*****************************************************************
06/26/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.149
*****************************************************************
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 US: Beyond Nuclear to challenge nuclear with Dr. Caldicott's NPRI
2 UPI: Outside View: What Russia wants from CFE
3 Guardian Unlimited: NATO Chief Urges Calm Talks With Russia
NUCLEAR REACTORS
4 The Hindu: 'No too many holes in Indo-US nuke deal'
5 BBC NEWS: US to probe BAE over corruption
6 BBC NEWS: Work to resume on Brazil reactor
7 US: Platts: NRC aims to shorten review time for new plant applicatio
8 Platts: Swiss parliament approves independent nuke regulatory author
9 US: Tri-City Herald: Nuclear plant returns to service after 44-day o
10 US: IS: Proposed Idaho nuclear plant secures $3.5 billion funding co
11 PDM: Czech company: Austrian courts not competent to deal with Temel
12 AFP: Canada's oil sands going nuclear -
13 US: LA Daily News: Nuclear power expansion stalled
14 US: Foreign Policy: Why Nuclear Energy Isn't the Great Green Hope
15 US: JS Online: Nuclear plant up again
16 ITAR-TASS: Belarus can build and safely operate nuclear power plant
17 ITAR-TASS: Armenia interested in building new nuke plant - PM
18 NewsRoom Finland: Finland's Simo shows green light to nuclear power
19 NewsRoom Finland: Finland's Loviisa launches nuclear talks with Fenn
20 US: KnoxNews: Dry summer no picnic for TVA
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
21 St Petersburg Times: No Place for Nuclear Secrets
22 US: NRC: Regulatory guide on postulated accidents
23 Guardian Unlimited: Lethal legacy of tank-busting uranium dust
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
24 US: Houston Chronicle: No Action on Utah Nuke-Waste Permit
25 US: SanLuisObispo.com: Plans for new nuclear storage facility still
26 Las Vegas SUN: Senate spending panel wants $50 million less for Yucc
27 The Herald: Nuclear waste: no deep shafts in Scotland, says minister
28 ITAR-TASS: Federal official inspects Russia’s largest nuke fuel prod
29 US: Murfreesboro Post: ENDIT vows to stop radioactive dumping
30 icWales: Nuclear waste talks
31 US: University of Leicester: Several tons of uranium and a town call
PEACE
32 Guardian Unlimited: Beckett calls for cuts in US and Russian nuclear
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
33 Seattle Times: Hanford nuke plant restarts after refueling |
34 UCB: DOE awards LBNL, UC Berkeley and partners $125 million for
35 Yakima Herald Republic: Hanford cleanup embarrassment must be resolv
36 DOE: Energy Department Selects Three Bioenergy Research Centers
37 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL laptop stolen in Ireland
38 Santa Fe New Mexican: Senate proposal would increase funding for LAN
39 Tri-City Herald: DOE seeks bidders for $6.3 billion contract
40 Tri-City Herald: Cost to clean up transuranic waste could be greater
41 Aiken Today: Group investigating SREL cuts delays meeting
42 Albuquerque Tribune: Senate committee restores lab funding
43 NAS: Project: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology
44 KOB.com: Senate bill protects funding for labs; future uncertain
45 KnoxNews: ORNL, UT get $125M bio-fuels center
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Beyond Nuclear to challenge nuclear with Dr. Caldicott's NPRI
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:39:15 -0400
NEWS FROM BEYOND NUCLEAR
For Immediate Release
June 26, 2007
Contact: Linda Gunter, Beyond Nuclear
301.455.5655
Beyond Nuclear and Nuclear Policy Research Institute Combine to
Challenge Nuclear Power and Weapons
TAKOMA PARK, MD – The incoming board and staff of Beyond Nuclear are
extremely pleased to announce that Beyond Nuclear will now pursue its
mission under the auspices of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute
(NPRI).
NPRI was established by Dr. Helen Caldicott, a renowned physician who
has devoted the last 35 years to an international campaign to educate
the public about the hazards of the nuclear age and the necessary
changes in human behavior to stop environmental destruction. NPRI is a
tax-exempt and tax-deductible organization.
Beyond Nuclear is a new initiative that aims to educate wider
audiences about the connection between nuclear power and nuclear
weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond
Nuclear works to promote positive, solutions-focused messages and to
provide guides to safer alternatives to these dangerous technologies.
Beyond Nuclear was previously undertaken through Nuclear Information
and Resource Service.
Beyond Nuclear and NPRI share a synergistic vision: to communicate the
grave threats to health, environment and safety implicit in the
complexities of the nuclear industry. To that end, Beyond Nuclear will
focus its work on the public and the media using dynamic campaigns and
its cadre of expert spokespeople to create a consistent high-profile
presence for these issues. It will also serve as a resource with which
to build and expand the movement for a world beyond nuclear.
Our staff – Paul Gunter, Kevin Kamps, Cindy Folkers and Linda Gunter –
has comprehensive expertise in all aspects of nuclear power. In
addition, Beyond Nuclear will partner with national and international
specialists who can offer information and insight on nuclear weapons
and sustainable energy. These specialists will be listed on our Web
site (www.beyondnuclear.org).
In announcing the incorporation of Beyond Nuclear into NPRI, Dr.
Caldicott said: "I am confident that the distinguished new staff and
new board of the Institute will be effective stewards of NPRI. I will
continue to be a keen supporter of NPRI for long into the future.
Above all, I look forward to the day when we can all celebrate the
termination of both the nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries."
Dr. Caldicott will not be involved in the daily operation of NPRI
although she will remain its founding president.
Collectively, the Beyond Nuclear Board and Staff have all been
actively involved in the anti-nuclear movement for many decades.
The founding Board of Beyond Nuclear at NPRI
Robert Backus, Esq: Manchester, NH
Kay Drey: St. Louis, MO; anti-nuclear activist
Lou Friedman: Canton, CT; international consultant; environment and peace
Karl Grossman: Sag Harbor, NY; professor and journalist
Judith Johnsrud, Ph.D.: State College, PA; radiation and nuclear power
specialist
The staff of Beyond Nuclear at NPRI
Cindy Folkers; Linda Gunter; Paul Gunter; Kevin Kamps.
The Beyond Nuclear Launch Partners
Ed Asner (Honorary Chairman), Ed Begley, Christie Brinkley, Helen
Caldicott, Susan Clark, David Cortright, James Cromwell and Joan
MacIntosh, Julie Enszer, Judi and Lou Friedman, Keith Gunter,
Friedrike Merck, John McEnroe, Susan Sarandon, Marilyn and Steven
Strong, Jessica Wilbanks, Gretchen Wyler (1932-2007).
Beyond Nuclear is in transition and will shortly have new offices. In
the meantime, if you wish to reach us please call: 301.455.5655 or
email: beyondnuclear@gmail.com. We will forward our permanent contact
information shortly. The temporary Beyond Nuclear Web site can be
found at www.beyondnuclear.org, soon to be replaced by a comprehensive
permanent Web site. Please check back often.
###
*****************************************************************
2 UPI: Outside View: What Russia wants from CFE
United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Analysis
Published: June 26, 2007 at 6:35 PM
By NIKOLAI KHORUNZHY UPI Outside View Commentator
MOSCOW, June 26 (UPI) -- An emergency conference of the 30
signatories to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe,
which met in Vienna on Russia's initiative, ended without adopting a
statement because its participants failed to reach a compromise.
Russia called for an emergency meeting in Vienna to try and speed up
the ratification of the 1999 amended CFE treaty version by the
United States and Europe. The original treaty was signed in 1990, a
year before the collapse of the Soviet Union and three months ahead
of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Since then, all of its former
members joined NATO, and so did the former Soviet Baltic republics,
which has totally changed the balance of forces. Even an amended CFE
treaty will now have to be re-amended after ratification. The West
now has three times as much heavy military equipment -- aircraft,
tanks and artillery mounts -- as Russia.
President Vladimir Putin said in his recent state of the nation
address that Russia could declare a moratorium on observing the CFE
treaty -- that is, suspend its obligations under the treaty, which
is in fact observed by Russia alone.
None of the Western countries agrees to ratify the treaty adapted in
1999 unless Russian forces pull out of the former Soviet republics
of Georgia and Moldova. Russia retorts that its pullout from Georgia
and Transdnestr, a self-proclaimed republic in Moldova, has nothing
to do with the CFE treaty, while Moscow's statements at the Istanbul
conference were voluntary and non-binding.
In any case, Russia will remove all of its military bases from
Georgia in 2008, and even NATO members acknowledge progress on the
issue. Daniel Fried, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for
European and Eurasian affairs who headed the U.S. delegation at the
Vienna conference, said that Russia had greatly progressed in
fulfilling the so-called Istanbul commitments on Georgia. Still, the
Transdnestr situation remains a major stumbling block. The diplomat
called for a "creative" solution, obviously referring to Russia's
position: Moscow insists its troops are on a lawful peacekeeping
mission in Transdnestr.
Anatoly Antonov, the head of the Russian delegation, presented
Russia's "roadmap plan" to save the CFE treaty in his opening
remarks at the Vienna meeting. The first item on the plan called for
the Baltic States to join the treaty, followed by a requirement to
limit the permitted numbers of weapons and military equipment for
NATO in order to square the advantage it received after expanding to
Eastern European nations.
Russia also proposed to define the term "substantial conventional
forces" and to "exercise restraint" in their buildup until they are
defined. This means that the United States will have to abandon its
plan to deploy 5,000 troops to Romania and Bulgaria.
In addition, Moscow insists on putting into effect the CFE treaty
adaptation agreement no later than July 1, 2008, and on the
development of conditions for admitting new signatories.
Russia also demanded that the West lift the so-called flank
limitations on Russia's territory. If a solution is not found within
one year, Russia may revise the decision on the moratorium. It means
that we will neither admit international inspections, nor send our
own expert groups; we will stop disclosing information, as we are
doing now; and we will no longer be bound by any quantitative
limitations, the Russian Foreign Ministry says.
Even though criticized by a number of national and foreign media,
Moscow did show willingness to find a creative solution to the
Transdnestr situation. Mikhail Ulyanov, deputy head of the Russian
delegation, said Russia would consider a compromise over Moldova,
such as an international peacekeeping force to replace Russian
troops in Transdnestr, albeit as a separate issue from the Vienna
conference focus.
Western delegates to the Vienna conference said the best that could
be hoped for was an agreement to continue consultations after these
talks end on Friday and reconvene the conference at some time in the
future.
That Washington, too, made some concessions is certainly
encouraging. It agreed to start discussing all of Moscow's security
concerns in September, at the level of foreign and defense
ministers. Four working groups are to be set up on Russia's
initiative: missile defense; the CFE treaty; replacement of nuclear
warheads on Trident strategic ballistic missiles; and START-I. Fried
spoke about it in early May, just as Democrat Brad Sherman, chair of
the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, said it
was more important for the United States to cooperate with Russia on
Iran than to quarrel over missile defense.
It looks like the future of the CFE treaty will be decided at the
September talks. The fewer participants, the easier it will be to
reach agreement.
What Moscow wants is to alter the model of interaction outlined in
the 1990s, when Western nations cooperated with it in return for its
unilateral concessions. Putin's statement on the CFE treaty
moratorium should be interpreted in this context. It was not an
ultimatum, but an invitation to dialogue.
--
(Nikolai Khorunzhy is an independent Russian military expert writing
for the RIA Novosti news agency. This article is reprinted by
permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article
are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA
Novosti.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are
written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of
important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect
those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an
open forum, original submissions are invited.)
© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: NATO Chief Urges Calm Talks With Russia
From the Associated Press
Tuesday June 26, 2007 11:31 PM
By MANSUR MIROVALEV Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW (AP) - NATO's chief acknowledged on Tuesday that relations
with Russia have been strained by disputes over missile defense,
arms control and Kosovo, and he appeared to scold the Kremlin for
threatening to retarget its nuclear warheads at European cities.
Jaap de Hoop Scheffer's comments came after Russian Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov warned NATO earlier in the day against
steps that would compromise Russian security and said the two
sides faced ``difficult work'' in trying to resolve their
differences.
President Vladimir Putin made the threat to re-aim Russian
missiles at Europe's cities last month in what appeared to be a
response to U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense system in
eastern Europe.
He also threatened to pull out of the 1990 Conventional Forces
in Europe Treaty, which governs the deployment of troops in
Europe.
``The NATO-Russian relation is one of partnership and
discussion, and the targeting of missiles will not fit in that
discussion,'' de Hoop Scheffer said. NATO also ``deplores
Russia's decision to put the fate of the CFE in danger,'' he
said.
De Hoop Scheffer said Western and Russian leaders should both
tone down their rhetoric, saying Russia and NATO had made good
progress in building ``a durable, mutually beneficial
partnership.''
``It is advisable to lower the volume of public comments on
both sides,'' he said.
``Given our starting point as Cold War adversaries, the task
of building a genuine Russia-NATO partnership has never been an
easy one,'' said de Hoop Scheffer, whose visit was timed to the
10th anniversary of the post-Soviet partnership of NATO and
Russia and five years since the creation of the NATO-Russia
Council.
Earlier, at a meeting of the council, Russia's foreign
minister pointed to persistent disagreements over arms control
and said the alliance should not take any actions that would
undermine Russia's security.
``These issues touch on key aspects of European and
international security, and aspects of strategic stability,''
Lavrov said. ``Of course, it's necessary to approach them in a
way that reflects care for each other's stability and security -
not taking any steps aimed at improving someone's security at the
expense of the security of others.''
Moscow is upset over U.S. plans to deploy missile defense
facilities in the former Soviet bloc states of Poland and the
Czech Republic as a defense against rockets fired by such states
as Iran. Russia sees the system as a threat to its own missile
forces.
The Kremlin also is demanding the West sign an updated
conventional forces treaty, but the Western allies want Russia to
first remove troops and military equipment from the two former
Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia.
And Russia, a traditional ally of Serbia, strenuously objects
to a United Nations-backed plan to grant the Serbian province of
Kosovo internationally supervised independence, suggesting it
would use its U.N. Security Council to block that.
During his meetings in Moscow, de Hoop Scheffer cited areas
of bilateral cooperation, such as anti-terrorism efforts,
including patrols in the Mediterranean Sea and joint efforts to
fight drug trafficking from Afghanistan.
``NATO cannot do without its important partner Russia, and I
think Russia cannot do without NATO,'' he said.
Putin also sought to portray the relationship between the
alliance and its former opponent positively.
``We have moved from a period of confrontation to cooperation
with the organization,'' Putin said. ``Naturally, this is big,
multifaceted work, and it cannot happen without problems.''
De Hoop Scheffer's visit precedes Putin's trip to the United
States for a meeting with President Bush that appears likely to
focus on the proposed missile defense system.
The U.S. ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland, said Putin's
recent offer of joint use of a Russian-rented radar station in
Azerbaijan as an alternative to the U.S. plan was ``good news''
because it indicated Moscow shares U.S. concerns about new
missile threats.
``After many months of high rhetoric, we now have the Russian
president saying, 'We face a common threat ... and we will do
better if we cooperate,''' Nuland told The Associated Press.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
4 The Hindu: 'No too many holes in Indo-US nuke deal'
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 : 0940 Hrs
Washington, June 26 (PTI): Stressing that the Indo-US civil nuclear
deal is not an arms control agreement or a trade off for New Delhi's
strategic programme, a top Indian negotiator said there are not "too
many gaps" in coming to the final understanding and that the two
countries are "closing" it.
"Basically, I do not think there are many problems in the gaps. The
issue is how you take broad political principles and make them into
legal language," Indian High Commissioner to Singapore S Jaishankar
said at the Carnegie Endowment Conference International
Non-proliferation Conference here.
"The translation of the March 2006 and the July 2005 understandings
into the 123-Agreement, it is really easier said than done because
you are working on a legal document with a worst case contingency
approach.
"You have to find very exacting, very rigorous language to reflect
that. And that is where the challenge lies," Jaishankar, a top
member of the negotiating team, said.
The Indian envoy was participating in a panel discussion on "Forging
Non Proliferation Consensus after Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation".
The top Indian envoy may be officially participating at the Carnegie
Conference but privately he is said to be carrying on the dialogue
on the 123-Agreement meeting in the sidelines with senior officials
of the Bush administration dealing with the issue.
Jaishankar made it clear that New Delhi was looking for a "clean and
straightforward" exemption to the NSG guidelines on enrichment and
reprocessing.
"Our understanding with the US is that we will work with it not to
transfer enrichment or reprocessing technologies to states that
don't have, the operative part is don't have. We have been
reprocessing since 1964 and we have been enriching for at least
about ten years," Jaishankar said.
So, we will not fall in our eyes into a category of states that
these technologies would not be available as per the current
international consensus in the making, he added.
The Indian diplomat stressed, that everything India was willing to
do was to be covered by the July 18 statement. "There is no
commitment outside that statement. We frankly don't envisage
anything outside that statement," he said.
"There is a certain restraint on the part of India -- a minimum
deterrent and no first use are the part of that restraint," he said,
adding India's commitment to Article six cannot be doubted.
One of the reasons we did not sign the NPT was that Article six was
not strong enough. We are officially committed to a world free of
nuclear weapons, Jaishankar said.
"To confuse the strategic restraint as it sort of evolved during the
course of the last administration -- is really mixing apples with
oranges," he said.
"With regards to full scope safeguards,as far as we are concerned we
have an understanding with the administration," Jaishankar remarked
making the point that Bush administration has indeed consulted the
US Congress, its allies and members of the Nuclear Supplies Group.
Jaishankar argued that India does not deny that there is a consensus
on the issue of non-proliferation.
"We are in a position to contribute to that consensus," Jaishankar
said going on to make the point that the evolving issues have to be
seen in a larger political context.
India cannot be expected to be a partner and a target at the same
time. India brings value to the consensus at a time when it is under
serious test," he said adding it would appear that while there are
many elements that constitute a consensus, there are also aspects on
which the international community is still significantly divided.
The top diplomat argued that the US-India civilian nuclear deal is a
significant departure from orthodoxy and is critical to see what was
within and without of the agreed framework.
"The understanding focuses exclusively on civilian nuclear energy
cooperation. On the Indian side, there is no expectation that the
agreement would contribute to its weapons programme. We must be
equally clear that this is not an arms control agreement," he said.
Suggestions have been made that US negotiators could have demanded
tougher conditions including a moratorium on fissile material
production. In that situation, there would have been no agreement,
he addded.
Making clear that India's strategic programme was clearly outside
the purview of the Indo-US understanding, he said,"Any attempts to
intrude into that domain or determine externally what India regards
as its national prerogative would obviously undermine the basis of
the agreement."
Jaishankar asked the gathering to do not let orthodoxy and
intellectual rigidity undermine a path breaking initiative of such
great potential. "Appreciate the contribution that India can make to
the revival of global nuclear industry and create a climate for more
confident and predictable nuclear trade with India," the top Indian
envoy said.
Copyright © 2007, The Hindu.
*****************************************************************
5 BBC NEWS: US to probe BAE over corruption
Last Updated: Tuesday, 26 June 2007, 20:11 GMT 21:11 UK
Tornado jets are in service with air forces across the globe
UK defence firm BAE Systems has said it is the subject of an
anti-corruption probe by the US Department of Justice.
According to BAE, the probe will look at its compliance with
anti-corruption laws including its business "concerning the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia".
BAE faces allegations that it ran a fund to help it win plane and
military equipment orders from Saudi Arabia.
BAE's shares initially dropped 11% but recovered some of those
losses in day trading to close 34.5p lower at 407.75p, knocking
about Ł1bn off its market value.
Wide jurisdiction
The allegations of illegal payments by BAE date back to the 1980s
and the Ł43bn ($85bn) al-Yamamah deal that supplied Saudi Arabia
with Tornado jets and other military equipment.
Earlier this month, the BBC and the Guardian newspaper reported that
BAE had made payments worth hundreds of millions of pounds over a
number of years to Prince Bandar, a leading member of the Saudi
royal family.
This will be Gordon Brown's first big diplomatic dilemma as PM
Robert Peston,
BBC business editor
Read Robert's thoughts in full
According to the Guardian, the Department of Justice became
interested because BAE used the US banking system to transfer
regular payments to accounts controlled by Prince Bandar at Riggs
Bank in Washington.
As a result, prosecutors decided that BAE could be investigated
under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
The report by the BBC and Guardian said the payments were discovered
during a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation, though that probe
was halted in December 2006 on grounds of national security.
Prince Bandar, who is the son of the Saudi defence minister, served
for 20 years as US ambassador and is now head of the country's
national security council, has "categorically" denied receiving any
improper payments.
The SFO is still investigating BAE contracts in Africa, Eastern
Europe and South America.
Bigger headache
BBC business editor Robert Peston said that: "The Saudis will not be
overjoyed that the Department of Justice is apparently taking up
where the serious fraud office left off."
The company is committed to meeting the highest ethical standards
BAE
Check BAE's share price
He added that the US probe is "a much bigger headache" for the UK
government than for BAE, and it will be Gordon Brown's first big
diplomatic dilemma as prime minister.
The BBC's business editor explained that the al-Yamamah contract was
between the British and Saudi governments, not between BAE and Saudi
Arabia, and that BAE was only the contractor.
"So it will be a decision for the Ministry of Defence, not BAE,
whether to disclose the details of the deal," he said.
Analysts said that the probe could lead to delays in BAE signing a
new deal, called al-Salam, which would see Saudi Arabia buy 72
Eurofighter jets.
"This is bad for sentiment and could delay the signing of the Salam
deal," said Nick Cunningham, an analyst at Panmure Gordon.
Mr Cunningham added that BAE executives could be prosecuted should
they have been found to have behaved improperly.
Coming together
Analysts said that the probe in the US could also damage BAE's
business in North America.
BAE has been looking to expand its US business and is in the process
of buying Armor Holdings, a maker of armoured vehicles, for $4.1bn
(Ł2.1bn).
Last week, the US Treasury found that the takeover did not pose any
security threat, and BAE hopes to conclude the deal later this year.
In an effort to reassure policymakers that the company has not
indulged in corrupt practices, BAE asked Lord Woolf, the former Lord
Chief Justice of England and Wales, to head an independent review of
its business practices.
BAE's chairman Dick Olver and the firm's non-executive directors are
said to want independent confirmation that BAE behave properly when
winning contracts.
* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
6 BBC NEWS: Work to resume on Brazil reactor
Last Updated: Tuesday, 26 June 2007, 09:46 GMT 10:46 UK
Brazil currently gets about 4% of its electricity from nuclear
Brazil's national energy council has recommended restarting a
long-stalled and controversial project to build the country's third
nuclear reactor.
Brazil currently has two nuclear energy plants, located at Angra dos
Reis some 150km (100 miles) from Rio de Janeiro.
Work on the third stopped in the 1980s over security fears and lack
of funds.
Brazil's two nuclear plants, Angra 1 and Angra 2, which have an
installed capacity of about 2,000 megawatts, are situated near the
coastal resort area of Angra dos Reis between Rio de Janeiro and Sao
Paulo.
Angra 3, located in the same region, would increase capacity to
3,000 megawatts.
Officials said approval of the third plant could herald the start of
a wider nuclear project to build up to eight reactors by 2030.
"The country will be one of the few in the world that has (uranium)
reserves, production capacity and knowledge of the whole enrichment
cycle," Energy and Mines Minister Nelson Hubner said, adding that
Brazil had enough uranium reserves for 500 years.
Drought
A small group of Greenpeace and other environmental protesters
gathered outside the energy ministry in Brasilia.
"Nuclear power is too expensive, dangerous, generates few jobs and
is not the path Brazil should take to meet the challenges of global
warming," Greenpeace said in a statement.
Brazil, which is heavily dependent on hydro-electricity, could face
energy shortages in a couple of years if generating capacity is not
increased, analysts say.
A severe drought in 2001 led the authorities to introduce energy
rationing.
Angra 3 would require an investment of about $3.7bn (Ł1.85bn) with
construction due to be completed by 2013, Mr Hubner said.
* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
7 Platts: NRC aims to shorten review time for new plant applications
2007-06-25
Washington (Platts)--25Jun2007
NRC says it may be able to cut six to 15 months from the
estimated 42-month review of an application for a combined
construction permit-operating. Several measures just adopted by
the NRC commissioners are aimed at accelerating the review of new
plant license applications, which has been expected to take 30
months for the technical and environmental portions and an
additional 12 months for completing a hearing. These measures
include having the commissioners preside over hearings where
there are no contested issues, allowing the use of environmental
impact statements completed by other government agencies, and
seeking legislative authority from Congress to eliminate the
statutory requirement for an uncontested hearing.
The commissioners also agreed to double the time from 30 to
60 days for conducting an "acceptance review," which is the
staff's determination that the application is complete enough to
begin the technical review. That measure is expected to
ultimately reduce the review schedule by two for months for
several reasons, including because it would cut down on NRC staff
requests for additional information. The recommendations adopted
by the commissioners were compiled by a nine-member NRC task
force led by Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield.
Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
8 Platts: Swiss parliament approves independent nuke regulatory authority
2007-06-26
London (Platts)--26Jun2007
Switzerland's parliament approved creation of an independent nuclear
regulatory authority. On June 22, both chambers approved the draft law
separating the Federal Nuclear Safety Authority, or HSK, from the Federal
Energy Office. Only two votes were cast against the measure, with three
abstentions.
HSK will become partly independent in 2008 and fully independent in 2009, in
keeping with a requirement under the new nuclear energy act. The agency's name
will eventually be changed to Eidgenoessisches Nuklear-Sicherheitsinspektorat,
or Federal Nuclear Safety Inspectorate. HSK director Ulrich Schmocker said
June 25 that the technical duties of the agency will not change, nor will its
size. A board with five to seven members, appointed by the Federal Executive
Council from outside the nuclear industry, will assist in preparations for the
conversion. Schmocker expressed satisfaction at the prospect of formal,
institutional and financial independence. The legislative work toward HSK's
independence started in 2003. The agency was created under its present
designation under the energy office in 1982.
For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at
http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?story or
subscribe now at
http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=22_41&products_id=67
Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
9 Tri-City Herald: Nuclear plant returns to service after 44-day outage
Published Tuesday, June 26th, 2007
By the Herald staff
The commercial nuclear power plant north of Richland has awakened
from its refueling outage and was producing power at 60 capacity at
9 a.m. today.
The 1,157-megawatt Columbia Generating Station is expected to return
to full power later today.
The outage, which occurs every other year, was scheduled for 38 days
but lasted 44.
"We came close to out 38-day target, but ultimately safety and
quality of work are higher priorities than the schedule," Energy
Northwest outage Manager Ron Hogue stated in a press release. "Our
real goal was to complete the work as quickly as possible without
sacrificing safety and quality of work. We achieved that goal."
For more, read Wednesday's Herald.
© 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
10 IS: Proposed Idaho nuclear plant secures $3.5 billion funding commitment |
Ken Dey - Idaho Statesman
Edition Date: 06/26/07
The company that wants to build a nuclear power plant near Bruneau
said today that it has lined up the $3.5 billion in funding it needs
for the project.
Alternate Energy Holdings said it has received a letter of intent
from Fairport, N.Y.-based Cobblestone Financial Group to fund the
project.
Cobblestone is representing numerous investors in the project and
additional funding sources.
A letter of intent means the funding will be provided in stages as
the company meets different milestones.
The first phase of the project will be the application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a combined operating and
construction license. Company officials say the licensing process is
estimated to cost $100 million and should begin this fall.
The 1,600 megawatt plant would be built on private land near C.J.
Strike reservoir. The plant would also include an ethanol plant.
IdahoStatesman.com
*****************************************************************
11 PDM: Czech company: Austrian courts not competent to deal with Temelin -
Prague Daily Monitor
By Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / Published 26 June 2007
Prague/Vienna/Linz, June 25 (CTK) - Austrian courts are not
competent to judge a facility operating in another country, Marek
Svitak, spokesman for the nuclear power plant in Temelin, south
Bohemia, told CTK today.
He was reacting to a statement by Rudi Anschober, Upper Austrian
environment councillor, who said today that Upper Austria continues
to take legal steps aimed to file a lawsuit against the CEZ power
company.
CEZ is to be charged with a failure to fulfil safety regulations in
Temelin.
Anschober said the court proceedings might start in autumn.
"More than twenty safety missions have studied Temelin's safety, and
all of them concluded that Temelin is a safe power plant," Svitak
said.
A recent legal report compiled by Austrian experts confirmed that an
international lawsuit against the Czech Republic is all but
impossible.
The federal land Upper Austria has lodged a legal complaint against
CEZ in which it comprehensively enumerates "substantial" security
defects of the plant and points to an "immediate danger" it poses
for Upper Austrians, Anschober said.
Anschober admitted that CEZ argues that the plant meets various
foreign standards, such as U.S. and Russian ones.
However, if the land court in Linz that was to deal with the lawsuit
agreed with the application of German standards, the lawsuit could
have a chance to succeed, he added.
The Czech Republic says it has fulfilled all tasks agreed on in the
Austrian town of Melk. Austrian activists, on the other hand, claim
Temelin, situated some 60 km away from Austria, is not safe and that
the Czechs breach agreements on the plant the two countries have
reached.
This story is from the Czech News Agency (CTK).
The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its
content.
Copyright 2007 by the Czech News Agency (CTK). All rights reserved.
Copying, dissemination or other publication
of this article or parts thereof without the prior written consent
of CTK is expressly forbidden.
copyright 2007 monitor ce media services s.r.o. | all rights reserved
*****************************************************************
12 AFP: Canada's oil sands going nuclear -
by Guillaume Lavallee Tue Jun 26, 3:34 AM ET
FORT MCMURRAY, Canada (AFP) - Petroleum companies are eyeing
nuclear power to feed burgeoning oil production in Canada's oil
patch, pitting ecologists against ecologists unable to agree on
its climate change impact.
Squeezing one barrel of oil from the Athabasca, Peace River and Cold
Lake Oil Sands in western Canada requires twice as much energy as
pumping it from a conventional well, according to the industry, or
three times as much energy, say environmentalists.
While crude is pumped from the ground, oil sands must be mined and
bitumen separated from the sand and water, then upgraded and refined.
At an estimated 173 billion barrels, Canada's oil sands rank second
behind Saudi Arabia in petroleum reserves. However, due to high
extraction costs, the deposits were long neglected, except by local
companies.
Since 2000, skyrocketing crude prices and improved extraction
technology have persuaded several foreign companies to invest
billions of dollars in projects, relying on copious amounts of
natural gas to power the machinery.
Officials say oil sands production is expected to triple to 3.0
million barrels per day over the next decade.
But with wide fluctuations in natural gas prices and pressure from
the government and environmentalists to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions, some petroleum companies are contemplating switching to
cleaner and stable nuclear energy to fuel the oil sands boom.
"We're looking to cut our power needs and eventually turn to another
source, and nuclear energy is a possible alternative," said Michael
Borrell, president of Total Canada, a subsidiary of French oil firm
Total SA.
Some ecologists acknowledge nuclear power is without emissions
versus burning fossil fuels.
But others see inherent "risks" in sparking up nuclear reactors,
raise security issues, and lament disposing of radioactive waste.
In September 2005, Total rebuffed the atomic option following its
purchase of Canadian oil company Deer Creek, but its tone has since
softened.
Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum
Producers commented that nuclear energy is certainly among the
"bouquet" of options for oil sands companies.
Possible alternatives in Alberta are coal plants, thermal energy, or
connecting the province to rich natural gas reserves in the far
north through a proposed 16-billion-dollar pipeline.
Of note, neighboring Saskatchewan province is one of the top
producers of uranium in the world.
In December, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn shocked observers
by saying: "I think nuclear can play a very significant role in the
oil sands. I'm very, very keen. ... It's not a question of if, it's
a question of when in my mind."
"It's absolutely emission free. It's CO2 free," he said. "On this
specific file, I've had discussions this week."
Since then, Atomic Energy of Canada and French nuclear giant Areva
have multiplied their lobbying of oil sands companies and local
energy officials.
"We've had interest from investors who would like more information
about the possibility of using nuclear energy in Alberta for
extraction and refining of oil, Armand Laferrere, president of Areva
Canada, told AFP.
"The most likely scenario is that several oil companies each needing
a few hundred megawatts join together (tapping into one nuclear
plant)," he said.
However, regulatory approvals, environmental studies and
construction of a reactor would take almost a decade.
Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
13 LA Daily News: Nuclear power expansion stalled
BY STEVE LAWRENCE, Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 06/25/2007 09:05:44 PM PDT
SACRAMENTO - The failure of the federal government to open a
storage site for radioactive waste means any chance to expand
nuclear power in California is more than a decade away, according
to a draft report prepared for the state Energy Commission.
The report by MRW & Associates, an Oakland-based consulting firm
that specializes in power market issues, said the U.S. Department
of Energy was supposed to open the Yucca Mountain storage
facility in Nevada by 1998.
"However, nearly 10 years after the deadline, a repository at
Yucca Mountain is still more than a decade away from being
opened, and the opening date continues to slip," the report
states.
The Department of Energy said last year the storage site could be
opened as early as March 2017 but that a more realistic date was
September 2020, according to the MRW report. Earlier this year,
the department pushed those predictions back another year.
A California law passed in 1976 prohibits construction of nuclear
plants until the Energy Commission concludes that the federal
government has found a proven way to store or reprocess spent
nuclear plant fuel.
The MRW report comes as the commission opened two days of hearings
Monday on the status of nuclear power. Information from the
hearings will be used to prepare a report to the governor and
Legislature on how to address the state's energy needs.
The state currently has two operating nuclear plants, San Onofre and
Diablo Canyon. California utilities also own 27 percent of the Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona.
Nuclear plants supplied nearly 13 percent of the state's electricity
last year, and supporters tout expansion of nuclear power as a way
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat global warming.
But a long-term method to deal with the waste from nuclear plants
remains elusive.
California has more than 2,400 tons of radioactive waste stored at
active and decommissioned nuclear plants, and the spent fuel
continues to accumulate, said Robert Weisenmiller, executive vice
president of MRW.
Eric Knox, an official with the Department of Energy's Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said he remains optimistic
that Yucca Mountain will be opened despite the delays.
Copyright © 2007 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
14 Foreign Policy: Why Nuclear Energy Isn't the Great Green Hope
By Charles Ferguson, Sharon Squassoni
Posted June 2007
As the planet warms, leaders from Washington to Beijing are
pushing nuclear power as a clean alternative to coal. But this
new strategy for fighting climate change has a fatal flaw: It
can’t possibly work.
JOE KLAMAR/AFP/Getty Images
Flowering power: Nuclear energy may be poised for a modest comeback,
but it won't save the planet.
When U.S. President George W. Bush speaks of using technology to fix
climate problems, he often focuses on nuclear energy. Last month he
said that if we’re “truly interested in cleaning up the
environment, or interested in renewable sources of energy, the best
way to do so is through safe nuclear power.” While Bush is
talking up nuclear energy, China and India are racing ahead to build
dozens of new plants. Even many environmentalists, concerned about
emissions from coal-fired power plants, have begun holding their
noses and are coming out in reluctant support of a technology they
once reviled. But their original instincts were right: Nuclear
energy is not the silver-bullet solution to save us or the
environment.
Today, nuclear energy produces 16 percent of the world’s
electricity, compared with coal, which produces 39 percent and
hydropower, which produces 19 percent. In the United States, the
good news is that the nuclear industry has maintained its 20 percent
share of the electricity market by increasing the power rating of
many of its 104 nuclear power reactors while decreasing the time
required for shutdown for refueling and maintenance.
But during the past 30 years, reactor construction stagnated in the
United States because of large uncertainties in capital costs as
well as red tape and legal challenges in obtaining a license to
operate a reactor. Although legislative changes in 1992 and more
recently in 2005 have tried to streamline the licensing process and
create incentives to entice investors, the industry has not had an
order for a new nuclear power plant since 1978, and that order was
subsequently canceled. The last completed U.S. reactor was Watts Bar
1, which was ordered in 1970 and began operations in 1996. Although
many U.S. reactors have received operating-license renewals for an
additional 20 years of life, by 2030 the reactor fleet will be in
serious disrepair if no further reactors are built. The United
States hopes to build upward of 30 reactors in the next couple of
decades. However, because the incentives in the 2005 legislation are
limited, only a handful of new reactors will probably be built, but
not many more than that.
China and India produce an even more modest share of their
electricity from nuclear energy, only about 2 and 3 percent,
respectively. Though they can realistically aim to boost this share
up to 4 to 5 percent by 2030, both countries will continue to rely
primarily on fossil fuels for electricity generation.
The truth is, it’s doubtful that nuclear energy, which
produces its own unpleasant waste, can really be a major solution to
climate change—or even the coming energy crunch, for that
matter. Because worldwide electricity demand is predicted to grow by
85 percent by 2030, nuclear power would have to almost double its
capacity just to maintain its current share of the energy mix. Even
the most optimistic projections of nuclear power expansion do not
foresee a much larger share for nuclear energy globally.
Nor will nuclear energy be a quick fix. If, as the scientists tell
us, the deadline for turning around the level of greenhouse gases is
truly a decade from now, then a nuclear renaissance will take too
long to have a significant effect. Typically, U.S. nuclear plants
have required around 10 to 12 years from start to finish. The
industry predicts that future plants can be built in as little as
four years, but the proof is in the actual construction.
Assuming the best estimates, a quick ramp-up of nuclear capacity
will run into industrial bottlenecks; only a few companies in the
world can now make reactor-quality steel, concrete, and other vital
components. A rush to build could also create shortages in the
skilled workers and qualified engineers needed to run plants safely.
Not to mention that building nuclear plants at the rapid pace
required would likely drive up capital costs, which are already
higher than other electricity options, even given significant
government subsidies.
There’s a better solution: energy efficiency. From an
ideological standpoint, Bush seems convinced that increasing
efficiency and reducing consumption are incompatible with economic
growth. Yet, there is ample evidence that power generation in some
countries—notably China and India, which most observers
believe will account for huge increases in greenhouse gas emissions
in the coming decades—is woefully inefficient now. According
to Harold Feiveson, a senior research policy scientist at Princeton
University, China’s coal plants have an average efficiency of
23 percent. Improving the efficiency of China’s coal plants
could go a long way toward ameliorating environmental damage;
Feiveson estimates that bringing China’s coal plants up to 42
percent efficiency by 2030 could prevent the same amount of
greenhouse gas emissions as about 200 to 250 large nuclear reactors.
Indian coal plants are slightly more efficient, but could similarly
benefit from improvements.
Investments in more efficient power plants can pay off in growing
the economy and shrinking the rate of greenhouse gas emissions.
China and India, two major countries currently exempt from mandatory
greenhouse gas reductions, could benefit from Western assistance in
improving the efficiencies of their coal plants. These plants will
provide a majority of China and India’s electrical generation
in the coming decades despite the ambitious plans for a nuclear
expansion. Much more cooperative work is urgently needed between the
developed and the developing worlds to ensure that humanity has a
better than “substantial” chance to counter climate
change.
Charles D. Ferguson is a fellow for science and technology at the
Council on Foreign Relations and is the author of the Council
Special Report “Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and
Risks.”
Sharon Squassoni is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace.
fpletters@CarnegieEndowment.org.
1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone:
202-939-2230 | Fax: 202-483-4430
*****************************************************************
15 JS Online: Nuclear plant up again
Point Beach inspection started after shutdown
By THOMAS CONTENT tcontent@journalsentinel.com
Posted: June 25, 2007
The Point Beach nuclear plant has returned to service, but
federal nuclear safety inspectors remained at the reactor Monday
trying to assess what caused a key water pump to overheat.
The overheated pump led to a shutdown that lasted for more than a
week at the Unit 1 reactor.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week launched a special
inspection at the reactor to assess what happened and the plant's
response to the condition.
The pump temperature was unusually high when it was tested earlier
this month and again several days later, according to the commission.
Spokesman Sara Cassidy said the plant returned to service Saturday
and was generating electricity at full power Sunday morning. Repairs
to the plant included modifying and replacing parts on a pump
bearing, and the plant is operating without any high-temperature
readings in the pump, she said.
Of concern for inspectors, the commission said, was that initially
plant personnel didn't recognize the elevated temperature as a
potential problem. As a result, "no immediate action was taken to
address the irregular temperature indications," the agency says in a
statement.
Two days later, on June 11, plant engineers reviewed the initial
test, conducted another test and then declared the backup cooling
water system inoperable.
The system, an auxiliary feed-water pump, is used to cool the
reactor during routine shutdowns and in certain accident conditions.
Before shutting down the plant June 15, Nuclear Management made
attempts to fix the problem. But commission rules required the plant
to shut down if the problem goes uncorrected for at least three days.
"They tried to fix it. They tried to find a way to address it," said
Viktoria Mitlyng, a spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. "But they couldn't, so they had to shut the plant down."
It's unclear how long the special inspection will last, Mitlyng
said. The agency will issue a report summarizing its findings within
45 days after the inspection ends.
The plant was shut down this month for a valve that malfunctioned on
the non-radioactive side of the plant, Cassidy said.
The other reactor at Point Beach, Unit 2, has been operating at full
power since November.
The two reactors generate 1,036 megawatts of electricity, or enough
to supply 518,000 homes.
Hudson-based Nuclear Management runs Point Beach for plant owner We
Energies of Milwaukee. We Energies has agreed to sell the plant to
FPL Energy Inc. of Juno Beach, Fla., in a $1 billion deal announced
late last year.
If the sale is endorsed by Wisconsin regulators, the sale to FPL
could be completed by the end of August.
Kewaunee plant problem
Separately, Dominion Resources Inc. said the Kewaunee nuclear
reactor, about 5 miles north of Point Beach, has been operating at
45% of its maximum output since Friday, because of equipment
maintenance.
The unit was listed at 45% of capacity in a report Monday from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mark Kanz, a spokesman for Richmond,
Virginia-based Dominion, declined to elaborate on the maintenance
being conducted or say when the reactor might return to full power,
Bloomberg News reported.
The reactor has a capacity of about 568 megawatts, or enough to
supply 284,000 homes, according to state estimates.
From the June 26, 2007 editions of the Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel Have an opinion on this story? Write a letter to the
editor or start an online forum.
Journal Sentinel Inc. is a subsidiary of Journal Communications.
*****************************************************************
16 ITAR-TASS: Belarus can build and safely operate nuclear power plant
26.06.2007, 19.20
MINSK, June 26 (Itar-Tass) -- Belarus has conditions for the
construction and safe operation of a nuclear power plant, Andrei
Malyshev, the deputy head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency
(Rosatom), said in Minsk on Tuesday. He participates in the 9th
meeting of the CIS member states commission for peaceful uses of
nuclear energy.
He said Belarus has good cites for the construction of a nuclear
power plant, water sources for cooling and a favourable geological
structure. There are also certified researchers and technologists in
the republic who, with adequate training, could tackle problems of
the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant. The country
has production facilities to be used in the construction of such a
plant.
“The existence of research and design organizations and production
facilities shows that there are suitable conditions for the
construction of a nuclear power plant and its safe operation,”
Malyshev said.
“We will be very glad to give assistance to the fraternal republic
in the construction of a nuclear power plant,” he said. However, the
question of Russia’s specific contribution, technologically and
financially, will become clear when there is the official decision
of the Belarussian side on the plant’s construction and the terms on
which it will be built, he said.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store
*****************************************************************
17 ITAR-TASS: Armenia interested in building new nuke plant - PM
26.06.2007, 17.50
YEREVAN, June 26 (Itar-Tass) - The Armenian government is interested
in building a new nuclear power plant, Armenian Prime Minister Serzh
Sarkisian told a parliamentary meeting on Tuesday.
The issue is “still in an embryonic state, as financial sources as
well as technologies for the project’s implementation are still
unknown,” he said.
Armenia’s nuclear power plant was launched in 1979 and shut down in
1989 after the devastating earthquake. In 1996 its second
power-generating unit resumed operation after Russian specialists
helped to reactivate it. The nuclear power plant accounts for 40
percent of Armenia’s total power generation.
The European Union insists that the nuclear power plant located 40
kilometres off Yerevan should be closed. Under the European
Neighbourhood Policy Armenia obliged to shut down the plant in the
shortest possible timeframe.
The Armenian authorities say the plant will be closed, if
alternative energy sources are found. On May 30, Armenian President
Robert Kocharian said the government will discuss the issue within
upcoming two months.
He believes that the plant’s construction is expedient from the
point of energy security and of economy.
“Russian specialists are ready to take part in the construction of a
second nuclear power plant in Armenia, if Armenia comes up with such
a proposal,” Russian federal atomic energy agency chief Sergei
Kiriyenko said during his visit to Yerevan on April 23.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store
*****************************************************************
18 NewsRoom Finland: Finland's Simo shows green light to nuclear power station
26.6.2007 at 10:50
Councillors in the Finnish municipality of Simo decided in a meeting
late on Monday to authorise the municipal government to survey,
together with Fennovoima, a site for a possible new nuclear power
station.
One councillor out of 20 opposed nuclear power.
Fennovoima is a consortium led by German utility E.ON and Finnish
steelmaker Outokumpu aiming at building a nuclear power station in
Finland.
The council also granted a 10,000-euro extraordinary appropriation
for the potential survey work.
Fennovoima is expected to announce in July which six to eight
municipalities it will look into as a site for the station.
Simo is located in the southwest corner of Finnish Lapland.
Finland´s existing four nuclear power stations and the fifth that is
under construction are located in southern Finland.
© Copyright STT 2007
© 1995 – 2005, Virtual Finland
Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland Department
for Communication and Culture/Unit for Promotion and Publications
*****************************************************************
19 NewsRoom Finland: Finland's Loviisa launches nuclear talks with Fennovoima
26.6.2007 at 10:52
The municipal government of Loviisa decided Monday it would launch
talks with Fennovoima over the possible construction of another
nuclear power station in the southern Finnish municipality.
"The municipal government, having discussed the matter, appointed a
group that will hold talks with Fennovoima over the prerequisites of
the project and the possible site of the power station," Anu
Kalliosaari, the city clerk, told the Finnish News Agency (STT).
The decision was nearly unanimous, with Ismo Kokko (cons)
counselling against the talks and saying that there was no suitable
land in Loviisa.
In May, Loviisa councillors turned down the municipal government's
proposal to sell land for the construction of a nuclear power
station to German utility E.ON.
Fennovoima is a consortium comprising E.ON, Finnish steelmaker
Outokumpu, Swedish miner and smelter Boliden and two Finnish
regional utilities. Fennovoima aims to have the power station up and
running in 2016-8.
© Copyright STT 2007
© 1995 – 2005, Virtual Finland Produced by: Ministry for Foreign
Affairs of Finland Department for Communication and Culture/Unit
for Promotion and Publications
*****************************************************************
20 KnoxNews: Dry summer no picnic for TVA
Drought hurting water quality, recreation, _power generation
By ANDREW EDER, edera@knews.com
June 26, 2007
The driest year on record in the Tennessee Valley is threatening
water quality, cutting into TVA's hydroelectric power generation,
and hampering recreation on the Tennessee River's tributaries.
TVA manages the Tennessee River system for a variety of sometimes
competing purposes: reducing damages from floods, maintaining a
navigable channel for shipping, producing power, providing
recreation opportunities, and maintaining water quality and
supply for communities and industries that rely on water from the
system.
The complex task is made more challenging by a drought that has kept
TVA's tributary reservoirs in the eastern part of the valley well
below their normal summer levels.
David Bowling, manager of TVA's river forecast center, said the
tributary reservoirs are an average of 10 feet below normal for this
time of year, and barring rain, they're likely to go lower as TVA
releases water needed to meet flow requirements downstream.
That means boaters on TVA lakes like Douglas and Cherokee have to
battle sandbars, underwater tree stumps and other obstacles revealed
by the low water.
"A lot of folks are having trouble getting boats in and out,"
Bowling said.
The lack of rain also means that since January, TVA has lost out on
nearly half of the power generation it expected from its 29
hydroelectric dams and pumped- storage facility, which typically
provide nearly 10 percent of TVA's power.
Bowling said TVA has drawn the minimum water possible from the
tributary lakes since February in order to fill them for summer
recreation. That has meant less water running through TVA's
power-producing dams.
Since the fiscal year began in October, TVA has lost out on an
estimated $200 million worth of hydropower, its cheapest source,
further pinching an agency already looking for $420 million in
savings in the next three years.
TVA spokesman Gil Francis said the drought would not impact this
year's electric rates, although the federal utility has a mechanism
known as a fuel cost adjustment that allows it to pass on increased
fuel and purchased power costs to customers on a quarterly basis. On
April 1, TVA pushed its rates up by 0.84 cents per kilowatt-hour.
The drought presents challenges for maintaining water quality in the
Tennessee River system. The combination of high temperatures and low
water flows deplete the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water,
which sustains aquatic life.
TVA's coal and nuclear plants, along with other industrial
facilities positioned on the river, take in river water for cooling
purposes and discharge it at a higher temperature. The drought has
the potential to cause river temperatures to rise to unacceptable
levels.
TVA says it coordinates on a weekly basis with the federal and state
agencies that monitor water quality. Saya Qualls, chief engineer for
the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation's water
pollution control division, said TVA has discharge permits for its
facilities that establish a "critical low flow" level.
"When the flows get below that, we may see water quality that
actually falls below our criteria," Qualls said, adding that such an
occurrence would not be considered a violation because it's caused
by natural conditions.
In a worst-case scenario, TVA could have to shut down or reduce
production at one or more of its coal or nuclear plants, a
contingency for which TVA officials said they plan.
TVA's Bowling said the drought has had few significant impacts on
Tennessee River navigation and that the agency is managing lake
levels to ensure that municipalities and industries have access to
the water they need.
But that may be cold comfort in a year when the eastern half of the
Tennessee Valley has had 13.8 inches of rain, compared to normal
levels of 25.6 inches.
"The forecast is for continued dry (weather), so it's not going to
get any better," said TVA's Francis.
Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318.
Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
21 St Petersburg Times: No Place for Nuclear Secrets
Opinion / Comment
Friday, June 22, 2007. Issue 3683. Page 8.
By Cristina Chuen
A brouhaha began brewing in the Arctic a couple of weeks ago, as
the Norwegian public was buffeted with news of a new scientific
study pointing to nuclear dangers at an old Russian naval base
located on the Kola Peninsula, about 50 kilometers from the
Norwegian border. Some Russian officials responded by labeling
the study a "provocation."
In fact, the risk of a nuclear accident at the Andreyeva Bay base
is very small but not nonexistent. Assurances by State Duma
Deputy Valentin Luntsevich that control systems "provide a 99.9
percent guarantee that no explosion can take place" are cold
comfort when the 0.1 percent remainder represents the chance of a
grave nuclear incident.
The real issue is not simply whether Russia's nuclear legacy is
still dangerous. It is whether Russia will finally share all of
the information necessary to make wise decisions on handling the
problem. Promises Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg
received during a four-day visit to Russia at the beginning of
June that the removal of spent nuclear fuel from Andreyeva Bay
would begin in 2010 leave open the question of whether the
information needed to repackage the fuel safely is available. A
further question is what will happen to the nuclear fuel after it
is moved.
The Soviet Union built 250 nuclear-powered submarines and 14
other nuclear-powered vessels; more than 200 of these vessels
have already been taken out of active service. Russia also
inherited huge quantities of radioactive wastes and nuclear fuel.
There are over 1 million metric tons of radioactive equipment
containing over 80 million Curies in total radioactivity in
Northwest Russia alone (the Chernobyl accident, by comparison,
reportedly released some 50 million Curies of radioactive
substances). Much of this material is at Andreyeva Bay, where
nuclear fuel from about 100 submarine reactors has been stored
for decades. Given its proximity to the Norwegian border, it is
no wonder that for more than a decade Oslo has been trying to get
information about Andreyeva, improve site security and safety,
and stop the continuous release of radiation into the
environment.
Although a lot of work has been done and there are more data on
Andreyeva available than for any other nuclear site in Russia,
foreign experts assisting at the site still do not have enough
information to be sure that projects are being undertaken in the
safest possible way and risks minimized to the maximum possible
extent. Someone looking for success stories might point to a
$800,000 Norwegian project from 1999 to 2000 to divert a brook so
that it no longer flowed under a leaking spent nuclear fuel
storage site, carrying radioactive materials toward the sea. But
there are no hard data to be sure that the project actually
succeeded in preventing contamination from entering the local
fjord. Even the detailed map of the area that the Murmansk
governor personally gave Stoltenberg during this month's visit -
a map of radiation levels that Norway paid for some years ago but
that was never transferred to Oslo-leaves many questions
unanswered.
The Andreyeva cleanup is now a major focus of the group of eight
global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of
mass destruction, and as such is receiving a great deal of
attention and money. In addition Norway, Britain, Italy, Sweden
and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development have
been cooperating with Russia to secure the site, improve nuclear
safety and repair infrastructure so that they can tackle the
immense task of removing the nuclear fuel and radioactive wastes
- a job likely to take until 2023. There are about 21,000 nuclear
fuel assemblies in Andreyeva that were stored in unsafe
conditions, including some out in the open air, for decades.
According to the new study by leading Russian nuclear institutes
published in Atomic Energy, recent examinations of the nuclear
fuel storage tanks at Andreyeva indicate that they have been
contaminated by salt water, accelerating corrosion of the fuel
assemblies inside and increasing risks of a criticality incident
- an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction.
Russia's foreign partners have long been concerned about this
danger and have carried out criticality studies in cooperation
with Russia to try to minimize this risk. The recent Atomic
Energy article, though, appears to be based on additional data to
which Russia's partners have not had access. Asking for this
information is not a "provocation," but the result of genuine
concern. The consequences of a criticality incident - venting
radiation into both the surrounding territory and the Barents Sea
- would have to be dealt with for decades to come. Any measures
that could further minimize this risk should be taken.
Russia's commitment to remove the fuel is welcome, but the
process should not be rushed. The highest risks will come when
the fuel is moved. Furthermore, careful consideration must be
given to what to do with the fuel after it leaves Andreyeva: The
reprocessing facility at Mayak is not yet ready to handle the
fuel. If Mayak is ordered to accept the nuclear assemblies before
a program is in place to put them in safe storage, the fuel is
likely to sit in a storage pond there, endangering the already
badly damaged local environment. Moscow needs to make a decision
on the long-term disposition of this fuel, and share that
decision with its partners so that they can help ensure that
removing it from Andreyeva is helping to solve - and not just
hide - the problem.
As President Vladimir Putin, who is often blamed for resurrecting
old Soviet traditions of secrecy, himself said a few years ago,
it is important to "ensure national security interests and
maintain the necessary secrecy regime, [but] excessive
bureaucratization [and] spy mania" only hinder this work.
Thankfully, Moscow recently decided to give its Norwegian
counterparts the map of radioactivity at Andreyeva. To further
enhance cooperation, and make it possible to honor Moscow's
commitment to begin safely removing nuclear fuel from the site by
2010, the Russian authorities need to engage in a full-scope
study of the fuel, including methods for its safe transport and
storage post-Andreyeva. It is in the interest of everyone in the
Arctic region that the Soviet nuclear legacy be eliminated in the
safest possible manner, without triggering either political or
nuclear incidents.
Cristina Chuen is a senior research associate at the Monterey
Institute Center for Nonproliferation Studies in California.
© Copyright 2006. The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: Regulatory guide on postulated accidents
FR Doc E7-12346
[Federal Register: June 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 122)]
[Notices] [Page 35079-35080] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26jn07-68]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William D. Reckley, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone (301)
415- 8668 or via e-mail to wdr@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a new guide
in the agency's Regulatory Guide series. This series has been developed
to describe and make available to the public such information as (1)
methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific
parts of the NRC's regulations, (2) techniques that the staff uses in
evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and (3) data that
the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The NRC is now issuing Regulatory Guide 1.206, ``Combined License
Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition),'' which provides
guidance for use in submitting combined license (COL) applications
pursuant to the Commission regulations in Title 10, Part 52, of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Early Site Permits; Standard
Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power
Plants.'' Specifically, 10 CFR part 52 governs the issuance of early
site permits, standard design certifications, combined licenses,
standard design approvals, and manufacturing licenses for nuclear power
plants. A draft of the final rule was made available to the public
electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov
on May 21, 2007. Regulatory Guide 1.206 implements
the requirements contained in the draft final rule. A final rule
amending 10 CFR part 52 is expected to be published in the Federal
Register later this year. Following issuance of the final rule,
conforming changes will be made to the regulatory guide, as necessary.
The regulatory positions in Section C of Regulatory Guide 1.206 are
divided into the following parts:
(1) Part I addresses the information requirements specified in 10
CFR 52.79, ``Contents of applications; technical information.'' Part I
provides a COL applicant with guidance regarding the information that
the NRC needs to resolve all safety issues related to the proposed COL.
This part is intended for use by the COL applicants who are not
referencing certified designs or early site permits.
(2) Part II addresses the information requirements specified in 10
CFR 52.80, ``Contents of applications; additional information.'' The
information requirements include the inspections, tests, analyses, and
acceptance criteria; and the environmental report.
(3) Part III is intended for use by COL applicants who reference
either a certified design or both a certified design and an early site
permit.
(4) Part IV addresses a series of miscellaneous topics of interest
to COL applicants, and includes, but is not limited to, a checklist for
acceptance review of a COL application, and guidance and
recommendations on COL application format.
II. Further Information
The NRC previously solicited public comment on this guide by
publishing a Federal Register notice (71 FR 52826) concerning Draft
Regulatory Guide DG-1145 on September 1, 2006. Following the closure of
the public comment period on October 21, 2006, the NRC staff considered
all stakeholder comments in preparing Regulatory Guide 1.206. The NRC
staff's responses to stakeholder comments received for DG-1145 are
documented in a report that can be found on NRC's Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML071490067.
The NRC staff encourages and welcomes comments and suggestions in
connection with improvements to published regulatory guides, as well as
items for inclusion in regulatory guides that are currently being
developed. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods.
1. Mail comments to: Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
2. Hand-deliver comments to: Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing
Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15
p.m. on Federal workdays.
3. Fax comments to: Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301)
415-5144.
Requests for technical information about Regulatory Guide 1.206 may
be directed to William D. Reckley at (301) 415-8668 or via e-mail to
wdr@nrc.gov.
Regulatory guides are available for inspection or downloading
through the NRC's public Web site in the Regulatory Guides document
collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections.
Electronic copies of Regulatory Guide 1.206
are available in ADAMS at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html,
under Accession No. ML070720184.
Regulatory Guide 1.206 and other related publicly available
documents can also be viewed electronically on computers in the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland. The PDR's reproduction contractor will make copies
of documents for a fee. The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR,
Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at
(301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 415-3548, and by e-
mail to PDR@nrc.gov.
Please note that the NRC does not intend to distribute printed
copies of Regulatory Guide 1.206, unless specifically requested on an
individual basis with adequate justification. Such requests should be
made (1) in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution
Services Section; (2) by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or (3) by fax
to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated.
[[Page 35080]]
Regulatory Guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is
not required to reproduce them (5 U.S.C. 552(a)).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of June, 2007.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian W. Sheron,
Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. E7-12346 Filed 6-25-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
23 Guardian Unlimited: Lethal legacy of tank-busting uranium dust
Ian Sample, science correspondent
Wednesday June 27, 2007
Toxic, radioactive dust released from armour-piercing depleted
uranium shells lingers for decades in the environment and
contaminates land far from where it is used, according to British
scientists.
The finding raises fears that communities living in or returning to
war zones may be forced to live on contaminated ground, in danger of
inhaling the substance or consuming it in food or water supplies.
Hundreds of tonnes of tank-busting depleted uranium rounds have been
fired by British and American forces in the Balkans and Iraq. On
impact the rounds fragment into a shower of fine particles, which
have been linked to medical conditions including cancer and birth
defects.
Scientists initially suspected that even fine particles of the heavy
dust would only cause contamination over a confined area. But
research conducted by a team at Leicester University found that it
can spread nearly 6km and persists in soils for more than 25 years.
The team took soil samples from open ground and residential gardens
in a suburban area near Colonie in New York State. During the 1960s
and 1970s, the town was home to a depleted uranium manufacturing
plant, which released an estimated five tonnes of the material into
the air.
The team detected traces of uranium down to 35cm beneath the ground.
Nicholas Lloyd, a geologist on the team, said: "One of the issues
was the realisation that we really didn't understand what was going
to happen to this material when it gets into the environment.
"What we've shown is that even though this is a very dense material
that you'd expect to fall out of the air quickly, we can detect it
far from the site and it's surviving more than a quarter of a
century later."
Previous studies have suggested inhaling particles of depleted
uranium, which is weakly radioactive, might increase the risk of
lung cancer. The substance has also been linked to kidney damage.
In February the Ministry of Defence published medical tests carried
out on more than 400 veterans of the Balkans conflict and the first
Gulf war, which found none was contaminated with depleted uranium.
Scientific advisers to the veterans claimed the tests were either
conducted too late, or that the uranium particles were still lodged
inside them.
"This work shows that depleted uranium may not leach out of soils
with rain and get washed away. It means we can't expect that
depleted uranium in contaminated areas of Iraq will just disappear,
it's going to persist and that means it could be re-suspended and
breathed in," said Professor Brian Spratt of Imperial College,
London, who chaired a working group on depleted uranium for the
Royal Society.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
24 Houston Chronicle: No Action on Utah Nuke-Waste Permit
Chron.com -
June 26, 2007, 2:43PM
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court declined to act on a
challenge to a license that was granted for nuclear-waste storage in
Utah's west desert.
Writing for a three-judge panel, Judge Merrick Garland said it would
be inappropriate to act because it's uncertain whether the facility
could ever be built.
The Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and a consortium of
utilities last year won a license from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to store 40,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel on the
tribe's reservation, about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.
The state and Utah's congressional delegation oppose the project.
The Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have
effectively blocked it by denying access to the site.
The utility consortium, Private Fuel Storage LLC, has said it would
take those federal agencies to court but hasn't so far, Garland said
Tuesday.
As a result, it is "too speculative" whether the appeals court would
ever need to determine whether the NRC license is valid, he said.
The case was filed by some Goshute tribe members at the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
*****************************************************************
25 SanLuisObispo.com: Plans for new nuclear storage facility still up in the air
06/26/2007 |
Yucca Mountain
The site could open as early as 2017, but Nevada officials are
resistant
By David Sneed dsneed@thetribunenews.com
California electricity customers have paid $1 billion to the federal
government to permanently store high-level radioactive waste, but
the fate of a proposed storage facility at Yucca Mountain remains
uncertain.
Federal officials and nuclear power representatives told the
California Energy Commission on Monday that the underground
repository will open someday. But Nevada officials do not want the
facility built in their state, and scientists continue to question
whether the facility can safely store nuclear waste for thousands of
years.
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is building an aboveground storage
facility at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant because pools now
being used to store the plant’s highly radioactive used uranium are
nearly full.
Diablo Canyon—as well as the nation’s other nuclear power plants —
was designed with the assumption that spent fuel would only be
stored on site for several years before being either reprocessed
into new fuel or shipped to a centralized federal storage depot.
The Energy Commission is holding two days of hearings this week in
Sacramento concerning the status and future of nuclear power in the
state.
Energy commissioners told the U.S. Department of Energy, which is
building the Yucca Mountain facility, that they are angry over
repeated delays in the project and have little confidence it will
ever open.
In contrast, Eric Knox with the Energy Department’s radioactive
waste office told the commission he’s never been more confident
about the future of Yucca Mountain. The earliest the facility could
open is 2017. But it is likely to be delayed to 2020.
“Between 2017 and 2020, it’s something that will become a reality,”
Knox said.
The nuclear industry maintains that there is no scientific reason
not to open Yucca Mountain. The only thing lacking is the political
will.
“Because it must be done, it will be done,” said Alan Hanson, an
executive with Areva, a company that manufactures nuclear waste
storage casks.
Bob Loux with Nevada’s Yucca Mountain office was much less
optimistic about the future of the storage facility. Nevada elected
officials, including U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have
vowed to stop the project.
“The prospects (of Yucca opening) are very dim,” Loux said.
Allison Macfarlane, a nuclear waste storage specialist with George
Mason University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told
the commission that Yucca Mountain is a less-than-ideal location for
storing nuclear waste.
Yucca Mountain’s chief appeal is its isolated location 60 miles from
Las Vegas.
Yucca Mountain is problematic because the area is seismically and
volcanically active. The atmosphere inside the storage tunnels would
soon become corrosive to the storage casks because of humidity and
oxidizing minerals in the soil, Macfarlane said.
“There are plenty of other sites in the country that are
reasonable,” she said.
*****************************************************************
26 Las Vegas SUN: Senate spending panel wants $50 million less for Yucca Mountain
Today: June 26, 2007 at 16:45:3 PDT
By ERICA WERNER Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate spending panel proposed Tuesday spending
$444 million on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump in 2008 - $50
million less than President Bush and a House panel want.
The House Appropriations Committee met Bush's 2008 budget request of
$494.5 million for Yucca Mountain, and the spending bill it's part
of is awaiting passage by the full House.
The House last week soundly defeated an effort by Nevada Reps.
Shelley Berkley, Jon Porter and Dean Heller to cut the 2008 Yucca
Mountain budget by $200 million.
The Senate Appropriations Committee's energy and water subcommittee
approved the $444 million figure Tuesday, and the full Senate
Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on it Thursday.
If the House and Senate arrive at different numbers, the discrepancy
would have to be resolved in a House-Senate conference committee
before passage of a final spending bill.
In past years Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., was the top Democrat on the
energy and water panel and used the position to pare the budget for
the nuclear waste dump that the federal government is trying to
build 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas over the objection of Nevada
officials.
Reid gave up the position this year when he became Senate majority
leader, handing the gavel to Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.
The budget Congress approved for Yucca Mountain in 2007 was $444.5
million - $100 million less than Bush's request for the year, which
project managers complained could lead to yet more delays on the
troubled project.
The dump was funded at $450 million in 2006 and $577 million in 2004
and 2005.
Originally targeted to open in 1998, the earliest opening date for
Yucca Mountain is now 2017, though the Energy Department has said
2021 is more likely.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
27 The Herald: Nuclear waste: no deep shafts in Scotland, says minister
KEVIN SCHOFIELD June 26 2007
The Scottish Executive set itself on another collision course with
Westminster over nuclear power yesterday when it refused to
co-operate with moves to bury waste deep underground.
Ministers in the UK government have already signalled their support
for burying the waste in deep geological facilities and yesterday
launched a consultation exercise seeking the views of interested
parties.
But Richard Lochhead, the Secretary for Rural Affairs and the
Environment at Holyrood, moved quickly to rule out the executive's
involvement in the process, insisting that deep disposal was an
"out-of-sight out-of-mind policy" that most Scots were opposed to.
The announcement came just weeks after First Minister Alex Salmond
insisted the executive would block any moves to build new nuclear
power stations in Scotland.
Mr Lochhead said his preferred option was a "near surface near site"
policy, which would allow waste to be monitored and remove the need
for it to be transferred over long distances. He said: "We recognise
that dealing with the legacy of radioactive waste from past nuclear
activities is one of the most significant challenges we face.
"The Scottish government does not accept that geological disposal is
the right way forward. This is a matter of principle for us and I
have no doubt that public opinion in Scotland supports our view."
Mr Lochhead added: "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. This out-of-sight out-of-mind policy should not
extend to Scotland."
However, Mr Lochhead said the executive would still support the
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) recommendations on
interim storage of nuclear waste and would also support future work
on long-term options.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Environment Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra) said: "It is for the Scottish Executive to set out
their position and the basis for it." However, she also stressed
that the CoRWM had spent more than two and a half years assessing
the options available before recommending the burial of nuclear
waste deep under ground.
The Labour Party accused the executive of "choosing the path of
unnecessary conflict".
Rhona Brankin, the party's shadow environment secretary, said:
"Addressing the issue of nuclear waste is an ongoing process of
consensus which the SNP have chosen to rupture part way through."
But the Green Party praised the executive's decision to reject the
committee's recommendations.
Patrick Harvie MSP said: "It is clear that there is still no
solution to the problem of nuclear waste.
"Dumping it in a hole deep in the ground is not a secure approach
and no responsible government would bulldoze through deep disposal
given the uncertainties and risks.
Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth, also
welcomed Mr Lochhead's announcement and called on Westminster to
rule out using any Scottish sites for deep disposal.
He said: "We are concerned that the UK government consultation is a
sham to facilitate an unsustainable and unethical programme of new
nuclear power stations. Solving the problem of nuclear waste needs
to begin with a pledge not to create any more of the stuff.
"That decades after the start of the nuclear industry this country
still doesn't have a safe solution to dealing with this country's
radioactive waste legacy is further evidence that creating further
waste from new nuclear power stations should not be countenanced."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
Posted by: Bruce, Glasgow on 10:28pm Mon 25 Jun 07
"Addressing the issue of nuclear waste is an ongoing process of
consensus which the SNP have chosen to rupture part way through.....
Labour's Double Speak continues, why can't they just admit that they
don't have an answer....no one has, thats WHY we shouldn't do
it....this isn't a point of some political ideology, it's bloody
common sense ya eedjits!
"Addressing the issue of nuclear waste is an ongoing process of
consensus which the SNP have chosen to rupture part way through.....
Labour's Double Speak continues, why can't they just admit that they
don't have an answer....no one has, thats WHY we shouldn't do
it....this isn't a point of some political ideology, it's bloody
common sense ya eedjits!
Quote | Report this post
Posted by: Oscar, Fallout Central on 10:50pm Mon 25 Jun 07
I like this keep it close to the facility notion it's in keeping
with the SRO that waste must be dealt with at source. A chum who
knows about these things, what with working in a large BNFL plant
near me, says they're currently working with vitrification
processes, whereby they turn the waste into thick slabs of glass,
meaning there is little or no chance of nuclear waste dissolving and
seeping into the water courses. [italic]"However, she also stressed
that the CoRWM had spent more than two and a half years assessing
the options available before recommending the burial of nuclear
waste deep under ground."[/italic] Did these options include
sticking it under a carpet, firing it at the moon, sneaking it into
third worldopolis or just sticking their heads in the sand?
I like this keep it close to the facility notion it's in keeping
with the SRO that waste must be dealt with at source.
A chum who knows about these things, what with working in a large
BNFL plant near me, says they're currently working with
vitrification processes, whereby they turn the waste into thick
slabs of glass, meaning there is little or no chance of nuclear
waste dissolving and seeping into the water courses.
"However, she also stressed that the CoRWM had spent more than two
and a half years assessing the options available before recommending
the burial of nuclear waste deep under ground."
Did these options include sticking it under a carpet, firing it at
the moon, sneaking it into third worldopolis or just sticking their
heads in the sand?
Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
28 ITAR-TASS: Federal official inspects Russia’s largest nuke fuel producer
26.06.2007, 18.35
NOVOSIBIRSK, June 26 (Itar-Tass) -- Federal Environmental,
Technological and Atomic Supervisory Service chief Konstantin
Pulikovsky has inspected Russia’s largest producer of nuclear fuel
for power plants and research reactors, the Novosibirsk Chemical
Concentrate Plant.
He lauded the ecological, industrial and radiation safety of the
facility.
The plant administration informed Pulikovsky about the physical
safety system, the storing of nuclear and radioactive materials, and
the sanitary zone around the enterprise.
The service “has done 55 inspections and given 35 recommendations
over the past year,” Pulikovsky said. In his words, the plant has
complied with all the recommendations and eliminated the
shortcomings.
The plant’s atmospheric discharges are hundreds of times smaller
than those of similar enterprises of the Novosibirsk region, General
Director Vladimir Ravin said. He added that the plant would fully
stop harmful discharges into the Ob River this year.
The Novosibirsk plant is a component of the state-owned TVEL
Corporation.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store
*****************************************************************
29 Murfreesboro Post: ENDIT vows to stop radioactive dumping
By Lisa Marchesoni - June 25, 2007 - 11:04 PM
Fears of radioactive waste causing cancer and birth defects prompted
Citizens to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee Monday to petition the
state to stop radioactive waste dumping at the Middle Point Landfill
in Walter Hill.
More than 60 people attended a meeting at Patterson Park where they
obtained ideas how to voice their opposition to the low-level
radioactive waste from other states dumped in Rutherford County.
ENDIT members urged citizens to contact legislators and county
commissioners to halt the dumping.
Information about the radioactive waste was reported last month
through the Bulk Survey for Release program. Former County Mayor
Nancy Allen said she didn’t know radioactive wastes were destined
for the landfill when she signed a contract several years ago with
BFI.
Organizer Kathleen Ferris said Rutherford County citizens still
don’t know what’s being dumped at the landfill.
“We’ve become a dumping ground for the whole nation,” Ferris
said, adding there was plenty of blame but it would take bi-partisan
efforts to stop the dumping. Ferris distributed petitions for people
to sign about the dumping.
“We’re going to get something done,” Ferris vowed.
Mother Betsy Allgood said the radioactive waste leaks into the
ground water and creates cancer, diseases and birth defects. People
who live in expensive homes in north Murfreesboro drink the same
water from the landfill five miles away. She challenged other
mothers to call state legislators to voice their complaints while
David Wilson urged the group to call legislators and county
commissioners.
Pat Sanders addressed the health risks, saying there is no safe
level of ionizing radiation.
The citizens heard from Diane D-Arrigo, who authored “Out of
Control — on Purpose: DOE’s Dispersal of Radioactive Waste into
Landfills and Consumer Products,” for the Nuclear Information and
Resource Service.
Tennessee writes a “blank check” by allowing nuclear waste into
the state, she said. Sixteen states regulate dumping through laws
and executive orders from the governor.
State Rep. John Hood, D-Murfreesboro, said he would see if Gov. Phil
Bredesen would consider imposing an executive order about the
dumping. Hood and other state legislators established a 60-day
moratorium on radioactive dumping at Middle Point. Some legislators
tried to get more than 60 days.
Hood and County Commissioner Robert Peay were the only two elected
representatives to stay for the two-hour meeting. State Sen. Jim
Tracy stayed for some time but left a staff member for the meeting.
Peay said the county commission asked County Mayor Ernest Burgess to
study water tests by an independent agency. Burgess is supposed to
report back Friday.
Ann Harris of Rockwood, a member of the Sierra Club, suggested
everyone would make a difference by calling or writing legislators
with concerns.
Bruce Wood of BURNT in Nashville said the landfill is within 50 feet
of the Stones River. Citizens can make a change.
“We have to say no to the waste that exists now,” Wood said.
“We have to realize we are the problem. We have to bring pressure
on the state of Tennessee.”
615-869-0800 | online@murfreesboropost.com | 630 Broadmore Blvd.
Suite 120, P.O. 10008, Murfreesboro, TN 37129
*****************************************************************
30 icWales: Nuclear waste talks
Jun 26 2007
by Tomos Livingstone, Western Mail
MINISTERS in Cardiff Bay are to go ahead with a joint consultation
on the burial of nuclear waste – despite the Scottish Executive
pulling out of the process.
Defra and the administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland are
consulting on how burial sites will be chosen.
The consultation will look at so-called “geological disposal”, where
waste is buried between 200m and 1,000m underground and the rock
structure prevents radioactive leaks.
Ian Pearson, the Westminster minister responsible, argued yesterday
that such sites would bring jobs and billions of pounds of
investment into communities.
But in a sign of the sensitivities surrounding the idea, his Welsh
counterpart Jane Davidson made it clear that the Assembly
Government, despite co-operating in the consultation, had not signed
up to having a site in Wales.
In Scotland, the SNP-run administration went further, refusing even
to take part in the consultation process.
“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 Scottish Environment Minister Richard Lochhead.
“This out of sight, out of mind policy should not extend to
Scotland.”
The geological disposal idea was recommended last year by the
Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, a body which contains
representatives nominated by the Assembly.
The new consultation will run until November and will look at
technical aspects of disposal and how a site would be chosen.
No shortlist of sites has been drawn up, the Assembly Government
stress- ed, adding that the development is not connected to any new
nuclear stations – to which it is opposed.
Ms Davidson said, “The UK has an existing radioactive waste problem
that must be solved. This consultation seeks views on a potential
approach to securing that solution.”
Plaid Cymru AM Elin Jonessaid, “There will be strong resistance in
Wales to the burying of nuclear waste in any part of our country.
Plaid Cymru does not want to see Wales used for the burial of
nuclear waste.”
Lembit Opik, leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, said, “Nuclear
waste is one in a long list of reasons why we should bury nuclear
power once and for all.”
Copyright and Trade Mark Notice
*****************************************************************
31 University of Leicester: Several tons of uranium and a town called Colonie
: 26-Jun-2007
Contact: Nicholas Lloyd nsl3@leicester.ac.uk 44-077-635-82186
Recent research by the Department of Geology at University of
Leicester, and at the British Geological Survey aims to improve
understanding of how depleted uranium particulate behaves in the
environment. PhD research student Nicholas Lloyd has identified
uranium oxide particulate that has survived more than 25 years in
the environment, and depleted uranium contamination nearly 6 km from
point of release.
The use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions by US and British forces
has been highly controversial; on impact with armoured targets they
shed uranium particulate that can be inhaled into the lungs. DU is
both weakly radioactive and chemically toxic. Concerns raised by
campaign groups have been the subject of numerous newspaper
headlines, and it is frequently cited as a possible cause of Gulf
War syndrome.
However, under the scrutiny of peer-review, scientific studies have
so far failed to demonstrate a significant connection between
inhalation exposure and human ill-health. One of the problems is
that no studied non-occupational populations have been shown to have
significant inhalation exposure to DU.
During the 1960s and ‘70s an estimated 5 tonnes of uranium was
emitted into the environment, in a residential area of Colonie, NY,
USA. Local residents are concerned that they were exposed to
airborne particulate, and have campaigned for a health study. The
current research could provide valuable baseline data for such a
study.
The researchers led by Professor Randall Parrish collected hundreds
of soil and dust samples last July, with the help of local residents
and Dr John Arnason of SUNY at Albany. Soils and dusts have been
examined using scanning electron microscopy, and reveal micrometer
diameter uranium-rich particulate (invisible to the naked eye).
These particles may be resuspended and inhaled. The samples have
also been analysed by mass spectrometry, revealing contamination
several hundreds of times greater than background near source, and
trace contamination 35 cm below surface and as far afield as 5.8 km.
Nicholas said that the study by University of Leicester and the
British Geological Survey aims to improve understanding of how
depleted uranium particulate behaves in the environment. The study
shows that uranium oxide particulate is both mobile and durable in
the environment.
The research is being presented to the public at the University of
Leicester on June 29. The Festival of Postgraduate Research
introduces employers and the public to the next generation of
innovators and cutting-edge researchers, and gives postgraduate
researchers the opportunity to explain the real world implications
of their research to a wide ranging audience.
More information on the Festival of Postgraduate Research at:
www.le.ac.uk/gradschool/festival
*****************************************************************
32 Guardian Unlimited: Beckett calls for cuts in US and Russian nuclear arsenals
Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday June 26, 2007
Margaret Beckett: 'signal of intent'. Photograph: Carl de
Souza/AFP/Getty Images.
The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, called yesterday for
deep cuts in the US and Russia's nuclear arsenals, in a signal
that the new Brown government will make disarmament a foreign
policy priority.
Speaking at a conference only a few hundred metres from the White
House, Mrs Beckett's appeal for a new global commitment to rid
the world of nuclear weapons won a standing ovation from a large
audience of international non-proliferation experts and
activists.
Yesterday's trip to Washington may be the last by Mrs Beckett as
foreign secretary, as Gordon Brown is widely reported to be
planning to replace her on becoming prime minister tomorrow.
But British officials made clear her speech had Mr Brown's full
approval.
In a US administration that is deeply sceptical about multilateral
disarmament treaties, the Beckett speech was seen as a statement of
intent by a new British leader.
"She made it clear that [Brown] is not our poodle," an unnamed US
official told McClatchy Newspapers last night.
In her speech to the arms control conference organised by the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace thinktank, Mrs Beckett
said that there was a "sense of stagnation" surrounding disarmament
efforts and that the established nuclear states would have to make
deeper cuts in their stockpiles.
Failure to do so would risk undermining their efforts to rally
international opinion against countries like Iran, suspected of
covertly developing nuclear weapons.
"Practical steps include further reductions in warhead numbers,
particularly in the world's biggest arsenals. There are still over
20,000 warheads in the world. And the US and Russia hold about 96%
of them," Mrs Beckett said.
"Almost no one - politician, military strategist or scientist -
thinks that warheads in those numbers are still necessary to
guarantee international security.
"It should not therefore be controversial to suggest that there
remains room for further significant reductions."
The foreign secretary also called on the US to ratify an
international treaty banning nuclear tests.
America is currently observing a moratorium, but Mr Bush has
signalled he has no intention of restricting his administration's
freedom of action by entering into a global treaty.
Mrs Beckett defended Britain's decision to maintain its independent
nuclear force of Trident missiles because the "secure and
predictable global political context" necessary for total
disarmament did not exist yet.
"But acknowledging that the conditions for disarmament do not exist
today does not mean resigning ourselves to the idea that nuclear
weapons can never be abolished in the future," the foreign secretary
said.
She went on to list a series of projects the British government was
funding to develop the sort of confidence-building measures
necessary for multilateral disarmament to work.
In that way, she said, Britain would become a "disarmament
laboratory".
She also made it clear that the speech marked the start of a fresh
focus on disarmament issues by the incoming Brown government.
"Those initiatives I have announced today are only small ones," Mrs
Beckett said.
"But they are in the right direction: a signal of intent and purpose
to ourselves and to others.
"We will talk more and do more with our international partners -
those who have nuclear weapons, those who do not - in the weeks and
months to come."
William Walker, an arms control expert at the University of St
Andrews who was in the audience yesterday, described the speech as
"very significant".
Although the foreign secretary was restating British policy,
Professor Walker said "I think it was the emphasis and the location
in which she said it."
"Put that together with a certain amount of passion, and it adds up
to a statement of mood by the Brown government."
Useful links
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The Department for International Development
Email comments for publication to:
politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
33 Seattle Times: Hanford nuke plant restarts after refueling |
Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - Page updated at 04:49 PM
The Associated Press
RICHLAND, Wash. — The Columbia Generating Station, the only
commercial nuclear power plant in Washington, has resumed operation
after a 44-day outage for maintenance and refueling.
The station, which produces enough electricity for 500,000 homes,
reconnected Sunday night to the Northwest power grid, according to
Energy Northwest, which operates the plant.
The plant on the Hanford nuclear reservation in southeast Washington
has been in commercial operation since 1984. Its electricity is
distributed throughout the region by the Bonneville Power
Administration.
Power from the station accounts for about 10 percent to 12 percent
of BPA's total electricity, said Brad Peck, a spokesman for Energy
Northwest. When the plant is down, the company must buy its power on
the open market to make up for the lost supply, he said.
The agency is "thrilled to have the plant back on line. We look
forward to a long and reliable operating cycle," said Andy Rapacz,
BPA's manager of contract generating resources.
As part of its biennial refueling shutdown, about a third of the 764
nuclear fuel rods in the reactor core were replaced. They typically
remain in the reactor for six years before being moved to a used
fuel pool and eventually to onsite storage containers.
Energy Northwest had set a goal of 38 days to complete the work.
"We came close to our 38-day target, but ultimately safety and
quality of work are higher priorities than the schedule," outage
manager Ron Hogue said Tuesday. "Our real goal was to complete the
work as quickly as possible without sacrificing safety and quality
of work. We achieved that goal."
More than 2,900 people worked on the outage, including 1,000 Energy
Northwest employees and more than 1,900 temporary and contract
workers from across the nation.
Plant General Manager Tom Lynch was confident the plant will perform
well through the upcoming 24-month operating cycle.
"The plant is in outstanding condition; perhaps as good as I've seen
any plant coming out of a major refueling and maintenance outage,"
he said.
In early April, authorities declared an alert at the plant after
detecting a small electrical fire in a backup transformer that
supplies electricity to parts of the plant when needed. No
radioactivity was released, and the plant remained operating.
Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
34 UCB: DOE awards LBNL, UC Berkeley and partners $125 million for
biofuels research
06.26.2007 -
UC Berkeley >
Major new boost for Bay Area renewable-energy effort
UC Berkeley Press Release
Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 26 June 2007
BERKELEY – Berkeley and the Bay Area cemented their position as the
nation's center of alternative energy research with the announcement
today (Tuesday, June 26) by the Department of Energy of a $125
million, five-year grant to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(LBNL), the University of California, Berkeley, and four other
partners to develop better biofuels.
Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman announced in Washington, D.C.,
research grants totaling $375 million to establish three Bioenergy
Research Centers in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Madison, Wisconsin; and
near Berkeley, California.
The California center, to be known as the Joint BioEnergy Institute
(JBEI), involves six partners: LBNL, Sandia National Laboratories
(Sandia), the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), the UC
campuses of Berkeley and Davis, and Stanford University. and
"The selection of JBEI is a major vote of confidence in the Bay
Area's growing leadership in the national effort to develop new and
cleaner sources of renewable energy," said Jay Keasling, UC Berkeley
professor of chemical engineering and JBEI's chief executive
officer. Keasling also is director of LBNL's Physical Biosciences
Division.
UC Berkeley, LBNL and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
were selected earlier this year by oil company BP to receive $500
million over 10 years for an Energy Biosciences Institute to
investigate future technologies for biofuels and ways of using the
new tools of biology to enhance oil recovery and to sequester
carbon. That research contract is due to be signed in July.
"This clearly will make the Bay Area the locus for development of a
green tech industry to rival the high tech and biotech industries
which started here," said Graham Fleming, a JBEI founder, deputy
director at LBNL and Melvin Calvin Distinguished Professor of
Chemistry at UC Berkeley. "It is a tremendously exciting day for the
Bay Area and the country as a whole."
Plans call for JBEI to be headquartered in a leased building in the
East Bay, central to all partners. Initial work will take place at
the West Berkeley Biocenter on Potter Street in Berkeley.
"The DOE bioenergy research centers will provide the
transformational science needed for bioenergy breakthroughs to
advance President Bush's goal of making cellulosic ethanol
cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012, and assist in reducing
America's gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years," Secretary
Bodman said. "The collaborations of academic, corporate, and
national laboratory researchers represented by these centers are
truly impressive and I am very encouraged by the potential they hold
for advancing America's energy security."
Reserch will center on improvements to current technology for
producing ethanol, in particularly cellulosic technology for
producing ethanol from biomass, and new technologies for producing
other biofuels, according to Harvey Blanch, UC Berkeley professor of
chemical engineering and JBEI chief science and technology officer.
Today's cellulosic ethanol industry is based on 20-year-old
technology, he said, in part because federal research funding on
biofuels ended when President Ronald Reagan jettisoned most
alternative energy research in the 1980s.
In order to catch up, much basic research needs to be done to find
out how plant cell walls – the hard lignocelluose that makes plants
sturdy – are put together, so that scientists can find a way to take
them apart and access the simple sugars they're made from. These
sugars could then be fermented along with the simple starches in the
plant to produce much more energy than currently possible.
"If (the cellulosic industry) is going to grow and compete
economically, even with corn based materials, a lot of improvements
need to be made," Blanch said.
The basic research will benefit from collaborations with UC Davis
scientists who have experience with the genetics of rice and a
mustard, Arabadopsis thaliana, that is the lab rat or "fruit fly" of
plant biology, according to Pam Ronald, chair of the Plant Genomics
Program at UC Davis and director of JBEI's grass genetics group.
Blanch anticipates that JBEI could start making an impact on the
cellulosic industry within a couple of years, particularly in the
area of breaking down biomass into its constituent sugars. Instead
of acid hydrolysis, blanch hopes that JBEI scientists can create
better and more efficient enzymes to do that, or even an organism
that both breaks down lignocellulose and ferments it into fuels such
as ethanol, butanol or oil-like alkanes.
JBEI scientists will also develop the tools and infrastructure to
accelerate future biofuel research and production efforts, and help
transition new technologies into the commercial sector.
"JBEI will be organized like a biotech startup company, with very
focused research objectives, and a structure to enable it to quickly
pursue promising scientific and technological developments," said
Keasling. "The organizational structure and culture is intended to
ensure rapid commercialization of JBEI R&D."
"The ultimate goal of the energy centers is to get this into the
market," emphasized Ray Orbach, director of the DOE's Office of
Science.
The DOE JBEI organization will feature four interdependent science
and technology divisions: Feedstocks, aimed at improving plants that
serve as the raw materials for ethanol and the next generation of
biofuels; Deconstruction, aimed at investigating the molecular
mechanisms behind the breakdown of lignocellulose into fermentable
sugars; Fuels Synthesis, in which microbes that can efficiently
convert sugar into biofuels will be engineered; and Cross-cutting
Technologies, which will be dedicated to the development and
optimization of enabling technologies that support and integrate the
DOE JBEI research.
Keasling draws a distinction between the very focused work of JBEI
and the "think-tank" approach of the EBI. EBI's goal is to formulate
a comprehensive understanding of biology in the context of energy
science, exploring all possibilities in the field and identifying
those approaches and technologies that look to be the most promising.
LBNL press release
DOE press release
JBEI Website
E-mail newscenter@berkeley.edu Copyright UC Regents
*****************************************************************
35 Yakima Herald Republic: Hanford cleanup embarrassment must be resolved
Published on Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The news out of the Tri-Cities wasn't really all that surprising:
Cost estimates for cleaning up the most contaminated nuclear site
on the planet have gone up.
Up, as in mind-numbing up.
And where is the outrage? People complain about paying $3-plus a
gallon for gas to drive their cars, but don't seem too concerned
that the federal government is tossing around billions of dollars
(that's "billions" with a "b") at the Hanford nuclear reservation
for cleanup efforts that drag on while the costs escalate.
Enough of this national embarrassment in our backyard.
The state has again entered negotiations with federal officials to
prod them along, and the end result this time must be an iron-clad
commitment to finishing the job.
No more delays, no more excuses. This is a pressing public health
and safety issue that has been stymied far too long.
As reported earlier this month in both this newspaper and the
Tri-City Herald, the estimated cost has skyrocketed again -- this
time from $26 billion to $44 billion for closing Hanford's
underground tanks and treating their radioactive and hazardous
chemical waste.
There's more.
* That amount does not include estimated contingency costs of as
much as $18 billion -- bringing the potential cost to $62 billion --
if the project has more delays or other difficulties. And given the
track record for almost two decades now, the chances of delay are
near-certain unless there's a new culture of action we're not seeing
so far.
The $44 billion cost would cover emptying and closing the 177
underground tanks at the Hanford nuclear reservation and treating
the 53 million gallons of waste they hold.
The new numbers project that treatment of the waste and closure of
the tanks would be completed in 2042, rather than 2028 as is
required by the 1989 Tri-Party Agreement signed by the state and
federal governments to establish (cue the cynical cackle) cleanup
deadlines.
The waste is left from more than 40 years production of plutonium
for the nation's nuclear weapons program.
(A little parochial perspective: A proposed Black Rock reservoir
east of Yakima would cost about $4 billion, which some say is way
high. Unless you consider that the Hanford cleanup price tag can now
be measured as 151/2 Black Rocks.)
* The latest projections do not include the $12.3 billion cost of
building and testing the vitrification plant, which is being built
to treat and glassify much of the waste. They also do include the
plant's operating cost.
The plant is a not-so-shining example of all that's wrong with a
cockeyed cleanup schedule with no teeth. The original operating
deadline was 1999, while the current agreement requires the plant to
being operating in 2011. Last year, the federal Department of Energy
pushed the start date to 2019.
If our math services correctly, that means the original deadline
will be missed by 20 years, assuming 2019 is met, and so far we
wouldn't risk betting the farm on that happening.
Department of Energy officials say the newer, and higher, total
results from a "rebaselining" of the cleanup based on new
projections of how much it will cost to get whole project completed.
The original projection, they say, was based on overly optimistic
assumptions, including hopes of saving $20 billion through
privatization. The plant will now be a government-owned facility.
Pushing for cleanup is a frustrated Gov. Chris Gregoire, who has
dealt with federal foot-dragging as governor and before that as
state attorney general. Her office pointed out that since the
Tri-Party Agreement was signed in 1989, there have been 11
secretaries or acting secretaries of the federal Department of
Energy and the department has had five different prime contractors
for the waste treatment plant.
And every time the federal department bails on one contractor and
gets another, everything is seemingly set back and the costs go up.
"Nobody is more frustrated than I am about the lack of consistency,
construction mistakes and management problems at Hanford," Gregoire
said. "But the last thing we need is to send a message that it is OK
to walk away. It is not. We need to get going."
And beyond the public health and safety issue, there's another
consideration at play: As the nation searches for alternate and
renewable forms of energy, nuclear power will never be a viable
option it should be until the cleanup issues at Hanford are
resolved. It's a black eye by association.
We're with the governor. Let's get it done and cap these runaway
costs and interminable delays.
* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael
Shepard, Sarah Jenkins and Bill Lee.
© 2007 - Yakima Herald-Republic - www.yakimaherald.com
*****************************************************************
36 DOE: Energy Department Selects Three Bioenergy Research Centers
for $375 Million in Federal Funding
June 26, 2007
Basic Genomics Research Furthers President Bush’s Plan to Reduce
Gasoline Usage 20 Percent in Ten Year
WASHINGTON, DC – U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel
W. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $375 million in
three new Bioenergy Research Centers that will be located in Oak
Ridge, Tennessee; Madison, Wisconsin; and near Berkeley, California.
The Centers are intended to accelerate basic research in the
development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, advancing
President Bush’s Twenty in Ten Initiative, which seeks to reduce
U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent within ten years through
increased efficiency and diversification of clean energy sources.
The Department plans to fund the Centers for the first five years of
operation (Fiscal Years 2008-2013).
“These Centers will provide the transformational science needed for
bioenergy breakthroughs to advance President Bush’s goal of making
cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012, and
assist in reducing America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent in
ten years,” Secretary Bodman said. “The collaborations of academic,
corporate, and national laboratory researchers represented by these
centers are truly impressive and I am very encouraged by the
potential they hold for advancing America’s energy security.”
To bring the latest tools of the biotechnology revolution to bear to
advance clean energy production, the Centers will be supported by
multidisciplinary teams of top scientists. A major focus will be on
understanding how to reengineer biological processes to develop new,
more efficient methods for converting the cellulose in plant
material into ethanol or other biofuels that serve as a substitute
for gasoline. This research is critical because future biofuels
production will require the use of feedstocks more diverse than
corn, including cellulosic material like agricultural residues,
grasses, poplar trees, inedible plants, and non-edible portions of
crops.
The Centers will bring together diverse teams of researchers from 18
of the nation’s leading universities, seven DOE national
laboratories, at least one nonprofit organization, and a range of
private companies. All three Centers are located in geographically
distinct areas and will use different plants both for laboratory
research and for improving feedstock crops.
The mission of the Bioenergy Research Centers will lie at the
frontier between basic and applied science, and will maintain a
focus on bioenergy applications. These Centers aim to identify real
steps toward practical solutions regarding to the challenge of
producing renewable, carbon-neutral energy. At the same time, the
Centers will be grounded in basic research, pursuing alternative
avenues and a range of high-risk, high-return approaches to finding
solutions. To some degree, one key to the Centers’ success will be
their ability to develop the more basic dimensions of their research
to a point that can easily transition to applied research.
The Department’s three Bioenergy Research Centers will include:
* The DOE BioEnergy Science Center led by the DOE’s Oak Ridge
National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The Center Director
will be Martin Keller, and collaborators include: Georgia
Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia; DOE’s National
Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado; University of
Georgia in Athens, Georgia; Dartmouth College in Hanover, New
Hampshire; and the University of Tennessee, in Knoxville,
Tennessee.
* The DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center will be led by the
University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin, in close
collaboration with Michigan State University in East Lansing,
Michigan. The Center Director will be Timothy Donohue, and other
collaborators include: DOE’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
in Richland, Washington; Lucigen Corporation in Middleton,
Wisconsin; University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida; DOE’s
Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Illinois
State University in Normal, Illinois; and Iowa State University in
Ames, Iowa.
* The DOE Joint BioEnergy Institute will be led by DOE’s Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory. The Institute Director will be Jay
Keasling, and collaborators include: Sandia National Laboratories;
DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; University of
California - Berkeley; University of California - Davis; and
Stanford University in Stanford, California.
Subject to the finalization of contract terms and congressional
appropriations, the Centers are expected to begin work in 2008,
consistent with President Bush’s Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request,
and would be fully operational by 2009. DOE’s Office of Science
issued a competitive Funding Opportunity Announcement in August 2006
to solicit applications. The three Centers were chosen following a
merit-based, competitive review process that included external
scientific peer review of the applications.
The establishment of the bioenergy research centers culminates a
six-year effort by DOE’s Office of Science to lay the foundation for
breakthroughs in systems biology for the cost-effective production
of renewable energy. In July 2006, DOE’s Office of Science issued a
joint biofuels research agenda with the Department’s Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy titled “Breaking the
Biological Barriers to Cellulosic Ethanol.” The report provides a
detailed roadmap for cellulosic ethanol research, identifying key
roadblocks and areas where scientific breakthroughs are needed.
Today’s announcement follows other key funding announcements this
year to advance President Bush’s Twenty in Ten Initiative, and to
make cellulosic ethanol cost competitive with gasoline by 2012. On
February 28, 2007, DOE announced up to $385 million for six
biorefinery projects that when fully operational are expected to
produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per
year. On May 1, 2007, DOE announced a funding opportunity for $200
million over five years (FY’07-FY’11) to support the development of
small scale bio-refineries that produce liquid transportation fuels
such as ethanol. Read additional information on DOE’s biofuels
initiatives.
Additional information is available on the Department’s three
Bioenergy Research Centers and the Department’s Genomics Research
Programs.
DOE's Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic
research in the physical sciences in the nation and helps ensure
U.S. world leadership across a broad range of scientific
disciplines. The Office of Science supports a diverse portfolio of
research at more than 300 colleges and universities nationwide,
manages ten world-class national laboratories with unmatched
capabilities for solving complex interdisciplinary scientific
problems, and builds and operates the world’s finest suite of
scientific facilities and instruments used annually by more than
19,000 researchers to extend the frontiers of all areas of science.
More information is available one the Office of Science website.
Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
37 Santa Fe New Mexican: LANL laptop stolen in Ireland
By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican
June 25, 2007
Security concerns arise as lab braces for Senate funding plans
More security concerns at Los Alamos National Laboratory surfaced
Monday, the day before a Senate subcommittee was scheduled to
release its highly anticipated spending bill for the lab.
A lab scientist traveled to Ireland late last month for a vacation,
and his lab-issued laptop computer was stolen out of his hotel room,
federal officials confirmed. But there wasn’t anything
classified on it, officials said.
“We really don’t view this as a security breach,”
Julianne Smith of the National Nuclear Security Administration said.
“It’s a violation of lab policy; that’s it. No
classified documents were on the computer, and nothing relating to
the weapons program or anything sensitive ... that the lab or NNSA
deals with.”
In a separate matter Monday, Newsweek magazine quoted an anonymous
source who said another scientist sent a classified e-mail over an
unsecured network.
“That reported incident is under review ... and it would be
inappropriate to comment until we have all the facts,” Smith
said.
Lab spokesman Kevin Roark took issue with the Newsweek report.
“This recent tendency to hold this laboratory accountable for
its employees to be anything less than perfect is
unrealistic,” Roark said. The lab takes security seriously and
has made “great improvements” in the last six months, he
said.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said in a statement he “was
made aware of these incidents and once again I expressed my concerns
over these continuing lapses. The actions of these individuals
unfortunately detract from the tremendously important work done at
the lab every day.”
Earlier this month, a Michigan congressman reported that top lab
managers sent classified information involving nuclear material by
unsecured e-mail. Federal officials are expected to meet with Rep.
John Dingell, D-Mich., on the matter.
Meanwhile, a North Dakota senator is scheduled to release a document
of great importance to New Mexico today, outlining how much federal
money the Senate wants to give the lab in the 2008 fiscal year.
The House Appropriations Committee has already suggested as much as
$400 million in cuts to Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories
compared to the 2007 fiscal year, the office of U.S. Rep. Tom Udall,
D-N.M., reports. The overall budget at Los Alamos is about $2.1
billion.
But the Senate usually puts more money into the bill, which pays for
the U.S. Department of Energy and other projects, before haggling
with the House over the final amount.
“My prediction, without giving specifics, is we’re going
to get some real relief in this bill,” U.S. Sen. Pete
Domenici, R-N.M., said in a Monday news conference.
U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., chairs the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and has visited New
Mexico with Domenici. Bingaman has also met with Dorgan.
Dorgan’s subcommittee is scheduled to vote on the bill today,
Domenici told radio reporters Monday. “I don’t believe
we can possibly cut Los Alamos in the method, manner suggested by
the U.S. House,” Domenici said. Those cuts would ruin the lab,
he said.
The House version of the appropriations bill zeroed out money for
the Reliable Replacement Warhead program; eliminated a $95.5 million
request to upgrade a nuclear chemistry building and cut about half
the lab’s plutonium pit manufacturing budget request for the
2008 fiscal year. Pits are the triggers for nuclear warheads. Los
Alamos is the only place in the country where new pits are built,
lab officials have said.
Overall, the House has proposed spending $5.9 billion on weapons
activities nationwide, which is $396 million below 2007 and $632
million below the president’s 2008 budget request.
Thirty-seven weapons programs would be cut nationwide. More money
would be spent on renewable energy programs and nuclear
nonproliferation.
“New activities within the nuclear weapons program are not
supported pending the establishment of a clear policy and plan for
our strategic deterrent, while all efforts required to maintain the
current stockpile of nuclear weapons as safe and reliable are
continued,” U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky, D-Ind., said in a
statement. Visclosky chairs the House subcommittee that authored the
appropriations bill.
Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group said he believes lab
managers could avoid layoffs through retirements and other reforms
if the budget was cut. “The economic impact of staff leaving,
provided they can retire with benefits, will not be
significant,” he said.
Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.
Copyright 2007 The New Mexican, Inc.
*****************************************************************
38 Santa Fe New Mexican: Senate proposal would increase funding for LANL
Tue Jun 26, 2007 10:59 pm
By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican
A key Senate subcommittee has moved to maintain funding to nuclear
weapons programs — including funds for Los Alamos National
Laboratory— that a U.S. House of Representatives committee has
sought to cut.
The Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development has
suggested spending $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons programs
nationwide in the 2008 fiscal year, U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici’s
office reports. That’s about the same as President
Bush’s budget request for fiscal year 2008.
In comparison, the House Appropriations Committee has suggested
spending $5.9 billion on weapons programs in the 2008 fiscal year.
That money would cover programs at Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratories.
The Senate numbers represent an increase of $213 million above the
2007 fiscal year, according to Domenici’s office.
The House numbers would represent a $396 million cut to weapons
programs compared to the 2007 fiscal year.
Both sides must come to an agreement later this year before sending
the bill to the president. Specific numbers for Los Alamos National
Lab’s budget — about $2.1 billion today — were not
immediately available.
The Senate subcommittee fully funded a $95.5 million request for a
new nuclear chemistry building called the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Facility, located at Los Alamos. The Senate also suggested spending
$66 million on the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, which the
House zeroed out for perceived lack of policy for the weapon.
Copyright 2007 The New Mexican, Inc.
*****************************************************************
39 Tri-City Herald: DOE seeks bidders for $6.3 billion contract
Published Tuesday, June 26th, 2007
ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER
The Department of Energy released its request for bids Monday for an
estimated $6.3 billion of cleanup work in central Hanford over a
decade.
The request for proposals due Sept. 21 requires that contractors
give at least 17 percent of the work to small businesses. The new
contractor could start work about Oct. 1, 2008, for a five-year
period with a possible extension for five more years.
The new contract would allow current workers who transfer to the new
Plateau Remediation Contract to continue receiving the traditional
Hanford pension and medical benefits. The requirement also would
apply to workers who transfer to certain subcontractors.
However, new employees would not be eligible for the traditional
Hanford pension or medical coverage plan. They likely would receive
a 401(k)-style retirement plan that would require them to manage
contributions they and the contractor make. They also would receive
a "market-based" health insurance policy that could offer benefits
valued at no more than 5 percent more than comparable companies.
Current workers would be given preference in hiring during the first
six months of the contract.
The new contract would cover much of the work now done by Fluor
Hanford, other than site management work such as computer services,
security and maintenance of roads and utilities.
DOE plans to award three contracts to replace contracts held by
Fluor Hanford and CH2M Hill Hanford Group that will expire at the
end of September 2008. Fluor Hanford's work was divided into site
management jobs, with that request for bids issued in May, and its
central Hanford cleanup work.
The third contract will cover work now done by CH2M Hill to manage
Hanford's tank farms with 177 underground tanks holding 53 million
gallons of radioactive and hazardous chemical waste. The request for
bids has not been issued.
The new contract for central Hanford cleanup would make some changes
to the cleanup work assigned to Fluor under the current contract.
Now Fluor retrieves temporarily buried transuranic waste --
typically debris that is contaminated with plutonium. It also tests
the waste to determine if it is low level radioactive or transuranic
waste and certifies the transuranic waste for shipment to a national
repository, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico.
Under the new contract, the characterization and certification of
the waste would be done by a contractor for the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant and only the retrieval of the waste would be done by the
new Hanford contractor.
The long-term shutdown of Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility also has
been removed from the work assigned to the new contractor. That work
would have included removal of certain equipment and asbestos. Now
the new contract would cover only long-term surveillance and
maintenance.
Although the contract does not say why less work would be done at
FFTF, it is being proposed for a possible role in the Global Nuclear
Energy Partnership, a program to recycle used fuel from commercial
nuclear power plants.
DOE also is reserving the possibility of having the new central
Hanford cleanup contractor do work assigned to Washington Closure
Hanford that may not be completed under its current seven-year
contract.
That includes cleanup of the 618-10 and 618-11 burial grounds, which
hold Cold War research waste from the 300 Area just north of
Richland. DOE has an option in its contract with Washington Closure
for cleanup of those burial grounds but has not exercised it.
The new central Hanford cleanup contractor also could operate the
Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, a low-level radioactive
waste landfill, after Washington Closure completes cleanup of
Hanford along the river and its contract expires.
The new contractor also will do more work than earlier planned at
Hanford's K East and K West reactors as difficulties getting sludge
out of their basins has delayed cleanup work needed to be completed
before Washington Closure takes over work in the reactor area.
Although Washington Closure's contract calls for cocooning all nine
of the production reactors along the Columbia River unless B Reactor
is saved as a museum, its contract is expected to end before the K
Reactors could be cocooned. In cocooning, reactors are torn down to
little more than their radioactive cores, sealed up and reroofed to
allow radioactivity to decay over 75 years.
The new central Hanford cleanup contractor could be responsible for
removing water from the K East Basin, demolishing both basins,
cocooning both reactors and cleaning up the remainder of the area
around the K reactors.
"We're disappointed Washington Closure will not be doing the work,
but we understand DOE's need to sequence the work in a manner that
makes sense given the change in schedule," said Todd Nelson,
spokesman for Washington Closure.
Other work covered by the new contract would include cleanup of the
Plutonium Finishing Plant and cleanup and protection of ground water.
Teams of companies competing for the new contract will be required
to propose they be paid a fee for the work of between 5 percent and
10 percent.
The winning team will be picked based on its technical and
management proposal, with cost being considered but carrying less
weight.
Factors carrying the most weight will be the technical and
management approach, followed by organizational structure and key
personnel. Next environment, safety, health and quality will be
considered as one category, carrying equal weight with project
management. Past performance and experience will carry less weight
in picking a new contractor.
A community commitment clause also has been added to the request for
bids after the Tri-City Development Council raised the issue. The
new contractor will be required to discuss issues and concerns with
the public and interested groups and recognize that giving back to
the Tri-City area is a worthwhile business practice.
© 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
40 Tri-City Herald: Cost to clean up transuranic waste could be greater
Published Tuesday, June 26th, 2007
ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER
The cost of cleaning up buried radioactive waste at Hanford and
other sites could be far greater than the Department of Energy's
preliminary estimates, according to a Government Accountability
Office report to Congress.
The report also questions whether a national repository in New
Mexico will be large enough to hold all the waste from the cleanup.
The GAO compiled the report in response to questions from the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development about
DOE's policy for waste sites where transuranic waste is buried.
Transuranic waste typically is debris that is contaminated with
plutonium or other man-made radionuclides that may remain
radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.
Before 1970, transuranic waste was buried in unlined trenches. But
that year Congress said that all transuranic waste must be sent to a
national repository and some waste was temporarily buried until the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico was named the national
repository.
DOE's preliminary estimates put the cost of dealing with the waste
once thought temporarily buried at $1.6 billion.
But that estimate is based on plans at the Oak Ridge, Tenn., and
Savannah River, S.C., nuclear sites where waste is not being dug up.
Instead, a cap of earth, clay and synthetic liners is being placed
over the burial grounds to keep out water that could spread
contaminants deeper in the ground.
But at Hanford, which has an estimated 52 percent of the nation's
buried transuranic waste, some or much of the waste might be dug up
at a far greater cost.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington state
Department of Ecology have said that leaving transuranic waste in
place under barriers may not provide adequate long-term protection
for the environment and human health, according to the GAO. The
Hanford Advisory Board has similar concerns.
Although the GAO did not give a cost estimate for the Hanford waste,
it did estimate that the cost of digging up all of the waste at
Idaho could increase DOE's preliminary estimate there from $1
billion to about $8.2 billion. Idaho has about 29 percent of the
nation's buried transuranic waste and some of it already is being
dug up because of the danger it poses to the Snake River aquifer, a
drinking water source.
The GAO also is questioning whether the New Mexico repository is
large enough to hold the buried transuranic waste if significant
quantities are dug up at Hanford and Idaho. DOE has replied that it
believes its five-year forecasting process shows the repository will
be adequate.
But GAO finds that the repository's obligations for transuranic
waste temporarily buried after 1970, waste that may be generated
during cleanup and obligations to Idaho could leave just 25,600
cubic meters available for disposal of other transuranic waste.
However, if pre-1970 waste is exhumed, up to 85,000 additional cubic
meters might need to be sent to a national repository, according to
the GAO.
At Hanford, decisions about what to do with the early waste are not
expected to be made until 2013.
© 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
41 Aiken Today: Group investigating SREL cuts delays meeting
AikenStandard.com
Tue, Jun 26, 2007
By JOSH VOORHEES Staff writer
Questions surrounding the catalyst behind the impending closure of
the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory will remain unanswered for at
least a little longer.
A congressional committee investigating drastic budget cuts aimed at
the 56-year-old research facility has pushed back a hearing on the
matter that had been tentatively scheduled for today.
The U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology made the decision
late last week to postpone the hearing in order to give staff more
time to process the vast amount of records and information they have
received related to the matter.
While no new date has been set for the hearing, it is expected to be
held some time in July.
Chairmen of two science subcommittees first began their probe into
the lab's reduced budget back in May. At that time, the committee
requested a number of Department of Energy records dealing with the
lab and its funding.
Since the investigation began, the scope of the probe has widened to
include records from both University of Georgia and SREL leadership.
Late last year UGA and DOE officials signed a cooperative agreement
that greatly reduced department funding for the lab for this fiscal
year, and completely eliminated funding for future years.
Lab proponents have argued that decision was akin to closing the
doors on the facility.
Committee members are seeking an explanation to the decision process
that led to the termination of funding for the
internationally-acclaimed research lab.
Department officials have steadfastly maintained that it was
understood by both the university and the lab that SREL was to
become self-sustaining by seeking a variety of other grant-based
funding.
Laboratory officials have denied they made such a promise, and have
said that they were operating under the understanding that they
would receive more than twice the $1.8 million provided by the
department for this year.
Funding for the infrastructure of the lab ran out at the end of May,
at which time the University of Georgia stepped in to provide
minimum funding for the lab in hopes of keeping it afloat until the
committee had a chance to complete its investigation.
The ecological laboratory is a research unit of the University of
Georgia and is located on the Savannah River Site.
Throughout its history, it has received the bulk of its core funding
from the Department of Energy.
The lab has been responsible for monitoring the impact of the
nuclear complex on the environment.
Contact Josh Voorhees at jvoorhees@aikenstandard.com.
© 2005 The AikenStandard. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
42 Albuquerque Tribune: Senate committee restores lab funding
Jennifer Talhelm/Associated Press
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
WASHINGTON ? A week after the U.S. House agreed to deep budget cuts
for Los Alamos National Laboratory, the lab got some good news. The
Senate version of the same spending bill cut some nuclear weapons
funding, but essentially left the lab's budget alone.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said supporters of the northern New
Mexico lab can breathe easier, but the bill still has to be approved
by the full committee Thursday. Then the full Senate will take it up.
The next serious fight is expected when the House and Senate meet in
a conference committee later this year to hammer out a final bill.
"If you add it all up, we couldn't have come out better, but let's
be realistic," said Domenici, the senior Republican on the Senate
Appropriations subcommittee for energy and water programs.
The House cut $300 million of Los Alamos' current $2.2 billion
budget as well as about $100 million from Albuquerque's Sandia
National Laboratories.
House lawmakers made it clear they were exasperated with years of
security lapses, cost overruns and safety violations, especially at
Los Alamos. They questioned whether Los Alamos lab, the birthplace
of the atomic bomb, was too irresponsible to get so much federal
funding.
The most recent security concerns were reported in the last few
weeks. The Energy Department has acknowledged e-mails containing
highly classified information were sent by lab officials over an
open network.
Domenici praised senators for not trying to "get back at the
laboratories," and not "playing games" with the National Nuclear
Security Administration, which oversees the nation's nuclear weapons
stockpile.
The Senate version preserves money for the labs' core
responsibilities, including monitoring the nuclear weapons
stockpile, Domenici said. The bill also increases the budget for
cleanup of lab property by $83 million to $222 million, which would
allow Los Alamos to meet milestones set in an agreement with the
state of New Mexico.
It provides $45 million to consolidate 140 classified vaults into
fewer than 10, a lab-initiated project Domenici said would help it
better control security. The measure would provide an additiional
$12 million to complete a program to reduce the potential for
staffers to take classified material from the lab.
The House bill took aim at a program to develop new nuclear
warheads, which Los Alamos would have participated in with other
labs.
The Senate version also halts funding for all but a feasibility
study of the warhead program.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., who chairs the subcommittee, said the
bill reflects the need to pause and decide what the future of the
nation's weapons program should be before continuing to fund a new
warhead.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., called the bill a "good starting point"
as it moves to the full committee and then the Senate, where some
changes are expected.
"Most important is the fact that it maintains our existing stockpile
stewardship program, which supports some of the most important work
done at our two labs," Bingaman said.
© 2007 The Albuquerque Tribune
*****************************************************************
43 NAS: Project: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology
Roadmap for DOE's Office of Environmental Management
PIN: NRSB-O-06-03-A
Major Unit:
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Sub Unit: Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board
RSO: Crowley, Kevin
Subject/Focus Area: Environmental Issue
Project Scope
A National Academies committee will provide technical and strategic
advice to the DOE-EM's Office of Engineering and Technology to
support the development and implementation of its cleanup technology
roadmap. Specifically, the study will identify:
o Principal science and technology gaps and their priorities for the
cleanup program based on previous National Academies reports,
updated and extended to reflect current site conditions and EM
priorities and input form key external groups, such as the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,
Environmental Protection Agency, and state regulatory agencies.
o Strategic opportunities to leverage research and development from
other DOE programs (e.g., in the Office of Science, Office of
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and the National Nuclear
Security Administration), other federal agencies (e.g., Department
of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency), universities, and the
private sector.
o Core capabilities at the national laboratories that will be needed
to address EM's long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges, especially
at the four laboratories located at the large DOE sites (Idaho
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory, and Savannah River National
Laboratory).
o The infrastructure at these national laboratories and at EM sites
that should be maintained to support research, development, and
bench and pilot scale demonstrations of technologies for the EM
cleanup program, especially in radiochemistry.
The committee will provide findings and recommendations, as
appropriate, to EM on maintenance of core capabilities and
infrastructure at national laboratories and EM sites to address its
long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges.
The project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy.
The approximate start date for the project is February 1, 2007.
A report is expected to be released at the end of the project in
approximately 16 months.
Project Duration: 16 months
Provide FEEDBACK on this project.
Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to
schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the
public.
Committee Membership
Meetings
Meeting 1 - 03/12/2007
Meeting 2 - 06/13/2007
Reports
Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records
Office
Email: info@nas.edu
*****************************************************************
44 KOB.com: Senate bill protects funding for labs; future uncertain
Posted at: 06/26/2007 04:12:58 PM
By: The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - A week after the U.S. House agreed to deep budget
cuts for Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Senate Tuesday
essentially left the lab's budget alone.
New Mexico Republican U.S. Senator Pete Domenici says the bill will
go before the full committee Thursday, then the full Senate will
consider it.
The next serious fight is expected when the House and Senate meet in
a conference committee later this year to hammer out a final bill.
The House cut $300 million from Los Alamos' current $2.2 billion
budget. It also deleted about $100 million from Albuquerque's
Sandia National Laboratories.
The Senate version preserves money for both labs' core
responsibilities and increases Los Alamos' cleanup budget.
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
*****************************************************************
45 KnoxNews: ORNL, UT get $125M bio-fuels center
By ANDREW EDER, edera@knews.com
June 26, 2007
A team headed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University
of Tennessee has been selected by the Department of Energy to
develop one of three U.S. bio-energy research centers.
A press conference is scheduled for this afternoon at ORNL, with
Gov. Phil Bredesen expected to be in attendance.
The purpose of the research centers is to accelerate the development
of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, according to a release
from U.S. Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker and U.S. Rep. Zach
Wamp, all Tennessee Republicans.
The local bio-energy center will be located in Oak Ridge and led by
Martin Keller, a microbiologist recently recruited to ORNL,
according to the release.
Most domestic ethanol today is made from corn, but cellulosic
ethanol is made from other plant material. UT and ORNL have
conducted research on converting energy crops like switchgrass and
hybrid poplar trees to ethanol, which can be blended with gasoline
to help reduce petroleum consumption.
Each of the new bio-energy centers will receive $125 million in
capital funding. The other centers are reportedly to be located in
Madison, Wis., and near Berkeley, Calif.
In addition to ORNL and UT, the Tennessee team will include Georgia
Institute of Technology, the University of Georgia, Dartmouth
University, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado,
the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation in Oklahoma, and three private
companies ? ArborGen, Diversa and Mascoma.
More details as they develop online and in Wednesday?s News Sentinel.
Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318.
Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************