***************************************************************** 05/01/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.102 ***************************************************************** 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 UPI: Halliburton to stay out of Iran 2 AFP: Amid North Korea, China concerns, US reaffirms defense vows to 3 Economic Times: No more bending on NPT - US body - 4 BBC NEWS: Chinese object to climate draft 5 Daily Times: Nuclear proliferation: Musharraf took action on US evid 6 Daily Times: Body to monitor nuclear exports NUCLEAR REACTORS 7 US: WNN: Susan Eisenhower speaks at UN on role of nuclear energy 8 Times of India: US, India aim to seal historic nuclear deal soon- 9 The Hindu: Menon in U.S., to hold talks on nuclear deal 10 US: Daily Yomiuri: U.S. firms plan 34 N-plants 11 Whitecourt Star: Nuclear power plant proposed for Whitecourt 12 US: Houston Chronicle: State OKs Cost Recovery for Nuclear Cos. 13 US: Houston Chronicle: NRC tightens access to college reactors 14 US: Vermont Guardian: Business leaders decry tax on Vermont Yankee 15 US: newsobserver.com: Nuclear positives 16 RIA Novosti: Atomstroyexport puts Chinese NPP's 2nd unit to minimum 17 US: Buffalo News: Plant's downside largely unaddressed in relicensin 18 US: BT: The Nuclear Option 19 US: NRC: NRC Issues Security Order to Research and Test Reactors 20 US: APP.COM: Nuclear power plant gets repairs 21 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point to test sirens over next 8 days 22 US: Journal News: Entergy files application for new 20-year Indian P 23 US: recordonline.com: Twenty more years of nuke power? It's up to yo 24 US: Burlington Free Press: Op: Nuclear tax 25 US: delawareonline: Nuclear power plants still unpopular despite fed 26 Reuters: U.S., India said to make progress on nuclear deal 27 US: UPI: Analysis: Why Whitman wants nuclear power 28 US: UPI: NRC special inspection of Farley plant 29 UPI: U.S., India to cooperate in technology 30 US: MHNN: Entergy files Indian Point 2 & 3 license renewal applicati 31 ITAR-TASS: Reactor No 3 of Kalinin NPP stopped for planned repairs 32 US: Newbury Port News: 30 years later, another nuclear struggle loom 33 US: PBP: FPL Group profit lags on fuel 34 US: PRN: Dominion Signs Contract with GE Energy for Long-Lead Nuclea 35 AU ABC: Bowen Mayor favours coal-fired power station over nuclear pu 36 AU ABC: Nuclear power plant a visitor turn-off, says tourism group. 37 AFP: US, India seek to revive historic nuclear deal - NUCLEAR SECURITY 38 TheStar.com: Nuclear informer found guilty again 39 US: Reuters: Nuclear test reactors must have more security - NRC NUCLEAR SAFETY 40 US: YubaNet.com: Eco-Whistleblower Laws Now Off-Limits to Federal Em NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 41 Daily Yomiuri: N-waste disposal site selection needs review 42 US: WNN: Australian uranium policy moves on 43 ReviewJournal.com: Documents added to Yucca database 44 ReviewJournal.com: Former aide to Idaho senator to be nominated to N 45 Letter: CCHS STUDENT CLARIFIES ISSUES ABOUT YUCCA MOUNTAIN TRIP 46 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah senator says 21 years is too long to cle 47 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Uranium now 'hottest' in resources - 48 US: Japan Times: Kazakhstan eyes uranium supply deal with Japan 49 US: AU ABC: Uranium industry prepares for boom 50 US: AU ABC: Expo to put focus on mine safety, uranium mining 51 US: AU ABC: Rann to speed up uranium exploration licence application PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 52 Aiken Today: DOE offers no alternatives for SREL funding 53 DOE: DOE Receives Highest Transportation Industry Safety Award 54 E&ETV: Argonne lab director Rosner says increasing use of 55 Hanford News: EPA offer attractive to DOE: Agency proposes work on e 56 Hanford News: Perma-Fix plans to buy Nuvotec, PEcoS: Purchase expect 57 Hawk Eye: Reaching out (DOE Workers) 58 LasVegasNOW.com: DOJ Wants Lawsuit Against 'Divine Strake' Dismissed 59 KNDO/KNDU: Energy Department reviews options to work off fine ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 UPI: Halliburton to stay out of Iran United Press International - Energy - Analysis Published: May 1, 2007 at 4:30 PM By ANDREA R. MIHAILESCU UPI Energy Correspondent Halliburton said Monday it has no plans to resume activity in Iran now that it has completed its current contracts. Testifying before a Senate subcommittee investigating U.S. business ties to Iran, Sherry Williams, Halliburton vice president and corporate secretary, said that when the company decided to leave Iran in 2005, "We recognized that we would not be able to go back in" under federal law. The New York Sun reported that the statement was warmly received by lawmakers, who feared the company could return to Iran if conditions changed. Halliburton came under harsh criticism for operating a foreign subsidiary, Halliburton Products and Services Ltd., in Iran. But Halliburton was not alone. Critics said these companies were undermining U.S. national-security interests by exploiting a loophole in federal economic sanctions against Iran, which the United States regards as a state sponsor of terrorism. Williams assured lawmakers that since Halliburton had completed its contracts in Iran, the company will no longer operate in the country. New York City Comptroller William Thompson Jr., meanwhile, pushed the Senate panel to pass a bill that would close the loophole and bar U.S. companies from using foreign subsidiaries that do business in nations the United States regards as "rogue." -0- Yemen to court Canadian energy firms Yemen is looking to attract foreign investment from Canadian firms by inviting Calgary-based energy firms to participate in the country's next international oil and gas bidding round later this year. Khalid Mahfoudh Bahah, Yemen's oil and minerals minister, told Canada's Herald paper Monday, "We are looking to open up nearly 10 offshore blocks and are targeting to conclude the bidding process in six to eight months." With an annual average oil output of 350,000 barrels per day and a decline-in-production rate of 9 percent, Yemen is courting international oil companies to invest in the country's development in an effort to boost its production capacity. The blocks to be developed are located along the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aden and the Socotra basin. "There are a lot of requests from IOCs to go offshore. Onshore areas are our hinterland, but there is a need to balance the geographical spread. The offshore prospects are good and our target will be shallow to ultra-deep areas. Some seismic surveys have been carried out and a few exploratory wells have already been drilled," Bahah said. He did not provide a production target. He said, "We can't put numbers until drilling commences." Bahah said he is hopeful of a positive response from Calgary-based firms. "Calgary, Houston and Dubai are a triangle of oil companies we are targeting. If you are not an operator it will not be a handicap, as you can team up with others. But, we would advise that you do not come in with an agent. The government is keen on a (direct) partnership with IOCs," Bahah said. -0- Exxon unit to drill world's longest oil well Exxon Mobil Corp. subsidiary Exxon Neftegas has drilled the world's longest oil well in Russia's Sakhalin Island development project, located in the Far East. The well was drilled with the Z-11 probe in the Chayvo offshore field, the company said. The New York-listed group used Parker's Yastreb rig, the world's largest onshore rig, to drill the 7-mile-long well more than 7 miles offshore into Chayvo as part of its Sakhalin-1 project. The probe was the 17th extended-reach well drilled into Chayvo and took 61 days to complete, 15 days ahead of schedule. ExxonMobil has increased oil production at Chayvo to 250,000 barrels per day. -- Closing oil prices, May 1, 3 p.m. London Brent crude oil: $67.91 West Texas Intermediate crude oil: $65.66 (e-mail: AMihailescu@upi.com) © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 AFP: Amid North Korea, China concerns, US reaffirms defense vows to Japan Tue May 1, 3:14 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States reaffirmed on Tuesday its commitment to defend Japan amid continuing uncertainty about the future of North Korea's nuclear weapons drive and China's rapidly growing military power. "The United States has the will and the capability to meet the full range of deterrence and security commitments to Japan," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after a meeting here of the two allies top diplomats and defense officials. "Our meeting today demonstrates our commitment and our resolve to ensure that this alliance doesn't just continue, but that it gets stronger," Rice said. The so-called "two-plus-two" meeting brought together Rice, her Japanese counterpart Taro Aso, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma for annual talks on bilateral and regional security issues. Since the grouping last met in May 2006, North Korea rattled regional security concerns by testing its first nuclear weapon and long-range ballistic missiles and China reaffirmed its growing military might by using a missile to knock a satellite out of space. At a joint press conference, Aso said these events underscored the "uncertainty and instability" facing Japan and he welcomed Washington's renewed pledge to defend and provide "deterrence" for his country -- diplomatic shorthand for placing the island nation under the US nuclear umbrella. North Korea pledged in a February 13 agreement with the US, Japan, China, South Korea and Russia, to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for political and economic incentives. But Pyongyang missed an April 14 deadline to shut and seal its main nuclear reactor due to a dispute over some 25 million dollars blocked in a Macau bank by US financial sanctions. Rice reaffirmed Tuesday that Washington had lifted its objections to the return of the money, but acknowledged that unexpected technical complications had so far prevented the North Koreans from accessing their accounts, in turn delaying the reactor shutdown. "So we have been willing to step back and give some time for this to be resolved," she said, but added: "We don't have endless patience." "We do recognize that North Korea has continued to publicly affirm its obligation under the February 13th agreement and to affirm its intention to carry through. We expect them to do so," she said. Tuesday's meeting also included what Aso called a "frank exchange" about a year-old agreement to draw down US forces stationed in Japan, a delicate issue at a time when Tokyo is moving to boost its own military forces and global profile. Aso said the Japanese side hoped to "further advance the realignment of US forces in japan by giving it a push at the political level". Under a realignment "road map" agreed a year ago, Washington was to return some bases to Japanese control while some 8,000 US marines are to redeploy from Okinawa to Guam by 2014, with the bulk of the 10 billion dollar cost borne by the Japanese. There are more than 30,000 US military personnel currently stationed in Japan. The four ministers also said they discussed pursuing joint missile defense programs, notably to counter the North Korean threat, and to building strategic regional security ties, including with Australia. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Economic Times: No more bending on NPT - US body - PTI[ TUESDAY, MAY 01, 2007 12:20:55 PM] WASHINGTON: Ahead of talks between India and the US on a proposed agreement to operationalise the civil nuclear deal, a prominent non-proliferation group has argued that the Bush administration cannot afford to further give concessions to New Delhi as it would "compound" the damage already done to the global non-proliferation regime. "Under pressure from its nuclear establishment, Indian officials are lobbying for further concessions that would reduce accountability and increase the capacity of its civil and military programmes but would be inconsistent with minimal conditions for trade established by Congress last year," Executive Director of the Arms Control Association Daryl Kimball wrote in an Editorial in The Arms Control Today. "Current US law stipulates that nuclear trade would end and US nuclear supplies must be returned if India resumes testing or otherwise violates the agreement. Nevertheless, New Delhi wants to drop references in the agreement to these requirements and ensure commercial nuclear contracts continue even if the underlying agreement is breached," he said. Kimball had strongly opposed the deal in the past. "Other leading governments also have a responsibility to help remedy the deep flaws in the deal and hold all states to a higher nonproliferation and disarmament standard.... India insists on keeping at least eight other reactors and India's extensive military nuclear complex off-limits and refuses to halt the production of plutonium and uranium for bombs," he said. "Under these circumstances, partial safeguards are all symbol and no substance. Even worse, US supplies of uranium could free up India's limited domestic uranium supply for weapons and violate US legal obligations under the NPT not to assist India's bomb program," Kimball said. Congress, Kimball pointed out, also specified that safeguards on India's civil nuclear facilities and US-supplied material must be permanent and consistent with IAEA standards. "New Delhi is seeking 'India-specific' safeguards that would be suspended if foreign fuel supplies are interrupted. There is no precedent or safeguards plan for such an option, and it would be highly irresponsible for the IAEA to ever approve such a hollow arrangement," he said. Last year's legislation, he said, specifically prohibits US transfer of sensitive nuclear technology to India, including uranium-enrichment and plutonium-separation equipment. It also preserves a requirement for US consent for the enrichment or reprocessing of US-origin material. "Indian officials are strenuously objecting. But so far, US negotiators are resisting, partly because India has rejected permanent safeguards on its reprocessing and enrichment facilities and its plutonium-producing fast breeder reactors," Kimball said. "Finally, the deal must win the NSG's consensus approval. Despite heavy pressure from US and Indian diplomats, many NSG states remain skeptical or opposed, but until they see all the details, they are officially reserving judgment. "Meanwhile, Chinese and French officials suggest the NSG should adopt criteria-based trade guidelines rather than an India-specific rule. This could open the way for nuclear trade with China's ally Pakistan and possibly with Israel, creating additional proliferation risks," he has maintained. To ensure that nuclear assistance to India or others does not aid weapons production, responsible NSG states reject proposals that could allow nuclear trade involving enrichment or reprocessing technology to any non-NPT member and bar nuclear trade with any non-NPT member that produces fissile material for bombs or resumes nuclear testing. reprint rights: Times Syndication Service ***************************************************************** 4 BBC NEWS: Chinese object to climate draft Last Updated: Tuesday, 1 May 2007, 07:41 GMT 08:41 UK Delegates from 120 countries are attending the IPCC meeting China is leading objections to a major report on climate economics being discussed at a Bangkok conference. A draft copy of the report concludes that the world's climate can be stabilised at a reasonable cost, as long as nations act now. But correspondents say the Chinese see the document as a potential threat to their economic growth. Two reports issued earlier this year by the same UN panel warned that the earth was already warming considerably, and that mankind was almost certainly to blame. They predicted severe consequences including droughts, floods, storms, heat waves and rising seas. This latest report is designed to look at how the world can mitigate rising levels of greenhouse gases. Environmentalists argue that while it will need investment to put these policies into practice, the eventual consequences of doing nothing far outweigh the cost of tackling global climate change now. Economy fears Exactly what action to take, and how much it will cost, is likely to be the main topic of debate during the closed-door meeting, which began on Monday and is due to end with the announcement of the final report on Friday. The draft, seen by the BBC, suggests various solutions to mitigate climate change, such as capturing and burying emissions from coal-fired power plants, shifting to renewable forms of energy and more use of nuclear power. The science certainly provides a lot of compelling reasons for action Rajendrat Pachauri, IPCC chairman If the delegates stick with the tone of the draft, the report is likely to remove any justification for rich nations like the USA to avoid emissions cuts on the grounds of cost. But correspondents say early indications from inside the conference suggest that the US is actually not objecting to much - it is China that is being really obstructive. China's emissions are just one-sixth of America's per capita, but the population is so huge that this year the country is due to become the world's biggest polluter. The Chinese fear that if this UN document is agreed, it will increase pressure on them to cut emissions so heavily that it could derail their drive to create jobs and lift millions of people out of poverty. Influential report The findings of the report will be used by governments and international organisations to map out their own plans for climate change mitigation. "The IPCC plays an incredibly important role in the political negotiations so people can point and say 'Look, this is what is going to happen in 50 years, these are the options available for us to take actions'," UN Environment Programme spokesman Michael Williams said on Monday. The report's conclusions will play a key role in negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol, which will take place in December on the Indonesian island of Bali. It will also influence world leaders when they meet face-to-face for climate change talks at the summit of the group of eight most industrialised nations (G8) in June. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 5 Daily Times: Nuclear proliferation: Musharraf took action on US evidence : Tenet Leading News Resource of Pakistan Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Daily Times Monitor LAHORE: President General Pervez Musharraf took direct action when the US confronted him with evidence of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan’s involvement in proliferation of nuclear technology, former CIA director George Tenet told NBC Today in an interview on Monday. Responding to interviewer Tom Brokaw’s question on why Musharraf had denied the US a “long and difficult interrogation” of Dr AQ Khan so that “we know what he knows about nuclear weapons”, Tenet said his assumption was that there’s a lot of sharing of data between the US and Pakistan. “It may not be perfect, and we will always want more, and I know my colleagues have been pressing for more. Where it is today, I don’t know. But let’s give President Musharraf some credit for doing the right thing when we pressed him to do it,” he said. Asked if President Musharraf knew the whereabouts of Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden, Tenet said it was just speculation, and there may be some people in Pakistan who know, but “I don’t believe President Musharraf would deny us that knowledge”. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved Site developed and hosted by WorldCALL Internet Solutions ***************************************************************** 6 Daily Times: Body to monitor nuclear exports Leading News Resource of Pakistan Tuesday, May 01, 2007 Staff Report ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has set up a body to tighten nuclear export controls, the Foreign Office announced on Monday. The Strategic Export Control Division (SECDIV) will now be the only authority able to approve the export of nuclear-related items and missile technology, Foreign Office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam told a weekly press briefing. It would also have authority over biological agents and toxins. The SECDIV, which will work under the supervision of an oversight board, was approved under the Export Control Act on Goods, Technologies, Materials and Equipment 2004. Representatives from other ministries, including finance and commerce, the Strategic Planning Division, will be part of the export control authority, Aslam said. “The adoption of the Export Control Act... and the establishment of SECDIV are a continuing manifestation of Pakistan’s strong commitment to non-proliferation and its determination to fulfil its national and international export control commitments,” she said. The SECDIV will formulate and enforce laws, rules and regulations for implementation of export controls in accordance with the Export Control Act and also serve as a licensing body. Pakistan has already notified a control list of goods, technologies, materials and equipment that incorporate the internationally accepted standard lists of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Australia Group dealing with biological agents and toxins, and the Missile Technology Control Regime. Ms Aslam said Pakistan is engaged in talks with members of the NSG for cooperation in setting up nuclear power plants. Daily Times - All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 7 WNN: Susan Eisenhower speaks at UN on role of nuclear energy 01 May 2007 Susan Eisenhower challenged people to find more on the facts on nuclear energy and its role in addressing climate change, energy security and energy availability. She said nuclear technologies could bring clean, cost-efficient energy to the developing world. Susan Eisenhower. Image: WNN Eisenhower told WNN that there were three major challenges to be faced; bringing prosperity to developing countries, addressing climate change and meeting the future rise in global demand for energy. More energy will be needed from sources that do not harm the environment. In addition, the international community will need to ensure that less powerful countries do not lose out in securing access to increasingly scarce energy resources. Eisenhower recalled the words of President Eisenhower spoken at the UN in 1953 when he said that the atom, then the greatest of destructive forces, could be developed into a great boon, for the benefit of all mankind. In the same meeting the role of the World Nuclear University was outlined by WNA's Per Jander, who explained the way in which the World Nuclear University promotes the development of skills, management and leadership amongst the nuclear industry's young professionals. The way in which the International Young Nuclear Congress promotes a greater understanding of the different cultures of those who participate in the congress was highlighted. Angela Howard spoke about the role of Women in Nuclear in providing information to women in the global community on nuclear technologies, not only for power generation, but in all areas of nuclear applications. ***************************************************************** 8 Times of India: US, India aim to seal historic nuclear deal soon- Updated: 2 May, 2007 0302hrs IST | Powered by Indiatimes WASHINGTON: Top US State Department official Nicholas Burns will head to India this month to try to wrap up a landmark nuclear pact after talks here achieved "extensive progress," a US official said on Tuesday. Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon held "excellent" and "positive" meetings with senior US officials including Burns and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, according to State Department spokesman Sean McCormack. "We look forward to resolving the outstanding issues in the weeks ahead," he said in a statement. Burns, the US under secretary of state for political affairs, will travel to India "in the second half of May to reach a final agreement," McCormack said. "Under Secretary Burns and Foreign Secretary Menon also agreed to continue our work together to bring stability and peace to the region," he added. According to Indian embassy spokesman Rahul Chhabra, Menon and Burns discussed "the entire gamut of Indo-US relations, including the civilian nuclear issue." The upbeat US tone signaled a prospective breakthrough for the nuclear deal, which is due to take full effect next year but which has languished since it was struck in July 2005. The US government had expressed frustration over the pace of the talks to implement the pact, which would give India access to US nuclear energy technology without requiring the Asian country to halt its atomic arms program. The deal is the centerpiece of energy-hungry India's new relationship with Washington after decades of Cold War tensions, as it tries to sustain its stunning economic expansion. In an opinion piece in Sunday's Washington Post, Burns predicted that "within a generation, Americans may view India as one of our two or three most important strategic partners." Burns said that Washington considers the nuclear deal, which the US Congress approved overwhelmingly in December, as the hallmark of the new warmer relations. "When fully implemented in 2008, this initiative will permit American and international companies to begin peaceful civilian nuclear cooperation with India for the first time in more than a generation," he said. But differences have persisted, chiefly over a clause which says the United States would withdraw civil nuclear fuel supplies and equipment if India breaches its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. Menon last week sought to dispel fears from Indian critics who say the agreement will hamper the country's nuclear weapons program, nine years after a round of Indian atomic tests sparked a tit-for-tat response from Pakistan. "Whatever we do with the US will not affect our nuclear strategic program," he said in a report tabled in the Indian parliament on Thursday. Menon launched two days of talks here on Monday, meeting first with Paula Dobriansky, the US under secretary of state for global affairs and democracy. The State Department described the talks as "productive," and said they covered a range of issues from democratic values to environmental conservation. Indian experts warn that New Delhi must act fast on the nuclear deal, arguing that with the US presidential elections looming next year the accord could soon drop off the radar screen in Washington. One likely outcome was a compromise on the agreement's wording, according to G. Balachandran, a visiting fellow at the Indian security think-tank Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. "The differences are over the consequences of nuclear testing. The Americans can't take away the right to test. It's a matter of reaching a compromise over the wording of the deal, not a compromise of interests," he said. Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 9 The Hindu: Menon in U.S., to hold talks on nuclear deal Tuesday, May 01, 2007 Shivshankar Menon Washington: Indian and U.S. officials will hold talks on Tuesday to iron out differences on a proposed agreement to put into operation the civilian nuclear deal. Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, who arrived here on Monday, will hold discussions on Tuesday with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns amid "frustration" here at the slow pace of negotiations and India's insistence on the right to reprocess spent nuclear fuel Senior officials of the two sides will join them. Mr. Menon's visit assumes importance in the backdrop of a perception here that the 123 Agreement negotiations between the two countries were not moving in the right pace. Significantly, the meeting between Mr. Menon and Mr. Burns will take place 10 days after senior officials from the two sides met in Cape Town, South Africa. Indian officials had said that "some progress" was made during the discussions but some differences remained and further parleys were required. Meet begins The fifth meeting of the India-United States Global Issues Forum got under way here with the formal start of talks between Mr. Menon and Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky. ? PTI Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 10 Daily Yomiuri: U.S. firms plan 34 N-plants Fourteen companies in the United States have already begun mapping out blueprints to build 34 nuclear power plants in line with a U.S. government plan to resume construction of such plants by 2010 to strengthen environmental protection and energy security, according to a survey by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Of these new power plants, 26 will include next-generation reactors, such as the advanced boiling water reactor (ABWR) and the latest reactor developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd., the U.S.-advanced pressurized water reactor (US-APWR). According to the commission, the new plants will include two TXU Corp. reactors using the US-APWR format, seven ABWR and economic simplified boiling water reactors by General Electric Co., 12 advanced pressurized water AP1000 reactors by Westinghouse Corp. and five European pressurized water reactors by France's Areva Group. With simplified nuclear reactor structures, these reactors are safer and more economical compared with conventional light water reactors. Nuclear power plant builders are undergoing a complex international realignment with Toshiba Corp. acquiring Westinghouse, Mitsubishi tying up with Areva, and Hitachi Ltd. and Toshiba joining forces with General Electric to build next-generation reactors. Along with China, where the demand for nuclear power plants is expected to increase, the construction of nuclear power plants in the United States is expected to have a significant impact on Japan's nuclear industry. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 11 Whitecourt Star: Nuclear power plant proposed for Whitecourt Whitecourt, AB May 1, 2007 Energy Alberta Corporation, an Alberta-based energy company, is actively looking at the town of Whitecourt and other Alberta communities as a potential host for a nuclear power plant. Submitted Tuesday May 01, 2007 The company has said they expect the plant to be part of an exciting new venture that will benefit Alberta for decades to come and will provide clean, emission free power required by the ever-growing oil sands projects. Company president Wayne Henuset said, “"Many of my businesses were in the oil patch. My father was an oilman. I know what insatiable appetite there is for oil. I know that Alberta is taking full advantage of this now and will for many years to come. I also know that it takes a huge amount of power to extract the oil from the oil sands. I know that this power comes at a cost to the environment. I wanted to do something about that. All roads led me to Nuclear power.” "After a lot of research and discussions with many people from all over the world, I believe Nuclear is the best way to produce the power the province needs." He said that he was not naïve enough to believe everyone in the community would have the same convictions and therefore he and other members of the company will be visiting Whitecourt in the next few weeks to speak with the community. "I need to speak with you, show you what the new nuclear technologies are now capable of," Henuset said, "I need to talk about the rewards, the environmental impacts and the alternatives. I need to show you what a nuclear facility will mean to you, your community and our province." Proprietor and published by Bowes Publishers Limited at 4732 - 50 Avenue, Whitecourt, Alberta, Canada T7S 1N7 © 2007 Whitecourt Star ***************************************************************** 12 Houston Chronicle: State OKs Cost Recovery for Nuclear Cos. | Chron.com - May 1, 2007, 2:33PM By ALAN SAYRE AP Business Writer © 2007 The Associated Press BATON ROUGE, La. — Entergy Corp. will be allowed to recover a small fraction of the costs of a new nuclear plant from its customers before power is ever generated, the Public Service Commission decided Tuesday. The 3-2 vote by the state commission does not mean there will be another nuclear generating plant. Rather, the commission adopted cost-recovery rules that New Orleans-based Entergy said needed to be in place before financing to build a nuclear generator could be obtained. Entergy has not decided whether to build a plant, but is looking at the sites of the current River Bend nuclear plant at St. Francisville, La., and the Grand Gulf nuclear plant at Port Gibson, Miss., as locations for its next nuclear generator. The rules cover any utility that wants to build a nuclear generator in Louisiana. So far, Entergy is the only company that has shown interest. Because of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and cost overruns that plagued projects in the 1970s and 1980s, it has been more than 20 years since the last new nuclear generator come on line in the United States. Entergy would have to show that the costs it wants to pass on to consumers are prudent, a finding that would be made by the PSC during annual reviews of a project's cost. Under the rules adopted Tuesday, the best chance for Entergy to recover costs early would be during the plant's actual construction, though the company could ask for reimbursement for part of the costs of choosing a plant site and getting a license and for the design and development stage. Michael Twomey, Entergy's vice president in charge of Louisiana regulatory affairs, said about 90 percent of a nuclear plant's costs would still be recovered from ratepayers after generation began. But he said that by allowing Entergy to collect interest on construction costs, the eventual bill to ratepayers would be spread out and, overall, less by reducing interest that is carried over the entire length of developing and building the project. The commission adopted the rules on a 3-2 vote. Commissioner Jimmy Field said he wanted to wait until Entergy presented a formal proposal to build a plant before adopting cost-recovery rules. Commissioner Foster Campbell said he wasn't convinced that early recovery was needed for Entergy, which is enjoying a strong financial showing. But commission Chairman Jay Blossman said that without some rules in place on cost recovery, Wall Street would not be willing to risk a nuclear project in light of the problems that chilled the utility industry 20 years ago. "The problem is that if we don't approve this, and Mississippi does, the plant will go to Mississippi," Blossman said. In addition to a potentially cheaper source of energy to generate power long-term, Commissioner Dale Sittig pointed to economic projections that a new nuclear generator would create 1,200 to 1,500 construction jobs and 600 permanent jobs. The final cost-recovery rules were proposed by Commissioner Lambert Boissiere, who said they would enable Entergy to get financing for a project, while protecting ratepayers from improper cost overruns. Typically, power companies collect the cost of building new plants from customers after the facilities are up and running. But the utility industry has a track record of nuclear projects blowing out original price projections, including one case that nearly bankrupted a Louisiana power provider. In 1971, the initial cost of Gulf States Utilities' River Bend plant was projected at $307 million. By the time the plant went into operation in 1986, the bill was $4.4 billion. Entergy's Waterford III plant at Taft, La., had a 1977 price tag of $815 million, which grew to $2.5 billion by the time the generators began turning in 1985. The PSC, in a review of River Bend costs, ruled Gulf States had been imprudent in continuing the project after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and refused to allow the company to pass on $1.4 billion in costs to its customers. Left in a shaky financial state, Gulf States was purchased in 1993 by Entergy. Over the past two decades, once-inexpensive natural gas became the fuel of choice for generating power. But after skyrocketing gas prices over the past few years, Congress in 2005 approved loan guarantees for new reactors. The PSC asked its staff last year to draw up new rules that could encourage nuclear development. Similar rules have been adopted by other states, including Florida, Georgia and Indiana. ***************************************************************** 13 Houston Chronicle: NRC tightens access to college reactors | Chron.com - May 1, 2007, 6:40PM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced tighter security requirements Tuesday for research and test reactors, located mostly at universities. Under the new rules, any person seeking unescorted access to a research or test reactor facility must be fingerprinted and undergo an FBI background check. In the past such checks were required only for reactor facility employees with access to sensitive security information. The new security measures were required by Congress as part a broad energy law passed in 2005. There are 33 research and test reactors under NRC regulations. Most are at universities, although a few are operated by government agencies. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there has been concern that terrorists might target the smaller research reactors that do not have the same level of protection as commercial nuclear power plants. Universities have increased security at their reactors in recent years. NRC Chairman Dale Klein said in a statement that the new requirements are "one of many steps the NRC has taken ... to keep U.S. research reactors secure." "I believe the level of security is appropriate for those educational facilities to continue safely serving their students, their communities and the country," said Klein, who oversaw a research reactor program while at the University of Texas. Separately, the Energy Department has had a program to replace highly enriched uranium at research reactors with low-enriched uranium, which cannot be used in a nuclear bomb. Only a few reactors in the United States continue to use highly enriched uranium. ***************************************************************** 14 Vermont Guardian: Business leaders decry tax on Vermont Yankee May 1, 2007 MONTPELIER – A group of Vermont business executives Monday proposed an alternative to a new tax on Vermont Yankee as a way to fund Vermont’s proposed new all fuels efficiency utility. The proposal would provide $5 million in start up funds for the non-electric energy efficiency fund by tapping the Clean Energy Development Fund (CEDF), and money targeted for Efficiency Vermont. “We commend the Legislature’s focus on reducing CO2 emissions from non-electric sources in Vermont. The new entity to be charged with this task will not be up and running until January 1, 2009, under pending legislation. Our proposal would provide $5 million by that date from existing revenue sources without raising taxes,” said Lisa Ventriss, president of the Vermont Business Roundtable, in a statement. The group’s proposal would use unspent and uncommitted funds from FY 07 and FY 08 revenues that go to Vermont’s existing Clean Energy Development Fund. These funds are generated by existing payments to the state by Vermont Yankee as part of its power uprate and storage of nuclear waste in dry casks along the Connecticut River. The proposal would also tap funds to be received by Vermont’s existing efficiency utility from so-called forward capacity payments, which reflect electric energy being saved by Efficiency Vermont. Pres. Pro tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, last week proposed a tax on gross revenues from Vermont Yankee. Business leaders said the new tax on Vermont Yankee will have a negative impact on Vermont’s economy and business reputation. “IBM must have reliable, affordable base-load power to operate successfully in Vermont. The tax being proposed has not been thought through and is likely to threaten the availability of base-load resources not only from Vermont Yankee but from other potential suppliers who will view Vermont as an unreliable partner and customer,” said John O’Kane, a top lobbyist for IBM. Others echoed O’Kane’s sentiment. “We have worked very hard over the years to try and make Vermont a place where we can remain in business and support our communities. By risking future energy costs and creating an unpredictable tax environment for businesses, this proposed tax on Vermont Yankee threatens to seriously undermine this work,” said Kellie Morton, human resources manager at General Electric. One top utility official said the tax on Vermont Yankee would likely get passed on to consumers. “Nothing is free. If a business has a tax imposed on it, it will collect the costs associated with that tax, one way or another, sooner or later. My concern is that a tax on a major power supplier to Vermont will make more difficult the negotiations that the utilities in Vermont have underway with the power suppliers that now provide us with relatively carbon-free electricity under long-term contracts,” said Christopher Dutton, chief executive officer of Green Mountain Power. A spokesman for Renewable Energy Vermont (REV) decried the move, saying that taking money from the clean energy fund before it even gets off the ground will undermine its efforts to help bring more renewable power sources to market. “The suggestion to rob from the CEDF to pay for the new efficiency program is a zero-sum proposal and would be a significant step backward from reaching the goals set out in the creation of the CEDF,” said Andrew Perchlik, REV’s executive director. “Communities that want to re-power existing hydro dams, farmers that want to produce electricity from their waste and crops, home owners and businesses that want to produce their own renewable energy, colleges and towns that are seeking to produce power and heat for their campuses and communities, and schools that want to lower their energy costs with local energy sources can all seek funding from the CEDF. There are no other sources of state money to assist these important projects.” Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 603, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free) ©2007 Vermont Guardian | Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com This document can be located online: www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/052007/050107.shtml ***************************************************************** 15 newsobserver.com: Nuclear positives Tuesday, May 1, 2007 Raleigh · Durham · Cary · Chapel Hill Letters Home / Opinion / Letters It seems production of more nuclear waste as a stumbling block to building new nuclear plants is only in the minds of the anti-nuclear power groups ("Nuclear foes see danger in waste, news story, April 15). Electric utilities have made their intentions official that they wish to build at least 30 nuclear plants in the coming years, including plants in the Carolinas. Public opinion about nuclear energy, already generally supportive, continues to grow as people learn more about the effects of burning fossil fuels. With the alternatives for producing electricity mostly the burning of more fossil fuels, it seems dealing with the relatively small amounts of nuclear waste is not nearly that big a problem. To put it in perspective, the volume of high-level nuclear waste you could attribute to a person if all his electricity for one year came from nuclear would be about the size of an aspirin bottle. Certainly we must properly dispose of used nuclear fuels, and it is expected that the facility under development at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, will serve that purpose. In the world of energy, there are no perfect answers, only better and worse choices. W.D. Walker J.B. Duke professor emeritus, Duke University Durham All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, ***************************************************************** 16 RIA Novosti: Atomstroyexport puts Chinese NPP's 2nd unit to minimum capacity 17:26 | 01/ 05/ 2007 MOSCOW, May 1 (RIA Novosti) - The second power unit of a Chinese nuclear power plant has been put to minimum capacity, Russia's nuclear equipment export monopoly said Tuesday. "The second power unit of the Tianwan NPP has been launched at a minimum controlled capacity," said Irina Yesipova, press spokesperson of Atomstroyexport. Fuel was loaded into the generating unit in March. The company plans to connect the unit to the Asian nation's power grid in June and launch it at maximum capacity in the second half of 2007. Atomstroyexport is building the NPP in eastern China's port city of Lianyungangt under a 1992 bilateral agreement. It features improved VVER-1000 reactors and K-100-6/3000 turbo-generators. The first unit was put to full capacity April 20. The two reactors' capacity is estimated at 2,000 MW. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 17 Buffalo News: Plant's downside largely unaddressed in relicensing deal Updated: 05/01/07 10:12 AM Construction of the Niagara Power Project a half-century ago wasn’t kind to the environment or the pocketbooks of numerous local governments and school boards. The new license granted in March to the New York Power Authority to continue operating the plant makes gestures toward addressing economic and environmental issues — but in a pennies- on-the-dollar kind of way, The Buffalo News has determined. Unlike the privately owned Schoellkopf plant it replaced some 50 years ago, the New York Power Authority’s facility is exempt from paying property taxes. That cost Niagara Falls alone some $239 million in city and school taxes from 1982 to 2003. Estimates have pegged the lost tax revenues to schools and local governments to anywhere from $35 million to $58 million a year countywide. “In exchange for relinquishing a large part of their property tax base, the host communities were promised more jobs, higher incomes, prosperity and even higher property tax revenues,” said a report by FMY Associates, a consulting group that was commissioned about five years ago by the Niagara Power Coalition. But the report contended the promise of prosperity didn’t follow. “It is easy to see that rather than helping the host communities, the project has had a substantial negative effect,” the report continued. “The host communities were effectively forced to subsidize other communities through the provision of low-cost power.” As part of its settlement with the Niagara Power Coalition, the authority agreed to compensate seven local governments and school districts — Niagara County, Niagara Falls, the towns of Lewiston and Niagara and the Niagara Falls, Niagara-Wheatfield and Lewiston-Porter school districts. They’ll divide $5 million annually for 50 years. That’s worth $89 million when future inflation is taken into account. The coalition can also purchase 25 megawatts of low-cost power from the authority to power its facilities or use to promote economic development. The out-of-pocket cost to the authority is $1.8 million a year — a fraction of what it would pay in property taxes. Although the New York authority has long opposed making payments to local governments to make up for lost tax revenue, privately owned plants pay taxes, including one in the Niagara County Town of Somerset, which pays $18 million a year in county, town and school taxes. There are also examples of payments from other nonprofit entities. The hydropower plant that sits directly across from the Lewiston facility in Niagara Falls, Ont., makes such payments to its host community. The provincial corporation that operates the plant paid the Canadian city $2.6 million last year. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which produces electricity for portions of seven states, returns 5 percent of its revenues to the states and counties where its generating plants are located. Last year, that amounted to $376 million. The operator of nuclear power plants in Lacey Township. N.J., pays about $1.5 million annually in property taxes and $11.9 million in other taxes pegged to plant revenue. Together, these taxes provide the town more than half its operating revenue. New York State government makes payments in lieu of property taxes to Albany for its considerable land holdings in the capital. The payment last year totaled $10.7 million. The authority’s new federal license also commits the authority to spend $61 million in inflation- adjusted dollars over 50 years to mitigate the impact of the plant’s operation on the Niagara River. The focus of the planned work is restoration of wetlands and bird, fish and wildlife habitats and improved public access to the river. The work does not address what in some cases is irreversible environmental damage caused by the plant’s construction, which occurred before environmental laws were on the books. The federal relicensing process considers the impact of plant operations, but not prior construction. The plant’s construction couldn’t help but have an impact. The work included the blasting of 13 million cubic yards of rock and the transport of 34 million cubic yards of stone and earth. Intakes were built and tunnels dug to carry the water diverted from the river some 4.5 miles to the generation plant. The Robert Moses Parkway was also built, running along the Niagara River and Niagara Gorge. Blasted rock was dumped in the Niagara Escarpment, destroying a portion of it. Construction of the parkway wiped out wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas along the Niagara River, damaged the top of the Niagara Gorge and disrupted its ecosystem. Several feeder creeks were wiped out, and underground water tables were altered. Variations of up to 12 feet a day in water levels -- up to three-quarters of the water that would otherwise go over the falls is diverted for generation -- erode shorelines and disrupt fish and plant life. "You can't do a project of that scale and scope without having an impact. It's going to alter the environment substantially," said Barry Boyer, a board member of Buffalo-Niagara Riverkeeper who was involved in relicensing negotiations. Couple the impact of the plant with pollution from nearby industries and you have damaged goods -- "half a river," in the words of one government environmental official. "What's been most devasting," Boyer said, "is the chemical industry there. The pollution that comes from it, the alteration of the shoreline. Hydropower development has been part and parcel of that." -- By James Heaney jheaney@buffnews.com Copyright 1999 - 2007 - The Buffalo News copyright-protected ***************************************************************** 18 BT: The Nuclear Option www.businesstn.com Business Tennessee Still bearing the scars—and financial burden—of the past, TVA ventures once more into the breach By Allison Gorman Popular wisdom holds that safety concerns, fueled by the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, Penn., eventually shuttered nuclear construction by the Tennessee Valley Authority?the most ambitious commercial nuclear power program in United States history. Not so, says David Freeman, the former TVA chairman largely credited with putting the brakes on the utility?s nuclear construction in the 1980s. ?We had to shut them down, even though they were under construction, because they cost too much,? he recalls. ?We didn?t shut those plants down on account of their being unsafe. That should have been a reason, but it was the economics.? Some 20 years later, as TVA still carries most of the debt from its first nuclear program, the nation?s largest public utility is poised to incur further debt to launch a second wave of nuclear construction?less ambitious, to be sure, but with the same party bearing the financial risk: the ratepayer inside of TVA?s ?fence.? The fallout Ratepayers on both sides of that fence paid for the past failures of nuclear power; Three Mile Island was just the final blow to an entire industry in meltdown. Nationwide, utilities that had invested in the promise of clean, relatively inexpensive nuclear energy instead faced spiraling cost overruns compounded by stricter federal regulation. But because of TVA?s unique political nature, the fallout from its first nuclear program was particularly heavy. Congress, charged with overseeing the nation?s largest public utility, did not have the will to cancel massive construction projects that, though financially disastrous, nonetheless translated into jobs for cash-strapped rural areas. The result was a $27.7 billion debt?most of which is still with TVA, and the cost of which has been shouldered entirely by the utility?s ratepayers, who don?t have stockholders to share the burden. Freeman, now an outspoken opponent of nuclear energy, says it was the Tennessee Valley?s businesspeople, frustrated with debt-related rate hikes, who finally gave him the leverage to cease TVA?s nuclear construction. ?It took a lot of political courage to shut down those plants with those thousands of construction workers put out of a job, and I?m very proud that we had the integrity to do it,? he says. ?But if we hadn?t, TVA would be broke now.? In fact, numerous analyses?ranging from the halls of academia to the General Accounting Office?have depicted the utility as perilously close to ?broke.? As recently as four years ago, economists Dennis Logue and Paul MacAvoy assessed TVA?s balance sheets through fiscal year 2000 and concluded that if TVA were a private utility, answerable to stockholders, it would be considered ?virtually insolvent.? Now, recent developments at TVA are inviting more overt comparison to private utilities, which in 2004 served as the model for legislation updating the governance of the 74-year-old, self-funded federal agency. ?A committee of three should not be running an $8 billion-a-year business, which is what a utility is,? says Sen. Lamar Alexander, who was a strong supporter of the legislation crafted by then-Sen. Bill Frist. As of last year, TVA?s three-director board was replaced by a nine-member, part-time board, which oversees Tom Kilgore in the newly created position of CEO. As of March, that new governance was still hammering out details of a ?strategic plan,? which Kilgore says will be ?evolutionary, not revolutionary.? Revolutionary or not, the plan will depart from TVA?s more recent long-term strategies, which sought to reduce its debt (albeit with only marginal success). Board member Dennis Bottorff, a primary architect of the utility?s new financial strategy, says his 30-plus years as a Nashville banker give him a broader perspective on TVA?s debt, which he insists cannot be singled out as an indicator of the utility?s health. While its debt currently stands at some $25 billion, for example, its debts-to-assets ratio has declined?a truer measure of TVA?s financial viability, he says. Recasting the debt in relative terms is essential to TVA?s nuclear future, which is set to begin this month with the restart of a long-idle nuclear reactor at TVA?s Browns Ferry plant in Athens, Ala. If the restart is successful, TVA hopes within a decade to finish a partly built reactor at its Watts Bar plant in Spring City, Tenn., and to build two new reactors, featuring as-yet-untested technology, at its Bellefonte site in Hollywood, Ala. While TVA paid for the $1.8 billion Browns Ferry restart out of operating revenue, Kilgore says TVA will incur new debt to help fund new nuclear construction. Kilgore and others at TVA are quick to differentiate this new nuclear program from its predecessor. TVA historically has blamed the failures of its first nuclear program on its magnitude?the near-simultaneous construction of 17 reactors. They say their second foray into nuclear construction will be far more modest and sequential than their first. And while Alexander has hailed the utility?s ?willingness to be a pioneer in the area of nuclear power,? Kilgore rejects the use of the term ?pioneer? to describe TVA, whose return to nuclear construction he considers relatively cautious. Still, the restart of Browns Ferry 1 is significant: It is the first commercial nuclear reactor to come online in the United States since 1997, when TVA?s Watts Bar Unit 1 in Spring City, Tenn., started up $7 billion and 23 years after groundbreaking. And it represents TVA?s renewed investment in an industry once seemingly ruled by Murphy?s Law. Digging a hole The day the Three Mile Island story broke, Dennis Logue, then a professor of economics, watched the television coverage from a hotel lobby in Hanover, N.H. He was between meetings with the vice president of the board of General Electric, which held a number of fixed-price contracts to build nuclear plants. ?He said, ?I hope nobody?s hurt, but I?m glad we?re not going to have to build any more of these plants, because we?re losing money on them,?? Logue recalls. Although no one was injured at Three Mile Island, it reawakened Americans? long-simmering fear of nuclear energy and inspired tougher, costly Nuclear Regulatory Commission standards. The accident served as a catalyst to eventually shutter new nuclear construction in the United States. But as private utilities succumbed to financial pressures to stop nuclear investment, TVA lumbered along, unable to stop the momentum of projects running out of control. When Allan Pulsipher became TVA?s chief economist in 1980, Watts Bar 1 was in its seventh year of construction, and the project records he reviewed indicated that the number of man-hours to complete the project was actually growing each year. ?It was your classic case of when you?re in a hole, don?t continue to dig,? Pulsipher says. By the time Watts Bar 1 came online 17 years later, TVA had dug itself into a hole nearly $28 billion deep. ?It was an unending situation of cost overruns,? Pulsipher says. ?And then once it became apparent?at least to people in the agency?what was happening, and it became politically possible to question nuclear power, then the resistance to canceling those plans was not on TVA?s part. It was on the part of the political leadership that was in control.? Whose agency is it, anyway? According to Pulsipher, TVA?s money troubles began with internally generated, low-ball project cost estimates, and then were compounded by TVA?s relative exemption from government scrutiny. While its balance sheets are subject to review by several bodies, including the GAO and the Office of Management and Budget, TVA?s only actionable directives must come from Congress. And legislative oversight of the utility has been sporadic at best, say critics like Stephen Smith, executive director of TVA watchdog organization Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. Smith says the recent Republican-controlled Congress seemed especially reluctant to scrutinize the utility, so as a result, ?TVA makes a decision, and then it regulates itself. It has no accountability.? In pushing management reform at TVA, Frist and Alexander implicitly acknowledged long-standing questions about accountability; their legislation in the 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act required the utility to file its first 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission last December. ?I think they?re getting better in some of their reporting,? Smith says. ?But who is holding them accountable? Who is taking those reports, scrutinizing them and then bringing the decision-makers at TVA to account for what they?ve done? Where is there an honest discussion about whether TVA could spend $3 billion and moderate demand over spending $3 billion and building a new facility?? ?The SEC looks at [the 10-K] and sees that it complies with its format,? Kilgore says, ?but if somebody?s going to be bothered, it?s probably going to be a congressman or a senator or someone like that.? Alexander says he?s unclear who?s charged with assessing the exhaustive financial report: ?If [TVA] files with the SEC, I?d assume it?s the SEC. TVA would have to answer that question.? Ultimately, it?s hard to say whether Congress represents any more substantive oversight of TVA now than it did during the two decades the utility was digging its expensive hole. Alexander, who co-chairs the TVA Congressional Caucus, says TVA?s new governance clarifies the lines of accountability?from CEO to board to Congress?but warns that Congress should not ?micromanage? TVA. There does seem to be an inherent conflict in Congress?s dual role as both enforcer and advocate, especially in the Tennessee Valley. During the interview for this story, Alexander both touted TVA?s ?good strategic plan? and mentioned that he hadn?t yet seen it. Liability or security? Congress also serves as de facto advocate for another group?TVA?s ratepayers, who could end up paying for further debt service as well as any cost overruns involved in new nuclear construction. Unable to sell equity, TVA must sell bonds to finance capital projects; debt service it can?t absorb is passed along to its ratepayers, who have no equivalent of a utilities board to arbitrate rate-setting. As a publicly elected body, Alexander says, Congress is accountable to and an advocate for TVA?s ratepayers. But he adds that legislators should stay out of rate-setting. ?We don?t need 15 congressmen micromanaging individual decisions,? he says. That hands-off policy was especially painful for ratepayers in the wake of TVA?s first nuclear program, when the utility raised rates 88% in 10 years to recover capital costs of several cancelled projects, according to the Logue/MacAvoy report. Fortunately for Congress and for TVA, rates lately have been an issue only in a relatively small part of the TVA utility area. Except in Kentucky, where a handful of distributors have debated jumping the TVA fence, the utility?s rates have fallen in line with rates just outside the fence. It has reduced the sting of debt service through modest debt reduction as well as refinancing its high-cost debt, thanks to recent, historically low interest rates. As a result, ratepayers? share in the debt service has fallen from 34 to 14 cents per dollar since 1997. Jack Simmons, president and CEO of the Tennessee Valley Public Power Association (TVPPA) that represents TVA?s 158 distributors, says he?s not bothered by the level of TVA?s debt. In fact, he says, he regards the debt less as a liability than as security against a buyout, like the recent $45 billion takeover of utility giant TXU Corp. by private equity firms. But Freeman warns that new nuclear debt will end up costing TVA?s ratepayers: ?The most important point you can make to the business community is that if they think their electric rates are too low, and they want to see them increase, this is a sure bet; they need to support this nuclear program.? To the last watt Freeman and Smith, along with other environmentalists, suggest TVA could save itself money and trouble by following the lead of California, which largely resolved its own energy crisis through demand-side initiatives. (Smith has called TVA?s ?Green Power Switch? program little more than political window dressing.) ?Perhaps we haven?t been as committed to that as we should have been,? Kilgore concedes, adding that TVA?s newly written peak-time conservation measures will be incentivized. But even the most ambitious initiatives won?t fulfill TVA?s future generation needs, Kilgore says. Its five working nuclear reactors operate near capacity, its hydroelectric potential is finite, and according to TVA, the high ratio of cost to output doesn?t justify large-scale use of ultra-green solar and wind power. Clean-burning natural gas is currently triple the cost of coal, and Kilgore says clean coal gasification technology still needs to be refined. With 57% of its current generation from fossil fuel plants, TVA has spent $4.6 billion just to stay in line with the EPA?s tightening air pollution controls requirements and almost certainly faces more restrictive legislation in the future. While retrofit technology will stretch the lifetime of some coal-burning units by decades, Kilgore says, about 10 of TVA?s 59 coal units are candidates for decommissioning within the next 10 to 20 years. Already, TVA meets peak demand with $1 billion annually in purchased power, which in 2006 translated roughly to 1.26 million homes worth of power. (Kilgore says that cost necessitated its two most recent rate hikes.) A successful restart this month at Browns Ferry, Kilgore says, would significantly relieve the pressure; TVA?s electrical output will increase by 3%, enough to serve 650,000 additional homes. And if the calendar and the budget can gauge success, Browns Ferry 1 looks good to go. Weeks before planned startup and five years after the project was approved, it appeared to be on schedule and reasonably close to its original $1.8 billion budget. The significance of that fact isn?t lost on Kilgore. ?No nuclear project that I know of in the ?70s or ?80s went the life of the project without having to have several revisions,? he says. ?We have all gotten a lot better at this.? The anticipated success of the Browns Ferry restart inspired TVA?s new governance to seek additional nuclear generation, Kilgore says. Last year, the board commissioned a study, due this summer, of the completion of the never-finished Watts Bar unit 2, anticipated to cost about $2 billion. Meanwhile TVA joined NuStart LLC, a consortium of utilities formed to test the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?s new, streamlined licensing for next-generation reactors. NuStart chose Bellefonte as a likely building site for two as-yet-untested Westinghouse AP-1000 units. NuStart would split with the Department of Energy the $50 million licensing cost, which TVA would pay back if the plants are built. Assuming other generation sources remain constant, TVA could increase its percentage of nuclear generation from 29% to 41% of its energy portfolio within a decade. TVA?s stated goal is to have the largest nuclear generation capacity of any utility in the United States. Risk vs. reward Industry advocates point to heavily nuclear France and Japan as evidence that nuclear technologies can operate reliably and safely on a large scale. Currently, TVA?s nuclear generation is highly reliable, operating at about 90% capacity. Twenty years ago, Pulsipher says, 60% was considered optimal. ?That makes a big difference,? he says. ?When you?ve got that much money invested, you want to keep that running as much as you can. So granted, [they] know how to run the older generation plant. Now you?re talking about a much different situation. When they build new plants or complete old plants, do they know how to do that efficiently? I think that?s an area where the public needs some independent analysis.? TVA does seem to be shedding the exclusivity that by all accounts exacerbated its past nuclear headaches. While its old reactors were engineered and built in-house, TVA would likely contract out all but project management, Kilgore says. Still, contractors don?t guarantee against cost overruns. (?The people who are going to be doing this are Halliburton once removed,? Pulsipher says. ?They don?t lose money on contracts.?) The Browns Ferry 1 restart has been largely outsourced, as well. And while TVA once generated its own, famously inaccurate cost estimates for nuclear projects, it commissioned industry experts Bechtel Power Corp., Sargent & Lundy LLC and Washington Group to assess completion of Watts Bar 2. Even with the best engineering and planning, though, there is heightened statistical probability of problems or accidents in the ?infancy? stage of a nuclear reactor, especially one built with new technology, says Dave Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Kilgore notes that Browns Ferry 1 and Watts Bar 2 are technologically similar to other working reactors on site; and while TVA builds Watts Bar 2, he says, other large utilities will be the real ?pioneers,? racing to build next-generation technologies to reap new government incentives not available to TVA. Still, as TVA?s portfolio is weighted more heavily toward nuclear generation, it buys into more of the risk unique to nuclear energy?that is, that a single safety or terrorist incident involving a reactor anywhere in the world would effectively sideline all commercial nuclear generation. Rep. Jim Cooper says he?s come to the conclusion that nuclear power appears to be TVA?s best clean-energy option right now. (Even some environmentalists quietly agree, he says.) But he has reservations: ?TVA will almost single-handedly have revived the nuclear industry in America if this works. If it doesn?t, and we have another Three Mile Island, then the nuclear industry is dead in America for generations. So there is a tremendous amount at stake in Browns Ferry, and apparently soon at Watts Bar.? Freeman questions the wisdom of investing in ?a second nuclear era that has no legs to it. I can?t really fault the TVA organization for going nuclear the first time?but to go back there after TVA?s experience? The only thing new is the history we forgot.? The debt redux TVA?s failure to meet past debt-reduction goals is a bit of history board member Bottorff says he prefers not to revisit. ?I would really rather focus on the future,? he says?and a nuclear future almost certainly precludes overall debt reduction. The utility?s most recent financial strategies were revised before they ran their course. A plan unveiled in 1997 aimed to cut the utility?s debt from $27.7 billion to $14 billion by 2007; currently the utility?s long-term debt stands at $23 billion, plus another $2 billion in financing obligations. But last year it announced a new strategy, with a goal of reducing its debt by nearly $8 billion?about a third?by 2016. Then, early this year, TVA told the OMB it would likely reduce its emphasis on debt reduction to focus on new power generation and pollution controls. Kilgore says TVA still plans to reduce its legacy debt?its latest pay-down estimates to the OMB were $529 million this year and an additional $553 million in fiscal 2008. At the same time, he said, TVA likely would incur new debt to help pay for completion of Watts Bar 2, and new construction at Bellefonte could necessitate a raise in TVA?s $30 billion debt ceiling, set in 1979. ?We?re paying down some of these older plants that are being depreciated, and we?re paying down some debt. If you look at how much debt we?re paying down, [within a decade] we may have generated enough headroom under our current ceiling. We?d have to have some new debt, but whether or not we?d have to have a new debt ceiling is still, I?d say, highly debatable.? TVA?s willingness to publicly reverse course on the debt reflects the new governance?s strong conviction that previous strategies?and criticisms?have failed to assess TVA?s debt in its proper context. ?We are beginning to talk about debt not in absolute terms, but in terms of the sound financial ability for TVA to be able to service debt?and of what the proper mix of equity to debt in an organization like TVA is,? Bottorff says. TVA?s ability to service debt seems secure for now; as long as TVA operates essentially as an unregulated monopoly, with no equivalent of a utilities commission to deny rate increases, it will have the ability to pass the cost of debt along to ratepayers. Bottorff further notes TVA?s ?cost of capital??its ability, as a federal agency with a AAA bond rating, to incur debt at a relatively low interest rate. (It?s worth noting, however, that such a competitive advantage would be reduced commensurate with the scale of TVA's debt relative to that of other utilities.) Most utilities are heavily indebted, with an acceptable debt load averaging 50% to 60% of assets, says economist Dennis Logue. And while changes in TVA?s reporting methods complicate a direct comparison of its 1997 and 2007 balance sheets, they indicate a decrease in the utility?s debts-to-assets ratio from 80% to about 73% over the past decade. From its 1997 high of $27.7 billion, TVA has cut its debt to just under $25 billion. During the same period TVA?s listed total assets have stayed relatively constant, at about $34.5 billion. (The increased value of Browns Ferry 1 has helped offset the 2001 write-off of the long-deferred Bellefonte and Watts Bar 2 projects.) Still, TVA is a highly leveraged business; with $31.6 billion in total liabilities, the utility has some $2.7 billion in equity. It?s hard to project how new nuclear construction would affect that mix, as increased debt would be accompanied by increased assets as new reactors come online?if all goes according to plan. The Achilles? heel effect ?If all goes according to plan??in any analysis of TVA?s future, that?s the operative phrase. Kilgore and the new TVA board emphatically state their new strategic plan will facilitate their mission statement: ?to provide reliable, low-cost, clean power to the Tennessee Valley.? The advocate for the Valley ratepayer, Bottorff says, ?should be this board that raised its hand and swore to that mission statement.? Kilgore and the board?s dedication to ratepayer concerns seems genuine; Jack Simmons says while the utility?s former leadership treated TVPPA as ?a necessary evil,? its new governance has been engaged and open??not like political appointees at all.? That new, voluntary openness?both to distributors and, increasingly, to independent counsel, suggest a true shift within the walls of TVA. But there has been no commensurate shift outside those walls, where the federal government appears content to let TVA regulate itself?shaky assurance for the ratepayer should things not go according to plan. For the TVA ratepayer?which includes virtually every business owner in Tennessee?the next few years should be ones of close attention, if not held breath, as TVA embarks once again into the nuclear arena. It?s a multi-billion-dollar endeavor that can be undone by one mishap?be it terrorist attack, human error or equipment failure. And whether deemed a necessary calculated risk or a regrettable retread of past mistakes, energy costs for an entire region are at stake. Feedback: ruble@businesstn.com Copyright © 2006 Business Tennessee magazine. ***************************************************************** 19 NRC: NRC Issues Security Order to Research and Test Reactors News Release - 2007-055 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov www.nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in accordance with the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, has issued an immediately effective Order imposing additional fingerprinting and criminal history check requirements on the nation’s research and test reactors. Research and test reactors must now ensure people currently allowed unescorted access to the facilities, or people requesting such access, are fingerprinted and undergo a criminal history check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The NRC already requires these facilities to perform these checks on employees with access to sensitive security information. “This is one of many steps the NRC has taken in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, to keep U.S. research reactors secure,” said NRC Chairman Dale E. Klein. “Based on the staff’s work and my earlier experience overseeing the research reactor program at the University of Texas at Austin, I believe the level of security is appropriate for these educational facilities to continue safely serving their students, their communities and the country.” “Unescorted access” means a person could control the radioactive material to be protected at the research reactor without being detected by several kinds of security systems or personnel. The Order requires that the results of the criminal history check can be reviewed only by an NRC-approved individual at the facility. If an employee has a recently completed criminal history check, an additional check would not be required. Facilities covered by the Order have 20 days to establish a fingerprinting program. These facilities must notify the NRC at the end of those 20 days whether they will be able to comply with the Order, or explain why specific provisions of the Order are unnecessary at a facility. The NRC is also planning to propose revising its regulations to impose the Order’s requirements on a permanent basis. The Order will be available on the NRC’s Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/security/ NRC news releases are available through a free list server 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. Tuesday, May 01, 2007 ***************************************************************** 20 APP.COM: Nuclear power plant gets repairs | Asbury Park Press Online Tuesday, May 1, 2007 BY NICK CLUNN STAFF WRITER Post Comment LACEY — The Oyster Creek nuclear power plant has been shut down temporarily and isn't expected to reconnect to the electrical grid until Thursday as operators repair two key pumps and perform other scheduled repairs, according to a plant spokeswoman. There were no reported fish deaths or any other environmental harm caused by the shutdown, which began Friday night, according to both the spokeswoman for Oyster Creek, Leslie Cifelli, and the state Department of Environmental Protection. Power customers do not experience outages when Oyster Creek shuts down because New Jersey is tied to a regional electrical grid that is fed by other plants. During the outage, operators will attempt to repair seals on two of the plant's five recirculation pumps, which are needed to bring cooling water into the plant. Cifelli said the seals on the kind of recirculation pumps used at Oyster Creek have degraded at other nuclear plants. AmerGen in January 2006 shut down the plant for nine days to allow for the repair of two recirculation pumps. One pump had a faulty seal, and the other had a motor problem. Nick Clunn: (732) 643-4072 or nclunn@app.com Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point to test sirens over next 8 days Tuesday, May 1, 2007 By GREG CLARY BUCHANAN - Indian Point plans a series of tests for its new emergency siren system today, with local residents likely to hear two soundings of the siren nearest to them, about an hour apart, according to the New York State Emergency Management Office's Web site. The siren tests will last about eight days, as the company works to solve problems with the new $15 million system that have centered on triggering alert notifications via radio and microwave disc technology. The company missed an April 15 deadline to install the new system and has been fined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission $130,000. Until the new system is in place, the current system will be used to alert residents in the event of a real emergency. The test soundings will happen throughout the four counties in the 10-mile emergency evacuation area around the nuclear plants - Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Orange. Soundings will be between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. daily. There will be two tests at each location about one hour apart. Officials from Entergy Nuclear Northeast, the owner and operator of Indian Point, said they will test 16 sirens in the next eight business days. The days may not be consecutive depending on various factors, including county approval, weather and accessibility. The company also plans to notify residents about the nearest siren, using the Code Red telephone system sometimes known as reverse 911. The public is not required to take any action during the tests. For more information, visit the state's emergency management Web site at http://jic.semo.state. ny.us. Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. Copyright © 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 22 Journal News: Entergy files application for new 20-year Indian Point licenses Tuesday, May 1, 2007 BUCHANAN (AP) - As expected, the owner of the Indian Point nuclear power plants filed a huge application with federal regulators yesterday, seeking new licenses that would keep the two reactors running until the 2030s. Entergy Nuclear Northeast had announced in November that it would seek new 20-year licenses for when current licenses expire in 2013 and 2015. The application, which fills 80 compact discs in its electronic form and more than 2,500 pages in print, reached the offices of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission late yesterday morning, NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said. The application is expected to set off a new political battle over the reactors, which supply about a quarter of the power used in New York City and Westchester County. Opposition has grown since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York, and the plants have recently been plagued with unscheduled shutdowns, spotty emergency siren service and radioactive leaks into groundwater. The NRC will post the application on its Web site, probably by Wednesday, and will take about two months to determine if the application is acceptable, Sheehan said. The public would then get 60 days to request a hearing. Legislation that would require the two plants, Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3, to undergo an independent safety assessment before being relicensed is pending in the House and Senate. The NRC says its current scrutiny of Indian Point makes an independent assessment unnecessary. Entergy Vice President Fred Dacimo said, "We are extremely proud of these two great facilities and look forward to operating them for many years to come." Copyright © 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 23 recordonline.com: Twenty more years of nuke power? It's up to you May 01, 2007 The Hudson Valley's congressional delegation wants the public to have a greater say in deciding whether Indian Point operates into the 2030s. In a letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Dale Klein, five of the region's House members — led by Rep. John Hall, D-Dover Plains — warned that recent problems at the Westchester County nuclear plant threaten the long-term health of the region. And they called for "a robust series" of hearings before a license extension is granted. On Monday, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns the nuclear plant, submitted an application to obtain a 20-year license extension. The application, while expected, follows a series of recent safety malfunctions for the facility. In response to the lawmakers' request for hearings, Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman, promised "ample opportunity for public comment" and said "several public meetings" will be scheduled. Greg Bruno Save, Share & RecommendWhat's This? Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York"s Hudson Valley and the Catskills. Phone: (845) 341-1100 ***************************************************************** 24 Burlington Free Press: Op: Nuclear tax burlingtonfreepress.com | Burlington, Vermont Tuesday, May 1, 2007 I support the tax on Entergy. Creating a new efficiency utility for heating our homes is an appropriate use for the money generated. Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 11:01 am First off, Shumlin has no right to propose any revenue generating bills. It is beyond the authority of the Senate. Shumlin is determined to tax something despite the fact that he has no right. Secondly, regarding the Chernobyl incident.....when was has there been nuclear accidents in the U.S., how many, how long age. Nuclear Power is one of the safest forms of energy. One accident a quarter century ago in a country that was falling apart is not a measure of saftey. Secondly, the exposure to radioactivity is all around. 1% of carbon is radioactive, considering everything is made of carbon.... There is a high percentage of naturally occuring phosphorus, so those algae blooms on lake Champlain.....The fear of nuclear energy is a classical example of paranoia from lack of information. Regardless, beyond whether you agree with or disagree with nuclear power, this tax is about how the state treats business. With a reputation for being antibusiness a 35% tax income will surly drive away the few businesses that are left in the state. Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:58 am I realize not everyone has studied economics or accounting, but I think the previous poster just doesn't have the mathematical ability to understand the issue. Fist, it is an error to think that passing a tax on to VT Yankee will somehow put money back in the pockets of taxpayers. The tax on VT Yankee will go right through to the consumer as all taxes on all business do. Second, taxing gross income instead of profits can result in a huge tax regardless of income and regardless of the market price for whatever service it is receiving. If VT Yankee is receiving a service from the state of VT it should pay for that service in the form of a fee, not a tax on gross receipts. Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:23 am Yankee Nuclear is being taxed its fair share and it is perfectly reasonable to tax a company when the state is providing storage for their spent waste. These rods are deadly, can cause another Chernobyl and would cost Vermonters their health and safety. The rods were not supposed to be stored here for this long, however, the federal government can not find a town (maybe this should be an indicator as to why there is such a tax) that would be wiling to let the deadly waste be stored anywhere near their waters, land, and children. Everything has to be paid for somehow-- this isn't a willy nilly tax out of thin air-- this is paying for something the PEOPLE of this state will otherwise have to pay for. Whether it's Yankee or your income tax, it will have to be paid for one way or another. Since when did people care more about a nuclear power plant's accounting than they do the safety of their own children? Since when did individual tax payers want to pay more taxes so that big business didn't have to? Bizarre. Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 5:48 am Eventually, everything is paid for by the consumers, the wage earners, and the taxpayers. There are no entities out there hiding 'free money'. Every tax, fine, surcharge, and legal judgement against 'big business' will be paid for by someone else. There was no 'tobacco settlement', there was only a new thinly disguised tax on smokers. The same goes with a proposed 35% tax on a power plant. The working public and consumers will pay every nickel. Why not be honest, and just lay another tax directly on the public who would be paying this 35% VT Yankee tax anyhow? In the long run, this tax like many others will be counterproductive because when any group is seen as a sitting duck for taxes, they will choose to go elsewhere - with their businesses, jobs, investments, and tax dollars. Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 5:18 am Businesses oppose tax on Vt. Yankee Published: Tuesday, May 1, 2007 By Terri Hallenbeck Free Press Staff Writer MONTPELIER -- Vermont businesses turned up the lobbying pressure Monday on a proposed tax on Vermont Yankee's profits as Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin faced the tough task of selling the plan to his own caucus. The energy legislation that contains the tax is due for a vote on the Senate floor today. Senators were holding their votes close to their vests Monday, but it was clear Shumlin had some persuading to do. "When was there a tax that was easy to sell in this building?" said Shumlin, D-Windham, who last week proposed a 35 percent tax on Vermont Yankee's gross revenues that exceed 2003 revenue figures. The tax would pay for expansion of an energy efficiency program. Meanwhile, representatives from some of Vermont's largest companies gathered at the Statehouse to speak out against the tax and suggest an alternative. They argued that the tax would put the state's utilities at a disadvantage in negotiating electric rates when the Vernon nuclear plant's contracts run out in 2012. "The idea of a tax of this magnitude on one energy source certainly muddies the water," said Brian Keefe, vice president of government affairs at Central Vermont Public Service Corp. "The cost of electricity directly ties into our ability to be competitive," said John O'Kane, government affairs manager at IBM Corp. Central Vermont and IBM joined Green Mountain Power Corp., General Electric Corp., and Ethan Allen Interiors Inc. in opposing the tax. They suggested that legislators instead tap into the state's Clean Energy Development Fund. Vermont Yankee's owner, Entergy Corp., has paid about $4 million into the fund as part of agreements reached with the state. Chris Dutton, president of Green Mountain Power Corp., said $2 million from the fund could be used this year and next while another funding source is sought. Shumlin defended his proposed tax on Entergy as an important step toward curbing global warming and dismissed the alternative as a raid on an fund designed for another purpose. "Changing the way we live our lives is going to be difficult," Shumlin said. The global-warming legislation would put Vermont out front on the issue, he said. State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding, a Democrat, offered an indication that the Vermont Yankee tax might not go over smoothly among members of Shumlin's own party. Spaulding said the tax sends a negative message to businesses. "It's very problematic," he said. "It tarnishes our image as a reliable business partner." Spaulding said he's also leery of using the Clean Energy Development Fund. He serves on the fund's investment board and said the panel is in the process of establishing how the fund will be used, but that it's targeted for renewable energy projects. The tax on Vermont Yankee, which would generate about $37 million, is the second funding source proposed to pay for the energy efficiency utility. Shumlin took the first, a surcharge on heating fuels, off the table because of a lack of support in the Senate. Spaulding said Monday that first proposal made more sense to him because the tax matched the goal -- the tax on heating fuel would pay for a program designed to reduce the use of heating fuel. Contact Terri Hallenbeck at 229-4126 or thallenb@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com. Copyright ©2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 delawareonline: Nuclear power plants still unpopular despite federal encouragement The News Journal, Wilmington, Del. ¦ Posted Tuesday, May 1, 2007 OUR VIEW The Bush administration seems bent on making federal regulatory concessions to appease the nation's demand for energy and electric capacity. However, state authorities, with redress to the courts, are not willing to roll over and abdicate their say on site location and operation, and inevitable pollution. On the generation side of the equation, one prospect has long been adding nuclear reactors, as in Europe. Americans are more wary of safety, still suspicious 28 years after a meltdown at the Three Mile Island station near Harrisburg, Pa. There were no injuries, deaths or long-term fallout other than a nose-dive in public acceptance. In the years since then, when other fuels were relatively cheap and electric plants ran at less than full capacity, nuclear existed at the margins. It produces 20 percent of U.S. electricity now. The Salem nuclear complex across the Delaware River in New Jersey has its detractors, too alarmed by periodic malfunctions. Now, however, old operating permits are due for renewal and the political and economic climate has changed. And PSEG Nuclear, which has ownership stakes in the three reactors there, says it's prepared to build a fourth. Though that might surprise local residents, the federal government has been looking for nuclear projects to produce electricity since 2002. So far, design and licensing reviews are in the works for sites in Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi and Illinois. The goal is a new generation of nuclear plants by the next decade. Engineering alone will not overcome popular and political reservations, though. Equally significant, there is still no answer to the huge question of what to do with used nuclear fuel. American plant operators remain in limbo, stockpiling spent fuel rods under heightened security threats. So design away. We're waiting for the day of consensus on a permanent waste depot. Those deciders will be in the states. Posted by: meknjinear- Tue May 01, 2007 11:07 am I REALLY hate to laud ANYTHING the French do (snail-gulping surrender-monkeys), but they do have a handle on nuclear power. Instead of building every plant as a unique design (basically re-inventing the wheel each time a plant was built in the US), the French nuclear power industry standardizes on a design and builds multiple plants to the exact same blueprint, only changing the design when a new generation is approved for construction. They essentially get the benefits of mass-production and easier regulatory approval. Our way of building plants was the equivalent of designing a car for a single customer, then scrapping the plans and starting over when a second customer places an order. Mon Dieu! There's better way to build nuclear power plants, and it's FRENCH? BTW, for the Luddites whom are deathly afraid of NOO-CLEE-AR power, were you aware that more radioactivity is released to the atmosphere by a coal-powered plant than a nuke? Coal has small amounts of uranium naturally occurring in the ore, and that uranium is blown out the stacks into the environment when it is burned during power generation. By comparison, a nuclear power plant retains all the uranium it uses within the fuelrod assemblies, and thus no radiation is released outside the reaction vessel or the steam loop (closed system). Even after disposal, the rods are contained at all times, either in a cooling pool or a sealed transport cask. No radiation is released to the environment AT ALL. I personally have no problem with living near a nuke plant. I'm within 18 miles or so of Salem now, and used to have Catawba 1&2 for a neighbor a few years back (Rock Hill, SC). There are only two widely used sources of energy that are cleaner than nuclear power, wind and hydro. Since the whiners don't want windmills within their view, and the enviros keep tearing-down dams to "save the fish", you either go to nuclear or put up with radioactive fly ash from coal-powered plants. And that doesn't even begin to address the pollution produced by the millions of diesel-powered truck-miles incurred during the mining and transportation of the coal from the mines to the storage piles at the powerplants. Me, I'll take a nuke any day. All the fuelrods needed to power a plant's reactor for twenty or so years can be delivered in a single truck shipment. One truckload of coal won't keep a conventionally-powered plant going for more than a matter of hours. Posted by: Bernard- Tue May 01, 2007 9:34 am Since I know a tad about nuke power and am an avid political junkie I disagree with "my two cents". Jimmy Carter basically killed nuke power in the US and even the French are generating a large part of their energy using it. Candidates Gore & Kerry who couldn't lead "usedwater" down a hillside have more to do with Bush winning twice than any other factor. If we had continued improving the nuke generation there would probably be far less foreign oil consumed here now. In case you just arrived from another planet, wind, water, sun and nuke power generation will become the main power sources in the future because they are clean. More good news for you; the current crop of democrat presidential candidates are fairly dismal with the leader of the pack having higher negative polls than positive ones. Bush has a higher favorable rating than senate majority leader Harry Reid. The democrat party is controlled by liberal lawyers, eventually even the most ferverent loyal democrats will realize that and start finding their own information from sources other than the daily DNC output provided by the liberal media. Posted by: my two cents- Tue May 01, 2007 6:09 am You'd be a fool to sign on to anything Bush favors. So far he's batting 1.000 with every idea to come out of his administration. If we go to more nuke power under him "The China Syndrome" will be a monthly headline, and it won't be for the movie. He'll run the nuke industry like he ran the Texas Rangers, and Harkin, and our country: straight into the ground. All rights reserved. Users of this site agree to the Terms of ***************************************************************** 26 Reuters: U.S., India said to make progress on nuclear deal Tue May 1, 2007 7:56PM EDT By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and India on Tuesday claimed extensive progress during two days of talks aimed at salvaging their landmark nuclear cooperation agreement and hoped to complete the deal soon, perhaps this month. The remarks were a return to upbeat rhetoric after several weeks during which senior U.S. officials -- who initially predicted the deal would be quickly negotiated -- expressed frustration with Indian objections and fear the deal was unraveling. "The discussions were positive and the U.S. is encouraged by the extensive progress that was made on the issues," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in a written statement. "We look forward to resolving the outstanding issues in the weeks ahead." Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the main U.S. negotiator, met on Monday and Tuesday with Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon. "We made progress on a number of key issues," he said. "We only have a few outstanding. "We hope to resolve the remaining differences in the coming weeks I will visit India in the second half of May to find closure," he told Reuters. Menon also was upbeat, telling a news conference "we've made considerable progress forward" and an agreement is "doable." But he was less precise about a completion date, saying, "We hope to finalize it as soon as we can." DETAILS SECRET Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 27 UPI: Analysis: Why Whitman wants nuclear power United Press International - Energy - Analysis Published: April 30, 2007 at 7:44 PM By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent WASHINGTON, April 30 (UPI) -- Former New Jersey governor and federal environmental chief Christine Todd Whitman is heading one of a growing number of coalitions urging the United States to keep -- and increase -- nuclear energy as part of its energy mix. She's touring the country with the new mantra that nuclear power is safer and more efficient than ever before -- and, thanks to federal subsidies and potential climate-change legislation, economically competitive. "It's 20 percent of our energy now and I think we ought to make sure it stays at least at 20 percent if not 25," Whitman said during an interview with United Press International. "It's not going to be the answer for everything and the be-all-end-all only form of power," she said. "But if you care about climate change and you care about air quality, nuclear power is really the only form of base power that doesn't produce some of the regulated emissions and doesn't contribute to global climate change." Fossil fuels are burned to mine, process and transport uranium to the plants. But they are also burned to build and dismantle plants, thus sending such emissions into the atmosphere. Opponents would rather see renewable energy and energy conservation become a bigger part of U.S. consumer culture, fearing the repercussions of a nuclear accident or an attack on a nuclear plant. Whitman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator from 2001 to 2003 after serving seven years as New Jersey governor, is now co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, CASEnergy. The organization, also co-chaired by activist-turned-capitalist Patrick Moore -- co-founder and ex-member of Greenpeace -- has launched a public relations and education blitz to convince the nation "how nuclear power can contribute to America's energy security and economic growth," according to its Web site. The goal, Whitman said, is "getting people to start to talk about this and think about this ... try to build the public support for this kind of power." A UPI/Zogby Interactive poll taken in January found the support is there: 62.7 percent polled said it was safe and 61.8 percent said more nuclear plants should be built -- though only 63.1 percent of those supporters want a reactor in their community. The poll of 6,909 U.S. adults had a margin of error of 1.2 percentage points. There are 103 operating nuclear reactors in the United States now -- more than any other country. Accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, cost overruns during the last buildup, and the once low and stable price of natural gas led to the three-decade freeze of the U.S. nuclear industry. But energy legislation in the 1990s and two years ago streamlined the licensing process and gave the industry subsidies to grow. It costs between $3 billion and $4 billion to build a plant now. The United States hasn't licensed a new nuclear plant since 1978, so coal and natural gas combined have a majority stake in electricity production. The growing clamor to address climate change has led some states, and possibly in the future the federal government, to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. That wouldn't affect nuclear's pricing but could make it more competitive with polluters like coal, a main target of such measures. As the global industry prepares to increase the number of nuclear plants, supporters in this country have become more visible, and CASE is only one of the players. "It seems like new and varied groups are coming out in support of nuclear energy just about every week," said Scott Peterson, vice president of communications for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade arm in some form or name since 1953 and sole funder of the CASE Coalition. The latest, Third Way, a center-left think tank, endorsed nuclear power last week. "Others look at it from the lens of climate change, the lens of economic development in their communities ... and clean, reliable and low-cost electricity," Peterson said. Opponents aren't going to just step aside, though. Anti-nuclear and environmental groups alike want sources like wind, solar and other renewable energy to be given the government backing nuclear has received. "Renewable energy coupled with energy efficiency and conservation is the energy source of the 21st century," said Paul Gunter, director of the reactor watchdog project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Nuclear technology has advanced over the years, bolstering plants against accidents and attacks -- though not foolproof if the human hand either errs or seeks violence -- and enabling more efficient electricity production. And the United States is far from an answer for storing or disposing nuclear waste. "None of the questions have been answered," Gunter said of the nuclear opposition's concerns. "It's fair to say: 'Let's take another look.' But when you look, nothing has really changed." Whitman says she thinks other energy sources are important -- though she doubts the role renewables can play and says coal needs to be cleaned up but is too big a player now to go away -- in weaning the country from the foreign oil that makes up 60 percent of U.S. consumption. "Nuclear can certainly help us reduce that foreign dependence," she said. (e-mail: energy@upi.com) © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 UPI: NRC special inspection of Farley plant United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: April 30, 2007 at 6:22 PM DOTHAN, Ala., April 30 (UPI) -- Federal nuclear regulators are looking closely at a recurring failure at an Alabama nuclear plant's reactor cooling system. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday a special investigation is ongoing at the Farley nuclear plant near Dothan, Ala. A test conducted earlier this year revealed valve failures on Unit 2's residual heat removal system. The valves are used to keep heat from the reactor when it is shut down, and they didn't open. The plant, operated by Southern Nuclear Operating Co., had the same problem in the second quarter of 2006, according to an NRC release. The dual reactor plant has a 1,776 megawatt generating capacity. The agency said there were "no difficulties" during operations of the plant. The special inspection was called for because it involves safety equipment. The reactor needs to be kept cool when it isn't in operation. The NRC team will look at the history of the reactor, as well as actions to be taken to fix the problem. The NRC says residents of the area are not threatened by the incident. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 UPI: U.S., India to cooperate in technology United Press International - International Intelligence - Briefing Published: May 1, 2007 at 11:16 AM WASHINGTON, May 1 (UPI) -- India and the United States can work more closely with each other in the science and technology sectors. Concluding a daylong meeting late Monday of the annual U.S.-India global issues forum held at the U.S. State Department, the two countries agreed to cooperate in efforts to protect the environment worldwide. In addition, they agreed to work together to further science and technology as well as public health. According to the State Department, the two countries also said they had a mutual interest in "the promotion of democratic values and human rights, protection of the vulnerable, and environmental conservation and sustainable development." The first bilateral forum was held in New Delhi in October 2002, and the meeting is held alternately between the capitals of the two countries. U.S. Undersecretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky led the U.S. delegation, while Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon led the Indian delegation at the latest talks. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 30 MHNN: Entergy files Indian Point 2 & 3 license renewal application May 1, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide Two-year public assessment and review process begins Buchanan -- Entergy Monday formally filed with the NRC its application to renew for 20 years the operating licenses of the Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 nuclear power plants in Buchanan. The license renewal application accompanied a letter dated Monday, April 23 to the NRC, signed by Entergy Indian Point Energy Center Site Vice President Fred Dacimo. The filing kicks off a more than two-year-long public assessment and review process, said company spokesman James Steets. “We have put together a copious amount of information regarding this application,” he said. “It’s a very comprehensive review and assessment that the NRC will be doing over the next two years that will include public meetings and give us the opportunity to talk about why we think these plants ought to be continued to operate over another 20 years, and we look forward to those discussions.” A skeptical Congressman John Hall has two primary concerns. “One is that we get this independent safety assessment,” he said. “The other is the NRC should hold multiple hearings in the district around the plant in the directly affected counties, because so far they have shown a cavalier attitude.” Another Indian Point critic, Congressman Maurice Hinchey said the application comes on the heels of “numerous unplanned shutdowns, a fire, emergency sirens that have yet to be installed properly, and a radioactive leak that continues to poison the Hudson River and groundwater.” He said it is “confounding that Entergy would even consider submitting an application to re-license Indian Point at this time.” Entergy announced last November its intention to seek license renewal. “We are extremely grateful Indian Point has been a great neighbor,” said Buchanan Mayor Dan O’Neill. The NRC will take 30 to 45 days to do a sufficiency review. When the LRA is found to be sufficient, the NRC will publish a federal register notice to give the public 60 days to file contentions and request an opportunity for a hearing. In parallel, the NRC will begin the detailed review, on-site audit, and inspection activities, and hold public meetings near Indian Point. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 31 ITAR-TASS: Reactor No 3 of Kalinin NPP stopped for planned repairs 01.05.2007, 17.51 TVER, May 1 (Itar-Tass) -- Reactor No. 3 at the Kalinin nuclear power plant (NPP) was switched out from the Russian power grid on Tuesday for planned repairs, a plant official told Itar-Tass. The reactor was shut down for a 50-day medium-term maintenance, deputy chief engineer for repairs Gennady Oryol said. In his words, “the plant personnel will hold standard works to dismantle the reactor unit, reload fuel, control the air-tightness of all fuel assemblies, check metal inside and outside the reactor’s shell, and repair the generating unit.” “The staffers also plan some operations to modernize the equipment, particularly to set up a chemical layer-tint system for steam generators,” Oryol said. “All the planned works are aimed at the reactor’s higher security,” he explained. Reactor No. 3 of the Kalinin NPP is the newest out of the 31 power units operating at Russia’s nuclear plants. This is a water-cooled water-moderated reactor of VVER-1000 type with rated capacity of 1,000 megawatt, the official said. The reactor is a part of the plant’s second stage, whose construction will be completed in 2011. Experts believe the third power unit of the Kalinin NPP is one of the most modern entities of Russia’s atomic industry. Over 600 innovations aimed at its higher security and stable operation were used. The reactor was commissioned in December 2004. Two power units are operating at the normal capacity. Their combined output amounts to 2,000 megawatt. “The level of radiation at the station and in the adjacent territories is normal,” the plant official said. The Kalinin nuclear power plant is located in the north of the Tver region, 330 kilometers from Moscow. This is one of the leading energy enterprises in Russia’s North-Western region and a part of the national unified power grid. It supplies electricity to eight regions of the Central Federal District through the RAO UES power grids. Currently, about 440 nuclear power units are operating in 31 countries. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store ***************************************************************** 32 Newbury Port News: 30 years later, another nuclear struggle looms NewburyportNews.com, Newburyport, MA - Published: April 30, 2007 11:46 pm Staff reports For Chris Nord, April 30, 2007, was in some ways not so different from April 30, 1977. In each case, he was acting as a watchdog of nuclear power, more specifically the Seabrook nuclear power plant. The difference: This year, he wasn’t arrested. Nord was one of the more than 1,414 protesters taken away — some dragged, others like Nord taken willingly — from the future site of Seabrook Station 30 years ago today. Yesterday, he was on a 32-foot ladder at Cider Hill Farm in Amesbury updating some of the most advanced radiation monitoring equipment in the country, working for C-10, a publicly funded nuclear monitoring agency located in Newburyport. “It seemed in a way it was an appropriate thing to be doing 30 years later,” Nord said. For Nord, who would later move to Newburyport, which is inside the 10-mile evacuation radius, and many like him, today is the anniversary of a historic act of civil disobedience that became part of a lifetime of activism. With energy prices skyrocketing, global warming and calls for cleaner energy abounding, the nuclear industry is optimistic about a resurgence. And the anti-nuclear movement, including organizers of the Seabrook protests, is gearing up to respond. Paul Gunter, who has made opposing nuclear power his career, is one. “To ante up for another generation of nuclear power would be a colossal mistake that would really trivialize the Seabrook debacle,” said Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project at the anti-nuclear Nuclear Information and Resource Service. “Because right now we have maybe 10 to 20 years to make some very critical energy policy decisions that affect global climate.” At the time, the protests galvanized a national anti-nuclear movement that moved from Seabrook’s marshes to national money markets to effectively halt orders for new plants in the United States. Seabrook was proposed as a twin-reactor plant in 1972, at an estimated cost of $973 million. When it finally won a commercial license in March 1990, it was a single reactor and cost $6.5 billion. Protests started early. The first person arrested at the future construction site was Ron Rieck, who spent 36 cold hours atop a weather observation tower in January 1976. Later that year, 18 people were arrested, then 180. Then came April 1977. Arnie Alpert was an environmental science major at Wesleyan University in Connecticut when he learned of planned protests in Seabrook. After training in nonviolent resistance, he organized two busloads of students to travel to Seabrook. They became part of the Clamshell Alliance, an umbrella group that organized into small “affinity groups” for training, decision-making and support. On April 30, they approached the plant property from all directions, even through the ocean swamps. Gov. Meldrim Thomson said the demonstrations were “a front for terrorist activity” and organized a small army of National Guardsmen and police from around New England to respond. “If I thought about it at all, it was a joke,” Alpert said in a recent interview. “We knew we were not a group of terrorists. We knew we were a group of people passionately committed to nonviolence.” The group walked onto the site, unopposed, and immediately began setting up camp, digging latrines, having meetings and celebrating. “I was surprised we got onto the site at all,” Alpert said. The next day, a Sunday, Thomson ordered the protesters to leave to avoid confrontations with construction workers due back Monday. Those who didn’t leave — 1,414 strong — were arrested on trespassing charges and held for more than two weeks in National Guard armories around the state. The protest attracted worldwide attention and sent ripples far beyond Seabrook. “The Seabrook demonstration touched off a grass-roots, nonviolent insurgency against nuclear power that led to the creation of similar alliances around the country,” said Alpert. And he said the tactics and training spread to other causes, including peace and gay rights. Now, some former Clamshell members find themselves focusing anew on nuclear power. Spurred by skyrocketing energy prices, global warming and calls for cleaner energy, the industry is making a comeback. New federal laws have streamlined permitting and construction and removed much of the financial risk, and the Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute says construction could start on multiple plants by around 2010. At Seabrook, spokesman Alan Griffin recalls being in high school during the first anti-Seabrook demonstrations, then covering protests as a reporter and editor. He said streamlining licensing would have helped Seabrook, which was ready to run in 1986, but not fully licensed for four more years. “I get paid to say this stuff, but I truly believe as a person that this country must have more nuclear power plants for reasons that have become crystal clear over time,” Griffin said. “It is the only major source of electricity that is able to generate electricity cleanly, with no greenhouse gas emissions,” he said. “The anti’s have a different perspective on that, but that is one of the main reasons of the resurgence.” But Gunter said there is no room for nuclear, period. “Our position is that they should have never built any of these in the first place,” he said. “We went to jail to stop that. People should realize that we were right — and here we are 30 years after that demonstration and 50 years after the initiation of nuclear power, and they still don’t know what to do with the first cupful of nuclear waste.” With no national repository, nuclear waste is being stored at nuclear plants, as “pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction,” Gunter said. Griffin responds that whether a repository is built or not, nuclear plants “have the ability to safely and securely store their waste.” And so the debate goes. Each argument has 180-degree opposite answers, including on questions of safety. Gunter and Alpert, state program director for the American Friends Service Committee, maintain that much more energy could be saved and created if nuclear subsidies went instead to more efficient appliances, increased conservation and renewable sources. John Sununu, former governor, engineer and sometime nuclear industry consultant, couldn’t disagree more. He said the long nuclear hiatus squandered an opportunity to provide clean energy much earlier, and it’s time to acknowledge it was a mistake. “I hope it lays the foundation for a much better response by the nation as the second round of opportunity of getting away from coal and oil and natural gas occurs,” he said. — Material from the Associated Press was used in this story. Protesters descended on the site of the future Seabrook nuclear power plant on May 1, 1977. More than 1,414 were arrested that day. File photo/ (Click for larger image) The Daily News of Newburyport, 23 Liberty Street, Newburyport, MA 01950 - 978-462-6666 © Copyright Eagle Tribune Publishing Company. All rights reserved. 100 Turnpike Street, North Andover, MA 01845 978-946-2000 ***************************************************************** 33 PBP: FPL Group profit lags on fuel By Kristi E. Swartz Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 01, 2007 FPL Group Inc., owner of the state's largest utility, said Monday its first-quarter profit fell 40 percent on a loss in value of contracts that lock in fuel prices. But earnings for Florida Power & Light Co. grew steadily, largely because the utility continued to add customers, and shares (NSYE: FPL) rose to a 52-week high of $65.76 before falling back to close Monday at $64.37, up 47 cents. "We are clearly off to a good start in 2007," Moray Dewhurst, FPL's chief financial officer, told investors during a conference call Monday morning. Juno Beach-based FPL's first-quarter net income fell to $150 million, or 38 cents a share, from $251 million, or 64 cents a share a year ago. Net income included an after-tax loss of $126 million from hedging, the contracts that FPL uses to lock in fuel prices to help keep customer bills from fluctuating. Without that, FPL's adjusted earnings would have been $276 million, or 70 cents a share, compared with $231 million, or 59 cents a share, during the first quarter of 2006. "It's pretty solid numbers, strong growth," said Tim Winter, an analyst for A.G. Edwards in St. Louis. The company reiterated its guidance, saying it expects 2007 earnings to be between $3.35 and $3.45 a share. For 2008, FPL expects earnings to be between $3.60 and $3.80 a share. "Putting it all together, I think it's a good quarter for stockholders," said Barry Abramson, who helps manage about $28 billion in assets, including 600,000 FPL shares, at Gamco Investors in Rye, N.Y. Florida Power & Light's first-quarter net income rose slightly to $126 million, or 32 cents a share, from $122 million, or 31 cents a share a year ago. Florida Power & Light serves 4.4 million business and residential customers. The utility said it plans to spend about $50 million a year in operating expenses to strengthen its system against hurricanes. In addition, FPL said it would spend $70 million to $200 million a year on its hurricane plan, otherwise known as "Storm Secure." The Florida Legislature is considering an omnibus energy bill that would tell utilities to increase the amount of fuel they get from renewable sources - solar, wind and biomass - to continue to help wean the state off of natural gas and oil. "They are in a quandary just like the rest of the nation as to what to do," Winter said. "It's easy to build gas, but they prefer not to because their portfolio is so dependent on natural gas. But people are so opposed to building coal, and nuclear takes forever to build." FPL Energy, the company's non-regulated unit that operates outside of Florida, reported a first-quarter net income of $45 million, or 11 cents a share, down sharply from $154 million, or 39 cents a share, a year ago, also because of the value decline of the hedges. Without those, earnings would have been $171 million, or 43 cents a share, compared with $131 million, or 33 cents a share in 2006. Some shareholders and analysts have asked whether FPL is considering spinning off FPL Energy's wind business, Dewhurst said. Officials looked at taking the unit public or starting a tracking stock, but both options have drawbacks, he said. "We run the wind biz as an integral part of FPL Energy's business," he said. "The current structure is preferable." Copyright © 2007, The Palm Beach Post. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 PRN: Dominion Signs Contract with GE Energy for Long-Lead Nuclear Components Posted : Tue, 01 May 2007 13:10:00 GMT RICHMOND, Va., May 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Dominion , one of the nation's largest energy companies, announced Tuesday that it has signed a contract with GE Energy to secure components for a possible new nuclear- powered electric generating unit. Under terms of the contract, which are confidential, GE Energy would provide certain critical, "long-lead" components such as large forgings and other nuclear and turbine island parts based on GE's ESBWR design. While no decision has been made to build a new nuclear unit, Dominion is seeking an early site permit for a new reactor at its North Anna Power Station site in Mineral, Va. It has announced that it would file for a Combined Operating License (COL) for the unit later this year. North Anna currently has two, 910-megawatt nuclear units generating enough electricity for about 455,000 homes at peak demand. "This is a sound business decision for us," said Mark F. McGettrick, president and chief executive officer of Dominion Generation, the unit of Dominion that operates its power stations. "With this contract we have reserved large, critical components at a time when others are also considering building new units. We believe the market for these components will be tight in the near future, so getting to the head of the line makes good sense." Dominion applied for the early site permit in 2003. The Atomic Safety Licensing Board heard testimony on the application last week in Louisa County, Va., which is home to North Anna. Dominion expects the NRC to render a decision on the early site permit request by the end of 2007. Dominion Copyright © 2007 PR Newswire. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 AU ABC: Bowen Mayor favours coal-fired power station over nuclear push ABC Home Radio Television (ACST)Tuesday, 1 May 2007. 09:48 (AWST) The Bowen Shire Mayor has rejected the idea that nuclear power is the clean energy answer to Australia's rising greenhouse gas emissions. Mike Brunker says he doubts whether the residents of his shire would agree with Prime Minister John Howard's assessment that the public is softening in its opposition to nuclear energy. Councillor Brunker says a new coal-fired power station in the Bowen Shire is still the answer to north Queensland's growing energy requirements. "They're saying that a nuclear power station is not going to affect the coal industry, but that's got to be proven yet and of course we need a coal-fired power station up here in the Bowen area for north Queensland and I think we have a better chance of coal-fired than sitting around for 20 or 30 years waiting for a nuclear option," he said. Meanwhile, a petroleum and gas exploration organisation believes the Bowen Basin could hold a key answer to Australia's clean energy future. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association says there are abundant reserves of coal seam methane gas in the Bowen Basin that can be extracted in a cost-effective way. Director Dan Sanders says coal seam methane is cleaner than many of the current renewable energy sources. "We'd like to see gas replace other forms of energy as a source for producing electricity and the like, so we are fairly optimistic that government can see the sense in really making sure the gas industry develops as it needs to in Australia," he said. ***************************************************************** 36 AU ABC: Nuclear power plant a visitor turn-off, says tourism group. 01/05/2007. ABC News Online Tourism Sunshine Coast has rejected suggestions a nuclear plant in the region in south-east Queensland could be a major visitor drawcard. The Australian Nuclear Association says reactors could become a tourist attraction - as they are in some overseas countries. The Queensland Premier says nuclear power plants would destroy the state's "clean, green" tourism image. John Fitzgerald, from Tourism Sunshine Coast, agrees it is far-fetched to suggest a reactor could boost visitor numbers. "I think a nuclear reactor in any vicinity of the Sunshine Coast would bring with it strong perceptions that we were ruining that great environment that people come for," he said. "It's pretty far-fetched that we're going to see enhancement of tourism in a destination like the Sunshine Coast through nuclear power." ***************************************************************** 37 AFP: US, India seek to revive historic nuclear deal - Tue May 1, 2:08 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States and India vied Tuesday to revive a historic nuclear deal struck nearly two years ago that has languished owing to critical differences over its implementation, officials said. After meeting over dinner Monday, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon got down to business for formal talks on the nuclear impasse. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was due to "stop by" for a chat with Menon, who is the Indian foreign ministry's top bureaucrat. "Our overall sense is that the Indians came here with some constructive ideas, and that there's a possibility that we could move the process forward based on these ideas, although that's not a foregone conclusion," McCormack said. "That doesn't mean that they're going to be able to move this as quickly as we had hoped -- we'll see -- as a result of these meetings. But we are confident in the long run that we will get this deal done," he said. According to Indian embassy press attache Rahul Chhabra, Menon and Burns were discussing "the entire gamut of Indo-US relations, including the civilian nuclear issue." The US government has expressed frustration over the pace of the talks to implement the pact, which would give India access to US nuclear energy technology without requiring the Asian country to halt its atomic arms program. The nuclear deal was struck in July 2005 and is due to take full effect next year. The US Congress overwhelmingly approved the pact in December. It is the centerpiece of energy-hungry India's new relationship with Washington after decades of Cold War tensions, as it tries to sustain its stunning economic expansion. In an opinion piece in Sunday's Washington Post, Burns predicted that "within a generation, Americans may view India as one of our two or three most important strategic partners." But differences persist, chiefly over a clause which says the United States would withdraw civil nuclear fuel supplies and equipment if India breaches its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. Menon last week sought to dispel fears from Indian critics who say the agreement will hamper the country's nuclear weapons program, nine years after a round of Indian atomic tests sparked a tit-for-tat response from Pakistan. "Whatever we do with the US will not affect our nuclear strategic program," he said in a report tabled in the Indian parliament on Thursday. Menon launched two days of talks here on Monday, meeting first with Paula Dobriansky, the US under secretary of state for global affairs and democracy. The State Department described the talks as "productive," and said they covered a range of issues from democratic values to environmental conservation. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 38 TheStar.com: Nuclear informer found guilty again May 01, 2007 04:30 AM JERUSALEM–An Israeli court yesterday convicted nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, who once served 18 years in jail, of violating a ban on leaving Israel and contacting foreign journalists. The Jerusalem Magistrates Court found him guilty of having contacts with foreign journalists and trying to leave Jerusalem to visit Bethlehem, a justice ministry spokesperson said. Vanunu, released from prison in 2004, is to be sentenced in two weeks, the spokesperson added. The former technician has made repeated appeals to the supreme court to secure the lifting of the restrictions, which are renewable every 12 months, on his freedom of movement, going abroad and speaking to foreign journalists without permission. The interior ministry opposes any concessions on the grounds he could leak yet more secrets from his time as an employee at the Dimona nuclear reactor. Vanunu served 18 years in jail for lifting the lid on the inner workings of the reactor complex to Britain's Sunday Times. He became an international cause célèbre during his time in prison. But at home, he is still widely reviled for converting to Christianity shortly before he was kidnapped in Italy and jailed in 1986 after being covertly sent back to Israel. Israel will not confirm its nuclear arms status but is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East with about 200 atomic warheads. Agence France-Presse ***************************************************************** 39 Reuters: Nuclear test reactors must have more security - NRC Tue May 1, 2007 1:20PM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered fingerprinting and criminal history checks be extended to students and staff members at research and test reactors on Tuesday. Before, only those with access to sensitive security information were examined for involvement in past crimes. But a 2005 energy bill required checks on anyone working with radioactive material at the nearly 50 reactors used for training. Most of the reactors are at colleges and universities, where students experiment with neutrons and gamma rays, and about a third are being decommissioned. "This is one of many steps the NRC has taken in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, to keep U.S. research reactors secure," said NRC Chairman Dale Klein in a statement. "I believe the level of security is appropriate for these educational facilities to continue safely serving their students, their communities and the country," he added. Scott Burnell, spokesman for the regulatory group, said commercial power reactors have more intensive security screening already in place. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 40 YubaNet.com: Eco-Whistleblower Laws Now Off-Limits to Federal Employees By: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Published: May 1, 2007 at 08:15 The Bush administration has declared itself immune from whistleblower complaints filed by federal workers under the Superfund law and the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to legal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a result, federal workers will lose protection against official retaliation for reporting cleanup failures, enforcement breakdowns or manipulation of science relating to contamination of water supplies or toxic pollution. This latest action was buried in a footnote of a legal ruling issued by the U.S. Labor Department on March 30, 2007 in a whistleblower case involving a scientist from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It expands upon a ruling last year that federal employees may no longer pursue whistleblower claims under the Clean Water Act - a ruling based upon an unpublished Administration legal opinion. The Bush administration legal stance is rooted in the doctrine of sovereign immunity based on the old English maxim that "The King Can Do No Wrong." Sovereign immunity is an absolute defense to any legal action. "Federal workers who are working to clean up pollution should not be penalized for their pains," stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein, who is now litigating against the Labor Department's earlier ruling before the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta. "This bald assertion of immunity is both legally unsupported and the precise opposite of the direction in which we as a nation should be heading." The new Labor Department immunity stance most directly affects the 16,500 EPA employees who administer the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, known as Superfund. Another 150,000 federal employees who work in natural resource agencies are also impacted. The official EPA position is that absolutely no environmental laws protect its employees from reprisal for good faith efforts to enforce or implement those laws. The Labor Department ruling does not go that far, however, noting that Congress has only explicitly waived sovereign immunity under two environmental laws: the Clean Air Act and the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Consequently, Congress can undo the new Bush administration assertions of sovereign immunity simply by clarifying these laws. The net result of these developments is that four of the six federal environmental laws with whistleblower protections would be off-limits to federal employees. As with its decision last fall striking down Clean Water Act protections for federal workers, the Labor Department action reverses nearly two decades of precedent. "The reason these whistleblower provisions are so important is that they protect federal scientists and other specialists against retaliation for doing their jobs," Dinerstein added. "On controversial issues, the professional staff at EPA should have some kind of assurance that they will not be sacrificed for being right on the public health merits but wrong on the politics." Curiously, the footnote asserting expansion of sovereign immunity was not a factor in the Labor Department ruling against the EPA scientist, David Lewis. Therefore, any legal challenge will have to be taken up in a different case, leaving the matter in legal limbo until it is resolved by either Congress or the courts. Copyright © 2007 YubaNet.com, all rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 Daily Yomiuri: N-waste disposal site selection needs review The government's plan to construct a disposal site for high-level radioactive waste discharged from nuclear power plants is back to square one, as the only local government that had offered to host the project, Toyocho, Kochi Prefecture, has withdrawn its application. In the town's mayoral election April 22, the major discussion point among candidates was whether the town government should accept initial research to judge its suitability to accommodate a disposal site for high-level radioactive waste. The incumbent mayor was defeated by a candidate who opposed the project and who received more than twice as many votes. The following day, the town government notified the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO), which is in charge of the research, of its decision to withdraw the application. The central government sees nuclear fuel recycling as a pillar of its energy policy. Thus, construction of a final disposal site to accept radioactive waste is the last piece of the puzzle. As the disposal site plan has been shunted back to its starting point, nuclear experts have voiced fears that the nation's nuclear energy policy will be stalled. Selection of the disposal site is based on applications from local governments, with the final decision made after two years of documentation screening and about four years of detailed research through drilling and other measures. The central government will provide 2 billion yen during the documentation screening period and another 7 billion yen during the detailed research period for the local government that is selected as well as nearby local entities. The subsidies would have been highly attractive for the Toyocho town government, which had 2.4 billion yen of revenue in its general account and 3 billion yen of debts in outstanding local government bonds as of fiscal 2005. Before the mayoral election, some people in the energy industry in Tokyo were optimistic about the outcome. Therefore, government and energy industry officials were shocked that the election result rejected the framework of the current application system by such a large margin. NUMO and other relevant organizations will begin talks over how to handle the issue after the Golden Week holiday period. After the mayoral election, Kochi Gov. Daijiro Hashimoto urged a review of the current system, which he described as "like making money talk." It is true that many aspects of the current system need to be reviewed or revised based on the lesson learned from this setback. The system inviting voluntary applications from local governments is aimed at prioritizing the transparency of decision-making. But it could be seen as a system that leaves important tasks to local governments, as only local government heads can tackle such risks as dealing with the actions of opponents. When the Toyocho town government made the application, the governors of Kochi and Tokushima prefectures expressed opposition, which spurred the opposing candidate to take action. Also, in other parts of the country, potential candidates for the project faced opposition from nearby local governments. In one extreme case, a local government was stopped from even announcing its intention to apply. In reality, it is difficult for local governments to exercise their right to make decisions under the current system. Doubts have also been voiced by the electric power industry. Tsunehisa Katsumata, chairman of the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan and president of Tokyo Electric Power Co., questioned over the current system that requires a reconfirmation from each local government applying at each stage of the screening process. "I don't think the current method is good, because it takes 20 or 30 years before it becomes certain [whether construction is possible]," he said. In any case, some review of the current system is unavoidable. The central government and NUMO should consider a new framework under which they actively engage in explaining and obtaining consent from local residents, without leaving everything to the local government, while maintaining the current system's best feature--transparency in the decision-making process. The final disposal site is scheduled to start operation in 2028. Though some in the government and energy industry say the documentation screening needs to begin within fiscal 2007, the situation is not so urgent that the decision must be made immediately. Rather, it is more problematic if this hitch in the disposal site plan will unsettle other local governments and eventually adversely affect the whole framework of the nation's nuclear energy policy. For example, high-level radioactive waste already discharged from power plants has been temporarily stored in a facility of Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd. in Rokkashomura, Aomori Prefecture, in the form of about 1,300 canisters containing the waste solidified in glass. The central government has explained to the Aomori prefectural government that the storage is temporary, but if the construction of the disposal site becomes uncertain, local residents in the prefecture may feel uneasy. Japan relies on nuclear power for about 30 percent of its electricity, so if the nuclear fuel recycling policy fails, the nation's entire energy policy will be derailed. One needs to consider what it means in a level-headed manner based on two principles--the consensus of the people and safety. Used nuclear fuel discharged from nuclear power plants contains uranium, which remains unburned in the reactor, and plutonium, which was created in the process of power generation. The nuclear fuel recycling policy aiming to utilize uranium resources more efficiently plans to extract uranium and plutonium through reprocessing used fuel. The extracted elements will be used as fuel again. Extracting the elements leaves highly radioactive waste. Under the government's disposal plan, the waste solidified in glass will be stored for 30-50 years to cool down and finally buried at least 300 meters underground. © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 42 WNN: Australian uranium policy moves on 30 April 2007 The Australian Labor Party (ALP) has finally abandoned its 'no new mines' policy on uranium dating from 1982. The party's national conference has voted to stop blocking licenses for new uranium mines. The ALP is in opposition at the federal level, yet controls Australian states and therefore can set the mining policies at that level. Now, each state's government could make its own decision on new uranium mine license applications without the constraint of a national party policy. Australia holds around 30% of the world's known uranium reserves, and the price of the mineral has climbed consistently since the start of 2004. Uranium exploration expenditure in Australia is now running at around A$100 million ($83 million) per year, up tenfold in three years, and this development is expected to boost investment further by promising reduced political risk. The Labor premiers of Queensland and Western Australia, Peter Beattie and Alan Carpenter respectively, have both indicated that their personal negative policies on uranium mining would remain, but South Australian premier Mike Rann is keen to encourage new mines. However, the ALP conference was upstaged by an announcement from prime minister John Howard that his Liberal coalition government would proceed to open the way for nuclear power in Australia by setting up a nuclear regulatory regime and applying to join the Generation-IV International Forum developing advanced reactor designs for deployment about 2025. It would also take steps to remove any impediments to uranium mining. "Policies or political platforms that seek to constrain the development of a safe and reliable Australian uranium industry - and which rule out the possibility of climate-friendly nuclear energy - are not really serious about addressing climate change in a practical way that does not strangle the Australian economy." Further information WNA's Australia's uranium and who buys it information paper ***************************************************************** 43 ReviewJournal.com: Documents added to Yucca database May. 01, 2007 By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department announced Monday it has added 2.1 million documents to a Yucca Mountain electronic database that is available to the public. Coupled with earlier postings, the database now contains 3.4 million DOE scientific and engineering documents, and other material government officials say will support their bid to establish a nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Yucca Mountain critics said the licensing support network also is likely to contain information hinting at repository flaws, and they plan to examine the documents closely. Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the documents will be divided among 30 science consultants and critiqued for information that could become part of the state's case against the project, to be located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Nevada plans to file "thousands" of contentions, or objections, during formal repository licensing hearings the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to hold, Loux said. The network Web site is www.lsnnet.gov. It also contains Yucca documents posted so far by the NRC, Nye County and the state of Nevada. The electronic library will be shared among the participants in repository license hearings. DOE spokesman Allen Benson said several hundred thousand more documents remain to be posted. The public disclosure appeared to douse one fight between the Energy Department and Nevada, which had alleged that the DOE was hoarding documents and making it hard for the state to track the project. Another disagreement may be brewing. By law the licensing database must be officially certified six months before the DOE is allowed to file a repository license application with the NRC. DOE officials have said they plan to certify the database in December so the agency can file an application by the end of June. But Loux said the state plans to protest that key documents such as analyses of key computer models, and the Total System Performance Assessment, a major science document, might not be made available until the spring. "The modeling reports are foundation documents that may not be ready until sometime next year," Loux said. "We continue to think this will cause DOE a problem in trying to certify their records." Leave Your Comment 0 Reader Comments Terms & Conditions The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor. Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 44 ReviewJournal.com: Former aide to Idaho senator to be nominated to NRC post May. 01, 2007 Svinicki worked as nuclear engineer in connection with Yucca project By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- A Senate staff member who worked on Yucca Mountain issues for an Idaho senator will be nominated to fill an upcoming vacancy on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the White House announced Monday. Kristine L. Svinicki worked on nuclear issues as senior policy adviser to Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, from 1997 to 2005. Craig is a leading supporter of the proposed Nevada nuclear waste repository. Earlier in her career, Svinicki served as a nuclear engineer in the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, the Energy Department office that manages the Yucca project, according to the White House. The Energy Department declined to disclose information about Svinicki's work on the Yucca project, such as her dates of employment, her job assignment and whether she worked at the site of the proposed nuclear waste dump, in Las Vegas or elsewhere. DOE spokesman Allen Benson said questions about Svinicki should be directed to the White House. Svinicki is a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, specializing in nuclear weapons issues. She could not be reached for comment. Svinicki, who lives in Virginia, would replace Jeffrey Merrifield on the five-member NRC board if confirmed by the Senate. Merrifield is a Republican appointee whose term expires later this year. If confirmed, Svinicki would serve on a term that runs until 2012. Barring further delays in the Yucca program, the term is expected to coincide with the NRC's consideration of an Energy Department application to license nuclear waste storage at a site 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "She is one of the sharpest minds in the nuclear policy world," said Dan Whiting, communication director for Craig. "Hopefully the Senate leaders will move quickly" on confirmation. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who usually exerts influence on all things dealing with Yucca Mountain in Congress, "intends to watch her confirmation hearing process closely," spokesman Jon Summers said. Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, said Svinicki's past involvement with the Yucca project could be troubling. "We would rather see someone who hadn't had ties to Yucca Mountain but we would like to know more about her," Loux said. A graduate of the University of Michigan, Svinicki started her career as an energy engineer for the State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission, according to the White House. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2007 Stephens Media, LLC Privacy Statement ***************************************************************** 45 Letter: CCHS STUDENT CLARIFIES ISSUES ABOUT YUCCA MOUNTAIN TRIP Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard - Opinion May 1, 2007 I read the recently published article by Robert Loux about Yucca Mountain and the trip taken by CCHS chemistry classes. I am a 16-year-old student who participated in that trip, and I would like to clarify a few points. Our chemistry teacher, Mr. Johnson, has done a very good job teaching us about both the pros and the cons of the Yucca Mountain Project. Admittedly, our tour did give us a biased view of the project; however, we studied much more than that in class. We understand that there are negative effects of the nuclear repository. During our tour, we were able to ask questions and air our opinions, and the guides gave us satisfactory answers. We listened to what they told us, but I doubt that any of my classmates took everything they said as proven fact. Each of us was given the chance to formulate our own opinions, and not all of the chemistry students agree with the opinions of those quoted in the original article on March 31. I would like to personally invite Mr. Loux to come visit our class and teach us his point of view. I'm sure we would all benefit from a meeting. Rachel Mills Fallon All contents © Copyright 2007 lahontanvalleynews.com Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard - 562 North Maine Street - Fallon, NV 89406 ***************************************************************** 46 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah senator says 21 years is too long to clean up Moab tailings Article Last Updated: 05/01/2007 09:57:05 AM MDT Posted: 7:29 AM- WASHINGTON -- Sen. Bob Bennett says the Energy Department's plan to take up to 21 years to remove uranium tailings near Moab is "unacceptable." The Utah Republican says he wants the 16 million tons of uranium refining wastes gone from their site along the Colorado River much sooner. The Energy Department decided in 2005 to move the tailings, a pasty toxic remnant of ore refining at the Atlas Corp. mill. At the time, the department estimated the project could be complete as early as 2011. Recently, department officials have said the project may not be complete until 2028 because there are other cleanup projects under way. "I am concerned that the Department of Energy is unnecessarily falling behind schedule," Bennett wrote in a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman last week. Bennett urged the secretary to hire a contractor for the first five years of the project and stick to a time frame of completing the job in seven to 10 years. "Removing the tailings expeditiously is critical not only for my state but also for the more than 25 million downstream water users in the Colorado River Basin. I am committed to help secure the necessary funding and am anxious to see this project begin," wrote Bennett who is on the Senate panel that sets the Energy Department's budget. The tailings pile now sits just outside Arches National Park on the banks of the Colorado River and studies have found that toxic chemicals such as ammonia are seeping into the groundwater, threatening four species of endangered fish. © Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 47 Sydney Morning Herald: Uranium now 'hottest' in resources - www.smh.com.au Jamie Freed May 2, 2007 DESPITE huge share price gains in the past year, uranium stocks have been deemed the "single hottest pick in the entire resources sector" by an analyst from the investment bank which first predicted the commodity's price would hit $US100 a pound. "Any investors who don't have uranium exposure are betting against the market and, in my view, that's a bad bet," RBC Capital Markets analyst Chris Lancaster told his company's uranium conference in Sydney. He predicted the uranium price would rise beyond its current record level of $US113 a pound. RBC held its conference to coincide with the Labor Party's decision at the weekend to end its longstanding policy banning new uranium mines. Although the move was expected - and the states of Western Australia and Queensland have maintained their opposition to uranium mining - it has led to even more enthusiasm for uranium stocks. But picking the right investment can prove tricky. As Toro Energy business development manager Simon Mitchell pointed out, "not all pounds in the ground are created equal": extraction costs and political risks vary. Oxiana subsidiary Nova Energy has one of the more advanced projects in Australia. Experienced uranium executive John Borshoff, the managing director of Paladin Resources, told the Herald Nova's Lake Way project would probably be the first developed in WA after a ban on uranium mining was lifted. But Nova managing director Tim Sugden said that even under the most favourable circumstances, the company was unlikely to open a mine until 2010 or 2011. "Policy change is critical to us in particular," he said. "Once we get the go-ahead for this project it can all happen very quickly." Nova has a resource of 9000 tonnes at its Lake Way and Centipede deposits but could grow that to about 13,600 tonnes. Uranium hopefuls with deposits overseas, such as Bannerman Resources, face different issues. Bannerman yesterday released an interim inferred resource of 12,200 tonnes at its low-grade project near Rio Tinto's Rossing mine in Namibia. It expects to release a much larger final resource statement this year and could be in production by late 2010. But it will face challenges gaining access to water, since there is none available for new operations in Namibia. Mr Batten said the government was considering the construction of a desalination plant. Paladin's Mr Borshoff said uranium hopefuls were "raring to go" but warned it wouldn't be easy. "The number of years it can take to get a project going can really be quite staggering," he said. "What we need is huge, low-grade deposits. All we are really doing at the moment is picking that low-hanging fruit." Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 48 Japan Times: Kazakhstan eyes uranium supply deal with Japan japantimes.co.jp Web Tuesday, May 1, 2007 ASTANA (Kyodo) Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Akira Amari and Kazakh Prime Minister Karim Masimov issued a joint statement Monday aimed at boosting bilateral nuclear energy cooperation and Kazakhstan's uranium supply to Japan. Under the proposed arrangement, Kazakh's share of Japan's uranium imports could rise to 30 percent to 40 percent, up from the current 1 percent. Top executives from 29 Japanese companies accompanying Amari to Astana signed 24 business deals with Kazakh enterprises to help ensure a stable, long-term supply of uranium and facilitate the transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful uses from Japan to Kazakhstan. Japan sent a 150-member government-private sector delegation to Kazakhstan in the face of rising demand for uranium as more countries start adopting nuclear power in response to surging oil prices. Kazakhstan has the world's second-largest uranium reserves after Australia, according to Japanese government data. The price of uranium has jumped 12 times between 2000 and 2007. Nuclear power is the most promising energy source in the long run because it does not produce carbon dioxide, Japanese officials said. Among the 24 deals, Marubeni Corp. acquired a stake in a uranium mine in a deal with Kazakhstan's state-run atomic company Kazatomprom. Toshiba Corp. agreed with Kazatomprom to help build nuclear power plants. The Japanese side also agreed to provide Kazakhstan with technological help in processing uranium fuel and building light-water reactors in exchange for uranium supplies. With the deals, Kazakhstan is expected to become one of the biggest uranium suppliers to Japan in the future, rivaling Australia, which has a share of 33 percent, and Canada, which has 27 percent. "Both sides share the recognition that Japan and Kazakhstan are mutually complimentary and strategic partners, and hope that they will develop multilayered and cooperative relations," the joint statement said, citing Japan's world-class civil nuclear technology and Kazakhstan's massive uranium reserves. "Both sides hope that the development of such cooperative relations will help raise each country's reputation as those who promote the peaceful use of nuclear power," it said. Amari left Japan on Friday for Uzbekistan, the first leg of a four-nation tour that will also take him to Saudi Arabia and Brunei. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 49 AU ABC: Uranium industry prepares for boom PM - Tuesday, 1 May , 2007 18:42:10 Reporter: Nance Haxton MARK COLVIN: Australia's uranium industry is preparing for boom times ahead, particularly since the Labor Party's weekend move to abolish its no new mines policy. Uranium mining companies are pushing ahead with applications for licences that once lay dormant. In South Australian alone the Government is fast-tracking 100 exploration licences in the wake of the ALP's policy change. Uranium mining proponents at a national conference say they'll be quick to respond to what they see as a pivotal change in mood, not just among politicians, but also the public. Nance Haxton reports from Adelaide. NANCE HAXTON: Mining companies from around Australia have gathered in Adelaide at the optimistically titled Paydirt Conference. Pepinnini Minerals is one company hoping to exploit the newly opened window of opportunity. The company has a potential uranium mining project 100 kilometres west of Broken Hill in a joint venture with Chinese State-owned enterprise SinoSteel. Chief Executive Phillip Sutherland says now that both sides of the political divide are aligned on uranium mine policy, judging each project on its merits, all the uncertainty in the industry is now gone. PHILLIP SUTHERLAND: Well we're greatly encouraged by this. We'd hope to be the fifth uranium mine in Australia. This effectively now clears the way for our project. NANCE HAXTON: So what are the hurdles then, perhaps lack of public support or do you see that changing as well? PHILLIP SUTHERLAND: We'd say there's a shift now in community attitude towards uranium and indeed the nuclear power sector. I think the latter is for debate another time, and I think we'll probably see that over the coming years. But we wouldn't have thought there are any obstacles now. I think there's general acceptance that uranium mining and exploration is good, provided it translates into jobs and regional development and things for ordinary Australians. NANCE HAXTON: What about the hesitancy in the Queensland and West Australian governments? PHILLIP SUTHERLAND: Well I think now the challenge is for those folk, we hope that those premiers and other politicians from those states will have left the conference, the party conference, and are now rethinking their position. Otherwise you'd say that it would be like Arabs saying they're not going to sell oil to the world. NANCE HAXTON: Toro Energy is a uranium explorer based in Adelaide with projects in South Australia and the Northern Territory. Managing Director Greg Hall says the change in Labor policy will be viewed positively not only by the local uranium mining industry but also by overseas companies looking to source uranium. GREG HALL: It reflects now a positive approach by both sides of politics to look at an industry which I know from my experience is a very long-lived industry both within Australia and overseas. We see ourselves, within Toro Energy, as do many other uranium companies, as a supplier to the global nuclear industry which is now expanding, has always been expanding, but is expanding now faster than before. It's of paramount importance to many countries overseas that I've been involved with before that they keep expanding their programs. And they also want to see security of supply from good quality companies in countries which have strong regulatory regimes. They really like the fact that Australia has this focus on itself in terms of how they manage uranium mines going forward. NANCE HAXTON: Mr Hall says he thinks this latest move is the culmination of a significant change in mood towards the uranium mining sector. GREG HALL: When I first started in the early 80s there was let's say intense opposition to mines such as Olympic Dam going forward, but debates change over time and people's views change over time. And what we're feeling now is that there's a generation of people now who understand the globe better, who understand energy sources better, who understand the operation of things better. And so there's a lot more curiosity out there about the nuclear power business internationally, and about Australia's place in that in terms of uranium mining. MARK COLVIN: Toro Energy Managing Director Greg Hall ending Nance Haxton's report. ***************************************************************** 50 AU ABC: Expo to put focus on mine safety, uranium mining ABC Western Queensland | Local News (ACST)Tuesday, 1 May 2007. 10:45 (AWST) The issues of mine safety and uranium mining are expected to dominate the Mount Isa Mining Expo starting today. Organisers are expecting thousands of people to attend the three-day event, with 120 exhibitors also participating. Queensland Water Minister Craig Wallace says the expo will be a useful tool in helping make Government decisions, particularly about infrastructure. "I'm keen to speak to people right across the north-west about infrastructure needs and that's why the Beattie Government's drawing up the economic triangle study ... between Townsville, Bowen and Mount Isa which will form the basis of growth across the north and north-west over the next 30 years," he said. ***************************************************************** 51 AU ABC: Rann to speed up uranium exploration licence applications ABC North and West SA | Local News (ACST)Tuesday, 1 May 2007. 11:06 (AWST) South Australian Premier Mike Rann says he will fast-track 100 applications for uranium exploration licences now the Labor Party has overturned its no new uranium mines policy. Labor scrapped its uranium policy at its national conference at the weekend. Mr Rann says there are 60 companies in South Australia with 160 exploration licences for uranium, with another 100 in the queue. "What we'll be seeing is a rush for exploration licences," he said. Jason Kuchel from the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy says companies that have found substantial deposits have so far been reluctant to move ahead. "Prior to the Labor conference on the weekend those companies were unsure of whether or not they would be able to proceed," he said. Mr Kuchel expects companies to apply to open new uranium mines within 12 months. ***************************************************************** 52 Aiken Today: DOE offers no alternatives for SREL funding AikenStandard.com Tue, May 1, 2007 By JOSH VOORHEES Staff writer Despite repeated warnings from concerned citizens, scientists, and a United States congressman that the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory will be forced to close due to a lack of funding, Savannah River Site officials have yet to offer any possible alternatives to replace the environmental stewardship that would be lost by the independent facility's closure. "I can't speak to issues related to closure ? that is not the Department of Energy's decision," said DOE Spokesperson Julie Peterson when reached for comment Monday afternoon. She said that she was unaware of any discussions in the Department regarding what would be done in the event that SREL does close. "If closure of SREL is being discussed ... it is not a decision that will be made by DOE and the Department has not been informed of such a decision otherwise," Peterson wrote later in the day in an e-mail responding to a request to speak with SRS Manager Jeffrey Allison, who was unavailable for comment. The e-mail continued: "The Department won't speculate or comment on something that 'may occur'; we can speak to what we do know as it pertains to the existing signed agreement." Under the existing agreement between the DOE and the University of Georgia ? which SREL is a research unit of ? SREL will receive $1 million from the DOE in core funding for its infrastructure for this fiscal year, down from between $4.5 million and $5 million the previous year. The Laboratory is also eligible for up to $3 million in additional funding for work deemed by the DOE as mission-critical. However, funding under the agreement differs from the level of financial support that Allison promised SREL Director Paul Bertsch in a letter sent last March. In that letter, Allison wrote Bertsch to confirm a conversation that Bertsch had several days earlier with a DOE official "reaffirming that the Savannah River Operations Office plans to fund $4 million for SREL operations in FY 2007." Peterson said that she could not elaborate on the decision process that occurred between when that letter was sent and when Allison signed the agreement on November 30, other than to say that "a number of discussions and meetings were held during the finalization of the co-operative agreement." Proponents of SREL have repeatedly stated, both before and after the agreement's signing, that without more funding for SREL's infrastructure, it would be forced to close. In a letter to the editor published in the Aiken Standard last October, Mal McKibben, executive director of the pro-nuclear Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness, wrote that the proposed budget reductions would result in the elimination of SREL. The following month, two weeks prior to the contract being signed by Allison, the SRS Citizen Advisory Board (CAB) submitted a recommendation to DOE urging that SREL funding for this fiscal year be set at no less than $4.5 million. The recommendation stated that if funding was not increased, "SREL will close." The public support of SREL continued after the agreement was signed. In March of this year, Congressman John Barrow (D-GA) wrote a letter to Samuel Bodman, DOE secretary, expressing his extreme concern "that a continuation of the Department's course of reducing funding for the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory is about to shut down the SREL completely." While both the SRS CAB and Rep. Barrow received written responses from government officials, in neither response was the possibility of SREL closure discussed. Instead, both letters ? signed by Allison and James Rispoli, assistant secretary for DOE-EM, respectively ? stated that any additional funding for SREL would need to come on a task by task basis. Neither Rispoli nor Rep. Barrow could be reached for comment Monday. Under this new business model, SREL would operate similarly to the Savannah River National Laboratory which receives the majority of its funding in bits and pieces from the DOE for specific mission-critical tasks approved by Department officials. The problem with this, says McKibben, is that it makes it difficult for SREL to continue to operate in an independent state ? the very thing that makes the Laboratory so valuable as an evaluator of SRS's environmental impact. "If the Department of Energy controls all of the funding, it is pretty hard (for SREL) to remain independent," he said Monday. "SREL badly needs funding for its own research." With nuclear supporters in the Central River Savannah Area talking of a "nuclear renaissance" highlighted by new missions ? such as the proposed mixed-oxide fuel fabrication facility at SRS, and the potential of one of two area sites being chosen to host the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership ? the timing of the possible end of the independent SREL is unfortunate, said SREL Director Paul Bertsch. "It is clear that as the Savannah River Site moves forward with new missions, that SREL is critical ? maybe even more critical than it has been in many years," he said Monday. "The importance of the 56-year-old institutional memory (of SREL) cannot be overstated." If funding is not increased, DOE-SR programs being conducted by SREL will cease at the end of May, said Bertsch. Since the agreement was signed, SREL has been granted an additional $800,000 in funding for mission-specific research, said Peterson. The Laboratory has submitted requests for additional funding for several more specific projects, but Peterson was unable to give a timetable on how long the review process associated with those requests might take. In order to prepare for the Laboratory's closing, Bertsch has requested that SREL staff begin drawing up plans and making arrangements for dispersal of the Laboratory's inventory, including the numerous animals used in SREL's outreach and research programs. Contact Josh Voorhees at jvoorhees@aikenstandard.com. © 2005 The AikenStandard. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 53 DOE: DOE Receives Highest Transportation Industry Safety Award May 1, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today received the Transportation Community Awareness and Emergency Response (TRANSCAER) Chairman's Award, one of industry's highest transportation safety awards, for helping local communities in emergency preparedness and response. TRANSCAER is a voluntary national organization that assists communities in emergency preparedness and response. "I’m very proud that The Department of Energy has raised the bar for community-based transportation emergency preparedness," Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman said. "Safety is our number one priority, and we will continue to help local communities be safe and secure.” TRANSCAER Chairman Bill Macready presented the TRANSCAER Chairman’s Award to Secretary Bodman for the model Commodity Flow Surveys DOE conducted, which provide critical data to states and local communities for transportation emergency preparedness. “In the true spirit of TRANSCAER, DOE encouraged citizens, industry and responders to work together to fully understand and prepare for potential hazardous materials transportation incidents. TRANSCAER is proud to have DOE as a Partner and looks forward to DOE's continuing leadership” Bill Macready stated. DOE’s Office of Environment Management safely transported more than 10,000 safely-transported radioactive shipments in 2005 and 2006. As a result of DOE’s work, the National Academy of Sciences is utilizing DOE’s approach to develop its own Commodity Flow Survey Guide for community groups throughout the United States. The TRANSCAER Chairman’s Award is awarded only when the National TRANSCAER Committee determines an exceptional effort should be recognized. DOE is the first federal agency to receive this award, and is one of only two recipients of the Chairman's Award, in its 15-year history. DOE’s Commodity Flow Survey efforts, coupled with DOE’s renowned Transportation Emergency Preparedness Program and associated Modular Emergency Response Radiological Training Program, form the basis for the Department’s outreach efforts and this award. Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 54 E&ETV: Argonne lab director Rosner says increasing use of nuclear energy unavoidable in U.S. About this video Is there a technology that will prevail as the ultimate solution to climate change? How far along are the research and development for widespread implementation of coal-to-liquids, nuclear, wind, solar, and biofuels technologies? During today's OnPoint, Robert Rosner, director of Argonne National Laboratories, discusses what needs to be done in order to encourage consumers that climate technologies will be cost beneficial to their bottom lines. Rosner talks about how Argonne's work has been impacted by the major focus on climate change. He also discusses how Argonne is contributing to the climate change discussion. watch video email video Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today is Dr. Robert Rosner, director of Argonne National Laboratory. Dr. Rosner thanks for coming back on the show. Robert Rosner: It's a pleasure to be here. Monica Trauzzi: As Congress and the administration and the scientific community weigh their options for addressing climate change which technologies do you see as the most promising for addressing the issue? Robert Rosner: I would say that the answer is we're not quite sure yet. What we do know is that we have really a huge menu of likely possibilities. And if you were to ask me what's the most likely one? It's that most of them, in fact, will come to fruition. These range from sequestration of CO2, and that's the result of burning coal, or oil shale eventually; includes biofuels, both ethanol produced from feed stocks like corn, maybe sugarcane, maybe switch grasses; includes biofuels such as biodiesel; includes nuclear; includes solar; includes wind. I think all of them, we know that these will work at some level. And ultimately I think the question will really come down to economics and the economic question really depends on where will our technology develop? And it's driven by basic science needs. Where will that really end up? And we don't know that. Monica Trauzzi: But it's such an urgent issue. Robert Rosner: Absolutely. Monica Trauzzi: Is that an OK answer? We don't know. Robert Rosner: No, no, no. I don't know means, you are asking me to select one of the winners before people have really done the really hard work, finished the hard work really, of doing the basic science. What I'm saying is that could be all of them, at some level we'll be winners, and which one truly will be out ahead really is an economic question. It's a question of how well does technology will really push the price of electricity, for example, production by these means downwards to where in the marketplace they can actually produce. Monica Trauzzi: So how far along are we in the research and development of these technologies? Robert Rosner: I think this depends very much on which area you pick. In the area of biofuels we know that today, with subsidies, we use ethanol. Every time you drive up to a gas pump in the state of Illinois we're pumping ethanol, about 10% of the volume is, in fact, ethanol. So some of these things are already underway. And the economics of ethanol really ultimately will depend on improving the yield of ethanol production from the feedstock, finding the feedstocks that are probably more effective in being turned into ethanol. I mentioned what the Brazilians are doing today using sugarcane. The possibilities of switch grasses, other kinds of plants that are basically optimized for the use of producing ethanol as opposed to food stuffs. And that's a process I think - we will see the price of ethanol production continue to decrease. The other thing about ethanol production that's important here is that ethanol production, at first, when you first look at it, doesn't really help you on the CO2 front. What it does do is it helps you on the displacing gasoline front, that is aside from the energy security issue. But I think ... Monica Trauzzi: And it doesn't help on the CO2 front because ... Robert Rosner: Because you need ... Monica Trauzzi: ... energy is required? Robert Rosner: To produce it, right. But I think as we go in the direction of cellulosic ethanol production that will change. And once that happens and that becomes economically really competitive you will also see an improvement on the CO2 front. Monica Trauzzi: Is the current R&D funding sufficient though from the Department of Energy or is more needed in order to successfully create and implement these technologies? Robert Rosner: That is a very interesting question. The first point that I would make is that it's very clear that everybody, on a nonpartisan basis, understands that large investments will be needed on the R&D front. So I think that's an issue that's, from the point of view of, on the political it seems to me, from my perspective as a scientist, luckily off the table. Everybody recognizes R&D is necessary. Now when you ask me is it enough? This then is like, imagine asking a scientist, do you have some money? Would you like it? And would you imagine ever meeting a scientist who would say, no thank you, I have enough? I don't think so. I think it's all a matter of pacing, a matter of the feeling of urgency, and, quite frankly, also it helps to have a crystal ball where you would know where to put your money. One of the great difficulties I think that we have today is that it's not obvious exactly where you would place your bets. If you had $100, how should you divide $100 between the various possibilities? And today what we're doing is we're spreading the money fairly evenly because we don't quite know yet which will be the real winners. And I think that's appropriate. Monica Trauzzi: So there's this big push for action on climate change right now. Robert Rosner: Right. Monica Trauzzi: Particularly with the Democrats in power. The IPCC report certainly has brought more attention to the issue. How is that affecting the work that you're doing? Is there an increased push for your laboratory to work even more? Robert Rosner: Oh, I think so. I think there's no question about that. We're seeing a revival of research areas that the laboratory once upon a time was in fact quite active in which we're going back into. The climate area is one such area. Our laboratory doesn't per se do climate modeling in the way that, for example, National Center for Atmospheric Research does in Boulder. But we're very interested in coupling to the kind of work that they do. We do experimental work on, for example, atmospheric sampling. So that's an important component of what we do. And we're also interested very much in the question of how climate modeling couples to the economy. How does climate, in fact, influence the economic sphere? And one of the key elements of this is, in fact, the role of simulations. Climate modeling is all about using computers to understand the atmospheric system. But we also know that we can do modeling in the economic sphere. And the questions to voice then, do they interact? For instance, does climate influence what happens in the economics and vice versa? How does economics, in fact, drive where climate is going? Monica Trauzzi: Part of the issue of moving from a petroleum economy to a more green economy is convincing the consumer that change is good. Robert Rosner: Right. Monica Trauzzi: And to sort of get them to accept these new technologies and ideas. Robert Rosner: Right. Monica Trauzzi: So even if the technologies do exist, how do you get the customer to buy into it? Robert Rosner: Well, here I will express an opinion that perhaps not everybody will agree with. We in the Chicago area, at this point, are paying about three dollars roughly speaking per gallon for gasoline. And you can ask yourself, well, is that the true cost of using gasoline in my car? And the answer really is it is not. If you're asking about paying for the life cycle cost for fuels, in the case of gasoline what you would have to include is the fact that we are, in fact, emitting carbon dioxide, we're influencing the atmosphere in a negative way, and ultimately somebody is going to have to pay for that, to fix that problem. So one proposal that's on the table is, for example, carbon tax. Lots of people have been talking about this in Washington and elsewhere. And my feeling is that something like a carbon tax, something, some tool, economic tool that actually makes the consumer pay for the actual cost of what they're actually consuming, is I think a good idea. Monica Trauzzi: Let's talk about nuclear for a moment. When you were on our show two years ago there was opposition to Yucca Mountain and major questions about spent fuel. Now with the Democrats in power and Harry Reid as the Senate majority leader, he's the senator from Nevada, we're not quite seeing the shift from that thinking. Robert Rosner: Right. Monica Trauzzi: Where do you think the debate over nuclear stands and do you see it having a major role in the future of U.S. energy policy? Robert Rosner: So the answer is, let me start with the second part. I think nuclear is at some level unavoidable. When we think about what the energy mix will be for stationary power say 30 years from now or 40 years from now, it's very hard to see how you're going to avoid the use of nuclear power. Even in the most optimistic scenarios about carbon sequestration one question that does come up is, in the long term, if you're really talking about say time scales of the order of say a century, 100 years, does the United States, for example, have sufficient reservoir capacity to actually contain all the CO2 that would need to be, for example, pumped into the ground if you sequester it? The answer is, well, it's not so clear. So if you take the long view, not next year, not five years, but if you really take the long view of say 50 years from now, 100 years from now, it's very hard to see how you can avoid a source of energy such as nuclear. So having said that the question is, well, how do you get there? The rest of the world is plunging on ahead. There's no question about it. If you go to China or you go to India they're busy building nuclear plants. If you go to Europe the Europeans are starting to build nuclear plants. Monica Trauzzi: France is very involved. Robert Rosner: France, of course, very involved. The Finns have just ordered, in fact, and I believe it's actually already started, building a plant by the French. The French are building a nuclear plant in Finland. So there certainly is, outside of the United States, increasing momentum in this direction. I think part of the reason is folks do realize that nuclear has to be part of the solution. It's not the whole solution, but it's certainly part of it. So for us what is the issue? Well, there are many issues. One of them has to do with public acceptance. I think that you were getting at that. You're hinting at it. Another one has to do with an issue that everyone faces throughout the world, which is what you do with the spent fuel? In the absence of having Yucca Mountain opened yet the spent fuel, at the present time, is still being placed in storage near the existing nuclear plants. And I think everyone from the utilities all the way to the regulators to the folks, anybody with interest in this question who'd like to solve the problem of what you do with that spent fuel? And the program that this administration put forward is in answer to that question. The answer to that question is that spent fuel can be reprocessed to the point where what's left, what really is the residual, is material that can really be fairly characterized as low-level waste. So it doesn't have the radioactive level of the spent fuel that comes out of plants right now. And once you get to that point questions about putting it into a repository such as Yucca Mountain become much easier questions to answer. Monica Trauzzi: OK. We're going to end it right there. Thanks for coming on the show. Robert Rosner: It's a pleasure to be here as usual. Monica Trauzzi: This is OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Thanks for watching. [End of Audio] ***************************************************************** 55 Hanford News: EPA offer attractive to DOE: Agency proposes work on environmental project instead of fine This story was published Tuesday, May 1st, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy is interested in working off a $1.14 million fine for problems at a landfill for radioactive waste in central Hanford, it has told the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA gave DOE the option of proposing an environmental project in addition to work already being done to clean up the Hanford nuclear reservation in lieu of paying all or part of the fine. DOE would like to do a supplemental project but still needs to work out the details and make sure it would not take management attention or any resources away from Hanford cleanup, said Colleen French, DOE spokeswoman. DOE expects the contractor for the landfill, Washington Closure Hanford, not the government, to pick up the costs of a supplemental project. Washington Closure also said it would be willing to do a supplemental project, but that a project that DOE, EPA and Washington Closure could all agree to would need to be found. Washington Closure would plan to pass the costs on to its subcontractors at the landfill, currently S.M. Stoller and formerly Duratek. S.M. Stoller would be willing to discuss a supplemental project, but is not willing to admit it is at fault, said Jim Archibald, Stoller vice president. EPA had given DOE 30 days to indicate a commitment to a supplemental environmental project and that deadline was up last week. DOE had expressed an interest in developing a project by then, but said it would need additional time to develop a proposal and talk with interested parties. According to EPA, DOE agreed at an April 18 meeting to provide EPA with a preliminary proposal within 30 days. EPA agreed not to demand payment of the fine at least until late June and said requests for additional deadline extensions would be considered if there is continued and substantial progress on an environmental project commitment that is acceptable to EPA. On March 27, EPA told DOE that it was being fined for problems at the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility, a lined landfill for low-level radioactive waste. Problems came to light in January when S.M. Stoller, the subcontractor operating the landfill, discovered that an employee had been recording data for compaction testing when no testing was done. After contaminated soil and building debris from the cleanup of the Hanford nuclear reservation is added to the landfill, a bulldozer is used to compact it to prevent settling that could damage its integrity. EPA believed that some of the compaction testing equipment also was used improperly from June 2005 through early 2007. The fine also covered problems monitoring and using a system to pump water that was collected and drained from the upper liner of the double-lined landfill. The pumps quit operating automatically in a portion of the landfill after a storm in May 2006, but the problem went unnoticed. Twice the water level exceeded regulations be-tween May and December. However, the lining is not believed to have been damaged. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 56 Hanford News: Perma-Fix plans to buy Nuvotec, PEcoS: Purchase expected to be finished near end of May This story was published Tuesday, May 1st, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Perma-Fix Environmental Services has reached an agreement to purchase Nuvotec to obtain its subsidiary, Pacific EcoSolutions, or PEcoS, in Richland, for $11.6 million. Perma-Fix signed a letter of intent to buy Nuvotec in October and Monday announced that a definitive agreement on the sale had been reached. The purchase could be completed around the end of May. "The Perma-Fix acquisition of PEcoS creates a unique combination of facilities and state-of-the-art technologies, which will address a much broader range of waste at the Hanford site," said Bob Ferguson, chairman of Nuvotec and PEcoS, in a statement. PEcoS uses a thermal system to treat low-level radioactive waste and similar waste mixed with hazardous chemicals at its site adjacent to Hanford. Perma-Fix has additional technologies to treat the same types of waste. Perma-Fix plans to issue $2 million in shares of Perma-Fix common stock and $2.5 million in notes payable over four years to Nuvotec shareholders that qualify as accredited investors. In addition, $2.5 million will be given to accredited and nonaccredited investors. Up to $4.6 million will be paid to Nuvotec shareholders depending on revenues over the first four years of merged operations. Perma-Fix also will assume up to $9.4 million in Nuvotec debt plus any normal expenses incurred by PEcoS. Perma-Fix is interested in PEcoS to expand its presence on the West Coast and because of its close ties to Hanford. "The Hanford site is one of the most expensive of all the DOE's nuclear weapons facilities to remediate, creating further opportunities for the company to expand market share," said Louis Centofanti, chairman of Perma-Fix, in a statement. "Having begun treating higher level radioactive waste at our Oak Ridge, Tenn., facility, we look forward to extending these capabilities to Hanford," he said. Perma-Fix's expertise will benefit Hanford cleanup, Ferguson said. Perma-Fix already has treated Hanford waste, including drums of uranium shavings packed in oil that were discovered in a Hanford burial ground in 1998. It also has treated equipment and protective clothing contaminated by work with Hanford's 177 underground tanks of radioactive waste. The sale is contingent on the transfer of PEcoS licenses with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington state departments of Health and Ecology. It also must be approved by a Nuvotec shareholder vote. Ferguson is expected to serve on the board of Perma-Fix, a national environmental services company based in Atlanta, which has increased its focus on nuclear services. Perma-Fix also offers industrial waste management services and has nine major waste treatment facilities across the nation. Not included in the sale are Nuvotec's majority ownership of Vivid Learning Systems and its partial ownership in two other companies. Washington Group will occupy the former Nuvotec offices. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 57 Hawk Eye: Reaching out (DOE Workers) Sunday, April 29, 2007 In an April 20 notice posted on the Labor Department's Web page, Assistant Secretary Victoria Lipnic sought to reassure former workers and their families. "The Department has been, and remains, 100 percent committed to administering this program fairly and effectively," Lipnic said. "From the beginning of this program, everyone involved ? at every level ? has been keenly aware that many claimants are ill, elderly and have been awaiting not only compensation but also recognition of their sacrifice for a long time." She cited the department's efforts to improve services including expanded outreach meetings to help workers and their families process their claims and assist with medical?benefits and wage?loss services. Lipnic also suggested that claimants needing help call the program's toll?free number, (866) 888?3322. "Please know that we will strive to do our very best to help those claimants who sacrificed their health for our nation's freedom," Lipnic said. ? DENNIS J. CARROLL The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · Problems? contact the webmaster. ***************************************************************** 58 LasVegasNOW.com: DOJ Wants Lawsuit Against 'Divine Strake' Dismissed The U.S. Department of Justice is hoping to revive a plan to blow up a 700-ton bomb at the Nevada Test Site. During a conference Monday, the government worked on getting a lawsuit against the "Divine Strake" blast dismissed. The non-nuclear explosion could send a mushroom-shaped dust cloud over the Nevada desert. Opponents fear it will also kick up radioactive dust from old experiments. Gov. Gibbons Urged to Request Public Hearings on Divine Strake Explosion A group of Nevada activists is pressing Gov. Jim Gibbons to request an environmental impact statement and public hearings on the federal government's plans for a 700-ton explosion on the Nevada desert. More>> 'Divine Strake' Blast at Nevada Test Site Delayed Indefinitely The federal government has indefinitely postponed a planned explosion that was expected to generate a mushroom cloud over the Nevada desert. More>> Downwinders Gather 600 Signatures Against 'Divine Strake' In two weeks, opponents of a planned explosives test in Nevada have gathered 600 signatures in the area around St. George, Utah, on petitions asking Utah's senators to help stop the test. More>> Shoshone Tribe, Downwinders File 'Divine Strake' Lawsuit An Indian tribe and several nuclear fallout "downwinders" want a federal court to halt plans for a huge non-nuclear blast that's expected to generate a mushroom cloud over the Nevada desert. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 59 KNDO/KNDU: Energy Department reviews options to work off fine Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Immigration March expected to tie up traffic in Yakima An immigration march organized by the Yakima Hispanic Chamber of Commerce is expected to tie up traffic in downtown Yakima Tuesday afternoon. Tieton Celebrates Progress in Fixing Water System Tieton city leaders say they have all the funding needed to replace the old water pipes that left them in a water crisis six months ago. Bad Batch of Medicine Kills Three People, One in Yakima Valley A batch of bad medicine has killed two people in Portland and one person in the Yakima Valley. Ellensburg Discusses Too Much Retail More regional retail and not enough consumers could present problems. Redbox Rentals at Albertsons It's a new way to rent videos is in Albertsons stores from Yakima to the Tri-cities, and they only cost a dollar. TRIDEC Releases GNEP Citing Study TRIDEC submits its study on a controversial plan that could guide the area's economic future. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************