vision of regionalism that ends at their county line." Mr. Onorato, who could not be reached for comment, issued a statement saying the decision, while disappointing for Monroeville, is still a "testament to our region's competitiveness." In the end, Westinghouse chose Cranberry for reasons of cost and future convenience. The move to a flat 80-acre site in Cranberry Woods, an office park owned by O'Hara-based MSA, formerly known as Mine Safety Appliances, will save Westinghouse $10 million over the cost of adding new office and parking space at the Westinghouse Energy Center in Monroeville, a sloped site of 138 acres where Westinghouse first moved in 1971. Westinghouse needs more space to fill a worldwide demand for nuclear power plants, including four in China. Westinghouse expects to add at least 1,000 workers over the next five years, and it's possible that the number could grow to 2,000. Westinghouse, which employs about 3,450 people in southwestern Pennsylvania, will keep about 1,300 employees currently located in Blairsville, Madison and New Stanton in their existing facilities. Construction of the new Cranberry complex will begin within three months, the company said yesterday. Westinghouse's preliminary plans are for three office buildings, the first 406,000 square feet and the next two 182,000 square feet apiece. A fourth building would be planned later, if growth goes as expected. Detailed site plans are expected to be submitted to the township in May. It will likely take will take three or four months to complete the approval process. The plan is for the company's nuclear power plant unit to move during the first half of 2009. Employees currently in Monroeville and Churchill will follow, with everyone expected by year-end 2010. Before construction can begin, three taxing bodies need to sign off on the tax abatement package -- Cranberry, the local school district and the county. No one reached yesterday expected that to be a problem. "What are we going to do?" said Jerry Andree, Cranberry Township manager. "Say 'No' and have them go to North Carolina and get the governor mad? That's not going to happen. This what the governor requested of us and each of our supervisors has indicated support for the project. They believe it is good for southwestern Pennsylvania." Forgoing taxes for 15 years means Butler County would give up about $224,000 annually, the township would waive $135,000, and Seneca Valley School District would pass on $1 million a year. Nevertheless, "I see it as a boon for the community and for our students," said Seneca Valley Superintendent Don Tylinski. "The potential ancillary benefits, in terms of jobs and even in terms of connections for our students is profound," The superintendent could not predict how his board would vote on the issue, but he acknowledged a 6-3 vote late last year in favor of the concept. Butler County commissioners Chairman Lowe said he is certain he and his fellow commissioners will vote in favor. "We are on board with this. We're behind it 100 percent," he said. "Yes, we're giving up taxes, but it's shortsighted to emphasize that. We're all about bringing jobs to Butler County, and these aren't minimum wage jobs. These are high-paying jobs. How could we not be in favor of this?" (Anya Sostek contributed. Dan Fitzpatrick can be reached at dfitzpatrick@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1752. Karen Kane can be reached at kkane@post-gazette.com or 724-772-9180. ) Copyright ©1997-2007 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: NRC Announces Hearing Opportunity and Intent to Develop Environmental Report on Harris Nuclear Plant License Renewal News Release - 2007-7-037 - 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 license renewal application for the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant in North Carolina. The agency will also hold a public meeting near the plant to discuss the license renewal process and the scope of its review of the environmental impacts of the proposed renewal. Carolina Power & Light Co., doing business as Progress Energy Carolinas Inc., submitted the license renewal application for Shearon Harris Nov. 16. The application was formally docketed Jan. 12, but because the NRC was operating under a continuing resolution that held federal spending at the Fiscal Year 2006 level, the staff’s technical and environmental reviews were delayed. Now that the NRC has received its requested funding for FY 2007, those reviews will proceed. The Harris nuclear plant is located in Wake County, N.C., about 20 miles south of Raleigh. Its current operating license expires Oct. 24, 2026. Renewal would extend that license for an additional 20 years. NRC staff will conduct a public meeting April 18 in the vicinity of the plant to explain the license renewal review process and to seek public input on issues to be considered in the agency’s Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed renewal. Details of that meeting will be announced separately closer to the date. A notice of opportunity to request a hearing was published March 20 in the Federal Register. The deadline for requesting a hearing is May 21. Petitions may be filed by anyone whose interest may be affected by the license renewal and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding. 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 the 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. Information on the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, which will consider hearing requests and conduct any adjudication, is available here: http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/aslbpfuncdesc.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. March 21, 2007 ***************************************************************** 21 Journal News: Indian Point to test sirens today Wednesday, March 21, 2007 By Greg Clary Indian Point officials are set to conduct tests this morning on the new, $10 million emergency siren system for the nuclear plant. The 150 sirens are scheduled to sound at 10:30, 11 and 11:30 a.m. The sirens, in parts of Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Orange counties, should sound simultaneously at full volume for about four minutes each time. The public is not required to take any action during the tests. The siren system alerts the public to check the media for more information if there is a problem at the nuclear plans. Find more information at the Joint Information Center site: http://jic.semo.state.ny.us. Who cares who heard what.All the sounding of the sirens will do,in the event of a melt down,is let you know it's time to stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.No pill,no emergency bus stop/evacuation sight is going to save you.Emergency pick up sights.What a joke.Where would they take you?No where.There won't be anything left.Get a grip people.Indian point serves a viable, some what,economical purpose,but facts ,and I mean the real facts, are that even if the ,slightest, melt down occurs we are ,at the very least ,burnt toast,and for those who do survive,they will experience hell,first hand. Posted by: Obnor on Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:55 pm ====================================================================== I, too, heard the three tests this morning... just barely. In fact, it's so quiet, you can barely hear it if you are indoors. It would never wake anyone from their sleep, and if you were running water or had any other low volume sound on in your home, you would not be able to hear it. Even my dog was unfazed! I thought maybe the siren near my location just wasn't working and I was hearing one from much further away, but the siren is only about 3 blocks from my home and can't be heard. If it were summer and my A/C were on, it would definitely be inaudible. Once again, who was the joker who replaced the old sirens with ones that are even worse? And at whose expense? From Briarcliff Manor Posted by: uptheriv on Wed Mar 21, 2007 7:35 pm ====================================================================== They tested the Indian Point sirens three times this morning. At 10:35, as I was outside getting the morning paper, I heard a steady tone, not too loud, heard from towards where the Rt 306 old siren is/was, possibly one in the other direction. A short test, faded to nothing without changing tone. The second test was at 11am. The tone is not very loud inside the house and it varies! There is no wind ot speak of. (For the first one too.) The third test, at 11:30. Longer but barely audible. Sounds like it is coming from more due east... Not very impressive. I live just outside the 10 mile zone, maybe a tenth of a mile if that. I can barely hear the sirens. I think they need to be A LOT LOUDER!! John L Wesley Hills Posted by: lipwak on Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:37 am Copyright © 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 22 AFTENPOSTEN: Nuclear plant threatened - Aftenposten.no First published: 21 Mar 2007, 11:13 The Swedish nuclear power plant Forsmark has was evacuated on Wednesday. PHOTO: FREDRIK SANDBERG - AFP The Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden has been partially evacuated after receiving a bomb threat. "We take this threat seriously and are preparing now to look for a possible bomb," said Uppsala police spokesman Christer Nordström to Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet's web site. Police were out in force and surrounded the nuclear plant which is near the city of Uppsala, north of capital Stockholm. Road blocks have been erected in a large area around the facility. Nordström told Swedish news agency TT that the facility was not considered to be in imminent danger. Administrative staff had been evacuated but the plant was still in operation and operative personnel were working normally. The Forsmark plant was forced to close a month ago after the discovery of security irregularities. Aftenposten's Norwegian reporter Kurt Haugli Aftenposten English Web Desk Jonathan Tisdall Publisher: Aftenposten Multimedia A/S, Oslo, Norway.Telephone: +47 - 22 86 30 00. All rights, including copyright and database right, are owned by or licensed to Aftenposten Multimedia.© Aftenposten Multimedia. ***************************************************************** 23 APP.COM: NRC serious about input on Oyster Creek renewal | Asbury Park Press Online Wednesday, March 21, 2007 BY NEIL SHEEHAN Post Comment Dennis Zannoni's March 15 op-ed piece "NRC unresponsive to concerns about Oyster Creek" presented a lengthy list of assertions about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its ongoing review of a 20-year license renewal application for the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey. We have been reluctant to respond to other recent comments made by Zannoni due to his role in state Department of Environmental Protection matters as the agency's former chief nuclear engineer, and our sensitivity to even the perception that we were trying to somehow censor his negative remarks regarding the caliber of our work on the Oyster Creek application. The NRC welcomes dissenting opinions — both internally and externally — and anyone who follows the agency knows we receive many on a regular basis. However, the inaccuracies contained in a number of his assertions compel us to address at least some of the more egregious statements. This is especially the case since the DEP has made it clear to us that the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the opinions of that agency. One of the comments is that the NRC has held only one public meeting near Oyster Creek regarding the license renewal process. The NRC has conducted eight public meetings near the plant since the application was submitted in July 2005. Four public meetings were devoted to the safety aspects of our review of the application and four to environmental protection issues that could be associated with an additional two decades of plant operation. All of these meetings were well attended and covered by area media outlets. In addition, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards conducted three meetings regarding the application. While those sessions took place at our headquarters in Rockville, Md., they were open to the public, interested citizens were able to, and did, listen in by phone bridge, and several reporters were on hand. Along the same lines, Zannoni takes issue with the fact that we did not transcribe a license renewal audit team exit meeting. There are few agencies that transcribe every public meeting. The same holds true for the NRC. The purpose of the exit meeting was to share the results of our audit with AmerGen in a publicly observable manner. A subsequent inspection report documented all of the key pieces of information discussed at the meeting. But it's important to point out that we did carefully listen to, and take note of, public comments offered at the meeting. Zannoni also claims the NRC "ignored" comments made during our environmental review. Those remarks were transcribed and NRC staffers reviewed each comment. Because of the volume of comments received, the staff sought to respond to similar remarks by combining and condensing them for the purposes of the report. The NRC staff has expended approximately 12,000 hours on reviews, on-site audits and direct inspection of the safety aspects of the Oyster Creek license renewal application and about 4,300 hours to our environmental assessment of the application. Well over 100 individuals, including both NRC staffers and contractors, have been involved in the review. In addition, the staff has issued 128 formal requests for additional information to AmerGen, the plant's operator, and carefully reviewed the responses to ensure we have the most accurate understanding of how the company is addressing important technical issues in reaching associated technical conclusions. This dedication of resources hardly reflects a casual approach to our review of the application. On the topic of public interactions, Zannoni contends that the NRC declined to publicly disclose the discovery of water in the plant's drywell last year. The NRC issued a public preliminary notification report regarding the matter Nov. 9. Further, the drywell issue was extensively discussed during an NRC public meeting in Lacey Sept. 13 and in an inspection report issued Jan. 17. Zannoni also questions the credentials and credibility of Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards members. This committee was mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and performs many important functions, not the least of which is reviewing and making recommendations to the commission on reactor safety issues and license renewal applications. It is independent of the NRC staff and reports directly to the five-member presidentially appointed commission that oversees the NRC. Of the 12 advisory committee members, 10 have doctorate degrees in areas that include nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering and chemistry. These distinguished experts base their recommendations on scientific facts. In the case of the Oyster Creek application, they challenged the company, and the NRC staff, repeatedly. The advisory committee ultimately recommended approval of the application but only after several conditions were added. To suggest that this committee was not up to the job or gave this application a light going-over does a major disservice to its members. Zannoni takes exception to the fact that the NRC does not consider security and emergency preparedness issues when assessing license renewal applications. As we have said on many occasions, we believe these important issues warrant continuous oversight, not just a review during the snapshot period when we have before us a license renewal application. The NRC remains committed to a thorough and rigorous review of the Oyster Creek application and to a high degree of openness — both with government officials and the public — regarding the details. At the same time, we have an obligation to set the record straight on occasions when inaccurate information is presented as factual. This is one such occasion. Neil Sheehan is a public affairs officer for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 APP.COM: Pumps lost power at nuke plant | Asbury Park Press Online Wednesday, March 21, 2007 Mechanism shut down for 2 hours BY TODD B. BATES ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER Post Comment LACEY — Dilution pumps that discharge water into a canal used by the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant temporarily lost power Monday, but the incident had no environmental impact, a plant spokeswoman said. "All indications point to no impacts to fish," according to an e-mail from Elaine Makatura, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokeswoman. "DEP is awaiting their reports on what happened and what their response was before we make a final decision if there will be any enforcement action," the e-mail says. Usually, it would take longer than the approximately two hours the pumps were shut down before an impact would be seen, said Neil A. Sheehan, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The pump incident is the latest in recent years involving a canal, linked to Barnegat Bay, that attracts fish, especially in winter when it is heated by water from the plant. Eighty fish died during a plant shutdown in January 2006, when plant officials took steps to minimize the impact on aquatic life. A total of 5,876 fish died when water pumps shut down in September 2002. Oyster Creek takes about 1.3 billion gallons of water a day from the canal to cool the plant and dilute heated discharges. The dilution pumps are used to reduce the thermal effects of discharged water, said Leslie Cifelli, Oyster Creek communications manager. The pumps' power loss was caused by a malfunction, or short, in their normal power source, according to e-mails from Sheehan. The pumps were hooked up to "nonsafety-related diesel generators to get them up and running again," one e-mail says. "Then, after repairs to the normal power source for the pumps, the normal alignment was restored." The plant notified the DEP that it was not in compliance with its New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit "due to equipment malfunction," according to the NRC Web site. The plant is seeking NRC approval to run for 20 years beyond April 2009, when its current license expires. Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 CBJ: Regulators give Duke partial assurance on nuclear costs - Charlotte Business Journal - 5:43 PM EDT Tuesday, March 20, 2007 by John Downey Senior Staff Writer The N.C. Utilities Commission has issued an order that seeks to assure Duke Energy Corp. it can recover its planning costs for a proposed nuclear plant through future rate cases, whether or not the plant is built. The order appears to give less than the full approval the utility had sought. Duke spokeswoman Paige Sheehan says the company welcomes the ruling as a positive assertion of the need to keep nuclear energy an option in North Carolina. But lawyers for Duke are reviewing the order to see if the company will still need to ask the N.C. General Assembly for legislation to clarify the issue. Duke plans to spend about $125 million this year on planning for the proposed William S. Lee plant in South Carolina. Duke sought specific assurances on whether the North Carolina share of those costs would be recovered in a timely manner. Opponents objected, contending the company already could recover such costs under proper conditions. They said Duke was seeking broad approval of its planning costs before the commission could review them. The commission's finely parsed ruling attempts to make clear that Charlotte-based Duke (NYSE:DUK) can recover prudent and reasonable costs spent in 2007 in planning for the plant. But it declined to specify what planning activities would be considered prudent. And it was also careful to say the cost recovery could come only after a full rate case. In seeking similar authority from S.C. lawmakers, Duke is supporting a bill that proposes a more streamlined recovery mechanism. It would allow for review of the planning costs but would not require a full rate case. Overall, Sheehan says Duke finds much to like in the N.C. ruling. It establishes a provision that reasonable planning costs can be recovered even if the company decides its planning shows nuclear power not to be the best option. But the company is trying to determine whether the cost-recovery mechanism might be too onerous, Sheehan adds. She says Duke legal experts will make that determination soon. Reach Senior Staff Writer John Downey at (704) 973-1130 or jdowney@bizjournals.com. © 2007 American City Business Journals, Inc. ***************************************************************** 26 This is Dorset: Dont Bin Nuclear Advice Booklet (from Thisisdorset) By Harry Hogger NUCLEAR HANDOUT: Borough emergency planning officer John New with the radiation booklet BJ2910 PORTLAND residents might want to be careful when throwing away junk mail coming through the letterbox. They could regret it in the case of a nuclear emergency. Weymouth and Portland Borough Council are overseeing the distribution of information booklets to 4,300 people in Portland, advising homeowners what they should do in the event of a radiation emergency in Portland Port. The homes concerned are those that lie within a 2km radius of berths to be visited by Royal Navy nuclear submarines. Emergency planning officer John New will be delivering the booklets over the coming days. They give advice such as stay indoors, stay tuned to local media and don't use the telephone unless it is an emergency. They also suggest that an evacuation would be a last resort, but provide a list of essentials to pack just in case. Weymouth and Portland Borough Council information services manager Peter Gilmour said: "We advise people to read it and keep it somewhere safe. It's important to the public to keep them informed of what action to take in the unlikely event of an accident arising. "It's part of an overall plan that we have put together with the county council, Ministry of Defence and other agencies which we were obliged to do by the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001. All of this is covered by the MoD and at no cost for the council tax payer." The berths at Portland are what are known as 'Z berths' as opposed to 'X berths', meaning they will accommodate nuclear-powered submarines but not submarines armed with nuclear weapons. While the reality of a nuclear emergency is an extremely remote possibility, the MoD, and the councils have had to take emergency planning measures. These include a detailed emergency plan and a test exercise to be held on April 13. If the procedures are approved, the port could be welcoming' nuclear subs as soon as this summer. Ministry of Defence spokesman Guy Boswell said: "We will let people know when the submarines are in the area but, for obvious reasons, we will probably give them a day's notice at most." Don't dump these submarines on us! A PORTLAND resident is accusing local authorities of failing to stand up to the Ministry of Defence over the return of nuclear submarines to Portland Port. Christine Vincent, 64, of Reap Lane, believes Weymouth and Portland Borough Council and Dorset County Council should have done more to let those against the submarines have their opinions heard. She said: "The MoD dumped the nuclear submarines on Portland and they just accepted it. The people should have been consulted - it's in their back yard. We have not got the facilities to deal with nuclear submarines and all our property prices are going to go down." The authorities claim they had no input into the decision. Simon Parker, county emergency planning officer, said: "We don't really have a say in it at all, we just have to get on with it. The MoD are entitled to put them where they like. From our point of view it's a requirement to do the off-site planning for them." But Mrs Vincent said: "I have been speaking to other people and they feel the same way. They are voted in to represent the people to do what they think. It's just not good enough. "They should have said there should be a public inquiry." Mr Parker responded: "The contractual regulations are between the MoD and Portland Port, there isn't a consultation process for them to go through. "A presentation was made to the councillors about the fact they were coming back and there didn't seem to be any particular issues about them coming in." 11:12am Wednesday 21st March 2007Print  Email this story Add Comment Posted by: Jon, Portland on 11:36am Wed 21 Mar 07 Lol.. As if theres gonna be a nuclear accident. The chances must be millions, no billions, to one. Ignore the local pitch-fork brigade. Maybe they could spare a trident or two and direct them at the council offices! Planning and parking departments would be great targets. Lol.. As if theres gonna be a nuclear accident. The chances must be millions, no billions, to one. Ignore the local pitch-fork brigade. Maybe they could spare a trident or two and direct them at the council offices! Planning and parking departments would be great targets. Privacy Policy © Copyright 2001-2007 Newsquest Media Group A Gannett Company ***************************************************************** 27 FR: NRC: Proposed Revisions to NUREG/BR-0006 and NUREG/BR-0007 Doc E7-5150 [Federal Register: March 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 54)] [Notices] [Page 13313] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21mr07-89] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing revisions to NUREG/BR-0006, ``Instructions for the Preparation and Distribution of Material Transaction Reports.'' http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0006/ and NUREG/BR-0007, ``Instructions for the Preparation and Distribution of Material Status Reports.'' http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0007/ The purpose of these revisions are to incorporate (1) proposed rule changes for nuclear material reporting requirements, (2) upgrades to the Nuclear Material Management and Safeguards System, and (3) editorial changes. The NRC is seeking comment from interested parties on the clarity of the proposed revisions and will consider the comments received in its final evaluation of the NUREGs. Comments should address the contents of the guidance presented in the NUREGs but not the regulations associated with it. DATES: Comment period expires April 23, 2007. Comments submitted after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T6-D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to NRC Headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike (Room T-6D59), Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Brian Horn at (301) 415-8128 or by e- mail to bgh1@nrc.gov or Chris Graves at (301) 415-6525 or by e-mail to dcg@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of March, 2007. Jane Marshall, Chief, Material Control and Accounting Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E7-5150 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 FR NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Meeting Notice Doc E7-5151 [Federal Register: March 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 54)] [Notices] [Page 13312-13313] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21mr07-88] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In accordance with the purposes of Sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on April 5-7, 2007, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was previously published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, November 15, 2006 (71 FR 66561). Thursday, April 5, 2007, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)-The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. 8:35 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Human Reliability Analysis Models (Open)-The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and Electric Power Research Institute regarding staff's and industry's plans for evaluating different human reliability analysis models in an effort to propose either a single model for the NRC to use or guidance on which models should be used in specific circumstances. 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m.: Proposed Revisions to Standard Review Plan (SRP) Section 4.2, Reactor Fuels (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding proposed revisions to SRP Section 4.2, Reactor Fuels, and related matters. 1:45 p.m.-3:15 p.m.: Risk-Management Technical Specification Initiative 4b--Flexible Completion Times (Open)--The Committee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding Risk-Management Technical Specification Initiative 4b--Flexible Completion Times, and related matters. 3:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: ACRS Report on the NRC Safety Research Program (Open)--The Committee will discuss the proposed format, content, and assignments for the ACRS report to the Commission on the NRC Safety Research Program. 4:30 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Subcommittee Report (Open)--The Committee will hear a report by the Chairman of the ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License Renewal regarding interim review of the license renewal application for the Pilgrim [[Page 13313]] Nuclear Plant. 5 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting. In addition, the Committee will discuss proposed reports on revision to 10 CFR 50.46 LOCA criteria for fuel cladding materials and response to Commission SRM regarding development of a technology-neutral framework for future plant designs. Friday, April 6, 2007, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACRS Chairman (Open)-- The ACRS Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of the meeting. 8:35 a.m.-9:30 a.m.: Future ACRS Activities/Report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee (Open)--The Committee will discuss the recommendations of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee regarding items proposed for consideration by the full Committee during future meetings. Also, it will hear a report of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee on matters related to the conduct of ACRS business, including anticipated workload and member assignments. 9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m.: Reconciliation of ACRS Comments and Recommendations (Open)--The Committee will discuss the responses from the NRC Executive Director for Operations to comments and recommendations included in recent ACRS reports and letters. 10 a.m.-11:45 a.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports. 1:30 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: Meeting with Commissioner Jaczko (Open)--The Committee will meet with Commissioner Jaczko to discuss items of mutual interest. 2:45 p.m.-7 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will discuss proposed ACRS reports on matters considered during this meeting. Saturday, April 7, 2007, Conference Room T-2B3, Two White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland 8:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACRS Reports (Open)--The Committee will continue discussion of proposed ACRS reports. 12:30 p.m.-1 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of Committee activities and matters and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 58015). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public, including representatives of the nuclear industry. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during the open portions of the meeting. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the Cognizant ACRS staff named below five days before the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for this purpose may be obtained by contacting the Cognizant ACRS staff prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with the Cognizant ACRS staff if such rescheduling would result in major inconvenience. Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Mr. Sam Duraiswamy, Cognizant ACRS staff (301-415-7364), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (ET). ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397- 4209, or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS), which is accessible from the NRC Web site at http:// www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or ttp:// http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg schedules/ agendas). Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. (ET), at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the videoteleconferencing link. The availability of videoteleconferencing services is not guaranteed. Dated: March 15, 2007. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-5151 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 Des Moines Register: As water grows scarce, nuclear power can help Columnists - opinion By CAROLYN D. HEISING IOWA VIEW March 20, 2007 Because nuclear power produces large amounts of energy without emitting global-warming gases, it is drawing increasing attention. But it also can play a key role in dealing with another environmental problem that we can't afford to ignore: water shortages. Few things are more important than fresh water. And until a few years ago, few things seemed more basic. In the Midwest, we've had an abundant supply of water for so long, we've taken it for granted. But the prolonged drought in large parts of the Midwest and elsewhere has reminded us that ensuring an adequate supply of water is never simple, not when water tables in some places have dropped more than a foot in the past decade. Water scarcity is making it more difficult for farmers to grow crops and ranchers to feed livestock. The situation is being exacerbated by increasing needs for water to support industry, ethanol production, urban development and growing populations. Nor does the end of the water crisis seem in sight. Severe water shortages in California and Texas have produced conditions that are being compared to those of the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. In the spirit of every little bit can help, I have a modest suggestion: Use nuclear power to desalinate seawater. The idea, of course, isn't new. It was proposed in the early days of nuclear power more than a half-century ago, principally as a solution to California's water problem and as part of a settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The idea eventually caught on elsewhere. Eight nuclear reactors coupled to desalination projects are operating in Japan. India has a nuclear reactor that's being used to desalinate water, and Pakistan is building one. In addition, Russia has about 16 small desalination plants installed on nuclear ice-breakers and other nuclear-powered ships. And every U.S. nuclear submarine is equipped with a desalination system to provide potable water. While all of these systems provide pure water for limited use rather than large-scale consumption, they are successfully demonstrating that nuclear energy is a viable alternative to fossil fuels as a heat source for the process. Now, there are many reasons to make greater use of nuclear power for desalination, but the principal one is that only nuclear reactors are capable of providing the copious quantities of clean, emission-free energy required for large-scale desalination projects. By contrast, fossil-fuel desalination plants — and there are about 7,500 such plants in operation worldwide — pollute the air and load the atmosphere with large amounts of carbon dioxide. Advances in nuclear technology have made it easier and cheaper to supply the heat needed to desalinate water. Some nuclear plants could serve a dual purpose: provide a source of potable water that could be transported long distances by pipeline to wherever it's needed, while also generating electricity. It's not a question of whether nuclear desalination plants will be built in the United States; it's a question of when. It is impossible to deny that the worsening water shortage is costing the nation billions of dollars annually. Carping about declining water tables is not a viable strategy. CAROLYN D. HEISING is a professor of industrial, mechanical and nuclear engineering at Iowa State University. "Clean energy" Posted by: JKINSOCAL on Tue Mar 20, 2007 6:11 pm Being a resident in CA it is interesting to read about this "easy" solution to the water shortages in the Midwest. I'm guessing that California would be one of the locations that Heising was considering in her comments. However, the economic realities make her proposal dubious, at best. The cost of land along the coast is prohibitively excessive to build. Ocean front property is sold by the foot. A single lot for an ocean view house can run from $3 million to $10 million. This not only puts a huge capital cost for a company to obtain land to build a plant but it introduces a second issue of nearby land owners claiming "Not in my back yard (NIMBY)". Imagine the feeling of having a prime piece of real estate on the Pacific only to find out five or ten years later that a nuclear powered desalinization plant will now be your neighbor! Heising not only dismisses the environmental impact of mining, processing and shipping of nuclear fuel but she never mentions the storage of the nuclear waste these plants would produce. Has that problem been solved? Before anyone says that nuclear power is much safer now than it was in the days of Three Mile Island, keep in mind that all human endeavor involves risk. Just a couple of years ago, 15 people were killed in a refinery explosion in Texas. Anyone could argue that our methods of drilling, refining and delivery of petroleum products is much safer now than it was 100 years ago. However, nothing is foolproof. Past nuclear accidents have shown the potential of displacing huge numbers of people for thousands of years. (Three Mile/Chernobyl). There's no arguing that a nuclear disaster can affect a much wider area, for a much longer period of time than an accident at an oil refinery. Let's also take a quick look a security. There's no doubt that a nuclear plant of any sort would make a sweet target for a terrorist. How many people would be affected by taking out a nuclear powered facility. Imagine the consequences of 9/11 had the WTC or Pentagon had even a small nuclear reactor on location for their power. Tell ya what, Carolyn. If you really want these new nuclear desal. plants, you could volunteer to find a place to bury the waste. WAIT!!!! I have an idea!! We'll ship it to AMES, IOWA!!!! By the way.....if a desal. plant is ever built around here......we'll probably keep the water right here. Reader Comment Posted by: Stormn on Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:27 pm When you think about energy for everyday use there really is no one good solution. There is always a consequence. If we were less reliant on oil for energy and cut production we would have to figure out how to also replace the materials used for products like plastics... which are derived from petroleum. Corn is another good example... now the farmers see dollar signs due to the ethanol or possibly biomass. If all the corn goes for energy could Iowa be importing corn for food? I think nuclear energy would certainly lower our dependence on oil without a lot of domino effect consequences. apples and oranges Posted by: Peckerwood on Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:13 pm Unfortunately, we can't replace oil with nuclear. You are comparing apples and oranges. We can stop subsidizing the war for oil by using more efficient vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, and biofuels. As for subsidizing nukes, wind, solar and biomass are all showing a lot of promise, and get a tiny fraction of the government money of nukes. As for desalination, off-shore windpower seems like a no-brainer. Reader Comment Posted by: Stormn on Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:01 pm Nuclear energy is cheaper than war over oil. So if we're trying to be fiscally responsible why not subsidize nuclear energy. Trying to protect our oil interests are expensive. We pay the taxes for the protection yet the oil companies get to jack the rates and keep the windfall. Nuclear - just too expensive Posted by: Peckerwood on Tue Mar 20, 2007 10:32 am I have nothing against nuclear technology in theory - my problem is that it is straight up too expensive. The nuclear industry in the US has never made a dime of profit, and it is the most heavily subsidised sector in the entire energy industry. For instance, The Price-Anderson Act, which provides liability insurance to the nuclear industry with taxpayer dollars, cost us somewhere between $355 million to $3.4 billion a year. What other mature industry gets that kind of government assistance? Pull the subsidies and let the nuclear industry deal with liability and waste disposal issues on it's own dime, and I'm all for it. Reader Comment Posted by: Stormn on Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:54 am Nuclear technology is more reliable and available in the shorter term. Unfortunately, fear of nuclear technology is a long term problem. SOLAR not Nuclear Posted by: RobertP on Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:47 am CAROLYN D. HEISING puts forward the view that nuclear power can be used a energy source for de-salination and so help with water shortages. She also makes the erroneous statement that "nuclear power produces large amounts of energy without emitting global-warming gases". In fact, the mining, refinement and transport of nuclear fuel (uranium) generates considerable greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, why not consider a proven, truly clean renewable technology called Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) CSP employs the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world. CSP works best in hot deserts and it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US "could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or about seven times the current total US electric capacity". In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe. Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm . Sincerely, Robert Palgrave Copyright © 2007, The Des Moines Register. ***************************************************************** 30 Kyiv Post: US provides energy aid to Ukraine by Elisabeth Sewall, Assistant Editor Mar 21 2007, 22:02 As Ukraine searches for ways to break its heavy dependence on Russian energy imports, the country’s nuclear industry is getting some assistance from the US. Ukraine is fully dependent on Russia for nuclear fuel to power its 15 reactors, which produce half of the country’s electricity. But through its participation in the joint US-Ukraine Nuclear Fuel Qualification Project (UNFQP), which is administered by the US Department of Energy, Ukraine is about to start diversifying its sources of nuclear fuel. US Department of Energy Deputy Secretary Clay Sell met with top Ukrainian officials and US business leaders in Kyiv March 15 to discuss the project. “The United States and Ukraine are helping to advance energy security through cooperation in projects like the [UNFQP] that encourage the diversity of energy supplies and suppliers,” Sell said in Kyiv. “To ensure a path of economic growth, we must promote policies that encourage open and transparent market principles, increase energy efficiency, and further cooperation in nuclear non-proliferation,” Sell continued. The US pledged to invest $14 million toward the manufacturing of nuclear fuel assemblies by Westinghouse Electric Company, a major American nuclear technologies company that boasts a clientele base of nearly 50 percent of the world’s nuclear power plants. Westinghouse’s nuclear fuel assemblies would qualify as an alternative nuclear fuel source in Ukraine and account for one-fourth of the fuel that powers a reactor for up to four years of operation. Ukraine will receive 42 nuclear fuel assemblies to be used at its Pivdenniy Nuclear Power Plant, the biggest of the country’s four nuclear power plants. For its part, Ukraine is committed to providing approximately $42 million in low-enriched uranium, which will be used to manufacture the fuel assemblies, and funding for technical services. Leading up to the US-Ukrainian deal, Westinghouse supplied the Pivdenniy Nuclear Power Plant with six nuclear fuel cartridges in 2003 for experimental use. A total of $52 million has already been invested into the project by the US government since 2000 as part of the US Department of Energy’s International Safety Program, which provides technical assistance and technology to former Soviet republics to improve the safety of their reactors. Ukraine has modest recoverable resources of uranium, and produces up to 800 tons of uranium per year, around 30 percent of the country’s requirements. But it lacks the technology to enrich it, so Ukrainian uranium concentrate and zirconium alloy are sent to Russia for fuel fabrication and then returned to Ukrainian plants. The country depends primarily on Russia to provide other nuclear fuel-cycle services also. In addition, Ukraine is heavily dependent on Russia for natural gas, the price of which doubled in 2006 only to go up by another third at the beginning of this year. Russia has been accused by Ukraine, as well as Belarus and the EU, of using its significant energy resources as an instrument of geopolitical power. To make itself less vulnerable, Ukraine has come up with a strategy that envisages greater reliance on domestic coal and nuclear power stations, according to Yuri Kubrushko, general director at IME power consulting company. “But it’s not possible to achieve full independence [from Russian energy imports],” he said. “Right now Ukraine has quite a developed power sector and infrastructure, but its power stations also require quite significant renovation,” Kubrushko added. He said the government would make it a priority in the next five or six years to upgrade and rehabilitate Ukraine’s power stations. But, the nuclear sector is prohibited from privatization or large private sector involvement. Ukraine is today a net exporter of power. To increase its position on the power export market and fill rising domestic demand, it is important for investment to start soon, because in the power sector it takes several years to do full-scale renovation, Kubrushko said. In 2004, Ukraine commissioned two large new reactors. The government plans to build up to 11 new reactors by 2030. © 2004 - 2007, BIGMIR-Internet. Contact Kyiv Post ***************************************************************** 31 Thanh Nien Daily: Vietnam hopes for nuclear power by 2022 - official Editor-in-Chief: Nguyen Cong Khe Vietnam is considering adding nuclear power to its electricity generation mix, a top government official said Wednesday. Newly appointed US education fund director visits Vietnam Three weeks after being hand-picked by the White House to head the Vietnam Education Foundation (VEF), the Vietnamese-American CEO was in Vietnam to discuss this year’s scholarships with Thanh Nien newspaper. Vietnam adds tonal marks to website names Vietnamese organizations and companies with websites ending in ‘.vn’ can get fresh domain names in Vietnamese with tonal and spelling marks added to the original names. Copyright © 2004 Privacy policy ***************************************************************** 32 UPI: NEA, Russia sign nuclear pact United Press International - Energy - 3/21/2007 1:57:00 PM -0400 MOSCOW, March 21 (UPI) -- Russia and the Nuclear Energy Agency have signed a deal in Moscow to bolster cooperation in global nuclear energy technology and resources. A release issued Wednesday by the NEA, a program of 28 nuclear states in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, says Russia will now hold "observer status" in seven of NEA's technical committees and their working groups. NEA Director General Luis Echavarri told United Press International Wednesday the deal will allow the 29 countries to share best practices and information for all facets of nuclear energy, as well as increase market cooperation. "This joint declaration is highly significant and an important step toward strengthening ties between the Russian Federation and the NEA," Echavarri said in a statement. "Russian participation will enhance the work of the NEA pool of over 3,000 international nuclear exports." Russia has worked with the NEA in the past, at less intensive levels. The joint declaration is aimed at cooperation in scientific research, technology, legal, environmental and safety issues, and economic analysis. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 BBC: Lots of support for Bruce Power Bayshore Broadcasting Corporation News for Wednesday, March 21st, 2007 Written by Ken Hashizume Bruce Power may have the community support it needs in its environmental assessment. If last night's gathering at the Visitor's Centre is any indication, the facility will have no trouble in getting through the process for a possible new build project. It was a standing room only crowd as President and CEO Duncan Hawthorne delivered the audience an update on what the company's plans are for the future. He says in the next ten years all four Bruce B reactors and one Bruce A reactor will need replacement or refurbishment. President and CEO Duncan Hawthorne says he is looking for positive support from the community and the turnout at the first open house was better than he could have hoped for. Not many companies would go through a full federal review panel but Hawthorne says this is the best way of doing it. He says a full, open process will add to the reputation of Bruce Power as a well-run business. There were many dignitaries who attended last night's open house including Bruce County Warden Mitch Twolan, Saugeen Shores Mayor Mike Smith, and Saugeen Conservation Chairman Doug Freiburger. Freiburger says what impressed him about the presentation is that Hawthorne can take a subject like nuclear energy and bring it down to a level that everyone can understand. Freiburger says he agrees with Hawthorne's assessment that nuclear power is key to a cleaner environment. Hawthorne says it is important to plan ahead because things take a long time before it becomes reality. He says proper planning is what is lacking in the industry and is something Bruce Power won't be accused of. There are four more open houses scheduled: Tonight at the Best Western Governors Inn in Kincardine; tomorrow at Walkerton's Victoria Jubilee Hall; next Monday at the Colonial Motel in Port Elgin; and in Owen Sound next Tuesday at the Best Western Inn on the Bay. © 2006 Bayshore Broadcasting Corp. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 AU ABC: Switkowski talks up nuclear benefits PM - Wednesday, 21 March , 2007 18:37:56 Reporter: David Mark MARK COLVIN: The new Chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Ziggy Switkowski, says he's not an advocate for nuclear power, he just wants to inform public debate. But the nuclear physicist who headed the Prime Minister's nuclear review was certainly talking up the benefits of nuclear power today when he addressed the Lowy Institute in Sydney today. Dr Switkowski believes nuclear must be in the mix to help combat global warming. David Mark asked him if the nuclear option was so attractive, why Australia wasn't embracing it: ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, firstly, let me emphasise there are already 31 countries that are nuclear powered. The industry is 50-years-old. It's had one serious accident, but in the last couple of decades it has been a very high-performing, cost-effective, and very clean from an environmental point of view. So the presumption is, that given the importance of a strategy for clean electricity generation, that nuclear must be in the mix. DAVID MARK: What is the role of Government? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: The role for Government is to form a view about the gravity of climate change, determine policies that are appropriate to Australia in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and that leads, I think, to what would be the biggest decision in front of them this year, and that is to take the recommendations of the emissions trading taskforce and set them into policy and establish a degree of stability in the rules for the next several decades. The issue confronting Australia is that there's been a pause in investment in the next generation of electricity production. And utilities have to make those commitments. And those commitments, once made, will survive for 30, 40 and 50 years. So there's a tension… it's one of the reason why Australian business wants clarity around the rules for the future cost of pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. And I'm sure business will welcome a Government decision around an emissions trading framework this year. DAVID MARK: Your talk today was title "The Road Ahead". What is the technology out there that most impressed you, that you think would be applicable in Australia? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, firstly, there is now a whole new generation of really conventional nuclear reactors powered by enriched uranium-235. It's very, very well engineered. The amount of waste that a typical new reactor generates is about as much as would fit on the back of a ute, per year, and it's stored on-site. And now the answers in terms of waste management are available and many countries are now building repositories. DAVID MARK: What of the siting of plants? We're sitting in the middle of Sydney now, where would a nuclear plant be, if it were to power some of Sydney's electricity requirements? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: The reactor needs to be close to the energy grid, the transmission grid. It needs to be close to its markets, population. And the current generation of reactors needs access to water; seawater is preferred, so probably near the coast. Most of the Eastern Seaboard qualifies, and therefore I expect that the early reactors will be found up and down our Eastern Seaboard. On the other hand, you can be 100 kilometres away, and in Australia 100 kilometres away from any population centre puts you in a pretty isolated area. DAVID MARK: You didn't address today the decommissioning of nuclear power plants, the cost of decommissioning and the time it takes. What can you say about those two issues? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: The review itself carefully costed the management and the storage of waste and then also the management of the whole decommissioning process and, as you probably know, a reactor probably operates for 60 years. The waste is then stored for hundreds of years, and the decommissioning process could easily take 50 years after the 60-year life cycle of the reactor. What are often publicised costs are the remediation and rehabilitation costs associated with the earlier… the earliest reactors, that were designed largely for weapons-grade productions, and often designed without any attention to the environment. And so you see these costs mount to be monumental numbers in the US and in the UK. In Australia, we'd be deploying new reactors that are designed to be environmentally friendly, and that are designed to be able to be decommissioned in a very cost-effective way. Our judgement was that about 10 to 15 per cent of the cost of a reactor might be the cost of decommissioning in 60 years time. So the real cost is less than that. MARK COLVIN: The Chairman of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Ziggy Switkowski, with PM's David Mark. ***************************************************************** 35 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: $3M per year in tax breaks awaits Westinghouse - By Ron DaParma TRIBUNE-REVIEW Wednesday, March 21, 2007 Westinghouse Electric Co. estimates it will save $3 million a year in state and local taxes for up to 15 years once it creates a new hub for its expanding Western Pennsylvania operations at the Cranberry Woods office park in Butler County. The company's highly-sought $100 million-plus project will be one of the first two projects in Pennsylvania to benefit from a newly-created tax break program, designed to attract major corporate expansion/relocation projects. The other is in Philadelphia, state officials said. The Legislature and Gov. Ed Rendell late last year established four special geographic zones known as Strategic Development Areas, or SDAs, within the state, including one in Western Pennsylvania specifically targeting Westinghouse. "The SDAs were very important," said Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert. "They really made Pennsylvania competitive with the other states we surveyed." For Westinghouse, the special zone was to be created in any local community in which the company decided to locate its new project. It eventually narrowed the list to two potential sites, and yesterday chose Cranberry over its existing Monroeville headquarters. The SDAs operate much like the state's Keystone Opportunity Zones, a program providing tax-free zones to attract companies and jobs. But unlike the KOZ program, SDAs aren't aimed at hard-to-develop, older industrial sites. Tax breaks under SDAs are available up to 15 years, three years more than KOZs offer. To be eligible, companies must commit to creating or maintaining at least 500 jobs and make $45 million or more in capital investments within three years. The Westinghouse project is expected to bring 1,000 jobs and retain 2,000 positions. The state extends tax breaks on sales, corporate net income and corporate stock and franchise taxes. Cranberry and Butler County officials, as well as the Seneca Valley School District, are expected to approve the tax-free zone. All three government entities previously adopted non-binding resolutions supporting the program. "The bulk of the tax break undoubtedly will be with state taxes," said Cranberry Township Manager Jerry Andree, but he said local tax breaks would include property and possibly mercantile taxes. Andree estimated that at current values and rates, the township will lose an estimated $30,000 in tax collections; the county, $60,000; and the school district, $290,000. But he said: "When you create that number of jobs, it will benefit all of Western Pennsylvania. It's a contribution we have to do to be part of the region." Ron DaParma can be reached at rdaparma@tribweb.com or 412-320-7907. Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 36 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Westinghouse picks Cranberry - (For Facility) By Bonnie Pfister Wednesday, March 21, 2007 Westinghouse Electric Co., on a hiring spree fueled by renewed enthusiasm for nuclear energy, announced Tuesday it will relocate its nearly 2,000 Monroeville-area employees to Cranberry by the end of the decade. One of the world's leading firms that designs, builds and maintains nuclear power plants, Westinghouse said it chose Cranberry Woods Office Park over its Northern Pike headquarters because there is more room for future growth at the Butler County location. The company plans to hire 1,000 highly skilled nuclear engineering workers through 2012. Westinghouse won a $5.3 billion contract with China for four nuclear power plants in December, and its AP1000 pressurized water reactor is the preferred design for more than a dozen reactors proposed by U.S. utilities, although federal licensing is years away. The decision concludes a four-month wait by both communities vying to be the home of an expanding Westinghouse. The company's new location will be on Route 228, near the intersection of Interstate 79 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Leaders in Cranberry, long a hotbed of residential and business growth, seemed happily caught off-guard at a hastily arranged news conference. "We never looked at this as one county against another. Regionalism has been at the forefront of our thinking," said Scott Lowe, chairman of the Butler County Board of Commissioners. Nevertheless, he said, "We're very, very happy to have them in Butler County." Leaders in Allegheny County, who also touted regionalism, were disappointed. "We're using a lot of state tax dollars to shift jobs. I'm glad they're staying in Southwestern Pennsylvania, but it's just bad public policy," said state Sen. Sean Logan, former mayor of Monroeville. Economists echoed the company's position that its expansion is a win for Western Pennsylvania -- especially because until December, the company was considering locations in Connecticut or the Carolinas, where it also has operations. "Overall, it's a big plus for the region," said Christopher Briem, regional economist at the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Social and Urban Research. He estimates the 1,000 added jobs will indirectly create another 1,500 jobs, not including construction work at the site. "This is net new business, net new jobs, net new incomes," Briem added. "In some industries, one company's expansion is displacing other economic activity. This is not the case with nuclear power. It's not like Westinghouse is going to expand and some other nuclear power company is going to lose business." The company, which built the nation's first commercial nuclear power plant in 1957 in Shippingport, Beaver County, was coaxed to stay in Pennsylvania partly by a tax-break program cobbled together last year by the Legislature and Gov. Ed Rendell. The designation of the site at Cranberry Woods as a strategic development area, or SDA, will allow Westinghouse to forgo paying state and local taxes for up to 15 years. Taxing entities in Cranberry and Monroeville said they would approve such a tax break if the company chose their locale. In the initial years of the transition to Cranberry, the company will establish a free employee shuttle service from the eastern suburbs, according to a company memo. "I realize this decision is not a popular one for those employees who will experience a longer commute and incur added expenses," Tony Greco, Westinghouse senior vice president for corporate relations, wrote to Monroeville employees. At least four Westinghouse staffers will have far shorter commutes: CEO Steve Tritch, Greco and senior vice presidents James Fici and Kazumasa Uchida all live near the Allegheny-Butler county line close to Cranberry, Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert confirmed. Gilbert said proximity to top executives' homes was not a consideration in the decision. Bonnie Pfister can be reached at bpfister@tribweb.com or 412-320-7886. Reproduction or reuse prohibited without written consent from Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 37 NewsBlaze : President Bush Discusses Energy Initiatives in Missouri THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. (Applause.) Alan, thank you. It's good to be here in Kansas City. Thank you for your warm hospitality. I've had - I guess you'd call it Car Day. I started off at a GM plant across the way, and now I'm at the Ford plant. My impressions are - is that American automobile companies are essential to keeping us competitive, essential to providing good jobs, and these manufacturing facilities are full of some really - finest citizens in our country. I thank you for your hospitality. I enjoyed walking up and down the line, shaking people's hands. I'm impressed by just how warm everybody was. And I thank you, I really do. It's been a joy to be here. (Applause.) The reason I've come is I want to highlight an important initiative for the country, and that is to promote technologies so we are less reliant upon foreign sources of oil. And the best way to become less reliant on foreign sources of oil is to manufacture automobiles that will use either less gasoline, or different kinds of fuels. And that's what we're here to talk about. The Ford plant, the GM plant are producing automobiles that are the beginning, really, of helping this country develop a wise energy policy and a wise environmental policy. And so I appreciate the fact that we've seen hybrid technologies and the world's first hybrid SUV, ethanol-driven cars. Americans are just getting used to this kind of technological - these technological breakthroughs - something you're used to. See, you make these cars all day long, but I don't think our citizens fully understand what is happening in America. And that's why I've come to highlight the technological changes that we're seeing. I've set out a goal of reducing America's gasoline consumption by 20 percent over the next 10 years. Some of our fellow citizens say, well, of course, that's just typical, they stand up there and put out a goal that's not achievable. I think it's achievable. And one way for me to make the case that it's achievable is to remind people about the new technologies that are being developed in a place like this Ford plant. I believe that - I call it Twenty Ten; in other words, reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent over 10 years. And I'm looking forward to working with both Republicans and Democrats to get it done. See, this is the kind of thing where we should be able to come together for the good of the country and promote technologies, and to encourage consumption of hybrid automobiles. The American people expect us to work together. See, that's what they want. I'm confident that we can. And Congress needs to pass good bipartisan energy legislation, and they need to do it by the start of the summer driving season. That would be a good sign that we recognize that we've got a problem here in America, and we aim to solve it together. (Applause.) I appreciate Sam Graves - he's the Congressman from this area - traveling down with me. Sam, thank you for being here. (Applause.) Sam's a farmer. I'm about to talk about ethanol a little bit. Let me put it to you this way: I like the idea that farmers are growing energy that powers our cars. I'd rather be paying American farmers than people overseas for the energy that fuels this economy. (Applause.) And so when you're making a vehicle that runs on ethanol, or a flex-fuel vehicle, you're really helping national security. And before I get to that, I want to thank Alan for his leadership of Ford. I appreciate Ken Ward, the plant manager. Thank you for giving me a tour. How about your President of UAW 249. He's not only the President, he happens to be the Mayor. (Laughter.) I told him - (applause) - I said, you've got to be a busy guy, filling the potholes, at the same time that he's worrying about the employees. But, Mayor, thank you - I call you, "Mayor." I could call you, "President." (Laughter.) I appreciate the tour, and thanks for hanging out there with me. I want to thank all the employees that are here. I also came over with Paul Marr. He's the plant manager of the General Motors Fairfax Assembly. I know you'll greet him kindly. But thank you for coming, Paul. I appreciate you being here. (Applause.) I mentioned national security. I bet you didn't think in terms - or maybe you do think in terms of national security when you make these modern automobiles here. See, I believe that when you're dependent on oil from parts of the world where people may not necessarily like us, that creates a national security problem. I know that when you're dependent on oil, and the objective of some of the terrorists is to destroy oil networks, it creates a national security problem for us. In other words, the more we're dependent on oil from somewhere else, the more we're vulnerable to national security issues. I deal with it every day in the Oval Office. And so when I tell people that a goal of reducing the amount of gasoline, which means we'll use less crude oil, is in the national security interest of the country, I think - I hope you're beginning to get the drift of what I mean. It's like when I say to a worker, when you make one of these cars, you're helping the national security of the country. I like the idea of being independent. I understand that when the demand for crude oil goes up in another part of the world, and the supply of crude oil doesn't match it, the price of gasoline goes up in America. That's another issue we have to deal with when we're dependent on crude oil. About 60 percent-plus of our crude oil comes from overseas. And so what do we do about it? What should the country do to lessen our dependence on energy from somewhere else? Well, one thing we need to do is to promote the idea of technologies changing the way we live. And that's what you're doing at the plant. And so I appreciate very much the idea of hybrid vehicles. If Americans don't know what I'm talking about, these are vehicles that you run on gasoline or electricity. You take it for granted, you live with them every day. Some people don't know what we're talking about. It's - this is a new market opportunity for Ford. More and more people are going to be saying, how can I help us be less dependant on foreign sources of energy? Well, one way is to buy a hybrid. It makes sense for the government to encourage people to buy hybrid vehicles. And so we've got a tax credit for somebody who purchased such a vehicle, up to $3,500 a person. I think it makes sense to encourage consumer behavior, to buy a car that you manufacture here, or at the GM plant - not to be favoring one plant over the other. There have been - about 700,000 hybrids have been sold in America. That's the beginning of something different, isn't it? It's the beginning of a new market. The next wave of technologies, I'm told, is for there to be plug-in hybrids. In other words, battery technologies - I'm hoping at some point in time relatively quickly, you all will be installing new battery technologies in these automobiles that will enable people to drive on electricity more than on gasoline. So part of the strategy has got to be for the federal government to promote research and development on technologies that will enable us to become the leader in battery technologies - lithium ionic batteries. I mean, it's very conceivable one day that somebody living in a big city will be able to drive the first 40 miles on electricity. Now, imagine if all the big-city drivers were able to drive on electricity, not on gasoline, how much more - how much less dependant on foreign sources of oil we'd be. Remember, oil is the feedstock for gasoline. And it's coming. And I predict relatively quickly that you'll be making automobiles that will have this battery technology in. And I think it makes sense to use some of your money to encourage new technologies, and to encourage research and development. And that's what we're doing. So part of the strategy is to - is to really develop new battery technologies. And by the way, what you're proving here is a car that - or a truck - doesn't have to look like a golf cart, if you're running on electricity. It can be a normal size vehicle that people like to drive. Texans like to use pickup trucks, as you well know. And it makes sense to have these technologies fit in the kind of trucks that people like to drive, or the kind of cars that people demand. And that's what's happening. I appreciate the idea of flex-fuel vehicles for the American citizen. That means that you can either use ethanol, or you can use gasoline, and you can choose. I like the idea of the consumer having more options. You're producing flex-fuel vehicles here, where somebody can decide to fill up with ethanol, or they can decide to fill up with gasoline, their choice. In turns out that Henry Ford - Model T was one of the first flex-fuel vehicles. I didn't realize that until I came here - but that he had the vision of having the Model T run either on gasoline or ethanol. Isn't that interesting? And finally - (applause) - and finally, it's now becoming in the marketplace. Why? Because it's going to be necessary for this country for national security and economic security reasons to start using different kinds of fuels. And here in the Midwest you have seen a boom in ethanol production and ethanol usage. And the reason why is, is that corn-based ethanol is leading an amazing change in the country. We consume about 5 billion gallons of ethanol right now in America. That's up nearly fivefold in a relatively quick period of time. The problem we face is that right now the most efficient way to make ethanol is through the use of corn - and that's fine if you're a corn grower, but it's not fine if you're a hog raiser, because that price of corn is beginning to affect the people who are raising hogs. And I understand that. That's why we're spending a fair amount of money on developing new types of technology that will enable us to use something besides corn to make ethanol - whether it be switchgrasses, or agricultural refuse, or wood chips. And that technology is coming. It may sound far-fetched to some that one of these days we'll be making a product that can go into a Ford pickup truck out of wood chips, and you'll be able to drive just like it was full of gasoline, but those days are around the corner. And it makes sense for us to promote that kind of technologies. Right now the ethanol industry is sectionally based because this is where the corn is grown. The idea is to develop new ways to be able to process different materials so that ethanol can be more widespread around the country. If you're a Ford guy working here on the line, it's in your interests that we promote new ways to make ethanol. After all, the flex-fuel vehicle would then become more in demand. All this is aimed, by the way, at doing what I told you, and that is to make us less dependent on crude oil. It's really interesting, isn't it, for the President to be talking about one of these days people driving pickup trucks driven by ethanol - fueled by ethanol from wood chips? Is it real? I think it is. Otherwise I wouldn't be standing here talking to you about it. Is it necessary? I know it's necessary, for the sake of the future of this country. Ultimately, there's going to be hydrogen driving these vehicles. Some of us aren't probably going to be able to drive by the time those show up, and so the meantime - (laughter.) Of course, I'm not driving much anyway these days. (Laughter.) I do believe we ought to reform the CAFE standards in a way that's based upon size - not fleet-wise, but on different sizes, in order to be able to encourage better mileage. But the big gains in this Twenty Ten program are going to come through by alternative fuels. And that's what I want to share with you, that this is a national objective. We spent about $12 billion over the last six years to promote different kinds of researches, different kinds of ideas, trying to make sure America stays on the leading edge of technological change. I strongly believe it's in our interest to be the leader of technologies. Technology changes the way we have lived our lives; technology is going to change the way we drive our cars. ` And so part of the strategy to be better stewards of the environment and, at the same time, be less dependent on foreign sources of energy is to change the automobile. I've come to this plant because that's what you're doing. You're making a new kind of automobile that is literally a part of changing America for the better. An energy strategy has got to be more than just an automobile strategy. I mean, we can reduce dependency on oil - and we will; we're still going to need oil. And therefore, I think it makes a lot of sense for us to continue to explore for oil and gas in environmentally friendly ways here in America. If you're worried about a terrorist attack, like I am - terrorist attack on our infrastructure somewhere else that will affect the price of oil, I do believe it makes sense to double the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to have oil in place in the ground that we could then use in order to protect the American consumer against sudden disruptions of supply. We got a lot of coal in America. We've got about 250 years worth of coal. If you want to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy, it seems to make sense to develop the energy reserves you have at home. And - but coal burns - doesn't burn cleanly. And so, therefore, we're spending a sizeable amount of money on clean coal technologies. I believe that within a relatively quick period of time, we will have the ability to use coal to fire our electricity without emitting greenhouse gases or pollutants, zero-emission coal-fired plants. We've still got work to do. But there's a lot of research going on, and it makes sense to spend that kind of money on developing ways that we can be good stewards of the environment and use a plentiful supply of coal. I strongly believe in nuclear power. If you're somebody who is concerned about greenhouse gases, it seems like to me that it's logical then that you support the use of nuclear power. A nuclear power plant is the ultimate source of renewable fuels, and it has zero emissions. It makes a lot of sense to me to promote a nuclear power the engineering technologies have developed to the point where they're safe. It's an interesting part of the debate. I know there's a lot of folks who worry about nuclear power. I would just hope people would keep an open mind about it. If you really do want to become less dependant on foreign sources of energy and want to worry about the environment, there's no better way to protect the environment than the renewable source of energy called nuclear power. I do believe wind power makes sense. All we've got to do is put a couple of turbines in Washington, D.C. and we'll be energy free. There's a lot of - (laughter) - a lot of hot air there, you know. (Laughter.) What I'm telling you is, is that we've got a comprehensive plan, comprehensive ideas on how to meet the challenges, really, of the 21st century. I'm a believer in technologies, and I'm a believer in the ingenuity of the American people. And for the skeptics, all you got to do is come into a place like this and see what they're building. And I believe it's just the beginning. I really do. That's what I've come to share with you, my sense of optimism about the country. As a matter of fact, I don't think there's anything we can't achieve when we put our mind to it. This country has overcome challenges in the past, and we'll darn sure overcome them in the future. One of the challenges we have is to protect the country from a group of terrorists who'd like to do us harm. And here in this Ford plant, I want to declare to you: No matter how tough it gets, this country is going to stay steadfast and do the job that you expect us to do, which is to protect you from harm. And another challenge facing us is this challenge of energy independence. We're making great strides - continue to make great strides. And they'll look back and say of this generation that I'm a part of - I hope they'll look back and say they did their job. Job well done. Thanks for letting me come by, and God bless. (Applause.) Source: U.S. White House judythpiazza@gmail.com Copyright © 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News ***************************************************************** 38 NRC: Nuclear Gauge Reported Stolen in Philadelphia; Recovery of Device is Sought 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 Authorities are seeking the return of a portable nuclear gauge that was stolen from a worksite in the City of Philadelphia on Monday, March 19. The gauge, containing small amounts of radioactive material, is used for industrial purposes such as measuring the density of soil at construction sites. Anyone with information regarding the device is asked to contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Headquarters Operations Center at (301) 816-5100. Collect calls will be accepted. The center is staffed 24 hours a day. Underwood Engineering, of Belmar, N.J., reported the gauge and its bright-yellow transportation case were stolen from a truck parked at a construction worksite at Audenreid High School Replacement Project at 3301 Tasker St., Phila. The theft occurred between 2:30 and 4:30 p.m. on March 19. It was noticed that the gauge, which had been locked in the bed of the vehicle, was missing at the end of the workday. The Philadelphia Police Department was notified of the incident and responded to the area. Underwood Engineering is offering a reward for the return of the gauge. The gauge holds small quantities of cesium-137 and americium-241. It consists of a shielding container with a plunger-type handle protruding from the top to be used to extend and then retract the radioactive source from the shielded position. When not in use, the handle is normally locked, with the source in the retracted, safely shielded position. As long as the source is in the shielded position, the gauge does not present a hazard to the public. However, any attempt to tamper with the source would subject the person doing so to potential radiation exposure. Handling of an unshielded source outside of the container would carry a risk of potentially dangerous exposure. A typical carrying case for a moisture density gauge A typical moisture density gauge is use 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. March 21, 2007 ***************************************************************** 39 UPI: Scientists ponder nuclear attack impacts United Press International - NewsTrack - Published: March 21, 2007 at 9:36 AM ATHENS, Ga., March 21 (UPI) -- U.S. researchers have created a detailed simulation of the catastrophic impact a nuclear attack would have on U.S. cities. The study by the Center for Mass Destruction Defense at the University of Georgia highlights the inability of the nation's current medical system to handle casualties from a nuclear attack. Center Director Professor Cham Dallas and co-author William Bell examined four high-profile U.S. cities -- Atlanta, Chicago, New York and Washington -- and modeled the effects of nuclear detonations ranging from 20 kilotons to 550 kilotons. The three-year study found the detonation of a 20-kiloton weapon, as could be manufactured by fledgling nuclear nations, would kill about half of the population and expose many survivors to a fatal dose of radiation. A 550-kiloton device, commonly found in the arsenal of the former Soviet Union and which is the most likely to be stolen by terrorists, would superheat the blast zone, causing buildings to spontaneously combust. Such a detonation in New York would result in more than 5 million deaths. The study is detailed in the International Journal of Health Geographics. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 40 UPI: Everett probes nuke security breaches United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 3/21/2007 10:53:00 AM -0400 WASHINGTON, March 21 (UPI) -- A congressional Republican said Tuesday he was "troubled" by recent security breaches at U.S. nuclear civilian nuclear facilities. "I am deeply troubled by the continued security breaches across the complex that compromise our nation's national security," Rep. Terry Everett, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, said in a statement in Tuesday's hearing on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2008 budget request for atomic energy defense activities. Everett told Glenn Podolsky, director of the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Health, Safety and Security, that he wanted to learn more about "federal oversight of security at the National Nuclear Safety Administration sites." "Are we making progress?" Everett asked. "Do you have the personnel and resources to provide effective federal oversight?" Everett said he was interested in exploring how the Energy Department "implements the Design Basis Threat criteria and how the department balances its investments in physical and cyber security." "Are we doing enough in the area of risk analysis to ensure that the taxpayers are getting a good return on each dollar invested for security?" he asked. ""DOE and NNSA have some significant issues in front of them and all must be addressed within a relatively flat budget line," Everett said. "Within this relatively flat-line, NNSA will start work on its RRW (Reliable Replacement Warhead) program, transform the nuclear weapons complex, continue non-proliferation efforts, consolidate and dispose special nuclear materials, and continue to provide the highest level of safety and security that our nation's nuclear weapons demand." © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 41 Portsmouth Daily Times: Activist calls radium loss at plant scary Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:08:10 -0800 Isn't this an odd contradiction? Here, at Millstone in Waterford, Connecticut, 2 spent fuel rods went missing (never found?) and there has hardly been a wink and a whisper about it since. Maybe it's because Vina Colley and her colleagues know how to organize and raise hell. Nothing would have been said about the radium had it not been for her. Mitzi ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vina Colley" To: Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:45 AM Subject: [du-list] Radium at Piketon www.nnwj.com 740 -357-8916 Portsmouth Daily Times Activist calls radium loss at plant scary By JEFF BARRON Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:57 PM EDT PDT Staff Writer A local nuclear activist said the loss of a capsule of radium at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant is scary. “They claim they don't have radium at the site,” said Vina Colley, president of Portsmouth/ Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security. “So here we go again. They're covering it up.” U.S. Department of Energy spokeswoman Laura Schachter said the vial was still missing on Wednesday. Colley also expressed concern that the DOE is just now notifying the public of the loss that was discovered on Feb. 28. “It doesn't surprise me,” she said. “In 1992 a valve came off of a depleted uranium cylinder. I notified a reporter in Columbus and they told him the valve came from a propane tank. They had a leak for four hours. They've never notified the public anytime they've had a leak.” The United States Enrichment Corp. leases the plant from the DOE. Schachter said the agency didn't notify the public sooner because the capsule does not pose a health risk. She said someone would have to sit 10 feet away from the vial for 24 hours to get the same amount of radiation as a single chest X-ray. “We made an internal notification immediately,” Schachter said. “There are about 1,700 employees at the plant and we told them. So it's not like we were trying to hide anything.” She said DOE decided to inform the media after someone in Paducah, Ky., asked about the loss of the vial. DOE hosted a public meeting in Piketon last week on another matter and did not mention the missing vial. The DOE hired LATA/Parallax to do cleanup work at the decommissioned plant. LATA public affairs manager Sandy Childers said her company was responsible for the area where the vial was discovered missing. Childers said the vial is metallic, about 1-inch long and resembles a medicine capsule. USEC public affairs manager Jack Williams said USEC employees are assisting in the search for the missing vial. The radium vial was used to calibrate instruments that measure radiation. Since 1996, it had been stored encased in lead in a wooden box inside a locked room with 39 similar boxes, Schachter said. The boxes were occasionally measured for radioactivity, indicating that the vials were still inside. The box was last moved in December to prepare for shipping to Nevada during the site cleanup, in preparation for turning the building where it was stored over to USEC Inc. According to wikipedia.com, radium is more than 1 million times more radioactive than the same amount of uranium. Its decay product, radon gas, is also radioactive. Inhalation, injection, ingestion or body exposure to radium can cause cancer and other disorders. Geoffrey Sea is the cofounder of the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group. He said he heard about the missing vial several days ago and was told employees were looking for the radium capsule with Geiger counters. Because the story was just made public on Wednesday, he said he thinks that is when USEC notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the problem. Williams said USEC notified NRC as soon as the company found out about the vial. However, he said USEC was not required to do so because the issue didn't directly involve the company. Sea said the NRC should delay granting USEC a license to begin its American Centrifuge program partly because of the incident. USEC Inc. plans to begin a new process of enriching uranium at the gaseous diffusion plant in 2011. “USEC claims they have improved safety, but obviously they haven't,” Sea said. SONG member Andrew Feight also said USEC's American Centrifuge license should be delayed. R. Gregory Evans, director of the Institute for Biosecurity at Saint Louis University, said misplacing the radium does raise questions about how contractors for the Energy Department are handling nuclear waste. “Yes, it's significant that they lost this,” Evans said. Schachter said DOE doesn't know how the vial was misplaced. She also said the agency will review procedures for handling materials to prevent a similar incident from happening again. The Associated Press contributed to this story. JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. Vina Colley vcolley@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 42 [NukeNet] Aerojet DU munitions plant initial health survey report Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:06:57 -0800 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NukeNet] Aerojet DU munitions plant initial health survey report Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:56:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Daisy Anders To: nuke net NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Aerojet Ordnance plant in Jonesborough, Tennessee, is a major producer of depleted uranium (DU) munitions, made from a waste product of nuclear power plants. Employing about 120 workers, Aerojet mills and molds the penetrator core of the various shells used by the US military.
Christian Peacemaker Teams Stop DU delegation has made several trips now to Jonesborough, Tn., and other du munitions sites. Along with concerned local citizens they've worked to raise awareness to bring a halt to the production of DU weapons.
The url below links to a blog of their delegation's trip in Nov.- Dec. 2006.
A health survey of the area around Aerojet was conducted on CPT's return visit in January 2007.  A report of the health survey follows (see below):
 
Friends,

Here is a brief report of our health survey of the area around Aerojet Ordnance. Those of you who were on the trip or otherwise involved may have corrections and additions to this summary.

Ethel Umble, Juanita Shenk, Denis Murphy, Mabel Brunk and Cliff Kindy traveled to Jonesborough, TN on Monday, January 15. Faith Mahoney had already made copies of the questionnaire that would serve as a guide for those carrying out the poll. Faith was the only local person who participated in the polling, also doing much of the copying. That first evening Juanita suggested that we have a small sheet introducing ourselves and saying "Sorry we missed you." That was a good suggestion that allowed us to leave notes during the day and follow up with interviews in the evening. Ethel wrote a letter to the editor that gave us even a bigger impact in the region. We traveled home January 20.

We made contacts with the homes within a half mile radius of the Aerojet plant. This totals about 97 homes, four of which were empty (no one living in them) and another 2 at which we only left a "sorry" sheet (one visit). At other homes we made two visits but found no one home, people were otherwise occupied, or did not want to grant an interview. One person had worked at Aerojet and had two friends working there so didn't want to even give an anonymous interview. Another family was working through a family disagreement. A mother had her child in the hospital and was just home to pick up some items and return. Another man was in the middle of painting... 

Forty-seven homes granted interviews, 52% of the 91 occupied homes we visited as completely as planned. These homes represented 120 people, some homes with only one person, others with six. I will try to summarize some of the data we collected. Perhaps the most important thing we did was to bring more visibility to the DU issue in the area near the Aerojet plant by helping to uncover a hidden problem. 

Our assumption has been that production of depleted uranium weapons at Aerojet over many decades might have caused health and environmental problems. In fact, at places like National Lead in Colonie, NY, and Stamford in Concord, MA, there have been documentations of DU even 26 miles upwind and downwind from the plant, contaminated groundwater, an elevated number of leukemia cases, soil that must be removed six inches deep... In Iraq, birth defects, high cancer and leukemia rates, contaminated areas - all in areas where there were high uses of DU weapons; and among US military personnel from Iraq - birth defects, gastrointestinal problems, cancer and leukemia, lung problems, headaches, and unexplained aches and joint problems. 

So, what did we find near the Aerojet Ordnance plant outside of Jonesborough, TN, in Washington County? Five people mentioned headache problems, all of these living in the area for at least 14 years except one for five months who had also been in Iraq. No one reported birth defects, but Washington County had 687 cases/10,000 population from 2000 - 2002 while Tennessee had 275/10,000 during the same period. Seven people told of asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, pulmonary disorders, emphysema. There was one report of a mother who died with breast and bladder cancer and a neighbor who also died of cancer. One interviewee was struck by lots of church people asking for prayers because of cancer. Others mentioned rheumatoid arthritis, hives, allergies, nephritis, lupus, joint problems, heart problems, and a mother who had recently died of a heart attack at 52. She lived in one of the now empty homes. We also noted that 13 of the 47 families use bottled water, have a purifier or filter, or otherwise refrain from using the city water that is piped into the area. We noted many homes for sale and heard reports of two suicides. Only six of the 35 people who responded to the questions about whether the area was safe and clean mentioned concerns about lack of safety or cleanness.

We visited the County Health Department, Regional Health Center, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation and the local Agricultural Extension Office. In these locations we had access to health statistics, extensive files on the Aerojet plant, and opportunities to explore our many questions. Those visits probably added to our impact in the area.

The Aerojet files indicated plant compliance with air, water, and solid waste emissions from the DU production operation, at least since the early to mid-90's. We don't know about radioactivity problems or if the rules in place are adequate to prevent health and environmental problems. We also are not clear if our data indicate any significant health problems. We want to push out our findings to ascertain if we should encourage another group to do a more exhaustive and scientific study. Your suggestions and observations will be helpful for us. 

We plan to return to Jonesborough next Saturday to hold two meetings (one Sunday and one Monday) in  Telford near the plant. We will return Monday evening after the meeting, maybe with an opportunity to meet some other folks while there. Fourteen people asked to be notified when we return to report our findings from the health survey and share some of the information about DU weapons that we have gathered over the last months and years. Ben Long, Val Knickrehm, and Cliff Kindy will be the group reporting on the survey.
**************************
local Jonesborough resident and activist
Linda Modica <linda.c.modica@mac.com>, writes:
Our plan is to have a conference on DU in May when the Christian Peacemakers are due to return sometime between the 18th & 27th. ( They often split their visits with the Alliant Tech DU factory in Rocket City, W.Va., so I won't know for at least a couple of weeks what the exact dates of their visit will be.)   A film series on DU will be an element of the conference.  If you want to hook up with the CPT leader, his name is Cliff Kindy and his email is kindy@cpt.org.
_______________________________________________________________________ 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 ***************************************************************** 43 [southnews] Two dead in nuclear submarine accident Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:54:43 -0500 (CDT) Two British sailors died today in an accident on board a nuclear-powered submarine as it was submerged beneath the Arctic icecap, the Ministry of Defence said. HMS Tireless was taking part in a joint British-US exercise when the accident happened early this morning, an MoD statement said. Two dead in nuclear submarine accident Staff and agencies Wednesday March 21, 2007 6.30pm Guardian Unlimited Two British sailors died today in an accident on board a nuclear-powered submarine as it was submerged beneath the Arctic icecap, the Ministry of Defence said. HMS Tireless was taking part in a joint British-US exercise when the accident happened early this morning, an MoD statement said. Air purification equipment in the forward section of the submarine was thought to be responsible, the ministry said. A third submariner was also injured and was airlifted to a US military hospital. His injuries were not thought to be life-threatening. Article continues Tireless, a Trafalgar class attack submarine that went into service in 1984, is powered by a nuclear reactor but carries no nuclear weapons. The reactor was unaffected by today's accident, according to the MoD. However, the forward compartment was damaged and the crew were forced to surface quickly through the ice. According to an MoD spokesman, the equipment that malfunctioned is fitted to all seven Trafalgar class submarines. Its use on the other submarines was suspended after today's incident, until safety checks could be carried out. The equipment had not failed before and had a perfect safety record, the spokesman added. The navy's commander-in-chief of the fleet, Admiral Sir James Burnell-Nugent, said: "I very much regret that this incident has occurred and my thoughts go out to the family and friends of the men who have lost their lives. "I also wish to pay tribute to the crew of HMS Tireless that this incident has been dealt with and contained so professionally." ***************************************************************** 44 NRC: NRC Proposes $13,000 Fine for Accurate NDE & Inspection, LLC News Release - Region IV - 2007-07-005 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a fine of $13,000 against Accurate NDE & Inspection, LLC, of Broussard, La., for violating NRC requirements. In a March 20 letter to the company, Bruce S. Mallett, Administrator of the NRC’s Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, said that as a result of an NRC inspection, the agency determined that the company violated NRC requirements for the possession and use of radioactive materials. The violations occurred between Dec. 18 - 20, 2005, when a worker failed to wear required radiation monitoring equipment while using a device containing radioactive Iridium-192 and failed to maintain proper controls over the device after use on an offshore oil platform. The company also failed to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC regarding the event. NRC discussed the violations, their significance, the root cause and the company’s corrective actions during an enforcement conference with the company on Feb. 14. In setting the proposed fine, the normal base civil penalty of $6,500 was doubled because the violations were willful, the company did not identify them, and initial efforts at corrective action were not sufficient to prevent recurrence. “These three violations are also significant because willfulness was associated with each of them,” Mallett said. “Willful violations are of concern to us because the NRC must rely on licensees and its employees to comply with NRC requirements even when the NRC is not present.” The company has 30 days to either pay the proposed fine or challenge it and 10 days in which to request alternative dispute resolution. The NRC’s letter, its enclosures and the company’s response will be made available to the public through the agency’s public electronic reading room at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Wednesday, March 21, 2007 ***************************************************************** 45 Guardian Unlimited: Two dead in nuclear submarine accident Staff and agencies Wednesday March 21, 2007 Guardian Unlimited Two British sailors died today in an accident on board a nuclear-powered submarine as it was submerged beneath the Arctic icecap, the Ministry of Defence said. HMS Tireless was taking part in a joint British-US exercise when the accident happened early this morning, an MoD statement said. Air purification equipment in the forward section of the submarine was thought to be responsible, the ministry said. A third submariner was also injured and was airlifted to a US military hospital. His injuries were not thought to be life-threatening. Tireless, a Trafalgar class attack submarine that went into service in 1984, is powered by a nuclear reactor but carries no nuclear weapons. The reactor was unaffected by today's accident, according to the MoD. However, the forward compartment was damaged and the crew were forced to surface quickly through the ice. According to an MoD spokesman, the equipment that malfunctioned is fitted to all seven Trafalgar class submarines. Its use on the other submarines was suspended after today's incident, until safety checks could be carried out. The equipment had not failed before and had a perfect safety record, the spokesman added. The navy's commander-in-chief of the fleet, Admiral Sir James Burnell-Nugent, said: "I very much regret that this incident has occurred and my thoughts go out to the family and friends of the men who have lost their lives. "I also wish to pay tribute to the crew of HMS Tireless that this incident has been dealt with and contained so professionally." Useful links British army Royal Navy RAF Ministry of Defence Nato United Nations Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 46 AFP: Two die in accident on nuclear submarine - Wed Mar 21, 5:13 PM ET LONDON (AFP) - Two submariners were killed and a third injured in an accident Wednesday on board a nuclear submarine under the ice cap in the Arctic Ocean, the defence ministry in London said. Early indications were that the accident on board HMS Tireless involved a piece of air purification equipment to the bow (front) of the submarine, but the vessel was "never in any danger," the Ministry of Defence said. "The MoD can confirm that at (0430 GMT) this morning there was an accident onboard a Trafalgar Class submarine on exercise in the Arctic," it said in a statement. "The submarine, HMS Tireless, was never in any danger, its nuclear reactor was unaffected, it quickly surfaced and is completely safe." The nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine, which was taking part in a joint exercise with the US Navy, does not carry nuclear missiles. The MoD said the family of the two crew members had been informed while the third who was injured was airlifted to a US military hospital. His injuries are not thought to be life-threatening and he is expected to make a full recovery, it added. "At this early stage, it is thought that the accident involved a piece of air purification equipment in the forward section of the submarine," the statement read. "The ship's company dealt with the incident quickly and professionally and, as a result, there is only superficial damage to the forward compartment ... "The crew are trained in surfacing quickly through the ice, and did so in exemplary fashion." Admiral Sir James Burnell-Nugent, commander-in-chief (fleet) of the Royal Navy and vice-admiral of the United Kingdom, voiced regret but added his praise for the crew. "I very much regret that this incident has occurred and my thoughts go out to the family and friends of the men who have lost their lives," he said in a statement. "I also wish to pay tribute to the crew of HMS Tireless that this incident has been dealt with and contained so professionally." Air purification equipment is fitted to all Trafalgar Class submarines, of which Tireless is one of seven in the Royal Navy. The defence ministry said the equipment had a 100 percent safety record to date, but as a precaution its use on other submarines has been restricted until safety checks can be carried out. HMS Tireless, which is based in Devonport, in Plymouth, southwest England, was launched in 1984, but the piece of air-purification machinery thought to have failed was fitted as part of an update in 2001. The vessel has had a controversial history, having to dock in the British overseas territory of Gibralter in May 2000 after a coolant leak was discovered in its nuclear reactor. It remained there for nearly a year, sparking tens of thousands of people to protest in neighbouring Spain. A spokesman for the defence ministry said that the coolant leak in 2000-2001 was entirely unrelated to Wednesday's incident, and described the 2001 update to the air-purification machinery as "routine". Several incidents in recent years have highlighted the dangers faced by submariners. In September last year, two submariners died and one was injured in a fire on board the Russian nuclear submarine the Saint Daniel of Moscow in the Barents Sea near Norway. In February 2003, it emerged that an Australian submarine, the HMAS Dechaineux, was just 20 seconds from sinking to the bottom of the Indian Ocean with 55 sailors on board, prompting safety fears. The biggest submarine catastrophe was the sinking of Russia's Kursk in August 2000, also in the Barents Sea, in which 118 crew died. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 47 Boise Weekly: Abandonment of vets is a military tradition Opinion: Ted Rall: Suckered Again MARCH 21, 2007 NEW YORK--Americans were dismayed to learn that soldiers wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq--"fallen heroes," as network news calls them--were being warehoused in Building 18, a rat- and roach-infested satellite of the Army's Walter Reed Medical Center. Disbelief turned to disgust with the disclosure that injured veterans are going bankrupt and losing their homes because the department of Veterans Affairs (VA) holds up their benefit checks for years on end. Surely the men and women who fight for our country deserve better. How could such a wholesale betrayal be tolerated by a nation where "support our troops" magnets account for 20 percent-plus of total auto body surface area? The surprise is that anyone is surprised. Every generation of warriors has marched off to war based on the pledge that they would be taken care of no matter what. America has broken that promise every time. Abandoning men who lose their limbs and sanity in battle is a tradition that goes back to America's first war. More than 40 years passed before Revolutionary War vets got their pensions--by which time most had died. Of the few survivors, only those who could prove they were indigent actually collected. At the end of the Civil War, Union Army soldiers received a $250 discharge bonus, a modest sum that didn't last long due to a postwar period of high unemployment. By 1868, New York Gov. Reuben E. Fenton remarked that homeless veterans in New York State were "numbered by the thousands." More than 300,000 soldiers were wounded in combat during World War I, but the Veterans Bureau, predecessor of the VA, rejected all but 47,000 claims. "The Veterans Bureau," a columnist wrote in 1925, "has probably made wrecks of more men since the war than the war itself took in dead and maimed." America's first major military defeat led to mistreatment of those who had served in the Korean War by those who said they hadn't fought hard enough. Among other indignities, P.O.W.'s were denied their back pay of $2.50 for each day of captivity. Thousands of Vietnam vets were discarded like used tissues, reduced to homelessness and starvation after being denied adequate medical treatment and cash benefits. As recently as 2004, according to the Christian Science Monitor, "an estimated 500,000 veterans were homeless at some time during 2004 [but] the VA had the resources to tend to only 100,000 of them." It took a decade after the fall of Hanoi before Vietnam vets began turning up on the streets, but troops who served in Afghanistan and Iraq have already become homeless. "This kind of inner city, urban guerrilla warfare that these veterans are facing probably accelerates mental-health problems," says Yogin Ricardo Singh, director of a veterans advocacy program in Brooklyn. "You can have all of the yellow ribbons on cars that say 'Support Our Troops' that you want," adds Linda Boone of the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. "But it's when they take off the uniform and transition back to civilian life that they need support the most." As usual, they're not getting it. Two decades ago, as now, outrage generated by media reports forced Congressional blowhards and Army brass to promise to do better. But nothing changed. As it always does, the journalistic pack moved on to other stories. Politicians, slacking off as public pressure eased, went back to slashing the VA budget and brushing off veterans who complained of physical and mental disabilities brought on by their service. At this writing, the Bush Administration has asked Congress to slash veterans' benefits by a net 7 percent. A staggering 30 percent of the 700,000 soldiers who served in the 1991 Gulf War have filed claims with the American Legion stating that they are afflicted by Gulf War Syndrome, an umbrella term covering an array of illnesses ranging from chronic fatigue and loss of muscle control to brain cancer and fibromyalgia. Congress paid benefits only to vets who'd become ill within two years of 1991--eliminating 95 percent of applicants from eligibility. Researchers suggest a myriad of possible causes for Gulf War Syndrome--exposure to Iraqi nerve gas and burning oil wells, infectious diseases spread by parasites, a mandatory anti-anthrax vaccine--but the smart money is on exposure to radiation released by the 286 tons of depleted uranium munitions fired by the United States in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991. Twice as dense as lead, 60 percent as radioactive as naturally occurring uranium and with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, depleted uranium is extremely toxic. Reduced to a fine airborne powder, it coated everything in the Gulf: tanks and other equipment, uniforms, lungs. Sixteen years later, the government has yet to take its stricken Gulf War vets seriously. "I've been working on this since '93, and I've just given up hope," said Dan Fahey, a doctoral student at UC Berkeley and a Gulf War vet who has become a spokesman for the victims. "I've spoken to successive federal committees and elected officials ... who then side with the Pentagon. Nothing changes." Now get ready for Iraq War Syndrome. The 130 tons of depleted uranium dropped on Iraq in the Second Gulf War are destroying men like Herbert Reed, who ingested the substance in Samawah in July 2003. "Since he left a bombed-out train depot in Iraq," reported Wired last year, "his gums bleed. There is more blood in his urine, and still more in his stool. Bright light hurts his eyes. A tumor has been removed from his thyroid. Rashes erupt everywhere, itching so badly they seem to live inside his skin. Migraines cleave his skull. His joints ache, grating like door hinges in need of oil." Yet the Pentagon still refuses to clean up its act. Veterans poisoned by depleted uranium haven't received a dime in compensation. Depleted uranium bombs are still being dropped on Afghan villages. "There is something massively wrong with Herbert Reed, though no one is sure what it is," continues the Wired story. "He believes he knows the cause, but he cannot convince anyone caring for him that the military's new favorite weapon has made him terrifyingly sick." "The Department of Defense takes the position that you can eat depleted uranium for breakfast and it poses no threat at all," says Steve Robinson of the National Gulf War Resource Center. Once again, politicians and their media mouthpieces will make big promises. But they'll break them. They always do. Don't Americans who risk their lives to serve in the military deserve the same consideration as those who smoke cigarettes? Military propaganda--television commercials, posters, video games, recruitment offices, Fox News--ought to be plastered with a large, bold-faced notice: WARNING--Military Service Causes Death, Mutilation, Poverty, Homelessness and Complicated Feelings of Having Been Suckered. Powered by Gyrosite © Copyright 2007, Boise Weekly ***************************************************************** 48 FR: NRC: decon plan for PA site Doc E7-5149 [Federal Register: March 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 54)] [Notices] [Page 13310-13312] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21mr07-87] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [DOCKET NO. 040-07455] Notice of Consideration of Amendment Request for Approval of the Decommissioning Plan for the Whittaker Corporation's Waste and Slag Storage Area in Transfer, PA and Opportunity To Request a Hearing AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of amendment request and opportunity to request a hearing. DATES: A request for a hearing must be filed by May 21, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Kottan, Project Manager, Decommissioning Branch, Division of [[Page 13311]] Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, King of Prussia, PA 19406. Telephone: (610) 337-5214; fax number: (610) 337-5269; or e-mail: jjk@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of a license amendment to Source Material License No. SMA-1018, issued to the Whittaker Corporation (the licensee), to authorize decommissioning of its Waste and Slag Storage Area in Transfer, Pennsylvania as described in the licensee's Decommissioning Plan (DP). The Whittaker Waste and Slag Storage Area is located in the Reynolds Industrial Park in Transfer, Pennsylvania. The storage area is approximately six acres in size and was built up over time through the repeated disposal of foundry slag, scrap metal, building rubble, and debris from metal extraction operations. The Whittaker Corporation, as well as prior owners of the site, used source material containing licensable quantities of thorium and uranium for the extraction of rare earth metals. These operations resulted in slag by products containing thorium and uranium. Materials processing took place at the site from 1966 to 1974. The licensee has been decommissioning the Transfer, Pennsylvania Site in accordance with the conditions described in License No. SMA- 1018. This has included the excavation of the waste slag, processing the excavated material in order to separate the radioactive material from the soil, and shipping the radioactive material to a licensed disposal site. The licensee has submitted to the NRC a DP incorporating the dose-based criteria of 10 CFR 20, subpart E, Radiological Criteria for License Termination, for release of the site for unrestricted use. An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to the Whittaker Corporation dated February 14, 2007, found the DP acceptable to begin a technical review. If the NRC approves the DP, the approval will be documented in an amendment to NRC License No. SMA-1018. However, before approving the proposed amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations. These findings will be documented in a Safety Evaluation Report and an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement. If this amendment is approved, the license will be terminated following completion of decommissioning activities and verification by the NRC that the radiological criteria for license termination have been met. II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for a license amendment regarding decommissioning of the Whittaker Waste and Slag Storage Area located in Transfer, Pennsylvania. In accordance with the general requirements in Subpart C of 10 CFR part 2, as amended on January 14, 2004 (69 FR 2182), any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who desires to participate as a party must file a written request for a hearing and a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (a), a request for a hearing must be filed with the Commission either by: 1. First class mail addressed to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications; 2. Courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays; 3. E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or 4. By facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, at (301) 415-1101; verification number is (301) 415-1966. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 (b), all documents offered for filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all parties to the proceeding or their attorneys of record as required by law or by rule or order of the Commission, including: 1. The applicant, Whittaker Corporation, 1955 N. Surveyor Avenue, Simi Valley, CA 93063-3386, Attention: Eric Lardiere, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, and 2. The NRC staff, by delivery to the Office of the General Counsel, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hearing requests should also be transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725, or by e-mail to ogcmailcenter@nrc.gov. The formal requirements for documents contained in 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), (d), and (e), must be met. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.304 (f), a document filed by electronic mail or facsimile transmission need not comply with the formal requirements of 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), and (d), as long as an original and two (2) copies otherwise complying with all of the requirements of 10 CFR 2.304 (b), (c), and (d) are mailed within two (2) days thereafter to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (b), a request for a hearing must be filed by May 21, 2007. In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR 2.309, the general requirements involving a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must state: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the requester; 2. The nature of the requester's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 3. The nature and extent of the requester's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; 4. The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requester's interest; and 5. The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b). In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309 (f)(1), a request for hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must set forth with particularity the contentions sought to be raised. For each contention, the request or petition must: 1. Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted; 2. Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; 3. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; 4. Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings that the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; 5. Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requester's/petitioner's position on the issue and on which the requester/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue; and 6. Provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with [[Page 13312]] the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This information must include references to specific portions of the application (including the applicant's environmental report and safety report) that the requester/petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for each dispute, or, if the requester/petitioner believes the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of each failure and the supporting reasons for the requester's/petitioner's belief. In addition, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(2), contentions must be based on documents or other information available at the time the petition is to be filed, such as the application, supporting safety analysis report, environmental report or other supporting document filed by an applicant or licensee, or otherwise available to the petitioner. On issues arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, the requester/petitioner shall file contentions based on the applicant's environmental report. The requester/petitioner may amend those contentions or file new contentions if there are data or conclusions in the NRC draft, or final environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, or any supplements relating thereto, that differ significantly from the data or conclusions in the applicant's documents. Otherwise, contentions may be amended or new contentions filed after the initial filing only with leave of the presiding officer. Each contention shall be given a separate numeric or alpha designation within one of the following groups: 1. Technical--primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Safety Evaluation Report for the proposed action. 2. Environmental--primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Environmental Report for the proposed action. 3. Emergency Planning--primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Emergency Plan as it relates to the proposed action. 4. Physical Security--primarily concerns issues relating to matters discussed or referenced in the Physical Security Plan as it relates to the proposed action. 5. Miscellaneous--does not fall into one of the categories outlined above. If the requester/petitioner believes a contention raises issues that cannot be classified as primarily falling into one of these categories, the requester/petitioner must set forth the contention and supporting bases, in full, separately for each category into which the requester/petitioner asserts the contention belongs with a separate designation for that category. Requesters/petitioners should, when possible, consult with each other in preparing contentions and combine similar subject matter concerns into a joint contention, for which one of the co-sponsoring requesters/petitioners is designated the lead representative. Further, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f)(3), any requester/petitioner that wishes to adopt a contention proposed by another requester/petitioner must do so in writing within ten days of the date the contention is filed, and designate a representative who shall have the authority to act for the requester/petitioner. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(g), a request for hearing and/or petition for leave to intervene may also address the selection of the hearing procedures, taking into account the provisions of 10 CFR 2.310. III. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRCs Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Decommissioning Plan.................................... ML070120462 Inspection Report 040-07455/2006-001.................... ML062640473 Annual Site Groundwater Monitoring Report for 2006...... ML070470152 DP Acceptance Letter.................................... ML070510307 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, this 14th day of March, 2007. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Samuel Hansell, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. [FR Doc. E7-5149 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 49 Reuters: Two British sailors killed on nuclear submarine Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:46PM EDT LONDON (Reuters) - Two British sailors were killed and another injured on Wednesday in an accident on a nuclear-powered submarine on exercise in the Arctic, the Ministry of Defense said. The ministry said the nuclear reactor on board HMS Tireless was not affected. The submarine "quickly surfaced and is completely safe," it said in a statement. Initial investigations indicated that the accident aboard the hunter-killer submarine involved a piece of air purification equipment in its forward section. It caused only superficial damage. Tireless, which does not carry nuclear missiles, was taking part in an Anglo-American exercise when the accident happened. It was submerged under the ice cap at the time. The injured submariner was airlifted to a U.S. military hospital. His injuries are not life-threatening. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 50 Daily Herald: Help all U.S. downwinders Utah issues at a glance Wednesday, March 21, 2007 In 1990, the federal government reversed decades of denial and accepted responsibility for the human suffering its nuclear tests in Nevada caused by enacting the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. RECA offers compensation to people who contracted radiation-related illnesses due to fallout exposure. The act awards $50,000 to downwinders, along with $75,000 for those who worked at the Nevada Test Site. It also covers uranium miners, who are eligible for $100,000 payments. While it sounds generous and suggests that the government is taking responsibility for its past lies and denials, it doesn't really go far enough. RECA classifies each downwinder by geography and by disease suffered. In Utah, only those in Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, San Juan, Sevier, Washington and Wayne counties who have an illness traceable to radiation exposure are eligible for RECA payments, despite the fact that there is a lot of scientific evidence showing that downwinders live elsewhere. A 1997 National Cancer Institute study shows that northern Utah, Idaho and Montana received similar levels of radiation exposure as did the areas traditionally associated with downwinders. Two years ago, the National Academy of Sciences Board of Radiation Effects called for the government to remove the artifically-drawn borders defining who is eligible for RECA compensation. The fallout didn't respect county lines or state borders, and neither should the compensation. Utah's congressional delegation should lead the push to expand RECA to anyone who can prove they were sickened by radioactive fallout. This isn't about cost control. It's about a moral debt. Copyright © 2007 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises ***************************************************************** 51 Sun News: Panel agrees to keep nuclear dump open 03/21/2007 House lawmakers OK plan to take refuse from Utah By Sammy Fretwell McClatchy Newspapers A Utah company's plan to dump more nuclear waste in South Carolina passed its first major test Tuesday after a nearly four-hour meeting of state lawmakers. Despite legal and environmental questions, a House panel agreed that Barnwell County's atomic waste landfill can stay open to the nation another 15 years. The 3-2 vote is significant because it signals a willingness by state legislators to extend the closure date for the 36-year-old landfill - just as they have since the 1980s each time a closure deadline approached. Rep. David Umphlett, R-Berkeley, said the landfill is safe and provides a service to the nation's atomic power plants. "I have seen the site, and I feel comfortable," Umphlett said. "I wouldn't have a problem laying down on that ground at nighttime and going to sleep." Reps. Paul Agnew, D-Abbeville, and Robert Brown, D-Charleston, said the legislature should honor a 2000 law to shutter the facility to all but three states, including South Carolina. "We should keep our word to the people of this state and the people of this nation," Brown said. "Low-level radiation is dangerous to our health. This ... extension is profit-driven." Critics have been pushing to close the dump for parts of two decades, arguing the radioactive waste landfill is dangerous and gives the state a bad image. It is the only landfill in the nation that accepts the most potent types of low-level nuclear waste. Since opening in 1971, it has accepted about 28 million cubic feet of the nation's low-level atomic refuse. But every time a deadline approaches, landfill operator Chem-Nuclear has persuaded lawmakers to keep the dump running. In this case, Energy Solutions of Utah is backing a bill to keep the landfill open to every state through 2023, rather than close it to all but South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey. Energy Solutions purchased landfill operator Chem-Nuclear last year. The company says the landfill is important to serve the atomic industry's waste needs. Barnwell County leaders claim it produces more than $2 million annually for their government and schools. Umphlett, Reps. Joan Brady, R-Richland, and Jeff Duncan, R-Laurens, voted for the bill, saying other legislators need a chance to consider the measure. ***************************************************************** 52 DAILY SOUTHTOWN: Applause for Lang column Letters :: dailysouthtown.com Member of the Sun-Times News Group March 21, 2007 Thanks very much to Marlene Lang for writing one of the best articles I have seen lately on Yucca Mountain (March 11, Insight) -- and I see lots of them. I have been working full time on this issue for more than 20 years. One of the ironic things Lang mentioned is that Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman says Yucca Mountain is essential "in order to ensure (the expansion of nuclear power), the nation must have a repository for disposal of spent nuclear fuel (that's the industry's term) and high-level radioactive waste." In other words, Yucca Mountain only gets you much more waste. Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, I think, recommended the building of many more nuclear power plants, but fortunately that has not happened. The Energy Department has expressed, many times, its concern over lawsuits. There are studies showing that waste could remain at or close to the site of generation until a sane policy is established, which would be less expensive than proceeding with Yucca Mountain. Yucca Mountain has very serious flaws and will not adequately contain the waste. Just because the nuclear industry wants to build new plants does not make Yucca Mountain a better site. We believe the nation really needs to have a discussion about what sort of power people prefer, what the costs and risks are and how and where those costs and risks will be borne. It is our opinion that first there must be publicly accepted safety regulations in place (no final radiation safety standard has yet been issued), then a site found that can contain the waste for its dangerous lifetime (up to 1 million years) with community acceptance and, finally, a program that has full public participation and is not subject to pressure from government and industry. It appears the United States is not ready for such a policy. Judy Treichel Executive director Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force Las Vegas dailysouthtown.com: Feedback | Contact Us | About Us | Advertise © Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | Terms of Use and Privacy ***************************************************************** 53 RIA Novosti: Russia, Kazakhstan to sign deal on uranium enrichment center 10:05 | 21/ 03/ 2007 ANGARSK, March 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and Kazakhstan will sign an interstate agreement on an international uranium enrichment center in East Siberia in the near future, a senior nuclear official said Wednesday. "The contract is ready, has been agreed, and we are completing the technical checks," said Nikolai Spassky, deputy head of the Russian Federal Nuclear Power Agency. A delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is visiting the Angarsk chemical plant, the site of a uranium enrichment center. Last October, Russia and Kazakhstan, which holds 15% of the world's uranium reserves, opened their first joint venture to enrich uranium in Angarsk, East Siberia. The venture, which was part of Moscow's non-proliferation initiative to create a network of enrichment centers under the UN nuclear watchdog's supervision, will also be responsible for the disposal of nuclear waste. IAEA Deputy Director General Yury Sokolov said the principal condition for enriched uranium deliveries is strict "observance of all international non-proliferation rules." The center will offer uranium enrichment services to countries interested in developing nuclear energy for civilian purposes. The Angarsk plant was previously removed from the list of "national strategic installations," and there are no further legal obstacles to its operation. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 54 RIA Novosti: Atomenergoprom could be established in May-June 2007 14:02 | 21/ 03/ 2007 MOSCOW, March 21 (RIA Novosti) - A new government holding, Atomenergoprom, could be established in May-June 2007, an official at the Russian Federal Nuclear Power Agency (Rosatom) said Wednesday. Vladimir Travin, Rosatom's deputy head, said that by then the government should have prepared all the relevant documents, some of which are currently being drafted by Rosatom itself and coordinated with various departments. "The list of companies to be included in Atomenergoprom should be ready by April," Travin said. 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. First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who was recently promoted from defense minister and charged with the task of supervising the country's nuclear power and defense industries, said last week that the new executive body will be formed to take centralized control over the civilian nuclear power sector following the merger of four existing nuclear power "dinosaurs" - TVEL, Techsnabexport, Rosenergoatom and Atomstroyexport. He also said last 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 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), estimates the world's 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 the largest reserves of uranium ore, with 172,000 tons (over 3% of the global supply). RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 55 Chillicothe Gazette: Pike residents learn more on GNEP work www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Wednesday, March 21, 2007 SONIC panel faces questions, concerns during first session By ASHLEY LYKINS Gazette Staff Writer PIKETON - The Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative allowed residents to submit written questions about the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Tuesday night. Questions asked at the meeting, conducted at Piketon High School, will be compiled and integrated into SONIC's report to the Department of Energy, said Greg Simonton, director of Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative. The nonprofit initiative is a part of SONIC, along with the Piketon Initiative for Nuclear Independence, a private and for-profit enterprise. "This is potentially the largest project of our lives," said Simonton, noting GNEP could bring $20 billion and thousands of jobs to the community. "I hear your concerns, and I share some of them." SONIC was given a Federal Opportunity Announcement grant to perform a siting study to evaluate whether the Energy Department reservation in Piketon would be appropriate to host GNEP facilities. Eleven other sites around the nation also were selected. The facilities would include an advanced nuclear fuel recycling center, which would divide nuclear waste into its reusable and unreusable parts, and an advanced recycling reactor, which would demolish radioactive aspects of the fuel and generate electricity. The recycling, according to SONIC, would reduce the amount of nuclear waste to be stored permanently. Additionally, the group maintains GNEP would allow nuclear-capable countries, such as the U.S., to provide nuclear fuel to other countries that agree to not pursue their own enrichment and reprocessing programs. Before the group answered audience members' questions, presentations were given and a video of a reprocessing plant in La Hague, France, was shown. "Ninety-five to 96 percent of used fuel is still recyclable," said Dorothy Davidson, of AREVA, a supporter of SONIC. She said the facilities' being operational would occur in 2020 to 2025. Reba Meyers, of Piketon, said her husband currently works at the Piketon plant. "It's great," she said of the meeting. "I think (GNEP) would be great for the area." Meyers said she thought there should be more people at the meeting. Tuesday's gathering was one of three slated to take place before SONIC's study is due at the end of May, said Simonton. It was moved to Piketon High School from its originally planned location at The Ohio State University South Centers because of concerns voiced at an Energy Department meeting March 8, he said. Participants at that meeting said the room was too small, leaving audience members standing along the walls and in doorways. "I'm just here to learn," said Pam Mustard, of Waverly. "It's our first meeting." Mustard and her daughter, Laura, 10, said they'd go to "many more." "It's a lot of information," said Mustard. "It's scary, the lack of knowledge. We're coming in here with open minds. The community is important to us, and so are jobs." Some questions posed involved the security of the Piketon site if nuclear material were shipped to the area. "Prior to granting the license, we'd go through a security analysis," said Jim Morgan, program manager for SONIC. Additionally, Davidson said there have been no incidents during transportation of nuclear waste in the almost half-century history of the La Hague facility, and its employees are required to practice emergency drills. Morgan said SONIC is about 90 percent complete in looking at regulatory and environmental permits required for GNEP facilities, which SONIC is required to do for its study. So far, there have been no regulatory issues, said Steven Moore, CEO for Wastren Advantage Inc. There'd also be no new state or local legislation needed, but some federal legislation may be -which would be the case at any of the 11 sites, he said. Tom Anderson, the facilitator at the meeting, said SONIC's Web site would be up and running within a week, and the questions submitted would be posted with their answers. SONIC's application for funding for the grant also will be posted on the site, located at www.safesonic.net, said Simonton. However, certain business-confidential information will be redacted because of competing commercial entities. "I know no project will garner 100 percent of the community's support," Simonton said , adding SONIC's commitment is to provide accurate information. The dates of SONIC's future meetings, expected to be in April, have yet to be announced. (Lykins can be reached at 772-9376 or via e-mail at anlykins@nncogannett.com) Originally published March 21, 2007 Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 56 Brattleboro Reformer: Sorrell joins others on VY waste safety BRATTLEBORO, VT By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Wednesday, March 21 BRATTLEBORO -- Vermont's attorney general has signed a letter asking the commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to change the way they evaluate the safety of on-site spent fuel storage at the nation's nuclear power plants. William Sorrell joined the attorney generals of Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey and New York in support of their Massachusetts counterpart's request that the NRC change the rules and allow itself to evaluate the threat of terrorism on spent nuclear fuel storage. "They need to look at the environmental hazard that these storage sites potentially pose," said Sorrell. "This doesn't have to be in your own backyard to be a risk." Massachusetts has contended that the NRC erred when it declined to evaluate the effects of 20 years of additional spent fuel storage at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant during the facility's relicensing review. Yankee is scheduled to shut down in 2012, but recently it received authorization to increase its power output and is seeking to extend its license until 2032. Spent fuel is stored on site in a fuel pool. Massachusetts asked the NRC to suspend the relicensing procedure while its rulemaking petition was being considered, a process that could take up to a year. Though the commission refused to halt the relicensing process, it agreed Massachusetts should push forward with its petition. The decision by Sorrell to sign the letter "is consistent with positions we have taken in the past about the importance of safe and effective storage sites for nuclear waste and a concern that under existing regulations, the NRC can say 'no, we are just not going to consider these safety and environmental issues.'" The attorney generals are asking the NRC to change the rules and allow testimony about the dangers of spent fuel storage -- especially those dangers presented by terrorism -- to be presented during the environmental review. The NRC has contended under the National Environmental Policy Act, it's not the agency's responsibility to review such issues. Because terrorism is a national security issue, wrote the NRC in a decision rendered in 2002, "the public interest would not be served by inquiries at NRC hearings and public meetings into where and how nuclear facilities are vulnerable, how they are protected and secured, and what consequences would ensue if security measures failed at a particular facility. Such NEPA reviews may well have the perverse effect of assisting terrorists seeking effective means to cause a release of radioactivity with potential health and safety consequences." Sorrell said, by signing the letter, the state was sending a message to federal regulators that that needs to change. "In this day and age to not even consider the various ways that the storage of these wastes can be compromised is just not good public policy," he said. Local anti-nuclear activists applauded Sorrell's decision to sign the letter. "This is an extremely important issue, one the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution has involved in for many years," said Diana Sidebotham. "It's certainly incumbent upon Vermont to stand firm to protect the people of Vermont." "The Vermont attorney general has recognized what six other attorney generals have, as have the people of southeastern Vermont," said Ed Anthes of Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012. "It's not safe to store nuclear waste at Vermont Yankee." For Senate President Peter Shumlin, the letter is a step in a direction that should have been taken long ago. "It's inconceivable to me that the NRC wouldn't consider high-level waste on the banks of the Connecticut River as part of the relicensing procedure," said Shumlin. Sorrell deflected charges that his office hasn't been as involved as other state's attorney generals in issues to do with Vermont Yankee's relicensing application. The responsibilities of the attorney generals change from state to state, he said. "Under state law, the primary responsibility for representing the public interest in regulatory actions lies with the public services department," said Sorrell. The Public Service Board is also involved in the process, he said. "I understand the frustration of some who just want to find all available means to either fight an extension of the licensing," Sorrell said. "We certainly don't want to appear to be turning a deaf ear to these legitimate concerns. But we are also mindful of our statutory authority." Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273. ***************************************************************** 57 Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions must start over if it wants future 'Supercell' Article Last Updated: 03/21/2007 02:44:29 PM MDT Posted: 2:47 PM- Radiation regulators made it clear Tuesday that EnergySolutions will have to start all over if it wants to revive its plans for an 83-foot-tall "Supercell." The Salt Lake City nuclear waste company, which operates a mile-square disposal site for low-level radioactive waste in Tooele County, signed an agreement last week with Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. that caps the waste allowed to volumes permitted by current licenses. In its letter to the Division of Radiation Control to officially withdraw the upward expansion proposal, EnergySolutions asked to preserve the paperwork generated by the pending application. Some observers questioned whether that request fully complied with the Huntsman agreement or left the door open for the company to dust off its request in the future. Dane Finerfrock, director of the Radiation Control Division, notified the company in a letter Monday that records from the year-old Supercell effort -- including 666 public comments and the technical drawings -- had to be preserved under state law. But, he added: "Any future amendment request will be treated as a new amendment request." Finerfrock's staff was boxing up the Supercell records for storage on Wednesday. Huntsman last week called the waste cap a victory for Utahns who do not want the state to become the nation's radioactive dumping ground, and he announced plans to implement it after lawmakers removed a requirement that elected leaders sign off on expansions within the disposal site's existing boundaries. The Huntsman-EnergySolutions deal will allow a total of 13.4 million cubic yards of waste, about 700,000 cubic yards less than would have been allowed if the cap had not been imposed. fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 58 Platts: Nukes to be 'engaged' in GNEP by last quarter of FY-07: US DOE Washington (Platts)--19Mar2007 The Department of Energy's "goal" is to have the nuclear industry "engaged" in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership during the last quarter of fiscal-year 2007, DOE's Paul Lisowski said Monday. In comments to reporters during a public meeting on the GNEP, Lisowski said he hoped "to have money actually going to industry" in FY-07, which ends September 30. DOE has not decided on what the contract vehicle will be for securing industry involvement, but the $168 million the department plans to spend on GNEP in FY-07 will allow DOE to pursue that aspect of the program "aggressively," Lisowski said. GNEP is a fuel-cycle initiative that aims to develop new types of reprocessing and fast reactors. The meeting, which was held in Washington, was to receive public comments on DOE's notice of intent on GNEP, a preliminary stage in the process required by the National Environmental Policy Act. --Daniel Horner, daniel_horner@platts.com Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 59 JGJCC: DSG preferred option would add 138m to clean-up cost John O'Groat Journal and Caithness Courier: Published: 21 March, 2007 THE quango in charge of cleaning up Dounreay is being urged to go beyond what is being proposed in terms of the condition in which the site is left. The current blueprint would see all the radioactive hazards removed and the ground made safe by managing the residual contamination where it is. That would leave the radioactivity to decay, meaning the site would remain fenced off until 2300. Dounreay Stakeholder Group favours actively cleaning up areas to allow parts of the site to be de-licensed by the end of the decommissioning programme, currently due about 2030. DSG, which is the site's community liaison body, supports the measure as a way of encouraging new enterprises to start up. It also believes it would contribute to an improved public perception of the clean-up process. The proposal is to be put to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is in charge of the clean-up of Dounreay and the UK's other defunct civil reactor sites. The extra work would involve digging up ground to remove contamination resulting from the experimental fast-reactor plant. It would add an estimated Ł138 million of taxpayers' money to the Ł4 billion cost. Members of DSG unanimously backed the proposal at their meeting last week. It follows feedback to the group over what is the desired end-state of the site. Consultant Mike Egan, whose firm ran the consultation exercise, said it was seen as the one giving most flexibility. "It would mean the site being made available to contribute to the regeneration of the economy," he said. "It addresses the aspiration for relatively quick and comprehensive clean-up of the site as well as promoting a public perception of a clean environment." Mr Egan said that the option would need the site operators to preserve as much as possible of the infrastructure such as roads, drainage and mains electricity. DSG did not offer a particular view on the fate of the site's landmark dome – the steel housing of the Dounreay Fast Reactor. Up until recently, it seemed set to be the only plant to survive the site's decommissioning. There have been long-time discussions with Historic Scotland about its potential listing on conservation grounds. Caithness West Community Council was the latest body to support its retention. But the UKAEA and the NDA are now questioning the wisdom of keeping what has become a symbol of the fast-reactor experiment. The structure of the dome is contaminated and corroded, and whoever took on its maintenance would be saddled with a bill of Ł250,000 bill every five years just to paint it. Mr Egan acknowledged that a decision on its future needs to be taken. He said: "We recognise the national heritage importance of the sphere, and it would be good to have a transparent decision taken on what happens to it." * Dounreay's operators are seeking extra funding to cover the cost of two major waste plants due to go up at the site. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority recently fixed the UKAEA's spend for the coming financial year at Ł150 million. It also indicated that it could expect the same for the coming two years. Newly-appointed site director Simon Middlemas says the authority is satisfied with next year's settlement. The final amount was set after a prolonged series of talks involving the NDA and Treasury and Department of Trade and Industry officials following concerns of major cutbacks at sites to meet a shortfall in commercial income earned by the NDA. This prompted a sudden cost-cutting drive to prune Ł6 million from this year's Dounreay budget as well as fears that next year's allocation for Dounreay could fall as low as Ł130 million. This projection – which could have cost hundreds of jobs at the plant – proved unduly pessimistic. Speaking at the Dounreay Stakeholder Group meet last Wednesday night, Mr Middlemas said: "We're very pleased with the Ł150 million for the coming year. We are, however, still in negotiation with the NDA about the additional costs of major plants we plan to build in 2008/09 and 2009/10." These are a Ł100 million plant to treat a variety of intermediate active waste and the shaft and silo waste retrieval plant. The UKAEA is concerned that using its projected budget to fund these two plants would lead to a number of smaller projects being shelved. Mr Middlemas told the DSG that the UKAEA has done Ł22 million more decommissioning work than scheduled in the current financial year. A total of 22 buildings have been demolished. He said savings in the site's fixed costs have been redeployed on clean-up work. He also highlighted advances in safety, with 2.2 million man hours worked without a lost-time accident up to the end of January. He said the workforce had responded well to a drive to improve the site's safety record. Mr Middlemas said: "It's never been bad, but there was room for improvement. Our current performance is approaching top of the league for nuclear decommissioning sites." * 21 March, 2007 All content copyright 2007 Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. ***************************************************************** 60 Daily Herald: More waste still an option Wednesday, March 21, 2007 PAUL FOY - The Associated Press SALT LAKE CITY -- EnergySolutions says it fulfilled a bargain with Gov. Jon Huntsman by dropping a request to nearly double the capacity of its radioactive-waste dump in Utah's west desert. But in a letter released Tuesday, the company's vice president of regulatory affairs said EnergySolutions is preserving its right to seek future approval for the expansion. Tye Rogers even asked the state Division of Radiation Control to hold onto the company's voluminous file for that possibility. The notice appeared to undermine the compromise with Huntsman, who last week portrayed it as "the endgame for the in-migration of other states' radioactive waste." The deal called for EnergySolutions to "promptly withdraw" a license amendment, without qualifying language about preserving future options, according to the governor's office. EnergySolutions' amendment already has been approved on the engineering merits by state regulators. It would have let the company pile 9.8 million cubic yards of waste on parts of its mile-square dump, up from the licensed cap of 5.5 million cubic yards. A state attorney said EnergySolutions chose some peculiar language in the letter delivered to regulators Friday. But Assistant Attorney General Fred Nelson said the company's deal with the governor never required EnergySolutions to permanently renounce ambitions to dump more waste at Clive, a railroad spur 72 miles west of Salt Lake City. That nuanced position went unmentioned when Huntsman heralded a widely publicized compromise with EnergySolutions, which specializes in decommissioning nuclear-power plants and transporting, processing and disposing of waste. "We thought they were going to completely take the request off the table," said Vanessa Pierce, executive director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, known as HEAL Utah. "What this indicates is that they have the intention of coming back once Huntsman is out of office to resubmit their expansion plans. If they really want to make good, they'd withdraw that request without caveats," she said. EnergySolutions spokesman Mark Walker offered no comment Tuesday on the company's future plans other than to say it maintained in negotiations with the governor's office that it could return and ask for an expansion. Nelson offered another interpretation: "They're not pursuing their license amendment so long as Governor Huntsman is there." If re-elected in 2008, Huntsman, a Republican, would be in office through 2012. EnergySolutions made the bargain after Huntsman threatened to use the state's veto power to keep the eight-state Northwest Interstate Low-Level Waste Compact from continuing to send waste to EnergySolutions after its dump fills to currently approved volumes and before any expansion. But in another twist that came to light Tuesday, EnergySolutions doesn't take waste from the compact, which was authorized by Congress to dispose of radioactive waste in Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah and Washington. Instead, EnergySolutions takes other states' medical waste, contaminated soil and assorted debris from nuclear-power plants and decommissioned weapons depots. Huntsman's legal advisers still maintain EnergySolutions draws its authority to take waste from the eight-state compact. EnergySolutions disagrees that it needs the compact's permission to accept waste from outside the compact but has never failed to get it, Nelson said. Walker said he couldn't immediately confirm the company's position on that legal point. In the company's letter to regulators, Rogers said EnergySolutions was withdrawing its license amendment "without prejudice." That is a common courthouse phrase, meaning a case can be refiled after being been dismissed or withdrawn, but it's inappropriate for a regulatory matter, Nelson said. EnergySolutions also asked the Division of Radiation Control to preserve the case file. Nelson, however, said EnergySolutions would have to "make a new application" to expand its dump. "We'll send back a letter clarifying the arrangement that they'd have to submit a new application," he said. "If they are playing a game, hopefully that letter will clarify it. But we don't think they are playing a game." This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A1. Copyright © 2007 Daily Herald and Lee Enterprises ***************************************************************** 61 UPI: MIT expert: Not enough nuclear fuels United Press International - Energy - 3/21/2007 2:37:00 PM -0400 CAMBRIGE, Mass., March 21 (UPI) -- Planned increase in nuclear power in the United States, and the world, may run into shortages of the fuel needed to power the reactors, an MIT expert says. Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Center for International Studies, says uranium inventories are dwindling fast, investment in supplies has slacked and there are too many plans worldwide to build new nuclear plants. "Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them," Neff said in a statement issued by MIT. "There has been a nuclear industry myopia; they didn't take a long-term view." The price of uranium has jumped from $10 to $85 in the past decade. Most uranium is mined in Australia, Canada, Namibia and Kazakhstan, though increased investments are being made into the U.S. markets. There are 30 reactors planned or under construction around the world, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects applications for around 30 reactors in coming years. "The take-home message is that if we're going to increase use of nuclear power, we need massive new investments in capacity to mine uranium and facilities to process it," Neff said. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 62 UPI: Fuel shortage limits U.S. nuke power plans United Press International - NewsTrack - Published: March 21, 2007 at 8:01 AM CAMBRIDGE, Mass., March 21 (UPI) -- U.S. scientists say dwindling supplies of nuclear power plant fuel might limit the expansion of nuclear energy in many nations. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report commercial and government inventories are nearly depleted and uranium production meets only about 65 percent of reactor requirements. "Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them, said Thomas Neff of MIT's Center for International Studies. He said among numerous problems is the fact China, India and Russia have plans for massive deployments of nuclear power and are trying to lock up supplies from countries on which the United States has traditionally relied. As a result, Neff said the United States could be the last one to buy and it could pay the highest prices, if it can get uranium at all. "The take-home message is that if we're going to increase use of nuclear power, we need massive new investments in capacity to mine uranium and facilities to process it," he said. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 63 UPI: NNSA chief quizzed on nuke waste policy United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 3/21/2007 10:55:00 AM -0400 WASHINGTON, March 21 (UPI) -- The acting head of the U.S. National Nuclear Safety Administration was quizzed Tuesday about his agency's nuclear waste policy. Rep. Terry Everett, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, said in a statement at Tuesday's hearing on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2008 budget request for atomic energy defense activities that he wanted to question Tom D'Agostino, the NNSA's acting administrator, on "progress in the consolidation and disposition of nuclear material, including the status of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility (MOX) project and the impact of the Continuing Resolution-not just on MOX but the larger security and financial costs of not consolidating nuclear materials in the near-term." Everett also told Jim Rispoli, assistant secretary for environmental management at the U.S. Department of Energy, that he wanted to explore "progress in the disposition of special nuclear materials and radioactive tank waste." "Has a disposition path been identified for both high- and low-level waste and is the technology mature for these disposition paths," Everett asked. The "consolidation of nuclear materials across the (U.S. civilian nuclear) complex" was "a key component of the planned "transformation" of U.S. civilian nuclear activities, the congressman said. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 64 The Courier: County approves issuance of bonds for waste facilities Russellville, Ark. The Courier 201 East Second St P.O. Box 887 Russellville, AR 72811-0887 Wednesday, March 21, 2007 Facilities would hold solid-waste contaminates from ANO By Brooke Chambers Reporter Following a public hearing Monday afternoon, the Pope County Quorum Court approved the issuance of up to $40 million in solid waste disposal revenue bonds from Arkansas Nuclear One. According to County Judge Jim Ed Gibson, the bonds would be issued for various solid-waste disposal facilities specializing in removing, altering, disposing of or storing radioactive pollutants or contaminants at ANO. Gibson signed the court order Monday as a formality before the bonds could be sold, he said. He also said the bonds would be tax exempt and could be spent on “anything having to do with spent fuel rods.” Signing the order gave no financial obligation to Pope County, according to Gibson. Copyright 2007 Russellville Newspapers, Inc. ***************************************************************** 65 KnoxNews: ORNL covets research role in nuclear energy program By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com March 21, 2007 Oak Ridge National Laboratory would like to be a partner in the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. A research partner. That role could include small-scale tests to demonstrate the use and effectiveness of technologies needed to reprocess highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel. Billy Stair, the lab's communications director, said a number of high-ranking officials from the Department of Energy have toured the ORNL facilities -- including the hot cells at the Radiochemical Engineering Development Center. Among the DOE visitors from Washington: Clay Sell, deputy secretary; Dennis Spurgeon, the assistant secretary for nuclear energy; and Victor Reis, a senior adviser for the GNEP program. Stair said the officials were not fully aware of Oak Ridge capabilities in nuclear processing. "They went away impressed and willing to discuss ORNL's potential role in that effort," he said. "We have a long nuclear history, and it would make sense for Oak Ridge to be a major player." Some Oak Ridge folks weren't happy when U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., came out recently against Oak Ridge hosting a plant to reprocess highly radioactive spent fuel. DOE is shepherding the budding nuclear program, and I asked Gerald Boyd, the agency's Oak Ridge manager, if he was disappointed by Wamp's public comments. Boyd responded diplomatically. "Well, the GNEP process is working through the public comment period right now, and DOE is trying to find out what the various sites want to do and what they're willing to do, what's the best way to move forward ... . "I think he's concerned about bringing waste in, and he's made that statement. We understand that fully the way he feels about it. But we're going to continue working through the process across the department and see what the final public information is, what people want to do about that." Wamp isn't against Oak Ridge doing research for the nuclear program. In fact, he favors that kind of work. Some observers, however, think it's unlikely Oak Ridge will be able to cherry pick the GNEP role of its choice. During a recent visit to Oak Ridge, Wamp said he was pleased with the funding prospects for ORNL and Y-12, the government's major facilities. The biggest problem, at this point, is the money available for environmental cleanup in Oak Ridge. The proposed funding for 2008 is down by about $100 million. "That's my identifiable patient right now," Wamp said. DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration, the unit of DOE that oversees the nuclear weapons program, are running months behind schedule in awarding new security contracts in Oak Ridge. In the meantime, Wackenhut Services, the existing security contractor, is continuing its job per usual -- getting monthly extensions on its contracts. There are two contracts up for bid. One is for protective services at the Y-12 National Security Complex, which has more than 600 security police. The other is for security at DOE's other facilities, including Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Jean Burleson, Wackenhut's Oak Ridge boss, said Wackenhut is intentionally keeping a low profile, asking few questions about the procurement process. Wackenhut submitted a proposal to keep the Oak Ridge contracts, and he said the company doesn't want to do anything that might give the appearance that the incumbent is getting favored treatment. "As far as we know, we're still in competition with one or more companies. Back some time ago, they (federal officials) told us we were in the 'competitive zone.' We haven't heard anything since then." Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 66 DOE: Secretary Bodman in India Highlights Clean Energy Investment and Innovation as Key to Energy Security and Economic Growth March 20, 2007 Secretary Bodman in India Highlights Clean Energy Investment and Innovation as Key to Energy Security and Economic Growth Secretary Bodman and Prime Minister Singh To Meet To Discuss U.S – India Energy Cooperation NEW DELHI, INDIA – U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today delivered remarks in New Delhi to the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) on the U.S. and India’s bilateral energy relationship highlighting joint efforts to ensure a peaceful, prosperous, and environmentally responsible energy future. Secretary Bodman began his three-day visit to India where he met with U.S. business leaders and senior Indian officials, including Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. While in New Delhi, Secretary Bodman will discuss the importance of critical investments in infrastructure and energy diversification, development and deployment of clean energy technologies, and an open and transparent investment climate. “As two growing democratic nations, the United States and India have a shared interest in fueling greater economic growth for our people,” Secretary Bodman said. “Sustained investment in energy infrastructure and policies that promote the development and deployment of clean energy technologies are necessary to put us on a path of greater innovation and security for future generations.” At the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), Secretary Bodman highlighted the importance of coordinated international efforts to promote energy security on a global scale and the critical role that the U.S. and India must play in those efforts. FICCI represents over 1,500 corporations and 500 chambers of commerce and business associations in India with a stated mission to enhance competitiveness and global reach. Earlier today, Secretary Bodman met with U.S. business leaders in India where he discussed U.S. status as India’s largest bilateral trading partner and largest foreign investor and outlined opportunities to double bilateral trade over the next three years. Secretary Bodman also held bilateral meetings with Deputy Chairman of India’s Planning Commission Dr. Sigh Ahluwalia, Minister of Power Sushil Jumar Shinde, and Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Murli Deora. During these discussions, Secretary Bodman highlighted cooperation through the U.S. – India Energy Working Group including India’s new membership in the International Thermonuclear Experiment Reactor (ITER), their participation in the FutureGen Initiative, and joint efforts between the two countries in clean coal technology, gas hydrates, and energy efficiency. Secretary Bodman also discussed India’s role as a growing economy to promote adherence to market principles and coordinate the use of strategic petroleum reserves in accordance to International Energy Agency (IEA) principles in the international community. Later today, Secretary Bodman will meet with Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh to discuss the importance of an integrated energy policy to address growing demand for electricity and joint efforts to advance non-proliferation cooperation. Secretary Bodman will highlight the U.S. – India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act signed into law by President Bush in December 2006 as an important partnership between the nations. Although additional steps remain, the Act, once implemented, will strengthen nuclear cooperation in a proliferation resistant manner and enable the United States and India to meet growing demand by incorporating clean, safe civilian nuclear power into India’s energy mix. Tomorrow, Secretary Bodman will continue his visit in New Delhi where he will deliver remarks on regional cooperation and use of clean energy technologies at the Annual South Asia Regional Initiative for Energy Conference before departing for Mumbai. In Mumbai, Secretary Bodman is expected to participate in a roundtable discussion with Indian venture capitalists and visit with the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission to discuss the nations’ international cooperation on civil nuclear energy and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Media contact(s): Anne Womack Kolton, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 67 DOE: Department of Energy Recognizes Top ENERGY STAR Partners March 21, 2007 Leaders recognized for energy efficiency efforts WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tonight will honor 85 businesses, groups and government entities for their outstanding commitment to the ENERGY STAR® program. Organizations recognized have achieved major energy savings and/or are helping consumers save money while reducing energy needs and carbon emissions. The ENERGY STAR® Awards Ceremony will be held this evening, at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC. “Increasing energy efficiency is a national priority and the Energy Star® program helps provide consumers with real and significant energy-savings options,” Secretary of Energy, Samuel W. Bodman said. “We’re proud of our Energy Star® partners and we look forward to more of the private sector joining in its continued success.” Over the past year, ENERGY STAR®, with industry partners, it has helped consumers make smart energy choices, saving more than $14 billion on their electric bills; equal to the amount of energy used by 70 power plants and displacing greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to more than 25 million vehicles. While saving energy, ENERGY STAR® products maintain or surpass quality standards and offer improved features and personal comfort. ENERGY STAR® was formed in 1992 as a voluntary, market-based partnership to reduce air pollution through increased energy efficiency. DOE, in partnership with EPA, works to offer businesses and consumers energy-efficient solutions to save energy and money while also helping to protect our environment for future generations. More than 9,000 organizations share this vision and have joined ENERGY STAR® as partners committed to improving the energy efficiency of products, homes and businesses each year forward. DOE will highlight seven ENERGY STAR® Award Winners in the following categories: * Bosch Home Appliances: Excellence in ENERGY STAR® Promotion – Appliances * GE Consumer & Industrial: Sustained Excellence Award – Appliances & Lighting Manufacturer * Gorell Enterprises, Inc.: Sustained Excellence Award – Windows, Doors, and Skylights * Osram Sylvania: Sustained Excellence Award – Product Manufacturer * Pella Corporation: Partner of the Year - Window Manufacturer * Precision Entry, Inc.: Partner of the Year - Door ManufacturerWhirlpool Corporation: Sustained Excellence Award – Appliance Manufacturer For more information on the ENERGY STAR®, visit: http://www.energystar.gov/. Media contact(s): Julie Ruggiero, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 68 Tri-City Herald: Hanford increase smart move for DOE Opinions Published Wednesday, March 21st, 2007 The Department of Energy's declarations of unflinching commitment to Hanford cleanup will never satisfy folks in the Northwest. We're not naturally skeptical, but 60 years of living with the nation's nuclear weapons program has made us leery of government assurances. Actions can impress, however. DOE's recent decision to add $33 million above the Bush administration budget request for critical Hanford projects is a case in point. Not that anyone expects Congress to act responsibly, but it's worth noting that federal lawmakers never delved into the details of DOE's budget. The department was handed back whatever the Bush administration requested more than a year ago, with none of the usual adjustments meant to address the concerns of constituents. In the absence of congressional action, it was reasonable to assume that Hanford's share wouldn't change from the original plan. DOE's decision to shift more money to Hanford isn't just good news for the Tri-City economy, it's also a good indication the department is willing to toss more than words at cleanup. The additional money will be used for "priority cleanup areas," DOE spokeswoman Karen Lutz told Herald reporter Annette Cary. About $12 million will be added to money to protect ground water from radioactive and chemical contamination. Work to retrieve debris contaminated with plutonium and other radioactive materials for disposal at a national repository in New Mexico will receive an additional $15 million. And an additional $3.5 million will be used to treat radioactive sludge from Hanford's K Basins. Those are welcome changes that promise to speed progress on significant environmental threats. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 69 Tri-City Herald: Vitrification pretreatment test plant in works Published Wednesday, March 21st, 2007 ANNETTE CARY, HERALD STAFF WRITER The Department of Energy and Bechtel National are starting a $42 million project to make sure Hanford's vitrification plant is correctly designed to efficiently separate radioactive waste for treatment. A year ago an independent review team found 28 technical issues needed to be addressed at the massive plant to prevent "a protracted start-up and arduous operations." Two of the biggest issues involved separating nonradioactive aluminum from other solids that are high-level radioactive waste. "One of the criticisms of the experts was that it was tested on a very small scale," said John Eschenberg, DOE manager of the vitrification plant project. The aluminum separations process planned for the plant has worked in the laboratory. But testing was done on cupfuls of radioactive waste and that process must be scaled up to 80,000 gallon tanks of radioactive waste. An Engineered Scale Pretreatment System, which will cover space about the size of a basketball court, is planned to make sure the process works as well at the production scale as it does at the laboratory scale. The $12.2 billion vitrification plant is being built to turn waste left from the past production of plutonium for the nation's weapons program into a solid glass form for permanent disposal. A pretreatment plant with a footprint the size of four football fields will separate the waste to capture high-level radioactive waste in glass logs to be sent to a national repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. Low-activity radioactive waste, including the aluminum, also will be glassified, then buried at a lined landfill at Hanford at a far lower cost. To remove aluminum from radioactive solids, Bechtel National plans to add sodium hydroxide to the waste to dissolve it into the liquid. Then the slurry would be sent through filters that would concentrate the solids but not capture the aluminum dissolved in the liquid. The test project will look at the best way to get the aluminum into solution and whether the filtering system is large enough for efficient operations. Bechtel National is looking at when and how to add the sodium hydroxide for the most efficient mixing. It's also looking at increasing the length of the filters. A year ago, waste was planned to be sent through a series of three eight-foot filters. Now adding two longer filters is being considered to bring the total length to 46 feet. Increasing the temperature also might make the aluminum go into solution faster with less sodium hydroxide added, said Reid Peterson, an engineer for Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Anything added to the waste, such as the sodium hydroxide, increases the volume of waste that will have to be turned into glass. Heating the waste also could make it move through the filters faster and more efficiently, just as heating syrup from the refrigerator makes it pour faster, he said. Bechtel National, which is responsible for solving the design issue, is having the equipment for the test plant with full-size filters built in New Mexico. It will be set up in the Tri-Cities, possibly at the Applied Process Engineering Laboratory in Richland if space is available. The test plant will cost about $16.5 million. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory will operate the plant. It initially plans to test the design on one type of mock waste to make sure the scale up of the plant from the laboratory to the production size works as anticipated, Peterson said. Then it will try using the plant on mockups of different types of waste that the plant is expected to treat. Hanford has 53 million gallons of waste left from a variety of different production processes, each with different hazardous chemical and radioactive components. The test plant will be valuable not just to prove the vitrification plant process now, but also as the plant operates, Eschenberg said. It will be able to perform experiments to optimize separations as production moves to more challenging batches of waste, he said. The plant, which will only use mock waste, should be assembled near Hanford in early 2008. Initial test results should be available in the spring and results on more types of waste should be available later that year. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 70 Daily Californian: Lab Traces Path of Contraband To Thwart Nuclear Trafficking BY Andrea Lu Daily Cal Staff Writer Wednesday, March 21, 2007 illustration/harmony larson Scientists in the field of nuclear forensics trace stolen substances back to their points of origin to help government agencies halt dangerous illegal trade. It was his suspicious behavior that tipped off the Bulgarian border guards. Uskan Hanifi, a Turkish national, was caught attempting to cross into Bulgaria from Turkey in 1999 with uranium powder, which guards discovered after searching the trunk of his car. Fast-forward nine months, and the powder was at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where scientists were busy probing the sample and running tests. But these are not just any scientists—they’re nuclear forensic scientists who specialize in analyzing illicit nuclear and radioactive material to aid the government in stopping illegal nuclear trafficking. Nuclear trafficking as a major international security issue came into existence when the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in reduced control over Soviet weapons and vast quantities of plutonium and uranium. Smuggled nuclear materials include weapons-grade nuclear substances, reactor fuel and radioactive material used for medical purposes. “With the breakup of the Soviet Union, much of the material was not very well secured,” said Page Stoutland, leader of the radiological and nuclear countermeasures division at the lab. “The buildings were not secured, some gates didn’t even have padlocks. The material could have been stolen relatively easily by criminals or anyone who wanted them.” Governments, which have become worried about the rise of terrorist activities, began to create more programs to monitor nuclear substances. “While making a nuclear bomb would be difficult for terrorists, numerous government studies have concluded that a ... well-financed terrorist group could plausibly make a nuclear bomb capable of incinerating the heart of any major city in the world,” said Matthew Bunn, a researcher at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Enter the Livermore group. When the FBI or other agencies recover stolen substances, they enlist the help of nuclear forensics scientists at the lab to trace the path of the material since its theft. Nuclear forensics is considered a relatively new field—Livermore’s program was established by researcher Sid Niemeyer in the mid 1990’s. “We have a long history of handling radioactive material used in nuclear weapons, so that ability to analyze the material and understand the properties, that’s the basis for our work,” Stoutland said. The key to attribution, or the identification of the material’s origin, is to discover the nuclear material’s “fingerprint”—the physical, chemical and isotopic properties that differentiate one substance from another. After the U.S. Department of State sent the powder confiscated from Hanifi to the Livermore lab, scientists began to run tests on the substance, using tools such as X-ray diffraction and infrared spectrometry. Microscopic grains in the powder revealed that the uranium was not made through general commercial operations. Using radiochronometers, scientists determined that the final processing of the uranium was on Oct. 30, 1993. In addition to testing the chemical and physical characteristics of the substance, the scientists typically run classic forensics diagnoses such as checking the packaging for things like pollen or plant DNA that might yield clues as to how and where the material was transported. In the Hanifi case, scientists carefully examined the lead container, yellow wax and paper liner found with the uranium sample. Analyses showed that the container was cast in a crude mold probably shaped by hand. The yellow wax was a commercially available material that was rarely used in the United States and most Western countries. Fibers from the paper suggested that it was commercial office paper probably purchased within the greater European area. Scientists also integrate additional data collected from law enforcement and diplomatic sources and draw comparisons to nuclear materials recorded in international registries. “The most challenging part is to bring together all these different blends of tools and combine them to perform an attribution ... (and) allow the government to take the appropriate response,” said Dave Smith, leader of the materials nuclear forensics program at the lab. In addition, the group performs many outreach services to foreign governments. Team members working on forensics cases have traveled all over the world, including the Baltic states, Central Asia, Eastern and Western Europe and Russia. “Inadequately secured nuclear material is not just a Russia problem, it is a global problem, these kinds of materials exist in more than 40 countries,” Bunn said. The work that the team performs and the dangerous threat of illicit nuclear materials may sound as if Jerry Bruckheimer mashed together “CSI” and “24.” Smith says that their work is “interesting and exciting, but you don’t pack as much into 24 hours as Jack Bauer does.” However, there is no doubt that the menace Bauer fights is just as real to the Livermore scientists. At Hanifi’s trial, the judge sentenced Hanifi to a few months in jail since the value of substance he was caught with totaled less than $10,000. It is cases like Hanifi’s and the September 11 attacks that reaffirmed the risks, and the necessity of what the scientists do. “We understand the significance of the work we do. The stakes are very, very high now,” Smith said. “One of the things we say is we … ultimately provide the capability to prevent use of the materials, to prosecute people responsible or basically stop them from trafficking.” Andrea Lu covers research and ideas. Contact her at alu@dailycal.org. (c) 2005 the Daily Californian Berkeley, California dailycalifornian@dailycal.org ***************************************************************** 71 KnoxNews: ORNL helps on Vietnam reactor Oak Ridge specialists work to move weapons-usable uranium from site By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com March 21, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Nuclear specialists from Oak Ridge National Laboratory are participating in a project to remove weapons-usable uranium from a reactor in Vietnam and minimize the risks at a potentially vulnerable site. The National Nuclear Security Administration announced this week it had signed contracts with Vietnam to convert a research reactor so that it can operate with low-enriched uranium fuel. The Russian-supplied reactor historically used highly enriched uranium, which could be fabricated into weapons if stolen or diverted. Larry Satkowiak, ORNL's director of nuclear nonproliferation programs, confirmed the lab's involvement in an e-mail response to questions. He said Oak Ridge experts helped assess the "fresh fuel" stored at the reactor site. Highly enriched uranium, which has not yet been in a reactor or undergone nuclear fission, would be of most concern for possible use in weapons. All of the fresh fuel at Vietnam's Dalat reactor will be "repatriated" back to Russia, where it will be blended with other uranium stocks to remove its weapons potential, Satkowiak said. ORNL personnel will be at the reactor site during the actual transfer of the uranium, he said. He did not say when the uranium would be shipped. The research facility at Dalat is reportedly Vietnam's only nuclear reactor, but there are stated plans to build a nuclear power plant within the next decade. According to a press statement from the National Nuclear Security Administration in Washington, the new contracts are part of a commitment made by the U.S. and Vietnamese governments during President Bush's visit to Vietnam in October 2006. Another U.S. lab, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington state, is working on security upgrades at the Vietnam reactor, Satkowiak said. Pacific Northwest and ORNL are both managed or co-managed by Battelle. During the past couple of years, U.S. teams have helped transfer thousands of pounds of enriched uranium from vulnerable sites to reduce the risks of nuclear terrorism. Oak Ridge personnel have participated in projects in Poland, Libya, Argentina, Uzbekistan and other countries. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 72 KnoxNews: Y-12 completes dismantling of two warhead groups By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com March 21, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Oak Ridge workers have finished dismantling the uranium components from two major Cold War nuclear weapon systems, federal officials announced Tuesday. The National Nuclear Security Administration said Y-12 had completed work on the W56 warheads - once deployed on the Minuteman II intercontinental ballistic missiles - and two types of B61 bombs. Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at the Y-12 National Security Complex, said the plant held a barbecue lunch for workers to celebrate the milestones. Martin Schoenbauer, a top official from NNSA headquarters in Washington, was in Oak Ridge for the ceremonies. Y-12 has dramatically increased its dismantlement workload over the past couple of years. The rate of dismantlement this year is up 50 percent compared to 2006, although officials declined to specify the number of warhead parts involved. The Oak Ridge plant specializes in so-called secondaries - the second stage of thermonuclear weapons - and historically built parts for every weapon in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Y-12 is responsible for dismantling those same parts and recycling the materials after weapons are retired. Federal officials praised Y-12 for the successful effort in taking apart the W56 and B61 components, saying it was the first time in "recent history" that the Oak Ridge plant had dismantled multiple systems at the same time. George Dials, the president and general manager of BWXT Y-12, the managing contractor at Y-12, said the company was proud to support President Bush's directive to reduce the weapons stockpile. "BWXT Y-12 will continue to support this and other national security missions while we modernize the site and its facilities for the future," Dials said in a statement distributed Tuesday. Tom D'Agostino, acting administrator of the NNSA, said, "It is important that we take apart and safely dispose of the weapons that we don't need any more. Dismantlements help us to reduce security and storage costs." An Oak Ridge spokesman recently confirmed that Y-12 had begun dismantlement work on W55 warheads, which were designed and built in the 1960s and deployed on anti-submarine rockets. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************