***************************************************************** 10/17/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.244 ***************************************************************** 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 [NYTr] Putin: Russia to Move Ahead with Iran Nuke Plant; Enough of U 2 ITAR-TASS: Energy congress opens in Belarus NUCLEAR REACTORS 3 US: MiamiHerald.com: FPL moves to add nuclear plants in S. Dade - 4 BBC NEWS: Strike at nuclear plant averted 5 US: newsobserver.com: Progress moving on fire safety 6 US: toledoblade.com: Nuclear Regulatory team investigating at Fermi 7 US: NRC: NRC Conducts Special Inspection at Fermi Plant Due to Pipe 8 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Legislators or nuclear power businessmen? 9 US: NRC: Independent External Review Panel To Identify Vulnerabiliti 10 Reuters: EDF in talks to build Chinese nuclear reactors-report 11 US: Reuters: Entergy N.Y. FitzPatrick reactor exits outage 12 US: Reuters: FPL Fla. Turkey Pt 3 reactor exits refuel | 13 US: Reuters: Exelon Pa. Peach Bottom 3 reactor exits refuel | 14 US: TheDay.com: Millstone Power-boost Plan Moves Forward 15 Viet Nam News: Uni opens class for nuclear plant training 16 International Herald Tribune: The cost of India's nuclear U-turn - 17 US: Deseret Morning News: Two lawmakers dismiss conflict of interest NUCLEAR SECURITY 18 US: Detroit Free Press: Huntsville prepares for a nuclear blast 19 IAEA: IAEA Chief Outlines Vision for Global Security NUCLEAR SAFETY 20 US: Honolulu Advertiser: Discussion on Pohakuloa issue - 21 US: Montana's News Station: Craig grows more pessimistic about downw NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 22 YONHAP NEWS: IAEA to conduct safety inspections on S. Korea's nuclea 23 Canmore Leader: No nuclear waste here 24 US: The Coloradoan: Uranium mine faces mounting pressure 25 US: GreenvilleOnline.com: Nuclear waste piling up at Oconee power pl 26 US: The Coloradoan: Uranium method safe 27 swissinfo: Consensus sought for nuclear waste storage 28 US: NRC: Santa Susana Field EIS 29 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada wants Sandia Lab off Yucca Mountain project 30 Las Vegas SUN: Senate hearing scheduled on Yucca 31 JOGJCC: Sandside beach particles exceed 100 mark - 32 KOLO: Call for Investigation over Nuclear Dump Site in Nevada 33 ReviewJournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: State says safety at risk 34 AU ABC: Greens' candidate campaigns against NT waste dump 35 US: AU ABC: Aust uranium deal with India still possible - PEACE 36 The Day After We Bomb Iran 37 RIA Novosti: Crisis in Russian-U.S. relations spells trouble for Eur US DEPT. OF ENERGY 38 bizjournals: Department of Energy issues rules for loan guarantees 39 DOE: Office of Science; Climate Change Science Program Product 40 Knoxville News Sentinel: No summer vacation: Nuke work in a frenzy 41 Knoxville News Sentinel: Y-12: Results negative on exposed workers 42 Albuquerque Tribune: Nevada calls for probe of Sandia National Labor 43 KVII Online: Funding for Pantex Plant 44 KNDO/KNDU: CH2M HILL's Hanford Group Wins National Safety Award 45 NewsBlaze: Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Energy Secretary Samu ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Putin: Russia to Move Ahead with Iran Nuke Plant; Enough of US Hegemony Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:03:47 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Agencia Cubana de Noticias (ACN) http://ainch.ain.cu/mailman/listinfo/ingles Putin: Russia will Finish Iran Nuclear Plant Moscow, Oct 17 (Prensa Latina) Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Tuesday in Tehran that experts from his country will complete the construction of the Busher nuclear plant in Iran. The Russian Federation has said from the beginning that it would complete the work and that commitment will be honored, said the president. Putin met twice on Tuesday with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to analyze the ways to complete the project, Kremlin Aide Sergei Prijodko told local television. The first bilateral meeting took place after the Caspian Summit as was planned, but it lasted more than expected, so the two leaders decided to meet again, the source added. In the second round, held after Putin's news conference with Iranian media, the presidents reviewed the state of bilateral ties and focused on how to complete the Busher nuclear plant as soon as possible, the aide pointed out. Russian experts think the nuclear plant might start up operations after fall 2008, as a result of a one-billion-dollar contact, the news program Vesti reported. The director of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency (Rosatom), Sergei Kirienko, said recently that there are no political restrictions to close the Busher chapter satisfactorily. After meeting with Iranian Vice President Golamreza Agazade, Kirienko noted that Moscow and Tehran had signed an agreement that complies with the protection standards established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The fuel to be used in the Busher plant will be produced in Russia and will return to that country after being used, he added. The Iranian nuclear plant does not pose a threat on the nonproliferation regimen, the top Russian official said emphatically. ef jg jpm PL-3 *** Putin: US Hegemony Unfeasible Moscow, Oct 17 (Prensa Latina) Russian President Vladimir Putin affirmed Wednesday in Teheran the US aspiration to create a unipolar world is impossible. # Putin: Russia will Finish Iran Nuclear Plant The examples of Afghanistan and Iraq confirm that no power, not matter how big, can solve world problems by itself, because its financial, economic, material, or political resources would be insufficient, he stressed. The Russian leader explained Moscow suggests increasing the leading role of an international organization like the UN, and giving more importance to international law. In addition, he remarked, national sovereignty principles must be strictly observed, and consensual commitments must be adopted when making important decisions. It is a hard task, but it is the only way to achieve long-term results and stabilize the world situation, local TV quoted Putin as saying. Putin"s statements are in line with his remarks during the International Security Meting in Germany early this year, when he stated the unipolar model in the contemporary world is inadmissible and impossible. ef dig jpm mf PL-1 * ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us Our main website: http://www.blythe.org List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 2 ITAR-TASS: Energy congress opens in Belarus 17.10.2007, 12.02 MINSK, October 17 (Itar-Tass) - The 12th Belarussian energy and environment forum opens in Minsk on Wednesday. Its goal is assistance to the implementation of governmental measures for energy security, energy saving and rational use of resources. The international exhibition Energy Expo 2000 is held at the forum, where modern equipment and technology for production and distribution of electric and heat energy, automated systems, energy and resource-saving are demonstrated. Over 300 enterprises and organisations from 17 countries will attend the forum. The Day of Russia will be held at the forum for the first time. A councillor of the Russian embassy to Belarus, Andrei Kuznetsov, said representatives of Russia’s major companies that make supplies to the energy sector would take part in the forum, including Atomstroiksport, Power Machines and Saturn-Gas Turbines. The Russian suppliers are ready to work with the republic on terms of transparency of tenders held in the republic. In September, Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko approved a draft energy security concept for the years to 2020. The task is to decrease the energy intensity of gross domestic product by 31 percent in the years to 2010 and by 60 percent by 2020 as compared to 2005. A proportion of the use of local fuels in the electric and heat energy output is to be kept at 30 percent, Lukashenko has ordered the government to prepare a tender for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Belarus. Belarus considers as potential participants in the project an American-Japanese, a French-German and a Russian group of companies. Preparatory work for the construction of the nuclear power plant is to be completed in 2008. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 MiamiHerald.com: FPL moves to add nuclear plants in S. Dade - 10/17/2007 - Florida Power & Light took a major step toward building two new nuclear reactors in South Miami-Dade. BY JOHN DORSCHNER jdorschner@MiamiHerald.com Pushed by growing concern over global warming caused by fossil fuels, Florida Power & Light moved another step closer on Tuesday to building two new nuclear plants in South Miami-Dade County by filing formal papers with state regulators. In the filing with the Public Service Commission, FPL said it was seeking to add 2,200 to 3,000 megawatts in two additional units for the existing Turkey Point nuclear power complex to serve the needs of one million customers. The additions could be operating by 2020. After two decades of virtually no interest in new nuclear plants, many such applications are now in the pipeline, spurred in part also by rising prices for natural gas and oil, Before the end of 2009, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expecting 21 companies to file requests to build 32 reactors, the commission's website said. Formally, FPL asked on Tuesday for the PSC to make a ''determination of need'' that would lead to the construction at Turkey Point. ''Additional nuclear energy can help supply reliable, affordable power to our customers while avoiding greenhouse gas emissions that scientists have determined contribute to climate change,'' FPL President Armando Olivera said in a prepared statement. ``Nuclear power helps to meet Gov. Charlie Crist's goals for reducing emissions and diversifying our fuel sources.'' ALTERNATIVES The alternative to the new Turkey Point facilities would be fossil fuel plants that might add seven million tons of carbon into the air, the company said in the release. Nuclear power presently provides 20 percent of the power to FPL's 4.5 million customers. The company estimates it needs to boost its power output by 33 percent to meet projected needs for electricity between 2011 and 2020. EARLY BIRDS Last month, NRG Energy, based in New Jersey, became the first to file with federal regulators a full application for two reactors in South Texas. UniStar, a consortium of Constellation Energy and AREVA, has filed a partial application of 4,855 pages to build a unit in Maryland. Progress Energy is expected next year to file an application to build two reactors in Levy County, Fla. PLANNING AHEAD In 2006, FPL told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it intended to file a license application for new nuclear power capacity. In August, the utility discussed its nuclear proposals with state regulators in a PSC workshop in Tallahassee. Spokesman Mayco Villafańa says the company plans to go through the state process before filing with federal regulators. The NRC website indicates it expects to start processing FPL's application in 2009. DEBATE EXPECTED Before the nuclear expansion is approved, FPL expects extended discussions. Dawn Shirreffs, a South Florida organizer with the Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, has said her group is concerned that the new reactors will be within two miles of Biscayne National Park. ``Not only should there be concerns around the sensitive ecosystems, but this project puts our water quality at risk.'' * Copyright 1996-2007 The Miami Herald Media Company| ***************************************************************** 4 BBC NEWS: Strike at nuclear plant averted Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 October 2007, 09:28 GMT 10:28 UK Workers are in dispute with the operators over pay Strike action by workers at the Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness has been averted after agreement was reached over a pay deal. Staff, along with colleagues at other UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) sites, backed a union recommendation to accept the offer by management. About 2,000 workers had previously voted to go on strike at Dounreay. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 5 newsobserver.com: Progress moving on fire safety Wednesday, October 17, 2007 Set to meet new standard in 2010 John Murawski, Staff Writer Progress Energy is on schedule to meet federal fire safety standards at the Shearon Harris nuclear plant, which would bring to a close two decades of fire safety deficiencies at the power plant in Wake County. Officials at the Raleigh utility said the company expects to propose fixes for outstanding problems in May and bring the nuclear plant into compliance by November 2010. Problems with fire-retardant protective materials were first discovered at Shearon Harris in 1989, two years after the plant began generating electricity. Some of the deficiencies have been corrected along the way, even as new ones were later discovered. The outstanding concern now is that a fire-retardant wrap that protects electric conduits failed to withstand a laboratory stress test under intense heat. The material, called Hemyc, protects electric cables that operate safety equipment needed to shut down the plant during an emergency. Progress is compensating for deficiencies with round-the-clock fire patrols. Nuclear critics have tried to get Shearon Harris shut down over the Hemyc problems, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has repeatedly said that the Hemyc flaws don't make a nuclear plant unsafe. One of the NRC's commissioners, Gregory Jaczko, repeated that conclusion Tuesday after meeting with nuclear power opponents in Raleigh. "It's important to distinguish the regulatory nuances of some of these issues with the fundamental issue of safety," Jaczko said. "There is not a significant safety concern right now at Shearon Harris. This is not a fundamental safety issue at any facility." Progress has 6,500 feet of Hemyc, more than any other nuclear plant in the country. Shearon Harris is one of two nuclear plants that will try to meet a new fire safety standard adopted by the NRC. The new standard is based on actual risk of fire in different sections of the plant, as determined by computer modeling. The new standard will likely mean that much of the plant's emergency system is safe and that only sections of electrical cable need to be modified, instead of retrofitting the entire plant. Progress will file a proposal in May that will detail the extent of retrofits required under the new safety standard. Jaczko said that despite years of delays, Progress is now serving as a model for fire-safety compliance. "Shearon Harris is what we want to see a plant doing," he said. john.murawski@newsobserver.com or (919) 829-8932 © Copyright 2007, The News & Observer Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 6 toledoblade.com: Nuclear Regulatory team investigating at Fermi 2 Article published Wednesday, October 17, 2007 NEWPORT, Mich. — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said yesterday it has sent an inspection team to Fermi 2 to get to the bottom of what was reported there last week. Detroit Edison Co., a DTE Energy subsidiary, reported last Thursday that it found an unexplained quarter-inch hole and five indentations in steamline pipes, apparently all caused by a drill. Sabotage initially was a possibility, prompting the utility to declare the incident an “unusual event,” as defined by NRC regulations. Preliminary results of the utility’s investigation ruled out tampering. Utility officials said the act was unintentional without saying whether it was an accident or miscommunication from a supervisor. The NRC doesn’t necessarily take issue with that finding, but wants to know more about the company’s internal procedures. Jim Caldwell, the NRC’s Midwest regional administrator, said the agency “needs to understand how and why there was damage to the piping and evaluate the plant’s response to the event to gain confidence that such situations will not occur in the future.” © 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 ***************************************************************** 7 NRC: NRC Conducts Special Inspection at Fermi Plant Due to Pipe Damage News Release - Region III - 2007-023 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting a special inspection at the Fermi Nuclear Power Station to further review recently identified damage on steamline pipes. The Fermi Plant, located in Newport, Mich., is owned and operated by the Detroit Edison Company. On October 11, 2007, during a refueling outage, plant personnel discovered a small unexpected hole and several indentations on steamline pipes. Under certain circumstances, these pipes would relieve reactor pressure. Even if the pipes had to be used for this purpose, there would have been no radiation released to the environment. The plant remains shutdown in a stable condition. Appropriate safety systems have been and continue to be available. The utility has been conducting a review of what caused damage to the pipes. Tampering was initially considered as one of the potential causes. This led the utility to declare an Unusual Event, the lowest level of emergency in the NRC four-level emergency classification system. On October 12, the utility concluded that there was no evidence of tampering and exited from the Unusual Event. Based on interviews and reviews of maintenance activities, the utility’s preliminary conclusion is that the damage occurred during the removal of pipe insulation. The NRC began monitoring the utility’s activities as soon as the agency was informed of the situation. The NRC reviewed activities at the plant around-the-clock from the Region III Incident Response Center, in Lisle, Ill., by resident inspectors and other regional inspectors at the plant while the plant was in an Unusual Event. The NRC continued close monitoring at the plant after the Unusual Event was exited. On October 15, the NRC dispatched a 4-person Special Inspection team to continue this review. The goal of the Special Inspection is to review the facts and circumstances of the incident. The inspection will focus on the events that led to the pipes being damaged; the review of the utility’s Emergency Plan in the context of security-related events; an assessment of the plant’s response to a potential security issue; the plant’s immediate and long-term corrective actions; and a review of the utility’s evaluation of the issue. James Caldwell, regional administrator for Region III said, “The plant remains safe and there is no threat to public health. However, the NRC needs to understand how and why there was damage to the piping and evaluate the plant’s response to the event to gain confidence that such situations will not occur in the future.” The duration of the special inspection cannot be determined in advance, but is expected to last approximately one week. The Inspection Report will be issued 4 to 6 weeks after the inspection is completed. The report will be available from the Region III Office and in the NRC’s online document library at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html NRC news releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Wednesday, October 17, 2007 ***************************************************************** 8 Salt Lake Tribune: Legislators or nuclear power businessmen? Critics say they can't be both The Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 10/17/2007 06:54:46 AM MDT Utah Rep. Aaron Tilton At a legislative committee meeting this morning, Rep. Aaron Tilton will leave his seat as a legislator and become a witness, briefing lawmakers on his efforts as CEO of a company seeking a license to build a nuclear power plant in Utah. Alongside his business partner, the nation's former top nuclear regulator, Nils Diaz, the Springville Republican will lay out how his company has already inked a deal to supply the power plant with water from the Kane County Water District, led by fellow Rep. Mike Noel. "If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what one is," said Tim Wagner, who heads the Sierra Club's energy campaign. Tilton defends his actions, insisting there is no conflict of interest because he has not voted for any legislation that would have helped his company, Transition Power Development, LLC. Noel and Tilton have been two leading proponents for developing nuclear power, both in the Legislature and, in Tilton's case, as a member of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr.'s Blue Ribbon Advisory Committee on Climate Change. And both, as legislators, have a role directly affecting the state's energy policy: Tilton as vice-chairman of the House Public Utilities and Technology Committee and Noel as chairman of the committee and a member of the House committees with oversight of the Department of Environmental Quality and the Utah Division of Radiation Control. But Tilton said his committee and the state agencies Noel's committee oversees have ''nothing to do with the company's fate," since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has sole discretion over licensing. A proposal before the House utilities committee would have offered incentives to electric utilities seeking to build a nuclear plant, but Tilton said his company would not have qualified for the incentives and he opposed the effort because it would have hurt consumers. Noel did not return messages left on his cell phone seeking comment. "Noel and Tilton have no business shaping our state's nuclear power policies when they stand to personally profit from the outcome," said Vanessa Pierce, executive director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, which opposes nuclear power. "Both legislators have abused the public trust by failing to disclose their financial stake in a proposal to promote nuclear power in Utah - and they continue to betray that trust by denying this clear conflict of interest." And Roger Ball, the head of the Utah Ratepayers Association, said decisions that impact ratepayers, like building a power plant, are a great concern. "I believe that legislators need to be above suspicion, and they're na ve if they don't think so,'' he said. Joining Tilton at the hearing will be Diaz, a principal in Transition Power Development and chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission until he stepped down last year. Diaz said he will be on hand to answer legislators' questions. Diaz said the company is focused on developing a suitable site for construction of nuclear power plants, "not on construction or operation." "We are developing a site and that will be done with the utmost care to environmental issues, to the safety and security of the people of the community," he said. It is too soon to say whether the company would seek to sell the license to a utility to operate a power plant. Tilton has been managing director and chief executive officer of TPD since February. He said the company's licensing efforts are ''very preliminary.'' "We haven't even identified a site or anything," Tilton said. "The first thing we have to do is figure out, 'Can you get water in this state?' That was the reason for the contract with Mike [Noel]'s district." When asked by The Tribune last month whether he had ties to the nuclear industry, Tilton said he had worked on a coal power plant proposed in Utah and on a natural-gas project in Wyoming, but not on nuclear power. Tilton did not disclose his role in the company until last Friday, when he amended his House conflict-of-interest disclosure. "We weren't, as a company, ready to release that information" until a contract was signed three weeks ago with the Kane water district to secure 30,000 acre-feet of water per year, he said. The district had set aside the water for a coal power plant that fell through, Tilton said. His company has paid the district $10,000 and will pay $100,000 for the next five years, with payments increasing to $500,000 after five years, about the time he expects the NRC to approve the license. The payments would increase to $1 million at about the time the plant would be brought on line. "We have all kinds of work to do before then," said Tilton. "We still have to determine whether or not Utah is a place you can put a plant and that's really the discussion we're [having] now." Push for N-power * Springville Republican is under fire for trying to bring a nuclear power plant to Utah. "If that's not a conflict of interest, I don't know what one is," said Tim Wagner, of the Sierra Club. ***************************************************************** 9 NRC: Independent External Review Panel To Identify Vulnerabilities in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Materials Licensing Program: Meeting Notice FR Doc E7-20448 [Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)] [Notices] [Page 58910] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17oc07-114] [[Page 58910]] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: NRC will convene a meeting of the Independent External Review Panel to Identify Vulnerabilities in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Materials Licensing Program on October 30, 2007. A sample of agenda items to be discussed during the public session includes: (1) Background of panel's development; (2) review of the panel's charter; and (3) initial planning for future meetings and actions. A copy of the agenda for the meeting can be obtained by e-mailing Mr. Aaron T. McCraw at the contact information below. Purpose: Discuss the scope of the review panel's objectives and initiate planning of future meetings and actions. Date and Time for Closed Sessions: There will be no closed sessions during this meeting. Date and Time for Open Sessions: October 30, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Address for Public Meeting: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North Building, Room T3C2, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Public Participation: Any member of the public who wishes to participate in the meeting should contact Mr. McCraw using the information below. Contact Information: Aaron T. McCraw, e-mail: atm@nrc.gov, telephone: (301) 415-1277. Conduct of the Meeting Mr. Thomas E. Hill will chair the meeting. Mr. Hill will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting: 1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit an electronic copy to Mr. McCraw at the contact information listed above. All submittals must be received by October 23, 2007, and must pertain to the topic on the agenda for the meeting. 2. Questions and comments from members of the public will be permitted during the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairman. 3. The transcript and written comments will be available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738, telephone (800) 397-4209, on or about January 30, 2008. 4. Persons who require special services, such as those for the hearing impaired, should notify Mr. McCraw of their planned attendance. This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in Title 10, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 7. Dated: October 11, 2007. Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20448 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 10 Reuters: EDF in talks to build Chinese nuclear reactors-report Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:51am EDT PARIS, Oct 17 (Reuters) - French utility EDF is hoping to reach a deal before the end of November with Chinese authorities to take part in the building of two nuclear reactors China ordered from French nuclear company Areva (CEPFi.PA: Quote, Profile, Research), a newspaper report said on Wednesday. "EDF hopes to reach a deal with the Chinese to take part in the building of the two EPRs ordered from Areva before the end of the month," French daily Les Echos said. EDF wants to form with China Guandong Nuclear power Corp. (CGNPC) a joint venture to develop and operate nuclear power plants as it did with the U.S. firm Constellation Energy Group (CEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) earlier this year. The report said the French utility is hoping to take a stake of up to 40 percent in the company CGNPC is about to create. The contract to supply the two EPR nuclear reactors to China is expected to be finalised at the end of November. The contract, which is worth around 5 billion euros ($7.10 billion), could be officially announced during the visit of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to China on Nov. 25, the paper said. An Areva spokesman declined to comment on the report but reiterated that Areva's discussions on China had reached a "decisive" stage. © Reuters2007All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 11 Reuters: Entergy N.Y. FitzPatrick reactor exits outage Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44am EDT NEW YORK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp's (ETR.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 852-megawatt FitzPatrick nuclear power station in New York exited an outage and ramped up to 52 percent power by early Wednesday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report,. On Tuesday, the unit was operating at 1 percent power. The unit shut on Oct. 14 due to an influx of algae in the cooling water intake. Power plants like FitzPatrick use water from a lake to cool the steam that drives the turbine into water, among other things. FitzPatrick sits on the shore of Lake Ontario. The station, which entered service in 1976, is located in Scriba in Oswego County ,about 90 miles east of Rochester, New York. One MW powers about 800 homes in New York. Entergy in August 2006 filed for a 20-year extension of the unit's original 40-year operating license. It usually takes the NRC about 22 months (May 2008) to make a decision on a license renewal without a hearing and about 30 months (Jan 2009) with a hearing. Entergy owns and operates about 30,000 MW of generating capacity, markets energy commodities, and transmits and distributes power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. © Reuters2007All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 12 Reuters: FPL Fla. Turkey Pt 3 reactor exits refuel | Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:57am EDT NEW YORK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - FPL Group Inc's (FPL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 693-megawatt Turkey Point 3 nuclear power unit in Florida exited a refueling outage and ramped up to 28 percent power by early Wednesday , the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report. On Tuesday, the unit was operating at 3 percent power. The company shut the unit on Sept. 2 for the refueling. The unit last shut for refueling from March 5-April 11, 2006. The unit is on an 18-month refueling cycle. The 2,196 MW Turkey Point station is located in Florida City in Miami-Dade County, about 25 miles south of Miami. There are several units at Turkey Point: the 398 MW oil/natural gas-fired Unit 1, the 400 MW oil/gas-fired Unit 2, two 693 MW nuclear units, 3 and 4, the 1,150 MW combined-cycle gas-fired Unit 5, and a handful of 2 MW and 3 MW oil-fired turbines. Unit 1 entered service in 1967, Unit 2 in 1968, Unit 3 in 1972, Unit 4 in 1973, and Unit 5 in 2007. Unit 4 continued to operate at full power. The NRC in 2002 approved a 20-year license extension of the original 40-year operating license for both nuclear units at Turkey Point until 2032 and 2033. Continued... ***************************************************************** 13 Reuters: Exelon Pa. Peach Bottom 3 reactor exits refuel | Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44am EDT NEW YORK, Oct 17 (Reuters) - Exelon Corp's (EXC.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 1,112-megawatt Unit 3 at the Peach Bottom nuclear power station in Pennsylvania exited a refueling outage and ramped up to 37 percent power by early Wednesday, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report. On Tuesday, the unit was operating at 15 percent power. The company shut the unit on Sept. 23 for the refueling. The unit last shut for refueling from Sept 20 to Oct 17, 2005. The unit is on a 24-month refueling cycle. The 2,224 MW Peach Bottom station, which entered service in 1974, is located in Peach Bottom in York County, about 75 miles southwest of Philadelphia. There are two 1,112 MW Units 2 and 3 at the station. Unit 2 continued to operate at full power. One MW powers about 800 homes in Pennsylvania. Separately, the NRC in 2003 renewed the plant's original 40-year operating licenses for both units for another 20 years until 2033 and 2034. Exelon Nuclear, a unit of Exelon's unregulated Exelon Generation Co LLC subsidiary, operates the station for its owners: Exelon (50 percent) and Public Service Enterprise Group Inc (PEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) (50 percent). Continued... ***************************************************************** 14 TheDay.com: Millstone Power-boost Plan Moves Forward [ Welcome to theday.com ] NRC begins lengthy technical evaluation of utility's proposal By Patricia Daddona Published on 10/17/2007 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday it would begin a detailed technical review of plans to boost power at Millstone Power Station, a proposal that could bring electricity to more homes by this time next year. In July, Dominion, the owner of the nuclear power complex, applied to the NRC for an “uprate” to its Unit 3 reactor. An uprate is an adjustment to equipment that safely allows the reactor to use more fuel to generate more electricity. On Monday, the NRC informed Dominion that the data the company supplied in its application is sufficient to allow the technical review to proceed on a proposed 7-percent power boost. If approved, the uprate could enable Millstone to generate an additional 80 megawatts of electricity, which would boost total output from the two reactors from 2,038 megawatts to 2,118 megawatts. That would bring electricity to an additional 60,000 homes and businesses, said Dominion spokesman Pete Hyde. Today, the two Millstone reactors' combined output produces enough electricity to power 1,528,500 homes. With the uprate, about 1,588,500 homes would be served, Hyde said. One megawatt is enough to serve about 750 homes. The NRC expects to complete its review by August. The review is lengthy because the NRC has new procedures in place for analyzing radiation-dose rates that could occur following a hypothetical serious accident, said NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan. The company is eager to see the proposal move forward, Hyde said. Waterford Posted - 10/17/2007 9:52:01 PM Dominion is looking to put more money in their pockets at the expense of our safety. This isn't about the noble cause of "bringing electricity to additional homes"... they're selling it, not bringing it! What they are bringing is risk. We are very lucky there have been no accidents at Millstone, so far - Waterford residents should not be exposed to this additional risk. Resident Waterford, CT Privacy Policy | Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200 | New London, CT | © 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co. 104 ***************************************************************** 15 Viet Nam News: Uni opens class for nuclear plant training Wednesday, October 17, 2007 HA NOI — Ha Noi University of Technology began a training course in nuclear power plant technology last week. The course is the second of its kind in Viet Nam and consists of around 30 young scientists and engineers from Ha Noi University of Technology (HUT), Viet Nam Atomic Energy Commission (VAEC) and Electricity of Viet Nam. "The programme will provide skill training for the first nuclear power plant in Viet Nam, which will be built in 2020 in Ninh Thuan Province," said HUT’s International Co-operation Department deputy director Ha Manh Thu. He said the plant would need 1,000 engineers, 20 per cent of whom would be nuclear power engineers and 80 per cent electricity and water engineers. The 5-week course, co-ordinated by VAEC and Toshiba, will conclude in November. Toshiba has granted US$2,500 worth of scholarships to 10 HUT outstanding students. And Toshiba also sent three of the course’s best students from last year’s HUT to visit Toshiba factories and nuclear power plants in Japan. — VNS Copyright by Viet Nam News, Vietnam News Agency 11 Tran Hung Dao Street, Hanoi, Vietnam Editor in Chief: Tran Mai Huong Tel. 84-4-9332316; Fax: 84-4-9332311 E-mail: vnnews@vnagency.com.vn Publication Permit: 599/GP-INTER Granted by the Ministry of Culture and Information on April 9, 1998. ***************************************************************** 16 International Herald Tribune: The cost of India's nuclear U-turn - By Andy Mukherjee Bloomberg News Published: October 16, 2007 For two years, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, a self-proclaimed "politician by accident," invested the little political capital he had into reaching an accord on civilian nuclear energy cooperation with the United States. Once the Oxford-trained economist had procured an agreement in August - after tough negotiations with the administration of President George W. Bush- it seemed he was close to victory. When his Marxist backers, who are needed to keep the coalition government in power, said the deal was a sellout, the mild-mannered prime minister dared them to withdraw their support. "I will let posterity judge the value of what we have done," he said in the Indian Parliament. "I do attach importance in seeing this deal come through, but if it doesn't come through that is not the end of life," he said at a conference in New Delhi. What that comment means, according to political analysts as well as opposition parties, is that Singh is throwing in the towel on the nuclear accord to save his government. His coalition partners don't want him to force an early election. Polls are due in 2009, and which politician wants to give up political power for the sake of nuclear power? One important ally, Muthuvel Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu State, went ahead and congratulated the prime minister for "gladdening the hearts of people" by patching up with the leftist parties. "Frankly, the deal is not important," he told the NDTV news channel. "The government is important." Unless Singh has staged a tactical retreat to take the Marxists by surprise in a later offensive, the so-called 123 agreement with the United States is now dead. The government would now meekly accept the demand of Prakash Karat, the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and delay negotiating safeguards for its nuclear facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency. That was one of the three remaining steps in implementing the accord. After the Nuclear Suppliers' Group had been persuaded to resume trade with India and the U.S. Congress had approved the deal, India would have been able to import enriched uranium and reactors. None of that may happen now. And that's really a shame. A lack of electric power is the biggest hurdle to sustaining 9 percent economic growth in the world's second-most-populous nation. The Indian atomic-power program, which accounts for only 3 percent of the energy production in the country, has been stunted by an international embargo ever since the government tested a nuclear weapon in 1974. Singh's unexpected U-turn on the nuclear deal greatly diminishes the possibility of early elections, though at the cost of punching a big hole in the government's credibility. In the three years that it has been in power, the government has spent money on ill-conceived programs like guaranteeing 100 days of work for each village household. The rural-job guarantee has been an avenue for corruption and has created little in the way of durable assets. Singh's ministers have also tried - so far unsuccessfully, thanks to the judiciary - to set aside seats in an already restrictive higher education system through caste-based quotas. At the same time, Singh's government has accomplished next to nothing in areas where it had much to do. The communists aren't amenable to the idea of government paring its stake in state-run banks. So that plan, which would have made the Indian banking system more competitive, has been put on the back burner. A proposal to modernize the pension industry has met with a similar fate. The urgent task of amending ultrarestrictive employment laws, which are impeding the growth of labor-intensive industries, hasn't even been attempted by the government. It is also hesitant to loosen controls on foreign investment in retail, because the communists are opposed to it. Any chance that Singh's government would make up for lost time in pursuing the stalled economic agenda has been squandered now that the Marxists have gotten their way on the nuclear deal. From now on, populism will reign. Next year, 5.5 million government servants will probably be given a hefty pay increase. Copyright © 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 17 Deseret Morning News: Two lawmakers dismiss conflict of interest in their involvement with proposed nuke power plant Wednesday, October 17, 2007 By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, and Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab, defended their involvement in a proposed nuclear power plant during a meeting today of the Legislature's Public Utilities and Technology Interim Committee. The meeting was conducted by Noel, who is the chairman of the committee, and Tilton is the committee's vice chairman. Witnesses before the group were in favor of nuclear power, including a former head of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Tilton is an owner of Transition Power Development, which would build the plant, and Noel is director of the Kane County Water Conservancy District, which would supply the water it needs, at a price that is supposed to reach $1 million a year. Although the committee had discussed a bill to help regulated utilities pay for nuclear power plants by using ratepayer funds before construction begins, both representatives insisted they had no conflict of interest. An obviously perturbed Noel mentioned newspaper reports this week that pointed out the lawmakers' potential conflicts of interest. The Deseret Morning News first reported on the potential conflicts on Tuesday. "Each of us has a life outside the Legislature," Noel told the committee. "Mine happens to be with the Wane County Water Conservancy District and my cows down in southern Utah." The district is a municipal entity and he is paid a salary. "I don't get any extra salary" for bringing in new customers, he said. The district acquired water rights 10 years ago from Andelex Coal, and he has mentioned on the House floor that the district had the water rights and a great use for them would be to help build a nuclear power plant in southern Utah. Noel said that a couple of months ago, he was asked about joining Transition Power. "I have actually received not one dime from the sale or lease of these water rights," he said. But people of Kane County lost out on a coal mine and a power plant, he said, and they would benefit from the nuclear power-generating facility. Speaking to the committee in favor of nuclear power plants were David Hill, deputy director for science and technology for the U.S. Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory, and Nils Diaz, former chairman of the NRC. No witnesses were called opposing the idea. Tilton moved from his committee seat to a witness chair beside Diaz. Tilton also denied any conflict of interest in his legislative chairmanship and his involvement in Transition Power Development. He said the legislation considered was about possible breaks for regulated utilities, and he could not have benefited from it. "We're not a regulated utility," he said of Transition Power. Vanessa Pierce, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, Salt Lake City, said after the meeting that Tilton and Noel treated serious questions about conflict of interest as if they were punch lines in jokes. E-mail: bau@desnews.com ***************************************************************** 18 Detroit Free Press: Huntsville prepares for a nuclear blast * Freep.com An old fallout shelter sign graces the Madison County Courthouse in Huntsville. Officials are identifying shelters for use in various buildings. (Photos by DAVE MARTIN/Associated Press) A 10-acre abandoned quarry, which closed in the 1950s, can be utilized to shelter 20,000 people in the event of a nuclear blast in Huntsville. It's made available for free by the Land Trust of Huntsville and North Alabama. Ala. city has shelter plans for 300,000 October 17, 2007 BY JAY REEVES ASSOCIATED PRESS HUNTSVILLE, Ala. -- In an age of Al Qaeda, sleeper cells and the threat of nuclear terrorism, Huntsville is dusting off its Cold War manual to create the nation's most ambitious fallout-shelter plan, featuring an abandoned mine big enough for 20,000 people to take cover underground. Others would hunker down in college dorms, churches, libraries and research halls that planners hope will bring the shelter capacity to 300,000, or space for every man, woman and child in Huntsville and the surrounding county. Emergency planners in Huntsville -- a city best known as the home of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center -- say the idea makes sense because radioactive fallout could be scattered for hundreds of miles if terrorists detonated a nuclear bomb. "If Huntsville is in the blast zone, there's not much we can do. But if it's just fallout ... shelters would absorb 90% of the radiation," said emergency management planner Kirk Paradise, whose Cold War expertise with fallout shelters led local leaders to renew Huntsville's program. The project, developed using $70,000 from a Department of Homeland Security grant, goes against the grain because the United States essentially scrapped its national plan for fallout shelters after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Congress cut off funding and the government published its last list of approved shelters at the end of 1992. After 9/11, Homeland Security created a metropolitan protection program that includes nuclear-attack preparation and mass shelters. But no other city has taken the idea as far as Huntsville has, officials said. Many cities advise residents to stay home and seal up a room with plastic and duct tape during a biological, chemical or nuclear attack. Huntsville does, too, in certain cases. Local officials agree that the so-called shelter-in-place method would be best for a dirty bomb that scattered nuclear contamination through conventional explosives. But they say full-fledged shelters would be needed to protect from the fallout of a nuclear bomb. Program leaders have briefed members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., who called the shelter plan an example of the all-hazards approach needed for emergency preparedness. "Al Qaeda, we know, is interested in a nuclear capability. It's our nation's fear that a nuclear weapon could get into terrorists' hands," Dent said. At home with the bats As fallout shelters go, the Three Caves Quarry near downtown Huntsville offers the kind of protection that would make Dr. Strangelove proud, with space for an arena-size crowd of some 20,000 people. Last mined in the early 1950s, the limestone quarry is dug 300 yards into the side of a mountain, with ceilings as high as 60 feet and 10 acres of floor space covered with jagged rocks. Jet-black in places with a year-round temperature of about 60 degrees, it has a colony of bats living in its highest reaches and baby stalactites hanging from the ceiling. "It would be a little trying, but it's better than the alternative," said Andy Prewett, a manager at the Land Trust of Huntsville and North Alabama, a nonprofit preservation group that owns the mine and is making it available for free. In all, the Huntsville-Madison County Emergency Management Agency has identified 105 places that can be used as fallout shelters for about 210,000 people. They are still looking for about 50 more shelters that would hold an additional 100,000 people. Bring a sleeping bag Officials have yet to launch a campaign to inform people of the shelters, but a local-access TV channel has showed a video about the program, which also is explained on a county Web site. If a bomb went off tomorrow, Paradise said, officials would tell people where to find shelter through emergency alerts on TV and radio stations. "We're pretty much ready to go because we have a list of shelters," he said. Most of the shelters would offer more comfort than the abandoned mine, such as buildings at the University of Alabama in Huntsville that would house 37,643. A single research hall could hold more than 8,100. Homeland Security spokeswoman Alexandra Kirin said of Huntsville's wide-ranging plan: "We're not aware of any other cities that are doing that." Plans call for staying inside for as long as two weeks after a bomb blast, though shelters might be needed for only a few hours in a less-dire emergency. Unlike the fallout shelters set up during the Cold War, the new ones won't be stocked with water, food or other supplies. For survivors of a nuclear attack, it would be strictly BYO -- bring your own everything. Just throw down a sleeping bag on the courthouse floor -- or move some of the rocks on the mine floor -- and make yourself at home. "We do not guarantee them comfort, just protection," said Paradise, who is coordinating the plans for the local emergency management agency. Copyright ©2007 the Detroit Free Press. All rights reserved. Users ***************************************************************** 19 IAEA: IAEA Chief Outlines Vision for Global Security Current Global Insecurity Calls for New Mind Set, Change of Values Staff Report 17 October 2007 During the Summit, Dr. ElBaradei met with singer, writer and campaigner Sir Bob Geldoff. (Photo Credit: IAEA) In a speech delivered at the fifth annual Hindustan Times Leadership Summit, on 12 October in New Delhi, India, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said that the current situation of global insecurity can only be addressed through "an adjustment of our mindset, and a change in our values" leading to a new global security thinking. "Our society is at a crossroads, and if we hope to achieve progress, it is time for a new beginning," he said. Dr. ElBaradei called for the development of a security system based on sustained diplomacy, global responses and multinational cooperation in which no country could rely or would need to rely on nuclear weapons for its security. "The proliferation challenges of recent years - and the near-total impasse in international efforts to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation and arms control regime - have made it clear that the current system is not sustainable: it needs to be strengthened, and it needs to be universal." On the nuclear front, he added, the international community must enhance further the security of existing stocks of nuclear and radiological material, and tighten controls over sensitive nuclear operations that produce such material. Dr. ElBaradei urged the international community to support the IAEA in its role as the world´s non-proliferation guardian. "The IAEA must receive the support it needs to carry out effective, independent verification of States´ non-proliferation commitments," he stated. Dr. ElBaradei also called for the need to raise awareness of the fact that non-proliferation and disarmament are two sides of the same coin, warning against double standards in this area. "World leaders must be persuaded to acknowledge the inextricable linkage between non-proliferation and disarmament - and therefore the critical need for accelerated efforts towards a nuclear-weapons-free world," he said. The Hindustan Times Leadership Summit also featured several important political figures in India, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Ms. Sonia Gandhi. During the summit, Dr. ElBaradei also met with singer, writer and campaigner Sir Bob Geldoff, who later delivered a speech on the use of popular culture to influence global priorities. Background: The Hindustan Times Leadership Summit is an annual forum seeking to bring together leaders from different walks of life, encouraging interactions and debates, and raising the bar of discussion on critical world issues. Dr. ElBaradei's fee for delivering his speech at this year´s summit was entirely devolved to charitable causes. See Story Resources for more information 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: ***************************************************************** 20 Honolulu Advertiser: Discussion on Pohakuloa issue - Posted on: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 KEA'AU Advertiser Staff The public is invited to a discussion titled "Depleted Uranium at Pohakuloa — Health Hazard or Not?" on Oct. 24. Dr. Lorrin Pang, district health officer for the state Department of Health's Maui office, will speak at the Sierra Club Moku Loa Group meeting at the Ola'a Center in Kea'au, across from McDonald's and Verna's TooDrive In. Pang assisted a recent citizen radiation monitoring effort in Kona. He is a physician who served in the Army and as a World Health Organization consultant. There will be a potluck at 5:30 p.m., followed by the meeting at 6 p.m. For more information, call Cory Harden at 968-8965. © COPYRIGHT 2007 The Honolulu Advertiser. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 21 Montana's News Station: Craig grows more pessimistic about downwinder aid Associated Press - October 16, 2007 7:54 PM ET LEWISTON, Idaho (AP) - The leader of a downwinder advocacy group says it may look like it, but an effort to get compensation for Idaho and Montana residents sickened by radiation is not stalled in Congress. Downwinders Director J. Preston Truman says Utah residents are pushing their leaders to help neighboring states get added to the 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The law currently compensates people sickened by radiation in specific counties in Utah, Nevada and Arizona. But experts believe several Idaho contains were also contaminated by radiation from nuclear bomb tests done in Nevada in the 1950s and 1960s. A spokesman for Idaho Senator Larry Craig isn't very optimistic about the bill. Dan Whiting says it's a very long and very steep uphill battle to get Idaho and Montana added to the compensation list. All content © Copyright 2004 - 2007, WorldNow, Montana's News Station ***************************************************************** 22 YONHAP NEWS: IAEA to conduct safety inspections on S. Korea's nuclear waste facility 2007/10/17 13:41 KST    By Lee Joon-seung SEOUL, Oct. 17 (Yonhap) -- The global nuclear safety agency will conduct an on-site inspection of South Korea's nuclear waste facility that is to be built by the end of 2008, the government said Wednesday.    The 11-day-long peer review by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will kickoff Saturday with nuclear experts from the European Union, France and Finland examining safety conditions, the Ministry of Science and Technology said.    The four-person team is expected to look over all related data on the site and at how the facilities are to be built. They will then interview experts engaged in the project and visit the building site in Gyeongju, 371 kilometers southeast of Seoul.    "The inspections that are to be undertaken by the IAEA conform to current global standards on nuclear safety," a ministry official said. He added that the peer review is being undertaken independent of safety inspections being carried out by the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety.    The state-run institute started to check on the future nuclear waste site in January. Seoul will pour 1 trillion won into the facility that will hold waste products for the next 60 years.    In November 2005, South Korea officially confirmed the building of a low- and intermediate-level radioactive repository in Gyeongju, ending a standoff lasting close to two decades.    The city received a special state subsidy of 300 billion won (US$326 million), with the government pledging to build a multi-billion won sub-atomic particle accelerator in the region. The headquarters of the state-run Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. will also be moved to Gyeongju to help the local economy and create jobs.    yonngong@yna.co.kr (END) ***************************************************************** 23 Canmore Leader: No nuclear waste here Canmore, AB October 17, 2007 By Justin Brisbane Justin@canmoreleader.com Sean Russell was happy he didn’t get booed off stage. As manager of technology development for the not-for-profit Canadian Nuclear Waste Management Organization, talking about nuclear waste is often as technically and politically complicated a task as actually disposing of it. But Russell said he’s accustomed to receiving a wide variety of reactions to his visits. “The response I get is so varied. In Whitehorse, I only had one person show up, but in Timmins, Ont., it was a room of 95 screaming people who wouldn’t listen to anything I said,” said Russell. Speaking at the Canmore Civic Centre last Thursday, Russell talked about the future of nuclear waste disposal. “Canadian legislation is based on a polluter pays system, so the power companies are in charge of the cost,” said Russell. He said many power utilities include the cost of nuclear waste disposal – which could be upwards of $6 billion in current costs or $27 billion in total costs – in the utility bill. Currently, there is about $3.3 billion in savings for the waste storage facility. “Ultimately, the cost comes from here,” said Russell pointing to his wallet. A small crowd heard a presentation that outlined the pros and cons of a variety of disposal methods and the challenges and costs associated with storage of CANDU fuel bundles. “It’s still radioactive for long periods of time. It takes a bundle between 100,000 and a million years to drop to natural levels,” said Russell. He said the technology to store nuclear waste has been around for a few decades (although it hasn’t been proven in the field), however there has been no social will to move forward with planning until recently. This past June, the federal government opted for a storage method called “adoptive phased management,” a plan that will see a single central location in the country selected, where a massive hole will be dug about 700 m under the earth and a storage container capable of handling the waste would be constructed. The system will allow the waste to be retrieved if future technologies are discovered how to better dispose of or reuse the nuclear waste. Russell said selection of the storage site is still about two years away, but it could be decades before actual work begins on the site. Yucca Mountain was selected as a storage site in the United States about 30 years ago, however very little work has been done on the site. “It could be 90 years in the future before the site is operational,” said Russell. The Canadian selection process was chose after an intense three-year study that included public consultation from both nuclear power supporters and detractors. “It has been our experience that this tends to bring out people with strong points of view,” said Russell. Currently, CANDU nuclear waste is held on-site at the nuclear plants across Canada, the majority of which are in Ontario. Local residents concerned about nuclear waste will be relieved to discover that Canmore would make a pretty lousy nuclear waste dump. According to Russell, an ideal underground site requires flat land, sedimentary rock, little or no mining history and a central location to the nuclear plants. Publisher: Kim Oliver Proprietor and published by Bowes Publishers Limited at Suite 100, 50 Lincoln Park, Canmore, Alberta, Canada T1W 1N8 © 2007 Canmore Leader ***************************************************************** 24 The Coloradoan: Uranium mine faces mounting pressure www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO. Wednesday, October 17, 2007 Musgrave opposes plan; 2 local Dems work on legislation BY KEVIN DUGGAN KevinDuggan @coloradoan.com A proposal to mine uranium east of Wellington is facing mounting political pressure, including opposition from U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and potential legislation that would add more state regulation. State Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas, both Fort Collins Democrats, are working on legislation that would require a mining company to prove its operations will not contaminate groundwater resources. The bill also would "lift the veil of secrecy" that state law allows around mineral prospecting so affected landowners can get a better sense of what's happening on neighboring properties. The intent of the bill would not be to stop the mining operation, Fischer said, but to ensure the state has adequate environmental standards to protect residents as well as air and water quality. "Let's make sure those protections are in place before we give permits to do this type mining," he said. State Sen. Steve Johnson, a Fort Collins Republican, said he would carry the bill in the Senate. The company has a right to the minerals it owns, but nearby property owners have justifiable concerns about the impact of mining on their water, he said. More regulation will not dissuade Powertech (USA) from pursuing the permits needed to do its work, said Lane Douglas, manager for the company's Centennial Project. "Powertech is committed to meeting all state regulations in conducting a safe and environmentally conscious mining operation," he said. The company has invested millions into the project - including $2.1 million for land - and will put in millions more, Douglas said. The rising price of uranium and growing interest in nuclear energy around the world makes the project financially viable. State officials have designated which regulatory agencies will monitor the operation before, during and after operations. The company expects to apply for the first round on permits by the end of next year and hopes to begin mining in 2010. "If we can't prove we can do this in an environmentally conscious way, we won't get a permit," Douglas said. Powertech owns mineral rights on 5,760 acres of land between Nunn and Wellington. Research done in the 1970s and '80s identified the presence of about 4,800 tons of uranium in sandstone beneath the high prairie, company officials say. Powertech has proposed using a mining process known as in-situ recovery to extract the ore, although company officials have not ruled out the possibility of a conventional pit mine. In-situ recovery entails pumping treated water into the ground to dissolve uranium deposits. The ore is extracted from the water, which is sent through again. Ore from the Centennial Project would be sent to Wyoming for processing. Area residents are concerned the mining process could contaminate water they draw from wells with chemicals and radioactive minerals that could cause health problems. Musgrave, a Fort Morgan Republican whose congressional district includes Larimer and Weld counties, said Tuesday she is opposed to Powertech's proposal and will speak out against it. Company officials have not given satisfactory answers when pressed for details about the operation, such as whether a pit mine would be used, she said. "I just don't see how this will work in such a populated area," she said. "I'm a strong proponent of private property rights, but I don't have a good feeling about this and what it would do to residents and agriculture in this area." Colorado has a history of environmental disasters brought on by mining operations, Fischer said. The state needs to get ahead of advances in mining techniques to protect the environment. Douglas said in-situ recovery is a safe process and is not a new technology. The water quality of the aquifer that company would tap into does not meet drinking-water standards now and won't after the mining operation, he said. The process of getting the various permits needed for the mining operation will include opportunities for public comment and for the company to defend what it hopes to do, he said. "All we want is a fair hearing," he said. "And so far, we haven't had that." Comments by: Bob Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:09 am letmein - What is even more disturbing the lack of knowledge this company has. Remember, they were in the boiler business before deciding they could make a buck in uranium. But, regarding the quote: "The water quality of the aquifer that company would tap into does not meet drinking-water standards now". This proves just how stupid these people are. If they would come talk to myself or our neighbors, then they would know that is the aquifer most of our DRINKING WATER WELLS are in. What they are trying to do is the equivalent of getting an exemption from the EPA to create a peeing section in a large swimming pool. It's like they are saying that they would be dumping radioactive waste into Lake Estes, and then saying it will not affect the river water in Loveland. Comments by: letmein Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:41 am I admit I did not have too much of an opinion previoulsy, but after reading this article, it seems like a bad idea. The line "The water quality of the aquifer that company would tap into does not meet drinking-water standards now and won't after the mining operation, he said." sounds to me like, "The water is already contaminated, so who cares if we contaminate it even more?" I may have taken that out of context, but that disregard for the water is concerning, particularly since mining companies tend to come, take, and then leave there mess behind. Comments by: mfischer2 Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:32 am Will there be any dust released by this mine? I've never seen a mine, above or below ground, that doesn't release massive quantities of dust. Coal dust may be bad for you, but radioactive dust is worse. Comments by: ScottS Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:51 am Thank you to all our elected leaders for helping out on this one. And a special thanks to Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave for lending her support. I hadn't expected it considering her previous votes against the environment but greatly appreciated on this issue so close to home. Precautionary steps Legislation being drafted by Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas, both Fort Collins Democrats, would make changes to state mining law in response to proposed uranium mining in Weld County. The proposed bill is expected to: > Require uranium companies to prove they can restore groundwater to original conditions when mining operations are finished. > Provide for more disclosure when companies are exploring for uranium. > Prohibit companies from disrupting the surface rights of property owners. Copyright ©2007 The Fort Collins Coloradoan. ***************************************************************** 25 GreenvilleOnline.com: Nuclear waste piling up at Oconee power plant - The Greenville News 305 S. Main St. PO Box 1688 Greenville, SC 29602 Nuclear waste piling up at Oconee power plant Solution to spent fuel not solved as talks grow for new reactors in state Published: Monday, October 15, 2007 - 2:00 am By Anna Simon CLEMSON BUREAU asimon@greenvillenews.com Oconee Nuclear Station An armed security guard walked alongside a forklift hauling new fuel rods to a reactor unit at Oconee Nuclear Station one recent morning. The protected delivery was part of the preparations underway for a routine refueling and maintenance outage at Oconee's Unit 3 that starts this month. Reporters on a media tour weren't allowed pictures of the guard with a big gun slung from his shoulder, a woman with a clipboard beside him or the cargo itself -- a long gray container not more than a couple feet high balanced on the prongs of the forklift. Heightened security around the delivery at the Duke Energy facility was obvious. Less obvious was a growing graveyard of nuclear waste elsewhere on the site that is filling up with material many in the nuclear industry expected would be at Yucca Mountain or some other national repository by now. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 called for the federal government to provide a permanent deep geological repository. A 1987 amendment called for the Department of Energy to locate, build and operate a repository by 1998. At a time when one company has applied to build the first new nuclear plant in nearly three decades in the U.S., and several others, including Duke Energy, plan to do so in coming months, the pile of waste is growing. "We are frustrated by the delays and continue to support the government's efforts for a central site. They have that responsibility under law, which they have not met yet," said Sandra Magee, a Duke Energy spokeswoman. When new fuel rods go into the reactor, old ones come out. Spent fuel rods go to contained storage pools in a protected area, where water and a series of redundant safety precautions surround the high-level radioactive waste. Oconee's spent fuel rod pools are full, Magee said. Because radioactivity dissipates over time -- 80 percent dissipates after the first year in the pool -- older used fuel is moved to dry storage to make room for new spent fuel rods in the pool, Magee said. While Oconee has safely maintained dry storage on site for more than a decade and can add dry storage space as needed, used fuel "can best be managed in a central repository," Magee said. Duke Energy has paid more than $1 billion toward a central facility, Magee said. "The pools and the dry cask storage facilities at the plants were never meant to be permanent and are not a substitute," Magee said. "They are not designed to function for the thousands of years a deep geologic repository would contain the fuel. From a scientific and technical standpoint a geologic site is a safe long-term solution." Not everyone agrees. "If they were shutting down the reactors and moving the waste to a central repository, that would be one thing. You are just creating one extra waste dump by opening up Yucca," said Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace USA. The utilities are "whining," Riccio said, and will get their money back, under terms of a lawsuit filed by the nuclear utilities over the failure of the federal government to take the waste. There is at least a decade of lawsuits from Nevada, and Yucca Mountain isn't capable of holding all the waste, said Riccio, who added, "I don't see it happening any time soon." Bob Loux, who heads the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects and has worked for five Nevada governors to block Yucca Mountain plans, said used fuel should be kept in dry storage at the nuclear power facilities until a better solution is found, whether that be a repository or an alternate method. Yucca Mountain "is an unsafe site. It was chosen for political reasons and not technical merit," Loux said. "The state proved twice that the site should have been disqualified." Loux criticized Department of Energy handing of radioactive materials at other sites and elimination of many safety restrictions in plans for Yucca Mountain to try to push it through. Thousands of shipments would be transported annually and could be targeted by terrorists or subject to human error, and support on Capitol Hill is fading, Loux said. "I believe the project is going to be over with likely in the next 18 months," Loux said. Not so, said Allen Benson, director of the Office of External Affairs in the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management with the U.S. Department of Energy. Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution in 2002 asking DOE to proceed, overriding a veto from the state of Nevada. A House resolution this year to eliminate funding was soundly defeated, Benson said. The Department of Energy plans to file a license application by June, and Yucca Mountain could begin operation as early as 2017, Benson said. Safety is the agency's primary concern and will be assured, Benson said. "The material will be transported and stored in specially designed containers. We have studied Yucca Mountain for 25 years and spent more than $9 billion. Yucca Mountain has been stable for about 10 million years," he said. Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the license application from the DOE would be reviewed just as any application, whether it be from a small company or a big government agency. "There is no preconceived notion within the commission about the acceptability of the site," Hannah said. The application "would be reviewed on safety and technical merits and nothing else." mechdave Why don't we "spread the wealth" and have other states share the burdon of nuclear waste. How about florida for example. The state is a virtual toilet and is about to go underwater in the next decade... why not? SC is the dumping ground for nuclear waste. No one is considering the risk of Terrorism or Cancer risks, especially in Aiken. Lets spread the wealth. Oh wait, another idea. Lets have Mexico accept the waste, and use their truck drivers to transport it. Do you get this SC Truckers Association? I bet you do. mechdave Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:46 am The Greenville News 305 S. Main St., PO Box 1688, Greenville, SC 29602 Phone (864) 298-4100, (800) 800-5116 Subscription services (800) 736-7136 Links Newspaper in Education, Community Involvement, Our history, Ethics principles Send A story idea, A press release, A letter to the editor Find A news story, An editor or reporter, An obituary | Photo reprints Submit a request Copyright ©2007 The Greenville News. All rights reserved. Users of ***************************************************************** 26 The Coloradoan: Uranium method safe www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO. Wednesday, October 17, 2007 Lane Douglas Powertech (USA) Inc.'s proposal to recover uranium in rural Weld County has created lots of attention - and even more misinformation. Powertech's preferred method of in-situ recovery, or ISR, is a proven and safe method of recovering underground uranium. In fact, the Grover ISR site opened and closed decades ago in Northern Colorado - with no ill effects to the environment or community. Project opponents have presented lies, mistruths and innuendo to gain momentum for their campaign, choosing to ignore facts about Powertech, ISR and uranium. Allow me to state those facts: > Water supplies are safe: No U.S. ISR project has ever contaminated drinking water. Groundwater in the uranium ore zone is already contaminated with uranium and other heavy metals and is not used for drinking. > Communities are protected: Powertech will employ highly regulated and advanced technology to maintain a closed and safe recovery process. > Operations are regulated: Local, state and federal regulatory agencies will hold Powertech to strict environmental and public safety standards and permitting requirements. We're counting on it, and so should you. Powertech is here to stay and is committed to being a good corporate citizen and neighbor. The company will submit permit applications at the end of 2008. Seek out the truth about uranium operations. You'll find that the "fear factor" techniques promulgated by the opposition are an insult to your intelligence. Still have questions? See our Web site at www.powertechuranium.com, or call our hotline at (877) 798-4240. Lane Douglas, Centennial project manager, Powertech (USA) Inc. Comments by: jim Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm Thanks for all of your comforting words Lane. Now, go dig in your own back yard, wherever that may be. I took your advice and checked out your website. It looks like you have public relationship offices in every town you plan to screw up. Where are you really based, and why don't you plant your headquarters next to one of your mines? And one thing you forgot to mention, what's in it for me and my neighbors? Comments by: Sid Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:54 pm No operation involving an extremely hazardous material is risk free. The risks involved in uranium mining are extensive. Someone needs to examine who comes out ahead in this project and who takes the risks. Are the people at risk the same ones that will come out ahead? (BTW, when assessing risk, don't forget sabotage. Anyone from a lunatic disgruntled employee to a terrorist could cause significant problems for the area.) Comments by: fenn Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:04 pm The Ranger Mine in Australia was shut down on August 31, 2004 because of uranium contamination of groundwater. Mine workers had showered and drank the contaminated water; 28 workers became sick. Before this, there was of course assurance of total safety. To say simply that any process is safe and without risk is simply not true. It may be true that there are procedures and checks in place that attempt to ensure safety but there is the chance that a problem can arise. In any scenario it seems that a rational response to the possibility of a problem (in this case a spill, leak, groundwater contamination, mechanical failure, human mistake, etc.) is simply deciding whether or not the hoped for outcome is worth the negative possibilities. This needs to be decided by the people, not Powertech. Powertech will make its profit whether or not groundwater is contaminated or some other disaster occurs that affects the people in the area. Copyright ©2007 The Fort Collins Coloradoan. ***************************************************************** 27 swissinfo: Consensus sought for nuclear waste storage October 17, 2007 - 10:27 PM Delegates at an international nuclear waste conference examining long-term waste management have put forward underground storage facilities as the best option. Switzerland is also planning to use deep geological repositories in the future, although the government still has some way to go to win the public's hearts and minds. As climate change assumes ever-increasing importance to policymakers, nuclear power has re-emerged as a stronger candidate to supply Switzerland's power needs. But the country's existing power plants are insufficient to meet medium-term power demands and pro-nuclear supporters say a second generation of nuclear facilities is required to avert the threatened power shortfall. Switzerland's network of power stations still faces the problem of the disposal of radioactive waste, however. Some 200 experts from 19 countries attending the conference in the Swiss capital, Bern, agreed that the solution lies in deep geological repositories. The aim is to ensure that no undue burden or responsibilities are passed on to future generations. Speaking at the opening of the meeting, Swiss Energy Minister Moritz Leuenberger stressed the importance of allowing sufficient time for the repository implementation process and of ensuring transparency. "Radioactive waste will remain hazardous for generations to come. Finding a safe solution takes time - time that can be used to allow critics to express their opinions and time that allows us to further develop the necessary technologies," he said. But nothing can be done without public approval, as was shown in a nuclear referendum in 2002. At that time voters in canton Nidwalden in central Switzerland turned down a proposal to build a nuclear waste repository in Wellenberg, fearing the safety of the facility. There is consensus at international level that disposing of these wastes in a deep geological repository offers the required long-term safety and stability. Some areas in Switzerland are considered suitable locations for underground storage because of specific geological layers that have hardly moved in the last 100,000 years. However, such repositories do not mean new power plants can be built with impunity, according to Walter Steinmann, director of the Federal Energy Office. He pointed out that less than 10 per cent of the world's energy needs are supplied by nuclear power. The International Atomic Energy Agency does not predict much greater potential for this form of energy generation. "To have a prudent energy policy, we have to look first to energy efficiency and renewable energy resources," Steinmann told swissinfo. Clear government recognition The nuclear industry considers itself back in favour now that the Swiss government has made it clear that it supports the option of nuclear power. The government's willingness to pursue the deep geological repositories also supports the development of nuclear power. At the beginning of 2008 the cabinet will release the criteria based on which six to eight potential locations will be selected. The approval of the people would then be sought through the normal democratic process. The government has learned from its defeat over Wellenberg. From now on the local population will not be given the final say on the development of a storage site, rather it would be put to a national vote. This is likely to take place in the next seven to 12 years, according to the energy authorities. Storage facilities for low- and medium-grade nuclear waste could be operational by 2030, while facilities for highly-radioactive waste could be expected to come on stream ten years later. In any case, there is no extreme urgency because the waste in question will not have cooled to the necessary 100 degrees by 2040 to allow it to be stored long term. swissinfo, based on an article in German by Renat Knzi Copyright swissinfo SRI ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Santa Susana Field EIS FR Doc E7-20449 [Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)] [Notices] [Page 58834-58836] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17oc07-45] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Environmental Management; Advance Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory and Public Involvement Activities AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Advance Notice of Intent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is providing an Advance Notice of its Intent (ANOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for remediation of Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL). DOE is preparing the EIS in response to a May 2, 2007, decision by the U.S. District Court of Northern California that a 2003 DOE decision to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and conduct remediation of Area IV on the basis of an environmental assessment, rather than prepare an EIS, violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). DOE is also requesting early comments from the public and other stakeholders on the scope of the EIS and issues to be considered in EIS analysis. To facilitate collaboration on these EIS issues, DOE also is announcing plans for public involvement activities to be held this fall, to provide information to its stakeholders and to receive comments from them. DOE is issuing this ANOI, pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.311(b), in order to inform and request early comments and assistance from Federal and State agencies, State and local governments, natural resource trustees, the general public, and other interested parties on the appropriate scope of the EIS, possible environmental issues, and the potential environmental impacts related to DOE's proposed activities for Area IV. Following the issuance of this ANOI, DOE intends to collect updated information that it will incorporate into the EIS analysis. DOE will conduct community and regulator interviews through November 2007. These public involvement opportunities will focus on consultation with the public about the process for EIS scoping, the development of the range of reasonable alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS, and related public concerns about the remediation. If, based on community input, DOE decides to hold a public meeting, DOE will notify the community through local media. Early comments on the scope of the EIS and issues to be considered are due by December 14, 2007. Though DOE will attempt to consider comments received after this date, it will only be able to do so to the extent practicable. DOE plans to issue a Notice of Intent (NOI) for this EIS in the spring of calendar year 2008. ADDRESSES: Please direct requests to be notified of interviews or a public meeting, comments on the scope of the EIS, and questions concerning the proposed project to: Stephanie Jennings, NEPA Document Manager, Office of Site Support and Small Projects (EM-3.2), U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Technology Engineering Center, P.O. Box 10300, Canoga Park, CA 91309, telephone: 818-466-8162, fax: 818-466- 8730, or e-mail to: Stephanie.Jennings@em.doe.gov (use ``ANOI comments'' for the subject). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request further information about this EIS or about the public involvement activities, or to be placed on the EIS distribution list, use any of the methods listed under ADDRESSES above. For general information concerning the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-20), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, e-mail to: AskNEPA@hq.doe.gov, telephone: 202-586-4600, leave a message at 1-800-472-2756, or fax: 202-586-7031. This Advance Notice of Intent (ANOI) will be available on the Internet at: http://www.eh.doe.gov/NEPA. Further information about Area IV and the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) can be found at http://apps.em.doe.gov/etec/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), located on approximately 2,850 acres in the hills between Chatsworth and Simi Valley, CA, was developed as a remote site to test rocket engines and conduct nuclear research. The Atomics International Unit of Rockwell International's Canoga Park-based Rocketdyne Division began testing in 1947, and conducted an estimated 17,000 open-air rocket tests in support of the space program. In 1996, Rockwell International sold its aerospace and defense business, including the SSFL to The Boeing Company (Boeing). SSFL is divided in four administrative areas--Area I, Area II, Area III, and Area IV--along with two buffer zones. Area I is about 713 acres, of which 671 acres is owned and operated by Boeing and 42 acres is owned by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and operated for it by Boeing. Area II, about 410 acres, is owned by NASA and operated for it by Boeing. Area III, about 114 acres, is owned and operated by Boeing. Area IV, about 290 acres, is owned by Boeing, which operates it for DOE. Boeing also owns a contiguous buffer zone of 1143 acres to the south and a contiguous buffer zone of 182 acres to the north. Starting in the mid-1950s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), a predecessor agency of DOE, funded nuclear energy research on a 90-acre parcel of Area IV leased from Rocketdyne. The Energy Technology and Engineering Center (ETEC) was established by the AEC on this parcel in the early 1960s as a ``center of excellence'' for liquid metals technology. The AEC built a small nuclear power plant to deliver energy to the commercial grid at the ETEC. Research also included testing of nuclear powered systems, for example, using liquid metals for space vehicles and a sodium coolant medium in 10 small reactors. All reactor operations ended in 1980 and nuclear research work was completed in 1988. Cleanup of ETEC began in the 1960s and was performed in an ongoing manner as unnecessary facilities were decommissioned when there was no longer a use for them. DOE continues to lease the 90 acre parcel in Area IV from Boeing. In March 2003, DOE issued an Environmental Assessment (EA), Environmental Assessment for Cleanup and Closure of the Energy Technology Engineering Center, DOE/EA-1345. Based on the results of the EA, DOE [[Page 58835]] determined that an EIS was not required and issued a FONSI in March 2003. DOE is now preparing an SSFL Area IV EIS in response to the U.S. District Court of Northern California's May 2, 2007, ruling in the case Natural Resources Defense Council v. Department of Energy Slip Op. WL2349288 (N.D. Cal. Aug.15, 2007), which held that DOE's decision to issue a FONSI and conduct cleanup and closure on the basis of DOE/EA- 1345 was in violation of NEPA. The Court ordered DOE to prepare an EIS for Area IV in accordance with NEPA. The Court further permanently enjoined the DOE from transferring ownership or possession, or otherwise relinquishing control over any portion of Area IV, until DOE completes the EIS and issues a Record of Decision pursuant to NEPA. In addition, the Court retained jurisdiction until it is satisfied that the DOE has met its legal obligations as they relate to the remediation of Area IV. Because of the Court's decision, DOE suspended the physical demolition and removal activities for the remaining facilities at ETEC except for those activities necessary to maintain the site in a safe and stable configuration. DOE has discontinued planned decontamination and decommission activities, but is continuing surveillance, maintenance, and environmental monitoring work, including soil and groundwater characterization required under the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulations, while it prepares the EIS. In August 2007, DTSC issued a Consent Order to DOE, NASA and Boeing under its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authority. This Order requires cleanup of all chemically contaminated soils at SSFL by 2017 or earlier, provides the option for DTSC to require more work to be conducted offsite of Area IV to assess air, soil and water contamination, and requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Early Public Involvement and Related Activities DOE is issuing this ANOI, pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.311(b), in order to inform and request early comments and assistance from Federal and State agencies, State and local governments, natural resource trustees, the general public, and other interested parties on the scope of the EIS, proposed environmental issues, and the potential environmental impacts related to DOE's potential activities at this site. Following the issuance of this ANOI, DOE intends to collect updated information that it will incorporate into the EIS analysis. Purpose and Need for Agency Action DOE needs to complete remediation of Area IV to comply with applicable regulations and allow for an evaluation of the range of reasonable alternatives. The remediation will include cleanup of radiological and hazardous contaminants both onsite and offsite of Area IV and maintain surface and groundwater protection in accordance with applicable requirements. Proposed Action and EIS Scope DOE's proposed action includes demolition of radiological facilities, demolition of most support buildings, cleanup of solid waste management units, groundwater remediation, mitigation measures, and disposal of all waste offsite at approved facilities. The EIS will evaluate the remediation of Area IV under current action plans and alternatives to them. The EIS will characterize environmental media, analyze the environmental impact of decontaminating and decommissioning or dismantling government buildings and structures, and analyzing environmental restoration activities for environmental contamination associated with DOE's activities. Waste management activities to be analyzed include operation, maintenance, and closure of RCRA-permitted facilities. The facilities that are to be included in the EIS include former radiological facilities, former sodium facilities, and administrative facilities. The EIS will consider the effects of possible contamination by non-radiological toxic or otherwise hazardous materials and address multiple exposures (chemical and radiological), as well as exposures to multiple radionuclides. The EIS will consider the suitability of Area IV for a range of future land uses, and assess possible radiological contamination of groundwater. The EIS may be used in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report that is required by the DTSC Consent Order. Preliminary Identification of Issues DOE is requesting input on the best methods to obtain accurate information on radiological and hazardous contamination in Area IV. It is also seeking input from stakeholders to resolve current and potential issues associated with RCRA constituents and to determine the extent of groundwater contamination both onsite and offsite of Area IV. Preliminary Environmental Impacts for Analysis DOE has tentatively identified the following environmental impacts for analysis in the Area IV EIS. This list is presented to facilitate early comment during the public involvement activities on the scope of the EIS. Potential impacts to the general population, workers, and the environment from radiological and non-radiological releases. Potential impacts to soils, air, surface water quality, and groundwater quality. Potential transportation impacts from the shipment of radiological and non-radiological wastes to disposal sites. Potential impacts from postulated accidents. Potential impacts from intentional destructive acts. Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income and minority populations (environmental justice). Land use impacts. Socioeconomic impacts. Ecological resources (endangered species and wetlands). Cultural and paleontological resources. Compliance with applicable Federal, state and local requirements. Long-term site suitability, including erosion and seismicity. Cumulative impacts from contamination both onsite and offsite of Area IV. Mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts. Invitation To Comment DOE invites the public to provide early assistance in identifying the scope of the Area IV EIS, alternatives, environmental issues to consider, and environmental impacts to analyze through the early public involvement process. DOE will consider public comments and other relevant information in developing the NOI. Comments should be provided by the DATES and to the ADDRESSES above. EIS Process DOE plans to issue the NOI in the spring of calendar year 2008, which will be followed by a public scoping period to assist in further defining the scope of the EIS and identifying significant issues to be addressed. The NOI will propose the range of reasonable alternatives for remediation of the Area IV site. After the NOI is issued, DOE will conduct public scoping meetings. [[Page 58836]] During the scoping period, the dates and locations of meetings will be announced in the local media. DOE will announce the availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register and other media and provide Federal and State agencies, State and local governments, natural resource trustees, the general public, and other interested parties with an opportunity to submit comments. DOE will also hold at least one public hearing in order to gather comments on the sufficiency of the Draft EIS once it is published. These comments will be considered and addressed in the Final EIS. DOE will issue a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after EPA's notice of availability of the Final EIS. Issued in Washington, DC, on October 10, 2007. Ines R. Triay, (Acting) Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. [FR Doc. E7-20449 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada wants Sandia Lab off Yucca Mountain project October 16, 2007 By BRENDAN RILEY Associated Press Writer CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Nevada has petitioned to get Sandia National Laboratories investigated for what the state's attorney general described Tuesday as a focus on deadlines over safety and accuracy in doing analyses for a proposed high-level nuclear waste dump. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto also told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is considering licensing for the federal Department of Energy dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, that New Mexico-based Sandia should be barred from further Yucca project work for the DOE. A Sandia spokesman defended the lab's work which was questioned in the petition, the latest in a long list of moves by Nevada officials to prevent the DOE from using the dump to store high-level radioactive waste from around the country. Cortez Masto said in the petition to the NRC that the state found documents that showed, among other things, that the Sandia official responsible for Yucca Mountain scientific analyses told employees they'd be "all out of a job" unless they met the DOE's schedule for license-filing by June 30. The attorney general said the official told staffers that Sandia's priorities for completing the analyses sought by the DOE were "schedule, defensibility and credibility - in that order." "This attitude is utterly incompatible with the dictates of nuclear safety," Cortez Masto said, adding that putting safety at the bottom of the priority list "is a recipe for disaster." Sandia spokesman Michael Padilla said the lab is "confident in the integrity of its work and its management of this effort." Padilla added the Sandia team "will be pleased in 2008 to defend the license application and its technical basis." "The transparency and quality of the technical basis provided in part by Sandia will enable the NRC to openly and fairly evaluate the safety of the proposed repository," he said. The federal government is mandated by law to dispose of the nation's nuclear waste, and the Energy Department was supposed to open the Nevada site by 1998. But the Yucca Mountain project has been slowed by lawsuits, quality control concerns and funding shortfalls. Project officials have pushed back the target date for opening to 2017 or later. The project's cost has climbed from a $57.5 billion estimate in 2001 to more than $77 billion. Federal law limits the dump to 77,000 tons of such waste, although the DOE now is proposing to double that amount. All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 30 Las Vegas SUN: Senate hearing scheduled on Yucca Today: October 17, 2007 at 8:45:11 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee will hold an oversight hearing later this month on Yucca Mountain. It's the first time since Democrats took control of Congress that they will examine the planned nuclear waste dump project from the environmental perspective - rather than focusing on budgetary issues. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who chairs the committee, announced the October 31 hearing in a press release today. Boxer has been opposed to Yucca Mountain. The Environment and Public Works Committee has jurisdiction over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the agency that will consider the Energy Department's application for a license to build the dump in the Nevada desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 JOGJCC: Sandside beach particles exceed 100 mark - John O'Groat Journal and Caithness Courier Published: 17 October, 2007 RADIATION surveyors have recovered the 100th Dounreay fuel particle to end up on the nearby public beach at Sandside. The hot-spot was found buried in sand in the middle of the beach last Thursday afternoon. Tests at the site revealed it contained 210,000 becquerels (Bq) of radioactivity – one of the highest counts since the checks at Sandside began 23 years ago. A further particle was unearthed during a scan on Saturday afternoon. At 18,000 Bq, it was found to be one of the least active. Monitoring teams, who deploy a specialist tracked detection vehicle on the beach, have now removed 101 of the tiny slithers of metallic reactor fuel reprocessed at Dounreay. They have also recovered an unidentified radioactive object which is believed to have come from the UKAEA site. Sandside beach – radiation monitoring teams have now removed 101 particles. The most active particle to date is one found in February this year with an activity count of 500,000 Bq. The next highest have been 480,000 and 396,000 Bq finds in January 2007 and June 2006 respectively. Most finds at Sandside have been below 100,000 Bq, which classes them as "minor" in a scale drawn up by the independent Dounreay Particles Advisory Group. These are not deemed to pose a health hazard. Particles between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Bq are classed as relevant and could cause temporary blistering or lesions if in contact with the skin for over seven hours. Those above 1,000,000 Bq are rated as significant in terms of their activity and health effects. Public health agencies do not believe the risks to the public on the basis of particle finds to date warrant restricting public access to Sandside. They have been content with signs warning people about the finds that have been made. The UKAEA earlier this month unveiled its plans to help deal with the historic rogue releases which have been contaminating the seabed and stretches of the local coastline. All content copyright 2007 Scottish Provincial Press Ltd. ***************************************************************** 32 KOLO: Call for Investigation over Nuclear Dump Site in Nevada Oct 17, 2007 Reporter: Associated Press CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - Nevada has petitioned to get Sandia National Laboratories investigated for what the state's attorney general described Tuesday as a focus on deadlines over safety and accuracy in doing analyses for a proposed high-level nuclear waste dump. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto also told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is considering licensing for the federal Department of Energy dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, that New Mexico-based Sandia should be barred from further Yucca project work for the DOE. A Sandia spokesman defended the lab's work which was questioned in the petition, the latest in a long list of moves by Nevada officials to prevent the DOE from using the dump to store high-level radioactive waste from around the country. Cortez Masto said in the petition to the NRC that the state found documents that showed, among other things, that the Sandia official responsible for Yucca Mountain scientific analyses told employees they'd be "all out of a job" unless they met the DOE's schedule for license-filing by June 30. The attorney general said the official told staffers that Sandia's priorities for completing the analyses sought by the DOE ere "schedule, defensibility and credibility - in that order." "This attitude is utterly incompatible with the dictates of nuclear safety," Cortez Masto said, adding that putting safety at the bottom of the priority list "is a recipe for disaster." Sandia spokesman Michael Padilla said the lab is "confident in the integrity of its work and its management of this effort." Padilla added the Sandia team "will be pleased in 2008 to defend the license application and its technical basis." "The transparency and quality of the technical basis provided in part by Sandia will enable the NRC to openly and fairly evaluate the safety of the proposed repository," he said. The federal government is mandated by law to dispose of the nation's nuclear waste, and the Energy Department was supposed to open the Nevada site by 1998. But the Yucca Mountain project has been slowed by lawsuits, quality control concerns and funding shortfalls. Project officials have pushed back the target date for opening to 2017 or later. The project's cost has climbed from a $57.5 billion estimate in 2001 to more than $77 billion. Federal law limits the dump to 77,000 tons of such waste, although the DOE now is proposing to double that amount. Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 ReviewJournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: State says safety at risk Oct. 17, 2007 Contractor hurrying to meet DOE schedule, petition alleges By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- A major contractor at Yucca Mountain might be compromising safety in a rush to meet deadlines for the nuclear waste project, Nevada told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in a petition filed Tuesday. The state requested that the contractor, Sandia National Laboratories, be suspended from the program and that the contractor's work environment be investigated. Documents reviewed by state officials "clearly show Sandia has subordinated safety and scientific accuracy to meeting an artificial deadline set by DOE," according to the 12-page complaint filed by Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. In one undated e-mail to members of his team, a Sandia group manager said his responsibility "is to ensure that the 3 priorities -- schedule, defensibility, credibility -- in that order, are satisfied." "If we do not meet the June 30 deadline, 'we are all out of a job,'" the manager wrote. "Any slips in schedule will be recovered by cutting scope. There is no allowance for not meeting schedule." Another undated document forwarded to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission appeared to be notes from a meeting on Oct. 2, 2006. "Sandia will not let DOE down," the typed note said. "We will meet this schedule. Delays are not acceptable." Because of several missteps and missed deadlines over years at Yucca Mountain, the Bush administration last year put former nuclear industry executive Ward Sproat in charge of the project. Sproat made changes and a commitment to Congress that a repository license application will be finished by no later than June 30, 2008. The complaint filed by Masto charged that meeting a hard deadline "will take on overriding importance, and safety will get shortchanged." The material discovered by the state "shows this is precisely what has happened at Sandia," the state's complaint said. "Nevada's allegations are baseless," Energy Department spokesman Allen Benson retorted. "Quality and schedule are not mutually exclusive. Sandia National Laboratories is a world-renowned scientific institution." "DOE will submit a high-quality license application and defend it during the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing proceeding," Benson said. Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the two documents were found when analysts reviewed Energy Department material in a database of Yucca Mountain documentation. The state is looking through government paperwork for ammunition to fight the proposal to establish a nuclear waste site at the mountain ridge, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Sandia was hired in January 2006 to prepare safety analyses that underpin the Energy Department's bid to license an underground repository in Nevada. The site is to store highly radioactive used fuel from commercial nuclear reactors and other forms of nuclear waste. "Sandia is confident in the integrity of its work and its management of this effort," contractor spokesman Michael Padilla said Tuesday. "Sandia believes the nation and citizens of Nevada can be confident in the quality and integrity of the post-closure safety analysis." Nevada has filed seven petitions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2002 in seeking changes in the agency's Yucca Mountain procedures or to point out perceived flaws in Energy Department preparations for what are expected to be long and contentious license hearings. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 34 AU ABC: Greens' candidate campaigns against NT waste dump ABC Alice Springs Posted October 17, 2007 10:50:00 The Greens' candidate for the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari, Emma Young, is campaigning against a nuclear waste dump in the NT. Ms Young says the Greens want to stop all mining and export of uranium from Australia. She is based in Darwin for work, but has promised to move to the area if she is elected. Ms Young says she is hoping to improve the Greens' vote in the seat, although her limited travel budget will be a challenge in the outback seat. "Particularly with the Green party and probably other minor parties there is that issue of being able to get the information out on a limited budget and I think to increase that percentage of the vote that's coming in for this election and subsequent elections that would be a really good thing," she said. Tags: elections, greens, nuclear-energy, federal-election-2007, alice-springs-0870 ***************************************************************** 35 AU ABC: Aust uranium deal with India still possible - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Posted October 17, 2007 16:32:00 Federal Trade Minister Warren Truss says if a nuclear accord between the United States and India collapses, Australia can still push ahead with its plans to sell uranium to India. The Indian Government appears to be backing out of a nuclear cooperation deal it signed with the United States in 2005, because of domestic political opposition. Mr Truss says such a setback would be disappointing, but Australia could negotiate its own terms for the sale of uranium to India. "Well we'd have to have satisfactory arrangements in place for safeguards and if in fact, the arrangements that the US were putting in place with India were not to succeed, if they were not to be in place, then there would have to be something as equally substantial to underpin these arrangements," he said. Foreign Minister Alexander Downers reaffirmed the point Australia will not sell uranium to India unless it complies with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). "There will be no Australian uranium sales to India unless certain conditions are met and I've made this point before," he said. "First of all, the 123 agreement has to be concluded, secondly that has to be accepted by the nuclear suppliers group, thirdly the IAEA has to set up its monitoring system." ***************************************************************** 36 The Day After We Bomb Iran Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:12:36 -0500 (CDT) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-day-after-we-bomb-ira_b_66706.html The Huffington Post [22]Chris Weigant| [23]BIO | [24]I'M A FAN OF THIS BLOGGER [25]RSS [26]The Day After We Bomb Iran Posted October 1, 2007 | 08:22 PM (EST) _________________________________________________________________ Read More: [27]bush, [28]Cheney, [29]consequences, [30]hersh, [31]hormuz, [32]iran, [33]iraq, [34]mek, [35]Middle East, [36]neo-con, [37]oil, [38]scud, [39]terrorism, [40]war, [41]Breaking Politics News [42]stumbleupon :The Day After We Bomb Iran [43]digg: The Day After We Bomb Iran [44]reddit: The Day After We Bomb Iran [45]del.icio.us: The Day After We Bomb Iran There's a raging debate within the Bush administration, the punditocracy, and the blogosphere about whether or not it is time to bomb Iran. While this conversation scares small children (and other sane people), most of the focus has been on (1) whether President... oh, excuse me... Vice President Cheney truly is moonbat-crazy enough to do so, and (2) whether anyone else in America (including the military) would go along with the idea. But not enough attention is being paid to what happens after we rain death from the skies down on Iran. Which is a shame, because that's what we ignored during the ramp-up to war with Iraq. And we all know how that turned out. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the United States actually does go ahead and bomb Iran. There are a lot of different scenarios which could lead to this point, of course -- a "false flag" operation (think: Gulf of Tonkin Incident); Iranian military captives the United States swears were killing Americans in Iraq being paraded before the television cameras; provoking the Iranian Navy and swearing we were in international waters and not Iranian waters -- there are many ways to make the case for war before the eyes of the world, so it's not very productive to worry about which method it may take. But let's assume George Bush presents some sort of a casus belli to the world, which is immediately followed by the United States military dropping bombs and cruise missiles on Iran. [46]Invade Iran? [47]About the Cartoonist | [48]Reprint Policy Now the actual method of the attack (as opposed to the rationale) may influence later events, so it is worth breaking down the possibilities. The old plan was to destroy both Iran's nuclear sites and enough infrastructure that rebuilding them would take the Iranians years to accomplish (while bombing all the military sites and radar installations we see along the way, of course). The new plan (according to Seymour Hersh in his [49]explosive new article in the New Yorker) is to take out the Revolutionary Guard (and to ignore the nuke sites), merely as hot-pursuit retaliation for Iranian involvement in Iraq (while also bombing all the radar installations we see along the way, of course). Rumors abound that Israel is also thinking seriously about taking out the Iranian nuke sites. Perhaps a combination of the two is what is envisioned? An American raid which conveniently takes down the Iranian radar net would make it awfully tempting for Israeli jets to use the opportunity of such cover to achieve their main objective, it would seem. This is all pure speculation on my part, I must admit. Whether our justification for the bombing is "hot pursuit" or whether it is to set Iranian nuclear progress back a decade will not matter a whole lot to whoever's under the bombs as they fall. But it may matter in the response Iran makes. The neo-cons thinking: "They'll greet us with flowers, II" So far, the Iranian response has seemingly been addressed by the neo-conservative think tank "The Iraqis Will Greet Us With Flowers Institute," which is fully as dangerous and deluded as it sounds. Their basic argument is the Iranians will see the errors of their ways (after we bomb them), throw out the Mullahs in Tehran, and beg the United States' forgiveness. Or that they're just too scared of our awesome military might ("Shock And Awe II," you might call it) to retaliate in any way, because they'd be terrified of losing a war with us. That this is divorced from both reality and the history of the United States and Iran for the past 60 years or so seems to escape the proponents of this view. But then again, they sold the Bush White House on the "we'll be greeted as liberators, with flowers" line, so there's no guarantee it won't work a second time. Here are some chilling quotes from Hersh's article on the subject of "what happens next?" after the bombs stop falling. "They're moving everybody to the Iran desk," one recently retired C.I.A. official said. "They're dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It's just like the fall of 2002" -- the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, "The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through." That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House's more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack "by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years." . . . A senior European diplomat, who works closely with American intelligence, told me that there is evidence that Iran has been making extensive preparation for an American bombing attack. "We know that the Iranians are strengthening their air-defense capabilities," he said, "and we believe they will react asymmetrically -- hitting targets in Europe and in Latin America." There is also specific intelligence suggesting that Iran will be aided in these attacks by Hezbollah. "Hezbollah is capable, and they can do it," the diplomat said. The article does quote one unnamed "senior European official" (most likely British) who has drunk deep of the neo-con Kool-Aid: The European official continued, "A major air strike against Iran could well lead to a rallying around the flag there, but a very careful targeting of terrorist training camps might not." His view, he said, was that "once the Iranians get a bloody nose they rethink things." For example, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani and Ali Larijani, two of Iran's most influential political figures, "might go to the Supreme Leader and say, 'The hard-line policies have got us into this mess. We must change our approach for the sake of the regime.' " This is rebutted with a quote from an unnamed "former [American] senior intelligence official": "Do you think those crazies in Tehran are going to say, 'Uncle Sam is here! We'd better stand down'? " the former senior intelligence official said. "The reality is an attack will make things ten times warmer." War-gaming the Iranian response The Iranians have missiles. They also have a shadowy world-wide terror network that, from all accounts, is quite competent and deadly. And geography gave Iran a chokepoint that could cut off roughly 20% of the world's oil supplies. Put all of these together, and you have quite a range of options for the Iranians to take. Let's assume that they would use these on an escalating scale, with proportionate responses by the U.S. The very first thing the Iranians would do is bomb the MEK camps in Iraq. This would be on a "tit-for-tat" level and they could make a good case before the world for doing so. The MEK ("Mujahedeen-e-Khalq") is an Iranian dissident group who have been trying to overthrow the government of Iran for quite some time now. They used to operate out of Saddam's Iraq, in cross-border raids into Iran. When we invaded, we kind of institutionalized a stalemate with them -- we accepted their surrender, told them we would protect the safety of their camps, but we allowed them to stay. The only problem is, [50]they're a terrorist group. Which we're protecting with the American military. You can easily see the parallels with what we would be claiming Iran is doing -- supporting outlaw groups from within their own territory who cross the border and perform terrorist actions. Which is why they would be target number one for Iranian retaliation if we used the "hot pursuit" rationale. Iran would loudly proclaim American hypocrisy and attempt to convince the world of the justification of their actions. They might even succeed in doing so. If America kept attacking Iran, the options get much grimmer much quicker. Iranian missiles may start targeting the Green Zone in Baghdad with a passion. They may start targeting those sprawling US bases out in the desert in Iraq. Remember the Kuwaiti war with Saddam? America kept saying "oh, we've taken care of all of Saddam's missiles" while the SCUDs kept raining down, proving us wrong. Imagine that scenario coming from Iran. Iran may also unleash the terrorists it sponsors. Hezbollah, in particular, may begin spectacular terrorist attacks within Europe. They could even conceivably (unlike Bush's bugaboo "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia") successfully attack the United States mainland. So not only are missiles raining down on the Green Zone, but shopping malls and train stations and power plants are getting blown up all over Europe and the United States, or (failing to reach America) U.S. Embassies worldwide. But these nightmare scenarios aren't the worst weapon. Iran's real leverage comes from sitting on top of the Straits of Hormuz (some use the singular Strait of Hormuz). Check out a map of it on [51]Wikipedia, and notice that Iran surrounds this tight bottleneck on three sides. Twenty percent of the world's oil moves through these straits every day, on supertankers. Imagine Iranian mines, torpedoes and missiles taking out oil tankers here. They'd really just have to successfully take out one, or maybe two to prove they could do it whenever they felt like. What would happen after the first of these successful attacks would be oil trading at astronomical highs: $150 to $200 a barrel. Or roughly two to three times what is has been trading at during the Iraq war. Six to nine dollars a gallon at your local pump. If this went on for a short period of time, it could cause a devastating recession on the American economy. If it went on for a long period of time, it could cause a worldwide economic depression. If the American economy crumbles, it's going to be harder and harder to find the money to continue three wars at once. Remember, we essentially outspent the Soviet Union in the arms race. It'd be awfully ironic if it happened to us, since it would be almost impossible to pour the amount of money we have been into the Middle East if our economy was on its knees. And really, what would the eventual end to the American military escalation of an Iranian war? A military draft here at home, for one thing, since the Army just could not withstand to supply a ground invasion at its current level of soldiers. Or we could escalate bombing on a level not seen since Vietnam -- carpet bombing from B-52s, not "smart" bombs in pinprick raids. Or the Bush White House might even be tempted to test out those nuclear penetrator bombs we've been working on -- to take out "deeply buried Iranian nuclear sites," no doubt. My point is that the consequences for an Iranian adventure would be severe. In all the arguments swirling around Iran currently inside the Beltway, not enough attention is being paid to the likely outcome of such military action. If you're a neo-con and are arguing that Iran needs to be taken out because they're the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism, then fine -- make your case. But be sure to realistically address what the costs of such rash action would be for America. Because last time around, we ignored that part of the equation with "we'll be greeted as liberators" -- and we just can't afford a second mistake of that magnitude. Chris Weigant blogs at: [52]ChrisWeigant.com References 22. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant 23. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/#blogger_bio 24. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/becomeFan.php?of=hp_blogger_Chris%20Weigant 25. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/syndication/ 26. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-day-after-we-bomb-ira_b_66706.html 27. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/bush 28. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/cheney 29. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/consequences 30. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/hersh 31. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/hormuz 32. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/iran 33. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/iraq 34. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/mek 35. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/middle-east 36. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/neo-con 37. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/oil 38. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/scud 39. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/terrorism 40. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/war 41. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics 42. http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-day-after-we-bomb-ira_b_66706.html&title=Chris%20Weigant:%20The%20Day%20After%20We%20Bomb%20Iran 43. http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-day-after-we-bomb-ira_b_66706.html&title=Chris%20Weigant:%20The%20Day%20After%20We%20Bomb%20Iran 44. http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-day-after-we-bomb-ira_b_66706.html&title=Chris%20Weigant:%20The%20Day%20After%20We%20Bomb%20Iran 45. http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-day-after-we-bomb-ira_b_66706.html&title=Chris%20Weigant:%20The%20Day%20After%20We%20Bomb%20Iran 46. http://www.chrisweigant.com/blog/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/invadeiran.jpg 47. http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/about-the-cartoons/ 48. http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/about-the-cartoons/#reprint 49. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?printable=true 50. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/ 51. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Strait_of_Hormuz.jpg 52. http://www.chrisweigant.com/ 53. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/send/?id=66706&title=The%20Day%20After%20We%20Bomb%20Iran&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fchris-weigant%2Fthe-day-after-we-bomb-ira_b_66706.html 54. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/?view=print ***************************************************************** 37 RIA Novosti: Crisis in Russian-U.S. relations spells trouble for Europe Opinion & analysis - 17:32 | 17/ 10/ 2007 MOSCOW. (Nikita Petrov for RIA Novosti) - In some respects, the current crisis in Russian-U.S. relations is reminiscent of the October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the Soviet Union had deployed nuclear-tipped missiles in the immediate proximity of the U.S. borders. However, U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev managed to reach a compromise at the last moment, preventing an all-out nuclear war. This time, Washington has decided to deploy 10 Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) missiles near Warsaw, the capital of Poland, and a 360-degree X-band radar not far from Prague in the Czech Republic, that is in direct proximity to Russia. Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited Moscow and negotiated with President Vladimir Putin, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov in the two-by-two format. But, just as analysts had predicted, the talks did not produce any substantial results. It is obvious that the Bush Administration will not renounce the missile defense program aimed at shielding the United States and Europe from so-called "rogue states." Moscow argues that Iran will not develop ballistic missiles capable of hitting North America and most European countries in the next 20 to 30 years. Washington is unconvinced. At a recent summit with George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin proposed that the United States use Russia's Daryal early-warning radar in Azerbaijan and the Voronezh-M facility, now being constructed near Armavir in the North Caucasus, in place of the Czech radar. U.S. experts who have assessed the Gabala radar's potential know that it completely scans Iran and several other regional countries, and are ready to use this facility, but they insist that it be included in the European missile-defense system. Moscow cannot agree to this because it is convinced that the interceptor missiles and the Czech radar are intended to impair the Russian nuclear deterrent by shielding Europe from the Topol, Topol-M and RS-18 (SS-19 Stiletto) inter-continental ballistic missiles deployed in the Tver, Ivanovo, Kaluga and Saratov Regions of Central Russia. It is clear that 10 GBI missiles would not stop a retaliatory strike in case of war. But the United States cannot guarantee that it will not deploy additional missile interceptors and early-warning radars. Moreover, Washington is hinting that it will expand, beef up and overhaul the European missile-defense system. This would directly threaten Russia's security and defense capability. The Russian leadership has repeatedly warned the United States and its allies that it would be forced to respond to the deployment of U.S. missile-defense elements in Europe, and that it would retarget ICBMs against installations it identifies as potential threats. Moscow could also deploy Iskander-M theater-level missiles near the Polish border. Last week, Vladimir Putin told Condoleezza Rice and Robert Gates that he was quite worried about the future of the 1987 Soviet-U.S. Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which must assume a global nature. The Russian leader said this objective must be accomplished because Moscow would otherwise find it difficult to abide by the INF Treaty's provisions at a time when other countries, including those in direct proximity to Russian borders, were actively developing similar weapons systems. Military experts understand that Russia may withdraw from the INF Treaty banning nuclear-tipped missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 km, if the United States goes ahead with its plans. Consequently, Washington and the European Union are facing the prospect of another era of nuclear confrontation. The 38-day Cuban missile crisis was a critical moment in the nuclear arms race and the Cold War. At the time, the world was tottering on the verge of an abyss. Soviet and U.S. diplomats, politicians and generals realized that it was pointless to hold each other hostage, and that both sides would have to negotiate on all pressing issues, and avoid using military force. The events of October 1962 paved the way for detente and convinced both countries that they were mutually vulnerable and must therefore reduce strategic offensive arms. In the long run, Moscow and Washington signed a number of arms-control agreements, including the history-making Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 1972. Unfortunately, the present-day conflict was triggered by the Bush Administration's unilateral decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. However, any confrontation similar to the Cuban missile crisis would lead both countries down a blind alley. Mutual security interests simply cannot be disregarded. The White House would make a mistake if it tried to engage Russia in a new arms race in order to undermine its economy. Moscow now has enough weapons for a cheap and asymmetrical response to current challenges. No one would profit in the event of such confrontation; and Europe would be the main loser if Russia withdrew form the INF Treaty and retargeted its nuclear-tipped missiles at U.S. missile defense elements in Europe. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 38 bizjournals: Department of Energy issues rules for loan guarantees October 15, 2007 Kent Hoover Washington Bureau Chief It took two years, but the Department of Energy finally issued regulations creating a loan guarantee program for clean energy projects that use innovative technologies. The department will guarantee 100 percent of the loan amounts for these projects, as long as the loan doesn't account for more than 80 percent of the project's costs. Borrowers must have a sizable equity stake in the project. The department originally proposed limiting the government's guarantee to 80 percent of the loan, but lenders said they weren't interested in the program unless the government fully backed the loans. Fees on borrowers will cover the costs of the program, including loan defaults. The department has requested $9 billion in loan authority for this year, and invited 16 projects that made pre-applications last fall to submit final applications for the loan guarantees. The projects range from a coal gassification plant in Texas that can isolate a significant stream of carbon dioxide to a New Mexico company that plans to build an electric car with an enhanced range. Other projects involve biomass, solar energy, hydrogen, industrial energy efficiency and electricity delivery. To be eligible for the loan guarantees, projects must employ new or significantly improved technologies that avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions. The loan guarantees "will help mitigate the financial risks inherent in the commercial deployment of innovative technologies," said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. "This will help get them to the market faster, which in turn will help America sustain growth in its economy, will yield global environmental benefits and, of equal importance, produce a more stable and secure energy supply." No nuclear energy projects were selected for the program, but Bodman wants Congress to give his department the authority to do that in the future. That's needed, said Skip Bowman, president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, because of the business risk involved in building new nuclear plants. "Electric generating companies have begun to file license applications for new nuclear plants with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and it is imperative that the Energy Department have in place a loan guarantee program that will support the financing for these large, capital-intensive power plant projects," Bowman said. For more information, see www.lgprogram.energy.gov © 2007 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. ***************************************************************** 39 DOE: Office of Science; Climate Change Science Program Product Development Advisory Committee FR Doc E7-20491 [Federal Register: October 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 200)] [Notices] [Page 58836] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17oc07-46] DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of Open Teleconference Meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This notice announces a teleconference meeting of the Climate Change Science Program Product Development Advisory Committee. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Monday, October 29, 2007, 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. E.D.T. ADDRESSES: Participants may call Ms. Karen Carlson-Brown at (301) 903- 3338 to receive a call-in number by October 25, 2007. Public participation is welcomed; however, the number of teleconference lines is limited and available on a first come basis. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Anjuli S. Bamzai (301-903-0294; anjuli.bamzai@science.doe.gov) Designated Federal Officer, Climate Change Science Program Product Development Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Climate Change Research Division, SC-23.3/ Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290. The most current information concerning this meeting can be found on the Web site: http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/cpdac/announcement.html . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Meeting: To continue discussions on drafting the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) Synthesis and Assessment Product related to climate modeling. This activity is being conducted at the request of the Department of Energy, in accordance with the CCSP Guidelines for Producing the CCSP Synthesis and Assessment Products. Tentative Agenda: Discussion on how public review comments have been addressed by the Synthesis and Assessment Product (SAP) 3.1 author team in the current version of the report. Discussion on how comments from CPDAC members have been addressed by the SAP 3.1 author team in the current version of the report. Motion by Chair of CPDAC to seek concurrence on the draft SAP 3.1 Public comment (10 minute rule). Public Participation: The teleconference meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact Anjuli Bamzai at the address or telephone number listed above. Reasonable provisions will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule. This notice is being published less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues. Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review at http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/CPDACminutes_presentations.html . Issued in Washington, DC on October 11, 2007. Rachel Samuel, Deputy Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20491 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 40 Knoxville News Sentinel: No summer vacation: Nuke work in a frenzy By Frank Munger (Contact) Wednesday, October 17, 2007 On June 7, the National Nuclear Security Administration announced that it had increased the rate of nuclear weapons dismantlement by 50 percent over last year's level and "will continue at the sharply higher rate for the rest of the year." The federal year ended Sept. 30, and the next day the NNSA announced it had confirmed "an astounding 146 percent" over the previous year's rate, almost tripling the goal of a 49 percent increase. What? Is it possible for the rate of increase from the previous year to jump from 50 percent to 146 percent over a four-month period? What were they doing in late summer, throwing warheads out the windows? Since the NNSA doesn't release the number of dismantled weapons or provide details of the actual activities, it's kind of hard to audit the math or fully appreciate the accomplishment. The Y-12 weapons plant in Oak Ridge is a big part of the dismantlement effort, taking apart the same uranium components it manufactured during the Cold War. * Worker advocacy groups across the country were upset that Peter Turcic, who heads the U.S. Department of Labor's compensation program for sick nuclear workers, received a Presidential Rank Award for outstanding public service. The groups have complained about program delays and accused the department of trying to systematically limit the expansion of eligible workers. Oak Ridge workers or their surviving relatives have collected hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal fund, but many others have been denied benefits they felt were deserved and overdue. In a prepared statement, Janine Anderson of the Coalition for a Healthy Environment said the presidential award should be rescinded "due to Mr. Turcic's inability to administer this program in a fair and timely manner." CHE is part of the Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocacy Groups. * In late September, Oak Ridge National Laboratory announced that it had received $6.7 million in last-minute funding for fiscal 2007 to help jump-start the big biofuels project headed by the lab. That money was separate from the five-year, $125 million grant that the U.S. Department of Energy previously awarded to ORNL and its partners to work on development of plant-derived alternative fuels. The 2007 money apparently was rounded up from other project leftovers in DOE and directed to ORNL and other biofuels sites because of the perceived urgency of the initiative, which has a high priority in the Bush administration. Also, there were concerns that a budget stall in 2008 might delay the arrival of the big grant money. The news got even better a few days later when U.S. Sens. Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker and U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp collectively announced that $9.7 million had been added to ORNL's biofuels project. The dual announcements were kind of confusing, to say the least, but an ORNL spokesman later explained said the "funding was in two different pots" approved by Congress and that the $9.7 million hailed by the Republican trio reflected a $3 million addition to the Oak Ridge-bound total announced earlier. Maybe it's because of quirky announcements like that or maybe it's because of the hurried nature in which the government's biofuels initiative was put together, but the program seems to have a lot of skeptics and doubters lurking at the fence line. * The Coalition of Oak Ridge Retired Employees is putting the squeeze on Alexander to endorse a pension increase for retirees. The group's president, David Reichle, recently sent the senator a letter outlining the needs for an adjustment and attached a chart showing the potential economic impacts of a pension increase. CORRE believes Alexander's influence is critical in getting DOE to approve the pension adjustment for thousands of retirees or their surviving spouses. Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at munger@knews.com. This column is also available in the opinion section of knoxnews.com. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 41 Knoxville News Sentinel: Y-12: Results negative on exposed workers By Frank Munger (Contact) Originally published 04:03 p.m., October 17, 2007 OAK RIDGE — Neither of two workers splashed with radioactive liquids in August at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant received internal radiation exposures, a plant spokesman said today. The two workers were involved in separate incidents, Aug. 14 and Aug. 16, at uranium processing facilities at Y-12 and had to be decontaminated at the plant’s medical clinic. Eight other workers were tested for possible exposures. Bill Wilburn of BWXT, the plant’s managing contractor, said the monitoring results determined there “was no internal dose to any of the employees from these events.” The Oak Ridge plant has come under review and criticism for a series of spills and other incidents in the uranium-processing operations. Y-12 is the nation’s primary repository for weapons-grade uranium, and the plant manufactures and dismantles warhead parts from uranium and other materials. More details as they develop online and in Thursday’s News Sentinel. © 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 42 Albuquerque Tribune: Nevada calls for probe of Sandia National Laboratories Brendan Riley/Associated Press Wednesday, October 17, 2007 CARSON CITY, Nev. ? Nevada has petitioned to get Sandia National Laboratories of Albuquerque investigated for what the state's attorney general describes as a focus on deadlines over safety and accuracy in its analysis of a proposed nuclear waste dump. Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto on Tuesday also told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which is considering licensing for the federal Department of Energy dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, that Sandia should be barred from further Yucca project work for the DOE. A Sandia spokesman defended the work questioned in the petition, the latest in a long list of moves by Nevada officials to prevent the DOE from using the dump to store high-level radioactive waste from around the country. The lab is "confident in the integrity of its work and its management of this effort," said Sandia spokesman Michael Padilla. In Nevada's petition, Cortez Masto told the NRC that the state found documents showing, among other things, that the Sandia official responsible for Yucca Mountain scientific analyses told employees they'd be "all out of a job" unless they met a DOE schedule for filing the license by June 30. She said the official told staffers that Sandia's priorities for completing the analyses sought by the DOE were "schedule, defensibility and credibility - in that order." "This attitude is utterly incompatible with the dictates of nuclear safety," Cortez Masto said. Putting safety at the bottom of the priority list, she added, "is a recipe for disaster." Padilla countered, saying the Sandia team "will be pleased in 2008 to defend the license application and its technical basis." "The transparency and quality of the technical basis provided in part by Sandia will enable the NRC to openly and fairly evaluate the safety of the proposed repository," he said. The federal government is mandated by law to dispose of the nation's nuclear waste, and the Energy Department was supposed to open the Nevada site by 1998. But the Yucca Mountain project has been slowed by lawsuits, quality control concerns and funding shortfalls. Project officials have pushed back the target date for opening to 2017 or later. The project's cost has climbed from a $57.5 billion estimate in 2001 to more than $77 billion. Federal law limits the dump to 77,000 tons of such waste, although the DOE now is proposing to double that amount. © 2007 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 43 KVII Online: Funding for Pantex Plant Posted: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. It’s an issue that we know effect many of you. We’re talking about the funding for Pantex. We wanted to know if Congress has yet to approve the funding for the new fiscal year.  We check with Congressman Mac Thornberry's Office and found out they have not. The plant is still operating on what they call a continuing resolution. In fact, we are now 17 days into the new fiscal year and no appropriatition bills have been passed for Congress. Well we checked with one local political science professors who said it’s not totally unusual, but the fact that no bills have been passed to fund government program is a little unusual.  Funding for Pantex?? Are you kidding?? Funding for Pantex or should we say... funding for the higher ups at Pantex to pay their bills and screw everyone else!! They have yet to settle on the Federalization of the guard union much less take care of anything in the new contract... Pantex has a group of money hungry jerks at the top of the chain and the funding goes straight into their pocket and to their materialistic lifestyles while those that work their butts off get CRAP!! I hope they are denied their funding and Mac Thornberry is removed from office for sheer stupidity!! He is worthless when it comes to TEXAS issues. He cares nothing about Texans... Good luck head honchos of Pantex... I hope your house is worth the funding! — Pantex Wife, Amarillo ***************************************************************** 44 KNDO/KNDU: CH2M HILL's Hanford Group Wins National Safety Award Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA CH2M Hill Considered One of America's Safest Companies Posted: October 16, 2007 5:45 p.m. RICHLAND, Wash.--A prestigious safety award for CH2M HILL. CH2M Hill's Hanford Group is considered to be one of America's safest companies. The distinction comes from Occupational Hazards magazine, an industry-leading journal on health and safety. Workers consistently deal with high-level radioactive waste, but employee injury and illness rates are lower than industry standards. In the last two years, management has seen an 85% improvement in safety. "We put safety above everything else," according to Dr. Tom Anderson, Director of Safety & Health. We will actually slow down work if something is not safe. We stop work if something is not safe. So, safety is paramount. For CH2M HILL, being recognized shows employees and management are committed to safety. Last year, the Department of Energy honored the company with three Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) awards. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 45 NewsBlaze: Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman Thank you, Leo for the introduction and for the lunch. It is a pleasure to be here with you all. When President Bush asked me to become the nation's 11th Secretary of Energy, it was with the understanding that I would focus on the need to enhance America's energy security. I'm pleased to say we have made significant progress. We've put considerable resources, both in terms of dollars and man hours, into expanding supply, improving efficiency and developing clean sources of alternative energy. But competition for resources coming from the world's developing economies including China's and India's has raised the stakes for us here in the United States. America must pursue an energy strategy not limited by our borders. Our energy future is not something we can determine alone; the projected increase in the global demand for energy more than 50 percent by 2030 makes this a certainty. We can lead the world toward a shared and secure energy future that includes traditional energy sources as well as clean, renewable and alternative sources of energy. The large Asian economies, whether developed like South Korea's and Japan's or developing, like China's and India's must also come to terms, as we are doing, with the need for greater energy efficiency, the need for environmentally responsible energy production and the need for new energy technologies. America and Asia have a shared energy future, one in which we may all prosper if we work together. Because world conditions are changing, we must find ways to work together to confront resource nationalism, limited access and infrastructure constraints that effectively limit production to something less than what the world requires now and in the future. And we must consider all this in the context of global climate change and a carbon-constrained future. Through various networks of international partnerships, both multi-lateral and bi-lateral, we are working to address all these issues. These partnerships are, in my judgment, useful and necessary to our energy relationships with Asia. One is the Asia-Pacific Partnership (APP) which, as I think you know, just concluded a meeting where Canada was admitted to the partnership. This will broaden the dialogue and allows for a more integrated North America approach to the APP's deliberations. The meeting also endorsed task force work plans with 110 projects and approved 18 new flagship projects that exemplify the partnership's focus and commitment. The APP also launched the "Asia-Pacific Energy Technology Co-operation Centre," to be financed and managed by South Korea, which will aggregate information on energy efficiency and best practices and share them with member countries. And, in part because of the APP, we've seen U.S. companies take the lead in bringing combined heat and power and distributed generation technologies to China. Through the partnership, Solar Turbines producing 35 megawatts of clean energy were installed in China's Shanxi in less than a year's time. America has also made it a priority to engage in discussions concerning the need for strategic petroleum reserves. Last year I went to Asia for five-party talks with the largest energy consumers: Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans and the Indians. We discussed the need for strategic petroleum reserves, particularly for the Chinese. I believe that China is now moving in the right direction with respect to reserves and we will continue to support them in this effort. Another area for cooperation is in the effort to secure the expansion of clean, safe nuclear power throughout Asia. This, of course, means we need to address the issue of North Korea's nuclear program which we are doing through the Six Party Talks. And we're making progress. Working Groups have been constituted to address North Korea's nuclear programs as well as economic, energy and humanitarian cooperation. Reciprocal steps, including energy assistance, will be provided as North Korea carries out its commitments to disclose and disable its nuclear programs. We are also seeking to expand the use of civilian nuclear power through the President's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP. We, along with the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese and the French have launched an international framework for sharing nuclear power with the developing world in ways that safeguard against proliferation of materials and deal responsibly with spent fuel. GNEP represents the future of global cooperation in expanding environmentally sound nuclear power. At the second GNEP ministerial in Vienna, Austria, we tripled the size of the partnership from the original five to 16. The partners were joined by 19 observing nations and we expect several of those countries to join the partnership soon. These multi-lateral efforts are, as I said, important. Of equal importance are the direct talks underway with some of our Asian partners to develop common approaches to energy security. Our energy dialogue with China is already producing results, with one notable accomplishment being last December's decision by the Chinese to buy nuclear reactors from Westinghouse. Our ongoing talks with the Japanese on nuclear energy also continue to bear fruit. In April of 2007, I signed the United States -Japan Joint Nuclear Energy Action Plan, providing for increased cooperation on nuclear energy. This agreement contributes to increased energy security and nuclear waste management, addresses nuclear nonproliferation and climate change, and advances GNEP. All of these efforts are fueled by the recognition of our common challenges, including the problem of global climate change. I believe the best way to address it is through technology. This is also the best way, in my view, to keep pace with rising energy demand in an environmentally responsible fashion. Since 2001, the United States has invested nearly $18 billion in climate change technology research and development. The President's current budget requests $3.9 billion in funding a 14 percent increase over last year's appropriation. Through the President's Advanced Technology Initiative, we are working towards making clean energy technologies such as wind and solar power, biofuels, advanced batteries, hydrogen, and other technologies cost competitive with traditional sources and towards getting them to the market faster. Through the Department of Energy's Office of Science, we are using our supercomputers, you should know that DOE owns or operates five of the world's six fastest computers which, among other things, are being put to use running complex climate modeling exercises that allow us to better predict the consequences of climate change. Let me provide you a few statistics about energy and emissions in Asia. In 1990, China and India combined for 13 percent of world emissions. By 2004, that share had risen to 22 percent largely because of their strong increase in coal use. This is an upward trend; 31 percent of total world CO2 emissions are expected to come from China and India by 2030. China alone is expected to consume 11 percent more energy than the United States 2030. And that energy has to come from somewhere. China, India and other nations could build all the traditional coal-fired plants they wish, but what kind of a world would that be? President Bush recently convened a meeting in Washington of the major economies, notable for the presence of China and India among other nations to begin the discussion of what a post-Kyoto international climate agreement might look like. Our preference, of course, is a consensus that allows productive economies the greatest degree of latitude possible for dealing with climate change so as not to impinge on global economic growth or national priorities. If any one thing is clear, it is that the world needs market-oriented, technology-driven solutions that allow global economic growth to continue. An energy secure future has to be environmentally secure as well. The environmental record many developing economies have amassed only underscores the need for U.S. technologies to help them improve their performance. As we must depend on technology to show us the way to cleaner energy, we must also depend on it to help us be more efficient in the energy we consume. The most abundant source of new energy available to the United States is the energy we currently waste everyday. Here I have abundant faith in the American spirit of inventiveness. Our efforts to increase efficiency here at home, particularly by developing new technologies and improving upon existing ones will pay dividends providing energy savings along with technology developed and commercialized at home and abroad. America will be, I believe, the world's leader in the development of new energy efficient technologies that contribute to future global energy security while creating new markets for U.S. goods overseas. We're also using new science to push the renewable energy envelope. Earlier this year the Department made available $375 million to fund the creation and operation of three, cutting-edge Bioenergy Research Centers where some of the best minds in the country are at work trying to apply the lessons of the biotech revolution in pharmaceuticals to the problems of increased energy demand. If these centers can successfully develop ways to manufacture biofuels from cellulose, and I believe they will, we will change forever the global energy equation. And we are moving ahead with energy efficiency technologies for homes as well. Under our Build America program, we are working with industry to produce homes by 2020 that produce as much energy as they consume, we call them "Zero Energy Homes". If you take a walk down to the National Mall, you can see the entries for this year's Solar Decathlon. This is an effort DOE sponsors that encourages science, architecture and engineering students to produce model homes that relay solely on the power of the sun to produce the energy a typical American family needs to run their home. Both of these initiatives are remarkable. And they will, I believe, generate the kinds of new energy efficient technologies that the developing and developed economies in Asia will want. That, in brief, is an overview of what I believe constitutes our approach to developing a shared energy future with Asia. Our shared challenges are producing common efforts organized around common strategies. As I said at the outset, we cannot be energy secure if the world is not energy secure. Future energy development requires new technology and new infrastructure, financed by vast sums of capital perhaps $20 trillion over the next 25 years. To be successful, all nations must embrace a transparent marketplace, a responsible investment climate and fair and predictable regulatory regimes. We are committed to a shared dialogue with our Asian neighbors that address these concepts. We have developed a strong partnership with Asia and intend to see it through to common and energy secure future. Thank you and now I'll be happy to take a few questions. Source: U.S. Department of Energy judythpiazza@newsblaze.com Copyright © 2007, NewsBlaze, Daily News ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************