***************************************************************** 05/04/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.105 ***************************************************************** 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 Hindustan Times: Indian, N Korean missile tests incomparable - US- 2 US: E-News: Canned Bomb Plant, The Road Ahead in Iraq, & More 3 US: UPI: Bipartisan support for more nuke warships 4 US: UPI: Dems, GOP push energy loan guarantees 5 US House: Waxman investigation of Iraq invasion rationale 6 UPI: Analysis: Berlin to push energy efficiency 7 UPI: India's NTPC to enter geothermal sector NUCLEAR REACTORS 8 Times of India: N-deal to closely adhere to joint statement, Sep Pla 9 N-deal: US letter draws RS wrath-India-The Times of India 10 US: North County Times: Don't ignore renewed nuclear debate - 11 edmontonsun.com: Alberta - Nuke boss sees good reaction 12 RIA Novosti: Russia ready to modernize Slovakia's nuclear facilities 13 Platts: E.ON's plan to buy land, build 6th Finnish reactor raises co 14 US: Star-Telegram.com: Fission around 15 US: toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse may operate during NRC review 16 US: Detroit Free Press: DTE chief lists challenges 17 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting May 8 on Cross-Cutting Issues at 18 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 3 powers up 19 US: recordonline.com: Indian Point back online after emergency 20 US: MCN: UniStar looks to build third reactor at Calvert Cliffs nucl 21 Radio New Zealand News: Call to consider adopting nuclear energy 22 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Nukes too expensive, says study 23 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Clinton Nucl 24 China Daily: China opens 'nuclear city' to tourists 25 Reuters: Indian MPs slam U.S. Congress on nuclear deal row 26 US: ACT: Faux Renaissance: Global Warming, Radioactive Waste Disposa 27 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Byron Nuclea 28 Reuters: Beating global warming need not cost the earth-UN 29 Reuters: Nuclear industry welcomes climate report backing 30 Reuters: Lula: Brazil to push nuclear power if hydro fails 31 The Local: Swedes still dying from Chernobyl radiation 32 US: UPI: Ginna nuclear plant cited for lax staffing 33 UPI: China declassifies nuclear base 34 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Assessment for Vermont Yankee Nuclear P 35 York Times Blog: Q. and A.: Climate Talks in Bangkok - The Lede - 36 AFP: India vows to stick closely to US nuclear accord - 37 US: The Mercury: NRC rules to stop sleeping on the job 38 US: CCC: Nuclear plant plans $1 billion in upgrades 39 US: Arms Control Today: Risks and Realities: The New `Nuclear Energy 40 AFP: After dispute, experts agree on climate proposals - NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 41 US: WP: DHS May Close N.Y. Radiation-Detection Lab Despite Objection 42 US: FR NRC: Annual Accident Report NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 43 US: TheStar.com: Cameco failed to recognize uranium mine risks - Rep 44 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Tribe presses N-waste fight 45 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance completes site 46 US: Asia Times Online: Australian uranium to fuel Asia 47 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet in Rockvill 48 UK: CC: Work is progressing on challenging clean-up project PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 49 KnoxNews: Wackenhut wins $549 million contracts 50 KnoxNews: Fire damage minimal at Y-12 cooling tower 51 DSC: Announces Agreement With Los Alamos National Laboratory to 52 9NEWS: Sick workers of former nuclear site sickened after vote 53 Denver Post: Die is cast for Flats stricken 54 Denver Post: Rocky Flats: "Just not right" 55 LA Daily News: Field lab victory 56 KMGH: Board's Vote Fills Rocky Flats Employees With Disappointment - 57 Rocky Mountain News: Flats workers strike out in aid try ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Hindustan Times: Indian, N Korean missile tests incomparable - US- May 04, 2007 S Rajagopalan The United States has sought to make it clear that India’s Agni missile tests cannot be equated with the widely-condemned tests by the reclusive Kim Jong-il regime in North Korea. Rejecting any comparison of the two, the Bush administration has underscored the stark contrast between the Indian and North Korean ventures. New Delhi, it noted, went about its test in a “transparent and non-threatening” way, while Pyongyang defied neighbours and fired missiles as a provocation without warning. “There is a significant difference and a noteworthy difference between India and North Korea. India has pursued its programme in such a way as not to be a threat of provocation to its neighbours,” White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters on Monday. And India, he pointed out, notified its neighbour, Pakistan, about the Agni-III missile test and also informed the United States in advance about its plan. “It did it in a transparent and non-threatening way.” In contrast, North Korea “not only defied the express wishes of its neighbours and others in the neighbourhood, it also fired missiles as a provocation, without warning, to others, and therefore, has created the diplomatic activity that you now see,” Snow said adding: “So those are the significant differences between the two.” Asked if it would have been okay if North Korea had notified the US about its missile tests, Snow replied in the negative, stating that Pyongyang had also pledged a moratorium on these tests. He pointed out that at the six-party talks last September, the North Koreans had said that “they would dismantle the nuclear weapons programme, while retaining the right, in their words, for a peaceful civilian programme”. Snow discounted the possibility of the Agni test coming in the way of US Congress approving the Indo-US nuclear deal. “I don’t think so. Again, the auspices under which is was conducted, making sure that everybody was notified in advance, are the sort of things that provide reassurance to people on the Hill,” he said. The spokesman declined to go into the reasons why India opted to go ahead with a missile test at this juncture, but pointed out: “This was not seen as a provocation by the United States or the Pakistanis. Both of them would have reason to do it. Nor has it precipitated the kind of diplomatic concern.” The issue figured at the US state department as well, with spokesman coming out with a similar response. “I wouldn’t try to draw any equivalence between India, the world’s largest multiethnic democracy, and North Korea, a closed totalitarian state,” spokesman Sean McCormack said in reply to questions. ***************************************************************** 2 E-News: Canned Bomb Plant, The Road Ahead in Iraq, & More Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 02:44:56 -0500 (CDT) FCNL E-Newsletter - May 3, 2007 Read this newsletter online at: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/NACTHCJIYU/1176035456 Success: We "Canned" Nuclear Bomb Plant FCNL's year-long campaign to block the Bush administration plan to develop the first new nuclear weapons in nearly two decades had its first success . This week, a key subcommittee of the House Armed Service Committee zeroed out funding for the new nuclear bomb plant intended as a first step toward a $150 billion project to rebuild the nation's nuclear arsenal. Read more http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/INYXHCJIYV/1176035456=51 Iran: FCNL Urges White House to Support Diplomacy Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice meets this week in Egypt with foreign ministers from states in the region. We at FCNL hope this meeting will be an opportunity to begin serious and sustained negotiations with Iran and Syria. The bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommended that the U.S. engage with these two nations, as well as with Iraq's other neighbors, to stabilize Iraq and promote wider regional peace and security. Read FCNL's letter to the White House supporting these meeting: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/MQQWHCJIYW/1176035456=123 Iraq: What's in Play On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed legislation setting a date to begin the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Getting the bill to the president's desk was a big step toward changing U.S. policy. Yet, changing policy is not going to happen with one vote, or one bill. If we want to get the U.S. out of Iraq, we all need to commit to long term engagement with Congress to move the debate. Read FCNL Legislation Secretary Jim Fine's crystal ball on the road ahead . Listen to a brief radio commentary on the president's veto by FCNL's Senior Fellow Col. Dan Smith (USA Ret.): http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/OGRXHCJIYX/1176035456=35 Grassroots Action: FCNL Letters to the Editor Published FCNL constituents regularly publish letters to the editor in newspapers all over the country. This week we highlight a letter published in The New York Times from David Keppel on Iran - http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/DYXOHCJIYY/1176035456 - and a letter published in The Washington Post from FCNL volunteer Betty Hutchinson on why the U.S. doesn't need new nuclear weapons: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/KCJDHCJIYZ/1176035456 Family Reunification Should Be a Priority for Immigration Reform Many religious traditions consider families to be the stabilizing factor in society through which individuals are able to grow and experience the love of God. Thus, when family members are separated for long periods of time, concern arises for the stability of our country and the growth of a healthy society. Read why FCNL believes any future immigration policy should ensure that families stay together: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/BTTOHCJIZA/1176035456=69 Success: Pentagon to End Controversial Government Spying Program The Defense Department is ending the Talon spying program which collected and circulated unverified data about people involved in anti-war activities. Draft counselors using the meeting house in Palm Beach, Florida - http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/DJDYHCJIZB/1176035456 - were among those classified as a "threat." Read an article about the announcement that the Pentagon is "moving to end" this program: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/IFENHCJIZC/1176035456 Fun Facts: 200th Anniversary of Slave Trade Abolition. May 1 marked the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the United Kingdom. Quakers were among those lobbying for the abolition of slavery. Test your knowledge of Quaker lobbying in the U.S: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/EBHIHCJIZD/1176035456=120 Share our Quaker quiz with your friends: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/FIAAHCJIZE/1176035456=120 Photo of the Week: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/AUXGHCJIZF/1176035456 FCNL Field Secretaries for the Midwest Region Jim and Ginger Kenney _______________________________________ The Next Step for Iraq: Join FCNL's Iraq Campaign, http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/NSLNHCJIZG/1176035456/ Contact Congress and the Administration: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/DBYPHCJIZH/1176035456/ Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" campaign bumper stickers and yard signs: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/OOCTHCJIZI/1176035456/ http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/EYERHCJIZJ/1176035456 Contribute to FCNL: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/BSGUHCJIZK/1176035456/ Subscribe or update your information to this list: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/ELXWHCJIZL/1176035456/. To unsubscribe from this list, please see the end of this message. Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists: http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/LWDKHCJIZM/1176035456. ________________________________________ Friends Committee on National Legislation 245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795 fcnl@fcnl.org * http://capwiz.com/fconl/utr/1/LPWHHCJCWL/OBMNHCJIZN/1176035456 phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330 We seek a world free of war and the threat of war We seek a society with equity and justice for all We seek a community where every person's potential may be fulfilled We seek an earth restored. ***************************************************************** 3 UPI: Bipartisan support for more nuke warships United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Briefing Published: May 4, 2007 at 1:51 PM WASHINGTON, May 4 (UPI) -- A congressional Republican Thursday backed legislation that would build more nuclear warships for the U.S. Navy. The measure would authorize the Navy to focus on building nuclear-powered surface cruisers rather than traditional oil-powered ones. It was included in a markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 that was approved by the Democrat-controlled Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., the ranking Republican on the subcommittee, said he was "particularly pleased to see so much of the work we started a few years ago being carried forward in this mark." "The provision requiring that future major combatant vessels, such as cruisers, have integrated nuclear propulsion is simply the right thing to do," Bartlett said. "Just this week, another study commissioned by the Department of Defense found that the risks associated with the cost and supply of oil will make the U.S. military's ability to rapidly deploy on demand 'unsustainable in the long term.' It went on to say that it is 'imperative' that DoD 'apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations,'" the congressman said. "I believe this subcommittee is showing strong leadership in this regard," he said. Nuclear-powered surface warships would not be dependent on oil fuel, but they are vastly more expensive to build than conventional-powered vessels of the same size and therefore far fewer of them can be built for the same overall budget. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 UPI: Dems, GOP push energy loan guarantees United Press International - Energy - Briefing UPI Energy Watch Published: May 4, 2007 at 6:20 PM WASHINGTON, May 4 (UPI) -- Leaders of the U.S. House energy committee are urging President Bush to act on a loan program for nuclear and other energy sources. Reps. John Dingell, D-Mich., and Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, sent a letter to Bush Thursday addressing concerns that loan guarantees for new energy projects that will reduce climate-change pollution are being restricted by the U.S. Energy Department. Loan guarantees were an incentive of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It gave federal backing to 80 percent of "new or significantly improved technologies" as a form of subsidy for non-market ready energy projects. But officials in various industries, especially nuclear, say the law is being interpreted as guaranteeing 80 percent of the debt of the project. Nuclear plants, for example, cost $3 billion to $4 billion to build. Companies are likely to put up only a portion of that amount, and look for investors and other financing for the rest. But nuclear plants, despite the large baseload generating capacity and high-capacity rate, were built overbudget in the 1980s, which has scared investors. The industry says if the government doesn't back 80 percent of total capital costs, it could hurt growth in an industry that currently delivers 20 percent of U.S. electricity consumption. "Given today's financial climate, the types of plants that will meet our growing energy needs without increasing our greenhouse gas emissions are simply not getting built," the letter stated. It was also signed by Reps. Rick Boucher, D-Va., and Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., the chairman and ranking member of the energy committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. Aside from new nuclear technology, the loan guarantees could cover clean coal and renewable energy projects like cellulosic ethanol. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 US House: Waxman investigation of Iraq invasion rationale Committee Seeks Niger Documents and Testimony and Instructs State Department Not to Impede Probe :: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform :: United States House of Representatives Investigations Chronology Legislation About Schedule Hearings Subcommittees Minority Office Friday, May 04, 2007 Iraq Intelligence and Nuclear Evidence, Correspondence Regarding the Testimony of Secretary Rice Committee Seeks Niger Documents and Testimony and Instructs State Department Not to Impede Probe Today Chairman Waxman sent a letter to Secretary of State Rice (1) informing the Secretary that the legislative affairs officials in the Department should not hinder the Committee’s inquiry into why Secretary Rice and President Bush cited forged evidence to build a case for war against Iraq; (2) advising the Secretary that the Committee will depose a nuclear weapons analyst at the State Department; and (3) requesting relevant documents. Letters were also sent to the CIA, the White House, and the Department of Defense requesting relevant documents. Documents and Links *  Letter to Secretary Rice *  Letter to General Hayden *  Letter to Fred Fielding *  Letter to Secretary Gates Chairman Waxman Questions HHS About Barriers to Global Staffing Committee Seeks Niger Documents and Testimony and Instructs State Department Not to Impede Probe Hearing Examines Federal Crop Insurance Program ***************************************************************** 6 UPI: Analysis: Berlin to push energy efficiency United Press International - Energy - Analysis Published: May 4, 2007 at 5:10 PM By STEFAN NICOLA UPI Energy Correspondent BERLIN, May 4 (UPI) -- The German Environment Ministry has unveiled a highly ambitious plan to turn Germany into the world's most energy-efficient country. In a speech to the Bundestag, the lower house of Germany's Parliament, Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel last week unveiled an eight-point plan to counter climate change. "We should make it our goal to turn Germany into the most energy-efficient economy in the world," he said. "Only with an ambitious increase of energy efficiency and the massive expansion of renewable energy sources will we be able to reach our climate protection goals." By 2020, Germany wants to lower carbon dioxide emissions by 40 percent compared to the 1990 value. The European Union member states earlier this year agreed to a 30-percent cut on average. "It's an ambitious goal, but ... it's doable," Gabriel said, adding that Berlin had to act quickly and comprehensively to cut some 270 million metric tons of CO2. He cited eight measures that had to be taken: -- Lowering electricity consumption by 11 percent through efficiency measures (savings potential: 40 million tons) -- Renewing the power-plant portfolio by building more efficient plants (30 million tons) -- Increasing the share of renewable energy sources to more than 27 percent (55 million tons) -- Doubling the efficient usage of heat-power coupling to 25 percent (20 million tons) -- Reducing energy consumption through refurbishment measures and more efficient heating systems (41 million tons) -- Pushing the share of renewables in the heat-generation sector to 14 percent (14 million tons) -- Raising the efficiency in transportation and increase the share of biofuels to 17 percent (30 million tons) -- Cutting emissions of other greenhouse gases, such as methane (40 million tons) Gabriel acknowledged that Germany in 2006 slacked when it comes to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and urged Germany's citizens to help the cause, for example by turning off appliances with a standby mode at night. "Saving energy is so simple and it pays off," he said. There are other moves Gabriel -- a member of the center-left Social Democratic Party, which shares the government with Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives -- plans to make: He encouraged Germans to take the train more often, instead of hopping on a budget plane, or worse, driving. For long-distance train tickets, Gabriel wants to halve the value-added tax (19 percent of the entire price). That's nearly a 10 percent rebate for taking the train. "The Deutsche Bahn (German Railway Company) of all transportation segments has the best climate record," he said. Bahn officials said the rebate would be forwarded entirely to the consumers' benefit. There is only one issue Gabriel continues to lock heads over with Merkel's conservatives; while the environment minister wants to phase out virtually CO2-free nuclear energy, the conservatives want to keep it in the country's energy mix. According to a government plan, all German nuclear plants will be shut down by 2021 despite protests against doing so from some experts and the industry. Merkel is known to be against that plan, but she is bound by the coalition agreements struck at the start of her chancellery. In any case -- and this is true for all countries -- if Germany fails to take measures countering climate change, it will cost the country dearly, according to a recent study by the German Economic Institute. Unabated global warming, the study said, will cost the German economy nearly $200 billion. Yet paying for the necessary climate protection measures will amount to only $4 billion until 2010. Now does that sound like a good deal or what? © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 UPI: India's NTPC to enter geothermal sector United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: May 4, 2007 at 12:29 PM NEW DELHI, May 4 (UPI) -- India's National Thermal Power Corp. plans to set up a 30-50 megawatt geothermal power plant as part of diversification plans. NTPC is looking for a suitable location to build the new plant, which would be its first geothermal power facility. The company identified three locations in the Himalayan states of Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Ladakh, which have the potential to produce power through heat generated from within the Earth, The Business Line newspaper reported Friday. India does not have any commercial geothermal-based power plants. An NTPC spokesman said private geothermal plants could be small and in the range of 50-100 MW. The government-controlled power giant runs mainly coal-based power plants, but it wants to diversify activities to other forms of power generation such as nuclear, hydroelectric and wind. The spokesman said the move to diversify was aimed at reducing dependency on fossil fuel and adding cleaner sources to its fuel mix. The proposed geothermal project is in its initial stages while the company works out financial and other considerations. The cost of setting up a geothermal plant is very high compared with conventional thermal plants. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Times of India: N-deal to closely adhere to joint statement, Sep Plan Sep Plan: Govt [4 May, 2007 l 2203 hrs ISTlPTI] NEW DELHI: India said Friday the civil nuclear agreement with the US will adhere "as closely as possible" to the July 2005 joint statement and the March 2006 Separation Plan, amid expectation that the pact to operationalise the deal could be finalised soon. Close on the heels of high-level talks in Washington on 123 Agreement, where "extensive progress" was made, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said the strategic partnership between the two countries has "truly matured" into one of considerable substance. "Observers of the relationship, especially in the last two years, have devoted a significant proportion of their attention to the landmark India-US nuclear understanding," he said inaugurating a ‘Conference on Business in and between India and the US – Legal and Regulatory Framework’. He said much of the attention the initiative has received is a reflection of its tremendous importance, including its impact in changing perceptions both among public at large and within the governments of the two countries. "We (India and the US) remain committed to implementing the understanding expeditiously in a way that it adheres as closely as possible to the framework of the July 2005 Joint Statement and the March 2006 Separation Plan," he said. Mukherjee's comments came three days after talks between Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon and US Undersecretary Nicholas Burns in Washington to iron out differences on the 123 Agreement. They reported "extensive progress" in the parleys and agreed to hold the next round in Delhi later this month to finalise the agreement. Mukherjee said there was a need to tap all sources of energy and keep options in this regard open. "It is an appreciation of this need that is at the heart of the India-US civil nuclear understanding and the larger energy dialogue which focuses on oil and gas, coal, power, and energy efficiency and renewable energy and new technologies," he said. India and the US have made a "quiet but steady consolidation" of ties in vital areas like trade, investment and economic cooperation, high technology and science and technology cooperation, the energy dialogue and cooperation in agriculture. "We are now the fastest growing export market for the US with our bilateral trade growing by five times in a period of 16 years from a modest 5.6 billion dollars in 1990 to 31.92 billion dollars in 2006," he said. Mukherjee said that a further easing of high technology restrictions on India can help narrow the trade deficit further. "We remain engaged with the US to achieve this objective as a priority," he said. He said the two governments had begun to focus on a reinvigorated economic partnership even before the visit of the Prime Minister to the US in July 2005. Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 9 N-deal: US letter draws RS wrath-India-The Times of India Updated: 5 May, 2007 0609hrs IST | Powered by Indiatimes NEW DELHI: A letter by seven US Congressmen to PM Manmohan Singh warning that the nuclear deal would not happen if India did not sever relations with Iran, plunged the Rajya Sabha into turmoil on Friday, forging a rare camaraderie among BJP, CPM and JD(U), besides underlining that government has little manoeuvre space in nuclear talks. Later, CPM and CPI issued a strong statement terming the letter the "latest instance of US pressure to abide by its conditions for concluding the nuclear agreement". Alleging that Parliament was being kept in the dark, united opposition saw an otherwise unrelenting Bhairon Singh Shekhawat letting members speak. There was also a wordy exchange between Yashwant Sinha (BJP) and parliamentary affairs minister P R Dasmunsi. Sinha said the UPA was buckling under US pressure but Dasmunsi retorted that it was the NDA's habit to assuage the US. Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 North County Times: Don't ignore renewed nuclear debate - The Californian - Community Forums Thursday, May 3, 2007 11:00 PM PDT By: ROCHELLE BECKER - Commentary: California must not abandon our state's responsible moratorium on siting new nuclear plants until the considerable problem of highly radioactive waste is solved. This and other nuclear power issues will be discussed in San Clemente at a forum hosted by Patt Morrison of NPR affiliate KPCC. The forum is scheduled for 7 p.m. today at the San Clemente Community Center, 100 N. Calle Seville. Hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste have been produced and licensed to be stored at California's coastal nuclear power plants. Three nuclear facilities lie adjacent to major active earthquake faults on eroding coastal bluffs -- two are still producing highly radioactive waste daily. For decades, communities within the fallout zones of nuclear power plants have been promised that a permanent waste facility will "soon" be available to store the nation's 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission continues to rely on the 1982 Waste Confidence Decision, which stated that the NRC is confident that spent fuel can be safely stored on-site until a repository is opened to receive it. When this decision was first released, the commission thought a repository would be running by 1998 -- foolishly trusting the Department of Energy to meet a deadline -- and stated that they expected the spent fuel to remain on-site no later than 30 years after cessation of reactor operation. This lack of concern about the prospect of leaving increasing stockpiles of highly radioactive waste in an earthquake-active area -- no matter how long it takes -- is beginning to creep into our state government, as well. This year Assemblyman Chuck Devore, R-Irvine, introduced a bill to lift California's moratorium on new nuclear plants until a permanent solution to the safe storage of radioactive waste exists. Though the bill was defeated on April 17, there is a consortium in Fresno that is threatening a referendum to remove California's moratorium. Devore and a few nuclear supporters in the state appear quite comfortable with Congress, the Energy Department and NRC's promises that a solution is "just around the corner." This has been the mantra of the nuclear industry for more than four decades, and we have chosen to believe them, as the alternative -- highly radioactive waste being perpetually stored on California's seismically active coast -- is too frightening to seriously consider. The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility will participate in tonight's forum, along with Assemblyman Devore, the Committee to Bridge the Gap and possibly another guest. As most new nuclear plants are being proposed to be constructed at existing locations, residents of San Clemente, Oceanside and others who live within the shadow of the San Onofre reactors are invited to attend this special event. Seating is limited, so reservations are required; e-mail pattmorrison@kpcc. org. Is a future of increasing stockpiles of highly radioactive and extremely costly new nuclear reactors something that California should be considering as a legacy for our state's children? -- Pacific Beach resident Rochelle Becker is executive director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (www.a4nr.org). webmaster@nctimes.com © 1997-2007 North County Times ? Lee Enterprises editor@nctimes.com ***************************************************************** 11 edmontonsun.com: Alberta - Nuke boss sees good reaction Fri, May 4, 2007 By JEREMY LOOME Within a decade, Wayne Henuset intends to erect a $6.2-billion Candu nuclear reactor in the town of Whitecourt that would employ as many as 5,000 local residents. The co-director of Energy Alberta, a Calgary company, is flying Mayor Trevor Thain and other representatives to New Brunswick on the weekend to study a Candu's operation. Henuset thinks Thain will be impressed by the benefits and how much the technology has changed since the days of Chernobyl, a Russian reactor that melted down in 1986 and caused the resettlement of 336,000 people and countless deaths. "The kind of reactors that caused the problems at Chernobyl aren't even built anymore," said Henuset, who met with provincial officials about his plans yesterday. Whitecourt's mayor is treading carefully. Although Thain says most of the discussion around town seems positive, he's aware of nuclear energy's inglorious history. "We're interested in what they have to say," he said. Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. Test ***************************************************************** 12 RIA Novosti: Russia ready to modernize Slovakia's nuclear facilities - Putin 17:32 | 04/ 05/ 2007 MOSCOW REGION, May 4 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is ready to help Slovakia modernize its Soviet-designed nuclear power facilities, the president said opening negotiations with the Slovak premier Friday. Russia won a tender in December 2003 to supply nuclear fuel to all the four operating power units in Slovakia until 2010 under a $200-million contract. "Russia is not only a fuel supplier to Slovakia but it is also willing to help modernize its nuclear power facilities," Vladimir Putin told Robert Fico during broad-format negotiations at his residence near Moscow. Slovakia has two power plants with six units, including four designed by Soviet experts. Two units generate power at the Bohunice plant in the west of the country. Another two units operate at the Mochovce plant in the south, and the third and fourth units of the plant are to be commissioned by 2012. During his Russian visit last November, Slovakia's Economy Minister Lubomir Jahnatek said his country was ready to set up a consortium with Russia to complete the third and fourth units at Mochovce. "But that plant does not belong to Slovakia, as 66% is controlled by an Italian company, and the decision will be up to it," the minister said in a reference to Italy's utility ENEL, which acquired 66% in the Mochovce power plant almost a year ago. As for the Bohunice plant, Jahnatek favored the idea of forming a consortium of Russian and European companies to modernize the plant. "We want Russian contractors to have high chances," he said. Both Putin and Fico agreed that energy is the area of the most intensive bilateral cooperation, which, apart from nuclear power, includes gas and oil. Russian natural gas giant Gazprom [RTS: GAZP], which covers 100% of Slovakia's gas imports, signed a deal with gas concern Slovensky Plynarensky Priemysel (SPP) in 1997 until 2008, with the gas price at $180 per 1,000 cubic meters in 2005. Fico expressed the hope that SPP would be able to sign "a good contract" in 2009 as the current deal expires in 2008. "The price for gas largely determines the socioeconomic situation in the country," Fico said. Slovakia, which enjoys discounted gas price rates as a transit nation for Russian natural gas, fears that possible gas price hikes could complicate the government's efforts to maintain low inflation, which is the major condition for entering the euro zone in 2009. Gazprom also holds a 49% stake in SPP together with Ruhrgas and Gaz de France, and controls 50% of Slovakia's Slovrusgaz. "As for oil, Slovakia imports 98% of it from Russia, and the situation here is better because the contract expires only in 2014," Fico said, adding that the two countries were looking into further cooperation opportunities in energy transit. Slovakia is the second transit nation for Russian energy exports to Europe after Ukraine, pumping Russian oil through the Druzhba pipeline. "Russia supplies Slovakia with hydrocarbons. Your country is an important transit nation, and our businesses are considering broader cooperation in the area," Putin said. European consumers have expressed serious concerns about the reliability of Russian energy exports after Moscow's pricing spats with Belarus, another transit country, early this year and with Ukraine last year. The tensions led to shortfalls in Europe, including Slovakia. But the Slovak premier moved to defend Russia, saying: "I want to reiterate my conviction, which I expressed at the time of [transit] problems with Belarus: we believe that Russia is a reliable and promising partner in terms of energy supplies," Fico said. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 13 Platts: E.ON's plan to buy land, build 6th Finnish reactor raises concern London (Platts)--4May2007 E.ON's plan to buy a plot of land and build a sixth Finnish reactor has raised concerns among public officials in the Valko section of Loviisa. The officials released statements about their concerns May 3, the day after a public meeting with E.ON Finland management. The 100-hectare (247-acre) plot is adjacent to Fortum's Loviisa plant. The officials said they are worried that residents in the area would be exposed to unnecessary radiation if E.ON builds the reactor because they would be within the 5-kilometer (3.1-mile) safety zone that now separates them from Loviisa. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 14 Star-Telegram.com: Fission around 05/04/2007 | By BERNARD L. WEINSTEIN Special to the Star-Telegram For decades, Texas has been the nation's fastest-growing large state, adding population and employment at a multiple of the national averages. The state has a current population of 23.5 million and an employment base of 10 million. According to the Texas Workforce Commission, just over 892,000 of these jobs were in the manufacturing sector, accounting for more than 9 percent of non-agricultural employment. The state is projected to grow to 40 million by 2030 and add nearly 5 million jobs. Implicit in these projections is an assumption that reliable and adequate supplies of electricity will be available at a reasonable cost. But by the end of the decade, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, electricity demand could well outstrip supply. Indeed, ERCOT projects that Texas will need up to 48,000 megawatts of new power just to keep up with expected demand. Some have argued that Texas' future power demands can be satisfied largely through a combination of conservation and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. But even under the most optimistic assumptions of their potential, the state's utilities still will have to construct dozens of base-load power plants in the next several decades. At present, Texas relies predominantly on natural gas for power generation -- about 72 percent of capacity -- compared to a national average of 46 percent. Coal accounts for 19 percent of Texas' capacity, while nuclear plants produce only 6 percent of the state's electricity. Because natural gas prices have tripled during the past several years, electricity costs in Texas are currently well above the national average and by far the highest in the Sun Belt. High power costs not only put Texas' many energy-intensive industries at risk but also burden the state's large and growing number of low-income households. If new coal plants are more or less off the table for the present, how will Texas produce the needed megawatts to keep the economy humming? Additional natural gas plants are one solution, though increasing their share of the power mix will propel electricity costs even higher. Texas is already the No. 1 producer of wind energy in the U.S., and plans are under way to double the number of windmills during the next several years. But all the operating and planned windmills in Texas will produce power equivalent to only one mid-size coal boiler. Given the current economic and political realities, building nuclear plants in Texas is the sensible option. America hasn't seen an order for a new nuclear plant that's been completed since the 1970s. Fortunately, favorable public sentiment toward nuclear energy is rising. In Texas, several large utilities are planning to build nuclear facilities. TXU is considering up to five new plants, while NRG, Exelon and Amarillo Power are also evaluating new nuclear plants. If all the plans materialize, Texas could have more reactors than any other state a decade from now. What's more, because these plants will be built in a deregulated market, any missteps would be borne by shareholders -- not the ratepayers. As for safety issues, the nuclear industry can point to almost 60 years of commercial operation without a fatal radiation-related accident. And the industry has transported more than 10,000 used fuel assemblies without incident to temporary storage sites. Once the U.S. Department of Energy begins accepting nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, the controversy over what to do with high-level waste finally will be over. In today's economy, businesses must operate with an eye on their global cost structure. To remain competitive, Texas must offer an attractive economic environment and cost structure on all fronts -- including utility costs. Thus, lower-cost and dependable nuclear generating plants are a sensible choice for a portion of the state's future power needs. Adding these plants to the fuel mix will diversify Texas' energy sources, ensure reliability and help hold down electric power costs in the decades ahead with attendant benefits to current and prospective households and businesses as well as the environment. Bernard L. Weinstein is a professor of applied economics and director of the Center for Economic Development and Research at the University of North Texas in Denton. ***************************************************************** 15 toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse may operate during NRC review Article published Friday, May 4, 2007 By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER The Nuclear Regulatory Commission yesterday affirmed that Davis-Besse and 68 other nuclear plants will be allowed to continue normal operations while the government agency assesses a controversial 661-page report that FirstEnergy Corp. is using in hopes of processing a $200 million insurance claim. Viktoria Mitlyng, NRC spokesman, also said the agency's headquarters soon will respond directly to concerns Judge David Katz, of U.S. District Court in Toledo, has raised about the report. The document purports that most of the damage to Davis-Besse's old reactor head was the result of accelerated corrosion during the last three weeks before the plant was shut down for two years on Feb. 16, 2002, contrary to what the NRC itself has said. Agency officials previously attributed the plant's dangerous condition to a pattern of utility negligence over years. David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists on Monday filed a petition with the NRC demanding an immediate shutdown of either Davis-Besse or each of the 68 other nuclear plants with Besse-like pressurized reactors until the discrepancy is sorted out. The NRC yesterday rejected that aspect of Mr. Lochbaum's petition, but said it will assess others. America has 103 nuclear plants. Sixty-nine, including Davis-Besse, have pressurized reactors. The other 34, including the Fermi 2 plant north of Monroe, operate under less pressure with boiling water reactors. The FirstEnergy consultants' report was completed Dec. 15 and has been in the agency's hands since March 20. It was made public in early April, less than a month before the first of three workers formally associated with Davis-Besse were to stand trial on criminal charges of withholding information from the government. Judge Katz, who has delayed their trials until the fall, said April 20 he was reluctant to proceed until the NRC says whether the new report is more credible than the government's own prior research. U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland) used the consultants' report last month as a basis for renewing his demand to have the NRC revoke FirstEnergy's operating license at Davis-Besse. The NRC has not acted on that, Ms. Mitlyng said. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 To contact a specific department or an individual ***************************************************************** 16 Detroit Free Press: DTE chief lists challenges Anthony Earley advocates for nuclear power. Shareholders meet after news of disappointing 1st quarter May 4, 2007 BY ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA FREE PRESS BUSINESS WRITER The day after DTE Energy announced a decline in profits for the first quarter, company Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Anthony Earley Jr. told shareholders that 2006 was a year of change and growth for Michigan's largest power company. Speaking at DTE headquarters in downtown Detroit at the annual meeting Thursday, Earley and company President Gerard Anderson highlighted several accomplishments and certain challenges that faced DTE including: * The shifting of the utility's mix of nonutility businesses. * Continued implementation of a company-wide performance excellence program. * Discussions of a possible nuclear future in Michigan. * Company stock has reached record levels in recent weeks. Wednesday afternoon "we announced our 2007 first-quarter results and we are on track to meet our operating earnings guidance of between $2.60 and $2.80 a share for the year, excluding synthetic fuels," Earley said. "Achieving the performance goals we've established for DTE Energy will require strong performance from our utilities." Speaking to several hundred shareholders and employees, Earley and Anderson stressed the need to push forward in the area of greater use of renewable energy as part of the company's overall portfolio. Anderson pointed out that DTE, the owner of Detroit Edison and Michigan Consolidated Gas Co., is exploring the possibility of building coal-fired power plants and a nuclear facility to help meet Michigan's energy needs over the next several decades. "Earlier this year we began the application process for a new nuclear unit at our Fermi 2 site in Monroe," he said. "Why a nuclear plant? The decision to file an application emerged from the convergence of two events over the past six to nine months: The publication of Michigan's 21st Century Energy Plan and the 'coming of age' of climate change in the U.S. Congress." During the question-and-answer portion of the meeting, several shareholders said they were pleased with DTE's move toward using more renewable energy as part of its electric generation. Last month, the company unveiled its GreenCurrents program which gives consumers the option of buying a block of 100 kilowatt-hours worth of renewable energy for an additional $2.50 a month. Residents interested in purchasing a 100% match of their home's electricity consumption with renewable resources can pay an additional 2 cents per kilowatt-hour, or an extra $10 to $15 a month. Earley has been touting the value and necessity of new generation capacity for the state and has pushed lawmakers and others to consider nuclear power as a viable option. When asked when he thought a nuclear reactor might be operating in Michigan, Earley and Anderson both suggested that it would be "around 2018" at the earliest. They added, however, that changes in the current legislation must take place before any progress could be made. Contact ALEJANDRO BODIPO-MEMBA at 313-222-5008 or abodipo@freepress.com. Copyright ©2007 the Detroit Free Press. All rights reserved. Users ***************************************************************** 17 NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting May 8 on Cross-Cutting Issues at the Kewaunee Plant News Release - Region III - 2007-07-017 - 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 Dominion Energy Kewaunee, Inc. Tuesday, April 8, to discuss the company’s efforts and progress in addressing deficiencies in the areas of problem identification and resolution and human performance at the Kewaunee Nuclear Station. The plant is located at Kewaunee, Wisc. The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. at the NRC’s Region III Office; 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle IL. The NRC staff will be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. “Coss-cutting” issues cut across multiple areas of plant performance and are usually indicative of more wide-spread problems. If not corrected, they could lead to deficiencies in specific areas of plant performance. The NRC’s 2006 annual assessment letter to the Kewaunee station states that over the last year, a number of NRC inspections findings could be attributed, at least in part, to deficiencies in the plant’s ability to identify and fix problems or to problems with providing complete, up-to-date procedures and following them. According to the letter, deficiencies in the plant’s ability to evaluate and correct problems have continued since 2004. “Addressing these cross-cutting issues is key to improving overall plant performance,” said NRC’s Region III Administrator James Caldwell. “Although the plant need to make sure the utility makes improvements in these areas . The public meeting is a part of NRC’s actions to ensure this happens.” The NRC called this meeting to give the utility the opportunity to discuss its efforts to address the issues, to talk about progress made, and future actions to prevent their recurrence. The 2006 annual assessment letter is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/kewa_2006q4.pdf 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, May 04, 2007 ***************************************************************** 18 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 3 powers up Friday, May 4, 2007 By JORGE FITZ-GIBBON BUCHANAN - The Indian Point 3 nuclear reactor should be back at full power this weekend after a minor repair on a voltage regulator forced it to shut down for nearly seven hours yesterday. The plant, which generates 1,000 megawatts of electricity at full power, was running at 20 percent yesterday after workers replaced a faulty 15-volt power supply in a non-nuclear portion of the facility, plant officials said. Federal regulators were kept abreast of the repairs and said the brief shutdown, the plant's third since March, would not affect Indian Point's safety rating. "This was fairly straightforward," said Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "This was just an equipment issue that they needed to reduce power to address. They were able to do that in a very timely manner." Indian Point 3 was shut down at 6 a.m. yesterday and brought back online at 12:50 p.m., plant owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast said. IP3 is one of two reactors at Indian Point, which jointly generate 2,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 2 million homes. Indian Point 2 was not affected during this week's problems and continued to operate at full power. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said the cause of the problem has not been determined but that there is "a small possibility" it was tied to an April 6 fire at a 900,000-pound transformer that shut the plant down for 23 days. That shutdown ended Sunday, when the plant was put back online. But Steets said workers then noticed a voltage fluctuation in the regulator, which is supposed to maintain the voltage at 22,000 coming into the transformers. Steets said the plant then notified the NRC and local officials and scheduled the repairs. Both Sheehan and Steets said the repairs went smoothly and safely. "It should not be a safety concern for anybody," Steets said. "The shutdowns are going to occur from time to time. There's not a lot you can do about it," he said. "What's important about the shutdown is how the other equipment in the plant responds to it, and how our operators who are operating the plant respond to it. "In each case the performance was top level," he said. "All the equipment responded just as it should to shut down the plant." The NRC is reviewing Entergy's application to renew the operating licenses for both Indian Point reactors. The license for IP2 expires in 2013, and for IP3 in 2015. If granted, the licensing would be extended 20 years. The application is available at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.h tml. Last month, the NRC fined Entergy $130,000 for missing an April 15 deadline to install a new emergency alert system. More tests of the new system have been scheduled while the current system remains in place. Reach Jorge Fitz-Gibbon at jfitzgib@lohud.com or 914-694-5016 Copyright © 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 19 recordonline.com: Indian Point back online after emergency maintenance; Calls continue for an independent safety review of the nuclear power plant By Greg Bruno Times Herald-Record May 04, 2007 Buchanan — Plant engineers took the Indian Point 3 nuclear power reactor offline for about seven hours yesterday for emergency maintenance. It was the third unscheduled outage in two months. Workers began repairing a voltage regulator in a non-nuclear part of the reactor at about 6 a.m., company officials said. The regulator is used to transmit power from the plant's generator to transformers. The repair was completed and Indian Point 3 returned to service just before 1 p.m. Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the Westchester County power station, said the problem with the regulator may have been caused by a previous shutdown on April 6. There was no release of radiation, said Jim Steets, an Entergy spokesman. "None of this was safety related equipment," Steets said. In light of the most recent operational hiccup, critics of the facility, which sits on the Hudson River about 35 miles north of midtown Manhattan, again called on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to conduct an independent safety review. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she will take her concerns directly to company officials. But Steets said Entergy, which has just submitted an application for a 20-year extension to its operating license, said the review during that process will more than assess the plant's safety. The re-licensing process "kicks off more than a two-year-long review" of the materials, maintenance and engineering safety, he said. "The assessment she is calling for duplicates what's already being done at Indian Point." Entergy's license renewal application is available for review online, at www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/indian-p oint.html. Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York"s Hudson Valley and the Catskills. Phone: (845) 341-1100 ***************************************************************** 20 MCN: UniStar looks to build third reactor at Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant Maryland Community Newspapers Online Friday, May 4, 2007 Department of Economic Development supports reactor’s construction by Erica Mitrano | Staff Writer UniStar - a partnership between Constellation Energy of Baltimore and Areva NC Inc. of Bethesda — has chosen the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby as the possible site for a new nuclear reactor. Constellation owns the plant, which already has two generating reactors. UniStar this week notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of its plans to apply for a combined construction and operating license for the new reactor. However, UniStar has not yet decided whether to build the third reactor and several other sites remain under consideration, according to spokesman Brian Meeley. Permit approval does not obligate UniStar to build the third reactor. Calvert Cliffs was chosen for the first permit application because Constellation Energy already owns the plant, has the site available and has been exploring the possibility of building a third reactor there, Meeley said. UniStar hopes to benefit from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Meeley said. The act calls for the federal government to provide ‘‘standby support” or financial compensation to nuclear ventures that are delayed by federal regulatory agencies through no fault of their owners. The act also offers federal loan guarantees for nuclear projects, promising to repay investors’ loans if UniStar should default, Meeley said. Finally, if the application is accepted by the end of 2008 and some safety-related concrete is poured by 2014, the plant becomes eligible for ‘‘production tax credits” for producing a form of energy that emits less greenhouse gas than fossil fuel-powered generators, Meeley said. The Calvert County Department of Economic Development is supportive of a third reactor. ‘‘The Calvert County Board of County Commissioners recognizes the economic impact that a potential new nuclear power plant would have on the county through job creation and tax payments, as well as the importance of nuclear energy in meeting the country’s energy demands,” according to a department statement. ‘‘The safety record and emissions-free technology inherent in nuclear energy also make it an attractive industry for the County and thus, the [board] continues to support the potential expansion ...,” wrote Linda Vassallo, director of economic development for the county. Copyright 2007 Post-Newsweek Media, Inc./Gazette.Net The Gazette: newsroom and business office | 1200 Quince Orchard Blvd. | Gaithersburg, MD 20878 | 301-948-3120 The Gazette: administration, advertising, classifieds | 9030 Comprint Court | Gaithersburg, MD 20877 | main number: 301-670-2565, classifieds: 301-670-2500 ***************************************************************** 21 Radio New Zealand News: Call to consider adopting nuclear energy Posted at 12:47pm on 05 May 2007 Nuclear energy has been mooted as a way to reduce New Zealand's future carbon emisssions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released its third report this year on climate change. Experts from more than 120 countries who have gathered in the Thai capital, Bangkok, have agreed on measures to mitigate the effects of global warming. The report says the world needs to cut annual emissions of carbon dioxide by between 50% and 85% by 2050. Rising temperatures can be tackled with existing technology, but urgent political action is needed to avert the worst impacts. The focus is on how governments can work to reduce the effects of climate change, and nuclear power is one of the hottest issues. The proportion of energy produced from renewable sources such as tides, wind and solar power is tipped to double by 2030. However, Professor of sustainable energy at Massey University Ralph Sims, who led the report's energy supply chapter, says nuclear energy drew the most interest from the big powers in Bangkok, including China, the United States and Germany. "We still believe in New Zealand that nuclear power is not a solution for us at this moment in time. But let's not totally discount it, because the technology is changing and advancing," he says. Professor Sims says the world has got 16% of electricity from nuclear means now; it will rise up to 18% by 2030. New Zealand Atomic Advocacy Council chairman Phillip Ross says this country needs to move toward nuclear power now to cut carbon emissions and secure the energy supply. "It's going to be some time before we can actually turn the soil on the first development. If we don't start now, we're going to be doing that against a backdrop of rising prices and lack of natural resources, or some other catastrophe such as power outages due to inadequate rainfall. We've come close to that in the past." Mr Ross conceeds that public sentiment is against nuclear power, stemming from the highly-publicised explosion at a plant in Chernobyl in 1986. It is regarded as the worst accident to date in the history of nuclear power. In 2005, a bill that would have seen nuclear propelled ships allowed to enter New Zealand waters was rejected at its first reading. Emissions rising Meanwhile, new figures show New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to rise. The greenhouse gas inventory for 2005, the latest that figures are available for, shows a 3% increase on the previous year, and a 25% increase since 1990. To meet its Kyoto Protocol commitments, New Zealand is required to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels by the end of 2012. Energy Minister David Parker says the rise in emissions in 2005 was largely due to more fossil-fuel electricity generation after a dry year saw the country's hydro lakes drop to low levels. He says it shows the importance of developing more renewable electricity generation. Copyright © 2007 Radio New Zealand ***************************************************************** 22 Brattleboro Reformer: Nukes too expensive, says study BRATTLEBORO, VT By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Friday, May 4 BRATTLEBORO -- Nuclear power is not a practical nor economically viable method of addressing global climate change, according to a global environmental organization. A report commissioned by Greenpeace International proves "nuclear power is an expensive and dangerous distraction from real climate solutions," said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst with Greenpeace. The report insists government subsidies would be better spent on promoting energy efficiencies and alternative energies, rather than on supporting nuclear power. "It's not just that there are better and cheaper ways to address climate change," Riccio said Thursday. "You can't trust the numbers the industry gives you. They never pan out." The United States has more operating nuclear power plants than any other country, with 103. The estimated cost for 75 of those reactors was $45 billion, but by completion, those costs had risen to $140 billion and the last 10 reactors built in India came in 300 percent over estimate, said Riccio. If the past is any measure, he said, investing in nuclear power was "throwing good money after bad." "The old plant information is not relevant," said Melanie Lyons, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which calls itself "the policy organization" of the nuclear energy and technologies industry. "It's cautionary but not relevant." While Lyons admitted she had not fully read the 65-page Greenpeace report and couldn't comment on it at this time, she said the nuclear industry is pushing ahead with plans to build 33 reactors in the United States, starting in 2010. She said once construction is started, it will take seven years to complete each power plant. "We have a new licensing procedure in this country and we are moving forward," she said. The nuclear industry is now trying to build a grudging acceptance of nuclear power by claiming it could help to reduce reliance on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, said Riccio. Though Greenpeace's report is not a direct reaction to the industry's push to burnish its environmental record, it provides evidence to the argument that nuclear power "isn't viable and lives off the backs of American taxpayers," he said. "You don't need to buy the nuclear industry scare tactic that it is the only solution to climate change," he said. "Every dollar spent on energy efficiency was worth $7 to $10 spent by the nuclear industry addressing global warming. There are solutions that are better than nuclear." One local anti-nuclear activist, Ed Anthes of Nuclear Free Vermont, said the Greenpeace report supports the reaction of financial investment firms to the prospects of nuclear power. "Wall Street isn't willing to fund nuclear reactors," he said. "The people who are concerned about the money in the industry should take a hard look at this report," agreed Riccio. "These are people who are already reticent to invest in nuclear power." Without private funding sources, the federal government has had to step up to the plate to help subsidize nuclear power through programs such as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and the Price Anderson Act. Without past subsidies, said Anthes, "we wouldn't have had nuclear power and we wouldn't have waste on the Connecticut River." The money would have been better spent on finding other ways to produce electricity then, and it would be better spent today, he added. The report points to the construction of a nuclear reactor in Finland as "an example of all that can go wrong in economic terms" by demonstrating how construction delays, cost overruns and hidden subsidies have driven up the cost of the plant. The full report can be found at greenpeace.org. Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273. ***************************************************************** 23 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Clinton Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region III - 2007-018 - 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 Wednesday, May 9, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for last year at the Clinton Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is located near Clinton, Ill. The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at Vespasian Warner Public Library, 310 N. Quincy St., Clinton. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions and comments from the public before the close of the meeting. “The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Clinton plant and the nation’s other commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities.” A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/clin_2006q4.pdf. The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Clinton plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. During the year, there was one “white” inspection finding – an issue of low to moderate importance to safety – associated with how water drains from a storage tank for emergency cooling systems and its effect on the cooling systems. The NRC plans to conduct an inspection to review the plant’s handling of the issue and its corrective actions. All other inspection findings and performance indicators for Clinton during 2006 were determined to be “green.” As a result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are emergency preparedness, component design engineering, problem identification and resolution, equipment inspection, and transportation and waste handling. Current performance information for Clinton is available on the NRC’s web site at: . 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. , May 04, 2007 ***************************************************************** 24 China Daily: China opens 'nuclear city' to tourists Updated: 2007-05-04 08:20 BEIJING- Tourists can now visit China's "nuclear city," where the country developed its first atomic and hydrogen bombs, state media reported Thursday. The weapons research and production base, now called Xihai Township, in northwest China's Qinghai province has been declassified, Xinhua News Agency said, and the public will be able to visit its underground research laboratory and command room. "The underground headquarters of the nuclear weapons research and production base are a curiosity to many people. They can see the 'nuclear city' for themselves," said Zuo Xumin, an official in the Haibei Tibet Autonomous Prefecture, where the base is located, according to the report. The base was built in 1958 in the grasslands of northern Qinghai. It was closed by the central government in 1987 and handed over to the local government in 1993. China exploded its first nuclear device in 1964. Xinhua said a museum has been built at the base, where old telegraphs, machines, clothes and food coupons belonging to the people who worked at the base are shown. ***************************************************************** 25 Reuters: Indian MPs slam U.S. Congress on nuclear deal row 04 May 2007 12:22:23 GMT Source: Reuters NEW DELHI, May 4 (Reuters) - Indian MPs from both left and right united on Friday to denounce U.S. legislators for what they said was an attempt to influence foreign policy through a controversial nuclear trade deal. The lawmakers criticised letters written by Democratic and Republican legislators warning Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that New Delhi's ties with Iran had significant potential to harm India-U.S. relations and the landmark deal. "We must send a very strong message to the U.S. Senators and Congressmen that this will not prevail," Yashwant Sinha, foreign minister in the previous Hindu nationalist-led government, told parliament. "We are not going to tolerate this," he said. The angry reactions from Sinha and his colleagues in the upper house of parliament came after details of the latest letter from the congressmen were published in an Indian newspaper on Friday. The letter -- signed by Democrat Tom Lantos, chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, senior Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and others -- was the third, and strongest, in recent days expressing concern over relations between New Delhi and Tehran. They urged India to end what they said was "military cooperation" with old friend Iran and terminate participation in the development of Tehran's energy sector. "I would like to express our very, very strong protest... at what we can only term the temerity of some U.S. senators in insulting our honourable prime minister," said Brinda Karat of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which shores up the ruling coalition. The letter was "nothing but an open threat to the sovereignty of this country", she said. NO COMPROMISE In a separate statement, her party said it had repeatedly pointed out that the nuclear cooperation agreement would seriously damage India's foreign policy and strategic autonomy. The nuclear deal aims to overturn a three-decade U.S. ban on the sale of nuclear reactors and fuel to New Delhi -- to help meet India's soaring energy needs -- even though it has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has tested nuclear weapons. It is considered the showpiece of a new friendship between the two nations and was approved by the U.S. Congress in December. But it has run into rough weather over a bilateral agreement that will govern nuclear trade with India saying that the pact included new conditions unacceptable to it. U.S. legislators and administration officials have in the past also linked the deal to India's stance on what they say is Iran's covert nuclear weapons programme and urged New Delhi to abandon plans to build a gas pipeline from Iran to India. Officials of the two countries claimed extensive progress over the deal after talks in Washington this week and are due to negotiate again in New Delhi this month. Indian Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi said the government would continue to remain transparent. "I would like to make it clear that our government is not in a position to make any kind of compromises that would affect the sovereignty of the country in any way," he told parliament. ***************************************************************** 26 ACT: Faux Renaissance: Global Warming, Radioactive Waste Disposal, and the Nuclear Future Arms Control Today: Arms Control Association: Harold A. Feiveson Over the past 20 years, there has been little or no net growth in installed nuclear capacity in much of the world with the exception of Asia, where there has been some limited new nuclear construction. Many energy analysts now expect, however, a dramatic nuclear renaissance, provoked in part by anxieties over global warming and claims that nuclear power can play a substantial role in easing these concerns. Yet, nuclear power will have to expand fivefold or more worldwide to make even a modest contribution to greenhouse gas reductions. Such an expansion does not appear feasible in the next quarter-century or longer, and in the interim, there are alternative paths to low-carbon-emitting electricity that appear equally or more promising than nuclear power. At the same time, the Bush administration and some advocates of this nuclear renaissance are using another environmental concern—the growing quantities of spent fuel—to justify a sharp change in U.S. policy toward spent fuel reprocessing. The administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) aims at deploying reprocessing on a large scale, thus ending a more than 30-year moratorium in the United States, and coupling this reprocessing with deployment of a fleet of fast reactors designed to burn the plutonium and other transuranics separated in the reprocessing operation. The technologies envisioned, however, have not yet been proven, and even if they were to be developed, they will do little to manage the spent fuel problem while costing an enormous amount of money and risking increased weapons proliferation. Rather than rushing headlong into promoting nuclear power as a means of curbing global warming, policymakers should take the ample time they have to assess the practical feasibility of implementing other alternatives on a large scale. Until this is done, there is no reason that nuclear power should be privileged by government policies. Projections Nuclear power plants often take decades to build. Despite the hoopla over a nuclear renaissance, there is little evidence of a vast surge in construction before 2030, the farthest point in time where the projections at least roughly can be based on actual plans. At the end of 2005, 443 nuclear plants, with an installed capacity of 367 gigawatts-electric (GWe), were in operation in 31 countries. These units provided about 2,700 terawatt hours in 2005, approximately 15 percent of electricity generation worldwide.[1] Six countries—the United States, France, Japan, Germany, Russia, and South Korea—accounted for 75 percent of the capacity. Projections from international, governmental, and private groups vary somewhat but generally fall into the range of 400-600 GWe of installed nuclear power in 2030. For example, the International Energy Agency forecasts a worldwide capacity in 2030 of 416-519 GWe. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) projects a nuclear capacity in 2030 of 414-679 GWe.[2] The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates 2030 capacity at 438 GWe.[3] The trade journal NUKEM, which relied on a “number of informational sources” for its projections, projects a capacity in 2030 of 535 GWe. For those advocating or expecting a nuclear renaissance, it is the period after 2030 that is of the greatest interest. A 2003 MIT interdisciplinary study presented one scenario of what a nuclear system might look like by mid-century.[4] The MIT study imagined a worldwide nuclear capacity in 2050 of 1,000-1,500 GWe, respectively termed low and high scenarios. The authors point out that the projection “is certainly not a prediction of rapid growth in nuclear power. Rather, it is an attempt to understand what the distribution of nuclear deployment would be if robust growth were realized.” It is unlikely that the more robust projections of the expansion of nuclear power will come to pass. Investors in developed countries continue to shy away from nuclear power technology because of the continuing high financial risk they see in the sector. Few developing countries have the infrastructure or incentive to support a large nuclear capacity. It is doubtful that nuclear capacity in 2050 could reach even the low MIT scenario of 1,000 GWe of installed nuclear power, much less the high scenario of 1,500 GWe. If nuclear power were to grow to 1,000-1,500 GWe by mid-century, it is noteworthy that plants would have to be built in several developing countries that have no or negligible nuclear power today. These countries include Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mexico, North Korea, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Vietnam. A level of 1,000-1,500 GWe of global production is also the level to which nuclear power would have to rise if it were to play a significant role in combating global warming. Nuclear Power and Global Warming Nuclear power’s environmental appeal is that it produces less carbon than coal or natural gas, today’s predominant fuels for generating electricity. Each kilowatt-hour produced by nuclear energy “saves” 186 grams of carbon compared to an equivalent amount of energy produced by a modern coal-fired electric plant (if those plants do not use carbon capture and storage) and 93 grams of carbon compared to electricity produced using natural gas. One gigawatt of nuclear capacity operating at an average capacity factor of 85 percent will therefore save about 1.5 million metric tons of carbon annually compared to coal and 0.75 million metric tons of carbon compared to gas-turbine-generated electricity. (Carbon dioxide emissions are measured here in the quantity of contained carbon molecules. The emissions of carbon dioxide would be 3.66 times greater than the carbon.)[5] Total global carbon emissions today are approximately 7 gigatons (billion metric tons) per year and are projected to reach 14 gigatons per year in 50 years under business as usual. These emissions would be lessoned by 1 gigaton per year if nuclear energy were used instead of coal to produce about 700 gigawatts of electricity. An additional 700 gigawatts of electricity produced from nuclear power would roughly triple the current nuclear capacity to about 1,000 GWe. Nuclear power, therefore, can play a role in addressing global warming. For it to do so, however, it would have to grow substantially, to a level that will not be feasible for the next several decades. Moreover, nuclear power is not the only low-carbon generation alternative possible, nor is nuclear power generation expansion the most effective way to reduce carbon emissions in the near future. First, improvements in end-use efficiency would have the greatest and the most immediate impact. For example, the International Energy Agency in its World Energy Outlook 2006 developed an “alternative scenario” in which governments adopted an array of actions to reduce greenhouse gases. In this scenario, the study attributed to end-use efficiency advances two-thirds of the reductions in carbon dioxide.[6] Other studies of greenhouse gas emissions have reached similar conclusions.[7] Secondly, efficiency improvements in the power sector itself could have substantial impact. Thus, under business as usual, the World Energy Outlook 2006 estimates that coal electricity will grow from 6,900 terawatt hours in 2004 to 14,700 terawatt hours in 2030.[8] New coal-fired plants have efficiencies up to 46 percent, and by 2030 the efficiencies could reach 50 percent or higher.[9] Today, the world average is less than 30 percent. Investments that would drive the average world efficiency of coal plants in 2030 to, say, 42 percent from 30 percent would save roughly the same amount of carbon as would building 800 nuclear plants. China provides an especially vivid illustration of the salience of efficiency improvements. The average efficiency of its coal plants today is 23 percent. If this could be raised to 42 percent by 2030, that would save the same amount of carbon as 350 GWe of nuclear power if it replaced the current inefficient plants. How dramatic this is may be seen in the World Energy Outlook projections of capacity. In 2004, China had 6 GWe of nuclear power and 307 GWe of coal energy. These amounts were projected to grow to 31 GWe of nuclear power and 1041 GWe of coal power in 2030.[10] Finally, it appears from various studies that several low-carbon electricity supply options could be available after 2020-2030, including advanced nuclear reactors, integrated gasification combined-cycle coal plants with carbon capture and storage, and wind farms, at roughly competitive prices if states through taxes, cap and trade schemes, or other schemes place a charge of $100 per ton of carbon emitted to the atmosphere. How suitable these alternatives are to a large-scale expansion is at present unclear. By 2030, however, experts will have a far-better understanding of the practical capacity available worldwide for carbon storage, for example, and of the practicality of large-scale wind farms with compressed air storage. We should also by 2030 have a clearer idea of the prospect of some advanced nuclear technologies, which could have attractive proliferation-resistance characteristics if nuclear power were to expand beyond 1,500 GWe. These include concepts such as pebble-bed gas reactors; molten-salt thorium reactors; and small, sealed, lead-cooled reactors. Above all, it may be hoped that by 2030, we will understand better whether a safeguards system could be put into place to allow a true nuclear renaissance. Until that time, there is little reason for states to provide disproportionate subsidies to nuclear power. Management of Spent Fuel Moreover, if nuclear power were to increase in future decades at the level advocates support, it would exacerbate the already difficult problem of dealing with spent nuclear fuel. Worldwide, about 10,000 metric tons of spent fuel is discharged from reactors each year. This includes roughly 6,500 metric tons from 325 GWe of light-water reactors (LWRs) and 3,500 metric tons from 42 GWe of heavy-water and gas-cooled reactors. The total plutonium contained in the spent fuel is approximately 75 metric tons. By 2030, spent fuel discharges will rise to about 11,000-13,000 tons annually, containing more than 100,000 kilograms of plutonium. To manage this material, two spent fuel strategies are being used or are under consideration by countries. First, reprocessing of the spent fuel, with the separated plutonium either stored indefinitely for possible future use in fast breeder or burner reactors or recycled as mixed oxide fuel (MOX) in LWRs.[11] Second, interim storage of the spent fuel with the object either of ultimate direct disposal in geological repositories or of making a later decision on ultimate disposal (reprocessing or direct emplacement in a repository). Naturally, with no repository yet built and none likely to be built for at least a decade or longer, the two disposition routes under the interim storage strategy are for the moment indistinguishable. Countries adopting the first strategy, at least partially, include France, Japan, India, Russia, and the United Kingdom, all of which have their own reprocessing plants. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland in the past had sent their spent fuel to France or the United Kingdom for reprocessing but have now decided to adopt instead a strategy of interim storage before disposal and have cancelled all reprocessing contracts abroad. Japan in the past also sent much of its spent fuel to Europe for reprocessing but in 2006 opened its own reprocessing plant at Rokkasho and will in the future reprocess on its own territory. Countries following the second strategy of no reprocessing include Finland, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, and the United States (at least to date). Whichever strategy is adopted, it appears increasingly likely that most countries will have to dispose of their spent fuel domestically. Hopes have faded that some countries would be willing to store spent fuel sent by other countries. Russia, the one country that had most strongly raised the possibility of hosting spent fuel from abroad, has taken the position that it would not do so other than for spent fuel derived from reactors built by the Soviet Union or Russia and using Russian fuel. At present, approximately 2,500 metric tons of spent fuel is reprocessed annually, representing about one-quarter of the total annual spent fuel discharge worldwide. The total amount of plutonium separated through reprocessing is about 25 metric tons per year. Roughly one-third of this plutonium is being recycled into MOX, with most of the other two-thirds added to existing stockpiles at the reprocessing plants in Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom. In 2005, 32 LWRs in Belgium, France, Germany, and Switzerland used MOX, with an additional 18 reactors in these countries licensed to use the fuel. Japan hopes to use MOX in one-third of its reactors by 2010. The MOX disposition strategies now being pursued by France and Germany and envisioned for other countries have several environmental and economic limitations.[12] Economically, MOX provides only 30 percent or less of the fuel in the reactors in which it is employed. Furthermore, six spent uranium-oxide fuel assemblies must be reprocessed to obtain the plutonium for the equivalent of one MOX assembly. MOX also provides fewer environmental benefits than it might seem because spent MOX fuel is not reprocessed.[13] Moreover, for the same cooling-off period, the space in a repository required to store MOX is three or more times greater than the space for uranium-oxide fuel. In addition, the depleted uranium obtained from the reprocessed uranium-oxide spent fuel generally is not recycled. The alternative to reprocessing is dry-cask storage. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has deemed such storage to be safe and secure for many decades, and there is now considerable industry experience with dry casks. Indeed, virtually every currently operating reactor in the United States either already had dry-cask storage as of the end of 2004 or has now such storage under construction or planned. In comparing the costs of the two alternative routes, two flows of material should be kept in mind. First, in the dry-cask alternative, all of the spent uranium fuel is kept in the reactor pools for about 20 years and then put into dry-cask storage. Second, with reprocessing and MOX recycling, the separated high-level wastes are stored at the reprocessing plant, and the spent MOX fuel is stored indefinitely at the reactor (Germany) or reprocessing plant (France). The MIT study assumed that the costs of storage under the two alternatives would be similar. This assumption is reasonable because the high-level wastes contain all the fission products and all the transuranics other than plutonium. The costs of the dry-cask storage are anyhow quite low, approximately $100-200 per kilogram of heavy metal. Given little difference in storage costs, cost issues boil down to whether it is cheaper to reprocess spent fuel and fabricate MOX or purchase fresh fuel. The answer is clear: reprocessing and MOX fabrication costs would far exceed those from uranium fuel, even if the real costs of uranium and enrichment services were several times their current levels. (The spot prices for uranium, which have risen rapidly over the past year due to limitations on current uranium mine production and rising short-term demand, are not a good indicator of the real costs of mining and processing.) At a reprocessing cost of $1,000 per kilogram of heavy metal from LWR spent fuel and a MOX fabrication cost of $1,500 per kilogram, one kilogram of MOX will cost roughly 2 cents per kilowatt-hour more than an equivalent kilogram of uranium fuel. As noted, the route of dry-cask storage does not preclude a decision decades hence to reprocess. In the longer run, advocates of reprocessing believe that rising uranium prices and limited waste repository space in a growing nuclear economy will drive countries to pursue closed fuel cycles based on fast reactors. Neither argument is compelling. With respect to uranium scarcity, several recent analyses show that unless the real cost of uranium rose to well more than $300 per kilogram, the LWR, which makes up 88 percent of today’s nuclear power generating capacity, will remain less expensive than any fast reactor so far proposed.[14] There appears to be ample uranium. In the 1,500 GWe scenario, the annual uranium consumption in 2050 would be roughly 270,000 metric tons, with a cumulative uranium requirement of about 8 million metric tons, assuming still the use of LWRs on once-through fuel cycles. This would still be well below the 14.9 million metric tons estimated by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the IAEA to be available at less than $130 per kilogram. It also supports the MIT study conclusion that there is sufficient uranium globally to support a nuclear system growing to 1,500 GWe capacity by 2050.[15] Moreover, several recent studies have estimated much greater amounts of uranium to be available at higher prices, more than 60 million tons at $200 per kilogram.[16] The Bush administration has advanced a second argument for reprocessing and fast reactors with GNEP: that reprocessing could drastically reduce the costs of waste disposal if the separated plutonium and other transuranics are subsequently forged into fuel and burned in fast reactors. For example, GNEP has argued that, by burning the long-lived transuranics, the capacity of Yucca Mountain can be effectively expanded and the need for another repository indefinitely postponed even if nuclear power in the United States grows substantially. The implications of such partition and transmutation have been examined in detail elsewhere.[17] A report from the International Panel on Fissile Materials advances several reasons to question the practicality and wisdom of the GNEP scheme, including its cost, proliferation risks, and waste disposal rationale. On the latter, it is striking that, in order to save space at the repository, the separated fission products first would have to be stored above ground for hundreds of years after reprocessing before their emplacement in Yucca Mountain. Moreover, it is not even clear that the GNEP scheme is the simplest or most direct way to increase the capacity of Yucca Mountain. A recent EPRI study suggested that the capacity could be 260,000-570,000 tons, far greater than the 63,000-ton legal limit currently stipulated or the 105,000-120,000-ton technical limit often suggested.[18] However one looks at the nuclear future, it appears illogical for countries to undertake reprocessing today. The once-through fuel cycle has the inestimable proliferation-resistance advantage that no nuclear-explosive material appears anywhere. Although not absolutely precluding diversion paths to support country proliferation, it does provide a nearly intractable barrier to substate acquisition of fissile material from the power-reactor fuel cycle. By contrast, reprocessing puts separated weapons-usable material into the civilian fuel cycle. This danger is widely recognized even by the advocates of reprocessing who, while sending the message that reprocessing is essential for the future of nuclear energy, argue that not all countries participating in that nuclear future can be trusted with reprocessing. In sum, it does not appear feasible in the next quarter century for nuclear power to make a significant contribution to greenhouse gas reductions. In addition, there are alternative paths to low-carbon emitting electricity that appear equally or more promising than nuclear power and should be seriously considered. The practicality of these alternatives will come into clearer focus in the next few decades. In the meantime, there is no reason for policymakers to favor nuclear power. If policymakers choose to invest in nuclear power, there is no economic rationale for reprocessing or for the recycling of plutonium in LWRs, and strong security reasons to avoid doing so. The absence of such rationale becomes still more evident if nuclear growth over the next several decades is relatively slow. ====================================================================== Harold A. Feiveson is a senior research scientist at Princeton University and a member of Princeton’s Program on Science and Global Security of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is the editor and a principal author of the book, The Nuclear Turning Point: A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and De-alerting of Nuclear Weapons (1999). He is also co-founder and editor of the international journal, Science & Global Security. ====================================================================== ENDNOTES 1. International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006, p. 347, table 13.1; NUKEM, “Data Feature: 2005/2006 World Nuclear Electricity Generating Capacity,” December 2006. 2. International Atomic Energy Agency, “Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period to 2030,” July 2006. 3. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, International Energy Outlook 2006, table F5. 4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT Study, 2003.” The study was co-chaired by John Deutch and Ernie Moniz. 5. S. Pacala and R. Socolow, “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years With Current Technologies,” Science, August 13, 2004. 6. “At the point of use, the largest contributor to avoided carbon dioxide emissions is improved end-use efficiency, accounting for nearly two-thirds of total savings.” International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006, p. 190. “The electricity saved in the residential and commercial sectors combined accounts for two-thirds of all the electricity savings in the Alternative Policy Scenario. By 2030, the savings in these two sectors avoid the need to build 412 gigawatts of new capacity.” Ibid., p. 213. 7. United Kingdom Sustainable Development Commission, “The Role of Nuclear Power in a Low Carbon Economy,” 2006. 8. International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006, p. 493. 9. Ibid., pp. 140-141. 10. Ibid., p. 517. 11. Fast reactors utilize fast neutrons produced by fission. The typical commercial light-water reactor (LWR) uses a moderator to slow the neutrons to thermal speeds. Fast reactors, which have so far not been developed commercially, could in principle be used as breeders to produce more plutonium than they burn up or as burners to burn down plutonium and other transuranics as fuel. Absent their development, some of the countries separating plutonium have turned to using MOX fuels in LWRs. These fuels combine plutonium with standard or depleted uranium. 12. Jean-Michel Charpin et al., “Economic Forecast Study of the Nuclear Power Option,” July 2000. This study, whose principal author was the French planning commissioner, sought to compare systematically the back-end fuel cycle strategies for France. 13. Spent MOX fuel is hotter than spent uranium-oxide fuel, and the percentage of fissile isotopes in the plutonium in spent MOX fuel is less than in the plutonium in spent low-enriched uranium fuel and thus less attractive as a source for a new MOX assembly. 14. Erich Schneider and William Sailor, “Nuclear Fission,” Science & Global Security, Vol. 14, Nos. 2-3 (2006), pp. 194-196; Matthew Bunn et al., “The Economics of Reprocessing Versus Direct Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel,” Nuclear Technology, Vol. 150 (2005). It is very likely that, up until at least 2030, the LWR will remain the dominant reactor type, based on so-called Generation III or III+ designs, reactors with evolutionary improvements on existing LWRs. These reactor types include the European Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) being marketed by Areva, the Westinghouse AP600 and AP1000 PWRs, and an Advanced Boiling Water Reactor being developed by General Electric. One non-LWR under consideration in China and South Africa that could conceivably be deployed before 2030 is the gas-cooled pebble-bed modular reactor. Generation IV reactors, including fast-neutron reactors, are the subject of research and development today but are unlikely to be deployed until well after 2030. See John Aheane, “Advanced Nuclear Reactors—Their Use in Future Energy Supply,” InterAcademy Council, 2005. 15. See International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006, table 13.12. 16. Son Kim and Jae Edmonds, “Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World,” PNWD-SA 7184, November 1, 2005, figure 3-2; Erich Schneider and William Sailor, “Long Term Uranium Supply Issues and Estimates,” LAUR-05-8879, 2005; See Schneider and Sailor, “Nuclear Fission,” pp. 194-196. 17. Frank von Hippel, “Managing Spent Fuel in the United States: The Illogic of Reprocessing,” International Panel on Fissile Materials, January 2007. 18. J. Kessler, “Room at the Mountain,” EPRI Technical Update, May 2006. The implications of the uniqueness in the Yucca Mountain case of its limited geographic extent were pointed out to the author by Steve Fetter in a private communication. The Arms Control Association is a non-profit, membership-based organization. If you find our resources useful, please consider joining or making a contribution. Arms Control Today encourages reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor. © 1997-2007 Arms Control Association, 1313 L Street, NW, Suite 130 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273 ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Byron Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region III - 2007-019 - 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, May 8, to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance for last year at the Byron Nuclear Power Station. The plant is located at near Byron, Ill. The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6 p.m. at Training Center of the Byron plant, Room 107, 4448 N. German Church Road, near Byron. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment and be available to respond to questions or comments from the public before the close of the meeting. “The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Byron plant and the nation’s other commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. “This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with the company and with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of these facilities.” A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/byro_2006q4.pdf. The NRC’s assessment concluded that the Byron plant operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for Byron Unit 1 during 2006 were determined to be “green.” The Unit 2 inspection findings were determined to be “green,” but the performance indicator for one plant system – the auxiliary feedwater system – was “white” beginning in the second quarter of 2006 and continuing for the remainder of the year. The performance indicator was “white” because a pump failed to operate properly during testing on two occasions in 2005 and was found to be inoperable during a routine check in January 2006. An NRC inspection in February 2007 determined that the utility had adequately identified the causes of the failures and taken appropriate corrective actions. As a result of performance of the two units, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are emergency preparedness, equipment inspection activities, and fire protection. Current performance information for Byron is available on the NRC’s web site at: (Unit 1) http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BYRO1/byro1_chart.html and (Unit 2) http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BYRO2/byro2_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. , May 04, 2007 ***************************************************************** 28 Reuters: Beating global warming need not cost the earth-UN Fri May 4, 2007 5:21AM EDT By David Fogarty BANGKOK, May 4 (Reuters) - Humans need to make sweeping cuts in greenhouse gas emissions over the next 50 years to keep global warming in check, but it need cost only a tiny fraction of world output, a major U.N. climate report said on Friday. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in the third of a series of reports, said keeping the rise in temperatures to within 2 degrees Celsius would cost only 0.12 percent of annual gross domestic product. "It's a low premium to pay to reduce the risk of major climate damage," Bill Hare, a Greenpeace adviser who co-authored the report, told Reuters after the culmination of the marathon talks which ran over their four-day schedule. "It's a great report and it's very strong and it shows that it's economically and technically feasible to make deep emission reductions sufficient to limit warming to 2 degrees," he said. "It shows that the costs of doing this are quite modest." To keep within the 2-degree threshold scientists say is needed to stave off disastrous changes to the world's climate, emissions of carbon dioxide need to drop between 50 and 85 percent by 2050, the report said. However, technological advances -- particularly in producing and using energy more efficiently -- meant such targets were within reach, the report said. It highlighted the use of nuclear, solar and wind power, more energy-efficient buildings and lighting, as well as capturing and storing carbon dioxide spewed from coal-fired power stations and oil and gas rigs. The panel also said for the first time that lifestyle changes could help fight global warming. It gave no examples, but IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said his personal suggestions included turning down the thermostat and eating less red meat, which could reduce animal methane emissions. "These are lifestyle measures but you are not going to give up anything and you might gain," he told a news conference. "ACT NOW" The report, agreed by scientists and officials from more than 100 countries, reviews the latest science on the costs and ways to curb emissions growth. It is designed as a blueprint for governments to act, without telling them exactly what to do. However, the message was clear -- the ball was now in the governments' courts, and that delays were no longer acceptable. "There is no excuse for waiting," European Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said. Pachauri said high public interest would spur governments to act. "In a democracy, ultimately it is the people who are going to create pressure for change and initiatives," he told Reuters. In some cases, the panel said, technology could bring substantial benefits, such as cutting health costs by tackling pollution. Even changing planting times for rice or managing cattle and sheep flocks better could cut emissions of methane, another powerful greenhouse gas, said the report by the U.N. panel which draws on the work of 2,500 scientists. Its previous two reports painted a grim future of human-induced global warming causing more hunger, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels which would drown low-lying islands. In Bangkok, China and Europe sparred about the costs and levels of greenhouse gas emissions which ought to be allowed. China, the world's number two emitter of greenhouse gases after the United States, wanted the IPCC report to exclude language which would promote stabilising emissions near current levels, in part because of the limited economic studies available. The steeper the emissions cuts, the more costly to the global economy, the report says. In 2030 the cost of limiting greenhouse gases at "stabilisation" levels of between 445 and 710 ppm (parts per million) CO2-equivalent range from a 3 percent decrease of global GDP to a small increase, it said. However, regional costs might differ significantly from global averages, it added. Greenhouse gas concentrations are now at about 430 ppm CO2-equivalent. (Additional reporting by Darren Schuettler) © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 Reuters: Nuclear industry welcomes climate report backing Fri May 4, 2007 3:02PM EDT By Jeremy Lovell LONDON (Reuters) - The world nuclear power industry welcomed on Friday the tacit backing given to their technology by some of the world's top scientists and economists in the latest analysis of the climate change crisis. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting in Bangkok said tackling global warming was both technologically and financially feasible as long as action was taken promptly, and that nuclear power could be in the arsenal. "It is common sense. What else is there for most of electricity generation that is carbon free," Ian Hore-Lacy of the World Nuclear Association said. "If you have a major technology that is capable of being deployed on a larger scale than now that emits no carbon, you don't need a Phd (doctorate) to work out that it has got an awful lot of potential," he told Reuters in London. The civil nuclear industry, which saw its future evaporating after the reactor explosion at Chernobyl in 1986 sent a pall of radioactive dust across Europe, has seen its prospects improve dramatically in the hunt for a solution to global warming. Scientists say temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 3.0 degrees Celsius this century from carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport, causing climate havoc. CARBON FREE Nuclear proponents say their technology is carbon free, although opponents challenge that saying mining, refining and transport all generate carbon emissions. The IPCC report noted that nuclear power provides about 16 percent of the world's electricity and said that figure could rise to 18 percent by 2030. But the head of Austria's climate change unit at the Bangkok talks said the figure had been contentious. "It could give the impression that the IPCC is projecting a significant increase in the contribution of nuclear power," said Klaus Radunksy. "This was politicizing the IPCC and that in our view, is not appropriate." Bert Metz, co-chair of the IPCC group that wrote the report, stressed that it was not an endorsement of nuclear power. "It is absolutely a technical review. We are not making policy recommendations," he said. Unabashed, Hore-Lacy said far from stopping at 18 percent the industry had its sights set on a figure closer to the 80 percent of electricity that nuclear power provides in France. He noted that in Japan -- hit by the world's first nuclear bombs -- nuclear power produced 29 percent of electricity, while in Ukraine -- site of Chernobyl -- it was 45 percent. The IPCC did note worries over nuclear safety, weapons proliferation and waste. Hore-Lacy shrugged most of these off, but did agree that proliferation could be an issue unless handled correctly. (Additional reporting by Darren Schuettler and David Fogarty in Bangkok) © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 30 Reuters: Lula: Brazil to push nuclear power if hydro fails Thu May 3, 2007 7:09PM EDT BRASILIA (Reuters) - Brazil will increase the use of nuclear energy if it cannot build enough hydroelectric plants, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said on Thursday. "We either build the hydroelectric plants we need or we'll enter the nuclear age," Lula said during the inauguration of a hydro-powered plant in central Minas Gerais state. Lula last week split up the environmental protection agency Ibama, saying it was too slow in granting operating licenses for infrastructure projects such as hydroelectric plants. In particular, the government wants to push ahead with two hydro dams on the Amazon basin's Madeira River. The former union leader is also to decide in coming weeks whether Brazil will build a third nuclear energy plant. Work on the Angra 3 reactor, 100 km (62 miles) from Rio de Janeiro, was halted in 1985 due to lack of funds. Completion of the 1,350 megawatt power plant would cost over $1.5 billion. Brazil relies on dams to generate around 90 percent of its energy. Oil and gas plants were more expensive than hydro and nuclear energy, and Brazil had a shortage of fossil fuels, Lula said. "We can't continue depending on gas we don't have. We need to think about the type of energy in our matrix," he said. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 The Local: Swedes still dying from Chernobyl radiation Published: 4th May 2007 12:47 CET Online: http://www.thelocal.se/7200/ People in northern Sweden are still dying from cancer caused by radiation from the Chernobyl accident. And the worst could still be to come, reports Rami Abdelrahman. It is now more than two decades since the world's worst nuclear power accident, when a reactor exploded on April 26th 1986 at Chernobyl in the then-Soviet Ukraine. While large tracts of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus were severely contaminated, many parts of Sweden also felt the effects. Engineers at Sweden's Forsmark power plant were the first to warn the world of the nuclear emergency after detectors showed soaring radiation levels. After inspecting the plant for leakage, Swedish officials announced that the particles came from Ukraine. A radiation cloud had been carried by wind currents over the Baltic Sea and throughout Finland (which to this day has not revealed the results of its studies on this topic). It then swept across northern Sweden and Norway, dissipating in the Arctic part of the Norwegian Sea. While the Chernobyl explosion recedes into history, for many people in northern Sweden the effects are still being felt. Radiation from Chernobyl has been cited as a factor in more than 1,000 cancer deaths in Norrland between 1986 and 1999 - this in an area with a population of around one million. Experts warn that the worst is yet to come. Swedish scientists at Linköping University have found that new types of malignancies were formed as an effect of the radiation cloud that hit areas around Gävle and Umeå the hardest in the mid-1980s. According to Martin Tondel, the scientist leading the study, radiation in these areas is still regarded “much higher than normal levels”, while it drops drastically in Stockholm and southern areas. “This is a follow up to our previous studies, which showed that out of 22,400 cases of cancer, 849 were directly related to radiation until 1996. We used different methodologies and studied different causes of cancer and still got similar results,” he tells The Local. The majority of these cases were found in farming and herding societies in the north, since they eat mushrooms and berries growing in soil with high levels of radiation, fish from affected water, or deer and moose which have been grazing in the affected areas. Several stretches of land in the countryside around Gävle were cordoned off in the eighties by the local authorities, and people who owned property in or around such areas incurred loses as they had to move out and could not sell their assets. Officials have played down the alarming figures in the report. The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority (SSI) criticized the methodology behind the first study, although agrees that 'different' radiation levels in northern Sweden can be found in the soil and water. Given that more than one third of Swedish citizens get cancer at some point in their life-time, the SSI argues that it is hard to statistically measure the direct relation between the radiation caused by Chernobyl and the cancer cases in the last two decades. Chief researcher at SSI, Leif Moberg, said that the radiation levels in Sweden are too low to directly cause cancer. “It is not impossible, but it adds to other factors that cause cancer… smoking and radiation have a strong connection in developing cancer,” he says. The SSI has raised the allowed level of radiation in meat, milk and other foods in the 1980s to “a recommended, ambitious level.” “There is no such thing as safe levels, these are recommendations to control food contamination,” Moberg says. SSI studies show that the long-term pattern shows a decrease in food contamination, but between 2003 and 2004 there was a slight increase in contamination found in moose meat. Greenpeace specialist on energy and climate, Martina Krüger, said in recent years hunters around Gävle caught moose that had an exceptionally high amount of radiation. “It depends where they have been grazing,” she says. She joins the SSI in predicting that the worst is yet to come. “Worse effects will come in the future due to the amount of time it takes between being exposed to radiation and developing a cancer,” she says, criticizing the SSI for not educating the local people about dealing with different radiation levels. “All in all, there’s no safe radiation, exposure to any radiation levels is dangerous” according to Gabor Tiroler, teacher of public health at Uppsala University and former World Health Organization specialist. Tiroler says that the official point of view on this topic is usually to tell people that radiation in cattle meat, mushrooms, berries, fish and soil is not that dangerous, in an attempt to avoid panic. For environmentalists, the only solution is a radical change of approach from the authorities. Greenpeace activists are calling for a high-profile public awareness campaign in the affected areas. Only this, they say, can help prevent radiation causing further unnecessary deaths and illnesses. Rami Abdelrahman ***************************************************************** 32 UPI: Ginna nuclear plant cited for lax staffing United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: May 4, 2007 at 8:06 PM ROCKVILLE, Md., May 4 (UPI) -- U.S. regulators downgraded the emergency response indicator of a New York nuclear plant and have now increased oversight. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission changed the R.E. Ginna nuclear plant's "performance indicator for emergency response organization drill participation" from green, the best, to yellow, the second-worst. "The indicator measures the percentage of emergency response organization members assigned to fill key positions who have participated in a drill, exercise or actual event during the previous eight quarters," the NRC wrote in a statement announcing the added oversight of the plant, located in Ontario, N.Y., and operated by Constellation Energy. "Constellation did not recognize that a group of newly qualified control room communicators -- a key emergency response organization position -- although qualified during the first quarter of 2007 did not take part in a subsequent drill in the same quarter," the NRC said. Constellation says it has enough qualified control room communicators and the NRC doesn't think the staffing levels poses a threat to emergency response. NRC will, however, increase inspections and oversight. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 UPI: China declassifies nuclear base United Press International - NewsTrack - Published: May 3, 2007 at 9:31 PM BEIJING, May 3 (UPI) -- China announced Thursday it will turn the base where it produced its first atomic bomb into a museum to draw tourists. The state-owned Xinhua news agency reported the base in northwest Qinghai Province in the Tibet region is being declassified so that it can be turned into a tourist attraction. The base was built in 1958 and was closed in 1987. "The base will become a key tourist facility, and will be transformed into a site to foster and maintain the patriotic spirit of the Chinese nation," local official Zuo Xumin said. China tested its first atomic bomb in 1964. Three years later, it tested its first hydrogen bomb. The base also has a research laboratory, control center, electricity generation and communication rooms. Xinhua reported a museum would be opened soon at the facility, displaying telephone equipment, household items and clothes used by its first employees. The base, known as the "Atomic Town," is a milestone in the nation's history of the construction, Xinhua said. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Assessment for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant at Public Meeting in Brattleboro, Vt., on May 14 News Release - Region I - 2007-025 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s annual assessment of safety performance at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, in Vernon, Vt., will be the subject of a public meeting on Monday, May 14. NRC staff will meet with representatives of plant owner Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., at 6 p.m. to discuss the assessment, which covers the period from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2006, and was documented in a March 2nd letter to the company. The session will take place at the Quality Inn, 1380 Putney Road in Brattleboro, Vt. Before the meeting is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the performance of the Vermont Yankee plant, as well as the role of the NRC in providing oversight of plant safety. “Each year we size up plant performance during the previous calendar year, with the overarching goal of ensuring that facilities are achieving the levels of safety that are essential to protecting the public and the environment,” said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins, who noted the agency also conducts mid-year assessments of performance. “At the May 14th meeting, NRC staff will talk to members of the public about how we go about evaluating Vermont Yankee and other nuclear power plants across the nation and will also answer questions from the audience.” Overall, the Vermont Yankee plant operated safely during 2006. The NRC utilizes color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. At the conclusion of last year, all of the performance indicators for Vermont Yankee were determined to be “green.” With one exception, there were no inspection findings for the plant that were identified as greater than “green” at the time. There was a “white” (low to moderate safety significance) inspection finding in the area of radiation safety that was finalized on Dec. 20, 2006, and that remains open. That finding stems from a shipment that went from Vermont Yankee to a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant last summer. Specifically, a package containing a radioactively contaminated control rod crusher/shearer was found to exceed U.S. Department of Transportation radiation limits upon its arrival at the Susquehanna nuclear plant on Sept. 1, 2006. However, no actual public radiation exposure occurred during the shipment because the package’s surface was inaccessible to members of the public. In response to the “white” finding, the NRC will conduct a supplemental inspection at the plant in 2007 to determine if the problem has been properly addressed. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa. Among the areas of performance at Vermont Yankee to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are activities associated with the installation of a dry cask storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, emergency planning, radiological safety and the plant’s problem identification and resolution program. The annual assessment letter for Vermont Yankee is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/vy_2006q4.pdf. The notice for the meeting, with agenda attached, is available in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML071200146. The meeting slides are available under accession number ML071150269. ADAMS is accessible at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is available via the NRC’s Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at PDR@NRC.GOV. Current performance information for the Vermont Yankee plant is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VY/vy_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, May 04, 2007 ***************************************************************** 35 York Times Blog: Q. and A.: Climate Talks in Bangkok - The Lede - May 3, 2007, 6:56 pm By Mike Nizza Tags: global warming, united nations Andrew C. Revkin, an environment reporter at The Times, has spent the week covering talks in Bangkok on the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-sanctioned body. Representatives from more than 100 nations approved a report “outlining ways to limit” heat-trapping emissions, Andy writes. This afternoon, he sat down for an Instant Message exchange: thelede: hey there andy andrew revkin: So, I’ve been trying to track the talks over the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (in Bangkok) via the usual back channels — email, IM, cell phone, and they’re slowly, slowly crawling to completion. thelede: Anything specific holding them up? revkin: For the 24-page near-final draft of the summary of the climate report, there were 140 single-space pages of comments and criticisms from officials representing 100 or so countries. Each has to be addressed by the scientists and economists who’ve written the report — which lays out strategies for limiting emissions linked to global warming. thelede: Wow, that’s a lot of disputes to adjudicate. revkin: Now it’s down to key points of disagreement and complaints, many coming from countries including China and Saudi Arabia, which have strong interests in not seeing strong language seeking cuts in emissions. PROGRESS? thelede: Did those two cede much ground in this round of climate talks? revkin: Basically, everyone is agreeing that business as usual leads to an enormous rise in emissions of carbon dioxide and the other heat-trapping gases produced by industry, agriculture and forest clearing. The questions surround how much detail implies that certain countries — like fast-growing developing countries (meaning China and India) — are a particularly large part of the problem and solutions. Other fights have come over how much certain options like nuclear power are mentioned. The United States officials at the meeting have insisted it needs equal billing with options like solar power. THE OPTIONS thelede: So is one option or the other the way forward for all, or does each country go and do what makes sense for them? revkin: This report is purely advisory and countries will likely continue to act in their best interests, most experts say. For China, this means the emphasis stays on sustaining economic growth, and shifting away from coal — the main source of electricity — would blunt that. For the US, it means the same. Europe is a bit different in that it’s already bound by the Kyoto Protocol limiting some emissions until 2012. It’s a big variegated world, and global solutions like a treaty are having a hard time because of that. PLAYING WITH NUMBERS thelede: One of the authors told you that the report predicts only a small impact on global economic activity. The figure that was settled on — “overall reduction of perhaps one tenth of a percentage point per year through 2100? — how did they come to that number? revkin: There is contention about that number, and in particular about how much the costs of changing energy sources will be in the next 25 years or so. The estimates come from economic modeling, which is probably the only analytical method out there that has more uncertainty attached to it than climate modeling. :-) revkin: The last line in the 24-page draft summary of the emissions report is a caveat about the analytical methods: “Because the future is inherently unpredictable and this report tries to assess mitigation potential and costs for 30 to 100 years ahead, scenarios, i.e., internally consistent images of different futures –- not prediction of the future to come — have been used extensively in this report to handle this unpredictability.” NEXT STEPS thelede: So, when’s the next big global warming summit? revkin: This group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, will wrap up the year in November with a final synthesis report drawing together all the findings of the first three — why not? — and then in December comes the related annual meeting of all the parties to the big international climate treaties. thelede: Well, thanks for giving us an inside look at this very insular process. No one knows more about this stuff than you. revkin: That’s my burden, I guess. Never grew up wanting to carve a career as a climate reporter, but the story demands attention and is not going away any time soon. * 1. May 4th, 2007 9:27 am It’s Friday AM and I’ve just read the lead story on the Bangkok meeting as presented by CNN. You’d never know they were reporting the same events as Andy Revkin. Taking the CNN story at face value one would think that science and rationality had trumped political and economic venality everywhere and that the path to saving us all from climate change disasters was clearly mapped out and agreed upon by all the nations of the world. How delightfully relaxing! Oh, if only ’twere so. Revkin’s cautious report seems much closer to what the truth will turn out to be - a great deal of unrelenting work and pressure of every kind, political and economic, must be maintained to change our course ever so slowly. In this age of “American Idol,” “”Survivor” and other such confectionery constructions of “reality” in the mass media it is hard for me to believe the American public can muster either attention span or sustained will to meet the challenge. And with the great majority of the world’s population still waiting for and wanting their own turn at living the disastrous “American dream” before they have to face up to doing what must be done, I fear our greedy, grubby way of living and thinking will be remembered as one of the most sobering object lessons in history, if anyone is left to remember. — Posted by Marty Morinski * 2. May 4th, 2007 9:37 am I’m all for environmentally responsible policies and behavior, so much so that my profession entails reducing waste by promoting recycling. But when a brilliant scientist like Freeman Dyson dismiss the veracity of man made global warming, (MMGW) one has to wonder how legitimate it really is. As i understand it, even advocates of MMGW accept that only 5% of all CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human activity. even if a drastic reduction of 50% were achieved there’s no way it can actually impact the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to any signficant degree. the variability in CO2 into the atmosphere from natural causes overwhelms whatever impact out reduced input could achieve. this is just one problem with the whole MMGW position. to me it isn’t about cleaner and more responsible environmental policies, but control over resources and behavior. it’s a power grab. the time, energy and resources put towards addressing MMGW should be allocated towards indisputable problems with known solutions. like providing clean water and basic sewage in 3rd world countries. — Posted by James T. * 3. May 4th, 2007 9:39 am This latest effort by the so called IPCC is just a continuation of the global warming fraud. Please show us skeptics the evidence - every time so called facts are presented, they are proved to be so full of errors as to be useless. Now the gw “experts” are saying that it is reversable-RUBBISH–save your money to help the countries that can’t afford to help themselves. — Posted by James Wainwright * 4. May 4th, 2007 12:45 pm Me and ole Joe Don Slater where in Bangkok on an R&R back in the sixties…well, let me tel’ya that was as hot as we two south Texas boys ever seen it! As far as this golbal warming thin is concerned it ain’t no telling what economic benfits its gonna bring to this part of the world…but I bet it’s going to be in the millions. Off shore drilling companies done alreedy bought up most of the sections just south of the saragosa. And that border thing with all them mesicans is going to be solved immediate-like–it’s goin to be one hell of’a swim from Los Pedras Negras to Brownwood. And we will no doubt experience a bumper crop of habenaro, and jalapeno not to mention the daisy dukes—yea that’s right, just when you dont think it could get much better. Anywho keep on arguing about this thing like what ta call it and so on and keep them liberals dodging bullets until the whole damn Rio Grande Valley done turned into another myrtle beach. And you boys out their in Bangkok…ride-em cowboys. ***************************************************************** 36 AFP: India vows to stick closely to US nuclear accord - Fri May 4, 1:20 PM ET NEW DELHI (AFP) - India will adhere to the framework of a nuclear energy agreement it signed with the United States, the government said Friday. The statement came as India's Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon returned from talks in Washington on the pact, which offers long-denied Western civilian nuclear energy technology to India. "We remain committed to implementing the understanding expeditiously in a way that it adheres as closely as possible to the framework of the July 2005 joint statement and the March 2006 separation plan," Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee said. He added that the agreement, signed July 2005 in New Delhi by US President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, now had wider acceptance. The US has voiced its frustration over the slow-paced talks on the details of the accord. Officials from the two sides will meet later this month in New Delhi and try and stamp the deal, the foreign ministry here said. It is the centrepiece of energy-starved India's new ties with Washington after decades of frosty Cold War relations. The US sees India as a democratic ally and a bulwark against instability in South Asia. One of the sticking points in the accord is a clause saying the US could withdraw civilian nuclear fuel supplies and equipment if India breaches its unilateral moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. Secretary Menon on his return said he had tried to dispel fears from critics that the agreement will hamper India's nuclear weapons programme, nine years after it staged atomic bomb tests that sparked a tit-for-tat response from Pakistan. Under the agreement, India also wants the explicit right to reprocess nuclear fuel, in contradiction of US law. India agreed as part of the deal to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and to allow the civilian sites to be inspected. But Delhi opposes another pre-condition providing for US inspection of its nuclear facilities if the International Atomic Energy Agency fails to inspect them. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 37 The Mercury: NRC rules to stop sleeping on the job Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com 05/04/2007 LIMERICK -- The federal government has changed the rules on how long nuclear power plant employees may work without rest, which is likely to have a particular impact on security. The rule change was announced April 17 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and is designed to reduce fatigue among workers, particularly those whose responsibilities directly affect the safety and security of the plant. Last July, a security worker at Exelon Nuclear?s Limerick Generating Station was fired after being found sleeping on the job. "Our security staffing will continue to reflect both the NRC regulations and the specific needs of our site security requirements," Limerick?s site communicator David Petersen wrote in an e-mail to The Mercury?s request for comment on the rule change. "The new rules are effective in 2009," Petersen wrote. "We will have a team at Exelon reviewing impacts to shift schedules, staffing and the budget. The full impact is currently being evaluated." Craig Nesbit, also an Exelon spokesman, was more specific when he told the Harrisburg Patriot-News that "any area where you have 24/7 coverage is most likely to be impacted." Limerick was not the only Exelon nuclear plant with a sleeping employee problem. As reported by the Patriot-News, a total of five incidents of sleeping employees, including a supervisor in the control room, were investigated at Three-Mile Island during a two-year period. The rule change removed a provision that allowed plants to average the hours of large groups of employees in order to stay under NRC minimums. This allowed some individual security officers at Three-Mile Island to log 72-hour weeks, the Patriot-News reported. There was never any evidence made public to suggest that the guard found sleeping at the Limerick plant suffered from fatigue due to extreme overtime. Security at Limerick -- and at all Exelon nuclear plants -- is provided by a private firm, Wackenhut Corp., described on the company Web site as "the U.S.-based division of Group 4 Securicor, the world?s largest provider of security services." The company responded to questions posed to Senior Vice President Marc Shapiro through an e-mail. The company, which said it supported the rule change, did not believe it was initiated because of the incidents at the Pennsylvania nuclear plants. "The NRC initiated the revisions to this regulation long before the incidents that you?ve referred to above," Wackenhut?s statement read. The company also said the rule change "may result in staffing increases at some of our sites," but declined to predict if higher labor costs would be passed on to consumers. "Labor costs to facilities that increase their security staffing levels will be higher," the company wrote. "We are not in a position to speak for our clients in regard to how they handle those costs." Wackenhut also mentioned in their comments that "the security force at the Limerick Generating Station recently demonstrated their ability to protect the health and safety of the public during an NRC evaluated force-on-force exercise. The security force performed extremely well in that exercise." The rule change was adopted unanimously by the five members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. According to the commissioners? signing statements, made available by NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, the nuclear industry disputed the need for the new minimum days off requirement, citing the federal rules governing long-haul truck drivers and how much sleep they are required to have before driving again. "With respect to the security personnel who work 12-hour shifts during normal operational periods, I believe that they should be required to take 2.5 days off per week on average," wrote NRC Chairman Dale Klein. The extra half day off "helps ensure the security personnel maintain mental alertness and vigilance to a unique set of challenges, both for routine duties and for potentially dangerous and intense circumstances," Klein wrote. Commissioner Edward McGaffigan Jr. wrote that the new provisions are "not overly burdensome and I support it, particularly the provisions for security officers." He further added, "I would suggest that the scientific basis rests in the fact that these officers carry loaded AR-15s and other weapons and must be prepared to make life or death decisions throughout their shifts." ©The Mercury 2007 ©2006 Pottstown Mercury - a Journal Register Property. All Rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 38 CCC: Nuclear plant plans $1 billion in upgrades Citrus County Chronicle Online.com Latest update: Friday, May 04, 2007 - 12:20:03 am EDT By TERRY WITT Progress Energy President and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Lyash said Wednesday the company plans to invest about $1.6 billion in upgrades to its coal plants and nuclear facility at Crystal River over the next four years. Lyash was the featured speaker at a Levy-Citrus community leaders meeting in Chiefland that focused primarily on the company’s plan to build a $2.5 billion nuclear power plant in Levy County. Lyash emphasized that Levy County remains a “potential site” for the second nuclear plant and residents won’t see any major construction activity for five years. The company must meet the requirements of the numerous state and federal regulatory agencies before it can secure an operating license. Designing, licensing and building the plant will take 10 years. The Florida governor and cabinet, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Florida Public Ser-vice Commission, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Southwest Florida Water Management District, Federal Emergency Management Agency and U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency must review the company’s plans before the NRC can issue an operating li-cense, he said. Lyash said the company is drilling hundreds of holes at the proposed nuclear power plant site several miles north of Inglis to determine how the water flows beneath the surface. The company is also gathering a year’s worth of weather data at the site. The company has a con-tract to buy the land, but has not closed on the real estate deal. The company chose the site, east of U.S. 19, in part because it has high-grade hard lime-stone rock beneath the surface. The rock must remain stable in an earthquake, one of the requirements of the license. Lyash said Progress Energy also prizes its good relations with the community. He said it’s one of the main reasons the company plans to invest an additional $4 billion in Levy and Cit-rus Counties. “As we look at the numbers, you can see how important it is to be in an area where we feel comfortable and people are comfortable with us,” he said. The planned improvements for the Crystal River Energy Complex will extend the life of the Crystal River nuclear power plant and help the company meet state and federal environ-mental requirements. The upgrades are: n Progress Energy will spend $382 million increasing the output of the nuclear power plant (CR-3) from 900 megawatts to 1,080 megawatts. The upgrades will occur during planned down time for the plant, known as outages. The first upgrade of 40 megawatts will occur in 2009 and the second upgrade of 140 megawatts will take place in 2011. The changes will extend the life of the plant 20 years. n Progress Energy plans to spend between $700 million and $1 billion through the end of 2009 adding pollution control hardware to two coal-fired generating plants — Crystal River 4&5. The company will add “scrubbers” to remove 97 percent of the sulfur dioxide and special burners to remove 90 percent of the nitrous oxide. n Plans also call for the replacement of the steam generator at the nuclear power plant during the 2009 outage. The cost will be about $250 million. The joint community luncheon, organized by Progress Energy, brought many Citrus County leaders including banker and chamber member Rocky Hensley, County Commissioners Vicki Phillips, Joyce Valentino and John Thrumston, Assistant County Administrator Tom Dick, Crystal River City Councilwoman Susan Kirk who is also running for the District 5 state house seat, realtor Kevin Cunningham, Crystal River City Manager Andy Houston and busi-nessman Sean Gerrits as well as Jimmy Brooks from the Southwest Florida Water Manage-ment District. Lyash said the meeting was organized in part to make certain the expectations about the new nuclear power plant in Levy County were in line with reality. He didn’t want people thinking construction activities would begin anytime soon or that licensing was a simple mat-ter. Obtaining a license for the plant will be a rigorous process, Lyash said. He should know. Lyash worked for NRC before being hired as the Progress Energy’s top executive in Flor-ida. Copyright © 2007, The Citrus County Chronicle Comments/Suggestions ***************************************************************** 39 Arms Control Today: Risks and Realities: The New `Nuclear Energy Revival' Arms Control Association: Sharon Squassoni * A Short History of Nuclear Power in the United States The headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sits in the suburbs of Vienna, in the northeast corner of a country that has outlawed nuclear power plants since 1978. The irony of this situation masks deeper divisions in the nuclear energy debate, which recent assertions of a nuclear renaissance have papered over. Concern about greenhouse gas emissions and energy security combined with forecasts of strong growth in electricity demand has awakened dormant interest in nuclear energy. Yet, the industry has not yet fully addressed the issues that have kept global nuclear energy capacity roughly the same for the last two decades. Although nuclear safety has improved significantly, nuclear energy’s inherent vulnerabilities regarding waste disposal, economic competitiveness, and proliferation remain. Moreover, nuclear security concerns have increased since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Nuclear energy’s revival depends strongly on public sector support and financial backing. Even if it were true that nuclear energy emits no carbon dioxide, that it is renewable, and that it will provide energy independence—all selling points made by President George W. Bush—the fact would remain that nuclear energy is more expensive than alternative sources of electricity. IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei has repeatedly cautioned that “nuclear energy alone is not a panacea, but it is likely in the near future to have an increasing role as part of the global energy mix.”[1] Such reticence from the agency tasked with promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy contrasts with the strong enthusiasm of business and media.[2] Yet here too, divisions are evident. Op-eds have swung between cautious optimism about nuclear expansion and growing pessimism about the proliferation-sensitive nuclear fuel-cycle technologies: uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing that could provide the essential fissile material for nuclear weapons. Such concern increased after the 2004 revelations of a black market network for uranium-enrichment technology led by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and the continuing refusal of Iran to halt enrichment-related activities. The IAEA is at the forefront of efforts to manage future development of states’ fuel cycles so that access to weapons-usable fissile material—highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium—is limited, if not eliminated. As in the past, proposals likely to succeed are those that provide incentives to forgo sensitive fuel-cycle technologies rather than those that impose restrictions.[3] Even with such fuel supply assurances, however, any significant expansion of nuclear power is likely to prompt additional states to join the nuclear fuel haves. Already, Argentina, Australia, Canada, and South Africa have expressed interest in developing commercial uranium-enrichment capabilities. Ukraine is seeking cooperation with foreign partners “to obtain the full cycle of enrichment and production of nuclear fuel” to counter uncertain gas supplies from Russia.[4] Additional capacity in these states may not cause alarm, but it will make it increasingly difficult to justify why other states should not develop such capabilities. Nuclear Power Today Global nuclear energy capacity is currently about 368 gigawatts, with approximately 435 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 states. Three countries account for one-half of all nuclear power reactors: the United States (103), France (59), and Japan (55).[5] Most of the growth in nuclear energy occurred following the oil shocks of the 1970s. The low cost of uranium also helped make nuclear energy attractive. New nuclear energy development, however, started to slow after the Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl accidents (1986) and after a drop in natural gas prices in the 1990s made gas-powered turbines more attractive than nuclear alternatives in Europe and the United States. Nonetheless, nuclear energy has been able to increase its share of electricity generation largely through better efficiency. Coal and hydroelectric power still dominate the electricity market, with 39 percent and 19 percent shares, respectively, of world electricity generation. Nuclear energy accounts for about 16 percent of that supply, and gas and oil produce 25 percent. Renewable energy accounts for 1-2 percent. States that use nuclear energy to provide a significant portion of their electricity include Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Some 20 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by nuclear energy. Front and Back Ends of the Fuel Cycle Nuclear reactors are supported by uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication. Almost 90 percent of the world’s reactors are light-water reactors (LWRs), requiring low-enriched uranium for fuel. Uranium resources are available across the globe, although Australia and Canada account for more than one-half of current production and more than 90 percent of reserves. Other key producers include Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger, Russia, South Africa, the United States, and Uzbekistan. Although many countries may have uranium on their territory, the costs of extracting it could exceed the benefits for quite some time, particularly if it is of lower quality or quantity. To be fabricated into fuel, the uranium must be converted into uranium hexafluoride. Four companies currently account for 88 percent of the conversion market: Rosatom (Russia), COMURHEX (France), ConverDyn (United States) and Cameco (Canada). Additionally, Brazil, China, Iran, and the United Kingdom operate uranium-conversion plants. Uranium enrichment, the next step in fuel fabrication, is conducted by four major enrichment suppliers, accounting for 95 percent of the market: Tenex (Russia); Eurodif (France); Urenco (France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom); and the U.S. Enrichment Corp., or USEC (United States). Other countries also have enrichment capability, although not all are commercial: Brazil (in commissioning stage), China and India (military), Iran (under construction), and Japan and Pakistan (military). Commercial capacity has exceeded demand for many years. Demand for enrichment was 38 million separative work units in 2004 while production totaled 50 million separative work units.[6] Although the IAEA estimates that enrichment capacity is sufficient for projected nuclear energy growth until 2030, other estimates suggest that substantial reactor orders would require “heroic efforts” to expand uranium mining and enrichment.[7] In addition, 16 countries have fuel fabrication plants, which take enriched uranium and process it into a form (fuel rods) that can be inserted into reactors. Four companies account for 84 percent of the market: AREVA (France), Westinghouse (United States), Global Nuclear Fuel (Japan and the United States), and TVEL (Russia).[8] Spent fuel is either stored or reprocessed. Reprocessing uses mechanical and chemical processes to extract plutonium, uranium, and waste products from spent nuclear fuel. Currently, the plutonium is combined with uranium to form a mixed-oxide fuel, which can also be used in LWRs. About one-third of the existing stored spent fuel has been reprocessed. Worldwide, four primary commercial facilities reprocess plutonium from spent fuel for further power production: La Hague and Marcoule in France, Sellafield in the United Kingdom, and Chelyabinsk-65/Ozersk in Russia.[9] These four plants reprocess about 95 percent of all commercial spent fuel that undergoes the process. Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland have been the main customers of the British and French plants. Russia has reprocessed spent fuel from Finland, Hungary, and Ukraine. The Sellafield thermal oxide reprocessing plant closed in April 2005 after a leakage occurred and may reopen in mid-2007.[10] Japan has been reprocessing at the small-scale Tokai pilot plant since the 1970s, but the large-scale (800-ton capacity per year) Rokkasho-mura plant has been delayed for decades; it may begin operations this year. India, which is not a party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), has three small reprocessing plants. Only one of these, PREFRE, is partially safeguarded. Other states have current or past reprocessing capabilities, including the United States, which reprocessed fuel for weapons purposes and, for a short time, commercial purposes. The current reprocessing capacity worldwide is about 5,000 tons of heavy metal per year. In the 1970s, the United Kingdom and France anticipated scaling up reprocessing capacity to move to a plutonium-based fuel cycle, including the use of plutonium fuel in fast reactors. This has not yet materialized. Fast reactors, unlike the prevalent thermal reactors that use a moderator to slow down neutrons, are capable of fissioning a wider range of isotopes and thus can be used to “burn up” more isotopes in fuel. No state has been able yet to commercialize such reactors.[11] Given their reported expense and the relative inexpensive cost of uranium, there have been few economic incentives to move forward. Belgium and Germany, for instance, have stopped sending their fuel for reprocessing in anticipation of phasing out their use of nuclear power. Why Nuclear and Why Now? Sharp increases in oil and natural gas prices have made nuclear energy more attractive in the last few years. Whereas oil was priced at below $10 per barrel in 1999, it rose above $60 per barrel in March 2007.[12] Natural gas prices are often pegged to oil prices, and these too have increased dramatically. In the United States and Europe, new electricity generation in the 1990s was fired by natural gas rather than coal, but this is now changing. Prices of alternative energy sources are just one factor in national energy policies. Improved safety and efficiency, at least in U.S. reactors, also has contributed to more attention to nuclear energy, as well as to regulatory streamlining and incentives for new nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy also is increasingly being viewed as part of the solution to climate change and energy security.[13] Pressures from Climate Change The Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change entered into force in 2005, establishing legally binding levels for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of an average of 6 to 8 percent below 1990 levels between the years 2008-2012. There are many different routes to meeting the reduction levels, a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this article. Although increased efficiency and energy savings are a common-sense solution, these are sometimes viewed as conflicting with economic growth imperatives. The December 2004 UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change noted that developing nations viewed binding emission caps as impediments to economic growth, while industrialized nations were unwilling to reduce levels unless developing nations also did.[14] Nuclear energy, relative to fossil fuels, contributes little to greenhouse gas emissions.[15] The extent to which increasing reliance on nuclear energy will solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, however, is doubtful. Power generation accounts for about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation accounts for another 25 percent. Even optimistic scenarios of nuclear power expansion do not foresee a much-larger share for nuclear energy in overall electricity generation because, simply, electricity generation is forecasted to double by 2030.[16] Moreover, much of that electricity growth will occur in the developing world, specifically in China and India. Because China and India are not bound to Kyoto Protocol reductions, their decisions on electricity production may be influenced by other factors, including cost and, in the case of India, a decision by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to allow nuclear cooperation with a non-NPT state.[17] Significant nuclear expansion will likely occur only after the time frame of the Kyoto Protocol because new nuclear power reactors will require 10-15 years to become operational following a decision to build. It is likely to take even longer in “new” nuclear technology states without existing infrastructure, including a system for regulating nuclear safety. Under the most optimistic scenario (five years to build), reactors under construction now will not make a significant difference in the time frame of the Kyoto Protocol. Two years ago, the International Energy Agency concluded that “unless governments introduce new energy policies, growth in world energy production and consumption in the next three decades is projected to be 65 percent higher than the growth in the past 30 years.” More than 70 percent of that growth would come from outside the major developed countries, those states are grouped together in the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD), with the largest shares coming from China and India. At the same time, the International Energy Agency noted that global carbon dioxide emissions would grow by 69 percent in the absence of new policies. Again, much of the growth would come from outside the OECD countries.[18] The carbon content of energy would increase because of the “declining share of nuclear and hydro power in the global energy mix.” The International Energy Agency forecasts that nuclear energy could drop to 10 percent of electricity generation in the absence of significant policy changes. Assuming no significant policy changes emerge, nuclear energy is expected to grow to 416 gigawatts by 2030, about a 20 percent increase in capacity. This includes the retirement of 27 gigawatts of nuclear energy in Europe. Much of the increase will come from China, which plans to install 40 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2020; Japan, which plans to install 28 gigawatts by 2015; and India, which plans to install 40 gigawatts by 2030. The case of India is uncertain, as its previous goals remain unmet and its current plans assume buying a foreign LWR, a prospect that is far from assured. Energy Insecurity Many states are wary of depending on imported energy sources, leading states such as France and Japan to rely on nuclear power for most of their electricity needs. Recent cutoffs have underscored the instability of the oil and gas supply. In 2006 a natural gas price dispute between Russia and Ukraine resulted in a temporary cutoff of natural gas supplies to western and central Europe. In 2007, price disputes between Russia and Azerbaijan and between Russia and Belarus caused a temporary cutoff in oil supplies to Russia from Azerbaijan and in oil supplies from Russia to Germany, Poland, and Slovakia.[19] Other developments also have underscored the uncertainty of oil and gas supplies, among them temporary production shutdowns in the Gulf of Mexico and the Trans-Alaskan pipeline, instability in Nigeria, and nationalization of oil and gas fields in Bolivia in 2006. Shifting to a plutonium-based fuel cycle was once thought to be a solution to potential uranium shortages, but many agree that the supply of uranium will be sufficient for several decades.[20] Already, China, Japan, and India are seeking to secure long-term uranium contracts to support nuclear expansion goals. Relative to gas and oil, the ability to stockpile uranium offers greater assurance of weathering potential cutoffs. Efforts also are already underway to establish an international nuclear fuel bank in an attempt to inject greater certainty in fuel supplies, although these are targeted at providing incentives for states to forgo uranium enrichment.[21] Uranium conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication—the three steps after uranium mining that are necessary before fuel can be inserted into a reactor—are now concentrated in a handful of countries. Although cost and economies of scale should argue against additional enrichment capacity, this may not be enough to dissuade some states from pursuing enrichment.[22] Ultimately, only the development of breeder reactors, which produce additional nuclear material (plutonium or U-233) that can be used for future fuel, could provide real energy independence. Yet, the risks and costs associated with breeder reactors, which have not yet been proven commercially, are significant, especially where safety, security, and nonproliferation are concerned. The Next Three Decades Some nuclear expansion is already underway, but its direction is uncertain.[23] Where will expansion take place? Will expansion be limited to reactors only, or will it include enrichment and reprocessing facilities? What spent fuel disposal options will be necessary or desirable? With the exception of South Africa, most of the growth in nuclear energy will occur in Asia and South Asia. One-half of the 26 reactors now under construction are located in Asia. States with the most growth have full nuclear fuel cycles; China, Japan, and India already have enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. South Korea continues to express interest in further developing a pyroprocessing technique that does not separate plutonium from uranium, as a solution to growing stockpiles of spent fuel. Lack of strong nuclear expansion, however, has not stopped several countries from expressing interest in developing enrichment capabilities, including Argentina, Australia, Canada, and South Africa. None of these countries has a domestic reactor base that would require developing enrichment capability. Instead, they may be interested in enrichment to keep their future options open and for export purposes. Brazil, which is commissioning a new centrifuge enrichment plant at Resende, will likely produce more low-enriched uranium than is needed for its consumption by 2015. If such decisions were made purely on economic grounds, the thresholds for achieving economies of scale are high but not insurmountable.[24] One estimate is that indigenous centrifuge enrichment becomes cost effective at the capacity level of 1.5 million separative work units, an amount required by 10 1-gigawatt plants. Even then, such an enrichment plant is unlikely to be competitive with larger suppliers such as Urenco.[25] More than a dozen countries without nuclear power are reportedly considering their nuclear energy options. These include states in Europe (Poland and Turkey), the Middle East (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates), Africa (Namibia), Central Asia (Georgia), and Asia (Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam). It is unlikely that these states will pursue a full nuclear fuel cycle in the short run, but they may also desire to keep their options open. A key question is what impact the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) will have on global nuclear expansion. Will it make nuclear power “safe” for all states, as its proponents claim? The domestic portion of GNEP involves the development of “advanced recycling” of spent fuel, which overturns the 1970s-era U.S. policy of not encouraging the use of plutonium in the civil nuclear fuel cycle. The international component of GNEP envisions a consortium of nations with advanced nuclear technology that would provide fuel services and reactors to countries that “agree to refrain from fuel-cycle activities” such as enrichment and reprocessing. It is essentially a fuel leasing approach, wherein the supplier takes responsibility for the final disposition of the spent fuel. It is not clear if or how states would agree to refrain from fuel cycle activities, but the two components of GNEP together send a mixed message that recycling is valuable for some states but not for others. South Korea, for one, seems to view GNEP as a green light to proceed with its pyroprocessing technique.[26] Until now, the United States has not permitted South Korea to reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel because of proliferation concerns. Other states may be more interested in having someone else solve the problem either of spent fuel storage or high-level waste storage. Greater reprocessing capacity might help solve spent fuel storage but not necessarily high-level waste storage because no commercial reprocessing service will store high-level waste.[27] There also is no commitment yet to take back spent fuel, and delays in opening the Yucca Mountain repository, the first of its kind, provide little confidence that will happen. A further complication is the uncertainty of U.S. intentions. Although the Department of Energy has stated that, under GNEP, the supplier would take responsibility for the final disposition of spent fuel, it also has stated that the supplier “would retain the responsibility to ensure that the material is secured, safeguarded, and disposed of in a manner that meets shared nonproliferation policies.” As ever, the devil is in the details. Implications for Nonproliferation The expansion of nuclear power could have cascading effects on the nuclear nonproliferation regime, ranging from practical pressures to significant vulnerabilities. On the practical side, additional facilities will mean additional safeguards effort by IAEA inspectors. Although reactors themselves require relatively few inspection days, there will be significant work in helping prepare new nuclear states for nuclear power programs. Already, the IAEA has conducted workshops on infrastructure requirements, including energy needs and planning considerations; nuclear security and safeguards; physical infrastructure; current and future reactor technology; experience in developing nuclear programs; human resource requirements; and public perceptions. Should a nuclear renaissance result in more states with so-called bulk-handling facilities (enrichment and reprocessing), the task of inspecting such facilities could place significant strain on the IAEA and the safeguards system. Some critics of the IAEA suggest that current methods of inspection cannot provide timely warning of diversion of a significant quantity of special nuclear material. Yet, the largest enrichment and reprocessing plants under safeguards now are under EURATOM safeguards; the IAEA’s role in verifying material balances in those plants is limited by the IAEA-EURATOM agreement. The only experience in safeguarding commercial-scale enrichment and reprocessing plants outside of EURATOM in a non-nuclear-weapon state is in Japan, where incidents with significant material losses have raised questions. One question is whether new nuclear states would raise proliferation concerns by virtue of their geographic location, the existence of terrorist groups on their soil, or other sources of political instability. Would expanded nuclear infrastructure in Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Vietnam, and the GCC countries lead their neighbors to worry about and respond to the possibility that these countries will develop weapons programs? More broadly, will a nuclear renaissance that succeeds in limiting the number of states with uranium-enrichment or spent fuel reprocessing capabilities ultimately further erode the NPT by extending the existence of haves and have-nots from nuclear weapons into the nuclear fuel cycle? In the short term, efforts to limit expansion could slow some states’ implementation of the safeguards-strengthening measures in the 1997 Model Additional Protocol. In the long term, other decisions to strengthen the NPT could be jeopardized. A nuclear renaissance that embraces reprocessing as necessary to reduce spent fuel accumulation could result in more plutonium in transit, providing more potential targets for diversion. A renaissance that includes widespread installation of fast reactors would similarly increase targets for diversion. Further down the road, will the next generation of reactors be more or less proliferation resistant than existing reactors? As of December 2002, the Generation IV Forum had not yet adopted a standard methodology for evaluating proliferation resistance and physical protection for the six systems under consideration.[28] Finally, there is a larger question of whether technological developments will outpace nonproliferation initiatives, such as fuel supply assurances and multinational fuel-cycle centers, voluntary export guidelines, and further restrictions within the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Some recent criticism of the U.S. GNEP program has been aimed at the aggressive timeline for technology demonstration of advanced reprocessing, in contrast to developments more closely tied to nonproliferation objectives, such as supporting more proliferation-resistant reactors with sealed fuel cores that would limit handling of fuel.[29] Conclusions There is little doubt that nuclear energy will remain an important part of the global energy mix, but it is not the panacea that many advocates are selling. To begin with, a nuclear renaissance will take too long to have more than a negligible impact on carbon dioxide emissions that threaten significant climate change in the next decade. Further, the petroleum-dominated transportation sector, which accounts for 25 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions, offers few footholds now for nuclear energy substitution. (By contrast, oil only accounted for 5 percent of the global electricity mix in 2001.) In the distant future, perhaps nuclear energy may help offset transportation emissions through the production of hydrogen. Nonetheless, nuclear energy could grow faster to 519 gigawatts by 2030 given significant policy support.[30] This would require not only that policymakers and regulators take steps to mitigate the inherent risks of nuclear power, which are calculated differently by all states, but that nuclear energy is as cost effective as alternative sources of electricity. Factors that may help improve the position of nuclear energy vis-à-vis alternatives include higher prices for other sources (natural gas and coal through a carbon tax), scaling down of reactor sizes to mitigate initial capital investment, regulatory improvements, and waste disposal solutions. The nonproliferation risks of a nuclear renaissance clearly depend on the shape of nuclear expansion. More LWRs pose essentially no new technical challenges to the safeguards system, but additional enrichment or reprocessing capabilities in non-nuclear-weapon states could easily strain the system. A shift to fast reactors with reprocessing will likely introduce further strains on the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Fleets of fast reactors that burn plutonium could help diminish the size of civilian plutonium stockpiles eventually, but their cost effectiveness is highly doubtful. The provision of “cradle to grave” fuel services, as foreseen by GNEP, could go far toward limiting the spread of sensitive fuel-cycle technologies but awaits real decisions by key governments, such as the United States and Russia, on spent fuel and waste disposition. Clearly, measures are needed to help shape these potential developments to minimize the proliferation impact. A Short History of Nuclear Power in the United States The first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States began operation in 1960. The Atomic Energy Commission soon forecast that the United States would install 1,000 reactors by the year 2000, but this did not materialize. In the heyday of nuclear power in the United States, 41 orders for nuclear power plants were placed in just one year (1973). Five years later, however, the nuclear bubble burst. The last new nuclear power plant in the United States was ordered in 1978, but it was ultimately cancelled, along with 120 other orders. A combination of high construction and operating costs, safety concerns, the accident at Three Mile Island, and disputes over long-term storage of nuclear waste continued to make nuclear energy more costly than other alternatives. Nonetheless, more than 46 units entered service between 1979 and 1989. Since then, the U.S. nuclear power industry has steadily improved its safety records and operating capacities and has lowered operating costs. Reactors with 40-year operating lives may now be extended another 20 years. Since 2001, U.S. national policy has supported new nuclear reactors, providing tax incentives, streamlined licensing, and funds for advanced research and development. As a result, utilities have expressed interest in applying for licenses for more than 30 new reactors. The 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed by President George W. Bush in August 2005, contained significant incentives for new commercial reactors. These include production tax credits, loan guarantees, insurance against regulatory delays, and extension of the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liability system. Higher fossil fuel prices and possible greenhouse gas controls may spur further interest by utilities and other potential reactor developers. The Bush administration has supported nuclear energy since it entered office. In 2001 the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney, recommended that Bush “support the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy.” Specifically, the group recommended that the United States “reexamine its policies to allow for research, development and deployment of fuel conditioning methods…that reduce waste streams and enhance proliferation resistance. In doing so, the United States will continue to discourage the accumulation of separated plutonium worldwide.” The group also recommended that the United States consider technologies in collaboration with international partners “to develop reprocessing and fuel treatment technologies that are cleaner, more efficient, less waste-intensive, and more proliferation-resistant.” In fiscal year 2003, the Department of Energy launched the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) to develop and demonstrate nuclear fuel cycles that could reduce the long-term hazards of spent nuclear fuel. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), established in early 2006, is now considered a centerpiece of the AFCI, and much of the AFCI funding will be spent on demonstrating a new spent-fuel separation technology called Urex+.[1] In introducing GNEP, the Energy Department envisioned that the United States, which currently has 103 operating nuclear reactors, would install 300 reactors by 2050. “Advanced recycling” of fuel is a key part of GNEP. Commercial reprocessing of spent fuel, although rehabilitated by the Reagan administration, ultimately was abandoned for economic reasons. It appears that part of GNEP’s emphasis on recycling fuel is based on the assumption that the United States is unlikely to open a second repository for nuclear waste beyond the already designated site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. At present, the United States has 55,000 metric tons of spent fuel in storage and is producing about 2,000 metric tons per year. U.S. officials have testified before Congress that, by 2010, the Yucca Mountain repository will be oversubscribed, despite an earliest anticipated opening date of 2017. Congress has passed legislation to authorize non-site-specific work related to identifying a second repository.[2] Nonetheless, many observers believe that there is no rush to take care of U.S. spent fuel and that reprocessing may not be the best answer. —SHARON SQUASSONI ====================================================================== ENDNOTES 1. Urex+ chemically removes uranium and other elements from dissolved spent fuel, leaving plutonium and other highly radioactive elements. 2. R. Shane Johnson, Statement before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, April 6, 2006. ====================================================================== Sharon Squassoni is a senior associate with the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. ====================================================================== ENDNOTES 1. See “Nuclear Power Not Panacea for Energy Supply, But It Certainly Helps—UN Atomic Chief,” UN News Center, December 1, 2006. 2. See Geoffrey Colvin, “Nuclear Power Is Back—Not a Moment Too Soon,” Fortune, May 30, 2005, p. 57; “The Greening of Nuclear Power,” New York Times, May 13, 2006, p. A16; “Nuclear Spring,” Chicago Tribune, May 15, 2006, p. 8. 3. See Lawrence Scheinman, “The Nuclear Fuel Cycle: A Challenge for Nonproliferation,” Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 76 (March/April 2004). For Scheinman’s discussion of past proposals, see Lawrence Scheinman, “Equal Opportunity: Historical Challenges and Future Prospects of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” Arms Control Today, May 2007, pp. 18-22. 4. “Ukrainian leaders See Nuclear as Key to Energy Independence,” Nucleonics Week, February 23, 2006, p 4. 5. Russia has 31 operating reactors. Eight states have between 10 and 20 reactors (Canada, China, Germany, India, South Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom). Five states have between five and 10 reactors, and 13 states have between one and four reactors. One-half of the states in the last category rely on nuclear power to supply more than one-third of their electricity needs. 6. This difference can be a little misleading because some enrichment demand is met by downblended Russian highly enriched uranium (HEU). Nonetheless, even the most optimistic estimates for worldwide demand by the World Nuclear Association posit 52 million separative work units by 2020. See International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Expert Group Report Submitted to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” INFCIRC/640, February 2005. 7. Thomas L. Neff, “Uranium and Enrichment: Enough Fuel for the Nuclear Renaissance?” Briefing presented at Global Nuclear Renaissance Summit, December 5, 2006. 8. Per Brunzell, “Nuclear Fuel Cycle; Technical Issues,” Briefing presented at IAEA conference “New Framework for the Utilization of Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century: Assurances of Supply and Nonproliferation,” September 2006. 9. See Frans Berkhout, “The International Civilian Reprocessing Business,” Energy and Security, No. 2 (September 8, 2005). 10. “THORP: Delay After Delay; Re-Opening Now Unlikely Until Mid-2007 at the Earliest,” Nuclear Monitor, March 19, 2007, p. 8. 11. The Russian BN-600 operates commercially now, but uses HEU fuel. See IAEA, “Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” p. 78. 12. See Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, “Petroleum Navigator,” found at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotworldw.htm. 13. See Charles D. Ferguson, “Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks,” Council on Foreign Relations Special Report, No. 28 (April 2007). 14. “United Nations High Level Panel on Threats Challenges and Change,” UNGA A/59/565, December 2004. 15. The contribution is not zero because the inputs leading up to the operation of reactors require fossil fuels. See http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/SeviorSLSRebutall. 16. International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2006,” 2006, p. 71. 17. See Fred McGoldrick et al., “The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: Taking Stock,” Arms Control Today, October 2005, p. 6-12. 18. The International Energy Agency estimated that “power generation, which currently accounts for around 40 percent of the emissions, will contribute almost half the increase (or 8 billion metric tons) in global emissions between 2000 and 2030. Transport will account for more than a quarter, residential, commercial, and industrial sectors for the rest.” International Energy Agency, “30 Key Energy Trends of the IEA and Worldwide,” 2005, p. 32. 19. Deutsche Welle, “Merkel Puts Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out in Question,” January 1, 2007, found at http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2304599,00.html. 20. See Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Red Book Retrospective: Forty Years of Uranium Resources, Production and Demand in Perspective (Paris: OECD, 2006); World Nuclear Association, “Supply of Uranium,” March 2007, found at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html. 21. Oliver Meier, “The Growing Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Debate,” Arms Control Today, November 2006, pp. 40-44. 22. A single enrichment plant can supply up to 25 percent of the world market: 10 million separative work units, which is enough for 100 reactors. 23. According to the World Nuclear Association, 26 reactors were under construction as of January 2007, with another 64 planned and 156 proposed. Much of the short-term growth will come from Asia. India and China top the list of reactors under construction, with seven and five, respectively; China and Japan top the list of planned reactors with 13 and 11, respectively. China and South Africa lead in the number of proposed reactors (50 and 24), followed by the United States (21), Russia (18) and India (15). Of course, this latter category can be highly speculative. Meanwhile, other states are phasing out nuclear energy, and some are reconsidering decisions to phase out nuclear energy. Belgium, Germany, and Sweden have made decisions to phase out nuclear energy. In the case of Germany, the deadline is 2020, although Chancellor Angela Merkel has questioned this decision, given the need to meet Kyoto carbon dioxide emission targets and recent uncertainties about the reliability of Russia as a source of oil and gas. Seventeen nuclear reactors currently provide 30 percent of Germany’s electricity generation. 24. This discussion draws from an analysis generously provided by Harold A. Feiveson. See Harold A. Feiveson, “Global Warming, Radioactive Waste Disposal, and the Nuclear Future,” Arms Control Today, May 2007, pp. 13-17.. The IAEA Experts Group did not address the economics of enrichment, merely noting that there was little data on the topic. 25. IAEA, “Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” p. 63. EURODIF produces 8 million separative work units per year; URENCO, 6 million separative work units per year; Rosatom, 20 million separative work units per year. 26. This technique, developed for metal fuel, does not separate plutonium from uranium. South Korea would then recycle the spent fuel in CANDU reactors. See “Pyroprocessing Might Be Nearing ROK Goal of Inclusion in GNEP,” Nuclear Fuel, February 26, 2007. 27. A complication is that the United States must provide consent to reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel. For Russia to reprocess such fuel, a nuclear cooperation agreement (“Section 123” agreement) is necessary. This is currently under negotiation. 28. U.S. DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV International Forum, “A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems,” December 2002, p. 18, found at http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/documents/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf. 29. Matthew Bunn, “Assessing the Benefits, Costs, and Risks of Near-Term Reprocessing and Alternatives,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, September 14, 2006. See Jessica Tuchman Matthews, speech given at the First Annual Nuclear Fuel Cycle Monitor Global Nuclear Renaissance Summit, December 5, 2006. 30. For a discussion of the International Energy Agency’s Alternative Policy Scenario (APS), see International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2006,” pp. 361-385. The APS assumed that certain states would slow the retirement of reactors and that most reactors proposed already would come online with a few exceptions. This scenario did not account for states announcing the introduction of nuclear power, of which there are now at least 12 and possibly more. The scenario speculated that nuclear energy would be more competitive if natural gas prices hovered between $4 and $5 per million British thermal units (they are currently at $6.13); if coal exceeded $70 per ton (in the United States, it averaged $23 per ton on the open market, although prices are highly variable); if a carbon penalty was introduced; and if nuclear investment required less than $2,000 per kilowatt hour. The Arms Control Association is a non-profit, membership-based organization. If you find our resources useful, please consider joining or making a contribution. Arms Control Today encourages reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor. © 1997-2007 Arms Control Association, 1313 L Street, NW, Suite 130 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273 ***************************************************************** 40 AFP: After dispute, experts agree on climate proposals - by Karl Malakunas Fri May 4, 4:51 AM ET BANGKOK (AFP) - The world must act quickly to cut back on greenhouse gases, experts said in a new report Friday thrashed out in a week of haggling over Chinese-led efforts to blame rich nations for global warming. The report, the product of five days of marathon negotiations at a UN conference to find proposals to battle climate change, said emissions need to start declining by 2015 to avoid the worst effects of global warming. It stressed that international efforts could still have a significant impact in keeping global temperatures down, and that many of the tools to cut greenhouse gases already exist and could be implemented quickly. But participants in the closed-door talks said a number of sticking points held up the negotiations, including a push by China to highlight that the developed world was behind the vast bulk of greenhouse gases. Another matter of contention was how much importance to give nuclear energy in the mix of new technologies that the world should depend on as it moves away from fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases, they said. Despite the disputes, the final report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said there was "substantial" potential for the world to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to below current levels. "Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will have a large impact on opportunities to achieve lower stabilisation levels" of greenhouse gases, it said. "There is substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades." Greenhouse gases fuel global warming by trapping heat from the sun. The report said nations must get greehouse gases to start declining by 2015 to avoid the most destructive effects of climate change. The IPCC, the UN's leading authority on the subject, said greenhouse gas emissions should peak in 2015 and then fall by 50 to 85 percent below 2000 levels. That would limit global warming to 2.0-2.4 degrees Celsius (3.6-4.3 degrees Fahrenheit), generally recognised by experts as the threshold at which some of the most extreme impacts of climate change will begin. The report is the third and last from the IPCC this year, after the first two looked into the evidence and looming devastating impacts of global warming. The text of the report calls for greater use of renewable energies such as solar, wind, and hydro-power, as well as ways to use energy more efficiently. Nascent technology to store carbon dioxide, the biggest greenhouse gas, underground is also mentioned, as are tariffs and other economic mechanisms to make using fossil fuels more expensive and renewable energies much cheaper. The cost of reducing greenhouse gases was one of the biggest disputes, with China the leading voice in expressing concern about the economic impact of cutting back, delegates said. The report said that a priority in tackling climate change is how to cut the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 41 WP: DHS May Close N.Y. Radiation-Detection Lab Despite Objections - washingtonpost.com By Elizabeth Williamson Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, May 4, 2007; Page A12 New York authorities and other advocates of a specialized government radiation-detection lab complained yesterday that the facility, which is only a mile from the World Trade Center site, is being shut down because Department of Homeland Security officials in Washington failed to understand its work. Over the past three years, Homeland Security had been scaling back money for the Environmental Measurements Laboratory in Manhattan. The cuts were made even as New York emergency officials were trying to expand the lab's role in protecting the city from terrorism threats. Homeland Security officials said fiscal concerns were a key reason for targeting the lab, whose annual budget was less than $10 million. "They're . . . our main federal partner in terms of science," said Jonathan A. Duecker, assistant commissioner of counterterrorism for the New York City Police Department. "If DHS decides to put an end to a program . . . it would have been nice for them to come up and ask us." Counterterrorism experts say a "dirty bomb" attack ranks high on their list of terrorism scenarios, and New York is a preeminent target. The neglect shown a lab able to help detect such weapons is an example of how Homeland Security's spotty knowledge of the scores of agencies it controls can undermine its effectiveness, said members of Congress who are stepping up oversight of DHS. "Rather than figuring out what the lab did and how it fit, they just let it wither on the vine," said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), chairman of the Science and Technology Committee's investigations and oversight subcommittee, which held a hearing on the lab yesterday. "We're trying to figure out what happened to what seems an obvious asset." At the hearing, Miller sought to extract a pledge from Adm. Jay M. Cohen, the new undersecretary for Science and Technology at DHS, to keep the lab open. "I am committed to it, sir. But it does take time to change the culture of a lab," Cohen said. Advocates for the lab, which is operating with half its original staff, have heard similar promises before. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said DHS officials told him last year that no decision on the lab's future had been made, even though he later found out that written plans to close it had been drafted. He complained that DHS was giving Congress "misleading or incomplete information." Homeland Security inherited the laboratory from the Department of Energy when DHS was formed in 2003. The lab was created at the start of the Cold War and was among dozens of agencies with potential use in fighting terrorism that transferred to the sprawling new department. At the time, the lab was finishing work on a monitoring station -- one of many it worked on abroad -- on China's border with North Korea, to detect nuclear activity there. Its scientists also cooperated with 150 other labs around the nation, providing a cross-check on radiation monitoring programs near nuclear plants and elsewhere. In New York, the laboratory was helping the city's police department choose and maintain hand-held radiation detection devices, training first responders on the impact and measurement of dirty bomb threats and helping monitor ports, bridges and tunnels for signs of nuclear terrorism. One researcher was working on methods for detecting materials in containers aboard ships still in transit. But soon after the takeover, DHS began cutting the lab's budget. And by 2005, it was planning to shut down the facility. Penrose "Parney" Albright, a physicist and the White House adviser who created the Science and Technology Directorate at DHS and served as its undersecretary, said he didn't want the laboratory from the beginning. "It was a total bad penny," Albright said in an interview. "It was not a young place, not what anyone would argue is vibrant." Tony Fainberg, who oversaw the lab and other radiation-detection programs at DHS, said that Albright and others -- put off by its ragged facilities and some longtime employees resistant to change -- overlooked younger talents and the lab's strong relationship with New York officials. Fainberg left the radiation program to work in another DHS agency because of his unhappiness over cuts to the lab. "If I take over an asset in New York City right after Sept. 11 and that asset gets along with New York City officials, I would try to take advantage of that," he said in an interview after yesterday's hearing. © 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 42 FR NRC: Annual Accident Report Doc E7-8551 [Federal Register: May 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 86)] [Notices] [Page 25339-25342] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04my07-111] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences Fiscal Year 2006; Dissemination of Information Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-438) defines an abnormal occurrence (AO) as an unscheduled incident or event which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determines to be significant from the standpoint of public health or safety. The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-66) requires that AOs be reported to Congress annually. During fiscal year 2006, nine events that occurred at facilities licensed or otherwise regulated by the NRC and/or Agreements States were determined to be AOs. The report describes three events at facilities licensed by the NRC. The three AOs at NRC-licensed facilities included a spill of high- enriched uranium solution at a fuel fabrication facility, a medical event, and an unintended dose to an mbryo/fetus. The report also addresses six AOs at facilities licensed by Agreement States. [Agreement States are those States that have entered into formal agreements with the NRC pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) to regulate certain quantities of AEA licensed material at facilities located within their borders.] Currently, there are 34 Agreement States. During Fiscal Year 2006, Agreement States reported six events that occurred at Agreement State-licensed facilities, including four medical events, one unintended dose to an embryo/fetus, and one industrial event. As required by Section 208, the discussion for each event includes the date and place, the nature and probable consequences, the cause or causes, and the action taken to prevent recurrence. Each event is also being described in NUREG-0090, Vol. 29, ``Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences, Fiscal Year 2006.'' This report is available electronically at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/ . Nuclear Power Plants During this period, no events at U.S. nuclear power plants were significant enough to be reported as AOs. * * * * * Fuel Cycle Facilities (Other Than Nuclear Power Plants) During this reporting period, one event at an NRC-licensed fuel fabrication facility was significant [[Page 25340]] enough to be reported as an AO based on the criteria in Appendix A to this report. 06-01 Spill of High-Enriched Uranium Solution at Nuclear Fuel Services in Erwin, Tennessee. Date and Place--March 6, 2006, Erwin, Tennessee. Nature and Probable Consequences--In a facility authorized to process high-enriched uranium (HEU), a transfer of HEU solution through a transfer line resulted in a portion of the HEU solution, approximately 35 liters, leaking into a glovebox where criticality was possible and subsequently to the floor where criticality was also possible because of the presence of an elevator pit. Immediately before the event, the facility operator decided to move the unused filter glovebox to another location. Workers opened and drained the filters so that the filter glovebox could be moved. After draining the filters, workers failed to reseal the system tightly. During the next transfer of HEU solution through the line, HEU solution leaked into the filter glovebox. On several occasions before the event, workers had reported signs of a yellowish liquid in the filter glovebox. Supervisors had failed to fully investigate the reports because they assumed the yellowish liquid was natural uranium solution which had been used to initially test the process. Criticality was possible in the filter glovebox because of the size and shape of the glovebox and because there were no controls in the filter glovebox to prevent accumulation of solution. The solution leaked out of the filter glovebox through uncontrolled drains to the floor. Investigation of the event revealed that the floor contained an uncontrolled accumulation point, an elevator pit, where criticality was also possible. In different circumstances, the total volume of the transfer would have been more than enough for criticality to be possible in the filter glovebox or the elevator pit. If a criticality accident had occurred in the filter glovebox or the elevator pit, it is likely that at least one worker would have received an exposure high enough to cause acute health effects or death. The NRC conducted a team inspection to determine the root causes of the event and performed a series of three readiness reviews before allowing this portion of the facility to restart. The NRC issued an order to the licensee delineating specific actions designed to address this and other performance issues at the facility. Cause(s)--Failure to maintain configuration control of facility equipment and failure to comply with procedures. Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence--The operator stopped all processing of HEU in the affected processing area, removed the enclosure and associated piping, filled in an uncontrolled accumulation point (the elevator pit) with concrete, and conducted an extensive review to identify any similar configuration issues. * * * * * Other NRC Licensees (Industrial Radiographers, Medical Institutions, etc.) During this reporting period, two events at NRC-licensed or regulated facilities were significant enough to be reported as AOs based on the criteria in Appendix A to this report. 06-02 Medical Event at Bozeman Deaconess Hospital in Bozeman, Montana. Date and Place--May 9, 2006, Bozeman, Montana. Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a patient was prescribed a brachytherapy treatment of 145 Gy (14,500 rad) to the prostate gland for prostate cancer using 82 iodine-125 seeds, but instead received a 130 Gy (13,000 rad) dose to an unintended treatment site. The brachytherapy seeds were implanted under ultrasound guidance; however, a post-treatment computerized tomography scan confirmed that only 10 seeds were implanted in the prescribed location of the prostate, resulting in a dose of 8.6 Gy (860 rad) delivered to the intended treatment site. Concerning the 72 seeds not in the intended treatment site, the urologist was able to recover 3 seeds and determined that 69 seeds were implanted inferior to the prostate in the wrong treatment site. The referring physician and the patient were informed of this event and were advised that the patient may experience discomfort during urination. The NRC staff conducted a reactive onsite inspection on May 16, 2006. An NRC contracted medical consultant experienced in radiation oncology reviewed the case and agreed with the licensee's analysis and conclusions. An NRC inspection report has been issued. Cause(s)--This medical event was caused by human error because the licensee did not verify that the sources were positioned in the proper location in the prostate. The urologist misidentified the anatomy viewed under the ultrasound guidance procedure. Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence--The licensee revised its procedures, requiring a fluoroscopic examination early in the implant procedure to ensure that the seeds are placed in the correct location, thus resolving any questions concerning ultrasound images prior to commencing with the implant. The licensee also implemented additional staff training. * * * * * 06-03 Dose to an Embryo/Fetus at Munson Medical Center in Traverse City, Michigan. Date and Place--May 3, 2006, Traverse City, Michigan. Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported an unintended dose to an embryo/fetus. On May 3, 2006, the licensee administered a therapy dosage of 5.55 GBq (150 mCi) of I-131 to a 26- year-old female patient who had affirmed in writing that she was not pregnant. On May 22, 2006, the patient informed the licensee that she had been approximately 10 to 14 days pregnant at the time of the administration. Based on this new information, the licensee estimated that the dose to the embryo/fetus was approximately 400 mSv (40 rem). The referring physician and patient were informed of this event. The NRC-contracted medical consultant agreed with the licensee's dose estimate and concluded that this event should result in no harm to the embryo because the administration occurred during a stage of development when the thyroid does not take up iodine. The medical consultant recommended that a complete thyroid evaluation be performed after delivery. Cause(s)--This medical event was caused by the patient's incorrect written statement that she was not pregnant prior to receiving the therapy dosage. The licensee did not require an independent pregnancy test for women of child-bearing age prior to administering the dosage. Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence--The licensee implemented a procedure that requires pregnancy tests for all women of childbearing age prior to any therapy dosage of radioactive material, a checklist to ensure that the pregnancy test is ordered, and staff training. * * * * * Agreement State Licensees During this reporting period, six events at Agreement State- licensed facilities were significant enough to be reported as AOs based on the criteria in Appendix A to this report. AS 06-01 Industrial Radiography Occupational Overexposure at Anvil [[Page 25341]] International in North Kingston, Rhode Island. Date and Place--March 3, 2006, North Kingston, Rhode Island. Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a radiographer and a trainee received unintended radiation exposures in excess of those specified in the AO criteria. The incident occurred at a permanent radiography facility and involved an iridium-192 source with an activity of 3.44 TBq (93 Ci). After performing surveys outside a dedicated radiography cell, where radiation levels confirmed that radiography was in process in the cell, the radiographer and the trainee went to an alternate location and performed equipment maintenance and training. They were joined by a third radiographer, who was performing radiography inside the cell. All three radiography personnel entered the cell to view the radiography setup and examine the guide tube for training purposes. However, they entered without a survey meter and were unaware that the source was still exposed. As a result, the first radiographer and the trainee handled the collimator and guide tube (which contained the source) for approximately 15-60 seconds. The first radiographer received a dose to the left hand ranging from 1.4 to 2.8 Sv (140 rem to 280 rem). The trainee received a dose to the left hand ranging from 11 Sv to 85 Sv (1,100 rem to 8,500 rem). The third radiographer did not receive a dose in excess of regulatory exposure limits, since he did not handle the equipment. Cause(s)--This event was caused by the failure of radiography personnel to follow safety procedures and use survey meters inside the cell. Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence. Licensee--The licensee provided additional training to the personnel. The licensee also solicited the assistance of a medical physicist and the source manufacturer in determining the dose to the radiographers. The licensee also committed to keep the State updated on the medical conditions of the radiographer and trainee until they are released from medical oversight. State Agency--On March 7, 2006, the State issued a suspension letter to the licensee. On March 8 and March 16, 2006, the State, accompanied by NRC Region I staff, conducted an investigation of the event. On April 13, 2006, the State issued a Notice of Violation and on November 3, 2006, terminated the license after an onsite inspection to confirm decommissioning actions. AS 06-02 Medical Event at 21st Oncology, Inc., in Coral Springs, Florida. Date and Place--March 31 through April 7, 2006, Coral Springs, Florida. Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that an 80- year-old female patient received 100 Gy (10,000 rad) to an unintended area of approximately 2 cm (0.8 in) that was three times the prescribed dose for the mammosite brachytherapy procedure, using a high dose rate (HDR) afterloader containing an iridium-192 source with an activity of 240.5 GBq (6.5 Ci). The patient received less than 30 percent of the prescribed dose to the prescribed treatment site. The source stopped 6 cm (2.4 in) short of the intended position. The patient visited the attending physician for followup on May 2, 2006. The physician discovered that the patient's skin was abnormally red. The referring physician, patient, and patient's family were notified of the incident. The patient was treated for erythema (skin reddening) and moist desquamation (skin thinning and weeping). Cause(s)--This medical event was caused by human error. The authorized user entered an incorrect distance into the computer entry data. Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence. Licensee--The licensee developed new procedures requiring the authorized user to verify the source wire distances during HDR treatments and provided additional training in these procedures. State Agency--The State reviewed and accepted the licensee's corrective actions. * * * * * AS 06-03 Medical Event at the McKay Dee Hospital, Inc., in Ogden, Utah. Date and Place--June 19, 2006, Ogden, Utah. Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a patient undergoing treatment for hyperthyroidism received 1.08 GBq (29.3 mCi) of I-131 instead of the prescribed dosage of 0.56 GBq (15 mCi). On June 19, 2006, two patients were scheduled to receive I-131 treatments at the same time. However, the first patient was administered the second patient's prescribed dosage resulting in the patient receiving a higher than intended dose. The error was identified by the licensee prior to the administration of I-131 to the second patient. The administration resulted in a thyroid dose of 1,066 Gy (106,600 rad). The patient and referring physician were notified of the error. No negative health effects from this administration are expected. On July 17, 2006, the licensee sent a letter to the State confirming that a medical event had occurred. Cause(s)--This medical event was caused by human error. The licensee failed to verify the prescribed dosage for a specific patient. Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence. Licensee--Corrective actions taken by the licensee included revising procedures to improve patient identification techniques and not scheduling patients with similar treatments at concurrent times. State Agency--The State reviewed and accepted the licensee's corrective actions. * * * * * AS 06-04 Medical Event at Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute in Little Rock, Arkansas. Date and Place--March 28, 2006, Little Rock, Arkansas. Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a patient undergoing implant brachytherapy for prostate cancer received a radiation dose to an unintended area during an I-125 prostate-seed implant procedure. The patient was prescribed 108 Gy (10,800 rad) to the base of the prostate gland with 84 I-125 seeds but it was delivered 4 cm (1.6 in) inferior to the intended treatment site. The post-implant dose calculation confirmed that the dose was delivered to the wrong treatment site. The patient will require further brachytherapy treatment. The patient did not incur adverse health effects as a result of the medical event. The patient and referring physician were notified of the medical event. Cause(s)--This medical event was caused by human error. The urologist was not able to clearly identify the base of the prostate gland during the ultrasound used to view the target organ during the treatment. Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence. Licensee--The licensee implemented a new policy to ensure that the urologist clearly defines the base of the prostate and urethra. State Agency--The State reviewed and accepted the licensee's corrective actions. * * * * * AS 06-05 Medical Event at Children's Memorial Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois. Date and Place--July 24, 2006, Chicago, Illinois. Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a patient received a higher than intended dosage of 74 MBq (2 mCi) of I- 131 instead of the prescribed dosage of 0.19 MBq [[Page 25342]] (0.005 mCi). The physician did not prepare a written directive. The authorized user noted the error on July 25, 2006. The licensee estimated a whole body dose of 0.0189 Sv (1.89 rem) and a dose to the thyroid of 41.4 Sv (4,140 rem), based on a 59.2-percent uptake. Using the same assumptions, the intended dosage of 0.19 MBq (0.005 mCi) would have given the patient a thyroid dose of 0.104 Sv (10.4 rem). The patient and referring physician were notified of the medical event. The patient incurred no adverse health effects from the medical event. Cause(s)--This medical event was caused by inadequate verbal communications between the nuclear medicine technologist (NMT) and the physician and the lack of a written directive. Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence. Licensee--The licensee reviewed previous administrations of radioiodine to confirm that this event was an isolated occurrence. The licensee added additional procedures to ensure proper oversight by a physician during all future radioidodine administrations. State Agency--The State investigated the event and concurred with the licensee's dose estimates. The State issued a Notice of Violation to the licensee. * * * * * 06-06 Dose to an Embryo/Fetus at McLeod Regional Medical Center in Florence, South Carolina. Date and Place--May 26, 2006, Florence, South Carolina. Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported an unintended dose to an embryo/fetus. The licensee administered 555 MBq (15 mCi) of technetium-99m on May 24, 2006, and 518 KBq (0.014 mCi) of I-131 on May 25 as a prelude to a thyroid ablation to a patient. Prior to the administrations and following a detailed explanation provided by the physician, the patient signed an informed consent indicating that she was not pregnant. The licensee's radioactive materials license requires that a pregnancy test be done on any female of child-bearing age undergoing radiation therapy. However, the patient convinced the attending NMT that she could not possibly be pregnant. The NMT did not perform the pregnancy test and on May 26, 2006, administered 0.548 GBq (14.8 mCi) of I-131 to the patient for a thyroid ablation. At approximately 32--34 weeks of pregnancy, the patient visited an obstetrician and mentioned that she had undergone a thyroid ablation procedure when she was approximately 17 weeks pregnant. The obstetrician notified the licensee on October 3, 2006. The licensee estimated that the fetus received a whole body dose of 0.0517 Gy (5.17 rad) and a thyroid dose of 139.2 Gy (13,920 rad). The child was born in November 2006. The newborn appears to have no apparent problems resulting from the radiation exposure with the exception of an underactive thyroid gland (hypothyrodism). The child is currently receiving a small amount of thyroid supplement. The referring physician and patient were notified of the event. Cause(s)--This event was caused by human error. At the time of the administration, the patient indicated that she was not pregnant, and the licensee failed to perform the required pregnancy test. Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence. Licensee--The licensee provided instructions to staff emphasizing its policy to administer a pregnancy test to female patients of child- bearing age prior to undergoing radiation therapy. State Agency--The State reviewed and approved the corrective actions taken by the licensee and will followup at the next inspection. The State is in the process of issuing a Notice of Violation. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 20th day of April 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Andrew L. Bates, Acting Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E7-8551 Filed 5-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 43 TheStar.com: Cameco failed to recognize uranium mine risks - Report May 04, 2007 02:13 PM Laura Bobak Canadian Press TORONTO – Cameco Corp. (TSX: CCO) "failed to fully appreciate the degree of risk" of working in less than ideal conditions at Cigar Lake, Sask., says a report on the groundfall and flooding that shut down the company's major uranium mine last year. The independent report, released Friday by Cameco, outlined a series of mishaps, errors and events leading up to the flooding, which is expected to keep the mine out of commission until about 2010. The report said the problems started when the wrong kind of drill was used on Oct. 11, 2006, creating an opening that was larger than outlined in the mine plan. The mine plan also called for support structures to prevent a groundfall to be constructed 72 hours after blasting, but the critical work wasn't finished until six days later, on Oct. 17. Two days later, rock movement was observed and a "large geological structure" was identified, requiring the installation of more support. The structure hadn't been previously identified since the company had not done geological mapping of the area, the report said. Although workers moved to build the extra supports, a supervisor noticed evidence of more ground movement over a larger area on Oct. 22 and decided to use concrete to fix the problem. The groundfall occurred shortly thereafter. "The circumstances surrounding the three causal factors related to the fall of ground – while pointing to an unfortunate combination of design issues, insufficient assessment of the ongoing development, lack of quality control of the excavation and slow installation of ground support – when taken together demonstrate that, fundamentally, Cameco Cigar Lake failed to fully appreciate the degree of risk of developing in less than ideal ground conditions ... ," Cameco wrote in a summary of the report submitted Thursday to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. A copy of the report was also submitted to the Saskatchewan Labour Ministry. After the groundfall, a gasket on a door became loose, creating a gap that allowed water to seep into the mine. Workers wanted to fill it with concrete right away to prevent flooding, but were overruled by the head of the command centre, which ordered more gasket material be inserted into the door instead. After several attempts to seal the door failed, more gasket became loose. Later, debris got caught in the door, increasing the water flow rate. The door was forced open again but the water flow was so strong it couldn't be closed. Eventually, the area co-ordinator decided to evacuate the mine and 24 workers exited via a cage on a hoist, the door open behind them. "After the cage reached surface, Cameco Cigar Lake shut off services to the mine, placed a radiation monitoring device at the shaft collar and allowed the mine to flood," the report said. Cameco has prepared a comprehensive plan to address the recommendations made in the report, including restructuring the management and supervision of its mine operations, and said it will share its findings with the rest of the uranium mining industry. Cameco, which released an update of its operations at Cigar Lake in March, says its share of capital costs, including mill modifications, to bring Cigar Lake into production is estimated at $508 million, including $234 million spent on construction to date, leaving $274 million remaining. In addition to the capital costs, Cameco says its share of flood remediation costs is about $46 million, of which $5 million was spent and recorded in 2006. The Cigar Lake project, which was initially planned to begin operating in 2008, is a joint venture owned by Cameco, which owns 50 per cent; Areva Resources Canada Inc. with 37 per cent; Idemitsu Canada Resources Ltd. with eight per cent; and Tepco Resources Inc. with five per cent. Cameco says its share of the estimated proven mineral reserves is 113 million pounds. The mine was to have produced slightly less than one-fifth of the global uranium supply, which is currently so tight that spot prices have reached $113 (U.S.) per pound. TheStar.com | | | | | | | Toronto Star | | | | | | © Copyright Toronto Star online since 1996 | ***************************************************************** 44 Salt Lake Tribune: Tribe presses N-waste fight Skull Valley Goshutes The band and PFS indicate that they plan to appeal Interior Department decisions Article Last Updated: 05/04/2007 01:24:40 AM MDT The Skull Valley Goshutes and their private-industry partners are trying to dodge a new obstacle in their fight for permission to store nuclear-reactor waste in Tooele County. In a Washington, D.C., appeals court, the state of Utah is pushing to have the project's license put on ice until the Skull Valley Band and its partners clear two other stumbling blocks created last fall by the U.S. Interior Department. The state, the nuclear project's harshest critic, has argued in legal papers over the past two months that the court should not bother making any final decision now on the project's license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. First, the state insists, project proponents must prove they have approval to get the waste to the site and secure a valid lease. A ruling last September from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management blocked the transportation plan. Another issued the same day by the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs nixed a required lease agreement between Private Fuel Storage and the Goshutes. The rulings from the Interior Department agencies prompted U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and state leaders to declare the nuclear project "dead." Proponents have pressed forward anyhow. PFS and the tribe indicate in the latest flurry of legal papers that they plan to appeal both Interior Department decisions, although they have not done so yet. They have more than five years to appeal the rulings in court. Their plans call for storing up to 44,000 tons of used reactor waste on a 100-acre pad just across the highway from the tribal village in Tooele County, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. The high-level radioactive waste would be parked on the pads for up to 40 years in steel-and-concrete containers. Skull Valley Chairman Lawrence Bear discussed the project April 21 with tribal members but did not take any votes. "They're still for it," he said. PFS, a consortium of electric-power companies with nuclear reactors, wants the court to validate the license that took nearly a decade to get. It wants to begin selling storage space at the site, which would be large enough to hold nearly all of the reactor waste generated since commercial nuclear plants began operating in the United States a half-century ago and the only storage currently licensed for power plant waste. "We would like to get this part of it decided" by the appeals court, said PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin. "It is important to have each of these [legal issues] done - and the sooner the better." The state of Utah last year filed an appeal in the District of Columbia court of the license NRC granted the previous February. PFS, the Skull Valley Goshutes and the NRC all are defending the license. The state, joined by a group of Skull Valley Goshutes opposed to the waste project, ultimately want the license killed. For now, they want the case put on hold until the fates of the lease and the transportation plan are settled. fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 45 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance completes site report By Kyle Marksteiner Article Launched: 05/03/2007 09:07:53 PM MDT CARLSBAD ? The Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance has delivered its detailed site report related to potential Global Nuclear Energy Partnership facilities in the area. A site in Lea County, recommended by the alliance, is one of 11 potential locations for a proposed nuclear fuel processing center and an advanced burner reactor. The alliance found out Jan. 31 that it had received $1.59 million in Department of Energy funds to conduct a 90-day suitability study on its proposed site. The alliance is a limited liability corporation consisting of the two counties, along with the cities of Hobbs and Carlsbad. The Department of Energy will now use information from the suitability studies to determine which sites may be appropriate. "We hand delivered it (to the DOE) on April 30," said Mark Turnbough, principal investigator for the alliance. "We were superstitious, so we got it in one day early." Turnbough said his impression was that the quality of submissions from all interested sites was very high. The DOE will post all of the site reports online, Turnbough said. Members of the public can then review the studies and make comments to the DOE. "Because of the size of the files, I expect they will have all of the reports up within a couple of weeks," he said. The Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance's document included a site report of about 1,000 pages and a communications report of around 350 pages, Turnbough said. The communications report is essentially a summary of four public meetings, including one in Las Cruces. "We met with university officials over there to inform them about what is going on," Turnbough said, noting that the DOE is releasing substantial amounts of related research grant money for universities. The alliance submitted an initial report outlining the proposed site when it first expressed interest, Turnbough said, but the final report went into much greater detail. "A great deal of what we did was to confirm secondary or regional data," he said. "We detailed an account of our drilling program on the site." The drilling program determined what the water level of the area is, Turnbough said. The alliance also put together a number of detailed maps through aerial photography and topographical research. The alliance worked with the University of New Mexico to put together a detailed social and economic profile of the region. The conclusion is that there would be no significant negative effect on any population groups within 30 miles of the proposed site, Turnbough said. "But within 40 miles of the site there is a significant population that can serve the project and benefit," he said. The alliance also documented water resources in the area. "I think there were stereotypes that we were short on water because of our desert location," Turnbough said. "We described in detail the resources in Lea and Eddy counties." The study also includes details on a low level radioactive waste disposal facility in nearby Andrews, Texas. The DOE's public comment period on the scoping stage of the GNEP project was recently extended until June. There will be additional public comment periods during other stages of the process. "I think they're going to take some time to review documents from different sites," Turnbough said. "By August, they expect to reduce (the list of potential locations) to a small number of alternatives. They'll prepare a draft environmental impact statement that analyzes three or four different sites." A public comment period during the development of the environmental impact statement would likely run through December of 2007. Turnbough said he likes the alliance's chances at being one of the three or four "finalists"- partially because he feels the site stands out as the top option that is not on DOE property. A final decision on the proposed GNEP facilities is currently expected to be made by June 2008. The Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance is working with Washington Group International and Areva, a French company, as its business partners. "We've suggested to the DOE to allow us to continue to work with our corporate partners through the end of the comment period for the (environmental impact statement)," Turnbough said. "We think they're going to create a second contract to sustain some level of activity for us to continue the communication process." The site study also includes an account of how the alliance spent the $1.59 million DOE grant. The alliance has until May 15 to close the grant process. "I think we spent just about all the money they gave us," Turnbough said. "I'm kind of surprised how close we hit." The biggest accomplishment, Turnbough said, was that the alliance was able to work so quickly given the time constraints. He would have preferred six months to put everything together instead of 90 days, he noted, and because the alliance involved so many different entities, it took some time to get everyone involved. "We created an entity from scratch and we collected data and wrote a detailed report in about two months," he noted. "And we probably did more work than anybody else (other sites) did." Turnbough complimented Washington Group and Areva's personnel who assisted with the project, along with the efforts of several subcontractors. "The quality (of the report) is just outstanding," he said. "If the DOE is interested in pursuing a site of the type we have, we gave them no reason not to pick us." Copyright © 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group ***************************************************************** 46 Asia Times Online: Australian uranium to fuel Asia May 5, 2007 By Andrew Symon SINGAPORE - Australia is primed to become the major source of uranium used to fuel Asia's growing nuclear power ambitions after last week's decision by the opposition Australian Labor Party (ALP) to remove age-old restrictions on uranium-mining operations. Australia is home to the world's largest proven uranium-ore reserves and is currently the world's second-largest producer and exporter after Canada. Australia currently produces 23% of the world's uranium supply, and regionally competes mainly with Kazakhstan, the world's third-largest supplier with the second-largest proven reserves, for Asian markets. Until now, Australian output had been restricted because of 25-year-old ALP policy that restricted uranium-mining operations to just three mines - albeit one of which, Olympic Dam run by Australia's BHP Billiton, is the largest in the world. While Prime Minister John Howard's conservative Liberal/National Coalition government has no opposition to uranium mining, the country's federal system grants control and power over mining activities to state governments, and the ALP has long held sway in those areas with uranium reserves. Australian miners, meanwhile, are salivating at the prospects for launching new projects - with an eye on China's growing and Southeast Asia's aspiring appetite for uranium oxide. According to one industry projection, Chinese demand will grow from 1,300 tons per year at present to more than 10,000 tons per year - or equal to Australia's current total annual uranium-oxide exports. Currently Australia does not export uranium to China, partly because Beijing's nuclear demand is only now surging, and partly because Australia requires contractual assurances that uranium exports will not be diverted to weapons programs. The two sides agreed in April 2006 to facilitate the trade as part of negotiations toward a preferential free-trade agreement. According to the World Nuclear Association, more than 50% of the world's new nuclear power plants expected to come online over the next two decades will be built in Asia, a heady projection based on publicly available statistics for plants now in construction, planned or proposed. If all those plans come to fruition, Asia's total generation capacity is set to rise from its current level of 80,000 megawatts to 190,000MW. Asia's current operating nuclear capacity is just over 20% of the world's total. It's still too early to tell exactly how fast - or slow - Asian demand for uranium will grow over the medium term, which as an alternative energy source will no doubt be dictated by global fossil-fuel prices. Nuclear power's advocates argue that it is an obvious answer to reducing the growing amount of greenhouse-gas emissions emerging from Asia, while at the same time cost-effectively meeting Asia's burgeoning electricity demand. Surging nuclear demand China and India are largely driving the surge in uranium demand, followed by Japan and South Korea, both of which already have substantial nuclear capacity. Taiwan also has significant nuclear plants, with further units under construction. Elsewhere, there are stated ambitions among non-nuclear countries, including Indonesia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Bangladesh (which recently signed a nuclear-cooperation agreement with China) and most recently Thailand. India, which aims for a major expansion of its nuclear-power capacity, is currently barred from importing Australian uranium because it is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US, however, is prepared to relax its restrictions on fuel and technology exports to India, although final agreement on terms and conditions have not yet been reached with New Delhi. For Australia, the prospect of a uranium-export bonanza is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until a few years ago, uranium did not spark much interest in the mining industry, with uranium-oxide prices languishing at less than US$10 a pound. Those market prices have recently skyrocketed to $50 a pound, fueled by both real demand and speculative investments by hedge funds and private-equity outfits. On the Australian Securities Exchange, there is already a boom under way, with share market prices of small exploration companies boasting uranium prospects sharply rising. One investment adviser, Warrick Grigor, recently told a conference in Hong Kong, "It is amazing how many companies are now reporting 'hot rocks' and radioactive anomalies on their licenses." Recent Chinese investments are also driving up mining shares on the Australian bourse. Australia seems set to add uranium ore to its already strong and growing list of commodity exports to Asia. At the same time, rising global demand growth is already raising fears of possible shortages and heated political competition for uranium resources. Those concerns were underlined last year during a visit to Kazakhstan by then-Japanese prime minister Junichiro Koizumi when Japanese utilities urged him to lock into a long-term uranium-ore supply contract because of concerns China was sniffing around the same supplies. The actual realization of the many proposals and plans for new nuclear plants is still a wild card. China is quickly advancing its nuclear-power plans, but among the existing nuclear-power states in East Asia - including Japan, South Korea and Taiwan - the outlook is still mixed. Japan's nuclear capacity is the largest in the world after France's, and it plans a significant expansion to meet its growing energy needs. This will in part also help Tokyo meet its greenhouse-gas reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Still, the environmental lobby against nuclear power in Japan is strong, drawing strength from several well-publicized cases of negligence in plant safety in recent years. South Korea also has significant expansion plans, which don't face the opposition seen in Japan. Radioactive economics For other countries looking to take the nuclear-power plunge, the cost-benefit economics are not clear-cut. While the actual day-to-day operating costs of nuclear power may be low, the initial capital costs are the highest of any other type of power plant. How these startup costs would be financed in less developed countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh is still a big question mark. It's still unlikely that the big multilateral lending agencies - including the World Bank and Asian Development Bank - will move into the business of financing the construction of nuclear plants over cheaper, safer options such as hydropower. Finance, construction and operation of nuclear plants in developing Asian countries would almost certainly need to be secured, led and carried out by Western and Japanese companies possibly supported with government export credit schemes. Russia is also a player and in 2002 was scheduled to build a nuclear test reactor in Myanmar, which was later scrapped because of financing problems. Meanwhile, nuclear-reactor safety is still a major global concern, especially in aspiring Southeast Asian countries prone to natural disasters, poor governance and terrorist attacks. How high-level nuclear waste should best be stored and treated has not been fully resolved in developed countries, which still tend to bury it deep in rocky geological structures despite the fact it will remain radioactive for tens of thousands of years. This already looms as a major problem in Europe and North America, where waste is steadily building up from nuclear plants commissioned in the 1960s and '70s. So far, interim measures have sufficed, where for an initial 30-40-year period waste is left to cool off and decay on the plant site or other dedicated sites where special containers are placed in concrete bunkers. As densely populated Asia explores the nuclear option, waste-disposal issues will grow in importance. Finally, of course, there is the specter of nuclear-weapons proliferation. Once a country has the capability to enrich uranium to levels adequate for nuclear power generation, regional history shows it can often quickly move further to enrich enough uranium to make nuclear weapons. Countries can also gain the capacity to develop weapons through the plutonium produced in the initial uranium-fission process in the power-generation plant. (The North Koreans are believed to have used plutonium harvested from their small research reactors for their controversial nuclear-bomb test last year.) One modern reactor that uses natural rather than enriched uranium technology is the CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) design. Clumsier to operate, it has not yet won commercial favor in Asian countries that already generate nuclear power, and the Canadian design nonetheless still produces plutonium during its energy-production cycle. One possible way to balance Asia's nuclear-energy ambitions and the West's concerns about nuclear-weapons proliferation would be the international regulation and control of the movement, processing and disposal of enriched fuels - thereby eliminating the need for now non-nuclear countries to develop their own enrichment facilities. This would also arguably represent a more economic option for developing Asian countries and one favored by the US government and the United Nations' Geneva-based International Atomic Energy Agency. Such a proposal was first broached in the 1970s, when there was a sprint toward nuclear power due to oil-price shocks. Support for the idea receded in the 1980s and 1990s as fossil-fuel prices stabilized and interest in nuclear power waned. That coincided with rising political opposition to nuclear power in the wake of the 1979 Three Mile Island plant meltdown in the US and the 1986 Chernobyl plant accident in northern Ukraine. Now, surging Asian energy demand is pushing nuclear power generation into a new age - one that presents big new regulatory challenges. At the Group of Eight meeting in St Petersburg last July, the US and Russia proposed that enrichment be limited to a small set of countries that already possess the technology and facilities. This built on a US initiative called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, under which existing major Western and Japanese producers of nuclear fuel and reactor technology would undertake to provide other countries with reactors and fuel for the life of plants with the provision to take back spent fuel. For Australia, more uranium exports all point toward more complex commercial relations with Asia. Expanded uranium exports will almost certainly be complemented by wider responsibilities and obligations required by the international and regional communities to avoid the risks of nuclear accidents and weapons proliferation. It's one thing for Australia to expand its exports of uranium oxide to Asia; it's quite another for Canberra to assume a leading regional and international role in dealing with the potential risks and waste those shipments will create in their wake. Andrew Symon, an Australian, is a Singapore-based journalist and analyst specializing in energy and natural resources. All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission. © Copyright 1999 - 2007 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd. Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 ***************************************************************** 47 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste to Meet in Rockville, Maryland, May 16-17 News Release - 2007-057 - 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’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will meet May 16-17 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the status of the NRC staff readiness to review geological repository operations area design in conjunction with the Department of Energy’s application for Yucca Mountain, AREVA spent nuclear fuel recycle facilities and the status of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements’ study on U.S. radiation exposure. The committee will also discuss topics of common interest with Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield. The ACNW reports to and advises the Commission on all aspects of nuclear waste management. The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. The Wednesday session will run from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; the Thursday session is from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Anyone requiring the use of video teleconferencing to observe the meeting should contact Theron Brown at 301-415-8066 to ensure availability. A complete agenda is available on the NRC’s Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/agenda/2007 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, May 04, 2007 ***************************************************************** 48 UK: CC: Work is progressing on challenging clean-up project John O'Groat Journal and Caithness Courier: Published: 04 May, 2007 CRUCIAL equipment is being installed in preparation for the removal of the radioactive elements from the Dounreay Fast Reactor. A large metal-clad structure adjacent to the famous Dounreay dome is a hive of activity as work progresses on what is one of the most challenging jobs to be undertaken as part of the site clean-up. One of the two process cell liners, which resemble colossal metal caskets, has been installed in the breeder containment building. These will house the equipment responsible for dismantling the breeder elements by removing the cladding and exposing the uranium slugs in preparation for washing and packaging into 500 litre drums ready for storage. Redundant equipment from other areas of the site is being used within the new facility, with turnstiles and state-of-the-art monitoring devices being utilised to save costs. Also on schedule is the installation of the intricate ventilation system, interior block work and installation of electrical services. The project team is continuing to work closely with the regulators and during May four NII (Nuclear Installations Inspectorate) inspectors will travel to Toulon in France to see trials of the retrieval facility – the pioneering equipment that will sit on top of the reactor to remove the breeder elements. Peter Poulton, UKAEA senior project manager, said: “The breeder removal project is a prime example of the benefits of an alliance of companies working together and the Dounreay site working together to meet the needs of the site’s decommissioning programme as it evolves. “The project team has also maintained an exemplary safety record at the plant, which, given the work that is being carried out, is a credit to everyone involved.” The internal building works are expected to be completed this year, with inactive commissioning due to start in 2008. The work on site is being undertaken for UKAEA, on behalf of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, by ALSTEC supported by local contractors. The breeder removal is due to start in 2009 and will take around three years to complete, subject to consents. All content copyright 2007 Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. ***************************************************************** 49 KnoxNews: Wackenhut wins $549 million contracts By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com May 4, 2007 OAK RIDGE ? Wackenhut Services, the government?s security contractor in Oak Ridge since 2000, has been awarded new contracts valued at more than $500 million, a federal spokesman confirmed today. The company will retain its role providing protective services at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and other federal installations in Oak Ridge. Steven Wyatt, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, confirmed the award this morning. "We are absolutely delighted," said Jim Rackstraw, Wackenhut?s director of training and emergency management. "We felt our performance during the life of this contract was such that it made us very competitive. We feel very good about winning." Wackenhut won two contracts: one for security at Y-12, which houses the nation?s stockpile of weapons-usable uranium, and the other for security at ORNL and other Department of Energy facilities in Oak Ridge. The federal procurement has been delayed for about a year while the bids were evaluated in Oak Ridge and at DOE headquarters in Washington. During the interim, Wackenhut?s existing contracts were extended month by month to continue the security operations. In a prepared statement, Wackenhut said it had earned an average performance score of 97 percent during its seven years in Oak Ridge. The company cited great improvements in training and equipment to protect the federal facilities against the growing threat of terrorism. Wackenhut employs more than 900 people in Oak Ridge. "The work under this contract is essential to the continued safe and secure protection of the Y-12 National Security Complex, a key ? facility responsible for ensuring the safety and reliability of the nation?s nuclear weapons stockpile," Ted Sherry, the federal manager at Y-12, said in a statement. DOE Manager Gerald Boyd said security was one of the highest priorities in Oak Ridge, and he said the new contract would help provide a more secure environment for federal and contractor employees. More details as they develop online and in Saturday?s News Sentinel. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 50 KnoxNews: Fire damage minimal at Y-12 cooling tower By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com May 4, 2007 OAK RIDGE - A small fire at a cooling tower at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant was quickly extinguished Tuesday, with limited damage to the facility, according to a plant spokesman. "There were no injuries and no contamination," Mike Monnett, Y-12's public affairs chief, said Thursday. The cause of the fire, which was reported at 2:50 p.m. Tuesday, is under investigation, Monnett said in response to questions. The cooling tower was constructed in the late 1980s, but work was stopped in 1990 before it was completed, the Y-12 spokesman said. It is currently being refurbished "to support the plant's mission," he said. Y-12 firefighters responded quickly and "had water on that fire in less than three minutes," Monnett said. "The damage was confined to fill material and decking," he said. "There was no loss of any of the tower structural components." He confirmed that investigators found cigarette butts at the scene, but added, "It's premature to automatically conclude they were the cause." There have been a number of small fires and other incidents reported in recent months at the Oak Ridge complex. Monnett said many of them are attributable to old facilities and a significant increase in work requirements. "Sometimes this stuff just happens," he said. "But we are always first and foremost concerned with our employees' safety. We are very carefully watching the trends." The general safety trend at Y-12 "is extremely positive on balance," Monnett said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 51 DSC: Announces Agreement With Los Alamos National Laboratory to Collaborate on Homeland Security Decision Sciences Corporation: SAN DIEGO, May 3 /PRNewswire/ -- Decision Sciences Corporation announced today that it has entered into a collaborative agreement with Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Under the terms of this Cooperative Research and Development Agreement, Decision Sciences Corporation will commercialize LANL's innovative Muon Tomography technology to detect nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Devices built under DSC's exclusive license will give the Department of Homeland Security effective tools to passively scan all cargo and vehicle traffic entering the U.S. "We are very pleased to partner with Los Alamos National Laboratory to develop Muon Tomography as a deployed capability for Homeland Security. What makes this technology so compelling is that it provides the ability to rapidly detect, within congressional mandates, concealed nuclear and explosive materials while eliminating the radiation exposure liabilities that plague existing scanning technologies. It can be deployed with minimal disruption to transportation and commerce flow and provides a high accuracy of detection. Muon Tomography, integrated with our intelligent reasoning software, represents a superior solution aimed at guarding against the threat of a nuclear detonation on our soil," stated Richard Smith, CEO, Decision Sciences Corporation. Muon tomography uses muons, which are naturally occurring high-energy sub-atomic particles produced by the interaction of cosmic rays with the earth's atmosphere, to identify and locate specific materials based on their atomic density. LANL has developed detectors and algorithms to trace the muons' path, and uses that data to produce detailed, 3-D images of complex objects. This technology is particularly well suited for the detection and identification of nuclear and explosive threats concealed within cargo containers and vehicles. It can quickly deliver vital security information without exposing system operators or the objects examined to dangerous radiation. Moreover, since muons can penetrate lead and other materials used to conceal nuclear or other explosive materials, the reliability of inspections using Muon Tomography is high. Decision Sciences Corporation and Los Alamos National Laboratory have already demonstrated the effectiveness of Muon Tomography. Full-scale production of DSC's Guardian MT equipment will begin in early 2008. "We need to take seriously the issue of protecting our borders from nuclear weapons being brought into the country and exploded in a major city. Muon Tomography is a technology that can actually do this much better than currently deployed technologies. Muon Tomography provides a way to solve a problem that's currently not solved," explained Dr. Christopher Morris, principal inventor of Muon Tomography at LANL. About Decision Sciences Corporation Decision Sciences Corporation, Architects of Reasoning(TM), Building Real World Solutions to Counter Terrorism in America, is a software developer and systems integration company based in San Diego, California. The company is developing software products to support the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, federal, state, and local government and the first responder communities. Decision Sciences Corporation also serves commercial enterprises by transforming advanced software technologies from government applications to meet corporate security decision management, simulation/training and marketing needs. Decision Sciences Corporation is exceptionally experienced in the design, development and integration of intelligent systems software, facilitating human understanding of complex data. Please visit us at http://www.decisionsciencescorp.com/. About Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory is a multidisciplinary research institution engaged in strategic science on behalf of national security. The Laboratory is operated by a team composed of Bechtel National, the University of California, BWX Technologies, and Washington Group International for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. Los Alamos enhances national security by ensuring the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, developing technologies to reduce threats from weapons of mass destruction, and solving problems related to energy, environment, infrastructure, health and global security concerns. For more information, please contact Kathy Delucas, duke@lanl.gov, 505/667-5225. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Lisa Baker/Devon Blaine The Blaine Group 310/360-1499 310/360-1498 (FAX) lbaker@blainegroupinc.com devon@blainegroupinc.com Website: http://www.decisionsciencescorp.com/ Copyright © 1996-2003 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights ***************************************************************** 52 9NEWS: Sick workers of former nuclear site sickened after vote posted by: Jeffrey Wolf , Web Producer written by: Thanh Truong , 9NEWS Reporter Last updated: 5/4/2007 3:31:23 PM Panel recommends better benefits for some nuclear workers Rocky Flats panel breaks before further discussion and vote WESTMINSTER - For 24 years, Liz Huebner worked at the Rocky Flats nuclear site helping to produce parts for nuclear weapons. "I felt like I was contributing, helping to keep the country safe and I felt that I really was doing the right thing. It ruined my health, my husband's health and my friends' health," said Huebner. She and hundreds of former plant workers spent two days in Westminster petitioning a federal board to recommend that they should receive compensation for the medical costs they have racked up because of their exposure to radiation. "My cancer was diagnosed in 1998," said one woman as she fought back tears. In essence, the petitions failed. The board voted to recommend compensation for workers who worked at the site from 1952 to 1958, which is a very small percentage of the petitioners. "We quite frankly are shocked by the decision, and dismayed by the process," said Jennifer Thompson, the spokesperson for the workers. Board member Philip Schofield said the decision was not easy. "You would be inhuman if you didn't feel for these people, but at the end of the day you have to follow the law," said Schofield. Schofield explained that a lack of records showing employee radiation exposure in the 1950s made it difficult to determine the cause of illness for workers in that time period. "We understand that this is a huge emotional blow, but it is what the law requires us to do," said Schofied. Thompson says many workers will now have to search for the records and go through a process of proving their radiation exposure to get compensation. That could take years. "Many of these people have cancer. They don't have time. Between getting treatment for their illnesses and making bill payments, they don't have time to search for radiation records from decades ago and recall which building they worked in and how much radiation that they were exposed to. We literally had people dying to hear this decision, now they have to wait even longer," said Thompson. The board will meet later in June to address how the rest of the workers might be considered for compensation. (Copyright KUSA*TV. All rights reserved.) ***************************************************************** 53 Denver Post: Die is cast for Flats stricken jim spencer Denver Post Staff Columnist Article Last Updated: 05/04/2007 12:58:31 AM MDT Buzz off and die. That's the printable version of the message the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health sent to former employees of Rocky Flats by a straw vote taken Thursday. The advisory board continued the government's shameless betrayal of workers at the contaminated nuclear weapons plant. Board members refused to recommend benefits for those with certain radiation-related cancers unless they worked at the plant from 1952 to 1958. Over the next 30 days, the board may consider extending benefits to those who worked at Rocky Flats from 1959 to 1970, those who worked in Building 881 or those exposed to thorium. Ex-employees say the board's moves do not cover 80 percent of those seeking help with cancers and lung problems that they believe are related to Cold War jobs making triggers for nuclear weapons. In other words, buzz off and die. The advisory board's cynicism dovetails nicely with that shown for years by the federal Departments of Energy and Labor. The board's display of cruelty came after listening to testimony Wednesday from desperate, sick people. Before Wednesday, Hanna Marschall said, she had never spoken in public to a federal board. But with inoperable breast cancer and a diagnosis that gives her only a year or two to live, the former Rocky Flats manager pleaded with the board to "give us our time left to live with dignity and peace of mind." No such luck. "It's absolutely incredible that they could be so coldhearted," Marschall said Thursday after the board's decision. "They want us to give up and die quietly or spend the rest of our lives begging." That's what happens when bureaucrats and bean counters call the shots. "Everybody out there was exposed to radiation and chemicals," said 82-year-old Bob Carlson, who worked at Rocky Flats from 1962 to 1989. "They're trying to ignore that because President Bush put the kibosh on this. They don't have the money to pay." Pollution did not magically end in 1970, said Carlson, who monitored radiation for 17 years and has colon cancer. The government bases its refusal to help on the cruelest Catch-22: The government and the plant's operator did not keep good enough records to document the workers' actual doses of toxics. The idea that botched record-keeping entitles the feds to keep from doing right by Rocky Flats' workers defines bad faith. Reconstructed radiation doses that the government now seeks to apply are based on faulty or missing data, Colorado's congressional delegation said in a joint letter to the advisory board. It takes a tragedy just short of an act of God to unite this state's U.S. senators and representatives. But the foot-draggers and fools at Labor and Energy managed to do it. "Numerous reports have accused the Department of Energy and the Department of Labor of mismanaging, delaying and wrongfully denying benefits due Rocky Flats and other nuclear energy workers," the delegation wrote. "Agency documents suggest the Department of Labor delayed and denied benefits as a result of conscious administrative policies." The 100-plus people who packed the hearing room Wednesday at the Westminster Westin Hotel are the working stiffs who make this country run. There was barely a suit in the group. There were, however, breathing devices, canes and walkers. And an even more painful sense of violated trust. Judy Padilla carried a picture of herself working in metallurgical operations at Rocky Flats. Padilla said she handled hundreds of grams of weapons- grade plutonium each day. She contracted breast cancer. Two of her co-workers died of brain-stem cancer. A male boss died of breast cancer. Former Rocky Flats carpenter and cancer victim Mike Mobley went through a five-year runaround only to have his benefits denied. Mobley put the whole debacle in perspective: The government, he said, has "spent considerably more money denying my claim than it would have cost to pay it and let me enjoy my life." Jim Spencer's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Reach him at 303-954-1771, jspencer@denverpost.com or blogs.denverpost.com/spencer. All contents Copyright 2007 The Denver Post or other copyright holders. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 54 Denver Post: Rocky Flats: "Just not right" Denver Post Staff Writer Article Last Updated: 05/04/2007 12:48:38 PM MDT Former Rocky Flats worker Michelle Dobrovolny covers her face Thursday after the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health delayed action on ex-employees' petition for compensation and health benefits. (Post / Karl Gehring) Westminster A federal advisory panel stunned, confused and angered a roomful of former Rocky Flats workers and their families Thursday, voting to allow coverage for only a limited number of workers exposed to neutron radiation between 1952 and 1958. A majority of the former nuclear weapons plant workers with cancer and other illnesses appear to have lost an attempt to get compensation and health benefits. "It's just not right," said Michelle Dobrovolny, 42, who worked at Rocky Flats for 16 years and has lost family members who worked there to "hideous cancers." "I thought we had more support," she said. "They took everything from us." The panel - the Advisory Board on Radiation Online Extras * Watch video from Wednesday's Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) meeting in Westminster. * Watch former Rocky Flats workers Mike Logan, Judy Padilla and Charlie Wolf talk about their experiences and the health issues they've encountered. * Visit the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health web site for information on filing worker claims and how to contact the board. * Browse biographies of board members with the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. and Worker Health - also delayed for 30 days determination of coverage for three other groups: those exposed to neutron radiation from 1959 to 1970, those who worked in Building 881 and those who were exposed to the chemical thorium. But even if those groups are ultimately covered, Jennifer Thomp son, who drafted the "special exposure cohort" petition, estimated about 80 percent of the workers would still be shut out by the 7-3 vote. There is an appeal process, but Thompson wasn't sure what it was. "We came here today wanting a vote on the petition as a whole," said Thompson, who worked at Rocky Flats for 14 years. "People should not have to fight with the government when they are fighting for their lives." U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, who supported the workers with the rest of the Colorado congressional delegation, said he was "extremely disappointed" with the panel's vote. "With this exceedingly narrow and confusing decision, the board has left thousands of former Rocky Flats workers without resolution," the Colorado Democrat said in a statement. "By focusing on the issue of 'sufficient accuracy,' the board has totally lost focus on the other essential purpose of the law: timely compensation." Nila Adkins holds Laura Schultz's hand while showing a photo of her husband, Ben, and their grandson Anthony Garrimone. Ben Adkins died in 2003 after working at Rocky Flats for 22 years. So far, 776 payments have been made out of 6,140 radiation-exposure claims filed. (Post / Karl Gehring) At issue is finding the documents to support whether the illnesses were related to the Rocky Flats work. So far, 776 payments have been made out of 6,140 claims filed. The petition drafted by Thompson and submitted two years ago sought $150,000 plus medical coverage for each Rocky Flats worker who has one of 22 cancers. Former Rocky Flats worker Liz Huebner wanted benefits for those who worked there in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. "If the board is just going to consider up to 1970, most of those people are dead," Huebner said. Mark Danhauer, hired as part of the $7 billion Superfund cleanup that ended in late 2005, said, "I don't understand why people who cleaned up are excluded." Danhauer, who said he wiped radioactive dust off pipes, later developed kidney cancer that means "I can't take care of my family." Today, the board will take a formal vote on the resolution, which will have cleaned-up language, during its final session at the Westin Westminster. Board chairman Paul Ziemer said the issue is not officially closed until the group's next meeting in June. Board member Jim Melius told Thompson after the vote that "until the classes are differentiated, you don't know who is excluded." The Rocky Flats plant, located about 16 miles northwest of downtown Denver, produced about 70,000 plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons from 1952 until 1989. A wildlife refuge is expected to open later this year on 6,000 acres of the 6,500-acre site. The Colorado congressional delegation's joint letter said the workers "deserve to be honored and cared for by the nation they served." It decried "delays and denials" by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the advisory board. Gov. Bill Ritter joined the congressional chorus for action, sending a letter to the advisory board that read, "It is time, far past time, that fair compensation is provided to the people who worked and toiled at Rocky Flats on behalf of a great national purpose, and who may have been stricken as a result of their work." Staff writer Ann Schrader can be reached at 303-278-3217 or aschrader@denverpost.com. All contents Copyright 2007 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 55 LA Daily News: Field lab victory A judge confirms pleas that site must have full cleanup Article Last Updated: 05/03/2007 07:04:58 PM PDT ALL the current and future residents of the areas around the former Rocketdyne site won a victory Wednesday with a judge's ruling that the site must be fully cleaned up before it is safe for use. The Department of Energy's plan had been to leave 99 percent of the contaminated soil at the former Santa Susana Field Lab, despite the knowledge of toxins and radiation and even a nuclear meltdown. The plan wasn't nearly enough to satisfy people who worried that letting the land be developed without a full toxic cleanup would endanger many lives. The Santa Susana Field Lab site is clearly not safe for use yet. And the judge was right to force a full cleanup. Copyright © 2007 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 56 KMGH: Board's Vote Fills Rocky Flats Employees With Disappointment - KMGH Denver ROCKY FLATS FIGHT * Video: Workers Devastated By Board Outcome * Video: Rocky Flats Compensation Package Debated Vote Gives Compensation To Some, But Not To Many Others UPDATED: 8:14 pm MDT May 3, 2007 WESTMINSTER, Colo. -- A group of former Rocky Flats employees said they were filled with disappointment after a federal panel voted to give compensation to some workers who were exposed to plant radiation, but not to others. The group voted to delay or deny payouts to many former workers that say years of exposure to radiation has caused cancer and other illnesses in them. A federal advisory board recommended to make it easier for only a small group of former workers at the now-closed Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant to get compensation for work-related cancers. The employees were asking for help as a group. "They took everything from us," said one Rocky Flats employee after hearing the decision. The board made the recommendation Thursday in a meeting in Westminster. The recommendation will go to the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, which makes the final decision. The presidential panel was in town reviewing the group's petition to become a Special Exposure Cohort. That designation would give workers with any of 22 radiation-related cancers full medical benefits and $150,000 compensation. Former workers at 21 other government nuclear sites can get benefits simply by proving they have a form of cancer that can be caused by radiation. But former Rocky Flats workers must prove their diseases were the result of exposure to plutonium or chemicals at the plant. "We're the sick workers. We don't have that luxury of time," said former Rocky Flats worker Michelle Dobrovolny. "I don't know if I'll be able to see my children at a wedding, or graduate from college." The panel has recommended applying the more liberal standard only to people who worked at Rocky Flats between 1952 and 1958. Senator Ken Salazar said he was extremely disappointed by the board's vote in a statement released Thursday afternoon. “With this exceedingly narrow and confusing decision, the board has left thousands of former Rocky Flats workers without resolution," he said. "By focusing on the issue of ‘sufficient accuracy,’ the board has totally lost focus on the other essential purpose of the law: timely compensation." “I am on the side of Rocky Flats workers, and our government should be too," Salazar added. "These workers have waited more than two years since their petition was filed and they were entitled to an immediate and just decision.” "People say, 'oh, you look great.' But inside of me I have three cancers," said former Rocky Flats worker Wally Gulden. "I have lymphoma, which started in the stomach, went to the kidney, and then went back to the other kidney." The Rocky Flats plant about 15 miles northwest of Denver made plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons. It closed in 1989 because of safety concerns and the end of the Cold War. For years, employees have tried to prove the link between exposure to radiation a Rocky Flats and cancer. A federal agency continues to comb through plant dosage records. "It's not their lives. It's nobody they know personally. They just hear stories," said former worker Valerie Thielen. That's all it is. It's just a story to them." The presentations on the 2006 Rocky Flats Annual Surveillance and Maintenance Report are posted on the Rocky Flats Legacy Management Web site. Copyright 2007 by TheDenverChannel.com. The Associated Press ***************************************************************** 57 Rocky Mountain News: Flats workers strike out in aid try Most who began at plant after '70 unlikely to prevail Photos By Javier Manzano © News Mary An Rupp, widow of Martin Rupp, a former Rocky Flats employee, weeps Thursday after the federal Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health decided against grandfathering former Rocky Flats employees into an aid program for those afflicted by cancer. Rupp's husband died of lung cancer in 1995 at the age of 45, after working at Rocky Flats for nine years. By Laura Frank And Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News May 4, 2007 Former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons workers were left furious and tearful Thursday when a federal advisory board decided their cancers would not automatically qualify them for aid. The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health recommended that only certain workers who were exposed to one kind of radiation from 1952 to 1958 be grandfathered into a program providing medical care and compensation. Three other groups will get further consideration by the board next month on whether they should also get automatic approval for the aid program because their records are too poor to prove that radiation on the job caused their illnesses. The board, which is appointed by the president, officially delayed a decision on the remaining workers with the 22 types of cancer recognized as caused by radiation. But it signaled that most who started work after 1970 would be out of luck. Those workers could face a long process of trying to find individual contamination records and win the battle for help one person at a time. In deliberations, board members did not discuss hours of heart-wrenching testimony about lost loved ones, painful disease and infuriating rejections based on inaccurate records. Instead, the board made its decision on narrow technical grounds, covering only cases where records were actually missing for a large group. "I'm dumbfounded," said former worker Michelle Dobrovolny. "They act like it doesn't matter." "I'm mad. They're not human," said former worker Valerie Thielen. The board rejected calls from Colorado's entire congressional delegation, the governor and more than 100 Rocky Flats workers and survivors who attended the meeting asking that all employees who are sick or have died of cancer, or who might come down with the disease in the future, be qualified for help . Some 21 groups of workers at other nuclear weapons plants have been grandfathered into the program. Their average wait for a decision from the board was 284 days. The Rocky Flats workers have been waiting for a decision for 807 days. Board chairman Paul Ziemer admitted that the delay of a final decision to June leaves workers dangling. "It is not closed out officially," he said. In fact, the board's language was so confusing that workers and reporters had to ask the board what it had decided. Two board members said they thought they voted to reject most workers, while two others said they'd voted to leave their fate undecided. In the end, the board decided that it could bring up the issue at its next meeting, likely in Denver in June. After the board decided to put off its decision, Jennifer Thompson asked for a formal vote on the petition she wrote seeking that all Rocky Flats workers with cancer be approved for the program. "Our workers should not have to fight with the government when they are fighting for their lives. This has gone on long enough. Please vote," Thompson said. The board took a break after she spoke. Afterward, Thompson said the workers deserved to know their fate. "We need to know whether we need to appeal or file a lawsuit," Thompson said. "It's not like any information we provide now makes any difference in their decision-making process. That was clear today." Thompson argued that the board ignored the law requiring it to decide whether the records were adequate at the time the petition was filed more than two years ago. Since then, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has repeatedly revised its methods for estimating radiation doses where records are missing. NIOSH officials say that they have had to make estimates on virtually all of the 1,000 dose calculations made for Rocky Flats workers to date because records were missing. "These new models are unproven, untested and unvalidated," Thompson said. "The law requires timeliness. . . . Justice delayed is justice denied." Brant Ulsh, the chief NIOSH scientist on the Rocky Flats case, said his agency had gleaned enough data from records recovered from the now-demolished site to make the estimates. He said there was some validity to worker claims that the information was sometimes wrong. For instance, workers had said their radiation badge readings sometimes were recorded as zero exposure, even though they had been working in highly radioactive areas. "We didn't feel that there was anything that systemically compromised our ability to do dose reconstruction," Ulsh said. Workers who still have hope An advisory board's decision held out hope for only four groups of Rocky Flats workers seeking compensation for work-related cancers. It recommended approval for: ? Workers from 1952 to 1958 who were monitored or should have been monitored for neutron radiation. This may be up to 230 workers who have already filed claims for aid, many of them deceased. It recommended further discussion because records are still in question for: ? Workers from 1959 to 1970 who were monitored or should have been monitored for neutron radiation. This may be a significant number. ? Workers at any time who handled thorium. This is likely a small number. ? Workers in Building 881 during a time when plutonium was used there. This also is likely a small number. imsea@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5438 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************