***************************************************************** 11/08/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.263 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY NUCLEAR REACTORS 1 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss Process for Review of License Renewal Applic 2 US: The Santa Clara: Nuclear energy: cheaper, cleaner and better - O 3 US: Times Argus: Price of nuclear is too high 4 US: Times Argus: NRC hits Yankee on two fronts 5 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC raps Yankee on procedure 6 THERECORD.COM: Some Bruce reactors will likely be replaced, chief ex 7 US: NRC: NRC Meeting Dec. 4 in Evansville, Tenn., to Discuss Oversig 8 US: NRC: Luminant Generation Company LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of 9 US: NRC: Friends United for Sustainable Energy; Denial of Petition f 10 US: Daily Utah Chronicle: Give us anything but nuclear - Opinion 11 Reuters: Lithuania nuclear plant shut down after short circuit 12 US: Vermont Public Radio: NRC says Entergy needs to do a better job 13 Bangkok Post: Opposition to nuclear energy project mounts 14 US: TheHill.com: Nuclear advocates try to clear obstacles 15 US: TheDay.com: Judge Sets Value of Millstone 16 Earth Times: Poll: Czechs continue to oppose US radar base NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 17 US: [DU-WATCH] Pinon Canyon, Colorado - next test range expansion to 18 US: Central Florida News 13: Homeowners Near Bomb Site Sue Builder - 19 NEWS.com.au: Defence admits radiation leak | NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 20 Sweden: Nuclear Waste, State-of-the-Art Report 2007 - responsibility 21 US: Reuters: Aveva considering reopening U.S. uranium mines | 22 US: Ventura County Star: Field Lab pollutants found at Sage Ranch 23 US: Gallup Independent: Talks focus on impact of uranium on Navajo - PEACE 24 ICH: Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran 25 RIA Novosti: Russia, U.S. to hold missile shield talks in Washington 26 Middle East Times: Editorial: Musharraf and the US' Hobbesian choice 27 AU ABC: Blix awarded Sydney Peace Prize - US DEPT. OF ENERGY 28 DOE: Agencies Publish Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 29 DOE: Washington Post Energy Conference Presented by Areva 30 Hanford News: Board says DOE reports too complex 31 DOE: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact 32 DOE: Events 33 Oak Ridger: Y-12 storage project celebrates safety, construction mil 34 NewsChannel6: I.N.L. Recognized Nationally 35 NewsBlaze: Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Energy Secretary Samu 36 DOE: Three Companies Awarded Contracts for Royalty-in-Kind 37 DOE: DOE to Invest More than $21 Million for Next Generation ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 NRC: NRC to Discuss Process for Review of License Renewal Application For Beaver Valley Nuclear Plant, Seek Environmental Input News Release - Region I - 2007-058 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct two public meetings on Tuesday, Nov. 27, to discuss the agency’s review process for the license renewal application for the Beaver Valley nuclear power plant, located in Shippingport (Beaver County), Pa. The sessions will also provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment on environmental issues they believe the NRC should consider during its review of the application, which requests an additional 20 years of operation. The meetings, which will be transcribed, will take place at the Embassy Suites Pittsburgh-International Airport, at 550 Cherrington Parkway in Pittsburgh. The first session will run from 1:30 to 4:30 p.m. The second session, which will follow the same format as the first meeting, will get under way at 7 p.m. and continue until 10 p.m. The NRC will also host an “open house” beginning 1 hour before the start of each meeting to provide interested citizens with an opportunity to talk informally with agency staff. However, formal comments must be expressed during the transcribed meetings. Both sessions will start with an NRC presentation on the overall license renewal review process, which includes safety and environmental assessments. Following the presentations, audience members can ask questions and offer comments on environmental issues they consider worthy of evaluation as the agency reviews the Beaver Valley application. Additional information on the license renewal process is available on the NRC’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html. “We look forward to this opportunity to explain our review process and to receive the public’s input on environmental issues relating to the Beaver Valley license renewal application,” said Rani Franovich, a Branch Chief in the NRC’s Division of License Renewal. “This will be the first of several opportunities for the public to weigh in on the proposal.” Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant has a term of 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements are met. The current operating licenses for Beaver Valley Units 1 and 2 expire, respectively, on Jan. 29, 2016, and May 27, 2027. The plant is owned and operated by FirstEnergy. The company’s license renewal application for Beaver Valley was received by the NRC on Aug. 28, 2027. As part of the application, the company submitted an environmental report, which is posted on the NRC’s web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/b valley.html. It is also available for review at the NRC’s Public Document Room in Rockville, Md., which can be reached by phone at 1-800-397-4209 or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov, and at the following public libraries: Beaver Area Memorial Library, 100 College Ave., Beaver, Pa.; and the Beaver County Library System, 1 Campus Drive, Monaca, Pa. An existing NRC document, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants” (NUREG-1437), assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. The document for which the NRC will gather information at the Nov. 27th meetings will be a supplement to that generic environmental statement that is specific to Beaver Valley. It will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the license renewal action. At the conclusion of the information-gathering process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of the conclusions and significant issues. A copy will be sent to each person who participated in the “scoping” process. The summary will also be made available on the NRC’s web site through the Public Electronic Reading Room at: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and at the previously listed libraries. Help in accessing documents through the Reading Room is available by contacting the Public Document Room. The NRC staff will subsequently prepare a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) supplement for public comment and will hold public meetings at a future date to solicit comments. After consideration of comments on the draft report, the NRC will prepare a final EIS supplement. Interested individuals may register to attend or present oral comments at the Nov. 27th meetings by contacting Project Manager Kent Howard at 1-800-368-5642, ext. 2989, or by e-mail to BeaverValleyEIS@nrc.gov NRC news releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Thursday, November 08, 2007 ***************************************************************** 2 The Santa Clara: Nuclear energy: cheaper, cleaner and better - Opinion By James Bickford Issue date: 11/8/07 Section: Opinion It is a question that has been met with much controversy over the years. It has gone quiet recently, but it is time to invite the topic back into the limelight. With insecure oil prices, environmental ramifications and political tensions, nuclear energy is becoming a likely and efficient solution to meet our energy demands. The debate has been pretty one-sided for the last three decades. Various groups have successfully fought against investors attempting to restart the nuclear energy program. Their concerns about nuclear waste were legitimate and supported for the right reasons. Unfortunately, the results have had a terrible effect on the environment. In the '70s, it seems that only Al Gore and his professors were paying much attention to a combustion by-product called CO2. Given that oil was a relatively clean, safe and cheap energy source, who could blame environmentalists for flinging themselves in front of bulldozers to prevent the construction of nuclear reactors? Unfortunately, these actions have helped to create an oil economy, which fuels global warming, causes unrest in politically unstable parts of the world and increases domestic energy prices. It is time that our misconceptions and cultural taboos regarding nuclear energy change. Here are the facts taken from a case study of a 500 megawatt plant from the Union of Concerned Scientists. For several pounds of waste, hot water and no CO2 emissions, a single plant can power 250,000 homes. That same plant could replace a coal-fired plant and effectively reduce CO2 emissions by 4.1 million short tons of CO2 annually per plant. This is something that should excite environmentalists and average American citizens alike, because it could be the key to securing energy production, lowering energy prices and slashing our impact on climate change. Nuclear energy is cheaper than coal and oil. It is a known technology that is already quietly humming away -- producing 20 percent of U.S. electricity today. U.S. reserves of nuclear material could power our communities for over a billion years. Nuclear energy can allow us to cheaply curb climate change and stop funding terrorism. Of course, the disadvantages of nuclear power must also be taken into account. The world will never forget Chernobyl. And the issue of storing nuclear fissile waste is also very serious. Although I recognize these problems, I also believe that there are feasible solutions to both. Three Mile Island is a testament to the success of the nuclear design. The plant operated exactly as designed, a disguised success story. Since the success of Three Mile Island, scientists have invented the personal computer, networking controls systems, electronic sensors and thousands of other devices to improve plant safety. A plant made today would be much safer than the relics of the 1970s. There is also a solution to storing waste. Federal legislation began construction of a waste disposal site in the high arid mountains of Nevada. Nuclear energy is not perfect, but no energy source is. There are drawbacks to every single source of energy, including wind, solar and hydroelectric energy. I am a huge proponent of solar energy, but the amount of energy and heavy metals that go into the process of making a solar panel makes it far from perfect. Wind is also an interesting source, but the Sierra Club has prevented it from entering California because of the threats it poses to birds. Similarly, environmentalists in the Pacific Northwest are furious with hydroelectric dams because of the threat they pose to salmon. It is time to re-evaluate where we are and make decisions based on facts and science, not emotion and tradition. Unfortunately, we have not discovered the perfect solution and are left to choose the least harmful option. Nuclear energy should be strongly reconsidered by today's environmentalists and legislators. The alternatives, I fear, are far worse. James Bickford is a senior mechanical engineering major. posted 11/08/07 @ 5:28 AM PST © The Santa Clara. All Rights Reserved. Privacy policy ***************************************************************** 3 Times Argus: Price of nuclear is too high November 08, 2007 Nuclear power is a very problematic source of energy. The plutonium it produces is among the most toxic and long lasting substances known to man. By 2011, when Vermont Yankee was supposed to be retired, it is projected that 671 tons of high-level radioactive waste will have accumulated at the plant. The plant overlooks the Connecticut River! There is a great push to have Vermont Yankee and other aging nuclear plants increase their output and double their life spans without a plan in place for safe disposal of this high-level waste. There is also a great push to allow Vermont Yankee and other aged facilities stay open long passed their planned closing without a careful, extensive independent safety assessments. Our senators and representative in Washington are demanding such an assessment. It is clear that Gov. Douglas and the Bush administration are more focused on defending the bottom lines of great corporations — even at the expense of the nation, the people, and the environment. The price the people might pay — until the end of time — is unimaginable. Mary Field Belenky Montpelier © 2007 Times Argus ***************************************************************** 4 Times Argus: NRC hits Yankee on two fronts November 08, 2007 By David Gram Associated Press MONTPELIER — Federal regulators scolded Vermont Yankee nuclear plant Wednesday over a collapsed cooling tower and unplanned shutdown and granted an anti-nuclear group's request for extra scrutiny on the 20-year license extension the Vernon plant is seeking. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued an inspection report saying what a plant spokesman says Vermont Yankee had already concluded: that it wasn't doing adequate inspections of a series of water-cooling towers at the plant before one of them collapsed in August. Entergy Nuclear, Vermont Yankee's owner, "failed to recognize the importance of performing hands-on inspections" of hard-to-get-at parts of the cooling towers, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan wrote in an e-mail summarizing the inspection findings. He added that the company "did not incorporate readily available operating experience into the cooling tower inspection process to detect degraded structural components." Plant spokesman Robert Williams said Vermont Yankee had arrived at the same conclusions as it reviewed the collapse, which produced dramatic pictures of a 6-foot-wide broken pipe dumping thousands of gallons of water on a pile of rubble. "Although all of those findings are of low safety significance, we take them seriously," Williams said. He added that Entergy is "putting in place corrective actions necessary to help ensure those do not happen again." He added the plant had shared information about the weaknesses it found in the cooling tower structure with the rest of the nuclear industry. NRC gave both the cooling tower collapse and a separate incident in August, a stuck valve that forced the plant to shutdown automatically, a rating of "green," meaning the incidents posed a very small risk to public safety. But the agency chided the plant on the valve problem as well. Inspectors "confirmed Entergy's failure to perform adequate preventive maintenance on the valve," Sheehan wrote. The inspection report said the valve was attended to during an earlier refueling outage, but that effort did not involve taking it apart and inspecting key components. The other development involving Vermont Yankee on Wednesday was that a quasi-judicial arm of the NRC, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, said it would accept and examine a "contention," or complaint, brought by the nuclear watchdog group New England Coalition relating to Vermont Yankee's request to extend its license for 20 years beyond its scheduled expiration in March of 2012. The coalition has repeatedly sought to raise the issue of "metal fatigue" — wear and tear on key plant components — in hearings on the license extension. On Wednesday, the NRC panel said it would look at the issue. Entergy's Williams said plant officials were looking at the decision and that he had no comment on it. A call to Raymond Shadis, senior technical adviser with the New England Coalition, was not immediately returned. © 2007 Times Argus ***************************************************************** 5 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC raps Yankee on procedure By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Thursday, November 8 BRATTLEBORO -- A pair of failures at Vermont Yankee could be indicative of a larger problem at the Entergy-owned nuclear power plant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote in an inspection report released Wednesday. In August, one of the plant's 22 cooling cells collapsed. Less than 10 days later, a failure in a turbine stop valve caused an automatic shutdown of the plant. The NRC was concerned because the lack of an adequate maintenance program for the boiling water reactor's turbine stop valves "has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of human performance," wrote the NRC. In addition, the cooling tower collapse "has a cross-cutting aspect in the area of problem identification and resolution because Entergy did not implement and institutionalize operating experience through changes to station processes and procedures." A "cross-cutting" condition is defined as a condition that affects many different aspects of a procedure or program. In essence, if there is a deficiency in inspection and maintenance programs for both the cooling towers and the turbine stop valves, the NRC is concerned that there be similar problems in other systems at Yankee. "Neither the cooling tower cell that collapsed nor the turbine (and its stop valves) are considered nuclear safety-related," wrote NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan in an e-mail announcing the results. Nonetheless, wrote Sheehan, "the cross-cutting aspect will be considered in our next annual assessment for Vermont Yankee, which is due out next March." The NRC also promised to review any corrective actions performed by Entergy technicians to remedy the deficiencies "during an upcoming inspection," wrote Sheehan. "We agree with the NRC," said Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee. "Although all of the findings are of low safety significance, we take them seriously and we are putting in place the corrective actions necessary to help insure that they do not happen again." The NRC wrote that Entergy failed to integrate "readily available operating experience" into Yankee's cooling tower inspection process. The NRC requires nuclear plant operators to circulate information on issues that arise at plants around the nation. Technicians at plants with similar cooling towers as those at Yankee had noticed that using remotely operated cameras to inspect the interiors of the structures was inadequate and operating experience reports recommended that technicians conduct hands-on visual inspections. Entergy's failure to recognize the importance of conducting hands-on inspections of Vermont Yankee's cooling towers contributed to the collapse of one of the plant's 22 cooling cells, the NRC stated. The cooling cell collapsed because vertical support columns failed for a number of reasons, wrote the NRC, including "a chemical iron-salt attack related to iron bolting used to connect the wooden columns, a biological fungal attack in areas that the wooden columns had been affected by the iron-salt and from overtightened bolts at spliced locations." But all of that could have been prevented had Entergy technicians not relied on cameras to inspect the interior of the cooling cells. In addition, if Entergy had taken into account the operating experience of other plants with similar cooling towers, technicians could have prevented the failure. "Although the operating experience had been received ... no actions had been developed for Entergy's cooling tower inspection programs," wrote the NRC in the inspection report. "Multiple opportunities existed for Entergy to identify and incorporate the recommendations." The NRC advised Entergy to take corrective actions such as conducting a physical inspection of the cooling towers, repairing any deficient structures, incorporating operating experience into its preventive maintenance program and completing a review of the plant's corrective action procedures. The inspection report also addressed a turbine stop valve failure that caused an automatic shutdown on Aug. 30. In that case, wrote the NRC, Entergy failed to perform "adequate preventive maintenance" on the valve which should have included disassembly and inspection of the bell crank mechanism, which controls the opening and closing of the valve. The NRC recommended that Entergy create a preventive maintenance program to address the turbine stop valve failure. During troubleshooting of the turbine stop valve, technicians observed that the bell crank assembly was sticking. When the bell crank control linkage was manually operated, the assembly "suddenly freed, causing the turbine stop valve to open faster than normal." This action caused a fluctuation in the hydraulic system controlling the four turbine stop valves, which in turn caused the valves to slam shut and resulted in the automatic shutdown. Although maintenance was performed on the valves during a refueling outage in May, Entergy's failure to inspect, rebuild and lubricate the bell crank assembly "constituted a performance deficiency," wrote the NRC. Both the cooling tower and turbine stop valve findings were classified "green," or a very low safety significance, for which Entergy received non-cited violations. A non-cited violation is not punishable nor requires follow-up by the NRC. Nonetheless, both findings were of concern to the NRC because they were in contradiction to "the cornerstone objective of limiting the likelihood of those events that upset plant stability and challenge critical safety functions during shutdown as well as power operations." Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273. ***************************************************************** 6 THERECORD.COM: Some Bruce reactors will likely be replaced, chief executive says INSIDER | PAT HALPIN TIVERTON Bruce Power's chief executive believes there's good chance at least some of Bruce B's four nuclear reactors will be slated for replacement when the time for refurbishment comes around. ''It's better than 50 per cent likely,'' Duncan Hawthorne said about his view on the so-called new-build project. That proposal is now in the early stages of an environmental assessment designed to gauge the impact of the project on the environment and social fabric of the surrounding community. ''This is a massive project for us; a massive project for the community. So it makes perfect sense to keep checking,'' Hawthorne said about the current round of consultation on the environmental assessment. Bruce Power is already doing a $5.25-million refurbishment at generating station A that will restart two mothballed units and extend the life of the plant to 2036. It's planning now for refurbishment or new build at Bruce B that could start in 2012. The new build option could be done instead of -- or along with -- refurbishment of the four existing units. Rebuilding all four reactors at Bruce B is a $10-billion to $13-billion project that would take 10 years of construction and require a workforce of 4,300, according to Bruce Power's figures. ''We could potentially be the first nuclear plant built in North America in 30-plus years. It's a massive investment decision,'' Hawthorne said. The environmental assessment for the proposal includes study of different reactor types than the current Candu models now on site. Five models are being reviewed by Bruce Power along with Ontario Power Generation and the province. A recommendation is expected in the spring. There are pros and cons to all five of the types under consideration, and Hawthorne isn't in a hurry to get to a final decision. ''There's no need to rush to make a decision today,'' he said. ''The (environmental assessment ) is still ongoing. It's not held up by the fact that we haven't chosen a technology.'' What does need a decision soon is whether Ontario will invest in new nuclear reactors. There's strong growth in the nuclear industry around the globe, said Hawthorne, who is also chair of the World Association of Nuclear Operators. Demand for energy and concern about climate change are fuelling interest in new reactors and upgrades for existing ones. Hawthorne warned that growth in the nuclear industry might mean Ontario could face a shortage of expertise by the time it decides on a new-build project and looks for the skilled trades and engineers to do the job. 160 King Street East, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 4E5 519-894-2231 ***************************************************************** 7 NRC: NRC Meeting Dec. 4 in Evansville, Tenn., to Discuss Oversight of Watts Bar Unit 2 Construction News Release - 2007-148 - 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 Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with the public in Evensville, Tenn., on Tuesday, Dec. 4, to discuss how the agency will oversee construction activities and licensing of the incomplete Unit 2 at the Watts Bar nuclear power plant, about 10 miles south of Spring City, Tenn. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which operates the plant, has told the NRC it intends to restart construction activities in December. “TVA has an active construction permit for Unit 2, and our job will be to ensure TVA’s construction and quality control efforts meet our requirements for building a safe reactor,” said Catherine Haney, Director of the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing in the NRC’s Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. “We want the communities near Watts Bar to understand the process, including any hearings that might take place regarding Unit 2.” 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 08, 2007 ***************************************************************** 8 NRC: Luminant Generation Company LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License FR Doc E7-21926 [Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)] [Notices] [Page 63202-63203] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08no07-72] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Luminant Generation Company LLC (the licensee) to withdraw its January 18, 2007, application, as supplemented by letter dated July 18, 2007, for proposed amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89, for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Somervell County, Texas. The proposed amendment would have revised Technical Specification 3.8.1, ``AC [Alternating Current] Sources--Operating,'' by extending the allowable completion time associated with restoration of an inoperable offsite circuit (i.e., the startup transformer). The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2007 (72 FR 26178). However, by letter dated October 22, 2007, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated January 18, 2007, as supplemented by letter dated July 18, 2007, and the licensee's letter dated October 22, 2007, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of November, 2007. [[Page 63203]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Balwant K. Singal, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-21926 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 9 NRC: Friends United for Sustainable Energy; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking FR Doc E7-21928 [Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 63141] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08no07-19] Proposed Rules Federal Register ________________________________________________________________________ This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. ======================================================================== [[Page 63141]] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 54 [Docket No. PRM-54-4] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-54-4) submitted by Susan Shapiro, Esquire, Friends United for Sustainable Energy. The petitioner requested that the NRC issue an order to enjoin the NRC from considering any new license applications until the NRC can amend its regulations so that the regulations do not suppress and/or eliminate a stakeholder's right to redress, due process and equal protection in the licensing renewal process. A notice of receipt of this petition was not published in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on public computers in the NRC's public document Room (PDR), O-1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415- 4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rulemaking, Directives, and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7163, or toll free: 800- 368-5642, e-mail MTL@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition The petitioner requested that the NRC issue an order to enjoin the NRC from considering any new license applications until the NRC can amend its regulations so that the regulations do not suppress and/or eliminate a stakeholder's right to redress, due process and equal protection in the licensing renewal process. Reasons for Denial The NRC is denying this petition because the petitioner does not provide any new information that was not previously considered by the NRC in denying the petitions submitted by County Executive Andrew Spano of Westchester County, New York in PRM-54-2 and Mayor Joseph Scarpelli of Brick Township, New Jersey in PRM-54-3 (December 13, 2006; 72 FR 74848). These petitions were denied because they raised issues: (1) That the Commission already considered at length in developing the license renewal rule (December 13, 1991; 56 FR 64943); (2) that are managed by the ongoing regulatory process or under other regulations; or (3) that are beyond the Commission's regulatory authority. The petitioner did not present any new information that contradicts positions taken by the Commission when the December 13, 1991, regulation was established or demonstrates that sufficient reason exists to modify the current regulations. For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC denies this petition. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of October 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E7-21928 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 10 Daily Utah Chronicle: Give us anything but nuclear - Opinion By: Joseph Bateman Issue date: 11/8/07 Section: Opinion The facts are in -- global warming is real. We can now move the debate to focusing on finding the solutions. If you read a paper or turn on the television, nuclear power is being presented as the savior to our climate crisis. This myth originates at the mouths of lobbyists and companies such as General Electric (which owns NBC) within the nuclear industry. It continues to be perpetrated verbatim through the mainstream media with little examination, despite a potential windfall in the billions that would make Exxon Mobil's profits look like pocket change if new reactors are built. This potential windfall isn't limited to corporations but extends to elected officials such as Utah Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, who is a partner at Transition Power Development, a company that wants to build a new nuclear power plant in Utah. Interestingly enough, Tilton sits on the public utilities committee which can authorize such a facility. A conflict of interest? Tilton said no. The gravy train doesn't stop just in Utah, but makes stops across the nation. The nuclear industry is proposing a bill that would call for subsidies of $25 billion a year -- money that would be much better spent on renewable sources. Besides old-fashioned money lying behind this nuclear relapse, is there any truth that nuclear power is a green energy? The simple answer is no. Numerous scholars and studies have estimated that it would take anywhere between 1,500 and 2,000 new reactors to cut our emissions by 20 percent. To put this in perspective, this would mean opening a new reactor every two weeks for the next 60 years starting now. Clearly an impossible feat, as it takes nearly six to 10 years to build one plant at a cost of several billion dollars. Put another way, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar take between a year or two to add to the power supply. If we rely on nuclear power at a cost of trillions of dollars, we delay actions that we could be making today. Nuclear waste is the only thing that makes its energy green. Despite being a technology that is almost six decades old and has expanded into 439 plants across 31 countries, not one country or power plant has found a way to deal with nuclear waste. Although spent fuel rods might not sound harmful, the truth is that they remain radioactive for 10,000 years. Some claim reprocessing is the answer to the waste problem. Looking at France, which is the most successful reprocessor in the world, achieving 28 percent recycling of its waste, we see reprocessing not as an answer but a very small Band-Aid with no real solution in sight. Problems with reprocessing continue to unfold as it can be used to make nuclear bombs. The uranium boom that these new reactors would require would be a devastating consequence to Utah's environment. Even today, we are still witnessing the effects of the last uranium boom of the 1950s. Outside of Moab, the now bankrupt Atlas Minerals & Chemicals, Inc. processed uranium along the Colorado River. Today, ammonia and uranium are leaking into the river, which is an important source of water for more than 25 million people as well as home to several protected fish and other species. Clean-up of the site is estimated at nearly $1 billion dollars and won't be completed until 2028. Nuclear power isn't the solution to global warming. There is a reason why no new nuclear plants have been built in decades. To solve the climate crisis, we need to look at renewable wind, solar and geothermal sources that can make an impact much more quickly and with less environmental cost. The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research projects that through a variety of renewable sources and conservation, "complete elimination of CO2 could occur as early as 2040. Elimination of nuclear power could also occur in that time frame." Such investigations reveal that wind power from just 12 states could supply nearly three times our current energy production. Simply putting solar panels on parking lots and roof tops would nearly reach current production levels. The reality is that renewable sources are an untapped potential. The reason we have gotten into this global warming mess is because of our unspoken dependence on fossil fuels and not exploring our options. Until we exhaust the possibilities of renewables, let's not present a challenge to our children that is similar to the one our parents gave to us. © The Daily Utah Chronicle ***************************************************************** 11 Reuters: Lithuania nuclear plant shut down after short circuit Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:23pm GMT VILNIUS, Nov 8 (Reuters) - Lithuania's Soviet-built nuclear power station was shut down on Thursday due to an electrical malfunction but there was no danger of any radiation, officials said. The Ignalina nuclear plant has the same type of reactors as those which caused the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, though Lithuania says its plant was made safer. It shut one reactor after joining the European Union and the other is due to be closed in 2009. "There is no danger," said Andrius Baltuska, a civil protection official with Utenos district in eastern Lithuania, home to the power plant. He said a short circuit had shut down a generator, which had closed the whole plant. News portal Delf quoted Valdis Arbaciauskas, head of Ignalina's supply department, as saying that there had been no change in radiation levels and that the plant was likely to be closed for up to three days. Lithuania has agreed to close the Ignalina plant under the terms of its entry to the European Union. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland are considering building a new plant to decrease their energy dependency on Russia. © Reuters2007All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 Vermont Public Radio: NRC says Entergy needs to do a better job on inspections Thursday November 8, 2007 Ross Sneyd Colchester, VT (Host) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded its investigation into two problems this summer at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The NRC says both episodes warrant close scrutiny of Vermont Yankee's operations. But spokesman Neil Sheehan says neither compromised the nuclear operations of the plant and the public's safety was never in danger. (Sheehan) ``We've put together `green' inspection findings for both issues. And `green' indicates they are very low safety significance. The reason we say that is neither of the issues was nuclear-safety related.'' (Host) On August 21st, a cooling tower at the Vernon plant collapsed. Wooden timbers in the tower had rotted and failed. The NRC says Yankee's owner, Entergy Nuclear, needs to do a better job of inspecting the timbers and other components in the towers. Regulators say the other incident also didn't compromise safety. The plant shut down on August 30th after a key turbine valve failed. Investigation found that the valve hadn't been properly greased. The NRC says it will pay close attention to both issues in an upcoming inspection. © Copyright 2007, VPR ***************************************************************** 13 Bangkok Post: Opposition to nuclear energy project mounts General news >> Friday November 09, 2007 Next govt to be asked to scrap or revise plan APINYA WIPATAYOTIN & KULTIDA SAMABUDDHI Environmental and energy experts are calling for the next elected government to scrap a controversial plan to begin construction of the country's first nuclear power plants by 2014, a project that has received strong support from the present administration. Witoon Permwongsacharoen, of the Foundation for Ecological Recovery, urged the next elected government to revise the 15-year power development plan (PDP) that supports the switch to nuclear energy, saying it has miscalculated the country's electricity consumption growth which led to an unsuitable power generation plan.To meet predicted energy demands over the coming decades, the government plans to build four nuclear power plants with a total capacity to generate 4,000 megawatts of electricity, with the first plant due to be operational by 2020. However, Mr Witoon said it was unacceptable for the military-appointed government to proceed with such a risky and costly project. ''The project will place a huge financial burden on the country from the interest on debts and loans,'' he told a forum on nuclear power held on Wednesday by the Thai Society for Environmental Journalists. The Surayud Chulanont government has paved the way for the construction of the country's first nuclear power plants by approving the PDP and a 1.8-billion-baht budget for the project preparations and establishment of the Nuclear Power Development Office. It has also set up a nuclear power infrastructure preparation committee under the Ministry of Energy to supervise the nuclear power development scheme. Mr Witoon lauded some political parties, including the Democrats, Chart Thai, and People Power party, which had either declared a no-nuclear policy or vowed to revise the current plans. He said reliable research confirmed that nuclear power-generated electricity was much more expensive than other fuel sources. He cited the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's recent research which suggested that nuclear power plant developers must cut construction costs by 25% and shorten construction periods from 6-10 years to a maximum of four years in order to make the cost of nuclear power electricity practical. However, Kopr Kritayakirana, chairman of the nuclear power infrastructure preparation committee, played down the environmental and economic concerns. He said his panel would need three more years to study the pros and cons before asking the government to make a final decision in 2011. ''However, once the government decides to go ahead with the project, it can't turn back, otherwise the country will suffer a big financial loss,'' he said. Mr Kopr also defended the PDP, saying that although nuclear power was slated as a crucial option for maintaining the country's energy security, it didn't mean the government had to go nuclear. ''Energy sources can be changed, depending on the world's energy situation. If the price of fossil fuels and coal decline or there is more stable production of renewable energy, we may not need nuclear power,'' he said. © Copyright The Post Publishing Public Co., Ltd. 2007 ***************************************************************** 14 TheHill.com: Nuclear advocates try to clear obstacles Lobbying Nuclear advocates try to clear obstacles By Jim Snyder November 08, 2007 With as many as 20 new plant applications expected to be put before federal regulators in two years, advocates of nuclear power see the industry’s renaissance finally emerging. But several remaining obstacles could further delay the industry’s resurgence from public-relations pariah to a key piece of the puzzle of how to meet the growing demand for electricity without exacerbating the effects of global warming, industry advocates say. The most pressing political issue may be a little-noticed provision in the Senate energy bill that would change the rules for federal loan guarantee programs administered by the Energy Department. Passage would be a boon for nuclear plants by helping to allay lingering worries on Wall Street about the industry’s history of cost overruns and program delays. The language was sponsored by the nuclear industry’s chief Capitol Hill advocate, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), as a fix to investor fears. But it has attracted critics on the right and the left. The provision would exempt an Energy Department loan guarantee program for nuclear power from the Federal Credit Reform Act. Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), said the change would take away Congress’s oversight role by negating the requirement that lawmakers first pass budget authority to cover the potential costs of the loan before the guarantees are actually issued. That requirement ensures that Congress reviews a loan guarantee program each year as part of its annual budget review. “Taxpayers should not be required to finance billions in risky loan guarantees,” states a letter that TCS, the National Taxpayers Union and Citizens Against Government Waste jointly sent to Congress last week. Environmental groups also oppose the provision. The House energy bill did not include similar language. House appropriators, in fact, included language in the energy and water spending bill that specifically prohibited federal loan guarantees for nuclear power. But that language would apparently be trumped by the Senate authorizing language should it survive the informal conference now taking place, Alexander said. The loan guarantee program was originally in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which Domenici played a key role in crafting. Under an Energy Department rule released after the bill’s passage, the federal government guarantees 100 percent of the value of 80 percent of the total loan. Industry advocates say the guarantees are necessary to get financing for nuclear plants, which themselves are needed to meet future energy demands without increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power plants do not emit carbon dioxide. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is among the opponents of the loan program on Capitol Hill. His office said in a statement that the senator “continues to question the risk to taxpayers given the Energy Department’s track records of loan guarantee programs.” The letter from TCS and the other taxpayer groups noted a $13 billion bill Congress received in the 1970s and 1980s after offering the synthetic fuels industry massive loan guarantees. The letter said the industry has even bigger plans. It estimated nuclear utilities would need $50 billion in loan guarantees in the next two years. In addition to financing fears, some advocates are worried that after a generation in which the industry treaded water, there may not be a large enough skilled-labor pool to meet the hoped-for demand. The labor shortages were the subject of a Wednesday forum sponsored by Sens. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Tom Carper (D-Del.) that included representatives from industry, academia and labor unions, such as AFL-CIO head John Sweeney. Voinovich said he and Carper sponsored the forum to begin aligning investments and workforce development efforts with the “development of a skilled energy workforce.” The day before, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on labor shortages in the energy field in general. Already, said Southern Company Generation President W. Paul Bowers, there is a shortage of 20,000 skilled workers in the Southeast. Skip Bowman, the president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s main trade lobby, said the industry needs another 19,600 workers over the next five years just to replace current employees who will be retiring. That figure doesn’t account for any new nuclear plants coming online. Each new plant would provide between 1,400 and 1,800 new construction jobs; 400 workers would then be needed to maintain a nuclear facility. At the forum, Clay Sell, Energy Department deputy secretary, said a “broad expansion” of nuclear power would be needed to meet future energy demands while simultaneously addressing concerns about global warming. Domenici, who also spoke at the forum, agreed that additional nuclear power plants would have to be built in the United States, given concerns about global warming and the expected demand for electricity. “I don’t think the government should stay out of this,” he said. “The government has a role.” Voinovich also spoke in favor of loan guarantees, as did the AFL-CIO’s Sweeney, who could see the creation of more union jobs if the legislation is approved. “If the United States hopes to achieve a serious reduction in greenhouse gases while producing enough electricity to maintain a vibrant economy, nuclear generation must be part of the equation,” Sweeney said. The construction of the 30 new plants, the number covered by the 20 permit applications expected to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, would provide a big boost for labor. The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax The contents of this site are © 2007 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communication Inc. ***************************************************************** 15 TheDay.com: Judge Sets Value of Millstone By Patricia Daddona Published on 11/8/2007 A Superior Court judge ruled today that the town’s 2002 tax assessment of Millstone Power Station was too high. While sustaining Millstone owner Dominion’s appeal, the Judge Arnold W. Aronson of the state’s Court of Tax and Administrative Appeals set a fair market value for Millstone at $1.1 billion, below what the town wanted and above what Dominion wanted. Fair market value is the worth of the property in a competitive marketplace. It is the figure used to calculate a property owner’s tax. Finding fault with lead appraisers for both parties, Aronson determined that the $1.2 billion fair market value used by Assessor Michael Bekech in 2002 was incorrect. At the same time, Dominion’s expert appraisal of $1 billion was too low and Waterford’s expert appraisal of $1.3 billion was too high. Former First Selectman Paul B. Eccard, who monitored the case after he left office, claims the ruling ultimately favors Waterford, while Dominion spokesman Pete Hyde said it favors the company. “Essentially we see this as a favorable outcome for us. We’re still reviewing all the details. We feel it bears out and supports our contention that the assessment was too high,” Hyde said. Eccard said that since Dominion had originally claimed the town’s fair market value should be only $894 million, the new value of $1.1 billion set by the court is preferable. Left undefended, the $894 million figuree would have been the value used to compute the tax going forward, resulting in millions less in tax dollars for the town, he said. Privacy Policy | Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200 | New London, CT | © 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co. 102 ***************************************************************** 16 Earth Times: Poll: Czechs continue to oppose US radar base Posted : Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:40:00 GMT Author : DPA Category : World Prague - Nearly seven out of 10 Czechs continue to oppose placing a US missile shield base on Czech soil, according to an opinion poll released by the Czech Foreign Ministry on Thursday. The opinion poll conducted for the ministry by Factum Invenio polling agency revealed that 68 per cent of the 1,018 Czechs surveyed in late October rejected the US plan, while 25 per cent supported the controversial facility. The results echoed those of earlier surveys carried out by Factum Invenio and other pollsters, which have regularly showed that more than 6 out of 10 Czechs are against the project. The only exception was a September poll by the Stem polling agency conducted for the government coordinator in charge of the US radar. It said that 49 per cent of Czechs reject the facility, while 22 per cent support it. However, the agency's director Jan Hartl then said the results should not be interpreted as a dip in the opposition to the US plan, as Stem pollsters asked different questions than in previous polls. In January, the United States officially asked the Czech Republic and Poland to host a tracking radar and 10 interceptor missiles respectively as part of a missile defence system that the US says is designed to protect against potential long-range missiles from Iran. The US plan has infuriated Russia, which claims the system will be aimed at its nuclear arsenal. Despite adverse public opinion, the governments of both formerly communist countries, which are now members of NATO and the European Union, welcomed the plan and entered into bilateral talks with the US. In the Czech Republic, the fate of the radar base will be very likely decided by parliament mid next year. The centre-right ruling coalition so far lacks a clear majority for the project in the narrowly-divided lower house. Copyright, respective author or news agency (c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 [DU-WATCH] Pinon Canyon, Colorado - next test range expansion to "simulate the Middle East" Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 23:24:59 -0600 (CST) Cathy posted about this earlier: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/message/8715 www.hcn.org To receive two free issues of High Country News call 1-800-905-1155, or visit: http://www.hcn.org/freepapersubscription.jsp Eminent domainbs poster children Western Roundup - October 15, 2007 by Eryn Gable Ranchers fight a military proposal to expand training ground in southeastern Colorado Antelope peer out from behind a cluster of wild sunflowers growing along the dusty dirt roads of southeastern Colorado, a place where you can still find wagon ruts left over from travelers on the Old Santa Fe Trail. On the walls of redrock canyons there are centuries-old petroglyphs. If the military has its way, a half-million acres of this land may become a training ground for combat in the Middle East. The Army has set its sights on expanding its 235,000-acre Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site by more than 400,000 acres, a move it says is necessary to "accurately simulate anticipated, actual, combat conditions." Although Army officials have said they want to purchase the additional land from "willing sellers," ranchers in the area believe the military will use eminent domain to take their land. The Army has done it before, when the training facility was first established in the 1980s. Expansion opponents have won some significant victories so far, with both the U.S. House and Senate adopting amendments to their military funding bills that would prohibit funding for the expansion and related studies next year. But no one knows whether that provision will remain intact in the final spending bill, especially since it was opposed in the Senate by Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard, R, who will sit on the conference committee responsible for writing the final legislation. Even if the amendment survives, it is likely to prove just a skirmish in what promises to be a long battle. These ranchers are on the front line of this fight, and they say that not only is their land at stake, but also their way of life. When Kennie and Maria Gyurman decided to retire, fighting the military-industrial complex wasn't exactly what they had in mind. They expected to raise a few head of cattle on the 148 acres they bought from Kennie's brother, do a little gardening and maybe a little traveling. But no sooner had they put the finishing touches on their custom-built brick ranch house than they began to hear rumors of the expansion effort. It was a scene that was all too familiar to Kennie, whose family lost more than 5,000 acres of their nearly 17,000-acre ranch in the 1980s. He still gets choked up talking about it. "They treat you like dirt," he says. "They're treating the people like dirt right now." He says the locals have wised up to the way the military operates, however, and are better organized to fight a land grab. "It's different this time because we know what to expect," he says. "They do know how to do what they're doing, and that's quietly, as fast as possible, make it as tough on the people as they can so that they will ... spread the word that you don't want to oppose the Army when they get ready to condemn because it isn't worth it," Gyurman says. "People have heart attacks, they pay them less for their land, they don't ever give them any information, they just pick them off. That's the way it happens." Tim and Annette Roberts didn't even get to go on a honeymoon. The couple, married just over a year, have been so embroiled in fighting the expansion and keeping their ranch afloat that they haven't had time for much else. Tim is still trying to rebuild the 20,000-acre ranch after drought forced him to sell all the cattle but a few longhorns in 2002. To help make ends meet, he works for a coalbed methane company, Pioneer Natural Resources in Trinidad. "We haven't taken a day off," Roberts says. For Roberts, who hopes to hand the ranch over to his son someday, keeping the land in the family is partly about fulfilling a promise he made as a young child to his cousins. "Even when we were real little, I can remember all of us talking and saying that no matter what, we had to keep the ranches together. Regardless of what happened, that was like our main goal from the time we was real young. We had to keep the ranches together." Tony Hass didn't grow up on a ranch. He grew up in the military, with a career-Navy father who made his children bounce quarters off their beds to make sure the sheets were tucked in tight enough. But he was entranced by the stories his grandfather told about homesteading land in southeastern Colorado. After a few years of amateur bullriding and working on other ranches, Hass decided to make his long-held dream a reality. He bought property in Thatcher, just 15 miles from where his grandfather once lived. "I didn't inherit this ranch," Hass says. "I had to work every job that I could find to make this work. I mean, I've drove a dozer, I've pushed a broom for the school as a night janitor, I've dug sewers, I've hauled hay, I've done fence construction, all of that, to make payments on this place, to make sure that we made it through the hard times. ... It isn't happening anymore that a young couple, a young man can start from scratch and put a ranch together, and I've managed to do it, and I'm within two years of paying the place off." Hass' 5,800-acre ranch is anchored by an 1872 adobe home and includes the Hole in the Rock stage stop, portions of the Santa Fe Trail and ancient pictographs. He has a collection of old arrowheads and rare coins he suspects were used in poker games by the first cowboys to live in the area. Now, Hass worries that all this history will be lost forever if the Army takes his land. Mack Louden's ranch isn't in jeopardy yet, but that doesn't mean he isn't worried. Louden and many of the ranchers in the area believe the current expansion effort is just the first phase of a long-term plan by the military to take over most of southern Colorado, some 2.5 million acres in all, according to an Army map leaked to the opposition. Although the Army has dismissed the map as outdated and inaccurate, many ranchers remain unconvinced. Louden's family first came to the area from Ohio in 1902, making him the fourth generation to live and work in the region. Besides his 22,000-acre ranch east of Branson, Mack and his wife, Toyleen, run Marty Feeds in Trinidad. If the expansion effort succeeds, Louden worries that the feed store will falter, the demand for livestock feed and other ranching supplies dwindling with the exodus of the ranchers. Louden noted that the region's economy still hasn't recovered from the loss of the original 235,000 acres. "People realize now that as precarious as this economy is in southeastern Colorado, we take another 414,000 acres out of here, it's gonna start hurting a lot of cities," he says. "It's gonna hurt everybody, and I think that people are realizing that." Abel Benavidez's ancestors moved to southeastern Colorado in 1872, settling first in Red Rocks before moving to the family's current plot of land in 1925. Benavidez moved back to the 800-acre ranch in 1996, after he retired from the Bureau of Reclamation. While the ranch is small by southeastern Colorado standards, Benavidez says it's good land, blessed with a pretty good aquifer, clean air and views of the mountains. Abel and Judy, his wife of 23 years, are doing everything they can to stop the expansion. These days, that means attending endless meetings - with other members of the opposition coalition, the Colorado Cattlemen's Association, the Kiwanis Club and other groups - as well as dealing with a steady of flood of e-mails and telephone calls, keeping a close eye on important congressional votes via C-SPAN, and activities such as manning the coalition's booth at the state fair. "It just keeps things in a constant turmoil, and I really believe that this is what the Army would like to do," says Abel, who served in the military for more than 30 years. "They're gonna use taxpayers' dollars to fight us and then what they're gonna say is, 'We'll tire you guys out. We'll tire you guys out.' Really, honest to God. And they may do that." But Benavidez is determined to stay as long as he can: "I'm going to be the poster child for eminent domain, because they're going to have to carry me off of this place, and that's the God's truth." The author is a freelance writer in Woodland Park, Colorado. To receive two free issues of High Country News call 1-800-905-1155, or visit: http://www.hcn.org/freepapersubscription.jsp [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] ***************************************************************** 18 Central Florida News 13: Homeowners Near Bomb Site Sue Builder - Thursday, November 08, 2007 4:12:40 PM Forty-seven homeowners filed suit against Morrison Homes and Terrabrook Vista Lakes after a series of bombs were found near their property. The homes were built near the former Pine Castle Jeep Range, a World War II bombing range. The lawsuit claimed that the builder did not disclose to homebuyers that the Vista Lakes subdivision was once a military practice bombing range. Several explosives have been found and detonated on the property. The lawsuit also claimed that several hazardous materials were also found in addition to the bombs, including beryllium, chromium, cobalt and selenium. Fears about property values pushed forward the suit, but one neighbor says good luck trying to sell. "All the market is slowed down right now, but the bombing is making this neighborhood going down bad," Kham Huynh, a homeowner not involved in the lawsuit, said. One of the lawyers representing the homeowners said it's possible this case will be settled out of court, but if it does go to trial, it will be presented to one judge, with multiple plaintiffs seeking different amounts in damages. Subscribe to cfnews13.com! © 2007, Central Florida News 13, LLC. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 19 NEWS.com.au: Defence admits radiation leak | November 09, 2007 12:32am Article from: AAP AN investigation has started into a radiation leak which began six days ago at a Department of Defence site, the department said last night. “A minor contamination involving the chemical beryllium was reported on 2 November 2007 at the Defence National Storage and Distribution Centre, at Moorebank in New South Wales,” the department said. “It is believed the contamination occurred as a result of packaging of damaged equipment items returning from the Middle East.” Everyone at the site was evacuated and firefighters were called in to assess the hazard. Hazardous materials experts detected “two low-level positive indicators for the presence of beryllium”. The area was declared safe on November 6. “Occupational health and safety briefings have been provided to the small number of staff that may have been exposed and counselling is available on request. “Those personnel exposed to the site will undergo thorough on-site medical testing. “An investigation is currently underway to determine the immediate and follow-on action required to prevent a reoccurrence.” It was not immediately clear why Defence waited six days to issue the statement. Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 20 Sweden: Nuclear Waste, State-of-the-Art Report 2007 - responsibility of those now living, freedom of future generations SOU 2007:38 Publication date: 08 November 2007 Type: Swedish Government Official Report Source: Ministry of the Environment Download * Nuclear Waste, State-of-the-Art Report 2007 - responsibility of those now living, freedom of future generations, SOU 2007:38 (pdf 1.0 MB) Summary KASAM hereby submits its report (SOU 2007:38) on the state-of-the-art in the nuclear waste field in 2007, the ninth in this series. Ever since its establishment in 1985, the Swedish National Council for Nuclear Waste (KASAM) has regularly published reports of its independent review of the state-of-the-art in the nuclear waste field. According to the terms of reference for KASAM issued by the Government in 1992 (Dir 1992:72), such an assessment must be submitted every third year. Last updated 08 November 2007 The legislation chain Step 2: Swedish Government Official Reports and Ministry Publication Series The conclusions (committee reports) of official Government inquiries and committees are published in the Swedish Government Official Reports series (SOU). The Ministry Publication Series (Ds) is the series of reports presented by ministerial inquiries. Read more Regeringskansliet 103 33 Stockholm Växel 08-405 10 00 * Kontakt och besök * Prenumerera pĺ nyheter * RSS ***************************************************************** 21 Reuters: Aveva considering reopening U.S. uranium mines | Wed Nov 7, 2007 8:29pm EST NEW YORK, Nov 7 (Reuters) - French nuclear company Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) is considering reopening uranium mines in the United States because of high prices for the nuclear reactor fuel, Chief Executive Anne Lauvergeon said on Wednesday. "Now with the uranium price we are contemplating reopening of these," Lauvergeon told reporters at a French-American Foundation reception, referring to mines closed in the 1990s. Spot uranium prices reached $90 per pound this week, and many market experts expect that to reach $120 in the coming months, or about 7 times its price in 2001. Lauvergeon declined to speculate on whether uranium prices would remain at those levels, since new supplies were expected to come onto the market due to rising demand for the fuel. A uranium price of $30 to $35 per pound would need to be sustained to justify the reopenings, she added. Aveva was also considering building a reprocessing and recycling facility for spent fuel in the United States, Lauvergeon said, and was considering several possible sites, including in New Mexico and Ohio. President George W. Bush has proposed overturning a decades-old U.S. ban on reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Aveva is also awaiting U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval for its Evolutionary Power Reactor, which is needed for U.S. use of the new-generation plant design. U.S. power companies are expected to file nearly two dozen applications in the coming years to add to the country's 104 existing nuclear power reactors. Lauvergeon said the process with the NRC was continuing, but declined to comment on when approval could be granted. Utilities Constellation Energy (CEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and Ameren (AEE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) have said they were interested in Evolutionary Power Reactors. Areva has hired more than 1,000 engineers and technicians in the United States alone to deal with the increased business. (Reporting by Matt Daily; Editing by Braden Reddall) ***************************************************************** 22 Ventura County Star: Field Lab pollutants found at Sage Ranch Simi Valley : State officials order cleanup of contaminants at the site By Teresa Rochester (Contact) Thursday, November 8, 2007 The discovery of suspicious debris in a streambed in a park abutting the Santa Susana Field Laboratory by a trio of community activists has led the state's toxics department to order the lab's owners to clean it up. The cleanup and removal of 8,500 cubic yards of debris contaminated with asbestos, antimony and cancer-causing polyaromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, could start as early as Friday, said Norman Riley, the Department of Toxic Substances Control's project director for cleanup at the laboratory in the hills south of Simi Valley. On Nov. 1, DTSC issued an order to Boeing and NASA, which owns about 450 acres of the Field Lab, to take action on debris and contamination on Sage Ranch. Christina Walsh, John Luker and William Preston Bowling were researching drainage from the former rocket engine and nuclear test site in Sage Ranch earlier this year when they discovered a glassy, lightweight, foamlike material in a creek bed, Walsh said. "What we found was basically layer upon layer of this stuff," said Walsh, who runs the Web site cleanuprocketdyne.org. Walsh and her colleagues, who found another debris field at the park, contacted Riley toured the site with staff members. "We asked Boeing to take immediate steps," Riley said, adding later, "It's important for the public to know we take their concerns very seriously and we take our responsibility to protect public health very seriously." A fence has gone up around one of the two locations identified for cleanup. One area is next to a former liquid oxygen plant, which Riley said appeared to be a dumping area. It was in an area southeast of the plant where foam insulation material, deposits of white powdery material and construction debris was discovered in a creek bed, known as the Northern Drainage. Other contaminants in that area, which is about 500 cubic yards, include silica and antimony. A second debris field is tied to the former 3.5-acre Rocketdyne-Atomics International Rifle and Pistol Club Shooting Range, which was in operation from 1972 to 1991. The Topanga fire burned through the shooting range area, which left the debris more brittle and thus more "capable to releasing its toxic constituents," Riley said. On Wednesday, a Boeing spokeswoman said the company has worked cooperatively and voluntarily with those overseeing the cleanup. The company has "worked quickly to develop work plans to address the area and Boeing plans to fully comply with agency orders and begin the cleanup as soon as possible," spokeswoman Blythe Jameson said. Luker, a Box Canyon resident who joined the growing ranks of community activists focused on the Field Laboratory a year and a half ago, said having the toxics agency take their concerns seriously was reassuring. "It is extremely gratifying," he said. Comments © 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 23 Gallup Independent: Talks focus on impact of uranium on Navajo - DC talks this week on Navajo uranium impacts By Kathy Helms Dine Bureau November 05, 2007 WINDOW ROCK - In 1989, the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency and its Superfund program received funding by U.S. EPA, Region 6, in Dallas, to assess abandoned uranium mines within the reservation. At that time, Navajo came up with a list of 64 sites. Though it wasn't Navajo who made the mess, profited by it, and then pulled a disappearing act - it has been the Navajo Nation which largely inherited the cleanup operations that have been conducted to date. The Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Department has done the best it could with funds from the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining, according to Stephen Etsitty, executive director of Navajo EPA. "They've done a lot mitigate the physical features of many abandoned uranium mines across the Nation to prevent problems related to access and to provide a measure of physical safety. However, this work over recent years has been compromised in its integrity," Etsitty said at a recent hearing in Grants before the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Committee. "Erosion and other weathering processes have damaged the integrity of some of those barriers that were constructed and we have now radioactive hazardous substances beneath the soil barriers being released into the environment. "We know that these conditions exist at several sites that were also reclaimed by U.S. EPA, Santa Fe Railroad, and U.S. Department of Energy near Prewitt, N.M," Etsitty said. Despite efforts to have the various entities readdress these sites, resources are hard to come by and are not now readily available to ensure long-term operation and maintenance, he said. This week in Washington, U.S. Reps. Tom Udall, D-N.M., Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Rick Renzi, R-Arizona, will host a Navajo Nation uranium roundtable to examine the health effects and environmental impacts of past uranium mining as well as the problems and concerns of the Navajo Nation with proposed new uranium mining. Of major concern to Navajo, especially in the Eastern Agency of New Mexico, is jurisdiction. Hydro Resources Inc. plans in-situ recovery operations within areas U.S. EPA has determined are Navajo Indian Country. The ultimate decision, however, now lies before a federal court in San Francisco. Mining also is proposed at Mount Taylor - one of the four sacred mountains defining the homeland of the Navajo people - as well as within 2 miles of the reservation's borders. Navajo Nation Vice President Bennie Shelly cautioned mining company representatives at the meeting that Navajo is prepared to meet any jurisdictional challenges in court, because contamination does not adhere to lines on a map. Etsitty said one question that continues to come up is, "Why do interests in another round of uranium development seem to take precedence over the need to restore human health and the environment?" He questioned whether current regulations are sufficient to ensure proper cleanup. "We always have to worry in environmental management, if an owner/operator walks away, will the appropriate authorities … step in to correct the problems that are left behind. "As we have brought up many times before, we have not seen much of this type of activity happening in our area. It begs the question: Have we learned anything from our current uranium legacy?" Etsitty said. "Throughout my tenure at Navajo EPA, I have personally visited several communities where pollutants have migrated from abandoned uranium mines, from capped uranium tailings, from uncapped uranium waste piles … and I know that we've seen, in many instances, how people's livelihoods have been changed, and we've heard a lot of stories about the decline in overall health. "Some of these abandoned uranium mines and waste piles are located on adjoining state, federal and private lands. Sitting on our side of the fence, we know … there are no magic boundaries that prevent the migration of hazardous pollutants from popping over from one jurisdiction into another," he said. New Mexico does not have a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, the federal Superfund program which mandates cleanup of hazardous substance releases, Etsitty said. "Nor does the state have a comprehensive reclamation law, and uses only the New Mexico Mining Act." "We know that in one instance, a situation on our reservation, that for approximately seven years United Nuclear Corp. challenged the state's authority to assert the New Mexico Mining Act at the Northeast Churchrock abandoned uranium mine site, and we know there was confusion over jurisdiction. "The government operated on the assumption that the mine was located on state jurisdiction. We found out recently that it was actually located on Navajo Nation trust land. "The state agencies had working knowledge about off-site migration of hazardous substances to eight Navajo residences," he said, but "there was never any compelling for the responsible parties - in this case, UNC and their parent company, General Electric - to address these impacts. "The state agency, Mining & Minerals Division, reviewed the plan to close and characterize the work that needed to be done at this mine site. When we finally cleared up some of this confusion over jurisdiction and found out that we had a better hand to play regarding jurisdiction, we asked U.S. EPA Region 9 to take the lead in getting the Northeast Churchrock site cleaned up. We've worked alongside them since 2006," Etsitty said. Bill Brancard, division director for New Mexico Mining & Minerals Division, said that in terms of reclamation, abandoned mines from the 1950s and 1960s often were on a smaller scale than those developed in later years. "There were no regulatory controls on those mines and in a lot of cases, companies packed up and walked away. … So we have an issue about how to get those old mines cleaned up." Of course, it's difficult to develop a comprehensive cleanup strategy when it is not even known how many mines there are that need to be dealt with. "As the issue started to grow in the last year or so, I wanted to try to get a grip on just how many sites are there out there that the Bureau of Reclamation project has no control over," Brancard said. "So I looked around for a good list of how many mines were out there and what happened to them. What we discovered was there really were no great lists." Using data from N.M. Bureau of Geology & Mineral Resources, U.S. EPA, Bureau of Land Management, State Mine Inspector, Mining & Minerals, and other state, tribal and federal agencies, Brancard said they came up with what he believes is "a pretty good list" of mines that had been in the production of uranium. "We came up with about 260 mines," he said. "You'll hear a larger number from some other agencies. There are probably two reasons for that: One, we probably did a lot of lumping where some people might be splitting. In other words, if there was a company that had several openings in one section, they may have given them different names, but effectively, they were operated as one mine and we called it one mine. "But probably the biggest difference - what we didn't cover - were non-producing openings, and there are, in our estimate, over 400 that we know of, openings or facilities out there where there is disturbance but there is no production associated with it. These can be, in some instances, such as health and safety, a significant problem if there's a shaft that has not been closed," he said. "In the final analysis, higher than 50 percent of the sites out there have no regulatory authority that has required reclamation," he said. The next step for his division is to try to get out in the field, visit the sites and verify their status, then figure out how to get the work done. Etsitty said, "We can only speculate about the costs to clean up our land. We can only speculate on the cost of human toll. We agree that there may never be sufficient resources to undo the damages caused by past uranium mining and milling. "Nevertheless, we cannot allow renewed interest in uranium development to overshadow our joint responsibilities to do things better, and to restore the land, the air and the water, and to do everything possible to protect our citizens now and for generations to come." ***************************************************************** 24 ICH: Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran Resent-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 21:44:45 -0600 (CST) "We frail humans are at one time capable of the greatest good and, at the same time, capable of the greatest evil. Change will only come about when each of us takes up the daily struggle ourselves to be more forgiving, compassionate, loving, and above all joyful in the knowledge that, by some miracle of grace, we can change as those around us can change too: Mamread Maguire = "War would end if the dead could return." Stanley Baldwin = "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind...War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." : - John F. Kennedy === Read this newsletter online http://tinyurl.com/dy6yy === Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered Since The U.S. Invaded Iraq 1,103,188 http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html === Number of U.S. Military Personnel Sacrificed (Officially acknowledged) In America'sWar On Iraq 3,859 http://icasualties.org/oif/ The War in Iraq Costs $466,964,392,821 See the cost in your community http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 === Revealed: Israel Plans Nuclear Strike on Iran By Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18688.htm === U.S. Says Attack Plans for Iran Ready By Associated Press Among the possible targets, in addition to nuclear installations like the centrifuge plant at Natanz: Iran's ballistic missile sites, Republican Guard bases, and naval warfare assets that Tehran could use in a retaliatory closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for the flow of Gulf oil. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18689.htm === The Neoconservative Agenda to Sacrifice the Fifth Fleet The New Pearl Harbor By Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D. Neoconservatives within the Bush administration are aggressively promoting a range of military actions against Iran that will culminate in Iran attacking the US Navy's Fifth Fleet with sophisticated cruise anti-ship missiles. Iran has sufficient quantities of cruise missiles to destroy much or all of the Fifth Fleet which is within range of Iran's mobile missile launchers strategically located along its mountainous terrain overlooking the Persian Gulf. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18687.htm === The Long Fall A Market Without Parachutes By Mike Whitney America is finished, washed up, kaput. Foreign investors and central banks around the world have lost confidence in US markets and are headed for the exits. The dollar is sinking, the country is insolvent, and its leaders are barking mad. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18691.htm === Dollar's Fall Collapses American Empire By Paul Craig Roberts The Romans brought on their own demise, but it took them centuries. Bush has finished America in a mere 7 years. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18686.htm === You Have No Choice - You Have Owners George Carlin - 3 Minute Video Warning - Some viewers may be offended by adult language. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18690.htm === Iraq: At least 17 killed in another bloody day of US occupation: A roadside bomb killed three police officers including the chief of the al-Waleed police station and wounded another five policemen when it targeted their patrol north of Falluja http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ANW821183.htm === Iran kills three Kurdish rebels - report: Iranian security forces have killed three Kurdish rebels in the country's Kurdistan province bordering Iraq, an official Iraniandaily reported on Thursday. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HAF840180.htm === How Blackwater Sniper Fire Felled 3 Iraqi Guards: Witnesses Call Shooting From Justice Ministry Unprovoked, But State Dept. Cleared Its Security Team After a Brief Probe http://snipurl.com/1td41 === House Readies Another Iraq Funding Vote : House Democrats said Thursday they would send President Bush $50 billion for combat operations on the condition that he begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-7062241,00.html === Will 'armloads' of US cash buy tribal loyalty?: Paying tribes to keep the peace is nothing new. It was one of Mr. Hussein's tools in his selective patronage system designed to weaken and control all institutions outside his Baath party. The British also tried it when they ruled Iraq last century. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1108/p01s04-wome.html === Iraq's Maliki ends effort to bring back Sunni bloc: Without the Accordance Front, Maliki's cabinet is largely made up of Shi'ite Muslims and Kurds. http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/RYA824068.htm === 'US afraid of an Israeli attack on Iran': On Wednesday night, hours after Ahmadinejad's announcement, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said a military operation was a viable option for dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. http://snipurl.com/1td4a === "Severe" consequences if US bombs Iran: There would be "severe" consequences in many forms if the United States bombs Iran, Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senate Intelligence Committee, said on Thursday. http://snipurl.com/1td4b === Beijing inches towards tougher stance on Iran: Beijing's measured strengt-hening of diplomatic language followed increased pressure from fellow members of the United Nations Security Council to back new sanctions against Iran. http://snipurl.com/1td4c === Israeli intelligence: Abbas is too weak: Army Radio reported Thursday morning that Israel's intelligence community considers Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a powerless leader, who even has difficulty controlling car thieves and drug dealers in his own territory. http://snipurl.com/1td4g === Hamas gunmen fire on Gaza protestors: Hamas gunmen opened fire on demonstrators in Gaza today as hundreds gathered to protest about the deaths of three children, killed on their way to school yesterday. http://snipurl.com/1td4h === US okays $155m arms package for Israel : The US Congress on Wednesday approved a $155 million arms package for Israel, aimed at the development of the Hetz and David mid-range defensive missile systems and for the development long-range defensive missile systems. http://snipurl.com/1td4k === Several militants killed, in occupied southern Afghanistan: U.S.-led coalition and Afghan troops killed several militants in two separate operations in southern Afghanistan and detained 17 others for questioning, the coalition said Thursday http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/08/asia/AS-GEN-Afghan-Violence.php === 3 Pakistani Soldiers Found Dead Near Afghan Border : Pakistani security officials say they have found the bullet-riddled bodies of three soldiers abducted earlier this week in the tribal North Waziristan region near the Afghan border. http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-08-voa23.cfm === General's troops routed by zealots imposing Sharia: Dozens of Pakistani security forces policing a former tourist haven surrendered to militants yesterday, raising the stakes in the country's political crisis. The police officers and troops, outnumbered and demoralised, laid down their arms before hundreds of pro-Taleban extremists who are imposing Islamic law in an area beloved of Western hikers. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2827700.ece === Musharraf's new court to give him 5-year term: If this landmark endorsement emerges, it would clear the way for Gen Musharraf to end the state of emergency having secured his grip on power. Allies predict he would then resign as army chief, in accordance with Western demands, and allow elections to be held. http://snipurl.com/1td4n === Under-pressure Musharraf says elections by Feb 15: The White House and Britain welcomed the clarification of the date, but former premier Benazir Bhutto denounced the "vague" statement by the army general and pledged to lead her supporters onto the streets of Rawalpindi near Islamabad on Friday. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071108/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistanpolitics === Patrick J. Buchanan: Pro-democracy ideals put aside for Pakistan's nuclear reality: Musharraf has effected a second coup, the first being his takeover in 1999. Doing so, he invoked Abraham Lincoln: "By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life." http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_7392470?nclick_check=1 === US debt tops $9 trillion for first time-Treasury: The U.S. Treasury Department said on Wednesday publicly held U.S. debt breached $9 trillion this week for the first time ever, just five weeks after Congress had raised the statutory borrowing limit. http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0754579020071107 === Federal Liabilities Now Equal $175,000 for Every American: Deficit spending and promised benefits for federal entitlement programs have put every man, woman, and child in the United States on the hook for $175,000, says a new report by David Walker, comptroller general of the United States. http://snipurl.com/1td4q === Foreclosures up nearly 100%: : The number of homes entering some stage of foreclosure jumped almost 100% in the third quarter from the same time a year ago and 30% from last quarter http://snipurl.com/1td4s === Card Debt a $915 Billion Disaster-in-Waiting : Think the estimated subprime debt load carried by the big international banks is big, at $1 trillion? How about this: Americans now owe nearly as much - a record $915 billion - on their credit cards alone. http://moneynews.com/money/archives/st/2007/11/6/155431.cfm?s=st === The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush: The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712 === Let Us Work Towards Peace & Joy Tom Feeley ***************************************************************** 25 RIA Novosti: Russia, U.S. to hold missile shield talks in Washington in Nov. 17:37 | 08/ 11/ 2007 MOSCOW, November 8 (RIA Novosti) - U.S. missile defense plans for Europe will be discussed with Russia at a high-level meeting in Washington in November, a Russian Foreign Ministry official said on Thursday. Igor Neverov, who heads the Foreign Ministry's North America department, said however that Washington had not yet provided Moscow with formal proposals on settling differences over its plans to deploy missile defense elements in the Czech Republic and Poland. "We hope the United States will provide the proposals so that they can be discussed prior to the meeting," Neverov said, without giving a date for the talks. The United States is planning to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic as part of its European missile shield, to avert possible strikes from "rogue states," such as Iran and North Korea. Russia has objected, citing concerns over its national security. Col.-Gen. Varfolomei Korobushin, first vice president of the Russian Military Sciences Academy, told a press conference at RIA Novosti on Thursday that Russian air defense systems would be able to intercept American missiles in the event of Moscow being attacked from the proposed U.S. missile defense base in Poland. "While we have no data suggesting that the missile interceptors the U.S. plans to deploy in Poland are to be equipped with nuclear warheads. Russia would in any case have time to destroy them in the event of an attack on Moscow," he said. A number of experts say it is a relatively simple operation to turn missile interceptors into offensive weapons by equipping them with warheads, nuclear or otherwise. A high-ranking official from the Russian Defense Ministry's international military cooperation department said Moscow does not see any grounds for a hasty buildup of U.S. missile defense elements in Europe. "It is unclear to us why such haste is necessary in drawing up plans to build the missile defense system. There are currently no grounds to carry out such expensive projects," Vladimir Yegorov told an international antimissile conference in Rome. North Korea and Iran are unlikely to create missiles to hit the territories of Europe or the U.S., he added. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 26 Middle East Times: Editorial: Musharraf and the US' Hobbesian choice METimes.com - Friday, November 9, 2007 Quagmire. That old Vietnam-era adjective is back in the geopolitical lexicon, thanks to the Iraq war. Perhaps it's time to dust off another phrase from that dark era: "Domino effect." Pakistan is the latest reminder that, far from heading off trouble, the George W. Bush administration's ill-conceived Iraq adventure has set off a chain-reaction that has destabilized the entire arc of what Washington rechristened the Greater Middle East. It's not looking so great at the moment. From Rafah to Rawalpindi, things are grim. It seems like just yesterday that Washington was preaching the virtues of democracy, having finally recognized that one answer to the unending question, "Why do they hate us?" lay with US support for dictators and tyrants. But the Bush White House abandoned that strategy when "the wrong" people - e.g. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood - started getting elected. Americans now faces yet another Hobbesian choice. Continue to back a man who has now shed most - if not all - pretensions of being anything put a strong-armed dictator, thus further alienating the forces of democracy and feeding the strength of the people who are giving shelter to Al Qaeda, or throw in its lot with the forces of change, knowing that "the wrong" people might end up in power. It's worth remembering that Musharraf went from being a pariah to a partner in the wake of 9/11, when the US decided it needed the Pakistani dictator more than it despised him. That little issue of Pakistan selling nuclear technology to the likes of Libya was forgotten for the greater good. At the time, like so many dictators around the world, Musharraf used the so-called war on terror to crack down on pesky internal opponents (and access billions in US aid). He is doing the same again now. But these are not terrorists whose heads are being cracked on Pakistan's streets and who crowd the jails. They are lawyers and journalists and human rights activists who have the temerity to demand the courts be reopened and the rule of law restored. They are the very people upon which a democratic society is built. The real jihadis, meanwhile, are sitting back and enjoying the show, rightly confident that, as with the invasion of Iraq, an ongoing battle between Musharraf and his political opponents creates the very chaos on which the extremists thrive. ***************************************************************** 27 AU ABC: Blix awarded Sydney Peace Prize - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Updated November 9, 2007 06:55:00 Peace Prize winner: Former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix (AAP: Dean Lewins) Former United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix was awarded the 2007 Sydney Peace Prize at a ceremony held in Sydney last night. Former Labor prime minister Paul Keating presented the award from the Sydney Peace Foundation. The Foundation says Dr Blix is receiving the award for what they call his 'leadership of disarmament programs to rid the world of weapons of terror.' Dr Blix says the task of overseeing arms programs, run by sometimes secretive regimes, provides an invaluable service to the international community. "We have to continue our industry of disarmament ... to do away with nuclear weapons," he said. "We see perhaps, some glimmers of light at the end." ***************************************************************** 28 DOE: Agencies Publish Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Energy Transport Corridor Designations in 11 Western States November 8, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC – The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Commerce and Defense today released for public review and comment a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PEIS) proposing designation of energy transport corridors on Federal lands in 11 Western States in accordance with Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The proposed energy corridors would facilitate future siting of oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution on Federal lands in the West to help address growing energy demand while protecting the environment. “The agencies involved in designating these corridors worked for nearly two years to develop the locations presented in the Draft EIS,” said Assistant Secretary of the Interior C. Stephen Allred. “From the beginning, we were committed to avoiding the many unique areas and sensitive resources found on Western public lands, wherever possible. Designating these corridors will minimize the dispersal of rights-of-way for energy transport projects across Western landscapes.” The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate energy transport corridors for oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines and electricity transmission and distribution facilities on Federal lands in portions of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The Act further directs that environmental reviews be completed for the designation of such corridors, and that the designated corridors are incorporated into the relevant agency land use and resource management plans or equivalent plans. “Meeting the Nation’s future energy needs will necessarily require some expansion of our capabilities for transporting energy resources,” said U.S. Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Kevin M. Kolevar. “The infrastructure projects that could be constructed within these corridors will help assure the reliable delivery of electricity and fuels throughout the Western United States.” Eighty-four percent of the corridors proposed and analyzed in the Draft PEIS are located on BLM-managed lands, while 14 percent are on USDA Forest Service lands. The remaining fractional percentages are on lands managed by the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service, or by the Department of Defense. The proposed corridors are agency-preferred locations for siting of future pipelines and transmission lines. Interested members of the public, government agencies, American Indian tribes, States, and non-governmental organizations are invited to submit comments on the Draft PEIS. The Draft PEIS evaluated factors that constrain where a network of energy transport corridors could be located – including topographical, environmental and regulatory constraints – as well as the overall suitability of particular lands to support development and operation of energy transport infrastructure. As a result of an inclusive public scoping effort over the past two years, including regional meetings and public review of preliminary corridor location maps, the Draft PEIS proposal avoids major known and designated sensitive resource areas including wilderness areas and national parks, tribal lands, national monuments and national recreation areas, wherever possible. The few locations where the proposed corridors could not avoid sensitive areas are located along existing transmission lines, highways, pipelines or other rights of way. The agencies will solicit comments during a 90-day public comment period on the Draft PEIS. Public meetings will be held in each of the 11 states and in Washington, D.C. During this period, briefings and consultation will continue to occur with each Governor’s office, Tribes, Congress, and historic preservation officials. Public meetings to take oral comments on the Draft PEIS will be held: * January 8, 2008 – Portland, Ore., and Sacramento, Calif. * January 10 – Seattle, Wash. and Ontario, Calif. * January 15 – Phoenix, Ariz. and Grand Junction, Colo. * January 17 – Las Vegas, Nev. and Salt Lake City, Ut. * January 23 – Window Rock, Ariz. * January 24 – Albuquerque, N.M. * January 29 – Helena, Mont., and Cheyenne, Wyo. * January 31 – Boise, Id. and Denver, Colo. * February 5 – Washington, D.C. vicinity To submit comments and to review the Draft PEIS and related documents, including detailed maps, visit the project website at http://corridoreis.anl.gov. Review copies are also available at libraries and agency regional and field offices. The Draft PEIS will also be published in the Federal Register on Friday, November 16, 2007, which initiates the 90-day public comment period. Note to Editors: Volume 3 of the Draft is an atlas of maps showing the locations of the proposed corridors. The most powerful and flexible version of the map data is available on the project Web site within a geographic information system (GIS) database that allows users to merge, enlarge, and view multiple map data layers. Software and instructions to use the GIS data are available for free download from the Web site, which may be accessed from Internet-capable home or office computers, computers at public libraries, and from BLM and Forest Service public reading rooms. Media contact(s): Heather Feeney, BLM (202) 452-5031 Jonathan Shradar, DOE (202) 586-4940 Joe Walsh, USFS (202) 205-1294 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 29 DOE: Washington Post Energy Conference Presented by Areva November 8, 2007 Remarks Prepared for Secretary Bodman Washington, DC - Thank you very much for that kind introduction and for inviting me to join you here today. My thanks also to The Washington Post. You all have spent the entire day discussing our global energy situation and, in fact, many of you have devoted your careers to these issues. So, you will not be surprised to hear me say that, in my view, improving our energy security is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. I would put it this way: whether or not we have access to a secure, clean, affordable supply of energy is directly related to whether or not our economy will grow and our people will prosper, whether or not our industries will operate efficiently, whether or not our earth’s climate will worsen or improve and whether or not our people will be safe and secure. The basic components of this problem may be well known, but they bear repeating: First, demand for energy is rising rapidly and will continue to do so. I trust you’ve heard these staggering projections before: 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 meet the 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. or almost three times the capacity of the existing fleet of nuclear plants. Second, 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. Third, the fact that much of the world’s fossil fuel supply exists in unstable areas of the world further complicates not only our energy supply challenges, but also the global security situation. This instability manifests not only in terms of our safety and security, but also in terms of inefficient commercial activity. In order for any market to function well and fairly, we need stable regulatory environments, transparency, adequate protections for physical and intellectual property, and systems for rooting out corruption. The world must diversify its sources of reliable energy, to be sure, but it also must demand positive investment climates around the globe. Finally, we all must recognize the realities of global climate change and look for ways to develop cleaner sources of energy that at the very least do not worsen, and hopefully can improve, the health of our earth’s environment. Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global response and, on that topic, I want to reiterate that the United States has been and remains committed to doing our part. This whole set of challenges will only grow 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. Given all this, not to mention the fact that oil prices are approaching the once-unimaginable level of $100/barrel, you may wonder why I’m at all optimistic but, in fact, I am. Here’s why: because just as the components of the problem are all too clear today, I believe the components of the solution are also coming into focus, and more so everyday. First, we have what I believe to be one of the most important elements of a successful strategy: a national imperative to act. Perhaps as never before, the American people are calling for action, and taking action themselves. And this commitment is critical for many reasons, but one is this: we all must actively promote 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; adequately 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. I would just add that this commitment on the part of many Americans could be unfairly interpreted as merely a reaction to rising fuel prices at the pump or higher home-heating bills. But I think that misses the mark. I believe we are seeing a growing, and admirably strong, commitment to not just affordable energy, but clean, safe energy as well. So that’s one component. Secondly, we have put in place a series of federal policies to increase our national investment in the R&D, at all stages of the innovation cycle, to help break our over-dependence on fossil fuels. On the basic research side, President Bush has proposed a dramatic set of increases for federally-funded research in the physical sciences, aptly called the American Competitiveness Initiative. 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. At the same time, we have laid out an aggressive strategy to expand the availability of renewable energy and alternative fuels. Known as the Advanced Energy Initiative, our goal is to identify the technologies that could have the greatest impact on the marketplace in the relatively near future, the next 5-10 years, and then really go after them with increased resources and aggressive timelines. I’m talking about things like: commercially competitive cellulosic ethanol; advanced hybrid vehicle technologies; hydrogen fuel cells; solar photovoltaics; and high-efficiency wind power. These are things that are already in the pipeline and, as a matter of sound public policy, need to be pushed more quickly to market. To accomplish this, the federal government absolutely requires intense, strategic collaboration with industry and academia. To this end, we are employing a range of collaborative models, including cost-sharing partnerships, loan guarantee programs, which allow us to fund innovative technologies, which are commercially viable 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. By way of just one example, today the Department announced that it has selected 25 projects in the solar energy field for funding through the Advanced Energy Initiative. These advanced photovoltaic technologies have the potential to produce electricity at costs below the current costs of grid-supplied electricity. In total, DOE is providing up to $21.7 million in funding and with industry cost-sharing the total public-private investment will be over $30 million. To further encourage the aggressive development of alternative fuels, President Bush has announced a plan to reduce projected U.S. gasoline consumption by 20% by 2017 this is the so-called “twenty-in-ten” program. And the President has submitted legislation to Congress to implement it. That plan calls for increasing the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to displace 15% of America’s gasoline consumption, up to the equivalent of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels. Now, some have questioned whether this type of proposal is overly ambitious – can the United States really produce that much alternative fuel in the next decade? To that, I say: that is precisely the point. This is the definition of an aggressive challenge. If we are to truly expand our energy horizons, then we must set the bar high. We must bet on technology. And, we must signal to private investors that our policy environment supports sustained investment in renewable and alternative fuels. And let me add this: while we would very much prefer that the Congress act to pass this pending legislation, and soon, we are concurrently developing regulations to implement these goals. 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. 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. Last 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. 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 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 construction of a new nuclear plant in this country in nearly 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 guarantees to try to remove some of the roadblocks associated with getting the next generation of nuclear plants online, after that, the private market rightly takes over. The rest of the world is also on the verge of a major nuclear expansion for many of the same reasons. Last year President Bush introduced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership whose goal is to facilitate this worldwide expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in a safe and secure manner. In September I hosted a GNEP ministerial meeting attended by 35 countries and 3 intergovernmental organizations. At this meeting, 16 nations signed the GNEP Statement of Principles that puts in place the framework that will foster nuclear expansion. This cornerstone document establishes, among other things, the common goal of creating reliable fuel services that will provide a viable and economic alternative to the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies. To support this end, the partnership seeks to take advantage of the best available fuel cycle approaches to recycle spent nuclear fuel to reduce the amount of waste and tap its unused energy. All of our efforts at the federal level are being reinforced by a third component of a successful national strategy: the critical role of the market. Having spent a good chunk of my career in the financial sector, I can honestly say that for the first time in my life we are seeing the venture capital community put sizeable amounts of money into entrepreneurial companies in the alternative energy business. In the third quarter of this year alone, the so-called “clean tech” sector, which includes alternative energy and conservation technologies, among other things, saw record investment levels of $844 million, an 80% increase over the previous quarter, according to a recent industry report. And, I interpret this as a clear sign that clean-energy market is viable, indeed, thriving. After all, we know that investors will not enter a field for purely altruistic reasons – though that may certainly play a part; they need a market. And, I believe that they now have one, one that will grow even more robust with time. The private sector recognizes that there is an opportunity here, one that can favorably impact their balance sheets as well as the nation’s energy security and our environmental health. So, why am I optimistic? Well, the bottom line is this: we are seeing a convergence of forces that tells me that our nation is on a path to a cleaner, affordable, and more secure energy future. We certainly have a lot of work ahead of us, and this is not going to be an easy fix, nor a quick or painless one. But look what we have going for us: We have forward-looking leadership and funding commitments from Washington. We have the dedication and ingenuity of America’s scientists and engineers. We have the innovative power and the unmatched capital of the private sector. And we have the commitment of the American people to achieve together what none of us can do alone. In short, what we have is the makings of a solution and I look forward to the day when, together, we achieve it. Thank you. Location: Washington Post Energy Conference 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 ***************************************************************** 30 Hanford News: Board says DOE reports too complex This story was published Thursday, November 8th, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy and its contractors need to sharpen their writing skills, says the Hanford Advisory Board. Members became frustrated enough wading through lengthy reports on complex topics that they offered advice at their November meeting last week on how DOE could make the reports easier to understand. They didn't get any resistance from DOE on the topic at the meeting. "I agree," said Steve Wiegman, DOE senior technical adviser. "We have to read the documents too." The tipping point for the board was a 780-page DOE document released this summer for public comment. Titled "Draft A Risk Assessment Report for the 100 Area and 300 Area Component of the River Corridor," it was written to look at risks to human health and the environment in areas along the Columbia River at Hanford where waste cleanup has been done. It's one step in a process toward making final decisions on Hanford environmental cleanup and looked at possible exposure to people, animals and plants from hazardous chemicals and radionuclides. The report was information rich, but even its 25-page executive summary didn't reach a clear conclusion, board members said. The key to more readable reports is better executive summaries, the portion of the reports the public is most likely to read, the board said. Principal conclusions need to be clearly presented there. The board recommended professional technical writers and editors help create the executive summary to make sure the public can understand it. The introduction of reports also should follow a standard format that includes the reason for preparing the report, a statement of the problem being examined, conclusions reached, the impact of the conclusions on future decisions and any action that should be taken. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 DOE: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mesaba Energy Project FR Doc E7-21959 [Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)] [Notices] [Page 63169-63171] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr08no07-40] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Availability and public hearings. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mesaba Energy Project (DOE/EIS-0382D) for public comment, as well as the dates, locations and times for public hearings. The draft environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzes the potential environmental consequences of DOE's proposed action to provide a total of $36 million in co-funding, through a financial assistance cooperative agreement, for the design and one-year operational demonstration of a coal-based, Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) electric generating facility on the Iron Range of northern Minnesota. DOE may also provide a loan guarantee pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to guarantee a portion of private sector financing for the project; however, this loan guarantee is not part of DOE's proposed action. The facility would be demonstrated through a cooperative agreement between DOE and Excelsior Energy Inc. (Excelsior) under the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) program. DATES: DOE invites the public to comment on the draft EIS during the public comment period, which ends January 11, 2008. DOE will consider all comments postmarked or received during the public comment period in preparing the Final EIS and will consider late comments to the extent practicable. DOE will conduct two public hearings to obtain comments on the draft EIS. The meetings will be held at the Taconite Community Center, 26 Haynes Street, Taconite, Minnesota, on Tuesday, November 27, 2007, beginning at 7 p.m., and at Hoyt Lakes Arena, 106 Kennedy Memorial Drive, Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota, on Wednesday, November 28, 2007, beginning at 7 p.m. An informational session will be held at each location from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. preceding each meeting on the dates above. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for details on the meeting process. ADDRESSES: Requests for information about this draft EIS, or to receive a copy of the draft EIS, should be directed to: Mr. Richard A. Hargis, Jr., NEPA Document Manager, M/S 922-178C, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940. Requests may also be submitted by telephone: 412-386-6065; toll free number: 888-322-7436 ext. 6065; fax: 412-386-4604; or electronic mail: richard.hargis@netl.doe.gov. The draft EIS will be available at: http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/. Copies of the draft EIS are also available for review at the locations listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this Notice. Written comments on the draft EIS can be submitted by mail, fax, or electronic mail to Mr. Richard A. Hargis, Jr., as indicated above. Oral comments on the draft EIS will be accepted only during the public hearings scheduled for the dates and locations provided in the DATES section of this Notice. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: For further information regarding the proposed project or the draft EIS, please contact Mr. Richard A. Hargis, Jr., (see ADDRESSES). For general information on the DOE NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0103; Telephone: 202- 586-4600, or leave a toll-free message at: 800-472-2756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Description of Alternatives and Scope of the EIS DOE's Proposed Action is to provide a total of $36 million in co- funding, through a cooperative agreement with Excelsior under the CCPI Program, for the design and one-year operational demonstration testing period for Phase I of the proposed two-phased Mesaba Energy Project. The first phase would be a nominal 606 megawatt electricity (MWe) IGCC power plant with an estimated cost of $2.16 billion. Phase II, which would be an identical, co-located 606 MWe plant, would be privately financed and not involve co-funding by DOE. The project would demonstrate the commercial-readiness of the Conoco-Phillips E-Gas TM gasification technology, including advanced gasification and air separation systems, feedstock flexibility, improved [[Page 63170]] environmental performance, and improved thermal efficiency. Although DOE's proposed action would be applicable to Phase I only, the draft EIS considers the combined impacts of both phases as connected actions. DOE prepared this draft EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations that implement the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the DOE procedures implementing NEPA (10 CFR part 1021). Because the proposed facility is considered a Large Electric Power Generating Plant, the Project is subject to the Minnesota Power Plant Siting Act, which requires the preparation of a state-equivalent EIS. The EIS requirements under NEPA and the Act are substantially similar, and DOE has prepared this draft EIS in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Commerce to fulfill the requirements of both laws. Federal cooperating agencies for the EIS include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Superior National Forest, Laurentian District. Because the proposed Project may affect floodplains and wetlands in northern Minnesota, the draft EIS includes a floodplain and wetlands assessment in accordance with DOE regulations for Compliance with Floodplain and Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements (10 CFR part 1022). DOE analyzed two main alternatives in the draft EIS--the Proposed Action (including two alternative sites for the project) and the No Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action, DOE would provide cost- shared funding to Excelsior for the design and one-year demonstration of a coal-based, IGCC electric generating facility to be located in the Taconite Tax Relief Area as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 273.134. DOE has entered into a cooperative agreement with Excelsior, which was a successful applicant in Round 2 of the CCPI program, to demonstrate the Project. Excelsior is an independent energy development company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota, that ultimately would be responsible for the siting, design, construction, demonstration, and operation of the Project and related components. Until the NEPA process is complete, no funds would be provided for project activities that could either have an adverse impact on the environment or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives available to DOE. Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, DOE may also provide a loan guarantee for a portion of the private-sector financing for the Project; however, this loan guarantee is not part of DOE's proposed action. The Minnesota Power Plant Siting Act is intended to ensure that power plants and high voltage transmission lines are routed in an orderly manner compatible with environmental preservation and the efficient use of resources. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission oversees permitting in accordance with the Act. State rules established for the Act require the applicant for a site permit to identify at least two sites for the power plant--a preferred site and an alternative site. Excelsior identified the West Range site (Taconite, Itasca County, Minnesota) as its preferred site and the East Range site (Hoyt Lakes, St. Louis County, Minnesota) as its alternative site. Although DOE has not participated in the identification or selection of sites, the potential environmental impacts of locating the project at either site are evaluated in the draft EIS. The final decision on which site would be permitted, if any, will be made by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in accordance with the Minnesota Power Plant Siting Act. For the No Action Alternative, DOE would not provide cost-shared funding for the Project beyond that required to complete the NEPA process. In this case, the remaining funding withheld from the Project may be made available for other current or future CCPI projects. Without DOE funding, it is not likely that the Mesaba Energy Project would be built, although it is possible that Excelsior could still elect to construct and operate the proposed power plant provided that it could replace the Federal financing component and obtain the required permits from state and Federal agencies. However, without DOE participation, it is possible that the proposed project would be canceled. Therefore, for purposes of analysis in the draft EIS, the No Action Alternative is assumed to be equivalent to a ``No Build'' Alternative, meaning that environmental conditions would remain in the status quo (no new construction, resource utilization, emissions, discharges, or wastes generated). The No Action Alternative would not contribute to the goal of the CCPI program, which is to accelerate commercial deployment of advanced technologies that provide the United States with clean, reliable, and affordable energy. The draft EIS analyzes the environmental consequences that may result from the proposed action at each of the two alternative sites, as well as the no action alternative. Potential impacts identified during the scoping process and analyzed in the draft EIS relate to the following: aesthetics; air quality and climate; geology and soils; groundwater and surface water resources; floodplains and wetlands; biological resources; cultural resources; land use; socioeconomics; environmental justice; utility systems; community services; transportation and traffic; materials and waste management; human health and safety; and noise. Availability of the Draft EIS Copies of the draft EIS have been distributed to Members of Congress; Federal, Native American tribal government, state, and local officials; and agencies, organizations and individuals who may be interested or affected. The draft EIS will be available on the Internet at: http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/. Copies of the draft EIS are available for public review at the Bovey Public Library, 402 2nd Street, Bovey, Minnesota; City of Taconite Community Center, 28 Haynes Street, Taconite, Minnesota; Grand Rapids Public Library, 140 NE., 2nd Street Grand Rapids, Minnesota; the Hibbing Public Library, 2020 East 5th Avenue, Hibbing, Minnesota; and the Hoyt Lakes Public Library, 206 Kennedy Memorial Drive, Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota. Additional copies also can be requested (see ADDRESSES). Public Meetings DOE will conduct a public hearing near each of the two alternative sites, in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Commerce, to obtain comments on the draft EIS. Requests to speak at the public hearings can be made by contacting Mr. Richard A. Hargis, Jr., as indicated in the ADDRESSES section above. Requests to speak that have not been submitted prior to the hearing will be accepted in the order in which they are received at the hearing. Speakers are encouraged to provide a written version of their oral comments for the record. Each speaker will be allowed approximately five minutes to present comments. Those speakers who want more than five minutes should indicate the length of time desired in their request. Depending on the number of speakers, DOE may need to limit all speakers to five minutes initially and provide additional opportunities as time permits. Comments will be recorded by a court reporter and will become part of the public hearing record. Oral and written comments will be given equal consideration. [[Page 63171]] Each hearing will begin with an informational session at approximately 4 p.m. DOE will then begin each meeting's formal session at 7 p.m. with an overview of the project, followed by oral statements by the scheduled speakers. Speakers may be asked questions to help ensure that DOE fully understands the comments. A presiding officer will establish the order of speakers and provide any additional procedures necessary to conduct the meetings. All meetings will be accessible to people with disabilities. Any individual with a disability requiring special assistance, such as sign language interpreter, or a translator, should contact Mr. Richard A. Hargis, Jr., the NEPA Document Manager, (see ADDRESSES) at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting so that arrangements can be made. Meeting Schedule West Range Site--Taconite Date: Tuesday, November 27, 2007. Place: Taconite Community Center, 26 Haynes Street, Taconite, Minnesota. East Range Site--Hoyt Lakes Date: Wednesday, November 28, 2007. Place: Hoyt Lakes Arena, 106 Kennedy Memorial Drive, Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota. Issued in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2007. Mark J. Matarrese, Director, Office of Environment, Security, Safety and Health, Office of Fossil Energy. [FR Doc. E7-21959 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 32 DOE: Events DOE-Sponsored Public Meetings and Workshops DATE TITLE LOCATION 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 ***************************************************************** 33 Oak Ridger: Y-12 storage project celebrates safety, construction milestones - Story last updated at 12:50 am on 11/8/2007 The uranium storage facility project at the Y-12 National Security Complex celebrated a significant safety milestone recently, marking more than one million hours worked without a lost-time injury. The project also reached a major construction milestone when the final concrete pours that will complete the placement of the roof of the facility began. The accident-free million hours stretched from April 2006 through September 2007, and they are continuing to accumulate. Workers from Caddell-Blaine Joint Venture, the prime contractor; project subcontractors and BWXT Y-12 construction recently celebrated the safety and construction accomplishments. Scott Cannon, NNSA federal project director for the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF), said, "I want to express my appreciation to the workers for accomplishing these major milestones. There is nothing more important than working safely each day. We want every worker on this project to returning home to their families each day, safe and sound." Cannon also challenged workers to continue their safe working practices to enable the project to achieve another million safe man hours and meet next year’s project baseline construction complete milestone. Completion of the roof placement will allow electrical and mechanical work to take place out of the weather during the coming winter months, according to Ray Patterson, BWXT Y-12’s HEUMF project manager. The new storage facility is now 65 percent complete with construction scheduled to be finished in August 2008. There are currently about 450 people working on the project. Workers on the project include BWXT Y-12 employees and construction crafts from the Knoxville Building and Construction Trades Council. Y-12 stores the majority of the nation’s inventory of highly enriched uranium. The Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility is a key component in the site’s modernization plans, and it will replace multiple aging facilities and allow storage of highly enriched uranium in one central location, resulting in enhanced physical security and reduced operating costs. BWXT Y-12 operates the Y-12 National Security Complex for the National Nuclear Security Administration. | © 2004 The Oak Ridger | Conditions of Use ***************************************************************** 34 NewsChannel6: I.N.L. Recognized Nationally Reporter: Andrew Del Greco Featured Video In an industry that can involve dangerous situations, the Idaho National Laboratory has been awarded the Department of Energy's highest recognition of safety. The INL director says this is the kind of achievement that does not come easily, or overnight. The recognition comes after a two year evaluation when Battelle Energy first began managing the lab in 2005. In a 12 month span, the I.N.L. had only 10 cases of worker injury that resulted in missed days -- far lower than the rest of the industry. Employees say the many awards the I.N.L. has received over the years have instilled a lot of pride in the workers. Oren Hester, Idaho National Laboratory: "With this award, the biggest achievement is the recognition and pride we've instilled and the employees embrace it, and not just when they're here, but at home... so there's a lot of individual and organizational pride." The I.N.L. received another award recently for having an injury and illness rate 75 percent lower than the industry's national average. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and kpvi. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 NewsBlaze: Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman Thank you very much for that kind introduction and for inviting me to join you here today. My thanks also to The Washington Post. You all have spent the entire day discussing our global energy situation and, in fact, many of you have devoted your careers to these issues. So, you will not be surprised to hear me say that, in my view, improving our energy security is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. I would put it this way: whether or not we have access to a secure, clean, affordable supply of energy is directly related to whether or not our economy will grow and our people will prosper, whether or not our industries will operate efficiently, whether or not our earth's climate will worsen or improve and whether or not our people will be safe and secure. The basic components of this problem may be well known, but they bear repeating: First, demand for energy is rising rapidly and will continue to do so. I trust you've heard these staggering projections before: 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 meet the 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. or almost three times the capacity of the existing fleet of nuclear plants. Second, 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. Third, the fact that much of the world's fossil fuel supply exists in unstable areas of the world further complicates not only our energy supply challenges, but also the global security situation. This instability manifests not only in terms of our safety and security, but also in terms of inefficient commercial activity. In order for any market to function well and fairly, we need stable regulatory environments, transparency, adequate protections for physical and intellectual property, and systems for rooting out corruption. The world must diversify its sources of reliable energy, to be sure, but it also must demand positive investment climates around the globe. Finally, we all must recognize the realities of global climate change and look for ways to develop cleaner sources of energy that at the very least do not worsen, and hopefully can improve, the health of our earth's environment. Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global response and, on that topic, I want to reiterate that the United States has been and remains committed to doing our part. This whole set of challenges will only grow 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. Given all this, not to mention the fact that oil prices are approaching the once-unimaginable level of $100/barrel, you may wonder why I'm at all optimistic but, in fact, I am. Here's why: because just as the components of the problem are all too clear today, I believe the components of the solution are also coming into focus, and more so everyday. First, we have what I believe to be one of the most important elements of a successful strategy: a national imperative to act. Perhaps as never before, the American people are calling for action, and taking action themselves. And this commitment is critical for many reasons, but one is this: we all must actively promote 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; adequately 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. I would just add that this commitment on the part of many Americans could be unfairly interpreted as merely a reaction to rising fuel prices at the pump or higher home-heating bills. But I think that misses the mark. I believe we are seeing a growing, and admirably strong, commitment to not just affordable energy, but clean, safe energy as well. So that's one component. Secondly, we have put in place a series of federal policies to increase our national investment in the R&D, at all stages of the innovation cycle, to help break our over-dependence on fossil fuels. On the basic research side, President Bush has proposed a dramatic set of increases for federally-funded research in the physical sciences, aptly called the American Competitiveness Initiative. 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. At the same time, we have laid out an aggressive strategy to expand the availability of renewable energy and alternative fuels. Known as the Advanced Energy Initiative, our goal is to identify the technologies that could have the greatest impact on the marketplace in the relatively near future, the next 5-10 years, and then really go after them with increased resources and aggressive timelines. I'm talking about things like: commercially competitive cellulosic ethanol; advanced hybrid vehicle technologies; hydrogen fuel cells; solar photovoltaics; and high-efficiency wind power. These are things that are already in the pipeline and, as a matter of sound public policy, need to be pushed more quickly to market. To accomplish this, the federal government absolutely requires intense, strategic collaboration with industry and academia. To this end, we are employing a range of collaborative models, including cost-sharing partnerships, loan guarantee programs, which allow us to fund innovative technologies, which are commercially viable 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. By way of just one example, today the Department announced that it has selected 25 projects in the solar energy field for funding through the Advanced Energy Initiative. These advanced photovoltaic technologies have the potential to produce electricity at costs below the current costs of grid-supplied electricity. In total, DOE is providing up to $21.7 million in funding and with industry cost-sharing the total public-private investment will be over $30 million. To further encourage the aggressive development of alternative fuels, President Bush has announced a plan to reduce projected U.S. gasoline consumption by 20% by 2017 this is the so-called "twenty-in-ten" program. And the President has submitted legislation to Congress to implement it. That plan calls for increasing the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) to displace 15% of America's gasoline consumption, up to the equivalent of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels. Now, some have questioned whether this type of proposal is overly ambitious - can the United States really produce that much alternative fuel in the next decade? To that, I say: that is precisely the point. This is the definition of an aggressive challenge. If we are to truly expand our energy horizons, then we must set the bar high. We must bet on technology. And, we must signal to private investors that our policy environment supports sustained investment in renewable and alternative fuels. And let me add this: while we would very much prefer that the Congress act to pass this pending legislation, and soon, we are concurrently developing regulations to implement these goals. 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. 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. Last 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. 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 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 construction of a new nuclear plant in this country in nearly 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 guarantees to try to remove some of the roadblocks associated with getting the next generation of nuclear plants online, after that, the private market rightly takes over. The rest of the world is also on the verge of a major nuclear expansion for many of the same reasons. Last year President Bush introduced the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership whose goal is to facilitate this worldwide expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in a safe and secure manner. In September I hosted a GNEP ministerial meeting attended by 35 countries and 3 intergovernmental organizations. At this meeting, 16 nations signed the GNEP Statement of Principles that puts in place the framework that will foster nuclear expansion. This cornerstone document establishes, among other things, the common goal of creating reliable fuel services that will provide a viable and economic alternative to the spread of sensitive nuclear technologies. To support this end, the partnership seeks to take advantage of the best available fuel cycle approaches to recycle spent nuclear fuel to reduce the amount of waste and tap its unused energy. All of our efforts at the federal level are being reinforced by a third component of a successful national strategy: the critical role of the market. Having spent a good chunk of my career in the financial sector, I can honestly say that for the first time in my life we are seeing the venture capital community put sizeable amounts of money into entrepreneurial companies in the alternative energy business. In the third quarter of this year alone, the so-called "clean tech" sector, which includes alternative energy and conservation technologies, among other things, saw record investment levels of $844 million, an 80% increase over the previous quarter, according to a recent industry report. And, I interpret this as a clear sign that clean-energy market is viable, indeed, thriving. After all, we know that investors will not enter a field for purely altruistic reasons - though that may certainly play a part; they need a market. And, I believe that they now have one, one that will grow even more robust with time. The private sector recognizes that there is an opportunity here, one that can favorably impact their balance sheets as well as the nation's energy security and our environmental health. So, why am I optimistic? Well, the bottom line is this: we are seeing a convergence of forces that tells me that our nation is on a path to a cleaner, affordable, and more secure energy future. We certainly have a lot of work ahead of us, and this is not going to be an easy fix, nor a quick or painless one. But look what we have going for us: We have forward-looking leadership and funding commitments from Washington. We have the dedication and ingenuity of America's scientists and engineers. We have the innovative power and the unmatched capital of the private sector. And we have the commitment of the American people to achieve together what none of us can do alone. In short, what we have is the makings of a solution and I look forward to the day when, together, we achieve it. Thank you. Source: U.S. Department of Energy judythpiazza@newsblaze.com Copyright © 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News Copyright © 2004-2007 NewsBlaze LLC ***************************************************************** 36 DOE: Three Companies Awarded Contracts for Royalty-in-Kind Exchanges for the SPR November 8, 2007 Deliveries to Begin in January 2008 WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today awarded contracts to Shell Trading Company, Sunoco Logistics, and BP North America for exchange of 12.3 million barrels of royalty oil produced from the Gulf Coast for crude oil meeting the requirements of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Deliveries are expected to begin in January at a modest rate of approximately 70,000 barrels per day for a period of six months. The offers are in response to the Department’s solicitation issued last month and represented the highest value of specification-grade oil for the Reserve. The contract terms apply royalty-in-kind (RIK) exchange provisions that require the contractor to take delivery of oil owed to the U.S. Government from offshore Gulf Coast federal leases and deliver to the SPR a volume of crude oil, adjusted for transportation and quality differentials, that meets the SPR’s quality specifications. The exchange oil will be delivered to two SPR sites, West Hackberry, Louisiana and Bryan Mound, Texas. This contract continues the RIK fill program that began this summer with the award of a six-month contract for deliveries to the SPR beginning in August at the rate of approximately 50,000 barrels per day. The RIK program is managed by the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service and serves as a means of filling the Reserve in a deliberate and cost-effective manner without the use of cash payment. Instead, it involves an exchange of product already owned by the Government. Separately, the Department has no immediate plans to issue bids to purchase and replace the 11 million barrels of SPR crude that were sold in response to Hurricane Katrina. This action is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which directs that the SPR fill to its authorized size of one billion barrels. The SPR has a capacity of 727 million barrels and currently holds 694 million barrels of crude oil in underground salt caverns located along the Gulf Coast in Louisiana and Texas. 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 ***************************************************************** 37 DOE: DOE to Invest More than $21 Million for Next Generation Solar Energy Projects November 8, 2007 25 Cutting Edge Projects Target Enhanced Solar Energy Efficiency WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that the Department will invest $21.7 million in next generation photovoltaic (PV) technology to help accelerate the widespread use of advanced solar power. The 25 projects that DOE selected as part of this Funding Opportunity Announcement, Next Generation Photovoltaic Devices & Processes, are an integral part of the President’s Solar America Initiative, which aims to make solar energy cost-competitive with conventional sources of electricity by 2015. “These projects help create a pipeline for the development of next generation solar technology,” Secretary Bodman said. “Our goal is to make solar power become a more mainstream source of energy - to increase energy security and so America maintains its competitive edge. With a continued commitment from this Administration to develop and deploy clean, cutting-edge technologies, the Department is helping change the landscape for how this Nation utilizes its resources and produces energy.” Projects selected represent an important early-stage investment from DOE in advanced PV (solar electricity) technologies, which will help drive U.S. industry competitiveness. These new solar technologies have the potential to produce electricity at costs well below the current costs of grid-supplied electricity. The device and manufacturing process research, which will be used by the selected projects, is expected to produce prototype cells and/or processes by 2015, with the potential for full commercialization shortly thereafter. The 25 projects were selected competitively from a large and diverse pool of applicants, demonstrating the growing enthusiasm for PV technology. The projects will be implemented at 15 universities and 6 companies; each award averages $900,000 from DOE over three years (Fiscal Years 2008 – 2010). DOE will provide up to $21.7 million in funding, subject to final project negotiations and Congressional appropriations. With cost-sharing, the total investment in research will be up to $30.3 million. As part of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, the Solar America Initiative aims to diversify our Nation’s energy resources by spurring widespread commercialization and deployment of clean solar energy technologies, which will help to provide long-term economic, environmental, and security benefits to our nation. The following projects were selected for negotiation of three-year project awards: Arizona State University (Tempe, AZ) This project will seek to increase efficiency levels to 20% by developing new materials to improve tandem thin film solar cells. DOE will provide up to $895,511 for the $1.1 million project. Arizona State University was selected for another project, in which researchers will demonstrate the fundamental viability of replacing expensive materials used in today’s solar cells with less costly alternatives. DOE will provide up to $881,152 for the $1.2 million project. California Institute of Technology (Pasadena, CA) This project will seek to enhance solar absorption using plasmons to improve the performance of PV cells. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for the $1.1 million project. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA) This project will seek to boost the performance of conventional solar cells through the addition of a new layer tuned to use a previously wasted portion of the sun’s energy. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for the $1.1 million project. MIT was selected for another project, in which researchers will explore a silicon wafer-making technology that will set new standards of electronic quality and low cost. DOE will provide up to $899,998 for the $1.1 million project. Mayaterials, Inc. (Ann Arbor, MI) This project will seek to derive solar grade silicon from agricultural by-products. DOE will provide up to $837,000 for the $1 million project. Pennsylvania State University (University Park, PA) Penn State will seek to apply lessons learned from success with lithium ion batteries to develop dye-based sensitized solar cells with improved electrodes and electrolytes. DOE will provide up to $882,103 for the $1.1 million project. Penn State was selected for a second project, in which researchers will create PV devices from nanowires grown on inexpensive substrates like glass. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for the $1.1 million project. Rochester Institute of Technology (Rochester, NY) This project will develop PV cells for solar concentrator applications using high efficiency nanostructures. DOE will provide up to $843,695 for the $1.1 million project. Solasta, Inc. (Newton, MA) Solasta will seek to develop high efficiency solar power by separating the path traveled by light from the path traveled by electrons using nanostructures. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for this $1.8 million project. Solexant, Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA) Solexant will seek to dramatically improve photovoltaics through inexpensive inorganic PV cell that harvest more than the conventional limit of maximum power efficiency. DOE will provide up to $869,435 of the $1.1 million project. Soltaix, Inc. (Los Altos, CA) Soltaix will seek to demonstrate and optimize an ultra-high-efficiency, thin-film, crystalline solar cell for cost-effective, grid-connected electricity. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for this $1.8 million project. Stanford University (Stanford, CA) Stanford will use nanowire networks or meshes to create electrodes for high efficiency, low cost solution-processed photovoltaics. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for this $1.1 million project. Stanford was also selected for a second project, in which researchers will produce advanced, higher efficiency thin-film solar cells from nanowires made of CIGS. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for this $1.1 million project. University of California, Davis (Davis, CA) UC Davis will develop organic photovoltaics, prepared with sequential solution processing, to produce multiple-layer polymer films. DOE will provide up to $610,916 for this $0.8 million project. University of California, San Diego (La Jolla, CA) This project will seek to produce high-efficiency photovoltaics that combine plasmonics and semiconductor nanostructures. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for this $1.1 million project. University of Colorado (Boulder, CO) Using dye molecules to produce multiple electrons from one photon of light, researchers for this project will demonstrate an ultra-high efficiency, low cost solar cell. DOE will provide up to $895,772 for this $1.1 million project. University of Delaware (Newark, DE) The project will use laser processing to control defects and improve PV cell performance to develop a highly efficient wide bandgap in thin films, which is necessary for low cost polycrystalline tandem devices. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for this $1.1 million project. University of Florida (Gainesville, FL) This project will seek to create solution processible, low cost tandem photovoltaics from inorganic nanorods (aligned for efficient energy collection) surrounded by organic polymers. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for his $1.1 million project. University of Illinois (Urbana, IL) This project will seek a low cost concentrator PV from automated printing and the interconnection of a large number of microcells with built-in optics. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for this $1.1 million project. University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI) This project will seek to demonstrate effective tandem crystalline organic photovoltaic cells. DOE will provide up to $790,049 for this $0.9 million project. University of South Florida (Tampa, FL) The University will demonstrate a new flexible configuration with a high throughput process for transforming the standard process/product design of CdTe cells and modules. DOE will provide up to $881,972 for this $1.2 million project. University of Washington (Seattle, WA) This project will seek to use interfacial engineering to make highly efficient polymer-based photovoltaic devices with organic/inorganic nanostructures; it also seeks to produce improved performance multilayer, solution processible organic tandem cells with additional enhancements due to interfacial engineering at the electrode. DOE will provide up to $900,000 for this project. Voxtel, Inc. (Beaverton, OR) Voxtel will seek to go beyond conventional limits in power production in composite nanocrystal photovoltaic devices. DOE will provide up to $672,878 for this $.8 million project. Wakonda Technologies (Fairport, NY) Wakonda Technologies will seek to apply low cost conventional thin film manufacturing techniques to the production of large area, high efficiency multi-junction PV. DOE will provide up to $892,735 for this $2.1 million project. Read more on the President’s Solar America Initiative and projects selected for this Funding Opportunity Announcement, Next Generation Photovoltaic Devices & Processes. 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 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************