***************************************************************** 06/28/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.151 ***************************************************************** 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 UPI: Timeline set for N. Korea nuclear closure 2 US: Common Ground: Tilting At Windmills 3 US: TheHill.com: Pelosi rolls out energy package 4 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: Progress Needed on Nuclear Issue 5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Holds Successful Missile Test 6 Guardian Unlimited: Kremlin lays claim to huge chunk of oil-rich Nor 7 BBC NEWS: Russians test ballistic missile 8 Platts: Norway, UK set up project to decommission British nuclear we NUCLEAR REACTORS 9 Iaea To Help China And Qatar On Nuclear Security 10 US: [Radbull] California state Nuclear Workshops reveals strategic f 11 The Hindu: Indo-US nuclear deal will be done soon - Manmohan 12 Guardian Unlimited: Tension Creeping Into US-India Relations 13 Sydney Morning Herald: MP ducks queries on Qld nuclear reactor - 14 US: FREE LANCE & STAR: Lake Anna poses no problems to visitors 15 US: Houston Chronicle: 2 sites proposed for new Texas nuclear plant 16 US: Brick Township Bulletin: Board sides with citizens groups on Oys 17 US: Houston Chronicle: Exelon Picks 2 Nuclear Power Plant Sites | 18 BBC NEWS: Blaze hits German nuclear plant 19 US: toledoblade.com: NRC 'disappointed' in Davis-Besse insurance cla 20 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Opponents of Indian Point fire questions at NRC 21 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Lawmakers offer to drop nuclear tax 22 US: WNN: Clay Sell sells nuclear to Carnegie Endowment 23 US: Beatrice Daily Sun: NRC raises oversight level at Fort Calhoun n 24 US: NRC: NRC Conducting Special Inspectionat San Onofre Nuclear Stat 25 Reuters: Lithuania adopts law on new nuclear power plant 26 US: Reuters: Exelon Ill. Braidwood 1 reactor shut during storm | 27 US: NRC: NRC to Increase Oversight of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant 28 US: MHNN: NRC begins Indian Point relicensing procedure 29 US: Hemscott: Groups appeal vs. Mich. nuclear plant 30 US: Hemscott: NRC updating plant safety requirements 31 US: CBS News: Hill's Energy Battle Has Barely Begun 32 US: NRC: NRC Consolidates Security Upgrades for Operating Reactors 33 The Prague Post: Pranksters support nuclear plant 34 US: NRC: Remarks Prepared for Chairman Dale E. Klein, US NRC 35 US: NRC: Speech: Edward McGaffigan, Jr. US Nuclear Regulatory Commis 36 US: NRC: Keeping the “Safe” in New Digital Safety System Designs, Pe 37 US: NRC: A Look Ahead for NRC and the Industry" Chairman Dale E. Kle 38 US: ScienceDaily: New Calculation Code Opens New Possibilities In Nu 39 Herald Sun: Going nuclear not the answer NUCLEAR SECURITY 40 Daily Times: Khan network no longer exists 41 US: Daily Times: Nuke smuggling lucrative, difficult to stop - US ex NUCLEAR SAFETY 42 US: Subject: FW Cover up 43 US: pressofatlanticcity: Safety tops concerns at N-plant meeting 44 US: Las Vegas SUN: Experts: Divine Strake 'mushroom cloud' could hav 45 reportonbusiness.com: Labrador goes radioactive NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 46 UK: eGov monitor: Cost of radioactive waste disposal highlights flaw 47 eGov monitor: 'People first' approach to nuclear waste disposal welc 48 Pahrump Valley Times: Nuke director sees Yucca Mtn. as safe 49 US: The Hindu: Sci Tech : Lethal legacy of tank-busting uranium dust 50 US: FP: Groups file appeal over safety of radioactive waste storage 51 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Toxin-free water demanded at lively f 52 Washington Business Journal: USEC chooses Va. firm for manufacturing 53 US: WNN: Energy Solutions buys Nukem subsidiary 54 US: Hemscott: Landfill fined over radioactivity rules PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 55 DOE: U.S. Expands Energy Cooperation with Sweden 56 DOE: U.S. and Russia Cooperation Continues on Nuclear Security 57 Albuquerque Tribune: Editorial: Weapons labs need to embrace change 58 Albuquerque Tribune: Nuclear weapons, labs hurt New Mexico's economi 59 lamonitor.com: Los Alamos company picked for cleanup project 60 Oak Ridger: Boeing leaving OR - 61 Oak Ridger: ORNL supercomputer rises to No. 2 worldwide - ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 UPI: Timeline set for N. Korea nuclear closure United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: June 28, 2007 at 7:44 AM PYONGYANG, North Korea, June 28 (UPI) -- U.N. nuclear inspectors arrived at North Korea's atomic plant in Yongbyon Thursday and announced a July date to begin monitoring its closure. International Atomic Energy Agency deputy Director General Olli Heinonen and three other inspectors traveled to the plant from Pyongyang to tour the 5-megawatt graphite-moderated reactor, a plutonium-producing radiochemical laboratory and a nuclear fuel rod fabrication plant, the Yonhap news agency reported. Meanwhile, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told Voice of America a special board meeting would be convened July 9 to establish procedures for verifying the shut-down Pyongyang agreed to in February in exchange for international fuel supplies. Thursday's tour was the first by the IAEA since North Korea expelled inspectors from the country in December 2002. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 Common Ground: Tilting At Windmills July 2007 | Green Scene One of the world's cleanest energy sources confronts a nuclear enemy By Paul Constant As anyone who has ever road-tripped past a windfarm well knows, those acres of turbines spinning in the free breeze are a sure sign that the winds of change are a-brewing. For Pascal Storck, president of 3 Tier Group, a Seattle-based alternative energy efficiency company, wind-powered electricity is the future. At the recent American Wind Energy Association conference in LA, “the AWEA put forth the ambitious goal of wind producing 20 percent of America’s power by 2020,” says Storck. “It’s an entirely feasible goal, and it would be tremendous for America.” Wind power & a sustainable solution to many of our power woes & is the world's fastest-growing energy source. This bodes poorly for nuclear power, which sees wind as its main industry competitor. Nuclear lobbyists would have you believe that wind farms can only be used to solve regional energy problems — and it’s true that wind power used to be constrained by geography. While the wind does not blow equally powerfully in every state in the union, even Washington, which falls in the middle as the 24th windiest state, has nearly one thousand wind farms in operation. As Storck points out, the main regional constraint is not a lack of wind — but rather a lack of public support for wind energy. “Germany leads the world in both solar and wind power, and Germany’s not a particularly sunny or windy place,” says Storck, adding there’s probably more wind-power in your region than you’d expect. Another sticky challenge to the future of wind farming is the accusation that turbines kill birds and bats. While this worry has stymied many a wind farm plan from winning public support, experts agree the problem is more public perception than animal reality. The National Audubon Society recently put its full support behind wind power, stressing that while work on offshore and other solutions is absolutely critical to reduce aviary death, dirty energy sources and global warming are responsible for exponentially more deaths — of fish, fowl, and every other living thing — than any amount of turbines could ever cause. And scientists are working on creating ultrasound devices that would keep bats at a safe distance from a turbine’s whirling blades. California, a notable early world leader in wind energy thanks to the massive wind farms at Altamont Pass and elsewhere, still leads the nation in wind harvesting, but the rural plains states are catching up quickly. Offshore sites are also becoming popular for wind harvesting. They can be at sea or in more landlocked areas — both the United States and Canada are building wind farms in the Great Lakes. To find out how the wind is blowing in your neck of the woods, enter your address at firstlook.3tiergroup.com for a wind power assessment in your region. “It’s exciting to see how much energy you can produce,” says Storck. “And the results are usually surprising.” © COMMON GROUND | 604 Mission Street, 10th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94105 | Phone: 415.459.4900 | Fax: 415.459.4974 contact | top of page | home | privacy policy | site map ***************************************************************** 3 TheHill.com: Pelosi rolls out energy package By Mike Soraghan June 29, 2007 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) rolled out her “energy independence” package yesterday with a show of unity that masked the deep divisions on the issue. “We Democrats are declaring independence from foreign oil,” said Pelosi, flanked by a host of committee chairmen and leaders. The bill is expected to hit the floor in July, after appropriations measures are finished. The bill would set new efficiency standards for appliances, but not vehicles; increase funding for renewable fuels; and eliminate the often-criticized royalty-in-kind program, among other measures. Republicans have derided the bill as an energy bill with no new energy. “Should they insist on energy legislation that contains no new American energy, we will ask the president to veto it and we will commit to upholding his veto until it does,” House Republican leaders said in a joint statement. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) sparred with Pelosi behind the scenes on what air pollution and auto mileage language to include. At yesterday’s news event, Dingell congratulated Pelosi, but noted that issues such as mileage standards, coal and nuclear resources are likely to surface in the fall when the House works on climate-change legislation. The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax The contents of this site are © 2007 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Rice: Progress Needed on Nuclear Issue From the Associated Press Thursday June 28, 2007 4:31 PM By MATTHEW LEE Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday she hoped for a swift shutdown of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs now that U.N. inspectors are in the country. ``We hope for now rapid progress given the beginning, we believe, of the North Korean efforts to meet their initial action obligations,'' Rice said before meeting South Korean Foreign Minister Song Min-Soon at the State Department. Song was in Washington as a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency is visiting North Korea. He said his country as well saw hope for quick movement(banking) issue is behind us,'' he said, sitting next to Rice at the State Department. ``We will move ahead in shutting down the North Korean nuclear program and disabling facilities and make a new regional security and peace mechanism.'' Song declined to answer questions about the meeting as he left the State Department, telling reporters only that it was a productive session. Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that Song briefed Rice about South Korean preparations to ship heavy fuel oil to the North - part of the February nuclear agreement settled by the Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia. The next step in the disarmament accord, where the North must declare all its nuclear programs, will be where negotiators start to ``blaze some new trails,'' McCormack said. He predicted tough negotiations ahead. The banking dispute was settled this week after months of delay, and North Korea announced Monday that it would move forward with the disarmament deal. U.S. officials have said they expect the six-party talks to resume next month. The visit by U.N. inspectors is the first International Atomic Energy Agency trip to the Yongbyon nuclear facility since its monitors were expelled from the country in late 2002. North Korea boosted the urgency in the international standoff over its nuclear program in October when it conducted its first atomic test explosion. The U.N. Security Council passed a resolution saying that Pyongyang must, among other things, abide by a missile-test moratorium. Despite that, North Korea conducted short-range missiles tests this week, too, prompting sharp condemnation from the Bush White House and other countries. ``We expect North Korea to refrain from conducting further provocative ballistic missile launches, activity that is destabilizing to the security of northeast Asia,'' Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, said on Wednesday. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Holds Successful Missile Test From the Associated Press Thursday June 28, 2007 5:46 PM MOSCOW (AP) - Russia successfully tested a new sea-based ballistic missile Thursday after several previous failures, a naval spokesman said. Capt. Igor Dygalo told The Associated Press that the Bulava missile hit its target on the Pacific peninsula of Kamchatka after being launched from the submarine Dmitry Donskoi in the White Sea. According to published Russian news reports, the Bulava is designed to have a range of 6,200 miles and carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads. It is expected to be placed on three new Borei-class nuclear submarines that are under construction. President Vladimir Putin has hailed Bulava as a key component of the nation's future nuclear forces and boasted of its ability to penetrate any prospective missile defenses. However, three tests of the Bulava ended in failure in recent years. The missile is being developed by the Moscow-based Thermal Technology Institute, which designed the new ground-based Topol-M missile and had no previous experience in building submarine-based missiles. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Kremlin lays claim to huge chunk of oil-rich North Pole Map: The Lomonosov ridge Luke Harding in Moscow Thursday June 28, 2007 Under international law, no country owns the North Pole. Photograph: Daisy Gilardini/Getty It is already the world's biggest country, spanning 11 time zones and stretching from Europe to the far east. But yesterday Russia signalled its intention to get even bigger by announcing an audacious plan to annex a vast 460,000 square mile chunk of the frozen and ice-encrusted Arctic. According to Russian scientists, there is new evidence backing Russia's claim that its northern Arctic region is directly linked to the North Pole via an underwater shelf. Under international law, no country owns the North Pole. Instead, the five surrounding Arctic states, Russia, the US, Canada, Norway and Denmark (via Greenland), are limited to a 200-mile economic zone around their coasts. On Monday, however, a group of Russian geologists returned from a six-week voyage on a nuclear icebreaker. They had travelled to the Lomonosov ridge, an underwater shelf in Russia's remote and inhospitable eastern Arctic Ocean. According to Russia's media, the geologists returned with the "sensational news" that the Lomonosov ridge was linked to Russian Federation territory, boosting Russia's claim over the oil-and-gas rich triangle. The territory contained 10bn tonnes of gas and oil deposits, the scientists said. Russia's Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper celebrated the discovery by printing a large map of the North Pole. It showed the new "addition" to Russia - the size of France, Germany and Italy combined - under a white, blue and red Russian flag. Yesterday, however, some scientists doubted whether Russia's latest Arctic grab stood up to scrutiny. To extend a zone, a state has to prove that the structure of the continental shelf is similar to the geological structure within its territory. Under the current UN convention on the laws of the sea, no country's shelf extends to the North Pole. Instead, the International Seabed Authority administers the area around the pole as an international area. "Frankly I think it's a little bit strange," Sergey Priamikov, the international co-operation director of Russia's Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute in St Petersburg, told the Guardian. "Canada could make exactly the same claim. The Canadians could say that the Lomonosov ridge is part of the Canadian shelf, which means Russia should in fact belong to Canada, together with the whole of Eurasia." Mr Priamikov said the area was one of breathtaking natural beauty. It was much drier, colder and quieter than the western Arctic, he added. "I've been there many times. It's an oasis for marine life," he said. Asked whether it would be feasible to drill for oil, he said: "Yes". The shelf was 200 metres deep and oil and gas would be easy to extract, especially with ice melting because of global warming, he said. Russia has the world's largest gas reserves. It is the second largest exporter of oil after Saudi Arabia. The Kremlin is keen to secure Russia's long-term hegemony over global energy markets, and to find new sources of fuel. Russia first made a submission in 2001 to the UN commission on the limits of the continental shelf, seeking to push Russia's maritime borders beyond the existing 200-mile zone. It was rejected. But the latest scientific findings are likely to prompt Russia to lodge another confident bid - and will alarm the US, which is mired in a 13-year debate over ratification of a UN treaty governing international maritime rights. The Law of the Sea Treaty is the world's primary means of settling disputes over exploitation rights and navigational routes in international waters. Russia and 152 other countries have ratified it. But the US has refused, arguing it gives too much power to the UN. If the US does not ratify it, Russia's bid for the Arctic's energy wealth will go unchallenged, proponents believe. Useful links Itar-Tass news agency Moscow Times Russia Today St Petersburg Times Caucasian Knot Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 7 BBC NEWS: Russians test ballistic missile Last Updated: Thursday, 28 June 2007, 19:12 GMT 20:12 UK Russia has successfully tested a new, sea-based ballistic missile from a nuclear submarine, officials have said. The weapon, capable of breaching anti-missile defence systems, flew almost the whole length of the country. US plans to build a missile defence shield in Europe have angered Russia, which sees the proposal as a challenge to its influence in the region. 'Key component' The Bulava missile was launched from the White Sea off Russia's north-west coast. The intercontinental missile hit its target on the Pacific Ocean peninsula of Kamchatka. Three earlier tests of the weapon in recent years had failed. The Bulava is designed to have a range of 10,000km (6,200 miles) and carry six individually targeted nuclear warheads. Russian President Vladimir Putin has described the missile as a key component of Moscow's future nuclear forces, saying it can penetrate any prospective missile defence system. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 8 Platts: Norway, UK set up project to decommission British nuclear weapons 2007-06-28 London (Platts)--28Jun2007 A joint project for developing parameters for decommissioning of British nuclear weapons has been established by the Norwegian and British foreign ministries, the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, or NRPA, said in a statement June 27. NRPA will head the project on the Norwegian side. The project is intended to set technical standards for verifying decommissioning that will not make public information on the UK's nuclear weapons technology. The project is also intended to ensure that nuclear material in the weapons cannot be used again. 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 Iaea To Help China And Qatar On Nuclear Security Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:00:04 -0400 * -1.0 FROM_ORG From Address .ORG * 2.1 SUBJ_ALL_CAPS Subject is all capitals * -3.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.2 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list IAEA TO HELP CHINA AND QATAR ON NUCLEAR SECURITY New York, Jun 28 2007 8:00AM The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has made plans with China and Qatar to help the two countries in developing their nuclear security regimes. The 'practical arrangements' signed with China and Qatar cover activities which are part of a broader plan to help countries in improving their nuclear security regimes. The plan aims to achieve improved worldwide security of nuclear and other radioactive material. According to the terms of the arrangements, announced in a news release, the IAEA will advise the two countries on physical protection measures for nuclear facilities and will help to provide equipment for the prevention and detection of criminal acts involving nuclear and other radioactive material. The arrangements also include the possibility for the IAEA to provide nuclear security consultation, advisory missions, training and assistance in response to nuclear or radiological security incidents if requested. In addition, the Agency will help the China Atomic Energy Authority to work together to enhance nuclear security arrangements for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. In 2004 the Agency assisted Greece with a nuclear security plan for the Athens Olympic Games. More recently, the IAEA signed an arrangement with Brazil relating to the security of the 15th Pan-American Games taking place in Rio de Janeiro next month. 2007-06-28 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 10 [Radbull] California state Nuclear Workshops reveals strategic flaws in nuclear power industry push Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:57:58 -0500 (CDT) CEC Nuclear Workshops reveals strategic flaws in Nuclear Power Industry plans June 28th 2007 The California Energy Commission (CEC) has just completed a two day workshop on the potential future of nuclear power in Californa. The CEC Nuclear Power workshop was part of the Integrated Energy Policy Report Committee (IEPR) ongoing energy review for the state. The hearings are in addition to the CEC's report: Nuclear Power in California: Status Report 2007 The workshops which were webcast by the CEC included extensive power point Presentations . For anyone wanting to review an extensive array of arguments both for and against nuclear power in California and the U.S. here's one of the most authoritative resources you will find! One of the most enlightening presentations was made by Joe Turnage of Constellation Energy, the parent of Unistar Nuclear. Constellation Energy is currently talking with the Fresno Chamber of Commerce and a Fresno a business group with plans to construct a nuclear power facility in California. Constellation is a $15 billion business operation that has recently partnered with the French company Areva as well as Bechtel. The partnership with Areva was initiated after passage of the republican led 2005 Energy Act. That act gave the U.S. industry the financial resources and incentive to launch a nationwide campaign to finance and build a new generation of nuclear reactors. In Mr. Turnage's presentation before the CEC, he laid out the six primary issues that were needed for the nuclear industry to proceed: 1. New Rulemakings that would streamline the costs and time it takes to license new reactors; 2. Federal and State financing beyond the blanket loan guarantees that the 2005 Energy gave utilities; 3. Continued promotion of nuclear power with the public. Current numbers show opinion is nearly split nationwide; Claims were made that nuclear support was strongest in communities where reactors currently reside and make up huge tax benefits; 4. New labor training and education programs would need to be put in place in creating the qualified work force to design and construct the new reactors; 5. Infrastructure problems include a lack of the necessary manufacturing base in the U.S. to produce some of the critical parts that would be required in the new "standardized" reactor designs; 6. Fuel Cycle solutions, primarily the Yucca Mt. repository in Nevada, but certainly not limited to Yucca alone. It was acknowledged that the recent CFR report in April as well as a study published in the Congressional Quarterly in mid June indicated that the new push for nuclear has serious problems. This new "nuclear pushers" will eventually have to admit that nuclear isn't "The Solution" for global warming being trumpeted by the industry. It is very clear that the public must become far better informed than it currently is so that it understands that much of the global warming problem isn't an electricity problem, but is also related to industrial and transportation issues that also have sweeping implications for the way the U.S. and the rest of the world is conducting itself. If the Bush led nuclear push is successful, it would be just barely keep the industry from becoming even less of the current energy mix than it currently is. The serious concerns over a new nuclear cold war, which is directly linked to such political actions against Iran and other perceived enemies like Russia has made the world highly distrustful of U.S. foreign policy and particular the Bush Administration. Proliferation issues in the proposed new generation of reactors have already made the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership a less than positive option, with congress cutting funding Bush wanted by nearly 80% for next year. The Bush administration has been sending DOE secretary Bodman around the world to promote the GNEP, offering financial incentives as well as technology partnerships with all of the major nuclear construction firms in the world. In a dramatic claim, industry proponents made the claim that dry cask storage options being implemented at reactors sites in California have become the de facto solution for high level waste, and thus open the current 1976 moratorium on more construction of reactors. The Fresno group, after failing to garner support in April to get a bill passed by the state to overturn the 1976 moratorium is clearly looking at both legal and possibly a statewide initiative drive to reverse the current block. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. made a similar attempt in 1983 before the U.S. Supreme Court but failed. There are clear concerns that the now conservative court may be willing to rehear the issue. The attempts to build new reactors in California is clearly unpopular at this time and will remain so across the state due to the seismic issues that led to the 25 year long battle over construction, licensing and financing of the Diablo Canyon facility near San Luis Obispo. Recent attempts to relicense the reactor has run into a new campaign by opponents, including a Supreme Court victory earlier this year, forcing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include concerns over terrorist attacks, which has been purposely ignored by the NRC. California's operating reactors are currently situated along the coast to take advantage of the Pacific Ocean, for the billion gallons a day required to cool each reactor. The state's major nuclear utilities have been hit with severe legal claims over lies and contamination to pelagic life near the reactors in the past. In 2003, there was an intense heat wave and drought in France that led to the death of over 14,800 people. During the crisis the French government was forced to shutdown or reduce power to 17 of the country's nuclear power facilities, dramatically increasing the crisis, in terms of keeping the public properly supplied with electricity and the necessary cooling that could have come from fans or air conditioning. The city of Fresno's attempt to place a reactor along the state's *Peripheral Canal, claiming that it could find and utilize one million gallons of wastewater to cool the reactors does not take into account the impacts of future drought conditions. Situating a billion gallon a day water vampire along the most important north-south water supply could be a recipe for disaster as water supplies continue to become a growing development issue. Industry spokes people had to acknowledge that the billions of dollars the republican congress handed out in 2005 in tax breaks, loan guarantees, insurance caps, and direct subsidies was not enough. They were also forced into what, for most veterans of the nuclear debate, is the classic upward trend of costs. The construction costs of a Finnish EPR reactor which is the preferred Areva reactor design has jumped nearly 25% since 2005. With the costs of steel and concrete going up, the costs of such large base load facilities could very well become overwhelming once one of the these huge projects starts as was seen when California embarked on building a new bridge in San Francisco or with Bechtel's underground construction project in Boston. Several states who have already committed to constructing new reactors have already passed legislation known as Construction Work in Progress, which guarantees that ratepayers cover a substantial portion of the construction costs of the new facility, whatever those costs may be. The utility industry has already been given a streamlined legal process by the 1992 Energy Policy Act. This is clearly not enough, as they are demanding even further concessions from the government over restricting any kind of public concerns. With most of the corporate media behind the current push, there will be no "Big Picture" of what these new economic realities that face ratepayers nationwide. No debate, long winded discussion taking more than a few minutes of prime time debate. Even the stars of the corporate media that have been setup as the "antinuclear" side, NRDC have come out with concerns about the unfairness of how federal monies are being skewed towards the nuclear option, not to mention the above mentioned proliferation issue with Bush's GNEP push. In conclusion, there will be new attempts to extract even larger economic resources from both federal and state lawmakers to make nuclear power palatable to the giant banking and construction companies that are now seeing the potential to make billions in profits from the nuclear agenda. The CEC workshop laid out the battles that will come. It will be up to activists and the environmental community to educate the public and the coming federal and state lawmakers about what is coming and why we shouldn't let an industry who wants to take another crack at the publics' pocketbook should be allowed to create an even bigger disaster than they did last time. Let us not forget that Forbes Magazine called the nuclear industry the largest financial disaster in U.S. history in February 1984. Lastly, it is critical that the public be told of the utility industry's own plans to dramatically increase the amount of energy efficiency that can come from new technology and education. In January many utility executives initiated a plan to promote energy efficiency. Let's hear more about this! Below is the list of participants in the workshop. *Panel 1: "Current Status of Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage and Disposal Programs and Implications for California" Moderator: Robert B. Weisenmiller (MRW) Ward Sproat (U.S. DOE), Allison Macfarlane (George Mason University and MIT), Bob Loux (State of Nevada), Alan Hanson (AREVA), and Bob Halstead (State of Nevada) Panel 2: "Current Status of Federal Reprocessing Program and Implications for California" Moderator: Steve McClary (MRW) Invited Speakers: Tim Frazier (U.S. Department of Energy), Richard Garwin (IBM Fellow Emeritus), Per Peterson (University of California), Frank von Hippel (Princeton University), and Charles Ferguson (Council on Foreign Relations) Panel 3: "Operational Issues for California's Operating Nuclear Power Plants" Moderator: Steve McClary (MRW) Invited Speakers: Kevin Crowley (The National Academies), To Be Determined (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), Steve Olea (Arizona Corporation Commission), Jack Keenan (Pacific Gas & Electric), Gary Schooyan (Southern California Edison), David Lochbaum (Union of Concerned Scientists), and Rochelle Becker (Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility) Panel 4: "Environmental, Safety, and economic Implications of Nuclear Power" Moderator: Robert B. Weisenmiller (MRW) Invited Speakers: Richard Cheston (U.S. General Accountability Office), Vasilis Fthenakis (Brookhaven National Lab), Mary Quillian (Nuclear Energy Institute), Jim Harding (Harding Consulting), Joe Turnage (Constellation Energy), and Thomas Cochran (Natural Resources Defense Council) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Energy Net* *WordPress blog* *MySpace blog* * Nuclear News * ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * * _______________________________________________ Radbull mailing list Radbull@energy-net.org http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/radbull ***************************************************************** 11 The Hindu: Indo-US nuclear deal will be done soon - Manmohan Thursday, June 28, 2007 : 1130 Hrs New Delhi, June 28 (PTI): With negotiations on bilateral agreement to operationalise Indo-US civil nuclear deal gaining momentum, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that "one or two issues" needed to be resolved and hoped that it would be done soon. "There are one or two issues to be resolved," he said referring to the proposed 123 agreement. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a book release function, he expressed confidence that the agreement will be finalised soon. He said that he would take Parliament into confidence when the deal is finalised. "I have been apprising Parliament at every step on the deal. It has never happened earlier," the Prime Minister said while pointing out that he had made statements in the House after July 18, 2005 understanding on the deal, as also before and after the visit of US President George W Bush. Singh's comments came amidst optimism expressed by US on finalisation of the deal this year. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday said with will and determination, the two countries will be able to finalise it by the end of the year. She told the the annual meeting of the United States- India Business Council in Washington that the deal has good bipartisan support and "I do not believe this initiative is Republican or Democratic." Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Tension Creeping Into US-India Relations From the Associated Press Thursday June 28, 2007 8:31 AM By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States has trumpeted a nuclear cooperation deal with India as the cornerstone of strong new ties with a growing economic and strategic force in Asia. But with talks on that deal stalled and India and the United States trading blame for a breakdown in world trade negotiations, tension is creeping into the relationship. In reaching a preliminary nuclear agreement, and persuading Congress to approve it, the Bush administration scored a rare foreign policy success last year at a time when it faced growing criticism over the Iraq war. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stressed the urgency of not letting the deal fall through. ``I cannot tell you how much the world is watching to see if we can complete this,'' Rice said in a speech to the U.S.-India Business Council. ``We need to get it done by the end of the year.'' After years of viewing each other with wariness, the two countries are cooperating in unprecedented ways: environment, education, defense, energy, business and security issues. But it is the proposal to ship U.S. civil nuclear fuel to India that both countries' governments have chosen to cast as, in Rice's words, ``the first fundamental pillar'' of the emerging partnership. The accord cleared a major hurdle in December when President Bush signed a congressionally approved exception to U.S. law to allow civil nuclear cooperation. But the countries still must settle technical negotiations on an overall cooperation plan, and those talks have sparked frustration on both sides. One of the biggest sticking points has been American reluctance to allow India to reprocess spent atomic fuel, a crucial step in making weapons-grade nuclear materiel. ``Had this been easy, it would have been done a long time ago,'' Rice said. But, she added, ``both sides have determined that it is worth it.'' Sandra Polaski, a trade analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said India, while keen to strengthen ties with the United States, wants its interests served, both in the nuclear deal and in the global trade talks involving the World Trade Organization. ``The Indians are making it very clear that this is not going to be a relationship of unequals,'' Polaski said. Analysts say that early, glowing rhetoric from both countries' leaders led many to believe that the nuclear accord would be settled easily. Both countries also portrayed the nuclear deal as the foundation of growing cooperation. Robert Einhorn, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation, said, ``Why take the single most controversial issue and make it the centerpiece of your engagement strategy?'' Failure in the nuclear talks, he said, would be a setback but only a temporary one because of the deepening connections between citizens and governments in the two countries. ``In the next couple of months, we'll see if this India-U.S. civil nuclear deal will fly or not. The window is closing in terms of the opportunity to do this,'' said Einhorn, now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Rice also said in her speech that it would be a ``tragedy and a true shame'' if India and the United States did not do more to push ahead WTO talks, which for six years have failed to break a logjam between rich and poor countries over eliminating barriers to trade in farm produce and manufactured goods. Brazil and India criticize the United States for its failure to offer deep enough cuts in the billions of dollars of subsidies it pays annually to American farmers. The European Union and the United States say the two emerging economic powers refuse to offer new market opportunities for manufacturing exports. The top U.S. trade official, Susan Schwab, appearing with her Indian counterpart at the U.S.-India Business Council meeting, urged India to make the sacrifices necessary to push the trade deal through. Kamal Nath said India must be mindful of the millions of poor in his country who live on less than a dollar a day. Polaski, the trade analyst, said Indian officials have been unwilling ``to compromise what they see as their core interests for the sake of a trade deal.'' ``There is no question that it causes heartburn,'' Polaski said. ``But I don't think it's going to cause a fundamental crack in the relationship.'' --- On the Net: U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/scp/2006/77944.htm World Trade Organization: http://www.wto.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 13 Sydney Morning Herald: MP ducks queries on Qld nuclear reactor - www.smh.com.au June 28, 2007 - 5:15PM A senior federal minister has ducked questions regarding the location of a nuclear reactor in Queensland while talking up a federally-backed plan for the energy source. Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane on Thursday told a Queensland Media Club luncheon nuclear energy was a key component of climate change technologies as the only zero emission baseload electricity source. "The government believes nuclear electricity could make a significant contribution to lowering Australia's greenhouse gas emissions," Mr Macfarlane said. But the federal member for Groom, which centres on Toowoomba west of Brisbane, refused to give a straight answer when asked where he would like a nuclear reactor built in his state. "The reality is that the latest generation of reactors are far safer reactors, and too few in the community understand what a Gen 4 reactor is," he said. "So I think before we actually get to the stage of seeing one built there are a few steps we need to take and I'm quite happy to take them. "We need an information campaign for the community that is not polluted ... by some of the extraordinary statements that are made about nuclear power." He said nuclear power was safe and the example of Chernobyl given by opponents was a bad one because that was old technology. Mr Macfarlane criticised what he called the "feel good populism" of the Labor Party, which is against nuclear power but wants Australia to reduce emissions to 60 per cent of 2000 levels. He said their policies took no account of the economic impact and were "a high price to pay for 800,000 Green preferences". On April 26, 1986, an explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine sent part of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and a plume of radioactive fallout over much of Europe, Britain and even as far away as the US. The World Nuclear Association says 28 people died within four months from radiation or thermal burns, 19 have subsequently died, and there have been around nine deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident, as of 2004. Hundreds of thousands of people were evacuated and relocated. © 2007 AAP Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 14 FREE LANCE & STAR: Lake Anna poses no problems to visitors Fredericksburg.com Fri, Jun. 29, 2007 Date published: 6/28/2007 I was disappointed that The Free Lance-Star chose to be flippant in a June 21 front-page blurb ["Ease summer boredom with trip to the lake"], which said that Lake Anna is "a cool place to go, despite its proximity to nuclear reactors." If we are ever going to solve the global-warming problem, nuclear reactors will have to be a large component of the solution. Nuclear power is safe and economical; the only thing holding it back is public opinion, and comments like the one on the front page do not help. Nuclear power is clean and nonpolluting; thus the reactors at Lake Anna pose no problems to visitors to the lake. In fact, visitors to the lake are more endangered by exposure to the sun than they are by the reactors. The usual comeback of the anti-nuke people is that we do not have a solution to the waste-disposal problem. This is not quite accurate. Both France and Japan get the majority of their electricity from nuclear power, and they dispose of their waste. We have technical solutions also, but they are not politically popular. Because engineers can't guarantee that spent fuel containers stored at Yucca Mountain in Nevada won't leak in 10,000 years, some people don't want to take the chance and store waste there. If we don't do something about global warming, civilization won't last that long! Charles D. Morgan Spotsylvania Date published: 6/28/2007 Copyright 2007, The Free Lance-Star Publishing Co. of Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA - Permissions ***************************************************************** 15 Houston Chronicle: 2 sites proposed for new Texas nuclear plant | Chron.com - June 28, 2007, 2:20PM By BILL HENSEL Exelon Nuclear has picked two possible sites for for a proposed nuclear plant both located southwest of the Houston area. Illinois-based Exelon, which operates the largest number of nuclear plants in the country, is considering building a plant in Matagorda County or Victoria County. If it goes forward the primary site is a 1,250-acre tract about 10 miles south of Collegeport in Matagorda County. The secondary site covers 11,500 acres about 20 miles south of Victoria in Victoria County. Matagorda County is already home to the The South Texas Project, near Bay City. The owners of that plant is seeking to build two new reactors. The proposed sites are needed to seek a permit allowing the company to build and operate a plant, should it go decide to build one. Exelon said it expects to submit the application to the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission in November of 2008. bill.hensel@chron.com ***************************************************************** 16 Brick Township Bulletin: Board sides with citizens groups on Oyster Creek Brick Township, NJ Front Page June 28, 2007 Atomic Safety Licensing Board ruling means public hearing to be held in fall BY PATRICIA A. MILLER Staff Writer A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) advisory board has denied a request by the Oyster Creek nuclear plant's owner to dismiss a contention about monitoring corrosion in the plant's drywell liner. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) ruled that AmerGen Energy Co. had failed to satisfy the standards for granting a summary disposition. "At this juncture and on this record, we are unable to conclude as a matter of law that AmerGen's monitoring plan is sufficient to ensure adequate safety margins during the period of extensive operation," the ASLB said in its June 19 decision. It is the first time in the NRC's history that the board agreed to hear a contention, said NRC spokesman Neil A. Sheehan. A coalition of six organizations filed the contention that cited concerns about corrosion in the plant's drywell liner earlier this year. The groups are the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, the Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch Inc., Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety (GRAMMES), the New Jersey Public Interest Group, the New Jersey Sierra Club and the New Jersey Environmental Foundation. "We are thrilled," said GRAMMES member Janet Tauro. "This is a landmark case. We are the first citizens' group ever to be given a hearing on a contention. So we made history. We are extremely proud of our team, our attorneys and our technical experts." The ASLB's decision means there will be a full public hearing on the drywell corrosion monitoring issue on Sept. 24 in Toms River. The hearing could run another day-and-a-half, NRC spokesman Diane Screnci said. The NRC supported AmerGen's request for a summary disposition. Screnci declined to discuss the ASLB's refusal to dismiss the contention. "Typically, when there is a ruling, we don't have a reaction," Screnci said. "AmerGen made a request and we filed our opinion on that request. The board made a decision, so we will prepare for the hearing." Amergen spokeswoman Leslie Cifelli said the company was disappointed in the board's decision. "The good news is that there is one sole contention left, which is the frequency of testing," Cifelli said. "We are confident our testing process and procedures are more than adequate, and we will prove that during the hearing." It was the latest setback in AmerGen's quest to have the NRC license the plant - the oldest nuclear plant in the country - for another 20 years. Oyster Creek went online in 1969. The state Attorney General's Office petitioned the federal 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in May to contest the NRC's stance that the impact of a terrorist attack should not be part of a nuclear plant's relicensing review. The Attorney General's Office filed the petition on behalf of the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). And earlier this month, the DEP faulted both AmerGen and the NRC for relying on environmental studies that were up to 30 years old during the relicensing process. The DEP refused to make a "positive consistency determination" for Oyster Creek, as required by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The positive determination is required for all applicants who apply to a federal agency for a license for a new facility or to relicense an existing facility. "If they think they have an easy road ahead of them, they don't," said Paul Gunter, the director of the Maryland-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service's Reactor Watchdog Project. "They have a lot of venues where they will have to continue to spend millions. I would say the full-court press is on. All these things add up." The ASLB established that there is a genuine dispute with its ruling, he said. "Ultimately, the NRC is still the judge," he said. "That frankly remains a concern. Now we have to circumvent these other pitfalls that come with the territory of an NRC licensing procedure." Tauro said even if the plant is not relicensed, it still has to be decommissioned. "They are the house guest that doesn't know when it's time to leave," she said. "It's been 35 years. It's been enough. It's time to pack it in." ***************************************************************** 17 Houston Chronicle: Exelon Picks 2 Nuclear Power Plant Sites | Chron.com - June 28, 2007, 4:48PM NEW YORK — Exelon Corp., a Chicago-based power company, said on Thursday it has chosen two sites in Texas where it may build a new nuclear power plant. The move marks another step in the U.S. power industry's effort to bring online a new nuclear plant, which hasn't occurred since the Tennessee Valley Authority began operating a new reactor at its Watts Bar plant in 1996. Nuclear power is increasingly seen as a way to meet rising electricity demand in the U.S. without producing carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas, and other kinds of air pollution. The company's favored site is in Matagorda County in southeastern Texas along the Gulf of Mexico, Exelon said. It encompasses 1,250 acres about 20 miles south of Collegeport, Texas, the company said. Exelon's secondary site is farther inland in Victoria County on an 11,500 acre site. Exelon is one of several companies that have said they want to build nuclear plants in Texas. The others are NRG Energy Inc. and TXU Corp. Power suppliers believe the state's residents are more accepting of nuclear power development; Texas' high-priced power markets mean nuclear power plants will earn large margins on their output. "Nuclear energy is safe and clean and has a low operating cost," said Exelon vice president Tom O'Neill in a statement. "That's why we believe nuclear energy is a key part of Texas' future energy mix, because of its inherent environmental and energy independence benefits." Exelon said it hasn't made a final decision about whether to build a new plant. The decision depends on whether Exelon believes the public will accept a new plant, the viability of new nuclear technology and the availability of a place to dispose of new nuclear fuel. Exelon's chief executive, John Rowe, has previously said that he would be wary of building a new plant without a place to put the fuel. Negotiations have stalled to create storage facility in Nevada's Yucca mountain for all the nation's spent nuclear power plant fuel. Exelon said it expects to submit an application for the plant's operating license to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in November 2008. The commission last issued a new plant license over 25 years ago. Shares of Exelon fell 30 cents, or 0.4 percent, to close at $72.10 Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange. ***************************************************************** 18 BBC NEWS: Blaze hits German nuclear plant Last Updated: Thursday, 28 June 2007, 16:36 GMT 17:36 UK The reactor was disconnected from the grid as a safety measure A fire has broken out at a nuclear plant in northern Germany, police say. The fire started in the coolant system of a power transforming substation near Kruemmel nuclear reactor in the town of Geesthacht, south of Hamburg. The reactor was not affected by the blaze but was shut down as a safety precaution, a police spokesman said. Police said it was unclear what had started the fire. An investigation has been launched. "Nobody was injured, and there is no danger for the environment," Oliver Breuer, a spokesman for the Schleswig-Holstein state health ministry, told Associated Press news agency. Vattenfall Europe is the main operator of the 1,316 MW reactor. The plant provides 30% of the state's electricity supply, the company said. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 19 toledoblade.com: NRC 'disappointed' in Davis-Besse insurance claim Article published Thursday, June 28, 2007 Utility says it's committed to safety By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER ROCKVILLE, Md. - One of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's top officials said yesterday he is "disappointed" with the way FirstEnergy Corp. has attempted to recoup $200 million in insurance for damage stemming from the near-rupture of the Davis-Besse nuclear reactor head in 2002. William Kane, the NRC's deputy executive director, made his remarks to FirstEnergy executives, engineers, and attorneys at the opening of a high-profile meeting at the agency's headquarters in suburban Washington. The three-hour meeting, attended by nearly 100 NRC and FirstEnergy officials, centered on two reports prepared by FirstEnergy consultants that the utility sat on for more than three months. Both contradict earlier research by the government and the utility. One had the potential for nationwide safety implications, the NRC has said. Through a process called a "demand for information," the government agency demanded to know why FirstEnergy was not forthcoming about the reports and how they might affect the utility's operations at Davis-Besse, the Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland, and its twin-reactor Beaver Valley nuclear complex west of Pittsburgh. "I'm disappointed by [FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co.'s] actions," Mr. Kane told utility officials. "The NRC expected you to understand the regulatory impact this had, and we expected to be notified sooner. This makes us question your safety culture and questioning attitude." "Clearly, there was a breakdown in the process," said James Caldwell, the NRC's Midwest regional administrator. The same thought was echoed by James Dyer, who presided over the NRC's Midwest region when the event occurred. "Did anybody [at FirstEnergy] think about what this [discrepancy in reports] would mean [to workers] back at the plant?" asked Mr. Dyer, who is now in charge of licensing as the NRC's nuclear reactor regulation director. FirstEnergy defended itself by touting its commitment to safety, and admitting it should have been more forthcoming about work prepared by outside consultants. One of its attorneys, Jay Guitterrez of Morgan & Lewis law firm in Washington, said FirstEnergy's legal case for the insurance money from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited is not in conflict with its engineering operations, despite their differing conclusions about what happened at Davis-Besse. Mr. Kane said at the conclusion of the meeting that his opening remarks were "still appropriate." He and other agency officials are expected to spend the next several weeks deciding whether to issue more fines or other sanctions against FirstEnergy. Scott Burnell, a NRC spokesman, has said that all disciplinary actions are on the table, including license revocation. But Mr. Kane told The Blade after the meeting that a sanction that severe is unlikely. Cynthia Carpenter, director of the NRC's enforcement office, said the agency has its concerns, even with FirstEnergy's four nuclear reactors now operating safely. FirstEnergy has been fined a record $33.5 million for withholding information about the dangerous condition that Davis-Besse was operating under during the fall of 2001, when its reactor head nearly blew apart because of acid that had burned through all but two-tenths of an inch of steel. That's about the width of a pencil eraser. Some $28 million of that fine was imposed 18 months ago to settle criminal accusations against the company by the U.S. Department of Justice. An additional $5.45 million was assessed in 2005 for civil infractions. Gary Leidich, FirstEnergy's senior vice president for operations and former president of the utility's nuclear division, told Mr. Kane the utility is disappointed, too, about being called to the NRC's headquarters after the effort that went into winning back the agency's confidence during Davis-Besse's record two-year outage. "While we had our eye on the safety ball, we completely missed [the fact that] these reports were something completely different," he said. A separate matter Mr. Leidich said FirstEnergy officials "had some discussion about what this [discrepancy] would look like," but said the utility saw the insurance claim as a matter separate from engineering and operations. One report in particular, prepared by Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, of Menlo Park, Calif., and Altran Solutions Corp., of Boston, provides a 661-page technical analysis of what happened at Davis-Besse, with a time line that contradicts earlier findings by the NRC and FirstEnergy's own investigation teams. The "Exponent Report" claims most of the deterioration of Davis-Besse's reactor head occurred within a month of the Feb. 16, 2002, shutdown - not over years as government and utility researchers have said. By portraying the incident as a fluke instead of neglect, the utility could help justify its insurance claim. But doing so raised questions about whether other nuclear plants were just as prone to a near-catastrophic event. Officials have said if the reactor head had blown, radioactive steam would have formed inside a containment building of a U.S. nuclear plant for the first time since the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident of 1979. The NRC, after reviewing the report, reaffirmed faith in its new nationwide inspection protocol for nuclear reactor heads. But the agency yesterday said that does not exonerate FirstEnergy for first debating whether it should have notified the regulator about the report and then waiting to do so. 'Expert testimony' The other report is a 96-page assessment of the Davis-Besse incident by Roger Matteson, a mechanical engineer and former NRC official with more than 40 years of experience with nuclear power and nuclear weapons. FirstEnergy characterized that report as "expert testimony" for its insurance claim. Twelve officials sat at the roundtable during the meeting, six from the NRC and six from FirstEnergy. Among those from the NRC was Sam Collins, the agency's nuclear reactor regulation chief who - unaware just how dangerous Davis-Besse was in the fall of 2001 - was talked into letting the plant operate six weeks longer than several of his staff members wanted once they suspected a problem was brewing. "Is it appropriate for the engineering side of FENOC to come to one conclusion and the legal side of FENOC to come to another and for them not to be reconciled?" asked Mr. Collins, now the NRC's Northeast regional administrator. "What message does that send?" he wondered. FirstEnergy officials said the utility takes responsibility for what happened, and is not trying to rewrite history. "We viewed it as a more detailed analysis, " Mr. Leidich said. "We didn't view it as a change in 'the story' at Davis-Besse," he said. The $200 million insurance claim is less than a third of the more than $600 million that FirstEnergy spent while the plant was idle between 2002 and 2004 between equipment upgrades, design changes, and lost power. Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079. © 2007 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 20 JOURNAL NEWS: Opponents of Indian Point fire questions at NRC Thursday, June 28, 2007 By GREG CLARY CORTLANDT - If yesterday's Nuclear Regulatory Commission public meetings are any indication, Indian Point's bid to operate for an extra 20 years will bring plenty of detailed debate in the agency review that will take two years to complete. At informational sessions in a catering hall next to Cortlandt Town Hall, opponents of the nuclear plants lined up to fire questions at the NRC that dealt little with the relicensing protocol the agency was there to publicize. "The NRC has a big job to do," said Cortlandt resident Karl Jacobs, a mechanical engineer who said he reviewed the nuclear plants' license renewal application in detail. "I want Entergy to realize that there are people out there who are very knowledgeable about this plant." The questions and comments of Jacobs and others weren't general. In some cases, speakers brought up regulatory specifics and details about the plants themselves that NRC relicensing staff said they needed to research further. Indian Point's owner, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, has applied for license extensions for the two working plants that would allow the company to continue producing electricity until 2035. A flashpoint of controversy for years, especially after the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, Indian Point has been dealing since 2005 with radiation leaks at the plant, problems with warning sirens throughout the 10-mile evacuation zone and a rash of unplanned shutdowns. Without the 20-year extension, Indian Point 2 would have to close in 2013 and Indian Point 3 in 2015. Yesterday's meetings were supposed to focus on the NRC's relicensing procedures, but after half-hour presentations by agency staffers at afternoon and evening sessions, audience members pushed for everything from more public involvement to tossing the application altogether. "The same rules that apply in the current operation will apply during the license extension," said Bo Pham, the NRC's project manager for Indian Point's relicensing application. "There will have to be mitigation of issues we consider significant." NRC officials noted that the application Entergy submitted April 30 has not finished a prescreening and thus has not been officially accepted. That normally occurs within 45-60 days, officials have said. Pham acknowledged in response to one resident's question that the agency has not turned down any of the license renewal applications it has accepted. One application was not accepted because it was "fraught with errors." Nearly half of the 104 plants overseen by the NRC have received approval to continuing producing electricity for an additional 20 years. Indian Point had plenty of supporters among the hundreds of people at the meeting, as well as organizations that backed its efforts to extend its license in prepared statements. The Coalition of Labor for Energy Jobs - Boilermakers Local 5, Millwrights and Machine Erectors Local 740 and Utility Workers 1-2 - were joined by members of the Carpenters Union and the Teamsters International in announcing their support for Indian Point, noting that the remarks coincided with an estimated 350,000 New York City residents enduring a power outage. "We have to look at the greater picture for New York, that the Indian Point facility employs hundreds of highly skilled professionals and contributes more than $750 million annually to the downstate economy," said Jerry Connolly, a spokesman for the group. Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. Copyright © 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 21 Brattleboro Reformer: Lawmakers offer to drop nuclear tax BRATTLEBORO, VT By DAVID GRAM, Associated Press Wednesday, June 27 MONTPELIER -- With doubts growing about their ability to override a veto of key energy legislation, the Legislature's Democratic leaders on Tuesday offered to drop from it one of Gov. Jim Douglas' least favorite provisions: the tax increase on the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. Douglas wasn't buying it. Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, and Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury and chairman of the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said that after a veto-override vote set for July 11, they would seek to pass a bill without the tax on Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear. Instead, they said they would leave the question of how to pay the $5 million to $7 million annual cost of new energy conservation measures to be debated when lawmakers reconvene in regular session next January. The legislation envisions creating an "all-fuels efficiency utility," to do the same thing for heating fuels that Efficiency Vermont has done for electricity usage in Vermont. With audits on energy usage, advice on trimming it and financial incentives to do so, the program has saved Vermonters and businesses about $207 million on their electric bills since 2000. Douglas vetoed the bill, saying he didn't like the tax on Vermont Yankee, which would have raised the nuclear plant's taxes to the same level as wind-power projects in Vermont; and that he didn't like the plan for the "all-fuels efficiency utility" modeled on Efficiency Vermont. In a letter to Shumlin and Dostis on Tuesday, Douglas said the new efficiency utility would be "an unnecessary government bureaucracy." Efficiency Vermont is run by a Burlington-based nonprofit, the Vermont Energy Investment Corp., under a contract with the state Public Service Board. Douglas spokesman Jason Gibbs said it was not clear from the bill, H.520, that the new all-fuels program would be run by a private-sector entity under contract with the government. He and Douglas called its structure "ill-defined." Douglas has proposed expanding another government program to promote heating efficiency. A weatherization program, run by the Agency of Human Services, helps low-income Vermonters to tighten their homes with new windows, insulation and the like. The day after he vetoed H.520, the governor unveiled a proposal to create a low- or no-interest loan program to offer weatherization-type services to a broader range of homeowners and small businesses. Shumlin said in an interview Tuesday that it had become apparent to him and other legislative leaders that they had a good chance to muster the two-thirds majority to override Douglas' veto in the Senate, but not in the House. He said the plan for July 11 would be to vote after the veto override attempt was decided to pass the bill with the Vermont Yankee tax removed. "Since the legislation vetoed by the governor stipulates that funding for the all-fuels efficiency utility will be needed starting in 2009, this proposal would allow the Legislature to consider how to fund the utility when it reconvenes in January." Shumlin and Dostis are to meet with Douglas on Wednesday to discuss the energy proposals. The governor said he hoped his proposals would be the main topic of discussion, and expressed annoyance with the lawmakers for unveiling theirs a day earlier. "It was my hope that you would hear a complete presentation of this (his) proposal and give it the consideration it deserves," Douglas wrote. "However, that does not appear to be the case." He called creating the new program and leaving funding for it until next winter "irresponsible." Copyright © 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 22 WNN: Clay Sell sells nuclear to Carnegie Endowment 28 June 2007 Clay Sell (Image: Kaveh Sardari, Sardari Group) "No person can be serious about climate change without being serious about greatly expanding nuclear power." These were the words of US deputy energy secretary Clay Sell, speaking to the 2007 Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference in Washington, DC on 26 June. The annual conference, attended by over 800 government officials, policy and technical experts, academics, and journalists from around the world, is a premier event in the nuclear non-proliferation field. Sell took the opportunities afforded by the conference theme, 'Tomorrow's Solutions', to put into context the US administration's view of the future of the nuclear fuel cycle through the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), and the future of the strategic nuclear deterrent under its Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) initiative. Pointing to forecast increases of nearly 60% in world energy demand by 2030, and a near doubling of electricity demand over the same period, Sell described nuclear power as the only mature technology with significant potential to provide large amounts of "completely emissions free" baseload generation to meet the need. The two historic challenges faced by nuclear power - waste management and proliferation risk - were being addressed and minimized through GNEP, he said. "Together, the policies represented in RRW and GNEP seek to enable a world where nuclear power becomes the primary global source of electricity." GNEP represented a major change for US civilian nuclear policy, he said. The useable material in spent nuclear fuel and surplus fissile material from weapons would be seen as potential assets rather than liabilities to be buried. "No longer will the US government be casting a baleful eye on the rest of the world's reprocessing activities," the deputy secretary noted. The international fuel leasing scheme and the form of recycling envisioned under GNEP were of particular importance from the non-proliferation point of view, according to Sell. The policy of reducing the number of stockpiled nuclear warheads through RRW and increasing the use of nuclear power through GNEP were strategically and operationally interlinked, according to Sell. Reductions in weapons stockpiles would release uranium and plutonium to be used as reactor fuel, while permanently reducing the amount of weapons useable material. Meanwhile, the science and technology developed for stockpile stewardship and the RRW would be applicable to civilian nuclear power enterprises. Sell even envisaged the expansion of GNEP and its assimilation into "national norms" ultimately leading to further reductions in nuclear weapons. Further information US Department of Energy: The full text of Clay Sell's speech WNA's information papers on Avoiding Weapons Proliferation WNA's US Nuclear Power Industry information paper ***************************************************************** 23 Beatrice Daily Sun: NRC raises oversight level at Fort Calhoun nuke plant Beatrice, Nebraska WEB EDITION By NELSON LAMPE Thursday, June 28, 2007 3:51 PM CDT OMAHA, Neb. - Federal regulators are raising their oversight of the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant, citing safety problems posed by a water valve that was incorrectly placed for more than a year at the plant. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said the valve and other problems at the plant operated by Omaha Public Power District presented a low to moderate safety risk. An NRC inspection determined a valve in the containment spray system was improperly installed on May 11, 2005, an NRC news release said Thursday. "The system sprays water in the building containing the reactor to reduce pressure under some accident conditions. "The valve remained improperly positioned for 454 days until the problem was discovered during a refueling outage in October 2006. ... The valve was installed "nearly opposite of the indicated position," the NRC said. The safety violation showed a failure by OPPD to conduct appropriate post-maintenance testing, the commission said. Nonetheless, "the NRC remains confident in the ability of the Omaha Public Power District to operate Fort Calhoun safely," said NRC Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett in the news release. "But there are performance problems that need to be addressed by the licensee." Roger Hannah, a regional NRC public affairs officer in Atlanta, said the NRC looks at a variety of things before ordering up extra plant scrutiny. "One is performance indicators that are reported to us by the plant _ equipment problems, shutdowns and the like," he said. "The other side is inspection findings. Those are a little more subjective." The plant, north of Omaha, had been on an operational safety par with most of the others around the nation, Hannah said. But Fort Calhoun "is being moved to the Degraded Cornerstone Column of the NRC's Action Matrix, which will result in a higher level of scrutiny by the NRC," Mallett said. "This is the third highest level of NRC oversight, and eight other nuclear power plants in the U.S. are currently in this category." That status begins Sunday and will last for a year, Hannah said. It will include extra inspections by NRC specialists and more management meetings to discuss OPPD efforts to address the problems. "It will end in a year," Hannah said, "assuming they don't have any other issues" of similar safety concern or higher. Spokesman Jeff Hanson said OPPD has already fixed the mechanical problems and will be creating a team to perform some "root-cause analyses." "We will be focusing to find out if there are underlying issues that we need to be correcting," he said. Should the public be concerned about safety at the plant? "No," Hanson said. "Because the problems have been fixed. The safety cornerstone was of low to moderate safety concern to begin with. We have a history that shows we will make any corrections necessary to make certain this plant operates at the highest level of safety." Fort Calhoun went on line in 1973 and produces 492 megawatts _ almost 35 percent of OPPD's generation needs. In November 2003, NRC extended the plant's operating license to 2033, 20 years beyond the original expiration date. OPPD is one of the largest publicly owned electric utilities in the United States, serving more than 310,000 customers in 13 southeast Nebraska counties. On the Net: NRC: http://www.nrc.gov NRC Action Matrix: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FCS/fcs_chart.html . OPPD: http://www.oppd.com A service of the Associated Press(AP) Copyright © 2007 Beatrice Daily Sun ***************************************************************** 24 NRC: NRC Conducting Special Inspectionat San Onofre Nuclear Station News Release - Region IV - 2007-024 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV office in Arlington, Texas, is conducting a special inspection at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, located southeast of San Clemente, Calif. The purpose of the inspection is to review the circumstances related to a manual reactor shutdown of one of the two units at the plant on June 20. That shutdown was caused by a failed pipe connection in a non-safety related compressed air system. The compressed air system provides the power to operate many valves at the San Onofre plant. All air-operated safety valves are designed to fail in their safe position if they lose air. During the shutdown, all safety systems responded as expected. NRC resident inspectors responded to the event and have been monitoring the investigation and repair activities. The special inspection team dispatched to the site has two inspectors from the NRC’s Region IV office. Those inspectors are evaluating the licensee’s response to the event, the cause of the problem and corrective actions. The inspectors will also determine if there are any generic implications either for the other San Onofre unit or for other nuclear power plants. The special inspection will continue until the inspection goals are achieved. The special inspection team will issue its report about 30-45 days after the completion of the inspection. The report will be available from the Region IV Office of Public Affairs or in the agency’s online document library at: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Thursday, June 28, 2007 ***************************************************************** 25 Reuters: Lithuania adopts law on new nuclear power plant Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:43AM EDT By Nerijus Adomaitis VILNIUS, June 28 (Reuters) - Lithuania's parliament adopted a law on Thursday on building a new nuclear power plant, the formal start of a project that is expected to involve Baltic neighbours Estonia and Latvia as well as Poland. The 3,000-3,500 megawatt plant, to replace the ageing Soviet-era Ignalina nuclear reactor, which has to be shut down under a deal with the European Union, is expected to be built by 2015. One goal is to strengthen the region's energy independence from Russia. "Lithuania has made a strategic step, which will enhance our energy independence and strengthen our cooperation with partners in the region," Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas told parliament after the vote. Lithuania plans to invest 7.5 billion to 8 billion litas, while the total cost of the project may reach 22 billion litas ($8.57 billion). Energy companies from the Baltic states and Poland are expected to form a joint company to build the plant. Under the law, Lithuania aims to have at least a 34 percent stake, with the partners expected to share the remaining stakes equally. Latvia's AS Latvenergo, Estonian Eesti Energia and Poland's Polskie Sieci Elektroenergetyczne SA have said they were interested in taking part in the project. The prime ministers of the Baltic states and Poland are expected to seal the deal on July 6 in Vilnius. POWER LINKS Poland was invited in as part of a package deal after Warsaw agreed to build a link between the power grids of both countries. A link between Lithuania and Sweden is also planned. Sweden's Vattenfall (VTTG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Thursday it would be also interested in investing in the new nuclear power plant, but it was too early to discuss concrete plans. "We have to see the new law, and we must know who the main shareholders will be and how each of them will contribute," Vattenfall Chairman Dag Klackenberg told journalists after meeting Kirkilas. Deputy Economy Minister Vytautas Nauduzas told Reuters Vattenfall was seen as a potential bidder to build a link between Lithuania and Sweden on the bed of the Baltic Sea. Firms including French state-owned nuclear group Areva (CEPi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and U.S. General Electric (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) have stated their interest in supplying the reactors to the new plant. A tender to supply the reactors could be announced at the earliest in late 2008 or early 2009. To gain investments for the new plant, Lithuania plans to found a "national investor" by merging several state and privately-owned energy companies into a single group. The new nuclear plant will be built near Ignalina, in eastern Lithuania, which uses Soviet-built reactors of the same type that caused the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. It is to be closed in 2009, after which Lithuania will have to import electricity from Russia or use Russian gas to produce electricity at its fossil-fuelled power plants. ***************************************************************** 26 Reuters: Exelon Ill. Braidwood 1 reactor shut during storm | Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:53PM EDT NEW YORK, June 28 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp.'s (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 1,178-megawatt Unit 1 at the Braidwood nuclear power station in Illinois shut Wednesday likely due to a lightning strike on a power line, a spokeswoman for the plant said Thursday. She said the company was still investigating the cause of the outage but noted there was no damage to plant equipment. She could not say when the unit would return to service due to competitive reasons. Electricity traders guessed the unit would return within a few days. The 2,330 MW Braidwood station is located in Braceville in Will County, about 60 miles southwest of Chicago. There are two units at the station: Unit 1 and the 1,152 MW Unit 2. Both entered service in 1988. Unit 2 continued to operate at full power. One MW powers about 800 homes in Illinois. Exelon, of Chicago, owns and operates more than 38,000 MW of generating capacity, markets energy commodities, and transmits and distributes electricity (5.4 million) and natural gas (480,000) to customers in Illinois and Pennsylvania. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: NRC to Increase Oversight of Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant News Release - Region IV - 2007-025 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov The Fort Calhoun nuclear plant will receive additional oversight from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission based on a performance indicator and an inspection finding involving the improper installation of a valve that degraded the condition of a safety system for 454 days. The plant, located near Omaha, Neb., is operated by the Omaha Public Power District (OPPD). “The NRC remains confident in the ability of the Omaha Public Power District to operate Fort Calhoun safely,” said NRC Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. “But there are performance problems that need to be addressed by the licensee.” The NRC uses a color-coded system to categorize inspection findings and performance indicators, which are objective measures of plant performance. The colors range from “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” and “red” depending on the safety significance of the issue. In this case, the Fort Calhoun performance indicator and inspection finding were determined by the NRC staff to be “white,” or a safety issue of low to moderate significance. Both of these “white” inputs into the NRC’s reactor oversight process involved mitigating systems, a group of components, like valves, pumps or electrical breakers, that are designed to mitigate, or minimize the consequences of an accident. As a result, Fort Calhoun is being moved to the Degraded Cornerstone Column of the NRC’s Action Matrix, which will result in a higher level of scrutiny by the NRC. This is the third highest level of NRC oversight and eight other nuclear power plants in the U.S. are currently in this category. The NRC Action Matrix is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FCS/fcs_chart.html. An NRC inspection, described in a report released on March 2, determined a valve in the containment spray system was improperly installed on May 11, 2005. The system sprays water in the building containing the reactor to reduce pressure under some accident conditions. The valve remained improperly positioned for 454 days until the problem was discovered during a refueling outage in October 2006. The NRC staff is satisfied that the licensee completed a thorough review and analysis of the event and has taken appropriate corrective actions. “The improper installation resulted in a condition in which the actual position of the valve was nearly opposite of the indicated position,” Mallett said. “The violation involved the conduct of maintenance activities and a failure by the licensee to conduct appropriate post-maintenance testing prior to returning the valve to service.” At the request of the licensee, a regulatory conference was held on April 16 to discuss OPPD’s position on the safety significance of the finding and corrective actions. In response to questions, the licensee submitted additional information to the NRC on April 23. Nevertheless, the NRC has determined that the safety significance of the violation is best characterized as “white.” Fort Calhoun has also accumulated seven reportable failures of various components in mitigating systems that count towards the safety system functional failure performance indicator. This performance indicator tracks the number of events or conditions that alone prevented, or could have prevented the fulfillment of the safety function of structures or systems. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Thursday, June 28, 2007 ***************************************************************** 28 MHNN: NRC begins Indian Point relicensing procedure June 28, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide Union members stage show of force in support of Indian Point Cortlandt – About 300 people packed a banquet hall in Cortland Manor for the public start of the license renewal process for the Indian Point Nuclear Power plant. The evening information session was one of two held Wednesday, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If there was one thing unique compared to past NRC sessions held in the area, the crowd seemed to have a bit more balance. The majority of speakers were, as usual, critical of the 30-year-old plant in Buchanan, but there was no shortage of support, from Village of Buchanan Mayor Daniel O’Neil, to former Assemblyman Jerry Kremer, now with the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, and an unabashed Indian Point supporter. “What you’re talking about is a facility that should be kept going because the region needs it badly.” That was a claim made by a large contingent of organized labor. A quickly-drafted news release from the Coalition of Labor for Energy and Jobs noted the massive power outages from the Wednesday afternoon storms, arguing power shortages would be much more frequent without the 2,000 megawatts Indian Point pumps into the downstate power grid. During a news conference before the formal NRC session, Bob Seeger, business agent with the Millwrights and Machinery Erectors, Local 740, said it about more than just jobs. “None of us are going to send our members into a place that’s not safe.” Harckham: "put emergency and planning back" During the NRC session itself, Marilyn Elie, a co-founder of Westchester Citizens Awareness Network, suggested the union members could get quality jobs, and safer ones, by working for alternative energy. Peter Harckham, of Katonah, was a student at Dickinson College, in 1979, and was among more than 100,000 evacuated from the area around Three Mile Island. Franovich: "not at that juncture" Harckham argued the tentative Indian Point renewal review has some significant omissions. “You can’t effectively have a strategic planning review when you take half of that process off the table. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that it is a duplication, and would ask you to put emergency planning and security back into the license renewal.” Another speaker raised the issue of leakage. Division of Licensing Environmental Branch Chairwoman Rani Franovich responded, saying they have not decided exactly what will be examined in their review of Indian Point. “We’re not at that juncture yet where we decided what it is they need to demonstrate to us.” The license renewal review typically takes 22 months, if the NRC decides a formal public hearing is not needed. Thirty months would be the timeline if there is a hearing. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 29 Hemscott: Groups appeal vs. Mich. nuclear plant GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) - Two nuclear energy watchdog groups have filed an action with a federal appeals court that says the storage pads where spent nuclear fuel is kept at the Palisades Nuclear Plant violate earthquake-safety regulations established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 3-foot-thick concrete pads rest upon loose sand amid the dunes of the Lake Michigan shoreline in western Van Buren County's Covert Township, about 55 miles southwest of Grand Rapids. Some containers of spent, irradiated nuclear fuel sit 150 yards from the water, the organizations said Thursday in a joint written statement. Palisades' two pads now hold more than 30 concrete-and-steel casks, each of which weighs about 150 tons when fully loaded with nuclear fuel rod assemblies. The groups -- Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Don't Waste Michigan -- want the plant closed and turned to the federal courts for relief after exhausting all administrative remedies at the NRC, they said. They filed the appeal June 15 in Washington and are represented in court by attorney Terry Lodge of Toledo, Ohio. 'Underwater submersion could lead to inadvertent nuclear chain reactions in the fissile materials still present in the wastes,' said Kevin Kamps, a nuclear-waste specialist at NIRS. 'Burial under sand could cause the wastes to dangerously overheat. Either way, a disastrous radioactivity release could result.' Mark Savage, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy Corp., said Palisades' spent nuclear fuel is being properly stored at the site. 'Palisades has been in the past -- and continues to be -- in full compliance with all federal regulations and requirements associated with the dry-fuel storage facility, he said. 'Our dry fuel storage containers are monitored daily and are in a safe condition, and Palisades will continue to store its used fuel until the federal government takes ownership of it for storage at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.' In April, Entergy, a New Orleans-based utility holding company, completed its $380 million purchase of the plant from Consumers Energy Co., a subsidiary of Jackson-based CMS Energy Corp. Under the terms of the sales agreement, Entergy will sell 100 percent of the 798-megawatt plant's output to Consumers for 15 years. Palisades has been producing power commercially since December 1971 Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 30 Hemscott: NRC updating plant safety requirements WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal regulators on Wednesday took the first step in updating the operating licenses of the nation's nuclear plants to ensure they incorporate safety rules issued after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued letters to FirstEnergy Corp.'s Beaver Valley plant in Pennsylvania, Exelon Corp.'s Braidwood and Byron generating stations in Illinois, Ameren Corp.'s Callaway plant in Missouri, and Progress Energy's H.B. Robinson plant in South Carolina. The FirstEnergy, Ameren and Progress Energy plants all have two reactors, while Braidwood and Byron have one each. Letters to the operators of the nation's remaining 96 operating reactors will be issued over the next two months, according to the NRC. All nuclear power plants must now be prepared to mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions from a terrorist attack, including the impact of a large commercial aircraft. The NRC said most of the measures being required through revised plant operating licenses are already in place and have been verified by the agency, with minor exceptions to be completed by December. The updated requirements will become part of the routine inspections at all operating reactors. Shares of FirstEnergy dipped 58 cents in aftermarket activity to $64.21 after gaining 90 cents to close Wednesday's regular trading session at $64.79. Exelon shares fell 85 cents to $71.55 after hours after rising $1.20 to end at $72.40. Shares of Progress Energy dropped 30 cents in aftermarket activity to $45.48 after rising 46 cents to close at $45.78, while Ameren fell 40 cents to $48.78 after-hours after adding 56 cents to $49.18 on Wednesday. Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 31 CBS News: Hill's Energy Battle Has Barely Begun By Bret Schulte - Jun 28, 2007 (US News) The Senate's passage of an energy bill last week gave environmentalists and consumer groups something to crow about, notably the first new fuel efficiency standards for automobiles since 1975. The real energy battle, however, has yet to be fought. That comes when Democratic leaders in both the House and the Senate put forth plans to transform a largely voluntary effort against global warming into a mandatory emissions reductions scheme across all sectors of the economy. By all accounts, that legislation, which may appear on the floor of the House or the Senate as early as September, will trigger perhaps the biggest battle royal over environment and energy issues Congress has seen since the Clean Air Act of 1970. With slim majorities in both chambers, Democrats will need every vote. And passage will require the same kind of bipartisan compromise that made fuel efficiency standards possible. In the fight over Corporate Average Fuel Economy, Senate Republican Ted Stevens and Democrat Dianne Feinstein came together to repair the crumbling energy initiative at a time when many thought it was over. Their plan salvaged the fuel economy increase to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 but erased the 4 percent annual increases after that date. It passed by a vote voice to the surprise of nearly everyone. "What happened on [fuel efficiency standards] is what's going to have to happen with global warming legislation," says Karen Wayland of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "That compromise was a bipartisan compromise that was pretty strong." Lexi Schultz, a lobbyist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, agrees. "What passage of the bill shows is that senators are coming to understand that we need change," Schultz says. She and others are heartened by votes from traditional automotive supporters like Democrats Byron Dorgan and Barbara Mikulski, not to mention a number of Republicans, including John Sununu from the Democrat-trending New Hampshire. "I think we really have moved beyond where we were a few years ago," Schultz says. "On the flip side, I think we can't take anything for granted. This is going to have to be fought member to member, senator to senator." Just as informative, say some Capitol Hill observers, were the energy proposals that didn't pass the Senate. The energy bill's toughest provision would have required utilities to garner 15 percent of their output from renewable sources by 2020. But that was filibustered by a cadre of Republicans led by Sen. Pete Domenici, who proposed an alternative that would have included "clean" sources like nuclear, which has no greenhouse gas emissions. "If there was any vote that prefigured the climate vote it was the [renewable electricity standard]," said one veteran of Washington energy policy. "I'm not saying everyone who supported it would support mandatory limits on greenhouse gases, but there clearly is crossover there." And those senators who supported fuel economy standards, renewable electricity standards, or both may find themselves subject to more attention from environmentalists. "Republican senators who showed a willingness to reach across the aisle to compromise on CAFE may have drawn attention to themselves," says the Democratic aide. "Those who are militantly opposed to climate policy also have noticed that and probably will push back vigorously in the opposite direction." But no one believes that the CAFE vote translates into global warming votes. Far from it. The vote for fuel efficiency standards most likely had as much to do with weaning the country off Middle East oil as it did with conservation and environmental concerns. Even supporting a standard for renewable energy isn't terribly noteworthy. The Senate has done it twice before, though it's never been enacted. That makes it difficult for proponents of a global warming bill to draft a battle plan or court votes. br>On the Republican side, Trent Lott, Larry Craig, and Elizabeth Dole all voted for new fuel efficiency standards--none are considered likely converts to a bill that would force reductions in greenhouse gases. "Each of those, I think, came to support CAFE for their own reasons," says Dan Becker, who leads the Sierra Club's lobbying efforts on global warming. For that reason, Becker believes that the buildup for a global warming fight may be premature because the votes needed aren't there yet, and his group is focusing on winning more seats for pro-green candidates in next year's congressional elections. Indeed, the biggest lessons many global warming activists took home from last week's long struggle to pass an energy bill may be the need for more friendly faces. "Looking at how closely divided the Senate is," Becker says. "I think it will be tough to get a global warming bill that will live up to its name." By Bret Schulte Copyright © 2006 U.S.News & World Report, L.P. All rights reserved. © MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 NRC: NRC Consolidates Security Upgrades for Operating Reactors News Release - 2007-082 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today began consolidating existing security-based enhancements for each of the nation’s nuclear reactors, including the requirement that the utilities be prepared to mitigate the effects of large fires and explosions that could result from a terrorist attack, including the impact of a large commercial aircraft. The site-specific safety evaluation reports are part of a broader agency effort over the past five years to significantly upgrade plant safety and security. Most of the measures being required of plants through these legally binding revisions to their operating licenses are already in place and have been verified by the NRC, and with minor exceptions all will be completed by December 2007. Inspection of these measures will become part of the routine inspection regime at all operating reactors. “From the outset we set very high standards for plants to meet. Today’s action consolidates the steps we have required over the past five years,” said NRC Chairman Dale Klein. The measures being required at each site build upon the unilateral steps the NRC ordered the plants to take in early 2002 following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. On February 25, 2002, the NRC ordered a sweeping series of security upgrades at nuclear plants around the nation. Within that broad directive were instructions to bolster not just physical security but add measures to mitigate the possible effects on spent fuel pools, reactor cores and containment buildings of a large fire or explosion, including those caused by the deliberate or accidental impact of a large commercial aircraft. Nuclear power plant operators have been implementing site-specific measures since the issuance of NRC’s Order. The safety evaluations being issued today ensure that these measures are maintained by utilities. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Thursday, June 28, 2007 ***************************************************************** 33 The Prague Post: Pranksters support nuclear plant June 29th, 2007 Wiki community uses satire to call for launch of Austrian power site By Kristina Alda For The Prague Post June 27th, 2007 COURTESY PHOTO A member of the open-source advocacy group stages the launch of the Zwentendorf nuclear plant. The members of Start Zwentendorf, a freshly minted Czech nuclear power advocacy group, are on a bold mission. “We call for the immediate launch of Zwentendorf nuclear power plant,” the group’s Web site proclaims. “Austria’s populist, alibistic, unecological politics must stop.” Zwentendorf, Austria’s only nuclear power plant, has been inactive since its completion in 1978, when Austrians decided in a public referendum they would prefer not to launch it. Start Zwentendorf (SZ), an open-source community that operates through an online wiki site and has no organizational hierarchy, claims to be a partner organization of Austria’s Stop Temelín, an anti-nuclear group. The latter has for years been a vocal opponent of the Czech Republic’s Temelín nuclear power plant, organizing border blockade demonstrations to protests a perceived lack of safety measures. SZ says the inactive Zwentendorf is more harmful to the environment than Temelín since it means Austria must generate its electricity from other, less ecological sources, such as coal-burning power plants. On June 20, a dozen SZ members delivered a note to the Austrian Embassy in Prague, calling on that government to embrace nuclear energy. Austria would rather not talk about it. “It’s satirical, but this topic is serious,” says a spokesman of the Austrian European and International Affairs Ministry who declined to be named. “So we don’t want to answer the group.” Stop Temelín, meanwhile, dismisses the diplomatic efforts of its alleged partner organization. “This is a silly joke,” says Gabriele Schweiger, spokeswoman for Oberösterreichische Grenzübergänge, the anti-nuclear organization to which Stop Temelín belongs. “It’s an attempt to trivialize a serious issue.” The most powerful weapon Pavel Vrecion, 43, computer programmer, Czech Agricultural University lecturer and one of SZ’s nearly 200 chairmen, insists that mere satire is not the group’s goal. “It’s true that this is a serious issue. We care about ecology as much as our partner Stop Temelín,” he says. “We just want to open up the debate and illustrate that if you use one set of facts in a different demagogical way you can reach completely opposite conclusions.” “It’s not so much a satire as a popularized presentation of scientifically proven facts,” says another member, 31-year-old physicist Ondrej Chvála. “We want to show that opposing nuclear energy is completely irrational.” Some might argue that the SZ's very existence is irrational, but that’s not how Radek Svoboda, a 40-year-old physicist, sees it. “Humor is the most powerful political weapon,” he says. “Clearly, we have hit Austria’s raw nerve. Who would want to talk about building a plant for billions of schillings and then decide not to launch it?” Svoboda, who works for CEZ, the Czech power giant that owns and operates Temelín, has been promoting nuclear power for more than 17 years. He insists that, although SZ is merely trying to lighten and enliven the nuclear debate, its arguments are solid. “If you do the math, nuclear power plants emit less radiation and are less ecologically harmful than coal-powered ones,” he says. While Stop Temelín doesn’t dispute that coal plants are indeed ecologically harmful, it continues to perceive Temelín as a safety hazard. The group’s protests have intensified in recent months, with the group calling on the Austrian government to sue the Czech Republic. They claim the Czech Republic has failed to address safety concerns as specified in the Melk Agreement, signed by Austria and the Czech Republic in 2000. Indeed, Temelín has had its share of technical glitches, in March, for instance, when radioactive water leaked from the plant’s first unit. According to Vrecion, Stop Temelín isn’t really just about Temelín. “Temelín has become an icon for anti-nuclear activists,” he says. “They could have just as easily chosen a different nuclear plant.” Tomáš Moravec, a 35-year-old molecular biologist who joined SZ after finding its link on a pro-nuclear Web site, says the Austrian activists’ distrust of Temelín’s safety probably stems from the fact that it’s located in a former Eastern Bloc country. “It’s hard to let go of old stereotypes and start believing your neighbors,” he says. Meanwhile, SZ continues to attract new members every day, mostly from the ranks of academics, computer programmers and engineers. Each member is free to contribute facts and links to the site, following the concept behind Wikipedia, the open-source online encyclopedia. On the SZ Web site, or “the zwiki,” as members call it, there are links to photos of Zwentendorf as it looks today: a crumbling colossus overgrown with weeds. It’s hard to imagine the plant up and running, and according to Austria’s European and International Affairs Ministry, it’s a closed episode; the plant will never produce power. But could it? “You know, technically it’s not impossible,” Svoboda says, and his face forms an impish smile. “It was very well-conserved and sealed. It would take a while. But why not?” Kristina Alda can be reached at kalda@praguepost.com The Prague Post Online contains a selection of articles that have ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: Remarks Prepared for Chairman Dale E. Klein, US NRC Speech - S-07-029 - Society of Nuclear Medicine Washington Conference Center, OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: Public Affairs Web Site June 3, 2007 In my capacity as Chairman of the NRC I often speak to nuclear reactor designers, power plant operators, electrical and metallurgical specialists, so I am fairly accustomed to addressing my fellow engineers. This morning, I have the opportunity—for which I am very grateful—to speak to health professionals such as all of you: physicians, medical chemists and physicists, and nuclear pharmacists. Medical professionals and engineers often operate on a different plane, and speak a different language. Yet these two very different fields represent, in a sense, the twin oversight responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: civilian nuclear reactors and nuclear materials used for research, medical applications, and other purposes. When you mention the NRC, most members of the general public know that our agency helps ensure the safe and secure operation of America’s commercial nuclear power plants. These plants currently supply about 20 percent of all the electricity generated in the U.S., and according to what industry tells us, we may be receiving license applications for as many as 27 new plants over the next few years. The importance of ensuring the safety and security of these plants is so obvious that I don’t think it requires further elaboration—even to an audience of non-engineers! But while these plants generate a lot of power, they also tend to soak up a lot of publicity. So the other part of what we—and what all of you do—doesn’t always get much attention. That’s unfortunate for several reasons, one of which is that if more people understood the nature of radiation, and the important role it plays in our everyday lives, they might be less afflicted by what you might call “radiation phobia.” I am gratified, then, by this opportunity to talk a bit about how nuclear materials used in medical applications—in fields ranging from cardiology, to neurology, oncology, radiology and many more “ologies” I probably don’t even know about—are helping people all over the world live better, longer, healthier, and more comfortable lives. At the NRC, we are very proud of the work we are doing to help ensure the safe and secure use of nuclear materials for medicine. It also has a personal meaning for many of us. Some of you may know that my fellow Commissioner Ed McGaffigan has been battling melanoma for over seven years. I cannot make a medical evaluation of Ed’s condition. But from what he tells me, and from what I have seen myself, his treatment protocol – including Gamma Knife therapy – has had a remarkable effect on prolonging and improving the quality of his life to this point. So, as I say, this topic has a personal meaning for many of us at NRC, and I want to thank all of you who have been involved in making these technologies possible Now, as those of you in the medical community seek to push the frontiers of nuclear medicine even further, it is our job at the NRC to ensure that this happens in a way that protects everyone involved: you, the patient, the public, and the environment. Our mission is to provide a stable, predictable, and realistic regulatory framework for the use of medical isotopes and other nuclear materials. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that the NRC and its licensees uphold robust standards of health and safety to manage radiation risks. As I constantly remind our licensees in the nuclear power sector, an accident or significant nuclear event anywhere would have lasting consequences for all of us. That is the kind of publicity we don’t want to generate. To help us do this, the NRC needs something from you: your continued participation, communication, and feedback. The full involvement of all stakeholders is essential to informing and improving the regulatory process… making our activities and decisions more effective and efficient… and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden. We need you to help us understand the unique and ever changing characteristics and needs of the medical community. It is especially important that we receive early input on new and unique medical applications of radioactive materials so that we can be better prepared for any resulting or required reviews and license applications. Although regulating the diverse medical community is challenging, I can assure you that we seek to have a balanced approach—where all stakeholders have equal opportunity to participate and influence the process. Enabling the medical use of radioactive materials in a manner that protects public health and safety and the environment requires a collective effort of the NRC, the Agreement States, and the medical community. This duty to protect public health and safety by ensuring the security of radioactive materials has, of course, taken on a new urgency and a new focus since 9/11, not only for regulators but for licensees as well. I want to take this opportunity, therefore, to tell of you how much the NRC appreciates the medical community's serious commitment to this goal. From the responses to the recently issued Increased Controls requirements, it is clear that the nation's hospitals, universities and medical clinics have made this a priority. In fact, thanks to many of you in this room, the progress of America’s medical community toward increasing the security of the radioactive materials it uses has in some cases gone beyond what the NRC has prescribed. So thank you, and congratulations. I don’t mean to suggest that our work is done. Certainly, the NRC still faces significant challenges in the areas of knowledge management, and the need to have appropriately trained staff as we look to our future regulatory obligations. As part of our efforts to enlarge our workforce in the face of significant additional responsibilities, we are looking to develop new staff in nuclear materials and to effectively transfer knowledge from senior staff. It won’t be easy, but I believe we are making good progress, and we will continue to develop the mechanisms to meet these challenges. Now, I know that later in the conference NRC technical staff will be giving presentations on several topics, including: * "How an NRC Inspector Conducts a Risk-Informed, Performance Based Inspection” * “Medical Events and Other Radiation Safety-Related Incidents in a Nuclear Medicine Department” * “The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and the NARM Rulemaking It seems to me, therefore, that you will have plenty of time and opportunity to get into more specific detail on various NRC processes and procedures over the next few days. So instead, let me address something that I think would allow each of us to do our work better: that is, helping to give the public a better understanding of nuclear materials and radiation in a broad sense. By this I mean an understanding that includes all aspects of nuclear and radiological issues: the risks and the benefits. According to the preliminary findings of a study by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the average individual’s radiation exposure from medicine in the United States has increased six fold from around 54 millirem in the 1980s to over 320 millirem in 2006. This is primarily due to the greatly increased use of CT and nuclear cardiology procedures. There are very real issues and grave dangers involved with radiation, and it is incumbent on all of us to lay them out in detail. I think you would agree that the public deserves to know what not to be afraid of, as well. I would urge all of you to go back and review your public education programs, and strengthen them, especially in light of NCRP’s plan to publish its update later this year. Last year, I visited the Port of Seattle and toured the radiation detectors operated by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol at the Port. Their primary mission is to examine cargo entering the U.S. that may contain nuclear materials that could be used in weapons or dirty bombs. They have excellent equipment and well-trained and motivated agents. Part of that training is to understand what is a real threat versus a naturally occurring source. They need to make decisions—at this one facility, they average 1600 hits per month. In fact, while I was there one cargo container triggered the alarms. It was a shipment of Chinese fireworks and isotopic analysis showed the culprit was potassium 40. The Customs agents told me about one particular port that receives nothing but bananas – and virtually every shipment sets off the detectors. That struck a chord with me, because some of my fellow Commissioners have joked about creating the “standard banana” as a harmless unit of radioactivity. Commissioner Ed McGaffigan has frequently pointed out that we’re all in violation of standards. Ed said once in an interview, “We’re self-radiating ourselves at 40 millirems per year because of the potassium 40 we carry in our bodies. Double beds -- your spouse will radiate you to about two to three millirems per year. Those are doses at which we actually regulate. And I’ve always wondered, when people [demand] tighter regulation, why they’re not demanding that double beds be regulated, or bananas, or brazil nuts.” It would be helpful for the public to know these facts when, for instance, there is debate about increasing security for smaller radiation sources. All of us need to work to see that the public deliberation over these matters proceeds in a reasonable and risk-informed manner. Without such understanding, we will continue to receive pressure to increase health and safety as well as security requirements to reach a “zero” risk level. Paradoxically, this would likely have the opposite of the intended outcome. It could actually decrease the overall health and safety of the US population by imposing such restrictive requirements that the medical community would essentially be denied access to radioactive materials for nuclear medicine, thus preventing patients from receiving the beneficial treatments you currently provide. So let me conclude by leaving you with this challenge: I would like to see a genuinely coordinated and concerted by those of you in the medical and scientific communities to inform the public, the media, your elected officials, and other opinion leaders about the causes, effects, risks, and benefits of nuclear and radiological issues. Give them the facts regarding both natural, background radiation, as well as the many purposes that scientific and medical applications of nuclear materials serve in our society. This would make your work easier, and it would make the work we do at the NRC easier. And frankly, improving the level of understanding in public opinion is a worthy goal in its own right. Abraham Lincoln, who didn’t know much about nuclear science but knew a lot about democracy said, “In America, public opinion is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.” With that, let me conclude by thanking you for the invitation to join you this morning and share some thoughts with you. And I do hope you will heed my challenge. Since I have four years left on the NRC, I will have ample opportunity to check on your progress! NRC speeches are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when speeches are posted to NRC's Web site. Thursday, June 28, 2007 ***************************************************************** 35 NRC: Speech: Edward McGaffigan, Jr. US Nuclear Regulatory Commisison Speech - 07-030 - Presentation of the American Nuclear Society’s Distinguished Public Service Award to Commissioner OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: Public Affairs Web Site May 15, 2007 NRC Headquarters Rockville, MD Left to Right: Commissioner Lyons, James Reinsch, ANS, Commissioner McGaffigan, Chairman Klein, Commissioner Merrifield, Admiral Bowman, NEI MODERATOR REYES: I think we're ready. It is my privilege today to welcome Chairman Klein, Commissioner McGaffigan, Commissioner Merrifield and Commissioner Lyons. Welcome all to the NRC. You know Commissioner McGaffigan has now been on the Commission for almost eleven years. We recently recognized him as the longest serving commissioner here. I've only been EDO for three years. It actually feels like eleven. So I can somewhat sympathize with that. But I just want to reflect for a moment here. It really takes a unique individual to work in such a demanding position for such a long time. He is an advocate of the NRC. He's an advocate of the Commissioners and the staff. I think the Commissioner has been one of the contributors who built the NRC to what it is today being recognized as the best place to work in the government, and I'm glad to see Commissioner McGaffigan being recognized by such an elite organization. Let me just introduce Chairman Klein for some remarks before we make the formal presentation. Chairman. CHAIRMAN KLEIN: Thanks, Luis. This is one of the those happy days where you get to recognize a colleague who has contributed so much and thanks, Jim, on behalf of the American Nuclear Society for this award and, Skip, thanks for coming and fellow Commissioners. This is a day where we get to acknowledge 31 years of public service. I think when you look at Commissioner McGaffigan he really reflects what it means to be a public servant in having done this for so many years. Obviously he came to the best agency for those last eleven years of public service. So we certainly appreciate that. But he's really contributed a lot not only to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission but for the public-at-large where he has really ensured that we have high standards, we do the right thing and it really ensures the public's health and safety. So on behalf of all of us, it's been a pleasure to be both a friend and a colleague. Thank you. MODERATOR REYES: Thanks Chairman. I would like to make the official presentation here. On behalf of the American Nuclear Society, we have Jim Reinsch going to be making the presentation to the Commissioner. MR. REINSCH: Thank you, Luis. Thank you. In 1963, the American Nuclear Society created the Distinguished Public Service Award and I'm pleased to be able to present that today to Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr. The Distinguished Service Award was established to recognize and honor a public servant who has demonstrated leadership in energy policy formulation and public enlightenment and has made significant contributions for the betterment of mankind in the national and international sphere of public service and I cannot imagine an individual more worthy of such an award than the Commissioner. For a second, what I'd like to do is just to read the plaque if I may. It says – "Presented to Edward McGaffigan, Jr. in recognition of the outstanding leadership he has provided in effective regulatory and security policy formulation and implementation. During his distinguished government service, he has also made significant contributions to nonproliferation and export control policies and to international scientific cooperation." On behalf of the American Nuclear Society, congratulations. COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Thank you very much. A couple of months ago, I told the NRC’s Regulatory Information Conference that in nine out of eleven years speaking at that conference I had spoken from notes, not a prepared text. Today you get McGaffigan talking from notes. So bear with me. Today is going to be one of those talks where maybe you'll get some insight as to what makes me tick. I'm also going to be receiving the ANS/NEI Smyth Nuclear Statesman Award, for which I taped a video this morning to be shown at NEI’s meeting in Florida later this month. I said in that video that I did not feel completely worthy of that award, given the roster of giants who preceded me. But I do feel grateful and worthy of this award, and thank the ANS for recognizing me. I know that only two people have previously received the ANS Distinguished Public Service Award, Mike McCormack and John Conway. John Conway is one of my heroes. I think he did a remarkable job as Chairman of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), serving longer there than I have served at NRC. With $20 million a year, DNFSB does a tremendous job of ensuring safety and high standards at DOE nuclear facilities, and as I said, he's one of my heroes. Obviously, Congressman McCormack was a little early for me although he is a legend. So I'm delighted to join them. Like them, my career has been devoted to public service, and like them I believe I have built a record of accomplishments throughout it. I'm going to tell you a little bit about my roots. When I first was in this room in August 1996 to be sworn in as a Commissioner, I talked a little bit about why I was here, how I got here, and a lot of it comes down to being the son of an Irish immigrant who passed away a long time ago, when I was a junior in college. My father was one of my heroes. He came here from Ireland with fourth grade education. He served in WWII when he was 36 years old at the start of the war and had very bad knees because he had fallen badly while building the first Boston Garden. Despite very severe injuries to his legs, he served his nation, served in the Army in Europe. My grandfather, my mother's father, lived with us. He was also an Irish immigrant, first cousin of Michael Collins, the founder of the Irish free state, and a terrorist in the eyes of the British government. So I'm first generation on one side and second on the other. And we're a nation that’s been enriched by immigrants of all races and creeds. We're a nation that uses the patriotism instilled in me by my father and my grandfather, and their devotion to this country. The old country was great, but they had no desire to go back to it. This was the nation of opportunity. We were poor, not really poor, but we were not wealthy. We were not even middle class. My mother worked as a bookkeeper. Obviously she had a tremendous impact on me, but it was a different influence, a more maternal influence, an influence of unquestioning love. Because my father’s union at the Boston Gas Company, where he worked after the war, was the United Mineworkers Union, I found out early on about people giving up their lives to dig coal out of the ground. And we still sacrifice too many coal miners’ lives. I grew up reading the diatribes of John L. Lewis on the evils of big coal. My father was a person who fixed main gas lines when trouble arose. A big man. A strong man. I know that we have to have coal to produce electricity. I'm not against coal because 50 percent of our electricity generation comes from coal. But nuclear by every measure has been safer than coal, by every measure, enormously safer. In a global warming world, it's unfortunate that that is not the perception of nuclear among parts of the public. So I grew up in Boston. I'm the son and grandson of Irish immigrants. I went to Boston Latin School, and while there found out I was pretty smart. I ended up valedictorian, with a Joseph Kennedy Scholarship, and the Ben Franklin Medal. And I was heavily influenced by the son of Joseph Kennedy, who entered the White House my first year at Boston Latin. How could you not be influenced by John Kennedy? How could you not be? Seventh grade is when President Kennedy gave his inaugural address and asked us to serve the country. "Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country." I took that seriously. I also had the dream of being a Nobel Laureate in Physics, which I pursued first. That dream wasn't totally worked out of me until I got to Caltech for graduate school, and met Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman and discovered that I'm not in their class and that I should probably look for other things to do. So I did that. I'm probably the only person in the history of Caltech to take the Foreign Service exam and pass it. Why the Foreign Service? I had never been out of New England until I graduated from Harvard. Never been out of probably a 50 or 60 mile radius of Boston until I graduated from Harvard. Then I got this fellowship to go to Europe, the Sheldon Travelling Fellowship. Harvard gives two a year and I was lucky enough to get one of them. I flew to Europe on the first plane I had ever been on, and traveled in Western Europe. My fellowship lasted as long as the $3,000 could be stingily spent, which was about ten months. It was a tremendously broadening experience. Then I went to Caltech. As I said, I discovered I was in a different class from their two Nobel Laureates, but I had this other thing I wanted to do, inspired by John Kennedy and inspired by my father and my grandfather, and by my year abroad. I take seriously this notion that we are the greatest country on earth, and that the American Nuclear Society is really an international society. American is in its title, but we are a nation that absolutely has benefited from immigrants of all nations and creeds. That's what makes us great. I spent a couple of years at the Kennedy School after leaving Caltech. I needed to wait until the Foreign Service could process all the paperwork, although in my oral exam, I think my examiner didn't know what to do with me honestly because here's this guy that could actually pass the written Foreign Service exam with its emphasis on the social and political sciences but also could talk about science and public policy. My examiners pretty much guaranteed me that I'd get into the Foreign Service when I wanted to get in, but the clearance process would take time. So I spent two years at the Kennedy School, and did learn a tremendous amount, particularly in one course taught by John Steinbruner and the late Richard Neustadt. Steinbruner had written a book called The Cybernetic Theory of Decision. I mentioned it at this year’s Regulatory Information Conference back in March. Steinbruner teaches at the University of Maryland now, and what he wrote about in his book was how different people make decisions, and his book contains a warning. It's a warning that we must beware of people who are theoretical or ideological thinkers. It's a warning against ideological thinking. He tells a story and I'm not going to go through it here, but the heart of it is that we wasted vast amounts of money on a theory that the West Germans wanted to have access to nuclear weapons in the late 1950s and early 1960s. It’s a story of how people in various Federal bureaucracies managed to resist the facts for many years and how in the end President Johnson and Prime Minister Wilson in 1964 cancelled this ill-conceived program that had been kept alive by theoretical thinking for so long. That book taught me to embrace rational fact-based analysis and to beware of theoretical thinkers who avoid facts that don’t serve their theories. I pulled out something last night. It's my first efficiency report in the Foreign Service written by George Vest who was one of the great Foreign Service officers of the post-World War II generation. He was Director of the Political Military Bureau and he selected me in June 1976 to be his staff assistant. It was the perfect first Foreign Service assignment for me and I was so lucky to get it. What Mr. Vest wrote about me in December 1976 was very laudatory. In his cover letter where he's trying to get me an early promotion he wrote, “Every once a while I run into someone extraordinary among our Foreign Service officers.” But the interesting part in the efficiency report is where he is forced to write something negative as well. So Mr. Vest in his inimitable way wrote the following. It starts even in this section with a compliment. "This is an exceptionally capable officer who demands (and habitually produces) perfection of himself. As he rises to positions of supervisory responsibility, he will have to guard against those barely perceptible flashes of impatience of those who are less gifted or less committed." I don't think I ever solved that problem. And I think Luis Reyes will probably be the first to confirm that. Then the second point Mr. Vest made, which I do think I solved, was this. "As well, Ed has an unusually engaging, quiet and low key personality. Eventually, there will be circumstances where people mistake this for weakness and will try to take advantage of him. He may find it necessary to raise the decibel count of his personality from time to time." I think everyone would agree that although I am an introvert, I did take that warning to heart and solved it in the remainder of my career. The other fact about me that I'm going to mention is something I learned very late in my service to Senator Bingaman, something about me which I didn't know. I took the Myers-Briggs exam together with the Senator and his entire staff. It was probably in 1995. Senator Bingaman likes to read about management theories sort of like everybody else goes through bacon at breakfast. But this was one time I really appreciated his bringing the technique to the office. I turned out to be a very strong Introverted Sensing Thinking Judging (ISTJ) in all four categories. The opposite categories were Extraverted, Intuitive, Feeling, and Perceiving. I'll read you what the Myers-Briggs worksheet says about ISTJs: “Serious, quiet, earn success by concentration and thoroughness. Practical, orderly, matter-of-fact, logical, realistic and dependable. See to it that everything is well organized. Take responsibility. Make up their own minds as to what should be accomplished and work toward it steadily regardless of protests or distractions.” And I discovered upon getting those results a bit about my role for Senator Bingaman. Having learned that rule at the Kennedy School from John Steinbruner to deal with facts as they are and not as you wish them to be, to not be a theoretical thinker, I now knew that that was probably embedded in my personality. I also learned that Senator Bingaman was an intuitive. And the great thing about intuitives, former Chairman Diaz was definitely an intuitive, is they need people like me to talk them out of things that are not fact-based. And that explains part of my role here at NRC, as it was my role with Senator Bingaman. I think I have intuition, I will say defensively, because I really understand the processes of government and read voraciously in a broad number of fields that have touched my life. But that is a “sensing” personality. Intuitives can make leaps with far less data or no data at all, and sometimes they are right, but often they have gone too far. Intuitives need sensors. They need people like me. So that was my role with Senator Bingaman. I think it has been part of my role here at NRC. I can accept this award with great gratitude and the feeling that perhaps I deserve it. I love this place. I love the career that I've had in government with the very, very fine people with whom and for whom I have worked. I think the American people don't understand how great our government is. We have a remarkable government, remarkable people. I'm glad that some of the NRC staff who are ANS members are here today. I particularly wanted to have some of you here, although the turnout may be less because we gave you so little notice. We are a great institution. Government is a great place to serve. And the American people are well served by government on a daily basis despite the constant harping in news headlines about the misdeeds of the few. We have people in government who cheat, who try to take advantage of purchasing arrangements and those sort of things. But there are laws to punish the few who mis-serve and we enforce those laws vigorously. But the vast, overwhelming, 99.9 plus something percent of government employees are truly dedicated, work their hearts out and yet usually do not receive enough notice. So I accept this award on behalf of all the folks who are unknown and who serve their nation with distinction to their greatest ability. I happen to have been born with a few things that set me apart intellectually, perhaps emotionally that have allowed me to get to this level. But there are lots of people in government who the American people should get to know other than by reading the Washington Post or New York Times for whatever scandal they're covering each day. Thank you very much. I appreciate your presence at this ceremony. My understanding is that we will now move across the hall to the Commission dining room for some cookies and soft drinks. Thank you again. NRC speeches are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when speeches are posted to NRC's Web site. Thursday, June 28, 2007 ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: Keeping the “Safe” in New Digital Safety System Designs, Peter B. Lyons, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Speech - S-07-028 - OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: Public Affairs Web Site June 19, 2007 I. Introduction and Overview I want to add my welcome to all of you in attendance at this conference and particularly to those who have traveled far. I am extremely pleased that you have made the effort to be here. I truly hope that you find this conference and its information exchanges beneficial in helping us all to better achieve nuclear plant safety through the benefits of digital technology. My remarks today represent my personal thoughts and not necessarily those of the Commission. The common-cause failure theme of this conference is of great interest and importance to nuclear regulators throughout the world. Much thought and debate have been devoted to it for many years. I note and am encouraged that practical solutions have already been implemented to address it. However, the continuing advance of digital technology and the increasing world-wide interest in “all-digital” new nuclear plants have combined to make it imperative for us to continue constructive dialogue and the identification of practical and safe solutions. I believe that significant improvements to safety-system reliability can be gained through the use of digital technology, provided we don’t lose focus on keeping the “safe” in new digital safety system designs. II. Historical Perspective Let me start with some Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) history that I have found to be very insightful in understanding this issue. Software-based nuclear plant safety systems deployed in the U.S. in the 1980s, such as the Combustion Engineering Core Protection Calculators or CPCs, were considered safe by the NRC, largely due to being designed as a single digital component of a much more extended analog safety system. Thus, every safety function initiated by these CPCs had at least one analog backup. The use of CPCs enabled more precise computations of plant operating parameters, thereby reducing uncertainties and allowing greater operational flexibility. Because the analog channel was diverse from the digital channel and could equally and redundantly fulfill the safety function when needed, the question of common-cause failure of the digital channels was not a significant concern. In the early 1990s, the NRC began reviewing advanced reactor designs developed by General Electric, Combustion Engineering, and Westinghouse. At about the same time, the U.K. regulator was similarly reviewing the Sizewell B design. I understand that great debates took place among these regulators, their advisory committees, and the nuclear and computer software industries. Such debates were far ranging across a wide spectrum of issues. Questions included whether it would ever be possible to estimate the probability of common-cause and other design flaws leading to software failure that could impact reactor safety. Technical questions were debated, such as whether “hard-wire” or analog backup instruments and controls were needed to implement the concept of diversity, or whether diverse digital systems would suffice. To help resolve these debates, the NRC commissioned a study panel of the National Academies of Science and Engineering. The 1997 report from this study panel supported the NRC staff’s approach that common-cause software failures were credible, and it recommended maintaining diversity in digital safety systems. The panel recommended that the staff not rely heavily on techniques, such as different programming languages, different design approaches meeting the same functional requirements, different design teams, or using similar equipment from different vendors. The recommendation was that the staff should emphasize more robust techniques, such as the use of diverse inputs and processing algorithms, diverse hardware, and diverse real-time operating systems. The panel also agreed with the NRC position that common-cause failures could be addressed using diversity in a number of different ways dependent upon plant-specific factors, including use of diverse digital systems. In fact, designs certified by NRC in the 1990s permitted the use of an added non-safety-grade diverse digital system to address the common-cause failure potential for important safety functions. To me, this seems a relatively straightforward approach to address the issue of digital-system common-cause failure. As most of you are aware, international approaches to addressing common-cause failure in digital safety systems vary widely, but most are grounded in the application of varying degrees of diversity and independence to safety system components and functions. In fact, I am aware that at least one design certification application being prepared now plans to incorporate a diverse analog backup safety system to address common-cause failures of the primary digital safety system. I believe that there are very real safety benefits that can be achieved through the use of digital systems in nuclear power plants, but to address persistent regulatory questions regarding some of the new approaches being taken, the Commission recently directed senior NRC managers to engage industry and establish a project plan to address these questions. So I’d like to further discuss some of my initial thoughts on the application of independence and design techniques such as functional diversity in the application of the defense-in-depth philosophy to digital safety systems. III. The Application of Defense-in-Depth Principles to Digital Systems Digital safety and I&C systems have already demonstrated greater operational flexibility through (1) more precise calculations of plant parameters and safety margin and (2) greater reliability over analog systems by using features such as on-line diagnostics. However, ongoing advances in digital and human-machine interface technology can potentially lead to digital systems that more closely couple the various hardware components and software logic, thereby raising regulatory questions about the extent and adequacy of independence and diversity. In the U.S., the nuclear industry has argued that the familiar approaches to achieving defense-in-depth in electro-mechanical safety systems must be modified when they are applied to digital systems. I have considered that idea and offer the following thoughts. First, we often use the term “diversity” and “defense-in-depth” as if they were two separate concepts. However, if defense-in-depth is viewed as the overarching objective, then diversity as well as redundancy and the implicit assumption of independence are three of its most important contributing elements. We all know that traditional defense-in-depth concepts in the nuclear power industry often involve multiple and identical redundant electro-mechanical safety system trains, and in some cases, include additional diverse systems that can satisfy the same safety function, using alternative means. Inherent in these concepts of redundancy and diversity is the presumption of independence. Each train of each system that is capable of providing the safety function is designed to avoid being adversely influenced by the actions or failures of the other trains. Traditionally, for electro-mechanical systems, such independence has been achieved using separation: spatially, mechanically, electrically, and by utilizing separate sensors, communications, and controls. As redundant and/or diverse system components are designed to become more interconnected, and previously separate means of performing safety functions are combined into one system, it becomes increasingly important to understand the nature and effect of possible interactions between these components and to guard against unintended adverse outcomes. I believe the need to fully understand such effects is fundamental and, therefore, that it must also apply to digital safety systems. The basic rule, as I see it, is that there are two determinations that need to be made. The first is to determine that the interconnections actually have a safety benefit. In some cases, designers may use interconnections for ease of installation or to avoid the need to redesign a commercially available system. Second, when two components of a system are designed to be more and more intertwined and coupled, greater and greater attention and effort must be paid to guarding against adversity while preserving the intended advantages of the coupling. From a regulator’s point of view, we must continue to apply the fundamental concept of achieving defense-in-depth through, in part, independence of redundant and diverse safety system components. Independence and diversity are the key concepts, and there are presently no other safety concepts or approaches to take their place. As digital I&C system designers increase the number and types of software and hardware interconnections and resource sharing between components in pursuit of better overall system performance, the regulator must equally increase the scrutiny of how the designers have achieved the necessary independence and diversity to address common-cause and other failures. I do not doubt that we can certify future digital I&C designs in which the treatment of common-cause failure may depart significantly from those designs already certified by the NRC, assuming full and proper attention is paid to the issues of independence and diversity, leading to adequate overall defense-in-depth. The question for applicants today is one of whether at this point in time it is worth using significantly different digital-safety-system design concepts that raise new questions, which the designers, applicants, and regulators must ensure are addressed for adequate defense-in-depth. Although the NRC is actively working on updating our regulatory guidance in this area, current designers would do well to ‘begin with the end in mind’ and, at the very beginning, anticipate the regulatory safety case that must be made at the end. I recognize that part of good regulation is being clear about the standard to be met. However, as standards become more precisely defined, they can often become more limiting. Given the continued rapid advance of digital technology, I worry about being an overly prescriptive regulator. Here I would emphasize that in setting its current standard, the NRC’s definition of diversity can be applied at several levels, including at the component level of the digital safety system, or at the level of the mechanical systems that can provide the safety function, or even at the level of safety system functions themselves. IV. The Big Picture Common-cause failures are just one type of digital system failure. There are many more. So, I would like to turn to a discussion of the “Big Picture” view, encompassing the broadest definition of digital-system failure modes. We have found probabilistic risk assessments, or PRAs, to be a useful Big Picture tool, which are aimed at understanding overall system failure as a function of individual failures of system components following various initiating events. Such tools can help us better understand the risk of a system’s operation in those cases in which it is impossible to test the overall system reliability. It is widely acknowledged that digital systems, beyond the simplest of designs, cannot be demonstrated as having achieved a minimum reliability standard through testing. So industry attention and NRC research is being devoted to examining whether it is possible to incorporate digital system failures into probabilistic risk assessment models. A decade ago the great debate over this question was almost philosophical in nature. Today, the NRC is continuing to explore this question, and I cannot predict how it might be answered in the future. But I do know that in order to estimate the probability of failure of any system, digital or otherwise, for starters, you need to know how the various parts of the system can fail – individually, collectively, and synergistically. That is, each of the most basic elements of a probabilistic model must be defined before it can be given a failure probability or event likelihood. Such basic element failures are then logically connected to represent collective failures that could contribute to overall system failure. Synergistic failures must also be represented in the model and should include common-cause failures as well as consequential failures. My point is that at the heart of these modeling assumptions is one fundamental assumption: that is, we assume that we have identified the basic failure causes, failure modes, and connections between failures. Given the complexity of digital systems, I believe that it might be helpful to create a catalogue of digital failures, organized to better enable industry and the NRC to systematically and methodically address each known failure mode, to coherently add to the knowledge base over time as operating experience accumulates, and, perhaps, to provide the basis for defense-in-depth evaluations, PRA models, or similar uses. At the highest level, such a catalogue might start with three broad categories of failure: hardware failure, software failure, and combined or synergistic hardware/software interactive failures. The message here is that a systematic approach to cataloging digital system functions and failures can be potentially very helpful to both the designer and the regulator. This was also reinforced by the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, highlighting the need for an inventory and classification of digital software systems to support our analysis of the susceptibility of these systems to failures. A second important Big Picture issue is the need for gathering, sharing, and using digital-system operating experience. The need to broadly share such experience was also emphasized by the advisory committee. Useful insights can even be obtained from experience with non-safety digital systems and from outside the nuclear industry. The U.S. stands to benefit from such international efforts as we move toward deployment of new plants. The U.S. should also provide increasing contributions to such a base of knowledge. The infrastructure for managing this sharing of experience is already beginning to take form, but must be managed to ensure we do not duplicate efforts and that we capture the most useful information. I am aware of the COMPSIS and OECD/NEA initiatives in this area and hope that as we move forward we continue to collaborate and stay coordinated. The Big Picture is that sharing operating experience becomes even more vitally important for systems where testing cannot be expected to “shake out” all the potential failure causes and modes. Thus, the NRC is working closely with other international regulatory bodies to learn and to share insights. A third Big Picture issue for the NRC is that currently we are addressing the regulatory challenges of digital systems by using the test and analysis capabilities of our national laboratories, universities, and international research centers, as well as our own staff resources. The research through such varied contractor arrangements is conducted in a case-by-case fashion in which research topics are not always fully or efficiently integrated where appropriate. This approach has made regulatory improvements slower than we need them to be to keep up with advancing digital technology and the science of human-machine interface approaches. In addition, in a recent report prepared by the Idaho National Laboratory for the Department of Energy addressing the need for I&C and human-machine interface to support DOE’s advanced nuclear energy programs, the lack of a national simulation facility to provide a test bed for the nuclear industry is discussed. To close this gap, the Commission has directed its staff to begin a public dialogue on the potential benefits and challenges of a research, test, and evaluation facility in the U.S for digital safety system applications. My hope is that such an integrated facility would create synergies and efficiencies not evident in our current approach. Also, I believe this could better attract new graduates and experienced professionals in this highly competitive field. Possibilities include the participation of other government agencies and industries in examining issues, including hardware and software configuration, system requirements, maintenance approaches, normal and adverse environmental conditions, faulted condition performance, and a variety of human-machine interaction approaches, all evaluated under controlled conditions representative of those in nuclear facilities and in other safety-related applications outside of the nuclear industry. I am pleased to announce that this dialogue will start with a public workshop to be held (tentatively) in Atlanta, Georgia, on September 6 and 7, 2007. More information is available from our NRC website at www.nrc.gov. I hope you will consider attending or at least letting your colleagues know about it. V. Closing So in closing, let me again emphasize my key points: First, today’s and tomorrow’s digital technology can be put to good use in improving the effectiveness of human-machine interfaces and the precision by which we monitor and control reactor parameters to maintain safety at all times. Second, reactor designers, and digital safety and I&C system designers in particular, must begin with the safety end in mind and recognize the fundamental regulatory principles that will ultimately need to be satisfied. These require achievement of adequate defense-in-depth based, in part, on independence of the means to satisfy each safety function. The goal to keep the “safe” in digital safety system design is absolute and must be met. To achieve this, we must find the appropriate ways to apply the concepts of redundancy, diversity, and independence with digital system designs. Third, designers, researchers, and regulators need to be systematic, methodical, and thorough in identifying and cataloguing all the ways that digital systems can fail. We need to share these insights broadly, deriving them from design work as well as from our collective operating experience. Finally, regulators should continue to improve the clarity and usefulness of regulatory requirements and standards for digital technology and must find better ways of evaluating these new designs, which will surely continue to evolve into the future. NRC speeches are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when speeches are posted to NRC's Web site. Tuesday, June 26, 2007 ***************************************************************** 37 NRC: A Look Ahead for NRC and the Industry" Chairman Dale E. Klein US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Speech - 07-031 - “ OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: Public Affairs Web Site Canberra User’s Group Indian Wells, CA June 27, 2007 Thank you. You may have seen on the news that the President was in Alabama last Thursday to commemorate the restart of the Browns Ferry Unit One nuclear reactor. He toured the plant and congratulated the hard work of the TVA and NRC employees who supervised the safe restart of the plant after 22 years. The President also gave a speech that focused on the importance of expanding the use of nuclear energy to help solve the nation’s growing energy needs and significant environmental challenges. I also had the opportunity to speak to the TVA audience briefly. But since I am a regulator, and not an advocate for or against commercial nuclear power, I simply congratulated them on successfully meeting the NRC’s rigorous safety and inspection standards, and earning the authorization to restart Unit One. Many people regard this restart as a sign that the Nuclear Renaissance is under way. That may or may not the case. In any event, I can tell you that the NRC is quite busy. Let me give you some idea of what we are facing. 1. We’ve been told by industry to expect license applications for 27 new reactors in the next two years... and every day our Executive Director of Operations warns me to prepare for an even higher number. 2. To do that, we had to create an entirely new inspection office in Atlanta. 3. We are scrambling to increase our workforce by a net of 600 employees. 4. We urgently need 120,000 more square feet of office space at our headquarters. 5. With uranium at $130 a pound, we are hearing from a dozen companies expressing an interest in new mining operations in the U.S. 6. We are making plans to receive an application for the Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository, which DOE has said it plans to submit next year. 7. Our office in charge of international programs has its hands full dealing with the fact that nuclear energy has become, in almost every respect, a multinational business. 8. And all of that is on top of our regular workload of overseeing the safety of the 104 plants already operating in the U.S. and a large number of licensees using radioactive materials. How are we dealing with all of his? Well, the Commission’s most immediate challenge is finding and hiring the additional 600 full-time employees I mentioned—which we hope to accomplish by 2009. This significant expansion of our staff, in addition to ordinary employee turnover, means that we will have 1,200 new people at the NRC headquarters by 2009—nearly one-third of our entire workforce. Obviously, this kind of growth and transition will not be easy. And given our serious and often complex regulatory responsibilities, hiring people is just the first step. In addition to finding qualified employees, we need to ensure that the staff is appropriately trained to handle our future regulatory obligations... including new reactor technologies, such as Digital Instrumentation and Control. This demand for qualified staff is complicated by the fact that at the same time we are looking for qualified engineers and skilled workers, industry is also seeking to hire such people to meet its needs. But we have a comprehensive plan in place, and I believe that we will be able to meet the significant challenges we face in the areas of workforce development and knowledge transfer. In the final analysis, I am confident that we will be prepared. I have assured Congress and industry that the NRC will not be a bottleneck. Notwithstanding the challenges I just outlined, our staff is highly professional, motivated, and dedicated. And in case you missed the announcement, we are the “Best Place to Work” in the federal government. So we will do our job, and we will do it well. There is one thing that would make our jobs easier… and it is something that all of you can help us with. I am talking about the need to expand and refine the public’s understanding about all things nuclear. You just heard Frederic Van Heems give a very good explanation of how the Nuclear Renaissance is unfolding. And I think that President Bush’s visit to Brown’s Ferry—and the significant media coverage of that visit—prove that there is a lot of interest in nuclear issues. But the fact that the media and the public at large are paying attention does not necessarily mean that they understand the issues as well as they might. And if industry doesn’t explain these issues, then someone else will. A few weeks ago I spoke to the Society for Nuclear Medicine, and I pointed out that because there is so much focus on the NRC’s work on reactors, many people don’t appreciate the other half of what we do—which is regulating the safe use of nuclear materials for research, medical applications, and other purposes. That’s unfortunate for several reasons. If more people understood the nature of radiation, and the important role it plays in our everyday lives, they might be less afflicted by what you might call “radiation phobia.” There are, of course, very real issues and grave dangers involved with radiation, and it is incumbent on all of us to lay them out in detail. But I think you would agree that the public also deserves to know what not to be afraid of. So I challenged the audience to become much more active in helping to give the public a better understanding of nuclear materials and radiation in a broad sense. This was a conference comprising several thousand health professionals. And I pointed out that as doctors, nurses and medical technicians, they had a position of trust and confidence that could help them undertake this effort in a credible way. But all of you are also in a unique position to educate the general population. Because so many of you here this morning are involved in radiation detection, analysis, and instrumentation, you are well equipped to help explain these issues clearly and concisely. Now, as all of you know very well, the first step in explaining things properly is having the right metrics. So let me take this opportunity to propose a new calibration that you could put before your Standards Committee, and perhaps the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The new metric or quantification method that I am suggesting would be called… “The Standard Banana.” Many of you will know immediately what I am referring to, but let me tell you a quick story to put this in context. Last year, I visited the Port of Seattle and toured the radiation detectors operated by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol at the Port. Their primary mission is to examine cargo entering the U.S. that may contain nuclear materials that could be used in weapons or dirty bombs. They have excellent equipment and well-trained and motivated agents. Part of that training is to understand what is a real threat versus a naturally occurring source. They need to make decisions—at this one facility, they average 1,600 hits per month. In fact, while I was there one cargo container triggered the alarms. It was a shipment of Chinese fireworks and isotopic analysis showed the culprit was potassium 40. The Customs agents told me about one particular port that receives nothing but bananas – and virtually every shipment sets off the detectors. That struck a chord with me, because some of my fellow Commissioners have joked for some time about creating the “standard banana” as a harmless unit of radioactivity. The public needs to understand there is such a thing as harmless exposure—which I think most people would grasp if you explain it in terms they can understand… like a standard banana. My fellow Commissioner Ed McGaffigan has frequently pointed out that we’re all in violation of standards. Ed said once in an interview, “We’re self-radiating ourselves at 40 millirems per year because of the potassium 40 we carry in our bodies. Double beds -- your spouse will radiate you to about two to three millirems per year. Those are doses at which we actually regulate. And I’ve always wondered, when people [demand] tighter regulation, why they’re not demanding that double beds be regulated, or bananas, or brazil nuts”—end quote. It would be helpful for the public to know these facts when, for instance, there is debate about increasing security for smaller radiation sources. All of us need to work to see that the public deliberation over these matters proceeds in a reasonable and risk-informed manner. Without such understanding, we will continue to receive pressure to increase health and safety as well as security requirements to reach a “zero” risk level. As I told the Society for Nuclear Medicine, this would likely have the opposite of the intended outcome. It could actually decrease the overall health and safety of the US population by imposing such restrictive requirements that the medical community would essentially be denied access to radioactive materials for nuclear medicine, thus preventing patients from receiving beneficial treatments. Now, while the public education campaign I am talking about is important for the medical community, it is even more crucial for the commercial nuclear energy industry. After all, people trust their doctors… most of the time. But there is not the same reserve of trust for nuclear power plant owners. So one of the themes I have been reiterating in my speeches to industry representatives is the need to make sure that the senior executives of the power companies have a proper understanding of the technical issues involved in operating commercial nuclear reactors. These are generally people who are very well trained in business and management—and that is important, obviously. But if industry expects the Nuclear Renaissance to proceed smoothly, the executives who run the utilities also need to be able to communicate effectively about nuclear and radiological issues. So let me conclude by asking those of you who really understand radiation to help in this effort. I would like to see a genuinely coordinated and concerted effort by those of you in the detection and instrumentation communities to inform the public, the media, your elected officials, and other opinion leaders about the causes, effects, risks, and benefits of nuclear and radiological issues. Give them the facts regarding both natural, background radiation, as well as the many purposes that nuclear materials serve in our society. This would make your work easier, and it would make the work we do at the NRC easier. And frankly, improving the level of understanding in public opinion is a worthy goal in its own right. Abraham Lincoln, who didn’t know much about nuclear science but knew a lot about democracy said, “In America, public opinion is everything. With it, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed.” With that, let me conclude by thanking you for the invitation to join you this morning and share some thoughts with you. And I do hope you will heed my challenge. Since I have four years left on the NRC, I will have ample opportunity to check on your progress! NRC speeches are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when speeches are posted to NRC's Web site. Thursday, June 28, 2007 ***************************************************************** 38 ScienceDaily: New Calculation Code Opens New Possibilities In Nuclear Reactor Modeling Source: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland The Monte Carlo method is a basic tool in particle transport problems, and it is well suited for tasks requiring the detailed modelling of geometry and physics. The method has been used in reactor physics calculations for decades, and the applications have mainly been restricted by computer capacity. In Leppänen's thesis, the use of the method is extended to new applications, when input parameters for three-dimensional reactor simulator calculations are generated using a Monte Carlo based lattice code. Nuclear reactor modelling is a complicated task that combines neutron transport theory and the thermal hydraulics of coolant flow through the reactor core. Because of the complicated physics of neutron interactions, it is not possible to approach the problem as a single, well-defined task. Instead, the solution proceeds in steps, starting from the interactions between neutrons and the target nuclei. The intermediate step in the solution is the so-called lattice calculation, in which the geometry is modelled at the fuel assembly level. The results are then used as input parameters for a three-dimensional reactor simulator calculation, which yields the reactor response under different operating conditions. The presently-used deterministic lattice codes have been developed mainly for the needs of light water reactor modelling, and the applications are not easily extended to advanced fuel types and next-generation reactor systems. Development in nuclear technology may hence require development in the calculation methods as well. A transition from deterministic to Monte Carlo lattice codes along with increasing computer capacity seems like a natural step in this respect. The use of a Monte Carlo based lattice code also brings all the advantages of the calculation method, and most importantly, the same code can be used for modelling any fuel or reactor type without compromising the reliability of the results. The new calculation code developed at VTT is at first intended as a research tool, to be used in parallel with current deterministic lattice codes. The comparison of two codes based on entirely different calculation methods increases the reliability of the analyses, which is reflected in fuel management and reactor safety studies. The new code can also be used in studies involving next-generation reactor technology, in which the current deterministic lattice codes may not be applicable. Research Scientist Jaakko Leppänen has defended his doctoral thesis at the Helsinki University of Technology on 18 June 2007 with the subject "Development of a New Monte Carlo Reactor Physics Code". The opponent in the defence was Associate Professor Eduard Hoogenboom from Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. Web ScienceDaily.com ***************************************************************** 39 Herald Sun: Going nuclear not the answer NEWS.com.au | June 29, 2007 12:00am THE world must build nuclear power plants at the unprecedented rate of four a month if nuclear energy is to play a serious part in fighting global warming, a leading think-tank says. Not only is this logistically impossible, it has major implications for world security because of nuclear weapons proliferation, the Oxford Research Group said. Its report, Too Hot to Handle -- the Future of Civil Nuclear Power, comes less than a week after the electricity generators' World Energy Council said nuclear power had to be a major part of the new energy mix. Nuclear power now meets about 16 per cent of world electricity demand. Population is predicted to grow by more than half, to 10 billion people, by 2075. The report said that to play a significant part in curbing carbon emissions nuclear power would have to provide one-third of electricity by 2075. This meant building four new nuclear plants a month, every month, for the next 70 years. Top civil nuclear power France gets 78 per cent of electricity from 59 reactors, but has never neared that rate of construction. "Unless it can be demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power can make a major contribution to global CO2 mitigation, nuclear power should be taken out of the mix," the report said. Proponents say nuclear power emits little carbon dioxide; opponents point to its lethal toxicity that lingers for millennia. The report said the world has 429 reactors on line, with 25 more under construction, 76 planned and 162 proposed. Surging demand would place great strains on supplies of uranium ore, probably leading to exploitation of poorer grades and the use of more carbon in extraction and refining. This would push development of fast breeder reactors that produce more radioactive fuel than they consume, creating a security nightmare. The report said if the 2075 scenario eventuated, 4000 tonnes of plutonium would be being processed into reactor fuel each year -- 20 times today's military stockpile. The probability was high that some of it would end up in the wrong hands. REUTERS Share this article What is this? © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 40 Daily Times: Khan network no longer exists Leading News Resource of Pakistan Friday, June 29, 2007 From Khalid Hasan WASHINGTON: Experts testifying before a congressional committee on Wednesday agreed that the AQ Khan network “is no longer in existence”. The hearing by the subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, headed by Gerry Ackerman of New York, and the subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade, was devoted to the theme: US policy and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The three witnesses who presented testimonies and answered questions were: David Albright of the Institute of Science and Technology, Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London and Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation. Under persistent questioning by members of the committee wanting to know if the AQ Khan network has been effectively wrapped up, the experts were in accord on the point that the network is no longer operative. In its most functional and active stage, there were about 40 to 50 people involved in its operations in Pakistan and abroad and the Dubai end is still in existence. In answer to a question, one of the experts said that Dr Khan’s motivation appeared to be financial rather than ideological. David Albright, one of the leading authorities in Washington on nuclear proliferation and related areas, said it had not been confirmed that it was the Saudi Kingdom that had financed Pakistan’s nuclear programme. However, there could be an understanding that Pakistan would aid Saudi Arabia if called upon to do so, but there was no evidence that Pakistan had supplied nuclear weapons or nuclear know-how to Saudi Arabia. One expert said these nuclear weapons were Pakistan’s “crown jewels” and “we’ve some confidence that Pakistan is committed to protect them.” The members of the committee, with the exception of Sheila Jackson-Lee, were openly hostile to Pakistan during their individual presentations and in their questioning of the three experts. Ackerman found it ironic that the “stiffest penalty” the Pakistani government could impose on those who sell its “nuclear crown jewels” is house arrest. Congressman Ed Royce of California said Pakistan owes more to the world than it had so far revealed. He also accused Dr Khan of “stealing” nuclear technology from Holland. One member said that the Pakistan government was “complicit” in the Khan network. He also urged direct access to Dr Khan. Another member said it was not possible to transport nuclear equipment in a C-130 aircraft without the knowledge of army command. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions ***************************************************************** 41 Daily Times: Nuke smuggling lucrative, difficult to stop - US expert Leading News Resource of Pakistan Friday, June 29, 2007 By Khalid Hasan WASHINGTON: A leading nuclear expert warned during a congressional hearing on Wednesday that nuclear smuggling was difficult to stop because it was highly lucrative for the suppliers, “who rarely worry about getting caught, or if caught, about receiving severe punishments.” David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security told a congressional subcommittee that held a hearing on nuclear proliferation specially focused on the so-called AQ Khan network, now disbanded, “Illicit nuclear trade is receiving scant attention, whereas it is necessary to understand how such trade occurs and how it can be thwarted.” Illegal nuclear trade should be considered on a par with fissile material protection and control in achieving threat reduction objectives, he proposed. He said Dr Khan was the first to come to the conclusion that the means to make nuclear weapons could be purchased piecemeal from Western suppliers. Those he bought from were not terrorists or citizens of outlaw states but engineers, friends and ambitious businessmen. “With his pioneering methods in the late 1970s, he succeeded in getting Pakistan the bomb in a few years where others in his country had failed,” Albright said in acknowledgment of Dr Khan’s unique achievement for Pakistan. Albright said, “Always a pioneer, Khan charted a new pathway to nuclear proliferation in the mid-1980s. He started to sell centrifuges and nuclear weapon designs to other developing countries with nuclear ambitions, starting with Iran.” Dr Khan was helped by western company officials who had been Pakistan’s key suppliers. He quoted an IAEA official as saying that Dr Khan developed packages containing key equipment and documentation, often digitalised, sufficient to achieve one step in the process of building a nuclear weapon. These packages remain a threat since it is not known who has them and who may use them in future to make a weapon. Mark Fitzgerald of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, told the committee that at least a dozen countries had secretly sought to secure technology in efforts to build nuclear weapons. Dr Khan, he said, “significantly lowered the technical barriers to nuclear weapon development.” According to him, today’s black market suppliers are far less integrated than Dr Khan’s “one-stop shopping.” He said Dr Khan’s actions “blurred the lines distinguishing private criminality from state-authorised activity.” He suggested a number of steps to stop nuclear black markets, including tighter export controls; implementation by states of UN Security Council Resolution No 1540, which made states responsible for what left their borders; standardising universal export controls; imposing stiffer penalties on violators; blocking the supply of nuclear materials; enhancing information collection and sharing; expanding IAEA industry outreach programmes; sharing export approvals and denials with the IAEA; reinforcing interdiction networks; and ratifying a UN treaty that allows interdiction of suspect shipping on the high seas. He said strict constraints on the black market were essential if concerned states wish to prevent the breakdown of the international nonproliferation regime. Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation told Congress that the intersection of terrorism and nuclear weapons was arguably the greatest threat to American nationals, even global, security. The Khan case demonstrated the “devastating consequences of nuclear proliferation by individuals with access to state-controlled nuclear programmes.” Turning to Pakistan where she once served at US embassy, she said, “The more worrisome trend in Pakistan are the links between some retired military and intelligence officers and nuclear scientists to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” There was little prospect of radicals taking over Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, as some feared in America, she added. She suggested that US policy should centre on helping to prevent the penetration of the nuclear establishment over time by individuals sympathetic to Al Qaeda goals. She stressed the need for a “robust” US-Pakistan partnership, based on trust and mutual understanding, in order to ensure that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons remain in the safe hands. She suggested that the US should target its assistance programmes more effectively to accomplish specific goals, such as the greater safety and security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. The US should also encourage India and Pakistan to resolve their differences, which will strengthen efforts to build confidence on nuclear-related issues, an area where progress has been slow, she added. She did not think that given the Khan experience, the US would be willing to conclude the same kind of civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Pakistan that it had signed with India. She told the committee, “US policymakers should refrain from compartmentalising our myriad interests in Pakistan but instead integrate the various components of US policy towards Pakistan.” Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions ***************************************************************** 42 Subject: FW Cover up This is the final copy sorry we had allot of computer problems. Gai is from Hanford and Vina is from the Portsmouth. The reviewer of this Press Release must download the URL internet locations provided to enable you to access the discovered Exhibits--the US Health and Human Service's nuclear site AGENDA items. The verbiage used by the agents to define their long-standing intent is user-friendly and definitely self-explanatory. For a very long time, the agents of the government have been formulating their elaborate schemes that they believe shall enable them to establish their lucrative government business ventures for profits and political gains. But, first the profiteers knew they had to establish credibility. So, they set-out to compensate as few "Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program" (EEOICP) claimants as possible until cost was declared a validation obstacle of concern. 2003-2008: http://www.hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/documents/Agenda2003-08.pdf Agenda for HHS Public Health Activities (For Fiscal Years 2003-2008) at U.S.. Department of Energy Sites; March 2003; U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health Studies and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Environmental Health National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 2005-2010: http://cedr.lbl.gov/prospective/DHHS2005-2010agenda.pdf Agenda for HHS Public Health Activities (For Fiscal Years 2003-2010) at U.S.. Department of Energy Sites; January 2005; U.S. Department of Energy Office of Health Studies and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Environmental Health National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health SUBJECT: An incriminating and transparent EXHIBIT. In regard to the government agents'plots that are already in-place for the purpose of exploiting the maimed, sick, dying and deceased so-deemed "study groups." This accountability regards the discovery / disclosure of the Agendas for THE US Health and Human Services (USHHS) Public Health Activities (for fiscal years 2003-2010) at the U.S. Department of Energy Sites--why the EEOICP is failed and is abusive and discriminatory. The agents of the government never meant for the EEOICP to succeed after the nuclear facility "caretakers" were deemed liable for their negligent and abusive acts. Recovery of government funding is the objective. Thus, the agents' intent was/is to confiscate as many of the "damaged collateral" warriors' historical privacy act protected personal records, as-well-as their families', friends', peers', and neighbors' historical privacy act protected records. Thereafter, the unauthorized use of the American citizens' privacy act protected records is illegal for the purpose that the agents have designated. It is transparent that the government agents plotted/plot to create new business ventures for profit and political gains. Did you ever wonder why the Officials and their "caretakers" admit that they only meant to compensate about 3,000 of their so-deemed "easiest" and "most compensable" EEOICP applicants? When, in fact, the US Department of Energy estimated that over 600,000 nuclear workers would be eligible to apply; and the USHHS estimated that 650,000 nuclear workers are eligible to apply.. Reasonable man would likely conclude that the agents of the government have no scientific ways and means to segregate the easiest and most compensable claims. For instance, in order for the agents to meet their early-on obligations, even heavy smokers were selected to compensate and defined as the "easiest" and "most compensable" claims. And, there is no such thing as authoritative agency records. For decades the agents have demonstrated an immoral need for power and control over vulnerable 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generations of nuclear industry "veterans." Finally, certain answers to many of the victims' probing questions have been discovered after the agents of the government refused to respond for decades. Certain answers are clearly provided within the agents' Agenda Exhibits that lists 21 nuclear sites where the populous have been or will be exploited. The Exhibit's content presents harrowing reminders of the true "nature of the beast" that was/will be forced on the "damaged collateral" victims. The schemes are finally revealed that are definitely designed to provide jobs and security for thousands of "federal employees." The agents at least admit that the successful implementation of their schemes for profit and political gains are, of course, contingent upon whether Congress agrees to fund the schemes. We know that huge amounts of Congress allotted compensation funding is being squandered on program administration costs. So, the greater majority of the agents of the government social engineered a plot. That plot caused countless numbers of "Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program" (EEOICP) claimants; downwinders; the exposed community populous; the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) claimants; the Black Lung Act claimants: and the Vaccine Compensation Act claimants, et.al. to relinquish their privacy act protected records to agents of the government. The enticements were introduced which included the promise of the monetary entitlement and medical benefit awards. But, the qualifying requirements were established by the agents of the government who had no intention of conforming with the Rule of Law that are in-place to enforce the claimants' civil/due process rights. It seems that the agents only intent is to replace the dwindling Manhattan Project money-making resources with what appears to be other, more lucrative business ventures. Such as the current US President's proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) business venture (ref. http://www.gnep.energy.gov) and the so-called universal health care providers that are solicited by the agents. However, before vested and interested parties agree to be involved as profiteers, the agents of the government were/are tasked to demonstrate that they are capable contributors and not just liars and thiefs. The proposed and already functioning government business ventures are built on the agents' hypothetical science methods and their bogus surveys. The agents attempt to prove their worth and/or value by citing findings of fact that are contained in the damaged nuclear industry warriors' and other damaged community warriors' privacy act protected records. PRESS RELEASE COORDINATORS: Gai Oglesbee, EEOICP Claimant - National Advocate National Nuclear Victims for Justice Vina Colley, EEOICP Claimant - National Advocate President of PRESS - Portsmouth/Piketon National Nuclear Workers for Justice Co-Chair Attachment Converted: "c:\program files\eudora\attach\PRESS RELEASE.June 27.2007.doc" ***************************************************************** 43 pressofatlanticcity: Safety tops concerns at N-plant meeting By DONNA WEAVER Staff Writer, (609) 978-2015 Published: Thursday, June 28, 2007 SURF CITY — Security risks at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant were the topic of conversation at an information session Wednesday evening at St. Thomas of Villanova. Earlier this month, the state Department of Environmental Protection blocked the Oyster Creek Generating Station's attempt to extend its operating license by 20 years, saying the facility has not provided enough information on future effects to fisheries to gain approval for a crucial federal requirement. One member of the audience said that the risk of a terrorist threat needs to be considered. Richard Webster, an attorney for the Stop the Relicensing of Oyster Creek coalition of citizens groups, and Leslie A. Cifelli, Oyster Creek site communications manager, spoke at the meeting. Cifelli said in her presentation that security at the plant is “triple-fold, beyond anything.†State Police and troops from the Army National Guard are positioned on the perimeter of the plant following a state mandate after Sept. 11, 2001, Cifelli said. The plant pays for the troops and State Police to patrol that area of the plant, according to Cifelli. The National Guard troops and the State Police patrol the owner-controlled property of the plant, she said. “They don't come inside of the plant, into the protected area. I really think they're there for the presence, for the public,†said Cifelli. Cifelli said the National Guard troops do not have ammunition for their weapons. But shortly after she told the crowd that they did, and then she said she didn't know for sure. Armed guards employed by AmerGen patrol the inside and the perimeter of the plant, according to Cifelli. In addition to the plant guards having ammunitions for their weapons, State Police also patrol the perimeter with loaded weapons. Cifelli, however, could not say for sure whether or not the National Guard troops who can be seen at times sitting outside of the plant in uniform in a camouflage truck, had ammunition for their weapons. “I know they have weapons; but I don't know for a fact if they are armed,†Ciffeli said. “But why does it matter?†Webster said it matters because the public needs real security not pretend security. He spoke of the safety concerns and unacceptable security risks that he said the plant poses. “The NRC's rules meet their design basis threat, which calls for four gunners on a four-wheel-drive truck with no propelled grenades or sniper rifles,†Webster said after the information session. “The security force is not able to respond to a realistic threat.†Scott Reznick of Harvey Cedars attended the information session to learn more about the relicensure of the plant. After the session ended, Reznick said he learned a lot and as far as security, Reznick simply stated, “what security; there is none.†Reznick also said the evacuation plan was inadequate. “Yesterday I was irrationally scared. Today, because of the information I heard tonight I am rationally terrified,†Reznick said. “The only reason we can't see the plant from our house anymore is because our neighbors raised their roof — and I found that very comforting.†St. Francis of Assisi Parish in Brant Beach sponsored the event. To e-mail Donna Weaver at The Press: DWeaver@pressofac.com © Copyright 1970- The Press of Atlantic City ***************************************************************** 44 Las Vegas SUN: Experts: Divine Strake 'mushroom cloud' could have sickened many June 27, 2007 By KEN RITTER Associated Press Writer LAS VEGAS (AP) - A non-nuclear explosive test planned by the government could have spread lethal radioactive particles across the Nevada desert and beyond had it not been canceled, experts testified Wednesday. "A new generation of 'downwinders' would have been created, with cancers and birth defects," said Robert Hager, a Reno lawyer who summoned witnesses to try to drive a stake through any future plans for the "Divine Strake" test at the Nevada Test Site 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The explosion of a 700-ton fuel oil and fertilizer bomb was proposed to gather data about penetrating underground bunkers that produce and store weapons of mass destruction. But the prospect of a mushroom cloud in the desert prompted a lawsuit and intense opposition in Utah and Nevada, where critics feared it would scatter decades-old radioactive material from previous Cold War-era tests. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency canceled the test in February. Justice Department lawyers urged U.S. District Judge Lloyd George not to hold Wednesday's hearing, arguing the cancellation made the issue moot. "DTRA has no plans to conduct either the Divine Strake experiment or any tests using open-air explosive detonations at the (Nevada Test Site)," government lawyers Caroline Blanco and Sara Culley declared in documents filed in the case. "We think it should be completely over," Blanco said Wednesday. But Hager pleaded with the judge to order the government to provide notice and an opportunity for public hearings if a similar test is resurrected. Hager also sought the recovery from the government of $400,000 in attorney and legal fees he claims were racked up forcing DTRA to pull the plug on the Divine Strake experiment. He said the government first postponed the test and later canceled it only after his clients, the Western Shoshone tribe members and others in Nevada and Utah, filed a lawsuit and found fatal flaws in the environmental impact reports. The judge, who has heard months of arguments since the blast was initially scheduled for June 2006, did not make immediate rulings on those requests. He gave both sides several weeks to file briefs before he decides. But he agreed to hear the experts Hager brought to Las Vegas to testify that the government failed to adequately study possible health effects of the blast. Plutonium expert Michael Ketterer, a chemistry and biochemistry professor at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, testified that government soil samples found "no doubt" there was radioactive contamination at the blast site. Diane Stearns, a Northern Arizona University biochemist and uranium expert, faulted a December 2006 draft environmental report on the proposed blast for failing to answer what she called the "obvious" question. "The public wants to know: What are the health risks from the fallout?" she said on the witness stand. "We know this radioactivity is carcinogenic. We know it can cause cancer." Government officials a year ago downplayed surface contamination, and then said they didn't expect the blast would disturb fallout left from the 100 aboveground and 828 underground nuclear weapons tests conducted at the test site from 1951 to 1992. Thousands of people who lived near the test site - called downwinders - were exposed to cancer-causing radiation from the weapons tests. Ketterer said Wednesday that plastic shovel sampling for a December 2006 environmental study was so "abbreviated and hasty" he could not tell how much plutonium there was on the surface around the Divine Strake site. "They didn't test enough so that a report could be provided to represent the danger?" the judge asked. "Yes, your honor," Ketterer replied. "The report as far as you're concerned was inadequate?" "Yes." Over the image of a huge crater left from a July 1962 nuclear test dubbed "Sedan," Richard Miller, a researcher, author and former federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration compliance agent, testified that for many years radioactive fallout from Nevada traveled across the U.S. Miller compared the 10,000-foot dust plume that officials said would have been generated by the Divine Strake blast with a dust cloud kicked up by the 104-kiloton Sedan test, which was detonated at a shallow 600 feet below ground. Miller also offered charts showing widespread and random radioactivity deposits around the nation after nuclear tests in the past, and called it impossible to predict where microscopic particles cast so high in the atmosphere would settle. "A debris cloud can be scavenged by a thunderstorm and 99 percent of the material can come to Earth within an hour," Miller said. But he said measurements also found radioactive clouds wafted north to Canada, west to California or east as far as Maine. Hager noted that the government had predicted dust churned up by the Divine Strake test would settle within about 50 miles - or near the boundary of the Nevada Test Site. The blast was to have been 280 times larger than the bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. -- All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 45 reportonbusiness.com: Labrador goes radioactive A run-up in uranium prices has many people glowing about Labrador's potential ANDY HOFFMAN MINING REPORTER June 28, 2007 -- After a 35-year career in the mining business, Dave Barbour is back where he started. At the time, a strong uranium price had brought a company called Brinex Co. to this challenging deposit and an extensive exploration program followed. But when the price of the material used to fuel nuclear reactors plunged in the early 1980s, the project was abandoned. Brinex packed up and left, leaving a smattering of fuel drums and drill frames as the only evidence of its once substantial presence - ghosts of the last uranium boom. A quarter century later, Mr. Barbour has returned to the Michelin and Jacques Lake projects amid what has been dubbed the "Nuclear Renaissance." He is once again in search of the metal that has re-emerged as one of the world's hottest commodities. Holding up a core sample from a major drilling program by the deposit's new owner, Aurora Energy Resources Inc. the native Newfoundlander is well aware of the stock market's sudden frenzy for all things radioactive. Uranium spot prices have soared from roughly $7 (U.S.) a pound in 2001 to $135 a pound on the belief that the current supply of uranium concentrate or U308 from the industry's producers including Saskatoon's Cameco Corp. will not be able to meet demand from a new generation of nuclear reactors that are scheduled to be constructed. At those levels, the tell-tale squelch of the Geiger counter indicating radioactivity as it passes over Aurora's rock samples sounds more like the 'ca-ching' of a cash register. "What we've done is identified a whole new uranium district in Canada. We're in the process of creating a real, viable alternative to the Athabasca Basin," Mark O'Dea, Aurora's president and chief executive officer said in an interview. However, Labrador won't be contesting Cameco's home base in Saskatchewan for the title of Canada's uranium capital any time soon. There are massive hurdles facing the development, not the least of which, is the fact that a uranium mine has never operated in the province. A road will have to be built over and around the hundreds of small lakes and rivers between Goose Bay and the deposits where bungalow-sized boulders dot the terrain. The project will have to complete an environmental impact assessment, satisfying governments and local communities that it can produce uranium safely and without inflicting significant damage to the surrounding area. Aurora also needs a full feasibility study to prove that mining the 96 million pounds of uranium that it has identified so far will be economically viable. As well, the company will have to secure permits at both the federal and provincial level where there is no precedent for giving the go-ahead to a uranium mine in Newfoundland and Labrador. That means actual uranium mining is at least six years away and most likely longer than that. Under the best-case scenario, production could potentially commence in 2013. Denison Mines Inc. CEO Peter Farmer has seen both the boom and bust cycle of uranium at Denison, which once mined the metal in Elliot Lake, Ont. Following the uranium price collapse, the northern Ontario town managed to reinvent itself as a retirement community. Despite the fact that scores of uranium-focused junior miners have sprung up recently and have identified millions of pounds of U308 in the ground, Mr. Farmer said that anyone who thinks one of these companies will be producing Canadian uranium in the near future is "dreaming in Technicolor." Mr. Farmer noted the painfully slow pace his company's Midwest project in Saskatchewan has endured. The permitting process was formally launched in late 2005 and he said the project won't begin production until 2011. "You will see a lot of people lose a lot of money on some of these companies," he said. "When you look at the universe of uranium ... there are only a handful of uranium companies right now that have credible large assets that have the potential of going into production," he said. Cameco, the world's largest uranium producer, has stayed on the sidelines during the dramatic jump in industry mergers and acquisition activity. Cameco CEO Jerry Grandey recently said the company plans to reinvest its capital into its own projects, rather than participate in industry consolidation. Aurora drilled 45,000 metres in 2006 and added 60 million pounds to its resource estimates at the site. It hopes to drill between 80,000 and 100,000 metres during the eight-month drilling season which began in April. However, the operation is going slower than hoped this summer, due in part, to the unusually late thaw. Mr. Barbour said it will be "mid-July before we're really able to get going." The snow was piled higher than the roof of the Jacques Lake core shack when recent geology graduate Joanne Woodhouse arrived this spring. She said she decided to work on the Aurora project because it is certainly the "most exciting" exploration effort in Canada. It is her first job since graduation. So far, the price of uranium has only increased during Ms. Woodhouse's professional career. At a glance A look at who's mining uranium and who's exploring for it. The producers Company Reserves (million pounds) Resources (million pounds) Market cap ($billion) Cameco 522.2 422.3 $18.90 Uranium One 48.7 375.1 5.04 Paladin Resources 20 201.6 4.90* Denison Mines 14.8 40.9 2.50 The explorers Company Reserves (million pounds) Resources (million pounds) Market cap ($billion) UraMin - 129.2 €1.06# Aurora Energy - 95.9 1.10 First Uranium - 253.7 1.40 * in Australian dollars; # in British pounds DOUGLAS COULL/THE GLOBE AND MAIL © Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON  Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 46 UK: eGov monitor: Cost of radioactive waste disposal highlights flaws of new nuclear power - Huhne Source: Liberal Democrats Published Wednesday, 27 June, 2007 - 13:42 The Government’s search for an area to volunteer itself to take radioactive waste highlights why the Government should be wary of building a new generation of nuclear power plants, the Liberal Democrats said yesterday. Commenting on the Government’s consultation launched today on trying to find sites for deep geological disposal of nuclear waste, Liberal Democrat Shadow Environment Secretary, Chris Huhne MP said: "The fact that the Government is still only at the beginning of the process to find a safe way, at great cost, of disposing of our existing nuclear waste shows why we should be wary of a new generation of nuclear plants. "The cost of existing nuclear waste disposal is now put at more than £70 billion. It is a basic rule that you shouldn’t go into things without knowing how to get out of them." E: egm@egovmonitor.com Hurlingham Studios Ranelagh Gardens London SW6 3PA (c) Policy Dialogue International 2005-07 All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 47 eGov monitor: 'People first' approach to nuclear waste disposal welcomed Source: Cumbria County Council Published Wednesday, 27 June, 2007 - 16:36 New proposals on the way forward for disposing of intermediate and high level radioactive waste deep underground have been broadly welcomed by Cumbria County Council's cabinet member responsible for nuclear issues. The Government published its framework consultation on implementing geological disposal of radioactive waste yesterday (25th June). The county council will submit a full response to that consultation within the deadline of 2nd November once the issue has gone to Full Council. In an initial assessment, Councillor Timothy Heslop, Cabinet member responsible for nuclear issues, welcomed the thrust of the Government's approach: "It is made clear that the Government is looking to encourage communities to volunteer rather than imposing facilities on people who may not want them. That is something we have been lobbying strongly for through the Local Government Association's Nuclear Legacy Advisory Forum. However, it is still unclear what exactly the potential benefits package for communities will be. It needs to be clear from the outset how communities will be rewarded for agreeing to host a disposal facility and I believe those rewards need to be considerable. "It will be a staged process over a considerable period of time which is essential to build trust and confidence in the proposed long-term management of these facilities. Likewise, they also need to have the flexibility to withdraw from the process at the right time if concerns are not satisfactorily addressed," said Cllr Heslop. The purpose of the Government's consultation document is to seek views on how Government should call for expressions of interest, and how a geological disposal facility should be developed. Calls for communities to express an interest will come later, once the responses to the consultation have been assessed. The Government makes it clear that it is not yet calling for communities to express an interest in hosting a geological disposal facility. "It's not yet time for communities to put their hands up and say 'we'll have this'. But when that time comes, the county council will be listening closely to those communities and also helping them to consider the issue. We will help open the door to a proper debate and public consultation on this issue," said Cllr Heslop. The Government has already decided that the NDA will implement the national strategy of deep geological disposal for higher level radioactive wastes. The waste could be buried between 200 and 1,000 metres underground and the cost of the facility is estimated at £10bn at 2003 prices. Ends Hurlingham Studios Ranelagh Gardens London SW6 3PA (c) Policy Dialogue International 2005-07 All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 Pahrump Valley Times: Nuke director sees Yucca Mtn. as safe Nye County's Largest Newspaper Circulation Jun. 27, 2007 By MARK WAITE PVT Lewis Darrell Lacy Jr. gestures to a map showing the locating of drilling sites to test aquifer flows near Yucca Mountain. Politicians can argue about whether the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository should be built, but Lewis Darrell Lacy Jr., newly appointed director of the Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Office takes a pragmatic attitude to the issue. "There's a lot of expectation in most of the country that Yucca Mountain will move forward. I know there's a lot of people in the State of Nevada that don't like having it here. I don't know if that really matters. I haven't heard anyone mention another site," Lacy said. The transplant from Houston, who goes by Darrell, was selected over 15 applicants by Nye County Manager Ron Williams. County commissioners ratified his selection May 21. Lacy was a former assistant county attorney for Harris County, Texas. He supervised engineers out of the Houston office of ERIN Engineering and Research, working on risk assessments, operations and maintenance on utility plants, including nuclear power plants. While Lacy has experience in oil and gas, working for companies like Lyondell Petrochemical, he said the price of oil is going to keep going up, making nuclear power a more attractive option. "I think that as a country in the world that nuclear energy is going to get more popular again. I mean the last 20, 30 years there hasn't been much interest in nuclear because we had really cheap oil. But the cheap oil is behind us, I think," Lacy said. What to do with the nuclear waste has been described in trade publications as "the Achilles Heel" of the industry. Many people in the nuclear industry feel there needs to be a total life cycle look at nuclear power, which will include reprocessing, he said. That could extend the life of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, which may fill up quickly with the 70,000 tons of high-level radioactive material. Commissioners recently deferred taking a stance on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership until Lacy can make a recommendation. The GNEP is a plan to recycle nuclear waste at facilities on-site. One of the nuclear waste reprocessing technologies could generate electricity, Lacy said, but Yucca Mountain opponents at the state level and the Nevada congressional delegation don't want county officials to support such a reprocessing plant at Yucca Mountain for fear it would spur on the project. The cost of raw uranium increased several fold over the last two years, making reprocessing nuclear waste look more attractive as well, Lacy said. He added, "I think there's a strong chance that the materials going to Yucca Mountain will be economically viable for reprocessing." He added, "I think the state of Nevada and the folks in this area need to understand there's quite a few other states that have nuclear power and nuclear waste and they all expect it to go here. If it does come here, our role is to try to make the best of it -- protect the citizens of Nye County by mitigating the impacts." Besides the transportation of nuclear waste, the construction of the project will mean a lot of trucks on area roads hauling construction material, he said. Some Nye County officials see the possibility of some positive economic spin-offs if the nuclear waste repository is built. "We have a much better chance of influencing that if we're sitting at the table, negotiating with them, than if we're just sitting outside saying, 'No, no, no.' We have a really great relationship with the DOE at this time. They understand that Nye County as the site county has some expectations," Lacy said. "They're currently paying considerable amounts of money to maintain this office as well as the PETT funds that go to Nye County." The DOE recently closed down Yucca Mountain information offices in Beatty and Las Vegas, but maintains one on Postal Road in Pahrump. A recent letter to the editor expressing concerns about the transportation of radioactive material through Pahrump indicates a need for more communication on the subject, Lacy said. "The education and outreach is something I think that's important to us so the people of Nye County understand what the impacts might be," Lacy said. "The problem is some people here think Yucca Mountain is open and accepting waste, and it's not. It's still a study, and scientific work is going on to ensure the safety and well-being of the people around it." The DOE is expected to submit the license application for Yucca Mountain next summer, Lacy said. Much of the testing and scientific work by the DOE is over, and the actual repository site has undergone employee cutbacks, he said. Nye County undertakes its own investigations of the project. Much of that work involves studies of the hydrology, trying to determine where leaking radioactive material might leak out and which direction it would go. Lacy's job includes oversight of the consultants. "If the repository works as designed, there will never be anything get in the water table, much less migrate off-site. But is anything fail-safe when you start looking at a million years down the road? That's what's tough," Lacy said. He added, "I haven't seen anything today that tells me it's not safe. The scientists that we have on staff and working for me, none of them are too concerned either." Tracer tests indicate the water flows are very slow, Lacy said. He noted the Nevada Test Site has been nearby for 50 years, actually putting radioactive material into the environment. Nothing has left the test site from those experiments, Lacy said. "I think Chicago has more nuclear plants within a close distance than any other major city," Lacy said. "You go ask people in Chicago about nuclear power, they probably don't have any huge issues with it." The water studies of Yucca Mountain will continue, the nuclear waste repository office will also continue monitoring Yucca Mountain as long as the project is operational, Lacy said. "A lot of our concerns have already been listened to and incorporated but we will be making some comments for the license application. I'm sure the state will as well and any other interested parties." Yucca Mountain has been called the most studied piece of real estate in the world. Nye County is also researching impacts from the influx of people and trucks, emergency response needs and other spin-offs from the project. "My job description doesn't include economic development but it does include trying to mitigate the impacts of what the repository will cause onto Nye County, and with those jobs coming here there are things that Nye County can do to best deal with them," Lacy said. The Mina rail route, which would transport the nuclear waste south through western Nevada to Yucca Mountain, is now a non-preferred route due to opposition of the Walker River Paiute tribe. But Lacy said, "I don't think you could say it's totally off the table yet. "Once the decision is made to build (Yucca Mountain) I think there will be a lot of activity on the rail line because the DOE has expectations of using the rail line to bring in construction materials and assist with the build of the site," Lacy said. The expectation is the license to construct could be issued in 2013, he said. The DOE doesn't appear to be totally averse to having the railroad used for multiple purposes, Lacy said. "There's the potential for some benefits to Nye County if there is a rail line there," he said. The nuclear waste director job has been vacant since Les Bradshaw resigned in March 2004, except for a period from February to May 2006 when Dale Hammermeister was in charge. Lacy said Dave Swanson did a good job running the office during the interim. webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 49 The Hindu: Sci Tech : Lethal legacy of tank-busting uranium dust Online edition of India's National Newspaper Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 IAN SAMPLE Inhaling depleted uranium dust may cause lung cancer Depleted uranium may not leach out of soils 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. Fine shower 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. Soil samples But research conducted by a team at Leicester University found that it can spread nearly 6 km and persists in soils for more than 25 years. The team took soil samples from open ground and residential gardens in Colonie in the U.S. 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. Under ground 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 UK 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. Persistence “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. — Guardian Newspapers Limited 2007 Comments to : thehindu@vsnl.com Copyright © 2007, The Hindu ***************************************************************** 50 FP: Groups file appeal over safety of radioactive waste storage at Palisades * Freep.com Free Press June 28, 2007 BY JAMES PRICHARD ASSOCIATED PRESS GRAND RAPIDS — Two nuclear energy watchdog groups have filed an action with a federal appeals court that says the storage pads where spent nuclear fuel is kept at the Palisades Nuclear Plant violate earthquake-safety regulations established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The 3-foot-thick concrete pads rest upon loose sand amid the dunes of the Lake Michigan shoreline in western Van Buren County’s Covert Township, about 55 miles southwest of Grand Rapids. Some containers of spent, irradiated nuclear fuel sit 150 yards from the water, the organizations said Thursday in a joint written statement. Palisades’ two pads now hold more than 30 concrete-and-steel casks, each of which weighs about 150 tons when fully loaded with nuclear fuel rod assemblies. The groups — Nuclear Information and Resource Service and Don’t Waste Michigan — want the plant closed and turned to the federal courts for relief after exhausting all administrative remedies at the NRC, they said. They filed the appeal June 15 in Washington and are represented in court by attorney Terry Lodge of Toledo, Ohio. “Underwater submersion could lead to inadvertent nuclear chain reactions in the fissile materials still present in the wastes,” said Kevin Kamps, a nuclear-waste specialist at NIRS. “Burial under sand could cause the wastes to dangerously overheat. Either way, a disastrous radioactivity release could result.” Mark Savage, a spokesman for plant owner Entergy Corp., said Palisades’ spent nuclear fuel is being properly stored at the site. “Palisades has been in the past — and continues to be — in full compliance with all federal regulations and requirements associated with the dry-fuel storage facility, he said. “Our dry fuel storage containers are monitored daily and are in a safe condition, and Palisades will continue to store its used fuel until the federal government takes ownership of it for storage at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.” In April, Entergy, a New Orleans-based utility holding company, completed its $380 million purchase of the plant from Consumers Energy Co., a subsidiary of Jackson-based CMS Energy Corp. Under the terms of the sales agreement, Entergy will sell 100 percent of the 798-megawatt plant’s output to Consumers for 15 years. Copyright ©2007 the Detroit Free Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 San Bernardino County Sun: Toxin-free water demanded at lively forum in Rialto Jason Pesick, Staff Writer Article Launched: 06/28/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT RIALTO - Hundreds of residents and representatives of organizations around the state came to a rowdy forum Wednesday night to demand that an ingredient used to produce rocket fuel, perchlorate, be cleaned out of the local drinking water supply. The event, held by the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, featured marching, Aztec dancers, a hearing before a panel of guest activists and calls for action. "This particular pollutant is really worrisome," said UC San Francisco medical professor Gina Solomon during a presentation on the health effects of perchlorate. Well-known activist Dolores Huerta was expected to lead a panel of guests to demand change, but she was unable to make it to the event. Perchlorate is used to produce different types of explosives, and although its health effects are not well understood, it can interfere with the thyroid gland. A number of residents took the opportunity to tell the panel, which later voted to have the State Water Resources Control Board order cleanup, about the problem. The center's executive director, Penny Newman, highlighted how much longer it has taken to clean up the perchlorate in Rialto than it took to clean up perchlorate discovered in Redlands the same year. Rialto has accused dozens of parties of being responsible for the pollution, while only one party caused the contamination in Redlands. But Newman said Redlands is a wealthier and predominately white community with more political influence than Rialto. "I don't know too many people who say race does not play a role in our society today," she said before the event. The contamination has been spreading from Rialto's north end through the city and into Colton. Local water companies have spent millions of dollars to clean it out of the water they serve their customers. The entire mess could cost $300 million to clean up. Rialto and Colton have tried a number of strategies to get the dozens of suspected polluters, which include Goodrich, Black and Decker and Pyro Spectaculars, to clean it up. A federal lawsuit is still in the early stages, and the state regulatory bodies charged with monitoring water quality have struggled to move the case forward. State hearings have been delayed numerous times, most recently from July to late August, delays Newman called "unacceptable." Contact writer Jason Pesick at (909) 386-3861 or via e-mail at jason.pesick@sbsun.com. Copyright © 2007 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 52 Washington Business Journal: USEC chooses Va. firm for manufacturing work - Washington Business Journal - 2:29 PM EDT Wednesday, June 27, 2007 by Neil Adler Staff Reporter USEC Inc. has selected BWX Technologies Inc., a manager of nuclear and national security operations, to perform manufacturing work in Oak Ridge, Tenn., for USEC's American Centrifuge uranium enrichment program. Lynchburg, Va.-based BWX, a subsidiary of Houston-based McDermott International Inc. (NYSE: MDR), will manufacture components for centrifuge machines to be used in USEC's American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, which is currently under construction. Bethesda-based energy company USEC, a supplier of enriched uranium fuel for commercial nuclear power plants, said that previously this manufacturing work was expected to be done by the Chicago-based Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA). USEC (NYSE: USU) said in a statement that Boeing is working with the city of Oak Ridge to make its existing facilities available for USEC's centrifuge manufacturing. USEC said it chose BWX because of its extensive experience with the design and cost-effective manufacturing of nuclear components and classified machinery. The transition, scheduled to occur in late 2007, is not expected to affect the deployment schedule for the American Centrifuge Plant. USEC has been working with Boeing on possible transition plans since Boeing decided to move its commercial airplane parts fabrication and assembly work from Oak Ridge to other company sites. On May 31, USEC said it began construction on the Ohio plant, which is estimated to cost $2.3 billion to build. The company is working toward beginning commercial operations at the Piketon facility in late 2009, with full capacity slated for 2012. USEC has said that the plant will employ more than 400 people in Ohio and create hundreds of additional manufacturing jobs in the United States. USEC said in 2002 that the new plant would cost $1.7 billion, but earlier this year the company increased the estimated price tag by about one-third. USEC has said the most recent $2.3 billion estimate for building the plant is also subject to change. The company is exploring financing methods to help pay for the Ohio plant. © 2007 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. All ***************************************************************** 53 WNN: Energy Solutions buys Nukem subsidiary 28 June 2007 US nuclear services company Energy Solutions has bought US waste management company Nukem Corporation, a subsidiary of Nukem GmbH of Germany, for an undisclosed amount. The deal is expected to be completed early in the third quarter of 2007. Founded in 1982, Nukem Corporation describes itself as one of the longest continuously operating radioactive waste management companies in the USA. It provides engineering, decommissioning, waste treatment and radioactive material transport services. Based at Columbia, South Carolina, it has about 70 employees at sites across the country. Energy Solutions was formed in 2006 by the merger of BNG America, Duratek, Envirocare of Utah, and the decontamination and decommissioning division of Scientech, and now lists 12 companies under its corporate umbrella as well as international operations based in Canada, the EU and the UK. It describes itself as "one of the largest providers of services to safely transport, process, and dispose of radioactive materials." The Nukem Corporation acquisition is the latest in a series of purchases by Energy Solutions. In June 2007, Energy Solutions agreed to buy BNFL's Reactor Sites Management Company, which holds the contracts to operate and decommission ten nuclear sites with 22 reactors in the UK. Other recent acquisitions include Parallax, an environmental clean-up, engineering and management company serving the US nuclear industry, and Safeguard International Solutions, a UK provider of radioactive materials recycling and disposal services to facilities outside the nuclear power sector such as universities, hospitals, industry and government. Meanwhile Nukem Corporation's parent company, Nukem GmbH, is to focus on its core businesses of fuel cycle services, and the decommissioning, radioactive waste management, engineering and consulting activities of its German subsidiary, mainly targeting western and eastern European and Asian markets. ***************************************************************** 54 Hemscott: Landfill fined over radioactivity rules MOUNT JEWETT, Pa. (AP) - The state Department of Environmental Protection on Thursday fined a landfill $40,000 for violating rules governing radioactive waste. The Rustick LLC McKean Landfill near Mount Jewett has a radiation monitor at its weigh station that can detect even low-level radioactive waste. If the alarm goes off, landfill workers are supposed to identify the material and either return it to where it came from or make sure it's dumped at a licensed low-level radiation facility. During an April inspection, the DEP reviewed records and interviewed employees and determined there were at least seven occasions that didn't happen. The landfill's general manager was not immediately available for comment Thursday. DEP spokeswoman Freda Tarbell explained that the violations involved only very low levels of radiation. Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 55 DOE: U.S. Expands Energy Cooperation with Sweden June 28, 2007 DOE to Work with Volvo AB/Mack Trucks on Advanced Vehicle R&D STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN – U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner and Swedish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Enterprise and Energy Maud Olofsson today signed an implementing agreement to further expand cooperation on renewable energy and vehicle technologies and establish a bilateral working group to explore prospective projects. Also today, as a first step under the Agreement, Assistant Secretary Karsner announced plans for transatlantic cooperation between DOE and Mack Trucks, a subsidiary of Volvo AB, to develop environmentally friendly commercial vehicle technologies. The results of this research and development further President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, which seeks to change the way we power our cars, homes and businesses by increasing the use of clean energy technologies. “Under today’s Agreement, we commit to work together and share information, so that both of our countries and the rest of the world can benefit from cleaner, greener vehicle technologies and a better environment,” Assistant Secretary Karsner said. “Advancing the use of clean energy technologies will help address global challenges of reducing emissions while ensuring enhanced economic growth and increased energy security.” This Agreement furthers implementation of the U.S.-Sweden Science and Technology Agreement, signed by both countries in June 2006. The Agreement - officially titled the Implementing Arrangement on Cooperation on Research and Development, New Technologies, New Products, New Services, and Enhanced Resource Base for Renewable Energy – focuses cooperation on biomass production, transportation and automotive research, reducing the cost of renewable energy, and improving energy efficiency. “This is an important step in the work for developing new, clean and efficient technology for the energy and transport sector. International cooperation is necessary when it comes to energy research and development - the common challenges before us are so big,” Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Enterprise and Energy Maud Olofsson said. DOE and Volvo are negotiating terms of a cost-shared project, which includes two key parts: first, analysis of the impact of different biofuels on a diesel engine in an effort to increase efficiency and fuel economy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions of new long haul trucks; and second, development of hybrid vehicle technology for heavy-duty engines, coupled with waste heat recovery. In an effort to encourage renewable energy cooperation between the two countries, the U.S. Embassy in Stockholm played a crucial coordinating this Agreement. “This is a big step toward replacing some of the fossil fuels that we burn in big engines with cleaner alternatives. I’m excited that we’ve been able to work out this initial funding and look forward to seeing the projects implemented as soon as possible,” said U.S. Ambassador to Sweden Michael Wood. Last month, President George Bush and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt discussed continued bilateral cooperation, during Prime Minister Reinfeldt’s visit to the United States. The Prime Minister concluded his U.S. trip at DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, where he toured demonstration on solar energy, biofuels, wind power, and hybrid vehicles. The Government of Sweden and DOE with industrial partners and research universities in the U.S. and Sweden plan to develop additional projects to advance technologies for fuel-efficient commercial vehicles utilizing renewable fuels. Additional information is available on DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy homepage. Media contact(s): Julie Ruggiero, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 56 DOE: U.S. and Russia Cooperation Continues on Nuclear Security June 28, 2007 Newly Signed Fifth Bratislava Report Highlights Most Recent Advances in Nuclear Security and Nonproliferation WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman and Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) Director Sergey Kiriyenko today submitted to Presidents Bush and Putin the fifth report on nuclear security cooperation between the two countries. The report is known as the Bratislava Report after the 2005 historic nonproliferation agreement between the two presidents. It details significant work completed by the United States and Russia over the past six months in the areas of emergency response, nuclear security procedures and best practices, security culture, research reactors, and nuclear site security. “This latest report clearly shows that our joint efforts with Russia to secure and minimize the use of highly enriched uranium in research reactors are making the world safer,” Secretary Bodman said. “We are seeing steady progress on converting the world’s research reactors from using highly enriched uranium to using low enriched uranium that cannot be readily used in a nuclear weapon. In addition, work to improve security at facilities with nuclear material will be completed by 2008.” The report, which is delivered to each president two times a year, highlights discussions between the two countries on preparing for nuclear emergencies and developing a strong nuclear security culture. It also includes information about upcoming work to convert a research reactor in Vietnam so that the highly enriched uranium can be returned to Russia. It highlights future efforts to return Russian-origin highly enriched uranium from Poland, Kazakhstan, Hungary, Libya, Serbia, and the Czech Republic. The successful return of over 80 kilograms of United States-origin highly enriched uranium from Australia and Japan is noted in the report. One of the key aspects of the Bratislava agreement two years ago was the adoption of an accelerated schedule for upgrading security at sites with nuclear material in Russia. The report reaffirms each country’s commitment to the accelerated completion schedule and also highlights the recent Rosatom agreement regarding the sustainability of the U.S.-installed security upgrades. During the 2005 meeting in Bratislava, U.S. President Bush and Russian President Putin committed both governments to securing nuclear weapons and material to prevent the possibility that such weapons or materials could fall into the hands of terrorists. The presidents established a group of senior officials to work together on nuclear security issues who would report the status of cooperation to the presidents. The next report is due in December 2007. Established by Congress in 2000, NNSA is a separately organized agency within the U.S. Department of Energy responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear science. NNSA maintains and enhances the safety, security, reliability and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing; works to reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction; provides the U.S. Navy with safe and effective nuclear propulsion; and responds to nuclear and radiological emergencies in the United States and abroad. Visit the National Nuclear Security Administration homepage for more information. U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 57 Albuquerque Tribune: Editorial: Weapons labs need to embrace change Push is coming to shove for the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories, including Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories in New Mexico. It may be that Congress, once again, will back away from proposed drastic cuts in the labs' billion-dollar-plus budgets, as New Mexico's Republican Sen. Pete Domenici and Democratic Rep. Tom Udall try to persuade the Senate and the House that "drastic" is not in the nation's best interests. It will, however, be a higher mountain to climb this year, which probably will be the last year in which the labs can expect anything approaching full budget funding. On the table is a House bipartisan plan to slash the nuclear weapons budget by $600 million and eliminate 37 programs, including the main one aimed at redesigning the basic U.S. nuclear warhead. For more than a decade, the labs and the Department of Energy — the monstrous, cost-ineffective bureaucracy which oversees them — have been skating on increasingly thin ice. With the demise of the former Soviet Union, the nation's nuclear arsenal has been searching for an enemy. Few, except perhaps dedicated, die-hard antinuclear advocates such as today's Insight & Opinion writer Greg Mello, see a day in the near future when the United States could securely do without nuclear weapons — even if the states of the former Soviet Union were to completely disarm. But while the world has changed, the labs have not. They remain largely focused on banned weapons, while the world worries about economic equity, future energy sources, rising oil prices, the threat of emerging diseases and pandemics, terrorism and global warming. The labs and their budgets do need a reality check. They need to reflect a global reality in which nuclear weaponry — particularly in its Cold War form — is an increasingly costly and irrelevant burden. Meanwhile, nuclear proliferation, nuclear material safeguards and nuclear disarmament are rising to the top of the global, if not the American, agenda. While the world has pressed over the last seven years for a nuclear remedy that approaches total disarmament, the Bush administration has pushed in the opposite direction at home, for increased nuclear weapons funding, new nuclear programs weapons, the reliable replacement warhead program and reconfiguration and restoration of the aging nuclear arsenal and weapons complex, including a pit production facility at Los Alamos. In a Senate deal being brokered by Domenici and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan, the labs' current programs and work levels would remain largely stable for the next year but would have to develop a new plan for the future of the nation's nuclear labs and arsenal. The Tribune has long advocated a bottom-up, comprehensive review of U.S. nuclear weapons policy, its nuclear weapons complex and the nation's three nuclear research labs, on the premise the United States still needs a safe, secure and reliable nuclear arsenal. But it can and should be substantially reduced. The review should start with a fundamental appraisal of the real value of nuclear warheads, the requirements of the military and broad public outreach, education and comment on the future it sees and wants for its nuclear weapon arsenal. The last has been grievously missing over the last half century of nuclear weapons design, development and testing. The nation's future nuclear policy needs to be determined not just by the DOE, its nuclear labs, the Pentagon, the White House and the Congress, but by the American people. No state's congressional delegation is better informed or equipped to lead this debate than New Mexico's. Led by Domenici and Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, the delegation has managed to protect the labs from repeated efforts to trim their nuclear sails. It is time to educate the nation on its past and current nuclear weapons policies and assets - including its research brain trust at places such as Sandia and Los Alamos - and to decide what shall become of them. The possibilities from refocusing much of their legendary capabilities on the energy and environmental crises are tantalizing. But first, Los Alamos and Sandia must recognize the need for real change, embrace it and help New Mexico's congressional delegation lead the nation in adopting it. The future for Los Alamos and Sandia must be driven by realistic national security missions, not by protecting their budgets. This site does not necessarily agree with posted comments, they are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Readers will be banned for posting defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy comments. Read our privacy agreement. © 2007 The Albuquerque Tribune ***************************************************************** 58 Albuquerque Tribune: Nuclear weapons, labs hurt New Mexico's economic, social performance Commentary : Greg Mello Thursday, June 28, 2007 Mello is executive director and one of the founders of the Los Alamos Study Group, a nonprofit anti-nuclear weapons research organization located in Albuquerque. With little debate recently, the House of Representatives endorsed a spending plan prepared by its Appropriations Committee which would cut U.S. nuclear warhead programs overall by 6 percent. It would also halt a major Bush Administration initiative to build new warheads; stop the construction of a new plutonium warhead core, or "pit," factory at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and cut funding for pit making by half. Los Alamos, and to a lesser extent Sandia National Laboratories, would bear the brunt of these cuts, should they become law. The detailed House plan redirects funds cut from Department of Energy weapons programs toward preventing nuclear proliferation and promoting renewable energy. Each member of the New Mexico congressional delegation opposed these shifts. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, was relatively mute. Republican Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson, both of Albuquerque, said the sky would fall if the cuts were adopted, but took no action. "St. Pete" Domenici, will do his best to restore funding in the Senate. Rep. Tom Udall, a Santa Fe Democrat, opposed the proposed spending plan in committee, but was the sole voice on the 56-person Appropriations Committee to do so. Later, he offered an amendment on the House floor to restore $192 million in nuclear weapons spending, specifically for Los Alamos, but it lost by a wide margin. For the Senate, it will be the first nuclear spending plan since 1994 that will not be under Domenici's direct influence. A third powerful actor this year is the White House, which has said it will veto the current bill, primarily because it would spend too much money. Whither nuclear weapons policy, then? As three congressional committees have noticed, the United States has no coherent nuclear policy even now. This lack of clarity led the House to put the reins on the most expensive and controversial parts of the Bush nuclear agenda. It's dangerous to make predictions, especially about the future (as Yogi Berra said), but here's one: five years from now there will still be no coherent U.S. nuclear policy. This is because the underlying contradictions in U.S. nuclear weapons policies run very deep. The only policy compatible with nonproliferation treaty commitments is a commitment to complete nuclear disarmament. While the American people support our disarmament obligation and choose disarmament above other policies in the polls, Congress does not. There is a consensus on the direction on nuclear forces, spending and infrastructure that is downward. A wide range of relevant actors, from the left to the right, favor a smaller nuclear arsenal, lower annual expenditures and smaller warhead storage centers. Nuclear weapons are not popular in the military. An administration official said if the military had to pay for nuclear warheads, there wouldn't be any. Who promotes nuclear weapons? It has been three nuclear weapons labs that promote them most - they and members of Congress associated with their locations, with Domenici in the lead. As one Republican appointee said to us, "Why have you come to see me? The problem with nuclear weapons policy is in your state and his name is Pete Domenici." In New Mexico there are serious political, economic and social consequences from these loyalties. Domenici's role in obtaining nuclear pork-barrel spending for New Mexico is now considered so inviolate by New Mexico Democratic Party leaders that they consistently fail to seriously challenge him either rhetorically or electorally. After all, they too depend on lab employees for political contributions. Behind the mask of party pluralism, the loyalty of New Mexico political elites to the nuclear labs gives an uncontested seat to the deeply conservative Domenici for as long as he wants it. The labs' influence extends elsewhere. Through our bipartisan devotion to federal nuclear pork, the labs create a strong right-of-center tug on New Mexico politics. This strong pull to the political right has implications across a wide range of New Mexico issues, especially on our state's economic and social performance. It goes a long way toward explaining why our relative economic performance as a state has fallen in a direct proportion to rising laboratory spending. Both trends coincide, more or less, with Domenici's Senate tenure. © 2007 The Albuquerque Tribune Contact Us ***************************************************************** 59 lamonitor.com: Los Alamos company picked for cleanup project The Online News Source for Los Alamos MONITOR STAFF REPORT Los Alamos National Laboratory has chosen Accelerated Remediation Company, a small business with offices in Los Alamos, to clean up a legacy waste site located on the south side of DP Road. The contract is for $36.4 million. An announcement by the laboratory said the contract was signed last week and represents the largest award to a minority-owned small business certified by the Small Business Administration since at least 1999. Historic radiological wastes and hazardous materials will be removed from Material Disposal Area B under a schedule and program supervised by the New Mexico Environment Department. Last year, among other activities, fencing was changed and improved and new parking areas were constructed for businesses along DP Road. A baseline background radiological survey was conducted on the site and in the commercial and professional offices across the road. The project is part of a larger remediation area involving Los Alamos's Technical Area 21. MDA-B was the first dumping area for waste products when plutonium processing was moved from the middle of town. Much of the material will be excavated and removed by trucks overnight. The laboratory announcement said the goal was to clean the former disposal site to residential standards. The land may be transferred to Los Alamos County as a part of the Department of Energy's land transfer program. Accelerated Remediation Company, a joint venture of Portage Environmental Inc. and Shaw Environmental Inc., is scheduled to begin work this month with a scheduled completion date of Dec. 31, 2010. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 Oak Ridger: Boeing leaving OR - Story last updated at 1:40 am on 6/28/2007 By: John Huotari | john.huotari@oakridger.com Striking workers protest outside against Boeing in this August 2006 file photo. Boeing officials announced Wednesday they expect to cease the company’s operations in Oak Ridge by early 2008 and will begin issuing layoff notices to workers next month. Company officials said the closing was not related to the three-month worker strike in 2006. Click to view all photos Boeing expects to end its Oak Ridge operations early in 2008 and will begin issuing layoff notices to workers in July, the company announced Wednesday. The July notices, the first in a series of 60-day warnings, will go out to 115 workers at the 265-employee Oak Ridge facility, Boeing spokeswoman Carrie Thearle said. Boeing expects to complete its work there between January and March 2008, she said. The Chicago-based aerospace company has been in Oak Ridge since 1981. The company’s Oak Ridge operation, off South Illinois Avenue, has manufactured commercial aircraft parts for Boeing and centrifuge components for Maryland-based USEC. But the facility does not have sufficient parts production work to sustain operations and has limited prospects for future business growth, Thearle said. “Exiting Oak Ridge is also part of the continued consolidation and alignment of parts manufacturing capability and capacity across Boeing Fabrication facilities,” a company press release said. While Boeing expects to lose workers in Oak Ridge, USEC plans to increase employment levels, both with its own company and with employees who work for contractors — like BWX Technologies Inc. (BWXT), based in Lynchburg, Va. USEC supplies enriched uranium fuel to commercial nuclear power plants, and the company announced Wednesday that it has selected BWXT to perform the centrifuge-component manufacturing work in Oak Ridge, picking up the work that Boeing had been expected to do. The transition is scheduled to occur late this year. The components will be used in USEC’s American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio. USEC said BWXT was selected “because of its extensive experience with the design and cost-effective manufacturing of nuclear components and classified machinery.” In Oak Ridge, BWXT also operates the Y-12 National Security Complex for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. After BWXT “ramps up” its new Oak Ridge operations, USEC could have 200 employees and 435 employees working for contractors, USEC spokeswoman Linda Johnson said. USEC currently has 190 Oak Ridge employees and 100 contractor workers. Thearle said Boeing had announced in April that it intended to shift Oak Ridge’s commercial parts production to Boeing Salt Lake City and external suppliers. The work included manufacturing flight deck consoles, forward instrument panels and aisle stands for Boeing commercial aircraft. Local officials say they are working with Boeing and USEC to keep the centrifuge work in Oak Ridge. “We think that is going to happen,” Oak Ridge City Manager Jim O’Connor said. Local officials also want the Boeing property, which is one of the city’s larger manufacturing locations, to stay active. O’Connor said Oak Ridge officials have discussed the city’s industrial tax-abatement policy with USEC, hoping to encourage them to expand their operations here. “We would like to retain as many of those jobs as possible,” he said. A potential abatement would be based on several factors, including the amount of capital investment. USEC already has a few locations in Oak Ridge, including one next to the Boeing facility, O’Connor said. Newly appointed Mayor Tom Beehan said he is hopeful that BWXT can continue the USEC work at the Boeing plant. “I’m sorry to see Boeing go,” he said. “They’ve been a great corporate citizen.” Thearle said no decision has been made regarding the future of the company’s 73 acres of land or its 440,000-square foot building. She said the decision to end Oak Ridge operations was not related to a worker strike that lasted more than three months last year and resulted in significant layoffs. “Absolutely not,” Thearle said. “The decision was made due to the overall lack of work and limited prospects of future business.” A new contract approved at the end of the strike called for wage and pension benefit increases. However, company officials announced then that some Oak Ridge work had been shifted elsewhere or recalled by prime contractors. Also, the company said employment at the local plant would drop from about 480 people to around 275. Now, Thearle said, Boeing will work with employees to find other jobs at other locations. BWXT’s contract with USEC is expected to continue through 2012. Johnson declined to disclose its value. John Huotari can be contacted at (865) 220-5533. | © 2004 The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 61 Oak Ridger: ORNL supercomputer rises to No. 2 worldwide - Story last updated at 1:41 am on 6/28/2007 Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Cray XT4 supercomputer, known as Jaguar, is now the second fastest system in the world, according to a semiannual list of the world’s fastest computers. The new “Top500 List” was released Wednesday at the 2007 International Supercomputing Conference being held in Dresden, Germany. The Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge system is the world’s most powerful supercomputer dedicated to open science. The Leadership Computing Facility at ORNL is committed to delivering the nation’s most capable computational system for open science and applying it to a set of compelling scientific and engineering problems of national importance. The system is at the center of a large and vibrant portfolio of research, technology transfer, and education and outreach activities. The majority (80 percent) of LCF resources at ORNL is available to the open science community through DOE’s Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment program. “By fielding the most powerful open computer system, ORNL and the DOE Office of Science demonstrate dedication to solving the world’s most challenging scientific and engineering problems, from a deeper understanding of climate change to the creation of new materials to the ability to harness electricity from fission and fusion energy,” said Thomas Zacharia, associate laboratory director for computing and computational sciences. “University, laboratory, and industrial researchers using a broad array of disciplinary perspectives are making use of the leadership computing resources to generate remarkable consequences for American competitiveness,” said Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, undersecretary for the Office of Science at the U.S. Department of Energy. “The latest acquisition, which places the facility second on the Top 500 list, and our plan to deliver 1 petaflop next year, demonstrates the department’s continued commitment to leadership computing and the contribution it makes to scientific and economic opportunities. Scientists are using the system to advance the knowledge in a wide variety of research fields. For example, a team of climate scientists are performing simulations that are improving our understanding of carbon dioxide’s role in global warming. “[On Jaguar,] we got 100-year runs in three days. The simulation of the El Nino/Southern Oscillation is the most impressive new result in ten years. This was a significant upgrade of how we do science with this model. 40 years per day was beyond our dreams,” said Peter Gent of NCAR, chairman of CCSM Scientific Steering Committee. Fusion researchers use Jaguar to simulate the multinational ITER fusion reactor, a device that will bring the world closer to a clean, abundant energy source by heating an ionized gas ten times hotter than the sun. Other fields are seeing comparable achievements. Scientists are utilizing Jaguar to provide a fundamental understanding of combustion, helping make the most of current energy sources with cleaner, more efficient engines and power generators. Biologists are simulating enzymes, leading the way to products ranging from more effective biofuels to new drugs for preventing transplant rejection. Climate scientists are refining their understanding of climate change and delving into the behavior of the earth’s oceans. Astrophysicists are using the system to explain the deaths of stars, the nature of dark matter, and the gravitational waves created by merging black holes. The largest problem ever for the High-Performance Linpack benchmark — used to evaluate systems on the Top500 List — was solved on Jaguar. This achievement points to Jaguar’s superior balance between processor speed and system memory. As a result, the system was able to solve a matrix problem of order 2.2 million containing nearly 5 trillion elements. Jaguar comprises 124 cabinets containing more than 11,700 dual-core AMD processors. The system achieved 101.7 teraflops on the Linpack benchmark, which is more than 85 percent of its theoretical peak of 119 teraflops. Jaguar has at least one more upgrade in its future, with quad-core processors replacing the system’s dual-core processors in late 2007. That upgrade will once again more than double Jaguar’s performance — to a peak of 250 teraflops. The Top500 List, compiled by Dongarra, Hans Meuer of the University of Mannheim in Germany, and Erich Strohmaier and Horst Simon of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, has been maintained since 1993. The entire list can be viewed at www.top500.org. copy; 2004 The Oak Ridger | Conditions of Use ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************