*****************************************************************
05/24/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.122
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 [southnews] Is Bush Leading Us to Nuclear War?
2 Guardian Unlimited: Pentagon Assesses China's Military Power 
3 AFP: US stands by 'friend' Musharraf: top official - 
4 US: UCS: Another Contrived Missile Defense Test is Coming Up
5 US: SF Chron: Setback for warheads policy / House panel says it won'
6 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Panel denies cash for weapon
7 US: Inside Bay Area: House panel pulls plug on new nuclear bombs
8 Top UN Official Outlines Steps Towards Global Elimination Of Nuclear
9 Rediff: Are Pakistan's bombs safe?
10 RIA Novosti: New wars require new weapons
11 UPI: IAEA chief calls for end to nukes
12 IAEA: Report on Iran Safeguards Sent to IAEA Board, Security Council
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
13 US: [NukeNet] Nuclear power, banks link up in bid to get better fina
14 The Hindu: Rice hopes nuke deal will be finalised soon
15 Guardian Unlimited: Prime sites for nuclear power stations identifie
16 The Russia Journal: A chain reaction 
17 WNN: UK pre-licensing moves
18 US: Herald News: Exelon: More sites by 2030
19 US: newsobserver.com: Let nuclear plant workers vote on union, group
20 US: SunHerald.com: Repairs continue on damage vacuum seal at Miss. n
21 BBC NEWS: Study reveals prime nuclear sites
22 BBC NEWS: Pointers to a low-carbon future
23 BBC NEWS: Papers assess new nuclear report
24 BBC NEWS: Blame row erupts over power plant
25 US: POAC: NRC sees no reason to close Oyster Creek
26 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Callaway Nuc
27 US: Inquirer: Appeal for new nuclear plants | 
28 US: Platts: Two House panels approve bills to establish nuclear fuel
29 Independent Online: Nuclear power consultation launched - 
30 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss Preliminary Results of License Renewal Inspe
31 Independent Online: Blair commits to nuclear future as plans for fiv
32 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point pays $130,000 fine, promises new sire
33 US: recordonline.com: Cool Hand Nuke: Paul Newman endorses Indian Po
34 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC hearing will discuss Yankee's safety, 
35 US: NRC: NRC Authorizes Restart of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 1
36 Oxford Mail: County Could Get Nuclear Station 
37 Northern Echo: The Need To Go Nuclear 
38 Northern Echo: Falling Out Over Location Of Nuclear Power Plants 
39 The Herald: Facts behind the carbon storage debate
40 Kent News: Greens warn of nuclear cost as Government identifies Dung
41 Reuters: Likely nuclear sites need flood defences 
42 US: Decatur Daily: Unit 1 restart a welcome event
43 Berwickshire Today: New nuclear plants 'pie in sky'
44 Telegraph: Half-baked power strategy could lead to trouble 
45 The Tribune: Rice hopes to finalise N-deal soon
46 Telegraph: Why the Energy White Paper could be a white elephant
47 Comment is free: Nuclear disempowerment
48 US: KnoxNews: Browns Ferry reactor shut down
49 NewsRoom Finland: Finn leads Norway's thorium working group
50 US: PRN: Nuclear Industry Leaders Identify Challenges on Road to U.S
51 US: Birmingham News: TVA shuts down Browns Ferry reactor - 
52 AFP: US and India '90 percent' close to nuclear pact - 
53 News & Star: Calder Hall next in line for the tower topplers
54 Whitehaven News: Public to have say on nuclear
55 US: Guardian Unlimited: Leak Shuts Down Newly Restarted Reactor 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
56 IAEA: IAEA Chief Calls for New Nuclear Security Paradigm
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
57 NZ: Dominion Post: Raw deal for nuke test veterans - Opinion - 
58 US: THERECORD.COM: INSIDER | Radiation scare jams traffic
59 US: NAS: Project: Evaluation of Radiation Shielding for Space Explor
60 Whitehaven News: Millions paid out over Sellafield cancer deaths
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
61 Pahrump Valley Times: Radioactive Russian roulette
62 US: The Hindu: Australia not to sell uranium
63 US: Aiken Today: MOX funding passes
64 Las Vegas SUN: GOP senators reintroduce bill to speed waste to Yucca
65 ReviewJournal.com: NATIONAL PROBLEM: Nuclear dump concern grows
66 ReviewJournal.com: Bill puts Yucca on fast track
67 US: StarPhoenix: Wall touts uranium
68 US: UPI: Bill to move nuclear waste reintroduced
69 Mohave Daily News: Yucca Mountain bill reintroduced
70 Reid: Reid Discusses Energy Policy That Protects Consumers,
71 Reid: Reid, Ensign Respond to Dangerous Legislation That Would
72 Channel 4 KRNV.com: Senator Hillary Clinton Issues Statement on Yucc
73 LasVegasNOW.com: Yucca Mountain Project Takes Center Stage Again
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
74 DOE: DOE to Sell 35,000 Barrels of Oil from the Northeast Home 
75 Hanford News: Work continues on power plant refueling
76 Hanford News: Congressional leader criticizes vit plant
77 Tri-City Herald: CH2M Hill Hanford Group president leaving
78 KNDO/KNDU: A Look Inside the Northwest's Only Nuclear Power Plant
79 KnoxNews: Report touts DOE impact on economy
80 AFP: Strike at US nuclear weapons site raises security fears - 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [southnews] Is Bush Leading Us to Nuclear War?
 
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:37:43 -0500 (CDT)


... the United States demands that other countries end their nuclear 
programs, the Bush administration is busy planning a new generation of 
nuclear weapons. Nearly 20 years after the Berlin Wall crumbled, the 
United States is allocating more funding, on average, to nuclear weapons 
than during the Cold War.

The Bush administration is pumping this money -- more than $6 billion 
this year -- into renovating the nuclear weapons complex and designing 
new nuclear weapons. Such hypocrisy is one of the main obstacles to 
nuclear arms reductions because it runs the risk of shattering the 1970 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in which the nuclear-armed states 
pledged to begin the process of disarmament if the non-nuclear states 
opted not to pursue the deadly technology.

Is Bush Leading Us to Nuclear War?

By William D. Hartung and Frida Berrigan, In These Times

Posted on May 23, 2007, Printed on May 24, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51368/

Only days before the fifth anniversary of September 11, President George 
W. Bush addressed military officers in Washington to warn that 
nuclear-armed terrorists could "blackmail the free world and spread 
their ideologies of hate and raise a moral threat to America."

This alarmist vision was accompanied by the White House's release of "A 
National Strategy for Combating Terrorism," which painted a picture of a 
"troubling potential WMD terrorism nexus emanating from Tehran." The 
administration is building the case for war against Iran -- a job made 
easier by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent announcement that Iran 
can now enrich uranium on an industrial scale -- despite the fact that 
many Iran-watchers and nuclear experts consider their claims of 
enrichment capacity to be an overblown boast.

This is not the first time the "no-nuclear-weapons-for-you" ploy has 
been used to lay the groundwork for a war. On Oct. 7, 2002, while making 
the case for regime change in Iraq, President Bush said: "America must 
not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of 
peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that 
could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

Yellow cake, aluminum tubes and histrionics about Saddam Hussein's 
nuclear capabilities followed ... all of which were challenged at the 
time, and have turned out to be completely fabricated. And, when not 
grinding the axe of pre-emptive war as counter-proliferation strategy, 
the administration periodically raises the specter of nuclear terrorism, 
in the form of dirty bombs and suitcase-sized warheads.

But while the United States demands that other countries end their 
nuclear programs, the Bush administration is busy planning a new 
generation of nuclear weapons. Nearly 20 years after the Berlin Wall 
crumbled, the United States is allocating more funding, on average, to 
nuclear weapons than during the Cold War.

The Bush administration is pumping this money -- more than $6 billion 
this year -- into renovating the nuclear weapons complex and designing 
new nuclear weapons. Such hypocrisy is one of the main obstacles to 
nuclear arms reductions because it runs the risk of shattering the 1970 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in which the nuclear-armed states 
pledged to begin the process of disarmament if the non-nuclear states 
opted not to pursue the deadly technology.

The centerpiece of the administration's move toward developing a new 
generation of nuclear weapons is "Complex 2030," a multiyear plan 
introduced last April by the National Nuclear Security Administration 
(the semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy that 
oversees the nuclear weapons program).

Complex 2030 calls for the construction of new or upgraded facilities at 
each of the National Nuclear Security Administration's eight nuclear 
weapons-related sites throughout the country. The plan also calls for 
building a new nuclear weapon, the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), 
inside the old warheads. The program was conceived in response to 
concerns that the cores of existing nuclear weapons could be wearing out 
and need to be replaced. But RRW development has gone much further than 
that.

The Department of Energy (DOE) notes in its summary of Complex 2030 that 
one of the major goals of the program is to "improve the capability to 
design, develop, certify and complete production of new or adapted 
warheads in the event of new military requirements." In short, while the 
Bush administration has publicly stressed reductions in nuclear weapons, 
it is working to produce new, more usable nuclear weapons.

Three small steps forward

As a candidate for president in 2000, and during his first months in 
office, Bush suggested that the United States should significantly cut 
its nuclear arsenal. In his first address before a joint session of 
Congress, the new president went so far as to pledge: "We can discard 
Cold War relics and reduce our own nuclear forces to reflect today's 
needs." He followed through on this promise with the 2002 Strategic 
Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which calls for reducing the U.S. 
and Russian nuclear arsenals from 6,000 each -- the limit established 
under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty -- to between 1,700 and 
2,200 warheads each over a 10-year period.

Presidents Bush and Putin signed the treaty at Konstantin Palace in St. 
Petersburg right after the city celebrated its 300th birthday in June 
2003. Also known as the Treaty of Moscow, SORT has serious flaws. It has 
no method for verifying that each side is meeting its commitments; the 
cuts are not permanent -- neither side is obligated to destroy or 
dismantle the warheads, only to take them "off-line;" and both sides 
would have to agree to extend the treaty if they have not met their 
obligations by the time the treaty expires in 2012. After the Senate 
unanimously voted to ratify the treaty, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called 
it "as flimsy a treaty as the Senate has ever considered." Yet even with 
these flaws, SORT establishes important benchmarks and offers the 
potential of trust-building between the former superpower rivals.

Another positive development occurred in mid-February, when the Bush 
administration, after years of work through the "six party talks," 
announced a deal with North Korea. The hermit nation agreed to take the 
first steps toward dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for large 
supplies of fuel oil and eventual political recognition. The first phase 
of the agreement calls for North Korea to take concrete steps within 60 
days, including closing down its nuclear reactor at Yongbyon, getting 
inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground, 
and beginning to reveal the locations of its other nuclear facilities. 
In exchange, it will receive 50,000 tons of fuel oil at the end of the 
60-day period. The agreement demonstrates that the Bush administration 
is slowly learning the nuances of diplomacy -- you have to give to get.

More good news surrounds the recent fate of the Robust Nuclear Earth 
Penetrator (RNEP). One of the most controversial new weapon designs 
proposed by the nuclear weapons complex, the RNEP promised to destroy 
hardened and deeply buried targets, such as underground bunkers 
containing chemical and biological weapons and military command centers. 
Such a difficult challenge would necessitate decades of steady and 
climbing investment, making it the kind of techno-fantasy that the 
nuclear weapons complex of the future would love to tackle.

In 2003, Congress allocated $15 million to study the RNEP. But in 2004 
and 2005, Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio), then chair of the Water and Energy 
Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, led successful 
fights to defund the RNEP. Later, he boasted: "It's dead, forget about 
it! Go conventional. If I have to kick it three or four times, I'm going 
to keep kicking at it until we think we've totally gotten it out of the 
way."

Giant leaps backward

The Bush administration has aggressively counteracted these small 
positive developments with a succession of negative and destabilizing 
actions and statements -- the most significant of which is the assertion 
that nuclear weapons are a central component of U.S. military and 
political strategy.

This stunner was concealed within the administration's 2002 Nuclear 
Posture Review (NPR), a Pentagon report that relies on input from the 
Joint Chiefs and the armed services to define the role of nuclear 
weapons in U.S. security. The final classified report concluded that 
nuclear weapons "play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the 
United States, its allies and friends."

Submitted to Congress in January 2002, the NPR was not made public until 
portions were leaked to the press two months later. It states, "The need 
is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will ... be 
able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture and certify new 
warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain 
readiness to resume underground testing if required."

The NPR introduces the concept of a "new Triad," composed of nuclear and 
non-nuclear strike capabilities, defensive systems, and "responsive 
infrastructure" for maintaining and/or producing nuclear weapons as 
requested. The report also emphasizes the development of creative new 
nuclear weapons -- like low-yield or surgical warheads that are able to 
"reduce collateral damage," and nuclear bombs with "earth penetrating" 
capabilities.

The NPR concluded that nuclear weapons "provide credible military 
options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale 
conventional military force." The Bush NPR explicitly named potential 
targets -- Iran, Syria, North Korea, China and Russia. The review 
explained that the United States might use nuclear weapons to retaliate 
for the use of chemical or biological weapons against U.S. targets, as 
the ultimate tool in a military conflict over Taiwan, or, disturbingly, 
as a response to undefined "surprising developments." Proliferation 
trumps prevention

During the Cold War, spending on nuclear weapons averaged $4.2 billion a 
year. When the Cold War ended, DOE officials and members of Congress 
imagined the conversion of the nuclear weapons complex. But innovative 
proposals for civilian or green technology labs never got off the 
ground, and the nuclear labs successfully lobbied Congress for a new 
infusion of weapons money. By the end of President Clinton's tenure, 
nuclear weapons activities within the DOE's annual budget had jumped to 
$5.2 billion -- more than the Cold War average, but less than what the 
new Bush administration would say it needed.

Since then, spending on nuclear weapons has increased by almost 14 
percent to a 2007 total of $6.4 billion (after adjustment for 
inflation), but it is not enough to satisfy a nuclear-obsessed 
administration. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), 
formed in 2000 to manage the nation's nuclear weapons complex within the 
DOE, has a five-year "National Security Plan" that calls for annual 
increases that will push the nuclear weapons budget to $7.4 billion by 2012.

Compare these significant increases in nuclear spending to what the DOE 
is allocating for non-proliferation and prevention of nuclear conflict. 
The NNSA spends more than nine times more on "Atomic Energy Defense 
Activities" -- a category that includes nuclear weapons, naval nuclear 
reactors and environmental cleanup at military nuclear facilities -- 
than it does on nuclear arms reductions and non-proliferation.

In addition, spending on nuclear weapons research, development and 
maintenance in the DOE budget far outpaces the funding devoted to the 
development of alternative energy sources, a critical need in the age of 
global warming and dwindling oil supplies. The DOE's proposed budget for 
"Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy" -- which includes non-nuclear, 
non-fossil fuel forms of energy -- is $1.2 billion for FY 2008, 
one-thirteenth of expenditures on "Atomic Energy Defense Activities."

Upgrading nuclear capabilities

Under Complex 2030, the NNSA is taking steps to boost the U.S. ability 
to test and produce new warheads, and to consolidate production of 
uranium, plutonium and non-nuclear components within nuclear weapons.

The central component of Complex 2030 is the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead (RRW) program. The official rationale for the RRW program is to 
produce weapons that are safer and more durable than the warheads in the 
current stockpile. Supporters of RRW fear that the components of nuclear 
weapons could wear out and that the only way to know if the warheads are 
viable is to replace their inner workings. And -- the line of thinking 
continues -- as long as scientists are replacing the plutonium or 
uranium cores, they might as well "tweak" the weapon's design.

But the assertion that the old nuclear weapons need to be replaced by 
reliable new warheads is undermined by a recent NNSA study that 
indicates that the existing plutonium triggers, or "pits," may be viable 
for another 90 to 100 years. The report, issued in November and reviewed 
by an independent panel of scientists and academics, indicates the need 
for considerable skepticism of the Complex 2030 claims.

In addition, the RRW program will establish the infrastructure needed 
for future development of new warheads with new capabilities. A key 
element of this upgraded and consolidated nuclear infrastructure is a 
new facility to produce "pits," the plutonium triggers that set off the 
explosion of a hydrogen bomb. The DOE has proposed constructing a Modern 
Pit Facility, but Congress has deemed the $2 to $4 billion price tag too 
steep, and has rejected funding proposals for two years running.

As an alternative, the department is pushing the idea of a Consolidated 
Plutonium Center (CPC) that would bring all of the plutonium-related 
activities together at one site. The new facility would be a sort of 
"modern pit facility-plus," capable each year of producing 125 plutonium 
pits to trigger nuclear weapons, and at the same time develop new 
military applications for plutonium.

This more expansive concept is likely to cost more than the facility 
alone, but NNSA has yet to provide a cost estimate to Congress. A small 
down payment for the CPC -- $24.9 million -- is proposed in the FY 2008 
budget; budget projections for continuing work on the CPC total $282 
million through 2012.

Under Complex 2030, the new CPC will be one of a series "transformed" 
and "consolidated" nuclear sites. Currently, there are eight facilities 
-- Los Alamos National Laboratory (N.M.), Lawrence Livermore Laboratory 
(Calif.) and Sandia National Laboratories (N.M.), the Nevada Test Site 
(R&D activities, including sub-critical experiments), the Oak Ridge Y-12 
Plant in Tennessee (uranium and other components), the Pantex Plant in 
Texas (warhead assembly, disassembly, disposal), the Kansas City Plant 
(non-nuclear components), and the Savannah River Site (tritium 
extraction and handling) in Georgia.

While Complex 2030 would mandate that some of the sites have a smaller 
"footprint" (less floor space), it would also require the investment of 
tens of billions of dollars for new or upgraded factories, including two 
new factories -- a Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF) 
and a Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) -- at the Y-12 site; a new 
Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement facility at Los Alamos 
National Laboratory to "support plutonium operations"; a new factory for 
the production of non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons at the 
current site of the Kansas City plant; and significant upgrades at the 
Pantex warhead assembly/disassembly facility. The spending on the CPC is 
only a small portion of the as yet unknown costs of the Complex 2030 
initiative. Broken pledges, skeptical Congress

All of this raises concerns for Robert Civiak. A program examiner for 
Department of Energy national security programs in 1988 and 1989, Civiak 
now does research for Tri-Valley Cares, a group that advocates the 
elimination of nuclear weapons. He calls the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead a "multibillion dollar effort to redesign and replace every 
nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal." Jay Coghlan, executive director at 
Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, agrees, calling RRW a "nukes forever 
program, and a Trojan horse for future new designs."

NNSA's planning documents call for the production of the first RRW by 
2012, and according to analysis by James Sterngold in the San Francisco 
Chronicle, the work is already beginning. He writes, "Lab officials said 
researchers not only have produced extensive designs ... but they have 
already conducted non-nuclear tests of the critical detonation devices 
and other components. They have begun to plan in detail how the weapons 
would be manufactured."

Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.), the new chairman of the House Energy and 
Water Appropriations Subcommittee, has criticized the RRW project for 
its "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" approach. "There appears to have been 
little thought given to the question of why the United States needs to 
build new nuclear warheads at this time," he says. "My preference is 
that the DOE would have spent their resources reconfiguring the old Cold 
War complex and dismantling obsolete warheads." He has not ruled out 
slowing or eliminating the RRW if the administration is unable to 
present a strategy "that defines the future mission, the emerging 
threats and the specific U.S. nuclear stockpile necessary to achieve 
strategic goals."

The 110th Congress and beyond

In an August 2005 speech to a symposium on post-cold war nuclear 
strategy, Rep. Hobson described the administration's call for research 
on new bombs and the Nuclear Earth Penetrator as "very provocative and 
overly aggressive policies that undermine our moral authority to argue 
that other nations should forgo nuclear weapons."

Hobson's concerns are shared by a number of his colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, including Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), John Spratt 
(D-S.C.) and Lynne Woolsey (D-Calif.), all of whom joined him in 
successfully leading an effort to defund the Robust Nuclear Earth 
Penetrator. Skepticism about the need for massive investment in nuclear 
weapons at a time of huge war bills and growing deficits, a growing 
sophistication about nuclear issues, and a Democratic majority means 
that for the first time in years the nuclear weapons complex is feeling 
the heat.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) represents the state that houses the 
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which recently won the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead competition. In a press release issued after the 
decision, she said, "While I appreciate the fact that Lawrence Livermore 
was selected, this in no way answers my questions about the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead program" -- a program that she remains "100 percent 
opposed to."

Despite support from the White House, the DOE, key contractors, and a 
number of powerful members of Congress such as Sen. Pete Domenici 
(R-N.M.), Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) -- all 
of whom have nuclear weapons facilities in their states or districts -- 
the Complex 2030 plan to modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons 
infrastructure may be scaled back or rejected by congressional 
opponents, who will receive backing from arms control and environmental 
organizations.

But it will take more than cutting a million here or a billion there, 
more than gunning against a specific corner of the Complex 2030 plan, 
more than defunding the most aggressive or alarming aspects of the 
nuclear weapons complex, to deal with nuclear weapons in the 21st 
century. Members of Congress are going to need to challenge the bedrock 
of administration foreign policy -- that nuclear weapons should occupy 
center stage as a guarantor of U.S. security.

But they will not do that without being pushed -- and pushed hard -- by 
civil society. The urgency of the task creates opportunities for a big 
tent of strange bedfellows to work together: Weary cold warriors like 
George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn, who in 
January co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled "A World Free of 
Nuclear Weapons"; well-established Washington organizations like the 
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Arms Control 
Association; disarmament activists like Helen Caldicott and the 
Abolition 2000 network; and members of the international community from 
the United Nations on down are all saying the same thing: The United 
States cannot insist that other nations disarm or opt not to pursue 
nuclear technology, while aggressively ramping up U.S. nuclear 
capabilities. This hypocrisy cannot stand.

Global security through nuclear disarmament or a world awash in nuclear 
weapons. The choice is obvious. And it is ours to make.

) 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/51368/
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Pentagon Assesses China's Military Power 

From the Associated Press

Thursday May 24, 2007 9:31 PM

By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - China is devoting more resources to its 
military and the Pentagon wants Beijing to be more open about its 
intentions.

   Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday a new report on 
the status of China's military suggests the Chinese are 
developing some sophisticated capabilities.

            The report was expected to be released Friday.

    ``I don't think it does any arm-waving,'' Gates told Pentagon 
reporters in a brief preview of the report. ``I don't think it 
does any exaggeration of the threat. But it paints a picture of a 
country that is devoting substantial resources to the military 
and developing, as I say, some very sophisticated capabilities.''

    The assessment, released about this time each year, has 
issued persistent warnings that China is rapidly extending its 
military reach, buying more long-range aircraft and weapons that 
will allow it to compete with the United States and potentially 
pose a threat to other countries in Asia.

  Some of the new capabilities are a concern, Gates said. He did 
not provide details.

 ``We wish that there were greater transparency, that they would 
talk more about what their intentions are, what their strategies 
are,'' he added. ``It would be nice to hear firsthand from the 
Chinese how they view some of these things.''

   Asked if the report raised any particular concerns, Marine 
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it 
is essential that the U.S. has the means to defeat any new 
military capabilities.

  Without specifically naming China, he added that the U.S. needs 
to ``stay well out ahead of any potential adversary so that we 
are properly prepared, should somebody's intent change, to deal 
with that threat when it rises.''

    Last year's report said that improvements in China's 
long-term nuclear strategy and its precision weaponry ``have the 
potential to pose credible threats to modern militaries operating 
in the region.'' It said China's leaders had not adequately 
explained the purposes of the military expansion.

  U.S. analysts have been surprised by the pace and scope of 
China's military modernization. They have suggested the Chinese 
could be looking beyond Taiwan, the self-governing island that 
draws much of Beijing's attention.

On the Net:
Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 3 AFP: US stands by 'friend' Musharraf: top official - 

Thursday May 24, 07:11 PM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States stands by embattled Pakistani
President Pervez Musharraf but wants his regime to do more to quell
Taliban and Al-Qaeda violence in Afghanistan, a top US official said.

"Pakistan is a great friend of the United States. We have a very
close relationship with President Musharraf," Under Secretary of
State Nicholas Burns told the Heritage Foundation.

"We strongly supported President Musharraf and will continue to do
so," he said.

Pakistan's military ruler is enduring the most intense opposition
since he seized power in a 1999 coup, after sacking the country's
popular and independent-minded chief justice in March.

But analysts argue that having sunk billions of dollars into
Musharraf's regime, the US administration is hamstrung amid deadly
unrest in Pakistan, which is also locked in nuclear-fueled tensions
with India.

Since the September 11 attacks of 2001, Pakistan has received
roughly 10 billion dollars in US funding including for
counter-terrorism operations along its border with Afghanistan.

The New York Times said Sunday the payments continue even though
Musharraf had decided eight months ago to slash patrols through the
lawless border area where Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters are most
active.

Burns said the US government hopes that in the border region,
"further and stronger efforts can be made to make sure that
terrorist groups are not using Pakistani soil to attack inside of
Afghanistan."

"But we have a good relationship with Pakistan. President Musharraf
is a friend of our country," he said.

Burns added: "We hope that there can be progress in building
Pakistan's own democracy over the months and years ahead."

Despite a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, the US official said
the fundamentalist Islamic militia was "not winning."

"We have taken the fight to them over the last 18 months, since the
increase in Taliban attacks has been so evident, and the Taliban has
lost nearly all of the encounters that it's had with the United
States, Afghan and NATO militaries.

"And the Afghan government is obviously dedicated to seeing its own
authority remain in the country, and to seeing that of the Taliban
reduced."


Copyright � 2007 Yahoo!7 Pty Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 4 UCS: Another Contrived Missile Defense Test is Coming Up

May 23, 2007

Decoys Would Overwhelm System, Says Union of Concerned Scientists

WASHINGTON (May 23, 2007) An intercept test for the U.S. 
ground-based midcourse missile defense system is scheduled to 
take place as early as tomorrow morning, weather permitting. The 
test was originally scheduled for last December, but was delayed 
by software problems.

`Coming in the midst of a congressional funding debate, a hit
or miss is likely to be taken as a sign of the health of the
program,' said David Wright, a senior scientist at the Union
of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and co-director of the
organization&rsquo;s Global Security Program. `But the test
will tell little or nothing about whether the system will be able to
intercept attacking warheads.'

Given that the system is still in early stages of research and
development, the tests are highly scripted and artificial, Wright
said. There has been only one successful intercept test of the
ground-based system since October 2002. And the upcoming test is
only the second one to use the interceptor booster that is intended
to be part of a deployed system.

The purpose of the tests is to develop a system that can guide a
`kill vehicle' to collide with an identifiable target
warhead. But, Wright pointed out, accomplishing this difficult
technical step does not address the biggest challenge a working
defense would have to face: decoys. The test slated for tomorrow
will include no decoys or other countermeasures that would keep the
system from identifying which object it should intercept.

`Until the system shows it can deal with decoys, it is
irrelevant to stopping real-world threats,' Wright added.
`Until that happens, Congress should stop spending money for
more interceptors.'

As a joint UCS-MIT technical analysis `Countermeasures'
concluded, any country capable of building a long-range missile and
nuclear warhead could build effective countermeasures to put on the
missile. Missile Defense Agency claims that the mock warheads in its
tests are `threat representative' ignore these facts,
Wright said.

The upcoming test appears to be essentially a repeat of the test
that took place last September. A mock warhead will be launched from
Kodiak, Alaska, with an interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air
Force Base in California.
  
Reporters: Join our notification list to receive breaking news 
from UCS.

General media inquiries can be directed to our media office line 
at 202-331-5420. If you are calling about a specific issue, 
contact the appropriate press contact below.

Press Contacts:

Energy, Food, Scientific Integrity MEGHAN CROSBY Assistant Press 
Secretary 202-331-6943 mcrosby@ucsusa.org

Climate, Global Security, Vehicles, Invasives AARON HUERTAS 
Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-5458 ahuertas@ucsusa.org

Scientific Integrity, Vehicles LISA NURNBERGER Press Secretary 
202-331-6959 lnurnberger@ucsusa.org

Climate, Food EMILY ROBINSON Press Secretary 202-331-5427 
erobinson@ucsusa.org

ELLIOTT NEGIN Media Director 202-331-5439 enegin@ucsusa.org

� Union of Concerned Scientists
Page Last Revised: 05/24/07
*****************************************************************
 5 SF Chron: Setback for warheads policy / House panel says it won't fund new
nuclear weapons

James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, May 24, 2007

In a surprising rejection of the Bush administration's nuclear
weapons policy, a House appropriations subcommittee said Wednesday
that it would refuse to fund a program to manufacture new warheads
designed by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

The announcement by the subcommittee marks just the first step in a
long legislative process that could still keep the new weapons
program alive, but it provided a stark indication of deep resistance
to the policy in Congress.

"This is a reflection of the concern that many of us have about the
posturing of the administration" regarding its nuclear weapons
policy, said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek.

Tauscher is chairwoman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, which
has supported providing a low level of funding for the new program,
but only after the creation of a commission that would examine the
country's nuclear weapons needs into the future.

The Livermore weapons lab won the initial competition to design the
new warhead earlier this year, and officials had said the lab was
preparing to move ahead with more detailed design work. A lab
spokesman said Wednesday that Livermore is not giving up hope yet
and will work with Congress to obtain the needed funding.

"There will be at least four committees with recommendations on this
subject, and we will work with all of them," said lab spokesman
David Schwoegler.

For several years, the Bush administration has received a low level
of funding to do the initial design work on what is being called the
Reliable Replacement Warhead program, or RRW.

The administration has argued that the current weapons stockpile,
developed during the Cold War, is aging and should be replaced over
time with weapons that are safer and more reliable. Opponents of the
program have argued that the current weapons will last for decades,
and that the country ought to be slowly reducing the stockpile to
fight weapons proliferation.

The administration was seeking a little more than $100 million in
funding for the program next year. But the chairman of the House
energy and water appropriations subcommittee, Rep. Pete Visclosky,
D-Ind., issued a harsh rebuke, saying he will fight any funding
until the administration offers a clear strategy justifying the need
for new weapons.

"Until progress is made on this critical issue, there will be no new
facilities or a Reliable Replacement Warhead," Visclosky said. "Only
when a future nuclear weapons strategy is established can the
Department of Energy determine the requirements for the future
nuclear weapons stockpile and nuclear weapons complex plan."

Experts described the action as a sign that the program is in real
trouble.

"This represents the most significant repudiation of the
administration's plan," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of
the Arms Control Association, which supports reducing the size of
the stockpile. "This may mark the beginning of the end of the plan
to build a new generation of nuclear weapons."

The plan's supporters made it clear that the battle will now just
move to the full House and then the Senate.

"It is still early in the congressional process, and this is just
one of several committees we work with," said Bryan Wilkes, a
spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which
oversees the weapons complex.

Tauscher said the key at this point will be what level of funding
the Senate provides, if any, which would then require a compromise
with the House.

E-mail James Sterngold at Jsterngold@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 6 of the San�Francisco�Chronicle

*****************************************************************
 6 Salt Lake Tribune: Panel denies cash for weapon

Utah's Matheson praises the House Appropriations Committee on move

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 05/24/2007 01:46:02 AM MDT

WASHINGTON - A House panel axed funding for a new generation of
nuclear weapon that the Bush administration is proposing to build.

    The Energy Department had asked for $89 million for the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program, but the House Appropriations Energy and
Water subcommittee stripped all of the program's money out of the
budget.

    Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, a vocal opponent of the RRW program,
praised the move.

    "I think it sends a message that we ought to be having a
conversation about what our long-term nuclear weapons policy will
be," Matheson said. "These decisions have been made in a vacuum. We
ought to take a step back as a country and talk about this and
decide what we should and shouldn't be doing."

    Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., the chairman of the subcommittee,
said a comprehensive nuclear strategy is needed in order to shrink
the stockpile of nuclear weapons, and until that strategy takes
shape "there will be no new facilities or Reliable Replacement
Warhead."

    "Given the track record of mismanagement at the agency for
projects that have a plan, I don't think it is asking too much for a
comprehensive nuclear strategy before we build a new nuclear
weapon," Visclosky said.

    The funding levels still have to go through full committee, the
House and the Senate.

    Matheson has expressed concern that development
of a new nuclear weapon could lead to renewed testing, possibly in
Nevada. Last week, Matheson once again introduced legislation aimed
at requiring a series of safety checks should new testing be pursued.

    His bill, which he also introduced in the last Congress, would
mandate a full environmental study and congressional approval before
a test could be conducted, and would require careful monitoring.

    "The bill itself will be a challenge to move and it gives us a
starting point to take a look at all those issues," he said.

    Matheson also sent a letter, along with Rep. Mike Simpson,
R-Idaho, to House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers,
D-Mich., asking the chairman to consider holding a hearing to review
the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The law was created to
compensate people sickened by exposure to fallout from weapons
tests, as well as uranium miners, millers and ore transporters.

    Simpson and Matheson would like the 1990 act reviewed, believing
the list of counties currently eligible for RECA should perhaps be
expanded to include northern Utah and parts of Idaho.

© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 7 Inside Bay Area: House panel pulls plug on new nuclear bombs

If Senate complies, work on new warheads would cease at Livermore
Lab this fall

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

Article Last Updated: 05/24/2007 03:11:01 AM PDT

A powerful House spending committee Wednesday killed funding for a
new nuclear bomb factory and the first of several new warheads
planned to replace the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The double cuts mark the latest in four years of defeat for the Bush
administration's plans for new nuclear weapons and new bomb
facilities to maintain them.

If Senate lawmakers agree, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory would cease working on the first "reliable, replacement
warhead" this fall, and plans for the new Complex 2030 would be
shelved.

The House cuts suggest that while lawmakers may continue funding
paper studies of the new bomb at a low level, political support is
thin for moving on to engineering and prototyping the bomb, as well
as a factory to produce it.

House lawmakers who hold the purse strings for nuclear weapons work
said the nation first needs to decide what its nuclear weapons are
for ? just deterring nuclear attack, for example, fighting wars or
something in between ? and how many are needed before embarking on
expensive new hydrogen bomb projects.

House Energy and Water Appropriations chairman Rep. Pete Visclosky,
D-Ind., said in a statement that "until progress is made on this
critical issue, there will be no new facilities or reliable
replacement warhead."

Visclosky criticized the Energy Department for repeatedly blowing
its budget and deadlines for buildings, scientific machines,
environmental cleanups and other projects.

"Given the track record of mismanagement at the agency for projects
that have a plan, I don't think it is asking too much for a
comprehensive nuclear strategy before we build a new nuclear
weapon," he said.

A separate group of House lawmakers led by Alamo Democrat Ellen
Tauscher wants to let Livermore scientists keep working on the
warhead design, at least until they have detailed answers for its
costs, ease of production and difficulty of certifying its operation
without exploding one.

Tauscher and other Democrats have been drawn by the idea of a
nuclear bomb that could lead to a global test ban treaty and steeper
arms reductions, one so hardy that it never needs explosive testing
and so easy to manufacture that the nation can keep fewer of them in
storage. Critics have noted that the existing nuclear arsenal is in
good shape and building new bombs would set back U.S. efforts to
discourage other nation's nuclear weapons programs.

Tauscher, as chair of the House strategic forces subcommittee,
nonetheless cut more than a third of the $120million requested by
the Bush administration for the new bomb studies and eliminated all
funding for the new bomb factory.

She would create a commission of yet-unnamed experts to draw up
recommendations on U.S. nuclear forces and strategy before spending
more.

Attention now shifts to the Senate, where lawmakers likewise are
divided between axing the two projects and funding the bomb study
enough to see whether it can deliver on supporters' promises of
cheaper, longer-lived nuclear bombs that won't need testing.

A new plutonium facility that would be the centerpiece of the
administration's Complex 2030 plan and assume all bomb production
work have been cut from every bill in Congress so far this year.

"This whole, big bomb plant has just sunk below the waves without a
ripple," said David Culp, chief legislative analyst for the Friends
Committee on National Legislation. "That thing has just disappeared
without an objection from either the administration or anyone,
really."

Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com.

� 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy 

*****************************************************************
 8 Top UN Official Outlines Steps Towards Global Elimination Of Nuclear Weapons
 
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:01:47 -0400

TOP UN OFFICIAL OUTLINES STEPS TOWARDS GLOBAL ELIMINATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
New York, May 24 2007  2:00PM
The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency today called 
for the development of a new global security system in which nuclear 
weapons are obsolete.

�The solution, in my view, lies in creating an environment in which 
nuclear weapons are universally banned, morally abhorred, and 
their futility unmasked,� Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of 
the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/index.html">IAEA), 
told an international conference in Luxembourg 
on the prevention of nuclear catastrophe.

He <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2007/ebsp2007n006.html">noted 
that, of late, nuclear threats have become more dangerous, 
pronounced and immediate given the emergence of the illicit 
trade in nuclear technology, the development of clandestine programmes 
and the desire by extremist groups to obtain such weapons.

Simultaneously, climate change and the desire for energy security 
are propelling many non-nuclear nations to consider nuclear power. 
However, nuclear material production is a dual-use technology 
that elevates the possibility of more countries becoming nuclear 
powers.

In addition to these hazards, Mr. ElBaradei pointed out the risks 
posed by existing nuclear arsenals as non-nuclear countries are 
moved to emulate other nations with nuclear capability. �And of course, 
plans to replenish and modernize these weapons creates a pervasive 
sense of cynicism among many non-nuclear-weapon States � 
who perceive a �do as I say, not as I do� attitude,� he said.

The solution to this spiralling problem lies in the implementation 
and development of a new worldwide security system where nuclear 
weapons play no role, he asserted.

To achieve this, the Director General outlined four steps towards 
bolstering the movement towards eliminating the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons.

Firstly, existing stockpiles must be secured and controls over the 
transfer and production of nuclear material must be tightened, 
he asserted. All information regarding the export of such materials 
and the technology involved should be reported to the IAEA.

Secondly, he called for the IAEA�s authority and capability to verify 
the nuclear programmes of nations to be strengthened. At present, 
the agency is �forced to make do on a shoestring budget,� and 
thus is lagging behind in the state-of-the-art technology necessary 
to perform its function.

Additionally, approaches to dealing with the spread of nuclear weapons 
must be made more effective, Mr. ElBaradei said, referring 
to the IAEA�s reliance on the Security Council to enforce non-proliferation 
obligations through such measures as dialogue and sanctions. 
However, he explained, �judging by our record in recent years, 
these measures � rather than being applied in a systematic manner 
to deal effectively with proliferation issues � are employed 
haphazardly, and too often with political overtones.�

Lastly, disarmament must be taken more seriously, he stated. As nuclear 
weapon-possessing countries continue to expand and update 
their arsenals, non-nuclear nations are questioning why it is �OK 
for some to live under a nuclear threat, but not others.�

�What the weapon States consistently fail to take into account is 
the impact of their actions,� Mr. ElBaradei stressed. �Whether they 
choose to continue their reliance on nuclear weapons, as the 
centrepiece of their security strategy, or to abandon that reliance, 
their choice will undoubtedly influence the actions of others.�

Yesterday, he submitted his latest report regarding Iran�s nuclear 
programme to the Security Council.

The report, entitled �Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement 
and Relevant Provisions of Security Resolutions in the Islamic 
Republic of Iran,� covers the period since Mr. ElBaradei�s previous 
report of 22 February.

It was also circulated to the agency�s 35-member Board of Governors, 
which will consider the report at its next series of meetings 
in Vienna starting on 11 June.
 2007-05-24 00:00:00.000 


___________________

For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ 
_______________________________

To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/
*****************************************************************
 9 Rediff: Are Pakistan's bombs safe?

Alex Stolar

May 24, 2007
It has been a very painful week in Pakistan.


On May 12th, over forty people died when violence broke out in
Karachi between political factions supporting and opposing President
Musharraf. Three days later, a suicide bomber entered a hotel
restaurant in Peshawar and detonated the explosives strapped to his
body, killing at least twenty persons.

Recent turbulence has renewed fears that Pakistan's nuclear weapons
and materials may be vulnerable to breakdowns in command and control
or theft. The good news is that these nightmare scenarios are
unlikely to occur during the current political unrest. The bad news
is that Pakistan's domestic unrest will continue and grow worse
without the restoration of a representative government, and that
extremists have many ways to further destabilise Pakistan.

Are Pakistan's bombs safe? In theory, Pakistan's nuclear weapons
could be vulnerable to theft, illicit transfer, or unintentional use
if the army's discipline and command and control structure faltered.
Concerns about the security of Pakistan's weapons are greatest in
the West when Pakistani politics enter a rough patch and during
leadership changes.

Fortunately, these worst case scenarios are highly unlikely.
Pakistan has been through worse passages of political unrest.
Intimidation, politically-driven violence, and sectarian strife are
all too common in Pakistani politics. If past experience is any
guide, the current unrest will not lead to anarchy or chaos in
Pakistan. The vast majority of Pakistanis desire a moderate and
stable State, and the army has an institutional interest to prevent
the breakdown of national authority and cohesion.

Pakistan's weapons were secure during previous periods of political
instability, and they are likely to remain the most protected
national assets during the current unrest. There are no signs of a
breakdown in command and control in the Pakistan army.

After the security leakages associated with A Q Khan, Pakistan's
military leadership took important steps to establish improved
safety and security practices. Pakistan's military authorities and
civilian leaders also established a robust nuclear command and
control structure after testing weapons in 1998.

Today, the military's Strategic Plans Division devotes over 8,000
men, mostly undercover, to protecting Pakistan's weapons and fissile
material. The Pakistani military is a highly capable and
professional force. It is highly improbable that it would hand over
its crown jewels to individuals or organisations that it cannot
control during this period of unrest.

It is equally unlikely that terrorists would be able to steal
Pakistani nuclear weapons or fissile material. It is true that the
fiat of the Pakistani State is being challenged throughout Pakistan,
and especially in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan. In the
most troubled regions, police and military forces are struggling to
maintain order. However, the installations that house Pakistan's
nuclear weapons and fissile material, as would be expected, are
heavily guarded and among the most secure facilities in all of
Pakistan.

Similarly, fears that the current unrest could lead to a takeover of
the Pakistani government by extremists are also misplaced. Religious
parties are an important element of Pakistani society, but their
political clout remains limited. It is unlikely that religious
parties could engineer a takeover of the Pakistani government, as
they lack both the popular support and the military power that would
be required. The political power of religious parties would be
further diminished if General Pervez Musharraf would remove the
shackles from the two major political parties in Pakistan that do
not define themselves in religious terms.

Unfortunately, unfounded fears about Pakistan's nuclear weapons have
obscured more pressing threats. Radiological terrorism in Pakistan,
as elsewhere, is possible. To conduct an act of radiological
terrorism, extremists would need to fashion a radiological dispersal
device, RDD, which consists of little more than conventional
explosives and radiological materials that can be found in
laboratories and hospitals. Though an RDD would cause few deaths, it
could contaminate a large swath of land and stretch Pakistan's
emergency response capabilities.

Extremists, however, need not resort to RDDs to wreak havoc and
instill fear. As recent bombings have illustrated, detonating
conventional explosives in a crowded area suffices to cause
extraordinary suffering.

With each bombing, President Musharraf's vision of an enlightened
and moderate Pakistan seems more illusive. The unraveling of
Musharraf's vision of enlightened moderation was not unpredictable.
For far too long, Musharraf has avoided making hard choices on the
most pressing problems which confront Pakistan -- on madrasa reform,
militancy in Kashmir, the resurgence of the Taliban, and democracy.

Musharraf is now entering a critical period, and he faces very
difficult choices about his future and the future of Pakistan. While
most alarmist predictions about the security of Pakistan's nuclear
weapons are unlikely to materialise, instability is likely to
increase unless Musharraf redirects the Pakistani ship of state.

Alex Stolar is a Herbert Scoville Jr Peace Fellow at the Stimson
Center's South Asia Program

© 2007 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer
*****************************************************************
 10 RIA Novosti: New wars require new weapons

Opinion & analysis - 

11:39 | 24/ 05/ 2007
 
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) -
Military dictionaries say that what distinguishes war from peace is
the massive use of weapons. But today this interpretation is
desperately obsolete.

The goal of a war of the future will not be to seize enemy territory
but to deal surgical strikes against sensitive targets.

International borders are not violated, large-scale use of ground
troops and armor is becoming a thing of the past, and the role of
strategic aviation is diminished. The traditional nuclear triad is
being replaced with non-nuclear high-accuracy weapons with different
basing modes.

In turn, this implies the presence of numerous satellite-based
reconnaissance, warning and targeting systems that themselves
require protection. This factor alone makes the development of space
weapons inevitable.

This series of articles deals with work on orbital combat systems,
modernization of strategic arms and development of entirely new
types of weapons.

Space weapons

These are weapons and auxiliary systems designed for deployment and
use in space. They consist of different types, principles of action
and designations. It is necessary to divide them into active and
passive elements. The latter include satellite systems for
reconnaissance, communications, and target indication that have been
used by many countries for a long time.

The more dangerous type, however, is the active elements, which can
be used for anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense, radio-electronic
warfare, orbital bombing of any territory with nuclear and
non-nuclear warheads, and anti-satellite weapons.

The main types of space-based assault weapons are:

1. Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Their warheads are
put into what is called the "staging orbit." In the event of a
crisis and a command to destroy targets, the
multiple-warhead-dispensing mechanism comes into action. This basing
mode was suggested for the American MX ICBM when Soviet-U.S.
tensions reached their peak in the early 1980s.

2. Ground-, air- and space-launched anti-satellite missiles.

3. Directed energy weapons, including chemical and X-ray lasers and
beams.

4. Electronic weapons: pulse generators of powerful radio waves for
radio-electronic warfare and magnetic-field-generated and plasma
compression pulses.

The main point is that space-based weapons allow comprehensive
control over the Earth's surface. The appearance of permanent manned
military stations in near-Earth orbit is only a matter of time.

Nonetheless, such stations will not be developed in the near future,
but automatic systems will. They will be equipped with weapons based
on new physical principles. Moreover, there is evidence that a
system has already been sent into space equipped with missiles and
lasers capable of destroying satellites in low, medium and
stationary orbits.

The military rivalry in space between the Soviet Union and the
United States in the late 1950s took two forms: anti-missile defense
and action against a potential enemy's space-based systems.

In the United States, work in both areas saw mixed success but
without any obvious conflicts between the people involved, whereas
in the Soviet Union it was dominated by good old-fashioned
behind-the-scenes clan struggle.

(To be continued)

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

        RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
 11 UPI: IAEA chief calls for end to nukes

United Press International - International Intelligence - Briefing

Published: May 24, 2007 at 5:36 PM

UNITED NATIONS May 24 (UPI) -- As nuclear buildup worldwide grows, a
top U.N. official says nations must stop relying on nuclear weapons
for their security.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the Vienna-based International Atomic
Energy Agency, said Thursday it will be difficult to prevent a
nuclear catastrophe unless the international community gives up its
reliance on nuclear weapons.

"The solution, in my view, lies in creating an environment in which
nuclear weapons are universally banned, morally abhorred, and their
futility unmasked," he said at a speech in Luxembourg.

While states with nuclear weapons extend and modernize their
arsenals, there is growing distrust among the non-nuclear states, he
said.

"Plans to replenish and modernize these weapons creates a pervasive
sense of cynicism among many non-nuclear-weapon states -- who
perceive a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude," he said.

ElBaradei outlined four steps he said would help countries move away
from reliance on nuclear weapons for security: secure existing
nuclear material stockpiles and tighten controls over the transfer
and production of nuclear material; strengthen the capability of the
IAEA; develop a more effective approach for dealing with
proliferation threats; and find a way for disarmament to be taken
seriously.

On Wednesday ElBaradei submitted his latest report regarding Iran's
nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council.

The report said Iran is still not complying with U.N. demands to
stop enriching uranium. Iran has said it wants nuclear materials for
peaceful purposes, but others fear it is building a nuclear weapons
program.

� Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 12 IAEA: Report on Iran Safeguards Sent to IAEA Board, Security Council

Staff Report

23 May 2007

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has circulated his latest
report to the upcoming meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on the
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant
Provisions of Security Council Resolutions in the Islamic Republic
of Iran. The report - submitted in parallel to the UN Security
Council - covers developments since Dr. ElBaradei�s report of 22
February 2007.

The 35-member Board will consider the report at its next meetings
beginning in Vienna on 11 June. The report�s circulation is
restricted and unless the IAEA Board decides otherwise it cannot be
released to the public.

See Story Resources for more information.

Copyright �, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
*****************************************************************
 13 [NukeNet] Nuclear power, banks link up in bid to get better financing
 
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 15:11:18 -0700


<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

http://thehill.com/the-executive/nuclear-power-banks-link-up-in-bid- 
to-get-better-financing-2007-05-24.html

Nuclear power, banks link up in bid to get better financing
By Kevin Bogardus
May 24, 2007

The nuclear energy industry and the country�s top banking  
institutions have together applied pressure on the Office of  
Management and Budget (OMB) to secure more comprehensive loan  
guarantees for new power plants. And lawmakers are responding by  
considering legislation that would ensure those guarantees.

In a meeting in April with OMB, a representative from the Nuclear  
Energy Institute (NEI), electric utility executives and a banking  
official pushed for complete loan guarantee coverage that could cover  
80 percent of a project�s cost. Without better coverage, say nuclear  
energy advocates, the nuclear �renaissance� could be seriously derailed.

Since the April meeting, the Department of Energy (DoE) has proposed  
that the federal government cover 90 percent of loan guarantees,  
higher than its original guidelines of 80 percent, released in August  
2006. DoE�s proposed coverage under Title XVIII of the Energy Policy  
Act of 2005, however, has left many in the nuclear industry  
dissatisfied because they seek 100 percent coverage.

�There either will be no or limited new nuclear plants developed  
without a workable loan guarantee program,� said Peter Saba of Paul,  
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker.

Saba, who represents nuclear energy companies and served in the DoE  
in the George H.W. Bush administration, attended the meeting and said  
that in the banking community, �there is not going to be any  
financing� unless the loan guarantee is fixed.

Loan guarantees by the federal government act as default protection  
for private lenders when they help finance massive projects, like  
nuclear power plants, to take into account certain risks and possible  
delays.

In materials circulated to OMB, executives from financial  
institutions including Credit Suisse and Lehman Brothers wrote that  
�lenders and investors in the fixed income markets will be acutely  
concerned about a series of major risks, including the possibility of  
delays in commercial operation of a completed plant.� They also made  
clear they wanted to avoid �another Shoreham� � referring to the  
decommissioned Long Island nuclear power plant that saddled residents  
with huge electric rates without producing any power.

The NEI provided a stark assessment by its New Plant Finance Task  
Force, a group of nuclear executives across the country. Without  
better loan guarantee coverage, the task force argued, companies  
would have difficulty in financing new plants, which can cost as much  
as $4 billion.

And even at 90 percent, financing the plan �will probably not be  
workable,� said Richard Myers, NEI�s vice president of policy  
development, who also attended the OMB meeting. Myers also said his  
trade group met separately with DoE to discuss the issue.

Nuclear power makes up a substantial share of the country�s  
electricity usage, providing close to 20 percent of America�s power,  
according to NEI�s website. Citing climate-change concerns, the trade  
group believes nuclear energy is vital for the nation�s energy  
portfolio. And the group�s allies on Capitol Hill argue that the rule  
is not in line with the 2005 bill.

�I believe that these proposed rules still are not as expansive as  
they should be and do not reflect the vision of the Energy Policy Act  
of 2005,� said Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), a main sponsor of the act  
and one of Congress�s most ardent nuclear advocates, in a statement.

In response, DoE said its rule should match the 2005 act�s  
requirement for 80 percent coverage of a project�s cost.

�To increase our energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,  
we are anxious to support projects that employ promising clean energy  
technologies while protecting the taxpayer dollar from the potential  
financial risks of these projects,� said Megan Barnett, an agency  
spokeswoman, when asked why DoE did not propose total coverage.

Staff members for Domenici have been meeting with aides for his New  
Mexico counterpart, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D), the chairman of the  
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, to discuss the issue.

The rule would affect not only nuclear power but producers of  
biofuels and other alternative energies. Renewable-energy company  
executives have also testified before members of the committee on the  
loan guarantee issue.

Like Domenici, House members involved in energy legislation have  
expressed reservations on loan guarantee coverage. Earlier this  
month, before the rule was proposed, four representatives, including  
John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas), the chairman and  
ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote to  
the White House about the issue.

The House has draft legislation online that would force DoE to  
increase its loan guarantee coverage to 100 percent. The Senate has  
already introduced a bill to do so.

In the interim, the NEI plans to address the proposed rule during its  
45-day public comment period. Saba expects other nuclear power  
companies will comment on the rule as well.



_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://mail.energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 14 The Hindu: Rice hopes nuke deal will be finalised soon

Thursday, May 24, 2007 : 2115 Hrs

Washington, May 24 (PTI): Hoping that the Indo-US nuclear deal would
be finalised "very soon," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has,
however, noted that there is a tendency to look at the bilateral
ties in the context of the pact but in fact they have far more depth
and width.

The US is having better relations with India than at any time in the
history of the bilateral relationship and with a recognition that
not only New Delhi is going to play "its own" role in the
international system but in a realisation that in any relationship
there are going to be differences, she said.

Rice made the point that there is a tendency to look at the
bilateral relations in the context of the civilian nuclear
initiative but the fact of the matter is that the US-India
relationship has far more depth and width.

"You tend to think only about the government-to-government piece,
you tend to think only about the very important civil nuclear deal
that we have concluded with India and hope to finalise very soon,
but this is a very broad and deep relationship and I think it's only
going to become more so over time," she said.

"When you look at a place like India you can see that we have better
relations with India now than really at any time in India's history
and in the history of our relationship with India. And it's because
it's based on a sense of partnership, a sense that India is an
emerging great multi-ethnic democracy and that means that it's going
to play its own role in the world," Rice said.

The top Bush administration official was at an event along with
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer at The Ronald Reagan
Library at Simi Valley, California.

Rice was responding to a querry from the audience on why moderate
Muslim groups in a democratic country like India are supposed to be
declining any association with the US.

The querry was in the context of Downer's observation that Indonesia
is the largest Islamic nation with India coming in next with the
largest number of Muslims and both countries are democracies.

"One of the things that we sometimes forget is that even if we have
very good relations with countries, they won't always agree with us.
And in the case of India, this is a country that in many ways, as
the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement at the time of the Cold War,
defined itself in juxtaposition to the policies of the United
States. And we've overcome a lot of that," Rice said.

"But it isn't going to overcome the fact that there will be
differences and there will be differences among parts of the
population. But I can tell you that when you go -- that the number
of Indian students studying in the United States, and now
increasingly Americans who want to study in India, the number of
contacts between Indian business and American business -- I come, as
you know, from right up the road from Silicon Valley.

"There is something like the Silicon Valley in India as well where
people are engaged in the most -- the highest of high-tech
development," she said.

"And so it is becoming increasingly a relationship that's not just
government-to-government, that is also people-to-people, and we want
to encourage that. There needs to be more contact between Indians
and -- the citizens of India and America," the top administration
official remarked.

Copyright � 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the
*****************************************************************
 15 Guardian Unlimited: Prime sites for nuclear power stations identified 

Study commissioned by government says Brighton, Bristol, Midlands
and Oxfordshire should be considered

John Vidal and Terry Macalister
Thursday May 24, 2007

The government is considering building nuclear power stations on 
the sites of old coal and gas-fired stations in Oxfordshire and 
the south-east, according to documents released yesterday as part 
of a consultation forced on it by the courts.

A confidential report, commissioned by the DTI last year from 
leading energy analysts Jackson Consulting, has recommended a new 
generation of plants at existing or redundant civil and military 
nuclear power stations. But it says that many of these will be 
unavailable for years or will be unsuitable because they have 
limited connections to the national grid.

Instead, the consultants say that "existing coal and/or gas-fired
conventional power stations" should be considered for new nuclear
sites. A further option would be to develop stations at "completely
new greenfield sites".

Of the 19 existing civil nuclear power station sites, only nine are
considered feasible for new reactors, and only four of these are
available immediately.

However, the DTI has been advised that the sites of conventional
power stations in the Midlands, the south coast near Brighton, and
near Bristol could become available. The advice to ministers was
outlined in a 50-page report, the only one known to have been
commissioned by government specifically on the issue of the siting
of new nuclear plants.

It was submitted to the DTI last year and attempts by Greenpeace to
make it public under freedom of information rules were repeatedly
blocked.

The study was finally disclosed yesterday, when the government
published its latest energy white paper.

This offered clear support for new nuclear plants but a fresh round
of consultation has been demanded by the high court.

Alistair Darling, the industry secretary, said that this would only
take 20 weeks and argued it would be a "profound mistake" to rule
out nuclear energy at a time of dwindling North Sea oil and gas
supplies and pressure to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.

"Quite simply, in the public interest, we need to make a decision
this year on whether we should continue to get some of our
electricity from nuclear because new stations take a long time to
build. If nuclear is excluded there is every chance that its place
would be taken by gas or coal generation which, of course, emit
carbon," he said.

According to the Jackson report, ease of connection to the national
grid is the main factor in determining a site's suitability.

This suggests that the best available location at present is at
Harwell, a former military site close to Didcot power station in
Oxfordshire. In the second rung of grid suitability come old
coal-fired stations, but these are not mentioned by name.

Only two nuclear sites that are immediately available - at Sizewell
and Hinkley - are considered to be suitable to take new generation
twin reactors.

Eight of the 19 current nuclear sites considered by Jackson have
limited grid connection and three - at Trawsfynydd and Wylfa in
north Wales, Berkeley near Gloucester and Heysham in Lancashire are
more or less ruled out with "major barriers that would be difficult
to overcome".

The report adds that new stations are unlikely to be feasible in
Wales or Scotland because of devolution.

While most existing reactors are on the coast, the report says it
would be possible to build new ones inland. But these, it says,
would need vast cooling towers, "as used by conventional coal and
gas- fired generating stations such as Didcot in Oxfordshire".

It says: "Cooling towers are very large structures which
substantially damage the local amenity value from visual intrusion,
causing significant difficulties with local public acceptance, as
well as adding to the cost of construction and reducing the
station's power output 3-5%."

The report highlights nuclear waste organisation Nirex's anxiety
that the sites most prone to flooding from rising sea levels are in
the low-lying areas of the south of England - exactly where
electricity demand is forecast to be greatest.

It states that new nuclear power stations would have to be
engineered and designed to take this into account. Greenpeace
director John Sauven said: "Scientists say the speed at which
climate change is happening means that some of the sites suggested
for new nuclear power stations are threatened by rising sea levels
and storm surges. You have to question where the government thinks
it's going to build these things.

"The list of preferred sites for new build in this report is a
matter of national interest, not just something for civil servants
to see. It's scandalous the government was going to keep this under
wraps."

The DTI said last night that the report's conclusions were those of
the consultants and it was too early to consider the siting of any
potential new stations. A spokesman said private companies would
ultimately propose where they should be built.

Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 16 The Russia Journal: A chain reaction 

May 24th 2007 From Economist.com

COMMUNISM is Soviet power plus electrification.” Lenin’s 
quote pretty much summed up 1945-91 for the Baltic states. It 
meant, on the one hand, dictatorship, mass murder, deportations, 
Russification, the trashing of languages and cultures, the 
defacing of cities and the countryside devastated by 
collectivisation. On the other hand were some modern power 
stations. Chiefly one: Lithuania’s Ignalina nuclear reactor 
was, at its pre-Chernobyl peak, the largest in the world. Now 
Soviet power is a fading memory—and electricity supply is at 
risk.

At the time of the struggle to regain independence, Lithuanians
hated Ignalina. Now that it’s theirs, they feel differently. But
the European Union wants to close it, and the Lithuanian government
has reluctantly promised to do so by 2009.

The costs of decommissioning are eased by hefty EU subsidies. But
that’s not the problem. Ignalina generates 80% of Lithuania’s
power and also exports electricity to neighbouring countries. A
replacement, to be jointly built by Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and
Poland, exists only on paper and won’t be running until
2015—according to optimistic estimates.

That gap will be filled by burning extra gas and oil, supplied from
Russia, and importing electricity, probably also from Russia. It is
hard to imagine that this will come without political strings
attached. Lithuania will be negotiating with Russia from a position
of weakness. Even if the EU doesn’t mind that, it should shudder
at the thought of the millions of tonnes of unwelcome carbon dioxide
emitted by burning substitute fuels.

The effects of the EU’s nuclear-phobia have already been visible
in the Balkans. Forcing Bulgaria to close two reactors at Kozloduy
as a price for joining the EU forced that country to slash
electricity exports to the western Balkans, causing power shortages
in Albania and Macedonia. Bulgarian officials warned the EU about
this; seemingly, nobody was listening.

To avoid a similar mess in the Baltic region, the obvious solution
is to extend the life of Ignalina for another ten years, at least
until the new nuclear power plant comes onstream. This should be a
simple choice. Proceeding as planned is dirty, dangerous and
expensive. It means more carbon emissions; it endangers the EU’s
energy security in one of the most vulnerable member states; and it
will cost a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

Keeping Ignalina open costs nothing except the pride of some twitchy
green-tinged bureaucrats and politicians. By retreating from a
hastily-adopted and out-of-date position, the EU will gain lots of
clean energy in a place where it is needed, and shore up European
solidarity in a region where it is sorely lacking.

What about safety? It is worth remembering that Ignalina’s oldest
and riskiest reactor was closed in 2004. The one still in operation
bears little resemblance to the Soviet-era monster that Lithuania
inherited. Your columnist remembers a trip there in 1992. The
control room was thick with cigarette smoke. Cables in inflammable
PVC sheaths looped crazily from the ceilings in the endless
corridors. The visitors were allowed to stand on top of the reactor
core, steam gently hissing from what they were assured was an
“unimportant” pipe.

Now the plant has been modernised by experts from Sweden (which is
downwind of the plant, and has a close interest in its safe
operation). Electronics and control systems have been overhauled.

The staff have been retrained. Ignalina can run safely for another
decade.

Lithuania, commendably, doesn’t want to be seen as reneging on a
deal. But this promise was extracted under duress, and the costs of
keeping it are preposterously high. The government should reopen
talks on Ignalina. And the EU and its member states should back down.

*****************************************************************
 17 WNN: UK pre-licensing moves

24 May 2007

Nuclear industry players reacted to the issue of proposed new UK
government policy by declaring their interest in pre-licensing
certain reactor designs.

On the day of the energy white paper, 23 May, reactor vendor
Westinghouse announced that it had submitted its AP1000 pressurized
water reactor (PWR) for Generic Design Acceptance (GDA) to the
Nuclear Directorate of the UK Health and Safety Executive. This was
followed by a similar release from the utility EdF, which announced
it would "in conjunction with Areva" submit the EPR design (another
PWR) for GDA "at the right time."

General Electric (GE) made clear in April its intention to submit
the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) design, but
there has been no comment from AECL on their hopes to submit the
ACR1000, a pressurized heavy water reactor.

Germany-based utility EOn also issued a statement to coincide with
the white paper. It said it would be "supporting Westinghouse and
Areva" designs while it "is in discussions with GE."

The GDA process is intended to certify a standardized nuclear power
reactor design as suitable for a generic site with certain physical
properties.

A separate program, Strategic Site Assessment, is intended to
identify new sites that would be broadly suitable for new nuclear
power stations in advance of a detailed planning enquiry. However,
industry observers agree that existing nuclear generation sites
would be the obvious places to build new reactors because of their
existing grid connections and nuclear site licenses.

The Future of Nuclear Power consultation document released alongside
the white paper states: "Developers should have confidence that if a
power station design has gone through a successful GDA, the
regulators are unlikely to require significant design modifications
at the site-specific licensing stage." This should make
site-specific assessments shorter and more predictable, it said, and
reduce the risks of project delays at a crucial time when developers
have invested to purchase heavy plant components.

However, the GDA process would be exhaustive and complex and the UK
regulator, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, has only limited
resources: The consultation document states that only three designs
can be simultaneously assessed. Now, it is "for industry to identify
the priority designs" for the NII to focus on.

The assessment process, which would take three years, is "expected"
to begin "on a contingent basis" alongside the consultation, which
runs from now until 10 October.

Further information

Health and Safety Executive: New nuclear power stations - Generic
Design Assessment

Department of Trade and Industry: Energy White Paper

WNA's Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom information paper

WNN: "Practical but radical UK energy policies"
WNN: New UK planning process could facilitate new nuclear build
WNN: Boiling water reactors proposed for the UK
*****************************************************************
 18 Herald News: Exelon: More sites by 2030

HeraldNewsOnline.com Member of the Sun-Times News Group


May 24, 2007

from staff reports

John Rowe, chief executive officer of Exelon Corp., said Wednesday
that the U.S. will need at least 20 additional nuclear plants by
2030.

Rowe, the new chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, made his
comments in a speech at an institute conference.

He predicted that the country will need 20 to 30 new plants by 2030
to address climate change and enhance energy security. Rowe noted
that 16 companies and groups are currently in the process of
applying for licenses to build 30 nuclear plants.



   � Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | Terms of Use and Privacy
*****************************************************************
 19 newsobserver.com: Let nuclear plant workers vote on union, group asks

Thursday, May 24, 2007

John Murawski, Staff Writer

About 700 workers at three Progress Energy nuclear plants could
become the utility's first employees in the Carolinas to join a
labor union.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on Wednesday
asked the National Labor Relations Board for a secret ballot
election, representing a year-long drive that began at the Brunswick
nuclear plant near Wilmington last year and spread to two other
nuclear plants this year.

The Raleigh-based Fortune 500 corporation is fighting the union's
bid to organize company workers at the Shearon Harris nuclear plant
in Wake County, the Brunswick nuclear plant near Southport and the
H.B. Robinson nuclear plant in Hartsville, S.C.

"We are opposed to unionization. Period," Progress Energy spokesman
Rick Kimble said. "We don't need a third party to come in and
disrupt the teamwork that we have currently."

C.J. King, the union's regional organizing coordinator in Nebraska,
is aiding the drive in the Carolinas. He said that workers are
concerned about eroding pensions and health-care benefits. Progress
Energy began a companywide reorganization in 2005 that led to early
retirements for about 1,500 veteran employees and led to reduced
pensions and benefits for other workers.

"A majority of the employees are positive for the union," King said.
"The big push was the pension plan, and the frustration over: 'We
had no input in it.' "

The union said that a majority of production and maintenance
workers, such as mechanics and operators, have signed authorization
cards expressing interest in joining the union. Federal labor law
requires that the union show it has support from 30 percent of the
workers who would be unionized before a secret-ballot vote can be
held.

The attempt to unionize workers comes as Progress Energy is trying
to license a new nuclear reactor at Shearon Harris and requesting to
add 20 years to the reactor license to operate the plant until 2046.
Both licensing bids are opposed by critics of nuclear power and
environmental organizations. The union supports nuclear expansion as
an opportunity for its members.

The union's drive excludes clerical, technical and professional
employees, as well as supervisors and security guards.

June 1 hearing possible

The labor board has not set a date for the vote, but it scheduled a
June 1 hearing in case Progress Energy and the union can't agree on
who is eligible to vote. The labor board's goal is to hold elections
within 42 days of a petition filing, said Howard Neidig, the board's
assistant regional director in Winston-Salem.

The union represents about 2,000 workers at Progress Energy's
operations in Florida.

The union's attempt to organize at the Brunswick plant was fought by
Progress Energy officials, who said that having union contracts and
policies at one nuclear plant could create inconsistencies in the
company's Nuclear Generation Group. The labor relations board
agreed, dismissing the union's case in February.

"The company pushed the other two plants into this mix," King said.

Then the union began organizing at Shearon Harris and the Robinson
plants. Union officials began meeting with workers, distributed
information and appointed volunteer organizers. The union also has a
Web site -- pgnunion.com -- to promote the unionization cause.

Progress Energy has countered with its own informational meetings
and has made anti-union buttons available to managers and employees.

"The union is hitting pretty hard with their campaign rhetoric,"
Kimble said. "It's unclear to us what the employees think they'll
gain from union representation."


Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at 829-8932 or
john.murawski@newsobserver.com.

� Copyright 2007, The News & Observer Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 20 SunHerald.com: Repairs continue on damage vacuum seal at Miss. nuclear plant

Posted on Thu, May. 24, 2007

The Associated Press

PORT GIBSON, Miss. --

Work was continuing to repair a damaged vacuum seal that has idled
the Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Plant since May 19, Energy Nuclear
officials said Thursday.

"Repairs are going well. A seal is being replaced. It's not a
complex problem. The plant was shut down safety and there was no
danger whatsoever," company spokesman Tim Crisler said.

Crisler said while Grand Gulf is not producing any electricity,
other plants within the Entergy Corp. system are supplying
customers. Crisler said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is being
kept up to date on the repairs.

Crisler said Entergy officials would not speculate on when repairs
would be finished and the plant restarted.

"The damage is not considered severe and should be cleared up
shortly," he said.

Completed in 1985 for $3 billion, the plant sits on 2,100 acres on
U.S. 61, just north of Port Gibson, and provides about 25 percent of
Mississippi's electricity output. The plant has about 700 workers.


SunHerald.com |
*****************************************************************
 21 BBC NEWS: Study reveals prime nuclear sites

Last Updated: Thursday, 24 May 2007, 07:43 GMT 08:43 UK


Is Hinkley Point the most suitable location for a new reactor?


Hinkley Point, in Somerset, is the best place to build a new nuclear
power station, according to a confidential report commissioned by
ministers.

It lists 14 suitable sites around the UK but says existing nuclear
plants in Southern England are the best choice.

It also reveals the first UK nuclear reactor was sited at Harwell,
in Oxfordshire, in the late 1940s, because it was "a pleasant place
to live".


Independent consultants drew up a list of the most suitable sites
for new nuclear plants, based on the criteria that existing nuclear
power stations were the most suitable for development.

The report sets out the "major business, economic, safety,
environmental and technical factors that could influence the
selection of a site".

'Feasibility'

It says there would be "little point" in the government considering
nuclear power if no suitable sites were to become available.

 
SUGGESTED NUCLEAR SITES


1. Hinkley Point

2. Sizewell

3. Bradwell

4. Dungeness

5. Hunterston

6. Hartlepool

7. Torness

8. Wylfa

9. Heysham

10. Calder Hall

11. Oldbury

12. Chapelcross

13. Berkeley

14. Trawsfynydd

Source: Jackson Consulting report, April 2006

"The availability of potential sites will therefore directly affect
the government's view of the overall feasibility of a new nuclear
build programme," the report adds.

Hinkley Point was deemed the most suitable, with only planning
consent for an additional power line and possible conflict with a
nearby wind farm standing in the way of development.

It was also available for new development "now," the document says.

Global warming

Sizewell, in Suffolk, is seen as the next most suitable, only
needing planning permission for power lines and "investigation of
grid stability".

The least suitable of the 14 listed was Trawsfynydd, in Wales, which
uses a large man-made reservoir to cool its reactor.
 
READ THE REPORT [6.6MB]


But its inland location may prove attractive if the government
decides global warming is a major factor in the siting decision - it
has said rising sea levels could make coastal sites unsuitable over
the 100-year lifespan of a nuclear plant.

Three of the suggested sites - Hunterston, Torness and Chapelcross -
are in Scotland but the final decision on new nuclear plants is
likely to rest with the Scottish Parliament.

Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond has said there is "no
chance" of any nuclear power plants being built in Scotland, setting
up the prospect of a showdown between Westminster and Holyrood.

Consultation

The siting report was produced by Jackson Consulting in April 2006
for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which published it
on Wednesday as a supporting document to its energy White Paper.


 

It should be not too far from London, there should be easy access to
a University; there should be some degree of isolation




Sir John Cockcroft, 1948 article on siting nuclear reactor

The government is planning its own investigation into suitable
locations for nuclear reactors, which will be launched in 2008 - if
the government decides to back nuclear power.

Launching the White Paper on Wednesday, Trade Secretary Alistair
Darling said his "preliminary view" was to allow more nuclear
plants, but there would be a five-month consultation period.

There will be a separate consultation on the criteria used for
choosing the location of new reactors.

If the government decides to back nuclear power, it will carry out a
Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) to identify the best sites in the
UK for new nuclear plants.

The government says the SSA will speed up the planning process as it
will "deal with siting matters that are sufficiently generic for
them to be sensibly addressed nationally".

Wildlife habitats

Local people will still be able to object to the building of new
nuclear power plants - but only on strictly local grounds, such as
noise and traffic problems.

They will not be able to object on wider environmental grounds -
such as the potential effects of radiation and nuclear waste.

European legislation protecting wildlife habitats must also be met.

But the issue of whether a particular location is the most suitable
place to build a nuclear reactor will be off limits as it will
already have been decided by the SSA.

Critics say the government has caved in to pressure from the nuclear
industry, which has lobbied for the planning process to be
streamlined.

But the government says it wants to avoid lengthy and expensive
public inquiries, citing the Sizewell B inquiry which it said cost
�30m and only 30 of 340 days devoted to local issues.

Airfield sites

The Jackson Consulting report also reveals the Department of Trade
and Industry has been working on the policy planning assumption that
10 new reactors will be built.

The government has stressed the actual number of new reactors will
be decided by the nuclear industry, which may decide not to build
any at all.

The report also reprints an article first published in 1948 by Sir
John Cockcroft, on how the decision was reached to site Britain's
first nuclear reactors at Harwell, in Oxfordshire.

"We considered the desirable location for the future Establishment.
It should be not too far from London, there should be easy access to
a University; there should be some degree of isolation and lastly
the countryside should be pleasant to live in," wrote Sir John.

After a brief tour of airfield sites, a shortlist was drawn up and
Harwell was chosen as the site for the Atomic Energy Research
Establishment.

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 22 BBC NEWS: Pointers to a low-carbon future

Last Updated: Thursday, 24 May 2007, 05:06 GMT 06:06 UK

By Roger Harrabin BBC News environment analyst

Three over-arching policy documents this week lay out the 
government's vision for a competitive, resource-efficient, 
low-carbon economy.

Green campaigners want even greater support for renewables

In the short term, that will mean a swifter streamlined planning
process, a drive to capture maximum energy from stuff we throw away,
more offshore renewable energy, and caps on CO2 from big commercial
firms.

In the medium term it possibly means more nuclear, although this is
no foregone conclusion.

Together these polices are designed to secure energy supplies before
2017 when nuclear power from existing stations runs down.

And it should keep the UK on track for its target of reducing carbon
to 26-32% below 1990 levels by 32% by 2020 - but only if all the
measures in this week's plans are delivered.

'Too timid'

Government sources say this week's announcements are not their last
word.

They expect tougher targets on CO2 in the next few years, thanks to
international agreements.

Environmentalists accuse the government of being far too timid.

They argue that given all its energy advantages the UK should be
leading the world far more ambitiously to a low-carbon future.

They point out that high gas prices are driving generators towards
coal, which is likely to push CO2 emissions up, not down.

But all three of this week's documents at least offer a pointer to
Gordon Brown's future Britain.

Much of the thinking was based on Treasury-dominated reviews and
they at least make an effort to reconcile some of the fiercely
competing forces on the UK's forces.

Business delight

Critics argue the planning white paper is based on the false premise
that delays in the planning system are making the UK uncompetitive.

This accusation was regularly levelled by the influential former CBI
director Digby Jones, but the evidence appears scanty.

Some government insiders believe ministers will be forced to take 
back responsibility for ultimate decisions on planning before any 
planning bill gets approved


Industrialists gaze longingly across the Channel where French
politicians generously strew nuclear stations, motorways and TGVs
about.

The planning paper will make it easier in future for the UK to build
large infrastructure projects like these - and wind farms.

Ministers intend to pare down the planning system so ministers hold
a national debate about policy then hand detailed decisions to an
independent planning commission.

Small household building schemes would no longer need planning
permission if they did not impact on the neighbours.

This cutting of red tape has delighted business - and doubtless
those wanting a roof extension, too - but green groups and civic
groups fear that the new system has handed power to a quango from
politicians and people.

Ministers promise the public will be consulted intensely - but in
abolishing the muddling anarchic planning enquiry system they have
removed the most powerful weapon of ordinary people to embarrass or
delay government policy.

Some government insiders believe ministers will be forced to take
back responsibility for ultimate decisions on planning before any
planning bill gets approved.

The planning white paper puts carbon reductions at the heart of the
planning process and obliges local councils to plan new buildings to
optimise people's ability to walk or cycle to work.

But the broad emphasis on competitiveness could herald a building
bonanza for airports, ports and motorways that would all drive up
carbon emissions.

It will be impossible to tell the government's true direction until
ministers have spelled out their planning statements for each
specific sector.

Nuclear debate

If you listened to the exchanges in the Commons you would have
thought the energy white paper was a nuclear white paper.

Tony Blair made a passionate plea for more nuclear power to keep on
the lights - and was berated by the Conservatives' Alan Duncan for
failing to spell out a time-table for nuclear new-build.

A decision on nuclear may still be unclear by the end of the year


The government, though, are tied by the recent High Court judgment
into delaying their policies until the autumn so they can fully
consult.

But even then there are possibly insuperable problems with nuclear -
particularly the promise from Gordon Brown of no nuclear subsidy.

No firm wants to build a nuclear plant unless they can get certainty
over the premium that would be paid for low-carbon energy.

And the government will have difficulty in doing that while also
adhering to its stated policy of a liberalised energy market.

So a decision on nuclear may still be unclear by the end of the year.

The white paper did offer more support for renewables, though not
enough to satisfy green campaigners.

The government will switch its price support scheme so more goes to
offshore wave and wind power which are expensive to produce.

This is a tacit admission that the previous government policy of
leaving it up to the market to pick the future energy mix has failed
to generate enough power from renewables - partly because of
planning problems with onshore wind.

Carbon storage

Other policies are designed to reduce our use of energy.

The scheme to cap emissions from big offices and supermarkets is
intended to save 1m tonnes of carbon a year by 2020.


The government admit meeting targets on traffic is a challenge

It will cover only the very biggest emitters (like the BBC) - the
DTI blocked the scheme from extending further on the grounds that it
would increase red tape.

Householders should benefit too from government insistence that
power firms double the amount of money they will spend on helping us
to insulate our homes.

And new gadgets on offer to help us read our electricity use will
help a little, too.

There was some progress on carbon capture and storage - but it is
not happening fast enough for BP, who have withdrawn their offer to
set up a carbon capture plant at Peterhead, where they would have
used to waste CO2 to get drive out the last drops of oil from their
offshore field.

The government said they can't rush the policy because it involves
large public subsidy. They still expect a carbon storage plant in
the UK by around 2013.

Joined-up thinking

The biggest hole in the white paper is on transport.

The government admits that meeting targets to reduce emissions from
cars is a challenge - and international aviation maintains its
blessed position exempt from carbon cuts.

The waste strategy will also have a bearing on future energy use -
both actively and passively



Ministers appear to want cutting CO2 to be politically painless, but
sooner or later someone will have to take more controversial
decisions.

If all the measures in the white paper were implemented they would
help the government achieve their minimum target for cutting CO2
between 26% and 32% by 2020.

Green groups say that given the failure to meet previous 2010
targets the government is still complacent on climate.

The government say new policies will follow in future.

The waste strategy will also have a bearing on future energy use -
both actively and passively.

Ministers aim to cut the amount of waste we produce (which will save
energy), then they want to increase the amount of energy we get from
the waste stream by burning more waste and getting more methane by
putting food waste through anaerobic digesters.

They also want to recover more waste for recycling - particularly
aluminium - which will save even more energy.

All the signs are there of joined-up thinking across government on
the challenges posed by energy security and climate change.

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 23 BBC NEWS: Papers assess new nuclear report

Last Updated: Thursday, 24 May 2007, 05:46 GMT 06:46 UK

The Guardian leads on the release of a Department of Trade and 
Industry report which outlines where future nuclear power 
stations could be built.

It says any new plants should be built in the south of England, 
where the main demand for energy exists.

Among the sites suggested are Brighton, Bristol, the Midlands and 
Oxfordshire.

But the Financial Times says any reactors built in low-lying 
coastal areas will need protection from rising sea levels and 
storm surges.

'Chip and bin'

Both the Times and the Daily Telegraph warn of new taxes on 
rubbish which the government will allow local councils in England 
to impose.

The Times reports that they will be able to run a "pay as you 
throw" scheme, monitored by wheelie bins fitted with microchips - 
labelled as "chip and bin".

The Telegraph says that more than three million households 
already have microchips fitted in their bins.

Both papers warn that the plans will be deeply unpopular with the 
public.

Voulez-vous?

The Times reports that new French president Nicolas Sarkozy has 
ordered pupils to address teachers using "vous" - rather than the 
familiar "tu".

The paper says the instruction is part of Mr Sarkozy's campaign 
to reimpose respect and civility in French society.

He has stirred France's education world and pleased 
traditionalists, it adds.

A leader recalls Francois Mitterand's presidency, when a 
colleague suggested ministers use "tu" to each other - and Mr 
Mitterand replied: "Si vous voulez".

Recycled royal

The Daily Mirror reveals that Prince Charles has had a makeover - 
to make him look older.

It says the latest waxwork of the heir to the throne at Madame 
Tussauds shows him with crow's feet, wrinkles, a bald spot and 
greyer hair.

But, in a move sure to please the environmentally-friendly 
prince, a spokesman says the waxwork has been recycled from a 
figure made in 1989.

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 24 BBC NEWS: Blame row erupts over power plant

Last Updated: Thursday, 24 May 2007, 12:06 GMT 13:06 UK

Mr Darling said he had a duty to assess other projects

Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling has rejected claims
the UK Government caused the collapse of a major green energy scheme
in Peterhead.

BP has abandoned plans for the �500m UK carbon capture power plant
in Aberdeenshire, blaming Westminster delays over support.

Mr Darling said BP could not simply be awarded the contract.

Politicians and environmental groups have described the situation as
a "disaster".

About 1,000 jobs were expected to be created if the green project
was ultimately given the go-ahead.

I just hope that it's possible for Westminster ministers to re-think
this

Stewart Stevenson Banff and Buchan MSP


The proposal was to generate "carbon-free" electricity from
hydrogen, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by capturing carbon
dioxide and safely storing it in an oilfield nearing the end of
production.

It would have seen the world's first industrial-scale hydrogen power
scheme based in the town. The plans won praise from energy experts,
environmental campaigners and politicians alike for pointing the way
forward.

Banff and Buchan MSP Stewart Stevenson told BBC Radio's Good Morning
Scotland programme: "A terrific economic opportunity for the north
east appears to have been lost in the short-term, in the long-term
for making Scotland a world leader in carbon capture technology.

"I just hope that it's possible for Westminster ministers to
re-think this."

'Feast presented'

Professor Stuart Haszeldine, from Edinburgh University's school of
geosciences, said Peterhead had been an extremely advanced project.

He added: "It's rather like BP had presented the government with a
feast of a meal ready to eat with instructions and the government
have not even come to the table."


Hundreds of jobs could have created by the project


Mr Darling responded: "I would have liked to have seen this work
being done in Peterhead."

However, he explained: "I have got to have regard to the fact there
are other companies with other projects.

"The government is duty bound to look at these and decide what one
is the best."

A BP spokesman told the BBC Scotland news website that delays over
the timescale had forced the decision.

He said the life of the Miller oil field central to the project had
already been extended as long as possible but would not be available
for the length of time needed.

Earlier warning

The spokesman said: "The decision to cancel the project is based on
timing. It's a disappointment to us."

First Minister Alex Salmond had earlier warned MPs that government
delays in supporting the project could put it in jeopardy and voiced
his anger at the decision.

The SNP leader said: "Never has so great an opportunity been passed
up because of delay and incompetence and the inability of
Westminster ministers to take decisions.

"There will be other carbon capture projects, not least at
Longannet, but this offered a further foothold in the hydrogen
economy."

'Great regret'

Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth (FoE)
Scotland, said: "The UK government has once again shown itself
obsessed with reviving the polluting nuclear power industry, so it
is hardly surprising to hear that other methods of tackling climate
change will be shunned."

Leader of Aberdeenshire Council, Anne Robertson, added: "Words
cannot express the disappointment and frustration I feel on behalf
of the people of Aberdeenshire that the Department of Trade and
Industry has delayed so long that BP has had to pull out.

"This would have been a world first and it is a matter of great
regret that the short sightedness of ministers has led to these
innovative plans faltering.


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 25 POAC: NRC sees no reason to close Oyster Creek

Press of Atlantic City

By DAVID BENSON Staff Writer, (609) 272-7206

Published: Thursday, May 24, 2007
Human error and mistakes haunt the Oyster Creek nuclear generating
station, but nothing so severe that the federal agency charged with
ensuring safety believes that the plant should be shut down.

But while the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Wednesday evening
that the plant was operated safely throughout 2006, the Lacey
Township facility will face increased federal scrutiny in 2007.

During the annual assessment of the facility, Marc Ferdas, the
resident Oyster Creek NRC inspector, said the federal agency will be
increasingly involved with the plant this year.

“Low-level human errors occurred in 2006,” Ferdas said. “We
will have inspection activities to monitor how they fix those issues
to make sure they don't escalate into safety significant issues.”

One of these low-level errors dates to August 2005, Ferdas said. Two
years ago, operators at the plant didn't react quickly enough in
notifying the NRC when grass clogged an intake screen in the canal
that feeds the reactor cooling system. While there was no danger to
the plant, not following the correct procedures was enough to earn
the plant a “white finding.”


A white finding is one of four ratings for degraded safety or
performance — green, white, yellow and red. In May 2006, the plant
was reinspected but failed again. This time it earned 16 green
findings as well. Three of those green findings were in the same
human performance area as the white finding in 2005.

“Green is not good,” said Ronald Bellamy, branch chief for
Region I of the NRC. Neither is it bad, he said. It's a low level
error.

Ferdas wouldn't say what the errors were, but indicated they were
not as serious as the original offense in 2005.

Tim Rausch, vice president of the plant, said the Oyster Creek
facility is ready to be reinspected.

“We agree with the NRC assessment,” Rausch said. “It was a
procedural error, and we are disappointed with our actions. Plant
safety is our overriding goal. We take it seriously.”

The NRC did not place a timetable on AmerGen, owner of the plant, on
when the white finding had to be corrected. AmerGen has been allowed
to retrain its operators and notify the federal agency when it will
be ready for reinspection. Because the company had to retrain five
operators, it held off notifying the agency.

But the Oyster Creek plant is near judgment day for a decision from
the commissioners of the NRC on whether the facility's operating
license will be renewed for another 20 years. While that decision
could have come as early as this month, an upcoming hearing at the
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals will likely delay the results until
early January 2008. That hearing will decide whether the
environmental impact of a terrorist attack will have to be part of
an environmental impact statement. A decision from the court isn't
expected before fall.

Still, the NRC and area residents expect good faith and
responsiveness from the nation's oldest operating nuclear plant. The
facility is scheduled to close after 40 years in April 2009. But an
extension would give the Oyster Creek plant life through 2029 —
two decades at a time when energy prices are expected to soar.

AmerGen notified the NRC recently that it is ready to be
reinspected. The NRC scheduled the reinspection to begin June 4.
AmerGen seems comfortable that the facility will pass the
inspection. Exelon, which owns AmerGen, brought in Pete Orphanos
from the Limerick Generating Station in Pennsylvania to serve as
director of operations. Rausch described Limerick as one of the best
in the Exelon nuclear fleet. Both Limerick and the Oyster Creek
facility have boiling water reactors.

Blanche Krubner, president of the Ocean County League of Women
Voters, isn't so sure that either AmerGen or Orphanos will succeed.

“I don't think the plant is safe,” Krubner said. “At 40 years
of age, I think it's come to the end of its design life.”

Krubner believes that the plant is brittle, and that the buildings
and technology are antiquated. “And it's probably leaking
radioactive gas.” Krubner said the League stands against an
extension of the license for the Oyster Creek facility.

Krubner said she doesn't know enough about how the NRC functions to
know whether the agency is deliberately misleading the public.
“But I do believe they're incorrect.”

� Copyright 1970- The Press of Atlantic City
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance Assessment for Callaway Nuclear Plant

News Release - Region IV - 2007-015 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, 
Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 
www.nrc.gov


CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet in Jefferson 
City, Mo., on May 31, with representatives of Union Electric Co. 
/Ameren UE to discuss the agency&rsquo;s assessment of safety 
performance for last year at the Callaway nuclear plant near 
Jefferson City.

 The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to 
begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Capitol Plaza Hotel and Convention 
Center, 415 West McCarty St., Jefferson City.

   In addition to the performance assessment, the NRC staff will 
be available to answer questions from the public on the safety 
performance of Callaway, as well as the NRC&rsquo;s role in 
ensuring safe plant operation.

  &ldquo;The NRC continually reviews the performance of Callaway 
and the nation&rsquo;s other commercial nuclear power 
facilities,&rdquo; NRC Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett 
said. &ldquo;This meeting will provide an opportunity for a 
discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with 
the company and with local officials and residents who live near 
the plant.&rdquo;

    A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant 
officials addresses the performance of the plant during 2006 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/call_2006q4.pdf. 
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.

 The NRC said Callaway operated safely during 2006, but 
identified 14 &ldquo;green&rdquo; violations in the area of 
problem identification and resolution during the assessment 
period. In order to address this substantive cross-cutting issue, 
the licensee has implemented an improvement plan, but it has not 
yet proven fully effective. NRC will continue to focus attention 
on this area as part of its baseline inspections during 2007.

       The NRC has verified that an improvement program for the 
cross-cutting area of human performance has proven effective. 
Sufficient progress has been made in this area that NRC no longer 
needs to focus special attention on it.

   Similarly, the NRC said the licensee has addressed problems 
that contributed to the degraded reliability of an auxilliary 
feedwater system, that resulted in a &ldquo;white&rdquo; 
performance indicator during 2006. Routine inspections are 
performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant 
and by inspection specialists from the Region IV Office in 
Arlington, Texas. Among the areas of plant performance to be 
inspected this year by NRC specialists are activities associated 
with engineering, fire protection, emergency preparedness, 
maintenance and radiological controls.

 Current performance information for Callaway is available on the 
NRC web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CALL/call_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.


Thursday, May 24, 2007
*****************************************************************
 27 Inquirer: Appeal for new nuclear plants | 

05/24/2007

By Jeff Gelles Inquirer Staff Writer

The U.S. power industry needs to build 20 to 30 new nuclear plants
by 2030 to meet the nation's demand for electricity, according to
Exelon Corp. chief executive officer John Rowe. But Rowe said the
industry would need continuing help - from federal and state
lawmakers, from regulators, and from the public - to meet that goal.

In remarks prepared for delivery today to the annual Nuclear Energy
Assembly in Miami, Rowe warned that Exelon and its counterparts
faced major hurdles as they moved toward building a new generation
of nuclear plants. (To read his speech, go to
http://go.philly.com/rowe24.)

Since 2004, Exelon has been part of NuStart Energy Development, a
consortium of 10 power companies and two reactor manufacturers that
is one of several groups inching toward building new power plants.

Marilyn Kray, NuStart's president, said the consortium was preparing
license applications for two demonstration reactors, based on
designs by General Electric Co. and Westinghouse.

Kray said both designs would be inherently safer and more economical
than the nation's current reactors. For instance, the reactors would
still use water for cooling the nuclear fuel, but would rely on
gravity-based feeding systems, not pumps, to provide emergency
cooling.

Rowe said so-called passive safety systems should help ease concerns
about the safety of nuclear power, which has won new support among
some environmentalists because its generation does not contribute to
global warming.

But he said other challenges still loom, including:

Financing. Rowe said each new nuclear plant would probably cost
about $5 billion, too large an investment for companies the size of
Exelon or its competitors without a new wave of consolidation and
without support from government.

Nuclear waste. Rowe said the long-promised Yucca Mountain facility
"will not happen soon &ndash; certainly not by the 2017 date
currently advertised by the Department of Energy." The alternative,
he said, is "long-term interim storage" under the auspices of the
federal government.

Infrastructure. He said the "intellectual and manufacturing
infrastructure that once supported this industry has atrophied over
the past 20 years," because of a lack of new projects.

Despite the challenges, Rowe said, the time was right for nuclear
power to make a comeback, with fossil-fuel prices and demand
climbing and the country "increasingly dependent upon foreign
regimes - often hostile regimes - to heat and light our homes."

Contact staff writer Jeff Gelles at 215-854-2776 or 
jgelles@phillynews.com.


The Inquirer | Daily News | Sports | Entertainment | Classifieds
About Philly.com | Terms of Use &amp; Privacy Statement | Copyright
*****************************************************************
 28 Platts: Two House panels approve bills to establish nuclear fuel bank

2007-05-24

london (Platts)--24May2007

TWO HOUSE PANELS APPROVED BILLS MAY 23 TO ESTABLISH A NUCLEAR 
FUEL BANK. The House Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
Subcommittee spending bill for fiscal 2008 includes $100 million, 
while the House Foreign Affairs Committee bill authorizes $50 
million. 

The international bank, which would be administered  by the IAEA, 
is a key part of various nonproliferation schemes. Countries that 
do not pursue uranium enrichment and spent-fuel reprocessing 
would be eligibleto receive fuel from the bank, if conventional 
fuel-supply mechanisms fail. 

The foreign affairs bill is a revised version of legislation 
introduced earlier this year by the panel's chairman, California 
Democrat Tom Lantos. Key changes include a tightening of the 
eligibility requirements for potential recipients of the bank's 
fuel.

For simliar news, request a free trial to NuclearFuel at 
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story

Copyright � 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 29 Independent Online: Nuclear power consultation launched - 

Published: 23 May 2007

A five-month consultation on the "significant role" new nuclear
power stations could play in cutting emissions and diversifying
energy supplies was launched by the Government today.

Ministers made clear they want new nuclear power stations to be
built, sparking a fresh row with environmental campaigners who
accused the Government of peddling a "failed policy".

Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said it was the
Government's preliminary view that it was in the public interest to
give private energy firms the option of investing in new nuclear
building projects.

A 20-week public consultation started today and will run until
October 10.

Mr Darling also told MPs that the amount of electricity from
renewable energy will triple to 15% by the year 2015, as he
published the Energy White Paper.


Mr Darling said: "We face two big challenges - climate change and
maintaining stable and affordable energy supply in an increasingly
unstable world. The Energy White Paper sets out a long-term
framework for action to address these challenges at home and abroad.

"The UK is also becoming increasingly dependent on imported oil and
gas at a time when global demand is accelerating.

"We will ensure that we make the most of our substantial remaining
reserves in the North Sea, have a diverse range of sources for our
imports and make further progress opening up markets in Europe and
more widely.

"With a third of our current electricity generation capacity due to
close in the next 20 years, there is also a pressing need for
investment in new low carbon sources."


� 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: NRC to Discuss Preliminary Results of License Renewal Inspection 
for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant on May 24

News Release - Region I - 2007-031 - 

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 is proposing a $9,750 civil 
penalty for U.S. Engineering Laboratories, Inc., of Rahway, N.J., 
for two violations of agency requirements involving the control 
and security of a portable nuclear gauge. The device, which 
contains small amounts of radioactive material, is used for such 
industrial purposes as checking the density of soil at 
construction sites.

 The violations were identified during an NRC inspection 
conducted on March 7, 23 and 28, 2006, and during a subsequent 
investigation by the NRC Office of Investigations from April 7 to 
Aug. 15, 2006. The reviews were initiated after the NRC Region I 
Office was notified on March 2, 2006, by the Philadelphia Fire 
Department that a worker in the city&rsquo;s Water Department had 
discovered a box containing a portable nuclear gauge in a wooded 
area in the city&rsquo;s Northeast section. The gauge appeared to 
have been discarded along with miscellaneous other items. Fire 
Department employees recovered the gauge and secured it.

  Subsequent review found that the gauge was intact, that it had 
not leaked and that it belonged to U.S. Engineering Laboratories. 
Further, it was learned that the gauge was used out of the 
company&rsquo;s office in Broomall, Pa., but incomplete user logs 
prevented a precise determination as to when and where the gauge 
had gone missing.

 The two violations identified as a result of the NRC inspection 
and investigation are failure to maintain constant surveillance 
of licensed nuclear material in an unrestricted area, which led 
to the gauge being missing for approximately 5 months, and a 
failure to immediately report the theft or loss of the 
NRC-licensed material. In addition, the NRC is citing two other 
violations: A failure to properly sign the gauges in and out of a 
log book at the location and a failure to perform a physical 
inventory of all devices under the company&rsquo;s NRC license 
every 6 months.

       NRC staff discussed the violations with U.S. Engineering 
Laboratories representatives during a predecisional enforcement 
conference on April 4, 2007. During that meeting, the firm 
discussed corrective actions taken to prevent a recurrence, 
including the retraining of gauge users regarding communications 
requirements when a gauge is missing and procedural changes on 
the logging of gauges.


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.

Thursday, May 24, 2007
*****************************************************************
 31 Independent Online: Blair commits to nuclear future as plans for five new power plants
are revealed - 

By Colin Brown

Published: 24 May 2007

A blueprint for a new generation of power stations was revealed
yesterday as Tony Blair committed Britain to a nuclear component in
energy supply.

The Government announced a five-month consultation exercise on its
plans for new nuclear plants by the private sector but a private
consultants' report for the Department of Trade and Industry raised
suspicions that the consultation is a sham.

Critics called the consultation a "farce" and nuclear power would be
a "dangerous, dirty white elephant". The report says new nuclear
plants should be built predominantly in the South-east where the
main demand for energy exists.

Many of the plants are on the coast, and could be at risk of
flooding as a result of climate change causing a catastrophic rise
in sea levels. But the report by Jackson Consulting says higher
defences could be built to avoid coastal sites being ruled out.

The engineers said the new plants should preferably be sited on
existing nuclear plants, but they could also be based at existing
coal-fired or gas-fired power plants and a third option could be to
build new nuclear plants on greenfield sites. It says a DTI expert
group had already identified 12 sites potentially suitable for a new
single reactor and 10 of the sites could be suitable for new twin
reactors.

The report grades the sites green, amber or red for their
suitability for new reactors.

Those graded green are: Hinkley Point on the Somerset coast,
Sizewell on the Suffolk coast, Bradwell on the Essex coast,
Dungeness on the coast of Kent, Hunterston and Torness in Scotland,
Hartlepool in north-east England, Wylfa in Wales, and Heysham in
Lancashire.

Graded amber are: Calder Hall in Cumbria, Oldbury near Bristol, and
Chapelcross near the Solway estuary in Scotland.

Britain's first private sector nuclear plant at Berkeley on the
Severn estuary in Gloucestershire and Trydydd in Snowdonia, north
Wales, are graded red as not suitable for new nuclear plants because
of other problems with the sites.

Greenpeace said they had been trying under Freedom of Information
rules to obtain the report since last year but it had been denied to
them until yesterday when it was published on a website. The DTI put
a disclaimer on the report, saying it was not government policy, but
it will be seen as a blueprint for the future development of nuclear
power.

Mr Blair told MPs: "If we want to have secure energy supplies and
reduce CO2 emissions, we have got to put the issue of nuclear power
on the agenda."

Nuclear power was at the centre of the White Paper on energy
published yesterday by the Trade Secretary, Alistair Darling. The
document was delayed by Greenpeace demanding more consultation on
nuclear power and Mr Darling said he was meeting the demands of the
courts by allowing five months of consultation. Susan Kramer of the
Liberal Democrats said: "This consultation is a total farce.
Ministers have clearly already decided to back nuclear."

That view will be strengthened by the disclosure that an outline
plan for the new nuclear power plants already existed. The planning
White Paper will cut down the time for planning inquiries from
several years to nine months.

Alan Duncan, the Tory energy spokesman, attacked the Government for
failing to more explicit over its plans for nuclear power. Under the
White Paper, all householders will have to get "smart" meters within
10 years that will enable electricity companies to read their meters
without calling at their homes.

� 2007 Independent News and Media Limited
*****************************************************************
 32 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point pays $130,000 fine, promises new sirens by summer

Thursday, May 24, 2007

By BRUCE GOLDING

BUCHANAN - The owner of the Indian Point nuclear power plants
yesterday paid a $130,000 fine over their problem-plagued new
emergency sirens and promised to have them working by August.

"We take responsibility for the fact we didn't meet the original
deadline," said Laurence Gottlieb, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear
Northeast. "We're taking a quantum leap here in technology ... but
when all is said and done, the system that we're putting here in
this region is going to be the best in the country."

A spokeswoman for the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission
confirmed receipt of Entergy's payment but said it was too soon to
say if officials were satisfied with the company's response.

A 16-page letter from Entergy yesterday predicted an "anticipated
state of operability readiness by July 18" and promised that the
system would be working no later than Aug. 24.

"We'll be looking at details of the plan to see whether the
timeframe is acceptable to us," NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci said.

Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano's chief adviser said
county officials remained "very disappointed that (Entergy has)
already missed two deadlines."

"The bottom line is we want a system that works," Susan Tolchin
said. "They better be damn well sure it'll be up in August."

The sirens are intended to alert everyone within 10 miles of the
plant in case of an emergency.

Entergy is required to upgrade the Indian Point siren system under
terms of the 2005 federal Energy Policy Act, which included a
provision inserted by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that mandated
backup battery power.

The old sirens remain in use, and last week more than two dozen were
knocked out of service by blackouts caused by thunderstorms.

The new siren system was initially due Jan. 30, but Entergy won a
reprieve from the NRC that lasted through April 15.

On April 12, however, 31 of 150 new sirens - including all 14 in
Putnam County - failed to sound during a test. Entergy's letter
yesterday blamed the problem in part on a faulty computer chip.

The company is replacing 156 existing sirens that date to the 1970s
with new units with high-tech activation mechanisms that can be
triggered by cell phone, microwave radio or Internet-based signals.

The new sirens also feature four-way, omnidirectional horns instead
of the mechanical, rotating horns on the original models.

Entergy spokesman Gottlieb said total cost of the new system
exceeded $10 million. He said almost all of the new sirens had
passed recent silent tests.

Earlier this month, Westchester Emergency Services Commissioner
Anthony Sutton asked the NRC to give Entergy's payment to the four
counties in the 10-mile radius around the plant instead of sending
it to the U.S. Treasury.

County Executive Spano said the counties "pay a hefty price to
prepare for an emergency at Indian Point," and that it would be
"only fair that fines placed on Entergy be used to help ease this
burden on local taxpayers."

NRC spokeswoman Screnci said officials were still considering
Sutton's request and "hope to have a response as soon as possible."


Reach Bruce Golding at bgolding@lohud.com or 914-694-5012.

Copyright � 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper

All rights reserved. Use of this site signifies your agreement to
the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy
Rights, updated March 7, 2007.
*****************************************************************
 33 recordonline.com: Cool Hand Nuke: Paul Newman endorses Indian Point
power plant

Thursday May 24, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Call him Cool Hand Nuke. Actor and salad 
dressing salesman Paul Newman weighed in Wednesday on the Indian 
Point nuclear power facility in the New York suburbs, pronouncing 
it safer than military bases he had visited.

No, seriously.

Newman, the star of such films as "Cool Hand Luke," "Slap Shot" and
"Nobody's Fool," visited the Buchanan, N.Y., facility on Monday,
according to Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, the
company that owns Indian Point.

The veteran actor, restaurateur and organic-food producer praised
the nuclear power facility as an important part of the region's
energy future because it doesn't produce greenhouse gases, which
contribute to global warming.

Newman is a resident of Westport, Conn., about 40 miles from Indian
Point.

Through a statement issued by an industry group, Newman said he was
impressed with the safety measures in place at Indian Point - a key
worry point for local residents, some of whom want the plant, 35
miles north of midtown Manhattan, shut down as a potential target of
terrorism.

In stark contrast to his "Cool Hand Luke" character, who was always
trying to break out of prison, Newman was apparently given a
security card to enter the highly sensitive area.

"What I saw exceeded my expectations," Newman said in the statement.
"No Army or Navy base I've ever visited has been more armored, and I
couldn't walk 30 feet inside the plant without swiping my key card
to go through another security checkpoint."

Newman, who has electrified audiences for decades with his 100-watt
smile and raffish charm, called the plant an important source of
electricity for millions of New Yorkers.

He also sounded confident that the spent fuel rods are safely stored
"in a pool that, in my younger days, I could jump across."

Steets, the Entergy spokesman, called Newman's visit "a terrific
tour."

"We had a good time showing him around the plant," Steets said. "He
was very engaging, very interested in the issues."

Save, Share & RecommendWhat's This?

Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving
New York"s Hudson Valley and the Catskills. Phone: (845) 341-1100
*****************************************************************
 34 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC hearing will discuss Yankee's safety, aging issues

BRATTLEBORO, VT

By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff

Thursday, May 24

BRATTLEBORO -- The public will learn what the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission thinks of Entergy's plan to manage the effects of aging
on Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant's safety systems tonight at 7
at the Latchis Theatre.

During the public hearing, NRC representatives will discuss with
plant operators the results of an inspection of the methods Entergy
will use to guarantee Yankee is safe to operate into the year 2032.

"We perform numerous activities in reviewing a license renewal
application," said Diane Screnci, spokeswoman for the NRC. "One part
is an inspection to look at the systems, structures and components
and make sure the aging management plan is including everything that
is necessary."

In January 2006, Entergy applied to the NRC to extend Yankee's
operating license for 20 years past its current license expiration
date of 2012. Last year, Entergy received permission to increase
power output by 20 percent.

The two factors together have caused concern for anti-nuclear
activists who want to know what effects the power uprate will have
on the plant's systems, components and structures if the license
extension is granted.

"In a few years, Vermont Yankee will have been operating for 40 
years," said Diana Sidebotham, the president of the New England 
Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. "During that time it has been 
subjected to the extreme stress of heat, radiation and vibrations 
on its safety systems."

It's the coalition's position that the aging management plan is
"entirely inadequate," said Sidebotham.

At its last public meeting, on May 14, the NRC sat down with Entergy
representatives to discuss the plant's safety performance. Though
the meeting was well-attended by state and local officials, only
three members of the general public showed up.

"The public should come and show concern about a very old nuclear
power plant that Entergy wants to push harder and faster for a
longer time," said Sidebotham, about tonight's meeting.

"The public has an opportunity to ask the NRC hard questions about
aging," she said. "Whether they receive any answers, I don't know."

Sidebotham said the meeting is also a good time for area residents
to express their support for legislation sponsored by Sen. Bernie
Sanders, I-Vt., that would force an independent safety inspection
whenever a license extension or power uprate is requested by an
operator of a nuclear power plant.

"Any plant that receives an extended power uprate such as Vermont
Yankee received or has requested a license to run years beyond its
design life should at a minimum receive an independent assessment
and not the superficial review the NRC is now claiming is
adequate,"she said.

Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311,
ext. 273.

*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: NRC Authorizes Restart of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 1

News Release - Region II - 2007-033 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, 
Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 
E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

EDITORS/NEWS EDITORS:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein will address 
the Nuclear Energy Assembly on Friday in Miami at the Fairmont 
Turnberry Isle Resort, located at 19999 W. Country Club Dr. in 
Aventura on the challenges the agency faces as it prepares to 
receive applications for new reactor licenses.

     Klein will speak from 8:30 a.m. until 9:15 a.m. and will be 
available to talk to news media representatives at 10:00 a.m. A 
text of his remarks will be available.

    NRC Commissioners Jeffrey Merrifield and Peter Lyons will 
also attend the meeting.


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.


Thursday, May 24, 2007
*****************************************************************
 36 Oxford Mail: County Could Get Nuclear Station 

Part of the This Is Oxfordshire Network

By Reg Little

Ed Vaizey

Fears of a nuclear power station being built in Oxfordshire were
mounting today as the Didcot area emerged as a likely site.

Harwell was included as a "key opportunity for nuclear development"
in a report as the Government begins planning for a new generation
of nuclear power stations.

Didcot, as an existing power station, could also be considered as a
potential site for a nuclear power station, according to a
Government paper.

advertisement The report, commissioned from a leading energy
analyst, sets out why sites in Oxfordshire should be looked at among
favoured locations in the South of England.

The report urges the Government to focus on existing civil nuclear
licensed sites, such as Harwell.

The atomic research site at Harwell is viewed as one of the best
available locations.

But alarm in Oxfordshire will be intensified by news that nearby
Didcot Power Station is also mentioned as a possible site - meaning
that the county has two potential sites for a nuclear power station.

For the consultants say that conventional power station sites should
also be carefully considered.

The report, by Jackson Consulting, was commissioned by the
Department of Trade and Industry.

Consultants say that a new power station would require vast cooling
towers "as used by conventional coal and gas fired generating
stations such as Didcot in Oxfordshire".

It suggests that building a nuclear power station on such a site
would avoid many problems and some of the public protests that would
likely arise elsewhere in the country.

The report says: "Cooling towers are very large structures which
substantially damage the local amenity value from visual intrusion,
causing significant difficulties with local public acceptance, as
well as adding to the cost of construction and reducing the
station's power output three to five per cent."

According to the Jackson report, ease of connection to the national
grid is the main factor in determining a site's suitability.

Ed Vaizey, the Conservative MP for Wantage and Didcot, said he had
received no advanced warning of the report.

He said: "It does not surprise me that Didcot and Harwell have been
put in the frame for the next generation of nuclear power stations.

"My constituency already supplies a third of the power for the South
East and drives the South East's economy. The Government also wants
us to supply half of London's water.

"But this is a research exercise. It is a million miles from being a
firm proposal. But obviously we must be prepared for any proposal in
the future."

The report was submitted to the DTI last year.

But efforts by Greenpeace to use the freedom of information rules to
make it public were repeatedly blocked.

The study was finally disclosed as the Government published its
latest energy white paper.

Greenpeace director John Saven said: "The list of preferred sites
for new build in this report is a matter of national interest, not
just something for civil servants to see. It is scandalous the
Government was going to keep it under wraps."

Craig Simmons, leader of the Green Party on Oxfordshire County
Council, said: "This suggests that Oxfordshire is the most likely
inland site for a nuclear power station.

"Having a nuclear power station on Oxford's door steps highlights
many issues of safety. It is an inappropriate site."

Neville Harris, county councillor for Didcot South, said: "There
must be a huge and proper debate.

"And the outcome of this debate must not be prejudged. I know a lot
of people will want to talk about renewable energy.

"Politicians at all levels must not abdicate their responsibility by
seeking to privatise important environmental decisions."

Local people were appalled and surprised by the news that they could
have a nuclear power station on their doorstep.

Tessa Avenell, of Harwell, said: "I am pretty shocked about this. I
didn't know anything about it, so I am very surprised.

"I would consider moving if they built a nuclear power station near
here."

Joyce Norton, of Barrow Park, Harwell, said: "I have been here for
seven years and I really like it. I wouldn't be at all happy if they
built something like that here."

Oxford Friends of the Earth spokesman, Andrew Wood, said: "It's
largely speculation at the moment, if there would be a nuclear power
station at Harwell, or indeed elsewhere in Oxfordshire.

"The Government is missing a golden opportunity to make the UK a
world leader in developing a safe, clean and low-carbon future.

"Building new nuclear plants would be a costly, dangerous and
ineffective way to cut UK carbon emissions.

"It would also divert valuable resources from sustainable solutions
for tackling climate change.

"The Government should set out ambitious policies on energy
efficiency, renewable power, carbon capture and cleaner systems of
transport.

"Unfortunately, ministers have been taken in by the nuclear lobby
yet again."

The DTI said the report's conclusions were those of the consultants
and it was too early to consider the siting of any potential new
stations.

Of the UK's 19 existing civil nuclear power station sites, only nine
are considered feasible for new reactors, and only four are
immediately available.

The report adds that new stations are unlikely to be feasible in
Wales and Scotland because of devolution.

Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said it would be a profound
mistake to rule out nuclear energy at a time of dwindling North Sea
oil and gas supplies and pressure to tackle green house gas
emissions.

12:23pm Thursday 24th May 2007Print&nbsp  Email this   Comment
Posted by: C on 12:56pm Thu 24 May 07

Ah, a guaranteed way of bringing all the usual NIMBYs out of the
woodwork. Am I the only person who doesn't mind a nuclear power
station in my neighbourhood, or have I been taken in by the noisy
minority who claim they speak for everyone? And please, no
patronising comments about why I "shouldn't" be happy about the
idea--I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.

Ah, a guaranteed way of bringing all the usual NIMBYs out of the
woodwork. Am I the only person who doesn't mind a nuclear power
station in my neighbourhood, or have I been taken in by the noisy
minority who claim they speak for everyone?

And please, no patronising comments about why I "shouldn't" be happy
about the idea--I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.

Posted by: Neil, Oxford on 1:50pm Thu 24 May 07

I oppose nuclear powere stations being built in Oxfordshire or
anywhere else. There is a strong environemntal case against them and
an even stronger financial one. Not being a NIMBY, however, I
strongly support the development of more wind turbines in the
County, the relaxation of planning restrictions on micro-generation
and would be open-minded about a power from waste plant being
developed at Didcot. All these things are less environmentally
damaging and more cost-effective than going nuclear.

I oppose nuclear powere stations being built in Oxfordshire or
anywhere else.

There is a strong environemntal case against them and an even
stronger financial one.

Not being a NIMBY, however, I strongly support the development of
more wind turbines in the County, the relaxation of planning
restrictions on micro-generation and would be open-minded about a
power from waste plant being developed at Didcot.

All these things are less environmentally damaging and more
cost-effective than going nuclear.

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Alan Crowder, Oxford on 2:06pm Thu 24 May 07

C, I agree with you, if Nuclear power is the way to go and we can
forget solar and wind then bring it on, Didcot is big enough to
handle it and the jobs would be safe. I have no doubt it would be
safe. My vote is a big YES.

C, I agree with you, if Nuclear power is the way to go and we can
forget solar and wind then bring it on, Didcot is big enough to
handle it and the jobs would be safe. I have no doubt it would be
safe. My vote is a big YES.

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: barry, oxford on 2:21pm Thu 24 May 07

"Building new nuclear plants would be a costly, dangerous and
ineffective way to cut UK carbon emissions. Why is a nuclear power
station an ineffective way to cut carbon emissions? Surely as
opposed to a coal fired power station it produces less carbon
emissions. Meaning carbon emissions have been cut. Not that I really
believe in man-made climate change anyway

"Building new nuclear plants would be a costly, dangerous and
ineffective way to cut UK carbon emissions.

Why is a nuclear power station an ineffective way to cut carbon
emissions? Surely as opposed to a coal fired power station it
produces less carbon emissions. Meaning carbon emissions have been
cut. Not that I really believe in man-made climate change anyway

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Kathryn, Oxford on 2:45pm Thu 24 May 07

Are they really safe next to a residential area? I saw that Mark
Thomas programme where he took a geiger counter along the railway by
Sellafield. It was terrifying. I have no specific objection to
nuclear power, it's the motivation and professionalism of the people
running it that worries me.

Are they really safe next to a residential area? I saw that Mark
Thomas programme where he took a geiger counter along the railway by
Sellafield. It was terrifying. I have no specific objection to
nuclear power, it's the motivation and professionalism of the people
running it that worries me.

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Sideshow Bob, Abingdon on 3:16pm Thu 24 May 07

I don't mind either, although I guess house prices in the area might
suffer. Don't nuclear power stations require a LOT of water, which
is why they tend to be on the coast. Aha -I see, there are plans for
a reservoir near Didcot! Just a coincidence?

I don't mind either, although I guess house prices in the area might
suffer. Don't nuclear power stations require a LOT of water, which
is why they tend to be on the coast. Aha -I see, there are plans for
a reservoir near Didcot! Just a coincidence?

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Rebecca, Oxford on 3:24pm Thu 24 May 07

There is background radiation all around us - you get it in the
rocks, soil and even from your TV and computer, and every time you
fly you get an increased radiation dose from cosmic rays. Background
radiation counts are perfectly normal. I didn't see the Mark Thomas
program, but did he show you the geiger counter readings in an area
well away from Sellafield as well, as a comparison? People who work
in nuclear power stations are very conscious of problems with
radiation - they work inside the building at a much high risk then
people outside, they are not going to risk getting over-exposed.
Among many other precautions they take, they wear special badges
that detect how much radiation is in the atmosphere where they work
so they can make sure that it remains within safe levels. Another
interesting fact for those worried about nuclear waste is that if
the electricity used by one person throughout their lifetime was
generated by nuclear fuel, the amount of highly radioactive waste
produced, once processed, would be small enough to fit in the palm
of your hand. I'm not saying nuclear energy is marvellous and will
solve all our problems (I personally feel, other, renewable energy
should be our answer, not more nuclear power stations). All I'm
saying is that many people have entirely the wrong view of nuclear
energy and have a gut reaction against it, whereas if they knew the
facts they may feel entirely different about it.

There is background radiation all around us - you get it in the
rocks, soil and even from your TV and computer, and every time you
fly you get an increased radiation dose from cosmic rays. Background
radiation counts are perfectly normal. I didn't see the Mark Thomas
program, but did he show you the geiger counter readings in an area
well away from Sellafield as well, as a comparison?

People who work in nuclear power stations are very conscious of
problems with radiation - they work inside the building at a much
high risk then people outside, they are not going to risk getting
over-exposed. Among many other precautions they take, they wear
special badges that detect how much radiation is in the atmosphere
where they work so they can make sure that it remains within safe
levels.

Another interesting fact for those worried about nuclear waste is
that if the electricity used by one person throughout their lifetime
was generated by nuclear fuel, the amount of highly radioactive
waste produced, once processed, would be small enough to fit in the
palm of your hand.

I'm not saying nuclear energy is marvellous and will solve all our
problems (I personally feel, other, renewable energy should be our
answer, not more nuclear power stations). All I'm saying is that
many people have entirely the wrong view of nuclear energy and have
a gut reaction against it, whereas if they knew the facts they may
feel entirely different about it.

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Phil Gale, Oxford on 3:30pm Thu 24 May 07

I've heard it said that coal powered power stations emit more
radioactive material than nuclear powered ones -- because of all the
radioisotopes locked into the coal. On that basis, converting Didcot
to nuclear could be the best thing for south Oxfordshire.

I've heard it said that coal powered power stations emit more
radioactive material than nuclear powered ones -- because of all the
radioisotopes locked into the coal. On that basis, converting Didcot
to nuclear could be the best thing for south Oxfordshire.

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Neil, Oxford on 3:39pm Thu 24 May 07

[italic]Another interesting fact for those worried about nuclear
waste is that if the electricity used by one person throughout their
lifetime was generated by nuclear fuel, the amount of highly
radioactive waste produced, once processed, would be small enough to
fit in the palm of your hand.[/italic] So, overall, that is a pretty
big pile of highly radioactive waste for the population as a whole.
No wonder it is so expensive to deal with the stuff.

Another interesting fact for those worried about nuclear waste is
that if the electricity used by one person throughout their lifetime
was generated by nuclear fuel, the amount of highly radioactive
waste produced, once processed, would be small enough to fit in the
palm of your hand.

So, overall, that is a pretty big pile of highly radioactive waste
for the population as a whole.

No wonder it is so expensive to deal with the stuff.

Quote | Report this post

Posted by: Rebecca, oxford on 3:55pm Thu 24 May 07

Ah but Neil, nuclear power only provides about 11% of the World's
energy, not 100%, so a lot less waste is produced per person than
the amount I mentioned. It is a problem, don't get me wrong, but it
is not as vast a problem as people tend to believe. The majority of
nuclear waste produced is less radioactive than some rocks in
Cornwall!

Ah but Neil, nuclear power only provides about 11% of the World's
energy, not 100%, so a lot less waste is produced per person than
the amount I mentioned.

It is a problem, don't get me wrong, but it is not as vast a problem
as people tend to believe. The majority of nuclear waste produced is
less radioactive than some rocks in Cornwall!

Privacy Policy &copy; Copyright 2001-2007
A Gannett Company
*****************************************************************
 37 Northern Echo: The Need To Go Nuclear 

Atomic power was at the heart of the Government's Energy White Paper
yesterday. Lindsay Jennings looks at the debate over Britains
reliance on nuclear fuel

TO some, it is seen as a wasteful energy system of the past. To
quote John Sauven, the director of the environmental group
Greenpeace, for example, putting nuclear power at the centre of
Britain's future energy needs is like "an obese person taking up
smoking to lose weight".

Yet, as the Government unveiled its Energy White Paper yesterday, it
became clear that nuclear power is still seen as the answer to
Britain's energy needs.

While environmental campaigners champion alternatives in the
renewable energy revolution - from wind farms to solar panels -
nuclear power, says the Government, has been chosen for the very way
it will be able to help Britain meet her carbon emission targets.

Sir Bernard Ingham, secretary of lobby group Supporters of Nuclear
Energy, says of environmental campaigners: "I think they are
throwing away the only method of generating electricity which
produces next-to-no greenhouse gases."

But with all but one of the country's nuclear power stations - which
provide 20 per cent of the country's energy needs - due to close by
2023, where will future nuclear provision come from?

We look at some key questions and answers surrounding the atomic
debate.

How does nuclear power work?

When nuclear power first burst onto the scene about 50 years ago it
was touted as the miracle answer to the world's energy needs.

Nuclear power uses uranium which is found in rocks around the world.
The two largest producers of uranium are Canada and Australia.

Uranium dioxide pellets are produced which are then encased in long
metal tubes to form fuel rods which are sealed and assembled in
clusters for use in the core of the nuclear reactor.

Nuclear reactors then produce electricity by heating water to make
steam. The steam is used to drive turbines that generate electricity.

One nuclear fuel pellet, which is about 2cm long, can produce the
same amount of electricity as 1.5 tons of coal.

Does nuclear power create greenhouse gases that will contribute to
global warming?

Nuclear reactors are similar to other thermal power stations in that
burning coal or gas also produces steam which drives turbines. But
nuclear reactors emit little carbon dioxide and less greenhouse
gases which contribute to global warming.

Finland's parliament has approved the construction of a new nuclear
power station which it hopes will help the country to meet its
greenhouse gas emission targets. It will be the first to be built in
western Europe since 1991.

What happens to the waste products from nuclear reactors?

Used fuel from a nuclear reactor is stored to allow most of the
radioactivity to decay. It is then either reprocessed to recover the
reusable portion or disposed of directly as waste. One of the
questions that will be asked is where can we put that waste, which
remains dangerous for centuries.

Currently, nuclear facilities are decommissioned after the end of
their operating lives. All nuclear materials, machinery and plant
are removed and the site is returned to a state where it can be used
for a new purpose.

How many nuclear power stations are there in Britain?

There are currently 16 nuclear power plants in Britain, half
operated by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and the other half by
British Energy.

All power stations run by BNFL will close by 2010 and those run by
British Energy will close by 2023. The power stations have outlived
their 20-25 year life expectancy.

This will leave one power plant in Suffolk running until 2035. There
has not been any building of nuclear power stations in Britain in
more than ten years.

The Government is currently being advised that Britain needs to
build further nuclear power stations if it is to meet greenhouse gas
emission targets.

What's wrong with building more power stations?

Building a nuclear power station is not simple even when permission
has been given.

A report commissioned by Greenpeace said the average nuclear power
station costs up to three times more than expected and takes four
years longer to build than planned.

"We can't even build football stadiums on time or on budget. If you
look at any big infrastructure projects you have similar problems,"
says Mr Sauven of Greenpeace.

"We do agree that we need new efficient combined heat and power
stations to replace existing nuclear power stations. But we also
need to deal with the bigger picture of cutting energy demand.

"If you just phased out energy inefficient lightbulbs then you could
close down two power stations."

The campaign group also believes that more reactors would create
tens of thousands of tons of waste, which would remain dangerous for
up to a million years.

Why can't we rely on other energy sources, such as coal, gas or wind
power?

By 2015, the amount of electricity from renewable energy will triple
to 15 per cent, with particular focus on offshore wind power. Tidal
power could also make a significant contribution and potentially
provide up to five per cent of the country's electricity demand.

But the Government believes that renewable energy alone will not be
enough to provide an answer to Britain's energy needs - although
Friends of the Earth argue renewable resources could generate more
than half our electricity needs by 2025.

The Government also says that wind farms are not popular with
everyone. Some say they ruin the landscape while others worry about
the effect on wildlife.

Our coal stocks are dwindling with as little as 30 years of supplies
left and coal also emits huge quantities of carbon dioxide which
affects global warming. Our gas provisions - although a considerably
cleaner fuel than oil - are running out in the North Sea and if
Britain stays with gas stations it will rely more and more on other
countries, such as Russia and Algeria, for its fuel, which could
prove expensive.

What happens now?

The Government says it has reached a preliminary decision to allow
energy companies to invest in nuclear power. It would be up to them
to initiate, fund, build and operate new nuclear plants, but the
planning process for building nuclear plants is expected to have
been streamlined after changes made to planning laws outlined on
Monday.

Industry secretary Alistair Darling has said it will be more than
likely that any new plants will be built on or near existing nuclear
facilities. There will now be a consultation process which will run
until October 10 before any further decisions are made.

6:04am Thursday 24th May 2007Print&nbsp  Email this

Newsquest Media Group
A Gannett Company
*****************************************************************
 38 Northern Echo: Falling Out Over Location Of Nuclear Power Plants 

Comment

A ROW was raging last night over future energy generation as the
Government came under attack after launching a five-month
consultation on the role of new nuclear power stations.

Opposition parties, environmental campaigners and pressure groups
criticised ministers for peddling a "failed policy".

Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said it was more
likely than not that new nuclear power stations would be built on
the sites that already have similar plants.

But Greenpeace said an official report published after a Freedom of
Information Act request by the group showed that sites in the South,
including Hinkley, Sizewell, Dungeness and Bradwell, were considered
the most suitable places for new reactors.

Director John Sauven said: "Scientists say the speed at which
climate change is happening means that some of the sites suggested
for new nuclear power stations are threatened by rising sea levels
and storm surges.

"Meanwhile, political developments in Scotland have ruled out other
sites. You have to question where the Government thinks it's going
to build these things.

"Government claims about Russia and the lights going out have the
whiff of a dodgy dossier. They are whipping up fear to push a policy
that is patently dishonest."

The Government also came under fire over plans for a �14bn barrage
across the Severn that would harness the tidal energy of the
estuary, which Mr Darling said he was very interested in promoting.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds warned that the
ten-mile barrage would cause "untold damage" to the environment.

Mr Darling said it was the Government's preliminary view that it was
in the public interest to give private energy firms the option of
investing in new nuclear building projects.

A 20-week public consultation started yesterday will run until
October 10.

Mr Darling told MPs that the amount of electricity from renewable
energy would triple to 15 per cent by 2015, as he published the
Energy White Paper.

He said the Government had three aims - to reduce the amount of
energy consumed in this country, to increase the amount of power
generated by renewables and to ensure an energy mix.

He said: "I firmly believe that the mix we have will serve us well
in the future. My firm view is that nuclear does need to be part of
that - to exclude it as an option makes no sense at all."

8:57am Thursday 24th May 2007Print&nbsp  Email this   Comment

Newsquest Media Group
A Gannett Company
*****************************************************************
 39 The Herald: Facts behind the carbon storage debate

KEVIN SCHOFIELD May 25 2007

Comment

1 What is carbon capture and storage?

It is an attempt to tackle climate change by capturing the carbon
dioxide which is produced by power plants and then storing it to
prevent it being released into the atmosphere. Technology for
capturing CO2 is already commercially available, but storage is a
relatively untried concept and as yet no power plant operates with a
full CCS system.

2 What would the BP North Sea project have entailed?
The planned power station near Peterhead would convert natural gas
to hydrogen and carbon dioxide then use the hydrogen as fuel. The
carbon dioxide would then be pumped into the depleted BP Miller
Field in the North Sea to help exploit further reserves of oil and
gas. BP forecast that around 1.3 million tonnes of the greenhouse
gas could be stored each year.

3 What is the potential of CCS?
The Department of Trade and Industry has estimated that two billion
barrels of oil could be recovered as a result of CO2 storage in
depleted oil reservoirs in the North Sea. At today's oil prices that
would be worth �120bn.

4 What are the main benefits of CCS?

In his 2006 budget statement, the Chancellor announced that after a
joint study between the Norwegian and UK governments, it was
estimated that CCS could reduce CO2 emissions from gas and coal
power stations by as much as 80%. The Peterhead project would also
have brought 1000 construction jobs to the North-east.

5 What are the potential risks of CCS?
Various forms of CO2 storage have been conceived, including in
former oil and gas fields and unmineable coal seams, but fears have
been raised about the potential for leakage. However, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that CO2
could be safely stored for millions of years with minimal leakage.

6 How much support has the government given the project?
It has been wholeheartedly behind the project, citing it as a
potentially major breakthrough in the battle against climate change.
Soon after it was first announced in 2005, Gordon Brown said the
government was examining how it could support the project's
development. The following year Mr Brown launched the feasibility
study with Norway and in March Alistair Darling confirmed a
competition would be held for the right to carry out the work.

7 What have the other parties said?
The SNP has been the most vocal supporter, not least because the
plant would be located in party leader Alex Salmond's constituency.
Mr Salmond said CCS could "contribute significantly to reduction in
greenhouse gases and Scotland has the best locations in the world
for carbon capture".

8 What have environmentalists said?
After some initial scepticism, CCS has been welcomed by green
campaigners for the part it can play in reducing emissions and
tackling climate change. Friends of the Earth says CCS is a viable,
environmentally-friendly alternative to nuclear power.

9 Why did BP pull out?
The government's energy white paper, which was published on
Wednesday, revealed that the competition for Britain's CCS project
would not begin until November. This was despite the fact that
ministers at Westminster had promised on various occasions that a
final decision on who would get the contract would be made this
year. BP, which had already invested millions in the scheme, said
the delays had pushed the costs of the project up and that it had no
alternative but to withdraw.

10 What happens next?
BP has insisted that it is not engaging in brinkmanship and that its
decision to pull out of the race for the contract is final. For its
part, the government has said it had no option but to launch a
competition because to award the contract without one would have
been illegal. The SNP has accused Westminster of incompetence and of
denying Peterhead the chance of regeneration.

� All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.


Copyright � 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
Reserved   
*****************************************************************
 40 Kent News: Greens warn of nuclear cost as Government identifies Dungeness 
for new reactor

, May 25 2007, 5:02

Dungeness

RENEWABLE energy sources should be prioritised over nuclear power,
according to green campaigners.

The Kent Green Party has criticised the Government's Energy White
Paper, which has recommended building more nuclear plants.

The Government said Dungeness in Kent was among sites where new
reactors could be built. Ministers are warning of an energy crisis
within 10 years when North Sea oil and gas runs out.

But Green spokesman Steve Dawe said: "New nuclear power is simply
too expensive to contemplate. The Government claims that new nuclear
power stations will not obtain public funds.

"But public money will inevitably be used for security of nuclear
sites, waste storage and disposal, roads constructed to any new
sites, storage of scarce uranium (and) government lobbying overseas
to obtain what little uranium is left."


POSTED: 24/05/2007 12:15:33


   Copyright © 2007 KOS Media Ltd. All rights reserved. Terms and
 
*****************************************************************
 41 Reuters: Likely nuclear sites need flood defences 

Thu May 24, 2007 2:32PM BST

By Daniel Fineren

LONDON (Reuters) - The prime sites for nuclear power plants the
government is keen to see built are on the southern coasts, where
the flood risk is higher than elsewhere in the country, a
government-commissioned report said.

The report by energy analysts Jackson Consulting for the Department
of Trade and Industry identified Hinkley Point, together with
Sizewell and Dungeness, as the best sites for large nuclear power
stations.

But it warned that any company planning to build there would
probably have to bolster existing flood defences against sea level
rises as the effects of climate change take hold.

"There remains a drawback that most nuclear power stations are sited
in low lying coastal locations, which may be at risk from coastal
erosion and serious flooding as a result of climate change," the
report, released along with the government's nuclear energy
consultation, says.

"For new nuclear build, consideration would need to be given to
flood protection over the expected 100-year lifecycle of the power
station, spanning construction, operation and final decommissioning.
This would need to take into account predicted sea level rise
including credible extreme weather scenarios and events."

The government aired an energy policy overhaul on Wednesday, aimed
at cutting emissions of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide -- through
support of nuclear and renewable technologies -- while trying to
improve energy efficiency.

Officials are still consulting on whether to allow a new fleet of
nuclear power reactors, but the government made clear it sees atomic
energy as a key tool in reducing emissions and boosting security of
supply.

Apart from safety concerns, environmental groups say the huge costs
involved in building and later decommissioning nuclear power plants
would be better spent on cleaner and safer forms of power production
like wind and wave power.  Continued...

� Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. | Learn more about Reuters
*****************************************************************
 42 Decatur Daily: Unit 1 restart a welcome event

 THURSDAY, MAY 24, 2007

EDITORIAL

The restarting of Unit 1 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant this week was
a big event that went by quietly, but one that should renew the
nation's interest in this controversial alternative fuel. The
Tennessee Valley Authority reinforced the feasibility of renewing
old plants, which should interest investor-owned companies that have
aging nuclear facilities.

The cost of restarting the unit that first went on-line in 1974 was
$1.8 billion, yet TVA estimates the payback of restarting costs to
take only five years. Its license expires in 2036.

With all three units at Browns Ferry operating, TVA will have five
sites that produce more than 30 percent of its electricity. At one
time, the Browns Ferry plant in Limestone County on the banks of the
Tennessee River was the world's largest nuclear plant. Today, it is
one of the world's newest after the total renovation of all three
units. Unit 1 has the distinction of being the first U.S. nuclear
plant to go online in this new century.

Unit 2 came back online in 1991 and Unit 3 restarted in 1995. Since
restarting, Unit 3 completed the second longest run for any U.S.
plant from May 25, 2000, to March 26, 2002. It went 669 days, 9
hours and 15 minutes without a shutdown.

TVA plans to bring Unit 1 online slowly as testing continues.
Meanwhile, the public appears comfortable with restarting the plant,
which is a sign the industry is maturing.
 
THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 
35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com


   www.decaturdaily.com

*****************************************************************
 43 Berwickshire Today: New nuclear plants 'pie in sky'

* Published Date: 24 May 2007

First Minister Alex Salmond has dismissed new nuclear power stations
in Scotland as "pie in the sky" as the government published its
long-awaited Energy White Paper.

In his first major speech to MSPs at Holyrood he rejected claims
that only nuclear power could meet energy needs, and pointed to the
huge alternative opportunities in areas like clean coal and carbon
capture.

His speech coincided with rows in London after the government
launched a five-month consultation on the significant role new
nuclear stations could play.

Opposition parties, green campaigners and pressure groups criticised
ministers for a "failed" policy, and questioned where new nuclear
stations would be built.

Scottish Greens seized on an official discussion document which
included Torness and Hunterston in a list of existing nuclear sites
considered to be "potentially suitable" for new reactors.

Green MSP Patrick Harvie said: "The White Paper published today will
be rejected in Scotland and the proposals for new reactors

at Torness and Hunterston will not get off the drawing board.

"There is no political majority for new nuclear power stations in
Scotland, neither in the Executive nor in parliament.

"New nuclear would be a distraction from the core agenda of tackling
climate change through renewables and energy efficiency."

In a statement setting out the early priorities of his minority
administration, Alex Salmond said Scotland's installed capacity for
green energy generation, like hydro, wind, and biomass, would
"within the next few weeks" overtake the 2,465 megawatt installed
capacity of nuclear stations in Scotland.

"Despite the claims from the Secretary of State (the DTI's Alistair
Darling) that only nuclear power can fulfil our energy needs, there
are huge alternative opportunities that demand our attention," he
said.

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2007, All Rights Reserved.

Last Updated: 24 May 2007

All rights reserved �2007
Johnston Press Digital Publishing

*****************************************************************
 44 Telegraph: Half-baked power strategy could lead to trouble 

By Charles Clover

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 24/05/2007

Commentary

Labour is backing nuclear power with the fervour of the newly
converted. But it is being bafflingly slow about developing
alternative options - other than the environmentally damaging tidal
barrage across the Severn estuary.

That is the only conclusion one can draw from the Energy White Paper
and the fascinating document accompanying it that names potential
sites where nuclear stations could be pushed through the planning
system.

Despite other announcements in the White Paper, nuclear was where
the action lay. We were told that nuclear power is needed to tackle
climate change and our growing dependence on imported gas, mostly
from Russia.

The power stations will be built on existing sites, or old oil and
gas power station sites, mainly in the south of England.

One does not have to be anti-nuclear to wonder why the Government
was placing all its eggs in one basket - when all sorts of factors
could upset the lopsided strategy.

The most fascinating unanswered question yesterday was why the
Government had been so dilatory in pulling the other levers at its
disposal - such as energy efficiency and carbon capture technology.

Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, did his best to
make it look as if the Government was interested in all ways of
saving carbon emissions, such as installing "smart meters" to make
consumers realise how much electricity they use.

But BP pulled the rug from underneath Mr Darling with an
announcement that it was abandoning the world's first carbon capture
and storage project in Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, because the
Government had missed the boat.

The project would have produced hydrogen while pumping its carbon
dioxide emissions into the redundant Miller oilfield.

Gordon Brown has put off making a decision on whether carbon capture
would be funded by the Government. Now Mr Darling has announced a
competition for new projects beginning at the end of the year. That
puts a start date far into the future. BP made it clear what they
thought of that.

Another huge generator of emissions and user of imported gas is
heating. The only way that we are going to tackle what we waste is
if someone, such as our local energy provider, helps us figure out
how to do it.

The Government has been lackadaisical about making the those
providers sell energy services. The Institute for Public Policy
Research has called for the proposed requirement to be brought
forward from 2011 to next year, but that fell on deaf ears.

Nuclear might just have been saleable to the public on the basis of
a comprehensive strategy. But one cannot help feeling this
half-baked plan is storing up trouble.

&copy; Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | Terms
*****************************************************************
 45 The Tribune: Rice hopes to finalise N-deal soon

Chandigarh, India - Main News

Washington, May 24

 Hoping that the Indo-US nuclear deal would be finalised �very 
soon�, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice has, however, noted 
that there is a tendency to look at bilateral ties in the context 
of the pact but, in fact, they have far more depth and width.

 The US is having better relations with India than at any time in 
the history of the bilateral relationship and with a recognition 
that not only New Delhi is going to play �its own� role in the 
international system but in a realisation that in any 
relationship there are going to be differences, she said.

  "You tend to think only about the government-to-government 
piece. You tend to think only about the very important civil 
nuclear deal that we have concluded with India and hope to 
finalise very soon, but this is a very broad and deep 
relationship and I think it's only going to become more so over 
time," she said.

  "Our relationship with India is based on a sense of 
partnership, a sense that India is an emerging great multi-ethnic 
democracy and that means that it's going to play its own role in 
the world," Rice said.

   The top Bush administration official was at an event along 
with Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer at The Ronald 
Reagan Library at Simi Valley, California. � PTI

*****************************************************************
 46 Telegraph: Why the Energy White Paper could be a white elephant

Business Comment: 

By Damian Reece, City Editor

Last Updated: 12:37am BST 24/05/2007

Why the Energy White Paper could be a white elephantWhite paper sets
out nuclear strategy

Yesterday's Energy White Paper is not a vote winner for a
ratings-obsessed Government, which is why the document's generally
sensible findings should be welcomed.

It's a serious piece of work. It opens the door for nuclear, which
is where the bulk of our energy needs must come from. But it could
be rendered redundant within three years and the whole process
forced to start again.

Three crucial developments are in the offing, the results of which
could yet make the White Paper a white elephant.

First is the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. It must soon decide
whether to keep Britain's nuclear power stations going after their
planned 30-year lives are up. If the inspectors follow other
countries and give our nuclear fleet another 10 years, that changes
things dramatically. It reduces the immediate risks from shortages
and security of supply. It also changes the economics for those
companies wanting to design and build new nuclear stations. It gives
them far more time which, when it comes to massive infrastructure
investments, is no bad thing. If the fleet is not extended, we face
an expensive, politically-charged scramble to replace them.

Second is planning. Although changes to the planning process were
detailed in the White Paper, they may well come too late for a
crucial new line that's urgently needed to connect the national grid
to the host of wind farms north of Inverness. Without timely
planning permission the line won't get built and the nation will
miss its renewables target, not to mention be deprived of a crucial
new energy source.

Finally, there is the question of emission trading certificates.
Will the EU adopt a workable, properly priced and policed
marketplace for emissions trading or will we see a continuation of
the current farce? If we do, then the UK will have to adopt its own
rules, which has huge financial implications for thousands of
businesses here, big and small. There was plenty of detail in the
Energy White Paper, but we are a long way from certainty on the
crucial subject of energy supply.

Hurricane forecasters create climate of fearInsurers told to expect
severe US storm season

It would be all too easy to dismiss the alarmist predictions of the
hurricane forecasters, who are warning us to expect another stormy
summer in America's vulnerable south-eastern states. There were red
faces all round last year when son of Katrina failed to appear as
billed in the Gulf of Mexico.

This year the boffins are telling anyone who will listen to batten
down the hatches again. They've probably never heard of Michael Fish
at the State University of Colorado but, like the unfortunate
weatherman, they know it's better to err on the side of caution.
With so much money riding on the analysis, no one wants to seem
complacent.

The experts might not have great form as hurricane tipsters, but no
one can afford to ignore the chance of a re-run of 2005's terrifying
twisters. With oil and petrol stocks at historically low levels and
prices high, there's not much wriggle room. The American economy,
weakened by the sub-prime mortgage debacle, is unlikely to shrug off
higher energy and fuel costs.

Crying wolf two years on the trot won't help the forecasters'
reputations, but the rest of us must hope they're wrong again.

Mike Ashley, Big Sam and Roy of the RoversMike Ashley makes bid for
Newcastle

Saturday morning always meant Roy of the Rovers. Saturday afternoon
always meant the wind-swept terracing of Burnden Park. By teatime I
was ready to delve back into the tales of Melchester Rovers, an
alternative reality to yet another promotion disappointment.

But even a nine-year-old would struggle to swallow the storyline
that unfolded yesterday. Billionaire shopkeeper Mike Ashley launches
�133m takeover bid for Newcastle United.

Obviously he's decided that Sam Allardyce, the ex-Bolton manager
snatched the other week to be Newcastle's new boss, is worth
backing. Absolutely right, of course. But while investing in Big
Sam's coaching prowess makes sense, there's plenty about this deal
that doesn't.

Ashley has just floated his Sports Direct retail empire, cashing in
more than �900m in the process, but insisting he won't have any kind
of public profile. So why launch a bid for one of the
highest-profile football clubs money can buy? That reveals a
worrying contradiction in his character. Is he a lifelong Magpies
fan? No. A Geordie? No.

Perhaps he thinks he can make money. Presumably he hasn't consulted
Roman Abramovich. True, some football clubs do make money.
Manchester United stands out, but is very much the exception to the
rule. Being the owner of Newcastle United risks alienating the fans
of every other club who use your many stores to buy their replica
kits. Maybe he has more money than sense, and with his Sports
Direct-related wealth standing at �1.8bn, this is entirely possible.
One rational explanation is that he's planning to flip his
investment, selling it on quickly having made a decent return. He
may even have a list of potential buyers in mind. Either way you
couldn't make this one up, even in Roy of the
Rovers.damian.reece@telegraph.co.uk

The Daily Telegraph Business section has launched a weekly readers'
letters and email column, which will appear every Monday. Please let
us have your views. Write to the City Editor, Letters, Daily
Telegraph, 111 Buckingham Palace Road, London SW1W 0DT, or email
city.feedback@telegraph.co.uk

Please remember that the submission of any material to
telegraph.co.uk is governed by our Terms and Conditions (clause 5 in
particular) and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to
these Terms and Conditions.

damian.reece@telegraph.co.uk

&copy; Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | Terms
*****************************************************************
 47 Comment is free: Nuclear disempowerment

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Tony Juniper

By plumping for nuclear power, the government is pre-empting 
proper public debate on how we answer the need for green energy.

May 24, 2007 1:30 PM | Printable version

Prophecy of dome: Sizewell B nuclear power station, in Suffolk.
Photograph: Dan Chung.

The government's apparent intention to build nuclear power stations
at the sites of some of the old coal generating plants will make for
some interesting politics. It is my suspicion that many of the
people who have been clamouring for new nuclear build had assumed
that new stations would be on the locations of the old ones. Few
anticipated that a lot of the proposed new build might be in
previously non-nuclear locations. I wonder if some people will now
be changing their views? If they are, they might find it hard to get
them heard.

For some time, it has been evident that ministers preferred to add
new nuclear stations on the sites of the existing ones. Communities
there are used to living next to reactors, and have reason to
support their continuing operation because of the jobs they provide.
Many of these sites are now not suitable, however, because of
expected sea level rise and the danger of flooding at coastal
locations, for example. This is why ministers are now advised that
new places are needed.

Expecting that there will be serious public hostility to new nuclear
site proposals, the government this week not only published an
energy white paper but has begun in earnest a parallel attempt to
write public participation out of the official planning process. By
passing responsibility to a commission of "experts", the government
can push forward its pro-nuclear ambitions (and new airport
expansion and motorway building) through ending the rights of local
communities to have a say in decisions that will have profound
impacts on them. This is a serious shift toward central planning and
will have very serious consequences for both our environment and
democracy.

Climate change is the most serious challenge facing humankind, but
it will not be successfully addressed through the imposition of
technology or through the erosion of democratic participation. We
need to promote public debate about the choices we have and to gain
as much consensus as we can as to the way forward. There are lots of
views and strong opinions, but I do not think that forcing decisions
upon people is the right way to go. The same goes for wind turbines.

I don't happen to agree with the views of many of those who campaign
against wind turbines, but it is essential that these views are
shared and heard. It is interesting that government advisors tried
to sell the planning reforms to green groups on the grounds that we
would get our wind power more quickly. We rejected that offer and
instead said that we would prefer to win the arguments through
debate, not via a lurch toward centralised planning.

We need to take action on climate change very soon; that is true.
This does not mean that we must endlessly exchange opinions and that
nothing will happen, however. We do need decisions and clear
policies and we need leadership from government to make things
happen. This does not mean that we close down debate and take the
public out of the equation.

There is already strong support for action on climate change and it
is my view that there is already plenty of public space for
Ministers to move within. We could for example go right now for a
programme of decentralised energy generation (thereby cutting the
vast power waste that comes with huge centralised capacity). We
could be pressing ahead with larger scale renewable power
programmes, including far more ambitious offshore wind power
schemes. We could be making a serious push toward energy efficiency,
including for vehicles. We could be taking up the potential of
combined heat and power systems and looking far more seriously at
carbon capture and storage.

All this would have the additional advantage of being quicker to
implement, cheaper to do and with the potential to create more jobs
in the UK (instead of importing French reactors). It would
additionally help us to reduce the radioactive legacy that will be
handed on to future generations. My feeling is that it would also be
better for our democracy because it could be done with people
joining the debate on how best to do it. The way things are going,
the best we might expect is to be asked what colour gates we would
like at our new nuclear plants.

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007.
Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396
Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG
*****************************************************************
 48 KnoxNews: Browns Ferry reactor shut down

By ANDREW EDER, edera@knews.com
May 24, 2007

Operators at the newly restarted Unit 1 at TVA's Browns Ferry 
Nuclear Plant manually shut down the reactor this morning 
following a leak in a control system.

While attempting to repair the leak, piping separated and dumped 
about 600 gallons of fluid onto the turbine building floor, 
according to an incident report from the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.

The report said cleanup of the fluid is in progress and the site is
being monitored to contain the spill.

NRC spokesman Ken Clark said two workers were sprayed with the
slightly corrosive ? but non-radioactive ? fluid. Those workers were
taken to a hospital as a precaution and released this morning, Clark
said.

He said no safety systems at the plant were activated because they
were unnecessary.

"It's an operating problem, it's unfortunate, but it was not a
safety problem," Clark said.

The reactor first achieved a nuclear chain reaction early Tuesday
after a five-year, $1.8 billion restart. It had been operating at a
low level, not yet sending electricity to TVA's grid. The system
affected by the leak controlled valves that bypass the
power-generating turbine.

"We do not expect that it will cause any long-term delay in their
startup process," Clark said.

More details as they develop online and in Friday's News Sentinel.

 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 49 NewsRoom Finland: Finn leads Norway's thorium working group

24.5.2007 at 11:36

Norwegian state-owned utility Statkraft is looking into the
possibility of building a thorium-fuelled nuclear power station,
Finnish daily Hufvudstadsbladet reported on Thursday, adding Mikko
Kara of Technical Research Centre Finland (VTT) was leading the
thorium working group.

Although the cost of refining thorium is higher than that of
uranium, the former is more abundant than the latter.

/STT/

� Copyright STT 2007

� 1995 � 2005, Virtual Finland





*****************************************************************
 50 PRN: Nuclear Industry Leaders Identify Challenges on Road to U.S. Nuclear
Energy Renaissance

NEI PROMO

    MIAMI, May 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Financial, 
regulatory and communications challenges are among those that 
still must be met to bring the emerging "nuclear energy 
renaissance" to fruition, Nuclear Energy Institute leaders told 
hundreds of industry executives assembled at NEI's three-day 
annual conference here.

    "The outlook for nuclear energy is bright and growing 
brighter. But that is not the whole story," said NEI board 
Chairman John Rowe, chairman, president and chief executive 
officer of Exelon Corp., the nation's largest operator of nuclear 
power plants.

    The industry has proven its ability to operate nuclear power 
plants on a sustained basis at high levels of safety and 
efficiency at a time when demand for reliable electricity from 
clean-energy technologies is increasing. Despite this favorable 
situation, "significant regulatory, financial and infrastructure 
challenges stand between where we are and where we need to be," 
Rowe said.

    He cited used nuclear fuel management, financing of 
capital-intensive projects, and future work force needs as among 
the key challenges facing the industry. In separate remarks 
during the conference's opening session, NEI President and CEO 
Frank L. "Skip" Bowman identified a need for improved 
communications to solidify political and public support among 
people and entities who are increasingly - but sometimes 
tenuously - embracing nuclear energy.

    "Yes, we see growing support for nuclear energy because it is 
a carbon-free technology, but it is not unqualified or 
unambiguous support," Bowman said. "There are solid steps we can 
take - must take - to shore up that support, to make it less 
ambiguous, more solid, more sustainable."

    More than 100 nuclear power plants operating in 31 states 
provide electricity to one of every five U.S. homes and 
businesses. They provide more than 70 percent of the electricity 
that comes from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or 
other pollutants into the atmosphere, including renewable 
technologies and hydroelectric power plants.

    As the nation looks to strengthen its energy security, meet 
future electricity needs and reduce emissions of greenhouse 
gases, 16 energy companies and consortia over the past 18 months 
have announced their intention to file license applications with 
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build as many as 30 new 
nuclear power plants.

    "We are at long last moving to a time when generating 
companies will make business decisions to build new nuclear 
plants. I firmly believe that we will need 20 to 30 new plants by 
2030 if we have any hope of addressing climate change and 
enhancing our energy security," Rowe said.

    Against this backdrop, the federal government should develop 
an interim storage alternative for used nuclear fuel pending 
licensing and construction of the long-delayed geologic 
repository planned for Yucca Mountain, Nev.

    "We must accept that the operation of a permanent disposal 
facility will not happen soon. We must establish a process under 
which the federal government takes title to spent fuel and moves 
it from reactor sites to one or more federal locations for 
consolidated interim storage," Rowe said.

    On new nuclear plant financing, Rowe cautioned that "capital 
projects of this magnitude" typically are undertaken by companies 
with market values many times larger than even the largest U.S. 
electric power company.

    The industry will have to summon the courage both to tell 
federal officials that the investment incentives contained in the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 are not sufficient and to admit to 
itself that, in the long run, "the federal government cannot and 
will not be the financier of first or even last resort," he said.

    "While the federal government must play a role in providing 
the initial incentives to jump-start the industry, including most 
particularly a robust and workable loan guarantee program, over 
the long term both state regulators and the industry will have to 
step up if we are to successfully build the nuclear capacity the 
nation needs."

    Bowman noted that states like Georgia, South Carolina and 
Virginia just this year have passed legislation encouraging new 
plant construction by providing higher assurance of investment 
recovery.

    Nonetheless, he said, the industry must do a better job 
answering questions - in areas like safety, used fuel management 
and economics - that skeptics often raise when discussing 
increased reliance on nuclear energy.

    "We must do a better job at engaging thoughtful people in a 
factual discussion. We must train and empower our people as 
ambassadors for nuclear energy," he said.

    The theme for this year's conference, "The Changing Climate 
for Nuclear Energy," reflects the need to better manage shifting 
political and policy environments, Bowman said.

    "Growing numbers of people want to believe that nuclear power 
should be a larger part of our nation's energy portfolio. It's up 
to us to give them reasons to believe. That's our biggest 
challenge."

    The theme also reflects increasing concerns about the 
scientific phenomenon of global warming, said Bowman, a retired 
Navy admiral who recently served on a Military Advisory Board 
that examined the national security implications of climate 
change. The panel concluded that, even if the likelihood of 
catastrophic climate change is low, the potential consequences 
are immense and have negative implications on national security.

    "We can add energy security impacts to the national security 
and military impacts, because we're dangerously dependent for 
energy on parts of the world most likely to experience political 
instability and social collapse, and whose values do not coincide 
with our own," Bowman said.

    He lamented the findings of a Government Accountability 
Office study that revealed federal support for renewable, fossil 
and nuclear energy research and development has fallen by more 
than 85 percent in real terms from 1978 through 2005.

    "We are deluding ourselves if we believe we have taken even 
the first steps necessary to address our energy and environmental 
challenges," Bowman said. "Only aggressive deployment of a 
portfolio of technologies - energy efficiency, renewables, 
advanced coal with carbon capture and sequestration and nuclear 
energy - will reduce the upward trend in carbon dioxide 
emissions."

    Nuclear energy "has the smallest environmental footprint of 
any major source of energy available today or likely to be 
available in the next 100 years," he noted. ---

    The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's 
policy organization. This news release and additional information 
about nuclear energy are available at http://www.nei.org


SOURCE Nuclear Energy Institute

Copyright � 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights 
Reserved. A United Business Media company.
*****************************************************************
 51 Birmingham News: TVA shuts down Browns Ferry reactor - 

al.com

Posted by Birmingham News business staff May 24, 2007 10:59 AM

The Tennessee Valley Authority's Browns Ferry No. 1 nuclear reactor
was idled today in the midst of its first start up in 22 years.

The reactor at the Athens nuclear power complex began starting up
earlier this week after a long period in mothballs.

Operators shut the reactor today after a hyrdaulic leak was found,
spokesman Craig Beasley said. He said he didn't know when the
reactor will resume its start-up operations.

"We are at the very beginning," he said. "We don't have to rush and
we aren't going to rush."

The other two reactors at the Browns Ferry complex are operating
normally. Browns Ferry No. 1 was shut in March 1985 after a string
of problems that included a fire started by a worker using a candle
to check for air leaks.

Russell Hubbard

�2007 al.com. All Rights Reserved. RSS Feeds | Complete Index
*****************************************************************
 52 AFP: US and India '90 percent' close to nuclear pact - 

by Jitendra Joshi Thu May 24, 5:31 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said it was "90 percent" of the
way toward sealing a historic nuclear pact with India, but the
remainder looks to be tough.

Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said he planned to visit New
Delhi "in the next week or two" to try to conclude a deal that would
cement a dramatic turnaround in US-Indian ties from their Cold War
frostiness.

"We're 90 percent of the way there," Burns said at the Heritage
Foundation, a conservative think-tank in Washington, after a long
and convoluted series of meetings over the implementation of a pact
first agreed in July 2005.

Indian critics fear it will hamper their country's nuclear weapons
program, nine years after the world's largest democracy staged
atomic bomb tests that sparked a tit-for-tat response from
arch-rival Pakistan.

Burns acknowledged that it had "taken longer than we thought to nail
down ... the enormously complex" agreement, which now hinges on
questions like India's willingness to admit UN inspectors to
sensitive nuclear sites.

"Both sides need to compromise in order to reach a final agreement."

If sealed, the agreement would give energy-hungry India new access
to nuclear power to sustain its stunning economic growth of recent
years.

But Burns said that aside from inspections by the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), India must also agree to demands for
export and non-proliferation safeguards by the 45-nation Nuclear
Suppliers Group.

Acceptance of those demands would allow India to remain outside the
global non-proliferation treaty but still receive cutting-edge
nuclear technology from foreign companies.

"If India wants the benefits of civil nuclear trade with the United
States, or France, or Russia, it is going to need to subject itself
to inspection by the IAEA," Burns said.

If India can get all the necessary agreements, the whole package
would then return for debate in the US Congress and its own
parliament, where it has already undergone "intense scrutiny," Burns
underlined.

In December, Congress agreed to the 2005 nuclear deal, won over by
the promise of binding safeguards on India's atomic activity and
billions of dollars in contracts for US energy firms.

"I think you're going to see us make this leap," Burns said. "When
we do that, it will be one of the great achievements in the
US-Indian relationship going back to (Indian independence in) 1947."

US and Indian nuclear experts held two days of lower-level talks
this week in London in a bid to thrash out technical aspects of the
deal.

Indian foreign ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said after the talks:
"Some further work is required to bridge the remaining gaps and both
sides agreed that discussions will continue."

Indian sources and experts say India's plans to build fast-breeder
nuclear reactors are still a subject for negotiation. India wants to
use such reactors to reprocess nuclear fuel, in contradiction of US
law.

Other differences include a clause that would permit the United
States to cut off critical fuel supplies if India breaches its
unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing.

The agreement has also run into potential trouble from seven US
senators, who in a recent letter urged Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh not to cozy up too much with Iran.

Burns, speaking as a new IAEA report said Iran was defying the UN
Security Council by continuing to enrich uranium, urged all US
allies to isolate the Islamic republic.

But stressing that Washington would raise any concerns over Iran
"privately and respectfully" with New Delhi, he said: "I don't think
this needs to threaten the civil nuclear agreement."

Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 53 News & Star: Calder Hall next in line for the tower topplers

Published on 24/05/2007

Domino effect: Following the demolition of the four Chapelcross
cooling towers on Sunday, plans are being drawn up for a similar
operation to remove the stacks at Calder Hall

By Chris Story

NUCLEAR industry safety chiefs are studying plans to demolish the
four cooling towers at Calder Hall in west Cumbria.

The huge stacks could be blown up in the same way those at its
sister station Chapelcross, near Annan, were on Sunday.

It is expected that each of the towers will be brought down in
successive explosions within a matter of seconds.

Preparation work for that project has already began, although it is
not yet known when the final demolition will take place.

A spokeswoman for the British Nuclear Group, which runs Sellafield,
said: “The cooling towers at Calder Hall continue to undergo
preparations for demolition, with all the internal structures now
removed and the safety case being scrutinised by the Nuclear
Installations Inspectorate.

“No date has yet been announced for the demolition and contractors
are carrying out routine surveys on the towers, which are a
necessary part of delivering the project safely.”

Specialist dismantling contractors removed more than a mile of
asbestos cement pipe, 6,000 cubic metres of plastic and more than
250 tonnes of timber from each tower.

An astonishing 5,200 holes will have to be drilled to lay the
explosives that will bring the tower down.

The demolition of the towers will be the first real sign of Calder
Hall’s rundown.

It was the world’s first commercial nuclear power plant –
commissioned in 1956 – and the oldest station in the UK Magnox
reactor fleet when it stopped producing electricity in March 2003.

Plans for the explosive demolition of the towers at Chapelcross –
which took just 10 seconds and transformed the landscape on both the
Dumfriesshire and Cumbrian sides of the Solway Firth – were drawn
up by engineers at Annan in conjunction with their west Cumbrian
colleagues.

Nuclear industry experts say that using explosives is the safest way
to bring cooling towers down.

n The Waste Handling Facility at Sellafield has reached a safety
milestone with workers completing 32,000 man-hours without any
accidents.

As a result, the Child Development Unit at the West Cum berland
Hospital was handed £1,610 thanks to the facility’s safety
accumulator scheme.

Construction manager Phil Bound said: “This is an outstanding
achievement by both British Nuclear Group and Border Construction
teams.

“Work on the construction site involved high areas of risk such as
working at heights, lifting and crane operations, and traffic
movements.

“The teams have worked closely together and have embraced a
positive safety culture to ensure everybody on the construction site
went home safely,” added Mr Bound.

*****************************************************************
 54 Whitehaven News: Public to have say on nuclear

Published on 24/05/2007

By Alan Irving

THE Government has launched a five-month consultation on the role of
new nuclear power stations in cutting emissions.

Ministers unveilked the Energy White Paper yesterday and made clear
they want new nuclear power stations to be built, but environmental
campaigners accused them of peddling a “failed policy”.

Industry secretary Alistair Darling said it was the Government’s
preliminary view that it was in the public interest to give private
energy firms the option of investing in new nuclear building
projects.

A public consultation will run until October 10.

Reacting to the White Paper, Copeland MP Jamie Reed said: “It
paves the way for a new generation of nuclear reactors in the UK.”

The paper fell short of going into detail over how many reactors
will be needed and on what sites, but the MP and local authority
leaders hope that Sellafield will be one of the first to be selected
to replace Calder Hall.

After the House of Commons announcement by Mr Darling, Mr Reed said:
“This new policy is right for the environment, for Britain and the
world. It is also excellent news for West Cumbria, we now need to
press the case for the private sector to invest in nuclear new build
at Sellafield. I will continue to do this over the coming weeks,
months and years.”

Rather than using taxpayers’ money, the government is banking on
private investors coming in to finance the development of nuclear
power as part of a balanced energy policy also making use of
renewable and sustainable ways of producing “clean” supplies.

Nuclear power stations are favoured because of their low carbon
emissions into the environment.

“The policy has been hard won, we do need a diverse mix of
generating capacity and I hope the opponents of the nuclear industry
will now recognise its unique attributes, energy-saving light bulbs
will not save the planet,” said Jamie Reed.

“Anyone serious about fighting climate change and ensuring the
security of energy supply in Britain must now accept nuclear as a
key element.”

Copeland’s adopted parliamentary Tory candidate Chris Whiteside
said the Conservative Party also supported nuclear power.

“It’s important both to the country as our lowest source of
low-carbon electricity and to West Cumbria where about 17,000 jobs
depend directly or indirectly on the civil nuclear industry,” he
said.


View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital
reproduction, just like the printed copy at
www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy

*****************************************************************
 55 Guardian Unlimited: Leak Shuts Down Newly Restarted Reactor 

From the Associated Press

Thursday May 24, 2007 8:46 PM

By JAY REEVES Associated Press Writer

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) - A burst pipe forced the shutdown of a 
nuclear reactor Thursday, two days after it was restarted for the 
first time in more than two decades.

  The pipe caused 600 gallons of fluid to spill at the Browns 
Ferry Nuclear Plant. The liquid was not radioactive and posed no 
public-safety threat, and no one was hurt, the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission said.

 The Tennessee Valley Authority restarted the Unit 1 reactor 
Tuesday following a 22-year shutdown over concerns about safety 
and management. The reactor is not generating power during 
testing, but the plant's other two reactors remain online at 
Browns Ferry, on the Tennessee River in far-north Alabama.

   Two maintenance workers were trying to fix a leak in a 
hydraulic line on a turbine-control system when the pipe burst, 
spraying fluid on them and covering the floor with liquid, the 
NRC said.

    The workers were taken to a hospital as a precaution, said 
Ken Clark, an agency spokesman in Atlanta.

 The TVA did not immediately return telephone calls seeking 
comment.

   TVA restarted the Unit 1 reactor after a five-year, $1.8 
billion renovation. The plant's other two reactors were restarted 
in the 1990s after extensive work.

                                 ---

                             On the Net:

           Plant: http://www.tva.gov/sites/brownsferry.htm

                Regulatory agency: http://www.nrc.gov

Guardian Unlimited � Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 56 IAEA: IAEA Chief Calls for New Nuclear Security Paradigm

Staff Report

24 May 2007

IAEA Director General, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, has called for the
development and implementation of a new collective security paradigm
in which no country relies on nuclear weapons for its security.

Speaking at the International Conference on the Prevention of
Nuclear Catastrophe, held in Luxembourg on 24 May 2007, Dr.
ElBaradei warned the audience that the prospects for progress in
preventing nuclear catastrophe will remain grim unless the
international community begins working on a new security regime.

"The solution, in my view, lies in creating an environment in which
nuclear weapons are universally banned, morally abhorred, and their
futility unmasked," he said.

Dr. ElBaradei outlined the four steps that should be taken to
develop such security paradigm:
* securing existing nuclear material stockpiles and tightening
  controls over the transfer and production of nuclear material;
* strengthening the verification authority and capability of the
  IAEA;
* developing a more effective approach for dealing with
  proliferation threats; and
* finding a way for disarmament to be taken seriously.


Dr. ElBaradei alerted the audience to the fact that while virtually
all nuclear-weapon States are extending and modernizing their
nuclear weapon arsenals well into the 21st Century, generating a
sense of cynicism among many non-nuclear-weapon States, a security
strategy rooted in "Us versus Them" is no longer sustainable.

Dr. ElBaradei also explained that controlling nuclear material could
be the Achilles� Heel of the nuclear non-proliferation regime, and
that nuclear material production should be brought under
multinational control, so that no one country has the exclusive
capability to produce the material for nuclear weapons. He
anticipated that the IAEA will present a progress report to Member
States on this subject in the next few weeks.

Copyright �, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
*****************************************************************
 57 NZ: Dominion Post: Raw deal for nuke test veterans - Opinion - 

The Dominion Post | Thursday, 24 May 2007

New Zealand veteran Roy Sefton joined the navy to defend his 
country and was, he says, prepared to die or be wounded doing 
that. He was not prepared to have his children genetically 
damaged. That is what happened, and that is why the country owes 
him and his fellow nuclear test veterans a debt of honour, writes 
The Dominion Post.

The New Zealand Government belatedly did the right thing when it
decided to begin seriously addressing the plight of the sailors New
Zealand sent to witness the British nuclear test programme half a
century ago. The British Government has not, and deserves
condemnation for the way it has handled the issue. It should
acknowledge it failed those men, and others, when it exposed them to
radiation as it conducted nine tests over Christmas Island and over
Malden Island in the Pacific Ocean. It should not force veterans to
fight in court, but accept that the tests have, in many cases,
destroyed the lives of those men - and of their children.

The veterans of Operation Grapple have enough battles to fight as a
result of the damage the tests did to their health without facing a
series of legal hurdles and official denials that there is any link
between the health problems many suffer and the radiation they were
exposed to.

Belatedly, the New Zealand Government financed a serious study to
find out if surviving sailors from the two New Zealand ships sent to
witness the explosions, the Pukaki and the Rotoiti, had more genetic
abnormalities than normal.

There was already evidence that the sailors had suffered as a result
of the tests. Of the 551 New Zealanders involved, more than 400 have
died, many in their fifties and many from cancer. The cancer rate
for the men has been around 30 per cent, compared with the 4 per
cent that would be expected.

The Massey study has provided the link that has consistently been
denied.

The 50 sailors whose dna was examined had a rate of chromosomal
translocations - genetic abnormalities that have been linked to
cancer - that was nearly three times as high as the rate in a
similar group of military personnel who had not been involved. They
had, in the words of the scientist who led the study, suffered
long-term genetic damage.

More significantly, and more heart-breakingly, their children appear
to have been affected as well.

The tests have put not only the veterans but their generations to
come under a cloud that will not lift.

Preliminary research by a former nurse found 50 per cent of
veterans' children have suffered genetic deformities and more than
200 pregnancies were miscarried. That needs to be followed up, and
the Government should agree to the veterans' request for a
comprehensive study into the impact the tests have had on their
children.

Disturbingly, the whole testing saga is underpinned by the justified
suspicion that the exposure to radiation was not accidental, and
that the sailors were used as guinea pigs. That makes the refusal to
compensate the veterans that much more indefensible.

Both British and New Zealand politicians make much of praising those
who gave their lives serving their country. However, their Anzac Day
and Remembrance Sunday words will ring hollow if they do not treat
the nuclear test veterans and their children with the honour and the
compassion they deserve and have earned.



� Fairfax New Zealand Limited 2007. All the material on this page
*****************************************************************
 58 THERECORD.COM: INSIDER | Radiation scare jams traffic

Homer Watson Blvd. shut down after device falls off pickup truck

MELINDA DALTON

KITCHENER (May 24, 2007)

A piece of potentially radioactive equipment lost off the back of a
pickup truck triggered the shutdown and containment of a busy
intersection yesterday afternoon.

A truck from a local engineering company lost the piece of
equipment-- used to test the compaction of soil-- at the
intersection of Doon South Drive and Homer Watson Boulevard in
Kitchener shortly before 2:10 p.m..

"They were aware of it right away and they immediately phoned us,"
said Kitchener Fire Deputy Chief, Gary Mann. "They had their own
protocols and they followed them."

The equipment contained cesium 137 -- a radioactive material
commonly used in industrial measurement instruments.

Everyone is exposed to very small amounts of cesium-137 in soil and
water, but high levels of exposure can increase the risk of
developing cancer, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.

Initial tests of the area did not show higher than normal levels of
cesium-137, but the intersection was closed immediately in the
interest of public safety.

Waterloo regional police set up a containment perimeter and assisted
Kitchener Fire's hazardous material crew as they investigated the
situation.

Regional paramedics and representatives from the engineering company
were also on scene as a removal service was called to deal with the
potentially hazardous material.

"It's a very low intensity, but the company has recommended we keep
a minimum of 10 metres back," Mann said.

"The package was loose and the container is somewhat damaged."

The intersection remained closed for more than two hours as fire
trucks and police cruisers formed a barrier around the damaged
equipment and waited for the removal company to arrive from Toronto.

"We're perfectly fine as long as we don't do anything right now,"
Mann said.

No radioactive material leaked from the package and it was removed
without incident shortly before 4:45 p.m., Waterloo regional police
said.

Traffic was heavy for hours during the ordeal, backing up as far as
Highway 401 while officers rerouted vehicles down Doon South Drive.

The roadway completely reopened shortly before 5 p.m.

mdalton@therecord.com

160 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5 
519-894-2231
*****************************************************************
 59 NAS: Project: Evaluation of Radiation Shielding for Space Exploration

Project Title:

 Evaluation of Radiation Shielding for Space Exploration
PIN: ASEB-J-06-01-A        

Major Unit:

 Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

Sub Unit: Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board

RSO: Smith, Kerrie

Subject/Focus Area: 

Project Scope
Based on mission requirements (e.g., specific mission architecture
and total radiation dose limits) provided by NASA, the committee
will evaluate the radiation shielding requirements for lunar
missions and recommend a strategic plan for developing the necessary
radiation mitigation capabilities to enable the planned lunar
architecture. Specifically the committee will:

1. Review current knowledge of radiation environments on the lunar
and Mars surfaces, including radiation types, sources, levels,
periodicities, and factors that enhance or mitigate levels. Critical
knowledge gaps, if any, will be identified.

2. Assess and identify critical knowledge gaps in the current
understanding of the level and type of radiation health risks posed
to astronauts during various surface activities-ranging from
habitation in the CEV to extended exploration sorties and longer
stays in exploration outposts- expected for the lunar and Martian
environments.

3. Review current and projected radiation shielding approaches and
capabilities, as well as other exposure mitigation strategies
feasible in the lunar and Mars surface environments.

4. Recommend a comprehensive strategy for mitigating the radiation
risks to astronauts during lunar surface missions to levels
consistent with NASA's radiation exposure guidelines. The strategy
will:
- be consistent with NASA's current timeline for lunar sortie and
outpost habitation plans,
- recommend research to resolve critical knowledge gaps regarding
the lunar radiation environment and risks,
- recommend a research and technology investment strategy that
enables development of the necessary shielding capabilities

5. The study will provide recommendations on what technology
investments (e.g. multifunctional materials, localized shielding,
and in situ materials) NASA should be making in preparation for
lunar missions, and recommend development timelines to ensure NASA
has the appropriate level of shielding in place to meet the planned
schedules.

In developing this strategy for lunar missions, the committee will
also consider the likely radiation mitigation needs of future Mars
missions and give higher priority to research and development
alternatives that will enhance NASA's ability to eventually meet
those future needs. "Critical knowledge gaps" are defined as gaps
that prevent the development of any risk mitigation strategy capable
of fulfilling mission needs while meeting reasonable criteria (e.g.
cost, schedule and effectiveness).


The project is sponsored by NASA
The start date for the project was 6/27/06.
A report will be issued in approximately 15 months.

Project Duration: 21 months    

Provide FEEDBACK on this project.

Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to
schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the
public.

Committee Membership


Meetings
 Meeting 1 - 12/12/2006
 Meeting 2 - 02/21/2007
 Meeting 3 - 05/10/2007
 Meeting 4 - 06/19/2007


Reports
Reports having no URL can be seen
at the Public Access Records Office

 Email: info@nas.edu
*****************************************************************
 60 Whitehaven News: Millions paid out over Sellafield cancer deaths

Published on 24/05/2007

By Alan Irving

MILLIONS of pounds have been paid out to families of more than a
hundred ex-Sellafield nuclear workers whose cancer deaths were
linked to radiation exposure.

British Nuclear Group revealed this week that £5.5 million has been
paid out to 111 dependents since a scheme was set up in 1982.

A former union chief who helped win the compensation has called for
a full investigation into the so-called “body parts” controversy
although he does not think anything was secret.

Brian Dixon was deputy regional organiser of the General and
Municipal Workers Union during the late 1970s when the union played
a key role in winning the Harry King test case out of court. Mr
Dixon said that while he did not believe there had been anything
underhand in the testing of body tissues, which helped gain
compensation for families, he wanted an inquiry at which he would be
available to give evidence.

“In my opinion justice has been done for the families, but
sometimes it has to be seen to be done and so I would like to see
everything aired in public hopefully to allay any concerns.”

Mr Dixon told The Whitehaven News: “What really started it all off
was the death of Harry King and a claim for compensation on behalf
of his dependents. It was due to be decided in Carlisle Crown Court
but a settlement with BNFL was reached practically on the steps of
the court, on the day of the scheduled hearing.

“This was a landmark which led to the setting up of a unique
scheme. All the cases were thoroughly tested and the payments made
on the balance of probabilities that a nuclear worker at Sellafield
or any of the other BNFL plants, died as a result of exposure to
radiation.

“The result was that it removed a lot of the distress for
dependents, having to go through the courts seeking redress.”

At the time Brian Dixon was deputy to Thompson Reed, the late GWU
regional organiser whose signature appeared on documents indicating
that the union were aware that body tissue samples were being made
available to support compensation claims.

“I was also working at the time with Bill Maxwell and John Noctor
who along with Thompson were pioneers on behalf of the union to push
the claims and finally ensure the setting up of the industry’s
compensation scheme.

“As Thompson’s deputy my understanding was that all the
necessary consents were given. It was common knowledge in the
industry that tissues were being tested and as far as I was aware it
was done all above board, in a perfectly proper manner.

“I did discuss some of the cases with Mr Reed and it was an
emotional time for the families. The vast majority of cases were
handled for them by solicitors in Newcastle. I wasn’t aware that
any permissions hadn’t been granted for the removal of tissue and
I felt that what was done was in the best interests of the families
concerned.

“It’s regrettable that all this has come about and I think there
should be a full inquiry into the circumstances and to give full
transparency to all the issues. If there has been one or more cases
where family consent was not given then we ought to know why.”

Mr Dixon, a Copeland councillor, was once a workmate of Sellafield
worker, Malcolm Pattinson, who died of leukaemia. Mr Pattinson’s
dependents were among those to receive compensation but his
daughter, Angela Christie, has also called for an inquiry. She says
that the family was not consulted on the removal of her father’s
tissues.

View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital
reproduction, just like the printed copy at
www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy

*****************************************************************
 61 Pahrump Valley Times: Radioactive Russian roulette

May 23, 2007

Letters to the Editor

Nye County Commission Chairman Gary Hollis, described as "an
unabashed advocate for the safety of the Yucca Mountain project,"
was quoted in your article as saying "I will ride the first shipment
myself from the power plant to Yucca Mountain."

I would warn him not to ride on the shipment as a publicity stunt,
for these shipments would be like mobile X-ray machines that cannot
be turned off.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows a chest X-ray per hour
of gamma radiation to be emitted at a distance of six feet. NRC even
allows 20 chest X-rays worth of gamma radiation to be emitted at the
surface of the shipping container.

If the container is externally contaminated with radioactivity - and
the state of Nevada has documented 50 such mishaps in the U.S.,
while France has suffered many hundreds of such mishaps - then the
doses would be even worse to drivers, gas station attendants, toll
booth workers and innocent bystanders at rest areas and along the
roads and rails.

The National Academy of Science reported last year that no dose of
radiation, no matter how small, is free from health risks. It's been
known for over 50 years that a single X-ray to a fetus in its
mother's womb doubles that baby's risks for contracting cancer.

Such risks refer to "incident-free" shipments. Severe accidents or
terrorist attacks upon high-level radioactive waste shipments bound
for Yucca Mountain - and there would be thousands to tens of
thousands of such shipments - could release catastrophic amounts of
harmful radioactivity downwind.

The trucks and trains bound for Yucca would carry 40 to 240 times
the long-lasting radioactivity released by the Hiroshima atomic
bomb, so release of even a fraction of such cargoes would be a
disaster. That's why we call these shipments potential "mobile
Chernobyls," and "dirty bombs on wheels." Their transport through 45
states and the District of Columbia to Yucca Mountain would
represent radioactive Russian roulette on the roads and rails.

KEVIN KAMPS

                   webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
               Copyright � Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 -
*****************************************************************
 62 The Hindu: Australia not to sell uranium

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Melbourne: Australia will not sell uranium to India until it signs
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Federal Resources Minister Ian
MacFarlane has said.

The Minister's remarks were in contrast to the recent hints from
Prime Minister John Howard that Australia could shift its policy and
allow yellowcake to be exported to India. "The answer is no," Mr.
MacFarlane said adding, "The Australian uranium industry can prosper
without India, that's my answer. We have a prohibition on the basis
they have not signed the NPT," he told The Age newspaper.

As recently as March, Mr. Howard appeared to leave open the prospect
of Australian uranium sales to India. Speaking during a visit by
India's nuclear envoy, Shyam Saran, the Prime Minister said, "We see
India as a very responsible country. The relationship between
Australia and India is growing. It's a very important relationship.
They will be considerations that we will bear in mind."

Mr. MacFarlane said companies, which he declined to name, have
approached him to discuss commercial opportunities to enrich uranium
in Australia. ? PTI


Copyright � 2007, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
 63 Aiken Today: MOX funding passes

AikenStandard.com

Thu, May 24, 2007

By JOSH VOORHEES Staff writer

A congressional subcommittee approved $168 million in new funding
for the mixed-oxide fuel program at the Savannah River Site
Wednesday, a decision that will likely clear the way for contractors
to break ground on a proposed fuel facility on the site at the start
of August as previously planned.

Although the funding was less than the Department of Energy had
asked for, the decision was still heralded as a good sign by
proponents of the MOX program.

"While less than the budget request, this is better than being
zeroed out," said Rep. John Spratt (D-SC.). "And that's where the
MOX project has teetered for the last few months."

Many had believed that funding for the program would be cut by the
House Energy Committee, where ranking member, and former chair, Rep.
David Hobson (R-Oh.) and current chairman Rep. Peter Visclosky
(D-Ind.) had expressed their opposition to the program.

The $168 million approved by the House Energy and Water
Appropriations Subcommittee brings the total amount of funding
available to the MOX program to $689 million for fiscal year 2008,
according to Spratt's office.

It is possible that even more funding could be appropriated to the
program when the project moves to the Senate.

Mal McKibben, executive director of the pro-nuclear Citizens for
Nuclear Technology Awareness, credited Rep. Spratt and Rep. Jim
Clyburn (D-SC) for securing the funding.

"Our chamber of commerce went up there earlier this month, and (the
representatives) said they would get something done," he said. "And
by golly they did. We owe a great debt of thanks to them."

While supported by a number of local elected officials, the MOX
program has been faced with a fare amount of opposition from a
number of citizens groups.

Last week, three such groups filed a lawsuit aimed at preventing the
proposed facility from being granted an operating license from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a move that if successful would be a
major roadblock for the program.

Earlier this year a coalition of 44 organizations sent a letter to
Congress urging lawmakers to abandon the program because of
environmental and financial concerns.

The proposed facility would be part of the nation's effort to
convert supplies of weapons-grade plutonium into more
proliferation-resistant forms by blending it with uranium.
Converting the plutonium into MOX fuel would enable it to be used in
commercial reactors to generate electricity.

The facility would be owned by the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration and operated by Shaw AREVA MOX
services.

Contact Josh Voorhees at jvoorhees@aikenstandard.com.

� 2005 The AikenStandard. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
 64 Las Vegas SUN: GOP senators reintroduce bill to speed waste to Yucca Mountain

May 23, 2007

By ERICA WERNER Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican senators led by Pete Domenici of New
Mexico introduced legislation Wednesday to speed nuclear waste to
Nevada and stow it above ground until the underground dump at Yucca
Mountain is completed.

Domenici, top Republican on the Energy Committee, introduced similar
legislation last September. It did not advance even though
Republicans then controlled Congress and has less chance now with
Democratic Sen. Harry Reid as Nevada serving as majority leader.

"I recognize that this bill faces long odds given the current makeup
of the Senate. Nevertheless, Yucca Mountain remains an essential
option to deal with nuclear waste," Domenici said.

Reid and Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada released a joint
statement deeming Domenici's bill dangerous and irresponsible.

"Rather than addressing the problems facing the proposed dump at
Yucca Mountain, its supporters are already trying to cram in more
waste before it's even built," Reid said.

Reid, who has played a key role in stymieing the nuclear waste dump,
said he'll try to keep any Yucca Mountain legislation from advancing
in the Senate.

The long-delayed dump won't open until 2017 under the best-case
scenario, and the delays are costing the public because the Energy
Department was obligated to start accepting waste from nuclear
utilities beginning in 1998. More than 50,000 tons of the material
is waiting at commercial reactors around the country.

Domenici's bill would seek to cut down on that liability by allowing
waste to move sooner to the Yucca Mountain site 90 miles northwest
of Las Vegas.

His bill also would repeal the current 77,000-ton legal limit on how
much waste Yucca Mountain can accept. Federal studies have estimated
the dump could safely hold at least 132,000 tons.

Reid and Ensign's preferred solution is to move the waste into dry
cask storage containers at the reactor sites where it now is stored.

 All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 65 ReviewJournal.com: NATIONAL PROBLEM: Nuclear dump concern grows

May. 24, 2007

'Mostly rail' proposal also means cars

By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Workers ride a shuttle train into the main portal of the Yucca 
Mountain nuclear waste repository on April 13. Photo by Gary 
Thompson.

Graphic by Mike Johnson.

Communities across the country are waking up to the risks of hauling
highly radioactive waste to the planned Yucca Mountain repository,
Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and Nevada nuclear officials said
Wednesday.

But nowhere is the awareness more prevalent, they said, than in the
Las Vegas Valley, where rail cars and trucks carrying casks of spent
nuclear fuel rods will travel if the Department of Energy decides to
build a 319-mile rail line from Caliente to the mountain, 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.

"When you talk to the mayors who have routes through their cities,
and tell them that this is not a local problem but a national
problem, they become emphatic," Goodman told members of the state
Commission on Nuclear Projects.

After the meeting, Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada
Nuclear Projects Agency, said opinion polls and campaigns by
watchdog groups have heightened awareness about the government's
plans to begin waste shipments to the mountain in a decade or more.

"I think awareness and concern about it is growing," Loux said.

The commission's meeting came a day after the Nevada Conservation
League, the Sierra Club and Citizen Alert joined colleagues in the
Southeastern United States in opposing plans to transport spent fuel
from nuclear power plants for reprocessing at the Savannah River
site in South Carolina.

"It's really the first time that any other part of the country has
started saying, 'You can't put this stuff on our roads,' " said
Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert, a statewide
environmental group.

The Commission on Nuclear Projects meeting also followed a workshop
Tuesday in which Nevada's transportation consultant, Bob Halstead,
gave a presentation on the state's expectations to the nonprofit
U.S. Transport Council, a nuclear industry backed group that's
independent of the government.

Some participants on the council's panel represent companies that
expect to shoulder the task of transporting nuclear waste.

Halstead gave a similar presentation Wednesday to the Commission on
Nuclear Projects, emphasizing that if the Caliente rail route is
selected it will pose unacceptable risks to Las Vegas.

"This will be the most challenging rail project in this country in
many decades," Halstead said.

He noted that at a minimum 5 percent of the total rail casks, and
more than likely 50 percent of them, would roll through the Las
Vegas Valley, posing safety risks from human error to providing
targets for terrorists.

Under a maximum scenario, depending on a railroad's selection of
routes, up to 87 percent of all rail shipments could pass through
the Las Vegas Valley, representing almost all shipments across the
United States with the exception of those from the Pacific Northwest.

"When we get to Las Vegas, what are they dealing with? We're dealing
with a city built around a railroad," Halstead said.

He said most of the used nuclear fuel assemblies inside the shipping
casks would come from reactor sites in the East and Midwest. They
would pass through two "gateways," or marshaling sites, in Kansas
City and Memphis, where railcars of highly radioactive waste could
sit for up to 48 hours.

When Department of Energy officials describe their nuclear waste
shipping strategy as "mostly rail, they also mean a lot of trucks,"
Halstead said.

Legal weight truck shipments would increase from 25 in the first
year of the transportation campaign to 175 in the fifth year.

Allen Benson, Energy Department spokesman for the Office of
Repository Development in Las Vegas, said the public will have a
chance to comment at hearings this fall on the rail corridor draft
impact statement and a supplement for the Yucca Mountain site.

"We are not selecting any national routing at this point," Benson
said before Tuesday's U.S. Transport Council meeting.

National routes will be handled through a step-by-step process, he
said.

Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007
Stephens Media, LLC   Privacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 66 ReviewJournal.com: Bill puts Yucca on fast track

May. 24, 2007

By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- A bill revived in Congress on Wednesday envisions 
nuclear waste being shipped to Yucca Mountain in 2010, almost a 
decade sooner than the government plans.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he reintroduced legislation that 
would put the Department of Energy on a faster path to develop a 
Nevada repository for used nuclear fuel from commercial power 
plants.

The bill drew immediate condemnation from Sen. Harry Reid, 
D-Nev., and others in the Nevada delegation to Congress who 
charge Yucca Mountain is unsafe.

Reid, who is Senate majority leader, has said he would block 
repository bills from advancing through the Senate.

Domenici in a statement acknowledged his bill "faces long odds given
the current makeup of the Senate."

"Nevertheless, Yucca Mountain remains an essential option to deal
with nuclear waste," Domenici said. "This legislation will establish
a comprehensive program that will provide confidence that our
nation's nuclear waste will be managed safely both for current and
future reactors."

The bill, introduced with Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and nine other
Republican senators, would authorize the Energy Department to build
concrete pads and upright containers at the Yucca site 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas, and to deliver high level nuclear waste from
Defense Department and DOE sites.

Assuming the Energy Department can keep to licensing and
construction schedules and complete environmental studies, the bill
would allow shipments to commence as early as 2010.

DOE officials have said they believe the Yucca site could be ready
to begin accepting nuclear waste by 2017 but probably five or six
years later as a more realistic estimate.


Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007
Stephens Media, LLC   Privacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 67 StarPhoenix: Wall touts uranium

Sask. Party gov't would offer research incentives production

Kenyon Wallace, The StarPhoenix

Published: Thursday, May 24, 2007


A Saskatchewan Party government would provide incentives to spur
research into uranium refining and possible nuclear power production
in the province, leader Brad Wall said Wednesday.

Wall told the Greater Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce that
Saskatchewan should become a world leader not only in mining and
exporting uranium, but also in refining and storing it and
generating nuclear power.

"If elected, a Saskatchewan Party government will immediately take
action to move Saskatchewan into leadership position in uranium
value-added opportunities," he said.


"I think we need to give the uranium value-added cycle much more
provincial attention, both in terms of public policy and provincial
resources."

Wall criticized the NDP government, saying it is content to ship all
of Sakatchewan's mined uranium out of the province, where others do
the refining and enriching. He said the highly skilled, high-paying
jobs associated with other aspects of the uranium industry besides
mining should be here in Saskatchewan.

A Sask. Party government would give tax incentives to companies
doing uranium cycle research, leading to uranium refinement and
possible nuclear power production, he said.

But Eric Cline, the NDP's minister of industry and resources, said
growth in the uranium sector is driven by the industry itself.

Uranium mining companies with extensive Saskatchewan operations,
such as Areva of France, would build enrichment facilities here if
they felt there was enough world demand and if they were in a
position to expand capacity, Cline said.

"Companies won't build an enrichment facility if they don't need
it," he said. "I know companies are currently determining what their
processing needs are and if the market warrants enrichment, but the
fact that they haven't got to that point has nothing to do with the
Saskatchewan government." Areva said last year the company will soon
need uranium refining capacity in North America, but would not build
a conversion facility where it isn't wanted.

Premier Lorne Calvert and Cline travelled to Paris last year to make
a sales pitch to the head of Areva nuclear group, promoting a
uranium refinery for Saskatchewan.

While the trip marked a shift in attitude by the NDP government
toward uranium refinement, the party has said it does not support
nuclear power or a nuclear waste disposal facility in the province.

Wall said Wednesday it's time to look at the possibility of nuclear
power to reduce the province's carbon emissions. "For too long, the
discussion of the potential for nuclear power generation in
Saskatchewan has been cut short by the assessment of the provincial
government that our economy simply doesn't justify nuclear power,"
Wall said.

He told reporters he didn't think the prospect of nuclear power
frightened Saskatchewan voters or environmentalists.

"You tend to produce power where you need it so it's difficult to 
conceive of a large-scale reactor being practical for 
Saskatchewan." A poll conducted in October showed threequarters 
of Saskatchewan respondents supported the construction of uranium 
refining facilities in the province.

kewallace@sp.canwest.com


c The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) 2007

� 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks
*****************************************************************
 68 UPI: Bill to move nuclear waste reintroduced

United Press International - Energy - Briefing

Published: May 24, 2007 at 2:58 PM

WASHINGTON, May 24 (UPI) -- The top Republican on the U.S. Senate's
energy committee and nine colleagues reintroduced a bill to store
nuclear waste, a plan likely doomed for now.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., ranking member on the Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources, restarted his push to open a
repository in Yucca Mountain, located 100 miles northwest of Las
Vegas.

The site is opposed by most Democrats, as well as Nevada's entire
congressional delegation. They say there is not enough science to
support the project.

Domenici, however, cites a vote by Congress in 2002 declaring Yucca
Mountain the permanent repository to house waste produced by U.S.
nuclear energy plants and weapons industry. President Bush signed
the legislation.

"We cannot have a serious discussion about climate change without
including nuclear energy," Domenici said in a statement. "In order
to have a robust nuclear energy program, we must address the waste
issue. I recognize that this bill faces long odds given the current
makeup of the Senate. Nevertheless, Yucca Mountain remains an
essential option to deal with nuclear waste."

The site was to open in 1998, but has been stalled by funding cuts
and scientific controversy.

The bill would allow the U.S. Energy Department to move weapons
waste to an above-ground temporary storage area near the Yucca
Mountain site once an environmental impact statement is completed,
and move plant waste there after the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approves a construction permit.

It would also waive the 70,000-ton storage limit and give the
department access to the fund collected in fees from rate-payers,
intended to pay for the project.

"This is an irresponsible piece of legislation," Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement with Sen. John
Ensign, R-Nev. "Rather than addressing the problems facing the
proposed dump at Yucca Mountain, its supporters are already trying
to cram in more waste before it's even built.

"The DOE should take ownership of nuclear waste and store it at
nuclear power plans where it's produced."

� Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 69 Mohave Daily News: Yucca Mountain bill reintroduced

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:21 PM PDT

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican senators led by Pete Domenici of New
Mexico introduced legislation Wednesday to speed nuclear waste to
Nevada and stow it above ground until the underground dump at Yucca
Mountain is completed.

Domenici, top Republican on the Energy Committee, introduced similar
legislation last September. It did not advance even though
Republicans then controlled Congress and has less chance now with
Democratic Sen. Harry Reid as Nevada serving as majority leader.

��I recognize that this bill faces long odds given the current
makeup of the Senate. Nevertheless, Yucca Mountain remains an
essential option to deal with nuclear waste,'' Domenici said.

Reid and Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada released a joint
statement deeming Domenici's bill dangerous and irresponsible.


��Rather than addressing the problems facing the proposed dump at
Yucca Mountain, its supporters are already trying to cram in more
waste before it's even built,'' Reid said.

The long-delayed dump won't open until 2017 under the best-case
scenario, and the delays are costing the public because the Energy
Department was obligated to start accepting waste from nuclear
utilities beginning in 1998.

Tri-State Online // Mohave Daily News Privacy Policy 2435 Miracle 
Mile / Bullhead City, Arizona 86442-7311 / 928-763-2505 Last 
updated: Thursday, May 24, 2007
*****************************************************************
 70 Reid: Reid Discusses Energy Policy That Protects Consumers,
Environment, National Security: 05/23/2007

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada held a news
conference today with his Senate Democratic colleagues to discuss
their energy package that will increase energy independence,
strengthen the economy, reduce global warming emissions and protect
consumers.

"Our legislation will dramatically increase American-made and grown
renewable fuels production, reducing our dependency on unsustainable
and volatile petroleum supplies from around the world," Reid said.
"This is good news for Nevada, a state that has tremendous renewable
solar, geothermal, and wind resources. Having access to these
resources would position Nevada as a leader in our country's
renewable energy efforts and create 3,200 new jobs."

Reid reaffirmed his commitment to punish gas price-gougers, make the
government a model of energy efficiency, increase our supply of
biofuels, and quickly bring clean and affordable renewable fuels to
market.

Senate Democrats also unveiled a new Web site -
www.democrats.senate.gov/energy - an online information center that
will provide important updates in the coming weeks as Reid and his
Democratic colleagues hold energy forums across the country and
legislation moves through Congress.


U.S. Senator Harry Reid discusses Nevada&rsquo;s high gas prices at
a press conference where his Democratic colleagues and he unveiled
their energy package that increases energy independence, strengthens
the economy, reduces global warming emissions and protects consumers.

                                 ###

Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia 
St, Site 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757
  
Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, 
Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 
702-388-5030
  
Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 
Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980
  
Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 
Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)

*****************************************************************
 71 Reid: Reid, Ensign Respond to Dangerous Legislation That Would
Advance Development of Yucca Mountain: 05/23/2007

Bill aims to increase nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain 
before it is even built

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Washington, DC— U.S. Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign of 
Nevada are again working together to ensure the proposed Yucca 
Mountain nuclear waste dump doesn't become a reality, this after 
U.S. Senators Pete Domenici and Larry Craig, today introduced 
legislation that would allow the Department of Energy to 
recklessly speed up the licensing process.

"This is an irresponsible piece of legislation. Rather than
addressing the problems facing the proposed dump at Yucca Mountain,
its supporters are already trying to cram in more waste before it's
even built," said Reid. "The dump is not based on legal, political,
or scientific reality. Rather than trying to force nuclear waste
into Yucca Mountain, the DOE should take ownership of nuclear waste
and store it at nuclear power plans where it's produced. This is a
critical topic that must be addressed as part of the bigger picture
of energy independence."

"For the last 25 years, the Yucca Mountain project has been
disastrous and has wasted billions of taxpayers' dollars," said
Ensign. "This bill attempts to circumvent existing hazardous
material laws, start construction and increase spending on the
broken Yucca Mountain project all prior to license approval. This
legislation continues a reckless policy that disregards public
safety and fiscal responsibility. I will continue my efforts to end
this terrible project."

Reid and Ensign recently introduced the Federal Accountability for
Nuclear Waste Storage Act of 2007 that would eliminate the need for
the Yucca Mountain project.

Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia 
St, Site 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757
  
Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, 
Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 
702-388-5030
  
Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 
Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980
  
Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 
Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 
1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343)
*****************************************************************
 72 Channel 4 KRNV.com: Senator Hillary Clinton Issues Statement on Yucca Mountain

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Senator Hillary Clinton issued the following statement in response
to legislation introduced yesterday  by Senators Pete Domenici
(R-New Mexico) and Larry Craig (R- Idaho) seeking to advance
development of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear repository.

"I have long opposed storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.  This
latest attempt to push forward development of the project is
particularly reckless, as it aims to increase spending and begin
construction on the site prior to license approval.  There are far
too many unanswered questions about both the geology of the site and
integrity of the science to support the decision to store waste at
Yucca at all - let alone to justify accelerating the site's
development.

Senator Clinton also said, "Continued attempts to push this
misguided project forward are both disappointing and irresponsible. 
As President, I will work with the scientific community to examine
all options for safe, secure storage of nuclear waste as part of a
comprehensive national energy policy."

 All content � Copyright 2001 - 2007 WorldNow and KRNV. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 73 LasVegasNOW.com: Yucca Mountain Project Takes Center Stage Again

Melissa Duran, Reporter


Those against the plan to store the nation's nuclear waste in
Southern Nevada are strategizing ways to thwart the federal project.
They are convinced the Yucca Mountain Project is virtually dead, but
they're still talking about issues surrounding the proposed facility.

The Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects met to discuss transport
dangers just in case the Yucca Mountain Project becomes a national
repository for nuclear waste.

The train that cuts right behind downtown hotels, government offices
and even the Las Vegas Strip could one day be filled with lethal
nuclear waste.

The Department of Energy wants to Nevada's railways and major
highways to transport radioactive waste and nuclear spent fuel to
Yucca Mountain. But many against the project are convinced it's all
an act.

Bob Loux heads up the Nevada State Agency for Nuclear Projects, the
agency fighting the project. He said, "It's kind of a marketing
strategy to make it seem like the project is alive, active, viable,
like it's only a matter of time before it's built. But the reality
of the situation is that Congress is going to slash their budget.
They're not only in trouble politically, but technically at the
site."

Former Nevada Governor Robert List said, "This project is not dead
at all. It's the law of the land that this facility will be built to
take the nation's waste."

The Nevada Commission on Nuclear Projects says on the remote chance
the repository does come to fruition, they have to be ready. While
the D.O.E. says chances of transport accidents are low, others say
congested roads mixed with nuclear waste are accidents waiting to
happen.

Sheila Conway, spokeswoman for Clark County, said, "They use a
national set of statistics to try to model what the impacts are
going to be. Those models have fatality rates that we already know
are much lower than what exists in the state of Nevada."

Robert List said, "They have withstood broad side impacts from high
speed trains, dropping of huge weights that simulate aircraft
running into them with no leakage whatsoever."

But while both sides argue what's safe and what's not, the debate
goes on with both sides believing they are winning the argument.

The Department of Energy asked for close to $495 million for this
upcoming fiscal year. A decision has not been made if they'll get it.

The D.O.E.'s funding was cut in 2006. If that happens again, some
believe it would just cause a delay, while others think it will
eventually kill the entire project.

Email your comments to Reporter Melissa Duran.

 All content � Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 74 DOE: DOE to Sell 35,000 Barrels of Oil from the Northeast Home 
Heating Oil Reserve

May 24, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC � The U.S. Department of Energy announced today that
it will sell approximately 35,000 barrels of home heating oil from
the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (NEHHOR).  The Reserve�s
current 5-year storage contracts expire on September 30, 2007 and
market conditions have caused new storage costs to rise to a level
that exceeds available funds.

Revenue from the sale will be used to supplement funds for the award
of new long-term storage contracts that will begin on October 1,
2007.  The Department will work with Congress to resolve these
funding issues in order to restore the inventory of the Reserve to
its full authorized size.

The sale of heating oil from the Reserve�s site in Providence, Rhode
Island will commence June 13, 2007, using an interactive on-line
bidding system.  Bidding will close on June 14th and a contract will
be awarded to the successful bidder the same day.

The sale of 35,000 barrels represents less than 2% of NEHHOR�s
authorized capacity of 2 million barrels of home heating oil
authorized by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 2000.  Since it
was established, home heating oil supplies have never been disrupted
to the extent that NEHHOR needed to be tapped.

Media contact(s):
Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 

 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 75 Hanford News: Work continues on power plant refueling

This story was published Thursday, May 24th, 2007

Pratik Joshi, Herald staff writer

About 1,900 temporary workers are scrambling to complete 
maintenance work at Energy Northwest's nuclear power plant north 
of Richland by the scheduled mid-June deadline.

Every two years, extensive maintenance work is carried out at the 
Columbia Generating Station. The schedule is timed to coincide 
with melting snowpacks that fill the region's rivers, creating 
ample hydropower to replace the nuclear plant's electricity. This 
is the plant's 18th refueling outage since it began operating in 
1984.

The workers go inside the reactor core, clean it and help remove a
third of 764 spent fuel-rod assemblies during the outage and also
change parts and fittings that help the plant's boiling water
reactor produce electricity.

The plant's nuclear energy heats water into steam, which spins
turbines connected to a generator to produce electricity.

About 40 percent of this year's craft workers have never worked in a
nuclear power plant, said Dale Atkinson, Energy Northwest's vice
president for nuclear generation. Workers undergo a stringent
background and fitness check and are extensively trained on working
in a nuclear environment.

The training can last a day or several days, depending on a worker's
assignments, said Brad Peck, Energy Northwest spokesman.

The refueling and maintenance work ensures that the plant runs
safely and reliably until the next refueling outage, Peck said.

This year, the plant is upgrading its turbine control system. A new
digital control system will replace the old analog technology, which
was responsible for an unplanned nine-day shut down last year. It
also is designed to allow precise regulation of steam flows through
the turbines.

As part of this year's $110 million maintenance project, two 90-ton
heat exchangers will also be replaced.

The units will help ensure that water returns to the reactor core at
the specified temperature and pressure.

A number of new pumps and motors will be added to the high pressure
core spray system to inject water into the core in emergency
situations, business planning supervisor Carl Golightly said. One of
the motors is 9,000 horsepower.

The nuclear plant provides 10 percent of the total electricity
generated in the Pacific Northwest.

It costs $21 per megawatt hour, Atkinson said, and is enough energy
to supply 600,000 to 700,000 individuals.

Peck said a lot of the temporary workers have considerable
experience working at other nuclear plants.

They make up to $40 an hour with a lot of overtime, he added.

The workers understand they need to work safely, even if it means
additional hours or costs, Peck said.

"Delays will be happily tolerated," he said, adding safety is
paramount under all conditions.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This material 
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
*****************************************************************
 76 Hanford News: Congressional leader criticizes vit plant

This story was published Thursday, May 24th, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

A House appropriations subcommittee took up the Hanford budget 
for 2008 Wednesday, but released little detailed information 
about its plans.

Hanford's $12.2 billion vitrification plant, or Waste Treatment 
Plant, was singled out for criticism by the chairman of the 
subcommittee, however.

The Department of Energy has "squandered vast sums" of taxpayer
money in management of projects, said Peter Visclosky, chairman of
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, in a
statement.

DOE has implemented projects within 10 percent of cost and schedule
baselines only about a third of the time since 2002, he said,
quoting a Government Accountability Office study.

"One of the management failures is the Waste Treatment Plant at
Hanford, Wash., where the construction cost overrun exceeds $8
billion," he said.

He called it an example of "inexcusable, ineffective and wasteful
project management."

The appropriations bill will withhold money from some proposed new
DOE activities until the agency's performance improved, he said, but
did not name specific projects. The bill also requires a plan for
DOE to get off the GAO's annual list of programs that are at high
risk for waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement. DOE contract
management has been on the list each year since it was started in
1990.

The bill includes money to sustain cleanup on DOE's larger nuclear
weapons sites and to resume cleanup of a number of other sites where
cleanup was delayed while work was concentrated on closing the Rocky
Flats, Colo., site, Visclosky said.

The Bush administration's recommendation to Congress requested $1.9
billion for Hanford, excluding DOE administration costs. It included
$690 million for construction of the vitrification plant, the amount
that DOE had previously agreed was needed each year for the project.

The official estimate of the vitrification plant's cost rose from
$5.5 billion in March 2003 to $12.2 billion in 2006 after a detailed
analysis was conducted. Visclosky quoted an earlier price tag for
the plant of $4.3 billion.

Budget, management and technical problems have been blamed for the
rising cost of the plant.

Construction started on the plant as it was being designed because
of the urgency of treating radioactive waste held in leak-prone
underground tanks as soon as possible.

After construction started on the one-of-a-kind plant, several
technical issues were identified, including questions about whether
its design standard was adequate to withstand a severe earthquake.

The plant would turn waste left from the past production of
plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program into a stable
glass form for disposal.

Despite Visclosky's criticism of the vitrification plant, DOE has
projects that are further off track on budget or schedule, according
to a GAO analysis this spring.

When the GAO looked at cost increases for major DOE projects, it
found a project that had worse budget problems by percentage than
the vitrification plant.

It said the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility in Savannah River,
S.C., was 205 percent over budget while the vitrification plant was
143 percent over budget.

For both projects, the GAO used estimates established at the end of
conceptual design, a budgeting practice that ended in 2000. Now, DOE
requires initial estimates to be completed later in the project at
the end of preliminary design.

It also found that the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility in
Savannah River, S.C., had the longest projected delay in completion.

It was projected to be completed 11 years and 9 months behind
schedule and the Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility was projected to be
finished 11 years and 6 months behind schedule.

Hanford's vitrification plant was third on the list at 8 years and
four months behind schedule.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 77 Tri-City Herald: CH2M Hill Hanford Group president leaving

Published Thursday, May 24th, 2007

By the Herald staff

Mark Spears, the president of CH2M Hill Hanford Group, told
employees Thursday that he has taken another job in the corporation.

He will be president of CH2M Hill's Global Nuclear Business Group
based in the company's corporate office in Denver.

He's expected to be replaced by John Fulton, who had earlier
announced he was moving to CH2M Hill from Washington Closure Hanford
June 4. Fulton was to fill the vacancy of chief operating officer.
That job will now go to Jerry Long.

For more information, read Friday's Herald.


&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services



*****************************************************************
 78 KNDO/KNDU: A Look Inside the Northwest's Only Nuclear Power Plant

Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | 

RICHLAND, Wash.- Energy Northwest opened the doors to the
northwest's only nuclear power plant Wednesday.

Most of the plant kind of feels like a dungeon, but once you get in
the reactor, it's really pretty cool.

It doesn't look like much on the outside, but look closely at the
spent fuel pool surrounding the reactor, and you can see a little
bit of purple glow coming off the uranium fuel rods.  The plant has
been shut down for refueling for about two weeks, that's why KNDU
was allowed unprecedented access to areas usually off limits to
everyone, even the people who work there.

'The nuclear steam is too radioactive, the dose rates would be too
high to allow people just to come in here and walk around.  If
there's a need, we could have somebody come in here, but when
there's not a need, we wouldn't want people picking up unnecessary
dose," said Todd Borak, who helps manage the chemicals in the plant.

KNDU didn't get to go everywhere, certain areas like this one that's
protected by a three foot thick concrete door, were off limits to
anyone not suited up.


 All content � Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 79 KnoxNews: Report touts DOE impact on economy

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com

May 24, 2007

The Department of Energy?s Oak Ridge activities provide full-time 
jobs for about 12,000 people with an annual payroll exceeding 
$760 million, but the economic benefits for the area and the 
state go far beyond that, a University of Tennessee economist 
said today.

Matt Murray, associate director of UT?s Center for Business and 
Economic Research, said the Oak Ridge operations last year spent 
almost $2 billion in Tennessee and had an "output benefit" of 
$3.6 billion ? about 1.8 percent of the state?s total gross 
product.

UT and DOE released the report this morning at a press conference on
the university campus. It?s the seventh of its kind produced since
1998.

Murray, principal author of the DOE-funded report, said the
operations at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 National
Security Complex and other Oak Ridge facilities have a ripple effect
on the state economy, with indirect spending and many other jobs
attributable to the work.

"DOE is a business ? and a very important business at that," he said
during the briefing.

Overall, the Oak Ridge operations were responsible for 44,889 jobs
in Tennessee or 1.6 percent of the state?s total, Murray said.
That?s equivalent to the entire workforce in Putnam County, he said.

The jobs attributed to the federal programs in 2006 were down from
the last time the report was done a couple of years ago because the
UT research unit is using new "multipliers" acquired from the U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Murray said. The new multipliers, which
are tailored to the Tennessee economy, reflect recent gains in
productivity, meaning fewer people are producing much more than in
the past, he said.

"That?s the good news," he said.

Murray said the analysis uses economic models to show the impact of
DOE on Tennessee in a quantitative way. But the report doesn?t
address the qualitative impacts, which are also important, he said.

The Oak Ridge operations probably lure other businesses and people
to locate in this area simply because of the educated workforce and
upscale benefits associated with the DOE presence.

Almost 50 percent of the Oak Ridge work force has at least a
bachelor?s degree, Murray said. That compares to 12.2 percent for
the Tennessee work force as a whole, and 24.4 percent nationally, he
said.

DOE paid UT $15,000 to do the study.

Gerald Boyd, DOE?s Oak Ridge manager, and Ted Sherry, the local
manager of the National Nuclear Security Administration, also spoke
at today?s press event and said the future of the Oak Ridge
operations looks strong.

Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.

 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 80 AFP: Strike at US nuclear weapons site raises security fears - 

by Mira Oberman Thu May 24, 4:54 PM ET

CHICAGO (AFP) - A six-week strike by security forces at a nuclear
weapons assembly facility in Texas has raised concerns that sites
across the United States might be more vulnerable to terror attacks.

More than 500 security officers walked off their jobs on April 15 at
the Pantex Plant outside of Amarillo, Texas amid a deadlock with a
government contractor over retirement benefits.

About 200 replacement workers have been flown in from other sites
across the country to protect the nation's only nuclear weapons
assembly and disassembly facility.

Critics said these workers were not sufficiently trained to protect
the site and warned the loss of those workers was taking a toll on
other sites within the nuclear weapons complex.

These concerns were echoed by the Department of Energy's top
security official in testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee.

Glenn Podonsky testified in late April that his inspectors found the
site was well defended, but said he was "concerned" about the impact
system-wide should the strike drag on.

The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that Podonsky was heading to
Texas to conduct an urgent assessment of the site.

A spokesman for the contractor responsible for managing operations
at Pantex confirmed that the Department of Energy would be
conducting another assessment next week.

"We are very confident that we will do well," BWXT Pantex spokesman
Jud Simmons told AFP.

"We have a contingency force here that is doing an excellent job in
protecting the site and facilitating our daily operations," he said,
adding that previous external and internal assessments found the
reduced force was meeting all standards.

Spokesmen for the Department of Energy did not reply to several
requests for comment.

The chief of defense nuclear security for the energy department told
the Times that Pantex could weather the strike indefinitely and had
been coping with a smaller security force by eliminating training,
vacations, and low-priority activities.

"I am convinced that the Pantex site is secure," said William
Desmond, associate administrator for nuclear security at the
National Nuclear Security Administration.

But the Project on Government Oversight has urged the Department of
Energy to lock down all nuclear weapons and cease assembly or
disassembly operations until the strike has been resolved.

"The current situation at the Pantex nuclear weapons plant (is) an
alarming one," executive director Daniella Brian wrote in a recent
letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

The large stores of nuclear warheads, high explosives and tons of
plutonium in metal form at Pantex are "prime targets for
terrorists," Brian wrote.

The replacement workers received only a week of training about the
site's unique tactics and response plans, and unarmed federal
employees have been reassigned to supervise nuclear transportation
couriers, she added.

"Obviously there's no way they can defend the site like we can,"
said Mike Stumbo, a safety officer at Pantex who is also president
of the National Council of Security Police.

Going on strike was a hard decision for the "patriotic" members of
the Pantex Guards Union, all of whom used to work in law enforcement
or for the military, Stumbo said.

But health and fitness standards make it nearly impossible for the
guards to keep their jobs as they get older: just seven have made it
to retirement age in the past 20 years.

The Pantex union hopes to negotiate better early retirement packages
and transfers to less physically intensive jobs as guards age.

They are currently examining a new proposal by BWXT and will vote on
the contract Tuesday.

Stumbo said the union leadership has not yet decided whether it will
endorse the contract and added that any gains at Pantex will not
deter the council from lobbying for the federalization of 2,600
security officers at the department of energy's nuclear sites.

Stumbo said high attrition rates show the current system of
contracting out security services at nuclear sites is untenable and
that these jobs should return to the government fold.

"You should not be protecting nuclear weapons for profit," he told
AFP. "That's no way to serve the public."


Copyright � 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************