***************************************************************** 11/02/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.258 ***************************************************************** 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 The Hindu: Thorium-based plants will take time 2 TheStar.com: Expanding economy needs new nuclear plants 3 The Hindu: CPI(M) for discussion on n-deal in winter session 4 US: NRC: NRC Executives Honored with Presidential Awards 5 US: montgomeryadvertiser.com: Farley reactor rated 'yellow' 6 US: St. Cloud Times: Nuclear exercises next week 7 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommitt 8 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials; Meeting 9 US: NRC: In the Matter of: Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Operat 10 Shanghai Daily: Nuclear power: China has US$60b plan -- 11 US: UPI: Bomb found in nuclear worker's truck - 12 UPI: Analysis: Russia dangles nuclear carrot 13 US: Guardian Unlimited: Pipe Bomb Locks Down Ariz. Nuke Plant 14 Council on Foreign Relations: Russia's Nuclear Power - 15 US: NRC: The Importance of Enforcement” Prepared Remarks by NRC 16 Edmonton Journal: Slim majority favours nuclear power in Alberta NUCLEAR SECURITY 17 US: BBC NEWS: Bomb scare at US nuclear facility 18 AFP: Litvinenko scare useful test for 'dirty bomb' attack - experts 19 Guardian Unlimited: UN Panel OKs Resolution on Nuclear Alert 20 US: KTAR: Phoenix News: Nuke Plant Locked Down after Worker Stopped 21 US: AFP: US nuclear plant sealed off after bomb found - NUCLEAR SAFETY 22 AFP: Hiroshima survivors upset pilot never said sorry - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 23 RSC: UK nuclear waste disposal plans too soon and too scanty 24 US: TheStar.com: Firm's Russian supplier seeks higher prices 25 US: DOE: Deputy Secretary of Energy to Tout NuStart / TVA License 26 US: Hanford News: Nuclear landfill in S.C. is closing - 36 states 27 US: Hanford News: A state-by-state look at nuclear waste sent to Sou 28 RGJ.com: Opposition to Yucca Mountain growing on the campaign trail 29 US: NRC: NRC Publishes Strategic Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive 30 US: PBP: Nukes: The issue is waste 31 IEER: Comments on Yucca Mountain, October 2007 32 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Perchlorate hearings postponed again 33 US: ICT: Waxman sets stage for progress at Navajo uranium hearing 34 Obama: Time To End Debate On Yucca, Find Alternatives | 35 US: Tonawanda News - LANDFILL: Cleanup may become political issue 36 Reid: Reid Testifies at Senate Committee on Yucca Mountain Licensing 37 Reid Report: Testimony on Yucca Mt. 38 barrow in furness: Sweden halts nuke cargo 39 US: Gallup: Independent: Companies hope to jump-start uranium mining PEACE 40 'USAF struck Syrian nuclear site' 02 Nov 2007 41 BBC NEWS: Marchers to make Trident protest 42 Rutland Herald: U.S. is world's nuclear villain 43 Reuters: Missile strike adds to Pakistan's complications US DEPT. OF ENERGY 44 DOE: House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investi 45 DOE: House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Arme 46 DOE: Senior DOE Official to Discuss the Nuclear Energy Research 47 DOE: National Renewable Energy Laboratory 48 DOE: Great Plains Energy Expo 49 DOE: White House Honors Federal Agencies for Saving Taxpayers 50 Hanford News: Fluor Hanford to pay $84,800 for spill 51 KYNF: Nuke watchdog loses lawsuit over reactor 52 DOE: Events 53 NAS: Project: Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research & Development ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 The Hindu: Thorium-based plants will take time Saturday, Nov 03, 2007 NEW DELHI: While pointing out that India needed to go fast on the development of nuclear energy by putting in place “everything necessary to realise the objective,” Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Anil Kakodkar indicated that the adoption of the thorium route (of which India has plentiful reserves) would take time. “It is true the growth in nuclear energy would be dependent on the sequential nature of the technology. We will first have to move to fast reactors and then to thorium fuel-based reactors. We can’t introduce thorium straightway. The sequence is unavoidable. We need to recognise it is not a problem of reactor technology,” he said to questions at a conference on developing a sustainable energy roadmap organised by TERI. Technical problem “So we have to factor in a technical gestation period. That is a problem. It is a technical problem,” the AEC chief added. India had done a lot and very few countries had come as far as it had in developing fast reactors. And even fewer nations had come so far ahead in taking a closer look at adopting the thorium route. Domestic uranium would support 10,000 megawatt of energy. “We are halfway through. The remaining half will be covered in eight units of 700 mw each. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited can construct all simultaneously. But true growth in nuclear energy will be dependent on sequential technology,” said Dr. Kakodkar. For thorium-based plants, India already had plans for a technology demonstrator plant ready for construction but as this fuel would be useful in vast operations, fast reactors were sorely required, he said. Unlimited potential Earlier, speaking as one of the panellists on a session on an energy secure future for India, Dr. Kakodkar said the role of nuclear energy would be crucial in this respect since it was clean, had no greenhouse gas emission issues and had unlimited potential. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 2 TheStar.com: Expanding economy needs new nuclear plants comment | Nov 02, 2007 04:30 AM Andy Frame Ontario voters have given Premier Dalton McGuinty a mandate to move on with new nuclear power generation. He he must act on that mandate or risk a serious power shortage in Ontario. Although the faith-based school issue dominated the recent election campaign, all the party leaders took a position on nuclear generation. The Liberals with 42.2 per cent of the popular vote and the Conservatives with 31.6 per cent supported it. The NDP (16.8 per cent) and Green party (8 per cent) were opposed. That's a mandate for nuclear. With the world going green, new nuclear is being built in many countries and more is being planned. Nuclear generation replaces coal-, oil- and gas-fired generation and is part of the green plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Nuclear generation is a mature technology. Designers have improved safety – there has not been a significant safety incident in the last 25 years. Efficiency and reliability have improved – Ontario Power Generation reports that Darlington Generating Station had an overall capacity of 89 per cent in 2006 and one unit rated 100 per cent. Base load units run continuously, replacing coal and resulting in lower carbon emissions. The government of Ontario has taken the first step toward building new generating plants by accepting the report of the Ontario Power Authority, which indicated the need for new generation because old plants are being retired and an expanding economy needs power. The government has directed the major generating companies, OPG and Bruce Power, to make proposals for new nuclear generation to be built on existing generating sites. It also has directed that total installed capacity is to be 14,000 megawatts. The proposals are still in the early planning stage and will need approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission as well as environmental approval before they can be accepted. Approval will take two to three years and construction at least four to five years more. It will be 2015 at the earliest for new generation to come online. However, existing government policy is to shut down all of the coal plants by 2013. Let's look at the numbers. The OPA reports a 1.9 per cent increase in peak load from 2005 to 2007 and forecasts an average annual increase of 1.2 per cent with a load increase of 1,817 megawatts between 2007 and 2015, the earliest date for new nuclear generation. However, all the coal plants, with a total capacity of 6,400 megawatts, are to be shut down by 2013 unless the date is extended again. It also is possible that some older plants – hydroelectric, gas, oil, coal or nuclear – will develop problems that result in early shutdowns. Unless more generation is added, a big supply gap will open up by 2015. The new tunnel at Niagara Falls will provide water to the Sir Adam Beck Generating Station Number 2 and increase peak capacity by 400 megawatts by 2011 – if the current schedule is maintained. It also is expected that gas-fired turbine generation will provide 414 megawatts to help fill the gap. More may be available if retired coal plants can be converted to gas, but only if gas pipelines can be approved and built in time. And gas has its own problems – rising prices plus carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. The plan presented by the OPA takes into account predicted conservation measures and new efficiencies in energy use by industrial, commercial and residential users. It also notes that new green generation – hydro, solar, wind and biomass – will be available but will not make a major contribution. In this writer's opinion, an evaluation of the available information indicates that a big gap will emerge between the expected load and available generation before 2015. Action must be taken to accelerate new nuclear generation with a faster approval process, early decisions on the technology to be used and shortened construction schedules. The alternative is to slap controls on the growth of power use. For nearly 100 years, the people of Ontario have expected electricity to be available when they need it. Now there is a possibility that the expansion or building of new plants, offices, schools, hospitals and subdivisions would require government approval based on the availability of electricity. Projects could proceed only if electricity was available to meet increased demand. Controlling electric power growth, if it happens, would be a disaster for the Ontario economy. And electricity users would be very unhappy on election day. Premier McGuinty has a mandate to build more nuclear power generation. It fits with the new green world. It is needed to help keep Ontario strong. He is running out of time and the warning bells are ringing. © Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2007 | ***************************************************************** 3 The Hindu: CPI(M) for discussion on n-deal in winter session Friday, November 2, 2007 : 1455 Hrs Kolkata Kolkata (PTI): The CPI-M on Friday said it wanted a discussion during the winter session of Parliament on the Indo-US nuclear deal possibly under a rule that does not entail voting. "We will like a discussion in Parliament. Since the winter session is going to be held this month we are not insisting on a discussion under a resolution that entails voting. Views of Parliament must be elicited," CPI-M general secretary Prakash Karat said. The UPA-Left committee will meet on November 16, he said, adding "We will see what will be done in the committee." Addressing a press conference at the party office here, Karat said, "we will try to arrive at some conclusions." Karat said, "we have been meeting the UPA partners and other secular parties to try to arrive at a common approach to the deal." All the parties have expressed themselves against the deal and "from that one can make an assessment about the general sense of Parliament," he said. "I have not talked of withdrawal of support to the government. Government has maintained that it will take a stand on operationalising the deal taking into account the findings of the committee," he said. "You will have to wait for the UPA-Left Committee meeting on November 16. There could be another meeting," he said. The CPI(M) general secretary said his party was prepared to give "as much time as necessary" to discuss the "vital matter". "We told the government not to operationalise the deal. Let the committee work be over," he said. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 4 NRC: NRC Executives Honored with Presidential Awards News Release - 2007-07-145 - NRC NEWS U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov President George W. Bush has selected 11 senior managers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the prestigious Presidential Meritorious Executive Rank Awards for 2007. The Presidential Awards are granted for "sustained extraordinary accomplishment," focusing on leadership to produce results. Fewer than 5 percent of the career Senior Executive Service members receive this Award. The winners are selected through nomination by their agencies, evaluation by boards of private citizens, and approval by the President. R. William Borchardt, Roy J. Caniano, Geoffrey E. Grant, Brian E. Holian, Pao-Tsin Kuo; James E. Lyons, Bruce S. Mallett, David B. Matthews, Victor M. McCree, William H. Ruland and Annette L. Vietti-Cook were selected to receive Meritorious Awards. The NRC will recognize these individuals at its annual awards ceremony next spring. Highlights of their valuable contributions to the agency follow. R. William Borchardt, director of the recently established Office of New Reactors, has consistently demonstrated clear commitment to the agency’s mission as evidenced by his thoughtful and effective planning for success and his proactive response to emerging issues and changing regulatory environments. He continues leading agency efforts for ramping up to meet the needs of a reinvigorated nuclear program through the new office that is effective, streamlined and people-oriented. Roy Caniano, deputy director of the Division of Reactor Safety, Region IV (Arlington, Texas), has demonstrated exceptional leadership throughout his 25-year career in the NRC with significant contributions toward improving safety and public confidence at a number of U.S. materials and reactor facilities. He has focused his significant technical expertise and vision to help set future directions for the agency’s regulatory program. Geoffrey Grant, former deputy regional administrator, Region III (Lisle, Ill.), demonstrated superb leadership in developing creative responses and implementing improvements over a 21-year career in the NRC. He led over 200 executives, managers and staff in the effective implementation of the nuclear reactors and nuclear materials safety programs for the Midwestern United States while successfully managing all aspects of organizational and office operations. Brian Holian, director of the Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I (King of Prussia, Pa.), has made noteworthy contributions to nuclear safety and has been exceptionally successful in making policy and improving programs and organizational performance throughout his 17-year career with the NRC. He has shown keen management insight, and exemplary skills in working with a wide range of stakeholders, including crafting a unique agency response and public outreach effort for a high-profile nuclear plant. Pao-Tsin Kuo, director of the Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has used his significant engineering expertise and vision during his 32 years at NRC to ensure the safety of operating nuclear power plants across the country. He was instrumental in pioneering a dynamic process for one of the agency’s most successful programs – renewal of nuclear plant licenses for an additional 20 years of operation beyond the original license - thus contributing to the nation’s electricity-generating capability. James Lyons, director of the Division of Site and Environmental Review, Office of New Reactors, has made significant contributions over his 26-year career at NRC, including laying the foundation for the future licensing of new reactors to enable the safe, secure, and environmentally responsible use of nuclear power to help meet the Nation’s future electricity needs. He developed and implemented a plan for early site permits, design certifications and combined license reviews, to support construction of a new reactor by 2010. Bruce Mallett, regional administrator, Region IV (Arlington, Texas), while in numerous senior positions, has consistently demonstrated superb performance through his 27-year career in the NRC. He made important contributions as lead manager of a pilot program intended to improve and streamline NRC’s nuclear materials licensing process and was deeply involved in the development of the current Reactor Oversight Program. His efforts have enhanced the transparency and consistency of the reactor inspection and assessment program. David Matthews, director of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors, has demonstrated unparalleled technical and leadership skills, personal integrity and dedication throughout his 32 years of federal service. He has provided direction for a wide spectrum of NRC programs including plant license renewals, next-generation reactors, and environmental reviews. He has also initiated far-reaching reforms to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of NRC’s oversight activities by introducing risk-informed regulatory approaches. Victor McCree, deputy regional administrator for operations, Region II (Atlanta, Ga.), is recognized as a highly effective government executive, distinguished by his inspiring leadership and dedication to performance management and customer service. Throughout his 19-year career with the NRC, McCree has made noteworthy contributions to nuclear safety and has succeeded in improving organizational performance and programs, including timely significance determinations in the Reactor Oversight Program. William Ruland, director of the Division of Safety Systems, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has successfully used his superior leadership and management skills over a 25-year NRC career to develop and implement regulatory, licensing, and inspection programs for reactors and the storage of spent nuclear fuel and the domestic and international transport of radioactive material. He is widely recognized for his extensive experience and diplomacy in building coalitions among groups and promoting a common understanding of issues. Annette Vietti-Cook, secretary of the Commission, has provided exemplary service to the five-member Commission in planning, scheduling and conducting Commission business effectively and efficiently. Dedicating 25 years to the NRC, she has demonstrated exceptional leadership to enable the Commission to set agency policy and direction. She has skillfully provided open and clear communications between the Commission and the agency’s technical staff, and with members of the public interested in Commission operations. NRC news releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. November 01, 2007 ***************************************************************** 5 montgomeryadvertiser.com: Farley reactor rated 'yellow' November 3, 2007 The Associated Press DOTHAN -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff gave the Unit 2 reactor at the Farley Nuclear Power Plant a "yellow" finding Thursday for valve failures that the agency said were of "substantial safety significance." The "yellow" finding is the next-to-worst in the NRC's color coding system and means the unit will be subject to additional NRC inspections and "potentially other NRC actions," the agency said in a news release. "I want to reassure residents near Farley that the plant continues to operate safely," said NRC Regional Administrator William Travers. "However, the failure to promptly address these valve failures warrants increased oversight by the NRC." The announcement came on the same day that an attorney in Washington, D.C., announced that a whistleblower complaint was filed with the Department of Labor on behalf of Michael Smith, a senior engineer at the Farley plant. Smith claims he and other nuclear engineers felt harrassed and intimidated for reporting nuclear safety concerns and that Farley management set him up to be fired, according to his attorney, Debra Katz. The plant, operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Co., a division of Alabama Power Co.'s parent, Southern Co., was given a preliminary "yellow" finding by the NRC staff after special inspections in May following valve failures in April 2006 and January 2007. A conference with Southern Nuclear was held Sept. 12. In its announcement Thursday, the Atlanta-based Region II office of the NRC said it was citing the company for a violation along with giving the reactor a "yellow" finding. Alison Fuqua, a spokeswoman for Southern Nuclear's Birmingham offfice, said the company did not expect the yellow rating and "strongly disagrees" with the NRC's findings. "We were a little shocked that it remained yellow," she said. "We were expecting the rating to be dropped a level to white." Fuqua said the company believed the valve failure was an isolated incident that was identified and repaired. "Southern Nuclear acknowledges the NRC's violation relating to not promptly identifying the root cause of a valve failure during surveillance testing," Fuqua said. "Southern Nuclear has determined the reason for the failure and has fixed the problem." Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the NRC office in Atlanta, said the agency found the utility did not act promptly enough to identify and fix the problem. He also said that, because of the way this particular valve failed, the NRC thought it was possible that this may not be an isolated incident and that other valves at the plant could experience similar failures. He said the citation for a violation means that the plant will be under increased scrutiny from the NRC. He said the agency had not determined exactly what actions to take but that there would be more inspections than normal. "The bottom line is it's an additional level of oversight that a normal nuclear plant would not have," Hannah said. Fuqua said the company is considering its options but was not ready to say whether it would appeal the rating. "Southern Nuclear is disappointed in the NRC's assessment and we are evaluating our options within the regulatory framework prior to accepting the NRC's final yellow finding," she said. The agency said the Farley reactor joins 10 other nuclear units in the country in that column. In the whistleblower complaint filed with the Department of Labor in Washington, Smith claims that Southern Nuclear and the Southern Company have retaliated against him for reporting nuclear safety issues at the Farley plant. Fuqua said Southern Nuclear "does not comment on ongoing litigation." Smith claims that Farley's management falsely accused him of being "a danger to nuclear safety" just days after he reported safety concerns and acts of retaliation by Farley management to the NRC. Copyright © 1997- 2007 The Advertiser Co. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 St. Cloud Times: Nuclear exercises next week Times staff report Published: November 02. 2007 12:30AM - Last updated: November 02. MONTICELLO — Full-scale nuclear preparedness exercises will be conducted next week at the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The exercise will take place Monday through Wednesday. The event will test the participating agencies' ability to respond to a nuclear emergency. The event includes a scenario-based rehearsal. The state of Minnesota, the Nuclear Management Company, Xcel Energy, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Wright and Sherburne counties will participate. Each plant must conduct an exercise every year. FEMA will evaluate all components of the exercise. The public can attend a FEMA briefing on the exercise at 11 a.m. Nov. 9 in the community room of the Wright County Government Center at 10 Second St. NW, Buffalo. Copyright © Users of this site agree to the Terms of Service and ***************************************************************** 7 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee Meeting on Power Uprates (Susquehanna); Notice of Meeting FR Doc E7-21593 [Federal Register: November 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 212)] [Notices] [Page 62276] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02no07-83] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION The ACRS Subcommittee on Power Uprates will hold a meeting on November 14, 2007, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, Room T-2B1. 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: Wednesday, November 14, 2007--1 p.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. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54695). 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: October 25, 2007. Cayetano Santos, Chief, Reactor Safety Branch, ACRS. [FR Doc. E7-21593 Filed 11-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 8 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials; Meeting Notice FR Doc E7-21609 [Federal Register: November 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 212)] [Notices] [Page 62275-62276] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02no07-82] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) will hold its 184th meeting on November 13-15, 2007, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Tuesday, November 13, 2007, Room T-2B3 10 a.m.-10:05 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW&M Chairman (Open)-- The Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. 10:05 a.m.-12 p.m.: Drift Degradation--Staff Review Approach and Capability (Open)--NRC staff representatives from the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards will discuss the issue of post- emplacement drift degradation at Yucca Mountain. 1 p.m.-4:30 p.m.: Discussion of ACNW&M Letter Reports (Open)--The Committee will discuss potential and proposed ACNW&M letter reports. Wednesday, November 14, 2007, Room T-2B3 9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m.: ACNW&M November 2007 Briefing to the Commission (Room O-1G16) (Open)--The ACNW&M members will brief the Commission on their recent and planned activities. The last Commission briefing was held on December 14, 2006. 1 p.m.-2:30 p.m.: Final Proposed Design for a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Open)--A Department of Energy representative will update the Committee on the final design (surface and subsurface facilities) proposed for the forthcoming Yucca Mountain license application. 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Discussion of ACNW&M Letter Reports (Open)-- The Committee will continue discussion of potential and proposed ACNW&M letter reports. Thursday, November 15, 2007, Room T-2B1 8:30 a.m.-8:35 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the ACNW&M Chairman (Open)--The Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the conduct of today's sessions. 8:35 a.m.-10 a.m.: Accounting for Dose Consequence in the State-of- the-Art Reactor Consequence Analysis (SOARCA) Project (Closed) (MTR/ NMC)--NRC staff representatives from the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research will discuss the options for assessment of dose thresholds for latent cancer fatalities of the SOARCA project. Note: Briefing will be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c) (9) (B) to discuss pre-decisional documents. 10 a.m.-4:30 p.m.: Discussion of ACNW&M Letter Reports (Open)--The Committee will continue discussion of proposed ACNW&M letter reports. 4:30 p.m.-5 p.m.: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will discuss matters related to the conduct of ACNW&M activities and specific issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time and availability of information permit. Discussions may include content of future letters and scope of future Committee Meetings. Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW&M meetings were published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2007 (72 FR 54693). In accordance with those procedures, oral or written views may be presented by members of the public. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Dr. Antonio F. Dias (Telephone 301-415-6805), between 8:15 a.m. and 5 p.m. (ET), as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras during the meeting may be limited to selected portions of the meeting as determined by the ACNW&M Chairman. Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW&M office prior to the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for ACNW&M meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should notify Dr. Dias as to their particular needs. In accordance with Subsection 10(d) Public Law 92-463, I have determined that it may be necessary to close a portion of this meeting noted above to discuss pre-decisional documents pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b (c) (9) (B). Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, as well as the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefore can be obtained by contacting Dr. Dias. ACNW&M meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at pdr@nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, 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 rm/doc-collections/acnw (ACNW&M schedules and agendas). Video teleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACNW&M meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACNW&M meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS/ACNW&M Audio Visual Assistant (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., (ET), 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. The ACNW&M meeting dates for Calendar Year 2008 are provided below: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACNW&M meeting No. Meeting dates ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --..................................... January 2008 (No Meeting). [[Page 62276]] 186.................................... February 12-14, 2008. 187.................................... March 18-20, 2008. 188.................................... April 8-10, 2008. 189.................................... May 20-22, 2008. 190.................................... June 17-19, 2008. 191.................................... July 22-24, 2008. --..................................... August 2008 (No Meeting). 192.................................... September 16-18, 2008. 193.................................... October 28-30, 2008. 194.................................... November 18-20, 2008. 195.................................... December 9-11, 2008. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated: October 29, 2007. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-21609 Filed 11-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 9 NRC: In the Matter of: Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Operations, Inc. (River Bend Station, Unit 1); Order Approving Transfer of Facility Operating License and Conforming Amendment FR Doc E7-21615 [Federal Register: November 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 212)] [Notices] [Page 62274-62275] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02no07-81] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-458; License No. NPF-47] I. Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (EGS) and Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOI) are the holders of Facility Operating License NPF-47, issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.'' The license authorizes the operation of River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS or facility), in accordance with terms and conditions specified therein. The facility is located in St. Francisville, West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. The license authorizes EGS to possess the facility with respect to EGS's ownership of RBS, and EOI to use and operate the facility. II. By letter dated May 29, 2007, as supplemented by letters dated August 30 and September 19, 2007, EOI, acting on behalf of EGS and itself, submitted an application to the NRC requesting, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, approval of the direct transfer of the license for RBS from EGS to Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC (EGS-LA). EOI also requested, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, approval of a conforming license amendment to the RBS, Unit 1, Operating License (NPF-47) to reflect the transfer. The transfer is associated with the planned restructuring of EGS under which ownership of RBS will be transferred from EGS, a Texas corporation, to EGS-LA, Louisiana limited liability company. EOI will continue to operate RBS, and thus there is no transfer of operating authority under the license proposed in the application. Notice of the requests for approval and an opportunity for a hearing was published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2007 (72 FR 37266). No comments or hearing requests were received. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license, or any right thereunder, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission shall give its consent in writing. Upon review of the information in the application and other information before the Commission, and relying upon the representations and agreements contained in the application, the NRC staff has determined that EGS-LA is qualified to hold the license for RBS to the extent now held by EGS, and that the transfer of the license to EGS-LA described in the application is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto, subject to the conditions set forth below. The NRC staff has further found that the application for the proposed license amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; the facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the proposed license amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; the issuance of the proposed license amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public; and the issuance of the proposed amendment will be in accordance with 10 CFR part 51 of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The findings set forth above are supported by a safety evaluation dated October 26, 2007. III. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 161b, 161i, and 184 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2201(b), 2201(i), and 2234, and 10 CFR 50.80, it is hereby ordered that the transfer of the license to EGS-LA, as described herein is approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) At the time of the closing of the transfer of ownership of and the license for RBS from EGS to EGS-LA, the RBS decommissioning trust agreement(s) shall be amended to reflect EGS-LA as the owner of all the decommissioning trust funds accumulated as of the date of the closing. (2) Prior to completion of the transfer of ownership of and the transfer for RBS, EGS-LA shall provide the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation satisfactory documentary evidence that it has obtained the appropriate amount of insurance required of licensees under 10 CFR part 140 of the Commission's regulations. It is further ordered that, consistent with 10 CFR 2.1315(b), a license amendment that makes changes, as indicated in Enclosure 2 to the cover letter forwarding this Order, to conform the license to reflect the subject license transfer, is approved. The amendment shall be issued and made effective at the time the proposed license transfer is completed. It is further ordered that EOI shall inform the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in writing of the date of closing of the transfer no later than 5 business days prior to such action. Should the transfer of the license not be completed by October 25, 2008, this Order shall become null and void, provided, however, that upon written application and for good cause shown, such date may be extended by order. This Order is effective upon issuance. [[Page 62275]] For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated May 29, 2007, the supplemental letters dated August 30 and September 19, 2007, and the safety evaluation dated October 26, 2007, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and accessible electronically through the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet on the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the document located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference Staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of October, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-21615 Filed 11-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 10 Shanghai Daily: Nuclear power: China has US$60b plan -- By Fu Chenghao 2007-11-3 CHINA needs a budget of 450 billion yuan (US$60.36 billion) in the 13 years to 2020 for nuclear plants as the nation seeks alternatives to coal-generated electricity, according to a new industry plan. The development blueprint also calls for more self-sufficiency in nuclear-reactor design, equipment manufacturing and project construction and operations by introducing, absorbing and fine-tuning foreign technology. The plan, approved by the State Council, was released yesterday by the National Development and Reform Commission, China''s top industry planner, on its Website. It iterated its earlier stated goal of having 40,000 megawatts of nuclear power in operation by 2020, or four percent of China''s total power-generating capacity, and having 18,000MW under construction by that time. At present, nuclear power accounts for less than two percent of the total generating capacity of China. The NDRC said domestic equipment manufacturers should achieve annual capacity for nuclear power equipment of no less than 2,000MW in the five years through 2010, and have 4,000MW in capacity from 2010 onward. The domestic industry will keep cooperating high-tech foreign partners with the aim of localizing key technology in the future, the NDRC report said. The government has selected 13 coastal sites for new nuclear plants which could house a combined capacity of more than 50,000MW. New plants to meet the 2020 state target will be chosen from these sites, the NDRC said, adding that the government is considering building one plant each in Shandong and Fujian provinces and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region which now have no nuclear plants. In addition to coastal regions, China is also undertaking preparation work for building nuclear plants in inland provinces including Hubei, Jiangxi and Sichuan, it said. The report added that China will also explore domestic uranium resources on a "reasonable basis" and "actively" look for overseas resources to ensure supply of the basic fuel used in nuclear reactors. It also pledged to step up efforts in radioactive waste treatment. Shanghai Daily Home | Copyright © 2001-2007 Shanghai Daily ***************************************************************** 11 UPI: Bomb found in nuclear worker's truck - UPI.com Published: Nov. 2, 2007 at 3:55 PM PHOENIX, Nov. 2 (UPI) -- A contract employee has been detained after an explosive device was found in his truck as he tried to enter an Arizona nuclear power plant, police said. During a routine inspection to enter the plant grounds, a guard at Arizona Public Service's Palo Verde nuclear facility discovered "a suspicious device" plainly visible in the truck bed, Arizona Public Service spokesman Mark Fallon told CNN. The guard detained the worker and called law enforcement personnel, who determined the device was an explosive device. The facility near Phoenix was locked down once it was determined the device was a "viable explosive device," Fallon said. "He (the worker) never got past the vehicle checkpoint at the edge of our property," Fallon said, explaining that the checkpoint where the worker was stopped is about a half-mile from the plant. The man was being questioned by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department. © 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 UPI: Analysis: Russia dangles nuclear carrot International Security - Energy - Analysis - UPI.com Published: Nov. 2, 2007 at 10:08 AM By JOHN C.K. DALY UPI International Correspondent As Russia and China quietly maneuver for control of the Caspian region's vast energy reserves, both are looking ahead to a post-hydrocarbon world and beginning to cooperate on nuclear power. Russia is already in the Bush administration's bad books for its contributions to Iran’s attempts to develop domestic nuclear power alternatives to oil-based power generation. The impasse in U.S.-Iranian relations is worsening largely because of Iran's efforts to finish its first nuclear reactor. Russian companies are building the 915 megawatt VVER-1000 PWR at Bushehr at an estimated cost of $1 billion to $2 billion. The Bush administration argues that a country awash in oil has a covert agenda to develop nuclear weapons, which Tehran denies, maintaining that instead it is looking past a period when its "peak oil" exports decline. With oil topping $95 a barrel, global interest in nuclear energy is increasing. As of August, 30 countries operate a total of 439 nuclear reactors for electricity generation, which collectively provide about 16 percent of the world's electricity production; 11 nations are building 30 new nuclear power facilities. The Russian Federation operates 10 nuclear power plants with a total of 31 reaktor bol'shoi moshchnosti kanalnii reactor units, which supply approximately 16 percent of Russia's energy needs. Except for the Bilbino Nuclear Power Plant in eastern Siberia, the other nine complexes are all located in European Russia. Of the 15 nations emerging from the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, former Soviet nuclear complexes operating are located at Metsamor, Armenia; Sosny, Belarus and Paldiski, Estonia. Kazakhstan's BM-350 135 megawatt reactor was decommissioned in 1999. Lithuania's Ignalina-1 RBMK reactor complex was shut down Dec. 31, 2004, as a condition of the country joining the European Union. Lithuania's 1,185 megawatt Ignalina-2 RBMK complex is scheduled for closure in 2009, but the country's transition to non-nuclear fuel will not be easy, as the Ignalina-2 complex provides 72.3 percent of the country's energy needs. While Russia's involvement in Bushehr is the most controversial and visible element of its drive in nuclear energy exports, Moscow seems poised to export its expertise to another country with soaring energy needs: China. During a Nov. 1 interview with Interfax, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said, "The first phase of the Tianwan nuclear power plant is one of the major projects in trade and economic cooperation between China and Russia. Thanks to efforts taken by both sides toward resolving difficulties, power units one and two of the first phase were brought into commercial operation in May and August this year, respectively, and they are working properly now." Assuming an upbeat note, Wen added, "Our companies are discussing the expansion of cooperation on nuclear energy now. We treat this positively," with Chinese-Russian nuclear cooperation having "achieved impressive results, significantly strengthens the strategic partnership between our countries." He said the two governments are "working intensively on the soonest possible signing of a protocol between China and Russia on midterm cooperation on the civilian use of nuclear energy. The protocol will set benchmarks for Chinese-Russian cooperation in the coming decades." China is a relative newcomer to nuclear power generation, deriving only 2.3 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, compared with the United States’ nearly 20 percent nuclear power generation. Of China's 11 current nuclear power plants, the oldest, Qingshan-1, only came online in 1991. In contrast, Russia's oldest operational nuclear power facility, Novovoronezh-3, came online two decades earlier, in 1971. While Western attention is focused on growing Chinese involvement in the global energy market, Beijing has already announced plans to spend $50 billion to build an additional 32 nuclear plants by 2020. China's interest in nuclear energy has already affected world markets; as Wen travels the globe to secure access to uranium reserves, having concluded agreements with both Niger and Australia, uranium ore prices have soared from $10 a pound in 2003 to a high of $136 earlier this year. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster notwithstanding, Russia's decades-old nuclear expertise may well prove to be an important bargaining chip in its ongoing covert tussle with China to divert Beijing's interest in exploiting Central Asia's energy resources, as China increasingly moves to a post-hydrocarbon energy future. According to Sergei Kiriyenko, chief of Russia’s Rosatom, Russia's uranium reserves are considerably higher than the government’s stated estimate of 870,000 tons. In order to continue to underwrite its lucrative natural gas exports to Western Europe, Moscow needs unimpeded access to Central Asia's burgeoning gas reserves, and dangling a nuclear carrot before Beijing may well prove Russia's trump card in drawing Chinese attention away from further bidding for the Caspian's hydrocarbon assets. -- (e-mail: energy@upi.com) © 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: Pipe Bomb Locks Down Ariz. Nuke Plant Saturday November 3, 2007 12:01 AM By CHRIS KAHN and AMANDA LEE MYERS Associated Press Writers WINTERSBURG, Ariz. (AP) - Security officials at the nation's largest nuclear power plant detained a contract worker with a small pipe bomb in the back of his pickup truck Friday, and investigators were searching his apartment, authorities said. It didn't appear to be an act of terrorism, authorities said, but they were still trying to determine why the device was in the truck. The worker, identified Friday afternoon as Roger William Hurd of Goodyear, Ariz., was stopped and detained at the entrance of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, about a half mile from the containment domes where the plant's nuclear material is stored, plant spokesman Jim McDonald said. Security officials then put the nuclear station on lockdown for a few hours, prohibiting anyone from entering or leaving the facility until Friday afternoon. Authorities described the device as a six-inch capped explosive made of galvanized pipe that contained suspicious residue. Tom Mangan, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said it was likely homemade. ``If this thing went off in the bed of the truck, it certainly would put a hole in it,'' Mangan said. ``It was rather crude in construction, but it could certainly injure somebody.'' Maricopa County sheriff's officials rendered the device safe, sheriff's Capt. Paul Chagolla said. The pipe was not hidden in the truck, he said. Chagolla said Hurd normally drove a motorcycle to work but was in a truck Friday because of cool weather. He described Hurd as about 60 years old and originally from South Carolina. Hurd was interviewed and cooperating, and authorities were searching his apartment in Phoenix with his consent, Chagolla said. Hurd had not been arrested. ``There's no information to indicate that there's domestic terrorism at hand,'' he said. In Washington, the Department of Homeland Security also said there was no known terrorism link. Messages left at numbers listed for Hurd in Arizona and Hartsville, S.C., weren't immediately returned. McDonald said Hurd was a procurement engineer, responsible for evaluating equipment purchases for the plant. McDonald wouldn't say which company employed Hurd. Hurd had access to protected areas of the plant but hadn't been in any such area since Aug. 21, said Randy Edington, the chief nuclear officer for plant operator Arizona Public Service Co. Hurd would have had access to the reactors but officials didn't know the last time he would have been near them, Edington said. ``Our security personnel acted cautiously and appropriately, demonstrating that our security process and procedures work as designed,'' Edington said in a news release. The detention was considered an ``unusual event'' - the lowest of four emergencies the plant can declare, said Jim Melfi, an inspector with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. There was no threat to the public, McDonald said. Doug Walters, the senior director of security for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, said Palo Verde's response was ``exactly what you would expect it to be.'' ``We have a checkpoint for this reason,'' he said. ``They were able to identify a suspicious item in the truck. I don't know what they could have done differently.'' Everyone who has access to the plant must submit to a background check, McDonald said. Workers must pass through two security checkpoints to get inside one of the plant's three containment domes, which house the radioactive material. One of the checkpoints includes an automated system that examines workers for the presence of bomb-making materials, McDonald said. Palo Verde is the nation's largest nuclear power plant both in size and capacity. Located in Wintersburg about 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix, the plant supplies electricity to about 4 million customers in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California. --- Chris Kahn reported from Phoenix. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 14 Council on Foreign Relations: Russia's Nuclear Power - November 2, 2007 Author: Toni Johnson Two decades after Chernobyl, Russia is increasing its presence in the global nuclear market place. (AP Images/Efrem Lukatsky) Before Chernobyl, history’s worst civilian nuclear accident, Soviet planners “dreamed of mobile ). Now a floating version of that vision, slated to begin construction (CNN) next year, is just one of twenty-six nuclear plants breaking ground in Russia, which aims to double nuclear power’s share of its electricity grid by 2030. Moscow also proposes towing floating plants to Persian Gulf state harbors as a power source for water desalination plants. One commentator for the state-run Russian Information Agency contends the floating plants ) the spread of nuclear technology since such transactions would focus on selling power rather than the plants themselves. But Russian environmental activist Vladimir Slivyak ) the floating platforms pose a “clear risk of proliferation” and “will need to be protected by warships.” Taking its vast nuclear complex to market is Russia’s latest foray as an energy superpower. Russia hopes to sell sixty nuclear power plants of various types worldwide and already builds more conventional nuclear plants for other countries than anyone else. Customers include China, India, and more controversially, Iran. Following the shelving of a deal between India and the United States for nuclear technology and fuel, one Indian columnist noted that instead of wasting time on the United States the Indian government could have “already worked out a deal with close ). With half the world’s enrichment capacity located in Russia, the government is “positioning Russian fuel-services companies to benefit” should the global use of nuclear power grow significantly—targeting up to ) of the global market. Moscow also recently proposed a new multinational enrichment facility in Siberia and is looking for (IANS) international partners. Russia already supplies 50 percent of the U.S. nuclear-utility market through a post-Cold War program called Megatons to Megawatts, explained in this CFR Backgrounder, but has been barred from greater access. But a recent U.S. trade court ruling siding with Russia could spell trouble (StockInterview) for the United States Enrichment Corporation, the only commercial enrichment plant in the United States. Russia’s plans to expand foreign markets presence could be “significantly aided” by a successful conclusion to an accord on peaceful uses of nuclear energy that could be finalized by the end of the year. The proposed deal between the United States and Russia, would broaden (CNS) the U.S. nuclear market to Russia, contends Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova, a Russia expert for Monterey Institute of International Studies. However, Mukhatzhanova notes that “even with the opening of new markets it is questionable that Russia will make enough profits to finance domestic expansion plans.” Meanwhile, Russia only has about 4 percent of the world’s natural uranium. Unlike its considerable oil and gas reserves, Russia must secure enough uranium abroad if it’s to fulfill plans to add additional nuclear power plants and enrichment services. Australia recently agreed to supply Russia with 4,000 tons of uranium, on the condition that Russia does not sell it to any other nation or use it for military purposes. Russian President Vladimir Putin asserted if Russia needs to export uranium, its own resources “are sufficient” (AP). Though the Australia deal was hailed in the Russian press, Vladimir Milov, the president of Russia’s Institute of Energy Politics, argues it “is a clear sign of Russia’s failures” to meet its uranium needs internally, and puts Russia’s nuclear industry “at the mercy of western countries.” Copyright 2007 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: The Importance of Enforcement” Prepared Remarks by NRC Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Speech - 07-048 - “ OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: Public Affairs Web Site NRC Office of Enforcement Counterpart Meeting Cambridge, Maryland October 30, 2007 I want to talk this afternoon about the crucial role you play in ensuring the NRC is an effective independent regulator. The Commission must provide confidence to the public that radioactive materials are being handled safely and securely. To do so it must have the transparent processes, clear guidance and regulations, and consistent implementation. I believe, however, that the key to success is an effective enforcement process. Generating regulations and guidance is important, but what defines a regulator is its ability to ensure that such regulations and guidance are implemented appropriately and that corrective actions are taken when they are not. The agency's enforcement program is also where we receive much of our visibility. Enforcement associated with issues such as the Davis Besse vessel head hole, Indian Point sirens, and fire protection challenges generate attention and are viewed by many of our stakeholders as a measure of our ability to regulate. The agency's enforcement program is vital to the agency's mission and must get the renewed attention it requires. As you continue your efforts to review and update the agency’s enforcement policy, I would urge you to look for ways to further improve how the agency addresses these issues. For instance, making it an option to channel fines to third parties seems like an idea with merit. A stronger role for the director of enforcement in the enforcement panels would seem a logical next step as well. I also value OE initiatives such as the safety culture and the safety conscious work environment efforts. I believe the staff's efforts in these areas have generated very positive initial results. Attributes of safety culture have been incorporated into the reactor oversight process and an order has been issued to nuclear fuel services requiring a comprehensive safety culture assessment and increased efforts to strengthen the safety culture of that site. Now that the reactor safety culture program is maturing and as the staff focuses more attention on fuel cycle facilities, it will be necessary to make sure that safety culture and safety conscious work environment initiatives receive the Commission’s full commitment. I am also a strong supporter of the various venues that have been established which allow staff to express differing opinions. I believe the agency is strongest, and the Commission's decisions are the best informed, when disagreements at the staff level are fully explored in a positive environment and shared with the Commission. Because OE's staff has done such an effective job of bringing attention to the non-concurrence and DPO processes, and with the increasing number of agency staff overall, these programs are sure to be used more often in the years ahead. Finally, I would like to share some initiatives I intend to pursue in the coming months. I plan on drafting a memorandum to my colleagues proposing that the Commission develop a policy statement describing our expectations for safety culture at reactor and material licensees. I think it is time to complement the 1996 policy statement on a safety conscious work environment and the 1989 policy statement on the safe conduct of nuclear power plant operations with a broad statement on a healthy safety and security culture at all NRC licensees. Recent inattentive guard issues demonstrate the importance of broadening safety culture to include security issues and a recent Senate hearing brought out the timeliness of a broader focus on safety culture. This policy statement should be informed by the staff’s analysis of the first 18 months of the ROP safety culture initiative, so I intend to make my proposal after the beginning of the year. It should also be drafted by the experts in the subject, so be on the lookout for the potential to contribute to this effort early next year. The other proposal is more of a longer term challenge to you and to other stakeholders and it involves the handling of allegations. Staff has done excellent work with allegations which are important to promptly resolve because of their potential safety implications and because they often serve as a vital input to the NRC about conditions at plants. I believe there are three improvements we should make to the allegation program at this time. First, we should not refer an allegation to a licensee over the objection of the alleger. Such an objection is a clear indication that there are issues requiring the intervention of the independent regulator. Obviously, if the allegation raises an immediate safety issue, information to mitigate that situation will need to be provided to the licensee. The NRC, however, should remain responsible for investigating and resolving the issue. Second, I believe we should refer fewer than the 40% of allegations we now forward to the licensees. OE, OI, and the inspectors do a great job investigating these concerns and it is a natural role for the NRC to play due to our independence, objectivity and expertise. Third, for even those few allegations that everyone – the NRC, the licensee, and the alleger – all agrees are best referred to the licensee to investigate, the NRC should play a more active role overseeing the licensee’s actions. This would give us the opportunity to provide immediate feedback and direction to licensees, and to verify all appropriate steps are being taken while the allegation is being looked into. Each of these steps will require additional resources, and I am dedicated to continuing to support additional resources for our enforcement program. I believe making these changes would improve the process and improve public confidence in the NRC. NRC speeches are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when speeches are posted to NRC's Web site. November 02, 2007 ***************************************************************** 16 Edmonton Journal: Slim majority favours nuclear power in Alberta Florence Loyie , edmontonjournal.com Published: 5:34 pm EDMONTON - While a slim majority of Albertans are in support of a nuclear power plant in the province, one quarter are strongly opposed and many are concerned about the possibility of an accident and the storage of nuclear waste, a new poll suggests. Support for the construction of a nuclear facility in Alberta was highest among residents in Edmonton and Calgary and lowest among residents in the province's rural north, according to a Environics Research Group poll released Friday. Environics vice-president Tony Coulson said it is not surprising to find the lowest support in the rural north since Calgary-based Energy Alberta Corp. has applied to build a $6.2-billion, 2,200-megawatt nuclear power plant near Peace River, 500 kilometres northwest of Edmonton. Areva, a company based in France, is also considering building a plant near Whitecourt. The Environics poll surveyed 1,011 Albertans aged 18 and older between Sept. 18 and Oct. 2. It's findings were similar to a poll released by Leger Marketing in September, which found 52 per cent of respondents said Alberta needs nuclear energy. Those respondents were deadlocked on whether nuclear power is the cheapest way of making electricity. In the Environics poll, 52 per cent of people surveyed said they were very favourable or somewhat favourable toward the building of a power plant in Alberta. At the same time, four in 10 Albertans said they were somewhat unfavourable or very unfavourable. "What we see are a slim majority in favour of building a plant, but there are also 25 per cent who are very unfavourable which is a fairly large group to have strongly opposed to something, and it is larger than the group that is very in favour (20 per cent)," Coulson said. While more Albertans are in favour of building a power plant in the province than not, the poll's second series of questions found widespread concern about certain aspects associated with the energy source, mainly the possibility of an accident and the storage of the waste. The storage of nuclear waste was a huge concern with nearly nine in 10 Albertans, while the possibility of an accident was a worry with seven in 10 Albertans, the poll found. The poll found some concern about the cost of nuclear energy, but not nearly at the levels of the first two concerns. The strongest support for construction of a nuclear power station came from Albertans with annual household incomes of more than $100,000, while the strongest opposition came from Albertans with less than a high school education and women, Coulson said. What the findings suggest is that the concerns about nuclear energy come from uncertainty and the unknown, he said. "I think what you are seeing is early reaction to something people have not thought that much about so if there is early debate, there is lots of room for these numbers to move," Coulson said. "While Albertans remain divided over the nuclear power option and continue to have safety concerns, support for this option has been growing over the years." floyie@thejournal.canwest.com © Edmonton Journal 2007 ***************************************************************** 17 BBC NEWS: Bomb scare at US nuclear facility Last Updated: Friday, 2 November 2007, 20:01 GMT Palo Verde supplies power to four million customers across four states The largest nuclear power plant in the US has been put into "lockdown" after a suspicious device was found in the lorry of a worker, officials said. The incident occurred at the Palo Verde site in Wintersburg, about 30 miles (48km) west of Phoenix in Arizona. The contract worker has been detained and is being questioned. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission classes the incident as an "unusual event" - which tend to occur every few days. Safety procedures No-one is allowed to leave or enter the plant during the "lockdown". Randy Edington, chief nuclear officer of Arizona Public Service, which operates the plant, issued a statement saying: "Our security personnel acted cautiously and appropriately, demonstrating that our security process and procedures work as designed." The name of the company the worker is employed by has not been revealed but officials said all those with access to the site had to undergo background checks. Palo Verde supplies power to four million customers across four states. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 18 AFP: Litvinenko scare useful test for 'dirty bomb' attack - experts - Fri Nov 2, 6:08 AM ET PARIS (AFP) - The murder of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned by polonium 210, showed how authorities should handle any terror attack involving radiological weapons, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) says. By being swift, clear and factual in telling the public about what had happened and about the risks from the highly radioactive element used in the killing, the British authorities were able to stem any panic or stigma, it says in next Saturday's issue. Researchers led by James Rubin of the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, carried out 1,000 phone interviews with Londoners and 86 interviews with Londoners who had been potentially exposed to the polonium. Of those interviewed, only 11.7 percent believed that their health had been at risk. Sixty-two percent said they believed they had been well informed. Nearly three-quarters of respondents said there was no risk to their health as they had not been in one of the areas known to be contaminated with polonium 210 -- a key message of the public information campaign put out by health agencies. "Few participants reported that the incident had any major impact on their life," the study says. "Although some mentioned heightened anxiety, this was temporary for most. Only one person reported stigmatisation as a result of the incident." In a commentary also carried by the BMJ, University of Alabama public health professor Steven Becker noted the results would have been different if people had perceived the incident as a terrorist attack rather than a targeted murder. "In a large-scale terrorist attack involving radioactive materials -- a 'dirty bomb', for example-- levels of public concern could be dramatically higher," said Becker. Even so, the lesson of giving the public "detailed, comprehensive and relevant" health information remained the same, he said. "Indeed, in a terrorist incident involving radioactive materials, effective risk communication may be the most important way to reduce morbidity and mortality, tackle people's concerns, avoid the impact on behaviour, and maintain public trust and confidence," he said. Litvinenko, a Russian exile with British citizenship, was killed after his tea was poisoned at a central London hotel on November 1 last year. He died three weeks later in hospital, prompting claims of a Kremlin-backed assassination. Former KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi is the prime suspect in the killing. Russia has refused to extradite him to face these accusations. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: UN Panel OKs Resolution on Nuclear Alert Friday November 2, 2007 3:01 AM By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee approved a resolution Thursday calling for all nuclear weapons to be taken off high alert, despite objections from the United States, Britain and France. The vote was 124-3 with the three Western nuclear powers voting ``no.'' There were 34 abstentions, mainly from NATO and Western countries as well as China. Russia did not vote. The resolution, co-sponsored by Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden and Switzerland, now goes to the 192-nation General Assembly for a final vote. Assembly resolutions are not legally binding but reflect opinions of world governments. The resolution calls for taking steps ``to decrease the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems, with a view to ensuring that all nuclear weapons are removed from high alert status.'' John Duncan, Britain's ambassador for multilateral arms control and disarmament, said ``we voted against it because we don't think that de-alerting is the primary issue that we need to address if we are to head to a nuclear-free world.'' ``We think the emphasis should be on other things, the numbers of nuclear weapons, not the operational readiness, and also the concerns of proliferation,'' he said. Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said ``the United States has an obligation to manage its military forces to ensure we remain able to protect our security and fulfill our commitments to our allies.'' New Zealand's Disarmament and Arms Control Minister Phil Goff said in late August that his anti-nuclear government was going to introduce the resolution because it wanted to lower the risk posed by the arsenals of nuclear weapons states. The resolution recalls that maintaining nuclear weapons on high alert was a feature of the Cold War and welcomed ``the increased confidence and transparency'' since it ended in the early 1990s. But it expresses concern that despite the end of the Cold War, ``several thousand nuclear weapons remain on high alert, ready to be launched within minutes.'' The high level of readiness ``increases the risk of the use of such weapons, including the unintentional or accidental us, which would have catastrophic consequences,'' the resolution says. Reducing the deployment of nuclear weapons and lowering their alert status, it says, ``contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as to the process of nuclear disarmament.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 20 KTAR: Phoenix News: Nuke Plant Locked Down after Worker Stopped with Explosive Nov 2nd - 7:08pm WINTERSBURG, Ariz. - As authorities tried to understand Friday why a contract worker would bring a pipe bomb to the nation's largest nuclear power plant, one thing was immediately clear. The security worked. Guards stopped Roger William Hurd, 61, at the entrance to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station when they spotted the bomb. He was detained right there, about a half mile from the containment domes where the nuclear material is stored. Officials pulled his security clearances and placed the facility on lockdown. ``The guards were attentive and alert and took the appropriate action when they identified something suspicious,'' said Victor Dricks, a spokesman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which will review the incident. Doug Walters, senior director of security for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group, said Palo Verde's response was ``exactly what you would expect it to be.'' ``We have a checkpoint for this reason,'' Walters said. ``They were able to identify a suspicious item in the truck. I don't know what they could have done differently.'' The Department of Homeland Security said there was no known terrorism link to the incident at Palo Verde. Hurd, of Goodyear, Ariz., told investigators he didn't know how the bomb got in his truck and was released Friday afternoon. Authorities described the device as a six-inch capped explosive made of galvanized pipe that contained suspicious residue. Tom Mangan, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said it was likely homemade. ``If this thing went off in the bed of the truck, it certainly would put a hole in it,'' Mangan said. ``It was rather crude in construction, but it could certainly injure somebody.'' Capt. Paul Chagolla with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office said the pipe was not hidden. He said Hurd normally drove a motorcycle to work but was in a truck Friday because of the cool weather. "He has not used his truck for about a week. He usually goes to work at the plant with a motorcycle. Today, he decided to use the truck because of it being cold and I believe he may have been heading for California after his work to visit family members," said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sheriff's officials rendered the device safe. Arpaio said investigators searched Hurd's home but found nothing to helpful. Hurd wasn't arrested, and Arpaio said he expects Hurd to help with the investigation. Nobody answered the door at Hurd's apartment in Goodyear. Messages left by The Associated Press at numbers listed for Hurd in Arizona and Hartsville, S.C., weren't returned as of late Friday afternoon. Hurd worked as a procurement engineer, responsible for evaluating equipment purchases for the plant, Palo Verde officials said. He had access to protected areas but hadn't been in any such area since Aug. 21, said Randy Edington, the chief nuclear officer for plant operator Arizona Public Service Co. Edington said Hurd would have had access to the reactors but officials didn't know the last time he would have been near the reactors. The incident was considered an ``unusual event'' - the lowest of four emergencies the plant can declare, said Jim Melfi, an inspector with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. There was no threat to the public and the station operated normally Friday, McDonald said. McDonald wouldn't say which company employed Hurd. Like everyopne who has access to the plant, Hurd submitted to a background check. Workers also must pass through two security checkpoints to get inside one of the plant's three containment domes, which house the radioactive nuclear material. One of the checkpoints includes an automated system that sniffs workers for the presence of bomb-making materials, McDonald said. Palo Verde, operated by Arizona Public Service Co., is the nation's largest nuclear power plant both in size and capacity. Located in Wintersburg about 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix, the plant supplies electricity to about 4 million customers in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California. ***************************************************************** 21 AFP: US nuclear plant sealed off after bomb found - Fri Nov 2, 4:45 PM ET PHOENIX, United States (AFP) - A nuclear power plant in Arizona was locked down Friday morning after security guards discovered a pipe bomb in a contract worker's truck, authorities said. Plant operator Arizona Public Service called the discovery an "unusual event" and sealed off the site, with no traffic entering or leaving the grounds. A bomb squad from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department declared the pipe bomb a "credible explosive device." The contract worker was entering Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station at a checkpoint for a standard security inspection at the beginning of the day shift. Guards armed with automatic rifles check identification and search under the hoods of all vehicles entering the plant. There was no danger to the plant, officials said. "This is not a threat to the public," said Jim McDonald, a spokesman for Arizona Public Service Co. "If it had the potential to be, the security guards stopped it." The worker, who has not been identified by authorities, has been arrested. Several hundred contract employees are working on improvements to the plant, which is the largest power plant in the United States. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and sheriff's department are investigating the incident, officials said. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: Hiroshima survivors upset pilot never said sorry - Friday November 2, 03:27 PM TOKYO (AFP) - Japanese survivors of the world's first nuclear attack on Hiroshima voiced regret Friday that the American pilot of the plane that dropped the bomb died without saying sorry. Paul Warfield Tibbets, Jr., whose B-29 bomber dubbed the Enola Gay dropped the 9,000-pound "Little Boy" bomb on August 6, 1945, died Thursday at his home in the midwest city of Columbus, Ohio. He was 92. Tibbets never expressed regret for the bombing that led to the end of World War II but at a horrific price: 140,000 dead immediately and 80,000 other Japanese succumbing in the aftermath, according to Hiroshima officials. "He did not apologise, arguing, like the American government, that the bombing saved millions of American and Japanese lives by ending the war," said Nori Tohei, 79, who survived the bombing of the western Japanese city. "But I wanted him to visit Hiroshima and take a direct look at what he did as a human being," said Tohei, who co-chairs the Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Suffers Organisations and now lives in Tokyo. "He was following orders as a military man but I wanted him to recognise it (the bombing) was a mistake and apologise to those who were killed or were long suffering side effects," Tohei told AFP. Tohei turned 17 on August 9, 1945, three days after the Hiroshima blast and the day a second atomic bomb was dropped on the southern city of Nagasaki. The United States has never formally apologised for the attacks. Although Tibbets saw little of the devastation wreaked on Hiroshima, he would walk the streets of Nagasaki a few weeks after the second atom bomb was dropped there. "A couple of the streets we walked had swelled," he told the Columbus Dispatch in 2003, as he described the buckling of the earth caused by the intensity of the blast. "Damnedest thing you've ever seen." He had been suffering from heart problems, manager and publisher Gerry Newhouse told AFP. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo!7 Pty Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 RSC: UK nuclear waste disposal plans too soon and too scanty 02 November 2007 UK scientists have urged the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to amend its plans to ask the public to volunteer to host an underground nuclear waste store. They say Defra hasn't allowed enough time to prepare detailed plans and briefing materials; and that potential volunteers will not be adequately informed about the strategy. In June this year, Defra published a consultation document explaining its idea to invite local communities to volunteer to host the nuclear waste repository. The proposals included compiling a radioactive waste inventory 'as a basis for discussion with potential host communities'. The deadline for the inventory and plans to be completed and for the public discussion to open is February 2008. But a joint response, signed by four independent scientists and representatives from learned bodies including the RSC, the Geological Society and the Institute of Physics, says Defra's proposals are not sufficient. The February deadline is too close, 'especially if the material is to be fully subjected to independent scrutiny to ensure that it is unbiased and accurate', and the government must provide full and explicit details of radioactive waste management before engaging communities in discussion, the scientists say. 'We think the deadline should be set when the material is ready, not before,' said Jeff Hardy, the manager of the RSC's Environment, Sustainability and Energy Forum and one of the response's signatories. 'There is no point setting an arbitrary date for its completion - the most important thing is that it is complete, accurate and clear.' Hardy told Chemistry World that the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), which will be responsible for preparing all of the briefing material - have little experience in disseminating such complex, scientific information to the public. 'Defra should engage with learned societies that have this expertise,' he said. Hardy also pointed out that it wasn't clear when a community would be 'locked in' to an agreement to host the repository. 'This is essentially digging a hole in someone's back yard and putting nuclear waste in it, so people will need to know up front exactly how it all works,' said Hardy 'No one should walk into this with any doubts.' Gently does it Gregg Butler, professor of science and sustainable development at the University of Manchester, UK, agreed that Defra had set a premature deadline for public discussions to open, but told Chemistry World it was too early to demand a detailed plan for the whole process - saying that an 'initial gentle step' was required to open the discussion. Butler and a group of associates from UK-based Integrated Decision Management, an organisation which provides independent scientific advice on policy making in the energy and environment sectors, drew up an earlier response to Defra's consultation document. 'This is entirely new ground - public dialogue in the decision-making process is not something we do in the UK,' said Butler. 'If all of the conditions of this process are fixed from the beginning, people will be afraid to enter into discussions with the government just in case the door slams and they're unable to back out.' Defra replied that it would 'consider all of the points raised in the consultation and respond in due course'. Victoria Gill Enjoy this story? Spread the word using the 'tools' menu on the left. Also of interest Bury radioactive waste, UK government told Radioactive waste should be stored deep underground at sites where local communities have had the opportunity to participate in, and even withdraw from, the planning process. Nuclear storage: ready, willing, able, and undecided No insurmountable technical barriers to storing nuclear waste deep underground. © Royal Society of Chemistry 2007 ***************************************************************** 24 TheStar.com: Firm's Russian supplier seeks higher prices Toronto Star Nov 02, 2007 04:30 AM Shares of Cameco Corp. fell nearly 8 per cent yesterday after the company revealed that one of its suppliers in Russia is seeking higher prices for uranium the Canadian company buys from dismantled nuclear weapons. Cameco said joint stock company Techsnabexport has requested talks to get higher prices for the last few years of the remaining term of a commercial agreement to buy uranium from 12,000 dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Cameco currently buys about 7 million pounds of uranium a year under the commercial agreement, which ends in 2013. However, terms under the deal were set in 2001, when uranium prices were far lower than today. Cameco said it will talk to partners before deciding whether to reopen the deal. The news came as the world's biggest uranium producer confirmed the flooded Cigar Lake uranium mine in northern Saskatchewan won't start production before 2011. Cameco and its partners, Areva and Nukem, convert the highly enriched uranium from dismantled nuclear weapons into fuel for nuclear power plants. The commercial agreement falls under the umbrella of the United States-Russia government-to-government deal and supplies a significant portion of the United States' enrichment and conversion services requirements. The Canadian Press © Copyright Toronto Star 1996-2007 | ***************************************************************** 25 DOE: Deputy Secretary of Energy to Tout NuStart / TVA License Application for Advance Nuclear Reactor October 29, 2007 NuStart Selected Through DOE’s Nuclear Power 2010 Program to Lead the Way WASHINGTON, DC – On Tuesday, October 30, 2007, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Deputy Secretary Clay Sell will participate in a press conference to tout the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) plan to submit a combined construction and operating license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). TVA is the nation’s largest public power utility and a member of NuStart Energy, a consortium of nuclear energy companies selected through DOE’s Nuclear Power 2010 program to demonstrate the NRC’s new process for licensing new reactors in the United States. Today’s announcement furthers the Administration’s goals of expanding the use of nuclear energy by reducing the near-term barriers to new nuclear plant construction by providing financial and regulatory assistance. WHO: Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell Senator Pete Domenici (NM) and other Members of Congress Officials from NuStart Energy and TVA WHAT: TVA, a member of the NuStart consortium, plans to submit a combined construction and operating license application to the NRC WHEN: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 3:30PM EDT WHERE: The U.S. Capitol Mansfield Room Washington, D.C. 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 ***************************************************************** 26 Hanford News: Nuclear landfill in S.C. is closing - 36 states will have to store their own radioactive trash This story was published Friday, November 2nd, 2007 Seanna Adcox, Associated Press Writer COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Starting next summer, many power plants, hospitals, universities and companies in 36 states will be forced to store low-level radioactive waste on their own property because a South Carolina landfill is closing its doors to them. The states have known for years that this day would come. But because of political opposition, environmental fears and cost concerns, most of them have done almost nothing to construct new landfills in the meantime. At issue is the Barnwell County dump site, a 235-acre expanse that opened in 1971 close to the Georgia line. The equivalent of more than 40 tractor-trailers full of radioactive trash from 39 states was buried there each year before South Carolina lawmakers in 2000 ordered the place to scale back because they no longer wanted the state to be the nation's dumping ground. As of July 1, the landfill will take waste only from South Carolina and the two states with which it formed a partnership, New Jersey and Connecticut. State and industry officials say the not-in-my-backyard resistance will ironically lead to "temporary" storage sites in backyards across the nation. "I'm concerned about it, that my hospitals in my neighborhood will have to store this stuff on site," said Rita Houskie, administrator for disposal of the waste in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. Other states affected by the shutdown include California, New York, Illinois, Florida and Texas. The danger, some officials say, is that storing the waste in potentially hundreds of locations across the country could allow radiation to escape. While none of the trash could be used to make a nuclear bomb, some experts fear it could be stolen to make "dirty bombs," which use conventional explosives to scatter radioactive debris. "As a matter of national security, health and safety, it makes good sense to ultimately dispose of this stuff and not just store it all over the country," said Rick Jacobi, a nuclear engineer and former general manager of the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority. "There will be hundreds, maybe thousands of them. People won't want to pay others to store the material. They'll find a closet or warehouse or a shed out back and stick it in there and see what happens." The trash sent to Barnwell includes protective clothing and gloves, tools, cleaning rags, lab equipment, industrial measuring devices and equipment used to treat cancer patients. It does not include spent fuel from nuclear power plants. The waste is stored in steel containers that are put in concrete vaults and then buried in long trenches. Most waste from hospitals, universities and power plants falls into the lowest-hazard class, which means it decays to nonradioactive levels within 100 years. The closing of Barnwell will mean roughly 20,000 cubic feet of trash per year, or enough to fill six tractor-trailers, will be turned away. Only two other landfills now exist nationwide for low-level nuclear waste. One, in Clive, Utah, takes only the least hazardous trash, such as slightly contaminated clothing. It accepts waste from all states. The other landfill, in Richland, Wash., receives such material along with hotter waste that decays to non-hazardous levels within 500 years. But it accepts shipments from only 11 states, including Idaho, Nevada and Colorado. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 Hanford News: A state-by-state look at nuclear waste sent to South Carolina landfill This story was published Friday, November 2nd, 2007 The Associated Press A state-by-state breakdown of how much nuclear waste, in cubic feet, went to South Carolina's low-level landfill in fiscal year 2006-07: Alabama: 3,855 Alaska: 0.5 Arizona: 545 Arkansas: 56 Army, outside U.S.: 11 California: 1,106 Connecticut: 2,202 Delaware: 8 D.C.: 9 Florida: 254 Georgia: 488 Hawaii: 37 Illinois: 3,477 Indiana: 0.7 Iowa: 4 Kansas: 114 Kentucky: 27 Louisiana: 404 Maine: 465 Maryland: 314 Massachusetts: 377 Michigan: 1,174 Minnesota: 66 Mississippi: 773 Missouri: 119 Nebraska: 205 New Hampshire: 426 New Jersey: 843 New Mexico: 0.3 New York: 1,352 North Carolina: 733 Ohio: 547 Oklahoma: 0.8 Pennsylvania: 1,812 South Carolina: 4,892 Tennessee: 1,047 Texas: 396 Vermont: 524 Virginia: 5,422 Wisconsin: 3,357 --- Source: U.S. Department of Energy © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 RGJ.com: Opposition to Yucca Mountain growing on the campaign trail November 2, 2007 ASSOCIATED PRESS U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton joins Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., left, and U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., right, in opposing the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Southern Nevada. A growing number of politicians are jumping on the bandwagon. Nevadans should be pleased to see the Democratic presidential candidates lining up against the federal government's plan to dispose of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, even if the opposition isn't likely to sway many votes in next year's presidential elections. The decision to support an individual candidate is a complex one for most voters, based largely on issues but also on emotion, history and a variety of other factors that undoubtedly will outweigh what goes on at a remote location in Southern Nevada. But the future of Yucca Mountain is important -- both to the citizens of Nevada, who are being asked to accept the consequences of the short-sighted thinking over several decades by the nuclear power industry and the federal government, and to the industry, which hopes to begin a new round of power plants in the coming years. Increasingly, it is becoming obvious -- if not to the Bush administration and the Department of Energy, then to just about everyone else -- that the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain simply is not going to fly with the American public. The opposition is increasing, as was obvious at a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Committee hearing Wednesday, where U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, one of the leading Democratic candidates, made clear her opposition to the plan. Other candidates have joined in, despite the support that some of them gave to it in the past, and their opposition seems to be intensifying as the Nevada caucuses approach. If the Democrats retake the White House and keep their hold on Congress in 2008, the Yucca Mountain project would appear to be dead. The growing opposition is understandable. The problems with the plan and the licensing process have been piling up, and it's now recognized that even an expanded Yucca Mountain site won't be enough to handle all of the nuclear waste that has been building up at nuclear power plants around the country and is expected to be generated by new plants in the works. Unfortunately, the candidates have yet to offer an alternative, choosing instead to recommend that the government go back to the start and develop a new plan. That's what many in Nevada have been suggesting for years now, with little impact on the federal government, which has a contractual obligation with the nuclear power industry to deal with the waste. (The government has been sued by the industry to force it to move ahead with the plan.) It's way past time for the feds to accept reality. There has to be a better, more cost-effective way to deal with the nuclear waste accumulating at power plants (none of which are in Nevada) than burying in the Nevada desert. Let's get to work finding it. © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: NRC Publishes Strategic Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulatory Program News Release - 2007-146 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published the staff’s strategic assessment of the agency’s low-level radioactive waste (LLW) regulatory program, proposing several initiatives to meet impending challenges such as decreased disposal capacity and increased production of LLW as new reactors and other nuclear facilities come online. Those challenges include the anticipated closure to most of the nation in 2008 of the Barnwell, S.C., LLW disposal facility. Barnwell is currently the nation’s only commercial disposal option for certain wastes, and its closure could force licensees to store waste on-site until other disposal options become available. In addition, operation of new uranium enrichment facilities, potential nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities and commercial nuclear power plants will create additional demand for LLW disposal capacity. The strategic assessment concludes that current NRC regulations on disposal of low-level radioactive waste fully protect the health and safety of workers and the public. However, the assessment identifies several measures that could improve the effectiveness of low-level waste management and regulation as disposal needs and circumstances change. The strategic assessment identifies seven “high-priority” tasks the NRC intends to carry out to strengthen the agency’s ability to ensure safe and secure LLW disposal, improve the effectiveness of its regulations, and assure regulatory stability and predictability while allowing flexibility in disposal options. These tasks include updating guidance for extended storage of LLW; developing new guidance for alternative disposal of low-activity waste; and developing guidance for classifying LLW according to the risk it poses to public health and safety. The strategic assessment was developed with input from the NRC’s Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials as well as external stakeholders such as industry, state agencies, and public interest groups. It is currently before the Commission as an information paper (SECY-07-0180) and will be available on the NRC’s Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2007/ NRC news releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. November 02, 2007 ***************************************************************** 30 PBP: Nukes: The issue is waste Palm Beach Post Editorial Friday, November 02, 2007 For Florida Power & Light, this week's news that five outsourced security guards slept during their shift at the company's Miami-Dade County nuclear plant was badly timed, not just embarrassing. Several factors explain the company's decision. FPL generates roughly half of its power using natural gas, which burns cleaner than oil and coal but can rise quickly in price. After allowing FPL's gas-fired plant in western Palm Beach County, the Public Service Commission told FPL to decrease its dependency on gas. Also, Gov. Crist wants utilities in Florida to generate at least 20 percent of their power from renewable sources, and FPL considers nuclear to be a renewable source. Some environmental groups have dropped their three-decades-old opposition to nuclear power because nukes emit no greenhouse gases. But the continuing problem is that the plants produce power through nuclear fission, which generates waste that remains radioactive for thousands of years. Plants must store that waste safely and securely to protect public health and prevent theft by terrorists, who could use it to make a radioactive bomb. At St. Lucie, two below-ground pools hold all the spent fuel produced since the plant opened in 1976. According to a spokesman, FPL "does not intend to build any additional" pools. Cramming too much waste into the pools can cause safety problems. Instead, the company wants to build above-ground dry storage containers. For state and federal regulators who must approve FPL's plans, the decisions would be easier if there were a national storage site. But 20 years after Yucca Mountain in Nevada was targeted as the location, there is no site. If Yucca Mountain does open, FPL estimates that it won't happen until 2017. FPL hopes to complete the upgrades at St. Lucie and Turkey Point by 2012. Copyright 2007 The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved. By using PalmBeachPost.com, you accept the terms of our visitor ***************************************************************** 31 IEER: Comments on Yucca Mountain, October 2007 Comments of Dr. Arjun Makhijani on Yucca Mountain and the draft EPA standard, submitted for the record of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on the "Examination of the Licensing Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository" October 31, 2007 Madam Chairman, I have prepared these comments on the proposed Yucca Mountain repository at the request of the staff of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. I appreciate the opportunity to present them for inclusion in the hearing record, should you so decide. My remarks are complemented by comments that Dr. Brice Smith and I prepared on the draft EPA Standard on Yucca Mountain in November 2005 [http://www.ieer.org/comments/waste/yuccaepa.pdf]. I request that these comments also be included in the record. I am president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and have authored or co-authored articles, reports, and books on issues connected to nuclear waste and its management and on other radiation-related issues. I hold a Ph.D. from the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences of the University of California at Berkeley (1972), where I specialized in controlled nuclear fusion. I wish to note three things at the outset: 1. I support a sound repository program for spent fuel from presently licensed reactors and for Department of Energy high-level radioactive waste. 2. The current Yucca Mountain program is far from sound. Yucca Mountain does not meet the most important criteria for a sound repository program. In my opinion, it is the worst repository site that has been investigated in the United States. 3. Whatever course is chosen for a repository program, decades of storage of spent fuel at reactor sites is a near certainty. On site storage should be hardened to limit the most severe kinds of damage that are possible from terrorist attacks or accidents. Let me amplify on the second point, since it illustrates the whole problem of Yucca Mountain licensing and standards, and, indeed, why the United States needs to start afresh with a repository program, instead of throwing good money after bad. I will focus on the problems of Yucca Mountain in relation to some important criteria by which a sound repository program can be judged: 1. Future radiation doses Maximum estimated radiation doses to future generations at the time of peak dose should be within the general limits that we set for protecting our own generation. If they are expected to be much higher, then the repository will not meet the test of inter-generational equity. Yucca Mountain fails this test miserably. Peak doses to the most exposed people are expected to be much higher than the current norms of 10 to 25 millirem per year incorporated in EPA radiation protection standards relating to nuclear facilities. Table 1, appended to this statement, shows the various risks associated with the proposed EPA standard and with the peak doses (median and 95th percentile) estimated by the DOE in its 2002 Environmental Impact Statement. The EPA's draft standard would limit radiation dose to 15 millirem per year for the first 10,000 years. Beyond that it would allow half the affected people to get more than 350 millirem per year and half less. This is far in excess of present-day radiation protection norms for the general public. Five out of every hundred people would be allowed to get radiation doses of 2,000 millirem per year or more. At this level, the lifetime fatal cancer risk for females (over a 70-year exposure period) would be about 1 in 10. The corresponding cancer incidence risk would be 1 in 5. These last numbers are not much different than the risk of Russian roulette. The lifetime fatal cancer risk to females from the 95th percentile peak dose estimated by the DOE in its Final Environmental Impact Statement, about 600 millirem, would be 1 in 35. This means that five percent of women exposed to the effects of Yucca Mountain pollution at that time would be at greater risk, while 95 percent would be at lower risk. The risks for men and for the whole population would be somewhat lower, but still well above prevalent norms. For instance, the average population fatal cancer risk (males and females combined) at 350 millirem per year over a lifetime is about 1 in 71. 2. Characteristics of the Yucca Mountain geologic setting A minimum requirement of the geologic setting should be that, when the containers fail and begin to leak (and it is a question of when not if), the geology of the repository should be conducive to retarding the movement of the radioactive materials and to preventing most of them from reaching groundwater or surface water resources. Materials produced by the DOE for the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (reproduced in the attached IEER comments on the draft EPA standard) show that the Yucca Mountain rock is practically useless in holding back radioactive materials. Almost the entire functioning of the repository depends on the engineered barriers, mainly the metal containers. Unless they function as predicted by the DOE, Yucca Mountain will not meet the draft EPA standard even for the first ten thousand years. And since these containers will eventually rust, all calculations show that the peak dose will greatly exceed EPA's norms for radiation protection today. For instance, the maximum routine exposure to the public from a single nuclear fuel cycle facility from all pathways, including air, water, and food, is limited to 25 millirem per year to any organ (except 75 millirem to the thyroid) or to the whole body (40 CFR 190.10(a)). 3. The waste package The DOE is proposing to use metal containers as the central element of the waste package for spent fuel disposal. The Yucca Mountain geologic environment is oxidizing; it also has some humidity. The waste will be hot for an extended period and it will heat the surrounding materials and rock. This combination of heat, humidity, and oxygen is a recipe for rust. How fast the containers will corrode is a matter of some debate. The containers could, under some circumstances, corrode much faster than 10,000 years (the time the EPA proposes for a reasonably protective dose limit of 15 millirem per year). The metal alloy proposed for the containers is new - there is no long-term experience with its performance. As a result, there is a real possibility that DOE's silver bullet may turn out to be a dud. Since the repository location itself is not protective, a failure of the containers would lead to serious pollution of the groundwater and render it useless in an area where water is very scarce. 4. Water resources There are no surface water resources in the general region of Yucca Mountain. The only aquifer in the area is currently being used in Amargosa Valley, just 20 miles downstream from Yucca Mountain. The scarcity of water ensures two things. First, if the containers don't hold up, there will be little dilution and the water will become very polluted. Second, the lack of alternative water resources makes it likely that future residents may unknowingly use the polluted groundwater. This is not a new finding. About a quarter of a century ago, the DOE had commissioned the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to prepare a report that was supposed to guide it in its search for a sound repository. That report, published in 1983, four years before the 1987 legislation that restricted site characterization to Yucca Mountain, showed that radiation doses due to high-level radioactive waste disposal at Yucca Mountain could be very high, in large measure due to the scarcity of water.1 To the best of my knowledge, the DOE does not appear to have used this report to guide its repository program, though it paid for it. 5. Conclusions The evidence shows that Yucca Mountain is an unsound repository program that should not be pursued further. If there were a reasonably protective radiation standard - one that protected future generations to the time of peak dose according to present-day EPA norms - Yucca Mountain could not be licensed. Security, health, safety, and environmental considerations indicate that the Yucca Mountain program should be scrapped and replaced by a repository program based on sound science and public health protection criteria. It should be managed not by the DOE but by an institution that does not itself generate high-level waste or spent nuclear fuel. The same considerations also point to the need for Hardened On-Site Storage (HOSS) of spent fuel as an interim step. Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement for possible inclusion into the record of the hearing. I would be happy to answer in writing any questions you may have for the record. Table 1: Cancer risks associated with the draft EPA standard for Yucca Mountain and with DOE estimated median and 95th percentile peak doses EPA draft std. 1st 10,000 yrs EPA draft std. median after 10,000 yrs EPA draft std. 95th percentile value DOE estimate median peak dose DOE estimate 95th percentile peak dose Annual exposure, Effective dose equivalent, millirem/year 15 350 2,000 1 40 600 Lifetime dose over 70 years, millirem 1,050 24,500 140,000 9,800 42,00 0 Average Risk factor from EPA FGR 13, fatal cancers per mrem (males and females) 5.75E-07 5.75E-07 5.75E-07 5.75E-07 5.75E-07 Average lifetime fatal cancer risk 6.04E-04 1.41E-02 8.05E-02 5.64E-03 2 .42E-02 Average (males and females) lifetime fatal cancer risk, expressed as 1 in 1,656 71 12 177 41 Average Risk factor from EPA FGR 13 for females, fatal cancers per millirem 6.83E-07 6.83E-07 6.83E-07 6.83E-07 6.83E-07 Lifetime fatal cancer risk for females 7.17E-04 1.67E-02 9.56E-02 6.69 E-03 2.87E-02 Lifetime fatal cancer risk for females, expressed as 1 in 1,394 60 10 1 49 35 Notes: FGR 13 stands for EPA's Federal Guidance Report 13. It is an official EPA guidance report. The DOE estimates that there will be many peaks of doses due to future climatic variations. The figures above represent the largest estimated values of the peak dose. They are estimated to occur hundreds of thousands of years from the present. 1. Waste Isolation Systems Panel, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, National Research Council. A Study of the Isolation System for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Waste. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983. ====================================================================== These comments also available in PDF (40kB, 4 pages) ====================================================================== Also see: EPA Yucca Mountain Standards page Also available on this site: Comments on Reference Man and Radiation Protection (on "Modifying EPA Radiation Risk Models Based on BEIR VII"), August 30, 2007 Comments on EPA's Proposed Rule for Yucca Mountain (PDF version), November 21, 2005 EPA's Proposed Rule on Repository for High-Level Radioactive Waste Would Seriously Undermine Public Health, IEER press release, August 9, 2005 Energy Dept. "Rushing Ahead with a Defective Yucca Mountain Design," Says Former U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Member, IEER press release, June 14, 2004 Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is a Poor Way to Meet Energy Needs, Article by Arjun Makhijani in Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law, 2004 Yucca Mountain: An Example Not to Follow, Presentation to a Greenpeace Briefing, December 2, 2003 "If not Yucca Mountain, then what?", IEER fact sheet, December 2001 EPA's Rule on Repository for High-level Radioactive Waste Seriously Undermines Safe Drinking Water Standards, IEER press release, 6 June 2001 Letter from IEER to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board re: suitability of proposed Yucca Mountain repository, May 25, 2001 IEER Comments on the Draft EPA Standards for a Yucca Mountain High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository, November 23, 1999 Some Evidence of Yucca Mountain's Unsuitability as a Repository, from SDA vol. 7 no. 3, May 1999 Fluid inclusion studies of samples from the Exploratory Study Facility, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, report prepared for IEER by Yuri V. Dublyansky, Ph.D., December 1998 IEER testimony and technical comments, full list IEER resources on radioactive waste, subject index Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Comments to ieer at ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA October 31, 2007 ***************************************************************** 32 San Bernardino County Sun: Perchlorate hearings postponed again Jason Pesick, Staff Writer Article Launched: 11/01/2007 09:41:52 PM PDT LOS ANGELES - State hearings to determine if three suspected polluters will have to clean up water contamination in Rialto won't be happening any time soon - if ever. That became clear Thursday during a hearing in Los Angeles County Superior Court. No Rialto official attended the hearing, but when contacted later City Councilman Ed Scott, a member of the council's perchlorate subcommittee, said the next step will be to have the EPA declare the contaminated area a Superfund site. Scott backpedaled a bit later and said he would meet with EPA officials during the coming days and bring a recommendation back to the council. The State Water Resources Control Board was supposed to hold hearings in August to determine whether Goodrich, Black & Decker affiliate Emhart and Pyro Spectaculars were responsible for perchlorate contaminating the drinking water in Rialto. Perchlorate is used in the production of explosives such as rocket fuel. Rialto was the site of some World War II munitions storage and some companies built other products there using the chemical. The perchlorate is flowing from industrial sites in northern Rialto, and the city thinks more than 40 parties are responsible for all the contamination. Though she said the case needs to move forward as quickly as possible, Judge Dzintra Janavs postponed a court hearing on lawsuits filed by the three companies until Nov. 21. The August suits challenged the legitimacy and fairness of the state hearings. Janavs halted the hearings in August when the companies filed their suits. But Janavs made it clear that the issue will not be resolved no matter what happens later this month in her courtroom. "This case, as you all well know - my case - is going to be appealed by somebody," she said, predicting that the three companies' lawsuits would make their way up through the judicial system and to the state Supreme Court. To facilitate that, she consolidated the case into one suit. Rialto has spent millions of dollars working with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board seeking cleanup orders in local and state hearings. The city's federal lawsuit against dozens of parties tentatively scheduled for October of next year needs to move forward, Scott said, possibly alongside a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund process. For years, Rialto has been reluctant to allow the EPA to declare the contamination a Superfund site, saying it would create a stigma and take too long. He predicted that by December the agency will begin at least a limited role of issuing orders against suspected polluters. Environmentalists lamented the failure of the state's water cleanup process. "It's unfortunate that the system's not working for the people," said Jan Misquez, director of the Riverside-based Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice. She attended the Los Angeles court hearing and afterward said Rialto cannot give up and that all avenues to get the contamination cleaned up need to be pursued. Carol Squire, a deputy attorney general defending the state and regional water boards in court, said she did not know when or if any cleanup hearings would take place. Her next step will be to challenge Janavs' August stay of the hearings before taking on the merits of the suits challenging the state water board process, she said. jason.pesick@sbsun.com (909) 386-3861 ***************************************************************** 33 ICT: Waxman sets stage for progress at Navajo uranium hearing Posted: November 02, 2007 by: Jerry Reynolds / Indian Country Today WASHINGTON - The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the House of Representatives held a hearing on the impact of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation Oct. 23. At its close, committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., suggested a December meeting among federal agencies, hearing witnesses and Navajo representatives. The meeting will be devoted to ironing out the authorities the agencies need to redress Navajo grievances and how much that will cost, said Simon Boyce, policy director of the Navajo Nation Washington Office. The nation hopes to expand the cleanup of abandoned, so-called ''legacy'' uranium mining sites, as well as the types of compensatory claims that can be filed and the documentation acceptable as proofs of residence in uranium-contaminated regions, he said. The Navajo now ban uranium mining and processing within their territorial borders, but the health and environmental aftermath of uranium extraction in years past is a long-standing sore point. Of Waxman, Boyce added, ''He seemed in my mind to be visibly upset with the government's response to this'' - that is, to an environmental injustice that has been taking place for 50 years, according to Boyce. Navajo witnesses at the hearing seconded him with their testimony. George Arthur, chairman of the Navajo Nation Council Resources Committee, said the nation has served the United States as an ''energy colony,'' burdened with the ills and bereft the blessings of their mineral riches. Stephen Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, described four decommissioned uranium processing sites at population centers across the vast Navajo landscape. In closing down the plants, the federal government left radioactive tailings (ore residue) in place under caps of rock and clay, he said. ''None of the sites were lined, meaning that there was nothing placed underneath the radioactive materials to keep them from leaching into the groundwater. ... We believe that is exactly what is happening today.'' In Tuba City, Ariz., and Shiprock, N.M., Etsitty added chemical groundwater contamination is moving toward municipal drinking wells. ''We know the federal government is working on that contamination. ... We also know that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to construct a solid waste, not to mention a hazardous waste, landfill in your home state today in accordance with current environmental laws and regulations unless that landfill was built with a liner to protect the underlying groundwater. Yet in my homeland ... we have what amounts to four unlined radioactive waste dumps threatening our groundwater.'' More than 600 former uranium mining sites are on Navajo land or within a mile of it, he said, along with 1,200 associated site features such as piles of contaminated waste. Ray Manygoats of Tuba City said his father worked in a uranium mill. He came home every evening in a uniform thick with yellow dust, and every night the family would wash the uniform with water collected from near the unfenced mill. ''We scrubbed, but the uniform was always yellow with the dust. ... Yellow stuff was always everywhere.'' The family has always been unhealthy, from the father's breathing problems to the mother's death from cancer to the relative who couldn't grow hair and had to wear a wig. ''We know now that we are sick because of the uranium. ... I am here on behalf of my community to ask for your help; to ask that we move past promises to actions. Actions that may save our children from the sickness and the poison that we are now living with.'' © 1998 - 2007 Indian Country Today. All Rights Reserved  ***************************************************************** 34 Obama: Time To End Debate On Yucca, Find Alternatives | U.S. Senator Barack Obama Wednesday, October 31, 2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Amy Brundage, 202 228 5511 Obama Has Consistently Opposed Yucca Mountain as a Storage Site for Nuclear Waste WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) yesterday sent the following letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) Chairman Barbara Boxer, calling on them to use today's EPW Committee hearing on Yucca Mountain to explore new alternatives for safe, long-term solutions for storing spent nuclear fuel. Obama, who has been a consistent opponent of Yucca Mountain as a permanent repository for nuclear waste, urged the Committee and federal government to move past the decades-long debate on Yucca Mountain and focus on finding new alternatives to Yucca. In the letter, Obama stated, "the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over, and it is time to start exploring new alternatives for safe, long-term solutions based on sound science." Below is a copy of Obama's letter: October 30, 2007 The Honorable Harry Reid, Majority Leader 528 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 The Honorable Barbara Boxer, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Dear Leader Reid and Chairman Boxer: I understand that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is holding a hearing on October 31 entitled, "Examination of the Licensing Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository," at which Senator Reid is scheduled to testify. I know both of you have been working on this issue for many years, so I am writing to share my perspective on the issue given its importance to my home state of Illinois. Although I am no longer a member of the EPW Committee, I respectfully offer the following views and ask that they be included as part of the hearing record. Separately, I will be submitting questions for the hearing witnesses. Given the nation's rising energy demand and the serious problems posed by global climate change, we need to increase the use of carbon-free energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy. But we cannot deny that nuclear power is – and likely will remain – an important source of electricity for many years to come. How we deal with the dangerous byproduct of nuclear reactors is a critical question that has yet to be resolved. As you may know, Illinois has 11 nuclear reactors – more than any other state in the country. Nuclear power provides more than 50 percent of the electricity needs of Illinois. Where and how we store spent nuclear fuel is an extremely important issue for my constituents. Currently, in the absence of any alternative, spent nuclear fuel generated by Illinois' reactors is stored in Illinois. In 1987, Congress attempted to reach a national solution to the storage of spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste by abandoning the scientific consideration of a wide range of possible sites and instead unilaterally imposing a final decision to focus only on Yucca Mountain, Nevada. During the past 20 years, over the strong opposition of the people of Nevada, billions of dollars have been spent by taxpayers and ratepayers in the construction of this location. Millions of dollars have been spent on lawsuits, and hundreds of millions more will be spent in the future if the Department of Energy fails to meet its contractual obligations to nuclear utilities. Proponents suggest Yucca Mountain will not be ready to accept spent fuel shipments for another 10 years; more realistic prognostications suggest we are at least two decades from Yucca Mountain accepting shipments. Legitimate scientific questions have been raised about the safety of storing spent nuclear fuel at this location. With regard to Yucca Mountain, the National Academy of Sciences maintains that peak risks might occur hundreds of thousands of years from now. In 2004, a federal court questioned whether standards developed by the Environmental Protection Agency for the Yucca Mountain repository were sufficient to guarantee the safety of Nevadans. Questions also have been raised about the viability of transporting spent nuclear fuel to Nevada from different locations around the country. Although it would seem to serve the interests of Illinois – and other states with nuclear reactors – to send our waste to another state, transporting nuclear waste materials poses uncertain risk. In fact, since a large amount of this spent fuel would likely travel by rail, this is a serious concern for the people of Chicago, which is the transportation hub of the Midwest. Because of these safety issues and the unwavering opposition from the people of Nevada and their elected officials, there is strong reason to believe that many more billions of dollars could be expended on Yucca Mountain without any significant progress in moving towards a permanent solution to the problem of where to store spent nuclear fuel. For these reasons, I believe that it is no longer a sustainable federal policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered as a permanent repository. Instead of re-examining the 20-year licensing process and the billions of dollars that have already been spent, the time has come for the federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Among the possible alternatives that should be considered are finding another state willing to serve as a permanent national repository or creating regional storage repositories. The federal government should also redirect resources toward improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country until a safe, long-term solution can be implemented. Regardless of what alternative is pursued, two premises should guide federal decision-making. First, any storage option should be supported by sound science. We need to ensure that nuclear waste can be safely stored without polluting aquifers or soil and exposing nearby residents to toxic radiation. Second, we should select a repository location through a process that develops national consensus and respects state sovereignty, not one in which the federal government cuts off debate and forces one state to accept nuclear waste from other states. The flawed process by which Yucca Mountain was selected now manifests itself as a profoundly expensive endeavor of monumental proportion. In short, the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over, and it is time to start exploring new alternatives for safe, long-term solutions based on sound science. I thank you both for your leadership on this issue, and I appreciate your consideration of my views. Sincerely, Barack Obama United States Senator Washington D.C. Office 713 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 (202) 224-2854 (202) 228-4260 fax (202 228-1404 TDD Email our office Chicago Office John C. Kluczynski Federal Office Building 230 South Dearborn St. Suite 3900 (39th floor) Chicago, Illinois 60604 (312) 886-3506 (312) 886-3514 fax Toll free: (866) 445-2520 (for IL residents only) Springfield Office 607 East Adams Street Springfield, Illinois 62701 (217) 492-5089 (217) 492-5099 fax Marion Office 701 North Court Street Marion, Illinois 62959 (618) 997-2402 (618) 997-2850 fax Moline Office 1911 52nd Avenue Moline, Illinois 61265 (309)736-1217 (309)736-1233 fax Obama: Time To End Debate On Yucca, Find Alternatives ***************************************************************** 35 Tonawanda News - LANDFILL: Cleanup may become political issue Published: November 01, 2007 11:49 pm Hill/hilld@gnnewspaper.com The Tonawanda News The Town of Tonawanda landfill runs along a number of homes in the City of Tonawanda, drastically affecting residents of Hackett Drive and Brookside Terrace, many of whom are concerned — if not fearful — of just what is in the landfill. But cleanup of the uranium ore waste buried within it is not an issue that rests solely on the desk of the city’s 4th Ward councilman, whether it is incumbent Rick Davis or challenger David McCormick. Given that the outcome of the remediation process — a key step of which is now in the hands of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — could impact property values, and the fact that residents’ health is at stake, the landfill is a city-wide issue. With voters heading to the polls Nov. 6 to elect four council members and a council president, the Tonawanda News asked each candidate to share his or her views on the landfill situation. All agree something needs to be done, but there’s a prevailing view among city Republicans that their Democratic counterparts have made the issue a political one. Incumbent Colleen Perkins, 1st Ward, knows all about cleaning up hazardous sites. Gastown is in her ward, and the state Department of Environmental Conservation is in the process of remediating that site. She says the landfill has to be handled differently from Gastown, and the current common council has done the right thing in raising much public awareness of what developments are taking place there. Her Republican challenger, Jerry Frizzell, admits that because he hasn’t sat on the council he is not as well versed in the city’s landfill remediation efforts. However, he did say that proper testing needs to be done on the site, and that the city must “keep our citizens safe, whatever it takes.” Frizzell added that Tonawanda might want to consider involving its legal department to accelerate remediation. “I think it’s become too political,” 2nd Ward Councilman Blake Boyle said of the issue. Boyle has said at meetings that he does not believe residents could not have been aware of the uranium ore in the landfill when they bought their homes. “I grew up in the Town (of Tonawanda) and I knew it was a landfill,” Boyle said. He said the city should not pursue filing a lawsuit against the town, that the two municipalities need to work together toward a resolution. Gary Waterhouse, the Democratic challenger in the 2nd Ward, said the city has “some tough times ahead and we need some strong people to handle those.” Waterhouse believes it’s important to keep the pressure on both the Army Corps of Engineers and the state DEC. “It’s a city issue,” he said. “Everybody should be involved in that.” Waterhouse says the city should “take it up a notch” and “turn up the heat” on congressional representatives who can sway the Army Corps’ final decision. “Every day this goes on is another day somebody could be exposed to a hazardous chemical,” he said. In the 3rd Ward, incumbent James Kossow said the city is “united” in its efforts, and he also feels Tonawanda can put more pressure on the Army Corps and the Town of Tonawanda. His Republican challenger, Amy Fleming, could not be reached to comment. In the landfill’s home district, Rick Davis has been in constant contact with state and federal officials on all fronts of the issue. Most recently, Davis reached out to Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, asking her to use her clout to get the Environmental Protection Agency to come to Tonawanda to test both the properties of residents who live near the landfill and the grounds of the nearby Riverview Elementary School. “The landfill has been a sore spot with residents in the 4th Ward since closure work began three years ago,” Davis said. “This is something that affects everyone in the city. If property values decrease due to homes suffering structural damage from work being done at the landfill or the stigma that is attached to those properties for being in proximity, everyone in the city will have to pay more in taxes to make up the difference.” David McCormick, who is challenging Davis on the common council, is among those who have criticized Davis and Council President Carleton Zeisz for playing politics with the landfill. He says that Zeisz and Davis performed a political stunt when they canvassed the Riverview Heights neighborhood a few weeks ago to get signatures for a letter to the Army Corps. “To hear a politician screaming this landfill is causing cancer — that’s not right,” McCormick said. “Don’t put the cart before the horse.” He said certain councilmen didn’t go about it right. He did stress that if there is contamination, “of course take care of it.” As for council president candidate Zeisz, the incumbent, said the city has “tried different avenues and we’re not getting the response we need to get.” As such, Tonawanda officials are going to keep pushing the Army Corps to get the federal government to clean up the radioactive waste material. Zeisz believes it will take some type of congressional intervention to get the Corps to take responsibility for the remediation. He said additional groundwater, ventilation and yard testing will have to be conducted. Brian Grassia, the Republican running against Zeisz, says that the common council should have passed a unanimous resolution, with Mayor Ron Pilozzi, calling for the removal of radioactive waste. Zeisz said the council did that in February. Grassia said that sending the Army Corps a resolution from the council along with residents’ signatures would have carried more weight. “Instead, they (Zeisz and Davis) performed a political stunt with going around getting some signatures.” Contact reporter David J. Hill at 693-1000, ext. 115. © 2007, Tonawanda News 435 River Road; North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Phone: (716) 693-1000 Fax: (716) 693-0124 ***************************************************************** 36 Reid: Reid Testifies at Senate Committee on Yucca Mountain Licensing Process US Senator Harry Reid for Nevada October 31, 2007 Washington D.C.- U.S. Senator Harry Reid testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ oversight hearing on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. “This was a great day for Nevada to get our concerns about the licensing process on record,” said Reid. “This is a step in the right direction that gets us that much closer to putting the final nail in the coffin that is Yucca Mountain.” Reid called into question the integrity of the licensing process and raised questions about the security of the proposed dump. Reid also discussed the importance of the Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act. The legislation, introduced by Reid and John Ensign earlier this year, calls for nuclear waste to be safely stored at the facilities where it is produced, rather than shipping it thousands of miles across the country to Nevada. Later this afternoon Reid is scheduled to hold a press conference with Ensign and Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto to discuss the hearing, which will investigate the licensing process for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. Reid’s remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below. Oversight Hearing on the Yucca Mountain License Application Process Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works Wednesday, October 31, 2007 I want to thank the Chair, the Ranking Member and other members of the Committee and for the opportunity to present testimony on this important issue to the State of Nevada. As some of you may know, today is Nevada Day, the day on which Nevada became a state in 1864. Many of you may know that the motto on Nevada’s state flag says “Battle Born,” a saying that is just as appropriate now, as it was back then. And now the State of Nevada is in a battle of its own, to protect the lives of its citizens from radiation exposure, to protect their land and water from misuse and contamination, and to expose a government bureaucracy that has been rife with corruption, flawed science and quality assurance failures. And so, Nevada continues to fight a battle that was rigged from the beginning. After passing comprehensive and thoughtful legislation in 1982 to tackle this difficult issue, Congress then changed the rules of the game and Yucca was chosen as the only site to be closely researched. This was a political decision that was counter to the spirit of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act – science, safety, and security clearly did not drive this decision. This same rigged process allowed the State of Nevada to veto the decision, but also allowed Congress to override it – essentially an empty promise. GAO has reported exhaustively on quality assurance failures with the research done at the site - science has been manipulated, secret meetings have been held without public oversight or participation, and the timeline and designs are ever-changing without any repercussions for the Department of Energy. And don’t forget that EPA has no plans to release its radiation standard before the Department of Energy files its license application, an environmental standard upon which the success of the entire license application rests. Now that the license application process is upon us and we ready for what many believe will be the final battle against this dump, Nevadans are again left shaking their heads in dismay as they see that the decks are again stacked against them. The timeline to review the application has been unrealistically compressed to 3 years, even though the NRC took 8 years to license the proposed interim storage facility in Utah. The License Support Network that the Department of Energy has recently certified is filled with thousands – maybe millions – of superfluous documents to make searching for the relevant information like finding a needle in a haystack. The Department of Energy’s Performance Assessment computer model, which is the basis for the license application and purportedly will prove that the Department can meet all the environmental standards required by law, can’t be reviewed by any other entity except itself. Think about that. Essentially, this computer model is the license application. But DOE will not let anybody access it - not the State of Nevada, and not even the NRC. I’d like someone here to explain to me how the Department of Energy can write a computer modeling program that can prove it can meet an EPA radiation standard that doesn’t exist. I don’t care how many servers or processors that the Department of Energy uses in its complicated computer assessment of the Yucca Mountain site, you can’t prove that you can meet a standard that has yet to be written – unless of course, the Department of Energy has told EPA how to write it. Interesting assumption, isn’t it? A little backward is how I would describe it. We are talking about the most dangerous substance known on the face of the earth. And instead of seriously studying whether or not the proposed site at Yucca Mountain is safe to store this waste, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are cooking up their own set of books to write a radiation standard that can be met at Yucca Mountain. As many of my colleagues will remember, EPA already published an earlier version of the radiation standard in 2001. And in that standard, EPA went too far to accommodate the Department of Energy’s desire to build a waste dump at Yucca Mountain and deliberately violated Congressional instructions in the 1992 Energy Policy Act. Thankfully this rule was thrown out by the courts. The EPA wrote a newly proposed draft in 2005 – two years ago - which has yet to be finalized. Where is it? It is obvious to me that the EPA is having trouble writing a final radiation standard that can meet current law without disqualifying Yucca Mountain as a suitable site to dump nuclear waste. And EPA knows if they fudge the exposure numbers they will end up back in court. Instead of sticking to the commitment that Yucca Mountain would proceed only if it would actually protect public health, EPA has cast sound science aside in favor of politics in the myopic pursuit of Yucca Mountain. And now they are delaying publishing a final radiation standard because they know the Department of Energy cannot meet the requirements required by law. And they also know that if they delay long enough that the State of Nevada will run out of time to take this issue back into the courts. Again, this is a rigged process. How are we to secure the waste in the interim? We leave it on-site in dry cask storage, where it is already safely and securely stored at most nuclear plant sites and where the experts and the nuclear industry have demonstrated that it will continue to be safely stored for decades. Senators Ensign and Bennett joined me in introducing the Federal Accountability for Nuclear Waste Storage Act earlier this year. This bill is a road map and a timeline for safely securing our spent nuclear fuel for one to two hundred years, giving us time to find a safe, scientific long-term solution to this national security issue. Thank you again Chairman Boxer for holding this important hearing. The people of Nevada, as well was the rest of the United States, deserve answers to their many questions about the safety of a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain. We are only 8 months away from the Department of Energy’s deadline to submit the license application for review by the NRC. I am anxious for this final battle to be over so that we can move on to resolving the underlying problem of what to do with our country’s nuclear waste. Reno Bruce R. Thompson Courthouse & Federal Bldg 400 S. Virginia St, Suite 902 Reno, NV 89501 Phone: 775-686-5750 Fax: 775-686-5757 Las Vegas Lloyd D. George Building 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 8016 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-388-5020 Fax: 702-388-5030 Carson City 600 East William St, #302 Carson City, NV 89701 Phone: 775-882-REID (7343) Fax: 775-883-1980 Washington, DC 528 Hart Senate Office Bldg Washington, DC 20510 Phone: 202-224-3542 Fax: 202-224-7327 Toll Free for Nevadans: 1-866-SEN-REID (736-7343) ***************************************************************** 37 Reid Report: Testimony on Yucca Mt. FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER - October 31, 2007 Senator Reid speaks before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works about the dangers of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository This morning, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing to investigate the licensing process for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. I attended the hearing and spoke before the committee, calling into question the integrity of the licensing process, which is rigged against the State of Nevada. The information that has come out of the hearing this morning shines a bright spotlight on the problems associated with this dangerous plan to transport more than 77,000 tons of nuclear waste across the country to Nevada. Despite the Government Accountability Office exhaustive reports on quality assurance failures regarding research done at the site, the Department of Energy plans to file a license application next year. Now that the license application process is upon us and we ready for what many believe will be the final battle against this dump, Nevadans are again left shaking their heads in dismay as the federal government attempts to stack the deck against the Silver State. Instead of sticking to the commitment that Yucca Mountain would proceed only if it would actually protect public health, EPA has cast sound science aside in favor of politics in the myopic pursuit of Yucca Mountain. And so today, Nevada Day, I am writing to let you know that as our fight against Yucca Mountain continues, I will continue to leverage my leadership position in the Senate to ensure the dump is never built. And to those who think they can turn Nevada into our nation’s nuclear dumping ground, they need only look at those two words written on our state flag to know that we will not back down. We are only 8 months away from the Department of Energy’s deadline to submit the license application for review by the NRC. I am anxious for this final battle to be over so that we can move on to resolving the underlying problem of what to do with our country’s nuclear waste. Sincerely, Harry Reid Website: http://reid.senate.gov/ - Phone: 202-224-3542 - Fax: 202-224-7327 ***************************************************************** 38 barrow in furness: Sweden halts nuke cargo Published on 02/11/2007 SWEDEN has slapped a ban on shipments of nuclear waste to Sellafield, losing the West Cumbria nuke site a lucrative storage contract. Minister of the Environment, Andreas Carlgren, told a meeting of the Nordic Council Environment and Natural Resources Committee in Oslo: “I am in a position to promise that our transports of nuclear waste will cease.†In future all nuclear waste will be stored in Sweden and no waste from Swedish nuclear plants will be processed outside the country. One of the reasons given was that Sweden feared “danger at sea†or “a terror attack on one of the boatsâ€, according to Norway’s Asmund Kristoffersen, who chaired the Oslo summit. Mr Kristoffersen added: “I asked the Swedish minister what he intended to do about shipments of Swedish nuclear waste by sea. His response was a really positive surprise. Sweden has shipped some waste, which is between 30 and 40 years old, to Sellafield, and it will have to be processed there because it can be dangerous to move waste several times. “Sweden had also committed to taking back an amount equivalent to the material it has sent to Sellafield. “I am personally delighted with this. I have visited Sellafield several times and I am of the opinion that as little as possible should be stored there. “It is best for the Nordic environment.†Mr Kristoffersen said that such shipments put the whole of the Nordic region at peril. Finland had already pledged that each of that country’s nuclear power plants has to process the nuclear fuel and nuclear waste it generates itself. With Sweden’s decision, none of the Nordic countries now use Sellafield as a storage facility, but it is still receives most of Japan’s nuclear waste. View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.nwemail.co.uk/digitalcopy ***************************************************************** 39 Gallup: Independent: Companies hope to jump-start uranium mining October 31, 2007: A sign attached to a barbed-wire fence warns people to stay out of the area as a grader and other heavy equipment move dirt around and churn up dust Wednesday afternoon at the Rio Algom mine site alnog Hwy 509, north of Milan, NM. [Photo by Jeff Jones/Independent] By Kathy Helms Diné Bureau GRANTS ? The Grants Mineral Belt is being carved up for uranium mining and milling operations, and conventional underground mining is expected to play an even bigger role than in-situ recovery operations, according to representatives of Neutron Energy Inc. and Uranium Resources Inc. The area around Mount Taylor ? a sacred site to the Navajo Nation as well as the 19 pueblos of New Mexico, including Acoma and Laguna ? is a prime target for mining and milling. George Byers, vice president for Neutron Energy, and Rick Van Horn, executive vice president and chief operating officer for URI, presented the New Mexico Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Committee with an update on the uranium mining industry at a meeting Monday in Grants. ?We?re going to have probably at least one in-situ operation, at least two mills ? one on the east and one on the west side of Mount Taylor, at least initially, five or six underground mines, and total employment of probably 1,400 to 1,500 people,? Byers said of Neutron Energy. Rail transport He also told the committee that his company, Santa Fe Pacific, originally permitted and built the Lee Ranch Coal Mine, located about 25 miles north of Grants, and still operates the common carrier railroad that hauls Lee Ranch coal to market. Van Horn said the future of mining in New Mexico is the conventional mill, ?and that?s what?s going to get us jump-started.? With URI?s recent acquisition of BHP Billiton?s Rio Algom mill, formerly Kerr-McGee?s Ambrosia Lake, URI can cut in half the time it takes to construct the mill, he said. ?It positions us as a leader here, and we will be the leader, both from a safety and economic standpoint,? he said. It also gives URI two Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses. URI plans to duplicate the footprint of the Ambrosia Lake Mill, where infrastructure is already on site, and to finish ongoing reclamation. ?We already hold an NRC license at Churchrock/Crownpoint. This will give us our second operating license, and we will be the only one in the state, so far, that has NRC licenses to operate uranium recovery facilities.? URI has 92 million pounds of uranium in reserve in New Mexico. ?We have an extensive database that we?re using to look for more reserves, and through Santa Fe Pacific Gold we acquired 183,000 acres of land that is amenable to uranium mining,? Van Horn said. Though URI has in-situ recovery operations in Texas, ?Most of our resources are in the state of New Mexico. This is our future. That?s why we?re here,? he said. URI also acquired 9,700 acre-feet per year of water rights to support milling activities. Its subsidiary, Hydro Resources Inc., has applications on file with the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer requesting appropriations of groundwater for in-situ recovery projects in McKinley County at its West Largo and Roca Honda project sites. Each application seeks 650 acre-feet of water per year for the next 50 years in the Bluewater and Rio Grande basins. Conventional mining also requires considerable amounts of water. The Roxby Downs uranium mine in southern Australia, operated by BHP, is reported to use 35 million liters of water per day. Van Horn said that with the in-situ recovery operation, ?when we locate an ore body, we cannot inject distilled water in that ore body if it is a drinking water source.? ?It has to be specifically exempted by U.S. EPA, and we get an aquifer exemption for that, which is an exemption that says you cannot use this water in this ore body for drinking water because it?s already toxic, it has uranium in it already, that?s the way Mother Nature put it there and it should not and cannot be used as a public water supply. ?When we restore this, we restore it back to its previous use. If it was toxic before, it will, in all probability, be toxic after. And that EPA aquifer exemption will remain in place. We don?t restore toxic water to drinking water standards. It can?t be done.? Lots of ore Van Horn said URI has a large asset base in New Mexico that it wants to take advantage of. ?Through the acquisition of the Rio Algom mill, we have the opportunity to be the first, and right now the only ... regional miller in the Grants Mineral Belt, constructing an 8,000-ton-a-day mill, providing 200 jobs just at the mill, and potentially 3,000 to 4,000 direct uranium jobs in the district. ?This isn?t flipping McDonald?s hamburgers. This is working in the uranium industry, whether you?re mining, milling, hauling it, drilling for it, whatever. And finally, we believe we have the experience and management team to carry this off,? he said. Though in-situ recovery of uranium is more cost-effective than conventional mining operations, according to Van Horn, ?The truth is, about two-thirds, if not more of the uranium here in the Grants Mineral District is not amenable to in-situ recovery.? It has to be mined with conventional methods, he said. An in-situ recovery plant costs about $20 million to construct and will produce 1 million to 2 million pounds of uranium per year. ?We can construct them in about 18 months after we receive our license,? he said. ?A conventional mine, on the other hand, the mine alone is $130 million to $150 million. It takes three to 3 1/2 years to get it permitted, maybe four years ? that?s with no limiting conditions. That?s permitted and built. These would supply, under our scenario, something like 5 million to 8 million pounds per year, depending on which mines are operating. ?Production costs for these two methods, if we had our druthers, ISR would be the way to go with everything. It?s $30 to $50 a pound,? Van Horn said. Mill costs The cost to construct a conventional mill to mill the uranium ore is $250 million to $350 million. ?We believe with the actions that we have taken recently ... that the time to operation will be in the range of four to five years. ?This compares with building a Greenfield mill, or mill site on ground that hasn?t been permitted already, of eight to 10 years,? Van Horn said. Neutron?s Byers told the committee that probably the most environmentally conscious president America ever had was Teddy Roosevelt. ?And President Roosevelt said, ?Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.?? ?We have chosen to do what we can right here, centered around the Grants community, because centered around here is about 600 million pounds of uranium that all of us know of. ?New Mexico is where we place our emphasis and it?s not just because of the uranium in the ground, it?s because of the real corps of highly skilled workers who are here, who worked in uranium in the past, and whose sons and daughters are now ready to go to work for us,? Byers said. He told the committee of the economic growth he had witnessed in Wyoming due to the energy industry. ?What is interesting in Wyoming ? and I have learned this, it?s a hard lesson ? Wyoming doesn?t have a hotel room to be had. You have to call weeks in advance when you?re going. You can?t wait till the last minute because every room is full, every road and bridge in the state is getting rebuilt; schools are going up. There is no recession. There is no unemployment in the state of Wyoming. ?And all this is being done on the backs and shoulders of blue-collar gals and guys who are working in all those industries ... They are putting into practice what President Roosevelt was preaching.? On Oct. 3, Trans America Industries of Canada announced that its joint-venture partner, Neutron Energy, has essentially completed its uranium acquisition program in the western United States ?and is now preparing a strategic plan to exploit the potential of its assets in the coming months.? Of particular interest to Trans America are Neutron?s holdings at Ambrosia Lake. One of the Ambrosia Lake joint-venture projects, East Roca Honda, is situated immediately adjacent to Strathmore Minerals? Roca Honda Project, which is currently the subject of a development agreement with Sumitomo Corp of Japan. According to Trans America president, John C. Campbell, East Roca Honda and the Cliffside/Frosty Ox areas will be priority targets,? according to a news release from Trans America. In written testimony to the state committee, Byers said that in the area from central McKinley County to the villages of Seboyeta in Cibola County and Marquez in far eastern McKinley County, there is the initial likelihood of four to six new underground uranium mines. These would be developed from the areas of the Cebolleta Land Grant and the Juan Tafoya Land Corp., east of Mount Taylor to the region north of Grants from San Mateo to west of Ambrosia Lake. Wednesday October 31, 2007 Selected Stories: Please send the Gallup Independent feedback on this website and the paper in general. Send questions or comments to gallpind@cia-g.com ***************************************************************** 40 'USAF struck Syrian nuclear site' 02 Nov 2007 Resent-Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 00:45:04 -0500 (CDT) Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens For Legitimate Government 02 Nov 2007 http://www.legitgov.org/ All items are here: http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news CLG: 'D.C. Madam' Seeks Subponeas for Senator Vitter and Harlan Ullman --By Lori Price 02 Nov 2007 Citizens for Legitimate Government has learned that subpoenas for Senator David Vitter and Harlan Ullman, former customers of Paula Neble, an independent-contractor escort of Ms. Palfrey's escort service, have been sought for a November 28, 2007 hearing. 'USAF struck Syrian nuclear site' 02 Nov 2007 The September 6 raid over Syria was carried out by the US Air Force, the Al-Jazeera Web site reported Friday. The Web site quoted Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons carried out an attack on a suspected nuclear site under construction. The sources were quoted as saying that Israeli F-15 and F-16 jets provided cover for the US planes. Fake story may have started the Iraq war 01 Nov 2007 It is possible a fabricated story of biological weapons drove the U.S argument for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. U.S television network CBS says it has identified an Iraqi defector [CIA troll] named Rafid Ahmed Alwan, who gave intelligence information to German and U.S investigators. Faulty Intel Source "Curve Ball" Revealed --60 Minutes: Iraqi's Fabricated Story of Biological Weapons Aided U.S. Arguments For Invasion 01 Nov 2007 '60 Minutes' has identified the man [Rafid Ahmed Alwan] whose fabricated story of Iraqi biological weapons drove the U.S. argument for invading Iraq. It has also obtained video of "Curve Ball," as he was known in intelligence circles, and discovered he was not only a liar, but also a thief and a poor student instead of the chemical engineering whiz he claimed to be. [LOL, in other words - a 'man' a lot like Bush.] 'Talk about Somalia, the Philippines, etc. Make the American people realize they are surrounded in the world by violent extremists.' From the Desk of Donald Rumsfeld . . . In Sometimes-Brusque 'Snowflakes,' He Shared Worldview, Shaped Policy 01 Nov 2007 In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote of the need to "keep elevating the threat," "link Iraq to Iran" and develop "bumper sticker statements" to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war. The memos, often referred to as "snowflakes," shed light on Rumsfeld's brusque management style and on his efforts to address key challenges during his tenure as Pentagon chief. Abizaid: US could be in Middle East for 50 years 01 Nov 2007 It might take as long as half a century before US troops can leave the volatile Middle East, according to retired Army Gen. John Abizaid. "I'm not saying this is a war for oil, but I am saying that oil fuels an awful lot of geopolitical moves that political powers may have there," Abizaid said. Turkish Foreign Minister Wants U.S. Action Against Kurdish Rebels 02 Nov 2007 Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan said Friday that Turkey wants the United States to start taking action to help end cross-border attacks from inside Iraq. Army Needs 1,400 'Contract Officers' 02 Nov 2007 An independent commission said yesterday that the U.S. Army needs to conduct a major overhaul of its procurement system and add at least 1,400 military and civilian contracting personnel. The commission also talked to procurement officials at major government contracting companies, including CACI International, KBR and Fluor. [LOL, 'contract officers.' We're talking *mercenaries,* PentaPost. Mercenaries and terrorists. Blackwater, KBR and Halliburton are the enemies - along with the Bush regime.] Fuel Fraud Latest In Army Contracting Woes --CBS News Exposes Kickback Scheme, As Epidemic of Wartime Military Contract Fraud Grows 01 Nov 2007 The delivery of aviation gas to the giant U.S. air base at Bagram in Afghanistan is the latest case of fraud to hit a contracting system, CBS News reports exclusively. So far two former employees of Kellogg, Brown and Root have been arrested for their part in a scheme worthy of Tony Soprano. The two KBR men, who worked for the U.S. military at Bagram, forged receipts for 80 tanker loads trucked in but never delivered, according to court documents. The Pentagon paid for the undelivered fuel while the drivers sold it on the black market. For their role in the scheme, KBR employees divvyed up an estimated $800,000 in kick backs, reports Martin. That's just one of more than 80 criminal cases involving some $15 million in bribes. It is still a growing scandal which Pentagon officials expect will uncover hundreds of fraudulent contracts. Obama would engage Iran if elected, he says 01 Nov 2007 If elected president, Senator Barack Obama would meet with Iran's leaders and offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek "regime change" if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues. 2 Children Die in US Raid in Afghanistan 02 Nov 2007 A nighttime raid in eastern Afghanistan by U.S. and Afghan troops sparked a gunbattle that killed three people, including two children, and the military said Thursday it was investigating the deaths. Israel threatens Gaza invasion 30 Oct 2007 Israel has escalated threats to invade the Gaza Strip over Palestinian rocket fire after planned economic sanctions drew objections from legal experts and foreign powers. Bush Administration Blocked Waterboarding Critic --Former DOJ Official Tested the Method Himself, in Effort to Form Torture Policy 02 Nov 2007 A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News. Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques. After the experience, Levin told White House officials that... he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning... But Levin never finished a second memo imposing tighter controls on the specific interrogation techniques. Sources said he was forced out of the Justice Department when Gonzales became attorney general. Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA 02 Nov 2007 For all the debate over waterboarding, it has been used on only three 'al Qaeda' figures, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials. As ABC News first reported in September, waterboarding has not been used since 2003 and has been specifically prohibited since Gen. Michael Hayden took over as CIA director. Rice, Hadley to be subpoenaed in Israel lobby spy case 02 Nov 2007 A US judge [T.S. Ellis] ruled Friday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, White House National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and other top officials can be subpoenaed to testify in a spying case against lobbyists for Israel. Rice to be subpoenaed in espionage case --Judge OKs calls for intel officials to discuss talks with pro-Israel lobbyists 02 Nov 2007 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other senior intelligence officials will be subpoenaed to discuss their conversations with pro-Israel lobbyists, a federal judge ruled Friday in an espionage case. Key DemocRATs, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., cross party lines to pledge support for Bush Attorney General nominee [waterboard-waffling Michael Mukasey], clearing way for confirmation: Mukasey Edges Closer to Attorney General Confirmation 02 Nov 2007 ABC News' Ed O'Keefe: Two key Democrats crossed party lines and pledged their support to President [sic] Bush's embattled Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, all but ensuring the retired judge's confirmation as the nation's top law enforcement official. Bush: No attorney general if not Mukasey 01 Nov 2007 Dictator Bush sought to save Michael Mukasey's troubled nomination for attorney general Thursday, defending the retired judge's refusal to say whether he considers waterboarding torture and warning of a leaderless Justice Department if Democrats do not confirm him. "If the Senate Judiciary Committee were to block Judge Mukasey on these grounds... that would guarantee that America would have no attorney general during this time of war," the pResident said. Bush could bypass Congress by filling the job with someone serving in an acting capacity over the last 14 months of his administration. ASIO swamped by legal terrorism issues 02 Nov 2007 Australia's domestic spy agency, ASIO, is struggling to deal with a rash of terrorism-related litigation, so much so that the organisation has established a legal division. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation said today it was experiencing its greatest ever litigation-related workload. Authorities: Suspicious item at Palo Verde a pipe bomb 02 Nov 2007 A suspicious item seized Friday morning from the truck of a contract worker at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station was an apparent pipe bomb, plant operator Arizona Public Service Co. said. The worker has been detained and questioned. Lockdown at Nation's Largest Nuke Plant: Contract Worker Detained --Arizona Nuclear Plant on Lockdown After Contract Worker Stopped From Entering Grounds With Explosive 02 Nov 2007 Security officials at the nation's largest nuclear power plant detained a contract worker [Blackwater Worldwide terrorist?] with a small [?!?] explosive device in the back of his pickup truck Friday, authorities said. S.C. nuke landfill to close; 36 states left in lurch --Radioactive waste will have to be stored across U.S., prompting concerns 01 Nov 2007 Starting next summer, many power plants, hospitals, universities and companies in 36 states will be forced to store low-level radioactive waste on their own property because a South Carolina landfill is closing its doors to them. Perspective on Exxon: $9.4 Billion Quarterly Profit Only $2 Billion Shy of 2002 Yearly Profit --Group Slams "New Normal" Set By Years of Record Profits, Predicts $4-Plus Gasoline in Spring 01 Nov 2007 While stock speculators reacted with woe to ExxonMobil's report that its $9.41 billion 3rd-quarter profit was 10% below last year's near-record 3rd quarter, consumers see numbers that continue to pick their pockets, said the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR). Industry Paid For Safety Chief's Trips --Revelations add to pressure for Nord's resignation 02 Nov 2007 Acting Consumer Product Safety Commission Chairman Nancy Nord is under more pressure today in the wake of revelations that industries regulated by her agency have paid for her travel. Pressure Mounts On 'Safety' Chief to Resign --Protests over Nord's opposition to strengthening her own agency 01 Nov 2007 Another consumer group, Public Citizen, is calling on [Bush whore] Nancy Nord to step down as acting head of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. Nord has been in the line of fire in the wake of a cascading recall of consumer products from tainted pet food to lead-painted toys. 5 Million Frozen Pizzas Recalled 01 Nov 2007 General Mills on Thursday recalled about 5 million frozen pizzas sold nationwide under the Totino's and Jeno's labels because of possible E. coli contamination. Bush Vetoes Water Projects Bill 02 Nov 2007 An increasingly confrontational President [sic] Bush on Friday vetoed a bill authorizing hundreds of popular water projects even though lawmakers can count enough votes to override him. Help End Abusive Bank Overdraft Fees Sick of outrageous bank fees? (Consumers Union) Help ensure that banks get your permission before reaching into your wallet. Banks collect $17.5 billion in overdraft loan fees each year! Stop the big bank money-grab. Tell your member of Congress to cosponsor HR 946 today! Governor opposes polar bear protection 02 Nov 2007 Environmentalists say Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is skating on thin ice [melt it] with her opposition to efforts to protect polar bears. Palin said last week that listing the bears as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act because of possible global warming would open the floodgates for petitions to protect other species, the Anchorage Daily News said Thursday. [But you can help them! Please sign NRDC's petition.] Mother Jailed, Put On Trial for Curing Her Son of Melanoma 03 Oct 2007 By angryscientist An unholy alliance of California Child Protective Services (CPS) with a hostile doctor and judge is attempting to railroad Laurie Jessop, framed as a threat to her son and the establishment for finding a way to cure him of malignant melanoma. She is now on trial, under a gag order, since she had gone to the press. When she was arrested, she was put in maximum security, solitary confinement, in the Orange County, CA jail. FBI was told of O.J. Simpson plan three weeks in advance 02 Nov 2007 Federal agents learned three weeks in advance that O.J. Simpson and a memorabilia dealer planned an operation to retrieve personal items Simpson said were stolen from him, according to FBI reports obtained Friday by the Associated Press. Dealer Thomas Riccio told FBI agents Aug. 21 that Simpson wanted to televise the operation as he confronted a collector who was peddling thousands of pieces of Simpson's memorabilia. CLG needs your support. http://www.legitgov.org/#contribute Or, please mail a check or money order to the CLG: Citizens for Legitimate Government (CLG) P.O. Box 1142 Bristol, CT 06011-1142 Contributions to CLG are not tax deductible. [Previous lead stories:] Exxon Mobil: $9.4B profit in 3 months 01 Nov 2007 Exxon Mobil made $9.4 billion in the last three months, 10 percent less than last year and below what analysts expected as gasoline and diesel prices failed to keep pace with rising crude costs. In the last quarter of 2005, Exxon Mobil made a profit of $10.7 billion - the largest quarterly corporate profit ever recorded. Abizaid sees 25-50 years of Middle East conflict --'I'm not saying this is a war for oil, but I am saying that oil ... fuels an awful lot of the geopolitical moves.' 01 Nov 2007 Conflict in the Middle East is going to continue for many years, the former top U.S. commander in the region said yesterday. And in that future, he said, Americans can assume that there will be another [Bush] attack on U.S. soil. Retired four-star Gen. John Abizaid, who headed the U.S. Central Command until last spring, spoke before a large crowd at Carnegie Mellon University in Oakland... "I'm not saying this is a war for oil, but I am saying that oil ... fuels an awful lot of the geopolitical moves that political powers may have there," he said. Pentagon misstates sniper data in $1.4B request 29 Oct 2007 The Pentagon has asked Congress for $1.4 billion in 'emergency spending' to combat a growing threat of sniper attacks in Iraq based on an overstated assessment [lie] of the extent of the attacks, its records show. Please forward this newsletter to anyone you think might be interested. Those who'd like to be added to the list can go here: http://www.legitgov.org/#subscribe_clg and add your name. Those who would like to be removed from the list can access the same link and remove your name. Please write to: signup@legitgov.org for inquiries/issues/concerns with your subscription. CLG Newsletter editor: Lori Price, Manager. Copyright ) 2007, Citizens For Legitimate Government . All rights reserved. CLG Founder and Chair is Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D. ***************************************************************** 41 BBC NEWS: Marchers to make Trident protest Last Updated: Saturday, 3 November 2007, 00:44 GMT Trident nuclear submarines are based at Faslane on the Clyde Anti-Trident campaigners are to march through Edinburgh before attending a rally in Princes Street Gardens. The protest will be a follow-up to last month's Trident summit, which was organised by the Scottish Government. It is intended to put pressure on the UK Government to remove all nuclear weapons from Scottish soil. The march will begin at the Scottish Parliament at noon before heading to Princes Street Gardens, where there will be speakers from the Christian churches and the Muslim Association. There will also be speakers from all the main political parties, except the Conservatives, and entertainment from the singer Karine Polwart. The organisers said it would be a chance for the general public to show their support for the Scottish Parliament's opposition to any replacement for the Trident submarines based on the Clyde. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 42 Rutland Herald: U.S. is world's nuclear villain November 02, 2007 I wonder how many people understand that the process of "enrichment of uranium" does not lead directly to the production of nuclear weapons. In fact, it may not lead there at all. It is the process by which fuel rods for our nuclear reactors are produced, without which Vermont Yankee and all the others would have to shut down. The enrichment process does produce radioactive material that is used by the U.S. military as "depleted uranium" (still 60 percent radioactive), which, because of its denseness, is used to coat artillery shells and protect tanks, and which, when it explodes, spreads radioactive material into the air, the water, the dirt, the children, and the lungs of anyone unfortunate enough to be wherever we have been fighting wars since 1991. But enrichment does not necessarily lead to nuclear bombs. Nuclear bombs, among other materials, requires plutonium, which is found, along with other deadly products, in the spent fuel rods, or the tons of toxic waste for which there is no safe storage. So when we are told that Iran is "enriching uranium" and therefore is sure to be making bombs, it is just part of the lies and the attempts to frighten us into believing that we must bomb one more country that has never threatened us but possesses large amounts of oil. I ask, who are we to take the moral high ground when it comes to anything nuclear? We have dozens of dangerous old nuclear power plants; we are planning to build new ones; and we are selling nuclear power to chosen countries like India. We are the only country that has used atomic bombs. With waste from nuclear reactors and weapons that spread radioactive dust all over, we are making the world a radioactive wasteland for our children for untold generations to come, and, in bunkers all over the world, in the oceans in submarines, and maybe by now in space, we have 10,000 nuclear warheads, with 6,000 of them ready to go. Someone said that splitting the atom was the worst thing that man has ever done. The United States (with madmen at the helm), not Iran or North Korea, and, in my opinion, not God, is leading the world down the path toward complete destruction. I am sick at heart for the children. JANE NEWTON South Londonderry © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 43 Reuters: Missile strike adds to Pakistan's complications Fri Nov 2, 2007 1:15pm EDT By Simon Cameron-Moore ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani villagers said a missile strike hit houses near a madrasa founded by an old friend of Osama bin Laden's on Friday, killing at least five people. They told Reuters a drone aircraft carried out the attack. The United States has carried out such operations in the past using drones, which Pakistan does not possess in its armory. The Pentagon issued a swift denial the U.S. military had conducted a strike, though spokesman Bryan Whitman said he could not speak for U.S. intelligence agencies that also operate the pilotless aircraft. A Pakistani military spokesman said he had heard there had been an explosion in a house but there had been no action by Pakistani forces. The sprawling religious school or madrasa near Miranshah, the main town in the Waziristan tribal region, was founded by veteran mujahideen commander Jalaluddin Haqqani, whose ties to bin Laden go back to the 1980s jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. "A drone was flying very low and fired the missile. It destroyed three houses," a Dandi Darpakheil village resident told Reuters on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivities over U.S. operations in Pakistani territory. Several other villagers corroborated his account. "I saw human flesh scattered all over the area near the houses," the villager said. Continued... ***************************************************************** 44 DOE: House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations January 30, 2007 Opening Statement of Energy Deputy Secretary Sell Chairman Stupak, Congressman Whitfield, and Members of the Subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss security within the Department of Energy and the recent security incident at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The national security responsibilities entrusted to LANL are among our Nation's most important. The successes that have sprung forth from this great lab in years past, and today, are properly a source of great pride and power in our country. The capabilities of the men and women of LANL continue to make this lab still the only place to go for many national security requirements. And, of course, the secrets entrusted to the lab are among our Nation's most sensitive. These are among the reasons that the facts of the most recent security incident at LANL are so troubling and a source of such tremendous frustration and concern to the Secretary, me, and many others throughout the DOE enterprise. And now, despite years of focused attention and the expenditure of millions of dollars, we are confronted again with a security failure, the facts of which suggest we still have a much larger and deeper problem. Many well-intentioned leaders have worked to improve security at LANL over the last few years. And in many key areas, the Department and the Laboratory have made substantial progress. But Secretary Bodman and I are less interested in effort, process, and good intentions and more interested in results; and the results on matters of security at Los Alamos National Laboratory remain unacceptable. You have already heard from earlier witnesses about what they think may have led to the problems, and what happened in the recent matter. Later today, you will hear from the Acting Administrator of the NNSA, the Department's Chief Information Officer, and the Director of LANL in more detail. Therefore, I intend to focus the balance of my remarks on what the Secretary and I are doing to fix problems and move forward. 1. In the immediate aftermath of learning about the security breach at LANL, we acted immediately to assess the situation and understand the facts. The NNSA Administrator dispatched the Chief of Defense Nuclear Security and a cyber security team to the site to begin immediate review of the incident. On October 26th, the Secretary ordered the Inspector General (IG) to investigate. And on October 30th, I personally traveled to the Lab to meet directly with those on the ground and to gain first-hand knowledge of the incident to begin remedial actions to address the problems. 2. We took quick action to address realized vulnerabilities. On November 8th, I issued a memorandum to improve cyber security protection for classified computer systems throughout the DOE complex. That memo included immediate direction to every lab and DOE facility operating a classified system to conduct an examination of the adequacy of its practices and procedures to ensure that classified information is protected using multiple layers of cyber security protection, including protection against potential insider threats. Also, the memo required an accounting by each lab and facility for full implementation by January 15, 2007. Today, I am informed the entire complex is in compliance. The line managers will be responsible for ensuring continued adherence to the policy. 3. In response to findings contained within the Inspector General's report issued on November 27, the Secretary directed two actions. First, the creation of a senior level ad hoc committee to review all of the recommendations in the Inspector General's report except those concerning the Department's security clearance process. Second, the establishment of a task force to review the personnel security programs throughout the entire DOE complex. Both reviews will conclude and provide recommendations to the Secretary no later than February 28, 2007. Once we have reviewed the results of the Laboratory's actions, corporate and Federal validation activities, the Secretary's two Task Forces' recommendations, and other actions that have been directed, we will develop additional improvements and conduct follow-up reviews, as necessary. We will be pleased to discuss with the subcommittee the additional actions the Secretary decides to take once he has received and reviewed the Task Forces’ recommendations. 4. Furthermore, during numerous occasions, meetings and conversations with the NNSA Administrator and his team, the LANL Director, and members of the Executive Board of LANS, LLC, the Secretary and I have expressed our depth of concern, sense of urgency, and expectations for accountability from the top of the department down to the bottom of the laboratory, and that these continuing security problems must be addressed, rectified, and prevented in the future. 5. Even before the recent incident at LANL, the Department had substantially increased focus and attention on matters of cyber security, including hiring a new CIO to reinvigorate and strengthen our efforts. Among other things, he accelerated the effort to update our cyber security order and National Security Systems Control Manual and has taken numerous actions to improve our Department-wide cyber security posture. We also brought in a new Chief of Counter-Intelligence and reorganized the office to improve its performance. 6. The Department also previously recognized that the leadership of the laboratory could be strengthened by competing the M&O contract. And last June, a new corporate leadership team took over management of the laboratory for the first time in its 64 year history. 7. Finally, because it is our view that we are accountable to the President, the Congress, and the American people not just for efforts, but for results, the Secretary and I made the difficult decision to replace the Administrator of the NNSA. Only time will tell if we are to be successful. But the Secretary and I are committed to making the tough decisions required to lead our Department to a level of security performance befitting the great missions you have asked us to carry out. We have made progress in improving security across the Department and at Los Alamos, but as the latest incident indicates, we have much more work to do. We remain committed to the task. I am happy to answer your questions at this time. U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 45 DOE: House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services January 31, 2007 House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services Statement of Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you to provide my assessment of the Department’s progress in implementing Title 32 - the National Nuclear Security Administration Act. This is the first opportunity I have had to testify before this subcommittee specifically on this subject since assuming office as Secretary of Energy some two years ago. But this is a subject on which I have spent a considerable amount of time since my arrival at the Department. Let me begin by saying that the men and women of the NNSA complex are a key national asset. The work that they do is critical to our nation’s security, defense, and scientific capabilities, and it is among the most sensitive work performed by our government. While we grapple with some of the challenges it presents, I continue to be committed to administering the NNSA Act, as written, to the best of my abilities. The impetus for adoption of the NNSA Act in 1999 was a security lapse at Los Alamos National Laboratory that implied possible espionage by a laboratory employee. It was coupled with a highly critical report by the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. That report lauded the quality of the science practiced at the laboratory, but depicted its security lapses as the product of a “dysfunctional DOE management structure and culture.” Given the chain of events that preceded NNSA’s creation, I can see how many believed providing NNSA more flexibility and independence from the larger organization seemed a logical course of action. And in fact, I believe that the legislation has had some positive impacts on the execution of the work for which NNSA is responsible. As a semi-autonomous agency, its singular mission has led to greater focus. As an organization, NNSA has implemented innovative budget practices. And by overseeing their own personnel function, they are able to respond more quickly to staffing needs at the operational level. Their semi-autonomy can also provide greater flexibility and speed of action when responding to emerging issues. However, as recently as last July, based on a recommendation by the Department’s Inspector General following a security lapse at the Albuquerque Site Office, I convened a task force to review the separate organization of NNSA within the Department. The Deputy Secretary led the team that included the Administrator of the NNSA, the Under Secretary for Science, and the General Counsel. The Task Force members identified language within the Act that prohibited the delegation of authority beyond the Deputy Secretary as having created a significant obstacle to realizing the benefits of functional accountability and sound management between the NNSA and the broader Department. After careful consideration of their review, I concluded that while certain elements of the NNSA Act present obstacles to management success across the weapons complex, we would continue to work within the limits of the Act. However, it remains my belief that the creation of NNSA as a separately organized entity within the Department has not yielded all the beneficial results that the legislation’s authors intended. I am aware that the GAO just today has released a report in which it concludes that there continue be serious flaws in the management practices across the weapons complex, particularly in the area of security. And while I have not reviewed it in any detail yet, I can say generally that I agree that problems persist. While we have much more to do, we have made it a top priority to improve management and we are making progress toward that goal. The existence of discrete, separately-organized operational entities within executive departments is not unusual, but the NNSA Act is unique in that it imposes severe limitations on the Secretary of Energy’s management authority, and in my view, impedes the Secretary’s ability to manage the organization effectively. For example, the Secretary is prohibited from directing subordinate NNSA federal or contractor personnel or authorizing anyone other than the Deputy Secretary to exercise authority, direction, or control over them. This prohibition precludes me and my line managers’ from many logical and effective workings with NNSA’s Deputy Administrators, Associate Administrators, or their subordinate employees. Further, the resulting insularity and redundancy implicit in the Act impair the Department’s ability to commit its most proficient resources to redress problems and deficiencies arising from NNSA activities – areas in which NNSA does not necessarily have special institutional expertise including but not limited to cyber security. The NNSA Act also withholds from the Secretary the authority to direct any internal reorganization of the NNSA, authority that has been a fixture of the Department’s organic act since 1977. This authority provides a management tool widely available to the heads of other federal agencies and is used effectively when circumstances change and the redeployment of assets is warranted. Without this customary authority granted to the Secretary, accountability for activities at the weapons laboratories—which themselves were made part of NNSA—has been seriously hampered and the anticipated improvements in security performance have not come to pass. Over the past six years, an array of security breaches has continued to occur in the weapons laboratory complex, most of which involved management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The extent, nature, and impact of the 2006 incident are currently being assessed, but these incidents call into question whether the arm’s length management model prescribed by the Act is a workable and effective management tool. In my opinion, I think it only prudent that we examine that question. And I would note that I did not arrive at this conclusion in a vacuum, rather I am aided by insights formed before becoming Secretary of Energy two years ago. From 2001 to 2005 I served as Deputy Secretary in two other cabinet departments—Commerce, and then Treasury. Each of these departments contains large, separately organized elements within it, one of which (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce) was held out as a model for what became NNSA in the 1999 report by the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. None of the legal charters establishing these organizations imposes the sorts of management restrictions on the Secretary of the relevant department as does the NNSA Act. My assessment is also informed by my experience for 14 years as chief executive officer of a publicly-traded business corporation that, like the Department of Energy, has multiple business lines and personnel situated at locations throughout the country, as well as overseas. In each of these settings the cabinet secretary or the chief executive officer, as the case may be, has full authority to marshal and direct any and all of the resources of the entire organization and to harmonize the workings of its separate elements. This includes the authority to delegate necessary authority to subordinates of his or her own selection, because the secretary or chief executive cannot do it all alone in a complex organization. The Secretary must be able to delegate full authority to individuals in whom he or she has confidence to direct or control the actions of any components of the organization for which he or she is held accountable. Through this means, the sorts of impasses identified by the GAO report about the conduct of activities of equal concern to both the NNSA and the non-NNSA elements of the Department can most effectively be resolved for the benefit of the entire organization. Despite some of these challenges, I have resolved to work within the existing structure and will continue to strive for improved communication and accountability with NNSA. Among my personal objectives over the remaining time I have at the Department of Energy is to leave my successor with an NNSA that performs effectively in carrying out its important operational national security responsibilities, and is widely understood to be effective in that enterprise. I am committed to abiding by the law and implementing the act as the Congress has written it, and hope we can have a constructive dialogue about the best ways to ensure continued improvement of NNSA and DOE’s management relationship and continued success in the pursuit of our shared mission.Madame Chairman, in the past, our partnership has led to constructive changes with large beneficial impacts to the organization. The merger of intelligence and counterintelligence functions department-wide is a good example of that type of cooperation and I look forward to asking for your support in the future when similar opportunities are identified. This concludes my statement. I will be pleased to respond to your questions. Thank You. Location: House Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 46 DOE: Senior DOE Official to Discuss the Nuclear Energy Research and Development and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership October 29, 2007 Development and the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership WASHINGTON, DC – Today at 2:30PM, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon will highlight DOE efforts to advance nuclear energy research and development as well as the Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Assistant Secretary Spurgeon is also expected to discuss the National Research Council Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program. WHO: DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon WHAT: Press Conference Call to discuss DOE efforts to advance nuclear energy research and development as well as the National Research Council Review of DOE’s Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program WHEN: Monday, October 29, 2007 2:30PM EDT WHERE: (888) 529-1867 Password: 22691347 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: National Renewable Energy Laboratory October 30, 2007 Remarks Prepared for Secretary Bodman Thank you. It is a pleasure to be with you once again in beautiful Colorado. It is only fitting that we are here at the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory—our nation's premier laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficiency research—to recognize leadership in applying new energy technology in very tangible ways - to power, heat, and reduce energy consumption at these facilities. Today, we celebrate the accomplishments of our talented team with the announcement of three new facilities. In January 2007, the President signed an Executive Order which called upon all federal agencies to reduce energy intensity, or consumption per square foot, by 30%. The order also called for increases in the percentage of new renewable sources in each agency’s energy supply, and asked agencies to implement renewable energy generation projects on their property. I decided that the Department of Energy should and would lead by example - that we should be the first in the federal government to meet or exceed the efficiency, renewable energy, water, transportation, and green building requirements outlined by the President. To ensure we stay on track to that end, the Department developed the Transformational Energy Action Management, or TEAM Initiative. In addition to reducing our energy intensity across all DOE sites by 30%, through our TEAM Initiative we intend to have all new DOE construction or major renovations achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, Gold rating, as designated by the U.S. Green Building Council. We further plan to meet or exceed the Energy Policy Act requirement of having 7.5% of DOE’s electricity provided by renewable energy by 2013. One of the most creative and valuable aspects of the TEAM Initiative is the application of private sector financing, primarily from energy service and utility companies. Under these financing models, the upfront capital required for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects is paid for by future energy savings, and the private company assumes the performance risk. Today, I’m pleased to announce three new facilities which showcase our efforts under the TEAM Initiative at this laboratory. First, is the Mesa Top Photovoltaics Project. This pioneering agreement between DOE, the Western Area Power Administration, and SunEdison will result in a 750 kW photovoltaic array on the NREL Mesa Top, which is expected to start generating clean electricity next spring. The agreement is pioneering not only because of the size of the PV installation—which will be one of the largest solar power systems in Colorado—but also pioneering for the way that private sector funding was leveraged to secure a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement for a federal facility. SunEdison will own and operate the system, and benefit both from having a long-term customer in DOE, and from selling the Renewable Energy Credits generated by the project to the Colorado utility Xcel Energy. Our Western Area Power Administration will use its power purchasing authority to buy electricity on behalf of DOE for a 20-year term at a price that is equal to what the DOE is currently paying for the laboratory’s power. This system has very real benefits to American taxpayers: it saves them the upfront capital investment of the solar project and locks in an electricity rate that, in real dollars, will remain flat over a 20-year term. The Federal Solar Investment Tax Credit and Xcel Energy’s Solar Rewards Program production incentives have been instrumental in attracting the private investment needed to make this project possible. Pushing solar deeper into the marketplace is critical, and projects such as this one here at NREL support the President’s Solar America Initiative, which sets the goal of making solar power cost competitive, without subsidies, across America, by 2015. In addition to obtaining more of its electricity from renewable energy sources, NREL is seeking to address its heating energy requirements by using abundant, renewable biomass. Using wood waste and forest thinnings from Colorado’s Front Range, the lab’s new Renewable Fuel Heating Plant will heat research buildings on the Laboratory’s South Table Mountain campus and will operate in conjunction with an existing natural gas-fueled boiler system. Once built out to full capacity, the system could cut natural gas usage by up to 75%. Scheduled to be completed in May of 2008, the plant is being installed using private sector funding at no upfront cost to the government. Ameresco Energy Services Co. will finance the construction of the plant and be repaid with the proceeds from NREL’s natural gas utility cost savings. While we must increase our investment in alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, we must also continue to promote enhanced energy efficiency wherever we can – in our homes, our vehicles, and our offices. Because the truth is, the largest source of immediately-available “new” energy is the energy that we waste everyday. And that’s why today I’m proud to break ground on a new, highly efficient research support facility, an approximately 210,000 square foot building for employees currently working “off” the main campus in leased space. The research support facility will integrate high performance design and building practices while showcasing the latest renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies advances to achieve a LEED Platinum rating, which is above our TEAM Initiative goal of LEED Gold ratings for new DOE construction. I would like to thank all those who worked on these projects, including employees at the DOE Headquarters, the Golden Field Office, NREL, and WAPA, and our industry partners at SunEdison, Xcel Energy, and Ameresco Energy Services. These remarkable new facilities at NREL demonstrate that by working together we can help to secure America’s energy future by reducing energy waste and by using cleaner, more diverse energy sources. Thank you. Location: Golden, Colorado Media contact(s): Jonathan Shradar, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 48 DOE: Great Plains Energy Expo October 29, 2007 Remarks as Prepared for Secretary Bodman Thank you, Senator Dorgan, for that kind introduction. It is indeed a pleasure to be here with you in the great state of North Dakota, a state that will continue to play a critical role in our collective effort to increase our nation’s energy security. You have been a leader in the Congress on energy issues, and I look forward to your continued strong collaboration with the Department of Energy. The Senator and I just had the opportunity to visit the trade-show floor and I want to commend you all for bringing together such an impressive group of companies and organizations. The way I see it, this conference could not come at a better time, because today our country faces a major and pervasive set of challenges related to providing clean, cost-effective and secure energy to power our homes, our vehicles and our businesses. The basic components of this problem may be well known, but they bear repeating: First, global demand for energy is strong and will continue to grow. The projections are pretty staggering: by 2030, we estimate that global energy consumption will grow by over 50 percent, with 70 percent of that growth coming from the world’s emerging economies. For electricity specifically, we estimate that U.S. demand will increase by about 50 percent by 2030, with global demand nearly doubling. To put it another way: to meet future demand in this country, we would require 285,000 megawatts of new base-load capacity. By way of comparison, that represents roughly the total capacity of all the coal-burning power plants now operating in the U.S. and almost three times the capacity of the existing fleet of nuclear plants. As we confront this rapidly growing demand, we know that our economy – like so many around the world – is overly dependent on fossil fuels, and particularly foreign oil. At the same time, we must recognize the realities of global climate change and work to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions and pollution here and around the world. This set of challenges will only grow more pressing – and more acute – with time. So, in my view, it is not enough to say that we should expand – or should diversify – the energy options available to us . . . in reality, we must. We have no choice. Our economic competitiveness, national security and environmental health depend on it. The bottom line is that the United States must take steps now to ensure a future energy supply that is clean, affordable, reliable and secure, and I’m proud to say that we are. Any strategy to truly improve our energy security must recognize that there’s no one silver bullet here. We must pursue a range of tactics. For starters, we must dramatically increase our national investment in alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. I’m talking about the technologies that will fundamentally transform the way we produce and use energy in the near- and mid-term (say, the next 5-10 years) things like: developing commercially competitive cellulosic ethanol; advanced hybrid vehicle technologies; hydrogen fuel cells; solar photovoltaics and high-efficiency wind power, an area where this state is a real leader. These technologies are being pursued through the Advanced Energy Initiative that President Bush proposed last year, the goal of which is to identify the technologies that could have the greatest impact and then really go after them. In some cases, these technologies are already in the pipeline and, as a matter of sound public policy, need to be pushed more quickly to market. This Initiative recognizes that we must fund research – both basic and applied – at all stages of the innovation cycle. So, at the same time, we are also aggressively funding fundamental scientific research: the longer-term projects that may not yield breakthroughs for years to come, but nonetheless offer tremendous promise. We are doing that through the American Competitiveness Initiative, which represents a major increase in federal funding for basic research, particularly in the physical sciences. This is serious money for serious science in areas like supercomputing, nanotechnology, advanced nuclear reactor technologies, and fusion energy. The results may not be seen for decades, but the critical investments must be made now. In addition to recognizing the fundamental importance of science and technology, these two initiatives also reflect the central role of the private sector and academia in solving our energy challenges. The federal government must encourage – indeed, we absolutely require – intense, strategic collaboration, because the situation we face is too complex, too urgent, and too important to be solved by any one organization or any one sector. To this end, we are employing a range of collaborative models – including cost-sharing partnerships with industry and loan guarantee programs, both of which allow us to fund innovative technologies and share some of the risk that the private sector is unwilling to take on alone. These programs cover a range of technical areas, including solar technologies and advanced biofuels, a favorite topic of mine – and, I know, a favorite of Senator Dorgan’s as well. With biofuels, our strategy is, in part, to build on the vast accumulation of knowledge in the biotechnology industry and to use it in the production of cost-competitive alternative energy. So, for example, we are making cost-shared investments in cutting-edge Bioenergy Research Centers as well as a series of biorefinery projects focused on producing ethanol from a wide variety of non-food plant materials. The point here is that we must not focus solely on developing new sources of clean energy. We also must make them cost-competitive and bring them to market. And, as importantly, we must facilitate the capacity to deliver them. To do that, we certainly need more – and upgraded – transmission capacity to connect places that need additional energy with places – like North Dakota – that have the potential to supply more renewable power. I know this is a topic that you’ll be hearing more about later today from one of my DOE colleagues, Assistant Secretary Kevin Kolevar, and FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher. While we are rightly placing a great deal of emphasis on renewables and alternative fuels, we also must recognize that our economy is – and will remain – heavily dependent on fossil energy. For example, I know that Senator Dorgan has long argued that coal must be a key component of our nation’s energy future. And I agree. After all, this nation is blessed with an abundant coal supply. The challenge is: we must find ways to use it more cleanly and efficiently to reduce – or perhaps eliminate – its environmental impacts. One way to do this is through the development of carbon sequestration capacity. Earlier this month the Department announced that we have awarded funds for the first three large-scale carbon sequestration projects in the United States, which will conduct large volume tests for the storage of one million or more tons of carbon dioxide in deep saline reservoirs. DOE plans to invest $197 million over ten years for the projects, whose estimated value including cost-sharing with our partners is over $300 million. Collectively, these formations have the potential to store more than one hundred years of CO2 emissions from all major sources of pollution in North America and will help enable us to one day use coal without emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. And I’m quite pleased that one of these three partnerships will be led by the Energy & Environmental Research Center at the University of North Dakota. In addition to this state, the so-called “Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership” will encompass South Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin, along with the Canadian provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Even as we bring more alternative and renewable energy online and develop new ways to produce fossil energy more cleanly, we also must expand access to safe and emissions-free nuclear power in this country and do so in a way that responsibly manages waste and dramatically reduces proliferation risks. Because – and this is a critical point: at present, nuclear power is the only mature technology that can supply large amounts of emissions-free base load power to help us meet the expected growth in demand. If we are talking about what is available to order right now that would have a material impact on our ability to produce “home-grown,” clean power, we must talk nuclear. And we have not licensed a new nuclear plant in this country in over 30 years. That must change. We are working to see that it does by, among other things, implementing federal risk insurance (or so-called “stand-by support”) and loan guarantee programs, to try to remove some of the roadblocks associated with getting the next generation of nuclear plants online. There is a final component of a comprehensive strategy as well: we must continue to promote conservation and enhanced energy efficiency wherever we can – in our homes, our vehicles, our offices and across all industries. Because the truth is, the largest source of immediately-available “new” energy is the energy that we waste everyday. Everyone can do more to conserve. I’m talking about things like: keeping current with vehicle maintenance; insulating your home and choosing energy-efficient appliances and compact fluorescent light bulbs; considering a fuel-efficient vehicle or taking public transportation; and, if you own a business, participating in an energy assessment program – or encouraging your employer to do so. Though taken alone, these actions may seem minor, if done consistently; they can have an impact in precisely the right direction – taking some immediate pressure off demand. Just consider this: if every American home replaced just one light bulb with an Energy Star-qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars. The bottom line is: the challenges that we face are complex and did not develop overnight. And so, the solution is necessarily multi-faceted. There are things we all can do today. There are new technologies on the cusp of commercialization that can help us tomorrow. And there are new energy-sources and cleaner, safer production methods on the horizon that will power our lives in the future. To get there we need three things. We need the type of forward-looking leadership and funding commitments that this Administration – and leaders in Congress, like Senator Dorgan – are providing. We need the dedication, ingenuity and hard work of American scientists and engineers – in all sectors. And we need the commitment of the American people to achieve together what none of us can do alone. And I thank everyone in this room for being part of the solution and for working hard to ensure a clean, reliable, affordable and secure energy future for America. Thank you all. Location: Bismarck, North Dakota Media contact(s): Jonathan Shradar, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 49 DOE: White House Honors Federal Agencies for Saving Taxpayers $133 Million in Energy Costs by Increasing Efficiency Measures November 2, 2007 Recipients of Presidential Awards for Leadership in Federal Energy Management Recognized WASHINGTON, DC – The White House today honored five energy management teams from the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, and the Environmental Protection Agency for their dedication and leadership in the prudent management of energy use in their facilities and operations. These teams, which included 51 federal employees and contractors, are responsible for estimated annual savings in excess of $133 million and almost 4.6 trillion Btus, equivalent to the energy use of approximately 50,000 homes. The awards were presented by the Office and Management and Budget’s Deputy Director for Management Clay Johnson and U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Alexander Karsner. “Keeping America competitive requires renewable and affordable energy, and our federal agencies must lead the way for energy conservation and research. Your efforts strengthen our country and ensure that America will continue to lead the world in innovation for decades to come,” President George W. Bush said, congratulating the honorees. The Presidential Awards for Leadership in Federal Energy Management support President Bush’s aggressive goals for energy efficiency and use of renewable energy in the federal government. Both Executive Order 13423 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) call on the Federal government to reduce its energy intensity by two percent and three percent per year, respectively, through the end of 2015. The President’s Executive Order requires that at least half of the federal government’s renewable energy come from new renewable sources, and EPAct requires that the federal government purchase at least 7.5 percent of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2013. Awardees were selected from nominations submitted to the Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program, which resides within in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Nominations were provided to the Office of Management and Budget’s Deputy Director for Management who reviewed the nominations and recommended the award recipients to the President. Recognized today at the eighth annual ceremony were energy teams from the U.S. Air Force, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Prisons, Department of Homeland Security, and a joint team of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency. The five winning teams of the 2007 Presidential Awards for Leadership in Federal Energy Management received recognition for the following achievements: U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force Energy Management Senior Focus Group By providing top level leadership to the Air Force’s Facility and Mobility Energy Programs, the Air Force Energy Strategy Senior Focus Group (SFG) instituted a culture where energy usage and sustainable practices are considered in every decision. The SFG’s comprehensive approach to energy management saved the Air Force $100 million and more than 3.3 trillion Btus in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006—enough savings to power the household energy needs of a city such as Boulder, Colorado for a year. Also in FY 2006, the Air Force remained the largest green power purchaser in the federal government with more than 990 gigawatt hours of renewable-generated electricity. U.S. Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency, Laboratories for the 21st Century Laboratories for the 21st Century (Labs21) is a voluntary partnership dedicated to improving the energy and environmental performance of laboratories, which are five to ten times more energy intensive than office buildings. Labs21 public-private partnerships are comprised of approximately 80 facilities—more than half of which are federal. With the help of Labs21, 18 active partners reduced their combined annual energy use by 533 billion Btus, equivalent to the average annual electricity use of more than 14,500 typical U.S. households. The partners also avoided emissions of nearly 218 million pounds of carbon dioxide—the equivalent of removing nearly 21,000 cars from the road. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Energy Management Committee Under the leadership of its Energy Management Committee (EMC), DHS institutionalized stewardship of energy resources and taxpayer dollars into its standard practices and procedures for nine major components. The EMC published a comprehensive “Master Energy Plan 2006-2015,” which established specific direction and goals for the Department’s facility energy management activities and tracks the performance of DHS component agencies by measuring five major factors quarterly. The strategies and guidelines instituted by DHS resulted in an 18 percent decrease in energy intensity in 2006 from 2003 levels. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Energy Efficiency Team The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) comprises numerous small facilities with individually low dollar values of energy consumption scattered in remote areas of the country. BLM, in partnership with the Department of Energy and Johnson Controls, Inc., created an innovative new approach to streamline and tailor the Energy Savings Performance Contracts process to meet its needs—one that can be applied by other federal agencies with small, remote facilities. As a result, 105 sites are receiving $4.9 million of energy efficiency improvements with guaranteed annual savings of nearly $400,000 and annual energy savings of 20 billion Btus, the energy equivalent of 285 typical households in the region. U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Prisons The Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons initiated an energy outreach program where energy program staff collaborates with community leaders and businesses to spread knowledge about federal efforts in energy conservation, renewable energy, and sustainable practices. At the Federal Correctional Complex in Victorville, CA, the Bureau of Prisons invested $3.5 million to install DOJ’s first wind turbine and photovoltaic array, saving $350,000 in annual energy costs and almost 1.9 million kilowatt hours annually. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is replicating this success with Energy Savings Performance Contracts and Utility Energy Service Contracting, with plans to cover 98 remaining institutions within six years. 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 ***************************************************************** 50 Hanford News: Fluor Hanford to pay $84,800 for spill This story was published Friday, November 2nd, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Fluor Hanford and Twin City Metals agreed to pay a penalty of $84,800 to the Environmental Protection Agency after equipment being recycled spilled oil contaminated with PCBs last year. The liquid should have been drained before Fluor sent a transformer from the Hanford nuclear reservation to Twin City Metals in Kennewick for recycling. The liquid spilled in the recycling yard and may have contaminated workers there, according to a consent agreement in the case. Workers also may have been contaminated at Joseph Simon and Sons, a Tacoma recycling business where the transformer was shipped from Kennewick. Fluor agreed to pay its portion of the penalty, $54,800, and the remaining $30,000 owed by Twin City Metals. Fluor does not plan to contest the penalty, it said in a statement. This was a classic case of toxic "ripple effect," Mike Bussell, director of EPA's Compliance and Enforcement Office in Seattle, said in a statement. "Risks to human health and the environment could've been greatly reduced, at a fraction of the cost, if this was handled correctly in the first place," he said. "By carefully handling all transformers, and diligently cleaning up any spills that occur as quickly as possible, damage can be prevented and costly cleanups avoided." The transformer was part of a shipment to Twin City Metals of 60 transformers once mounted on poles at Hanford to step down electricity to usable voltages. All should have been drained of dielectric fluid, a mineral oil used to keep the transformers from overheating. When the undrained transformer was dumped onto the ground at the recycling yard June 1, 2006, a fin broke and oil contaminated with PCBs at 250 parts per million spilled out into an area that had soil covering a liner. PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, can collect in the human body and cause liver damage or cancer. The EPA consent agreement said the fluid spilled in several locations at the recycling yard and also contaminated equipment. The transformer was sent to Tacoma the next day. Fluor says it quickly dispatched personnel to both companies to clean up areas and equipment affected by the spill. However, EPA said Fluor did not start cleanup until a week after the spill when it confirmed that the fluid that spilled was contaminated with PCBs. Fluor also took samples from four homes where workers may have tracked PCBs, but said it found no contamination linked to the transformer. Before sampling results came back it replaced carpeting and appliances in one worker's home and provided him with transportation and living expenses. All Twin City Metals did was accept the merchandise, said Jim London, one of the family owners of the recycling business. Although he signed the consent agreement, he also had his attorney send a letter to EPA saying the company had acted properly. Fluor has taken steps to prevent further problems, according to a company statement. To prevent transformers with PCBs from leaving the site, they now are stored apart from those without PCBs. Fluor also has reviewed its system for processing about 100 types of material leaving the site, ranging from clothes for laundering to batteries for recycling. In addition, the company has improved its system for verifying that materials being shipped off the nuclear reservation comply with health, safety and environmental requirements. The incident led to a lawsuit filed by a Twin City Metals worker who said he was poisoned by chemicals from the transformer. Fluor said the lawsuit has been dropped. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 KYNF: Nuke watchdog loses lawsuit over reactor Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free Jackson Hole Idaho National Lab By Noah Brenner November 3, 2007 Valley nuclear watchdog Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free lost a lawsuit against the federal government over its efforts to refurbish an aging nuclear reactor at the Idaho National Lab, located about 90 miles west of Grand Teton National Park. The group alleged the Department of Energy has not performed the required environmental analysis to upgrade the 40-year-old Advanced Test Reactor. The nonprofit asked U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill for an injunction shutting down the reactor until the Department of Energy completes any environmental assessments required under the National Environmental Policy Act and upgrades safety equipment. In its complaint, KYNF alleged that due to “neglect, antiquated equipment, poor design, and many years of what the DOE has termed ‘budget austerity’” the reactor is unsafe, particularly its core cooling system and its ability to withstand an earthquake. Unlike commercial reactors, the ATR does not have a containment dome. Department of Justice attorneys rejected all of KYNF’s claims in their response to the lawsuit filed in the federal district court for Idaho. “To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Federal Defendants deny any alleged violations and deny the Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief,” the response states. In Judge Winmill’s ruling, he found that the extension process was an ongoing effort to make the reactor viable “indefinitely,” and therefore it did not require an environmental impact statement. Attorney Mark Sullivan, who represented KYNF and its co-plaintiffs in the case, said the judge affirmed many of his group’s positions and affirmed that the plaintiff’s had standing to bring the suit, even though he ultimately ruled in favor of DOE. “We are gratified that Judge Winmill properly rejected virtually all of the DOE’s arguments, particularly those that sought to deny Plaintiffs’ a review of the DOE’s actions on the merits,” Sullivan said in a statement. “In the end, however, we believe the Judge made a mistake of fact.” Sullivan said his group of plaintiffs, which includes Wilson resident and KYNF Executive Director Mary Woollen and the Idaho-based Environmental Defense Institute, are considering their options to appeal the ruling. “We believe that finding is contradicted by the record,” Sullivan said. The federal government is currently looking at a plan to use the Advanced Test Reactor to produce plutonium-238 for power generation in space and for classified national security projects. plutonium-238 is not used in nuclear weapons but it is about 270 times more radioactive than plutonium-239, the common ingredient in atomic bombs. The Advanced Test Reactor is the last of the experimental reactors built at the site and is roughly 40 years old. Government officials claim it meets current nuclear safety standards. KYNF officials have said they believe the reactor is unsafe and the group has another pending lawsuit demanding the federal government release documents that KYNF officials say will prove its claims. © 2000-2007 Copyright Jackson Hole News&Guide | P.O. Box 7445 | Jackson, Wyoming 83002 | 307-733-2047 ***************************************************************** 52 DOE: Events DOE-Sponsored Public Meetings and Workshops DATE TITLE LOCATION 11.06.07 NTS/EM Community Advisory Board Mtg. Town of Amargosa Valley, NV 11.06.07 - 11.07.07 INL/EM Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. Idaho Falls, ID 11.08.07 Brookhaven National Laboratory Community Advisory Council Mtg. Upton, Long Island, NY 11.13.07 Public Mtg.: Draft Yucca Mt. Repository SEIS and Draft NV Rail Alignment EIS Hawthorne, NV 11.14.07 Oak Ridge Site Advisory Board Mtg. Oak Ridge, TN 11.15.07 Public Mtg.: Draft Yucca Mt. Repository SEIS and Draft NV Rail Alignment EIS Caliente, NV 11.15.07 Paducah Site Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. Paducah, KY 11.17.07 Yucca Mt. Project Public Open House Las Vegas, NV 11.19.07 Public Mtg.: Draft Yucca Mt. Repository SEIS and Draft NV Rail Alignment EIS Reno/Sparks, NV 11.26.07 Public Mtg.: Draft Yucca Mt. Repository SEIS and Draft NV Rail Alignment EIS Town of Amargosa Valley, NV 11.26.07 - 11.27.07 SRS Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. Augusta, GA 11.27.07 Public Mtg.: Draft Yucca Mt. Repository SEIS and Draft NV Rail Alignment EIS Goldfield, NV 11.28.07 Northern NM Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. Santa Fe, NM 11.29.07 - 11.30.07 SC/High Energy Physics Advisory Panel Mtg. Washing ton, DC 11.29.07 Public Mtg.: Draft Yucca Mt. Repository SEIS and Draft NV Rail Alignment EIS Lone Pine, CA 12.03.07 Public Mtg.: Draft Yucca Mt. Repository SEIS and Draft NV Rail Alignment EIS Las Vegas, NV 12.05.07 Public Mtg.: Draft Yucca Mt. Repository SEIS and Draft NV Rail Alignment EIS Washington, DC 12.12.07 Oak Ridge Site Advisory Board Mtg. Oak Ridge, TN 12.13.07 Brookhaven National Laboratory Community Advisory Council Mtg. Upton, Long Island, NY U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 53 NAS: Project: Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research & Development Program Project Title: PIN: BEES-J-05-01-A Major Unit: Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences Sub Unit: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems RSO: Bowen, Matt Subject/Focus Area: Energy and Energy Conservation; Engineering Project Scope The committee will undertake a comprehensive, independent evaluation of DOE's nuclear energy (NE) program's goals and plans, and validate the process of establishing program priorities and oversight (including the method for determining the relative distribution of budgetary resources). The evaluation will result in a comprehensive and detailed set of policy and research recommendations and associated priorities (including performance targets and metrics) for an integrated agenda of research activities that can best advance NE's fundamental mission of securing nuclear energy as a viable, long-term commercial energy option to provide diversity in energy supply. The review will also include the relationship of the research program to the Idaho Facilities Management program. In conducting the evaluation of the R&D program, the committee will: (1) Review the technical goals and timetables for government and industry R&D efforts in the various technical areas (e.g., Nuclear Power 2010; Generation IV; Hydrogen Initiative; Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative); (2) Review the R&D directions and progress in various parts of the program and their relevance to meeting the goals of the R&D program; (3) Review the overall balance and adequacy of the R&D program in light of the objectives and schedules in the major technology areas, and whether efforts in various technical areas are at an appropriate level, should be expanded, reduced, or eliminated; (4) Identify, if appropriate, new and promising technologies not included in the DOE portfolio that the DOE could meaningfully advance to meet the goals of the program; (5) Examine and comment, as necessary, on the appropriate federal role in the various technical areas; (6) Examine and comment on the commercial implications of each major part of the R&D portfolio and what each element needs to contribute to the commercial adoption of the technology; (7) Examine and comment on NE's strategy for accomplishing its goals, which would include such issues as: (a) program management and organization; (b) the process of setting milestones, research directions and making Go/No Go decisions; (c) collaborative activities with other parts of the government or private sector; (d) the integration of major activities in each program into a plan and associated schedule; (e) integration and associated schedule and milestones of the various major programs across DOE-NE; (f) consistency of the budget, schedule and scope for selected major activities; (g) risk identification and assessment and mitigation activities; and (h) other topics that the committee finds important to comment on related to the success of the program to meet its technical goals. (8) Comment on the relationship of the R&D program to the Idaho Facilities Management program. The committee will write a report documenting its findings and recommendations. The project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy. The approximate start date for the project is April 24, 2006. A report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately 18 months. Project Duration: 18 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 08/24/2006 Meeting 2 - 10/17/2006 Meeting 3 - 11/08/2006 Meeting 4 - 01/09/2007 Meeting 5 - 03/08/2007 Meeting 6 - 05/30/2007 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************