***************************************************************** 10/30/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.255 ***************************************************************** 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 NUCLEAR REACTORS 1 US: Grist: Industry's plan for us 2 The Age: Swedes get buzz visiting nuclear plants - 3 US: Deseret Morning News: Call for nuclear plants won't make much 4 Taipei Times: Chungshan director dismisses nuclear claim 5 The Hindu: India and Germany sign several pacts 6 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meetings on Nuclear Power Plant Security 7 Canada: Whitecourt Star: Nuclear power talks continue in the county 8 US: Platts: NuStart and TVA expected to seek new nuclear plant licen 9 RIA Novosti: Russia could sign deal in Nov. to build 4 power units i 10 US: toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse watchdogs say NRC auditor needs fun 11 US: JOURNAL NEWS: EPA approves some Indian Point leak work 12 US: C: TVA, NuStart Submit Application For New Nuclear Plant In Mary 13 US: APP.COM: Computer glitch at NRC | 14 US: toledoblade.com: Ex-worker guilty, contractor cleared in Davis-B 15 US: Patriot News: Peach Bottom whistle-blower loses job - York Count 16 Slovak Spectator: Radiation detectors installed at Ukrainian border 17 US: toledoblade.com: Judge urges jury to break deadlock in Davis-Bes 18 US: Chicago Maroon: U of C scales back nuclear research 19 US: Courant: Power Plant Clean-Up Called A Success -- 20 Reuters: S&P report on nuclear power in European Union 21 Reuters: EU approves Areva-Mitsubishi Heavy reactor JV 22 US: Reuters: NRC head sees nuclear renaissance 23 UPI: Wen's Russia visit to produce 10 deals - 24 Baltic Times: Ignalina pushed as a 'green' option 25 US: Knoxville News Sentinel: NRC reviewing storage request 26 US: Guardian Unlimited: TVA Expected to Apply for New Reactors 27 US: JS Online: Lift the moratorium on new nuclear plants 28 US: MHNN: EPA endorses schedule to stop leak at Indian Point spent f 29 WNN: Italy slowly reopens doors to nuclear power 30 US: Postbulletin: Nuclear revival based on false premises - 31 NAS: Project: U.S. - Chinese Glossary of Nuclear Security Terms 32 WNN: Russia's nuclear forging supplier ups capacity 33 US: Guardian Unlimited: 1 Convicted of Hiding Nuke-Plant Problem 34 Financial Post: TransCanada cautiously jumps on nuclear bandwagon NUCLEAR SECURITY 35 US: Times Argus: Consider facts on nuclear weapons NUCLEAR SAFETY 36 EnerPub: Depleted uranium, depleted health concerns | 37 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Mary Dickson's angry memorium for the downwin 38 US: Rocky Mountain News: Inquiry: Denial of nuke workers not by desi 39 US: OpEdNews: International Doctors for D.U. (Depleted Uranium) 40 US: Rocky Mountain News: Labor says letter sent to wrong dept. 41 US: Rockford Register Star: Workers continue to fix leak at Byron nu NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 42 The Hindu: Nuke reprocessing capability has to be augmented 43 ReviewJournal.com: Gibbons turns tables on hearing snub 44 ReviewJournal.com: ENERGY DEPARTMENT COLLECTION: Database on Yucca c 45 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: No softballs for Yucca 46 Las Vegas SUN: Gibbons backs off on trip to D.C. to focus on budget 47 US: RIA Novosti: Siberian uranium enrichment center open to all - Ru 48 US: Tri-City Herald: Panel calls to end GNEP 49 US: The Coloradoan: Laws would increase public oversight of mining 50 US: IPS-English DEVELOPMENT-NAMIBIA: Interest in Uranium Powers Desa 51 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Canadian uranium mining company buys entire t 52 Daily Times: ElBaradei proposes global reserve of N-fuels 53 US: WNN: End GNEP, focus on start-ups, says US panel 54 US: Reuters: U.S. Energy: Ticaboo Townsite sold to Uranium One | 55 NRC: Fuel Cycle Safety: One Commissioner’s Perspectives 56 US: Guardian Unlimited: Panel Urges End to Nuke Waste Proposal PEACE 57 Iranian Cooperation And Transparency Crucial, UN Nuclear Watchdog Ch US DEPT. OF ENERGY 58 DOE: Statement by DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis 59 Tri-City Herald: 2 new managers named to do work at vit plant 60 PO: Report Prioritizes Programs Of DOE Office Of Nuclear Energy 61 Las Cruces Sun-News: Report: Los Alamos subcontractor costs often ex 62 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern 63 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah 64 DOE: Office of Science; DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee 65 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridg 66 Knoxville News Sentinel: ORNL confident in nuke security 67 Knoxville News Sentinel: 'Day of Science' draws 1,400 to recruitment 68 NAS Project: Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research & Development P 69 KOB.com: DOE questions LANL contractor’s billings ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Grist: Industry's plan for us | Gristmill: The environmental news blog | The many ways big money seeks to avoid reducing fossil fuel use Posted by David Roberts at 10:50 PM on 29 Oct 2007 The following is a guest essay from Peter Montague, executive director of the Environmental Research Foundation. ----- It now seems clear that the coal and oil industries are not going to allow the United States to curb global warming by making major investments in renewable sources of energy. These fossil fuel corporations simply have too much at stake to allow it. Simple physics tells us that the way to minimize the human contribution to global warming is to leave the remaining fossil fuels in the ground -- stop mining them as soon as humanly possible. This obvious solution would require us to turn the nation's industrial prowess to developing solar power in its many forms as quickly as we can -- we would need a "'Manhattan Project' for Energy," as the strategy journal of the top U.S. military planners said recently. Look at the relative size of our current government investments in solar vs. fossil fuels. In 2007 the federal Department of Energy spent $168 million on solar research. On the other hand each year since 1991 the U.S. government has spent 1000 times that amount -- $169 billion -- subsidizing the flow of oil from the Middle East, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, our top military planners. And that figure doesn't include what consumers paid for the oil itself. If our solar investment remains one-tenth of one percent of our investment in oil, there will be no solar power to speak of in our future. A rapid shift to renewables based on solar would not be easy and I don't want to minimize the effort required. It's stupendously large. But we've undertaken heroic industrial projects before -- and with notable success. We mobilized quickly and massively to defeat the combined industrial might of Germany, Japan, and Italy in less than five years after Pearl Harbor. The original Manhattan Project turned a physicist's theory into a working A-bomb in less than 6 years; just building the gaseous diffusion plant near Oak Ridge, Tennessee was a scientific, engineering and industrial feat of astonishing magnitude and complexity. The Marshall Plan successfully rebuilt Europe after WW II. Our Man-on-the-Moon program succeeded just 11 years after the Russians tweaked our national ego by launching Sputnik into orbit in 1957. Yes, a shift to solar-powered renewables would be difficult, but it's doable. Unfortunately, any plan to shift from fossil fuels to solar has three fatal flaws, from the viewpoint of Big Oil and Big Coal: 1. The fossil fuel corporations have an enormous investment in fossil infrastructure and they own vast quantities of fossil fuels that they plan to exploit with little real effort over the next 50 years. They have been making excellent profits for a century and, as fossil fuels get scarcer, prices will only rise. In 2006, ExxonMobil reaped profits larger than any other corporation in history ($39.5 billion). If the U.S. does not invest seriously in renewable alternatives, we'll have no choice but to pay whatever price the fossil corporations demand. Just a few days ago oil hit $90 a barrel; eight years ago it was selling for $10 a barrel. No wonder ExxonMobil now has a book value larger than the national budget of France. Naturally, they intend to maintain their market share, even if it means doing everything in their power to thwart progress. 2. The fossil fuel business is 100 years old and fully understood. No surprises lie ahead. But renewables? Who knows which renewables will win out in the marketplace of ideas? If Uncle Sam were to invest as much money in solar power as it has so far invested in the Iraq war (roughly $800 billion), who knows what new technologies would emerge? (Incidentally, if we maintain our current solar research budget at $168 million per year, it will be 4761 years before we have spent as much on solar research as we have, so far, spent in Iraq.) New technical innovations could be very unsettling for complacent industries like coal and oil. For them, innovation spells trouble. Innovation could render them irrelevant in a decade or two and they could disappear just like the makers of whale-oil lamps and buggy whips 100 years ago. 3. Coal and oil are highly centralized. It's their nature. Whoever owns the fossil fuels, the big central power plants, and the distribution systems can call the shots. But solar? The sun shines everywhere and it's free. Suppose some woman at MIT develops a solar panel that you paint onto your roof (from a can you buy at Home Depot), attach some wires, and start generating your own electricity? Central control disappears. This would be like tossing a hand grenade into the current corporate/political structure. Of course even right- wing politicians love lefty-sounding slogans like "power to the people," but they don't mean real power like electricity or hot water or home-made hydrogen for transportation fuel. (Check out the Nova TV program, "Saved by the Sun," which briefly mentions paint-on solar panels.) No, a serious plan to focus the nation's industrial prowess onto a solar-powered rebirth will not be allowed by the fossil corporations. Instead we'll be offered a rolling circus of technical fixes aimed at keeping coal and oil streaming out of the ground. The circus is already well under way. A Sulfur Parasol to Blot Out the Sun Just this week the New York Times published a proposal to attach a fire hose to some lighter-than-air balloons for the purpose of injecting at least a million tons of sulfur particles into the upper atmosphere, to create a giant parasol to cool the planet. Such a scheme might further deplete the Earth's ozone shield, which remains frayed from DuPont's earlier botched experiment with CFCs. And it could create large-scale acid rain. But contemplating these clownish Rube Goldberg solutions may at least relieve the stress of facing what really needs to be done. A new word enters our vocabulary: Geo-engineering Instead of allowing the U.S. to make the transition to solar power, the fossil corporations have evidently decided it's better to re-engineer the oceans and the atmosphere -- and perhaps even the planetary orbit of the Earth itself -- to make it possible to continue burning fossil fuels for another 50 years. Grand schemes for re-engineering the planet now have their own special name -- geo-engineering. The word means, "global-scale interventions to alter the oceans and the atmosphere so fossil corporations can continue business as usual." The fire-hose-and-balloon project is only one of many "geo- engineering" schemes in the works. Fertilizing the Oceans with Iron There are serious plans afoot to dump huge quantities of soluble iron into the oceans as fertilizer, intending to stimulate the growth of plankton, which will then eat carbon dioxide from the air. As the plankton die, their carcasses will sink to the bottom of the ocean, carrying all that carbon dioxide with them, where it will remain for... for... well, actually, nobody knows for how long. How long might it be before that dormant carbon dioxide comes back to bite us? Nobody knows. Would such a plan disrupt life in the oceans? Nobody knows. But private firms are pressing ahead with large-scale ocean- fertilization experiments as we speak. (They are hoping to get rich selling "carbon credits" to polluters so the fossil corporations can continue contaminating the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. We might well ask the ethical question, who gave these cowboys permission to run geo-engineering experiments in the world's oceans?) This is all very reminiscent of earlier plans to bury nuclear waste in the floor of the Pacific Ocean, on the theory that the seabed has lain dormant for many millions of years. But that plan never caught on because few people could develop sufficient confidence that the future would unfold exactly like the past. There was that nagging doubt... what if we've missed something important and we turn out to be wrong? What if our understanding is flawed? There was too much at stake, and the plan was shelved. (With carbon dioxide, of course, there's far more at stake.) Mirrors in Orbit Now there's a new plan to rocket mirrors into orbit around the earth. Another parasol to block sunlight. The mirrors would consist of a mesh of aluminum threads a millionth of an inch in diameter, "like a window screen made of exceedingly fine metal wire," says Lowell Wood at Lawrence Livermore Lab, who dreamed up the idea. The only drawback to this plan mentioned so far is its enormous dollar cost: to reduce incoming sunlight by 1% would require -- get this -- 600,000 square miles of mirror, which is larger than the combined areas of Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Maine, South Carolina, West Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware and Rhode Island. Of course the U.S. has a long history of large-scale interventions above the clouds. In 1962 we conducted an experiment called "Starfish Prime" in which we exploded a small nuclear weapon (equivalent to 1.4 million tons of TNT) 400 miles up in the atmosphere, just to see what would happen. What happened came as a complete surprise to the geniuses who set off the blast. The explosion left so much residual radiation trapped in space that the world's first communication satellite -- Telstar, which was launched after Starfish -- failed because it encountered crippling levels of radiation. Ultimately, one- third of all the low-orbit satellites in space at the time were disabled by the residual radiation from Starfish Prime. Another unanticipated cost of Starfish was the temporary shutdown of communications and electrical supply in Hawaii, 1300 kilometers from the blast. Who knew? Project RBR Despite lessons supposedly learned from Starfish, just last year the Pentagon proposed a project called RBR ("Radiation Belt Remediation"). The RBR project would generate "very low frequency radio waves to flush particles from the [Van Allen] radiation belts and dump them into the upper atmosphere over one or several days." (There are two Van Allen radiation belts; the one closest to earth lies 400 to 4000 miles in the sky.) The stated purpose of the RBR project is to "protect hundreds of low earth-orbiting satellites from having their onboard electronics ruined by charged particles in unusually intense Van Allen radiation belts 'pumped up' by high- altitude nuclear explosions or powerful solar storms." It seems the Pentagon is making plans for conducting nuclear warfare above the clouds. But I digress. Luckily a small group of scientists from Britain, New Zealand and Finland (organized as the "British Antarctic Survey") caught wind of the RBR plan and actually gave it some thought. They concluded that RBR would "significantly alter the upper atmosphere, seriously disrupting high frequency (HF) radio wave transmissions and GPS navigation around the world." The world's commercial (and military) transport systems are now almost completely dependent upon GPS navigation, so disrupting the global GPS system would create economic chaos, not to mention loss of life. Who knew? A Plan to Change the Earth's Orbit As pressure builds on the fossil corporations to quit contaminating the atmosphere with CO2, plans for geo-engineering the planet grow ever-more grandiose and desperate. There is now talk of moving the Earth 1.5 million miles out of its orbit around the sun, to compensate for doubling carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Ken Caldeira of Stanford University has calculated that moving the Earth in this fashion would require the energy of five thousand million million hydrogen bombs (that's 5,000,000,000,000,000 hydrogen bombs). No doubt the Pentagon is studying it with considerable interest. The Biggest Geo-engineering Project: Carbon Sequestration Now, the biggest earth-based geo-engineering project of all is in the late stages of development by the coal and oil industries, and is about to be "regulated" by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This is the plan that convinces me that the fossil corporations have no intention of allowing the U.S. to make a rapid transition to solar power. This Big Fossil plan is called CCS, short for "carbon capture and sequestration" and it, too, closely resembles dozens of previous unsuccessful attempts to figure out what to do with radioactive waste. Carbon sequestration is a fancy name for what used to be called the "kitty litter solution" to radioactive waste: bury it in the ground and hope it stays there. Carbon sequestration is a plan to capture gaseous carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants (and perhaps from other industrial operations as well), turn it into a liquid, and pump it into the deep earth or perhaps into the ocean, where it will remain for an unknown period of time. Professional optimists employed by the fossil industries claim the unknown period of time is "forever." But how can they be sure? Saving the Coal Industry The future of the coal industry, in particular, is at stake. Without carbon sequestration, the coal industry will not survive. Just this month the state of Kansas refused to license the construction of a new coal-fired power plant simply because of its carbon dioxide emissions. This is the first time a coal plant has been turned down merely because of its contribution to global warming. The hand writing is on the wall: Big Coal is doomed unless they can find some way to demonstrate that "clean coal" is more than an advertising slogan. This is what carbon sequestration geo-engineers are being paid to do. Saving the Oil Industry (and the Automobile Industry) But there's more at stake than just the coal industry. The oil industry, too, is depending on "carbon sequestration" to convince the public that continuing to burn fossil fuels is safe. Even the car companies have recognized that their future depends upon convincing us all that carbon sequestration will work -- and work forever. We know this is really, really important to the fossil corporations because some of the biggest names in global industry are underwriting "geo-engineering" solutions for the carbon dioxide problem at some of the most prestigious U.S. universities. The Center for Energy & Environmental Studies at Princeton University is conducting geo- engineering studies (1.4 Mbyte PDF) funded by BP (the felonious oil corporation formerly known as British Petroleum) and by Ford Motor, the troubled manufacturer of SUVs. Geo-engineering work at Stanford University is being supported by ExxonMobil, by General Electric, by Schlumberger (the oil-drilling services giant), and by Toyota. To convince the U.S. environmental community that geo-engineering carbon dioxide is the only way to go, the Stanford geo-engineering group has linked up with NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). Together, they are publishing clever propaganda masquerading as science. For example, in a recent letter to California legislators they say, "We only wish to address the science of CCS [carbon capture and sequestration] here." So we are expecting a scientific argument. Instead, the letter tries to persuade legislators to support carbon sequestration using arguments that have nothing to do with science. The letter is peppered with distinctly unscientific language like "perfectly safe" to describe the fossil corporations' favorite geo- engineering solution. "Perfectly safe" is not a scientific concept. It is a political concept. To be fair, deep in their letter NRDC and friends add a few caveats to their "perfectly safe" claim. For example, they say, "Leakage is conceivable but it is unlikely in well-selected sites, is generally avoidable, predictable, can be detected and remedied promptly, and in any case is extremely unlikely to be of a magnitude to endanger human health and the environment if performed under adequate regulatory oversight and according to best practices." [Emphasis in the original.] So carbon sequestration will be "perfectly safe" if it occurs at "well-selected sites" and if performed under adequate regulatory oversight and according to best practices." Let's examine these caveats. Are these scientific concepts? Do they even refer to anything in the real world? Human History: Selecting Sites for Dangerous Projects What experience do humans have siting dangerous facilities at only "well-selected sites"? I am thinking of the atomic reactor in Japan sited near an earthquake fault and recently shut down by serious earthquake damage. I am thinking of the U.S. radioactive waste site proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada where government and private engineers felt the need to falsify data to make the site appear acceptable. How do NRDC and Stanford propose to avoid a repeat of these fiascos when it comes time to select dozens or hundreds (perhaps thousands) of sites for pumping carbon dioxide into the ground? Human history: Best practices with Dangerous Technologies And that about "best practices"? Does this phrase take into account actual human experience with power plant operators photographed asleep in the control room of nuclear reactors? Or young men deep in missile silos relieving their boredom by getting drunk or taking drugs while standing ready to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with hydrogen warheads? Will Every Nation Abide by the NRDC/Stanford Prescription? After the U.S. begins injecting billions of tons of liquid carbon dioxide into the earth, won't China, India and other countries do the same? If they do, can they be counted on to choose only "well-selected sites" and to follow only "best practices" for the next hundred years? Who will oversee carbon sequestration in Nigeria or Uzbekistan? How do NRDC and Stanford imagine that standards for site selection and "best practices" will be enforced around the globe? Have NRDC and Stanford published solutions to these problems? Or are they just putting empty words on paper hoping to fool clueless legislators into adopting untestable technical solutions that the fossil corporations are paying them to promote? But the most dubious part of the NRDC plan to geo-engineer carbon sequestration is their claim that is will be "perfectly safe" if performed with "adequate regulatory oversight." Can NRDC and their friends at Stanford point to any instances of large-scale industrial enterprises that currently have "adequate regulatory oversight?" Everyone knows that regulators quickly get captured by the industries they are supposed to regulate. There is a substantial body of social science literature on this point. Regulators are poorly paid, but if they look the other way at regulatory violations, they may find a lucrative job awaiting them when they retire from government. Less sinister but more pervasive is the simple fact that regulated corporations spend a lot of time befriending regulators, dropping by to say hello, asking about the kids, gaining their trust and ultimately their allegiance. Are NRDC and Stanford prepared to deny this indisputable history of regulatory collapse? Have they examined the dismal record of the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? Are they prepared to design and describe regulatory institutions that do not suffer from these same fundamental human flaws? Or are they just blowing smoke? So let's examine these caveats just a bit more. 1. What actual experience to do humans have designing anything to be kept out of the environment forever? Answer: None. Absolutely none. In this context, then, what can "perfectly safe" possibly mean? 2. What human regulatory institutions can NRDC and friends point to that have proven adequate? Let's see. The regulatory system for preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Today, 40 years after the inception of the non-proliferation treaty, Israel, India, North Korea, Pakistan -- all have The Bomb despite heroic efforts to prevent its spread. The only reason Iraq and Syria don't have a nuclear weapon is because Israel bombed their nascent nuclear power plants to smithereens. What about the regulatory system for controlling the discard of radioactive waste? Radioactive waste is loose at thousands of locations around the planet. In hundreds (perhaps thousands) of instances we do not even know where the stuff has been dumped. This technology was developed by the smartest people in the world with unlimited budgets -- yet at places like the gold-plated Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico (now renamed the Los Alamos National Laboratory), plutonium, americium-241, strontium-90 and other supremely dangerous radioactive elements were buried in shallow pits, or simply dumped into mountain canyons without any records kept of their whereabouts. The kitty litter solution. And this was a federal scientific laboratory under strict military surveillance and control at the time. Can we expect the fossil corporations under the watchful eye of EPA (wink, wink) to do better? How about the regulatory system for curtailing the widespread destruction of wildlife and human health from hormone-disrupting, cancer-causing chlorinated chemicals? The arctic, which has no industrial enterprises to speak of, is among the most heavily contaminated places on earth because the chemical regulatory system failed to consider how chemicals migrate once they are released into the environment. So where can we find real-world examples of this "adequate regulatory oversight" that NRDC and Stanford say will be necessary to make carbon sequestration "perfectly safe"? Maintaining vigilance for hundreds or thousands of years? Elsewhere in their letter, NRDC and the engineers from Stanford say they believe carbon sequestration can be maintained for millions of years, but they say, if something goes wrong, rapid response will be possible. Is this really true? Again, let's return to the debates over radioactive waste from the late 1970s. Back then scientists were a bit more candid: they admitted they knew of no way to pass information reliably to future generations describing the location of radioactive waste dumps. Given human history and the evanescence of human institutions, they could not imagine a way to reliably warn future generations about dangers buried in the earth. At one point they considered writing a huge warning across the face of the moon using graphic symbols because they had no idea which human languages would survive thousands of years into the future. Have NRDC and Stanford published their solution for this problem? Why should we assume that humans a hundred years from now -- let alone 500 or 5000 years from now -- will be able to monitor for carbon dioxide leaks, locate them, and take rapid action to control them? The prudent assumption would be that humans will NOT have those capabilities. It seems to me it would be unethical to design our technologies based on untested and untestable (and wildly optimistic) assumptions about future humans and their social organizations. Who gave us the right to make decisions now based on assumptions, which, if they are wrong, could destroy the planet as a place suitable for human habitation -- which is precisely what the carbon sequestration researchers are intending to do. With the future of the human species at stake, isn't a little humility in order? Will these geniuses find themselves staring into the mirror one day toward the end of their shameful careers muttering, "Who knew?" But ordinary people who aren't subsidized by energy or automobile corporations are asking the same sorts of common-sense questions they asked 20 years ago when the same sorts of brainy university types were telling us it was "perfectly safe" to bury radioactive waste in the ground: * What if these scientists and engineers turn out to be wrong? * What if there's something important they haven't thought of? * Are these people infallible or are they human? They can't be both. * Isn't it unethical to claim that something will be "perfectly safe" when as a scientist you know you can't be perfectly sure? * When the fossil corporations impose their plan on us and begin large-scale carbon sequestration, won't that become a powerful incentive to reduce federal funding for conservation, renewables, and solar power? Then won't we have all our eggs in one basket? And didn't our grandmothers tell us that was a bad idea? * After the fossil corporations impose carbon sequestration on us, won't we be saddled with even more killer fly ash choking the air, and even more toxic bottom ash threatening groundwater supplies? Won't we have even more destruction from mountain-top-removal coal mining, plus the enormous waste of water and land in the mid-western and western coal states? "Clean" coal will still be one of the dirtiest and most destructive forms of energy. And oil will still keep dragging us into endless bloody resource wars because we will still need to funnel more and more of the world's remaining petroleum into our astonishingly wasteful and inefficient enterprises. Is this really the direction we want to be going? Is this a plan we can explain to our children with pride? Is this a plan that will give our children hope? * Would carbon sequestration truly be reversible if we discovered far in the future that it was a mistake? If not, who can claim that it is ethical to proceed? * If radioactive waste and carbon dioxide are so dangerous and so hard to manage, how does it make sense to steer the nation and the world onto a course that will guarantee continued production of these lethal substances far into the future? * With the survival of humans at stake, isn't this a classic and urgent case for applying the precautionary principle? Grist: Environmental News and Commentary ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with ***************************************************************** 2 The Age: Swedes get buzz visiting nuclear plants - www.theage.com.au October 30, 2007 - 10:22AM It's not everyone's dream destination, but in Sweden thousands of visitors each year head to remote coastland to view the nation's nuclear power plants. At Forsmark, one of the country's three nuclear plants that each receive about 15,000 visitors a year, tourists wear protective clothing and carry dosimeters, which monitor their radiation exposure. Nils Sundquist, who lives just south of Stockholm, is a regular visitor to Forsmark: "I think we learn that nuclear is not so dangerous," he said. Of Sweden's population of around nine million, almost three million have been to a Swedish nuclear plant - some on school trips, others as passing tourists - since they were first able to visit 35 years ago, said Torsten Bohl, communications director at state firm Vattenfall, Forsmark's majority owner. "They see it's a large industrial complex, but nothing else - and the people who work there are ordinary, not greenish," said Bohl. Copyright © 2007. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 3 Deseret Morning News: Call for nuclear plants won't make much difference in Utah plans Tuesday, October 30, 2007 By Joe Bauman and Lisa Riley Roche Deseret Morning News A panel of the National Academy of Sciences said in a 143-page report released Monday that the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Energy should assign its highest priority to facilitating the startup of new commercial nuclear-power plants. The recommendation by the academy's National Research Council might seem like strong encouragement to Transition Power Development, which hopes to build a two-unit nuclear generating plant somewhere in eastern Utah. The plant would cost around $3 billion and generate 3,000 megawatts of electricity. Transition Power, whose principals include state Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, recently signed a water-supply contract with Kane County Water Conservancy District, whose director is Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab. But in an interview Monday, Tilton said the funding issue is immaterial, because Transition Power is not looking at using Energy Department incentives. To date, he said, "we have not counted on or calculated for applying for Department of Energy incentives." The council also recommended that the department cut back on its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which was formed to develop ways to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The council said the partnership has not been adequately peer reviewed and is banking on reprocessing technology that hasn't been proven, or isn't expected to be ready in the time the Bush administration envisions. The report said GNEP research is taking money and focus away from other nuclear research programs and efforts to speed the construction of new nuclear power plants. "All committee members agree that the GNEP program should not go forward and that it should be replaced by a less aggressive research program," said the panel. It said if the administration proceeds as planned, there will be "significant technical and financial risks." Bush announced the global nuclear initiative in early 2006 and has repeatedly touted it as key to U.S. efforts to deal with a growing amount of highly radioactive reactor waste and still allow a large expansion of commercial nuclear power. Internationally, the plan envisions a small number of nations including the United States and Russia supplying other nations with reactor fuel and reprocessing their used fuel. The Academy panel said it did not address the pros and cons of the international aspects of the GNEP program but expressed deep reservations about its ability to address the U.S. waste disposal issue. The GNEP program has been criticized by nuclear nonproliferation activists and has received a chilly reception in Congress, which has refused to provide the short-term funding the Energy Department has requested. The administration wanted nearly $395 million for the program this year, but is getting $167 million. Although nuclear fuel reprocessing continues in Europe and Japan, the United States abandoned it in the 1970s because of concerns that the stream of pure plutonium that is created poses a nuclear proliferation risk. But the GNEP program envisions adopting a different reprocessing method that its advocates argue would not create pure plutonium. The Academy panel of scientists said that "significant technical problems remain to be solved" in development of the new approach, known as the "UREX" process. This program "should not go forward," and it should be replaced by a less aggressive research program, the council's report adds. Academy scientists reasoned that domestic waste management, security and the need for nuclear fuel are not adequate to justify commercial-scale reprocessing facilities, "and there is no economic justification to proceed." Last month, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said that no nuclear plant should be built in Utah until the plant could reprocess its waste on site. "That's a deal-breaker," the governor said in an interview. During his monthly press conference in October on KUED Channel 7, he reiterated that the storage issue needs to be resolved before Utahns would feel comfortable with nuclear power. Tilton said the governor's position, plus any reduction in recycling research and development, do not pose any problems for Transition Power Development. "The issue of having reprocessing is second, and incidental, to generating power," he said. "Eventually, we'll have reprocessing." If a nuclear plant were to come on-line, there would not be any spent fuel to reprocess for 30 or 40 years, he said. Meanwhile, Transition Power's plant would be constructed with facilities to store spent fuel rods for 100 years. The plant may not finish its regulatory reviews for at least five years, with construction taking place later. At the earliest, the plant could be operating in 10 years, but 15 years may be a more realistic guess, he said. E-mail: bau@desnews.com, lisa@desnews.com deseretnews.com ***************************************************************** 4 Taipei Times: Chungshan director dismisses nuclear claim Tue, Oct 30, 2007 By Jimmy Chuang and Flora Wang STAFF REPORTERS Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology Director Vice Admiral Kung Chia-cheng (ÅÇ®a¬F) yesterday dismissed an opposition legislator's claim that President Chen Shui-bian (³¯¤ô«ó) had asked the institute to develop nuclear weapons. "This is a total fabrication, a groundless rumor," Kung said when approached by reporters after attending a meeting at the legislature's National Defense Committee to review the institute's annual budget. "We have never conducted any research and development of nuclear weapons. We do not have qualified personnel for that kind of research, neither do we have the necessary equipment," Kung said in response to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Su Chi's (Ĭ°_) allegations on Oct. 19 that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government was developing nuclear weapons amid a rising military threat from China. Kung said that all nuclear matters -- mainly relating to nuclear power -- had been transferred to the Cabinet's Atomic Energy Council in 1988, adding that the institute had no plans to recruit personnel or purchase any specialized equipment to conduct nuclear research. Asked about Kung's response, Su stood by his claims, saying that his source -- "an important DPP legislator" -- said the president had ordered the development of nuclear weapons. Su said his source told him the news during a gathering, where "many DPP legislators were present," after the Double Ten National Day, but the source did not specify when the president gave the order. "I believe President Chen criticized me harshly [over the allegation] because he wanted to silence these DPP legislators," Su said, declining to reveal his source's identity. "But I think it is highly likely that the president gave the order ... or this ranking DPP legislator would not have expressed his worries during the luncheon," he said. Su said his source's information was "highly credible" because the president was in a "difficult political situation" and probably gave the order in a "desperate" bid to protect himself. Chen might use the development of nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to seek political asylum in the US to escape possible imprisonment over his role in the "state affairs" fund probe after his presidential term expires, Su said, without providing evidence. Su said he believed the institute would continue to deny his claims until the project is completed. This story has been viewed 672 times. Copyright © 1999-2007 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 The Hindu: India and Germany sign several pacts Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 Special Correspondent NEW DELHI: Union Minister for Science and Technology Kapil Sibal and German Minister for Education and Research Annette Schavan on Tuesday signed an agreement to set up an Indo-German S&T Centre that would promote public-private partnership in scientific and industrial research. The two sides committed to spend 10 million euros each over the next five years on the centre. The money would be used mainly as seed money for projects, with public and private partners putting in the major portion of the costs. The funding would be decided on a case-by-case basis. For projects that were of social relevance such as vaccines, the Governments would bear bulk of the costs, while those of industrial applications such as devices for automobiles, industry would be expected to bear the larger proportion of the costs. A joint committee of experts from both countries and from both Governments and industry would screen the projects to be supported by the Centre. The panel would be dominated by representatives of industry, sources in the Union Ministry of Science and Technology said. On the occasion of the visit of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to India, the two sides also signed an MoU to institutionalise the programme under which young scientists are sent every year to participate in a meeting with Nobel Laureates at Lindau in Germany. At present, the decision to send the scientists is taken each year. The agreement, on the other hand, has a three-year tenure. As a result, identification of candidates and other processes can be performed more effectively. Anna University signs MoU The Chennai-based Anna University, signed an MoU with Helmholtz Association for promoting joint research in different parts of the country on energy-related technologies, with particular emphasis on solar and other alternative energy sources as also on more efficient lighting and other energy devices. Speaking to reporters after the signing ceremony, Anna University Vice Chancellor D. Viswanathan said the MoU was primarily aimed at providing support to projects for developing energy-related technologies. A steering committee of experts drawn from both Germany and India would identify the projects that could be sponsored. Support would be extended to projects both in the public and private sectors, he said. An MoU was also signed between the Department of Science and Technology and DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austrausch Dienst — German Academic Exchange Service) for exchange of senior researchers apart from young researchers; an MoU between IIT, Delhi and the Technical University of Darmstadt for a joint research project on developing less heavy equipment for the manufacturing sector; an MoU among the Helmholtz Association, the Jawaharlal Nehru University and the Indian Council of Medical Research on joint studies on infectious diseases and other health; and an MoU for joint research in marine sciences between the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in the Helmholtz Association. International project India is all set to formally become a partner in a 1.2 billion euro international project to answer the various questions that still remain unresolved about the evolution of the universe. The project would involve the setting up of a facility for generation of intense high energy beams of ions and anti-proton, which scientists hope would help find answers to at least some of the unresolved questions, if not all of them. According to highly placed sources in the Union Ministry of Science and Technology, the proposal for India’s entry into the project was in the final stages of approval. It is likely to be placed before the Union Cabinet for its clearance very soon. The major goal of the new facility, to be launched on November 7, will be to find how the elementary building blocks of the universe and the fundamental forces that act between them lead to the creation of the complex structures of matter that constitute the universe. The facility would bring together scientists from diverse fields ranging from nuclear and atomic physics, astrophysics and plasma research to materials research and biophysics and thereby initiate a broad inter-disciplinary and international science programme at one central research facility. Germany is the main sponsor of the project, committing to pick up 75 per cent of the cost, with the balance from other partners. India has agreed in principle to contribute three per cent of the cost in the form of a sub-system or a component for the facility, with the Department of Science and Technology and the Department of Atomic Energy sharing the expenditure equally. In all, 13 countries have expressed their interest to partner the project. The other partners include Russia, Italy, Poland and Romania. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 6 NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meetings on Nuclear Power Plant Security and Emergency Preparedness in Rockville, Maryland News Release - 2007 - 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 will hold two public meetings in November. A meeting on nuclear security will be held on Nov. 8th, and a meeting on security-based emergency preparedness drills will be held on Nov. 9th. Public participation is actively sought for these meetings. The security-focused public meeting, on Nov. 8th, will run from 1 to 5 p.m. at the Ramada Inn, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. The public may ask questions and participate in discussions throughout the meeting. Issues related to the security of both nuclear facilities and radiological materials will be discussed, including topics such as security policy, force-on-force exercises and threat assessment. Those who cannot attend in person may still participate via toll-free teleconference, at 1-800-368-5642. Classified and safeguards information will not be discussed. The meeting focusing on emergency preparedness will be held on Nov. 9th from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in the NRC’s Two White Flint North Auditorium, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. Discussions will focus on the status of and “lessons learned” from security-threat based emergency preparedness drills as well as proposed changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program Manual. Those who cannot attend in person may participate also through a toll-free teleconference line, at 1-800-368-5642. Meeting notices and complete agendas for both meetings are available on the NRC’s Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/public-meetings/index.cfm. Questions about these meetings should be directed to Sheldon Stuchell, 301-415-1847 or sxs10@nrc.gov 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. October 29, 2007 ***************************************************************** 7 Canada: Whitecourt Star: Nuclear power talks continue in the county Whitecourt, AB October 31, 2007 Despite questions from Woodlands County council the province has declined to get involved in the nuclear power discussion. Chandra Lye Star Staff Wednesday October 31, 2007 A letter received from Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) Minister Ted Morton told council that the department would not consider a land purchase application, submitted this summer, because of Energy Alberta’s decision to build a nuclear plant in Peace River. The purchase application was a joint one that county council made with the Town of Whitecourt to obtain land with the intention of selling it to Energy Alberta (EA). However, EA chose the town of Peace River to house their reactor. Counc. Dan Pritchard said the decision did not make sense. "Energy Alberta isn’t the only company out there," he told council. County Mayor Jim Rennie said the province was reluctant to deal with the issue at this time. "Obviously it is an issue that divides people and especially it’s obvious to everyone that election time is coming up so probably no one wants to deal with such a hot issue," Rennie told the media. "Our province will have to step up to the plate when the timing is right for them to do so." He said that council still intended to move forward with the information process for residents. "But it would be a shame to do that and find out afterwards that the province has already made up their mind that they are not going to allow this." "If the province is going to say that it is not coming to Alberta this is not an issue that should come to Woodlands chamber. If the province is ready, let us know so we can move on to the next step," Rennie added. Feds opt out also Council also discussed a letter received from the federal Minister of Natural Resources, Gary Lunn. The letter was in response to council’s request to have the public information process clarified. "As usual, it didn’t answer our question," Rennie told his council. "We never did find out when the people had a say." He advised new councillors to get used to hearing long-winded responses with no answer. "They still don’t say what the public involvement means," Counc. Leann Caron added. She said the contents in the letter were broad statements but did not clarify when or how the public would be consulted. However most councillors agreed that if the public held a vote the results would weigh-in on the decision the developer made. "If the community said no it’s unlikely the company would come to the area," Prichard said. According to Rennie information sessions will likely run early next year. "We had hoped that it could be done originally in November but I’m not sure that we can do that time frame . . . but we will guarantee it will be soon." He also said they were taking the holidays into consideration. "We want to make sure these are held on dates when we know people will likely be home." Rennie added they would be making the venue assessable for everyone and would likely run busses for residents. Publisher: Pamela Allain Proprietor and published by Bowes Publishers Limited at 4732 - 50 Avenue, Whitecourt, Alberta, Canada T7S 1N7 © 2007 Whitecourt Star ***************************************************************** 8 Platts: NuStart and TVA expected to seek new nuclear plant license 2007-10-29 Washington (Platts)--29Oct2007 NuStart and Tennessee Valley Authority called a Capitol Hill briefing for October 30 and are expected to announce the timing of their joint application for an NRC combined construction permit-operating license for a new reactor at TVA's Bellefonte site, near Scottsboro, Alabama. NuStart Energy and TVA said they would be joined in the US Capitol by US Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican and senior minority member of the Senate energy committee, and Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell. The NuStart-TVA application, which has been expected this month, will propose building up to two Westinghouse AP1000s on the Bellefonte site. That design is to produce about 1,100 MW net. TVA began building two 1,200-MW reactors of a Babcock & Wilcox design at the site in the early 1980s but stopped in 1985 and scrapped the project in 1994, citing falling power demand. TVA has begun a project to complete another unfinished reactor, a 1,200-MW Westinghouse design at Watts Bar-2, a five-year project, and does not plan to build at Bellefonte unless new capacity is needed to meet demand. The license being requested from NRC is good for 15 years and the NuStart partners will share with TVA the costs of the application, which are estimated to run between $30 million and $50 million. Members of the NuStart consortium include Constellation Energy, Duke Energy, EDF International North America, Entergy Nuclear, Exelon and FPLGroup. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 9 RIA Novosti: Russia could sign deal in Nov. to build 4 power units in India 15:04 | 30/ 10/ 2007 NEW DELHI, October 30 (RIA Novosti) - Russia expects to sign an agreement with India to build another four power units for the Kudankulam nuclear power plant in November, Russia's acting security council secretary said on Tuesday. "The issue is currently being considered, and I hope the agreement to build another four power units will be signed" during Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Moscow scheduled for November 11-12, Valentin Sobolev told journalists. "This is necessary for India and is useful for us. The construction of four power units means at least 10 years work," Sobolev said, adding that Russia would supply fuel for the units on condition of subsequent return of spent nuclear fuel. Atomstroyexport, Russia's nuclear power equipment and service export monopoly, has been building the Kudankulam plant in the southern province of Tamil Nadu since 2002 in line with a 1988 agreement between India and the Soviet Union and an addendum signed ten years later. The plant is designed to have a capacity of 2,000 MW. Russia granted India a loan on beneficial terms to build the NPP. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 10 toledoblade.com: Davis-Besse watchdogs say NRC auditor needs funding Article published Tuesday, October 30, 2007 By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER A national watchdog group has cited Davis-Besse as an example of why the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal auditor needs better funding - especially if there is to be a nuclear renaissance. In a recent brief written for Congress, the Union of Concerned Scientists lauded the NRC's Office of Inspector General as a unit within the agency that "does many things right." It cited seven instances in which Inspector General audits held the agency more accountable and helped the betterment of society. Among those was the Inspector General's controversial 2003 report that concluded NRC brass allowed itself to be duped into a profits-over-safety mentality by FirstEnergy Corp. That 25-page report, which outgoing NRC Chairman Richard Meserve blasted as "unjustified, unfair, and misleading," admonished senior NRC officials for letting Davis-Besse keep operating until Feb. 16, 2002, when some NRC staffers believed it was unsafe to operate beyond Dec. 31, 2001. The NRC ultimately was embarrassed on Capitol Hill by what it had done. Workers found leaky acid had burned a football-shaped cavity through six inches of Davis-Besse's reactor head, exposing a stainless steel liner that was bulging and starting to crack. If it had ruptured, radioactive steam would have formed in the containment of a U.S. nuclear plant for the first time since the half-core meltdown of Three Mile Island Unit 2 in 1979 near Harrisburg, Pa. David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear safety engineer, yesterday said he was asked by members of the U.S. Senate's clean air and nuclear safety subcommittee to offer suggestions on how the NRC could be a more effective regulator. The request came after Mr. Lochbaum testified on Oct. 3 in front of that subcommittee, which has U.S. Sen. George Voinovich (R., Ohio) as a ranking member and reports to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Mr. Lochbaum said he developed the brief to draw attention to the Inspector General's accomplishments. He acknowledged it was a bit out of the norm for his group, known for being critical of the NRC. He told The Blade the Inspector General's office has been an "invaluable" asset, even though it is selective about what it investigates. "Because they do their homework, you can trust them," he said. The NRC's Office of Inspector General originated from a bill that former U.S. Sen. John Glenn (D., Ohio) introduced on April 3, 1987. At the time, Mr. Glenn told colleagues he had evidence that showed the NRC had "serious deficiencies" in its ability to police itself because of its relationship with the nuclear industry. The former Ohio senator went on to say he was introducing the bill because the NRC "is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lapdog." In December, 1987, a House subcommittee received a report titled "NRC Coziness With Industry," in which government investigators concluded the agency had failed to keep an arm's-length relationship from the industry it was assigned to regulate. Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079. © 2007 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of our privacy statement and our visitor agreement. Please read them. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 To contact a specific department or an ***************************************************************** 11 JOURNAL NEWS: EPA approves some Indian Point leak work Tuesday, October 30, 2007 By GREG CLARY The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday endorsed an Entergy plan for stopping a spent-fuel leak at the defunct Indian Point 1 and weighed in with a list of issues the agency says should be addressed as part of the plant's application to extend its operating license through 2035. Entergy officials have said for months that Indian Point 1, which shut down in 1974, is leaking strontium 90 into the site's groundwater. In April, the company started filtering the spent fuel pool's water to pull out all but a small percentage of the radioactive isotope, but some of the water's flow is still escaping the reactor's drainage system. Entergy officials want to pull the spent fuel rods out of the storage pool and keep them in dry casks being set up on the site. The casks cool the spent nuclear fuel rods with helium gas and don't require the large volume of water now being used. Once the transfer of spent fuel has been completed, the company would then drain the pool into the Hudson River, following filtering and disposal requirements. The entire project is to be completed by the end of 2008. "EPA is very pleased that Entergy has a schedule in place to remove the source of the spent fuel-pool leak efficiently and in a timely fashion with (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) and state oversight," said Alan J. Steinberg, the agency's regional administrator. "We support these proactive steps to ensure that operations at the facility are protective of people's health and the environment." Meanwhile, the federal agency also listed eight areas of concern in a letter to the NRC regarding the relicensing of Indian Point 2 and 3, including regional energy needs, earthquake potential, and the effect on fish in the Hudson River. The NRC, which conducts the relicensing review, limits its evaluation to environmental effects and management of the plant's aging infrastructure. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said an examination of the region's energy needs or the nuclear plant's ability to meet them isn't part of the review. "We don't look at market needs," he said. "That's not something we get into." Sheehan said the potential for seismic activity was evaluated during the original licensing of the site, and earthquakes will not be part of the license-extension review. Among the issues the EPA believes must be included: - An evaluation of the leaks from the spent fuel pools, including the possible effect on groundwater, and future actions to ensure the leaks are stopped. - A management plan for the spent fuel pools and other storage methods for the 20-year extension. Both of those items will be evaluated, Sheehan said. - An analysis of the impact of possible terrorism or other intentional destruction, which the NRC says is done continually and won't be part of the application review. "All these items we feel are necessary and must be addressed to determine whether the plant is renewed," Steinberg said in a telephone interview after the agency's announcement. "The president believes in nuclear energy, but he has emphasized that it has to be clean and safe nuclear energy. It's our mission to make sure, if the license is renewed, that the energy produced at these plants be done so in a clean and safe manner." Steinberg said the NRC, not the EPA, makes the final decision on the relicensing of Indian Point. Reach Greg Clary at 914-696-8566 or gclary@lohud.com. Copyright © 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 12 C: TVA, NuStart Submit Application For New Nuclear Plant In Maryland 10/30/2007 - Chattanoogan.com TVA, NuStart Submit Application For New Nuclear Plant In Maryland posted October 30, 2007 As the site owner and applicant utility, TVA joined NuStart Energy Tuesday in submitting an application for a combined operating license for a new nuclear power plant to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Rockville, Md. “TVA is pleased to be the applicant for the combined operating license that we are seeking as part of NuStart for two new advanced nuclear reactors at our Bellefonte site in North Alabama,” said TVA Chief Operating Officer Bill McCollum. “Submitting the reference application - developed by NuStart - for a Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plant is the first step of a comprehensive NRC review process that will simplify license applications for future plants of the same design.” Under the new application process, utilities will seek a combined construction and operating license at the same time, reducing their financial risks and simplifying the licensing of nuclear power plants. NRC review of the license application is expected to take about four years. If approved by the NRC, the license to build and operate a two-unit plant at the Bellefonte site in Hollywood, Ala., would be issued to TVA. The TVA Board would decide whether to build a new nuclear plant at the site. “Participating with NuStart in this application is a cost-effective way to preserve TVA’s nuclear power option for the future as we continue to explore and develop the best alternatives to meet growing demand for electricity in the Tennessee Valley,” said Mr. McCollum. “Like other utilities, we face long lead times to build and start new plants needed to meet around-the-clock baseload power demand.” TVA’s Bellefonte site was selected in September 2005 by NuStart as one of two sites for the development of a combined operating license application. Bellefonte was selected for the Westinghouse Advanced Passive design, and Entergy’s Grand Gulf site in Mississippi was selected for a General Electric plant design. Mr. McCollum said that any decision by TVA on whether to build a plant at Bellefonte would come later. However, obtaining the necessary license will give TVA more certainty about the cost and schedule of a nuclear option for future decisions, he said. news@chattanoogan.com (423) 266-2325 © 2004 Site designed and copyrighted by HD ***************************************************************** 13 APP.COM: Computer glitch at NRC | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, October 30, 2007 An audit of Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports on nuclear plant relicensing has found that the agency's staff apparently spends a good deal of time using "cut" and "paste" computer commands. Information provided in some NRC reports was identical, or nearly identical, to the corresponding applications. That's outrageous, yet hardly surprising given the NRC's history of rubber-stamping license renewal requests. The agency functions more like the lobbying arm of the nuclear industry than as a public safety watchdog. The audit, performed by the Inspector General's Office of the NRC, merely confirms what grass-roots activists have been saying all along: The relicensing process is a farce. The audit report should be immediate "must reading" for New Jersey's federal and state officials. The audit also said some NRC reports provided no description of the methodology used or backup data for their conclusions. Nice. The rote, cookie-cutter analysis is particularly troubling in light of the safety issues at the Oyster Creek nuclear reactor in Lacey, the oldest operating plant in the country. Among other things, it has a corroded drywell that hasn't been properly scrutinized. Its license expires in April 2009, but the NRC's formal decision on extending it could come as early as January. The NRC should be asking whether the plant is safe to operate today — not just 20 years from now. Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 toledoblade.com: Ex-worker guilty, contractor cleared in Davis-Besse case Article published Tuesday, October 30, 2007 BLADE STAFF One former Davis-Besse worker was found guilty this afternoon and another was acquitted of lying to the government about the nuclear plant’s dangerous condition in the fall of 2001. Engineer David Geisen, a former FirstEnergy employee, was found guilty of three of five charges against him while Rodney Cook, a contractor, was acquitted of the four charges he faced. The two men were prosecuted together in U.S. District in downtown Toledo. Andrew Siemaszko, also an engineer, is expected to stand trial at a later date. The three men had each faced up to five years in prison and separate $250,000 fines. They were accused of having a role in assembling paperwork that FirstEnergy Corp. lawyers and executives used over a three-month period in late 2001 to make the utility’s case for keeping the plant operating. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff members had suspected something was amiss with the plant, which is 30 miles east of Toledo and along the Lake Erie shoreline. They wanted it shut down for inspection no later than Dec. 31, 2001. Three weeks after the plant was finally shut down on Feb. 16, 2002, officials learned they may have dodged a huge radioactive accident — if not a catastrophe — by a mere two-tenths of an inch, the width of a pencil eraser. That’s all that was left of the nuclear reactor’s massive steel lid in one footprint-shaped area when the real threat was discovered on March 6, 2002. Officials learned that uncontrolled acid had burned through everything but the stainless steel liner. And that liner was starting to crack and bulge. Follow-up lab tests showed it was weeks away from bursting, if that long. Read more in later editions of The Blade and toledoblade.com © 2007 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of our privacy statement and our visitor agreement. Please read them. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 To contact a specific department or an ***************************************************************** 15 Patriot News: Peach Bottom whistle-blower loses job - York County - PennLive.com BY GARRY LENTON / Of The Patriot-News, 10/30/07 7:09 PM EDT The Wackenhut security officer who used a video camera to expose sleeping co-workers at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station will not be allowed to keep his job when plant owner Exelon takes over security operations at the York County facility. Kerry Beal, who lives in southern Lancaster County, was notified by mail Saturday that his application for a position with the Exelon-led force at Peach Bottom was being turned down. “We regret to inform you that you do not meet the selection criteria established for a position with Exelon Nuclear Security at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,” said the letter, signed by Matthew Smith, manager of site human resources at Peach Bottom. Beal’s video resulted in investigations by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Exelon. The NRC, which licenses commercial nuclear plants, concluded that as many as 10 security officers employed by the global security firm Wackenhut slept while on duty, a violation of federal licensing regulations. Exelon responded by firing Wackenhut from Peach Bottom and launching a review of its contracts with the company at nine other plants, including Three Mile Island and Limerick. Exelon announced it would take over responsibility for security at Peach Bottom and would allow Wackenhut employees to apply to keep their jobs. Wackenhut’s last day at Peach Bottom is today. None of the 10 officers identified in the video will be hired by Exelon, said Bernadette Lauer, a company spokeswoman. Lauer said Beal’s decision to video tape co-workers and later release the video to WCBS-TV in New York city, were not factors in the company’s decision to turn down his application. “We’re grateful that he raised the issue so we can address it,” she said. “But it had nothing to do with him not being hired by Exelon.” Beal’s attorney, David Wachtel, said his client was disappointed and concerned about his future. “We will get all the facts and see what to do,” Wachtel said, but added that “it looks like retaliation.” If so, Beal could file a claim of discrimination under the Energy Reorganization Act. The act prohibits employers from firing or discriminating against workers who refuse to engage in any practice prohibited under the ERA or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan would not comment on Exelon’s decision to reject Beal’s application. Beal filmed members of a security team at Peach Bottom sleeping in a “ready room” at the plant on four occasions between February and August. The NRC, which is continuing to investigate, issued a subpoena for the hard drive of Beal’s personal computer. The subpoena is being challenged by his attorneys. GARRY LENTON: 717-255-8264, or glenton@patriot-news.com BY GARRY LENTON / Of The Patriot-News, 10/30/07 7:09 PM EDT The Wackenhut security officer who used a video camera to expose sleeping co-workers at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station will not be allowed to keep his job when plant owner Exelon takes over security operations at the York County facility. Kerry Beal, who lives in southern Lancaster County, was notified by mail Saturday that his application for a position with the Exelon-led force at Peach Bottom was being turned down. The Patriot News | The Express-Times © 2007 PennLive LLC. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 Slovak Spectator: Radiation detectors installed at Ukrainian border Volume 13, Number 42 October 29 - November 4, 2007 Radiation detectors have been installed and put into operation at three border crossings between Slovakia and Ukraine, according to a statement by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the US Embassy in Slovakia and the Customs Administration of Slovakia on October 29, the SITA newswire wrote. "Slovakia and the United States are cooperating closely on stopping the smuggling of nuclear material. This partnership plays an important role in the global fight against illegal trade in nuclear material and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," the statement provided to SITA cites William Tobey of the NNSA. On the basis of a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Slovakia dating back to 2006, the NNSA is providing the Slovak Customs Administration with appropriate communication equipment for detecting radiation and conducting training on five border crossings. Slovakia is responsible for financing and operating the posts, while the NNSA will provide consultation services and limited supervision. SITA Compiled by Zuzana Vilikovská from press reports The Slovak Spectator cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information presented in its Flash News postings. [10/30/2007 7:00:00 AM] Copyright © 1998-2007 The Rock spol. s r.o. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 toledoblade.com: Judge urges jury to break deadlock in Davis-Besse nuclear trial Article published Tuesday, October 30, 2007 By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER A federal jury in Toledo trying to decide if two former Davis-Besse engineers lied about the Ottawa County nuclear plant's dangerous operating status in 2001 yesterday was encouraged by the presiding judge to break its apparent stalemate. But even with prodding by U.S. District Judge David Katz, the jury went a third day without reaching a verdict. It's to resume deliberations today. David Geisen of DePere, Wis., and Rodney N. Cook of Millington, Tenn., are facing criminal charges for making false statements to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Conviction carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Judge Katz read the jury what is known as the "Allen charge." Euphemistically called the "dynamite charge," it reminds a potentially deadlocked jury of what is at stake if it fails to reach a unanimous verdict and a mistrial is declared. Lawyers.com defines it as "a charge to a deadlocked jury to make a further effort to reach a verdict, especially by each juror considering the others' opinions with deference." Another Web site for legal information, nolo.com, characterizes it as a "judge's admonition to a deadlocked jury to go back to the jury room and try harder to reach a verdict." The Davis-Besse case, split into two trials, is viewed industry watchdogs as one that has potential ramifications for America's nuclear work force and its adherence to safety procedures as utilities extend the licenses of their 104 nuclear plants and seek approval to build more. While no one could give an exact figure yesterday, it is believed that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on the first trial alone. Jurors are considering what was known about the nuclear plant's old reactor head in the fall of 2001, when FirstEnergy Corp. talked the NRC out of imposing the nation's first mandatory shutdown order on a nuclear plant since 1987. Four engineers formerly associated with Davis-Besse became the focus of a two-year grand jury investigation. Each were accused of having various roles in preparing documents that prosecutors claimed were meant to deceive the NRC after the agency put out a nationwide bulletin in 2001 about nozzles implanted in reactor heads. The NRC had just learned from a South Carolina nuclear plant that some of the nozzles were prone to forming circular cracks and popping off. Radioactive steam would form if that had happened. Andrew Siemaszko, of Spring, Texas, and Mr. Geisen were each charged with five counts of making false statements to a federal agency; Mr. Cook was charged with four. The fourth, Prasoon Goyal of Toledo, avoided prosecution by agreeing to testify against the other three. The investigation has included thousands of pieces of paper and hundreds of other items of evidence. Shortly after the indictments were issued in 2006, government prosecutors cited the complexity of the case to obtain more time themselves. The trial began Oct. 1. The jury began deliberating Wednesday night. There were no deliberations Saturday and Sunday. The instructions Judge Katz gave jurors yesterday mirrored those written in Section 9.04 of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' instructions for deadlocked juries. The instructions implore the jury to do the best it can to reach a verdict because "there is no reason to believe that any new evidence will be presented, or that the next 12 jurors will be any more conscientious and impartial than you are." The instructions also remind jurors it is their "duty to make every reasonable effort you can to reach unanimous agreement." "Those of you who believe that the government has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt should stop and ask yourselves if the evidence is really convincing enough, given that other members of the jury are not convinced. "And those of you who believe that the government has not proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt should stop and ask yourselves if the doubt you have is a reasonable one, given that other members of the jury do not share your doubt. "None of you should hesitate to change your mind if, after reconsidering things, you are convinced that other jurors are right and that your original position was wrong," according to the court's standard instructions. "But remember this," the document continues. "Do not ever change your mind just because other jurors see things differently, or just to get the case over with. … As important as it is for you to reach unanimous agreement, it is just as important that you do so honestly and in good conscience." Federal prosecutors involved in the case declined comment. Attorneys for Mr. Geisen and Mr. Cook could not be reached for comment. Chuck Boss of Maumee, one of two attorneys representing Mr. Siemaszko, said there's a "big dispute in the legal community" about the use of the Allen charge. "Most people in the defense community basically feel it encourages the jury to compromise their position," Mr. Boss said, adding that prosecutors favor it as a tool for avoiding mistrials. Mr. Siemaszko's trial is to begin at an unspecified date after the one involving Mr. Geisen and Mr. Cook concludes. If the jury remains at an impasse and a mistrial is declared, the government would have the option of trying Mr. Geisen and Mr. Cook again. It has not been determined if that would occur before the Siemaszko case or after. Mr. Boss said a mistrial could factor into the government's decision of whether it wants to try the case again. He said it would have no direct, technical bearing on his client's case. The length of time jurors have been out "says simply [that government prosecutors] haven't put their case together in a manner in which they've proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," Mr. Boss said. Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079. © 2007 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of our privacy statement and our visitor agreement. Please read them. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 To contact a specific department or an ***************************************************************** 18 Chicago Maroon: U of C scales back nuclear research The independent student newspaper of the University of Chicago since 1892 By Aviva Rosman Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 In 1946, Enrico Fermi created the first controlled nuclear chain reaction at the Metallurgical Laboratory here on campus. Now, 61 years later, Argonne National Laboratory, the descendent of Fermi’s groundbreaking effort, is scaling back its use of nuclear material in the face of aging facilities and rising costs. According to Renee Carder, Argonne deputy lab director, the expense of upgrading ventilation, equipment, and fire prevention systems was too prohibitive to maintain the operations at their current scale. “This decision means we are refocusing on core capabilities that better align with the nuclear need,†Carder said. Located near Darien, Argonne is operated by the University of Chicago on behalf of the Department of Energy, and is the oldest national laboratory in the nation. The lab will continue using small amounts of nuclear material, sized less than a gram, officials said in a press release. According to Carder, the lab will concentrate on its main areas of expertise, such as nuclear fuel cycle design and nanotechnology. “We will be pulling in our expertise in computer simulation to predict that behavior of next general fuel design tools, for example,†Carder said. “Also, with nanotechnology there are related issues of cladding and structural material development. Our goal is to better link our core capabilities to attack problems from a different angle.†Carder said that she hopes that through this new approach, Argonne is taking a more visionary step. “This is the way we were involved in the very beginning of this,†she said. “The creativity and novel ways of thinking about problems are what made us what we are today, so by rethinking our goals we are getting back to those roots in many ways.†The decision was announced last week, after consultation with the Department of Energy, the Argonne Board of Governors, and the University of Chicago Trustees. In July, Argonne leaders temporarily ceased experimental work on larger quantities of nuclear material after concerns were raised about the safety of the work environment. Currently, there is a fairly significant amount of material on site, Carder said. In the long-term, Argonne will need to consolidate its facilities and do an inventory of its nuclear material. “We are looking at a strategy for our nuclear footprint, evaluating the facilities we have on site and deciding whether we want to retain or upgrade facilities for storage and handling,†Carder said. Argonne also signed a memorandum of understanding with the Savannah River Facilities in South Carolina, allowing Argonne personnel to continue their nuclear research there. Steve McGregor, manager of media relations at Argonne, said in an e-mail that the lab will maintain its reputation for ground-breaking nuclear research. “Argonne will continue to play a major role in the nuclear field—in reactor design, simulations, and fuel recycling,†McGregor said. “The nation’s energy priorities have changed and to solve the nation’s biggest problems we must focus on our core competencies of long-term science-based research and development.†Permanent URL: http://maroon.uchicago.edu/online_edition/news/2007/10/30/u-of-c-scale s-back-nuclear-research/ Copyright © 1995-2006 Chicago Maroon ***************************************************************** 19 Courant: Power Plant Clean-Up Called A Success -- Courant.com Connecticut Yankee Site Receives DEP Stamp Of Approval By GARY LIBOW | Courant Staff Writer October 30, 2007 HADDAM - The Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Plant has received a clean bill of environmental health from the state, a major milestone in the lengthy decommissioning of the Haddam Neck site. Meanwhile, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that it expects to release the vast majority of the decontaminated plant site for public use within the next two to three months. Mike Firsick, the DEP's supervising radiological control physicist, said Monday that it is safe for citizens to have a picnic or even live on the decontaminated nuclear plant footprint, which is bordered by the Connecticut River and acres of woodland. The DEP, culminating years of plant clean-up, issued a certificate of stewardship last week to Connecticut Yankee. The document certifies the government-mandated environmental investigation and decontamination work at the plant site, where 110 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity was produced over 28 years, DEP official Diane Duva said. The plant ceased production in 1996. Connecticut Yankee remains responsible for continuing groundwater monitoring for about another 18 months both on-site and across the river at Haddam Meadows State Park, Firsick said. "We have taken hundreds of samples, and we have done a 100 percent walkover survey of the industrial area," Firsick said of radiological testing. "[The site] meets the requirements for unrestricted use." First Selectman Tony Bondi, noting he is pleased the remediated plant site has been deemed safe by the state, said he would have no reservation having a picnic there. "It's great news," Bondi said. According to Connecticut Yankee, corrective measures undertaken by the company included remediation of soil contaminants such as petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs and lead from the former shooting range. Wayne Norton, Connecticut Yankee's president and chief operating officer, credited the state and federal environmental protection agencies, the citizen's decommissioning advisory committee and other stakeholders for working well with the company's decommissioning team. Connecticut Yankee, in a prepared statement, said it has not decided the future use of the former plant site. Ted Smith, the NRC project manager overseeing the Connecticut Yankee decommissioning, said his agency has finalized technical reviews, survey reports and groundwater reports. "The detailed work has been completed," he said. The area where more than 1,000 spent nuclear fuel rods and radioactive materials are being stored in steel-reinforced concrete casks will be the only section of Connecticut Yankee with restricted use, Smith said. It could be decades until the spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials are removed by the federal government to a repository, possibly Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. Contact Gary Libow at glibow@courant.com. Copyright © 2007, The Hartford Courant ***************************************************************** 20 Reuters: S&P report on nuclear power in European Union Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:50am GMT Oct 30 - Growth in electricity demand and higher fossil fuel prices, alongside increasing concerns about climate change and security of supplies, have considerably improved the prospects of nuclear power generation in Europe, said Standard & Poor's Ratings Services in a report published today, titled "Nuclear Power In The EU: The Sleeping Giant Is Only Gradually Waking Up." "It is still too early to talk about a nuclear revival in the EU, though," said Standard & Poor's credit analyst Hugues de la Presle. "Only one plant has so far been commissioned this year, in Romania, while four others are being built and another four are planned." This reflects relatively limited political and public support so far in most EU countries. Moreover, licensing and planning processes have yet to be streamlined, and there is still a lack of clarity on long-term climate change policies as well as decommissioning and waste disposal costs and responsibilities. The investments under way in nuclear power have limited ratings impact. "A more sustained nuclear power revival could possibly have some credit implications," said Mr. de la Presle. "An extension of the operating life of existing nuclear plants would be positive as, while running, nuclear plants are highly cash generative." Conversely, substantial investments in new nuclear build may have a negative credit impact given the bulky amounts involved and the substantial inherent risks. What is more, the operational inflexibility of nuclear plants is a drawback in today's increasingly liberalized and competitive power markets. That said, significant investments in nuclear power are likely to be only carried out by the largest and most financially robust European utilities. These utilities generally have a diversified generation mix with already a substantial share of nuclear power, a stable supply base, and prudent hedging strategies, which offset the operating risks linked to additional recourse to nuclear power. © Reuters2007All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 Reuters: EU approves Areva-Mitsubishi Heavy reactor JV Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:20am EDT BRUSSELS, Oct 30 (Reuters) - France's Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (7011.T: Quote, Profile, Research) won permission from the European Commission on Tuesday to form a joint venture which will make nuclear power plant steam generation units. The joint venture -- known as Atmea -- is being set up by Mitsubishi Heavy and Areva NP, itself a joint venture owned by Areva and Germany's Siemens (SIEGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), to develop a pressurised water reactor for certification within three years. "The Commission concluded that the proposed transaction would not significantly impede competition in the European Economic Area (EEA) or any substantial part of it," said the EU executive in a statement. Pressurised water reactors use nuclear fuel to heat water beyond the ordinary boiling point of 100 degrees centigrade, using a closed system of pipes and valves to prevent boiling. The new reactors are aimed at the middle segment of the market. The current average output of Areva reactors is 1.6 billion watts. © Reuters2007All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 22 Reuters: NRC head sees nuclear renaissance Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:40pm EDT By Chris Baltimore WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday said a long-touted "nuclear renaissance" has arrived after a consortium of utilities filed an application to build a new nuclear power plant in Alabama. A consortium of 10 utilities called NuStart that includes the Tennessee Valley Authority -- the biggest government-owned utility -- filed an application to construct and operate two new nuclear power reactors at an existing TVA site in Alabama. NuStart follows merchant plant builder NRG Energy, which last month broke a 30-year industry fast in new construction applications when it asked the NRC for permission to build two new reactors in Texas. TVA deferred completion of two partially built reactors at its Bellefonte site in 1988, 14 years after the NRC issued construction permits. With three more new plant applications expected to be filed at the NRC this year and 10-12 applications in the pipeline for 2008, "I think the nuclear renaissance is here," NRC Chairman Dale Klein told reporters. The NRC has said it expects U.S. companies to file applications for about 30 new combined construction and operating licenses in coming months. However, Klein said if Congress fails to pass a 2008 federal budget and decides to hold funding at 2007 levels through a continuing resolution, it could have a "devastating" impact on his agency's ability to weigh new applications. "It would slow them down significantly and some by one or two years," Klein said. Continued... If granted by the NRC, the licenses would allow companies to construct and operate a nuclear plant in one fell swoop, minimizing possible regulatory delays. The last application for new nuclear power plants had been filed in 1977, and several planned plants were canceled after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania that sparked a backlash against the technology. But obtaining a plant license -- which costs about $50 million -- is much cheaper than buying the massive quantities of steel, concrete and reactor equipment that puts the cost of building a new commercial-scale plant at about $5 billion. Despite the high cost, "I believe that dirt will be turned" and many of the planned plants will actually get built, Klein said. Dominion Resources, Duke Energy and Southern Co are among the utilities in the process of seeking plant licenses, according to the NRC. The regulator is expected to take about three years to process applications, and construction could take four more years, putting the first new U.S. reactors online sometime around 2014-2016, Klein said. Currently, 104 nuclear units are in operation in the United States, contributing about 20 percent of the nation's power. ***************************************************************** 23 UPI: Wen's Russia visit to produce 10 deals - UPI.com Published: Oct. 30, 2007 at 3:16 AM BEIJING, Oct. 30 (UPI) -- In a sign of growing China-Russia ties, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s upcoming Moscow visit could produce more than 10 cooperative deals, it was reported. Sergey Razov, Russia’s ambassador to China, said the agreements expected to be announced during Wen’s visit next week, will cover energy, finance, high-tech and partnerships among small- to medium-sized enterprises, China Daily reported Tuesday. He said energy cooperation will include building pipelines to carry crude oil and natural gas from Russia to China. The two countries are looking to build a pipeline from eastern Siberia to China's northeastern border, which, if approved, will become part of a wider project for a crude oil pipeline. They also are working out a pricing formula for natural gas to be exported to China through two other pipelines, the report said. “Russia and China have smooth cooperation in the international arena and share close or even the same position on some international matters, such as the nuclear issues on the Korean Peninsula and in Iran, as well as the Myanmar issue,†Razov said. Before going to Russia, Wen will visit attend the sixth Shanghai Cooperation Organization prime ministers' meeting Friday in Tashkent. © 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 24 Baltic Times: Ignalina pushed as a 'green' option Oct 30, 2007 In association with BNS VILNIUS -- Ecological concerns may become one of the arguments employed by Lithuania when it bids for an extension to the lifespan of the Ignalina Atomic Energy Plant, Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas says. The prime minister noted that Lithuania has decreased its carbon dioxide emission by 67 percent since 1990; however, further reduction of pollution would become complicated after closing the plant. "In the case of completely closing the plant in 2009, we will be forced to use precisely the type of energy that increases carbon dioxide emissions. It is a problem for us, and I think that at this time, when Europe is taking up leadership in the front of fighting climate change and plans to make higher demands yet than were formulated regarding reduction of CO2 emission, a better juncture is created for discussing the extended operation of the second block of the Ignalina plant. This way we would not increase gas use," the prime minister told the Baltic News Service. Kirkilas expressed similar sentiments at a Nordic and Baltic prime ministers' summit in Oslo on Monday. European energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs has repeatedly denied that Lithuania will be allowed to keep Ignalina open past the agreed 2009 shut-off date. However, pressure seems to be mounting within Lithuania to keep Ignalina operational in order to avoid damaging the economy during the years until a replacement nuclear plant can be brought online. developed by Julius Nalivaiko ***************************************************************** 25 Knoxville News Sentinel: NRC reviewing storage request Company asks regulators to let it keep more highly enriched uranium onsite By Andrew Eder (Contact) Tuesday, October 30, 2007 Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. has asked federal regulators to let it store more highly enriched uranium onsite, a move that is likely to spark new requests for a public hearing on the East Tennessee nuclear facility. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing the request and intends to document its findings in separate safety and environmental reports. Company spokesman Tony Treadway said the increase is needed in part because of a contract awarded earlier this summer by the National Nuclear Security Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. Under that contract, privately held Nuclear Fuel Services will “downblend†17.4 metric tons of surplus weapons-grade uranium into 290 metric tons of low-enriched uranium fuel for nuclear reactors. The contract is part of the “Reliable Fuel Supply†program, an effort to stockpile nuclear fuel for emergency use in foreign reactors. Treadway said work on that contract is scheduled to begin in early 2008. Nuclear Fuel Services also has a contract with TVA to downblend highly enriched uranium for use in Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, an effort that’s expected to wind down by the end of 2008. The overlap between projects is one reason Nuclear Fuel Services needs an increase in its uranium storage limits, Treadway said. He also said the company wants to have the same limits as a BWX Technologies facility in Lynchburg, Va. Nuclear Fuel Services and the BWXT plant are the only private facilities in the U.S. licensed to handle weapons-grade uranium. “From a competitive environment situation, we want to be on the same playing field when we seek additional contracts,†said Treadway, who added the facility does not keep uranium in long-term storage. The request did not sit well with some of the activists and citizens who are already asking the NRC to hold a public hearing on the Erwin facility. “If the NRC is concerned about public health and safety, they should have turned this request around and never even let it see the light of day,†said Ann Harris, executive director of the nuclear worker support group We the People. Nuclear Fuel Services was the subject of congressional and public scrutiny earlier this year when the NRC, in a report to Congress, revealed that the Erwin facility was the site of a March 2006 spill of about nine gallons of highly enriched uranium. The incident wasn’t revealed until a year after it occurred because of an NRC policy that kept information on several nuclear fuel facilities from the public since 2004. The agency reversed that policy in September and is currently reviewing nearly 2,000 documents that were kept from public view. Harris and the Sierra Club sent one of six requests for a public hearing on a license amendment resulting from the March 2006 spill. The NRC and Nuclear Fuel Services have each filed documents opposing a public hearing. A three-judge panel will decide whether to grant a hearing. Nuclear Fuel Services’ request to increase its uranium storage limits presents another opportunity for the public to ask for a hearing. Requests must be received by Dec. 17, according to an NRC notice published in the Federal Register. Harris said she intends to ask for a public hearing on the latest license amendment request. Linda Modica, a Jonesborough, Tenn., resident and chair of the Sierra Club’s national radiation committee, said questions about the Erwin facility’s safety need to be resolved before allowing the company to store more highly enriched uranium. “It’s germane to the issue we’re dealing with now, which is whether NFS is capable of properly and safely handling dangerous materials,†Modica said. Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 26 Guardian Unlimited: TVA Expected to Apply for New Reactors Tuesday October 30, 2007 12:31 AM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Tennessee Valley Authority is expected to file an application, perhaps as early as Tuesday, with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build two new nuclear power reactors at a site in Alabama. The TVA, the nation's largest public power provider, plans to build the reactors at the site of the partially completed and then mothballed Bellefonte nuclear power station near Scottsboro, Ala. The TVA, in conjunction with an industry consortium called NuStart, has been working on the proposal for two years. The application will be the second filed with the NRC for new nuclear power plants in just over a month. NRG Energy Inc. submitted an application on Sept. 25 to build and operate two new reactor units at its Bay City, Texas, power plant site. Prior to the NRG application, there had not been an application for a new nuclear power plant in the United States since before the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979. The NRC says it expects as many as 21 applications for 30 reactors over the next couple of years. Officials at TVA, the Energy Department and NuStart scheduled a press conference for Tuesday afternoon to ``tout'' TVA's application plans, according to an Energy Department advisory. TVA spokesman John Moulton said Monday evening he could not confirm that the submission would be made Tuesday. But he said the TVA board of directors has approved submitting a combined construction and operating license application, and said TVA had said it would do so before the end of the month. ``We have been told to expect a second application tomorrow,'' NRC spokesman Eliot Brenner said Monday evening, although he declined to give the name of the applicant or other details. The rush to build reflects a renaissance in nuclear power in recent years as plant owners have been able to reduce operating costs, while the costs of producing electricity from both coal and natural gas have risen. The nuclear industry also has capitalized on the argument that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases, a problem especially for coal-burning power plants that release large amounts of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. The TVA application will be the first involving construction of a Westinghouse AP1000 advanced reactor, made by Westinghouse Electric Co., which is owned by Japan's Toshiba Corp. The two reactors being planned by NRG Energy are boiling water reactors made by General Electric Co. Constellation Energy, based in Baltimore, also has been pushing ahead with plans to build a new nuclear power plant. It has submitted a partial application with the NRC for a new reactor, to be built by France's Areva Group, at the site of its existing Calvert Cliffs reactor on Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. The TVA operates six nuclear reactors. It restarted its Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor in Alabama last summer after a lengthy shutdown. In 1996 it began operating Unit 1 at Watts Bar in Tennessee, the last new nuclear reactor to come on line in the United States, although its license application predates the Three Mile Island accident. The Bellefonte site is the location of two partially completed nuclear reactors that TVA canceled and never finished. While little if any of the old reactors is expected to be used in building the new ones, the site has been characterized as ideal for a new reactor because of the existing power lines and infrastructure. On the Net: Tennessee Valley Authority: http://www.tva.gov/ Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 27 JS Online: Lift the moratorium on new nuclear plants By MICHAEL CORRADINI Posted: Oct. 29, 2007 As Wisconsin looks for ways to meet its growing demand for cleaner energy, the state can no longer afford to rule out the construction of nuclear power plants. The 23-year-old moratorium on new nuclear plants needs to be lifted now. Nuclear power plants in Wisconsin (Kewaunee and Point Beach) already supply about one-fifth of the state's electricity. Wisconsin imports more than 15% of its electricity from Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois, and a majority of that comes from the nuclear power plants reliably producing baseload electricity in those states. Wisconsin's plants were built in the 1970s, and the Legislature enacted the moratorium on nuclear plant construction in 1983. The law requires that nuclear power plants' economic viability be considered and that a permanent waste disposal site be in operation before new plants can be constructed in Wisconsin. In the fall of 2006, the Legislature empowered a special legislative committee to review the policy, and it held a series of public meetings with testimony by many citizens and a wide range of stakeholders. After these meetings and deliberations, the committee overwhelmingly recommended that the moratorium be repealed. I was a member of that committee, and two key points led to this recommendation: 1) The economics of electricity production is already considered by the Public Service Commission for any new power plant application, and thus this law is redundant. 2) Spent fuel storage at nuclear power plants is demonstrated to be safe and reliable, and the disposal of high-level waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada is doable and licensing is proceeding. Those who believe nuclear power is not economical should consider this: The total production costs at U.S. nuclear plants are lower than any other form of baseload electricity, according to McGraw-Hill's Utility Data Institute. Production costs at U.S. nuclear plants averaged less than 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, lower than coal at about 2 cents per kilowatt-hour and far lower than natural gas plants. Tennessee Valley Authority rebuilt the Browns Ferry plant and is beginning to rebuild the Watts Bar plant. Both of these units were left unfinished in the 1980s due to a lack of electricity demand at the time. Finally, South Texas Utilities requested approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction-operation license for two reactors, and the NRC is preparing for at least two dozen more reactor orders. Clearly, new plants once completed will cost more that operating plants, but all economic estimates indicate that nuclear will be cost-competitive with baseload coal plants. Nuclear plants will have an economic advantage if carbon-emissions requirements are enacted. Finally, the spent fuel and the high-level radioactive waste it contains (tons per plant per year) is solid, concentrated and contained. It is currently safely and reliably stored at plant sites and can be disposed of in a geologic repository. This can be compared to the thousands of tons of sulfur oxide and nitrous oxides, the millions of tons of carbon dioxide and the tons of vaporized heavy metals that are annually released into the atmosphere and go up the stack from a coal-burning plant or the millions of tons of fly-ash that are hauled and must be buried. Conservation and energy-efficiency are very important to the state, but they are not a sufficient solution. There will be substantial growth in nuclear power use in the world in the coming decades, a non-polluting form of power spurring economic development. The only question is whether Wisconsin will take advantage of that resource. Michael Corradini is chair of Engineering Physics and Wisconsin Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He was appointed to the National Council on Radiation Protection in 2004 and to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards in 2006. From the Oct. 30, 2007 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ***************************************************************** 28 MHNN: EPA endorses schedule to stop leak at Indian Point spent fuel pool Covering the Hudson to the Catskills! October 30, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide New York -- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator Alan Steinberg Monday announced his endorsement of a schedule for stopping the source of the leak from the spent fuel pool in Unit No.1 at the Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant in Buchanan, New York. The work will be carried out by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., the operator of the Indian Point plant, under the oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency with responsibility for licensing nuclear power plants. Unit 1 is not operational. The remediation work will take place in the summer of 2008, said Steinberg. “These include, for example, taking the spent fuel rods out of the pool and replacing them in a dry cask, and having the water that is in the pool and water that has escaped into the groundwater system treated in a treatment facility and then pumped into the Hudson River,” he said. Entergy spokesman James Steets said the EPA endorsement of the plan is a positive development. “It’s important to Entergy, which has put together this plan, to responsible address the leaking pool at Unit 1,” he said. “The plan that we put together it one that protects the environment and if the EPA has endorsed that, that’s a good message for Entergy, but it’s also a good message for the public.” Since the discovery of the leak in the spent fuel pool, EPA has consulted regularly with the NRC and the New York State DEC. EPA has reviewed data related to the leak and confirmed with New York State that there have been no violations of federal drinking water standards for radionuclides in drinking water supplies. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 29 WNN: Italy slowly reopens doors to nuclear power 30 October 2007 Italy is beginning to reconsider nuclear power - some 20 years after a referendum which banned it. Several members of parliament from different sides of the political spectrum are now speaking in favour of nuclear energy, including representatives of the former Communist Party and Chicco Testa, one of the most vocal promoters of the 1987 phase-out referendum. Pierferdinando Casini, leader of the Union of the Christian Democrats, has also prepared an official parliamentary debate to "follow the way of nuclear energy again" and the Chamber of Deputies will hold a dedicated meeting on the subject in November. In the midst of the resurgence of political interest, utility Enel and engineering contractor Ansaldo Nucleare are strengthening their positions in international markets. In 2005 Enel acquired a majority share of Slovenske Electrarne of Slovakia and has now interests in Bulgaria, Romania, Russia and Spain. Ansaldo Nucleare was a major contractor in the project to complete the Cernavoda units in Romania and is a likely candidate for a leading role in completion of units 3 and 4. Meanwhile, Pierre Gadonneix, CEO of Electricite de France (EdF), has announced that he is personally in favour of a potential memorandum of understanding that would make Enel a partner in the Flamanville 3 project, where the Italian utility would take 200 MWe of the new reactor's 1650 MWe output. The deal is being renegotiated with Italian authorities, said Gadonneix in an interview with the Italian magazine Panorama, contradicting an earlier statement but confirming longstanding rumors that Enel would have an active role in the project from 2008. The price of electricity in Italy is the highest among industrialized countries and is strongly dependent on the price of oil. Italy still relies on oil for the production of about 20% of its electricity and on gas for more than 45%. Figures from the International Energy Agency put the wholesale cost of electricity to Italian industrial consumers at Eur140/MWh. The next highest was Japan at Eur97/MWh and the lowest was Norway at Eur35/MWh. Italy was a pioneer of civil nuclear power and in 1946 established the first scientific body to pursue this. In 1960s it was one of the leading countries in the world for the use of nuclear energy with the highest installed generating capacity among countries without nuclear weapons programs. In 2004 new energy legislation opened up the possibility of joint venture with foreign companies in relation to nuclear power plants and importing electricity from them. This resulted from a clear change in public opinion in favour of nuclear power, especially among younger people. Investing in nuclear abroad Italian companies like Enel and Ansaldo Nucleare are not the only ones from countries with political nuclear phase-out policies that have sought to invest in nuclear power projects abroad. On 25 October Nuclearelectrica, the Romanian owner of the Cernavoda plant announced the shortlist of companies that may invest alongside it in the completion of two more Candu-6 reactors there. The list of companies included Enel, Electrabel of Belgium, Iberdrola of Spain and RWE of Germany, all from countries with anti-nuclear policies. Also on the list were CEZ of the Czech Republic and Arcelor-Mittal of Romania. Offers from the companies are now being analysed and a final selection of partners should be announced by the end of November Further information Ansaldo Nucleare Enel WNA's Nuclear Power in Italy information paper WNN: Enel's Flamanville disappointment ***************************************************************** 30 Postbulletin: Nuclear revival based on false premises - Tue, Oct 30, 2007 Postbulletin.com By Karl Grossman There's again a move to "revive" nuclear power. Every decade or so those with a vested interest in this deadly, dangerous technology have sought to get the public to swallow the nuclear pill -- and it's happening again. That promotion has consistently been based on falsehoods. For example, in a heavy push years back, during a gasoline shortage that included long lines at the pump, the claim was that if we had nuclear power, somehow this wouldn't happen again. In fact, only 3 percent of electricity in the United States is generated with oil. Nuclear power has nothing to do with oil and gas. Currently, as the global warming crisis is acknowledged (after years of the vested oil interests denying it) the big pitch is: Nuclear plants don't emit greenhouse gases and thus don't contribute to warming. In reality, the overall nuclear cycle -- which includes uranium mining and milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication and disposal of radioactive waste -- produces greenhouse gas emissions that play a significant part in global warming. As Michel Lee of the Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy notes: "The dirty secret is that nuclear power makes a substantial contribution to global warming." The claim that it doesn't "is a fiction that has been a prime feature of the nuclear industry's and Bush administration's PR campaign." As a petition being circulated by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which numerous environmental and safe-energy groups and thousands of individuals have signed onto, declares: "we do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, leaner, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power." The last order for a nuclear plant in the United States not subsequently cancelled was in 1973. The 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster gave the lie to the nuclear establishment's claim that a catastrophic mishap was extremely unlikely -- despite a public relations campaign since then trying to deny the impacts of these events. Fortunately, a majority of Americans remain strongly against nuclear power, realizing how lethal it is. Indeed, a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission report, "CRAC-2," projects consequences of a major accident at each the 103 nuclear power plants now operating our country, estimating "peak early fatalities" as high as 100,000, "peak early injuries" even higher, and property damage as much as $300 billion. Post-9/11, with al Qaida acknowledging that it has been eyeing U.S. atomic plants, every one is a target, and a potent nuclear weapon for terrorists. Moreover, "It doesn't take an accident for a nuclear power plant to release radioactivity into our air, water, and soil. All it takes is the plant's everyday routine operation, and federal regulations permit these radioactive releases," stresses Kay Drey of Beyond Nuclear. How would the scores of would-be new nuclear plants be financed? You and other taxpayers would be expected to pay heavily. Some $15 billion in taxpayer subsidies have already been arranged and an energy bill now before Congress authorizes $50 billion more for new nuclear plants. "Renewables Are Ready" is the title of a 1999 book written by two staffers of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Today, they are more than ready. Wind, solar, hydrogen, bio-fuels, geothermal and other safe, clean renewable power can, along with energy efficiency, easily provide the energy we need. The resources are vast. Researchers at Stanford University estimate global wind energy potential at 72,000 gigawatts -- 10 times as much electricity as the world now uses. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory says seven U.S. southwest states could provide more than 7,000 gigawatts of solar power --seven times the existing electric capacity in the United States from all sources. And renewable energy technologies are now highly developed, on the shelf and ready to be widely utilized. But those who push nuclear power would threaten us with losing out lives and money, unnecessarily. They must be stopped. Karl Grossman, is professor of journalism at State University of New York-College at Old Westbury. He's the author of "Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power." Respond at news@postbulletin.com. Copyright 2007 Post-Bulletin Company, LLC All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 31 NAS: Project: U.S. - Chinese Glossary of Nuclear Security Terms PIN: ISAC-N-07-01-A Major Unit: Policy and Global Affairs Division Sub Unit: Committee on International Security and Arms Control RSO: Harrington, Anne Subject/Focus Area: Education; International Issues; National Security; Policy & Research Project Scope Many of the nuclear safety and security issues the United States and China seek to address are highly technical and discussion of these issues is often limited due to the lack of understanding of the associated terms across languages. However, communicating effectively requires more than just translating nuclear security terms; it requires a more profound understanding of how terms are used by each country and of the assumptions surrounding these terms. An ad hoc U.S. committee appointed by the NRC Chair will undertake a joint project with a committee appointed by the Chinese Scientists Group for Arms Control (CSGAC) at the Institute for Applied Physics and Computation Mathematics to construct and publish a Chinese-English English-Chinese glossary of nuclear security terms as a means of examining the definitions and use of these terms across languages and cultures. The project will focus on the following tasks: -Develop a list of approximately 1,000 terms to be included in the glossary and the subset of approximately 100 terms that will be defined; -Reach consensus on the terms to be translated and the translations of the definitions; -Assemble the glossary for review and publication; -Conduct an external review of the glossary prior to publication; -Publish the print version and online version of the glossary and conduct outreach activities; -Hold follow-on discussions and assess the success of the project as needed. CISAC and CSGAC intend to publish an online electronic version of the glossary in addition to a limited number of print copies. There will be follow-on activities to discuss shared meaning and usage of key terms in current U.S. and Chinese policy practice and a review of the glossary one year following its publication to assess the project's impact and to identify any terms that might be modified or added in a future edition based on developments in the fields covered by the glossary. This 18-month project will include two joint meetings of the NRC and CSGAC committees to discuss the glossary of nuclear security terms and one meeting in the United State to finalize the glossary for publication. This project is sponsored by the Dept of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration The approximate start date is June 2007. The project will publish an English-Chinese print version of the glossary as well as an online version. Project Duration: 18 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 10/08/2007 Meeting 2 - 10/29/2007 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 32 WNN: Russia's nuclear forging supplier ups capacity 30 October 2007 Production of heavy forgings for three or more nuclear power reactors per year should be possible after 2011 at at OMZ's Komplekt-Atom-Izhora facility. A conceptual plan for the development of Izhora has been approved by the OMZ board of directors to begin next year. A company statement said the development priority would be a "radical modernization of existing equipment" as well as the introduction of advanced new facilities to increase efficiency. It will double the production of 'large and super-large forgings'. Details of the plan should be worked out by June 2008. At present Izhora can produce the heavy high-quality forgings required for Russia's VVER-440 and VVER-1000 pressurized water reactors at the rate of two per year. These forgings include the heavy piping, steam generators, and the reactor pressure vessel that form the primary coolant circuit. The components weigh a whopping 12,000 tonnes in total. Among nuclear industry observers there is speculation that the worldwide production base for these specialised components could prove to be a bottleneck in nuclear power expansion. However, OMZ is now the third major supplier to announce increases to capacity after Japan Steel Works and Areva. Bretislav Nitka of the Czech Republic's Vitkovice Group told the Nuclear Renaissance Summit last week in Stockholm, Sweden that its heavy machinery division could upgrade facilities to produce nuclear forgings in two years, provided an order had been received. OMZ is expected to produce the forgings for the new wave of new nuclear build in Russia which should see AES-2006 model VVER-1200 nuclear reactors built at the rate of one per year from 2009, two from 2012, three from 2015 and four from 2016. In addition, Russia wants to export similar reactors overseas. Two further units are likely at Tianwan in China as well as two more at Kudankulam in India. Two are also planned for Belene in Bulgaria. Further information OMZ Vitkovice WNA's Nuclear Power in Russia information paper WNN: More forgings for USEPR WNN: Japan Steel Works prepares for orders WNN: Areva purchases major equipment supplier ***************************************************************** 33 Guardian Unlimited: 1 Convicted of Hiding Nuke-Plant Problem Tuesday October 30, 2007 9:31 PM By JOHN SEEWER Associated Press Writer TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - A federal jury convicted a former nuclear plant worker Tuesday of concealing the worst corrosion ever found at a U.S. reactor. A second defendant was acquitted. David Geisen, the Davis-Besse plant's former engineering design manager, was accused of misleading regulators into believing the plant along Lake Erie was safe. He faces as many as five years in prison. Private contractor Rodney Cook was acquitted by the same federal jury. Prosecutors said the men lied in fall 2001 so the plant could delay a shutdown for a safety inspection. Months later, inspectors found an acid leak that had nearly eaten through the reactor's 6-inch-thick steel cap. It's not clear how close the plant was to an accident. Federal prosecutor Tom Ballantine said Geisen and Cook told regulators that an area of the plant the NRC was concerned about had been inspected and that there was no reason to worry. But the inspections weren't completed, and the pair knew it, Ballantine said. Attorneys for Geisen and Cook said the men never were in a position to know how bad the leak had become at the plant, about 30 miles east of Toledo. They added that their clients had nothing to gain by delaying a shutdown. Richard Hibey, Geisen's attorney, said he was unsure why the jury split the verdict. Cook's attorney, John Conroy, said he was pleased his client was cleared but thought Geisen should have been acquitted, too. U.S. Justice Department attorney Richard Poole said he could not comment. The plant's operator, Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., paid a record $28 million in fines a year ago while avoiding federal charges. It also spent $600 million making repairs and buying replacement power while the plant was closed from early 2002 until 2004. None of the company's senior leaders were charged in the investigation. Another former Davis-Besse employee, engineer Andrew Siemaszko, is to go on trial within the next month. Design engineer Prasoon Goyal entered into an agreement with the government. After the discovery of the leak, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission beefed up inspections and training and began requiring detailed records of its discussions with plant operators. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 34 Financial Post: TransCanada cautiously jumps on nuclear bandwagon Jon Harding, Financial Post Published: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 CALGARY -- TransCanada Corp. has cautiously joined the list of companies interested in satisfying Alberta's soaring power needs with nuclear energy. The Calgary-based company is doing "detailed homework" assessing the viability of nuclear as a power source in Alberta, where rivals in the atomic energy business have also been gauging public and government support. "We think Alberta is an interesting situation [for nuclear] with the long-term supply and demand fundamentals for electricity being so good," TransCanada CEO Hal Kvisle said yesterday. "There is certainly demand for power." View Larger Image TransCanada is a partner in the Bruce Power Nuclear facility located in Tiverton Ont. Photo: Peter J. Thompson / National Post Canada's largest pipeline company also owns and operates a large fleet of gas-fired power generation facilities in Canada and the United States, as well as a majority stake in Western Ontario's Bruce nuclear power facility. Mr. Kvisle, who a little more than a year ago dismissed the likelihood of nuclear power being used any time soon as an energy source to develop Alberta's vast oilsands resource, said TransCanada could leverage its expertise at Bruce, in which a multi-billion-dollar refurbishment is underway, if it were to build a greenfield plant in Alberta. "We've got an exceptionally competent nuclear development team at Bruce that has done very good job of guiding the refurbishment of the Bruce A plant, which in many ways is similar to a complete new build," he said. "We have confidence that team would do a very good job of pursuing nuclear projects in Alberta if they make sense." Barriers remain, however, including a well-documented shortage of transmission capacity within the province and the absence of transmission lines from Alberta connecting to major North American markets - a condition that would lower the risk of pouring billions into any Alberta-based nuclear facility. "We don't yet know is if nuclear would be competitive with exotic forms of coal generation," Mr. Kvisle said. "We don't think simple coal-fired generation makes sense in Alberta going forward for CO2 reasons, but there are coal-gasification and other projects that might make sense and that is what nuclear has to compete with. "We're doing our detailed homework as always ...," Mr. Kvisle said. Alberta today consumes about 9,000 megawatts of electricity and expectations are growth, especially from within the surging oilsands sector, should drive demand to about 14,000 megawatts by 2016. Energy Alberta Corp., a private Calgary-based firm, is planning a $6.2-billion nuclear plant in the province's northwest Peace Country, and in August it filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for a licence to prepare a site. The 2,200-megawatt, twin-reactor facility would be built by 2017 by Energy Alberta's partner, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), using its CANDU technology. The company has an exclusivity contract with AECL for any CANDU plant built in Alberta. Since August, Areva Canada, the Canadian arm of France's state-owned nuclear energy conglomerate, has also made overtures and talked of building nuclear plants at the town of Whitecourt, about 150-kiloemtres northwest of Edmonton. Mr. Kvisle cited declining gas production in Western Canada and the likelihood of higher natural gas prices in the future as a deterrent in the way of feeding Alberta's growing power demand with gas-fired power generation. Meanwhile, as TransCanada said third-quarter profit rose 11% to $324-million from $293-million last year, it revealed costs have nearly doubled for its massive Keystone oil pipeline project connecting oilsands crude from Alberta to the United States. Financial Post jharding@nationalpost.com © Financial Post 2007 ***************************************************************** 35 Times Argus: Consider facts on nuclear weapons October 30, 2007 I wonder how many people understand that the process of "enrichment of uranium" does not lead directly to the production of nuclear weapons. In fact, it may not lead there at all. It is the process by which fuel rods for our nuclear reactors are produced, without which Vermont Yankee and all the others would have to shut down. The enrichment process does produce radioactive material that is used by the U.S. military as "depleted uranium" (still 60 percent radioactive), which, because of its denseness is used to coat artillery shells and protect tanks, and which, when it explodes, spreads radioactive material into the air, the water, the dirt, the children, and the lungs of anyone unfortunate enough to be wherever we have been fighting wars since 1991. But enrichment does not necessarily lead to nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs, among other materials, requires plutonium, which is found, along with other deadly products, in the spent fuel rods, or the tons of toxic waste for which there is no safe storage. So, when we are told that Iran is "enriching uranium" and therefore is sure to be making bombs, it is just part of the lies and the attempts to frighten us into believing that we must bomb one more country that has never threatened us but possesses large amounts of oil. I ask, who are we to take the moral high ground when it comes to anything nuclear? We have dozens of dangerous old nuclear power plants; we are planning to build new ones, and we are selling nuclear power to chosen countries like India. We are the only country that has used atomic bombs. With waste from nuclear reactors and weapons that spread radioactive dust all over, we are making the world a radioactive wasteland for our children for untold generations to come, and, in bunkers all over the world, in the oceans in submarines, and maybe by now in space, we have 10,000 nuclear warheads, with 6,000 of them ready to go. Any country that dared to launch a nuclear weapon at the U.S. would be immediately turned into dust. On the other hand, any country that we threaten with military action, would surely be driven toward having a nuclear weapon of their own, since having one seems to be the only way to keep the United States from attacking them and causing untold death and destruction. Someone said that splitting the atom was the worst thing that man has ever done. The United States, (with madmen at the helm), not Iran or North Korea, and, in my opinion, not God, is leading the world down the path toward complete destruction. I am sick at heart for the children. Jane Newton S. Londonderry © 2007 Times Argus ***************************************************************** 36 EnerPub: Depleted uranium, depleted health concerns | Energy Publisher Insights: Energy and Environment As a growing number of Italian soldiers who served in the Balkans meet their death due to serious illness, the specter of 'Balkan Syndrome' and the effects of depleted uranium are again in the spotlight. Tuesday, October 30, 2007 by Anes Alic An increase of the number of Italian soldiers who served in the Balkans during the 1990s who are falling seriously ill due to depleted uranium exposure is causing a public outrage in Italy, as the government downplays the extent of the problem, widely referred to as "Balkan Syndrome." According to an October study by the Italian Military Health Observatory, a total of 164 Italian soldiers have died thus far due to exposure to depleted uranium while serving in the Sarajevo suburbs and in Kosovo during the 1990s. In 2007 alone, the study said there were nine such related deaths and 97 new cases of uranium infection. However, these numbers contradict government data, which claims that a total of 255 Italian troops have contracted tumors up to this date not only in missions in Balkans but also in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. The government also said that there was no established connection between those cases and depleted uranium. Speaking to the Senate commission of inquiry into depleted uranium, Italian Defense Minister Arturo Parisi said that 37 of those soldiers who had contracted tumors had died so far. During that same period, 1,427 troops not involved in missions abroad also contracted tumors, according to the government. "Nevertheless, cases of soldiers discharged years ago who did not apply for military service to be recognized as the cause will be excluded. This means that their illness may only be known to the national, but not the military, health service," Parisi said. Following the minister's speech before the Senate investigation committee, which will release its own report on the depleted uranium allegations by the end of the year, questions were raised over the accuracy of the statistics provided with some members of the parliament expressing doubt over defense ministry's methodology, according to Italian media reports. "I fear the minister's figures refer only to the number of soldiers who fell ill while in active service, and failed to take account of those who had left the military," Italian media quoted Tana de Zuleta, a Green MP in the majority coalition, as saying. In addition, in late September, the Italian government passed a decree allocating €170 million (US$245 million) in compensation for military personnel who have contracted diseases during their service - some 28,000 of them in Balkan missions alone. However, next year, the government is planning, due to contradictory statistics, to set up a center comprised of leading experts in the field to study the depleted uranium issue, as the identification of a relationship of cause and effect is still under investigation. Concerns over possible health effects of depleted uranium shells in Bosnia and Kosovo have also been raised by service members or civilian aid workers in Spain, France, Belgium, Britain, the Netherlands and Portugal. Several dozens deaths and illnesses of military personnel from these countries over the course of the past decade have been attributed to depleted uranium by their governments. Weapon of choice Up to one million rounds of depleted uranium-enhanced ammunition were used in Iraq and Kuwait in 1991. Many Gulf War veterans have argued that depleted uranium has been the cause of their serious illnesses. The same munitions were the weapons of choice for US forces in air attacks on Bosnian Serb positions in 1995 and the former Serbia and Montenegro federation in 1999. Depleted uranium is what is leftover from the production of enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and energy plants. It is used in armor-penetrating military ordinance because of its high density, and also in the manufacture of defensive armor plates. The element also leaves behind a very fine radioactive dust that has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. The so-called Balkan Syndrome affair first came to attention in early 2001, when several European countries, members within a UN peacekeeping mission, reported a series of cancer cases among soldiers who had taken part in peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. There have also been cases of children of Italian Balkan veterans born with genetic malformations. During NATO's 1994 and 1995 bombings of Bosnian Serb positions near Sarajevo, aircrafts used munitions containing depleted uranium. Most of those bombs - 10,800 rounds of 30mm armor-piercing projectiles in total - were fired in Hadzici, where the Bosnian Serb army had a weapons depot. In one day in October 1995 alone, NATO planes fired 300 projectiles into this Sarajevo suburb. Back in 2003, UN experts confirmed the discovery of two locations containing a high level of radiation from depleted uranium from NATO bombings. A UN research team found that depleted uranium had contaminated local supplies of drinking water and could still be found in dust particles suspended in the air in the Hadzici are and in a Bosnian Serb army barracks in Han-Pijesak, also near Sarajevo. Investigators also discovered uranium materials and dust inside the buildings. Despite this, the 2003 UN report claims that there is no danger for the postwar residents of Hadzici, since the recorded contamination levels are very low, but recommended further measuring of the radiation. Soon after, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report was published, Bosnian Federation medical officials began to speculate as to the possibility that depleted uranium might be the cause of an increase in cases of diseases such as cancer, cerebral palsy, and others - especially leukemia. However, director of the Sarajevo Radiology Institute, Dr Lejla Saracevic, told ISN Security Watch that due to the lack of statistics and cooperation from citizens, the illnesses could not be definitively linked to depleted uranium. "Yet, the UN measured the level of radiation seven years after the bombing. No one knows the level of contamination in 1995 and the following years and how many people were in contact with the depleted uranium," Saracevic said. Furthermore, all UN experts' activities related to measuring the radiation have since stopped and local institutions lack the funding to continue the task, she said. Hadzici and Han-Pijesak were not the only sites held by Bosnian Serbs during the war to be targeted by NATO. Bosnian officials suspect that eight other locations were bombed using depleted uranium-enhanced ammunition. However, those locations, the surroundings of four small towns near Sarajevo and four others in eastern Bosnia, are still too risky to investigate due to the possible presence of land mines. After the war ended in December 1995 and the town came under the control of the Federation entity dominated by Bosniaks and Croats, most of the Serbs left Hadzici and relocated to the town of Bratunac, in eastern Bosnia, and also to other parts of Republika Srpska and neighboring Serbia. After the UN report was released, doctors there reported a greatly increased incidence of cancer-type illnesses in Bratunac. To date, up to 30 percent of some 30,000 wartime Hadzici residents have died of various cancers, tumors and heart attacks, according to official statistics. Only in Bratunac, the only town to have kept track of possible depleted uranium illnesses, out of 4,500 wartime Hadzici residents who fled to Bratunac, nearly 1,000 of them died of illnesses believed to be related to depleted uranium exposure. From the Balkans eastward According to the Serbian government, NATO's use of armor-piercing depleted uranium shells in its 1999 air strikes left five areas of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo contaminated by radiation. The zones include sites near Serbia's southern border with Kosovo, near the towns of Presevo, Bujanovac and Vranje, and two zones bordering Montenegro. UN experts who in 2001 tested 11 out of a total of 112 bombed sites, said that in eight they found increases of harmless radiation. The remaining sites were unapproachable due the presence of land mines. Serbian military officials alleged that US jets fired some 50,000 rounds of depleted uranium ammunition on military and civilian targets. However, US officials claim that the remains of the heavy metal shells did not present a significant health hazard. Peacekeeping forces in those zones included Italian, German and Dutch contingents of the multinational peacekeeping force KFOR and some of them had been previously stationed in Bosnia. Only a couple dozen people living near the zones have sought medical checkups and they have not shown signs of illness related to uranium exposure. However, the Bosnia and Kosovo missions are not the only concerns for international military and civilian personal regarding depleted uranium risks. Three Bosnian experts interviewed by ISN Security Watch said they believed that munitions containing depleted uranium were used during the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and are still used on a daily basis and could cause 50-100 greater health hazards than in the Balkans. These experts, who asked not to be named, have calculated that in Iraq alone, some 150 tonnes of depleted uranium were used by the coalition during the first three weeks of the invasion. Also, since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, US and UK forces delivered between 500 and 600 tonnes of depleted uranium to destroy Taliban-held concrete aircraft hangers and to penetrate underground bunkers. UN experts urged an immediate restoration of the water supply and sanitation systems, and a cleaning of pollution hot spots and waste sites to reduce the risk of epidemics among the population and coalition forces, but there are no reports that this task was undertaken. Some NGOs speculate that cancer rates among children have increased by 400 percent in Iraq since the invasion started. However, just like in the Balkans, neither officials in Afghanistan nor Iraq have the funds to or interest in keeping track of the numbers of deadly illnesses and their potential causes. Since 2003, dozens of US veterans, using the positive results of depleted uranium in their urine, sued the US Army, claiming that military officials were aware of the hazards of depleted uranium, but had concealed the risks. The US Defense Department claims that depleted uranium was powerful and safe, and not that troubling. For, now the case for or against depleted uranium remains unresolved, but military personnel are increasingly calling for answers. Anes Alic is a senior writer and analyst for ISN Security Watch. He is based in Sarajevo. This article by Alic was published by International Relations and Security Network (ISN), of the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich). New from Anes  Alic © Copyright EnerPub, All rights reserved. RSS ***************************************************************** 37 Salt Lake Tribune: Mary Dickson's angry memorium for the downwinders By Robert C. Koehler Tribune Media Services Article Last Updated: 10/29/2007 01:45:30 AM MDT ''Please, dear God, don't let us have killed John Wayne.'' - Unidentified government official, 1980 Mary Dickson's new play, ''Exposed,'' is a sacrament of grief and anger that doesn't stop at the edge of the stage or end with the actors' bows. Be careful. It gets under the skin and into the marrow, but that's the whole point. When I saw it this past weekend in Salt Lake City, where its world-premiere run is sold out, the author and some of the real-life characters the play is based on joined the cast onstage afterward and engaged with the audience - almost no one left, by the way, and those who did left crying - in a fervid discussion of the subject matter: the 928 above- and below-ground nuclear blasts set off at the Nevada Test Site, near Las Vegas, between 1951 and 1992; the devastating effect these tests, many of them very dirty, had on the downwind population; and the government secrecy and lies, as it pursued the Cold War, that kept the public falsely reassured that the fallout that dusted the landscape afterward was perfectly harmless. Like I say, I couldn't tell when the play stopped, as art met life in this interchange and the personal stories of the audience members - ''I've had cancer seven times . . . three of my children died of cancer'' - mingled with the storyline of ''Exposed.'' Dickson, a native of Salt Lake City, an ''accidental playwright,'' as The Salt Lake Tribune described her, has woven three separate stories into this devastating drama that deserves a national audience. The first is personal: her own bout with thyroid cancer when she was in her late 20s; her sister, Ann Dickson DeBirk's, losing battle with lupus (she died in 2001 at age 46); Dickson's dawning realization that both of them are ''downwinders''; and her resulting activism, in outraged collaboration with other downwinders, that culminated in early 2007 in the government's cancellation of the proposed subnuclear test blast known as Divine Strake. The second story, based on hearing transcripts and Dickson's own interviews, is told in the voices of the downwinders: ''The sheep had burns on their lips and faces from eating grass covered with fallout. . . . Their wool came off in my hands. The government says they died of malnutrition. Hell, they thought we was all dumb sheep herders. But these sheep ate that fallout . . . (and) we sold that wool.'' ''In 1959, I noticed a hunk of hair and scalp in my brush - I was never well after that. I buy my life now, one month at a time.'' ''I watched my classmates get sick and die of leukemia. I remember, as a kid, we were given a roll of dimes by a government spokesman who came to our school. He said call us if you see a Russian fighter plane. They were keeping fear alive.'' Howard Hughes, who felt the walls of his Las Vegas mansion shake and viscerally detested the testing, shows up. So does the cast of ''The Conqueror,'' or at least its memory. The movie, shot in 1955 in the desert near St. George, Utah - in fallout-saturated soil, which permeated the set - was directed by Dick Powell and starred John Wayne, Susan Hayward and Agnes Moorehead, all of whom later died of cancer. As of the mid-'80s, 91 of 220 cast members had contracted cancer and 46 had died of it. A 1980 People magazine story on these deaths elicited the above quote about Wayne, the icon, and in ''Exposed,'' as a government official utters it, we hear the cynicism with stabbing clarity. The play's third storyline, personified by two anonymous feds in pinstripes, is gleaned from Atomic Energy Commission transcripts and other sources. The secret high-level debates and public BS wind through the other two stories. At one point, as Ann is dying, as the tension is building unbearably, the whole cast, including the G-men, suddenly start singing Bert the Turtle's song, ''Duck and Cover,'' the official civil defense ditty that most baby boomers will surely remember (if you don't, check it out at planbtheatre.org/exposed). The grim seriousness temporarily collapses into nonsense. The effect is astonishing: This is really the level of awareness we had in the 1950s. And then it's half a century later. The downwinders have seen countless loved ones die. Many of them have been keeping cancer charts, and marking off the names of their neighbors one by one. When Divine Strake is proposed, they're prepared; they flood the hearings in overwhelming numbers and the government, its power-point disinformation show defeated, cancels the test. The storylines converge in a cacophony of irreconcilable differences, each character shouting his or her point of view. Then there's silence, and the play ends with a reading of the names of the downwinder dead. After each show, new names are added. The air in the theater reverberated with the reading of those names and, after the discussion, as I left, I was tingling with a sense of outrage, temporary victory and the meaning of participatory democracy. --- * ROBERT KOEHLER, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bkoehler@tribune.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com. ***************************************************************** 38 Rocky Mountain News: Inquiry: Denial of nuke workers not by design By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News October 30, 2007 Federal officials did not systematically deny help for ill nuclear weapons workers such as those at Rocky Flats, a congressional investigation has found. But advocates for the ill workers said that investigators were too quick to accept questionable explanations from officials at the U.S. Department of Labor, which oversees the program. "They asked the fox if he was doing a good job guarding the henhouse," said Terrie Barrie, of Craig, who helped found the Alliance for Nuclear Workers Advocacy Groups. "They're just accepting DOL's word." Barrie tries to help ill nuclear weapons workers qualify for federal compensation, which amounts to $150,000 and medical coverage for certain illnesses that are deemed work-related. After Congress found evidence in internal e-mails and other documents that White House officials wanted to cut costs of the program, it asked the Government Accountability Office, its investigative arm, to probe further. The GAO looked at documents in which Labor Department officials were questioning the methods of scientists from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The law governing the program says NIOSH is responsible for the science while Labor awards compensation if the science shows a worker's illness is more likely than not a result of work exposures. GAO investigators said some of Labor's comments on technical documents and petitions for streamlined compensation, in which Labor has no role, "might be interpreted as an attempt to reduce the likelihood of certain claimants receiving compensation." The Labor Department was "eventually able to demonstrate how its comments . . . were tied to adjudication," the report says, but does not elaborate how. The investigators criticized Labor officials for making these comments without explaining their intent. Labor officials said they would be more clear in the future. While GAO investigators said they found no organized attempt to limit payouts to nuclear weapons workers who developed job-related illnesses, they did criticize program officials for vastly underestimating the program's coast and complexity. © 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 39 OpEdNews: International Doctors for D.U. (Depleted Uranium) October 30, 2007 at 15:12:30 by ibrahim turner http://www.opednews.com I apologise for quoting so much from other articles, but I urge you to read everything I have quoted and also follow the links and see for yourself. And go and read Timothy V. Gatto’s article in full on OPEDNEWS – it is a personal story that will leave you heartbroken and angry at what is being done to us all - and I promise you his story is not unique… Follow the links – see how the reports are being covered up and not allowed to be published, and by whom… The headline above is something that came to me as I read T.V. Gatto’s articles and I appended a comment called ‘Doctors for D.U.’ but on reading just a little more of the wealth of information out there I realized that nothing short of an International movement can do ANYTHING about this. Who better to voice objections than the very people who have to deal with all these cancers, illnesses, and abnormal births, than doctors? Extract from the article by Timothy V. Gatto… “The very worst thing we do to our men and women in uniform is expose them to depleted uranium that bleeds radioactive isotopes that break DNA and cause every type of cancer and enter their reproductive organs and cause birth defects that will surface in the generations to follow. The Army has a habit of telling American soldiers that substances they are exposed to will not harm them. Soldiers, used to following orders generally trust their commanders because those same men will take them into combat. This degree of trust will not be found in any organization, anywhere else in the world. They trusted the military when they took ships after World War II and ringed Bikini Atoll in the pacific and the men were made to come to the decks of the flotilla and given goggles so they could watch an explosion of an atomic bomb not five miles away. My father, a Marine that had fought in Okinawa and was in the occupation of Japan was there. He died of cancer at 59 that had ravaged his body. Then there was Vietnam when we used the defoliant Agent Orange and told the soldiers that it only hurt plants. I was given a 55-gallon drum of “Dioxin” to put around the fence-line at a missile site fence line in Hazlet New Jersey so that the grass wouldn’t grow where the fence was. We spread it by hand. My son now has three special needs children. I don’t know if I was the cause, but I think of it. Then there was the F-104 Starfighter where the radar Klystron was between the knees of the pilot. The pilots had unshielded ionised radiation beaming right into their reproductive organs. It didn’t stop there, the United States had the Nike-Hercules system around every major city in the nation and brigades overseas that had an unshielded Klystron tubes in the radars that emitted ionised radiation and glowed green with over 30,000 volts running through it. I got cancer five years ago under my tongue in the floor of my mouth, along with hundreds of other Air Defenders not only in this country, but in Germany, Belgium, Turkey, Korea and Japan that also used this “system”. I lost my teeth, had my tongue dissected, lost some of my gum and now I take narcotics to dull the pain from the two operations I had and the radiation that made me bleed from my throat. Think all that is bad? You haven’t seen anything yet. The soldiers of today are walking through deserts and cities in Iraq that are rife with depleted uranium. The uranium has 60% of its radiation with a half-life of something like 100,000 years. These guys that came back with Gulf-War syndrome probably came back with radiation sickness. The Army is fully aware of the hazards of depleted uranium, but the mind-set of the Defence Department is to ignore things like this. These are civilians that sit in the Pentagon and make policy that basically says that “soldiers are expendable”. Now in Iraq, soldiers are constantly exposed to ground peppered with DP shells and munitions. These guys and girls are coming home with altered DNA that will in some cases bring them cancer and deformed children. Think that’s the worst, you haven’t seen anything yet. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq have to live within radioactive land. They have kids with an average life expectancy of six months if they are affected. The cancer rates in some areas that have a high concentration of DP have five or six cases of cancer a day! Bone cancer, leukaemia, thyroid cancer and squamous cell cancer like I had, are rife in these nations. These weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction and we subject our soldiers and the population of our adversaries with it daily. Look, I know what I went through and I know how I feel about the ones that are still serving, I love them like brothers. When they come back, they could marry your daughter and leave them with deformed children and make them widows at an early age. This is not just an Army problem, it’s an American and international problem. Our government is acting like a criminal enterprise. Talk to your friends, write your Congress people, write the Bush Administration and support the ban on depleted Uranium. It’s for all of us. That’s the way I see it.” Timothy V. Gatto. From The Centre for Global Research on Globalisation Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War by Leuren Moret World Affairs – The Journal of International Issues, July 2004 www.globalresearch.ca 8 July 2004 The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR407A.html Some extracts… Described as the Trojan Horse of nuclear war, depleted uranium is the weapon that keeps killing. The half-life of Uranium-238 is 4.5 billion years, the age of the earth. And, as Uranium-238 decays into daughter radioactive products, in four steps before turning into lead, it continues to release more radiation at each step. There is no way to turn it off, and there is no way to clean it up. It meets the US Government’s own definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction. After forming microscopic and sub microscopic insoluble Uranium oxide particles on the battlefield, they remain suspended in air and travel around the earth as a radioactive component of atmospheric dust, contaminating the environment, indiscriminately killing, maiming and causing disease in all living things where rain, snow and moisture remove it from the atmosphere. Global radioactive contamination from atmospheric testing was the equivalent of 40,000 Hiroshima bombs, and still contaminates the atmosphere and lower orbital space today. The amount of low level radioactive pollution from depleted uranium released since 1991, is many times more (deposited internally in the body), than was released from atmospheric testing fallout. A 2003 independent report for the European Parliament by the European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR), reports that based on Chernobyl studies, low level radiation risk is 100 to 1000 times greater than the International Committee for Radiation Protection models estimate which are based on the flawed Atomic and Hydrogen Bomb Studies conducted by the US Government. Referring to the extreme killing effects of radiation on biological systems, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, one of the 46 international radiation expert authors of the ECRR report, describes it as: "The concept of species annihilation means a relatively swift, deliberately induced end to history, culture, science, biological reproduction and memory. It is the ultimate human rejection of the gift of life, an act which requires a new word to describe it: omnicide." 1943 MANHATTAN PROJECT BLUEPRINT FOR DEPLETED URANIUM In a declassified memo to General Leslie R. Groves, dated October 30, 1943, three of the top physicists in the Manhattan Project, Dr James B Conant, A H Compton, and H C Urey, made their recommendation, as members of the Subcommittee of the S-1 Executive Committee, on the ‘Use of Radioactive Materials as a Military Weapon’: "As a gas warfare instrument the material would be ground into particles of microscopic size to form dust and smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form it would be inhaled by personnel. The amount necessary to cause death to a person inhaling the material is extremely small … There are no known methods of treatment for such a casualty … it will permeate a standard gas mask filter in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging."(My emphasis) As a Terrain Contaminant: "To be used in this manner, the radioactive materials would be spread on the ground either from the air or from the ground if in enemy controlled territory. In order to deny terrain to either side except at the expense of exposing personnel to harmful radiations … Areas so contaminated by radioactive material would be dangerous until the slow natural decay of the material took place … for average terrain no decontaminating methods are known. No effective protective clothing for personnel seems possible of development. … Reservoirs or wells would be contaminated or food poisoned with an effect similar to that resulting from inhalation of dust or smoke." Internal Exposure: "… Particles smaller than 1µ [micron] are more likely to be deposited in the alveoli where they will either remain indefinitely or be absorbed into the lymphatics or blood. … could get into the gastro-intestinal tract from polluted water, or food, or air. … may be absorbed from the lungs or G-I tract into the blood and so distributed throughout the body." Both the fission products and depleted uranium waste from the Atomic Bomb Project were to be utilised under this plan. The pyrophoric nature of depleted uranium, which causes it to begin to burn at very low temperatures from friction in the gun barrel, made it an ideal radioactive gas weapon then and now. Also it was more available because the amount of depleted uranium produced was much greater than the amount of fission products produced in 1943. Britain had thoughts of using poisoned gas on Iraq long before 1991: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes. The moral effect should be good... and it would spread a lively terror..." (Winston Churchill commenting on the British use of poison gas against the Iraqis after the First World War). (Some hero eh?) GUIDED WEAPONS SYSTEMS Depleted uranium weapons were first given by the US to Israel for use under US supervision in the 1973 Sinai war against the Arabs. Since then the US has tested, manufactured, and sold depleted uranium weapons systems to 29 countries. An international taboo prevented their use until 1991, when the US broke the taboo and used them for the first time, on the battlefields of Iraq and Kuwait. The US military admitted using depleted uranium projectiles in tanks and planes, but warheads in missiles and bombs are classified or referred to as a ‘dense’ or ‘mystery metal’. Dai Williams, a researcher at the 2003 World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference, reported finding 11 US patents for guided weapons systems with the term ‘depleted uranium’ or ‘dense metal’, which from the density can only be depleted uranium or tungsten, in order to fit the dimensions of the warhead. Extensive carpet-bombing, grid bombing, and the frequent use of missiles and depleted uranium bullets on buildings in densely populated areas has occurred in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. The discovery that bomb craters in Yugoslavia in 1999 were radioactive, and that an unexploded missile in 1999 contained a depleted uranium warhead, implies that the total amount of depleted uranium used since 1991 has been greatly underestimated. Of even greater concern, is that 100 per cent of the depleted uranium in bombs and missiles is aerosolised upon impact and immediately released into the atmosphere. This amount can be as much as 1.5 tons in the large bombs. In bullets and cannon shells, the amount aerosolised is 40-70 per cent, leaving pieces and unexploded shells in the environment, to provide new sources of radioactive dust and contamination of the groundwater from dissolved depleted uranium metal long after the battles are over, as reported in a 2003 report by the UN Environmental Program on Yugoslavia. Considering that the US has admitted using 34 tons of depleted uranium from bullets and cannon shells in Yugoslavia, and the fact that 35,000 NATO bombing missions occurred there in 1999, potentially the amount of depleted uranium contaminating Yugoslavia and transboundary drift into surrounding countries is staggering. Because of mysterious illnesses and post-war birth defects reported among Gulf War veterans and civilians in southern Iraq, and radiation related illnesses in UN Peacekeepers serving in Yugoslavia, growing concerns about radiation effects and environmental damage has stirred up international outrage about the use of radioactive weapons by the US after 1991. At the 2003 meeting of parties to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, discussing the U.S. desire to maintain its nuclear weapons stockpile, the Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi AKIBA stated, z "It is incumbent upon the rest of the world ... to stand up now and tell all of our military leaders that we refuse to be threatened or protected by nuclear weapons. We refuse to live in a world of continually recycled fear and hatred". (My emphasis) ILLEGAL UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW FOUR NUCLEAR WARS "Military Men Are Just Dumb, Stupid, Animals To Be Used As Pawns In Foreign Policy" — Henry Kissinger Although restricted to battlefields in Iraq and Kuwait, the 1991 Gulf War was one of the most toxic and environmentally devastating wars in world history. Oil well fires, the bombing of oil tankers and oil wells which released millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Arabia and desert, and the devastation from tanks and heavy equipment destroyed the desert ecosystem. The long term and far reaching effects, and dispersal of at least 340 tons of depleted uranium weapons, had a global environmental effect. Smoke from the oil fires was later found in deposits in South America, the Himalayas and Hawaii. Large annual dust storms originating in North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia will quickly spread the radioactive contamination around the world, and weathering of old depleted uranium munitions on battlefields and other areas will provide new sources of radioactive contamination in future years. Downwind from the radioactive devastation in Iraq, Israel is also suffering from large increases in breast cancer, leukaemia and childhood diabetes. So you see, this affects friend and foe alike and all other innocent populations in the vicinity and eventually all around the world. Why isn’t this the top priority in people’s minds? Can it be the MSM news blackout, all over the world? Is it normal? RADIATION RESPECTS NO BORDERS, NO SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS, AND NO RELIGION The expendability of the sanctity of life to achieve US political ends was described by US soldiers on the ground, and from the air, along the Highway of Death in Iraq in 1991: "Iraqi soldiers [whether they] be young boys or old men. They were a sad sight, with absolutely no fight left in them. Their leaders had cut their Achilles’ tendons so they couldn’t run away and then left them. What weapons they had were in bad repair and little ammunition was on hand. They were hungry, cold, and scared. The hate I had for any Iraqi dissipated. These people had no business being on a battlefield." (New Yorker , May 22, 2000) American pilots bombing and strafing, with depleted uranium weapons, helpless retreating Iraqi soldiers who had already surrendered, exclaimed: "We toasted him…. we hit the jackpot….a turkey shoot….shooting fish in a barrel….basically just sitting ducks… There’s just nothing like it. It’s the biggest Fourth of July show you’ve ever seen, and to see those tanks just ‘boom’, and more stuff just keeps spewing out of them… they just become white hot. It’s wonderful." (L A Times and Washington Post, both February 27, 1991) Nearly 700,000 American Gulf War Veterans returned to the US from a war that lasted just a few weeks. Today more than 240,000 of those soldiers are on permanent medical disability, and over 11,000 are dead. In a US Government study on post-Gulf War babies born to 251 veterans, 67 per cent of the babies were reported to have serious illnesses or serious birth defects. They were born without eyes, ears, had missing organs, fused fingers, thyroid or other malfunctions. Depleted uranium in the semen of the soldiers internally contaminated their wives. Severe birth defects have been reported in babies born to contaminated civilians in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan and the incidence and severity of defects is increasing over time. Women in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq are afraid now to have babies, and when they do give birth, instead of asking if it is a girl or a boy, they ask ‘is it normal?’. I was tempted to include a list of illnesses but it is two pages long… Bush’s Lies… Soldiers, who served in Bradley fighting vehicles, where it was common to sit on ammunition boxes where depleted uranium ammunition was stored, are now reporting that many have rectal cancer. For the first time, medical doctors in Yugoslavia and Iraq have reported multiple in situ unrelated cancers developing in patients, and even in families who are living in highly contaminated areas. Even stranger, they report that cancer was unknown in previous generations. Very rare and unusual cancers and birth defects have also been reported to be increasing above normal levels prior to 1991, not only in war torn countries, but in neighbouring countries from transboundary contamination. Dr. Keith Baverstock, a senior radiation advisor who was on the staff of the World Health Organization, co-authored a report in November 2001, warning that the long-term health effects of depleted uranium would endanger Iraq’s civilian population, and that the dry climate would increase exposure from the tiny particles blowing around and be inhaled for years to come. The WHO refused to give him permission to publish the study, bowing to pressure from the IAEA. Dr. Baverstock released the damning report to the media in February 2004. Pekka Haavisto, Chairman of the UN Environment Program’s Post-Conflict Assessment Unit in Geneva, shares Baverstock’s anxiety about depleted uranium but UNEP experts have not been allowed into Iraq to assess the pollution. "DEPLETED URANIUM SCARE" - Claimed by President George W. Bush on the official White House website: "During the Gulf War, coalition forces used armour-piercing ammunition made from depleted uranium, which is ideal for the purpose because of its great density. In recent years, the Iraqi regime has made substantial efforts to promote the false claim that the depleted uranium rounds fired by coalition forces have caused cancers and birth defects in Iraq. Iraq has distributed horrifying pictures of children with birth defects and linked them to depleted uranium. The campaign has two major propaganda assets:" "Uranium is a name that has frightening associations in the mind of the average person, which makes the lie relatively easy to sell; and Iraq could take advantage of an established international network of antinuclear activists who had already launched their own campaign against depleted uranium." "But scientists working for the World Health Organization, the UN Environmental Programme, and the European Union could find no health effects linked to exposure to depleted uranium." (My emphasis) ***** Please follow the links and google ‘Depleted Uranium’ if you want to find out the huge amount of information that is being blocked by the ‘powers that be’. See above note that the World Health Organisation also suppressed the report from Dr. Keith Baverstock. ***** I am sorry for so many quotes from other articles but believe me there is tons of it out there. Why is nobody talking about this? There is also much more to be found about Chernobyl and its devastating after affects which I am researching now too. The bastards that want to build more atomic power stations don’t want you to know about Chernobyl or what happened in the ‘earthquake proof’ Japanese reactor problems recently. I think that this problem cuts across and absolutely silences any and every argument about left or right politics in any and every country in the world. What can you gain by electing Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich if your babies are going to die at birth or worse, live a horrible deformed short life? Never mind about the war mongers Guliani or Billary, they will cover this up and take us to war again and after Iran, it will be Syria next and then Venezuela. Think I’m joking? The South American bank opens for business soon in November; do you think they will let that stand? The already tried to get rid of Chavez once and a religious nut, whose name I forget, advocated Chavez’s assassination. It is already too late for thousands of Afghanis, Serbs and Iraqis and it is only a matter of time before it spreads around the world raising the radiation to a lethal, slow death for millions. More later about Chernobyl. ***** n/a A well travelled and slightly worse for wear 70 year old englishman; widower, several children and grandchildren and a penchant for wondering 'what is the hidden agenda' in almost everything I read. A keen interest in american culture (an oxymoron?) (JOKE!) and politics and an international world view, except where I haven't got first hand experience of the parts of the world I have not visited. Editor of some books about the Qur'an and Islam. teacher of english in little known countries like Mauritania, Istanbul, Turkey and Morocco. Contact Author Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2007 ***************************************************************** 40 Rocky Mountain News: Labor says letter sent to wrong dept. By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News October 30, 2007 Presidential candidate and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama sent a letter to U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao last week suggesting how she could do more to help ill nuclear weapons workers. But Shelby Hallmark, the Labor Department's director for the worker compensation program, said that all of Obama's suggestions are outside the Labor Department's control. Instead, they come under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, he said. "Basically, he sent the letter to the wrong secretary," Hallmark said. Obama, through a spokeswoman, disagreed. "Secretary Chao herself acknowledged the problems with the program, and it's time questions are answered to stop this program from falling through the cracks," Amy Brundage said. © 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 41 Rockford Register Star: Workers continue to fix leak at Byron nuclear plant - Rockford, IL - BusinessRockford.com Oct 29, 2007 @ 05:00 AM ALAN LEÓN | RRSTAR.COM The Byron Nuclear Plant was shut down Oct. 22 because of repairs being made on a cooling-water pipe. Oct 31, 2007 @ 12:05 AM By Rob Baxter BYRON - Workers at Exelon’s nuclear plant continue to work around the clock to fix a leak in a cooling pipe and make any other repairs after the plant was shut down 12 days ago. Bob Kartheiser, plant spokesman, said he could not provide a specific time frame for repairs to be completed. The plant has been shut down since Oct. 19 after a dime-sized leak was found in a pipe that carries water from the Rock River to cool equipment at the plant. He did say repairs and inspections are on schedule. Plant officials have said the leak does not present any safety concerns for workers or the public. The situation, however, did pose a danger, according to David Lochbaum, director of the nuclear safety project for the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists. “(Exelon) no longer had confidence that, in the event of an accident, the essential services water system would be able to function as needed,” Lochbaum said. “They could not assure the public would be protected. That is why they shut down the plant.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has four inspectors on-site as the work continues. Two are there all the time, officials have said. Lochbaum said the NRC inspectors will determine if the corrosion that led to the leak was an isolated problem or representative of a larger one. Piping could have failed during an accident, if a pipe connected to the reactor vessel broke, draining the water needed to cool the reactor, Lochbaum said. “Generally speaking, there are enough backups and redundancies built into the system that, had only one leak been found in the piping, those backups would have allowed parts of the system to survive,” Lochbaum said. “Had there been more, the whole system could have shut down.” Kartheiser said references to an accident are pure speculation. “From my perspective, I don’t deal with speculation,” Kartheiser said after reviewing information from Lochbaum with Exelon officials. “This pipe carries river water, and this occurred on the non-nuclear side of the plant.” Exelon workers and specialty vendors have been assembled and are working various shifts to complete the repairs as soon as possible, Kartheiser said. “We’ve had to do some concrete excavation, some chipping away and removing of certain equipment,” he said. “We’ve cut out a portion of pipe and replaced that; all that takes time.” Staff writer Rob Baxter can be reached at 815-987-1369 or rbaxter@rrstar.com. ***************************************************************** 42 The Hindu: Nuke reprocessing capability has to be augmented Tuesday, October 30, 2007 : 1905 Hrs Mumbai (PTI): India's nuclear reprocessing capability has to be augmented within the shortest possible time in order to supply fuel for the first commercial 500 MW prototype fast breeder reactor, S Banerjee, Director, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, said. BARC is committed to supply the plutonium-uranium oxide fuel for the country's first PFBR at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, which is presently under construction. It involves reprocessing large quantity of spent fuel and converting recoveed plutonium into fast reactor fuel of exact specifications, Banerjee said, while delivering a lecture on the 98th Founder's Day here on Tuesday. He urged BARC scientists to cooperate with the Nuclear Recycle Group and Nuclear Fuels Group to complete this task within schedule. PFBR is scheduled to be commissioned in 2010. "The reprocessing capability, therefore needs to be augmented and this has to be done within the shortest possible time," Banerjee said. "We have plans to integrate reprocessing and waste management plants and to scale up the plant size considerably to be able to augment reprocessing capacity," he said. This would also bring the desired economy of scale Banerjee said, adding that the programme has several components including basic process development, design of innovative plant layout, development of a variety of equipment and re-motivation of operation. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 43 ReviewJournal.com: Gibbons turns tables on hearing snub Oct. 30, 2007 Governor won't attend nuclear waste session after all By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- First he was out. Then he was in. Now, Gov. Jim Gibbons has sent word that he is not going to appear after all at a U.S. Senate hearing Wednesday on nuclear waste in Nevada. Gibbons was left off an initial lineup to testify at the hearing about the Yucca Mountain Project. He secured an invitation on Thursday after complaining he felt he had been snubbed by Democratic organizers. But his aides on Monday advised the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to cross the governor off the witness list. Gibbons will be tied up Wednesday in a meeting with state Budget Director Andrew Clinger and department heads to discuss state economic forecasts and possible budget cuts because of projections of revenue shortfalls, spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin said. Subbotin said the meeting was on the schedule before Gibbons sent his letter of complaint on Oct. 24 to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the committee. "We had hoped to accommodate both," Subbotin said. "We tried to make it work where he could leave on the red eye and get back on the red eye, but it was not gong to work out." "The governor is in the process of contacting key state leaders and is also in the process of announcing plans to bring them together to assess and evaluate the numbers," Subbotin said. "Unfortunately we are working with timely information, and at the end of the day, the governor felt the budget challenges took precedent." The Senate committee once again rearranged its list of speakers, who will include Sens. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and John Ensign, R-Nev., and officials from the Energy Department, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. As originally planned, Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, will present the state's views on DOE plans to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was planning to take part and promised to ask tough questions. She has promoted herself as the presidential candidate most likely to stop the project if elected. Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., last week lobbied for Gibbons to be invited to speak and said the Democrat-organized hearing was evolving into "a dog and pony show" that could be dominated by speakers looking to score political points. On Monday, Porter said, "It was unfortunate (Gibbons) will not be able to attend. The most important thing is for everyone to work together." Cortez Masto was picked to testify because the hearing is expected to focus on repository licensing and legal issues, Democrats said. "It is unfortunate that Governor Gibbons will miss this important hearing; however, Sen. Reid looks forward to presenting Nevada's case alongside Sen. Ensign and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto," Reid spokesman Jon Summers said. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 ***************************************************************** 44 ReviewJournal.com: ENERGY DEPARTMENT COLLECTION: Database on Yucca challenged Oct. 30, 2007 State calls postings incomplete, confusing By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU ON THE WEB: The Energy Department's Yucca Mountain licensing support network Web site: www.lsnnet.gov WASHINGTON -- Nevada officials said Monday that a public database containing Yucca Mountain documents should be thrown out, charging that important material about the nuclear waste project still has not been posted as required. Attorneys for the state filed a legal petition seeking to invalidate the document collection certified earlier this month by the Department of Energy. Key documents still are not being made available to analysts trying to prepare for possible license hearings for the proposed waste repository, the state indicated. At the same time, "millions" of e-mails and irrelevant documents were put on the database to confuse reviewers, the head of the state's nuclear office said. The Nevada petition filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the latest move in a legal tug of war over access to millions of pages of analyses, reports and technical documents underpinning the government's effort to establish a high-level radioactive waste site in the state. Energy Department spokesman Allen Benson defended the management of the database, which is called the licensing support network, or LSN. "DOE has made available on the LSN over 3.5 million documents consisting of more than 30 million pages," Benson said. "DOE certification of that collection complied with all NRC regulations. "We are in the process of reviewing Nevada's challenge and look forward to responding," he added. Nevada officials said the database still lacks key documents. "Not only has DOE failed to provide the most important documents on its LSN, but it has made the entire system unnecessarily cumbersome by stacking it with literally millions of questionably relevant documents," said Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects. The Energy Department certified the Yucca Mountain database in 2004, but it was rejected by a panel of NRC judges after Nevada filed similar charges that it was lacking. It has taken DOE three years and millions of dollars to rework the document collection. Ward Sproat, head of the Yucca project, has vowed that the new database is solid. The database by law must be certified for six months before the Energy Department is allowed to file an application to build a nuclear waste complex at the Yucca site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The purpose for the time element is to give Nevada and others time to review the documents and to prepare for complex license hearings. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 45 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: No softballs for Yucca Today: October 30, 2007 at 7:15:28 PDT Democrats finally get chance to lead the questioning on nuclear waste burial plan The first oversight hearing on Yucca Mountain since the Democrats won control of Congress is scheduled for Wednesday before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Before January this committee was headed by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a vocal supporter of burying the nation's commercial nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Now the committee is headed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., a long-standing opponent of the project. Among her fears is that water destined for the Colorado River - which provides drinking water for much of the West, including Southern California - will seep through the buried waste and become contaminated. When Republicans led the key committees overseeing Yucca Mountain, the serious questions about the safety of the project gave way to a higher priority - getting it licensed. The Republicans, at the behest of the nuclear power industry, a big contributor to GOP campaigns, sought an answer to the waste problem - any answer - so that the construction of more nuclear power plants could be justified. Since the issue of burying the waste came up 25 years ago, however, a majority of Democrats has opposed Yucca Mountain for safety reasons. The entire Nevada congressional delegation has always opposed the project, with overwhelming support from Nevada's population and state and local government leaders. It is extraordinarily helpful to the state's cause that Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader, making him Congress' most powerful opponent of a Yucca repository. We, too, have always strongly opposed the project. There is no design that can prevent the buried waste from polluting the air and water. Although planners say the pollution can be kept to safe levels, they cannot produce the science to prove it. And the plan for daily cross-country shipments of the deadly waste to the mountain by rail and truck over 25 years is a plan for catastrophe . Wednesday's hearing will finally give opponents of the project - including committee member and presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who called for the hearing - a chance to insist upon answers to their toughest questions. Unlike past hearings, the federal managers of the Yucca Mountain project will not have a Republican committee chairman running interference for them. All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 46 Las Vegas SUN: Gibbons backs off on trip to D.C. to focus on budget Today: October 30, 2007 at 7:13:23 PDT By David McGrath Schwartz Las Vegas Sun Sometimes, you just want to be asked out on a date, even if you don't intend to say yes. Gov. Jim Gibbons and his allies complained last week that he was not invited to testify at a U.S. Senate committee hearing on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site. So the committee changed course and invited Gibbons to appear. But Gibbons decided Monday that he couldn't go after all because of pressing state budget business. He will send a written statement instead and will spend Wednesday, the day of the hearing, meeting with staff to review tax revenues and proposed budget cuts. "The governor felt the budget took precedent," spokeswoman Melissa Subbotin said. "We weren't able to accommodate both. We had hoped we would be able to, but the governor believed that it would be most prudent to stay in the state." Subbotin said Gibbons couldn't push back the meeting because of the "timely nature of budget issues facing the state." Those issues have arisen because gaming and sales tax revenue have grown more slowly than expected. The governor has asked state departments to prepare for a 5 percent cut. But a number of officials have refused, including Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Jim Rogers and Clark County Commission Chairman Rory Reid. Subbotin said Gibbons will reach out to elected leaders to set up meetings on budget cuts. Rogers said he's open to those discussions. Reid said, "I'm glad to hear that he's willing to hear different perspectives." Gibbons had been criticized by Democrats and some in his own party for announcing the possible cuts without consulting state leaders. His decision not to go to Washington left political insiders mystified. Republican Rep. Jon Porter, who had sided with Gibbons in criticizing Democrats for not inviting the governor to the Yucca hearing, expressed disappointment. "The congressman feels he would have offered valuable testimony," Porter spokesman Matt Leffingwell said. But Subbotin said that Gibbons thinks Nevada's views will be well -represented. "He has great confidence in the delegation." David McGrath Schwartz can be reached at 259-2327 or at david.schwartz@lasvegassun.com. All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 47 RIA Novosti: Siberian uranium enrichment center open to all - Russian UN envoy 10:14 | 30/ 10/ 2007 UNITED NATIONS, October 30 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will grant any country in the world the use of an international uranium enrichment center currently being constructed in east Siberia, Russia's ambassador to the UN has said. The center, part of Moscow's non-proliferation initiative to create a network of enrichment centers under the UN nuclear watchdog's supervision, will be based at a chemical plant in Angarsk. The center will also be responsible for the disposal of nuclear waste. "The center, co-founded by Russia and Kazakhstan, will be open to third countries without any political preconditions," Vitaly Churkin said on Monday. He said the center would be able to play an important role in nuclear nonproliferation by ensuring access to peaceful nuclear energy for all countries complying with their obligations in that realm. Russia and its ex-Soviet neighbor Kazakhstan, which holds 15% of the world's uranium reserves, signed documents in October 2006 to establish their first joint venture to enrich uranium, intended to begin in 2013. Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said last Thursday that other countries have shown interest in the Angarsk project. Ivanov also said fuel for nuclear power plants was a market product and any country represented in the International Atomic Energy Agency that was also signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty had the right to buy it. "But this is only in theory," Ivanov said. "Due to a variety of political reasons, a country may be denied access to uranium." Ukraine's Fuel and Energy Ministry said in June that the country intended to join the project in the near future. Russian President Vladimir Putin first raised the idea of joint nuclear enrichment centers early last year, in a bid to defuse tension over Iran's controversial nuclear program. The president said the centers would give countries transparent access to civilian nuclear technology without provoking international fears that enriched uranium could be used for covert weapons programs. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 48 Tri-City Herald: Panel calls to end GNEP Published Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER The Department of Energy is moving too fast on research and development for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a program that might bring major new processing facilities to Hanford, said a National Academy of Science report released Monday. The report was ordered by the Bush administration and prepared by a committee of the Academies' National Research Council to look at DOE nuclear energy programs, including GNEP's plans to reprocess used fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. "All committee members agree that the GNEP program should not go forward and that it should be replaced by a less aggressive research program," the report said. Now GNEP is diverting attention and money from more immediately promising programs that are working to revive and advance nuclear power generation, it said. DOE disagreed, with a senior official saying the committee's concerns were based on a misconception of GNEP plans. A comprehensive program to reprocess all used commercial nuclear fuel will take decades to fully develop, and DOE's current plans are consistent with the pace and process the committee is recommending, Dennis Spurgeon, DOE assistant secretary for nuclear energy, said in a conference call with news media. Hanford is one of 11 sites proposed for reprocessing used nuclear power plant fuel and then consuming its plutonium and radioactive waste in an advanced burner reactor. The complex would create about 8,000 jobs. But the technologies required for large commercial reprocessing programs are too early in development to justify DOE's accelerated schedule for construction of commercial facilities that would use these technologies, the report said. "DOE claims that the program will save time and money if pursued on the commercial scale, but the committee believes that the opposite will likely be true and found no economic justification," according to a news release on the committee's report. At best, the technology is at a stage that would justify beginning to work at an engineering scale, the report said. Although DOE believes commercial-scale reprocessing could reduce the need for a second geological repository to supplement Yucca Mountain, Nev., the near-term need "is far from clear," the report said. It also pointed out that DOE has acknowledged the cost of GNEP is not commercially competitive under current circumstances. "There is no economic justification to go forward with this program at anything approaching commercial scale," the committee said. "DOE claims that the GNEP is being implemented to save the United States nearly a decade in time and a substantial amount of money. In view of the technical challenges involved, the committee believes that the opposite will likely be true," it said. It called for a delay in a 2008 decision on GNEP by the energy secretary, which would follow completion of an environmental impact study. It would be irresponsible not to make a recommendation on the path forward for GNEP before the current presidential administration ends, Spurgeon countered. The environmental study will look generically at closing the fuel cycle by reprocessing spent fuel and will not address details such as sites for new facilities or their size, he said. Instead of moving so quickly on GNEP, DOE should be putting more resources into the startup of new commercial nuclear power plants, the report said. Startups are falling behind schedule for lack of money for federal support, it said. Nuclear energy programs should not be competing against each other for money, but working on getting more money overall to support a 50 percent jump in demand for electrical energy between now and 2030, Spurgeon said. The Tri-City Development Council does not expect significant progress on GNEP, such as site selection, until the next presidential administration, said Gary Petersen, TRIDEC vice president for Hanford research. That's in part because TRIDEC doubts there will be money for GNEP in the federal fiscal year that began Oct. 1. DOE is operating under a continuing resolution until Nov. 16 because Congress failed to pass a fiscal year 2008 budget. When that expires there is a possibility that Congress may pass an omnibus bill for the rest of the year for DOE rather than developing a detailed budget for the year, Petersen said. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press ***************************************************************** 49 The Coloradoan: Laws would increase public oversight of mining www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO. Tuesday, October 30, 2007 Lawmakers: Restore groundwater and make more information available State lawmakers from Northern Colorado are appropriately seeking to even the playing field for the public when it comes to proposed uranium mines in Colorado. In legislation that is still being crafted, state Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas, both Democrats, and state Sen. Steve Johnson, a Republican, plan to introduce legislation to protect groundwater and increase public oversight related to uranium mines. The state legislation, which could come as a single bill or in several pieces, comes on the heels of a Canadian company's plans to mine uranium in Northern Colorado, primarily using an in-situ mining technique. At the federal level, U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave has said she will oppose Powertech's proposal because the company has not been forthcoming on details of its proposal. A rapid increase in the price of uranium has generated more interest in uranium deposits in Colorado - a state where mineral rights generally supersede surface property rights. Powertech's announcement has generated criticism from some property owners between Wellington and Nunn, who are concerned about water safety and the ability to use their property during and after mining. In-situ mining involves pumping treated water into the ground to dissolve and then extract uranium deposits. The ore likely would be transported to Wyoming for processing. Kefalas and Fischer told the Coloradoan editorial board they seek legislation that ensures that groundwater is restored to its original quality following mining operations and that the public is given more information regarding mining exploration. Currently, Colorado state law allows such information to be kept private during the exploration process. The lawmakers also hope to include reasonable accommodation language that may require mining companies to pay for loss of use of surface rights. Bill language could include a "bad actor" element in which the history of the mining processes used is taken into consideration before permits are approved. Powertech officials have said such proposed legislation will not deter them because they have faith in the safety of the in-situ process. Such protections as proposed by Fischer, Kefalas and Johnson deserve support. These efforts should not be misconstrued as attempts to ban uranium mining in Colorado, but to ensure that mining processes are fair to the public and to the environment for the short and long term. Copyright ©2007 The Fort Collins Coloradoan. ***************************************************************** 50 IPS-English DEVELOPMENT-NAMIBIA: Interest in Uranium Powers Desalination Plans Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:00:39 -0800 Nhamoinesu Mseyamwa WINDHOEK, Oct 29 (IPS) - Efforts to build Namibia's first large-scale desalination plant are gaining momentum. The project is a joint undertaking of the Namibian Water Corporation (NamWater), a government owned utility, and mining company UraMin Inc. Capable of producing more than 50 million cubic metres of potable water per year, the facility will come with a price tag of 140 million dollars. It is to be located near the coastal town of Swakopmund which it will serve, along with Walvis Bay; both communities are in the Erongo region -- a large but sparsely populated area. The plant will also supply local uranium mines. According to NamWater, Erongo currently consumes about 12 million cubic metres of water annually, with Walvis Bay accounting for 4.3 million cubic metres of this total, Rio Tinto's Rössing Uranium mine 3.3 million cubic metres, and Swakopmund three million cubic metres. Most of the water is sourced from underground aquifers. ”The establishment of a desalination plant with a capacity of 50 million cubic metres per annum means that our bulk water supply to the coast will increase four-fold,” says Vaino Shivute, chief executive officer of NamWater, which has indicated it will foot half the bill for the plant. Vaino adds that his organisation has already begun to seek international funding for the project. UraMin's interest in building the plant stems from its development of Namibia's third major uranium mine at Trekkopje, near Swakopmund. It is expected that the new mine will require about 20 million cubic metres of water annually when it comes on line early in 2009. Plans for a desalination plant were initially unveiled in 1998, when NamWater was seeking to meet a growing demand for water in the coastal regions of Namibia. Five years later, however, the initiative was shelved. This followed a fraught tender process in which NamWater was unsuccessfully sued by one of the companies bidding for the plant contract, on the grounds that its tender was more cost-effective. In another twist, the utility failed to sign a contract with Weir-Envig, the firm chosen to build the plant, as the two parties could not agree on many issues. In addition, there was a sharp reduction in consumption in areas the plant was intended to service. It was further discovered that the aquifers in the region held far more water than was previously believed. ”Usage had also dropped as measures to provide purified sewage water to residents for garden irrigation come into play. The region's pilchard canning industry, once a major water consumer, had been forced to downsize in the face of diminishing quotas, further reducing demand,” Timothy Waineki of the Erongo Regional Council told IPS. There were further concerns that the desalinated water would be too expensive for coastal residents, he said. This time around, things appear to be moving more smoothly with the project, which NamWater says is in line with sustainable development objectives. However, at a public meeting held in Swakopmund in August to discuss the possible environmental effects of the initiative, residents expressed concern about aesthetic aspects of the plant. They fear it could be an eyesore for people driving between Swakopmund and Henties Bay to the north. Alex du Plessis -- chairman of Turgis Consulting, the company tasked with carrying out the environmental impact assessment study for the plant -- remains optimistic about public attitudes towards it. ”There have been proposals to build desalination plants in the past, but nothing has come of them; our project isn't just a pipe dream and we are enjoying a lot of support from the communities.” The facility will consist of two parallel pipelines running to and from the sea, a sump on the beach to ensure a steady stream of water, and the desalination plant itself -- which will be built mostly underground about two kilometres from the coastline. NamWater is also planning a new, larger pipeline from the desalination plant to Swakopmund and a new reservoir that will mix underground water and desalinated water with the aim of improving overall quality. Uranium prices have been on a roller coaster ride in recent years, from ten dollars per pound in 2003 to more than 130 dollars in June this year. The price was about 80 dollars a pound at the time of writing. However, rising oil prices and concerns about global warming are prompting renewed interest in uranium, which is the standard fuel used in nuclear reactors. Favourable prices caused Rössing Uranium, the country's oldest uranium mine located north-east of Swakopmund, to announce last year at its 30th anniversary celebrations that it had put aside plans to close down. And at the beginning of this year, the Perth-based Paladin Resources announced its intention to go ahead with Namibia's second uranium mine -- the Langer Heinrich project. Yet another mine, the Toronto-based Forsys Metals' Valencia project, which is also in the country's coastal desert, is being fast tracked for production in early 2009, and will require water for trial mining by the end of 2008. Duane Parnham, chairman of Forsys Metals, is hoping that the NamWater pipeline to the Rössing mine can be extended to the Valencia deposit, should it become a viable concern. Most, if not all, of Namibia's uranium deposits are found in the Namib Desert where the cost of water is high, something that can make mine operations uneconomic. Water is used in the extraction of uranium from ore. ”Water consumption is an important design consideration for the Trekkopje project,” says Ian Stalker, chief executive officer of UraMin. ”The establishment of the Trekkopje mine will hasten the implementation of sea water desalination, which is an option for water supply that NamWater has been researching for a number of years.” NamWater says it is currently investigating the capacity of its existing pipeline network to manage the predicted upswing in water demand due to the boom in mining activities in the region. It is expected that a provisional timetable for tenders for the desalination plant will be made available next month, while the contract is to be awarded by the end of April 2008. The plant is expected to be operational towards the end of next year. (ENDS/IPS/AF/SA/AB/DC/TW/WW/IF/SSL/JH/07) ***** + http://www.namwater.com.na (NamWater) + Erongo Regional Council (http://www.erc.com.na) + UraMin Inc (http://www.uramin.com) ***************************************************************** 51 Salt Lake Tribune: Canadian uranium mining company buys entire town in southeastern Utah Ticaboo Article Last Updated: 10/30/2007 09:51:02 AM MDT The town of Ticaboo in southeastern Utah has been sold to a Canadian mining company that bought the mothballed Shootaring Canyon uranium processing mill this spring. Riverton, Wyo.-based U.S. Energy Corp. said Monday that it sold the townsite for $2.7 million to Uranium One Inc. The townsite is five miles from the long-dormant mill, which Uranium One purchased in April from U.S. Energy Corp. along with 38,000 acres of mineral claims and leases in San Juan County, in the Lisbon Valley southeast of Moab and in the Henry Mountains northwest of Ticaboo. In that earlier sale, U.S. Energy received $6.6 million in cash and 6 million shares of Uranium One stock, plus $20 million if the mill returns to commercial production, $7.5 million when a revived mill accepts its first delivery of minerals from the exchanged lands and a 5 percent royalty on mill production, up to $12.5 million. "Housing is in limited supply in this area," said U.S. Energy Corp. chief executive Keith Larsen, "and Uranium One has recognized the importance of owning a fully developed Ticaboo townsite to accommodate its employees as it prepares the Shootaring Canyon Mill for full production." The townsite includes a 149-unit mobile home park, a subdivision with lots for 98 single-family homes, a recreational vehicle park, a 70-unit motel, a restaurant/lounge, a convenience store and a boat storage-and-service facility. Although only half a dozen homes have been built there, Larsen said numerous sites in the mobile home park are filled by employees of Dennison Mines, which operates a mine about eight miles from Ticaboo. Other employees stay regularly at the motel, he added. The demand for housing will expand significantly if and when Uranium One completes the lengthy process of securing state Division of Radiation Control approval for a permit to resume mill operations. "We'll be starting from scratch, so we'll need to hire a workforce," said Chris Sattler, senior vice president of investor relations for the Canadian company, which was known as sxr Uranium One until dropping the sxr portion in August. "This townsite will provide our workforce with a cheaper form of accommodation." Along with the permitting work, Sattler said Uranium One is assessing the resources of the properties it bought earlier from U.S. Energy Corp. along with two mines - the Velvet and Frank M. - obtained during the summer as part of its acquisition of Energy Metals Corp. "So we now have the mill, two of the original properties the mill was built for and this townsite," said Sattler. Uranium One, which has operations in Kazakhstan, South Africa and Australia, was eager to expand into southern Utah because of the relatively high grade of uranium deposits in the West. In addition, Sattler said, "from a political risk standpoint, the U.S. is the best place in the world. It's a nice bit of diversification into a first-world jurisdiction." News of Ticaboo's acquisition also pleased Garfield County Commissioner Maloy Dodds. "Anything that develops southern Utah excites me," he said, citing Dennison's ongoing operation and the refiling of thousands of uranium claims originally staked in the 1970s before the price of uranium plummeted. Uranium was selling for $80 a pound Monday, down from a high of $138 during the summer but up from $75 a pound earlier this fall. Dodds said a study is close to being done assessing the possibility of extending electricity to Ticaboo (a Paiute word meaning "friendly"), which depends for power on diesel-fueled generators. mikeg@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 52 Daily Times: ElBaradei proposes global reserve of N-fuels Leading News Resource of Pakistan Wednesday, October 31, 2007 * Says ‘equitable system’ of supplies would bring enrichment operations under control UNITED NATIONS: The head of the UN atomic watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, on Monday pressed for a global reserve of nuclear fuel to safely meet growing worldwide demand for nuclear energy.In a report on his agency’s activities to the UN General Assembly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief said his agency was weighing a proposal for “an actual or virtual reserve fuel bank of last resort under IAEA auspices” for supplying nuclear fuel. With the Iranian nuclear issue in mind, he said the IAEA was also looking at proposals to convert “a national facility into an international enrichment centre” or “the construction of a new multinational enrichment facility under IAEA control.”Tehran is refusing to heed UN Security Council demands that it halt uranium enrichment, arguing that it is entitled to pursue enrichment as a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Equitable system: In his report to the UN, the IAEA chief proposed “an equitable system” to supply nuclear material, followed by steps to “bring any new operations for uranium enrichment and plutonium separation under multinational control.” He noted that there are 439 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries, supplying just over 15 percent of the world’s electricity. Half of the 30 reactors now being built were in developing countries, he said. But he said, “no amount of US irrational policies will be able to dissuade us from pursuing our legitimate rights to nuclear energy and interests.” afp Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions ***************************************************************** 53 WNN: End GNEP, focus on start-ups, says US panel 30 October 2007 The USA should replace GNEP by a less aggressive research program, instead giving top priority to achieving new reactor start-ups, a panel of the US National Academy of Sciences has concluded. Domestic radioactive waste management, security and nuclear fuel supply needs do not justify the commercial-scale reprocessing facilities visualized in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) research and development (R&D) program, and there is "no economic justification to proceed", the panel found. Instead, the R&D program to develop nuclear reprocessing and recycling technology and facilities under GNEP should be replaced by a "less aggressive" program, and higher priority should be given to facilitating the start-up of new nuclear power plants under the Nuclear Power 2010 scheme. According to the National Academies' report, the technologies required for achieving GNEP's goals are "too early in development" to justify the Department of Energy (DoE)'s accelerated schedule for construction of commercial facilities. DoE claims that it is essential to pursue the program on the commercial scale to save time and money, but the report's committee believes the opposite, and also questioned whether the need to reduce the overall amount of radioactive waste, another stated goal of the program, currently exists. Moreover, it said, there has been insufficient peer review. The DoE begged to differ, with Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear energy, saying the National Academies' concerns were based on a misconception. A comprehensive program to reprocess all commercial used fuel would take decades to develop and GNEP's current plans were consistent with the pace and process being recommended by the National Academies committee, he told journalists. The committee advised that instead of GNEP, the Nuclear Power 2010 program, a joint DOE-industry effort to support the near-term deployment of new nuclear power plants, should take the highest priority. Progress with this program had been far slower than proposed, the report concluded. "If nuclear power is indeed going to play an increased role in meeting US energy needs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Nuclear Power 2010 needs full funding in all aspects," the committee said. Another program that was unlikely to reach its goals because of the current focus on GNEP was the Generation-IV project to develop a next-generation nuclear power plant in operation by 2017. The National Hydrogen Initiative (NHI) to generate hydrogen from nuclear energy would be dependent on the success of Generation-IV. The review of DoE nuclear research programm was carried out at the behest of the Bush administration through the Office of Management and Budget. The panel was tasked with evaluating GNEP, Nuclear Power 2010, the Generation-IV and NHI programme, and the facilities at the Idaho National Laboratories (INL). GNEP aims to develop a closed nuclear fuel cycle that would enhance energy security while promoting non-proliferation. The major technical part is the development and deployment of technologies for reprocessing and re-use of used nuclear fuel and long-lived radioactive waste. Sixteen countries have signed up to the scheme, under which so-called 'fuel-cycle nations' would provide assured supplies of nuclear fuel to 'client' nations. The international aspects of GNEP were outside the remit of the National Academies' report. WNA's US Nuclear Power Industry information paper ***************************************************************** 54 Reuters: U.S. Energy: Ticaboo Townsite sold to Uranium One | Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:20pm EDT Crested announces the sale of the Ticaboo Townsite to Uranium One for approximately $2.7 mln in cash. The Ticaboo Townsite is located approximately 5 miles from Uranium One's Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill in southeastern Utah, which was purchased from U.S. Energy on April 30, 2007. The fully developed Ticaboo Townsite includes commercial operations, a 149-unit mobile home park, a single-family residential subdivision with 98 lots and an RV park. Commercial operations include a 70-unit motel, a restaurant/lounge, convenience store and a boat storage/service facility. Under an agreement with USE, Crested shares 50/50 in the cash flows from Ticaboo and will receive credit for 50% of the $2.7mm proceeds from this sale. © Reuters2007All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 55 NRC: Fuel Cycle Safety: One Commissioner’s Perspectives Speech - s-07-047 - OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: Public Affairs Web Site Dr. Peter B. Lyons, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency Fuel Cycle Safety Workshop Wilmington, NC October 17, 2007 It is an honor to speak to the Fuel Cycle Safety Workshop. I am pleased to share my perspectives today on the role of this Workshop in the renewed global interest in nuclear energy and to discuss some of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) future challenges in this area. Many meetings focus on the reactor aspects of any nuclear renaissance. But potential new reactors, as well as the existing reactor fleets, function only when all the elements of the fuel cycle operate safely. This Workshop is not only important to assuring safety of existing facilities, but it is also taking place at a time of significant change in the global outlook of the industry. It is, thus, an excellent opportunity for industry and regulators to explore perspectives on fuel cycle safety that may influence new facilities. Global cooperation on nuclear safety is important, since nuclear energy can no longer be regarded as a strictly domestic matter for any single country. Nuclear power is now truly international, from the mining of the uranium ore, through nearly all the steps of the fuel cycle. Answers to, or expertise in, all the technical challenges in that complete cycle do not reside totally within any country. We in the United States have a great deal to learn from the international community in areas ranging from construction techniques, to UF6 deconversion, reprocessing and recycling technologies, and operations involving MOX. I don't mean to imply that the United States does not have much to contribute to the global community in these areas; however, the inescapable truth is that we have much to gain from interactions with the international community in terms of improving the safety of our nation's fuel cycle facilities. Through our global interactions, we exchange regulatory practices and technical information that enable safe operations both here and in other countries. There are changes on the horizon involving the entire fuel cycle. For example, when the price of uranium fell in the early 1980s, conventional uranium-mining production in the United States dropped precipitously. Many conventional mills ceased operations or closed permanently and began decommissioning and reclamation. But today, although conventional mills will continue to contribute to the supply of uranium, in-situ leach facilities are the predominant source of uranium production in the United States for reasons of both economy and reduced environmental impacts. Based on discussion with the industry, the NRC is preparing to review as many as 12 new applications for uranium recovery facilities in the foreseeable future, which represent a considerable increase in licensing activity. In addition, the international press reports many new mining and milling operations under development. On October 3, 2007, the NRC received an application from Oklahoma-based Energy Metals Corporation to construct and operate an in-situ uranium recovery facility at Moore Ranch in Campbell County, Wyo. It is the first application for a new uranium recovery facility submitted to the NRC since 1988. The NRC staff is currently reviewing the application to determine whether it contains sufficient information to begin detailed environmental and safety reviews. If the application is deemed acceptable, the Agency will formally docket it and publish a notice of opportunity to request an adjudicatory hearing. Other examples of changes on the horizon include advanced enrichment technologies at USEC and General Electric (GE). USEC was issued a construction and operating license in April 2007 for its American Centrifuge Plant. GE is evaluating the SILEX or Global Laser Enrichment technology for uranium enrichment and may submit a license application for an enrichment facility in early 2008. For my presentation today, I plan to offer some perspectives on the safety, future challenges, public transparency, and human capital as related to fuel cycle facilities. I will start with NRC’s top priority: SAFETY. Safety One aspect of this focus on safety involves the concept of safety culture. The NRC is currently seeking to improve its oversight of this attribute at licensed fuel cycle facilities. We recognize that there may be lessons to be learned from the recent safety culture initiative in our reactor oversight process that apply to other areas of regulatory oversight. While the regulatory framework for fuel cycle facilities is different from that for reactors, an approach to increase NRC oversight of safety culture at certain fuel-cycle-facility licensees will be evaluated through a pilot effort. This pilot will assess the applicability of the reactor safety culture components to certain fuel cycle facilities and examine how to incorporate them into our inspection program. We are evaluating the role of Agreement States in regulation of fuel cycle facilities. As you may know, the NRC allows the Agreement States to regulate the use of source material and byproduct material. Currently, 34 states have the status of an Agreement State. Because of the potential increase in the number of fuel cycle facilities, the Commission expressed concern regarding the significant resources required to license and inspect a large fuel facility and its potential impact on an Agreement State program and asked the NRC staff to make a recommendation on the feasibility of the Agency’s licensing all large fuel cycle facilities. A Commission decision will be available shortly. Natural hazards are another area in which knowledge continues to evolve, and we continue to learn from each significant event worldwide. By way of examples, construction of a first-of-its-kind, waste-vitrification plant at Hanford experienced a delay caused by the need to reevaluate seismic and other concerns. The December 2005 tsunami has led to rapid development in the state-of-the-art of prediction, propagation, and early warning systems. The implementation of performance-based, seismic criteria in a recent Early Site Permit also reflected a substantial change from the deterministic perspective of earlier years. In addition, the recent Niigata earthquake in Japan may provide new, important insights for the entire nuclear community. Future Challenges In recognition of the increased interest in nuclear power around the world, new approaches to management of the fuel cycle are being proposed that may significantly challenge the NRC. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is intended to develop the systems, technologies, and policy regimes to allow recycling of used fuel from light water reactors and, to a large extent, eliminate the actinides in fast-burner reactors in a way that enhances proliferation resistance. The resulting waste streams are envisioned to have characteristics that would lessen the volume and thermal challenges for a geologic repository. The GNEP initiative could involve several interconnected (and possibly co-located) facilities: (1) a Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center; (2) an Advanced Burner Reactor; and (3) an Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility. As currently envisioned, NRC would probably be the regulator for the Consolidated Fuel Treatment Center and the Advanced Burner Reactor, as these would be commercial enterprises. In addition, the NRC would need to be involved in development and operations of DOE's research facilities, such as the Advanced Fuel Cycle Facility, to understand issues that may affect its future licensing process. However, as DOE is formulating this program, it is not yet clear at what stage in its evolution the NRC will be participating. I believe that NRC's regulatory role will depend largely on DOE's and industry's participation and on legislation. The interdependence of the facilities, that is, defining how each facility affects the safety, safeguards, quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of the others, will require involvement of multiple NRC program offices. We must ensure that a stable and reliable regulatory infrastructure is in place well before an application is submitted. Our challenges will be to: (1) develop a regulatory framework for commercial GNEP facilities; (2) provide guidance to applicants; (3) develop qualified NRC staff to support a timely NRC licensing review; and (4) maintain an effective inspection program. NRC staff has already begun to consider a path forward, including modification of existing guidance and regulations and possible new rulemakings to address the safety and security requirements for these new technologies. Also under consideration is development of specific GNEP regulations applicable to both fuel reprocessing and fast burner reactors. Under a new agreement, DOE will provide technical information on GNEP to the Agency to enable our staff to develop the technological basis for GNEP--while making it clear that NRC will not license the planned DOE fuel-cycle research facility. Under the agreement, DOE will keep the NRC abreast of its work in de­velopment of new, proliferation-resistant, reprocessing systems for spent nuclear fuel and new burner reactors. Whether we modify existing regulations or develop new ones, experience gained in past operations must guide our efforts. We cannot afford to relearn past lessons as we build the next generation of fuel cycle facilities. One such area of experience involves control systems. Just as digital instrumentation and control systems offer advantages in reactor safety, they also offer advantages for the entire fuel cycle. But introduction of digital systems is neither simple nor guaranteed to prevent problems. For example, last summer a scram at Browns Ferry Unit 3 occurred when a digital network controlling the reactor recirculation pumps experienced a “data storm” of excessive traffic due to malfunction of one of the components on the network. It seems there was no 'limiter' designed into the network to ensure that the data flow remained within the capability of the network. In another example, earlier this summer, the power supply of the digital control system failed at the Honeywell UF6 conversion plant and placed plant components into a start-up configuration while the plant was operating. Operators were able to bypass the failed power supply and restore power to the work stations and communications network. However, when communications were re-established with the plant’s controllers, the controllers reinitialized as designed. Unfortunately, that design reconfigured the production equipment for a Acold start,@ which shut a number of valves. However, because the plant was operating and “hot,” the valve closure caused pressure increases in some of the process tanks. The operators noted the increasing pressures and shut the plant down safely. Another challenge for both industry and the NRC involves management of both high- and low-level wastes (LLW). We face a monumental task to review a license application for a potential Yucca Mountain waste repository whenever DOE submits its license application. LLW issues may also present challenges in the future. Without adequate LLW disposal sites, as highlighted by the recent plans to close Barnwell in 2008 to out-of-compact states, the NRC will be faced, in all probability, with assuring that the absence of disposal capacity for such wastes does not translate into unsafe and insecure storage of the waste by generating organizations. Another challenge involves a legislative mandate giving the NRC new responsibilities with respect to DOE’s military waste management activities for certain material resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. NRC's responsibilities include consulting with DOE in its determination of whether such waste is high-level waste (HLW), as well as monitoring its disposal. The concept behind this so-called "incidental" waste is that some material, resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, does not need to be disposed as HLW in a geologic repository. Such reduced disposal requirements are appropriate only if the residual radioactivity of the material, if properly controlled, is sufficiently low that it does not represent a hazard to public health and safety. Consequently, incidental waste is considered to be LLW, instead of HLW. DOE’s technical analyses are documented in a "waste determination" to evaluate whether waste is incidental or, alternatively, is HLW. Through a consultation process, NRC is mandated to provide to DOE its independent review of these waste determinations. While this waste determination process currently is only applicable to certain DOE military wastes, depending on details of a future possible implementation of GNEP, similar waste determinations may become appropriate for civilian waste as well. Public Transparency In addition to the challenges I’ve mentioned, we are continuously attempting to seek the appropriate balance to ensure that our regulatory processes are open to the public while maintaining the secure use and management of radioactive materials. But since NRC’s Mike Weber discussed this topic in more detail yesterday, my comments on it will be minimal. As Mike already noted, such policies represent a very delicate balance. As one example, in 2004, in an attempt to maintain the secure use and management of radioactive materials, we limited public access to all information at two of our licensed nuclear fuel cycle facilities. That policy, at the request of the DOE, was initiated in response to post-9/11 concerns that certain publicly available documents might contain security-sensitive information. Recently, the Commission recognized that too much information was being withheld, thus affecting our sharing of information on the recent spill at Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS). As a result, the Commission directed our staff to make many documents publicly available, relating to the Agency’s oversight of NFS in Tennessee and BWX Technologies in Virginia, that were previously withheld pursuant to that 2004 policy. Human Capital Let me now switch to the subject of human capital. Both the NRC and the industry are facing critical shortages of experienced staff. No nuclear power or fuel cycle facility can operate without trained and dedicated people who have made safety a priority. Of course, regulatory bodies must also have trained and knowledgeable staff. The global growth in nuclear power compels all of us to focus on training the next generation of construction workers, electricians, welders, engineers, operators, managers, and regulators. While NRC has experts in many of the core technical areas needed for licensing reviews of facilities for a spent fuel recycling program, we need additional expertise in several specialty fields to review the advanced technologies used in such a facility. Specifically, the NRC needs additional chemical engineers (with a detailed knowledge of reprocessing), actinide chemists, plutonium chemists, and radio-chemists. In addition, nuclear engineers with expertise in transmutation are needed to review fuel recycling facilities. You may be aware that the NRC is engaged in strenuous efforts to increase its staff by a net of 600 people, over 3 years, to handle the increased workload of new plant applications and other nuclear regulatory business. Obviously, we cannot simply hire people off the street and send them out to be regulators the next day. Even when hiring people with substantial experience in the industry, we have found that it takes from 6 months to a year of training before they are ready to assume regulatory responsibilities. For recent university graduates, it takes 1-2 years. We have also employed creative approaches to build our staff capabilities. One example is the implementation of NRC’s Graduate Fellowship Program for critical skills like corrosion chemistry and human factors. This Program is designed to attract and/or retain highly qualified individuals who aspire to work in areas requiring highly specialized technical knowledge and skills. This developmental program combines an initial period of work at the NRC with subsequent graduate education and a return to an NRC position that utilizes their increased knowledge. We also want to expand our staff’s knowledge base by drawing on the regulatory experiences in similar facilities around the world, such as La Hague, MELOX, and Atalante in France and Rokkasho in Japan. These and other countries have significant operational experience with facilities similar to those proposed now in the United States or which may be proposed in response to the GNEP. The discussions and presentations at this Workshop will be an important addition to the knowledge of our staff. The NRC considers participation of our staff in these types of workshops to be vital for many reasons. I have already noted that we learn from the experience of others. In addition, it is important that we share information related to our research and regulatory initiatives, get feedback on them, and receive new perspectives from research conducted around the world. By working together, we can provide invaluable guidance on safety issues to these operating and new facilities and help ensure that safety is always the top priority. ====================================================================== NRC speeches are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when speeches are posted to NRC's Web site. October 26, 2007 ***************************************************************** 56 Guardian Unlimited: Panel Urges End to Nuke Waste Proposal Monday October 29, 2007 10:31 PM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A panel of the National Academy of Sciences urged President Bush on Monday to abandon an ambitious plan to resume nuclear waste reprocessing that is the heart of the administration's push to expand the civilian use of nuclear power. A 17-member panel of the Academy's National Research Council said the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, has not been adequately peer reviewed and is banking on reprocessing technology that hasn't been proven, or isn't expected to be ready in the time the administration envisions. The report, released Monday, said GNEP research is taking money and focus away from other nuclear research programs and efforts to speed the construction of new nuclear power plants. ``All committee members agree that the GNEP program should not go forward and that it should be replaced by a less aggressive research program,'' said the panel. It said if the administration proceeds as planned there will be ``significant technical and financial risks.'' Bush announced the global nuclear initiative in early 2006 and has repeatedly touted it as key to U.S. efforts to deal with a growing amount of highly radioactive reactor waste and still allow a large expansion of commercial nuclear power. Internationally, the plan envisions a small number of countries including the United States and Russia supplying other nations with reactor fuel and reprocessing their used fuel. Only last week, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman cited the importance of the GNEP program. He said in a speech it ``represents the future of global nuclear power cooperation'' and will ``allow for a greater global reliance on civilian nuclear power to produce the electricity needed'' while safeguarding against proliferation. The Academy panel said it did not address the pros and cons of the international aspects of the GNEP program, but expressed deep reservations about its ability to address the U.S. waste disposal issue. Dennis Spurgeon, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for nuclear energy, said a positive element of the science panel's review was that most of the members accepted the need to ``close the fuel cycle'' and continued research into nuclear fuel reprocessing at some level. Spurgeon said committee conclusions represented ``a misconception of the (GNEP) program'' and that the department ``fully recognizes the complexity and time needed. ... We are talking about something that will, in fact, take decades to develop.'' The GNEP program has been criticized by nuclear nonproliferation activists and has received a chilly reception in Congress, which has refused to provide the short-term funding the Energy Department has requested. The administration wanted nearly $395 million for the program this year, but is getting $167 million. Although nuclear fuel reprocessing continues in Europe and Japan, the United States abandoned it in the 1970s because of concerns that the stream of pure plutonium that is created poses a nuclear proliferation risk. But the GNEP program envisions adopting a different reprocessing method that its advocates argue would not create pure plutonium. But the Academy panel of scientists said that ``significant technical problems remain to be solved'' in development of the new approach, known as the ``UREX'' process. But Spurgeon criticized the scientists' report for focusing too much on the UREX process, which he acknowledged will take some time to develop. The department, in fact, is pursuing with industry other more near-term reprocessing technologies that would ``close the fuel cycle ... something we need to get on with and get on with soon,'' he said. The long-term GNEP program's life-cycle cost has been put by the Energy Department at between $20 billion to $40 billion over several decades and includes construction of reprocessing plants and next-generation ``fast-burn'' reactors to burn some of the processed waste. The Energy Department maintains that the program in the long run will reduce the cost of commercial reactor waste disposal and remove the need for additional underground waste repositories beyond the proposed Yucca Mountain waste dump in Nevada. The science panel disagreed. ``In view of the technical challenges involved the committee believes that the opposite will be true,'' it said of the claimed cost savings. The National Research Council scientists, who were asked by Congress to examine the Energy Department's nuclear research priorities, said that the GNEP program is taking away funding for a program, called ``Nuclear Power 2010'' to help promote the construction of new commercial nuclear power plants. The Energy Department should put greater emphasis on that program to help identify new sites for nuclear power plants, promote design and engineering work for a new generation of light water reactors and help the NRC move promptly to license new power reactors, said the science panel. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 57 Iranian Cooperation And Transparency Crucial, UN Nuclear Watchdog Chief Says Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:01:23 -0400 IRANIAN COOPERATION AND TRANSPARENCY CRUCIAL, UN NUCLEAR WATCHDOG CHIEF SAYS New York, Oct 29 2007 8:00PM "Active cooperation and transparency" on Iran's part are key in resolving outstanding issues over the country's nuclear ambitions, the head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told the General Assembly today. "If the Agency were able to provide credible assurance about the peaceful nature of Iran's past and currently nuclear programme, this would go a long way towards building confidence, and could create the conditions for a comprehensive and durable solution," IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said at a General Assembly plenary meeting in New York. "Such a solution would assure the international community about the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme, while enabling Iran to make full use of nuclear technology for economic and social development." He noted that Iran's agreement -- following repeated requests by the Security Council and the IAEA' Board of Governors -- on a work plan to get to the bottom of all unresolved verification issues is "an important step in the right direction." Iran's nuclear programme has been a matter of international concern since the discovery in 2003 that it had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Last December, the Security Council adopted a resolution banning trade with Iran in all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology which could contribute to the country's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities, or to the development of nuclear weapon delivery systems. It tightened the measures in March, banning arms sales and expanding the freeze on assets. "Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak," Mr. ElBaradei regrettable." The Director General also told the Assembly that in the face of a renewed interest in nuclear power worldwide, the role of the IAEA is "not so much to predict the future as to do its utmost to plan and prepare for it." The resurgence of interest in nuclear power is driven by the steady rise in demand for energy, increased concerns regarding energy security and the challenges posed by climate change, he said. At present, there are 439 operating nuclear power reactors in 30 countries which supply some 15 per cent of the world's electricity and the use of nuclear power has been primarily in industrialized countries. "But in terms of new construction, the pattern is different: half of the 30 reactors now being built are in developing countries," he pointed out. 2007-10-29 00:00:00.000 ___________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To listen to news and in-depth programmes from UN Radio go to: http://radio.un.org/ _______________________________ To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 58 DOE: Statement by DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon October 29, 2007 Response to the National Research Council’s Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program “The National Research Council’s report released today affirms the majority of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) priorities for research and development for nuclear energy. I am especially pleased that the Committee agrees with the tremendous importance DOE places on the Nuclear Power 2010 program and its call for full funding. I am also pleased with a fundamental conclusion of the report that DOE should pursue a closed fuel cycle, rejecting the minority opinion to the contrary.” “However, the report’s findings related to Global Nuclear Energy Partnership or “GNEP” are based on faulty premises that are inconsistent with the fuel cycle research and development (R&D) program actually being implemented by DOE. The report errantly assumes that DOE has pre-selected the separations technologies to be deployed and the scale of the facilities to be built. A series of critical findings are based on these incorrect premises.” “Full consideration of all relevant materials including the President’s Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request, the GNEP Strategic Plan, GNEP Technology Development Plan, Funding Opportunities Announcement issued in May 2007, and the GNEP Statement of Principles demonstrates clearly that the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative R&D program currently being conducted by DOE recognizes the complexity and time required to fully develop actinide recycle in fast reactors and is fully consistent with the Committee’s recommendations. Fast reactor recycle will take many decades to fully implement.” “Any near-term closing of the nuclear fuel cycle with commercial scale facilities will likely use separations technology that is similar to commercially proven processes - but does not separate pure plutonium - with recycle in current generation reactors.” “Furthermore, the Report’s use of the term “GNEP” interchangeably with the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative program is confusing and, as the Committee’s Chairman has noted to me, in no way reflects criticism of the burgeoning international partnership.” “Through GNEP, we are taking a leadership role with 16 partner nations that share a common vision for need to expand nuclear energy for peaceful purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner. This partnership agreed to a Statement of Principles that establishes the goals, amongst other things, of developing mechanisms to support infrastructure development as well as creation of reliable fuel services.” Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 59 Tri-City Herald: 2 new managers named to do work at vit plant Published Tuesday, October 30th, 2007 By the Herald staff Two new key managers have been named by Bechtel National at Hanford's $12.2 billion vitrification plant. Craig Albert, the Waste Treatment Plant project manager, will leave Nov. 5 to become the project manager on Bechtel's Elm Road Fossil Power Project in Wisconsin. He will be replaced by Larry Simmons, the deputy project manager at the vitrification plant. Simmons came to Hanford in June 2006. Mike Lewis, the manager of construction at the vitrification plant, has taken a job in Australia at manager of construction for Bechtel's Mining and Metals Global Business Unit. He has been replaced by Dave Leeth, who has 24 years of heavy construction experience within the Department of Energy complex. Most recently he was manager of construction at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 60 PO: Report Prioritizes Programs Of DOE Office Of Nuclear Energy Power Online 10/29/2007 Washington - The research and development component of the U.S. Department of Energy's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), a program that aims to reprocess spent nuclear fuel which could then be shared with partner countries, should not go forward at its current pace, says a new report from the National Research Council. DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, of which GNEP is a part, should instead assign the highest priority to facilitating the startup of new commercial nuclear power plants, a program that is currently falling behind schedule due to funding gaps. Amid renewed interest in nuclear power, the Office of Nuclear Energy's budget has grown nearly 70 percent since 2003. In light of this growth, the administration's 2006 budget requested that funds be set aside for the Research Council to review and prioritize all of the office's programs, which besides reprocessing and new plant assistance include development of new types of nuclear reactors, the use of nuclear energy to create hydrogen, and the upgrade of facilities at the Idaho National Laboratory. The purpose of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is to remove materials from the radioactive waste that can be recycled for use at another plant. In the past, the United States has resisted reprocessing because the methods available at the time created a plutonium byproduct that would have increased the risk of nuclear proliferation. But in recent years the federal government began to reconsider reprocessing as new technologies emerged that could recycle the spent nuclear fuel without separating plutonium. This process is a main technical goal of GNEP; the committee that wrote the report did not review or comment on the international aspects of the partnership. However, the technologies required for achieving GNEP's goals are too early in development to justify DOE's accelerated schedule for construction of commercial facilities that would use these technologies, the report says. DOE claims that the program will save time and money if pursued on the commercial scale, but the committee believes that the opposite will likely be true and found no economic justification. And although a stated goal of the program is to reduce the overall amount of radioactive waste, which would in turn decrease the need for a second geological repository in addition to Yucca Mountain, it was not clear to the committee that such a need currently exists. Moreover, there has been insufficient peer review of the program. While all 17 members of the committee concluded that the GNEP R&D program, as currently planned, should not be pursued, 15 of the members said that the less-aggressive reprocessing research program that preceded the current one should be. However, if DOE returns to the earlier program, called the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it should not commit to a major demonstration or deployment of reprocessing unless there is a clear economic, national security, or environmental reason to do so. Two committee members advocated holding DOE's spending on reprocessing research to pre-AFCI levels and that DOE should not develop commercial reprocessing technologies beyond the early laboratory stage. In addition, three other committee members believe a technology not currently being explored by GNEP would be better suited for reprocessing. Although the GNEP R&D program should be scaled back, the Office of Nuclear Energy should place greater emphasis on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the committee said. Key elements of this program include identifying sites for new nuclear power plants, completing the design engineering of advanced light water reactors, and assisting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its efforts to grant both construction and operating licenses in one action. The office has focused on many parts of the program, such as finalizing designs, and has established a good working relationship with industry, but overall progress has been slower than expected, the committee found. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and industry need to improve the pace of specific licensing reviews for nuclear power plants, avoiding review of previously settled issues and setting a tighter schedule. If nuclear power is indeed going to play an increased role in meeting U.S. energy needs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Nuclear Power 2010 needs full funding in all aspects of the program, the committee said. While an increase in funding has been proposed in the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget, it would not be enough for the program to meet all of its goals. Similarly, the committee found that another program of the office, called Generation IV, is unlikely to achieve its goal of a next-generation nuclear power plant in operation by 2017 because of the focus on GNEP. The office's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, a program to generate hydrogen using nuclear energy, is dependent on the success of the Generation IV program, so its budget and timetable should reflect this connection, the report says. The committee also reviewed the Idaho National Laboratory, which represents a significant part of the Office of Nuclear Energy's management responsibilities and budget. While the site will provide the office with important capabilities for research and development of nuclear technology, funding for the program is substantially less than what is necessary to upgrade the facilities. SOURCE: The National Academies Power Online | VertMarkets, Inc. | Contact Power Online Legal | Help | Privacy Statement Copyright © 1996-2007, VertMarkets, Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 61 Las Cruces Sun-News: Report: Los Alamos subcontractor costs often exceed estimates By The Associated Press Article Launched: 10/30/2007 02:05:46 PM MDT ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. Los Alamos National Laboratory's chief subcontractor underestimated the cost of work at the lab 75 percent of the time between January 2005 and April 2007, according to a government inspection. A report dated Oct. 25 from Gregory H. Friedman, the Department of Energy's inspector general, said the investigation substantiated complaints alleging costs by KSL Services Joint Venture frequently exceeded estimates, sometimes significantly. Estimates were more than 20 percent too low in 71,025 out of 94,561 cases from 2005 through April, the inspector general said. In some cases, estimates of a penny were put into the lab's work control computer system, apparently as "place holders" even though one such job cost the taxpayers nearly $102,000, the report said. Questions about KSL's estimates and work order costs were raised as early as November 2003 and previous lab reviews found widespread failures of financial management and controls, the inspector general said. The report noted KSL has never earned the entire fee available to it, but also said it was unclear what impact the company's problems over estimates and work order charges had on determining fees. Lab spokesman Kevin Roark said there is no evidence of systematic overcharging. "Nobody got ripped off," he said. "KSL was paid for the work that they did. This is an issue of how the contract was administered. There was no evidence of any egregious overcharging, and when there was overcharging, we worked with the company. When it was determined the overcharging was real, we worked with the company to roll back those charges." KSL since February 2003 has provided site support, including maintenance and repairs, under a cost-plus-fee contract worth more than $785 million over five years. KSL is a joint venture of Shaw Infrastructure, Los Alamos Technical Associates and the majority owner and manager, KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary of Kellogg, Brown and Root. Donald Whitaker, KSL's president and general manager, said in a written response that KBR disagreed with the findings and that KSL worked with the lab before the report was published to implement new procedures to address issues. "While we were not asked to provide direct data or related information for the audit, we remain committed to cooperating with all parties involved to resolve the issues," Whitaker wrote. The lab is the sole client of KSL, which has about 1,000 employees. The inspector general also faulted the nuclear weapons lab, saying it could do more to define standards to judge KSL's performance and that weaknesses in the lab's work control system might have contributed to problems. The system allowed unapproved charges against work orders without lab officials' knowledge through charges marked "other costs," a category intended to let KSL recover unanticipated costs up to $20,000 a year, the report said. However, it said "other costs" totaled nearly $41 million in 2006 and more than $14 million by the end of May 2007. Roark said the lab now does estimates for job costs in cooperation with KSL, with the lab having the greater responsibility. The inspector general recommended the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration Los Alamos site office pay closer attention to company estimates and labor charges, review the "other costs" category and do an audit of KSL. The inspector general's investigation was not an audit, which is more rigorous and wider in scope, Roark said. z NNSA, in a response included in the report, generally agreed with the findings, but said many issues had been corrected before the inspection and that the lab was taking action based on its own investigation. The inspector general in turn disagreed that many issues were corrected beforehand, and said that while the lab took some actions, "significant problems continued to exist at the time of our field work." Several lab officials told investigators KSL charged for labor and materials that were questionable, inappropriate, excessive or unsupported. The report cited specifics, including a $10,191 charge for more than twice the amount of electrical wire needed for one job and an engineer charging $4,900 for labor nearly 1 1/2 times the estimate of $3,444 and more than tripling the job cost of $2,115. The work had been completed when the engineer billed for 35 hours. Employees charged about $9,780 for five fire alarm projects they did not work on; KSL removed the charges after a lab official questioned them, the report said. z KSL listed no cost for materials, $9,282 for labor and $124,292 for miscellaneous for a 2006 electrical upgrade job that had been estimated at $133,574 and ultimately cost $140,151. Labor actually cost $129,579; materials totaled $10,157, the report said. The company removed $12,696 in charges on the project after a lab official questioned various costs. The report also said performance measures for the company had been modified several times, moving from a standard of projects falling within 10 percent of the estimated cost to a less strict standard of 20 percent. Copyright © 2006 Las Cruces Sun-News, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 62 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern New Mexico FR Doc E7-21290 [Federal Register: October 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 209)] [Notices] [Page 61332] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30oc07-30] 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), Northern New Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Wednesday, November 28, 2007, 2 p.m.--8 p.m. ADDRESSES: Jemez Complex, Santa Fe Community College, 6401 Richards Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Menice Santistevan, Northern New Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board (NNMCAB), 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or E- mail: msantistevan@doeal.gov. 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 2 p.m. Call to Order by Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Christina Houston. Establishment of a Quorum. Welcome and Introductions, Ed Moreno. Approval of Agenda. Approval of Minutes of September 19, 2007, Board Meeting. 2:15 p.m. Board Business/Reports. Old Business, Ed Moreno. Report from Chair, J. D. Campbell. Report from Department of Energy, Christina Houston. Report from Executive Director, Menice Santistevan. Other Matters, Board Members. New Business--Recommendations to Assistant Secretary James Rispoli (Prepared by EM SSAB Chairs at September Chairs' Meeting). Recommendation for EM SSAB Participation in the EM Budget Process. Recommendation for Long-Term Stewardship incorporated into new Environmental Management projects. 3 p.m. Break. 3:15 p.m. Committee Business/Reports A. Environmental Monitoring, Surveillance and Remediation Committee, Pam Henline. B. Waste Management Committee, Update on Spring NNMCAB Sponsored Forum, Ralph Phelps. 4 p.m. Reports from Liaison Members. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Rich Mayer DOE, George Rael. Los Alamos National Security, LLC, Sue Stiger. New Mexico Environment Department, James Bearzi. 5 p.m. Dinner Break. 6 p.m. Public Comment. 6:15 p.m. Consideration and Action on Recommendations to DOE, Ed Moreno. 6:30 p.m. Presentation on Proposed Responses to the 17 National Academies of Sciences' Recommendations Regarding Groundwater Monitoring Issues at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). 7:15 p.m. Presentation on Quarterly Progress Review of Environmental Programs at LANL. 7:30 p.m. Round Robin on Board Meeting and Presentations, Board Members. 7:50 p.m. Recap of Meeting: Issuance of Press Releases, Editorials, etc., Ed Moreno. 8 p.m. Adjourn, Christina Houston. This agenda is subject to change at least one day in advance of the meeting. 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 Menice Santistevan at the address or telephone number 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 Menice Santistevan at the address or phone number listed above. Minutes and other Board documents are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.org. Issued at Washington, DC on October 22, 2007. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21290 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6405-01-P ***************************************************************** 63 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah FR Doc E7-21292 [Federal Register: October 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 209)] [Notices] [Page 61332-61333] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30oc07-31] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). [[Page 61333]] ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Thursday, November 15, 2007, 6 p.m. ADDRESSES: Barkley Centre, 111 Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 42001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reinhard Knerr, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS-103, Paducah, Kentucky 42001, (270) 441-6825. 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 6 p.m. Call to Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda, and Approval of September Minutes. 6:15 p.m. Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments. 6:30 p.m. Federal Coordinator's Comments. 6:35 p.m. Liaisons' Comments. 6:45 p.m. Review of Action Items. 6:50 p.m. Public Comments and Questions. 7 p.m. Presentations. DOE Findings on Area of Concern 4. 7:30 p.m. Subcommittee Reports. Water Disposition/Water Quality Subcommittee. Community Outreach Subcommittee. Long Range Strategy/Stewardship Subcommittee. Executive Committee. 7:45 p.m. Public Comments and Questions. 7:55 p.m. Administrative Issues: Motions, Review of Work Plan, and Review of Next Agenda. 8: p.m. Final Comments. 8:15 p.m. Adjourn. Breaks Taken As Appropriate. 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 Reinhard Knerr at the address or telephone number 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 Reinhard Knerr at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following website http://www.pgdpcab.org/currentyear.htm . Issued at Washington, DC on October 22, 2007. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21292 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 64 DOE: Office of Science; DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee FR Doc E7-21293 [Federal Register: October 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 209)] [Notices] [Page 61331-61332] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30oc07-29] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Monday, December 3, 2007, 8 to 6 p.m.; Tuesday, December 4, 2007, 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: Marriott Crystal City Hotel, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. [[Page 61332]] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda L. May, U.S. Department of Energy; SC-26/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone: 301-903-0536. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on scientific priorities within the field of basic nuclear science research. Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions of the following: Monday, December 3, 2007 Perspectives from Department of Energy and National Science Foundation. Discussion on the Long Range Plan Report. Discussion of Program Performance Goals. Public Comment (10-minute rule). Tuesday, December 4, 2007 Continued Discussion on the Long Range Plan Report. Public Comment (10-minute rule). Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of these items on the agenda, you should contact Brenda L. May, 301-903-0536 or Brenda.May@science.doe.gov (e- mail). You must make your request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available on the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Nuclear Physics Web site for viewing. Issued at Washington, DC on October 25, 2007. R. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21293 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 65 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation FR Doc E7-21294 [Federal Register: October 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 209)] [Notices] [Page 61333] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30oc07-32] 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), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 6 p.m. ADDRESSES: DOE Information Center, 475 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pat Halsey, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4025; Fax (865) 576-2347 or e- mail: halseypj@oro.doe.gov or check the Web site at http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab . 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: The main meeting topic will be ``Low-Level/Mixed Low-Level Waste Disposition Strategy for the Oak Ridge Reservation.'' 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 the agenda item should contact Pat Halsey at the address or telephone number 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 Pat Halsey at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/minutes.htm . Issued at Washington, DC on October 25, 2007. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21294 Filed 10-29-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 66 Knoxville News Sentinel: ORNL confident in nuke security Report says facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attacks By Frank Munger (Contact) Tuesday, October 30, 2007 OAK RIDGE - A new report suggests the government is running behind schedule in securing its nuclear facilities, including those in Oak Ridge, to counter the advancing threat of terrorism. Oak Ridge officials, however, disputed that conclusion and said the facilities are meeting their security obligations. On Monday, the Project On Government Oversight posted on its Web site a security analysis reportedly prepared by the Government Accountability Office to brief a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. POGO, a frequent critic of security at the Department of Energy facilities, said the GAO analysis basically confirms earlier reports that the nuclear sites are vulnerable to increasingly sophisticated terrorist attacks. POGO last year published a report that said terrorist teams could likely penetrate security at Oak Ridge National Laboratory or the Y-12 National Security Complex and gain access to strategic nuclear materials. The group also said it would be possible to assemble those fissile materials into a nuclear bomb and detonate it on site. In its analysis, the GAO indicated that ORNL was "highly unlikely" to meets a 2008 deadline for tightening security to address the Design Basis Threat - a protective standard that's based on the U.S. evaluation of terrorist capabilities. John Shewairy, public affairs chief at DOE's Oak Ridge office, said ORNL is in full compliance with all Design Basis Threat requirements. The deadline cited on POGO's Web site does not apply to the Oak Ridge lab, he said. The big security concern at ORNL is the stockpile of weapons-usable uranium-233. DOE and its contractors are trying to process and dispose of the uranium stored at ORNL, but that project isn't likely to be completed until 2015 according to the GAO and other reports. Billy Stair of ORNL said Monday, "We're confident that all of the assets in the laboratory are fully secure." Y-12, the nation's main repository for weapons-grade uranium, has reportedly been given an extension until 2011 in meeting the anti-terrorist standard. Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at Y-12, said the extension was granted in order to avoid high-cost measures that would only have been effective for a short time. The Y-12 security waiver reportedly saved the government $100 million. Wyatt said Y-12 has focused on making lasting and "cost-effective" security improvements that incorporate advanced technologies. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 342-6329. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 67 Knoxville News Sentinel: 'Day of Science' draws 1,400 to recruitment fair By Darren Dunlap (Contact) Tuesday, October 30, 2007 As its workers near retirement, the U.S. Department of Energy faces a potential crisis filling positions at its national laboratories, including Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Couple that with America's loss of competitive advantage in science and engineering in recent years, and you have the backdrop for the "Day of Science" on Monday at the Knoxville Convention Center, a DOE recruitment fair for students interested in careers at U.S. national laboratories. The average age of the DOE worker is 50, said Jeff Pon, chief human capital officer for the DOE. "That means we're in a human capital crisis, if you will, in getting the most qualified people in science, technology, engineering, math and management into our ranks," Pon said. The Day of Science that ORNL typically holds draws 250 to 275 students. That number went up this year. Gerald Boyd, manager for ORNL's operations office, said organizers moved the recruitment fair to the Knoxville Convention Center to host several national laboratory representatives from across the country and universities that were recruiting for graduate programs. This year 1,400 students from 125 colleges and universities registered. In particular, the DOE reached out to black students. A third of schools represented were historically black colleges and universities. Sussan Yenkong, a senior biology major at Knoxville College, came to talk to graduate schools about pharmacy programs and to investigate opportunities for internships. She chose biology because she wants to help people. "This knowledge will help me help my people back home," said Yenkong, a native of Cameroon, Africa. Students came from as far as Puerto Rico. Fourteen students came from St. Phillips, a community college in San Antonio, Texas. It was their first trip. "What brought us here are the opportunities for internships and scholarships," said Richard Dominguez, a sophomore majoring in biology and chemistry at St. Phillips. The recruiting fair also drew attention to the challenge the U.S. faces in getting more students interested in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science and math curriculum is difficult, and American students don't always have the motivation to tackle the work, said Johanna Vega, a sophomore biology major at St. Phillips. Students need to be taught critical thinking and analysis, she noted. "We're taught what to think, but not how to think," Vega said. She also said that "there is a stigma that women don't belong in science." Both Vega and Dominguez said their department chair often talks to them about the shortage of Americans pursuing science and technology careers. In a 2005 report, the National Academies noted its concern that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to U.S. economic leadership are eroding at a time while many other nations are gathering strength. Darren Dunlap may be reached at 865-342-6334. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 68 NAS Project: Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research & Development Program Project Title: PIN: BEES-J-05-01-A Major Unit: Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences Sub Unit: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems RSO: Bowen, Matt Subject/Focus Area: Energy and Energy Conservation; Engineering Project Scope The committee will undertake a comprehensive, independent evaluation of DOE's nuclear energy (NE) program's goals and plans, and validate the process of establishing program priorities and oversight (including the method for determining the relative distribution of budgetary resources). The evaluation will result in a comprehensive and detailed set of policy and research recommendations and associated priorities (including performance targets and metrics) for an integrated agenda of research activities that can best advance NE's fundamental mission of securing nuclear energy as a viable, long-term commercial energy option to provide diversity in energy supply. The review will also include the relationship of the research program to the Idaho Facilities Management program. In conducting the evaluation of the R&D program, the committee will: (1) Review the technical goals and timetables for government and industry R&D efforts in the various technical areas (e.g., Nuclear Power 2010; Generation IV; Hydrogen Initiative; Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative); (2) Review the R&D directions and progress in various parts of the program and their relevance to meeting the goals of the R&D program; (3) Review the overall balance and adequacy of the R&D program in light of the objectives and schedules in the major technology areas, and whether efforts in various technical areas are at an appropriate level, should be expanded, reduced, or eliminated; (4) Identify, if appropriate, new and promising technologies not included in the DOE portfolio that the DOE could meaningfully advance to meet the goals of the program; (5) Examine and comment, as necessary, on the appropriate federal role in the various technical areas; (6) Examine and comment on the commercial implications of each major part of the R&D portfolio and what each element needs to contribute to the commercial adoption of the technology; (7) Examine and comment on NE's strategy for accomplishing its goals, which would include such issues as: (a) program management and organization; (b) the process of setting milestones, research directions and making Go/No Go decisions; (c) collaborative activities with other parts of the government or private sector; (d) the integration of major activities in each program into a plan and associated schedule; (e) integration and associated schedule and milestones of the various major programs across DOE-NE; (f) consistency of the budget, schedule and scope for selected major activities; (g) risk identification and assessment and mitigation activities; and (h) other topics that the committee finds important to comment on related to the success of the program to meet its technical goals. (8) Comment on the relationship of the R&D program to the Idaho Facilities Management program. The committee will write a report documenting its findings and recommendations. The project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. The approximate start date for the project is April 24, 2006. A report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately 18 months. Project Duration: 18 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 08/24/2006 Meeting 2 - 10/17/2006 Meeting 3 - 11/08/2006 Meeting 4 - 01/09/2007 Meeting 5 - 03/08/2007 Meeting 6 - 05/30/2007 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 69 KOB.com: DOE questions LANL contractor’s billings Posted at: 10/30/2007 07:13:27 AM By: The Associated Press SANTA FE (AP) - Government auditors are questioning billing practices by Los Alamos National Laboratory’s largest subcontractor. The U.S. Department of Energy’s office of inspector general says KSL Services has often overcharged for projects and sometimes has submitted questionable work orders. A report issued by the office yesterday says KSL underestimated work orders by more than 20 percent in 71,000 out of 94,000 work orders between January 2005 and last April. The report also says KSL employees listed $41 million in charges without the knowledge of lab personnel in 2006 and more than $14 million by the end of last May. The report blames a weakness in the company’s work control program. A lab spokesman, Kevin Roark, says the report does not allege fraudulent activities, and no criminal investigation is planned. (Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************