***************************************************************** 11/13/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.267 ***************************************************************** 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: Hanford News: Idaho nuke planners buy renewable energy firm 2 US: Times Argus: Nuclear energy not so problematic 3 US: Reid: Total Costs of War Could Climb to $3.5 Trillion 4 UPI: U.S., Italy sign energy development pact NUCLEAR REACTORS 5 US: NRC: NRC Increases Oversight of Both Farley Nuclear Plant Units 6 RussiaToday: Russia eyes nuclear boom 7 AGI: SCARONI: NUCLEAR PROGRAMME, WISHES AND FACTS NOT SAME THING 8 US: Platts: Exelon Nuclear to use GE Hitachi reactor if it is to bui 9 BBC NEWS: Reactor woes hurt British Energy 10 US: NRC: NRC Amends Regulations to Extend Fines for Violating Employ 11 Platts: Swedish Vattenfall to create executive post for nuclear expe 12 Platts: EC backs most of the EP's proposed changes to the ESA 13 WNN: Construction of Russia's Kalinin 4 resumes 14 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear 15 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 16 US: NRC: NUREG-1556, Volume 21, ``Consolidated Guidance About Materi 17 PTI: IAEA's role may change with increase in global N-power 18 Reuters: Siemens, Russia to develop atomic power generation 19 Reuters: French energy strikers aim to cut power exports 20 Reuters: Corrosion overshadows British Energy profit rise 21 Hemscott: British Energy declines to give timeline to re-open shutdo 22 US: WCAX-TV: Mussels blamed for nuclear plant shutdowns 23 AFP: ASEAN to promote nuclear energy, solar power - 24 US: Decatur Daily: Find Unit 1 problems, get them resolved quickly 25 Herald Sun: Nuclear power plants 'on backburner' \ NUCLEAR SECURITY 26 US: MiamiHerald.com: FBI: Turkey Point hole vandalism not sabotage - NUCLEAR SAFETY 27 US: [NYTr] Radiation 'Reference Man' Model Should Be Replaced, Say A 28 CTV.ca: Angry residents want federal contamination study 29 US: TBO Forums: Workers Suffering From Cancer Need To Prove Their Jo 30 globeandmail.com: Town's residents test positive for uranium contami 31 The Gazette: Atomic vet dies with no compensation NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 32 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Governor slights Yucca fight 33 US: The Tribune: Salazar joins list of lawmakers concerned about ura 34 US: Las Cruces Sun-News: Citizen Action sues over release of report 35 AlterNet: Environment: Nevada's Clout in the Primaries Puts the 36 US: Cibola County Beacon: Feds, Navajos discuss uranium 37 Las Vegas SUN: Democrats' anti-Yucca Mountain stances complicated by PEACE 38 [NYTr] IAEA Defends Its Impartiality 39 UPI: Outside View: Russia ready to leave INF 40 AFP: US military interfering in Russia's backyard - Moscow - 41 AFP: NKorea, China agree to set up 10 billion dollar fund - US DEPT. OF ENERGY 42 DOE: U.S. Energy Secretary Highlights Need for Energy Diversity 43 DOE: World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum 44 Hanford News: Diversifying economy bodes well for Tri-Cities 45 Hanford News: Hanford, PNNL changed economy, paved way for growth 46 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah 47 DOE: Notice of 229 Boundary Revision for the Oak Ridge National 48 Knoxville News Sentinel: DOE plans to extend Oak Ridge cleanup contr 49 Knoxville News Sentinel: Soviet spy reportedly worked in Oak Ridge 50 NewsBlaze: U.S. Energy Secretary Highlights Need for Energy Diversit ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Hanford News: Idaho nuke planners buy renewable energy firm This story was published Monday, November 12th, 2007 Matt Christensen, The Times-News, Twin Falls, Idaho A company that plans to build Idaho's first commercial nuclear power plant announced last week it has bought about half the interests in a Maryland-based alternative-energy company. Alternate Energy Holdings, which plans to build a $3.5 billion nuclear power plant in Owyhee County, said Friday it acquired 49.1 percent of Freedom Energy Solutions with an option to take controlling interest in the company. Freedom Energy Solutions of Westminster, Md., sells solar, wind and geothermal systems to offset the utility costs of its clients, which include businesses and homeowners. "We believe the East Coast is ready to have energy-neutral buildings that will operate for life without any energy bills," said AEH CEO Don Gillispie in a statement. "This cost-effective change makes sense for any new structures and for many high-energy consumption existing structures. We want to be a company that bridges this common-sense green solution to all homeowners, businesses and government facilities." Freedom Energy Solutions and the Maryland Energy Administration have plans for an 88-acre renewable energy and environmental campus at Windy Ridge Park in Mount Airy, Md., according to the statement. Virginia-based AEH announced in December it would open Idaho's first commercial nuclear power plant in Owyhee County. The company's plans include a 1,500-megawatt nuclear plant, an ethanol production facility and a methane gas production center that will be powered by manure from nearby dairy farms. The nearest existing nuclear power plant, the Hanford nuclear reservation, is in southeastern Washington. AEH is in the process of securing permits from Owyhee County and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. McClatchy-Tribune Information Services © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 Times Argus: Nuclear energy not so problematic November 13, 2007 Referring to nuclear power as "a very problematic source of energy," as Mary Field Belenky does in a Times-Argus letter Nov. 8, suggests that she has compared it with all other sources of energy, yet no comparisons are cited in support of this judgment. Is nuclear power less problematic than burning coal, given the environmental and safety problems that coal burning entails? The record does not support that conclusion. Both energy sources face serious technological and political challenges if they are to be a significant part of the power generation future. Is nuclear power less problematic than oil? Given the price of oil, its environmental impact and the fact that we import most of what we use from uncertain sources at ever increasing prices, it is not reasonable to conclude that nuclear power is more problematic than oil. Natural gas has fewer problems. Even though we are importing an increasing percentage of our natural gas, we still have significant reserves in this country. But, gas fired electric power generation is much more expensive than either coal or nuclear generation, and, consequently, most gas-burning generators are used only to meet "peaking" power demands rather than the constant baseload power that we need. Water, solar and wind power are attractive as a result of their relatively benign environmental impact, but they supply very small percentages of the power needed and cannot be relied upon to produce a constant stream of energy in the necessary quantity. Ethanol has some of the same problems as oil, and the use of food crops to expand our energy resources raises the cost of food. Geothermal may be the least problematic of all energy sources, but it is economically feasible in very few places. The least problematic and least expensive source of energy is to stop wasting it. But one person's idea of waste is another person's idea of necessity. I, for instance, would regard lighting Pendo field for night football games as a totally unnecessary and unwise use of electricity. But fans of Spaulding High School and Ravens football may see it differently. Consequently, even reducing energy consumption is not without its problems. Nuclear energy has problems to overcome, but rational examination does not support the judgment that it is "very problematic" relative to the other possibilities. Brad Denny Northfield © 2007 Times Argus ***************************************************************** 3 Reid: Total Costs of War Could Climb to $3.5 Trillion US Senator Harry Reid for Nevada November 13, 2007 Joint Economic Committee Report Reveals Hidden Costs of Iraq War Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada released a Joint Economic Committee report on the Iraq War. The report details the hidden costs of the Iraq War, and reveals that the total cost of the war could reach up to $3.5 trillion. “This report confirms what Nevadans already know: the effects of the Iraq war will reverberate for generations,” said Reid. “The Joint Economic Report shows that the President’s Iraq strategy will cost American taxpayers trillions. The President’s war is paid for with borrowed money from foreign countries, and our children and grandchildren will have to foot the bill. The President’s war has upset world oil markets, and because of it, Nevadans are paying more at the pump. All told, from 2002 through 2017, the President’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost each and every Nevada family of four $46,300. The American people can no longer afford this war. It is time for the President to stop obstructing and work with the Congress to responsibly end this war.” To see a copy of the Joint Economic Committee Report, click here. Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia St, Suite 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757 Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 702-388-5030 Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980 Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) ***************************************************************** 4 UPI: U.S., Italy sign energy development pact International Security - Energy - Briefing - UPI.com Published: Nov. 13, 2007 at 6:16 PM ROME, Nov. 13 (UPI) -- U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman signed an energy research agreement with Italian Minister of Economic Development Pier Luigi Bersani. The two reached an agreement at the 20th World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum where Italy joined the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. "By becoming a member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Italy is joining a growing group of nations committed to developing solutions to power a clean, safe and reliable energy future," Bodman said. Bodman highlighted the importance of investment in a diversity of energy supplies and technologies to meet growing global demand for energy. "To increase global energy security, producing and consuming nations alike must make robust investments in a diversity of energy sources, accelerate efforts to increase energy efficiency, and rapidly deploy advanced clean energy technologies to meet growing energy demand and sustain economic growth," he said. The agreement between Italy and the United States builds on current bilateral energy efforts between the nations to advance nuclear technology, increase research and development in carbon sequestration, and promote greater energy efficiency through advanced technology. © 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 NRC: NRC Increases Oversight of Both Farley Nuclear Plant Units and Issues Confirmatory Action Letter on Breakers News Release - Region II - 2007-052 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff recently increased oversight of Unit 2 at the Farley nuclear power plant, and in an assessment letter to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, the agency notified the company that it is now subjecting Unit 1 to the same level of oversight. The Farley nuclear plant is located near Dothan, Ala. “The Farley plant is being operated safely,” said NRC Regional Administrator William Travers, “but there are performance issues that need to be addressed by the licensee.” Under the NRC reactor oversight process, an inspection finding is assigned a color indicating its safety significance. Findings with very low safety significance are labeled "green." "White" findings have low to moderate safety significance, "yellow" findings have substantial safety significance, and "red" findings have high safety significance. Performance indicators at a plant are also assigned colors based on numerical values for each indicator. For Farley Unit 2, the NRC issued a “yellow” finding and Notice of Violation in October for the failure of a Residual Heat Removal (RHR) containment sump suction valve to fully open two separate times. That finding put Unit 2 in the “degraded cornerstone” column. A Unit 1 Cooling Water Systems Performance Indicator recently crossed the threshold from “green” to “white.” This resulted from additional unplanned unavailability time when breakers in the component cooling water system failed to close on two occasions. In August, the NRC staff completed an inspection for a “white” Performance Indicator primarily due to service water pump breaker failures. The NRC opened a parallel “white” Performance Indicator inspection finding for both units. As a result of the additional “white” Performance Indicator on Unit 1 and the parallel “white” Performance Indicator inspection finding, the NRC staff placed Unit 1 in the “degraded cornerstone” column. The “degraded cornerstone” column is the third of five columns in the NRC action matrix, and the plant will be subject to a supplemental NRC inspection to provide assurance that the root causes and causes of the performance issues are understood, the extent of condition is identified, and the corrective actions are sufficient to prevent recurrence. The NRC staff has also issued a separate letter, known as a Confirmatory Action Letter or CAL, to Southern Nuclear confirming details of the company’s plans to address electrical breaker issues at the Farley plant. A letter from Southern Nuclear to the NRC in late October described the company’s actions, either completed or planned, including an eleven point inspection process and a breaker oversight team to review inspection results. 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. Tuesday, November 13, 2007 ***************************************************************** 6 RussiaToday: Russia eyes nuclear boom Kalininskaya nuclear power plant, Tver region, Russia November 13, 2007, 20:00 After years of underfunding, Russia’s nuclear industry is enjoying a revival. The country is heading towards a unified nuclear energy policy, with all plants managed by a new state-owned corporation. The nuclear industry claims it's cheaper and damages the environment less than other ways of energy-production. Vitaly, a 23-year-old atomic engineer, comes from a dynasty of nuclear power plant workers. "Atomic engineering is part of me - it's my destiny; it's my first and last love. I am not interested in anything else, and I will never want another profession," he says. Control room, Kalininskaya NPP The engineer spent a large part of his life living and working in the Russian capital, but chose to return to a small town of Udomlya, about 350 kilometres away from Moscow in the Tver region. The Kalininskaya nuclear station - the biggest in central Russia – is located there. The plant was set up shortly after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. The Kalininskaya NPP supplies energy to the largest Russian cities, like Moscow, and St. Petersburg. For years, development stagnated in Russia because of a lack of investment and the fear of another Chernobyl. Nowadays, Russia's nuclear goal is to generate 25 % of the country's energy needs. "After the Chernobyl catastrophe, the country stopped building nuclear power plants. And then they started to appear all over Russia again," Aleksandr Barinov, Head Engineer of the plant says. More and more young people are ready and willing to join the team at the Kalininskaya NPP. The rapidly growing economy in Russia requires more energy, and the country is set to continue developing nuclear energy, and expand the number of plants throughout the country. Copyright © Autonomous Nonprofit Organization "TV-Novosti" 2007, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 7 AGI: SCARONI: NUCLEAR PROGRAMME, WISHES AND FACTS NOT SAME THING Agenzia Italia | chi siamo | Contattaci mercoledì 14 novembre 2007 h. 7:13 director: Giuliano De Risi (AGI) - Rome, 13 Nov. - The CEO of ENI Paolo Scaroni said that he agrees with the minister for economic development Pier Luigi Bersani's position regarding the nuclear programme. When asked his opinion regarding the current debate on nuclear energy at the World Energy Congress he replied: 'I agree with Bersani's opinion. Wishes and facts are not the same thing. Our country is against the creation of infrastructures that are less invasive than a nuclear plant. Therefore I am not optimistic.' AGENZIA ITALIA | AREA CLIENTI | ARCHIVIO | SALUTE | CONTATTI | INFO PUBBLICITA' | COPYRIGHT © 1999 - 2007 AGI S.P.A. - Privacy - P.IVA 00893701003 ***************************************************************** 8 Platts: Exelon Nuclear to use GE Hitachi reactor if it is to build nuke 2007-11-12 Washington (Platts)--12Nov2007 Exelon Nuclear on Monday said it will use GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy's new generation of reactor technology if it decides to build a new nuclear plant in Texas. The GE Hitachi reactor, called the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor, operates by relying more on natural forces -- such as gravity and convection -- to operate passive safety systems rather than the large numbers of active pumps and valves used in existing technology. Exelon Nuclear, a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., said it is considering locations in Matagorda and Victoria counties in Texas as potential reactor sites. The company said that while the selection of a technology does not mean it intends to build a nuclear power plant, it is a necessary step in preparing a combined construction and operating license application for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The GE Hitachi system is one of the two technologies sponsored by NuStart and the US Department of Energy's Nuclear Power 2010 Program. "After months of rigorous investigation, we selected GEH's ESBWR because the design is complementary to Exelon's mission of providing the highest standards of safety and environmental accountability," Tom O'Neill, Exelon Nuclear's vice president of new plant development, said in a statement. "When we looked at the choices for reactor technology, we had two priorities: safety and minimizing our environmental footprint. The ESBWR meets those criteria, plus GEH has a proven track record of designing reliable plants," O'Neill said. Exelon Nuclear said it expects to submit the combined construction and operating license application, known as a COL, to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in November 2008. The company said that, even with a license, it would not commit to build a new plant before it could satisfy a series of conditions, including a solution to used-fuel disposal and community acceptance. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Electric Power Daily at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 9 BBC NEWS: Reactor woes hurt British Energy Last Updated: Tuesday, 13 November 2007, 08:47 GMT British Energy is braced for a tough second half of the financial year British Energy has warned that profits will take a knock after problems at four of its nuclear reactors. The UK's biggest power provider posted a small increase in half-year earnings but was downbeat on the outlook for the second half of the financial year. Shares in British Energy have slid in recent weeks as the company was forced to shut down four reactors after problems with boiler closure units. Last month, the firm took two reactors at Hartlepool and two at Heysham out of service following a routine inspection that revealed the problems with the boiler units. Electricity output from the group's fleet of eight nuclear reactors was hit in the first half by the need to run its Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B units at reduced power after fixing boiler cracks there. British Energy Group is the UK's largest producer of electricity. It operates eight nuclear power stations and one coal-fired power station. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 10 NRC: NRC Amends Regulations to Extend Fines for Violating Employee Protection Requirements to Additional Entities News Release - 2007-149 - 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 is amending its employee protection regulations to clarify its authority to impose a fine on contractors and subcontractors if they violate the NRC’s regulations by discriminating against their employees for engaging in “protected activities.” The protected activities include providing information to the Commission or the employer about alleged violations of the Atomic Energy Act or the Energy Reorganization Act, refusing to engage in any practices made unlawful by these Acts if the employee has identified the alleged illegality to the employer, requesting the Commission to take action against the employer, and testifying before Congress or any federal or state proceeding on these subjects. The amendments also allow the NRC to impose a fine on the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), as well as a contractor or subcontractor of USEC, if it discriminates against an employee for engaging in protected activities at its gaseous diffusion plants in Kentucky and Ohio. These plants are certified by the NRC rather than licensed. The Commission’s current employee protection regulations prohibit discrimination by those holding an NRC license for use of nuclear material, an applicant for a Commission license, a holder or an applicant for a certificate of compliance, or a contractor or subcontractor of these entities. Enforcement actions specified for violations of these requirements are denial, revocation or suspension of the license; imposition of a fine on the licensee or applicant; or other enforcement action. While these regulations prohibit discrimination by a contractor or subcontractor, they do not explicitly provide for imposition of a fine on a contractor or subcontractor. The Commission emphasized that the amendments do not represent a change in its long-held view that licensees are responsible for maintaining control and oversight of contractor and subcontractor activities. There may be instances in which the Commission may wish to issue fines to both the responsible contractor or subcontractor and the licensee, such as in situations in which the licensee is aware of discrimination by its contractor or subcontractor and does not take immediate action to remedy the situation. Further, the Commission certified that this rule will not have a negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendments were published Jan. 31, 2006, as a proposed rule for public comment. The NRC received 3 comments, which are addressed in the final rule. The final rule was approved by the Commission Oct. 24 and will be published soon in the Federal Register 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. Tuesday, November 13, 2007 ***************************************************************** 11 Platts: Swedish Vattenfall to create executive post for nuclear expert 2007-11-12 London (Platts)--12Nov2007 Swedish utility Vattenfall said Monday it plans to create a new executive post for a Chief Nuclear Officer who will be the company's most senior controller in nuclear safety issues and the executive group management's nuclear expert. Vattenfall's CNO will report directly to Vattenfall's president and CEO Lars G Josefsson. Recruitment to this position is currently ongoing, the company said. The move follows two chief recommendations in an independent analysis of the company's nuclear safety work in Sweden published Monday. Vattenfall said it initiated the analysis after events at the Forsmark nuclear power plant last year "revealed shortcomings in safety work and safety culture." In Germany, two separate incidents at Vattenfall Europe's Brunsbuttel and Krummel nuclear power stations have led to an intensive debate on the future of nuclear power in Germany and on public confidence in the company. Vattenfall Europe, one of the "big four" German power companies, is a fully owned subsidiary of the Swedish state utility. For simliar news, request a free trial to Power in Europe at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 12 Platts: EC backs most of the EP's proposed changes to the ESA 2007-11-13 London (Platts)--13Nov2007 Most of the European Parliament's proposed changes to the Euratom Supply Agency are supported by the European Commission, said EC Vice President Franco Frattini. During a debate in the EP November 12, Frattini said the EC would support most of the changes - contained in new statutes for the agency -- "during final discussions with the [EU] Council." The council has the final say. The EP has called for the ESA to produce analyses and studies on the nuclear fuel market more frequently than annually, as is the current practice, and would create a "bureau" within the ESA's advisory committee to shepherd such efforts. The EP will vote on new statutes November 13. Only Green Party members of parliament spoke against the new statutes during the EP debate November 12. The EC had previously expressed a reservation against giving the advisory committee a say in who is appointed director general of the ESA. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?story or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=22_41&products_id=67 Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 13 WNN: Construction of Russia's Kalinin 4 resumes 13 November 2007 A ceremony took place at unit 4 of the Kalinin nuclear power plant on 12 November to mark the resumption of the Russian reactor's construction. During the ceremony, the first concrete was poured for the reactor building foundation slab. Concrete pouring ceremony at Kalinin 4 (Image: Rosenergoatom) Among the guests attending the ceremony were the governor of Tver region, Dmitri Zelenin, the acting director general of Rosenergoatom Alexander Lokshin, and the director of the Kalinin plant Leonid Martynovchenko. Lokshin commented during the ceremony: "We have been waiting for this day for a long time. Today, we are implementing a large-scale program - a program many people have already called 'nuclear renaissance.' We are doing our best to carry the program through as our development is impossible without nuclear energy." Construction of Kalinin 4, a 1000 MWe, V-320 design VVER-1000 pressurized water reactor, originally started in August 1986, having been approved along with its twin unit Kalinin 3 by the energy ministry of the USSR in October 1985. However, construction of unit 4 was suspended in June 1991 when it was 20% complete. Work on Kalinin 3 continued at a slow pace and the unit finally entered commercial operation in December 2004. On 22 October 2002, Russia's minister of atomic energy and the governor of the Tver region signed a declaration of intent to resume building the reactor. The decision to complete the unit was eventually approved by the deputy head of the Federal Agency for Nuclear Energy (Rosatom) on 16 February 2006. The government pledged $665 million in 2007 towards completing three partially completed units: Volgodonsk 2 and Kalinin 4 (both VVER-1000s) and Beloyarsk 4 (a BN-800 fast-breeder reactor). Rosenergoatom submitted a construction licence application to the Russian regulatory body, Rostekhnadzor, on 25 January 2007 and on 2 July Nizhny Novgorod-based Atomenergoproekt was awarded the contract to supervise completion. A construction licence for the reactor was granted to Rosenergoatom by Rostekhnadzor on 7 September. The licence is valid until 6 September 2017. Kalinin 4 is scheduled to be commissioned in 2011. In October 2006, the Russian government approved a nuclear development program for 2007-10. Russia intends to launch ten new nuclear power reactors by 2015 with a total generating capacity of 11 GWe, pushing up the nuclear share of generation to 22-30% from the 15.5% currently produced by the country's 31 units. Total funding for the development programme is estimated at 1471 billion roubles ($55 billion), including 674.8 billion roubles ($26 billion) from the federal budget. Further information Rosenergoatom WNA's Nuclear Power in Russia information paper WNN: Russia plans deployment of small reactors WNN: New units at Novovoronezh WNN: Russia to invest $5.75bn in nuclear energy ***************************************************************** 14 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Receipt of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 FR Doc E7-22093 [Federal Register: November 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 218)] [Notices] [Page 63933-63934] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13no07-97] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-271; License No. DPR-28] Notice is hereby given that by petition dated August 27, 2007, the New England Coalition (NEC or the petitioner) has requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) take action with regard to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee). The NEC petition requested that NRC promptly restore reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety that is now degraded by the failure of the licensee and its employees to report adverse conditions leading to a reduction in plant safety margins at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (Vermont Yankee), or otherwise to order a derate or shutdown of Vermont Yankee until it can be determined to what extent Vermont Yankee is being operated in an unanalyzed condition. Specifically, the petition requested the following actions: (1) NRC completion of a Diagnostic Evaluation Team examination or Independent Safety Assessment of Vermont Yankee to determine the extent of condition of non-conformances, reportable items, hazards to safety, and the root causes thereof; (2) NRC completion of a safety culture assessment to determine why worker safety concerns were not previously reported and why assessments of safety culture under the Reactor Oversight Process failed to capture the fact or reasons that safety concerns have gone unreported; (3) derate Vermont Yankee to 50% of licensed thermal power with a mandatory hold at 50% until a thorough and detailed structural and performance analysis of the cooling towers, including the alternate cooling system, has been completed by the licensee; reviewed and approved by NRC; and until the above steps (1) and (2) have been completed; and (4) NRC investigation and determination of whether or not similar non- conforming conditions and causes exist at other Entergy-run nuclear power plants. As a basis for the request, the petition cited problems related to the inadequate performance of Vermont Yankee Inservice Inspection, Maintenance, Engineering, and Quality Assurance leading to a cooling tower cell collapse coupled with the employees' assertion of degrading plant conditions inimical to public health. The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) section 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. Mr. Raymond Shadis, in his capacity as the petitioner's Staff Technical Advisor, participated in two telephone conference calls with the NRC's Petition Review Board (PRB) on September 12, 2007, and October 3, 2007, to discuss the petition and provide any additional explanation in light of the PRB's initial recommendation. The results of those discussions were considered in the PRB's determination regarding the petitioner's request for action and in establishing the schedule for the review of the petition. The PRB confirmed its initial recommendation to reject action items (1), (2), and (4), which are the diagnostic evaluation team examination, safety culture assessment, and the NRC investigation at other Entergy facilities. These action items were rejected for review under the 2.206 process because these actions are not enforcement-related. However, the PRB has determined that the petition meets the criteria for review in Management Directive 8.11 with respect to a portion of action item (3). Specifically, the PRB found that the facts presented in the petition related to the cooling tower cell collapse in action (3) were credible and sufficient to warrant further inquiry. A copy of the petition and supplement and the transcripts of the telephone conference calls are available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland and from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) [[Page 63934]] Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML072420194, ML072780363, ML072610466, and ML07830584). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of November 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. J. T. Wiggins, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-22093 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Cell 2 Expansion Reclamation Plan License Amendment; Rio Algom Mining LLC, Ambrosia Lake, NM FR Doc E7-22114 [Federal Register: November 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 218)] [Notices] [Page 63934-63935] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13no07-98] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-8905] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas McLaughlin, Project Manager, Materials Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-5869; fax number: (301) 415-5369; e-mail: tgm@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to issue a license amendment of Source Materials License No. SUA-1473 held by Rio Algom Mining LLC (Rio Algom/the licensee), to approve a Cell 2 Expansion Reclamation Plan for its uranium mill tailings site in Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, and has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. The Ambrosia Lake site is in the Ambrosia Lake mining district of New Mexico, 25 miles north of Grants, New Mexico. Rio Algom began processing ore in 1958, and processed approximately 33 million tons of ore through 1985. The site continued to be an active uranium production facility through December 2002. Site reclamation activities commenced in 1989 with some work on the top surface of the largest tailings cell. There are three tailings/waste cells situated adjacent to each other at the Rio Algom site: The large Tailings Cell 1, Tailings Cell 2 to the west of Cell 1, and a small Cell 3 east of Cell 1 that was used to dispose of contaminated windblown material. Reclamation of Cell 1 is complete, and cover construction of Cells 2 and 3 is still ongoing. Reclamation activities have at times included unlined evaporation pond residue excavation and disposal, contaminated windblown soil cleanup, tailings impoundment reclamation, surface water erosion protection feature construction, and mill building demolition. The licensee has indicated that this proposed cell expansion design is one component of the overall site reclamation plan. The licensee previously has addressed, and NRC has approved, the remaining site-wide reclamation plan elements through separate licensing actions, including the original reclamation plan for Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3 (approved in September 1990), mill demolition, relocation of lined evaporation pond sediments, soil decommissioning plan, and groundwater remediation. II. EA Summary In April 2005, Rio Algom sent the NRC a Reclamation Plan for disposal of evaporation pond sediments for its Ambrosia Lake uranium mill tailings facility. In a followup to the proposed plan, Rio Algom submitted, under letter dated May 31, 2007, Revision 1 of the plan and a response to NRC's request for additional information. The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, and regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40 (10 CFR Part 40) require that material at uranium mill tailings sites be disposed of in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Rio Algom proposes to excavate its lined evaporation ponds (Ponds 9 and 11 through 21), and place all the contaminated sediments, dikes, and underlying materials onto the existing Tailings Cell 2. The expanded Cell 2 will then be closed as part of the facility decommissioning plan. Rio Algom estimates that up to 3 million cubic yards of materials will be excavated, hauled, and compacted as part of this action. The reclamation of the expanded Tailings Cell 2 is intended to: (1) Control radiological hazards for 1,000 years to the extent reasonably achievable; (2) limit the release of radon-222 from uranium by-product, and radon-220 from thorium by-product materials to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average of 20 pCi/m\2\/sec; (3) reduce direct gamma exposure from the reclaimed tailings cell to background levels; (4) avoid proliferation of small waste disposal sites; and (5) provide a final site that is geotechnically stable and provides protection of water resources for the long term. The NRC staff has prepared the EA in support of the proposed license amendment. The New Mexico Environment Department was consulted during the EA preparation. The staff considered impacts that the licensee's amended Reclamation Plan will have on ground water, surface water, socioeconomic conditions, threatened and endangered species, transportation, land use, public and occupational health, and historic and cultural resources. The EA supports a FONSI based on the following conclusions. The potential impacts of the proposed action are limited to the land surface and are temporary during the construction activity. The direct impacts to the surface primarily will be dust generation due to excavating material, hauling it to the disposal area, and working it at the disposal area. Fugitive dust from heavy equipment operation will be mitigated through the use of dust suppression methods on haul roads. Impacts at the expansion cell area itself are minimal, since the area is already disturbed from site reclamation activities. The licensee's implementation of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the site, its site Health, Safety and Environment Management System, and NRC license requirements provide adequate assurances to control impacts to the environment. Additional ambient air monitoring stations have been installed to collect data to demonstrate that control measures are implemented and effective. III. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA, NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment, and there is no [[Page 63935]] need to prepare an environmental impact statement. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADAMS Document accession No. Date ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NUREG-1748, ``Environmental Review Guidance ML031000403 April 10, 2003. for Licensing Actions Associated With NMSS Programs--Final Report,'' Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. NUREG-1620, Rev. 1, ``Standard Review Plan ML040560561 February 19, 2004. for Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978,'' Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. Rio Algom Mining LLC, 2004, ``Closure Plan- ML050240058 November 1, 2004. Lined Evaporation Ponds''. Rio Algom, 2005; Reclamation Plan for ML051290050 April 30, 2005. Disposal of Pond Sediments and Ancillary Materials, Tailings Cell 2 Expansion. Rio Algom 2007; Reclamation Plan for Disposal ML071790245 May 31, 2007. of Pond Sediments and Ancillary Materials, ML071790250 Tailings Cell 2 Expansion, Revision 1. Environmental Assessment for the Tailings ML072670278 September, 2007. Cell 2 Expansion Reclamation Plan, Rio Algom Mining LLC's Uranium Mill Facility, Ambrosia Lake, New Mexico, Final Report. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Keith I. McConnell, Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-22114 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: NUREG-1556, Volume 21, ``Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator'' FR Doc E7-22157 [Federal Register: November 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 218)] [Notices] [Page 63942-63943] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13no07-100] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is announcing the completion and availability of NUREG-1556, Volume 21, ``Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses, Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator,'' dated October 2007. ADDRESSES: Copies of NUREG-1556, Volume 21, may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328; http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs, 202-512- 1800 or The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161-0002; http://www.ntis.gov; 1-800-533-6847 or, locally, 703-805- 6000. A copy of the document is also available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. The ADAMS Accession Number for NUREG-1556, Volume 21 is ML072900058. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The document will also be posted on NRC's public Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1556/ on the ``Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses (NUREG-1556)'' Web site page, and on the Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs' NARM (Naturally-Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Material) Toolbox Web site page at: http://nrc-stp.ornl.gov/ [[Page 63943]] narmtoolbox.html under the heading of ``Licensing Guidance.'' Some publications in the NUREG series that are posted at NRC's Web site address http://www.nrc.gov are updated regularly and may differ from the last printed version. A free single copy, to the extent of supply, may be requested by writing to Office of the Chief Information Officer, Reproduction and Distribution Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Printing and Graphics Branch, Washington, DC 20555-0001; facsimile: (301) 415-2289; e-mail: Distribution@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Torre Taylor, Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415- 7900, e-mail: tmt@nrc.gov; or Duane White, Division of Materials Safety and State Agreements, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6272, e-mail: dew2@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). Among other provisions, Section 651(e) of the EPAct expanded the definition of byproduct material as defined in Section 11e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), placing additional byproduct material under the NRC's jurisdiction, and required the Commission to provide a regulatory framework for licensing and regulating these additional byproduct materials. Specifically, Section 651(e) of the EPAct expanded the definition of byproduct material by: (1) Adding any discrete source of radium-226 that is produced, extracted, or converted after extraction, before, on, or after the date of enactment of the EPAct for use for a commercial, medical, or research activity; or any material that has been made radioactive by use of a particle accelerator and is produced, extracted, or converted after extraction, before, on, or after the date of enactment of the EPAct for use for a commercial, medical, or research activity (Section 11e.(3) of the AEA); and (2) adding any discrete source of naturally occurring radioactive material, other than source material, that the Commission, in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Secretary of the Department of Energy (DOE), the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the head of any other appropriate Federal agency, determines would pose a threat similar to the threat posed by a discrete source of radium-226 to the public health and safety or the common defense and security; and is extracted or converted after extraction before, on, or after the date of enactment of the EPAct for use in a commercial, medical, or research activity (Section 11e.(4) of the AEA). NRC revised its regulations to provide a regulatory framework that includes these newly added radioactive materials. See Federal Register notice 72 FR 55864, dated October 1, 2007. As part of the rulemaking effort to address the mandate of the EPAct, the NRC also evaluated the need to revise certain licensing guidance to provide necessary guidance to applicants in preparing license applications to include the use of the newly added radioactive materials as byproduct material. Two NUREG- 1556 documents are being revised to provide additional guidance to licensees: (1) NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, ``Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses--Program-Specific Guidance About Commercial Radiopharmacy Licenses,'' and (2) NUREG-1556, Volume 9, Revision 2, ``Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses--Program- Specific Guidance About Medical Use Licenses.'' Additionally, a new NUREG-1556 volume was developed to address production of radioactive material using an accelerator. This NUREG-1556 volume is entitled: Volume 21, ``Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses--Program- Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator.'' NUREG-1556, Volume 21, ``Consolidated Guidance About Materials Licenses--Program-Specific Guidance About Possession Licenses for Production of Radioactive Material Using an Accelerator'' was noticed for public comment on May 29, 2007 (72 FR 29555). Six comment letters were received and these comments were considered by the staff as this NUREG was finalized. NUREG-1556, Volume 21, provides guidance on preparing a license application for the production of radioactive material using an accelerator(s). It also includes the criteria that NRC staff will use in evaluating license applications for this use. This document includes guidance that is specific to the activities that take place once radioactive materials are produced by the accelerator, which include material in the target and associated activation products. This document does not include information for the operation of the accelerator as NRC does not regulate the accelerator or its operation. Volume 21 provides guidance related to each of the items that applicants should address in their materials license application, which includes items such as radioactive material that will be produced and its purpose; information on individuals responsible for the radiation safety program; training for individuals that will handle radioactive material; description of the facilities and equipment used; and the radiation safety program. There are some aspects of producing radioactive materials using an accelerator that are unique to this type of use and are discussed in the document. Some examples include training and experience for individuals who will handle radioactive material during the maintenance and repair of the accelerator and other associated equipment, and guidance on the facility design and type of equipment needed to transfer and handle large radioactive materials with high activities. This document also includes guidance on the production and noncommercial distribution of positron emission tomography radioactive drugs to consortium members. The remaining two NUREG-1556 volumes were noticed separately: (1) NUREG-1556, Volume 13, Revision 1, on July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36526), and (2) NUREG-1556, Volume 9, Revision 2, on August 2, 2007 (72 FR 42442). These two NUREGs are being finalized and will be available in the near future. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrice M. Bubar, Deputy Director, Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking, Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs. [FR Doc. E7-22157 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 17 PTI: IAEA's role may change with increase in global N-power Mumbai, Nov 13 (PTI) The role of International Atomic Energy Agency could change in coming years with rising expectations of nuclear powers and entry of new players, an IAEA official today. India and China will be the main players with strongest growth while others, including Iran, Pakistan, Vietnam and Indonesia, are expected to grow, IAEA Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Materials Section head Chaitanyamoy Ganguly said at the International symposium on 'Energy Related Materials'. "Therefore the IAEA's role could change in the near future," Ganguly said. "IAEA will come out with a document soon which will be discussed at the headquarters (in Vienna) mainly focusing on four possible scenarios," he said. The four scenarios include - high growth of nuclear power with high bilateral and international collaboration, no growth, no bilateral or international collaboration and two more scenarios having in-between situations. Ganguly indicated that if bilateral collaborations are growing, the role of IAEA has to be redefined but "it is important to have international collaboration for the safety of the global power programme". "Nuclear safety is very important and international community has to be taken into consideration," he said adding India plays an important role in the international community in safety, security and proliferation resistance issues. He also said not taking a clear cut decision on the Indo-US deal could affect the growth of nuclear power. PTI © Copyright PTI 2007 ***************************************************************** 18 Reuters: Siemens, Russia to develop atomic power generation Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:55am EST MOSCOW (Reuters) - German engineering conglomerate Siemens signed an agreement on Tuesday with Russia to help the country boost nuclear power generation. Russia's atomic energy agency, known as Rosatom, said its chief, Sergei Kiriyenko, had signed the memorandum in Moscow with Rudi Lamprecht, a member of Siemens' managing board. "The development of atomic energy sector in Russia opens significant potential for cooperation," Rosatom said in a statement e-mailed to news agencies. Rosatom said Siemens would help Russia boost nuclear power generation capacity at home and abroad and to reconstruct reactors. Russia wants to boost nuclear energy production to about 25 percent of total electricity generation over the next 20 years from 16 percent currently. President Vladimir Putin says at least two reactors each year must be built in Russia and has approved a large scale consolidation of the state-controlled atomic sector. (Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge, editing by James Jukwey) © Reuters2007All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 19 Reuters: French energy strikers aim to cut power exports Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:14am EST PARIS (Reuters) - The target of a 24-hour French energy strike on November 14 is to cut enough power output capacity to curb exports of French utility giant EDF, but not to hurt consumers, an energy union official said on Tuesday. Employees of EDF and gas company GDF, along with rail workers, are due to walk off the job in large numbers on Wednesday in protest over planned changes to their pensions. "Our target is to slow down exports," a spokesman from France's main union of energy workers CGT told Reuters. "Our aim is not to create imbalances in the system that could hurt consumers," he added. French electricity prices have soared in recent days in a tight wholesale market as EDF's nuclear output has appeared to struggle to meet rising demand for heating due to cold weather. Energy workers carried out a first strike on October 18 that cut some 10,000 megawatts, or almost 16 percent, of the country's nuclear energy capacity. "The problem is that we have no way of knowing whether the electricity goes towards exports or (French) consumers, but this time we will be more demanding in terms of trying to ascertain the true state of power networks," the spokesman said. The union had asked for access to France's power dispatching centre as they had during the strikes of 2004, he said. In any case, energy strikers are limited in the actions they may take as EDF can legally order strikers to stop cutting nuclear power capacity in plants or to increase that capacity with a system of so-called "messages." "If strikers do not respect the orders on those messages, they would face disciplinary sanctions equal to those of terrorists," the unionist added. This is because energy is considered a vital service in the country. ***************************************************************** 20 Reuters: Corrosion overshadows British Energy profit rise Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:30am EST By Pete Harrison LONDON, Nov 13 (Reuters) - Nuclear power firm British Energy's (BGY.L: Quote, Profile, Research) shares fell due to a lack of fresh information about new corrosion problems at two reactors despite its announcement of a 6 percent rise in first-half core profit. British Energy operates eight nuclear power stations built since 1965 to a unique UK design, and in recent years it has struggled with cracks in boilers and other issues linked to ageing. The latest occurred in recent weeks at its Hartlepool and Heysham 1 plants, where it discovered corrosion in eight concrete and steel plugs in the top of the boilers that surround the reactor cores. It said inspections continued, but it could give little new information on Tuesday. "We think the stock will continue to show weakness in early trading given lack of positive 'new news' in this statement," said analysts at Credit Suisse. British Energy shares were down 2.1 percent at 506 pence at 1009 GMT. The group said underlying earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) was 511 million pounds ($1.06 billion) in the six months to Sept. 30, compared to 481 million a year earlier and broadly in line with most analysts' estimates. Electricity output from the group's nuclear reactors was hit in the first half by the need to reduce power at its Hinkley Point plant in southwest England and its Hunterston plant in Scotland after fixing boiler cracks there. "The remainder of the financial year will be significantly impacted by the boiler closure unit issue at Hartlepool and Heysham 1," it added. British Energy said it expected to spend about 20 million pounds investigating for corrosion in the 54 kilometres of wire wrapped around each of the eight concrete boiler plugs in each unit. It has also been forced to buy back power that had already been sold at a cost of 30 million pounds so far. Finance Director Stephen Billingham told reporters: "We may have to buy back a couple more terawatts, if the units are out for the rest of the financial year." The group said it would take account of the recent problems when setting a special dividend in February. Analyst Edmund Reid at Cazenove said: "Despite the continuing operational problems, the macro outlook for British Energy is increasingly positive." "UK forward electricity prices have rallied on the back of tightening reserve margins and higher gas prices and new nuclear in the UK is getting ever nearer, in our view." (Reporting by Pete Harrison; Editing by Matthew Tostevin) ((pete.harrison@reuters.com; +44 207 542 7975; Reuters Messaging: pete.harrison.reuters.com@reuters.net )) ($1=.4808 Pound) Keywords: BRITISH ENERGY RESULTS (C) Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or ***************************************************************** 21 Hemscott: British Energy declines to give timeline to re-open shutdown reactors - CEO LONDON (Thomson Financial) - British Energy Group CEO Bill Coley declined to give a date for the return of the shutdown Heysham 1 and Hartlepool 1 reactors, at the release of the company's half year results today. 'Until the inspections have been completed, it's simply too early to speculate on a detailed timetable for return to service of these units,' said Coley. The old design of the boiler units at these reactors makes inspection very difficult, he added. The outages at the Heysham and Hartlepool reactors are expected to dent the company's full year results. Coley said the problems 'present a challenge that will have a significant impact on financial performance for the remainder of the year'. edward.mcallister@thomson.com ejm/rfw Copyright Thomson Financial News Limited 2007. All rights reserved. Hemscott PLC - Serious Investment Research ***************************************************************** 22 WCAX-TV: Mussels blamed for nuclear plant shutdowns Associated Press - November 13, 2007 3:15 AM ET SCRIBA, N.Y. (AP) - Tiny shellfish are being blamed for nuclear plant shutdowns that cost millions of dollars in lost revenues. Scientists say Lake Ontario's zebra and quagga mussels appear to be behind a surge of seaweed that has shut down the Fitzpatrick nuclear plant three times in the past two months. The plant on the lakeshore in Scriba was shut down when seaweed clogged filters. The seaweed is cladophora, a "filamentous algae" that grows in fine hairlike strands. Brockport State environmental science professor Joseph Makarewicz says the mussels don't eat the stringy cladophora. But they do eat other types of floating algae, making the water much clearer. The clearer water lets sunshine penetrate deeper, causing more cladophora to grow. The mussels also excrete phosphorus and nitrogen, which fertilize the cladophora. Makarewicz says scientists from Brockport and other universities will look at the problem next year during the Lake Ontario Intensive International Field Year. All content © Copyright 2001 - 2007 WorldNow and WCAX. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 AFP: ASEAN to promote nuclear energy, solar power - AFP - Wednesday, November 14 SINGAPORE, Nov 13, 2007 (AFP) - Southeast Asian leaders will promote the use of civilian nuclear power, along with other alternative energy sources, when they meet in Singapore next week, a draft statement obtained Tuesday said. Leaders from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) will also agree to establish a "regional nuclear safety regime" to ensure that plutonium, a key ingredient for making atomic weapons, does not fall into the wrong hands. A draft of an ASEAN Declaration on Environmental Sustainability, obtained by AFP, said the leaders will agree "to take concrete measures to promote the use of renewable and alternative energy sources such as solar, hydro, wind, tide, biomass, biofuels and geothermal energy." They will also support "civilian nuclear power" for interested countries -- a move which environmental campaigners see as worrying. But the draft says ASEAN will ensure "safety and safeguards that are of current international standards and environmental sustainability". Heads of state and government from the 10-member ASEAN bloc are to sign the document next Tuesday during their annual summit. Summit host Singapore has said it wants climate change to be the focus of the meeting, instead expected to be dominated by rogue ASEAN member Myanmar's deadly crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in September. The document commits ASEAN states to implement environmentally sustainable practices, improve cooperation to fight trans-boundary pollution and to take action against illegal logging. Weak law enforcement to control the use of fire for clearing agricultural land in ASEAN's biggest member, Indonesia, has been identified as a main cause of the haze that blankets wide swathes of the region each year. ASEAN leaders will also pledge to improve energy efficiency, reduce the loss of biodiversity in the region and halve the number of people without access to safe drinking water by 2010, according to the draft. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Singapore Pte. Ltd. (Co. Reg. No. 199700735D). All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 Decatur Daily: Find Unit 1 problems, get them resolved quickly TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2007 EDITORIAL Problems at Unit 1 at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant were not expected as part of its restart. The Tennessee Valley Authority drew on the experience of restarting Units 2 and 3 to thoroughly examine the way workers rebuilt Unit 1 that restarted in May. So, it has to be disappointing as well as aggravating to TVA for the unit to shut down five unscheduled times. Unit 1 has an up-and-down history. The unit went on line in 1974 and experienced a near disastrous fire in 1975. TVA then shut down production at all three units in 1985 because of a series of questions about safety and operating procedures. Engineers cross-checked, rebuilt and triple-checked about every part of the unit before it returned to production. The goal was to have the oldest unit join two previously restarted Units 2 and 3 as showcases for the nuclear industry. Unit 2 returned to service in 1991, and Unit 3 followed in 1995. Because those units are so trouble-free, President Bush visited this summer to tout the benefits and safety of nuclear power. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is sending a team of inspectors to the plant to take a look at the current problems. Unlike at Farley Nuclear Plant at Dothan, where Alabama Power's plant officials appear uncooperative with NRC investigators over safety problems, you can bet on a different attitude at Unit 1. TVA spent $1.8 billion and five years rehabilitating the unit and training the staff. The shutdowns apparently are not of a serious nature but are costly. The problems must be found and corrected because TVA and the community have too much at stake at Browns Ferry. THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com www.decaturdaily.com ***************************************************************** 25 Herald Sun: Nuclear power plants 'on backburner' \ NEWS.com.au | Peter Jean and Ben Packham November 14, 2007 12:00am PRIME Minister John Howard has tried to distance the Coalition from the possible construction of nuclear power plants in Australia. Mr Howard yesterday said the possible development of a home-grown nuclear industry was a commercial matter and the Government had no plans for plants to be built. A report commissioned by the Government last year found Australia could have 25 nuclear power plants by 2050, but a quarter of Coalition MPs have been telling their constituents they would oppose the construction. Earlier this year, Mr Howard said communities would be able to decide in binding plebiscites if nuclear reactors should be built in their areas. Mr Howard yesterday said it would be up to private industry to decide if Australia got its own nuclear industry. "The question of whether nuclear power plants would be built would be commercial issues," he said. Labor leader Kevin Rudd said Mr Howard had reopened the nuclear debate with the "remarkable statement" that the Government had no specific plans to build a nuclear reactor. "Mr Howard in the past has said not only is nuclear power an inevitable part of the solution for Australia, he has also said . . . they (reactors) should be sited for commercial reasons," Mr Rudd said. The new debate over nuclear power came as Mr Howard suggested he may remain in power for up to two years if he wins the election and said Peter Costello would be bound to honour the promises made during the election campaign if he took over as Prime Minister. In a radio interview , Mr Howard said a leadership transition would not occur for: "Two years on at least -- or 18 months, two years on." Questioned later on his comment, The PM refused to put a timeline on when he might go. "The position is simply this: well into the next term there will be a transition -- if the Government is re-elected of course -- to Mr Costello," he said. Mr Howard said the Liberal Party would be bound to honour the promises he made at the party's election campaign launch, even after he retired. "We have a continuity of attitude, we have a continuity of policies and we have a continuity of values," he said. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEDT (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 26 MiamiHerald.com: FBI: Turkey Point hole vandalism not sabotage - 11/13/2007 - The FBI knows who drilled a tiny hole in a cooling system at the Turkey Point nuclear power plant, but no one will be charged because of lack of proof of criminal intent. BY JAY WEAVER jweaver@MiamiHerald.com TIM CHAMPMAN/MIAMI HERALD FILE, 2005 A hole in a pressurizer pipe in the cooling system at Turkey Point came to light after FPL workers shut down a reactor at the plant in March 2006 for regular refueling and maintenance. A mystery at the Turkey Point nuclear power plant has been solved -- sort of. The FBI says it knows who drilled a tiny hole into a cooling system at the South Miami-Dade facility last year, but it doesn't plan to file charges because the agency lacks sufficient evidence to prove criminal intent. ''No one is being charged unless more evidence becomes available,'' FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela said Monday. Agents found no evidence to indicate sabotage after investigating the March 2006 incident, but they believe it was an act of vandalism, Orihuela said. They believe an out-of-state contract worker hired to help with routine maintenance drilled a one-eighth-inch hole into a pipe in the reactor's cooling system, she said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded early on that the incident was not sabotage because, by definition, the public's health and safety were not at risk. Also, the NRC deemed the safety significance ''low'' because it was not related to security equipment to protect the plant. April Schilpp, senior manager for Florida Power & Light's nuclear communications, declined to comment about the FBI's investigation. The hole in a pressurizer pipe in the cooling system came to light after FPL workers shut down a reactor at the plant in March 2006 for regular refueling and maintenance. Hundreds of FPL workers and contractors -- some from out of state -- were hired to help with the inspections. They discovered the small hole during a series of tests. The utility company said the pipe damage was repaired immediately, adding that it did not affect customers because a second reactor was operating at the time at the sprawling nuclear plant along Biscayne Bay. Still, FPL officials took the incident ''very seriously'' because of the appearance of possible terrorism. The FBI dispatched 50 agents to the Turkey Point plant and interviewed about 700 workers. In April 2006, the utility company joined forces with the FBI, Miami-Dade police, Florida Department of Law Enforcement and NRC to seek the public's assistance in finding who damaged the pipe in the reactor's cooling system. The company put up a $100,000 reward to help authorities find a suspect. * Copyright 1996-2007 The Miami Herald Media Company| ***************************************************************** 27 [NYTr] Radiation 'Reference Man' Model Should Be Replaced, Say Advocates Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:07:09 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Womens eNews - Nov 13, 2007 http://www.womensenews.org 'Reference Man' May Lose Radiation Modeling Job By Julie R. Enszer - WeNews correspondent (WOMENSENEWS)--The "reference man" is a statistical model. He dates to 1974, but he's perpetually aged between 20 and 30 years old. He weighs 170 pounds, stands 5 feet 7 inches and hails from Western Europe or North America. And he represents everyone in the United States when it comes to [NYTr] Radiation 'Reference Man' Model Should Be Replaced, Say Advocates Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:07:09 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Womens eNews - Nov 13, 2007 http://www.womensenews.org 'Reference Man' May Lose Radiation Modeling Job By Julie R. Enszer - WeNews correspondent (WOMENSENEWS)--The "reference man" is a statistical model. He dates to 1974, but he's perpetually aged between 20 and 30 years old. He weighs 170 pounds, stands 5 feet 7 inches and hails from Western Europe or North America. And he represents everyone in the United States when it comes to setting regulations for acceptable standards of exposure to ionizing radiation. But if the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and other advocates get their way, he will step aside and let women and children--who are more vulnerable to radiation's medical effects--take over the job. "We believe the government has an obligation to protect more than just adult white men from the hazards of radiation," says Lisa Ledwidge, outreach director at the institute. "Until these standards are changed, the government is not fulfilling its responsibility." A June 2005 report from the Washington-based National Research Council finds women 52 percent more likely to develop some form of cancer than men following uniform whole-body exposure to the same level of radiation. Children and fetuses are the most vulnerable to developing cancer due to radiation exposure. This is because they have a longer life expectancy and the intensive cell replication for physical growth. Children and fetuses are also more vulnerable to neurological damage and genetic mutations that affect growth and development. Because of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's use of the "reference man" as a health model, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research's principal scientist and president, Arjun Makhijani, advised an EPA regulatory committee last summer that the agency "averages male and female risks in its regulatory practice in a way that is entirely inappropriate." Makhijani also criticized the EPA committee's draft review of guidelines released in July 2007, for failing to discuss sex-specific overall risk factors of exposure to radiation, except in regards to lung cancer in women. He also criticized the review for not giving girls special consideration, "since females are at greater risk when they are young as well." Immediate Focus on EPA Ledwidge says the immediate focus is getting the EPA, the chief agency in charge of regulating radiation standards, to lower current limits. But the coalition of groups and individuals behind the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research-led "Healthy From the Start" campaign want reform throughout the government. Ledwidge says the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration all use standards based on the "reference man" or some similar model. Campaigners want the EPA to change the reference man to a "hypothetical maximum exposed individual," based on a model that better represents those most vulnerable to ionizing radiation, such as a pregnant woman or girl. This would mean lowering workplace exposure levels to 2 rems per year from 5 rems. But a much smaller exposure--100 millirems--is considered the safe threshold for fetuses, which is why pregnant women are generally advised to avoid X-rays, including dental scans. Rem stands for Roentgen Equivalent Man and is named after the German physicist who discovered X-rays; a millirem is one one-thousandth of a rem. More drastic cuts are called for radiation workers who declare a pregnancy. Currently, women with a declared pregnancy working at jobs with radiation exposure can legally be exposed to 500 millirems. Campaigners want that lowered to 100 millirems. According to Makhijani, the economic implications of this policy change "are not huge. For pregnant women, the policy usually is to not allocate them work in radiation areas, unless they ask to remain in such areas, so the de facto goal often is zero additional dose. In addition, most worker exposures are now below 2 rem." Where it may make a difference is in repair and maintenance in highly radioactive areas, such as working with fuel supplies at nuclear power plants, he says, since a change in the standards for exposure would benefit worker health and safety. Advocates hope the EPA's radiation advisory committee will release new recommendations by the end of 2007. The EPA said the report will be made public as soon as it is completed. No Safe Amount Makhijani's July testimony to the radiation advisory committee of the EPA's scientific advisory board highlighted a 2005 report by the National Research Council of the National Academies finding "a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans." In other words, there is no safe amount of ionizing radiation, and it has a direct link to cancer development. Ionizing radiation--often simply called radiation--comes from unstable atoms emitting invisible energy waves or particles. It has natural environmental sources--such as the sun--and also comes from human-made products such as smoke detectors, dental crowns, some watches and clocks, and medical and dental X-rays including mammograms. Increasingly, environmental exposure--including tritium in water from nuclear power plants and clean-up of nuclear weapons facilities--is a concern. Switching from the reference man could mean regulators limit the amount of radiation that can be discharged from nuclear weapons facilities and nuclear power plants, a goal of activists for people who live downstream or downwind from these locations. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nonprofit group founded in 1987 and based in Takoma Park, Md., produces scientific reports for the general public designed to influence policymaking. Their reports have influenced U.S. ozone layer depletion policies and regulations regarding the environmental and human impact of nuclear weapons manufacturing. The institute uses scientists to review research but also includes people who are directly affected by the science in their process of reviewing scientific papers and policies. Everyone Exposed Everyone is exposed to some radiation each year during daily activities. Radiation can damage living cells and the DNA in cells; excessive doses can have deleterious, long-term health consequences, including cancer and birth defects. A coalition of organizations and individuals are in the Healthy From the Start campaign, including the American Public Health Association, based in Washington, D.C.; Women's Action for New Directions, Arlington, Mass.; and Making Our Milk Safe, or MOMS, Alameda, Calif. Together, these organizations and others are circulating a petition to President Bush asking him to change the regulations throughout the federal government. This is the first step in what organizers see as a long-term campaign to change radiation exposure guidelines to protect the most vulnerable. The reference man--as a model for radiation protection--was first created by the International Commission on Radiological Protection in 1974 and was used in 1988 by the EPA to set current regulations for radiation exposure. Regulation of radiation exposure dates to the early 1930s; after the development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s and 1950s, the regulatory focus was on the safety of atomic workers. As scientists and policy-makers have learned more about the dangers of radiation and particularly its link to cancer and birth defects, regulations have tightened. If the Healthy From the Start campaign achieves tighter restrictions, Mary Brune, co-founder and director of MOMS, says that will be an overall boon for public health. "If we can create policies protective of pregnant women and the babies they carry--as well as nursing mothers--then the world will be safe for everyone." [Julie R. Enszer is a writer based in University Park, Md. You can see more of her work at www.JulieREnszer.com.] For more information: Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, - Healthy From the Start Campaign: - http://www.ieer.org/campaign/index.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: - http://www.epa.gov/radiation/index.html Calculate Your Radiation Dose: - http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/calculate.html Copyright 2007 Women's eNews. * ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us Our main website: http://www.blythe.org List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 28 CTV.ca: Angry residents want federal contamination study Port Hope resident Dan Rudka has developed a string of illnesses, including lung disease and problems with his respiratory system, bones, blood and skin. Updated Tue. Nov. 13 2007 7:24 PM ET toronto.ctv.ca Residents of a small town east of Toronto are demanding the federal government investigate new data that shows radioactive chemicals are making their way into humans. According to the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee, urine samples collected from a small number of participants in the Ontario town were found to contain radioactive substances. Some of the residents who were tested -- former workers at nuclear facilities and average citizens -- had high levels of radioactive isotopes in their bodies, scientists said. "People of Port Hope have been continuously and chronically subjected to inhalation of radioactive dust, including depleted uranium and different levels of enrichment of uranium isotopes," Dr. Asaf Durakovic told reporters at a news conference on Tuesday. Fearing increased rates of cancer and other ailments, the health committee hired an independent clinical research group, the Uranium Medical Research Centre, to look into the matter. Health committee spokesman John Miller said frustrated residents were forced to take matters into their own hands after the federal government refused to conduct its own comprehensive health study. "Port Hope has been exposed to radioactivity for about 70 years -- longer than almost anyone in the world -- from man-made ceramized, insoluble uranium and for there never to have been health tests in all that time is ludicrous," said Miller, who has lived in the community for 12 years. The group, which could only afford to test nine residents, said their picturesque town is being plagued by an invisible killer -- uranium contamination. "(Port Hope) is a beautiful, lovely community with a wonderful community spirit but it has a harsh environment," said Faye More, the group's chairwoman. "It is the home to two nuclear industries that have been there for decades operating without a buffer zone from the people, emitting uranium to air and to water every day." One of the workers tested was Dan Rudka, who has lived in Port Hope for 15 years. He has developed a string of illnesses, including lung disease and problems with his respiratory system, bones, blood and skin. "Nobody's been paying any attention and in fact I think the most depressing thing about Port Hope is you dare not get sick (because) you're basically left alone," Rudka said. "I know I'm not the only one that's sick and I know others have been sick, so based on that I feel obligated to speak out." Contaminated soil Port Hope, a town of about 16,000 people, is located about 100 kilometres east of Toronto. Uranium refinery operations are believed to be responsible for contaminating some 3.5 million cubic metres of soil, which now lies under homes, schools, farm fields and the local harbour. The dirt was buried around the town between the 1930s and 1950s, when radiation was not seen as severe a threat to human and animal health. Toxic elements that have been found in the area include above-average levels of the radioactive metals radium and uranium, as well as arsenic, radon and lead. The town is now the site of the largest cleanup of radioactive soil in North American history. In 2001, the federal government committed to remove more than 2 million cubic metres of the contaminated soil. Port Hope is home to the Cameco uranium refinery, which processes uranium hexafluoride for U.S. nuclear reactors. The town used to be the site of a Crown corporation called Eldorado Nuclear Ltd., which developed material used in the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan in 1945. A spokesman for Cameco said the company will not comment on the report until it has a chance to read it thoroughly, but added that it's confident its operations are safe. "We would not even consider practices that would risk the health and safety of the people of Port Hope," spokesman Lyle Krahn told The Canadian Press. "This group is coming out with some new information, we really don't know much about it and we need to figure out what it is and make sure it is using good science." Federal government officials say a 1994 study, that looked at the potential for ground and surface water contamination and the likelihood of exposure to humans, found no need to conduct human testing. The study showed no "short-term health risks," said Glenn Case, of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Office, which is handling the cleanup for Natural Resources Canada. The study also concluded that radiation levels were well within acceptable standards. Case refused to comment on the community group's medical study until he had a chance to review it. Health Canada issued a statement on Tuesday in response to the study. "(Health) Minister (Tony) Clement has directed officials at Health Canada to assess the new Port Hope report and provide advice on how to proceed. If action is required, we will act," read the statement. After hearing about the study's findings on Tuesday, elderly resident Rodney Parrot said the news was "terrible." "This is known to be one of the worst places in the whole of Canada," Parrot said. "They've got to clean this up." But Dawn Knudsen said many residents feel Port Hope is a safe place to live. "Traditionally there has been a split in the community between people who feel that this is a very safe place to be and the radioactivity isn't any greater than it is in a large city like Toronto, but there are others who feel that there is," she said. With reports from CTV's Paul Bliss and John Musselman © 2007 All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 TBO Forums: Workers Suffering From Cancer Need To Prove Their Job Caused It - News Forums - from TBO.com Vidisha Priyanka Joined 2006-10-13 Jim Wood died from brain cancer just over a year ago. Wood worked at a nuclear weapons plant in Largo from 1982 to 1997. The plant was originally opened by General Electric, taken over by Lockheed Martin and closed under the supervision of the Department of Energy. Wood was one of thousands of workers around the country who helped produce nuclear weapons during the Cold War years. In Pinellas, workers assembled triggers for nuclear weapons. The government determined nuclear weapons workers developed cancer from exposure to radioactive and toxic chemicals at 290 facilities. Congress passed a law to cover their medical benefits and provide a lump sum $150,000 payment to each. The catch – workers had to prove their job caused their cancer. News Channel 8 Senior investigative reporter Steve Andrews found many workers had no idea what they were exposed to. Now during their hour of need, many of these stricken workers feel abandoned by the government they served. Former Workers Say Pinellas Nuclear Plant’s Radiation, Chemicals Connected To Cancer Ex-Worker At Largo Nuclear Weapons Plant Sees Cancer Link Target 8: Watch Steve Andrews’ Story | Part 2 | Reactions | Nelson Investigates Did you work at this facility? Have you found yourself in a situation like this? Join this discussion forum and tell Steve about your situation. Links: Department Of Labor EEOICP Program Statistics by State and Worksite Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Report Inappropriate Content workers suffering My husband, Carl, passed away in June 07 from multiple myeloma. His cancer was caused by exposure to five atomic bombs and one hydrogen bomb while stationed on Enewetek in the Marshall Island in 1953-54. A VA compensation claim took 14 months to give him the status of 100% permanent and totally disabled. After his death, I found out about the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Because he was an onsite participant he would be entitled to only 75,000. But, because he had received VA compensation for two years and eight months before his death, he probably would not be entitled to any more money. The way the act reads, the monies received from VA compensation would be subtracted from 75,000 and he would get the rest or I would as surviving widow. Carl received VA compensation totalling approxiamately 83,200 but my brother has received 83,520 over the last 20 years (30% disabled) for a shoulder injury from a motorcycle accident he had while in the Air Force. An accident which happened on his own motorcycle while off duty. And since he will not die from a bad shoulder he stands to receive a lot more in compensation before his death. My husband was killed for no other reason than following the orders of the United States government while in the Army and he will receive less compensation than someone who received a shoulder injury off duty. And, he received far less than the victims of 9-11 who were killed at the hands of terrorist. I know that my grief clouds my thinking at times but how is this fair? Posted: 02 November 2007 02:01 AM Joined 2007-11-02 I worked at the Pinellas Plant from 1961 to 1992 under GE and Lockheed Martin from 1992 until 1995 (the last stages of “Plant Shutdown"). Like many others I filed a claim which was denied after being in the system for several years. I sat in a number of meetings and saw a lot of slides from various high-paid people from various government agencies. I even wrote a letter supporting the widow of a co-worker ("Al") as she knew nothing about what he did and what he was exposed to at the Pinellas Plant. Nothing ever happened and she was denied any coverage despite the numerous cancers which finally killed Al. I also notified the Department of Labor about the many non-employee laborers at this site, especially quite a few that had to break down “hot areas” (read radioactive) with little protection from what I saw. Perhaps a further instigation into the fate of many other workers needs to take place. Lastly, Congressman “Bill” Young is exposed. There is a parallel story here and that is the pension of many of these employees that Retired under Lockheed Martin Specialty Components (LMSC). (This company took over the operating contract from GE in 1992.) Despite the various promises that the new contractor (LMSC) made about the employees not seeing any difference in the benefits, the latter’s pension plan did not cover any cost of living (or any other kind) increases. Those that retired in 1995 are getting the same pension dollars in 2007. Those that survive to 2015, and I hope there are many, will be getting the same monthly pension they retired with 20 years earlier. Now back to “Bill” Young. Many (including me) have addressed the pension issue to his office and as far as I know, the Congressman has never replied to anyone. (I keep in email contact with key people and would have heard something.) I remember Congressman Young coming to the Young Rainey STAR Center on several occasions, and sat through several of his presentations on the “conversion” of a nuclear weapons facility which was “sold” to Pinellas County. The lesson learned is that if a key WFLA investigative report can’t get the Congressman to reply to their numerous contacts, what chance do we, the citizens of Florida who worked many years at the very building that bears Young’s name, have in him answering our pleas for help? Report Inappropriate Content GatorsRule Posted: 02 November 2007 07:45 AM 1300 people out of 2200 have been diagnosed with cancer that we know of. Three out of five men that worked on the same a/c maintenance crew have been diagnosed with cancer. This IS NOT a coincidence. The Government is well aware of what all of these people were exposed to otherwise they would not have put The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program (EEOICP) in place. There is millions of dollars earmarked to pay out to these effected employees, yet they are the ones that have to prove their cancer came from working at the plant. The Government should be the ones having to prove that it didn’t. I think the numbers speak volumes and I’m sure there are others out there that had no idea this was going on until this story aired. Bob Puccinelli, who was featured in this story, is my father and I love him with all of my heart. My husband Dave and I also were employed at the plant. My husband, for a time, worked in security with my father and they entered all areas of the plant, unprotected, as they made their rounds checking to make sure everything was safe. I fear for my husband’s health at the same time I watch my father struggle to survive. My father’s battle began many years ago when he was stricken with skin cancer, which he has been diagnosed with six or seven times now, if not more. His death sentence, if you will, was handed to him two years ago when he was informed he had pancreatic cancer. Dad endured 5 procedures in a week and a half, with the last one being a 7 hour surgery to remove his tumor and completely reroute his interior. This was a very grueling and aggressive surgery. A mere five weeks after the surgery, his doctor discovered that the cancer had metastized to his liver. At that point he said, “It’s in God’s hands now!” It was a devastating blow for us. I was there at the time and will never forget the look on my father’s face when he was delivered that news. He has been battling both cancers ever since, taking chemo pills every day, as well as going through his 3rd round of chemo. He is doing his best to not let it consume him, but it is very difficult at times. He definitely has his “good” and bad days. While my dad is a fighter and will not give up, this has taken a toll on the family, especially my mother, who is his main caregiver. They both retired to enjoy the rest of their lives and what they find is that they spend all their time at clinics or hospitals. The majority of my dad’s life is consists of feeling bad, running fevers, sleeping, getting chemo, getting shots to boost his immune system after chemo, blood transfusions, doctors appointments, and PETScans. It’s a very hard life. It’s extremely difficult for my mother to watch the person she loves constantly feeling bad. It has not been an easy two years to say the least. Ironically, even with all the treatments and medical procedures that my father goes through, dealing with the Dept. of Labor has by far been the most difficult part of all of this. They have given him the run around like I’ve never seen. They have awarded people this compensation who have merely had skin cancer, not that I’m downplaying any form of cancer, but come on. They received their $150,000 and their medical card. A lady that worked in HR who was nowhere near the chemicals got her money and card. Yet, my father who has one of the worst cancers there is, keeps getting his paperwork pushed from one processor, to another, then another, and keeps getting asked the same questions over and over again, since apparently people at the Dept. of Labor do not know how to communicate, only to get nowhere. These people at the Dept. of Labor are idiots. They have no clue what information is even on their own websites, what the posted numbers mean, what some of the paperwork and letters these people are receiving means. It’s absolutely maddening. This paperwork faux pas gets my dad’s more riled up than any surgery or chemo. In my opinion, he has been treated completely unfair as have all the others who have not been awarded the money and medical card they so deserve. The money that has already been set aside for them, so why aren’t they getting it? Let’s ask President Bush. Has he suddenly taken this earmarked, open-ended fund, and spent it on his other death program - the war? We have been told that for some reason the people at the Pinellas Plant aren’t getting their money like the people from other plants around the country also covered by this program. Why? Certainly don’t ask Congressman Young because he could care less. He is too busy traipsing around town cutting ribbons at all the locations that his name seems to now be posted - libraries, bridges, etc. He is not doing his job, he is ignoring the people who are crying out for help. He is a total loser in my book. My parents have supported him for years and now when they need him, he is not anywhere to be found. It’s absolutely pathetic. I am so glad that I contacted Mr. Andrews about this story and I just hope, as my father does, that it gets the exposure that it truly deserves and that people, whether effected by this or not, get mad enough when they realize what these people are going through. They need to write letters, make phone calls, etc. Pressure needs to be put on someone so these people can get what they rightfully deserve. $150,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to the medical bills these folks are receiving. Someone in the Government needs to step up and make this right for these people. I believe that Governor Crist needs to get involved as well. Something has to be done. Please help by flooding the phone lines and packing the mailboxes of the Government officials who know that they can help. There were a lot of people that worked at the Pinellas Plant and many local residents know these people. We should do what we can to help all of them. Thanks, Laura Shives Report Inappropriate Content My mother worked at the Largo facility in the early to mid 80’s. She was first diagnosed with breast cancer in the early 90’s; she fought that and won. She was diagnosed with other cancers in the late 90’s. She was very sick from the chemotherapy and fought as much as she could. In late 2003, she was diagnosed with some type of nerve cancer (I can’t remember the exact diagnosis). Afterwards, she held on until my daughter (her only granddaughter) was born in September of 2004. A little over a month later, she passed away with her family at her side and in extreme pain. NIOSH (SP) contacted my brother and I and we had to go through some phone interviews and filed some paperwork. We were told that her cancer was not related to the exposure at the plant. I have all the documentation if needed. There was no history of cancer in my mother’s family. Her and my dad got married in their early twenties. My father is pretty healthy (other than being a diabetic). My brother and I are healthy (so far). My mom used the term “HOT” when referring to her exposure and said she was decontaminated a few times. I do not have any more information other than that. I do not know much about what she did or performed at the plant. NIOSH keep referring to her as an escort. I told them my mother never discussed her work while she was there. I don’t know if I have the energy to go through this again, but I just want to know what took her life. We feel we were getting the run-around. My brother is very passionate about getting full disclosure, but he’s hit a few brick walls. This has caused much tension with our family and until someone told me to look here, I pretty much gave up. If we can help provide closure for our family or anyone else’s for that matter, we’re here. I can be contacted at . I will not post any personal information here about my mom or our family. If you need the documentation we have, please contact me by e-mail and I will be more than happy to provide copies. Report Inappropriate Content workers suffering After reading Laura’s story about her father, Bob Puccinelli, I couldn’t help but cry. Everything that her father is dealing with both medical and government, I have been through with my husband. Once you find out that the cancer was caused by the government’s actions you assume that they will take care of you. It is so obvious where the cancer came from, done deal. Not so. They, like Laura said, will make you answer the same questions over and over again. They put you in a pending file while they research back records to see if what you say is true, even though you have given them tons of proof. Proof to include the badge, with his picture, my husband wore on the island and a letter from The Dept of Defense sent my husband in 1978 asking him how his health was. Still they had to research if he was even there. And you have to deal with this while trying to get medical attention. My husband did have the VA hospital to go to, but please don’t get me started on that conversation. I made countless phone calls to anyone that I thought could help. Always feeling so hurt when promises turned out to be lies. Laura, keep screaming. I hope you understand that there are hundreds of thousands of American veterans that were exposed to radiation for long periods of time that are also having a difficult time getting the government to step up. Many of these vets died never knowing that their cancer was linked to radiation. I know that some day you will see the compensation due your father. I hope that it will come soon. One more thing, your father’s compensation of 150,000 and my husband’s of 75,000, not sure I understand why there should be a difference, I have to just shake my head. The government certainly doesn’t put much value on their lives. I cry to think that my husband, at 21, was nothing more than a “lab rat”, without his consent, and 75,000 is all he was worth. Both of them, no all of them, deserve so much more!! Fran Report Inappropriate Content The medical issues that my fellow ex-employees have are very important and point to the failure of the government to even honestly reply to the families and the public. This failure has fallen mainly on the deaf ears of our Florida elected US Congressman Young and US Senator Nelson. Both have emulated the osterich and stuck their heads in the sand. At least Nelson sent an aide to “take a look” at the issue. Young has his beak down into the hardpan. To make this point of Young’s lack of concern, I am pasting below a copy of my unanswered letter to Young set almost two years ago: Congressman Bill Young 801 West Bay Drive, Suite 606 Largo, FL, 33770 January 16, 2006 Dear Congressman Young, Your name is on the front of the building I worked at for thirty-three years, the “Young-Rainey Star Center.” (Do you still have one of the aluminum “Star Center” business card holders that I designed?) I talked to you at the Star Center when you came in to tour Custom Manufacturing and Engineering, the main spin-off business from Lockheed Martin Specialty Components. But let’s get down to the problem that stems back to this building with your name on it. It involves the Lockheed Martin Specialty Components Pension Plan. Back in 1992, Martin Marietta Corporation, which became Martin Marietta Specialty Components, Inc. for the operation of the Pinellas Plant, and subsequently changed to Lockheed Martin Specialty Components, Inc. (LMSC), took over the operation from General Electric Neutron Devices Department, Inc. (GEND). Many promises were made to the then GEND employees, mainly that the changeover would be invisible to the employees, and the plans would remain the same. The employees were in many meetings and heard many presentations about how the benefit plans would be the same as the prior contractor (GEND). Some of the printed statements were supplied to Senator Nelson’s office (more below). If need be, there are over twelve hundred witnesses that heard these statements. At issue is the LMSC Pension Plan. The GEND Pension Plan, as required by the government, is separate from the General Electric Co. corporate Pension Plan. (Same with the LMSC plan.) When GEND operated the plant, the employees were told that the GEND Pension Plan would have cost of living increases for pensioners. These increases were to parallel (to establish an increase rate) the corporate plan. This was verified by those retired under this plan. As I mentioned above, the LMSC plans were to be the same as the GEND plans. After LMSC started operating the Pinellas Plant, we were told that the LMSC Pension Plan would not have any cost of living increases in it. After all, Lockheed Martin had their foot in the door. Before the Pinellas Plant operation shut down, many employees complained to LMSC management (also documented), but management turned a deaf ear. After all, LMSC had the contract, albeit through lies to the employees. The U.S. Department of Energy had also turned a deaf ear. Shame on them all! Senator Nelson had a representative at one of the meetings concerning benefits for illnesses resulting from operations at the Pinellas Plant. About a dozen ex-LMSC employees approached her about the LMSC Pension Plan issue. We collectively provided information on this issue and I personally wrote a long document about the promises by Martin Marietta at the time, and included copies of their printed statements. Senator Nelson’s office requested an investigation by the Department of labor. The result of this investigation was that the D.O.L. said that the LMSC Pension Plan follows the ERISA rules. (Letter from Howard Marsh, U.S.D.O.L. – December 21, 2005, to Senator Nelson). Unfortunately, Senator Nelson’s office as well as the D.O.L. were both off base. The ERISA question was never raised. What was brought up, and was evidence supplied to Senator Nelson’s office, concerns the promises made by Martin Marietta Corporation when they assumed the Department of Energy contract for the “Maintenance and Operation” of the Pinellas Plant. Unfortunately, the almost twelve hundred men and women on LMSC pension have no prospects for cost of living increases. I retired in 1997, and have the same pension now, after close to nine years later. Keep in mind that those in this plan are on the younger side as most that could retire under the GEND plan did so. As such, the number of pensioners participating in the LMSC plan will increase, but their pension rates will be based on the mid-1990’s rates when they retired. I ask that your office visit this issue on behalf of the many men and women that worked at the Pinellas Plant, now the Young-Rainey Star Center. It concerns a corporation that lied to employees as it was awarded a government contract, and the local D.O.E. office (Pinellas Area Office) that stood by, and did nothing. I remain, Lewis L. Zerfas Report Inappropriate Content Let me preface this by saying this post is not going to be very popular, but this is my experience working at the plant.... I worked at the plant from 1983 until about 6 months before they closed. I primarily worked in contamination areas and repaired, calibrated and maintained the equipment in those areas. I was also involved in the decommissioning and disposal of the equipment in some of these areas. I am not trying to make a statement or determination as to whether the claims of the ill individuals are valid or not, but never in my 14 years working at the facility was I ever unaware or uncomfortable with what I was working with or exposed to. In my experience, I was trained properly, safety was crammed down our throats and recurred every year. I had Health Physics personnel available to me at all times. Safety equipment was provided and mandatory, as well as regular monitoring of the areas I worked in as well as my individual exposure. I was never forced or coerced into doing anything dangerous or I felt uncomfortable doing and if I had any questions or concerns, I could stop whatever the job was and we knew where to go to get the issues addressed. In my opinion, in the years I worked there, I was properly trained, tested, had access to knowledgeable caring safety personnel who looked out for me and were available to me at any time I needed them. I can’t speak about the years prior to 1983, but in the time I worked there, I believe that I received the best training possible and had adequate safety equipment and unlimited access to knowledgeable Health physics personnel and was made aware of what I was dealing with. Reading some of these posts, it doesn’t seem like I worked at the same place. Mark K Report Inappropriate Content I have to agree with Mark that there were plenty of safety programs going on at the Pinellas Plant. In my 31 years there, I participated in many meetings. For much of the time we had to have monthly safety meetings. The question remains, were enough of these meetings focused on the dangers of radioactive materials? During my entire employment at the Pinellas Plant, I worked in engineering departments. Often, employees in these departments had to go into various areas in the plant to either verify that equipment conformed to drawings (and vice-versa), measured areas to design new “test equipment” and examine the feasibility of modifying existing equipment for additional capabilities. The vast majority of the safety meetings concerned electric shocks, hazards such as lacerations, falls, etc., and perhaps the most frequent topic at safety meetings was eye safety. Very few meetings were held on radioactive issues. Remember, I am talking about those employees in engineering where our work areas were primarily in office areas. It is the often trips to the other areas where radioactive materials were present and how employees in offices were not adequately trained and perhaps protected is of great concern. If you didn’t have safety glasses on in an area that required them you were quickly told to get them on. But who warned us about the air we breathed or the items we touched? In my 31 years at the Pinellas Plant, I was never given a dosimeter to wear. I had been into almost every area in the plant. Some areas I had been required me to wear coveralls and booties over my shoes. They were defined as “clean rooms” but ironically were also where some of the radioactive materials were loaded. To my knowledge, I was never tested for radioactivity – unless it was done at the annual physical which was given to employees at their option. There were many guarded secrets at the Pinellas Plant, and rightly so for the sake of National Security. But now that the operation is gone, there are guarded secrets that do not concern National Security, but rather liabilities. In hind sight, I’m sure many employees would like to have had as much radioactive material awareness training at their safety meeting as they had for eye protection. One other note – when I had applied for a claim (under this program) I had to prove that I was employed at this plant for almost one-third of a century. My name, social security number, dates of employment, and employee number were not enough. It seems that these agencies that are so careful in employee awareness had “misplaced” many of the records. Now they are trying to “reconstruct” the various activities at the plant - from what data? Lew Report Inappropriate Content This is in response to Mark K’s message. Apparently you are one of the lucky ones, as are many people, I’m sure. Everyone’s bodies are unique and tolerate exposure to dangerous chemicals, chemicals sprayed on fruits and vegetables, pollution, second hand smoke, etc. differently. However, you cannot tell me that it’s coincidence that 1300 so far, and obviously more by the way the phone calls are pouring in to WFLA, have been diagnosed with cancer. You would be hard pressed to randomly gather any 2200 people, the number of people that worked at the plant, and find that 1300 or more of them have cancer, unless you gather them from an Oncology clinic. Everyone is entitled to their opinions on this and you have given yours. Bottom line is this - the Government would not have put this Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program in place if they weren’t aware of the danger that everyone was in. The mere existence of this program basically sayd that the Government is telling on themselves. They should be the ones having to prove that these people did not get cancer from working at these plants, the victims should not have to prove that they did. Nobody ever recorded how much exposure they had to any particular chemical, they just did their jobs. This program has millions of dollars allocated to it and is an open-ended fund that will be replenished should the money run out, which apparently won’t be the case since they refuse to pay anyone. If that doesn’t tell you something, nothing will. They try to calculate some dose of exposure dumped into some magic formula that nobody understands, based on minimal information that an employee can even provide. They have these people right were they want them and they know it. There is no way they can accurately report all the chemicals they were exposed to and for how long. It’s ridiculous. Another problem is that the Dept. of Labor or President Bush, or a combination, keep changing the rules. One person’s mere skin cancer apparently, at one time, was enough to get full payment and a medical card to pay all the bills associated with the cancer, yet another person who has had skin cancer multiple times and has pancreatic and liver cancer does not get paid. The person that just had the skin cancer was a manager and wasn’t back in the hot areas and got his money. The people working in the hot areas haven’t gotten paid. Then we had an HR person who had breast cancer and got her money and card. She was never even near any of the chemicals and basically stayed in her little corner of HR at the front of the building. She probably couldn’t even tell you what we made. You may not be affected now, but you may be later. The plant has been closed for a several years and many of these cancers have popped up over the past couple of years. You should be supporting these folks that you used to work with and thank your lucky stars that you aren’t one of them (yet). Report Inappropriate Content The EEOICP was designed to make it appear that the government was taking responsibility. Requiring people to prove what caused their cancer is a way to avoid responsibility. Nobody knows exactly what causes cancer. Statistics are used to show that people who are exposed to certain things develop cancer at greater rates than those who are not exposed. Still, people who have no exposure to things that seem to increase the risk of developing cancer still develop cancer. Some people who have great exposure to these carcinogens never develop cancer. Report Inappropriate Content I worked at the Pinellas Plant from 1991 through 1997, until it was closed down. Seven years later, in 2004, I was diagnosed with breast cancer, and subsequently underwent surgery, chemo, and radiation. I investigated online and found that the Department of Labor had a site discussing exposure at Department of Energy facilities. They flatly stated that each person who had ever worked at the Pinellas Plant had been exposed to radioactive material. I should note here that I had no predecessors diagnosed with breast cancer, so I assumed my cancer was a consequence of my exposure at the Plant. The Department of Labor, who is handling claims for compensation for damages by former Energy Department employees, responded to my filing a claim by sending me to a local facility for a checkup and to a lab for blood tests. Following this, they did a dose reconstruction, and determined that my claim should be denied because they did not feel it was likely that the cancer was caused by my employment at the plant. This was in spite of the fact that the breast cancer I had was one of the numerous types of cancers attributed to exposure to radioactive materials, and the fact that the time period between exposure and development of the cancer was right in the ballpark. Combine these two facts with the admission by Labor that everyone was exposed who had worked there made it seem more likely than not that the exposure contributed to the development of this cancer! Since I, like most of the other employees at the plant, had no concrete idea of what kind of radioactive materials we were exposed to during our work, I had no idea of where to turn to contest the determination that the employment at the Plant was not the cause of the cancer. I have spoken to a few law firms for possible assistance, but have not been able to find one. I would welcome any suggestions on how to get either find a law firm that has been successful in these cases, or suggestions on how I could obtain an unbiased opinion of cause and effect. Has anyone been successful in geting the denial reversed? Would consulting a toxicologist help? I know that the number of compensations awarded by the Victims Compensation Fund is very small, so this is going to be an uphill battle. Due to the development of the breast cancer and all of the treatments and side effects I experienced, I was forced to retire on disability, with a substantially reduced income and extremely high medical expenses. I strongly feel my government has not only let us down, but has turned it’s back on us, leaving us with the burden of having to prove that exposure caused the cancers, with no assistance from the government. I expected something mre than this after being exposed without our knowledge to these radioactive chemicals! Report Inappropriate Content I worked at the Pinellas Plant from 1979 to 1997. 18 years. I have filed two claims. Neither for cancer. One for Asthma/Hyper Active Airway Disease and one for Peripheral Neuropathy. My case is still up in the air. I am fighting back not with attorneys, but doctors. You probably need to fined a physician that is Certified by the American Board of Independent Medical Examiners (ABIME) or The American Academy of Disability Evaluating Physicians (AADEP). Setup an exam and ask them to render an opion as to the likely cause of your cancer. IF the opinion is that it “Is as likely as not” caused by your exposure at the Pinellas Plant. Then this is what you need to submit that to the D.O.L. Hope this helps. Report Inappropriate Content OK. The “word” is out (thanks to WFLA investigative reporters) about the Nuclear Workers” at the Pinellas Plant and how the government is probably failing to make sincere efforts to help those stricken with terrible diseases, most notably cancers. Why should these workers trust the government? Congressman Young has not replied and I am sure he is not the only one. After all, the one-hundred acre site situated in mid-Pinellas County is valuable. It has had a lot of site clean-up done to it. When I started there in the early 1960’s, several of us would go out at lunch time and enjoy the Florida weather. We would often go out to the lake in the back and feed the turtles. After a few years, all of a sudden there was a security guard at the lake. Old “Sarge” yelled at us that the lake was now off limits. Seems it was a dumping ground for various wastes and some of the drums started surfacing. Want to read about some of the clean up? Go to: http://www.clu-in.org/products/newsltrs/gwc/view.cfm?issue=gwc0698.htm Around 1990, my cubical was in the southwest second floor engineering offices. This was the corner of the main building closes to where the train crossing over Bryan Dairy Road was. The first floor was completely emptied and contractors were removing soil from under the corner of the building. It was a pretty good sized hole, probably forty feet along each corner, about twenty feet out and about ten feet deep. Most of the workers were in full body protection suits. There were a bunch of pipes down in the soil around the perimeter of the hole to pump out water. Trucks moved the soil to along the fence next to the train right-of-way, making about a hundred feet of conical shaped mounds. Finally, the pipes were pulled up out of the ground and not placed on a flat bed truck, but put inside a tank truck that had a sealable hatch. As a crane lowered the pipes into the tank, I remember the man guiding the pipes wearing gloves and a hard hat. New soil was brought in and the hole was gone. However the mounds remained for a long time, perhaps a year or two. Finally, one Monday morning the mounds were gone. A co-worker told me that a relative up in the Carolinas saw a big bunch of loaded dump trucks with Florida tags heading into the mountains that weekend. The story does not end there! The area where the mounds were located was later fenced off and a special system installed to pump whatever the containments were back up to near the surface where other systems then collected and filtered them out. This is just the tip of the iceberg! I know a lot of cleanup was going on. It was not all nuclear, as a number of chemicals were used at the Pinellas Pant, and a number of them are now identified as carcinogens. So, who knows what caused and is causing the various illnesses that ex-employees have had and might still arise? Think the cleanup was minimal? Cleanup and monitoring (read money being spent on the site) is still going on for the Pinellas Plant. Call it “Legacy Management” or site remediation or whatever. (See the bottom of this post.) The plant basically closed in 1995. I ask the question again: Why should these workers trust the government? There are secrets for national security and there are secrets to prevent employees and surrviors from knowing what really went on. Money still being spent on the Pinellas Plant site (property): STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. OWEN DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF LEGACY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 8, 2007 LM GOAL 1: PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT LONG-TERM SURVEILLANCE AND MAINTENANCE Environmental surveillance and maintenance activities require approximately $40 million in FY 2008. The Department’s environmental legacy responsibilities stem primarily from the activities of the Department and predecessor agencies, particularly during World War II and the Cold War. By the end of FY 2008, LM will be responsible for long-term surveillance and maintenance activities at approximately 100 sites where active environmental remediation has been completed. Throughout FY 2008, LM will also be preparing for the transfer of additional sites including the Mound facility in Miamisburg, Ohio. Due to the Continuing Resolution for FY 2007, the activities at sites proposed for transfer from EM to LM in FY 2007 (Rocky Flats, Fernald, Columbus, and the eight Nevada offsites) will be funded by EM, but the legacy activities will be managed by LM Federal staff and contractors. Our FY 2008 request includes funding for all sites transferred to LM in FY 2008. The majority of the sites under LM responsibility are either Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) sites or sites associated with the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). In addition, LM currently has responsibility for five additional sites regulated under either the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): the Weldon Spring site in St. Charles County, Missouri; the Monticello site in Utah, the Laboratory for Energy-Related Health Research (LEHR) in California, the Maxey Flats site in Kentucky and the Bill Young-Rainey Science, Technology, and Research (STAR) Center in Largo, Florida at the former Pinellas Plant site. With regard to the Pinellas site, regulatory changes in Florida that allow a risk-based approach are expected to reduce the cost and time to address the remaining Pinellas Plant groundwater issues. Excellent communication and working relations between LM and the Florida regulators will lead to predicted savings approaching $15 million from our projected baseline at the Pinellas Plant over the next few years. Report Inappropriate Content The plight of the Pinellas Plant’s ex-employeees are not new to Senator Bill Nelson’s office. He had an aide, Sharah Anderson, attend the CDC/NIOSH meeting on November 2, 2005 (nearly two years ago) concerning the Pinellas Plant Site Profile. The meeting was held in mid-Pinellas County. Many of the ex-employees raised medical concerns at that meeting. Report Inappropriate Content It’s obvious that you are doing your homework on all of this and I think that is great. There needs to be MANY of us screaming about this. I have no doubts that Senator Nelson is well aware of the plight of these ex-employees, however, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt (at least for 5 minutes or so ) and think that he possibly does not realize that the payments have suddenly seemed to stop. He might also not be aware of how many people this has actually affected. It’s hard to say, after all, he is a politician and they tell you what you want to hear. At least he is talking, unlike Congressman Young. After he was on the news yesterday, he’d look really bad if he didn’t follow through with his promise to look into all of this. I have posed several questions to Steve Andrews on this, with the hope that he can drum up some answers to my questions. They are as follows: Have you been able to find any data on what timeframe people actually got paid? It almost seems to me that they started paying people, then all of the sudden many people realized this program was in place, started filing claims, now everyone seems to be getting denied, at least at the Pinellas Plant. Have you heard back from ANYONE at all that actually got this money and medical card or are they all in hiding, feeling guilty after they’ve seen what everyone else is going through? (I know for a fact that one person that got his money actually didn’t even file paperwork. The D.O.L. called him after they somehow found out about his skin cancer. He answered the questions over the phone and he got his money). Also, I’d be curious to find out when the payments stopped coming. Was it when the war started or have some payments been paid since then? I’m wondering if there is some event that can be pinned to the date payments seemed to stop being distributed. Is this public record where you can get the names of the people that have been paid and when they got paid? Also, how fast did they get paid? After their paperwork was submitted, what was the turn around time of receiving their payments? If one person got his payment for skin cancer, then why can’t we get a copy of his paperwork to see how he filed? Obviously he used the “right words” or just happened to put his paperwork in at the “right time”, or they’ve changed the rules and one person’s cancer suddenly isn’t the same as someone else’s. Has anyone gone back into that plant and examined the rafters, air conditioning ducts, walls, baseboards, stairwells, ceilings, pipes, etc. to see if there is any radioactive material anywhere in that plant? I bet you could find something in there somewhere. These are just a few of the questions that I asked yesterday. Steve is trying to get some answers, if he can, but we all know that dealing with the Government is like talking to yourself! At any rate, keep on digging. Laura Shives Report Inappropriate Content TBO.com: Feedback | Advertise With Us | Email Alerts | Make Us Your ***************************************************************** 30 globeandmail.com: Town's residents test positive for uranium contamination MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT ENVIRONMENT REPORTER November 13, 2007 The result of testing conducted on a small group of residents of Port Hope has found contamination by uranium of military or industrial origin. Port Hope, a community of 16,000 located about 100 kilometres east of Toronto on the shores of Lake Ontario, is the site of the world's oldest uranium-processing facility, which produced uranium used in the Manhattan Project that developed the first nuclear bombs. It is also the scene of one of the largest radioactive soil cleanups in Canada, with an estimated 3.5 million cubic metres of contaminated dirt buried around the town from dumping between the 1930s and 1950s. The testing was done by a local group, the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee, which plans to formally announce the findings today. The analysis for uranium was done on urine samples at a leading radioisotope laboratory in Germany. The discovery of unusual levels of radioactive compounds in people is likely to increase the unease among some residents about the large nuclear facilities located in their community. Cameco Corp., the world's largest uranium producer, operates a processing plant in Port Hope that makes fuel for nuclear power reactors. Earlier this year, the company abruptly shut its uranium hexafluoride processing facility after discovering uranium and related chemicals in the soil underneath the plant. Although the results of the human testing have not been published in a scientific journal, a study based on them has been peer-reviewed and was presented at a scientific symposium last month in Europe. "Our results suggest long-term contamination and possible adverse effects on the body burden of the current population of Port Hope," according to the abstract of the study presented at the conference by the European Association for Nuclear Medicine. The abstract referred to the results as "preliminary" and recommended that additional research on uranium exposures be conducted. Of those tested, three had a type of uranium normally found in spent reactor fuel. Five of those tested didn't have measurable amounts of uranium from military or industrial sources. "The study calls into question the federal guidelines and standards used by Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada, the [Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission] and Cameco to monitor radiation exposure and protect workers and the community," the health concerns committee contended in a statement issued yesterday. Uranium is a concern because radiation from it can cause cancer, and some residents have complained that there has been an elevated incidence of brain cancers, among other ailments, in the community. © Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON  Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 31 The Gazette: Atomic vet dies with no compensation CanWest News Service OTTAWA - Donald Bernicky, one of a group of atomic veterans fighting the government and the Defence Department for recognition and financial compensation, died on Remembrance Day at 74. Bernicky attended six atomic bomb detonations in 1957. The veteran from Smiths Falls, Ont., developed skin cancer and other medical problems his family attribute to his exposure to radiation during nuclear tests involving hundreds of Canadian soldiers. In February, Bernicky and other veterans had been assured by former defence minister Gordon O'Connor and Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier that their concerns would be dealt with. "He deserved more," his widow Verla said yesterday. "They treated those men like they were nothing. They weren't protected for that kind of thing they went through. No protective clothing whatsoever." Bernicky's family believe his ailments can be linked to his radiation exposure during the atomic tests that were code-named Operation Plumbbob. Bernicky recently had two strokes. © The Gazette (Montreal) 2007 © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 32 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Governor slights Yucca fight November 12, 2007 Since taking office in January, Gibbons has acted soft on nuclear waste burial here What once was a top priority for Nevada's governors - fighting a Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - now seems much less of a priority under the administration of Gov. Jim Gibbons. The latest example involves his order last month, in response to falling tax revenue, that most state agencies develop plans for cutting their budgets by 5 percent. He failed to exempt the state agency responsible for defending Nevada from the dangerous federal plan to bury nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The governor's slight of this agency could not have come at a worse time. In the years before Gibbons took office, Nevada scored several legal and scientific victories against the Yucca proposal. The state is poised to win this fight, but it has one more hurdle. The Energy Department, which oversees the project, has budgeted since 2004 $154 million for work by two large law firms. They are helping to prepare the application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to open a Yucca repository. With the application scheduled to be submitted in June, now is the time that Nevada needs to rev up its efforts, and not falter in the end game. The state budgeted about $4 million to continue its legal fight over the next two years, an already miniscule amount that would lose $200,000 if Gibbons' proposed cuts come to pass. Given the absolutely critical need for Nevada to ultimately prevail against the federal government, Gibbbons' failure to exempt the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects from any cuts is inexcusable. This isn't the first time Gibbons has turned away from the Yucca fight. On Oct. 31 a U.S. Senate committee held a hearing on Yucca Mountain for the purpose of demanding answers from a recalcitrant Energy Department. After receiving an invitation to testify after making a stink about not being formally invited, Gibbons failed to show. The next day, Gibbons was a headliner at an event in Las Vegas co-sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - a champion of the dump. And earlier this year, Gibbons appointed a pro-Yucca activist from Nye County to the state Nuclear Projects Commission, which has always led Nevada's opposition to the dump. The appointment was withdrawn after a public outcry. Gibbons likes to make such statements as, "I still think we're going to kick their (the Energy Department) butts. I don't care how many lawyers they have." But for his words to have any meaning at all in the deadly serious fight against a Yucca dump, they have to be accompanied by corresponding actions. All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 33 The Tribune: Salazar joins list of lawmakers concerned about uranium mine Rebecca Boyle, (Bio) rboyle@fortcollinsnow.com November 13, 2007 Another Colorado lawmaker is voicing concern about the proposed uranium mine located north of Nunn. U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said Tuesday he was asking the Environmental Protection Agency to keep northern Colorado’s water in mind when the agency reviews the project for a permits. Salazar wrote to Robert Roberts, regional administrator for the EPA, urging him to address several concerns about possible environmental impacts, such as groundwater contamination as a result of the extraction process employed at uranium mines. Salazar asked that those concerns be addressed and analyzed as thoroughly as possible when the project’s application for an Underground Injection Control Program Class III permit is reviewed by the EPA. For more, see Wednesday's Tribune. All contents © Copyright 2007 greeleytrib.com The Greeley Publishing Co. - P.O. Box 1690 - Greeley, CO 80632 ***************************************************************** 34 Las Cruces Sun-News: Citizen Action sues over release of report on Sandia dump By The Associated Press Article Launched: 11/13/2007 06:28:52 AM MST SANTA FE An advocacy group has countersued the state Environment Department, which last month sued to keep secret a report on possible leaks at Cold War-era mixed waste dump at Sandia National Laboratories. Citizen Action, which is seeking the report, mailed its lawsuit to the state Court of Appeals in Santa Fe, Dave McCoy, director of the Albuquerque-based group, said Monday. It accuses the agency of violating the open meetings and open records laws. The Associated Press left a message Monday with an Environment Department spokeswoman seeking comment on the countersuit. The department was closed for Veterans Day. The state agency last month sued Citizen Action, citing executive privilege in preventing disclosure of the report, done for the agency last year by a consulting company called TechLaw. The state attorney general's office has said in an opinion that the report is a public record, subject to public inspection. A court decision to keep the document secret would have a chilling effect on the public's ability to monitor government agencies, McCoy said. If the Environment Department is successful, "all the other agencies in state government are going to be able to claim this executive privilege nonsense," he said. Nancy Simmons, attorney for Citizen Action, said the department's lawsuit was an effort to make Citizen Action back down. But, she said, citizens "have an absolute right to observe their government in action. ... The TechLaw reports they're protecting from public view were paid for by tax dollars; we all have a right to see what we bought." Citizen Action and other activists have pressured to have the dump dug up and moved because of fears that it could leak and contaminate ground water. The Environment Department has ruled the risk of a leak is low enough that the waste can be left at the Cold War-era landfill, where Sandia buried chemical, hazardous and radioactive waste from the late 1950s through the late 1980s. The TechLaw report, which evaluated a Sandia study on the long-term risk of landfill leaks, was one of the foundations for the department's decision on the landfill, said Tannis Fox, an attorney for the Environment Department. Thus, she said, the report should be considered a part of the executive branch agency's internal deliberations, which should be exempt from public disclosure. The attorney general's office said that when the report was received and used by the department, it "fit squarely within the definition of public record." In September, a coalition of activist groups and individuals formally complained to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that the public is being shut out of decisions on the landfill. Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 35 AlterNet: Environment: Nevada's Clout in the Primaries Puts the Spotlight on Nuclear Politics By John Gorenfeld, AlterNet. Posted November 13, 2007. Nevada is a battle zone for nuclear waste issues, and its early primary status means that the candidates can't escape from laying out their views on nuclear energy. Meet Yucca Mountain Johnny: nice enough guy, cave explorer and not welcome in the state of Nevada. He's the helmeted cartoon character invented by the U.S. Department of Energy to interest kids in its $58 billion vision for Nevada, which could become by 2017 the first-ever national resting place for 77,000 tons of waste left by nuclear reactors across America. The debris would be shipped cross-country, mainly by rail, and entombed in the depths of a seven-mile desert ridge an hour and a half's drive from Las Vegas. But any spent fuel rods will go in there over the dead bodies of powerful Silver State politicians from both parties. For years here, careers have risen on promises to stick a wrench in the Yucca plan. Even the gaffes have. A notorious remark by 1980s Sen. Chic Hecht, R-Nev., found him vowing to halt "nuclear suppositories" in Nevada, when he meant "depositories." That's the preferred term by defenders who emphasize that Yucca wouldn't be a "dump," as critics have called it, but a 1,000-foot-deep zone to deposit titanium-shielded casks buried under dry volcanic rock. But many Nevadans fear that radiation could leak in an accident, either here in the desert or on the way. "Democrat candidates generally have to come in and say they oppose Yucca," says University of Nevada political science professor Eric Herzik, "or will be beat up in the caucuses by the very strong anti-Yucca base among Democrats in the state." And on the Republican side, only former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney has hinted that he might defer to Nevadans on Yucca. But among the three Democratic front runners of 2008, no friend of Yucca Mountain Johnny's is to be found -- even if two of the candidates support nuclear power and, in Obama's case, has major ties to Big Atom. If Clinton, Edwards and Obama are paying more attention than usual to the concerns of Nevada, which barely mattered in 2000, it's because the state's concerns are being magnified by the special place it now occupies on the Democratic Party's 2008 primary calendar. It used to be that about 14 states voted before Nevada in the primaries. This time, its Jan. 19 caucus -- right after Iowa's -- makes it the No. 2 stop on the road to nomination. That means candidates will be trying to impress the Las Vegas Strip's powerful labor union of restaurant, casino and hotel workers, the 60,000-strong Culinary Union Local 226 whose leader, D. Taylor, won congratulatory letters from Obama and Hillary after his employees voted this month for a strike against the gaming giant MGM Mirage. The two candidates are hoping Taylor's 226 doesn't follow the example of the state's unions of carpenters, steelworkers and miners by choosing Edwards instead of them. To avoid losing her edge in Nevada -- where she's led a recent poll with 33 percent support over Obama's 19 and Edwards's 15 -- Hillary Clinton took steps earlier this year to shore up her record of opposition to Yucca. Competitors Barack Obama and John Edwards followed suit. Hillary Clinton, of the three, "has most obviously played the Yucca politics card," says Herzig. She has promised that, if elected, she would ensure that Yucca, which the White House supports, "would not go forward." This July, Clinton and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., called for Senate hearings on the science of Yucca. (A Senate aide told AlterNet that the hearings are expected some time this fall.) Earlier, on June 1, her campaign revealed it had hired the state's leading anti-Yucca activist: Peggy Maze Johnson, who, as the leader of the environmentalist group Citizens Alert, protested by driving the highways towing a mock nuclear waste trailer. Any Democrat who wanted to support Yucca would have to deal with Harry Reid, the party's Senate Majority Leader and the responsible party for the early caucus date. He was calling Bush a liar over Yucca long before he opposed him on Iraq. "I have spent 20 years fighting the absurd idea that massive quantities of deadly nuclear waste can be transported across thousands of miles," Reid has said. And Bush, he told the New Yorker, "started out on a real bad foot with me because of Yucca Mountain." The president had run promising to consider "sound science" before supporting Yucca, but now signed off on the project rather than wait. In 2002, Reid told Bush in an Oval Office meeting: "You sold out on this." Six years later, the next step to establishing Yucca just may play a role in the 2008 general election. It's a license application that will fall smack in the middle of the presidential race next summer. The U.S. government will consider a 10,000-page application and decide whether to grant permission to go ahead. Allen Benson, a Department of Energy spokesman, suggests that the risk of moving the "robust casks" of nuclear debris, most of which will be done by rail, has been overrated. "Ninety percent of the whole thing" is protective material, he says. And as for moving by truck: He says that after 5,000 shipments total, there have been two incidents, a wrong turn and a mild rear-end collision. On the other hand, opponents of Yucca Mountain allege that the ridge, situated in an area with an earthquake record, could seep waste into the water table. Expect that to come up during the Clinton hearings, along with concerns over whether DOE scientists are putting politics ahead of honesty. In 2005, there was uproar after it was revealed that water scientists had sent emails casually discussing the need to "make up more stuff." Criminal charges, for falsifying data, were considered by federal prosecutors, but never surfaced. Barack Obama, like Clinton, has condemned the plan, despite Illinois's pressing need to remove nuclear waste that has been sitting in Illinois, which has 11 operating reactors, the most of any state. © 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 Cibola County Beacon: Feds, Navajos discuss uranium Monday, November 12, 2007 6:19 PM MST CIBOLA COUNTY - Officials from the Navajo Nation continue to press the federal government to clean up dangerous, old and exposed mining sites that still exist on the reservation. Navajo President Joe Shirley also requested a federal moratorium on new mining on the reservations. Congressman Tom Udall, D-NM, Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Rick Renzi, R-AZ, represented the Navajo Nation during a discussion focused on the renewed interest in uranium mining in Navajo Indian Country. Health issues, the environment and the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act were discussed during the meeting that lasted more than three hours. “This is an opportunity for all parties to come together to outline specific steps that Congress, the federal agencies, and the Navajo Nation can take towards rectifying past wrongs and creating safer communities in the Navajo Nation,” said Udall. “The tragedy is this legacy is that those who worked in the uranium mines have experienced devastating health effects because of their exposure,” said Shirley. “The greater tragedy is that years and decades later their families who live in those same areas are experiencing health problems today because the remnants of uranium activity continue to pollute the land, the water and their lives. It would be unforgivable to allow this cycle to continue for another generation,” Shirley added. Dr. Charles L. Miller, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, informed those at the meeting that he knows of 16 leases for uranium milling recovery process that are expected in the next several years. “None of the applications are proposed to be on Navajo lands, however, two proposed new sites, and one restart site, are located near Mount Taylor.” All of the Native American tribes in the area consider Mount Taylor a sacred site and fight to not have the land compensated due to uranium mining. The three congressmen said they are committed to continue discussing uranium mining and its effects and to seek justice for those individuals who are impacted by it. By Cheryl Montoya Beacon staff writer Copyright © 2007 Cibola Beacon. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 Las Vegas SUN: Democrats' anti-Yucca Mountain stances complicated by records Today: November 13, 2007 at 11:20:6 PST By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY Associated Press Writer LAS VEGAS (AP) - The leading Democratic presidential candidates are united on the government's Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage plan: They'd scrap it. Their vigorous opposition to the project reflects Nevada's importance as one of a handful of states that will lead off voting in January for the Democratic and Republican nominations. Few local issues are as unpopular with Nevadans as the waste dump. The Democrats have just one problem - their records keep getting in the way. Front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton has created suspicion in some corners of the anti-Yucca lobby because she's refused to rule out expansion of nuclear power as a solution to the nation's energy woes and has received campaign contributions from the nuclear industry. Barack Obama, whose home state of Illinois has more nuclear plants than any other, also has received substantial contributions from the industry and wants to leave nuclear power on the table. John Edwards, when he was a North Carolina senator, voted twice to open the dump and once against it. Bill Richardson once ran the Energy Department, which is building the dump, and voted for it when he was a New Mexico congressman. The dump, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was supposed to open in 1998, but scientific controversies, lawsuits and money shortages have delayed it. Its opening is now projected for no earlier than 2020 and its cost has climbed to an estimated $77 billion. The issue has been almost invisible on the Republican side of the race despite GOP plans to hold their presidential caucuses in Nevada on Jan. 19, the same day as Democrats. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has not given a clear answer on his position, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has said he will not rule out continuing work at Yucca Mountain, and Arizona Sen. John McCain has stuck to his support for the dump. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson voted in favor of the project while in Congress, but has not commented recently. The GOP has generally been more willing than Democrats to increase the nation's share of electricity generated from nuclear power. The lack of a waste disposal site is a key obstacle to expansion. Here's a look at the top Democrats' records on Yucca Mountain: - Clinton: The New York senator recently used her seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee to call the first oversight hearing on the dump since Democrats took control of Congress. Clinton voted against a 2002 attempt to override Nevada's rejection of the facility. She's promised to cut funding for the project if elected president. At a South Carolina town hall in February, Clinton expressed concerns about waste disposal but noted that "nuclear power has to be a part of our energy solution." Clinton has accepted thousands in contributions from the nuclear industry, including nearly $80,000 in this election from employees and a PAC of NRG Energy Inc., the first company to file an application for a new nuclear power plant in the United States since before the Three Mile Island accident. Critics see a contradiction in Clinton's opposition to a facility to store nuclear waste, but not to expansion of nuclear power, which would generate more waste. Clinton has said she does not believe the debate over the project is a referendum on nuclear energy. She also has to struggle with her husband's record. She has described former President Bill Clinton as putting the project on life-support. "You know, when my husband was president he vetoed a measure to try to push this forward, contrary to a lot of the questions that were being raised," Clinton told reporters recently. "That was toward the end of his administration and when the Bush administration came in, it revived it and gave it new life and kept it going." The bill President Clinton vetoed would have opened an interim nuclear repository in Nevada, but did not slow the development of the permanent site. "I would say that the project was advancing more during the Clinton years financially than at any other time," said former Nevada Gov. Bob List, a Republican, now a consultant for the Nuclear Energy Institute and an advocate for the repository. "They poured billions into it and didn't slow it down one bit." - Obama: He has said he's opposed to Yucca Mountain, and has called for the facility's closure. Illinois' nuclear industry, which has thousands of tons of waste at its facilities awaiting opening of Yucca Mountain, has long backed Obama. Executives and employees of Exelon Corp., the Chicago-based energy giant and nuclear plant operator, have contributed more than $200,000 to Obama campaigns since 2004, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com. Obama has said he believes nuclear energy should remain on the table. Obama also raised eyebrows when he chose Federico Pena, who was energy secretary before Richardson, as his surrogate on the issue. At his departure from the Energy Department, Pena took credit for "meeting milestones" toward opening the site. - Edwards: The former 2004 vice presidential nominee's has a mixed record on the issue. After he was selected as Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's running mate, Edwards announced he would defer to Kerry's anti-Yucca position and promised Nevada Sen. Harry Reid he would fight the project. The former North Carolina senator has said he was trying to protect his constituents by supporting the dump in Nevada. "We had an issue in North Carolina where they were going to start storing nuclear waste in North Carolina unless we had some other place for the nuclear waste," Edwards said on his first stop in Nevada as a presidential candidate. But looking at the project from a "national perspective" it doesn't work, he added. Edwards now says faulty science was used to support the Yucca Mountain project, and he doesn't believe nuclear energy is a safe energy source. - Richardson: Richardson, the New Mexico governor, has the most tangled record on nuclear waste disposal. As a New Mexico congressman, he voted in favor of the 1987 measure that designated Yucca Mountain as the sole dump site to be studied by the federal government. Richardson had not raised the issue on the stump or in statements until it was cited in news stories. He now says he's always opposed the project, which he believes would be unsafe. "Nevada should say no, I've always said no," Richardson told reporters during an early campaign stop in the state. Richardson explains his House vote as support for other funding items in the bill. He has said he voted against the project "five or six" other times, though his campaign could cite only two. Richardson's claims of constant opposition also are not supported by his tenure as head of the Department of Energy. Under Richardson, Yucca Mountain continued to receive funding, meet deadlines for key research and findings, and notably, passed a critical "viability assessment" that moved it closer to the designation in 2002 by President Bush and Congress as the nation's nuclear dump. At the release of the 1998 report, Richardson acknowledged scientific concerns but added that "overall there is no reason to disqualify the site." Bob Loux, head of the state Nuclear Projects Agency and the state's chief anti-Yucca administrator, noted that as energy secretary Richardson "was not in a position to kill Yucca." "I just didn't see any evidence of any effort to slow the project down," Loux said. Richardson did lobby against efforts to open a temporary waste storage site in Nevada. He now says he believes the dump would be unsafe and wants to convert the site to a national laboratory. --- On the Net: Yucca Mountain Project: http://www.ymp.gov Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste U.S. Geological Survey: http://water.usgs.gov/ympb/ All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 [NYTr] IAEA Defends Its Impartiality Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:28:50 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Atomic Energy Agency: We Are Impartial Teheran, Nov 13 (Prensa Latina) Spokeswoman for the International Atomic Energy Agency, Melissa Fleming, defended the impartiality of the IAAE Board of Governors and called it the executive and political arm of the IAEA. In her interview published Tuesday by Al Alam daily, Fleming declared the IAEA "is currently stronger than ever," and described its inspectors as the eyes and ears of the international community. We are confident they will fulfill their duties, she said. Fleming's statements came in response to insinuations of Israeli Assistant Prime Minister Saul Mofaz, who suggested the replacement of IAEA Director Mohamed El Baradei, considering he is endangering world peace. Mofaz described El Baradei's attitude as irresponsible regarding the Iran nuclear program, which, Mofaz said, must imply his dismissal. The general director of IAEA has reiterated that the Iranian atomic program does not constitute a threat for the international community and considers it would take years to create weapons of mass destruction. hr ccs gdb jcd PL-39 * ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us Our main website: http://www.blythe.org List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 39 UPI: Outside View: Russia ready to leave INF International Security - Industry - Analysis - UPI.com Published: Nov. 13, 2007 at 9:40 AM By ANDREI KISLYAKOV UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, Nov. 13 (UPI) -- It looks as if Russia has long guessed the American moves to create a missile defense system in Europe and is responding tit-for-tat and even figure-for-figure. On Nov. 6 the Americans happily rejoiced after achieving their long-cherished ambition of hitting two target drones at the same time. The Russian reaction was not slow in coming. Russia is now poised to pull out of two basic international treaties on arms limitation. On Oct. 26, in an advance move, Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, commander of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces, said that Russia could quickly resume the production of short- and medium-range missiles if it was necessary and if there was a political decision. "If there is a political decision to make such a class of missile, then it is obvious that they will be made in Russia in the near future because we have everything we need," he said, addressing a news briefing to mark the 15th anniversary of the Association of Missilemen Veterans, an inter-regional public organization. As a complementary move, on Nov. 7 Russia's State Duma unanimously voted for a moratorium on Russia's continued participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The theoretical possibility of having a dozen anti-missiles and one radar system deployed in Europe and the extremely rare practice of dummy firing have posed a real threat to the main international national security agreements. Russia wants to withdraw from both the 1988 treaty on short- and intermediate-range missiles and the CFE treaty, the adapted version of which was signed in 1999, in retaliation for America's intention to establish a missile defense shield on Russia's doorstep. While the latter agreement deals with conventional armaments, the ballistic missiles of shorter and intermediate range, capable of reaching as far as 3,000 miles, belong to the class of strategic nuclear weapons. American Pershing-2 missiles deployed in Western Europe and Soviet SS-20 Pioneer missiles, stationed in East European countries and the Far East, made up a "critical mass" that could have given rise to a nuclear conflict between the two countries in the mid-1980s. Will Russia gain from resuming the manufacture of these types of missiles and their possible use? Definitely not. Despite repeated statements, for example, by Yury Salomonov, director of the Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering, that Russia has everything necessary for their production, it is difficult to believe that considerable funds will become available to restore a full manufacturing cycle. Besides, it is not wise to dust off 40-year-old product equipment, especially since Ukrainian industry had a large role in making it. But the main aspect is, of course, military; 2007 is not 1985. Russia's operational scope has shrunk, while America's has expanded. It will take some time to find deployment areas in the small European part of Russia. The U.S. Air Force, on the other hand, will not even need to resume the production of Pershing missiles. It will be enough to restore low-cost ground facilities for conventional and permitted Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles, in this case nuclear-tipped. With America capable of producing up to 500 such missiles annually, one can imagine the potential threat from this system. As an alternative option, Russia could use non-nuclear warheads on Pioneers or downscaled Topol-M2 mobile intercontinental missiles. We already mentioned the former. As for the latter, it is justifiably feared that the downscaling will take time and effort but produce a mixed result. It is difficult to recognize the wisdom of converting a land-based Topol into a sea-based Bulava. No one denies the idea of missile defense needs to be matched by appropriate counter-ideas, symmetrical if possible. Should we oppose the missile defense shield with adequate defensive weapons, which, according to the Strategic Missiles Forces, are available and being successfully tested by Russia? Then the dangerous tendency threatening to erode the negotiated basis of international security will go away by itself. -- (Andrei Kislyakov is a political commentator for RIA Novosti. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do no necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.) -- (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) © 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 40 AFP: US military interfering in Russia's backyard - Moscow - Tue Nov 13, 3:57 AM ET MOSCOW (AFP) - Russia's armed forces chief on Tuesday compared a US plan to station an anti-missile shield in central Europe to Moscow deploying missiles in Latin America. Chief of Staff Yury Baluyevsky said on Russia Today television that the US plan to station a radar in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland amounted to meddling in Russia's backyard. "When one of the viewers asked about (Russia) deploying missiles in Venezuela, to defend Venezuela from Iranian and other missiles, I would like to note that our partners from the United States are doing exactly what our viewer suggested us to do," Baluyevsky said. Washington says it needs the missile shield to defend against possible threats from Iran and says the limited system could not threaten Russia's vast nuclear arsenal. But Baluyevsky insisted that "those anti-missile rockets and that radar will be definitely aimed at Russia." "Iran has no potential to manufacture an intercontinental ballistic missile able to reach the territory of the United States... at least until 2020," Baluyevsky said. He said that "someone" in the United States still hoped "to secure the impunity of using weapons without getting something in return." During an EU-Russia summit in Portugal last month, President Vladimir Putin likened the Pentagon's plan to deploy defensive weapons in central Europe to the Soviet Union's 1962 deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba, which led the world to the brink of nuclear war. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 41 AFP: NKorea, China agree to set up 10 billion dollar fund - Tuesday November 13, 05:46 PM SEOUL (AFP) - A North Korean investment group and a Chinese bank will set up a 10 billion dollar fund to help Chinese firms build infrastructure in the impoverished country, a report said Tuesday. The deal was forged last week between the North's Daepung Investment Group, based in Hong Kong, and China Development Bank, Yonhap news agency said. Daepung vice president Bae Kyeong-Hwan told the agency that the fund would help Chinese firms build roads, railways and ports. "The agreement opened the way for Chinese firms operating in North Korea to receive financial support from their government," Bae was quoted as saying without commenting on which side would provide most of the money. China is North Korea's biggest trading partner and an important provider of food and fuel. The deal reflects China's great interest in investing in the North, Bae said, adding a Chinese steel company agreed last month to set up a mill there. Daepung will also set up an international bank to attract foreign investors, he said, urging South Korea to invest. Bae forecast that North Korea would see an inflow of foreign investment if Washington lifts sanctions imposed over the years. The North started disabling its nuclear programme this month under an international pact and has urged Washington to remove it from a list of state sponsors of terrorism. The designation prevents it from receiving US economic assistance and blocks loans from the World Bank and other multilateral organisations. If the North goes on to dismantle atomic plants and give up its plutonium stockpile and any nuclear weapons, it can expect normalised relations with Washington and a further lifting of sanctions. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo!7 Pty Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 DOE: U.S. Energy Secretary Highlights Need for Energy Diversity at 20th World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum in Rome November 13, 2007 Welcomes Italy as 17th Nation to Join Global Nuclear Energy Partnership ROME, ITALY – U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today will deliver remarks at the 20th World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum, highlighting the importance of robust investments in a diversity of energy supplies and breakthrough technologies to meet growing global demand for energy. While in Rome, Secretary Bodman welcomed Italy to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), an international framework aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide while responsibly managing nuclear waste and reducing proliferation risks. Italy is the most recent nation to sign the GNEP Statement of Principles, which 16 nations joined in September at the Partnership’s second Ministerial in Vienna, Austria. “By becoming a member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Italy is joining a growing group of nations committed to developing solutions to power a clean, safe and reliable energy future,” Secretary Bodman said. “To increase global energy security, producing and consuming nations alike must make robust investments in a diversity of energy sources, accelerate efforts to increase energy efficiency, and rapidly deploy advanced clean energy technologies to meet growing energy demand and sustain economic growth.” Earlier today, Secretary Bodman and Italian Minister of Economic Development Pier Luigi Bersani signed an agreement to advance cooperation in energy research and development. The agreement builds on current bilateral energy efforts between the nations to advance nuclear technology, increase research and development in carbon sequestration, and promote greater energy efficiency through advanced technology. In his remarks to the 20th World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum, Secretary Bodman will highlight the role of investment in all stages of the energy cycle to ensure affordable and reliable supplies of energy. Secretary Bodman will discuss diversification of the global energy supply as essential to increase global energy security and economic growth. As a world leader in energy research and development investments, Secretary Bodman is expected to emphasize the role of cutting edge technology in developing and distributing energy resources, using energy more efficiently, and powering economic growth. In signing the GNEP Principles, Italy today joins China, France, Japan, Russia and the United States, who are original GNEP partners, as well as Australia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Ukraine in efforts to address the prospects of expanding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including enhanced safeguards, international fuel service frameworks, and advanced technologies. GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand. GNEP proposes a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation. Read additional information on the Statement of Principles and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Italy is the first stop in Secretary Bodman’s five-nation visit to Europe and Central Asia. Later this week, Secretary Bodman will travel to Ashgabat, Turkmenistan to address the Turkmenistan Industrial Oil and Gas Exhibit (TIOGE) and meet with the President and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan. Following his visit to Turkmenistan, Secretary Bodman will travel to Turkey to highlight the importance of expanding and securing oil and gas infrastructure and to Greece to celebrate the opening of the Turkey-Greece Inter-connector pipeline, which will be a critical link between the gas suppliers of central Asia and the consumers of Europe. Secretary Bodman will conclude his trip in London, England where he is expected to hold bilateral meetings with senior English officials and deliver remarks to U.S. and British business leaders. Media contact(s): Andy Beck, (202) 586-4940 Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 43 DOE: World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum November 13, 2007 Remarks as Prepared for Secretary Bodman Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here with this distinguished group of panelists. I want to thank Minister Bersani for convening this event and for inviting me to be a part of it. I’m known for being direct, so let me get to the point and submit that the challenges are quite clear to us all. The bottom line is this: the world needs a safe, reliable, clean, affordable, and diverse energy supply. This is a global challenge, perhaps one of the most significant of our time. And, as if we needed more evidence of its scope, the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook, released just last week, provides it. It estimates that the world’s primary energy needs will grow by 55% by 2030, with fossil fuels remaining the dominant source of energy. Among other things, it predicts a remarkable 73% increase in global demand for coal, driven largely by China and India. We know that addressing this challenge in a timely way will require literally billions of dollars annually over many years and the IEA estimates that $22 trillion of investment will be needed between now and 2030 to meet expected demand. We also know that this investment must occur around the world in developed and developing nations alike and at all stages of the energy cycle. At the same time, we must recognize the realities of global climate change and develop cleaner sources of energy that at the very least do not worsen and hopefully can improve the health of our earth’s environment. And finally, we must continue to look for ways to enhance energy efficiency throughout our economies. This set of global challenge demands responsible action both from consuming nations and producing nations. I don’t want to sound too alarmist, but in some ways, what we are really talking about is reducing the world’s energy insecurity. For conventional fuels, the principal challenges facing us are, will the necessary investments be made to bring sufficient hydrocarbons to market? Is the investment climate in producing countries conducive to inviting such capital flows? Are large consuming nations having the right type of discussions with producing nations? If not, why not? And are we adequately investing in ways to produce fossil energy more cleanly and efficiently? The world also needs new energy options in the form of alternative fuels and advanced energy technologies. Governments certainly have a tremendously important role to play here. But, governments cannot do this job alone. We need a new way of thinking about how we work with the private sector. It is no longer sufficient or wise for government to direct the solutions alone. Even our research priorities the R&D agenda itself must be developed with substantial input from corporations, utilities, and universities. And, research needs to be conducted in a coordinated way. I would also challenge governments around the world to make a public commitment to increase your investment in the R&D necessary to achieve the technical breakthroughs we need, as well as the right balance between energy security and environmental stewardship. The United States and Japan still fund the vast majority of all global R&D. And while that is, in some ways, appropriate given the size of our economies, it is not a sufficient or efficient solution going forward. The size of the problem we face requires massive global investment in the public and private spheres. Not incidentally, increased investment in R&D would also help to alleviate another challenge that we share the shortage of qualified engineers and technical staff needed to meet the demand for rapid innovation. We need to invest in the next generation of leaders to steer us through the energy challenge. This is not receiving enough attention or concerted action. I believe we also must find innovative approaches to getting beneficial technologies out into the marketplace and to share the risk that the capital markets and private sector are not yet ready to take on. In the U.S. we are employing a range of collaborative models to do this including cost-sharing partnerships and loan guarantees covering a variety of technical areas, such as solar technologies, nuclear power, clean-coal and carbon sequestration and advanced biofuels, a favorite topic of mine. For example, we are making cost-shared investments in three cutting edge bioenergy Research Centers (on the order of $375 million over five years) as well as a series of small and large-scale biorefinery projects focused on producing ethanol from a wide variety of non-food plant materials. These types of projects will advance President Bush’s plan to reduce projected U.S. gasoline consumption by 20% by 2017, which would include the production of up to 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels. I would also add that any global energy strategy must include efforts to expand access to emissions-free nuclear power in a way that responsibly manages waste and dramatically reduces proliferation risks. To this end, last year President Bush introduced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which aims to facilitate the worldwide expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in a safe and secure manner. And I’m quite pleased that earlier today, Italy became the 17th country to formally join this partnership, and in accordance with all members, signed the GNEP Statement of Principals. This cornerstone document establishes, among other things, the common goal of creating reliable fuel services that will provide a viable and economic alternative to the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies. The partnership seeks to take advantage of the best available fuel cycle approaches to recycle spent nuclear fuel to reduce the amount of waste and tap its unused energy. In all these areas, the key to unlocking our energy future is ensuring that the innovation cycle continues at a rapid pace. We must leverage the tremendous power of private equity, while also making smart public funding and regulatory decisions, to unleash the world’s best scientists and engineers on this problem. Without sustained global investment, without a new global commitment that will support, not discourage new sources of energy and breakthrough technologies, we will not solve this problem. And we must solve it. We cannot let energy become a variable, a risk, a question mark in the world’s economic and security equation. The world has united around issues of common cause before. And I would argue that there are few more compelling global concerns today than the need for a safe, affordable and clean energy supply. Thank you. Location: Rome, Italy Media contact(s): Andy Beck, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 44 Hanford News: Diversifying economy bodes well for Tri-Cities This story was published Tuesday, November 13th, 2007 Pratik Joshi, Herald staff writer The Tri-Cities is being discovered as it moves away from a Hanford-based economy. For years, business and community leaders have worked on plans to tap the available pool of scientific manpower for a seamless transition when Hanford-related jobs dry up. The establishment of Amazon.com's operations in Kennewick in 2005 helped create a buzz for the area, said Dean Schau, state regional labor economist. "Amazon took a chance on the community," he said. And now Amazon is in the process of hiring about 250 more employees for its Kennewick-based customer care center. Other businesses are likely to follow when they learn about the area's vast labor force, excellent transportation network and inexpensive housing, he said. Growth in the retail and health care industries has kept pace with the population growth in Benton and Franklin counties since 2000. The area's moderate climate, relatively affordable housing and high quality of life has lured people from within and outside Washington. The increase in local population and new higher education initiatives are expected to complement Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in helping create a sound economic base, experts say. The local economy is diversifying, said Carl Adrian, president and CEO of Tri-City Development Council. Last year, California-based Gourmet Trading Co. started a new asparagus packing operation in Pasco, and wholesale plumbing and building supplies distributor Ferguson Enterprises completed a $10 million expansion of its Richland distribution center. Earlier this year, J. Lieb Foods, an Oregon-based contract package manufacturer of jams, beverages and sauces, took over the Welch plant in Kennewick. From 1990 to 2005, total nonfarm employment in the Tri-Cities grew at 2.3 percent, compared to 1.7 percent in the state and 1.3 percent in the nation, Schau said. The health care sector added 2,092 jobs from 2000 to 2006, Schau said. In 2005, the Tri-Cities wine industry helped create 1,578 jobs. Last year, new stores and restaurants on Road 68 in Pasco and in the Queensgate area in Richland helped create 500 jobs. The Columbia Center mall also helps sustain job growth in the retail sector, he said. Also, warehousing and manufacturing have expanded in the last five years. Agriculture and related industries provide about 15,000 seasonal jobs annually, generating a payroll of about $350 million. The Tri-City labor force grew from 55,800 in 1976 to 93,400 in 1997 and to 119,860 in September 2007. Hanford jobs still account for about 55 percent of the local economy, Schau said. In 2006, the annual Hanford payroll, which provided for about 13,000 jobs, exceeded $1 billion. Population growth is helping push the economy and inexpensive housing is helping sustain it, Schau said. In 2006, the median cost of a typical home in Benton County was about $157,000, compared with the median cost of $425,000 for a similar house in King County. The Tri-Cities has been relatively insulated from the crippling effects of the national subprime mortgage crisis and the increased number of foreclosures, said Jeff Losey, executive director of the Home Builders Association of Tri-Cities. From 43 building permits a year in the early 1980s, the number of building permits in the Tri-Cities has jumped to 1,400 to 1,600 annually in the last few years, Losey said. Hanford jobs helped the housing growth as did the lowering of interest rates, he said. Cleanup at Hanford, which is expected to last at least for a few decades, bodes well for the housing sector in the next 10 years. Adrian said there's a road map for growth, pointing to the recommendations made by AngelouEconomics, an Austin, Texas-based economic development consulting agency. Target industries include warehousing and distribution, research and development, technology manufacturing, food and agriculture and back office operations, Adrian said. The blossoming of the partnership between PNNL and WSU Tri-Cities is critical, he said. "We're working on several large private sector based projects," Adrian said. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 45 Hanford News: Hanford, PNNL changed economy, paved way for growth This story was published Tuesday, November 13th, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer No one could have imagined the change that was in store for the tiny farming communities near the confluence of the Yakima, Columbia and Snake rivers when Lt. Col. Franklin Matthias flew over Dec. 22, 1942. The region's economy was based on farms and small supply and grain shipment towns. Pasco, a railroad town, had 3,900 people. Kennewick, Richland, White Bluffs and Hanford combined had fewer residents. When Matthias looked out the window of a small airplane as it flew along the Columbia River, he saw an area with few people and an abundant water supply. It was the perfect place for a massive, secret World War II construction project to produce plutonium for an atomic bomb. The region would never be the same. The nuclear reservation would be responsible for expanding what might have remained largely a farming economy to include an enclave of scientists at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland with more Ph.D.s than the University of Washington in Seattle. It would lead to the first classes being offered to educate Hanford workers at an institution that now is a four-year university, Washington State University Tri-Cities. The site would draw high-tech firms to the Tri-Cities to win Hanford contracts or to benefit from its well-educated work force. Researchers already here would start their own companies, developing products such as new cancer treatments and new medical imaging systems. The nuclear reservation also would provide steady jobs with above-average benefits and paychecks to three generations of workers, and counting. After World War II, Hanford's future appeared to be in limbo. But two years after Hanford plutonium was used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, the federal government announced a massive expansion of plutonium production at Hanford. The Cold War had begun. Plutonium production or other nuclear work would continue through much of the 1980s. That era also included an important milestone for what is now Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Lab research initially supported Hanford, with science focused on developing nuclear weapons and understanding more about how radionuclides affect health and the environment. But after Battelle took over laboratory operations in 1965, work expanded to include a wide variety of disciplines, and the lab has helped grow 100 private spin-off companies. At Hanford, work took a dramatic turn in 1989 with the end of the Cold War. The workers' new task was to clean up the massive radiological and chemical contamination left by wartime efforts. Some grumbled that there was no future in being "janitors." But once again, few correctly predicted what was to come. In the late '80s, an industrial cleanup that cost $10 million would have been considered huge, said Roy Gephart, author of Hanford - A Conversation about Nuclear Waste and Cleanup. This year alone, nearly $2 billion will be spent on Hanford cleanup. Hanford had "the motherlode of radioactive contamination in the Western Hemisphere" and complex radiological and chemical mixtures, he said. Eighteen years into cleanup, it's certain that more years will be spent cleaning up the nuclear reservation than were spent producing plutonium. Progress is being made. Pumpable liquids have been removed from 149 leak-prone tanks that held millions of gallons of waste underground in central Hanford. Near the river, 2,300 tons of corroding highly radioactive fuel have been removed from leak-prone basins. The Department of Energy is pursuing a plan to go after the worst risks to the environment and also shrink the size of the site to about 75 square miles in central Hanford, both reducing overhead costs and reducing contaminants along the Columbia River, the lifeblood of the Northwest. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah River Site FR Doc E7-22096 [Federal Register: November 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 218)] [Notices] [Page 63893-63894] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13no07-46] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Savannah River Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this [[Page 63894]] meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Monday, November 26, 2007, 1 p.m.-5 p.m. Tuesday, November 27, 2007, 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m. ADDRESSES: Augusta Marriott Hotel, Two Tenth Street, Augusta, Georgia 30901. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Flemming, Office of External Affairs, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC, 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities. Tentative Agenda Monday, November 26, 2007 1 p.m. Combined Committee Session 5 p.m. Adjourn Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:30 a.m. Approval of Minutes, Agency Updates 9:30 a.m. Public Comment Session 9:45 a.m. Chair and Facilitator Update 10:15 a.m. Nuclear Materials Committee Report 10:45 a.m. Administrative Committee Report 11:45 a.m. Public Comment Session 12 p.m. Lunch Break 1 p.m. Strategic and Legacy Management Committee Report 2:45 p.m. Waste Management Committee Report 3:15 p.m. Facility Disposition and Site Remediation Committee Report 3:45 p.m. Public Comment Session 4 p.m. Adjourn If needed, time will be allotted after public comments for items added to the agenda and administrative details. A final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, November 26, 2007. Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Gerri Flemming's office at the address or telephone listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments. Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Gerri Flemming at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site http://www.srs.gov/general/outreach/srs-cab/srs-cab.html . Issued at Washington, DC on November 6, 2007. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-22096 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 47 DOE: Notice of 229 Boundary Revision for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory FR Doc E7-22109 [Federal Register: November 13, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 218)] [Notices] [Page 63893] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr13no07-45] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). ACTION: Notice of 229 Boundary Revision for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of Energy, pursuant to section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as implemented by 10 CFR part 860 published in the Federal Register on August 26, 1963 (28 FR 8400), prohibits the unauthorized entry, as provided in 10 CFR 860.3 and the unauthorized introduction of weapons or dangerous materials, as provided in 10 CFR 860.4, into or upon the following described facilities of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory of the United States Department of Energy. The following amendments are made: The U.S. Department of Energy installation known as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory 7900 Area, occupied by the High Flux Isotope Reactor and associated facilities, is located in the Second Civil District of Roane County, Tennessee, within the corporate limits of the city of Oak Ridge. The facility contains approximately 40 acres and is located on the south side of Melton Valley Drive, approximately 0.7 miles west of the intersection of Melton Valley Drive and Melton Valley Access Road. This intersection is approximately 0.6 miles south of the intersection of Bethel Valley Road and Melton Valley Access Road. The 229 Boundary of this facility is indicated by a chain link fence which surrounds the facility. The U.S. Department of Energy installation known as the National U- 233 Repository (Building 3019) is located in the Second Civil District of Roane County, Tennessee, within the corporate limits of the city of Oak Ridge. The physical facility contains approximately 2.5 acres including approximately 40,000 square feet of floor space within the security area boundary. This complex is located south of Bethel Valley Road, approximately 0.25 miles east of the intersection of Bethel Valley Road and First Street. The 229 Boundary for this facility is indicated by a chain link fence which surrounds the facility. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cindy B. Hunter, Certified Realty Specialist, DOE Oak Ridge Office, Post Office Box 2001, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, Telephone: (865) 576-4431, Facsimile: (865) 576-9204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This security boundary is designated pursuant to section 229 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This revised boundary supersedes and/or re-describes the entries previously contained in the Federal Register notice published October 19, 1965, at 30 FR 13285; amended on January 11, 1973, at 38 FR 1301; and amended on March 6, 1974, at 39 FR 8652 for Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Issued in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on October 29, 2007. Cindy B. Hunter, DOE ORO Realty Officer. [FR Doc. E7-22109 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 48 Knoxville News Sentinel: DOE plans to extend Oak Ridge cleanup contract By Frank Munger (Contact) Updated 04:07 p.m., November 13, 2007 OAK RIDGE - The U.S. Department of Energy plans to restructure Bechtel Jacobs Co.'s Oak Ridge cleanup contract and extend it through 2011, a DOE spokesman confirmed today. Some of the biggest cleanup projects in Oak Ridge have fallen far behind schedule, including the decommissioning of the K-25 uranium-enrichment facilities, and that's the primary reason for reworking the contract. DOE and Bechtel Jacobs, the environmental manager in Oak Ridge since 1998, have been in discussions for months regarding the future work, but DOE had declined to give specifics regarding the contract talks or confirm whether Bechtel Jacobs would continue in its present role. "There are still a lot of details that have to be worked out in coming weeks, but we are proposing a restructuring of the existing contract that would establish a contract 'end date' of Dec. 31, 2011," John Shewairy of DOE's Oak Ridge office said today. Shewairy said DOE intends to solicit bids on another cleanup contract for work beyond 2011, but there is no timeline yet for that procurement. That future contract would include the agency's plans to demolish more than 200 old buildings at the Y-12 National Security Complex and Oak Ridge National Laboratory as part of the Integrated Facilities Disposition Program. "That's the direction we're moving in right now," Shewairy said. Under the cleanup-management contract signed in 2003, Bechtel Jacobs and its subcontracting teams were supposed to complete a series of major projects by Sept. 30, 2008. Those plans went awry, however, because of budget shortfalls and a series of setbacks, including a redesign of the K-25 work to enhance safety after a worker fell through a floor in early 2006. "We want to address the high-risk work over the next four years," Shewairy said. Bechtel Jacobs reportedly is seeking additional money for some of the fees lost because of project delays. Shewairy acknowledged that compensation was a part of the ongoing contract discussions with Bechtel Jacobs, but he did provide details. "There's an enormous amount of work that remains to be done in the finance aspect of this," he said. Dennis Hill, a spokesman for Bechtel Jacobs, confirmed that the contract discussions are under way, including the proposal to extend the complete date to 20011, but he referred additional questions to DOE. More details as they develop online and in Wednesday's News Sentinel. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 49 Knoxville News Sentinel: Soviet spy reportedly worked in Oak Ridge By Frank Munger (Contact) Tuesday, November 13, 2007 OAK RIDGE - A Soviet spy who was honored posthumously for infiltrating the top-secret Manhattan Project reportedly worked for a time in Oak Ridge during the war years. George Koval has become the focus of international attention since Nov. 2, when Russian President Vladimir Putin honored him with the Hero of Russia medal. Koval died in early 2006 at age 94. According to the official Kremlin announcement, Koval was the "only Soviet intelligence officer to penetrate the U.S. secret atomic facilities . . . used to create the atomic bomb." A story in Monday's New York Times provided additional information on Koval, including references to his work with the U.S. military in Oak Ridge. Oak Ridge historian Bill Wilcox and other Manhattan Project veterans in Oak Ridge said they had never heard of Koval until Monday. However, Arnold Kramish, an 84-year-old physicist who lives in Reston, Va., and was quoted by the Times, said he went to school with Koval at City College of New York. In a telephone interview Monday, Kramish said he and Koval came to Oak Ridge in 1944 as part of the military's Special Engineer Detachment. Kramish said he worked at the S-50 thermal diffusion plant, one of the Oak Ridge operations evaluated to enrich uranium for bombs. He said Koval worked at X-10, the plutonium pilot facility that later became Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Kramish said they both lived in Oak Ridge barracks for military personnel, although not the same one, and saw each other in the evenings. He said he had no idea at the time that Koval was a Soviet spy. "No, if we did we would have reported it," he said. However, in the early 1950s, Kramish said he and others were interviewed about Koval after he defected to the Soviet Union. He said the FBI did not say explicitly that Koval was a spy, "but they said that he had defected and they strongly inferred that he was under suspicion as a spy." Kramish said Koval worked in radiation safety at X-10 from mid-1944 until sometime in 1945, when he was transferred to the Mound Facility near Dayton, Ohio. The Mound Facility came under the supervision of the Oak Ridge complex. Kramish later transferred to a thermal-diffusion pilot plant in Philadelphia before coming back to Oak Ridge briefly in 1945 and then transferred to Los Alamos in New Mexico. He said the last time he saw Koval was in 1948. Some Oak Ridgers are skeptical of the belated news of a spy in their midst. Jim Cole, who worked in Oak Ridge's Special Engineer Detachment, said he could find no references to Kramish or Koval in SED materials he retained from the war era. He also doubted some of the accounts in the Times story, such as Koval having access to all Oak Ridge facilities and driving a Jeep. "We didn't have any Jeeps in Oak Ridge," Cole said. "It just sounds like a lot of baloney." John Shewairy, the Department of Energy's public affairs chief in Oak Ridge, said DOE researched historic records that were "immediately available" and identified a George Koval who was born in December 1913. "I believe he hired on in late June 1945, and our records indicate he was at the Mound Facility," Shewairy said. The DOE spokesman said there was no definitive record of Koval working at Oak Ridge. "It's quite possible that even though he was assigned to Mound he could have traveled back and forth to Oak Ridge," Shewairy said. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 342-6329. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 50 NewsBlaze: U.S. Energy Secretary Highlights Need for Energy Diversity Welcomes Italy as 17th Nation to Join Global Nuclear Energy Partnership U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today will deliver remarks at the 20th World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum, highlighting the importance of robust investments in a diversity of energy supplies and breakthrough technologies to meet growing global demand for energy. While in Rome, Secretary Bodman welcomed Italy to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), an international framework aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide while responsibly managing nuclear waste and reducing proliferation risks. Italy is the most recent nation to sign the GNEP Statement of Principles, which 16 nations joined in September at the Partnership's second Ministerial in Vienna, Austria. "By becoming a member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Italy is joining a growing group of nations committed to developing solutions to power a clean, safe and reliable energy future," Secretary Bodman said. "To increase global energy security, producing and consuming nations alike must make robust investments in a diversity of energy sources, accelerate efforts to increase energy efficiency, and rapidly deploy advanced clean energy technologies to meet growing energy demand and sustain economic growth." Earlier today, Secretary Bodman and Italian Minister of Economic Development Pier Luigi Bersani signed an agreement to advance cooperation in energy research and development. The agreement builds on current bilateral energy efforts between the nations to advance nuclear technology, increase research and development in carbon sequestration, and promote greater energy efficiency through advanced technology. In his remarks to the 20th World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum, Secretary Bodman will highlight the role of investment in all stages of the energy cycle to ensure affordable and reliable supplies of energy. Secretary Bodman will discuss diversification of the global energy supply as essential to increase global energy security and economic growth. As a world leader in energy research and development investments, Secretary Bodman is expected to emphasize the role of cutting edge technology in developing and distributing energy resources, using energy more efficiently, and powering economic growth. In signing the GNEP Principles, Italy today joins China, France, Japan, Russia and the United States, who are original GNEP partners, as well as Australia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Ukraine in efforts to address the prospects of expanding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including enhanced safeguards, international fuel service frameworks, and advanced technologies. GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand. GNEP proposes a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation. Read additional information on the Statement of Principles and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, visit www.gnep.energy.gov. Italy is the first stop in Secretary Bodman's five-nation visit to Europe and Central Asia. Later this week, Secretary Bodman will travel to Ashgabat, Turkmenistan to address the Turkmenistan Industrial Oil and Gas Exhibit (TIOGE) and meet with the President and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan. Following his visit to Turkmenistan, Secretary Bodman will travel to Turkey to highlight the importance of expanding and securing oil and gas infrastructure and to Greece to celebrate the opening of the Turkey-Greece Inter-connector pipeline, which will be a critical link between the gas suppliers of central Asia and the consumers of Europe. Secretary Bodman will conclude his trip in London, England where he is expected to hold bilateral meetings with senior English officials and deliver remarks to U.S. and British business leaders. Source: U.S. Department of Energy judythpiazza@newsblaze.com Copyright © 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************