***************************************************************** 03/28/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.73 ***************************************************************** 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 IRNA: UK sailors detained 0.5 km inside Iranian waters, embassy conf 2 BBC NEWS: UK reveals Iran dispute evidence 3 AFP: US battle groups conduct war games in Gulf as Iran tensions spi 4 Reuters: Iran puts detained British sailors on television 5 Reuters: Blair warns Iran of different phase 6 UPI: Walker's World: The Iran crisis deepens 7 AFP: Britain produces 'proof' in stand-off with Iran 8 AFP: Britain freezes ties with Iran, Tehran says woman to be freed - 9 UPI Poll: U.N. should lead on Iran issue 10 Guardian Unlimited: US Spy Chief: NKorea Not a Nuclear State 11 Digital Chosunilbo: CIA Chief in Seoul For Defense Meetings 12 Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea Sounded Out U.S. About Keeping Existing 13 US: UPI: Outside View: New nuclear fears-1 14 AFP: US missile shield for Mideast threat, Bush tells Russia's Putin 15 AFP: Prague to begin official talks on US missile - 16 WNN: EU faces trillion Euro climate change bill 17 WNN: E.ON and EDF call for progress on UK nuclear NUCLEAR REACTORS 18 US: [NukeNet] Three Mile Island partial meltdown 28th anniversary is 19 Guardian Unlimited: Eon seeks to bypass debate on nuclear power 20 US: Sun Herald: 2nd reactor possible at Grand Gulf 21 US: ENS: Early Site Permit Issued for Nuclear Plant in Mississippi 22 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Assessment for Peach Bottom Nuclear Pla 23 allAfrica.com: Namibia: NSHR in Nuke Protests (Page 1 of 1) 24 US: Platts: US NRC approves early site nuke permit for Grand Gulf si 25 US: Platts: Michigan regulators approve PPA for Palisades 26 Legalbrief: Namibian environmentalists blast nuclear plan 27 US: Rutland Herald: Sanders to push for stronger inspections 28 US: Oshkosh Northwestern: Safety at nuclear plants to be discussed 29 US: Salem News: Salem man watched Three Mile Island crisis closely 30 US: Burlington Free Press: Fossil fuel is bad. Nuclear power is bad. 31 EurActiv.com: EU in two minds about atomic power 32 Legalbrief: Radiation cant be blamed Necsa 33 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Sanders calls for nuke plant safety review 34 US: Independent Weekly: News: Wake: Harris fire woes smolder 35 US: BostonHerald.com: AG takes nuclear plants to court 36 US: FR NRC: In the Matter of James Francis Mattocks; Order Prohibiti 37 US: FR NRC: Notice of Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Facil 38 US: FR NRC: TXU Generation Company LP; Comanche Peak Steam Electric 39 US: FR NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting 40 US: Reuters: High cost seen as roadblock to new nuclear plants | U.S 41 Business Report: Uranium prices are in for a boom after a nuclear 42 US: Albuquerque Tribune: Richardson aims to halt nukes 43 DutchNews.nl: Minister to wait and see on nuclear power 44 US: The Designated Blogger: Remembering the TMI incident 45 US: PressZoom.com: Department of Energy Commends the Nuclear Regulat 46 US: Boston Herald: Sanders proposes new powers for states on nuke pl NUCLEAR SECURITY 47 US: Guardian Unlimited: Richardson: 'Nuclear 9-11' Is Possible NUCLEAR SAFETY 48 US: Salt Lake City Weekly: Strake Out 49 AU ABC: Fresh concerns over Gulf War soldiers' health. 50 Radio Australia: Call for uranium exposure tests for Australian sold 51 B92: Charges filed over radioactive iron NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 52 US: Hood River News: Hanford plan: sound choice vs. nuclear monster 53 Guardian Unlimited: Managers Blamed in Yucca Controversy 54 reviewjournal.com: NUCLEAR WASTE: Report blames Yucca managers 55 US: The State: Bill keeping dump open in danger 56 US: AP Wire: SC legislators say no to keeping nuclear landfill open 57 US: New York Times: Uranium Ignites Gold Rush in the West - 58 US: SF New Mexican: Officials speak on nuclear recycling plant 59 US: islandpacket.com: Speaker calls nuclear dump Lowcountry threat 60 US: Tri-City Herald: Oregon hearing unleashes objections 61 Platts: UK's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority names Sellafield bidd 62 US: CourierPostOnline: Hearing request on Shieldalloy granted 63 RGJ.com: Lyon board to participate in Nevada Rail Workshop 64 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Energy Alliance to provide more GNEP det 65 US: Ruidoso News: Meeting to be held on nuclear proposal 66 Ca: Hamilton Spectator: Critics blast new idea to seal nuclear waste 67 Ca: THERECORD.COM: A nuclear problem 68 US: New Mexico Business Weekly:: Neutron Energy gets permit for uran 69 US: FR NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting 70 FOCUS Information Agency: Radioactive waste depository – by 2015 71 US: Roswell Daily Record News: Nuclear power has safe record 72 NIGERIAN TRIBUNE: Shell denies involvement in toxic waste dump 73 AFP: Shell Nigeria denies charges it lost radioactive materials - 74 Reid: REID RESPONSE TO DOE REPORT REGARDING YUCCA MOUNTAIN EMAILS 75 US: CALLER-TIMES: Proposed laws limit uranium-permit challenges 76 US: Brad Warthen's Blog: The Dump is Dead, or at least it WILL be 77 US: Reuters: High uranium prices apply to fraction of market PEACE 78 BBC NEWS: More Faslane protesters arrested US DEPT. OF ENERGY 79 Guardian Unlimited: Energy Department Fined $1 Million 80 Seattle P-I: Million dollar smackdown at Hanford 81 DOE: DOE Issues $14 Million in Funding Opportunity Announcements 82 DOE: Energy Department Awards Universities $7.5 Million for Basic Re 83 Tri-City Herald: EPA fines DOE more than $1 million for Hanford prob 84 Tri-City Herald: Fluor Hanford chief resigns for new spot 85 Tri-City Herald: DOE looking for ideas on how to tackle increasing c 86 Rocky Mountain News: Not one dime for Flats worker 87 DenverPost.com: Flats whistleblower gets nothing 88 FR DOE: Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Imp 89 KnoxNews: ORNL director going to Battelle 90 KnoxNews: Fines possible if OR cleanup work not met 91 HemscottReport blasts Energy Department overruns 92 KnoxNews: Shoopman speaks out to help Cold War vets 93 PressZoom.com: U.S. Department of Energy Commits $15 million to its ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 IRNA: UK sailors detained 0.5 km inside Iranian waters, embassy confirms - London, March 28, IRNA UK Sailors-Iran Arrests Iran confirmed Wednesday that the detention of 15 British marines and sailors took place last Friday after they had illegally entered Iranian territorial waters in the northern part of the Persian Gulf. "Iran has already provided the geographical coordinates of the detention to the British government and has sufficient evidence, including GPS navigator systems, to indicate the penetration of British military personnel 0.5 km deep into Iranian waters," the embassy in London said. "Violation of international border and their intrusive act justified their detention," it said in a written statement obtained by IRNA. In a corresponding statement, Britain's deputy chief of defence staff, Vice Admiral Charles Style confirmed that his government had been given a second set of coordinates by Iran about the detentions that were in Iranian waters. But Styles also presented different British coordinates to claim that the British naval personnel were arrested 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters. The Iranian Embassy said that the two governments have been closely examining and discussing the case on a daily basis due to "its sensitive security aspects." "We are confident that Iranian and British governments are capable of resolving this security case through their close contacts and cooperation in which would prevent the reoccurrence of such incidents in the area," it said. The statement also reassured that as the investigation continued "all British marines and sailors are in good health and condition and they enjoy welfare and Iranian hospitality." "We understand the anxiety of their families, but they must be assured that they are in safe hands and have a better life than the risky mission in the Persian Gulf waters," it said. The embassy also added that the legal and technical issue had "no links to any other issues" and warned that unfounded speculation and provocative rhetoric can only be "counterproductive." ***************************************************************** 2 BBC NEWS: UK reveals Iran dispute evidence Last Updated: Wednesday, 28 March 2007, 13:38 GMT 14:38 UK Officials say GPS data shows the personnel were in Iraqi waters Satellite data proves 15 navy personnel being held in Iran were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized, UK defence officials say. Vice Admiral Charles Style said the sailors had been "ambushed" in the Gulf after searching a vessel and their detention was "unjustified and wrong". Tony Blair said it was time to "ratchet up" pressure on Iran, with whom the UK has now suspended bilateral contacts. An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman is quoted as saying Faye Turney, 26, would be released either later on Wednesday or on Thursday. Iran has insisted the group were in its waters when they were taken last Friday. The eight sailors and seven marines, based on HMS Cornwall, which has its home port in Plymouth, were taken at gunpoint by Iranian Revolutionary Guards after they had searched a merchant vessel. UK VERSION OF EVENTS 1 Crew boards merchant ship 1.7NM inside Iraqi waters 2 HMS Cornwall was south-east of this, and inside Iraqi waters 3 Iran tells UK that merchant ship was at a different point, still within Iraqi waters 4 After UK points this out, Iran provides alternative position, now within Iranian waters UK version in more detail Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told Turkey's CNN-Turk television the 15 - thought to be at the guards' base in Tehran - were in "completely good health". Iran's embassy in London also issued a statement in response to the UK data, in which it said the sailors and marines had been 0.5 km inside Iranian waters at the time they were seized. The statement, quoted by the official IRNA news agency, said "the governments of Iran and Britain have the ability to solve the incident through contacts and close co-operation". At a briefing in London, the Ministry of Defence said it "unambiguously contested" Iran's claims that the Royal Navy personnel had strayed into Iranian waters. Speaking later, Mr Blair told MPs it was time to increase pressure on Iran "in order to make sure the Iranian government understands their total isolation on this issue". The seizure of the personnel was "unacceptable, wrong and illegal" and the UK was now in talks with all its key allies and partners, he said. The market has been on pins and needles with the Iran situation Iran tension affects oil prices Mr Blair added: "Our thoughts are with the servicemen and the servicewoman and their families, and their safe return is our paramount concern." The prime minister said: "These personnel were patrolling in Iraqi waters under a United Nations mandate. Their boarding and checking of the Indian merchant vessel was routine - there was no justification therefore for their detention." Mr Blair said the personnel had been "doing their job" and the government would be talking to international partners in Nato and the UN to reach a "sensible" solution. The UK government said the Iranians initially said the merchant vessel searched by the navy personnel had been at a point within Iraqi waters, before later providing a second, alternative position, within Iranian waters. In a statement to the Commons, Mrs Beckett said: "We find it impossible to believe, given the seriousness of the incident, that the Iranians could have made such a mistake with the original coordinates." She told MPs that Britain were suspending bilateral contacts with Iran until the navy personnel were released. Shadow foreign secretary William Hague said: "The seizure of our personnel was clearly unjustified and the evidence the foreign secretary and the MoD has presented shatters the credibility of any claim they were operating in Iranian waters." BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said the freeze on ties between the two countries meant that until the Britons were returned there would be "no inward or outward visits to Iran" and no UK visas would be granted to Iranian officials. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: US battle groups conduct war games in Gulf as Iran tensions spike - by Jim Mannion Wed Mar 28, 4:26 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two US aircraft carrier battle groups exercised in the Gulf for a second day Wednesday in a show of force amid spiking tensions over Iran's seizure of 15 British marines and sailors, US military officials said. Prime Minister Tony Blair froze official contacts with Iran and vowed to "ratchet up" pressure on Tehran. President George W. Bush later told Blair in a secure video conference call that he "fully backs" him, a White House spokeswoman said. The decision to hold large scale exercises in the Gulf followed Friday's seizure of the British marines and sailors by units of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard navy in the northern Gulf, a US navy official said. "The decision to do it at this time and at this location was made after that," said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Pentagon and White House have played down the crisis until now, publicly insisting that US exercises in the Gulf were unrelated to the standoff over the captured British marines and sailors. The Iranians, for their part, denied US forces had held maneuvers in the Gulf. A top Revolutionary Guard commander, identified as only Admiral Tangsiri, said the exercise was only a "psychological operation." Iran also said it would release the only woman among the British captives. Fifteen warships from battle groups led by the aircraft carriers USS John S. Stennis and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower are taking part in the two day exercise, a navy spokesman said. The Stennis entered the Gulf early Monday, joining the USS Eisenhower and raising the US naval presence there to its highest level since the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Stennis arrived in the area about a month ago, but had been in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea conducting operations in support of NATO forces in Afghanistan. The shift in military posture comes amid rising tensions on a range of fronts between Iran and the United States. The UN Security Council on Saturday imposed sanctions on Iran for refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment program, prompting Tehran to slap limits on cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. US forces in Iraq, meanwhile, are holding five Iranians accused of supplying weapons to Shiite Iraqi militias, raising the possibility that Iran seized the Britons in retaliation. Despite the tensions, or perhaps because of them, the outgoing US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad held a brief exchange with an Iranian official on the sidelines of regional security talks in Baghdad on March 10. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in what the Pentagon billed as a major address on Tuesday, said the United States was open to higher level exchanges with Iran but urged realism in dealing with Tehran. A Pentagon spokesman would not elaborate on Gates remarks or why he chose to raise the prospect of contacts with Iran at the height of the standoff over the marines. "Secretary Gates comments were not tied to the incident with the British sailors," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. "You can try to connect those all you want. I'm telling you, don't." The Pentagon has said it is not looking for a confrontation with Iran and the exercises in the Gulf are merely aimed at reassuring US friends and allies in the region. "The reason that we have not said a whole lot about it, is the British government is handling that with respect to their sailors," Whitman said. "We're supportive of their efforts, and our position all along is they should immediately be returned." The White House Wednesday denied it was ratcheting up tension with Iran. "These military exercises were long planned and so there is no escalation of tension on our part," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "Now, we do stand with our British allies and stand behind Tony Blair as he works to get these 15 soldiers back from the Iranians," she said. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 Reuters: Iran puts detained British sailors on television Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:07PM EDT By Peter Graff and Sophie Walker LONDON (Reuters) - Iranian television on Wednesday displayed some of 15 British sailors and marines detained at sea last week and showed the only woman crew member saying they had "trespassed" into Iranian waters. Britain, which earlier broke all official contacts with Iran except those related to the detained crew, said it feared they may have been coerced into appearing on television. It insists they were seized in Iraqi waters. "It is completely unacceptable to parade our people in this way," British Defense Minister Des Browne said. After the broadcast, Iran's foreign minister told Reuters London must accept the sailors were arrested in Iranian territory, while repeating an earlier announcement the woman would be freed "as soon as possible". London said it had no confirmation of any imminent release and demanded access to the group, detained at a time of high tension between Iran and Western countries over Tehran's nuclear program. Al-Alam, a state-run Arabic-language television channel, showed the woman, Faye Turney, and several of the other sailors in uniform eating off plastic plates in a well-lit room. It also showed a separate interview with Turney, who British media said was married with a three-year-old daughter, wearing a black headscarf, smoking a cigarette and speaking about her detention and treatment. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 Reuters: Blair warns Iran of different phase Tue Mar 27, 2007 10:45PM EDT By Paul Hughes LONDON (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Iran on Tuesday of a "different phase" if it does not free 15 British military personnel captured in the Gulf four days ago. The sailors' capture and new U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran on Saturday over its disputed nuclear program have stoked tensions between the West and Iran and pushed oil prices to a 2007 high. Russia and the United Arab Emirates on Tuesday urged Iran to comply with U.N. demands that it halt sensitive nuclear work but Tehran says the U.N. resolution is illegal. Iran, which denies any intention of making atomic weapons, has said it may charge the two boatloads of British sailors and marines with illegally entering its waters in the northern Gulf. Britain insists they were operating in Iraqi waters. "What we are trying to do ... is to pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released and that there is absolutely no justification whatever for holding them," Blair said. "They have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase," he told Britain's GMTV television. Blair's spokesman said the next step London could take would be to publish proof, in the form of global satellite positioning (GPS) records, that the sailors had not entered Iranian waters. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 UPI: Walker's World: The Iran crisis deepens United Press International - International Intelligence - Published: March 28, 2007 at 10:16 AM By MARTIN WALKER UPI Editor Emeritus PRAGUE, Czech Republic, March 28 (UPI) -- We have seen this movie before. One of the West's leading statesmen, and a powerful advocate for human rights, is deliberately humiliated by hostage-seizing Iranian radicals. Moreover, the Iranian radicals believe they can get away with it because they know perfectly well that the Western leaders are constrained by their own moral code to abide, as far as they can, by international law. An Iranian hostage crisis is the common factor between Britain's Tony Blair in 2007 and the humiliated U.S. presidency of Jimmy Carter in 1979 and 1980. The radicals of Tehran, whether the young student hotheads of 1979 who seized the U.S. Embassy or the middle-aged Revolutionary Guard commanders of today, believe they have stronger nerves and more political will than the leaders of the West. They were wrong before, and they could be wrong again. Carter made a bold effort to free the U.S. hostages with a daring landing deep inside Iranian territory, with Special Forces then supposed to hijack trucks, drive to Tehran, take the embassy, free the hostages and fly out again. It was a very risky plan, and it failed at almost the first hurdle, when two helicopters collided in the dust storm thrown up by their own rotor blades, and the mission was aborted. The world remembers Carter's failure, rather than his courage in trying the plan. Special Forces operations have come a long way since then, and Britain's elite SAS troops are among the world's best. A rescue mission will always be an option. But the West has other assets, and the entry into the Persian Gulf this week of a second U.S. aircraft carrier task force, led by the USS John C. Stennis, was a reminder to Iran of just how much force is now being arrayed against it. This week's exercises represent the largest assembly of military force in the Persian Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. With 15 warships and more than 100 military aircraft maneuvering just off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, the message to Tehran could hardly have been clearer. "If there is strong presence, then it sends a clear message that you better be careful about trying to intimidate others," Capt. Bradley Johanson, commander of the Stennis, told reporters. "Iran has adopted a very escalatory posture with the things that they have done," he added. The message may have been sent. But the Iranians either refuse to hear it, ignore it, or take threats without action as yet another sign of Western weakness and disarray. They do not seem to follow the usual processes of diplomacy or logic. And Iranian officials lie routinely, as Pierre Goldschmidt, formerly deputy director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, details in "Correcting Iran's Nuclear Disinformation," a new study for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "Iranian officials are trying to portray Iran as a victim of Western neo-colonialist attitude, arguing that the West wants to deprive Iran of its inalienable right to reap the benefits of nuclear energy. The reality is that Iran is a victim of its own specific behavior," Goldschmidt notes, citing the report of Mohamed ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors, which said bluntly: "It is clear that Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its Safeguards Agreement" and "in the past, Iran had concealed many aspects of its nuclear activities, with resultant breaches of its obligation to comply with the provision of its Safeguards Agreement." So what do Blair and his American allies do now? Blair has talked of the crisis going into "a new phase." This appears to mean publishing the evidence from satellites and global positioning systems that demonstrate that the British sailors and marines were in Iraqi waters when the Iranians launched what looked like a very carefully planned attack in overwhelming force. The Iranians were given the opportunity to say it was all a misunderstanding and to return the sailors and boats, and they turned it down, clearly preferring escalation. It is always useful to have a strong legal case, and it is sensible for Blair to use the platform of the United Nations to demonstrate that Iran was in the wrong. The real question is what comes next, bearing in mind that Iran has gotten away with kidnapping and humiliating British troops in the past, forcing them to make "confessions" on videotape before being freed. Having swallowed Iran's bullying tactics in the past, the British should not be surprised if the Iranians expect more craven behavior, particularly since the captured crew includes a woman sailor, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, with a 3-year-old daughter at home. The Iranians may be misjudging the mood in Britain and in the United States. Blair does not want to be remembered like Jimmy Carter, as a nice but deeply ineffectual chap who let his country be humiliated by the radicals of a rogue state. And George Bush does not want his historical legacy to be Atomic Ayatollahs. It is bad enough that the Bush presidency turned Iran into the regional superpower by destroying Iraq, but even worse to be known forever as the man who allowed Iran to go nuclear. The standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions has been the world's top crisis-in-waiting for the past year and more. And the realization that military strikes would almost certainly send the oil price soaring way above $100 a barrel has created a misleading sense of optimism that the weakened Bush administration could not take such risks. Those who know Bush best say this is a fundamental misunderstanding of his Texan character. The lurking Iranian crisis could now be coming to a head because Tony Blair does not want to pass into retirement as scorned as Jimmy Carter, and because Bush viscerally rejects the idea that he could be remembered not just as an incompetent, but as an appeaser. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: Britain produces 'proof' in stand-off with Iran by Katherine Haddon Wed Mar 28, 7:27 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - Britain on Wednesday produced evidence which it said proved that 15 of its sailors and marines held by Iran were "ambushed" in Iraqi waters, as Tehran insisted they had infringed on its territory. Military chiefs at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) used maps and GPS coordinates to argue that the naval personnel were clearly within Iraqi territorial waters at the northern end of the Gulf when they were seized last Friday. The announcement marked a decisive switch from private to public diplomacy, after Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Tuesday that negotiations would enter a "different phase" if negotiations reached a dead end. The sailors were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters, Vice-Admiral Charles Style, deputy chief of the defence staff, told reporters. "The action by Iranian forces in arresting and detaining our people is unjustified and wrong. As such it is a matter of deep concern to us," he said. The MoD said it disputed two sets of coordinates provided by Tehran, one inside Iraqi waters and one inside Iranian waters. "It is is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates," Style said. "In any case we unambiguously contest both the positions provided by the Iranians." In a statement received by Sky News television, the Iranian embassy in London responded by insisting that the British personnel had "illegally entered" Iranian territorial waters. "This was a violation of (an) international border ... an intrusive act justfied their detention," the statement said. London argues that the eight sailors and seven marines were conducting "routine" anti-smuggling operations when they were seized at gunpoint. Blair's spokesman said the MoD's evidence was "difficult to dispute." Diplomatic efforts seemed to have hit a stumbling block Tuesday when Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett cut short a visit to Turkey to brief parliament on the stand-off, having got nowhere in talks with her Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki. British Home Secretary, John Reid, a former defence secretary, said the situation was delicate and "very dangerous." "Let's just hope we get a speedy and a satisfactory resolution to this," he added, Reid told Sky News television. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said diplomats from his country may be granted access to the British military personnel, after he held talks with the Iranian foreign minister. Britain could not immediately confirm this. "For the moment, the point is that we want access to them," said a Foreign Office spokesman, urging that the claim be treated with "caution." Beckett unexpectedly curtailed her Turkey trip after speaking to Mottaki in "very robust terms," according to a Foreign Office spokesman. Citing unnamed sources, the BBC said the British military personnel were being grilled at a Revolutionary Guards base in Tehran to find out if they were on an intelligence-gathering mission. BBC reports also said that hardliners surrounding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believe the 15 could be useful pawns, either to trade for five Iranians being held by US forces in Iraq or for concessions over Iran's controversial nuclear programme. The European Union has demanded the sailors' release and the United States has expressed its "concern and outrage." The crisis over the detentions comes as tensions are also rising over Iran's disputed nuclear programme. World oil prices rallied on Wednesday but remained under 69 dollars per barrel -- the level they briefly reached late Tuesday in London. Overnight, the price of Brent North Sea crude for May delivery had surged as high as 69 dollars per barrel, which was last seen on September 4, 2006. However, crude futures resumed their march higher on Wednesday, jumping by more than one dollar in London and New York owing to lingering geopolitical concerns over Iran. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 AFP: Britain freezes ties with Iran, Tehran says woman to be freed - by Robin Millard Wed Mar 28, 2:29 PM ET LONDON (AFP) - Britain froze official contacts with Iran on Wednesday in an escalating dispute over 15 detained naval personnel, as Tehran said it would soon release the only woman among the captives. Speaking only hours after Prime Minister Tony Blair vowed to "ratchet up" pressure on the Islamic republic, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman told AFP that servicewoman Faye Turney would be freed "within a day or two." She featured in footage shown on Iranian television, wearing a headscarf, along with other members of the detained group. They appeared to be in good health. Amid mounting tensions, fuelled by US navy exercises in the Gulf, Britain unveiled evidence that it said showed Turney, seven other sailors and seven marines were in Iraqi waters when detained last Friday. Iran again rejected this and played down Britain's decision to freeze contacts with Tehran, saying ties were already "cold and inactive," the official news agency IRNA quoted a foreign ministry source as saying. All the captives have been held at a secret location but Turkey said its diplomats might be granted access. Iranian television station Al-Alam said it would broadcast "new footage" of the 15 and an interview with Turney. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett announced the freeze in government-to-government contact in a statement to the British parliament. "We need to focus all our bilateral efforts during this phase on the resolution of this issue," she said. "We will therefore be imposing a freeze on all other official bilateral business with Iran." The freeze will undermine trade and investment between the two countries, experts said. "Since most businesses in Iran are controlled by the state, there is likely to be some impact, but the extent remains to be seen," Middle East analyst Anoushka Marashlian told AFP. Blair emphasised British determination in the dispute. "It is now time to ratchet up the diplomatic and international pressure" on Tehran, Blair told lawmakers, adding that "there was no justification whatever" for the detention of the sailors. "It was completely unacceptable, wrong and illegal," he said. The prime minister said Britain was in contact with "all our key allies" over the dispute in order to "step up the pressure" on the Iranian government. Speaking for the European Union, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Iran's action was "unacceptable" and renewed a call for the soldiers' release. "The British have our full solidarity here," she said. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer also called for their immediate release. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said diplomats from his country may be allowed access to the British military personnel, after he held talks with the Iranian foreign minister at the Arab League summit in Saudi Arabia. Britain and Iran remained entrenched in their differing accounts of where the navy personnel were seized. British military chiefs used maps and GPS coordinates to affirm that the navy personnel were 1.7 nautical miles (3.15 kilometres) within Iraqi waters at the northern end of the Gulf. It gave the coordinates as 29 degrees 50.36 minutes north and 48 degrees 43.08 minutes east. The Iranian embassy in London insisted that the British personnel had "illegally entered" up to 500 metres (550 yards) within Iranian territorial waters, Sky News television reported. "This was a violation of (an) international border ... an intrusive act justified their detention," the statement said. Offering a grain of hope, it however said it was "confident the two governments are capable of resolving this security case through their close contacts and cooperation." Britain's ambassador to Tehran, Geoffrey Adams, was to meet Iranian foreign ministry officials again over the sailors' fate, the embassy said. London argues that the captured personnel were conducting "routine" anti-smuggling operations when they were seized at gunpoint. There has been speculation that Tehran could use the British personnel as pawns, either to trade for five Iranians being held by US forces in Iraq or for concessions over Iran's controversial nuclear programme. Beckett said Wednesday that Iran had denied any such motivation. The United States, which has already voiced "concern and outrage" over the incident, said Tuesday that an unusual exercise involving two US aircraft carrier strike groups in the Gulf was aimed at reassuring friends and allies, not raising tensions with Iran. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 9 UPI Poll: U.N. should lead on Iran issue United Press International - NewsTrack - 3/28/2007 12:01:00 PM -0400 WASHINGTON, March 28 (UPI) -- The United Nations should take the lead should military action be used against Iran and its nuclear program, UPI-Zogby International poll participants said. While diplomatic action was a 4-1 choice of the 4,824 U.S. residents who took part in the poll conducted March 14-16, nearly 30 percent of those asked said they believed the United States would react militarily to Tehran's continued nuclear development. Asked which tack U.S. officials "should" take, 68.1 percent of respondents said diplomatic negotiations and 15.7 percent suggested military action. When asked what action the United States "will" take 28.3 percent said military and 41.1 percent said diplomacy. More than 40 percent of participants said, if military action against Iran is necessary, the United Nations should take the lead spot. Another 20 percent said the United States should lead and 11.1 percent said Arab nations should be in the lead. As to which entity would be most effective in negotiations with Iran, 21.1 percent said Arab nations, 20.2 percent said the United Nations, 14 percent said the United States and 12.1 percent said the European Union. The interactive poll had a margin of error of 1.4 percent points. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: US Spy Chief: NKorea Not a Nuclear State Wednesday March 28, 2007 5:01 AM SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The U.S. spy chief said Washington does not recognize North Korea as a nuclear weapons state because its underground atomic test last year failed, a newspaper reported Wednesday. ``The United States will not recognize North Korea as a nuclear-armed state because Pyongyang's nuclear test last year was a failure,'' CIA Director Michael Hayden told South Korean Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo during a meeting in Seoul, JoongAng Ilbo newspaper reported, citing an unnamed defense ministry official. The Defense Ministry said it could not confirm Hayden's reported comments as he was on an unofficial visit. It was not clear what Hayden meant by the test being a failure. The U.S. Director of National Intelligence last year released a statement confirming that a nuclear test had been conducted by the North on Oct. 9 with a yield of less than a kiloton. However, the U.S. has repeatedly insisted it will not treat the North as a nuclear weapons state - a status Pyongyang has sought to be considered on equal footing with other atomic powers. North Korea pledged at international disarmament talks last month to begin dismantling its nuclear weapons program in return for aid and political concessions. The North is required to shut down its sole operating nuclear reactor by April 14 in the first phase of disarmament under the pact reached with the U.S. and other regional powers. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 11 Digital Chosunilbo: CIA Chief in Seoul For Defense Meetings Updated Mar.28,2007 10:48 KST CIA Director Michael Hayden met with Korean Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo and high-level U.S. military and government officials stationed here Tuesday. He also met with Korean National Intelligence Service Director Kim Man-bok. A senior Korean Defense Ministry official said that Hayden flew from Japan to Korea on Monday as part of a Northeast Asia tour. Hayden talked with Minister Kim for 15 minutes Tuesday afternoon and discussed the North Korean nuclear issue, the transfer of wartime operational control of Korean forces to Seoul and the exchange of intelligence on North Korea. Hayden also met with U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Alexander Vershbow and U.S. Forces Korea Commander Burwell Bell Tuesday. He will leave for China, the third stop on his regional trip, on Wednesday. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 12 Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea Sounded Out U.S. About Keeping Existing Nukes Updated Mar.28,2007 10:36 KST North Korea has apparently tapped U.S. opinion on whether the two can establish diplomatic relations while keeping the North¡¯s existing nuclear weapons intact. A statement of principles reached in the six-nation nuclear talks in 2006 and the Feb. 13 agreement of this year only specify dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear ¡°programs.¡± When North Korea's chief nuclear negotiator Kim Kye-gwan met his U.S. counterpart Christopher Hill in New York on March 5, a source familiar with U.S.-North Korean relations says, Kim asked Hill to "treat us the way you treat India." It was a reminder that U.S. President George W. Bush signed the U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement in 2006, which allows sales of nuclear technology to India although the country has developed nuclear weapons and is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Bush has been criticized for giving India exceptional treatment. The source quoted Hill as replying North Korea ¡°can never become an India." That suggests Washington will not establish full diplomatic ties with the North so long as the nuclear weapons exist. The quoted remarks corroborate analysis that North Korea is attempting to normalize relations with the U.S. without scrapping the nuclear weapons it has already built. It remains to be seen whether Kim¡¯s demand reflects North Korea's bottom line or was a mere statement for negotiation purposes. The Feb. 13 agreement does not mention the dismantlement of nuclear weapons even at the stage when the nuclear facilities have been disabled, which observers say will necessitate separate negotiations to dismantle the nuclear weapons. In Washington on Monday, former Korean ambassador to the U.S. Han Seung-joo said the Feb. 13 agreement ¡°is proof that the United States is giving priority to freezing the nuclear facilities, preventing North Korea from producing additional nuclear weapons and transferring nuclear materials overseas. It¡¯s highly likely that North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons, so the Feb. 13 agreement will unlikely attain the level of the [1994] Geneva Accords." (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 13 UPI: Outside View: New nuclear fears-1 United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 3/28/2007 5:08:00 PM -0400 By VIKTOR LITOVKIN UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, March 28 (UPI) -- First of two parts Media reports from the last few weeks increasingly resemble Hollywood horror movies. The United States is reportedly developing a new-generation hydrogen warhead for its Trident II, (D-5) strategic submarines. The Pentagon plans to deploy elements of its National Missile Defense System, namely, an early-warning radar and ground-based interceptor, or GBI, launchers, in the Czech Republic and Poland. The U.S. Navy is transferring a powerful radar from the Hawaiian Islands to the Aleutian archipelago near the Russian border. Moreover, another radar will be positioned in the South Caucasus, but its exact location is still unclear. In other words, Washington is trying to "contain" Russia. The American press carries articles about the U.S. absolute military supremacy over Russia and the possibility for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenal of Russia with a first strike. I mean, above all, an article called "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy" by Keir A. Lieber, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, and his colleague Daryl G. Press from the University of Pennsylvania, which appeared in the Foreign Affairs magazine. They cite figures which show that Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated. Unfortunately, one must agree with many points of this article. Moscow's commitment to the July 31, 1991 START I Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms has caused the Russian nuclear arsenal to shrink considerably over the last few years. Furthermore, some combat-ready ICBMs, including the famous Voyevoda R-36-MUTTKh or R-36-M2 -- NATO designation SS-18 Satan -- with 10 independently targeted warheads, the obsolete RT-2PM Topol mobile ICBM -- NATO designation SS-25 Sickle -- and some others, are being scrapped. Russia's strategic nuclear forces now have 762 missiles capable of launching 3,373 nuclear warheads. The Strategic Missile Force wields 503 ICBMs and 1,853 nuclear warheads. The Russian Navy operates 12 strategic submarines with 636 nuclear warheads, and the Air Force has 79 strategic bombers with 8,884 long-range cruise missiles. The United States, on the other hand, has 5,521 combat-ready nuclear warheads, including 1,050 warheads on 500 silo-based missiles, 2,016 warheads on 336 submarine-launched missiles, and 1,955 long-range cruise missiles for its 100-plus Boeing B-52 Stratofortress and Grumman Northrop B-2 Spirit bombers. Nonetheless, Russia has enough nuclear warheads to feel more or less calm. Under the May 24, 2002 Russian-U.S. Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, each country may retain not more than 1,700-2,200 strategic nuclear warheads by December 31, 2012. Moscow continues to reduce and upgrade its strategic nuclear forces. Obsolete missiles are being scrapped and replaced with fewer, albeit more dependable and effective, RT-2PM2 Topol --NATO designation SS-27 -- silo-based missiles. The Russian Strategic Missile Force, which now has 45 such missiles, will increase their number to 150 by 2015 under the state rearmament program. Meanwhile, the Navy will receive Bulava-30 -- NATO designation SS-N-30 -- missiles for its Mk 955 Borei-class submarines. Next: Cooperation is better. (Viktor Litovkin is a military correspondent for the RIA Novosti news agency. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the RIA Novosti editorial board.) (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are ***************************************************************** 14 AFP: US missile shield for Mideast threat, Bush tells Russia's Putin - Wed Mar 28, 4:39 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush told Russian President Vladimir Putin Wednesday that a planned US missile shield in Europe is to defend against Middle East threats, the White House said. "President Bush emphasized that missile defenses in Europe are intended to protect against the evolving ballistic missile threat from the Middle East -- a threat that we share in common with Europe and Russia," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe. The United States is currently concerned about Iran's ballistic missiles. In what was a "thorough and open" phone conversation initiated by the White House, according to the Kremlin, the two men discussed their differences over the missile defense plans and the fate of the Serbian province of Kosovo. They also covered the Iranian nuclear standoff, especially the recent UN resolution aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran, the Kremlin said. Johndroe said the two leaders "discussed the importance of continuing consultations at NATO on missile threats and defenses against them, and exploring options for further missile defense cooperation." Russia has strongly objected to the US plans to place components of the shield in the Czech Republic and Poland as well as in one of the South Caucasus nations, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 15 AFP: Prague to begin official talks on US missile - Wed Mar 28, 12:36 PM ET PRAGUE (AFP) - The Czech government said on Wednesday it will begin negotiations with Washington over hosting part of a controversial US missile shield in a move likely to boost growing opposition at home. The announcement, made by Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, is the first official confirmation of the move which has been widely trailed by the prime minister and other members of his government in recent weeks. It was welcomed by the US embassy in Prague but opposition to the US plans have been growing in the republic since late last year when it became clear that the United States was serious about the proposal. Washington wants to build a radar system in the Czech Republic and put missiles in neighbouring Poland to defend against what it says are potential attacks from "rogue" states such as Iran. Topolanek said Prague "recognises the risks for which the anti-missile base should be built," but added that he "would strive for the anti-missile defence system to be integrated in the future defence framework of the North Atlantic Alliance." That pledge goes some way to meeting the demands of his junior coalition partner, the Green Party, that the US defense system be incorporated in future NATO and EU defence plans. But it is a different message from Poland where the government has insisted the base is a purely bilateral issue between Warsaw and Washington. However, it does echo remarks of the NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer who said on Monday that the shield should be brought within the ambit of the alliance. Austria and NATO members France, Germany, Slovakia and Spain have all expressed reservations about the project which the Americans want operational by 2011. The US plan has provoked a furious reaction from Moscow, which sees the shield proposal as a threat to its national security. Russian President Vladimir Putin was on the phone to his US counterpart George Bush on Wednesday to stress this message. Senior US military figures have been touring Europe in recent weeks trying to convince opponents and the Russians in particular that the missile shield is not aimed at Moscow. But it is at home that Topolanek, who has staunchly backed the shield, faces the most opposition. According to a recent poll by the official agency, CVVM, 61 percent of Czechs are against it. Opponents have accused the prime minister of "excessive servility" to the United States and say it undermines national sovereignty. They also worry that it would make the Czech republic a target. A rash of campaigning groups have also grown up to protest the move. This includes 71 out of a total of 72 voters in a village close to where the radar station would be sited who all voted no to the plan in a symbolic local referendum earlier this month. However, it is the Communist Party, still openly nostalgic for the Soviet era, which has emerged as the chief opponent to the base. It is calling for a national referendum on the question, a move backed by the main left wing opposition party, the Social Democrats of former premier Jiri Paroubek. Topolanek has strongly rejected this idea. Nevertheless, a broad-based "No to the Bases" movement has emerged which is organsing regular demonstrations against the radar station. It is supported by around 50 small organisations, including an Islamic foundation in Prague and the anti-nuclear "South Bohemian Mothers." By contrast the "yes" camp which besides Toplanek, includes the father of the Velvet Revolution, Vaclav Havel and current president Vaclav Klaus among its numbers has been overshadowed and outnumbered. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 16 WNN: EU faces trillion Euro climate change bill World Nuclear News 28 March 2007 The European Union will need Euro1.1 trillion to meet its ambitious climate change goals by 2020 but the European Investment Bank is hoping to help it to find the money - including finance for new nuclear plants. EU member states recently agreed new 2020 targets for carbon dioxide emissions and renewable energy. A new report by global management consulting firm McKinsey finds that, while those targets are economically and technically feasible, an immense political effort will be needed. The annual cost of €60-80 billion ($80-107 billion), calculated by McKinsey, is based on a "balanced, sensible application of the most easily accessible technology." The report recommends making a start by reducing energy use, for example by insulating buildings, rather than more expensive projects such as carbon dioxide sequestration or the construction of CO2-free coal power stations. The report does not focus solely on carbon dioxide emissions from energy. It recommends that Europe's forestry industry should take its share of the burden, and could lower its carbon dioxide emissions share by 7 billion tonnes by 2030 through improved management. On a global level, the McKinsey report says it is possible for carbon dioxide levels to be reduced by 27 billion tonnes by 2030, a figure at which scientists suggest global warming might be curbed, although the greatest challenges would be faced by developing countries. Speaking to Members of the European Parliament about European Investment Bank (EIB) contribution to the EU's new energy policy, bank president Philippe Maystadt noted that the bank plans to relax lending rules to give money to projects such as carbon sequestration, and has earmarked €800 million of lending per year for renewable energy projects in the period 2007-1020. Maystadt also noted that the bank is happy to make loans for new nuclear power stations. Further information European Investment Bank McKinsey WNA's Climate change information papers ***************************************************************** 17 WNN: E.ON and EDF call for progress on UK nuclear World Nuclear News 28 March 2007 E.ON UK Chief Excutive, Paul Golby, has called for the UK government to continue with pre-licensing arrangements for new nuclear plants, despite the successful Greenpeace challenge to consultation process preceding the Energy White Paper, which is expected to be published in May. Meanwhile, EDF Energy has said that new plants should only be built in the UK with public acceptance. Following the Greenpeace challenge, the UK government has commited itself to a further consultation on nuclear power. However, Golby said that there was no reason for the government not to continue with the pre-licensing arrangements and that E.ON was willing to pay its shares of the costs. "In the interest of the UK having the option to replace its current nuclear fleet in good time, I believe that it is therefore vital for the pre-licensing process to continue on a 'without prejudice' basis", said Golby. Golby reiterated calls for the planning process to be streamlined, saying that not only nuclear, but renewables would benefit from such a move. He said that growth in the deployment of renewables was being put at risk, not by the potential investment in nuclear energy, but by current planning policies. Mr Golby said: "In my view, replacing our nuclear capacity is an option that the UK must have if we are serious about diversity of supply and tackling climate change." Meanwhile, Vicent de Rivaz, chief executive of EDF Energy - the UK arm of the French power utility - has said that new plants would only be built in the UK with public acceptance. He said that public fear of nuclear energy must be allayed not ignored. He said, "Neither the industry nor the politicians can impose it on a reluctant public." He added, "There can be no business case without public acceptance." De Rivaz said, "Many of our nuclear and coal fired power stations will come to the end of their lives in the next 10 years and there have so far been no structural changes to avoid a power crunch." EDF has said it is keen to construct new nuclear power plants in the UK and says it is better to settle the debate over nuclear now rather than later. ***************************************************************** 18 [NukeNet] Three Mile Island partial meltdown 28th anniversary is Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 15:34:39 -0800 Three Mile Island partial meltdown 28th anniversary is today. It started at 4.06 AM on March 28, 1979. Radiation is invisible, imperceptible like an X-ray. We are all contaminated forever. http://www.mothersalert.org/rickover.html http://www.mothersalertorg/bertell.html http://www.mothersalertorg/blanche.html ------------------------------------------------------- *"I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds."** * *The line of Hindu scripture that flashed through Oppenheimer's mind at the moment "gadget," the first test bomb exploded above the New Mexico desert on July 16, 1945.* *Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 11 The Vision of the Universal Form Lord Krishna is beseeched by Arjuna to reveal His universal form showing all of existence. * *Lord Krishna said: I am terrible time the destroyer of all beings in all worlds, engaged to destroy all beings in this world; of those heroic soldiers presently situated in the opposing army, even without you none will be spared. Bhagavad-Gita **11:32* ** *----------------------------------------* * *"More worrisome is Dr. Abram Petkau’s observation that it takes only 700 millirads of protracted radiation (from external or internal sources) to lyse (break) the cell membrane. By protracted, I mean over a period of time, instead of all at once. In the absence of antioxidant enzyme protection, such as superoxide dismutase and catalase, a mere 10-20 millirads were required to destroy the cell membrane. P.S., we’re all deficient in antioxidant enzymes because there’s much more radiation-induced free radical damage than nature intended, thanks to the nuclear industry. " *--------------------------------------* *United States: 215 atmospheric tests + 815 underground tests = 1,030 USSR: 219 atmospheric tests + 496 underground tests = 715 UK: 21 atmospheric tests + 24 underground tests = 45 France: 50 atmospheric tests + 160 underground tests = 210 China: 23 atmospheric tests + 22 underground tests = 45 The grand total of global atmospheric tests = 528* *Source: Page 52, "Atomic Audit, the Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940," Stephen Schwartz, Editor, Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C., 1998.* Scoop News |http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0308/S00219.htm | A Process To Render Nuclear Weapons & Waste Less Harmful By Dennis F. Nester , special for NuclearNo.com , Originally published 20 June 2003 - Recycling plutonium from warheads into MOX nuclear reactor fuel only perpetuates the security and environmental problems of bomb grade elements - There is a better way which will completely transmute plutonium and other high level nuclear waste known as the Roy Process It was the TMI partial meltdown that moved Dr. Roy to spend the summer school break proving calculations to see if it was possible to transmute high level nuclear waste cost effectively. He found it could be done with existing infrastructure, commercially available machinery and current supporting technology. Estimated cost to build a pilot facility was $80 million dollars. A newspaper editor persuaded Dr. Roy to release his Roy Process to the press which was published in November of 1979. (see article on web site below). *The Roy Process Brief Description* /from the web site: http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess / ------------------------------------ Dr. Roy released his Roy Process to the press in 1979. Scientists of a large company saw the Patent application under non- disclosure agreements and said the Roy Process was "entirely feasible". Dr. Roy was offered millions of dollars for the patent rights. NOT to develop it...but to shelve it. Dr. Roy refused. There is political power in nuclear waste. President Ronald Reagan signed the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act which made "geologic isolation" (burial) of nuclear waste, federal policy, putting viable alternatives in scientific limbo. Now after wasting hundreds of billions of tax payers money on junk science, nuclear waste has leaked into our precious ground water. Dr. Roy was right. There IS only one way to eliminate high level nuclear waste to zero radioactivity and that is to photon transmute it and produce electricity. Man-made radioactive isotopes are already in our DNA. We should not add to it with new nuclear reactors. Yucca Mountain proposed high level nuclear dump will not contain nuclear waste. ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Eon seeks to bypass debate on nuclear power Terry Macalister Wednesday March 28, 2007 The nuclear lobby yesterday stepped up its rhetoric in favour of new plants by urging the government to proceed with pre-licensing of power station designs despite Greenpeace's court victory forcing more consultation on the government's energy white paper. The latest offensive - launched by the UK's second largest electricity provider, Eon - came as uranium prices came close to hitting $100 (£51) per pound on the back of heavy demand from a new generation of atomic power facilities that are being built all over the world. Paul Golby, chief executive of Eon UK, said there was no reason why the government should not continue with pre-licensing arrangements which were already under way. He said that Eon - a potential partner for British Energy in building any new nuclear plants in the UK - would help pay for the cost of this without regard to the outcome of the public dialogue. Mr Golby said: "In the interest of the UK having the option to replace its current nuclear fleet in good time, I believe that it is therefore vital for the pre-licensing process to continue on a 'without prejudice' basis pending the outcome of the upcoming consultation. In my view, replacing our nuclear capacity is an option that the UK must have if we are serious about diversity of supply and tackling climate change." He stressed the importance of streamlining planning in the UK to ensure that the next generation of power stations, whether conventional, nuclear or renewable, could be built swiftly to ensure that the lights stayed on and that carbon emissions are reduced. "Planning impacts all energy technologies, not just nuclear. It's a technology neutral issue for us," he said as the spot price of carbon reached $95 per pound, a large increase on the $60 level seen in December and a rise of tenfold since the $9.50 price seen in late 2002. The price surge follows years of under-investment in uranium mining as nuclear power went out of favour after accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, while fears of energy shortages and concerns about global warming have led to a resurgence of interest in atomic stations. "Given the weaker dollar, strong demand and limited supply, we could see it [the uranium price] peak at over $150," Paul Carter, managing director of Argonaut Securities in Perth, Australia told Reuters. Useful links Energy Saving Trust Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 20 Sun Herald: 2nd reactor possible at Grand Gulf 03/28/2007 | THE ASSOCIATED PRESS PORT GIBSON - The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday issued a site-suitability permit, an early step that could result in the building of a second reactor at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Claiborne County. The commission voted 5-0 to approve the suitability permit, which declares a particular piece of land capable of supporting a reactor. The action by the NRC does not mean a second reactor will be built. Grand Gulf is in a heavily wooded area near the Mississippi River between Natchez and Vicksburg. The existing reactor, which has been producing electricity since 1985, is one of 10 operated by Entergy Corp. Entergy officials have said it could take the consortium five years to secure permits for a new reactor and five more years to build it. Entergy spokeswoman Diane Park said Tuesday the company is pleased with the action by the NRC. She said Entergy would not comment further until it reviews the suitability permit. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman applauded the NRC's action, saying it could be an important first step in expanding "the use of safe and clean nuclear power." "The Department of Energy is proud to foster an environment where nuclear power - a safe and emissions-free source of energy - can begin to thrive," Bodman said. "We're seeing a lot of momentum in the nuclear world; while promoting nuclear energy is good policy for government, it can also be good business." Site suitability doesn't necessarily mean Entergy will build, said company spokeswoman Diane Park. The company must consider a range of factors, including whether there is a customer demand for electricity. The company also needs NRC approval of a construction and operating permit. the McClatchy Company ***************************************************************** 21 ENS: Early Site Permit Issued for Nuclear Plant in Mississippi Environment News Service (ENS) AmeriScan: March 27, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, today unanimously authorized its Office of New Reactors to issue an Early Site Permit to System Energy Resources Inc. for the Grand Gulf site near Port Gibson, Mississippi. System Energy Resources is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Entergy Corporation, the second-largest nuclear generator in the United States. The staff has 10 business days to carry out the commission's directions and issue the permit, the second Early Site Permit, ESP, the commission has approved. Earlier this month, the NRC approved the first ESP for the Exelon Generation Company's Clinton site, in central Illinois. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said, "We're seeing a lot of momentum in the nuclear world. While promoting nuclear energy is good policy for government, it can also be good business. NRC approval of two Early Site Permits in just one month represents a major accomplishment in the Bush administration's effort to improve the nuclear regulatory processes while still demonstrating its effectiveness." The Early Site Permit process is new. It is intended to resolve site-related safety and environmental issues, and determines whether or not a proposed site is suitable for possible future construction and operation of a nuclear power plant. The permit will be valid for up to 20 years. During that time, System Energy Resources Inc. - or any other potential applicant interested in the site - must still seek NRC approval for a Combined License to build one or more nuclear plants on the site before any construction can occur. The NRC staff's technical review of the Grand Gulf ESP application covered issues such as how the site's characteristics affect plant safety, environmental protection, and plans for coping with emergencies. The staff published a final safety evaluation and a final environmental impact statement for the Grand Gulf ESP in April 2006. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducted a hearing on the matter and ruled January 26 that the permit could be issued. The NRC continues to work on two other Early Site Permit applications - in Virginia and the other in Georgia. The United States generates about 20 percent of its electricity from 103 existing nuclear power plants. No new nuclear power plant has been commissioned in the United States for over 30 years. Critics of nuclear power say nuclear plants would not be needed if sufficient energy efficiency measures were in place. They point to problems with waste disposal, as the United States still has no long-term geologic repository for high level radioactive waste, and the possibility of a catastrophic terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant. Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Assessment for Peach Bottom Nuclear Plant at Public Meeting Scheduled for April 4 News Release - Region I - 2007-07-012 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s annual assessment of safety performance at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant, in Delta (York County), Pa., will be the subject of a public meeting on Wednesday, April 4. NRC staff will meet with representatives of plant owner Exelon Generating Co., LLC, at 2:30 p.m. to discuss the assessment, which covers the period from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2006, and was documented in a March 2nd letter to the company. The session will take place at the Peach Bottom Inn, 6085 Delta Road in Delta. Before the meeting is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the performance of the twin-reactor Peach Bottom plant, as well as the role of the NRC in providing oversight of plant safety. “Each year we take a step back to size up plant performance during the previous calendar year, with the overarching goal of ensuring that facilities are achieving the levels of safety that are essential to protecting the public and the environment,” said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins, who noted the agency also conducts mid-year assessments of performance. “At the meeting on April 4th, members of the public will receive information about how we go about that review process for Peach Bottom and other nuclear power plants across the nation. The NRC staff will also be prepared to answer questions from attendees.” The annual assessment letter for Peach Bottom is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/pb_2006q4.pdf. The notice for the meeting, with the agenda attached, is available in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML070780428. ADAMS is accessible via the agency’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is available by contacting the NRC’s Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at PDR@NRC.GOV. Overall, the Peach Bottom plant operated safely during 2006. The NRC utilizes color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. Because all of the performance indicators for Peach Bottom were determined to be “green” and there were no inspection findings greater than “green” at the end of 2006, the plant will receive the baseline, or routine, level of inspections in 2007. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa. Among the areas of plant performance to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are emergency preparedness, dry cask storage of spent nuclear fuel, and problem identification and resolution. Current performance information for Peach Bottom Unit 2 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PB2/pb2_chart.html. Current performance information for Peach Bottom Unit 3 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PB3/pb3_chart.html NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Privacy Policy | Site Disclaimer Wednesday, March 28, 2007 ***************************************************************** 23 allAfrica.com: Namibia: NSHR in Nuke Protests (Page 1 of 1) The Namibian (Windhoek) Posted to the web March 28, 2007 Staff Reporter Windhoek NAMIBIA should not allow nuclear power plants to be built in the country, and especially not by Russia because of that country's poor track record in that sector, a human rights group has warned. Namibia's National Society for Human Rights (NSHR) joined another organisation, Earthlife Namibia, in rejecting the proposed construction by Russian companies of nuclear power stations in Namibia. The Russian Federation has intensified its efforts to set up nuclear power plants in Namibia. Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov held private talks on the proposed plants with Prime Minister Nahas Angula and President Hifikepunye Pohamba during a blitz visit to Windhoek recently. Fradkov said his country was considering the construction of "floating" nuclear power plants in Namibia - a new and untested technology. "The basis of our rejection of the proposed Russian nuke technology is from the environmental rights point of view and from a human security viewpoint," said NSHR executive Director Phil ya Nangoloh yesterday. "As a human rights body, we are gravely concerned about the proliferation of uranium by-products, which go along with intensive uranium mining in our country, as well as the handling of nuclear fuel rods to operate nuclear reactors. "Russia had several nuclear catastrophes such as the one at Chernobyl in 1986 and several fire fiascos on board of nuclear submarines, such as the Komsolets in 1989, the Kursk in 2000 and the St Daniil Moskovsky last year," said Ya Nangoloh in a statement. In 2005, Russia's Federal Nuclear Energy Agency (FNEA) announced that it would build a low-capacity floating nuclear power plant (FNPP), the first project of its kind in the world. The sea-borne mini-station would be located in the White Sea off the coast of the town of the town of Severodvinsk in northern Russia. Construction was scheduled to begin in 2006 if the project found financing, but has not yet started. "A floating nuclear power plant is a new technology, which has never been tested anywhere in the world, including Russia itself, regarding its reliability both in terms of electricity generation and human safety," the NSHR added. "Moreover, we suspect that the proposed FNPP which Russia plans to build in our country would most probably be powered by one or two nuclear reactors from, or similar to those used in disaster-ridden Russian submarines, such as those mentioned above. "These types of machines are heavy to maintain in terms of both manpower and technical expertise and, hence, they are bound to be a drain on Namibia's scarce financial resources. So, for Namibia to import such disaster-prone Russian technologies or have them developed locally in this country is tantamount to playing a financial and socio-economic Russian roulette. Copyright © 2007 The Namibian. All rights reserved. Distributed by ***************************************************************** 24 Platts: US NRC approves early site nuke permit for Grand Gulf site Washington (Platts)--27Mar2007 The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday approved an early site permit for land next to the existing Grand Gulf nuclear power plant, which would allow Entergy's System Energy Resources unit to reserve the site for up to 20 years for the possible construction of a reactor, NRC said. The NRC staff will now have 10 days to issue the permit and an agency official said it could happen by late in the week starting April 2. The Grand Gulf site was originally approved for two units, but a second unit was never completed. Currently, there is a 1,263-MW reactor operating at the site. The ESP addresses the suitability of the site, but only authorizes certain pre-construction activities, such as site clearing and road building. Entergy would have to apply for a combined construction permit-operating license, or COL, in order to actually build and operate a new plant. Entergy has said it plans to apply in November for COL for the Grand Gulf site. The Grand Gulf ESP is the second permit approved by the NRC. It agreed March 8 to authorize the staff to issue an ESP for a reactor next to Exelon's existing Clinton plant; the permit was officially issued on March 15. --Jenny Weil, jenny_weil@platts.com Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 25 Platts: Michigan regulators approve PPA for Palisades Washington (Platts)--27Mar2007 The power purchase agreement for the sale of Palisades was approved by Michigan regulators March 27. The three-member Michigan Public Service Commission unanimously approved the PPA between current owner Consumers Energy and buyer Entergy. Under Michigan law, the PSC does not have jurisdiction over the deal as a whole, but it does have authority to rule on the PPA, a crucial part of the deal. Matt Frendewey, a spokesman for Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, said Cox was "disappointed" with the decision. Frendewey said Cox's office was reviewing the 100-page order to decide what steps, if any, the attorney general would take. Cox, one of several intervenors in the case, argued that the deal was not in the best interests of Michigan ratepayers. Consumers and Entergy had announced an agreement in July on the sale of the 845-MW PWR for $380 million. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 26 Legalbrief: Namibian environmentalists blast nuclear plan Published in: Legalbrief Environmental Date: Tue 27 March 2007 Environmentalists have reacted vehemently to plans by the Russian Government to build a series of ‘small nuclear power plants’ in Namibia, reports The Namibian. Earthlife Namibia says it strongly opposes nuclear power generation in the country. Bertchen Kohrs, Chairperson of Earthlife Namibia said: ‘Although SA will reduce power supply to Namibia very soon, the production of nuclear power is not an acceptable solution for energy supply. Namibia has got much better, safer and sustainable options like solar and wind power.’ It was difficult to understand why Namibia should be the recipient of questionable nuclear technology from Russia and even from China, Earthlife Namibia argued. ‘Both countries, Russia and China, are known for sloppy maintenance and both have a long history of bad environmental and social behaviour’. Full report in The Namibian ***************************************************************** 27 Rutland Herald: Sanders to push for stronger inspections March 28, 2007 By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff U.S. Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., is to introduce legislation today that he says would strengthen safety at nuclear reactors across the country. Sanders said Tuesday he was introducing the bill on the anniversary of the accident at Three Mile Island, the country's worst commercial nuclear disaster, to draw attention to the need for improved safety at the country's 104 nuclear reactors. Sanders said the bill would give governors and public utilities commissions, such as the Vermont Public Service Board, the ability to require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do an independent safety assessment of reactors under certain conditions. Those conditions include relicensing of reactors, power boosts, and problem areas in the operation of the plant. "We're trying to develop the strongest inspection system," Sanders said Tuesday. "This is the most far-reaching legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate on plant safety." The bill would be patterned in part on the special inspection at Maine Yankee in 1996. That in-depth inspection revealed serious problems that its owning utilities decided were too expensive to fix and they shut down the plant. It has since been dismantled. Sanders said he proposed the bill after hearing from many Vermonters concerned for a very long time about the safety of Vermont Yankee, the state's only nuclear reactor. Under Sanders' bill, the governors of not just the host state, but any state that falls within the emergency planning zone would have the power to ask for such a safety review. In Vermont's case, that would include New Hampshire and Massachusetts as Vermont Yankee is located in Vernon, near those states, in the southeastern corner of Vermont. Sanders said so far there are no co-sponsors on the legislation, but he said he was hoping to gain sponsors in the Senate, as well as for a House version of the bill. He said the bill would face intense opposition from the nuclear power industry. "The pro-nuclear industry is very powerful and they would certainly prefer to have all inspections done by the NRC. We have a president that is very, very sympathetic to nuclear power," Sanders said. The proposed legislation brought a guarded response from the owners of Vermont Yankee, and cheers from anti-nuclear activists, who have long lobbied state officials, and more recently, congressional leaders, for such a review. "There's no question, Bernie is the leader on this issue. We've got a rising tide of concern — officials in New Jersey and New York and Massachusetts and Vermont, asking for independent safety assessment, prior to putting a plant extended license," said Raymond Shadis, senior technical advisor for the New England Coalition, the state's oldest and largest anti-nuclear group. Shadis said there were "huge" differences between what Sanders was seeking, and the review done on Vermont Yankee by the NRC in 2004 at the request of the Vermont Public Service Board, which wanted the review before the plant boosted power production by 20 percent. The NRC added 400 hours of work to its annual review in Vermont. In the case of Maine Yankee, more than 4,000 hours of onsite inspection, and between 10,000 and 12,000 hours of office work was added, Shadis said. "Back in 1997, the NRC said 'the more you look, the more problems you find,'" Shadis said. Yankee's owner, Entergy Nuclear, is taking a wait-and-see approach. "The general consensus in the industry [is] that key parts of the Maine Yankee inspection process were long-ago incorporated into the present, routine NRC inspection program," said Entergy Nuclear spokesman Robert Williams. "We're still reviewing the legislation," he said, noting the company had received an advance copy of the bill from Sanders' office. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 28 Oshkosh Northwestern: Safety at nuclear plants to be discussed Posted March 28, 2007 Commission will talk about performance at area facilities By Richard Ryman rryman@greenbaypressgazette.com The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will discuss over the next two days safety performance for the last year at Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Two Creeks, and Kewaunee Power Station, Carlton. The meetings between commission staff and plant operators are open to the public. The Point Beach hearing will be at 6 p.m. today at Two Creeks Town hall, 5128 E. Tapawingo Road, Two Creeks. The Kewaunee meeting will be at 6 p.m. Thursday at the Kewaunee Municipal Building council chamber conference room, 401 Fifth St., Kewaunee. Both plants were determined by the commission to have operated safely during 2006. All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Point Beach during 2006 were determined to be "green," the commission's highest inspection indicator. Among areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are fire protection, emergency preparedness, maintenance and equipment testing and inspection. All of Kewaunee's inspection findings during 2006 were "green," but one "white" performance indicator was issued, reflecting an increased number of unplanned plant shutdowns. "White" is the second-highest indicator. In a letter to Kewaunee operator Dominion Energy Kewaunee, the commission attributed the "white" finding to inadequate problem evaluation and problems with human performance. As a result, the commission will conduct a follow-up inspection on those issues in addition to normal baseline inspections this year. The Kewaunee Power Station is owned by Dominion Resources Inc. of Richmond, Va. Point Beach is owned by Milwaukee-based We Energies, which has agreed to sell the plant to FPL Energy of Florida for $1 billion. The sale is awaiting regulatory approval. Contact us at 920-235-7700. thenorthwestern.com is a Gannett Company website. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, updated June 7, 2005. ***************************************************************** 29 Salem News: Salem man watched Three Mile Island crisis closely Thursday, March 29, 2007 ? Time: 1:16:21 AM EST By LARRY SHIELDS Jim Bonfert Salem News staff writer SALEM — Jim Bonfert was a senior design draftsman at Babcock & Wilcox in Alliance in March of 1979. Today is the 28th anniversary the worst American nuclear power plant accident at Three Mile Island, Pa. And Bonfert ‘s company helped build the plant’s control system. Twenty years after graduating from Salem High School, four years in the Air Force, and bouncing around from a number of project engineering positions, he was happily working among some of the smartest engineering people around. “B&W,” he said, shortening the title of the company that is famous for power generation systems, “makes steam whether nuclear, coal or gas. That was their business. They made steam.” And Bonfert, after starting at Paxson Machine Co., in Salem, and working for East Ohio Machinery, GM Lordstown, Morgan Engineering in Alliance, Robert’s Engineering and Hunt Valve Co., both in Salem, found himself in research and development at the Alliance Research Center, Steam Generator Technology department, of B&W in 1976. He had first been “jobbed out” to B&W years before but was now full-time. It was all state-of-the-art, Bonfert recalled. “I have always liked the unknown and solving the unknown and B&W offered me that. “I worked on numerous projects. The thing about B&W research was there were just so many people who were geniuses. “They all had doctorates and master’s degrees and B&W looked for them. “That’s what B&W did, they went out and got them and paid them. “I don’t care, when you’re around these people, something’s got to rub off on you and I did some of my best engineering there. I loved the place.” Bonfert continued, “A lot of these guys were so smart they couldn’t sit down and talk to you. You know the saying about genius and idiocy... “I was a brain-picker. They came up with the ideas and you had to go over and pick their brain and you could never understand what they did, but you had to get their theory and, man, I loved it.” A lot of it was related to pumps, feed water and tubes vibrating. “Just problems you’d run into with steam vibration and certain pipes,” Bonfert explained, “different flows, how it occurred, the harmonics involved. Why it happened? They just did so many tests. “They were in the business of solving problems and it wasn’t just for B&W.” No, it wasn’t and on March 28, 1979, Bonfert had that point driven home in a way he’d never forget. He went to work like always. “On the day it happened,” Bonfert recalled, “the department heads came around before lunch and said if you’re going to go out for lunch and there are reporters — there’s no comment. “And we were wondering what? Because they didn’t tell us anything.” CNN, MSNBC and Fox News weren’t around back then to cycle endlessly through breaking news. The nuclear accident occurred in the Three Mile Island, Pa., No. 2 reactor when the plant’s main feedwater pumps in the secondary non-nuclear cooling system failed at exactly 4 a.m., which, according to Wikipedia, was “to-the-minute” the first anniversary of start up. The Associated Press picked the story up at 9 a.m. and then it hit everywhere. But for Bonfert and other B&W radio-less employees, they were in the dark until lunchtime. “We went to lunch and there were radios. We heard about it and came back and they announced over the PA not to talk to anyone,” Bonfert explained. When he left work for the day there were five or six reporters outside. “We told them we didn’t know anything and we really didn’t. “We just went back to work knowing B&W had made parts of the control rod system. “B&W had a whole lot to do with it. It was their design and some of the head people may have known within 24 hours what happened.” Bonfert went home that night and watched it on the evening news. “I knew it was a big problem and just couldn’t figure out how it could happen with all the safety built in. “It had to work. It couldn’t fail, but it did. How serious was it? I didn’t know because they weren’t releasing anything.” To this day Bonfert feels that was the biggest mistake. “I don’t know who made the decision not to defend (the plant), they said wait and see and before long they got buried.” Bonfert said what occurred was at once reassuring and confusing because at first they said there would be no evacuations at TMI and then they said babies and women would be leaving. “B&W wasn’t on top of it and the news made it bad,” he said. As the drama unfolded and onsite engineers and scientists got the hydrogen bubble in the reactor core settled, there was still a lot of work to do. About a week later, Bonfert realized exactly what it meant to have his name on a document called the “B&W Experimental Apparatus Personnel Emergency Call List.” Alphabetically, he was the second of 66 names on it and Bonfert recalled that after everything was under control and pumps were on line again, “that was when they started to look for people to go in.” The key words here are, “go in.” Where? The containment building, of course. “They had a list at TMI and if they burnt those people out, they had to have replacements. “They were looking everywhere for people because they were only allowed so many roentgens and time inside depending on the level of radiation and it was high in that building.” Bonfert smiles saying he was young. “You say, ‘Man, this is an adventure.’ It didn’t scare me, maybe because I knew of the safety. “It wasn’t like you would go in there and glow in the dark in five minutes. “They wouldn’t let you get close to it. You could’ve been in there 20 minutes. There was a margin. The NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) was always super-safe on that.” TMI fell far short of being a complete catastrophe but with a partial meltdown there were a lot of lessons learned. It all happened during a time when Bonfert was really into his job and the people he worked with — the so-called geniuses. He relishes the time. “We had a project that went on for three months and they found it wasn’t the solution. “It failed and they were happy, really happy because it allowed them to go in another direction,” he explained, “they had some smart people there.” Bonfert got a pretty good glimpse of the dark side of nuclear power in March of 1979 but remains a firm believer in it because of the safety. “If they had said get your gear and take it over there, we would have gone,” he said. According to the Wikipedia website: “The exact cause of the failure was never determined, although it was speculated that water entered a pneumatic airline that controlled the flow of water through a water filter known as a condensate polisher.” Bonfert said, “The bottom line is if the guys operating it had gone on coffee break none of this would have happened. “The pump would have kicked in,” he said, instead of being turned off because of the alarm sounding. Larry Shields can be reached at lshields@salemnews.net 161 North Lincoln Salem, Ohio 44460 phone: 330-332-4601 - fax: 330-332-3084 Copyright © 2006 ? Salem News ***************************************************************** 30 Burlington Free Press: Fossil fuel is bad. Nuclear power is bad. Opinion burlingtonfreepress.com | Burlington, Vermont Wednesday, March 28, 2007 Wind power is good.....IF the wind blows..... when I turn on the light switch. How would the enviro-whackos provide energy? I know: All the hot air generated by their incessant lecturing and marching. Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:01 pm It's simple More Cows What we need to do is have Cow Farms. We will just need to keep then tied down in their stalls and run piping up their butts. That way we can burn off the methane more efficiently. I did read just recently that Termites produce more methane that cows (talk about silent but deadly). We could have Termite Farms along with the Cow Farms. It will be a little harder to tie them down and harder still to find plastic piping small enough to fit up a termite’s butt. I am sure our great House and Senate can come up with a solution. I used to be upset that they were spending all the time dealing with Global Warming but in retrospect I would rather have them wasting time then raising taxes. Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:57 pm "First, none of the power from the new uprate at Vermont Yankee stays in Vermont. It all heads south of our border." This statement is incorrect. Power generated by Vt. Yankee goes into a regional power grid. When you turn on a light bulb, it is impossible to tell by looking at the light bulb what power generating plant made your light come on. Just imagine that your light bub came from all generating plants within the power grid. Here are some facts for the ignorant and ill informed to chew on. Vermont Yankee generates 182 Mv's of power a year. Take it offline and that power has to be replaced with something else. In the case of those who go along with Al Gore's hysteria that the world will end if we keep burning fossil fuels, when Vt Yankee goes down....that is EXACTLY what is used to generate replacement power....FOSSIL FUELS. Let's look at some more facts. VT. Yankee's operating license is due to expire in 5 years. Wind power in Vt, currently produces 6 Mv's of power with no new wind turbines expected to go online in the near future Cow power is projected to produce 1.5 Mv's of power in 2007. Strong opposition to wind turbines most likely means that very little additional power will come online within 5 years. Due to the regulatory process on both the state & federal level on Hydroelectric projects. There will NOT be any additional power generated in Vermont before 2012. If one is capable of doing the math, if Vermont Yankee is shut down, a large shortfall of power will occur and that power has to come from somewheres. I have no clue where people get their information from, but conservation alone will NOT offset the increasing demand for electricity. The Dept of Energy has projected that power demand will increase by 50% in the US by 2030, and demand worldwide will double...and this power will come from where??? Wishful thinking??? Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:51 pm Published: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 I would like to respond briefly to two misconceptions concerning keeping Vermont Yankee running until it is 60 years old. First, none of the power from the new uprate at Vermont Yankee stays in Vermont. It all heads south of our border. Sworn testimony by Vermont Yankee's own witness in the Public Service Board hearings showed that the likelihood of an accident as a result of the uprate increases by 25 percent. Additional sworn testimony showed that the radiation releases after an accident will increase 40 percent as a direct result of the uprate. Other states get the power, Entergy makes the profits, and we Vermonters take the extra risk. It makes no sense to me. Second, the claimed economic "benefits" of nuclear power in general are largely due to huge government subsidies and government sponsored Price Anderson Insurance. Similar subsidies for renewables would produce similar economic results but without the long-term risks of nuclear. The Burlington Electric Department sponsored an excellent seminar at the Echo Center recently. The seminar clearly showed that an approach of renewables and conservation can offset our reliance on Vermont Yankee after its license expires in 2012. What we need is the political will to act now if we are to succeed in replacing Vermont Yankee in 2012. Vermont is a brand name known for its purity. When cost-competitive alternatives like conservation and renewables are available, I do not think it wise to risk all that Vermont represents by licensing Vermont Yankee to run until it is 60 years old. ARNIE GUNDERSEN Burlington Copyright ©2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 EurActiv.com: EU in two minds about atomic power - European Information on Energy EU in two minds about atomic power Published: Tuesday 27 March 2007 | While EU leaders quietly celebrated the 50th birthday of the Euratom treaty, aimed at developing nuclear power across Europe, environmentalists pursued attempts to send the pact to its grave. Background: Although Europe's half-century celebrations on 25 March 2007 focused on the anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community, the event also marked the birthday of another lesser-known treaty: the European Community for Atomic Energy treaty (also known as Euratom), aimed at promoting the safe development of nuclear power across Europe.  Back in 1957, nuclear technology was viewed as a key factor for ensuring Europe's security in a world marred by the Cold War and as an essential tool for guaranteeing the sustainable energy supplies required to build a strong European economy.  However, the accident at the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine in 1986 highlighted the risks related to using nuclear power, exacerbating public fears about the technology and forcing many European governments to re-evaluate their nuclear programmes.  Issues: While the nuclear industry argues that the Euratom treaty is needed to continue promoting what they consider to be the energy of the future – capable of supplying Europe’s industries and citizens with cheap, non-polluting energy supplies – environmentalists have long campaigned to have the "out of date and undemocratic" treaty scrapped.  So far, anti-nuclear campaigners have gathered more than 600,000 signatures calling for an end to nuclear power. Reaching the symbolic one million figure appears feasible, with 61% of the EU population agreeing that the share of nuclear energy should be decreased due to concerns about nuclear waste and the danger of accidents, according to a Eurobarometer opinion survey published earlier this month (EurActiv 07/03/07).  Member states are also divided on the issue of atomic energy, with countries such as France and Finland strongly relying on the technology, while other member states, including Austria, Ireland and Sweden, formally oppose it. Positions: European Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said that the number of signatures on the petition against Euratom and nuclear power was "impressive", adding: "Certainly, the voices of these Europeans will be taken into consideration."  The European Atomic Forum (FORATOM), which represents the nuclear energy industry in Europe, underlined that the Euratom Treaty is just as relevant today as it was back in 1957: "Thanks to the treaty, Europe's citizens continue to enjoy the benefits of nuclear energy, namely a secure, affordable and environmentally friendly source of base-load electricity."  They argue that the safety record of the nuclear industry in the EU is "second to none", thanks to the historic treaty.  Europe's major business lobby BusinessEurope says that nuclear power has a "very strong contribution" to make as a non-CO2-producing form of power and the EU should take steps to increase its share in electricity generation from 32% to 40% by 2030. "An increased contribution by nuclear energy would help to promote the competitiveness of energy-intensive industries," said the group.  But green groups say that Euratom is now the only treaty at European level promoting a specific technology, which they feel is dangerous and expensive.  Frank Van Schaik, campaign co-ordinator of the European Petition Campaign against Nuclear Power, said: "Euratom is an outdated treaty, through which the EU continues to pump millions upon millions of euro of public money into nuclear power. It is completely outrageous to give preferential financial support to an expensive and dangerous energy source when more than 60% of Europeans actually want to decrease nuclear’s contribution to energy generation."  The campaign points out the contradictions between EU leaders' recent decision to increase the share of renewables in power generation to 20% by 2020 and the EU's research agenda for the next five years, which will devote four times more money to nuclear (€550 million annually) than to renewables and energy efficiency combined (€168 million per year).  "Euratom is distorting the market by giving unjustified financial support to a specific technology for electricity production. While the EU is in a process of internalising environmental costs of energy production by starting an emission cap-andtrade system, producers of nuclear energy do not pay for the full costs of decommissioning and radioactive waste storage," said anti-nuclear organisations.  ***************************************************************** 32 Legalbrief: Radiation cant be blamed Necsa Date: Tue 27 March 2007 The SA Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) has announced that the first phase of an investigation by an independent occupational medical practitioner into the health of former Necsa employees has been completed, with a total of 45 former workers, four current workers and one contract worker participating. Engineering News reports that these examinations were correlated with their medical records. Necsa said that the results show that none of the former employees shows symptoms that relate to the adverse effects of radiation. The issue dates back to 2004, when Earthlife Africa called attention to possible health risks from radiation to workers at Pelindaba. In all, the list of former employees identified for inclusion in the investigation totalled 205. Full Engineering News report ***************************************************************** 33 Brattleboro Reformer: Sanders calls for nuke plant safety reviews BRATTLEBORO, VT By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Wednesday, March 28 BRATTLEBORO -- The governors of Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire may soon be able to demand an independent safety assessment of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. That option will be open to the three governors and each of their public utility commissions if a bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., gets through Congress and gets the president's signature. The legislation pertains to any state with a nuclear plant or emergency preparedness zone. Sanders is presenting the bill today in the Senate, on the 28th anniversary of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in Harrisburg, Pa. "This is the kind of comprehensive national bill that people have wanted," said Sanders, during a telephone interview Tuesday. "A very simple, common sense approach to a very serious problem." Spokesmen for both Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch said they had no comment until they have had a chance to review the proposed legislation. In Vermont, Jason Gibbs, spokesman for Gov. James Douglas, when asked whether the governor would request an independent safety assessment of Yankee if the bill becomes law, replied "it's worth considering." "The governor's top priority with respect to the operation of the plant is safety," said Gibbs. "We will take a good look at this proposed legislation when it's introduced." A request would force the NRC to conduct a safety review during an uprate or operating license extension application, but similar legislation has failed in Congress before, a fact Sanders acknowledged. "We don't want to mislead people," he said. "This will be a tough fight. The nuclear power industry and corporate America are very powerful. They won't support this." Last year, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton submitted legislation similar to Sanders' proposed bill, but pertaining only to Indian Point, on the Hudson River. The bill never made it out of committee for debate on the Senate floor. Yankee, Indian Point and Pilgrim, in Plymouth, Mass., are owned and operated by Entergy, which is in the process of seeking license extensions for the three plants. A spokesman from Vermont Yankee said independent assessments aren't necessary because "the general consensus in the industry is that key parts of the Maine Yankee inspection process were long ago incorporated into the present routine inspection program," said Rob Williams. In place of an independent safety review, the NRC has offered to perform component design bases inspection, but that's not enough for activists who said the 700 hours it takes to complete such a study can't compare to the 17,000-hour independent inspection performed at Maine Yankee in Wiscasset. The costs of fixing problems found during the inspection proved to be prohibitive, and the plant was forced to shut down after 31 years of operation. In Sanders' bill, that review would serve as a baseline for inspection requirements. "We've been advocating for this sort of assessment for years," said Jeff Unsicker, of Nuclear Free Vermont. He was especially happy about the language in the bill that would allow Massachusetts and New Hampshire to request the review. "Groups like ours that have been working in Vermont have been very conscious of the fact that the people of those two states have radiation without representation," said Unsicker. Diana Sidebotham of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, which has been asking for an independent assessment of Vermont Yankee since before it was sold to Entergy, can't understand why any nuclear plant operator wouldn't want to conduct such a review, if only just to reassure neighbors. "It puzzles me that they wouldn't be in favor of the most stringent safety requirements," she said. Sanders also said he didn't understand how anyone could be in opposition to an independent review of a plant like Vermont Yankee. "There is, appropriately enough, significant skepticism about the NRC and its willingness to go the extra mile on these issues," he said. According to the proposed legislation, the review "shall be at least equal in scope, depth and breadth to the independent safety assessment conducted in 1996 by the Commission of the Maine Yankee nuclear power plant (in) Wiscasset, Maine." The NRC would also have to perform a study, according to the proposed bill, if during any five-year period, a plant receives two or more warnings for items of more than a "very low safety significance." The makeup of the team of inspectors would be the same as that for Maine Yankee, no less than 16 employees of the NRC "unaffiliated with the regional office ... in which the facility of the licensee is located." At least six members of the inspection team would be independent contractors who have never worked for the facility in question or for any other facility operated by the applicant and the governor or the public utility commission would be allowed to appoint at least three members to the board as well. After completion of the review, the NRC will have to give the public 90 days to submit comments. If Sanders' bill passes, a relicensing or uprate cannot be awarded until a requested safety review is completed. Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273. Privacy Policy | MNG Corporate Site Map | Copyright ***************************************************************** 34 Independent Weekly: News: Wake: Harris fire woes smolder MARCH 28, 2007 Politicians hold forum while guards' issues remain unresolved BY SUE STURGIS Illustration courtesy of the Union of Concerned Scientists Two Triangle legislators convened a public meeting last week about the ongoing failure of Progress Energy's Shearon Harris nuclear power plant to comply with federal fire safety regulations. The gathering at Fearrington Village near Pittsboro came six months after watchdog groups filed an emergency petition with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking that the agency close Harris until it comes into full compliance, or impose the maximum fine of $130,000 per violation per day. The NRC is reviewing the petition but has not taken action to force the facility into compliance. "Having a nuclear power plant in our backyard requires attention and vigilance from many segments of our community," said Sen. Ellie Kinnaird (D-Orange). She convened the meeting with Sen. Janet Cowell (D-Wake), who did not attend due to a scheduling conflict. "I'm concerned that the federal government's oversight is being challenged." The forum took place March 22, the 32nd anniversary of a conflagration at the Browns Ferry nuclear plant in Alabama. In that incident, an employee using a burning candle to detect air leaks ignited the plant's electrical cables. The blaze disabled many safety systems and almost led to a meltdown. After that near-disaster, the NRC developed new fire-prevention rules. While noncompliance is a problem throughout the U.S. nuclear power industry, Harris ranks among the nation's worst for two violations: use of failure-prone barrier materials to protect cables and reliance on untested stopgap measures called "operator manual actions." The NRC is using its enforcement discretion to exempt Harris and other violators from sanctions until 2015. The agency is also considering allowing offenders to transition to a "risk-based" system in which plants would calculate the fire threat for different areas and selectively upgrade protections—an approach watchdogs criticize as "faith-based" since flames behave so unpredictably. Concerns about fire at Harris—which houses one of the nation's largest stockpiles of spent fuel—are not just academic: At least four fires have burned there since it began operating in 1987, and a major 1988 blaze involving an electrical cable took two local fire departments and an onsite fire brigade three hours to quell. "Other than being unsafe and illegal, there are no problems with fire safety [at Harris] at all," quipped nuclear engineer David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Washington office, one of the forum's expert speakers along with Paul Gunter of the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. UCS and NIRS filed the petition last year, along with the N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, N.C. Fair Share and Students United for a Responsible Global Environment. The forum drew about a dozen local officials from both major parties, including the Pittsboro and Carrboro mayors; Orange and Chatham county commissioners; Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Holly Springs council members; and state Sen. Bob Atwater (D-Chatham). U.S. Rep. David Price—a Chapel Hill Democrat with nuclear oversight responsibilities as chair of the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations—sent a representative. In all, about 80 people attended. However, no Progress or NRC officials came, leading several attendees to hold signs asking, "Where is the NRC?" Attendees expressed frustration that the agency has not taken action against Harris, which is seeking re-licensing. For that, said N.C. WARN organizer Margie Ellison, citizens have only themselves to blame. "We have to take responsibility for the fact that nothing has happened," thundered Ellison. "We've got to get organized, because they are." A recent NRC ruling on post-9/11 plant security has intensified watchdogs' worries about Harris fire safety. In January, the agency decided that instead of defending against aircraft or substantial teams of ground attackers, U.S. nuclear plant owners instead could rely on measures that control fires and explosions. "Nuclear power plants are inherently robust structures that our studies show provide adequate protection in a hypothetical attack by an airplane," said NRC Chairman Dale Klein. But Lochbaum disputed Klein's claims in a paper citing numerous studies that show the opposite: Attacks on various plant structures could cause catastrophic radiation releases. (See "The NRC's Revised Security Regulations" at www.ucsusa.org.) Lochbaum says the studies also indicate that nuclear plants are vulnerable to fires from within—even when safety rules are followed. Plant security is a serious concern for Harris watchdogs. In December 2005, UCS and N.C. WARN filed an NRC complaint over security shortcomings at Harris disclosed by an anonymous whistle-blowing guard. The NRC issued interim findings that confirmed a number of the guard's allegations—including chronically malfunctioning security doors and a vital-area fire alarm sounding for hours—but has not yet released its final report. A division of the N.C. Attorney General's office also confirmed improper training of the plant's guards. Hoping to improve working conditions, Harris guards last year unionized with the Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America. Employed by a U.S. subsidiary of the Swedish firm Securitas but supervised by Progress, the guards hoped unionization would help reduce a workweek that typically runs 60 hours and sometimes more than 72, contributing to a turnover rate that last year averaged about 40 percent, according to the guards. Long hours for nuclear plant workers are a problem nationwide. The Washington-based Project on Government Oversight recently urged the NRC to implement proposed rules limiting overtime for guards. The group's 2002 report found nuclear plant guards often faced retaliation for complaining about long hours. But so far, unionization hasn't brought Harris guards any relief. After seven months of contract negotiations, the latest Securitas offer included more than 30 takeaways and no improvements, reports lead union negotiator Eugene McConville. Securitas wants to cut wages and reduce annual sick time from 48 to 24 hours. Management's refusal to compromise has led the union to file charges of bad-faith bargaining with the National Labor Relations Board and threaten to picket. "The company wants to try to save money, but we're the ones who pay," says Harris guard Robert Mangual, an Army veteran and SPFPA local president. "And unfortunately, all the turnover means the plant's secrets are getting out." Powered by Gyrosite © Copyright 2007, Independent Weekly ***************************************************************** 35 BostonHerald.com: AG takes nuclear plants to court By Associated Press. Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - Updated: 04:03 PM EST BOSTON -- Attorney General Martha Coakley is trying to force two nuclear power plants to address the danger of storing used fuel rods in pools at the facilities. Coakley argues that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is violating its own regulations by refusing to consider the potential environmental impact of accidents involving spent fuel rod pools. Coakley has petitioned the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to make the issue part of relicensing procedures for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth and the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon, Vt. Both plants are seeking 20-year license extensions. Their licenses expire in 2012. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan told The Cape Cod Times the commission would respond after reviewing the lawsuit. Coakley also has filed a ”rule-making” petition with the NRC to try to make potential spent fuel pool hazards the subject of review for every plant’s relicensing. The Vermont Yankee plant sits in the southeast corner of Vermont, along the New Hampshire border and about 2 miles from the Massachusetts border, near Interstate 91. © Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Media. ***************************************************************** 36 FR NRC: In the Matter of James Francis Mattocks; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed Activities (Immediately Effective) Doc E7-5640 [Federal Register: March 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 59)] [Notices] [Page 14622-14623] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28mr07-132] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [IA-07-008] I Mr. James Francis Mattocks was employed as a contract security officer at Florida Power and Light Company's St. Lucie Nuclear Plant (Licensee) from approximately September 6, 2005, to January 7, 2006. Licensee holds license Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16, issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 on March 1, 1976 (Unit 1), and June 10, 1983 (Unit 2). The license authorizes the operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the Licensee's site in St. Lucie County, Florida. II In 2006, Florida law enforcement officials conducted a criminal investigation into the theft of a weapon and thermal imaging scope from the Licensee's facility. As a result of the investigation, the State of Florida concluded that in December 2005, Mr. Mattocks, while employed as a contract security officer, deliberately removed a Bushmaster .223 Caliber M4/A3 assault rifle and thermal imaging scope from the Licensee's facility without authorization. On December 20, 2006, Mr. Mattocks entered a plea of guilty to the charge of Grand Theft--Firearm in the Circuit Court for St. Lucie County and was adjudged guilty of the charge upon the Court's acceptance of his plea. Mr. Mattocks was sentenced to 14 months of incarceration to be followed by 2 years probation. License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16, Section 3.F, Physical Protection, require the Licensee to fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the Commission-approved physical security, training and qualification, and safeguards contingency plans including amendments. The Licensee's Physical Security Plan (PSP), Section 15.6, establishes the requirement that the Licensee maintain a firearms program to ensure firearms function properly. The PSP states, in part, that the program is described in facility procedures and includes provisions to account for Licensee firearms. Licensee implementing procedure, SEC-AD-1003, Section 5.1.2 states, in part, that for any weapon that is taken from the station's inventory for disposal or sale, the station will document the weapon by make, model, name of institution or individual the weapon's accountability was transferred to, signature of the Security Manager/designee releasing ownership of the weapon, and the date the weapon was released from the station's inventory. In this case, Mr. Mattocks removed the weapon and scope from station inventory without any authorization or approvals. III Based on the above, Mr. James Francis Mattocks, a former employee of the Licensee, has engaged in deliberate misconduct that has caused the Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.5. NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements with honesty and integrity. Mr. Mattocks' actions in this case caused the Licensee to violate its PSP and raise serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements with honesty and integrity. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. James Francis Mattocks were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. James Francis Mattocks be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years from the date of this Order. Additionally, Mr. James Francis Mattocks is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of three years following expiration of the prohibition period. Furthermore, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I find that the significance of Mr. James Francis Mattocks' conduct described above is such that the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be immediately effective. IV Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104b, 161b, 161i, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 50.5, and 10 CFR 150.20, It is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that: 1. Mr. James Francis Mattocks is prohibited from engaging in NRC- licensed activities for a period of five years from the date of this Order. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. 2. If Mr. James Francis Mattocks is currently involved in licensed activities on behalf of an NRC licensee, he must immediately cease those activities, inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the licensee employer, and provide a copy of this order to the licensee employer. 3. For a period of three years after the five year period of prohibition has expired, Mr. James Francis Mattocks shall, within 20 days of acceptance of an offer of employment involving his performance of NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement (OE), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity on whose [[Page 14623]] behalf he will be involved in the NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, Mr. James Francis Mattocks shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis upon which the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, OE, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. James Francis Mattocks of good cause. V In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. James Francis Mattocks must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order within 20 days of the date of this Order or other such time as may be specified in this Order. In addition, Mr. James Francis Mattocks and any other person adversely affected by this Order may request a hearing on this Order within 20 days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. James Francis Mattocks or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555- 0001, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, GA, 30303, and to Mr. James Francis Mattocks if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. James Francis Mattocks. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415- 1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301- 415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMail Center@nrc.gov. If a person other than the licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.390(d). If a hearing is requested by Mr. James Francis Mattocks or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr. James Francis Mattocks, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be effective immediately and final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. Dated this 21st day of March 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs, Office of the Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E7-5640 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 FR NRC: Notice of Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Facility Licenses and Conforming Amendments, and Opportunity for a Hearing Doc E7-5641 [Federal Register: March 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 59)] [Notices] [Page 14621-14622] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28mr07-131] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION General Electric Company; Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (Docket No. 50-18); General Electric Test Reactor (Docket No. 50-70); Nuclear Test Reactor (Docket No. 50-73); Esada Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor (Docket No. 50-183) The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the direct transfer of the Facility Licenses, which are numbered DPR-1 for the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (VBWR), TR-1 for the General Electric Test Reactor (GETR), R-33 for the Nuclear Test Reactor (NTR), and DR-10 for the ESADA Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor (EVESR) currently held by General Electric Company, as owner and licensed operator. The transfer would be to GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC. The Commission is also considering amending the licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer. According to an application for approval filed by General Electric Company, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC, a newly formed entity, would acquire ownership of the facilities following approval of the proposed license transfer, and would be responsible for the operations and maintenance of the VBWR, GETR, NTR and EVESR facilities. This new entity will be wholly owned by GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Holdings, LLC, created as a parent company. A U.S. subsidiary or subsidiaries of Hitachi Ltd, a Japanese company, will hold a 40% ownership interest in GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Holdings, LLC and the General Electric Company, through various subsidiaries, will hold a 60% ownership interest. No physical changes to the facilities or other changes are being proposed in the application. The proposed amendments would replace references to General Electric Company in the licenses with references to GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC, to reflect the proposed transfer. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the direct transfer of a license, if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto. Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below. Within 20 days from the date of publication of this notice, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and, if not the applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart C ``Rules of General Applicability: Hearing Requests, Petitions to Intervene, Availability of Documents, Selection of Specific Hearing Procedures, Presiding Officer Powers, and General Hearing Management for NRC Adjudicatory Hearings,'' of 10 CFR Part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon Mr. Donald J. Silverman, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004 (tel: 202-739-5502; fax: 202-739-3001; e-mail: dsilverman@morganlewis.com); the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302 and 2.305. The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the Federal Register and served on the parties to the hearing. As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, within 30 days from the date of publication of this notice, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, [[Page 14622]] respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated January 19, 2007, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agency wide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 21st day of March 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Marvin M. Mendonca, Senior Project Manager, Research and Test Reactors Branch B, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-5641 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 38 FR NRC: TXU Generation Company LP; Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Doc E7-5642 [Federal Register: March 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 59)] [Notices] [Page 14623-14625] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28mr07-133] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446] Units 1 and 2; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89, issued to TXU Generating Company LP (the licensee), for operation of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, located in Somervell County, Texas. The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating.'' Specifically, the proposed change would revise the Completion Time for TS 3.8.1, Condition F, Required Action F.1, from 12 hours to 24 hours. The existing TS 3.8.1, Condition F, requires that an inoperable safety injection (SI) sequencer must be restored to OPERABLE status within 12 hours. If this Completion Time is not met, Condition G becomes applicable and the plant must be shut down to at least MODE 3 within the following 6 hours. The proposed change to the Completion Time for TS 3.8.1, Condition F, Required Action F.1, would provide more time to complete necessary repairs and required post-work testing to restore an inoperable SI sequencer to OPERABLE status prior to commencing a plant shutdown to MODE 3. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) [[Page 14624]] involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change to the Completion Time for TS 3.3.2 [``ESFAS (Engineered Safety Feature Actuation System) Instrumentation''], Condition F, does not change the overall protection system performance which will remain within the bounds of the previously performed accident analyses since no hardware changes are proposed. The same reactor trip system (RTS) and engineered safety feature actuation system (ESFAS) instrumentation will continue to be used. The protection systems will continue to function in a manner consistent with the plant design basis. This change to the Technical Specifications does not result in a condition where the design, material, and construction standards that were applicable prior to the change are altered. The proposed change will not modify any system interface. The proposed change will not affect the probability of any event initiators. There will be no degradation in the performance of or an increase in the number of challenges imposed on safety-related equipment assumed to function during an accident situation. There will be no change to normal plant operating parameters or accident mitigation performance. The proposed change will not alter any assumptions or change any mitigation actions in the radiological consequence evaluations in the FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report]. The proposed change to the Completion Time does not increase the probability of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed change does not change the response of the plant to any accidents and has no impact on the reliability of the RTS and ESFAS signals. The RTS and ESFAS will remain highly reliable and the proposed change does not result in an increase in the risk of plant operation. The proposed change does not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) from performing their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the assumed acceptance limits. The proposed change does not affect the source term, containment isolation, or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed change is consistent with safety analysis assumptions and resultant consequences. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The proposed change involves no hardware changes nor are there any changes in the method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety function. The proposed change will not affect the normal method of plant operation. No performance requirements will be affected or eliminated. The proposed change will not result in physical alteration to any plant system nor will there be any change in the method by which any safety-related plant system performs its safety function. There will be no setpoint changes or changes to accident analysis assumptions. No new accident scenarios, transient precursors, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures are introduced as a result of this change. There will be no adverse effect or challenges imposed on any safety-related system as a result of these changes. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The proposed change does not affect the acceptance criteria for any analyzed event nor is there a change to any Safety Analysis Limit (SAL). There will be no effect on the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined nor will there be any effect on those plant systems necessary to assure the accomplishment of protection functions. There will be no impact on the overpower limit, DNBR [departure from nucleate boiling ratio] limits, FQ [Heat Flux Channel Factor], F[Delta]H [Enthalpy Rise hot Channel], LOCA [loss of coolant accident], PCT [Peak Cladding temperature], peak local power density, or any other margin of safety. The radiological dose consequence acceptance criteria listed in the Standard Review Plan will continue to be met. Redundant RTS and ESFAS trains are maintained and diversity with regard to the signals that provide reactor trip and engineered safety features actuation is also maintained. All signals credited as primary or secondary, and all operator actions credited in the accident analyses will remain the same. The proposed changes will not result in plant operation in a configuration outside the design basis. Implementation of the proposed changes is expected to result in an overall improvement in safety since longer repair times associated with increased Completion Times will lead to higher quality repairs and improved reliability. The increased Completion Time for an inoperable Safety Injection Sequencer will provide additional time to complete test and maintenance activities while at power, potentially reducing the number of forced outages related to compliance with TS 3.3.2, Condition G, which requires plant shutdown to Mode 3 within 6 hours. Therefore the proposed change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to [[Page 14625]] the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, 1800 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, the attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 22, 2006, as supplemented by letter dated September 12, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of March 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mohan C. Thadani, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-5642 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 39 FR NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems; Notice of Meeting Doc E7-5660 [Federal Register: March 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 59)] [Notices] [Page 14627] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28mr07-135] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION The ACRS Subcommittee on Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems will hold a meeting on April 18, 2007, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Wednesday, April 18, 2007--8:30 a.m. Until the Conclusion of Business The Subcommittee will (1) review DL-1151, Risk-Informed Digital System Reviews and (2) discuss issues related to the SRM assignment on digital systems. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Charles G. Hammer, (Telephone: 301-415-7363) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: March 22, 2007. Michael Junge, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS. [FR Doc. E7-5660 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 40 Reuters: High cost seen as roadblock to new nuclear plants | U.S. Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:36PM EDT By Scott DiSavino NEW YORK (Reuters) - The biggest obstacle the U.S. nuclear industry must overcome to build new reactors is financing the construction costs, nuclear experts said at a Manhattan Institute conference in New York Wednesday, the 28th anniversary of the Three Mile Island accident. The country needs more baseload generation to meet growing demand for electricity. Support for nuclear power is growing among politicians, the public and even some environmentalists because of low operating costs and the lack of emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. "Investors are open and interested but still need to be convinced. The financial community has long memories. They lost tens of billions of dollars" during the 1980s and 1990s when utilities built the current reactors, said Caren Byrd, Morgan Stanley Executive Director, Global Power and Utilities Group. "The most important thing the industry can do is to keep the operating reactors safe and reliable. If anything happens to those units, that is it," Byrd added. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has streamlined the licensing process that has delayed the operation of some current reactors. Still, nuclear reactors are massive projects that cost billions of dollars and take years to build. The construction of a new reactor, estimated to cost up to $4 billion to $5 billion, is a make-or-break decision for most U.S. utilities, the biggest of which (Exelon Corp. of Chicago) has a market cap of less than $50 billion. "The market cap of the companies is small compared with the cost of the projects, which requires a significant amount of state and federal support," said Richard Myers, vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbyist. The most important federal program is the loan guarantee provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which, depending on how the Department of Energy implements the program, could allow companies to fence off investments in new reactors without compromising other operations, Meyers noted. But Jerry Taylor, senior fellow, at the Cato Institute, said the government should not subsidize the nuclear industry. "If the government is worried about carbon dioxide, they should tax carbon, not subsidize nuclear power. If nuclear power has merit, investors will embrace it," Taylor said. If the federal government decides to regulate carbon, as some panelists guessed could occur over the next several years, it would likely make it easier to finance nuclear power. "The nature of nuclear technology is that it can generate huge amounts of energy without carbon dioxide emissions," Clay Sell, deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy, said. Climate change is a real problem and nuclear power can be an important part of the solution, said John Woody, business solutions fellow at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "What the nuclear industry really needs is a mandatory climate change policy," Woody said. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 Business Report: Uranium prices are in for a boom after a nuclear energy renaissance March 28, 2007 Singapore - Uranium prices are closing in on $100 a pound - a tenfold increase in five years - and prices could climb sharply higher yet as more governments embrace atomic energy despite dwindling supplies. The spot price for uranium jumped $4 to $95 a pound, according to a weekly report from UxC, a big leap from $60 in December and from about $9.50 in late 2002. UxC is a leading publisher of uranium prices. Years of underinvestment in uranium mining caused by moribund prices and the antinuclear lobby left the world short of the material. "The environment is primed for a nuclear renaissance. People are focusing so much on supply-side issues that they are forgetting that this is a demand story," said Joel Crane, an analyst at Deutsche Bank in Melbourne. With concerns of another Chernobyl-like radioactive leak and worries that enriched uranium will get into the hands of those keener to make weapons than fuel, there is still considerable opposition to nuclear energy. But governments in Europe, the US, Russia and China as well as environmental groups, such as Greenspirit, are warming up to nuclear power because it is viewed as producing less greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Now industry is scrambling to meet the renewed demand, which is putting pressure on prices. Some see uranium surging another $50 a pound, and well above the 1970s high, when nuclear energy was last in vogue. "In inflation-adjusted terms, the 1970s peak in uranium prices was at $120 a pound. Given the weaker dollar, strong demand and limited supply, we could see it peak at more than $150," said Paul Carter, the managing director of Argonaut Securities. There are 435 nuclear reactors operating around the world, with a further 28 reactors under construction, 64 planned and another 158 proposed. India, with seven new plants, and China, with five, are leading the charge into nuclear energy. Developers of reactors coming on stream are looking to lock in prices right now for their "first fills" of uranium. "All these first fills need to happen, and other reactors are running closer to capacity - nearer 90 percent from maybe 70 percent - which means increased fuel burn," said Carter. A new reactor takes a first fill of uranium of about 600 tons, then consumes 200 tons a year. Last year uranium production was about 46 720 tons and consumption was more than 80 000 tons. This year, uranium demand was expected at about 83 007 tons and production at about 53 070 tons, said Alice Wong, a vice-president at Cameco. "Since 1985, uranium consumption has exceeded mine production and you can see it increasing by wider margins." The timing for when the market will come back into balance will depend a lot on Australia and whether they will allow the opening of new mines. Australia holds 40 percent of the world's uranium reserves and exports are allowed from parts of the country. New supplies could come from Africa, led by Namibia, and Canada. It takes about 10 years or more to bring a mine into production, so there are few signs tightness in the market will ease anytime soon. - Reuters ©2007 Business Report & Independent Online (Pty) Ltd. All rights ***************************************************************** 42 Albuquerque Tribune: Richardson aims to halt nukes By James W. Brosnan (Contact) Wednesday, March 28, 2007 WASHINGTON ? Gov. Bill Richardson said today that, as president, he would create a Cabinet-level agency to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and convene an international summit on nonproliferation. "We need a new Manhattan Project to stop the bomb," Richardson said in a speech at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. The former United Nations ambassador said the Bush administration has done some good things, but not enough, to reduce the threat of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon. As one step, he said the United States must lead a "global clean-out" of highly enriched, bomb-grade uranium fuel in 272 reactors around the world. Richardson, a Democratic presidential contender, said his cabinet-level agency would combine elements of the State and Defense departments with the Energy Department, which he headed under President Clinton. He also said the United States and Russia should negotiate a moratorium on all new nuclear weapons. After the speech, he was asked if the moratorium would include the reliable replacement warhead, an Energy Department project that could involve work at the two New Mexico weapons laboratories, Sandia and Los Alamos. Richardson replied that he is not opposed to modernizing the existing weapons arsenal, only the development of new weapons. Later today, Richardson was scheduled to be on MSNBC's "Hardball" and the Comedy Channel's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Still, the primary purpose of this week's East Coast swing was money, with fund-raising stops Tuesday in New York City and Philadelphia and another in Boston today. Saturday is the deadline for candidates' first-quarter fund-raising. For trailing candidates like Richardson, the first-quarter report will be a key test of whether they can stay in the ballpark with the leaders, Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois. "I'm not a rock star," Richardson said today. "I'm not going to have all the money and resources that probably two candidates have, but, in the fund-raising arena, I'm going to do well." He added: "You know how elections are settled in this country. It's voters, not money." © 2007 The Albuquerque Tribune ***************************************************************** 43 DutchNews.nl: Minister to wait and see on nuclear power WWW.DUTCHNEWS.NL Wednesday 28 March 2007 Environment minister Jacqueline Cramer has told MPs that she will wait until the government’s economic policy unit SER publishes its recommendations on energy provision and the environment before definitively ruling out nuclear power. ‘Then we will know if we can achieve our targets without or whether we’ll be forced to use nuclear energy,’ ANP reported the minister as saying. DutchNews.nl ***************************************************************** 44 The Designated Blogger: Remembering the TMI incident Posted by Rob Nease March 28, 2007 09:52AM It was a day full of confusion and uncertainty. March 28, 1979. 100,000 people were evacuated and countless songs were made about the nuclear incident here in Harrisburg almost 30 years ago. CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite, began his March 28, 1979 broadcast with these words: "It was the first step in a nuclear nightmare; as far as we know at this hour, no worse than that. But a government official said that a breakdown in an atomic power plant in Pennsylvania today is probably the worst nuclear reactor accident to date. There was no apparent serious contamination of workers. But, a nuclear safety group said that radiation inside the plant is at eight times the deadly level, so strong that after passing through a three-foot thick concrete wall, it can be measured a mile away." Audio of the opening words are available at http://www.tmia.com/accident/waltcront.html Even before the "accident", watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA) was warning citizens of the dangers of nuclear power. They knew that "Unit 2" was a lemon from the beginning and that it actually wasn't even supposed to be operating that day. Eric Epstein, creator of TMIA, is an advocate for alternative sources of energy. In a telephone interview with "The Designated Blogger" , Epstein warned that "people are unwillling to confront the true costs of nuclear power. While it's important to remember the anniversary, it's more important to operate the plant safely." In an interview with "Frontline", Epstein said, "I'm firmly convinced that nuclear power is unsafe, it's uneconomical, and it's opposed by an overwhelming majority of Americans." Dedicated to the improvement of the world's response to nuclear power, Mr. Epstein continues to insist on simple emergency planning just in case the unthinkable occurs again. He wrote this letter to the editor concerning the lack of emergency planning in regards to day care centers. What can the Three Mile Island incident teach us? It may very well teach us to question authority, to not believe everything we are told, and to insist on a safe world in which our children and grandchildren don't have to live in fear of a nuclear mess. Note: An archive collection is kept at Dickinson College. More information at: http://library.dickinson.edu/archives/collections/coll_T.html ©2007 pennlive.com. All Rights Reserved. RSS Feeds | Complete Index ***************************************************************** 45 PressZoom.com: Department of Energy Commends the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Approval of a Second Early Site Permit in Just One Month WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today applauded the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decision to approve an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the Entergy Corporation’s Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Mississippi. This approval, the second ESP this month, demonstrates another major milestone in President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, which plans to expand the use of safe and clean nuclear power. Earlier this month, Secretary Bodman commended the NRC for its decision to approve the first-ever ESP for the Exelon Generation Company’s Clinton site, in central Illinois. (PressZoom) - WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy ( DOE ) today applauded the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s ( NRC ) decision to approve an Early Site Permit ( ESP ) for the Entergy Corporation’s Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Mississippi. This approval, the second ESP this month, demonstrates another major milestone in President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, which plans to expand the use of safe and clean nuclear power. Earlier this month, Secretary Bodman commended the NRC for its decision to approve the first-ever ESP for the Exelon Generation Company’s Clinton site, in central Illinois. “The Department of Energy is proud to foster an environment where nuclear power – a safe and emissions-free source of energy - can begin to thrive,” Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman said. “We’re seeing a lot of momentum in the nuclear world; while promoting nuclear energy is good policy for government, it can also be good business. NRC approval of two Early Site Permits in just one month represents a major accomplishment in the Bush Administration’s effort to improve the nuclear regulatory processes while still demonstrating its effectiveness.” This ESP approval culminates a four-year, cost-shared project with DOE and Entergy Corporation ( Exelon and Dominion are the two others ) aimed at demonstrating the new and untested licensing process for citing new nuclear plants. Entergy submitted their ESP application, which includes a Site Safety Analysis Report, an Environmental Report, and an Emergency Plan, to the NRC in October 2003. The NRC issued the Final Safety Evaluation Report in April 2006, the Final Environmental Impact Statement in April 2006, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hearings concluded in early September 2006. DOE has partnered with Entergy ( Grand Gulf, MS ), Exelon ( Clinton, IL ), and Dominion Energy ( North Anna, VA ) since September 2002 to demonstrate the ESP process. This process was established by NRC in 1989 for utilities to complete the site and environmental evaluations needed before a decision is made to build a nuclear plant. Once issued, the ESP is valid for 20 years and can be used in conjunction with a subsequent combined construction and operating license application ( COLA ). A decision on Dominion’s North Anna ESP is expected later this year. DOE encourages Entergy Corporation’s plans to purse the next licensing phase by submitting for a COLA, the next necessary step toward building a nuclear power plant in the U.S. DOE will continue its programs with industry partners to lead the path toward a nuclear renaissance, ensuring America’s energy future with safe, reliable, emissions-free, renewable, and affordable base-load energy. The issuance of this ESP, and pursuit of COLAs, also supports DOE’s Nuclear Power 2010 ( NP 2010 ) program, a joint government/industry cost-shared effort to identify sites for new nuclear power plants; develop and bring to market advanced nuclear plant technologies; evaluate the business case for building new nuclear power plants and demonstrate untested regulatory processes. President Bush’s Fiscal Year ( FY ) 2008 budget requests $874.2M ( $241M, 38.2% increase over the FY’07 ) for DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy. Of that request, $114 million ( $60 million, 111% increase over the FY 2007 request ) has been allocated for NP 2010 to complete the remaining ESP demonstration projects and continue the New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration projects. This funding will allow continued reactor designs and implement further successful licensing interactions with industry to build new nuclear plants by 2009. Media contact( s ): Craig Stevens, ( 202 ) 586-4940 Submitted by http://www.energy.gov/ (c) PressZoom.com - Press Release Distribution Service - All Rights ***************************************************************** 46 Boston Herald: Sanders proposes new powers for states on nuke plants By Associated Press Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - Updated: 11:45 AM EST BRATTLEBORO, Vt. -- U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is proposing legislation that he says would improve nuclear safety by allowing governors and public safety commissions to demand independent safety reviews of nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews could be required during an application to extend a plant’s operating license or to boost power. The legislation would affect any state with a nuclear plant or emergency preparedness zone. That means the governors of Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire could request a review of Vermont Yankee. Sanders planned to present the bill on the anniversary of Three Mile Island, the country’s worst commercial nuclear accident. ”We’re trying to develop the strongest inspection system,” Sanders said Tuesday. ”This is the most far-reaching legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate on plant safety.” Spokesmen for both Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch said they would not comment until they have reviewed the proposed bill. A spokesman for Gov. Jim Douglas said the legislation was worth considering. ”The governor’s top priority with respect to the operation of the plant is safety,” said Jason Gibbs. ”We will take a good look at this proposed legislation when it’s introduced.” Sanders acknowledged that similar legislation has failed in Congress before. ”We don’t want to mislead people,” he said. ”This will be a tough fight. The nuclear power industry and corporate America are very powerful. They won’t support this.” The bill would require reviews similar to an inspection of Maine Yankee in 1996 that found serious problems. The owners decided shut down the plant down, saying the problems were too expensive to fix. Rob Williams, a spokesman from Vermont Yankee, said independent reviews were unnecessary because ”the general consensus in the industry is that key parts of the Maine Yankee inspection process were long ago incorporated into the present routine inspection program.” Rob Williams, a spokesman from Vermont Yankee, said independent reviews were unnecessary because ”the general consensus in the industry is that key parts of the Maine Yankee inspection process were long ago incorporated into the present routine inspection program.”< © Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. © Copyright by the Boston Herald and Herald Media. ***************************************************************** 47 Guardian Unlimited: Richardson: 'Nuclear 9-11' Is Possible From the Associated Press Wednesday March 28, 2007 7:46 PM By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson said the United States needs to do more to prevent a ``nuclear 9-11,'' a threat that he argues has been neglected because the Bush administration has been consumed with Iraq. The New Mexico governor said the United States must lead an effort to secure nuclear materials in Russia and dangerous areas of the world so they can't get into terrorists' hands. ``If al-Qaida obtained nuclear weapons, they would not hesitate to use them with the same ruthlessness that allowed them to fly airplanes filled with people into buildings,'' he said in a speech to the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. ``It took a Manhattan project to create the bomb,'' Richardson said. ``We need a new Manhattan project to stop the bomb - a comprehensive program to secure all nuclear weapons and all weapons-usable material, worldwide.'' Asked why he doesn't support a nuclear-free world like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and other Cold War leaders have promoted, Richardson replied, ``I'm a pragmatist.'' ``I believe what the world needs to do is nuclear arms reductions,'' Richardson said. He recalled that it didn't work when President Reagan and Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev agreed in 1986 to renounce all nuclear weapons ``for about 10 minutes.'' Richardson worked on securing Russian nuclear weapons when he was energy secretary in the Clinton administration. But he accused the Bush administration of underfunding their programs. ``Meanwhile, we are spending $10 billion a month on Iraq,'' he said. ``Of the many ways in which the Iraq war has distracted us from our real national security needs, this is the most dangerous.'' In the question-and-answer period after his speech, Richardson laid out the plans for his first days in the White House. The first day, he would get out of Iraq. The second, he would announce a plan to drastically cut U.S. dependence on foreign oil. On the third day, the issue would be global warming. Richardson gave former Vice President Al Gore credit for spreading knowledge about the issue through his Oscar-winning film. But he wasn't encouraging Gore to enter the 2008 race. ``I like Al Gore, he looks very healthy and prosperous,'' Richardson said with a laugh. ``He should stay where he is.'' ^--- On the Net: www.richardsonforpresident.com Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 48 Salt Lake City Weekly: Strake Out Frost Bytes - March 29, 2007 by Bill Frost Did Clear Channel-owned ABC 4 boot news anchor Terry Wood from 10 p.m. weeknights to weekends over his editorializing about Divine Strake? According to the still-active Stop Divine Strake group (MySpace.com/StopDivineStrake), it sure as hell looks that way: “Clear Channel is a strong supporter of the Bush administration, and Divine Strake was a test for a program being pushed by the Bush Administration,†goes the latest blog. “Inadvertently, any criticism of any decision by the Bush administration, even though the words ‘Bush administration’ were never mentioned, is unacceptable. David D’Antuono, the news director for KTVX [ABC 4], publicly defended and praised Terry Wood’s actions. The parent company, Clear Channel, uncomfortable with any criticism against the Bush administration’s decisions, promptly demoted Terry Wood after he left for a 10-day vacation.†It is suspicious, but the fact that ABC 4’s 10 p.m. newscast has been dead last in the local ratings could figure into any change, as well. But Wood still deserves props for speaking out against Divine Strake when no one else in local TV would. • Yours Truly was invited to speak on a “blogging panel†hosted by PR Newswire on Wednesday in Salt Lake City. Why? Not sure: City Weekly has one blog (CityWeekly.blogspot.com) and it doesn’t get a whole lot of attention inside the office or out at the moment. Reps from the Deseret Morning News (which has no blogs) and The Salt Lake Tribune (which has about 48, but only a handful actually worth reading) were also to be on hand—as I’m hacking this on Tuesday, PR Newswire might actually check out the CW Blog and dis-invite me. Full(er) report next week. • Heard of “ghost blogsâ€? They’re blogs started by briefly gung-ho writers and diarists, only to be left for dead after a few entries—there are an estimated 200 million (!) of them haunting the Internet right now. “The extraordinary failure rate of online diaries and claims that interest in blogging will soon begin a precipitous slide are sparking an intriguing debate about the future of self-expression on the Internet and whether blogs, once seen as revolutionary, are destined to become a footnote in the history of computing,†said a U.K. Sunday Times report. “Others liken the abandonment of blogs to ‘the suicide of your virtual self’ … At least one Internet writer blames the blogging culture for helping to turn the Internet into a dictatorship of idiots.’†Panel, here I come! • Finally, if you’re perusing misleading house ads in the business sections of your local (using the term loosely) dailies on March 27 know that a “median audit†is actually a “media audit,†a “matress†is a “mattress,†“he market†means “the market,†“150,00†is not really a number, and “is†is probably “in.†But hey, they’re the newspaper professionals, not us … ;1996-2007 Copperfield Publishing, Inc.. All rights reserved. offices: 248 S. Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801-575-7003 Salt Lake City Weekly ***************************************************************** 49 AU ABC: Fresh concerns over Gulf War soldiers' health. 28/03/2007. ABC News Online There is renewed concern over the health of Australian military personnel who served in the 1990s Gulf War. Two soldiers have reportedly tested positive to depleted uranium exposure, more than 15 years after their tour of duty. The heavy metal is sometimes used in ammunition and armour piercing weapons. Democrats' leader Lyn Allison says the Federal Government should authorise a mass screening for all Australian soldiers who took part in the conflict. "It does signal that there may well be a very serious problem amongst our troops," she said. "The so-called Gulf War syndrome has been attributed to depleted uranium which has been used in enormous quantities in both Afghanistan and Iraq. "It puts them into dangerous situations and there's nothing more dangerous than being exposed to a substance which has this capacity. "I think it is a Government responsibility and they should do everything they can to firstly find out who's been exposed and to give them the best possible health treatment." However, the Veterans Affairs Department says it is unlikely that Australian soldiers and support staff who served in Iraq and Afghanistan where exposed to areas where depleted uranium munitions were used. A spokesman says military personnel were tested after returning home. He says statutory compensation is available to any veteran where there is an established link between their illness or injury and their military service. ***************************************************************** 50 Radio Australia: Call for uranium exposure tests for Australian soldiers Australian Democrats leader Lynn Allison has called on the government to authorise a mass screening for soldiers who were involved in the first Iraq war. Last Updated 28/03/2007, 16:25:53 Australian Democrats leader Lynn Allison has called on the government to authorise a mass screening for soldiers who were involved in the first Iraq war. The senator's call comes with renewed concerned for Australian military personnel who served in the war after two soldiers have reportedly tested positive to depleted uranium exposure, more than 15 years after their tour-of-duty. The heavy metal is sometimes used in ammunition and armour-piercing weapons. Senator Allison said: "It puts them into dangerous situations and there's nothing more dangerous than being exposed to a substance which has this capacity. HomeContact UsLegalsNews Sources© ABC 2007 ***************************************************************** 51 B92: Charges filed over radioactive iron 28 March 2007 | 09:25 | Source: Beta BELGRADE -- Environmental Protection Directorate has filed charges against a company suspected of shipping radioactive material. INOS-Balkan, a company based in the western Serbian town of Valjevo, last week shipped containers of scrap iron that measured increased radioactivity. Regular control discovered the heightened radioactivity levels in the train shipment parked in Novi Sad, destined for Bulgaria, alarming the authorities last Friday. The Directorate also said it decided to revoke the company's permit to export scrap iron. It was determined that the radioactivity originated from lightning conductors that were a part of the shipment. Wednesday, 28 March 2007 © 1995 - 2007 , B92 | Contact | About us | Impressum | Rules of use ***************************************************************** 52 Hood River News: Hanford plan: sound choice vs. nuclear monster Photo by Kirby Neumann-Rea Department of Energy employee Delight Buenaflor hands out information packets to members of the near-capacity audience at Mondays forum at the Gorge Room at Best Western Hood River Inn. By RAELYNN RICARTE News staff writer March 28, 2007 The news that Hanford Nuclear Reservation could restart to meet growing energy demands met with mixed reviews on Monday evening. About 200 people crowded into the Gorge Room at the Hood River Inn to voice their approval or disapproval for the federal proposal. For every argument in support of the project, a counterpoint was made to let Department of Energy officials know that it was a bad idea. “Reprocessing spent fuel is like King Midas on steroids. Everything touched becomes radioactive. Hanford does not need more nuclear waste, it needs less,” wrote U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in a statement read by staffer Mary Gautreaux. “We in the United States can either become, or should I say remain, the technical experts in the field or we can continue to give our technology away to the rest of the world. And end up becoming more energy dependent than we are now,” said Jerry Peltier of Richland, Wash., a member of the Hanford Advisory Board. At issue is a federal proposal to encourage expansion of domestic and international nuclear energy production. DOE officials contend that steps need to be taken to address the worldwide electricity demand that is expected to double by 2030. And the U.S. needs to take the lead in developing a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or be left behind as Russia, France, Japan and China forge ahead with new technologies. “This is a sound choice. It will contribute to the development of clean energy. And it will ensure that future generations have an adequate supply long after oil and gas is depleted,” said Darryl Francis, who works for an environmental safety firm in Richland, Wash. “My mother told me to clean up my mess before I could do anything else; no matter how logical that anything else seemed to me,” said Jurgen Hess, a conservation activist from Hood River. “By DOE’s admission Hanford is a mess, the most polluted site on earth. GNEP perpetuates the myth that we can tame the nuclear monster. Scientists say, `trust us.’ Yet as long as we humans are involved accidents will happen and just like global warming or the death of salmon from dams, unforeseen consequences happen.” At the March 26 meeting, DOE official Ray Furstenau said nuclear reactors do not emit the air pollutants and greenhouse gases that result from coal-fired, oil-fired, and natural gas-fired generation. He said the recycling process — which had yet to be fully researched and developed — would cut down on the amount of waste being stored. It would also reduce the shelf life of spent fuel from thousands of years to several hundred. Furstenau said GNEP would find ways to reuse the elements of nuclear waste that produce carbon-free energy. And partner countries would have to agree to use nuclear power only for electricity and refrain from pursuing uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities that produce nuclear weapons. According to DOE, nuclear power now provides about one-fifth of the electricity that the United States uses to power factories, office buildings, homes and schools. More than 100 operating nuclear power plants, located at 65 sites in 31 states, make up the second-largest source of electricity generation in the nation. Goldendale resident Gene Kinsey said people should not be fearful of Hanford being used once again to produce nuclear fuels. He said technology had improved drastically since the plant was built in World War II to provide plutonium for nuclear weapons. “Mount St. Helens blew in 1980 with the force of 21,000 nuclear bombs, and we’re still here,” said Kinsey. Steve Curley of White Salmon rebutted that claim of safety after stepping up to the podium. He said, “As far as Mount St. Helens — it was not radioactive ash that fell on this area.” Curley and other opponents contend the GNEP initiative is all about “big money interests.” Hanford is one of 13 locations being considered by DOE for future reprocessing of nuclear waste. Furstenau said local communities near each site were willing to consider the project in exchange for an undisclosed amount of funding. Gerald Pollet, director of Heart of America Northwest, blasted DOE for holding a meeting to “scope” out public concerns — when no specifics had been provided about the project. “You haven’t even said what the size of the nuclear reactors is – so how do we know what to comment on?” he asked. Furstenau explained that public concerns about the proposal were being sought by DOE until April 4. He said answers to citizen questions would then be addressed in a study of environmental impacts. The preliminary draft of that study would be brought forward this summer for further public review. The decision to either select or reject Hanford is expected to be made by the summer of 2008. Residents interested in submitting comments into the record can do so by e-mail at: GNEPPEIS@nuclear.energy.gov, by telephone at 1-866-645-7803, by fax at 1-866-645-7807 or by mail to: Mr. Timothy A. Frazier, Office of Nuclear Energy/U.S. DOE, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20685. For more information on the GNEP initiative, go to: www.gnep.energy.gov. ***************************************************************** 53 Guardian Unlimited: Managers Blamed in Yucca Controversy From the Associated Press March 28, 2007 12:31 AM By ERICA WERNER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Evidence of paperwork fraud by scientists working on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in Nevada was the fault of senior managers who failed to hold subordinates accountable, according to a final report by the Energy Department. Tuesday's report, two years after the controversy came to light, said the problem was limited to a few disgruntled U.S. Geological Survey scientists who no longer work on the project. The project has a new senior management team that has made a number of changes and promised more. At issue were e-mails exchanged among USGS hydrologists between 1998 and 2004 that indicated they falsified documentation of their work by making up dates and keeping two different sets of papers - one for themselves and another for quality-assurance officials. ``This is as good as it's going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff,'' one scientist wrote. Energy Department officials said they hope Tuesday's report would put the whole issue to rest. Among other things, the report said a review of modeling reports and notebooks didn't turn up evidence that information actually was falsified or modified as the e-mails suggested. The U.S. attorney's office in Nevada announced a year ago that no criminal charges would be brought, and the Energy Department said last year that the scientific work was being redone by Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, at a cost of more than $20 million. Edward F. ``Ward'' Sproat, director of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told reporters the root cause of the controversy was ``senior management's unwillingness or inability to hold people accountable ... a lack of, quite frankly, leadership.'' Many of the managers involved have moved on, said Sproat, who took over the Yucca project last May. He said he would visit personally with program employees to communicate expectations and initiate another review of quality assurance requirements, among other fixes. The scientists were studying how water moves through the dump site 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, a key factor in how much radiation can be released. The USGS validated Energy Department conclusions that water seepage was relatively slow, so radiation would be less likely to escape. That led Yucca Mountain opponents to contend the scientists were changing data to reach a predetermined conclusion. Yucca Mountain, meant to open in 1998 as the first national repository for nuclear waste, has been plagued by troubles and delays. The tentative opening date is now 2017. Meanwhile, more than 50,000 tons of waste from civilian nuclear reactors - as well as highly radioactive waste produced by Defense Department activities - is being held at various sites nationwide, with no place to go. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 54 reviewjournal.com: NUCLEAR WASTE: Report blames Yucca managers Mar. 28, 2007 E-mails suggested scientists falsified data STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- A final Department of Energy report issued Tuesday blamed top Yucca Mountain managers for the scandal in which several scientists appeared to suggest in e-mails that they were making up data and falsifying documents. Fallout from the e-mails that were written between 1998 and 2004 by hydrologists assigned by the U.S. Geological Survey helped tie up the chronically delayed nuclear waste project since they were revealed two years ago this month. The explosive messages prompted inquiries by Congress, raising questions about Department of Energy management and government science, and giving repository critics clips of ammunition to challenge the proposed Nevada repository. "Wait till they figure out that nothing I've provided them is QA (quality assurance). If they really want the stuff, they'll have to pay to do it right," stated one message that contributed to the furor. By Department of Energy estimates, the episode has cost $25.6 million for investigations and do-overs of key computer models. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the report will not put the e-mail controversy to rest. "Far from it," Reid said. "This report only highlights the fact that senior managers of the Yucca Mountain project were out of touch and failed to do their jobs. "This is unacceptable when you consider the fact that we are talking about 77,000 tons of the most dangerous substance known to man," Reid said. "This report is too little, too late," said Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., who convened several hearings on the e-mails as a House subcommittee chairman in 2005 and 2006. An internal department review team focused on 18 e-mails written by the hydrologists and sampled more than 900,000 other e-mails using word searches looking for similar problems. Reviewers found no evidence that information was falsified as the e-mails suggested, according to the department's review. Five other suspicious e-mails were uncovered and checked out. The report did not find that negative attitudes toward quality assurance were widespread among scientists and engineers. But it concluded that top level Yucca officials did a poor job managing for quality. "The real root cause of the problems came back to the senior management and their unwillingness to hold people accountable to quality assurance requirements, a lack of leadership," said Ward Sproat, who heads the Yucca project as director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. The findings echoed government audits that warned of persistent weaknesses in quality assurance, an important and meticulous record keeping process that enables research to be validated. "The GAO must have 20 reports on Yucca Mountain, and almost all talk about management not making a commitment known to the people below them on this issue," said Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Office of Nuclear Projects. Sproat, a former nuclear industry executive and consultant, took over the Yucca program last year and has embarked on a series of reforms to the project, which is years behind schedule. In a presentation at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Sproat said Yucca Mountain has been marked by top level mishandling of quality assurance since the early 1990s, when the project was taking shape. "I would not use the word 'indictment,' but I would say that a lot of folks who were in the director's position had not been involved in the nuclear industry and don't understand the importance of quality assurance and how to apply it," Sproat said after his presentation. Sproat said most of the managers in place when the e-mails were written are no longer with the project, as well as the e-mail authors. He said no dismissals or reassignments were planned as a result of the new findings. Sproat said he was meeting with workers to discuss his expectations. He said pay raises for managers would be tied to progress in identifying and fixing mistakes. Apart from the ongoing corrective actions, the report brings to a close the Energy Department's investigations of the e-mails. The messages raised suspicions that data may have been manipulated and documents may have been falsified by hydrologists frustrated with the requirements for a computer model they were preparing to project how water flows through the mountain. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 ***************************************************************** 55 The State: Bill keeping dump open in danger 03/28/2007 Eight of 17 panel members plan to oppose measure By SAMMY FRETWELL sfretwell@thestate.com Nearly half the lawmakers who will vote today on the future of South Carolina’s nuclear waste dump won’t support keeping the landfill open to the nation past 2008, according to interviews with The State. That’s not enough to kill legislation favoring the landfill, but it’s a sign a proposed extension for the 36-year-old waste dump is in trouble. The House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee is scheduled to vote this morning on extending the landfill’s availability to the nation past 2008. Eight of the 17 members are expected to oppose keeping the landfill open to the nation past 2008. Six of the 17 voting committee members said they were undecided or not ready to announce their votes. Committee chairman W.D. “Bill’’ Witherspoon, a landfill supporter, said he was discussing whether to postpone a vote today. The Horry County Republican did not elaborate. At issue is a legislative plan to continue the landfill for all states through 2023, instead of keeping it open for only South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey past 2008. The commercial landfill is the only one in the U.S. that takes the most potent form of low-level nuclear waste from across the nation. Energy Solutions, the landfill’s operator, has hired through its Barnwell division a team of lobbyists to push for keeping the dump open. In 2000, South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey cut a deal to give them exclusive rights to the dump after 2008. The landfill is expected to accept those states’ old nuclear reactor parts once plants are closed. Members saying they’ll vote to close the landfill to all but three states were: Reps. Joan Brady, R-Richland; Mac Toole, R-Lexington; Paul Agnew, D-Abbeville; Robert Brown, D-Charleston; Laurie Slade Funderburk, D-Kershaw; Patsy Knight, D-Dorchester; Ted Vick, D-Chesterfield; and Phillip Lowe, R-Florence. “We made a commitment in 2000, and I think we need to live up to our commitment,’’ Toole said. “We need to move ourselves off the list as the national dumping site.’’ Meanwhile Tuesday, the Atlantic Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact Commission issued a statement opposing the bill to keep the landfill open to all states past 2008. The commission is made up of representatives from South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey. ***************************************************************** 56 AP Wire: SC legislators say no to keeping nuclear landfill open to nation 03/28/2007 SEANNA ADCOX Associated Press COLUMBIA, S.C. - South Carolina lawmakers defeated a proposal Wednesday to keep a nuclear waste landfill open to the nation's low-level radioactive materials from hospitals and power plants. A House committee voted overwhelmingly against the plan, which would have allowed Chem-Nuclear to stay open to the nation until 2023. State law says starting next year, the site can accept waste only from South Carolina, New Jersey and Connecticut. "I think we've put the issue to rest," said Rep. Billy Witherspoon, who sponsored the bill and leads the committee, but did not vote. "It's not an environmental issue as so many people indicated. It's an economic issue." Local officials fought to keep the 235-acre site open to the rest of the nation, saying the landfill's taxes, fees and high-paying jobs are vital to the local economy. The site provides roughly 10 percent of the county's overall budget and pumps $1 million a year into local schools. A portion of its disposal fees also has contributed more than $430 million for school building projects statewide. Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, praised the committee's decision, saying the state needed to stick to its 2000 agreement. "We think this provides us with an important opportunity to move away from economic development based on nuclear waste disposal, not just for Barnwell but for the state as a whole," the governor said in a statement. Barnwell County Council Chairman Keith Sloan called the decision irrational. He compared it to the state telling the Charleston port, "'You can accept freight from Japan but nowhere else.'" "The lack of honesty and integrity and courage demonstrated with that vote is appalling," Sloan said. Environmentalists have worried the site pollutes the underground rivers below. The landfill was last cited by state environmental regulators in 1983, for improperly unloading a shipment. State officials test the soil, air, surface and ground water four times a year, inspect shipments daily and show up unannounced for semiannual inspections. While tritium has been found in groundwater, it has been far below regulatory limits, according to the Department of Health and Environmental Control. Sloan expected significant local budget cuts. Ann Timberlake, executive director of the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, said the county was addicted to the landfill's money. ***************************************************************** 57 New York Times: Uranium Ignites Gold Rush in the West - Kyle Kimmerle has amassed more than 600 uranium claims, including this one, throughout the once-productive Colorado Plateau. By SUSAN MORAN and ANNE RAUP Published: March 28, 2007 LA SAL, Utah — Given its connotations, Pandora is an oddly inappropriate name for an uranium mine. But that does not seem to bother Denison Mines, the company from Vancouver, British Columbia, that owns it. Denison recently reopened this mine about 30 miles southeast of Moab, along with several others in nearby western Colorado, after it lay dormant during the years when the nation shunned nuclear power. The revival of uranium mining in the West, though, has less to do with the renewed interest in nuclear power as an alternative to greenhouse-gas-belching coal plants than to the convoluted economics and intense speculation surrounding the metal that has pushed up the price of uranium to levels not seen since the heyday of the industry in the mid-1970s. “There’s a lot of staking going on,” said Mike Shumway, a 53-year-old Vietnam veteran who owns the contracting business that is working the Pandora mine. “It’s like the gold rush.” Mr. Shumway has personally amassed some 100 uranium claims, including four dormant but potentially rich mines. Some of the claims he bought quietly after less tenacious prospectors could not afford to hold theirs during the long drought while uranium was out of favor. Mr. Shumway’s eyes light up and he cracks a grin as he ponders the fortune he now hopes to gain. “There’s big money in it,” he said as he probed piles of waste ore at Pandora with a Geiger counter. “What other work do you know of where you can make millions in 30 days?” Not many. Prices for processed uranium ore, also called U308, or yellowcake, are rising rapidly. Yellowcake is trading at $90 a pound, nearing the record high, adjusted for inflation, of about $120 in the mid-1970s. The price has more than doubled in the last six months alone. As recently as late 2002, it was below $10. A string of natural disasters, notably flooding of large mines in Canada and Australia, has set off the most recent spike. Hedge funds and other institutional investors, who began buying up uranium in late 2004 to exploit the volatility in this relatively small market, have accelerated the price rally. But the more fundamental causes of the uninterrupted ascendance of prices since 2003 can be traced to inventory constraints among power companies and a drying up of the excess supply of uranium from old Soviet-era nuclear weapons that was converted to use in power plants. Add in to those factors the expected surge in demand from China, India, Russia and a few other countries for new nuclear power plants to fuel their growing economies. “I’d call it lucky timing,” said David Miller, a Wyoming legislator and president of the Strathmore Mineral Corporation, a uranium development firm. “Three relatively independent factors — dwindling supplies of inventory, low overall production from the handful of uranium miners that survived the 25-year drought and rising concerns about global warming — all have coincided to drive the current uranium price higher by more than 1,000 percent since 2001.” Strathmore controls more than three million acres of exploration projects in Canada and previously discovered sources in the United States, primarily around Grants, N.M. In its heyday, the Grants “uranium belt” provided 340 million pounds of uranium, making New Mexico an even larger producer than Utah or Wyoming. Some politicians in the area hope there will be a new wave of mines, mills and jobs. Strathmore, with a market capitalization of $300 million, is one of about 400 publicly traded uranium stock companies (most of them, like Strathmore, trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange). Many of the companies are much smaller. Some are essentially shells. “There’s so much money pouring into this sector,” said Julie Ickes, editor and publisher of StockInterview.com, which tracks uranium prices and companies. “If you put ‘uranium’ in your company name, you can look like you’re looking for property,” he said. “It’s a lot of talk.” The feverish trading in speculative uranium company shares harks back to the early 1950s, when some 500 stocks traded on the Salt Lake City Penny Stock Exchange. Moab called itself “the uranium capital of the world.” “You could say there were more millionaires than people here in Moab,” said Sam Taylor, 73, who has been publisher of the local weekly, The Times-Independent, since he took it over from his father in 1956. Sitting stooped over his wooden desk at the newspaper’s office downtown, Mr. Taylor recalls how he got “the scoop of the century” when a young, cocky geologist named Charlie Steen pulled up in his battered jeep asking if The Times-Independent would publish his six-page paper on his recent discovery of pitchblende, or high-grade uranium. Not long after, Moab lost its quietude and anonymity to the ore trucks roaring through town almost around the clock to deliver uranium to a mill on the north edge of town. Globally, 180 million pounds of processed uranium are consumed each year by nuclear power plants. Production worldwide from mines amounts to only 100 million pounds. Roughly 75 million pounds come out of utility company stockpiles. What is actually traded in the spot market is only about 35 million pounds. Some industry watchers fear the uranium market is entering the bust phase of another boom-bust cycle. "It's like the tech bubble," said James Finch, senior editor of StockInterview.com. "We're waiting for the crash." But others see plenty of room for prices to climb. One is Bob Mitchell, founder of Adit Capital, a small hedge fund in Portland, Ore. In December of 2004, he became one of the first hedge fund managers to start buying uranium. Since then other hedge funds and institutional investors have jumped into the market, some of them hoarding uranium while the price keeps rising. Even some established mining production companies are spinning off or becoming partners with hedge funds. Uranium executives, investors and analysts alike agree that a major underlying cause of the current bull market is that mines are not generating enough uranium to meet growing demand. The supply constraints can be traced back to the end of the cold war when the United States and the former Soviet Union started converting enriched uranium from dismantled atomic weapons into nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. That program, and huge incentives offered to uranium companies by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, flooded the market with excess supply. At the same time, demand shrank. The price of uranium fell sharply. As a result, most uranium producers scaled back or closed their mines. Some companies sold themselves to French, Canadian and British corporations, which now dominate the industry. Some companies with nuclear power operations sold some of their inventories when the price was low to avoid storage costs. But by 2003 uranium inventories held by utilities in the United States were coming back into balance. Then a series of natural disasters - flooding of the world's largest uranium mine, McArthur River in Canada, and more recently at other mines in Canada and Australia - further pinched supply. Power companies now find themselves competing with aggressive institutional investors for high-price uranium. "For so long they'd been the buyer in a buyer's market," said Gene Clark, chief executive of TradeTech.com, a publisher of reports and data on the nuclear fuel market. "Now they're like a wallflower. It's hard on their egos." James Malone, vice president of nuclear fuels at the Exelon Corporation, the Chicago-based utility that owns 17 reactors at 10 sites, making it the largest nuclear operator in the country, said in a telephone interview that current market conditions were having a "small impact" on some of the company's contracts that were pegged to the market price. He declined to elaborate. The people staking claims and drilling underground are, in the meantime, happy to see the frothy market become frothier. So far this year, 2,700 new uranium claims have been filed with the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado alone. That is nearly half the claims filed in all of last year, and a big jump from the 104 claims for 2004. "It's pretty spectacular," said Jesse Broskey, a land law adjudicator with the bureau. "It's tripled our workload." But many people in the region, including leaders of the Navajo Nation, are not particularly excited to invite Pandora and other participants in the nuclear industry back into their communities. They say the mining and power companies poisoned workers and residents, in some cases fatally, with radon, silica and tainted groundwater. More stringent federal oversight means that mines built or refurbished today provide much better ventilation, which minimizes the underground risks. Mine operators are required to take readings of radon levels and air flow in the mines, and to measure miners' exposure doses. Another red flag, for environmentalists and utilities alike, is the lack of a national storage site for radioactive waste. The proposed home, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, has cost taxpayers billions over many years as it sits idly, waiting for a final decision. That is one of several factors holding back the revival of nuclear power in the United States. "We won't build a new plant knowing there's nowhere to put the used fuel," Mr. Malone of Exelon said. "We won't build one without community support, and we won't build until market conditions are in place where it makes sense." But that is not holding back Kyle Kimmerle, owner of the Kimmerle Funeral Home in Moab. Mr. Kimmerle, 30, spent summers during his childhood camping and working at several of his father's mines in the area. In his spare time he has amassed more than 600 uranium claims throughout the once-productive Colorado Plateau. "My guess is that next year my name won't be on the sign of this funeral home anymore and I'll be out at the mines," he said. He recently struck a deal with a company to lease 111 of his claims for development. The company, new to uranium mining, has pledged $500,000 a year for five years to improve the properties. Mr. Kimmerle will receive annual payments plus royalties for any uranium mined from the area. "Everybody's jumping in while the price is going up," he said. "Sure, it'll eventually go down. It's not going to be in three years. But after 10 years I'd say all bets are off." Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 58 SF New Mexican: Officials speak on nuclear recycling plant Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:16 pm By ASSOCIATED PRESS LOVINGTON, N.M. (AP) - The head of the Lovington Economic Development Corp. says it's wasteful to throw away radioactive spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants. Ninety-nine percent of the uranium in spent fuel rods can be used again to produce energy, said Jim Garrett, who was among about a dozen people who spoke Tuesday in support of eastern New Mexico being chosen as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, which seeks to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. The meeting, which drew about 30 people, was sponsored by Gandy-Marley Inc. and EnergySolutions of Salt Lake City. Gandy-Marley, owners of a hazardous waste site between Roswell and Tatum, and EnergySolutions are receiving $1.1 million to study Gandy-Marley's site for a GNEP spent fuel recycling facility. A site near Hobbs, proposed by the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance, was awarded $1.5 million for a similar study. The Energy Department awarded grants for detailed site studies on 11 areas around the nation for so-called integrated spent fuel recycling facilities, which the DOE said will allow the nation to recycle spent nuclear fuel safely. Studies are due by May 30. Gandy-Marley president Dale Gandy targeted some questions that have arisen about the proposal, including water use. Spent fuel facilities would use the same amount of water per year as a 300-acre cotton farm, and Gandy-Marley has the water rights, he said. Most of those at the meeting supported the proposal. Lovington Economic Development Corp. supports either Gandy-Marley or the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance, said president Connie Sevier. Groups also have formed to fight the GNEP proposal in eastern New Mexico. The Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque has said that choosing between nuclear energy and other fuel sources is based on bad history, not a viable future. "If they're going to analyze a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, they should also be analyzing a Global Non-Nuclear Energy Partnership," said the Southwest Research and Information Center's Don Hancock. "That means using the wind, that means using the sun, that means using biomass." Hancock and others, including members of Concerned Citizens of Roswell, formed in response to the proposed nuclear recycling center, argue that the federal government should look at other alternatives. Public Service Company of New Mexico has said wind turbines at the New Mexico Wind Energy Center could potentially power 100,000 homes, and that New Mexico's average of 340 sunny days a year places it second in the nation in solar potential. The U.S. Geological Survey has said geothermal energy could produce enough to put the state second only to California. Such technologies carry their own drawbacks, such as difficulties in both storage and transmission. But Hancock said that if funds earmarked for GNEP went into alternative technologies instead, the sky would be the limit. "Can we do all of that today? No, we can't," he said. "Can we build the GNEP plant today? No, we can't. ... Whatever we're going to do is going to take a significant amount of time." Hancock also noted the recycling site would store 120,000 to 140,000 metric tons of radioactive spent fuel. "The fuel that you have to reprocess has to come and be stored at the site," he said. "You've got to have something to reprocess before you can do it." Privacy Policy / Terms of Use | ©2007, Santa Fe New Mexican, all ***************************************************************** 59 islandpacket.com: Speaker calls nuclear dump Lowcountry threat islandpacket.com - The Island Packet Online Hilton Head Island - Bluffton, SC Wednesday, March 28, 2007 By PETER FROST 843-706-8169 BEAUFORT -- On the eve of an expected vote in the S.C. Statehouse that will determine the future of South Carolina's nuclear waste dump, the state chairman of the environmental group Sierra Club warned that keeping the site open could have grave consequences for the Lowcountry. In a speech to about 30 environmentalists and other concerned citizens Tuesday night at the University of South Carolina Beaufort, Columbia environmental attorney Bob Guild said the Barnwell County site's 28 million cubic feet of radioactive waste is a direct public health threat. Radioactive tritium, a potential cancer-causing agent, continues to seep from the nuclear dump and make its way into the Savannah River, the source of a majority of Beaufort and Jasper counties' potable water, Guild said. Under a law passed in 2000, the landfill is scheduled to close next year to all but three states: South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey. After a House subcommittee voted 3-2 last week in favor of a bill that would keep the landfill open to the nation for another 15 years, the issue is scheduled to come before the House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee for a vote this morning. After a House subcommittee voted 3-2 last week in favor of a bill that would keep the landfill open to the nation for another 15 years, the issue is scheduled to come before the House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee for a vote this morning.

*****************************************************************