***************************************************************** 09/05/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.208 ***************************************************************** 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 AFP: US, Australia pledge to work with UN on climate change - 2 The Hindu: Sino-India nuke energy cooperation possible under IAEA: E NUCLEAR REACTORS 3 The Hindu: Uproar over formation of nuke panel 4 Pres: Joint Statement on Climate Change and Energy by President Bush 5 AU ABC: Howard, Bush show relationship remains strong - 6 US: CaliforniaRepublic.org | Global Warming Serious Enough To Lift B 7 Platts: German deputy faction leader calls for nuclear lifetime exte 8 US: Valley Advocate: Is This Nuclear Plan Safe? 9 US: toledoblade.com: FirstEnergy to contest ruling on fuel charges 10 US: Burlington Free Press: Vermont Yankee making power again 11 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Where are the whistleblowers? 12 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee running at 50% 13 Vue Weekly: What's wrong with nuclear power? 14 US: Opinion: Our View: The windmills in his mind 15 US: NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of 16 The Hindu: NDA attacks UPA-Left panel on nuke deal as parochial 17 US: NRC: Notice of License Termination for University of Washington 18 US: NRC: Nebraska Public Power District; Cooper Nuclear Station; 19 Reuters: Finnish Olkiluoto reactor back in operation 20 Reuters: Romania government approves energy sector revamp 21 Bangkok Post: B200m will go to nuclear PR 22 NZ Herald: NZ isolated over nuclear energy 23 US: MHNN: Entergy tests new Indian Point sirens 24 US: NAM: Make Reality a Starting Point for Debating Energy 25 US: NRC: NRC Meeting September 18 in Apex, N.C., to Discuss Review P 26 US: MySA.com: CPS Energy taking a hard look at nuclear 27 US: Bloomberg.com: Nuclear Bid to Rival Coal Chilled by Flaws, Delay 28 US: Resource Investor: Nuclear energy may not be as economically via 29 NewsRoom Finland: Finland's Olkiluoto 2 reactor reconnected to grid 30 US: Decatur Daily: Unit 1 shut down; should be back online Wednesday 31 The Australian: Bush helps his 'mate of steel' NUCLEAR SECURITY 32 US: Journal News: Uranium found; NRC considers penalizing Indian Poi 33 US: Tennessean: Secret files of nuclear fuel plant released - NUCLEAR SAFETY 34 Daily Times: Radiation can be a bane: experts 35 US: CampusProgress.org: Depleted Uranium, Increased Risk 36 US: NRC: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.; Establishment of Atomic Safety 37 asahi.com : Next Tokai quake could be massive NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 38 Nevada Appeal: Judge gives Nevada a boost in its efforts to avoid nu 39 US: AU The Age: Australia stakes its claim to uranium enrichment - 40 US: Platts: Uranium spot price falls to $85/pound on US DOE auction 41 ReviewJournal.com: Nevada wins battle in war over Yucca 42 US: LA Daily News: State seeks further contamination tests at Santa 43 globeandmail.com: Canada to reprocess other nations' nuclear waste 44 Reid: Reid's Statement on Judge Hunt's Decision on Yucca Mountain 45 Scoop: Howard Signs Up To Take World's Nuclear Waste 46 Plenty Magazine: The Battle of Yucca Mountain PEACE 47 US: [NYTr] US bomber "mistakenly" flies with nuclear weapons? 48 [NYTr] USA's WMD: Nuke-armed B-52 Overflies US by "Mistake" 49 US: B-52 carried nuclear armed cruise missiles by mistake: US 50 US: EIN News Alert: Did Air Force Lose Track of 5 Nukes? 51 US: BBC NEWS: US B-52 in nuclear cargo blunder 52 US: Reuters: U.S. bomber mistakenly flies with nuclear weapons 53 US: AFP: B-52 carried nuclear armed cruise missiles by mistake - US 54 US: Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Bombs Mistakenly Flown Over US US DEPT. OF ENERGY 55 WKRN.COM: (AP) Contractor says 2 Y-12 workers exposed to radioactive 56 DOE: DOE Announces Decision to Consolidate Surplus Plutonium in Sout 57 Tri-City Herald: Hanford plutonium going to South Carolina 58 Las Cruces Sun-News: Nuke reactor moving from Sandia 59 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah 60 Knoxville News Sentinel: $125M grant gives ET jump in bioenergy 61 Knoxville News Sentinel: ORNL gets chance to shine with delegation o 62 Knoxville News Sentinel: Y-12 workers splashed with uranium solution 63 Knoxville News Sentinel: NRC changing secrecy policy 64 Hemscott: Gov't plans plutonium consolidation 65 Oak Ridger: Biofuels update offered - 66 KOB.com: Research reactor moving from Sandia to Nevada ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 AFP: US, Australia pledge to work with UN on climate change - Wednesday September 5, 09:20 PM SYDNEY (AFP) - The United States and Australia, the only two countries that have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, pledged Wednesday to work within the UN system on a post-Kyoto treaty on climate change. But their efforts to influence the direction of the debate have aroused suspicion among developing countries including China ahead of a summit of Asia-Pacific leaders here, diplomats said. President George W. Bush and Prime Minister John Howard said in a statement they "look forward to working actively and constructively with all countries at the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December". The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and Washington and Canberra will press for a new agreement that provides for "effective action from all the major emitting nations" on the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Both the United States and Australia rejected the Kyoto accord on the grounds that it did not commit developing countries to the same sort of emissions cuts required from industrialised nations. Bush, who is on a state visit to Australia, stressed at a joint news conference with Howard that rising Asian giants China and India in particular needed to be party to the new deal if it is to have any real effect. "If you really want to solve the global climate change issue, let's get everybody to the table, let's make sure that countries such as China and India are at the table as we discuss the way forward," he said. Bush said he would raise the issue with Chinese President Hu Jintao at a meeting on the sidelines of the APEC summit. Howard has put climate change high on the summit's agenda, proposing a "new template" after 2012 that would call on developing nations to do more to cut their own emissions. This has met with robust opposition from developing states, who accuse Australia of undermining the Kyoto accord and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). An Indonesian diplomat said Australia should allow the UNFCC to take the lead in planning strategies for the post-Kyoto world. The UNFCC is holding its next meeting on the Indonesian resort island of Bali in December. "We don't want any duplication of the UN framework. There should be no action plans in the statement" at the APEC summit, the diplomat said. A senior Asian foreign ministry official said he and his colleagues from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) met on Monday to coordinate their positions on the climate change statement. "China supports the ASEAN bloc," he said. China, one of the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, has said it should not be expected to take drastic action because it needs to focus on lifting its people out of poverty through economic growth. APEC is not expected to produce a firm target for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, with a leaked draft declaration referring only to an "aspirational goal." The joint statement by Bush and Howard on Wednesday was also couched in general terms, calling for consensus on a "long-term global goal for reducing emissions." The two countries stressed the role of new technologies in reducing emissions, noting "the important contribution nuclear power can make in meeting energy needs and addressing the challenge of climate change." Bush has called a meeting of 16 nations, which together account for 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, to discuss climate change in Washington on September 27-28 ahead of the Bali meeting. This move has been met with suspicion by environmental activists, notably in Europe, who believe the United States wants to subvert the mandatory Kyoto approach with voluntary measures based on new technologies. Yahoo!Xtra: A Yahoo!7/Telecom New Zealand Company. ***************************************************************** 2 The Hindu: Sino-India nuke energy cooperation possible under IAEA: Experts Wednesday, September 5, 2007 : 1615 Hrs Beijing, Sept. 5 (PTI): China may be willing to explore the possibility of cooperation with India in the peaceful use of nuclear energy within the IAEA safeguards, similar to the Sino-Pakistani model, a senior scholar with a leading Chinese arms control and disarmament think-tank said here today. "There is a possibility that China and India can cooperate in the peaceful use of nuclear energy only within the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," a senior research fellow of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association (CACDA), Zhai Dequan, told PTI. "It is a matter of time and initiatives from both sides. China has done this with Pakistan (under the IAEA safeguards) and we can also do this with India," Zhai said. Interestingly, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, during a meeting last Friday with an India-China Eminent Persons Group, had said China was willing to cooperate with all countries on the peaceful use of nuclear energy within the IAEA safeguards. Meanwhile, other Chinese scholars also stressed that China does not attach great importance in highlighting the 123 agreement reached between India and the US. "Even in Chinese newspapers, it is not widely published or circulated among ordinary citizens," a Chinese scholar, who did not want to be identified, said, stressing that there is no need for China to 'dramatise' or 'exploit' this issue. "From the Chinese point of view, there are more important aspects in Sino-India relations for further development because both countries have taken the road of faster development for the betterment of the lives of the peoples of the world's two most populous nations. "I think specific issues will not affect the development of bilateral relations between China and India," he said, pointing out that India had many wise statesmen who can handle the affairs very well. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 3 The Hindu: Uproar over formation of nuke panel Wednesday, September 5, 2007 : 1535 Hrs New Delhi, Sept. 5 (PTI): The Opposition NDA and the Third Front today stalled proceedings in Parliament protesting the formation of a UPA-Left Committee on the Indo-US nuclear deal, leading to repeated adjournments of both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Terming the move as an "insult" to Parliament and the nation, slogan-shouting Opposition members belonging to BJP, Shiv Sena and the Third Front insisted on their demand for formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee to go into the issue. The demand has already been turned down by the Government. In the Lok Sabha, BJP and its allies chanted "we want JPC" with Deputy Leader of the Opposition V K Malhotra taking exception to formation of the Committee. "It is an insult to the House and the nation," Malhotra said, adding the action was not proper. Speaker Somnath Chatterjee appealed in vain to the agitated members to allow Question Hour. He said he would give them an opportunity to raise the issue later. With the members unrelenting, he adjourned the House till 1130 hrs. When the House met again, similar scenes were witnessed forcing adjournment of the House till 1500 hours. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee, who is the convenor of the panel, and UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi were present in the House. Rajya Sabha saw similar protests but Chairman Hamid Ansari refused to entertain agitated members' plea. He went ahead with the Question Hour in the midst of commotion and nothing was audible. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 4 Pres: Joint Statement on Climate Change and Energy by President Bush and Australian Prime Minister John Howard Office of the Press Secretary September 4, 2007 In Focus: APEC 2007 Joint Statement on Climate Change and Energy by the Prime Minister of Australia, the Hon John Howard MP, and the President of the United States of America, the Hon George W. Bush 1. Prime Minister Howard and President Bush agreed today on the importance of confronting the interlinked challenges of climate change, energy security and clean development. 2. Australia and the United States are committed to working together to find effective solutions. They are working to ensure that the energy on which both economies depend remains reliable, affordable and secure by promoting efficiency and diversification of supply. 3. Australia and the United States have consistently championed the importance of practical action. The key to comprehensive global action on climate change is to ensure that measures to reduce emissions are consistent with economic growth, poverty alleviation and improvements in living standards. 4. Australia and the United States look forward to working actively and constructively with all countries at the UN Climate Change Conference in Indonesia in December, with a view to achieve a post-2012 agreement that provides for effective action from all the major emitting nations toward the UNFCCC objective of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The APEC Leaders' Declaration on Climate Change, Energy Security and Sustainable Development will be a significant step forward in efforts to forge a new international framework. 5. Australia welcomed the initiative by the United States to launch a series of meetings on future global action on climate change and looks forward to participating in the first Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change in Washington DC on 27-28 September 2007. Both countries believe this process will make a major contribution to the negotiation of a post-2012 framework. 6. Both countries highlighted that a key objective of the Major Economies Meeting would be to work toward a consensus on a long-term global goal for reducing emissions. Such a goal will provide a basis for accelerated and concerted action at the national and international level over the coming years. It underlines the importance of viewing action on climate change with a long-term perspective. 7. Together with appropriate policy tools, the development and deployment of low emission technologies will be a key element in addressing the climate change challenge in the medium- to longer-term. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is a major initiative that was co-founded by Australia and the United States to drive technology cooperation. Working together, the six members - Australia, China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States - have made substantial progress since the establishment of the Partnership in Sydney in January 2006. The Partnership has initiated more than 100 practical projects in the areas of clean fossil energy, aluminum, coal mining, renewable energy, power generation, cement, buildings and appliances, and steel. 8. Both countries agree that reducing emissions from deforestation is a key component of global action on climate change. The United States welcomed Australia's action in launching the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, announced by Prime Minister Howard in March 2007, and was pleased to participate in the recent High-Level Meeting in Sydney of 63 countries to take forward cooperation under the Initiative. 9. We also agreed to support multilateral action to liberalize trade in environmental goods and services. 10. Australia expressed its interest in participating in the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), which is a partnership of governments working on fourth generation nuclear power plant technology. The GIF reflects the common interest that many countries share in advanced research and development in this field. The United States expressed its support for Australian membership in the GIF. 11. In acknowledgment of the important contribution nuclear power can make in meeting energy needs and addressing the challenge of climate change, Australia and the United States agree on enhancing bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation and supporting the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). GNEP is a multilateral initiative the United States launched to expand the safe and secure use of zero-carbon emission nuclear energy worldwide. The United States welcomes Australia's participation in the Ministerial GNEP meeting to be held later this month in Vienna, Austria. The two countries also finalised a joint action plan for civil nuclear energy cooperation, including on research and development, regulatory issues, and skills and technical training. 12. Australia and the United States will continue to work closely to advance energy security and climate change issues internationally through other multilateral partnerships, including the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, the Methane to Markets Partnership, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership and the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy. 13. Important work has also been accomplished bilaterally under the auspices of the Australia-United States Climate Action Partnership and both countries are committed to further action. Progress has been made in the areas of climate change science and monitoring, agriculture and forestry, approaches to managing High Global Warming Potential Gases (synthetic greenhouse gases) and policy tools and approaches to addressing climate change. 14. We will also endeavor under the Montreal Protocol to ensure the recovery of the ozone layer to pre-1980 levels by accelerating the phase-out of HCFCs in a way that supports energy efficiency and climate change objectives. We will continue to exercise leadership in the development of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). 15. The recently-concluded Australia-United States Agreement relating to Scientific and Technical Cooperation will promote collaboration between scientists in both countries on world-leading research and technology development, including in the area of climate change. 16. In recognition of the importance of global action on climate change and energy, the United States welcomes Australia's participation in the FutureGen International Partnership, a major United States-led international project aimed at building a prototype plant that integrates coal gasification and carbon capture and storage to produce electricity with near-zero emissions. This demonstrates and underscores the commitment of both countries to the development and deployment of clean coal technologies. ***************************************************************** 5 AU ABC: Howard, Bush show relationship remains strong - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Updated September 5, 2007 21:19:00 LtoR: Prime Minister John Howard and President George W Bush have agreed to forge closer defence ties between their nations. (AFP: Jim Watson) Prime Minister John Howard and US President George W Bush have spent the day demonstrating the strength of their relationship and have agreed to work towards making the military ties even closer. Iraq is a politically sensitive topic in both countries, but Mr Bush and Mr Howard have both defended their positions. Mr Bush says progress is being made in Iraq, while Mr Howard says he will keep Australian troops in Iraq until they are no longer needed. "Australian forces will remain at their present levels in Iraq, not based on any calendar, but based on conditions in the ground," Mr Howard said. Later in the day, they joined soldiers, sailors and airmen who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan for a lunch that Mr Bush was anxious to get to. "Looking forward for you to buy me lunch today, I'm a meat guy," he said. There, Mr Bush thanked Australia for keeping its forces in the Middle East. "Thanks for making the sacrifice necessary for peace," he said. "The work you're doing is necessary work and we're going to win." Also at the top of their agenda, the two nations agreed to forge closer defence ties between their nations. Mr Bush has agreed to make it easier for Australians to buy high-tech US military equipment. Mr Howard also told his guest that a US President is always welcome in Australia. "We have no closer alliance with any country in the world," Mr Howard said. Mr Bush will meet Labor leader Kevin Rudd tomorrow. Nuclear deal Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer says Australia will not be taking nuclear waste as a result of a plan to sign up to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Mr Howard announced today that the US would support Australia's bid to join the partnership, which was proposed after talks between the Australian and US two leaders. But Green groups and the Federal Opposition maintain the agreement could lead to Australia taking nuclear waste from overseas, a suggestion Mr Downer has quashed. "We're not signing up to every detail of the drafts that have been promoted publicly and one of the things we won't be signing up to is accepting nuclear waste in Australia, we've always said that," he said. But Greenpeace chief executive Steve Shallhorn says the plan does not commit Australia to nuclear power immediately, because Mr Howard is aware of its unpopularity amongst voters. "Today's announcement by the Australian Government seems in fact to be a non-announcement," he said. "They've gone through great pains to distance themselves from any commitment on nuclear power in the short term." The discussions on nuclear power between the two countries stemmed from climate change issues, with the US President praising the Australian Government's support for nuclear power as an anti-greenhouse measure. ***************************************************************** 6 CaliforniaRepublic.org | Global Warming Serious Enough To Lift Ban On Nukes? by Chuck DeVore Irvine by Chuck DeVore [legislator, novelist] 9/5/07 Global warming has become a lot like the weather: Everyone talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. In environmentally conscious California, a poll found that 54% of residents believe "global warming poses a very serious threat to the state's future economy and quality of life." But only 13% claim to carpool and 7% use mass transit.In other words: Do as I want you to do, not as I do. Meanwhile the California legislature, reflecting the conventional wisdom, has passed a sweeping new greenhouse gas law that calls for a 25% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 - while the state's population is projected to grow 20% to 44 million people. Passing the law was the easy part. Now we implement. Perhaps this is where the majority of Californians were right - but not for the right reason - when they agreed that "global warming poses a very serious threat to the state's future economy. Contributors Chuck DeVore Assemblyman Chuck DeVore represents 450,000 residents of Orange County California’s 70th Assembly District.. He served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon from 1986 to 1988 and was Senior Assistant to Cong. Chris Cox. He is a lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard. Chuck’s novel, CHINA ATTACKS, sells internationally and has been translated into Chinese for sales in Taiwan. [go to DeVore index] "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% in 13 years while growing the economy to support 7 million more people will, to put it mildly, be a challenge. Thirteen years is not a long time to dramatically change the way California uses energy. Electrical generation accounts for 20% of the state's greenhouse gas emissions. More than half of these emissions come from burning natural gas that powers 42% of the grid. Coal contributes 16% of California's power, yet accounts for about 36% of its greenhouse gas emissions. A separate California law passed last year will phase out the use of conventional coal power over 20 years. Most of this power will be replaced by far more expensive natural gas, assuming adequate supplies can be secured. Wind and solar power are being increased, but grid reliability is a problem. The wind in California has this unfortunate habit of peaking when its power is not needed and vanishing when it is. The sun in sunny California has its off days too. This requires both technologies to be backed up by additional natural gas plants that have to remain on costly standby. Solar power also continues to be very expensive. California is already the most electrically efficient state in the U.S., so large additional conservation savings will be hard to achieve. A little over half the state's man-made greenhouse gases come from the tailpipe. But there aren't a lot of ways to significantly reduce these emissions while the state is growing so rapidly, though small cars could be mandated or favored through the tax code. Burning corn as ethanol instead of eating it may be an attractive solution for a politician angling to win the Iowa presidential caucuses. But in the real world, the balance sheet of carbon combustion is unmoved by massive federal subsidies. Further, switching to corn-based fuel is already causing unintended inflationary pressures, as corn shortages have increased feedstock prices that in turn have driven up the price of milk, poultry, beef and pork.A fleet of hydrogen-electric cars could make a major impact on the problem - but only if we doubled our electricity production using low greenhouse gas technology such as solar, wind or nuclear. Of these, nuclear is the only reliable way to make electricity that could be affordable for anyone other than a San Francisco hedge fund manager. That leaves four possible outcomes with California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: 1. The regulations to reduce greenhouse emissions pose such a serious threat to the state's economy that politicians decide to delay the reduction mandate or simply rescind it, letting greenhouse gas emissions grow. 2. A carbon cap-and-trade scheme is implemented, enriching a few traders on the floor of the Chicago Climate Exchange and serving as a massive fossil-fuel tax, leading to economic harm and reversal of the law. 3. Politicians and regulators ignore the economic consequences and wring a 25% carbon emissions reduction out of the California economy that causes havoc and misery. Then they get thrown out of office by mobs of angry unemployed people, whereupon their successors reverse the law. 4. California gets serious about greenhouse gases, lifts its ban on new nuclear power plants, constructs four new reactors and, as a result, enjoys a large reduction in carbon emissions from the electrical sector and a small reduction overall. Additional reactors would yield further greenhouse gas reductions. Construction of nuclear plants, however, has been banned in California since 1976. But the four reactors under construction then were allowed to be finished. Today, those reactors furnish about 13% of state's electricity.The four reactors save $2.6 billion a year in natural gas (a nuclear reactor can run on about $30 million of fuel for almost two years) while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 22 million metric tons. Adding four modern reactors would let the electrical sector reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40%, returning the sector to 1990 levels.Nuclear power has the lowest total life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of any energy source, including solar and wind. In spite of this, the California legislature shows no interest in nuclear power. Due to fears about global warming, public opinion about nuclear power has improved nationwide. California polls show likely voters closely divided on the question. Bypassing the legislature with a ballot initiative to overturn the state's obsolete 31-year ban on nuclear power might succeed following a serious public education campaign. Unfortunately, California's risk-averse investor-owned utilities fear provoking the anger of environmentally liberal lawmakers by supporting such a ballot initiative. Instead, the utilities may try to build reliable and safe nuclear power plants out of state. But this means spending billions to build long-distance power transmission lines as well as billions more in fees to buy approval from the states over which the lines traverse.California ratepayers will pay for this in higher electrical bills. In addition, 15% of the power would be lost through long-distance line resistance. These added expenses mean that two reactors could be built in California for the cost of a single reactor built in New Mexico or Utah. A total of 104 reactors now produce about 19% of America's electricity. By comparison, France's 59 reactors produce 78% of its electricity while environmentally conscious Sweden has 10 reactors that provide 48% of its power. Still, environmentalists fiercely oppose any new plants. Their opposition is deeply rooted in our Cold War past and focuses on a single isotope created during the nuclear fission process: plutonium-239. With a half-life of 24,110 years, plutonium-239 would have to be stored for almost 200,000 years for its radioactivity to be rendered safe. Each commercial nuclear power reactor makes about 500 pounds of plutonium a year. This plutonium is embedded in the fuel rods that in the U.S. are simply set aside and stored, with the plan being to store about a football field's volume of spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Environmentalists oppose this, arguing that Yucca Mountain cannot keep nuclear material safe for 2,000 centuries. The issue of storing plutonium-239 for 200,000 years can be solved by extracting the plutonium and using it to produce electricity. The French do this, reducing the volume of used nuclear material by about 96% by recycling usable fuel, including plutonium, back into their reactors. This slightly increases the cost of electricity, but it eliminates the need to safely store plutonium-239, saving money on the back end.Unfortunately, many environmentalists oppose reprocessing spent nuclear fuel because reprocessing extracts plutonium that could be diverted for nuclear-bomb making. It was this rationale that caused President Jimmy Carter to ban U.S. reprocessing in 1977 in the hopes of inspiring other nations to do the same. (It didn't work.) Environmental opponents speak darkly of "plutonium-in-commerce," as if a U.S. utility would sell 100 pounds of extracted plutonium to al-Qaida to boost its profits. The net result is that it gives the American environmental left a perfect and unassailable circular argument: Reprocessing is bad because plutonium can be made into bombs, but storing unreprocessed spent fuel rods with plutonium in them for 200,000 years is problematic.Ironically, nuclear power plants can be operated with plutonium recovered from nuclear bombs, turning nuclear swords into electrical ploughshares and using up the plutonium in the process. For better or for worse, California often leads the way in American trends. What if Californians considered the relative risks and rewards of nuclear power vs. global warming, increased use of imported fossil fuels and massive electricity rate hikes, and decided in favor of nuclear power? The California Energy Independence and Zero Carbon Dioxide Emission Electrical Generation Act slated for the June 2008 ballot will give Californians that choice. The proposed initiative overturns California's nuclear ban, enacts seismic and environmental restrictions that place about 40% of the state off limits to nuclear power, and approves on-site dry-cask storage of spent fuel as an acceptable storage method for 100 years. California can get serious about meeting its ambitious global warming goals while providing economic opportunity, or it can try to power its economy on good intentions. CRO first appeared in Investors Business Daily Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman and a lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard. His website is: www.ChuckDeVore.com copyright 2007Chuck DeVore 2003-2005 theOneRepublic.com ***************************************************************** 7 Platts: German deputy faction leader calls for nuclear lifetime extension London (Platts)--5Sep2007 A lifetime extension of Germany's 17 remaining nuclear power plants is essential, the deputy head of the ruling CDU/CSU faction in parliament, Katherina Reiche, said Wednesday. And she warned that plant safety issues should not be misused for ideological reasons Germany's previous government passed a nuclear phase-out law in 2002, forbidding the construction of new nuclear plants and limiting existing ones to an average life-span of 32 years, based on remaining allocated capacity. To date, two German nuclear power plants have been permanently closed under this law. Biblis A (1,225 MW), Biblis B (1,300 MW), Neckarwestheim I (840 MW) and Brunsbuttel (806 MW) are expected to close by 2009 should they continue to be used at full capacity. "Without longer lifespans for our nuclear power plants, Germany is unlikely to achieve its ambitious climate protection goals and a phase-out reduces our security of supply," Reiche said in a statement and added: "Nuclear energy is an important transition [technology] until renewable energies are economically available in sufficient volumes." Reiche also said nuclear safety should not be used as a tool for "ideological warfare" and that "we cannot lead a serious dialog with blunt accusations and through scaremongering." The CDU/CSU under chancellor Angela Merkel is currently the leading coalition party together with the anti-nuclear SPD, and the conservatives are--for the time being--keeping to the nuclear phase-out plans. Merkel said during Germany's energy summit in Berlin on July 3 that an exit from Germany's nuclear-phase-out plan "is not going to happen" as it is part of the coalition treaty with the CDU's junior governing party SPD. However, Merkel's words and the fact that most senior party members publicly advocate a lifetime extension for nuclear power plants in Germany, are widely interpreted as a signal towards a new nuclear policy should the CDU/CSU win the country's next general election--scheduled for 2009--with enough votes to rule alone or, more likely, together with the pro-nuclear FDP, the CDU's traditional coalition partner. For simliar news, request a free trial to Power in Europe at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 8 Valley Advocate: Is This Nuclear Plan Safe? Wednesday, September 05, 2007 Anonymous photographs raise new alarms about the Vermont nuclear reactor. By Valley Editorial Anonymous Vermont Yankee: A collapsed cooling tower, spewing water that was supposed to cool the plant's reactor. This picture was taken by an anonymous photographer on or after August 21, when this cooling tower at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant near Brattleboro collapsed, spewing water that was supposed to cool the plant’s reactor. Days later, on Friday, August 30, plant technicians got another evil surprise: the plant went into automatic shutdown while they were testing a turbine valve. Vermont Yankee, now 35 years old, puts out 610 megawatts of power, nearly 120 percent of the output rate it was designed for, and its owners, Entergy Nuclear of Mississippi, have applied for its license to be extended until 2032, 20 years past its current expiration date of 2012. The New England Coalition, a nukewatching organization based in southern Vermont, has warned for years that the plant is like an old car being souped up and driven at excessive speeds. The cooling system in particular has been the subject of much concern. After the tower partly disintegrated, the Vermont Congressional delegation called for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do an exhaustive investigation of the condition of all the cooling towers at the plant. The Vermont state Legislature is worried as well. Its members are asking the same question as antinuclear activists: if this could happen after Entergy conducted and documented inspections of the towers, what other structural flaws at the plant may have gone without being detected when inspections were done? While Entergy dwells on the fact that the tower collapse per se wasn’t a threat to the public health, others—especially those who remember the transformer fire that broke out three years ago—say that’s not the point; the danger is that the inspection system is untrustworthy and the company has a demonstrated inability to keep the plant properly maintained and functioning. “Even with the inspections, the tower failed,”said Deb Katz, executive director of Franklin County-based Citizens Awareness Network. “That’s what this is about. This is wood. You notice wood rotting.” In the aftermath of the collapse of the tower, the NRC has admitted that the application process for the plant’s license extension may be delayed. Until now the NRC seemed to be on a steady march toward approval of that extension, but the cooling tower collapse—which is difficult to minimize with the anonymous photos circulating on the Internet—has clearly put a large rock in what appeared to be a clear road to license extension approval for Entergy. If you want your Congressman to hear your reaction to a picture of a nuclear power plant’s cooling tower falling apart like an old garage, call the Capitol operator in Washington at 202-224-3121, ask for his office and tell him what he needs to know. Or call the NRC’s public affairs officer on this case, Neil Sheehan, at 610-337-5331. ***************************************************************** 9 toledoblade.com: FirstEnergy to contest ruling on fuel charges Thursday, September 06, 2007 Electricity bills could rise if decision stands By JON CHAVEZ BLADE BUSINESS WRITER FirstEnergy Corp. customers' monthly electricity bills could rise by a few dollars fairly soon if an Ohio Supreme Court ruling against delaying fuel costs is allowed to stand. FirstEnergy, the parent firm of Toledo Edison and two other electric utilities, said yesterday that it plans to contest the ruling this week. It plans to ask the Supreme Court rehear the case on which it ruled last week. And, if that fails, it plans to ask the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to allow it to begin charging customers for its higher fuel costs, something that was to have been delayed until 2008 and be spread out over 25 years. "We'd really like to go back to the Supreme Court and reargue this case because we think it was not argued correctly," said Ellen Raines, a spokesman for the utility, which is headquartered in Akron. In January, 2006, the regulators approved a rate plan that granted FirstEnergy the right to keep track of its coal, gas, and uranium fuel costs in 2006, 2007, and 2008 and then collect those costs over a 25-year period through increases in its distribution rates. But the Supreme Court struck down that deal, saying that fuel costs are more properly a part of generation, or the costs are more properly a part of generation, or the costs involved in making power, than of distribution. If FirstEnergy begins charging fuel costs immediately, it is not clear how much it would be, Ms. Raines said. She said it probably will be "tenths of a cent per kilowatt hour." For the average customer using 750 kilowatts per month, that could mean 75 cents to a few dollars on a monthly bill, depending on what the eventual cost will be. The Supreme Court sent the issue back to the PUCO, asking for the issue to be fixed so it doesn't violate the state's 1999 electric deregulation law. A spokesman for the regulators said the panel hasn't studied the issue, but will do so soon. Meanwhile, the utility plans to continue deferring its fuel costs until the court hears its motion whether to reconsider the case. FirstEnergy has 300,000 customers served by Toledo Edison and 2.1 million northern Ohio customers overall. Contact Jon Chavez at: jchavez@theblade.com or 419-724-6128. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 10 Burlington Free Press: Vermont Yankee making power again burlingtonfreepress.com | Burlington, Vermont Wednesday, September 5, 2007 The Associated Press VERNON — The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is making electricity again. Two days after the plant shut down automatically because of a problem with a valve, technicians brought the plant back online and it’s now running at 50 percent capacity, said Yankee spokesman Rob Williams. On Aug. 30 a sticking valve — later determined to have been caused by a lack of grease — prompted the automatic shutdown. Power was restored late Saturday night, said Williams. Meanwhile, repairs are continuing on a collapsed cooling tower. The Aug. 21 tower failure, in which wood beams and metal piping both gave way, did not pose a safety concern, but it forced the plant to reduce its power output. It’s unclear when the tower will be fully repaired, but the plant doesn’t need it to run at full power, said Neil Sheehan of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “We don’t have a hold on them,” he said. “They could return to full power when ready as long as they don’t exceed their thermal discharge permit.” Copyright ©2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 Brattleboro Reformer: Where are the whistleblowers? Letter Box Editor of the Reformer: Reading about the successive failures at Vermont Yankee recalls strikingly similar stories about conditions at the Salem/Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations in New Jersey not so long ago. In that case, a high ranking staff member came forward and brought to light shocking management neglect, malfunctioning equipment and reprisals against employees who tried to bring these frightening conditions to the attention of their employers. It was the recent steam valve situation here at Vermont Yankee that brought this to mind. The "whistleblower" in this case, a Dr. Harvin, was informed by "about a dozen operators at a late-night meeting" that their "boss's boss's boss" had risked his personal safety to close a steam valve when none of them thought it was safe to do so, so the plant would not have to be shut down. The operators were terrified of a serious nuclear accident, but they were afraid for their jobs. So Harvin went up the appropriate channels, sharing the operators' professional concerns, and at each level was ignored or told it was simply a union ploy to avoid work. After many attempts to bring these safety concerns to the attention of management, Dr. Harvin was fired, and subsequently went public with the information. There was an uproar, and some changes in management. Then it developed that the nuclear plants were being sold to another big energy corporation, which applied for another license extension, much the same as what we're reading about here in Vermont. In the end, although Dr. Harvin received an award from the IEEE for placing the interests of public safety above employment security, the problems were never specifically addressed, at least not in public, and the plants remain open. As I read about each new disaster at VY, I can't help wondering if something similar may be going on behind the scenes, a heroic workforce struggling to keep us all safe against an indifferent and profit-driven upper management, and I half expect to read about a whistleblower finally having had enough, and speaking out regardless of consequences. Without any knowledge of the work environment at VY, I am certain that an employee who did so would be in a world of trouble. I hope their voice would be heard at all. But the stakes for our community are very, very high. After so many obvious failures, it's time for some transparency. We have a right to know the true nature of the situation. And maybe it's time for the NRC to do some actual regulating, instead of being, as one correspondent put it, a "rubber stamp for the nuclear industry." A serious accident, or sabotage, could literally kill the Reformer's entire readership overnight. In the end, the real question is this: What will we do if the Connecticut River Valley becomes uninhabitable for a hundred thousand years? Peter Barus Whitingham, Sept. 2 It may be time to re-think VY Editor of the Reformer: The recent catastrophic bridge collapse in the Midwest is yet another lesson in why we need to shut down Vermont Yankee. As frightening as a the failure of a large highway bridge feels, the failure of a nuclear power plant would dwarf the tragedy of that earlier event. NO ONE expected that bridge to fall down, and our alleged leaders continue to promise the safety of our local nuke. As with so many dangerous and speculative ventures hyped by large corporate entities, the uprate at Vermont Yankee was a dumb idea sparked by Entergy's greed and lack of caring about the community where the plant is cited. Those who know in the anti-nuclear movement warned that it was straining the capabilities of the old and uninspected plant. The cooling tower unexpectedly crumbled -- the "experts" have still not given a good explanation. What about other parts of the plant? There has never been a thorough, independent inspection. It is about time, because we can't wait for a complete failure. It is also time to resind the uprate yesterday, and stop rubber-stamping every demand of Entergy. Those of us at most risk from this plant need to force our state's elected officials to pay attention to this danger before the plant gets its new licence to operate for 20 more years. Nancy Braus Putney, Sept. 4 ***************************************************************** 12 Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee running at 50% BRATTLEBORO, VT By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Wednesday, September 5 BRATTLEBORO -- Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was back up to 50 percent capacity on Tuesday afternoon after it was determined a lack of grease caused a steam valve to malfunction Aug. 30. The sticking valve caused an automatic shutdown, or scram, of the plant's boiling water reactor, which was running at about 62 percent because of the collapse of a cooling tower Aug. 21. Late Saturday night, technicians at the plant powered the reactor back up, said Yankee spokesman Rob Williams. The valve, which shuttles steam from the turbine to the electric generator, is greased during outages, said Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC, as part of the plant's ongoing maintenance program. Sticking valves, though not a usual occurrence, said Sheehan, are not unknown in the industry. Repairs on the collapsed cooling tower continued Tuesday afternoon. With debris removed, a new pipe was installed to replace the section that fell to the ground during the collapse, which carries cooling water along the bank of 11 cooling cells. Vermont Yankee has two banks of cells, 22 in total, with two seismically rated to withstand an earthquake or other natural disaster. The purpose of those two cells, which have piping independent of the other nine cells in their bank, is to safely cool the reactor during an emergency. When the tower will be fully repaired is not yet known, though the plant doesn't need it to run at full power, said Sheehan. "We don't have a hold on them," he said. "They could return to full power when ready as long as they don't exceed their thermal discharge permit." "They're has never been a safety issue with this," said Williams, who said because of increased river flow Tuesday, the reactor was able to peak at 62 percent of its thermal output before going back down to 50 percent. A cooling tower expert from the NRC arrived in Vernon, Tuesday to help find out why the structure collapsed. "We try to supplement our resident inspectors whenever we can," said Sheehan. The decrease in power output is costing Central Vermont Public Service $50,000 a day, said Steve Costello, spokesman for CVPS, "due to the relatively low price we have with the plant." When the plant goes off line, or produces power at less than 100 percent, what the state needs and can't get from Yankee, it must purchase on the spot market, often 2 to 3 cents more per kilowatt hour than it gets from the nuclear power plant, at 5 cents a KWh. "We're watching it day by day," said Costello, though CVPS has made no decision yet on whether it will ask ratepayers to pony up something extra to help pay for increased costs. "We probably won't make any decision until the plant is fully online," he said. Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273. ***************************************************************** 13 Vue Weekly: What's wrong with nuclear power? LEILA DARWISH and HELEN LA / sierraclub.ca Well, a lot, actually...The current breakneck speed of tar sands development in Alberta has led to host of social, economic and environmental problems. Declining water quality, pollution-associated illnesses, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, a labour shortage and an enormous infrastructure deficit are only a few of the issues currently faced by Alberta’s government, industry and citizenry. In particular, one problem gaining increasing recognition is how to fuel the province’s overheated tar sands development without exhausting natural gas reserves and producing more greenhouse gases than any other industrial project on earth. Many solutions to this problem have been proposed. For example, residents across the province have suggested the Alberta government slow the pace of tar sands development and put in place a plan to ensure long-term sustainability for Alberta’s people, economy and environment. Others have argued that Alberta must diversify its energy portfolio and prepare for a shift towards a post-carbon economy by investing in clean energy research and development. Finally, some people have proposed using nuclear energy to fuel unfettered tar sands expansion. Unfortunately, many of Alberta’s government and industry leaders are currently supporting the latter option. That is, instead of choosing innovation and conservation as a means to ensure a safe, healthy and clean energy future for all Albertans, these representatives have chosen to pursue one of Canada’s most dangerous, polluting and inefficient energy options. Even more alarming is how quickly nuclear proponents have been mobilizing in an effort to build multiple reactors and have them online as soon as possible. Having been rejected already by tar sands companies that recognized the liability and unfeasibility of nuclear power in Alberta, nuclear proponents are currently campaigning to gain support and clientele in communities across the province. Until recently, nuclear enthusiasts in Alberta received very little attention. After all, why would a province so abundant in energy resources need to consider this controversial energy source? Nuclear energy was not recognized as a clean energy source in the Kyoto protocol but it continues to be touted as a global solution to climate change. With the threat of nuclear energy looming in Alberta it is important that all the facts around this dangerous and dirty energy source are known. Beyond the environmentally destructive mining of uranium, nuclear energy produces (both in extraction and production) large quantities of radioactive waste—spent fuel from CANDU reactors contains over 200 deadly radioactive elements. Plutonium, for example, remains radioactive for over 24 400 years. These highly toxic byproducts make long-term storage a serious political and environmental catastrophe. There is not one safe and secure disposal option for the highly radioactive waste produced by nuclear power stations. And the history of Canadian (CANDU) reactors is plagued with problems, with many of them breaking down early or being decommissioned, as the costs of repairs are far greater than initial startup costs. It is also critical to note that accidents do happen, with 22 accidents occurring since the catastrophic incident at Chernobyl. Plutonium can be released into the environment as a result of nuclear energy development. Concern over the harmful effects of plutonium is growing because of discoveries about the subtle effects of low-level radiation. Plutonium may be many times more dangerous than previously thought. Besides, at every step of nuclear power generation greenhouse gases are emitted. Approximately 240 000 to 366 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide are produced every year from plant construction, uranium mining, milling uranium ore, road transportation, fuel fabrication, conversion and refining activities. Beyond these direct emissions, low-grade uranium mined from Saskatchewan is upgraded, largely in the United States, using coal fired power—the most carbon intensive energy producer. And then there’s the fact that nuclear power has cost the Canadian public billions: Over a fifty-year period (from 1953 to 2002), government subsidies to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited totaled $17.5 billion (in 2001 dollars). Cost overruns on the last nuclear station to be built in Ontario at Darlington were in the billions of dollars, and debt incurred by Ontario Hydro in the operations of its power reactors amounted to over $35 billion dollars. Ontario regulators have determined that the Candu 6 reactor will cost about $2845 per kilowatt, meaning the planned Alberta plant would cost around $3.9 billion to run. It has been estimated by the industry-owned Nuclear Waste Management Organization that the waste will produce a cost of $25 billion dollars to manage it for only 300 years, and that’s just a small chunk of the hundreds of thousands of years it must be stored and managed. Too often local governments and community members are only presented with the slick advertising and false promises of people who stand to gain substantially from fostering a nuclear power industry in Alberta. For these reasons and more, the Sierra Club of Canada is among several environmental organizations dedicated to ensuring that Albertans get to hear both sides of the nuclear energy debate. V The Sierra Club of Canada is a national environmental advocacy group made up of 10 000 members, supporters and youth affiliate members from across Canada with offices in Ottawa, Victoria, Sydney, Corner Brook, Halifax, Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto. * ABOUT VUE WEEKLY ***************************************************************** 14 Opinion: Our View: The windmills in his mind Gazette.com September 4, 2007 - 11:21PM Americans have long wrestled with the question of whether Democrats can be trusted with national security. These doubts, dating back to the Cold War and Vietnam eras, have given Republicans an edge in electing presidents. But now we also have to wonder whether the Democrats are equipped to deal realistically and responsibly with the nation’s energy security. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is doing his party no favors on either count. Not only has “Crazy Harry” become the most shrill of Iraq war defeatists, but he’s completely lost perspective on alternative energy technologies, declaring recently that he would oppose the construction of any new coal-fired power plants in his home state of Nevada. Reid personifies a party that seems unable to recognize that the country needs every energy technology available, “old” and “new,” “dirty” as well as “clean,” if it’s going to keep pace with demand. Reid recently declaring his opposition to three new, coalfired power plants in the state, saying his “conscience” wouldn’t allow it. And like all good Democrats, he threw in a little business-bashing for good measure. “All these power moguls want to do is to steal our air and water,” he said. So how will his fast-growing state keep the lights on in glitter gulch? Renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal, of course. And through conservation. Reid wants more Nevadans to have solar panels on their roofs. But that’s a strange position to take, for someone who represents a state famous for its conspicuous consumption of electricity. Nevada already leans heavily on hydro-power, which is a good, clean energy source. Geothermal also has a lot of potential. But whether Nevada — or the rest of us — can get along without conventional power plants, at least for the next century or so, is doubtful. Coal is one fossil fuel the nation has in abundance. As we develop cleaner ways to burn it, the environmental impacts will be reduced. Its use will help us maintain a modicum of energy independence. But coal is a dirty word to Reid. He calls clean coal an oxymoron. Development of domestic oil and natural gas is hampered by an oppressive regulatory climate, by drilling moratoria offshore and in Alaska, which Democrats refuse to lift, and by the obstructionism of greens and NIMBYs. Reid opposes nuclear power, too, and is leading the effort to kill the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Thankfully for Nevadans, a U.S. senator’s power doesn’t yet extend to dictating the energy choices for an entire state. But that doesn’t prevent Reid and similarly deluded colleagues from foisting such energy policy fantasies off on the rest of us. * Copyright © 2007, The Gazette, a division of Freedom Colorado ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-19 and Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-25; Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing FR Doc E7-17493 [Federal Register: September 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 171)] [Notices] [Page 50986-50988] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05se07-75] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-19 and Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-25 issued to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (the licensee) for operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3 (DNPS), located in Grundy County, Illinois. The proposed amendment would revise the values of the safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) in Technical Specification Section 2.1.1, ``Reactor Core SLs.'' The amendment request is being re- noticed because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff determined during the review of the licensee's request that the change affected the licenses for both units at the DNPS. This notice supersedes the notice that appeared on July 31, 2007 (72 FR 41783). 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 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 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 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 probability of an evaluated accident is derived from the probabilities of the individual precursors to that accident. The consequences of an evaluated accident are determined by the operability of plant systems designed to mitigate those consequences. Limits have been established consistent with NRC approved methods to ensure that fuel performance during normal, transient, and accident conditions is acceptable. The proposed change conservatively establishes the SLMCPR for DNPS Unit 2, Cycle 21 such that the fuel is protected during normal operation and during plant transients or anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs). Changing the SLMCPR does not increase the probability of an evaluated accident. The change does not require any physical plant modifications, physically affect any plant components, or entail changes in plant operation. Therefore, no individual precursors of an accident are affected. The proposed change revises the SLMCPR to protect the fuel during normal operation as well as during plant transients or AOOs. Operational limits will be established based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criterion (i.e., that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal operation and AOOs) is met. Since the proposed change does not affect operability of plant systems designed to mitigate any consequences of accidents, the consequences of an accident previously evaluated are not expected to increase. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the [[Page 50987]] 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. Creation of the possibility of a new or different kind of accident requires creating one or more new accident precursors. New accident precursors may be created by modifications of plant configuration, including changes in allowable modes of operation. The proposed change does not involve any plant configuration modifications or changes to allowable modes of operation. The proposed change to the SLMCPR assures that safety criteria are maintained for DNPS, Unit 2, Cycle 21. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? Response: No. The SLMCPR provides a margin of safety by ensuring that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal operation and AOOs if the MCPR limit is not violated. The proposed change will ensure the current level of fuel protection is maintained by continuing to ensure that at least 99.9% of the fuel rods do not experience transition boiling during normal operation and AOOs if the MCPR limit is not violated. The proposed SLMCPR values were developed using NRC-approved methods. Additionally, operational limits will be established based on the proposed SLMCPR to ensure that the SLMCPR is not violated. This will ensure that the fuel design safety criterion (i.e., that no more than 0.1% of the rods are expected to be in boiling transition if the MCPR limit is not violated) is met. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a 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 either 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 requestor's/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. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to [[Page 50988]] 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 Mr. Bradley J. Fewell, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated July 10, 2007, which is 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 29th day of August 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Christopher Gratton, Sr., Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch III-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-17493 Filed 9-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 16 The Hindu: NDA attacks UPA-Left panel on nuke deal as parochial Wednesday, September 5, 2007 : 1735 Hrs New Delhi, Sept. 5 (PTI): Attacking the UPA-Left committee on the nuclear deal as "parochial and partisan", the Opposition NDA today said the arrangement was more to save the Government and warned of a united action if the demand for a Joint Parliamentary Committee(JPC) was not accepted. "We are consulting other Opposition parties as well and the NDA parties will meet tomorrow to chalk out the future course of action," Leader of the Opposition L K Advani told a joint press conference along with other NDA leaders. Advani said the 15-member Committee was more to save the government than going into the agreement He said External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who met him during the day, has rejected the demand for a JPC, but "we would still like the Government to reconsider". Advani sidestepped questions whether the NDA would support moves for early sine die adjournment of the current session of Parliament, saying he could not answer hypothetical questions, but maintained appointment of the committee has "pre-empted any debate" on the issue. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 17 NRC: Notice of License Termination for University of Washington Research Reactor (UWAR) FR Doc E7-17494 [Federal Register: September 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 171)] [Notices] [Page 50991-50992] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05se07-78] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-139] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the termination of facility Operating License No. R-73 for the University of Washington Research Reactor (UWAR). The NRC has terminated the license of the decommissioned UWAR, at the University of Washington (UWA) in Seattle, Washington, and has released the site for unrestricted use. The UWAR was an Argonaut-type training and research reactor with an initial power output of 10 kilowatts, which later received authority to increase power output to 100 kilowatts. The reactor was permanently shut down on June 30, 1988. By application dated August 2, 1994, the licensee requested authorization to dismantle the UWAR and to dispose of the component parts, in accordance with the decommissioning plan submitted as part of the application. Opportunity for a hearing was afforded by ``Notice of Proposed Issuance of Orders Authorizing Disposition of Component Parts and Terminating Facility License'' published in the Federal Register on September 2, 1994 (59 FR 45738). No request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene was filed following notice of the proposed action. The NRC reviewed the application with respect to the Commission's rules and regulations and found that the dismantling and disposal of component parts as stated in the licensee's decommissioning plan are consistent with the regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I and are not inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. On May 1, 1995, the Commission issued the ``Order Authorizing Dismantling of Facility and Disposition of Component Parts.'' The licensee conducted remediation activities and completed final status surveys in October 2006. The licensee's request for termination of the license was supported by the submittal of a Final Status Survey Report (FSSR). The NRC completed its review of the UWAR FSSR submitted to NRC by letter dated December 13, 2006, as supplemented February 26 and March 12, 2007. The FSSR documented the level of residual radioactivity remaining at the facility and stated that compliance with the criteria in the NRC-approved decommissioning plan for the reactor has been demonstrated. The NRC staff verified that the criteria in the approved decommissioning plan had been met and determined that the facility and site met the criteria in 10 CFR 20.1402 for unrestricted use. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(b)(6), the NRC staff has concluded that the reactor has been decommissioned in accordance with the approved decommissioning plan and that the terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility and site may be released in accordance with the criteria in the NRC-approved decommissioning plan. Further, on the basis of the decommissioning activities carried out by UWA, the NRC's review of the licensee's FSSR, the results of NRC inspections conducted at the UWAR, and the results of NRC confirmatory surveys, the NRC has concluded that the decommissioning process is complete and the facility and site may be released for unrestricted use. Therefore Facility Operating License No. R-73 is terminated. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated December 13, 2006, as supplemented February 26 and March 12, 2007; and NRC Inspection Report No. 50-139/2006-204, dated May 21, 2007. The above referenced documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available [[Page 50992]] records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (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 have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS should call the NRC PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or e-mail pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of August 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Programs. [FR Doc. E7-17494 Filed 9-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: Nebraska Public Power District; Cooper Nuclear Station; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact FR Doc E7-17500 [Federal Register: September 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 171)] [Notices] [Page 50988-50991] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05se07-76] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-298] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-46, issued to Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD, the licensee), for operation of the Cooper Nuclear Power Station (CNS) located in Nemaha County, Nebraska. Therefore, as specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application dated October 17, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated February 7, April 17, May 4, and July 26, 2007, requesting an amendment to the operating license for CNS to increase the storage capacity of its spent fuel pool (SFP) to maintain the capability to fully offload the core from the reactor as the unit approaches the end of its operating license. To achieve this goal, the licensee plans to install two additional high-density spent fuel racks into the SFP. Existing spent fuel racks will remain in the pool in their current configuration. The proposed additional racks will have a closer assembly-to-assembly spacing to increase fuel storage capacity. The number of fuel assemblies that can be stored in the SFP would be increased from 2366 assemblies to 2651 assemblies (an increase of 285 assemblies). The Need for the Proposed Action An increase in spent fuel storage capacity is needed to maintain the capability for a full-core offload and to allow CNS to operate at full power until the next refueling outage. Loss of full-core offload capability occurred when the spent fuel was discharged to the SFP following Cycle 22 in January 2005. The licensee plans to install one of the additional high-density storage racks (with the capacity to store 117 fuel assemblies) immediately following issuance of the proposed amendment, with the second high-density storage rack (with the capacity to store 168 fuel assemblies) to be installed later if necessary, while keeping the existing racks in place. The additional capacity will ensure the capability of a full-core offload as the unit approaches the end of Cycle 25, at which point it will receive new fuel for Cycle 26 during the summer of 2009. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed addition of two new storage racks to the SFP is acceptable. The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the license amendment that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the license amendment. The staff has reviewed the licensee's plan for the expanded fuel storage capacity with respect to the radiological impact. The specifics of this review are presented below: 1. Radioactive Wastes CNS uses waste treatment systems designed to collect and process gaseous, liquid, and solid waste that might contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner so that the discharges are in accordance with the regulatory standards of 10 CFR Part 20, and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50. [[Page 50989]] 2. Solid Radioactive Wastes The NRC staff reviewed the impact of the expanded fuel storage capacity on the production and release of radioactive waste during normal operations. The level of radioactive material in the pool water and the degree of water clarity determines the amount of solid waste produced by pool purification system resins. The licensee expects that during the fuel pool expansion work, small amounts of additional resins may be generated. This additional waste will be generated on a one-time basis. During normal operations, the licensee does not expect there to be a significant increase in the amount of solid radioactive wastes. Overall, the staff concludes that during routine operations, there will be no significant increase in the volume of solid radioactive wastes generated as a result of the proposed action. 3. Gaseous Radioactive Effluents Radioactive gases that evolve from the surface of the pool water contribute to the plant's gaseous effluents. However, the levels of gaseous and particulate radioactivity in the pool water and in the area around the SFP are dominated by the most recent reactor offload to the SFP, not the older cooled fuel in the pool. Therefore, the storage of additional spent fuel assemblies resulting from the proposed action will have a minimal contribution to the gaseous effluents. The licensee has area radiation monitors in the immediate vicinity of the SFP, which monitor ambient airborne particulate and iodine radioactivity, and additional radiation monitors that monitor gaseous discharges into the environment. This radiation monitoring is performed to ensure continued compliance with the regulatory dose limits for the workers and members of the public. Overall, the staff concludes that during routine operations, there will be no significant increase in the amount of gaseous radiological effluents released into the area around the SFP and into the environment as a result of the proposed action. 4. Liquid Radiological Effluents The number of stored spent fuel assemblies does not directly affect the release of radioactive liquids from the plant. The contribution from the stored fuel assemblies of radioactive materials in the SFP water is minor relative to other sources of activity, such as the reactor coolant system and its associated sub-systems. The volume of SFP water processed for discharge is independent of the quantity of stored spent fuel assemblies. Therefore, the installation of the new fuel racks would not be expected to increase the amount of radioactive liquid wastes generated at the CNS. Overall, the staff concludes that during routine operations, there will be no significant increase in the amount of liquid radiological effluents released into the environment as a result of the proposed action. 5. Occupational Radiation Dose During normal operations, personnel working in the fuel storage area are exposed to low levels of radiation from the SFP. Operating experience across the nuclear industry has shown that area dose rates originate primarily from radionuclides in the pool water, not the fuel itself, which is well shielded. The radiological conditions in the SFP area are typically dominated by the most recent discharge of spent fuel. The radioactivity inventory available for release into the general area from the older spent fuel, including the fuel from the expanded storage, is expected to be insignificant in comparison to freshly discharged fuel. During refueling and other fuel movement activities, pool water concentrations of radionuclides might be expected to increase to a small degree. However, the installation of the new fuel storage racks is not expected to cause any detectable increase in airborne activities or changes in the general area dose rates which might impact personnel working in the area. All operations involved in the installation of the new fuel racks and the removal of any stored equipment or material from the SFP will be governed by plant procedures. The licensee's procedures incorporate the principle of keeping doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA), as required by NRC regulations. The licensee does not expect to use underwater divers for the installation of the new fuel racks. However, in the event that diving operations are needed, the licensee is prepared to use specialized procedures and underwater radiation monitoring equipment to provide constant oversight and control to ensure the health and safety of the diver. On the basis of our review of the CNS proposed expansion of the SFP storage capacity, the NRC staff concludes that the SFP work can be performed in a manner that will ensure that doses to the workers and the public, as well as the discharge of radioactive solid, gaseous, and liquid into the environment will be maintained within NRC regulations and standards. Therefore, there are no significant radiological impacts associated with the proposed action. 6. Postulated Accident Considerations The proposed modification increases the SFP storage capacity, but it does not change the method for handling spent fuel assemblies. The proposed expansion of the SFP will not affect any of the assumptions or inputs used in evaluating the dose consequences of a fuel handling accident and, therefore, will not result in an increase in the doses from the previously analyzed postulated fuel handling accident. In summary, the staff has evaluated the proposed action and concludes that it does not increase the probability or consequences of a postulated accident. 7. Non-Radiological Impact The proposed amendment to the current operating license of CNS does not modify land use at the site; no new facilities or laydown areas are needed to support the rerack or operation after rerack; therefore, the proposed amendment does not affect land use or land with historical or archeological sites. With regard to potential non-radiological environmental impacts, the proposed action does not result in any significant changes to land use or water use, or result in any significant changes to the quality or quantity of effluents. The proposed action does not affect non- radiological plant effluents, and no changes to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to endangered or threatened species, or to the habitats of endangered or threatened species are expected. The proposed action will not change the method of generating electricity or the method of handling any influents from the environment or non-radiological effluents to the environment. Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action. 8. Summary The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of radioactive effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational or public exposure. Accordingly, the staff concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental [[Page 50990]] impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action involves features located entirely within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and is not expected to have any other environmental impact. Accordingly, the staff concludes that there are no significant non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Action 1. Shipping Fuel to a Permanent Fuel Storage/Disposal Facility Shipping of spent fuel to a high-level radioactive storage facility is an alternative to increasing onsite spent fuel storage capacity. The Department of Energy (DOE) has identified Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the single candidate site for characterization as a potential geologic repository for high-level radioactive waste. However, this repository is not expected to begin receiving spent fuel until approximately 2025, provided that the DOE receives a license from the NRC. DOE plans to submit its license application for the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada, repository to the NRC in June 2008. Therefore, shipping spent fuel to the DOE repository is not considered an alternative to increased onsite spent fuel storage capacity at this time. 2. Shipping Fuel to a Reprocessing Facility Reprocessing of spent fuel from CNS is not a viable alternative since there are no operating commercial reprocessing facilities in the United States. Therefore, spent fuel would have to be shipped to an overseas facility for reprocessing. However, this approach has never been used and would require approval by the Department of State as well as other entities. Additionally, the cost of spent fuel reprocessing is not offset by the current salvage value of the residual uranium; reprocessing would represent an added cost. 3. Shipping Fuel to Another Utility or SFP Site for Storage The shipment of fuel to another utility's SFP for storage could provide short-term relief from the storage problem at CNS. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and 10 CFR Part 53, however, clearly place the responsibility for the interim storage of spent fuel with each owner or operator of a nuclear plant. SFPs at other nuclear stations have been designed with the capacity to accommodate each of those units and, therefore, transferring spent fuel from CNS to these pools would eventually create fuel storage capacity problems at those stations. The shipment of fuel to another site is not an acceptable alternative because of increased fuel handling risks and additional occupational radiation exposure, as well as the fact that no additional storage capacity would be created. 4. Alternative Creation of Additional Storage Capacity Alternative technologies that would create additional storage capacity include rod consolidation, new SFP construction, dry cask storage, and modular vault dry storage. Rod consolidation involves disassembling the spent fuel assemblies and storing the fuel rods from two or more assemblies in a stainless steel canister that can be stored in the spent fuel racks. Industry experience with rod consolidation is currently limited, primarily due to concerns for potential gap activity release due to rod breakage, the potential for increased fuel cladding corrosion due to some of the protective oxide layers being scraped off, and concern that the prolonged consolidation activity could interfere with ongoing plant operations. Dry cask storage is a method of transferring spent fuel, after storage in the pool for several years, to high-capacity casks with passive-heat dissipation features. After loading, the casks are stored outdoors on a seismically qualified concrete pad. The casks provide housing for the spent fuel in shielded steel cylinders in a horizontal configuration within a reinforced concrete vault. The concrete vault provides missile and earthquake protection and radiation shielding. Though CNS is in the process of evaluating dry cask storage as a long- term storage option, it is not an alternative for resolving the current need for full-core offload capability due to the long lead time for an NRC license, time requirements for site preparation and construction, and the limited production of the dry casks used for storage. For these reasons, dry cask storage is not the licensee's preferred short-term method of storage. 5. Reduction of Spent Fuel Generation Generally, improved usage of the fuel and/or operation at a reduced power level would be an alternative that would decrease the amount of fuel being stored in the pool and thus increase the amount of time before full-core offload capacity is lost. With extended burnup of fuel assemblies, the fuel cycle would be extended and fewer offloads would be necessary. This is not an alternative for resolving the loss of full-core offload capacity that occurred as a result of the CNS refueling outage in January of 2005, because the spent fuel transferred to the pool for storage during this outage eliminated the licensee's ability to conduct a full-core offload. Operating the plant at a reduced power level would not make effective use of available resources, and would cause unnecessary economic hardship on the licensee and its customers. Therefore, reducing the amount of spent fuel generated by increasing burnup further or reducing power is not considered a practical alternative. 6. The No-Action Alternative As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the amendment request would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed amendment and this alternative are similar. Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Cooper Nuclear Station Final Environmental Impact Statement dated February 1973. Agencies and Persons Contacted In accordance with its stated policy, on August 27, 2007, the staff consulted with the Nebraska State official, Ms. J. Schmitt of the Nebraska Department of HHS Regulation and Licensure, Office of Radiological Health, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated October 17, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated February 7, April 17, May 4, and July 26, 2007. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide [[Page 50991]] Document Access and Management System (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 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of August, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Carl F. Lyon, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-17500 Filed 9-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 19 Reuters: Finnish Olkiluoto reactor back in operation Wed Sep 5, 2007 6:11AM BST HELSINKI, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Finnish utility TVO said on Wednesday it had restarted the Olkiluoto 2 nuclear reactor overnight after it was shut down early on Tuesday due to a malfunction. The 840-megawatt reactor had been reconnected to the power grid at about 4.30 a.m. local time (0130 GMT), a day after it was stopped due to a valve malfunction in the generator's cooling system. "It has been restarted and is running at about 80 percent capacity. We are ramping it up and it should reach full production later today," Olkiluoto operations head Reijo Sundell told Reuters, adding that the repairs and restart had gone as planned. The temporary shut down lifted Nordic spot power prices to five-month highs on Tuesday. Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) is owned by Finnish utility Fortum (FUM1V.HE: Quote, Profile, Research) and Pohjolan Voima, a consortium of Finnish forestry and energy firms. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 Reuters: Romania government approves energy sector revamp Wed Sep 5, 2007 7:19PM BST By Luiza Ilie BUCHAREST, Sept 5 (Reuters) - Romania's government on Wednesday approved a long-term energy strategy that sets up an integrated electricity holding company and envisages investment of about 35 billion euros ($48 billion) in the sector. Finance and Economy Minister Varujan Vosganian said the state will hold 25 to 40 percent of the company, which would pull together state-owned power transporters, distributors and producers from the nuclear, thermal and hydro sectors. A 20 percent stake will belong to investment fund Fondul Proprietatea, set up to compensate Romanians whose properties were seized under communism, with the rest of the shares to be gradually listed on the Bucharest stock exchange. "Such a company in the future will be a private company," Vosganian told Reuters in an interview after the government meeting. More details about the company, which Prime Minister Calin Tariceanu likened to Czech giant CEZ (CEZPsp.PR: Quote, Profile, Research) or Italy's Enel (ENEI.MI: Quote, Profile, Research), will be announced within 30 days. Meanwhile, some of Romania's previously announced energy privatisation plans, such as the sale of the three remaining units of state power distributor Electrica, are now awaiting a decision concerning the holding's structure, Vosganian said. The government's strategy aims to increase efficiency, continue the restructuring process, seek private partnerships, boost renewable energy, diversify import sources and transport routes, modernise lines and protect critical infrastructure. Vosganian said European Union newcomer Romania could become an important electricity exporter in the region by 2020, as the strategy envisages doubling the country's power output to around 100 TWh by 2020, more than estimated domestic consumption. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 Bangkok Post: B200m will go to nuclear PR ;> Thursday September 06, 2007 ENERGY / PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS YUTHANA PRAIWAN Despite safety concerns among the public, the Energy Ministry has decided to move forward with the plan to build the country's first nuclear power stations and aims to open the first plant in 2021. A budget of 200 million baht will be allocated to public relations over the next three years in an attempt to win public support for nuclear power, according to Supin Panyarak, who chairs a communication sub-committee for the programme. The proposal was discussed yesterday at a meeting of a new nuclear power infrastructure committee chaired by Dr Kopr Kritayakirana, who serves as an adviser to the Science and Technology minister. Authorities will also conduct a feasibility study, power system planning and a site survey with the process scheduled to be finished in 2010. The pre-project budget has not been decided yet. The committee contends that nuclear power is a clean and cheap method of electricity generation, compared to natural gas, oil, hydropower and coal. However, Mr Supin acknowledged that significant challenges remain. ''Obtaining public approval is the hardest task. ... If the majority of the country is still afraid of the drastic impact of a nuclear explosion, we can't move forward,'' he said. ''What we really need to do is eliminate the terrible image of the Chernobyl explosion case. Most people do not understand the benefits of [atomic energy], they only talk about its deep impact in case of error.'' Under the nuclear infrastructure preparation plan, after the decision is made, the site selection and pre-construction process would proceed from 2010 to 2015 and construction would begin in 2015. Mr Supin said that every process from pre-project to production start-up required approval from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the central intergovernmental agency for scientific co-operation in the nuclear field. He said the country's Atomic Energy for Peace Act would also need to be amended to allow the Office of Atomic Energy for Peace to effectively regulate nuclear power in compliance with IAEA safety requirements, which state that a regulator must monitor the project at all stages. The existing act only permits the office to govern the usage of nuclear applications in food processing and medicine. Thailand has had a small research reactor for more than three decades. The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) has already released more than 100,000 copies of a comic book to students nationwide as part of its campaign to increase awareness of nuclear energy. © Copyright The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd. 2007 ***************************************************************** 22 NZ Herald: NZ isolated over nuclear energy The New Zealand Herald:nzherald.co.nz Thursday September 06, 2007 SYDNEY - New Zealand is resisting a push by Australia and the United States for nuclear power as the answer to global warming. Ministerial meetings of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (Apec) have been dominated by climate change policy, but New Zealand has found itself on a different side of the table from the US and Australia. New Zealand wants countries to set specific targets to reduce greenhouse gases, while Australian Prime Minister John Howard is trying to get all 21 Apec members to commit to more general goals as leaders get ready to debate the issue over the weekend. US President George Bush also believes that nuclear power is the key to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. "If you truly care about greenhouse gases then you'll support nuclear power," he said. "If you believe that greenhouse gases are a problem ... if you take the issue seriously like I do and John (Howard) does then you should be supportive of nuclear power." New Zealand has a ban on all nuclear power and Foreign Minister Winston Peters said this was not going to change. Advertisement Advertisement The push for greater uptake of nuclear power was "part of the discussion, but whether it was part of the solution was a totally different matter", Mr Peters said. It was not a surprise different countries held different views and they were perfectly entitled to. Trade and Disarmament Minister Phil Goff said while nuclear power would reduce emissions it would also "cause other concerns", among them waste disposal, safety issues and the creation of terrorist targets. "These are concerns that should be addressed," Mr Goff said. Other countries would make their own decisions in the end, but New Zealand would prefer a greater reliance on sustainable energy sources. As of June 2006, there were 441 nuclear power reactors in operation in 30 countries, mainly centred in Europe and North America. They total supply about 16 per cent of the world's electricity. But both China and India are investing heavily in nuclear power generation to meet the needs of their rapidly industrialising countries. China is building three nuclear reactors but wants to increase its generation five-fold in 15 years. India is building eight reactors but wants to see a ten-fold increase in nuclear capacity by 2022. In a speech last year, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency Dr Mohamed El Baradei said that nuclear power generation is expected to increase 75 per cent in the next 20 years. He said it was being driven by: - demand for cheap electricity in developing countries - the improved safety record of the nuclear power industry after the Chernobyl accident in 1986 - the growing green movement around the world, since nuclear power has less impact than fossil fuels - the desire of countries to be independent for their electricity needs, spurred by the oil shocks of the 1970s and instability in the Middle East where most oil is found. - NZPA, NZ HERALD STAFF Copyright ©2007, APN Holdings NZ Limited ***************************************************************** 23 MHNN: Entergy tests new Indian Point sirens September 5, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide News Network, Inc. Buchanan – Entergy Nuclear will perform daily multiple “silent” tests of the new Indian Point emergency alert system. The tests will occur in the morning and afternoon on Thursday, September 6; Friday, September 7; Monday, September 10, Tuesday, September 11; and Monday, September 17. During the silent tests, the public may hear the new sirens pop with some static, similar to tuning a radio. Entergy is performing the additional tests at the suggestion of FEMA to obtain extra data on siren performance and communications to the sirens. No response on the part of the public is necessary during the tests. Entergy was supposed to have the new system up and running by August 24, but missed the mark when FEMA said it wanted more information before approving the system and Entergy told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that could take 45 to 90 days. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 24 NAM: Make Reality a Starting Point for Debating Energy September 5, 2007 Included in a Washington Post article Tuesday on the difficulties being faced by the coal industry were these paragraphs about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV):In late July, Reid (D-Nev.) sent a letter to the chief executives of four power companies in which he vowed to "use every means at my disposal" to stop their plans to build three coal-fired plants in Nevada. Last month, after a speech in Reno, Reid said he was opposed to new coal-fired plants anywhere. "There's not a coal-fired plant in America that's clean. They're all dirty," Reid told reporters after speaking at a conference on renewable energy. He said that the United States should turn to wind, solar and geothermal power in an effort to slow climate change. "Unless we do something quickly about global warming, we're in trouble," he said.Nuclear power is notably absent from the Majority Leader's energy prescription, as the Yucca Mountain repository is the bęte noire of almost all Nevada politicians. So the United States should turn to wind, solar and geothermal? Fine, except the odds of those energy sources being adequate to power a growing economy are....well, astronomical would be kind.Despite the rapid growth projected for biofuels and other non-hydroelectric renewable energy sources and the expectation that orders will be placed for new nuclear power plants for the first time in more than 25 years, oil, coal, and natural gas still are projected to provide roughly the same 86-percent share of the to-tal U.S. primary energy supply in 2030 that they did in 2005 (assuming no changes in existing laws and regulations). The expected rapid growth in the use of biofuels and other nonhydropower renewable energy sources begins from a very low current share of total energy use; hydroelectric power production, which accounts for the bulk of current renewable electricity supply, is nearly stagnant; and the share of total electricity supplied from nuclear power falls despite the projected new plant builds, which more than offset retirements, because the overall market for electricity continues to expand rapidly in the projection.That's from the federal Energy Information Administration's 2007 Energy Outlook. Given current technology, the only possible way to achieve Senator Reid's recommendations is for the economy to stop growing, or rather, to shrink dramatically. And save for some of the more purist environmental groups, anti-growth activists and organized misanthropes, few would welcome a Great Depression II. The NAM welcomes policies to promote conservation, energy efficiency and the development of alternative fuels, renewable energy and advanced technologies. But the debate about energy policy needs to start on the basis of what’s realistically achievable. Posted by Carter Wood at September 5, 2007 7:33 AM © 2007 National Assocation of Manufacturers 1331 Pennslyvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-1790 Phone: (202) 637-3000 Fax: (202) 637-3182 E-mail: manufacturing@nam.org The NAM does not release customer information to third parties except in conjunction with NAM-sponsored programs. ***************************************************************** 25 NRC: NRC Meeting September 18 in Apex, N.C., to Discuss Review Process for Expected New Reactor Application News Release - 2007-114 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct a public meeting in Apex, N.C., on Tuesday, Sept. 18, to discuss how the agency will review an expected Combined License (COL) application for new reactors at the Shearon Harris site, about 20 miles southwest of Raleigh. The prospective applicant, Progess Energy, has told the NRC it intends to apply in a few months for a license to build and operate two AP1000 reactors at Harris. “The NRC’s expecting several applications before the end of this year, and as we review them we’ll be looking for valuable input from nearby communities,” said William Borchardt, Director of the NRC’s Office of New Reactors. “This meeting will help residents understand and contribute to the process.” The meeting will be held at New Horizons Fellowship, 820 E. Williams St. in Apex, from 7 p.m. until 9 p.m. NRC staff presentations will describe the overall Combined License review process, which includes safety and environmental assessments, as well as how the public can participate in the process. The NRC will host an open house for an hour prior to the meeting so members of the public have the opportunity to talk informally with agency staff. A COL, if issued, is authorization from the NRC to construct and, with conditions, operate a nuclear power plant at a specific site and in accordance with laws and regulations. More information on the NRC’s new reactor licensing process is available on the agency’s Web site here: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactor-licensing.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. September 05, 2007 ***************************************************************** 26 MySA.com: CPS Energy taking a hard look at nuclear Web Posted: 09/04/2007 08:25 PM CDT Vicki Vaughan Express-News Business Writer Nuclear power, out of favor since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979, is poised for resurgence, industry experts say. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has put the nuclear licensing process on a fast track, and utilities including San Antonio's CPS Energy may decide to take advantage of the change. Last week, the staff at CPS Energy said they believe nuclear power is the answer to an expected power crunch that could hit the city as soon as 2016. The staff is asking the board to spend the money to take a hard look at investing in more nuclear power, which now supplies about one-third of the city's electricity each year. Completing a nuclear reactor by 2016 "I think is realistic," said Mike Kotara, executive vice president for energy development, because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has rolled the construction permit and the operating permit application into one. Texas now has two nuclear power plants — the South Texas Project in Bay City, of which San Antonio's CPS Energy owns 40 percent, and Comanche Peak, southwest of Fort Worth. New Jersey-based NRG Energy Inc. has said it wants to double the size of the South Texas Project, citing incentives included in the 2005 federal energy legislation. The two units at the South Texas Project began operating in 1988 and 1989 and produce enough electricity to power 1 million homes. In addition, Exelon Corp., the nation's largest operator of nuclear power plants, said last month that it's considering building a $4 billion plant in Texas. The Chicago-based company is eyeing two sites near the Texas Coast, one near the South Texas Project in Matagorda County and a second location south of Victoria. "We've talked with Exelon, with TXU (Corp.) and of course NRG," Kotara said. If CPS decides to build a nuclear reactor, "we would want a partner," he said. Kotara said things have changed since the Three Mile Island disaster in March 1979. Then, the NRC required some plants to make substantial changes before it would issue a permit to operate. "In some cases, some plants had to be literally taken apart and redone," Kotara said. The last nuclear plant was licensed in 1978, a year before Three Mile Island. The last time a new nuclear plant came on line was June 1996, when the Tennessee Valley Authority started its Watts Bar Unit 1 in Spring Hill, Tenn. Critics say the unit took more than 20 years to build at a cost of $5.2 billion. But Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the plant was put on hold because the TVA didn't think it needed the power. "It didn't take 26 years to build," he said. CPS could complete a new nuclear unit in eight or nine years because the industry is using designs pre-certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "It's not like the '70s," Kotara said, "when every plant was a unique version." In addition, the construction of nuclear reactors has advanced, allowing plants to be built in 36 to 48 months, Kotara said. "The best design is a one-piece nuclear reactor," Kotara said. "There's one place in the world that makes the one-piece design, and that's Japan Steel Works Ltd. Getting an order placed with Japan Steel Works is critical." But if the CPS board decides to build a new nuclear reactor, the utility can expect opposition from some consumer groups who say nuclear power isn't the answer to the growing demand for electricity. "We're opposed to new nuclear generation because it's costly to build the plant and because we don't know what to do with nuclear waste yet," said Beth O'Brien, clean energy organizer at Public Citizen's Texas office. "We shouldn't be producing more nuclear waste until we deal with the waste we already have." In addition, Public Citizen believes security is inadequate at nuclear plants and waste repositories, and "terrorists could take advantage of that," O'Brien said. Kotara stressed that CPS remains committed to using a range of fuels at its generating plants. The utility is building a coal-fired plant at Calaveras Lake that will be online in 2010. Beyond that, though, Kotara believes nuclear power presents the lowest cost and business risk. That's because it's likely that the government will institute stiffer environmental rules that would make using coal more expensive, he said. Investing in nuclear power is risky because "you need some guarantees up front that the rules won't change again," said Kenneth Medlock III, a fellow in energy studies at Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy. "It can take 10 years to get one of these things planned and operating, and 10 years is an eternity in politics." At the same time, CPS doesn't want to be too dependent on natural gas. While relatively inexpensive now at about $5 to $6 per thousand cubic foot, the fuel's price has zoomed over $20 per thousand cubic foot as recently as 2003. But for now, "we're not at a go or no-go on nuclear," Kotara said. "We need to spend some money to decide whether nuclear is worthy to build." vvaughan@express-news.net About Us: MySanAntonio.com | Express-News | KENS 5 Portions © 2007 KENS 5 and the San Antonio Express-News. ***************************************************************** 27 Bloomberg.com: Nuclear Bid to Rival Coal Chilled by Flaws, Delay in Finland http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aFh1ySJ.lYQc&refer=home By Alan Katz Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Martin Landtman hunches forward in his shirtsleeves as a June storm on Finland's Baltic coast drenches the construction site of the world's most powerful nuclear reactor. As project manager for TVO, the joint venture buying the plant, Landtman has weathered far worse annoyances than rain. Flawed welds for the reactor's steel liner, unusable water- coolant pipes and suspect concrete in the foundation already have pushed back the delivery date of the Olkiluoto-3 unit by at least two years. ``Substantial delays, I think you can use that word, yes,'' the 54-year-old Landtman says. Olkiluoto-3, the first nuclear plant ordered in Western Europe since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, is also more than 25 percent over its 3 billion-euro ($4 billion) budget. If Finland's experience is any guide, the ``nuclear renaissance'' touted by the global atomic power industry as an economically viable alternative to coal and natural gas may not offer much progress from a generation ago, when schedule and budgetary overruns for new reactors cost investors billions of dollars. The U.K.'s Sizewell-B plant, which took nearly 15 years from the application to build it to completion, opened in 1995 and cost about 2.5 billion pounds ($5.1 billion), up from a 1987 estimate of 1.7 billion pounds. Parity With Coal Today at Olkiluoto-3, a behemoth whose excavation site covers the equivalent of 55 soccer fields, the pressure is on the group led by France's Areva SA that's building the reactor. At stake is much more than Areva's bottom line or the cost of electricity crackling out from Finland's coast. As the ownership of utilities around the world has shifted from state to private hands, the delivery of new reactors on time and on budget has become critical. Keeping construction costs in check is a vital ingredient in nuclear power's drive for economic parity with coal and natural gas generation. A new U.S. atomic plant could be 30 percent to 50 percent more expensive to build than a coal-fired plant of the same size, and the margin widens for natural gas, which is the cheapest option. Nuclear power's costs balloon partly because plants must be built to more exacting safety standards and stand up to more stringent oversight, leading to lost time and extra expense. ``In nuclear you must be able to do the testing and you must be able to verify that you have made every step according to the specs,'' says Timo Kallio, who heads civil works for TVO. Investors Think Twice Proponents of nuclear power argue that the higher cost to build is balanced by lower fuel costs. Still, after accounting for construction, fuel, operation, maintenance and transmission costs, electricity from a new U.S. nuclear plant in 2015 would be 15 percent more expensive over the reactor's life than natural gas and 13 percent more than coal, according to 2007 estimates by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. ``The nuclear industry has put forward very optimistic construction cost estimates, but there is no experience that comes even close to backing them up,'' says Paul Joskow, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. Some investors already are treading cautiously, even amid rising demand for electricity. ``You have to go in with your eyes wide open,'' says Robin Kendall, director of project finance at Societe Generale in Paris, which is among the banks that lent 1.95 billion euros to TVO for the Finland reactor. It's looking into providing loans for nuclear projects in Europe and Asia. After a 23-year career in shipyards, Landtman started overseeing the Olkiluoto-3 European pressurized water reactor, or EPR, in 2003. Lumpy Concrete The first big jolt came in October 2005 during the installation of the reactor's base slab. It was supposed to take five days to pour 12,000 cubic meters of concrete. ``An hour after it started, our supervisors saw that something was wrong,'' Landtman says. ``It was first too lumpy then it was fine. It wasn't consistent.'' Autumn rain had soaked the crushed stone aggregate used to make the concrete. The pour had been intended for sunny May, says TVO's Kallio. Instead, the sacks sat unprotected while Areva worked to complete detailed base designs and get them approved. The delay meant that the water content in the mixed concrete exceeded levels allowed by Finnish nuclear regulators. Areva then had to test concrete already poured to make sure it met requirements. No more was poured in the nuclear section of the plant until April 2006, Kallio says. Dormant Industry One Areva official points to a nagging issue for reactor builders: inexperienced contractors working for an industry that has been dormant in much of Europe and the U.S. for 20 years. ``Local contractors did not have the breadth of operations expected or needed to carry out such a big project,'' says Ray Ganthner, senior vice president for new plant deployment at Areva NP Inc., a U.S. unit based in Lynchburg, Virginia. Reactor builder Areva NP itself is 66 percent owned by Areva and 34 percent owned by Germany's Siemens AG. Siemens is part of the group building Olkiluoto-3. Landtman learned the same lesson. ``It has taken a lot longer for industry to adapt to this business than we had anticipated,'' he says. Still, he says, there is nothing to do but push on: ``Now, we are trying to complete this as fast as possible.'' It comes down to a series of seemingly mundane tasks, from pouring concrete to using a broom handle to scrape metal shavings from a coolant tube. Without perfect execution, components will fail regulators' inspections. Breaking New Ground Areva executives say delays are to be expected for such a huge project, especially when it's the first of a kind. Areva is in talks to sell two reactors to China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group Co. It already has an order from Electricite de France SA, Europe's largest electricity utility, and expects to have 35 of its latest reactors operating around the world in 2020. ``When you build the first in a series, there is inevitably a certain number of costs that you discover, and when you have delays, your people stay in place, so your costs go up,'' says Luc Oursel, chief executive officer of Areva NP, the reactor- building unit. Areva's investment certificates, nonvoting shares that represent about 4 percent of capital, are up 28 percent this year at 720.12 euros and have nearly quadrupled over the past four years. The French government and state-controlled entities own 93 percent of Areva. `Not for Bureaucrats' Oursel, a former French industry ministry official, joined Areva from freight and logistics company Geodis SA in January, shortly after the Finland project manager was replaced. He and Philippe Knoche, who was put in charge of the project for Areva last December, visited the snow-covered site early this year. ``What you need to do is listen to the people who are on the worksite,'' Oursel says. ``It's all on the ground that it happens. This is not for bureaucrats.'' He also visited officials of TVO, whose owners include Fortum Oyj, Finland's biggest utility, and paper makers Stora Enso Oyj and UPM-Kymmene Oyj. Landtman's office is down the road from two boiling-water reactors built at Olkiluoto in the 1970s. A digital display showed their output at 844 and 852 megawatts. At 1,600 megawatts, Olkiluoto-3 will be about twice as large. The construction snags haven't shaken the Finn's belief in nuclear power. Kyoto Treaty ``We need this single power plant in Finland to meet Kyoto requirements,'' Landtman says, referring to the international treaty that limits greenhouse gas emissions. ``One plant cuts the equivalent emissions of all the transport in Finland. If someone says this is minor, then I don't understand what they are talking about. To cope without nuclear? We don't think we can make it in this country.'' As if to prove his point, the blades of an experimental one- megawatt windmill spin overhead. It operates about 2,200 hours per year, compared with 8,600 hours for the two operating nuclear reactors. At that rate, it would take about 6,000 windmills to generate electricity equal to the new EPR reactor, says Hanna Scherger, a spokeswoman for Repower Systems AG, a German wind-power company. Getting the newest reactor fired up has been a slog. Landtman endured headaches through 2006 as a new forging method for the eight stainless steel pipes that will make up the main water coolant line failed tests at a plant in Le Creusot, France, that is owned by Areva's Sfarsteel unit. Lattice of Atoms In December, Areva told TVO it would have to redo the pipes because the steel grain, the crystal lattice of atoms that makes up the metal tube, formed areas the same size as holes workers search for to ensure strength and longevity. That made it impossible to use ultrasound to check the tubes' viability. The ability to test regularly over the reactor's 60-year life is crucial because the coolant lines carry radioactive water. On a bright July day, Eric Marlois, a 46-year-old machine operator, jams the butt-end of his broom into a 4-inch-wide (10- centimeter) hole being drilled into an extruded stump in a coolant line. Lubricating water drips out, along with stainless steel shavings. ``The pressure is on,'' says the plant veteran of 28 years as he works on the hole, which will take eight hours to drill. ``This needs to be absolutely perfect because if there is the slightest defect it will be rejected.'' Sfarsteel produced all eight tubes before starting again using a different process that resulted in a smaller lattice structure, says Philippe Tollini, head of sales for heavy forgings at the unit. Injection of Capital Sfarsteel's inability to make ultrasound-ready tubes the first time was a factor in Areva's September 2006 purchase of the company from France Essor, he adds. ``Sfarsteel perhaps went a bit too far in its promises to Areva,'' Tollini says. ``Areva realized that they needed to make us stronger.'' Areva has invested about 27 million euros in Sfarsteel and bought three new ovens that can heat 650-ton steel cylinders to 1,300 degrees Celsius (2,372 Fahrenheit), turning them bright orange. About 30 people are being added to the 400-person workforce as the company tries to add capacity in anticipation of a surge in orders. Those investments already are having an effect, Tollini says. The forged parts for the EPR to be built for Electricite de France will be produced on time and should pass all safety tests, he says. Delays in China Areva hasn't been able to make up for lost time in Finland. Analysts estimated in July that the company had set aside about 700 million euros to cover extra costs. Areva Chief Executive Officer Anne Lauvergeon said on Aug. 31 that the company had added to its provisions. It has also spent about 500 million euros to rework designs to meet different electricity standards in the U.S. Areva's Finland EPR isn't the only nuclear project to run into delays. The June commercial startup of China's Tianwan project came more than two years later than planned. The Chinese regulator halted construction for almost a year on the first of two Russian-designed reactors while it examined welds in the steel liner for the reactor core, says Jacques Repussard, who follows global developments as head of France's radiation protection agency. In Taiwan, the Lungmen reactor project has fallen five years behind schedule. Difficulties include welds that failed inspections in 2002 and had to be redone, S.H. Liao, project manager for Taiwan Power Co., said in an e-mail. He also said the rising cost of steel, concrete and other commodities has gutted subcontractors' profits, causing them to stop work to renegotiate fixed-price contracts. `Rocky Road' In Finland, Landtman remains optimistic. ``I wouldn't say it's an unsolvable global problem,'' he says. ``The key element in all projects is planning, to have good planning.'' Landtman now says the reactor might be fully completed in 2011. The initial target was mid-2009. ``It's the physical reinforcement, the forming and the concrete pouring that they just aren't able to do fast enough,'' Landtman says. Construction is progressing not just on the reactor building but also on a water-pump building, a waste building, an auxiliary building, and two buildings to house backup diesel generators. ``The next four to six months are crucial,'' Kallio says. Areva said in a statement Aug. 10 that the plant's construction would take six years, rather than the four initially scheduled. ``We're clearly on a rocky road,'' Areva's Knoche said before the August announcement. ``We're building it for a 60-year life, it's our first one. Our target is not to break records in construction time. This is perfectly clear.'' To contact the reporter on this story: Alan Katz in Paris at akatz5@bloomberg.net . Last Updated: September 4, 2007 19:07 EDT BLOOMBERG | CAREERS | CONTACT US | LOG IN/REGISTER ***************************************************************** 28 Resource Investor: Nuclear energy may not be as economically viable as expected Resource Investor provides complete coverage on worldwide extractive industries. ResourceInvestor.com presents sector news, commentary, analysis, opinion and analytics with an unashamed investment focus - all in one place and package. Our publisher, Investor Resource Media, has a long commitment to reducing the cost of capital in the resource sector, and is now branching out to bring you Resource Investor. IRM's support will ensure optimum coverage, more in-depth stories, and maximum reach to the global investment community. Pitpundit Blog By Jane Louis 05 Sep 2007 at 02:57 PM According to a Bloomberg report, Finland’s problems with the building of its Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor - both financially and with the construction itself - show that nuclear energy may not be as cost efficient as originally thought. “Keeping construction costs in check is a vital ingredient in nuclear power's drive for economic parity with coal and natural gas generation. A new U.S. atomic plant could be 30% to 50% more expensive to build than a coal-fired plant of the same size, and the margin widens for natural gas, which is the cheapest option,” reported Bloomberg. Because of these issues, some investors are now thinking twice about joining the nuclear power sector, even as energy demand continues to rise. © Copyright 2007, Resource Investor. ***************************************************************** 29 NewsRoom Finland: Finland's Olkiluoto 2 reactor reconnected to grid 5.9.2007 at 12:08 Finnish utility Teollisuuden Voima (TVO) said in a statement Wednesday that its Olkiluoto 2 nuclear reactor had been restarted and connected back to the national grid after "inspections and necessary corrective measures". The unit was shut down Tuesday morning owing to a malfunction in the generator's cooling system. TVO stressed that the incident endangered neither the safety of the personnel nor the environment. /STT/ © Copyright STT 2007 © 1995 – 2005, Virtual Finland Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland Department for Communication and Culture/Unit for Promotion and Publications ***************************************************************** 30 Decatur Daily: Unit 1 shut down; should be back online Wednesday WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 By Eric Fleischauer eric@decaturdaily.com · 340-2435 A non-radioactive leak forced TVA to shut down Browns Ferry Unit 1 on Monday morning, but TVA was gradually returning the plant to full power Tuesday afternoon. Browns Ferry spokesman Jason Huffine said he expected the plant to reach 100 percent power Wednesday. The manual shutdown came after a leak in an electro-hydraulic control system. The system helps maintain the valve that controls the amount of steam going to the turbines, Huffine said. The turbines generate power. On May 24, Tennessee Valley Authority shut down Unit 1 for another electro-hydraulic leak. According to reports it filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time, the leak was about 60 drops per minute, but — in the course of repairs — more than 600 gallons of the fluid escaped. "The leak was minimal and contained within the system," Huffine said of Monday's incident. "There was no danger to the public or the environment." TVA shut the plant down at 2:14 a.m. Monday, according to a report it filed with the NRC. All three units were operating at full power before the leak. Units 2 and 3 remained at full power during the Unit 1 shutdown. Monday's shutdown was the fourth since the May 22 restart of Unit 1, which cost TVA $1.8 billion. TVA workers also had to reduce the power of all three plants for several days in mid-August because the intake water from the river, heated during the summer's heat wave, prevented them from operating within environmental regulations. TVA last month announced it would temporarily increase rates beginning Oct. 1 THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com www.decaturdaily.com ***************************************************************** 31 The Australian: Bush helps his 'mate of steel' NEWS.com.au Network Dennis Shanahan, Political Editor | September 05, 2007 GEORGE W.Bush has done everything he can to help his little mate of steel. Of course, an endorsement by an unpopular US President who is committed to keeping troops in Iraq and refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change may be of equivocal value. But the upbeat and feisty President didn't miss any opportunity after his meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday to praise Howard's leadership, strength of character, experience, or planning for the future. According to Bush, Howard was leading the way on climate change through fuel efficiency and including China in the negotiations, he was doing the right thing about helping Iraq and the US alliance and trade relationship had never been closer. This, said Bush, was helped by their close personal friendship. Keeping a much more even-handed approach to Kevin Rudd than he did to Mark Latham during the last election campaign, Bush said of course he could deal with Rudd and the ALP. But he didn't miss in setting a collision course with the Leader of the Opposition over keeping troops in Iraq and Labor's policy on climate change. Iraq and Afghanistan were the one war he said and to withdraw troops from Iraq, which Labor wants to do, was wrong and unthinkable. On climate change, Bush said the Kyoto protocol was not the way ahead on climate change, which Labor wants to ratify, and that nuclear energy had to be considered - which Labor opposes. Bush may not be popular but a big apology to Sydney over the congestion and three starkly different policy positions to Labor are as much as Bush can give Howard. Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +10). ***************************************************************** 32 Journal News: Uranium found; NRC considers penalizing Indian Point owner Wednesday, September 5, 2007 By MICHAEL RISINIT THE JOURNAL NEWS BUCHANAN - The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering penalizing the owner of the Indian Point nuclear power plants for not keeping track of tiny amounts of weapons-grade uranium 235. The commission said yesterday that it was weighing "whether to take enforcement action" against Entergy Nuclear Northeast for its missed inventory checks over the years. Specially trained contractors recently broke open a locked container at the plant thought to contain the missing uranium and found all the radioactive isotopes they expected to be there. "Most people (in the industry) didn't know the NRC wanted us to open locked boxes," Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said. "To me, it's a misunderstanding between the regulator and the nuclear plant owners who believed they were doing what was being asked of them by the NRC." The uranium was contained in 32 detectors that once measured the power of the on-site nuclear reactors. The 1-inch detector assemblies were stored in 1989. Considered "special nuclear material," federal regulators now require an updated inventory of such substances. The NRC in 2006 decided to review all of its 104 nuclear plant inventories by this summer. Plants have to account for all their nuclear material, almost all of which is spent fuel. The minute remainder is either new fuel, instrumentation calibration samples or these detectors. Entergy bought Indian Point in 2001 and is responsible for visually verifying all its inventories. Other nuclear plants have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines when detectors turned up missing. The Indian Point container, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said, had not been checked annually for at least five years. "(Entergy) believed that as long as the container was closed that was not necessary," Sheehan said. "In fact, the container would have needed a tamper-resistant seal in order not to be checked each year." Reach Michael Risinit at 845-228-2274 or mrisinit@lohud.com. Copyright © 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 33 Tennessean: Secret files of nuclear fuel plant released - Nashville, Tennessee - Wednesday, 09/05/07 - Tennessean.com The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has reversed a three-year secrecy policy and will make public hundreds of documents involving the troubled operations of a Tennessee nuclear fuel processing plant. The commission said Tuesday it has directed its staff to review and release some 1,900 documents kept secret under a veil of national security involving Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. in Erwin and BWX Technologies in Lynchburg, Va. Both plants supply fuel to the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet. Worried about releasing sensitive information, the NRC has withheld all documents about the two facilities since 2004, including a report on a potentially lethal spill of highly enriched uranium in 2006 at Erwin. The decision came after significant congressional pressure and outcry from environmentalists and residents near the Tennessee facility after the NRC revealed the uranium leak in April as part of the NRC's annual report to Congress. No one was injured when 9 gallons of highly enriched uranium spilled onto a floor at the privately held Nuclear Fuel Services plant on March 6, 2006. However, the NRC said the solution could have accumulated in such a way to cause an uncontrolled nuclear reaction. Copyright © 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 Daily Times: Radiation can be a bane: experts Leading News Resource of Pakistan September 06, 2007 Staff Report ISLAMABAD: Control and regulation of radiation as well as protecting people from radiation exposure is the prime objective of the Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority (PNRA). PNRA Inspections and Enforcements Director General Mehboob Ali said this while addressing participants of a one-day training workshop held at the Shifa International Hospital on Wednesday. Ali said, “X-ray is the major man-made source of radiation and apart from its productive use, risks are also attached with it if used unwisely and handled by untrained radiologists.” He said the X-ray room should be designed according to the PNRA standards. Delivering his inaugural speech, Shifa International Hospital Director Dr MH Qazi said the hospital was fighting so many diseases already and radiation hazard was another worry facing them. He said precautionary measures were the best way to avoid diseases caused by radiation exposure. Giving an example, he said before going for radiation treatment, a pregnant woman should tell her doctor about her condition in order to prevent her child from the harmful effects of radiations. He said neck cancer was found common among over-exposed workers and stressed the need for taking proper preventive measures before the procedures. The workshop included two presentations. PRNA Pr Medical Officer Dr Amina Bano spoke on the basics of radiation protection and protection of patients, while PRNA Sr Scientific Officer M Shahid spoke on radiation protection of staff, general public, and regulatory requirements. Amina Bano explained the types of exposure, effects of radiation and effective dose, while Shahid dealt with responsibilities of the people involved, including the management, and effects of radiation on public and ways to minimise them. Guidelines pertaining to general safety measures, operator’s safety, public safety and patient safety were handed over to the radiologists from various hospitals of the twin cities. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions ***************************************************************** 35 CampusProgress.org: Depleted Uranium, Increased Risk Weapons the Department of Defense claims are harmless have serious and lasting effects. By Perry O’Brien, Cornell University September 5, 2007 A soldier climbs out of the driver position in the M-1A1 Abrams main Battle Tank at Pennsylvania National Guard Training Site at Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa., Friday, Nov. 12, 1999. The tank has been upgraded with depleted uranium armor plate. (AP Photo/John S. Zeedick) Dreamworks’ summer blockbuster “Transformers” opened with the devastation of a U.S. military base at the hands of an evil space robot. Luckily, the movie depicted a special robot-killing weapon to defeat the evil robot: the sabot round. In fact, the sabot round is a very real weapon that has been used in both Iraq wars. But because of its dangerous health effects, the ongoing use of this weapon may constitute a war crime. The sabot round is nothing more than a lightweight frame containing a solid, two-foot-long dart made from depleted uranium, or DU. Forged from leftover nuclear metal ore waste, DU is incredibly dense, allowing it to penetrate most conventional armor, and it is used primarily to penetrate tanks. It’s also pyrophoric, which means the dart spontaneously ignites on contact with air, producing intense heat. A single DU sabot round will punch through a tank and engulf the interior in molten plasma. The resulting conflagration often burns hot enough to ignite the enemy vehicle’s ammunition and fuel, completely destroying it. For the Department of Defense, DU is cheap and readily available: The Cold War left the United States with about half a million tons of the stuff. The thing the DoD often doesn’t like to talk about is that depleted uranium is both radioactive and toxic, putting its use in violation of some basic tenets of the Geneva Conventions. Defenders of DU (mainly the United States and Britain) have argued that it’s perfectly safe to hold a sabot round in your hand. That’s probably true, but when a sabot round hits its target, much of the shell aerosolizes into a ceramic dust that can enter the soil. This dust contaminates food and water supplies and can be inhaled or absorbed into the body through open wounds. A variety of critics, including veterans’ organizations, independent researchers, and the European Parliament, have charged that this dust has created serious health problems for exposed soldiers and civilians. If it’s as toxic as they say, then the use of DU violates at least three international laws. The Hague Convention of 1907 prohibits the use of “poison or poisoned weapons,” and DU could fit that description. A recent study on rats shows that exposure to depleted uranium can cause damage to the central nervous system, kidneys, and reproductive systems. This latter effect has been cited by independent researchers as the cause of unusually high rates of infertility and birth defects in both Gulf War veterans and civilians in Iraq, where U.S. forces fired over 300 tons of DU ammunition. A 2005 study concluded that the risk to both groups from DU exposure was nominal, though the report admitted to “fairly large calculational uncertainties.” Ultimately, not enough research has been done on DU’s effect on human populations. Despite admitting that thousands of Gulf War veterans were exposed to the substance, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has tested fewer than 100. DU is a radioactive substance. The Defense Department points out that alpha waves emitted by DU are stopped by human skin. But on the battlefield a DU weapon can easily enter the body as dust or metal shrapnel. Under international law, this puts DU weapons like the sabot round into the same category with nuclear and chemical weapons that cause “indiscriminate destruction.” A 1990 report for the U.S. Army warned of the radiological dangers to soldiers and civilian populations posed by depleted uranium, but more recent reports funded by the DoD have contradicted these concerns. As in the case of DU’s toxicity, there simply isn’t enough conclusive human data to determine the radioactive threat posed by sabot rounds. It is significant, however, that Gulf War veterans have been found to be more likely to develop cancers of the bone, skin, and liver than other veterans. Even more alarming, Iraqi doctors have reported up to a five-fold increase in cancer rates among populations living near sites contaminated by depleted uranium. DU also has an environmental impact, since its half-life is about 4.5 billion years. UN teams found traces of DU in Bosnia seven years after the war there, and Iraq has hundreds of radioactive sites left over from the first Gulf War. This persistent contamination puts DU in violation of the Geneva Conventions prohibition on weapons that “cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.” Given the evidence linking DU exposure with numerous health problems, it is shameful that the United States continues to field such weapons without further research on their human impact. For the sake of our own soldiers, not to mention the citizens of countries such as Iraq, Americans should join the international community and call for an immediate moratorium on the use of all DU weapons. Perry O’Brien is a former U.S. Army Medic and a student at Cornell University. © Campus Progress, Center for American Progress 1333 H Street, NW, 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005 ***************************************************************** 36 NRC: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.; Establishment of Atomic Safety and Licensing Board FR Doc E7-17501 [Federal Register: September 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 171)] [Notices] [Page 50991] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05se07-77] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 70-143-CO; ASLBP No. 07-857-01-CO-BD01] Pursuant to delegation by the Commission dated December 29, 1972, published in the Federal Register, 37 FR 28,710 (1972), and the Commission's regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and 2.321, notice is hereby given that an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to preside over the following proceeding: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Special Nuclear Materials Facility (Confirmatory Order) This Board is being established in response to requests for hearing that were filed pursuant to a Notice of Publication of Confirmatory Order and Opportunity for Hearing (72 Fed. Reg. 41,528 (July 30, 2007)), regarding a Confirmatory Order issued to Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. (``NFS'') on February 21, 2007 that became immediately effective on the date of issuance. This proceeding arose from inspections and investigations at NSF by the NRC Staff that identified apparent violations for which escalated enforcement action was considered. The NRC Staff determined that its concerns regarding public health and safety could be resolved through confirmation of NFS's commitments as prescribed in the Confirmatory Order. Hearing requests have been submitted by: (1) Ken Silver, (2) R. Feher, (3) Linda Cataldo Modica on behalf of the Sierra Club, (4) Wanda Sue Kelley, (5) Barbara A. O'Neal, and (6) A. Christine Tipton. The Board is comprised of the following administrative judges: Lawrence G. McDade, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Richard F. Cole, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Dr. Peter S. Lam, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed with the administrative judges in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of August 2007. E. Roy Hawkens, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. E7-17501 Filed 9-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 37 asahi.com : Next Tokai quake could be massive 09/05/2007 BY TAKASHI SOEDA, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN The heavily populated Tokai region, which experts say is due for a major earthquake within 30 years, has experienced at least three "super" temblors of unimaginable destruction during the past 5,000 years, according to a study. Unlike so-called Tokai earthquakes that occur every 100 years or so, a "super" earthquake is one that causes dramatic change to the landscape through shifts in the Earth's crust. The envisaged Tokai quake, whose epicenter would be in the Bay of Suruga facing Shizuoka Prefecture, has an anticipated 87-percent likelihood of hitting by 2037, according to a government taskforce. It would be in the region of magnitude 8. But some seismologists say the coming quake could actually be a "super" jolt that occurs every millennium or so. If seismologists are correct in their assessment of risk, a "super" Tokai quake could cause crustal movement three times as big as that of an ordinary Tokai earthquake. Katsuhiko Ishibashi, a professor of seismology at Kobe University who theorized that a major, recurring earthquake is imminent in the region, called for additional preparedness. His hypothesis prompted the central government to draw up emergency measures to deal with such a disaster. "It is almost certain that a 'super' Tokai earthquake is far mightier than the Tokai quake that we have been anticipating," Ishibashi said. "The problem is that we are clueless as to its mechanism. "The next Tokai quake may be of this type and we need to be prepared for this." The findings were based on bore surveys conducted in the vicinity of Chubu Electric Power Co.'s Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant in Omaezaki, in the prefecture, in 2005 through this year. The findings were reported at a conference held in Kobe through Sunday of the Japan Association for Quaternary Research. The group is devoted to the study of geology and other disciplines over the past 2.6 million years. The bore surveys were led by a tam including Osamu Fujiwara, a researcher with the Active Fault Research Geological Survey of Japan at the Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, an independent administrative agency, and Kazuomi Hirakawa, a seismologist at Hokkaido University. The team drilled more than 10 meters at eight sites in an area about 2 kilometers east of the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant. The survey was done to find out crustal movements by dating fossilized plants and shells in the ancient sediment. The researchers confirmed that a Tokai earthquake has jolted the region periodically every 100 to 200 years for the past 8,000 years ago. They also found traces of much more powerful quakes that shook the region about 4,800 years ago, between 3,800 and 4,000 years ago and 2,400 years ago.(IHT/Asahi: September 5,2007) The Asahi Shimbun Asia Network * The Asahi Shimbun Company ***************************************************************** 38 Nevada Appeal: Judge gives Nevada a boost in its efforts to avoid nuke dump Opinion September 5, 2007, 4:01 AM If the federal government won't listen to Nevadans about Yucca Mountain, maybe they'll listen to U.S. District Court Judge Roger Hunt. The judge ruled the Department of Energy must comply with the state's water rules, which in effect shuts down the drilling operations the department has been conducting to gather evidence for the viability of the nuclear waste storage site. Hunt accurately characterized the department's attitude toward Yucca as "arrogant" in its single-minded pursuit of the project against mounting scientific evidence. Not only does the agency want to put the storage facility in a state where the majority of residents do not want it, but they want to use our water to make it happen. The judge's ruling sent a strong message, and one that may help wash away recent decisions by Gov. Jim Gibbons that seemed to offer support to the Energy Department. In one, he supported allowing DOE to use the states' water for an additional month, raising the ire of the state's Congressional delegation, and in another he appointed a Yucca supporter to the state's nuclear watchdog committee before quickly rescinding the decision after the subsequent outcry. But that's water under the bridge now, and it's just a waiting game to see what DOE will do next in its bid to foist this project on Nevada. In the meantime, there's good reason for outrage not only over the agency's, and the Bush Administration's, disrespect for state's rights, but over the continued waste of taxpayer dollars on the project. All contents © Copyright 2007 nevadaappeal.com Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701 ***************************************************************** 39 AU The Age: Australia stakes its claim to uranium enrichment - www.theage.com.au Katharine Murphy September 6, 2007 AUSTRALIA is reserving its right to enrich uranium in the future despite signing up to a controversial global partnership of nuclear players that aims to limit the number of nations producing enriched fuel. Australia has taken its first step towards joining the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) in a new bilateral nuclear collaboration agreement announced in Sydney by Prime Minister John Howard and US President George Bush. Australia's participation will be formalised at a meeting of nuclear officials in Vienna in mid-September, but the Government has made it clear it will sign up only on the basis that Australia does not take the world's nuclear waste and that it reserves its right to enrich yellowcake in the future. But green groups are warning that despite those poli- tical assurances, Australia is taking its first defining step towards becoming a nuclear waste dump for the rest of the world by joining the partnership. The Wilderness Society said yesterday the Government had already passed legislation clearing the way for radioactive waste to be brought from overseas. The Australian Conservation Foundation said joining the partnership would provoke suspicion in the region. Foundation spokesman Dave Sweeney said: "Australia's neighbours will be very concerned about Australia being a nuclear reactor developer and a nuclear weapons fuel exporter ? it will inflame existing regional insecurities." But in a sign of the Government's increasing political nervousness over its ambitions to develop nuclear energy, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer played down the idea that Australia would enrich uranium. He also said Australia had made it clear in all the discussions over its participation in the partnership that it would not take radioactive waste. "We won't agree to do that and we have always made that clear," he said. Mr Downer told reporters at Sydney's APEC summit that it would take considerable persuasion to convince countries such as the United States that Australia should develop a local nuclear fuel manufacturing industry. Uranium enrichment "would have to be commercially viable and I am advised that quite apart from having to work pretty hard to persuade the United States that Australia should enrich uranium ? it would take some persuading to convince other countries to feel comfortable with that", he said. "I'm not sure that (enrichment) would be commercially viable either. Quite apart from the political obstacles, I think there are a lot of commercial obstacles as well." But despite Mr Downer's efforts to play down the immediacy of enrichment, senior government officials confirmed that Australia reserved its right to develop an enrichment industry in the future. Mr Howard's nuclear agenda also won praise from Mr Bush. "If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us, if we take the issue seriously, if you take the issue seriously, like I do and John does, then you should be supportive of nuclear power," he said. But Wilderness Society acting director Virginia Young said Mr Howard had taken the first step towards an international nuclear waste dump in Australia. "The entire purpose of GNEP is for countries to take back nuclear waste," she said. "It is simply not believable for the Government to claim that we could join GNEP but rule out an international nuclear waste dump. "The United States desperately needs somewhere to put their nuclear waste after public opposition stopped their proposed dump at Yucca Mountain. "The Australian Government has already rushed through legislation that for the first time allows Australia to import radioactive waste." Copyright © 2007. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 40 Platts: Uranium spot price falls to $85/pound on US DOE auction results 007-4S Washington (Platts)--4Sep2007 The spot market price of uranium continued its downward plunge to $85 a pound U3O8, price reporting company TradeTech said in its latest market review. TradeTech's price at the end of July was $123/lb. The decline was due primarily to reports of various winning bids in a recent auction of eight lots of uranium by the US Department of Energy. It its believed that one winning bid -- by US utility Exelon for a small lot of some 20,000 lb U3O8 equivalent -- went for a price that analysts evaluated as being around $60/pound. DOE, which has declined to release the details of its auction, said on its web site that it expects to release information by September 28 identifying winning bidders, the amount of uranium purchased and the average price paid. TradeTech said it believes the largest DOE lot -- about 260,000 pounds of U3O8 equivalent -- went for an evaluated price just below $85/pound. But the company said that by the end of August, the price may have rebounded slightly with one deal reported involving 150,000 lb U3O8 at a price "very near" $85/lb. --Mike Knapik, newsdesk@platts.com Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 41 ReviewJournal.com: Nevada wins battle in war over Yucca Sep. 05, 2007 Federal judge denies DOE motion By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Nevada has won a significant battle in its 20-year war with the federal government over the Department of Energy's plans to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The victory came in a decision late Friday by U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt to deny Justice Department attorneys an emergency motion. The motion was aimed at blocking the state engineer's order that DOE stop using Nevada's water for drilling boreholes near the mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Hunt's 24-page ruling criticized the attorneys representing DOE as being arrogant and unreasonable and, above all, for violating a court-approved agreement on use of the state's water at Yucca Mountain. State officials were beaming Monday when they learned of Hunt's decision and said it will preclude DOE from collecting data that Yucca Mountain Project officials have said is crucial to submitting a complete license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for constructing a repository. "We're obviously pleased with his decision, and he's very knowledgeable of what's going on with the state law and the federal law," said Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects and a long-time opponent of what Nevada politicians refer to as "the dump. Added Marta Adams, the senior deputy attorney general who represented Loux in the case: "These guys have no mandate to do borehole drilling. They're just arrogant." "This is going to be tricky for them to appeal and they have some real public relations issues here," Adams said. Allen Benson, an Energy Department spokesman in Las Vegas for the Yucca Mountain Project, wouldn't comment as to whether borehole drilling operations were in progress Tuesday. "We have just received the court order and we're reading it now and we'll determine the path forward," Benson said. Subcontractors for the Yucca Mountain Project have been using water from nearby wells to drill what project officials have said will be 80 boreholes if drilling continued through November. That is up from DOE's original estimate that only 15 boreholes would be needed for "geotechnical" work to ensure that surface facilities where spent nuclear fuel assemblies would be handled and stored before entombing them in the mountain will be safe from earthquakes and floods. The water is used to cool and lubricate drill bits and to make mud for collecting rock samples. Adams said if she finds out that DOE continues to use the state's water for drilling boreholes "then we've certainly got to go in for a contempt order. I would expect they're going to comply," she said. "What is very crystal clear is the court vindicates the state's position and upholds they (DOE) should cease and desist," Adams said. Loux said he thinks the state engineer has authority to prohibit DOE from trucking water in from out of state or other sources in the state for work at Yucca Mountain. "You simply can't use water in this state without his approval period, no matter how you acquire it," Loux said. Hunt's order says that any perceived hardship that DOE encountered when State Engineer Tracy Taylor issued his cease-and-desist order June 1, then lifted it temporarily only to reinstate it on July 20, was "self-inflicted." "The state, on the other hand, faced the unauthorized use of its water, a violation of state water law, a violation of an agreement it entered in good faith, a violation of this court's order authorizing that agreement, and interference with its obligation to its citizens to enforce its laws and preserve its water," Hunt wrote. He further stated that "there has been no act by Congress which pre-empts Nevada's state water laws. ... The only public interest issue is whether state officials can be precluded from exercising their lawfully mandated duties, or whether a federal agency can run roughshod over a state's rights or interests without specific authority and mandate to do the precise activities it wishes to do." Hunt was not impressed by the way the water flap unfolded with DOE ultimately demanding to use 4 million gallons of water for drilling 44 boreholes with intentions of doubling each for "continuing site characterization work it hid from the court and from the state." Either the borehole work is "unreasonable and without demonstrable, legitimate purpose. ... Or, alternatively, it (the DOE) shows a complete lack of confidence in its ability to obtain a license from the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) because of weakness in its original scientific studies." Hunt agreed with the state's attorneys that DOE's scientific, site characterization work was supposed to have been completed at Yucca Mountain when then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham recommended the site to President Bush in 2002. "Either that is so, and this is not site characterization, or it would appear that the DOE misled Congress and the president in its application for approval of the site," Hunt wrote. "DOE attempts to deny that this is further site characterization. However, its own documents contradict that argument." Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto weighed in on the issue, saying in a statement, "In what Judge Hunt characterizes as 'arrogant,' DOE has not ... complied with Nevada water law or 'been forthcoming about its intentions for water use in the future.'" In Washington, Nevada lawmakers applauded the opinion as a blow for states' rights, and at the same time shining a light on DOE clumsiness in pursuing water for the Yucca project. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the federal government got the outcome it deserved. "Stealing water, misleading Congress, and ignoring court orders are par for the course for the Energy Department," he said in a statement. Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said the department's unauthorized water use "is one more blunder" in a history of Yucca Mountain missteps. Rep. Jon Porter, D-Nev., said DOE "has consistently played fast and loose with procedures" to speed the repository. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said the case "sends an unmistakable message to President Bush and his Republican allies that Nevada will fight any attempt in Congress to pass legislation that would authorize a full-blown water grab." A bill the Bush administration has proposed seeks to broaden DOE powers to obtain water over Nevada objections. But it has found no support in Congress this year. Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault contributed to this report. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote on September 05, 2007 08:36 PM: Looking past the water issue, I believe it's been brought to light that the DOE has been less than honest to Congress AND the people of Nevada about the site characterization work that SHOULD have been completed BEFORE they recommended the site as the only choice for a nuclear repository. The main issue is the fact that the DOE had NOT done its job and that the site characterization data had been falsified due to incomplete input. Bonni Smith wrote on September 05, 2007 11:39 AM: I can understand the state not wanting to let the DOE use state water to drill bore holes at Yucca Mountain, but it the DOE chooses to truck water in from someplace else, even if it is from out of state, then I don't see the state saying they can't use their own water supply. To tell them that the state has control over all water, even that trucked in from out of state, is a little ridiculous. Come, grow up already! DANNY wrote on September 05, 2007 10:33 AM: News Flash, the Federal Government is arrogant! Every court in the country could begin every government case by taking judicial notice of the Fed's arrogance. Good for Nevada standing up to them and not buying into another patriotic argument like safe above ground nucear testing. sherrylsvgs@yahoo.com wrote on September 05, 2007 09:29 AM: Maybe the Feds can import water in trucks and get this project rolling. Yucca is good for Nevada and the Country. Roger wrote on September 05, 2007 07:58 AM: Good news. Bury that horrid Yucca project! Roger wrote on September 05, 2007 07:58 AM: Good news. Bury that horrid Yucca project! Neal wrote on September 05, 2007 07:54 AM: Good luck to Las Vegas on obtaining federal permission to cross federal lands with the proposed water pipeline to be built from the north. Also good luck to the state to try to claim water brought in from out of state really belongs to Nevada. No wonder the state has a water crisis, if worrying aobut a few thousand gallons of water is all the water engineer has to do Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 42 LA Daily News: State seeks further contamination tests at Santa Clarita sites BY JUDY O'ROURKE, Staff Writer Article Last Updated: 09/04/2007 09:00:30 PM PDT SANTA CLARITA - State regulators overseeing pollution tests at two Santa Clarita sites say they have found only minor contamination at one property but landowners have been slow in responding to requests for further tests. A small area of pollution was found at the site of National Technical Systems, a defense contractor that for years conducted secret testing in what is now the burgeoning center of town, officials said. "They found minor soil contamination outside a chemical storage area and the investigation is complete. We have no issues," said Jose Diaz, a project manager for the Department of Toxic Substances Control. National Technical Systems split its 150-acre parcel for the testing and officials said one cubic yard of soil was found to be polluted in a 120-acre section that was listed for sale by the company last year. Still, preliminary tests by the department in 2003 found perchlorate in soil at the site, and officials said the remaining untested section - known as the "lab property" - is a concern. "They still have not submitted a plan for the lab property. They promised to submit (it) and they haven't," Diaz said. "It's been more than a couple of months - they should have done this." National Technical Systems did not return calls seeking comment. Perchlorate is a byproduct of rocket fuel that in large doses has been linked to thyroid problems. The NTS property - where products and components were tested for aerospace, telecommunications, automotive and military use - has since been converted to commercial use. NTS property abutted the contaminated Whittaker Bermite property until about 1991, when Golden Valley Road was built between the two. The state has begun overseeing cleanup of Bermite, where contaminants in the soil and groundwater remain after five decades of weapons manufacturing and testing on the 996-acre site. Meanwhile, the owner of another site - the former Keysor-Century property west of NTS - agreed last month to a voluntary cleanup agreement but has taken no action, Diaz said. For decades, Keysor-Century manufactured polyvinyl chloride for use in making record albums and other plastics. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies vinyl chloride as a carcinogen. In 2004, Keysor officials pleaded guilty to felony charges of violating environmental laws by releasing chemicals into the air and spewing toxic wastewater into the Santa Clara River over a number of years. Keysor paid $4.3 million in civil and criminal penalties and issued a public apology. The company ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy in 2003. The EPA began an on-site investigation of the property in June 2005 and its report - issued last September - said cancer-causing chemicals remain. Diaz said a soil vapor extraction, needed to sanitize the area, could take years to complete. Neither the new property owner nor his representatives returned calls seeking comment. "We still have the option, if they don't come in to us, we can issue an order," Diaz said. "How much time we give them, it's getting close." judy.orourke@dailynews.com (661) 257-5255 Copyright © 2007 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 43 globeandmail.com: Canada to reprocess other nations' nuclear waste SHAWN MCCARTHY From Wednesday's Globe and Mail September 5, 2007 at 4:41 AM EDT Canada will eventually get into the business of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said yesterday as the government considers an invitation to join a major international effort to promote nuclear technology worldwide. As he headed to a meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Australia yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was expected to face questions on whether Canada will join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a group of major nuclear powers dedicated to spreading nuclear technology into developing countries. U.S. President George W. Bush - who is leading the GNEP process - has suggested that, as a price of entry, major uranium-producing countries should agree to accept and dispose of nuclear waste from countries to which they sell the uranium for reactor fuel. Canada is the world's largest uranium producer, followed closely by Australia, whose government has already indicated an interest in joining the nuclear partnership. "We're very seriously looking at our options but a final decision has not been made on it yet," Mr. Lunn said yesterday. "There are some benefits that we would want to be looking for, but I believe there could be some advantages for Canada to be an official member of the GNEP." He said the newly formed group is reviewing its own principles. He said that it is not practical to require producing countries to accept nuclear waste from their customers, particularly those that have adequate storage facilities of their own. But he would not comment on whether Canada would sign on if it was required to accept nuclear waste from other countries. The minister recently announced that the government had approved a plan for long-term storage of nuclear waste, in which the spent fuel would be kept at the reactor site for 30 years, then moved to a centralized storage facility for eventual burial deep underground. Yesterday, he suggested some of that spent fuel will eventually be reprocessed and used again. "At this point in time, reprocessing spent nuclear waste from a Candu reactor is not something done now, but there is no question that as the technology evolves, it's something we'll see in the years ahead," he said. The domestic industry is eager to expand its role and get into the business of processing imported reactor waste and enriching domestically produced uranium, Murray Elston, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said yesterday. He said that as a result of rising raw uranium prices, reprocessed reactor waste and enriched uranium will be "the fuel of choice worldwide." To take advantage of that market, Canada needs to join the GNEP group, which is working out standards for the safe handling and processing of spent fuel. Mr. Elston said nuclear military powers have been reprocessing and transporting nuclear waste for years, and have proven it can be done safely. But Norm Rubin, a nuclear industry researcher at Toronto-based Energy Probe, said the reprocessed fuel is far more dangerous than the solid spent fuel rods that are now stored at reactor sites around the world. He noted that a nine-year federal assessment of Canada's nuclear waste disposal options never dealt with the proposed importation of high-level waste. "When you reprocess it, you are taking one of the most stable forms of nuclear waste - it's still nasty, but at least it is stable - and ... you end up with a corrosive liquid that contains all of the nastiness that you were thinking of disposing of in the first place," he said. The APEC summit What is APEC? Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation is an intergovernmental summit to negotiate voluntary trade agreements among Pacific Rim countries. Since it formed in 1989, the group has grown to include 21 members stretching across the Pacific Ocean from the Americas to Australia and Asia. They account for 48 per cent of world trade. Who belongs to it? Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, the United States and Vietnam. Canada's goal A senior government official told The Globe and Mail that Canada will push for tougher initiatives on limiting greenhouse-gas emissions. It is unclear how much influence Canada holds on climate-change issues, given its Kyoto record. © Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON  Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 44 Reid: Reid's Statement on Judge Hunt's Decision on Yucca Mountain 09/04/2007 Washington, DC— U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada made the following statement following the ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt regarding the Yucca water bore hole drilling issue: “Judge Hunt’s ruling confirms what many of us have known for a long time: the federal government will do anything it can to try to turn Nevada into the nation’s nuclear dumping ground, even if that means ignoring the law and the will of the people who would be most affected by the dump. Stealing water, misleading Congress, and ignoring court orders are par for the course for the Energy Department. I am pleased that Judge Hunt upheld Nevada’s right to enforce its water laws. The Energy Department needs to come to grips with the fact that the dump will never be built and begin working on a way to store nuclear waste at the sites where it is produced, instead of an outdated plan to ship 77,000 tons of it across the country to Nevada.” Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia St, Suite 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757 Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 702-388-5030 Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980 Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) ***************************************************************** 45 Scoop: Howard Signs Up To Take World's Nuclear Waste Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 4:17 pm Press Release: Wilderness Society Howard signs Australia up to take world's nuclear waste with Global Nuclear Partnership Prime Minister John Howard has signed Australia up to take the world's nuclear waste with the announcement this morning that the US will support Australia's bid to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. GNEP involves a small number of countries enriching uranium, leasing the nuclear fuel to other countries eager to develop nuclear power and taking back the radioactive spent fuel for reprocessing and disposal. Howard signs Australia up to take world's nuclear waste with Global Nuclear Partnership Prime Minister John Howard has signed Australia up to take the world's nuclear waste with the announcement this morning that the US will support Australia's bid to join the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. will leave a toxic legacy for generations of Australians without solving dangerous climate change," said Greenpeace CEO Steve Shallhorn. "Nuclear energy is not the solution to climate change. "Nuclear energy still produces a significant greenhouse pollution and it will be at least ten years before new nuclear plants can be built when we need action on climate change now. "Even in the extremely unlikely event that the world could double nuclear power output by 2050, it would only reduce greenhouse pollution by about 5%. "It is more than 60 years since the first atom bomb was made but there is still no safe, long term solution to nuclear waste anywhere in the world. "By signing us up to GNEP John Howard is taking the first step towards the imposition of an international nuclear waste dump in Australia," said Wilderness Society Acting Director Virginia Young. "The entire purpose of GNEP is for countries to take back nuclear waste. It is simply not believable for the Government to claim that we could join GNEP but rule out an international nuclear waste dump. "The United States desperately needs somewhere to put their nuclear waste after public opposition stopped their proposed dump at Yucca Mountain. "The Australian Government has already rushed through legislation that for the first time allows Australia to import radioactive waste from overseas. ENDS ***************************************************************** 46 Plenty Magazine: The Battle of Yucca Mountain Environmental News and Commentary The perennial battle over Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, the rocky bluff 90 miles north of Las Vegas where federal officials plan to bury America’s nuclear waste, is heating up again. After failing to block the controversial plan through legislative channels, desperate state officials have cut off the site’s water supplies in a last-ditch attempt to parch the project out of existence. The unconventional strategy - which denies federal workers access to Nevada groundwater for anything other than drinking and fire prevention - is designed to bring to a halt the water-lubricated drills being used by Energy Department researchers as they prepare to submit a key report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. With a judge expected to rule on the case this week, the ban is unlikely to stay in place for long, but the clash brings to a head the state’s 30-year campaign to nix the proposed nuclear dump. Despite Nevadans’ protests, Congress gave the Yucca Mountain project a definitive green light in 2002, cutting short a scientific review of other potential locations. Since then, ignoring studies suggesting that Yucca’s geology may be less stable than initially thought (a worrisome problem, given that the buried waste will remain dangerous for many thousands of years), the Department of Energy has pushed ahead with plans to open the facility by 2020. While the administration has sought to brush off Nevadans’ qualms as NIMBYism, there are grounds for concern for those who live outside the Sagebrush State. Stockpiling nuclear detritus in a single location requires radioactive waste to be hauled for thousands of miles, creating unsettling bottlenecks in transit hubs like Chicago. Regular train accidents are bad enough; a nuclear wreck doesn’t bear thinking about. Thankfully, opponents of the plan have an important ally: Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid, a vocal critic of the project during his stint on the environment committee. So far, Reid has helped slash almost three quarters of a billion dollars from the Yucca Mountain budget. This year, under his guidance, the Senate shaved another $50 million from the project’s funding. But Nevadans shouldn’t get too comfortable. The nuclear lobby is working overtime to keep cuts to a minimum. So far they’ve managed to persuade the House, where Nevada has only three representatives, to maintain funding at current levels. With Reid distracted by his role as Senate chief, it’s possible his hard-won cuts will be rolled back. Either way, it looks like it’ll take more than simply turning off the taps to derail Yucca Mountain. Posted by Ben Whitford on Sep 5, 2007 at 10:27 AM TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.plentymag.com/blog-mt1/mt-tb.cgi/3332 ***************************************************************** 47 [NYTr] US bomber "mistakenly" flies with nuclear weapons? Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:08:41 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by mart US bomber "mistakenly" flies with nuclear weapons ["Mistakenly"?? More likely the story is a cover and the nuclear warheads were actually being 'delivered' from Minot to Barksdale AFB in order to have them in place and ready for use in the in the planned upcoming U.S. war on Iran. Barksdale AFB in Lousiana is the main North American U.S. long-range bomber base that launced 'direct-flight' B1 and B52 bomber strikes against both Yugoslavia in 1999 and against Iraq in 2003. - mart] Reuters - Sep 5, 2007 http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0522314720070905 U.S. bomber mistakenly flies with nuclear weapons WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. bomber mistakenly flew with at least five nuclear warheads over the United States last week, but the Air Force on Wednesday said the flight never threatened public safety. Still, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were alerted on Friday morning to the mistake, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. Gates also has received daily updates from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley on a probe to determine how the mistake occurred. "It's clearly important enough that the secretary was informed of it and that he has requested daily briefings from Gen. Moseley as to what they are doing to fix the problem and to get to the bottom of the problem," Morrell said. "I can also tell you that it's important enough that President Bush was notified of it."The B-52 flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana on Thursday. An Air Force spokesman, Lt. Col. Edward Thomas, said the Air Force started an investigation into the incident and a review of all operational procedures. "All evidence we have seen so far points to an isolated mistake," Thomas said. "It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times. The error was discovered by airmen during internal Air Force checks. The weapons were safe and remained in Air Force control and custody at all times," he said. The U.S. military maintains a policy against discussing any nuclear weapons matters, and both Thomas and Morrell would not say the weapons aboard the B-52 were nuclear. But one defense official confirmed the missiles were nuclear. "These reports are deeply disturbing," said Democrat Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee. "There is no more serious issue than the security and proper handling of nuclear weapons. The American people, our friends, and our potential adversaries must be confident that the highest standards are in place when it comes to our nuclear arsenal," he said. ========================== Niagara Coalition for Peace - NC4P http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NC4P To subscribe, send an e-mail to: NC4P-subscribe@yahoogroups.com =========================== * ================================================================= .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org . List Archives: https://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ . Subscribe: https://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 48 [NYTr] USA's WMD: Nuke-armed B-52 Overflies US by "Mistake" Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:22:03 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit USA's Weapons of Mass Destruction fly over America by "mistake" AFP - Sep 5, 2007 http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/070905201259.9fqglkd6.html B-52 carried nuclear armed cruise missiles by mistake: US WASHINGTON (AFP) - A B-52 bomber flew the length of the United States last week loaded with six nuclear-armed cruise missiles in a major security breach, US military officials said Wednesday. The lapse was reported to President George W. Bush after the nuclear warheads were discovered when the aircraft landed at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, a military official said on condition of anonymity. An air force official, who also asked to remain unnamed, said the B-52, which originated at Minot Air Base in North Dakota, had six cruise missiles with nuclear warheads loaded on pylons under its wings. The US Air Force has relieved the munition squadron commander at Minot Air Base in North Dakota of his duties, and launched an intensive investigation into the August 30 incident, a Pentagon spokesman said. "At no time was there a threat to public safety," said Lieutenant Colonel Ed Thomas. "It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times." The Pentagon would not provide specifics, citing secrecy rules, but an expert said the incident was unprecedented, and pointed to a disturbing lapse in the air force's command and control system. "It seems so fantastic that so many points, checks can dysfunction," he said Hans Kristensen, an expert on US nuclear forces. "We have so many points and checks specifically so we don't have these kinds of incidents," he said. The breach originally was reported by the Military Times newspaper Wednesday and was confirmed by the Pentagon later in the day. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates was notified early Friday of the incident by Air Force chief of staff General Michael "Buzz" Moseley, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "I can also tell you that it was important enough that President Bush was notified of it," Morrell said. Gates has been getting daily briefings from Moseley on the incident, and expects a report by the end of next week, he said. "The munitions squadron commander has been relieved of his duties, and final action is pending the outcome of the investigation," he said. "In addition, other airmen were decertified from their duties involving munitions." Kristensen said he knew of no other publicly acknowledged case of live nuclear weapons being flown on bombers since the late 1960s. The nuclear weapons expert said the air force keeps a computerized command and control system that traces any movement of a nuclear weapon so that they have a complete picture of where they are at any given time. He said there would be checks and detailed procedures at various points from the time they are moved out of bunkers until they are loaded onto planes, and flown away. "That's perhaps what is most worrisome about this particular incident -- that apparently an individual who had command authority about moving these weapons around decided to do so," he said. "It's a command and control issue and it's one that calls into question the system, because if one individual can do that who knows what can happen," he said. Nuclear weapons are normally transferred on cargo planes, never on the wings of bombers, Kristensen said. Bomber flights with live nuclear weapons were ended in the late 1960s after accidents in Spain in 1966 and in Greenland in 1968. The weapons were among 400 advanced cruise missiles that the Defense Department quietly decided to retire in March over the course of this year. The advanced cruise missile is a stealthy, longer range version of the air launched cruise missile first deployed in the early 1980s. They carry W-80 warheads of up to 150 kilotons, ten times the destructive force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. *** AP - Sep 5, 2007 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BOMBER_WARHEADS?SITE=WSAW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with nuclear weapons and flown over US; commander fired By PAULINE JELINEK Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- A B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear warheads and flown for more than three hours across several states last week, prompting an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander, Pentagon officials said Wednesday. The mistake was so serious that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were quickly informed and Gates has asked for daily briefings on the Air Force inquiry, said Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell. He said Gates was assured that "the munitions were part of a routine transfer between the two bases and at all times they were in the custody and control of Air Force personnel and at no time was the public in danger." Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called the mishandling of the weapons "deeply disturbing" and said the committee would press the military for details. Rep. Edward J. Markey, a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, said it was "absolutely inexcusable." "Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible," said Markey, D-Mass., co-chair of the House task force on nonproliferation. The plane was carrying advanced cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a Defense Department policy not to confirm information on nuclear weapons. The missiles, which are being decommissioned, were mounted onto pylons on the bomber's wings and it is unclear why the warheads had not been removed beforehand. According to the officials, the weapons are designed with multiple safety features that ensure the warheads don't accidentally detonate. Arming the weapons requires a number of stringent protocols and authentication codes that must be followed for detonation. And they are designed to withstand a significant impact, including an aircraft crash, without detonating. The Air Combat Command has ordered a command-wide stand down on Sept. 14 to review procedures, officials said. They said there was minimal risk to crews and the public because of safety features designed into the munitions. In addition to the munitions squadron commander who was relieved of his duties, crews involved with the mistaken load - including ground crew workers - have been temporarily decertified for handling munitions, one official said. The investigation is expected to take several weeks. The incident was first reported by Military Times newspaper group. "There is no more serious issue than the security and proper handling of nuclear weapons," Skelton said in a statement Wednesday. "The American people, our friends, and our potential adversaries must be confident that the highest standards are in place when it comes to our nuclear arsenal." Skelton, D-Mo., said his committee will pursue answers on the classified matter "to ensure that the Air Force and the Department of Defense address this particular incident and strengthen controls more generally." B) 2007 The Associated Press. *** BBC - Sep 5, 2007 http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6980204.stm US B-52 in nuclear cargo blunder The US Air Force has launched an investigation after a B-52 bomber flew across the US last week mistakenly loaded with nuclear-armed missiles. It follows reports in the Army Times that five missiles were unaccounted for during the three-hour flight from North Dakota to Louisiana. The air force said the cruise missiles were safe at all times. Army Times said the missiles were to be decommissioned but were mistakenly mounted on the bomber's wings. The W80-1 warhead has a yield of five to 150 kilotons, the paper said. 'Decertified' The flight took place on 30 August, from the Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to the Barksdale Air Force Base, near Bossier City, in Louisiana. Air force spokesman Lt Col Ed Thomas said although this was an "isolated incident", Air Combat Command had directed a "command-wide stand down to review process at all of our bases". Col Thomas said a general had been appointed to investigate the incident and would report by 14 September. "At no time was there a threat to public safety. It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times," Col Thomas said. "The air force takes its mission to safeguard weapons seriously. No effort will be spared to ensure that the matter is thoroughly and completely investigated." Army Times quoted the colonel as saying the loading crew involved had been temporarily "decertified" pending retraining and the investigation. A military official told AFP news agency that President George W Bush had been informed of the mix-up. "There are procedures in place and they kicked in and worked," the official said. The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says experts have made it clear that if the plane had crashed there would not have been a nuclear explosion but there could have been a threat from plutonium leakage. B) BBC MMVII * ================================================================= .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org . List Archives: https://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ . Subscribe: https://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 49 B-52 carried nuclear armed cruise missiles by mistake: US Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:03:52 -0500 (CDT) http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gmqA7P-MPnRJzQ5v9Xi6M5zdr9IA B-52 carried nuclear armed cruise missiles by mistake: US 9 hours ago WASHINGTON (AFP) A B-52 bomber flew the length of the United States last week loaded with six nuclear-armed cruise missiles in a major security breach, US military officials said Wednesday. The lapse was reported to President George W. Bush after the nuclear warheads were discovered when the aircraft landed at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, a military official said on condition of anonymity. An air force official, who also asked to remain unnamed, said the B-52, which originated at Minot Air Base in North Dakota, had six cruise missiles with nuclear warheads loaded on pylons under its wings. The US Air Force has relieved the munition squadron commander at Minot Air Base in North Dakota of his duties, and launched an intensive investigation into the August 30 incident, a Pentagon spokesman said. "At no time was there a threat to public safety," said Lieutenant Colonel Ed Thomas. "It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times." The Pentagon would not provide specifics, citing secrecy rules, but an expert said the incident was unprecedented, and pointed to a disturbing lapse in the air force's command and control system. "It seems so fantastic that so many points, checks can dysfunction," he said Hans Kristensen, an expert on US nuclear forces. "We have so many points and checks specifically so we don't have these kinds of incidents," he said. The breach originally was reported by the Military Times newspaper Wednesday and was confirmed by the Pentagon later in the day. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates was notified early Friday of the incident by Air Force chief of staff General Michael "Buzz" Moseley, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "I can also tell you that it was important enough that President Bush was notified of it," Morrell said. Gates has been getting daily briefings from Moseley on the incident, and expects a report by the end of next week, he said. "The munitions squadron commander has been relieved of his duties, and final action is pending the outcome of the investigation," he said. "In addition, other airmen were decertified from their duties involving munitions." Kristensen said he knew of no other publicly acknowledged case of live nuclear weapons being flown on bombers since the late 1960s. The nuclear weapons expert said the air force keeps a computerized command and control system that traces any movement of a nuclear weapon so that they have a complete picture of where they are at any given time. He said there would be checks and detailed procedures at various points from the time they are moved out of bunkers until they are loaded onto planes, and flown away. "That's perhaps what is most worrisome about this particular incident -- that apparently an individual who had command authority about moving these weapons around decided to do so," he said. "It's a command and control issue and it's one that calls into question the system, because if one individual can do that who knows what can happen," he said. Nuclear weapons are normally transferred on cargo planes, never on the wings of bombers, Kristensen said. Bomber flights with live nuclear weapons were ended in the late 1960s after accidents in Spain in 1966 and in Greenland in 1968. The weapons were among 400 advanced cruise missiles that the Defense Department quietly decided to retire in March over the course of this year. The advanced cruise missile is a stealthy, longer range version of the air launched cruise missile first deployed in the early 1980s. They carry W-80 warheads of up to 150 kilotons, ten times the destructive force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. ***************************************************************** 50 EIN News Alert: Did Air Force Lose Track of 5 Nukes? Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 09:40:34 -0500 (CDT) Did Air Force Lose Track of 5 Nukes? Military Industry Today Offers Extended Military News Coverage Dear Friends and Colleagues, You and your associates can now have a free trial subscription to Military Industry Today (http://military.einnews.com/), the most comprehensive and up-to-the-minute news site available on the web regarding the military industry. Military Industry Today is an ideal resource for journalists, analysts, industry professionals and others who need to follow the latest industry developments such as wars & military conflicts, research & technology, weapons manufacturers, and much more. You can read the news online and/or receive a daily email containing a selection of the day's top stories on your chosen country and topic. You can learn more about Military Industry Today and get a free trial at: http://www.ipdgroup.com/newschannels.php The publisher of Military Industry Today, EIN News, has been publishing since 1996 and ranks in Alexa's Top 10 list of online media services. We provide Internet data mining and search services to organizations, researchers and professional users who find them an indispensable source of latest news. If you have any questions, comments, or need assistance signing up, please simply reply to this e-mail. Feel free to forward this offer to any of your colleagues. Best regards, Subscription Department IPD Group, Inc. www.ipdgroup.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~-------~------- This message is being sent to you by the IPD Group, Inc. This email has been sent to news@energy-net.org. If you would prefer not to receive further commercial messages from this sender, please click the link below and confirm your request. http://www.ipdgroup.com/remove.php?id=ESGYqdSUvcQmfL/IVt7AzhG5l ***************************************************************** 51 BBC NEWS: US B-52 in nuclear cargo blunder Last Updated: Wednesday, 5 September 2007, 16:06 GMT 17:06 UK The missiles were mounted on the wings of a B-52 bomber The US Air Force has launched an investigation after a B-52 bomber flew across the US last week mistakenly loaded with nuclear-armed missiles. It follows reports in the Army Times that five missiles were unaccounted for during the three-hour flight from North Dakota to Louisiana. The air force said the cruise missiles were safe at all times. The W80-1 warhead has a yield of five to 150 kilotons, the paper said. 'Decertified' The flight took place on 30 August, from the Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to the Barksdale Air Force Base, near Bossier City, in Louisiana. Air force spokesman Lt Col Ed Thomas said although this was an "isolated incident", Air Combat Command had directed a "command-wide stand down to review process at all of our bases". Col Thomas said a general had been appointed to investigate the incident and would report by 14 September. "At no time was there a threat to public safety. It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times," Col Thomas said. "The air force takes its mission to safeguard weapons seriously. No effort will be spared to ensure that the matter is thoroughly and completely investigated." Army Times quoted the colonel as saying the loading crew involved had been temporarily "decertified" pending retraining and the investigation. A military official told AFP news agency that President George W Bush had been informed of the mix-up. "There are procedures in place and they kicked in and worked," the official said. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 52 Reuters: U.S. bomber mistakenly flies with nuclear weapons Wed Sep 5, 2007 4:31PM EDT By Kristin Roberts WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. bomber mistakenly flew with at least five nuclear warheads over the United States last week, but the Air Force on Wednesday said the flight never threatened public safety. Still, President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were alerted on Friday morning to the mistake, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. Gates also has received daily updates from Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley on a probe to determine how the mistake occurred. "It's clearly important enough that the secretary was informed of it and that he has requested daily briefings from Gen. Moseley as to what they are doing to fix the problem and to get to the bottom of the problem," Morrell said. "I can also tell you that it's important enough that President Bush was notified of it." The B-52 flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana on Thursday. An Air Force spokesman, Lt. Col. Edward Thomas, said the Air Force started an investigation into the incident and a review of all operational procedures. "All evidence we have seen so far points to an isolated mistake," Thomas said. "It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times. The error was discovered by airmen during internal Air Force checks. The weapons were safe and remained in Air Force control and custody at all times," he said. The U.S. military maintains a policy against discussing any nuclear weapons matters, and both Thomas and Morrell would not say the weapons aboard the B-52 were nuclear. But one defense official confirmed the missiles were nuclear. "These reports are deeply disturbing," said Democrat Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee. "There is no more serious issue than the security and proper handling of nuclear weapons. The American people, our friends, and our potential adversaries must be confident that the highest standards are in place when it comes to our nuclear arsenal," he said. ***************************************************************** 53 AFP: B-52 carried nuclear armed cruise missiles by mistake - US - by Jim Mannion Wed Sep 5, 4:23 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - A B-52 bomber flew the length of the United States last week loaded with six nuclear-armed cruise missiles in a major security breach, US military officials said Wednesday. The lapse was reported to President George W. Bush after the nuclear warheads were discovered when the aircraft landed at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, a military official said on condition of anonymity. An air force official, who also asked to remain unnamed, said the B-52, which originated at Minot Air Base in North Dakota, had six cruise missiles with nuclear warheads loaded on pylons under its wings. The US Air Force has relieved the munition squadron commander at Minot Air Base in North Dakota of his duties, and launched an intensive investigation into the August 30 incident, a Pentagon spokesman said. "At no time was there a threat to public safety," said Lieutenant Colonel Ed Thomas. "It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times." The Pentagon would not provide specifics, citing secrecy rules, but an expert said the incident was unprecedented, and pointed to a disturbing lapse in the air force's command and control system. "It seems so fantastic that so many points, checks can dysfunction," he said Hans Kristensen, an expert on US nuclear forces. "We have so many points and checks specifically so we don't have these kinds of incidents," he said. The breach originally was reported by the Military Times newspaper Wednesday and was confirmed by the Pentagon later in the day. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates was notified early Friday of the incident by Air Force chief of staff General Michael "Buzz" Moseley, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "I can also tell you that it was important enough that President Bush was notified of it," Morrell said. Gates has been getting daily briefings from Moseley on the incident, and expects a report by the end of next week, he said. "The munitions squadron commander has been relieved of his duties, and final action is pending the outcome of the investigation," he said. "In addition, other airmen were decertified from their duties involving munitions." Kristensen said he knew of no other publicly acknowledged case of live nuclear weapons being flown on bombers since the late 1960s. The nuclear weapons expert said the air force keeps a computerized command and control system that traces any movement of a nuclear weapon so that they have a complete picture of where they are at any given time. He said there would be checks and detailed procedures at various points from the time they are moved out of bunkers until they are loaded onto planes, and flown away. "That's perhaps what is most worrisome about this particular incident -- that apparently an individual who had command authority about moving these weapons around decided to do so," he said. "It's a command and control issue and it's one that calls into question the system, because if one individual can do that who knows what can happen," he said. Nuclear weapons are normally transferred on cargo planes, never on the wings of bombers, Kristensen said. Bomber flights with live nuclear weapons were ended in the late 1960s after accidents in Spain in 1966 and in Greenland in 1968. The weapons were among 400 advanced cruise missiles that the Defense Department quietly decided to retire in March over the course of this year. The advanced cruise missile is a stealthy, longer range version of the air launched cruise missile first deployed in the early 1980s. They carry W-80 warheads of up to 150 kilotons, ten times the destructive force of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 54 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Bombs Mistakenly Flown Over US Wednesday September 5, 2007 10:46 PM By PAULINE JELINEK Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A B-52 bomber was mistakenly armed with six nuclear warheads and flown for more than three hours across several states last week, prompting an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander, Pentagon officials said Wednesday. The incident was so serious that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates were quickly informed and Gates has asked for daily briefings on the Air Force probe, said Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell. He said, ``At no time was the public in danger.'' Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, called the mishandling of the weapons ``deeply disturbing'' and said the committee would press the military for details. Rep. Edward J. Markey, a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, said it was ``absolutely inexcusable.'' ``Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible,'' said Markey, D-Mass., co-chair of the House task force on nonproliferation. The plane was carrying advanced cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of a Defense Department policy not to confirm information on nuclear weapons. The missiles, which are being decommissioned, were mounted onto pylons on the bomber's wings and it is unclear why the warheads had not been removed beforehand. The Air Combat Command has ordered a command-wide stand down on Sept. 14 to review procedures, officials said. They said there was minimal risk to crews and the public because of safety features designed into the munitions. In addition to the munitions squadron commander who was relieved of his duties, crews involved with the mistaken load - including ground crew workers - have been temporarily decertified for handling munitions, one official said. The investigation is expected to take several weeks. The incident was first reported by Military Times newspaper group. ``There is no more serious issue than the security and proper handling of nuclear weapons,'' Skelton said in a statement Wednesday. ``The American people, our friends, and our potential adversaries must be confident that the highest standards are in place when it comes to our nuclear arsenal.'' Skelton, D-Mo., said his committee will pursue answers on the classified matter ``to ensure that the Air Force and the Department of Defense address this particular incident and strengthen controls more generally.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 55 WKRN.COM: (AP) Contractor says 2 Y-12 workers exposed to radioactive material [September 5, 2007, 10:16 pm] OAK RIDGE, Tenn. The contractor that operates the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant at Oak Ridge said two workers were splashed with radioactive solutions in separate incidents last month. BWX Technologies said the workers faced little health risk from the accidents but were still being monitored, The Knoxville News Sentinel reported. At least eight other workers were being evaluated to determine if they were also exposed in one of the incidents. The incidents were the first at the plant in four years involving skin exposure to radioactive materials, plant spokesman Bill Wilburn said. In the first incident Aug. 14, a... ...uranium-contaminated solution leaked from a valve on a piece of equipment that was being tested. "As part of the test, an equipment pump was switched on to check for leaks," Wilburn said in a prepared release by e-mail. "Upon turning on the pump, uranium-contaminated liquid sprayed through a drain valve that was slightly open onto the upper leg of an engineer who was observing the test." The liquid soaked through the engineer's pants exposing his skin to the material. He was treated and decontaminated at an on-site medical facility and is still being monitored for any after-effects. Eight others who were also in the room have been examined tosee if they suffered any exposure. In the second, a worker dropped a vial containing uranium and a small amount splashed onto him. The worker was wearing protective clothing, but some of the spill splashed through a gap near his shoulder, Wilburn said. The worker was decontaminated and treated onsite. Y-12's manager of radiological control, Jim Barker, was investigating both incidents to "determine what kinds of corrective actions need to be taken," the spokesman said. ___ Information from: The Knoxville News Sentinel, http://www.knoxnews.com Copyright 2007 by the Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 56 DOE: DOE Announces Decision to Consolidate Surplus Plutonium in South Carolina September 5, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced its decision to consolidate surplus, non-pit plutonium at its Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina, greatly reducing storage costs and significantly enhancing security across the nation’s weapons complex. DOE will begin shipping the surplus, non-pit plutonium no sooner than 30 days from today and under the plan this surplus plutonium is expected to be shipped to SRS by 2010. “Consolidation is a key part of the Department’s efforts to properly manage surplus plutonium and follows our dedication to non-proliferation, environmental management and national security,” Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environmental Management James Rispoli said. “Today’s decision continues the momentum for the safe disposition of surplus materials.” The surplus plutonium to be consolidated at SRS will come from the following DOE facilities: the Hanford Site in Washington; the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California; and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Some 2,300 plutonium storage containers from Hanford and close to 700 from Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos Labs will be moved by secure transport to SRS. The surplus material to be consolidated is “non-pit” plutonium, which comes from sources other than nuclear weapons triggers, or pits. DOE’s decision will reduce the number of sites with special nuclear material, enhancing the security of these materials and reducing the costs associated with plutonium storage, surveillance and monitoring, and security at multiple sites. By transferring the material to one location, the Department expects to increase security while avoiding significant costs at all three sites. Once the material is consolidated at SRS, the Department’s current plan for disposing of surplus plutonium involves the use of up to three SRS facilities: the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility (currently under construction); the existing H-Canyon facility; and the proposed new, small-scale plutonium vitrification capability. DOE will evaluate reducing and possibly eliminating the need for the vitrification capability, and instead disposing of all the surplus plutonium through the MOX facility and H-Canyon. DOE’s plan ensures that surplus plutonium which will be consolidated at SRS has an identified, clear disposition path out of South Carolina. DOE has notified Congress and provided a plan for the disposal of the surplus plutonium once it gets to SRS, pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107). Consolidation of surplus plutonium at SRS has been analyzed in a Supplement Analysis and DOE issued an Amended Record of Decision for the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. View the Supplement Analysis and Amended Record of Decision. Separately from this consolidation announcement, DOE is preparing a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Surplus Plutonium Disposition at the Savannah River Site to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of alternative methods to disposition the surplus, non-pit plutonium materials. 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 ***************************************************************** 57 Tri-City Herald: Hanford plutonium going to South Carolina Published Wednesday, September 5th, 2007 The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department plans to send some plutonium from Hanford to the Savannah River nuclear complex in South Carolina. The department also is sending plutonium from research labs in New Mexico and California to Savanna River to improve security and reduce storage costs. The shipments involve 3,000 canisters the size of coffee cans. About 2,300 of them are at Hanford and the rest are at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco and at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The shipments could begin as soon as next month and last three years. The consolidation involves plutonium that was produced decades ago for use in nuclear weapons, but is no longer needed. The plutonium could be converted to fuel for nuclear power plants or encased in glass for storage at the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 58 Las Cruces Sun-News: Nuke reactor moving from Sandia LAS CRUCES, NM By The Associated Press Article Launched: 09/05/2007 06:53:33 AM MDT ALBUQUERQUE — A Sandia National Laboratories pulsed reactor is being moved to Nevada as part of the National Nuclear Security Administration's plan to consolidate locations that have special nuclear material. The reactor was designed to provide intense neutron bursts to test the effects of radiation on materials and electronics. Three separate reactors, known as SPR I, SPR II and SPR III, operated consecutively from 1961 until about 2000. SPR III was brought back online in 2005 for more experiments and operated through September 2006. SPR III is being sent to the Nevada Test Site, where it will be stored. Materials from SPR II will be sent to Los Alamos National Laboratory and to Savannah River for processing and disposition. SPR I was decommissioned decades ago. Sandia said removing the SPR work helps reduce the number of locations that require expensive security measures because of category 1 and 2 special nuclear material. Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 59 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site FR Doc E7-17495 [Federal Register: September 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 171)] [Notices] [Page 50952] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05se07-38] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Monday, September 24, 2007, 1 p.m.-5 p.m. Tuesday, September 25, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Sheraton North Charleston Hotel, 4770 Goer Drive, North Charleston, SC 29406. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Flemming, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC, 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda Monday, September 24, 2007 1 p.m. Combined Committee Session. 5 p.m. Adjourn. Tuesday, September 25, 2007 8:30 a.m. Approval of Minutes, Agency Updates. 9:15 a.m. Public Comment Session. 9:30 a.m. Chair and Facilitator Update. 10 a.m. Administrative Committee Report. 11 a.m. Strategic and Legacy Management Committee Report. 11:45 a.m. Public Comment Session. 12 p.m. Lunch Break. 1 p.m. Nuclear Materials Committee Report. 2 p.m. Waste Management Committee Report. 3 p.m. Facility Disposition and Site Remediation Committee Report. 3:45 p.m. Public Comment Session. 4 p.m. Adjourn. If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, September 24, 2007. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Gerri Flemming at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site http://www.srs.gov/general/outreach/srs-cab/srs-cab.html . Issued at Washington, DC on August 30, 2007. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-17495 Filed 9-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 60 Knoxville News Sentinel: $125M grant gives ET jump in bioenergy By Frank Munger (Contact) Wednesday, September 5, 2007 OAK RIDGE — Bolstered by a recent $125 million grant, Oak Ridge is destined to become the South’s leading bioenergy research center and help Tennessee lead the nation to energy independence, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said Monday. Wamp visited a research greenhouse at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where scientists are studying how to genetically alter plants to make them grow faster and hardier and how to more efficiently convert the biomass to a form that can be used for production of biofuels. Converting cellulose to sugars in a cost-effective way is considered the biggest barrier to making biofuels a reality on a large scale and reducing gasoline consumption. ORNL was one of the three research centers that received $125 million grants earlier this summer to work on bioenergy projects. Wamp said the initiative is critically important “so that the gun won’t be held to our head” by the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries. “This is action. This is a commitment,” the congressman said, suggesting the work could someday make $1-a-gallon ethanol fuel available to U.S. consumers. ORNL is working with the University of Tennessee and a host of other academic and industrial partners, such as Dartmouth College, the University of Georgia, ArboGen, Mascoma Corp. and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The lab also is coordinating its research activities with the Tennessee Biofuels Initiative, a state-funded venture that will develop a pilot biorefinery in the area. The refinery will test the effectiveness of research results, including enzymes and microorganisms genetically engineered to break down cellulosic materials and convert them to fuels. Gerald Boyd, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge manager, said the biofuels work is a “real step toward practical solutions.” Wamp said the work should benefit Tennesseans economically, including farmers in low-income areas of the state who grow switchgrass for fuel feedstock. Oak Ridge has been doing biomass studies for decades, but the new research center will put ORNL in a leadership role, said Reinhold Mann, an associate lab director who oversees the work. “We had the dream team to pull this off,” Mann said of the broad-based collaboration. Martin Keller, director of the Bioenergy Science Center, said initial funding hasn’t arrived because paperwork associated with the grant is still being processed. But the research team is assembled and ready to go, and work should begin by the end of the month, he said. Keller said there’s a sense of urgency because solid results are expected within the five-year funding period. “We have to show some success. So time is ticking,” he said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 61 Knoxville News Sentinel: ORNL gets chance to shine with delegation on hand : By Frank Munger (Contact) Wednesday, September 5, 2007 With Labor Day weekend looming and congressional business on hold for the moment, last Thursday was a perfect time for members of the Tennessee delegation to visit Oak Ridge National Laboratory, pose for a few pictures and relish the good things of science. It also was a chance to draw more attention to the recently passed America COMPETES Act, the legislation that's supposed to inject more life - and many billions of dollars - into the nation's science, math and education programs. U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., put a lot of effort into the bill's passage, and he rightly received the credit during the ceremonies at ORNL. U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., chairman of the House Science Committee, was also on hand, along with U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., whose district includes the lab and other federal facilities in Oak Ridge. Alexander was particularly impressed during a tour of ORNL's supercomputing facilities, where he got a stunning visual presentation on the research that's taking place, including studies of Alzheimer's drugs to learn how they work at the atomic level. The senator indicated he learned much more at Oak Ridge than he did when he was dispatched to Japan a couple of years ago to see the Earth Simulator, the supercomputer that grabbed the world's attention with its unprecedented capabilities and set off a race for bigger and better machines. "I went all the way over there, and it was just boxes," Alexander said. The ceremonies were among the first for Thom Mason to host since becoming director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and he was convincing in the role. Mason is a brilliant scientist and a confident administrator, and he comes across as both. He appeared to handle all the situations with ease, except perhaps for some protocol details. Billy Stair, the lab's communications chief, seemed out-and-out perturbed with Mason when the ORNL director lingered to talk with the press when he was supposed to get outside to say goodbye to the important guests. Stair raised his voice a few decibels to get Mason's attention from across an auditorium at the Spallation Neutron Source. The University of Tennessee and Oak Ridge National Laboratory were partners in a proposal that recently claimed the second-place prize in a major supercomputer competition hosted by the National Science Foundation. The program is pushing U.S. development of petascale computers for science research. Petascale means computers capable of a thousand trillion calculations per second. The UT-ORNL team will get a new computer, which will be housed at the Oak Ridge lab, but the $65 million grant was not nearly as big as the $208 million top award that went to a team led by the University of Illinois. Some reports indicated that the UT-ORNL team, which includes the Texas Advanced Computer Center and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, nearly won the top prize. And some folks obviously felt it should have. Asked about those reports, Mason was diplomatic: "Well, I don't know how the voting went because, of course, that's an NSF thing, but I know we had a very strong proposal." Did the UT-ORNL team deserve the Track I award? "We're very pleased with Track II, and we're going to be at the forefront of computing in 2011 with or without Track I," he said. Did UT-ORNL have the best proposal? "I know we had the best proposal," Mason said, "but I know there also were some other strong proposals out there." Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion section of knoxnews.com. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 62 Knoxville News Sentinel: Y-12 workers splashed with uranium solutions, undergo tests Frank Munger, munger@knews.com Originally published 11:08 a.m., September 5, 2007 OAK RIDGE — At least two workers were splashed with radioactive solutions in separate incidents at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, and the plant’s contractor is evaluating eight other workers for possible exposures. BWXT, which manages the warhead factory for the federal government, today acknowledged the Aug. 14 and Aug. 16 incidents, which are still under investigation. The workers “face little health risk from the contamination,” although they are still being monitored, according to information released by BWXT. “These were the first incidents of personal skin contamination at the site in nearly four years,” Y-12 spokesman Bill Wilburn said. In the first incident, Y-12 workers were testing a valve after doing maintenance in the plant’s Enriched Uranium Operations Building, Wilburn said. “As part of the test, an equipment pump was switched on to check for leaks,” Wilburn said in a prepared release by e-mail. “Upon turning on the pump, uranium-contaminated liquid sprayed through a drain valve that was slightly open onto the upper leg of an engineer who was observing the test.” A radiation survey determined that the solution had soaked through the engineer’s clothing and contaminated his upper leg. “The employee was taken to Y-12’s on-site medical facilities and decontaminated,” Wilburn said. As a precaution, the engineer is being monitored for contamination, as are eight other workers who were in the area at the time of the incident, he said. Those tests apparently involve urine samples to evaluate the possibility of internal exposures. On Aug. 16, another incident occurred in the same building. According to Wilburn, a safe bottle — a slender bottle used to keep enriched uranium solution from an unstable configuration and possible nuclear criticality — slipped from a worker’s grasp and hit the floor, causing some of the liquid to splash. Even though the chemical operator was wearing “anti-contamination” clothing, some of the liquid splashed through a gap onto the worker’s shoulder, Wilburn said. This worker also was decontaminated at the site’s medical clinic and later released, the spokesman said. The worker is still being monitored, he said. Wilburn said Jim Barker, Y-12’s manager of radiological control, is heading an investigation team to evaluate the incidents and “determine what kinds of corrective actions need to be taken.” More details as they develop online and in Thursday’s News Sentinel. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 63 Knoxville News Sentinel: NRC changing secrecy policy By Andrew Eder (Contact) Wednesday, September 5, 2007 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is changing a policy that has kept thousands of documents on an East Tennessee nuclear fuel producer from the public. The NRC also revealed Tuesday that the policy, enacted in 2004 because of security concerns, was used to withhold documents from more facilities than previously disclosed. The policy led documents from Nuclear Fuel Services of Erwin, Tenn., and a similar facility in Virginia run by BWX Technologies to be stamped “official use only” for more than three years, with other documents retroactively pulled from the NRC’s public records. On Tuesday, NRC spokesman Roger Hannah said the NRC also withheld documents on a Honeywell uranium conversion facility in Metropolis, Ill., and a USEC uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, Ky., based on the policy. Hannah didn’t know how many documents on those facilities were kept from the public but said he thought the “vast majority” dealt with Nuclear Fuel Services or BWXT. “The bottom line is, they weren’t withheld intentionally,” Hannah said of the Honeywell and USEC documents. “Whoever was classifying those documents may have classified them wrongly at that point.” In all, nearly 12,000 documents have been kept from public view, about 1,900 of those since 2004. NRC staffers will review and release censored versions of about 600 of the most recent documents, including licensing actions and orders, inspection reports, event reports, performance reviews and enforcement actions. The NRC said it had identified 60 licensing actions and six orders at the four facilities since 2004. Under federal law, members of the public can request a hearing when the NRC makes a change to a facility’s license. The agency said the public may have the chance to request hearings on past licensing actions as those are made public. The review is expected to last until May 2008. Hannah said there currently are no plans to review the roughly 10,000 older documents that were removed from the NRC’s Public Legacy Library. The NRC’s regulation of Nuclear Fuel Services has faced scrutiny from Congress and the public since the disclosure in May of a spill of about 9 gallons of highly enriched uranium at the Erwin plant in March 2006. Nuclear Fuel Services, which makes fuel for the U.S. Navy’s nuclear-powered submarines and TVA’s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, is one of only two U.S. companies licensed by the NRC to handle highly enriched uranium. The 50-year-old private company disclosed in August that it is considering a sale. In July, the NRC publicly released an order, originally issued in February, documenting safety lapses in 2005 and 2006 at Nuclear Fuel Services. Following the order’s release, the agency received six requests for a public hearing on the Erwin facility, which are now being considered by the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. Separately, the NRC plans to hold a public meeting Sept. 17 to discuss the plant’s performance during the first eight months of the year. Details of the meeting have yet to be announced. Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 64 Hemscott: Gov't plans plutonium consolidation (AP) - WASHINGTON (AP -- The Energy Department plans to send plutonium in Washington state and at research laboratories in New Mexico and California to the Savannah River nuclear complex in South Carolina to improve security and reduce storage costs. The department said Wednesday that the plutonium shipments, involving 3,000 coffee can-size canisters, could begin as early as next month and last three years. The consolidation 'is a key part of the department's efforts to properly manage surplus plutonium,' said James Rispoli, assistant energy secretary for environmental management. He said it will allow for greater security at much less cost. The consolidation involves plutonium -- some mixed with highly enriched uranium -- that was produced decades ago for use in nuclear weapons, but is no longer needed, as well as a small amount of plutonium in fuel rods from a closed government reactor. The transfer does not involve plutonium that is being taken out of dismantled nuclear warheads or plutonium that will continue to be needed for weapons-related research and production of warhead triggers called pits. The department said the amount of plutonium that will be shipped is classified. Rispoli said each canister has a maximum capacity of 9.7 pounds, but that the amount is significantly less than that since the canisters are not full. About 2,700 canisters are kept at the department's Hanford complex in Washington state and another 700 canisters are at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory near San Francisco and at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Officials didn't provide a breakdown of amounts kept at each of the labs. But the plutonium at Lawrence Livermore has been a focus of controversy for years as local activists have maintained its presence poses a danger to nearby residential communities and represents a potential terrorist target. Aware that officials in South Carolina have expressed concerns that their state not become a permanent dump for the country's unneeded plutonium, Rispoli emphasized at a news conference that the DOE plans include getting the material out of the state. 'The intent is not only to bring the plutonium there, but dispose of it at the (Savannah) site and then have pathways for all of this material to leave the state,' Rispoli said. He said a facility to store the plutonium at Savannah River is being prepared with increased security. Department officials acknowledged that it will likely take more than a decade -- and possibly much longer -- before much of the plutonium will be processed and moved elsewhere. The plan calls for the plutonium to be either converted into a mixed-oxide fuel, or MOX, for use at commercial nuclear power plants or be encased in glass logs for eventual transfer to the Yucca Mountain high-level nuclear waste repository being planned in Nevada. However, the MOX production facility at Savannah River won't be completed before 2017 at the earliest. And the future of the proposed Yucca Mountain underground repository is in doubt and is not expected to be completed before 2018 if it is built at all. There already is some plutonium at Savannah River and the MOX facility is being built primarily to process much of the 34 metric tons of plutonium that will come from dismantled warheads. State officials have agreed to accept plutonium shipments, partly because the construction of the processing facilities -- and the processing itself -- means hundreds of jobs. Federal officials view the consolidation -- and eventual disposal of much of the excess plutonium -- as essential to meet increased security requirements since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Edwin Lyman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a leading nuclear nonproliferation advocacy group, said the group supports consolidation 'as long as it's done as safely and securely as possible.' Lyman said all of the plutonium should be vitrified into glass. The group has opposed using plutonium as a mixed oxide fuel in commercial power plants. Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research Copyright 2007 Hemscott Group Limited. ***************************************************************** 65 Oak Ridger: Biofuels update offered - Story last updated at 12:30 am on 9/5/2007 By: Darrell G. Richardson | editor@oakridger.com Congressman Zach Wamp, far left, is pictured in the ORNL's greenhouse facility with the lab's Gerry Tuskan, who is pointing to poplar tree seedlings used for bioenergy research. Click to view all photos U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Third District, visited the Oak Ridge National Laboratory on Tuesday for an update on the Department of Energy’s BioEnergy Science Center. Joining the congressman were ORNL Director Thom Mason, Department of Energy-Oak Ridge Office Manager Gerald Boyd and Reinhold Mann, ORNL’s associate lab director for biological and environmental sciences. Mann noted that on June 26, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced the three winners of a competition that started Aug. 1, 2006. “The objective was to start three research centers what will operate initially for five years focused on advancing the science that enables sustainable economical production of transportation fuels from biomass,” Mann stated. “Our decision to compete was based on three things — the right scientific focus … the right scientific leadership … and unrivaled institutional and state support.” Subsequently, ORNL was selected to host one of the three centers charged with finding new ways to convert plants into biofuels to replace petroleum. Each center will receive $125 million over five years; the others will be in Wisconsin and California. The Associated Press reported that the Oak Ridge center, which has several university and industry partners, will benefit from Oak Ridge’s supercomputing center and a proposed 5-million-a-gallon-per-year ethanol demonstration project promoted by Gov. Bredesen. The $40 million ethanol facility will concentrate on ethanol production from switchgrass and poplar trees. Funded by the state, the facility is expected to be operating in two years. The state is also providing $32 million in related assistance, including agricultural incentives to farmers to grow switchgrass. Tennessee has about 2 million acres of unused or underused farmland that may be suitable for the weed-like crop, The Associated Press reported. Since the ORNL award announcement in June, Mann said several things have happened, including: • The Joint Institute for Biological Sciences building, constructed by the state, has reached the final stages of construction and will be ready to serve as homebase for the BioEnergy Science Center. “Special equipment will be installed in the next few weeks,” Mann said on Tuesday, “making this one of the leading bioenergy centers in the world.” • The Tennessee Biofuels Initiative has been launched. • Discussions with DOE concerning all the details of center operations, oversight and management have been very productive “and there is a good possibility that we will be getting the green light in the next few days to start up the center research program before the end of the current fiscal year.” Boyd said that the energy secretary’s recent announcement that DOE would invest up to $375 million in the three new BioEnergy Research Centers and ORNL’s subsequent selection to host one of the centers “has created quite a stir. “From the day it was announced just a number of weeks ago to today, a lot of progress has been made,” the DOE-ORO manager remarked. “Today’s event is timely as it provides us with the opportunity to update folks on what’s been happening … and what’s around the corner.” Boyd said the establishment of the bioenergy research centers culminates a six-year effort for DOE’s Office of Science to lay the foundation for breakthroughs in systems biology for the cost-effective production of renewable energy. “There should be no mistake in understanding the depth of the Department’s commitment to solving the nation’s most challenging problems,” Boyd said. “The challenges posed by dwindling supplies of existing fuel sources are real. “This bioenergy research center will aim to identify real steps toward practical solutions regarding the challenge of producing renewable, carbon-neutral energy,” he said. During the aforementioned first five years of operation, the centers will accelerate basic research in the development of cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, Boyd explained. A major focus of this effort will be to better understand how to re-engineer biological processes to develop new, more efficient methods for converting the cellulose in plant material into ethanol or other biofuels. “The importance of this selection cannot be overstated,” Boyd added. WEDNESDAY: Part Two of this two-part story on the new BioEnergy Science Center has U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp weighing in on how biofuels research will aid the country in its efforts to become more energy independent. Darrell Glenn Richardson is the editor of The Oak Ridger and can be contacted at (865) 220-5505. | © 2004 The Oak Ridger | Conditions of Use ***************************************************************** 66 KOB.com: Research reactor moving from Sandia to Nevada Posted at: 09/04/2007 06:57:57 PM By: The Associated Press ALBUQUERQUE (AP) - A Sandia National Laboratories pulsed reactor is being moved to Nevada. It's part of the National Nuclear Security Administration's plan to consolidate locations that have special nuclear material. Sandia is expected to remove its category 1 and 2 material by the end of 2008 as part of the consolidation. Category 1 and 2 materials require expensive measures to store, secure and work with. Such material was needed to operate the SPR reactor. The reactor was designed to provide intense neutron bursts to test effects of radiation on materials and electronics. Three separate reactors, known as SPR 1 through 3, operated consecutively from 1961 until about 2000. SPR 3 also operated in 2005 and 2006. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************