***************************************************************** 09/27/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.227 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: UCS: A Target for U.S. Emissions Reductions NUCLEAR REACTORS 2 The Hindu: Left to review political situation 3 US: Platts: DOE issues conditional agreements for nuclear plant agre 4 US: SF New Mexican: Senator rallies around nuclear-plant application 5 US: Platts: Shaw Group to provide engineering services at Perry 6 Platts: Renewables group questions EC neutrality on nuclear power 7 RIA Novosti: First floating nuclear power plant to come into service 8 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet Octobe 9 US: Tennessean: TVA votes first, then listens - 10 US: statesman.com | Austin should consider new new nuclear plant | 11 US: Reuters: Entergy La. River Bend reactor shut | 12 US: Reuters: TVA board advances new Alabama nuclear reactors 13 US: Reuters: APS works on Ariz. Palo Verde 3 reactor before refuel | 14 US: IEER: Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Po 15 US: Knoxville News Sentinel: TVA board begins process for Alabama nu 16 Prague Daily Monitor: Panel: we will need more nuclear power - 17 US: Knoxville News Sentinel: Senate unit to act on TVA nominees 18 US: LAT: Nukes still work when the sun doesn't shine and the wind do 19 ITAR-TASS: China invites Russia to build two more reactors at Tianwa 20 US: csmonitor.com: Nuclear power surge coming | 21 News & Star: Boom goes my view 22 Whitehaven News: Dismay as package for accepting nuclear fails to co NUCLEAR SECURITY 23 US: sacbee.com: How could nukes be transported by mistake? - NUCLEAR SAFETY 24 BBC NEWS: Families quiz body parts inquiry 25 US: Hanford News: Agency calls for compensation for sick workers 26 US: EPA: Human Studies Review Board; Notice of Public Meeting 27 US: Times-News: Simpson, others optimistic about RECA progress NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 28 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Yucca becoming irrelevant 29 US: Daily Sundial: Governor receives bill to clean up nuclear contam 30 US: Gallup Independent: NRC wants uranium mining input 31 AU ABC: Australia's NT concerned over nuke dump 32 On Line Opinion: A nuclear powered world - 33 AU ABC: Cattle station latest nomination for nuclear waste site - PEACE 34 US: Securing the Bomb: Index 35 US: UPI: Replacement pit for W88 nuke approved 36 US: Guardian Unlimited: Physicists Challenge US Missile Claims 37 Pakistan Times: No IAEA Access to Dr A Q Khan - Pakistan FO 38 US: Guardian Unlimited: Physicists Question US on Missiles US DEPT. OF ENERGY 39 Hanford News: Federal agency: Some Hanford workers with cancer may g 40 Hanford News: Hanford work to continue under '07 budget 41 Hanford News: Government OKs health paymentsfor early workers 42 Inside Bay Area: Livermore Lab workers union recognized 43 Knoxville News Sentinel: Pension prayers yet to be answered 44 UPI: NNSA issues notice on Y-12 problems 45 lamonitor.com: Lab updates biggest construction project 46 Oak Ridger: Survey results reveal cleanup concerns - 47 Oak Ridger: Y-12 completes major upgrade of compressed air systems $ 48 KOB.com: Judge sides with watchdog group in LANL case 49 ESN: DOE awards task order for SPRU land areas cleanup 50 Seattle PI: Hanford workers with cancer may be compensated ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 UCS: A Target for U.S. Emissions Reductions Global Warming 101 Contents 1. Setting a Reasonable Target 2. Dividing Up the Work 3. Defining the U.S. Share of Global Emissions Reductions 4. Evaluating Existing Proposals 5. The Way Forward Butterfly Links Emissions Target Report (PDF) Emissions Target Fact Sheet (PDF) Comparison of federal bills (PDF) Substantial scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature of more than two degrees Celsius (C) above pre-industrial levels (i.e., those that existed prior to 1860) poses severe risks to natural systems and human health and well-being. Sustained warming of this magnitude could, for example, result in the extinction of many species and extensive melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets—causing global sea level to rise between 12 and 40 feet. In light of this evidence, policy makers in the European Union have committed their countries to a long-term goal of limiting warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels. The United States has agreed in principle to work with more than 180 other nations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to bring about the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [human-caused] interference with the climate system.” Though the federal government has done little to live up to that agreement thus far, there is now growing momentum to pursue deep reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other heat-trapping gases that cause global warming. California, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington have all enacted laws or established policies setting global warming pollution reduction targets, while states in both the Northeast and West have signed agreements to achieve regional targets. Now the U.S. Congress is considering several bills that propose a variety of global warming emissions reduction targets. FIGURE 1. Defining the U.S. Share of the Industrialized World’s Cumulative Emissions Budget (2000–2050) Click here for a larger image Setting a Reasonable Target A proper evaluation of the adequacy of these bills must consider what is needed to avoid the potentially dangerous consequences of temperatures rising more than 2C. Scientific studies indicate that, to have a reasonable chance of preventing temperatures from rising above this level, we must stabilize the concentration of heattrapping gases in the atmosphere at or below 450 parts per million CO2-equivalent (450 ppm CO2eq—a measurement that expresses the concentration of all heat-trapping gases in terms of CO2). This “stabilization target” would provide a roughly 50 percent chance of keeping the global average temperature from rising more than 2C, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above pre-industrial levels, and a 67 percent chance of rising less than 3C. Therefore, any policy that seeks to avoid dangerous climate change should set a maximum stabilization target of 450 ppm CO2eq. To meet this target, worldwide cumulative emissions of heat-trapping gases must be limited to approximately 1,700 gigatons (Gt) CO2eq for the period 2000–2050—of which approximately 330 GtCO2eq has already been emitted. Staying within this 1,700 GtCO2eq “global cumulative emissions budget” will require aggressive reductions in worldwide emissions (i.e., those of industrialized and developing nations combined). Dividing Up the Work If we assume the world’s developing nations pursue the most aggressive reductions that can reasonably be expected of them, the world’s industrialized nations will have to reduce their emissions an average of 70 to 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. In addition, industrialized nations’ cumulative emissions over this period must be no more than 700 GtCO2eq (approximately 40 percent of the global budget). This 70 to 80 percent range for reductions by 2050 assumes that industrialized nations’ emissions will peak in 2010 before starting to decline, and that those from developing nations will peak between 2020 and 2025. A delay in the peak of either group would require increasingly steep and unrealistic global reduction rates in order to stay within the cumulative emissions budget for 2000–2050. Defining the U.S. Share of Global Emissions Reductions There are several ways to determine the United States’ share of the industrialized nations’ emissions budget, including allocations based on the current U.S. share (among industrialized countries) of population, gross domestic product (GDP), and heattrapping emissions. Using these criteria, the U.S. cumulative emissions budget ranges from 160 to 265 GtCO2eq for the period 2000–2050, of which approximately 45 GtCO2eq has already been emitted (Figure 1). Given our aggressive assumptions about reductions by other nations and the fact that 450 ppm CO2eq represents the upper limit needed to avoid a potentially dangerous temperature increase, the United States should reduce its emissions at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. The costs of delay are high. To meet this minimum target, the United States must reduce its emissions an average of 4 percent per year starting in 2010.† If, however, U.S. emissions continue to increase until 2020—even on a “low-growth” path projected by the Energy Information Administration (EIA)—the United States would have to make much sharper cuts later: approximately 8 percent per year on average from 2020 to 2050, or about double the annual reductions that would be required if we started promptly. The earlier we start, the more flexibility we will have later (Figure 2). FIGURE 2. Spending the U.S. Cumulative Emissions Budget Click here for a larger image Evaluating Existing Proposals Of the current climate policy proposals before the U.S. Congress, only the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act (S. 309) and the Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590) would require reductions consistent with staying below the upper limit of the U.S. cumulative emissions budget (265 GtCO2eq) (Figure 3a). All of the other bills under consideration—the Lieberman-Warner proposal, the Global Warming Reduction Act (S. 485), the Climate Stewardship Act (H.R. 620), and the Low Carbon Economy Act (S. 1766)—would exceed that limit. The amounts by which these bills would go over the budget may not appear to be great, but if every nation went over its budget by a similar amount, the result would be a greatly increased risk of dangerous climate change. FIGURE 3a. U.S. Emissions Reductions under Federal Proposals Click here for a larger image Furthermore, no proposal currently before Congress would come close to the proposed lower end of the U.S. emissions budget (160 GtCO2eq). Several of the proposals do provide for congressional review and periodic reports by the National Academy of Sciences to ensure U.S. targets remain consistent with the goal of preventing the global average temperature from rising 2C above pre-industrial levels. These periodic reviews are an essential element of any robust federal climate policy. FIGURE 3b. Cumulative U.S. Emissions in 2050 under Federal Proposals *The lower portion of the bar indicates cumulative emissions for S. 1766 under the best-case scenario, in which the bill’s price ceiling is never triggered, all emissions reduction targets out to 2030 are met, and all of the conditions needed to achieve the 2050 target are met, including international action, a recommendation by the president to Congress, and additional congressional legislation. This scenario also assumes that the 2050 target reduces total (economy-wide) U.S. emissions 60 percent below 2006 levels,even though earlier targets reduce emissions for only 85 percent of the economy. The color gradient in the upper portion of the bar represents the uncertainty in the additional cumulative emissions that would occur if the bill’s price ceiling were triggered. (The darker the color, the more likely it is that total cumulative emissions would reach that level.) The gradient is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent explicit modeling of the price ceiling’s effect on emissions decisions. The range depicted here assumes that if the price cap is triggered, the total cumulative emissions could approach those projected by the EIA under a low-growth “business as usual” scenario. Click here for a larger image The Way Forward It is clear that the United States must quickly overcome its current impasse on climate policy if we are to avoid the risks of dangerous climate change. Many solutions are already available, including greater energy efficiency, increased use of renewable energy, and reductions in deforestation. These changes can be encouraged by a wide range of market-based and complementary policies including cap-and-trade programs, renewable electricity standards, efficiency standards for electricity and vehicles, and incentives for cleaner technologies and international cooperation on emissions reductions. For the United States to be fully engaged in the fight against global warming, however, Congress must support legislation that requires the deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions needed to stay within the emissions budget described here and preserve a climate safe for future generations. *All heat-trapping emissions, including those from land use and land cover changes. The budget assumes industrialized nations’ emissions peak in 2010 and developing nations’ emissions peak in 2020. †Equivalent to an average absolute reduction of 0.16 GtCO2eq per year (or about 2 percent of current levels). Union of Concerned Scientists Page Last Revised: 09/20/07 ***************************************************************** 2 The Hindu: Left to review political situation Thursday, September 27, 2007 : 2035 Hrs New Delhi, Sept. 27 (PTI): As differences between Left parties and the UPA over the Indo-US nuclear deal seems irreconcilable, the outside supporters have planned meetings of their decision-making bodies over the weekend to review the prevailing political situation. While the CPI(M) is holding a day-long meeting of its Politburo tomorrow followed by a three-day session of the Central Committee in Kolkata, the Forward Bloc Central Secretariat is meeting here on Saturday. The CPI has already convened unscheduled meetings of its National Executive and Council meeting in October-end. The Left build-up comes ahead of the October 5 meet of the Left-UPA panel on the Indo-US nuclear agreement, with a top CPI leader warning that the government cannot have the Left parties on board if it wanted to clinch the deal. "If the government is determined to go ahead with operationalising the deal, they cannot take the Left on board," CPI National Secretary, D Raja, said. He said the nuclear agreement was not just a single issue, but "a culmination of the drift of the UPA government from all the policy positions it has taken in the Common Minimum Programme." Asserting that the government's priorities were "misplaced", Raja said "the government is becoming an appendage to the US ... It is failing to understand the situation." Copyright 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 3 Platts: DOE issues conditional agreements for nuclear plant agreements 2007-09-25 Washington (Platts)--25Sep2007 The US Department of Energy on Tuesday released a conditional agreement that would enable companies building advanced nuclear power plants in the US to obtain federal risk insurance for their projects. The agreements detail the rights and responsibilities of companies eligible for the insurance, which would cover costs associated with delays caused by litigation or regulation. "Conditional agreements pave the way for risk insurance contracts that will provide the first project sponsors constructing nuclear power plants with assistance if they face delays in expanding the use of nuclear energy across the nation," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. Bodman announced the availability of the agreements at a meeting in Chicago. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized $2 billion in risk insurance to promote construction of nuclear plants employing advanced technologies. The law provided the coverage for the first six sponsors of plants, with up to $500 million available for each of the first two plants and up to $250 million on hand for each of the following four plants. The conditional agreement is available to companies once the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has docketed their applications for combined construction and operating licenses, DOE said. The risk insurance becomes available once companies have obtained their NRC licenses and begun construction of their plants. The conditional agreement is part of a process for the risk insurance that DOE approved in August 2006. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Inside Energy 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=23_33&products_id=61 Copyright 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 4 SF New Mexican: Senator rallies around nuclear-plant application By ANDY LENDERMAN | September 26, 2007 Domenici’s steadfast nuclear support draws quick criticism Presidents and pop stars come and go, but one thing stays the same: Sen. Pete Domenici’s steadfast support for nuclear power. Domenici, R-N.M., heralded the first nuclear power plant application in 29 years this week by hosting a capital news conference and broadcasting his message to news outlets all over the state. But it’s not always a welcome message, and the public is still not sold on the idea, some say. “Nuclear energy is a clean, efficient power source that America will need if it is to meet expected energy demands over the next several decades,” Domenici said in a news release. And global warming is a reason to support it, he says. “I believe that any serious effort to address climate change must include nuclear power,” he said. Two new reactors would be constructed by NRG and the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co. in Matagorda County, Texas. Those companies have filed an application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Incentives like risk insurance and loan guarantee programs were provided to the industry in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which Domenici wrote with U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. Today, almost 20 percent of the country’s electricity comes from 104 nuclear power plants. There are three in Arizona, four in Texas and none in New Mexico. Most are east of the Mississippi River. “This is the first time in almost 30 years that the NRC received a licensing application for a new nuclear power plant,” Bingaman said in a statement. “Nuclear power is an important part of our nation’s energy mix.” One student of energy issues said Domenici is a spokesman for the industry. “Without the over-the-top promotion, I don’t know that nuclear power would be a serious consideration today,” said Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group. Mello said without government subsidies, the applications would not appear. “And some people might think that they will help us with global warming, but it will be too little and too late and too expensive,” Mello said “… And then we come to the waste part.” Political opposition and environmental issues have stopped the government from opening Yucca Mountain, a permanent waste dump in Nevada. Indeed, there are intellectual arguments for nuclear power, a political science professor at The University of New Mexico said, like greater energy independence. But there are trust issues about the government taking care of waste, and nobody wants a power plant in their backyard, professor Lonna Atkeson said. “If safety trumps efficiency and clean energy, then people aren’t going to be supportive of it,” she said. Atkeson studies public opinion, and added many people have a negative view of nuclear energy. Contact Andy Lenderman at 986-3037 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com. Copyright 2007 The New Mexican, Inc. ***************************************************************** 5 Platts: Shaw Group to provide engineering services at Perry 2007-09-25 Washington (Platts)--25Sep2007 The Shaw Group will provide engineering services at Perry for dry spent fuel storage to be constructed beginning in spring 2008, Shaw Group said September 25. Shaw did not disclose the value of the contract, under which it will provide First Energy Nuclear Operating Co. with "engineering and design services for the fuel transfer system, pool-to-pad haul path design, canister pad design and security system design," Shaw said. Fenoc said August 21 that it had awarded a contract to Holtec to provide 16 Hi-Storm 100 casks and MPC-68 storage canisters for Perry, to be delivered in time for loading to begin in early 2010. The storage facility will be designed to accommodate 80 cask systems, Fenoc said last month. Copyright 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 6 Platts: Renewables group questions EC neutrality on nuclear power 2007-09-26 Brussels (Platts)--26Sep2007 A renewable energy group said it was "deeply worried" about the neutrality of the European Commission when it comes to nuclear power. The European Renewable Energies Federation, or EREF, was reacting September 26 to a September 25 EC decision. The EC decision was that there was no illegal state aid involved in the 570-million-euro (US$805 million) export credit guarantee from French export credit agency Coface to French nuclear vendor Areva for the Olkiluoto-3 reactor under construction in Finland. EREF President Peter Danielsson said the EC had turned its back on its own policies and past practices with regard to export guarantees in intra-community EU trade, "for the sake of shielding nuclear from competitive market conditions and in order to fence out non EU competitors. EREF will evaluate the Coface decision once the whole document is available and see what next legal steps should be taken." Copyright 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 7 RIA Novosti: First floating nuclear power plant to come into service in 2011 20:46 | 27/ 09/ 2007 MOSCOW, September 27 (RIA Novosti) - The world's first floating nuclear power plant will be commissioned in 2011 in Russia's Arctic, the governor of the Arkhangelsk Region said Thursday. "The construction of the first such power unit with 70 MW capacity was started this year, and should be completed by 2010. The plant is most likely to operate in Severodvinsk [in Russia's Arkhangelsk Region]. Its launch is planned for 2011," Nikolai Kiselyov said. "A floating NPP is a new product on the global market, and I hope it will be in demand," he said. Russia started building the plant at the Arctic port of Severodvinsk in April, and is expected to build another six NPPs of its kind within a decade. Earlier a Russian nuclear official said over 20 countries were interested in buying Russia's floating nuclear power plants. The NPPs are expected to be widely used in remote regions with power shortfalls, and also in the implementation of projects requiring stand-alone and uninterrupted electricity supplies in the absence of a developed power grid. The second floating NPP could be built near the Russky Island in the Primorye Territory in Russia's Far East in 2011. The region may host an Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in August 2012. If Vladivostok does not host the summit, the NPP could be placed in Peveka, in the remote northeastern Chukotka Autonomous Area. The first floating nuclear power plant will have capacity of 70 MW of electricity, and about 300 MW of thermal power. The cost of the first plant is estimated at 10 billion rubles ($400 million), but could later be reduced to 6 billion rubles ($240 million). RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 8 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet October 4-6 in Rockville, Maryland News Release - 2007-122 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a public meeting October 4-6 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, digital instrumentation and controls project plans and interim staff guidance, a draft generic letter on managing gas intrusion in emergency core cooling systems, decay heat removal and containment spray systems, and dissimilar metal weld issues. The committee will be briefed by the Nuclear Energy Institute, Electric Power Research Institute, and Institute of Nuclear Power Operations regarding industry activities. The ACRS advises the Commission on licensing and operation of nuclear power plants and related safety issues. The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. The session on Thursday and Friday will run from 8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; Saturday’s session will run from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. A complete agenda is available on the NRC’s Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2007. Anyone with questions or those wishing to make public statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at 301-415-7364. To pursue video conferencing services, contact Theron Brown, at 301-415-8066. 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. Thursday, September 27, 2007 ***************************************************************** 9 Tennessean: TVA votes first, then listens - Nashville, Tennessee - Thursday, 09/27/07 - Tennessean.com Thursday, 09/27/07 Utility has history of passing budget before public input By ANNE PAINE Staff Writer A multibillion-dollar-a-year federal agency will decide today where to spend its money for the next year and possibly whether to raise electric rates for millions of Tennesseans. But the public can't see the figures until a few minutes before it's decided, when it's too late to complain. That's what's happening today as the Tennessee Valley Authority board meets in Huntsville, Ala. TVA staff will present proposed budget figures in the meeting, but traditionally it is right before the board votes on them. "TVA, under the Sunshine Act, is required to have board meetings in public. It's not required to vet what they're doing prior to the meeting," said spokesman Gil Francis. Public comment will be allowed today in a "listening session" after the board meeting, if a member of the public signs up before the meeting starts at 9 a.m., Francis said. The federal agency creates electricity that is sold through distributors across the Tennessee Valley, including Nashville Electric Service. Rate increases pass through to their customers, such as residents and businesses. Jeannie Atkinson, a bank teller and ratepayer in Hermitage, said she didn't know that TVA did its public business the way it does. "That's terrible," she said Wednesday of the upcoming budget vote. "What if we don't like it?" TVA's critics say it's not a new problem. "Board meetings tend to be really almost a sham," said Stephen Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy in Knoxville, and a longtime TVA watchdog. "All the issues seem already to have been worked out in advance." Calls for comments from TVA board Chairman William B. Sansom, of Knoxville, and Dennis Bottorff, a Nashville member of the board, were not returned Thursday. Each was traveling, according to assistants at their respective business offices. Process called a farce The TVA staff recommended at the August board meeting finishing the partially built-then-mothballed second nuclear reactor unit at Watts Bar in East Tennessee, saying it would cost $2.5 billion. The board allowed members of the public to comment, in this case right after the presentation and shortly before its vote. "Nobody could get the information ahead of time," Smith said. Slides had flashed across a screen that reported details in the staff recommendation to finish Watts Bar, based on a study not made public by the nuclear firm Bechtel. The company has been paid millions of dollars by TVA over the years for consulting and work on nuclear projects, and could work on Watts Bar, too. Smith and others had a few minutes to try to absorb the information from the passing slides, before making a comment. "It's a farce," Smith said Wednesday. "If the board wanted meaningful comment, there would be a process that allowed it. I don't think you get good policy out of this." TVA meets all legal requirements, according to Francis. "Those decisions are made in the public view," he said. "It's not like they've started to do that this year," he said of the process. "It's the way it's always been done." Funding won't be known Tennessee Valley residents pay some of the lowest electricity rates in the nation. They benefit from TVA's favorable bond rating as a result of its federal status. At the same time, it carries about $25 billion in debt. One budget item today probably will be funding for an energy conservation program, but conservation group members aren't expecting the amount to match what is needed. Either way, they won't know until partway through the meeting how much it is. Then, they probably won't get to comment until afterward. "They have a very poor record of including the public in the decisions they make, said Alex Tapia, assistant director of the energy conservation group Kilowatt Ours in Nashville. "Being the largest public utility in the country, that's sad." Copyright 2007, tennessean.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 statesman.com | Austin should consider new new nuclear plant | The Editorial Board By The Editorial Board | Thursday, September 27, 2007, 12:25 PM The City of Austin is quietly considering whether it should invest in the proposed $6 billion expansion of the nuclear power plant at the South Texas Project near Bay City, and City Council Member Lee Leffingwell is right to defend that consideration - though he and other city leaders no doubt will hear loud and angry objections. NRG Energy Inc., a New Jersey company, plans to build two new nuclear reactors at the existing South Texas Project. Austin owns 16 percent of the two existing nuclear reactors at the plant, and they supply about 30 percent of the electricity used by Austin Energy customers every year. Its much too soon to endorse Austins participation in the expansion project; there are a lot of questions to be answered, particularly regarding the firmness of that $6 billion cost estimate. That said, Leffingwell - as staunch an environmental advocate as any - is right to argue that Austin must consider buying into the two new reactors to meet future energy needs. Its something were going to have make a decision on next year, and I think we have to give it serious consideration, Leffingwell said Thursday. I know Austin Energy is going to be taking a serious look at it, Leffingwell said, and they will evaluate the cost factors and safety problems, and I think we do have to realize that the plant is going to be on the ground whether or not we participate. San Antonio, whose municipal utility also owns part of the South Texas Project, is investing in the expansion, and the Lower Colorado River Authority, which supplies power to much of Central Texas outside of Austin, is in serious talks with NRG over both coal and nuclear plant investments. Longtime residents will remember how Austins original 16 percent share in the South Texas Project was supposed to cost $161 million but ended up costing ratepayers $1 billion. But this, too, should be known: Austin Energy reports that of the $350 million a year its spends on fuel for power plants, only 4 percent, or about $14 million, is spent on nuclear fuel. NRGs application for federal permits is likely to be approved. Congress has encouraged development of nuclear power plants with taxpayer-backed insurance guarantees and production tax credits. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees such plants, has kept open arms to the industry, though no company has filed for a permit since the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979. But memories of the that accident, in which no one was injured or died, have faded, and many environmental and consumer groups are now as alarmed about the construction of new coal-fired power plants as they are nuclear ones. Just this year the mayor of Dallas led a campaign to block Texas Utilities from building 11 new coal-fired power plants. The principal argument against them was that they would make it too difficult for Texas to meet federal clean air standards. Another objection was that they would make a bad global warming problem even worse. Both concerns - air pollution and global warming - apply to Austin as well. Nuclear power has its own problems with radioactive waste, but at least that waste is isolated and guarded, not pumped into the air we breathe or the climate we live in. Environmentalists are beginning to argue that Texas can get by without adding new nuclear or coal-fired plants. Instead, they say, we could rely on a rigorous program of energy efficiency, conservation, wind and solar power sources and natural gas-fired power plants. But its doubtful that most Texans, including most Austin Energy customers, want to risk their economic well-being - and air conditioning - on energy efficiency programs and wind turbines alone. As Leffingwell notes, the issue isnt whether to build the two nuclear reactors; its whether Austin should participate. Austin should seriously consider it. Copyright 2007 The Austin American-Statesman. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 11 Reuters: Entergy La. River Bend reactor shut | Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:57am EDT NEW YORK, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp's (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 966-megawatt River Bend nuclear power station in Louisiana shut by early Thursday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report. On Wednesday, the unit was operating at full power. Electricity traders said the company probably shut the unit for its planned month-long autumn refueling outage. River Bend last shut for refueling from April 23-May 15, 2006. It is on an 18-month refueling cycle. The station, which entered service in 1986, is located in St. Francisville in West Feliciana Parish, about 24 miles north-northwest of Baton Rouge. The company has said it would submit in 2008 an application with the NRC for a construction and operating license to build a new reactor at River Bend. The company is considering the construction of General Electric's Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactors (ESBWR) at the site. One MW powers about 500 homes in Louisiana. Entergy, of New Orleans, owns and operates about 30,000 MW of generating capacity, markets energy commodities, and transmits and distributes power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Reuters2007All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 12 Reuters: TVA board advances new Alabama nuclear reactors Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:19pm EDT HOUSTON, Sept 27 (Reuters) - The board of Tennessee Valley Authority moved a step closer to seeking approval to license two new nuclear reactors in Alabama, the agency said on Thursday. The board of the largest U.S. public power supplier approved submitting an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seeking a license to build and operate two advanced nuclear units at TVA's Bellefonte site in Hollywood, Ala. A decision to build the plant would require further board action following the licensing process, TVA said in a release. Licensing of new reactors in the U.S. came to a halt after the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania. This week, Princeton, New Jersey-based NRG Energy (NRG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) filed an application with the NRC seeking a license to build two reactors in Texas, the first complete request filed with the agency to construct new reactors in the United States in nearly three decades. Last month, Constellation Energy Group Inc (CEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and French-owned Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) submitted a partial request to build new reactors in Maryland. The NRC expects filings from four more nuclear players before the end of the year, including the Bellefonte application, a spokesman said. TVA's Bellefonte site is one of two sites being considered by NuStart Energy, a consortium of 10 utilities. "NuStart's commitment is to continue providing the resources necessary to support quick and accurate responses as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducts its technical and environmental reviews and to ensure the application successfully earns approval," NuStart president Marilyn Kray said in a statement. NuStart plans to use the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design. Bellefonte is the site where TVA deferred completion of two partially built reactors in 1988, 14 years after the NRC issued construction permits. In 2005, TVA canceled the project and began considering the site for new advanced reactors. Costs of the canceled project were amortized over a 10-year period. The TVA board also approved building a 600-megawatt, natural gas-fired power plant at its Lagoon Creek power station in Tennessee. ***************************************************************** 13 Reuters: APS works on Ariz. Palo Verde 3 reactor before refuel | Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:59am EDT NEW YORK, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Arizona Public Service reduced the 1,247-megawatt Unit 3 at the Palo Verde nuclear power station in Arizona to about 75 percent power to repair the main condenser, a spokeswoman for the company said Thursday. She said operators would keep the unit at about 75 percent power until Sept. 30, when the unit will shut for a planned refueling outage and maintenance overhaul. During the outage, the company will replace the unit's two steam generators and three low-pressure turbines in addition to the usual refueling activities. The spokeswoman said the unit will likely return by the end of the year. Each steam generator is about 72 feet high, 17 feet in diameter and weighs about 800 tons. The unit last shut for refueling from April 2-May 15, 2006. It is on an 18-month refueling cycle. She could not say how much the project would cost but noted that after this work the power output of Unit 3 should be the same as Units 1 and 2. The 3,875 MW Palo Verde station is located in Wintersburg in Maricopa County, about 50 miles west of Phoenix. There are three units at the station: the 1,314 MW Units 1 and 2, and 1,247 MW Unit 3, which entered service in 1986, 1986 and 1988, respectively. Continued... ***************************************************************** 14 IEER: Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. A Joint Project of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Press release, July 30, 2007 Executive Summary [PDF 450kB], July 2007 Other IEER Publications Science for Democractic Action [PDF 2.43MB] Also available - at EggheadBooks: Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Climate Change IEER Press and RDR Books, 2006 ====================================================================== Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Comments to Outreach Coordinator: ieer at ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA Posted July 30, 2007 This page updated September 26, 2007 ***************************************************************** 15 Knoxville News Sentinel: TVA board begins process for Alabama nuke reactors By Andrew Eder (Contact) Updated 12:34 p.m., September 27, 2007 TVA’s board gave its stamp of approval today to begin a process that could lead to the utility building two advanced nuclear reactors in Alabama. TVA, as part of an alliance of utilities and manufacturers known as NuStart, will apply for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build and operate a two-unit plant at the Bellefonte site near Hollywood, Ala. The U.S. Department of Energy is splitting the projected $50 million in application costs with NuStart. The NRC’s review is expected to last about 3.5 years. If the license is approved, TVA Senior Vice President of Nuclear Generation and Development Ashok Bhatnagar said the utility has several options: do nothing, build the plant itself, sell the license to others, or partner with other utilities in building the plant. Earlier this year, TVA restarted a mothballed reactor at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in northern Alabama, and the utility recently approved a projected five-year, $2.5 billion project to complete a never-finished reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City, Tenn. Earlier in today’s meeting, TVA’s board approved a budget for fiscal 2008 with a $400 million cash shortfall, much of which will be recovered through a planned single-digit rate increase next year. The budget includes $9.7 billion in operating expenses next year, with $1.9 billion budgeted for capital expenditures. The utility’s board also approved construction of a natural gas-fired plant in West Tennessee. More details as they develop online and in Friday's News Sentinel. Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318. 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 16 Prague Daily Monitor: Panel: we will need more nuclear power - By CTK / Published 27 September 2007 Some experts recommend expanding ČEZ's Temelín nuclear plant. Brno, Sept 26 (CTK) - The Czech Republic has to start thinking about a new nuclear energy source, according to a preliminary analysis by the government's commission for evaluating the Czech Republic's energy needs, presented at a seminar in Brno Wednesday. The commission has come to the conclusion that the country lack resources for the use of renewable energy sources, Vaclav Paces, the chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences, said at the seminar. The government indicated in its statement, however, that it would not plan and back construction of new nuclear power units. There are now two nuclear power plants in the Czech Republic - one in Dukovany, southern Moravia, and the other in Temelin, southern Bohemia. They cover around one third of the country's energy consumption. Some experts say that the share should be raised in the future. Renewable sources have the capacity of several terawatt-hours, but the Czech Republic consumes tens of terawatt-hours annually, and it will not be less in the future, Paces said. Industry and Trade Minister Martin Riman also prefers new nuclear sources. Experts from the firm EGU Brno recommend that two units with annual output of 1,200 megawatts should be built in the Temelin plant. "We must take the step," Energy Regulation Office (ERU) chairman Josef Firt said, adding that even new sources will not help secure favourable energy prices. Now, the EU's positive stance will be needed, Fort said. Jiri Feist of the firm CEZ said at the same event last year that a new nuclear power unit would be necessary. If the Czech Republic does not want to be short of electricity sometime in the year 2020, it should decide on possible construction of further nuclear reactors now already, he said at that time. Paces said this was only a preliminary stance. The commission, made up of leading Czech experts, has been working since May, but it got money for its work from the state only a fortnight ago. It will submit a final document on the country's energy future in June 2008. This story is from the Czech News Agency (CTK). The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content. Copyright 2007 by the Czech News Agency (CTK). All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Knoxville News Sentinel: Senate unit to act on TVA nominees Agency's board meets today on '08 budget proposal By Andrew Eder (Contact) Thursday, September 27, 2007 A U.S. Senate committee will consider three nominations to the TVA board of directors at a hearing Tuesday. Susan Richardson Williams, a Knoxville public relations executive, and Bishop William H. Graves of Memphis are current directors whom President Bush has renominated to the board. Thomas C. Gilliland, a Georgia banker, has been named to fill the board term of Bill Baxter of Knoxville, who resigned his seat in January. The Senate has responsibility for confirming presidential nominees. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works — of which Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee is a member — is scheduled to consider pending nominations on Tuesday. A spokesman for the panel confirmed that the TVA nominees would be among the appointments discussed and said further details would be released later this week. The TVA board meets today in Huntsville, Ala., where it will consider, among other items, the fiscal 2008 budget proposal and plans for a new nuclear plant in Alabama. Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318. 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 18 LAT: Nukes still work when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow - Los Angeles Times UC Riverside professor critiques Times editorial on solar and wind power R. Stephen White September 27, 2007 Wind turbines, solar energy collectors and photovoltaic cells have been popular sources of electricity since the oil crisis in the late 1970s, and they are increasingly favored by many scientists and much of the public as methods for reducing global warming. But the latest results from 2006 give the discouraging news that wind energy generated less than 1% of the electricity needs in the United States and 2% of California's electricity. Solar energy generates less than 0.1% and 0.2%, respectively. A Los Angeles Times' September 17 editorial suggested several reasons for the failure of wind energy to compete for the generation of electricity in California. The older wind farms in the San Gorgonio Pass, the Tehachapi and Solano County are outdated. New wind turbines have not followed, primarily because of competition from lower-cost natural gas. Narrow interest groups ? homeowners protecting their scenic views and environmentalists guarding wildernesses and birds among them ? oppose new projects. And expensive electrical power lines are required to connect the remote wind turbines to population centers. The Times urges increased federal and state subsidies for the wind and solar industries. While the above arguments are valid, the primary reason that wind and solar energies have not made inroads in the past, and will never supply more than a few percentage points of the world's electrical energy, is their unpredictable variations in time and their constant need for back-ups. They only generate energy when the wind blows and the sun shines. We are so dependent on electricity for work and recreation that we don't permit even occasional outages of a few minutes. Perfect weather predictions are impossible, and no successful method has been discovered to store the electrical energy for the hours, days or weeks required. At the best sites, the wind blows only about 40% of the time. Because the wind times are not predictable, the wind turbines must be backed up 60% of the time, with dependable generators available 100% of the time. Because of the Earth's rotation and latitude effects, the solar back-up energy must be constantly changed. The only non-carbon-dioxide-emitting generator capable of backing up wind and solar energy and replacing coal and gas generators is nuclear fission. The Times cites a Department of Energy claim that an area in Nevada equipped with solar devices could meet the power needs of the entire United States. Consider how large this area would have to be. The total U.S. yearly generation of electrical energy is the equivalent of about 450 large coal, gas or nuclear reactor electrical plants of 1,000 megawatts each, running continuously for one year. To calculate the area of photovoltaic detectors required to furnish the same energy as one large plant of 1,000 megawatts, we select a location near Phoenix, Ariz., at latitude 33.4 degrees north. A horizontal surface there collects on average about one-fifth that of the solar constant ? the energy from the sun per-second per-unit-area arriving above the Earth's atmosphere. This average takes into account the absorption by the Earth's atmosphere, day-night differences, latitude, clouds and storms averaged over one year. The efficiency of commercial cells is about 20%. The area of cells equivalent to one 1,000-megawatt plant would be about 10 square miles. To find the total area of cells that would furnish all the electricity generated in the United States, multiply by the 450 electrical plants and get 4,500 square miles. This area of the cells needed ? about the size of the state of Connecticut ? is not trivial. Nuclear power may be the practical solution to global warming, after all. R. Stephen White is an emeritus professor of physics at UC Riverside and author of the book "Energy for the Public: The Case for Increased Nuclear Fission Energy." Click here to read more about The Times' Blowback feature. Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times ***************************************************************** 19 ITAR-TASS: China invites Russia to build two more reactors at Tianwan 27.09.2007, 19.34 KIEV, September 27 (Itar-Tass) -- China has invited Russia to build the third and fourth units at the Tianwan nuclear power plant, the first deputy president of the Atomstroiexport company, Alexander Glukhov, told the media on the sidelines of the energy forum Fuel and Energy Complex of Ukraine: the Present and the Future. A week ago there arrived a proposal from the Chinese client for building the third and fourth nuclear reactors at Tianwan, he said, adding that the company had already received a copy of the contract and negotiations over it had begun. Glukhov speculated the drafting work may be over sometime next year. ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store ***************************************************************** 20 csmonitor.com: Nuclear power surge coming | Chattanooga: Bill Borchardt, director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Office of New Reactors, discusses the flood of applications for new power plants expected by the agency on September 6. Duncan Mansfield/AP In the next 15 months, US regulators expect applications for up to 28 new plants. By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor from the September 28, 2007 edition Reporter Mark Clayton discusses the issues behind the expected new nuclear 'renaissance.' With this week's application to build a new nuclear plant – the first such filing in nearly 30 years – the industry says the US is on the verge of a nuclear power renaissance. With virtually no greenhouse-gas emissions, reactors are touted as part of the solution to global warming. Over the next 15 months, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects a tidal wave of similar permit applications for up to 28 new reactors, costing up to $90 billion to build. But the renaissance may be less robust than it looks. Even if the projects are successful and building proceeds at breakneck speed, the lead times are so long and costs so high that it's unclear that the US can build enough nuclear plants to make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. They're so financially risky, experts say, that the only reason building plans are under way is that the federal government has stepped in to guarantee investors against loan defaults. "Clearly, [nuclear power companies] are not so confident or they wouldn't want the federal government and taxpayer to be guaranteeing the loans," says David Schlissel a longtime nuclear industry analyst with consulting firm Synapse Energy Economics in Cambridge, Mass. The industry says it needs the aid to get nuclear power rolling again. "Yes, we need some help and assistance getting these large projects off the ground," says Paul Genoa of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in Washington. "This will always be labeled as subsidies. But one person's subsidy is another person's incentive. These are the first nuclear power plants to be built in years and there's a role for government here." Also, loan guarantees don't affect taxpayers unless those loans are defaulted on, he points out. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the industry already is getting an estimated $12 billion in tax breaks and other largess. The Price-Anderson Act, a law dating from the 1950s, caps the industry's liability at about $10 billion in the event of an accident, even though studies show that a major nuclear meltdown could easily run 50 times that. Now, the Senate version of a new energy bill includes a provision that could provide tens of billions of dollars more in federal-loan guarantees. On Tuesday, the Energy Department announced it would provide up to $2 billion in federal risk insurance for the first six new nuclear-plant projects, protecting them against losses from regulatory or legal delays. "In my view, these kinds of taxpayer subsidies are vital to the industry, and they wouldn't be building any of these new nuclear plants without them," says Doug Koplow, president of Earth Track, a Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm that analyzes subsidies for all forms of energy, including biofuels. The nuclear industry gets about $9 billion a year in federal subsidies, he calculates, trailing only oil and coal in federal energy aid. That amount could go far higher if companies were to begin defaulting on guaranteed loans, he adds. The nuclear industry has already put Congress on notice that it could require loan guarantees of at least $20 billion for planned projects – and more later, NEI officials told The New York Times in July. The reason is that nuclear power plants are far more expensive to build than coal- or gas-fired facilities. For example: On Monday, New Jersey-based NRG Energy Corp. filed its application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two reactors in Texas at a cost between $5.4 and $6.7 billion. That huge startup cost might make financial sense, given a reactor's low operating expenses, especially if government begins to charge utilities for the greenhouse gases they produce. Nuclear power is virtually emission-free. But the last time that the nuclear industry was on a building spree - in the 1980s - roughly half of the power plants proposed were never finished, in part because of fears caused by the accident at Three Mile Island. Those that were finished were delayed for years and cost far more than estimated. A number of power companies went bankrupt. In late 2003, NRG - the company that filed Monday's permit application - emerged from bankruptcy caused by overexpansion in the 1990s. If defaults occur in the new round, critics worry federal costs will be huge. "This is the second or third 'nuclear renaissance' I've seen," says Tyson Slocum, director of energy program at Public Citizen, Ralph Nader's consumer-protection group. "When you look at the cost of these plants and the massive financial subsidies by US taxpayers, I think that money would be better invested in cheaper sources of emissions-free power that don't have the fatal flaws nuclear power does." In 2003, a Congressional Budget Office analysis warned of potential default rates of 50 percent or more on new plants. Wall Street is also skeptical. In a July letter to the Department of Energy, six investment banks, including Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, made it clear that federal guarantees were required. "We believe many new nuclear construction projects will have difficulty accessing the capital markets during construction and initial operation without the support of a federal government loan guarantee," they wrote. The risks might be worth the cost if nuclear power can have a substantial impact in slowing global warming. But even some industry experts doubt that's possible. To reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1 billion tons annually, the level set by some scientists as a goal for nuclear power, the world would need to build 21 new 1,000-megawatt nuclear plants per year - about five of those annually in the US - for the next 50 years, says a Keystone Center report endorsed by the NEI. The US industry reached that level in the 1980s. But even under its most optimistic assessment, the Energy Information Administration recently projected that only about 53 nuclear power plants would be built by 2056. At that rate, this would not even replace the existing nuclear capacity expected to be retired during that time, the Keystone report said. While such a conclusion would seem to blunt nuclear power's appeal, industry experts predict that climate legislation is likely to boost the cost of carbon-dioxide emissions. When it does, nuclear power construction will be suddenly very competitive with coal power - and that will accelerate growth faster and farther than predicted, they add. Nuclear power "clearly can't do it all, but will do its share" to mitigate greenhouse-gas emissions, says Mr. Genoa. www.csmonitor.com | Copyright 2007 The Christian Science Monitor. ***************************************************************** 21 News & Star: Boom goes my view Published on 27/09/2007 Calder Hall: The cooling towers will soon be gone By Dave Gudgeon A WOMAN at the heart of the operation to demolish the cooling towers at Calder Hall will have mixed emotions when they fall on Saturday. Gill Marsden, who will oversee a security zone, said:“I will feel a good deal of pride in a job well done. But I’ll also be sad because I’ve seen those every day of my life. I can’t imagine what it will be like without them.” The 37-year-old, who has always lived at Seascale, is following in the steps of her father and both grandfathers by working at Sellafield. She’s been there 20 years herself and that completes almost a century of service within the family. She said: “Both sets of grandparents came to Cumbria more than 50 years ago to work here. My maternal grandfather was an inspector with the UKAE police while the other worked in the reprocessing plant. Both retired in the late 70s. “My father worked as a manager in the civil engineering department for 26 years and I came her in 1987 straight from Wyndham School in Egremont. I was a junior process worker and only intended doing that while I made up my mind what I wanted to do.” Now, 20 years on, Gill is a key member of the team which has been charged with the safe removal of the four iconic cooling towers which tend to symbolise Britain’s nuclear industry. She said: “This operation has been four years in the planning. All along, the safety of the plant and the public has been our paramount concern. This is a real milestone in the decommissioning process – a visible symbol. But, to be honest, it is just the tip of iceberg of the work that is going on here - much of it being more challenging. But, of course, it takes place out of sight of the general public.” Would-be spectators are being asked to stay at home rather than venture out to see the historic event. People are being advised to “view the demolition of the four giant cooling towers on television and online”. For safety reasons, 15 minutes before the demolition all roads in the Sellafield area will be subject to traffic management measures. Project chief Jack Williamson said: “Throughout the project we’ve worked tirelessly to minimise any disruption to the local communities so we are recommending onlookers to take advantage of the TV coverage or online streaming to avoid finding themselves delayed by congestion on the roads. “The four cooling towers, all 88 metres tall, have stood as a symbol of Britain’s nuclear heritage since the Queen opened Calder Hall in 1956. “They will be collapsed using explosive in such a way to enable the structures to fall broadly within their own footprint.” ***************************************************************** 22 Whitehaven News: Dismay as package for accepting nuclear fails to come through Published on 27/09/2007 By David Siddall COPELAND councillors have voiced disappointment at the Government’s failure to honour pledges of extra funding if the area embraces nuclear power in the future. At Copeland Council meeting on Tuesday, Tory leader Coun David Moore said: “We are concerned that they haven’t come up with the community package we asked for.” He said the Drigg low-level waste repository deal had shown “at the last minute no government commitment to the community”. And the council’s Labour leader, Elaine Woodburn, said: “We were let down by the NDA. We had an agreement with the NDA, but it seems to have hit a brick wall at the Treasury. The NDA have assured us of a package by March of next year.” She then seemed to imply the council could use planning rules to try to impose a section 106 agreement on planning gains for accepting further nuclear waste projects, adding she would be happy to have Coun Moore involved in any discussions. Coun Moore said: “They (central government) say they don’t want to set a precedent, but they have to set a precedent to help in the future with regard to geological disposal.” Coun Woodburn thought “the Government has been courageous putting nuclear at the heart of their energy agenda”. Later Coun Norman Clarkson (Conservative) returned to the subject and said: “I am totally opposed to this volunteerism... it’s all wrong,” referring to the Government being keen to locate a future nuclear waste repository underground in an area that ‘volunteered’ for the role. He went on: “A succession of governments have bought this area off with crab sandwiches and pints of beer. The community needs a full payback – you won’t get that if you just volunteer. It’s like going into a car showroom and accepting the first car at the price they offer. We should say ‘No’, then the government will find nobody else wants it and come back to us.” Coun Woodburn called his remarks were disheartening.“We have not volunteered for anything – it will be for the community to decide. Our policy is a willingness to talk to the government.” Consultation into new nuclear power stations and the fate of the UK’s nuclear waste are due to reach a conclusion later in October. View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy ***************************************************************** 23 sacbee.com: How could nukes be transported by mistake? - Opinion - Editorial: Congress needs to know more about bizarre incident to prevent future mishaps Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 27, 2007 After the collapse of the Soviet Union, U.S. leaders worried about "loose nukes," poorly guarded nuclear weapons that might fall into the wrong hands, such as those of terrorists, criminals or black market operatives. Now, it turns out, we have loose nukes worries of our own, close to home. Six nuclear warheads, each one up to 10 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima, were unaccounted for longer than a day. They were discovered on Aug. 30, and military officers reported a "Bent Spear" nuclear incident (second only to "Broken Arrow" events that involve the loss, destruction or mistaken detonation of a nuclear weapon) to the National Military Command Center, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Bush. The public knows about it only because three officers leaked the incident to the Military Times newspapers, which published an account Sept. 5. Philip Coyle of the Center for Defense Information calls it "the most complete and dangerous breakdown in the command and control of nuclear weapons in U.S. history." Here's what's been reported so far: Twelve unarmed missiles were supposed to be flown from the Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to the Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana and then retired. But, six of the 12 had nuclear warheads, were moved from storage and loaded onto a B-52 bomber. Then the missiles sat unattended overnight, went unchecked before the plane took off and then sat, again unattended, for nine more hours after the plane landed. Only then, 36 hours later, did transport crews discover the six nuclear weapons and send out a Bent Spear alert. The American people -- and the international community -- rely on the U.S. military to control the nation's nuclear arsenal. This major incident cries out for thorough investigation. Either this is utter incompetence or the military is deliberately moving nuclear weapons around for an unknown purpose. An internal Air Force investigation of the incident headed by Maj. Gen. Douglas Raaberg was supposed to be done Sept. 14 but has been delayed. Defense Secretary Gates last Thursday announced a separate investigation by retired Gen. Larry Welch, a former Air Force chief of staff, to look at larger issues of security and transfer of munitions. Congress also needs to do an investigation. Against the backdrop of this incident are novel Bush policies creating the capacity for "global strikes" -- rapid pre-emptive attacks using nuclear and conventional weapons for targets anywhere in the world. These policies go against traditional U.S. doctrine calling for the defensive role of nuclear weapons -- and utterly blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional options. The backdrop also includes various news reports that suggest the Bush administration has been considering air attacks on Iran using both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. If the U.S. military cannot tell whether weapons it loads onto bomber aircraft are nuclear, imagine if the wrong weapon were used in a Bush "global strike." In short, Congress needs to delve into the full implications of Bush nuclear policies, not just the minutiae of the Aug. 29-30 nuclear incident. Copyright The Sacramento Bee 2100 Q St. P.O. Box 15779 Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 321-1000 ***************************************************************** 24 BBC NEWS: Families quiz body parts inquiry Last Updated: Thursday, 27 September 2007, 07:15 GMT 08:15 UK Samples were taken legally, says the British Nuclear Group Families have met with the inquiry team investigating the removal of body tissue from nuclear workers. The meeting, in Whitehaven, Cumbria, on Wednesday night, resulted in a support group being created. Michael Redfern QC is currently looking into 65 reported cases, mainly involving staff employed at Sellafield in Cumbria, between 1962 and 1992. Angela Christie, whose father's case is part of the inquiry, helped organise the meeting at Whitehaven County Court. 'Overcome pain' She said: "It was very helpful being able to speak to the inquiry team, people had a lot of questions to ask. "We are all trying to overcome the pain and get to the truth behind what happened." She added Mr Redfern had been unable to attend the meeting, but that he was expected to talk to the families sometime in the future. Autopsy samples taken included tissue, bones and body parts removed without permission, the GMB claimed. British Nuclear Group, which owns the Sellafield site, said tissue was taken for "legally correct" purposes. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 25 Hanford News: Agency calls for compensation for sick workers This story was published Wednesday, September 26th, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer A federal review is recommending that some Hanford workers exposed to radioactive americium or thorium be automatically awarded $150,000 if they developed any of a wide range of cancers. However, the review by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH, found that most Hanford workers from 1946 to 1990 who develop cancer should not receive automatic compensation. Enough information about radiation exposure is available to estimate individual radiation doses for most workers, according to the review. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, workers who develop cancer or their survivors may receive compensation if NIOSH reconstructs the amount of radiation they received on the job through 1990 and determines it had at least a 50 percent chance of causing their illness. If too little information exists for the radiation dose to be reconstructed, groups of workers may be classified as "special exposure cohorts" and automatically compensated if they develop any of 22 cancers. Earlier this year, NIOSH recommended that the earliest Hanford workers - those who were exposed to radiation from 1943 to August 1946 - be named a special exposure cohort. The most recent review covered the remainder of Hanford workers through 1990. It found that inadequate information exists to reconstruct the radiation doses of some workers exposed to americium at the Plutonium Finishing Plant and workers exposed to thorium in the 300 Area just north of Richland. But it concluded that in most cases a radiation dose estimate could be made even if radiation dose readings were not done for all workers or were done inaccurately. One of two petitions for special exposure cohorts that the review considered said construction workers were not monitored between 1967 and 1971. But NIOSH said radiation estimates could be made based on conservative assumptions and using results of monitoring for other workers. In cases in which monitoring was known to be inadequate, adjustments to estimates can be made, the review said. For instance, measurements recorded from certain Hanford dosimeters should be increased by 50 percent to account for any uncertainties, the review said. Rosemary Hoyt, of Lyle, who with her sister brought the other of two petitions being considered, said she disagreed with the review's conclusions. The Hanford Site Profile, which describes radiation protection and is used as a guide in establishing radiation doses, is faulty, she said. The review did not indicate how many of 2,614 workers who have applied for the $150,000 compensation might be eligible for special exposure cohorts because of exposure to americium or thorium. NIOSH concluded that exposure to radiation in a program to recover americium at the Plutonium Finishing Plant from 1949 to 1968 had not been monitored enough to provide good data. Exposure also occurred in two related facilities, the 231-Z Isolation Building and 242-Z Waste Treatment Facility. The americium was being recovered for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to use as a power source in early space flights. Work to separate americium 241, a trace contaminant, from plutonium mixtures began as early as 1949. But there is no record that routine monitoring for radiation from americium was done when the work was not associated with other plutonium activities before 1968, the review said. Work with thorium began in October 1945 in the 300 Area of Hanford. Thorium was fabricated for use in production reactors as part of a program to see if it could be used rather than plutonium in nuclear weapons. Workers at the Metal Fabrication Building, the Reactor Fuel Manufacturing Pilot Plant, the 300 Area Maintenance Shops and the Radiochemistry Laboratory may have been exposed to radiation from thorium that was not adequately monitored before 1960, the report said. Workers commonly referred to the buildings by their numbers: 313, 306, 3722 and 3706. The NIOSH recommendation will next be considered by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, which next meets in Naperville, Ill., Oct. 3 to 5. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 EPA: Human Studies Review Board; Notice of Public Meeting FR Doc E7-19125 [Federal Register: September 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 187)] [Notices] [Page 54908-54910] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27se07-50] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0942; FRL-8474-4] AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA or Agency) Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) announces a public meeting of the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) to advise the Agency on EPA's scientific and ethical reviews of human subjects' research. DATES: The public meeting will be held from October 24, 2007 from approximately 8:30 a.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m.; October 25, 2007 from approximately 8 a.m. to approximately 6:30 p.m.; and October 26, 2007 from approximately 8 a.m. to approximately 3 p.m. Eastern Time. Location: Environmental Protection Agency, Conference Center--Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. Meeting Access: Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come basis. To request accommodation of a disability please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 business days prior to the meeting, to allow EPA as much time as possible to process your request. Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in Unit I.D. of this notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wishes further information should contact Crystal Rodgers-Jenkins, EPA, Office of the Science Advisor, (8105R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-5275; fax: (202) 564-2070; e-mail addresses: rodgers-jenkins.crystal@epa.gov. General information concerning the EPA HSRB can be found on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/. ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0942, by one of the following methods: Internet: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. E-mail: ord.docket@epa.gov. Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), ORD Docket, Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand Delivery: The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please call (202) 566-1744 or e- mail the ORD Docket at ord.docket@epa.gov for instructions. Updates to Public Reading Room access are available on the Web site (http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm ). Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD- 2007-0942. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [[Page 54909]] I. Public Meeting A. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies, especially studies on substances regulated by EPA or to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/ Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://. http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/ DC, Public Reading Room. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST, Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please call (202) 566-1744 or e- mail the ORD Docket at ord.docket@epa.gov for instructions. Updates to Public Reading Room access are available on the Web site (http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm ). EPA's position paper(s), charge/questions to the HSRB, and the meeting agenda will be available by early October 2007. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the regulations.gov Web site and the EPA HSRB Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/. For questions on document availability or if you do not have access to the Internet, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Public comments received on the document titled, ``Scientific and Ethical Approaches for Observational Exposure Studies,'' may be listed under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0972 or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0942. C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: a. Explain your views as clearly as possible. b. Describe any assumptions that you used. c. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. d. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. e. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. D. How May I Participate in This Meeting? You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0942 in the subject line on the first page of your request. a. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted up to October 17, 2007. To the extent that time permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments at the meeting. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments to the HSRB is strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via email) to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than noon, Eastern time, October 17, 2007 in order to be included on the meeting agenda and to provide sufficient time for the HSRB Chair and HSRB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) to review the agenda to provide an appropriate public comment period. The request should identify the name of the individual making the presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent, and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, LCD projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before the HSRB are limited to five minutes per individual or organization. Please note that this limit applies to the cumulative time used by all individuals appearing either as part of, or on behalf of an organization. While it is our intent to hear a full range of oral comments on the science and ethics issues under discussion, it is not our intent to permit organizations to expand these time limitations by having numerous individuals sign up separately to speak on their behalf. If additional time is available, there may be flexibility in time for public comments. Each speaker should bring 25 copies of his or her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the HSRB at the meeting. b. Written comments. Although you may submit written comments at any time, for the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and consider your comments as it deliberates on its report, you should submit your comments at least five business days prior to the beginning of the meeting. If you submit comments after this date, those comments will be provided to the Board members, but you should recognize that the Board members may not have adequate time to consider those comments prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit written comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such comments no later than noon, Eastern Time, October 17, 2007. You should submit your comments using the instructions in Unit I.C. of this notice. In addition, the Agency also requests that person(s) submitting comments directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the length of written comments for consideration by the HSRB. E. Background A. Topics for Discussion The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) 5 U.S.C. App.29. The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations to EPA on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of human subjects research. The major objectives of the HSRB are to provide advice and recommendations on: (1) Research proposals and protocols; (2) reports of completed research with human subjects; and (3) how to strengthen EPA's programs for protection of human subjects of [[Page 54910]] research. The HSRB reports to the EPA Administrator through EPA's Science Advisor. The October 24-26, 2007 meeting of the Human Studies Review Board will address scientific and ethical issues surrounding: Review of EPA draft document Scientific and Ethical Approaches for Observational Exposure Studies. The document, prepared by researchers in EPA's National Exposure Research Laboratory, identifies the types of issues that should be considered in planning and implementing observational human exposure studies and provides information and resources to assist EPA researchers in these studies. A published report of a completed clinical trial measuring the effects of single and repeated treatments with sodium azide on blood pressure in human subjects. Sodium azide is a pesticidally active ingredient being proposed as a replacement for the fumigant methyl bromide. A research proposal from Carroll-Loye Biological Research to evaluate the field efficacy in repelling mosquitoes of three registered products containing picaridin. A research proposal from Carroll-Loye Biological Research to evaluate the laboratory efficacy in repelling ticks of three registered products containing picaridin. A research proposal from Insect Control & Research, Inc. to evaluate the laboratory efficacy in repelling mosquitoes of the genus Culex of two registered products containing picaridin. A report of a completed field study by Carroll-Loye Biological Research of the mosquito repellent efficacy of a registered product containing Oil of Lemon Eucalyptus. Three closely related product-specific reports from a single completed field study by Carroll-Loye Biological Research of the mosquito repellent efficacy of four pesticides, all containing Deet. At the Board's request, discussion on the frequency and duration of exposure of subjects to potential mosquito landings. In addition, EPA will report to the Board on its consideration of issues relating to the design of sampling strategies for handler research programs proposed by the Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force and the Antimicrobials Exposure Assessment Task Force II. Finally, the Board may also discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. B. Meeting Minutes and Reports Minutes of the meeting, summarizing the matters discussed and recommendations, if any, made by the advisory committee regarding such matters will be released within 90 calendar days of the meeting. Such minutes will be available at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ and http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, information concerning a Board meeting report, if applicable, can be found at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/ or from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. Dated: September 21, 2007. George Gray, EPA Science Advisor. [FR Doc. E7-19125 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ***************************************************************** 27 Times-News: Simpson, others optimistic about RECA progress Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID Last modified on Thursday, September 27, 2007 12:12 AM MDT More education needed in both House and Senate By Blair Koch Times-News correspondent On July 16, 1945, at Alamogordo, N.M., the world's first atomic explosion - "Trinity" - shot radioactive debris seven miles high and sunk plutonium 13 inches deep into the ground around the site. Above-ground atomic weapons testing in the United States would continue through 1962, spewing radioactive fallout from test sites in Nevada and New Mexico. That exposure "is presumed to have produced an increased incidence of certain serious diseases, including various types of cancer," according to a status report on the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) released Sept. 7 by the Government Accountability Office. Although change may be on the horizon, Idaho downwinders currently are not covered under RECA, established in 1990 to compensate survivors of radiation exposure. According to the GAO, the Radiation Exposure Compen-sation Program (RECP) has authorized payments totaling $1.2 billion for 18,110 claims since the program began processing them in April 1992. Almost half the $1.2 billion was paid to claimants who lived downwind of the Nevada Test Site. The 18,110 claims represent about two-thirds of the 26,550 claims filed since 1992. The remaining one-third were denied because RECA's eligibility criteria were not satisfied. RECA was amended in 2000 but changes still left Idaho uncovered even though four of the top five counties hit with radiation are in the state. This past May, Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, and Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, sent a letter to the House Judiciary Committee requesting a hearing on the expansion of RECA. Support has come from all over Idaho. A letter dated Aug. 7 from Gov. C.L "Butch" Otter was written in support of such a hearing, and last month bipartisan legislation was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo to amend RECA to include downwinders in Idaho and Montana. "Honestly, progress has been slow on this issue because not many members understand it and because the states that are most involved are few in numbers and sparsely populated. I believe that is why a hearing in the House is so important," said Simpson. "It should help broaden the knowledge of decision-makers on the relevant committees and bring greater attention to the issue. That is a key first step in building a coalition of interested members large enough to give any future legislation a chance." J. Preston Truman, director of the group Downwinders, remains optimistic that changes to RECA will happen. "The progress that has been made both with the House request by Simpson and Matheson for a hearing, and the introduction of the bill by Craig and Crapo and the support of both Montana senators puts the whole thing in motion," Truman said. "In the end, it will be the downwinders that will be key and we're not going away." Simpson said he will continue fighting for Idaho downwinders as well. "The Committee is still reviewing our request for a RECA hearing, but I am optimistic we will get the hearing perhaps later this year, but more likely early next year. I am going to be speaking with the chairman about our request again soon," he said. Blair Koch can be reached at 316-2607 or blairkoch@gmail.com. Copyright 2006, Lee Publications Inc. Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of the Times-News, published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., ***************************************************************** 28 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Yucca becoming irrelevant Today: September 27, 2007 at 7:20:53 PDT Eager to build more plants, nuclear power industry warms to on-site waste storage Owners of the South Texas Project, a nuclear power plant southwest of Houston, are planning a $5.2 billion expansion - and "Whether Yucca Mountain happens or not plays no part in our calculation," an executive says. Their announcement at a news conference on Tuesday in Washington signals the start of a new strategy for justifying the building of more nuclear power plants. Part of the reason - aside from safety and cost - that nuclear power plants have not been proposed in decades was that Yucca Mountain is years from opening. In the past 25 years the federal government has spent $8 billion preparing the mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the site for burying the plants' deadly nuclear waste. Nevada has spent that time documenting the ways in which the burial plan would pose grave risks. The state thinks, as we do, that the waste should continue to be stored at existing nuclear power plants until a solution far safer than burial is developed. Stubbornly, the federal government and the nuclear industry have clung to the Yucca Mountain plan - largely to justify building more nuclear power plants. But two facts are now becoming clear: The Nevada congressional delegation, particularly Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has been effective in blocking a Yucca repository, and there is no guarantee the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would license it, given the safety issues. David Crane is president of Princeton, N.J.-based NRG Energy, one of the owners of the South Texas Project. He said Tuesday that there's plenty of room at the company's 12,200-acre site in Bay City, Texas, to store all the plant's waste from its existing reactor and the two it plans to build. So after years of the nuclear power industry being opposed to on-site storage, it is suddenly OK in Texas. We think on-site storage is the only option for existing nuclear power plants, because the waste purportedly will be safe there for about 100 years. But no more plants should be built until there is a true long-term solution to the waste, which in its present form, will remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years. All contents 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 29 Daily Sundial: Governor receives bill to clean up nuclear contamination - Marla Schevker / Contributor Issue date: 9/27/07 Section: News In 1959, the first-ever meltdown of a power-producing reactor in the United States occurred at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, located on top of the Simi Hills in Simi Valley. Since then the site, currently serving as a research facility for Boeing Co., has reportedly been the source of chemical contamination both throughout the facility and neighboring communities. State Senator Sheila Kuehl, of the 23rd District, is working with the state legislature and assembly to get a bill, SB 990, passed. The bill, which is an effort to get the site cleaned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's highest standards, is currently on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk awaiting his signature. Laura Plotkin, chief deputy and district director to Kuehl, said they undertook this endeavor because it was a concern of their constituents. "This bill is the fifth that (Sen. Kuehl) has carried trying to clean up the SSFL," Plotkin said. "In the 13 years that she has been a legislator we've probably gotten more calls from constituents that were concerned about this issue than any other issue relating to our district." A major part of the concern arises from the chemicals that seeped into the ground and contaminated the groundwater. Geological sciences chair and professor Ali Tabidian, said that a few years ago mercury leaked off site and Boeing was fined. "It isn't unusual at all for contaminants to get off site, especially when there is an unusual amount of rainfall," Tabidian said. "The groundwater system is very complex up there. The reason is it's composed of fractured rock. Remediation of contaminated ground water in fractured rocks would be very challenging and expensive. When the SSFL opened, there were not a lot of people that were living in the area. Over the past 50 years, the population has dramatically increased. Now, rainfall has the potential to move the chemicals out onto the surrounding population. Dan Hirsch, SSFL panel co-chair, said out of the 10 reactors, there were four that had problems with them, including one partial nuclear meltdown. Due to the influence of Boeing Co., the people who live around the SSFL have little power to stand up for themselves against the risks from contamination, he said. "The legislation that has passed is indicative of increased public concern about the site," Hirsch said. "I began 28 years ago; it's been a long struggle. This is a very powerful agency, the U.S. Department of Energy and the powerful Boeing Co. It's much easier for them to make a contribution than to clean it up. "On one hand people who can be impacted by the contamination and don't have much power and on the other hand there is the polluter who has a large amount of power and they can influence the agencies not to make them clean up the mess that they've made." Hirsch said the effects the SSFL have had on the community are uncertain. While it seems as though the contamination has caused disease in the neighboring communities, there is no proof. "There are many indicators that there has been excess cancer in the community," he said. "But the records have been so poor. There could have been no cancers from these accidents and where in that range the true number lies. The data is simply not good enough to have high confidence in the estimate." While SB 990 aims to get the SSFL cleaned up, Tabidian said complete cleanup of the site is almost unrealistic. "As far as contamination, they have a long way to go," he said. "It will take tens of years to clean up the ground water and tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think it would be possible. "Some of the chemicals are in depth of several hundred feet and they are trapped in fractures and cavities of rocks, and (that is) why I would say it would be difficult to go after every rock." Do you have more to say than a comment? Want any feedback from the writer? Story ideas? Click on The Gripevine. Daily Sundial ***************************************************************** 30 Gallup Independent: NRC wants uranium mining input Nuclear revival already in full swing September 26, 2007: By Kathy Helms Din Bureau The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting Sept. 27 at the Best Western Inn and Suites, 3009 W. U.S. 66 in Gallup to listen to public comments on the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for licensing in situ leach recovery and conventional milling facilities. The public meeting is set for 7-9:30 p.m., with an informal open house to be held 6-7 p.m. WINDOW ROCK ? Members of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will conduct a public meeting Thursday evening in Gallup to obtain comments on a Generic Environmental Impact Statement that would speed up licensing for new uranium recovery facilities and conventional mills. The only significant commercial use for uranium is as a fuel for nuclear power plants to generate electricity. There were 435 nuclear power plants operating around the world at the end of 2006, according to the World Nuclear Association. However, on Tuesday, NRG Energy Inc., along with South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co., filed the first application for a new nuclear power plant in 29 years. NRG has applied for a Combined Construction and Operating License from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build and operate two new nuclear reactor units at the South Texas Project nuclear power station site. U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a leading proponent of nuclear power, played a major role in creation of the COL process, designed to accelerate the time it takes to license and build new nuclear plants. Since July, several companies have announced plans to provide uranium services in the western United States that will fuel the 28 new reactors anticipated to be built. Hydro Resources Inc., which plans to conduct in situ recovery of uranium in Crownpoint, Churchrock, and several other locations in McKinley County surrounding Gallup, has a number of projects on tap. Mark Pelizza of HRI said recently that an Environmental Impact Statement already has been completed for its McKinley operations, so the GEIS would not have a direct bearing on those projects. Water is essential to the in situ recovery of uranium. With Gallup less than 10 years away from a major water crisis and banking on the proposed Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project to meet its basic needs, HRI?s opponents, such as Eastern Navajo Din Against Uranium Mining in Churchrock, have objected to the in situ process, fearing groundwater contamination. Uranium Resources Inc., parent company of HRI, said in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, however, that the company holds approved water rights in the San Juan and Gallup basins in New Mexico to provide sufficient water to conduct mining at the Churchrock project and Section-24 for the Crownpoint project for the projected life of the mines. ?We also hold two unprotested senior water rights applications that, when approved, would provide sufficient water for future extensions of the Crownpoint project,? URI said. The Crownpoint properties are located in the San Juan Basin, 35 miles northeast of Gallup. Reuters reported Tuesday that URI said it has three pending applications for appropriations of water for the San Juan Basin and that certain of the water rights may involve a claim of jurisdiction by the Navajo Nation. Jurisdiction over water rights becomes an issue in New Mexico when an Indian nation, such as the Navajo Nation, objects to the New Mexico State Engineer?s authority and claims tribal jurisdiction over Indian Country, according to URI. ?This issue may result in litigation between the Indian nation and the state, which may delay action on water right applications, and can require applications to the appropriate Indian nation and continuing jurisdiction by the Indian nation over use of the water. The foregoing issues arise in connection with certain of our New Mexico properties,? URI said. On Dec. 5, 2006, HRI-Churchrock Inc. entered into a joint venture with Itochu Corp. of Japan to develop the Churchrock property. The Final EIS issued in February 1997 for HRI?s Crownpoint project states that the company contracted with Energy Fuels Nuclear to use its disposal facility in Blanding, Utah, for byproduct generated as a result of the process. Energy Fuels Inc. of Toronto announced July 18 that it had acquired approximately 1,000 acres of property located west of Naturita, Colo., in the Paradox Valley, where it intends to construct a state-of-the-art conventional uranium/vanadium mill, known as Pion Ridge Uranium Mill. The Energy Fuels team includes many of the key members that financed and built, for Energy Fuels Nuclear, the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, the last fully operational uranium mill commissioned in the United States. The Pinon Ridge Mill, located among all of Energy Fuels? properties in Colorado and Utah, will be designed with a capacity of 1,000 tons per day of ore throughput. The White Mesa Mill, located in San Juan County, is now wholly owned by Denison Mines Inc., formed Dec. 1, 2006, through the combination of business and operations of Denison and International Uranium Corp. Denison announced Sept. 10 that it has received all of the necessary operating permits from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the state of Utah for the company?s Tony M mine, which is expected to be one of the largest underground uranium mines in North America. It is located west of the White Mesa Mill. The Tony M mine is anticipated to reach full production by mid-2008, producing 18,000 tons of ore per month. Mining also is under way at four of the company?s uranium mines in the Colorado Plateau District. More than 10,000 tons of ore are produced per month and are being stockpiled at the White Mesa Mill with processing set to begin in early 2008. Denison also is anticipating ore production from its Arizona 1 mine on the Arizona Strip in northeastern Arizona to begin in mid-2008, according to the company. Wednesday September 26, 2007 Selected Stories: Please send the Gallup Independent feedback on this website and the Send questions or comments to gallpind@cia-g.com ***************************************************************** 31 AU ABC: Australia's NT concerned over nuke dump Australia's Northern Territory government says the Commonwealth is continuing to treat its territory rights harshly, by selecting an Aboriginal cattle station as a potential site for a national nuclear waste facility. Last Updated 28/09/2007, 13:24:07 Australia's Northern Territory government says the Commonwealth is continuing to treat its territory rights harshly, by selecting an Aboriginal cattle station as a potential site for a national nuclear waste facility. The Federal Science Minister, Julie Bishop, has accepted the nomination of Muckaty Station, 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek. It brings to four the number of potential sites the government has to select from for the waste facility. Muckaty was nominated by the Northern Land Council and if selected traditional owners will receive a $A12 million package. Ms Bishop is confident the traditional owners were properly consulted. But The Northern Territory Chief Minister, Clare Martin, argues the acceptance of Muckaty was a flawed process. ***************************************************************** 32 On Line Opinion: A nuclear powered world - On Line Opinion - 28/9/2007 By Peter Gellatly - posted Friday, 28 September 2007 Sign Up for free e-mail updates! Nations sign on to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership ran the Sunday press release from politicos in Vienna. But, sign on to what, exactly? Oh yes, broad uptake of nuclear power without weapons proliferation etc, etc, but again, what exactly - at the nuts and bolts level? To tease out an answer it was best to be, not hobnobbing with suave diplomats in Vienna's splendour on a balmy Sunday afternoon, but in deep discussion with front-line nuclear grunts at the Centre on the Grove, in Boise, Idaho for an intensive week. For Idaho, home to a major US national nuclear laboratory and birthplace of commercial nuclear electricity, played host to more than 500 researchers from around the world attending Global 2007, this year's convention of the nuclear industry's premier conference series on advanced nuclear systems. Global, which usually deals with far-off innovation, much of it only ready for implementation well after the presenters are dead, is traditionally hosted by rotation, and this year was not the US' turn. But US nuclear policymakers made a persuasive case that they needed a high profile venue to deliver their GNEP program to nuclear insiders. And so attendees were treated to a technical nuclear smorgasbord - from imminent, next-step reactors to on-the-horizon technologies - served up in a socio-economic/political milieu of third world development, energy/greenhouse concerns and constraints, and nuclear non-proliferation. The mid-term advanced nuclear reactors at the heart of Global are these days tagged by the label "Generation IV". Intended to put the nuclear industry on a truly sustainable footing through the end of the 21st century and beyond, these reactors are unlike present-day commercial nuclear power reactors, which primarily "burn" the uranium 235 isotope. Rather, the Generation IV class - within which there is a number of design types - by completely burning all uranium, and also thorium, fuelstocks, together with long-lived in-reactor created byproducts - will enable the full utilisation of uranium and thorium resources, while at the same time massively reducing both the volume and the radioactivity of waste left over from the fission process. It was clear from the conference presentations that, in many aspects, overseas researchers, whose robust funding has continued through the US nuclear power "doldrums" of recent decades, are well ahead of their US colleagues. This has significant impact on US ability to assert political leadership on the nuclear front. The most evident example of international excellence is perhaps India's work on the thorium fuel cycle. India's presenter at Global said his country's energy needs, which track an ongoing GDP growth of 8-9 per cent per annum, were extremely large, and so energy security was of primary national concern. But India's population density precluded some alternative measures, such as using arable land to grow biofuel crops - food production would always take precedence. Hence India had a three-stage plan for indigenous development of nuclear power, culminating, in about 2040, in a principally thorium-fueled reactor suite, with uranium/plutonium fueled fast reactors used as fuel breeders. India is poor in uranium resources but rich in thorium deposits, so the country's self-interest in pursuing thorium research is obvious. However, since thorium is roughly three times as abundant as uranium in the earth's crust, the promise of a viable thorium-fueled nuclear power system is of universal appeal. Generation IV is an ambitious plan, matched only by the more immediate problem of how to achieve the transition. For though a simple leap to Generation IV would be preferable, the technology - fast neutron spectrum reactors which will breed U233 from thorium and Pu239 from uranium, then burn the products - will not be commercially ready until 2030 at the earliest, and probably not before 2040. Given an intervening period of projected rapidly escalating world energy demand in the face of exacerbating greenhouse conditions sans nuclear, the world simply can't wait for Generation IV. Within the nuclear industry, present-day power reactors are referred to as "Generation II". To bridge the gap between this extant Generation II and sustainable Generation IV, much effort is being directed towards a nearer-term (circa 2010-12) roll-out of "Generation III/III+" systems. These will be "conventional" reactors, in the sense of principally burning uranium 235, plus plutonium obtained from spent fuel reprocessing. But for capital cost economy and enhanced operational reliability they will be standardised plants, and some of the designs will be tuned, not just towards electricity generation, but also towards water desalination, district heating, or the large-scale production of hydrogen for use as a transport fuel. US Government policy with respect to both Generation III/III+ and Generation IV is twofold: advancement of US domestic energy security, and the promotion of nuclear power as an international energy solution without increasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. It is the latter part of this policy which has given rise to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP): an initiative to provide developing countries with nuclear energy on a turnkey basis: that is, via total provision of reactors and fuel, with full takeback, by GNEP supplier members, of spent reactor fuel for reprocessing and storage. The rationale is that the spread of material, technology and know-how considered to represent nuclear weapons proliferation risks can best be controlled by dividing the nuclear world into two tiers: those countries which already possess such means, the so-called nuclear suppliers, and those countries, the nuclear recipients, which would voluntarily eschew developing trigger steps in the nuclear fuel cycle. At Global, the GNEP discussions were very detailed. Presentations were made on a variety of proliferation, accident and terrorism resistant reactor types suitable for turnkey delivery. These included three very small-scale designs - 50MW to 120MW - intended for aggregated-over-time hook-up to low grade electricity grids, and also for remote locations and/or safe, unattended operation. At least one of these designs will be small enough to be delivered - fully fueled - as an integrated unit, and removed the same way - years hence, when the fuel runs out. The International Atomic Energy Agency delivered a draft report on its endeavours to find out what prospective nuclear power recipient countries actually wanted - as opposed to what the nuclear suppliers had in mind to deliver: they mostly wanted larger, centralised units. (The IAEA identified about 50 prospective recipients, and conducted in-depth research with eight most likely candidates for early uptake - the formal report is to be published in early 2008.) Simultaneously, other specialist groups delved into enhanced nuclear safeguards monitoring. Security will perhaps be GNEP's Achilles heel: from three perspectives. First, it is not at all clear that a multiplicity (the developers' projected aggregate demand runs to hundreds of units) of dispersed small-scale reactors can be as economically protected as a single, larger power station. Second, the US formal position - as reiterated in its presentation at Global - is that supplier countries would do their part towards non-proliferation by reprocessing plutonium only together with other in-reactor created transuranics: neptunium, americium, and so on. In this way, the conventional Generation III/III+ designs used to kick start GNEP could benefit from enhanced fuel utilisation, without nuclear suppliers expanding transient stocks of separated plutonium. (The constant caveat about the general unsuitability of power reactor produced plutonium - which includes some non-fissile Pu240, whereas a weapon requires high purity Pu239 - is too arcane a topic for elucidation here.) But Japan and France (plus also Russia and China) reprocess plutonium already. Presumably recognising this, and regarding a US stand-alone policy as futile, at Global it was informally allowed that US policy was in process of being changed to adopt plutonium separation. (Since the presidency of Jimmy Carter - a former US navy nuclear engineer - the US has independently refrained from the reprocessing of plutonium from Generation II spent fuel, on the grounds of enhancing non-proliferation. US reversal of this policy is a very big step.) Third, and perhaps most important from a developing-country perspective, energy security is inextricably tied to industrial progress, and full nuclear fuel cycle competence - which requires cadres of highly trained specialists across disparate, yet interlocking, disciplines - is equally seen as linked to the buildup of intellectual capital necessary to drive that progress. South Africa won't sign on to GNEP, ran the Reuters newsflash - also emanating from Vienna, a mere two days after the positive Sunday pronouncement. Again, Global attendees were treated to a detailed country report. South Africa, having under its previous regime voluntarily admitted to and dismantled its former successful nuclear weapons program, is now determined to reap the benefit of its expensively-nurtured nuclear expertise in a legitimate way. It has independently matured a variant of one of the most promising Generation III+ types: the Pebble Bed Reactor, and identified the commercialisation of this design as a national strategic program. South Africa intends to be optionally self-sufficient in the nuclear fuel cycle, to deliver 30 per cent of its electricity from nuclear by 2030 (the present figure is 6 per cent), and to enter the nuclear marketplace as a reactor supplier. The inferred message is clear: South Africa will not be autocratically relegated to second-class nuclear - and, by implication, industrial - status. It is extremely plausible that other former weapons developers - Brazil, for instance - as well as present-day nuclear novice nations will similarly see GNEP, not as an energy facilitator, but as an imposed retardation of their industrial growth. And as their economies mature, it might be expected that even some initially willing GNEP recipients will naturally, having emulated South Korea's recent blistering economic progress, chafe against nuclear constraints which they consider no longer reasonable, appropriate or acceptable. Yet - disparaging whispers (and shouts) about US grasping for retrieved nuclear power hegemony aside - GNEP's essential purpose is benign: without early, broadscale adoption of nuclear power, unremitting world energy demand will make a mockery of greenhouse amelioration. The crucial question therefore becomes: can GNEP work as a 21st century stopgap, and can a post Generation IV reactor class be implemented in such a way that, eventually, no nation requires either uranium enrichment or ex-reactor spent fuel reprocessing? That is, can nuclear plant reach a stage of sophistication where natural fuel is fed in, and fissile-free waste comes out? Of the six Generation IV technologies preselected in 2002 (and reaffirmed in 2006) by the Generation IV International Consortium, only one - the Molten Salt Reactor - has this potential. Much derided and mocked because it was originally, indeed during the 1950s and 60s, developed for aircraft propulsion, the MSR dissolves its fuel in a liquid salt solution which also acts as the reactor coolant. The potential of this liquid fuel design type is for continuous in-reactor recycling and burning of actinides, and for continuous waste extraction. MSR, though further along its development path than other Generation IV types, is not well funded under the Generation IV Roadmap, and received scant attention at Global 2007. MSR, perhaps eventually conceived in conjunction with an accelerator-driven neutron source to maintain criticality, might really be considered a Generation V/V+ technology. It is towards this nominally Generation V+ end-point, well beyond the majority focus even of Global 2007, that nuclear fission technology must strive if GNEP's altruistic goal of a proliferation-free nuclear powered world is to be fully realised. Peter Gellatly is a freelance writer/ technology analyst who covered Global 2007 for Australian and Canadian media. He holds formal qualifications in nuclear science and environmental toxicology, and was formerly employed in an industrial liaison capacity by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO). The National Forum and contributors 1999-2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1442-8458. ***************************************************************** 33 AU ABC: Cattle station latest nomination for nuclear waste site - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Posted September 27, 2007 18:42:00 The Federal Government has accepted the nomination of a Northern Territory cattle station as a site for a nuclear waste facility. Muckaty Station, 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek in central Northern Territory, was nominated by the Northern Land Council. The decision means the Federal Government now has four potential sites for a waste dump. Federal Science Minister Julie Bishop says scientific assessments have been carried out on the other defence sites and she is now awaiting a report for Muckaty Station. "I'm expecting this will take a couple of months and I would expect to have a final report from the experts early in 2008 with all four sites being forward with their potential," he said. The Northern Land Council says the traditional owners of the station will welcome the Commonwealth decision. But Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin has condemned the decision, saying it shows the science behind the development of a nuclear waste facility is flawed. "Go back to the scientific process that was in place, assess properly where the best position is, the best place in Australia is to put a nuclear waste dump and follow that process properly," she said. "We are only chosen here in the Northern Territory whether it's one, two, three or four sites because they can, because we're constitutionally weak." Tags: environment, nuclear-issues, government-and-politics, federal-state-issues, australia, nt, tennant-creek-0860 ***************************************************************** 34 Securing the Bomb: Index * About NTI Funding for U.S. Efforts to Improve Controls Over Nuclear Weapons, Materials, and Expertise Overseas: Recent Developments and Trends February2007 Readthe Full Report (1.5M PDF) Securing the Bomb 2006 The latest report in our series, from May 2006, finds that even though the gap between the threat of nuclear terrorism and the response has narrowed in recent years, there remains an unacceptable danger that terrorists might succeed in their quest to get and use a nuclear bomb, turning a modern city into a smoking ruin. Offering concrete steps to confront that danger, the report calls for world leaders to launch a fast-paced global coalition against nuclear terrorism focused on locking down all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear materials worldwide as rapidly as possible. or the Full Report (1.7M PDF) Securing the Bomb 2005: The New Global Imperatives Our May 2005 report finds that while the United States and other countries laid important foundations for an accelerated effort to prevent nuclear terrorism in the last year, sustained presidential leadership will be needed to win the race to lock down the worlds nuclear stockpiles before terrorists and thieves can get to them. Read the Executive Summary (281 K) or the Full Report (1.9M PDF) Securing the Bomb: An Agenda for Action Building on the previous years' reports, this 2004 NTI-commissioned report grades current efforts and recommends new actions to more effectively prevent nuclear terrorism. It finds that programs to reduce this danger are making progress, but there remains a potentially deadly gap between the urgency of the threat and the scope and pace of efforts to address it. Download the Full Report (1.2 M PDF) Выписки из доклада по-русски (423K PDF) Controlling Nuclear Warheads and Materials: A Report Card and Action Plan 2003 report published by Harvard and NTI measures the progress made in keeping nuclear weapons and materials out of terrorist hands, and outlines a comprehensive plan to reduce the danger. Download the Full Report (2.7M PDF) Securing Nuclear Weapons and Materials: Seven Steps for Immediate Action 2002 report co-published by Harvard and NTI outlines seven urgent steps to reduce the threat of stolen nuclear weapons or materials falling into the hands of terrorists or hostile states. Read the Full Report (516K PDF) Securing the Bomb Produced for NTI by the Project on Managing the Atom (MTA), Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Securing the Bomb 2007, commissioned by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, finds a dangerous gap in efforts to thwart nuclear terrorism and calls for urgent global campaign to reduce the risk. The report provides a comprehensive assessment of efforts to secure and remove vulnerable nuclear stockpiles around the world and a detailed action plan for keeping nuclear weapons and their essential ingredients out of terrorist hands. * Read the Executive Summary (396K PDF) or the Full Report (2.54M PDF) * Read the News Release * Visit washingtonpost.com for special Securing the Bomb 2007 interactive features. * Watch the slide show * If you would like us to mail you a copy of the Securing the Bomb 2007 report, click here. Click here to go to the 'Latest Developments' Section This web section provides comprehensive, "one-stop-shopping" information on the continuing danger that terrorists might get and use a nuclear bomb or the plutonium or highly enriched uranium (HEU) needed to make one – and programs to secure, monitor, and reduce nuclear stockpiles around the world, to keep them out of the hands of terrorists and hostile states. Here, you can download the full text of our annual Securing the Bomb reports; access an on-line budget database for all U.S.-funded cooperative threat reduction programs, or browse hundreds of pages of information, scores of photographs, and hundreds of annotated web links on particular threats, programs to reduce them, and new steps that should be taken. * Overview provides a summary of the nuclear terrorism problem, a funding summary and legislative updates, and "Blocking the Terrorist Pathway to the Bomb." * Technical background offers a tutorial on nuclear weapons, their design and effects, and the nuclear materials needed to make them. * The Threat provides in-depth discussions of the risk of nuclear theft in the former Soviet Union and around the world, the demand for black-market nuclear material, and "Anecdotes of Insecurity" a list of documented nuclear security incidents. The remaining sections offer detailed information on particular U.S.- funded programs, describing their current status, budget, key issues they face, and recommendations to strengthen them, including programs focused on: * Securing nuclear warheads and materials at their source; * Interdicting nuclear smuggling; * Stabilizing employment for nuclear personnel; * Monitoring nuclear stockpiles and reductions in those stockpiles; * Ending further production of these dangerous materials; and * Reducing these stockpiles to the lowest practicable levels For more information on the Securing the Bomb web section, including what is included, what is not, and why, click here. September 2007 United States Declares Another Nine Tons of Plutonium Excess On 17 September 2007, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman announced that the United States was declaring another nine tons of plutonium excess to its military needs. (See Gregg Webb, "U.S. to Convert Weapons Plutonium Into Fuel," Global Security Newswire, 17 September 2007.) Some 52.5 tons of the 99.5 ton stockpile held by the Departments of Defense and Energy had been declared excess in the 1990s. The new declaration brings the total U.S. excess plutonium to 61.5 tons, leaving approximately 38 tons of plutonium available for nuclear weapons. In 1994, the Department of Energy (DOE) allowed a committee of the National Academy of Sciences to use four kilograms of plutonium per weapon as an unclassified "planning figure" so the plutonium still available for weapons amounts to enough for over 9,000 nuclear weapons. Russia, which has far larger stockpiles of plutonium, has not yet declared any additional material excess. DOE officials have indicated that the newly declared nine tons of excess will be added to the material to be fabricated into uranium-plutonium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel at a controversial plant now being built at Savannah River. For more on plutonium disposition and the importance of reducing plutonium stockpiles to the minimum needed to support small, agreed nuclear warhead stocks, see Matthew Bunn, "Troubled Disposition: Next Steps in Dealing With Excess Plutonium," Arms Control Today, April 2007. August - September 2007 Additional HEU Removals, HEU-Fueled Reactor Conversions Accomplished August and September were busy months for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative (GTRI) at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).  In September, GTRI helped the only research reactor in Vietnam fueled with highly enriched uranium (HEU) convert to low enriched uranium (LEU) which cannot be used in a nuclear bomb.  The HEU-fueled reactor at Purdue University in the United States also converted in September with GTRI's help.  September shipments removed all the fresh, unirradiated HEU from Vietnam and the last of the U.S.-origin HEU from South Korea, and an August shipment removed several kilograms of fresh HEU from Poland.  Read the National Nuclear Security Administration's press releases on the Vietnam conversion and shipment; the Korea shipment; and the Purdue conversion.  For an account of the Polish shipment, see John Fox, "Polish Reactor Turns Over Nuclear Fuel," Global Security Newswire, 5 September 2007. These efforts and others are described in DOE's fact sheet on GTRI's accomplishments as of early September 2007.  For a summary of progress made and steps yet to be taken on removing potential nuclear bomb material around the world, see  Securing the Bomb 2007, pp. 81-92. August - September 2007 U.S.-India Agreement Calls for New Plutonium Reprocessing Plant In July, the United States and India completed negotiations of a nuclear cooperation agreement which, if approved, would authorize each country to sell nuclear reactors and materials to the other.  Congress had amended the Atomic Energy Act to permit such an agreement even though India does not have full-scope safeguards on its nuclear facilities. The agreement has been controversial because it is seen as bending nonproliferation trade rules and implicitly accepting India's status as a nuclear weapon state.  (See, for example, the resources available from the Arms Control Association.)  Before the agreement goes into effect, India must still negotiate a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to cover a portion of its nuclear facilities; the Nuclear Suppliers Group must authorize a change to its rules barring exports to countries without full-scope safeguards; and the U.S. Congress must approve the accord.  Despite the agreement, India continues to refuse any cooperation with the United States to improve security and accounting for its nuclear stockpiles; the agreement, however, like other U.S. nuclear cooperation agreements, specifies that all of the nuclear material covered by the pact has to be protected in a way that meets very general International Atomic Energy recommendations.  Conceivably, the agreement might make the problem of guarding separated plutonium worse.  Under the terms of the pact, the United States grants India prior approval for reprocessing plutonium, if India builds a new plutonium reprocessing plant under international safeguards where this work would be done. August 2007 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill Signed Into Law On 3 August 2007, President George W. Bush signed the "Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007" (Public Law 110-53). It was passed in the House on a 371-40 vote and 85-8 in the Senate. The act establishes a Coordinator for the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism in the White House; it also directs the President to discuss with the President of Russia the creation of a corresponding office in the Kremlin. The act also establishes an independent, nine-member Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, which would conduct hearings and release a report with recommendations for corrective measures of U.S. efforts to prevent WMD proliferation. To attempt to reduce the likelihood of nuclear smuggling through one route, by July 1, 2012, the act allows a cargo container to enter the United States only if it is scanned by "nonintrusive imaging equipment and radiation detection equipment at a foreign port before it was loaded on a vessel." Finally, the act rescinds all existing Congressional restrictions on the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. According to former Rep. Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, with the enactment of this law, approximately 80 percent of the panel's 41 recommendations will have been implemented. See the full text of the act, and the full list of 9/11 Commission recommendations, pp. 361-428.  Our reports have recommended the appointment of a senior White House official with a narrower mandate, focused on leading all the myriad efforts related to reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism.  See, for example, Securing the Bomb 2007, pp. 143-145. June 2007 Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism Holds Third Meeting On June 11 and 12, 2007, the third meeting of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism was held in Astana, Kazakhstan. In two previous Global Initiative meetings, the partner nations had agreed on a statement of principles, and invited new nations to participate. Thirty-eight partner nations attended the Astana meeting, where they agreed to a plan of work for 2007-2008 with an emphasis on: preventing the availability of nuclear material to terrorists; improving the capabilities of participating nations to detect, search for, and prevent trafficking in such materials; promoting information sharing and law enforcement cooperation; establishing appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks; minimizing the use of highly enriched uranium and plutonium in civilian facilities and activities; denying safe haven and financial resources to terrorists; and strengthening our response capabilities to minimize the impact of any nuclear terrorism attack. On the eve of the Astana meeting, Pakistan announced its intention to join the Global Initiative. As of August 28, 2007, there are 60 partner nations.  For more, see the full statement from Astana, and a State Department list of Global Initiative partner nations. June 2007 DOE and Russian Customs Agree to Accelerate Radiation Detectors On June 1, 2007, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Russian Federal Customs Service (FCS) announced an agreement to install fixed radiation portal monitors at approximately 350 border crossings in Russia—including airports, seaports, railway, and land crossings—by 2011, six years faster than the previously planned schedule. The agreement is part of the NNSA Second Line of Defense program that has worked with the FCS to jointly install portal monitors at approximately 176 Russian crossing points since 1998. Under the June 1 agreement, the NNSA and the FCS will each provide some $140 million to install the remaining portal monitors. To ensure long-term sustainability, between 2009 and 2013 the NNSA will transition the operations and maintenance of the U.S.-provided monitors to Russia. See the National Nuclear Security Administration press release, a more detailed Reuters story, and our discussion of the Second Line of Defense program on pp. 78-82 of Securing the Bomb 2006. April 2007 NNSA, Rosatom Agree on Sustainability of Security Upgrades at Nuclear Sites On April 11, 2007, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Russia’s Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom) announced an agreement to help ensure the sustainability of U.S.-funded security upgrades at Rosatom nuclear materials sites that the United States has funded for the past fourteen years. DOE officials report that, in essence, the two sides agreed on a list of the work to be done to achieve a sustainable security system at each site, and which side would take responsibility for each of those tasks – with more and more of the tasks being Russia’s sole responsibility as the effort progresses. DOE hopes to complete upgrades for all of the weapons-usable nuclear material buildings at which it has gained agreement with Russia to cooperate by the end of 2008, and then have a period of cooperation focused primarily on sustainability, leading to sole Russian support for Russia’s nuclear security and accounting system from the beginning of 2013. The agreement covers Rosatom sites, but not the nuclear material sites controlled by other agencies or the nuclear warhead sites controlled by the Ministry of Defense. Site-level preparations for sustaining security upgrades are underway at these other locations, however, and NNSA Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation William Tobey argued that “there’s every reason to believe” that the agreement with Rosatom will pave the way for a similar, future agreement with the Ministry of Defense on nuclear warhead facilities. See the full National Nuclear Security Administration press release, further reporting from the Arms Control Association, and our discussion of the importance of sustainability from pages 150-152 of Securing the Bomb 2006. January 2007 Details released on Russian man arrested trying to sell HEU in Georgia In late January 2007 several news outlets carried reported the case of a Russian man who was arrested in Georgia attempting to sell 79.5 grams of uranium enriched to 89% (according to the IAEA).  The arrest actually occurred in Tbilisi, Georgia, in February 2006 through a sting operation by Georgian security services.  They had learned of a man from Vladikavkaz, the regional capital of the Russian republic North Ossetia (which is also the home of Beslan, the site of the September 2004 terrorist attack on a school that saw the death of 365 hostages and rescuers) who was offering to sell some two to three kilograms of highly enriched uranium in the breakaway South Ossetian region of Georgia.  After the arrests, Georgia turned over samples of the seized material to Russia and the United States, but Russian officials publicly stated that the source of the material could not be identified.  Coverage of the incident highlighted the acrimony between Russian and Georgian officials that has plagued the countries’ relationship.  Russian-Georgian tensions appear to be interfering with intelligence and law enforcement cooperation – a key issue, as the Russian/Georgian border was also the site of an HEU smuggling incident in 2003, detailed here and here.  For more on the February 2006 incident, see the coverage of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this summary from the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. December 2006 Large cache of HEU returned to Russia from eastern Germany On December 18, 2006, an international team removed 268 kilograms of highly enriched uranium (enriched to 36 percent uranium-235) and 58 kg of low-enriched uranium (i.e., enriched to less than 20 percent U-235) from a site at Rossendorf, near Dresden, Germany, to Russia.  The fuel, which the Soviet Union originally provided to East Germany in the 1960s and 1970s for two reactors at the Rossendorf facility (according to the IAEA), was transported to the airport in Dresden in 18 containers, where it was airlifted to Moscow and then on to the Luch Scientific Production Association in Podolsk, where it will be downblended to low-enriched uranium for use as reactor fuel.  The German federal state of Saxony paid about 1 million euros for the operation, which required collaboration from German, Russian, U.S., and IAEA experts.  Returning the material to Russia will eliminate the ongoing costs of securing the HEU at the Rossendorf site.  It was the largest single repatriation of HEU to Russia under the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Global Threat Reduction Initiative, which is working to remove HEU from vulnerable sites and convert reactors away from HEU fuel.   See the NNSA press release for more. October 2006 United States, Russia, 10 other nations meet to launch Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism On October 30 and 31, 2006, twelve nations met to launch the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism that Presidents Bush and Putin announced at their July 2006 summit in St. Petersburg.  The initial nations appear to include the members of the G-8—Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, plus the United States and Russia—and four other nations—China, Australia, Kazakhstan, and Turkey. Morocco hosted the organizing meeting, and moved from observer to participant during the meeting.  They agreed to a statement of principles for participants in the initiative.  Among other principles, the statement called on states to commit to implement "on a voluntary basis" improved accounting, control, and physical protection systems for nuclear materials and enhanced security for civilian nuclear facilities.  The principles explicitly exclude all military nuclear stockpiles.  The initial participants also established terms of reference for facilitating provision of assistance to participants requiring it, and expressed a desire to broaden participation in the initiative.  The U.S. State Department supplemented a pre-meeting release on the meeting with a summary of the action during the meeting.  The original U.S. fact sheet on the initiative is available here, and a more detailed description of U.S. goals for the initiative from Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph is available here. Mary Beth Nikitin of the Strengthening the Global Partnership Project also provided extensive comments on the initial meeting. October 2006 U.S.-provided security upgrades to Russian Navy nuclear sites completed On October 24, 2006, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) announced [link to announcement] that it had completed security upgrades at the final 2 of the 39 Russian Navy nuclear warhead storage sites for which it has upgraded security.  NNSA had previously completed security upgrades for 11 Navy fuel and other nuclear material storage sites.  For the fiscal year that just began, NNSA earlier planned to continue training and sustainability support (including short-term maintenance) for 16 of the 39 warhead sites and 10 of the 11 fuel and storage sites.  For more on this effort, see our page on Warhead Security. September 2006 DOE, NTI, & Kazakhstan agree to downblend HEU and convert reactor On September 29, 2006, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) announced an agreement with the government of Kazakhstan to blend down to low-enriched uranium a cache of unirradiated highly enriched uranium at Kazakhstan's Institute of Nuclear Physics near Almaty. The parties also agreed to convert the Institute's VVR-K reactor to use LEU fuel. DOE, through the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, will spend at least $4 million on the project. NTI helped seal the agreement by pledging up to $1.3 million to improve safety and performance in the converted reactor, providing a crucial incentive for Kazakhstan and the reactor to forgo HEU fuel. The announcement followed the April 2006 completion of blending down some 2.9 tons of HEU fuel through a partnership of NTI and the state nuclear company Kazatomprom. See the full DOE-NTI press release and a longer story. September 2006 New leader of al Qaeda in Iraq calls on nuclear scientists, explosive experts to join fight On September 28, 2006, a website associated with past al Qaeda messages posted an audiotape from a man most believe to be Abu Ayyub al-Masrithe leader of the group al Qaeda in Iraq following the June killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawithat called for experts in "chemistry, physics, electronics, media and all other sciences, especially nuclear scientists and explosives experts" to join the group. "We are in dire need of you," the speaker said, according to translations in news reports: "The field of jihad can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases [in Iraq] are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty, as they call them." For more on al Qaeda's past interest in nuclear weapons, see our page on the Demand for Black Market Fissile Material. September 2006 U.S.-Russian nuclear cities agreement expires On September 22, 2006, the three-year grace period to complete projects started under the U.S.-Russian Nuclear Cities Initiative implementing agreement ended. The two countries signed the NCI agreement in 1998, launching a cooperative program to reduce the size of the Russia nuclear weapons complex and redirect facilities and personnel in that complex to productive civilian activities. In part because of a dispute over liability protection for U.S.-supported projects in the case of an accident, the two countries failed to renew the agreement in 2003, though projects already underway were given three years under the agreement to complete their work. With no new agreement, projects through NCI will cease. Work does continue to stabilize employment for nuclear personnel in the former Soviet complex, but NCI was the only program focused solely on the special challenges posed by the entire cities (see map and table) created to service the Soviet Cold War nuclear complex. Read more in the Christian Science Monitor and from the group RANSAC, as well as an older discussion of the Nuclear Cities Initiative. September 2006 Russia and United States sign liability protocol On September 15, 2006, U.S. Under Secretary of State Robert Joseph and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak finally signed an agreement governing liability for accidents in the program to dispose of 34 tons of Russian excess plutonium. By July 2005, U.S. and Russian negotiators had agreed on language resolving the long-standing liability dispute that had been blocking progress. The agreed language then became mired in Russian interagency review, a delay that led some analysts to doubt Russian commitment to the effort. For more on the signing, see the NNSA press release. Even with the protocol’s signing, major other obstacles to progress remain, as discussed in the section on “Reducing Stockpiles” on pages 37-40 in Chapter Two of Securing the Bomb 2006. Also, see 'Past Developments' in the Securing the Bomb Archive. Back to top The Securing the Bomb section of the NTI website is produced by the Project on Managing the Atom (MTA) for NTI, and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or its directors, officers, employees, agents. MTA welcomes comments and suggestions at atom@harvard.edu HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP ***************************************************************** 35 UPI: Replacement pit for W88 nuke approved United Press International - International Security - Published: Sept. 27, 2007 at 3:46 PM WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 (UPI) -- The first W88 nuclear warhead to employ a replacement pit has been approved for the U.S. nuclear stockpile. The National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy said in a statement Thursday that "the first W88 nuclear warhead to employ a replacement pit officially was certified for entry into the United States nuclear weapons stockpile." "An essential piece of every U.S. nuclear weapon, the pit is typically made of plutonium and acts as a trigger, allowing a weapon to function. NNSA recently restored its ability to manufacture pits in small quantities," the statement said. Rebuilding this W88 was an enormous undertaking that took NNSA over a decade and required the tremendous scientific and engineering expertise of the entire nuclear weapons complex, said NNSA Administrator Thomas DAgostino. I am proud that we were able to get the job done and accomplish this great feat with the W88. The NNSA said that the W88 warhead "was able to be re-assembled, certified and accepted into the stockpile with a replacement pit without conducting an underground nuclear test. Certification was possible because of NNSAs powerful experimental tools, supercomputers, and improved computer models." The NNSA said that the restored W88 warhead was put together at NNSAs Pantex Plant and that it was "the first nuclear weapon to use a replacement plutonium pit." "In July, NNSAs Los Alamos National Laboratory produced the first pit for the stockpile in 18 years. The warhead also required a replacement gas transfer system that was manufactured at NNSAs Kansas City Plant and filled with gas at the Savannah River Site. The gas transfer system is essential to assure a weapons performance," the agency said. Any replacement component added to a system as complex as a nuclear weapon presents a tremendous challenge. As we extend the lives of our current aging warheads, and continue to move further and further from the original tested designs, this process becomes increasingly complicated, DAgostino said. Copyright United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 Guardian Unlimited: Physicists Challenge US Missile Claims Thursday September 27, 2007 9:31 AM By DESMOND BUTLER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A number of top U.S-based physicists have concluded that the Bush administration used inaccurate claims to reassure NATO allies about U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe. They say the planned Polish-based interceptors and a radar system in the Czech Republic could target and catch Russian missiles, thus threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent. That view supports Russia's criticism of the system. Russia adamantly opposes the plan, and the dispute has helped escalate U.S.-Russian tensions to the highest point since the Cold War. The Pentagon agency overseeing the missile program, the Missile Defense Agency, rejects the scientists' claims, saying their analyses are flawed. The United States says the missile system is intended to counter a threat from Iran and could not take out Russian missiles. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has dismissed Russia's concerns as ``ludicrous.'' But the six scientists, whose backgrounds include elite American universities, research labs and high levels of government, said in interviews that Russia's concerns were justified. ``The claim by the Missile Defense Agency is not correct,'' said Theodore Postol, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a longtime missile defense critic. ``And it is hard to understand how they could get something so basic wrong.'' The scientists have not disputed another argument used by U.S. officials that the 10 interceptors planned for Poland would be easily overwhelmed by Russia's vast missile arsenal, leading one supporter of missile defense to conclude that even if the scientists are correct, the U.S. argument holds up. ``I don't think it changes the basic assertion of the administration that this does not pose a threat to Russia,'' said Baker Spring, a national security analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The Missile Defense Agency's claims were made as part of an intensive U.S. diplomatic push early this year. President Bush and senior U.S. officials traveled to Europe to persuade allies that Russian worries about U.S. missile capabilities were unfounded. The trips followed threats by Russia to retarget its missiles on Europe. Some European officials had expressed skepticism about the plans and recommended further consultations with Russia. Public opinion in some countries, including Poland and the Czech Republic, ran against the U.S. plans. To reassure the foreign governments and the public, Lt. Gen. Henry ``Trey'' Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, presented slideshows intended to demonstrate that the Europe-based system was designed only to counteract missiles from Iran. The allies have not challenged the agency's claims. The physicists told The Associated Press that Obering's presentations were misleading and inconsistent on key points. Postol, a former scientific adviser to the chief of naval operations, and George Lewis, associate director of the Peace Studies Program at Cornell University, have written a study of the MDA claims. Congressional testimony by Postol in 1992 helped counter U.S. government claims that Patriot missiles were highly successful in shooting down Iraqi scud missiles during the Gulf War. Pavel Podvig, a researcher at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, made his own estimates and confirmed Postol and Lewis' findings. Podvig, a Russian physicist, has been critical of both U.S. and Russian missile defense claims. Three other physicists also reviewed Postol's findings and said they found them accurate: -Richard Garwin, a National Science Award winner who is credited with the design of the first hydrogen bomb. Garwin served on the Rumsfeld Commission, an independent panel appointed by Congress in the 1990s to assess the threat to the United States from ballistic missiles. -Philip Coyle, a former associate director of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Coyle was assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration in charge of testing weapons systems. -David Wright, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear nonproliferation and environmental advocacy group. The Missile Defense Agency has stood by its claims that the interceptors could not catch Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles. ``The basic fact of the matter is that we would never make a statement like that unless we knew it was true,'' MDA spokesman Rick Lehner said. In one of Obering's slide presentations, labeled ``Missile Defense for U.S. allies and Friends,'' an image illustrates the trajectory of a Russian ICBM from a point east of Moscow toward Washington. The slide, which also illustrates the Polish interceptors, says in bold script ``Interceptors Cannot Catch Russian Missiles.'' ``The reason we selected Poland and the Czech Republic for the potential positions of these assets is because it was optimum for the Iranian threat,'' Obering said after a meeting with German officials in Berlin on March 15. ``They are not positioned to where we can even catch the Russian missiles with these interceptors.'' The dissenting scientists say that both those claims were incorrect. The interceptors could catch Russian ICBMs, they said, and the interceptors and the radar would be better positioned closer to Iran to counter a threat from its missiles. Postol concluded that the Pentagon significantly understated the speed that U.S. interceptors could reach when their boosters burned out and overstated how long it would need to track a missile by launching the interceptors. While all six scientists are skeptical that the U.S. missile defense system can work, they believe that in terms of raw speed, U.S. interceptors in Poland could catch a Russian ICBM launched from western Russia at any part of the continental United States. In Postol's model, the intercept would occur at a point over the North Pole. The Missile Defense Agency says the Polish-based rockets would reach a burnout speed of 3.9 miles per second, roughly the speed of the Russian missiles depicted in Obering's slides. At that speed, the interceptors could not catch the Russian missiles. But Postol says the interceptors could top 5.6 miles per second. Responding to Postol's criticism, the MDA said Postol made assumptions about the interceptors that are based on theory, but in the real world they do not work as well. Not only are the interceptors one-third slower, their rocket motors' thrust is not as efficient when tested, and to get to Russian missiles they would be going through various stresses that exceed what would be considered normal design. The MDA presented a chart of rocket motor efficiency from tests and noted that Postol's estimates did not reflect what happens in the real world. But Garwin countered that at least one rocket motor was more efficient than a Postol estimate. Obering claimed in slides that the European system would expand protection from a U.S.-based system to parts of East Asia. Postol said that could not be true if the European interceptors were moving as slowly as the MDA is claiming. The scientists have not disputed another argument used by U.S. officials that the 10 interceptor; UN2ND:062; APGROUP:MiddleEast; Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 37 Pakistan Times: No IAEA Access to Dr A Q Khan - Pakistan FO FreeFrees.Com Pakistan Times Diplomatic Desk ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has rejected ex-premier Ms Benazir Bhuttos proposal to let the United Nations question Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistans nuclear bomb. Media had quoted PPP Chief Ms Benazir Bhutto as saying that if she returned to office she would give the UNs nuclear watchdog direct access to Khan. Reacting to this statement of Ms Benazir Bhutto, the Foreign Ministry has said that Pakistani authorities had fully investigated Khans network and shared the results with the UNs International Atomic Energy Agency. In case there is new information, in case there is something else that needs to be looked into, we would conduct investigations and we will provide information to the IAEA, Foreign Office Spokeswoman Ms Tasnim Aslam said. That will remain Pakistans position. Ms Tasnim Aslam said other countries have failed to match Pakistans efforts to prevent proliferation, for instance by clamping down on Western companies involved in smuggling. Pakistan has won praise from the United States for its cooperation in shutting down Khans network after it was exposed in 2004. Benazir Bhutto, who plans to return to Pakistan from self-exile next month to contest upcoming parliamentary elections, was asked after making a speech Tuesday in Washington whether she would let Western officials interview Khan. She responded by saying that a new government under her leadership would make him available to the IAEA. She also was reported to have said a parliamentary committee would investigate whether others were involved in selling Pakistani nuclear technology. To recap, President General Pervez Musharraf had pardoned Khan after he made a televised confession and claimed sole responsibility for the decades-long smuggling. The government insists that it was not aware of the proliferation activities. Yet, Benazir Bhuttos Pakistan Peoples Party scrambled Wednesday to play down BBs remarks, saying they were not very different from what the current government says or any other responsible government in Pakistan would say. There is no question of violating Pakistani or international law in relation to the freedom and personal rights of anyone, including Dr AQ Khan, a party statement said. Meanwhile, Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting Senator Tariq Azeem has condemned the statement of Benazir. He said the government would never compromise on national interest. Talking to state-run television, he said that no international power would be allowed to interfere in the atomic programme. The government had already investigated A Q Khan case and there is no need to reopen it, he added. Talking to a private television channel, Federal Minister for Railways Sheikh Rashid Ahmed showed his concern over the statement of Benazir Bhutto in which she said that PPP government would give the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Dr AQ Khan. The Minister said that the government would never give IAEA access to Dr AQ Khan. He said if IAEA is concerned to know anything about Dr A.Q. Khan then government can handle it in a better way and Benazir need not to get involved in it. It is our internal affair and Dr A Q Khan is still the national hero, he added. The Minister said it looks that some forces are working against the interests of Pakistan and the statement of Benazir is just meant to please the West. He said AQ Khan would not be handed over to anyone nor anyone could have direct access to him. Sheikh Rashid said this is a matter of national interest and prestige and the government would not show any flexibility on it. We cannot compromise on it and the statement of Benazir is highly condemnable, he added. The ruling PML (Q) President Chaudhry Shujaat and MMA President and Jamaat-e-Islami Ameer Qazi Hussain Ahmad have also strongly condemned the PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto for assuring Washington that after coming to power she would allow IAEA to have access to Dr AQ Khan for investigation. He said that masses were no longer that naive and would certainly not forget and forgive her for her anti Pakistani statement. MMA leader and Ameer JI, Qazi Hussain Ahmed warned that Pakistani nation would never allow Benazir Bhutto to humiliate and belittle father of Pakistans nuclear programme for her political interests Benazir Reax Meanwhile, PPP chairperson, Benazir Bhutto has refuted her recent candid statements regarding Dr Qadeer Khan, claiming she could not give any irresponsible statement about the nuclear programme of Pakistan. Addressing a press conference in USA to deliberate upon her earlier statement about Dr. Qadeer Khan, she said that Pakistans nuclear programme was crystal clear and transparent, and nothing would be withheld from IAEA it demanded details of any kind. She said that the long road to restoration of democracy in Pakistan would be formally announced at Quaid-e-Azams mausoleum, upon her arrival in Karachi on 18th Oct and then the struggle for democracy and restoration of basic human rights would be initiated. She understood that the present regime had focused quite responsibly on the rising menace of extremism and terrorism during its past eight years of rule but human rights and development was neglected due to that preoccupation. She said; conspiracies are being hatched against political parties in a bid to weaken them.? Copyright 2002-2007 TIMES Group of Publications All rights reserved PakistanTimes.net | TIMES.com.pk | PakistanTimes.pk ***************************************************************** 38 Guardian Unlimited: Physicists Question US on Missiles Thursday September 27, 2007 10:01 PM By DESMOND BUTLER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A number of top U.S-based physicists have concluded the United States used inaccurate claims to reassure NATO allies about U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe. They say the planned Polish-based interceptors and a radar system in the Czech Republic could target and catch Russian missiles, thus threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent. That view supports Russia's criticism of the system. Russia adamantly opposes the plan and the dispute has escalated U.S.-Russian tensions to the highest point since the Cold War. The Pentagon's Missile Defense agency, which oversees the missile program, considers the scientists' analyses flawed. The U.S. says the missile system is intended to counter a threat from Iran and could not take out Russian missiles. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has dismissed Russia's concerns as ``ludicrous.'' But the six scientists - whose backgrounds include elite American universities, research labs and high levels of government - said in interviews that Russia's concerns are justified. ``The claim by the Missile Defense Agency is not correct,'' says Theodore Postol, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a longtime missile defense critic. ``And it is hard to understand how they could get something so basic wrong.'' The agency's claims were made as part of an intensive U.S. diplomatic push early this year. Senior U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, traveled to Europe to convince allies that Russian worries about U.S. missile capabilities were unfounded. The trips followed threats by Russia to retarget its missiles at Europe. Some European officials had expressed skepticism about the plans and recommended further consultations with Russia. Public opinion in some countries, including Poland and the Czech Republic, ran against the U.S. plans. To reassure the foreign governments and the public, Lt. Gen. Henry ``Trey'' Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, presented slideshows intended to demonstrate that the Europe-based system was designed to counteract missiles only from Iran. The allies have not challenged the MDA's claims. The physicists have told The Associated Press that Obering's presentations were misleading and inconsistent on key points. Postol, a former scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations, and George Lewis, associate director of the Peace Studies Program at Cornell University, have written a study of the MDA claims. Postol presented their findings Thursday in Washington. ``If the United States does not provide the allies with accurate information about the decisions they are being asked to participate in and that have direct relevance for their national security as well as ours, the credibility of the United States will continue to diminish,'' he said in his presentation. Congressional testimony by Postol in 1992 helped rebut government claims of a high success rate in shooting down Iraqi scud missiles with Patriot missiles in the Persian Gulf War. Pavel Podvig, a researcher at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, made his own estimates and confirmed Postol and Lewis' findings. Podvig, a Russian physicist, has been critical of both U.S. and Russian missile defense claims. Three other physicists also reviewed Postol's findings and told The Associated Press that they found them accurate: -Richard Garwin, a National Science Award winner, who is credited with the design of the first hydrogen bomb. Garwin served on the Rumsfeld Commission, an independent panel appointed by Congress in the 1990s to assess the threat to the United States from ballistic missiles. -Philip Coyle, a former associate director of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Coyle was assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration in charge of testing weapons systems. -David Wright, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear nonproliferation and environmental advocacy group. The MDA has stood by their claims that the interceptors could not catch Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. ``The basic fact of the matter is that we would never make a statement like that unless we knew it was true,'' said MDA spokesman Rick Lehner. In one of Obering's slide presentations, labeled ``Missile Defense for U.S. allies and Friends,'' an image illustrates the trajectory of a Russian ICBM from a point east of Moscow toward Washington. The slide, which also illustrates the Polish interceptors, says in bold script ``Interceptors Cannot Catch Russian Missiles.'' ``The reason we selected Poland and the Czech Republic for the potential positions of these assets is because it was optimum for the Iranian threat,'' Obering said after a meeting with German officials in Berlin on March 15. ``They are not positioned to where we can even catch the Russian missiles with these interceptors.'' The dissenting scientists say that both those claims are incorrect: the interceptors could catch Russian ICBMs; the interceptors and the radar would be better positioned closer to Iran to counter a threat from its missiles. Postol concluded that the MDA significantly understated the speed that their interceptors can reach when their boosters burn out and overstated how long they would need to track a missile by launching the interceptors. While all six scientists are skeptical that the U.S. missile defense system can work, they believe that in terms of raw speed, U.S. interceptors in Poland could catch a Russian ICBM launched from western Russia at any part of the continental United States. In Postol's model, the intercept would occur at a point over the North Pole. The Missile Defense Agency says the Polish rockets would reach a burnout speed of 6.3 kilometers (3.9 miles) per second, roughly the speed of the Russian missiles depicted in Obering's slides. At that speed, the interceptors could not catch the Russian missiles. But Postol says the interceptors could top 9 kilometers (5.6 miles) per second. Responding to Postol's criticism, the MDA said Postol made assumptions about the interceptors that are based on theory, but in the real world they do not work as well. Not only are the interceptors one-third slower, their rocket motors' thrust is not as efficient when tested, and to get to Russian missiles they would be going through various stresses that exceed what would be considered normal design. The MDA presented a chart of rocket motor efficiency from tests and noted that Postol's estimates did not reflect what happens in the real world. But Garwin countered that at least one rocket motor was more efficient than a Postol estimate. On Thursday, MDA posted a statement on its Web site. ``MDA stands by its figures, which are real, not hypothetical, and are derived from actual hardware and software performance data from actual flight tests,'' the statement said. The statement also charged that Postol was overly optimistic about the interceptor capabilities. Obering claimed in slides that the European system would expand protection from a U.S.-based system to parts of East Asia. Postol said that could not be true if the European interceptors were moving as slowly as the MDA is claiming. The scientists have not disputed another argument used by U.S. officials that the 10 interceptors planned for Poland would be easily overwhelmed by Russia's vast arsenal, leading one supporter of missile defense to conclude that even if the scientists are correct, the U.S. argument holds up. ``I don't think it changes the basic assertion of the administration that this does not pose a threat to Russia,'' said Baker Spring, a national security analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. However, Russia has expressed worries that once the bases are established, they could be expanded with more interceptors and improved capabilities. Guardian Unlimited Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 39 Hanford News: Federal agency: Some Hanford workers with cancer may get payments This story was published Thursday, September 27th, 2007 the Herald staff RICHLAND, Wash. - The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has recommended that some Hanford workers exposed to radioactive americium or thorium in years past be automatically awarded $150,000 if they developed any of a wide range of cancers. However, a recent report by federal agency said that most of the tens of thousands of people who worked at Hanford from 1946 to 1990 who develop cancer should not receive automatic compensation. The agency has recommended that only workers who were found to have been exposed to a certain level of radiation, or whose records are not complete enough to make that determination, be compensated. The recommendation must be approved by an advisory panel, then would be forwarded to Congress and to the Department of Labor. The report did not indicate how many of 2,614 workers who are seeking compensation might be eligible for payments. Earlier this year, NIOSH recommended payments for some Hanford workers exposed to radiation from 1943 to August 1946, in the earliest days of the former nuclear weapons production site. The latest review covered Hanford workers from 1946-1990. The review found there is not enough data to reconstruct accurate radiation doses of some workers exposed to americium at the Plutonium Finishing Plant and workers exposed to thorium in the 300 Area, just north of Richland. But it concluded that in most cases a radiation dose estimate could be made from looking at a variety of other records, and some of those workers could be compensated. For decades, Hanford made plutonium for nuclear weapons and has a vast collection of nuclear waste. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, workers who develop cancer may receive compensation if NIOSH determines the amount of radiation they received on the job through 1990 had at least a 50 percent chance of causing their illness. If too little information exists for the radiation dose to be reconstructed, groups of workers may be classified as "special exposure cohorts" and automatically compensated if they develop any of 22 cancers. The NIOSH report covered workers at the Plutonium Finishing Plant from 1949 to 1968. Exposure also occurred in two related facilities, the 231-Z Isolation Building and 242-Z Waste Treatment Facility. The americium was being recovered for NASA to use as a power source in early space flights. Work with thorium began in October 1945 in the 300 Area of Hanford. Thorium was fabricated as part of a program to see if it could be used rather than plutonium in nuclear weapons. Workers at the Metal Fabrication Building, the Reactor Fuel Manufacturing Pilot Plant, the 300 Area Maintenance Shops and the Radiochemistry Laboratory may have been exposed to radiation from thorium before 1960, the report said. The NIOSH recommendation will next be considered by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 40 Hanford News: Hanford work to continue under '07 budget This story was published Thursday, September 27th, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy's fiscal year will end Sunday with no hope that Congress will have a Hanford budget in place. Under a continuing resolution passed by the U.S. House on Wednesday, Hanford would continue to operate under a continuation of the fiscal year 2007 budget through Nov. 16. That's the planned adjournment date for Congress, although it looks unlikely that it will be ready to adjourn then. The Senate also must vote on the continuing resolution this week. The House has approved a Department of Energy budget, which includes Hanford, for fiscal year 2008. But the Senate version only has been passed out of the Appropriations Committee and has not been considered by the full Senate. Once the Senate votes, its version and the House version will have to be reconciled by a conference committee. If more time is needed, an additional continuing resolution could be passed. Under the 2007 budget, construction at the vitrification plant would continue at a funding level of $690 million. However, the 2008 budget approved by the House would drop that to $590 million. The Senate version proposes restoring funding to $690 million. The Senate bill, which totals $1.96 billion for Hanford cleanup in 2008, includes $126 million more than the House version. It also would increase money for the tank farms to almost $326 million, restoring funding to the 2006 level after a drop to about $274 million this year. The House and Senate versions of the budget would increase funding for DOE's Hanford Richland Operations Office $73 million above the amount requested by the Bush administration in February. The Richland Operations Office manages cleanup projects other than the vitrification plant and tank farms. The additional money includes a boost of $23 million for retrieving temporarily buried transuranic waste - typically debris contaminated with plutonium - and low-level radioactive waste to meet legal deadlines. Another $23 million would be added to the amount for cleanup along the river, including demolishing buildings in the 300 Area just north of Richland. About $19 million would be used for soil clean up in central Hanford, as well as a feasibility study for cleanup of the PUREX site. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 Hanford News: Government OKs health paymentsfor early workers This story was published Thursday, September 27th, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer earliest Hanford radiological workers should be automatically awarded $150,000 if they developed any of a broad range of cancers. "This action ensures the pioneer workers at Hanford who transformed a desert into a factory to help end World War II get the compensation they deserve," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., in a statement. Workers produced plutonium at Hanford for the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. The decision on automatic compensation will become final if Congress makes no objection by about mid-October. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH, reported earlier this year that insufficient information was recorded at Hanford on worker exposure to radiation to estimate individual doses when plutonium production was beginning. In July, the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health agreed and forwarded the information to Secretary Michael Leavitt for consideration. The decision would cover workers at the Hanford reservation who could have been exposed to radiation before Sept. 1, 1946. NIOSH found that before then Hanford did not have a reliable and routine program for monitoring workers for radiation exposure. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, Hanford workers who developed cancer have only been awarded the $150,000 payment if NIOSH estimated the dose of radiation they received and determined there was at least a 50 percent chance it caused the illness. But workers may petition for an exemption for groups of workers to be named a "special exposure cohort" if they believe the radiation doses cannot be estimated because of insufficient or inaccurate information. The compensation program has had 378 claims submitted by workers in Hanford's earliest years who might become eligible for compensation under a special exposure cohort. They would need to have worked at Hanford for 250 days, although work at some related facilities also might be included in that total. Covered cancers include: Bone cancer, renal cancer, some leukemias, some lung cancers, multiple myeloma, some lymphomas and primary cancer of the bile ducts, brain, breast, colon, esophagus, gall bladder, ovary, pancreas, pharynx, salivary gland, small intestine, stomach, thyroid, urinary bladder and liver, with some restrictions. If Congress does not object to naming a special exposure cohort for early Hanford workers, the decision will be sent to the Department of Labor to implement the program. In addition to the special exposure cohort for the earliest Hanford workers, NIOSH also has recommended a special exposure cohort for some workers involved in specialized projects as recently as 1968. But the advisory board has yet to consider it and make a recommendation to the secretary. It is proposed to cover exposures from programs to recover americium at the Plutonium Finishing Plant for use in the nation's space program and workers who may have been exposed to thorium when it was fabricated into fuel as part of a program to see if it could be used in nuclear weapons. For information on applying for the compensation program, call the Hanford Resource Center at 946-3333 or 888-654-0014. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 Inside Bay Area: Livermore Lab workers union recognized New bargaining unit comes on eve of management change By Betsy Mason, STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated: 09/27/2007 02:38:19 AM PDT A group of Livermore lab workers including plumbers, painters and locksmiths won union status Wednesday when the state Public Employment Relations Board certified the bargaining unit, less than a week before new lab management takes over. Labor organizers had been anxious to get recognition before management of the Energy Department lab passes from the University of California to a private corporation Oct. 1, when union decisions would fall to the National Labor Relations Board, which deals with the private sector and has stricter rules. I feel very good about the victory, said Brion Leri, an air conditioning mechanic and member of the new union. Its a long time coming. I think it will be beneficial to both workers and management. Lab management is evaluating PERBs ruling and deciding whether to appeal, said lab spokeswoman Susan Houghton. The lab has 10 days to respond. Organizers succeeded in getting signed authorization cards from more than half of the newly certified bargaining unit which covers skilled trades employees such as electricians, carpenters, plumbers, painters, mechanics, locksmiths and welders. UC had questioned the makeup of the bargaining unit, but PERB sided with the workers and stuck with bargaining units established in the 1980s during a failed drive to unionize. Petitioning for union status with the NLRB tends to be more difficult because a one-day election must be held rather than collecting cards over time. Organizers were also motivated by coming changes in the generous benefits workers had enjoyed with UC under the new manager, a corporation run jointly by UC and several private companies including Bechtel Corp. We hope to retain the benefits that have been part of the laboratory structure for the past 55 years, Leri said. Lab employees also face potential layoffs in the coming fiscal year from looming budget cuts to Department of Energy spending on weapons programs. The U.S. House and Senate have not yet resolved differences in their 2008 appropriations bills, but a worst-case scenario for the lab would mean about $150 million less than the presidents $2.5 billion request. Lab director George Miller told employees at an all-hands meeting Sept. 6 that he had been asked by the National Nuclear Security Administration to put together a workforce restructuring plan to prepare for the potential cuts. In a note to Miller on Sept. 5, NNSA administrator Tom D'Agostino said, "This situation, unfortunately, will cause some significant impacts to our sites' operating budgets and could affect our workforce." The lab submitted a general plan to the NNSA last week that outlines how the lab would handle workforce reductions and minimize layoffs and other impacts, but it does not include numbers or details, Houghton said. "It's too soon to know what we will be asked to do," she said. Leri said the union will ensure that the workers have some input on the budget concerns. Labor organizers plan to continue working on getting collective bargaining status for other groups of workers at the lab. "We'll get as many as we can involved," Leri said. Betsy Mason covers science and the national laboratories. She can be reached at 925-952-5026 or bmason@bayareanewsgroup.com. Notice: InsideBayArea.com reserves the right to delete obscene, libelous or abusive comments. 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 43 Knoxville News Sentinel: Pension prayers yet to be answered Retired Oak Ridge workers plan to spread message By Frank Munger (Contact) Thursday, September 27, 2007 Joe Howell Donna Reichle is a retiree from Oak Ridge and a member of the Coalition of Oak Ridge Retired Employees (CORRE), which held its annual meeting at Heritage Fellowship Church in Oak Ridge. OAK RIDGE — The Coalition of Oak Ridge Retired Employees held its annual meeting at a local church Wednesday, which may have been symbolic because retirees have prayed for a pension increase for years. Those prayers haven’t been answered — at least not yet. “I wish I could report to you today something really good,” David Reichle, president of the group, told hundreds of retirees, speaking from the pulpit of Heritage Fellowship Church. Instead, Reichle reiterated the group’s long-standing goals, notably an across-the-board pension increase to restore lost purchasing power. He and other leaders called for Oak Ridge retirees to ratchet up pressure on the U.S. Department of Energy to free funds for a pension increase. Even though money for an increase is already in Oak Ridge — where the pension fund reportedly has a surplus of $750 million — Reichle said the battle to make it available for retirees or surviving spouses must be waged in the nation’s capital. “Never forget that the people calling the shots are sitting up in Washington,” Reichle said. He said the DOE and the current administration are making every effort to get rid of defined-benefit pension plans for DOE contractors and resisting all attempts to boost payments for retirees. Pete Lotts, who heads the group’s government relations committee, asked retirees Wednesday to contact their elected representatives, contractor officials, the news media and others in position to influence decision-makers. CORRE has about 2,900 dues-paying members, but the group represents about 12,000 people retired from the DOE’s Oak Ridge contractors. Staffers representing U.S. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and U.S. Rep. Lincoln Davis, D-Tenn., were at Wednesday’s meeting, and statements from U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., and U.S. Rep. John J. Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., were read to the audience. CORRE officials said a pension increase would not only be good for retirees but would also boost the East Tennessee economy. Lotts said the economic impact would be the equivalent of 1,000 new jobs Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 44 UPI: NNSA issues notice on Y-12 problems United Press International - International Security - Industry - Published: Sept. 27, 2007 at 3:57 PM WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 (UPI) -- The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration last week issued a notice about safety violations at its Y-12 complex. The NNSA, an agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, said in a statement it had "issued a preliminary notice of violation today, with a proposed civil penalty, to BWXT Y-12." "This notice describes nuclear safety violations that occurred at NNSAs Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, TN. BWXT Y-12 is the contractor responsible for managing and operating the complex," the NNSA said. "The notice includes a proposed civil penalty of $137,500 for four separate violations of the departments nuclear safety rules. Violations were cited in the areas of criticality safety evaluation, work processes, program management, and quality improvement. Each violation contains multiple examples of noncompliance with nuclear safety rules," the agency said. "In April 2006, BWXT Y-12 determined that uranium mass had accumulated above stated limits in a vacuum system filter housing at Y-12s uranium casting operations. It was later found that an unanticipated amount of lubricating oil had also accumulated in this filter housing," the NNSA said. "While no one was injured, the notice makes it clear that the problems took too long to discover and correct," it said. When the problems were discovered, "BWXT ceased uranium casting operations, conducted a thorough investigation and undertook corrective measures. These factors were taken into account when deciding the amount of the proposed civil penalty," the NNSA said. The agency said the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 "authorizes the Department of Energy to undertake regulatory actions against contractors for violations of its nuclear safety requirements. The enforcement program encourages departmental contractors to identify and correct nuclear safety deficiencies at an early stage, before they contribute to or result in more serious events." Copyright United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 45 lamonitor.com: Lab updates biggest construction project The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor The major construction project known as the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) facility held another semi-annual meeting Wednesday, under terms of a formal agreement for air-quality permitting. Although a scheduling conflict was said to have limited attendance by some of the "Interested Parties," the public interest groups named in the settlement, several representatives were present and a vigorous question-and-answer period ensued during the last half of the presentation. The meeting at the Best Western Hilltop House contrasted with previous meetings by the strong showing of personnel directly related to the project itself who outnumbered representatives of public interest groups. Their specific answers enabled some questions and concerns that came up during the meeting to be resolved on the spot. Groundbreaking on the CMRR adjacent to the Plutonium Facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory took place in early 2006. Excavation was carried out for both buildings of the project, although funding through completion is still contingent. Construction began in May and heavily reinforced concrete walls are now rising for the first phase, known as the Radiation Laboratory/Utility office building (RLUOB) Programmatic and political questions swirl around the project, which has been funded in a Senate committee's appropriation bill, but not funded at all in an appropriation bill passed by the House. Answers related to budget uncertainties, and long-term purposes and intentions for the facility were in short supply as the officials emphasized the status and goals of the immediate construction activities. Tom Whitacre, the radiological laboratory project manager, said RLUOB would be a five-story, 186,000-square-foot office building, containing 350 offices and training space with a total cost estimated at $126 million. This first phase of the project is about 25-percent finished, he said, and the full CMRR is at about the 5-percent mark. Trish Williams-Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group asked about reports that CMRR budget estimates had "passed $1.5 billion on the way to $2 billion total." A project flyer printed for the groundbreaking ceremony lists the budget at $745-$975 million over eight to 12 years. Steve Fong, the federal project director for the CMRR, said there were only firm estimates for first-phase RLUOB so far, because the Nuclear Facility, the larger and much more expensive structure, is "still in design." Questions focused on some of the seismic, air-quality and quality-assurance issues that had been raised previously. Don Brown, a former quality assurance official at the lab, thought the process should address and attempt to resolve concerns that had been raised previously. He had additional questions related to the qualifications of the contractor to work on nuclear facilities and training for auditors and on-site inspectors. A concern about design-build contract for the Nuclear Facility, pressed by the Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board, was apparently resolved. Fong said the program sponsors decided last November to revise the plan for a simultaneous design and build contract to a more conventional construction process, in which the design process would precede the bidding for the construction contract. Scott Kovac of Nuclear Watch New Mexico and Cameron Sadaf of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety who had provided a five-page list of questions in advance, received answers for several of those during the meeting. Previous concerns about new and continuing investigations related to increased earthquake risks at the laboratory were partially addressed during the formal presentation. A May 2007 Geotechnical Engineering Report and a June 2007 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard analysis have been completed and will be made available next spring. A Seismic Mapping of the Nuclear Facility Excavation is still in process but will be completed and provided to the designers before final construction. The CMRR project's 2003 Environmental Impact Statement estimated that 1,645 curies of fission noble gases would be released annually by facility operations, according to Sadaf. Her question about the emission source and monitoring plan for that air quality issue went unanswered. 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 Oak Ridger: Survey results reveal cleanup concerns - Story last updated at 12:33 am on 9/27/2007 The Department of Energy is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Oak Ridge each year cleaning up environmental contamination left from decades of nuclear enrichment and other activities. So what concerns people most about that cleanup? The answers lie in an annual survey conducted by the Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board called the Stakeholder Survey. The board has distributed the survey since 1998 in an effort to get input from the public on what cleanup issues are most important to them. The survey is prepared each year by the board’s Public Outreach committee and mailed to about 600 people on the board’s Advocate newsletter mailing list. Additional copies are distributed at the Secret City Festival, the Oak Ridge and Kingston public libraries, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and the Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce. Notices about the survey’s availability on the Site Specific Advisory Board’s Web site are posted in Anderson County Visions magazine and other local papers, and on the three main DOE contractor web sites. The results this year (which were collected in July and August) showed great similarity to those from last year. Just getting the cleanup finished was the top issue both years, followed closely by long-term stewardship of contamination left in place on the Oak Ridge Reservation. See the table which shows the top ten issues. The survey also provides space for individuals to write in comments. Some are very specific in nature: “Past offsite exposures should be translated into an estimate of health risk with uncertainty and include the local and regional footprint of concomitant exposures to historic fallout from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.” Some comments are more general: “Radiation cleanup and management of legacy wastes and waste sites is critically important to the future of our community and our children. Government needs to fulfill its responsibility and fund these activities better in the future.” And some are just nice to receive: “Would just like to say thank you to each board member for their service. It is good to know there is a group of people similar to me, who are looking out for my welfare.” Comments on the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation cleanup can be made anytime on the board’s web site at www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/comments.htm. The Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board meets the second Wednesday of each month at 6 p.m. at the DOE Information Center in Oak Ridge. Meetings of the board and its committees are open to the public, and notices are posted on the board’s Web site: www.oakridge.doe.gov/ em/ssab. © 2004 The Oak Ridger | Conditions of Use ***************************************************************** 47 Oak Ridger: Y-12 completes major upgrade of compressed air systems $21.4 million project completed under budget and ahead of schedule - Story last updated at 12:33 am on 9/27/2007 The Y-12 National Security Complex has recently completed a major upgrade of compressed air systems at the Oak Ridge, Tenn., facility. The Compressed Air Upgrades Line Item Project (CAUP) provides a modern compressed air system to supply instrument and plant air to Y-12 production and support facilities. The project replaced nine compressed air trains located in five different locations with a centralized system. The new system is centrally controlled and integrated to optimize air supply and to allow maintenance without system impacts. Y-12 is a key facility in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex and is responsible for ensuring the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Y-12 is operated by BWXT Y-12 LLC for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Theodore Sherry, manager of the NNSA’s Y-12 Site Office (YSO), said, “Completion of this project is another major step towards completing the modernization of Y-12. This also enables us to avoid an estimated $13 million in future maintenance costs.” The air system has been Y-12's highest priority in the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP), which began in 2001. CAUP is the first of three FIRP utility line item projects at Y-12 to achieve approval for operations by YSO. The $21.4 million project was completed ahead of schedule and under budget. Other FIRP-related modernization projects under way at Y-12 include upgrades to the supply of steam and potable water, with construction scheduled to begin in FY 2008. CAUP was managed by Anna Beard, Federal Project Director; Frank McHenry, BWXT Y-12 Project Manager; and Rebecca Spiva, BWXT Y-12 Project Engineer. CAUP subcontractors included TPG Construction and Pro2Serve who performed the design and equipment procurement for the project. | © 2004 The Oak Ridger | ***************************************************************** 48 KOB.com: Judge sides with watchdog group in LANL case Posted at: 09/27/2007 10:53:56 AM By: The Associated Press SANTA FE (AP) - A judge has sided with a nuclear watchdog group that sued the federal government over access to site plans for Los Alamos National Laboratory. Nuclear Watch New Mexico wanted the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration to turn over plans for the years 2003 through 2006. The Santa Fe group had requested the information under the federal Freedom of Information Act, but it took more than 17 months for the information to be released. The group accused the NNSA of unlawfully withholding agency records. U.S. District Judge Bruce Black ruled on September 19th that the agency offered no rational for its multilayered, cross-country review process or the resulting delay. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) ***************************************************************** 49 ESN: DOE awards task order for SPRU land areas cleanup Thursday, September 27, 2007 subscribe@empirestatenews.net, Cincinnati, OH --The U.S. Department of Energy Wednesday awarded a task order to Accelerated Remediation Co., LLC of Idaho Falls, Idaho, to manage the environmental restoration of approximately fifteen acres of radiologically and chemically contaminated soil at the former Separations Process Research Unit in Niskayuna, New York. The potential value of the three-year task order is approximately $14.2 million. The task order was competitively bid among a pool of contractors who are Small Business Awardees of the Department’s Environmental Management Nationwide Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts. The ID/IQ contracts include contractors competitively selected to provide environmental remediation, waste management, groundwater characterization/ remediation and regulatory document preparation services. The SPRU, located at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, was operated from 1950 to 1953 as a pilot plant to research the REDOX and PUREX chemical processes to extract uranium and plutonium from irradiated uranium. These operations contaminated the SPRU facilities and land, resulting in the need to remediate the SPRU site. The SPRU site process facilities and land areas are owned by the U.S. Department of Energy. ***************************************************************** 50 Seattle PI: Hanford workers with cancer may be compensated Last updated September 26, 2007 9:48 p.m. PT But federal agency sets limit on who gets the money THE ASSOCIATED PRESS RICHLAND -- The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has recommended that some of the Hanford workers exposed to radioactive americium or thorium in years past be automatically awarded $150,000 if they developed any of a wide range of cancers. However, a recent report by the federal agency said that most of the tens of thousands of people who worked at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation from 1946 to 1990 who develop cancer should not receive automatic compensation. The agency has recommended that only workers who were found to have been exposed to a certain level of radiation, or whose records are not complete enough to make that determination, be compensated. The recommendation must be approved by an advisory panel before being forwarded to Congress and to the Department of Labor. The report did not indicate how many of 2,614 workers who are seeking compensation might be eligible for payments. Earlier this year, NIOSH recommended payments for some Hanford workers exposed to radiation from 1943 to August 1946, in the earliest days of the former nuclear weapons production site. The latest review covered Hanford workers from the years 1946 to 1990. The review found there is not enough data to reconstruct accurate radiation doses of some workers exposed to americium at the Plutonium Finishing Plant and workers exposed to thorium in the 300 Area, just north of Richland. But it concluded that in most cases a radiation dose estimate could be made from looking at a variety of other records, and some of those workers could be compensated. For decades, Hanford made plutonium for nuclear weapons and has a vast collection of nuclear waste. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program, workers who develop cancer may receive compensation if NIOSH determines that the amount of radiation they received on the job through 1990 had at least a 50 percent chance of causing their illness. If too little information exists for the radiation dose to be reconstructed, groups of workers may be classified as "special exposure cohorts" and automatically compensated if they develop any of 22 cancers. The NIOSH report covered workers at the Plutonium Finishing Plant from 1949 to 1968. Exposure also occurred in two related facilities, the 231-Z Isolation Building and 242-Z Waste Treatment Facility. The americium was being recovered for NASA to use as a power source in early space flights. Work with thorium began in October 1945 in the 300 Area of Hanford. Thorium was fabricated as part of a program to see if it could be used rather than plutonium in nuclear weapons. Workers at the Metal Fabrication Building, the Reactor Fuel Manufacturing Pilot Plant, the 300 Area Maintenance Shops and the Radiochemistry Laboratory may have been exposed to radiation from thorium before 1960, the report said. The NIOSH recommendation will next be considered by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com Send investigative tips to iteam@seattlepi.com 1996-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************