*****************************************************************
09/26/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.226
*****************************************************************
   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: ENS: NRG Applies for First U.S. Nuclear Power License in 29 Year
2 The Hindu: Is there a third route to produce nuclear energy?
3 AU ABC: ALP running nuclear scare campaign: McFarlane - 
4 Economic Times: Nuke pact will cost the country - CPI
5 US: Charlotte Observer: Change spawns a nuclear resurgence
6 US: DOE: DOE Releases Conditional Agreement for New Nuclear Power Pl
7 BBC NEWS: Hotel proposal for Dounreay dome
8 US: Scientific American: Nuclear Power Reborn
9 Edinburgh Evening News: ScottishPower owner 'in nuclear power talks'
10 JOGJCC: Dounreay clean-up funding fears unlikely to be repeated
11 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommitt
12 US: NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of Consideration of Issu
13 Japan Times: Hype on nuclear power is misleading 
14 Reuters: German Unterweser reactor restarted - E.ON 
15 Reuters: Iberdrola and British Energy in nuclear talks 
16 Reuters: NRG seeks support from Japan for new reactors 
17 Reuters: Chile's nuclear decision to take years-Bachelet 
18 Telegraph: Decision day looms for Britain's nuclear future - 
19 CBC News: Point Lepreau nuclear plant down until next week - NB Powe
20 US: Public Citizen: Application for New Nuclear Reactors in South 
21 US: Leader Post: Nuclear power up close and personal
22 Financial Post: The nuclear renaissance
23 US: HF: The Nuclear Renaissance: Ten Principles to Guide U.S. Policy
24 AU The Age: Don't mention the 'N' word - 
25 US: FresnoBee.com: Nuclear plant testing gets OK
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
26 US: Guardian Unlimited: Report: Nuclear Terror Threat Real 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
27 US: Rocky Mountain News: Flats workers appeal aid ruling
28 US: The State: Gulf War veterans still suffer
29 BBC: Families discuss body parts probe
30 Healthcare Professional: Public Health Response To The Polonium-210 
31 US: Tri-City Herald: Agency calls for compensation for sick Hanford 
32 Everything Marshall Islands: U.S. and Marshall Islands Reps Testify 
33 US: Gallup Independent: Navajo downwinders face uphill battle for RE
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
34 Las Vegas SUN: Maybe no dump at Yucca after all
35 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M);
36 ReviewJournal.com: Yucca review board in dark
37 US: The Tribune: Group collects more than 2,000 signatures against u
 
                           PEACE
 
38 Israel seeks exemption from atomic rules
39 N. Korea accuses U.S. of helping Israel develop nuclear weapons
40 IPS-English POLITICS: Iranian President in Nuclear Theatrics
41 BBC NEWS: Pakistan rejects Khan questioning
42 Guardian Unlimited: Pakistan Against IAEA Quizzing A.Q. Khan 
43 ITAR-TASS: Many problems may emerge at new round of 6-way talks-Losy
44 US: WTNH.com: Jimmy Carter to speak about nuclear weapons at Quinnip
45 Korea Times: Top NK Envoy Denies NK-Syria Nuclear Ties
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
46 DOE: Statement by Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell on NRG’s Lice
47 DOE: DOE to Provide Nearly $20 Million to Further Development of 
48 SF New Mexican: LANL Temporary resolution to buoy lab
49 Knoxville News Sentinel: Y-12 completes $21.4 million upgrade 
50 Knoxville News Sentinel: Third time isn't charming on nuke safety vi
51 AT: Domenici, Bingaman welcome stopgap spending bill for Los Alamos,
52 lamonitor.com: Budget wins short reprieve
53 lamonitor.com: Richardson calls on Congress to fund LANL/Sandia
54 lamonitor.com: Nuclear medicine left out of energy budget
55 Oak Ridger: Sale of three buildings marks milestone at ETTP - 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 ENS: NRG Applies for First U.S. Nuclear Power License in 29 Years

Environment News Service 

WASHINGTON, DC NRG Energy, Inc of New Jersey and the South Texas
Project Nuclear Operating Company have filed an application to build
and operate two new nuclear power reactors at the South Texas
Project nuclear power station site in Matagorda County.

This is the first full nuclear plant license application in the
United States in 29 years, since Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island
reactor had a partial meltdown in 1979. If the application is
approved, NRG expects to bring the units on line in 2014 and 2015.

The South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company, which currently
operates two other nuclear reactors at the site, would operate the
new units as well. The 12,220-acre site and 7,000 acre cooling
reservoir were originally designed for four units.

The total rated capacity of the new Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
units, STP 3 and 4, will equal or exceed 2,700 megawatts - enough to
power more than two million homes. The project is expected to cost
up to $6.75 billion.

"It is a new day for energy in America. Advanced technology nuclear
power plants like STP 3 and 4, generating a vast amount of
electricity cleanly, safely and reliably, will make an enormous
contribution toward the greater energy security of the United
States," said David Crane, NRG's president and CEO.

"But equally, this announcement heralds a new day for the
environment. Advanced nuclear technology is the only currently
viable large-scale alternative to traditional coal-fueled generation
to produce none of the traditional air emissions - and most
importantly in this age of climate change - no carbon dioxide or
other greenhouse gases."

But the federal tax incentives and loan guarantees in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 were the "whole reason" the company "started down
this path" Crane told the "Washington Post."

These multi-billion dollar subsidies include taxpayer loan
guarantees for new reactors, tax credits for the first six reactors
built, the Price-Anderson Act limitation of utility liability for
nuclear accidents, and risk insurance to cover possible delays in
the licensing process.

U.S. Senator Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who serves as
ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
approves of the new nuclear development.

"This is an historic event for the future of nuclear power in
America. Around the world, consumers are benefiting from clean,
efficient nuclear power. Finally, as a result of years of hard work,
our nation is now on the verge of taking greater advantage of this
technology. I'm excited to see an investor-owned company submit the
first combined operating license application in nearly 30 years, and
I hope it is the first of many to come," Domenici said.

"Nuclear power is an essential component of any comprehensive
national energy plan," said United States Senator Mary Landrieu, a
Louisiana Democrat. "According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, 35
new nuclear power plants are needed in the next 40 years to keep
pace with our escalating energy demand. A new power plant in Texas
will prove to help combat the impact of global climate change and
allow America to continue on a path toward energy independence."

The anti-nuclear advocacy group Nuclear Information and Resource
Service, NIRS, said today, "Without taxpayer support, no utility
would build a new atomic reactor, and no financial institution would
invest in a new reactor."

"The NRG Energy application would repeat one of the fundamental
mistakes of the first generation of nuclear power - the construction
of nuclear reactors without a feasible facility or plan for storage
of the lethal radioactive waste the reactor would produce. The Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, radioactive waste dump is on its last legs, and
appears increasingly unlikely to ever open. Even if it did, it would
be full as soon as it opened, NIRS pointed out.

NIRS Executive Director Michael Mariotte says, "Texas is blessed
with enormous potential for wind and solar power, while aggressive
energy efficiency programs remain the cheapest, fastest and cleanest
method of addressing both electricity demand and the need to quickly
reduce carbon emissions."

"We expect Texans to oppose the NRG Energy project, and we expect to
help Texans with their opposition," he said.

 Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2007. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 2 The Hindu: Is there a third route to produce nuclear energy?

Thursday, Sep 27, 2007 

 Cold fusion has not been accepted by mainstream scientists

Occurrence of nuclear reactions at room temperatures has been
confirmed

Condensed matter nuclear science promises decentralised, small,
captive power packs

At a time when there is an intense debate going on in the country 
on the Indo-US nuclear deal, and the role of nuclear power in 
meeting our future energy needs, it may be worth taking note of 
the fact that nuclear fission reactors (and in a longer time 
frame thermo nuclear fusion) are not the only routes available to 
tap the immense energy locked in the atomic nucleus. 
Controversial


A third route — cold fusion (CF) — does exist. The cold fusion
approach was disclosed in 1989 by two electro-chemists — Fleischmann
and Pons in the U.S.

The phenomenon, once known as cold fusion, but now more accurately
regarded as low energy nuclear reactions, represents a significant
paradigm shift in our understanding of nuclear phenomena. It is
unfortunate that CF got embroiled in a worldwide controversy. And
that is because according to our current understanding of nuclear
physics the kind of low energy nuclear reactions apparently
occurring in cold fusion devices cannot and should not happen.

Are we to believe the new experimental findings and change our
theories or are we going to cling to our age old concepts and refuse
to face facts? This is the dilemma facing nuclear physicists the
world over. Immense resistance to accepting a paradigm shift is
common to science. History is replete with such instances. During
the last two decades, many dedicated groups comprising several
hundreds of scientists in about a dozen countries have continued to
pursue the subject to unravel the mystery behind what has now come
to be re-christened as Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (CMNS).

There is an international professional society dedicated to the
study of CMNS ( www.iscmns.org). High loading

The experiments show that when deuterium (or at times even hydrogen)
atoms are inserted (or loaded) inside a metal such as palladium,
titanium, nickel etc, occupying interstitial lattice positions in
sufficiently large numbers (we call it “high loading ratios”) and if
the right ‘Nuclear Active Environment’ is created, a variety of
nuclear reactions are found to occur involving not only the
deuterium nuclei but also the host metal atoms.

In this process ‘excess energy’ is often found to be produced and in
some cases nuclear particles such as neutrons, X-rays or even
charged particles are released.

But increasingly it has been observed that new ‘transmutation’
elements not present prior to the commencement of the experiments
have been detected.

The occurrence of such nuclear reactions at ‘room’ temperatures has
been confirmed in diverse experimental conditions and configurations
such as electrolysis experiments, glow discharge devices and even
simple gas loading configurations.

Most of the scientific papers published to date in this fascinating
and emergent area of research are available in the website
www.lenr.org.

There are over a dozen books recording the CMNS story and the latest
authored by Dr. Edmund Storms, formerly of the Los Alamos National
Laboratory and titled ‘The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions’
has just been published by World Scientific. Stunning experiments

I would urge the sceptic nuclear physicists to study one of the most
stunning experiments demonstrating low energy nuclear transmutations
carried out by Iwamura et al of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of Japan
wherein four deuterium nuclei are absorbed simultaneously by a
caesium nucleus to produce praseodymium during a simple gas
permeation process. (Iwamura’s papers are downloadable from the lenr
website given above.)

This writer attended the 13th International Conference on Cold
Fusion (ICCF-13) held at Sochi, Russia in June 2007. Dr. Igor
Goryachev of the prestigious Kurchatov Institute announced in the
concluding session that he expects to have a 100 KW ‘alchemical
reactor’ ready for demonstration at ICCF-14 to be held during August
2008!

It may be recalled that Kurchatov Institute is where the first
Soviet hydrogen bomb was developed and the TOKAMAK fusion reactor
concept was invented.

It is believed that the Russian alchemical reactor is probably based
on the ‘cavitation heater’ concept. Such heaters are being sold
commercially to heat homes during the intensely cold Siberian
winters ( www.ahdynamics.ru or http:// akoil. ru/en). Condensed
Matter Nuclear Science thus promises the potential development of
decentralised, small, captive nuclear power packs heralding a new
era of gridless electricity.

At a time when India’s economic might and intellectual prowess are
growing, it is a most opportune moment for Indian science and
industry to get into the fray. Interestingly unlike fission or
hot-fusion research, CMNS research costs very little.


M. SRINIVASAN


Former Scientist, BARC ( chino37@gmail.com)

Comments to : thehindu@vsnl.com   Copyright © 2007, The Hindu
*****************************************************************
 3 AU ABC: ALP running nuclear scare campaign: McFarlane - 

ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Posted September 26, 2007 16:00:00

The Federal Government says a petition against a possible nuclear
reactor at Port Kembla on the New South Wales south coast is part of
a Labor scare campaign.

The No Nuclear Reactor in Port Kembla petition, launched today by
Opposition infrastructure spokesman Anthony Albanese, calls on
people to express their reservations about the use of nuclear power
in the Illawarra.

The Minister for Industry and Resources, Ian McFarlane, has labelled
the petition unhelpful, saying a new nuclear reactor is unlikely to
be built anywhere in Australia within 10 years.

He says the petition only serves to politicise energy issues.

"What's lacking in the debate in Australia at the moment is a
balanced, honest, straightforward view," he said.

"We've seen none of that from the Labor Party. They continue to run
this as a political agenda."

But Mr Albanese says the petition is important because the
Government has refused to rule out the possibility of a nuclear
reactor at Port Kembla.

"I asked a specific question of the Prime Minister on notice in the
Parliament - to rule out the electorate of Throsby as a site for a
nuclear reactor - and he refused to do so," he said.

*****************************************************************
 4 Economic Times: Nuke pact will cost the country - CPI

- Politics/Nation-News-The

26 Sep, 2007, 1624 hrs IST, PTI

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Daring the UPA government to reveal financial
implications of the India-US nuclear pact, CPI leader Gurudas
Dasgupta on Wednesday said the agreement would cost a lot and would
not help in the country's energy security.

While the government remained 'mischievously silent' on this, the
assessment of experts was that the total cost to be the country by
way of the agreement would be to the tune of Rs 10 lakh crore, he
told a press meet here.

It would be irrational and unjustifiable to cast such a huge burden
on the country as the quantum of additional power to be generated as
result of the agreement would not be more that six to seven per cent
of the total requirement by 2020, he said.

Stating that the government was moving ahead in the matter without
scientific assessment of cost analysis, he said the true agenda
behind the pact was to take India closer to America.

Prime Minister Manohan Singh's slogan of 'nuclear renaissance'
showed his 'experience in politics did not appear to be matured' as
no country had benefited by any agreement with the United States.

The government's policies had proved disastrous making miserable the
lives of vast majority of the people, he said.
Asked what would be the option for the Left parties if the stand-off
over nuclear issue continued unresolved, he said "we would go to the
people."

Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 5 Charlotte Observer: Change spawns a nuclear resurgence

09/26/2007 | 

UTILITIES' END RUN

Energy lobby helps clear the way for new reactors

ELLIOT BLAIR SMITH Bloomberg News

On tree-lined bluffs overlooking the Chesapeake Bay, where
anti-nuclear activists won a landmark environmental victory 36 years
ago, Constellation Energy Group Inc. is engineering atomic power's
comeback.

This time, even if there are protests, bulldozers will roll.

That's because the Baltimore-based utility and its allies have found
a way around a long-standing regulatory policy they say added a year
or more to construction times for nuclear plants.

In April, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission agreed to industry
demands that it reduce its oversight of initial work at reactor
sites. By narrowing its definition of the word "construction" in
agency rules, the NRC put off the required public hearings and
permits that have waylaid past projects.

The untold story of how the energy lobby and the federal government
worked cleared a path for new reactors -- backed by an NRC
commissioner seeking a job in the industry -- reveals one way
pro-nuclear forces have stolen a march on environmentalists.

"It was a very smart, strategic move to work in the background
before ever submitting a new proposal for a plant," says Steve
Warner, 42, founder of the anti-nuclear Chesapeake Safe Energy
Coalition.

Utilities and the Bush administration say they want new reactors
running by 2015. Power companies are rushing to take advantage of
federal tax credits and loan guarantees in the Energy Policy Act of
2005, some of which begin to expire next year. The NRC says it
expects to receive as many as 21 applications to build 32 new
reactors, the first of which was filed Tuesday by NRG Energy Inc. of
Princeton, N.J.

Constellation, the largest U.S. shareholder-owned electricity
wholesaler, proposes building as many as seven new reactors through
a joint venture with Paris-based Electricite de France SA, Europe's
largest electricity utility.

The first of these would be on a rural tract near Calvert Cliffs
State Park in Lusby, Md., an hour's drive from Washington.
Constellation already operates two 1970s-era nuclear generators at
the site.

In June 2005, Constellation CEO Mayo Shattuck III hosted President
Bush and NRC commissioners on a tour of the existing plant, where
Bush promoted the new energy legislation. The company declined to
comment on whether Shattuck, who serves on the executive committee
of the industry's trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, played
a role in winning government support for a change in the
construction rule.

Building a new reactor will take $4 billion and seven years,
including 42 months of regulatory reviews, according to industry and
government estimates.

To save time and expense, utilities have been working with the NRC
through the NEI trade group to streamline agency licensing.

The new construction rule is only the latest such initiative. In
2004, the NRC limited the public's ability to gather evidence and
question witnesses during hearings.

"We recognized that we did have these unnecessary barriers that were
not allowing people to move forward," says former NRC Commissioner
Jeffrey Merrifield, who voted for the change in the construction
rule while seeking a new job under an unusual arrangement designed
to avoid conflicts of interest.

In July, Merrifield, a 43-year-old lawyer and former Republican
congressional staffer, joined the nuclear plant builder Shaw Group
Inc. as a senior vice president.

Environmentalists, belatedly, are realizing what they lost.

"Streamlining is a pseudonym for confiscation. It's Orwellian," says
Michele Boyd, the recently departed legislative director of the
energy program at Public Citizen, a consumer lobby in Washington.
"They're streamlining it for the industry, which requires that the
public is not involved."

The construction limits on nuclear power plants date to 1971. That
year, Chesapeake Bay conservationists trying to protect the Calvert
Cliffs area won a federal appeals court decision that forced the
NRC's predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission, to consider the
environmental consequences of a reactor's construction as part of
its oversight.

At the time, Johns Hopkins University scientists warned that cooling
water discharged from a reactor into the bay might harm Maryland's
famous blue crabs and oysters.

The efforts to block construction eventually failed.

Yet, to carry out the court's ruling, the Atomic Energy Commission
decided that, beginning in 1972, it would require a public hearing
and a reactor construction permit before the first shovelful of dirt
could be moved.

The stricter reviews slowed licensing and, after the meltdown
accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, all but derailed the process.
It took almost a quarter-century for the most recent U.S. reactor to
be built and licensed, in 1996.

"We were concerned that it was just too lengthy of a process," says
Steven Frantz, an energy lawyer at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP in
Washington who works for the nuclear lobby.

Holding time-and-material costs in check is an essential element of
the nuclear power industry's current effort to become more
competitive with coal and natural gas. The cost of building an
atomic plant -- 41 percent greater than for a conventional coal
plant, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration -- is
balanced by lower fuel costs.

On July 13, Constellation revealed plans to take advantage of the
new construction rule in a partial-license application it filed with
the NRC. The 4,855-page document details the utility's plans to
build a third reactor that would double its electricity output at
Calvert Cliffs.

Constellation also owns the regulated utility Baltimore Gas &
Electric Co., two nuclear power plants in upstate New York, and
fossil fuel plants in California, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Utah.

"We are trying to preserve our option to move as fast as possible,"
says Constellation Vice President George Vanderheyden, the top
executive at the joint venture developing the new reactors, UniStar
Nuclear Energy LLC. He says excavation probably won't begin until
2009.

Environmental lawyer Anthony Roisman, who sued and won the Calvert
Cliffs lawsuit more than three decades ago, says the NRC has
unraveled much of what he accomplished in court.

"There are a series of things that they have done -- and are doing
-- in which they are turning back the clock," Roisman says. "It's
all for the same reason: The nuclear industry has come to the agency
and said, `If you don't make it easy for us to get a license, we are
not going to apply for one.' "

Atomic Power Players

Duke Energy Corp. and other electric utilities are spending millions
lobbying Congress in support of nuclear power generation. Utilities
are staring down a slew of proposed federal regulations, including a
tax or cap of some sort on carbon dioxide emitted into the air from
coal-fired plants. The gas is blamed as a cause of global warming.
Building more nuclear plants is essential to reducing future output
while meeting growing energy demand, says Duke chief executive Jim
Rogers.

The Charlotte-based utility at midyear was on pace to surpass the
$2.16 million it spent in 2005 lobbying Congress. That year, a
Republican-led Congress passed President Bush's Energy Policy Act of
2005, which gives incentives to build nuclear power plants.

Duke and Raleigh-based Progress Energy plan to file two of the 21
applications the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to
receive over the next few years. Duke plans two reactors in Cherokee
County, S.C., and Progress Energy is considering an application for
up to two reactors at its Shearon Harris nuclear plant in Wake
County.

The Carolinas have long been a home for nuclear power generation.

Duke Energy Corp. produces 46 percent of its electricity in its
Carolinas territory that way. And South Carolina is one of the few
states with more than half of its total electricity produced from
nuclear energy. -- Christopher D. Kirkpatrick

*****************************************************************
 6 DOE: DOE Releases Conditional Agreement for New Nuclear Power Plants

September 25, 2007

Marks initial step for sponsors of new nuclear plants to qualify for
up to $2 billion in federal risk insurance

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary
Samuel W. Bodman today released a Conditional Agreement for
companies building new nuclear power plants in the United States to
qualify for a portion of $2 billion in federal risk insurance.  Risk
insurance covers costs associated with certain regulatory or
litigation-related delays - which are no fault of the company - that
stall the start-up of these plants.  Authorized by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (EPAct), risk insurance provides incentive and stability
in spurring construction of new nuclear power plants and meeting our
energy needs in a clean, safe, economical manner.  Secretary Bodman
made today’s announcement while in Chicago speaking to the World
Association of Nuclear Operators and United Association of
Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry.

“To meet the world’s growing demand for electricity and confront
climate change, safe and emissions-free nuclear energy must play an
integral role in our energy mix,” Secretary Bodman said. 
“Conditional Agreements pave the way for risk insurance contracts
that will provide the first project sponsors constructing new
nuclear power plants with assistance if they face delays in
expanding the use of nuclear energy across the nation.”

Providing risk insurance is part of President Bush’s bold energy
agenda and allows the first of several sponsors of new nuclear power
plants to be backed by the U.S. government should a sponsor undergo
lengthy and unnecessary delays preventing operation.

EPAct authorizes DOE to enter into contracts with the first six
sponsors that begin construction of new nuclear facilities and meet
all other contractual conditions to provide risk insurance for
certain regulatory and litigation delays in the full power operation
of their facility.  Up to $500 million in coverage is available for
the initial two plants for which construction is started and up to
$250 million is available for the next four plants.  The Conditional
Agreement, the first step in the process toward a risk insurance
contract, is available to sponsors of advanced nuclear facilities
once its application for a Construction and Operating License (COL)
is docketed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).  Companies
can enter into a Conditional Agreement with DOE, however, only the
first six that are issued a COL and begin construction are eligible
for the risk insurance contract with DOE.

The Conditional Agreement announced today details the rights and
responsibilities of potential sponsors to become eligible for risk
insurance contracts.  Events that would be covered by the risk
insurance contract include delays associated with the NRC’s reviews
of inspections, tests, analyses and acceptance criteria, as well as
certain delays associated with a pre-operational hearing or
litigation in federal, state or tribal courts.  Insurance coverage
is not available for normal business risks such as employment
strikes and weather delays.  In August 2006, DOE issued a final rule
that outlines a two-step process to apply for risk insurance
coverage, which requires entering into a Conditional Agreement first
and, if eligible, then a risk insurance contract.

Today’s announcement closely follows previous progress through the
Department’s Nuclear Power 2010 program, which is a joint
government/industry cost-shared effort to identify sites for new
nuclear power plants, develop and bring to market advanced nuclear
plant technologies, evaluate the business case for building new
nuclear power plants, and demonstrate untested regulatory processes.
 In March of this year the first two Early Site Permits were issued
by the NRC.  These permits were funded through a 50-50 cost share by
DOE and industry.  Through the Nuclear Power 2010 program, DOE is
partnering with industry to promote the expansion of nuclear power
in the United States and work toward the submission of COL
applications for new nuclear plants to the NRC.

For more information on today’s announcement, visit: the Office of
Nuclear Energy.

Media contact(s):
Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 

  
News



Statement by Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell on NRG’s
License Application



International Atomic Energy Agency General Conference



2nd Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Ministerial Opening Session












Doing Business with DOE | Competitive Sourcing | DOE Directives |
Small Business


    




 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington,
                               DC 20585
                   1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403



 



Web Policies | No Fear Act | Site Map | Privacy | Phone Book |
Employment




 

*****************************************************************
 7 BBC NEWS: Hotel proposal for Dounreay dome

Last Updated: Wednesday, 26 September 2007, 11:59 GMT 12:59 UK

The dome has been nicknamed the golf ball by local people

The iconic white dome of the Dounreay nuclear plant could be 
turned into a hotel under proposals put forward by the UK Atomic 
Energy Authority (UKAEA).

The golf ball, as it is known locally, faces being demolished as 
part of the Ł2.9bn decommissioning project at the Caithness site.

However, the UKAEA said it would consider keeping the dome intact 
if a viable alternative could be found.

James Gunn, a senior technical officer at Dounreay, was tasked 
with coming up with ideas and drafted a number of suggestions.

We will be getting professional consultants in next year to look at
the ideas a bit more carefully

James Gunn UKAEA technical officer

These included an exhibition and conference centre, leisure centre,
hotel and nightclub, a space observatory and a nuclear museum.

Mr Gunn said: "There is some controversy about whether we keep the
dome or not, but if we do, these are the sort of uses we are
considering.

"We will be getting professional consultants in next year to look at
the ideas a bit more carefully.

"We won't start cleaning the site until 2024, so we still have a few
years to make a decision."

Mr Gunn said a straw poll among workers at the site on whether or
not the dome should be knocked down was split 50-50.

Remove contamination

"The problem about keeping the site is whoever took it over would
probably lose money," he said.

"Unless it was a fantastic hotel it would probably cost them.
Painting the dome alone costs around half a million."

Retaining and maintaining the dome over the next 10 years would cost
Ł10.1m, while an extra 20-25m would then be needed for adjacent
buildings and the sphere structure.

Demolishing the site after a clean-up to remove contamination would
cost about Ł13.7m.

The final decision on the dome's future lies with the Nuclear
Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the government organisation
responsible for clean-up operations at UK nuclear sites.

The decommissioning of Dounreay is expected to take until 2033 to
complete at a cost of Ł2.9bn.


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 8 Scientific American: Nuclear Power Reborn

September 26, 2007

New Jersey-based NRG Energy applies to build the first new nuclear
power plant in the U.S. in more than 30 years

By David Biello

 NEW NUKES:  NRG Energy hopes to build two new advanced boiling
water reactors at its South Texas nuclear power plant site.


The two reactors at the South Texas nuclear power plant, an hour
southwest of Houston, last year churned out 21.37 billion
kilowatt-hours. By 2015, its majority owner, New Jersey-based NRG
Energy, hopes to at least double that capacity if it gets permission
to build two more reactors on the site. The company filed the first
application on Monday for a new nuclear power plant—two
advanced boiling-water reactors—in more than 30 years.

"It is a new day for energy in America," David Crane, NRG president
and chief executive officer, said after making the application.
"Advanced nuclear technology is the only currently viable
large-scale alternative to traditional coal-fueled generation to
produce none of the traditional air emissions," including the
greenhouse gases responsible for climate change.


Armed with the backing of the White House and congressional
leaders—and subsidies, such as $500 million in risk insurance
from the U.S. Department of Energy— the nuclear industry is
experiencing a revival in the U.S. As many as 29 new reactors may be
added to the current U.S. fleet of 104, according to Bill Borchardt,
director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) office of new
reactors. "It is going to be significantly different than it was in
the 1970s," he says.

The South Texas project is the first entirely new reactor out of the
gate, though it simply fulfills the original planning for four
reactors at the site. The NRC says such upgrades of existing
facilities are likely to comprise the majority of new nuclear power
plants, all but one—a plant near Syracuse in central New York
State— are in the Southeast or Texas. "At the majority of
these sites, there's strong support for nuclear power," says Loren
Plisco, NRC's deputy regional administrator for construction in the
southeastern region.


Image: COURTESY OF NRG 

CORE DILEMMA:  What to do with spent nuclear fuel after it comes out
of the core, pictured here, remains a key concern of opponents of
new nuclear power plants.
The inactive reactor at Browns Ferry in northern Alabama was
restarted in May after being shuttered for 22 years due to
maintenance issues its owner, the Tennessee Valley Authority,
decided would be too costly to fix. Completion of construction of a
second reactor at TVA's Watts Bar power plant near Chattanooga in
Tennessee has begun as well. The TVA expects to finish construction
in 2013 at a cost of $2.49 billion. Its older twin at Watts Bar
required 23 years to build at a total cost of nearly $7 billion,
according to the TVA.

Such long delays and ballooning costs—paired with improvements
in U.S. energy efficiency and reactor accidents at Three Mile Island
in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986—helped kill the first wave of
nuclear power plant construction in the U.S. And the rebirth is not
without controversy: Some environmentalists oppose the new
construction, noting that all of the potential risks linked to
nuclear power remain. "The flaws of nuclear power—excessive
cost, security threats and long-lived radioactive waste—have
not been solved," says Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's
energy program. "More nuclear reactors will only exacerbate these
problems."

In fact, the only shift in the debate is the growing acceptance of
nuclear power as an alternative energy source to coal-fired
generation, which spews globe-warming greenhouse gas emissions. "If
we're not serious about building more nuclear energy [power plants]
around the world, then we are not serious about addressing climate
change," James Rogers, chief executive of North Carolina
based–Duke Energy, said during remarks at the recent U.N.
climate summit.

Critics, such as Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an 
energy think tank, counter that nuclear power is an overly 
complicated and dangerous solution to a relatively simple problem 
that cannot compete with safer, lower-emitting energy generation 
sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, small 
hydropower and cogeneration, without government subsidies.

But proponents insist that if the U.S. and other countries 
continue to rely on large power plants and the demand for energy 
continues to grow as anticipated, then coal burning and uranium 
fissioning are the most effective options for boiling large 
amounts of water to produce steam to turn turbines-and thereby 
produce the most electricity.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international 
body of scientists, economists and other experts, noted in a 
climate change report released earlier this year that "Nuclear 
energy . could make an increasing contribution to carbon-free 
electricity and heat in the future." But these experts only 
expect nuclear power to account for 18 percent of worldwide power 
generation in 2030 under emission-reduction scenarios, up from 16 
percent today.

To reach even that slightly greater portion of world energy 
supply, however, will require the construction of at least 50 new 
nuclear power plants, not including replacements of existing 
reactors, in the next 23 years. NRG's application calls for the 
construction of two new reactors based on technology developed by 
General Electric and already operating in Japan and under 
construction in Taiwan. "We wanted a technology built by someone 
on time and on budget," Crane says. "There was only one design 
that satisfied that criteria and that was [the advanced 
boiling-water reactor.]"

The ABWR works by using the heat generated by the controlled 
splitting of uranium atoms in fuel rods to directly boil water 
into steam that then turns turbines to produce electricity. 
Improvements over previous designs include removing water 
circulation pipes that could rupture and accidentally drain water 
from the reactor, exposing the fuel rods to a potential meltdown, 
as well as fewer pumps to move the water through the system. 
"ABWR has digital primary controls [for the nuclear reactor] and 
analog backup. We think that's safer," notes Steve Winn, NRG's 
executive vice president for strategy, environment and nuclear 
development. "Planes are mostly digital by now but they also have 
fly-by-wire capability."

The new reactors will also have some modifications specific to 
the South Texas site, including floodproofing to protect the 
reactor from the adjacent 7,000-acre reservoir that provides its 
cooling water and updates to the pumps and fuel rods employed 
based on the Japanese experience of operating such reactors.

The company projects it will spend $6 billion constructing the 
two new reactors and hopes to have the first unit online by 2014, 
assuming the NRC completes its review by 2010. The NRC will first 
check to ensure the completeness of the voluminous application 
over the next two months, spokesman Scott Burnell says. "The 
staff's estimate is that the full technical review would take two 
and a half years," he adds.

The project, however, must overcome other hurdles, including a 
lack of technical and labor expertise as well as manufacturing 
capacity in the U.S., along with potential public opposition. 
"The stakes are high," Crane says, noting that the company has 
already spent $40 million on preparing the application and the 
price tag will be above $100 million when it orders the reactor 
vessel next year. "All it takes is one significant thing to go 
wrong and your project goes away." Nevertheless, the first step 
on the road to a nuclear revival in the U.S. has been taken.


      © 1996-2007 Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 9 Edinburgh Evening News: ScottishPower owner 'in nuclear power talks'

Wednesday, 26th September 2007 Change Date

IBERDROLA, owner of ScottishPower, is understood to be in talks 
with Livingston-based British Energy (BE) over a possible 
partnership to build new nuclear plants in Britain.

But, according to Reuters, sources said it was the Spanish 
company – which owns, or has a stake in, most of Spain’s nine 
nuclear power stations – and not its Scottish subsidiary that 
are in negotiations with BE.

Britain is close to deciding whether to back a new generation of
nuclear plants, which would boost the global industry as it recovers
from the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl.

BE has said it is in second round talks with more than ten different
parties about building new reactors if given the go-ahead by
government, but it has named none of them.

“It’s Iberdrola, not its UK division Scottish Power, that’s in
talks with British Energy,” said one source. “It’s really very
early discussions.”

The UK government is close to deciding on the plants, which would
help it meet EU-wide goals of cutting CO2 emissions 20 per cent
below 1990 levels by 2020.

This article:
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/business.cfm?id=1541222007

Last updated: 26-Sep-07 14:49 BST

©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions
*****************************************************************
 10 JOGJCC: Dounreay clean-up funding fears unlikely to be repeated

John O'Groat Journal and Caithness Courier: 

By Iain Grant

Published:  26 September, 2007

THE UK's nuclear clean-up quango is at the centre of fresh 
controversy in the run-up to announcing the latest budgets for 
its sites.

Late last year, fears that cuts would lead to major job losses at
Dounreay were headed off following a hectic round of eleventh-hour
talks.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said yesterday that despite an
expected "tight" Government settlement it does not anticipate a
similar crisis in the Far North this time round.

The UKAEA site in danger of being the big loser is Winfrith in
Dorset. Unions and community representatives there are campaigning
to prevent over 100 jobs going as a result of an intended Ł25
million cut.

NDA chief executive Ian Roxburgh caused a major stir when he asked
other sites to consider chipping in towards the deficit in the joint
budget for Winfrith and the UKAEA's headquarters at Harwell.

In a letter to site stakeholder groups, he wrote: "If you all
believe that Harwell and Winfrith should have additional NDA
funding, then this would have to come from reductions at other sites.

"You might therefore want to consider approaching your site licence
company with a view to discussing with them the possibility of
releasing some of their discretionary funding for such a purpose."

Dr Roxburgh made the suggestion because of what he views as the
strong community spirit that exists among the stakeholder groups.
The unanimous response has been to support Winfrith's case for more
funding – but not at the expense of other sites.

Alastair MacDonald, chairman of Dounreay Stakeholder Group, said he
was disappointed by Dr Roxburgh's latest approach. He believes it is
high time the funding of the clean-up of all the NDA sites was made
secure for the long term.

Replying to Dr Roxburgh, Mr MacDonald stated: "We fully support the
concerns raised by Winfrith on the impact that reduced funding will
have on the site, resulting in potential job losses and uncertainty
for the future.

"Dounreay was in a similar situation at the end of last year and the
stress and the worry, not only to the workforce but to the local
community, was immense."

Mr MacDonald said Caithness and other communities affected by the
decommissioning of nuclear sites should not have to put up with
ongoing doubts about future funding.

"It is imperative that the appropriate funding is secured and is
predictable throughout the lifetime plan to ensure the restoration
programmes are carried out in a safe and environmentally acceptable
way," he wrote.

"Our communities have supported the nuclear sites through the good
times and the bad. It is now for Government to support our
communities and provide the funding level required.

"Predictability of funding is key, not only to the decommissioning
work but also for the regeneration of the area to be realised."

Energy minister Malcolm Wicks and his Scottish Office counterpart
David Cairns were lobbied on the issue during the recent Beyond
Dounreay conference in Thurso by local MP John Thurso and other
community representatives.

Sandra Ellis, who chairs Winfrith Stakeholder Group, has ruled out
Winfrith being "baled out" by funding from other sites. The group is
pressing to have the shortfall in Winfrith's funding restored in its
direct allocation from the NDA.

The NDA will finalise its funding of sites for three years from
March 2008 after the Government's public spending plans are known.

A spokesman acknowledged yesterday that, in advance of this, it
gives sites an indication of what they can expect to receive.

He said the NDA's priority is to bankroll clean-ups that involve the
highest radioactive hazards. This criteria, he acknowledged, does
not favour Winfrith. The highest hazards are at Sellafield, with
Dounreay second in the list.

The spokesman was confident the NDA would avoid the crisis which
last year's feared budget cuts sparked in the Far North.

He said: "We recognise Dounreay as a high-priority site, though that
doesn't mean we have bucketloads of cash, and the Government's
comprehensive spending review is likely to be tight.

"We are nonetheless very hopeful that last year's situation at
Dounreay won't be repeated."

He expected the NDA to able to give a clearer indication of site
budgets within the next month or two.

The NDA allocated Ł150 million towards Dounreay's clean-up in the
current financial year.

* The NDA has denied claims that its funding regime does not
encourage contractors to make savings on clean-up jobs. The
criticism came at last week's meeting of DSG from Caithness
Contractors Consortium representative Tim O'Brien.

Mr O'Brien said that any underspend on contracts at Dounreay is
returned to the NDA's central pot. He commented: "We don't believe
it gives much incentive to increase productivity if the money saved
could end up going to other sites."

The NDA spokesman explained that fees are paid to site contractors
who make efficiency savings. He said it makes sense for underspends
to be returned to the central fund as the NDA is charged with
ensuring available resources are targeted at the priority jobs.

iain-grant@ukf.net

All content copyright 2007 Scottish Provincial Press Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 11 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee 
Meeting on Power Uprates (Susquehanna); Notice of Meeting

FR Doc E7-18980

[Federal Register: September 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 186)] 
[Notices] [Page 54694] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26se07-114]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


    The ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates will hold a meeting on 
October 9-10, 2007, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room 
T-2B3.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of portions that may be closed to discuss proprietary 
information pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)4 for presentations covering 
information that is proprietary to PPL Susquehanna LLC or its 
contractors such as General Electric, AREVA and Continuum Dynamics, 
Inc.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Tuesday, October 9, 2007--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of 
business.
    Wednesday, October 10, 2007--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of 
business.
    The Subcommittee will discuss the Susquehanna Steam Electric 
Station Units 1 and 2 extended power uprate application. The 
Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with 
representatives of the NRC staff, the PPL Susquehanna LLC (the 
licensee, PPL), their contractors (General Electric, AREVA and 
Continuum Dynamics) and other interested persons regarding this matter. 
The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, 
for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Officer, Ms. Zena 
Abdullahi (Telephone: 301-415-8716) 5 days prior to the meeting, if 
possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting 
that are open to the public.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:45 a.m. and 5:30 
p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact 
the above named individual at least two working days prior to the 
meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: September 19, 2007.
Cayetano Santos,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch, ACRS.
[FR Doc. E7-18980 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 12 NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority; Notice of Consideration of Issuance 
of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing

FR Doc E7-19008

[Federal Register: September 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 186)] 
[Notices] [Page 54691-54693] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26se07-112]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-328]


    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
50-328, issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee), 
for operation of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2, located in 
Hamilton County, Tennessee.
    The proposed amendment would incorporate a one-time change to 
technical specification Limiting Condition for Operation 3.6.1.9 to 
allow an increase to the annual limit for operation of the containment 
ventilation system with purge isolation valves open from 1000 hours to 
1400 hours during calendar year 2007.
    The licensee has been experiencing an accumulation of gaseous 
formaldehyde in the containment atmosphere, which has necessitated more 
than normal purging in order to provide protection for personnel 
entering the containment to perform maintenance or surveillance 
activities during operation. This increase in gaseous formaldehyde 
began during 2007. The licensee has installed High-Efficiency 
Particulate Air and charcoal filters in the upper containment, which 
has been effective in reducing the overall concentration of 
formaldehyde, but additional purging is still necessary to allow 
required containment entries. The licensee has identified three 
potential sources of the formaldehyde, but positive identification and 
corrective action cannot be completed with the plant in operation. The 
limit on purge hours has been in effect since 1982 and typically has 
not been exceeded. However, based on the current need for purging, the 
licensee projects that the 1000-hour limit will be exceeded around 
October 15, 2007. Approval of the increase in containment purge hours 
will avoid an unnecessary unit shutdown and allow the licensee to 
perform detailed leak identification and corrective action in the 
spring 2008 refueling outage. Based on the preceding discussion, the 
Commission concludes that exigent circumstances exist.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 
50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under exigent circumstances, 
the NRC staff must determine that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations 
in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in 
accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) Involve a 
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 
(3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required 
by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    TVA's proposed change is not considered to be a significant 
departure from the current requirements. The containment purge and 
ventilation system is qualified and designed to isolate in the event 
of a design basis accident. The probability of occurrence of an 
accident is not increased as the increase in purge/ventilation 
system operation does not affect the system's capability for purge 
valve closure or containment isolation. The increase in system 
operation for the remainder of calendar year 2007 would continue to 
be governed by the limits of 10 CFR 20. In addition, purge system 
isolation capability remains unchanged. Consequently,

[[Page 54692]]

the 10 CFR 100 limits for site boundary dose would not be exceeded 
in the event of an accident during containment purge operation. 
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
    2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated.
    The possibility for a new or different kind of accident from any 
accident previously evaluated does not exist as a result of the 
proposed increase in purge/ventilation system operation time. The 
system design remains unchanged for performing isolation of 
containment for accident mitigation and does not create the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident 
previously evaluated.
    3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed increase in purge system operation is an increase 
that does not affect existing safety margins. Additional purge 
operation time will also continue to comply with effluent release 
limits in 10 CFR 20. In addition, the proposed change does not 
increase the risk for an accident because no physical changes to the 
plant are being made and design features associated with purge 
system isolation remain unchanged. Accordingly, TVA concludes that 
the margin of safety has not been reduced.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period, such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 14-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to 
take this action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking, 
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public 
Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 
F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of 
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person 
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request 
for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a 
hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in 
accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice for Domestic 
Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of Orders'' in 10 CFR Part 2. 
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which 
is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.
 If a request for a hearing 

or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the 
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or 
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following general requirements: (1) The name, address and telephone 
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the 
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the 
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's 
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the 
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must 
also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor 
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
    Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for 
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert 
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner 
intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The 
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific 
sources and documents of which the petitioner/requestor is aware and on 
which the petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts 
or expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on 
a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to 
matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The 
contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/
requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing.
    If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If 
the final determination is that the amendment request involves no 
significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment. If the final

[[Page 54693]]

determination is that the amendment request involves a significant 
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the 
issuance of any amendment.
    Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding 
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, 
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing 
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii).
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications 
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: 
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and 
Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; 
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification 
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of 
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by 
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and petition 

for leave to intervene should also be sent to General Counsel, 
Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, ET 11A, 
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, attorney for the licensee.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated September 17, 2007, which is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room 
on the Internet at the NRC Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. 

Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR 
Reference staff by telephone at 1 (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or 
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of September 2007.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brendan T. Moroney,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 [FR Doc. E7-19008 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 13 Japan Times: Hype on nuclear power is misleading 

japantimes.co.jp    Web
 
Thursday, Sept. 27, 2007

By BRAHMA CHELLANEY

NEW DELHI — Talk of a "global nuclear renaissance" remains just 
that — all talk. Notwithstanding the strong public relations 
campaign by the nuclear power industry and its powerful lobbying 
groups, nuclear energy is hardly the answer to the twin 
challenges of carbon mitigation and energy security that the 
world confronts.

Yet such is the hype that Washington and New Delhi are seeking to
sell a controversial nuclear deal to their skeptical publics by
speciously presenting nuclear power as the answer to India's rapidly
growing energy needs. Despite tax concessions and other sops, the
Bush administration, however, is still trying to revive the moribund
U.S. nuclear power industry, with not a single new plant currently
under construction.

Actually, the U.S. is counting on the deal with India to revitalize
its own industry. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it,
"India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012. If U.S.
companies win just two of those reactor contracts, it will mean
thousands of new jobs for American workers. We plan to expand our
civilian nuclear partnership to research and development, drawing on
India's technological expertise to promote a global renaissance in
safe and clean nuclear power." But in India, the deal is beginning
to unravel the government, making a midterm national election a
virtual certainty.

Owing to the global warming crisis, nuclear power is no longer a
hobgoblin to some environmentalists. With the power sector
responsible for 24 percent of all carbon-dioxide emissions in the
world, cleaner means to produce electricity are necessary. Yet, for
10 distinct reasons, nuclear power is unlikely to make any real dent
in global greenhouse-gas emissions or be a cost-effective answer to
the growing electricity demands:

After declining for a quarter-century, the world nuclear power
industry lacks the capacity to undertake a massive construction
program that could make a noticeable difference to global warming.
While nuclear power generation itself is "clean," the nuclear fuel
cycle is carbon-intensive, with greenhouse gases emitted in mining
and enriching uranium with fossil fuels. Reactor construction also
carries large carbon footprints. In addition, radioactive wastes
from reactor operation pose technological challenges and inestimable
environmental costs.

While nuclear-power proponents trumpet the emission-free front end,
opponents cite the back end of nuclear power that is exceptionally
problematic.

Independent studies worldwide show that electricity generated
through currently available nuclear technologies is not
cost-competitive with other conventional sources. Also, nuclear
power is highly capital-intensive. The reason why not a single new
power reactor in the U.S. has been built after the last one ordered
in 1970 is largely economics. Two separate studies by the University
of Chicago (2004) and MIT (2003) computed the baseline cost of new
nuclear power at 6.2 to 6.7 cents per kilowatt hour, compared with
3.3 to 4.2 cents for pulverized "clean" coal and 3.5 to 5.6 cents
for a combined-cycle natural gas plant.

Little surprise, therefore, that more than 100 planned reactors were
canceled in the U.S. in the period since 1970.

Resource-poor France and Japan remain exceptions to the global
reluctance to embrace nuclear power in a major way. Despite the new
intense Chinese interest in nuclear power, the reactors under
construction or planned will increase the share of nuclear energy to
barely 5 percent of China's total generated electricity.

The world's uranium stocks are limited and unless breeder technology
is embraced in a big way or the higher-grade ores reserved for
military programs are freed, the known uranium reserves may last
barely 85 years, according to calculations published in the joint
OECD-International Atomic Energy Agency Red Book.

Nuclear-fuel costs are escalating sharply because the international
price of uranium has been rising faster than any other commodity.
While the price of coal, measured in a two-decade time frame, has
dropped, the spot price of uranium more than quadrupled just during
2004-07. Australia holds 41 percent of the known global uranium
reserves, yet has not built a single nuclear power plant.

The lead time for construction of a power plant from any energy
source other than large-scale hydropower is the highest for nuclear
power. While a power reactor takes five to six years from start to
finish, a gas-fired plant takes two years and a windmill even less.

Because of its potentially serious hazards, nuclear power faces a
uniquely stringent regulatory regime, which adds to time and
liability, along with associated costs of operational safety and
spent-fuel management.

A tiny nuclear cartel made up of a few state-guided firms controls
the global reactor and fuel supplies. This constitutes the most
politically regulated and monopolized commerce in the world, with
little sanctity of contract, as several cases in the past have
showed. That is why many countries today view the idea of an
international nuclear fuel bank as institutionalizing discrimination
because it would allow a handful of advanced countries to preserve
their supply monopoly.

Nuclear power involves significant external costs that the industry
does not bear on its own, including costs related to
accident-liability coverage, antiterrorist safeguards,
radioactive-waste storage, retirement of old reactors, and
international monitoring. State subsidies are not factored into the
generating costs and thus remain hidden.

More than half a century after the then chairman of the U.S. Atomic
Energy Agency, Lewis Strauss, claimed that nuclear power would
become "too cheap to meter," the nuclear-power industry subsists on
state support — from subsidies to loan guarantees.

Nuclear power tends to put serious strain on water resources. The
Light Water Reactors (LWRs) that make up the bulk of installed
nuclear-power capacity are highly water-intensive, which sets a
limit on where they can be located. As they copiously use water as a
coolant, the LWRs appropriate large quantities of locally available
water. Worse, they pump the hot-water reactor outflow back into
rivers, reservoirs and oceans in a continuous cycle, damaging or
altering plant and fish ecosystems.

As global warming accelerates and average temperatures and the ocean
level rise, the LWRs will be particularly vulnerable and be less
able to generate electricity at their rated capacity. Water
shortages caused by climate change would adversely impinge on LWR
operations when such reactors are dependent on waters from rivers or
lakes.

During the intense 2003 heat wave in France, 17 reactors had to be
scaled back in operation or turned off because of the rapid rise in
river or lake temperatures, while Spain's nuclear power reactor at
Santa Maria de Garona was shut for a week in July 2006 after high
temperatures were recorded in the Ebro River.

Reactors by the sea, of course, are better situated because they do
not face similar problems in hot conditions. But what a global
warming-induced rise in the ocean level would do was illustrated by
the December 2004 tsunami, which inundated India's second-largest
nuclear complex and shut down the twin-reactor Madras nuclear power
station.

Without a breakthrough in fusion energy or greater commercial
advances in breeder reactors, nuclear power is in no position to
lead the world out of the age of fossil fuels.

The path to energy and climate security lies through carbon-free
renewable energy, which by harnessing nature frees a nation from
reliance on external sources of fuel supply. A shift toward
"renewables" is critical, given that global energy demand is
projected to rise by 53 percent in 2030 from 2004. To achieve the
transition to a world less reliant on carbon-based fuels, a massive
increase in research and development on renewable technologies is
called for.

Wind power is already less inexpensive than nuclear power worldwide.
Given that wind power often can be more abundantly generated at
night while solar power is economical in sunny hours, the two can be
integrated into a common grid to help overcome intermittence.

Renewables can provide both base-load power to the grid (including
from hydropower and geothermal and biomass-fueled plants) and
intermittent loads (such as from solar thermal generators).
Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies with the Center
for Policy Research in New Delhi, is a regular contributor to The
Japan Times.


The Japan Times
*****************************************************************
 14 Reuters: German Unterweser reactor restarted - E.ON 

ANALYSIS-China environment in spotlight, but can leaders act?

Mon Sep 24, 2007 10:31am BST


FRANKFURT, Sept 24 (Reuters) - Germany utility E.ON (EONG.DE: Quote,
Profile, Research) said on Monday it had restarted its Unterweser
nuclear reactor on Sept. 23.

A note on its website said the reactor was supplying power to the
grid again.

Local government in the state of Lower Saxony said earlier on Monday
it had issued approval for the restart of the reactor on Sept. 22.

Traders in the wholesale power market were expecting the plant to
restart around Sept. 22 after E.ON, in an internet schedule, pushed
back the likely reopening date twice.

The 1,410 megawatt plant closed on July 21.





© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.


*****************************************************************
 15 Reuters: Iberdrola and British Energy in nuclear talks 

Wed Sep 26, 2007 12:55pm BST

By Pete Harrison

LONDON (Reuters) - Spanish power firm Iberdrola (IBE.MC: Quote,
Profile, Research) is in talks with British Energy (BGY.L: Quote,
Profile, Research) over a possible partnership to build new nuclear
plants in Britain, industry sources said on Wednesday.

British Energy says it is in second round talks with more than 10
different parties about building new reactors if given the go-ahead
by government, but it has named none of them.

The UK government is currently consulting on whether to approve a
new generation of nuclear plants, which would help it meet EU-wide
goals of cutting CO2 emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

Reactors could be built by 2017, but workforce constraints would
likely limit the first wave of construction to two units, British
Energy says.

"It's Iberdrola, not its UK division Scottish Power, that's in talks
with British Energy," said one of the two sources. "It's really very
early discussions."

Iberdrola has been expanding rapidly over the last months and prides
itself on a huge pipeline of environmentally friendly energy power
production, much of it acquired when it bought Scottish Power
earlier this year.

Iberdrola owns, or has a stake in, most of Spain's nine nuclear
power stations but their future is in doubt as the Madrid government
struggles to decide whether to allow new plants to be built when the
current ones are decommissioned.

Germany's E.ON AG (EONG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research) and RWE AG
(RWEG.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), France's EDF (EDF.PA: Quote,
Profile, Research) and Britain's Centrica (CNA.L: Quote, Profile,
Research) and Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE.L: Quote, Profile,
Research) have all previously been reported to be interested in
playing a role in the UK.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. | Learn more about Reuters

*****************************************************************
 16 Reuters: NRG seeks support from Japan for new reactors 

Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:55pm BST

HOUSTON, Sept 26 (Reuters) - NRG Energy (NRG.N: Quote, Profile,
Research) Chief Executive David Crane said the company hopes to
obtain financial support from the Japanese government to help build
two new nuclear reactors in Texas.

A recent change in Japanese policy may allow the government to
extend export credits or political risk insurance to NRG, which is
working with units of Toshiba Corp (6502.T: Quote, Profile,
Research) and Hitachi to develop the new reactors, Crane said at a
Merrill Lynch analyst conference in New York on Wednesday.

"We believe by working with Japanese partners we'll be able to get
Japanese financial support which we think will be a big help to the
equity in the project and will take a little bit of pressure off the
U.S. government's federal support," Crane said.

On Tuesday, Princeton, New Jersey-based NRG filed an application
with federal regulators seeking a license to build two
1,350-megawatt General Electric (GE.N: Quote, Profile, Research)
advanced boiling water reactors that would join two existing
reactors at the South Texas Project nuclear power plant near Bay
City, about 90 miles southwest of Houston.

NRG's application is the first complete request filed with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to construct new reactors in the
United States in nearly three decades. Licensing of new reactors in
the U.S. came to a halt after the 1979 accident at the Three Mile
Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania.

Japan and France have continued to build new reactors.

In April, the U.S. and Japanese governments signed a joint nuclear
energy action plan to provide a cooperative framework to promote
expansion of safe nuclear power.

One of the four primary objectives of the agreement is to
collaborate on policies and programs that support construction of
new nuclear plants in the U.S. and Japan, according to the
Department of Energy Web site.

While details of any potential Japanese financial support efforts
have not been finalized under the agreement, Crane said Japan
changed an existing policy recently to extend financial support to
projects like the STP expansion if the project benefits Japan's
strategic industries, including nuclear.  Continued...

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. | Learn more about Reuters
*****************************************************************
 17 Reuters: Chile's nuclear decision to take years-Bachelet 

Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:11pm BST

NEW YORK, Sept 25 (Reuters) - Chile's President Michelle Bachelet
said on Tuesday her government was still studying its nuclear energy
development options, but warned it will be for the next government
to make a decision as studies could take up to eight years.

"I will do all the work, the next government will have all the
studies needed," she said.

"The (International Atomic Energy Agency) told us that it takes
sometimes eight years to make a good decision, specifically in a
country that has as many earthquakes as Chile," Bachelet added.

The next Chilean government is due to take office in 2010, making it
impossible for Bachelet to make the final decision of pursuing
nuclear energy during her presidency.

"But at least I can say I have taken the responsibility to view all
the possibilities," she said.

Chile, the strongest economy in Latin America and one of the
healthiest among emerging countries worldwide, is strongly dependent
on its neighbors for its energy needs. Copper mining, its main
economic activity, is extremely energy-sensitive.

Bachelet, speaking at a gathering organized by the Americas
Society/Council of the Americas, during the United Nations General
Assembly meetings in New York this week, said that all arguments for
or against nuclear energy are being discussed.

She also said viability studies were being done on solar, biomass
and wind-power energy.  

 Chile currently depends on Argentina for natural gas imports, 
but its eastern neighbor is struggling to supply its domestic 
market.

Gas-rich Bolivia, which plans to quadruple its gas output to 
Argentina in the next two-and-a-half years, refuses to sell gas 
to Chile because of a dispute over Bolivia's sea access. 

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. | Learn more about Reuters
*****************************************************************
 18 Telegraph: Decision day looms for Britain's nuclear future - 

Thursday 27 September 2007

The consultations are almost complete but any new energy proframme
still has lots of hurdles to clear, reports Roland Gribben

The tide of public opposition to a new nuclear power programme may
be turning. That was one interpretation placed on the early results
of polls conducted at nine public meetings attended by more than
1,000 people as part of the government consultation to test the
extent of support for the rebirth of an energy technology that
traditionally divides public opinion.


Another showed that at the London event, for example, the numbers
backing the nuclear option were lower at the end of the meeting than
at the start.

The differing assessments of one set of results underlines the
extent of the public angst over nuclear power. The Government was
forced into opening the nuclear power debate to public consultation
after environmental groups persuaded a judge to rule that the
original consultation was “very seriously flawed”.

By October 10, the Government will have completed the new round of
consultations, boycotted by the environmentalists on the grounds
that they were a sham, and a month later a formal announcement is
expected, paving the way for a new nuclear power programme. Renewed
protests from Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, however, could
produce further delays.

The Government is anxious to bring nuclear power back into the
energy equation to provide a more balanced portfolio and avoid
heavier dependence on gas, renewable energy, coal or conservation.
But there are a host of unsettled issues.

First, the timetable is tight. On current projections, only one of
the existing clutch of nuclear plants, Sizewell B, will be producing
power by 2020, and even with an accelerated planning timetable for
project approval the Government will struggle to maintain the
nuclear contribution at around 20 per cent of electricity production.

The construction industry’s performance in completing the earlier
generation of nuclear plant in terms of time and budget was woeful
because of management shortcomings at both the customer and supplier
level, differences in design along with the scale of the projects,
the complications and the risks involved in the nuclear technology.

This time round, the nuclear lobby argues, the learning curve will
not be so steep because nuclear technology is more settled and
experience has provided valuable lessons.

There are important strategic issues. Building new plants will mean
recreating the nuclear industry. The teams involved in the nuclear
dash in the 1960s and 1970s, whether at management or ground-floor
level, have long disappeared and the prospects of a swift revival of
a UK capability are bleak.

The Government will have little option but to turn overseas, at
least across the Channel, to import the expertise and finance needed
to get any programme off the ground.

The sites may be provided by British Energy, the nuclear power
operator, alongside plants planned for closure, but the contracts
and construction profits will find their way into foreign pockets.
British Energy is in talks with more than 10 companies interested in
either partnerships, joint ventures or equity participation.

EdF Energy, the French nuclear power giant, is among the
frontrunners along with E.on and RWE, the German owners of Powergen
and National Power, while Centrica, the British Gas parent, has
expressed interested in purchasing some of the new nuclear output.
France is anxious to be in the front of the queue.

Nuclear power accounts for around 80 per cent of electricity output
in France and President Nicolas Sarkozy has set his sights on a
further boost with the creation of a dedicated nuclear company,
centred on Areva, the nuclear engineering and mining group already
under state control.

One idea involves setting up a holding company that would bring in
partners in countries where France won contracts. There is unlikely
to be a rush of orders for any new French nuclear venture or any
other consortium, largely because British Energy feels the
construction industry will be unable to handle an ambitious
programme without becoming overstretched and adding to the strains
on an industry already chronically short of civil engineers and
structural specialists.

But first the Government has to settle the terms of engagement.
Ministers are adamant that the programme must be financed by the
private sector rather than the taxpayer. EU authorities would be
tempted to interfere on the grounds that any public sector money
would involve an element of subsidy, but price and guarantees that
the nuclear power providers seek will play the allimportant role in
determining the economic contribution of a new generation of plants.

There will be other contentious issues on the negotiating table –
who foots the bill for the eventual closure of the new plants and
the storage of nuclear waste are just two of them. Haggling is
inevitable, but with the taxpayer forking out the estimated Ł65bn
that it will cost to end the productive life of the existing nuclear
power kit and finding at least Ł10bn to dispose of the current
stockpile of nuclear waste, the stakes are high and the risk of
mistakes costly. J

ust how will the new generation stock up in terms of energy
economics? Historically, construction costs have been high and the
cost of producing power low. The balance has changed little down the
years and, although construction should be more efficient and
streamlined, the sharp rise in the cost of uranium, influenced by
the dash for nuclear, may mean the price of power in the marketplace
will be more expensive.

The World Nuclear Association estimates that the size of the nuclear
power contribution to energy production could double over the next
30 years, although its share of the total market is forecast to hold
steady at around 16 per cent. China, with its enormous raw material
appetite, is leading the way with plans for 88 out of the 223 new
plant proposals currently being dangled before contractors. China’s
huge programme will corner an enormous slice of industry capacity
and resources, with the result that the UK may suffer ordering
delays, a point ministers are said to have taken on board.

© Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. 
*****************************************************************
 19 CBC News: Point Lepreau nuclear plant down until next week - NB Power

Last Updated: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 | 10:00 AM AT

The Point Lepreau power plant, the only nuclear generating station
in the Atlantic region, will be offline until at least next week, NB
Power said Wednesday.

An instrumentation problem in a control system triggered the
automatic safety system to kick in on Monday, officials said.

NB Power officials said they hoped the plant would be up and running
to generate electricity by next week.

In the meantime, staff will be performing spot checks and repair
work on a turbine steam valve.

Officials said the technical malfunction at the plant
poses no danger to employees, the public or the environment.

The shutdown should not disrupt service in the province, NB Power
spokeswoman Heather MacLean said on Tuesday.

Copyright © CBC 2007
*****************************************************************
 20 Public Citizen: Application for New Nuclear Reactors in South 
Texas Sends U.S. Back to Failed Energy Policies of the 1970s

Sept. 25, 2007

Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director of Public Citizen’s Energy
Program

NRG Energy’s request today to build two new nuclear reactors in
southern Texas is déjŕ vu all over again. The U.S. has been down the
nuclear power path – and it has proven to be expensive, polluting,
dangerous and a security risk. Nothing has changed with any of these
factors since utilities lost interest in nuclear power 30 years ago.
Electricity companies are testing a revised licensing process only
because federal politicians want to throw even more taxpayer dollars
at an industry with which they have become far too cozy.

With this application, NRG Energy is attempting to be the first in
line to obtain loan guarantees and other construction subsidies for
nuclear power granted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. NRG Energy
is not a poor little start-up company venturing into an innovative
field to address energy needs. In the past 18 months, NRG Energy has
made $835 million in profit and is positioning itself to receive
federal handouts that continue to prop up a mature industry that is
not economically viable.

Nuclear industry heads have candidly stated that without the federal
loan guarantees, the projects will come to a halt. There is no
reason for U.S. taxpayers to back loans for a technology that,
according to the Congressional Budget Office, has a default rate of
“well above 50 percent.” NRG Energy’s proposed design for an
advanced boiling water reactor should not even be eligible for loan
guarantees, the purpose of which is to encourage advancement of new
and innovative technology, because advanced boiling water reactors
are operating in Japan, and several more are under construction in
Asia. The technology isn’t that new, and it isn’t that innovative.
Further, NRG is hardly deserving of taxpayer money; it paid $2
million in fines this year for falsely reporting natural gas trading
information.

The proposed reactors may be headed for billions in cost overruns
just as in the 1970s, especially given that the cost of steel and
other construction materials are skyrocketing. Two advanced boiling
water reactors were built in Japan in 1996 and 1997 at a cost of
$4.21 billion and more than $3.64 billion respectively.

Public Citizen will fight these proposed reactors every step of the
way. The flaws of nuclear power – excessive cost, security threats
and long-lived radioactive waste – have not been solved. More
nuclear reactors will only exacerbate these problems. The future of
nuclear power looks a lot like the past. The first step to avoid
repeating history is to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on bailing out
this 20th century technology and focus on 21st century solutions
that are clean, safe, and sustainable.

###

*****************************************************************
 21 Leader Post: Nuclear power up close and personal

Ed Willett, The Leader-Post

Published: Wednesday, September 26, 2007

As a science writer, I've written about a lot of things I've never
expected to see up close. The outer planets of the solar system, for
example. The bottom of the ocean.

Nuclear reactors.

I still haven't reached Neptune, and I've never been to the bottom
of the sea, unless you count the Captain Nemo ride at Disneyland.
But as of this summer, I can say I've been inside a reactor.

In August, my wife (an engineer) and I toured the Bruce A Restart
Project on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, just north of
Kincardine, Ont., at the Bruce Power nuclear power plant.

There are eight CANDU reactors there, four known as Bruce B and four
known as Bruce A. The Bruce A reactors were brought into service in
the late 1970s, but were laid up by Ontario Hydro in the mid-to-late
'90s. In 2001, Bruce Power took over operation of the reactors, and
in 2003 and 2004 brought Bruce A Units 3 and 4 back into service.

Now Bruce Power is in the process of bringing Units 1 and 2 into
service, refurbishing them so they can operate for an additional 25
years. Once Units 1 and 2 are back in operation, Units 3 and 4 will
be shut down for their own refurbishment.

The project involves replacing fuel channels and steam generators
and upgrading all the 1970s-era electronics and electrical
components to modern standards. It's the first time anywhere in the
world anyone has attempted to completely refurbish a mothballed
CANDU reactor. Which means the people at Bruce Power are literally
writing the book on how to do it.

So, what's it like to see one of the largest engineering projects
Ontario has seen since the plants were first built, up close and
personal?

Well, we covered almost every aspect of it during our three-hour
tour (yes, the Gilligan's Island theme song did run through my head
a couple of times). In no particular order, here's what impressed us.

First ... it's big. It's really, really big. The reactor is big
(though remarkably small when you consider the amount of energy it
produces). The building is big. The steam generators are big. The
crane being used to lift them in and out through the roof is
extremely big. The turbines that spin steam into electricity are big.

For most people, nuclear energy has a high-tech sheen to it. They
picture a clean, quiet control room somewhere and people dressed in
white lab coats speaking in hushed tones. But in fact, a
nuclear-powered generating station is a massive industrial facility,
a place of steel and cables and concrete and vents and pipes.
Intellectually, I knew that, but it was still eye-opening to see it
up close.

A second thing that made an impression: the focus on safety and
security. I've never gone through a bomb-sniffing machine before,
and I've certainly never gone through a radiation detector before. I
found the steps taken to ensure the safety of workers and the public
and the security of the plant comprehensive and reassuring.

No, the vault is simply very, very warm. Especially when you're 
wearing three layers of clothes, a hard-hat, goggles, and rubber 
gloves.

When Units 1 and 2 come back online over the next couple of 
years, Bruce Power's eight reactors will produce more than 6,200 
megawatts, making it the source of about 25 per cent of Ontario's 
electricity on a typical day ... all produced, emission-free, 
thanks to the simple fact that when you split an atom of uranium, 
a small portion of its mass turns into energy.

We're impressed by the pyramids of Egypt, but really, piling a 
bunch of rocks on each other is nothing compared to the modern 
engineering marvels we take for granted every day.

n Edward Willett is a Regina freelance writer. E-mail comments or 
questions to ewillett@sasktel.net. Read (or listen to) this and 
past columns online at www.edwardwillett.com or 
edwardwillett.blogspot.com.

*****************************************************************
 22 Financial Post: The nuclear renaissance

Paul Vieira, Financial Post

Published: Wednesday, September 26, 2007

OTTAWA -- In years past officials from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
had to hop on planes and knock on doors to sell the virtues of the
Crown agency's CANDU reactor, and persuade nations that nuclear
power was the way to go to ensure a reliable source of electricity.

That's how Ken Petrunik, AECL's chief operating officer and a
40-year veteran of the nuclear industry, remembers it.

"Today, it is the reverse," Mr. Petrunik said in an interview. "We
are now getting queries from countries and parties weekly. It really
is a change in market dynamics. It is a bellwether."
View Larger Image

The Point Lepreau power plant in New Brunswick

The "it" Mr. Petrunik refers to is the support behind nuclear
energy. Once scorned, nuclear is experiencing a global renaisance,
adored by public policy makers and business leaders as a solution
that ensures the lights stay on while carbon emissions go down.

"We simply cannot reduce greenhouse gas emissions without some form
of non-fossil fuel energy. Clearly, nuclear, more so than any other
alternative energy source, is about the only viable option to cut
greenhouse gas emissions and keep the lights on," says Jayson Myers,
president of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters.

Yet longtime critics of nuclear power express caution about this
latest love affair with atomic energy. "This renaissance is a
completely political and public relations phenomenon," Tom Adams, a
Toronto-based independent energy analyst said, adding the public
ends up financing nuclear megaprojects that often run awry, as was
the case in Ontario.

"The nuclear industry is filled with multiple layers of subsidies.
It is shielded from third-party liability, relies heavily on
government-guaranteed loans and, in most cases, government
guarantees captive customers to pay for the plant.

"All of that," he adds, "has the effect of concealing the investment
risk."

Despite naysayers, nuclear appears to have hit the mainstream
globally, and Canada is no exception. Currently, 18 reactors provide
about 15% of Canada's power supply. And there's the potential for
more.

A private consortium, which includes General Electric Corp. and
AECL, is looking at building a second nuclear reactor in Point
Lepreau, N.B. In Ontario, the Progressive Conservative party has
pledged to accelerate the buildup of nuclear plants as part of its
election campaign platform.

Even though energy is an area of provincial jurisdiction, it hasn't
stopped Gary Lunn, the Natural Resources Minister, from talking up
the nuclear power option and the environmental benefits it delivers.

But perhaps the biggest shot in the arm for the nuclear power
industry is an application before federal regulators to build a
reactor near Peace River, Alta. -- which, if approved, would mark
the first time a nuclear plant is located west of the Ontario border.

Murray Elston, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, says
the Alberta application, by privately owned Energy Alberta Corp.,
indicates that nuclear power "has been accepted as a viable
commercial proponent" in a province known for its endless supply of
black gold.

Nuclear has emerged as a favoured energy option among policy makers
for three main reasons: it has minimal greenhouse gas emissions, a
top concern among western governments, including Canada; high energy
prices, the result of China and India soaking up much of the world's
fossil fuel supply in their industrial surge; and security of
supply, given much of the world's oil and gas is located in
high-risk geopolitical zones.

The global pull toward nuclear comes after nearly two decades of
decline, largely due to the fallout from the 1986 accident in
Chernobyl. In this age of environmental concern, the stats
accompanying nuclear power are eyeopening: it is estimated a
1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant cuts carbon output on an annual
basis by up to seven million tonnes compared with a similar-sized
coal plant. (One megawatt is enough power for a community of 1,000
people.)

In another stunning example of how nuclear has cleaned up its act,
Patrick Moore, the man who co-founded Greenpeace to oppose nuclear
testing, is now a spokesman for the industry.

Despite all these advantages, hurdles abound regarding nuclear power.

For the most part, environmentalists -- among the loudest voices
calling on government to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by amounts
outlined in the Kyoto climate-change protocol -- reject nuclear as
an option. This is in large part because of the radioactive waste
generated and where that waste will be stored.

But of equal concern is the cost of building nuclear reactors, the
time such construction takes and the bill taxpayers are eventually
stuck with. In Ontario, nuclear projects gone awry, namely
Darlington and Pickering, have in large part left that province's
taxpayers on the hook for nearly $19-billion of electricity-related
debt that they are paying down through a special charge on their
local utility bills.

Moreover, critics such as Mr. Adams, claim nuclear projects are
often overbudget and delivered way behind schedule -- something the
International Energy Agency acknowledges.

"We have little or no experience of nuclear power paying for
itself," Mr. Adams said, noting that the only nuclear reactor
currently being built in the western world, in Finland, is already
over budget by a third and is 18 months behind schedule.

The IEA says that even under best case scenarios, such as capital
recovery in 25 years and an annual return on equity of 10% to 15%,
the cost of producing nuclear energy remains more expensive than
coal-fired plants.

"The market has spoken," Mr. Adams said, "and it has clearly
indicated nuclear without subsidies can't cut it."

Mr. Elston of the nuclear association said cost overruns are indeed
a concern. "The real issue is, 'Who is left holding the risk?'
That's why the new policy is to share the risk among the
proponents," he said, citing the public-private partnership at
Ontario's Bruce nuclear complex as an example.


© Financial Post 2007
*****************************************************************
 23 HF: The Nuclear Renaissance: Ten Principles to Guide U.S. Policy

Heritage Foundation

September 26, 2007

by Jack Spencer

WebMemo #1640

Nuclear power has many advantages over other power sources, but a
global expansion of peaceful nuclear technology could present risks
if not managed properly. While acting to mitigate these risks, U.S.
policy should, as in other sectors, include pro-market regulatory
reforms, foster competition, and avoid unnecessary intervention. The
government will, however, have a more direct role in the nuclear
sector than in most industries due to its history and the nature of
the technology. Following the government-induced stagnation of the
industry in the 1970s and 1980s, the private sector remains leery of
making large investments without a clear sign that the government
will not regulate the industry out of business again. To reap the
benefits of nuclear power, while minimizing the risks, the United
States must commit to reestablishing itself as a technology leader
in commercial nuclear power, avoid unwanted foreign dependencies,
modernize its approach to waste disposal, promote marketplace
freedom, and modify its approach to nonproliferation. The 10
straightforward principles laid out in this paper should guide
Congress and the Administration's actions.

1. Avoid creating dependency-based vulnerabilities.
To the casual observer, nuclear energy is domestically produced. The
plants exist in America, are generally operated by Americans, and
generate electricity distributed to Americans. This is a narrow
view, however; it does not respect the significance of the
industrial and intellectual base that produces the people,
components, and fuel necessary to build and operate nuclear plants.
After three decades of decline, the domestic industrial base does
not have the capacity to produce the components for a single reactor.

This lack of capacity goes beyond items that are easily found on the
international market. Essential components, such as heavy forgings
(the enormous pieces of metal out of which components are
manufactured) and specialized piping, are not available domestically
and are in limited supply internationally. These industrial
bottlenecks could be difficult to overcome as nuclear plant
construction ramps up. Ultimately, there is little difference
between relying on foreign oil or foreign manufacturing if both
allow America's ability to produce energy to be disrupted by foreign
interests. This reliance creates opportunities for others to
exercise power over the U.S. Minimizing these leverage points is
central to advancing national interests. The Administration and
Congress must avoid the potential vulnerabilities and risks
associated with foreign energy dependence.

2. Establish technological leadership across the spectrum of
military, civilian, and commercial nuclear activities.
The international influx of investment to the commercial nuclear
sector (public and private) almost guarantees that more advanced
nuclear technologies, some of which could threaten the United
States, will become available to unfriendly actors. Preventing this
requires that the U.S. and its allies establish technological
superiority across the spectrum of nuclear activities. Close links
among civil, commercial, and military nuclear technologies will
assure that those nations with the most advanced commercial and
industrial capabilities are able to develop the most advanced
military technologies. Therefore, it is vitally important that
America's nuclear industrial base, along with that of its close
allies, both commercial and military, remain globally preeminent.

3. Assure access to the components, capabilities, and materials
necessary to build, operate, and maintain America's nuclear power
plants.
Several critical sectors of the nuclear industry will have to be
strengthened to support a near-term, sustained effort to expand
America's commercial nuclear industry. For example, the very large
forgings needed to build reactors are available only in Japan, which
can provide parts for only seven or eight reactors annually. This is
not adequate to sustain a broad nuclear renaissance. Only one U.S.
company today can take those forgings and manufacture them into the
components used to build reactors. Other choke points may include
the capacity to manufacture steam generators and specialized piping.
Even if there were additional manufacturers, there are too few
skilled technicians, boilermakers, pipe fitters, electricians, and
ironworkers to support the effort. Supplies of raw materials must
also be secured. Global capacity could be enough to support the
near-term expansion of America's nuclear power industry, but
problems will arise as other nations expand their nuclear industries
simultaneously. This will seriously stress the current
infrastructure and challenge America's ability to meet its energy
needs.

4. Promote free trade as a central tenet of the global nuclear
industry.
The nuclear marketplace is often understood to be global, but this
is not exactly true. Though the U.S. market is certainly
international, with companies from around the world—many state
owned and subsidized—doing business in the United States, most
states control foreign access to their markets. American companies
are effectively barred from most countries' markets through a
combination of tariff and non-tariff barriers, bureaucracy,
protectionism, and onerous liability regimes. This is becoming a
significant issue as major manufacturing countries like China and
India and parts of Europe are developing plans to expand their
commercial nuclear capabilities. Gaining access to these markets
will be crucial to the long-term health of America's domestic
nuclear industrial base.

5. Limit subsidies to the commercial nuclear industry.
The federal government has a critical role to play in the initial
phases of the American nuclear rebirth, but this role must be
finite. Many countries are choosing to consolidate control over
their nuclear industries to protect their strategic and economic
interests. This approach may seem attractive in the
near-term—it allows these industrial titans to underbid
competition, minimize risk calculations, and enjoy market
preferences—but it will undoubtedly leave those industries
worse off in the long-term.

Congress and the Administration must resist efforts to rebuild
America's commercial nuclear industry through long-term federal
support. While some near-term incentives may be appropriate, given
the government's part in inducing the current atrophy of the nuclear
industrial base, industry must not become dependent on subsidies. An
American industry that grows out of the free market will be stronger
over the long term. Furthermore, a competitive, market-driven U.S.
industry will provide critical competition to the state-owned and
state-supported companies that currently lead the commercial sector.
Strong competition will force these nationalized and
quasi-nationalized industries to maintain high quality standards.
Quality assurance is critical to the success of nuclear energy,
because an accident at one facility could negatively impact the
entire industry.

6. Recognize nuclear power as a clean and abundant energy source.
It is not good that the federal government is working to pick
winners and losers in the energy market. The results will surely be
increased costs and limited choices for U.S. consumers. Instead,
once a set of goals and priorities are set following adequate public
debate, the government should remain technology-neutral. In the
current political climate, however, this may be unrealistic. If the
government is not able to be neutral, it should at least do as
little harm as possible. Federal laws, programs, and regulations
should recognize nuclear power as an emissions-free, domestic energy
source just like wind, solar, and other favorites of the
environmental community. Furthermore, nuclear energy is abundant.
Whether or not it fits the strict definition of
“renewable,” the fact is that known uranium stocks will
last for a very long time—perhaps centuries or even millennia,
with certain fuel recycling technologies.

7. Move beyond a Yucca-only approach to spent nuclear fuel.
When the nuclear industry was in decline, there was little incentive
to resolve the Yucca impasse or develop alternatives, but renewed
interest in expanding America's nuclear fleet demands a change in
policy. The expansion of nuclear power in the United States should
not be held hostage to political differences over the use of Yucca
Mountain as a nuclear by-product repository.

Although Yucca is critical to the overall future of nuclear power in
the United States, other disposition options do exist. The recycling
(capturing the unused energy from spent nuclear fuel) component of
the President's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is an important
part of moving beyond Yucca. Depending on how technology evolves,
recycling spent nuclear fuel could reduce the amount of highly
radioactive waste that will require permanent storage. In addition,
utilities have demonstrated the potential of interim storage over
the past four decades, as they safely kept spent nuclear fuel while
waiting for the government to take title of the material. The most
appropriate policy will likely combine on-site, interim, and
permanent storage with recycling.

8. Recognize that nuclear weapons are not the result of peaceful
nuclear energy programs.
Nuclear energy critics often argue that the threat of nuclear
weapons proliferation outweighs any potential benefits of nuclear
power. While civilian nuclear power has been used to clandestinely
pursue nuclear weapons programs in the past, there is no causal link
between the two. As has been demonstrated consistently throughout
history, states act in their interests and generally behave
according to agreed norms only to the extent that doing so advances
their national objectives. Therefore, limiting the technology
development of peaceful nations will not serve to limit the
threatening behavior of other nations. With very few exceptions,
law-abiding countries do not divert their energy programs for
weaponry.

9. Modify international nuclear regimes to better manage a global
nuclear renaissance.
The prevailing thrust of global nonproliferation policy has been to
keep weapons out of the hands of non-weapons states. The grand
bargain of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was that its parties
would have access to all nuclear technology so long as it was not
weaponized. This allowed countries like Iran and North Korea to
operate within the letter of the treaty while amassing technology to
begin a weapons program. With the growth of nuclear power, the focus
should be on the fuel cycle. Rather than be based on five nuclear
weapons states, the nonproliferation regime should be based on a
limited number of nuclear diverse fuel states. Some countries could
still pursue nuclear weapons, but by focusing on fuel cycle
activities, this nonproliferation regime would make such nations
much easier to identify, because they will have moved beyond the
bounds of international norms much earlier in the process.

10. Pursue nuclear power programs that make the U.S. government work
better.
Because of the integrated nature of the nuclear industry, government
programs work symbiotically with the private sector. The United
States should not fund programs simply to support the nuclear
industry; legitimate programs, however, will assure that the United
States maintains critical capabilities that nuclear technology
uniquely provides and serve as vital investment in essential
intellectual capital. For example, growing the Navy's fleet of
nuclear submarines and surface ships will help meet critical
national security requirements and strengthen the domestic
commercial industrial base. Rationalizing, streamlining, and
modernizing the nation's nuclear weapons complex and the Department
of Energy laboratory system would not only save taxpayers money but
would also strengthen domestic nuclear capability.

These programs not only make financial sense and provide significant
operational upgrades but also demonstrate U.S. commitment to nuclear
energy. These are the most important activities that the government
can undertake to stimulate the nuclear industry, and undertaking
them bolsters private-sector investor confidence. Ultimately, these
steps would lead to a robust nuclear industrial base and the
development of the skilled personnel base required to support an
expansion of nuclear power in the United States.

Conclusion
The United States risks cementing its status in the second tier of
commercial nuclear power states unless it takes action. While
European and Asian companies aggressively work to meet the emerging
demands of a growing commercial nuclear market, America's industry
has lost its capacity, intellectual expertise, and competitive edge.
For economic and national security reasons, U.S. policy must change
to better promote and manage the growth of nuclear power.

Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A.
Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.


MEDIA INFORMATION LINE:
(202) 675-1761
Fax: 202.544.6979

MEDIA CONTACTS:

Matthew Streit Assistant Director E-mail desk: 202.608.6156 cell: 
202.439.0271

Aerica Kennedy

International Communications Associate E-mail desk: 202.608.6153 
cell: 202.439.6175

Elizabeth Lincicome

Senior Media Associate desk: 202.608.6157 cell: 202.445.4041

Israel Ortega
Senior Media Associate desk: 202.608.6176 cell: 202.345.9130

Audrey Jones

Media Services Associate E-mail desk: 202.608.6159


FOR OP-EDS:

Paul Gallagher
Manager of Editorial Services E-mail desk: 202.608.6151 cell: 
202.439.6687

 ©2007 The Heritage Foundation General Inquiries: 202.546.4400 
Media Relations: 202.675.1761 

*****************************************************************
 24 AU The Age: Don't mention the 'N' word - 

Opinion - theage.com.au

Katharine Murphy
September 27, 2007

Australia has signed an important nuclear energy agreement. So why
the odd announcement?

A COUPLE of weeks ago, a senior Australian official you've probably
never heard of strapped himself into the comfortable end of an
aeroplane bound for Vienna. After the long journey, he went along to
an important meeting, and acting with the authority of the
Commonwealth, signed a document that commits Australia to being a
full partner in a global energy grouping you will know about only if
you follow national political events with abnormal interest.

The official in question was John Carlson, director-general of the
Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office. The group was
the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The meeting was the second
GNEP ministerial meeting held on September 16. The Austrian gabfest
was attended by 38 nations and three high-powered international
organisations. Senior officials participated in sessions focusing on
reliable fuel services and infrastructure, considered integral to
GNEP's development.

Apparently, that's a reliable summary of what happened. We know all
this because the Americans, helpful guys and gals that they are in
Washington, told us all about it. Prime Minister John Howard, in
serious pre-election mode, is pressing ahead with his nuclear
agenda, but not issuing helpful detailed statements after landmark
meetings in Vienna, or for that matter uttering the "N" word any
more than necessary.

If you are interested in understanding what happened in Vienna you
can pop onto the website of the US Department of Energy and read all
the documentation, including a GNEP statement of principles
committing member countries to doing things alarming to opponents of
nuclear energy, including expanding the number of power plants,
managing waste and establishing international supply frameworks. The
US, China, France, Japan, Russia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Kazakhstan,
Poland, Slovenia, Ghana, Jordan, Lithuania, Romania, Ukraine, and,
yes, Australia, signed on the dotted line.

Possibly about now you need a bit more information about this
grouping to understand where our analysis is going. GNEP is a
partnership of countries committed to using nuclear energy. The
alliance comprises fuel suppliers and users. While still in its
formative stages, this grouping is about making a serious commitment
to nuclear as a long-term energy source rather than as the stop-gap
alternative you put up with until something nicer comes along.

Opponents of nuclear energy oppose GNEP on principle. But there are
pluses ? at least in theory. The partnership aims to reduce the
volume of high-level radioactive waste through high-tech recycling
techniques. It also attempts to deal with some of the terrifying
security and proliferation risks (you know, terrorists getting their
hands on enriched fuel, planes flying into power stations, arms race
among the weapons states) by tracking fuel through the cycle.

Given they are the big negatives of the nuclear industry, this
initiative sounds worth exploring. Which is why it is so perplexing
that Australia's participation in GNEP has always been talked around
rather than clearly and definitively explained.

When President George Bush visited Australia for APEC, there was an
announcement of sorts that Australia would look to become involved
in GNEP (how we'd do that wasn't entirely specified because we were
told that government representatives would talk that through at a
meeting shortly in Vienna). This sort-of announcement was followed
by the Vienna meeting in which we actually signed up as a GNEP
partner (rather than the lesser category of candidate partner or
observer). The official sign-on was not announced here. In fairness
there was a bit about that week, the Liberals being consumed by a
leadership crisis. Perhaps no one got around to it.

Confusion about the precise nature of our participation in GNEP has
been fuelled by the fact that Australia has sought a special deal
that benefits Australia but not the other members of the club.
Australia has said we reserve our right to enrich uranium in the
future and we won't take anyone else's nuclear waste.

This seems a bit odd, given GNEP is all about creating a closed
circle of nuclear-fuel production that would restrict the number of
countries enriching uranium, and foster co-operation around the safe
storage of radioactive waste. That is kind of the point of this
international partnership. Canada has sought a similar deal to
Australia, but interestingly, did not sign up in Vienna. Were they
just unlucky, or are they holding out because they can't get the
guarantees they want? Why is it that everyone would agree Australia
can come to the GNEP party but do no cleaning up?

But according to the document John Carlson signed in Vienna,
Australia has in fact agreed to "expand nuclear power to help meet
growing energy demand in a sustainable manner and in a way that
provides for safe operations of nuclear power plants and management
of wastes".

This document is quite broad-ranging, and is apparently, bizarrely
"non-binding" on the participants, but there in black and white is
an explicit reference to shared stewardship of nuclear waste,
something GNEP espouses but the Government has assured us will not
be an issue for Australia.

Despite the fact a host of experts say we have the best geology in
the world to store spent radioactive fuel, and at least one
prominent Australian businessman has expressed interest in building
an internationally owned repository down the track, the Government
says without qualification that Australia won't be taking waste from
the rest of the world.

So what is the truth here? Has the rest of the world really agreed
that Australia can do exactly as it pleases, or have we sent an
official to sign an agreement that could in time lead to Australia
having not only power plants but repositories storing high-level
radioactive waste with only a ripple of public discussion?

Is this why prominent business people are setting up companies with
the intention of entering the nuclear business if John Howard wins
the election?

Katharine Murphy is national affairs correspondent.


Copyright © 2007. The Age Company Ltd.
*****************************************************************
 25 FresnoBee.com: Nuclear plant testing gets OK

Fresno's waste water could benefit project.

By Brad Branan / The Fresno Bee

09/26/07 04:31:56

The Fresno City Council approved testing for a proposed nuclear
power plant, even though construction of one is prohibited under
state law.

Supporters said the vote wasn't an endorsement for building a
nuclear power plant in Fresno. The testing will simply determine
whether a plant can be cooled with effluent from the city's
waste-water treatment plant in southwest Fresno, they said.

The council voted 4-2 to allow the testing, which will give the
nuclear plant's backers access to the waste-water treatment plant to
conduct tests.

The tests are expected to take four years and will cost up to $4
million, said John Hutson, who heads Fresno Nuclear Energy Group
LLC, the project's backers. The group is paying for the tests.

Council Members Cynthia Sterling and Henry T. Perea voted against
the agreement. Sterling, who represents the proposed location on
West Jensen Avenue, said every constituent who has called about the
proposal is opposed.

Perea and Sterling also said it doesn't make sense to support the
tests when plant construction is banned under state law.

California has two active nuclear plants: Diablo Canyon, near San
Luis Obispo, and San Onofre, between San Diego and Los Angeles.

State law bans any new nuclear power plants until the federal
government approves a process for the permanent disposal of spent
fuel from the plants, according to the California Energy
Commission's Web site.

A nuclear plant also would have to clear a number of federal legal
hurdles, most notably from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Hutson said he may try to use a ballot initiative to overcome the
state ban on new nuclear plants.

But he wants to find out whether the project can be done from an
engineering standpoint before asking voters to give the project a
green light.

Council Member Jerry Duncan said the approach makes sense. The
testing will provide more information for future debates about
nuclear energy in California.

Improved safety in the industry, along with the country's energy
crisis, might broaden public support for nuclear plants, Duncan said.

Using waste water to cool a nuclear plant would significantly reduce
costs, Hutson said. That would mean lower energy costs to consumers,
making Fresno more attractive to new business, Hutson said.

Palo Verde, a nuclear generation plant near Phoenix, uses waste
water from nearby cities as a cooling agent. As a result, it's the
only nuclear power plant in the country that doesn't sit on a large
body of water, according to its operator.

The reporter can be reached at bbranan@fresnobee.com or (559)
441-6679.

The Fresno Bee

* © Copyright 2007 The Fresno Bee
*****************************************************************
 26 Guardian Unlimited: Report: Nuclear Terror Threat Real 

Wednesday September 26, 2007 10:16 PM

By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - While there has been progress in protecting 
nuclear materials in Russia, the threat of terrorists stealing a 
nuclear device remains high in many parts of the world, a private 
study concluded Wednesday.

  ``Terrorists are actively seeking nuclear weapons and materials 
to make them,'' said the report by Harvard University's Managing 
the Atom project.

 The group annually assesses progress, and the lack of it, being 
made to protect nuclear weapons and other nuclear material that, 
if stolen by terrorists, could lead to a nuclear explosion.

   Matthew Bunn, the report's author, said Wednesday that ``we 
are making real progress'' in increasing security for nuclear 
material and warheads in Russia but that there remain ``gaping 
holes'' in the protection of nuclear materials in many areas of 
the world.

 ``The gap has narrowed, but it remains a dangerous gap that 
needs to be closed,'' said Bunn in a conference call with 
reporters.

    Charles Curtis, president of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a 
private advocacy group that commissioned the report, said: ``This 
is not a question of the glass half full or half empty.'' He 
noted that while there has been a measure of progress it takes 
only a few pounds of plutonium or highly enriched uranium to 
fashion a bomb.

   ``We are not yet treating it as the No. 1 security threat to 
our nation and the world,'' said Curtis, who was deputy energy 
secretary in the Clinton administration.

 The report said the essential ingredients for a nuclear weapon 
exist in more than 40 countries ``and there are scores of sites 
that are not secure enough to defeat the capabilities that 
terrorists and criminals have demonstrated'' should they seek to 
steal such material.

   Neither the U.S. government nor the International Atomic 
Energy Agency has ``a prioritized list assessing which facilities 
around the world pose the most serious risk of nuclear theft,'' 
the report said.

   It said from information that is available the highest risks 
of nuclear theft are in Russia, Pakistan and more than 140 
research reactors, often minimally guarded, in various countries 
that still contain highly enriched uranium suitable for making a 
nuclear bomb.

   ``Pakistan's nuclear stockpiles are comparatively small, and 
are believed to be heavily guarded. But face huge threats from 
armed jihadi groups and nuclear insiders with a demonstrated 
willingness to sell sensitive nuclear technology,'' said the 
report.

    Other nuclear theft risks include the large-scale transport 
of civilian plutonium in developing countries, including China 
and India.

  ``We need an urgent campaign to lock down all of these 
stockpiles ... everywhere they exist in the world,'' said Bunn. 
He noted that there is no agreement between the U.S. and China on 
securing that country's weapons-related nuclear material.

 The report acknowledges progress that has been made in U.S. 
efforts to increase security over nuclear weapons materials in 
the former Soviet Union. It said that 70 percent of the buildings 
with such material have had security improvements.

    While the U.S. global threat reduction initiative has 
expanded efforts to remove highly enriched uranium from 129 
research reactors across the globe only 48 have been converted to 
low-enriched uranium or shut down as of the end of 2006.

  ``Roughly half of the research reactors operating with HEU 
around the world today are still not covered by the conversion 
effort,'' the report said.

                                 ---

                             On the Net:

           Nuclear Threat Initiative - http://www.nti.org/

     National Nuclear Security Administration - www.nnsa.doe.gov

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 27 Rocky Mountain News: Flats workers appeal aid ruling

They decry delay in providing help to ill employees

By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News
September 26, 2007

Government officials didn't follow the law and made serious errors
in denying immediate medical and financial aid to most former Rocky
Flats workers with certain cancers, worker representatives said this
week.

In a stinging letter to the U.S. secretary of Health and Human
Services, the former nuclear weapons plant workers formally appealed
last month's denial of aid to most workers with radiation-related
cancers.

The workers said government scientists ignored the law by taking
more than the allowed 180 days to decide whether to recommend
immediate help for the ill.

The original aid petition asked that Rocky Flats workers receive a
special status reserved for those whose radiation doses can't be
calculated because rec-ords are missing or incomplete. The special
status, allowing immediate aid, covers only a small portion of more
than 20,000 people who worked at the now-demolished weapons plant
outside Denver over half a century.

The rest must now try to individually prove their ailments are
related to workplace exposures, a process that can take years. The
Rocky Mountain News reported this year that one in 10 Flats workers
who ultimately were approved for help died before the process was
completed.

The workers said in their letter to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt
that officials tried for more than two years to find a way to deny
the Rocky Flats workers' petition.

The workers say officials at the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, or NIOSH, wanted to prove they could use Flats
records to determine worker exposures. If most ill workers
automatically qualified for aid, they said, NIOSH would no longer
need government workers to analyze individual cases, jeopardizing
their entire program.

As evidence, the workers cited internal e-mails from U.S. Assistant
Secretary of Labor Shelby Hallmark questioning whether the program
analyzing individual workers is needed.

The Rocky reported on those internal documents in March.

The appeal letter said, "Our workers died while NIOSH desperately
dabbled in science under the threat that its program would be
eliminated, spelling an end to the multimillion-dollar business."

The letter added that the program has become a "jobs program at the
expense of the workers and the taxpayers."

A three-member panel appointed by the health secretary is expected
to hear the appeal.

frankl@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5091

© 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
 28 The State: Gulf War veterans still suffer

09/26/2007 

Critics say government has failed those whose ailments linger

By LES BLUMENTHAL - lblumenthal@mcclatchydc.com

WASHINGTON — Sixteen years after the Persian Gulf War ended, more
than 1 in 4 of those who fought remain seriously ill with medical
problems ranging from severe fatigue and joint pain to Lou Gehrig’s
disease, multiple sclerosis and brain cancer, the chairman of a
congressional advisory committee testified Tuesday.

But even as more is learned about what’s now called Gulf War
Veterans Illness, the Defense Department and the Department of
Veterans Affairs remain in virtual denial about its causes and have
been slow to offer treatment, said James Binns, the head of the
research advisory committee on the disease.

“This is a tragic record of failure, and the time lost can never be
regained,” Binns told the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “This
government manipulation of science and violation of law to devalue
the health problems of ill veterans is something I would not have
believed possible in this country until I took this job.”

Pentagon and VA officials defended their approach to studying and
treating the illness, saying they’re taking it seriously, funding
clinical and other research, and are committed to ensuring that Gulf
War veterans receive needed care.

“Veterans who report health problems are definitely ill,” said
Michael Kilpatrick, the Defense Department’s deputy director for
force health protection and readiness programs. “However, they do
not have a single type of health problem. Consequently, these
veterans have to be evaluated and treated as individuals.”

Though the focus was on the Gulf War, concerns hovered over the
hearing that those now fighting in Iraq might face similar medical
problems.

Fifteen percent to 20 percent of those who have fought in Iraq
recently are returning with “ill-defined” medical symptoms,
Kilpatrick said. He didn’t elaborate.

Among those testifying was Julie Mock, a 40-year-old mother of two
from Seattle who served along the Iraq-Kuwait border with a medical
unit. In early 1991, the alarms of chemical detectors went off
repeatedly, she said.

“We ingested expired pyrostigmine bromide tablets, we wore gas masks
with expired filters, inhaled dust and sand in the air that was
thick with the black of burning oil,” she said. “I experienced
respiratory difficulties, my skin grew hot with red rashes and I
began to suffer from debilitating headaches.”

Four years ago, Mock was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a
chronic disease that affects the central nervous system. Her voice
choking with emotion, Mock told the committee that her oldest son
has Tourette’s syndrome and a handful of other neurological
problems. Her youngest son has some of the same disorders.

Of the 700,000 or so U.S. troops who served in the Persian Gulf War,
175,000 to 200,000 are sick, Binns said.

Others who testified said that in addition to pre-deployment
vaccines, the health problems that Gulf War veterans experienced
might have been caused by exposure to the depleted uranium used in
munitions and armor, low-level nerve agents such as sarin that were
released when a large weapons depot was destroyed, and smoke from
more than 600 burning oil wells in Kuwait.

Les Blumenthal is a reporter in the Washington bureau of McClatchy
Newspapers.

*****************************************************************
 29 BBC: Families discuss body parts probe

Last Updated: Wednesday, 26 September 2007, 09:06 GMT 10:06 UK

Samples were taken legally, says the British Nuclear Group

Families affected by an inquiry into the removal of body tissue 
from nuclear workers are to meet in Cumbria.

The meeting, in Whitehaven on Wednesday, is expected to result in 
the creation of a support group.

Michael Redfern QC is currently looking into 65 reported cases,
mainly involving staff employed at Sellafield in Cumbria, between
1962 and 1992.

Mr Redfern is expected to attend the meeting to give families an
update on its progress.

No commitment

Angela Christie, who has helped organise the meeting at Whitehaven
County Court, said: "It is a chance for those who want support from
other people in their situation to get together and decide what they
want to do in the future.

"Numbers are not important and we will see how the group develops in
the coming weeks.

"We are not looking for commitment beyond just joining in."

Autopsy samples taken included tissue, bones and body parts removed
without permission, the GMB claimed.

British Nuclear Group, which owns the Sellafield site, said tissue
was taken for "legally correct" purposes.


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 30 Healthcare Professional: Public Health Response To The Polonium-210 Incident, UK

Main Category: Public Health News
Article Date: 25 Sep 2007 - 17:00 PDT

The poisoning of Mr Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive
polonium-210 in London in November 2006 had political consequences
internationally and presented the Health Protection Agency with some
unique public health challenges. Professor Pat Troop, Chief
Executive of the Agency, will open a session on the response to the
incident at the HPA conference at Warwick University today and give
a keynote address on how it was handled.

Chief Executive Professor Pat Troop said, "The detection of the
polonium-210 that killed Alexander Litvinenko is a tribute to
British medicine and science, and to police detective work. I am
particularly proud of the Agency's response to the unique public
health challenges the incident posed. We rapidly established a
monitoring scheme for people and places and this was the scientific
evidence base for all our public health advice. This gave the public
great confidence in our advice."

The Agency had to adapt its emergency plans for the particular
circumstances of the incident and had first to establish monitoring
schemes for people and places. The extent of contamination by
polonium-210 had to be measured as a priority and information from
the Metropolitan Police provided an indication of where monitoring
had to take place. Two hospitals and their healthcare staff were
also a major priority and close co-operation with Westminster City
Council was also needed because the Agency had to monitor people at
a variety of hotels, restaurants and offices.

The monitoring of people in the UK will be described. Nearly 800
people were offered monitoring to check levels of polonium in their
bodies. Of these, 139 showed evidence of contact with polonium and
levels in 17 people were relatively elevated and warranted further
monitoring. The people with elevated levels included hotel workers
and a member of Mr Litvinenko's family.

Because contamination was found in hotels and other public places in
London frequented by tourists, there was a significant international
dimension to the monitoring programme. Also at the conference, Dr
Charles Miller from the CDC in Atlanta will describe how the United
States organised its monitoring effort and some of the challenges it
posed for health authorities there.

Two presentations will be given on the particular challenges posed
by monitoring places for alpha radiation produced by polonium-210. A
wide variety of locations had to be monitored, including some
commercial aeroplanes and the Arsenal's Emirates Football stadium.
Speed and good communications were necessary so that decisions on
public access to areas could be made safely and speedily.

1. The Health Protection Agency ' s annual conference takes place at
Warwick University from 17 to 19 September. Further information can
be found at the conference website at
http://www.healthprotectionconference.org.uk.

http://www.healthprotection.org.uk


Privacy Policy Terms and Conditions © 2007 MediLexicon 
International Ltd

*****************************************************************
 31 Tri-City Herald: Agency calls for compensation for sick Hanford workers

Published Wednesday, September 26th, 2007

ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER

A federal review is recommending that some Hanford workers exposed
to radioactive americium or thorium be automatically awarded
$150,000 if they developed any of a wide range of cancers.

However, the review by the National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, or NIOSH, found that most Hanford workers from
1946 to 1990 who develop cancer should not receive automatic
compensation. Enough information about radiation exposure is
available to estimate individual radiation doses for most workers,
according to the review.

Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program, workers who develop cancer or their survivors may receive
compensation if NIOSH reconstructs the amount of radiation they
received on the job through 1990 and determines it had at least a 50
percent chance of causing their illness.

If too little information exists for the radiation dose to be
reconstructed, groups of workers may be classified as "special
exposure cohorts" and automatically compensated if they develop any
of 22 cancers.

Earlier this year, NIOSH recommended that the earliest Hanford
workers -- those who were exposed to radiation from 1943 to August
1946 -- be named a special exposure cohort. The most recent review
covered the remainder of Hanford workers through 1990.

It found that inadequate information exists to reconstruct the
radiation doses of some workers exposed to americium at the
Plutonium Finishing Plant and workers exposed to thorium in the 300
Area just north of Richland.

But it concluded that in most cases a radiation dose estimate could
be made even if radiation dose readings were not done for all
workers or were done inaccurately.

One of two petitions for special exposure cohorts that the review
considered said construction workers were not monitored between 1967
and 1971. But NIOSH said radiation estimates could be made based on
conservative assumptions and using results of monitoring for other
workers.

In cases in which monitoring was known to be inadequate, adjustments
to estimates can be made, the review said. For instance,
measurements recorded from certain Hanford dosimeters should be
increased by 50 percent to account for any uncertainties, the review
said.

Rosemary Hoyt, of Lyle, who with her sister brought the other of two
petitions being considered, said she disagreed with the review's
conclusions. The Hanford Site Profile, which describes radiation
protection and is used as a guide in establishing radiation doses,
is faulty, she said.

The review did not indicate how many of 2,614 workers who have
applied for the $150,000 compensation might be eligible for special
exposure cohorts because of exposure to americium or thorium.

NIOSH concluded that exposure to radiation in a program to recover
americium at the Plutonium Finishing Plant from 1949 to 1968 had not
been monitored enough to provide good data. Exposure also occurred
in two related facilities, the 231-Z Isolation Building and 242-Z
Waste Treatment Facility. The americium was being recovered for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration to use as a power
source in early space flights.

Work to separate americium 241, a trace contaminant, from plutonium
mixtures began as early as 1949. But there is no record that routine
monitoring for radiation from americium was done when the work was
not associated with other plutonium activities before 1968, the
review said.

Work with thorium began in October 1945 in the 300 Area of Hanford.
Thorium was fabricated for use in production reactors as part of a
program to see if it could be used rather than plutonium in nuclear
weapons.

Workers at the Metal Fabrication Building, the Reactor Fuel
Manufacturing Pilot Plant, the 300 Area Maintenance Shops and the
Radiochemistry Laboratory may have been exposed to radiation from
thorium that was not adequately monitored before 1960, the report
said. Workers commonly referred to the buildings by their numbers:
313, 306, 3722 and 3706.

The NIOSH recommendation will next be considered by the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health, which next meets in
Naperville, Ill., Oct. 3 to 5.

  &copy 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 32 Everything Marshall Islands: U.S. and Marshall Islands Reps Testify before Senate Energy Committee

http://www.yokwe.net

  Search Sep 27, 2007 - 07:55 AM

SENATE HEARING: Testimony of Thomas Bussanich, Acting Director 
Office Of Insular Affairs, Department of the Interior

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 
implementation of the amended Compact of Free Association with 
the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and S. 1756 dealing 
with Marshall Islands nuclear issues.

Implementation of the RMI Compact of Free Association
In 2003, the U.S. Government approved the amended Compact with 
the Republic of the Marshall Islands, providing a total of $1.5 
billion in assistance from 2004 through 2023.


The amended Compact's 20 years of grant assistance is intended to 
assist the RMI government promote the economic advancement and 
budgetary self-reliance of its people. Under the amended Compact, 
U.S. grant funding decreases annually, paired with increasing 
contributions to a trust fund established for the RMI; earnings 
from the trust fund are intended to provide a source of revenue 
for the government of the RMI when the grants expire in 2023. In 
addition, the annual grant funding is partially adjusted for 
inflation. The amended Compact requires the RMI to target funding 
to six development sectors--education, health, the environment, 
public sector capacity building, private sector development, and 
infrastructure, with priority given to education and health. The 
amended Compact also provides for a Supplemental Education Grant, 
which takes the place of certain domestic grants once offered 
through the Department of Education, the Department of Health and 
Human Services and the Department of Labor.

The Office of Insular Affairs is responsible for administering 
and monitoring the grants. The amended Compact's subsidiary 
fiscal procedures agreement requires the RMI government to 
monitor the day-to-day operations of sector grants and 
activities, submit periodic performance reports and financial 
statements, and ensure annual financial and compliance audits. In 
addition, the Compact and fiscal procedures agreement require the 
U.S.-RMI Joint Economic Management and Financial Accountability 
Committee (JEMFAC) to (1) meet at least once annually to evaluate 
the progress of the RMI in achieving the objectives specified in 
their development plans; (2) approve grant allocations; (3) 
review required annual reports; (4) identify problems; and (5) 
recommend ways to increase the effectiveness of Compact grant 
assistance. The RMI is also required to conduct annual audits 
within the meaning of the Single Audit Act for an independent 
review of its financial position.

We believe that the amended Compact of Free Association with the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands is a promising work in progress. 
Although many challenges remain for the RMI government to grow 
its economy and to get better performance from the government 
services that are supported by the Compact, the RMI has been a 
solid partner with the United States in making the Compact work. 
The RMI leadership has made a determined effort to adhere both to 
the letter and the spirit of the agreement, and is committed to 
the success of the agreement it negotiated.

Since implementation of the amended Compact in fiscal year 2004, 
the RMI has focused its Compact resources on the three highest 
priorities, infrastructure, education and health care. Over $52.2 
million, approximately 39% of all sector grant funding, has been 
dedicated to improved infrastructure. The result is best seen in 
education, where 82 new classrooms serving over 1,700 students 
are in use, and additional classrooms that will house a total of 
4,000 students will be in use at the end of this year. Fully one 
third of RMI students will be in new classrooms at the end of the 
2008 school year. In coming years, $5 million will be invested 
annually in physical improvements at the College of the Marshall 
Islands. These improvements will help the college retain its 
accreditation.

Since fiscal year 2004, the RMI has dedicated 34% of Compact 
funds to education and 21% to its health care system. The RMI has 
chosen to use only limited amounts of Compact funding for the 
environment, public sector capacity building and private sector 
development sectors. This allocation reflects the priorities of 
the RMI government and of the amended Compact; JEMFAC has 
concurred with this RMI decision. The allocations may change in 
any future year, although allocations to the infrastructure 
sector must be at least 30% of an annual Compact assistance and 
priority must be given to education and health care.

The allocation of Compact funding has been appropriate in the 
short term. However, growing gaps in the capacity of the RMI 
government suggest that it might be prudent to shift some Compact 
resources to public sector capacity building. The GAO has 
concluded that capacity limitations have affected the RMI's 
ability to ensure the effective use of grant funds. We agree with 
this conclusion. The RMI has made strong efforts to 
institutionalize performance management in its government, and is 
allocating $300,000 in fiscal year 2008 Compact funds to Public 
Sector Capacity Building. However, the RMI still lacks the 
capacity to adequately measure progress because education and 
health sector baseline data is not adequate and performance 
reporting is incomplete. Capacity restraints also affect the 
government's ability to collect and analyze economic data and 
plan for the future of declining Compact revenues.

The fiscal and economic futures of the RMI are issues of concern 
to the United States members of the JEMFAC. The RMI economy is 
growing, but on the fragile basis of increased public sector 
spending. There has been an unsustainable increase in government 
employment and its accompanying wage bill. The RMI reports a 23 % 
increase in national government employment in the past three 
years. Payroll costs jumped from $26.4 million in fiscal year 
2004 to $30.1 million in fiscal year 2006. This has taken place 
at the same time as the RMI has shown annual operating deficits 
in its general fund. The increase in employment, again according 
to the RMI government, has not been accompanied by an increase in 
the effectiveness of government services. The ability to make 
this internal assessment speaks well of the RMI government, but 
we hope that the RMI leadership will focus on the need to manage 
the public payroll in a manner that accounts for the coming 
decrements in Compact funding.

The Compact does not operate in a vacuum, and its overall success 
will be greatly enhanced or diminished by the circumstances of 
the RMI economy. The opening of a new tuna loining plant in 
Majuro has the potential to create 600 private sector jobs. Japan 
Air Lines has also begun a series of special charter flights that 
may have long-term benefits for the tourism sector. Even with 
these successes, the RMI still has obstacles to economic 
development: its geographic isolation, inadequate infrastructure, 
lack of a skilled workforce and an out-dated business climate. 
The theory of the Compact is that improvements in health and 
education will create a better workforce at home and more 
remittances from abroad, and that these factors, together with 
improved infrastructure, will provide a foundation for long-term 
private sector economic development. In the short term, we 
believe that there is a need for the RMI to take action to 
improve the business climate, including tax, land and foreign 
investment reforms. The United States intends to enhance our 
trade dialogue with the Republic of the Marshall Islands and 
other Pacific Island nations. Although the United States through 
its JEMFAC membership may inquire about and promote change, the 
decisions to make these important changes lie with the Marshall 
Islands government.

An important element of the United States financial assistance 
under the Compact is the trust fund established to contribute a 
source of revenue to the government for the RMI when annual 
sector grants cease after 2023, to be used for the same purposes 
as the annual sector grants were.

As of June 30, 2007, the market value of total assets of the 
Trust Fund for the People of the Republic of the Marshall Islands 
was $83.2 million. Of that amount, $64.3 million represented 
contributions of governments, including $31.8 million from the 
United States, $30 million from the RMI and $2.5 million from 
Taiwan. The return on assets during the current fiscal year is 
10.3 percent

Since Goldman Sachs began managing the Trust Fund assets as 
investment manager on November 14, 2005, the Fund's investments 
gained $12.0 million through June 30, 2007. The assets have been 
invested in a mix of United States public equity and realty 
funds, international equity funds, and fixed income funds.

The Trust Fund Committee is also investigating whether 
securitization of the future U.S. contributions to the Trust Fund 
would increase the ultimate 2023 value of the fund, and has 
issued an RFP for a study of its potential benefits and risks. 
Securitization would permit the Trust Fund to invest with a 
longer time horizon by bringing forward the United States 
contributions scheduled for later years. If deemed advantageous, 
a change in the Compact law would be necessary in order to permit 
implementation of a securitization program.

The Joint Economic Management and Financial Accountability 
Committee met recently in Honolulu. The meetings were productive 
and resulted in the allocation of Compact funding for fiscal year 
2008. In the next fiscal year, the RMI will dedicate $11.3 
million to education, $6.5 million to health, $11.8 million to 
infrastructure, $300 thousand to public sector capacity building 
and $5.6 million for assistance to Kwajalein atoll communities.

In summary, the Republic of the Marshalls Islands faces very 
serious challenges, but we are pleased with the mutual respect 
and cooperative manner is which our two countries are working to 
implement the Compact and address those challenges.

S. 1756

S. 1756 would deal with several issues that stem from United 
States nuclear testing that took place in the 1950s.

Section 2 - Continued Monitoring on Runit Islands

Section 2 would require the Department of Energy to survey 
radiological conditions on Runit Island every four years, and 
report to the House and Senate authorizing committees.

The partial clean-up of Enewetak Atoll in the late 1970's 
resulted in the creation of an above-ground nuclear waste storage 
site, a dome, at Runit Island. Inside Runit dome are over one 
110,000 cubic yards of radioactive material scraped from other 
parts of Enewetak Atoll.

The United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands 
settled all claims, past, present and future of the Government, 
citizens and nationals of the Republic of the Marshall Islands 
which are based upon, arise out of, or are in any way related to 
the Nuclear Testing Program. Article VII of the agreement 
subsidiary to section 177 of the 1986 Compact of Free Association 
relieved the United States of all responsibility for controlling 
"the utilization of areas in the Marshall Islands affected by the 
Nuclear Testing Program" and placed that responsibility solely 
with the Marshall Islands Government. Nevertheless, Runit dome 
has remained for many years a point of friction in the otherwise 
mutually agreeable, bilateral relationship between the 
governments of the Marshall Islands and United States. 
Representatives of the Marshall Islands have raised questions 
regarding Runit Island including (1) the safety of land, water 
and marine life, (2) the radiological condition of the northern 
part of the island, and (3) the structural integrity of the dome.

At present, the Department of Energy has a plan in place to 
conduct a visual engineering survey of Runit Dome in May of 2008. 
Such a survey is expected to become a routine part of DOE's field 
work.

Under the Compact of Free Association Act, DOE provides technical 
support in environmental measurement to four atolls (Enewetak, 
Bikini, Rongelap and Utrik) within the Republic of the Marshall 
Islands. The Marshallese, with their advisors, set all goals and 
conduct all remedial actions. DOE takes environmental 
measurements before and after remedial actions to see if goals 
were achieved. DOE may offer suggestions for remedial actions at 
the request of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Current 
funding limits the scope of DOE work to resettlement activities; 
Runit Island will not be resettled and is off-limits to residents 
of the Marshall Islands.

The Administration believes that current and future plans for 
surveying Runit dome and aiding the Government of the Marshall 
Islands in its assessment of conditions at Runit Island are 
sufficient to monitor safety. The Administration, therefore, 
opposes enactment of section 2 of S. 1756.

Section 3 - Clarification of Eligibility under EEOICPA

Section 3 deals with the eligibility of former citizens of the 
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands for the Energy Employees 
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). In the 
1950s, the United States government hired citizens of the Trust 
Territory, which was administered by the United States, to clean 
up ground-zero locations in Bikini and Enewetak Atolls and to 
collect soil and other samples from contaminated areas in the 
Marshall Islands. These individuals cannot receive EEOICPA 
benefits because the language of the statute does not overcome 
the presumption against extraterritorial application of American 
law.

The United States used both United States citizens and Trust 
Territory citizens (who were under the aegis of the United 
States), for work that sustained a program that was crucial for 
national security. At present, the former Trust Territory citizen 
workers are being denied EEOICPA benefits because the language of 
the statute does not overcome the presumption against 
extraterritorial application of American law.

Section 3 is intended to place the former Trust Territory citizen 
workers on an equal footing with United States citizen workers. 
The Administration is still reviewing section 3 of S. 1756, and 
its implication that compensation would be provided to a subset 
of DOE workers even though section 177 of the Compact and its 
implementing agreement provided for the full and final resolution 
of all claims arising from the Marshall Islands nuclear testing 
program. In addition, the Department of Labor notes that there 
are some drafting issues, particularly with respect to the bill's 
offset provisions.
.

Section 4 - Four Atoll Health Care Program

Section 4 would appropriate funds for the Four Atoll Health Care 
Program. The Congress established the Four Atoll Health Care 
Program in the early 1970s to provide health care for people who 
resided on the nuclear-affected atolls of Enewetak, Bikini, 
Rongelap and Utrik. When the original Compact of Free Association 
came into force in 1986, the Four Atoll program was funded for 
fifteen years under the Compact section 177 subsidiary agreement 
and ended in 2001 in accordance with the terms of that agreement. 
In January of 2005, the State Department submitted the 
Administration's evaluation of RMI's submission of a request, 
among other things, for an enhanced primary, secondary and 
tertiary health care system to serve the entire RMI population 
for 50 years under Article IX of the agreement subsidiary to 
Section 177 on the basis of "changed circumstances." The 
Administration's report concluded that there was no legal basis 
for considering additional payments. In both fiscal years 2005 
and 2006, Congress added $1 million in appropriations for the 
Four Atoll program.

Section 4 would create a permanent 17-year appropriation for the 
program (from 2007 through 2023). Additionally, it would fund the 
program annually at $2 million, inflation adjusted.

The Administration does not support a permanent appropriation of 
$2 million for this program. As noted previously, the 
Administration determined in 2005 that there was no basis in the 
Compact section 177 subsidiary agreement for considering 
additional claims. Furthermore, as previously noted in this 
testimony, the United States is currently committed to spend over 
$1.5 billion in direct assistance and trust fund contributions in 
the RMI over the next 20 years, and the area remains eligible for 
a number of categorical and competitive public health grant 
programs administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services in the same way as U.S. states and territories.

Section 5 - Assessment of Health Care Needs of the Marshall 
Islands.

Section 5 would mandate that the Secretary of the Interior 
commission an assessment and report by the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) of the health impacts of United States nuclear 
testing conducted in the Marshall Islands.

The Administration believes that this assessment is not 
necessary, given that on January 4, 2005, the State Department 
submitted the results of an Administration evaluation that 
carefully and methodically reviewed existing scientific studies 
of the impact of nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. The 
Administration believes that previous studies have adequately 
answered questions relating to the impacts of nuclear testing as 
they relate to additional claims for damage resulting from the 
nuclear testing program, and does not support the commissioning 
of additional studies at this time.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this completes my 
prepared statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions 
you may have at this time.

-Statement of Thomas Bussanich, Acting Director Office Of Insular 
Affairs, Department Of The Interior. Before The Senate Committee 
On Energy And Natural Resources, Subcommittee On Insular Affairs 
Regarding

The Implementation Of The Compact Of Free Association With The 
Republic Of The Marshall Islands, September 25, 2007

*****************************************************************
 33 Gallup Independent: Navajo downwinders face uphill battle for RECA compensation - 

Kathy Helms

By Kathy Helms Dine Bureau Gallup Independent

WINDOW ROCK – Fifteen years ago this past Sunday, the last
underground nuclear weapons test took place at Nevada Test Site. The
Sept. 23, 1992, blast was one of 928 known nuclear tests conducted
by the United States beginning in 1951.

In the years between 1951 and 1963, more than 100 above-ground tests
were conducted. The resultant mushroom clouds became a tourist
attraction at Las Vegas hotels 63 miles away, and the clouds of
radioactive fallout that permeated the atmosphere drifted across the
country, creating "hot spots" of radioactivity stretching all the
way to New England.

But Vegas wasn't the only place from which the shots were visible.
Navajos as far away as Cameron, Ariz., have reported seeing a fiery
glow in the sky that could not be attributed to the noonday sun or
one of Arizona's brilliant sunsets.

Many Navajos are believed to have been exposed to radioactive
fallout, which is presumed to have produced an increased incidence
of certain serious diseases, including various types of cancer. But
proving that exposure has been nearly impossible, according to
Navajo Nation Council Delegate Phil Harrison.

Harrison, the son of a deceased uranium miner, has dedicated much of
his life to helping radiation exposure victims and their survivors
collect compensation under the federal Radiation Exposure
Compensation Act.

"We have people that were born and raised here and never went
anywhere, and they can't come up with anything so they can't get
compensated," Harrison said.

"Residency is a big issue. It's very frustrating. There's nothing
that they can find that says they lived there. I mean, these people
were not brought in from Japan!"

"Their hogan is there, their sheep corral is there, their relatives
are there. They were not relocated. They were born and raised there,
and yet we have to come up with an original document to tie them in
to a certain designated county," he said.

In 2000 amendments, Congress added certain counties downwind of
Nevada Test Site to its list of geographic areas covered under RECA,
making Navajo downwinders in Apache, Coconino and Navajo counties in
Arizona and San Juan County, Utah, potentially eligible for
compensation.

Still, it's an uphill battle.

"They don't have birth certificates, a lot of them don't have
marriage certificates; a lot of them don't have immunization
records. Navajos never heard of these things until probably the
'70s," Harrison said.

"And then there's no such thing as keeping accurate, precise vital
records on these people because they were born at home ­ so we've
got really nothing to fall back on. They've just made it so hard."

The Department of Justice established the Radiation Exposure
Compensation Program in 1992 to begin processing claims. From April
1992 through June 2007, RECP authorized payments totaling $1.2
billion for 18,110 claims. Almost half of the $1.2 billion was paid
to downwinders.

The 18,110 claims represented about two-thirds of the 26,550 claims
filed since RECP began in April 1992. The remaining one-third, or
7,539 claims, was denied because RECA's eligibility criteria were
not satisfied, and 901 were pending adjudication as of June 30,
according to a Sept. 7 report from the U.S. Government
Accountability Office.

In about 40 percent (2,916) of the claims denied, claimants
continued to pursue a compensation award while 1,856 refiled their
claims at least once; and 1,048 pursued an administrative appeal.

Harrison said one woman in Western Agency has had her claim rejected
twice. Because of the "three strikes, you're out" policy, she is now
waiting for a new round of RECA amendments currently being worked on
before filing the third time.

In a 1997 report, the National Cancer Institute determined that 90
atmospheric tests at Nevada Test Site deposited high levels of
radioactive iodine-131 across a large portion of the United States,
especially during 1952, 1953, 1955, and 1957. The doses were large
enough to produce up to 75,000 cases of thyroid cancer, the report
said.

On the Navajo Nation, according to Harrison, "We're coming across a
lot of thyroid disorders." Also notable are the incidences of
thyroid cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, and stomach cancer.
"There's very few lymphoma, very few multiple myeloma, very few
leukemia," he said.

The incidence of cancers related to the reproductive system, which
are not covered under RECA, are of concern as well. "Besides the 20
that's listed, some of these are very questionable. It seems to me
that they also should be included ­ for the men, prostate cancer;
and for women, uterine cancer," he said.

"I just don't know what to say to these people when they say, 'Our
body is all exposed. Why are they pinpointing down to a certain
primary cancer?' "

On June 3, 2005, Larry Martinez of the Office of Navajo Uranium
Workers reported to the Navajo Nation Council that 176 Navajos and
approximately 20 Hopis had been approved to receive RECA
compensation for downwinders as of April 20, 2005.

Martinez said the New Mexico Tumor Registry had recorded more than
2,000 Navajos and more than 250 Hopis born before July 1, 1962, with
documented RECA-compensable cancers who might be eligible for
benefits under the downwinder provisions.
*****************************************************************
 34 Las Vegas SUN: Maybe no dump at Yucca after all

Today: September 26, 2007 at 7:21:45 PDT

First new nuclear plant in decades says it can store its own waste

By Lisa Mascaro Las Vegas Sun

WASHINGTON - For years Yucca Mountain and the future of nuclear
energy in this country have been intertwined until, suddenly
Tuesday, that seemed to no longer be the case.

At a packed Capitol Hill news conference celebrating plans for the
nation's first new nuclear power plant in a generation, senators
praised the project. Colorful charts showed what the future would
bring.

Then 45 minutes into the briefing the most important issue for
Nevadans emerged: Would Yucca Mountain, the nation's planned
repository 90 miles outside Las Vegas, be expected to store the
nuclear waste?

Not necessarily, came the answer.

The chief executive of the firm submitting the first nuclear power
application in nearly 30 years for a pair of plants in south Texas
said that as far as he's concerned, the waste can stay on the
company's 12,200-acre site for the next century.

"There's plenty of room to store our own waste," said David Crane,
president and chief executive of NRG Energy Inc.

Later he told reporters: "Whether Yucca Mountain happens or not
plays no part in our calculation."

Ever since Washington chose Yucca Mountain to be the nation's
nuclear waste dump over Nevada's objections five years ago, the Bush
administration's hoped-for nuclear energy renaissance and Yucca
Mountain have been intertwined.

Without a guaranteed place to store the waste, new plants would have
difficulty coming online.

Now, if the companies are saying they don't need Yucca Mountain, who
does?

Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley's spokesman, David Cherry, said, "if
it's perfectly OK to leave it in Texas for the next 100 years, what
is the urgency - or need, period - for Yucca Mountain?"

"The whole dialogue has shifted in our favor," Republican Rep. Jon
Porter said. "This should change history as to the future storage of
nuclear waste."

What came through Tuesday was the acknowledgment by NRG Energy and
industry backers in Congress that on-site storage will be the de
facto plan for the future.

The company's application is the first of 28 expected in the next
few years for 32 new plants , according to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, which licenses the facilities.

Government regulators have long said that spent fuel can be safely
stored at plant sites well beyond the life of those facilities - for
at least 90 years.

Perhaps the industry's strongest supporter in Washington, New Mexico
Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, said Tuesday that a permanent
repository remains the goal, but interim options should be on the
table.

"Some people believe we should proceed with the site in Nevada, and
others believe it's close to becoming a research facility," Domenici
said.

"I think we're ready as a nation to get around to a temporary
storage facility," he said. "That's what I'm hoping for."

Domenici called the waste issue "the most important question."

But he added, "I'm not worried yet."

Even as nuclear energy has grown in popularity as a way to curtail
global warming, Yucca Mountain's popularity has been waning among
the industry and lawmakers as the project drags on. When Nevada Sen.
Harry Reid became majority leader in January, some thought the
proposed repository was doomed.

More than 50,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel are stored at power
plants across the country. Because of the delays, the government
failed to carry out its legal responsibility to take the waste to
Yucca Mountain, and the companies have sued the government for
storage costs.

Separately, the Energy Department has been entertaining ideas to
store waste at research sites nationwide that are being considered
to pursue nuclear waste reprocessing - a method of recycling the
waste that scientists think remains decades off.

Nevada's congressional delegation has sought legislation to have the
government take ownership of waste at existing storage sites
nationwide.

"This is the way the nuclear industry needs to be thinking," Reid
spokesman Jon Summers said.

Although the industry's new attitude may be good for Yucca's
critics, it still poses problems for the nation, some said.

The industry still has no long-term solution for one of the most
dangerous materials on the planet, Cherry said.

"I'm sure the people of Texas will be thrilled to hear they will
become a waste dump," he said. "They're going to create trash
there's nowhere to put." Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202)
662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.


All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M); 
Procedures for Meetings

FR Doc E7-19013

[Federal Register: September 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 186)] 
[Notices] [Page 54693-54694] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26se07-113]                         

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Background

    This notice describes procedures to be followed with respect to 
meetings conducted pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(FACA) by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Advisory 
Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M). These procedures are 
set forth so that they may be incorporated by reference in future 
notices for individual meetings.
    The ACNW&M meetings are conducted in accordance with FACA. The 
ACNW&M advises the NRC on technical issues related to nuclear materials 
and waste management. The bases of ACNW&M reviews include 10 CFR Parts 
20, 60, 61, 63, 70, 71, and 72 and other applicable regulations and 
legislative mandates, such as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act as amended, 
the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act as amended, and the Uranium 
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act as amended. The Committee's reports 
become a part of the public record.
    The ACNW&M meetings are normally open to the public and provide 
opportunities for oral or written statements from members of the public 
to be considered as part of the Committee's information gathering 
process. The meetings are not adjudicatory hearings such as those 
conducted by the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel as part 
of the Commission's licensing process. ACNW&M meetings are conducted in 
accordance with the FACA.

General Rules Regarding ACNW&M Meetings

    An agenda is published in the Federal Register for each Full 
Committee meeting and is available on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW.
 There may be a need to make adjustments to the 

agenda to facilitate the conduct of the meeting. The Chairman of the 
Committee is empowered to make such adjustments to conduct the meeting 
in a manner that, in his judgment, will facilitate the orderly conduct 
of business, including making provisions to continue the discussion of 
matters not completed on the scheduled day on another day of the same 
meeting. Persons planning to attend a meeting may contact the 
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) specified in the Federal Register 
Notice prior to the meeting to be advised of any changes to the agenda 
that may have occurred.
    The following requirements shall apply to public participation in 
ACNW&M meetings:
    (a) Persons who plan to submit written comments at the meeting 
should provide 35 copies to the DFO at the beginning of the meeting. 
Persons who cannot attend the meeting, but wish to submit written 
comments regarding the agenda items may do so by sending a readily 
reproducible copy addressed to the DFO specified in the Federal 
Register Notice, care of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and 
Materials, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001. Comments should be in the possession of the DFO prior to the 
meeting to allow time for reproduction and distribution. Comments 
should be limited to topics being considered by the Committee.
    (b) Persons desiring to make oral statements at the meeting should 
make a request to do so to the DFO; if possible, the request should be 
made 5 days before the meeting, identifying the topic(s) to be 
discussed and the amount of time needed for presentation so that 
orderly arrangements can be made. The Committee will hear oral 
statements on topics being reviewed at an appropriate time during the 
meeting as scheduled by the Chairman.
    (c) Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the 
agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the 
time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained by contacting 
the DFO.
    (d) The use of still, motion picture, and television cameras may be 
limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the 
Chairman and subject to the condition that the use of such equipment 
will not interfere with the conduct of the meeting. The DFO will have 
to be notified prior to the meeting and will authorize the installation 
or use of such equipment after consultation with the Chairman. The use 
of such equipment will be restricted

[[Page 54694]]

as is necessary to protect proprietary or privileged information that 
may be present in the meeting room. Electronic recordings will be 
permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to 
the public.
    (e) A transcript is kept for certain open portions of the meeting 
and will be available in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), One White 
Flint North, Room O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-
2738. A copy of the certified minutes of the meeting will be available 
at the same location up to 3 months following the meeting. Copies may 
be obtained upon payment of appropriate reproduction charges. ACNW&M 
meeting agenda, transcripts, and letter reports are available through 
the PDR at pdr@nrc.gov, by calling the PDR at 1-800-394-4209, or from 
the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's 
document system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/
 (ACNW&M schedules and agendas).
and agendas).
sessions of ACNW&M meetings. Those wishing to use this service for 
observing ACNW&M meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW&M Audio 
Visual Specialist, (301-415-8066) between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. 
Eastern Time at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the 
availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting 
this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for 
providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the 
video teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing 
services is not guaranteed.

ACNW&M Working Group Meetings

    From time to time the ACNW&M may sponsor an in-depth meeting on a 
specific technical issue to understand staff expectations and review 
work in progress. Such meetings are called Working Group meetings. 
These Working Group meetings will also be conducted in accordance with 
the procedures noted above for the ACNW&M meeting, as appropriate. When 
Working Group meetings are held at locations other than at NRC 
facilities, reproduction facilities may not be available at a 
reasonable cost. Accordingly, 50 copies of the materials to be used 
during the meeting should be provided for distribution at such 
meetings.

ACNW&M Ad Hoc Subcommittee Meetings

    In accordance with the revised FACA, the agency is no longer 
required to apply the FACA requirements to meetings conducted by the 
Subcommittees of the NRC Advisory Committees, if the Subcommittee(s 
recommendations would be independently reviewed by its parent 
Committee.
    The ACNW&M, however, chose to conduct its Subcommittee meetings in 
accordance with the procedures noted above for ACNW&M Full Committee 
meetings, as appropriate, to facilitate public participation, and to 
provide a forum for stakeholders to express their views on regulatory 
matters being considered by the ACNW&M. When Subcommittee meetings are 
held at locations other than at NRC facilities, reproduction facilities 
may not be available at a reasonable cost. Accordingly, 50 copies of 
the materials to be used during the meeting should be provided for 
distribution at such meetings.

Special Provisions When Proprietary Sessions Are To Be Held

    If it is necessary to hold closed sessions for the purpose of 
discussing matters involving proprietary information, persons with 
agreements permitting access to such information may attend those 
portions of the ACNW&M meetings where this material is being discussed 
upon confirmation that such agreements are effective and related to the 
material being discussed.
    The DFO should be informed of such an agreement at least 5 working 
days prior to the meeting so that it can be confirmed, and a 
determination can be made regarding the applicability of the agreement 
to the material that will be discussed during the meeting. The minimum 
information provided should include information regarding the date of 
the agreement, the scope of material included in the agreement, the 
project or projects involved, and the names and titles of the persons 
signing the agreement. Additional information may be requested to 
identify the specific agreement involved. A copy of the executed 
agreement should be provided to the DFO prior to the beginning of the 
meeting for admittance to the closed session.

    Dated: September 20, 2007.
Andrew L. Bates,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-19013 Filed 9-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


*****************************************************************
 36 ReviewJournal.com: Yucca review board in dark

Sep. 26, 2007

Project design changes revealed only recently

By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL

New evidence of the location of the Bow Ridge earthquake fault line
prompted designers of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project to
change where they had planned to build concrete pads for cooling
thousands of tons of highly radioactive spent fuel.

But the design change made in June as project officials rushed to
complete bore hole drilling operations wasn't discussed with a
presidential board overseeing the scientific work until last week,
the board's chairman said Tuesday.

"It was not discussed in our meetings," said B. John Garrick,
chairman of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.

He said the first he heard about the realignment of the Bow Ridge
fault line was last week during a private "fact-finding" session
with project scientists between public sessions of the board's
meeting in Las Vegas.

"This is a work-in-progress issue," Garrick said. "It isn't just a
matter of the aging pad. It has to be addressed in the context of
all the facilities."

Garrick said government scientists are still trying to calibrate how
active the Bow Ridge fault is and the potential force it could
unleash.

Garrick said the Department of Energy has provided few details about
the aging pads or other surface facilities where spent nuclear fuel
canisters from the nation's commercial power reactors will be
handled and stored for decades before they are entombed in the
mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Garrrick said it's unclear if the pads will be covered or not.

"I have not seen any drawings that the pads will be sheltered, but
they may be," he said. "One thing for sure; the canisters will be
warm."

Project spokesman Allen Benson said scientists found out several
months ago after analyzing rock core samples that the Bow Ridge
fault line runs hundreds of feet east of where they thought it was
located.

As a result, the surface facilities design was changed June 18 so
that the pads wouldn't be built directly over the fault line.
Instead, they were moved about 100 feet east of where designers had
planned them on March 29.

Last week the Review-Journal obtained a May 21 letter to project
officials from the U.S. Geological Survey describing "preliminary
drilling results" that indicated the Bow Ridge fault was farther
east than originally mapped.

A story about the letter Monday quoting Nevada Nuclear Agency
Projects chief Bob Loux revealed that the Energy Department would
either have to change the design or show regulators in a license
application that the pads could be fortified to withstand a surface
offset of the Bow Ridge fault.

In an e-mail Monday, Benson said, "Changing the design and location
of facilities to enhance safety is the right thing to do. "The
information presented here is not new. It has been discussed at
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board meetings."

But Tuesday, Benson said he misspoke before learning that Garrick
confirmed that board members had only heard about Bow Ridge fault
line's realignment for the first time in last week's private session.

Loux, a longtime critic of the project, reacted, saying, "DOE only
tells information that they think helps them out. This is certainly
not going to be the only 11th hour surprise they find as they move
toward a license application.

"They have a fundamental lack of knowledge about the geology of the
site, otherwise they would have known where these things are," Loux
said.

The Department of Energy couldn't provide the Review-Journal with a
map that shows the location of faults in reference to the planned
location of surface facilities and the proposed repository site.

"All of that will be in the license application," Benson said. "We
are not going to piecemeal discuss our license application in the
media."

DOE officials have repeatedly said they will meet a self-imposed
deadline of submitting a license application for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to review by June 2008.

Garrick said he expects the detailed design at that time will only
be 35 percent complete based on Energy Department estimates.

Geologist Steve Frishman, a full-time consultant to Nevada Agency
for Nuclear Projects, said the danger posed by earthquake faults in
the area of surface facilities is not just limited to displacement
of the surface but ground shaking as well.

"If you have strong ground motion, things can tip over and bounce,"
he said about the waste canisters. "The danger is they'll fall over
and rupture."

If that happens, the highly radioactive materials could contaminate
the surface and spread potentially deadly particles into the
environment.

He said by moving the planned location of one of the aging pads 100
feet away from the Bow Ridge fault line "doesn't mean it's still not
sitting on top of it."

Frishman said Energy Department is designing the aging pads to hold
up to 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or roughly one-third of the
repository's capacity, which is 77,000 tons. Officials expect it
will take 24 years to fill the repository.

Frishman said the transport, aging and disposal canisters are being
designed for a 100-year life span because the canisters could sit
outside the repository site without any maintenance for as long as
60 years after having sat at reactor sites for 40 years.

"One of the issues we've had with the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission) all along since they (DOE) came up with aging pads is
they shouldn't be regulated under the repository license," he said.

"Instead, if it's a big storage facility, it should be regulated the
same way as private fuel storage, the same as for a nuclear power
plant," Frishman said.

"If you look at the faults at Yucca Mountain, it is highly unlikely
you could license a nuclear power plant there."

oldlawdawg wrote on September 26, 2007 10:53 AM: Where are Reid,
Ensign, Porter and Berkley when all this is going on? --PLAYING
PARTISAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR POLICTICS, THAT'S WHAT --
WORKING TO MAINTAIN OR CHANGE SENATE PARTY MAJORITIES, THAT'S WHAT!
What a complete let down by all of them as Yucca secretly steams
forward in spite of glarring problems that should be exploited to
prevent the site's completion or at least assure observance of such
huge safety concerns.



© Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007
Stephens Media, LLC   Privacy Statement
*****************************************************************
 37 The Tribune: Group collects more than 2,000 signatures against uranium mine

Sharon Dunn, (Bio) sdunn@greeleytribune.com
September 26, 2007

By Andra Coberly acoberly@fortcollinsnow.com

FORT COLLINS -- It was supposed to be Bev Ensley's little retirement
home on the range.

Years ago, the Fort Collins resident acquired property in rural Weld
County, half of which she planned to sell. The other half she would
keep for herself, a place to build a home, a place to watch the wind
bend the tall carpet of dry grass and the antelope frolic.

"I bought it 'cause I wanted an out-of-the-way, peaceful place," she
said.

As far as Ensley is concerned, it's all a pipe dream now. The
property sits just miles from Powertech Uranium Corp.'s Centennial
Project, a site between Nunn in northern Weld and Wellington and
about 10 miles from Fort Collins.

Powertech owns the mineral rights to more than 5,760 acres of land
in Weld; the company plans to drill wells and extract the
increasingly profitable mineral. Powertech's northern Colorado
project is still several years and several permits away from being
up and extracting.

Ensley is not alone in opposing the project. In fact, the resistance
of and attention on the project has jumped in just months,
organizers say.

"We have so many volunteers, I don't even recognize who they are
anymore," said Robin Davis, one of the leaders opposing Powertech's
plans.

Coloradans Against Resource Destruction continues to bring attention
to and petition against the proposed uranium-mining project. After
having several meetings in rural northern Colorado near the site,
CARD has started efforts in Fort Collins, attracting more than 200
residents.

When Davis started nunnglow.com in March, few residents were aware
of the project, she said, and few were aware of the issues that
surround uranium mining; critics of the different processes of
uranium mining cite environmental, health and economic impacts,
especially groundwater contamination.

CARD has collected about 2,000 signatures on its petition, which
encourages state and county officials to "avoid providing any
permits that would allow uranium mining until all questions ... are
answered by those who propose to mine" and to make regulations
against in situ leaching, which has been found to contaminate
groundwater. Larimer County Commissioners Randy Eubanks and Kathay
Rennels were in attendance Tuesday night.

The awareness of potential environmental and health impacts of the
project are what Jones attributes to the increase in support.

"Once people understand the impacts on their water, that's when they
really become concerned," she said. "You can live without other
things, but you can't live without water."

During the meeting, residents were told about environmental,
economic and health impacts that could affect the area around the
Centennial Project site.

All of them worry Ensley, who already expects her property values to
have decreased.

"Now it's worthless to sell, and I don't even know if I want to live
there," she said. "I don't blame others for wanting to leave, too."

All contents © Copyright 2007 greeleytrib.com
The Greeley Publishing Co. - P.O. Box 1690 - Greeley, CO 80632
*****************************************************************
 38 Israel seeks exemption from atomic rules
 
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:57:50 -0500 (CDT)

September 25, 2007

Associated Press	       

Israel seeks exemption from atomic rules

By George Jahn, Associated Press Writer

Israel is looking to a U.S.-India nuclear deal to expand its own ties to
suppliers, quietly lobbying for an exemption to non-proliferation rules so
it can legally import atomic material, according to documents made available
Tuesday to The Associated Press.

The move is sure to raise concerns among Arab nations already considering
their neighbor the region's atomic arms threat. Israel has never publicly
acknowledged having nuclear weapons but is generally considered to possess
them.

The new push is reflected in papers Israel presented earlier this year to
the "Nuclear Suppliers' Group" - 45 nations that export nuclear fuel and
technology under strict rules meant to lessen the dangers of proliferation
and trafficking in materials that could be used for a weapons program.

The initiative appeared to be linked to a U.S.-India agreement that would
effectively waive the group's rules by allowing the United States to supply
India with nuclear fuel despite its refusal both to sign the
nonproliferation treaty and allowing the IAEA to inspect all of its nuclear
facilities.

Israeli officials began examining how their country could profit from that
deal as early as last year, at one point proposing that the U.S. ask for an
exemption from restrictions stipulating safeguards by the U.N. nuclear
agency on all nuclear facilities, said a diplomat familiar with the issue.
The U.S. rejected that request, he said, demanding anonymity for discussing
restricted information.

The diplomat said the Israeli papers were "acknowledged but definitely not
embraced" by the NSG member nations.

Still, the documents show that Israel has not given up its quest.

Under a cover letter labeled "confidential," the two papers were circulated
among the group March 19 by Japan, whose mission to Vienna's International
Atomic Energy Agency serves as the liaison office for the group.

Among the hurdles still to be cleared before the U.S.-India pact becomes
reality is NSG approval of an exemption for India from group restrictions.
Critics have warned that the deal, if it goes through, will deal a blow to
efforts to contain the spread of nuclear arms by effectively rewarding a
country that has developed nuclear weapons while evading the
nonproliferation pact.

Besides India, only Pakistan and North Korea are known to have nuclear
weapons and be outside the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Israel is
considered an undeclared weapons state, with a doctrine of "nuclear
ambiguity."

In the paper proposing a list of criteria to be used by NSG countries for
"Nuclear Collaboration with non-NPT States," Israel inadvertently appeared
to touch on the debate over its own status, saying one condition should be
application of "stringent physical protection, control, and accountancy
measures to all nuclear weapons ... in its territory."

The other document urges "the international community at large and NSG
Member States in particular" to cooperate "with non-NPT states with strong
non-proliferation credentials" in the "supply of (nuclear) know-how and
equipment."

Despite close U.S.-Israeli ties, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns
appeared to rule out special treatment for the Jewish state, telling
reporters earlier this year that NSG countries needed to know the deal with
India "won't be a precedent to bring other countries in under the same
basis."

But Daryl Kimball, an analyst and executive director of the Arms Control
Association, said that - even if unsuccessful - any attempt by Israel to
move closer to nations exporting sensitive nuclear technology and material
that could potentially be turned into fissile material for warheads would
alarm many in the Middle East.

"There is a great deal of tensions between non-nuclear (Arab) weapons states
and Israel, and the mere existence of this proposal would exacerbate ... the
Middle East situation," he said from Washington.

And despite U.S. assurances, "Israel's proposal illustrates the danger of
making exemptions for individual countries from nonproliferation rules and
standards," he said.

The most recent tensions over Israel's nuclear capabilities surfaced at the
IAEA's 148-nation general conference. On Thursday, the Vienna meeting's
penultimate day, only the U.S. and Israel voted against a critical
resolution implicitly aimed at the Jewish State for refusing to put its
nuclear program under international purview.

==========
*****************************************************************
 39 N. Korea accuses U.S. of helping Israel develop nuclear weapons
 
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:26:18 -0500 (CDT)

25/09/2007
Ha'aretz		   

N. Korea accuses U.S. of helping Israel develop nuclear weapons

By The Associated Press

North Korea accused the United States on Tuesday of actively providing
nuclear weapons assistance to Israel while seeking to deprive other
countries of the right to peaceful nuclear programs. 

North Korea's top nuclear negotiator, meanwhile, denied accusations that his
country had cooperated with Syria on a secret nuclear project. 

"The United States is shutting its eyes to the nuclear programs of its
allies while taking issue with the rights to nuclear activities of other
countries for peaceful purposes," North Korea's communist party newspaper
Rodong Sinmun said in a commentary carried by the official Korean Central
News Agency. 

"As an illustration, the U.S. has long actively promoted and cooperated with
the Israeli nuclear armament plan," the newspaper said. "They decided to
provide assistance to Israel's nuclear development program. Then the U.S.
dispatched nuclear experts to Israel and transferred highly enriched
uranium, the key ingredient for nuclear weapons, to them." 

Israel is widely believed to be a nuclear power, but the government has
never formally confirmed or denied that it has nuclear weapons. 

North Korea's criticism came amid news reports that Israel Air Force
warplanes attacked an installation in northern Syria earlier this month
which was allegedly either a joint Syrian-North Korean nuclear project or a
shipment of arms for Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon. 

North Korea has flatly denied any nuclear link with Syria, calling the
accusation a fabrication by dishonest forces who want to obstruct recent
progress in North Korean-U.S. relations. 

"That matter is fabricated by lunatics, so you can ask those lunatics to
explain it," North Korea's top nuclear envoy, Kim Kye Gwan, told reporters
Tuesday after arriving in Beijing for talks on his country's nuclear weapons
program. 

International negotiations aimed at convincing North Korea to give up its
nuclear programs have reported progress in recent months, with the North
shutting down its only functioning nuclear reactor in July and pledging to
declare and disable all its nuclear facilities by year's end. 

A new round of six-party talks - involving the U.S., the Koreas, China,
Russia and Japan - is scheduled this week, with the participants expected to
firm up a deadline for North Korea to disable its nuclear facilities.

=========
*****************************************************************
 40 IPS-English POLITICS: Iranian President in Nuclear Theatrics
 
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:43:28 -0700

 
Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 26  (IPS)  - When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
completed his three-day political theatrics in New York, drawing large
crowds and angry demonstrators, he left the United Nations with a
defiant warning: Iran will not be cowed by any new sanctions either
by the United States or the European Union.

He said that ”certain powers” hostile to Iran for the past 30 years,
including the United States which he refused to name, have turned
”a legal issue into a loud, controversial political issue.”

”From our point of view, our nuclear file is closed,” he told reporters
at a crowded U.N. news conference Tuesday.

No so fast, says John Burroughs, executive director of the New York-based
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy. 

”Contrary to what Ahmadinejad claims, the Iran nuclear file is not
now closed,” he added. 

”But the kernel of truth in his statement is that there is real potential
for reaching agreement with Iran on monitoring and limiting its nuclear
programme,” Burroughs told IPS. 

Since 2003, when its history of reporting violations was revealed,
Iran appears to have met reporting requirements. 

In a report last month, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei stated that his agency ”is able
to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran.”


Burroughs said that while the IAEA cannot now confirm the absence
of undeclared nuclear materials and activities -- as experience with
countries such as Japan shows -- it is a challenging determination
that takes considerable time and requires enhanced inspections not
now accepted by Iran. 

”The IAEA and Iran have reached agreement on a work plan to clear
up outstanding questions about Iran's past nuclear activities,” he
said.

To encourage this process, he added, it would be wise for the U.N.
Security Council to defer a decision on strengthening sanctions. 

Tehran has repeatedly indicated its openness to operation of limited
enrichment facilities in Iran under heightened IAEA monitoring and
with foreign participation. Iran's leaders do not appear to have made
the decision to acquire nuclear weapons, Burroughs added. 

Responding to a question, the Iranian president told the U.N. news
conference that Iran had ”cooperated fully” with the IAEA in its investigations
of the country's nuclear programme-- and therefore ”the legal matter
is now closed.”

Ahmadinejad said he will not, at the same time, bow to any pressure
to replace Iran's civilian nuclear programme with renewable energies
such as wind and solar power.

He said nuclear energy was not only less costly and cleaner but that
it was also being developed by the same countries that had called
on Iran to halt its nuclear development. 

In a widely-broadcast interview on a U.S. television network Sunday,
he said Iran was not interested in developing a nuclear weapon because
it has been proved that the ”nuclear bomb is of no use” in today's
political and military context.

If nuclear warheads were of importance, they would have prevented
the downfall of the Soviet Union. But they didn't. 

”If it was useful, it would have resolved the problems of the Americans
in Iraq,” he said, arguing that the nuclear weapon had lost its persuasive
powers in today's world.

During an address at New York's Columbia University, which drew hundreds
of protestors, he said the world's five major nuclear powers -- the
United States, Britain, France, China and Russia -- are strengthening
their nuclear arsenals, instead of eliminating them.

Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco,
said that Article Six of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)
is quite explicit regarding the responsibility of the five existing
nuclear powers to make a good faith effort at ”complete and verifiable
disarmament”. 

The failure of these longstanding nuclear powers to do so places
all five permanent members of the Security Council in material breach
of the treaty, he added. 

”While this does not excuse Iran's failure to fully comply with the
IAEA, it does raise legitimate questions regarding these double-standards
by the major powers which is far more threatening to the integrity
of the NPT and the cause of non-proliferation than is President Ahmadinejad's
obstinacy,” Zunes told IPS.

Burroughs of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy quoted Ahmadinejad
as saying that Iran is prepared to have constructive talks with all
parties.

He said the United States should take Ahmadinejad at his word and
negotiate on the range of issues dividing the two countries, including
the U.S. occupation of Iraq; Iran's alleged involvement in supporting
Iraqi insurgents and alleged U.S. involvement in supporting unrest
in Iran; U.S. support of regime change in Iran; and Iran's nuclear
programme. 

”There should be no precondition for commencement of negotiations,”
Burroughs told IPS. 

The administration of President George W. Bush, he said, has so far
refused to discuss nuclear matters until Iran suspends enrichment,
but this amounts to saying ”we will not talk until you concede the
main issue at stake.”

Burroughs also said that both the United States and Iran need to
respect international law if the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme
is going to be successfully resolved. 

Iran is obligated to comply with the Security Council resolutions
requiring suspension of enrichment activities and heavy water-related
projects. 

Doing so, he pointed out, would facilitate negotiations and, by the
terms of the resolutions, lift the application of sanctions. 

In accordance with IAEA Board requests, Iran should also implement
the Additional Protocol to build confidence. 

”The United States must cease implied threats of military action
against Iran, which are contrary to the U.N. Charter prohibition of
the threat or use of force against another state,” Burroughs said.


And to more credibly insist on Iranian compliance with its obligations,
the United States must meet its own. 

The Bush administration must stop violating a Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty-related commitment by holding out the option of a nuclear attack
on Iran and other countries not possessing nuclear weapons, Burroughs
said. 

”The United States and other nuclear weapon states also need to get
moving on their treaty obligation to negotiate the verified reduction
and elimination of nuclear arsenals,” he declared. 



*****
+ POLITICS-US: Ahmadinejad as Goldfinger (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39207)
+ POLITICS: Iran Nuke Moves Hint at Interest in Deal (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39171)
+ Nuclear Ambitions - IPS Coverage of the Global Debate (http://www.ipsnews.net/new_focus/nuclear/index.asp)
+ U.N. Press Conference by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
 (http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2007/070925_Iran.doc.htm)


(END/IPS/WD/MM/IP/NU/BW/IR/TD/KS/07)


 
= 09270352 ORP003
NNNN


*****************************************************************
 41 BBC NEWS: Pakistan rejects Khan questioning

Last Updated: Wednesday, 26 September 2007, 16:06 GMT 17:06 UK

Dr Khan is still seen by some as hero, despite the nuclear scandal

Pakistan has rejected a proposal to let the UN question the 
disgraced nuclear expert, AQ Khan, who has been under virtual 
house arrest since 2004.

On Tuesday ex-PM Benazir Bhutto said she would let the UN nuclear 
watchdog put questions to Dr Khan, if she returned to office, 
reports said.

Many in Pakistan see Dr Khan as a hero for developing its first 
nuclear bomb.


Much debate

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday that the authorities
had fully investigated Dr Khan's activities and had passed on the
results to the UN.

The government's response came after Ms Bhutto was reported to 
have said that she would - were she to return to office - give 
the International Atomic Energy Agency direct access to Dr Khan.

The president has said that the nuclear scandal was 
"embarrassing"

She was responding to questions after making a speech on Tuesday in
Washington, the Dawn and Daily Times newspapers said.

Ms Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP) was quick to play down her
reported comments as "not very different from what the current
government says".

But correspondents say the remarks are likely to stir much debate in
the run-up to forthcoming elections in Pakistan.

Foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said: "In case there is
new information, in case there is something else that needs to be
looked into, we would conduct investigations and we will provide
information to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"That will remain Pakistan's position."

Ms Aslam said other countries had not done as much as Pakistan to
prevent nuclear proliferation.

President Musharraf pardoned Dr Khan shortly after he made a
televised confession claiming sole responsibility for more than a
decade of nuclear smuggling.

The government maintains that neither it nor the Pakistani military
was aware of his illegal activities.

Elections

In a separate development, the PPP has announced that it will field
a candidate for the country's forthcoming presidential ballot if
President Musharraf is prevented by the Supreme Court from taking
part in the vote because he is also head of the army.

The court was hearing closing arguments in the case on Wednesday and
a ruling is expected imminently.

* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 42 Guardian Unlimited: Pakistan Against IAEA Quizzing A.Q. Khan 

Wednesday September 26, 2007 12:31 PM

By STEPHEN GRAHAM Associated Press Writer

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistan's government on Wednesday 
rejected a former premier's proposal to let the United Nations 
question A.Q. Khan, the disgraced nuclear expert who headed a 
smuggling racket that sold nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea 
and Libya.

 Local media reported that former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto 
said Tuesday that if she returned to office she would give the 
U.N.'s nuclear watchdog direct access to Khan - a remark likely 
to stir controversy in the run-up to elections.

   Khan is viewed as a national hero for helping develop 
Pakistan's atomic weapons.

  Pakistan has won praise from the United States for its 
cooperation in shutting down Khan's network after it was exposed 
in 2004. But President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's refusal to let 
foreign experts speak directly to Khan has sustained suspicion of 
a cover-up.

  Bhutto, who plans to return to Pakistan from self-exile next 
month to contest upcoming parliamentary elections, was asked 
after making a speech Tuesday in Washington whether she would let 
Western officials interview Khan.

  She responded by saying that a new government under her 
leadership would make him available to the IAEA, Pakistan's Dawn 
and Daily Times newspapers reported. She also was reported to 
have said a parliamentary committee would investigate whether 
others were involved in selling Pakistani nuclear technology.

  The Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that Pakistani authorities 
had fully investigated Khan's network and shared the results with 
the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency.

 ``In case there is new information, in case there is something 
else that needs to be looked into, we would conduct 
investigations and we will provide information to the IAEA,'' 
ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said. ``That will remain 
Pakistan's position.''

  Aslam said other countries have failed to match Pakistan's 
efforts to prevent proliferation, for instance by clamping down 
on Western companies involved in smuggling.

   Musharraf pardoned Khan after he made a televised confession 
and claimed sole responsibility for the decades-long smuggling. 
The government insists neither it nor the Pakistani military was 
aware of his proliferation activities.

   Khan, 71, has been under virtual house arrest since 2004, 
though officials recently said he was allowed to leave his plush 
villa in the capital to visit friends and relatives. In rare 
public comments in July, Khan told The Associated Press that he 
was recovering from treatment for prostate cancer.

  Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party scrambled Wednesday to play 
down her remarks, saying they were ``not very different from what 
the current government says or any other responsible government 
in Pakistan would say.''

  ``There is no question of violating Pakistani or international 
law in relation to the freedom and personal rights of anyone, 
including Dr. A.Q. Khan,'' a party statement said.

   Musharraf has held monthslong talks with Bhutto over a 
possible power-sharing agreement.

   The Pakistani president has seen his popularity and power 
erode since his botched effort to fire the Supreme Court's chief 
justice earlier this year. His administration is also struggling 
to contain Islamic militants.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 43 ITAR-TASS: Many problems may emerge at new round of 6-way talks-Losyukov

26.09.2007, 13.52

BEIJING, September 26 (Itar-Tass) - Head of the Russian delegation
at the six-sided talks on the North Korean nuclear problem
settlement Alexander Losyukov believes that “many problems may
arise” at the forthcoming round of the talks. “They arise quite
unexpectedly, however we try to settle them,” the Russian deputy
foreign minister said at the airport of the Chinese capital on
Wednesday.

The deputy foreign minister also stressed that “there is limited
success – the talks continue and are yielding certain results.”
Losyukov noted, however that at the forthcoming round “it is
necessary to look what the results are like.”

According to the Russian delegation head, “It is necessary first of
all to assess prospects of the freezing process, denuclearisation
and disabling” of North Korean nuclear facilities.

Besides, “it is necessary to look in what mood are the North Korean
colleagues regarding the fulfillment of the planned programmes,” he
pointed out. In the view of Losyukov, representatives of Pyongyang
“will be interested in the compensation measures fulfillment.”

The Russian deputy foreign minister also said that he intended to
meet on Wednesday some colleagues in the multilateral dialogue, in
particular, with Chinese officials.

The second stage of the sixth round of the talks on the nuclear
problem of the Korean Peninsula will be held in Beijing on September
27-30. Representatives of China, Russia, the United States, South
Korea and North Korea are expected to discuss further steps aimed at
dismantling Pyongyang’s nuclear programme.

The steps include making public by North Korea of the full list of
remaining nuclear facilities and their following total liquidation
in exchange for economic aid and normalization of relations with
Tokyo and Washington.

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store
*****************************************************************
 44 WTNH.com: Jimmy Carter to speak about nuclear weapons at Quinnipiac

 Jimmy Carter to speak at Quinnipiac - by Crystal Haynes

Posted Sept. 26, 2007

Hamden (AP) _ Former President Jimmy Carter is planning a stop in
Connecticut today to talk about nuclear weapons and other world
issues.

Carter will be at Quinnipiac University in Hamden to give the
keynote address this afternoon at a conference titled "Albert
Schweitzer's Legacy: The Dangers of Nuclear Weapons."

The former president will also receive the first Albert Schweitzer
Humanitarian Award from the Albert Schweitzer Institute at
Quinnipiac.

The conference is commemorating the 50th anniversary of Schweitzer's
worldwide radio broadcast calling for an end to nuclear testing and
the destruction of nuclear weapons.

Schweitzer was a medical doctor, philosopher and musician who won
the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953.

 Content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow, WTNH, and Associated
Press. All Rights Reserved.


*****************************************************************
 45 Korea Times: Top NK Envoy Denies NK-Syria Nuclear Ties

   09-25-2007 21:59 

BEIJING _ North Korea's chief nuclear negotiator reiterated Tuesday
his country's denial of allegations that the North is helping Syria
with a secret atomic weapons program, warning six-nation talks aimed
at denuclearizing the North could grind to a halt if no substantial
agreement is reached this week, Yonhap News reported.

Dismissing recent media reports that the North may have provided
nuclear technology to Syria, Pyongyang said last week "dishonest
forces" were spreading such suspicions to overturn progress in ties
between Washington and Pyongyang, the news agency said.

"Lunatics have created these rumors about a nuclear deal between us
and Syria," Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan was quoted to tell
reporters upon arriving at Beijing's international airport Tuesday
morning. Kim is to attend a new round of six-nation talks aimed at
ending the North's nuclear program.

Andrew Semmel, acting U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for
nuclear nonproliferation, told a conference earlier this month that
Syria has "secret suppliers" of nuclear equipment and that there
were North Koreans in the country, raising alarm over a possible
nuclear link between the two states.

Underling the significance of the negotiations that involve the two
Koreas, the U.S., Russia, Japan and host China, Kim warned North
Korea's denuclearization could stop if the six-party talks fail to
produce an agreement during the four-day round that begins Thursday.

"Denuclearization will continue if we reach a agreement on the steps
we have achieved so far," Yonhap quoted Kim as saying. "And this is
a very important meeting where things will return to the starting
point if no agreement is produced."

North Korea in July shut down its key nuclear facility under a
landmark deal reached earlier this year. A multinational team of
experts recently completed surveying the North's nuclear facilities
that are to be disabled, a main topic in this week's talks in
Beijing.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday Pyongyang has
yet to come clean on all of its nuclear programs.

*****************************************************************
 46 DOE: Statement by Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell on NRG’s License Application

September 25, 2007

"Today marks the most significant and tangible step to date, 
towards the construction of the first new nuclear power plant in 
the United States in over 30 years.

DOE is confident that with NRG's reactor design selection and 
cooperation with their partners, General Electric and Toshiba, 
this project will likely result in the first of many new reactors 
being constructed and operated in the U.S.  This reactor would 
join an American nuclear industry that is safe, secure and has a 
strong record to prove it.

We look forward to the continued cooperation with industrial 
partners and the NRC on the road to substantial deployment of new 
emissions-free and reliable nuclear power in the near future.”

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
*****************************************************************
 47 DOE: DOE to Provide Nearly $20 Million to Further Development of 
Advanced Batteries for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

September 25, 2007

ANN ARBOR, MI – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary
for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Kevin M. Kolevar
today announced DOE will invest nearly $20 million in plug-in hybrid
vehicle (PHEV) research.  Five projects have been selected for
negotiation of awards under DOE's collaboration with the United
States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) for $17.2 million in DOE
funding for PHEV battery development projects and; DOE will provide
nearly $2 million to the University of Michigan (U-M) to spearhead a
study exploring the future of PHEVs.  DOE funding announced today
will help advance President Bush’s Twenty in Ten Plan, which aims to
displace twenty percent of gasoline usage by 2017 through greater
use of clean, renewable fuels and increased vehicle efficiency. 
PHEVs have the potential to displace a large amount of gasoline by
delivering up to 40 miles of electric range without recharging – a
distance that would include most daily roundtrip commutes.

“These projects will help provide the perspective and expertise
necessary to get plug-in hybrid electric vehicles out of the
laboratory and into the showroom, a key part of the President’s plan
to reduce our reliance on oil by increasing the use of clean energy
technologies,” Assistant Secretary Kolevar said.  “The Department
remains committed to working with our national labs, universities,
industry and automakers to advance the President’s energy agenda and
we are eager to continue supporting the widespread of use
affordable, emissions-free sources of energy to enhance our Nation’s
energy security.”

The five projects selected for negotiation of awards of up to $17.2
million from DOE aim to address critical barriers to the
commercialization of PHEVs, specifically battery cost and battery
life.  Combined with cost-share from the United States Advanced
Battery Consortium (USABC), these projects will allow up to $38
million in battery research and development.  DOE funding is subject
to negotiation of final contract terms and Congressional
appropriations.  Projects are expected to begin this year and
continue through 2009; funding will come from DOE’s Office of Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy (fiscal years ’07-’09).  USABC will
negotiate final contract terms with five lithium ion battery
developers.  Companies selected for negotiation of awards include:
* 3M of St. Paul, MN – selected for an award of up to $1.14
  million from DOE (total DOE/industry cost share: $ 2.28 million)
  over two years to screen nickel/manganese/cobalt (NMC) cathode
  materials through building and testing of small-sized cells;
* A123Systems of Watertown, MA – selected for an award of up to
  $6.25 million from DOE (total DOE/industry cost share: $12.5
  million) over three years for a project to develop batteries based
  on nanophase iron-phosphate chemistry for 10- and 40-mile range
  PHEVs;
* Compact Power Inc. of Troy, MI – selected for an award of up to
  $4.45 million from DOE (total DOE/industry cost share: $12.7
  million) over three years to develop batteries for 10-mile range
  PHEVs using high energy and high power Manganese-spinel;
* EnerDel, Inc. of Indianapolis, IN – selected for an award of up
  to $1.25 million from DOE (total DOE/industry cost share: $2.5
  million) over two years to develop cells for 10- and 40-mile range
  PHEVs using nano-phase lithium titanate coupled with a high
  voltage Nickel-Manganese cathode material;
* Johnson Controls – Saft Advanced Power Solutions of Milwaukee,
  WI – selected for an award of up to $4.1 million from DOE (total
  DOE/industry cost-share: $8.2 million) over two years to develop
  batteries using a nickelate/layered chemistry for 10- and 40-mile
  range PHEVs.


The University of Michigan’s Michigan Memorial Phoenix Energy
Institute (MMPEI) will receive nearly $2 million from DOE to
coordinate efforts among DOE and its Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and DTE Energy to
conduct a two-year study on PHEVs.  Specifically, the study will:
* Evaluate how PHEVs would share the power grid with our Nation’s
  other energy needs;
* Monitor the American public’s evolving view of PHEVs and provide
  the first national-level empirical data on how driving behavior
  differs with these vehicles compared to conventional gasoline,
  diesel, and hybrid vehicles;
* Assess a possible reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with the
  increased use of PHEVs;
* Identify how automakers could optimize PHEV design to increase
  performance while also reducing cost.  U-M researchers and auto
  industry partners will build a simulation model to test different
  PHEV design concepts.


Research for this study will take place over the next two years, and
a preliminary report is expected to be released in January of 2008,
at the Detroit Auto Show.  DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery &
Energy Reliability and Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable
Energy (EERE) will fund this study (fiscal years 2007 and 2008,
subject to appropriations from Congress).

EERE’s Vehicle Technologies Program leads the Department’s efforts
to bring PHEVs to market and works with industry to develop advanced
transportation technologies that will reduce the Nation’s use of
imported oil.  The development of a lower cost, high-energy battery
has been identified as a critical pathway toward commercialization
of PHEVs.  DOE goals include making PHEVs cost-competitive by 2014
and ready for commercialization by 2016.

USABC is a consortium of the United States Council for Automotive
Research (USCAR), the umbrella organization for collaborative
research among the Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company and General
Motors Corporation.  Supported by a cooperative agreement with the
DOE, USABC’s mission is to develop electrochemical energy storage
technologies that support commercialization of fuel cell, hybrid,
and electric vehicles.

Assistant Secretary Kolevar made today’s announcement while hosting
a press conference with Jon Willinghoff, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commissioner; Gary S. Was, Director of the Michigan Memorial Phoenix
Energy Institute; and Jud Virden, Deputy Associate Laboratory
Director for Energy Science and Technology at DOE’s Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory.

Media contact(s): Julie Ruggiero, (202) 586-4940 

 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 48 SF New Mexican: LANL Temporary resolution to buoy lab

Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:53 pm
 
By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican


Spending measure buys Congress more time for final appropriations
bill

Workers at Los Alamos National Laboratory got a six-week break from
steep budget cuts as congressional leaders worked out a temporary
spending bill that funds the lab at last year’s levels.

The measure, called a continuing resolution, allows Congress more
time to work out a final appropriations bill for the 2008 fiscal
year, which begins Monday.

There will be no layoffs in the next six weeks, but that was the
case anyway, a lab spokesman said. The measure was crafted by House
and Senate leaders, and would cover 12 appropriations bills that
have yet to be enacted into law. It will likely be voted on later
this week.

The resolution “provides us with some much needed breathing
room and of course we greatly appreciate the hard work of our
senators, especially Sen. (Pete) Domenici,” lab spokesman
Kevin Roark said.

Domenici is the ranking Republican on the Senate subcommittee that
pays for energy and water projects nationwide.

“This buys us time to redouble our efforts to put together...
a funding bill that will allow our nation’s nuclear complex to
continue critical nuclear deterrent efforts and to minimize the
layoffs at LANL and Sandia contemplated under the House-passed
bill,” Domenici said.

One worst-case scenario at Los Alamos, as requested by government
agencies, could result in 2,500 layoffs.

“This is as good as we could have hoped for in the near
term,” U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said. “It
maintains the status quo while we fight to ensure that our labs are
funded as close as possible to President Bush’s budget
request.”

Roark added this measure does not substantially change the
lab’s planning process. “We still need to see what kind
of spending bill comes out of Congress in November,” he said.

The continuing resolution expires Nov. 16.

U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M., said he was pleased with the resolution
but again encouraged the lab to diversify its mission.

Lab director Michael Anastasio has previously told workers the
budget could be flat at best or a $350 million cut at worst. The
lab’s current budget is more than $2.1 billion, and 12,115
workers are employed there. Of that total, 9,046 work for Los Alamos
National Security LLC, which operates the lab for the government.

Contact Andy Lenderman at 986-3073 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com.

Copyright 2007 The New Mexican, Inc.
*****************************************************************
 49 Knoxville News Sentinel: Y-12 completes $21.4 million upgrade 

News Sentinel Staff

Originally published 11:28 a.m., September 26, 2007

OAK RIDGE — As part of the modernization program at the Y-12
nuclear weapons plant, contractors have installed new compressed-air
systems at a cost of $21.4 million.

The new centralized system will supply air to the plant’s
production and support facilities and make maintenance easier, the
National Nuclear Security Administration said in a prepared
statement.

The NNSA said the project was completed ahead of schedule and under
budget.

The centralized system replaces nine compressed-air trains located
in five different locations at Y-12, the federal agency said.

“Completion of this project is another major step towards
completing the modernization of Y-12,” federal manager Ted Sherry
said in a statement. “This also enables us to avoid an estimated
$13 million in future maintenance costs.”

The new air system was the top priority of an infrastructure
refurbishment program at Y-12 that began in 2001. Other projects
under way include upgrades to the system for steam and potable water.

More details as they develop online and in Thursday’s News
Sentinel.

© 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 50 Knoxville News Sentinel: Third time isn't charming on nuke safety violations 

By Frank Munger (Contact)

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Last week's $137,500 fine against BWXT Y-12 was the third time the
federal contractor has been sanctioned for nuclear safety violations
since taking over management of the Y-12 National Security Complex
in late 2000.

This is not a case of three strikes and you're out. All of the
Department of Energy's major contractors in Oak Ridge have been
fined under the Price-Anderson Act, which governs nuclear safety at
federal facilities.

However, the trend isn't a positive one.

The latest fine against BWXT, a partnership of BWX Technologies and
Bechtel National, was based on four separate nuclear-safety
violations, with multiple examples of noncompliance for each.

The April 2006 situation involved an unchecked buildup of enriched
uranium in a filter housing associated with one of the plant's
casting operations. Y-12 employees belatedly discovered the presence
of lubricating oil in the filter housing, which added concerns about
the potential for a nuclear chain reaction.

Tom D'Agostino, who heads the National Nuclear Security
Administration, the DOE unit that oversees the weapons complex, said
Y-12 failed to maintain proper controls and allowed an unacceptable
decrease in the margin of safety.

While D'Agostino gave BWXT some credit for responding quickly once
the problems were discovered, he emphasized that the safety problems
were clearly "discoverable" and should have been corrected much
sooner.

---

John Burleson, general manager of Wackenhut Services, the
government's security contractor in Oak Ridge, confirmed that
several handguns were found during the search of a terminated
employee's vehicle at ORNL last month.

Asked if he was concerned that someone was able to get through
security portals with weapons in his car, Burleson said, "It's a
concern (but) we can protect the facility. We can outgun them,
out-fight them. It's not a big issue."

He added: "We don't search every vehicle (at ORNL), unlike some of
the other more secure facilities where every vehicle is searched in
certain areas."

Burleson said the "small arms" found in the vehicle were not loaded.
According to one report, five weapons were found, but the security
chief said he couldn't confirm that.

"There were several. I don't know the numbers," he said.

---

A spokesman for BWXT said there's no immediate plan to change the
four-day workweek for Y-12's salaried employees - even though union
employees rejected a proposal to go to a similar schedule.

Contractor officials had earlier acknowledged that the full
efficiency of the 4/10 work schedule - four days a week, 10 hours a
day - couldn't be achieved unless most of the plant's workers were
on the same schedule.

"The Atomic Trades and Labor Council vote to deny a trial period for
moving the majority of our union work force to 4/10s is certainly a
disappointment," Bill Wilburn of BWXT said. "However, focus on
continuous improvement is at the core of what we do every day. So,
we will continue to seek other ways to improve efficiencies,
including evaluating other existing schedule options that are
available to us."

Garry Whitley, president of the ATLC, confirmed that the membership
vote was 590 against the schedule change, 360 in favor of it.
Whitley said he earlier mistakenly reported the totals as 560 and
390.

A bigger concern for Y-12 employees at the moment is the possibility
of layoffs.

BWXT recently warned that layoffs were a possibility because of
uncertainties with the 2008 budget.

Whitley said union leaders met recently with Y-12 general manager
George Dials to discuss the budget concerns but came away with no
definitive numbers.

BWXT employs about 4,500 people at the nuclear weapons plant, about
a third of whom are hourly workers.

---

The Coalition of Oak Ridge Retired Employees holds its annual
meeting today, and you can bet that the topic of interest will be a
pension increase for the 12,000 contractor retirees or their
surviving spouses. The meeting will begin at 2 p.m. at the Heritage
Fellowship Church, 121 N. Illinois Ave., in Oak Ridge.

Because of the large number of people expected at the event, shuttle
buses will run from the parking lot of the former Food City grocery
store a couple of blocks away on Illinois. The shuttles will begin
at 1 p.m.

Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the
News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at
munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion
section of knoxnews.com.

© 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 51 AT: Domenici, Bingaman welcome stopgap spending bill for Los Alamos, Sandia labs

Albuquerque Tribune

By James W. Brosnan (Contact)

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

WASHINGTON ? The House is expected to vote today on a stopgap
spending bill that would stave off any major job cuts at New
Mexico's two nuclear weapons laboratories for at least six weeks.

The continuing resolution would fund operations at Los Alamos
National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories at current
levels from the start of the federal fiscal year, Oct. 1, through
Nov. 16.

The Senate is scheduled to vote on the same measure by the end of
the week.

New Mexico's two U.S. senators hailed the bill, which at least
postpones a day of budget reckoning. The measure is necessary
because Congress has not finished work on its 12 spending bills; the
resolution would give Congress time to work out a compromise on
spending with President Bush.

"We have averted a worst-case scenario at Los Alamos and Sandia
laboratories for the next six weeks," said Sen. Pete Domenici, an
Albuquerque Republican.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, added, "This is as good
as we could have hoped for in the near term. It maintains the status
quo while we fight to ensure that our labs are funded as close as
possible to President Bush's budget request."

But Rep. Tom Udall, a Santa Fe Democrat who represents Los Alamos,
warned that the lab cannot continue to perform the same missions and
expect the same budgets forever.

"Some want to pursue the status quo and remain focused only on the
areas at which the lab currently excels. I believe this would be a
grave mistake," Udall said. "It is time to recognize the inevitable
changes that are already affecting all of our national laboratories."

Earlier this year, the House made large cuts to the labs, especially
Los Alamos. The Senate Appropriations Committee restored the funds.

The Department of Energy prepared to lay off hundreds of workers in
anticipation that the continuing resolution might use the House
budget numbers. In some past years, the stopgap funding bills have
followed the lower number in the House and Senate bills.

Bingaman said funding at current levels is actually higher than in
either the pending House or Senate bills.

© 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
 52 lamonitor.com: Budget wins short reprieve

The Online News Source for Los Alamos

ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor

With five days left before the end of the federal budget cycle, New
Mexico's senators announced Tuesday that a continuing resolution
(CR) had been filed. The measure will be considered by both chambers
of Congress before the end of the fiscal year, midnight Sept. 30,
they said.

A key feature of the continuing resolution is that it extends
operations at Los Alamos and Sandia national laboratories through
Nov. 16 based on current funding levels.

"With this CR in the works, we have averted a worst-case scenario at
Los Alamos and Sandia laboratories for the next six weeks," said
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., in a statement. "This buys us the time
to redouble our efforts to put together a FY2008 funding bill that
will allow our nation's nuclear complex to continue critical nuclear
deterrent efforts and to minimize layoffs at LANL and Sandia
contemplated under the House-passed bill."

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said in the joint announcement, "This is
as good as we could have hoped for in the near term. It maintains
the status quo while we fight to ensure that our labs are funded as
close as possible to President Bush's budget request."

A laboratory spokesperson expressed LANL's gratitude to the
legislators in Washington in a statement this morning.

"We appreciate the opportunity to acknowledge all the hard work,"
said Kevin Roark of the Communications Office. "We realize the
difficulty of the budget process and so greatly appreciate all the
efforts of our congressional delegation, particularly Rep. Udall,
Sen. Bingaman and Sen. Domenici."

            © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 53 lamonitor.com: Richardson calls on Congress to fund LANL/Sandia

The Online News Source for Los Alamos

CAROL A. CLARK Monitor County Editor

Gov. Bill Richardson got serious in a letter to members of the
Congressional Appropriation Committees Tuesday with regard to the
looming funding crisis facing New Mexico's two national labs. FY
2007 ends Sunday and many jobs may depend on the budget's outcome.

"As governor of New Mexico, I am writing to you to express my deep
concern over the proposed appropriation for Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), which
would signify cuts to these most important national security
resources," Richardson stated in his letter to Senate Appropriations
Committee Chair Robert Byrd, D-Nev., House Appropriations Committee
Chair David Obey, D-WI, and six other Congressional Committee
chairmen and ranking members.

"I urge you, while working on the FY08 Energy and Water
Appropriations bills, to take up the Senate funding levels that will
allow the labs to continue their vital scientific work. In addition,
as the end of the funding year nears, I respectfully request that
you fund the Continuing Resolution at FY07 levels to allow (LANL and
SNL) to continue their mission without interruption until Congress
completes its work on the FY08 funding bill."

LANL spokesman Kevin Roark addressed Richardson's letter during an
interview this morning.

"We greatly appreciate the strong support from Gov. Richardson,"
Roark said. "He has clearly been a champion of the national security
capabilities at both laboratories for a long time. The letter very
succinctly describes the capabilities of both labs and we greatly
appreciate the kind words."

Richardson stated in his letter that LANL and SNL are a key part of
America's national defense and vital to New Mexico's economy. He
added that while both laboratories have had a traditional
responsibility to assure the safety and reliability of the nation's
nuclear deterrent, they have evolved to add new areas of innovation
from assessing border and transportation security to improving
health, energy and infrastructure security, and from countering
nuclear and biological threats to supporting the physical security
of first responders and America's armed forces at home and abroad.

"While the U.S. Congress continues to deliberate on the future needs
for nuclear weaponry and nuclear power, I believe all parties
recognize the threat posed by loose nuclear material in a post 9/11
world, and the ongoing need to be able to assess the national
security threat presented by countries seeking to develop nuclear
weapons," Richardson said in his letter. "With over six decades of
experience, (LANL) is consistently called upon to access and analyze
nuclear tests, such as those recently conducted by North Korea."

The governor told committee members that LANL also plays a critical
role in recovering sealed radio-active sources and keeping the
materials used in the nuclear "dirty bombs" out of the hands of
terrorists and has retrieved more than 15,000 sources of radioactive
material from medical and educational facilities.

The governor added that the labs' security research is also
developing techniques to defeat roadside bombs and countermeasures
to nuclear and biological terrorist threats.

"The 12,488 LANL employees and the 8,600 SNL employees include some
of the best and most highly awarded scientists in the world,"
Richardson stated. "LANL scientists have produced over 16,000 peer
reviewed technical articles in the last 10 years, the highest of any
Department of Energy national lab."

Richardson mentioned that the labs are expanding the borders and
limits of science and engineering. He said while America's
leadership in math and science has slipped, SNL has two of the 10
fastest computers in the world - Red Storm and Thunderbird - adding
that LANL is developing the world's first computer capable of
processing one million billion calculations per second.

Richardson told committee leaders that LANL scientists have helped
complete the 100th genomic sequence and helped discover how
hepatitis-C virus replicates itself in human liver cells. He
explained that LANL operates the world HIV database that more than
10,000 researchers draw on in their efforts to find a cure for HIV.

"But perhaps the area that holds the greatest promise for (the labs)
is in the development of renewable energy." Richardson said. "LANL
is currently using cutting-edge nanotechnology to develop highly
efficient solar cells. This breakthrough could revolutionize the
solar energy field by making solar cells economically competitive
with fossil fuels in producing electricity."

He added that LANL is an international leader in fuel cell research
critical to developing a hydrogen economy and is working with
companies to improve technologies for enhanced and clean use of
fossil fuels and expanding energy conservation efforts - reducing
dependence on foreign oil.

Richardson called LANL and SNL "international leaders in
nanotechnology" and said they are developing light, "super-strong"
materials to make more efficient use of energy resources for
automobiles and aircraft.

"LANL and SNL each have unparalleled facilities, whose loss or
reduction would impede scientific progress across our nation,"
Richardson said. "The current appropriation would mean a dramatic
cut for (both labs), and a significant step backwards in assessing
global nuclear threats and reducing loose nuclear material. The
current appropriation would also lose an opportunity to reassign the
best scientists in the country onto the toughest scientific problem
of our time - moving our nation to a renewable energy future."

As Congress continues its transition to a post-Cold War and
post-9/11 strategy, Richardson urged committee leaders not to
"shortsightedly curtail innovation and scientific advance at
America's leading national labs."

He called on them to maintain the labs' national security missions
and to challenge its scientists to help build America's renewable
energy future.

"They've faced tough challenges before and have risen to meet them,"
Richardson said. "I urge you to call on these scientists to take on
this new mission."

            © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 54 lamonitor.com: Nuclear medicine left out of energy budget

The Online News Source for Los Alamos

Continuing resolutions recycle old cuts

ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor

Among the measures at risk in this year's appropriation process is a
$20 million item for nuclear medicine research in the Department of
Energy.

About $2.5 million of that amount would normally flow down into New
Mexico, primarily at the national laboratories, said Robert Atcher,
president-elect of the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM).

Atcher, who lives in White Rock and is a program manager in the
Bioscience Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, said he was
in Washington on behalf of the society this week in an effort to
salvage the program.

Funding for basic nuclear medicine research in DOE's Office of
Science was dropped from the FY06 budget, because of what Atcher
described as an arbitrary decision by an examiner in the Office of
Management and Budget, and has been excluded from the budget by the
vagaries of the appropriation process since then.

An appeal managed to get the item restored in the House for the 2006
fiscal year appropriation, but when the Senate did not go along with
that item and replaced it with an "equivalent of earmarks," Atcher
said. "We didn't get the money back."

For the current fiscal year, he continued, "The Senate put it back
but the House didn't have it in the bill," and the exclusion
continued because of the continuing resolution that funded DOE for
FY07.

So now, like a piece of driftwood pinned in a backwater, the
research budget remains just out of reach - absent again in the
House bill and present in the Senate committee proposal.

The continuing resolution, now proposed as an interim solution for
the FY08 budget, will not help nuclear medicine, because it is based
on last year's budget figures, which was based on the year before.

This week the National Academy of Science formally released a review
on the state of the science of nuclear medicine, in light of the
"discussions" between the DOE and the Office of Management and
Budget.

"Advances on the horizon in nuclear medicine could substantially
accelerate, simplify and reduce the cost of delivering and improving
health care," the committee wrote in introducing its recommendations.

The first recommendation called for DOE and the National Institutes
of Health to coordinate a national nuclear medicine research program.

"In committing itself to the stewardship of technology development
(radiopharmaceuticals and imaging instrumentation), the DOE would
reclaim a leadership role in this field," the authors wrote.

The report emphasized the relationship of the research to recent
advances in an approach called "personalized medicine." These are
strategies, enabled by advances in molecular biology, genetics and
proteomics, for detecting and treating disease based on an
individual's unique profile.

Based on the committee report, SNM called for federal funding for
basic molecular imaging and nuclear medicine research to be restored
to DOE.

The budget item has been given full bipartisan support by New
Mexico's congressional delegation.

During the House debate on the appropriation bill in June, Rep.
Heather Wilson, R-N.M., offered an amendment to restore the funding,
but withdrew it before a vote, citing what she said was "a
legitimate point of order against this amendment."

"Congress reduced this program in fiscal year 2006 by $23 million
because of pressures on the other part of the DOE budget, but also
directed them to transfer the program over to the National
Institutes of Health, particularly the National Cancer Institute,"
she said at the time. "The NIH did not pick up this research."

Sen. Jeff Bingaman was among 15 senators who signed a "dear
colleague" letter to key senators on the appropriations committee
asking for restoration of the funding in the 2008 budget.

            © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 55 Oak Ridger: Sale of three buildings marks milestone at ETTP - 

Story last updated at 12:16 am on 9/26/2007

Building K-1330

History was made last week at the East Tennessee Technology
Park’s Heritage Center, the site of the former K-25 Gaseous
Diffusion Plant, as three buildings were sold to a private company,
JMM Realty LLC, an affiliate of Fulcra Enterprises Inc., out of
Cornelius, N.C. The buildings K-1225, K-1330 and K-1580 are between
28 and 30 years old and total approximately 84,000 square feet of
office and administrative space. This is the first sale of Heritage
Center property to a for-profit corporation.

JMM Realty purchased the property as an investment and plans to make
it available to tenants as space is available. JMM Realty also owns
property on Union Valley Road.

Building K-1225 and K-1580 were built in 1980 as office buildings
and have been used for that purpose ever since. K-1225 is a
two-story structure with approximately 23,500 square feet, and
K-1580 is a three-story building with 38,211 square feet of space.
Building K-1330 has been used for office space since its
construction in 1990. This two-story building has a total of 14,400
square feet.

The three buildings are currently leased to Bechtel Jacobs Company,
the Department of Energy’s contractor for the clean-up of
Heritage Center.

"This announcement is an important step in the reindustrialization
of the massive government investment at ETTP,” said
Congressman Zach Wamp. “CROET should be commended for this
sale as we all work to turn ‘swords into plowshares.’
These facilities are moving back into productive use saving the
taxpayers millions of dollars in maintenance and demolition costs."

In 1996 the reindustrialization program was created to transform the
former K-25 gaseous diffusion plant into a thriving, commercialized
industrial park called Heritage Center. In 2003 the
reindustrialization efforts at ETTP were recognized by the
Environmental Protection Agency with its Phoenix Award — the
“Oscars” of brownfield development in the United States.

In June 2005 DOE transferred the first four office buildings
(K-1007, K-1225, K-1330 and K-1550) located at ETTP to the Heritage
Center LLC, a subsidiary of the Community Reuse Organization of East
Tennessee (CROET) in order to allow CROET to sell the facilities as
part of ETTP’s reindustrialization program. In February 2006,
two additional buildings, K-1036 and K-1400, were transferred to
CROET.

“We manage dozens of leases, both in the buildings we own and
those we continue to lease from DOE, but JMM is the first
private-sector, for-profit owner of reindustrialized property at
Heritage Center,” said Lawrence Young, president and CEO of
CROET. “We can all be proud that through strong partnerships,
commitment and hard work we have once again taken an idea and turned
it into a reality that benefits our community and our nation.”

Currently, at Heritage Center, 15 companies utilize more than
400,000 square feet in office and industrial space, along with 15
acres of storage yard areas. More than 635 people work within its
boundaries.

The sale was handled by Maribel Koella and Matt Fentress with NAI
Knoxville.

“Although Heritage Center has faced many challenges over the
years, through the hard work and determination of many people, the
dream of turning it into a profitable and useful facility is
becoming a reality with the sale of these buildings,” said
Koella. “It was a pleasure to take on this project, and we
will continue to support CROET and the Department of Energy in their
efforts.”

“The success of the reindustrialization program also
highlights the successes we have achieved in our environmental
cleanup operations at ETTP,” said Gerald Boyd, manager of the
Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Office. “We have
completed a significant amount of clean up work already and as we
continue with that, more opportunities to reutilize facilities and
land will arise.”

The East Tennessee Technology Park consists of the 1,000-acre
Horizon Center and the 1,200 acres of Heritage Center. Horizon
Center is a world-class technology park blending technology and
tradition with a state-of-the-art fiber optic telecommunications
system and 500 acres of unspoiled greenspace. The Heritage Center,
with facilities and equipment unmatched by any industrial park in
the U.S and millions of square feet of space, is suitable for all
types of industry including heavy manufacturing, machining, and
component fabrication as well as office and laboratory space.

For more information about Heritage or Horizon Center, please visit
www.croet.com.


 |  © 2004 The Oak Ridger  
    
*****************************************************************

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************