***************************************************************** 06/25/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.148 ***************************************************************** 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 Reuters: Iran invites IAEA team to help ease nuclear fears 2 UPI: Rice may visit N. Korea this fall 3 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: The ugly side of secrecy 4 Telegraph: How to build a greener H-bomb NUCLEAR REACTORS 5 RIA Novosti: Ukraine to move away from Russian design for nuclear pl 6 Platts: Panel: Belgium should reconsider phase-out law 7 Gisborne Herald: Nuclear power is not the nightmare New Zealanders t 8 US: Oshkosh Northwestern: Point Beach nuclear plant at full power 9 US: NRC: NRC Adopts Efficiencies in New Reactor License Review Proce 10 ITAR-TASS: 2nd reactor at Kursk nuclear power plant shut down 11 US: NRC: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Draft NRC Staff Assessment of 12 Daily Yomiuri: Hitachi to bid to build U.K. N-plants with GE NUCLEAR SECURITY 13 BBC NEWS: Egypt nuclear engineer gets life 14 AFP: Egypt jails engineer for spying for Israel - 15 Reuters: Egypt nuclear engineer convicted of spying for Israel NUCLEAR SAFETY 16 icWales: Row over Oldbury nuclear safety NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 17 BBC NEWS: Nuclear waste burials ruled out 18 WNN: Enrichment capacity at Angarsk to be boosted 19 St. Petersburg Times: Poisons Flooding River Neva 20 US: business.iafrica.com: business news SA needs uranium strategy 21 US: The Hindu: Mill to process natural uranium ore commissioned PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 22 DOE: DOE Awards Up To $340,000 to Eight Graduate Fellows Studying Nu 23 UPI: U.S. funds nuclear fuel research 24 NewsBlaze: Remarks Prepared for U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. B 25 DOE: Department of Energy Hosts First Steering Committee Meeting 26 DOE: Honey Creek Middle School From Terre Haute, Ind. Repeats as 27 DOE: Department of Energy to Invest up to $4 Million for Wind ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Reuters: Iran invites IAEA team to help ease nuclear fears Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:03PM EDT By Mark Heinrich VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran has invited the International Atomic Energy Agency to send a team to agree how to resolve long-standing IAEA questions about Tehran's nuclear program, the U.N. watchdog said on Monday. Tehran's conciliatory gesture came as the United States, Britain, Russia, France, Germany and China began discussing a third, harsher batch of U.N. sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment-related activities. Iran's chief negotiator Ali Larijani, who agreed a "plan of action" for transparency with IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei in talks on Friday, returned to see ElBaradei on Sunday and issued the invitation, the IAEA said in a statement. Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's global head of inspectors, was expected to lead the team after his return from North Korea, where he will begin a five-day visit on Tuesday to lay groundwork for Pyongyang's promised nuclear disarmament. Iran says its nuclear program is only for electricity. But Western countries suspect Tehran wants to build a nuclear bomb as it hid sensitive atomic research from the IAEA until 2003 and has stonewalled investigations since then. Tehran has been hit with two sets of mild U.N. sanctions for defying calls to stop enrichment and open up to IAEA inquiries. Washington voiced skepticism about the deal. "Iran's track record is not particularly noteworthy or particularly likely to give me or anyone else confidence that anything will come of these discussions," U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters. COOPERATION A year ago, Iran pledged to come up with a plan for full cooperation with IAEA officials but never followed through. "This (new deal) is the first break in a stalemate that has been going on since then on allowing the IAEA to resolve these remaining mysteries," said a diplomat close to the IAEA. The Larijani-ElBaradei deal calls for the IAEA and Tehran to agree within two months what steps will be needed to "let the IAEA get to the bottom of the issues", the diplomat said. This would likely entail access for IAEA inspectors to Iranian sites, documents and officials at the centre of indications of past covert activity with military links. Iran has long made full transparency conditional on the U.N. Security Council first returning authority over its file to the IAEA. Western powers reject such a concession, saying dropping sanctions options would relieve pressure on Iran to cooperate. The diplomat said Larijani did not repeat that demand in his meetings with ElBaradei. But, asked whether wider, stiffer sanctions now being contemplated could unravel the IAEA-Iran deal, the diplomat said: "Surely". A Western diplomat in Vienna said Iran's effort to address the lack of international trust in its nuclear agenda looked more like a delaying tactic than a genuine turnaround. "I assume Iran feels pressure mounting, that there will be another Security Council resolution and they'd like to head that off, buy more time," said the diplomat. "If Iran were really serious, why do they need to negotiate two months on how to resolve the issues? The IAEA has made clear for some time what Iran needs to do. I don't think unity (among world powers) will fall apart over this Iranian move," he said. But Russia, one of five powers with a Security Council veto, has hinted at disagreement with a U.S. thrust for new sanctions by saying it will back them only once the IAEA has exhausted all possibilities to resolve questions about Iran's program. ***************************************************************** 2 UPI: Rice may visit N. Korea this fall United Press International - International Intelligence - Briefing Published: June 25, 2007 at 4:10 PM SEOUL, June 25 (UPI) -- U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may become the highest-ranking Bush administration official to visit North Korea. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun's special adviser said Monday that Rice's possible visit, in October or November, would pave the way for a four-way summit between two Koreas, the United States and China to discuss a peace settlement on the Korean peninsula and change the political landscape in Northeast Asia. "Rice's trip can be realized when further progress is made to disable North Korea's nuclear facilities," Lee Su-hoon, chairman of the Presidential Committee on Northeast Asian Cooperation Initiative, told a local radio program. "If Rice eventually goes to Pyongyang, North Korea will most likely take reciprocal steps," he said, predicting significant improvement in inter-Korean relations. His comments come after a surprise visit to Pyongyang by chief U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill last week during which North Koreans promised to carry through with their nuclear obligations. The last secretary of state to visit North Korea was Madeleine Albright in October 2000. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: The ugly side of secrecy Today: June 25, 2007 at 7:19:7 PDT Documents show Cheney wanted to squash agency that sought inspection of his records A congressional investigation has shown that Vice President Dick Cheney has routinely resisted federal efforts to monitor his office's handling of classified documents, and that Cheney even suggested abolishing the unit that investigates such matters after it sought to examine his methods. Documents released by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., say that for four years Cheney has refused to cooperate with inquiries by the National Archives Information Security Oversight Office. The National Archives is charged under presidential executive order with collecting data on classified documents. Its security oversight office monitors the classification and declassification of such documents. In addition to refusing to answer the security oversight queries, the vice president's office in 2004 denied auditors' permission to conduct an on-site records inspection - the kind of inspection that other offices of the executive branch routinely experience, the congressional documents show. In blocking inspectors' access, Cheney has said that the executive order regarding oversight does not apply to the vice president's office because the Constitution gives it legislative status in addition to executive status. Still, other White House offices, including the National Security Council, cooperate with the inspections, The New York Times reported in a story on Friday. Waxman told the Times that the vice president's desire to act with such unprecedented secrecy "is absurd," as is his reasoning that "he's not part of the executive branch." The vice president's reluctance to bear the same scrutiny as other government officials is exacerbated by the fact that the vice president's office has one of the worst records in history of keeping classified information secret. Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr., has been sentenced to prison after being convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury for lying to authorities during an investigation about a leak that revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Wilson, which violated her classified status. The leak occurred after Wilson's husband publicly criticized the Bush administration. A Washington, D.C. , lawyer, who served in the Justice Department under previous Republican administrations, told the Times that the office of the vice president is "not an agency" but is "an extension of the vice president himself." And, unfortunately for the American people, in Cheney's case that extension is an office of arrogance in which the vice president believes he is above the law. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 4 Telegraph: How to build a greener H-bomb Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/06/2007 Super-lasers could help to develop Britain's next generation of nuclear weapons, reports Roger Highfield The steel skeleton of a building the shape of a teardrop rears high above the barbed wire that surrounds the sprawling site where Britain maintains its home-grown nuclear weapons. Cloud of destruction: the first H-bomb is tested in the Pacific in 1952 I last stepped inside the security gates, past the guard dogs and armed police, almost a decade ago. Then, grizzled boffins from the glory days of nuclear weapons testing were fretting about how to attract young blood to work on H-bombs. It looked like an industry in decline. Last week, I was invited back to see how the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston, Berkshire, could - if the Government chooses - design and build the next generation of British nukes. The 750-acre site still felt like the set from Dr Strangelove; most buildings date from the 1950s and 1960s. But that steel skeleton on the western perimeter, soon to become a £180 million laser facility called Orion, tells a different story. It is part of a £1 billion, three-year refurbishment programme that will run until 2008, with the same again to be spent on running costs. The workforce is being expanded from 4,300 to almost 5,000 - and it is getting younger, too; from an average age of 43 four years ago, to 39 today. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, which ruled that Britain could no longer carry out nuclear testing in the Nevada desert, seemed to signal the end of the development of nuclear weapons technology. Not so, according to Dr Brian Bowsher, Aldermaston's director of research and applied science. Using supercomputers, bomb makers are able to detonate virtual 3D nuclear explosions using complex mathematical modelling, data from non-nuclear laboratory tests, information gathered from the 45 British nuclear tests between 1952 and 1992, and the ultra-high temperatures and pressures which will be generated by Orion's lasers. He was less forthcoming about what goes on inside a nuke, but the old guard I met years ago had provided me with the basics. If you open a Trident warhead you see a sphere of high explosive; when this is detonated, focused shock waves compress an inner shell of plutonium for a millionth of a second or so. When critical mass is achieved, the nuclear chain reaction is kick-started, aided by a squirt of neutrons. Experiments into exactly what happens in this primary part of Trident are being carried out at Aldermaston. High explosive implodes hollow shells of heavy metals - not the plutonium found in the real thing - in bomb chambers. All that can be heard from the nearby road is the warning siren: air gaps in the chambers' double walls muffle the explosions, as powerful flashes of X-rays reveal how the materials flow, mix and deform in these "hydrodynamic" tests. But for Trident to be a true H-bomb, its primary weapon stage must be used as a fuse for a secondary stage utilising lithium deuteride fusion fuel. The result is Armageddon. This part of the weapon is currently being studied using AWE's Helen laser. Its two green beams focus one million million watts of power on tiny targets to study the squirt of plasma, radiation and shock waves, and how they interact. I witnessed Helen firing last week. The laser blast proved an anticlimax, without so much as a pop. The science is anticlimatic too: Helen can achieve the pressures within a nuclear blast, but not the temperatures. By 2011 Helen will be replaced by Orion, which is 1,000 times more powerful. When it is fired, a millimetre-sized target will be bombarded with laser light from 10 angles. Almost simultaneously, two other laser beams will fire shorter pulses, heating the sample to up to 10 million degrees, and compressing it to 100 times the density of water. The action will take place behind five-foot thick concrete walls to shield staff from the pulses of gamma radiation. Next door, a £70 million building called Gemini is under construction. By 2009, it will house 1,400 scientists and engineers who will use the latest computer visualisation methods to work on nuclear warheads. Jonathan Brown, Aldermaston's director of infrastructure, said that a new hydrodynamic test facility was also planned, along with refurbished plutonium and uranium handling facilities. And, on a separate 225-acre site, at Burghfield, seven miles east, AWE is to build more plants, including one to assemble and disassemble warheads. AWE has also invested in a £20 million Cray XT3 "Redwood" supercomputer, which provides the power of six billion people doing 7,000 calculations a second. With it, virtual nuclear weapons can be endlessly detonated to test and hone designs. But all this investment to what end? The official line is that studies at Orion will keep the current stockpile of 200 ageing Trident warheads in service. These have already been carried by submarines for 15 years and, although 40 are to be decommissioned this year alone, Trident is expected to remain our nuclear deterrent into the 2020s. However, Dr Bowsher said that Orion could stay in operation until 2036, suggesting that it will also be used to develop a new warhead - perhaps one that is safer, easier to construct, or more able to cope with being knocked about. Or, perhaps, a more flexible warhead where the size of the bang can be varied at the turn of a dial. The Aldermaston folk are happy to discuss anything but this. Instead, we were shown an interminable safety video that tells you what to do in the event of a "criticality alert". A leaflet sent to locals last week declares that in more than 50 years, "AWE has never had a radiation or other emergency that has affected the public". (A half-truth that ignores the unease triggered by years of incidents and leaks). They bang on about the environment too. Along with recycling plutonium and highly enriched uranium from old warheads, carcinogenic materials in Trident now have to be replaced to meet new safety standards, said David Glue, an AWE director. The use of bicycles, buses and car sharing among staff is encouraged, along with rainwater harvesting and recycling building materials. After bidding the Dr Strangeloves goodbye, I was struck by the surreal picture emerging in Aldermaston; one of enthusiastic young boffins who want to build a weapon of mass destruction that is kinder to our planet: a green nuke. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | ***************************************************************** 5 RIA Novosti: Ukraine to move away from Russian design for nuclear plant 16:02 | 25/ 06/ 2007 KIEV, June 25 (RIA Novosti) - Ukraine's nuclear power utility Energoatom said Monday a new reactor it plans to build in the country's south will break with a long-standing tradition of using Russian design and technology. "We imagine this unit as one of a non-Russian type," the company's chief executive, Andrei Derkach, was quoted as saying in a press release. He said the design for a fourth reactor at the Soviet-era Yuzhno-Ukrainskaya power plant, whose three operational units generate 1,000 megawatts each, will be chosen instead from among proposals submitted by France's Areva, the United States' Westinghouse and a South Korean company. The country's parliament will have the final say in the selection process. Ukraine ranks fifth in the world's nuclear power ratio rankings, with NPP-generated electricity accounting for about 47% of its total output as of 2006. Its three other plants currently in operation include Zaporozhe, Khmelnitsky and Rovno, with a total of 12 reactors. The Chernobyl station, the first to be built on Ukrainian territory, was halted following the world's worst civilian nuclear disaster to date there in 1986. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 6 Platts: Panel: Belgium should reconsider phase-out law 2007-06-22 Brussels (Platts)--22Jun2007 Belgium should reconsider its 2003 nuclear phase-out law, a government-appointed expert panel concluded in their final report released in Brussels June 22. The "CE 2030" report, commissioned by Belgian Minister of Energy Marc Verwilghen, examined Belgian energy options through 2030. The panel said closing down the seven nuclear units beginning in 2014 would make meeting the country's CO2 reduction targets prohibitively expensive. Instead the panel proposed extending the lives of the units and taxing their output to fund investments in renewables and cleaner energy options such as coal plants with carbon capture and storage. Verwilghen said that the report would be turned over to officials forming a new coalition federal government after the June 10 elections swept the current government from power. The new coalition government has not been named yet. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 7 Gisborne Herald: Nuclear power is not the nightmare New Zealanders think it is Tuesday 26th June 2007 by Iain Gillies There are many New Zealanders who would argue that the best power source in New Zealand is the All Black pack . . . even on their worst day. But power is going to become one of the most argumentative subjects in the years ahead. There are two problems for anyone trying to answer the question of how we make sure the lights stay on for the next 100 years — finite resources and environmental damage. We need energy to keep our civilisation going but existing sources like coal, gas and oil won’t last. And with global warming a worry we have to find ways and means of making power that won’t harm the planet and its atmosphere. There is a third problem. And in New Zealand, in particular, it is almost regarded as the ultimate in blasphemy. Everybody is afraid of the N word. If you’re talking about a source of energy that is reliable, can supply our needs and won’t add to climate change, nuclear must be at the top of the list of contenders. Trouble is, it gives New Zealanders nightmares. And we are also very proud of the stances we have taken to make anything remotely "nuclear" into a bogeyman. But one day we are going to have to recognise that energy planning with a nuclear contribution is going to be a worldwide necessity. This will certainly not be easy. It will require a major rethink by many politicians and ordinary people like us who find it hard to forget the Cold War and who sheltered from the radioactive rain of Chernobyl, as depicted on Skye Television’s History Channel recently. But we need to recognise that there is a vast difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear power. And we have to recognise that Chernobyl was a symptom of Soviet, not nuclear, inefficiency. We are not saying that nuclear carries no risks. But crossing Queen Street in Auckland is a nightmare if you have been brought up on the courtesy of most Gisborne drivers. Nothing is 100 percent safe. It would be great if the wind and waves could keep us all powered up. But they can’t. So what do we do? We have to get real! It should not be a matter of political whims. Copyright 2007 Gisborne Herald | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | ***************************************************************** 8 Oshkosh Northwestern: Point Beach nuclear plant at full power Posted June 25, 2007 Press-Gazette TWO CREEKS — Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 returned to full power at 2 a.m. Sunday after completing repairs to an auxiliary feedwater pump. Unit 1 was shut down on June 15. It was the second time the unit was taken offline in two weeks. Unit 2 continued to operate at full power during the Unit 1 shutdowns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it has begun a special inspection to look into the pump problem and how it was handled by the plant’s staff. The NRC said problems with the pump were evident during a June 9 test, but “plant personnel failed to recognize the increasing temperature as a potential problem and no immediate action was taken to address the irregular temperature indications.” The Point Beach plant is operated by Nuclear Management Co. of Hudson. It is owned by We Energies of Milwaukee. Contact us at 920-235-7700. thenorthwestern.com is a Gannett Company website. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, updated April 11, 2007. ***************************************************************** 9 NRC: NRC Adopts Efficiencies in New Reactor License Review Process News Release - 2007-080 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved recommendations that could lead to a more efficient review of applications for new reactor licenses while maintaining a paramount focus on safety. At the request of NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein last fall, Commissioner Jeffrey S. Merrifield agreed to lead a task force to explore options for further efficiencies and other improvements to the NRC’s review of new reactor license applications. Initial estimates indicate that it would take approximately 42 months to complete the review of a “combined license” (COL) application – 30 months for technical and environmental reviews and 12 months to complete adjudicatory proceedings that include a mandatory hearing. A combined license is one that essentially combines a construction permit and operating license. “With the first wave of applications expected to arrive at the NRC this fall, these improvements can speed the review process,” said Klein. “Jeff Merrifield (who is leaving the Commission) deserves credit for leading this effort for more expeditious examination of the many applications we anticipate.” The task force made recommendations to improve the processes involved in license reviews, with the potential to conserve resources and speed the reviews by approximately 6 to 15 months. Of those recommendations, the Commission approved the following: * Conducting the hearing on uncontested matters, referred to as the mandatory hearing, by the Commission itself while retaining the authority to request that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Panel conduct that hearing in a particular case. Hearings on contested issues are not affected and would continue to be held by the ASLB. * Expanding the acceptance review for a COL application from 30 to 60 days to ensure completeness and technical sufficiency before the NRC dockets the application and starts the safety and environmental reviews. This would mark the date to begin the review process rather than the date the application is submitted. * Using Environmental Impact Statements by other governmental agencies for COL reviews where appropriate and applicable. * Maximizing the use of electronics (e.g., NRC’s Web site) to quickly provide information and documents to the public in advance of the publication of bound reports such as safety evaluations. * Seeking legislative authority from Congress to eliminate the statutory requirement to conduct a mandatory hearing if no one has asked for one. * Pursuing rulemaking to resolve issues that are generic to COL applications so that resolution is through the public rulemaking process rather than in individual contested proceedings. In addition, the Commission directed the staff to conduct a public meeting with industry representatives and other interested individuals to discuss the agency’s COL review approach and to provide an overview of plans for licensing new reactors before implementation of the approved Task Force recommendations. The Commission also directed the staff to hold a public meeting to discuss ideas on how to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the environmental review process. The Report of the Combined License Review Task Force and the Commission’s Staff Requirements Memorandum on the report’s recommendations are available on NRC’s Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/comm-secy/200 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. , June 25, 2007 ***************************************************************** 10 ITAR-TASS: 2nd reactor at Kursk nuclear power plant shut down 25.06.2007, 11.55 KURSK, June 25 (Itar-Tass) - An emergency cutoff system shut down the 2nd reactor at the Kursk nuclear power plant, the press service of Rosenergoatom said on Monday. The limits or conditions of safe operations of the NPP's units have not been violated as a result of the shutdown, the press service said. "The radiation background at the NPP and the adjacent territory is at the level conforming to the normal operation of reactors, and does not exceed the natural background values. Specialists are now ascertaining the cause of the incident," it said. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store in any medium (including in any other websites), distribute, transmit, re-transmit, broadcast, modify or show in public any part of the ITAR-TASS website without the prior written permission of ITAR-TASS. ***************************************************************** 11 NRC: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Draft NRC Staff Assessment of a Proposed Agreement Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania FR Doc 07-3072 [Federal Register: June 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 121)] [Notices] [Page 34728-34732] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr25jn07-137] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of a proposed agreement with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. SUMMARY: By letter dated November 9, 2006, Governor Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania requested that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) enter into an Agreement with the Commonwealth as authorized by Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act). Under the proposed Agreement, the Commission would give up, and Pennsylvania would take over, portions of the Commission's regulatory authority exercised within the Commonwealth. As required by the Act, the NRC is publishing the proposed Agreement for public comment. The NRC is also publishing the summary of an assessment by the NRC staff of the Pennsylvania regulatory program. Comments are requested on the proposed Agreement, especially its effect on public health and safety. Comments are also requested on the draft NRC staff assessment, the adequacy of the Pennsylvania program, and the Commonwealth's program staff, as discussed in this notice. The proposed Agreement would release (exempt) persons who possess or use certain radioactive materials in Pennsylvania from portions of the Commission's regulatory authority. The Act requires that the NRC publish those exemptions. Notice is hereby given that the pertinent exemptions have been previously published in the Federal Register and are codified in the Commission's regulations as 10 CFR Part 150. DATES: The comment period expires July 18, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission cannot assure consideration of comments received after the expiration date. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted to Mr. Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Comments may be submitted electronically at nrcrep@nrc.gov. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at (800) 397-4209, or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Copies of comments received by NRC may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, [[Page 34729]] Public File Area O-1-F21, Rockville, Maryland. Copies of the request for an Agreement by the Governor of Pennsylvania including all information and documentation submitted in support of the request, and copies of the full text of the NRC Draft Staff Assessment are also available for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room-- ADAMS Accession Numbers: ML070240128, ML063400549, ML070240055, ML063330295, ML070290041, ML070290046, ML070260116, ML070260179, ML070260026, ML070260119, ML070250054, ML063400559, ML070790604, ML070790609, ML070790612, ML070790616, ML070790620, and ML070890378. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Andrew N. Mauer, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone (301) 415- 3962 or e-mail to anm@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Since Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act) was added in 1959, the Commission has entered into Agreements with 34 States. The Agreement States currently regulate approximately 17,600 Agreement material licenses, while the NRC regulates approximately 4,400 licenses. Under the proposed Agreement, approximately 690 NRC licenses will transfer to Pennsylvania. The NRC periodically reviews the performance of the Agreement States to assure compliance with the provisions of Section 274. Section 274e requires that the terms of the proposed Agreement be published in the Federal Register for public comment once each week for four consecutive weeks. This notice is being published in fulfillment of the requirement. I. Background (a) Section 274b of the Act provides the mechanism for a State to assume regulatory authority, from the NRC, over certain radioactive materials \1\ and activities that involve use of the materials. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The radioactive materials, sometimes referred to as ``Agreement materials,'' are: (a) byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Act; (b) byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(3) of the Act; (c) byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(4) of the Act; (d) source materials as defined in Section 11z. of the Act; and (e) special nuclear materials as defined in Section 11aa. of the Act, restricted to quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a letter dated November 9, 2006, Governor Rendell certified that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a program for the control of radiation hazards that is adequate to protect public health and safety within Pennsylvania for the materials and activities specified in the proposed Agreement, and that the Commonwealth desires to assume regulatory responsibility for these materials and activities. Included with the letter was the text of the proposed Agreement, which is shown in Appendix A to this notice. The radioactive materials and activities (which together are usually referred to as the ``categories of materials'') that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requests authority over are: (1) The possession and use of byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Act; (2) The possession and use of byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(3) of the Act; (3) The possession and use of byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(4) of the Act; (4) The possession and use of source materials; (5) The possession and use of special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass; and (6) The regulation of the land disposal of: byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(1), 11e.(3), or 11e.(4) of the Act; source; or special nuclear waste materials received from other persons. (b) The proposed Agreement contains articles that: Specify the materials and activities over which authority is transferred; Specify the activities over which the Commission will retain regulatory authority; Continue the authority of the Commission to safeguard nuclear materials and restricted data; Commit the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and NRC to exchange information as necessary to maintain coordinated and compatible programs; Provide for the reciprocal recognition of licenses; Provide for the suspension or termination of the Agreement; and Specify the effective date of the proposed Agreement. The Commission reserves the option to modify the terms of the proposed Agreement in response to comments, to correct errors, and to make editorial changes. The final text of the Agreement, with the effective date, will be published after the Agreement is approved by the Commission, and signed by the NRC Chairman and the Governor of Pennsylvania. (c) The regulatory program is authorized by law under the Radiation Protection Act (35 P.S. Sec. Sec. 7110.101--7110.703). Sec. Section 7110.201 provides the authority for the Governor to enter into an Agreement with the Commission. Pennsylvania law contains provisions for the orderly transfer of regulatory authority over affected licensees from the NRC to the Commonwealth. After the effective date of the Agreement, licenses issued by NRC would continue in effect as Pennsylvania licenses until the licenses expire or are replaced by State-issued licenses. NRC licenses transferred to Pennsylvania which contain requirements for decommissioning and express an intent to terminate the license when decommissioning has been completed under a Commission-approved decommissioning plan will continue as Pennsylvania licenses and will be terminated by Pennsylvania when the Commission- approved decommissioning plan has been completed. Pennsylvania currently regulates the users of naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) expanded the Commission's regulatory authority over byproduct materials as defined in Sections 11e.(3) and 11e.(4) of the Act, to include certain naturally-occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive materials. On August 31, 2005, the Commission issued a time-limited waiver (70 FR 51581) of the EPAct requirements. Under the proposed Agreement, Pennsylvania would assume regulatory authority for these radioactive materials. Therefore, if the proposed Agreement is approved, the Commission would terminate the time-limited waiver in Pennsylvania coincident with the effective date of the Agreement. Also, a notification of waiver termination would be provided in the Federal Register for the final Agreement. (d) The NRC draft staff assessment finds that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is adequate to protect public health and safety, and is compatible with the NRC program for the regulation of Agreement materials. II. Summary of the NRC Staff Assessment of the Pennsylvania Program for the Control of Agreement Materials The NRC staff has examined the Pennsylvania request for an Agreement with respect to the ability of the radiation control program to regulate Agreement materials. The examination [[Page 34730]] was based on the Commission's policy statement ``Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement'' (46 FR 7540; January 23, 1981, as amended by policy statements published at 46 FR 36969; July 16, 1981 and at 48 FR 33376; July 21, 1983), and the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs (FSME) Procedure SA-700, ``Processing an Agreement.'' (a) Organization and Personnel. The Agreement materials program will be located within the existing Bureau of Radiation Protection (BRP) of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). The Bureau will be responsible for all regulatory activities related to the proposed Agreement. The educational requirements for the BRP staff members are specified in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania personnel position descriptions, and meet the NRC criteria with respect to formal education or combined education and experience requirements. All current staff members hold at least bachelor's degrees in physical or life sciences, or have a combination of education and experience at least equivalent to a bachelor's degree. Several staff members hold advanced degrees, and all have had additional training plus working experience in radiation protection. Supervisory level staff each have at least seven years working experience in radiation protection. The BRP performed and the NRC staff reviewed an analysis of the expected workload under the proposed Agreement. Based on the NRC staff review of the BRP's staff analysis, the BRP has an adequate number of staff to regulate radioactive materials under the terms of the Agreement. The BRP will employ a staff with at least the equivalent of 17.2 full-time professional/technical and administrative employees for the Agreement materials program. Pennsylvania has indicated that the BRP has an adequate number of trained and qualified staff in place. Pennsylvania has developed qualification procedures for license reviewers and inspectors which are similar to the NRC's procedures. The technical staff are working with NRC license reviewers in the NRC Region I Office and accompanying NRC staff on inspections of NRC licensees in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is also actively further supplementing their experience through direct meetings, discussions, and facility walk-downs with NRC licensees in Pennsylvania, and through self-study, in-house training, and formal training. In the course of the NRC staff's continued interactions with Pennsylvania, the NRC staff will confirm the assurances that Pennsylvania provided concerning having an adequate number of trained and qualified staff in place, based on Pennsylvania's staff needs analysis and qualification procedures. Specifically, the NRC staff will verify how BRP staff fit into the qualification process, which staff are qualified in certain areas, and the basis for the determinations. (b) Legislation and Regulations. In conjunction with the rulemaking authority vested in the Environmental Quality Board by Section 302 of the Pennsylvania Radiation Protection Act 1984-147, PADEP has the requisite authority to promulgate regulations for protection against radiation. The law provides PADEP the authority to issue licenses, issue orders, conduct inspections, and to enforce compliance with regulations, license conditions, and orders. Licensees are required to provide access to inspectors. The NRC staff verified that Pennsylvania adopted the relevant NRC regulations in 10 CFR Parts 19, 20, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 70, 71, and 150 into Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Environmental Protection by reference. The NRC staff also verified that Pennsylvania adopted the relevant NRC regulations in 10 CFR 61 into Pennsylvania Code Title 25, Environmental Protection. The NRC staff also approved an order to implement Increased Controls requirements for risk-significant radioactive materials for certain Pennsylvania licensees under the proposed Agreement. As a result of the renumbering of 10 CFR 71 in 2004, Pennsylvania is proceeding with necessary revisions to their regulations to ensure compatibility, that will be effective by October 1, 2007. Therefore, on the proposed effective date of the Agreement, Pennsylvania will have adopted an adequate and compatible set of radiation protection regulations which apply to byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. The NRC staff also verified that Pennsylvania will not attempt to enforce regulatory matters reserved to the Commission. (c) Storage and Disposal. Pennsylvania has also adopted by reference the NRC requirements for the storage of radioactive material and for the land disposal of radioactive material as waste. The waste disposal requirements cover both the disposal of waste generated by the licensee and the disposal of waste generated by and received from other persons. (d) Transportation of Radioactive Material. Pennsylvania has adopted the NRC regulations in 10 CFR 71 by reference. Part 71 contains the requirements licensees must follow when preparing packages containing radioactive material for transport. Part 71 also contains requirements related to the licensing of packaging for use in transporting radioactive materials. Pennsylvania will not attempt to enforce portions of the regulations related to activities, such as approving packaging designs, which are reserved to NRC. (e) Recordkeeping and Incident Reporting. Pennsylvania has adopted by reference the Sections of the NRC regulations which specify requirements for licensees to keep records, and to report incidents or accidents involving materials. (f) Evaluation of License Applications. Pennsylvania has adopted by reference the NRC regulations that specify the requirements a person must meet to get a license to possess or use radioactive materials. Pennsylvania has also developed a licensing procedures manual, along with the accompanying regulatory guides, which are adapted from similar NRC documents and contain guidance for the program staff when evaluating license applications. (g) Inspections and Enforcement. Pennsylvania has adopted a schedule providing for the inspection of licensees as frequently as, or more frequently than, the inspection schedule used by the NRC. The program has adopted procedures for the conduct of inspections, reporting of inspection findings, and reporting inspection results to the licensees. Pennsylvania has also adopted procedures for the enforcement of regulatory requirements, and is authorized by law to enforce the State rules using a variety of sanctions, including the imposition and collection of civil penalties, and the issuance of orders to suspend, modify or revoke licenses, or to impound materials. (h) Regulatory Administration. Pennsylvania is bound by requirements specified in Commonwealth law for rulemaking, issuing licenses, and taking enforcement actions. The program has also adopted administrative procedures to assure fair and impartial treatment of license applicants. Pennsylvania law prescribes standards of ethical conduct for Commonwealth employees. (i) Cooperation with Other Agencies. Pennsylvania law deems the holder of an NRC license on the effective date of the proposed Agreement to possess a [[Page 34731]] like license issued by Pennsylvania. The law provides that these former NRC licenses will expire either 90 days after receipt from the radiation control program of a notice of expiration of such license or on the date of expiration specified in the NRC license, whichever is later. In the case of NRC licenses that are terminated under restricted conditions required by 10 CFR 20.1403 prior to the effective date of the proposed Agreement, Pennsylvania deems the termination to be final despite any other provisions of Commonwealth law or rule. For NRC licenses that, on the effective date of the proposed Agreement, contain a license condition indicating intent to terminate the license upon completion of a Commission approved decommissioning plan, the transferred license will be terminated by Pennsylvania under the plan so long as the licensee conforms to the approved plan. Pennsylvania also provides for ``timely renewal.'' This provision affords the continuance of licenses for which an application for renewal has been filed more than 30 days prior to the date of expiration of the license. NRC licenses transferred while in timely renewal are included under the continuation provision. The Pennsylvania Code provides exemptions from the Commonwealth's requirements for licensing of sources of radiation for NRC and U.S. Department of Energy contractors or subcontractors. The proposed Agreement commits Pennsylvania to use its best efforts to cooperate with the NRC and the other Agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs for the protection against hazards of radiation, and to assure that Pennsylvania's program will continue to be compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of Agreement materials. The proposed Agreement stipulates the desirability of reciprocal recognition of licenses, and commits the Commission and Pennsylvania to use their best efforts to accord such reciprocity. III. Staff Conclusion Section 274d of the Act provides that the Commission shall enter into an agreement under Section 274b with any State if: (a) The Governor of the State certifies that the State has a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the agreement materials within the State, and that the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for the agreement materials; and (b) The Commission finds that the State program is in accordance with the requirements of Section 274o, and in all other respects compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of materials, and that the State program is adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by the proposed Agreement. The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed Agreement, the certification by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the application for an Agreement submitted by Governor Rendell on November 9, 2006, and the supporting information provided by the staff of the Bureau of Radiation Protection of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and concludes that, except as discussed above in Section II. ``Summary of the NRC Staff Assessment of the Pennsylvania Program for the Control of Agreement Materials,'' (a) ``Organization and Personnel,'' of this document, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania satisfies the criteria in the Commission's policy statement ``Criteria for Guidance of States and NRC in Discontinuance of NRC Regulatory Authority and Assumption Thereof by States Through Agreement,'' and therefore, meets the requirements of Section 274 of the Act. The proposed Pennsylvania program to regulate Agreement materials, as comprised of statutes, regulations, and procedures, is compatible with the program of the Commission and is adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by the proposed Agreement. With respect to discussion above in Section II. ``Summary of the NRC Staff Assessment of the Pennsylvania Program for the Control of Agreement Materials,'' (a) ``Organization and Personnel,'' once the NRC staff confirms the assurances provided by Pennsylvania concerning staff training and qualifications, the staff will be able to conclude that area is satisfied. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of June, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Janet R. Schlueter, Director, Division of Materials Safety and State Agreements, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. Appendix A An Agreement Between the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the Discontinuance of Certain Commission Regulatory Authority and Responsibility Within the Commonwealth Pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended Whereas, The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is authorized under Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. (the Act), to enter into agreements with the Governor of any State/Commonwealth providing for discontinuance of the regulatory authority of the Commission within the Commonwealth under Chapters 6, 7, and 8, and Section 161 of the Act with respect to byproduct materials as defined in Sections 11e.(1), (3), and (4) of the Act, source materials, and special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass; and, Whereas, The Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is authorized under the Pennsylvania Radiation Protection Act, Act of July 10, 1984, P.L. 688, No. 147, as amended, 35 P.S. Sec. 7110.101 et seq., to enter into this Agreement with the Commission; and, Whereas, The Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania certified on November 8, 2006, that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth) has a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials within the Commonwealth covered by this Agreement, and that the Commonwealth desires to assume regulatory responsibility for such materials; and, Whereas, The Commission found on [date] that the program of the Commonwealth for the regulation of the materials covered by this Agreement is compatible with the Commission's program for the regulation of such materials and is adequate to protect public health and safety; and, Whereas, The Commonwealth and the Commission recognize the desirability and importance of cooperation between the Commission and the Commonwealth in the formulation of standards for protection against hazards of radiation and in assuring that Commonwealth and Commission programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible; and, Whereas, The Commission and the Commonwealth recognize the desirability of the reciprocal recognition of licenses, and of the granting of limited exemptions from licensing of those materials subject to this Agreement; and, Whereas, This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of the Act; Now, therefore, It is hereby agreed between the [[Page 34732]] Commission and the Governor of the Commonwealth acting on behalf of the Commonwealth as follows: Article I Subject to the exceptions provided in Articles II, IV, and V, the Commission shall discontinue, as of the effective date of this Agreement, the regulatory authority of the Commission in the Commonwealth under Chapters 6, 7, and 8, and Section 161 of the Act with respect to the following materials: 1. Byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(1) of the Act; 2. Byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(3) of the Act; 3. Byproduct materials as defined in Section 11e.(4) of the Act; 4. Source materials; 5. Special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. 6. The regulation of the land disposal of all byproduct, source, and special nuclear waste materials covered by this Agreement; Article II This Agreement does not provide for discontinuance of any authority and the Commission shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to: 1. The regulation of the construction and operation of any production or utilization facility or any uranium enrichment facility; 2. The regulation of the export from or import into the United States of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material, or of any production or utilization facility; 3. The regulation of the disposal into the ocean or sea of byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials waste as defined in the regulations or orders of the Commission; 4. The regulation of the disposal of such other byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials waste as the Commission from time to time determines by regulation or order should, because of the hazards or potential hazards thereof, not be disposed without a license from the Commission; 5. The evaluation of radiation safety information on sealed sources or devices containing byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials and the registration of the sealed sources or devices for distribution, as provided for in regulations or orders of the Commission. Article III With the exception of those activities identified in Article II.A.1 through 4, this Agreement may be amended, upon application by the Commonwealth and approval by the Commission, to include one or more of the additional activities specified in Article II, whereby the Commonwealth may then exert regulatory authority and responsibility with respect to those activities. Article IV Notwithstanding this Agreement, the Commission may from time to time by rule, regulation, or order, require that the manufacturer, processor, or producer of any equipment, device, commodity, or other product containing source, byproduct, or special nuclear material shall not transfer possession or control of such product except pursuant to a license or an exemption from licensing issued by the Commission. Article V This Agreement shall not affect the authority of the Commission under SubSection 161b or 161i of the Act to issue rules, regulations, or orders to protect the common defense and security, to protect restricted data, or to guard against the loss or diversion of special nuclear material. Article VI The Commission will cooperate with the Commonwealth and other Agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs of the State and the Commission for protection against hazards of radiation and to assure that Commission and Commonwealth programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be coordinated and compatible. The Commonwealth agrees to cooperate with the Commission and other Agreement States in the formulation of standards and regulatory programs of the Commonwealth and the Commission for protection against hazards of radiation and to assure that the Commonwealth's program will continue to be compatible with the program of the Commission for the regulation of materials covered by this Agreement. The Commonwealth and the Commission agree to keep each other informed of proposed changes in their respective rules and regulations, and to provide each other the opportunity for early and substantive contribution to the proposed changes. The Commonwealth and the Commission agree to keep each other informed of events, accidents, and licensee performance that may have generic implication or otherwise be of regulatory interest. Article VII The Commission and the Commonwealth agree that it is desirable to provide reciprocal recognition of licenses for the materials listed in Article I licensed by the other party or by any other Agreement State. Accordingly, the Commission and the Commonwealth agree to develop appropriate rules, regulations, and procedures by which such reciprocity will be accorded. Article VIII The Commission, upon its own initiative after reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the Commonwealth, or upon request of the Governor of the Commonwealth, may terminate or suspend all or part of this agreement and reassert the licensing and regulatory authority vested in it under the Act if the Commission finds that (1) Such termination or suspension is required to protect public health and safety, or (2) the Commonwealth has not complied with one or more of the requirements of Section 274 of the Act. The Commission may also, pursuant to Section 274j of the Act, temporarily suspend all or part of this agreement if, in the judgment of the Commission, an emergency situation exists requiring immediate action to protect public health and safety and the Commonwealth has failed to take necessary steps. The Commission shall periodically review actions taken by the Commonwealth under this Agreement to ensure compliance with Section 274 of the Act which requires a Commonwealth program to be adequate to protect public health and safety with respect to the materials covered by this Agreement and to be compatible with the Commission's program. Article IX This Agreement shall become effective on [date], and shall remain in effect unless and until such time as it is terminated pursuant to Article VIII. Done at [City, State] this [date] day of [month], [year]. For the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dale E. Klein, Chairman. For the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Edward G. Rendell, Governor. [FR Doc. 07-3072 Filed 6-22-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 12 Daily Yomiuri: Hitachi to bid to build U.K. N-plants with GE Hitachi, Ltd. announced Monday that it would enter the bidding on projects to construct nuclear power plants in Britain in alliance with U.S. technology giant General Electric Co. The two companies have requested British regulatory authorities initiate a preliminary assessment with the aim of gaining approval for the design of the jointly developed 1.55-million-kilowatt class economic simplified boiling water reactor--a new type of nuclear reactor. The authorities will inform the companies within two weeks if the application is accepted. No new nuclear power stations have been built in Britain in about 20 years, but the government decided in July 2006 to promote the building of new plants as one means of meeting Britain's obligation to cut its emission of so-called greenhouse gases. Competition for the orders is thought to be heating up, with companies such as Westinghouse Electric Co., a major U.S. nuclear reactor builder that Toshiba Corp. took control of last year, and France's Areva Group also making similar applications. Hitachi and GE have formed a comprehensive tie-up in work to build reactors in an attempt to expand globally, and have set a up a new company, known as GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, in the United States in June. The company is 60 percent owned by GE and 40 percent owned by Hitachi. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 13 BBC NEWS: Egypt nuclear engineer gets life Last Updated: Monday, 25 June 2007, 10:30 GMT 11:30 UK Mohamed Sayed Saber Ali denied the charge of spying An engineer at the Egyptian atomic energy agency has been sentenced to life in prison after being convicted of spying for Israel. Mohamed Sayed Saber Ali was tried by a state security court for handing over documents in return for $17,000. Two foreign nationals were given life sentences in their absence. Israel is the only state in the region believed to have a nuclear arsenal, though it does not officially admit to it. The two men tried in their absence were named as Irishman Brian Peter and Japanese national Shiro Izo. Their whereabouts were not disclosed. Ali, who was arrested in February, had pleaded not guilty to the charge of spying for Israel. He admitted taking documents from his workplace but he said they had been published and were not secret. Egypt has a small atomic reactor for research purposes but recently unveiled plans for a civilian nuclear programme. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 14 AFP: Egypt jails engineer for spying for Israel - Mon Jun 25, 6:11 AM ET CAIRO (AFP) - Egypt's state security court on Monday sentenced an engineer to 25 years in jail for betraying nuclear secrets to Israel. Mohammed Sayyed Saber, 35, who was arrested at the beginning of the year, had pleaded not guity to the espionage charges and looked shocked when the verdict was read out. During his trial, he insisted that any information he had divulged was already in the public domain and had been handed over with the blessing of the authorities. Saber acknowledged that he had supplied information about the Egyptian atomic energy authority where he worked to presumed agents of Israel's Mossad overseas intelligence agency. But he insisted that he had kept the Egyptian embassy in Saudi Arabia, where he lived, abreast of his activities and denied that they had amounted to espionage. "All the information I gave was never with the intention of spying," Saber told the High State Security Court. "I was not a spy and the information I gave was not secret, it was all published on the Internet," he said. Prosecutors had charged that Saber helped Israeli intelligence hack into the Egyptian atomic agency's computer system between February 2006 and February this year, in exchange for 17,000 dollars and a laptop. They said that he also provided Israeli agents with classified documents to do with the Inshas nuclear research centre, north of Cairo. Saber acknowledged that he had been approached by two presumed Israeli agents -- one Irish, one Japanese -- who are in absentia co-defendants in the trial, after publishing his CV online. He admitted that in a series of contacts culminating in a visit to Hong Kong they had grilled him on aspects of Egypt's nuclear programme, a line of questioning that he said had made him feel "uncomfortable" enough to contact the Egyptian authorities in late 2006. The questions had focused on whether Egypt had a uranium enrichment programme, what contacts it had with declared nuclear powers and what security arrangements were in force at the atomic energy authority. "I contacted Ahmed Bahaa El Din, the official in charge of security at the Egyptian embassy in Saudi Arabia and told him everything," Saber said. "He asked me to write a detailed report and give it to him, which I did," he told the court, adding that he had been asked to remain in touch with the presumed Israeli agents. Saber admitted that in May 1999 he had visited the Israeli embassy in Cairo in the hope of getting a scholarship to study nuclear engineering at Tel Aviv University, but insisted that there had been nothing treacherous about that. "I was not appreciated in my job and hoped I could find better opportunities in Israel," he said, adding that he was paid just 700 Egyptian pounds (120 dollars) a month. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 Reuters: Egypt nuclear engineer convicted of spying for Israel Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:21AM EDT By Mohamed Abdellah CAIRO (Reuters) - A nuclear engineer at Egypt's state-run Atomic Energy Agency was convicted by an Egyptian court of spying for Israel on Monday and sentenced to life in prison. Mohamed Sayed Saber Ali was accused of taking documents from Inshas, the site of one of Egypt's small nuclear reactors, and handing them for $17,000 to foreign contacts said to be working for Israeli intelligence. The court also sentenced to life imprisonment two of Ali's alleged contacts -- an Irishman identified as Brian Peter and a Japanese named as Shiro Izo. It tried the two foreigners in absentia and Egypt has not said where they are. Life imprisonment in the Egyptian system usually means 25 years. Remission for good behavior is possible. Ali had pleaded not guilty to the charge of spying for Israel and he told reporters before the verdict that he was confident he would be acquitted. After the verdict he looked shocked and made no comment in the few moments before guards took him out of the courtroom. Ali admitted taking documents from his work place but he said that they had been published and were not secret. He told the court that he had met several times in Hong Kong with the two foreign defendants without at first thinking they might be working for Israel, and he told Egyptian authorities of the meetings after growing suspicious of the two men. "I became sure in the fourth meeting that I was dealing with a strange party that was working for a foreign intelligence apparatus," he told the court. He said he had told an Egyptian intelligence official in Saudi Arabia about his contacts. But the intelligence official, Ahmed Bahaeddin, said he thought Ali had contacted him because he was worried his spying for Israel might come to light. MEETINGS IN HONG KONG An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman said at the start of the trial that he had no information on the matter. Egyptian trials of suspected spies for Israel have often soured relations between Israel and Egypt, which in 1979 became the first Arab country to make peace with the Jewish state. In April an Egyptian-Canadian dual citizen was sentenced to 15 years in prison for spying for Israel in a separate case. Egyptian security officials arrested Ali, 35, in February when he arrived in Cairo from one of several trips to Hong Kong. Prosecutors say the contacts told Ali in Hong Kong that they wanted him to work for their company from inside the nuclear agency and obtain documents about Egypt's nuclear activities. Ali told the court his contacts had at one point promised to give him a special communication device to plant in the Egyptian nuclear agency, and that the Egyptian official in Saudi Arabia had told him to get the device and return with it to Egypt. But Ali said his contacts backed out of their promise after he failed a lie detector test. He said he had since become nearly certain that the men worked for Israel's Mossad. Egypt says Ali's contacts were interested in information about the capability of the Inshas reactor, how many hours it operated, the type of experiments conducted with it, and any technical problems and the reasons for them. They also wanted to know how frequently the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspects the reactor. Egypt's reactors are under IAEA supervision and the U.N. agency has had no serious complaints about Egyptian compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ali, who has a bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering, got a job at the state Atomic Energy Agency in 1997. He aroused the suspicions of Egyptian authorities when he went to the Israeli embassy in Cairo in 1999 to ask for a grant to study nuclear engineering at Tel Aviv University. ***************************************************************** 16 icWales: Row over Oldbury nuclear safety Jun 25 2007 by Sally Williams, Western Mail CAMPAIGNERS fear a nuclear power station located on the Welsh border could suffer a Chernobyl-style meltdown because it has not been fitted with an important safety system. Censored documents released under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to the Stop Oldbury campaign, reveal a one-in-1,000 risk of a fire at Oldbury nuclear power station, located around five miles from Chepstow. John Large, a top nuclear expert, said that the risk is in the “hundreds of thousands” and yet a safety dome to collect releases has not yet been fitted at the Oldbury plant. Mr Large said, “The document I have read shows that the Nuclear Installation Inspectorate (NII) judged that the reactor was not safe enough to operate for the next 18 months but allowed it to go onstream until November. “They are effectively saying they will do tests on a reactor while a safety rule has been suspended. “It defies common sense and presents an unacceptable risk to the public.” He said the NII also cast doubt on the company’s ability to cope with the exceptional circumstances of a “cliff edge channelled melt” – a fire in more than one of its 4000 channels, which is out of control. Jim Duffy, co-ordinator of the Stop Oldbury campaign, is calling for Oldbury, which was built in 1961 and is an operating twin reactor station close to Newport and Cardiff, to be shut down as soon as possible. It is scheduled for closure in 2008. He said, “The reactor’s core is corroded by more than a third through intense heat and radiation. “In a worst-case scenario, if Oldbury were to blow its lid, the whole of Wales could be decimated. “There are still sheep that can’t be sold in North Wales because they are still affected by Chernobyl 21 years after the event – and that was 1,500 miles away.” On May 30 a fire broke out in a non-nuclear part of the Oldbury plant and the power station had to be shut down indefinitely, which is standard procedure. The blaze was in a 20ft by 20ft electricity transformer at the power station which is just over the border in south Gloucestershire. The fire was extinguished in minutes by a sprinkler system in the building but 10 fire crews were called to the site as a precaution. Mark Wheeler, senior press officer for the Health and Safety Executive, dismissed campaigners’ fears. He said, “On the basis of submissions made by the operator, the HSE is confident that Oldbury Reactor 2 can restart and operate safely until November this year.” “Inspections of the highest power channels in the reactor core have shown that there are no significant cracks and improved data on graphite material properties has shown that adequate safety margins will be maintained “The documents released under the FOI Act clearly show that HSE’s analysts judged adequate protection is provided by existing systems. “And it concurred with the operator’s view that it would not be practicable to require installation of an additional automatic trip system. “The existing systems and alarms would result in the reactor being tripped and shut down in the event of fuel clad melting without significant safety consequences for either the reactor or people.” Copyright and Trade Mark Notice ***************************************************************** 17 BBC NEWS: Nuclear waste burials ruled out Last Updated: Monday, 25 June 2007, 14:23 GMT 15:23 UK The SNP government has refused to play a part in geological disposal The Scottish government has broken ranks with Westminster after ruling out the deep burial of nuclear waste. A consultation on the move, recommended by an expert advisory panel, has been taken forward by UK ministers. But the SNP administration said it would play no part in it or any future work on "geological disposal". "We do not accept that it is right to seek to bury nuclear waste, which will remain active for thousands of years, in a deep geological facility or to expect any community to host such a facility," said Mr Lochhead, whose government is opposed to nuclear power. We want to make sure that people have a chance to have their say at every stage in the process Ian Pearson MP UK environment minister "This out-of-sight, out-of-mind policy should not extend to Scotland." The UK consultation exercise on the way in which a site would be chosen for long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste came after the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management last year recommended geological disposal as a way of handling it. Westminster Environment Minister Ian Pearson insisted that the site selection process had not yet begun, adding: "We need to decide how a site for the geological disposal facility is chosen. "As we do that, we want to make sure that people have a chance to have their say at every stage in the process." UK ministers claimed that the proposed disposal facility would be a high-technology multi-billion pound project that would bring investment and jobs for generations. In Scotland, the current policy for waste is to support long-term "near surface, near site" storage so that waste can be monitored and retrieved, while minimising the need to transport it over long distances. This position was backed by Scottish Green MSP Patrick Harvie, who said: "On top of the costs, dangers, risks and a failure to truly tackle climate change - nuclear power creates waste that is not going to be magicked away." * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 18 WNN: Enrichment capacity at Angarsk to be boosted EXPLORATION & NUCLEAR FUEL 25 June 2007 The capacity of the Angarsk uranium enrichment plant in Russia could be quadrupled by 2015, according to Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom). He also reported that Russia would no longer import depleted uranium for storage and processing. He said that three projects were currently underway that would expand production at the Angarsk Electrolysis and Chemical Combine (AECC). Firstly, capacity at the existing plant would be uprated from the current 2.6 million separative work units (SWU) up to some 4.2 million SWU. Secondly, the establishment of the International Centre for Uranium Enrichment at the site, while using existing facilities, would also raise its capacity. In addition, setting up a joint venture uranium enrichment plant with Kazakhstan will provide a further production capacity of some 5 million SWU. The proposed joint venture plant would enrich uranium mined in Kazakhstan by a joint venture set up with Russia. This would be in addition to the International Centre for Uranium Enrichment, in which Kazakhstan already holds a 10% stake. Kiriyenko said that production capacity at Angarsk could therefore reach some 10 million SWU by 2015. Kiriyenko was speaking at the Angarsk plant on 22 June following the signing of an agreement on cooperation between Rosatom and the Irkutsk region, in which the plant is located. The agreement was signed by Kiriyenko and Alexander Tishanin, governor of the Irkutsk region. Kiriyenko said that Angarsk will become a priority site for Russia's international programs. "We are going to invest over $2.5 billion in the city and create 2000 additional jobs," he said. Russia and Kazakhstan signed an agreement on 10 May on creating the International Centre for Uranium Enrichment. Kiriyenko said that the first investments into the joint venture for uranium enrichment in Angarsk will make up "at least $2.5 billion just for centrifuges." He noted that Ukraine "could approach the stage of formalizing documents for its participation" in the project by the end of 2007. Armenian president Robert Kocharian said in late May that Armenia was ready to join the project. Kiriyenko added that a number of other countries had expressed interest in participating. He said, "Russia has a 90% stake in the project, while Kazakhstan has 10%. Russia does not need such a large stake, and it may transfer some of the stock to other countries." Kiriyenko said, "Each country may acquire a stake in the centre, receive uranium enrichment services and certain revenues." He added: "The only thing they won't get will be the Russian uranium enrichment technology." Kiriyenko also announced that Russia will no longer import depleted uranium from Europe for enrichment. Western enrichers have been sending materials from the uranium enrichment process to Russia, including uranium hexafluoride (UF6) and uranium tailings, since the 1990s. "France and Germany have less advanced technology for enriching uranium, and we 'squeeze out' [additional uranium] from their uranium hexafluoride." However, Kiriyenko said, "We decided over a year ago that we would not sign new contracts or extend old ones, but we cannot tear up agreements that we already have - they expire in 2009-2010." He added, "We are now looking for technology to defluorinate uranium tailings. And if we fail to find a solution, I will ban tailings imports into Russia." Russia produces over 3200 tonnes per year of uranium oxide concentrate (U3O8), according to Kiriyenko. He told Reuters, "Our confirmed reserves and resources are about 850,000 tonnes within Russia." He added, "Our reserves are more than one million tonnes if we include our joint ventures abroad, including our joint venture in Kazakhstan." Kiriyenko said Russia has enough uranium deposits to ensure steady supply of raw materials for its enrichment plants for the next 30-50 years. "I am sure that we have enough natural uranium for decades ahead," he said. * SWU, or Separative Work Unit, is the unit used to measure the energy required to separate uranium-235 from uranium-238. ***************************************************************** 19 St. Petersburg Times: Poisons Flooding River Neva Overview Issue #1283 (49), Tuesday, June 26, 2007 Fish from the River Neva contain high concentrations of poisonous substances, including arsenic and polychlorobiphenyl, one of the 12 most dangerous organic pollutants, according to recent research carried out by the international environmental pressure group Greenpeace. The research also revealed that the levels of copper in the city’s main waterway exceeded the norm by 73 times, and levels of manganese by 26 times. Dmitry Artamonov, head of the St. Petersburg branch of Greenpeace, said that the level of public awareness about environmental issues and, in particular, water pollution, remains low as pollution in the waterways of the Neva Delta worsens. Greenpeace is this week launching a monitoring and awareness program that would involve sending its own patrol boat along the Neva with crews taking water samples, documenting illegal discharge sites and publicizing the results among city residents. According to a City Hall annual report, in 2006, ... Spectators watch a ship sailing down the River Neva as part of the ‘Crimson Sails’ highschool graduation celebrations on Saturday. The event also featured a firework spectacular and salute. 42 Held Following Street Clashes MOSCOW — Dozens of ultranationalists armed with metal poles and broken bottles attacked people from the Caucasus and Central Asia at two squares near the ... Planning Council Slams Okhta Tower A controversial 400-meter skyscraper to be built for energy giant Gazprom in St. Petersburg’s Malaya Okhta, a district neighboring downtown, could be scaled down or moved further away from the historic city center, after the ambitious plan from Russia’s richest company encountered fierce resistance from city’s Planning Council. There could yet emerge a building erected in the district, but it needs to be smaller to fit in, a member of the Council, Yury Kurbatov, said during a Council meeting on Thursday, St. Petersburg’s Construction Weekly, the official publisher of legal statements in the construction field, reported on Monday. “The tower is the product of modern technologies, and it is absolutely out of place in Okhta. It might be transferred to a different and more suitable location,” he said. Although the Council agreed that the industrial area of Malaya Okhta’s is in need of regeneration, many of its members found the declared height to ... Moscow Backs Greenpeace Plan to Identify GM Foods MOSCOW — Moscow next week introduces a city-wide label to identify GM-free foods, a move ecologists hail as ground-breaking but which foreign producers say is complex and costly. A handful of individual food producers around the world already use labels ... ***************************************************************** 20 business.iafrica.com: business news SA needs uranium strategy BUSINESS NEWS Mon, 25 Jun 2007 Several options are being worked on to come up with a national uranium strategy for South Africa, Sandile Nogxina, director general of the department of minerals and energy, told a media briefing on Monday. "Uranium will not be treated like other minerals — there will be a consequence," he said, adding that the mining industry will be fully consulted during the process of developing a national strategy. "There is a bee-hive of activity in uranium at the moment, mainly price driven. We need a uranium strategy as we can't let resources be depleted at the expense of the country." Nogxina, who was part of an energy media briefing, also involving the department of public enterprises, Eskom, the national energy regulator, the nuclear energy corporation of South Africa and other state entities, stressed that South Africa's uranium strategy would comply with international conventions relating to the usage and storage of uranium, which is closely linked to the development of nuclear energy. I-Net Bridge Copyright © 2002-2007 iafrica.com, a division of Primedia Online* - a Primedia company Reproduction without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions ***************************************************************** 21 The Hindu: Mill to process natural uranium ore commissioned Tuesday, Jun 26, 2007 T.S. Subramanian Turamdih mill situated in Jharkhand can process 3,000 tonnes of ore a day — Photo courtesy: Uranium Corporation of India Limited BOOSTING PRODUCTION: A section of the uranium mill at Turamdih in Jharkand which was inaugurated by Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, on Monday. CHENNAI: The natural uranium crunch that hit India’s indigenously-built Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) and brought down their capacity factor will ease with the commissioning on Monday, for trial run, a mill at Turamdih in Jharkhand for processing natural uranium ore. Anil Kakodkar, Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, inaugurated the mill. He opened an open-cast mine at Banduhurang for production of natural uranium ore. Besides, he laid the foundation for constructing an underground mine at Mohuldih for excavating uranium ore. The mill and the mine have been built by the Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL), a public sector undertaking of the Department of Atomic Energy. According to Ramendra Gupta, Chairman and Managing Director, UCIL, the mill at Turamdih could process 3,000 tonnes of natural uranium ore a day. The existing mill at Jaduguda, also in Jharkhand, processed 2,190 tonnes a day. Thus, the two mills could together process about 5,200 tonnes of uranium ore a day. It would take a month for the operations at the mill at Turamdih to stabilise. “We have a centralised control room and drum filters in place of belt filters at Turamdih. So recovery of uranium ore will be better,” said Mr. Gupta from Jaduguda. The process It is a state-of-the-art, high-end capacity plant. Through a series of chemical processing methods in these two mills, uranium is obtained from the ore and then converted into yellow cake. At the Nuclear Fuel Complex, Hyderabad, the yellow cake is fabricated into fuel rods which become the fuel for the 15 PHWRs operating in the country now. These 15 reactors need 540 tonnes of natural uranium a year but the production till a few weeks ago stood at 280 tonnes of natural uranium a year. This led to the capacity factor of the PHWRs dropping from about 90 per cent in 2002-03 to 65 per cent now. The situation will ease with the commissioning of the mill at Turamdih and the mine at Banduhurang. The mine at Banduhurang will produce 2,250 tonnes of natural uranium ore a day and the mine was built in two years at a cost of Rs. 95 crores. The underground mining project at Mohuldih in Seraikela-Kharswan district in Jharkhand was part of the UCIL’s expansion programme. This mine will produce 1,50,000 tonnes of ore a year. It will be built in 48 months at a cost of Rs. 90 crores. Construction of a mine at Bagjata in Jharkhand is under way and production of natural uranium ore there will begin in 2008. Mr. Gupta said the UCIL started constructing an exploratory mine from June 18, 2007 at Gogi near Yadgir in Karnataka for excavating uranium ore. V.P. Raja, Additional Secretary, DAE and S.K. Malhotra, Head, Public Awareness Division, DAE, took part in the function. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 22 DOE: DOE Awards Up To $340,000 to Eight Graduate Fellows Studying Nuclear Fuel Cycle June 25, 2007 BOSTON, MA – U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will award up to $340,000 in fellowships to eight graduate student fellows to advance research in the nuclear fuel cycle. These awards build on President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative, which seeks to meet the growing demand for nuclear-educated scientists and engineers. Fellowships are valued at up to $42,500 per student over two academic years and are part of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) - a program within DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy – aimed at increasing research into closing the nuclear fuel cycle and recycling components of used nuclear reactor fuel. “These fellowships further President Bush’s American Competitiveness Initiative by providing our best and brightest students with the education and tools necessary to continue to lead the world in opportunity and innovation,” Secretary Bodman said. “We commend these graduate students for their study of the nuclear fuel cycle at our nation’s universities. The academic community as well as our national laboratories and industry have been vital to increasing scientific know-how, developing advanced nuclear technology and helping to reestablish nuclear power in the United States.” AFCI fellowships are awarded annually to students who plan to pursue research in technical areas related to the separation of nuclear waste components, the fabrication of these components into recycled fuel, and the preparation of new waste forms with increased long-term stability. This research furthers the Global Nuclear Energy Partnerships (GNEP), announced last year by President Bush, which supports the expansion of nuclear power in the world while reducing the risks of weapons proliferation, and increasing the efficiency of waste recycling programs. Selected AFCI fellows are full-time students who have an interest in advanced fuel cycle research and who are pursuing master’s degrees in nuclear engineering, applied physics, or other fields of science and engineering relevant to the GNEP or AFCI missions. This summer, the new AFCI fellows will visit DOE Headquarters in Washington to become better acquainted with the AFCI program, and many will have summer jobs at DOE national laboratories before entering graduate school in the fall. Selected AFCI fellows include: * Brett Dooies, University of Florida, nuclear engineering * Eddie “Trey” Holik, Texas A&M University, applied physics * Brendan Kochunas, University of California-Berkeley, reactor physics * Kyle Oliver, University of Wisconsin, nuclear engineering * Kathryn Wright, Texas A&M University, nuclear engineering * Shen Zang, North Carolina State University, nuclear engineering * Shannon Yee, Ohio State University, nuclear engineering * Shadi Ghrayeb, Graduate University Currently Undecided, nuclear science and engineering Additional information is available on DOE’s nuclear energy programs and on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Media contact(s): Angela Hill, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 23 UPI: U.S. funds nuclear fuel research United Press International - NewsTrack - Science - Published: June 25, 2007 at 2:30 PM WASHINGTON, June 25 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Energy will award up to $340,000 in fellowships to eight graduate students to advance research in the nuclear fuel cycle. The program is designed to meet the growing demand for nuclear-educated scientists and engineers. The fellowships are valued at up to $42,500 per student over two academic years. "These fellowships further President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative by providing our best and brightest students with the education and tools necessary to continue to lead the world in opportunity and innovation," Department Secretary Samuel Bodman said. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 NewsBlaze: Remarks Prepared for U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman Thank you, Art. It's a pleasure to be back in Boston today. My family and I lived here for nearly 40 years, and I always appreciate the opportunity to return to this great city. I had the good fortune to attend graduate school right across the river at MIT, where I studied chemical engineering. I entered MIT at a pivotal time in the history of our nation - and the history of our scientific establishment. I often describe myself as a product of the Sputnik generation. I have vivid memories of standing with my parents in our backyard in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, staring up at the sky, trying to make out the Sputnik satellite. It was a time of fear, to be sure - fears about Russian capabilities and about America falling behind. But it was also a time of great opportunity - opportunities to advance our scientific understanding and to put that knowledge to direct and important use for our country. The launch of Sputnik not only started the space race, it also lead to the creation of NASA, the following year, and to a massive increase in funding for the National Science Foundation. NSF's budget was quadrupled in one year - and this really established the agency as a powerhouse of funding for university fellowships in science and engineering. It was because of one of these NSF fellowships that I was able to attend MIT. At that time, the people and the government of this nation recognized two fundamental truths: first, that in order to maintain this country's economic preeminence in an increasingly competitive world, we simply had to maintain our scientific and technological superiority. And, second, doing so required a substantial and sustained investment. The parallels to today are striking. Our country faces tremendous challenges - to our security, to our health and well-being, and to our future economic competitiveness. And, in all of these areas, our nation's scientists and engineers will help us turn those challenges into opportunities. This is most certainly true in the energy arena generally, and for nuclear power specifically. As this conference makes clear, our future success in ensuring our nation's energy security will depend heavily on our ability to recruit, educate and train highly technical personnel to work in this industry - from nuclear scientists and engineers to craft laborers and construction managers. But even as we rightly examine the human resources challenge associated with designing, building and operating the advanced design nuclear plants of the future, we cannot lose sight of the bigger issue here: namely, that we need more nuclear power in this country. Achieving that requires us to look at the full picture - at all aspects of this need and at all the constraints to getting there. These days, we certainly don't need reminding that our nation faces a pervasive set of challenges related to providing clean, cost-effective, safe and secure energy to power our lives. The projections are staggering. By 2030, we estimate that global energy consumption will grow by over 50 percent, with 70 percent of that growth coming from the world's emerging economies. For electricity specifically, we estimate that U.S. demand will increase by about 50 percent by 2030, with global demand nearly doubling. To meet this demand in the U.S., we would require 285,000 megawatts of new base load capacity. By way of comparison, that represents roughly the total capacity of all the coal-burning power plants now operating in the U.S. and almost three times the capacity of the existing fleet of nuclear plants. And while global demand is rapidly increasing, we must recognize the realities of global climate change and work to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution here and around the world. At the same time, we must enable the type of economic growth - particularly in the developing world - that will increase living standards and allow all nations to succeed. In short, we must meet demand by developing and deploying energy solutions that encourage global economic growth, and discourage global reliance on polluting, out-dated technologies. To do this we need more energy from all sources. We must use fossil energy more cleanly and efficiently, including conserving the energy we currently waste. We must increase our use of currently available renewable and alternative energy technologies and develop new ones. I applaud Massachusetts Governor Patrick's energy efficiency initiative, which was announced this morning. And we must expand access to safe and emissions-free nuclear power in a way that responsibly manages waste and dramatically reduces proliferation risks. This is a tall order. But, it can and should be done. Because - and this is a critical point - at present, nuclear power is the only mature technology that can supply large amounts of emissions-free base load power to help us meet the expected growth in demand. Yes, there are other technologies available or under development - from wind power to biomass to clean-coal and to carbon sequestration and energy efficiency technologies - that can have a big impact on our energy security. But, if we are talking about what is available to order right now that would have a material impact on our ability to produce homegrown, clean power, we must talk nuclear. And we have not licensed a new nuclear plant in this country in over 30 years. That must change. I realize that I am preaching to the choir here. But the point needs to be made. And it's particularly important as a preface to the discussion that you are engaged in this week. Because in order to get to a point where we are actually employing more nuclear engineers and craft laborers and using the talent that we know we will need, we must get the overall process going. And doing so requires us all to work together to remove the major impediments to getting new nuclear plants ordered, sited and eventually built and operational. There's a bit of a danger here of putting the cart before the horse. So, what I'd like to do today is broaden your discussion a bit and focus on what, in my view, the federal government should do - and, in fact, is doing - to remove the roadblocks and catalyze this process. The way I see it, the role of the federal government is to break the static inertia, if you will. Working closely with industry and the academic community, we must take steps to remove the constraints associated with getting the next generation of nuclear plants online. From there, the market rightly takes over. And let's face it, the constraints are considerable. There are immense siting and regulatory concerns - from the local level on up. There is a need for more funding of nuclear science and R&D - from the government as well as the private sector. And related to that is, of course, the human component, which you all are focusing on here. We also must address two very real security concerns. First, the storage of spent fuel; and second, the risks of proliferation of nuclear technology and materials. Both of these are linked directly to a larger issue: the state of our current nuclear capabilities. In many ways, the nuclear capability of the U.S. has atrophied in the 30 years since the last nuclear plant was ordered. We no longer have the capability to forge the heavy ingots needed to fabricate major nuclear reactor components. Whereas this nation was once the unquestioned leader in enrichment technology, we currently meet only a portion of our domestic demand, and even that is with outdated technology. And we depend on foreign sources for more than 80% of our enriched uranium requirements. We have no domestic commercial fuel recycling facilities, no operating fast-reactors or gas-cooled reactors, and no operating high-level nuclear waste repository. Further, each year less and less of the nuclear material in international commerce is of U.S. origin and therefore subject to U.S. consent over its transfer and use. Now, I don't mean to paint too negative a picture. After all, we still have more operating nuclear reactors than any other nation. We have 104 plants operating in 31 states. I should mention that up until very recently that number was 103 plants. As many of you know, after 22 years offline and a massive renovation, the Browns Ferry Unit 1 nuclear plant in north Alabama was officially restarted in late May and was reconnected to the Tennessee Valley Authority power grid on June 2nd. I had the privilege of accompanying the President on a visit to the plant just last week. The progress at Browns Ferry - though long in coming - is certainly a step in the right direction, but we need to take more such steps - leaps and bounds, actually. Thankfully, I believe that we will get there. I'm proud to serve an Administration with a vision of a future world that can universally enjoy the benefits of safe, affordable, emission-free energy. And, we have programs and plans in place to achieve that vision, and to put the U.S. back in the nuclear energy game in a leadership role. Our focus is on alleviating the constraints facing nuclear power expansion in this country. First, we are implementing important provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 - or EPACT - which will allow us to address some significant roadblocks. Specifically, EPACT authorized the Department to take steps to share some of the risk associated with constructing new advanced nuclear facilities: through federal risk insurance - or so-called stand-by support - and loan guarantees. After extensive industry and public input, in August of 2006 the Department announced a final rule that established the process for utilities to qualify for a portion of $2 billion in risk insurance - for up to the first six plants total. Among other things, the insurance would cover events beyond the control of the owner, such as delays associated with NRC reviews or other licensing schedule delays, as well as certain delays associated with litigation. The new loan guarantee program I mentioned provides the backing of the U.S. government, enable the Department to share some of the financial risks associated with new, clean energy projects that avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants and greenhouse gases - including new nuclear plants. Specifically, just last month we issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in line with our authority to guarantee up to $4 billion in loans during this year. We have requested budget authority to guarantee up to $9 billion for FY 2008. All projects must employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies already in service. Simply put, we are using these guarantees to catalyze new projects and share the risk with the private sector - by essentially lowering the cost of capital. If we are to reduce the barriers to deployment of new nuclear plants, then we must demonstrate to industry that it is indeed possible to navigate the regulatory processes. Through the Nuclear Power 2010 program, we are engaged in a cost-shared effort to do just that. As many of you may know, Nuclear Power 2010 is attempting to pave the way through the early site permit, or ESP, and combined operating license, or COL, processes for Generation III+ advanced light water reactor designs. In other words, to demonstrate the untested federal regulatory and licensing processes for the siting, construction and operation of these plants - and to do it in conjunction with industry - we need to work the kinks out of the system. In so doing, we'll allow those utilities that follow through the process to reference this work and to negotiate the process in a substantially shorter period of time. We are well on our way to meeting our program goals and completing this process. Another program that I would highlight is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - or GNEP - which I'm sure many of you are familiar with. An international effort, GNEP aims to address our growing global energy demands in a way that fosters economic development, improves our environment, responsibly manages nuclear waste, and significantly reduces the threat of proliferation and terrorism. GNEP will expand the use of nuclear power in the U.S. and globally by developing more proliferation-resistant technologies to recycle spent nuclear fuel. Just last month, I hosted a ministerial meeting in Washington where my counterparts from China, France, Japan, and Russia all announced their commitment to this ground-breaking partnership. Working with our international partners, we will develop cutting-edge technologies and new mechanisms for the distribution of fuel. On the technology side, we will demonstrate an advanced recycling technology that does not separate pure plutonium like current reprocessing technologies. By separating the spent fuel into its constituent elements, we can recycle most of the long-lived transuranic elements as fuel back into nuclear reactors to produce additional electricity and optimize disposal of the remaining waste products. Some of the most highly radioactive fission products, Cesium and Strontium, have half-lives of only about 30 years and do not require long-term geologic disposal. So, by recycling most of the very long-lived elements and setting aside for decay-storage the most radioactive and heat-producing elements, we will greatly reduce the burden on a geologic repository. With recycling, required repository space can be reduced by 90% and radiotoxicity reduced by 99%. Through GNEP, there are tremendous opportunities for university partnerships and participation. In fact, the project's success will depend upon the involvement of the academic community here and around the world. In general, we believe that a foundation exists in the academic community to expand R&D collaborations with the Energy Department. In years past, our funding focus has been on expanding enrollment in nuclear science and engineering programs. The Office of Nuclear Energy's support now extends to approximately 50 universities, with about 30 of these offering nuclear engineering degrees, totaling over $50 million dollars the past two years in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. And we are seeing an impact - with university enrollments in nuclear engineering, both undergraduate and graduate, increasing from about 700 in 1998 to over 3,000 for the 2006-07 school year. At this point, we believe that the opportunity exists to focus on funding for specific research goals, such as those associated with GNEP. By way of just one example, today we will be announcing that through the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, the Department is awarding up to $340,000 in fellowships to eight graduate students who are studying the nuclear fuel cycle. But if we want to see these types of programs continued and expanded, the funding decisions coming out of Congress are extremely important. On that subject, I would just mention that the Department's budget request for fiscal year 2008 was recently marked up in the House, and the results should be quite distressing to the nuclear community, as they are to me. Among other things, the House version of the Energy budget would significantly cut our request for GNEP by 70% - a request, I should point out, which included $60 million for university research. In addition, the House bill also funded the Nuclear Power 2010 program at a level that is well below what is needed, and it provided no funding for the issuance of loan guarantees for nuclear projects for next year. As I discussed earlier, loan guarantees and the NP 2010 are both essential tools to ensuring that new nuclear plants are built in the near future. In line with his strong support for nuclear power, the President has issued a statement urging the House to restore funding for both GNEP and NP 2010 and to allow the Administration flexibility in its implementation of the loan guarantee program. What this funding scenario crystallizes for me - as it should for all of you - is that we must concentrate on making the case for more nuclear power in this country. And we need all segments of the nuclear science establishment, labor and industry involved. After all, it is a robust and growing commercial nuclear industry that will lead to more jobs and more university research. The future need for our highly trained nuclear engineers, physicists, craft laborers and other personnel will not be there unless the market demands it. And the market will not do so without a supportive policy environment. In other words, once we have the right policies in place - and much-needed support from Congress - we will have paved the way for new plants to be ordered, built and brought online. And that is how, together, we will ensure that nuclear power plays a major role in our national effort to improve our energy security in an environmentally sustainable way. I thank you very much for your many contributions to that effort. And I thank you for your time today. Source: U.S. Department of Energy judythpiazza@gmail.com Copyright © 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News ***************************************************************** 25 DOE: Department of Energy Hosts First Steering Committee Meeting on U.S. - Japan Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan June 22, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, Dennis R. Spurgeon, today hosted Director-General of Japan’s Agency of Natural Resources and Energy, Harufumi Mochizuki, to discuss bilateral nuclear energy cooperation under the U.S. – Japan Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan signed in April. The Steering Committee meeting focused on increased cooperation in research and development for safe and emissions free nuclear energy technology, including fast reactor, fuel cycle technology advancements and safeguards for civilian nuclear reactors. “We are pleased to have been able to host our Japanese partners for the first implementation steps of the Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan,” DOE Assistant Secretary Spurgeon said. “As two of the world’s leading nations in development and commercialization of nuclear technologies, we share a common vision of expanding nuclear power in our respective countries and around the world. Nuclear energy is a safe, emissions free, and reliable electricity source that powers growing economies, while greatly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.” The Action Plan, which was signed in April 2007, fulfilled the commitment made by U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman and Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Akira Amari during their meeting in Washington, DC, on January 9, 2007, to develop a plan to increase nuclear energy cooperation between the nations. The Action Plan establishes the necessary framework to coordinate activities designed to promote the expansion of safe and secure nuclear power in the U.S. and Japan and globally. It also formalizes an agreement between the two nations – leading nuclear technology countries – to provide the additional foundation for the U.S. and Japan to align efforts in support of global expansion of nuclear energy. The U.S. and Japan share objectives to establish a global framework to expand nuclear energy use and minimize proliferation risks while enabling the benefits from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Both nations support the development of a global nuclear energy infrastructure as envisioned in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to develop innovative nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies. GNEP seeks to bring about a significant, wide-scale use of nuclear energy worldwide, and to take actions that will allow that vision to be achieved, while decreasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and effectively addressing the challenge of nuclear waste disposal. Read additional information on GNEP. Media contact(s): Angela Hill, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 26 DOE: Honey Creek Middle School From Terre Haute, Ind. Repeats as Champion of U.S. Department of Energy National Science Bowl® for Middle School Students June 24, 2007 Honey Creek Middle School From Terre Haute, Ind. Repeats as Champion of U.S. Department of Energy National Science Bowl® for Middle School Students DENVER – Honey Creek Middle School from Terre Haute, Ind. won its second straight championship at the 2007 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Science Bowl® for Middle School Students today at the University of Denver. Honey Creek beat Challenger School from Newark, Calif. in the national championship match. Teams representing 30 middle schools from across the United States competed in the National Finals. Members of the winning team include brothers Joseph and Mark Botros, Michael Mardini, Ian Francis, Julie Bittar and coaches Carol Tolin and Robert Fischer. The team also won $200 gift certificates for each student and three computer labs from Texas Instruments for its school’s science department. The answer that clinched the championship was in response to an earth science question about oceanography. “Congratulations to Honey Creek Middle School for their victory in the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Science Bowl for Middle School Students,” Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman said. “Middle school is the time when young people begin to develop an interest in math and science and academic competitions are critical to nurturing that interest. I view these students as America’s next generation of scientists and engineers and look forward to seeing many more exciting developments from them in the future.” To ensure that today’s brightest students become tomorrow’s scientific leaders, President Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) in 2006. This initiative increases investment in research and development, strengthens science and math education, and encourages entrepreneurship and technology discovery. DOE’s National Science Bowl exemplifies how children who are engaged, encouraged and equipped with proper resources can succeed academically. The goal of the ACI – and the National Science Bowl – is to invest in our next generation of scientists, engineers and educators so America can continue to successfully compete in the 21st century global marketplace. The ACI supports educational activities, such as the DOE National Science Bowl, in an effort to excite more middle and high school students to take mathematics and science classes. More than 100 students competed in this weekend’s National Finals. Earlier this spring, more than 5,000 students from across the country participated in regional Science Bowls for middle school students. The winners of the regional middle school Science Bowls received all-expense paid trips to compete in the National Finals in Denver. DOE recognizes all the students who competed as true math and science stars, representing the nation’s next generation of scientists and engineers. DOE created the National Science Bowl in 1991 to encourage high school students to excel in math and science and to pursue careers in these fields. In 2002, DOE started a similar competition for middle school students. DOE supports mathematics and science education to help provide a technically trained and diverse workforce for the nation. More than 100,000 students have participated in both competitions of the National Science Bowl since 1991. Placing second in the DOE National Science Bowl for middle school students was Challenger School from Newark, Calif. Team members are Tanay Kothari, Nikhil Desai, Arun Pingali, Aditya Limaye and coaches Raji Pingali and Dipty Desai. This team won $150 gift certificates for each student and two computer labs from Texas Instruments. The third place team was Longfellow Middle School from Falls Church, Va,, including and students In Young Cho, Sin Kim, Rohan Ramnath, Xavier Ferrier, Thalia Aoki and coach Scott VanBenschoten. This team’s prizes included $100 gift certificates for each student and a computer lab from Texas Instruments. This year’s corporate sponsors were General Motors and Texas Instruments. On Friday, June 22, St. Andrews Episcopal School from Amarillo, Texas won first place in the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Model Car Challenge sponsored by General Motors. The DOE Office of Science manages the DOE National Science Bowl. The Office of Science is the principal supporter of DOE’s world-class national laboratory system that will lead the way in innovations including high-end computing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, energy sources, and other material science research. A photo of the winning team and more information aare available at the DOE National Science Bowl. Media contact(s): Matt Simmons: (202) 538-9874 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 27 DOE: Department of Energy to Invest up to $4 Million for Wind Turbine Blade Testing Facilities June 25, 2007 New facilities in Massachusetts and Texas will bring cutting-edge technology to wind research WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE has selected the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Partnership in Massachusetts, and the Lone Star Wind Alliance in Texas, to each receive up to $2 million in test equipment to develop large-scale wind blade test facilities, accelerating the commercial availability of wind energy. These consortia have been selected to negotiate cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) to design, build, and operate new facilities to test the next generation of wind turbine blades. Facilities are expected to be operational in 2009. Promoting the use of wind energy is an integral part of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, which seeks to change the way we power this nation by increasing the use of clean, renewable energy sources. “These two testing facilities represent an important next step in the expansion of competitiveness of the U.S. domestic wind energy industry,” Secretary Bodman said, while hosting a press conference with Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. “We congratulate Massachusetts and Texas for their outstanding proposals and we believe this work will build upon the Administration’s goal of prompting states to research, develop and deploy more clean energy technologies.” The states’ consortia were selected to enter into agreements with DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to build facilities to test large wind blades, with an ultimate goal of testing blades up to 330 ft. (100m) in length. NREL will work with states to provide equipment and technical assistance for development and operation. This capability will help the rapidly growing wind industry achieve President Bush’s vision that wind energy has the potential to supply up to 20% of the electricity consumption of the United States. Including the DOE investment, total project costs of each test facility will total approximately $20 million. The DOE investment (Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009) is subject to Congressional appropriations. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Partnership has pledged $13 million in grants and loans for construction and startup costs, and has established reserve funding of $5 million for future blade design research and testing. The Lone Star Wind Alliance has pledged approximately $18 million from state and private sources for initial capital and startup costs. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Partnership proposes to build a test facility at the Boston Autoport in Boston Harbor. This Partnership includes: the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative; University of Massachusetts; the Massachusetts Executive Office of Economic Development; the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs; and the Massachusetts Port Authority. The Lone Star Wind Alliance proposes to build a test facility in Ingleside, Texas. This Alliance includes: the University of Houston; the Texas General Land Office; Texas Workforce Commission; Texas State Energy Conservation Office; Texas A&M University; Texas Tech University; University of Texas–Austin; West Texas A&M University; Montana State University; Stanford University; New Mexico State University; Old Dominion University; the Houston Advanced Research Center; BP; DOW; Huntsman; and Shell Wind. Blade testing is required to meet wind turbine design standards, reduce machine cost, and reduce the technical and financial risk of deploying mass-produced wind turbine models. Rapid growth in wind turbine size over the past two decades has outgrown the existing capabilities of the DOE-NREL’s National Wind Technology Center, which operates the only blade test facility in North America capable of performing full-scale testing of megawatt-scale wind turbine blades. Six applications for the CRADA opportunity were received from partnerships throughout the United States. The applications were reviewed by a technical panel comprised of DOE National Laboratory and wind industry energy experts. Building upon President Bush’s commitment to develop and promote increased use of renewable energy, last month, DOE issued its first Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006. This Report provides a detailed and comprehensive overview of development and trends in the U.S. wind power market. Most notably, the Report concludes that U.S. wind power capacity increased by 27 percent in 2006; and that the U.S. had the fastest growing wind power capacity in the world in 2005 and 2006. More than 61 percent of the U.S.’s total wind capacity - over 7,300 Megawatts (MW) - has been installed since President Bush took office in 2001. View the Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006. Additiona information is available on the Department of Energy's homepage. Media contact(s): Julie Ruggiero, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************