***************************************************************** 09/10/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.212 ***************************************************************** 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 Despite Progress, Important Issues Of Iran's Nuclear Programme Still 2 Platts: Swiss energy program hikes efficiency by a third, cuts deman NUCLEAR REACTORS 3 US: NRC: Elmo Collins Named Administrator of NRC’s Region IV Office 4 Indiatimes: Let's miss the nuclear bus: Left to Govt 5 US: newsobserver.com: Rush for reactors predicted 6 Platts: UK energy minister Wicks angry at green groups u-turn on nuc 7 Canadian Press: Energy Alberta says no deal in place for power 8 Press Association: Nuclear power plans unveiled 9 US: Business Week: The Case For Nuclear Power 10 AFP: Bangladesh seeks Russian help to build nuclear power plant - 11 The Hindu: Parliament adjourned sine die 12 Sofia Echo: BULGARIA'S NUKE PLANT UNIT SWITCHED ON AFTER REPAIR - 13 US: TVA: Testimony by TVA Employees, Production of Official Records, 14 US: NRC: NRC Sends Augmented Inspection Team to Review Electrical Br 15 US: UCS: Energy Bill Could Hurt Taxpayers with Nuclear Handouts 16 Reuters: ANALYSIS-Who will foot the nuclear power bill? 17 Reuters: Merkel says supports Siemens, Areva nuclear work 18 US: NRC: Remarks As Prepared for NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein, Global 19 The Telegraph: Ex-judge slams nuke deal 20 icWales: Wales leans towards use of N-power 21 The Guardian: Survey claims 46% back nuclear power 22 AU ABC: Gippsland MP opposes nuclear energy in Vic NUCLEAR SECURITY 23 UN Atomic Watchdog Helps Protect Against Nuclear Terrorism At Beijin 24 US: Spectrum Online: Nukes weren’t hidden from anyone 25 US: UPI: Radiation detectors due for New York NUCLEAR SAFETY 26 US: NRC: NRC Schedules Two Meetings to Discuss NFS Nuclear Fuel Plan 27 US: Hawaii Reporter: Bananas More Radioactive than Depleted Uranium NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 28 US: DOE: Secretary Bodman To Travel to Vienna, Austria for Second GN 29 US: LA Daily News: Officials aim to gain trust on lab cleanup 30 US: NRC: FONSI: Diablo Canyon spent fuel storage 31 US: UPI: Santa Susana lab facing major cleanup 32 US: Newsday.com: Contaminated Hicksville site spurs suit -- 33 barrow in furness: Sellafield claim no damage from lake siphoning 34 US: Idaho Statesman: World nuclear conference begins in Boise 35 SignOnSanDiego.com: Going nuclear over Yucca Mountain 36 US: Inquirer: Helping nuclear industry store spent fuel rods PEACE 37 BBC NEWS: Russia's Bear bomber returns 38 BBC NEWS: Glasgow and West | Trident renewal summit to be held 39 US: IndyStar.com: Defining our nuclear strategy 40 Japan Times: Scaremongering about China, as usual 41 US: UPI: Outside View: Life after START US DEPT. OF ENERGY 42 DOE: Construction Begins on First-of-its-Kind Advanced Clean Coal 43 NAS: Project: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Despite Progress, Important Issues Of Iran's Nuclear Programme Still Remain - Un Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:00:26 -0400 DESPITE PROGRESS, IMPORTANT ISSUES OF IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAMME STILL REMAIN – UN New York, Sep 10 2007 10:00AM Despite progress in resolving certain matters regarding Iran’s nuclear programme, the United Nations atomic watchdog agency reported today that other important issues still need to be verified, although Iran has agreed to a work plan to settle these within a specific “This is the first time that Iran has agreed on a plan to address all outstanding issues, with a defined timeline, and is therefore an important step in the right direction,” International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2007/ebsp2007n013.html">told the IAEA Board of Governors in his latest report on the nuclear programme, which many countries see as an effort to produce nuclear weapons but which Tehran says is solely for the peaceful purpose of producing energy. “Naturally, the key to gauging Iran’s commitment will be its willingness to implement this work plan fully and in a timely manner. This would require active cooperation by Iran and its undertaking of all the transparency measures needed to reconstruct the history of its nuclear programme,” he said of the steps, which include access to locations, documents and individuals. “Resolving all outstanding verification issues in the next two to three months, after a long deadlock, would go a long way towards building the confidence of the international community in the peaceful nature of Iran’s past nuclear programme,” he added. On the progress made, Mr. ElBaradei reported that the IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material, with Iran continuing to provide access and reporting, as well as additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues. Questions about past plutonium experiments have thus been satisfactorily answered, and “the issue has been resolved,” as have questions about the presence and origin of high enriched uranium particles at the Karaj Waste Storage Facility. But despite Security Council calls, Iran has not suspended enrichment related activities, and is continuing with the construction and operation of the Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz and a heavy water reactor at Arak. “This is regrettable,” Mr. ElBaradei said. Enriched uranium can be used both for energy generation and weapons production. The crisis began with the discovery in 2003 that Iran had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (<"http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Treaties/npt.html">NPT), and the Security Council has since imposed a series of sanctions, with members considering further action. Mr. ElBaradei reiterated a call he made earlier this year for a “double time-out” suspending all enrichment related activities and sanctions and providing a breathing space for negotiations to be resumed. “The earlier we move from confrontation and distrust to dialogue and confidence building, the better for Iran and for the international community,” he said, calling on Iran to provide the IAEA with renewed access to information on its advanced centrifuge research and to ratify and bring into force an additional protocol of the NPT, allowing for short-notice, on-the-spot inspections. “This would enable the Agency to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material but, equally important, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran,” he added, repeating his past conviction that a durable solution can only be achieved through negotiations. On the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) Mr. ElBaradei reported a “positive step forward” in ending the country’s nuclear weapons programme following agreements in July, noting that the IAEA had been able to verify the shutdown of the Yongbyon nuclear facility. “I particularly welcome the active cooperation the IAEA team is continuing to receive from the DPRK. The Agency looks forward to continuing to work with the DPRK as the verification process evolves,” he said. But on efforts to apply safeguards to all nuclear activities in the Middle East and move towards the establishment of a Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, he reported no progress. “Consultations with concerned States of the region has not produced an agreement on the agenda” for a forum to discuss the experience of other regions with existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, including confidence building and verification measures, for establishing such a zone in the Middle East, he added. 2007-09-10 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 2 Platts: Swiss energy program hikes efficiency by a third, cuts demand 2007-09-10 Cologne (Platts)--10Sep2007 Under its EnergieSchweiz program, Switzerland increased efficiency and reduced energy demand as well as emissions in 2006 compared with 2005, government figures showed Monday. The program, which runs to 2010, includes direct subsidies to improve building insulation and construction methods as well as the use of renewable power. The aims of the program to 2010 are to: reduce CO2 emissions by 10% compared with 1990 (by 2005, emissions had fallen by 0.6%); limit the rise of power demand to a maximum of 5% compared with 2000 (in 2005, demand rose by 9.5%); double the share of renewables in power and heat generation. During last year, the cantons managed to increase efficiency 35% in an annual comparison, while energy demand fell 268 GWh (about 0.1%) compared with a reduction of 204 GWh in 2005. Emissions fell by 77,000 mt, compared with a reduction of 59,000 mt in 2005. Under the program, Switzerland distributes SFr13.3 million ($11.18 million, Eur8.13 million) to 22 participating cantons. These state contributions enable the cantons to tailor the program to their own needs. Every canton has to contribute at least as much as the federal government to its own subsidy program. For simliar news, request a free trial to Emissions Daily at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=44_45&products_id=62 Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 3 NRC: Elmo Collins Named Administrator of NRC’s Region IV Office News Release - Region IV - 2007-034 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has named Elmo E. Collins, Jr., as the new Administrator of its Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. As Regional Administrator, Collins will oversee a staff of 202 employees. Region IV is responsible for regulating 14 commercial nuclear power plants in 22 western states as well as users of nuclear materials in seven states and overseeing agreements with 15 other states. He succeeds Bruce S. Mallett, who has been named Deputy Executive Director for Reactor and Preparedness Programs in the Office of the Executive Director for Operations at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Md. Collins, a native Oklahoman, graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1976. He served six years as a nuclear-trained submarine officer with assignments on the USS Thomas A. Edison and the Naval Recruiting Command. He worked in the commercial nuclear industry from 1983 to 1987 as a startup engineer for General Electric. He joined the NRC’s Region I office in 1987 as a Resident Inspector at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant, where he later became Senior Resident Inspector. In 1991, he transferred to Region IV where he served in a number of progressively more responsible positions, including Senior Project Engineer; Inspection Team Leader; Senior Reactor Analyst; Branch Chief in the Division of Reactor Projects; and Branch Chief in the Division of Nuclear Materials Safety. In 2000, Collins was selected for the Senior Executive Service and held positions of Deputy Director, Division of Reactor Projects and Director, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety. NRC news releases are available through a free listserv 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 10, 2007 ***************************************************************** 4 Indiatimes: Let's miss the nuclear bus: Left to Govt 10 Sep, 2007, 2206 hrs IST, PTI NEW DELHI: Ahead of the first meeting of the UPA-Left committee to sort out differences on the nuclear deal with the US, Left parties today toughened their stance saying nobody can convince them that the Hyde Act will have "no role or effect" on the bilateral agreement. The supporting parties bluntly rejected Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's suggestion that India should not miss the bus of nuclear renaissance as they insisted that "the destination of the bus will be the stranglehold (Dhritarashtra Alingan) of the United States." "There is a committee set up between the UPA leaders and the Left leaders. Yes, we will try to put our point of view across, try to make them understand what are our objections, not only ours, but of a wide spectrum of public opinion ranging from scientists and those who are concerned about foreign policy, concerned about our strategic autonomy, energy security. "All these issues we will discuss. But no body will be able to convince us that the Hyde Act has no role, no effect on this bilateral agreeement. I know they will put very eminent lawyers from their side. But this is not a matter to be argued in a court of law," CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat said here. Significantly, Karat's strongly-worded statement came at a convention where leaders of UNPA constituents TDP and Samajwadi Party were also present. Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 newsobserver.com: Rush for reactors predicted Monday, September 10, 2007 Regulators say growth fuels boom The Associated Press CHATTANOOGA, TENN. - Federal regulators, girding for explosive growth in the nuclear power industry, expect a flurry of license applications for new reactors not seen since the 1970s. "There are a lot of challenges for new construction," said Bill Borchardt, director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's newly created Office of New Reactors. "And a lot of challenges for the NRC." The independent regulatory agency expects to receive new fast-tracked combined construction and operating license applications for as many as 29 reactors at 20 sites, most in the South, in the next three years. The first could come as early as Oct. 1, the start of the federal fiscal year. "We have never had to do this many reviews at one time in parallel with an office that has only existed for less than 12 months," Borchardt said last week at the NRC's reactor training center in Chattanooga. "Nobody thinks this is going to be easy," he said. A spokeswoman for the Washington-based Public Citizen interest group, which considers nuclear power a major financial, security, safety and environmental risk, agrees. "They are in way over their heads," group spokeswoman Michele Boyd said. "They are already not doing their (oversight) job sufficiently right now. I can only imagine if all these applications go in the way they say they are going to." She noted that no utility has actually committed yet to building a new reactor. "So some of this is a little bit of hype," Boyd said. "But yes, they are going to get several applications, and it is going to take years." Borchardt has hired about 400 inspectors, engineers and examiners to handle the load. Ultimately, the power companies will be billed for their time. The office is nearly as large as the NRC unit overseeing the country's existing 104 commercial reactors. Growing electricity demand, energy supply security concerns and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are driving a nuclear revival in this country after a three-decade chill. Improvements in nuclear operating experience and efficiency have also played a role, Borchardt said. Some of the power companies expected to file soon for new reactors include the Tennessee Valley Authority, as part of the NuStart group for its Bellefonte site in Alabama; Duke Energy, for its Lee Station in South Carolina; NRG Energy, for its South Texas Project; Dominion Energy, for the North Anna site in Virginia; Southern Co., for its Vogtle plant in Georgia; and South Carolina Electric & Gas, for its Summer station. Raleigh-based Progress Energy says it expects to apply early next year to license a second reactor at Shearon Harris in Wake County. TVA Senior Vice President Ashok Bhatnager said the federal utility plans to submit a NuStart application for Bellefonte in late October. He expects the licensing process to take four years. Most utilities will want to begin construction in five to six years and be online by 2015 to 2020, Borchardt said. All are looking to use advanced reactor designs, which the NRC is working to approve in advance in standardized form to hurry along the process. Two of five most likely designs already have been certified by the NRC. The others are either under review or expected to be submitted by year's end. The new reactors are expected to have significant safety improvements over current boiling-water and pressurized-water designs in today's U.S. reactors. They will have multiple independent systems to cool reactor cores in an emergency, multiple backup power systems, digital control rooms and more passive systems to open and close valves automatically by gravity or water flow, to reduce human error. The reactors also will have enhanced post-9/11 security features, including hardened concrete exteriors that can better withstand the shock of events such as an airplane strike. And to keep reactors on the fast track, most will incorporate modular construction with large parts -- the reactor vessel, for instance -- made in other locations, such as Japan. Some large components already are being ordered, Borchardt said. Using standardized design and modular construction "allows General Electric to (be able) to claim that they can construct from first concrete to reactor critical -- an entire power plant -- in approximately 36 months," NRC reactor technology instructor Richard DeVercelly said. By comparison, TVA took five years alone to rebuild and restart its oldest reactor at the Browns Ferry station in Alabama, which returned to service this year. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner. newsobserver.com © Copyright 2007, The News & Observer Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 6 Platts: UK energy minister Wicks angry at green groups u-turn on nuclear 2007-09-10 London (Platts)--10Sep2007 UK energy minister Malcolm Wicks is angry with green groups for pulling out last minute from the government's consultation process on nuclear new build, he told Platts Saturday. The government had organized nine public debates on nuclear power around the UK Saturday, with delegates shown videos outlining energy security and climate change issues. But while the nuclear industry and business were represented, the government had to cut green group Greenpeace's contributions after it decided to pull out late Friday, Wicks said. "For an organization that wants its voice heard and its perspective brought to bear that does seem a strange strategy but fortunately I am not responsible for the mental health of Greenpeace," Wicks said. Greenpeace had asked for its contribution to the videos to be cut after it decided not to take part, he said. Wicks and a number of delegates at the London event expressed concerns that the full picture on policy options for future energy supplies was not presented at the event. "I would have thought [Greenpeace] have missed an opportunity and a lot of people here were disappointed," Wicks said. "They wanted to hear from the green groups and I can't really account for it. There is Greenpeace saying that they want a full consultation, they want their voice heard and come the crunch they backed away. Why? I don't know." BACK-UP STRATEGIES PLANNED Wicks said that the government was considering other policy options if the outcome of the consultation, which ends October 10, did not back new nuclear build. He is working with the UK's secretary of state for business, enterprise and regulatory reform, John Hutton, on alternative scenarios that could include more renewable projects, energy efficiency and clean coal technologies to make up for a shortfall in nuclear capacity. The giant Severn tidal barrage scheme is being very seriously looked at, Wicks said. "We have always said that this is a serious consultation and if new perspectives are brought to bear on new evidence/new issues the answer could be no to nuclear," he said. "Although I hasten to add that our preliminary view would be yes. It would take strong arguments to dissuade us." Wicks said the government had "never over-egged" its nuclear analysis, but that it may simply be that the UK needed more of the alternative options. Earlier this year the High Court struck down the government's previous consultation on nuclear power as flawed, striking a blow to the energy white paper--which was delayed--and forcing government to consult again on the matter. ---Dominic Maclaine, dominic_maclaine@platts.com Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 7 Canadian Press: Energy Alberta says no deal in place for power from proposed nuclear plant 8 hours ago (CP) — A company that's planning to build Western Canada's first nuclear power plant says the project will go ahead even without a guaranteed customer for the electricity. Energy Alberta Corporation announced two weeks ago that it plans to build a $6.2-billion, 2,200-megawatt Candu twin reactor near Peace River, Alta. The company suggested at the time that it had an unidentified industrial client that would take upwards of 70 per cent of the power generated by the plant. Energy Alberta spokesman Guy Huntingford says while that is not the case, the company has been and will continue to negotiate with several interested parties. Huntingford says the plant will go ahead if it receives regulatory approval and if it's successful in raising the $6 billion in necessary investment. He says there is no plan to sell any electricity from the proposed plant to the U.S., but a good portion could be made available to Alberta's power grid. Copyright © 2007 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Press Association: Nuclear power plans unveiled 1 day ago One of the four companies hoping to build new nuclear power plants in Britain has unveiled its proposals for public scrutiny. Energy giant EDF and nuclear specialists Areva have launched a joint website detailing their EPR reactor as part of the strict approval process for prospective nuclear installations. Members of the public can comment on the design before the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency make a final decision on whether the plans meet required safety and green credentials. The EPR is a pressurised water reactor based on a similar design which is currently under construction in Finland and France. It is designed for a 60-year service life and is an example of so-called "third generation" nuclear technology which is safer, more environmentally friendly and more economically competitive than previous designs. The assessment process could take up to three years, but is dependent on the wider Government consultation on the future use of nuclear power. Existing nuclear facilities, which are responsible for about 20% of the UK's energy, are due to go off-line over the next 20 years. A 20-week consultation process into whether nuclear should be part of Britain's future energy mix is already under way, and will be completed on October 10. The Government has expressed a preliminary view that new nuclear power stations should be built, but if this is rejected then the plans for EPR and the three other proposals will be scrapped. The other companies putting forward proposals for new nuclear reactors are GE-Hitachi, Toshiba-Westinghouse and The Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. www.epr-reactor.co.uk(EDF/Areva EPR proposal) Copyright © 2007 The Press Association. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 9 Business Week: The Case For Nuclear Power Christine Todd Whitman It's a chance to meet our future energy needs while preserving the Earth's climate I am addicted to electricity. So are you. And so is your business. We live in an "always on" world—air conditioners, streetlights, TVs, PCs, cell phones, and more. And with forecasts that we'll need 40% more electricity by 2030, determining how we can realistically feed our energy addiction without ruining our environment is the critical challenge of the new century. Of course, we could buy energy-saving appliances or drive fuel-efficient cars. We can recycle cans, bottles, and newspapers. We can even plant carbon-absorbing trees. But, no matter how much we may wish they would, these acts by themselves won't satisfy our energy demands. To do that, we need a diverse energy mix that takes a practical, rather than emotional, approach. Enter nuclear energy. Nuclear alone won't get us to where we need to be, but we won't get there without it. Despite its controversial reputation, nuclear is efficient and reliable. It's also clean, emitting no greenhouse gases or regulated air pollutants while generating electricity. And with nuclear power, we get the chance to preserve the Earth's climate while at the same time meeting our future energy needs. The cost of failing to meet these needs will be steep. The global economy relies on world-class power grids to trade stocks, to communicate instantly, and to buy and sell around the clock. If anything points to the frustrating effect that a failed power grid can have on profits, it's the San Francisco power outage that took down Silicon Valley enterprises like Craigslist and Netflix (NFLX ) in July. Although it only cost them two hours of online business, that minor power blip illustrates how a lack of electricity can render even a tech-savvy company impotent. Nuclear power also provides a valuable tool for businesses: cost stability. Unlike other power suppliers, nuclear plants buy their uranium at set prices three years in advance. And uranium prices comprise just 26% of production costs at nuclear plants; by comparison, coal accounts for 78% of costs at coal-fired plants. So despite big increases in uranium prices over the past three years, industry production costs have remained low, at less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (a quarter of those at gas-fired plants). Moreover, many of the management woes that gave the early nuclear business a black eye have finally been overcome. The Tennessee Valley Authority recently demonstrated the industry's ability to manage large capital projects by successfully refurbishing the Browns Ferry 1 reactor in Alabama and returning it to commercial operation. The five-year project was completed on time and very close to budget. Also, U.S.-designed reactors have been built in about four years in Asia, and new nuclear plants (BusinessWeek, 6/26/07) on the drawing board for installation here in America will be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under a speedier process that should be far more efficient than the one in place when the 104 nuclear facilities operating today were licensed. But this streamlined process will not compromise nuclear safety and security. The NRC holds nuclear reactors to the highest safety and security standards of any American industry. (The Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that accident rates at nuclear plants are lower than in the manufacturing, real estate, or finance industries.) A two-day national security simulation in Washington, D.C., in 2002—conducted by the Center for Strategic & International Studies—concluded nuclear plants "are probably our best defended targets." And because of their advanced design and sophisticated containment structures, U.S. nuclear plants emit a negligible amount of radiation. Even if you lived next door to a nuclear power plant, you would still be exposed to less radiation each year than you would receive in just one round-trip flight from New York to Los Angeles. Here's the reality: The U.S. needs more energy, and we need to get it without further harming our environment. Everything is a trade-off. Nothing is free, and nuclear plants are not cheap to build (although costs should drop as we build more of them). But we have a choice to make: We can either continue the 30-year debate about whether we should embrace nuclear energy, or we can accept its practical advantages. Love it or not, expanding nuclear energy makes both environmental and business sense. Views expressed in Outside Shot are solely those of contributors. Christine Todd Whitman, former Environmental Protection Agency chief, is co-chair of the pronuclear CASEnergy Coalition. Copyright 2007, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: Bangladesh seeks Russian help to build nuclear power plant - Mon Sep 10, 3:54 AM ET DHAKA (AFP) - Bangladesh's emergency government has sought Russian assistance to build a nuclear power plant to meet electricity shortages that have sparked riots and hit the country's economy. Foreign minister Iftekhar Ahmed Chowdhury raised the issue with Russian authorities during his visit last week to Moscow, foreign ministry spokesman Nazmul Qaonine said on Monday. "We have formally expressed our interest to Russia that we want their technology to set up a nuclear plant for generating power for peaceful uses," Qaonine said. "Dr. Chowdhury has held detailed discussions with the Russian deputy minister for energy, Ivan Materver, on possible Russian cooperation in setting up a nuclear power plant. And Russia is positive (toward giving assistance)," he added. The cooperation was sought as Bangladesh's gas reserve is fast depleting, forcing the country to look for alternative source of energy, he said. Last year Bangladesh approved its first nuclear power police and earlier this year received approval from the International Atomic Energy Commission, the global nuclear watchdog, to set up a nuclear power plant for peaceful use. The installation would be the first nuclear power plant in the Muslim-majority nation of 140 million people. The country is already a signatory to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Bangladesh faces massive electricity shortages that have hit its booming textile industry. It is capable of generating 3,000 megawatts at peak times -- 2,000 megawatts short of actual demand. Last year, violence over power cuts in a northern Bangladesh town left at least 20 people dead in clashes between police and farmers who had demanded increased power supply for irrigation. The country's military-backed government, which took over in January after emergency rule was imposed and elections cancelled over vote-rigging allegations, has made tackling the power crisis a top priority. The World Bank in July last year estimated that Bangladesh needed 10 billion dollars in investment to improve its electricity supply over the next decade. There was no immediate estimate of the cost of constructing such a plant. Mon Sep 10, 9:40 PM ET Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 11 The Hindu: Parliament adjourned sine die Tuesday, Sep 11, 2007 NEW DELHI: Parliament was adjourned sine die on a sombre note on Monday, four days ahead of the scheduled end of the monsoon session. “The highest public forum in this country has almost come to a standstill … which has raised questions about … parliamentary democracy and its future,” said Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee in his closing statement amid sharp exchanges between the Left and Bharatiya Janata Party members. The Speaker said an adjournment motion was taken up on the failure of the government to contain terrorist activities; 10 bills were passed, regrettably four without discussion; and several calling attention motions could not be discussed because of disruptions. Later, at a press conference, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Priyaranjan Dasmunsi charged the BJP with avoiding a debate on the nuclear deal “for fear of their own exposure” relating to what they wanted from Washington when the Vajpayee-led government was in power. That government did not take Parliament into confidence even once on that dialogue, he said. The United Progressive Alliance was extremely transparent, with the Prime Minister making statements in both Houses. The Opposition made it impossible to hear his statement. And it thwarted every opportunity for a debate. A debate could not take place, though it was scheduled by the Business Advisory Committee to which the Opposition was a party. Mr. Dasmunsi said the disruptions resulted in the Lok Sabha losing 41 hours (40 per cent of the total time) and the Rajya Sabha 42 hours (49 per cent). Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 12 Sofia Echo: BULGARIA'S NUKE PLANT UNIT SWITCHED ON AFTER REPAIR - 12:58 Mon 10 Sep 2007 Unit 5 of Bulgaria’s Kozloduy nuclear power plant (NPP) was switched on again at 2.04am on September 9 2007. The reactor’s emergency system shut it down on September 1. The reactor underwent a generator repair, a statement released by the NNP said. A short circuit in the generator caused the emergency switching off, the NPP statement said. The reactor will be gradually loaded. On Sunday at 11.00am it expected to reach 520 MegaWatts and it would continue to increase its capacity with 2% per hour. After the block was switched on, the NPP started shutting down unit six of the plant, in order to prepare it for its scheduled annual repair. Web www.sofiaecho.com © 2001-2007, Sofia Echo Media Ltd. Web development and design by Webfactory Bulgaria ***************************************************************** 13 TVA: Testimony by TVA Employees, Production of Official Records, and Disclosure of Official Information in Legal Proceedings FR Doc E7-17722 [Federal Register: September 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 174)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 51572-51574] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10se07-8] Proposed Rules Federal Register ________________________________________________________________________ This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. [[Page 51572]] TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 18 CFR Part 1301 AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). ACTION: Proposed rule; comment request. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Tennessee Valley Authority (``TVA'') seeks public comment on a proposed rule that would govern access to TVA information and records in connection with legal proceedings in which neither the United States nor TVA is a party. The rule, tracking similar regulations issued by many other federal agencies, would establish guidelines for use in determining whether TVA employees will provide testimony or records relating to their official duties. The rule would also establish procedures for requesters to follow when making demands on or requests to a TVA employee for official documents or to provide testimony. The proposed rule will standardize TVA's past practices, promote uniformity in decisions, conserve the ability of TVA to conduct official business, preserve its employee resources, protect confidential information, provide guidance to requestors, minimize involvement in matters unrelated to TVA's mission and programs, avoid wasteful allocation of agency resources, and avoid spending public time and money for private purpose. DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to the Office of the General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 by mail or fax at (865) 632-4528. Comments may also be submitted electronically to npgoschy@tva.gov, with subject heading ``Comment on Proposed Regulation.'' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicholas P. Goschy, Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (865) 632-8960. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background TVA regularly receives subpoenas and other informal requests for documents and requests for TVA employees to provide testimony or evidence in cases in which TVA is not a party. Sometimes these subpoenas or requests are for TVA records that are not available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. TVA also receives requests for TVA employees to appear as witnesses in litigation and to provide testimony relating to materials contained in TVA's official records or provide testimony or information acquired during the performance of the employees' official duties. Although many other Federal agencies currently have regulations in place to address these types of requests, and TVA itself has rules implementing the Freedom of Information Act that govern requests for information from the general public, TVA currently has no official regulations governing subpoenas and other information requests for document production and testimony of TVA employees in legal proceedings. Issues about such requests that have arisen in recent years warrant adoption of regulations governing their submission, evaluation, and processing. Responding to these requests is not only burdensome, but may also result in a significant disruption of a TVA employee's work schedule and possibly involve TVA in issues unrelated to its responsibilities. In order to resolve these issues, many agencies have issued regulations, similar to the proposed regulation, governing the circumstances and manner in which an employee may respond to demands for testimony or for the production of documents. Establishing uniform procedures for legal processes will ensure timely notice and promote centralized decision making. The United States Supreme Court upheld this type of regulation in United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951). The proposed rule will formalize those past practices already utilized by TVA in responding to these types of requests when TVA is a not a party to the litigation. Briefly summarized, the proposed rule will prohibit disclosure of official records or testimony by TVA's employees, as defined in Sec. 1301.52, unless there is compliance with the rule. The proposed rule sets out the information that requesters must provide and the factors that TVA will consider in making determinations in response to requests for testimony or the production of documents. The proposed rule sets forth TVA's standard practice of providing employee testimony by affidavit only and clarifies those steps requesters must follow in order to obtain official TVA documents, including how to accomplish service of process on TVA. The rule establishes a new practice that service can now be accomplished by United States mail. This rule applies to a range of matters in any legal proceeding in which TVA is not a named party. Current and former TVA employees will not provide testimony about specific matters involving information which they acquired during the performance of their official duties unless permitted to testify as provided in the rule. They would not be restricted from providing testimony on their own time about general matters unconnected with the specific TVA matters. This rule will ensure a more efficient use of TVA's resources, minimize the possibility of involving TVA in issues unrelated to its responsibilities, promote uniformity in responding to such subpoenas and like requests, and maintain the impartiality of TVA in matters that are in dispute between other parties. It will also serve TVA's interest in protecting sensitive, confidential, and privileged information and records that are generated in fulfillment of TVA's statutory responsibilities. This rule is internal and procedural rather than substantive. It does not create a right to obtain official records or the official testimony of a TVA employee nor does it create any additional right or privilege not already available to TVA to deny any demand or request for testimony or documents. Failure to comply with the procedures set out in these regulations would be a basis for denying a demand or request submitted to TVA. [[Page 51573]] List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 1301 Administrative practice and procedure. For the reasons stated in the preamble, TVA proposes to amend 18 CFR Chapter XIII, to read as follows: PART 1301--PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 1301 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 831-831ee, 5 U.S.C. 552. 2. Part 1301 is amended by adding subpart D to read as follows: Subpart D--Testimony by TVA Employees, Production of Official Records, and Disclosure of Official Information in Legal Proceedings Sec. 1301.51 Purpose and scope. 1301.52 Definitions. 1301.53 General. 1301.54 Requirements for a demand for records or testimony. 1301.55 Responding to demands. 1301.56 Final determination. 1301.57 Waiver. Subpart D--Testimony by TVA Employees, Production of Official Records, and Disclosure of Official Information in Legal Proceedings Sec. 1301.51 Purpose and scope. (a) Purpose. This part sets forth the procedures to be followed when TVA or a TVA employee is served with a demand to provide testimony and/or produce or disclose official information or records in a legal proceeding in which TVA or the United States is not a party, and where such appearance arises out of, or is related to, the individual's employment with TVA. (b) Scope. This part applies when, in a judicial, administrative, legislative, or other legal proceeding, a TVA employee is served with a demand to provide testimony concerning information acquired in the course of performing official duties or because of official status and/ or to produce official information and/or records. Sec. 1301.52 Definitions. The following definitions apply to this part: (a) Appearance means testimony or production of documents or other material, including an affidavit, deposition, interrogatory, declaration, or other required written submission. (b) Demand means a subpoena, order, or other demand of a court of competent jurisdiction, or other specific authority (e.g. an administrative or State legislative body), for the production, disclosure, or release of TVA records or information or for the appearance of TVA personnel as witnesses in their official capacities. (c) Employee means any members of the Board of Directors, officials, officers, directors, employees or agents of TVA, except as TVA may otherwise determine in a particular case, and includes former TVA employees to the extent that the information sought was acquired in the performance of official duties for TVA. (d) General Counsel means the General Counsel of TVA or a person to whom the General Counsel has delegated authority under this part. (e) Legal proceeding means any and all pre-trial, trial, and post- trial stages of all judicial or administrative actions, hearings, investigations, or similar proceedings before courts, commissions, boards, or other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals, whether criminal, civil, or administrative in nature. (f) Records or official records and information means all information in the custody and control of TVA, relating to information in the custody and control of TVA, or acquired by a TVA employee in performance of his or her official duties or because of his or her official status while the individual was employed by TVA. (g) Testimony means any written or oral statements, including depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, declarations, interviews, and statements made by an individual in connection with a legal proceeding. Sec. 1301.53 General. (a) No employee shall appear, in response to a demand for official records or information, in any proceeding to which this part applies to provide testimony and/or produce records or other official information without prior authorization as set forth in this part. (b) This part is intended only to provide procedures for responding to demands for testimony or production of records or other official information, and is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against TVA and the United States. Sec. 1301.54 Requirements for a demand for records or testimony. (a) Service of demands. Only TVA's General Counsel or his/her designee is authorized to receive and accept demands sought to be served upon TVA or its employees. All such documents should be delivered in person or by United States mail to the Office of the General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902. (b) Time limit for serving demands. The demand must be served at least 30 days prior to the scheduled date of testimony or disclosure of records, in order to ensure that the General Counsel has adequate time to consider the demand and prepare a response, except in cases of routine requests for personnel and payroll records located on-site in Knoxville, where service 15 days prior will normally be considered sufficient. The General Counsel may, upon request and for good cause shown, waive the requirement of this paragraph. (c) Form of Demand. A demand for testimony or production of records or other official information must comply with the following requirements: (1) The demand must be in writing and submitted to the General Counsel. (2) The demand must include the following information: (i) The caption of the legal proceeding, docket number, and name and address of the court or other authority involved. (ii) If production or records or other official information is sought, a list of categories of records sought, a detailed description of how the information sought is relevant to the issues in the legal proceeding, and a specific description of the substance of the records sought. (iii) If testimony is sought, a description of the intended use of the testimony, a detailed description of how the testimony sought is relevant to the issues in the legal proceeding, and a specific description of the substance of the testimony sought. (iv) A statement as to how the need for the information outweighs any need to maintain the confidentiality of the information and outweighs the burden on TVA to produce the documents or testimony. (v) A statement indicating that the information sought is not available from another source, from other persons or entities, or from the testimony of someone other than a TVA employee, such as a retained expert. (vi) The name, address, and telephone number of counsel to each party in the case. (d) TVA reserves the right to require additional information to complete the request where appropriate or to waive any of the requirements of this section at its sole discretion. Sec. 1301.55 Responding to demands. Generally, authorization to provide the requested material or testimony shall not be withheld unless their disclosure is prohibited by law or for [[Page 51574]] other compelling reasons, provided the request is reasonable and in compliance with the requirements of this part, and subject to the following conditions: (a) Demands for testimony. TVA's practice is to provide requested testimony of TVA employees by affidavit only. TVA will provide affidavit testimony in response to demands for such testimony, provided all requirements of this part are met and there is no compelling factor under paragraph (c) of this section that requires the testimony to be withheld. The General Counsel may waive this restriction when necessary. (b) Demands for production of records or official information. TVA's practice is to provide requested records or official information, provided all requirements of this part are met and there is no compelling factor under paragraph (c) of this section that requires the records or official information to be withheld. (c) Factors to be considered in determining whether requested testimony or records or official information must be withheld. The General Counsel shall consider the following factors, among others, in deciding whether requested testimony or materials must be withheld: (1) Whether production is appropriate in light of any relevant privilege; (2) Whether production is appropriate under the applicable rules of discovery or the procedures governing the case or matter in which the demand arose; (3) Whether the material requested is relevant to the matter at issue; (4) Whether allowing such testimony or production of records would be necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice; (5) Whether disclosure would violate a statute, Executive Order, or regulation, including, but not limited to, the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a; (6) Whether disclosure would impede or interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation or proceeding, or compromise constitutional rights or national security interests; (7) Whether disclosure would improperly reveal trade secrets or proprietary confidential information without the owner's consent; (8) Whether disclosure would unduly interfere with the orderly conduct of TVA's functions; (9) Whether the records or testimony can be obtained from other sources; (10) Whether disclosure would result in TVA appearing to favor one litigant over another; (11) Whether the demand or request is within the authority of the party making it; and (12) Whether a substantial Government interest is implicated. (d) Restrictions on testimony or production of records or official information. When necessary or appropriate, the General Counsel may impose restrictions or conditions on the production of testimony or records or official information. These restrictions may include, but are not limited to: (1) Limiting the area of testimony; (2) Requiring that the requester and other parties to the legal proceeding agree to keep the testimony under seal; (3) Requiring that the testimony be used or made available only in the legal proceeding for which it was requested; (4) Requiring that the parties to the legal proceeding obtain a protective order or execute a confidentiality agreement to limit access and any further disclosure of produced records or official information. (e) Fees for Production. Fees will be charged for production of TVA records and information. The fees will be the same as those charged by TVA pursuant to its Freedom of Information Act regulations, 16 CFR. 1301.10. Sec. 1301.56 Final determination. The General Counsel makes the final determination whether a demand for testimony or production of records or official testimony in a legal proceeding in which TVA is not a party shall be granted. All final determinations are within the sole discretion of the General Counsel. The General Counsel will notify the requesting party and, when necessary, the court or other authority of the final determination, the reasons for the grant or denial of the request, and any conditions that the General Counsel may impose on the production of testimony or records or official information. Sec. 1301.57 Waiver. The General Counsel may grant a waiver of any procedure described by this part where a waiver is considered necessary to promote a significant interest of TVA or the United States, or for other good cause. Maureen H. Dunn, General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-17722 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P ***************************************************************** 14 NRC: NRC Sends Augmented Inspection Team to Review Electrical Breakers Issue at Alabama Nuclear Plant News Release - Region II - 2007-043 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is sending an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) to review the failures of electrical breakers for component cooling water pumps at the Farley nuclear power plant, operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Company near Dothan in southern Alabama. The component cooling water system circulates water through a closed system, similar to the cooling system in a car, to cool many plant systems and components. An AIT is formed to review the circumstances surrounding more significant issues at NRC-licensed facilities. The NRC inspection team includes inspectors and specialists from the agency=s Region II office in Atlanta and the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. The team is expected to spend about a week at the site and will hold a public exit meeting to present the preliminary inspection results a few days later. In addition, a written report will be issued within 30 days of the end of inspection. NRC news releases are available through a free listserv 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 10, 2007 ***************************************************************** 15 UCS: Energy Bill Could Hurt Taxpayers with Nuclear Handouts September 10, 2007 The Senate's version of the energy bill, which will soon go into conference committee to be reconciled with the House version, contains a provision that alters federal loan guarantees and will shortchange renewable energy projects and burden taxpayers with funding costly nuclear power projects. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), a long-time nuclear industry ally, inserted language in the Senate version of the bill that would significantly change the Department of Energy loan guarantee program for new energy technologies that reduce global warming pollution. Under the new provision, nuclear power projects could consume the vast majority of loans—more than $50 billion in 2008 and 2009. "In over fifty years of operating experience, the nuclear industry still has not managed to solve the problems of safety, security, and disposal of highly dangerous radioactive waste," said Jon Block, nuclear energy and climate change project manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). "Until that happens, we're much better off investing in safer, cleaner energy sources such as renewable wind, geothermal, tidal, and solar projects." Historically, nuclear plant construction cost estimates are notoriously inaccurate, Block said, and often result in cost over-runs. Data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) shows that the first wave of nuclear plant construction had between 209 percent to 381 percent cost over-runs. These, among other factors, led to cancellation of about 50 percent of the planned reactors. The situation today is no different. New nuclear power projects in the United Kingdom and Finland are experiencing higher-than-anticipated costs and construction delays. Canada's newest plant, the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, east of Toronto, cost more than $13 billion (U.S.), seven times more than the first cost estimates. Under the loan guarantee program, U.S. taxpayers would be automatically required to cover any defaults on the loans. In a February report to Congress, the Government Accountability Office said failure to properly account for default risks in the loan program was one factor that "could result in substantial financial costs to the taxpayer." A 2003 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report said the risk of utilities defaulting on loans for new nuclear plants is "very high—well above 50 percent." "Smart investors walked away from new nuclear power plants decades ago," Block said. "There's no reason to use taxpayer dollars to sweeten the pot for nuclear power, especially when renewable energy sources hold so much promise for the economy and the environment. After half a century, the nuclear power industry should be able to do without massive government subsidies." If Congress extends loan guarantees to nuclear power projects, UCS supports a guarantee program that is adequately structured and regulated to ensure renewable energy sources have a level playing field on which to compete with nuclear and coal. Moreover, guarantee amounts should not pose an imprudent financial risk to taxpayers.According to UCS, Congress should include a new national renewable electricity standard and guaranteed increases in fuel economy in the proposed energy bill. General media inquiries can be directed to our media office line at 202-331-5420. If you are calling about a specific issue, contact the appropriate press contact below. Press Contacts: Energy, Food, Scientific Integrity MEGHAN CROSBY Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-6943 mcrosby@ucsusa.org Climate, Global Security, Vehicles, Invasives AARON HUERTAS Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-5458 ahuertas@ucsusa.org Scientific Integrity, Vehicles LISA NURNBERGER Press Secretary 202-331-6959 lnurnberger@ucsusa.org Climate, Food EMILY ROBINSON Press Secretary 202-331-5427 erobinson@ucsusa.org ELLIOTT NEGIN Media Director 202-331-5439 enegin@ucsusa.org © Union of Concerned Scientists Page Last Revised: 09/10/07 ***************************************************************** 16 Reuters: ANALYSIS-Who will foot the nuclear power bill? Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:14PM BST By Jeremy Lovell LONDON, Sept 10 (Reuters) - Nuclear power may be close to a revival after two decades in the shadow of the Chernobyl reactor accident as governments search for clean sources of power to beat climate change. But ask the industry who is going to foot the potentially massive bill and it becomes coy and mutters about governments, public/private partnerships and equity financing. "There is a lot of talk about the nuclear renaissance, but in reality only China is really building," says Steve Kidd, director of strategy at the World Nuclear Association (WNA). "No one wants to go first." According to the WNA -- the nuclear power industry's umbrella organisation -- there are 439 reactors operating globally, generating 371,000 megawatts of electricity or about 16 percent of total demand. A further 34 are under construction, with 81 planned and 223 proposed -- 88 of which are in China. The WNA estimates nuclear power could double over the next 30 years but, given the forecast surge in population and demand, it will still only account for about the same percentage. Cost estimates vary depending on location and number of plants -- with economies of scale -- but the ballpark figure is around $2 billion for a standard 1 gigawatt nuclear plant. "The first one will cost more than that. But get an order for three or four and the price drops sharply," said Kidd. "The best is 10 or more." "The fact is that once it is running, a nuclear power plant is like a cash machine. Yes, six to eight years of pain because of the high initial capital costs, but then 60 years of almost pure profit because of the low running costs," he said. WHO WILL TAKE THE LEAD? So why, ask the doubters, is no frantic nuclear construction activity already underway, given it is a low-carbon emitting technology and seems to fit the global warming bill perfectly? "We are on the cusp of action. Everybody has been waiting for someone to lead," Thomas Meston of reactor builder Westinghouse, which has just sold four of its AP-1000 plants to China, told Reuters at the WNA's annual meeting in London. Britain is contemplating a new generation of nuclear power plants to replace its existing fleet, all but one of which will be closed due to old age within two decades. As nuclear provides 18 percent of the country's electricity, the issue is urgent. The government has repeatedly said nuclear power should be part of the energy mix but that it will not give public money. It is conducting a public consultation on the issue that is largely a public relations exercise as there is no legal block other than cumbersome planning regulations -- which are being cut -- to utility firms going ahead with a new plant. The utilities say they are interested as long as certain regulatory issues -- like who pays for decommissioning and storage of toxic waste -- are sorted out. But potential financiers decline to discuss the matter, saying on one hand that they won't talk about hypotheticals and on the other that they can't betray client confidentiality. It is a game of brinksmanship, with the utilities holding out for the best deal they can get from government -- particularly any price guarantees they may be able to extract. The problem centres on public acceptability. China and Russia may now be building nuclear plants, but neither has a strong record on safety -- which is why what happens in Britain, which does, could be a global catalyst. France, which now gets 80 percent of its electricity from atomic power, is already firmly set on a nuclear path. "Britain is seen as a springboard for nuclear expansion," said Kidd. "The utilities will finance it. The challenge is to make sure all the risks are allocated to the people who can best bear them. "I am optimistic that is will happen, but maybe not in the 10-year timeframe some people are talking about," he added. IS IT WORTH IT? Scientists predict that global average temperatures will rise by between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius this century due to carbon gases, bringing climatic and humanitarian catastrophe. Nuclear proponents say atomic power is the answer, but environmentalists say that not only have the nuclear waste, proliferation and security issues not been resolved, but nuclear power will not significantly cut carbon emissions anyway. Electricity generation accounts for some 20 percent of global carbon emissions. Given that even under the WNA's most optimistic outlooks nuclear will only account for 18 percent of electricity demand, the amount of carbon foregone comes in at just four percent. And that, says the environmental lobby, is simply not worth the risk entailed in the mooted new nuclear age. c Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Reuters: Merkel says supports Siemens, Areva nuclear work Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:54AM EDT MESEBERG, Germany Sept 10 (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Monday she supported a continuation of a nuclear power joint venture between German industrial group Siemens (SIEGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and French nuclear group Areva NP (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research). "I am of course interested in a deeper German-French cooperation," she said after talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Meseberg near Berlin. Sarkozy said, "We will strengthen our cooperation further," adding that "nuclear energy is the power of the future ... France is willing to work in concert with companies and Siemens is already present." In July, a German magazine reported Sarkozy plans to use an option to buy out Siemens's stake in its nuclear power joint venture with state-controlled Areva and forge a major national energy company. The French government declined to comment at the time. Siemens said in June it was in talks with Areva about keeping its stake in their nuclear joint venture in Areva NP, formerly known as Framatome, which Areva has an option to buy. The German industrial conglomerate has a 34 percent stake in Areva NP and Areva has an option until 2011 to buy Siemens out. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: Remarks As Prepared for NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein, Global 2007 : Advanced Fuel Cycles and Systems Speech - 07-041 - OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: Public Affairs Web Site Remarks As Prepared for NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein Global 2007: Advanced Fuel Cycles and Systems Boise, ID September 10, 2007 It is a great honor to be here today. This is my first ANS Global meeting. Before I begin my remarks, I want to mention that this is a somewhat somber time for us at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As you may know, Commissioner Ed McGaffigan died on September 2, after a long battle with cancer. He was a dedicated public servant and believed deeply in the mission of the NRC. His integrity, his forthrightness, and his experience as the longest-serving commissioner in our agency’s history, will be greatly missed. But while it is appropriate to grieve the loss of our friend and colleague, Ed himself would have told us that we need to get back to work. On that note let me mention that I had the opportunity to review the conference program and I am amazed at the broad range of topics that will be discussed, and the many international participants who are here. This is an excellent opportunity for industry, regulators, and policy-makers to explore a variety of global policy perspectives on all aspects of the fuel cycle. I hope that all of us involved in these issues will continue to participate in conferences such as this—to address the myriad technical, political, and regulatory challenges of advanced nuclear facilities. I especially want to recognize the efforts of the American Nuclear Society in the planning and execution of this conference. Given this meeting’s focus on future technology, I am not going to address the tremendous challenges the NRC is confronting with regard to the review, licensing, and inspection of new light water reactors in the United States. Instead, I would like to share my perspectives on some of the challenges associated with the renewed global interest in advanced nuclear technology and what some would call “closing the fuel cycle.” Over the last year, I have had several opportunities to represent the agency and our nation at international conferences and meetings. Such visits have impressed upon me the extent to which nuclear energy is a global enterprise, with countless contributions from a very wide range of countries. At the same time, such visits are a stark reminder that, while the United States originated much of the nuclear technology in use around the world, there are many situations in which the most modern applications of these technologies are now abroad. So one challenge that we all face is creating a framework or structure for greater international cooperation. There are some good efforts already under way, such as the Multinational Design Evaluation Program, which seeks to encourage greater convergence in new reactor designs, codes and standards. But we still have a great deal to learn from each other in areas ranging from construction techniques to reactor safety experiments, to reprocessing and recycling technologies, and to technologies applicable to new plants. The inescapable truth is that we have much to gain from interactions with each other in terms of improving the safety and security of our power reactors as well as nuclear materials. We would all benefit, therefore, from more formal mechanisms for overseeing the nuclear fuel cycle in a way that enhances safer operations around the world. Another challenge that many of us face involves the disposition of separated plutonium, whether from reprocessing or surplus plutonium from weapons. As many of you know, spent fuel is currently being reprocessed internationally but not in the United States. The United States had a reprocessing program but ceased activities subsequent to President Carter’s 1977 decision to defer indefinitely the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium produced in our nuclear power programs due to the proliferation risk. Although President Reagan subsequently lifted this indefinite ban, further commercial reprocessing was not pursued, primarily due to cost considerations. As a result, the United States has limited experience with commercial reprocessing and recycling. A third challenge, at least here in the United States, concerns the expanding volume of spent nuclear fuel and the need to find adequate storage solutions for high level waste. Currently, the 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the United States produce more than 2,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel per year. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Yucca Mountain repository, for which the NRC awaits a license application, is currently limited to 70,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and DOE defense-related wastes. By DOE’s own estimate, Yucca Mountain, if approved, would be full almost as soon as it is opened. One proposal for addressing all of these challenges is the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP. GNEP is intended to develop the systems, technologies, and policy regimes to allow recycling of used light water reactor fuel. It seeks to eliminate, to a large extent, the actinides in fast-burner reactors in a way that enhances proliferation resistance. The resulting waste streams are envisioned to have characteristics that would lessen the volume and thermal challenges for a geologic repository. I know that GNEP will be discussed in much greater detail by others at this conference. Let me take this occasion to outline some of the regulatory challenges that the NRC will need to address if and when GNEP moves forward. The first involves the physical facilities that GNEP envisions, which could involve several interconnected (and possibly co-located) facilities: (1) a Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center; (2) an Advanced Burner Reactor; and (3) an Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility. As currently envisioned, NRC would probably be the regulator for the Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center and the Advanced Burner Reactor, as these would be commercial enterprises. The NRC would also need to be knowledgeable about the development and operations of DOE’s research facilities, such as the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility. In addition, the interdependence of the facilities, that is, defining how each facility affects the safety, safeguards, quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the others, will require involvement of multiple NRC program offices. We must ensure that a stable and reliable regulatory infrastructure is in place well before an application is submitted. Our challenge will be to (1) develop a regulatory framework for commercial GNEP facilities, (2) provide guidance to applicants, (3) develop qualified NRC staff to support a timely NRC licensing review, and (4) maintain an effective inspection program. All this, while at the same time, maintaining constant vigil on the operating units. We also face a monumental task in the review of a license application for a potential Yucca Mountain waste repository. Nevertheless, we stand ready to initiate this review when DOE submits its license application. Low-level waste issues may also present challenges in the future. Without adequate low-level waste disposal sites, the NRC would be faced, in all probability, with assuring that the absence of disposal capacity for such wastes does not translate into unsafe storage of such wastes by generating organizations. There are also issues involving what might be called the “front end” of the fuel cycle. When the price of uranium fell in the early 1980s, conventional uranium mining production in the United States dropped precipitously. Many conventional mills ceased operations or closed permanently and began decommissioning and reclamation. There is currently one NRC-licensed conventional mill and two mills that have ceased operation but expect to resume operation in the future. There are six in-situ leach facilities that are operating or are licensed to operate. Based on discussion with the industry, the NRC expects a considerable increase in licensing activity, as many as 12 new applications, for both types of uranium recovery facilities in the foreseeable future. Other challenges are more indirect. For instance, for the NRC to do the work I’ve described, we must have trained people capable of doing it. Human capital, therefore, is a significant issue for the future development, management and regulation of every facet of the fuel cycle. NRC has experts in many of the core technical areas needed for licensing reviews of facilities for a spent fuel recycling program, but we need additional expertise in several specialty fields to review the advanced technologies used in a limited recycling facility. Specifically, the NRC needs additional chemical engineers (with a detailed knowledge of reprocessing), actinide chemists, plutonium chemists, and radio-chemists. In addition, nuclear engineers with expertise in transmutation would be required to review fuel recycling facilities. Further, the NRC must also rebuild regulatory capabilities and the underlying scientific base to accomplish a future role in licensure of the fast-burner reactors. We will need to draw on the regulatory experiences in similar facilities, such as La Hague, MELOX, Atalante, and Phenix in France and Rokkasho and Monju in Japan. Other countries have significant operational experience with facilities similar to those proposed for GNEP. The topics I have discussed do not, of course, exhaust all the issues that may arise. GNEP is an ambitious plan, with ambitious goals. It will require solving a host of technical, political, strategic, and—as I have outlined, regulatory—challenges. To accomplish that, the NRC will need to work with many partners – in industry, through groups such the Electric Power Research Institute; with other government agencies in the United States, especially DOE; and also internationally, with individual nations and through the NEA and IAEA. If we act in timely way and a cooperative spirit, we have an unprecedented opportunity to influence the safety and security of new and innovative reactors and other fuel cycle facilities. By working together, we can provide invaluable guidance to the designers and architects of these new facilities on safety and security requirements, and help ensure that safety and security are fully integrated into all aspects of the facilities design and operational characteristics. NRC speeches are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when speeches are posted to NRC's Web site. Monday, September 10, 2007 ***************************************************************** 19 The Telegraph: Ex-judge slams nuke deal Calcutta : Nation | Tuesday, September 11, 2007 | Advertise with us OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT New Delhi, Sept. 10: A former Supreme Court judge today said a government decision to strike a nuclear deal with the US without the consent of Parliament would be ?unconstitutional and undemocratic?. Justice P.B. Sawant cited Articles 53, 73 and 253 of the Constitution to argue that the executive needed to get Parliament?s sanction for any binding treaty. Sawant said that as a ?quick solution? to the debate on the deal, MPs could pass a law that no treaty or agreement on any subject would ever be binding unless it was ratified by Parliament. ?If you have a majority, then members of Parliament could thus safeguard the rights of the people,? he told a convention on the 123 Agreement attended by political leaders, foreign policy experts and scientists. A former career diplomat and two scientists also told the convention the nuclear deal would steer India into a path from which it would be difficult to withdraw in the future. ?India?s overall performance would be under scrutiny…. Year after year, certification would be made by the US President,? said M.K. Bhadrakumar, a former ambassador. Copyright © 2006 The Telegraph. All rights reserved. Disclaimer | ***************************************************************** 20 icWales: Wales leans towards use of N-power Sep 10 2007 by Our Correspondent, Western Mail MORE people in Wales are in favour of Britain using nuclear power than against it, unconfirmed results from a nationwide consultation have shown. A total of 47% of people said they supported or strongly supported the continued use of nuclear power, but 41% of people said they either opposed or strongly opposed the idea. More than 1,000 people took part in nine public meetings across the UK over the weekend, and gave their views on a range of energy-related topics. The results are preliminary and have yet not been properly weighted. More comprehensive results are expected early this week. The meetings formed part of the Government’s wider consultation on whether to build more nuclear power stations to help meet Britain’s future energy needs. But the process attracted controversy when invited environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, pulled out, labelling it a “public relations stitch-up”. Business and Enterprise Secretary John Hutton glossed over the dispute, insisting that the meetings had been useful, “a tremendous success”. “We have a preliminary view; that nuclear should be able to play a part in providing the energy that we need to keep the lights on and help cut carbon emissions. But it is important that we know what the public thinks. “It is right that people debate the pros and cons – our livelihoods and the future health of the planet depend on us getting this right. It is absolutely in the national interest we make a decision and urgently.” Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks added, “Climate change and energy security are critical issues facing the UK. “The success of the event shows how eager people are to participate in this important debate.” In February, a High Court ruling forced the Government into the consultation after a previous process was deemed “seriously flawed” and “manifestly inadequate and unfair”. It ordered a 20-week process that began in May and will end on October 10. © owned by or licensed to Western Mail & Echo Limited 2007 icWales™ is a trade mark of Western Mail & Echo Limited. ***************************************************************** 21 The Guardian: Survey claims 46% back nuclear power * Sarah Knapton * The Guardian * Monday September 10 2007 A government consultation on nuclear power, branded a "farce" by environmental groups, has revealed that far more people are in favour of the use of nuclear energy than against it. The results were treated with scepticism by green campaigners who pulled out of the process last week. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, WWF and the Green Alliance are among the groups accusing the government of a "public relations stitch-up". The government has already been forced to repeat the consultation after the high court ruled in February that a previous study had been "seriously flawed" and "manifestly inadequate and unfair". Now the environment coalition is considering taking the matter back to court, a move which could severely delay a decision on the future of nuclear power. Nine meetings held over the weekend were part of the consultation to determine whether ministers can push ahead with plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. Of 1,000 people surveyed at the meetings across the UK, 46% supported the continued use of nuclear energy, with 25% opposed the plan. However, the dangers of nuclear power still appear to be at the forefront of public concern, with 89% of people worried about safety and 92% alarmed at the prospect of creating more nuclear waste. The business and enterprise secretary, John Hutton, said: "We have a preliminary view: that nuclear should be able to play a part in providing the energy that we need to keep the lights on and help cut carbon emissions." More detailed results from the meetings in Belfast, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Exeter, Liverpool, London, Newcastle and Norwich, are expected early this week. The consultation ends on October 10. Neil Crumpton, nuclear representative for Friends of the Earth, said: "There are good options in terms of renewable energy but these were not in the presentations and the delegates were not exposed to them. We were never able to put our side of the case across." * Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 22 AU ABC: Gippsland MP opposes nuclear energy in Vic ABC Gippsland Posted September 10, 2007 14:04:00 The federal Member for McMillan in Gippsland, in south-eastern Victoria, Russell Broadbent, has reaffirmed his opposition to nuclear energy in Victoria. The Labor candidate for the seat Christine Maxfield says a re-elected Howard Government would build a nuclear power plant at Wonthaggi. But Mr Broadbent says the claim is misleading and false. He admits the Australia Institute nominated South Gippsland as a possible site for nuclear reactors, but says that is not going to happen. "This area will never have a nuclear power plant, we have the resources, we have the expertise for new cleaner coal," he said. ***************************************************************** 23 UN Atomic Watchdog Helps Protect Against Nuclear Terrorism At Beijing Olympics Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:01:24 -0400 UN ATOMIC WATCHDOG HELPS PROTECT AGAINST NUCLEAR TERRORISM AT BEIJING OLYMPICS New York, Sep 10 2007 11:00AM The United Nations atomic watchdog agency is providing expertise to support the security of major public events against the threat of nuclear terrorism, including ongoing preparations for the 2008 “The Agency’s nuclear security work has clearly improved overall nuclear security,” UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2007/ebsp2007n013.html">told the agency’s Board of Governors meeting in Vienna on his latest report on nuclear security and protection against nuclear terrorism. “But much remains to be done in shaping the nuclear security framework, in building up-to-date security systems and in dealing with the legacy of past lax security. This is not a problem that can be solved overnight; it takes time and resources to achieve a sustainable, internationally acceptable baseline level of nuclear security,” he said. Expertise for protection at major events is just one of element is the IAEA’s arsenal of measures. The Agency already provided support in the preparations of July’s Pan American Games in Brazil. Mr. ElBaradei noted that over the past 12 months the IAEA continued to expand Member State participation in the Illicit Trafficking Database and that nuclear security training had been provided to some 1,650 individuals from 90 countries. The Agency assisted in improving physical protection at facilities in nine States. “More than 900 items of security related equipment were supplied to Member States, including border detection equipment for 29 countries,” he said. “Integrated Nuclear Security Support Plans were completed in 38 countries, and the agreed activities have been planned or are being implemented in each of the States concerned.” The international community has taken on board a variety of international instruments relevant to nuclear security and he welcomed the rapid entry into force of the <"http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism/English_18_15.pdf">International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. “However, progress on ratifying the Amendment to the <"http://untreaty.un.org/English/Terrorism/Conv6.pdf">Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material remains slow,” he stressed, noting that only 11 of 128 States Parties had so far accepted the Amendment. The Agency is foreseen as playing an important role in implementing these instruments. “To that end, we have started an effort to provide nuclear security guidance that would facilitate implementation,” Mr. ElBaradei said. “This and other programme changes entail transitioning from a situation in which strengthening nuclear security has been addressed as an ad hoc reaction to the prevailing threat of nuclear terrorism to a situation in which nuclear security will be addressed in a normative, sustainable manner.” 2007-09-10 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 24 Spectrum Online: Nukes weren’t hidden from anyone Volume 57 Issue 5 - SEPTEMBER 10th, 2007 To the editor: JOHN ANDREW PRIME - Shreveport, LA Your editorial on the movement of the nuclear-armed missiles was likely well-intentioned, but was misinformed, as has been much of the national press coverage of this event. I am the author of a book on Barksdale Air Force Base, I cover the military for a Shreveport-area newspaper, and I feel I have reported it as accurately as anyone can. The missiles WERE being flown to be decommissioned as you said they OUGHT to have been, and in any event, the movement of these weapons, while not as frequent as during the 1960s and 1980s, still is a part of the assigned duties of the B-52 and B-2 bombers. It's what they were designed to do, and the statement by the elected official that this has "never happened before," if he is referring to such missiles being flown over the United States, is ludicrous. Moving them the way they were intended, houses in their missile fuselages and firmly mounted to their underwing pylons, is the safest means of transport, and also puts them at the least risk of being intercepted by terrorists or others who might wish to have them for whatever means. Would you rather they be moved on a commercial flight or in a yellow moving truck? Get real! Content © 2007 - The Spectrum Student Periodical, Inc. All Rights Phone: 716.645.2468 Fax: 716.645.2766 ***************************************************************** 25 UPI: Radiation detectors due for New York United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: 9, 2007 at 3:48 PM NEW YORK, 9 (UPI) -- Major travel routes in New York will soon be armed with radiation detectors to help uncover any possible radioactive weaponry, police officials said. New York Police Department officials said as part of an effort to identify dirty bombs and other radioactive weaponry, radiation detectors will be installed across the city on all major traffic routes, the New York Daily News reported Sunday. The new security effort comes weeks after a massive search occurred in the city for radioactive material following a dirty bomb scare. While that threat was later to found to be unsubstantiated, the detectors will represent part of the police department's "ring of steel" security plan. That plan, aimed at securing New York's Financial District, will also include street barriers, license plate readers and hundreds of new police cameras. Police officials told the Daily News that implementation of the upgraded security plan will begin next year. © Copyright United Press International. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: NRC Schedules Two Meetings to Discuss NFS Nuclear Fuel Plant Performance News Release - Region II - 2007-042 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with officials of Nuclear Fuel Services, in Erwin, Tennessee, on Monday, September 17, to discuss the agency’s latest review of the facility’s safety performance and an overview of the facility’s performance since 2004. Although the last NRC meeting on NFS which was open to the public was held in April 2004, a recent change in NRC policy will now allow members of the public to attend. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 2:30 p.m. at the NFS Training Center in Erwin. The meeting is open to observation by the public, and NRC officials will be available prior to its conclusion to answer questions from interested observers. The NRC will also host a one-hour information poster session before the meeting at 1:30. The posters will include information about previous reviews and events that had not been available since 2004. NRC staff members will be on hand during that time to answer questions about NRC oversight and inspection of NFS. On Monday evening, the NRC will host a similar poster session at 6:00 p.m. at the Erwin City Hall to allow those people who might not be able to attend the earlier meeting an opportunity to come learn more. NRC staff members will also be available during the evening session to address questions. In a letter to NFS on August 31, NRC Region II Administrator said that NFS “continued to maintain safety and security for its workers and the public.” Although the letter said there were fewer NRC-identified violations during the current assessment period than there had been during the previous two periods, NFS did not start or expand any new commercial operations during the period so there were fewer opportunities for the NRC “to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of your efforts to improve performance.” The NRC evaluated facility performance in five areas: safety operations, radiological controls, facility support, special topics (licensing activities) and safeguards. The NRC review found areas needing improvement in the facility support area, specifically related to the development of and adherence to approved procedures. NRC news releases are available through a free listserv 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 10, 2007 ***************************************************************** 27 Hawaii Reporter: Bananas More Radioactive than Depleted Uranium Special from Hawaii Free Press By Andrew Walden, 9/10/2007 11:46:58 AM Readers may not have noticed the difference, but Stalinist agit-prop (agitation propaganda) took over the Hawaii media for a week after the Army’s Aug. 19 announcement that a one-pound depleted uranium (DU) “Davy Crockett” spotter round was discovered at the Big Island’s Pohakuloa Training Area. The Davy Crockett system was a tactical nuclear weapon designed to wipe out entire brigades of Warsaw Pact armies in the event of a European ground war. In order to mimic the mass and density of the actual nuclear device, the one-pound depleted uranium spotter round was substituted in training. Because the Davy Crockett system was part of training throughout the 1960s, this will likely be the beginning of a long series of propaganda barrages timed with DU “discoveries” at military training facilities in Hawaii and nationwide. DU is even being used as an excuse by the anti-Oahuan Superferry protesters who claim that the Superferry will spread DU throughout the islands. They repeat this nonsense in spite of the fact that the Superferry CEO Mike Garibaldi has denied any link to the Stryker brigade; the military does not now use expensive DU ammunition in training; combat operations do not lead U.S. soldiers to become “covered in DU dust” unless they are fired upon by DU weapons; and solid or aerosolized DU is less toxic than lead. After the discovery of three rounds at Schoefield Barracks, announced earlier this year, activists connected DU with the Davy Crockett system. Figuring that the Davy Crockett had also been trained at Pohakuloa, and would be discovered there soon, anti-American activists on the Big Island began buying “Gamma Scout” Geiger counters. In spite of the fact that DU gamma and beta radiation is 20 times too weak to be read by the Gamma Scout, the activists pretended to record high background readings and then blamed them on depleted uranium -- a physical impossibility, but a well-timed propaganda set up for the eventual Big Island Davy Crockett find. The International Atomic Energy Administration points out, “DU is 3 million times less radioactive than radium still found in many old luminous watches and 10 million times less radioactive than what is used in fire detectors.” DU is also far less radioactive than the potassium 40 found in the human body. Potassium is a substantial percentage of the dry mass of common Hawaii agricultural crops such as bananas and marijuana. A 2.5 lb bunch of bananas will contain over 100 mg of potassium 40. Gamma detectors are used to detect marijuana smugglers at international borders. When called on the lie that DU is a radiation danger, the anti-Americans revert to their backup lie -- DU toxicity. As Jim Albertini, head of the mis-named Malu Aina “Peace” Center, says, “Live-fire can result in the further dispersal of DU small particles which are especially hazardous when inhaled.” This is also a fraud. Lead is far more toxic than DU. Why aren’t the anti-Americans talking about lead toxicity from millions of spent bullets on firing ranges? Protesting against lead bullets would make their goals too obvious. When the Army’s inevitable discovery of the DU rounds at Pohakuloa came, the activists’ agit-prop show took over the so-called mainstream media. The Hawaii Tribune Herald printed the double lie, “Radioactive find at PTA fuels fears” as its Aug. 26 headline. It is wrong on both counts: It is completely false to call DU a “radioactive find” unless it would be correct to call the potassium-40 laden protesters, “radioactive activists.” Secondly the activists are not fearful but utterly thrilled to discover that DU is present on the Big Island. As Albertini said, “This is going to be bigger than Agent Orange.” Once the propaganda had been properly laundered through the media, Democrats such as Sen. Dan Akaka and Rep Josh Green (D-Kona) jumped on the bandwagon, expressing “concern” and calling for “prompt action.” None of them have expressed the slightest “concern” about the hundreds to thousands of pounds of depleted uranium used as tail weights in commercial aircraft. There is more DU parked on the tarmac of Hilo Airport than will ever be found at Pohakuloa. Every bit of this is pure fraud. If DU radiation is dangerous, logically activists must also demand a clean up all the far-more-radioactive bananas Hawaiians planted 1,500 years ago? Since DU is less toxic than lead, the environmentalists should publicly thank the Army for replacing a toxic lead round with a less toxic DU round. But neither of these would aid the real goals -- assisting al-Qaeda by denying the Army Stryker brigade proper training facilities at Pohakuloa and forcing the U.S. to dump one its most effective weapons -- armor piercing depleted uranium rounds. Andrew Walden is the publisher and editor of Hawaii Free Press, a Big Island-based newspaper. He can be reached via email at mailto:andrewwalden@email.com HawaiiReporter.com reports the real news, and prints all editorials submitted, even if they do not represent the viewpoint of the editors, as long as they are written clearly. Send editorials to mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com Hawaii Reporter 1314 S. King St., Suite 1163 Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 Information and Subscription Phone: 808-524-4500 Fax: 808-524-4594 Subscribe@HawaiiReporter.com City Desk Phone: 808-306-3161 Fax: 808-524-4594 Tips@HawaiiReporter.com www.HawaiiReporter.com © 2007 Hawaii Reporter, Inc. | About Us | Terms of Service | Privacy ***************************************************************** 28 DOE: Secretary Bodman To Travel to Vienna, Austria for Second GNEP Ministerial and IAEA General Conference September 10, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman will travel to Vienna, Austria, to chair the second Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) Ministerial on Sunday, September 16, 2007, with partner countries: China, France, Japan, and Russia. While in Vienna, Secretary Bodman will deliver remarks at the 51st International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) General Conference on Monday, September 17, 2007. The second GNEP Ministerial aims to further international cooperation in expanding the use of clean, safe nuclear power worldwide through the development and deployment of advanced technology. New member countries will join existing members in attending the ministerial and signing the GNEP Statement of Principles, which establishes broad guidelines for participation and provides a framework for all future involvement in GNEP. The first GNEP Ministerial held on May 21, 2007 brought together some of the leading nuclear fuel cycle states to discuss GNEP and senior energy officials from China, France, Japan, Russia and the United States issued a joint statement in support of the GNEP and nuclear energy cooperation. As part of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of economical, carbon-free nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand. While in Vienna, Secretary Bodman will deliver remarks to the IAEA General Conference where he is expected to highlight the importance of safe and secure conditions for the expansion of nuclear power around the world and the role of GNEP in furthering this development and meeting growing electricity demand. Secretary Bodman will also discuss the importance of reaffirming commitments to extend the peaceful use of nuclear energy, strengthening international nonproliferation measures and ensuring controls on nuclear technologies and materials through global cooperation. 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 ***************************************************************** 29 LA Daily News: Officials aim to gain trust on lab cleanup BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer Article Last Updated: 09/09/2007 09:40:31 PM PDT Nearly two decades after neighbors learned the hilltop Santa Susana Field Lab was rife with toxic and radioactive contamination, the long-delayed cleanup is at a critical crossroads. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is now considering signing a bill that would force Boeing and the federal government to clean up the former nuclear and rocket-engine test lab to the highest environmental standards. Under judge's orders, the federal Department of Energy is about to begin a new study of the radioactive and chemical contamination at its former nuclear research facility. And the state agency responsible for controlling toxic contamination at the site recently appointed a new project manager who has pledged unprecedented openness with the public and scrutiny of the cleanup. "Our approach to the project has changed," said Norman Riley, project manager for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control since April. "We have some new people involved and a renewed commitment to transparency about our involvement and efforts on the project." To ensure that happens, the state agency signed a new consent order last month, setting a 2017 deadline for Boeing, the federal Department of Energy and NASA to complete the site cleanup. The order also establishes timelines, and it levies $15,000-a-day fines for delays and inaccuracies in reports detailing the location and extent of contamination. Boeing officials said they're committed to working with the state to decontaminate the land. "There are a lot of developments taking place right now," said Dan Beck, spokesman for Boeing. "We just want to make sure the go-forward plans with regulatory agencies are crafted appropriately and enable us to move forward with the cleanup." Located in the hills above Simi Valley and Chatsworth, the Santa Susana Field Lab was developed in the late 1940s for rocket-engine tests and nuclear-energy research. The Department of Energy cleanup of its 90-acre portion of the lab is nearly complete, but Boeing is at least a decade from decontaminating the rest of the site, tainted with chemicals from rocket-engine and laser projects. The management shuffle in the state Department of Toxic Substances Control came after a disastrous public hearing last August, when high-ranking officials admitted the DTSC had made a mistake in allowing Boeing to truck out - unstudied - thousands of tons of contaminated soil from a burn pit where workers had incinerated hazardous waste for decades. Activists found old records documenting waste disposal in the burn pit, and DTSC's ignorance of the pit's potential contamination was the final straw for neighbors. "We don't have belief or trust in your process," RocketdyneWatch founder Elizabeth Crawford railed at DTSC during the hearing. Riley said the meeting was a wake-up call for the agency. "It was embarrassing. I don't ever want to see the department and the public placed in a position like that ever again," he said. Since Riley was appointed about five months ago, he and a team of experts have held several meetings with activists to hash out reports and review concerns. "I almost feel like it's a new agency," longtime activist Christina Walsh said of the DTSC. "I think we can make tremendous progress now." Walsh said the agency now seems to be taking her concerns seriously. Earlier this year, she and some colleagues from the cleanuprocketdyne.org were hiking in the regional park next to the field lab when they saw some foamlike material half-buried in a creek bed. Poking around in the soil, they found pipes and more of the same material embedded in the bank. Walsh didn't know what the junk was - or whether it posed a risk - but she was pretty sure she knew where it came from: the field lab. Walsh and her colleagues had found suspicious junk in the hills around the field lab before, but calls to environmental regulators were usually met with skepticism or exasperation. But this time, Walsh said she found an eager ear at the DTSC. "I was expecting them to refuse to look at it. I really did anticipate a hostile response," Walsh said. "We invited them on a hike and they showed up! They showed up seriously, with geologists." Geologists ordered the area tested and fenced off. They found the material was a type of insulation that contained asbestos - not imminently dangerous, but not the kind of stuff you want Boy Scouts traipsing through either. It came from the liquid-oxygen plant at the field lab. "The stuff was there, and it clearly came from Boeing and NASA's operations, and they have accepted responsibility, and they're going to be moving it," Riley said. "Our commitment to (the community) is we will investigate all of these concerns. We don't have the resources to do so immediately in each and every case, but we aren't forgetting about these things." kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com (213) 978-0390 Copyright © 2007 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: FONSI: Diablo Canyon spent fuel storage FR Doc E7-17738 [Federal Register: September 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 174)] [Notices] [Page 51687-51688] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr10se07-86] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-26] Notice of Availability of Supplement to the Environmental Assessment and Final Finding of No Significant Impact for the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Availability and Finding of No Significant Impact. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a supplement to the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) and a final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). NRC issued the EA and initial FONSI for this action on October 24, 2003, and subsequently issued a license for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), on March 22, 2004. The license authorizes PG&E to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials resulting from the operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in an ISFSI at the site for a term of 20 years. NRC is issuing this supplement to the EA and final FONSI in response to the June 2, 2006, decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006). This supplement to the EA addresses the environmental impacts from potential terrorist acts against the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager, Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Mail Stop EBB-3D-02M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 492-3319; e-mail: jrh@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction On December 21, 2001, PG&E submitted an application to NRC, requesting a site-specific license to build and operate an ISFSI, to be located on the site of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, in San Luis Obispo County, California. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the NRC staff issued an EA for this action on October 24, 2003, in conformance with NRC requirements specified in 10 CFR 51.21 and 51.30, and the associated guidance in NRC report NUREG-1748, ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.'' Based on the EA, NRC also issued a FONSI for this action on October 24, 2003, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.31 and 51.32. On March 22, 2004, the NRC staff issued Materials License No. SNM- 2511 to PG&E, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 72, authorizing PG&E to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials resulting from the operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in an ISFSI at the site for a term of 20 years. PG&E has begun construction of the Diablo Canyon ISFSI and currently plans to start transferring spent fuel to the ISFSI in mid-2008. After NRC's issuance of the license for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and other parties filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking that NRC be required to consider terrorist acts in its environmental review associated with this licensing action. In its decision of June 2, 2006, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that NRC could not categorically refuse to consider the consequences of a terrorist attack under NEPA and remanded the case to NRC. In response to the Ninth Circuit decision, the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order on February 26, 2007, directing the NRC staff to prepare a revised EA, addressing the likelihood of a terrorist attack at the Diablo Canyon ISFSI site and the potential consequences of such an attack. On May 29, 2007, the NRC staff issued a preliminary supplement to the EA and draft FONSI to address the environmental impacts from potential terrorist acts against the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. On May 31, 2007, NRC published a notice of availability in the Federal Register (72 FR 30398), providing opportunity for public comment on the preliminary supplement to the EA and draft FONSI and establishing July 2, 2007, as the deadline to submit comments. Approximately 32 individual comment documents (i.e., letters, facsimiles, and e-mails) were received by the NRC. Of the 32 comment documents received, 12 were nearly identical letters, and many others contained the same or similar comments. As a result, the NRC staff grouped similar or related comments together and developed 17 general comment areas. NRC's summary of the comments received and its responses are provided in an appendix to the final supplemental EA. [[Page 51688]] The October 24, 2003, EA and FONSI, the license and supporting documents, and the preliminary supplement to the EA and draft FONSI are available on NRC's Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/waste.html, by selecting ``Diablo Canyon ISFSI,'' in the Quick Links box. II. Summary of Final Supplement to the EA for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI In the supplement to the EA, the NRC staff has considered the potential radiological impacts of terrorist acts on the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. NRC has established requirements and has initiated several actions designed to provide high assurance that a terrorist attack would not lead to a significant radiological event at an ISFSI. These include: (1) NRC's continual evaluation of the threat environment, in coordination with the intelligence and law enforcement communities, which provides, in part, the basis for the protective measures currently required; (2) the protective measures that are in place to reduce the chance of an attack that leads to a significant release of radiation; (3) the robust design of dry cask storage systems, which provide substantial resistance to penetration; and (4) NRC security assessments of the potential consequences of terrorist attacks against ISFSIs. The supplement to the EA describes the security measures for ISFSIs and discusses the security assessments performed by NRC, which confirmed that the existing security requirements, imposed by regulations and orders, are adequate to provide high assurance that a terrorist attack on an ISFSI will not lead to significant radiological consequences. Threat scenarios considered in the generic security assessments for ISFSIs included a large aircraft impact similar in magnitude to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and ground assaults using expanded adversary characteristics consistent with the design basis threat for radiological sabotage for nuclear power plants. The NRC staff compared the assumptions used in its generic ISFSI security assessments to the relevant features of the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. Based on this comparison, the staff determined that the assumptions used in these generic security assessments, regarding the storage cask design, the amount of radioactive material that could be released, and the atmospheric dispersion, were representative, and in some cases, conservative, relative to the actual characteristics for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. The staff determined that any dose to affected residents nearest to the Diablo Canyon site calculated using site- specific parameters will be much lower than doses calculated using the assumptions made for the generic assessments. Based on these considerations, the dose to the nearest affected resident, from even the most severe plausible threat scenarios (the ground assault and aircraft impact scenarios discussed above) would likely be well below 5 rem. In many scenarios, the hypothetical dose to an individual in the affected population could be substantially less than 5 rem, or none at all. In the supplement (based also on the initial EA), the NRC staff concludes that the construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Diablo Canyon ISFSI, even when potential terrorist attacks on the facility are considered, will not result in a significant effect on the human environment. NRC security requirements, imposed through regulations and orders, and implemented through the licensee's security plans, in combination with the design requirements for dry cask storage systems, provide adequate protection against successful terrorist attacks on ISFSIs. Therefore, a terrorist attack that would result in a significant release of radiation affecting the public is not reasonably expected to occur. III. Final Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has prepared a supplement to the EA related to the construction and operation of the Diablo Canyon ISFSI, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. As set forth in the supplement to the EA, NRC has considered the potential for terrorist attacks on the facility, and has determined that the storage of spent nuclear fuel at the Diablo Canyon ISFSI will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, based on the facility design features and the mitigative security measures incorporated as part of the NRC licensing action and in response to NRC security orders. These design features and mitigative security measures will provide high assurance that substantial environmental impacts will be avoided and thereby reduced to a non-significant risk level. On the basis of the initial EA and this supplement, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts, and the proposed action does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.31, NRC has determined that issuance of a final FONSI is appropriate. V. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the May 29, 2007, preliminary supplement to the EA and draft FONSI; the August 30, 2007, EA supplement and final FONSI; the October 24, 2003, EA; and the Diablo Canyon ISFSI license and supporting documentation, are available electronically, at NRC's Electronic Reading Room, at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the supplement to the EA and draft FONSI is ML071280256, and for the EA supplement and final FONSI, the accession number is ML072400511. The ADAMS accession number for the October 24, 2003, EA is ML032970337, and for the ISFSI license and related documents, the accession number is ML040780107. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents, for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of August, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert A. Nelson, Chief, Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E7-17738 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 31 UPI: Santa Susana lab facing major cleanup United Press International - NewsTrack - Science - Published: 10, 2007 at 3:56 PM LOS ANGELES, 10 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is considering a bill that would force Boeing and NASA to clean up their Santa Susana Field Lab. The bill comes nearly two decades after it was revealed that the lab, just 30 miles from Los Angeles, was full of toxic and radioactive contamination, the Los Angeles Daily News reported. The U.S. Department of Energy has been ordered by a judge to begin a new study of the radioactive and chemical contamination at its former nuclear research facility and the state agency responsible for controlling toxic contamination has appointed a new project manager who promised to be open with the public. "Our approach to the project has changed," said Norman Riley, project manager for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control since April. "We have some new people involved and a renewed commitment to transparency about our involvement and efforts on the project." The state agency signed an order last month, giving Boeing, the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration a deadline of 2017 to complete the site cleanup. © Copyright United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 Newsday.com: Contaminated Hicksville site spurs suit -- BY MARK HARRINGTON | mark.harrington@newsday.com September 10, 2007 Two employees who worked at a Hicksville magazine distributorship that sat atop a contaminated former nuclear-fuel production plant have sued Verizon Communications Inc. after contracting illnesses they say were related to radiological and other toxins released at the site. Verizon predecessor GTE inherited liability for the site from onetime subsidiary Sylvania Electric Products, which operated the fuel-rod facility in the 1950s and 1960s. Gerard DePascale and Liam Neville, both of whom formerly worked for Magazine Distributors Inc. when it was located on Cantiague Rock Road in Hicksville, charge in a suit filed last month that Verizon and its predecessor companies failed to "warn or prevent the use of toxic chemicals and radioactive substances" in their workplace. They worked at the distributor from the early 1990s to early 2000s. The site, now being supervised by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, remains under investigation after a partial cleanup. They seek unspecified damages, medical costs and attorney fees and past and future lost wages. The suit, initially filed in State Supreme Court in Nassau last month, is expected to be moved to federal court in Central Islip at Verizon's request. Paul Marasco, an attorney for the two men and for DePascale's wife, Joanne, referred questions about the case to Joseph Gonzalez, whose Web site bills him as the onetime lead environmental litigation attorney for Masry & Vititoe, the law firm depicted in the movie "Erin Brockovich." The lawsuit isn't the first. In 2002, more than 300 current and former residents near the site filed a $3-billion-plus suit charging that activities at the plant during its operating years of 1952 to 1966 led to the development of cancers and other serious ailments. Among the activities documented in the case were the long-term incineration of uranium into the open air around the plant. The residents' suit was settled in 2003 for a reported $11 million. Gonzalez, now of the firm Gonzalez & Robinson in Westlake Village, Calif., said the workers' case is different from the residents' suit because workers were unknowingly exposed directly at the former nuclear fuel site, and because government probes have further documented the extent of the contamination and possible exposure. DePascale and Neville have already filed cases with the state workers' compensation board against their former employer related to their illnesses. After initial favorable rulings, both cases were appealed by Magazine Distributors. DePascale developed an extremely rare form of cancer in his leg which subsequently spread to his lungs. Neville contracted a rare kidney disease, said to be tied to exposure to the toxins, that will require a kidney transplant within two years, the suit says. In a statement yesterday, Verizon said of its subsidiary, "GTE is unaware of any credible evidence that supports a claim that either plaintiff's illnesses result from any exposures incurred at the site of the former Sylvania facility." GTE and "numerous governmental agencies," the company said, "have reviewed enormous amounts of test results and other data relating to the condition of the site. GTE agrees with the judgment of these parties that the site does not pose a current health hazard to workers at the site or the community." The workers' suit claims their exposure is more recent than that of residents, from 1992 to the early 2000s, when they worked at a warehouse, which their suit says contained contaminated dust, puddles from overflow drains and exposed soil. Magazine Distributors isn't named as a defendant in the suit. Copyright © 2007, Newsday Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 barrow in furness: Sellafield claim no damage from lake siphoning Published on 10/09/2007 UNHAPPY: Campaigns spokeswoman Marianne Bennett NUCLEAR industry chiefs claim their siphoning of water from a lake shortlisted as Britain’s favourite view has no adverse effect on its future. But environmental campaigners disagree, saying Wastwater is put a risk by the nuclear industry’s “addiction” to its freshwater stocks. Now, Sellafield bosses have responded to the story, reported in Friday’s Evening Mail, which revealed the extent of the nuclear site’s plundering of supplies. They say that while an Environment Agency licence permits Sellafield to take up to four million gallons of water a day, on one day last week they only took two million gallons. A spokesperson for the nuclear decommissioning site said: “We use the water for provision of drinking and domestic water in addition to our other process uses, which include water for steam and electrical provision. “Spent nuclear fuel is also stored under water in large ponds which cools the fuel and affords protection to the workforce prior to it being reprocessed. “Previously we have had a number of nuclear reactors generating on the site and their operation has not adversely affected Wastwater.” Their response comes after campaigners for South Lakeland and Furness Friends of the Earth obtained the figures from the Environment Agency under freedom of information legislation. They found that Sellafield has an Environment Agency licence to take the water. Marianne Bennett, a spokesperson for the campaigners, said the lake and its rare Arctic char fish are threatened by the plundering of its water stocks. She added: “Ever more freshwater will be needed to feed the nuclear industry, as seawater is too corrosive for such a hazardous job.” View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.nwemail.co.uk/digitalcopy ***************************************************************** 34 Idaho Statesman: World nuclear conference begins in Boise Ken Dey - kdey@idahostatesman.com Edition Date: 09/10/07 The future of nuclear power will be the focus of a four-day conference in Boise this week. More than 400 people in the nuclear field from around the world are participating in the Global 2007: Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Systems conference. Dale Klein, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was one of the speakers welcoming the group this morning on the opportunities and challenges facing the nuclear industry. Klein spoke about the challenges the United States will face in rebuilding its nuclear industry and stressed the need for international cooperation to promote the industry. Over the past year, Klein said he has attended several international nuclear events and has been impressed with how nuclear power has become a global enterprise. “At the same time, such visits are a stark reminder that, while the United States originated much of the nuclear technology in uses around the world, there are many situations in which the most modern applications of these technologies are now abroad,” Klein said. Read Tuesday's Idaho Statesman for a complete interview with Klein. IdahoStatesman.com ***************************************************************** 35 SignOnSanDiego.com: Going nuclear over Yucca Mountain LETTER FROM WASHINGTON | DANA WILKIE UNION-TRIBUNE September 10, 2007 In the newspaper business, there's the “straight news lead” – an introductory sentence or two that should offer the plain, unvarnished facts about the story to follow. Here's an example: “The chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee plans a comprehensive hearing on the safety of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.” Then there's the lead you might see in a column such as this one. It's a slightly different version of what you just read: “Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who would rather chew worms than watch the nation build a radioactive waste dump in Nevada's desert, will assemble anti-dump experts before her committee to make a case about the depository's flaws.” Not that we fault Boxer for this approach, because the simple fact is this: Although the issues surrounding construction of the Yucca Mountain dump are hugely technical, enormously complicated and best left to scientists, it is those with a keen political interest in the proposed repository – Boxer, President Bush, lawmakers who want radioactive waste out of their states – who will have the most to say about whether it gets built. CRUNCH TIME APPROACHES The Yucca Mountain dump has been decades in the making, but the coming months are a critical time for it. By next summer, the Department of Energy plans to go to the with an application for a construction license. From there, federal regulators will review the case for the dump – the geology, seismology, hydrology, transportation routes, waste canisters and more – to answer questions of great concern to lawmakers such as Boxer. Can water infiltrate and carry radioactivity to drinking water? How easy might it be for terrorists to attack the facility? Could an earthquake damage waste canisters and release radioactive materials into the environment? Is it possible those canisters might corrode prematurely and expose their radioactive contents within the underground dump? As the race to submit the license application accelerates, just about every hearing you'll read about – whether it's before Congress or before a regulatory agency – is likely to be too colored by politics to offer impartial answers to those questions. If Bush could have his way, he would have opened Yucca Mountain yesterday to advance his nuclear-power-dependent energy initiative, which, to be successful, requires a place to store the resulting radioactive waste. If a dump doesn't open, the courts will continue socking the Department of Energy with heavy penalties for failing to take the waste off the hands of reactor operators. And because the Department of Energy is ultimately answerable to the president, imagine the strings that will be pulled to make Yucca Mountain look as safe as a 6-year-old strapped into a Volvo. IT'S ALL PERSPECTIVE Ask just about any lawmaker in Nevada – Democrat or Republican, local councilman or the governor – to opine on the “science” of a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, and the consensus is that it's really bad for the environment and really, really bad for public health. It is a consensus practically unheard of in such a diverse group of politicians, except when it comes to matters of regional self-interest. Boxer, who took the reins of the Environment and Public Works Committee after Democrats seized control of the Congress in the last election, has promised that in coming months she will assemble a hearing to examine the safety, health and permitting issues surrounding Yucca Mountain. For context: Boxer is a long and active foe of Yucca Mountain, having voted against it in 2002. As for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it's a five-member body led by a Bush appointee who was once assistant to the secretary of Defense for nuclear and chemical and biological defense programs. Another is a former GOP staffer who had a long career at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. And a third once worked for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who would just as soon toss a grenade at the dump site as look at it. Now that should make for some lively discussions – all of them based purely on science, of course. Dana Wilkie is a Washington-based correspondent for Copley News Service and a longtime observer of California politics and social issues. © Copyright 2007 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ? A Copley Newspaper ***************************************************************** 36 Inquirer: Helping nuclear industry store spent fuel rods 09/10/2007 Krishna "Kris" Singh, CEO of Holtec. When Holtec International Inc. chief executive officer Krishna "Kris" Singh founded his company in 1986 to develop technology to increase the amount of spent fuel rods that could be stored in nuclear power plants, he figured customers would flock to him. He couldn't have been more wrong. "I am not a natural salesman," Singh, 60, told PhillyInc. "In the early years of Holtec's business, I struggled with it." Eventually, he overcame his weaknesses as a salesman and convinced the nation's nuclear power industry that Holtec could help it address the problem of storing radioactive spent fuel rods. Sales at the closely held Marlton-based company then took off, as did the profits, which Singh declined to disclose. The company, which Singh says has an order backlog of $3 billion, has about 300 employees. Holtec says its technology is used in reactors in the United States, Canada, China, Mexico, Spain, Switzerland, South Korea, Brazil, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan. Last month, Holtec grabbed headlines when it won a $269 million contract to design, license, establish and commission a fuel-storage facility at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine, the 1986 site of the worst accident in the history of nuclear power. The company plans to employ 60 to 80 people in Ukraine, and is looking to buy an office building in the country's capital of Kiev. Notably, Singh said he has kept $1 from his salary each year, and has his company donate the rest to his charitable foundation. Singh's foundation has donated $20 million to his alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania's School of Applied Sciences and Engineering, to create the Krishna P. Singh Center for Nanotechnology. It was the largest gift in the history of the engineering school, where he got his doctorate. Question: How did Holtec get started? Answer: I wanted to take the necessary risk and develop new things. Nuclear power plants were sitting on the cusp. They didn't have enough storage to keep storing fuel inside the plant. There was no alternative technology to deal with the fuel. Q: Nuclear power is in vogue again. Have people on Wall Street asked you about going public? A: We get approached more frequently than I can remember. . . . It's a constant process. We have not seriously entertained going public. Wall Street is a short-term-focused enterprise. The stockholders, they want their returns. They want their returns yesterday. Q: Did you have any mentors who helped you along? A: His name is Dr. Burton Paul. [He was Singh's doctoral adviser.] He gave me encouragement every step of the way. . . . I always went back to him. He's always been a source of inspiration. He's a first-rate intellectual. Q: When you first arrived in America, there weren't nearly as many people from India here as there are today. What was it like for you? A: I used to get a newspaper once a week from the Indian Embassy. It had a circulation of 10,000. That lasted for about two or three years. As the population grew, they got out of the business of keeping us informed. . . . If I wanted to have an Indian meal, I had to go to New York City. Q: What prompted you to make the donation to Penn? A: Today, it's a new century, and I firmly believe that America's future lies in staying ahead in the technology race. The university will play a leading role in that. Q: How big of a challenge is the Chernobyl contract? A: It's going to take us altogether five years to finish. . . . It's a substantial undertaking for us. As one of my engineers described here, "It's the mother of all projects." It's going to consume an enormous amount of our resources. Our reputation rides on it. Read the whole Q&A and other posts at www.phillyinc.biz. ***************************************************************** 37 BBC NEWS: Russia's Bear bomber returns Last Updated: Monday, 10 September 2007, 12:31 GMT 13:31 UK By Neil Arun BBC News The Tupolev Tu-95 is an icon of the old Soviet arsenal, flying the flag for Russia's robust new foreign policy. The Tu-95: Symbol of Soviet-era military might The noisy long-range bomber, powered by four turboprop engines, entered service at the dawn of the Cold War in 1952. More than 50 years later, the Russian air force is again taking the plane on flights that frequently attract Nato attention. British, US and Norwegian fighter jets have scrambled recently to shadow the Russian bombers venturing near foreign airspace. Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the bombers to resume their long-range patrols in August 2007, citing a security threat posed by other powers. Nato fighter jets and the Tu-95 are familiar aerial adversaries - the plane is still known in the West by its old Nato nickname, "Bear". During the Cold War, cat-and-mouse encounters were commonplace. A protocol rapidly evolved to reduce the risk of escalation. Nato fighter jets would be scrambled to intercept the Russian bomber and escort it away. TU-95 BEAR BOMBER Crew: Seven (two pilots, one tailgunner, four others) Range: 15,000km (9,300 miles) Service ceiling: 12,000m (39,600 ft) Length: 49.5m (163ft) Wing span: 51.1m (169ft) For a few dangerous minutes, the planes were on each other's tails. They were close enough sometimes for rival pilots to exchange smiles and waves, before returning to bases thousands of miles apart. According to a Moscow-based aviation analyst, Yuri Karash, the Tu-95 is as iconic for many Russians as the B-52 bomber is for Americans. It is the Cold War workhorse that never went out of fashion. Mr Karash describes the plane as "a symbol of Russia's strategic air power". To the citizens of the former Soviet Union, it was associated with displays of military might and engineering prowess. Distinguished veteran A Tu-95 bomber was used for Russia's hydrogen bomb test in the Arctic in 1961. The bomb was responsible for the largest man-made explosion recorded in history. It had to be dropped by parachute to allow the plane's crew enough time to escape to safety. A year earlier, a civilian version of the plane, the Tupolev Tu-114, was chosen to fly then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to a summit in New York. The Tupolev spans the eras of Khrushchev (left) and Putin (right) Mr Karash says the plane is still popular with Russia's military because of its familiarity, simplicity and economy. "It's like an old buddy," Mr Karash says. "You know how it flies, how it bombs, you know everything about it." "You can save money on its operation and maintenance. It's familiar to flight schools across Russia and there's no problem getting spare parts." Nonetheless, Mr Karash says, it is not an easy aircraft to operate and "you wouldn't want to put a rookie in the cockpit". Technical upgrade The Tu-95 is one of the Russia's most versatile aircraft - and advances in missile technology mean it is unlikely to become redundant soon. The aircraft that was developed to carry nuclear bombs is proving ideal for transporting a new generation of smaller, more accurate munitions. Mr Karash says weapons such as the cruise missile now need no more than a "flying platform" to launch them, eliminating the need for sophisticated bomber jets. The Russian military is currently refitting the Tu-95 bomber fleet with the latest navigation and avionics systems. The accuracy of the new technology means there is less risk that such aircraft may accidentally stray into foreign airspace. Mr Karash says an accurate onboard navigation system is now arguably the most important part of an aircraft as intimidating as the Tu-95. "The responsibility is simply too big," he says - misreading the intentions of a nuclear-capable bomber can potentially provoke war. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 38 BBC NEWS: Glasgow and West | Trident renewal summit to be held Last Updated: Monday, 10 September 2007, 15:25 GMT 16:25 UK The UK government won support to renew nuclear submarines A summit on the future of the Trident nuclear programme in Scotland will be held in October, First Minister Alex Salmond has announced. The event will bring together a range of people opposed to replacing the weapons system, which is based at the Clyde Naval Base near Helensburgh. Plans for the summit were announced in June, as the Scottish Parliament voted against renewing Trident. However, Mr Salmond has suggested a charge to transport warheads through Scotland. Green calls He argued at the start of the year that a levy, by means of legislation, could discourage the UK Government from basing future replacement of the nuclear weapon system in Scotland. In March, the UK government won Commons support for plans to renew the country's nuclear submarine system, despite a large rebellion by Labour MPs. Details of the summit timescale emerged in an exchange of letters between the first minister and Green MSP Robin Harper, who asked for an inquiry into the safety and environmental issues raised by the transport of nuclear weapons on Scotland's roads. Mr Salmond responded by stating he wished to go further. "I want to get to a position where we can persuade the UK Government to change its stance both on the replacement programme and on the general principle of maintaining a nuclear deterrent," he stated. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 39 IndyStar.com: Defining our nuclear strategy IndyStar.com Opinion Lee Hamilton September 10, 2007 What is the place of nuclear weapons in America and, more broadly, the world? This is one of the most important -- and ignored -- questions in American foreign policy. Nuclear proliferation poses a monumental threat. To make advances, we must approach the issue comprehensively. There are two major schools of thought about nuclear policy. The first, and more conventional, view is that nuclear weapons form the core of America's deterrent capability. Furthermore, the extension of America's nuclear umbrella to allies, most famously Japan and Germany, dissuades them from developing nuclear weapons. The other stance posits that the risks -- accidental usage, proliferation and regional destabilization, and terrorist acquisition -- dwarf their utility. In the post--Cold War era, the emergence of transnational terrorism and non-state actors renders nuclear weapons' deterrent function comparatively marginal. The threat of nuclear retaliation does not inhibit terrorists. The question, then, is what should our nuclear strategy be? As a signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the United States is legally bound to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms rate at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." Though the Bush administration has announced plans to cut the number of active deployed warheads in half by 2012 -- to roughly 2,600 -- it also intends to construct the first new American warhead in almost 20 years. The U.S. disregard for its NPT responsibilities forms the foundation of many non-nuclear states'-- and aspiring nuclear states' -- critique of U.S. proliferation policies. These critics are not entirely off base. We should move in the direction of our commitment under the NPT, strengthening a non-proliferation regime that has achieved successes in Argentina, South Africa, Libya and elsewhere. But now the global non-proliferation regime that has served us reasonably well for decades may be unraveling. Many countries, including Iran and North Korea, are seriously pursuing nuclear technology (North Korea has already tested a nuclear weapon). By reducing our emphasis on nuclear weapons -- taking warheads off hair-trigger alert status and deepening cuts to our nuclear arsenal -- we can decrease the attraction nuclear weapons hold for other states. We should also work to create a centralized supply of nuclear fuel, providing states with an incentive to forgo independent uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing. Also, the United States should ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would hinder attempts to upgrade existing nuclear arsenals and prevent non-nuclear states from developing their own. But we must also maintain a strong enough deterrent to ensure protection for the U.S. and its allies from nuclear and conventional attacksThere is no denying the stability the U.S. arsenal affords. That stability, however, is still vulnerable to terrorists seeking to strike our homeland. Six years after the Sept. 11 attacks, detecting nuclear materials at our borders and ports of entry is still not a high enough priority. We need robust inspections and safeguards, both here and abroad, that are more frequent and intensive. Private organizations that work with nuclear material can form an additional line of defense by reporting suspicious procurement requests and tightening safeguards. We need to enforce strong sanctions against violators of international law and increase our interdiction efforts. These require the cooperation of traditional allies, such as France, Germany and Britain, and also that of Russia, China and others, as evidenced by six-party talks with North Korea. Our justified grievances with Beijing and Moscow cannot obstruct pursuing our supreme shared interest: preventing nuclear proliferation. Moscow is a key partner. Only through cooperation with the Kremlin and a dramatically upgraded commitment to the Cooperative Threat Reduction Initiative (Nunn-Lugar) can the necessary measures be taken to secure loose nuclear materials in Russia, reducing the probability of a nightmarish nuclear terrorist attack. These actions would demonstrate to the world America's commitment to non-proliferation. Only we can marshal the collective energies of the world's leaders and now is the time for action. Hamilton is the director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., and director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He served as a U.S. representative from Indiana from 1965 to 1999. Copyright 2007 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 40 Japan Times: Scaremongering about China, as usual japantimes.co.jp Web Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2007 By TOM PLATE LOS ANGELES — It might almost seem like a game of geopolitical chicken: How far can we go in creating monstrous new fears about China? It was a pretty good gig for the U.S. news media. It took longer than I expected for cooler heads to prevail. Today, thankfully, even some of the marquee members of the Cox Commission sadly realize that they were being used for crass political purposes and that the whole deal was the hype of all hypes. Yes, "Red" China spies on us — and we spy on them. The French spy on us, and we spy on the French. Israel has been known to spy on us, and we spy on Iran. And every nation in the world is spying on someone or other. Let's grow up. The latest China scare has been of a less technological and a more family-oriented nature. People can easily understand toys lathered over with lead paint. Then there's foul seafood that isn't fit to be eaten even by fish. And then there are allegations about Chinese tires that are bummers and toothpaste that's not fit for human gums — and so on. Alas, we haven't arrived at the end of the allegation-stream yet. Just the other day came reports of Chinese hacking into Pentagon computers. Exactly who the alleged hackers were in China and what the hack attacks were designed to garner remains vague, to say the least. And what else are they hacking into these days? Your very private e-mail to a loved one, or our Visa and Mastercard accounts? The thing about a scare is that it almost always provides very little fact or perspective. Whether it's the red scare under Joseph McCarthy, or the Cox Commission spy scare, or the seafood and Mattel scare today, there is so much media smoke, you can barely breathe, much less think clearly. Before long, sensible observers will point out that every country tries to hack into the computers of perceived enemies and even friends. We should accept as a fact that the Pentagon and/or the National Security Agency has been doing a nifty number on Chinese military and government computers. (If they haven't, someone should be fired tomorrow!) Don't get me wrong: Product safety and national security are important issues, not jokes for a comedy show. Every effort — on both sides of the Pacific — must be made to ensure acceptable quality standards. But tension always exists, especially in market societies, between the manufacturer and the place of sale. Safety specialists want quality as high as possible. Big companies want the profit margin as big as possible. There is always going to be a conflict of interests between these two goals. That's where government should come in. The private sector — the retailers in the U.S. and the manufacturers in China, for example — should practice ethical business conduct, and many of them do. But not all will. What's essential therefore is good governance; we will always need it, for there is no bargain toy or free lunch if the toy is going to give up little parts that your kid can choke on or if the lunch is inedible. Price is not everything. The Chinese, in their enormous export efforts of the past 10 years, have made a significant contribution not only to their own economy (by creating jobs) but to ours (by keeping prices and thus inflation down). Now is the time to add quality control, and that entails new costs. There is no free government inspector, there is no free lead-free paint, and there is no nicely priced catfish if it is unfit to eat. The Chinese, for their part, seem to have recognized the grave stakes involved in looking unconcerned. They are reacting, but they could use more help, more sympathy and more cooperation from the U.S. This means less politicking, less hysteria, less hack politics. It would be very sad to see the superpower of the 20th century and the potential next superpower of the 21st century going separate ways because of yet another unneeded China scare. UCLA professor Tom Plate is a veteran journalist and author, most recently, of "Confessions of an American Media Man." Copyright 2007 Tom Plate The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 41 UPI: Outside View: Life after START United Press International - International Security - Published: Sept. 10, 2007 at 12:42 PM By TOM MCNUTT UPI Outside View Commentator WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 (UPI) -- Russia’s planned suspension of participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty and its warnings surrounding the proposed American missile defense shield in Europe have reflected a post-Cold War low in bilateral relations. In light of these events, transparency regarding military capabilities and nuclear weapons takes increasing prominence. The most significant and complex arms control treaty in history, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, created an extensive system that reviews and verifies the quantity and quality of American and Soviet nuclear arsenals, creating a very high level of transparency for both nations. On Dec. 5, 2009, however, START is slated to expire, and neither side appears keen on renewing the agreement. Without START, all of its verification procedures disappear completely -- a prospect that worries the intelligence community and international security research groups alike. Fortunately, Russia and the United States have both indicated that they would like to retain some sort of post-START verification measures. However, as the clock ticks down on START with no consensus in sight, the United States and Russia must consider five options for negotiating the future of bilateral nuclear arms verification. Option 1: New treaty Although the Bush administration has been averse to entering into formal treaties, a new treaty would offer significant benefits for Russia and the United States, including eliminating Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine from the agreement. It would also allow Russia and the United States to tailor the verification measures to the current weapons environment instead of the one of START’s ratification over 15 years ago, reinforcing the friendship between the two nations while helping to dampen cries of a Cold War rebirth. With changes in administration in both Russia and the United States scheduled over the next 18 months, completing a new treaty before START’s expiration will be a challenge. Option 2: Extend START The parties must meet by Dec. 5, 2008, to consider whether START will be extended, but they can decide whether or not to extend the treaty any time prior to its expiration. If the parties are not able to complete new treaty negotiations by December 2009, they can simply decide to extend START another five years. Neither the U.S. Senate nor the Russian State Duma need approve it because they have delegated the authorization in the treaty. Option 3: Extend START and cut optional measures Although both parties currently agree that some of the verification measures under START are too expensive and no longer necessary, all of the measures are effectively optional. In light of this, the parties could renew the treaty for five years but choose not to perform all of the measures to which they have the right. Option 4: Amend START START’s own amendment procedures allow for the treaty to be changed as the two countries see fit. However, any amendment must go through the same rigorous advice and consent procedures in the Senate that START went through. Whether that could be achieved before START’s expiration is uncertain. Option 5: New executive agreement The Bush administration has been receptive to executive agreements, which are not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, and technically the United States and Russia could enter into such an agreement. The political costs, however, might be greater than the legal gains. Any such declaration could potentially trigger a clause in START that says any international agreements that “would obligate the United States to reduce or limit the Armed Forces or armaments of the United States in a militarily significant manner” must be undertaken only through the advice and consent treaty procedures. The Senate would probably feel that the president was deliberately contravening the chamber if he chose to use an executive agreement, making this option disagreeable at best. The rhetoric and trajectory of arms control treaties indicates that both countries wish to reduce their armaments. If so, then it’s time to negotiate a treaty eschewing flexibility and imposing predictability. Until that happens, the United States and Russia have several options regarding START, including the appalling option of simply letting it expire. -- (Tom McNutt is a third-year law student at Wake Forest University School of Law and a legal assistant for the Lawyers Alliance for World Security, based at the World Security Institute in Washington.) -- (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) © Copyright United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 DOE: Construction Begins on First-of-its-Kind Advanced Clean Coal Electric Generating Facility September 10, 2007 ORLANDO, Fla. – Officials representing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Southern Company, KBR Inc. and the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) today broke ground to begin construction of an advanced 285-megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility near Orlando, Fla. The new generating station will be among the cleanest, most efficient coal-fueled power plants in the world. Southern Company will operate the facility through its Southern Power subsidiary, which builds, owns, and manages the company’s competitive generation assets. It will be located at OUC’s Stanton Energy Center in Orange County, Fla., and will help meet OUC’s growing energy needs. Commercial operation is scheduled for June 2010. “For more than a decade, we have been involved with DOE, KBR and other partners in the development of the Transport Integrated Gasification (TRIGTM) technology,” said David Ratcliffe, Southern Company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer. “We are excited about the opportunity to now apply this new technology to generate power more cleanly and efficiently using our nation’s abundant coal reserves.” “This groundbreaking represents a significant milestone in the President’s Clean Coal Power Initiative, which aims to reduce emissions and improve the efficiency of existing and new coal-based power plants,” U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said. “Coal is America’s most abundant resource and through a combination of government incentives and private sector support for advanced coal technologies, we are working to further harness America’s technological strength in developing clean, secure, affordable and reliable supplies of energy.” “At OUC, we are proud of our record for environmental stewardship. Each of our plants incorporated the best available environmental technology at the time of construction,” said OUC Board President Lonnie Bell. “The IGCC project is another important stepforward, taking our commitment further by participating in the demonstration of a new, cleaner technology.” The Stanton unit, which is part of President Bush’s Clean Coal Power Initiative, will turn coal into synthetic gas for generating electricity, while significantly reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury. It also will produce 20-25 percent less carbon dioxide emissions than our existing pulverized coal plants and consume approximately half the water required by a pulverized coal plant. TRIGTM was developed by Southern Company at the Power Systems Development Facility in Wilsonville, Ala., through its partnership with DOE and KBR. It is a superior coal-gasification method that is both proven and practical for producing power, chemicals and transportation fuels from coal with less environmental impact. TRIGTM easily handles the high-moisture, high-ash coals that account for more than half of the world’s vast coal reserves. It offers a simpler, more robust method of producing power than most existing coal-gasification technologies. “KBR is proud to play a role in making the Orlando Gasification Facility a reality,” said William P. Utt, Chairman, President and CEO of KBR. “KBR and Southern Company have a long history of collaborating on similar projects that strive to develop advanced gasification technology. We look forward to continuing that collaboration on this important project.” “To meet this nation’s ever-growing energy needs we must rely on a diverse suite of technologies, including new nuclear, energy efficiency and renewables, advanced clean coal and natural gas,” Ratcliffe continued. “New coal technologies such as TRIGTM are part of that solution.” About DOE The U.S. Department of Energy contributes to the future of the nation by ensuring our energy security, maintaining the safety and reliability of our nuclear stockpile, cleaning up the environment from the legacy of the Cold War, and developing innovations in science and clean energy technology. Today’s announcement represents one of four projects selected under the President’s Clean Coal Power Initiative, a $2 billion, 10-year effort to advance technologies that can help meet the Nation’s growing demand for low-cost electricity while reducing carbon emissions that contribute to global climate change concerns. For more information, visit: www.energy.gov. About OUC Established in 1923 by a special act of the Florida Legislature, OUC – The Reliable One is the second largest municipal utility in Florida. OUC provides electric and water services to more than 200,000 customers in Orlando, St. Cloud and parts of unincorporated Orange and Osceola counties. About KBR KBR is a global engineering, construction and services company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services and civil infrastructure sectors. The company offers a wide range of services through its Energy and Chemicals (E&C), Government and Infrastructure (G&I), and Ventures business segments. For more information, visit www.kbr.com. About Southern Company With 4.3 million customers and more than 42,000 megawatts of generating capacity, Atlanta-based Southern Company (NYSE: SO) is the premier energy company serving the Southeast, one of America’s fastest-growing regions. A leading U.S. producer of electricity, Southern Company owns electric utilities in four states and a growing competitive generation company, as well as fiber optics and wireless communications. Southern Company brands are known for excellent customer service, high reliability and retail electric prices that are significantly below the national average. Southern Company has been listed the top ranking U.S. electric service provider in customer satisfaction for seven consecutive years by the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI). Visit our Web site at www.southerncompany.com. Media contact(s): Mike Tyndall or Jason Cuevas (Southern Company) 404-506-5333 or 1-866-506-5333 Megan Barnett (DOE) 202-586-4940 Heather Browne (KBR) 713-753-3775 Erika Hodges (OUC) 407.236.9697 or 407.236.9655 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 43 NAS: Project: Development and Implementation of a Cleanup Technology Roadmap for DOE's Office of Environmental Management Project Title: PIN: NRSB-O-06-03-A Major Unit: Division on Earth and Life Studies Sub Unit: Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board RSO: Crowley, Kevin Subject/Focus Area: Environmental Issue Project Scope A National Academies committee will provide technical and strategic advice to the DOE-EM's Office of Engineering and Technology to support the development and implementation of its cleanup technology roadmap. Specifically, the study will identify: o Principal science and technology gaps and their priorities for the cleanup program based on previous National Academies reports, updated and extended to reflect current site conditions and EM priorities and input form key external groups, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Environmental Protection Agency, and state regulatory agencies. o Strategic opportunities to leverage research and development from other DOE programs (e.g., in the Office of Science, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, and the National Nuclear Security Administration), other federal agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency), universities, and the private sector. o Core capabilities at the national laboratories that will be needed to address EM's long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges, especially at the four laboratories located at the large DOE sites (Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Savannah River National Laboratory). o The infrastructure at these national laboratories and at EM sites that should be maintained to support research, development, and bench and pilot scale demonstrations of technologies for the EM cleanup program, especially in radiochemistry. The committee will provide findings and recommendations, as appropriate, to EM on maintenance of core capabilities and infrastructure at national laboratories and EM sites to address its long-term, high-risk cleanup challenges. The project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. The approximate start date for the project is February 1, 2007. A report is expected to be released at the end of the project in approximately 16 months. Project Duration: 16 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 03/12/2007 Meeting 2 - 06/13/2007 Meeting 3 - 08/27/2007 Meeting 4 - 10/31/2007 Meeting 5 - 01/08/2008 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************