***************************************************************** 11/15/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.269 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Huffington Post: Carl Pope: King Coal's Mountain Redoubt - NUCLEAR REACTORS 2 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear power inevitable, says Ziggy | 3 BBC NEWS: MP attacks nuclear job ministers 4 BBC NEWS: British nukes were protected by bike locks 5 US: EBR: Nuclear power generation could be returning to favor - 6 US: Rutland Herald: Study: Yankee can't afford shutdown 7 US: NIRS: This Thanksgiving, Talk Turkey To Your Congressmembers! St 8 US: toledoblade.com: Fermi 2 plant to resume production of electrici 9 US: Burlington Free Press: Douglas joins call for VY independent saf 10 US: RH: Massachusetts nuke workers question Vermont Yankee operation 11 US: HF: Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy 12 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Legislators wrap up nuclear talks 13 US: NRC: Notice of Issuance of Addendum to the Supplement to the 14 US: Reuters: DTE's Mich. Fermi 2 reactor shut again | 15 UPI: British Energy to build nuclear plant 16 AU: The Age: WA moves to ban nuclear power plants - 17 US: CollegiateTimes.com - Letter: Nuclear energy story contains inac 18 US: Daily Utah Chronicle: Utahns divided on nuclear debate - 19 Greenpeace UK: When is a solution not a solution? 20 Times of India: UPA plans 300% boost to N-sector NUCLEAR SECURITY 21 NRC: U.S. – Japan Regulatory Cooperation Supporting Safety and NUCLEAR SAFETY 22 DutchNews.nl: Two contaminated after nuclear incident 23 Daily Yomiuri: N-safety reports inadequate / Gap between public, NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 24 ReviewJournal.com: Yucca engineer defends design of nuclear dump 25 The Nation: Debating Downwind in Nevada 26 US: Reuters: Uranium One says working to resolve acid shortfall 27 US: DJN: US Senate Panel Queries Future Of Bush Nuclear Waste Progra 28 US: GI: Over 50 years of exposure but still no comprehensive health 29 US: Gallup Independent: Energy Corridor Draft EIS available - 30 US: POWER Magazine: DOE pushing to recycle closed plants' spent fuel 31 Las Vegas Now: Nuclear Agency Gets Sparkling New Building in Las Veg 32 US: Deseret Morning News: Oil-shale potential growing in Utah? PEACE 33 IPS-English NUKE PROGRAMME-IRAN: Compromise and much needed flexibil 34 Economist.com: Nuclear weapons | Reliable evidence? | 35 IAEA: Transcript of IAEA Director General and US Assistant Secretary US DEPT. OF ENERGY 36 DOE: Energy Efficiency Global Forum and Exposition 37 DOE: 12th Annual Turkmenistan International Oil and Gas Exhibition 38 Tri-City Herald: Hanford tank waste steam reforming to be tested by 39 Hanford News: Hanford waste treatment to be tested by Thor 40 Hanford News: Richland's HAMMER center to get $1 million 41 Inside Bay Area: Livermore Lab: What a difference a month makes 42 DOE: Events 43 Knoxville News Sentinel: Jaguar drops on power list 44 Knoxville News Sentinel: High Flux Isotope Reactor restarted 45 Knoxville News Sentinel: Security firm, union talking 46 Times-News: INL, DOE propose waste cleanup plans 47 MNS: State, feds pause negotiations over Hanford cleanup ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Huffington Post: Carl Pope: King Coal's Mountain Redoubt - Posted November 15, 2007 | 04:44 PM (EST) Read More: Coal, Coal Mining, Coal Mining In Nevada, Coal Plants, Coal Rush, Environment America, Governor Gibbons, Nevada, Nevada Clean Energy Coalition, Sierra Pacific Power, Stopping Coal Power Plants, Breaking Politics News Las Vegas, NV -- At first blush, Nevada appears an unlikely choice for the coal industry to make its last stand in the mountain West. Coal is one of the few minerals the Silver State doesn't produce. Nevada enjoys America's biggest geothermal resource, ranks in the top five for solar, and has enormous wind reserves. By rights it should be a renewable energy powerhouse. Its legislature just passed a strong renewable electricity mandate, and the state is leading the nation with its legislation to set the first efficiency standards for light bulbs. Indeed, a new report by Environment America (formerly US PIRG) lauded Nevada as one of America's "rising stars", along with Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Wisconsin. I am in Las Vegas today to thank Governor Gibbons and the legislature for precisely this leadership. But when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid came out a couple of weeks ago against three new coal-fired power plants proposed for the state, and called for a global moratorium on new coal, the Barons of Black decided to make their stand here, launching a major media campaign and tapping into the deep relationship of Sierra Pacific Power, the biggest utility, with the state's business establishment. The good news is, Nevadans are fighting back. This week saw the Nevada Clean Energy Coalition, a grassroots movement strongly supported by the Sierra Club, hit the airwaves with radio spots (click to listen), and a very cool, Nevada-style billboard right outside the convention hall where the presidential candidates will be debating tonight. It's now clear that coal plants are being sold to the American people like sub-prime mortgages. All the insiders know their economics will shift dramatically in a few years when Congress finally deals with global warming, and the utilities building these plants are making sure that it is ordinary customers, not their shareholders, who get stuck with unaffordable energy costs when the piper finally has to be paid. The Nevada projects, specifically, provide that any upgrades required to deal with carbon emissions will have to be paid for by ratepayers. So, the utilities really don't care if coal pencils out; King Coal just wants guaranteed markets for a product which is otherwise about to become uncompetitive. Nevada's neighbors have figured this out (it's the last state west of the Continental Divide that has an open door for coal), and Nevadans have been here before. When the rest of the country didn't want to handle nuclear waste, they thought Nevada would simply see it as another form of gambling and proposed developing Yucca Mountain as a dumping ground. They were wrong then, and I'm betting they're wrong with this strategy of dumping the West's next coal rush on a state that doesn't need it. * Copyright © 2007 HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. | ***************************************************************** 2 NEWS.com.au: Nuclear power inevitable, says Ziggy | By Catherine Best November 15, 2007 10:16pm NUCLEAR power will eventually win favour in Australia and become our cleanest, most efficient power source, says Australian Nuclear and Science Technology Organisation chairman Ziggy Switkowski. Addressing a business forum tonight, Dr Switkowski said he was happy nuclear energy was not an election issue because the debate was still young. But he said nuclear power stations had a place in Australia and there was no doubt they would become part of our energy landscape. “We will get there, I'm sure that we will get there, whether it happens in the next term of government or the one after,” he said. “The attitude in Australia, I think, will move from concern to grudging acceptance, to enormous relief that we have this very efficient technology and these vast reserves that will give us what we think will be the lowest cost, safest, cleanest form of base load electricity.” Dr Switkowski, speaking at the Oxford Business Alumni forum in Melbourne, made the comments during a debate on the impact of climate change on business. Joining him in the debate were former British Airways chief executive Sir Rod Eddington, Australian Conservation Foundation executive director Don Henry and parliamentary secretary to the minister for foreign affairs, Greg Hunt. Dr Switkowski said 31 countries around the world had nuclear power and 20 more were looking to go nuclear before 2020. But Mr Henry said if half of all households in Queensland installed a solar hot water system, the equivalent of one nuclear power station worth of energy would be saved. He also raised concerns about safety. Dr Switkowski said in the history of nuclear power only two accidents had occurred - at Three Mile Island in the US in 1979 and in 1986 at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union. No casualties were recorded at the former and Mr Eddington said safety practices had improved. “No energy source is completely accident free but the nuclear industry, as it stands, has got a pretty good record,” he said. Mr Henry said there was still no functional long term disposal for nuclear waste. “And you have to remember the waste stays dangerous for thousands of generations of human lives,” he said. The speakers accepted that climate change was real but expressed differing views on how to deal with the global problem. Most importantly they said Australia could do little in isolation but much globally, particularly in guiding the high greenhouse emitters like India and China. Mr Eddington said business and industry must adapt to survive. “The winners will be companies that reacted in an intelligent and forward thinking way, those who adjust and adjust smart,” he said. At the same forum two years ago, former prime minister Bob Hawke called for Australia to become a repository for the world's nuclear waste and said at the time his party should abandon its three mines policy on uranium. Copyright 2007 News Limited. All times AEDT (GMT +11). ***************************************************************** 3 BBC NEWS: MP attacks nuclear job ministers Last Updated: Thursday, 15 November 2007, 17:56 GMT Mr Caborn and Mr McCartney quit government earlier this year Two former Labour ministers are under fire over their links with the nuclear industry. Former trade minister Ian McCartney has been appointed as an £115,000 a year adviser to US engineering giant Fluor. Former sports minister Richard Caborn is considering a role with a group bidding for nuclear clean-up contracts, among other job offers. Mr Davies said he accepts MPs "often have rich experience to offer private sector firms" but he said they should not take up such jobs "so shortly after leaving the government". Both men stood down as ministers when Tony Blair resigned as prime minister four months ago but continue to draw MPs salaries. Contracts Mr Caborn, MP for Sheffield Central, is reported to have been offered a non-excutive directorship worth nearly £100,000 a year with the trilateral partnership of nuclear firms Amec, Areva of France and the Washington Group from the US, according to Mr Davis' commons motion. Mr Davies says the consortium is "keen to secure multi-million contracts for the clean-up of Sellafield". Mr Caborn told BBC News the nuclear job was one of "a number" of consultancies he had been offered in different areas since leaving government. He said he had not accepted any of them yet. Mr McCartney, MP for Makerfield, has listed his new job in the register of members' interests, which says he will earn between £110,000 and £115,000 as a consultant for Fluor. A spokesman for Fluor told The Mail on Sunday the former Labour Party chairman was not involved in lobbying but had been hired as senior adviser to "provide advice in anticorruption and business ethics policies, regulatory issues and outside relations including trade unions". Mr McCartney was not available for comment. Nuclear plants The US engineering giant already links with Labour and is a client of lobbying firm Sovereign Strategies, run by Alan Donnelly, former chairman of Labour's MEPs. In his early day motion, Mr Davies says Fluor has "considerable interest in securing multi-million pound contracts with the UK nuclear industry". The government is believed to be in favour of building a new generation of nuclear plants, subject to the outcome of a consultation. ***************************************************************** 4 BBC NEWS: British nukes were protected by bike locks Last Updated: Thursday, 15 November 2007, 18:02 GMT By Meirion Jones Newsnight producer Newsnight has discovered that until the early days of the Blair government the RAF's nuclear bombs were armed by turning a bicycle lock key. There was no other security on the Bomb itself. While American and Russian weapons were protected by tamper-proof combination locks which could only be released if the correct code was transmitted, Britain relied on a simpler technology. The Dr Strangelove scenario The British military resisted Whitehall proposals to fit bombs with Permissive Action Links - or PALs - which would prevent them being armed unless the right code was sent. UK nuclear weapons are designed first and foremost to be secure and safe Read the MoD statement PALs were introduced in the 1960s in America to prevent a mad General or pilot launching a nuclear war off their own bat - the Dr Strangelove scenario. President Kennedy ordered that every American nuclear bomb should be fitted with a PAL. The correct code had to be transmitted by the US Chiefs of Staff and dialled into the Bomb before it could be armed otherwise it would not detonate. Safeguards Crews in missile silos also had a dual key arrangement so one man could not launch Armageddon. Safeguards familiar in Bond films were not in place for British bombs Similar safeguards are in place on Russian nuclear weapons. They are familiar from numerous Hollywood films such as Broken Arrow with John Travolta, The Peacemaker with Nicole Kidman and various James Bond films. Under control Papers at the National Archive show that as early as 1966 an attempt was made to impose PAL security on British nuclear weapons. The Chief Scientific Adviser Solly Zuckerman formally advised the Defence Secretary Denis Healey that Britain needed to install Permissive Action Links on its nuclear weapons to keep them safe. "The Government will need to be certain that any weapons deployed are under some form of 'ironclad' control". The Royal Navy argued that officers of the Royal Navy as the Senior Service could be trusted: "It would be invidious to suggest... that Senior Service officers may, in difficult circumstances, act in defiance of their clear orders". Neither the Navy nor the RAF installed PAL protection on their nuclear weapons. The RAF kept their unsafeguarded bombs at airbases until they were withdrawn in 1998. Bicycle lock key With the help of Brian Burnell - a researcher into the history of the British nuclear weapons programme who once designed bomb casings for atom bombs - Newsnight tracked down a training version of the WE 177 nuclear bomb at the Bristol Aero collection at Kemble. Tornado and earlier V-bomber crews trained with these, which were identical in every way to the live bombs except for the nuclear warhead. To arm the weapons you just open a panel held by two captive screws - like a battery cover on a radio - using a thumbnail or a coin. Inside are the arming switch and a series of dials which you can turn with an Allen key to select high yield or low yield, air burst or groundburst and other parameters. The Bomb is actually armed by inserting a bicycle lock key into the arming switch and turning it through 90 degrees. There is no code which needs to be entered or dual key system to prevent a rogue individual from arming the Bomb. This report can be seen on Newsnight on Thursday, 15 November, 2007 at 10.30pm on BBC TWO * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 5 EBR: Nuclear power generation could be returning to favor - Energy Business Review 15th November 2007 By EBR Staff Writer Public and political opinion on nuclear power generation may be improving as security of energy supply and reducing carbon emissions force their way up the political agenda. Nuclear power generation produces almost no carbon emissions and it seems that many are prepared to accept the risk of accidents and the long-term burden of nuclear waste in order to reduce carbon emissions in the short term. Since 1990, reports of nuclear power plant closures have outweighed those of plans to extend the life of current plants, or indeed to build new ones. While some countries, France and Finland for example, have continued to rely on nuclear power for the majority of their electricity needs, many other European nations have declared moratoria on new nuclear build. However, this could now be changing. Getting the most out of remaining nuclear Despite concerns about the security of energy supply, rising gas prices, curbing carbon emissions and the increasing demand for power, only three European countries are currently expanding their nuclear capacity, namely Bulgaria, Finland and Romania (outside of the EU so too are Russia and Ukraine). However, while overall nuclear capacity has been decreasing in Europe since 1990, from 1990-2004, nuclear power has on average provided a greater share of total power generation output. However, only two of the 15 nuclear states in Europe have increased their net nuclear generation capacity since 1990. Essentially, the remaining nuclear capacity has just worked harder. This trend also indicates that even where policy or economic factors restrict nuclear development, its contribution to the security of electricity supply remains critical. In Lithuania, for example, nuclear generation output as a proportion of total national power output has increased by 7%, even as the relative share of nuclear capacity has declined by 6%. Investment in reactor refurbishment and life extensions have facilitated this trend of boosting power from the remaining plants, despite the fact that closures have become more frequent. However, the downsizing of the nuclear industry may be at an end and an actual reversal of this trend may even be on the cards. In early 2007, the number of announcements concerning new nuclear capacity build, life extensions or at least new milestones in planned projects (signed deals, tenders, regulatory applications or government statements of intent) outnumbered those of announcements concerning plant closures for the first time since 1990. UK government opts for new nuclear builds Following its official 'Energy Review' in 2006, the UK government indicated that its preferred option for securing the UK's electricity supply going forward is to see a new generation of nuclear power plants built. These findings have since been challenged by Greenpeace over an apparent lack of public consultation, but they are perhaps indicative of a softening of public attitudes towards nuclear power. Despite the fact that seven countries in the EU, namely Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and Sweden, have moratoria in place on new nuclear builds, public perceptions towards new nuclear build are positive in 14 countries in the EU. Indeed, Datamonitor research shows that in the UK, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden, more than 50% of the public believe that 'nuclear power as a proportion of all energy sources should be maintained or increased.' These results may have been somewhat prompted by the high wholesale prices for gas in recent years, which have seen consumers paying more for their gas and electricity, as the survey also indicated that in 15 EU countries, over 50% of the population believe that nuclear power stabilizes or lowers energy prices. More than any other power source, nuclear power is very susceptible to public perception and the political process, but these results indicate that there is scope for nuclear policy positions to evolve in the future. Aside from the debate surrounding the social and/or environmental merits of nuclear power, one reason that makes the subject so politically charged is that the building of new nuclear power generating facilities generally relies heavily on government financial support. Of the five previously mentioned countries currently constructing nuclear capacity, four have government-controlled sponsors. Although the Finnish project is the exception, it could be argued it benefits from a E570 million French government loan guarantee given to Areva, a key project partner and technology provider (the loan is currently the subject of a European Commission investigation as a potential illegal state subsidy to business). Low carbon emissions, but is it 'green'? Instead of outlining a specific financial mechanism to support nuclear power generation in the Energy Review, the UK government set out case studies designed to demonstrate its financial viability. However, while the debate as to whether nuclear power is a financially competitive option continues, more heated debate surrounds whether nuclear generated power can be classified as 'green.' From the UK government's perspective, nuclear power is appealing because it not only provides extra capacity, but because generation does not produce carbon emissions. With the government committed to cutting carbon emissions by 60% on 1990 levels by 2050, it is doubtful that renewable energy sources such as wind farms will be able to fill the void in energy supply that has been left by decommissioning fossil fuel-burning, and carbon producing, forms of electricity generation. On the flipside, nuclear power generates nuclear waste that can remain radioactive for thousands of years and thus needs to be stored, and there is also the potential for nuclear accidents, such as that at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in 1986. However, Datamonitor's survey indicates that many Europeans' attitudes towards nuclear power are becoming more favorable. It will be very difficult, not to say impossible, to reduce carbon emissions to the levels being advocated with technology currently available or available in the foreseeable future without the advent of nuclear power. Indeed, security of energy supply essentially comes down to a case of picking your poison: either nuclear remains part of the electricity generation mix or the carbon emission reduction goals will be missed. Within eight EU countries, over 50% of respondents to Datamonitor's survey believe that nuclear energy can help to limit global warming, suggesting that they rate reducing carbon emissions, and thus the effects of global warming, as a higher priority than the burden of dealing with nuclear waste. 'End Intelliext ©2007 Business Review Ltd ***************************************************************** 6 Rutland Herald: Study: Yankee can't afford shutdown November 15, 2007 By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff VERNON — If Vermont Yankee nuclear plant shut down today, or even in 2012 when its federal license expires, there would not be enough money in its decommissioning fund to pay for it to be dismantled and disposed of safely. The plant would have to be essentially mothballed for 12 to 15 years for its stock market-invested trust fund to build so there was enough money to dismantle it, Entergy Nuclear engineer David McElwee told the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel Tuesday evening. That conclusion matches a recent study by a Burlington couple, Arnold and Margaret Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates Inc, who once worked as nuclear power consultants, revealing the same thing — that Vermont Yankee's decommissioning trust fund is woefully inadequate to address its needs without a long waiting period. The news from the Gundersen report has prompted four leading senators to ask Vermont Auditor Thomas M. Salmon to launch an investigation into the decommissioning fund, as well as last week's news of a corporate restructuring of Entergy Nuclear's corporate parent. This week's developments about decommissioning come at the same time as the Douglas administration changed its mind and finally agreed with anti-nuclear activists that the plant needed an in-depth inspection and analysis before state and federal regulators can sign off on another 20 years of operation. The Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel voted unanimously to recommend an independent safety assessment. Defining exactly what that inspection would cover is the next challenge, according to state nuclear engineer Uldis Vanags. The panel directed Vanags to work closely with the state's congressional delegation and the public to define the scope of the special inspection. Larry Smith, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear, said the company had only learned about the Douglas administration's change of heart on Tuesday and he said the company was declining comment on the matter at this time. Smith said he was unaware of neither the senators' letter nor the Gundersen report. Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the commission would be studying the Vermont request once it is made. Improvements have been made, he said, to the NRC inspection process since Maine Yankee nuclear plant's independent safety assessment. That assessment led to its eventual shutdown and dismantlement. Salmon said Wednesday he had already asked Entergy Nuclear for information about the decommissioning fund even before the four senators sent him a letter last week. Salmon said the status of the decommissioning fund, and the financial structure of its parent company, was a nonpolitical issue. Salmon said the risks associated with power plants and handling of toxic waste was a nationwide concern faced by state auditors in every state. "It's a fiscal impact and risk issue," he said. Salmon said it would be premature to call his investigation an audit, noting that his office was in the "high heat of the audit season" until the end of the year, doing the state's own audit. "In my business, you're always trying to assess the financial risk," Salmon said. "Vermonters should be concerned. There isn't adequate funds to decommission the plant," said Sen. Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, president pro tempore of the Senate, who was one of the senators who met with Salmon Tuesday. Other senators signing the letter were Sen. Ginny Lyons, D-Chittenden, chairman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange, a member of VSNAP, and a Yankee critic. "What we've asked for is: What exactly is the status of the fund? Could Entergy simply declare bankruptcy and head out leaving high-level nuclear fuel on the banks of the river?" Shumlin said. "Vermonters should be startled to learn that the plant may have to sit there for 50 to 60 years before it can be dismantled," Shumlin said. "That is a very, very frightening thought," he said. "There isn't enough money to take it away." McElwee said Wednesday that Entergy Nuclear hasn't made any contributions to the fund since it purchased the plant five years ago. The fund now stands at $431 million, he said. Under two of the leading scenarios outlined by Entergy, the cost of decommissioning the plant would cost anywhere from $804 million if the plant shuts down in 2012, to $991 million for a 2032 shutdown, with both figures depending on when the federal government takes away the high-level nuclear fuel. McElwee noted that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved immediate dismantlement and mothballing the plant for many years. Under the long-term dismantlement, the plant and its waste could sit untouched for 60 years, waiting for its trust fund to grow, McElwee said. Actual cleanup and dismantling the plant would depend on the stock market, where the decommissioning fund is invested. McElwee said there were advantages to a delayed decommissioning including less worker exposure to materials that still have dangerous levels of radioactivity. So far, McElwee said, Entergy has not had to add any funds to the Vermont Yankee decommissioning funds, and he said federal law prohibits the company from withdrawing any money. But Gundersen, who used to work as a nuclear consultant for other nuclear plants, including Vermont Yankee, said that Entergy's own 2006 annual report states the company's overall decommissioning fund had been drained of $26 million. Gundersen said he and his wife, Margaret, a paralegal, started studying the Vermont Yankee decommissioning reports and became alarmed that there wasn't enough money in the fund to cover decommissioning and there wasn't a specific analysis of any potential problems. Gundersen, who was one of several authors of the Department of Energy's first decommissioning manual, said that a more detailed examination of Entergy Nuclear's Vermont decommissioning plan showed it full of what he called arbitrary decisions. "There's nothing site specific," he noted. "And the scariest thing is they have no place to send the waste if they do dismantle it," he said, noting the Texas low-level waste compact was in limbo, and there was no federal waste site for high-level waste. Margaret Gundersen said the costs of dismantling Connecticut Yankee recently almost doubled from $500 million to $900 million, when extensive radioactive contamination was found on the site. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 7 NIRS: This Thanksgiving, Talk Turkey To Your Congressmembers! Stop $50 Billion In Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees! Demand An Energy Bill That Promotes Renewables And Energy Efficiency! - NIRS ALERT! November 14, 2007 For more info, contact: Michael Mariotte, NIRS 301-270-6477 12 This Thanksgiving, Talk Turkey To Your Congressmembers! Stop $50 Billion In Nuclear Power Loan Guarantees! Demand An Energy Bill That Promotes Renewables And Energy Efficiency! Dear Friends: Members of Congress will be coming home to their districts Saturday, November 17, 2007 for a 2-week Thanksgiving break. This year, because the energy bills are likely to be addressed immediately after the break, it is especially important for grassroots groups and even individuals to try to meet with them and/or to ask questions at public meetings. It’s also important right now to send letters to the editor, op-eds, and otherwise act to bring the issue of taxpayer loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors further into the public eye. It won’t happen unless you make it happen! *Tell your Members not to support the provision in the recent Senate energy bill that could allow over $50 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors. This provision not only would help finance new nuclear reactors, but would allow money to be appropriated without annual congressional budgetary oversight. *A specific ask you can make of your Members: Ask House Members to send a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating that they oppose the loan guarantees. Senators should be asked to send a similar letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Those of you who live in Pelosi and Reid’s districts should demand that they stand firm and not allow the loan guarantee language in the final energy bill. *Members on an Appropriations Committee (list below) should receive your special attention. These Members have the most to lose politically from the loan guarantees: a) they would lose power if the guarantees are removed from the annual appropriations process; b) they will be the first to be blamed if utilities default on the loans—and remember that the Congressional Budget Office predicts 50% of the loans in this program will default, which would cost taxpayers billions of dollars. To find out how to contact your House of Representative member when he/she is in their home district go to http://www.house.gov (once on the front page of the website there is a drop down scroll of all the Representatives’ individual websites that will have their local contact information). Or call the Congressional Switchboard at 800-839-5276 or 202-224-3121. To find out how to contact your state’s Senators go to http://www.senate.gov/ (once on the front page of the website there is a drop down scroll of all Senators’ personal websites with their local contact information). Or call the Congressional Switchboard at 800-839-5276 or 202-224-3121. *Background information and fact sheets on the loan guarantees are available on the front page of NIRS website (www.nirs.org) in the Hot News and Actions section with additional materials available in our Nuclear Economics section at http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/neconomics/neconomicshome.htm While speaking to your Members, also urge them to ensure that any energy bill includes strong provisions to support renewable energy and energy efficiency, and increased vehicle mileage standards. The nuclear power and other polluting industries are working hard to remove these important sections and to water down as many sustainable energy provisions as they can. We all need to fight back now! Please activate phone trees and e-mail lists, and reach out to as many people as you can. This two-week period when Congress is in recess is critical. As always, please call upon NIRS to help you in any way we can. Michael Mariotte for all of us at Nuclear Information and Resource Service 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340 Takoma Park, MD 20912 301-270-6477 nirsnet@nirs.org www.nirs.org) House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations Democrats David R. Obey, Wisconsin, Chair John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Norman D. Dicks, Washington Alan B. Mollohan, West Virginia Marcy Kaptur, Ohio Peter J. Visclosky, Indiana Nita M. Lowey, New York José E. Serrano, New York Rosa L. DeLauro, Connecticut James P. Moran, Virginia John W. Olver, Massachusetts Ed Pastor, Arizona David E. Price, North Carolina Chet Edwards, Texas Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, Jr., Alabama Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Lucille Roybal-Allard, California Sam Farr, California Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Illinois Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, Michigan Allen Boyd, Florida Chaka Fattah, Pennsylvania Steven R. Rothman, New Jersey Sanford Bishop, Georgia Marion Berry, Arkansas Barbara Lee, California Tom Udall, New Mexico Adam Schiff, California Michael Honda, California Betty McCollum, Minnesota Steve Israel, New York Tim Ryan, Ohio C.A "Dutch" Ruppersberger, Maryland Ben Chandler, Kentucky Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Ciro Rodriguez, Texas Republicans Jerry Lewis, California C.W. Bill Young, Florida Ralph Regula, Ohio Harold Rogers, Kentucky Frank R. Wolf, Virginia James T. Walsh, New York David L. Hobson, Ohio Joe Knollenberg, Michigan Jack Kingston, Georgia Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, New Jersey Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi Todd Tiahrt, Kansas Zach Wamp, Tennessee Tom Latham, Iowa Robert B.Aderholt, Alabama Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri Kay Granger, Texas John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Virgil H. Goode, Jr., Virginia Ray LaHood, Illinois Dave Weldon, Florida Michael K. Simpson, Idaho John Abney Culberson, Texas Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Ander Crenshaw, Florida Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana John Carter, Texas Rodney Alexander, Louisiana Ken Calvert, California Senate Committee on Appropriations Democrats Robert Byrd, West Virginia Daniel Inouye, Hawaii Patrick Leahy, Vermont Tom Harkin, Iowa Barbara Mikulski, Maryland Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Patty Murray, Washington Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Dianne Feinstein, California Richard Durbin, Illinois Tim Johnson, South Dakota Mary Landrieu, Louisiana Jack Reed, Rhode Island Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Ben Nelson, Nebraska Republicans Thad Cochran, Mississippi Ted Stevens, Alaska Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Pete Domenici, New Mexico Kit Bond, Missouri Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Richard Shelby, Alabama Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Robert Bennett, Utah Larry Craig, Idaho Kay Bailey Hutchison, Texas Sam Brownback, Kansas Wayne Allard, Colorado ***************************************************************** 8 toledoblade.com: Fermi 2 plant to resume production of electricity Article published Thursday, November 15, 2007 NEWPORT, Mich. — DTE Energy’s Fermi 2 nuclear plant in northern Monroe County was restarted Tuesday night and is expected to be putting electricity on the grid today. The plant should be back at full power soon, a spokesman for Detroit Edison Co., a DTE subsidiary, said. Fermi 2 was idled in late September for its 12th refueling outage since it began operating in 1988. Hundreds of inspections and maintenance jobs were done. Nuclear plants are refueled once every 18 to 24 months. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still investigating an incident that was declared an “unusual event” by the utility in October, when an unexplained quarter-inch hole and five indentations in steam pipes were found. All apparently were caused by a drill. The company has ruled out sabotage. © 2007 The Blade. By using this service, you accept the terms of our privacy statement and our visitor agreement. Please read them. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 9 Burlington Free Press: Douglas joins call for VY independent safety review burlingtonfreepress.com | Burlington, Vermont Published: Thursday, November 15, 2007 By Sam Hemingway Free Press Staff Writer The Douglas administration has joined the state's congressional delegation in calling for an independent safety assessment of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. David O'Brien, commissioner of the state Public Service Department, disclosed the policy shift during a Tuesday night meeting of the Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel in Vernon, where he offered a resolution calling for the assessment. The resolution was later approved unanimously by the panel. O'Brien said Wednesday that the collapse of a cooling tower at Vermont Yankee this summer, coming at a time when the plant's owners were seeking to extend its operation by 20 years, were factors in the decision to support the assessment. "It's safe to say the public's confidence level in the plant has been shaken," O'Brien said Tuesday. "I know the governor, from talking with him, has been affected by the failure of the cooling tower this summer and how the public reacted to that." O'Brien said the goal of the assessment is to resolve all questions about the plant's safe operation. "If the plant is operating at a high level of safety, the report will show that," he said. "If it's anything less than that -- well, we need to know that, too." Gubernatorial spokesman Jason Gibbs said the Douglas administration decided to move ahead with the assessment proposal after negotiations with the plant's owners, Entergy Nuclear, were unsuccessful in winning the company's support for the idea. "We worked hard to convince them," Gibbs said. "Entergy remains skeptical of the need for an independent safety assessment and the value it might have for them." Brian Cosgrove, Entergy's spokesman for government relations, did not respond to a request for comment late Wednesday afternoon. The assessment proposal also drew a cool reception from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which ultimately has the power to decide whether such a review goes forward. "We will not close the door on any request," NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Wednesday, speaking of the assessment proposal, "but, as of Nov. 14, 2007, we do not believe it is necessary." Sheehan said the NRC conducted 4,887 hours of inspections and related activities in 2006 and is engaged in an extensive review of the plant's operation in connection with Entergy's application to extend Vermont Yankee's operations through 2032. O'Brien said he understood why Entergy and the NRC were reluctant to undertake an assessment. He said Entergy and the NRC are so engrossed in the day-to-day safe functioning of the plant they may not understand how deeply recent events have undermined the public's confidence in the plant. "Entergy needed to work on restoring trust in Vermont Yankee and in all candor they did not do enough of that," O'Brien said. As for the NRC, O'Brien said it hasn't grasped that its own perception that the plant is safe has "not been translated to the broader public." O'Brien also said the Douglas administration will support a bill drafted by the state's congressional delegation that would allow neighboring states to call for an assessment. Douglas previously said he was uncomfortable having another state involved in a review of a Vermont-based power plant. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., both of whom have introduced legislation in Congress supporting the assessment process, had praise for Douglas' decision. "I was very pleased to see the governor now understands it would be good to have an independent safety assessment at Vermont Yankee," Sanders said in an interview. "I look forward to working with him to make that happen." Welch, in a statement issued by his office, said having Douglas and the delegation work together on assuring Yankee's safety was critical. "It is vital the delegation work closely with the governor and state officials on all levels to assure Vermonters that Vermont Yankee is being operated safely at all times," the statement said. The assessment procedure has been conducted only once before. In the 1990s, an assessment was performed at the Maine Yankee nuclear plant. The review turned up so many problems that the plant's operators eventually decided it was too costly to make the repairs and the site was shut down. In June, the NRC rejected a similar request for an assessment of the Indian Point nuclear plant in Buchanan, N.Y., that had been sought by New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer and members of the state's congressional delegation. Ray Shadis, technical adviser for the New England Coalition nuclear power watchdog group, said he was skeptical of the state's true intent for the assessment. He said O'Brien objected to language that would ensure the assessment was as thorough as the one done in Maine. "They don't want to do that," he said. "When it came to the language in the resolution, they wanted to come up with other specifications for the assessment." Contact Sam Hemingway at 660-1850 or shemingway@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com Copyright ©2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 RH: Massachusetts nuke workers question Vermont Yankee operation Rutland Herald November 15, 2007 The Associated Press MONTPELIER - Vermont Public Interest Research Group released a document Thursday that shows workers at a Massachusetts nuclear plant don't want to be associated with the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant because of concerns about how it is run. Meanwhile, the Douglas administration has joined the state's congressional delegation in calling for an independent safety assessment of the Vernon reactor. VPIRG's clean energy advocate, James Moore, said he discovered the two-month old document while searching through files of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "It was hiding in broad daylight," Moore said. The document is a request by a union that represents workers at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station near Plymouth, Mass., to participate in Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings about whether its owner Entergy Nuclear should be allowed to transfer ownership of the plant and five others - including Vermont Yankee - to a new company. Attorneys for the Utility Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 369, said the transaction being proposed by Entergy Nuclear would more closely align Pilgrim with Vermont Yankee. "Local 369 members currently employed at the PNPS could suffer harm to their career prospects if other potential employers came to view PNPS operations as similar to those at Vermont Yankee," said the document, which was dated Sept. 18. Entergy is seeking to create a new company that would own six power stations, including Vermont Yankee and Pilgrim. At the same time, Entergy is seeking to extend Vermont Yankee's operating license for 20 years beyond its current 2012 expiration. Vermont's congressional delegation is calling for the safety assessment before any extension is granted. And now, Gov. Jim Douglas is joining the call as well. Public Service Commissioner David O'Brien said the August collapse of a cooling tower at Vermont Yankee played a role in the decision to support the safety assessment. "It's safe to say the public's confidence level in the plant has been shaken," said O'Brien. The goal of an assessment would be to resolve all questions about the plant's operation. "If the plant is operating at a high level of safety, the report will show that," O'Brien said. "If it's anything less than that -- well, we need to know that, too." © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 11 HF: Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes Heritage Foundation November 15, 2007 by Jack Spencer Nuclear power is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. It can generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset Amer­ica's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. The French have used it to minimize their dependence on foreign energy, and at one time the United States was on the path to do the same. However, the commercial nuclear energy industry in the U.S. is no longer thriving. Investors hesitate to embrace nuclear power fully, despite significant regu­latory relief and economic incentives. This reluctance is not due to any inherent flaw in the economics of nuclear power or some unavoidable risk. Instead, investors are reacting to the historic role that federal, state, and local governments have played both in encouraging growth in the industry and in bringing on its demise. Investors doubt that federal, state, and local governments will allow nuclear energy to flourish in the long term. They have already lost bil­lions of dollars because of bad public policy. The United States once led the world in commer­cial nuclear technology. Indeed, the world's leading nuclear companies continue to rely on American technologies. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, federal, state, and local governments nearly regu­lated the U.S. commercial nuclear industry out of existence. U.S. companies responded by reallocating their assets, consolidating or selling their commer­cial nuclear capabilities to foreign companies in pro-nuclear countries. This paper reviews how overregulation largely destroyed the nuclear industry and why it remains an obstacle to investment in the industry. This dynamic must be understood and mitigated before the true economics of nuclear power can be har­nessed for the benefit of the American people. Private Investors in U.S. Industry Private investors have a key role to play in rees­tablishing America's nuclear industry. The industry is no longer owned or supported by the govern­ment, although the Energy Policy Act of 2005 does provide some incentives to utilities. In general, pri­vate investors provide the capital and take the risks necessary to develop the nuclear industry. The gov­ernment's role should be to ensure safety and allow the industry--just like any other--to compete and flourish in open markets. The heavy regulatory burden imposed on the nuclear industry creates enduring uncertainties about the future of nuclear power in the United States. While a strong public commitment does provide some near-term certainty, it still is accom­panied by regulatory and investment uncertainty. This does little for the long-term planning inher­ent in nuclear energy, which results in higher risk assessments for America's energy companies. Investors are right to be wary. Anti-nuclear activists have already exploited the authority of public institutions to strangle the industry. Now these same public institutions must be trusted to craft good public policy that reestablishes the con­fidence necessary to invite investment back into America's nuclear industry. To be successful, the new policies must create an industry that does not depend on the government. They must mitigate the risks of overregulation but allow for adequate over­sight while preventing activists from hijacking the regulatory process. Dependence and Vulnerability The federal government heavily promoted nuclear power throughout the industry's rise in the 1950s and 1960s. The government essentially picked nuclear energy as a winner to supply America's energy needs. This public commitment attracted significant private investment during the industry's growth phase. Investors made decisions based on, among other variables, an expectation that the government would not suddenly turn against nuclear power. The United States spent decades encouraging the private sector to invest in peaceful nuclear energy. This effort began with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which gave industry easy access to nuclear technology that was originally developed for national security reasons, and included the creation of follow-on public-private partnerships such as the 1955 Power Demonstration Reactor Program. The federal government worked with industry on a host of military, civil, and commercial projects throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Under the aus­pices of the Atomic Energy Commission in the exec­utive branch and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in Congress, the government provided lucrative guaranteed contracts and other subsidies that protected investments and assured private-sec­tor access to the latest nuclear technology.[1] The peaceful use of the atom, it was claimed, was the answer to future energy woes because it would produce electricity that, among other advantages, was "too cheap to meter."[2] The U.S. Navy's desire to expand nuclear propulsion in its fleet also heavily influenced growth in the private sector. Although direct subsidies, such as rapid tax amortization and funding for reactor construction, stopped in the late 1960s, entities within Congress and the executive branch continued to promote nuclear power with indirect support, such as market guarantees and access to technology.[3] Private investment followed Washington's lead. In cooperation with the federal government, the private sector expanded capacity and capabilities and developed the necessary technology. Public policy effectively harnessed the power of the private sector to advance national objectives. The result was the emergence of a world-class nuclear industry. However, the nuclear industry's success was due largely to public policy designed to promote its growth. Although the industry grew, it became overly dependent on government. This left it vul­nerable to shifts in public policy. When policy shifted toward outright opposition as the activist community convinced America's political left that nuclear power was dangerous, the industry predict­ably failed as investors cut their losses and moved capital to opportunities that were perceived as less threatened by increasing regulatory volatility. Anti-nuclear activists understood that they could kill the industry by turning public opinion--and therefore a democratic government--against nuclear power. This process began in the early 1970s. Although other factors such as rising interest rates, recession, and economic chaos caused by the oil crisis contributed to the nuclear industry's deterioration, the growing regulatory burden was paramount. Activists Gone Wild Anti-nuclear groups used both legal intervention and civil disobedience to impede construction of new nuclear power plants and hamper the opera­tions of existing units. They legally challenged 73 percent of the nuclear license applications filed between 1970 and 1972 and formed a group called Consolidated National Interveners for the specific purpose of disrupting hearings of the Atomic Energy Commission. Much of the anti-nuclear litigation of the 1970s was encouraged by factions within the govern­ment.[4] Today, activist organizations determined to force the closure of nuclear power plants, such as Mothers for Peace, continue to use the legal process to harass the nuclear energy industry. Activists went well beyond simply challenging nuclear power in the courts. On numerous occasions, demonstrators occupied construction sites, causing delays. For instance, in May 1977, the Clamshell Alli­ance led a protest that resulted in the arrest of more than 1,400 people for trespassing at the Seabrook plant site in New Hampshire.[5] In California, the Aba­lone Alliance adopted similar tactics and frequently blocked the gates of the Diablo Canyon power plant.[6] A watershed victory for the anti-nuclear move­ment occurred in 1971 when a federal appeals court ruled that the construction and operating permits for a nuclear power plant violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. As a result, util­ities were required to hold public hearings before obtaining a permit to start a project.[7] This decision created a major opening in the process that anti-nuclear activists could exploit. Changing the Economics of Nuclear Power The public-private relationship worked until nuclear power began to fall out of favor with public officials in the early 1970s. This, in part, led to bureaucratic restructuring in the legislative and executive branches. In Congress, the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was disbanded, and oversight responsi­bility for nuclear activities was transferred to multiple committees. This led to decentralized oversight and a weakening of nuclear policy in Congress. It also provided additional avenues for anti-nuclear lobbyists to influence Congress. In the executive branch, the Atomic Energy Commission, which both advocated for and oversaw the nation's nuclear activities, was replaced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which was given the sole function of reg­ulating the nuclear industry. In addition, the role of the judiciary cannot be overemphasized. Congress's loss of enthusiasm for nuclear energy led to more aggressive regulation, and because jurisdiction over nuclear issues was divided among multiple committees, there was no unified congressional direction. The result was an expansion of costly and often unnecessary rules. In June 2006, the NRC listed over 80 sources of regulation,[8] including over 1,300 pages of laws, treaties, statutes, authorizations, executive orders, and other documents. In addition to obvious legis­lative efforts, such at the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, nuclear activities in the United States must comply with the Inspector General Act, the Clean Air Act of 1977, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to name a few of the other applicable laws. This created numerous opportunities for anti-nuclear groups to file noncompliance suits. Whether or not the groups' concerns were legitimate, regu­lators often responded with additional mandates, which were very easy to establish. A regulator could compel a change in plant design simply by deciding that it would add substantially to public health or safety. The problem was that NRC stat­utes did not define "substantial." Because the interpretation of NRC regulations was left to the discretion of individual NRC technical reviewers, each license application would often result in its own unique requirements.[9] This inconsistency increased costs, further sour­ing Congress on nuclear power and leading to an endless spiral of legislation, regulation, and still more added costs. Between 1975 and 1983, 430 suits were brought against the NRC, leading to 2,349 proposed rules and regulations--each of which required an industry response.[10] The addi­tional and unexpected controls created industry­wide uncertainty and raised questions about the long-term economics of nuclear power. They also drove up capital costs.[11] This was all done by the NRC without adequate information. The NRC recognized as early as 1974 that it was issuing regulations without sufficient risk assessment training or cost considerations. It did not even have a program to train employees in how to conduct a review using NRC guidance.[12] Yet the commission continued to issue regulation after regulation. At the same time, state and local governments expanded their oversight functions. States often claimed jurisdiction over construction and opera­tions permits as well as environmental regulation. For example, while the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, the Clean Air Act, and the Solid Waste Dis­posal Act mandated that states enforce minimal fed­eral environmental standards, many states chose to adopt additional regulations.[13] Environmental stan­dards that varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction imposed additional costs and opened additional avenues for anti-nuclear activists to exploit. Today, many states exercise significant authority over the location and construction of nuclear reac­tors. Some jurisdictions have outright moratoria on new nuclear construction. For example, California prevents further construction of nuclear power plants until both the California Energy Commission and the federal government approve a method of disposing of nuclear waste. Most states that limit construction of nuclear plants use some variation of this theme.[14] Public commissions and referenda can impose additional restrictions. The shifting regulatory environment gave rise to additional reviews from numerous public institu­tions. Once permits were obtained, additional design changes were often mandated--even during construction. This inefficient and time-consuming process increased the time required to build a nuclear power plant by 42 percent (from 86 months to 122 months) between 1966 and 1970. From 1974 to 1984, the average construction delay was nearly 40 months, and between 1956 and 1979, the average construction permit review time increased fourfold. The average time required to bring a plant on line from the order date increased from three years to 13 years during a similar time period.[15] This significantly increased both the cost of a plant and the risks to the investors financing these projects. In addition, as the need for electricity increased, lengthy delays further undermined pub­lic confidence in the viability of nuclear power. During the 1970s, regulatory mandates also dras­tically increased the quantity of materials required to build a plant. Steel requirements increased by 41 percent, concrete by 27 percent, piping by 50 per­cent, and electrical cable by 36 percent. Even though experience demonstrated that these increases were unnecessary to maintain safe operations, regulatory relief never followed.[16] In some instances, builders even added safety features that were not mandated in hopes of avoiding further stoppages. As more inspections and inspectors were required, delays often resulted from inadequate reg­ulatory manpower. Workers had to spend inordi­nate amounts of time waiting for inspections rather than building the project. The oft-changing con­struction specifications also led to mistakes, which created further delays. Even after construction was complete, delays often continued. Delaying plant completion could cost up to $1 million per day.[17] Stories of costly and unnecessary delays litter the history of U.S. nuclear power. Plants such as the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island were completely built but never used because extremists succeeded in scaring the public and political leaders. From 1981 to 1988, operations and mainte­nance costs increased by 80 percent, and 30 to 60 percent of this increase was the direct result of NRC regulation.[18] High interest rates during the 1970s meant that long delays significantly increased project costs as rising interest payments drove up the cost of capital. High inflation drove up the costs of materials. Furthermore, plants were sometimes completed and ready to start producing electricity but were not allowed to begin operations for one regulatory reason or another. This prevented finan­ciers from collecting on their investment. These higher costs were passed on to investors as invest­ment losses and to consumers in higher electricity rates. Neither could be sustained over time when other alternatives, such as natural gas, existed. Overregulation Leads to a Declining Industry Overall, regulation increased the cost of con­structing a nuclear power plant fourfold.[19] Such cost escalation would have been justified if it had been rooted in scientific and technical analysis. Regrettably, it was largely a function of anti-nuclear activism, agenda-driven politicians, activist regula­tors, and unsubstantiated public fear. A total of $70 billion was added to the cost of nuclear reactors constructed by 1988, and this cost was passed on to the ratepayers. Prior to 1981, electricity cost an average of approximately $600 per kilowatt hour. After 1981, electricity cost two to six times that rate,[20] which means that either consumers paid significantly more or utilities incurred losses if they did not charge market prices. Neither circumstance was sustainable. The U.S. government even banned entire com­mercial technologies outright. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter dealt the U.S. nuclear industry one of its greatest setbacks by issuing Presidential Directive 8 (PD-8), [21] which forbids reprocessing (recycling) nuclear fuel in the United States. "Closing the fuel cycle," the term used to describe the recycling of spent nuclear fuel, allows used fuel to be recycled and used again. Regrettably, PD-8 has effectively been U.S. policy ever since. As a result, nuclear fuel is run through U.S. reactors only once, wasting a valuable resource and producing unnecessary amounts of high-level nuclear waste. Recycling spent nuclear fuel would help the U.S. and the world to reduce the volume of high-level nuclear waste and recover vast amounts of energy that remain in "spent" nuclear fuel even after it has gone through a reactor. Currently, only about 5 per­cent of the energy is used per volume of fuel. The U.S. does not recycle nuclear fuel, but France, Great Britain, China, and Russia are safely using recycling technology. With recycling in place, the reemergence of nuclear energy in the U.S. could finally move away from relying so heavily on the proposed Yucca Mountain repository. It would allow for a more rea­sonable "mixed" approach to nuclear waste, which would likely include some combination of perma­nent geological storage in Yucca Mountain, interim storage, recycling, and new technologies. However, establishing economically viable com­mercial recycling in the U.S. will not be easy. Carter's unilateral ban had a chilling effect on the domestic nuclear industry, forcing domestic nuclear suppliers to discontinue their activities at the cost of hun­dreds of millions of dollars. One industry group invested approximately $500 million in a project that never became operational.[22] Another major company spent $64 million on a facility that never opened.[23] This technology has since been trans­ferred overseas and is being used safely by other countries, such as France and Japan. With overregulation driving up the cost of nuclear power and the government unilaterally banning critical commercial technologies, the U.S. nuclear industry all but died. From the early 1950s through 1974, 231 nuclear power plants were ordered. Another 15 were ordered by 1977.[24] How­ever, no new orders have been placed since 1977, although some of plants ordered by 1977 have since become operational. Not only did orders stop, but previously ordered plants were cancelled. Of the 246 plants ordered in the U.S., only 104 operate today. Some were never built, others were shut down early, and con­struction was stopped on many after substantial investments had been made. The result was billions of dollars in losses. For example, the Cherokee plant in South Carolina was cancelled in 1982 after over $600 million had been invested. In 1983, a group of three utilities cancelled the Zimmer plant in Ohio after investing $1.8 billion.[25] In total, $30 billion was spent on nuclear plants that were never completed,[26] which is more than the value of most of the companies that are considering new plant orders. The result is that the United States is no longer a technology leader and does not receive the full ben­efits of nuclear power as it searches for environmen­tally friendly, affordable, and accessible sources of energy to meet future energy needs. Conversely, other nations are well positioned to lead the global resurgence in peaceful nuclear power. This is not to say that the United States should build its nuclear industry according to the French or Russian models, which rely on state ownership and controlled markets. Like the old U.S. nuclear industry, this approach creates an industry that relies on government support for long-term suc­cess. The pitfalls of this approach were aptly dem­onstrated during the 2007 French election when the possibility that nuclear skeptic Ségolène Royal would be elected president of France raised fears about the future of the French nuclear industry. The Effect on Ratepayers The near death of the U.S. nuclear energy indus­try has harmed both investors and consumers. First, ratepayers eventually pay for the increased costs of generating electricity. More important, by removing nuclear energy from America's energy portfolio, anti-nuclear activists have limited the choices avail­able to America's energy producers and consumers. Limiting choice has two inevitable results: higher prices and lower quality. Without nuclear energy as an option and with coal being frowned upon, utilities started moving toward natural gas power plants. This growing reli­ance on natural gas has caused electricity prices to follow the volatility of natural gas prices. As demand for natural gas has increased, prices have become even more volatile. Perhaps more ominously, it positions the United States to increase its reliance on foreign energy significantly. Today, America's energy dependence is largely a function of foreign petro­leum and the transportation sector. The nation gets only about 2 percent of its electricity from oil-fired plants. However, the growing U.S. depen­dence on natural gas is beginning to exceed domestic supply. This has resulted in increasing natural gas imports. Importing energy is not nec­essarily a problem if those resources are coming from stable, friendly countries, but foreign natural gas reserves are located largely in many of the same, less predictable countries that have large petroleum reserves. Regulation Today Congress and the Administration have cleared many of the regulatory hurdles to new nuclear plant construction. For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 allows utilities to combine their con­struction and operations licenses,[27] which should streamline much of the regulatory process. The problem is that no one has tried the procedure yet. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 added billions of dollars in regulatory protection for new nuclear plant construction.[28] These provisions should mit­igate much of the government-induced risk in the near term. Finally, in 2007, the NRC issued a new rule that will allow some pre-licensing of site prep­aration activities.[29] While these efforts are important first steps, they do not provide for long-term predictability. Instead, they provide confidence that a small number of plants will be built over the next few years. Industry is responding with investments to prepare for meet­ing that demand. However, realizing the many ben­efits of nuclear power will require a much broader expansion of the nuclear energy industry. Changing the nation's energy profile will require infrastructure investments on par with what took place during the industry's prime. Conclusion The history of civilian nuclear energy in the United States reveals the dangers of overt govern­ment promotion of or opposition to any particular technology or industry. When public opinion and government policy shifted against nuclear power, the industry was ill-prepared to survive, investors lost billions, and ratepayers suffered. The role and potential of nuclear power in the United States are too important to allow it to fall vic­tim to the same mistakes again. Investors must be assured that nuclear power will be allowed to stand or fall on its own merits. While federal, state, and local governments will have a role to play, especially in building confidence with investors, the best long-term subsidy that they could give the industry is the freedom to succeed. Jack Spencer is Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. ====================================================================== [1]Lee Clarke, "The Origins of Nuclear Power: A Case of Institutional Conflict," Social Problems, Vol. 32, No. 5 (June 1985), p. 476. [2]"Abundant Power from Atom Seen: It Will Be Too Cheap for Our Children to Meter, Strauss Tells Science Writers," The New York Times, September 17, 1954, p. 5. [3]Clarke, "The Origins of Nuclear Power," p. 479. [4]Elizabeth H. Boyle, "Political Frames and Legal Activity: The Case of Nuclear Power in Four Countries," Law & Society Review, Vol. 32, No. 3 (1998), pp. 149 and 151. [5]Steven E. Barkan, "Strategic, Tactical and Organizational Dilemmas of the Protest Movement Against Nuclear Power," Social Problems, Vol. 27, No. 1 (October 1979), p. 24. [6]Energy Net, "The Abalone Alliance Story," at www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/AA.HTM (November 2, 2007). [7]Elliot Blair Smith, "Nuclear Utilities Redefine One Word to Bulldoze for New Plants," Bloomberg.com, September 25, 2007, at www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=home&sid=ag_TpOMlk0Xw (October 1, 2007). [8]U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Legislation: 109th Congress, Vol. 1, No. 7, Rev. 1, 2nd Sess., and Vol. 2, 1st Sess., June 2006, at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0980 (October 29, 2007). [9]U.S. General Accounting Office, Nuclear Powerplant Licensing: Need for Additional Improvements, EMD-78-29, April 27, 1978, p. 14, at http://archive.gao.gov/f0902b/105656.pdf. [10]Magali Delmas and Bruce Heiman, "Government Credible Commitment to the French and American Nuclear Power Industries," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer 2001), p. 447. [11]For a full analysis of this phenomenon, see ibid., pp. 433-546. [12]U.S. General Accounting Office, Nuclear Powerplant Licensing, pp. 17-21. [13]U.S. General Accounting Office, Electric Power: Contemporary Issues and the Federal Role in Oversight and Regulation, EMD- 82-8, December 21, 1981, p. 28, at http://archive.gao.gov/d47t13/117098.pdf. [14]For a state-by-state analysis of state nuclear policy, see E. Michael Blake, "Where New Reactors Can (and Can't) Be Built," Nuclear News, November 2006, pp. 23-25. [15]Delmas and Heiman, "Government Credible Commitment," pp. 450-551. [16]Bernard L. Cohen, The Nuclear Energy Option (New York: Plenum Press, 1990), Chap. 9, at www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html (October 10, 2007). [17]Ibid. [18]Delmas and Heiman, "Government Credible Commitment," p. 454. [19]Cohen, The Nuclear Energy Option, Chap. 9. [20]Christian Joppke, "Decentralization of Control in U.S. Nuclear Energy Policy," Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 107, No. 4 (Winter 1992-1993), pp. 719-720. [21]Jimmy Carter, "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Policy," Presidential Directive NSC-8, March 24, 1977, at www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pd/pd08.pdf (November 2, 2007). [22]Nuclear Energy Institute, "Plutonium and Uranium Reprocessing," acamedia, January 2003, at www.acamedia.info/politics/nonproliferation/references/nei_2003.htm (October 9, 2007). [23]U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, "Plutonium Recovery from Spent Fuel Reprocessing by Nuclear Fuel Services at West Valley New York," February 1996, at www.osti.gov/opennet/document/purecov/nfsrepo.html#ZZ6 (October 9, 2007). [24]Delmas and Heiman, "Government Credible Commitment," pp. 433-546. [25]Darryl E. J. Gurley, "Nuclear Power Plant Cancellations: Sunk Costs and Utility Stock Returns," Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Winter 1990), at www.allbusiness.com/public-administration/administration-economic-prog rams/114347-1.html (October 2, 2007). [26]Joppke, "Decentralization of Control in U.S. Nuclear Energy Policy," p. 719. [27]Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, Sec. 2801. [28]Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 109-58, Title VI. [29]Smith, "Nuclear Utilities Redefine One Word to Bulldoze for New Plants." Contact An Expert MEDIA INFORMATION LINE: (202) 675-1761 Fax: 202.544.6979 ©2007 The Heritage Foundation General Inquiries: 202.546.4400 Media Relations: 202.675.1761 ***************************************************************** 12 Salt Lake Tribune: Legislators wrap up nuclear talks The Salt Lake Tribune Article Launched: 11/15/2007 01:10:31 AM MST Lawmakers wrapped up a months-long discussion of nuclear power Wednesday with comments from two critics. Noting that he is not an expert but an ordinary citizen, Provo resident James O'Neal told the Public Utilities and Technology Committee about the risks, the costs and the political sensitivity that Utah would face if nuclear reactors come to the state. "I do think I represent the people of Utah," said the former Tennessee resident who described how the addition of nuclear power there brought higher electric rates. "Utah doesn't need nuclear power. We have plenty of resources." Christopher Thomas, policy director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, said higher-than-expected costs for reactors have driven Utahns away from nuclear in the months lawmakers have been discussing it. He cited polls, including The Salt Lake Tribune's Nov. 11 opinion survey showing that many Utahns are not sold on nuclear reactors. Thomas cited a recent Moody's investment analysis that suggests nuclear plants will cost more than the projected $2 billion to $3 billion - more like $4 billion to $5 billion - to build. There are no commercial nuclear reactors within Utah's borders. But Republican Rep. Aaron Tilton, of Springville, is involved in a proposal to construct the first two, and GOP Rep. Mike Noel of Kanab's water district has sold water rights for the project. Members of the committee considered a bill this summer that would have streamlined the process for nuclear plant rate plans, including allowing reactor operators to charge ratepayers the costs of an unfinished nuclear plant. The legislation is modeled on a Florida law. fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 13 NRC: Notice of Issuance of Addendum to the Supplement to the Environmental Assessment for the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation FR Doc E7-22349 [Federal Register: November 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 220)] [Notices] [Page 64252] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr15no07-105] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-26] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Issuance. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Addendum to the supplement to the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). NRC issued the EA and initial Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this action on October 24, 2003, and subsequently issued a license for the Diablo Canyon ISFSI to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), on March 22, 2004. The license authorizes PG&E to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials resulting from the operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in an ISFSI at the site for a term of 20 years. On August 30, 2007, NRC issued a supplement to the EA and final FONSI, in response to the June 2, 2006, decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006). The supplement to the EA addressed the environmental impacts from potential terrorist acts against the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. The Addendum lists six documents to be added to the list of references provided in the supplement to the EA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager, Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Mail Stop EBB-3D-02M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 492-3319; e-mail: jrh@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 21, 2001, PG&E submitted an application to NRC, requesting a site-specific license to build and operate an ISFSI, to be located on the site of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, in San Luis Obispo County, California. The NRC staff issued an EA and FONSI for this action on October 24, 2003, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, and in conformance with the applicable requirements of 10 CFR part 51. On March 22, 2004, the NRC staff issued Materials License No. SNM- 2511 to PG&E, pursuant to 10 CFR part 72, authorizing PG&E to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel and associated radioactive materials resulting from the operation of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in an ISFSI at the site for a term of 20 years. Subsequently, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and other parties filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, asking that NRC be required to consider terrorist acts in its environmental review associated with this licensing action. In its decision of June 2, 2006, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that NRC could not categorically refuse to consider the consequences of a terrorist attack under NEPA and remanded the case to NRC. In response to the Ninth Circuit decision, the Commission directed the NRC staff to prepare a revised EA, addressing the likelihood of a terrorist attack at the Diablo Canyon ISFSI site and the potential consequences of such an attack. On May 29, 2007, the NRC staff issued a preliminary supplement to the EA and draft FONSI to address the environmental impacts from potential terrorist acts against the Diablo Canyon ISFSI. On August 30, 2007, NRC issued the final supplement to the EA and final FONSI for this action. NRC summarized the comments received and responded to those comments in the final supplement to the EA, which also included a list of 14 references. Subsequent to the issuance of the final supplement, the staff determined that certain other documents concerning NRC's generic security assessments should also be included in the list of references. These 6 documents are listed in the Addendum. Documents related to this action, including the May 29, 2007, preliminary supplement to the EA and draft FONSI; the August 30, 2007, EA supplement and final FONSI; the October 24, 2003, EA; and the Diablo Canyon ISFSI license and supporting documentation, are available electronically, at NRC's Electronic Reading Room, at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the final EA supplement and final FONSI is ML072400511, and the accession number for the Addendum is ML073040434. For the preliminary supplement to the EA and draft FONSI, the accession number is ML071280256. The ADAMS accession number for the October 24, 2003, EA is ML032970337; and for the ISFSI license and related documents, the accession number is ML040780107. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at NRC's PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents, for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of November, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert A. Nelson, Chief, Licensing Branch, Division of Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E7-22349 Filed 11-14-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 14 Reuters: DTE's Mich. Fermi 2 reactor shut again | Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:18pm EST NEW YORK, Nov 15 (Reuters) - DTE Energy's (DTE.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 1,122-megawatt Fermi 2 nuclear power unit in Michigan shut automatically early Thursday as it was starting to exit a refueling outage, a spokesman said. The unit, in Newport, Michigan, about 25 miles (40 km) northeast of Toledo, Ohio, automatically shut at 3:12 a.m. EST (0812 GMT), while producing power at 9 percent of capacity, the spokesman said. All emergency systems worked as designed. Operators had not determined the cause of the shutdown on Thursday. It was not known when the unit would return to service, the spokesman said. The unit closed Sept. 29 for the refueling outage, which included fuel replacement, upgrades to the low-pressure turbines and replacement of pumps and motors in the coolant water system. The 1,173-MW Fermi station also includes four distillate fuel oil units, including one 12-MW unit and three 13-MW units. Separately, the NRC expects DTE to apply in 2008 to build a new reactor at Fermi. DTE has not specified what type of reactor it might seek to build. One MW powers about 800 homes in Michigan. DTE owns and operates more than 11,000 MW of generating capacity, markets energy commodities and distributes electricity (2.1 million) and natural gas (1.2 million) to customers in Michigan. (Reporting by Eileen Moustakis and Eileen O'Grady; Editing by Marguerita Choy) © Reuters2007All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 15 UPI: British Energy to build nuclear plant International Security - Energy - Briefing - UPI.com Published: Nov. 15, 2007 at 11:37 AM LIVINGSTON, Scotland, Nov. 15 (UPI) -- British Energy plans to build two new next-generation nuclear plants. Bill Coley, chief executive of British Energy, said Wednesday he expects to announce by the end of the year the industrial partners with whom he will bid to build the plants. Despite the new plans, the company has been unable to say when four of its currently shut-down nuclear reactors will be brought back online, according to The Independent. "We have been in discussion with more than 10 entities about possible partnerships, and we'll be able to give an indication of the nature of one, possibly two, by next month," Coley said. Analysts have estimated that the reactors will be out of commission for up to five months. "We are very early into this. We are in the process of inspections. We are going to do several thousand radio-graphs of the BCUs (boiler closure units) on each of the reactors. Our people are working 24 hours a day, seven days a week on this, but it is still too early to tell how long it will be," Coley said. New funding for nuclear projects, as well as other bills to reduce carbon emissions, was announced last week by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. © 2007 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 AU: The Age: WA moves to ban nuclear power plants - www.theage.com.au November 15, 2007 - 6:25PM Laws to block nuclear power plants in Western Australia were passed by the WA parliament's lower house on Thursday. Energy Minister Francis Logan said the legislation would ensure the state remained "forever free" of nuclear power. "State parliament has already passed legislation to ban the storage and transport of nuclear waste," Mr Logan said in a statement. "To date it has not been necessary to ban nuclear power. "But a new threat has emerged. "The Howard government, in its attempt to play catch-up in the climate change debate, is using nuclear power as its solution to global warming. "This could mean action by the commonwealth government to impose nuclear power in WA." The upper house has yet to consider the legislation, which aims to prohibit the construction or operation of a nuclear facility in WA. It would also ban the transportation of certain material to a nuclear facility site and ban the connection of a nuclear power plant to an electricity grid. Anyone trying to build or operate a nuclear plant would face fines of up to $500,000. © 2007 AAP Copyright © 2007. The Age Company Ltd. ***************************************************************** 17 CollegiateTimes.com - Letter: Nuclear energy story contains inaccuracies Letter to the editor Thursday, November 15; 12:00 AM I want to point out several inaccurate statements published in the Collegiate Times story, "Reconsidering a switch from solar to nuclear power," (CT, Nov. 9) concerning last week's Choices and Challenges forum on nuclear power. The most egregious errors in the article include: The notion that the resurgence of nuclear power results from the desire to replace oil as an energy source. Nuclear power plants produce electricity. Since conventional power plants use little oil to generate electricity (only 1.6 percent of the fuel mix in 2006), nuclear power would play only a small role in displacing oil consumed in the United States. Rather, nuclear fuel would replace a much greater amount of coal and natural gas as raw materials, which together are used to generate about 69 percent of the nation's electricity. Much of nuclear power's appeal today stems from the drive to produce electricity without the release of greenhouse gases (as occurs when burning these traditional fuels). Another error is the assertion that the U.S. "currently derives 49 percent of its energy from coal…" As noted in my presentation, this number refers to the percentage of electrical energy that comes from the combustion of coal — not total energy. Only about 23 percent of all energy consumed in the U.S. draws on coal. The nation burns oil to meet about 40 percent of its total energy demand. Moreover, it imports 60 percent of its petroleum needs — a fact that has huge security and economic implications. The claim that "Bush proposed in 2002 that (nuclear) waste be stored in Yucca Mountain." The issue of how to dispose of nuclear waste has been studied for decades, and the Department of Energy began examining Yucca Mountain as a waste repository in 1978. As noted in my talk, Congress passed a law in 1982 to establish a waste repository, and President Bush made the final decision in 2002 to select (not propose) Yucca Mountain as the preferred waste site. Finally, a third error is the idea that the main use of recycled atomic waste in France consists of making nuclear weapons. I noted that nuclear fuel reprocessing yields materials that power plants can use for further production of electricity, though some of the spent fuel can also be employed in nuclear weapons. I further pointed out that President Carter terminated the American project for reprocessing used nuclear fuel in 1977 because he feared that some of it could be obtained by unfriendly nations for making atomic weapons. (For the same reason, American policy makers today remain anxious about construction of nuclear power plants in North Korea and Iran.) But I never suggested that the French nuclear plants churned out plutonium for use primarily in nuclear weapons. In fact, the French recycle a huge proportion of the spent fuel into material that they use to produce more electricity. As the Choices and Challenges forum demonstrated, even "experts" have serious and legitimate differences about how to interpret the facts relating to nuclear power. But it is important that the public debate draws on accurate information reported by the news media. Richard Hirsh professor, Department of History director, Consortium on Energy Restructuring Comment: Posted by: Rod Adams at Nov 15 Professor Hirsh has made some statements that are correct on a first order, but he has not dug deeply enough to find that there are second order complexities in the energy market in general and the electricity market in particular. Nuclear power has made an important contribution already towards reducing America's dependence on imported oil. In 1970, before nuclear power's share of the electricity market grew beyond 1%, oil was used for about 17% of the electricity generation. That occurred mainly in New England and in Florida where ships kept delivery costs from foreign sources low. As he stated in his opinion piece, the situation today is that the US electricity market has essentially been weaned from oil and nuclear power has replaced its market share - nuclear is now about 19-20% of US electricity. Nuclear can make additional contributions because oil is still burned in furnaces for heat; that use can easily be replaced by using electric heat. I live in an all electric home whose winter heating cost was quite low when it was supplied by a system consisting of coal and nuclear generation under cost of service regulation. As soon as the regulations were removed and the cost was allowed to float up to the market price as determined by natural gas, our heating cost doubled. Nuclear also has proven uses in ship propulsion. The US congress has directed the Navy to go back and study nuclear for ships in addition to aircraft carriers and submarines; the studies show that the costs are a wash once oil prices exceed about $85 per barrel. Commercial ships, built to less military specific standards, could be extremely competitive with nuclear power plants since oil is the main source of baseload power at sea. Otherwise, I think Professor Hirsh's points are spot on. © 1998-2007 Collegiate Times. All stories, photos etc. produced by the Collegiate Times are property of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech. No information may be republished without the expressed written consent of the editor of the Collegiate Times. ***************************************************************** 18 Daily Utah Chronicle: Utahns divided on nuclear debate - * College Publisher Network By: Arthur Raymond Issue date: 11/15/07 Section: News Media Credit: Tyler Cobb Utah needs to continue considering nuclear power as a possible carbon-free energy alternative to minimize dangers associated with the state's warming climate. This was part of the message delivered to a committee of state lawmakers yesterday by Dianne Nielson, Gov. Jon Huntsman's energy adviser. The statement mirrors Huntsman's continued stance that nuclear power should continue to remain on a list of energy alternatives for Utah. But Tim Wagner, energy coordinator for the Utah chapter of the Sierra Club, said he believes Huntsman's position could change. The Sierra Club, like many environmental groups, is opposed to nuclear power because of environmental concerns associated with power generation and waste disposal. "Once the governor looks at the issue and what's involved, I think he'll see that the complexities of nuclear power do not fit in Utah's future," Wagner said. Scientific evaluations of Utah's climate, requested by Huntsman's Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change, have indicated a trend of worsening climate conditions with predictions of higher temperatures, drought and an atmosphere that could pose serious health risks. Greenhouse gases released by fossil fuels are causing this dangerous warming trend, according to the council. Two reports issued to the council addressed methods to intervene in these trends, one focusing on efficiency and conservation issues and the other evaluating clean-energy alternatives for the state. Wagner, who sits on the council, said that the option of nuclear power was discussed by the panel, but he and others do not believe it poses a viable solution to meet Huntsman's goal of a statewide 20 percent energy efficiency increase by 2015. Wagner said that there is a contingent of council members who would like nuclear power to continue to be evaluated. In the report addressing clean-energy options for the state, nuclear power was not mentioned. The report focuses on solar, wind, biomass and geothermal power generation as the most practical alternatives to fossil fuel power sources. Utah gets about 95 percent of its electricity from coal-fired plants -- one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power has, however, found its way into the arena of debate about Utah's power future. Utah Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, is a partner in Transition Power Development LLC. His company has secured a contract for water in Kane County and announced its intentions of developing two 1,500-megawatt nuclear power generating units in the area. The water contract, for 30,000 acre-feet of water annually, is an essential first step in the development. Nuclear power generation requires a constant, high-volume water source for cooling purposes. Tilton recently testified before a legislative committee on utilities, raising questions about conflict of interest because of Tilton's dual role as a legislator and a power developer. He is also a member of Huntsman's climate council. Tilton, who argued for the council to review nuclear power as a carbon-free energy alternative, acknowledged a "hesitance among some of the members to evaluate that specific option." That hesitance, however, has not changed Tilton's stance on the issue. "Nuclear power is now, and will continue to be, a safe option to address Utah's future power needs," Tilton said. He said the decision about what is the right solution to Utah's environmental concerns and increasing power demands should lie in the hands of the voters, not the government. Voters are evenly split on the issue of nuclear power development in Utah, according to a recent The Salt Lake Tribune poll. Tilton said the poll indicates that there is significant support for his project and that "the average, everyday person understands that we need options besides coal. Nuclear power should be one of those options." The next step in Tilton's development effort is to secure a purchase or lease contract for a potential site. He said he expects this to be completed in "the near future." The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah held a panel discussion Nov. 2 to address the issues surrounding nuclear development, global warming and Utah's energy future. Kent Udell, a chair of the mechanical engineering department who sat on the panel, said that one of the biggest drawbacks to nuclear development in Utah is the state's arid climate. "If we have nuclear power plants in place in Utah, we'll need to cool them. The water requirements will become a big issue," Udell said. Udell also discussed the environmental footprints of other energy sources, such as solar, geothermal, wind and biomass, noting their relatively small impacts. He included mention of nuclear power, in some scenarios, also representing a relatively low footprint. Panel member Arjun Makhijani presented statistics illustrating what would be required for nuclear power development to impact the rate of carbon emissions in the United States. "In order for nuclear power to replace coal in the U.S., one nuclear plant would have to be built every six days for 40 years," said Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "Cookie-cutter nuclear power plants are not a good idea," he added. Cost issues also figure prominently in comparing nuclear power to other fossil fuel alternatives. Peter Bradford, former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner, said that the current estimated cost for a 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility is in the range of $5 to $6 billion. This is about twice the cost of a comparable coal plant. Udell said that a 1,000-megawatt solar power plant would run about $2 billion. Vanessa Pierce, the executive director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, said thousands of uranium mines that were active during the middle of the last century continue to be environmental hazards and clean-up efforts are ongoing. She also noted that workers in those mines were exposed to damaging levels of radiation and that current health standards for uranium mining have not been updated for decades. Pierce also said that Utah's Energy Solutions, a Utah company that handles radioactive waste in facilities in the west desert, processes 96 percent of the radioactive waste generated in the United States. Pierce characterized any move toward nuclear power in Utah as a "relapse" and said that recent legislative lobbying efforts by utility companies are attempting to open the door for nuclear development. Two state legislators, Rep. Michael E. Noel, R-Kanab, and Rep. Jack R. Draxler, R-North Logan, voiced their support for Nielson's commitment to keep the nuclear power option open at yesterday's committee hearing. a.raymond@chronicle.utah.edu © The Daily Utah Chronicle Powered by College Publisher ***************************************************************** 19 Greenpeace UK: When is a solution not a solution? Posted by ben on 15 November 2007. As Gordon Brown grapples with the question of whether to push the nuclear button and give the green light to a fleet of new reactors in the UK, we keep on hearing from those rum coves in the industry about how they now have a solution, or more accurately a "management strategy", for dealing with all the tonnes of lethal radioactive waste nuclear reactors produce. This state-of-the-art solution comes in the shape of the rather grandly titled "deep geological repository". To you and me this roughly translates as "a deep hole in the ground", a massive underground dump wherein our toxic legacy will be buried, back filled and then it's goodnight Vienna. But, as with a great many things in this debate, things are not quite as they seem… Even putting aside the fact that Sellafield, the prime site for the UK's nuclear waste dump, is probably not even geologically suitable to house one, the model repository that the UK is looking to emulate has suddenly run into rather choppy waters. For the last few years our friends over the pond have been busily preparing a waste dump at a place called Yucca Mountain, a vast and eerily beautiful tract of hilly desert in Nevada that is home to the odd rattlesnake and a few vagrant coyotes. The whole project will cost around $60bn and could store up to 70,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste once it opens in 2017. It has been held in the highest esteem by the UK for some time, so much so that the government sees it as the blueprint for our own waste dump. It's a bit of bad news, then, that Yucca Mountain is in fact probably a rather bad place to build a repository for nuclear waste after all. According to a recent story, it's emerged that the dump is, in fact, located on a seismic fault line. Earthquake central, if you will. Now this really oughtn't be that surprising, given Nevada is the 3rd most geologically unstable state in the USA, but it's thrown construction plans a little out of kilter. Unsurprising really, given that even the thought of a huge earthquake tearing apart 70 odd thousand tonnes of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel is enough to make Radioactive Man blanche. As the report notes, "the most expensive public works project in the US" is now "in disarray". The chief of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects was a little agog with the US Department of Energy's apparent inability to spot this particular fly in their nuclear ointment. "It certainly looks like DoE has encountered a surprise out there, and it certainly speaks to the fact they haven't done the technical work they should have done years ago," he said with a straight face. Now even US-Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is talking about "what the available scientific evidence makes clear: Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store spent fuel from our nation’s nuclear reactors." I dread to think what poor Yucca Mountain Johnny makes of it all. The simple fact is that there is no safe solution to dealing with radioactive waste because it can remain harmful for hundreds of thousands of years. Burying it deep underground knowing that could in all likelihood leak back into the environment isn’t a very responsible answer to a legacy that we have to deal with now. The least worst environmental option is the store the nuclear waste that we've already produced on-site, in a secure and robust facility where it can be monitored or retrieved if necessary. And then make a decision not produce any more of the stuff. Leaving an environmental time-bomb underground for future generations is not the answer, especially when the plans for waste dumps around the world are so criminally cack-handed. ***************************************************************** 20 Times of India: UPA plans 300% boost to N-sector 16 Nov 2007, 0226 hrs IST,Mahendra Kumar Singh & Nitin Sethi,TNN NEW DELHI: There will be life beyond the 123 deal for India's nuclear programme. The UPA government plans to boost nuclear sector with a whopping 300% increase in the next five-year Plan, regardless of whether the deal goes through or not. The budget for the department of atomic energy (DAE) is proposed to be increased from Rs 3,501 crore in the 10th Plan to a whopping Rs 11,000 crore in the 11th Plan with a hope of giving an impetus to the indigenous nuclear power programme. This comes along with an equally impressive fillip to the total science budget from Rs 25,000 crore reserved in the previous Plan period to Rs 73,304 crore in the one to be adopted soon. This substantial increase in allocation includes Rs 1,800 crore to be spent on trying to send the first Indian into space under an indigenous programme. On the nuclear energy front, India will push for research on the 7,000 MW pressurised heavy water reactors. The focus will also remain on finding new techniques for uranium exploration. India's attempt to build fast breeder reactors (FBRs) too will find adequate budgetary support with research on advanced fuel for FBRs and studies of fuel chemistry and safety being carried out intensively. The Planning Commission document admits that the existing nuclear generators are not very successful either in terms of economics or safety. Yet it insists that the development of the advanced nuclear reactor system must continue. A new multi-purpose research reactor with high flux specially for basic research in frontier areas of science and for applied research related to testing nuclear fuels will also be set up besides giving BARC a second campus at Vizag. In order to increase skills among the nuclear fraternity, the 11th Plan also proposes to set up training schools under DAE as well as the National Institute of Science Education and Research at Bhubhaneswar which will provide five-year masters and integrated MSc-PhD in science. The document also makes a strong pitch for opening the nuclear sector to private players. The Plan has highlighted that nuclear fuel trade would have to be liberalised if the country's uranium-based power generation programme is to be expanded. It points out that shortage of domestic supply of uranium is the main constraint being faced by the Nuclear Power Corporation (NPC) to run its 3,900 MW installed capacity. According to the paper, the NPC's plant-load factor (PLF) rose from 60% in 1995-96 to 82% in 2000-01, but declined to a mere 57% in 2006-07. The document suggests that while India's fast breeder reactor programme is progressing well (the programme will enable India to use spent fuel and thorium that is in abundance in the country), moving to the second and third stages of development (using thorium) would also require that nuclear power generation capacity should be increased to 20,000 MW. However, the country's uranium deposits would only allow expanding nuclear power generation up to 10,000 MW. If other PSUs and the private sector is allowed into the arena, it could help India achieve 1,00,000 MW of nuclear capacity by 2030. Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: U.S. – Japan Regulatory Cooperation Supporting Safety and Security - Meeting Future Challenges Speech - 07-049 - OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov Web Site: Public Affairs Web Site PDF Version U.S. – Japan Regulatory Cooperation Supporting Safety and Security - Meeting Future Challenges Dr. Peter B. Lyons, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the U.S. – Japan Workshop on Nuclear Energy Santa Fe Energy Seminar Washington, D.C. November 8, 2007 Konichiwa - good afternoon to all the distinguished guests here today. Chairman Kondo, Chairman Katsumata, and Bill Martin, I am honored to share this opportunity with you today and to give my views on the challenges faced by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and on the importance of international regulatory cooperation. As usual, I must say that my remarks today are my personal thoughts and not necessarily those of the Commission. Much of the discussion I hear about the increased global interest in nuclear energy is related to reactor design and construction. However, no reactor can function unless all elements of the fuel cycle operate safely and securely, from the mining of the uranium ore, to fabrication of fuels, to utilization in reactors, to the storage and transportation of wastes. In addition, there is also the entire field of nuclear materials in industrial and medical applications. International cooperation in all of these fields is becoming increasingly important as today's global economy distributes the technical expertise among many countries. Today the NRC is learning and contributing internationally through our exchange of technical information and discussions of regulatory practices. In these exchanges, our cooperation with Japan is highly valued and has been very beneficial. Let me start by sharing with you what I see today as the priorities for the NRC. Current Operating Reactor Safety Safety of the currently operating reactor and materials licensees continues to be NRC's top priority. Construction of new nuclear plants in the U.S. will not be an option without the continued safe operation of reactors today. Safety performance measures, including performance indicators and inspection findings, are strong for most U.S. plants. Our inspection, oversight, and enforcement processes are working effectively to ensure licensees address deficiencies that are identified. Just as we expect licensees to institutionalize lessons learned, the NRC must do the same. The NRC is working hard to learn from experience and from lessons such as the Davis-Besse corrosion event and from international experience as well. It is essential that both the licensees we regulate and the NRC itself remain continuously committed to safety and to maintaining technical competence. Commitment to safety, or "safety first"for which I understand the Japanese word is (and I hope I come close to the correct pronunciation) "anzendaiichi", requires a "top down"focus from licensee management making safety its top priority. Such a commitment must come from a deeply felt culture of safety throughout the organization. The NRC has improved our reactor oversight program to look for evidence of declining safety culture in licensee organizations. In addition, within our own NRC organization, our Inspector General conducts a periodic anonymous safety culture survey of our employees, and we use those results to focus NRC management attention on areas we can improve. For the NRC, commitment to safety means asking the tough questions, carefully and thoroughly considering the answers, and then making the tough decisions. The commitment to safety that comes from a culture of safety is required of anyone who works in the nuclear field, be they regulator, operator, constructor, fabricator, or vendor. To be effective, a commitment to safety requires technical competence and a questioning attitude, as well as a work environment that actively encourages safety questions to be raised and addressed. New Reactor Construction At the NRC, such a commitment to safety extends beyond the currently operating reactors to all the licensees and facilities that we regulate, and further includes our work to certify and license the advanced reactor designs that may become the foundation for new reactor construction in the U.S. The U.S. nuclear industry has announced that over 20 Combined Construction and Operating License, or "COL,"applications may be submitted to the NRC over the next few years, representing a potential total of over 30 new nuclear power reactors in 14 different States. In fact, this process has already begun – in September the NRC received the first COL application for two Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWR) at the South Texas Project site, and on October 31 we received the second COL application, this one for two Westinghouse AP1000 reactors at the Bellefonte site in Alabama. In addition, a portion of a COL application has been received for an Evolutionary Pressurized Reactor (EPR) at the Calvert Cliffs site. Design Certification activities are also in progress. The NRC staff's review is proceeding for the General Electric ESBWR design certification, we are holding pre-submittal meetings for a design amendment for the Westinghouse AP1000, and pre-application meetings are occurring for the AREVA EPR and Mitsubishi USAPWR design certifications. One year ago the NRC created the Office of New Reactors (NRO), to accommodate the expected extraordinary workload increase in regulatory licensing and construction oversight, without losing focus on operating reactor safety. Operating reactor oversight remains under the existing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. When new plants are ready for licensing – the NRC will be ready too. To achieve timely NRC reviews of multiple standardized COL applications, the NRC staff is planning to implement a "design-centered" approach. It is based on the principle of "one issue, one review, one position"for multiple COL applications under parallel review. The benefits of a design-centered licensing review will be achieved only to the extent that COL applicants standardize their applications for a particular reactor design, and review schedules will be longer if industry does not follow this model. In addition, reactor vendors and COL applicants must submit applications that are complete and meet very high technical quality standards. We will not compromise our standards to expedite approvals. NRC staff has developed Regulatory Guide 1.206, "Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants,"to assist COL applicants in meeting our standards, and future applicants should pay close attention and learn from the NRC's assessment of the first applications. In addition, both the NRC and the U.S. nuclear industry have a lot of work ahead of us in preparing for new construction under the new licensing and approval process in Part 52 of our regulations. The NRC has been developing and will be implementing its new Construction Inspection Program out of our Atlanta Regional Office. Here also, much of the efficiency and timeliness of our inspection activities will depend on how well industry establishes and adheres to planned construction schedules. As NRC continues to develop our inspection program and train our inspectors, there is much we can learn from our regulatory partners, such as Japan, who have very current experience. Security Turning now to the topic of security – security of any element of a nation's critical infrastructure requires a national integration of defensive capabilities. In the U.S., our intelligence, military, state, local, and licensee capabilities work together to provide integrated, multi-dimensional barriers to any individuals or groups who seek to harm our nation. As part of this broad effort, the NRC strengthened its security requirements. For example, the effectiveness of improved plant security continues to be regularly tested at every U.S. nuclear power plant through NRC-evaluated force-on-force exercises, and we continue to improve our regulatory requirements to enhance security of reactors, fuel cycle facilities, and nuclear materials when necessary. We do this in a deliberative manner, engaging the public as much as possible without compromising sensitive information, although achieving an appropriate balance between openness and protecting sensitive information continues to be very challenging for us. The Commission is also considering the extent to which new plants should incorporate features against the impact of a commercial airliner. The NRC has carefully evaluated existing reactors and required many actions from our licensees to mitigate this possible threat. While the existing plants are adequately prepared, we have an opportunity with new plants to design more of the protective features into the plants from the start and to require fewer operator mitigation actions. Recently, the NRC issued for public comment a proposal to require new plant design applications to include an assessment to show reduced reliance on operator actions in the event of a commercial airliner crash into the plant. Security issues are not solely focused on reactor licensees. The NRC was recently the subject of a very public "sting"operation by another federal agency, which identified weaknesses in how NRC licenses certain radioactive materials. I should note that the NRC had already taken a graded approach to improving materials licensing and security by focusing more requirements and controls on materials with higher significance for potential misuse. However, as a result of the "sting,"we are now taking actions to even further reduce the vulnerability of radioactive materials having lower significance. Shared Challenges of the Nuclear Industry and the Regulator I'd like to comment on three challenges that confront both the nuclear industry and the regulator. They are: meeting our future human capital needs, informing the public, and engaging public stakeholders. Earlier I mentioned the importance of technical competence, for both the nuclear industry and the regulator. Future projections indicate that we need more trained workers, but many factors limit our ability to rapidly increase this workforce. One such factor is the expected retirement of the current workforce. It has been estimated that about one third of those working at U.S. nuclear utilities will be eligible for retirement in the next 5 to 10 years and that 90,000 new workers will be needed by 2011, just to continue operating the existing plants. The potential labor shortage not only affects utilities, but also impacts the entire nuclear infrastructure, including national laboratories, federal and state agencies, nuclear technology vendors and manufacturing companies, nuclear construction companies, and university nuclear engineering departments. However, the good news is that student enrollment and graduation rates in nuclear engineering and radiation health programs have been increasing. But even with these increases, there will still be a shortfall of supply, based on the projected demand. These issues of human capital have concerned me since becoming a Commissioner and I have consistently encouraged that all of us engaged in this field must help students at all levels develop an interest in science and technology careers and vocations. At NRC, in preparation for our expanding workload, we have recently been trying to add about 200 technical staff per year and want to continue that rate for 3 years through 2008. But it is an effort that seems like taking two steps forward followed by one step backward. For example, in Fiscal Year 2007, we hired 428 new staff and lost 222 for an actual net gain of 206. Once we hire good people in this competitive employment environment we want to keep them. Therefore, our challenge at the NRC includes maintaining our standing as one of the best workplaces in federal government and introducing our employees to the many satisfactions of a career in public service. There is only a single pool of talent to fill all our vacancies, and the pool must be large enough to supply both industry and the regulator with the talent we both need. Another educational challenge that both industry and the regulator face is that of informing the public at large. I'd like to offer a quote I recently found on this point, from Admiral H.G. Rickover. It reads as follows: "The professional person's standing in the community depends, in the final analysis, on the public's insight of his work, that is, on the educational level of the man in the street. When specialized knowledge of professional people is incomprehensible to the average man, he is apt to flounder between frustrated suspicion and excessive awe, leading him either to interfere unduly with professional independence or to accept naively every claim made by anyone who calls himself a professional." I would only add one thought to this: greater public understanding of basic scientific principles promotes greater value in the debates that inevitably occur in our open and democratic societies. Both the industry and the regulator must carry on a dialogue with members of the public and certainly with their elected officials. It is a shared challenge that we must both do our part to communicate technical matters simply, clearly, and accurately. As a member of a regulatory agency, I have found that the effectiveness of our public outreach efforts and, therefore, the ability of the public to provide constructive input to the regulatory process depend on how well we communicate within our open and public regulatory decision processes. International Regulatory Cooperation I'd like to close with a few thoughts on international regulatory cooperation. The challenges faced by the NRC in maintaining safety and security, providing for lasting technical competence, and improving the effectiveness of our communications with the public, are not different from challenges faced by nuclear regulators and the nuclear industry world-wide. The global economy is here in full force, and it is my deepest hope that it will contribute, in a substantive way, to a greater understanding across the many cultures and languages within the international community. More specifically, I noted earlier that the NRC is an active partner in many bilateral, multilateral, and other international nuclear regulatory initiatives. I personally make a point of attending, participating, and speaking at a variety of international forums, including this Santa Fe Seminar workshop. Next year I look forward to my first trip to Japan as an NRC Commissioner, where I plan to attend the Japanese Atomic Industrial Forum. In my prior career, I had the very enjoyable opportunity to visit the reactors at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa and Hamaoka. I've also visited your Monju reactor and the most impressive work at Tokai with high temperature gas reactors. I look forward to future opportunities to visit Japan again. The NRC has had a long and beneficial relationship with our Japanese counterparts, primarily in the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA), Japan Nuclear Energy Safety Organization (JNES), and the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC). Just within the past year alone, we have established cooperative agreements to research material degradation and seismic issues and participated in joint conferences and workshops on a variety of subjects. I'd like to specifically acknowledge the very efficient and effective information sharing that occurred following the Niigata earthquake and Japan's very prompt international exchange of technical information. Much benefit has been and is being gained from that experience. I also know that NISA appreciates the opportunity to send its personnel to work at NRC for several months, and we are honored to host these assignments. Another important aspect of cooperation involves our membership in the "Multinational Design Evaluation Program"(MDEP) initiative with several other nations. I believe this multinational program can provide an extremely beneficial forum to exchange worldwide nuclear regulatory knowledge and experience in a cooperative effort to establish common regulatory standards for new reactor designs, identify diverse regulatory perspectives, and to share resources in completing the necessary regulatory reviews. I appreciate Japan's support and participation in this initiative. In addition, I have always been a firm believer in the importance of research and the need to verify our assumptions and regulatory decision bases. International experimental testing facilities enable us to share the burden and the resulting value of expensive research. This helps us all provide sound technical bases for our regulatory decisions. Finally, NRC senior management and Commissioners have had active and beneficial engagements with Japan. For example, before he left the Commission last spring, Commissioner Merrifield visited NISA, and within each of their first years on the Commission, Chairman Klein and Commissioner Jaczko also visited Japan. The Chairman participated in the Japan Atomic Information Forum this past April. As we are preparing for new reactor construction in the U.S. a number of NRC staff and managers have visited Japan to learn more about construction techniques and large component fabrication facilities where it is expected that many new U.S. reactors will procure such components. Most recently these visits have included our Executive Director for Operations (EDO), Luis Reyes, and his Director of the Office of New Reactors, Bill Borchardt, to Japan Steel Works. Closing It is in this spirit of cooperation that I encourage continued interactions between our countries. I wish you a successful workshop here this week. I truly hope that our efforts here help lead us to better appreciate and value our rich global diversity, not just for its own sake, but because it will help us all accomplish our mutual objective of creating a better world for those generations who will follow us. Let me leave you with an old English saying: "Many hands lighten a heavy load." Let me complement that with an old Japanese saying: "Wachuukyoudou"- harmony in cooperation. Thank you. NRC speeches are available through a free list serve subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when speeches are posted to NRC's Web site. Thursday, November 15, 2007 ***************************************************************** 22 DutchNews.nl: Two contaminated after nuclear incident Thursday 15 November 2007 Two workers at the Petten nuclear research plant were contaminated with radioactive strontium after an accident in a laboratory in May 2006, it emerged on Thursday. The incident is mentioned in the Dutch nuclear service's annual report. However, the service says the risks to the long term health of the workers are marginal. The laboratory has remained closed since the incident. © DutchNews.nl ***************************************************************** 23 Daily Yomiuri: N-safety reports inadequate / Gap between public, official views of incidents must be addressed Tuesday's release of a study downplaying any danger from the nuclear accident at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power station in Niigata Prefecture following the Niigata Prefecture Chuetsu Offshore Earthquake suggests there is a gap between public and official views of the incident. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry report officially categorized the risk as "level 0 minus"--the lowest level on the International Atomic Energy Agency's International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). I will never forget the TV images of black smoke billowing from an electric transformer situated next to the plant's No. 3 reactor building immediately after the earthquake hit the area on July 16. No matter how long I sat and watched the TV images, it seemed that no one was trying extinguish the fire--something that naturally made me and anybody who saw those images feel anxious. That afternoon, the power station operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., said there had been no release of radioactivity following the earthquake. Later that night, however, TEPCO announced that water containing a small amount of radioactive material had leaked into the sea from spent-fuel storage pools in the No. 6 reactor building. At midnight, Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Akira Amari ordered TEPCO President Tsunehisa Katsumata to explain the situation. The minister also reprimanded Katsumata over the company's failure to swiftly extinguish the fire, as well as its delay in reporting the leakage of radioactive water. Various media, including The Yomiuri Shimbun, provided detailed reports on the situation at the nuclear power plant over the days that followed. Despite the leak of radioactive water, the incident was given the lowest ranking on the INES scale. Nearly 3,000 other problems, such as the fire in the electric transformer, are not subject to categorization using the scale, according to the study. No doubt many people feel uneasy about these results. What should we make of the gap between the official results and the way we feel about the incident? Haruki Madarame, a professor at Tokyo University and chairman of the agency's INES Evaluation Subcommittee, said: "The INES scale is solely concerned with nuclear-related incidents, not with disasters caused by things like earthquakes. If there was no release of radioactive material from the nuclear facilities, then the incident will automatically get a low ranking on the INES scale." Accidents and problems at nuclear power facilities tend to be very technical and complicated, making it hard for ordinary people to understand. Introduced in 1992 by the IAEA and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, INES aims at providing a simplified indicator to help ordinary people understand the relative seriousness of an accident or a problem. In other words, the scale ranks incidents according to the radiation hazard they pose. As in the incident following the Niigata Prefecture Chuetsu Offshore Earthquake, therefore, problems that do not involve serious damage to a nuclear reactor are not subject to ranking on the scale, creating a gap between the result and public perception. There have been other cases in which public feeling about an incident did not correspond to the INES evaluation, including a 2004 accident at Mihama nuclear power station's No. 3 reactor in Mihamacho, Fukui Prefecture, in which five people were killed by a steam pipe blowout, and a sodium leak accident at the Monju fast breeder reactor of the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation (Donen) in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, in 1995. Both were categorized as "level 1" incidents, described as operations constituting an "anomaly beyond the authorized operating regime." The 1999 death of two employees at JCO Co. due to exposure to a massive dose of radiation at the nuclear fuel-reprocessing plant in Tokaimura, Ibaraki Prefecture, was evaluated as "level 4"--officially categorized as an "accident without significant off-site risk." A fire and explosion at Donen's nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Tokaimura in 1997 was categorized as "level 3," or a "serious incident." Those two events give the impression that the 2004 Mihama accident and the 1995 Monju case were considered less serious. This is due to the fact that the Mihama and Monju events did not involve any release of radioactivity. It cannot be said with certainty that the incident at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant on July 16 was a significant nuclear accident. However, it is not surprising that the media made a big fuss over it, given that it involved a nuclear power plant suffering unexpected damage from an earthquake, and about 3,000 subsequent problems. Even though the incident was given a low INES ranking, never before has any nuclear power plant been hit by such a massive quake. The government and electric power companies should show that they are not overreliant on the INES scale, and get to work on ways to prevent a recurrence of such problems--perhaps to include a reexamination of the scale for reactors in earthquake-prone areas. * The Daily Yomiuri Partners © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 24 ReviewJournal.com: Yucca engineer defends design of nuclear dump Nov. 15, 2007 By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Yucca Mountain chief engineer on Wednesday defended the Department of Energy's level of design for the radioactive waste site, saying the project does not need to map "the last nut or bolt" to show it is safe. Critics have seized on comments by DOE officials that designs for the proposed Nevada repository for used nuclear fuel will be 35 percent to 40 percent complete when DOE applies for a construction license in summer 2008. The repository would be built about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto has asked the Senate environment committee to prevent DOE from filing an application "that does not contain final designs for all the proposed Yucca Mountain facilities." Speaking to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission advisory board Wednesday, DOE official Paul Harrington said the department is forming blueprints to a level where the repository's safety can be judged, and it would not add anything to go further at this time. Harrington, director of the Office of Chief Engineer on the Nevada project, said DOE has not detailed "all the warehouses, the administration building, the parking lots, the heavy equipment maintenance facility, but 100 percent design represents that." Many parts of the site and the details of how they might be built "have no bearing on identification of what the facility is or what its operating basis for a safety case is," Harrington said in response to a question on the matter. NRC officials also have expressed surprise at DOE's comments about Yucca blueprints, and have asked for an explanation. Harrington said officials from the agencies will discuss the issue at a management meeting in December. Cortez Masto asked Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., to take action on the design matter. Boxer, the chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has not said how she plans to respond. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 ***************************************************************** 25 The Nation: Debating Downwind in Nevada BLOG | Posted 11/15/2007 @ 10:44am Tonight in Las Vegas--a town best known for slots, boxing, and spectacle--the Democratic presidential hopefuls gather for one of the final pre-primary debates. The Democratic Party moved the Nevada caucus up on the 2008 election calendar--third after Iowa and New Hampshire--to allow for a greater range of regional diversity in early voting than in the past. (South Carolina was also awarded an early primary spot). One issue that won't be debated in Iowa or New Hampshire but will loom large in the Silver State is Yucca Mountain. Watch for each candidate to oppose Yucca Mountain and the disastrous plan to ship our nation's nuclear waste thousands of miles by road and rail to be buried in an area with a record of earthquake activity. Lurking behind those two words is an important living nuclear history in the state which deserves attention. Between 1951 and 1992, 928 above-ground and below-ground nuclear tests were conducted at the Nevada Test Site, just miles from where the candidates will be debating in Las Vegas. Initially, the public was assured "there is no danger" and urged to "participate in a moment of history" by watching the tests. But, in fact, people downwind of the tests--downwinders--continue to suffer and die from the lethal fallout they were exposed to. Exposed, a new play by downwinder Mary Dickson, examines the Utah playwright's own struggle with thyroid cancer and her sister's death from lupus at the age of 46. It uses transcripts of hearings to explore similar experiences of other victims who became sick, and lost friends and loved ones. The government denied any link to radiation. The play spans fifty years, and downwinders keep "cancer charts" chronicling the afflictions of their neighbors. It also addresses the Bush Administration's proposed Divine Strake in 2007--a subnuclear test blast--and the downwinders' organizing efforts that helped to defeat it. The play ends with the reading of the names of downwinders who have died, and new names are added after each show. We cannot forget this living history. As Dickson told me, "Understanding the full extent of that reckless human experiment should inform any decision on both the development of new nuclear weapons and the illusory promise of nuclear power. Without that understanding, politicians will be too easily swayed to consider mini nukes and bunker busters as strategically viable weapons in the 'war on terror'--just as they will too readily embrace nuclear power as a solution to global warming. The development of any new nuclear weapons inevitably opens the door to resumed testing in Nevada and leads to the destabilizing proliferation of nukes--both of which are a disastrous course that only put us more at risk. Nuclear power is an illusory solution to climate change--one propagated by the nuclear industry, which still cannot answer the vexing question of what to do with the dangerous waste it generates. Until the waste can be addressed, nuclear power is neither a viable nor a responsible option." This living history is nowhere to be found at the Las Vegas' taxpayer-funded Atomic Testing Museum. The exhibits excise the stories of nuclear testing victims--instead celebrating nuclear weapons as "safe, patriotic and just plain fun." As the New York Times wrote, "the history of testing, as told [in the museum], is largely the history of its justification." That living history, as told by Dickson, should inform voters in this election as the Bush Administration and its allies (and too many Democrats) look to create a new generation of usable nuclear weapons. It should inform us as Big Nuclear ignores the "serious issues of nuclear plant safety, security against sabotage and terrorist attack and waste disposal" in promoting new plants. And it should inspire participation in renewed anti-nuclear activism as the nuclear industry lobbies for new subsidies for its self-proclaimed "nuclear renaissance." Copyright © 2007 The Nation ***************************************************************** 26 Reuters: Uranium One says working to resolve acid shortfall Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:17pm EST (In U.S. dollars unless noted) By Cameron French TORONTO, Nov 14 (Reuters) - Uranium One (UUU.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) moved to calm shaken investors on Thursday, saying it was working to resolve a shortage of sulphuric acid at its Kazakhstan operations and assuring that new natural resource laws in the country would not affect the company. The acid shortage, which is due to the delayed startup of a local smelter, prompted the Canadian uranium miner to slash its production outlook last month, sparking a stock selloff that pulled the shares down as much as 38 percent. The delayed production of acid, which is used in the in situ mining method, has pushed back the start dates of Uranium One's South Inkai and Kharasan mines by by nine to 12 months, Chief Executive Neal Froneman said on a conference call. "We are working very hard to alleviate this, not only in the short term but in the long term," he said, noting the company was trying to find alternate sources of acid. "There's absolutely no change in the quality of the underlying assets," he added. He said Uranium One would not need to buy uranium on the spot market to fulfill its contracts. However, he said acid consumption -- it takes 40 kilograms of acid to mine 1 kilogram of uranium -- is a long-term problem for the mining industry. "I would say that, in the longer term, I think that acid will become a global issue with the current commodity boom that we're seeing," he said. "There are clear signs of it." Longer-term, Uranium One is part of a consortium planning to build a 500,000 tonne-per-year sulphuric acid plant by 2010. The company now expects to produce 2.1 million pounds of uranium this year and 4.6 million pounds in 2008. Production is also being crimped by delays in commissioning equipment at the Dominion Reefs plant in South Africa. Chairman Ian Telfer said on the call he had been assured by Kazakh officials that a new law on subsoil use, which allows the state to cancel or change contracts with natural resource companies, would not affect the uranium industry. SHARES REBOUND Just after midday, the stock was up 43 Canadian cents at C$8.70 on the Toronto Stock Exchange, but that is still well below the C$12.73 price it closed at ahead of the production outlook cut on Oct. 30. The company said late on Wednesday it lost $17.3 million, or 4 cents a share, in the third quarter, compared with a net profit of $25.9 million, or 12 cents a share a year ago. Profit was hurt by deliveries that were deferred from the third quarter to the fourth quarter, which pushed up inventories at the Adkala mine. Earnings from mine operations in the quarter were $6.3 million, compared with $1.6 million. "I think people think that the underlying performance is solid, although the headline number itself was somewhat disappointing," said analyst Jim Taylor of Canaccord Adams. The company, which as recently as September harbored ambitions of challenging global No. 1 producer Cameco Corp. (CCO.TO: Quote, Profile, Research) by 2013, acquired Toronto-listed Energy Metals in August, and has changed its name from SXR Uranium One. ($1=$0.98 Canadian) (Reporting by Cameron French; Editing by Rob Wilson) ***************************************************************** 27 DJN: US Senate Panel Queries Future Of Bush Nuclear Waste Program Web NASDAQ.com By Ian Talley, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The future of the U.S. government's ambitious global nuclear waste program became more uncertain Wednesday as a key Senate panel considered the plan's economic viability and security. President George W. Bush's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, is central to the administration's strategy to spur a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. and around the world. Opponents say, however, that it will cost tax payers billions more to fund and could increase the risk of proliferation rather that secure non-proliferation. The GNEP program, for which Congress has refused to provide the short-term funding the Energy Department has requested, was again subject to scrutiny Wednesday, this time by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The administration wanted nearly $395 million for the program this year, but is getting $167 million, and similar shortfalls are expected in next year's budget. Late last month, the National Academy of Sciences published a report recommending that GNEP shouldn't be allowed to move forward because it believed the Department of Energy was too aggressively encouraging a specific reprocessing technology. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the senate energy panel and a proponent of nuclear power, pointed to the Academy's recommendation and said the hearing fueled caution about allowing the GNEP program to proceed. Dennis Spurgeon, the Department of Energy's assistant secretary for nuclear energy, defended the administration's plan and said that finding a commercially viable technology to reprocess spent nuclear fuel was "urgently" needed. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has started to receive a flood of applications for new nuclear plants - more than two dozen are expected in the next two years, but Spurgeon said an estimated 300 new plants would be required by the middle of the century "to make any kind of dent in (carbon dioxide) avoidance." "It is paramount that leaders in this country seek to resolve the issues that inhibit the expansion of nuclear power, including providing a durable and credible nuclear waste disposition path," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman wrote in a Nov. 9 letter to the National Academy. Besides funding research and development for re-processing uranium, the GNEP plan also aims to create an international system for civilian nuclear power that's ostensibly designed to meet growing energy demand while curtailing proliferation of material that could be used for nuclear weapons. Under the strategy outlined by Bodman, non-fuel cycle states would be able to develop civil nuclear power, but not have access to enriched technology and fuel that could be used for nuclear weapons programs. Under the U.S. plan, the five nuclear majors would agree to distribution controls and management of plutonium fuel and reactor technology. GNEP, therefore, would allow the U.S. and participating nations to form a cartel to influence international nuclear policy and technology. In the U.S., nuclear power has gained political standing in recent months and years - even among politicians that have previously opposed it - given that it doesn't emit greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming and could potentially offset a significant portion of the U.S. reliance on energy imports. How to handle the fuel waste, which can remain dangerously radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years, has remained elusive, however. A proposal to store the waste from existing nuclear power plants - not including the waste from any new plants - underground in Yucca Mountain, Nev., has practically stalled. Mounting opposition for storage there from Democrat lawmakers only increase the possibility that the project, already many-years delayed and billions over-budget, will move ahead. Nuclear utilities have been paying a fee into a fund to help pay for waste disposal. Reprocessing, Spurgeon argued, could potentially cut the time that the waste is radioactively dangerous to just several hundred years, however, and is anxious to fund research and development into the technology. But opponents of the administration's GNEP research and development program say it focuses on one particular type of reprocessing technology too aggressively, before it's been proven to be secure and commercially viable. Peter Orszag, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, told the committee reprocessing would cost an estimated 25% more than storing the fuel, or around $ 5 billion more annually for just the current amount of nuclear waste produced by power plants in the U.S. Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate and atomic energy expert at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said not only would reprocessing spent fuel cost more than Yucca Mountain storage, but it also increased the risk for proliferation. Bunn testified before the Senate committee that states with the new reprocessing technology "would gain experience, infrastructure, and materials that would allow them to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons more rapidly and less cost." "All of the spent fuel processing approaches proposed for GNEP pose higher, not lower, proliferation risks than are posed by not processing the spent fuel at all," Bunn said. Earlier this month, the DOE awarded four contracts to study the feasibility of using recycled nuclear power plant fuel in advanced-technology reactors, including to a consortium led by French nuclear power plant supplier Areva ( CEI.FR) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (7011.TO). Spurgeon said the DOE was considering establishing a government corporation to carry out GNEP activities. "That is one of the structures we are looking at that might be able to do that in a way that is self-funded, and not require an annual appropriation," he said. Bunn said he wasn't opposed to research and development of reprocessing. "But what closes off all options and locks us into technology, is rushing to build commercial facilities now," he said. Instead of disposal at Yucca Mountain, many senators are instead calling for continuing the practice of storing nuclear waste in dry casks on-site at nuclear power plants. The head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Dale Klein, last month told reporters that he believed dry cask storage was a safe solution. Nuclear waste could be dry-cask stored, Bunn said, until commercially viable technology is developed that closes the half-life cycle radioactivity of the material. -By Ian Talley, Dow Jones Newswires; 202 862-9285; ian.talley@dowjones.com (END) Dow Jones Newswires 11-14-071938ET Copyright (c) 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. ***************************************************************** 28 GI: Over 50 years of exposure but still no comprehensive health studies on Navajo - Kathy Helms Gallup Independent By Kathy Helms Dine Bureau Thursday, November 15, 2007 WINDOW ROCK - No health studies, no problem. A burgeoning list of cancers, heart, respiratory and kidney diseases, as well as birth defects among Navajos exposed to radiation are easily dismissed by the federal government for lack of scientific data. That missing link, of course, is a plus for the feds, who could stand to pay out untold millions and possibly billions of dollars to compensate victims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act if the studies actually existed and confirmed what many Navajos suspect regarding radiation exposure through government-conducted atomic tests and uranium mining. "The federal government had 50-plus years to get scientific data, but this was never done. The monitoring and surveillance should have been done from the onset," Cora Maxx-Phillips, executive director of Navajo Division of Social Services, told members of a Uranium Roundtable hosted last Thursday in Washington by U.S. Reps. Tom Udall, D-N.M., Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Rick Renzi, R-Ariz. "I'd like to first bring out a very common fact that has been overly discussed out in the Navajo communities," Maxx-Phillips said. "Navajo Nation has never, ever had a comprehensive health study done, so therefore, we don't really know what the magnitude and the severity of the problems are that we deal with on a daily basis." "There has never been any kind of medical surveillance done in communities that have been exposed to uranium so therefore, we don't know what the health effects are. We can only speculate. We only know that uranium is highly toxic and other associated contaminants cause radiation poisoning. "We only know that lung disease is very high in our communities. We only know that the cancer rates are very high. Kidney disease is very high. We also know that limited studies have shown that Navajo neuropathy and birth defects have been linked in the impacted communities, but these results have never been followed up in a systematic way. "We really don't know what particular sensitivities there are among the Navajo people … Without any kind of scientific data we don't know how to protect the health of our people," Maxx-Phillips said. Anslem Roanhorse, Navajo Division of Health, told those present about the work done by the Office of Navajo Uranium Workers, established in 1990. "Our work is very disheartening sometimes, that we have to turn people away," he said, because their illnesses are not on the list of RECA-compensable diseases or they don't have enough work history to meet federal requirements. "Today we have registered 3,800 individuals. Unfortunately, over 2,000 individuals have not been compensated. They have been denied," Roanhorse said. "We only have 1,070 that have been compensated to date." He also spoke of the Radiation Exposure Screening Education Program, or RESEP, which was established in 2002 and is operated out of the Northern Navajo Medical Center in Shiprock. RESEP provides medical services to more than 2,500 members of the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe, he said, offering compensation-based medical screenings to former uranium workers and downwinders pursuant to RECA. The office also offers referral services for individuals identified through the screenings that have compensable medical conditions, and information regarding mine-related diseases to Navajo uranium workers and their families, as well as Hopi downwinders. "RESEP is funded through August 2008 through HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration), and beyond August 2008 it is not known whether the program will be re-funded," Roanhorse said. The initial grant which funded RESEP was more than $500,000. "Since then, the amount of funding has decreased," he said. "There are various publications that reveal that thousands of individuals were adversely affected by uranium mining. Some of these people that were affected include miners that were directly exposed by mining, and also there is a secondary group, including children who have played at or near abandoned mines or mill tailing piles." He spoke of sheepherders who watered their sheep in unreclaimed mining areas, elderly women who for many years washed the clothing of their uranium miner husbands and were exposed, as well as family members who obtained drinking water from streams that ran through or near the uranium mines. "It is indeed frightening to see these problems in our communities and not to know what the true impacts of uranium exposure are, and yet we are faced with new mining prospects," Maxx-Phillips said. "In light of the horrendous suffering of our people, the contamination of our land, air and water, we are asking that a long-term systematic medical surveillance be implemented to begin monitoring the general health of our people. "We are asking for federal funding for more independent, scientific research. We also ask that strong partnerships be implemented. Strong partnerships are needed between the regulators, between decision-makers, the lawmakers, academic institutions and independent scientists. "We need to know how to regulate new exposure to protect the health of our people," she said. "There is simply no logic in renewing uranium mining when we have failed mining polices from the past." Roanhorse said, "Today we have many people that are coming to us expressing their concern about the next generation." He submitted a written statement to the congressmen which included a lot of data, he said, "but we also feel that the data that we have researched and presented also needs further analysis." Roanhorse offered several recommendations the Navajo Nation would like to see implemented, including extending the funding for RESEP beyond August 2008, reducing the time and burden it takes to process RECA compensation applications, and inclusion and passage of a study of health hazards proposed in Section 215 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. "In order to understand the risks of uranium mining and milling and also the costs of mining unto the people's health and environment, we feel the federal government really should support comprehensive assessment and research," he said. Maxx-Phillips said holistic health is very important to the Navajo people, who still are feeling the effects of contamination yet again are faced with the desecration of sacred sites. "Mt. Taylor is under threat of exploitation from uranium mining. For the Navajo people, sacred sites are the foundation of all our beliefs and practices, communing with higher spiritual powers because they represent the presence of the sacredness in our lives. "It properly informs us that we are not greater than nature and that we have a responsibility to the rest of the natural world that transcends beyond our mere human desires. The more we permanently destroy our planetary nest … we shall have to learn a bitter lesson in the future." The desecration of Mt. Taylor not only could potentially affect the Navajo people on the physical level, but "in a very spiritual way," she said. ***************************************************************** 29 Gallup Independent: Energy Corridor Draft EIS available - To review the West-Wide Energy Corridor Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and related documents, including detailed maps, visit the project website at http://corridoreis.anl.gov. Review copies also are available at libraries and agency regional and field offices. The Draft PEIS will be published in the Federal Register on Friday, Nov. 16, which initiates the 90-day public comment period. A public meeting will be held Jan. 23, 2008, in Window Rock and Jan. 24 in Albuquerque. By Kathy Helms Dine Bureau Monday, November 12, 2007 WINDOW ROCK - A draft environmental impact statement designating proposed energy transport corridors on federal lands in 11 Western states has been released for public comment. Though the West-Wide Energy Corridors approach the Navajo Nation, designations are not being made at this time. Letters have been sent to all 249 tribes with a potential interest in the project and tribes with concerns are invited to consult with the Department of Energy on a government-to-government basis. The proposed corridors are designed to facilitate future siting of oil, gas, and hydrogen pipelines as well as electricity transmission and distribution on federal lands in the West to help address growing energy demand. The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Commerce and Defense released for public review and comment a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement last Thursday. The proposed designation is tied to Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, crafted by U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. Section 1813 of the act required a federal study of energy rights-of-ways across Indian lands. The study was prompted by a right-of-way compensation dispute between the Navajo Nation and El Paso Natural Gas and included a review of the authority of Congress to condemn lands through eminent domain. It also sought to override tribal sovereignty by having the Secretary of the Interior decide when rights-of-way are a matter or national energy security and to award compensation the Secretary deemed fair, despite tribal objections, if the negotiating parties could not come to terms. The agencies involved in designating the corridors worked for nearly two years to develop the locations presented in the Draft EIS, according to Assistant Secretary of the Interior C. Stephen Allred. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, and the Interior to designate energy transport corridors on federal lands in portions of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. As part of the act, the federal agencies were asked to amend their land use and resource management plans, effectively opening up more public lands to oil and gas drilling and mineral exploration. Last August, former Navajo Nation Vice President Frank Dayish Jr. announced that the corridor would slice through the middle of the reservation, extending in a diagonal line from Leupp to Farmington. Dayish made the announcement after returning from a roundtable discussion in Colorado with Domenici and Vice President Dick Cheney. Preliminary maps designating the corridors were posted last June but pulled from the WWEC Web-site in December after the federal agencies received more than 200 comments on the proposed designations. George Arthur, chairman of the Navajo Nation's Resources Committee, said Thursday that the Nation hasn't really formulated a position on the corridors, "but we are aware that there is an ongoing discussion at the national level and we have expressed in various forms our interest and also our concerns." "They have recently stated that they are willing to address this on a government-to-government basis, and that's what we desire. We would also like to state that we would do so knowing that it would be done in a manner that would be in the best interest of the Nation." Arthur said the Nation had information initially indicating that the energy corridor did cross the nation. "But now if you look at it (map) again, it stops at the boundaries - it doesn't go anywhere," he said, but added that obviously, it would end up somewhere, going from Point A to point B. "And getting to point B, you do have to deal with Navajo Nation land, and that's what we are very much interested in bringing to light." Jonathan Shradar of DOE said Friday that no corridors are designated on tribal lands or national parks or national monument areas in the 11 states. "They're primarily on Bureau of Land Management lands and Forest Service lands." Designating an energy corridor on Navajoland would require consultation with the Nation. "The key here is that these were just, as required by Congress, setting the corridor areas on federal land in those states. Sixty-some percent of those are already existing corridor areas - a lot of them locally regulated," Shradar said. In the event there's an actual decision for a utility to build a transmission facility or line on tribal lands, they would have to work through local and National Environmental Policy Act laws as well as the tribes. Shradar said electricity demand is expected to increase 43 to 50 percent over the next 25 years, and the corridor designation is "a step moving forward as we prepare for increased demand." "If we have these areas kind of proposed and situated, and you've got some of the environmental impact stuff out of the way, it makes it easier to build the transmission lines. It acts as a one-stop shop for applicants to work through, through this process. "It's not necessarily about putting new lines up at the moment, but it's recognizing that as our country grows, as our economy grows, demand is going to grow and we want to be prepared to meet that." Shradar said he doesn't believe the issue of eminent domain plays into this round of the energy corridor issue "like it would in the previous corridor issue, because this is for federal lands. It avoids that scenario. Those issues would come up if there was an actual construction of a utility transmission line, and that's not the issue at the time." He did not know whether the corridor would connect with the Navajo Transmission Project. Eighty-four percent of the corridors proposed and analyzed in the Draft PEIS are located on BLM-managed lands, while 14 percent are on Forest Service lands. The remaining percentages are on lands managed by DOI's Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service, or by the Department of Defense. 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. Where the proposed corridors could not avoid sensitive areas, they are located along existing transmission lines, highways, pipelines or other rights-of-way, according to DOE. ***************************************************************** 30 POWER Magazine: DOE pushing to recycle closed plants' spent fuel The Energy Department is planning to ask Congress in next year’s budget request for authority to take title to spent nuclear fuel stockpiled at closed U.S. nuclear plants and to reprocess it, most likely in France. DOE officials in recent years have resisted congressional pressure to move spent fuel stockpiled at U.S. reactors to regional storage facilities, saying the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) bars them from taking title to the fuel until the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada is granted a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license. Now, sources say, the department is planning to ask Congress to amend the NWPA to remove that limitation as part of its fiscal 2009 budget request to Congress, which the DOE is in the early stages of preparing. However, the department’s goal is apparently to transport it for reprocessing, most likely at La Hague in France, not to move the spent fuel to regional storage facilities in the U.S., as some lawmakers have requested. It is unclear whether the DOE intends to ask for authority to take title only to fuel from closed plants, or to spent fuel stockpiled at operating U.S. reactors as well. Megan Barnett, a DOE spokeswoman, would neither confirm nor deny that the department was considering the recycling plan, but noted that it was pursuing recycling options through its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership                                (GNEP) initiative. The DOE is in the early stages of budget preparation and plans can change, she said. “As partners with 16 nations in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, we continue to review and develop any number of options to expand nuclear power worldwide and advance GNEP principles,” said Barnett. Reprocessing, or “recycling” as the Bush administration now calls it, is central to GNEP, its marquee international nuclear power and nonproliferation program. The reprocessing plan would appear to have several goals, including satisfying lawmakers who want fuel removed from the handful of decommissioned or decommissioning plants in the U.S. In language accompanying the DOE’s fiscal 2008 spending bill, House appropriators directed the department to develop a plan to “take custody” of the waste at closed plants, although the appropriators wanted the DOE to consolidate it at one or more interim storage sites and did not mention reprocessing it. In addition to trying to satisfy congressional demands, the DOE also appears motivated by a desire to revive U.S. support for reprocessing, which President Carter barred in 1977 over nuclear nonproliferation concerns. In addition to reviving reprocessing in the U.S., GNEP is designed to spread the use of nuclear power into new countries by having nations with well-developed nuclear programs—such as the U.S., Japan, and France—offer sensitive fuel services to countries that want to start nuclear power programs. Fuel manufacturing, enrichment, and recycling can separate plutonium or uranium for possible diversion to weapons programs, and GNEP is designed to allow new countries to build nuclear industries without a need to pursue those processes. The DOE also says that new reprocessing technologies are significantly more proliferation-resistant than those used in the Carter era. Despite prioritizing the program highly, the Bush administration has found mixed support for GNEP from Congress, where some lawmakers fear the DOE is moving too fast at the expense of other nuclear programs. One source said the DOE may be hoping that reprocessing spent fuel from U.S. closed plants, even if done in France, would demonstrate that reprocessing is a workable, viable option and thus create more support for GNEP. ***************************************************************** 31 Las Vegas Now: Nuclear Agency Gets Sparkling New Building in Las Vegas Edward Lawrence, Reporter Nuclear Agency Gets Sparkling New Building in Las Vegas Although Eyewitness News could not get an exact figure, the new building cost taxpayers between $25 million to $30 million. It's just another example of waste according to Nevada's elected leaders. In a shiny new building, employees at the government agency deciding if a nuclear waste dump in Nevada gets a license to open waits for the application. Eyewitness News looks in depth at the Nuclear Regulatory agency's new hearing room in their new building in Las Vegas and why the federal agency says it's not wasted tax dollars. As shiny as a new bank and as secure as a federal courthouse, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's building will be the sight of a showdown 20 years in the making. Although Eyewitness News could not get an exact figure, the building cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. It's just another example of waste according to Nevada's elected leaders. Senator John Ensign (R) said, "The politics of Yucca Mountain, the science of Yucca Mountain being very questionable, I believe we are pouring money down a large rat hole in the state of Nevada." A spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not agree. The NRC, as it's called, will decide if a Yucca Mountain repository gets a license to accept nuclear waste. David McIntyre justifies the expense saying the hearings should be in Las Vegas. "The board wants to make it as easy as possible for various parties to participate in the hearing." Former Governor Bob List agrees. He's on the payroll of a nuclear lobby group that supports the Yucca Mountain repository. Fmr. Gov. Bob List, with the Nuclear Energy Institute, said, "It's very important for our state that we have these hearings here in Nevada and that everybody be able to have a seat at the table." The NRC has a full time staff working there. Eventually the building will be a West Coast satellite where hearings for new nuclear power plants are heard. That's because there are now dozens of government employees looking for something to do. They are in a $25 million to $30 million taxpayer funded building waiting on an application that has been delayed and delayed and delayed by more than a decade sending the total cost of the nuclear waste project from $80 million to $77 billion. During the first hearing on Dec. 5, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will decide if the data the Department of Energy is using to support a nuclear waste dump in Nevada is complete enough to move forward to licensing. In 2004, the state made the same challenge and won, which delayed the project three years. The DOE wants to submit a license application by June of 2008. E-mail Reporter Edward Lawrence. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 Deseret Morning News: Oil-shale potential growing in Utah? Thursday, November 15, 2007 By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News Skyrocketing energy prices, including the cost of nontraditional fuels, may make it feasible to develop Utah's enormous oil-shale reserves, lawmakers were told Wednesday. Speakers told members of two legislative interim committees ? the Public Utilities and Technology Interim Committee and the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Interim Committee ? that oil shale could make Utah an important producer of petroleum products. Meanwhile, other forms of alternative fuel, including nuclear power, came in for hard knocks during the meetings Wednesday. Because of historically abundant coal resources, Utah has enjoyed inexpensive energy until now. According to Philip J. Powlick, manager of the state's energy program, the average cost of power to Utahns from generating plants already built is about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. In comparison, nuclear power could be far more expensive than touted, said Christopher Thomas, policy director for the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah. The nuclear industry has talked about the cost of home electricity from nuclear plants as 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. That amount was to cover only operating costs such as fuel and maintenance, not construction expenses. An investor service report issued last month predicted that the cost, including building a new nuclear plant, would send electricity production into the range of $5,000 to $6,000 per installed kilowatt, he said. Recently, leaders of Transition Power Development, a private equity group, said they would like to build a two-unit nuclear plant somewhere in eastern Utah. It would produce 3,000 megawatts of power, they said. "It's a huge project," Thomas said. Allowing for economies of scale, the plant could cost between $10 billion and $15 billion, Thomas told the Deseret Morning News, and he believes the cost of home electricity generated by the plant would be more expensive than many realize. According to Powlick, within 10 years, a new 230-megawatt plant using geothermal power could be built to provide electricity at about 8 cents per kilowatt-hour. In the long term, for Utah to have 620 megawatts of electricity from this source, the cost would rise to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, he said. "A lot of people want to see geothermal expand very quickly," Powlick said. An advantage of generating power from rocks heated below Earth's surface is that it would work round the clock, "unlike solar or wind." Solar power units can stop generating during a rainstorm or at night, and the wind doesn't blow all the time. A development company may need to pay $1 million to drill for the geothermal resource, and if it has a dry hole, the expenses aren't recovered. Also, transmission lines between hot spots and distribution systems could be expensive. Solar power isn't a panacea either, he said. A large solar power plant in Nevada produces electricity at about 14.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. A solar plant that focuses the sun's heat to drive power generation would cost about 18 cents per kilowatt-hour in Utah, Powlick added. Another type of solar power system, using photovoltaic collector cells to directly convert sunlight into electricity, also is costly. "Photovoltaics are an expensive technology," he said. "It generates (at) about 20 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour now." The pluses include its ease of installation, the uniform nature of the resource and the ease with which photovoltaic cells can be installed. This kind of solar generation can be done "anywhere it's sunny," he said. "Of course, it's zero-emission," he said. That helps the environment by not releasing toxic fumes and helps people enjoy healthier lives. "Are the benefits of photovoltaics worth the much higher cost?" Powlick wondered. "I won't get into that debate. Maybe we can get into that some other day." Jason Berry, also with the state energy program, said wind projects would cost about $1 million per mile just to tie in with the power grid. Dan Elcan, managing director of Oil Shale Exploration Co., which is working on research and development at the White River Mine southeast of Vernal, told lawmakers that Utah's oil shale is some of the richest in the world, with the most oil per ton of rock. The oil shale has little water content, which also raises its value. When heated to 800 degrees, using shale as a heat source, hydrocarbons are driven off. The product can be processed into a "sweet syn-crude," he said. After the company's lease became effective on July 1, it shipped 300 tons to Calgary, Canada, for content analysis. "All three laboratories have designated the product as a medium sweet syn-crude, which is fairly easy to refine into both diesel fuel and jet fuel," he said. "So it is a very attractive product for refineries." The company's goal is to produce 50,000 barrels per day in six years, with the shale extracted through underground mining. Tar sands are another abundant resource in Utah. "What we consider unconventional resources today are quickly becoming conventional," Ted McAleer, director of the Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative, told the Natural Resources interim committee. "We actually have some of the richest oil shale in the world, and it's able to produce concentrations of 30 gallons of oil per ton of shale," McAleer added. E-mail: bau@desnews.com ***************************************************************** 33 IPS-English NUKE PROGRAMME-IRAN: Compromise and much needed flexibility, says UAE paper Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:56:17 -0800 Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM) ABU DHABI, Nov. 15 (WAM) - A major United Arab Emirates (UAE) English daily today commented on the latest developments on the issue of Iran's nuclear programme, in the light of Tehran's release of an important document the West had been asking for since 2005 to the IAEA Chief, Mohammed ElBaradei. Commenting editorially on the issue today, the Dubai-based ‘Khaleej Times’ said: "The last thing IAEA Chief Mohammed ElBaradei would have expected as he went about finalising his latest report on Iran was for the Ahmadenijad government to finally release documents that the West had been asking for since 2005. “But that he did shows Iran is still willing to exercise flexibility as the U.N. deliberates sanctions, convinced that the chief motive behind Teheran's uranium enrichment drive is assembly of a nuclear weapon to counter Israel's massive arsenal and upset the conventional regional arms balance. "According to news reports, the document in question contains 'information on casting uranium metal', part of a process necessary for putting together nuclear weapon components. Iran had allowed inspectors access to the document in the past, but never handed it over despite repeated requests, saying it had inadvertently ended in Teheran during previous black market purchases. And while popular Western media has already begun dismissing the gesture as a time-gaining-ploy, it is more sensible to see the offering as an act of compromise and much needed flexibility, inducing the other party to do the same. "Apparently, Iran is realising what is still lost on the US lobby. Neither option of confrontation is without significant downside. In the more extreme event of a military strike, however limited, consider Iran's capability of attacking U.S. and Israeli interests in the region, coupled with its Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia factor sway, and it is not too difficult to do the ensuing calculus. "The sanctions option is not much better. History hardly needs another example of how economic blockade bites into lives of the common folk while the leadership spins it to its advantage, appearing the targeted party as it brings up a whole generation hating the enemy. "In the midst of all the fuss, the fact should not be lost sight of that Iran has still not violated its NPT obligations. It remains well within its rights to process nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. And gestures like the one it has made should make the West realise it is not up to any foul play. There should be a fitting response, not political intrigue that furthers alienation", concluded the paper. (WAM) (WAM) ***************************************************************** 34 Economist.com: Nuclear weapons | Reliable evidence? | Thursday November 15th 2007 America wants to ensure that its nuclear warheads would go bang rather than pop—but without letting them off to test them AP OLD soldiers never die, they just fade away. Old weapons, on the other hand, hang around stubbornly. Those of the nuclear variety left over from the cold war are causing a bit of a nuisance. Thousands of them are ageing in silos. Ensuring that they do not deteriorate and would detonate if necessary is difficult. That is because of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which, as its name suggests, forbids contracted parties from letting off nuclear explosives in peacetime. Although America has yet to ratify this treaty, its policy is to act as though it had. It stopped the tests of real warheads (such as the one illustrated above) in 1992. That means scientists wishing to find out whether a particular batch is still potent cannot just pluck a warhead at random from the stockpile and try to explode it. One way to overcome this would be to replace the warheads with newer designs that, proponents argue, would not need to be live-tested in this way. The older warheads, the most elderly of which will reach the end of their 30-year design lifespan in 2008, could then be retired without compromising the country's nuclear shield. The Reliable Replacement Warhead programme, as this scheme is known, has reached a crucial point. A full (and costed) design for the new warheads was supposed to be unveiled in December. However the National Nuclear Security Administration, the part of the Department of Energy responsible for the programme, said this week that the report is now expected by August 2008. Some people suspect it will be delayed yet further by the presidential election next year. A year's delay will not matter much. But should the programme be cancelled (and funding for it, first authorised in 2005, was all but eliminated by Congress for this financial year), America risks finding itself without enough nuclear-weapons scientists to keep its arsenal in tip-top condition in the future. For the truth is that the Reliable Replacement Warhead programme is also a job-creation scheme, designed to persuade some of the country's best brains that it is worth trading a career in industry for one in national defence. Testing without testing Scientifically speaking, the programme's goals look possible. Earlier this year the National Nuclear Security Administration chose a design that it thinks could be developed without any further live tests. In September Jason, an elite group of independent scientists, published its evaluation of what technical information it could assess about this design. It concluded that, in principle, it would indeed be possible to develop a replacement warhead without conducting any new nuclear tests. It recommended, however, that the final design be scrutinised in an independent peer-reviewed process. That would be a first. Allowing outsiders to assess a design for its strengths and weaknesses is not something that the Department of Defence has done in the past—and it is not, at the moment, proposing to change its mind. According to Bruce Goodwin, who is responsible for nuclear technologies at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California—which, with the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, put forward the winning design—the proposed replacement warhead is based on a weapon that was tested but not deployed some 20 years ago. The richness of the existing test data is what gave this design its winning edge over an alternative proposed by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (also in New Mexico, and which also had Sandia as a partner). Those data help to give confidence that “virtual” tests, run inside a supercomputer, will produce results that correspond to what would happen if a warhead were tested for real. The quantities of data involved in such simulated tests are phenomenal. Staff at Lawrence Livermore say it takes their best computers six weeks to simulate what happens inside a warhead when it is going off. Such detailed modelling has only recently become possible. The supercomputers used in the early 1990s, when nuclear testing stopped, would have taken 60,000 years to process the same data. Part of the reason for this is that a nuclear explosion has three stages. First, a specially shaped charge of chemical explosives surrounding a plutonium pit goes off. That compresses the plutonium while it is simultaneously bombarded with neutrons from a trigger made of polonium, and thus begins the second stage. In response to the neutrons, some of the plutonium atoms split apart, releasing energy and more neutrons. These, in turn, split more plutonium. This is the famous chain reaction that lies at the heart of nuclear warfare. It is not, however, the source of a modern bomb's main explosive power, for just as the chemical explosives trigger a fission explosion by compressing the plutonium, that fission explosion is used to ignite the third stage, a still-larger fusion explosion, by compressing and heating the main part of the bomb. This is composed of a mixture of deuterium (a rare isotope of hydrogen) and lithium (a light metal). These react to form helium, yet more neutrons and a whole lot more energy. The result, a thermonuclear explosion, is what destroys the target, but the entire three-stage process has to be mimicked if computers are to test weapon-designs reliably. The models involved in the winning Livermore/Sandia bid are certainly good enough to recreate the results of earlier tests (a trick known as “hindcasting”). Whether they can accurately forecast things, no one knows for sure. But so-called subcritical tests are allowed by the test-ban treaty, and that may add confidence to the process. Some of these tests involve smashing or shooting at small shards of plutonium. Blowing up little bits of the metal this way, without compressing them in a symmetrical manner, is allowed because it does not result in a chain reaction. And the chemical-explosive detonator can also be tested using “simulants” that are not fissile but mimic the behaviour of the plutonium pit in other ways. Scientists can thus find out whether the charge would have detonated, had it been made of plutonium. The fusion stage can also be examined within the rules. An enormous—and enormously expensive—system of lasers called the National Ignition Facility is being built at Livermore. It is designed to cause thermonuclear fusion in tiny pellets of deuterium (so small that they would not be covered by the test-ban treaty) and is expected to be completed in 2009. For weapons scientists this is all exciting stuff. Not quite as exciting, perhaps, as letting bombs off for real, but not a bad substitute. The question for the politicians is whether that excitement—and the personnel and new bombs that will result from it—are worth the money. And that, in turn, depends on just what sort of nuclear arsenal America thinks it really wants. Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2007. All rights ***************************************************************** 35 IAEA: Transcript of IAEA Director General and US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs´s Press Statement on DPRK Transcripts of Interviews IAEA Headquarters Vienna 14 November 2007 IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei and US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Christopher Hill, spoke to the press after meeting in Vienna to discuss the DPRK verification issue. MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, IAEA: I welcome Assistant Secretary Mr. Chris Hill here to Vienna, to the IAEA. We had an excellent meeting, exchanging views on how to move forward on the DPRK verification issue and the regularization of relations between the DPRK and the international community. Obviously, we were looking into the verification of the shutdown of the Pyongyang nuclear facility, and we discussed our future role when the Joint Statement is going to be implemented and when the DPRK comes back to the NPT. I think it was a very constructive meeting. It was very useful for me to have exchanged views with Secretary Hill today. I think we are moving in the right direction, I think we are on the same page. CHRISTOPHER HILL, US ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS: Thank you very much Dr. ElBaradei. We had a very good discussion and exchange of information. We have been cooperating very closely throughout this process, and I took the occasion of this meeting to express appreciation for the speed with which the IAEA moved to get on the ground in Yongbyon in July when the shutdown of the facilities took place. We also talked about the fact that while we are in the middle of that process, we are certainly not at the end of it. The end of the process is when the DPRK is in the NPT with IAEA safeguards. So we look forward to continue to cooperate, to work together to achieve that end. So it is a great occasion to be here. I am here with our Ambassador Greg Schulte and it is a great opportunity to be here in Vienna. So thank you. ElBARADEI: We will take a couple of questions. O: When will the DPRK give the full list and what role will there be for the IAEA? HILL: I think we are expecting to get the list at some point soon. As you know they are required to provide us the list by the end of the year. We want to make sure that the list is complete and obviously we will be working very, very closely with the IAEA on that matter. ELBARADEI: As Assistant Secretary Hill mentioned, when the DPRK comes back to the NPT, a prerequisite will be for us to verify the declaration and make sure that all the nuclear material in the DPRK is under safeguards. How will that play out, the timeline I mean, it is still subject of discussion between the six parties and the DPRK. But we are ready and willing to do it when we are asked to do it. Q: Latest report in the Washington Post on the DPRK regarding a parallel uranium enrichment programme in the DPRK? HILL: I saw that report. All I can say is that on August 15 during the meeting in Shangyang of the denuclearization working group, the DPRK informed the rest of us that they understood the importance of resolving this matter to everyone´s satisfaction. And indeed since that time we have been working with the DPRK on trying to resolve the matter. I say that we have made some progress but we have by no means resolved this issue up until now. But we are continuing to work with them. I think it is not very helpful to try to get into the details at that point. We are very much in the middle of the process but I think that the DPRK understands this issue very well and this was reflected in their statements at the denuclearization working group that this matter must be resolved to mutual satisfaction. That is what we all need to be satisfied that this matter is behind us. Q: You said you work very closely with the IAEA. Does that mean that the IAEA will or will not help you verify the declaration? ELBARADEI: We will have to verify the declaration as of when the DPRK comes to the NPT. There might be a discussion between the Six Parties on the declaration with the DPRK at the initial stage, but ultimately we will have to verify the declaration. And as I say, this is a process, and the process is going in the right direction and you just have to bear with us. The important thing is to eventually bring back the DPRK to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and have a full regular relationship between the DPRK and the international community, a comprehensive package, as secretary Hill is working hard to achieve. Thank you very much. Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: ***************************************************************** 36 DOE: Energy Efficiency Global Forum and Exposition - Deputy Secretary Sell November 13, 2007 Thank you, Kateri, for that very kind and gracious introduction. And it is my pleasure to be here today. I want to bring this group greetings from Secretary Bodman. He really would have liked to be here today, and quite frankly, I wish he could have been here today. Not because I don’t want to be here, but because I’d like you to know and to see and hear from him, his passion for energy efficiency, and the motivating force he is for all of us – the 100,000 employees of the Department of Energy as we pursue our mission everyday. But while the secretary couldn’t make it here in person today, he was able to send along some welcoming remarks. So if you’ll turn to the video monitor, let’s hear from Secretary Bodman. VIDEO INSERT, Secretary Bodman’s welcome, followed by a U.S. Dept. of Energy / Disney - Pixar “Ratatouille” TV spot, where the main character, a very high energy rat named Remy, helps to promote the use of energy efficient light bulbs). DOE / Disney - Pixar “Ratatouille” TV spot (text version) I want to give my thanks to Secretary Bodman for that message…and also, thank you to Remy and his friends. For some time, I’ve suspected that we had a rat in the organization …I’m just glad this one is working for us. I want to thank you again for having me hear today. I’m actually really pleased to be here and excited to be here. I seem to be a regular on the nuclear circuit, I’m a fairly regular invitee on the oil and gas circuit, but I don’t get invited enough to the energy efficiency circuit. And it’s something that disappoints me, because, quite frankly, it’s something that I’m really quite passionate about. I am truly encouraged to see so many of you gathered to act on ideas to harness the most abundant, the most reliable, the most cost-effective source of energy we have at our disposal…the energy that we waste every day. Increasing energy efficiency is a key component of the President’s strategy to meet future energy needs in a way that both encourages economic growth and helps us protect our precious environment. And I am honored to participate in this global dialogue. When I go around this town and around the country, I’ve been using a phrase that I call the new and different energy reality. And it is my belief that we are really are facing a very new and a very different energy reality than we’ve ever faced in the modern history of the world economy. Now why do I say that? I say that principally for three reasons. The first is the high price environment that we are experiencing today, which is evidence that demand is clearly outstripping supply. It’s something that has really happened for the first time. In the past, we’ve had supply shocks, but this is really the first in the sense of a modern world economy, that we’re having a demand shock, and the prospects for that to continue are great. EIA, part of the Department of Energy, estimates that world demand for energy worldwide, will increase almost 60% over the next 25 years. And for electricity, in order for us to bring electricity to the 1.6 billion people in this world that don’t have it today, that don’t have access to the modern conveniences of this world, in order to do that, EIA estimates that world electricity supply may double in the next 25 years. But in addition to this high price environment, we are also facing very different and changing world conditions. We’re dependent on infrastructure from all over the world, and that infrastructure is more vulnerable to terrorism and more vulnerable to disruption than it’s ever been. But we are also seeing a very different change in conditions in many countries. You know, whether we like it or not, despite our hopes and dreams for renewable energy and alternative technologies and efficiency, the world is going to remain dependent on oil and gas for decades to go. But the countries that produce this, many of those countries are turning towards resource nationalism. Let me give you a fact. Over two thirds of the world’s oil and gas reserves – that we will rely on for the coming decades – are in countries that substantially limit, or in fact, prohibit investment from foreign countries - investment from United States companies - investments from the most advance energy producing companies in the world. So we have a high price environment, but we have seen with that before. We’re facing these changing world conditions, and yet we’ve dealt with that before. But there’s a third reality. There’s a third thing we are facing that we’ve never faced before in this world – and that is what truly makes this a new and different energy reality. And that is the prospect that we are going to have to meet this incredible increase in demand, while addressing the challenge of global climate change. We will have to meet all these demands in the context of carbon-constrained environment. And that makes this problem, this challenge, different and new, and unlike anything else we’ve faced before. So what are we doing a bout it? What do we advocate? What are we for inside the Bush Administration? What to we want to work with you and our partners on? We have to have more traditional energy supplies from a greater diversity of sources. We all know that. We have to have more energy options through technology. The Bush Administration has characterized our technology budget with significant increases in alternative technologies like solar, like biofuels. But we also, in everything that we are doing, are exercising a strong bias towards low and no carbon technologies - which is why we are increasing our research on carbon capture sequestration, and it’s why the President has personally advocated for such a broad expansion of nuclear power. We have to have more energy options through technology. But we also have to have more infrastructure….we have to build it…we have to secure it…we have to re-think the traditional opposition to energy infrastructure which has characterized local communities, state governments, and quite frankly, the federal government for decades. But we also must have more efficiency – we must have more efficiency. And we must pursue it, and we must speak about it, in ways that are very new and different from the way that we’ve thought about it before. In fact, I think that it is important policy makers in this town raise substantially their expectations and their knowledge or what can truly be achieved through energy efficiency. It’s going to take all of these things to meet this new energy reality. Pro-production Republicans can no longer comfort ourselves in believing we can simply produce our way out of this new energy reality. And to my friends on the other side of the aisle, certain Democrats can no longer comfort themselves in believing all problems can be solved with only wind, solar and energy efficiency. Both sides are right, but neither side it sufficient. We must work together to do all of these things: more production, more technology, more infrastructure, and perhaps most important of all …more efficiency. And that is why President Bush has been consistently and firmly committed to energy efficiency. And when you talk about energy efficiency, often the first place people look – people talk about…is to the transportation sector. And I think it is notable, that the President has twice increased fuel economy standards for light trucks. And in this year’s State of the Union address, as part of his effort to reduce gasoline usage 20% in 10 years… the President asked Congress to reform the fuel economy laws for automobiles in a way that would allow for significant increases, perhaps even up to 4% a year, in fuel economy standards, over the coming years. As the President said, “With good legislation, we could save up to 8.5 billion gallons of gasoline per year by 2017, and further reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.” Fuel economy is important. It’s important to get the regulatory policy right, which is the purview of Department of Transportation. It’s very important that we get the R&D right, which is pursued in partnership, by the Department of Energy, with our major vehicle manufacturers in this country. It is central to any energy efficiency campaign. But I would really like to devote my remaining minutes to the Department of Energy’s role in the Administration’s energy efficiency strategy for the built environment. The built environment - something that is often forgotten about, often lost in the debates on Capitol Hill about what we should do. People forget that the built environment generates 40% of this nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. There are incredible opportunities to increase and maximize energy efficiency in our homes, in our commercial buildings, and in our industrial facilities here in the United States. Those opportunities are both enormous and they are very quantifiable. Whereas conservation efforts of the past have brought us a degree of energy savings by ‘getting less from using less;’ it is clear we have an opportunity to make unprecedented gains in efficiency by deploying technology that allows to ‘get more from using less.’ Beyond encouraging folks to turn down their home thermometers, our vision is to encourage greater use of smart meters or greater use of energy efficient appliances that save energy without a second thought. Beyond the hope that every light switch is turned off whenever you leave the room, we will see not only the use of compact fluorescent lighting continues to grow exponentially, but that next generation LED (light emitting diode) lighting taking hold. Energy efficiency today presents a profitable business model and there is a clear and growing recognition of the role that prioritizing energy efficiency must play. An example of this growing recognition is the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and many other partners launched last year. And I’m proud to say they launched it with the help of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. Leadership within the utility industry, both from the IOUs and the publics, and from state officials and from state regulators has pushed this plan to the forefront. Measures identified in the National Action Plan have the potential to save utilities nearly $20 billion annually. One key recommendation in the plan calls for “modifying policies to align utility incentives with the delivery of cost-effective energy efficiency and ratemaking practices to promote energy efficiency investments.” But here’s the way I talk about it. Regulatory structures must present the same kinds of incentives for investments in efficiency and investments in demand reduction as the incentives that are available for investments in new generation. Until we get a balance, until we have these incentives properly aligned, we’re not going to get, to the greatest amount, what we really want - and that is much greater energy efficiency. A number of very forwarding-thinking states are actually adopting these type policies …and viewing energy efficiency as an enhanced service to be provided by utilities. Some are even providing financial awards to their electric and gas utilities for superior performance in delivering energy efficiency. I think, later today, you are going to hear from one of the great advocates of a more progressive role for the states, Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota. The Department of Energy is committed to expanding technical assistance and assisting states in initiating these types of programs, which can reduce energy use and add to a company’s bottom line. At the federal level, we are promoting a durable and predictable policy framework that will motivate greater profit and greater returns through increased efficiency. In doing so, we are paving the way for free enterprise to accelerate efficiency gains and we are affirming America's global leadership as both partners and purveyors of the technologies and ideas that will answer the world's greatest challenges. At the Department of Energy, we are focused on six pillars of energy efficiency with the goal of setting clear guidelines to facilitate maximum efficiency gains. Our six efficiency priorities are as follows: 1. Utility Efficiency 2. Model Building Codes 3. Appliance Standards and Lighting 4. Civic Infrastructure 5. Accelerated Research and Development 6. Public Education – a renewed commitment and emphasis on communicating an Energy Efficiency Ethic in our country. Let me take a few minutes to summarize each of these pillars First, on utilities efficiency: It’s clear. It’s undisputable, that the greatest opportunity for efficiency gains is in the utility sector that services our homes and offices. With 70% of all electricity consumed in our residential and commercial buildings, we believe it is critical to expand and accelerate support for the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency. We also must focus on our utilities’ biggest customers – our industrial plants and manufacturing facilities. Recent estimates show that if the U.S. industrial sector were to reduce energy intensity by 25 percent over the next ten years – something we judge as being very doable - the U.S. could save 8.4 quads of energy, an amount equal to heating every U.S. household for one year. This is not only critical for energy security; it is fundamental to our future economic competitiveness. There is already good news - in 2005, DOE launched the “Save Energy Now” campaign. Through this program, energy experts using DOE software have identified over $585 million in potential energy savings at 340 of the Nation’s most energy-intensive manufacturing plants. I want to encourage you to get involved in…and take advantage of…the resources that we have available at the Department of Energy to assist you. Another efficiency priority is our effort to evaluate and strengthen building codes in the residential and commercial sectors. We are working to enable builders and the construction industry to increase production of net-zero energy buildings and make it more profitable for them to do so. Building codes: this is the second pillar of the Department’s efficiency priorities. DOE is partnering with ASHRAE…the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers…which most of you are familiar with, to develop model building codes that will be 30% better by 2010 for ALL new commercial buildings. To modernize building codes, we encourage states’ consideration, adoption and implementation of these codes. To encourage maximum efficiency in buildings nationwide, we are expanding assistance available to states and local governments and working with the private sector to develop 30% and 50% “beyond code” design guides. The third pillar is reducing energy consumption in homes and businesses. This can be achieved by making appliance standards more stringent, and by accelerating the market penetration of advanced lighting and appliances. Now to do this, we’ve set an ambitious schedule to eliminate what is unfortunately a multi-year backlog on appliance standards, and implement new standards for 18 appliances over the next five years. And I should say, as an aside, when Secretary Bodman and I came to the Department of Energy, one of the first things he did, was order us to get the appliance standard problem fixed, get a plan and get moving on it. And I’m very pleased to say that the Department of Energy is finally, committed, we are there, we are following through, and we are on track to meet our commitments on this very new and aggressive timeline. Furthermore, we are pursuing the modernization and expansion of EnergyStar to accommodate the increasingly rapid flow and evolution of high efficiency technologies like solid state lighting, tankless water heaters, and solar products. We encourage you to continue your leadership in encouraging the accelerated use of ENERGYSTAR technologies. The fourth pillar is our effort to showcase new and retrofitted energy efficient infrastructure throughout our communities. We plan to expand our Energy Smart Schools program, which helps turn our schools into energy secure community centers. Earlier this year, Department of Energy committed up to $1.5 million in technical assistance to provide 75 comprehensive energy audits in public schools throughout the New Orleans area. In addition to supporting an energy efficient rebuilding in New Orleans and on the Gulf Coast, these comprehensive audits will identify opportunities for New Orleans’ public schools to save up to $1 million annually on utility bills. We’re really proud of that effort. At the federal level, as the largest energy consumer in the U.S, the federal government has a tremendous opportunity and a responsibility to lead by example with smart energy management. President Bush recognized this with his Executive Order issued in January, directing all federal agencies to cut their energy consumption by 30% throughout the federal complex. Secretary Bodman has committed the Department of Energy to meet or exceed this mandate, and with his leadership, he is committing all of his effort in the last two years to incorporating clean energy technologies, to the maximum use of Energy Saving Performance Contracts, and to focus decision-making on the tough energy efficiency decisions, to make the Department of Energy the leading performer and the leading advocate for energy efficiency within the federal sector. The fifth pillar - a fundamental one in my view - is accelerated research and development in new energy efficient technologies for the mid and for the long term. We are committed to a faster pace of R&D in energy efficient technologies for advanced lighting...for zero energy buildings…and the industrial technology that will be needed to achieve sustained energy reductions. For example, we applaud the leadership of The Green Grid consortium and others in the IT industry in pressing energy efficiency in data centers around the globe. And, we pledge our continued financial and technological support to facilitate targeted research investments and urge industry leaders and stakeholders to join us in coordinated support - not just in the area of R&D - but also in accelerated market deployment. Finally, fundamental cultural change is required to adopt a new national energy efficiency ethic. And this is the focus of our sixth pillar. The Change a Light – Change the World campaign and the Department’s partnership with Disney’s animated film “Ratatouille” have been successful in driving awareness. And while there are other efforts underway, more must be done to motivate policymakers, to motivate industry, and to motivate consumers to embrace energy efficiency values in their states, cities, and all of our homes. But our efforts here at home must be complemented by robust cooperation with our international partners. As nations like China and India continue to grow at unprecedented rates, we must continue to encourage the adoption of stringent efficiency standards and the broader use of advanced lighting, advanced building, and advanced industrial technologies. It will be to their advantage, and the world’s benefit. Let me conclude by thanking you for participating in this very timely forum. I have every reason to believe that that the ideas you circulate in the coming days, the commercially available technologies on display here, and the technologies moving from our national laboratories to the marketplace can help bring our nation and our world significant efficiency gains in the years to come. And they have the potential to do so on an accelerated basis, at a competitive cost, without curtailing comfort or convenience for our citizens, and for our children. The U.S. Department of Energy is proud to be a top level sponsor hosting you this week; and we are prouder still of our partnership with so many of you: you, the innovators, the regulators, the legislators, the educators, and you the corporations, the scientists and the entrepreneurs… all dedicated to cleaner, more lean, competitive, and secure energy future. We look forward to building upon this week’s dynamic agenda and the power of good ideas, whose time has definitely come. Thank you, and I hope you enjoy the conference. Location: Washington, D.C. Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 37 DOE: 12th Annual Turkmenistan International Oil and Gas Exhibition November 15, 2007 Remarks as Prepared for Secretary Bodman Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I’m very pleased to be here with you today. Congratulations to our hosts on what appears to be the great success of this 12th annual Turkmenistan International Oil and Gas Exhibition. I understand that this year, for the first time ever, TIOGE is over-subscribed. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. World demand for energy will increase by more than 50 percent over the next 25 years, requiring all of us to find significant new supplies and suppliers of energy. An astounding $22 trillion of new investment will be needed between now and 2030 to meet this expected demand. Given the enormous potential of Turkmenistan’s energy resources… and the openness that President Berdymuhammedov and his administration are showing toward the rest of the world, it is only natural that people would come here. Speaking in New York to a group of industry representatives, the President of Turkmenistan noted that his country is interested in long-term relationships. So is the United States. I hope we can expand and enrich our relationship and extend cooperation to new areas. Early in his term, I wrote to Turkmenistan’s President and extended the hand of my Department and invited him to send a delegation of senior energy representatives to the United States. I’m delighted he accepted and I am even more pleased that Mr. Myradov and a number of his senior technical experts visited our Department and went to the center of the U.S. oil and gas business in Houston, Texas to see our industry at work. Building on that visit, we are currently working on developing new science and education exchanges between our two countries. This is a critical time in the history of this country – one that provides the government new and dramatic opportunities to improve the lives of its citizens. Clearly the vast natural resources in this country of oil, gas and agriculture will play a critical role in providing the revenue to grow the economy. Increasing energy security is essential for every country around the world and each nation must pursue those policies appropriate to its circumstances. Here, in my view, energy security means having options – in other words, a diversified set of partners and new infrastructure. However, in order to fully realize the true hydrocarbon reserve and production potential here in Turkmenistan, first you really have to define and let it be known the extent of the reserves here. It is clear that there is recognition of and respect for the value that foreign investment and private companies can bring to this economy through the successful exploration and production of Turkmenistan’s oil and gas reserves. As new and increasingly deep deposits of oil and natural gas are discovered, Turkmenistan should seek out partners who have demonstrated international experience, diverse technical expertise, experienced employees, and a proven track record of successful project development. I can not emphasize enough the importance of choosing the right partners. As you well know, energy exploration and production projects have a long lifespan and you want to have, as your partners, people and companies that you trust to do right by your country and its citizens. In order for these partners to invest their capital and their expertise, they will need a transparent, stable and market-oriented legal, fiscal and regulatory framework. The President of Turkmenistan underlined the importance of these issues in New York; in fact, he said he would welcome comment on Turkmenistan’s laws and government policies from potential investors. And I hope the companies here and others accept this invitation. I also want to talk about getting hydrocarbons to market. Turkmenistan certainly has significant reserves; in fact, it may have one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world – and it has significant oil reserves. However, there is much concern about the lack of export capacity for oil and gas. Companies developing and producing these reserves will need certainty that commercial pipeline export options will be developed. They are putting their shareholders’ financial resources at stake. Pipelines naturally follow investment; they cannot come first. It is clear that Turkmenistan will need new export options. And it is welcome news that the President of Turkmenistan has said that all possibilities will be considered. There is an additional issue I want to single out for special attention. In his New York speech, Turkmenistan’s President said that investors don’t always seem to care enough about the natural environment and that, in the process of investor selection, Turkmenistan will give preference to world-class companies whose policies address environmental protection issues. The United States government strongly supports this position. Each government has a duty to protect the environment; and private sector investors share in this responsibility. There are a large number of oil and gas companies, not just American companies that have an impressive international record; their investments in environmental technologies and corporate environmental management policies make them more competitive in this market. Good corporate behavior and concern for the bottom line do go hand-in-hand. Let me end by wishing the Turkmenistan’s government and its people great success as they develop their oil and gas resources. The wise use of Turkmenistan’s natural wealth will benefit the nation today and will benefit future generations in years to come. It will provide the capital necessary for major investment in education, in health care and in the arts and culture. It will raise living standards and help to bring about the changes that make a nation truly strong and great. Opportunities are opening up that could not have been imagined even a year ago. The United States and its people offer our friendship and cooperation to the people and government of Turkmenistan. We want to be one of your long-term partners. And I fully expect that we will be. Thank you. Location: Ashgabat, Turkmenistan 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 ***************************************************************** 38 Tri-City Herald: Hanford tank waste steam reforming to be tested by Thor Published Thursday, November 15th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY, HERALD STAFF WRITER Thor Treatment Technologies is preparing to test steam reforming on Hanford's radioactive tank waste by using a $7.4 million Department of Energy grant. It's looking at steam reforming as a possible way to treat low-activity tank waste. But the process may be more practical for another use Thor is proposing: Treating secondary waste left from other methods of treating tank waste. Hanford plans to treat about half of the low-activity waste in the 53 million gallons of radioactive waste now stored in underground tanks at the $12.2 billion vitrification plant that's under construction. To treat the remainder of the waste, it must expand the vit plant beyond its original design or use a supplemental treatment, such as bulk vitrification or steam reforming. The decision on how to treat waste is further complicated by an estimated eight-year delay in opening the vit plant, which may lead to beginning treatment of low-activity waste at the plant before the Pretreatment Facility is operating. Thor, a joint venture of Washington Group International and Studsvik AB in Sweden based in Aiken, S.C., is proposing capturing radioactive waste in BB-sized particles of a mineral found in nature, sodium-aluminosilicate. The mineral has an affinity for certain types of metals and will bind radionuclides in a crystal matrix, said Duane Schmoker, Thor vice president of marketing and business development, in Richland. The technology brings steam into the bottom of the steam reformer vessel to bubble up through a layer of alumina sand. Then, a thick slurry of waste mixed with clay is added to the sand. A chemical reaction between alumina and the sodium in the waste creates the sodium-aluminosilicate mineral with the waste trapped inside. In addition, the nitrates in the waste are converted to nitrogen gas to prevent the release of harmful nitrogen oxides. The process produces an off gas that Schmoker describes as "very clean," and BB-sized solids that look a lot like kitty litter holding the waste. Thor plans two tests of the technology for use at Hanford. First it will do an engineering scale test with a nonradioactive simulant of Hanford waste at Hazen Research in Golden, Colo. A year from now, it plans to test the chemistry of the process on the laboratory scale using radioactive samples from Hanford tanks. The tests may be conducted in the 300 Area just north of Richland or at the 222-S Laboratory in central Hanford. Although steam reforming remains on DOE's list as a possible supplemental treatment for Hanford tank waste, most of the Hanford testing has been on bulk vitrification, which would create large blocks of glass with the waste immobilized inside. Washington state, which regulates tank waste treatment, believes the choice is between bulk vitrification or adding a second low-activity waste treatment building to the main vit plant. The technology to be used at the vitrification plant is "the gold standard," said Suzanne Dahl, tank waste disposal project manager for the state Department of Ecology. Almost $100 million has been spent on a demonstration bulk vitrification system for Hanford waste with a pilot plant still not expected to be operating until 2010. The state is concerned that considerable time would need to be invested to bring another technology to the same point for Hanford waste. However, the state is pleased money is coming to Hanford that could be used to help find a solution for other waste, Dahl said. Secondary waste produced during vitrification might need further treatment of radionuclides, particularly if the vit plant's Low Activity Waste Facility opens before its Pretreatment Facility. Thor believes that steam reforming would be an option for treating that secondary waste and could produce a product for disposal that might meet criteria for sending the waste to disposal sites that handle low-level radioactive commercial waste, such as medical waste. The $7.4 million for the project comes from DOE's Advanced Remediation Technology program. It has awarded $24.4 million to continue work on possible technologies being demonstrated to process tank wastes and ground water and soil cleanup at DOE sites. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 39 Hanford News: Hanford waste treatment to be tested by Thor This story was published Thursday, November 15th, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Thor Treatment Technologies is preparing to test steam reforming on Hanford's radioactive tank waste by using a $7.4 million Department of Energy grant. It's looking at steam reforming as a possible way to treat low-activity tank waste. But the process may be more practical for another use Thor is proposing: Treating secondary waste left from other methods of treating tank waste. Hanford plans to treat about half of the low-activity waste in the 53 million gallons of radioactive waste now stored in underground tanks at the $12.2 billion vitrification plant that's under construction. To treat the remainder of the waste, it must expand the vit plant beyond its original design or use a supplemental treatment, such as bulk vitrification or steam reforming. The decision on how to treat waste is further complicated by an estimated eight-year delay in opening the vit plant, which may lead to beginning treatment of low-activity waste at the plant before the Pretreatment Facility is operating. Thor, a joint venture of Washington Group International and Studsvik AB in Sweden based in Aiken, S.C., is proposing capturing radioactive waste in BB-sized particles of a mineral found in nature, sodium-aluminosilicate. The mineral has an affinity for certain types of metals and will bind radionuclides in a crystal matrix, said Duane Schmoker, Thor vice president of marketing and business development, in Richland. The technology brings steam into the bottom of the steam reformer vessel to bubble up through a layer of alumina sand. Then, a thick slurry of waste mixed with clay is added to the sand. A chemical reaction between alumina and the sodium in the waste creates the sodium-aluminosilicate mineral with the waste trapped inside. In addition, the nitrates in the waste are converted to nitrogen gas to prevent the release of harmful nitrogen oxides. The process produces an off gas that Schmoker describes as "very clean," and BB-sized solids that look a lot like kitty litter holding the waste. Thor plans two tests of the technology for use at Hanford. First it will do an engineering scale test with a nonradioactive simulant of Hanford waste at Hazen Research in Golden, Colo. A year from now, it plans to test the chemistry of the process on the laboratory scale using radioactive samples from Hanford tanks. The tests may be conducted in the 300 Area just north of Richland or at the 222-S Laboratory in central Hanford. Although steam reforming remains on DOE's list as a possible supplemental treatment for Hanford tank waste, most of the Hanford testing has been on bulk vitrification, which would create large blocks of glass with the waste immobilized inside. Washington state, which regulates tank waste treatment, believes the choice is between bulk vitrification or adding a second low-activity waste treatment building to the main vit plant. The technology to be used at the vitrification plant is "the gold standard," said Suzanne Dahl, tank waste disposal project manager for the state Department of Ecology. Almost $100 million has been spent on a demonstration bulk vitrification system for Hanford waste with a pilot plant still not expected to be operating until 2010. The state is concerned that considerable time would be needed to bring another technology to the same point for Hanford waste. However, the state is pleased money is coming to Hanford that could be used to help find a solution for other waste, Dahl said. Secondary waste produced during vitrification might need further treatment of radionuclides, particularly if the vit plant's Low Activity Waste Facility opens before its Pretreatment Facility. Thor believes steam reforming would be an option for treating that secondary waste and could produce a product for disposal that might meet criteria for sending the waste to disposal sites that handle low-level radioactive commercial waste, such as medical waste. The $7.4 million for the project comes from DOE's Advanced Remediation Technology program. It has awarded $24.4 million to continue work on possible technologies being demonstrated to process tank wastes and ground water and soil cleanup at DOE sites. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 40 Hanford News: Richland's HAMMER center to get $1 million This story was published Thursday, November 15th, 2007 the Herald staff The HAMMER training center at Hanford will receive $1 million to continue National Guard training in money included in the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Appropriations Act. The bill was signed into law by President Bush this week. HAMMER has "been teaching the National Guard for several years and this helps solidify their leadership in homeland security training," said Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., in a statement. He and Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., requested the money. The money will be used to train National Guard teams to respond to weapons of mass destruction. This year 12 of the teams have been trained at HAMMER. Also, the HAMMER facility plans to mark its 10-year anniversary today with an announcement of a major expansion program to provide additional training for international border enforcement officers and others. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 Inside Bay Area: Livermore Lab: What a difference a month makes Article Last Updated: 11/15/2007 08:06:53 AM PST IT DIDN'T TAKE long for the other shoe to drop at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where new corporate management has been in control for slightly more than a month. The announcement this week that as many as 500 employees will be laid off at the nuclear weapons lab leaves us wondering how the facility's new leaders so badly miscalculated the effects of the transition ? and what the future holds. A consortium led by the University of California and San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp. took over management of the lab and its 8,500 workers on Oct. 1. Security lapses and financial blunders at Livermore and at the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico had prompted the federal government to seek bids for management of the facilities, which had previously been run solely by UC. The UC-Bechtel team beat out defense giant Northrop Grumman to win the Livermore contract. As part of the deal, the consortium could make about $300 million during the next seven years. Department of Energy officials said the fees were incentives to find new efficiencies and cut waste. In May, after the new contract was announced, lab director George Miller said those efficiencies, attrition and other changes would bring enough savings to avoid layoffs like those seen at Los Alamos last year. We have anticipated this and put programs in place to allow a very smooth transition," Miller said then. How quickly the tune changes. The lab's budget has not been increased to account for the management fees nor taxes the lab must now pay, from which it was exempt when UC was in charge. Health care costs are more than anticipated. Attrition has been lower. And retirement benefit costs have been greater than forecast. Much of this was foreseeable. The cuts have come so quickly that we wonder whether the new management team knew all along that they were inevitable. Those who will be laid off in this first round of cuts are temporary workers with fixed-term contracts who are hired through contractors. The problem could get worse because Congress has yet to approve a budget for 2008. The lab could lose as much as $150 million in federal funding, potentially leading to the loss of 300 permanent employees. Lab officials say they want to protect scientific research positions, but they offer no assurances that scientists will be spared. This sort of uncertainty will make it hard to keep and attract the top-notch talent the lab needs to conduct work that is so critical to our national security. While the security lapses that led to this new management were very troubling, these sorts of financial surprises are equally disturbing. Lab leaders must be more forthcoming about what the future holds for workers there. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Help ***************************************************************** 42 DOE: Events DOE-Sponsored Public Meetings and Workshops DATE TITLE LOCATION 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 11.27.07 - 11.28.07 EERE/Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee Mtg. Arlington, VA 11.27.07 Public Mtg.: Draft EIS for Mesaba Energy Project (IGCC facility) Taconite, MN 11.28.07 Public Mtg.: Draft EIS for Mesaba Energy Project (IGCC facility) Hoyt Lakes, MN 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 - 11.30.07 SC/Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee Mtg. Washington, 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 01.08.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Sacramento, CA 01.08.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Portland, OR 01.09.08 Oak Ridge Site Advisory Board Mtg. Oak Ridge, TN 01.09.08 NV/NTS Community Advisory Board Mtg. TBD 01.10.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Seattle, WA 01.10.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Ontario, CA 01.15.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Phoenix, AZ 01.15.08 - 01.16.08 EM/INL Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. TBD, ID 01.15.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Grand Junction, CO 01.17.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Salt Lake City, UT 01.17.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Las Vegas, NV 01.17.08 Paducah Site Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. Paducah, KY 01.23.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Window Rock, AZ 01.24.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Albuquerque, NM 01.28.08 - 01.29.08 SRS Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. TBD 01.29.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Helena, MT 01.29.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Cheyenne, WY 01.30.08 Northern NM Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. Santa Fe, NM 01.31.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Denver, CO 01.31.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Boise, ID 02.05.08 Public Mtg.: Draft PEIS for Designation of Energy corridors in 11 Western States Washington, DC 02.07.08 - 02.08.08 Hanford Advisory Board Mtg. TBD 02.13.08 Oak Ridge Site Advisory Board Mtg. Oak Ridge, TN 03.12.08 NV/NTS Community Advisory Board Mtg. TBD 03.12.08 Oak Ridge Site Advisory Board Mtg. Oak Ridge, TN 03.18.08 - 03.19.08 EM/INL Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. TBD 03.20.08 Paducah Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. Paducah, KY 03.24.08 - 03.25.08 SRS Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. TBD 03.26.08 Northern NM Citizens Advisory Board Mtg. Santa Fe, NM U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 43 Knoxville News Sentinel: Jaguar drops on power list By Darren Dunlap (Contact) Thursday, November 15, 2007 Several new supercomputers moved into the upper ranks of a recent top 500 list, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory's powerful Jaguar at least temporarily dropped in ranking among the world's fastest machines. The Jaguar, a Cray XT4 supercomputer, was No. 7 on the TOP500 list of supercomputers worldwide this month. The ORNL supercomputer was No. 2 in June. "This is a fast, evolving field," said Jack Dongarra, a University of Tennessee distinguished professor. "There are newer machines on the list which are much faster than our machine at ORNL. This list had a lot of movement." The IBM BlueGene/L system at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Calif., maintained the top spot on the list with a speed of 478.2 teraflops. A teraflop is equal to 1 trillion calculations per second. There were five new entrants in the top 10, including supercomputers at New Mexico Computing Applications Center and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., Germany, India and Sweden. The Jaguar could climb the list again when the next set of rankings come out. The machine is scheduled to get new processors by year's end, doubling its peak capability to 250 trillion calculations per second. According to a press release from UT, the computers are ranked based on their performance using the Linpack benchmark program, which Dongarra wrote. He also leads the university's Innovative Computing Laboratory. The next edition of the supercomputing list will be released in June 2008 at the International Supercomputing Conference in Dresden, Germany. Darren Dunlap may be reached at 865-342-6334. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 44 Knoxville News Sentinel: High Flux Isotope Reactor restarted By Frank Munger (Contact) Thursday, November 15, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Oak Ridge National Laboratory restarted the High Flux Isotope Reactor on Wednesday for the first time since Oct. 2, when the reactor was shut down for extended maintenance activities. Ron Crone, director of ORNL's Research Reactors Division, said lab workers accomplished all of the planned tasks during the five-week outage and restarted the reactor on schedule. The reactor was restarted at low power while workers did some additional surveys of equipment, and Crone said the reactor was expected to reach full power by mid-day. One of the main accomplishments was testing the reactor's new cold source to make sure it's operating as expected to support experiments. Afterwards, workers reinstalled a neutron guide, which delivers neutrons from the reactor's core to experiment stations. Crone said a series of preventive maintenance projects was performed on the reactor's electrical systems, and one of four motors that supports the primary pump was sent to TVA's nuclear shop at Muscle Shoals, Ala, for refurbishment. The High Flux Isotope Reactor is considered one of the world's top research reactors. Combined with the Spallation Neutron Source, an accelerator-based research center a couple of miles away, the reactor makes ORNL a leading lab for materials research using neutrons. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 342-6329. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 45 Knoxville News Sentinel: Security firm, union talking Wackenhut negotiating with new local By Frank Munger (Contact) Thursday, November 15, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Wackenhut Services, the government's Oak Ridge security contractor, is in contract negotiations with a newly organized union local that represents firearms instructors, alarm-station operators, dispatchers and other support personnel. The first contract with Local 149 of the International Guards Union of America would cover 52 workers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 National Security Complex and the Federal Office Building, according to company and union officials. The IGUA organized the employees earlier this year and the bargaining unit was certified in June by the National Labor Relations Board, according to Randy Lawson, the union's international president. Negotiations began in September, Lawson said. Lawson also is president of Local 3 of the IGUA, which represents hundreds of security police officers at the Oak Ridge facilities. The security police officers approved a new five-year contract with Wackenhut in August. Asked about the status of negotiations with Local 149, Wackenhut spokeswoman Courtney Henry said, "This is a brand-new contract. There's not any timetable." Lawson said the talks are going "very well," but he wouldn't speculate on when a contract agreement might be reached. Eddie Kelly is president of Local 149. Lawson was elected international president at the union's annual meeting in September. He took office Nov. 1. The international guards union represents about 2,800 workers, with contracts in place at Oak Ridge and other Department of Energy sites in New Mexico and Washington state. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 342-6329. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 46 Times-News: INL, DOE propose waste cleanup plans Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID Last modified on Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:54 AM MST State holds off on endorsement By Matt Christensen Times-News writer It was all laid out in posters: The $1 billion plan to remove buried nuclear waste from Idaho soil. The Idaho National Laboratory and the federal Department of Energy unveiled plans Wednesday night in Twin Falls for the next phase of nuclear waste removal at the INL site in eastern Idaho. But the state is reluctant to endorse the plan, saying it doesn't remove enough waste. The INL and DOE want to cleanup about 4.8 acres of 33,000 cubic meters of nuclear waste, mostly the leftovers from weapons production that was buried underground between about 1950 and 1970. The state says that's not enough, and is waiting to endorse the plan or an alternative until the resolution of a pending lawsuit that could resolve disputes between the state and the DOE over an earlier waste-removal agreement. The state interprets that the deal, formed during the Phil Batt administration, orders the DOE to remove all the buried waste, not just portions. "We can't agree to the (plan) now because it doesn't include all the transuranic waste," said Susan Burke, an official with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. "We can't say what amount of waste must be removed because that hasn't been resolved yet." Nevertheless, the DOE is moving ahead with its proposal. It hosted an informational meeting Wednesday to gather public comment on the plan, which includes: • Removal of the 4.8 acres of nuclear waste. • A "vacuuming" of underground waste that has already threatened the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer below the site. • Grouting some waste-storage facilities to reduce radiation danger. • A giant cap over the entire site to prevent waste from leaching into the aquifer. "We think this plan provides the best balanced approach," said Rick Provencher, department manager for cleanup with the DOE. The proposed project will likely cost about $1 billion, mostly funded by Congress. Removing all the waste would cost $13 billion, Provencher said. At least one Twin Falls resident and INL watchdog, Peter Rickards, said neither side is doing enough. He accused the state of not pressing the all-means-all agreement and the DOE of downplaying the plan's risks. "The (plan)," he said, "simply cherry-picks a small volume of waste for show purposes." The public may still comment on the plan by mailing Mark R. Arenaz, Idaho Cleanup Project, DOE Idaho Operations Office, MS 1222, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-1222. Matt Christensen may be reached at 735-3243 or at matt.christensen@lee.net. Peter Rickards (id:PeterRickards) wrote on Nov 15, 2007 5:15 PM: " I also meant to post the easy email way for citizens to send official comments. These all add up. so please weigh in. Please consider demanding Alternative 5, the full removal of all plutonium buried over our water supply. Ask me any questions, or get more details at nifty1@cableone.net email for comments on buried plutonium go to Brandt.Meagher@icp.doe.gov The Plan is at https://idahocleanupproject.com/Portals/0/documents/BuriedWastePropose dPlan.pdf You may need to paste that in browser if it won't click in Feasability study at http://ar.inel.gov/images/pdf/200706/2007061400254TUA.pdf " Peter Rickards (id:PeterRickards) wrote on Nov 15, 2007 2:12 PM: " To be clear, the State says it DOES "support the preferred alternative." The Preferred Alternative 4 DOES NOT remove all, or even 5% of the buried plutonium. Why does the state not clearly say they support Alternative 5, and demand all the buried plutonium be removed? Despite the stonger wording the woman told the reporter above, the State it is simply waiting to see if the public accepts this broken promise, hidden behind the elaborate colorful posters, and well worded talk of "agrresive cleanup." The official statement from the State is on page 40 of the plan. The state clearly admits at the bottom "The State will await public review and comment of the Proposed Plan before determining the appropriate acreage for waste retrieval." That is not what the spokeswomen tells the reporter above. The crowd at the meeting in Boise Tuesday, beatup the State speakers for not demanding all the plutonium be removed, like in Alternative 5. So now the spokeswoman is changing her wording. So why does the state not clearly say they support Alternative 5, and demand all the buried plutonium be removed? " Copyright © 2006, Lee Publications Inc. Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of the Times-News, published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises. ***************************************************************** 47 MNS: State, feds pause negotiations over Hanford cleanup Montana's News Station Associated Press - November 15, 2007 5:55 PM ET YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - Negotiations between state and federal officials over cleaning up the Hanford nuclear reservation have paused for public comment. Four meetings are planned by the end of the year for public input on the progress -- or lack of progress -- in cleaning up radioactive waste. The Energy Department has missed deadlines set in the 1989 Tri-Party Agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency and state Ecology Department. Hanford is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site and cleanup costs are expected to top $60 billion. The cornerstone project is a vitrification plant, which is being designed to convert millions of gallons of radioactive waste into glasslike logs for permanent disposal. The "vit plant" was supposed to be ready in 2011, but the target date is now 2019. The cost of the project has risen to more than $12 billion. All content © Copyright 2004 - 2007, WorldNow, Montana's News Station ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************