***************************************************************** 07/13/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.163 ***************************************************************** 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 Guardian Unlimited: NKorea Set to Shut Down Nuclear Reactor 2 Guardian Unlimited: Putin Seeks to Revamp U.S.-Russia Ties 3 IAEA: IAEA Assists Brazil on Pan American Games Security NUCLEAR REACTORS 4 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss Results of License Renewal Inspection at Har 5 US: newsobserver.com | Will we pay, again, for nuclear folly? 6 BBC NEWS: The subtle shift in British foreign policy 7 US: NRC: NRC Assigns New Resident Inspectors to Indian Point Nuclear 8 Pravda.Ru: Russia may become world’s leader in sea-based nuclear pow 9 US: APP.COM: Official backs new criteria for plant relicensing | 10 US: NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Uni 11 US: MHNN: Westchester appeals NRC’s Indian Point relicensing c 12 edie news centre: Brown has performed public U-turn on nuclear power 13 US: newsjournalonline.com: Going nuclear to energize Florida 14 US: TheDay.com: Millstone May Boost Its Output 15 DW: Police Investigate Scene of Suspicious Nuclear Plant Fire | Germ 16 US: North County Times: NRC gives San Onofre good marks for safety i NUCLEAR SECURITY 17 US: The Blotter: GAO Stings Nuclear Agency; Obtains License to Buy R 18 US: Reuters: Bush sends nuclear terrorism treaty to Senate 19 US: NAS: Project: Establishing Priorities for US-Russian Cooperation NUCLEAR SAFETY 20 US: Las Vegas SUN: Former Nevada Test Site workers counting on Reid' 21 US: HT: Former worker sues Lockheed, seeks compensation for Tallevas 22 US: Bradenton.com: Former Tallevast worker sues Lockheed over toxic 23 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Feds puzzled by gamma radiation higher than n 24 US: Dayton Daily News: Report blames plant for workers' illnesses 25 US: Reuters: U.S. nuke bomb site enters new life as nature refuge 26 US: UPI: Utah fire causes radiation spike NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 27 US: Free Press: OEC's comments on DOE GNEP's PEIS 28 E&ETV: Energy Policy: Energy Secretary Bodman outlines plans on Yucc 29 ReviewJournal.com: Tribe allowed to give input on Yucca Mountain pro 30 US: NRC: List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC-MPC Revision 31 US: Telluride Daily Planet: Energy Dept. wants more uranium mining 32 US: NAS: Project: Internationalization of the Civilian Nuclear Fuel 33 Scotsman.com: Dounreay tightens safety in wake of £15,000 fine 34 US: Donald A. Grant: U.S. needs to act on storage of nuke waste 35 UK: Wigan Today: Call for nuclear waste train halt PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 36 DOE: DOE's Former Rocky Flats Weapons Production Site to Become 37 KOMO-TV: Energy Department hires new top Hanford manager 38 Tri-City Herald: Transportation bill includes Hanford Reach Interpre 39 DOE: DOE Response to Recommendation 2007-1 of the Defense Nuclear 40 UPI: Energy Dept. acts against Los Alamos lab 41 cbs4denver.com: Rocky Flats Becomes Wildlife Refuge 42 lamonitor.com: UC ticketed $3 million for security violations 43 Guardian Unlimited: US Proposes $3.3M Fine for Los Alamos ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: NKorea Set to Shut Down Nuclear Reactor Friday July 13, 2007 9:01 PM By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea seemed ready Friday to take a first step toward scaling back its nuclear weapons program, perhaps this weekend, as U.N. inspectors prepared to monitor the shutdown of its sole operating atomic reactor. The team from the International Atomic Energy Agency stopped in Beijing en route to the North, with its Saturday arrival in Pyongyang scheduled just hours after a South Korean oil shipment was to enter a North Korean port - a promised reward for the reactor shutdown pledge. After years of tortuous negotiations and delays during which the North argued its nuclear program was needed for self-defense, the reclusive communist regime said last week that once it got the oil shipment, it would consider halting its reactor for the first time in five years. North Korea did not, however, give any timetable for starting the shutdown. The tanker was due to arrive Saturday morning, and officials said it would take 48 hours to pump out its load of 6,200 tons of heavy fuel oil. But U.N. officials expressed optimism that North Korean officials were ready to go forward with the shutdown of the plutonium-producing reactor at Yongbyon, about 60 miles northeast of the capital. ``With the kind of help which we (have received) from the (North) in the past few weeks, we think we will do our job in a successful way,'' IAEA team chief Adel Tolba said in Beijing. North Korea's military, meanwhile, proposed direct talks with the U.S. on forging a permanent peace on the Korean peninsula. The proposal was noteworthy because it appeared to go beyond simple administrative talks on the 1953 cease-fire that ended the Korean War. State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey suggested the idea was both premature and outside the framework for the nuclear talks already agreed on. ``We have a channel and mechanism for discussing a variety of issues with North Korea through the six-party process,'' he said. North Korea agreed earlier this year to scrap its nuclear weapons program in exchange for economic aid and political concessions in a deal with the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia. Those nations promised to give the impoverished North 50,000 tons of oil for shutting the Yongbyon reactor. It will get total energy aid equivalent to 1 million tons of oil if it disables all nuclear facilities. The agreement eased a standoff that began in October 2002, when the U.S. said North Korean officials had admitted during meetings in Pyongyang to having a secret uranium enrichment program. Washington said that violated a 1994 agreement for the North's disarmament, and a month later halted oil shipments under that deal. The North reacted by expelling IAEA monitors on New Year's Eve, withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarting the reactor. Since then, North Korea has occasionally shut down the reactor to remove fuel rods and extract plutonium - and is believed to have harvested enough to construct at least a dozen atomic bombs. Demonstrating its nuclear power, the North set off an underground test explosion in October, leading to intensified international efforts to negotiate an end to Pyongyang's arms program. When it does act to shut down the reactor again, the North will term it simply a suspension of operations - a move that could be easily reversed, as it was in 2002. But the main U.S. envoy on North Korea said Friday that Washington hoped to quickly move beyond the mere freeze of the reactor and dismantle the program by year's end. ``Where we would like to be at the end of the year is with the Yongbyon facility disabled,'' Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said after meeting with his Japanese counterpart in Tokyo to prepare for another round of the six-nation nuclear talks next week in Beijing. ``As I've said before, we lost a lot of time in the early part of this year and now we have to do a lot in the second part if we are to achieve our objectives,'' Hill said. Just getting to the shutdown required the U.S. to back down on a separate banking dispute in which Washington blacklisted a Macau bank for dealing with the North, saying it was helping the regime launder money. The bank remains banned from doing business with U.S. institutions, but the North Korean funds were freed earlier this year with U.S. approval. More hurdles lie ahead, with the North required to declare all its nuclear programs and materials. It has never publicly admitted running the alleged uranium enrichment program that sparked the nuclear crisis and would need to find a face-saving way to do so if the accusation was true. The regime also has not specifically said when it could give up its already built nuclear bombs or indicated what reward it would expect for doing that. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Putin Seeks to Revamp U.S.-Russia Ties Friday July 13, 2007 6:16 PM By DOUGLAS BIRCH Associated Press Writer NOVO-OGARYOVO, Russia (AP) - President Vladimir Putin said Friday that U.S.-Russia relations must rise above shifting political trends, as influential top diplomats, ministers and Cabinet secretaries conferred on the two countries' uneasy relationship. With ties between Washington and Moscow fraying, Putin met with top level U.S. and Russian diplomats, former government ministers and Cabinet secretaries at the presidential country house on Moscow's outskirts. Putin told the group that bilateral ties should not be held hostage to election campaigns. Both the United States and Russia hold presidential elections next year. ``We can't afford to let the U.S.-Russian relationship be subservient to political fashion,'' Putin told the group. ``I hope very much that the results of your discussions will not find their resting place in the archives of the foreign ministers, but will be used,'' he said. Former U.S. secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin joined former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov and other Russian officials at the conference, called ``Russia-USA - A View On The Future.'' Ties between the two countries deteriorated recently, as Moscow reacted harshly to U.S. plans for a missile defense system in former Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe. Washington says the system will protect Europe from an Iranian nuclear missile attack. Russia says the U.S. system is aimed at its nuclear arsenal, and would upset the balance of strategic forces in Europe. Kissinger, meanwhile, said the officials had a ``frank, cordial discussion on a whole number of important issues for both societies and the rest of the world as well.'' ``We appreciate the time that President Putin gave us and the frank manner in which he explained his point of view,'' he said. Told by a reporter that Russians are concerned about ``U.S. military expansion,'' Kissinger responded: ``I do not think that expansion is a problem of the period. The problem of the period is how to avoid nuclear conflict and in this case we believe that Russia and America should have common objectives.'' Also Friday, Putin met with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi. Russia and China stressed their common desire for a ``multi-polar world'' - one not dominated by the United States - and vowed to keep improving economic ties. Relations ``have reached an especially high level,'' Putin said, adding the volume of bilateral trade was increasing by up to 43 percent annually. Communist rivals through much of the Soviet era, Russia and China have found common ground in their opposition to what they call U.S. dominance of world affairs. They have used their clout as veto-wielding permanent U.N. Security Council members to counter U.S. moves, for example, forcing proposed sanctions against Iran to be watered down. With Russia's population declining, residents of its sparsely populated eastern regions are concerned about the expanding presence of Chinese migrants. --- Associated Press writer Steve Gutterman in Moscow contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 3 IAEA: IAEA Assists Brazil on Pan American Games Security Staff Report 12 July 2007 The 15th Pan American Games will be held in Rio de Janeiro on 13 - 29 July 2007. Major public international events are confronting a new security reality - the risk of the malicious use of nuclear or other radioactive material. When the 15th Pan American Games get under way in Rio de Janeiro tomorrow (Friday, July 13) the 6,000 athletes competing, and hundreds of thousands of games goers, will be protected by a set of sophisticated security measures. The Rio Games´ nuclear security system builds on similar measures taken at the 2004 summer Olympics and last year´s Football World Cup, by the International Atomic Energy Agency. In Brazil, enforcement authorities have been equipped with radiological expertise to protect the Game´s 6,000 athletes and the expected million of fans from throughout the Americas. For events of this scale organizers have had to acknowledge that traditional security measures, like guards, guards and gates, are no longer enough. This has created an unusual but highly effective marriage of expertise between groups like scientists and police, intelligence experts and fire fighters. "The IAEA has been hard at work for over fifty years in radiation safety and security. We are now further developing these skills as they become increasingly relevant to large scale public events like the Pan American Games," said Anita Nilsson, Director of Nuclear Security at the IAEA. The steps taken in Rio are the result of intense cooperation between Brazil´s Nuclear Energy Commission, CNEN, and the IAEA. With the provision of expert advice and specialised technical assistance from the IAEA, CNEN has trained and equipped enforcement authorities to measure and detect radioactive material. Brazil´s national capacity is furthered by the nuclear security support from the IAEA which includes: * Advising on physical protection measures to secure radioactive material; * Furnishing information related to illicit trafficking or other unauthorized use of radioactive materials in the country or region; * Providing equipment and training for detection of criminal acts involving radiation; and * Assisting in training and the creation of coordinated responses. The result of these efforts is a systematic approach to nuclear security - one that incorporates prevention, detection, and response. A coordinated effort allows for a quick and comprehensive response to incidents which might have malevolent intent. "The Pan American Games are a good opportunity to increase this cooperation and establish new objectives for the future regarding security," explained Luiz Mello, Head of the Physical Protection Group, Brazilian Nuclear Energy Commission (CNEN). Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: ***************************************************************** 4 NRC: NRC to Discuss Results of License Renewal Inspection at Harris Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region II - 2007-037 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will discuss their inspection of the aging management programs to support license renewal for the Shearon Harris nuclear power plant on Friday, July 27, at a meeting between NRC officials and the facility’s management. The inspection is part of an ongoing NRC review of a license renewal application for the plant, which is located southwest of Raleigh, N.C., and operated by Progress Energy. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. at the New Horizons Fellowship Annex, 820 Williams Street in Apex. Members of the public are invited to observe and will have an opportunity to ask questions of NRC officials before the meeting ends. In November 2006, Progress Energy applied to the NRC for a 20-year extension of the operating license for the Harris plant. An important aspect of the review process is to ensure that a plant can manage the effects of aging on key safety systems, structures and components through an effective monitoring and maintenance program. The current operating license for the Harris plant expires on Oct. 24, 2026.copy of the plants license renewal application is available via the NRCs web site at: www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/harris.h tml. Additional information about the license renewal process is available at: www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.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. Privacy Policy | Site Disclaimer Friday, July 13, 2007 ***************************************************************** 5 newsobserver.com | Will we pay, again, for nuclear folly? Friday, July 13, 2007 Point of View: Jim Warren DURHAM - "The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale. The utility industry has already invested $125 billion in nuclear power ... only the blind, or the biased, can now think that most of the money has been well spent." -- Forbes magazine, "Nuclear Follies," Feb.11, 1985 Despite a propaganda offensive depicting nuclear power as carbon free and safer than ever, resuscitating the failed technology would be a huge, unnecessary gamble for our climate, economy and safety. Fortunately, the odds are stacked against completion of new plants in this country. The question is, how much time and public money will be wasted fighting them while we should be aggressively cutting greenhouse gases? The mismanagement reported by Forbes got worse after 1985. Overall, scores of plants were canceled during construction; cost overruns plagued the rest. Those most responsible, the magazine said, were "the contractors and subcontractors, the designers, engineers and construction managers who [were] insulated by their own cost-plus contracts." Also culpable were "the utility executives, who believed that no matter what happened to cost and construction schedules, the rate commissions would somehow provide the revenues to bail them out." In the Carolinas, Duke Power and CP&L (now Progress Energy) canceled nine nuclear plants under way, then billed customers over $1 billion. The legislature later banned that scheme for "early recovery" of what's called Construction Work In Progress (CWIP). Amazingly, legislators are poised to reverse that ban, transferring the financial risk for new multibillion-dollar nuclear and coal-fired plants back onto the ratepayers. Power companies insist that a bill in the General Assembly that promotes renewable energy must be saddled by a measure allowing Duke and Progress to bill customers in advance for costs -- plus profit -- of new plants, even if they're never completed. l l l PRUDENTLY, PROGRESS ENERGY RECENTLY BACKED AWAY from last year's plan to lead a much-hyped U.S. nuclear revival. There is persistent doubt about whether anyone could complete new reactors now, due to multiple failure scenarios that include design/construction challenges, cash-flow shortfalls, economic downturns, accidents or a terrorist attack at any plant worldwide. Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers told the state Utilities Commission in January that new nuclear plants are highly uncertain and would cost at least 40 percent more than current estimates. That excludes design changes needed to protect control rooms, water intakes and waste pools from attacks. The nuclear power plant industry claims its new designs will be cheaper to build, but it insists on billions in subsidies. Even so, Wall Street remains dubious, so the industry is begging legislatures for pre-payment via "baseload" provisions including CWIP (which could be called Customers' Wallets In Peril). This could allow more "cost plus" gravy trains with few constraints on expenditures. Adding to the gamble is nuclear power's unreliability. Over two-dozen U.S. plants were shuttered early due to safety problems. Fifty-one more have suffered yearlong outages needed to restore minimum safety levels. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has allowed many plants, including the Harris plant near Raleigh, to operate for years without meeting some safety standards. The absence of another severe nuclear accident since the 1980s is not an adequate basis by which to judge the industry's safety record and potential for economic disaster. The biggest failure scenario stems from the urgent nature of global warming, and the growing public demand for genuine climate solutions such as energy efficiency. Gradually, it's becoming clear that building coal and nuclear plants is a ruinous approach to global warming. Even to the extent that nuclear energy produces fewer emissions than coal, we don't have the decades or trillions of dollars to build the 3,000 plants required (according to the Council on Foreign Relations) just to hold atmospheric carbon at year 2000 levels. l l l EVEN IF NEW NUCLEAR WEREN'T such a multi-faceted gamble, why should the public assume the industry's risk? The power companies are ensured a 12 percent rate of return by the people of North Carolina, largely intended to cover business risk. If the utilities make customers pay for plants not yet operational, the guaranteed return should be slashed. Subsidies for big plants should be debated separately, not shadowed in an energy bill that, despite problems with provisions for extracting energy from animal wastes, has important measures promoting efficiency and clean generation. Duke and Progress are deploying a proven business strategy to buy state and civic leaders' blessing for this gigantic and ill-timed ripoff. The legislature needs to stand up for the public. Jim Warren is executive director of N.C. WARN (North Carolina Waste Awareness & Reduction Network). All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner. ***************************************************************** 6 BBC NEWS: The subtle shift in British foreign policy Last Updated: Saturday, 14 July 2007, 07:18 GMT 08:18 UK Analysis By Paul Reynolds World Affairs correspondent BBC News website Douglas Alexander: signalling subtle shift A speech in Washington by the British cabinet minister Douglas Alexander is part of a distancing of the new British government from the Bush administration, but there will not be a decisive break. There was another instance of the distancing on Saturday when a new foreign office minister Mark Malloch Brown, a critic of US policy when he was at the UN, said that the US and UK would no longer be "joined at the hip". The Prime Minister Gordon Brown reacted by trying to stop the impression of a break with the US. Cabinet ministers have been reminded of the importance of the relationship. However, it is difficult not to conclude that there is a change of atmosphere. Mr Alexander, newly promoted to the senior role of Secretary for International Development, made a series of references to the need for an internationalist approach to world problems and at the heart of his speech were these two paragraphs: "We need to demonstrate by our word and our actions that we are: internationalist not isolationist; multilateralist not unilateralist; active not passive; and driven by core values consistently applied, not special interests. "Isolationism simply does not work in an interdependent world. There is no security or prosperity at home unless we deal with the global challenges of security, globalization, climate change, disease and poverty. We must recognise these challenges and champion an internationalist approach - seeking shared solutions to the problems we face." No sudden detachment However he did not criticise US foreign policy and he also made it clear that Britain under Gordon Brown is not going to suddenly detach itself from US policy in Iraq or Afghanistan. For he also said: "Today the UK stands together with the US in confronting international terrorism and confronting violent insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan." We must recognise these challenges and champion an internationalist approach Douglas Alexander Douglas Alexander is close to Mr Brown (he has been appointed Labour's general election coordinator) and they are both Atlanticists, with an affection for the United States and its politics. Mr Alexander studied at the University of Pennsylvania and worked for a time as an aide in the US Congress. It was significant that he chose as his audience the Council on Foreign Relations, a liberal-minded body highly critical of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. It has just published a study by one of its senior fellows, Steven Simon, calling for a US withdrawal. Mr Brown's spokesman denied that the speech represented criticism of the United States and said that it was not designed to send a signal to the US. Mr Brown himself said later: "We'll not allow people to separate us from the United States of America in dealing with the common challenges we face around the world." The signals The speech however has to be seen in the context of other measures for change taken by Mr Brown, including the appointment of Mark Malloch Brown. Gordon Brown also stressed to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, whom he met in London on Thursday, that Britain would always aim at multilateralism in foreign policy, though holding its options open for independent action in the final analysis. That was perhaps code for - no more Iraqs. So the signals are clear - British foreign policy is going through a subtle shift. The Blair era is over. The implications The implications of this are quite profound, because a distancing from the United States has coincided with a British refusal to give the European Union more powers in foreign policy. A free hand in foreign affairs was one of the British "red lines" in the recent treaty negotiations. The Brown government appears to be aiming at acting as far as possible through international organisations (Mr Alexander's speech was full of this). As chancellor of the exchequer, Gordon Brown favoured such policies in tackling global poverty and global warming. But a Britain not as close to the United States and not willing to get closer to Europe leaves itself open to having less influence, for better or for worse. It remains to be seen how the new Foreign Sectary David Miliband proposes to deal with all this. His only major statements so far, in an interview with the Financial Times, did not give many clues. He already faces a crisis in relations with Russia over the Russian refusal to extradite the prime suspect in the Litvinenko murder. This is an issue in which the EU might (or might not) be helpful. But Britain could well strike out on its own in taking retaliatory measures, a unilateral approach the Russians might welcome, because dealing with one European country is easier than dealing with them all. Iran And looming on the horizon is the problem of Iran. In his news conference in Washington on Thursday, President Bush drew together, in one prepared sentence, the developing, and much contested, US accusations against Iran: "The same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs [improvised explosive devices] to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers." Would Britain under Gordon Brown support military action against Iran? It is unlikely that Britain would join such action. It is not inconceivable that it would support it, but only as a very, very last resort, with incontestable evidence that Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions were real. Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 7 NRC: NRC Assigns New Resident Inspectors to Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region I - 2007- 039 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Region I Office has assigned Paul C. Cataldo as the new senior resident inspector and Christopher A. Hott as the new resident inspector at the Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant in Buchanan, N.Y. Indian Point Energy Center, which has two operating nuclear power units, is operated by Entergy Nuclear Northeast. “Both Paul Cataldo and Chris Hott have extensive technical and regulatory experience, and have demonstrated dedication to safety to carry out NRC’s commitment to protect people and the environment," said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins. “They are our eyes and ears on site, monitoring daily operations.” Most recently, Mr. Cataldo was the NRC’s senior resident inspector at the Beaver Valley nuclear power plant in Shippingport, Pa. Prior to that, he was a resident inspector at the Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford, Conn. He joined the NRC’s Region III office near Chicago in 1996 as an operator licensing examiner. Prior to joining the agency, Mr. Cataldo was a test reactor operator at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell. He also has experience in the manufacturing industry, in which he performed, among other things, quality assurance inspections between 1989 and 1993. Mr. Cataldo also served as a machinist's mate aboard a U.S. Navy nuclear attack submarine. He is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts-Lowell with a bachelor's degree in nuclear engineering. Mr. Hott’s previous assignment was as a project engineer in the NRC Region I Division of Reactor Projects. He joined the agency in 2003. He has worked as a reactor inspector in the Division of Reactor Safety and as a nuclear materials inspector in the Division of Nuclear Materials and Safety. Before coming to the NRC, Mr. Hott spent 9 years in the United States Navy nuclear program. He holds a double-major bachelor’s degree in nuclear engineering and engineering physics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y. Each U.S. commercial nuclear plant has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They are assigned to each facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. 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, July 12, 2007 ***************************************************************** 8 Pravda.Ru: Russia may become world’s leader in sea-based nuclear power stations 13.07.2007 Source: Pravda.Ru Russian atomic concern Rosenergoatom continues the construction of the first floating nuclear station (PATES). The project is supervised by the specially set up Directorship on Floating Nuclear Stations. Today it is obvious that Russia plans to focus on energy and floating nuclear stations are likely to have a high priority in the plans of the government. They are part of the federal purpose oriented program “Energy Efficient Economy for 2002-2005 and for the Perspective till 2010”. A complete cycle of operating a floating station will be ensured by the existing infrastructure of the Russian nuclear industry. At the same time Russia is restoring nuclear infrastructure of the USSR. This is done together with the Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Floating nuclear power plant PATES was designed by the N.Novgorod based OKB Afrikantova, which has a number of floating nuclear stations with different power levels for different regions and climates. All are based on the reactors that had been for decades used on Russian nuclear subs and ice breakers. The smallest (3 MWt) costs just USD20m. Reloading nuclear fuel takes place once in 12 years. Lifetime is 50 years. Technologically the stations completely comply with the IAEA’s requirements of non-proliferation agreements. The head of Rosenergoatom Sergey Kirienko called the project “a breakthrough” and stated that Russia needs to build at least 7-10 such stations. It is worthwhile emphasizing that this is the world’s first project of a kind. The head station will be used for Sevmash itself. KLT-40C (the reactor of PATES) with 70mWt power is sufficient for supplying the energy to a town with the population of 50 000 people. The project of floating stations first originated in Russia as an idea to heat the northern regions along the Arctic ocean. Today not only remote northern regions in Russia are interested in cheap and convenient supply of energy and heat. It can be used also as a station making fresh water of the sea water. Foreign customers and Asia and Middle East paid attention to the Russian development before Russia made the first station for itself. Traditional Russian partners in China and India with their growing economies demanding more energy are viewed not only as potential customers but probably even partners. Indirectly this was once confirmed during a meeting at Sevmash, where the president of Kurchatov Institute Evgeny Velihov drew attention to the opportunities of building international nuclear reactor. According to him it will be possible in 20s of this century. All news About Pravda.Ru Site map Export news STATISTICS © 1999-2006. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or ***************************************************************** 9 APP.COM: Official backs new criteria for plant relicensing | Asbury Park Press Online Friday, July 13, 2007 BY NICK CLUNN STAFF WRITER Post Comment An attempt by two state environmental groups to force the federal government to look at terrorism before renewing the licenses of nuclear power plants drew support Thursday from New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. The attorney general announced his filing of a court brief supporting an appeal undertaken last month by the New Jersey Environmental Federation and the state's Sierra Club chapter, which want the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey to close. Cuomo has been critical of the Indian Point plant, which is located about 35 miles north of Manhattan in Westchester County. Like Oyster Creek, Indian Point is pursuing a 20-year renewal of its operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The New Jersey groups are appealing the NRC's refusal to change the criteria under which renewal applications are evaluated. Under current regulations, renewal reviews only focus on how plant operators would detect and manage aging parts of the plant's structure. The groups have argued that the NRC should also take into account terrorism, evacuation plans and population density. "This brief raises serious questions about the NRC relicensing process — a process that ignores important factors about nuclear power plant safety and is stacked in favor of plant operators," Cuomo said in his announcement. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said plant security and emergency preparedness are already being evaluated in an ongoing, vigilant manner by the agency. "Considering them only during the snapshot period when a license renewal application is under review would be not be a prudent use of resources," he said. Peggi Sturmfels, a program coordinator for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said Cuomo's support will strengthen the appeal. "For the attorney general of New York to understand how important this is, and to put the resources of the state behind this, shows that we're not a bunch of crazies," she said. The environmental federation and the Sierra Club were among several parties that petitioned the NRC to change its regulations two years ago. Regulators rejected the petition in December, arguing that it raised issues "already considered at length when developing the license renewal rule." Jerry Kremer, chairman of the Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance, an industry group that includes Indian Point operator Entergy, said Cuomo ignores the energy needs of New York's downstate area. "New York's state officials should be looking for ways to create new electric power and not look for ways to choke off what we have," Kremer said. Westchester County Executive Andrew J. Spano, who is also listed as a petitioner, said that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal also filed a supporting brief. The appeal could be heard by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by mid-October. The Associated Press contributed to this story. Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing FR Doc E7-13611 [Federal Register: July 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 134)] [Notices] [Page 38627-38629] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13jy07-116] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-259] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-33 issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) for operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located in Limestone County, Alabama. The proposed amendment would allow deletion of License Condition 2.G.(2) regarding the performance of power uprate large transient testing. In addition, it was requested that this proposed amendment be handled as an exigent request consistent with Title 10 to the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Sec. 50.91(a)(6). The Commission has reviewed this request and determined that the circumstances presented by the licensee do not support an exigent review and abbreviated public comment period. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a [[Page 38628]] margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The requested licensing action would eliminate the current license condition schedule requirement to perform a full power turbine generator load reject transient test. No other changes are proposed. This proposed licensing action will not affect any system, structure, or component designed for the mitigation of previously analyzed events. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? Response: No. The requested licensing action would eliminate the current schedule requirement to perform a full power turbine generator load reject transient test. No other changes are proposed. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. Performance of the full power load reject transient test is not necessary to ensure acceptable plant operation at the high thermal power level. Simple, integrated system tests have been performed, and a turbine trip from a high power and a main steam isolation valve transient test from full power have been experienced. In addition, other testing has been performed which demonstrated the satisfactory performance of individual components and subsytems. Thus, the proposed elimination of the load reject transient test will not significantly reduce any margin of safety. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60- day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30- day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestors/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. [[Page 38629]] Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 25, 2007, and supplemental letter dated July 3, 2007, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of July 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Eva A. Brown, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-13611 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 11 MHNN: Westchester appeals NRC’s Indian Point relicensing criteria decision Covering the Hudson to the Catskills! July 13, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide Spano: "... not a reason for it to be here for the next 20 years" White Plains – The County of Westchester Thursday filed an appeal with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s denial of the county’s petition to change its relicensing criteria for the Indian Point nuclear power plants. County Executive Andrew Spano said the NRC should have granted the county’s petition or told the officials they needed more information. “They should have held a public hearing,” he said. “Operating a nuclear power plant in 2007 is far different than in 1995 when relicensing criteria was last looked at.” Spano said Entergy and Indian Point should be judged on how they have been operating. “Indian Point has siren problems. Indian Point has environmental problems,” he said. “Just because it is here now, is not a reason for it to be here for the next 20 years. The NRC must put aside any bias toward the nuclear industry and consider all these issues.” Westchester was joined in its appeal with the New Jersey Environmental Federation and the New Jersey Chapter of the Sierra Club. New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal both filed friend of the court briefs. Meanwhile, anti-Indian Point environmental groups Clearwater, Riverkeeper and Scenic Hudson commended Cuomo for joining in the Indian Point appeal. But, the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance said Indian Point “is a safe facility whose continued operation is critical to New York’s economy, improving the state’s air quality, and ensuring that New York reduces greenhouse gas emissions significantly in the coming years. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 12 edie news centre: Brown has performed public U-turn on nuclear power, says Greenpeace (13 July 2007) Britain's new Prime Minister Gordon Brown has sabotaged public nuclear consultation and acted unlawfully, Greenpeace has declared. The environmental group sent a letter to the Prime Minister last week in response to comments made during Parliament Questions supporting nuclear power despite earlier promises for a full public consultation. The letter from Greenpeace asked Gordon Brown to "immediately and unreservedly withdraw the government's decision to support the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations." This comes after a ruling earlier this year from a High Court deciding that no Government decision to support new nuclear power stations can lawfully be made before a public consultation has been carried out. "Brown has ridden roughshod over a High Court decision," said John Sauven, Greenpeace director. "And, by publicly stating that he'd already come to a decision while carrying out what is now very obviously a sham consultation, he's acted unlawfully." The Greenpeace letter to Gordon Brown said that in his judgment of 15th February 2007, Mr Justice Sullivan gave 'declaratory relief to the effect that there had been a breach of...expectation to the fullest public consultation on the future of nuclear power; that the consultation process which led to the decision in July 2006 was procedurally unfair; and that therefore the decision in the Energy review that nuclear new build "has a role to play..." was unlawful.' A statement from Number 10 Downing Street declared: "The government has decided in principle that businesses should be able to build new nuclear power stations...[and] that the final decision will be made after consultation." Greenpeace director, John Sauven, said: "Brown said he'd be a different kind of leader, that he'd listen to the British public, but after just a week in power he's said he doesn't care what people think about nuclear power, he's going for it regardless. We thought we'd seen the back of this kind of politics when Tony Blair left office." The letter sent last week demanded a reply from Gordon Brown by today, Friday, July 13. Dana Gornitzki Source: edie newsroom © Faversham House Group Ltd 2007. edie news articles may be copied ***************************************************************** 13 newsjournalonline.com: Going nuclear to energize Florida July 13, 2007 Editorial - 'Green' benefits, yes, but there's also waste, safety, cost to weigh Not a single nuclear reactor has been ordered in the United States since 1978, and not a single one completed since 1996 -- 26 years after it'd been ordered. The 103 reactors whirring today are a far cry from the 1,000 the Atomic Energy Commission predicted in the 1960s would be in operation by 2000. Since 2003, however, the nuclear industry has been talking up a new dawn. Utilities have either submitted or announced plans for federal approval of 34 nuclear reactors, including two by Progress Energy in Levy County. Members of the Florida Energy Commission are pushing nuclear power as ideal to fill the state's energy needs cleanly and relatively cheaply. Florida's five nuclear reactors at three power plants account for 14 percent of the state's electricity production. But using the scare of global warming as an incentive doesn't make the case so far. The New York Times two years ago ran two pieces on opposing pages that, intentionally or not, underscored contradictions at the core of nuclear energy's supposedly bright future. On one page, Nicholas Kristof, one of the paper's more liberal voices, probably surprised readers by enthusiastically endorsing nuclear power as "green." He reasoned that global warming is the world's greatest threat, energy demand will rise 60 percent over the next 25 years, and nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gases, "is the cleanest and best bet to fill that gap." On the opposite page, The Times' lead editorial pointed to "two disturbing revelations" in a report just released by the National Academy of Sciences: "The cooling pools for nuclear waste at some reactor sites may be far more vulnerable to a devastating attack by terrorists than federal regulators are willing to admit. And the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is operating in a hermetically sealed cocoon that makes it difficult for anyone -- even the academy, armed with a Congressional mandate -- to tell whether the public is adequately protected." Pick your poison. More global warming if nuclear power isn't expanded. More targets for devastating terrorist attacks if it is, and problems don't go away even in a terrorist-free world. Nuclear-reactor accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl helped vastly increase the safety of nuclear-power stations. Similar accidents are extremely unlikely. But accidents aren't the issue. Waste is -- its temporary storage around the nation's 65 plant sites, and its permanent storage beneath a mountain in Nevada, a place still in contention since a federal appeals court ruled that the site had to be viable for hundreds of thousands of years, not the 10,000-year standard set by the Environmental Protection Agency. At the earliest, the burial site would open in 2017. The site's 70,000-ton capacity for waste storage will have easily been exceeded by then. What then? There may be a viable future for nuclear power once its Achilles' heels -- waste, safety from attack, massive construction costs -- are addressed. For now, the way to a greener future, in Florida especially, isn't through radiation-fueled consumption, but conservation. Last month the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (aceee.org) estimated that Florida could save $28 billion and create 14,000 jobs by 2023 by installing energy-efficient windows, appliances and fluorescent light bulbs, among other improvements. Nuclear power's new dawn, in comparison, still glows more noxious than green. © 2007 News-Journal Corporation ***************************************************************** 14 TheDay.com: Millstone May Boost Its Output Dominion Seeks NRC Permission To 'Uprate' Reactor By Patricia Daddona , Published on 7/13/2007 Waterford — The owner of the Millstone nuclear complex is planning to boost power at one reactor, a change that could bring electricity to more homes in the region as soon as next fall. Dominion, the owner of the power station, decided Thursday to submit its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a proposed “uprate” for Unit 3, its newest reactor. An uprate is an adjustment to equipment that safely allows the reactor to use more fuel to generate more electricity. After 16 months of study, the company determined that minor enhancements to some equipment used to produce steam that drives turbines to generate electricity would make an uprate both feasible and safe, said spokesman Pete Hyde and Michael O'Connor, Millstone's manager of systems and component engineering. “At a time when everyone is looking for stability in electricity prices, we're actually doing something to add more electricity to the grid,” said Hyde. If approved, the uprate could enable Millstone to generate an additional 80 megawatts of electricity, which would boost total output from the two reactors from 2,038 megawatts to 2,118 megawatts. That would bring electricity to an additional 60,000 homes and businesses, Hyde said. Millstone supplies electricity to Connecticut residents indirectly through the regional grid. Currently, the reactors' output produces enough electricity for 1,528,500 homes. With the uprate, about 1,588,500 homes would be served, Hyde said. One megawatt is enough to serve about 750 homes. NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci said the federal review could take about a year, and could be subject to a public hearing. A total of 113 uprates have been granted across the country, she said. In evaluating whether to pursue a power boost, Dominion had to assess the condition of the equipment that produces thermal energy and steam to drive a turbine generator. When more fresh fuel is used to produce more power, more steam flows through the system, O'Connor said. The reactors' mechanical systems need to be able to handle that additional flow, he said. Its analysis showed that the plant would only need minor modifications to accommodate the boost in power, and that the additional production would not jeopardize safety, he said. The reactor could go to the higher level power today without changing too much equipment, but fresh fuel and physical changes to equipment can only be added during an outage, and the earliest that could happen, following a favorable NRC review, would be the fall of 2008, he said. p.daddona@theday.com Waterford Privacy Policy | Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200 | New London, CT | © 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co. 102 ***************************************************************** 15 DW: Police Investigate Scene of Suspicious Nuclear Plant Fire | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 13.07.2007 Germany's atomic power stations are already a source of great political debate Police searched offices at a German nuclear plant as part of an inquiry into a possible offence during a June 28 transformer fire at the site, state prosecutors said on Friday. The legislature of Schleswig-Holstein state warned the Swedish-owned company Vattenfall Europe that it might lose its license to operate Krümmel power station east of Hamburg. It called on company officials to testify at a state parliamentary inquiry next week. Prosecutors in the city of Lübeck said detectives were sent to the site to inquire into reports that a reactor operator had to wear a face-mask when smoke from burning oil entered the control room during last month's fire. It was possible the man had been harmed by toxic fumes and that the company might have caused bodily harm by negligence, spokesman Klaus-Dieter Schultz said. Top priority Representatives of the Swedish company, however, told police officers that this was not the case. "The safety of our staff is a top priority for us," Bruno Thomauske, the chief of Vattenfall Europe Nuclear Energy, said in a statement. Vattenfall had declined to name the operator so that he could be interviewed. The detectives sought the name in records in the control room and offices at Krümmel. The company denied obstructing the inquiry and said it had vainly tried to contact prosecutors on Thursday. "We are cooperating fully with the authorities and the state prosecution and are doing everything to clear up this matter," Thomauske claimed. "We have explained that nobody was injured." Safety improvements Bildunterschrift: Huge fears were raised by the Krümmel fire last month Gitta Trauernicht, the state's minister responsible for reactor safety, said in the Schleswig-Holstein parliament on Friday she would use all her powers to force improvements at Krümmel, one of 17 nuclear power stations in Germany. "I've used the full range of legal means and ensured that Krümmel remains deactivated," she said. She said she would insist it be in perfect order before it resumes operations, and added that she would not be deterred by demands for compensation from the company. She said the day of blunders at Vattenfall had been "unique" in the history of the German nuclear industry. Double trouble Two Vattenfall nuclear stations in the state failed on June 28, one because of a short-circuit and the one at Krümmel when its transformer caught fire. Neither reactor was damaged. The fire at Krümmel broke out just hours after the nuclear reactor at nearby Brunsbüttel had to be shut down temporarily because its capacity was overloaded. Bildunterschrift: The fire allegedly reached the building house the reactorThe company initially said the fire at the Krümmel plant had been isolated from the atomic reactor but, according to the regional social affairs ministry, the flames had reached the building housing the reactor. The ministry also contends that Vattenfall waited five days to report technical problems that occurred when workers tried to restart the Brunsbüttel plant. Vattenfall has since admitted further mechanical mishaps including the smoke entering the control room. German anti-nuclear groups have demanded that the company's nuclear license be revoked. Under current legislation, all Germany's nuclear power plants are to close by 2021. DW-WORLD * Energy Company Admits Fresh Blunders At Nuclear Plants Swedish energy giant Vattenfall faces massive criticism after it admitted fresh blunders by its nuclear reactor operators in Germany after a string of irregularities last month. (09.07.2007) * Critics Slam Energy Firm For Handling of Fire At Nuclear Plant Critics have slammed a German energy company for failing to reveal the full extent of a fire last week at a German atomic plant that came amid a fresh debate about nuclear energy and global warming. (05.07.2007) * Nuclear Power to Dominate Debate at German Energy Summit Germany's coalition government has a commitment to decommission the country's nuclear power stations by 2021. But demands to cut CO2 emissions may see a reversal. The topic is likely to light up Tuesday's energy summit. (02.07.2007) * Two German Nuclear Power Plants Close After Incidents Two nuclear power plants near Hamburg were shut down Thursday after a fire broke out in one and a short-circuit in a switching unit occurred in another. The public was at no point at risk, stressed the state government. (29.06.2007) Audios and videos on the topic 1. © 2007 Deutsche Welle ***************************************************************** 16 North County Times: NRC gives San Onofre good marks for safety in 2006 North San Diego and Southwest Riverside County News Last modified Thursday, July 12, 2007 10:30 PM PDT By: PAUL SISSON - Staff Writer SAN CLEMENTE -- Nuclear regulators said Thursday that the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station met safety objectives over the last year, but could not say whether a recent unexpected shutdown might change results in the current year. Representatives of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission held San Onofre's annual safety performance meeting at San Clemente's Country Plaza Inn, giving the plant high marks for 2006. Mark Sitek, one of San Onofre's two resident inspectors, told a sparse crowd that he and his compatriot chief inspector, Clyde Osterholtz, spent 1,300 hours scrutinizing San Onofre's twin domed reactors, which are perched on the coast just south of San Clemente and about 18 miles north of Oceanside. "San Onofre was operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety," Sitek said. San Onofre has its own safety response team, which is made up of representatives from local emergency response agencies, city and county governments and the state. Pete Lawrence, a battalion chief for the Oceanside Fire Department, said he was convinced that the plant's safety team has an effective plan to evacuate the area if there was a harmful release of radiation into the surrounding environment. He said the fact that his family lives nearby makes him very interested in making sure that the plant has the best possible evacuation plan. "Good is not good enough for me," Lawrence said. Thursday's safety report included information from January through December 2006. There has been at least one unplanned shutdown at San Onofre in 2007 that is not included in the commission's safety assessment. On June 20, operators shut down San Onofre's Unit 2 reactor after detecting a failed pipe connection in a compressed air system used to operate numerous valves for the reactor. According to Southern California Edison, San Onofre's majority owner and operator, the shutdown posed no safety risk and led to no injuries. The manual shutdown at San Onofre prompted the regulatory commission to send two extra inspectors to the plant. The inspectors will critique Edison's response to the event and will determine what caused the loss of air pressure and whether that cause might have implications for San Onofre's Unit 3 reactor or for other reactors of similar design elsewhere in the United States. Resident inspector Osterholtz said at Thursday's meeting that the results of the special inspection should be released in August. The inspector, who is near the end of his seven-year term at San Onofre, said he was unsure whether the inspection could lead to a less spotless safety report for San Onofre in the commission's next security assessment. "The investigation is still ongoing, and we can not speculate about that until it is finished," Osterholtz said. San Onofre generates a little more than 2,000 megawatt's of electricity which is enough to power about 2 million homes. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. owns a 20 percent stake in the plant. - Contact staff writer Paul Sisson at (760) 901-4087 or psisson@nctimes.com. Previous Story: Heart surgeons get state report card Next Story: Attorney general upholds DA's decision in Vista shooting . Comments On This Story Note: Comments reflect the views of readers and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff. Huh wrote on Jul 13, 2007 12:52 AM: " "Pete Lawrence, a battalion chief for the Oceanside Fire Department said the fact that his family lives nearby makes him very interested in making sure that the plant has the best possible evacuation plan." Does this mean that he is not as interested in other safety issues, unless his family is living in the area. " Oh please... wrote on Jul 13, 2007 11:48 AM: " He's just saying he lives in the community .... though there are plenty of cops and fireman that don't ...after all its not req'd and it is cheaper to live outside of Oceanside. " Safety First wrote on Jul 13, 2007 5:56 PM: " I work at San Onofre and safety is our #1 priority! Southern California Edison is a fantastic company to work for and I'm proud to be at San Onofre, bringing power to Southern California! " webmaster@nctimes.com © 1997-2007 North County Times ? Lee Enterprises editor@nctimes.com ***************************************************************** 17 The Blotter: GAO Stings Nuclear Agency; Obtains License to Buy Radioactive Materials Editor: Simon Surowicz Associate Producer: Krista Kjellman July 11, 2007 6:57 PM Brian Ross and Joseph Rhee Report: Congressional investigators, in an undercover sting on the federal agency charged with protecting the U.S. from a radioactive attack, found out how easy it might be for terrorists to get their hands on the materials for a dirty bomb. Their radioactive material of choice? Americium-241, which is commonly used in certain kinds of construction equipment, called moisture-density gauges, and is "incredibly toxic," according to Daniel Hirsch, the president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear watchdog group. "Americium is a material very similar to plutonium," Hirsch told ABC News. "In fact, it's about 50 times more toxic than plutonium gram for gram." How Easy Is It to Buy the Materials for a Dirty Bomb? To start, the investigators set up a dummy construction company that in reality was no more than a mail drop in Martinsburg, W.Va. Twenty-eight days and no questions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later, the "company" received a license to legally buy certain quantities of Americium-241 and Cesium-137. "It was much too easy, much too easy, to get the licenses that would have allowed individuals setting up a dummy corporation to obtain enough material to create a dirty bomb," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who initiated the investigation in his role as ranking member of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Dirty bombs are composed of a conventional explosives and radioactive material but don't generate a nuclear explosion. Documents seized from al Qaeda operative Dhiren Barot, who was sentenced to life in prison in the U.K. last November, detail plans for a dirty bomb with Americium that would "maximize terror and chaos" in a series of coordinated attacks. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says it regrets issuing the license without first checking out the buyer, but it stressed it doesn't believe a radioactive dirty bomb is a significant threat. "If the effects are psychological and not real, we should not hype it," Edward McGaffigan, a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 1996, said. "Things nuclear get hyped, things chemical apparently do not." "The problem is that we live in a post 9-11 world," said Sen. Coleman. "The NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, has been operating in a post-1945 world." In congressional hearings slated for tomorrow, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to announce changes in its policy that would mandate one of its agents to personally visit the site of any company that wants to buy radioactive material to make sure they are legitimate. Do you have a tip for Brian Ross and the Investigative Team? July 11, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (12) User Comments Oh just great. What do people think was in their ionization smoke detectors for the last 25 years? Americium 241. Less than 1 microcurie to be sure, but it was there as a source. It's more disturbing to read about the lack of vigilance of the NRC and the "smilarity to plutonium" which implies a veiled threat. If you use pesticides or weed killers you also use heavy metal poisons of the same type. Note that Americium is not a naturally occurring isotope, except by bomb testing. Also I'll say only a terror weapon, as only a small detectable amount of ANY alpha or beta emitter would cause mass panic by the untrained. As in "OMG IT'S RADIOACTIVE." So don't freak out just yet. So what exactly are we being told? Be afraid? Sorry, ABC, rather than spread fear you might try education once you get your GED. Posted by: Tar and Feathers | Jul 11, 2007 8:02:49 PM Its time to put the security lid on the AEC and NRC. And also on any national or international companies that mine or process products or by products. The roulet wheel is rigged against United States Security. Posted by: vincent campellone | Jul 11, 2007 8:06:40 PM Here we are worried about a terrorist again and our news media is going to make sure on national television if there is any terrorist out there that isnt sure how to make a dirty bomb, by golly we will tell them. Why don't you go over and make them for them! What the hell is wrong with us that we do these things?? Posted by: Chris | Jul 11, 2007 8:54:55 PM Chris, I promise you that our news agencies aren't telling true terrorists anything that they don't already know. I worry more about the home-grown nut jobs... Posted by: dave | Jul 11, 2007 9:33:31 PM Chris, do you know how most corporations learn of security weaknesses? They hire hackers to see if they can break in the system. Isn't it better for us to think of the weakness rather than them? Don't be silly Chris. If Main Stream Media is just now reporting this, the terrorists already dreamed it up a while back. How naive are you? Posted by: Truth | Jul 11, 2007 9:34:22 PM and I would not worry too much about terrorists right now. This administration rolls out the fear factor whenever it suits their agenda. Posted by: Dave | Jul 11, 2007 9:37:04 PM Chris, I agree with you, but the simple answer to your closing question is that in bureaucracies it's how you get ahead. Your entire motivation in that environment is to make your competitor look bad. Your pay grade goes up, so why worry about any collateral effects like life or death? Posted by: Roger | Jul 11, 2007 9:48:16 PM In my opinion, our present administration is just like "the boy who cried wolf." They have used the terror scare one too many times. Think of all the other bogus scares in recent times: weapons of mass destruction, Y2K, etc.. Try again George. Posted by: mike kleber | Jul 12, 2007 12:42:16 AM Hmmm ... certain quantities eh? Those same terrorists might be buying 'certain quantities' of gasoline and propane, with much less trouble. Posted by: John | Jul 12, 2007 3:25:03 PM Roger, the "administration" is responding to the pressure of media hype, who call The Committee to Bridge the Gap a "watchdog group," when they are pure and simple an anti-nuclear activist organization. Posted by: Paul Whaley | Jul 12, 2007 3:53:01 PM And anyone with "money" can buy enough common home smoke detectors to do EXACTLY the same thing. Quick! Destroy the smoke detectors in your house before a terrorist turns it into a bomb! Will ABC ever let these things go? Is Brian Ross the king of all the yellow press? Sad, truly sad. Posted by: Eric C. | Jul 12, 2007 7:39:18 PM Thank you for another useless, uninformative article with no substance intended to stir up things for attention. This sting accomplished nothing but making an already difficult job much harder. I notice that your particular article failed to mention that after they obtained that license, they (illegally) forged it to change the quantity they were allowed to have. Posted by: Dave R. | Jul 13, 2007 10:24:05 AM Copyright © 2007 ABCNews Internet Ventures ***************************************************************** 18 Reuters: Bush sends nuclear terrorism treaty to Senate Fri Jul 13, 2007 3:59PM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush sent a treaty targeting international nuclear terrorism to the Senate on Friday and urged its approval. The accord, which Bush signed in 2005, is the first such treaty adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and entered into force on July 7. The treaty provides a legal basis for international cooperation in the investigation, prosecution and extradition of anyone who threatens or commits acts of terrorism involving radioactive material or a nuclear device. "This convention is important in the campaign against international terrorism. I recommend, therefore, that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to this convention," Bush said in a message to the Senate. The accord was approved by the U.N. General Assembly in 2005, seven years after Russia first proposed it, and is the first anti-terrorism convention completed since the September 11 attacks. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 NAS: Project: Establishing Priorities for US-Russian Cooperation in Countering Radiological Terrorism Project Title: Establishing Priorities for US-Russian Cooperation in Countering Radiological Terrorism PIN: DSCX-N-03-05-A Major Unit: Policy and Global Affairs Division Division on Earth and Life Studies Sub Unit: Board on Radioactive Waste Management Development, Security, and Cooperation RSO: Schweitzer, Glenn Subject/Focus Area: International Issues Project Scope An ad hoc committee will be established to develop recommendations for priorities for US-Russian cooperation to be considered by the Department of Energy (DOE) as it develops its program for countering the threats of radiological terrorism. The committee will consider threats posed by radiological dispersion devices and specifically radioactive material packed around explosives. Also, diffusion of radioactive dust placed in ventilation systems or released into urban environments and burning of radioactive material that results in contaminated smoke are of interest. Also of concern are radioactive sources placed in populated locations where radiation is perceived by the public to cause harm. The project will not address terrorism based on nuclear devices or terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities. The NRC committee, after reviewing current DOE activities and in consultation with Russian specialists, will prepare a road map on opportunities for Russian-American cooperation to help reduce the threat of radiological terrorism worldwide. The report will identify the types of threats of priority importance (e.g. public health, urban contamination, psychological apprehensions), the potential Russian partners, and types of collaborative efforts (e.g. studies pilot projects, educational exchanges, media exchanges). Sponsors: Battelle Memorial Institute The approximate start date for the project is 01/01/2004. A final report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately 18 months. Note: The project duration has been extended and the report is expected to be issued in summer 2006. Project Duration: 18 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 05/07/2004 Meeting 2 - 08/24/2004 Meeting 3 - 03/13/2005 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office U.S.-Russian Collaboration in Combating Radiological Terrorism Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 20 Las Vegas SUN: Former Nevada Test Site workers counting on Reid's legislation to pull them through Photos: Paul Stednick speaks with Harry Reid | Harry Reid on conference call July 13, 2007 By Ed Koch <koch@lasvegassun.com> and Mary Manning <manning@lasvegassun.com> Las Vegas Sun Paul Stednick nestled into his rocking chair Thursday, slowly petted his 8-month-old black toy poodle, Maggie, and held the phone closely to his ear to listen to the U.S. senator on the other end. This was a call Stednick had long awaited, because it would , he hoped, make life a little better for former Nevada Test Site workers. An eyebrow inquisitively raised and his jaw slightly agape, Stednick was poised to ask questions of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. , about his legislation to provide medical benefits to nearly everyone who worked at the site where 904 nuclear weapons tests were conducted from 1951 to 1992. Reid was on a conference call with six people who stand to benefit from his proposal. Stednick, who in 1997 lost his right kidney and prostate gland to cancer, hung up after the 15-minute call not fully understanding what he had just heard other than the battle to obtain coverage was advancing - but far from over. "I'm a little disappointed," the 74-year-old former Test Site labor foreman said of the time it is taking to get benefits. They are provided to those who worked at the Test Site from 1951 to 1962, but not those who worked there from 1963 to 1993. Reid's legislation, introduced Thursday as an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill, would extend those benefits to the thousands who worked at the Test Site during those later years. It also would grant compensation to workers who contracted cancer while performing their duties at the Test Site during nuclear testing. Stednick, who worked at the site from 1966 to 1994, praised Reid's efforts to get benefits for more of the workers. The confusion for Stednick and perhaps others seemed to stem from Reid submitting in February his proposal to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which oversees nuclear workers' eligibility for benefits. Reid has not received word whether the overseer of that agency, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, has decided to implement Reid's expansion plans. Reid's amendment would circumvent the Bush administration. Senate debate is expected as early as next week on Reid's amendment, which would guarantee prompt compensation and medical help and eliminate obstacles many ex- Test S ite workers face trying to get treatment. It also would add Area 51 workers to the pool. Reid's legislation was spurred by a petition signed by Stednick, co- Test Site worker Peter White and Lori Hunton, the daughter of a former worker. "These Nevadans sacrificed their health to help the United States win the Cold War," Reid said on the phone call. "The very least we can and must do in return is compensate them for their dedication to America's security." But Thursday's phone conference really did not give Stednick or others any real sense as to when the matter will come to conclusion or when - or if - they will begin to receive benefits. Reid's proposal could save Stednick thousands of dollars he says he spends annually on treatment for cancer that he is convinced is related to his former workplace. "We cleaned up after blasts (where) you could easily be exposed" to radiation, said Stednick, who is covered by Medicare and a private health insurance policy but has to pay $1,600 out of pocket before the secondary policy kicks in. He also has to pay for prescriptions after he has received $2,400 worth of drugs during a single year. One of his generic drugs alone costs $169 a month, he said. It is little wonder that with confusion over where they stand with future coverage, some former Test Site workers say the government is waiting for them to die before it passes legislation to compensate the remainder. "A lot of us have died," Stednick said. "I've lost a lot of my laborers. I don't know what killed them." Reid during his phone call told four former workers and the daughters of two others that he will not stop trying to get coverage for all Test Site workers who have fallen ill after exposure to radiation during their work in nuclear weapons development. In addition, the senator and 14 others have asked a Senate labor committee to hold hearings on what they say is mismanagement of the compensation program. If Reid's effort to attach the amendment to the defense budget bill fails, he said , he'll try latching it on to other legislation, such as the energy and water appropriations bill. "You know we haven't forgotten you," Reid told the callers. "It's been a long, hard trail." Stednick stroked Maggie and nodded his head . Ed Koch can be reached at 259-4090 or at koch@lasvegassun.com. Mary Manning can be reached at 259-4065 or at manning@lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 21 HT: Former worker sues Lockheed, seeks compensation for Tallevast beryllium exposure HeraldTribune.com | STAFF PHOTO / THOMAS BENDER Charlie Ziegler worked at the American Beryllium Co. plant in Tallevast for 21 years. TALLEVAST — For 21 years, Charlie Ziegler worked as a janitor and maintenance worker at the American Beryllium Co. plant in Tallevast. The company built parts for nuclear warheads for the federal government for nearly 40 years. One byproduct was beryllium dust, a substance that can cause breathing difficulties and other lung diseases, including cancer. “I used to work in the beryllium dust; I used to dump the beryllium,” Ziegler said. “I used to do that every day.” Now Ziegler is seeking damages from Lockheed Martin for breathing problems he says stems from exposure to beryllium. A lawsuit filed Thursday on Ziegler’s behalf also claims that Ziegler’s wife, Beatrice Ziegler, and brother-in-law, Leroy Mazon, were exposed to beryllium dust brought home in Ziegler’s clothes and on his person. All three family members suffer from chronic beryllium disease, the lawsuit states. The claim for damages comes on the heels of a state report that found that Tallevast residents and workers at the former plant had an increased risk of cancer from pollutants in the ground water. The Ziegler suit is thought to be the first personal-injury case based on exposure to beryllium at the Tallevast plant. More than 240 Tallevast residents filed lawsuits against Lockheed in 2005 seeking compensation for property and emotional damages. BECSD, a limited Florida partnership that owns the site, and Wire Pro Inc., which used to lease the site, are also named in the lawsuit. Chronic beryllium disease, or CBD, can occur many years after exposure to higher-than-normal levels of beryllium. CBD can cause weakness, exhaustion and difficulty in breathing. It can also result in anorexia, weight loss, and may also lead to right-side heart enlargement and heart disease in advanced cases, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Ziegler, 72, said he has had breathing difficulties for several years. “Some nights I can’t lay down in the night, and use oxygen,” he said. “I use that every night, and sometimes that don’t do any good.” Kent Whittemore, an attorney representing Ziegler, said his company is hoping to enlist the help of Philadelphia-based law firm Golomb and Honik, with experts on chronic beryllium disease cases. Lockheed became the owners of the Tallevast site after the company acquired the Loral company in 1996. It shut down the plant, and later sold the property, but not before discovering soil and ground-water pollution on and around the site. Gail Rymer, a spokeswoman for Lockheed, said the company has not received a copy of the lawsuit, so she would not comment on it. “Lockheed established a medical exam program to help address their concerns of every member of the community with independent doctors to have their health questions answered,” Rymer said. The lawsuit does not state how much in damages the Zieglers and Mazon are seeking. Ziegler said he hasn’t thought about that yet. “I know I need help; I know that,” he said. Last modified: July 13. 2007 12:00AM TALLEVAST — For 21 years, Charlie Ziegler worked as a janitor and maintenance worker at the American Beryllium Co. plant in Tallevast. The company built parts for nuclear warheads for the feder . . . HeraldTribune.com. Herald-Tribune newspaper and SNN Channel 6 © Sarasota ***************************************************************** 22 Bradenton.com: Former Tallevast worker sues Lockheed over toxic exposure 07/13/2007 | BRIAN BLANCO/bblanco@bradenton.com Former Beryllium worker Charles Ziegler and his wife Beatrice are suing Lockheed Martin Corp. for personal injury damages. By DONNA WRIGHT dwright@bradenton.com TALLEVAST - A former beryllium worker, his wife and brother-in-law have filed a lawsuit against Lockheed Martin Corp. and others claiming injury from exposure to dangerous chemicals and substances used at the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant. Charles Ziegler, 74, his wife, Beatrice, and his brother-in-law, Leroy Mazon, have all been diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease, the lawsuit states, as a result of their exposure to beryllium dust generated at the plant during the manufacture of parts for nuclear weapons during the Cold War. Filed Thursday in the 12th Circuit Court, the complaint also names WPI Sarasota Division Inc. and Wire Pro Inc., which until recently operated a cable manufacturing business from the plant site at 1600 Tallevast Road as well as BECSD LLC., a limited holding company based in New Jersey that bought the plant from Lockheed Martin seven years ago. Beryllium can cause diseases ranging from acute to chronic lung disease, including beryllium sensitivity, which can progress to chronic beryllium disease and cancer, the complaint states. The disease can take up to 30 years to manifest after the initial exposure. If left untreated, chronic beryllium disease can be fatal, according to the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver. Beryllium is a gray, light metal similar to aluminum and is used in aerospace and electronic equipment. It is listed by federal regulators as a cancer-causing compound and also may affect the gastrointestinal and respiratory systems. Home from the plant During the 21 years he worked at the plant, Ziegler was responsible for emptying the bags of toxic dust collected by the vacuum system that sucked powdery beryllium filings off the worktables of precision machinists. Because he lived near the plant, Ziegler often went home, in his uniform, to have lunch with his wife and Mazon, exposing them to the dust, the suit says. His wife also was exposed to the dust when she washed her husband's uniforms. The Zieglers said Thursday that their breathing problems have greatly worsened in the past year. Charlie Ziegler now has to use a breathing machine for lung treatments several times a day and is connected to an exterior oxygen tank through a tube in his nose. "I can hardly lay down to sleep," Ziegler said. "You don't know the problems I have at night." His wife has suffered two seizures, as well as severe breathing problems. Mazon is plagued with constantly swollen legs and arms, as well as a scaly rash, all symptoms of beryllium disease. The final diagnosis was a long time coming. During a recent community testing offered through the Manatee County Health Department, Beatrice Ziegler and Mazon had positive tests results for beryllium exposure but Charles Ziegler's results kept coming back negative, despite his symptoms, because the medicine he was taking to breathe masked the results. Even with his recent positive diagnosis, Ziegler, like most of the former employees at the plant, is still waiting for approval of his claim for compensation through a federal program to aid workers who made nuclear weapons for the U.S. government. It was not until the Zieglers and Mazon sought care from beryllium experts in Oak Ridge, Tenn., that they were diagnosed with chronic beryllium disease, Beatrice Ziegler said. "They put me asleep and then put a tube down my throat into my lungs," she said. "When I woke up, the doctor told me I had beryllium disease. And he said, 'Your husband gave it to you. He brought it home on his clothes and that is how you got it.' " Henry Glass, former senior vice president of Loral American Beryllium Co. and the husband of former county Commissioner Pat Glass, had no comment on the lawsuit. "I know Charlie Ziegler but I have no idea what this is all about," the former Loral executive said. Lockheed spokeswoman Gail Rymer said the company had not yet seen the lawsuit and therefore would not comment. Still seeking answers Former union officials at the Tallevast plant, who have been fighting for compensation for illnesses incurred during their employment, were heartened by the Ziegler lawsuit. "It's been proven over and over again, a whole bunch of testing has been done, there's been a direct link with not only beryllium but the chemicals used there too," said Terry Owen, past president of the National Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 1767. "I think (the lawsuit) is warranted. In many, many other plants there have been lawsuits that have gone forward. It's something that needs to be addressed." Raymond Stephens, a former machinist with the company, who worked there from 1980-92, has followed the Zieglers' efforts to prove his lung disease was caused by exposure at the plant. "I wish Mr. Ziegler all the luck in the world," Stephens said. "I hope he's got a lot of evidence." Ziegler does have one of the top law firms in the country representing his case, said St. Petersburg attorney Kent Whittemore. Whittemore is local counsel on the suit also filed by Golomb & Honik, P.C. of Philadelphia. The firm has won multimillion-dollar judgments for beryllium workers in Reading, Pa., and at dozens of other plants across the United States, according to its Web site. The complaint asks for a jury trial and damage claims in excess of $15,000 for each plaintiff. The Zieglers hope the civil suit will help Tallevast workers and residents get answers. The stress, she said, is unbearable. "Everybody around here is sick," Beatrice Ziegler said. "If they aren't sick, they are dying," her husband said. "We have two funerals to go to this week in Tallevast and both people died of cancer." On Tuesday, state health officials shared the results of a four-year study that for the first time linked a pollution spill from the plant that contaminated groundwater to increased risk of kidney and liver cancer as well as lymphoma and leukemia. The underground plume of toxic waste was discovered by Lockheed in 2000, four years after the company acquired the Tallevast plant in a corporate buyout of Loral in 1996. Although county and state officials knew of the contamination, Tallevast residents were not told of the contamination in their backyards until the end of 2003. Staff writer Sara Kennedy contributed to this report. ***************************************************************** 23 Salt Lake Tribune: Feds puzzled by gamma radiation higher than normal near wildfire The Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 07/13/2007 07:00:57 AM MDT A puzzle has sprung from the flames of the Milford Flat Fire: What's pumping radiation into the air? The National Nuclear Security Administration said Thursday its radiation monitors in the area are showing gamma radiation spikes seven times higher than the normal background. But before anyone runs to the doctor, it's worth pointing out that even those spikes, if someone breathed them for seven hours straight, produce less than one-2,000th of the radiation dose a Utahn normally gets in a year. "You're talking about a very small dose," said NNSA spokesman Darwin Morgan. The agency, which had proposed a massive, non-nuclear explosion experiment at the Nevada Test Site last year, monitors the air for radiation at 29 monitoring stations in Utah, California and Nevada. The agency canceled the so-called Divine Strake test after hearing from thousands of Utahns who complained that the explosion would send radiation-tainted debris into their air and onto their landscape. "We heard loud and clear from the people of Utah they are concerned about radiation," said Morgan, explaining his agency's reasons for publicizing the radiation-meter findings. Morgan said filters from the Milford monitoring station are being analyzed at a laboratory. The agency thinks that naturally occurring radon is being released from the ground, but only study of the material captured on the air filters will tell them for sure. Dane Finerfrock, director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control, said the fact that radiation is released during combustion is no secret. "There's a radioactivity in that forest and brush," he said, "and some of it stays in the ash and some of it goes into the atmosphere." Morgan said there is no data about the radiation from the Neola North Fire in eastern Utah. The agency does not have monitors in that part of the state. fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 24 Dayton Daily News: Report blames plant for workers' illnesses fernald Report blames plant for workers' illnesses Independent auditor backs claims of sick employees that they weren't protected from radiation. By Tom Beyerlein Staff Writer Friday, July 13, 2007 An independent auditor in a report released Thursday said the nuclear Feed Materials Production Center at Fernald had a "failed and deficient worker protection program" during its 38-year history, and questioned the government's ability to properly screen cancer-stricken former workers who have applied for federal compensation. The report by S. Cohen & Associates of Vienna, Va., supports a petition by sick Fernald workers seeking special status that would greatly reduce their burden for proving their cancers were caused by on-the-job radiation exposures. It clashes with the opinion of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which said it has enough plant and worker records to scientifically reconstruct claimants' career exposures to radiation and determine whether the exposure was sufficient to cause cancer. Cohen disagreed, saying: "Dose reconstruction for most, if not all, workers (including nonproduction workers) would pose a myriad of challenges along with questionable results. (Historical) documents consistently characterize a facility that was deficient in the most basic engineering designs, radiological control practices and worker monitoring programs." The advisory board for the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program ultimately will decide whether to grant the special status to sick Fernald workers. NIOSH spokeswoman Amanda Harney said NIOSH, Cohen and the advisory board will begin discussing the issue in August. The former Fernald uranium refinery site, in Hamilton County's Crosby Twp., 18 miles northwest of Cincinnati, now is home to a 1,050-acre wildlife habitat. DaytonDailyNews.com: ***************************************************************** 25 Reuters: U.S. nuke bomb site enters new life as nature refuge Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:49PM EDT By Timothy Gardner NEW YORK (Reuters) - Radiological and heavy metal contamination closed a Colorado nuclear weapons facility to the public for decades, but soon it will open as a national wildlife refuge where people can watch hawks and elk. The U.S. Energy Department this week said it transferred 4,000 acres of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons production site, 16 miles northwest of Denver, Colorado, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for use as a nature refuge. The government will need at least a year to open up a short trail to the public at the refuge, Fish and Wildlife Service spokesman Dean Rundle said. "There are a lot of weeds in there," he said, adding that roads also need to be cleared. Opening the rest of the refuge could take three to five years to secure necessary funds, he said. During the Cold War, the Rocky Flats plant made triggers for nearly every nuclear weapon in the United States. The manufacturing process released radiation, hazardous chemical compounds and heavy metals including plutonium, uranium poisoning the air, water and ground, the DOE said. Nearly 2,700 Rocky Flats workers have filed claims with the government over their illnesses, according to the United Steelworkers of America. So far, 807 have been approved and 617 denied. In 1983, 17,000 protesters joined hands encircling the site's 17-mile (27-km) perimeter to protest the Cold War nuclear arms buildup. The site closed in 1989 after federal agents raided it on accusations of environmental crimes were being committed by Rockwell International, the Energy Department contractor who operated Rocky Flats. The Environmental Protection Agency declared it a Superfund site. The cleanup took 10 years and cost about $7 billion. The Energy Department will retain about 1,300 acres (526 hectares) in the center of the site that still has low levels of residual contamination. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 UPI: Utah fire causes radiation spike United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: July 13, 2007 at 2:26 PM SALT LAKE CITY, July 13 (UPI) -- The huge Milford Flat wildfire in central Utah was reported 65 percent contained Friday after burning more than 363,000 acres of forest and scrub. Authorities said that the fire, in spite of its size, poses no threat to public safety because it is an empty area. But scientists are trying to determine why radiation in the fire area has spiked to seven times the usual background level, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. One theory is that the fire has released naturally occurring deposits of radon gas. The National Nuclear Security Administration said that the radiation is not dangerous. Eight wildfires are burning in Utah or have recently been contained. In Nevada, the Balls Canyon fire near Reno surged Thursday after a wind shift pushed flames across a ridge. Another change in the wind halted the fire's progress and sent thick smoke into Reno, the Reno Journal reported. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 Free Press: OEC's comments on DOE GNEP's PEIS Independent News Media - Environment July 13, 2007 Ohio Environmental Council’s Comments on U.S. Department of Energy’s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership by Trent A. Dougherty, Staff Attorney, Ohio Environmental Council On behalf of the Ohio Environmental Council, I respectfully submit these comments on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP-PEIS). The OEC is a statewide environmental advocacy group representing over 100 environmental and conservation organizations and thousands of individual members throughout the state of Ohio. OEC’s mission is to advocate for healthy air, land, and water to make Ohio a better place in which to live, work, and play. In light of our mission and our role as a statewide environmental advocate, OEC has some grave concerns with DOE’s decision to consider the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio as a site for GNEP’s nuclear fuel recycling center and/or its advanced recycling reactor. In response to the DOE’s request for comments on the proposed scope, alternatives and environmental issues to be analyzed by GNEP PEIS, OEC respectfully submits the comments below. OEC requests the DOE take these issues into consideration, and address these questions before moving forward on the GNEP program. Environmental Issues and other Questions/ Concerns that DOE Must Address 1. Water quality impacts • With potentially thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel being shipped to and housed at the proposed facility, the potential for jeopardizing the health of important recreational watercourses and drinking water sources are great. The proposed GNEP facility in Piketon sits atop the Teays Aquifer and is adjacent to streams and creeks that lead to the Scioto River. • USGS hydrological studies of the site concluded that failure to contain radioactive material would jeopardize these water resources. • If long term storage is an option for this facility, what are the long-term impacts of housing large quantities of SNF near surface and groundwater drinking and recreation sources? 2. Impacts to flora and fauna of the region • It is not only the human health and safety that should be a concern. Southern Ohio is the home to a unique collection of plants, some only native to that portion of the state. This region is also home to a number of state and federally recognized threatened and endangered species. 3. Air Quality • What are the air emissions from this proposed facility, and what will the impact be on the surrounding community? • Southern Ohio experiences already poor air quality from decades of pulverized coal power plant emissions. While nuclear power plants produce little if any sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and carbon dioxide compared to fossil fuel burning plants, uranium enrichment process, recycling, as well as the transport of the uranium fuel to the nuclear plant can produce these emissions. • What will be the cumulative human and environmental health impacts of the facility vis-à-vis air emissions and air quality when the air quality impacts of the nearby coal power plants and other land uses are taken into consideration? 4. Socioeconomic concerns • This is one of Ohio’s poorest regions, the need for jobs is important, but at what cost? The economic benefits of such a project cannot be seen without a safe, healthy and viable work force. How will DOE secure the safety of its workers and the workers families? What could be the impacts to the workers and the surrounding community if there is a radiological release? • The DOE must address the economic justice issues inherent in this proposed facility, specifically the disproportionate impact on low-income citizens. • The DOE should consider whether cleanup and reclamation of the facility for other uses may be more beneficial to the surrounding community. 5. Private Ownership of Nuclear “Recycling Facility” • If the Piketon facility is allowed to be owned and operated by private companies, will there be, and to what degree will there be, federal government oversight? 6. Does the technology exist? • Scientists from the Federation of American Scientists and other organizations have analyzed the GNEP program and concluded the necessary technologies do not exist and are not close to development. We have serious concerns with the process of “recycling” nuclear fuel; a process that is still in the research and development stages. The United States cannot afford to base our energy needs on untested and unperfected technology that carries with it the risk for great environmental and human health impacts. This is definitely the case when one looks to the advances in cleaner coal technology, wind, solar, and biomass technology that create energy as well as reduce harmful emissions. 7. Storage • Is this a short-term storage facility or a long term depository which the citizens of Southern Ohio will be forced to bear the human and environmental risks for an indeterminate time? • The GNEP proposal calls for storage of spent nuclear fuel to be housed at the GNEP facilities until the Yucca Mountain repository is ready. However, decade long delays with securing that facility and staunch opposition to the utilization of Yucca Mountain have made the reality of a safe depository moot. • Have the obvious and perhaps devastating homeland security issues been fully and adequately addressed? o If the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Facility is chosen as the GNEP recycling facility, for example, SNF would be received from commercial nuclear reactors and would be processed at that central location. Terrorists, from both within and without this country would know the route and final destination of massive quantities of highly reactive nuclear waste, making the GNEP facility a major target for disaster. o Along the same lines, unforeseen acts of nature on or near the facility could cause disastrous health and environmental consequences with the great amount of nuclear fuel and waste housed in that central locale. 8. Transportation of Spent Nuclear Waste • With the amount of SNF proposed to be trucked into the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio from nuclear facilities in the western United States (and/or around the world) for recycling and storage, how does DOE plan to protect those along the travel route? • DOE will need to consider the amount of traffic, both in construction of the facility and transportation of the importation of SNF, on the infrastructure of the village of Piketon and Pike County. Outdated and ill-prepared county and township infrastructure (i.e. roads and bridges) could create financial problems for the local government and above all create unsafe conditions for the community. The Columbus Free Press ***************************************************************** 28 E&ETV: Energy Policy: Energy Secretary Bodman outlines plans on Yucca, nuclear waste and oil security (OnPoint, 03/08/2006) OnPoint Transcript: 03/08/2006 About this video The Energy Department recently announced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), an ambitious, international plan to recycle spent nuclear fuel. But lawmakers on Capitol Hill are raising questions about the cost and feasibility of the GNEP program, and what it could mean for the long-delayed Yucca Mountain repository. During today's OnPoint, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman explains his thinking on GNEP, Yucca Mountain legislation and the interim storage of nuclear waste. Plus, Bodman addresses high oil prices and President Bush's pledge to lessen the U.S. "addiction" to foreign oil. watch video email video Transcript Brian Stempeck: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I'm Brian Stempeck. Joining us today is Sam Bodman, the secretary of the Energy Department. Also with us is senior reporter Mary O'Driscoll. Mr. Secretary, thanks a lot for being here today. We appreciate it. Samuel Bodman: I'm happy to be here, Brian. Brian Stempeck: I want to start off, you recently announced, from the department, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Samuel Bodman: Right. Brian Stempeck: Basically a broad plan, a very ambitious goal, very expensive long-term project. Samuel Bodman: Right. Brian Stempeck: Give us a sense on how this came about. Samuel Bodman: Oh gosh, we've been focusing on the whole question of management of spent fuel really since I got to the department about a year ago. And I asked our deputy, Clay Sell, to look into the matter. He'd really specialized in nuclear matters during part of his prior career. And so we went to work on it. I had sort of the senior oversight of it, but the real work was done by Clay and his colleagues. And they developed an approach that we think makes a lot of sense. We presented it to the advisers to the president, then to the president and got his sign off on it. So we're quite enthused about it. Mary O'Driscoll: One of the major complaints that we're hearing about this very ambitious program is that you are making some real significant changes in U.S. policy on reprocessing waste. And then managing the reprocessing and, as you call it, the recycling of waste. Samuel Bodman: Right. Mary O'Driscoll: Just through an annual budget and appropriations process and not through any kind of large scale debate or discussion about the change in approach on this kind of issue on Capitol Hill. How do you respond to that? Samuel Bodman: Well, I think we're going to get plenty of response and debate on Capitol Hill about this matter; at least it would appear that that would be the case. GNEP is intended to recycle spent fuel and at its core we have a situation where we have over a hundred commercial nuclear reactors in this country. They've been accumulating spent fuel. Our department has the responsibility for taking title to that spent fuel. And we have been working on a program for the ultimate disposition of the waste in Yucca Mountain. That's sort of one path. The other path is what we call GNEP, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which we believe has the potential -- and we're still saying potential because we don't know -- but it has the potential of recycling that waste. When you have spent fuel, Mary, 90 percent of the energy that was in there when it was brand new fuel is still there. It's in a different chemical form and it needs to be removed and recycled. The problem that we have with other means of recycle is that one gets pure plutonium, which can be used by people who wish to do harm to others, terrorists and the like. So this technology enables us, we believe, to recover plutonium with a mixture of other transuranic elements, which we think will prevent the use by terrorists for proliferation purposes. Mary O'Driscoll: OK. I wanted to ask, to get to that in a minute, but I wanted to ask, you're talking about two tracks here. You've got the Yucca Mountain track and you have the GNEP track, but you're saying that, you have said in the past that they are linked together. I wanted to know how closely they're linked together. You told a group of reporters last week, for instance, that you were not going to pursue any kind of interim storage until you had a license, interim storage waste until you had a license for Yucca Mountain at hand. But doesn't that kind of create a problem where you've got, you don't know what you're going to be doing with the waste because both Yucca Mountain and this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership are pretty long-term programs that aren't going to really show any development for a while? Samuel Bodman: Well, Yucca Mountain is a longer term program than we'd like to have it, sure. But it is not nearly as long term as GNEP is going to be. And so we're going to have to deal with -- whether GNEP goes forward or not, we have to have Yucca Mountain. And we need to have a final repository. If we are only successful in moving forward with Yucca Mountain and we're not successful with GNEP, now which it remains to be a question that perhaps we can talk about later, if that's the case, we will proceed with Yucca Mountain. And proceed to store the fuel there as we now plan to do. We had, we will be filing legislation related to Yucca Mountain. You alluded to that. And the primary focus of the legislation will be first land withholding and secondly, a financial or fiscal reform of the program in order for us to fund it in a more effective way. I think I got a little bit ahead of myself the other day when I said that there will not be inclusion of any discussion of interim storage. I'm still unclear about that, frankly, and it's still a matter that's still being debated. So I'd rather not go further with it until we finish the internal debate within the administration. Brian Stempeck: There seems to be a growing sense from some camps that all the attention being paid towards GNEP is making it a higher priority than Yucca Mountain. Almost in a sense the department is turning its back on Yucca Mountain. Do you think that's an accurate assessment at all? Samuel Bodman: Oh no. We're very committed to Yucca Mountain. We have to be for the reasons that I mentioned. Yucca Mountain is the law of the land. It's been passed by Congress, signed by the president. It's been reviewed by Congress, reviewed by the president. So this is something that we are committed to do, among other reasons, as I said, it's the law of the land. And so we will pursue it. We are committed to looking at GNEP. The goal here, over the next three years, is to do enough work that we can narrow the cost bands. And that we can make a determination of, if you will, on a go or no go basis, as to whether we should go forward with the global nuclear partnership. That's the issue. Mary O'Driscoll: OK, and you're also talking about $3 to $6 billion before you figure out whether to make that final, that go or no go decision. So that's an awful lot of money to be spending on something like that, isn't it? Samuel Bodman: No. If I may, the cost over the next three years, it's about $250 million that we have asked for '07. It'll be, I think, it's $700 million for '08. And, oh like maybe $800 or $900 million for the next year. That effort will put us in a position, we believe, during '08 to make a decision. If we can't, we'll, we will do everything we can do while this administration is here. And bundle it all up and hand it to the next administration who comes in. But it's, we believe it makes great sense to pursue this. The $3 to $6 billion that you mentioned, that's the capital costs over a period of time for the three components -- Mary O'Driscoll: OK. Samuel Bodman: -- of GNEP, which is the separation of the spent fuel and the culling out, if you will, of the transuranics that can be recycled, the development of a fast reactor, which can burn the transuranic materials and the third part, which is the fuel device that will, or manufacture of fuel elements from the transuranic that are removed so that they can be put into the nuclear reactor. Mary O'Driscoll: OK, one question, I wanted to kind of track back to Yucca Mountain. Senator Domenici has been telling reporters, actually today, that he does not see any Yucca Mountain legislation coming out this year. You've talked about the need to reform the funding for Yucca Mountain. Samuel Bodman: Right. Mary O'Driscoll: Getting better access to the nuclear waste trust fund. Samuel Bodman: Right. Mary O'Driscoll: And a need to jumpstart the program and get things back on track. Samuel Bodman: Right. Mary O'Driscoll: And also the nuclear industry is very eager to be able to find some way to get the waste off their sites -- Samuel Bodman: Right. Mary O'Driscoll: -- and into an interim site or some place, so that they don't have to keep storing it on there. Are you concerned that Senator Domenici is saying "not this year"? That it might have to be pushed off until next year? Samuel Bodman: Senator Domenici is a much greater expert on the legislative calendar and procedures than I am and so I would be concerned, truly, if he mentions that. We hope to be able to deliver up soon, I would hope within the month period of time, the proposed legislation that has been signed off on by the administration. And we hope that we can get action on it this year. We'll see how that works out. Mary O'Driscoll: OK. Brian Stempeck: I want to switch subjects to the world oil markets. We recently had the president of OPEC on our program. He said the idea of $60 per barrel on oil is actually a fair price, a price he doesn't think is hurting the world economy. I wanted to see if you agree with the OPEC president's assessment of the world oil markets? Samuel Bodman: Well, first I make it a policy, in this job in particular, but in general I would say not to forecast oil prices. You know, I think a fair price is something that both buyers and sellers find acceptable. I would say, in terms of our being the primary buyer or the largest buyer of oil in the world, $60 is a pretty high price, at least as far as we're concerned, as far as the president's concern. That's why we've made a number of proposals, the president has, in his State of the Union address and the subsequent budget announcement, budget proposal that we made to Congress to develop alternative forms of energy, that hopefully could lead to a reduction in the pressure on oil markets. So we're hopeful that we could see a reduction in prices below the $60 level, but I wouldn't say anything more than that. We're going to work hard to try to, to try to reduce that pressure. We have real issues, Brian, because we have, for the first time in my lifetime, we have, I'm seeing an inability of the suppliers to keep up with demand. And that's what's driven prices up into this $60 to $70 range, which is, I've seen attendant increases in gasoline costs that are really felt by American consumers. And so the president of OPEC is quite right that the economy seems to be holding up pretty well. But clearly the margin for error and slippage in the economy has been reduced by this head wind that we're facing. And so we're hopeful of reducing the price. Mary O'Driscoll: I wanted to know, the president in his State of the Union address talk about reducing our dependence on foreign oil or oil from the Middle East. Samuel Bodman: Right. Mary O'Driscoll: Which then in your remarks afterwards was amended a little bit to, you know, that's not exactly what he was saying. What can you tell us is the real goal of the State of the Union address to getting off of foreign oil? I mean, what is the real goal here that you're looking at? Because it got a little muddy there in the discussions -- Samuel Bodman: Yeah. Mary O'Driscoll: -- after the State of the Union. Samuel Bodman: Yeah, I think the best way I would put it is that, would be to create enough alternative sources of motor fuels that we could relieve the pressure on our gasoline by, of order 5 million barrels a day and do that over the next 20 years. That's kind of how I think about it. And there are those who would attribute that to the Mideast. We, in fact, import oil from literally all over the world. And I think the president was trying to deliver a message, a goal, if you will. And the way I think of that goal is to reduce the consumption of oil by 5 million barrels a day. If you do that I think we'll see some real diminution of the pressure on oil. And the largest, or the best candidate to help accomplish that would be ethanol and the manufacture of ethanol from cellulose, which is part of the research program that the president put forth in that State of the Union. Mary O'Driscoll: OK. Brian Stempeck: One last question for you, Mr. Secretary, because we're running out of time. There's a lot of instability in the world oil markets right now, in Nigeria, in Saudi Arabia, the attempted attack there. Samuel Bodman: Right. Brian Stempeck: The situation on Iran with nuclear power and a potential shut down of oil exports there as well. In the event of a major supply crisis, what is the White House's plan of response? Beyond just going to the strategic reserves, what other plan does the White House have in the event of a major supply crisis? Samuel Bodman: There is going to be clearly a response if any one of these events occurs; if we were to see a shutdown of Nigerian oil on world markets, if we were to see a shutdown, for whatever reason, of Iranian oil or of any major producer. There, I believe, would be a significant increase in price that would be attendant thereto. Increased prices would help reduce consumption. We would have available to us the strategic petroleum reserve, which is some 700 million barrels of oil, that would,l if it were 100 percent of the oil that we needed it would last us, I think, for two or three months. But given the fact that this would be a partial shutdown, I think we would get good support over the course of a year. So we would have some time to adjust, but there's no doubt we would be looking at higher prices. And I think that with higher prices we will see an even more aggressive stimulation of alternatives. And that would be the primary response. But the government does not have, I wish there were a magic bullet that I had as the secretary of Energy, or that the president had, that could impact this. But I don't believe there is one. Brian Stempeck: All right, Secretary Bodman, we're out of time. Thanks so much for being here today. Samuel Bodman: Happy to be here. Brian Stempeck: I'm Brian Stempeck. This is OnPoint. Thanks for watching. [End of Audio] The Premier Information Source for Professionals Who Track Environmental and Energy Policy. © 1996-2007 E&E Publishing, LLC Privacy Policy Site Map ***************************************************************** 29 ReviewJournal.com: Tribe allowed to give input on Yucca Mountain project Jul. 13, 2007 Interior issues ruling because of possible impact on members By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL The Interior Department has certified the Timbisha Shoshones as the first American Indian tribe affected by the government's effort to put a nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain. The four-page, June 29 approval letter from Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Carl J. Artman allows the tribe to participate in planning decisions and receive money to conduct studies and oversight of the Yucca Mountain site, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Artman wrote that the Timbisha Shoshone tribe "may be substantially and adversely affected by the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain." Allen Benson, Department of Energy spokesman for the Office of Repository Development in Las Vegas, said the tribe is one of 17 the agency has consulted with on Yucca Mountain matters. "We've been working with the Timbisha Shoshone for over 10 years and look forward to continuing our relationship with the Timbisha Shoshone. ... Whether they support the project or not, it doesn't matter, we're going to work with them." The tribe's chairman, Joe Kennedy, said the affected status decision is "a big step." "It's been a long time coming. We're very pleased," he said this week, noting that the tribe first applied for affected status in 1998. On a DOE-sponsored tour of the Yucca Mountain site in 2003, Kennedy described the volcanic-rock ridge as a giant snake slithering westward that "is a very scared mountain to Shoshones" and shouldn't be used as a dumping ground for highly radioactive waste. After confirming Tuesday that the tribe had been granted affected status, he said, "I think we need to keep the government honest. ... I think some of us are saying we need to keep this thing on the up and up." Referring to the state of Nevada and some of the affected counties that receive government funds to conduct studies and monitor the Yucca Mountain licensing process, Kennedy said, "I think we're all working for the same goal to protect the environment, protect the water, protect the land and protect the plants and animals and protect life basically so there's a future." He said the Timbisha Shoshone tribe has trust lands in Lida Junction and Scotty's Junction in Nevada, and in Death Valley Junction, Furnace Creek and Centennial near Lone Pine in California that stand to be impacted by radioactive materials that could seep into the groundwater if they are disposed of in a maze of tunnels inside Yucca Mountain. The tribe consists of about 330 Shoshones, he said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: NAC-MPC Revision 5, Confirmation of Effective Date FR Doc E7-13681 [Federal Register: July 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 134)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 38468-38469] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13jy07-5] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 RIN 3150-AI13 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Direct final rule: Confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is confirming the effective date of July 24, 2007, for the [[Page 38469]] direct final rule that was published in the Federal Register on May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26535). This direct final rule amended the NRC's regulations to revise the NAC-MPC cask system listing to include Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1025. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of July 24, 2007, is confirmed for this direct final rule. ADDRESSES: Documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. These same documents may also be viewed and downloaded electronically via the rulemaking Web site (http://ruleforum.llnl.gov). For information about the interactive rulemaking Web site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail jmm2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 10, 2007 (72 FR 26535), the NRC published a direct final rule amending its regulations in 10 CFR Part 72 to revise the NAC-MPC cask system listing within the ``List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks'' to include Amendment No. 5 to CoC No. 1025. This amendment revises Technical Specifications to incorporate changes to the reporting and monitoring requirements, to incorporate guidance from NRC Interim Staff Guidance-22, and to include editorial changes for clarity. The amendment also revises the CoC description to remove the requirement for tamper-indicating devices on the Vertical Concrete Casks. In the direct final rule, NRC stated that if no significant adverse comments were received, the direct final rule would become final on July 24, 2007. The NRC did not receive any comments that warranted withdrawal of the direct final rule. Therefore, this rule will become effective as scheduled. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of July, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration. [FR Doc. E7-13681 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 31 Telluride Daily Planet: Energy Dept. wants more uranium mining Friday, July 13, 2007 By Matthew Beaudin It left scars on Western Slope hillsides and the miners who carved it from the earth, its legacy equal parts potential and disaster. But now its time may have come again. Last week, the Department of Energy announced its intent to offer new leases on 25 plots of land rich in uranium. It said that increased mining in the region would cause “no significant environmental impact” to the area. The DOE also announced its intent to renew the 13 active leases for another 10 years, effectively rolling out the welcome mat for mining companies. Some 27,000 acres in the Uravan Mineral Belt, which arcs west from here to Utah through the bust town of Uravan, will be available for uranium mining, though not all of those are new to industry activity. The decision may swiftly ignite another uranium boom, as the DOE could take bids on the new leases in the coming months, according to Project Manager Tracy Plessinger. The price of uranium jumped from less than $10 per pound in 2001 to $134 this week, making the price of doing business worth paying. The federal government alone estimates it will make $18 million a year for the next 10 years in royalties, Plessinger said. Mining companies have perked their ears and may soon show teeth; it is expected that 2 million pounds of uranium could be pulled from the belt every year. The effects on area roads and economies could be significant, too, as the expanded program could put as many as 300 trucks a day on area roads and whether the ore is hauled to mills in Blanding, Utah, or Canon City remains to be seen. The DOE issued the decree amid heavy opposition. Critics said the increased activity would clog area roads with trucks and lungs with radioactive powder. Uranium mining, they said, should stay under the four decades worth of dust it has accumulated. “The DOE put on blinders,” said Travis Stills, a lawyer for the Energy Minerals Law Center in Durango. “Given the history of uranium mining, that’s unconscionable.” Trucks carrying radioactive material could topple, he says. People could breath in deadly byproducts. “You could have very direct hazards to the uranium miners,” he said. Stills says the DOE moved forward without properly reviewing a plan it created and failed to address concerns once pushed by whistleblowers. “They were looking at going forward with business as usual,” he said. “They dug in and just pulled a blanket over it.” But officials say that’s not the case. They say they’ve done their jobs and that the uranium industry benefits from an umbrella of regulators, from the Colorado Department of Transportation to various to counties to the DOE itself, which can pull the plug on a lease at the drop of a drill bit. “We feel that we’ve done what we’re supposed to do,” Plessinger said. “We do feel we’ve met our obligations,” he said. “I’ll stand behind that.” The origins of the DOE program in the West End reach back into the 1940s when the United States Atomic Energy Commission tapped once-public land to secure uranium for the Department of Defense as a piece of the Manhattan Project, the project that resulted in the production of nuclear weapons. That program ended in 1962 after more than 1 million pounds of uranium and 6.8 million pounds of vanadium — a byproduct in mining that’s used to harden steel — netted $6 million in royalties for the government. The second leasing program, from 1974 to 1994, netted $53 million in royalties. All leases were allowed to expire in 1994 and the department then conducted an assessment of its environmental impacts and determined they were of “no significant impact.” Mining, on a smaller scale, persisted. And now the uranium isn’t used to make weapons but to supply the world’s 400-plus nuclear power plants with the fuel they need. But some locals don’t care where it goes, the fact that it exists at all is troubling. Disposing of the waste products is nearly impossible and the fact that the nuclear industry is a growing neighbor is more than enough reason to worry. “I don’t even know where to begin,” said San Miguel County Commissioner Joan May. “We’re cautious about it but in general opposed. We’re just keeping our eye on it for now.” She would push for more local controls “So the impacts are stringent as can be.” Commissioners had previously called the plan “unwise, unhealthy to humans and unsustainable.” Copyright © 2006 GateHouse Media, Inc. Some Rights Reserved. Telluride Daily Planet DAILY :: 283 South Fir St., Telluride, CO 81435 Phone: (970) 728-9788 | Email: editor@telluridenews.com ***************************************************************** 32 NAS: Project: Internationalization of the Civilian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Project Title: PIN: ISAC-N-06-02-A Major Unit: Policy and Global Affairs Division Division on Earth and Life Studies Sub Unit: Committee on International Security and Arms Control Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board RSO: Lowenthal, Micah Subject/Focus Area: Project Scope This joint study by the U.S. National Academies and the Russian Academy of Sciences (NAS and RAS) will provide an assessment of the technical, economic, legal/regulatory, and non-proliferation criteria necessary for the implementation of an international civilian nuclear fuel cycle. The study is not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of the topics listed, but rather a high-level, first cut at these complex issues. Specifically, the proposed NAS-RAS joint study will address the primary issues and questions listed below under headings A and B. The secondary issues and questions will be addressed to the extent that budget and time permit:: A. Providing fuel services to countries that already have Light Water Reactors or would be interested in constructing Light Water Reactors (LWRs) if they did not have to develop the entire fuel cycle. Primary Issues: 1. Is it feasible and effective to establish international fuel supply centers as an incentive for countries not to develop indigenous enrichment facilities? 2. What are the advantages and disadvantages (if any) of establishing international centers for Sending and receiving back fuel? Training personnel? Manufacturing fuel? 3. Who should own the nuclear material and the fuel in such arrangements? 4. Should the international facilities be owned by governments or could private companies own some or all of the facilities? Secondary Issues: 5. What regulatory requirements should be in place in the receiving country to provide assurance of safety and safeguards? 6. What level of technical personnel are needed, in terms of training and in terms of numbers, to provide adequate confidence that the countries receiving fuel can safely and securely operate their reactor(s)? 7. What should be the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in overseeing the transfer, use, and/or return of fuel? 8. What changes in laws and regulations in the countries sending, consuming, and receiving spent fuel would be required to implement this concept? B. Fuel Regeneration Options to Support an International Nuclear Fuel Cycle. Primary Issues: 1. Compare the uranium recovery by extraction plus (UREX+), the plutonium and uranium recovery by extraction (PUREX) process, and other processes being considered by the Russian Federal Agency for Atomic Energy for separation of fissile and other materials from spent or irradiated nuclear fuel. Consider the resulting waste streams and what can and should be done with these waste streams. 2. Compare the burn up and the number of cycles needed to reach an acceptable level of destruction of actinides in the conceptual advanced burner reactor proposed in the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and in the Russian BN-600 and BN-800 reactors. 3. What impact could new technologies have on these proposals? Secondary Issues: 4. Compare the fuel to be produced from the processes examined in (1) for use in appropriate reactors (LWRs, High Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors, and fast reactors). What are the advantages and disadvantages of each type of fuel? 5. Compare the repository requirements for the waste produced by the processes proposed in the GNEP concept with that from a system based on PUREX and one based on Russian plans. 6. Are new laws and/or regulations required for either the U.S. or the Russian approach to the internationalization of the fuel cycle? Will either approach require any existing laws or regulations to be repealed or changed? Because the scale of the full study task is large and the details of proposed fuel cycle strategies are in flux, the study will be carried out in two phases. In Phase I, the committees will identify distinct strategies that represent the range of fuel cycle options and gather the key technical and legal/regulatory and other information needed to analyze those options. This information-gathering stage will culminate with an international workshop. In Phase II, the committees will carry out the analysis and offer consensus findings and recommendations in a final report on the criteria necessary to achieve an international fuel cycle beneficial for suppliers and consumers alike and supportive of international non-proliferation efforts. The project is sponsored by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The start date for the project is May 9, 2006 A report will be issued in the spring of 2008. Project Duration: 24 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 10/16/2006 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 33 Scotsman.com: Dounreay tightens safety in wake of £15,000 fine over contaminated staff Scotland Fri 13 Jul 2007 UKAEA which runs Dounreay said mistakes had been made and admitted exposing workers to plutonium Picture: Ian Rutherford Dounreay tightens safety in wake of £15,000 fine over contaminated staff JOHN ROSS () THE operator of the Dounreay nuclear plant claims it has tightened safety procedures after being fined £15,000 yesterday for health and safety failings that led to a worker breathing in plutonium. Two employees at the Caithness site were exposed to the radioactive material as they disposed of contaminated lead bricks in a laboratory last year. One received a plutonium intake which will remain in his system for life. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) admitted breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 at Wick Sheriff Court. The incident, which happened in the decontamination room in the plant's fuel cycle laboratory, known as the Marshall Lab, was reported to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) which issued the plant with two improvement notices after an investigation. The court heard the workers, Brian Grant and Jennifer Chretien, had been asked to dispose of the lead bricks on 12 January, 2006. The bricks were not marked as radioactive and had not been stored in special protective drums. The employees were unaware of the necessary radiation protection measures involved. Alasdair MacDonald, the procurator-fiscal said: "As a consequence the two workers were exposed to airborne radiation, contamination from plutonium." Air samplers showed higher than normal radioactive levels and biological monitoring confirmed Mr Grant had received a plutonium intake. The court heard the intake was 1.7 millisieverts. Mr MacDonald said: "Twenty millisieverts is the dose limit, but that intake will remain with that individual for the rest of his life." David Stewart, UKAEA's solicitor, said Dounreay now has risk assessment documents in place and warnings that respirators should be worn when disposing of low level and intermediate level waste. The plant also requires all items in transit for storage to be properly labelled and inspected. Mr Stewart added: "There is absolutely no doubt this should not have happened. We put our hands up to that. All we can do is make sure that this does not happen again." Sheriff Sutherland told UKAEA: "I consider this to be a serious breach - exposing two people to serious risk, resulting in one employee receiving a plutonium intake which will be lifelong." Speaking after the case, Simon Middlemass, Dounreay's site director, accepted mistakes were made: "It should not have happened and we very quickly addressed a number of issues highlighted by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate. "We should have robust processes right across the site to make sure these sort of things are properly recorded, the proper actions are taken, the risks assessed and all the employees understand what they should be doing in these circumstances. "We have addressed all the issues raised. It has been a salutary lesson in safety thinking - you can always do better at these things." Mr Grant, who still works for Dounreay, declined to comment. Dr John Crofts, UKAEA's director of safety, added: "Our procedures have been tightened and a number of behavioural safety initiatives have been set in place to ensure this that type of incident should never occur again." Last month tests were carried out on ten workers at Dounreay when readings showed suspected plutonium near a manhole which was being inspected. In February UKAEA was fined £140,000 for releasing radioactive particles into the sea and dumping radioactive waste. 30-YEAR SHUTDOWN DOUNREAY was Britain's centre of fast-reactor research and development from 1954 until 1994. The complex is now being decommissioned in a £2.9 billion clean-up operation which will see it returned to a near greenfield site over the next 30 years. The plant's Marshall Lab, which was built in 1981, carried out development and proving trials for the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) at Sellafield. It also ran tests for the Japanese MOX (mixed-oxide fuel) reprocessing programme and for the EDRP (European Demonstration Reprocessing Plant) design. Related topic * Dounreay http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=566 This article: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1091712007 Last updated: 13-Jul-07 01:11 BST ©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions ***************************************************************** 34 Donald A. Grant: U.S. needs to act on storage of nuke waste By BDN Staff Friday, July 13, 2007 - Bangor Daily News Nuclear waste from the generation of electricity is stored at centralized sites in Great Britain, France, Sweden and other countries with nuclear power plants. But no comparable interim site for waste storage exists in the United States. Such a site needs to be set aside now if we’re to make use of carbon-free nuclear power in combating global warming. The best place for interim storage would be near the planned Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. Although an operational repository is not essential for construction of new nuclear plants, utility regulators — and investors — need confidence that a workable plan for long-term spent-fuel storage is in place. How soon can this be done? This is no small question. There is some dispute about the severity of the nuclear waste problem, but in those parts of the country where it is a problem — mostly near large cities — the impact is so unsettling that state officials are demanding help from Washington. Some 57,000 metric tons of spent fuel is stored at scores of nuclear power plant sites in different parts of the United States. Here in Maine, 550 metric tons is stored safely and securely at the site of the decommissioned Maine Yankee plant. Because spent fuel is a byproduct of electricity production, the amount keeps increasing at operating nuclear plants. But there is a limit to how much of the highly-radioactive material can be added at local sites. Most storage pools are either at full capacity and cannot take any more spent-fuel rods or are running out of space. Some dry casks stand on unsettled ground near lakes, rivers and other waterways. Security costs are mounting. Congress needs to address the nuclear waste problem and it should direct the Department of Energy to transport the spent fuel to an interim site in the Nevada desert. It also should provide full funding for licensing and construction of the Yucca Mountain repository, at the budget level requested by the Bush Administration — $494.5 million for the 2008 fiscal year. Before dismissing this as fantasy, consider that the senior Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, is a strong advocate of shipping spent fuel to an interim site in Nevada. And the Senate Appropriations Committee voted to provide nearly the full budget request for the Yucca Mountain project. Electricity consumers have a stake in seeing some progress on waste storage. Since 1982, users of nuclear-generated electricity nationally have contributed $29 billion to the Nuclear Waste Fund for construction of the Yucca Mountain facility. About $65 million has been paid by electricity users in Maine alone. Even these numbers understate the true cost of nuclear waste management, since consumers also pay for storing spent fuel at local nuclear plant sites. Those who think we can continue to store spent fuel at nuclear plant sites indefinitely should think again. Sure, the spent fuel poses no immediate threat to public safety. But in the end, there is almost nothing we can do that will enable us not to care about the buildup of spent fuel at so many sites around the country. Nor is there much relief in sight from reprocessing spent fuel, not unless a way can be found to separate plutonium for recycling without contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation. This leaves us with one overriding imperative: We must establish a centralized storage site for spent fuel and complete the construction of a permanent repository. This may be a difficult policy to pursue in view of the opposition to a repository from vocal anti-nuclear groups and some Nevada politicians, but that doesn’t make planning for it any less necessary. Donald A. Grant, Ph.D., P.E., is chair and professor emeritus of the mechanical engineering department at the University of Maine. Bangor Daily News PO Box 1329 491 Main Street Bangor, ME 04401 Switchboard: In-State Long Distance 1-800-432-7964 or 207-990-8000 ©2005 All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 UK: Wigan Today: Call for nuclear waste train halt * Published Date: 13 July 2007 Protesters today intensified calls for Wigan's nuclear waste trains to be halted. Greenpeace is demanding that the four days a week, breakfast-time service through the borough be scrapped because of the heightened terrorist threat. More than 800 people could die and radiation spread over a 100km area if the flasks are successfully attacked, their experts claim. But an Aspull man who used to drive the trains assured residents today: "They are very, very safe." The trains travel along eight miles of West Coast Main Line through the borough en route to the Thorp reprocessing plant at BNFL, Sellafield in Cumbria. Some trains, it is claimed, are held "for hours" at sidings south of Golborne for railway operational reasons, making them even more vulnerable. All are carrying spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors at Hinkley, Willesden and Wylfa through Wigan to the massive site for reprocessing. They are one of more than 1,000 nuclear transports through the UK every year. Wigan Greenpeace spokesman Lynn Lowe said: "An accident or a terrorist attack could expose thousands of people in Wigan and the surrounding area to cancer-causing radiation and whole areas might have to be evacuated." But retired train driver and former Mayor of Wigan, Coun John Hilton who used to operate the service through Wigan said: "I was the health and safety representative for the train drivers' union ASLEF and there is no way we would have agreed to work this service if it represented a threat to our members health. "I don't believe that the people of Wigan have anything at all to worry about." Last Updated: 13 July 2007 10:42 AM ***************************************************************** 36 DOE: DOE's Former Rocky Flats Weapons Production Site to Become National Wildlife Refuge July 12, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced the transfer of nearly 4,000 acres of its former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons production site to the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for use as a National Wildlife Refuge. After more than a decade of environmental cleanup work, the transfer creates the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, 16 miles northwest of Denver, Colorado, and marks completion of the regulatory milestones to transform a formerly contaminated site into an environmental asset. “The Department of Energy’s environmental cleanup of the Rocky Flats weapons production reservation exemplifies the Bush Administration’s commitment to turn contaminated sites into public assets for future generations,” Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management James Rispoli said. “We are proud to transfer this space to the U.S. Department of Interior and we will continue with plans to complete environmental cleanup work at five more sites across the country by 2009.” From 1951 until 1989 the Rocky Flats Plant manufactured the trigger mechanism for nearly every nuclear weapon in the United States. The manufacturing processes resulted in radiological and hazardous material contamination; including plutonium, uranium, beryllium and hazardous chemical compounds, that were released into the air, ground and water surrounding the plant. In 2005, DOE certified the environmental cleanup work at the former Rocky Flats site complete. The 10-year environmental cleanup of the site cost approximately $7 billion and finished more than 50 years ahead of initial forecasts and for nearly $30 billion less than estimated in 1994. The Rocky Flats site encompasses approximately 6,200 acres of high prairie that has been closed to the public for more than 50 years. During production and cleanup, a 5,800-acre buffer zone surrounded the 400-acre industrial area where the trigger mechanisms for nearly every nuclear weapon in the nation’s arsenal were manufactured. “With the transfer of nearly 4,000 acres from the Department of Energy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will establish the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge in order to conserve the rare and unique tallgrass prairie found along Colorado’s Front Range,” U.S. Department of Interior’s Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service H. Dale Hall said. “As intended by Congress, the refuge will preserve a lasting wildlife and habitat legacy for future generations.” Since 2005, DOE has worked to finalize regulatory requirements and prepare to transfer the site to FWS. In May 2007, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency completed regulatory certification and released the lands for unrestricted use as a National Wildlife Refuge. DOE will retain approximately 1,300 acres in the center of the site for long-term surveillance and maintenance. This area is protected by physical and institutional controls and contains surface and groundwater monitoring equipment, four groundwater treatment systems, and two closed landfills. FWS is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. In 2005, FWS announced a comprehensive conservation plan and associated environmental impact statement for the refuge that creates a management framework for the next 15 years. Pursuant to the plan, public use will increase gradually over the 15-year life of the plan, as resources become available. FWS announced that visitor use facilities will eventually include approximately 16 miles of trails, a seasonally staffed visitor contact station, trailheads with parking, and developed overlooks. Most of the trails will use existing roads, and public access will be by foot, bicycle, horse or car and the FWS plans to develop a limited public hunting program. FWS will publish official notice of the refuge establishment in the Federal Register within the next 30 days. To date, DOE has restored 84 sites that played a role in the Cold War era mission across the nation. In the past two years, DOE has safely cleaned up nine sites and is on track to close five more by 2009. Read more about the cleanup of the former Rocky Flats production site and the Department of Energy’s cleanup mission, at the Office of Environmental Management. Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 37 KOMO-TV: Energy Department hires new top Hanford manager Seattle, Washington | Local & Regional Hanford "B" Reactor - file photo. Story Updated: Jul 13, 2007 at 4:01 PM PDT By Associated Press YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - The U.S. Department of Energy named a longtime federal employee Friday to oversee cleanup at the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, one of two jobs left vacant earlier this year with the retirement of the Hanford reservation's top two managers. Effective immediately, David A. Brockman assumes management of the Richland Operations Office, which oversees cleanup of radioactive waste, demolition of nuclear facilities and closure of nuclear reactors along the Columbia River corridor. Brockman, 54, replaces Keith Klein, who retired in May. "We are extremely pleased that a man of Mr. Brockman's experience and capabilities will lead the Richland Operations office," James Rispoli, the Energy Department's assistant secretary of energy for environmental management, said in a statement. "Dave has my full support as he steps into this new and critical role." The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Today, the 586-square-mile site is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, with cleanup costs expected to top $50 billion. Cleanup operations are divided between the Richland office and the Office of River Protection, charged with ridding 177 underground tanks of radioactive and hazardous waste and building a massive plant to convert the waste to glass logs for permanent disposal. The top management job in that office remains vacant following Roy Schepens' retirement in February. Together, the two managers oversee some 10,000 federal and contractor employees. Brockman has over 36 years of experience as a nuclear project executive in the public and private sectors. He served as a project manager and lead negotiator for a cleanup agreement at the Rocky Flats nuclear site in Colorado, according to the Energy Department. The $7 billion, decade-long cleanup effort there was declared completed in October 2005. More recently, Brockman has managed cleanup of Hanford's K Basins, two leak-prone pools designed to hold spent nuclear fuel, since January 2006. Brockman is a South Kitsap High School graduate. He earned a bachelor's degree in general science from Oregon State University. Brockman declined comment Friday through an Energy Department spokeswoman until he has had an opportunity to speak with employees. Copyright © 2007 KOMO-TV 140 Fourth Ave. North, Seattle, WA 98109 ***************************************************************** 38 Tri-City Herald: Transportation bill includes Hanford Reach Interpretive Center funding Published Friday, July 13th, 2007 MICHELLE DUPLER, HERALD STAFF WRITER Officials involved with development of the Hanford Reach Interpretive Center are crossing their fingers that the U.S. Senate passes a transportation bill that includes $1 million in funding for the project. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., announced Thursday that she included $2.9 million in funding for Tri-City projects in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill. Murray is chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee overseeing the bill. "It's wonderful," said Ron Hicks, project manager for The Reach. "It continues to show Sen. Murray's commitment to The Reach Interpretive Center as well as this region." To date, about $23 million to $24 million of the $40.5 million needed for construction has been pledged from local, state, federal and private funding sources. That includes the $1 million transportation money, which will be used to develop trails, roads and landscaping on the site overlooking the confluence of the Columbia and Yakima Rivers where the center will be built, Hicks said. But the bill has yet to be approved by the Senate, he added. Also included in the transportation bill is $900,000 for a project by the Port of Pasco to improve and expand rail lines at its freight center as part of an effort to transition away from barge service, and $1 million for Ben Franklin Transit to expand and modernize its vehicle fleet. In the House, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., included more than $2 million in a 2008 appropriations bill to continue studies of the proposed Black Rock reservoir and address water concerns in the Odessa aquifer subarea, his office said. The Bureau of Reclamation is working on a feasibility study of more water storage in the Yakima River basin. Hastings' bill includes $1 million for that study. The bureau also is studying ways to bring water to farms in the Odessa subarea, which includes land in Adams, Grant, Franklin and Lincoln counties. Farmers are having to drill wells deeper to reach water. The bill includes $1.185 million for the study. The House is expected to vote on the bill later this month. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 39 DOE: DOE Response to Recommendation 2007-1 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Safety-Related In Situ Nondestructive Assay of Radioactive Materials FR Doc 07-3431 [Federal Register: July 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 134)] [Notices] [Page 38573] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13jy07-64] [[Page 38573]] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2007-1, concerning Safety-Related In Situ Nondestructive Assay of Radioactive Materials was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2007 (72 FR 24279). In accordance with section 315(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b), the Secretary transmitted the following response to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board on June 28, 2007. DATES: Comments, data, views, or arguments concerning the Secretary's response are due on or before August 13, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments, data, views, or arguments concerning the Secretary's response to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Heffner, Nuclear Engineer, Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Office of Health, Safety and Security, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2007. Mark B. Whitaker, Jr., Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Office of Health, Safety and Security. The Secretary of Energy Washington, DC 20585 June 28, 2007 The Honorable A.J. Eggenberger, Chairman, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2901 Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Energy acknowledges receipt of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Recommendation 2007-1, Safety-Related In Situ Nondestructive Assay of Radioactive Materials, issued on April 25, 2007. The Department recognizes that continuous improvement in in situ nondestructive assay (NDA) is warranted to support nuclear safety in various activities carried out at Department defense nuclear facilities and, therefore, accepts Recommendation 2007-1. Using the following approach, the Department will develop an Implementation Plan consistent with Integrated Safety Management System principles: Evaluate the condition of in situ NDA programs against evaluation criteria, which will be developed; Identify state of the practice, both commercial as well as within the Department, in training and qualification, design requirements for new facilities and equipment, standards for conducting in situ NDA, implementation of standards, and oversight; Identify any relevant ongoing research and development activities; Identify what is needed and any resulting gaps in personnel capabilities and training, equipment capabilities, policy and directives, and oversight; Establish requirements, programs, and guidance, as needed; and Develop a prioritized plan for implementing the above criteria and requirements. I have assigned Mr. Richard Lagdon, Chief of Nuclear Safety, Office of the Under Secretary of Energy, as the Department's responsible manager for developing the Implementation Plan. He can be reached at (202) 586-9471. Sincerely, Samuel W. Bodman [FR Doc. 07-3431 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 40 UPI: Energy Dept. acts against Los Alamos lab United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Briefing Published: July 13, 2007 at 3:35 PM WASHINGTON, July 13 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Energy has started an enforcement action against Los Alamos National Laboratory. The department and its National Nuclear Security Administration announced Friday they had started a "formal enforcement actions ... against the University of California and the Los Alamos National Security, LLC, the prior and current management and operating contractors of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico." The action was being taken "for violations of classified information security requirements under their respective contracts," the NNSA said in a statement. "Investigations revealed that management deficiencies of both contractors were a central contributing factor in a Laboratory subcontractor employee's unauthorized reproduction of and removal of classified matter from the site," the NNSA said. "In response to this serious security breach, the NNSA today issued a Preliminary Notice of Violation to the University of California with a $3,000,000 proposed civil penalty (the largest the department has ever assessed) and a Preliminary Notice of Violation to LANS with a $300,000 proposed civil penalty," the statement said. Also, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman Friday "issued a Compliance Order to LANS which requires the contractor to take specific corrective actions on a prescribed timetable in the physical protection and cyber security of classified information at the Laboratory," the statement said. "Violation of a Compliance Order is itself a violation of departmental regulations, which may result in the imposition of civil penalties up to $100,000 per day for each violation," it said. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is one of the U.S. government's three nuclear weapons laboratories, and it is tasked with sensitive national security missions, including maintaining the security of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. The Energy Department and NNSA have been concerned about security problems at Los Alamos. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 cbs4denver.com: Rocky Flats Becomes Wildlife Refuge Jul 13, 2007 5:37 am US/Mountain (AP) ARVADA, Colo. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officially took over the former site of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant Thursday. The Environmental Protection Agency last month declared the $7 billion cleanup of the site complete. Although the area is considered clean, it will be some time before it is open to visitors. Deer, elk and the Preble's meadow jumping mouse will be the only residents for the time being, along with nonnative weeds that crews will clear out. There is no trace of the 100 buildings where more than 25,000 people worked from 1949-1990. The few remaining roads and stream culverts will be removed and the land be restored to its native condition. The refuge will not include any of the 600 acres of land where the work took place, which will remain closed to the public. One trail may be open late next year if funding is available. (© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ) © MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 lamonitor.com: UC ticketed $3 million for security violations The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor The nation's nuclear weapons agency today proposed a $3 million fine against the University of California for its responsibility in a security violation uncovered during a drug investigation in Los Alamos in October 2007. An additional notice and penalty of $300,000 was imposed on Los Alamos National Security (LANS), LLC, the current management and operating contractor of Los Alamos National Laboratory. LANS faces further penalties under a separate compliance order that prescribes corrective actions and a timetable for protecting and securing classified information at carrying a penalty as much as $100,000 per day for each violation. The actions taken by the National Nuclear Security Administration, which supervises the nuclear weapons complex, were steps in a formal procedure for imposing the fines. "Investigations revealed that management deficiencies of both contractors were a central contributing factor in a laboratory subcontractor employee's unauthorized reproduction of and removal of classified material from the site," the Department of Energy stated in a press release today. A spokesperson for NNSA said UC would have 30 days to reply to the notice. The civil penalty against the University of California of $3,000,000 was proposed despite the former manager's assertion of immunity from enforcement under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution. In the notice, UC argued in favor of mitigation of the penalties based on the fact that it was a subcontractor that committed the penalties, not UC, and that UC was not the LANL management contractor at the time the material was taken out of the security perimeter. UC also asserted 11 other factors that were to be considered wholly or partially exculpatory. "These assertions are misdirected and unavailing," the notice stated. "As an initial matter, UC is responsible for its structural management deficiencies ..." DOE's notice said the material that had been unlawfully removed from the laboratory and found in a mobile home not far from the laboratory consisted of a total of 433 items of classified matter: 23 documents (142 pages) were Secret/Restricted Data; 296 documents (802 pages) were Secret/National Security Information with No Foreign Dissemination caveat; 66 documents (199 pages) were Secret/National Security Information without caveat; and four documents (11 pages) were Confidential/National Security Information. In electronic files found on the portable thumb drives at the same time, there were three additional Secret/Restricted Data files and one additional Secret/National Security Information file. In a statement issued today, UC said, "The University is confident that the actions that have been and continue to be taken at the lab, in partnership with LANS and DOE, to address security concerns are strong and aggressive, and these issues continue to have our highest attention." © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 43 Guardian Unlimited: US Proposes $3.3M Fine for Los Alamos Friday July 13, 2007 9:16 PM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department proposed $3.3 million in fines Friday against managers of the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab because of a security breakdown in which classified documents were found in a trailer-park drug raid. The civil penalties, the bulk of them levied against the University of California, the longtime former manager of the lab, were the largest such fine the department has ever imposed. The enforcement action stems from an incident in October 2006, when police found more than 1,000 pages of classified documents and several computer storage devices in a trailer occupied by a former worker at the lab. The discovery was found during a police drug raid that focused on another person living in the trailer. The department said it was proposing a $3 million civil penalty against the University of California, although the university was no longer the lab's primary manager when the incident was discovered, and $300,000 against Los Alamos National Securities LLC, the consortium that succeeded the university in June 2006. The university was assessed the much larger fine because investigators determined the security deficiencies that led to the October 2006 incident were establish during the university tenure as prime contractor. It also said the new management team did nothing to correct the vulnerabilities. The university and Los Alamos National Securities have 30 days to respond to the findings, but in all likelihood the penalty will stand. The contractors then could challenge the fines in court. The investigation into the security breach found that ``management deficiencies by both contractors were a central contributing factor'' in the employees' unauthorized removal of the classified material from the highly restricted nuclear weapons complex at the laboratory. The Los Alamos laboratory, one of the government's most prestigious research facilities where the first nuclear bomb was developed in the 1940s, has been plagued by security problems in recent years from lost data disks to allegations - never proven - of espionage. Last month it was learned that a consultant to the board of the new management consortium had sent an e-mail containing highly classified, non-encrypted nuclear weapons information to several board members, who forwarded it to other board members over unsecured computer systems. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman called that incident a human error and not evidence of widespread security failure. But the incident uncovered during the drug raid last October was another matter. It involved security breakdowns similar to ones that had occurred in the past and had been considered corrected, investigators concluded. Investigators found that an employee of a subcontractor, Jessica Quintana, a 22-year-old archivist, had taken 1,219 pages of documents, and a dozen computer data devices from the lab to her home where the material was discovered during the police raid. The material included 1,001 pages and four of the computer data devices classified as ``secret'' according to the enforcement document made public Friday. ``The significance or gravity of the security breach is a central factor in proposing'' such a high penalty, said the notice of violation, issued by the National Nuclear Security Administration. The agency overseas the DOE's nuclear weapons activities. Among the security violations cited were that the University of California ``failed to correct a known vulnerability'' when it did not adequately oversee the archiving of classified material by Quintana and did not have the needed physical checks to keep material from being taken out of the ``vault-type room'' where the scanning was being done. Los Alamos National Security, which took over after the Los Alamos management contract was opened for bids for the fist time in more than 60 years because of past security problems, did not act to correct the problems, the investigation found. The violations cited against the new group mirrored many of those cited against the University of California. Los Alamos National Security is made up of Bechtel National Inc., BSX Technologies Inc., and the Washington Group International Inc. as well as the University of California, which had managed the lab on its own since its inception in 1943. ^--- On the Net: Energy Department: http://www.hss.energy.gov/enforce/ Los Alamos National Laboratory: www.lanl.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************