***************************************************************** 03/30/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.75 ***************************************************************** 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 [NYTr] PSR: Time to Prevent War on Iran is NOW 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran: Attack Fears Spurred Nuclear Block 3 Guardian Unlimited: Britain Mulls New Iranian Condition 4 UPI: Israel says it can destroy Iran's missiles 5 AFP: Saudis warned Iran not to underestimate US threat - 6 UPI: UPI Poll: Israel threatened by Iran nukes 7 AFP: Japan to extend sanctions against NKorea - report - 8 Digital Chosunilbo: Gov't Owns Up to Lying About N.Korea Contacts 9 Reuters: Japan sets up missile defense shield near Tokyo 10 Korea Times: US Governor to Visit North Korea Next Month 11 US: [NYTr] Why the GOP Goes Nuclear over Global Warming 12 US: Guardian Unlimited: Congress Cool to New Nuclear Warhead 13 US: SFGate: Building weapons to reduce weapons 14 UPI: UPI Poll: Control of nuclear weapons 15 Guardian Unlimited: Wildest card in turbulent landscape lies beyond 16 Guardian Unlimited: Japan deploys Patriot missiles to protect Tokyo 17 UPI: UPI Poll: Israel has a right to nukes NUCLEAR REACTORS 18 US: Dallas Morning News: Regulators may review TXU deal 19 allAfrica.com: Namibia: Nuclear Power for Namibia - a Public Policy 20 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Prairie Isla 21 DAILY YOMIURI: '100 workers present at criticality accident' 22 Calgary Sun: Nukes touted as safe option 23 RIA Novosti: Russia, Kazakhstan to cooperate on NPP project 24 Engineer Live!: Nuclear reactor 'most advanced in Europe' 25 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Monticello N 26 US: FR NRC: Interim Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability 27 US: FR NRC: General Electric Company--Vallecitos Nuclear Center: Not 28 globeandmail.com: A radioactive asset 29 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Duane Arnold 30 UPI: Russia, Kazakhstan plan nuke plant 31 Japan Times: Tepco owns up to past nuclear plant accidents 32 US: Vermont Guardian: Initial safety report gives Vermont Yankee OK 33 US: USATODAY.com: Nuclear power has too many negatives - 34 Reuters: S.Africa shuts down a unit at nuclear power plant 35 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Fermi Nuclea NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 36 US: FR NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Call 37 US: NRC: NRC Invites Nominations for Advisory Committee on Medical U NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 38 US: SL Trib: Diablo Canyon: SLO group wants less used fuel in pools 39 US: Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions goes public, seeks $500 milli 40 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Residents receive optimistic update on G 41 US: FR NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning 42 US: UPI: Japan to join GNEP funding bid 43 Times and Star: Six on Sellafield shortlist 44 US: Deseret News: EnergySolutions files for IPO PEACE 45 [southnews] Time To Get Serious About Nuclear Free Middle East US DEPT. OF ENERGY 46 Tri-City Herald: Changes being made at landfill 47 KnoxNews: DOE seeks financial advice ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] PSR: Time to Prevent War on Iran is NOW Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:39:56 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Ed Pearl The time to prevent the next war is NOW. by Physicians for Social Responsibility Please tell your Senators "I urge you to help prevent another war in the Middle East by supporting Senator Jim Webb's amendment to the FY07 supplemental appropriations bill that prohibits use of funds for military operations in Iran without Congressional authorization." Easy email action below. But it would be best to also call them at the Congressional Switchboard toll-free: 888-851-1879 (ask the operator to connect you to your Senator's office). TAKE ACTION https://secure2.convio.net/psr/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=179&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr004=5o1vdqsdf1.app13b As Congress debates Iraq War funding this week, a critical vote will take place that can help prevent another war. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) is offering an amendment to the FY07 supplemental appropriations bill prohibiting use of funds for military operations in Iran without Congressional authorization. The vote on this important piece of legislation could come up at any time. It's critical that Congress not give the Administration a blank check for another military misadventure. The Administration misled Congress and the American people before the war on Iraq--they must not allow the same thing to happen in Iran. Please contact your Senators as soon as possible and tell them to support Sen. Webb's amendment to the FY07 supplemental appropriations bill prohibiting use of funds for military operations in Iran without Congressional authorization. Tell them war is not the answer and the US must engage directly with Iran on nuclear and other critical security issues. Click here to send a message on Iran https://secure2.convio.net/psr/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&page=UserAction&id=179&autologin=true&JServSessionIdr004=5o1vdqsdf1.app13b Sincerely, Physicians for Social Responsibility * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran: Attack Fears Spurred Nuclear Block From the Associated Press Saturday March 31, 2007 12:01 AM By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran, in a confidential letter posted Friday on an internal Web site of the U.N. nuclear monitor, said its fear of attack from the U.S. and Israel prompted its decision to withhold information from the agency. In the letter, Iran said the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency had repeatedly allowed confidential information crucial to the country's security to be leaked. The IAEA, in response, urged Iran to reconsider, saying the decision would be in defiance of the monitor's 35-nation board. Both the Iranian document and the confidential IAEA response were made available to The Associated Press. The exchange reflected heightened tensions between Iran and the Vienna-based IAEA arising from the country's refusal to heed the U.N. Security Council and freeze uranium enrichment and the council's decision earlier this week to increase sanctions in response to the Islamic republic's nuclear defiance. The IAEA also is waiting for Iran to respond to its requests to install remote cameras at key locations at Iran's underground enrichment plant at Natanz. Negotiations over the IAEA request for additional cameras were scheduled for the weekend between senior Iranian and agency officials, a diplomat said Friday. No enrichment is yet taking place at Natanz, but diplomats accredited to the IAEA said Friday it may start within days. If so, those cameras are crucial for IAEA experts in their efforts to monitor possible attempts to reconfigure machinery there into making weapons grade uranium - used in the fissile core of nuclear warheads. Iran insists it wants to enrich only to low levels, suitable for generating nuclear power. But the international community increasingly fears that the country may want to develop enrichment for weapons uses. Iran said Sunday it would no longer provide the IAEA with advance notice about any new nuclear facilities planned - a decision the government spokesman Gholan Hossein Elham said came in response to the ``illegal and bullying resolution by (the) Security Council.'' Expanding on the decision, the confidential letter, dated March 29, declared that ``the United States and the Israeli regime ... are threatening the use of force and attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran and have repeatedly stressed that military action is an option on the table. ``So long as such threats of military action persist, Iran has no option but (to) protect its security through all means possible, including protection of information which can facilitate openly stated and aggressive military objectives of the war mongers,'' said the letter, signed by Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Iran's chief delegate to the IAEA. Blaming the IAEA for failing ``systematically and repeatedly to maintain confidentiality of sensitive information,'' Soltanieh wrote that ``therefore such dangerous dissemination of sensitive information will have to be curtailed through steps which limit their scope and availability.'' The agency, in response, noted in its Friday response that the move is ``contrary to the board's decision and suggested it may indirectly be in breach of agreements linked to the Nonproliferation Treaty. Calling Iran's decision ``regrettable,'' the agency, in a letter signed by a deputy of senior IAEA official Vilmos Cserveny, urged the Iranian authorities ``to reconsider their decision.'' Iran had previously committed itself to informing the agency of any planned new nuclear construction before such construction begins - a commitment it has not always kept. Former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright said Iran's decision could allow for clandestine nuclear work related to its enrichment program. Albright, whose his Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security tracks Iran's nuclear program, said that Iran may be looking to build a ``backup facility'' for enrichment that would remain undetected - and safe - in case of attack by the United States or Israel. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Britain Mulls New Iranian Condition Friday March 30, 2007 11:46 AM By TARIQ PANJA Associated Press Writer LONDON (AP) - Britain said it was giving ``serious consideration'' to a proposal from Iran for freeing 15 British navy personnel and ending the week-old crisis over their capture without a ``confrontation.'' The British government refused to disclose the details of the proposal, which could end a standoff that has added to tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions and over allegations that Iran is arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq. In Iran, meanwhile, the government's Arabic-language TV channel broadcast Friday what it claimed was a confession by one of the British Marines detained last week in what Tehran insists were its territorial waters. ``We entered Iranian waters without permission,'' Iran's IRNA news agency quoted the man, dressed in military uniform and identifying himself as Nathan Thomas Summers, as saying. Britain's Foreign Office said the proposal was delivered to the British Embassy in Tehran late Thursday. ``We can confirm that as reported in the Iranian media, that the Iranian government has sent a formal note to the British Embassy,'' a spokeswoman told The Associated Press late Thursday. ``Such exchanges are always confidential but we are giving the message serious consideration and will soon respond formally to the Iranian government.'' The letter stopped short of asking for a formal apology but instead asked for Britain to acknowledge its sailors had trespassed into Iranian waters and come to an agreement that it would not happen again. The letter appeared to signal a softening of Tehran's position, offering some hope for an end to the crisis. The sailors, part of a U.N.-mandated force patrolling the Persian Gulf, were seized off the Iraqi coast while searching merchant ships for evidence of smuggling. Britain insists the sailors were seized in Iraqi waters and has said no admission of error would be made. The incident came several months into the escalating standoff between Iran and the United Nations over Tehran's nuclear program. At Britain's instance, the U.N. Security Council on Thursday expressed ``grave concern'' over Iran's seizure of the military personnel and called for an early resolution of the escalating dispute. On Saturday the council imposed new sanctions on Iran over its refusal to abandon uranium enrichment, a program that has raised fears Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons. Crude oil prices rose to a new six-month high, above $66 a barrel, on concerns that the tensions with Iran could jeopardize oil exports as U.S. gasoline supplies wane and demand swells. Hours before the council issued its statement, a top Iranian official suggested his country may put the Britons on trial. If Britain continued its current approach, ``this case may face a legal path,'' Ali Larijani, the main negotiator in Iran's foreign dealings, said on state radio. ``British leaders have miscalculated this issue.'' The Turkish prime minister's office said Friday that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had indicated his government is willing to reconsider the release of the only female among the British captives. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called Ahmadinejad on Thursday evening, said Erdogan's spokesman, Akif Beki. Turkey is one of the few countries that has good relations with both Iran and the West. Iran earlier broadcast a video showing the Britons in captivity. That video included a segment showing the female sailor saying her team had ``trespassed'' in Iranian waters. A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair said Britain wanted to resolve the crisis quickly and without having a ``confrontation over this.'' ``We are not seeking to put Iran in a corner. We are simply saying, 'Please release the personnel who should not have been seized in the first place,''' said the spokesman, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with government policy. But in a briefing to reporters, the spokesman said British officials had been angered by Tehran's decision to show video of the captives. ``Nobody should be put in that position. It is an impossible position to be put in,'' he said. ``It is wrong. It is wrong in terms of the usual conventions that cover this. It is wrong in terms of basic humanity.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 4 UPI: Israel says it can destroy Iran's missiles United Press International - NewsTrack - Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 1:59 AM (UPI) -- The head of the Israeli missile defense agency says the country has the capability to destroy any missile in the Middle East. Arieh Herzog, in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, said Israel's Arrow has the capacity to intercept all the "currently operational" missiles in Iran. He said Iran and Syria are spending record amounts of money on long-range ballistic missile capabilities and have all but given up building modern air forces. "The Iranians are continually increasing the range of their missiles," he said. "They are buying technology and in some cases even complete systems from North Korea and other countries." Having the capacity to intercept and destroy the short-range Katyusha missile would have greatly reduced the casualties in last summer's war with Lebanon, Herzog said. About 4,000 Katyushas fell on northern Israel. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Saudis warned Iran not to underestimate US threat - Fri Mar 30, 6:41 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah reportedly warned Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he should not underestimate the US military threat on Iran. Ahmadinejad met with King Abdullah on March 4 in Riyadh, and publicly the two leaders agreed to fight growing Sunni-Shiite strife in the region. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal told Newsweek in an interview that the king meanwhile warned Ahmadinejad to take seriously threats of US military strikes over Iran's refusal to halts its uranium enrichment program. "On the nuclear issue, we warned him: 'Dont play with fire. Don't think the threat (of an American attack on Iran) is a nonexistent threat; think that it's a real threat, maybe even a palpable threat,'" Faisal said in the interview posted on the Newsweek website Friday. "Why do you want to take a chance on that and harm your country?" the king continued, according to Faisal. "What is the rush? Why do you have to do it (enrich uranium) this year and not next year or the year after? Or five years from now? What is the real rush in it?" The king "speaks to everybody frankly," Faisal said, adding that his ruler bluntly told Ahmadinejad: "Youre interfering in Arab affairs," a reference to Iran's alleged interference in other Middle East countries. Ahmadinejad listened, then denied any interference. "But we said, 'Whether you deny it or not, this is creating bad feelings for Iran and we think you should stop,'" Faisal told Newsweek. "Certainly what Iran is doing is interfering in Iraq," Faisal said. "We told them this will not benefit them but will do more damage to them than (good). But we have never put ourselves in a position of conflict with Iran." The Saudis also told the Iranians "that their interference in Arab affairs is creating a backlash in the Arab world and in the Muslim world. Other Muslim countries are complaining of (Iranian) interference in internal affairs," Faisal said. "And we talked to them frankly and honestly on this issue and they see the danger that what is happening is going to lead to strife between Shiites and Sunnis." The Saudi foreign minister also said it was "a catastrophe" for Iran to be holding 15 British sailors and marines it had captured on March 23. Iran insists the personnel were detained for being in Iranian waters but Britain maintains they were inside Iraqi waters. "This is just not the time for them to have a problem like that looming. We tell them that," Faisal said. On Wednesday, the Saudi king criticized the US occupation of Iraq in an opening address to the annual Arab summit in Riyadh -- a move some observers say is an effort to distance himself from the embattled Bush administration. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 6 UPI: UPI Poll: Israel threatened by Iran nukes United Press International - NewsTrack - 3/30/2007 1:00:00 PM -0400 WASHINGTON, March 30 (UPI) -- Israel would be the most threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran, participants in a UPI-Zogby International poll said. Some 78.9 percent of the interactive poll respondents said Israel was the country that would be the most threatened should Iran achieve nuclear-weapons status. The United States was the next highest country on the respondents' list at 5.5 percent and Saudi Arabia -- at 1.9 percent -- was the only other nation selected by more than 1 percent of those asked. In addition, a total of 62.7 percent of the 4,824 U.S. residents asked said they believed Iran would "try to attack Israel if it acquired nuclear weapons." Only 17.2 percent said they believed Iranian officials would not attack in this instance. Along that line, the poll asked if the United States should retaliate if Iran attacked a U.S. ally in the Middle East and a slim majority -- 50.3 percent -- agreed, 23.7 percent disagreed and 26 percent said they were unsure. The Zogby interactive poll was done March 14-16 and has a margin of error of 1.4 percentage points. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: Japan to extend sanctions against NKorea - report - Friday March 30, 04:19 PM TOKYO (AFP) - Japan will extend sanctions against North Korea when they expire in mid-April to keep the pressure on Pyongyang over its abductions of Japanese nationals, a report said Friday. The continued tough line would come despite an increasingly conciliatory approach by the United States, which has agreed to a six-way deal providing fuel aid in return for North Korea freezing its nuclear programme. Japan has taken the hardest line at the six-way talks and has refused to fund the deal, saying it will not help North Korea until the kidnapping dispute is resolved. In October last year, the Japanese government barred all imports from North Korea -- including money-makers such as clams, crabs and high-end matsutake mushrooms -- for six months. The government has decided to extend the sanctions by another six months "in order to draw a sincere response" from North Korea on the kidnapping row, Jiji Press said, quoting an unnamed government source. No immediate confirmation was available. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has built his career campaigning for North Korea to resolve the row over its kidnappings of at least 13 Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s, who were abducted to help train North Korean spies. Pyongyang returned five victims and their families and says the rest are dead, but Japan maintains that they are alive and kept under wraps because they know too many secrets. Abe has brushed off concerns that his hardline stance could isolate Tokyo from close ally Washington. "If they want to lift the sanctions, they must ... resolve the kidnappings issue with concrete actions," Abe said earlier this month. ***************************************************************** 8 Digital Chosunilbo: Gov't Owns Up to Lying About N.Korea Contacts Updated Mar.30,2007 11:17 KST Lee Ho-chul, presidential secretary for information and policy monitoring, said Wednesday that one of President Roh Moo-hyun¡¯s closest confidantes, Ahn Hee-jung, met secretly with North Korean Councilor Lee Ho-nam in Beijing in October last year, following the orders of the president. Lee said, ¡°After North Korea¡¯s nuclear test last October, rumor had it that Pyongyang intended to communicate with Seoul and I reported it to the president.¡± He added that the president ordered Ahn to meet with the North Korean councilor in Beijing on Oct. 20 last year ¡°to check the North¡¯s intentions.¡± He also said that former Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan, who is supposed to understand President Roh¡¯s intentions well, was on the list of candidates for a special envoy to the North. Last November, one Internet newspaper reported that in October, a presidential envoy met in Beijing with an envoy of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il to discuss an inter-Korean summit. When this report came out, the presidential office denied it. When news reports surfaced in March that the envoy was Ahn, he personally denied playing ¡°any role¡± involving inter-Korean relations. It turns out he was lying through his teeth. On Monday, when a weekly news magazine reported the contact between Ahn and the North Korean councilor, Ahn finally admitted that the meeting took place. Cheong Wa Dae kept silent about the matter. But when Ahn revealed on Wednesday that the contact occurred ¡°at the request of Cheong Wa Dae,¡± the presidential office must have thought it could keep silent no longer, confessing at last that there was a presidential order. The typical behavior of the presidential office is to keep lying until a piece of irrefutable evidence is presented. And even then they confess only what needs to be confessed. That¡¯s why we can expect more confessions from the presidential office. For instance, the government has been saying that former prime minister Lee had visited North Korea early this month as a private citizen and not in the capacity of a special envoy. But that sounds very odd, with Ahn saying now that the former prime minister had been on the list of potential candidates for a special envoy to North Korea. During the early days of this administration, when the Kim Dae-jung government¡¯s ¡°cash-for-summit¡± scandal was being investigated, the government said policies involving North Korea must be transparent. The Roh Moo-hyun administration vowed there would be no more behind-the-scenes dealings with North Korea. Now it turns out the Roh administration violated regulations on exchanges with North Korea, lying to the public while holding secret contacts with the North. Government agencies, including the National Intelligence Service, Unification Ministry and Foreign Ministry must be probed to see whether they knew about Ahn¡¯s contacts in Beijing. And if they knew, what they did about them. If not, then how can they be responsible for protecting national security with such a lack of information? These questions must be answered. ***************************************************************** 9 Reuters: Japan sets up missile defense shield near Tokyo Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:58AM EDT By Takanori Isshiki IRUMA, Japan (Reuters) - Japan trucked its first ballistic missile interceptors to an air force base north of Tokyo on Friday in an effort to beef up its defenses against its unpredictable neighbor North Korea. The deployment of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) launchers, capable of shooting down incoming missiles in the final stage of flight as they near their target, was sparked by Pyongyang's firing of a ballistic missile in 1998 that flew over Japan. But Tokyo rushed the equipment into service a year ahead of schedule after North Korea unnerved the region last year by firing more missiles and testing a nuclear device. "We consider it very meaningful to deploy the air defense missiles close to metropolitan Tokyo, which is the center of business and political activities," Kazumasa Echizen, the Iruma air base public information chief, said in a statement. "We will continue our efforts to be ready for any possible emergencies." About 50 demonstrators shouted and waved banners as a line of green trucks carried the equipment through the gates of the base, about 40 km (25 miles) from central Tokyo, before dawn on Friday. "Bringing PAC-3s to places like Iruma makes them the focus of interception strategy and therefore at risk of becoming the target of attack by other countries," an activist group said in a statement condemning the deployment as a "military performance". CLOSER TO TOKYO Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Korea Times: US Governor to Visit North Korea Next Month Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation Bill Richardson, governor of the U.S. state of New Mexico, will travel to North Korea next month at Pyongyang's invitation, the Yonhap News Agency reported Friday quoting a well-informed diplomatic source. A declared presidential candidate, Richardson will fly directly from New Mexico to Pyongyang on a military plane provided by the U.S. government, the source told Yonhap. The visit is arranged while the six-party talks, a denuclearization forum among South and North Korea, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan, have been complicated by a banking issue that has delayed progress in shutting down Pyongyang's nuclear facilities. Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Richardson has kept in close contact with North Koreans since the Clinton administration. In 1994, he negotiated the release of two American pilots whose helicopter was forced to land in North Korea. In 1996, he again visited Pyongyang, a trip that prompted Washington to provide food aid to the starving nation. Later that same year, he went to Pyongyang as an official envoy to negotiate the release of an American who, while drunk, swam to North Korea and was charged with espionage. He met North Korean diplomats from the U.N. at his New Mexico office in December last year as six-party negotiations were about to resume after over a year in suspension. "His visit is not directly related to the six-party talks," the source said, but indicated there were prior consultations between the governor and the administration. "The governor is not going as a U.S. envoy," Yonhap, South Korea¡¯s semi-official news service, quoted the source as saying. Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also has an invitation to visit North Korea but had to delay his trip because of a scheduling conflict, his press secretary Lynne Weil told Yonhap. The chairman initially planned to go during the two-week spring recess starting next week, she said. Lantos has been a strong advocate for dialogue with the Pyongyang regime, urging the George W. Bush administration to engage in talks to resolve the nuclear issue. 03-30-2007 15:04 ***************************************************************** 11 [NYTr] Why the GOP Goes Nuclear over Global Warming Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:40:44 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by Ed Pearl - Mar 28, 2007 The Los Angeles Times - Mar 25, 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-chait25mar25,1,7786418.column Why the GOP goes nuclear over global warming Most of the heat is generated by a small number of hard-core ideologues. by Jonathat Chiatt LAST YEAR, the National Journal asked a group of Republican senators and House members: "Do you think it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems?" Of the respondents, 23% said yes, 77% said no. In the year since that poll, of course, global warming has seized a massive amount of public attention. The U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a study, with input from 2,000 scientists worldwide, finding that the certainty on man-made global warming had risen to 90%. So, the magazine asked the question again last month. The results? Only 13% of Republicans agreed that global warming has been proved. As the evidence for global warming gets stronger, Republicans are actually getting more skeptical. Al Gore's recent congressional testimony on the subject, and the chilly reception he received from GOP members, suggest the discouraging conclusion that skepticism on global warming is hardening into party dogma. Like the notion that tax cuts are always good or that President Bush is a brave war leader, it's something you almost have to believe if you're an elected Republican. How did it get this way? The easy answer is that Republicans are just tools of the energy industry. It's certainly true that many of them are. Leading global warming skeptic Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas), for instance, was the subject of a fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal a couple of years ago. The bottom line is that his relationship to the energy industry is as puppet relates to hand. But the financial relationship doesn't quite explain the entirety of GOP skepticism on global warming. For one thing, the energy industry has dramatically softened its opposition to global warming over the last year, even as Republicans have stiffened theirs. The truth is more complicated - and more depressing: A small number of hard-core ideologues (some, but not all, industry shills) have led the thinking for the whole conservative movement. Your typical conservative has little interest in the issue. Of course, neither does the average nonconservative. But we nonconservatives tend to defer to mainstream scientific wisdom. Conservatives defer to a tiny handful of renegade scientists who reject the overwhelming professional consensus. National Review magazine, with its popular website, is a perfect example. It has a blog dedicated to casting doubt on global warming, or solutions to global warming, or anybody who advocates a solution. Its title is "Planet Gore." The psychology at work here is pretty clear: Your average conservative may not know anything about climate science, but conservatives do know they hate Al Gore. So, hold up Gore as a hate figure and conservatives will let that dictate their thinking on the issue. Meanwhile, Republicans who do believe in global warming get shunted aside. Nicole Gaudiano of Gannett News Service recently reported that Rep. Wayne Gilchrest asked to be on the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio refused to allow it unless Gilchrest would say that humans have not contributed to global warming. The Maryland Republican refused and was denied a seat. Reps. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) and Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), both research scientists, also were denied seats on the committee. Normally, relevant expertise would be considered an advantage. In this case, it was a disqualification; if the GOP allowed Republican researchers who accept the scientific consensus to sit on a global warming panel, it would kill the party's strategy of making global warming seem to be the pet obsession of Democrats and Hollywood lefties. The phenomenon here is that a tiny number of influential conservative figures set the party line; dissenters are marginalized, and the rank and file go along with it. No doubt something like this happens on the Democratic side pretty often too. It's just rare to find the phenomenon occurring in such a blatant way. You can tell that some conservatives who want to fight global warming understand how the psychology works and are trying to turn it in their favor. Their response is to emphasize nuclear power as an integral element of the solution. Sen. John McCain, who supports action on global warming, did this in a recent National Review interview. The technique seems to be surprisingly effective. When framed as a case for more nuclear plants, conservatives seem to let down their guard. In reality, nuclear plants may be a small part of the answer, but you couldn't build enough to make a major dent. But the psychology is perfect. Conservatives know that lefties hate nuclear power. So, yeah, Rush Limbaugh listeners, let's fight global warming and stick it to those hippies! * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Congress Cool to New Nuclear Warhead From the Associated Press Friday March 30, 2007 3:01 AM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - An administration proposal to build a new generation of more reliable nuclear warheads to replace the current stockpile was met with skepticism Thursday from key lawmakers who will decide how much money to give the program. Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over nuclear weapons programs, said he was ``troubled by the giddiness'' at the Energy Department over development of the new warhead program. The panel's ranking Republican, Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, said he was worried the warhead development was aimed not so much to meet the military's requirements but ``to prove that we can still design nuclear weapons.'' Separately, three experts on nuclear nonproliferation, including a former defense secretary and former Sen. Sam Nunn, said that building a new warhead - even if only a replacement - sends the wrong message to the world and could make all the more difficult the resolution of the nuclear problems with Iran and North Korea. ``We will pay a very high price in terms of our overall national security'' because other nations will view the new U.S. warhead as a reason to proceed with nuclear weapons development, Nunn, co-chairman of the privately funded Nuclear Threat Initiative, told the lawmakers. The Energy Department has asked for $89 million for next fiscal year to look into the design and develop cost estimates for producing the warhead that supporters say is needed to assure future safety, reliability and security of the nuclear weapons stockpile without actual ground testing. Thomas D'Agostino, head of the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration, told the subcommittee that the current, aging warheads in years to come ``may pose an unacceptable risk'' as to their long-term reliability without testing. D'Agostino declined to speculate how much the program might cost, saying that's what he hopes to learn over the next year. Earlier this month, the department announced that engineers at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California would work on designing the new warheads and develop cost estimates. D'Agostino reiterated that the new warhead would be more easily maintained, provide additional assurances of security and reliability and allow for a reduction in the number of warheads that will have to be kept in reserve. The lawmakers said they were not convinced. Visclosky noted that only a few years ago department officials said that its so-called ``stockpile stewardship'' and warhead life-extension programs could maintain and assure the reliability of the stockpile well into the next century. Also, Hobson said, a recent conclusion by weapons experts that the plutonium pits used in warheads can be counted on to remain in good condition much longer than had been expected raises questions on the need of a new warhead design. William Perry, a former defense secretary, said action on a new warhead could be deferred for many years without an adverse impact on the country's nuclear stockpile and would ``put us in a stronger position to lead the international community in the battle against nuclear proliferation.'' Richard Garwin, a nuclear physicist who was involved in developing the hydrogen bomb, questioned why a new warhead is needed to assure reliability or security. The weapons now in the stockpile have been tests in actual detonations, Garwin said, and ``with the passage of time and improvements in computing tools ... confidence in the reliability of the existing weapons will increase rather than diminished.'' He said if the entire stockpile is replaced by warheads that have been never actually tested in a detonation, there eventually may be increased pressure to resume testing to make sure they work. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 13 SFGate: Building weapons to reduce weapons Jay Davis, Bill Nebo Friday, March 30, 2007 Having the sense that the national discussion about the new generation of nuclear weapons will go on for some time, we decided as old friends with very different perspectives to see if we could join our knowledge and opinions and come to a common conclusion about the weapon and the program to build it, the Reliable Replacement Warhead. We hoped that success in this matter would provide a useful guide for others as the dialogue and debate go forward. Programs dealing with weapons that can cause mass casualties and environmental change create moral and political concerns that must be addressed each time we renew them. We contend that our nation should be intentionally and responsibly led into visiting these political and moral concerns at the front end of efforts to renew our nuclear arsenal. First: What is a reliable replacement warhead? It is the first weapon to go into the nuclear stockpile in more than 20 years. It is designed to replace existing weapons carried on U.S. ballistic missile submarines and to be safer and more secure, with a much longer service lifetime. It is not a new weapon, in the sense of its military capabilities or of the targets to which it would be assigned. As such, it represents no change in use doctrine or threat. Our current weapons were not designed to last as long as they already have. While the plutonium cores continue to be viable, the non-nuclear components that live for decades in the low-radiation level of the cores weren't designed to last this long. In the past, were these parts to be replaced with modern ones, as one would logically do in rebuilding a car, a nuclear test would have been called for to validate the weapon's performance. Such a test is not possible under the moratorium. The military reaction to questions of reliability is to want large numbers of weapons in reserve, and to have multiple types of weapons, impeding further efforts to reduce the remaining large American and Russian nuclear stockpiles. Second: Why build a reliable replacement warhead? Having a more reliable weapon will allow the United States to reduce the size of its arsenal as fewer weapons will be needed to achieve a credible deterrent. The weapon offers the possibility of reducing the size and cost of the nuclear weapons-production complex, while making it more responsive to possible future threats -- that is, after a substantial investment. On the other hand, the case against reliable replacement warheads is similarly stated: That it would encourage proliferation and, being a new weapon, would somehow lead to new threats of use or a lower threshold to use. The first is easy to dismiss: Proliferation directed against us is stimulated almost exclusively by our conventional military superiority and by our policies and actions, such as the assertion of the unilateral right to declare pre-emptive war to repel or deter an attack, and to cause regime change in other nations at our whim. Nuclear proliferation among regional neighbors (e.g., Egypt and Saudi Arabia versus Iran, Japan or Taiwan versus China, South Korea versus North Korea) is little affected by our weapons policies, unless we fail to make guarantees to allies under our nuclear umbrella both clear and credible. As for the second, the reliable replacement warhead is not a new weapon and has no new utility, something that in fact the military may not like. We believe that before this program goes forward, the reliable replacement warhead issue requires our nation to have a full and clear discussion of what our nuclear doctrine is. During the Cold War, Americans knew precisely whom our nuclear stockpile was intended to deter. We had a clear vision of the circumstances under which the stockpile was likely to be used and the consequences of such use. Today, we lack that clear vision. Establishing that vision seems essential to achieving a political consensus that will support a reliable replacement warhead program. In replacing Cold War weapons with new ones, even if their military characteristics are the same, it is very important for us to be clear about their intended use. What are our present threats these weapons would deter and what future threat might they deter? Additionally, the international dialogue needs to be free of bullying, posturing and threats because such behavior does not lead to the understanding and trust required for verifiable arms control agreements. We need to offer a return to treaty regimes (e.g., the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) that are conducive to mutual trust. At the end of the day, nuclear weapons are presidential weapons reserved for dealing with existential threats to the nation, either by deterrence, or in case of the failure of deterrence, by use. Casual discussion of their use by those not holding these sobering responsibilities is not useful in creating the clarity and understanding that this subject demands. Jay Davis is a retired nuclear physicist who spent more than 30 years at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He was the first director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, having operational responsibility for U.S. arms control inspections. Bill Nebo retired last year after 30 years as the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Livermore. They have had a 20-year long discussion on these issues. This article appeared on page B - 9 of the San Francisco Chronicle San Francisco Chronicle ***************************************************************** 14 UPI: UPI Poll: Control of nuclear weapons United Press International - NewsTrack - 3/30/2007 11:00:00 AM -0400 WASHINGTON, March 30 (UPI) -- About twice as many UPI-Zogby International poll respondents said the international community and not U.S. leaders should decide who can have nuclear weapons. The 4,824 U.S. participants in a Zogby interactive poll were clear in their choice when asked about who should be in control in the decisions about nuclear weapons development. Some 39.9 percent of those asked "strongly agreed" that the international community should have the right to decide which nations can develop nuclear weapons and another 39 percent "somewhat agreed." A total of 18.4 percent either "somewhat disagreed" or "strongly disagreed." Comparatively, 15.5 percent of respondents "strongly agreed" that the United States should serve that role and another 27.3 percent "somewhat agreed." But 28.5 percent "strongly disagreed" and 24.2 percent "somewhat disagreed" that the United States should be in the lead on nuclear development. However, 64.4 percent either "strongly agreed" or "somewhat agreed" the United States has the responsibility to ensure that some countries have limits on their nuclear capability. The poll was conducted March 14-16 and has a margin of error of 1.4 percentage points. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: Wildest card in turbulent landscape lies beyond reach of normal diplomacy | Iran | Robert Tait in Tehran and Julian Borger Saturday March 31, 2007 From the very first moment it was clear that the British navy crew patrolling the shallow waters of the northern Gulf were in a lot of trouble. The boats that sped up to them, boxing them in, were not Iranian navy or coastguard. The black and green banners signalled something altogether different: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC is perhaps the wildest card in Iran's turbulent politics. It is a state within a state, with its own ideology, a 125,000-strong military force and a powerful parliamentary bloc - and one of the biggest players in the economy. It helped make Mahmoud Ahmadinejad president, and it is said he answers to the guard, rather than the other way round. There are reminders of its power everywhere. Officers perform security duties at the airports and state-organised events. Leading figures have made inroads into the political and social fabric of the country, dominating university faculties, local authorities and provincial governorships. Some observers in London and Tehran believe that the 15 sailors and marines being paraded on a satellite channel with close links to the guard are as much a victim of the battle for influence inside Iran as of any external Anglo-Iranian friction. "This reflects a struggle within the Iranian system," said one Middle East observer. "Part of the system decided to do this without any reference to any other part." According to this view, the seizure of the Britons was intended as a stunt to restore the IRGC's prestige after a string of setbacks, including the arrest of senior officers of the guard's elite Quds force by US troops in Iraq and the disappearance of two leaders last month. "They have had a difficult time in the past few months," said one political observer. "There is a sense of failure connected to them and this is an eye-catching initiative." When Ayatollah Khomeini created the guard in May 1979, its mission was to defend the fledgling Islamic revolution. A decade later, when the father of that revolution was dying, its influence had expanded to the extent he felt it necessary to issue a deathbed imprecation against it becoming involved in politics. But this has largely been ignored. These days, 80 of 290 of Iran's sitting MPs are ex-officers, as is roughly half the cabinet. The guard has also grown rapidly in economic stature. During Mr Ahmadinejad's presidency, its civil engineering business, the Khatam-ol-Anbia, has flourished, largely thanks to uncontested government contracts. The seizure of the British naval patrol coincided with a UN security council resolution over Iran's nuclear programme, which froze the assets of top IRGC commanders and 13 of the companies they control, endangering the guard's recently accrued wealth. Ali Ansari, an Iranian expert at St Andrews University, suggests that such tough western action would be welcomed by the guard's jealous rivals in the Iranian business world. "It's become this giant business conglomerate that just pisses people off," he said. "There will be private wry smiles that the IRGC is hurting now." Many observers believe such circumstances gave the guard a strong motive to try to regain the political initiative. Against this backdrop, Britain is trying to negotiate the release of its citizens using normal diplomatic channels, without knowing whether it is having any impact in this parallel, more opaque, Iran. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian Unlimited: Japan deploys Patriot missiles to protect Tokyo Justin McCurry in Tokyo Friday March 30, 2007 Japan believes Tokyo is high on North Korea's list of possible targets. Photograph: Corbis Japan today bolstered its defences against a possible attack from North Korea with the deployment of an advanced Patriot missile defence system at a military base near Tokyo that critics say leaves the capital even more vulnerable to attack. The arrival, a year ahead of schedule, of two Patriot Advanced Capability-3 [PAC-3] launchers at the Iruma air base, in Saitama, just north of Tokyo, was greeted by a small group of protesters. Last month the US deployed its own Patriot missiles on Okinawa, where most of the 50,000 US troops in Japan are stationed. Japan's new Patriot missiles would be used only if Standard Missile-3 interceptors fired from Aegis ships failed to knock out any incoming missiles. The country's pacifist constitution means it can shoot down only missiles heading towards its own territory, not that of allies. The race to develop missile defences followed North Korea's test launch of a ballistic missile that flew over northern Japan in 1998. Officials speeded up their introduction after Pyongyang tested more ballistic missiles, as well as a nuclear device, last year. Although progress has been made in international attempts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear programme, Japan believes Tokyo and other big cities remain high on the communist state's list of possible targets. "We consider it very meaningful to deploy the air defence missiles close to metropolitan Tokyo, which is the centre of business and political activities," said Kazumasa Echizen, head of public information at the Iruma base. "We will continue our efforts to be ready for any possible emergencies." PAC-3 interceptors are capable of shooting down incoming missiles as they near their target, giving the attacked country more time to prepare. But their range of about 12 miles means they must be situated close to potential targets, such as busy financial centres. Opponents say the purpose of the Patriot system is to protect military facilities, including those used by US troops, and denounced today's arrival of the launchers as a "military performance". "Bringing PAC-3s to places such as Iruma makes them the focus of interception strategy and therefore [puts them] at risk of becoming the target of attack by other countries," campaigners said in a statement. By the end of the year, Japan expects to equip one of its warships with an MS-3 interceptor capable of reaching incoming missiles earlier. Preparing for the perceived North Korean threat is proving expensive, with spending on missile defence alone expected to rise by 30.5% to 182.6bn yen in the fiscal year 2007. Japan plans to have 30 PAC-3 launchers in place in 10 locations within the next four years. Useful links Japan Today Asahi.com Far Eastern Economic Review Fuji News Network Japan Times Kyodo News Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 17 UPI: UPI Poll: Israel has a right to nukes United Press International - NewsTrack - 3/30/2007 12:01:00 PM -0400 WASHINGTON, March 30 (UPI) -- While UPI-Zogby International poll respondents say Israel has a right to nuclear weapons, they also see Israel's having those arms making diplomacy difficult. A total of 48.8 percent of the 4,824 U.S. residents told the Zogby interactive poll that "Israel should have nuclear weapons." There was a breakdown of 28.3 percent who strongly agreed and 20.5 percent somewhat agreed. Another 24.4 percent strongly disagreed and 17.1 percent were in the somewhat disagree category. But while a plurality saw Israel's right to own nuclear weapons, nearly two-thirds of those asked said Israel's possession of nuclear weapons makes it more difficult for the United States to deny other countries in the region the right to develop such weaponry. A total of 31 percent strongly agreed with that and another 32 percent gave the "somewhat agree" answer. Some 20.2 percent strongly disagreed with the comment. Nearly half -- 49 percent -- of those asked said Israel should be prepared to give up any nuclear program it has if it would help an agreement for a nuclear-free Middle East. Another 36.6 percent, however, disagreed with that idea. The poll was conducted March 14-16 and carries a margin of error of 1.4 percentage points. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 Dallas Morning News: Regulators may review TXU deal Dallas, Texas | Business PUC considers tweaking rules to gain authority on buyouts 08:42 AM CDT on Friday, March 30, 2007 By ELIZABETH SOUDER / The Dallas Morning News esouder@dallasnews.com AUSTIN – State electricity regulators, under pressure from state and national politicians, are thinking about reviewing the buyout offer for TXU Corp. Bloomberg TXU power lines are silhouetted by an evening sky in Garland. TXU received a $45 billion buyout offer that it says state regulators have no authority over, but the PUC is re-examining its role in such situations. "It seems clear that perhaps our rules have been cast in new light by some of the things we've seen unfold," Commissioner Paul Hudson said during a meeting Thursday. The three commissioners approved a motion to publish rule changes proposed by staff and to allow public comment. The changes include requiring companies to advise the commission of changes in ownership six months before the transaction rather than within 30 days of the close of the deal. The new rules say they would apply to the sale of 50 percent or more of a company. And the new rules would require retail electricity providers to get commission approval to transfer their certification to a new owner. In recognition of public frustration with TXU, the buyers offered to cut some consumer electricity prices and to shelve plans to build eight coal-fired power plants. The deal would close in the second half of the year. The new rules would directly affect the TXU deal because, commissioners said, changes would apply to pending transactions. The commission would probably vote on adopting the changes in about two months. TXU and the buyers didn't respond to requests for comment on the proposed rule changes. In the past, the buyers have argued against a PUC review, saying the process could delay closing the deal. Meanwhile, the Legislature is considering laws that would settle the debate and officially grant the PUC the power to rule on the deal. Legislation has already passed the Senate. Some state lawmakers say they are concerned that the buyout might not be good for consumers, and they are wary of TXU after battling executives for the past year about high electricity rates. And Wednesday, the PUC staff sent TXU notice that it had violated market manipulation rules. The staff recommended that TXU pay $210 million for the violation – the highest penalty the commission staff has ever suggested. TXU filed a motion Thursday to contest the case and the penalty. Looking at rates In any event, the three commissioners decided Thursday to exercise one power they still have over TXU since most of the electricity industry was deregulated. The commission will review the rates of the regulated arm of the company, which operates power lines, this year. Those rates represent only a sliver of customers' bill. "Our interest in a test year that may not be obfuscated by some of the pending transactions is one rationale," Mr. Hudson said. He also expressed concern about TXU earning too much. Regulated utilities, which operate power lines in the Texas grid, must undergo periodic rate reviews by regulators. The review is also an opportunity for TXU to request higher rates to cover the cost of upgrades to the grid. A change in the rates charged by the regulated, wires-and-poles division of TXU would not substantially change consumers' monthly electricity bills. TXU Electric Delivery charges retail electricity companies 2.6 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity that moves along TXU lines. Retailers, including Reliant, Amigo and TXU's own TXU Energy company, might pass that charge along to consumers directly or could roll it into the total price for electricity, which ranges from 10 cents to 16 cents per kilowatt hour. TXU spokesman Chris Schein said the company will cooperate with the PUC's request to review rates and will probably ask for higher rates at the next review. He said TXU has invested more than $2 billion in power lines and other equipment since the last review in 2001. "We haven't calculated the case yet. We haven't filed it. So we don't know for sure," Mr. Schein said. He expects the case will take about a year to resolve. TXU has four months to file a proposal for new rates, then the company will negotiate with commission staff, which will present a recommendation to the commission for a vote. And he pointed out a complication in holding a rate case now. TXU signed a contract with more than 100 North Texas cities, including Dallas and Fort Worth, to begin a rate case in June 2008. That means that shortly after the 2007 rate review ends, TXU will begin a new review. Held to word Geoffrey Gay, a lawyer with Lloyd Gosselink who represents those cities, said his clients will hold TXU to its word. So the outcome of the first rate review wouldn't apply to those cities, which would have their own rate review afterward, he said. "I think there are a lot of pressures on the commission at the moment to get some handle on the magnitude of the rates in Texas, and TXU's the largest guy on the block," Mr. Gay said. "A rate case is one vehicle for that kind of scrutiny." The commissioners also said Thursday they are working on a response to questions from U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis. Mr. Barton has proposed merging the Texas grid into the national power grid, which, he says, might cause electricity prices here to drop. Mr. Barton also asked the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the grid and wholesale markets, for information about power generation needs. ERCOT has said Texas' power supply could become uncomfortably tight by 2010. ERCOT chief executive Sam Jones assured Mr. Barton in a letter that Texas will have enough juice, even without the eight coal plants that the TXU buyers shelved. "If all these units are not built, ERCOT is confident that other generating projects will provide the capacity needed to maintain sufficient generating capacity on the grid," he wrote, pointing out that the amount of nuclear capacity under consideration is equal to the capacity the TXU buyers took off the table. © 2007 The Dallas Morning News Co. ***************************************************************** 19 allAfrica.com: Namibia: Nuclear Power for Namibia - a Public Policy Perspective OPINION Posted to the web March 30, 2007 Theophilus Mujoro Windhoek Nuclear power technologies interact in their development process with public health and safety, the environment, foreign policy and energy security, as well as the economy. As a result nuclear programmes have increasingly cut across institutional lines of individual state governments, regulatory agencies, nuclear vendors, electric utilities, nuclear fuel-cycle providers, R&D centres and the general public. Nuclear power is a proven technology that emits no sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides or greenhouse gases in power generation, thereby providing a means of responding to a number of environmental challenges now confronting the planet. Renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal could play valuable roles, but their potential contribution is limited by constraints of geography, intermittency and cost-efficiency. In this context, the ongoing debate on nuclear power should not concern 'if' but 'how' best Namibia could develop its nuclear power programme. Namibia's stated intention to consider nuclear power to meet increasing electricity demands should be viewed as a positive step - at the right time, for satisfying various policy objectives, including energy security of supply, reducing import dependence and reducing greenhouse emissions where applicable and generally for sustainable development. However, building nuclear power capability should not be done exclusively on a turnkey basis but should be based on a long-term strategy that embraces technological localization in the sense of an imitative catching up process. Building technological capability in LDCs involves various activities ranging from the acquisition and assimilation of external knowledge to the modification and improvement of acquired knowledge through indigenous R and D efforts. Such a strategy would aggregate the course of developing Namibia's absorptive capacity of foreign technology which depends on prior knowledge and intensity of effort. Technological localization would enable Namibia in the long run to develop further non-electrical nuclear capabilities, through concerted indigenous R&D efforts, such as desalination of seawater. This technology is currently applied in India and Japan through reverse osmosis. In OECD countries alone, nuclear power generation accounts for 80% of the world total. In these countries, it has played a major role in the marked reduction of reliance on imported oil. The quantities needed are very much less than for coal or oil. One kilogram of natural uranium will yield about 20 000 times as much energy as the same amount of coal. Despite its huge growth potential and the substantial contribution it can have for sustainable development in developing countries, nuclear energy has been the exclusive domain of the world's industrialized nations for a greater part of the last half century. In newly industrializing countries and in transition economies, additional market barriers are created by the capital intensity of nuclear power (and thus by the additional barriers to investment), lack of adequate technical and institutional infrastructure, and restrictions associated with concern over nuclear proliferation. Included in nuclear fuel cycle technologies are all activities ranging from exploration, mining and uranium ore concentration, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication through to spent fuel transport and storage, let alone specialized architecture engineering and the development of the nuclear steam supply (NSSS) design technology. Technically, these activities can be carried out within safety limits. The major concerns are with the complexity, economics and the resource base. This is also the reason why nuclear power has not been an attractive choice in developing countries. Nuclear power has the advantage of not producing carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases. The attention paid to combating global warming has indeed increased the attention paid to nuclear power as a near-zero carbon-emitting technology. In some markets, nuclear is already receiving an economic benefit from this, through carbon trading regimes. The fact is that the contribution of nuclear power to electricity supplies has grown rapidly since the 1970s. As of May 1997, 436 power reactors were in operation in 32 countries. Nuclear power provided over 2300 TWh in 1996. This is about 17% of the world's total electricity, or 7% of total primary energy. In France, for instance, about 75 percent of the electricity is generated from nuclear power. This contribution avoids the emission of about 2 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, assuming it would otherwise be provided mainly by coal-fired plants. This represents nearly one-third of the CO2 presently emitted by power generation. Since electricity generation accounts for about 30% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, total emissions would be about 10% higher if it were not for nuclear power. The highly capital intensive nature of this energy form, its technological complexity, and the shortage of suitably qualified personnel, imply a very high reliance upon external sources and a drain on resources and currency. Nuclear accidents at Chernobyl in the Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the United States (Class 7 and Class 5 events respectively on an international scale of nuclear accidents and incidents) have significantly increased public concern over nuclear safety. Literature reveals that IEA Member countries have good safety records and their successful experience in overcoming abnormal occurrences can be interpreted as a demonstration of the excellent employment of defence-in-depth measures. Specific and urgent safety concerns are associated with Russian-designed nuclear reactors in central and Eastern Europe, where nuclear reactor concepts, operating entities and oversight institutions have acted outside the mainstream of international practices. As a world leader in nuclear power technology, Russia has since made significant strides and is at the forefront in leading efforts in dealing with the problem of expanding the worldwide growth of nuclear power while reducing the proliferation threat. However, safety concerns can be addressed in order to maintain the viability of the nuclear option. This can be done by ensuring that procedures for the safe disposal of radioactive wastes are not only technically feasible but also publicly acceptable; requiring adequately funded and publicly acceptable decommissioning of nuclear power plants; achieving uniform health and safety standards, and increasing public participation and integration of energy security and environmental goals. As a signatory to the NPT, Namibia's status as a Non-Nuclear Weapons State holds serious responsibilities and obligations. Africa 2007 The IAEA introduced new nuclear weapons proliferation safeguards under INFCIRC/540 which give the IAEA the authority to assure itself that no undeclared nuclear activities go undetected and unsafeguarded in Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS). The crucial event in harnessing nuclear energy, whether in a nuclear reactor or a nuclear bomb, is the splitting of the atom. Nuclear fission releases tremendous energy - millions of times more than that of a chemical reaction. In fact, the fissioning of atoms in one pound of uranium releases as much energy as the burning of 6 000 barrels of oil or 1 000 tons of coal. It makes it relatively easy to transform nuclear technology meant for peaceful purposes into military use. The nuclear science is thus at the heart of the non-proliferation challenge and that is where the NPT is of utmost significance to the nuclear power debate. Namibia's nuclear ambition could benefit from the IAEA's 'Integrated Assistance Package' provided she meets the set requirements. According to the UNDP Human Development Index, Sweden ranks 5th, Canada 6th, Finland 11th, and South Korea 26th. All these countries operate nuclear power plants, not because they care less about their environments or public health and safety, but based on a meticulous cost and benefit analysis and the possibilities presented by nuclear power. Similarly, countries such as Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Georgia and Nigeria are all countries where nuclear power is under serious consideration. The debate over the future of nuclear power has become increasingly dominated by dedicated advocates and opponents of this source of energy. New improved technologies can help place nuclear power and energy in a realistic perspective in relation to Namibia's broader energy security, and environmental and economic objectives, while also developing further opportunities and options. This article is an adaptation from my master's thesis: The Yellocake Factor: Nuclear Power in the 'Third World', the Case of Namibia AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica. ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region III - 2007-07-008 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nuclear Management Co. on Tuesday, Apr. 3, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for last year at the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located at Welch, Minn. The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at the Prairie Island Training Center Auditorium, 1660 Wakonade Dr. West, in Welch. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. The public may also participate in the meeting through a telephone conference call. For instructions on how to participate, interested persons should contact Bruce Burgess at 630/829-9629. “The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Prairie Island plant and the nation’s other commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities.” A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on thethe NRC website at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/prai_2006q4.pdf. The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Prairie Island plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Prairie Island during 2006 were determined to be “green.” As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year. However, on Sept. 28, 2006, the NRC issued the plant a Notice of Violation for the failure to provide complete and accurate information on two applicants seeking a nuclear operator’s license. The NRC will review the plant’s corrective actions related to this issue in October 2007. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are the operation of the independent spent fuel storage installation; radiological environmental monitoring program; and identification and resolution of problems. Current performance information for [name] is available on the NRC’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PRAI1/prai1_chart.html and > http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PRAI2/prai2_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 Friday, March 30, 2007 ***************************************************************** 21 DAILY YOMIURI: '100 workers present at criticality accident' The No. 2 reactor at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power station went critical in October 1984, as about 100 workers were still within the reactor container during a regular checkup, it was revealed Friday. Ten electric power firms, Japan Atomic Power Co. (JAPC) and Electric Power Development Co. reported to the government Friday of 306 cases of cover-ups of problems and data fabrications at nuclear, thermal and hydro-electric power stations throughout the nation. According to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, the 12 companies reported 97 cases at nuclear power stations, 128 cases at thermal power stations and 81 cases at hydraulic power stations in their reports detailing cases relating to cover-ups of troubles and data fabrication. These cases were discovered and compiled by internal investigations of the firms after the government ordered the 12 firms to conduct such probes. In the Oct 21, 1984, case, the No. 2 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 plant in Okumamachi, Fukushima Prefecture, was activated to go critical to test if devices were functioning normally. Later, control rods were inserted to return the reactor to a state immediately before it reaches criticality. However, due to sudden changes in the temperature within the reactor and other factors, the reactor suddenly went critical again, causing an emergency suspension of operations. As there is a risk of radiation exposure to workers due to an increased emission of neutrons within the reactor container at the time of criticality, workers are banned from entering the container. However, there were around 100 workers at the time of the second criticality. TEPCO explained to the agency that the reactor's operation was stopped within seconds and there was no confirmed radiation exposure to workers, but the company did not report the incident to the government at the time of the incident. The case may violate the Nuclear Reactors Regulation Law, according to government sources. Meanwhile, TEPCO has said in its report that an incident in Nov. 2, 1978, at the No. 3 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 plant was a criticality accident as suspected, after analyzing data of the incident. During a periodic inspection, five control rods at the No. 3 reactor became dislodged and a situation suspected to have been a criticality lasted for about 7-1/2 hours. The night duty staff, including an assistant duty supervisor, did not suspect a criticality accident as they thought control rods could not become dislodged from drive units. It was only when the assistant night duty supervisor was switched to another supervisor in the morning that the criticality was noticed. There have been two other incidents at the Fukushima plant in which control rods have become dislodged. === Other incidents covered up It also was reported to the agency that a problem during a regular inspection of the No. 2 reactor of the Tsuruga nuclear power station, and the accidental dislodging of 34 control rods in the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power station, which were found to have occurred in 1997 and 1998 respectively, had been concealed. JAPC covered up the malfunction of a valve to control air pressure during an airtightness test of the reactor containment vessel at the Tsuruga plant in Fukui Prefecture--subsequently passing a governmental inspection. The government suspects the action might constitute an obstruction of an inspection in violation of the Electric Utility Law. TEPCO failed to report a problem in the No. 4 reactor of the plant in Fukushima Prefecture, in which 34 of 137 control rods were accidentally dislodged. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 22 Calgary Sun: Nukes touted as safe option Heather Douglas Thu, March 29, 2007 Oilsands could benefit By HEATHER DOUGLAS "The number of licorice gumballs you get out of a gumball machine increases in direct proportion to how much you love or hate licorice." -- Anonymous There's a new nuclear game in town, built like a licorice gumball machine that generates electricity, called the pebble bed modular reactor. Its proponents claim it is smaller, cleaner and much safer than any other nuclear plant. Some candy lovers think it would be ideal for Alberta's oilsands operations. Oilsands need lots of steam and some electricity to produce bitumen and synthetic oil. Some producers build their own steam facilities and get power from the grid. Others are looking at nuclear to reduce costs, lower emissions, and ensure reliable electricity. Like licorice, the pebble bed depends on how much you love or hate nuclear. Inside the baby-sized pebble bed reactors are 27,000 billiard-sized graphite balls, each containing a tiny droplet of uranium. Each ball has its very own specially designed fire extinguisher -- the uranium oxide is sealed inside layers of graphite and impermeable silicon carbide -- making the reactor virtually meltdown-proof. Once the uranium is used up, the balls go into lead-lined steel bins until they are no longer radioactive. The reactor's core is bathed in inert helium allowing the balls to merrily ricochet off one another, creating fission reactions. These nuclear bursts create energy in the helium gas. The gas reaches tremendously high temperatures without bursting any pipes and is therefore enormously efficient in generating electricity. The gas is cooled, compressed, and reheated before it recycles back to the gumball machine. Like all good candy machines, these reactors are small enough to be assembled from mass-produced parts and are cheap enough for customers who don't own Swiss bank accounts. Compared to huge conventional reactors, the pebble beds produce about 10 megawatts of power enough electricity for a town of 3,500 people. The big boys are designed to power the world's cities -- like Toronto, Paris, Berlin, and Shanghai -- with 600 to 2000 megawatts in voltage. Conventional reactors use mega-litres of super boiling water (which is intensely corrosive and highly radioactive) to heat the white-hot fuel rods that generate nuclear reactions. They also depend on tonnes and tonnes of concrete -- their version of fire extinguishers -- to contain runaway incidents. The pebble bed reactors are touted as the safest in the world because they have in-built to physics extinguish out-of-control reactions, rather than dependence on operator skill or reinforced concrete. According to Dr. Andrew Kadak, nuclear physicist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the "politically correct nuclear energy plant" must compete with natural gas or coal, be demonstrably safe, have easily disposed waste, and use minimal water. He believes the pebble bed fits the bill nicely. webmaster@calgarysun.com CANOE home | We welcome your feedback. Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 RIA Novosti: Russia, Kazakhstan to cooperate on NPP project 12:46 | 30/ 03/ 2007 ASTANA, March 30 (RIA Novosti) - Russia and Kazakhstan are considering cooperating on a nuclear power plant project, the top Russian nuclear industry official said Friday. Federal Nuclear Power Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko said the facility could be built in the southwestern Kazakh port of Aktau, to get maximum benefit from the surviving infrastructure of an old Soviet-era BN-350 fast breeder reactor. Kiriyenko, who is visiting Kazakhstan as part of a Russian government delegation led by Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov, said a modular reactor employing technology used in nuclear-powered submarines could now be built at the site. The sides have agreed to jointly invest in the new reactor's development, but no schedule for the project has been drawn up yet, he said. Russia, which boasts the world's best-developed uranium conversion and enrichment facilities, regards Kazakhstan, the second largest producer of uranium, as one of its key strategic partners in the nuclear industry, Kiriyenko said. "Kazakhstan and Russia are leaders in the sector, and integration will enable us to enhance our positions on the world market," he said. According to PM Fradkov, Russia and Kazakhstan are also considering setting up joint ventures in the chemical and petrochemical industries. "We have plans to set up chemical and petrochemical enterprises [together]," he said after talks with his Kazakh counterpart, Karim Masimov. The Russian premier said Kazakhstan is seeking to increase the amount of crude pumped via the Atyrau-Samara pipeline to an annual 20-25 million metric tons (147-184 million bbl), from the current 15 million tons (110 million bbl). The Atyrau-Samara line, which is linked to Russia's pipeline system, is one of Kazakhstan's three export pipelines through which Kazakh oil transits Russia en route to world markets. The two others include the Kenkyak-Orsk pipeline, transporting oil to a Russian refinery in Orsk, and CPC, which runs from Kazakhstan's Tengiz oilfield to Russia's Black Sea terminal at the port of Novorossiisk. Fradkov said the two post-Soviet neighbors are set to boost cooperation in high-tech sectors to diversify bilateral trade, which, according to him, grew by over 30% year-on-year to $13 billion in 2006. "But there have been no major changes in the structure of trade, and exports are still dominated by commodities," he said. Fradkov praised the current level of Russian-Kazakh cooperation in the aerospace sector, and said the sides would continue using the Baikonur space center, in southern Kazakhstan, for their joint space programs. "We are implementing collaborative projects such as Baiterek and KazSa... [Baikonur] is a good space center, which should be maintained and developed through joint effort," he said. Baikonur is Russia's main launch pad to space, used for commercial and scientific launches. The country leases the Soviet-era space center, built in the 1950s, under an agreement signed with the Kazakh government in 1994, following the Soviet Union's collapse. A number of bilateral accords in the nuclear industry, space and trade will be signed during the Russian president's scheduled visit to Kazakhstan in May, Fradkov announced. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 24 Engineer Live!: Nuclear reactor 'most advanced in Europe' A new reactor will help maintain skills in nuclear technologies and support research into new designs The 500m Jules Horowitz Reactor (RJH), named after the French reactor physics research pioneer, is a 100MWt light water cooled materials test reactor. It will be sited in southern France and operated by the French Commissariat à l'énergie atomique (CEA), which has supplied 50 per cent of the funding. The balance is coming from Electricité de France, 20 per cent; EU research institutes, 20 per cent; and Areva, 10 per cent. Due to be commissioned in 2014, RJH is scheduled to be a versatile research tool with a lifetime of 50 years. It may be used by nuclear utilities, nuclear steam system suppliers, nuclear fuel fabricators, research organisations and safety authorities. Its primary uses will be research into the performance of nuclear fuel at existing reactors, testing designs for fuel for future reactors and the production of radioisotopes for use in medicine. RJH is designed to be highly versatile - the whole reactor block between coolant inlet and outlet is dismountable and changeable to allow scope for future improvements. Reactor fuel takes the form of cylinders of six concentric curved fuel plates hot-rolled from uranium alloys enriched to up to 20 per cent U-235. 46 cylinders fit in the one-piece aluminium alloy core rack, amounting to a total mass of 21 kg U-235. The dismountable core is partly surrounded by a beryllium reflector. The core rack provides space for two experimental devices, while ten can be simultaneously inserted in the core, in the centres of fuel cylinders. The planned research includes high temperature materials experiments carried out under high neutron flux and at temperatures of up to 1000 deg C. This work will help to qualify materials such as ceramics for use in future nuclear power reactors. Other research includes in-core irradiation tests of materials under stress will help predict their performance; tests on fuels for the very high temperature gas-cooled Generation-IV reactors which could come into use around 2040; and the production of radioisotopes for use in nuclear medicine. Jules Horowitz Reactor make engineerlive.com your home page ***************************************************************** 25 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Monticello Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region III - 2007-009 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nuclear Management Co. on Wednesday, April 4, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for last year at the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located in Monticello, Minn. The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. at the Monticello Training Center, MPR Meeting Room, 2100 W. River St., Monticello. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. The public may also participate in the meeting through a telephone conference call. For instructions on how to participate, interested persons should contact Bruce Burgess at 630/829-9629. “The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Monticello plant and the nation’s other commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities.” A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/mont_2006q4.pdf. The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Monticello plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Monticello during 2006 were determined to be “green.” As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are equipment testing and inspection, emergency preparedness, fire protection, effluent monitoring, and engineering and design control. The agency will also perform a pre-operational inspection of the plant’s spent fuel cask storage facility. Current performance information for Monticello is available on the NRC’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/MONT/mont_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 Friday, March 30, 2007 ***************************************************************** 26 FR NRC: Interim Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability Doc E7-5932 [Federal Register: March 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 61)] [Notices] [Page 15173-15175] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30mr07-123] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an interim revision to an existing guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The revised guide, entitled ``Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs (Inception Through Normal Operations to License Termination)--Effluent Streams and the Environment,'' is identified as Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15. Like its predecessor, this interim revision describes a method that the NRC staff considers acceptable for use in designing and implementing programs to ensure the quality of the results of measurements of radioactive materials in the effluents from, and environment outside of, facilities that process, use, or store radioactive materials during all phases of the facility's life cycle. Quality assurance (QA) is a fundamental expectation of Title 10, ``Energy,'' of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) for items and activities that are relied on to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment. This interim guide serves as a final regulatory guide for, and may be used by applicants and licensees of nuclear power reactors. It also presents draft NRC staff positions on a method for designing and implementing QA programs for use by non-nuclear power reactor applicants and licensees subject to the agency's QA requirements. The NRC staff seeks public comments on this regulatory guide with respect to its application to such licensees. The NRC staff will issue this guide in final form after resolving any comments received during the public comment period. Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15 specifically applies to facilities for which NRC regulations require routine monitoring of radioactive effluents to the environment, and particularly those facilities licensed under the following regulations: 10 CFR Part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities'' 10 CFR Part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants'' 10 CFR Part 61, ``Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste'' 10 CFR Part 72, ``Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste'' 10 CFR Part 76, ``Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants'' The guidance may also apply to other NRC-licensed facilities, for which the agency may impose specific license conditions for effluent or environmental monitoring, as deemed necessary to ensure the health and safety of the public and the environment, including those licensed under the following regulations: 10 CFR Part 30, ``Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material'' 10 CFR Part 40, ``Domestic Licensing of Source Material'' 10 CFR Part 70, ``Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material'' [[Page 15174]] Finally, radiological standards for occupational workers and members of the public are codified in 10 CFR Part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation.'' As used in the context of Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15, QA comprises all those planned and systematic actions that are necessary to provide adequate confidence in the assessment of monitoring results. Quality control (QC) comprises those QA actions that provide a means to measure and control the characteristics of measurement equipment and processes to meet established standards; QA includes QC. Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15 makes no further effort to distinguish those elements that may be considered QC from those composing QA. Quality assurance is necessary to ensure that all radiological and nonradiological measurements that support the radiological monitoring program are reasonably valid and of a defined quality. These programs are needed (1) to identify deficiencies in the sampling and measurement processes and report them to those responsible for these operations so that corrective action can be taken, and (2) to obtain some measure of confidence in the results of the monitoring programs to assure the regulatory agencies and the public that the results are valid. All steps of the monitoring process (for example, sampling, shipment of samples, receipt of samples in the laboratory, preparation of samples, radiological measurements, data reduction, data evaluation, and reporting of the measurement and monitoring results) should involve QA. Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15 presents more complete and extensive guidance on QA for facilities where radiological effluent or environmental monitoring is required by NRC regulations.\1\ However, this guidance does not address all topics and elements that a facility's QA program may require (such as requirements of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 for nuclear power plants or 10 CFR 76.93 for gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facilities). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ While not specific to QA, the following regulatory guides also address measurements of radioactive materials in effluents and the environment: Regulatory Guide 1.21, ``Measuring, Evaluating, and Reporting Radioactivity in Solid Wastes and Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants.'' Regulatory Guide 4.1, ``Programs for Monitoring Radioactivity in the Environs of Nuclear Power Plants.'' Regulatory Guide 4.14, ``Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills.'' Regulatory Guide 4.16, ``Monitoring and Reporting Radioactivity in Releases of Radioactive Materials in Liquid and Gaseous Effluents from Nuclear Fuel Processing and Fabrication Plants and Uranium Hexafluoride Production Plants.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, although Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15 offers significant improvements in programmatic and technical guidance for QA and QC for radioactive effluent and environmental monitoring, it does not impose any new or additional requirements. Rather, this interim revision incorporates updated scientific and regulatory concepts concerning radioanalytical QA, which the NRC and industry have previously published not as requirements, but as good practices. Licensees may continue to use Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 4.15, dated February 1979, if they so choose. Consequently, no backfit, as defined in 10 CFR 50.109, ``Backfitting,'' is either intended or implied. The NRC previously solicited public comment on Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15 by issuing Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4010 in November 2006. The public comment period closed on December 17, 2006, and the staff has appropriately addressed all comments received. The staff's responses to all stakeholder comments received are available in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, under Accession ML070380010. However, at the time of issuance, the NRC erroneously described Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4010 as applicable only to nuclear power reactor applicants and licensees. The NRC staff intended that this regulatory guide apply to all applicants and licensees subject to the agency's QA requirements. Accordingly, the NRC is now issuing Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15 as an interim regulatory guide, which is applicable only to nuclear power reactor applicants and licensees. The NRC staff is also soliciting comments on this interim guide with respect to its application to non-nuclear power reactor applicants and licensees subject to the agency's QA requirements. The NRC staff will issue this guide in final form after resolving any comments received during the public comment period. Comments on this interim revision may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. Please mention Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15 in the subject line of your comments. Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available to the public in their entirety through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). Personal information will not be removed from your comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Mail comments to: Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E-mail comments to: NRCREP@nrc.gov. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol A. Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov. Hand-deliver comments to: Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to: Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415- 5144. Requests for technical information about Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15 may be directed to Dr. George E. Powers, at (301) 415-6212 or GEP@nrc.gov. Comments would be most helpful if received by May 29, 2007. Comments received after that date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. Although a time limit is given, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time. Regulatory guides are available for inspection or downloading through the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/. In addition, Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15 is available for inspection or downloading through ADAMS at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html, under Accession ML070380006. Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15 and other related publicly available documents, including public comments received, can also be viewed electronically on computers in the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR's reproduction contractor will make copies of documents for a fee. The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, [[Page 15175]] Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 415-3548, and by e- mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Please note that the NRC does not intend to distribute printed copies of Interim Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 4.15, unless specifically requested on an individual basis with adequate justification. Such requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of March 2007. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brian W. Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E7-5932 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 FR NRC: General Electric Company--Vallecitos Nuclear Center: Notice of Consideration of Approval of Transfer of Special Nuclear Material License and Conforming Amendment and Opportunity for Hearing Doc E7-5937 [Federal Register: March 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 61)] [Notices] [Page 15171-15172] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30mr07-119] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 70-754] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of consideration of approval of transfer of special nuclear material license and conforming amendment and opportunity for hearing. DATES: Requests for a hearing must be filed by April 19, 2007. Comments must be provided by April 30, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary T. Adams, Senior Project Manager, Fuel Manufacturing Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-7249; fax number: (301) 415-5955; e-mail: mta@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering approval of an application (the application) from General Electric Company (GE), submitted on January 19, 2007, for consent to direct transfer of Special Nuclear Material License-960 (SNM-960), currently held by GE to GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC. The application was supplemented by letters dated January 25, 2007, February 23, 2007, and March 2, 2007. The Commission is also considering amending the license for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer. Renewed License No. SNM-960 was issued on September 14, 2000, to GE under 10 CFR Part 70, and authorizes GE to possess and use specified licensed material at the Vallecitos Nuclear Center located near Pleasanton, California. According to the application for approval, and supplements filed by GE, 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 operation and maintenance of the 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. GE, through various subsidiaries, will hold a 60% ownership interest. The proposed amendment would replace references to GE in the license with references to GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas, LLC., to reflect the proposed transfer. Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.36, no right to possess or utilize special nuclear material granted by any license, issued pursuant to the regulations in Part 70 shall be transferred, assigned or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of any license, to any person, unless the Commission shall, after securing full information, find that the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and shall give its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the 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. An Environmental Assessment (EA) will not be performed because this action is categorically excluded from the requirement to perform an EA pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(21). Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations. II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing In accordance with the general requirements in Subparts C and M of 10 CFR Part 2, any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding, and who desires to participate as a party, must file a written request for a hearing and a specification of the contentions which the person seeks to have litigated in the hearing. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(b)(1), to be timely, hearing requests and petitions to intervene must be filed no later than April 19, 2007. 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 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; e-mail: dsilverman@morganlewis.com; fax: 202-739-3001); 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 [[Page 15172]] Register and served on the parties to the hearing. III. Opportunity To Provide Written Comments In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1305, as an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, comments with respect to this action should be provided in writing by April 30, 2007. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, 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. IV. Further Information For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated January 19, 2007, and supplements dated; February 23, 2007, and March 2, 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 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/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 via e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 23rd day of March 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Gary S. Janosko, Deputy Director, Fuel Facility Licensing Directorate, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E7-5937 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 globeandmail.com: A radioactive asset R.O.B. Magazine Posted AT 2:00 AM EDT ON 30/03/07 The nuclear industry is back. Too bad AECL's Maple mini-reactors are years behind schedule ERIC REGULY This is the moment Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has been waiting for. After a two-decade slump in North American demand following the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl disasters, the nuclear industry is poised for growth. The Crown corporation's huge Candu reactors have a proven track record, and the phrase "on time, on budget" is splattered across AECL's promotional literature. The company has delivered six Candus to customers in Romania, China and elsewhere in the past 11 years, all built on or ahead of schedule, and on or under budget?an amazing feat in an industry with a gruesome history of cost overruns. AECL boasts the "strongest project management delivery capability of any nuclear vendor in the world." Too bad the claim isn't entirely true. AECL has also developed Maple mini-reactors, which are about the size of an office chair and make isotopes for medical imaging, diagnosis and radiation therapy.This looked like a very promising market in the 1990s, but you don't hear much about the wee Maples these days?and for good reason. They don't work, or at least they don't work well yet. In 2005, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission renewed the operating licence of the Maples, but said they came in "below requirements" in three areas?operating performance, quality assurance and environmental protection. In a report published last year, the commission said the first two Maples, which were completed by 2000, had a flaw that "has an undesirable impact on safety." The result is a project that is late and over budget. Worse, it may jeopardize Canada's global dominance of the isotope industry. The Maple reactors were built at AECL's Chalk River laboratories, near Ottawa. They were designed to make isotopes for MDS Nordion, a unit of Toronto-based MDS Inc. Nordion was spun off from AECL in 1988, and bought by MDS in 1991. It's the world's largest supplier of molybdenum-99, a parent isotope of technetium-99, which is used to image the brain, heart, lungs and other organs. Other isotopes include xenon-133, used in lung scans and brain blood-flow studies. MDS says the global isotope industry generates revenues of about $3.5 billion (U.S.) a year, and it is growing at an annual rate of 5% to 7%. Yet the two existing Maples have yet to come into commercial operation. MDS is still relying primarily on AECL's 50-year-old NRU (National Research Universal) reactor in Chalk River to provide the isotopes. The old geezer was supposed to be decommissioned in 2005, but now won't be allowed to retire until at least 2011. The Maple reactors don't use Candu technology. They use low-enriched uranium; Candus use natural uranium. In 1996, MDS agreed to buy two Maples for $140 million, much of that an interest-free loan from Ottawa. They were supposed to enter commercial service in 2001. They didn't. (Curiously, a South Korean reactor based on the Maple design is operating well.) A few years later, MDS got fed up with the costs and entered mediation with AECL. In a settlement announced last year, MDS handed the reactors back to AECL. In exchange, AECL gave MDS $68 million in cash and promissory notes, and a 40-year isotope supply agreement worth $344 million. Up to that point, MDS had spent about $393 million on the reactors. AECL is now fully responsible for their cost. What went wrong? As the Maples were powered up, the rate of the nuclear reaction in the core increased to slightly beyond the desired levels. But Klaus Wittann, the Maples' project director, says he has "no lack of confidence" that the first Maple will be operating by late 2008, with the second opening for business a year later. Perhaps, but AECL has miscalculated the start-up dates in the past. It looks as if the Maples will get fixed?one nuclear expert says the flaws are "not fatal" to the design?but when and at what price? AECL's "on time, on budget" reputation has certainly been hurt. That can't help with Candu sales either. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that 28 nuclear reactors are under construction worldwide, and dozens more are contemplated as an alternative to greenhouse-gas-emitting natural gas and coal-fired electricity plants. It's worse when you consider that the Maple, warts and all, is AECL's baby. The company can't blame foreign contractors, equipment suppliers or non-AECL engineers and scientists for flaws. If the Maples are delayed again, or if MDS has to go outside Canada to get its isotopes, AECL's ambition to ride the nuclear renaissance in both medical isotope reactors and Candus will surely take a hit. © Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON  Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Duane Arnold Energy Center News Release - Region III - 2007-07-010 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Florida Power and Light on Thursday, April 5, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for last year at the Duane Arnold Energy Center. The plant is located at Palo, Iowa. The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. at the Palo Community Center, 1006 First Street, Palo. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. The public may also participate in the meeting through a telephone conference call. For instructions on how to participate, interested persons should contact Bruce Burgess at 630/829-9629. “The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Duane Arnold plant and the nation’s other commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities.” A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/duan_2006q4.pdf. The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Duane Arnold plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Duane Arnold during 2006 were determined to be “green.” As a result of this performance, the NRC plans to conduct the normal, baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year. However, the NRC is in the process of reviewing a preliminary “white” inspection finding in the area of emergency preparedness. The NRC’s final determination of the safety significance of this finding may result in additional inspections. On May 1, 2006, the NRC issued two notices of violation to the plant for willful violations of plant procedures. The utility has taken sufficient corrective action to address these problems. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are radioactive material processing and transportation; operation of an independent spent fuel storage installation; and access control to radiologically significant areas. Current performance information for Duane Arnold is available on the NRC’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/DUAN/duan_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 Friday, March 30, 2007 ***************************************************************** 30 UPI: Russia, Kazakhstan plan nuke plant United Press International - NewsTrack - Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 10:57 AM (UPI) -- Russia and Kazakhstan may build a nuclear power plant together in the Kazakh port of Aktau, a Russian official said Friday. The two countries are well-suited for such a partnership because Russia has highly developed uranium enrichment facilities and Kazakhstan is the world's second-largest producer of uranium, Russian Federal Nuclear Power Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko told RIA Novosti. "Kazakhstan and Russia are leaders in the sector and integration will enable us to enhance our positions on the world market," Kiriyenko said. The two countries agreed to work on developing a plant but no timetable for building one has been decided. The Russian nuclear official was in Kazakhstan with a delegation headed by Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov. Fradkov said the two countries talked about joint chemical and petrochemical ventures, RIA Novosti reported. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 Japan Times: Tepco owns up to past nuclear plant accidents japantimes.co.jp Web Saturday, March 31, 2007 Kyodo News Tokyo Electric Power Co. said Friday that it had concealed an emergency shutdown of a reactor at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in 1984. The utility also reported to the government that a criticality accident occurred in a separate reactor at the plant in 1978, changing its earlier claim that such an accident was "likely to have happened." Tepco is the second power company in recent days to acknowledge the occurrence of a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. Hokuriku Electric Power Co. did so on March 15. Along with Tepco, 11 other power companies also reported to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, an arm of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, all the irregularities they have found in their probes since November under an order by Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari. According to a report by Tokyo Electric, the No. 2 reactor of the utility's Fukushima Daiichi plant shut down in 1984 when a buildup of neutrons in the reactor was discovered as workers were preparing to start it. Tokyo Electric claimed there were no injuries to workers or damage to the surrounding environment. The utility said it deliberately chose not to report the incident to the nuclear safety watchdog. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 32 Vermont Guardian: Initial safety report gives Vermont Yankee OK By Shay Totten | Vermont Guardian Posted March 30, 2007 BRATTLEBORO — Federal officials issued a preliminary 720-page safety report regarding Vermont Yankee’s license renewal late Friday afternoon, finding nothing that would slow its path toward operating for another 20 years. Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) said there are six “confirmatory items” that still need to be resolved, mostly with how cooling and service water systems are designed around the aging plant, and to new seismic data. “Confirmatory items are specific issues on which the NRC staff and the company have agreed to a resolution. However, the NRC staff is waiting for correspondence to be submitted or inspections to be conducted before it can make a final decision,” said Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman. The next step for the Vermont Yankee application will be a presentation of the NRC staff's safety evaluation to the agency's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ACRS on June 5, NRC officials said. Vermont Yankee officials were not available for comment. A leading opponent of the renewal, the New England Coalition, promised to go over the report with a fine-toothed comb in the coming days. The group has 30 days to file any further contentions based on new items raised in the safety report. “We will be combing through this in the limited window we are allowed to see if we think there are issues that emerge and if they are issues that can survive the extremely high hurdles set by the NRC for new contentions,” said Ray Shadis, a technical advisor to the group. Any new contentions would have to be approved by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, said Diane Screnci, an NRC spokeswoman. Shadis said the “confirmatory items” are important on the whole, however, and should not be seen as minor concerns. “The analyses of seismic activity in New England has changed since it was licensed back in 1971,” Shadis added. “The cooling water and service water system in its entirety needs to be reconciled with its aging plant structure and with the current seismic methodology.” NRC reviews focus on two areas: A safety review that examines the program the company has in place to deal with the aging of key plant safety systems, structures and components, and a review of any possible environmental impacts that might result from another 20 years of plant operation, NRC officials said. To date, the NRC has spent roughly 10,500 hours on reviews, on-site audits and direct inspection of the safety aspects of VY’s application and about 3,500 hours on the environmental assessment. The NRC has also issued 88 formal requests for additional information to Entergy regarding the application, NRC officials said. This week, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, proposed a bill that would require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct an independent safety assessment when utilities apply to extend licenses for aging plants. The special study could be undertaken at the request of the governor of a state where a plant is located, or by the governor of a neighboring state affected by a plant's operation. State utility regulators also could seek an independent review. Safety reviews also could be requested when electric companies propose to generate more power than a reactor was originally designed to produce. Also under the legislation, a history of safety problems that put the public at risk could trigger a review. The independent review teams would be made up of NRC inspectors from outside the regional office responsible for the day-to-day scrutiny of a particular plant. The independent inspectors also would include outside experts and representatives appointed by a governor who requested a review or the state utility commission that sought the review. Also this week, dozens of Vermonters walked across a large portion of the state in an effort to raise awareness about why it’s important to not allow VY to be relicensed. The state Legislature will also weigh in on the issue, but not likely until next session. The NRC hopes to have a complete safety report, and an environmental assessment, completed later this year with a final decision issued next year. Friday, Mar. 30, 2007 Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 603, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free) ©2007 Vermont Guardian | Vermont web design, development and hosting byVermont Design Works Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com This document can be located online: www.vermontguardian.com/local/032007/NRCReport.shtml ***************************************************************** 33 USATODAY.com: Nuclear power has too many negatives - Opinion - Alden Meyer, Union of Concerned Scientists - Washington USA TODAY's article "Some rethinking nuke opposition" correctly reported that the Union of Concerned Scientists is "willing to consider nuclear power as part of a long-term solution to global warming" (News, March 23). Nonetheless, our position — which is not new — includes some major caveats that the article glosses over. (Photo -- Three Mile Island: Partial meltdown in 1979 in Pennsylvania scared the public, though it caused no deaths or injuries. / File photo by Paul Vathis, AP) Yes, the United States should be re-examining all low- and zero-carbon energy options, but expanding U.S. nuclear power capacity anytime soon will present the same serious liabilities that the Union of Concerned Scientists has been pointing out for years: *Building nuclear power plants is not cost effective. *There still is no viable solution for storing highly radioactive nuclear waste. *The federal government's enforcement of safety regulations is negligent. *Reactor sites and spent fuel pools are potential targets for nuclear terrorism and sabotage. *Reprocessing used nuclear fuel (as proposed by the Bush administration) is extremely dangerous, increases the amount of bomb-usable plutonium, creates additional terrorist targets and encourages nuclear proliferation. Nuclear power is not the solution to global warming. There are faster, safer and cheaper ways to meet our energy needs, including renewable energy sources and cogeneration technologies, which combine heat and power. Nuclear 'renaissance' Gilbert J. Brown, Ph.D., Professor and Coordinator, Nuclear Engineering Program - University of Massachusetts-Lowell Seems that the "No Nukes" mantra of many environmentalists is being challenged by global warming and other environmental concerns. While some are still wringing their hands over voicing lukewarm support for nuclear power, a dozen utilities are in various stages of planning for the construction of more than 30 nuclear plants. Regardless of where you stand on climate change, coal — which accounts for 50% of our electricity — emits carbon dioxide, harmful particles and sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Today, 20% of the USA's electricity is produced with safe, reliable and economical nuclear plants. The more we learn about nuclear energy, the easier it is to see why we are poised for a nuclear renaissance in the USA. Perhaps the new mantra should be "Know Nukes." Why not solar power? Gerry Wolff, Coordinator of Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation-UK - Menai Bridge, United Kingdom There is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the USA because there is a simple, mature technology that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power. It's called concentrating solar power (CSP) — the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat that is used to raise steam to drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is even possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity can be generated at night or on cloudy days. CSP technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985, and a half-million Californians use it. Furthermore, CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world. CSP technology works best in hot deserts. But countries without deserts can still enjoy the benefits of CSP because solar electricity can be transmitted over very long distances. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the southwestern states of the USA "could provide nearly 7,000 Giga-Watts of capacity, or about seven times the current total U.S. electric capacity." In the "Trans-Mediterranean Interconnection for Concentrating Solar Power," a report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. USA needs to keep up Lorry Wagner - Solon, Ohio The public's acceptance of nuclear energy is not confined to the USA. Europe is experiencing the same reality-driven changes. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been trying to retain nuclear power plants that are being phased out and wants to construct more. During a recent visit to Finland, a very environmentally conscious country, I was amazed to see one of the world's largest nuclear plants on the island of Olkiluoto. England also is considering another wave of new nuclear power plants. About 31% of Europe's power is generated by nuclear power plants. Parts of the developing world, in particular the Pacific Rim countries, are boldly constructing and planning a large numbers of plants. The U.S. environmentalists lobbying against nuclear power need to accept this technology as one of many alternatives to our future energy crisis. The rest of the world has come to this conclusion, and we need to keep up. Posted at 12:10 AM/ET, March 30, 2007 in Energy - Letters, Environment - Letters, Ethics - Letters, Letter to the editor, Politics, Government - Letters | Permalink ***************************************************************** 34 Reuters: S.Africa shuts down a unit at nuclear power plant Fri 30 Mar 2007, 5:23 GMT JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South Africa's state power utility Eskom said it shut down one unit at its Koeberg nuclear plant on Thursday to check for potential damage, but it should still be able to meet the country's electricity needs. "We took the decision at 4 p.m. this afternoon (1400 GMT) to shut down the unit," spokesman Fani Zulu said. "We can meet the demand with only one unit, however, the system becomes tight." The unit 2 was shut down after a contractor came into contact with one of the lines that connect the unit with the transmission system. It was unclear whether any damage had occured, but the unit was closed as a precautionary measure. Neither the nuclear reactor nor the turbine were affected. Previously, when one or the other of Koeberg's units have been shut down for routine maintenance, Eskom has been able to meet South Africa's electricity needs, Zulu said. But without one of the units, electricity supplies move into a delicate area where any other unexpected incident could cause problems. Eskom called on consumers to conserve electricity during the peak usage period on Thursday night, it added in a statement. Several years of strong economic growth have boosted electricity demand in Africa's biggest economy, but this has not been matched by rising power supplies and building of new plants. In January, factories, mines and homes lost electricity in a wave of blackouts without warning, after several power shortages last year. © Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved. | Learn more about Reuters ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Fermi Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region III - 2007-011 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Detroit Edison Co. on Thursday, Apr. 5, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for last year at the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located near Newport, Mich. The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p. m. at the Monroe County Board of Commissioners’ Chambers, County Courthouse, 125 E. Second Street, in Monroe, Mich. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. “The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Fermi plant and the nation’s other commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities.” A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/ferm_2006q4.pdf. The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Fermi plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Fermi during 2006 were determined to be “green.” As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are maintenance effectiveness; identification and resolution of problems; and access control to radiologically significant areas. Current performance information for Fermi is available on the NRC’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FERM2/ferm2_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 Friday, March 30, 2007 ***************************************************************** 36 FR NRC: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Call for Nominations Doc E7-5918 [Federal Register: March 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 61)] [Notices] [Page 15172-15173] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30mr07-121] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Call for Nominations. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is advertising for nominations for the position of nuclear pharmacist on the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI). DATES: Nominations are due on or before May 29, 2007. Nomination Process: Submit an electronic copy of resume or curriculum vitae to Ms. Ashley M. Tull, amt1@nrc.gov. Please ensure that resume or curriculum vitae includes the following information, if applicable: education, certification; professional association membership and committee membership activities; duties and responsibilities in current and previous clinical, research, and/or academic position(s), including traditional nuclear medicine, preparing and dispensing radiopharmaceuticals, and shipping and receiving radioactive material. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley M. Tull, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, Mail Stop T8-F3, Washington, DC 20555; (301) 415-5294; amt1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ACMUI advises NRC on policy and technical issues that arise in the regulation of the medical use of byproduct material. Responsibilities include providing comments on changes to NRC rules, regulations, and guidance documents; evaluating certain non-routine uses of byproduct material; providing technical assistance in licensing, inspection, and enforcement cases; and bringing key issues to the attention of NRC for appropriate action. ACMUI members possess the medical and technical skills needed to address evolving issues. The current membership is comprised of the following professionals: (a) Nuclear [[Page 15173]] medicine physician; (b) nuclear cardiologist; (c) medical physicist in nuclear medicine unsealed byproduct material; (d) therapy medical physicist; (e) radiation safety officer; (f) nuclear pharmacist; (g) two radiation oncologists; (h) patients' rights advocate; (i) Food and Drug Administration representative; (j) State representative; and (k) health care administrator. NRC is inviting nominations for the nuclear pharmacist appointment to the ACMUI. The term of the individual currently occupying this position will end September 2008. Committee members currently serve a four-year term and may be considered for reappointment to an additional term. Nominees must be U.S. citizens and be able to devote approximately 160 hours per year to Committee business. Members who are not Federal employees are compensated for their service. In addition, non-Federal members are reimbursed travel, secretarial and correspondence expenses. Full-time Federal employees are reimbursed travel expenses only. Security Background Check: The selected nominee will undergo a thorough security background check. Security paperwork may take the nominee several weeks to complete. Nominees will also be required to complete a financial disclosure statement to avoid conflicts of interest. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of March 2007. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-5918 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 NRC: NRC Invites Nominations for Advisory Committee on Medical Use of Isotopes News Release - 2007-040 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking nominations for the position of nuclear pharmacist on the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI). The term of the individual currently occupying this position will end September 2008. Committee members currently serve a four-year term and may be considered for reappointment to an additional term. The ACMUI advises NRC on policy and technical issues that arise in the regulation of the medical use of radioactive materials. Responsibilities include providing comments on changes to NRC rules, regulations, and guidance documents; evaluating certain non-routine uses of radioactive material; providing technical assistance in licensing, inspection, and enforcement cases; and bringing key issues to the attention of NRC for appropriate action. ACMUI members possess the medical and technical skills needed to address evolving issues. The current membership is comprised of the following professionals: nuclear medicine physician; nuclear cardiologist; medical physicist in nuclear medicine [unsealed byproduct material]; therapy medical physicist; radiation safety officer; nuclear pharmacist; two radiation oncologists; patients' rights advocate; Food and Drug Administration representative; state representative; and health care administrator. Nominees must be U.S. citizens and be able to devote approximately 160 hours per year to Committee business. Members who are not federal employees are compensated for their service. In addition, non-federal members are reimbursed for travel, secretarial and correspondence expenses. Full-time federal employees are reimbursed for travel expenses only. The selected nominee will undergo a thorough security background check. Security paperwork may take the nominee several weeks to complete. Nominees will also be required to complete a financial disclosure statement to avoid conflicts of interest. Interested candidates should submit an electronic copy of their resume or curriculum vitae to Ashley M. Tull, amt1@nrc.gov. Please ensure that the resume or curriculum vitae includes the following information, if applicable: education; certification; professional association membership and committee membership activities; and duties and responsibilities in current and previous clinical, research, and/or academic position(s), including traditional nuclear medicine, preparing and dispensing radiopharmaceuticals, and shipping and receiving radioactive material. 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 Friday, March 30, 2007 ***************************************************************** 38 SL Trib: Diablo Canyon: SLO group wants less used fuel in pools San Luis Obispo Tribune | 03/30/2007 | ?By David Sneed dsneed@thetribunenews.com A San Luis Obispo group is one of three urging federal regulators to require that Diablo Canyon and other nuclear power plants reduce the number of fuel assemblies in their spent fuel pools as a safety measure. The commission has shown no sign of adopting such a rule, though. Diablo Canyon plant managers have no plans to do so voluntarily but have not ruled it out in the future, said plant spokeswoman Sharon Gavin. "We?d be willing to revisit it once some of the fuel has been removed from the pools," she said. In a March 26 letter, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace nuclear watchdog group and advocacy groups the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Citizen urge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to change its security rules to require that plants return their spent fuel pools to their original, low-density configuration. Such a step would greatly reduce the likelihood of the spent fuel assemblies in the pools catching fire and spewing radioactive steam and smoke into the environment, Mothers for Peace president Liz Apfelberg said in the letter. "This measure would be an essential element of any rational strategy for providing defense in depth of nuclear power plant and its spent fuel," she said. Nuclear utilities argue that the likelihood of the water draining out of the pools in the event of an accident or terrorist attack is so low that it does not justify the millions of dollars per plant it would cost to reconfigure the pools. Used but still highly radioactive reactor fuel must cool off in pools for five years after removal from the reactor. Originally, the pools were intended to hold a relatively small number of fuel rods. The failure of the federal government to open a centralized storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nev., has caused the density of the fuel pools to increase to five times their original configuration. Early in 2008, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. will begin loading spent fuel in dry casks for storage above ground. But the utility plans to remove only enough old fuel assemblies to make room for those new assemblies scheduled for removal from the reactors. The topic of how to store highly radioactive spent fuel will not go away anytime soon. This week, the head of the Yucca Mountain project said the storage facility will likely open in 2020 or later. At the same time, the trend of all nuclear plants applying to renew their operating licenses for 20 more years will continue unabated, NRC Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield said in a speech this month. "Today, we have renewed the licenses of close to 50 reactors," he said, "and absent some unforeseen circumstance, it appears that within a handful of years all 104 will either be allowed to continue to operate for 60 years or be in various stages of review." Diablo Canyon?s licenses will expire in 2024 and 2025. The utility plans to study whether to renew the plant?s licenses. State utility regulators have given PG&E until June 2011 to make its decision. ***************************************************************** 39 Salt Lake Tribune: EnergySolutions goes public, seeks $500 million for debts, growth EnergySolutions Company hopes selling $500M in shares will help it pay debts and finance growth Article Last Updated: 03/30/2007 02:55:24 PM MDT Utah-grown EnergySolutions officially began looking outside the state's borders Thursday for money to help pay off its debts and continue growing. The company filed papers with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to issue $500 million in stock. It also said in the initial filing that the company plans to use the money to help pay off money owed to employees and to repay outstanding debt of more than $764 million. Under federal securities law, the company was not free to comment on its move, which has been one of the state's worst-kept secrets for months. "Any information you communicate has to be public," said Val John Christensen, the company's executive vice president, general counsel and secretary. "Everybody has to get the same information at the same time." But other Utahns welcomed the news and its promise of shedding new light on a company that's financial and business dealings have been off-limits to the public since it was established 19 years ago. Utah Senate Majority Leader Curtis Bramble said he sees the move as being good for the state. "They are a company that is dealing with a national problem [of nuclear waste disposal] in an environmentally responsible way," said the Provo Republican, one of the co-chairmen of a two-year legislative task force that reviewed the state's waste industry. Dianne Nielson, director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, noted that the company's decision to go public will have no impact on how her agency oversees operations at the EnergySolutions disposal site about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. But the fact that the company will be required to provide extensive financial, legal and other information to potential investors also will mean more useful information for the state. "It may make some information easier to access or easier to check," she said. Oversight of the company, which operates a mile-square radioactive and hazardous waste disposal site in Tooele County, has evolved dramatically since Iranian immigrant and entrepreneur Khosrow Semnani bought a patch of state land surrounding the federal government's Vitro tailings pile for $339,000 and began operating the nation's only privately owned and operated site of its kind. In the 19 years since it took its first government cleanup waste, the company then known as Envirocare of Utah persuaded state regulators to amend its license more than 80 times so that it could accept more kinds and greater volumes of radiation-tainted waste. In 2005, the disposal site had a record year, taking all but 2 percent of the nation's low-level radioactive waste - more than 128 million cubic feet, according to reports filed with the state Division of Radiation Control. Earlier that year, Semnani sold the company to Steve Creamer, the New York investment firm Lindsay Goldberg & Bessmer, and a Salt Lake City-based investment company, Peterson Partners. The company undertook an image makeover last year, renaming itself EnergySolutions and buying three other companies in the nuclear cleanup industry - Duratek, BNG America and D&D Scientech. With the purchases, the company acquired about 3,000 employees and key government contracts, such as part of the $2 billion cleanup of the government's Hanford, Wash., atomic weapons site, and the British technology for reactor fuel recycling. Additionally, the company embarked on a splashy marketing and advertising campaign that included acquiring the name rights to the sports arena that houses the NBA's Utah Jazz. In the papers filed with the SEC, EnergySolutions says it owes $764.2 million, a debt that has crimped the company's ability to incur additional debt, make investments, sell assets and perform other basic business functions. "We intend to use the net proceeds from the shares that we sell in this offering to pay amounts owing under existing employment agreements," the SEC disclosure says, "and to repay outstanding debts, with the remainder, if any, being used for general corporate purposes." The papers also underscore the importance of the Utah landfill to the company's financial well-being. They note that last year, the site accounted for 44 percent of the company's revenues, or about $188 million. Meanwhile, the company saw its revenues decline dramatically between 2005 and 2006, from $138.1 million to 34.4 million, or about 76 percent. SEC papers also indicate that Creamer will receive a one-time cash payment of $2.3 million and Chief Financial Officer Chip Everest will receive a payment of $2 million if the initial public offering takes place by the year's end. The two were compensated $8.2 million and $5.2 million, respectively, in 2006, the papers say. - Tribune reporter Steve Oberbeck contributed to this story fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 40 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Residents receive optimistic update on GNEP project By Kyle Marksteiner Article Launched: 03/29/2007 09:18:52 PM MDT CARLSBAD ? "Everything is going well" was the overall message as representatives of the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance met with about 100 Carlsbad residents Wednesday to provide an update on the area's involvement in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The alliance, a limited liability partnership involving the two counties, and the cities of Carlsbad and Hobbs, has offered a site between the two cities as one of 11 potential locations for a nuclear fuel reprocessing center and an advanced burner reactor. The alliance received $1.59 million in Department of Energy funds and is currently conducting a 90-day suitability study for the proposed site. Public participation meetings are considered a part of the study. Wednesday's meeting included an update on the site study process and offered more information on the corporate partners ? who are assisting with the site study and would ultimately assist with the project, were the alliance's location selected. Many of the elected officials who spoke Wednesday praised local leaders for working with Hobbs on the project. "This thing is big enough for both of us," Carlsbad Mayor Bob Forrest said. "We need to get young people back home where they will have a chance to get a good job." Janell Whitlock, chair of the Eddy County Commission, noted that the two counties and two cities haven't always agreed about everything. In fact, she said, they had to flip a coin to decide which county's name went first. "But we feel this is the best location and best team to make GNEP a reality," she said, noting that the project is important to the entire nation. Forrest and Whitlock spoke as board members of the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance. The presentation also included speakers from the alliance's corporate sponsors ? Washington Group International and Areva. Bob Kehrman, representing Washington Group International, outlined the history of his company. "Work is progressing well (at the alliance's site)," he noted. "We'll meet the May 1 deadline. It's an excellent site, and there are no surprises." Representing Areva, Sunita Kumar provided some background on the France-based business partner. Areva's affiliates have been involved with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and the uranium enrichment facility near Eunice, she said. "I've not seen a community so dedicated and interested in wanting to do something to bring new projects to the area," she said. She said Areva brings expertise in advanced reactors and waste treatment technologies to the area. Areva's presentation also featured a video, with techno music playing in the background, describing the company. Another Areva video, also with techno music, described a project in France similar to the proposed reprocessing center. Mark Turnbough, the alliance's principal investigator, spoke about the technical parameters of GNEP. He also discussed what the alliance's findings have been, so far, in terms of its potential ability to meet the infrastructure needs of GNEP. Turnbough said his job is to find places to put things. "Occasionally, you find the perfect combination of site suitability and community support," he said. Turnbough said the GNEP processes transformed and updated national energy policy. "Instead of throwing everything away, we're going to start looking for ways to reprocess fuel," he said. He likened being the principal investigator with the alliance to being the hood ornament of a very sophisticated system. The process, nationally and locally, has been effective so far, he said. Bringing private industry into the mix has quickened the pace, he noted, and members of the Energy Department have already reportedly been impressed with the support and knowledge expressed in Carlsbad and Hobbs. The alliance prepared a midterm status report on the study last week, he said. The 695-acre site is compliant with all of the Energy Department's specifications. "It is also free from any complexities that could cause problems," he said, noting that the area is geologically stable and has not been designated a critical habitat for endangered species. Everything has indicated that the site should be selected for further study, Turnbough said. The study has also considered weather patterns, population density, railroad, flooding issues, seismology, cultural demographics, water availability and habitat issues. "We've shown them the results of our efforts so far," he said. "The bottom line is the site is suitable and it has adequate infrastructure." Three state elected officials were the first to speak at Wednesday's public comment session. Twenty-two individuals spoke Wednesday, and all were in favor of bringing GNEP facilities to the area. Sen. Carroll Leavell, R-Jal, said joining the assets of Carlsbad, Hobbs, Lea County, Eddy County and the two business partners together was a wise move. "It is a tremendous group of assets to bring together," he said. Rep. John Heaton, D-Carlsbad, noted the project's importance from a global perspective. The project's ultimate goal is to provide access to nuclear energy to other nations in a way where the materials cannot be used to form nuclear weapons. The United States, Heaton said, also needs to reduce its reliance on foreign countries for oil. Alternate energies are wonderful, Heaton said, "but we simply can't get there without going to nuclear power." A society that recycles aluminum cans and newspapers should also look for other ways to recycle, Heaton concluded. Sen. Vernon Asbill, R-Carlsbad, joined Leavell in noting the importance of including Hobbs and Carlsbad. "As we look into the future, we should hook our shooting star into the nuclear industry," Asbill said. "I think we're going to be the shining star for all America." Scientist Roger Nelson noted that Wednesday was the anniversary of the Three Mile Island incident. The incident, he noted, significantly changed the nation's perception of nuclear energy, but resulted in no deaths and no harm. "The damages were all consequences of a reaction to what happened, not to what happened itself," he said. Nelson said he was pleased to see the United States pulling out of the nuclear lull caused by the Three Mile Island incident. Several residents talked about wanting to see GNEP develop so their children and grandchildren could find good careers in the Carlsbad area in future years. "There is no more comfortable place for this process to be located than in the arms of Eddy and Lea counties," Carlsbad Fire Chief Mike Reynolds concluded. The site reports are scheduled to be submitted to the Energy Department by May 1. A public scoping period for a GNEP environmental impact statement, where comments can be made by mail or e-mail, ends April 4. A number of environmental groups around the country, including New Mexico's Southwest Research and Information Center, and Carlsbad resident Gene Harbaugh, recently sent a letter to the energy department asking for the scoping period to be extended by 60 days. The comment period, the groups wrote, should be extended to allow "the public, states, tribes and other government agencies reasonable opportunity to scrutinize" the site reports after they are prepared. Presently, the groups argued, having the comment period due date before the site studies are completed "could unnecessarily constrain the public's and even the Department's own understanding of the environmental issues at stake." There will be additional periods for public comment after the initial scoping process. Copyright © 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 41 FR NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste Meeting on Planning and Procedures; Notice of Meeting Doc E7-5919 [Federal Register: March 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 61)] [Notices] [Page 15173] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30mr07-122] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on April 10, 2007, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, April 10, 2007--8:30 a.m.-10 a.m. The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to 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. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:15 a.m. and 5 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 in the agenda. Dated: March 22, 2007. Antonio F. Dias, Acting Branch Chief, ACNW. [FR Doc. E7-5919 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 42 UPI: Japan to join GNEP funding bid United Press International - Energy - 3/30/2007 3:08:00 PM -0400 WASHINGTON, March 30 (UPI) -- A Japanese nuclear-fuel firm is joining France-based Areva's team in a bid for U.S. Energy Department funds for advanced nuclear technology. Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. said Thursday it will team up with Areva, Washington Group International and BWX Technologies, both U.S. companies, in contract bidding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program. GNEP is a Bush administration program intended to advance nuclear power and fuel cycle technology, offer nuclear energy options to non-nuclear countries and decrease the risk of proliferation. The foursome will bid on an Energy Department project to build a fast reactor and uranium reprocessing plant, global energy information firm Platts reported. Though the contract options are not detailed, Paul Lisowski, GNEP deputy program manager, said funding will be "flowing to industry" in six months. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 43 Times and Star: Six on Sellafield shortlist Published on 30/03/2007 SIX organisations are on the short list to run Sellafield for an initial five years. They will now go though a rigorous bidding process in which they will outline how they would run the site as the parent body organisation. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has announced that the six organisations are CH2M HILL International Nuclear Services Ltd; Energy Solutions EU Ltd; Fluor Limited in partnership with Toshiba; Jacobs Engineering Group Inc; SBB Nuclear, consisting of Serco Holdings Limited, Bechtel Management Company Limited and BWXT Nuclear Services (UK) Ltd and Washington Group International Limited / AMEC Nuclear Holdings Limited/ AREVA NC. The site will remain in NDA ownership and a decision is expected by the middle of next year. All the shortlisted firms have already been judged on criteria including their records in health and safety; innovation and managing change; commitment to socio-economic development; open and transparent engagement with regulators and stakeholders; financial soundness and ability to demonstrate the competence and capability necessary to own a UK site licence company. The parent body organisation will own the shares in the site licence company, to be known as Sellafield Ltd, for the duration of the contract. This will be for an initial period of five years and could be extended for up to 17 years, subject to performance. ***************************************************************** 44 Deseret News: EnergySolutions files for IPO Friday, March 30, 2007 Funds raised would go to employees, debt Deseret Morning News and wire reports WASHINGTON ? EnergySolutions Inc., a Salt Lake-based company that handles nuclear waste, filed Thursday with the Securities and Exchange Commission for an initial public offering of up to $500 million in stock. The company said it intends to apply to list on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "ES." It didn't disclose how many shares will be offered, nor did it provide an estimated price range for the offering. The company said it intends to use the net proceeds from the offering to pay employees and to repay outstanding debt, with the remainder being used for general corporate purposes. Val Christensen, general counsel for the company, said the S-1 filing with the SEC is the first step in the process of a public offering of shares. Christensen estimated that the process could last well into the summer before completed. EnergySolutions operates a low-level radioactive waste disposal site in Clive, Tooele County ? about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. It is one of the largest privately owned disposal sites in the U.S. and handles 96 percent of all commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal in the nation. Asked his reaction to the news, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said Thursday that he thought "it would be a bad thing for a governor to comment on a company's plans to go public. That's something they have to plan and prepare for." Huntsman Corp., founded by the governor's father, Jon Huntsman Sr., completed its own IPO in early 2005, shortly after Huntsman Jr. took office. As to whether EnergySolutions' IPO would be good for the state, Huntsman said, "That's clearly up to the investors. If the headquarters is here, and they remain viable as a company ? and you have to remember that many of their assets are out of state but the headquarters is here ? clearly the state benefits. And then it's up to the shareholders to decide what's in their interest." Earlier this month, Huntsman and the company signed a one-page agreement saying the company would withdraw its request for a license amendment to nearly double the amount of radioactive waste storage allowed at its Tooele County location. Steve Erickson, who often has opposed EnergySolutions expansion proposals as the director of the Citizens Education Project, said the IPO could have upsides and downsides. Of concern was that the money would not stay in Utah, and there could be a greater influx of investment from out-of-state interests. That could push the company to pursue its plans, especially for nuclear waste recycling, more aggressively. "It could mean that there is more money for investors so they can pursue their larger goals, which are well beyond what they do at their little plot of land west of Salt Lake," Erickson said. The biggest benefits of the public offering, he said, will be the availability of financial information ? which is currently difficult to get ? and the opportunity for the public to voice concerns during shareholder meetings. "While it doesn't mean that there will be more transparency from management, they will have to produce reports that will be accessible to the public," he said. As of March 2007, EnergySolutions had more than 1,500 employees, including roughly 300 scientists and engineers and more than 200 radiation and safety professionals. Credit Suisse, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, UBS Investment Bank, Banc of America Securities LLC, Citigroup, D.A. Davidson & Co., Friedman Billings Ramsey, Lazard Capital Markets and Wedbush Morgan Securities are listed as underwriters for the offering. EnergySolutions was formed last year by the merger of BNG America, Duratek, Envirocare of Utah and the D&D division of Scientech. It had net income of $34 million on revenue of $427 million for the year. As of Dec. 31, the company had $764.2 million in total debt, according to SEC filings. Contributing: Dow Jones Newswires; Dave Anderton; Josh Loftin; Lisa Riley Roche © 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 45 [southnews] Time To Get Serious About Nuclear Free Middle East Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 17:46:20 -0500 (CDT) The United NationBs General Assembly, The Security Council, the Arab League, Iran, Israel, Egypt, and the Non-Aligned Movement are just some of those who have publicly lent their support to a Middle East nuclear free zone over the past three decades. ItBs no exaggeration to say that representatives of virtually the entire world have expressed support for Middle East nuclear free zone (MENFZ). Time To Get Serious About Nuclear Free Middle East By Jeremy Rose Scoop.co.nz - New Zealand Friday, 30 March 2007, 10:57 am The United NationBs General Assembly, The Security Council, the Arab League, Iran, Israel, Egypt, and the Non-Aligned Movement are just some of those who have publicly lent their support to a Middle East nuclear free zone over the past three decades. ItBs no exaggeration to say that representatives of virtually the entire world have expressed support for Middle East nuclear free zone (MENFZ). Yet in the dozens of articles IBve read in recent weeks about the Iranian nuclear crisis IBm yet to see a single mention of the proposal. This, despite the fact, that Greenpeace, no slouch when it comes to drumming up media coverage, has a ship in the region promoting the idea. IBve read that IsraelBs entry into this yearBs Eurovision contest contains the lyrics Bpush the button,B that Iran has released a bank note featuring an atom, and most worryingly of all that President Bush is refusing to rule out using BtacticalB nuclear weapons in an attempt to set back the alleged Iranian programme B but not that there is a longstanding proposal on the table that could see the whole region free of nuclear weapons. That there is a real danger of nuclear weapon proliferation in the Middle East is clear. IranBs acquisition of the bomb could trigger an all out arms race in the region. (No less than six Arab states have already announced their intentions to develop nuclear energy programmes.) What isnBt clear, to me at least, is that there is a serious attempt to prevent that nightmare scenario from taking place. And it is a nightmare. We now know just how mad the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction that reigned during the cold war was. On more than one occasion mistakes brought us terrifyingly close to nuclear obliteration. God may not play dice but the leaders of nuclear weapons states happily play high stakes poker with the worldBs civilians as their chips. The Soviets and Americans worked on the assumption that the other side was rationale: evil but rationale. Neither side would attack the other because they knew that it would mean certain destruction. That assumption wonBt hold for Israel (widely accepted to have a nuclear arsenal in the hundreds) and Iran. Both sides, not without reason, view the other as a potentially irrational player. And unlike the Americans and Soviets who maintained a dedicated phone line between their respective presidents as a safeguard against accidental nuclear war, the Israelis and Iranians donBt even correspond by post. If Iran develops a nuclear bomb the risk of an accidental or pre-emptive nuclear war between it and Israel has to be significantly higher than it was between the Soviets and the US at the height of the cold war. And if the proliferation spreads through the region the risks will increase exponentially. The Oxford Research Group recently released a paper arguing convincingly that air strikes far from destroying IranBs nuclear capability would almost inevitably lead to an intensification of the countryBs nuclear programme and the strengthening of hard-line elements in the regime. Following a similar logic, Qatar ambassador Nazzir Abdulalaziz Al-Nasser speaking before the recent Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Iran warned increasing pressure could complicate matters further and have Bserious consequencesB. Non-proliferation issues should not be addressed selectively, he said. The council was required to follow the same approach towards countries that did not comply with their obligations according to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and towards those that did not pay attention to it in the first place. Israel was, without doubt, the country Al-Nasser had in mind when he referred to countries that donBt pay attention to the NPT. It is the regionBs only nuclear-armed state and the only state not to have signed the treaty (which means it can never be in breach of it.) Iran is facing sanctions because it is suspected of being in the process of developing nuclear weapons while Israel which, although it officially maintains a policy of ambiguity, is widely believed to have the worldBs fifth or sixth biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons remains off the Security Council radar. In the past Israel has said it will only sign up to a MENFZ after it has signed peace agreements with all of the countries of the region. At which point, it has to be said, the urgent need for a MENFZ will have dramatically decreased. IsraelBs leaders have plainly viewed their nuclear weapon monopoly as both a safeguard and bargaining chip. ItBs time they recognised it is a liability and a provocation to proliferation. If the permanent members of the Security Council are serious about persuading Iran and other Middle Eastern countries to remain nuclear weapon free they should insist on a timetable for Israel to sign up and comply with the NPT. But QatarBs failure to convince the council to include its Bclear and direct proposalB for a Middle East nuclear free zone suggests that for some of the permanent members of the Security Council at least ridding the entire region of weapons of mass destruction is not high on their priorities. More than three decades after Iran B with the backing of Egypt, sponsored the first UN Resolution in 1974 calling for a Middle East Nuclear Free Zone B itBs time for pressure to be put on ALL of the regionBs countries to commit to achieving it. ************* Jeremy Rose is a Wellington journalist currently based in Barcelona. He will be back in New Zealand, and looking for work, from early July. Jeremy.rose@clear.net.nz http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00549.htm The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ ***************************************************************** 46 Tri-City Herald: Changes being made at landfill Published Friday, March 30th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY, HERALD STAFF WRITER The Department of Energy is more closely tracking daily activities of Washington Closure Hanford, Keith Klein, manager of DOE's Hanford Richland Operations Office, said Thursday. That is one of several changes made by DOE and its contractor after problems were discovered at Hanford's Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, according to speakers at a House Nuclear Cleanup Caucus briefing in Washington D.C. organized by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash. The Hanford briefing had been scheduled one day after the Environmental Protection Agency fined DOE $1.14 million for problems at the low-level radioactive waste landfill in central Hanford. "We think we're doing the right things to fix it," Klein said. "We're going to learn from it, improve and move on." Chuck Spencer, the new president of Washington Closure, said he's been discussing possible changes in the contractor's organization with Klein as it tackles increasingly complex work with more hazardous material. That includes a discipline of operations function -- strictly following work protocols -- that would report directly to Spencer to focus on emergency preparedness, work control and training. Spencer also is emphasizing subcontract management to make sure subcontractors understand requirements, he said. About 65 percent of the value of the Washington Closure contract is passed through to subcontractors. Washington Closure said in a statement when the fine was announced that its subcontractor managing the landfill, S.M. Stoller "has not met our expectations and we have reinforced with them exactly what our operational expectations are." Problems at the landfill included falsified data on compaction testing and compaction testing that was incorrectly done, according to EPA. In addition, an automatic pumping system for water that collects on its upper liner was damaged during a storm and went undetected for months. Weekly checks of the system were not done or not done to regulatory standards, EPA said. S.M. Stoller said that its assessment processes after it took over management of the landfill from a previous subcontractor uncovered the falsified data. An employee had been entering data for tests not conducted for both Stoller and the previous subcontractor. S.M. Stoller had been conducting weekly inspections of the system for collecting water from the upper liner that "fully complied with its contractual and regulatory requirement," it said. "The inspections were performed according to approved procedures." It also said that the data that would have indicated a malfunction of the automatic features of the pumping system are not maintained by Stoller. No matter who was responsible, inspections that met requirements were not done, said Dave Einan, EPA environmental engineer. "My concern is that leachate was allowed to collect," he said. That had the potential to damage the lining system, although EPA and DOE agree the landfill was not harmed. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 47 KnoxNews: DOE seeks financial advice Oak Ridge retirees may put in 2 cents' worth on pension, health costs By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com March 30, 2007 OAK RIDGE - The U.S. Department of Energy is seeking input on ways to change the pension and medical-benefit plans for DOE contractors, including those in Oak Ridge, to help control runaway costs. In a March 27 notice in the Federal Register, DOE said it reimbursed contractors $1.077 billion last year - a 226 percent increase since 2000. Federal officials have said the costs likely will continue to rise and threaten the agency's basic missions. A year ago, DOE announced a pension overhaul that would eliminate defined-benefit pension plans for active employees and substitute 401(k)-type systems instead. Faced with strong opposition, DOE postponed the plan. DOE now is seeking public comments or recommendations on how the government should "address the financial challenge." The comment period is open through May 11. If past experience is any guide, DOE will get a load of advice and complaints - especially from Oak Ridge retirees. Hundreds of people jammed an auditorium at Pellissippi State last summer when DOE officials from Washington tried to present their case. Several speakers accused the federal officials of using misleading data and false assumptions to build the need for reform. The retirees objected to DOE's tale of fiscal woes, arguing that the Oak Ridge pension fund is self-sustaining with a surplus of about $600 million. Although the proposal wouldn't affect the current retirement benefits, retirees are concerned it may hamper chances to get a pension pay increase. The Coalition of Oak Ridge Retired Employees has been pushing for an across-the-board increase for years. Charlie Kuykendall of CORRE said the group is encouraging retirees to submit comments to DOE. "We applaud the fact that DOE is trying to get its house in order," he said. However, Kuykendall said CORRE's leadership is puzzled by DOE's approach, discussing pension funds and medical costs as if they're a single entity. "Medical costs are funded each year with each year's operating budget. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the pension trust fund," he said. Kuykendall said DOE is making it look like pensions are the culprit, when the problem is mostly health-care costs. "Putting them together is almost unconscionable," he said. Billy Stair, a spokesman for UT-Battelle, the contractor that manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory, said the lab management is supporting the DOE plan. "To say the least, it's a very complex issue with a variety of pros and cons that accompany any option," Stair said. "There's not some obvious solution that meets every fiscal or personnel need of every site." The Department of Energy said it wants to achieve a balance: Fund important missions, give contractors flexibility to recruit and keep top employees, and treat existing workers and retirees fairly. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************