*****************************************************************
04/06/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.81
*****************************************************************
   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 Los Angeles Times: Bring on the Iraq micromanagers - 
2 [southnews] Ivashov: Nuclear war on Iran - a solution to US indebtne
3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. May Give Iran Access to 5 Detainees 
4 Guardian Unlimited: Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Irania
5 Washington Post: Britain's Humiliation -- and Europe's -
6 AFP: US condemns Iranian treatment of Britons 
7 AFP: US revs up pressure on Iran after release of Britons - 
8 Comment is free: A difficult choice
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Clears Glitch to Free N.Korea Funds 
10 US: Stop U.S. Nuclear Hypocrisy!
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
11 TheStar.com: Nuclear deal too costly - Auditor
12 US: Houston Chronicle: Founding member of Greenpeace fan of nuclear 
13 US: NRC: NRC Schedules Conference with Areva to Discuss Apparent 
14 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 3's safety rating lowered after trans
15 IHT: Report: India plans large nuclear power plant in collaboration 
16 BusinessWeek: Report: India to build $11B power plant
17 US: BusinessWeek: Nulear plant license transfer gets OK
18 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Lasalle Nucl
19 US: BusinessWeek: Entergy Indian Point 3 plant shuts down
20 Daily Times: US companies to make billions from Indian nuclear bonan
21 US: FR NRC: Notice of Issuance of Renewed License, BWX Technologies,
22 UPI: U.S. may aid Pakistan on power
23 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for D.C. Cook Nu
24 UPI: NTPC to enter nuke power generation
25 UPI: Analysis: Global nuclear boom expected
26 globeandmail.com: Auditor blasts costly Ontario nuclear deal
27 US: NRC: NRC Following up on Unusual Event at Indian Point 3
28 US: USATODAY.com: Nuclear energy not answer to warming - Opinion - 
29 Hindustan Times: India can't afford to lose N-opportunity - Experts-
30 asahi.com: More nuclear plant cover-ups admitted - 
31 US: NRC: NRC Staff Approves Transfer of Palisades Operating License
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
32 US: UPI: NNSA sets up new radiation expsoure lab
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
33 US: New London Day: Rell Says New Batch Of Potassium Iodide Will Be 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
34 Las Vegas SUN: Energy Department reorganizes procurements for Yucca 
35 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca contracts awarded by DOE
36 US: Sun News: Nuclear Dumping Should Move On
37 ReviewJournal.com: Yucca project procurement office altered
38 US: PE.com: PG&E breaks ground on storage facility for spent nuclear
39 US: Las Cruces Sun-News: Trinity site opens for tour this weekend
40 UPI: DOE signs Yucca quality-assurance contract
41 US: BBC NEWS: THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
42 Cumberland News: Sellafield contract secures 65 jobs at engineering 
 
                           PEACE
 
43 US: [NukeNet] Sixty-four arrested at Good Friday lab protest
44 US: Reuters: Police arrest 64 at California anti-nuclear protest 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
45 Tri-City Herald: WA state, DOE to negotiate missed Hanford cleanup d
46 Tri-City Herald: State to discuss cleanup deadlines
47 Hanford News: Lawsuit could shoot down refuge hunting
48 LA Daily News: Tougher cleanup standards sought
49 LLNL: Researchers move closer to switching nuclear isomer decay on a
50 FR DOE: Record of Decision, Orlando Gasification Project, Orlando, O
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Los Angeles Times: Bring on the Iraq micromanagers - 

 9:53 PM PDT, April 6, 2007 

Rosa Brooks:

Why Congress has every right to pull strings and show leadership in
executing the war.

FACED WITH congressional bills setting timelines for the 
redeployment of combat troops from Iraq, the president and his 
dwindling band of supporters have been complaining bitterly about 
lawmakers' efforts to "micromanage" the war.

Funny, you'd think they'd be relieved! It's about time someone in 
the U.S. government showed an interest in managing — much less 
micromanaging — this war.

After all, the Bush administration's lack of interest in war-related
details is legendary. Before the war began, the administration
manifested this by ignoring intelligence that undermined its case
for war. In his 2003 State of the Union address, for instance, Bush
told the nation that "the British government has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa." Those infamous 16 words were justified by the existence of
documents purporting to show a uranium deal between Iraq and Niger.
Not, we presume, wishing to micromanage the decision-making process,
Bush and his top advisors ignored evidence that the documents were
fake — even though, as the Washington Post concluded this week, the
documents were "filled with errors easily identifiable through a
simple Internet search."

And then there was the prewar "planning," a similar triumph of
non-micromanagement on the part of the administration. Donald H.
Rumsfeld, another high-concept guy, didn't like being told that he
was sending too few troops to do the job in Iraq, so he forced out
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who'd made the mistake of
suggesting that a little attention to such details might not be
amiss.

Then, when the obsessive-compulsive types involved in the State
Department's massive Future of Iraq project tried to interest the
Pentagon in their postwar planning recommendations, Vice President
Dick Cheney and the Pentagon war planners made it clear they didn't
want to hear about it. The result? About 2,500 pages of
painstakingly detailed recommendations on subjects ranging from
rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure to democratic reform went straight
into the circular file.

For the next four years, even as every foreseeable disaster
occurred, the administration maintained its high-concept approach to
the war. The deaths of at least 3,265 U.S. troops and untold
thousands of Iraqi civilians were written off as regrettable but
insignificant in relation to the administration's grand strategy
goal of "a free and democratic Iraq, which will fight terror [and]
be a beacon of freedom."

And a somnolent Congress just kept nodding along.

SO WE OUGHT TO give thanks that Congress has finally stopped dozing
and decided to do something to bring this disastrous war to a close.
In late March, both houses of Congress passed bills to fully fund
military operations in Iraq, with timetables for the eventual
withdrawal of U.S. combat troops.

The president was quick to denounce the bills as unconstitutional
efforts by Congress to "micromanage our military commanders" and
"handcuff our generals in the field." But this characterization of
the congressional bills suggests that — in keeping with
administration tradition — the president hasn't actually read them.

In fact, the bills hardly tie anyone's hands. The House version, for
instance, requires the president to ensure that military units be
"mission ready" before being deployed, but it allows these
requirements to be waived by the president "for national security
reasons." In the Senate version, the March 31, 2008, troop
withdrawal date is only a "goal." And both bills permit troops to
remain in Iraq indefinitely to protect U.S. personnel, run
counter-terrorism operations and train Iraqi forces. That's
"management," sure, but no scrupulous reader could call it
micromanagement.

In any case, the president's claim that Congress is constitutionally
barred from "micromanaging" the war is an object lesson in why he
could use a little micromanagement himself.

Contrary to the administration's claim, the Constitution (which
makes a good read for detail-oriented citizens) in no way prohibits
congressional restrictions on the use of the military. On the
contrary. Having had unpleasant experiences with monarchical
government, the framers were determined to prevent precisely the
sort of situation we now have, in which an unaccountable executive
endangers the nation through a foolish and self-destructive war.

Thus, while the president's war-related powers are dealt with in a
single clause ("the President shall be Commander in Chief of the
Army and Navy"), the Constitution outlines expansive congressional
wartime powers, a view that has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Congress is expressly empowered to declare war (and, implicitly, to
declare an end to a particular war). Congress also has the power to
"raise and support Armies" (with the proviso that "no Appropriation
of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,"
which was intended to ensure precisely the accountability the
administration seeks to evade). Congress also is given the power "To
make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces." With its Iraq bills, Congress isn't micromanaging; it's
just fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.

It's about time, too.

Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times | Privacy Policy |
*****************************************************************
 2 [southnews] Ivashov: Nuclear war on Iran - a solution to US indebtness
 
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 03:22:02 -0500 (CDT)


Currently the mass of the US currency exceeds the total worth of
the US assets by more than a factor of ten. Everything in the US -
the industry, the buildings, the high-tech, and so on - has been
mortgaged more than ten times all over the world. A debt of such
proportions will never be repaid - it can only be relieved.

The dollar amounts on the accounts of individuals, organizations,
and state treasuries are a virtual reality. These records are not
secured by products, valuables or anything that exists in reality.
Writing-off this US indebtedness to the rest of the world would
turn the majority of its population into deceived depositors. It
would be the end of the well-established rule of the golden calf.
The significance of the coming events is truly epic. This is why
the aggressor ignores the global catastrophic consequences of its
offensive. The bankrupt 'global bankers' need a force major event
of global proportions to get out of the situation.

Iran: The threat of a nuclear war

by LC)onid Ivashov Voltaire.net

Strongly convinced that a US nuclear strike on Iran is imminent,
General Ivashov analysis the probable outcomes of a United-Stator-Irani
war. He confirms, for example, that such a conflict will lead to a
military one between Tel Aviv and Tehran which will immediately
evolve into a religious one, between Islam and Judaism. He raises
his doubts about the real reasons behind the US operation, and
points out to the reader that Bush administartion and its allies
have already started their psychological readying for the likelihood
of utilizing tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. Yet, is it
possible to avert the bombing ? One of the questions, among others,
to which General Ivashov brings an answer in this

Analysis of the current state of the conflict with Iran shows that
the world faces the possibility of a new war which can start within
days from now.

The US and its allies started the psychological preparation of the
world public opinion for the possibility of using tactical nuclear
weapons to resolve 'the Iranian problem'. The US propaganda machine
is working hard to create the impression that a 'surgically precise'
use of the nuclear weapon with only limited consequences is possible.
However, this has been known to be untrue since the 1945 US nuclear
strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After the very first nuclear strike, it will become totally impossible
to prevent the use of all of the available means of mass destruction.
In the situation of a mass extermination of their nations, the
conflicting sides will resort to whatever means they have without
limitations.

Therefore, not only the nuclear arsenals of various countries,
including those whose nuclear status is not recognized officially,
will come into play. No doubt, chemical and biological warfare (and,
generally, any poisonous substances), which can be produced on the
basis of minimal industrial and economic resources, will be used.

Currently, one can assert that peace and mankind are in a great
danger

Consider the military-technical aspect of the situation. Practically,
the operation's objective declared by the US - destroying some 1,500
targets on the territory of Iran - cannot be accomplished by the
forces already amassed for the mission. This objective can only be
met if tactical nuclear munitions are used.

An examination of the military-political aspect of the matter reveals
even more significant facts. The attack on Iran is not planned to
include a ground offensive. Strikes on selected military and
industrial installations can cause a severe damage to the Iranian
defense potential and economy. Casualties are likely to be substantial,
but not catastrophic from the military point of view. At the same
time, it is impossible to gain control of the territory of a country
as large as Iran without a ground operation. The planned offensive
will entail a consolidation of forces not only in Iran, but also
in other Muslim countries and among the public throughout the world.
The support for the country suffering from the US-Israeli aggression
will soar. Certainly, Washington is aware that the result will be
not the strengthening but the loss of the US positions in the world.
Consequently, the goal of the US attack against Iran has to be seen
in a different light. The nuclear offensive must boost the use of
the nuclear blackmail in the global politics by the US and fundamentally
transform the world order.

Further evidence of the radicalization of the goals of the US and
its allies is available. The early 2007 leaks, which exposed Israel's
plans to use three nukes against Iran, were quite dangerous for a
country in a hostile environment, but certainly they were deliberate.
They meant that the decision on the character of Israel's activity
had already been made, and all that remained to be done was to
influence the public opinion accordingly.

The pretext for the operation against Iran does not appear serious.

Judging from both the technical and the political points of view,
there is no possibility of its developing nuclear weapons in the
nearest future. One must remember that allegations of Iraq's
possessing weapons of mass destruction have been used by the US as
a pretext for the war against the country. As a result, Iraq was
devastated, and the civilian death toll rose to hundreds of thousands,
but no evidence for the claims had ever been discovered.

The really important question is not whether Iran is capable to
make nuclear weapons. The only function of small stockpiles of
nuclear weapons not backed by various forms of support is that of
containment.

The threat of a retaliation strike can stop any aggressor. As for
attacking other countries and winning a nuclear war in the situation
of a conflict with a coalition of major powers, this would require
a potential that Iran neither has nor is going to have in the
foreseeable future. The allegations that Iran can become a nuclear
aggressor are absurd. Anyone having at least some theoretical
knowledge of military affairs must understand this.

What is the real reason why the US is unleashing this military
conflict?

The activities having consequences of global proportions can only
be intended to deal with a global problem. This problem itself is
by no means something secret - it is the possibility of a crush of
the global financial system based on the US dollar. Currently the
mass of the US currency exceeds the total worth of the US assets
by more than a factor of ten. Everything in the US - the industry,
the buildings, the high-tech, and so on - has been mortgaged more
than ten times all over the world. A debt of such proportions will
never be repaid - it can only be relieved.

The dollar amounts on the accounts of individuals, organizations,
and state treasuries are a virtual reality. These records are not
secured by products, valuables or anything that exists in reality.
Writing-off this US indebtedness to the rest of the world would
turn the majority of its population into deceived depositors. It
would be the end of the well-established rule of the golden calf.
The significance of the coming events is truly epic. This is why
the aggressor ignores the global catastrophic consequences of its
offensive. The bankrupt 'global bankers' need a force major event
of global proportions to get out of the situation.

The solution is already in the plans. The US has nothing to offer
the rest of the world to save the declining dollar except for
military operations like the ones in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and
Iraq. But even these local conflicts only yield short-term effects.
Something a lot greater is needed, and the need is urgent. The
moment is drawing closer when the financial crisis will make the
world realize that all of the US assets, all of its industrial,
technological, and other potentials do not rightfully belong to the
country. Then, it all must be confiscated to compensate the victims,
and the rights of ownership of everything bought for dollars all
over the world - everything drawn from the wealth of various nations
- are to be revised.

What might cause the force major event of the required scale?
Everything seems to indicate that Israel will be sacrificed. Its
involvement in a war with Iran - especially in a nuclear war - is
bound to trigger a global catastrophe. The statehoods of Israel and
Iran are based on the countries' official religions. A military
conflict between Israel and Iran will immediately evolve into a
religious one, a conflict between Judaism and Islam. Due to the
presence of numerous Jewish and Muslim populations in the developed
countries, this would make a global bloodbath inevitable. All of
the active forces of most of the countries of the world would end
up fighting, with almost no room for neutrality left. Judging by
the increasingly massive acquisitions of the residential housing
for the Israeli citizens, especially in Russia and Ukraine, a lot
of people already have an idea of what the future holds.

However, it is hard to imagine a quiet heaven where one might hide
from the coming doom. Forecasts of the territorial distribution of
the fighting, the quantities and the efficiency of the armaments
involved, the profound character of the underlying roots of the
conflict and the severity of the religious strife all leave no doubt
that this clash will be in all respects much more nightmarish than
WWII.

So far, the response of the world's major political players to the
developments gives no cause for optimism. The inconsequent UN
resolutions concerning Iran, the attempts to appease the aggressor
who no longer disguises his intentions are reminiscent of the Munich
Pact on the eve of WWII. The intense shuttle diplomacy focusing on
all sorts of international problems except for the main one discussed
above is also indicative of the problem. This is a usual practice
on the eve of a war, aiming to provide for alliances with third-party
countries or to ensure their neutrality. Such politics seeks to
avert or soften the first strikes, which would be the most sudden
and devastating ones.

Is it possible to prevent the bloodshed?

The only efficient argument that might stop the aggressors is the
threat of their total global isolation for their instigating a
nuclear war. The implementation of the scenario described above can
be made impossible by a complete absence of allies for the US-Israeli
tandem, combined with loud public protests in the countries.
Therefore, these days a definite and uncompromising stance of country
leaders, governments, politicians, public figures, religious leaders,
scientists, and artists with respect to the prepared nuclear
aggression would be an invaluable service to mankind.

The coordinated public activities must be organized with the
promptness adequate to the war-time conditions. The forces of
aggression have already been amassed and concentrated at the starting
positions in the state of full combat readiness. The US military
do not make it a secret that everything can be a matter of weeks
or even days. There are indirect indications that the US will launch
a nuclear strike on Iran already in April, 2007. After the very
first nuclear blast, mankind will find itself in an entirely new
world, an absolutely inhumane one. The chances to prevent this
outcome must be used

http://www.voltairenet.org/article146942.html
*****************************************************************
 3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. May Give Iran Access to 5 Detainees 

From the Associated Press

Friday April 6, 2007 4:01 AM

By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. and Iraqi officials are working to give 
Iran access to the five Iranians detained by American forces in 
Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

   He did not link the move to Iran's release of 15 British 
troops after nearly two weeks of captivity.

    In the first detailed discussion of the plan by a senior U.S. 
official, Gates said the U.S. has no intention of releasing the 
five Iranian prisoners. They were captured during a January raid 
in northern Iraq.

 The Pentagon chief said a consular visit by Iranian officials is 
not being considered.

   ``It's my understanding that the consular access is not 
required but, also, that Iraqi government officials and U.S. 
officials are discussing if there's some way, perhaps, that there 
could be some kind of Iranian access to them,'' Gates told 
Pentagon reporters during a briefing. He said he did not discuss 
the matter with the British government.

   Gates did not say who would be allowed to see the detainees. 
An international Red Cross team, including one Iranian, already 
visited the prisoners.

   Gates' comments came as the Bush administration accused Iran 
of using hostage diplomacy to boost its status.

  With the Royal Navy troops safely back on British soil, the 
White House and the State Department changed the nature of 
comments that deliberately had been toned down during the 
captivity. U.S. officials maintained their insistence that there 
is no connection between the Iraq incidents and the capture or 
release of the Royal Navy sailors.

 Iranian forces seized a British ship and 15 crew members on 
March 23 in the Persian Gulf, saying the sailors had crossed into 
Iranian waters. British and U.S. officials insist the ship was in 
Iraqi waters.

 National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said 
Washington saw no sign that Tehran was now willing to work with 
other countries as well as the U.N. Security Council, which has 
demanded that Iran scale back its nuclear programs.

  ``What would show that they're more in line with the 
international community is to comply with the U.N. Security 
Council resolution,'' he said.

 State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the incident was 
part of an Iranian pattern of taking hostages that dates to the 
seizure of 52 Americans in 1979 and includes a 2004 incident in 
which Iran captured and held a group of British sailors.

 ``This is clearly a regime that, after several decades, 
continues to view hostage-taking as a tool of its international 
diplomacy,'' McCormack told reporters.

 Johndroe said President Bush spoke with British Prime Minister 
Tony Blair in a lengthy video conference Thursday and told Blair 
he was pleased the 15 had returned home. Bush is at his ranch in 
Crawford, Texas.

     The U.S. military has said the five Iranians were part of a 
Revolutionary Guard force that provides money, weapons and 
training to Shiite militias in Iraq. Iran says the detainees were 
engaged exclusively in consular work.

   Gates said he has asked his military commanders to review 
their procedures to make sure that U.S. sailors are protected 
against a similar attempt at capture, and that U.S. ships are 
operating ``well within the baselines, just like the British 
were.''

     In other comments, Gates said that he is expecting that U.S. 
commanders in Iraq will give him an assessment by late summer on 
how the military buildup is working. Close to 30,000 additional 
U.S. troops are being sent to Iraq to quell the violence in 
Baghdad and give the government time to stabilize. About half 
have arrived, according to the military.

 Faced with increasing pressure from Congress to reduce troop 
levels in Iraq, Gates said it is too soon to tell when that can 
happen.

 ``I think people don't know right now how long this will last,'' 
he said. ``I believe that the thinking of those involved in the 
process was that it would be a period of months, not a period of 
years or a year and a half.''

                                 ---

 Associated Press writers Matthew Lee in Washington and Ben 
Feller in Crawford, Texas, contributed to this report.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: Americans offered 'aggressive patrols' in Iranian airspace 

Ewen MacAskill, Julian Borger, Michael Howard and John Hooper

Saturday April 7, 2007

The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 
British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing 
Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the 
Guardian has learned.

In the first few days after the captives were seized and British 
diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, 
Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you 
want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list 
which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between 
the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat 
aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary 
Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the 
situation.

The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the 
situation by staying out of it. London also asked the US to tone 
down military exercises that were already under way in the Gulf. 
Three days before the capture of the 15 Britons , a second 
carrier group arrived having been ordered there by president 
George Bush in January. The aim was to add to pressure on Iran 
over its nuclear programme and alleged operations inside Iraq 
against coalition forces.

At the request of the British, the two US carrier groups, totalling
40 ships plus aircraft, modified their exercises to make them less
confrontational.

The British government also asked the US administration from Mr Bush
down to be cautious in its use of rhetoric, which was relatively
restrained throughout.

The incident was a reminder of how inflammatory the situation in the
Gulf is. According to some US and British officers, there is already
a proxy war under way between their forces and elements of the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

Meanwhile, the Iranians are convinced that separatist guerrilla
attacks in Khuzestan and Baluchistan provinces are the work of
British and US intelligence respectively. Earlier this week, ABC
television news reported that a Baluchi group, Jundullah, based in
Pakistan and carrying out raids inside Iran, had been receiving
advice and encouragement from American officials since 2005.

A senior Iranian source with close ties to the Revolutionary Guard,
told the Guardian: "If this had been between Iranian and American
soldiers it could have been the beginning of an accidental war."

With the crisis now over, a remarkable degree of consensus is
emerging among British, Iranian and Iraqi officials about what
happened over 13 nervous days - namely that the decision to seize
the Britons was taken locally, and was not part of a grander scheme
cooked up in Tehran.

"My best guess is that this was a local incident which became an
international incident," said one British source closely involved in
the crisis.

Both sides had been watching each other closely for years across the
disputed line separating the Iranian and Iraqi sides of the Shatt
al-Arab waterway and the northern Gulf beyond and British officials
say that Iranian boats regularly infringe on foreign waters.

The senior Iranian source meanwhile, claimed there had been three
British incursions into Iranian waters in the three months leading
up to the capture and that the decision to detain the British naval
crew on March 23 was taken by a regional Revolutionary Guard
commander, responsible for the waterway.

Once the 15 captives were brought back to Iran, their stay was
guaranteed to be unpleasant. The Pasdaran (as the Revolutionary
Guards are universally known in Farsi) are a law unto themselves,
feared within Iran for their thuggish methods.

There is also general agreement in London and Tehran that once the
crisis had been triggered it took nearly two weeks to untangle,
because their release had to be agreed by all the key players in the
perpetual poker game that passes for government in Tehran. But those
players could not be reached because they were scattered around the
country for the No Rouz (new year) holiday.

"Nobody who counted was answering the phone," said one senior
British official. "By the time the Iranian leaders got back from the
holiday [on Tuesday] the phone was ringing off the hook, including
from people they didn't expect, calling on them to release the
captives quickly."

Among those unexpected callers were their closest allies, the
Syrians, as well as leaders from far-flung states with no direct
stake in the Gulf. Even the Colombian government issued a protest.

Another surprise intervention came from the Vatican. Hours before
Wednesday's release, a letter from Pope Benedict was handed to
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It said the Pope was
confident that men of goodwill could find a solution. He asked the
supreme leader to do what he could to ensure that the British
sailors and marines were reunited with their families in time for
Easter. It would, he said, be a significant religious gesture of
goodwill from the Iranian people.

What impact the Pope's message had is impossible to assess. But some
of its language was reflected at the press conference at which the
release of the 15 Britons was announced. President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad said the decision to "forgive" the sailors and marines
had been taken "on the occasion of the birthday of the great prophet
[Muhammad] ... and for the occasion of the passing of Christ".

The Iraqi government also played a critical role, pushing for
consular access to five Iranians who had been arrested by US forces
in Irbil and had been in custody since January, and helping organise
the mysterious release of an Iranian diplomat who had been in
captivity since February.

In the first days of the crisis, Iraqi officials also helped the
British to identify the exact boundaries of Iraqi waters, the
Guardian has learned, suggesting the British were not as certain of
their case as they had publicly claimed.

But it was the unexpected release of Jalal Sharifa, the second
secretary at the Iranian embassy, that raised most eyebrows,
fuelling speculation that some kind of bargaining was going on. The
diplomat had been missing since he was plucked from the streets of
Baghdad on February 4. Iran blamed US forces in Iraq for ordering
the diplomat's abduction, but US military officials denied the
claims. Baghdad's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, however, has
insisted that negotiations over Mr Sharafi had been under way long
before March 23.

Some credit for the abrupt release of the British naval crew has
also been given to Tony Blair's top foreign policy adviser, Sir
Nigel Sheinwald, who got through to his Iranian counterpart, Ari
Larijani for the first time the night before Mr Ahmadinejad made his
surprise announcement. The opening of a Sheinwald-Larijani channel
of communication is being hailed as one of the few pluses to emerge
from the affair.

The crucial decision for release was taken on Tuesday by the supreme
national security council. It includes representatives of the
presidency, the armed forces and the Revolutionary Guard, and
Tuesday was the first day they could all be brought together
following the No Rouz holiday.

"I think they realised pretty quickly the game was not worth the
candle," a senior British government source said.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 5 Washington Post: Britain's Humiliation -- and Europe's -

washingtonpost.com By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, April 6, 2007; Page A21

Iran has pulled off a tidy little success with its seizure and 
release of those 15 British sailors and marines: a pointed 
humiliation of Britain, with a bonus demonstration of Iran's 
intention to push back against coalition challenges to its assets 
in Iraq. All with total impunity. Further, it exposed the 
impotence of all those transnational institutions -- most 
prominently the European Union and the United Nations -- that 
pretend to maintain international order.

You would think maintaining international order means, at least, 
challenging acts of piracy. No challenge here. Instead, a quiet 
capitulation.

Britain's released hostages arrived at Heathrow AIrport yesterday.
(By Bruno Vincent -- Getty Images)

  The quid pro quos were not terribly subtle. An Iranian "diplomat"
  who had been held for two months in Iraq is suddenly released.
  Equally suddenly, Iran is granted access to the five Iranian
  "consular officials" -- Revolutionary Guards who had been training
  Shiite militias to kill Americans and others -- whom the United
  States had arrested in Irbil in January. There may have been other
  concessions we will never hear about. But the salient point is
  that American action is what got this unstuck.

  Where then was the European Union? These 15 hostages, after all,
  are not just British citizens but, under the laws of Europe,
  citizens of Europe. Yet the European Union lifted not a finger on
  their behalf.

  Europeans talk all the time about their preference for "soft
  power" over the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans
  resort to all the time. What was the soft power available here?
  Iran's shaky economy is highly dependent on European credits,
  trade and technology. Britain asked the European Union to threaten
  to freeze exports, $18 billion a year of commerce. Iran would have
  lost its No. 1 trading partner. The European Union refused.

  Why was nothing done? The reason is simple. Europe functions quite
  well as a free-trade zone, but as a political entity it is a
  farce. It remains a collection of sovereign countries with
  divergent interests. A freeze of economic relations with Europe
  would have shaken the Iranian economy to the core. "The Dutch,"
  reported the Times of London, "said it was important not to risk a
  breakdown in dialogue." So much for European solidarity.

  Like other vaunted transnational institutions, the European Union
  is useless as a player in the international arena. Not because its
  members are venal but because they are sovereign. Their interests
  are simply not identical.

  The problem is most striking at the United Nations, the
  quintessential transnational institution with a mandate to
  maintain international peace and order. There was a commonality of
  interest at its origin -- defeating Nazi Germany and imperial
  Japan. The war ended, but the wartime alliance of Britain, France,
  the United States, China and Russia proclaimed itself the guardian
  of postwar "collective security" as the Security Council.

  Small problem: Their interests are not collective. They are
  individual. Take the Iranian nuclear program. Russia and China
  make it impossible to impose any serious sanctions. China has an
  interest in maintaining strong relations with a major energy
  supplier and is not about to jeopardize that over Iranian nukes
  that are no threat to it whatsoever. Russia sees Iran as a useful
  proxy in resisting Western attempts to dominate the Persian Gulf.

  Ironically, the existence of transnational institutions such as
  the United Nations makes it harder for collective action against
  bad actors. In the past, interested parties would simply get
  together in temporary coalitions to do what they had to do. That
  is much harder now because they believe such action is
  illegitimate without the Security Council's blessing. The result
  is utterly predictable. Nothing has been done about the Iranian
  bomb. In fact, the only effective sanctions are those coming
  unilaterally out of the U.S. Treasury.

  Remember the great return to multilateralism -- the new emphasis
  on diplomacy and "working with the allies" -- so widely heralded
  at the beginning of the second Bush administration? To general
  acclaim, the cowboys had been banished and the grown-ups brought
  back to town.

  What exactly has the new multilateralism brought us? North Korea
  tested a nuclear device. Iran has accelerated its march to
  developing the bomb. The pro-Western government in Beirut hangs by
  a thread. The Darfur genocide continues unabated.

  The capture and release of the British hostages illustrate once
  again the fatuousness of the "international community" and its
  great institutions. You want your people back? Go to the European
  Union and get stiffed. Go to the Security Council and get a
  statement that refuses even to "deplore" this act of piracy. (You
  settle for a humiliating expression of "grave concern.") Then turn
  to the despised Americans. They'll deal some cards and bail you
  out.

  letters@charleskrauthammer.com

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
*****************************************************************
 6 AFP: US condemns Iranian treatment of Britons 

by Olivier Knox Fri Apr 6, 4:44 PM ET

CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - The United States on Friday
condemned as "unfortunate and extremely disappointing" any
mistreatment by Iran of British naval personnel held captive by
Tehran for nearly two weeks.

"What the sailors said this morning is unfortunate and extremely
disappointing if they were treated inappropriately in any way,"
national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters.

"If what they described is accurate, and I have no reason to believe
it is not, if what they described is accurate then that would not
seem to be appropriate behavior and action," said Johndroe.

The 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran told Friday how they
were stripped, blindfolded and handcuffed as part of "psychological"
intimidation during their detention.

A day after their return to Britain, the group said they feared for
their lives if they resisted and were threatened with seven years in
jail if they did not confess to being in Iranian waters.

"The British government will be undertaking a full investigation of
the entire incident," Johndroe said as US President George W. Bush
prepared to celebrate Easter on his Texas ranch.

The spokesman declined to comment directly on comments by the US
chief of Naval Operations, US Admiral Michael Mullen, who said
Thursday that US military personnel would have fought the Iranians
rather than be taken captive.

"My expectation is that American sailors are never seized in a
situation like that," Mullen told CNN television.

"Individuals and units are guided by the right of self-defense, they
don't have to ask permission to take action to protect themselves,"
he said. "They go into operations like this, and missions like this,
with that understanding."

Asked whether those comments reflected standing orders to US
personnel operating in the Gulf, Johndroe referred questions about
the rules of engagement to the Pentagon.

But "I would just say, in general, as President Bush has said, we
are not seeking a confrontation with the Iranians," Johndroe told
reporters.

"We and the rest of the international community are seeking their
compliance with UN Security Council resolutions" calling for a
freeze of Iran's uranium enrichment and reprocessing, the spokesman
said.

"That is the multilateral diplomatic approach that we are taking
right now," he said.

On Thursday, Johndroe warned Iran over its nuclear activities,
saying: "We'd be hopeful to not have to go back to the UN Security
Council for an additional sanction regime."

And US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack accused Iran of
using "hostage-taking as a tool of its international diplomacy."

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 7 AFP: US revs up pressure on Iran after release of Britons - 

by Olivier Knox Fri Apr 6, 3:38 AM ET

CRAWFORD, United States (AFP) - The United States Thursday 
shrugged off Iran's release of 15 captured British sailors and 
warned it faced tougher sanctions if it does not bow to UN 
demands to halt its uranium enrichment operations.

Refusing to accept the idea that the return of the Britons 12 
days after they were seized showed Tehran's readiness to engage 
the international community, the White House reminded Tehran of 
the UN Security Council's demands on its nuclear program.

"I would view the detention of the British sailors as not in line
with their willingness to work with the international community,"
the White House national security council spokesman Gordon Johndroe
said, referring to Iran's leaders.

"What would show that they are more in line with the international
community is to comply with the UN Security Council resolutions, and
suspend their uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities," said
Johndroe.

"We'd be hopeful to not have to go back to the UN Security Council
for an additional sanction regime," the spokesman said.

And US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack accused Iran of
using "hostage-taking as a tool of its international diplomacy."

For its part Tehran Thursday declared its refusal to bow to pressure
on its nuclear program, which it says is for power generation but
major Western powers believe is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

Shortly after Johndroe's remarks, Iranian state television reported
that Iran's nuclear chief Ali Larijani told the European Union there
was no chance that Tehran would suspend uranium enrichment.

The exchange marked the resumption of more strident rhetoric after
the 12-day crisis over the British sailors and marines, who Iran
captured in or near Iranian waters on March 23 March.

Tehran declared the 14 men and one woman had illegally moved into
Iranian waters, but Britain maintains they were seized in Iraqi
waters where they were carrying out anti-smuggling oprations under
UN resolutions.

The United States, which does not maintain direct relations with
Iran, on Thursday welcomed their release, but tellingly praised
London, not Tehran, for the peaceful end of the tense standoff.

US President George W. Bush, on his Texas ranch for a long Easter
weekend, spoke for about an hour by secure video with British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, Johndroe told reporters.

"The president welcomed the safe return of the British personnel who
had been detained in Iran. He also commended the British on their
resolve in bringing the situation to a peaceful resolution," he said.

McCormack confirmed that Washington had toned down its rhetoric
throughout the standoff, though on Saturday Bush referred to the
Britons as "hostages" who had been seized in Iraqi waters.

"In the context of an ongoing hostage crisis, of course we are not
going to say anything that could make the situation worse or make it
more difficult to realize a peaceful solution," McCormack said.
"Absolutely, we're going to tailor our rhetoric."

At the same time, McCormack hinted at possible face-to-face talks
between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on the sidelines of an international
conference on Iraq in early May.

"We have said from the beginning, when this first surfaced, that if
there would be a ministerial conference, that we are not going to
exclude any particular diplomatic interaction," he said.

McCormack emphasized the possible bilateral meeting would focus on
Iraq exclusively, and not address the Iranian nuclear program. US
officials denied any link to the Britons' release.

On another front, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday
that US officials were not inclined to release five Iranians
captured in Iraq, and accused Iran of supporting Iraqi insurgents.

"I think there's no inclination right now to let them go," Gates
told reporters, rejecting speculation that the United States was
preparing to release the group or allow consular access to them as
part of a deal involving Iran's release of the British captives.

Meanwhile controversial former US ambassador to the United Nations
John Bolton described the hostage standoff as a "double victory" for
Tehran.

Iran "won a victory when they captured the hostages and they won a
victory when they released the hostages" Bolton said on the
US-funded Alhurra Arabic-language television network.

"I think they were testing British resolve in response to this
provocative act and I think they already had their answer, which was
that the British are not going to respond in a strong fashion," he
said.


Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 8 Comment is free: A difficult choice

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Ian Bremmer

Tehran is not Pyongyang. In all likelihood the decision for the west
is this: military action or a nuclear Iran.

April 6, 2007 5:20 PM | Printable version


Despite his bellicose rhetoric, George Bush would very much like to
avoid a choice between air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and
accepting a nuclear Iran. For the moment, administration officials
are hoping that "targeted" sanctions aimed directly at Iran's
leadership will compel a compromise. The UN security council's
recent decision to tighten existing sanctions on Iran by prohibiting
dealings with 15 individuals and 13 organizations aims at precisely
that. But, while some within the US government argue that similar
sanctions induced North Korea to compromise on its nuclear
programme, there are several reasons why the same strategy is
unlikely to work with Iran.

First and foremost, targeted sanctions did not, in fact, really work
with North Korea. The freeze on $25m of the leadership's assets held
at Banco Delta Asia in Macau has certainly irritated the North
Koreans. But the asset freeze did not prevent Kim Jong-il from
ordering a ballistic missile test last July or an underground
nuclear test in October.

Instead, North Korea's willingness to resume negotiations partly
reflects the Americans' decision to stop insisting on the "complete,
verifiable, irreversible dismantlement" of North Korea's nuclear
program as a pre-condition for talks on normalizing relations. The
Bush administration has accepted that North Korea is a nuclear power
and that outsiders can do little about it, so the United States has
shifted its diplomatic stance from the hard-line Japanese approach
to the more flexible and stability-oriented Chinese position.

That shift is understandable. Given its simultaneous military
commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, together with North Korea's
demonstrated nuclear capability, the Bush administration can't
credibly threaten Kim with force. Sanctions have rattled the North
Korean leadership, but not nearly enough to compel them to surrender
fully the nuclear program, which is their ultimate guarantee of
security.

At the same time, the North Koreans' willingness to make a deal also
reflects China's decision to put its foot down. China remains the
only foreign power with any real leverage over Kim's government.
Exasperated by Kim's refusal to ease international tensions, Chinese
officials have made clear their refusal to protect and subsidize
North Korea's elite if it continues to push the US toward
confrontation. The Chinese can't force Kim to disarm fully, but they
can persuade him to negotiate with a now more flexible US.

As a result, the US and North Korea have agreed a deal that differs
from the Clinton-era "Agreed Framework," mainly because North Korea
now has a track record as both a deal breaker and a nuclear weapons
state. Having returned to the bargaining table in a position of
strength, North Korea now hopes to secure a compromise that frees up
the leadership's assets and brings new benefits that help buttress
the regime a little longer. As long as the Chinese talk tough and
the US remains willing to negotiate, the agreement may hold. But
neither diplomatic stance is likely to continue indefinitely.

In any case, none of this will help the Bush administration with
Iran. No outside actor has the leverage with Iran that China has
with North Korea, and even if the US offered Iran a more
conciliatory approach, the Democratic-led Congress isn't likely to
follow suit. Buffeted by criticism that their position on the war in
Iraq is incoherent and that they are soft on security threats, the
Democrats appear determined to ratchet up pressure on Iran, favoring
much broader sanctions than the Bush administration has proposed.

For example, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos has
introduced legislation that would extend the extra-territorial reach
of US law to foreign governments' export credit agencies, financial
institutions, insurers, underwriters, and guarantors. It would bar
foreign subsidiaries of US companies from investing more than $20m
in Iran's energy sector, and would eliminate the president's
authority to waive these penalties. It would also designate Iran's
Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group and impose further limits
on exports to the country's civil aviation industry.

Moreover, Republicans are getting in on the act. Representative
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has introduced legislation that would require US
government pension funds, private pension funds, and mutual funds
sold or distributed in the US to divest from companies that invest
more than $20m in Iran.

Finally, just as Iran faces no China - an outside player with
considerable domestic influence - North Korea faces no Israel, a
neighbor that believes its security could depend on an act of
military pre-emption. Israel does not want to take on Iran without
US support and will maintain pressure on both Congress and the
president to threaten Iran with every means at its disposal.

The appeal of targeted sanctions against Iran is obvious: they are
meant to help the administration avoid military action, which could
create more problems than it solves. They allow the White House to
argue that it means to undermine Iran's leadership, not its people.
They are also much more likely to win international support than
sanctions that would remove Iran's oil and gas supplies from the
international marketplace.

But the chances are slim that sanctions, whether targeted or
otherwise, can undermine the consensus within Iran in favor of the
nuclear programme. As in North Korea, a nuclear capability
constitutes a powerful symbol of the country's sovereignty and
international clout - and would be the ultimate guarantee that
America could never do there what it has done in Iraq.

Sanctions give lawmakers and diplomats plenty to talk about. But
unless a sea change occurs in Iranian domestic politics, they will
merely postpone the difficult (and increasingly likely) choice
between military action and accepting a nuclear Iran.

In cooperation with Project Syndicate, 2007.


del.icio.us | Digg it | Tailrank | Reddit | Newsvine | Now Public |
Technorati


This entry was tagged with the following keywords: iran northkorea
nuclear


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Clears Glitch to Free N.Korea Funds 

From the Associated Press

Friday April 6, 2007 9:46 PM

By MATTHEW LEE Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Negotiators have agreed on a method to release 
$25 million in North Korean funds that are frozen in an Asian 
bank, clearing up a hitch that has stalled nuclear disarmament 
efforts.

   After two weeks of talks in Beijing, banking officials from 
the United States, China, North and South Korea and the Bank of 
China have agreed on a ``pathway'' for the money to be returned 
to Pyongyang, the State Department said Friday.

   ``We support the release of all the funds. It is now a matter 
of technical implementation,'' spokesman Sean McCormack told 
reporters, adding that the actual return of the money would be up 
to China and North Korea.

 Previously, U.S. officials had suggested privately that some of 
the $25 million held in the blacklisted and now-shuttered Banco 
Delta Asia in the Chinese territory of Macau might be tainted and 
not released.

   In a separate statement, the Treasury Department said Friday 
its negotiators at the talks in China had worked to ensure the 
release of the money was consistent with international money 
laundering and other financial regulations.

 ``We stand ready to assist the Macanese authorities in their 
efforts to release the funds and with all parties to effectuate 
the North Korean pledge that any money received by them would be 
used for humanitarian purposes of benefit to the North Korean 
people,'' it said.

   McCormack declined to comment on South Korean reports the 
money would be transferred to North Korea through the Bank of 
China in Hong Kong. He referred questions about specifics to 
authorities in China and Macau. A U.S. official in Beijing, 
however, denied the reports.

 McCormack refused to predict if, or even when, the ``pathway'' 
would actually be employed but said the money returned must be 
used for the ``betterment of the North Korean people and for 
humanitarian purposes.''

     He also announced that Washington's top East Asia diplomat, 
Christopher Hill, would travel to the region on Sunday for talks 
with officials there on North Korea's progress in shutting down 
its main nuclear facility by a mid-April deadline.

     Hill will travel to Tokyo, Seoul and Beijing to discuss the 
six-party process between North and South Korea, the United 
States, China, Russia and Japan aimed at getting Pyongyang to 
halt its nuclear weapons program.

 Hill's visit will coincide with a trip to North Korea by New 
Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Veterans Affairs 
Secretary Anthony Principi that will focus on the repatriation of 
the remains of U.S. servicemen killed in the Korean War.

    The standoff over the money has threatened the next step in a 
February agreement committing North Korea to shut down its 
Yongbyon nuclear facility by April 14 in return for economic aid 
and political concessions.

  The funds were frozen after Washington blacklisted the small 
Banco Delta Asia for alleged complicity in money laundering and 
other illicit activities by North Korea.

   Pyongyang said the freeze showed Washington's hostile 
intentions toward it and refused to return to international talks 
on its nuclear program for more than a year.

  The problems holding up the transfer of the money were believed 
to be related to difficulties finding a bank willing to accept 
the North Korean funds.

 A top U.S. Treasury official, Daniel Glaser, had been in Beijing 
for 13 days trying to sort out the matter. He and his delegation 
left China on Friday without commenting on the resolution of the 
hitch.

                                 ---

   Associated Press writers Jeannine Aversa in Washington, 
Jae-Soon Chang in Seoul and Min Lee in Hong Kong contributed to 
this report.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 10 Stop U.S. Nuclear Hypocrisy!
 
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:20:30 -0500 (CDT)


Dear Rich,

As the world's foremost nuclear power, the United States has a 
responsibility to lead by example. This means that we cannot 
reproach Iran for its pursuit of uranium enrichment while we fail 
to we fulfill our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty (NPT) to begin disarming our nuclear stockpile.

Sadly, it looks like our government is trying to shirk its 
responsibilities under the NPT and is embarking on a scheme to 
build NEW Nuclear Weapons. We need to contact our Congressional 
Representatives and tell them that the United States must set an 
example of disarmament and nonproliferation for the rest of the 
world. 
(http://hq.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/Peaceact/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6971)

A few weeks ago, the Department of Energy announced its plan to 
build new hydrogen bombs, calling them "reliable replacement 
warheads." While the majority of Americans are opposed to 
building new nuclear weapons, the Department of Energy 
bureaucrats don't have to listen to public opinion - but Congress 
does! Send an email to your Representative urging them not to 
fund the Reliable Replacement Warhead 
program.(http://hq.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/Peaceact/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6971) 
Tell Con gress to lead by example, until we earn moral authority 
through disarming our own nuclear stockpile we cannot reasonably 
make demands on other nations to halt their nuclear programs.

Please paste the following URL in your web browser to send an 
email to your Representative calling on them to prevent the 
production of new nuclear bombs: 
http://hq.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/Peaceact/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6971

Sincerely,

Kevin M. Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

Click here to subscribe to the Action Alert Network
Click here to unsubscribe
/*Your email ID. <diaEmailID='316950120' thread=5721/>--*/
*****************************************************************
 11 TheStar.com: Nuclear deal too costly - Auditor

Apr 06, 2007 04:30 AM

Rob Ferguson

Queen's Park Bureau

Ontarians would have saved $1.5 billion on their hydro bills over
the next 25 years had the government negotiated a smarter deal to
refurbish the Bruce Power nuclear station, the provincial auditor
general says.

A review also found the government had "only partial success" in
reaching its goal of protecting electricity ratepayers from cost
overruns that have plagued past nuclear projects.

Among other concerns, the $4.25-billion pact to modernize four
reactors at the Lake Huron plant included a "mechanical error" that
cost ratepayers an estimated $88 million, and $514 million for
pricey enriched fuel.

"It's not clear cut it's a good deal," Auditor General Jim McCarter
said yesterday after completing a government-ordered review of the
pact.

However, he did find it "successfully" limits ratepayer exposure to
most of the financial risks Bruce Power faces in operating – if
not refurbishing – the nuclear power plant.

"It was a bit of a mixed bag."

The controversial agreement was signed in 2005 with Bruce Power, a
privately owned firm operating the old Ontario Hydro plant, as the
government scrambled to find new sources of electricity to meet
fast-growing demand.

The $1.5 billion in missed savings is calculated in today's terms
but will erode to "hundreds of millions of dollars" over the 25-year
life of the reactors because of inflation, McCarter said.

The review found the actual price of electricity from Bruce is 7.1
cents per kilowatt-hour and is poised to rise depending on
construction costs and other factors.

"That is significantly higher than what we're paying," he added,
noting the average market price for electricity from all sources in
Ontario over the last five years is 4.9 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Translated to hydro bills, saving the $1.5 billion would have
trimmed the cost of electricity by one-third of a cent per
kilowatt-hour, McCarter said.

The 7.1-cent rate is 44 per cent higher than the average market
price, noted New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton, who has been
fighting the government's plans to build more atomic reactors
elsewhere.

"This shows, once again, nuclear power is expensive."

Still, Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said he would sign the same
deal all over again.

"The trade-off is what you pay for power," said Duncan, who was
energy minister when the deal was negotiated, before becoming
finance minister in October 2005 for seven months and then returning
to the energy job.

But Hampton and other critics pounced on the findings, charging that
some of the costs were hidden in the deal through measures like
accepting lower payments for the plant leased to Bruce Power by
Crown-owned Ontario Power Generation.

"The government's reputation as a defender of the ratepayer has
suffered a serious blow here," said analyst Tom Adams of Energy
Probe.

He said the report found the deal was structured so that prices will
rise at a higher rate in later years of the agreement, an
arrangement politically advantageous to the government, which is
facing an election in October.

"They created an artificially low price at the beginning."

The auditor also found the Liberal government went into the talks
two years ago at a disadvantage because of the Liberals' election
promise to close coal-fired power plants by 2007.

That promise – later broken with no firm closing date in mind for
several more years – left nuclear as the only practical
alternative to meet Ontario's growing power needs.

"After this deal was signed, the government started to get flexible
on coal, so it was a political mismanagement of the negotiations,"
Adams said.

In effect, "the government put a gun to their (own) head," added
Progressive Conservative energy critic John Yakabuski
(Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke).

Duncan said the alternative to this deal was exposing ratepayers to
more risks than the government was willing to take given massive
cost overruns like the ones that plagued the Darlington and
Pickering nuclear plants years ago.

"In the end, this deal is fair for both sides," Duncan told a news
conference.

"We worked to keep the price to consumers as low as possible. ...
There's no easy, cost-free way to deal with the challenges we've
been faced with."

The auditor's review, a complicated 29-page document, was critical
of the way government negotiators handled a number of elements in
the deal.

"We thought these were all reasonable things we thought they could
have put on the table. ... They could have done better," McCarter
said.

Some examples:

  The review questioned why ratepayers are paying for the Bruce
reactors to use enriched fuel, which boosts electricity output, but
not getting a price cut in return. Enriched fuel costs two to three
times as much as regular fuel.

 A "mechanical error" in calculations saw the government
double-count the net effect of tax savings on some interest expenses
to the advantage of Bruce Power.

The goof was discovered two days before the deal was signed but not
corrected because government negotiators found errors elsewhere that
favoured the government.

However, McCarter found "the documentation that the ministry
provided to us did not support its assessment of the errors it cited
as offsetting."

 In terms of cost overruns, ratepayers are more protected from major
ones than minor ones and there was not enough evidence to agree to
pay a $250 million addition to the total cost of the project in the
final days before it was signed, McCarter said in an interview.

If costs go 10 to 20 per cent over budget, ratepayers are on the
hook but they will pay one-quarter of extra costs when overruns rise
past 50 per cent.

 Bruce Power will get full market price for the electricity it would
normally produce if the province fails to build enough transmission
lines to get it to customers.

"Our concern is that Bruce will have a higher profit margin when the
plants are not operating than when the plants are operating," the
review said, arguing a better arrangement for ratepayers would have
been to negotiate a lower "floor price" instead.

TheStar.com 

© Copyright Toronto Star online since 1996     
*****************************************************************
 12 Houston Chronicle: Founding member of Greenpeace fan of nuclear power 

| Chron.com -

April 5, 2007, 11:35PM

Nuclear power wins a fan

By TOM FOWLER Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

As a founding member of the environmental group Greenpeace, Patrick
Moore regularly put himself between hunters and baby seals, Russian
whaling ships and whales.

Today he's put himself in the middle of a more civil but no less
divisive conflict: the long-standing public skepticism toward
nuclear power in the U.S. and a resurgence of interest in the
technology as an alternative to fossil fuels.

Speaking Thursday before the Gulf Coast Power Association in The
Woodlands, Moore described himself as "proudly skeptical" of claims
the scientific community has reached a consensus on the causes of
global warming, but said he remains in favor of moving away from
reliance on fossil fuels.

Moore, who is chairman and chief scientist of consulting firm
Greenspirit Strategies and co-chair of a pro-nuclear energy group
called the CASEnergy Coalition, said nuclear power could help wean
the U.S. from its reliance on foreign oil and natural gas. It could
also reduce the health effects of power plant emissions and save oil
and gas for better uses, such as creating plastics, he said.

Moore's visit to Houston comes as a growing number of companies
announce plans to build what will be the first new nuclear power
reactors in the U.S. in nearly two decades.

More reactors in Texas

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been notified of 32 possible
reactors, including plans for as many as eight new ones in Texas.

The same can be said of the rest of the world, according to a recent
study by Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

There are 435 operating nuclear power reactors in the world, 103 of
them in the U.S., producing 16 percent of all electricity. Another
28 are under construction.

Moore said his acceptance of nuclear power was slow in coming. He
said he still remembers the anxiety he felt in 1979 after the
accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania helped turn
much U.S. public opinion against nuclear power. He then shared
Greenpeace's current stance on nuclear power — that it creates an
unacceptable risk to the planet.

Over time he grew frustrated with what he described as Greenpeace's
tendency to just point out problems and not suggest solutions.

In 1986 he left the group after serving as one of five top
directors, and went into what was then a new field: farm-raised
salmon. The consulting work and public speaking followed.

Moore said he believes the safety issues surrounding nuclear power
are misunderstood, noting that the North American power industry has
never had a death related to radiation exposure and that the safety
record of U.S. and Canadian nuclear plants is very good.

Reprocess spent fuel rods

The nuclear waste issue also need not be as onerous as many say it
is if the U.S. starts to do what other countries already do and
reprocess spent fuel rods into a form that can be reused in a
reactor. The fuel rods still have 95 percent of the potential energy
after the first cycle, and within 40 years, used fuel has less than
one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from
a reactor.

The spread of nuclear weapons is clearly a concern, but Moore said
he disagrees with the notion that nuclear power plants and nuclear
weapon proliferation must be directly linked. Putting greater
emphasis on international efforts to police possible sources of bomb
materials is most important, he said.

Despite his skepticism toward the certainty some profess for the
causes behind global warming, Moore doesn't believe the world should
just wait for more evidence.

"There's no doubt we're changing the chemistry of the planet, and
that's not good," he said. Cutting back on fossil fuels makes good
sense as an "insurance policy" against the possibility they truly
are the main culprit behind climate change.

tom.fowler@chron.com
*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: NRC Schedules Conference with Areva to Discuss Apparent 
Violations at its Richland, Wash. Fuel Facility

News Release - Region II - 2007-012 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, 
Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 
E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is scheduled to meet with 
representatives of AREVA NP, Inc. on Thursday, April 12, to 
discuss apparent violations of agency requirements involving a 
small hydrogen fluoride release at the company&rsquo;s Richland, 
Wash., facility in late October 2006. The NRC-licensed plant 
processes uranium and produces nuclear fuel for commercial 
nuclear power plants. The apparent violations were identified 
during an NRC special inspection beginning shortly after the 
event and subsequent reviews and teleconferences.

 The predecisional enforcement conference with AREVA is scheduled 
to begin at 8:00 a.m. (EDT) in the NRC Region II Office, at 61 
Forsyth Street SW, Suite 23T85, in Atlanta, Ga., and will be open 
to the public. The meeting is between AREVA and the NRC, but 
those people attending will have an opportunity to ask questions 
of NRC staff prior to the end of the meeting.

 On the morning of Oct. 23, 2006, a technician at the AREVA 
Richland plant noticed an unusual odor which was determined to be 
hydrogen fluoride gas, a non-radioactive chemical used in 
processing uranium hexafluoride into nuclear fuel. No elevated 
radiation readings were recorded, personnel were warned that 
entering the area required respiratory protection equipment, and 
operations in that area were stopped. The technician was later 
admitted to the hospital for observation, but there was no 
exposure to other workers and no release offsite.

   The NRC staff is satisfied that the company completed a 
thorough investigation and analysis of the event and has taken 
appropriate corrective actions, but NRC inspectors identified 
apparent violations involving event reporting, inappropriate 
respiratory protection equipment and inadequate engineering and 
administrative controls for small hydrogen fluoride releases.

NRC news releases are available through a free list server 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.


Friday, April 06, 2007
*****************************************************************
 14 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 3's safety rating lowered after transformer explosion, fire

Friday, April 6, 2007

By LIZ ANDERSON, GREG CLARY AND NICOLE NEROULIAS

BUCHANAN - An explosion and fire in a transformer yard at the Indian
Point nuclear power complex today led to the shutdown of the Indian
Point 3 reactor, but officials said the fire was quickly
extinguished with no impact on public health and safety.

The unplanned shutdown, the second this week, will degrade the
plant's safety rating to white from green, the safest of four
operational categories, said Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for the
federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The lower rating means the controversial atomic energy generator
will face increased inspections by governent regulators, Screnci
said.

Today's incident was reported at around 11:15 a.m. Shortly after
noon, Michael Slobodien, a director of emergency planning for
Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates the plant, said
the facility was stable and under control.

"Between the transformer and the reactor, there's a huge concrete
structure," he said.

Entergy has declared a "notice of unusual events," the lowest of
four emergency classifications in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, with the state and regional counties. An investigation
has been launched to determine what caused the fire and what kind of
damage.

"It's too early at this point," Slobodien said.

The unusual event was delcared at 11:43 a.m. and ended at 12:47
p.m., said Screnci of the NRC.

The Entergy declaration prompted Westchester County to open its
emergency operation center at the Transportation Management Center
in Hawthorne. Officials planned a press briefing there at 1:45 p.m.

The Verplanck Fire Department responded to the scene this morning,
but they were told they were not needed because the facility's
internal brigade handled the situation.

Buchanan Mayor Dan O'Neill said he was not concerned about the fact
that the fire had taken place at the nuclear facility.

"Unfortunately, these things happen when you're making electricity,"
he said. "It could happen at any type of power plant. ... This had
nothing to do with nuclear power, it had to do with making
electricity."

Indian Point 3 had returned to service Saturday, following a
scheduled 24-day refueling outage when workers replaced 96 of the
193 fuel assemblies used during operation.

Then, a steam generator problem prompted workers to manually shut
down the plant early Tuesday morning, but no release of radiation
was reported and the plant was restarted less than 24 hours later.

Coming up from a re-start after that unplanned shutdown, Indian
Point 3 was at about 90 percent capacity when today's fire broke
out, officials said.

The plant, which went online 31 years ago this week, had two
unplanned shutdowns in 2006, according to Nuclear Regulatory
Commission records.

NRC spokeswoman Screnci said Entergy was not required to sound its
emergency siren system because the plant's neighbors did not need to
do anything in response to the incident. The sirens are intended to
notify residents to turn to an Emergency Alert System broadcast for
information.

On Monday, 123 of the 150 new emergency-warning sirens failed to
successfully complete an operational test. The sirens are required
to be ready to go by a week from Sunday. The existing system remains
in use until then.

Staff writers Bruce Golding and Len Maniace contributed to this
report.

Check back for updates at LoHud.com and read more about this story
tomorrow in The Journal News.

======================================================================

 Hey hope you got your iodine pills that Putnam County is handing
out to its citizens! They are to be taken for exposure to radiation.
What do you need an explosion to actually occur ? Talk about denial!

Posted by: Maxine on Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:23 pm

======================================================================

 "even the NRC realizes this reactor is not well-maintained" Get
your facts straight. This is not a reactor problem. The safety
rating is for the whole plant, transformer yard included.
Transformers get hot and blow up, period. How many Con.Ed fires
happen in Manhatten blowing manhole covers?
Stop the hysterics. Get over it. I saw the smoke this morning out my
window. A few inquiries found the story. Nothing to worry about. No
sirens. Go Clearwater festival in June and surround yourself with
fellow loose libs in the Activist area.......
Nuclear energy, get used to it......

Posted by: HDTVdesignteam on Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:22 pm

======================================================================

 "Indian Point supplies electricity to 2 million...whoops! I mean 1
million homes"...

let's get real, folks- IP3's NRC safety rating just went from green
to white, meaning even the NRC realizes this reactor is not
well-maintained. if these were all such normal occurrences, why
don't all the nuke plants have constant shutdowns?

as long as you're googling, try this one "NAS Study of Spent fuel
pools"- a lot more interesting than 45,000 transformer fire
references, and a lot more relevant to Indian Point.

in the meantime, Machines are evil! technology is bad! long live the
Luddites!

Posted by: senasqua7 on Fri Apr 06, 2007 2:44 pm

======================================================================

 I just this instant googled the phrase "Transformer Fire"
and got over 45,000 hits. This kind of incident is a routine
occurrence in the electrical utility world.

Posted by: la_88 on Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:00 pm

======================================================================

 Even though this has nothing to do with the nuclear reactor, it
won't stop the anti-nuke Luddite kooks, and their amen corner at the
JN, from making this seem like another Chernobyl.

Posted by: RPF on Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:24 pm

======================================================================

Copyright © 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper
serving Westchester, Rockland
*****************************************************************
 15 IHT: Report: India plans large nuclear power plant in collaboration with European countries - 

International Herald Tribune

The Associated Press

Published: April 6, 2007

NEW DELHI: India plans to build a large atomic power plant in the
western state of Maharashtra, encouraged by the civilian nuclear
deal with the U.S. that will help the country access the
international market for nuclear fuel and technologies, a news
report said.

State-run Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd. plans to build the
10,000 megawatt plant using European pressurized reactors, or EPRs,
from France, Germany and Finland, the Financial Express newspaper
reported.

EPRs are third generation nuclear reactors that feature better
safety standards and significantly contain radioactivity in the
event of an accident.

The plant, comprising six units, each having the capacity to
generate 1,650 megawatts of electricity, will cost 500 billion
rupees (US$11.4 billion, €8.5 billion), the report said quoting S.K.
Jain, chairman of the Indian company.

India currently operates much smaller plants with a combined
capacity of less than 4,000 megawatts, mainly because of lack of
adequate nuclear fuel supplies.

Construction of the plant is expected to start next year, Jain said.

It wasn't immediately clear if companies from European countries
would also have equity stakes in the project. The report didn't
elaborate on financial aspects.

Officials at Nuclear Power Corp. could not be reached for comments
as government offices were closed to mark the Good Friday holiday.

The 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group bars its members from
exporting nuclear fuel to India because New Delhi has refused to
sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The agreement with the United States, which was cleared by its
Congress last December, seeks to lift that ban.

Copyright © 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights
reserved     
*****************************************************************
 16 BusinessWeek: Report: India to build $11B power plant

The Associated Press April 6, 2007, 4:20AM EST

NEW DELHI

India plans to build a large atomic power plant in the western state
of Maharashtra, encouraged by the civilian nuclear deal with the
U.S. that will help the country access the international market for
nuclear fuel and technologies, a news report said.

State-run Nuclear Power Corp. of India Ltd. plans to build the
10,000 megawatt plant using European pressurized reactors, or EPRs,
from France, Germany and Finland, the Financial Express newspaper
reported.

EPRs are third generation nuclear reactors that feature better
safety standards and significantly contain radioactivity in the
event of an accident.

The plant, comprising six units, each having the capacity to
generate 1,650 megawatts of electricity, will cost 500 billion
rupees ($11.4 billion), the report said quoting S.K. Jain, chairman
of the Indian company.

The investment amount will be raised through a combination of equity
and debt, including loans from multilateral development agencies,
the report quoted Jain as saying.

India currently operates much smaller plants with a combined
capacity of less than 4,000 megawatts, mainly because of lack of
adequate nuclear fuel supplies.

Construction of the plant is expected to start next year, Jain said.

It wasn't immediately clear if companies from European countries
would also have equity stakes in the project. The report didn't
elaborate on financial aspects.

Officials at Nuclear Power Corp. could not be reached for comments
as government offices were closed to mark the Good Friday holiday.

The 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group bars its members from
exporting nuclear fuel to India because New Delhi has refused to
sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The agreement with the United States, which was cleared by its
Congress last December, seeks to lift that ban.

Encouraged by the deal, India plans to increase nuclear power
production nearly 10-fold to 30,000 megawatts in 20 years. That
target could go up if India allows domestic private companies to
enter nuclear power generation, which is currently limited to
state-run utilities.

Copyright 2000-2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
 17 BusinessWeek: Nulear plant license transfer gets OK

The Associated Press April 6, 2007, 3:09PM EST

WASHINGTON

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Friday it approved the
transfer of a license to run a nuclear power plant in Michigan to
New Orleans-based Entergy Corp.

Entergy agreed last summer to buy the 798-megawatt Palisades Nuclear
Plant from Jackson, Mich.-based CMS Energy Corp. Now that it has
received the necessary regulatory approvals, the $380 million deal
is expected to close by May 1, according to a plant spokesman.

Michigan regulators last month agreed to let CME subsidiary
Consumers Energy buy the nuclear plant's output for 15 years. The
state's attorney general and several consumer groups had argued the
deal would be a bad deal for utility customers.

But the Michigan Public Service Commission agreed with Consumers
Energy that customers will benefit from the plan to sell the
35-year-old nuclear power plant.

The Palisades plant sits near Lake Michigan in Van Buren County's
Covert Township, about 55 miles southwest of Grand Rapids, and has
been producing power commercially since December 1971. Entergy is
the second-largest operator of nuclear plants in the U.S., behind
Chicago's Exelon Corp.

Copyright 2000-2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Lasalle Nuclear 
Power Plant

News Release - Region III - 2007-012 - 

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 Exelon Generation Co. on Tuesday, April 10, to 
discuss the agency&rsquo;s assessment of safety performance for 
last year at the LaSalle Nuclear Power Plant. The two-reactor 
facility is located near Seneca, Illinois.

 The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to 
begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Brookfield Townhip Hall, 2099 E. 27th 
Road, Seneca. 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.

  &ldquo;The NRC continually reviews the performance of the 
LaSalle plant and the nation&rsquo;s other commercial nuclear 
power facilities,&rdquo; NRC Region III Administrator James 
Caldwell said. &ldquo;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.&rdquo;

   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/lasa_2006q4.pdf.

 The NRC&rsquo;s assessment concluded that the LaSalle 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 &ldquo;green&rdquo; and 
then increase to &ldquo;white,&rdquo; &ldquo;yellow&rdquo; or 
&ldquo;red,&rdquo; commensurate with the safety significance of 
the issues involved.

    All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for 
LaSalle during 2006 were determined to be &ldquo;green.&rdquo; As 
a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, 
baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year.

  In addition to the &ldquo;green&rdquo; findings, the NRC issued 
a Notice of Violation to the LaSalle plant in March 2006 for a 
willful violation of NRC requirements involving three contractor 
pipefitters entering a high-radiation area without following 
plant radiation protection procedures during a 2005 outage.

   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&rsquo;s 
headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant 
operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are 
emergency planning, equipment inspection, effluent monitoring, 
component design engineering, corrective action program, and 
maintenance.

   Current performance information for LaSalle is available on 
the NRC&rsquo;s web site at: (Unit 1) 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LASA1/lasa1_chart.html 
and (Unit 2) 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LASA2/lasa2_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.


| Site Disclaimer Friday, April 06, 2007
*****************************************************************
 19 BusinessWeek: Entergy Indian Point 3 plant shuts down

The Associated Press April 6, 2007, 5:06PM EST

By JIM FITZGERALD

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.

An electrical fault and fire in a transformer forced the automatic
shutdown Friday of the Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant, officials
said.

The fire, which was extinguished in 15 minutes, was outside the
nuclear area of the plant and there was no release of radiation,
said Diane Screnci of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. No injuries
were reported.

"The plant is stable and reacted normally," she said. "There's no
impact on public health and safety."

Nevertheless, Screnci said, an "unusual event" was declared at the
plant, which is on the Hudson River in Buchanan, about 40 miles
north of New York City. The declaration, the lowest of several
safety alert classifications, required plant owner Entergy Nuclear
Northeast to notify the NRC and state and local governments. It was
called off after about an hour.

In addition, because it was Indian Point 3's fourth unplanned
shutdown since July, the plant's rating in that area went from
"green," the best, to "white," Screnci said. This will mean tighter
inspections for the plant.

Several officials said Friday's fire, combined with other Indian
Point woes, showed the need for a permanent shutdown or at least for
an inspection known as an Independent Safety Assessment, which the
NRC is resisting.

Rep. John Hall, a Democrat whose district includes the plant, said
in a statement that the fire "reinforces the necessity of an
objective, truly independent safety study before re-licensing for
another 20 years is considered." He listed several recent plant
problems, including failed emergency sirens and leaks of radioactive
water, and said Entergy's safety assurances lacked credibility.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a release: "This constant stream
of problems simply does not square with the insistence of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Entergy that an Independent Safety
Assessment is not needed at Indian Point."

Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said a fire in the transformer is among
the events that trigger an automatic shutdown of a nuclear plant.

He said the cause of the fire was not known. It spread smoke around
the area of the transformer yard, which is across a street from the
plant in Buchanan, but was confined to the transformer, he said.

The NRC said it was extinguished by the transformer's own "deluge
system" as well as the plant's fire brigade. Onsite NRC inspectors
made sure proper procedures were followed, the commission said.

Indian Point 2, the other working nuclear plant on the site,
remained up and running, Steets said.

He said the transformer takes electricity produced by the plant and
transforms it for use by the metropolitan area's electrical grid.

The shutdown was the second this week at Indian Point 3. A water
pump malfunction closed the plant down from 4 a.m. Tuesday to 1 a.m.
Wednesday. It had been closed for 24 days until Saturday for
scheduled refueling and maintenance.

Copyright 2000-2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
 20 Daily Times: US companies to make billions from Indian nuclear bonanza

Saturday, April 07, 2007 

By Khalid Hasan

WASHINGTON: US corporations expect to earn $20 to $40 billion from
the civilian nuclear agreement with India, according to a new book.

Mira Kamdar’s new book Planet India lists a number of statistics
about her country, among which is included the finding that India is
the world’s fourth-largest economy and by 2034, India will be the
most populous country on earth, with 1.6 billion people. There are
2.2 million Indian Americans, a number expected to double every
decade. Twenty-nine percent of India’s population or 350 million
people speak English.

India’s middle class is already larger than the entire population of
the United States.

According to Kamdar, one out of three of the world’s malnourished
children live in India, which is also home to the biggest youth
population on earth at 600 million people under the age of 25. A
staggering 72,000,000 cell phones will be sold in India in 2007.
India just also edged past the United States to become the
second-most-preferred destination for foreign direct investment
after China. In 1991, Indians purchased 150,000 automobiles, a
figure that is going to reach 10 million this year.

By 2008, India’s total pool of qualified graduates will be more than
twice as large as that of China. By 2015, an estimated 3.5 million
white-collar US jobs will be “off-shored,” most to India. The
country is also the largest arms importer in the developing world.

Daily Times - All Rights Reserved
Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions
*****************************************************************
 21 FR NRC: Notice of Issuance of Renewed License, BWX Technologies, Inc., 
Lynchburg, VA

Doc E7-6480

[Federal Register: April 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 66)] 
[Notices] [Page 17195] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06ap07-85]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70-27]

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of license.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Billy Gleaves, 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), Mail Stop T-8F42, Washington, DC 20555, 
telephone: (301) 415-5848; fax number (301) 415-5955; e-mail: 
bcg@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.106, the NRC is providing notice of issuance 
of Materials License SNM-42 to BWX Technologies, Inc., (the licensee), 
to authorize continuing operation of the licensee's Mt. Athos facility 
in Lynchburg, Virginia. The licensee's request for the renewal of its 
license was previously noticed in the Federal Register on March 6, 2006 
(71 FR 11231), with a notice of opportunity to request a hearing that 
was open for 60 days. No requests for a hearing were received during 
the 60-day period. The associated Environmental Assessment and Finding 
of No Significant Impact was published in the Federal Register on March 
31, 2006.
    This renewed license complies with standards and requirements of 
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC's regulations as set 
forth in 10 CFR Chapter I. Accordingly, the renewed license was issued 
on March 29, 2007 and was effective immediately.

II. Further Information

    The NRC prepared a Safety and Safeguards Evaluation Report that 
documented the information reviewed, including NRC's conclusion. The 
Safety and Safeguards Evaluation Report and other related documents 
contain sensitive, unclassified security information, and is therefore 
deemed Official Use Only and will not be placed in the Public Document 
Room or the Publicly Available Records component of the NRC's 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) document 
system.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th 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. E7-6480 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 22 UPI: U.S. may aid Pakistan on power

United Press International - Energy - Briefing

Published: April 6, 2007 at 5:44 PM
 
ISLAMABAD, April 6 (UPI) -- The United States has said it is
prepared to offer financial and technical support to Pakistan to
solve its energy problems.

"The next three years are going to be very difficult and challenging
for Pakistan to resolve its energy crisis for which we are ready to
offer our financial and technical support," said Gordon Weynand, an
energy expert with the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The comments, made in Islamabad, were reported Friday by the Dawn
newspaper.

Pakistan is looking at a number of options to meet its rapidly
growing energy needs, including the controversial gas pipeline from
Iran to India via its territory. The United States opposes that deal
because of international scrutiny of Iran's nuclear program.

Pakistan is also looking to import gas and power from Central Asia.
Weynand said Washington would help Pakistan import electricity from
Tajikistan.

"Our mission is to put together economic growth strategy for
Pakistan for the next five years and to see how energy fits into the
Pakistani economy," he said.


© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 23 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for D.C. Cook Nuclear 
Power Plant

News Release - Region III - 2007-013 - 

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 Indiana Michigan Power Co. on Thursday, April 
12, to discuss the agency&rsquo;s assessment of safety 
performance for last year at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant. 
The plant is located near Bridgman, Mich.

 The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to 
begin at 3 p.m. at Lake Charter Township Hall, 3220 Shawnee Rd, 
Bridgman, 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.

 &ldquo;The NRC continually reviews the performance of the D.C. 
Cook plant and the nation&rsquo;s other commercial nuclear power 
facilities,&rdquo; NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell 
said. &ldquo;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.&rdquo;

   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/cook_2006q4.pdf.

    The NRC&rsquo;s assessment concluded that the D.C. Cook 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 &ldquo;green&rdquo; and 
then increase to &ldquo;white,&rdquo; &ldquo;yellow&rdquo; or 
&ldquo;red,&rdquo; commensurate with the safety significance of 
the issues involved.

  All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for 
D.C. Cook during 2006 were determined to be &ldquo;green.&rdquo; 
As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, 
baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year.

    On October 6, 2006, the NRC imposed a $60,000 fine against 
the facility for making changes in their emergency preparedness 
procedures without prior NRC approval. The company removed the 
changes and took extensive corrective action, including training 
of plant personnel.

   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&rsquo;s 
headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant 
operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are 
emergency preparedness, component design engineering, radiation 
protection, replacement of the Unit 2 reactor vessel head, and 
equipment inspection.

  Current performance information for D.C. Cook is available on 
the NRC&rsquo;s web site at: (Unit 1) 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/COOK1/cook1_chart.html 
and (Unit 2) 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/COOK2/cook2_chart.html

NRC news releases are available through a free list server 
subscription at the following Web address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home 
Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the 
News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to 
subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site.


Friday, April 06, 2007
*****************************************************************
 24 UPI: NTPC to enter nuke power generation

United Press International - Energy - Briefing

Published: April 6, 2007 at 2:50 AM

NEW DELHI, April 6 (UPI) -- India's state-run National Thermal Power
Corp. says it plans to enter nuclear power generation and set up a
2,000 MW plant by 2011.

The company said it is targeting an increase in power-generation
capacity to 50,000 MW by 2012 and 75,000 MW by 2017 from the current
26,000 MW.

"We are in talks with nuclear power equipment manufacturers for
acquiring the necessary technology and know-how," said T.
Shankarlingam, chairman and managing director of the company.

He said a large part of the company's decision to enter
nuclear-power generation depended on the outcome of India's nuclear
deal with the United States, details of which are being negotiated.

He said the company adopted a multipronged strategy to increase its
generation capacity, including expansion of existing plants, setting
up green-field units and buying plants of state electricity boards.

He denied NTPC's decision to enter power-equipment manufacturing
would impose any threat to state-controlled Bharat Heavy Electrical
Corp. Ltd. He said the demand for power equipment was great.

NTPC generates electricity from coal. It is also planning to enter
the hydropower-generation sector. Shankarlingam said NTPC was keen
to acquire the liquefied natural gas terminal at Dabhol power plant.

"We are prepared to invest over $800 million into already
cash-starved Dabhol project," he said, adding the company will
invest the money after government clearance.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 25 UPI: Analysis: Global nuclear boom expected

United Press International - Energy - Analysis

Published: April 6, 2007 at 5:44 PM

By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent

WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) -- A global "nuclear renaissance," the
cliché for a growth in nuclear power plant construction, is not
merely talk, according to a new report by the Cambridge Energy
Research Associates. New reactors are in various phases, from
planning to construction, and even the United States, which hasn't
approved a new reactor since 1978, will likely take part.

The 435 nuclear reactors worldwide provide 16 percent of worldwide
electricity (103 reactors feed 20 percent of U.S. electricity).
Another 28 are under construction outside the United States, mostly
in Asia, and 20 countries are part of the boom CERA expects.

"We see good prospects," said CERA Senior Director Jone-Lin Wang,
co-author of "Is the 'Nuclear Renaissance' Real?"

"There are hurdles," Wang said, but the growth of the nuclear
industry will overcome them.

"Quite a few countries, outside of North America and Western Europe,
have actually never stopped building nuclear," Wang said. "So there
are continuing efforts in Japan, China and South Korea, unlike the
U.S. that stopped for three decades, never stopped and upped the
targets recently."

China, for example, with the world's largest population and a
growing need for energy, plans to increase its nuclear capacity from
the current 9 gigawatts to 40 gigawatts by 2020. It has already
signed contracts and placed orders.

Russia is also looking to expand its nuclear presence both in and
out of the country.

"They want to build nuclear power plants so they can release more
natural gas to sell," Wang said. Atomstroyexport, its nuclear export
firm, is building reactors or has contracts to do so in India,
China, Iran, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. In order to become
more of a player, Russia will consolidate its various nuclear
companies (transportation, fuel, construction and more) into a
vertically aligned state entity.

Western Europe is showing signs of "revival, slowly," Wang said.
Finland is building a reactor, and France is both looking to meet
demand growth and replace some of its current fleet -- though
nuclear opposition is growing. Britain is warming up to nuclear
power as well, and Germany is thinking of holding off on plans to
retire its fleet. "I think the EU has been gradually making positive
statements about nuclear power," Wang said.

India is "very ambitious," she said, attempting international
agreements to give it more access to technology and supplies and
looking to incorporate international designs to accompany the
indigenous model it has followed.

And Australia, Wang said, may move beyond its role as raw uranium
supplier to processing the fuel and possibly building nuclear plants
to use it.

The accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and the disaster
at Chernobyl, in what is now Ukraine, nearly halted the U.S. nuclear
industry. Major cost overruns in the 1970s and 1980s and a long-term
bare-bones price for natural gas almost finished the job.

But fossil-fuel prices have skyrocketed and stayed there, and a new
mainstream concern over global climate change may lead to the
regulation of polluting emissions, which makes nuclear a better
competitor.

"I'll be very surprised if the U.S. does not make a decision to
build within the next five years," Wang said. "I think the U.S.
looks very promising. It's a matter of how big of a build it is."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects applications for around 30
new reactors in the coming decade, including a dozen moving quick to
take advantage of new federal financial incentives.

The NRC has created a new licensing process as well, hoping to
reduce regulatory costs and time frame.

"Realistically, you're looking at the first wave from 2015 to 2020,
when they'll come online," Wang said. "The key is how well you can
manage the construction and manage the cost." Labor and materials
costs are rising, following the law of supply and demand. If the
first nuclear plants to enter the U.S. market make fiscal sense,
"you're going to see a lot more," Wang said.

Trish Conrad, media-relations manger for the Nuclear Energy
Institute, the U.S. industry's trade group, says the industry is
ready.

"Rising energy demand, a concern for the environment and a proven
record of operating nuclear power plants safely and efficiently are
all contributing to a renewed interest in nuclear power," Conrad
said. "The recent approval of early site permits and the announced
intentions to seek combined construction and operating licenses are
concrete steps toward the development of new nuclear power in this
country."

A recent study by the Congressional Research Service, however, found
extending federal incentives are vital for new nuclear in the United
States, unless its competition is priced out.

"Under base case conditions, it seems unlikely that a new nuclear
power plant would be constructed in the United States, barring a
sustained, long-term increase in natural-gas prices and the creation
of a substantial, mandatory greenhouse gas reduction program that
would increase coal-fired and natural gas-fired generating costs,"
it said.

Wang said there were other potential roadblocks, including a lack of
plans for storing nuclear waste, tight manufacturing capacity and
generally staying afloat during economic downturns.

And any nuclear accident or even near accident could freeze or
reverse the nuclear trend CERA predicts.

--

(e-mail: energy@upi.com)

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 26 globeandmail.com: Auditor blasts costly Ontario nuclear deal

POSTED ON 06/04/07

KAREN HOWLETT

Auditor-General Jim McCarter said in a report released yesterday he
recognizes that the province was not in a strong bargaining position
when it cut the 2005 deal with Bruce Power, the privately owned
consortium that operates the nuclear station on Lake Huron.

As a result, his report suggests, the government made too many
financial concessions at the expense of electricity consumers.

The government will pay Bruce Power 7.1 cents a kilowatt hour for
electricity produced from reactors the company plans to refurbish.
This is significantly higher than the average market price of 4.9
cents consumers have paid over the past five years and experts'
projections of future prices, the report says.


"The province's success with . . . negotiating a reasonable price
for the electricity from the refurbished units is not clear cut,"
the Auditor-General says.

The government announced in October of 2005 that it had negotiated a
$4.25-billion deal with Bruce Power to refurbish three reactors,
including two that have been idle since the mid-1990s, and replace
steam equipment in a fourth. But there have been questions from Day
1 about the extent to which electricity consumers could be on the
hook for cost overruns.

The Bruce refurbishment is the government's most ambitious project
to address the province's looming electricity shortage. Because of
the long lead time required for major projects, it was difficult for
the government to negotiate from a position of strength, the report
says.

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan defended the deal yesterday, saying
the government has successfully transferred much of the financial
risk associated with the project to the private sector.

"This was a good deal when we signed it, and it's a good deal
today," Mr. Duncan told reporters. "We will get a clean supply of
affordable electricity for the next 30 years."

Mr. Duncan also said the deal marks a new approach in getting idled
reactors up and running because most of the financial risk will be
born by Bruce Power instead of electricity consumers. The trade-off,
he said, is that consumers ultimately pay more for the electricity.
Cost overruns associated with previous reactor projects have left
electricity consumers on the hook for about $20-billion in hydro
debts.

"[Consumers] need to understand that there's no easy, cost free way
to deal with the challenges we've been faced with," Mr. Duncan said.

The Auditor-General says the government negotiated a series of
trade-offs that drove up the cost of electricity to 7.1 cents a
kilowatt hour. He also says the province was only partially
successful in transferring the risks associated with potential cost
overruns on the project. He expresses concern in the report that the
government did not obtain sufficient evidence to justify a late
$250-million increase in the estimated cost, for which electricity
consumers will be largely responsible.

The Auditor-General also questions why consumers would have to pay
for any excess costs associated with replacing the steam generators,
since Bruce Power's decision to do this predates the refurbishment
deal with the government.

In addition to the trade-offs, the Auditor-General identifies other
items that potentially could have reduced the price that will be
paid to Bruce by 0.36 cents a kilowatt hour. One of these items
includes a "mechanical error" in calculating the tax on interest
expenses.

"At these rates, this company is making money hand over fist and
it's the ordinary Ontarians paying the hydro bill who are paying for
it," New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton told reporters.

He accused the government of trying to hide some costs associated
with the refurbishment. "This was not an open and transparent
process," he said.

Progressive Conservative energy critic John Yakabuski also
criticized the deal.

Bruce Power acted in the best interests of its shareholders," he
told reporters. "The auditor's reports would certainly raise some
doubt as to whether the government acted in the best interests of
its shareholders."

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

*****************************************************************
 27 NRC: NRC Following up on Unusual Event at Indian Point 3

News Release - Region I - 2007-014 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, 
Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 
www.nrc.gov

CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 
337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was closely monitoring an 
Unusual Event at the Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant earlier 
today. An Unusual Event, the lowest of four levels of emergency 
classification, was declared at the Buchanan, N.Y., facility at 
11:43 a.m. following a transformer failure and fire. Entergy, 
which operates the plant, exited the Unusual Event at 12:47 p.m.

  The fire was extinguished by the transformer&rsquo;s deluge 
system and the plant&rsquo;s fire brigade responded. There was no 
radiation release associated with the event and no impact on 
public health and safety. The reactor automatically shut down and 
is stable.

    NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said, &ldquo;Our 
on-site resident inspector staff was on the site at the time of 
the event and closely followed the company&rsquo;s response to 
ensure that all appropriate actions were taken.&rdquo;

 In addition to the Resident Inspectors, the Incident Response 
Center in the agency&rsquo;s Region I Office in King of Prussia, 
Pa., was activated to track developments and determine if plant 
operators were responding appropriately. The incident was 
monitored from the NRC&rsquo;s Emergency Operations Center in 
Rockville, Md., as well.

    The transformer that failed carries electricity from the main 
generator to the electrical grid.

   This is the fourth unplanned shutdown of Unit 3 since July. 
This will cause the NRC to conduct additional inspections at the 
unit.

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.

Disclaimer Friday, April 06, 2007
*****************************************************************
 28 USATODAY.com: Nuclear energy not answer to warming - Opinion - 

Christopher Paine, Senior Nuclear Research Analyst, Natural
Resources Defense Council - Washington

USA TODAY's article "Some rethinking nuke opposition" might suggest
to some readers that the position of the Natural Resources Defense
Council toward nuclear power has changed in response to global
warming pollution, but our view remains the same (News, March 23).

Because it is a source of low-carbon electricity in a number of
countries, including the USA, nuclear power cannot be ignored. But
acknowledging this reality and society's obligation to manage
nuclear power responsibly is a far cry from endorsing its expansion
as a solution to global warming.

Nuclear power remains a costly, complex and heavily state-subsidized
way to generate electricity. It imposes burdens that have not been
managed successfully — including nuclear waste disposal and
proliferation of materials for nuclear weapons. The low-carbon
profile of nuclear energy is offset by other threats, such as
uranium mining and security concerns. Given its limitations and
dangers, expansion of nuclear power should not — and probably
won't — play a major role in the global effort to solve global
warming.

Posted at 12:09 AM/ET, April 06, 2007 in Energy - Letters,
Environment - Letters, Letter to the editor, Politics, Government -
Letters | Permalink

*****************************************************************
 29 Hindustan Times: India can't afford to lose N-opportunity - Experts- 

US court rejects Sudarshan's bail plea in nuke tech case

April 06, 2007

Press Trust of India

As US President George W Bush's visit approaches, the few voices
within the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) have joined to become a
chorus.

While DAE as a whole has been painted as being opposed to separating
military and civilian facilities, the "rebels" within DAE hope the
government would not let the opportunity pass. For obvious reasons,
they want to remain anonymous.

"India has witnessed four decades of stifled progress in the
civilian nuclear programme which till recently was acting more like
camouflage for the not explicitly spelt out military ambitions," one
top DAE scientist said.

"It is high time that the dubious status of affairs changes," he
said.

"In a changed world where China is making strategic agreements to
buy uranium from Canada and Australia for long-term energy security,
India can ill-afford to turn down the opportunities striking its
doors," another physicist at the Bhabha Atomic Research Center
(BARC) said.

A senior reactor designer dismissed as rubbish DAE's argument that
the separation plan would jeopardise research on thorium reactors
that are expected to be main provider of electricity in the third
stage of Indian nuclear power programme.

The basic reason why thorium is ignored world over is that it has to
be externally fed with some man-made fissile material like plutonium
to get ignited and start producing power, he said.

According to the designer, if India on its own wanted to accumulate
sufficient plutonium for its fast breeder programme and the thorium
reactor research, it has to wait for at least 30 years.

"On the other hand, the Indo-US deal provides India a window of
opportunity to get the plutonium and build thorium reactors today,"
he said.

There is at least 3,000 tons of plutonium waiting to be reprocessed
from spent fuel discharged globally from uranium-based reactors.

For the first time after 30 years of freeze, the US is reconsidering
plutonium use for energy generation and, together with Russia, is
wanting to set up the GNEP (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership) for
plutonium recovery. It has invited India to become a partner.

Some DAE scientists say the Indo-US deal would pave the way for
India acquiring the plutonium it needs for its long-term energy
security from thorium.

Coincidentally, BARC physicists Usha Pal and Jagannathan have
designed a thorium breeder reactor (ATBR) generating 600 MW of
electricity that will consume only 880-kg of plutonium every two
years. The reactor produces 50 per cent of its energy from thorium.

According to some DAE scientists, this ATBR is poised to start
thorium utilisation by India today without having to wait for 30
years if the Indo-US deal went through.

"The political climate is conducive for such a dialogue for first
time in the history of world nuclear power generation," they said.

*****************************************************************
 30 asahi.com: More nuclear plant cover-ups admitted - 

* Asahi Weekly THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

04/07/2007

More cover-ups of problems at nuclear power plants were reported 
Friday as electric power companies belatedly announced measures 
to prevent a recurrence of accidents at their boiling-water 
reactors.

Tokyo Electric Power Co. officials on Friday explain new 
incidents of cover-ups at company-operated nuclear power plants. 
(The Asahi Shimbun)

In some instances at the boiling-water reactors, slipped control
rods led to a state of criticality, or a self-sustaining chain
reaction, including one at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant
operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO).

TEPCO on Friday came clean on other problems. Officials admitted
that not only did the company fail to have control rod operating
devices used at the Fukushima No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant inspected by
the central government, but that TEPCO workers asked Hitachi Ltd.
officials to help cover up the lack of inspection.

According to TEPCO officials, one of the 185 control rod operating
devices undergoing a periodic inspection at the No. 4 reactor of the
Fukushima No. 2 Nuclear Power Plant was malfunctioning in October
1988.

Before the operating devices are replaced, the replacement device
must first be inspected by central government officials. However,
rather than have the replacement device inspected, TEPCO officials
asked their Hitachi counterparts to manufacture a new device and
falsify the production number of that device.

Two replacement devices that were not inspected were confirmed safe
in subsequent inspections. The devices are still being used at the
Fukushima plant without the benefit of a central government
inspection.

The cover-up was discovered after Hitachi officials contacted TEPCO.

A TEPCO official said workers at the time probably were concerned
about a delay in the periodic inspection.

Hitachi officials also revealed Friday that secrecy was urged
immediately after a June 1999 accident at the Shika Nuclear Power
Plant operated by Hokuriku Electric Power Co. in which a reactor
reached a state of criticality for 15 minutes.

Hokuriku Electric officials called a Hitachi employee at home and
asked that an analysis be conducted on why the control rod slipped
in the reactor. The Hitachi employee, who was not told that state of
criticality had been reached, was asked to conduct the analysis in
secret, according to Hitachi officials.

The nation's 12 electric power companies on Friday released a set of
measures to prevent control rods from slipping out of position at
boiling-water nuclear reactors.

Some of the power companies indicated in their reports submitted
Friday to the central government that consideration had begun on
installing devices to check for changes in water pressure in the
piping that operates the control rods in the boiling-water nuclear
reactors.

The devices could prevent the control rods from slipping, they
said.(IHT/Asahi: April 7,2007)

The Asahi Shimbun Asia Network

*****************************************************************
 31 NRC: NRC Staff Approves Transfer of Palisades Operating License

News Release - 2007-044 - 

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 staff has approved the 
transfer of the operating license for the Palisades Nuclear Plant 
from owner Consumers Energy and operator Nuclear Management 
Company, to new owner Entergy Nuclear Palisades and operator 
Entergy Nuclear Operations. As provided by NRC regulations, the 
staff's approval of the license transfer became effective today.

     Consumers Energy and Nuclear Management Company submitted an 
application on Aug. 31, 2006, requesting approval of the license 
transfer. The application was supplemented by letters submitted 
Dec. 15, 2006; March 1, and April 4. Major issues considered by 
the NRC included financial qualifications as well as transfer and 
maintenance of accumulated decommissioning funds.

 A copy of the NRC's approval order and accompanying 
non-proprietary safety evaluation report will be placed in the 
NRC's Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852 (telephone 
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737). The nonproprietary safety 
evaluation will also be available on the NRC&rsquo;s Agency-wide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), by entering 
ML070780051 at this address: 
http://adamswebsearch.nrc.gov/dologin.htm.

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.

Site Disclaimer Friday, April 06, 2007
*****************************************************************
 32 UPI: NNSA sets up new radiation expsoure lab

United Press International - Security & Terrorism - 


4/6/2007 2:54:00 PM -0400

WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) -- The U.S. National Nuclear Security
Administration has set up a new facility to help identify radiation
exposure levels.

"In the event of a nuclear or radiological accident or terrorist
attack, NNSA's new Cytogenetics Biodosimetry Laboratory in Oak
Ridge, Tenn., will be able to help determine the amount of radiation
that a potential victim has been exposed to so that physicians can
better formulate treatment plans," the NNSA, an agency of the U.S.
Department of Energy, said in a statement.

"Determining the amount of radiation exposure can ultimately mean
the difference between life and death for the victims," said Joseph
Krol, the head of NNSA's emergency operations. "This facility is
absolutely unique within the civilian community and it will help to
ensure that our nation is ready and able to respond to a nuclear
emergency. We are very pleased that NNSA was able to provide the
federal leadership necessary to re-establish this important national
security capability."

"Cytogenetic biodosimetry is a proven method for accurately
estimating how much exposure a person has had to radiation," the
NNSA statement said. "A cytogenetics laboratory operated at Oak
Ridge until 1998, and after that the military had the nation's only
cytogenetic capability.

"With the increased focus on nuclear terrorism since the 9/11
terrorist attacks, NNSA decided to re-establish civilian cytogenetic
capabilities by constructing an improved laboratory," the statement
said. "The new CBL was jointly funded by NNSA, the Department of
Energy's Office of Worker Safety and Health, and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission," it said.

The NNSA said the new lab would be run as part of its Radiation
Emergency Assistance Center/Training Site, or REAC/TS, in the Oak
Ridge Institute for Science and Education.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 33 New London Day: Rell Says New Batch Of Potassium Iodide Will Be Distributed

[ Welcome to theday.com ]
 

Published on 4/6/2007 in Home »Region »Region Briefs

Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced Thursday that a new batch of potassium
iodide would be distributed within the next few months by local
authorities to residents and workers within the 10-mile emergency
planning zone (EPZ) around Millstone Power Station in Waterford.

“We are taking this action as a continuing effort to enhance public
safety for residents in the Millstone EPZ,” Rell said in a prepared
statement. “Combined with the proper public information, potassium
iodide distribution is a positive addition to our nuclear emergency
planning. KI may be obtained by anyone, but it will only be provided
in advance, and free of charge, to those within the EPZ.”

The governor that the last KI distribution took place about five
years ago.

The affected communities include East Lyme, Old Lyme, Waterford, New
London, Groton City, Groton Town, Fishers Island, and portions of
Lyme, Montville and Ledyard.

Radioactive iodine can harm the thyroid gland and can increase the
risk of developing thyroid cancer years after exposure. Potassium
iodide, also known as KI, is used in an effort to protect the
thyroid gland when there is a chance of exposure to a harmful amount
of radioactive iodine.

www.dph.state.ct.us.

 |  © 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
 34 Las Vegas SUN: Energy Department reorganizes procurements for Yucca Mountain

Today: April 06, 2007 at 9:10:4 PDT

LAS VEGAS (AP) - The federal Energy Department has reorganized the
procurement process for a planned nuclear waste dump in Nevada, two
months after a $495,000 consulting contract drew criticism from
lawmakers and a challenge from a failed bidder.

The formal protest effectively froze the contract given in February
to Longenecker & Associates to review engineering aspects of the
government's bid to license the Yucca Mountain repository.

"The protest must be resolved before work can be undertaken," said
Energy Department and Yucca Mountain spokesman Allen Benson in Las
Vegas.

The identity of the bidder, the grounds for the protest, and
information about how the matter is being handled were not
immediately made available by department officials.

The contract protest was divulged at the same time the Energy
Department announced two new contracts totaling $3 million for
outside consultants to review key parts of the repository program.

Department officials also confirmed a personnel shift last week in
the Yucca procurement operation.

Benson said the reorganization was an effort to "make efficiencies"
between procurement officers who evaluate contract bids and the
contract authority officer who ultimately decides the awards.

Benson said the change was not tied to the handling of the
Longenecker contract, but were part of broader changes being made by
Edward F. "Ward" Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management.

Under the reorganization, Ken Powers, the Yucca program's head
contract authority, will supervise the procurement office.

The 20-person procurement operation in Las Vegas includes officers
who monitor contract finances and take part in evaluating contract
bidders and recommending to selection officers which ones should be
rewarded.

Besides sparking a formal bid protest, the Longenecker & Associates
contract was criticized by Nevada officials amid reports that the
firm's board of directors and staff included several former
executives of the Yucca program, and that the firm has performed
other work at the site.

Critics of the proposed nuclear waste repository 90 miles northwest
of Las Vegas questioned whether Longenecker could provide an
independent judgment of the project.

Energy Department officials responded that there were no conflicts.
Company president John Longenecker said the bid was formed expressly
to avoid conflicts and that associates with Yucca Mountain were
beyond arm's length of the new job.

On Thursday, DOE announced it was giving a $1.3 million contract to
InfoZen Inc. of Maryland to assess the department's efforts to
improve quality assurance at Yucca Mountain.

A $1.7 million job was awarded to Georgia-based Organizational
Analysis Corporation to examine a draft license application for the
proposed repository.

The majority of the work for both assessments is expected to be
completed within six months, DOE officials said.

Benson said the bidders were screened for conflicts.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., called on the DOE to make public the
consultants' reports.

"If DOE is going to spend $3 million in taxpayer funding on these
studies, I do not want them thrown in the bottom of a desk drawer
somewhere to hide the results," Berkley said. "The public is paying
for this work, and the public has a right to see the results."

---

Information from: Las Vegas Review-Journal, http://www.lvrj.com

All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 35 Pahrump Valley Times: Yucca contracts awarded by DOE

Apr. 06, 2007

LAS VEGAS -- The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management announced that two contractors have
been selected to perform independent assessments of the quality
assurance program and the current draft of the Yucca Mountain
license application being prepared for submission to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.

"These independent assessments are critical to help me and senior
managers determine how to fully address some of the process and
organizational issues in these areas," said Ward Sproat, director of
the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management office. "These external
reviews are intended to inform us about how and where we need to
improve in these critical areas, and to ensure that we submit a high
quality license application."

InfoZen Inc. has been selected to perform an independent review of
the quality assurance program. Organizational Analysis Corp. has
been selected to review the draft license application for the Yucca
Mountain repository.

InfoZen will review the adequacy of the quality assurance plans for
Sproat's office, Bechtel SAIC Co., the program's prime contractor,
and select national laboratories. InfoZen Inc. will also audit
implementation of these plans and will help DOE determine how to
improve the design and implementation of current quality assurance
activities.

Organizational Analysis will assess the completeness and adequacy of
the draft license application against the acceptance criteria
contained in relevant NRC requirements. The contractor will also
recommend actions to address any issues identified during its
assessment.


webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 -
*****************************************************************
 36 Sun News: Nuclear Dumping Should Move On

04/06/2007

OTHER VOICES

The S.C. House Agriculture Committee surprised many last week when
it voted 16-0 to reject a bill that would have kept the Barnwell
nuclear dump open to the nation past 2008. But it can be jarring
when anyone in South Carolina acts as the committee did: closing the
door on our past in a way that improves the state's economic future.

South Carolina has become united around an economic goal: focusing
its efforts and resources on industries that can raise the state's
standard of living, putting more money in citizens' pockets. Workers
in this state earn much less than those elsewhere, and we can't
improve our economic future unless that changes. To do that, we have
to concentrate on economic areas that will offer greater rewards.

There's a flip side to that: South Carolina has to be prepared to
get out of industries that are holding it back. That can simply mean
choosing wisely in economic development or in spending research
dollars. But it certainly means not extending our reign as a nuclear
repository for the nation - at minimal economic gain. South Carolina
has been accepting the nation's low-level waste for more than three
decades. South Carolina was willing to do its part, though at
considerable cost to the state's reputation as a desirable place to
live and work. In 2008, as already agreed, the state will get out of
that business, handling only our own waste and that from two other
states. The rest of the country, long freed from the need to handle
its own waste by South Carolina's wide-open policy, has to handle
its own waste starting next year.

Advocates for keeping Barnwell open to the whole nation through 2023
provided little to back their viewpoint. Certainly the economic
incentives to the state for accepting all this waste were slight,
and the Barnwell site might reach capacity before then, leaving the
state with nowhere to put its own waste. The bill's many paid
advocates seemed set on convincing the state that the Barnwell dump
is not quite as bad as folks might think, hardly a compelling
argument to break the existing agreement.

If the Chem-Nuclear dump was such an asset to South Carolina, as
backers of the longer deal contend, then which other states will be
stepping forward to bid for the business now? Won't North Carolina
or Pennsylvania, for instance, be striving to attract this economic
asset?

Not a chance. Such states have higher economic aspirations; they
won't be endangering their appeal to potential new businesses
investors with such an endeavor.

That ought to be the standard for South Carolina too, as we try to
build a more prosperous state while focusing on such industries as
automobile manufacturing and aviation. Operating the Barnwell dump
in perpetuity is not a good advertisement to the business executives
and entrepreneurs South Carolina hopes to attract as investors.

The House Agriculture committee took a big step toward setting that
higher standard for South Carolina's future. If the issue comes up
again in the legislature (and it likely will), the answer should be
the same: We in South Carolina are ready to let this industry move
on, thank you.

The (Columbia) State
*****************************************************************
 37 ReviewJournal.com: Yucca project procurement office altered

Apr. 06, 2007

Changes take place after protest lodged against award of contract

By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy has reorganized the Yucca
Mountain procurement office, two months after the award of a
$495,000 consulting contract that has been criticized by lawmakers
and challenged by a bidder who was passed over.

The formal protest effectively has frozen the contract that was
given in February to Longenecker & Associates to review engineering
aspects of the government's bid to license a Nevada nuclear waste
repository.

"The protest must be resolved before work can be undertaken," DOE
spokesman Allen Benson said.

The identity of the bidder, the stated grounds for the protest, and
information about how the matter is being handled were not
immediately made available by DOE officials.

The contract protest was divulged at the same time that DOE
officials announced two new contracts totaling $3 million for
outside consultants to review key parts of the repository program.

Department officials also confirmed a personnel shift in the Yucca
procurement operation that was carried out last week.

Benson said the reorganization was an effort to "make efficiencies"
between procurement officers who evaluate contract bids and the
contract authority officer who ultimately decides the awards.

Benson said the change was not tied to the handling of the
Longenecker contract.

"Don't link the two. They are not linked," Benson said, adding they
were part of broader changes being made by Ward Sproat, director of
the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.

Under the reorganization, Ken Powers, the Yucca program's head
contract authority, will supervise the Office of Procurement.

The 20-person procurement operation in Las Vegas includes officers
who monitor contract finances and take part in evaluating contract
bidders and recommending to selection officers which ones should be
rewarded.

Besides sparking a formal bid protest, the Longenecker & Associates
contract was criticized by Nevada officials after it was reported
that the firm's board of directors and staff includes several former
executives of the Yucca program, and that the firm has performed
other work at the site.

Critics of the proposed nuclear waste repository 100 miles northwest
of Las Vegas questioned whether Longenecker could provide an
independent judgment of the project.

DOE officials responded that there were no conflicts. Company
president John Longenecker said the bid was formed expressly to
avoid conflicts of interest and that associates with Yucca Mountain
were beyond arm's length of the new job.

On Thursday, DOE announced it was giving a $1.3 million contract to
InfoZen Inc. of Maryland to assess the department's efforts to
improve quality assurance at Yucca Mountain.

A $1.7 million job was awarded to Georgia-based Organizational
Analysis Corporation to examine a draft license application for the
proposed repository.

The majority of the work for both assessments is expected to be
completed within six months, DOE officials said.

Benson said the bidders were screened for conflicts.

"The answer is, there is no problem," Benson said.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., called on the DOE to make public the
consultants' reports.

"If DOE is going to spend $3 million in taxpayer funding on these
studies, I do not want them thrown in the bottom of a desk drawer
somewhere to hide the results," Berkley said. "The public is paying
for this work, and the public has a right to see the results."


Leave Your Comment 0 Reader Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole
responsiblity of the authors. The Review Journal does not review
comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By
publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy.
If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web
editor.


Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007
Stephens Media, LLC   Privacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 38 PE.com: PG&E breaks ground on storage facility for spent nuclear fuel

| Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California

The Associated Press

EUREKA

Spent nuclear fuel rods currently resting in a decommissioned
nuclear power facility in the King Salmon area appear to be destined
for a safer location from the North Coast's hefty seismic hazards.

Residents, community leaders and Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
employees gathered Wednesday to break ground on a PG&E project to
build an underground concrete storage facility inside a hill on the
Humboldt Bay Power Plant property. The bunker is designed to
withstand a 9.3-magnitude earthquake and shield the fuel from a
terrorist attack.

The facility is scheduled to be completed by 2008 and will be an
interim stop for the 390 fuel rods until the U.S. Department of
Energy completes its Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada.

"This dry cask storage project will take some material out of what I
think is a fragile environment ... and make it safer for the people
who live nearby," said Jimmy Smith, a Humboldt County supervisor.

PG&E also plans to modernize the facility over the next three years
with 10 natural gas burning engines that could be run independently
and more efficiently to provide up to 163 megawatts of electricity.

___

Information from: Times-Standard, http://www.times-standard.com

Published: Thursday, April 5, 2007 18:45 PDT

© 2007 Press-Enterprise Company
*****************************************************************
 39 Las Cruces Sun-News: Trinity site opens for tour this weekend

Sun-News report

Article Launched: 04/06/2007 01:00:00 AM MDT

LAS CRUCES &mdash; White Sands Missile Range will open Trinity Site
to the public for an open house from 8 a.m. until 2 p.m. Saturday.

The open house is free.

Trinity Site is where the world's first atomic bomb was tested at
5:29:45 a.m. Mountain War Time on July 16, 1945.

At the site, the public can take a quarter-mile walk to ground zero
where a small obelisk marks the exact spot where the bomb was
exploded. Historical photos are mounted on the fence surrounding the
area.

Visitors can also ride a missile range shuttle bus two miles to the
Schmidt/McDonald ranch house where scientists assembled the
plutonium core of the bomb.

The simplest way to get to Trinity Site is from Interstate 25 to the
San Antonio, N.M. exit. Traveling east on U.S. Highway 380,
motorists can enter WSMR through the Stallion Range Center gate. The
turnoff is 12 miles east of San Antonio and 53 miles west of
Carrizozo.

Signs are posted to direct motorists to the Stallion gate. At the
gate visitors will receive handouts and can drive unescorted the 17
miles to Trinity Site.

The road from Stallion gate to the state and federal historical
landmark is paved and marked.

Another way to attend the open house is to drive with a caravan 
that will form at the Tularosa High School football field. The 
caravan will leave at 8 a.m. for the 75-mile drive to Trinity 
Site, and military police will escort the caravan once it gets 
onto missile range land.

The caravan is scheduled to leave Trinity Site for the return trip
between 12:30 p.m. and 1 p.m.

All adults must show a photo ID. All vehicles are subject to search
and motorists should have proof of insurance and current
registration papers for their vehicle.

There are no ceremonies or speakers, and food and souvenirs will be
sold at the site.


If you go


What: Trinity Site open house

When: 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Saturday

Where: Trinity Site is located at the north end of White Sands
Missile Range, about 30 miles south and east of Socorro

Information: WSMR Public Affairs Office, 678-1134, or on the
Internet at: www.wsmr.army.mil/pao/TrinitySite/trinst.htm


Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 40 UPI: DOE signs Yucca quality-assurance contract

United Press International - Energy - Briefing

Published: April 6, 2007 at 1:58 PM

WASHINGTON, April 6 (UPI) -- The U.S. Energy Department's nuclear
waste office has awarded a $1.3 million independent review of
quality assurance at the Yucca Mountain Project.

Rockville, Md.-based InfoZen Inc. will review quality-assurance
plans for the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the
main contractor of the Yucca Mountain Project, Bechtel SAIC Co., and
national laboratories participating in the project, according to an
OCRWM release.

Yucca Mountain has been designated as the sole repository of nuclear
waste produced by U.S. plants and the military. It was supposed to
open in 1998 but has been besieged by funding shortfalls, heavy
opposition and scientific controversy. Its quality-assurance program
has been faulted for unresponsive management and tamping down on
those who raise flags.

InfoZen will also look at how the department implements
quality-assurance plans and help improve them. OCRWM also signed a
$1.7 million contract with Hartsfield, Ga.-based Organizational
Analysis Corp. to review the Yucca Mountain license application.
OCRWM intends to submit the application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission by June 2008.

"These independent assessments are critical to help me and senior
managers determine how to fully address some of the process and
organizational issues in theses areas," said Ward Sproat, director
of OCRWM. "These external reviews are intended to inform us about
how and where we need to improve in these critical areas, and to
ensure that we submit a high-quality license application."


© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 41 BBC NEWS: THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE

Introduction :: Mining uranium

Uranium is the basic raw material of both civilian and military
nuclear programmes.

It is extracted from either open-cast pits or by underground mining.
Although uranium occurs naturally all over the world, only a small
fraction is found in concentrated ores.

When certain atoms of uranium are split in a chain reaction, energy
is released. This process is called nuclear fission.

In a nuclear power station this fission occurs slowly, while in a
nuclear weapon, very rapidly. In both instances, fission must be
very carefully controlled.

Nuclear fission works best if isotopes - atoms with the same number
of protons, but different numbers of neutrons - of uranium 235 (or
plutonium 239) are used.These isotopes have almost identical
chemical properties, but different nuclear properties. Uranium-235
is known as a "fissile isotope" because of its propensity to split
in a chain reaction, releasing energy in the form of heat.

When a U-235 atom splits, it emits two or three neutrons. When other
U-235 atoms are present, these neutrons collide with them causing
the other atoms to split, producing more neutrons.

A nuclear reaction will only take place if there are enough u-235
atoms present to allow this process to continue as a self-sustaining
chain reaction. This requirement is known as "critical mass".

However, every 1,000 atoms of naturally-occurring uranium contain
only seven atoms of U-235, with the remaining 993 being denser U-238.  


MAJOR URANIUM PRODUCERS:

Australia, Canada, China, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger, Russia,
Uzbekistan


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 42 Cumberland News: Sellafield contract secures 65 jobs at engineering firm

Published on 06/04/2007

Expertise: The Kingstown-based manufacturer beat off competition
from a host of blue-chip nuclear engineering firms to land a deal to
help create an evaporator unit for Sellafield’s Thorp reprocessing
facility

By Matthew Legg

Business Reporter

SIXTY-FIVE Cumbrian engineering jobs have been secured after
Carlisle firm Bendalls scooped a £1.6m contract with Sellafield
nuclear plant.

The Kingstown-based manufacturer beat off competition from a host of
blue-chip nuclear engineering firms to land a deal to help create an
evaporator unit for the plant’s Thorp reprocessing facility.

The unit will be built at the company’s 50,000 sq ft factory and
is due for completion this November.

Managing director Norman Addison said: “We are delighted to get
the contract.

“This puts us on a global level as a world class manufacturer in
the extremely demanding requirements of the nuclear industry.

“This provides security for our 65 staff and will put us in a
strong position to compete for nuclear decommissioning work and
hopefully work to build a new generation of nuclear sites in the
future.�

Bendalls is also working on an order from US firm Bechtel to help
build a new nuclear waste treatment facility in Washington State,
USA.

The Sellafield work is part of a project to install a £5.9m
evaporation unit at the controversial Thorp reprocessing plant. The
Medium Active Salt Free Evaporator (MASFE) is needed to replace the
existing unit which bosses say is “nearing the end of its life�.

Thorp’s roof will be opened to drop the new evaporator in, some
time later this year. It will be operational by spring 2008.

Thorp remains closed after a leak two years ago and will not re-open
until the second half of this year.

The facility was shut down after a large-scale spillage in April
2005 where 83,000 litres of dissolved reactor fuel, containing
uranium and plutonium, leaked undetected over an eight-month period.

Its reopening has been set back numerous times as a result of the
extensive work needed to clean up the area and modify the cells
where the fuel was stored.

BNG was fined £500,000 last year after it pleaded guilty to
breaching aspects of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Bendalls
Engineering is a division of Carlisle-based Carrs Milling Industries.


View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital
reproduction, just like the printed copy at
www.cumberland-news.co.uk/digitalcopy
*****************************************************************
 43 [NukeNet] Sixty-four arrested at Good Friday lab protest
 
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:31:20 -0700


<x-flowed>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[NukeNet] Sixty-four arrested at Good Friday lab protest
Date: 	Fri, 6 Apr 2007 16:49:10 -0800
From: 	Marylia Kelley <marylia@earthlink.net>
To: 	marylia@earthlink.net



NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Short piece on this morning's action at Livermore Lab.

There were at least 275 people at the service/rally and about 225 or so who
marched to the gates.

Read on...  	--Marylia

 <http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_5610873?source=email>NEW: Sixty-four
arrested at Good Friday lab protest - By Betsy Mason

   CONTRA COSTA TIMES

LIVERMORE -- Sixty-two adults and two juveniles were arrested this morning
at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory during the annual Good Friday nuclear
weapons protest. <http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_5610873?source=email>View
Full Story

<http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_5610873?source=email>http://www.insidebayarea.c
om/ci_5610873
<http://www.insidebayarea.com'>http://www.insidebayarea.com

This e-mail was initiated by machine [10.148.8.3] at IP [10.148.8.3].

Marylia Kelley,
Executive Director

Tri-Valley CAREs
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA  94551

Ph: (925) 443-7148
Fx: (925) 443-0177
Web: www.trivalleycares.org
Email: marylia@trivalleycares.org or marylia@earthlink.net



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 44 Reuters: Police arrest 64 at California anti-nuclear protest 

Fri Apr 6, 2007 3:56PM EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Police arrested 62 adults and two children
on Friday for blocking the entrance to the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory in what has become an annual protest against
U.S. nuclear weapons research, an official said.

"All were charged with blocking a public road," said David
Schwoegler, a spokesman for the lab which is located east of San
Francisco in Northern California. "They were booked and released."

He said about 210 people had blocked one of the lab entrances for 40
minutes before the arrests in a demonstration that has taken place
annually on Good Friday for years.

Last month the U.S. government said it had selected a design from
Livermore for the first new U.S. nuclear warhead in two decades.
About 10,000 people work at the U.S. government lab, which is home
to the world's top supercomputer.





© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 45 Tri-City Herald: WA state, DOE to negotiate missed Hanford cleanup deadlines

Friday, April 6, 2007 · Last updated 2:13 p.m. PT

RICHLAND, Wash. -- Hoping to find some middle ground, state
officials will enter high-level negotiations next month with the
U.S. Department of Energy over missed deadlines for cleaning up the
Hanford nuclear reservation.

"It doesn't mean we've ruled out going to court, but before we do
that, we will see if we can negotiate an agreement," state Assistant
Attorney General Andy Fitz told the Tri-City Herald in a story
published Friday.

Top officials, including Attorney General Rob McKenna and Department
of Ecology Director Jay Manning, will begin negotiations May 29 with
James Rispoli, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for
environmental management.

The basis for the talks is the so-called Tri-Party Agreement signed
by representatives of the Energy Department, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the state in 1989. The landmark agreement set
enforceable cleanup milestones for Hanford.

Neither the state nor EPA is ready to discuss specific proposals for
the negotiations.

Among the state's concerns: The delay in constructing a $12.2
billion vitrification plant to treat some of Hanford's worst
radioactive and chemical wastes. The plant may not open until 2019,
eight years past a legal deadline.

McKenna said negotiating to resolve the missed deadlines is a middle
option that recognizes the Energy Department's budgetary and
technical limits. The department spends about $2 billion a year on
Hanford cleanup projects.

Other options range from "throwing up our hands and accepting the
delay" to taking the Energy Department to court to get deadlines
enforced, he said.

Gov. Chris Gregoire has warned in the past that she does not intend
to extend legally binding Tri-Party Agreement deadlines without a
good reason.

Instead, the state will "try to find an equitable path forward,"
said Jane Hedges, the program manager for the Department of
Ecology's nuclear waste program.

In exchange for extended deadlines, the Energy Department may have
to agree to new requirements, or to do additional work to offset
cleanup delays, according to the state and EPA. Each would have to
sign off on changes to the Tri-Party Agreement.

"We've really pushed the Energy Department hard to protect the
ground water from contamination in the soil and (clean up) the
ground water itself," said Dennis Faulk, EPA environmental scientist.

It is important to continue discussions on the Tri-Party Agreement
deadlines and "to put in place commitments that reflect validated
and achievable cleanup schedules that result in measurable risk
reduction," the Energy Department said in a statement.

Tri-Party Agreement deadlines are often adjusted, but usually for
technical reasons or to gather more information about contamination
so better cleanup decisions can be made. Usually the deadline
adjustments are for fairly short periods, such as a year or two.

Technical problems and funding shortfalls have caused the
vitrification plant to fall eight years behind schedule, raising
state concerns about protecting the Columbia River from
contamination.

The plant is intended to turn much of 53 million gallons of
radioactive and hazardous chemical waste now held in underground
tanks into a stable glass form for permanent disposal.

The waste from the past production of plutonium for the nation's
nuclear weapons program is being held in underground tanks that have
leaked 1 million gallons of waste into the soil in central Hanford.

The Energy Department has been working to remove waste from 149
leak-prone tanks into newer double-shell tanks, but the project has
fallen behind schedule. The first 16 tanks were supposed to be
emptied by Oct. 1, 2006, but only seven tanks have been emptied so
far.

---

Information from: Tri-City Herald, http://www.tri-cityherald.com

101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000

Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
©1996-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

*****************************************************************
 46 Tri-City Herald: State to discuss cleanup deadlines

Published Friday, April 6th, 2007

ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER

Washington has agreed to enter high-level negotiations with the
Department of Energy over missed legal deadlines for cleanup at the
Hanford nuclear reservation rather than moving toward legal action.

"It doesn't mean we've ruled out going to court but before we do
that we will see if we can negotiate an agreement," said Andy Fitz,
a Washington state assistant attorney general.

Among the state's concerns is the delay in constructing the $12.2
billion vitrification plant to treat some of Hanford's worst wastes.
The plant may not open until 2019, eight years past a legal deadline.

On May 29 top officials with decision-making authority from DOE, the
state and the Environmental Protection Agency will meet in the
Tri-Cities to start negotiations.

James Rispoli, DOE assistant secretary for environmental management;
Jay Manning, director of the Washington state Department of Ecology,
and Rob McKenna, Washington state attorney general, are expected to
be at the table, among others.

The state has seen three options for resolving the issue of missed
deadlines, McKenna said. They range from "throwing up our hands and
accepting the delay" to taking DOE to court to get deadlines
enforced, he said.

But it has settled on a middle option of attempting to negotiate a
solution that recognizes DOE's budgetary and technical limitations,
McKenna said.

Gov. Chris Gregoire has warned in the past that she does not intend
to extend legally binding Tri-Party Agreement deadlines without a
good reason.

Instead, the state will "try to find an equitable path forward,"
said Jane Hedges, the program manager for the Department of
Ecology's Nuclear Waste Program.

In exchange for extended deadlines, DOE may have to agreed to new
requirements or to do some additional work to offset cleanup delays,
according to the state and EPA, both Hanford regulators that would
have to sign off on changes to the Tri-Party Agreement.

"We've really pushed DOE hard to protect the ground water from
contamination in the soil and (clean up) the ground water itself,"
said Dennis Faulk, EPA environmental scientist.

However, neither the state nor EPA is ready to discuss specific
proposals being prepared for the negotiations.

Tri-Party Agreement deadlines are often adjusted, but usually for
technical reasons or, in the recent the case of ground water
protection and cleanup, to gather more information about
contamination so better cleanup decisions can be made. Usually the
deadline adjustments are for fairly short periods, such as a year or
two.

But now the state is concerned that DOE is falling far behind
schedule on the projects it considers key to protecting the Columbia
River.

The vitrification plant is intended to turn much of 53 million
gallons of radioactive and hazardous chemical waste now held in
underground tanks into a stable glass form for permanent disposal.
Technical problems that need to be resolved and funding shortfalls
have caused it to fall eight years behind schedule.

In the meantime, the waste it would treat, left from the past
production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program, is
being held in underground tanks that have leaked 1 million gallons
of waste into the soil in central Hanford.

DOE has been working to remove waste from 149 leak-prone tanks into
newer double-shell tanks, but the project has fallen behind
schedule. The first 16 tanks, all in an area called C Tank Farm,
were supposed to be emptied by Oct. 1, 2006. So far, six tanks in
the C Tank Farm and one elsewhere have been emptied.

To supplement treatment at the main vitrification plant, DOE also
has been looking at turning low-activity radioactive waste into
large glass blocks for disposal in a bulk vitrification project. But
financial and technical issues have delayed that work.

Although delays in meeting deadlines for the main vitrification
plant, retrieving waste from leak-prone tanks and testing bulk
vitrification are the major drivers for the planned negotiations of
the Tri-Party Agreement, the discussions may not be limited to
those, Hedges said.

Also among the state's concerns is whether DOE is on track to begin
working with remote-handled transuranic waste, she said. That waste,
which is typically contaminated with plutonium, is too radioactively
hot to be handled except with remotely operated equipment.

In recent years, the Hanford budget has been fairly flat, hovering
around $2 billion or a little below, raising questions about paying
for additional work if that's the outcome of negotiations.

"I know the (cleanup) project will not be completed if the budget
process does not keep up with inflation," McKenna said.

DOE believes it is important to continue discussions on the
Tri-Party Agreement deadlines and seeks "to put in place commitments
that reflect validated and achievable cleanup schedules that result
in measurable risk reduction," it said in a statement in response to
the state's decision to proceed with high-level negotiations.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 47 Hanford News: Lawsuit could shoot down refuge hunting

This story was published Friday, April 6th, 2007

Andrew Sirocchi, Herald staff writer

Hunting on parts of the Hanford Reach National Monument could be 
closed this fall unless the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can 
produce an environmental assessment that satisfies a federal 
judge in Washington, D.C.

The problem stems from a lawsuit filed by The Fund for Animals - 
an arm of the Humane Society of the United States - that has 
forced federal wildlife refuges nationwide to draft new or 
revised plans to regulate hunting.


The Hanford Reach and McNary Wildlife refuges are caught up in the
lawsuit, which many pro-hunting groups regard as part of an attempt
to ban all hunting on federal refuges.

The federal court's May 30 deadline has forced the regional office
for the Hanford Reach and McNary refuges to draft the new document
while the staff also completes a Comprehensive Conservation Plan to
guide hunting on the Reach for the next 15 years.

Greg Hughes, project leader at the Hanford Reach National Monument,
said his agency is preparing to release the court-mandated
assessment for public review Monday.

"We're doing everything in our power to maintain the existing
hunting programs and expand those through the (Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement)," Hughes said.

But, he added, "if we don't come up with a curative action, that
would force us to close down all hunting on the monument this fall."

For decades, some federally controlled areas that are part of the
Hanford site have been open to hunting for deer, elk, waterfowl and
upland game birds. That has been managed under an agreement among
the federal wildlife agency, its state counterpart and the U.S.
Department of Energy, which oversees Hanford.

The new assessment would cover existing practices on about 57,000
acres at the Wahluke Unit of the monument and 500 acres at McNary
National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.

In an August 2006 decision, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Urbina
agreed with the Humane Society and The Fund for Animals in a lawsuit
claiming Fish and Wildlife violated the National Environmental
Policy Act, or NEPA, when it expanded hunting on national wildlife
refuges without doing proper studies. The lawsuit was filed in 2003.

The groups argued that between 1997 and 2002, Fish and Wildlife
adopted six rules to increase hunting on 37 national wildlife
refuges but failed to analyze the cumulative effects of those
actions.

Some individual refuge managers did have environmental assessments
that addressed hunting in their regions, but the lawsuit argued that
Fish and Wildlife violated NEPA because it didn't consider the
impact increased hunting would have on all of the more than 500
wildlife refuges under federal control.

"This court's review is limited to the administrative record that
was before the agency at the time it made its decision," Urbina
wrote in his decision.

"But that administrative record does not contain any indication that
the refuge managers considered the cumulative impacts on the entire
refuge system of increased hunting on endangered species."

The long-term future of hunting at the Reach is being addressed in a
draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan that developed several
management alternatives seeking to maintain or expand hunting on the
monument.

In the case of Hanford and McNary, an environmental assessment was
never done to support current hunting practices.

But that was not an oversight. Fish and Wildlife believed it was in
compliance with federal laws because when it took over management of
the Reach from the state in 1999 it did so on the condition that
current hunting programs would remain intact.

"We are guilty of not following our own protocols and law in this,"
Hughes said. "We did it with signed letters to agree with the state
when we took over management."

For the groups attacking the hunting policies, the status quo is not
good enough.

In a letter commenting on hunting practices at the Hanford Reach,
Andrew Page, the Humane Society's hunting campaign manager, and
Lauren Nolfo-Clements, a wildlife scientist, wrote that Fish and
Wildlife needs to do more to consider the use of wildlife refuges by
an increasing number of nonhunters.

"The (Humane Society) does not believe that sport hunting is
compatible with the purposes for which many refuges were created,"
they wrote.

While the court's ruling came seven months ago, regional Fish and
Wildlife managers only recently began to develop an environmental
assessment to meet the May deadline.

"We really thought this was being handled at the Washington, D.C.,
level and wouldn't come to roost at the local level," Hughes said.

Copies of the draft assessment are to be available Monday at the
Hanford Reach National Monument Web site at
www.fws.gov/hanfordreach. Drafts also are available by calling
371-1801, and written comments on the document will be accepted
through May 8.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 48 LA Daily News: Tougher cleanup standards sought

Kuehl, other officials worry contaminated lab land will be house
sites

BY KERRY CAVANAUGH and LISA FRIEDMAN, Staff Writers

Article Last Updated: 04/05/2007 09:42:23 PM PDT

Amid continuing concerns that the Santa Susana Field Lab remains
contaminated, lawmakers and others are launching a renewed bid to
toughen cleanup standards.

Activists and local officials have long worried that the planned
cleanup of the former nuclear research lab would leave too much
contamination on the land, which could ultimately be used as home
sites.

And with the Department of Energy expected to decommission the site
next year, activists fear they are running out of time to change the
cleanup standards.

"We're in a crisis on that, and only you elected officials can
resolve it," longtime lab watchdog Dan Hirsch told a group of
elected officials gathered Thursday in Calabasas. "If something
isn't done now to stop this, it will be irreversible."

The meeting was called by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, to
urge her colleagues to action.

"We have it in our power, as federal, state and local lawmakers, to
push for a Superfund-level cleanup of SSFL," she said.

Kuehl said evidence shows that the site "remains a dangerous health
hazard and, if it were allowed to be converted to residential
property, would become an even more severe threat."

Also Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., boosted pressure 
on Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman to ensure the site cleanup 
meets environmental standards.

In a letter to Bodman, Feinstein demanded a schedule of the
close-out of radioactive cleanup and asked for assurances that the
agency will comply with tough federal Superfund laws. The federal
government reserves Superfund status for the worst of the worst
environmental messes.

She also said she found the DOE's recent decision that contaminated
areas could be released for unrestricted residential use troubling.

"Given DOE's failure to characterize and clean up the site
adequately, I believe residential use without restriction would pose
unacceptable risks to the public," Feinstein wrote. "For the sake of
public health and safety, I urge you to reconsider this decision."

Located in the hills above Simi Valley and Chatsworth, the Santa
Susana Field Lab was developed in the late 1940s for rocket-engine
tests and nuclear energy research.

While the DOE cleanup of its 90-acre portion of the lab is nearly
complete, the Boeing Co. is at least a decade away from
decontamination of the rest of the 290-acre site, which is tainted
with chemicals from rocket engine and laser development.

A recent UCLA study said the site would not be safe for residential
use because of extensive groundwater contamination.

Preparing for the day that Boeing could sell the site, Kuehl is
trying to pass state legislation that would prohibit any sale until
a complete chemical and radioactive cleanup has been completed.

Kuehl said while the federal government has authority over the
cleanup, the state can exert authority over conditions of the sale
or transfer of the property.

Kuehl has pushed a similar bill before, as well as several other
efforts to encourage better cleanup of the site, but most of those
bills have died in the Legislature in the face of strong lobbying
efforts by Boeing.

Kuehl said she is hopeful a new crop of freshman legislators might
be more environmentally conscious and resistant to lobbying
pressures.

"It really has to do with education," she said. "It could happen if
we can get more light focused on the issue and secure as many votes
in the Assembly as we can ahead of time."

Staff writer Harrison Sheppard contributed to this report.

kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com

(213) 978-0390

Los Angeles Newspaper Group


*****************************************************************
 49 LLNL: Researchers move closer to switching nuclear isomer decay on and off

Public release date: 6-Apr-2007

Contact: Anne Stark stark8@llnl.gov 925-422-9799

DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

LIVERMORE, Calif. -- Livermore researchers have moved one step
closer to being able to turn on and off the decay of a nuclear
isomer.

The protons and neutrons in a nucleus can be arranged in many ways.
The arrangement with the lowest energy is called the ground state
and all others are called excited states. (This is analogous to the
ground and excited states of electrons in an atom except that
nuclear excited states are typically thousands of times higher in
energy.) Excited nuclear states eventually decay to the ground state
via gamma emission or to another nucleus via particle emission. Most
excited states are short-lived (e.g., billionth of a second).
However, a few are long-lived (e.g., hours) and are called isomers.

Turning the decay on and off is key to using isiomers as high-energy
density storage systems such as batteries.

Researchers at Livermore studied an isomer of Thorium-229. This
isomer is unique in that its excitation energy is near optical
energies, implying that one day scientists may be able to transition
Th229 nuclei between the ground and isomeric states using a
table-top laser.

"This would then be the first time human control would be exerted
over nuclear levels," said Peter Beiersdorfer, an LLNL physicist and
co-author of a paper that appears in the April 6 issue of Physical
Review Letters. "This only works if the laser is tuned to exactly
the correct energy."

For years, researchers have been fascinated with this isomer because
it could lead to new science and technology breakthroughs. Among
them are: a quantum many-body study; a clock with unparallel
precision for general relativity tests; a superb qubit (a quantum
bit) for quantum computing; testing the effects of the chemical
environment on nuclear decay rates. Isomers also may serve as a
battery for storing large amounts of energy.

However, before these exotic studies can be performed, an accurate
determination of the isomer’s excitation energy above the ground
state is needed. In the most recent research, Livermore scientists,
along with colleagues from Los Alamos National Laboratory and NASA
Goddard Space Flight Center, have made the most accurate measurement
of this energy difference using an indirect technique.

"Our measurement is more accurate and differs significantly from
prior results. This may explain why scientists have failed to
directly see this transition. Frankly, they were looking in the
wrong place," said Bret Beck, an LLNL physicist and lead-author on
the paper.

The next step will be to use a laser or a synchrotron tuned to the
exact energy of the spacing between the two levels and observe the
transition from the ground state to the isomeric state.

Once laser excitation has proven possible, helping an excited level
decay (and thus give off energy) can be tackled. "But for building a
more precise clock than we have today, or building a quantum
computer, excitation may be all that’s needed," Beiersdofer said.
                                 ###


Other Livermore scientists involved in the work include John Becker,
Greg Brown and Ken Moody.

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a
mission to ensure national security and to apply science and
technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for
the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security
Administration.

Laboratory news releases and photos are also available at
http://www.llnl.gov/PAO and on UC Newswire.

*****************************************************************
 50 FR DOE: Record of Decision, Orlando Gasification Project, Orlando, Orange 
County, FL

Doc E7-6435

[Federal Register: April 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 66)] 
[Notices] [Page 17143-17149] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06ap07-49]                         


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental 
impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0383) to assess the environmental 
impacts associated with a proposed project that would be cost-shared by 
DOE and Southern Company (in partnership with the Orlando Utilities 
Commission) (OUC) under DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) 
program. The project would demonstrate advanced power generation 
systems using Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology 
at OUC's existing Stanton Energy Center near Orlando, Florida. After 
careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts, along 
with program goals and objectives, DOE has decided that it will 
provide, through a cooperative agreement with Southern Company, a total 
of $235 million in cost-shared funding (about 41% of the total cost of 
approximately $569 million) to design, construct, and demonstrate the 
Orlando Gasification Project proposed by Southern Company.

ADDRESSES: The final EIS is available on the DOE NEPA Web site at 
http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documentspub.html and on the DOE National 

Energy Technology Laboratory

[[Page 17144]]

Web site at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/cctc/EIS/eis_orlando.html
, and the Record of Decision (ROD) will be available 

on both Web sites in the near future. Copies of the final EIS and this 
ROD may be requested by contacting Mr. Richard A. Hargis, Jr., National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, U.S. Department of 
Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, 
P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940; telephone: 412-386-6065; or 
e-mail: Richard.Hargis@netl.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To obtain additional information about 
the project or the EIS, contact Mr. Richard A. Hargis, Jr., National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, U.S. Department of 
Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, 
P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940; telephone: 412-386-6065; or 
e-mail: Richard.Hargis@netl.doe.gov. For general information on the DOE 
NEPA process, contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 
Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103; telephone: 202-
586-4600; or leave a toll-free message at 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE has prepared this ROD pursuant to 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the 
procedural provisions of NEPA [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
Parts 1500-1508] and DOE NEPA regulations (10 CFR Part 1021). This ROD 
is based on DOE's final EIS for the Orlando Gasification Project (DOE/
EIS-0383, January 2007).

Background and Purpose and Need for Agency Action

    In 2002, the U.S. Congress established the CCPI program to 
accelerate commercial deployment of advanced coal-based technologies 
for generating clean, reliable, and affordable electricity in the 
United States. Congress indicated that projects in the program should 
be industry enterprises assisted by the government and not government-
directed demonstrations. These projects are expected to showcase 
technologies in which coal-fired power plants can continue to generate 
low cost electricity with improved efficiency and comply with more 
stringent environmental standards expected in the future.
    DOE issued the second-round CCPI solicitation in February 2004 and 
received 13 proposals in June 2004. The Orlando Gasification Project 
(``Orlando Project'') was one of four projects selected in October 2004 
for further consideration. Evaluation criteria used in the selection 
process included technical merit of the proposed technology, potential 
for a successful demonstration of the technology, and potential for the 
technology to be commercialized. DOE also considered the participant's 
funding and financial proposal; DOE budget constraints; environmental, 
health, and safety implications; and program policy factors, such as 
DOE's preference for projects that represent a diversity of 
technologies, utilize a broad range of U.S. coals, and represent a 
broad geographical cross-section of the United States.
    DOE selected the Orlando Project for further consideration in view 
of two principal needs. First, the project would meet the Congressional 
mandate to demonstrate advanced coal-based technologies that can 
generate clean, reliable, and affordable electricity in the United 
States. Second, the demonstration would provide a more cost-effective 
fuel supply for integration with a privately funded combined-cycle unit 
to generate electricity.
    More specifically, the Orlando Project could demonstrate advanced 
coal gasification for power generation applications using IGCC 
technology at a sufficiently large scale to allow industries and 
utilities to assess the project's potential for commercial application. 
A successful demonstration would confirm that the technology could be 
implemented at the commercial scale. The cost-shared contribution by 
DOE would help reduce the risk to the Southern Company team in 
demonstrating the technology at the level of maturity needed for 
decisions on commercialization.
    Further, the transport gasifier technology that would be 
demonstrated offers a simpler method for generating power from coal 
than other alternatives. It is unique among coal gasification 
technologies in that it is cost-effective when handling low rank coals 
and when using coals with high moisture or high ash content. These 
coals make up half the proven reserves in both the U.S. and the world. 
Moreover, the transport gasifier is capable of both air- and oxygen-
blown operation. This inherent flexibility will allow it to readily 
adapt to other applications beyond power generation including chemical 
production and possible future carbon management requirements.

EIS Process

    On August 11, 2005, DOE published in the Federal Register (70 FR 
46825) a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS and hold a public 
scoping meeting. DOE held a public scoping meeting in Orlando, Florida, 
on August 30, 2005. DOE received 11 oral responses at the public 
scoping meeting and 11 responses by comment card, mail, e-mail, and 
telephone from members of the public, interested groups, and Federal, 
state, and local officials. The responses assisted in establishing 
additional issues to be analyzed in the EIS and in determining the 
level of analysis warranted for each issue.
    On August 24, 2006, DOE published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
50051) a Notice of Availability for the Orlando Gasification Project 
draft EIS. The Notice of Availability invited comments on the draft EIS 
and participation in the NEPA process. As part of the review process, 
DOE conducted a public hearing on September 13, 2006, in Orlando, 
Florida. DOE also conducted an informational session prior to the 
hearing for the public to learn more about the proposed project. The 
public was encouraged to provide oral comments at the hearings and to 
submit written comments to DOE during a 45-day public comment period 
that ended October 10, 2006. DOE received oral comments from two 
individuals at the public hearing, and written comments from three 
individuals, one non-governmental organization, two Federal agencies, 
and one local agency during and after the public hearing.
    In January 2007, DOE issued the final EIS and the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability of the final 
EIS in the Federal Register on January 26, 2007 (72 FR 3846). In the 
final EIS, DOE considered and, as appropriate, responded to public 
comments on the draft EIS. Among the issues raised in the comments on 
the draft EIS were concerns about (1) Carbon dioxide (CO2) 
emissions and mitigation options; (2) vehicle and rail traffic; (3) 
mercury deposition and bioaccumulation; (4) ambient concentrations of 
ozone; (5) environmental justice considerations; and (6) air toxics 
impacts.

Project Location and Description

    The Orlando Project would be located at OUC's existing 3,280-acre 
Stanton Energy Center in eastern Orange County, approximately 3 miles 
east of the eastern city limits of Orlando, Florida, and about 13 miles 
east-southeast of downtown Orlando. The topography of the area is 
relatively flat. The new

[[Page 17145]]

facilities would be constructed on approximately 35 of the 1,100 acres 
of land that were previously cleared, leveled, and licensed for power 
plant use. The project equipment would be located between existing 
coal-fired units and an existing natural gas-fired combined-cycle unit. 
A short transmission line (approximately 3,200 ft in length), proposed 
to serve as an electrical interconnection from the proposed facilities 
to an existing onsite substation, would occupy a small amount of 
additional land. Land use in the vicinity includes undeveloped areas 
interspersed with a mixture of residential and commercial buildings, as 
well as a park, correctional facility, and landfill.
    Construction would begin in late 2007 and continue until early 
2010. An average of about 350 construction workers would be on the site 
during construction. Approximately 600 to 700 workers would be required 
during the peak construction period between fall 2008 and spring 2009. 
After mechanical checkout of the proposed facilities, demonstration 
(including data analysis and process evaluation) would be conducted 
over a 4.5-year period from mid 2010 until late 2014.
    If the demonstration is successful, commercial operation would 
follow immediately. The combined workforce (i.e., including the Orlando 
Gasification Project and the combined-cycle generating unit) would 
consist of approximately 72 employees added to the existing Stanton 
Energy Center staff of 204 employees. Of the 72 new employees, 19 
workers would provide support only during the startup and demonstration 
phases of the project, while 53 employees would be needed over the 
lifetime of the facilities. The facilities would be designed for a 
lifetime of at least 20 years, including the 4.5-year demonstration 
period.
    The new coal gasifier would operate entirely on coal, consuming a 
total of approximately 1,020,000 tons per year to produce synthesis 
gas. Two to three trains per week would deliver low-sulfur 
subbituminous coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. The heating 
value of the coal would average about 8,760 Btu/lb and the sulfur 
content would average about 0.26%. Most air emissions would result from 
combustion of synthesis gas in the gas combustion turbine during normal 
operations. The exhaust gas would be released to the atmosphere via a 
205-ft stack.

Alternatives

    Congress directed DOE to pursue the goals of the CCPI Program by 
means of partial funding of projects owned and controlled by non-
Federal sponsors. This statutory requirement places DOE in a much more 
limited role than if the Federal government were the owner and operator 
of the project. In the latter situation, DOE would be responsible for a 
comprehensive review of reasonable alternatives for siting the project. 
However, in dealing with an applicant under the CCPI Program, DOE must 
focus on alternative ways to accomplish CCPI's purpose that reflect 
both the application before it and the role DOE plays in the decisional 
process. It is appropriate in such cases for DOE to give substantial 
weight to the applicant's desires in establishing a project's 
reasonable alternatives.
    Based on the foregoing principles, the only reasonable alternative 
here to the proposed action was the no-action alternative, including 
one scenario that could reasonably be expected to result as a 
consequence of the no-action alternative. DOE dismissed from further 
consideration other alternatives that did not meet the goals and 
objectives of the CCPI Program or of the applicant.
    The Stanton Energy Center was the only location identified in 
Southern's CCPI proposal. It is an existing site at which the private 
partners have already established a business relationship. Because it 
is an existing site, DOE concluded that it would be preferable to any 
undeveloped location.
    DOE considered alternative technologies but dismissed them as 
unreasonable. Technologies and approaches that did not involve the use 
of coal (e.g., natural gas, wind power, solar energy, and conservation) 
would not contribute to the CCPI Program goal of accelerating 
commercial deployment of advanced coal-based technologies. Other 
alternatives, such as reducing the size of the proposed project, were 
dismissed as unreasonable. The design size for the proposed project was 
selected because it is sufficiently large to show potential customers 
that the gasification technology, once demonstrated at this scale, 
could be applied commercially without further scale-up. The size of the 
proposed project is also related to OUC's projected need for power.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is for DOE to provide Southern Company a total 
of $235 million in cost-shared funding to design, construct, and 
demonstrate the Orlando Project. A portion ($13.762 million) of this 
funding has already been provided for activities in the first budget 
period, such as project definition, front-end engineering design, 
environmental permitting activities, and preparation of environmental 
information for NEPA analysis.
    Although DOE funding would support only the Orlando Project (i.e., 
coal gasifier, synthesis gas cleanup systems, and supporting 
infrastructure), the Orlando Project would be integrated with a 
privately funded, combined-cycle unit, which together would constitute 
the IGCC facilities. The IGCC facilities would convert coal into 
synthesis gas to drive a gas combustion turbine, and hot exhaust gas 
from the gas turbine would generate steam from water to drive a steam 
turbine. Combined, the two turbines would generate 285 MW (megawatts) 
of electricity. This proven, reliable combined-cycle approach of using 
a gas turbine and steam turbine in tandem increases the amount of 
electricity that can be generated from a given amount of fuel. The IGCC 
facilities are expected to provide a source of electricity that is 
reliable, low cost, environmentally sound, and efficient. DOE expects 
that approximately 40% of the energy in the fuel would be converted to 
electricity compared to about 33% for conventional coal-fired power 
plants. The IGCC facilities would substantially reduce emissions of 
sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), 
and mercury relative to existing, conventional coal-fired power plants.

No-Action Alternative

    Under the no-action alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared 
funding for the design, construction, and demonstration of the proposed 
Orlando Project at OUC's Stanton Energy Center near Orlando, Florida. 
Based on information from the private partners, without DOE 
participation, Southern Company and/or OUC could reasonably be expected 
to pursue at least one option (i.e., the combined-cycle facilities 
would be built at the Stanton Energy Center and operated using natural 
gas as fuel, without the gasifier, synthesis gas cleanup systems, and 
supporting infrastructure). Accordingly, DOE analyzed a no-action 
alternative scenario in which combined-cycle facilities would operate 
using natural gas as fuel without the availability of synthesis gas. 
Under the no-action alternative, commercialization of the gasification 
facilities (alone or integrated with the combined-cycle facilities to 
form IGCC technology) would probably not occur because utilities and 
industries tend to use known and demonstrated technologies rather than 
unproven technologies.

[[Page 17146]]

Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

    In making its decision, DOE considered the environmental impacts of 
the proposed action and the no-action alternative on potentially 
affected environmental resource areas. These include: land use and 
aesthetics, atmospheric resources and air quality, geology and soils, 
water resources, floodplains and wetlands, ecological resources, social 
and economic resources (including environmental justice and cultural 
resources), waste management, human health and safety, noise, and 
transportation. While the proposed project consists of only the 
gasifier, synthesis gas cleanup systems, and supporting infrastructure, 
the EIS includes the combined-cycle generating unit in the analysis of 
environmental impacts because the facilities are operationally 
interdependent. The EIS considers the impacts from these facilities 
combined with those from other, existing facilities at the Stanton 
Energy Center, and also examines potential incremental impacts of the 
project in combination with other past, present and reasonably 
foreseeable future actions (i.e., cumulative impacts). The following 
sections provide key findings for areas of potential concern.

Land Use and Aesthetics

    The Orlando Project would be confined to the existing Stanton 
Energy Center site and thus would not directly affect offsite land use. 
The 1,100-acre developed portion of the power plant site is already 
zoned specifically for power generation through the site certification 
process under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act. The 
tallest new structures would be the 205-ft heat recovery steam 
generator (HRSG) stack, the 174-ft structure to house the gasifier, and 
the 114-ft HRSG. These structures would be shorter than the existing 
two 550-ft stacks serving two boiler buildings. Aesthetic impacts would 
be reduced because the facilities would be located between existing 
facilities, appearing as part of the site.
    Under the no-action alternative, offsite land use would be the 
same, but because the 174-ft structure to house the gasifier would not 
be required, aesthetic impacts would be less than those predicted under 
the proposed action.

Air Resources

    Modeling results based on emissions from the Orlando Project 
predicted that maximum concentrations would be less than their 
corresponding ``significant impact levels.'' (Under EPA guidelines, if 
maximum predicted concentrations are less than ``significant impact 
levels,'' then no further modeling for regulatory purposes is 
required.) Modeling results also predicted that, combined with ambient 
background concentrations, pollutant concentrations from Orlando 
Project emissions would be less than corresponding ambient air quality 
standards. Concentrations would be negligible at the nearest Prevention 
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Class I area about 90 miles to the 
west-northwest. (Class I areas are designated areas in which the 
degradation of air quality is to be severely restricted.) Annual 
NOX emissions from the Stanton Energy Center overall would 
not be expected to increase because, as part of the air permitting 
process, OUC has agreed to reduce NOX emissions from other 
units at the Stanton Energy Center so that there would be a net 
decrease in NOX emissions. Annual emissions of volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs), a precursor of the criteria pollutant ozone, 
would be 129 tons. The small percentage increase in VOC emissions 
(approximately 0.3% of the Orange County 2001 emission inventory) would 
not be likely to degrade air quality sufficiently to cause violations 
of the ozone standard, but the magnitude of the degradation cannot be 
quantified. The maximum ambient 24-hour concentration of mercury from 
the proposed HRSG stack is predicted to be 0.8% of its corresponding 
guideline value, and the maximum ambient 24-hour concentration of 
beryllium from the stack is predicted to be 0.4% of its guideline 
value. These results indicate that mercury and beryllium emissions from 
the proposed facilities alone or in combination with other sources 
would pose no threat to human health in the area. Any potential odors 
would be limited to the immediate site area and would not affect 
offsite areas. Increases in CO2 emissions from the proposed 
facilities would add 1.8 million tons per year to an estimated global 
emission of 26,000 million tons per year.
    The proposed project would significantly reduce additional 
SO2, NOX, mercury, and particulate emissions by 
removing constituents from the synthesis gas. The removal of 
approximately 80% of the fuel-bound nitrogen from the synthesis gas 
prior to combustion in the gas turbine would result in appreciably 
lower NOX emissions compared to existing, conventional coal-
fired power plants. The project is expected to remove up to 95% of 
sulfur and over 90% of mercury emissions. Over 99.9% of particulate 
emissions would be removed.
    During operation, a number of means would be employed to reduce 
emissions of air pollutants, including: (1) Application of Best 
Available Control Technology; (2) enclosure of coal unloading, 
transfer, and conveying equipment, plus application of water sprays, as 
needed, and use of baghouses at key transfer points; (3) use of high 
temperature, high pressure filters within the gasification process to 
collect particulate matter from the synthesis gas; (4) use of gas 
cleanup technology to reduce sulfur concentrations in the synthesis 
gas; and (5) use of activated carbon to remove mercury from the 
synthesis gas.
    Southern would monitor to ensure emissions compliance. DOE expects 
the proposed facilities to be subject to the Clean Air Interstate Rule, 
Clean Air Mercury Rule, applicable New Source Performance Standards, 
and 40 CFR Part 75 (Acid Rain Program). In general, these Federal rules 
require continuous monitoring and recording of SO2, 
NOX, and mercury emissions. Monitoring would be subject to 
stringent quality assurance and control requirements to ensure that the 
monitored emissions data are accurate and complete.
    Southern would conduct initial and periodic compliance testing 
pursuant to Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
requirements. This stack testing, using EPA reference methods, is 
expected to address the principal air pollutants emitted by the 
proposed facilities, including carbon monoxide, VOCs, and particulate 
matter.
    Approximately 25% less CO2 would be produced per unit of 
power generated compared to typical emission rates at existing, 
conventional coal-fired power plants. However, there would be a net 
increase in global emissions of CO2. For this project, 
mitigation, such as capture and sequestration, is not feasible because 
the planned sulfur removal technology would not generate a concentrated 
CO2 stream. However, even if the facilities were to generate 
a concentrated CO2 stream, the nearest location amenable to 
CO2 sequestration options that have been demonstrated at the 
scale needed (i.e., enhanced oil recovery) would be hundreds of miles 
away. The feasibility and effectiveness of other sequestration options, 
such as injection into saline formations, are not promising for this 
area and have not been fully characterized. Sequestration options for 
all regions of the country are still under investigation in DOE's 
Carbon Sequestration Program. A program goal is to initiate at least 
one large-scale demonstration, at the scale required for a power plant, 
in 2009 to demonstrate the appropriateness for CO2 
injectivity and validate storage capacity estimates and permanence.

[[Page 17147]]

    Under the no-action alternative, emissions of air pollutants would 
be less than those predicted for the new facilities. Also, because the 
flare would not be required, no occasional emissions from a flare would 
occur.

Water Resources

    Because construction would occur in developed site areas where 
surface water runoff is directed to onsite stormwater retention ponds 
and is used in the facilities, no impacts to natural surface waters 
would be experienced, except in the unlikely event of a major storm 
that caused overflow of the site stormwater collection system. 
Transmission line construction outside the main plant area could result 
in soil erosion and sediment deposition to streams, but best management 
practices described below would minimize erosion and sedimentation. 
Impacts from lowering the water table during dewatering would be 
inconsequential.
    Because operation of the facilities would not withdraw surface 
water or discharge liquid effluent, surface waters would experience no 
direct impacts. The Stanton Energy Center's use of reclaimed water 
would increase by an average of 2.1 million gallons per day (from 10.2 
million to about 12.3 million gallons per day), thus reducing by a 
similar amount the water volume discharged to the wetlands downstream 
from the Eastern Water Reclamation Facility and from those wetlands to 
the Econlockhatchee River. Because this surface water is not used, 
reduced flow would not affect water users. Water quality in the river 
could be affected if reduced streamflow also reduced the river's 
capacity to dilute contamination discharged from other parts of the 
watershed, however any such effects would be temporary. Increased 
groundwater withdrawals would not produce discernible impacts. Facility 
operation could add localized contamination to shallow groundwater from 
the possible placement of additional waste in the onsite ash landfill. 
Because any contamination would be limited to the shallow aquifer and 
any contaminated groundwater would be designed to discharge to onsite 
stormwater collection systems, impacts to water users are unlikely.
    The new coal pile would be lined and leachate collected to prevent 
the introduction of pollutants into groundwater. Use of treated 
wastewater effluent and other reclaimed water for cooling water makeup 
would minimize the withdrawal and consumption of Floridan aquifer 
groundwater. Measurement programs specified in the Stanton Energy 
Center Conditions of Certification would ensure continued monitoring of 
groundwater withdrawal rates from the Upper Floridan aquifer. In the 
unlikely event of a fuel spill or other release, assessment and 
recovery would be conducted in accordance with Florida Department of 
Environmental Protection requirements.
    Runoff during construction and operation, as well as all effluents 
from operation, would flow through the existing Stanton Energy Center 
collection and reuse system. No offsite discharges would occur, except 
during a major storm event. Site-specific Best Management Practices to 
prevent the deposition of sediments beyond the construction areas would 
include silt fences, hay bales, vegetative covers, and diversions, to 
reduce impacts to surface water. No process wastewater would be 
directly discharged to any surface waters, but would be reused.
    Under the no-action alternative, cooling water requirements would 
be about 20% less than under the proposed action. Releases to wetlands 
downstream from the Orange County Eastern Water Reclamation Facility 
and from the wetlands to the Econlockhatchee River would be reduced by 
20%, and use of groundwater would be the same as under the proposed 
action.

Floodplains and Wetlands

    No floodplains would be affected by the Orlando Project because no 
construction would occur within a floodplain. During construction, 
wetland and other vegetation communities within the transmission 
corridor would be altered. Because tall-growing vegetation would be cut 
and kept at a height low enough to prevent interference with the 
conductors, forest cover habitats would be reduced and shrub or other 
low-growing vegetation would eventually dominate the corridor. 
Construction of the transmission line would require submittal of a 
joint (1) Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 dredge-and-fill wetlands 
application and (2) Florida Department of Environmental Protection 
environmental resource permit. This permitting process would also 
require OUC to commit to a mitigation plan for any unavoidable wetland 
impacts. The net effect of clearing and maintaining 3.95 acres of 
wetland habitat for the transmission line would be (1) Loss of 1.04 
acres of wetland due to fill and (2) modification of vegetation in 
wetlands in the remainder of the corridor due to right-of-way 
maintenance. This would shift, to a small extent, the balance of 
wildlife habitat in the area away from wetland and forest toward shrub 
and brushland. To mitigate impacts to the wetland area, OUC would 
purchase credits at a local mitigation bank. The total number of acres 
required to mitigate the wetlands impacts would be determined after 
deliberations between the Florida Department of Environmental 
Protection, the St. John's River Water Management District, and the 
Army Corps of Engineers.
    Under the no-action alternative, no floodplains would be affected 
and, because the new transmission line would still be required, the 
same alteration of wetland and other vegetation communities within the 
transmission corridor would be experienced.

Ecological Resources

    The land where the Orlando Project would be constructed is not 
important habitat for wildlife, and no areas of ecological sensitivity 
would be affected directly. Wildlife species would be affected by 
construction activities and resultant loss of habitat in the 
transmission corridor. Smaller less mobile animals would be at greatest 
risk, whereas larger more mobile animals would likely move from the 
disturbed areas and increase surrounding habitat use. No Federally-
listed threatened or endangered plant species are known to occur within 
the immediate vicinity of the main proposed facilities or the 
transmission corridor. Five plant species protected by the Florida 
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services are known to occur 
along or in the vicinity of the transmission corridor. Clearing and 
maintenance activities on the right-of-way would be expected to destroy 
some individual plants, but populations would persist in undisturbed 
areas. Other than transient or incidental use by some wildlife species, 
no federally-listed threatened or endangered animal species are found 
within the previously cleared 1,100 acres. Except for the five 
protected plants, no direct impacts are expected to listed species from 
proposed construction and operations. The site contains no appreciable 
natural aquatic resources.
    Impacts under the no-action alternative would be the same as for 
the proposed facilities.

Social and Economic Resources

    Construction and operation of the Orlando Project would not result 
in major impacts to population, housing, local government revenues, or 
most public services in Orange County. However, because the county's 
public schools are already above capacity, even the small increase in 
the number of

[[Page 17148]]

students as a consequence of the new facilities would contribute to 
overcrowding. Overall, construction and operation of the proposed 
facilities would have positive effects on employment and income in the 
region.
    The relatively large minority populations in and around the census 
tract in which the Stanton Energy Center is located (Census Tract 
167.22) represent ``environmental justice'' populations to which 
adverse impacts could be distributed disproportionately. However, 
impacts to land use and aesthetics would not be significant for the 
population as a whole and would not contribute to disproportionately 
high and adverse impacts. Likewise, with regard to health effects and 
noise, there would be no significant adverse impacts to the population 
as a whole, and no disproportionately high and adverse effects would be 
experienced.
    Under the no-action alternative, the peak and average construction 
work force would be reduced, and the construction period would be cut 
from 28 months to 24 months. Fewer operational workers would be 
required (21 rather than 72). Positive economic benefits would also be 
less.

Waste Management

    The Orange County Sanitary Landfill would have ample capacity to 
receive project construction wastes. Ash generated by the Orlando 
Project is being evaluated for several possible beneficial uses that 
could avoid disposal in the onsite landfill. If no beneficial use is 
found, the 347-acre dedicated landfill would provide more than enough 
space to dispose of this ash, as well as other coal combustion wastes 
generated by the Stanton Energy Center. The existing generating units 
would use the anhydrous ammonia produced by the new facilities to 
satisfy their requirements, and any excess would be sold commercially. 
If the elemental sulfur generated by the facilities proves to be as 
pure as it is projected to be, it would be sold commercially. 
Otherwise, it would be placed in the onsite landfill. Elemental sulfur 
would not be a hazardous waste, and the quantity produced would be 
small in comparison with the total capacity of the landfill.
    Under the no-action alternative, the quantities of construction 
wastes would be slightly less. Also, because no ash would be generated, 
no disposal sites would be needed to accommodate ash. No anhydrous 
ammonia or elemental sulfur would be produced.

Human Health and Safety

    Minimal adverse impacts to human health would be expected from 
operational SO2, NOX, and particulate matter 
emissions from the new facilities. With regard to health effects of 
hazardous air pollutants, the Orlando Project would pose less risk than 
most existing plants, many of which were built decades ago. A health 
risk analysis of hazardous air pollutants from the proposed facilities 
estimated that concentrations of all hazardous air pollutants would be 
below the threshold concentrations (below harmful levels).
    A catastrophic accident (e.g., a significant hazardous material 
release, fire, or explosion) associated with the facilities, including 
transportation of anhydrous ammonia off the site, would be unlikely.
    Southern Company and OUC would add project specific health and 
safety-related plans to those already in place for existing Stanton 
Energy Center units to prevent or minimize potential adverse impacts. 
These measures would include appropriate training and supervision of 
employees and enforcement of workplace safety policies.
    Southern Company and OUC would develop and implement a safety 
program for the chlorine and ammonia systems that would include 
emergency response measures as well as specify training protocols.
    Excess ammonia generated at the proposed facilities would be 
handled and transported according to the Department of Transportation's 
hazardous materials regulations.
    Because emissions of air pollutants would be less under the no-
action alternative, adverse impacts to human health would be less.

Noise

    During operation of the proposed facilities, the predicted noise 
level at the nearest residence (about 6,500 ft to the northeast) would 
be 46.5 dBA. No adverse community reaction would be expected as a 
result of noise levels below 50 dBA. Noise from infrequent steam blows 
would attenuate to a level of about 66 dBA at the nearest property 
boundary and 60 dBA at the nearest residence. A level of 60 dBA would 
be typical of normal conversation.
    Noise would be essentially the same under the no-action 
alternative.

Transportation

    Much of the work on planned road projects could coincide with 
construction and operation of the new facilities, creating a major 
cumulative impact to traffic flow on the local road network. This 
impact would be reduced if the Avalon Park Boulevard extension is 
completed in mid-2008 before the peak construction period. Also, 
Southern Company and OUC have committed to a number of measures that 
would mitigate these potential traffic impacts. A construction traffic 
impact mitigation program, which is required by the Stanton Energy 
Center Conditions of Certification, would be developed and implemented. 
Such a program could include encouraging construction workers to 
carpool; working with the local mass-transit system to provide workers 
with a park-and-ride service to the site; using the existing railway 
access to the Stanton Energy Center site for the delivery of some 
construction equipment and materials; staggering construction work 
schedules and shifts to avoid peak traffic hours; and working with the 
Florida Department of Transportation to provide temporary traffic 
control devices and alter signal times to assist in maintaining proper 
traffic flow. If the Avalon Park Boulevard extension project is 
completed prior to project construction, traffic issues would largely 
be mitigated and more modest mitigation could be considered. However, 
DOE acknowledges that these mitigation steps would not completely 
eliminate traffic impacts.
    Noise related to transportation would not be expected to be 
significant. At the nearest residence, noise levels from truck traffic 
on Alafaya Trail would be at about the same level as that of a quiet 
subdivision during daylight hours. Noise levels from current rail 
traffic have not caused any public complaints. Increased rail traffic 
due to the proposed project would result in more frequent noise from 
rail traffic, but the noise levels would be the same.
    Traffic congestion would be less under the no-action alternative. 
No additional trains would be needed to deliver coal, but trucks would 
continue to deliver anhydrous ammonia to the site once per week. Noise 
levels associated with transportation would be the same as for the new 
facilities but would be less frequent.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

    The no-action alternative is environmentally preferable because it 
would result in slightly less impacts than those predicted for the 
proposed action.

Comments Received on the Final EIS

    The only comments that DOE received on the final EIS were from the 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4, NEPA Program 
Office. EPA stated that the final EIS was responsive to their comments 
on the draft EIS, but observed that direct,

[[Page 17149]]

indirect, and cumulative impacts are inherent in projects that generate 
power. Therefore, EPA stated that verification of the impacts on air 
quality, wetlands, hazardous waste, and cumulative impacts will need to 
take place as the project progresses, with appropriate avoidance and 
mitigation measures implemented. DOE anticipated verifying impacts 
through an environmental monitoring plan. This plan will be developed 
as part of the cooperative agreement with Southern Company, and reports 
on monitoring activities will be included in the reports required under 
the cooperative agreement.
    EPA also expressed appreciation of DOE's consideration of diesel 
retrofit technology to minimize emissions from construction equipment. 
As stated in the final EIS, specification of the use of diesel retrofit 
technologies is not warranted since impacts from diesel engines during 
construction are not expected to be a concern. However, DOE will 
encourage Southern Company to consider the use of biodiesel and diesel 
retrofit technologies during construction activities to further reduce 
impacts.

Decision

    DOE will implement the proposed action, providing, through a 
cooperative agreement with Southern Company, a total of $235 million in 
cost-shared funding to design, construct, and demonstrate the Orlando 
Gasification Project.
    DOE's decision was made upon careful review of the potential 
environmental impacts, presented in the EIS, and incorporates all 
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm. DOE plans to 
verify the environmental impacts predicted in the EIS and the 
implementation of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.

    Issued in Washington, DC on this 28th day of March 2007.
James A. Slutz,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy.
 [FR Doc. E7-6435 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


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

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************