*****************************************************************
05/02/07 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 15.103
*****************************************************************
   RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body

                         NUCLEAR POLICY
 
1 US: New York Times: Interior Official Steps Down Over Rules Violatio
2 US: DOS: A Work Plan for the 2010 Review Cycle: Coping with Challeng
3 IAEA: Laying the Groundwork for the 2010 NPT Review Conference
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
4 US: [du-list] Zero emmissions? Who are they trying to fool?
5 The Australian: Nuclear power only an option - Turnbull 
6 The Australian: Turnbull hedges on nuke issue 
7 US: Guardian Unlimited: NRC Tightens Access to College Reactors 
8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.: Nuclear Deal With India Draws Near 
9 Guardian Unlimited: Energy groups set sights on new nuclear plants 
10 US: Charlotte Observer: Duke CEO: Nuclear is answer
11 Sydney Morning Herald: New law bans nuclear power in Qld - 
12 Times of India: Nuclear Winter-
13 Times of India: Govt working overtime to iron out N-wrinkles
14 US: Gallup Independent: South Texas residents tell opponents to keep
15 The Hindu: India, U.S. hold talks on 123 agreement
16 The Hindu: `Funds for nuclear projects inadequate'
17 The Calgary Sun: Nuke power push in high gear
18 Channel 4: Nuclear industry failing, says study
19 US: POAC: Marsh grass ruins restart of Salem I
20 US: IdahoStatesman.com: Start-up company pursues plan for nuke plant
21 US: toledoblade.com: NRC silence over reactor report is questioned
22 US: recordonline.com: Nuke extension for Indian Point?
23 US: Rutland Herald: Bad choice for energy, the economy
24 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance at Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant
25 US: Tallahassee Democrat: To diversify, nuclear power is the answer
26 US: Times Daily: Reactor at Browns Ferry to be cleared for productio
27 US: Star-News: Reactor deal a boon for local GE | 
28 Eureka Street: Say 'no' to nuclear but not for the usual reasons - 
29 US: CourierPostOnline: PSEG might expand Salem nuke complex
30 US: Burlington Free Press: Senate OKs tax on Vt. Yankee tax
31 US: NRC: License Renewal Application for Indian Point Nuclear Plant 
32 US: CourierPostOnline: Analysts: PSEG set to gain from expansion
33 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Energy bill gets first nod
34 IAEA: Climate Change Report Looks at Nuclear Power, Other Options
35 US: Daily Press: New N. Anna reactor more likely
36 US: Daily Press: Dominion orders nuclear parts
37 US: ETW: Nuclear is not a dirty word
38 US: delawareonline: Marsh grass chokes off Salem reactor again
39 Reuters: U.S., India said to make progress on nuclear deal 
40 Shanghai Daily: Nuke energy warming issue -- 
41 UPI: Chinese see climate draft a growth threat
42 US: MHNN: Indian Point license renewal application available for pub
43 www.bbj.hu: Japanese and Kazakh ministers sign nuclear power agreeme
44 US: Birmingham News: NRC panel to recommend reactor re-start - 
45 AFP: Nuclear storm gathers as climate change experts meet - 
46 AFP: US, India eye nuclear breakthrough - 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
47 BBC NEWS: Pakistan downplays radioactive ad
48 Mail & Guardian Online: SA bid for secret nuclear trial questioned
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
49 US: Denver Post: Ex-Flats workers to testify tonight to health panel
50 US: AP: Train carrying shuttle rockets derails in Alabama - 6 injure
51 US: PM: Dying Nuclear Workers Sue Labor Department
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
52 US: Arizona Republic: EPA agrees to clean up contaminated soil on Na
53 US: SF Chronicle: THE MAZE MELTDOWN / SAFETY: Nuclear shipments ques
54 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Canadian company obtains uranium assets, 
55 US: IHT: Utah uranium mill sold to Canadian company - 
56 US: AU ABC: Miners want to see the fine print
57 US: KNDO/KNDU: TRIDEC Releases GNEP Citing Study
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
58 DOE: DOE Announces up to $200 Million in Funding for Biorefineries
59 DOE: DOE Does Not Accept SPR Bids and Suspends Plans for Future Purc
60 Hanford News: CH2M Hill hires new chief operating officer
61 Hanford News: Home-grown nuclear energy sought in Idaho
62 Hanford News: CH2M Hill gifts to WSU top $2 million
63 Hanford News: Plans made for FFTF, unfinished reactors
64 Idaho Mountain Express: INL to begin counter-terrorism tests - 
65 Rocky Mountain News: Flats workers have chance to plead case
66 KnoxNews: Y-12's lack of discipline again rears its ugly head
67 KnoxNews: How plan for nuclear fallout
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 New York Times: Interior Official Steps Down Over Rules Violation - 

By FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: May 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 1 ? A deputy assistant secretary at the Interior 
Department resigned Monday, a month after the department’s 
inspector general issued a stinging report that said she violated 
federal rules by giving industry lobbyists internal agency 
documents and rode roughshod over agency scientists.

The resignation came about a week before a House committee was set
to hold hearings on political interference with biologists, and the
same day that Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, wrote Interior
Secretary Dirk Kempthorne demanding that he take action to address
the concerns about the official, Julie A. MacDonald, who was
overseeing the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Efforts to reach Ms. MacDonald were unsuccessful.

The department issued no formal statement about her resignation, nor
did it release the text of any resignation letter. Hugh Vickery, a
spokesman for the wildlife service, said that the resignation was a
personnel matter and that department officials would not comment on
it.

Even as environmental groups issued statements of satisfaction with
the departure of an official who had become a magnet for accusations
of political interference with the work of federal biologists, they
and Congressional critics said they were not convinced that the
interference would end.

Representative Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat of West Virginia and
chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said Tuesday in a
statement, “The problems at the Fish and Wildlife Service are not
merely a matter of people and personalities; the faults run much
deeper than Julie MacDonald.”

Mr. Rahall added that his committee would investigate them in its
House hearing next week.

Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological
Diversity, said: “Julie MacDonald’s reign of terror over the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service is finally over. Endangered species and
scientists everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief. But MacDonald
was the administration’s attack dog, not its general.”

Among other actions that drew the ire of wildlife biologists and
lawyers, Ms. MacDonald had heavily edited biologists’ reports on
sage grouse, a species that in the end was not placed on the
threatened or endangered lists. Their habitat overlaps with vast
parts of the Rocky Mountain West, where oil and gas drilling and
cattle ranching are prevalent; listing the grouse as endangered or
threatened could have curbed those industries’ access to federal
lands.

In another case in the inspector general’s report, Ms. MacDonald
demanded that scientists reduce the nesting range for the Southwest
willow flycatcher to a radius of 1.8 miles, from a 2.1-miles, so it
would not cross into California, where her husband has a ranch.

She also gave internal agency documents to industry lawyers and a
lawyer from the Pacific Legal Foundation, all of whom frequently
filed suit against the Interior Department over endangered species
decisions.

Earlier this year, J. Steven Griles, the former deputy interior
secretary, pleaded guilty to lying to a Senate committee about his
dealings with Jack Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist who is now in
prison.

Bob Hollack, a wildlife service biologist in the Spokane, Wash.,
office who resigned last month in part after prolonged disagreements
over the editing of his scientific reports, said in an interview,
“It will be interesting to see what they do now ? clean up some of
her messes or go on doing the same thing.”

Mr. Wyden, in remarks for Wednesday’s Congressional Record, said,
“We cannot continue to have government scientists whose work is
manipulated and conclusions are rewritten by political appointees.
We cannot continue to have federal officials working secretly with
groups challenging their own agencies.”

The issue of internal agency documents finding their way into the
hands of lawyers suing the agency may not end with Ms. MacDonald’s
departure. Last week, lawyers in Portland, Ore., for the
environmental group, Earthjustice, discovered that a timber lobbying
group, the American Forest Resource Council, had based part of its
March 7 lawsuit against the Interior Department on an internal draft
of endangered-species regulations, not on the rules actually in
force.

Chris West, a spokesman for the timber group, said the erroneous
citation was being changed. Mr. West did not immediately respond to
e-mail asking how the lobbyists had gained access to a preliminary
working document. The draft would make it easier to remove
endangered-species protections that had already been granted to
animals and plants.

*****************************************************************
 2 DOS: A Work Plan for the 2010 Review Cycle: Coping with Challenges Facing
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

Dept of State

Secretary Rice Travels to Sharm el-Sheikh  |  Daily Press Briefing |

Dr. Christopher A. Ford, United States Special Representative for
Nuclear Nonproliferation

Opening Remarks to the 2007 Preparatory Committee Meeting of the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Vienna, Austria April 30, 2007

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As we begin a new review cycle for the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty (NPT), it should be clear to everyone that this is indeed a
pivotal time for the Treaty. The Treaty confronts tremendous
challenges, as well as remarkable opportunities, about which I would
like to speak briefly before offering the United States' suggestions
about how the States Party assembled here today can help the NPT
better achieve its objectives.


I. Challenges and Opportunities


A. Nonproliferation Compliance

The most fundamental challenges facing the NPT regime today are
related to noncompliance with its core of nonproliferation
provisions. These challenges should require no elaboration, but it
is worth emphasizing that this is the first time that NPT States
Party have commenced a new review cycle since some of the worst of
these problems first bloomed in the public eye. This is, then, the
first time that we have an opportunity to define and refine measures
and approaches to ensure a review cycle that is fully relevant to
these circumstances.

* This is the first review cycle, for instance, to have begun
  after public revelation of Iran's two-decade-long clandestine
  nuclear program, and after its nuclear weapons ambitions have
  become clear to the international community.


* It is the first review cycle to have begun after the revelation
  of Libya's secret nuclear weapons program, and we applaud Libya's
  courageous decision to end it.


* It is the first NPT review cycle to begin since public
  revelations about the A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network that
  supplied enrichment technology and nuclear weapons-related designs
  to both Libya and Iran.


* And it is the first review cycle since North Korea announced its
  withdrawal from the Treaty, and since that country's subsequent
  nuclear detonation.


* Furthermore, this is also the first review cycle to have
  commenced after debates in NPT fora have come to focus upon what
  the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General has
  referred to as the "Achilles heel" of the regime -- the spread of
  technology giving more and more states the ability, if they choose
  to do so, to overcome the principal remaining technical hurdle to
  proliferation: producing fissile materials usable in nuclear
  weapons. President Bush focused many of his groundbreaking
  February 2004 remarks at our National Defense University upon this
  topic, and this review cycle thus begins with these issues fully
  before us.


Together, these developments and others present the NPT regime today
with the most significant challenges it has ever faced: how to
ensure the integrity and continued viability of the Treaty in the
face of flagrant nonproliferation noncompliance.


We should not delude ourselves about how important it is that the
Treaty, which has served its States Party well over the years, meet
this challenge of nonproliferation noncompliance. Failure to ensure
NPT compliance undermines the most important benefit the NPT brings:
assurance against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. By
undercutting these core nonproliferation assurances,
nonproliferation noncompliance imperils the peace and security of
all nations. Failure to deal with noncompliance will lead to a loss
of faith in the Treaty, embolden would-be violators to traduce their
obligations, and even tempt peaceful and law-abiding states -- in
light of this -- to hedge their bets and consider pursuing nuclear
weapons themselves. Make no mistake: a world with more nuclear
weapons possessors and more availability of the capacity to make
such weapons would be far more dangerous than the one in which we
all live today.


Noncompliance with the Treaty's core of nonproliferation obligations
also undermines efforts to bring about universal adherence to the
NPT. If compliance with the Treaty's obligations were to be seen, in
effect, as merely optional, there would be both little purpose in
seeking to bring non-parties into the Treaty and little benefit of
having them subject to its obligations if they did join.
Nonproliferation compliance is thus critical to any meaningful
effort to achieve universal adherence.


Nonproliferation noncompliance also undermines the foundation of
trust and safety upon which the benefits of peaceful international
nuclear cooperation are necessarily built. Without assurances that
transfers of nuclear technology will occur within the framework of
appropriate safeguards and as part of a system that helps ensure the
employment of such technology for exclusively peaceful purposes,
such transfers would become more difficult -- or even impossible --
and much of mankind would lose the benefits that such technology can
bring. Nonproliferation compliance is thus the foundation upon which
benefit-sharing necessarily rests, for technology-possessors cannot
and should not share their knowledge and experience if doing so
would not be safe, or would not be consistent with their
nonproliferation obligations.


And finally, nonproliferation noncompliance undercuts the
aspirations of the international community to nuclear and to more
general disarmament, as expressed in the Preamble and Article VI of
the NPT. If the emergence of new nuclear weapons possessors cannot
be stopped, new regional or global nuclear arms races are likely to
develop and/or become entrenched, and the risk of nuclear warfare
could increase dramatically.


For all of these reasons, it is imperative that States Party focus
during this review cycle upon how to develop and implement vigorous
and sustained efforts to detect violations of the Treaty's
nonproliferation obligations, return violators to compliance, and
deter other future would-be violators from following such a path. If
the Treaty's parties will not stand up for compliance with its most
important provisions, how can the NPT regime survive? This is the
most critical test that States Party face during this review cycle.


B. Promoting Peaceful Uses


But this review cycle may be a pivotal one not merely with regard to
nonproliferation. Take, for instance, promoting the peaceful uses of
nuclear energy. Here, the Treaty faces both challenges and
opportunities. The NPT faces a challenge because the system of
international cooperation in peaceful nuclear endeavors relies upon
the observance of nonproliferation norms, including the Treaty's
core of nonproliferation obligations. And the Treaty faces a
challenge because of the dangerous tendency on some countries' part
to twist and politicize discussions of the Treaty's Article IV in an
effort to excuse and provide political cover for efforts --
including, currently, by Iran -- to develop the capability to
produce fissile material for nuclear weapons.


But the Treaty also faces great opportunities in the area of
peaceful uses, for nuclear energy has always had a Janus-faced
aspect, offering humankind both great peril and extraordinary
promise. Upon witnessing the first nuclear explosion, Robert
Oppenheimer, the head of the team of scientists who built that first
atomic bomb, recalled a line from the great Indian classic, the
Bhagavad-Gita: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." But
Oppenheimer only quoted the first half of that sentence from the
thirty-fourth stanza of the tenth chapter of the Gita. The second
half of it translates roughly as: "and I am the origin of things
that are yet to be."


As the full verse thus seems to presage, nuclear energy has indeed
offered humankind terrible destructive power but also enormous
creative power. And today, NPT States Party stand on the threshold
of a new era in growing nuclear cooperation worldwide as the world
increasingly seeks to meet its skyrocketing energy needs with
nuclear power generation. Programs such as the United States' Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and the initiative to provide a
robust and reliable mechanism for international nuclear fuel supply
hold out the promise of expanding nuclear cooperation and
technology-sharing, in proliferation-resistant ways, to the great
benefit of all humanity.


C. Progress Toward Disarmament


Finally, this is an important time for the NPT with regard to
disarmament issues, which I know are of great concern to many States
Party here today. The Cold War is now long over, and dramatic
progress in reducing the number of warheads and delivery systems has
been possible on account of the changed strategic relationship
between the two former superpower adversaries. The Moscow Treaty is
currently being implemented, resulting in further reductions. In the
United States, for instance, we are dramatically cutting back our
operationally-deployed strategic nuclear warheads pursuant to the
Moscow Treaty, and are well on track to reach the Treaty's target in
the year 2012. Such reductions have been accompanied by considerable
success in actually dismantling U.S. nuclear warheads, with
increasing quantities of fissile material being removed forever from
our nuclear weapons programs. From Fiscal Year 2006 to Fiscal Year
2007, for instance, we increased the rate of dismantlement by 50
percent. If we are able to proceed with ongoing efforts to modernize
the U.S. nuclear infrastructure, improvements currently underway at
facilities used for warhead dismantlement will enhance productivity
and increase efficiency. As a result, the United States anticipates
that the rate of weapon dismantlement will increase over what is
currently planned. Meanwhile, pursuant to our Nuclear Posture Review
of 2001, we are decreasing our formerly exclusive reliance upon
nuclear weapons for strategic deterrence.


These developments underscore, however, the importance of this
review cycle for disarmament issues. We are already beginning to
work with our Russian colleagues to develop the contours of our
strategic relationship to follow the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START), and hope to build a strong and productive post-START
relationship of transparency and confidence-building measures with
Moscow. Furthermore, the world stands today on the cusp of beginning
negotiations on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), a treaty
that could become a reality during this review cycle.


It is important that other NPT States Party clearly lend
encouragement and support to the kinds of choices that will
contribute in practical ways toward creating the kind of world in
which it would become possible to achieve the elimination of nuclear
weapons as called for in the Preamble and Article VI of the NPT.
There has unfortunately been too much rhetoric and too little
practical thinking about the kind of environment that would make
this possible, and less still about how to create such an
environment. If this review cycle is to contribute meaningfully
toward helping achieve that outcome, it is time for the NPT
community to think more realistically.


II. Making the Most of the Review Cycle

So for all of these reasons, this review cycle promises to be a very
significant one -- one in which the Treaty will either deal
effectively with the challenges it faces and its States Party will
seize the great opportunities being offered them, or in which it
will see its credibility eroded and its contributions to
international peace and security and international development
diminish.

Mindful of these challenges and opportunities, the United States is
determined to do its utmost to help the NPT thrive during this
review cycle. To this end, we would like to offer our thoughts on
how States Party can use their discussions during this review cycle
to contribute to progress in fighting proliferation, success in
expanding and deepening international nuclear cooperation in
proliferation-resistant ways, and the achievement of the disarmament
goals articulated in the Preamble and Article VI of the Treaty.


Part of the effort we are undertaking to help make this review cycle
a success is to try to set an example of engagement and dialogue on
all NPT-related issues. You will, I hope, find us deeply committed
to full, open, and honest debate on all relevant subjects. As an
example of this engagement, we have produced and issued a number of
papers on subjects ranging across the spectrum of NPT issues. These
papers are available to everyone on the U.S. State Department
website, at http://www.state.gov/t/isn/wmd/nnp/c21893.htm, and I
encourage you to read them if you have not yet done so. We will also
be introducing a number of these papers as official working
documents for this PrepCom, in the hope that this proves convenient
to you as your own governments wrestle with these matters. We
solicit your feedback and comments upon our papers, and hope that
they will succeed in their objective of catalyzing productive debate
and discussion, both at this meeting and during the rest of the
review cycle.


When States Party gather in New York in the spring of the year 2010
for the Review Conference that will serve as the culmination of this
NPT review cycle, we should all strive to reach consensus upon a
constructive Final Document. That document should review what
progress has occurred during this cycle toward fulfillment of the
Treaty's purposes. We should all earnestly hope, and work to ensure,
that this review is able to recount considerable progress and to
memorialize the fact that by then significant steps have been taken
in all of the above respects, thereby helping to overcome the
challenges facing the NPT today.


The guidance function of the review process is an important one. Of
course, the suggestions we might make in a consensus document would
be recommendations, and would not be legally binding upon our
successors. Those same successors should accept or reject our advice
based upon how relevant our recommendations are under the conditions
of the world in which they themselves live. The 2010 Final Document
would be no different than its predecessors in this respect.
Nevertheless, it is valuable for us to offer the policymakers of
future review cycles what wisdom we can. We must hope, if it is good
advice, that they will take it.


To this end, the United States would like to offer today an outline
of some key points upon which, it appears from today's vantage
point, States Party should agree during this review cycle in order
to help the Treaty survive its challenges and live up to its
potential. This outline may be broken into six principal parts: (a)
ensuring compliance with nonproliferation obligations; (b) deterring
withdrawal by violators of the Treaty; (c) promoting and expanding
peaceful and responsible uses of nuclear energy; (d) strengthening
safeguards and nuclear security; (e) promoting disarmament pursuant
to the Preamble and Article VI of the Treaty; and (f) improving
review cycle procedures and process. I ask for your patience, Mr.
Chairman, while I briefly list our recommendations in each of these
areas in turn. There are 30 in total.


A. Nonproliferation


Given the grave challenges that face the NPT from noncompliance with
its core of nonproliferation obligations during this review cycle,
it is of course imperative for NPT States Parties to place great
emphasis upon this area -- and indeed, their greatest. NPT States
Parties should consider:


(1) A reaffirmation of the need for and critical importance of full
compliance with the Treaty, and the importance of States Party
working together to promptly detect, effectively remedy, and
thereafter deter violations of its provisions;


(2) An expression of support for the efforts of all relevant States
Party, through diplomatic means, to bring about the prompt return of
Treaty violators to full compliance, and a reaffirmation of the
importance of the United Nations Security Council in taking
appropriate steps to deal with the serious proliferation risks and
threats to international peace and security that result from such
violations;


(3) A reaffirmation of the role of the IAEA in helping detect and
address noncompliance with IAEA safeguards, including through
reporting instances of noncompliance to the U.N. Security Council
pursuant to the IAEA Statute;


(4) An affirmation of the need for and critical importance of full
compliance by all states with obligations created by resolutions of
the U.N. Security Council, pursuant to its authority under Chapter
VII of the United Nations Charter, in order to help address
proliferation threats and/or in response to reporting by the IAEA of
instances of noncompliance with nuclear safeguards obligations; and


(5) An affirmation of the importance of full cooperation by all IAEA
Member States with the nuclear safeguards inspectorate in quickly
and clearly resolving outstanding questions related to a state's
compliance with safeguards obligations, including the IAEA
Additional Protocol.

B. Treaty Withdrawal


The announcement in 2003 by North Korea that it was withdrawing from
the NPT -- and its subsequent detonation of a nuclear device it had
been developing for years while a member in bad faith of the Treaty
- -highlight the need for States Party to work together to deter
Parties from using the mechanism of withdrawal as a means to escape
the consequences of their violation of the Treaty's provisions. It
is important, moreover, for us to make such withdrawal more
unattractive before any other State Party violator is tempted to
follow such a course. To this end, States Party should agree upon:


(6) An affirmation that a State Party in violation of the NPT's
provisions should remain accountable for its violations
notwithstanding its potential withdrawal from the Treaty, and should
not benefit from actions it took in furtherance of such violation
while a Party;


(7) A call for the IAEA and its Member States to consider measures,
under such authorities as may be available, for continued
safeguarding of nuclear equipment and material in a withdrawing
State Party, should that Party complete the requirements of Article
X;


(8) A reaffirmation of the authority of the IAEA, pursuant to
Article XII.A.7 of its Statute, to terminate assistance and withdraw
any material or equipment made available by the Agency or a Member
in furtherance of an Agency project if a recipient state does not
comply with its safeguards requirements and fails to take corrective
action within a reasonable time; and


(9) A statement that any withdrawal from the NPT by a state in
violation of its provisions is a matter of grave concern which
should be the focus of attention by all States Party and, as
appropriate, the UN Security Council.

C. Peaceful Uses


The United States remains firmly committed to promoting and
expanding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in ways consistent
with the nonproliferation purposes and obligations of the Treaty. As
our delegation will detail during the course of this meeting, we are
engaged in ongoing efforts to deepen international nuclear
cooperation and improve the world's ability to meet its
rapidly-growing energy needs through the expansion of civil nuclear
power generation. In recognition of the importance of the goals
States Party share in these regards, we should agree upon:


(10) An expression of support for supplier states' efforts to
develop improved technologies and methods for civil nuclear power
generation in nonproliferation-responsible ways, and in ways that
meet the needs of all, including in the developing world;


(11) An affirmation of the benefits of a robust, reliable, and
internationally-backed fuel-services regime, including both fuel
supplies and spent fuel handling and disposition, in order to help
ensure countries' abilities to meet their energy needs;


(12) A reaffirmation that States Party to the NPT must exercise
their inalienable right to the use of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes in conformity with Articles I, II, and III of the Treaty;
and


(13) An affirmation that nuclear suppliers should not share nuclear
technology in circumstances where doing so would increase risks of
the proliferation of nuclear weapons or would be inconsistent with
nonproliferation obligations of the Treaty or safeguards agreements.

D. Safeguards and Security


Article III of the Treaty requires non-nuclear weapon States Party
to reach and comply with safeguards agreements with the IAEA.
Because of the proliferation risks posed by unauthorized access to
and use of nuclear materials, members of the international community
have also devoted extensive time and resources to improving nuclear
safety and security around the world. Because the safeguards system
and efforts to improve nuclear safety and security are so closely
related to, so intimately connected with, and of such importance to
fulfilling the Treaty's nonproliferation purposes, States Party
should support:


(14) A call for full compliance with Article III of the NPT by all
States Party, and for the prompt adherence of NNWS to comprehensive
safeguards agreements with the IAEA;


(15) An affirmation of the need for universal adherence to the IAEA
Additional Protocol as the new standard for international nuclear
safeguards and a call for all states to bring Protocols into force;


(16) A reaffirmation of the importance of preventing unauthorized
transfers of, or access by criminals or terrorists to, any nuclear
technology, equipment, or material, including by means of full
implementation of Resolution 1540 and implementation of obligations
under the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material
and its 2005 amendment; and


(17) A call for States Party to cooperate in order to help
developing nations comply with the requirements of Article III of
the NPT and with international conventions and UN Security Council
resolutions related to nuclear safety and security, including
through capacity-building programs.

E. Disarmament


The Preamble to the Treaty and its Article VI make clear that all
States Party share a commitment to the achievement of nuclear
disarmament, and indeed to general and complete disarmament. The
United States has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment to these
objectives, and we do so again today. You will hear from us no doubt
repeatedly during the course of this meeting about the steps we have
taken, and are continuing to take, to help achieve the goals of the
Preamble and Article VI. Indeed, it might even be said that no
country would be happier than the United States were it possible, as
if by some magic spell, to make nuclear weapons -- and indeed all
WMD -- permanently vanish from the world tomorrow morning.


If the objective of disarmament is actually to be achieved, however,
it will take much work on everyone's part, and no small amount of
time. And it will require the international community to engage in
more realistic and practical thinking about creating a disarmed
world than has hitherto taken place. In order to help contribute to
bringing about the changes that will be needed in the global
security environment in order for nuclear weapons elimination to
become possible, therefore, States Party should agree upon the
following declarations:


(18) A reaffirmation of the goals expressed in the Preamble and
Article VI of the NPT, and of the commitment of all States Party to
the achievement of these goals;


(19) An affirmation of the need for realistic and practical thinking
and diligent efforts by all States Party in order to create the
environment in which it will be possible not merely to achieve but
also to sustain over time the total elimination of nuclear weapons;


(20) A reaffirmation of the NPT Preamble's exhortation that States
Party should ease tensions and strengthen trust in order to
facilitate and help create conditions in which the elimination of
nuclear weapons can be achieved;


(21) An affirmation of the need to ensure compliance with
nonproliferation obligations in order to prevent the emergence or
worsening of nuclear arms races, including regional nuclear arms
races, that would undermine fulfillment of the Treaty's disarmament
objectives and obligations as expressed in Article VI;


(22) A reaffirmation of the importance of achieving universality of
the NPT, and of the important contributions toward this end played
by ensuring nonproliferation compliance, by strengthening nuclear
safety and security, and by bringing about the easing of tension and
strengthening of trust among nations as described in the Preamble;


(23) An affirmation of the importance, for the achievement of the
Treaty's disarmament objectives, of ensuring full compliance with
all nonproliferation obligations related to other types of weapons
of mass destruction and their delivery systems;


(24) An affirmation of the need to deter violations of any future
nuclear weapons disarmament regime, including by ensuring that any
violation would be quickly addressed through robust and effective
compliance enforcement measures and that it would not be possible
for a violator to realize strategic benefits from such a violation;


(25) An affirmation of the importance, until such point as the total
elimination of nuclear weapons can be achieved as called for in the
Preamble and Article VI of the NPT, of nuclear weapons-possessing
states: (i) reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles to the lowest
possible levels consistent with maintenance of their national
security and that of their allies; (ii) reducing their reliance upon
nuclear weapons; (iii) preventing unauthorized access or
exploitation of nuclear weapons-related knowledge or material and
subjecting civil nuclear facilities and materials to IAEA safeguards
and the Additional Protocol consistent with national security and
nonproliferation principles, and (iv) improving transparency and
building confidence related to their nuclear arsenals and doctrines;


(26) An affirmation of the importance of using all appropriate tools
to deter the acquisition and use of weapons of mass destruction
banned by international agreements;


(27) A reaffirmation of the importance of achieving a Middle East
free of weapons of mass destruction of all types, as well as their
delivery systems - goals articulated in the Resolution on the Middle
East adopted by the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference - in
the context of a stable regional peace and by means of easing
tensions, strengthening trust between nations, and implementing
robust measures to prevent the development of a nuclear arms race in
the Middle East; and


(28) An affirmation of support for measures undertaken by States
Party acting jointly or independently to reinforce nonproliferation
norms and impede the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on
account of the role such measures play in helping reduce the danger
of new regional nuclear arms races and helping prevent the worsening
of international security relationships that could impede further
progress on disarmament.

Finally, we also hope that NPT States Party will be able to express
the pleasure and satisfaction of States Party with the successful
achievement of an FMCT. If states are willing to act upon their
long-professed support for an FMCT at the Conference on Disarmament,
it is very possible that an FMCT will have been completed by 2010.
Hopefully, therefore, it will not be necessary still to call for the
achievement of an FMCT at the 2010 Review Conference. Instead, we
hope that the Conference's account at that time of progress in
fulfilling the NPT's purposes will be able to describe in glowing
terms the FMCT's conclusion or perhaps even entry into force.


D. Procedures


And last, we believe that in order to help the next review cycle
successfully meet whatever challenges the NPT will face after 2010,
we believe that States Party should not be shy about recommending
improvements to the ways in which the review process itself conducts
business. Specifically, we suggest:


(29) A call for future Review Conferences to: (i) keep agendas
generally consistent with the objectives of Article VIII.3 of the
NPT in order to permit consideration of any issue affecting the
operation and purpose of the Treaty without provoking needless
controversy, delay, and potential stalemate by identifying specific
issues in their agenda formulations; and (ii) accommodate the
legitimate concern of States Party with ensuring that matters of
special importance receive appropriate treatment within the
framework of each meeting's agenda by addressing such issue-specific
questions through the allocation of time for discussion of specific
matters within each meeting, its committees, or any other subsidiary
bodies, as applicable; and


(30) A call for future Preparatory Committee meetings and Review
Conferences to follow practices of leadership rotation that would
permit a fair and representative selection from among diplomats from
all the regional groups within the NPT review process -- rotation
practices that the United States believes should commence with the
2010 Review Conference itself.

III. Conclusion

I appreciate your patience, Mr. Chairman, for I have spoken for
perhaps too long. The United States believes, however, that it is
important for this meeting to set both the tone and the pace for a
successful review cycle -- a cycle that will hopefully also
culminate in the adoption of a strong and constructive Final
Document in 2010. Now is the time for us to begin discussing how we
will help the Treaty survive the challenges it faces today, and how
we will help it fulfill its purposes better in the future. We thank
you for the opportunity to outline our vision for this future here
today.

Released on April 30, 2007


The Office of Electronic Information, Bureau of Public Affairs,
manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State
Department. External links to other Internet sites should not be
construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies
contained therein.
FOIA  |  Privacy Notice  |  Copyright Information  |  Other U.S.
Government Information



*****************************************************************
 3 IAEA: Laying the Groundwork for the 2010 NPT Review Conference

30 April 2007

Austria Center in Vienna, where the NPT "PrepCom" will be held.
(Photo: D. Calma/IAEA)

The first of three Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) sessions opens in
Vienna 30 April in the run-up to the 2010 Review Conference of the
Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT).

Some 130 States Party to the NPT are expected to attend the two-week
meeting at the Austria Center. They will address substantive and
procedural issues related to strengthening the authority and
implementation of the Treaty and making recommendations in this
regard for adoption by the Review Conference.

With near universal adherence, the NPT is regarded as the
cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Its objective
is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, to further the goal of
achieving general and complete nuclear disarmament, and to promote
cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In recent years,
however, the NPT regime has come under stress on multiple fronts. It
is expected that this first PrepCom session, in beginning to lay the
groundwork for the 2010 Review Conference, will address these
challenges while also bearing in mind the package of decisions and
resolution adopted in 1995 and the Final Document agreed in the 2000.

Although the IAEA is not a party to the NPT, it is entrusted with
key roles and responsibilities under that Treaty. Article III, in
particular, tasks the IAEA with verifying that non-nuclear weapon
States party to the NPT fulfil their nuclear non-proliferation
undertaking, "with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy
from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices." The IAEA also facilitates and provides a channel for
endeavours aimed at "the further development of the applications of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes", in the context of Article IV.

Ever since the first NPT Review Conference in 1975, States Party to
the NPT have reiterated that IAEA safeguards play a key role in the
nuclear non-proliferation regime. In the 2000 Final Document, they
reaffirmed that the IAEA is the competent authority responsible for
verifying and assuring, in accordance with its Statute and the
IAEA´s safeguards system, compliance with States´ obligations under
Article III.l of the Treaty.

The 2007 PrepCom session, chaired by Ambassador Yukiya Amano of
Japan, signals the start of the formal preparations for the 2010 NPT
Review Conference. Review Conferences are held every 5 years. This
is the first time a NPT Preparatory Committee session is being held
in Vienna - the same year in which the IAEA is commemorating its
50th anniversary.

Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
*****************************************************************
 4 [du-list] Zero emmissions? Who are they trying to fool?
 
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 15:05:59 -0700


<x-flowed>
Welch touts nuclear energy use

USEC president says it's coming back in U.S. 
By JEFF BARRON
PDT Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:19 AM EDT


Nuclear power is making a comeback as the energy source of choice in the 
United States, United States Enrichment Corp. President and CEO John 
K. Welch said.

“As a zero-emissions technology, nuclear power is the only large-scale, 
base load electric generation that does not add greenhouse gases to 
the environment and does not contribute to global warming,” he said. 
“We believe this attribute will become increasingly important over 
the coming decades.”

Welch made his remarks at USEC's annual shareholders meeting recently.

The company wants to develop a new way of enriching uranium by 2012 
at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon.

USEC leases the plant from the U.S. Department of Energy.

“The United States and much of the developing world must build new 
electric generating plants to keep up with burgeoning demand and to 
replace aging, dirty and inefficient fossil-fueled power plants,” 
Welch said. “World demand is expected to double by 2030.”

Welch said emerging economic powers of Asia are ordering new nuclear 
power plants. He also said after a hiatus of more than two decades, 
U.S. utility companies are ready to build a new generation of nuclear 
reactors.

The new reactors then will need a reliable source of fuel to power them, 
Welch said.

USEC is building and installing centrifuge machines in Piketon for a test 
plant of the American Centrifuge program.

On April 10, Gov. Ted Strickland said nuclear power was beneficial 
because it is a clean energy source.


He also said he thinks USEC will ask the government for taxpayer help 
in starting the American Centrifuge program.

JEFF BARRON can be reached at (740) 353-3101, ext. 236.

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 5 The Australian: Nuclear power only an option - Turnbull 

NEWS.com.au | * May 02, 2007

This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP

AUSTRALIA may never have a nuclear power station but the option 
should be explored, federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull 
said today.

Mr Turnbull made the comments while criticising federal Labor for 
refusing to consider nuclear power as a way of cutting greenhouse 
gas emissions.

"Maybe a nuclear power station will never be built in Australia," he
told the National Press Club in Canberra.

"I'm not saying that one will be, I'm certainly not predicting that
one will be."

While he could not detail the cost of building a nuclear power
plant, Mr Turnbull said it had to be one of the options considered.

"Whether it stacks up economically or financially remains to be seen.

"You've got to have very option on the table."

The minister said Labor leader Kevin Rudd would not have nuclear
power at any price.

"He would rather transform this country from a low into a high
energy cost economy than consider nuclear power."

Labor said the Government had nothing else to offer on tackling
global warming.

"Mr Turnbull's only answer to climate change is to gamble
Australia's future on the Prime Minister's nuclear obsession &ndash;
25 nuclear reactors spread across the nation," environment and
treasury spokesmen Peter Garrett and Wayne Swan said.

"An obsession with nuclear power is not economically responsible."

A poll released today said about one-third of Australians supported
the construction of nuclear power plants.

The Newspoll survey in April for think-tank The Australia institute
found 36 per cent in favour of nuclear facilities.

"Despite the Government's promotion campaign, there is still
widespread opposition to nuclear power," deputy director Andrew
Macintosh said.

© The Australian
*****************************************************************
 6 The Australian: Turnbull hedges on nuke issue 

NEWS.com.au |

* Sid Marris * May 03, 2007

A NUCLEAR power station may never be built in Australia but the 
option has to be part of the response to the "fact" of climate 
change.

Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said yesterday the world's
climate was getting warmer "principally through burning fossil
fuels" and it would be a direct challenge to the nation's prosperity.

Less than a week after John Howard said Australians had to face the
reality that nuclear power stations "will come", probably in 10
years, Mr Turnbull said it was a prudent option.

He warned that clean coal technology had yet to be successfully
implemented, highlighting the risk of putting "all your eggs in one
basket".

"It may be that a nuclear power station will never be built in
Australia," he told the National Press Club in Canberra. "I am not
saying that one will be, I certainly am not predicting that one will
be.

"But just as I would not favour, in the context of water, taking
desalinisation off the agenda or recycling off the agenda, you have
got to have every energy option on the agenda because it's very hard
to predict the future and unless you are able to consider all the
options you won't be able to make the best choices."

Mr Turnbull said Australia had an enormous endowment of coal and the
nation's prosperity was based in a large measure on cheap,
coal-fired carbon-intensive energy.

"So don't let anyone tell you the adjustment to a less
carbon-intensive world will be easy for Australia. It won't be," he
said.

"This is the greatest economic challenge our nation faces; the cheap
energy which has provided our prosperity, sustained higher wages and
higher living standards is under threat."

Mr Turnbull would not be drawn on whether the Howard Government
would implement an emissions trading system after the Prime
Minister's task group on the issue reports at the end of the month.

But he insisted the Labor proposal of a 60 per cent reduction in
emissions by 2050 unreasonably prejudiced the jobs and prosperity of
the nation. Accounting for the growth in the economy, the target may
even blow out to 80 per cent.

"As I said from the outset, moving into a less carbon-intensive
world is going to be costly for Australia - regardless of how
successful clean coal technology may prove to be, it is undoubtedly
going to add significantly to the costs of generating electricity
from burning coal," he said.

"So we will be disadvantaged relative to countries which have large
supplies of nuclear power, like France, or hydro-electric power,
like Brazil. That is a given.

"However, setting unilateral targets as Labor has proposed would
serve no purpose, other than the pauperisation of our own country."

Labor said Mr Turnbull had been given the opportunity to show the
Howard Government was finally getting serious about climate change,
but instead ruled out action.

In a joint statement, Treasury spokesman Wayne Swan and environment
spokesman Peter Garrett said Mr Turnbull's only answer to climate
change was to gamble Australia's future on the Prime Minister's
nuclear obsession.

"Extraordinarily, when asked about the cost of a single nuclear
reactor, Mr Turnbull admitted that 'whether it stacks up
economically or financially remains to be seen'," they said.

"An obsession with nuclear power is not economically responsible.
Refusing to cut Australia's greenhouse gas emissions is not
economically responsible."

Mr Turnbull yesterday unveiled a further $18.5 million in funding to
help reduce emissions of methane from underground coalmines, a
particularly caustic greenhouse gas, as well as $17.6million to help
develop storage technologies for renewable energy.

© The Australian
*****************************************************************
 7 Guardian Unlimited: NRC Tightens Access to College Reactors 

From the Associated Press

Wednesday May 2, 2007 1:46 AM

By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: U.S.: Nuclear Deal With India Draws Near 

From the Associated Press

Wednesday May 2, 2007 5:16 AM

By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Meetings meant to jump-start a U.S.-Indian 
civilian nuclear cooperation plan ended Tuesday with the United 
States saying a final agreement could be settled this month.

  India's foreign secretary, Shiv Shankar Menon, came to 
Washington for talks with U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas 
Burns about a deal U.S. officials have portrayed as a way to 
transform a strategic relationship with a rising, democratic 
power in Asia.

 ``We're both confident that we can do this,'' Menon told 
reporters. ``The quicker the better.''

    The deal cleared a major hurdle in December when Bush signed 
a congressionally approved exception to U.S. law to allow the 
shipment of civilian nuclear fuel to India. The countries must 
still settle technical negotiations on an overall cooperation 
plan, and frustration has been evident on both sides.

  Neither negotiator revealed specific details of the talks, but 
the U.S. State Department issued a statement that said the 
countries expect to resolve ``outstanding issues'' in coming 
weeks and that Burns plans to travel to India this month ``to 
reach a final agreement.''

 Menon was more cautious, saying only that considerable progress 
had been made. ``We still have issues we have to settle,'' he 
said. ``But I think it's doable.''

  Earlier Tuesday, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said 
it will ``require some creativity and some compromise on both 
sides in order to get an agreement done, if we're going to be 
able to move this as quickly as we would have hoped.''

  Some in India fear the deal could limit India's right to 
reprocess spent atomic fuel.

  Another potential problem is a nonbinding clause, inserted by 
the U.S. Congress, which directs the U.S. president to determine 
whether India is cooperating with Washington's efforts to 
confront Iran's nuclear program.

  While the officials met, American critics ratcheted up 
complaints over a plan they say would spark a nuclear arms race 
in Asia by allowing India to use the extra nuclear fuel that the 
deal would provide to free up its domestic uranium for its 
weapons program.

    Democratic Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Democratic Rep. Ellen 
Tauscher, D-Calif., have sent a letter to President Bush that 
expresses worry over what they say is India's ``growing defense 
relationship'' with Iran.

   Menon said that nothing India does with Iran is in opposition 
to international rules.

    Before nuclear trade between India and the United States 
could begin, several obstacles remain, including current 
negotiations on an overall plan, which also must be approved by 
Congress.

 A final deal would mean U.S. civilian nuclear trade with India 
would be permitted in exchange for safeguards and U.N. 
inspections at India's 14 civilian nuclear plants. Eight military 
plants would be off-limits.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Energy groups set sights on new nuclear plants 

Mark Milner, industrial editor
Wednesday May 2, 2007

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns the sites of 
Britain's Magnox reactors, has been consulting the local 
communities about what they want to replace the power plants.

It has set up stakeholder groups to choose a replacement use for 
the Magnox sites from a series of options. The NDA is still 
collating the results but the favoured option at Dungeness A, 
which closed at the end of last year, is another nuclear power 
plant, according to a spokesman for the organisation.

The NDA stresses it has no remit to decide the future use of the
sites; its job is to evaluate options and report to the government.
But its early findings will encourage British Energy, which operates
other nuclear power stations.

The company has already invited expressions of interest from
potential partners to work on new nuclear plants on land at its
existing sites.

It sees its relationships with local communities as one of its key
assets, alongside its experience of running nuclear plants, skills
base, connections to the national transmission network, and
geological locations, which will make it attractive to potential
partners. Big generators like Eon, RWE and EDF are tipped to be
among those interested in working with British Energy.

With or without British Energy, the big generators are keen to be
involved in the development of nuclear new build as part of a
portfolio of energy sources.

In March, for example, Dr Paul Golby, chief executive of Eon UK,
said he saw replacement nuclear plants as essential to meet the UK's
climate change and energy security objectives. "In my view,
replacing our nuclear capacity is an option that the UK must have if
we are serious about diversity of supply and tackling climate
change."

EDF Energy has made no secret of its nuclear ambitions. Its chief
executive Vincent de Rivaz wants to see the first plant in operation
by 2017, which would mean building work starting in 2012. "We are
well advanced to be in pole position to build new nuclear," Mr de
Rivaz said in an interview last week.

RWE said it was waiting to see what came out in the white paper.

British Energy is keen to cast its net as widely as possible, and
sees financial institutions or large customers as potential partners
in its ambitions for the future.

"We asked in February for expressions of interest from those who
could see themselves working with us in partnership on nuclear new
build in the UK," said a British Energy spokeswoman.

Companies interested in new nuclear plants are expected to want to
wait until the energy white paper later this month provides details
of the framework for new nuclear power. They will also be keen to
gauge long term political commitment to nuclear power and an
assessment of the continuing development in the market for carbon
trading which could help to underpin the economic case for nuclear
new build.

The British Energy spokeswoman said: "We are confident we are
getting a very positive response."

She declined to give details about the identity of those who had
already approached the company. The government's role in British
Energy's strategy extends beyond laying the ground rules newnuclear
building. It effectively owns 65% of British Energy as a result of
its support for a financial restructuring and has previously
indicated that it wants to sell at least part of the stake.

It will need to be persuaded that allowing British Energy to trade
its assets and skills for a share in the ownership of new nuclear
power stations and a role in running them represents the best return
for the taxpayer if it received competing proposals for outright
purchase.

The prospect of a new generation of nuclear power plants is already
attracting attention from reactor builders. General Electric, from
the US, is reported to have expressed interest to the government in
offering its latest reactor design.

Rivals Areva, from France, and Westinghouse which the government
sold to Japan's Toshiba last year, are also expected to be
interested in winning work.

Useful links
British Energy
Department of Trade and Industry
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Greenpeace
Come Clean WMD awareness programme
UK atomic energy authority
National Radiological Protection Board
Friends of the Earth
World Nuclear Association
World Nuclear Transport Institute

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
*****************************************************************
 10 Charlotte Observer: Duke CEO: Nuclear is answer

05/02/2007 | 

Rogers says Congress must address option with climate change

CHRISTOPHER D. KIRKPATRICK ckirkpatrick@charlotteobserver.com

Duke Energy Corp. Chief Executive Jim Rogers said environmentalists
and Congress should support nuclear energy or risk failure in
battling global warming.

The strident talk from Rogers, one of the first utility executives
to call for regulating carbon dioxide from coal-fired power plants
and other industrial sources, comes as Duke plans a nuclear project
in Cherokee County, S.C., estimated to cost up to $6 billion.

It also comes at a time when the Democratically controlled Congress
considers how to tax or otherwise regulate industrial carbon dioxide
emissions.

Coal-fired power plants are a major source of carbon dioxide, blamed
by climate scientists as a cause of global warming, which threatens
to melt polar ice and cause flooding, among other environmental
disasters.

Nuclear energy, on the other hand, has zero emissions, and the
President Bush-backed Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides financial
incentives for utilities to start building plants again. But where
to store nuclear waste for the long term is unresolved and has been
a sticking point in Congress for years.

Environmentalists and Congress can't push for carbon dioxide
regulations, which will be expensive, and also obstruct nuclear and
hope to have enough electricity for the future, Rogers said at a
recent energy industry forum.

"For the Congress to address climate change and not address the
future of nuclear will doom us to failure, in terms of achieving our
climate objectives," he said. "Nuclear has to be thought of in the
same breath as carbon."

Charlotte-based Duke is the nation's third-largest consumer of coal
as it provides power to 3.9 million customers in five states. About
52 percent of the electricity Duke produces in the Carolinas comes
from burning coal, about the same percentage from all utilities
nationwide.

Duke operates three nuclear power plants in the Carolinas and
derives 46 percent of its Carolina electricity from the technology,
compared with 19 percent for all utilities across the country.

The United States is behind much of the western world in relying on
nuclear energy. But as concerns over global warming intensify, the
technology is increasingly seen as an environmental solution. Most
utilities abandoned projects and none have been licensed since the
partial meltdown in 1979 at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near
Harrisburg, Pa.

Some environmentalists say Rogers' scenario provides an artificial
choice between nuclear energy and global warming.

They believe nuclear energy and carbon dioxide are both unacceptable
threats and that electricity needs can be met in other, safer ways.
They say power companies and the country should focus investment on
renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs that reduce
demand.

Utilities and governments also should invest more money into
perfecting clean-coal technologies that show promise in capturing
carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere. The gas
might then be stored underground or pumped into gigantic greenhouses
for plants, which breathe carbon dioxide.

Michael Shore, a senior policy analyst with N.C. Environmental
Defense, said an energy future with less carbon dioxide does not
automatically mean more reliance on nuclear power. He said Duke is
moving in the right direction by pledging an aggressive energy
efficiency program. He said utilities could slash one-third of
energy demand in North Carolina through efficiency programs. And if
only the most cost-effective efficiency programs were implemented,
demand could be reduced by 14 percent, Shore said.

Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, also are
becoming cheaper and don't give off greenhouse gases, he said.

"Nuclear should bother everyone. It's expensive, and we have not
figured out how to manage the waste. And there are security issues,"
he said. "It's quite possible that we can figure out a low-carbon
future that is not dependent on nuclear energy."

Nuclear's Uncertain Future

Duke CEO Jim Rogers believes nuclear technology, once all-but
abandoned as unsafe, is a necessary part of the nation's energy
future. But plants will need to be re-licensed, and 26 new projects,
including a Duke plant project in Cherokee County, S.C., are in the
beginning stages and face uncertain futures, he said. Rising
materials costs and the looming issue of where to store nuclear
waste could slow or block the projects.Duke has three operating
nuclear plants, and the spent nuclear fuel rods are stored on site
in special pools of water and also in dry storage containers that
resemble free-standing mausoleums.

The federal government has spent $9 billion preparing a deep
underground storage facility inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But
politics has stalled the project, which is several years overdue.
The government estimates the price tag for completing and operating
the site until 2023 is nearly $27 billion.

Nuclear's Troubled Past

After the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, interest in
nuclear plants waned.

About 60 plants across the country were scrapped, and billions of
investment dollars were lost or passed on to consumers through rate
increases.

Duke scrapped six plants, and Raleigh-based Progress Energy canceled
three.

Duke lost hundreds of millions on the Cherokee County, S.C., site .
The utility raised rates to recover $224.5 million of the roughly
$600 million it spent on the previous project that was never
completed. It now wants to build twin reactors on the same site for
an estimated $4 billion to $6 billion.

*****************************************************************
 11 Sydney Morning Herald: New law bans nuclear power in Qld - 

www.smh.com.au

May 2, 2007 - 11:34AM

Nuclear power stations, nuclear facilities and radioactive waste
dumps are now banned in Queensland.

Queensland Mines and Energy Minister Geoff Wilson said the Nuclear
Facilities Prohibition Act 2006 came into effect on Monday.

"The Act bans nuclear facilities in Queensland in order to protect
the health, safety and wellbeing of each and every one of us," Mr
Wilson said.

"There is no need for Queensland to go down the path of nuclear
power plants or toxic waste dumps when we don't need to."

Premier Peter Beattie has long maintained Queensland's anti-nuclear
stance despite last weekend's vote by the federal ALP to overturn
its opposition to new uranium mines.

But the federal party still opposes nuclear power stations in
Australia and the local enrichment of the mineral.

On Saturday, Prime Minister John Howard announced plans to legislate
for nuclear power stations in Australia.

But Mr Wilson said on Wednesday that under Queensland's new law, a
plebiscite would have to be held if the federal government tried to
override it to build a nuclear facility in Queensland.

"We won't let the feds foist nuclear power plants or toxic waste
dumps on our state without the wishes of the people who live and
work here made known," Mr Wilson said.

Banned nuclear facilities include reactors, uranium conversion and
enrichment plants, fuel fabrication plants, spent fuel processing
plants and facilities used to store or dispose of material
associated with the nuclear fuel cycle such as radioactive waste
material.

Facilities for research and medical purposes and the operation of a
nuclear-powered vehicle are exempt.

Mr Wilson said other countries had nuclear power because they lacked
other energy resources or had to pay high prices for importing fuel.

"Here in Queensland we have access to abundant, long-term supplies
of coal and gas," he said.

"We're confident that clean coal technology will provide a similar
level of greenhouse abatement to that of nuclear generation and in a
shorter timeframe."

"Why go down a nuclear path when we don't need to?"

© 2007 AAP
Brought to you by
*****************************************************************
 12 Times of India: Nuclear Winter-

Editorial-Opinion

Updated: 2 May, 2007 2328hrs IST  |  Powered by Indiatimes

Brahma Chellaney

With the vaunted Indo-US nuclear deal floundering, the world’s two
biggest democracies have begun to blame each other. While the
still-continuing negotiations, as symbolised by foreign secretary
Shiv Shankar Menon’s Washington visit this week, outwardly suggest
the deal can still be salvaged, New Delhi now admits it will not get
in practice what the original accord had promised in principle —
the rights of “a responsible state with advanced nuclear
technology�, and “full civil nuclear cooperation�. Indeed,
America’s message has become plain: like it or lump it.

If the deal has shaped up in a way that it condemns India to
second-class status and links restrictive civil cooperation to
assorted good-behaviour conditions in perpetuity, New Delhi bears
more blame than Washington. While America never hid its
non-proliferation aim to see India’s nuclear-weapons capability
crimped, New Delhi entered the deal with remarkable naivete, with
Parliament being assured that the nation would get the “same
benefits and advantages as the US�.

India actually slipped at the very outset, when it hurriedly
embraced the US-drafted deal on July 18, 2005, without fully
grasping the significance of its phraseology. For one, the accord
committed India to identify and separate civilian “nuclear
facilities and programmes� for external inspection, when the only
issue discussed until then was about “power reactors�. For
another, it held New Delhi to a “unilateral� nuclear-test
moratorium, when India’s commitment had been to a “voluntary�
suspension.

As a result of these boo-boos, India was forced to identify not only
14 power reactors for permanent inspection, but also 21 heavy-water,
fuel-fabrication and research facilities, besides agreeing to shut
down its Cirus plutonium-
production reactor. The US, citing its domestic law, such as the
Arms Export Control Act where “unilateral� commitment is
defined, now insists that India, on the pain of punishment, lose its
right to resume testing and that it adhere to the Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTCR) “unilaterally� while remaining a prime
target of MTCR.

India slipped again when the US began legalising its demands.
Instead of making it loud and clear that India will not allow its
pledges to be expanded or stripped of their voluntary quality and
turned into irrevocable obligations through the means of US
legislation, the deal-pushers in New Delhi elatedly cheered on every
congressional move, to the extent that special envoy Shyam Saran
joined US undersecretary Nicholas Burns in Paris to hail the House
committee Bill as “a great job� done.

When the conditions-laden Hyde Act was finally enacted, the same
cheerleaders spun reality to meretriciously claim that Indian
obligations would flow only from the bilateral “123 agreement�.


Now the chickens have come home to roost. With the US insisting on
incorporating some of the Hyde Act’s egregious provisions in the
123 accord, New Delhi has had to drop its blinkers.

The US wants the right to cut off all cooperation and secure the
return of transferred items if India, in Washington’s estimation,
fails to live up to the prescribed non-proliferation conditions. It
also wishes to expressly block India from breaking out of safeguards
obligations even if fuel supplies were suspended or terminated. Had
the US not sought such terms, New Delhi would still have pretended
that the Hyde Act provisions didn’t matter.

While India cannot allow itself to be railroaded into accepting an
adverse 123 accord, the legal sanctity of such an agreement has to
be seen against the fact that it won’t have the status of an
international treaty under the
Vienna Convention. Yet, from the US standpoint, the 123 agreement
— a requirement under US law — has to be consistent with the
Hyde Act and Atomic Energy Act, especially because it has to go
before Congress for ratification. When India ought to have spoken
up, it snuggled into a hallucinatory loop of delusion. Now when the
US seeks to follow up on the
Hyde Act, India cries foul.

Think of an opposite scenario: a 123 agreement that incorporates
none of the Hyde Act provisions. Would that really free India from
the Act’s oppressive demands? Not really. The Hyde Act lays down
conditions independent of and in relation to the 123 accord. The Act
also defines the conditions for India in the other processes with
the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nuclear Suppliers’
Group.

As an auxiliary arrangement under US law defining the technical
rules of nuclear commerce, no 123 agreement — however
diplomatically worded — can release India from the Hyde Act’s
obligations. An earlier 123 accord over Tarapur, signed in 1963, was
abandoned by Washington in 1978 simply by enacting a new domestic
law that retroactively overrode the bilateral pact. That broke with
impunity a guarantee to provide “timely� fuel “as needed�
for Tarapur.

Today, India can’t get a similar lifetime fuel-supply guarantee
even on paper, thanks to the Hyde Act, which also bars reprocessing
and enrichment cooperation. The US currently has 23 different 123
agreements with partner-states but none is tied to such an
overarching, country-specific domestic law.

Instead of blaming Washington, New Delhi ought to reflect on its own
mistakes. And consider itself lucky that it can still disentangle
itself with little damage to its interests. Now both sides ought to
ensure that what was hyped as an epoch-making deal does not unravel
in a way to embitter bilateral ties.

The writer is a security affairs analyst.


Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 13 Times of India: Govt working overtime to iron out N-wrinkles

Indrani Bagchi
[3 May, 2007 l 0242 hrs ISTlTIMES NEWS NETWORK]

NEW DELHI: Refusing to be tied down on a date to wrap up the 
landmark nuclear pact, foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said 
at a press conference in the Indian embassy in Washington that 
"...as far as I’m concerned, this is doable... and we want to 
do it as quickly as possible."

After the disastrous showing in recent discussions, the government
worked overtime to work out a fresh approach to the deadlocked
issues – reprocessing, fuel guarantees, and consequences of
cessation of cooperation including the right of return – which the
team, with Menon leading them, carried to Washington.

Among other things, it included an alternative approach to the vexed
issue of reprocessing, which would be something like this: The text
would include a consent clause and the two countries would work out
the details in the "subsequent arrangements" section of the Atomic
Energy Act. On the cessation of cooperation, the two sides are
looking at language that can take care of both concerns.

The good part, said sources, was that the issues were taken up with
a problem-solving approach rather than to kill them.

"I think it’s a measure really of how the relationship has been
transformed in the last few years," Menon said at the press
conference. "Both sides came prepared to deal. We’re in the
ballpark on almost all the big issues," said an unnamed US official.

In recent weeks, US officials had launched a media blitz against
Indian recalcitrance leading many to fear that the deal may face
problems.

The important thing for the Indian government is not to sound like
it has caved in. Traditionally, the UPA government has been
defensive about a deal which is evidently a huge breakthrough. The
approach, agreed senior officials in the government, needs to be
more positive.

Copyright © 2007 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For
*****************************************************************
 14 Gallup Independent: South Texas residents tell opponents to keep fighting

May 1, 2007: 

'If only we'd known'; 

Protestors make their way along the road toward a proposed mining 
site in Crownpoint April 24. Hydro Resources Incorporated 
received a license to mine at the site west of town, but still 
must go through several reviews, including input from concerned 
citizens, before the work can begin. The protestors shouted 
slogans like "Water is life!", "Respect our land!" and "HRI go 
home!". [Photo by Brian Leddy/Independent]

By Zsombor Peter Staff Writer

Uranium timeline

Late 1970s - early 1980s: Several companies, including Conoco and
Mobile, explore uranium resources around Crownpoint

1986: HRI buys land around Crownpoint


1988: HRI files for mining license with NRC


2006: NRC grants final OK


2007: ENDAUM appeals NRC decision to 10th Circuit Court of Appeals;
mining has yet to begin

Related Story:
HRI offers grant program for nonprofit organizations

GALLUP ? The Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining aren't the
only ones who want the uranium mining company Hydro Resources Inc.
out of their community.

Almost 1,000 miles away in Kingsville, Texas, a half-hour's drive
inland from the Gulf Coast, some of the locals who've already leased
their land to the company want the same thing. Only in Kingsville,
Uranium Resources Inc., HRI's parent company, has been mining
uranium for almost two decades.

A group of lessors calling itself STOP, for South Texas Opposes
Pollution, blames URI for permanently contaminating its land. It
accuses the company of making false promises and breaking a
restoration contract it made with the county. The company denies the
charges. But when STOP member Elizabeth Cumberland heard about
ENDAUM's plans to picket HRI's Crownpoint office last Tuesday, she
got hold of a few other members and sent off a letter of support,
urging residents here not to make the mistake they did.

"If I could, I would prevent them from signing the lease and getting
in this position," she said. "You'll never get your land back.
You'll never get your water back. You'll never be able to sell it."

Breach of contract?
STOP complains about the explosions and numerous spills on state
record since URI started operations at its Kingsville Dome site in
1988. But what troubles the group most is what both STOP and Kleberg
County are calling a breach of contract.

In 2004 the county and company agreed that any wells in Areas 1 and
2 that were suitable for drinking, irrigation or stock watering
before mining started would be restored to pre-mining conditions
before mining could start in Area 3. When they signed the deal, said
George Rice, a groundwater hydrologist working for STOP, the county
didn't have its own experts. So it relied on the tests URI conducted
in 1985, which indicated that one of the wells, I-11, qualified.
Although URI has yet to fully restore even that one well, it started
mining Area 3 earlier this year.

URI, said Rice, "basically said 'Forget you, county. We're going to
go ahead mining, and if you don't like it that's too bad.' "

The county, in turn, passed a resolution Feb. 12 calling for
mediation with URI and authorizing litigation if necessary. Lowerre
& Frederick attorney Eric Allmon said the parties were still
mediating.

URI doesn't believe it's breached anything. After itsigned the deal
with the county, the company found a second test from 1987, still
before mining ever began, indicating that even I-11 didn't qualify.

But STOP's worries go beyond I-11. In a mass-mailing form letter
Rice recently prepared urging state senators not to vote for a bill
the group is opposing in the Texas Legislature, he claims that
uranium concentrations at Kingsville Dome remain as much as 400
percent above premining conditions and that nearby domestic wells
are in danger.

URI says the elevated uranium levels have nothing to do with its
mining and that the water at the site was unsuitable for human use
to begin with. As for the domestic wells nearby, Mark Pelizza, the
company's vice president of environmental affairs, insists there's
nothing to worry about.

To get at the site's uranium, URI pumps chemicals into the ground to
loosen the mineral from the underground rock and brings the mixture
to the surface for processing. It's called in situ leach mining and
it's been around for 30 years. In all that time, Pelizza said,
"there has never been a water well impacted."

HRI plans to use the same technique to get at the 25 million pounds
of uranium officials say the company has claims to in northwest New
Mexico, at two sites in Crownpoint and one near Church Rock.

To lease or not to lease
Despite ENDAUM's protests, some Crownpoint lessors are eager for HRI
to get started. According to HRI, the nine people leasing land at
just one of its Crownpoint sites could stand to earn as much as $1.1
million. Besides that, the lessors are urging opponents to consider
the jobs uranium mining to could bring to Crownpoint, up to 100
according to company figures.

Teo Saens heard the same promises when he leased 40 acres of his
Kleberg County land to URI in the early 1990s and regrets believing
them.

"The words that were used were, 'We're going to take a batch of
uranium and leave (the water) crystal clear,' " Saens said, cleaner
even, the company added, than it had found it.

His lease has since expired. Because URI never mined the 40 acres,
Saens said, he earned only $100 a year per acre. But he considers
even that modest sum nothing short of "blood money."

"It's little consolation for what they're doing to the land," said
Saens. "If we knew what we know today, we wouldn't have leased."

Incidentally, the same day ENDAUM was marching on HRI's Crownpoint
office, STOP members were in Austin, Texas, urging their state
legislators not to vote for a bill they say would eliminate public
hearing from the process of evaluating new mining units proposals
inside of a permitted area. Pelizza said the bill would actually
strengthen the public's hand by requiring permits now granted for
unrestricted terms to sunset.

But Cumberland sees more of a connection between Kingsville and
Crownpoint than a common foe.

Because HRI has yet to start mining in northwest New Mexico, it's
invested in land that's yet to turn a profit. So Cumberland can only
assume the company is covering its New Mexico bills with its Texas
earnings.

"It's mining from our land that's helping them mine on their land,"
she said.

The letter Cumberland sent ENDAUM was one thing. But ENDAUM hopes
the group can send some members here to share their experiences with
locals in person. If she hadn't been tied up in Austin, Cumberland
said she might have even joined last week's march. 

Tuesday
May 1, 2007

Gallup Independent
*****************************************************************
 15 The Hindu: India, U.S. hold talks on 123 agreement

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

 To iron out nagging differences

Menon meets Nicholas Burns To also meet Condoleeza Rice

WASHINGTON: Amid growing "frustration" in Washington over talks on a
bilateral pact to operationalise the civil nuclear deal, top
officials of India and the U.S. met here on Tuesday to iron out
differences that have been nagging the talks for the last few months.

Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon met U.S. Under Secretary
Nicholas Burns to sort out issues in the 123 agreement such as right
over reprocessing of spent fuel, nuclear testing and perennial
supply of fuel for safeguarded Indian atomic facilities.

Both sides have expressed commitment to conclude the negotiations on
the agreement as early as possible but the U.S. has recently aired
its ``frustration'' at the slow pace of negotiations.

India's insistence on right to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and
perennial cooperation even if it were to conduct an atomic test are
among the differences the two sides are seeking to wriggle out of.

Prior to Tuesday's meeting, the two officials held informal
discussions on Monday evening.

Mr. Menon will also meet U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice,
indicating the seriousness with which the two sides are pursuing the
matter.

Significantly, the meeting between Mr. Menon and Mr. Burns takes
place 10 days after the two sides held expert-level talks in the
South African city of Cape Town.

Indian officials had said that "some progress" was made during the
discussions but some differences remained for which further parleys
were required.

? PTI

Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the
*****************************************************************
 16 The Hindu: `Funds for nuclear projects inadequate'

Thursday, May 03, 2007

 Issue should be taken up with Finance Ministry, says committee

`Seek additional funds for Koodankulam project' Department asked to
strengthen reviewing mechanism

NEW DELHI: The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) should seek
additional funds for the prestigious Koodankulam nuclear power
project in Tamil Nadu as well as for other crucial schemes, a
Parliamentary Standing Committee has said.

The current outlay appears to be inadequate, according to the
committee, which examined the demand for grants for the country's
atomic energy programme for the current fiscal year.

Expressing its "serious concern" over curtailment of funds for the
atomic energy sector as it could delay the attempt to increase the
contribution of nuclear power in total power production, the panel
wanted the DAE to take up the issue of "persistent reduction" in
allocation with the Finance Ministry.

The panel also took note of the DAE's submission that the shortfall
for nuclear power schemes will be reviewed at the revised estimates
stage depending on the necessity of funds, which is mainly for the
Russian credit for the ongoing Koodankulam project. In the case of
other projects, it pointed out that any curtailment of funds to
institutes or for operational and maintenance reasons slows down the
pace of sustained growth attained in the previous years.

The DAE was asked to strengthen the existing reviewing mechanism for
monitoring the progress of the ongoing scheme to eliminate the scope
of shortage or surrender of funds at a later stage. Of the total
outlay of Rs.4,125 crore for nuclear power schemes in the current
fiscal, Rs.1,418 crore has been set aside for the externally aided
projects at Koodankulam being executed by the Nuclear Power
Corporation with the assistance of Russia.

Under construction


At present, six reactors at three sites ? 2x1000 MWe light water
reactors at Koodankulam, 2x220 MWe pressurised heavy water (PHW)
reactors at Kaiga (units 3 & 4) and 2x220 MWe PHW at Rajasthan
(units 5 & 6) ? are under construction at an estimated cost of about
Rs.20,000 crore. Of the six, the two Koodankulam units will cost
over Rs.13,000 crore and are to be completed by December 2007 and
December 2008 respectively.

Kaiga-3 reactor attained criticality in February this year, a month
ahead of schedule. The DAE was commended for its early completion as
well as the progress made on the construction of the other five
reactors.


Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the
*****************************************************************
 17 The Calgary Sun: Nuke power push in high gear

Wed, May 2, 2007

UPDATED: 2007-05-02 01:55:30 MST

New energy source appears inevitable as government-linked group
forges on with study

By JEREMY LOOME, LEGISLATURE BUREAU

Depending on whom you ask, the question of Fort McMurray going
nuclear is a matter of when, not if.

An arm's-length government agency with strong ties to the energy
department is quietly studying the possibility of introducing
nuclear power to Alberta's oilpatch.

Calgary-based EnergyInet was founded by several levels of government
in conjunction with industry and receives funding from the Alberta
Energy Research Initiative.

Alberta Energy has a voting member on its board of directors, which
includes other government agencies.

It put out a request for consultancy proposals late last year for a
feasibility study into a nuclear oilpatch, with the proposals to be
forwarded to board member Dr. Soheil Asgarspour.

At the time, Asgarspour worked directly for the government as
Alberta Energy's head of business development in the oilsands,
although he has since left the post.

Additionally, the head of the Youth Association of the Progressive
Conservative Party, Calgary-based energy consultant David McColl,
confirmed he was involved in early discussions into the request for
proposals.


McColl, who is leaving his youth association post in May, has been
credited with helping initiate the leadership review that ousted
former Premier Ralph Klein.

He's also a former consultant with Energy Alberta. That Calgary
company has an exclusive agreement with Atomic Energy of Canada to
develop Candu reactor-based nuclear power in Alberta.

Energy Alberta's principal is Wayne Henuset, a longtime supporter of
the governing Tories.

The whole thing stinks, said Dave Eggen, the environment critic for
the New Democratic Party.

"I think this should serve as an eye-opener for all Albertans that
the wheels have been turning to use nuclear power for a long time,"
he said.

"I find it extremely disturbing that they've put all the pieces in
place to make a strong move forward towards nuclear power and there
has been absolutely no public debate on this issue."

But, McColl said the inevitability of requiring new energy sources
to aid oilsands extraction makes such studies worthwhile.

Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 Channel 4: Nuclear industry failing, says study

Last Modified: 02 May 2007

Source: ITN

Nuclear construction is "massively" over budget in countries across
the world and is failing to meet demands, a report has found.

The average nuclear power station costs up to three times more than
expected and takes four years longer to build than planned,
according to a team of UK consultants, commissioned by environmental
pressure group Greenpeace.

The research found that managing the construction of increasingly
complex reactor designs was leading to "dramatically" longer
construction times.

The report says significant and widespread questions remain over the
basic safety, waste disposal and decommissioning of existing nuclear
plants.

It also claims that new and untested technology is causing delays to
nuclear power projects costing billions of pounds.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at Greenwich University and
one of the authors of the report, said: "The nuclear industry has
always made unfulfilled promises about its ability to meet energy
demands, yet history reveals a damning testament to its failure.

He added: "Pursuing a new programme of nuclear reactors would deny
us the opportunity to make the necessary investment in renewable
technologies and energy efficiency to meet future energy demands in
an economically viable and sustainable way."

Greenpeace's energy campaigner Nathan Argent said: "This independent
analysis explodes the myth that nuclear power is a viable and
affordable source of energy and clearly indicates that the sums just
don't add up for nuclear."

© Independent Television News Limited 2007. All rights reserved.
These news feeds are provided by an independent third party and
Channel 4 is not responsible or liable to you for the same.

*****************************************************************
 19 POAC: Marsh grass ruins restart of Salem I

Press of Atlantic City

By DAVID BENSON Staff Writer, (609) 272-7206

Published: Wednesday, May 2, 2007

A heavy plug of marsh grass forced PSEG Nuclear to shut down Salem
Unit 1 late Monday afternoon, just as the energy company was
bringing the power plant back online after a similar incident last
week.

Neil Sheehan, a spokesman with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
said the older of the two Salem units had reached 80 percent power
when operators had to shut it down due to what the industry calls
grassing. "You have to remember this isn't ordinary grass," Sheehand
said. "This is marsh grass. It's seaweed-like, and heavy."

The grass clogged a rotating screen that is designed to keep the
grass and other material out of the reactor's cooling system.

This is the grassing season, Sheehan said. Nuclear power plants that
use a once-through cooling system — such as the two Salem units
and the Oyster Creek nuclear facility in Ocean County — are more
vulnerable to clogs than the Hope Creek unit.

The Hope Creek facility, unlike the other three reactors, has
cooling towers and recirculates its water supply as the power plant
is cooled.

The NRC keeps track of how often a plant is shut down manually,
Sheehan said. Three unplanned manual shutdowns in a rolling one-year
period would earn the Salem plant an increased amount of scrutiny
from the NRC.

Sheehan said that because the plant only reached 80 percent of full
power, it may not count against the nuclear facility as a forced
shutdown. "They have had very few unplanned shutdowns during the
last year," Sheehan said.



To e-mail Dave Benson at The Press:

DBenson@pressofac.com

pressofatlanticcity.com: Contact Us | Terms of Service / Privacy

© Copyright 1970- The Press of Atlantic City
*****************************************************************
 20 IdahoStatesman.com: Start-up company pursues plan for nuke plant near Bruneau

Chris Butler/Idaho Statesman

Don Gillispie stands last week among sagebrush near where he hopes
to build a nuclear power plant near the C.J. Strike Reservoir.

Details of Gillispie’s plans

Don Gillispie, president and CEO of Alternate Energy Holdings, was
in Idaho last week to visit the site of where he proposes a new
nuclear power plant. Here are some of his points.

When could the plant open?

Gillispie would like to complete the permitting process over the
next four years and break ground in 2011 with a goal of having the
plant completed by 2015. But estimates of the time required to
complete the permitting and licensing process range from four to
eight years.

Gillispie hopes that after the first application is complete, the
process could be streamlined and the time compressed.

How much water will the plant require?

The company says it has the water rights it needs for the water to
operate the plant, but the water won’t be used for cooling because
it plans a dry cooler system using air to cool the plant.

How many jobs would the plant create?

500 jobs at an average salary of $80,000. Gillispie said Alternate
Energy hopes to work with the state, Idaho State University and the
Idaho National Lab to develop a training program for potential
employees.

How much tax revenue would it bring in?

Gillispie estimates Owyhee County would have about $30 million in
new tax revenue. “This county would think they were extraordinarily
rich when they start getting revenues from this plant,” Gillispie
said.

Will waste be transported from the plant?

The plant would have an on-site facility that would provide for 25
years of storage of spent fuel.

How much electricity would the plant provide?

At 1,600 megawatts, it would be the nation’s largest plant and
provide enough electricity to meet about two thirds of Idaho’s
residential electricity needs.

How would the electricity from the plant be transported to the grid?

A power line would be built to the north that would tie into the
main power line in Mountain Home. That line would take power to
Boise and the rest of Idaho. A second line would be built 80 miles
to the southeast near Twin Falls to connect to the main east-west
line that serves California and Nevada.

Start-up company pursues plan for nuke plant near Bruneau

But Alternative Energy Holdings' proposal faces some big hurdles,
including money, permits, public concerns

By Ken Dey - Idaho Statesman


On a rainy day, Don Gillispie looks over a remote hay field
southwest of Mountain Home.

He has a grand plan for this field. Gillispie hopes that by 2015,
this farmland, with its sweeping vistas of the Owyhee Mountains,
will be home to the nation's largest nuclear power plant.

It's an ambitious plan for the president and CEO of Virginia-based
Alternative Energy Holdings, a 7-month old company with little money
and stock that trades for about the cost of a candy bar.

Gillispie estimates it would take $3 billion to complete the
1,600-megawatt plant &mdash; money the company doesn't have.
Gillispie said the market capitalization of his company is about $15
million, and it has $20 million in assets &mdash; the value of the
4,000 acres of Owyhee County land.

After nearly three decades without a single new permit for a nuclear
power plant, the U.S. now has a cluster of companies bidding to get
the industry moving again. Ahead of Gillispie are 15 bigger
companies &mdash; well-known companies like Duke Energy, Unistar and
Entergy &mdash; proposing to build plants. All have much stronger
balance sheets than Gillispie's little start-up.

Those companies have started the lengthy and complicated process of
obtaining permits from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Alternate
Energy hasn't. Gillispie says that's because he is still trying to
raise the $78 million he needs just to complete the licensing
process.

Gillispie says he's not daunted. Someday, he says, his plant will
make a lot of money.

"I'm a very determined person and that's how good things and new
things get accomplished," he said.

Industry experts say it will be a challenge, but Gillispie's company
has a shot.

Finding the funding

To make the plant a reality, Gillispie needs investors. He has none
now other than James Hilliard, who put up his land for the plant
site in exchange for a stake in the company.

Alternate Energy trades on an over-the-counter market called the
Pink Sheets under the symbol AEHI.PK That little-known market is for
companies that don't meet the financial requirements to trade on a
larger exchange.

On Tuesday the stock closed at 50 cents a share, up 11 cents.

When it comes to financing nuclear power plants, Gillispie doesn't
think being small is a disadvantage.

"The big companies don't have the money to build them either," he
said. "They don't just pull out the checkbook. They find the funding
in several different ways."

He said he has an offer for a $1 billion loan but wants to first try
to raise money from investors.

"I'll be meeting with some pretty large investors, guys who can put
up $50 million to $100 million at a whack," he said. "I'll get as
many of those as I can."

After he has enough investors, Gillispie said, he will pursue a loan
and take advantage of the 2005 Energy Bill that authorizes
government loan guarantees for nuclear plants.

"We concluded that we can make $2 million to $3 million a day in
operating profits," he said. "These are cash cows, and we can do
that while still selling very reasonably priced power."

Gillispie said he would give Idaho first shot at buying power from
the plant and would sell the rest in Nevada and California.

Gillispie is banking on his experience in the industry &mdash; and
that of his board &mdash; to encourage investors.

He has consulted and helped build plants, and he worked for
companies like Duke Energy and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Gillispie is a former senior vice president of nuclear assessment
programs with the Nuclear Management Co. in Hudson, Wis., which
operates seven nuclear power plants.

His six board members all have backgrounds in the industry. They
include James Taylor, the former chief operating officer of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Ralph Beedle, a past senior vice
president of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington D.C.-based
nuclear industry group.

Adrian Heymer, senior director of new plant deployment for the
institute, said his organization hasn't had a chance yet to meet
with Alternate Energy and learn more. The company has joined the
institute, he said.

Heymer said every company that wants to build nuclear plants is
looking for investors, just as Alternate Energy is.

"If they (Alternate Energy) pull the right team together, they could
do it," he said.

A nuclear resurgence

After the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the nuclear industry
in the United States came to a virtual halt. The last nuclear plant
to begin operation was the Watts Bar reactor owned by the Tennessee
Valley Authority. Construction began in 1973 but operation didn't
start until 1996.

David Lochbaum, director of the nuclear safety project for the Union
of Concerned Scientists, an organization critical of the industry,
said the lack of any new licenses in more than 20 years has leveled
the playing field for small companies like Alternate Energy to
compete.

"It is a new company, and they have some experience, but that
doesn't necessarily mean success or failure," Lochbaum said. "I
think the challenges they face are the same as any company."

Lochbaum said Gillispie's decision to come to Idaho could be an
advantage.

"Idaho has a lot of nuclear talent to draw upon and in a sense is
part of Idaho's history," he said. "Plus there is quite a bit of
acceptance for nuclear power in Idaho that you may not see in other
places."

Local support

But not everyone in Idaho is enthusiastic about Gillispie's proposal.

Jeremy Maxand, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, a
Boise-based antinuclear group, said the C.J. Strike Reservoir is too
great a resource to risk putting a nuclear plant next to it.

Maxand's said nuclear power is still dangerous, and he sees no need
for the plant.

"It's absolutely unnecessary for the state to build a nuclear power
plant," he said. "No one can deny that we are already awash in this
state with energy potential in areas like wind power, biomass,
geothermal and solar."

Maxand said Alternate Energy's proposal shows the need for a state
siting authority, so the decisions on where new plants are located
are not made solely at the county level.

But Gillispie said the public now accepts that nuclear is safe.

He said he supports alternative energy, too, and even proposes an
adjacent plant to make ethanol using the excess heat from the
nuclear plant. The plant won't be visible from the reservoir, he
added.

But before he can go any further with the project, Gillispie first
needs to get a conditional- use permit from the county to change the
land's status from agriculture to industrial.

Owyhee County Commissioner Jerry Hoagland said the commission has
received a brief presentation from the company. He declined to say
what he thinks, saying commissioners likely will have to decide on
the permit.

Gillispie said he plans a public meeting with county residents later
this month to answer questions.

"I think I can say safely that senior Idaho officials are supportive
of what I'm trying to do," he said.

Jon Hanian, a spokesman for Gov. Butch Otter, said Otter believes
there is a role for nuclear power in the country's energy portfolio,
but he doesn't know enough yet about Gillispie's proposal to take a
position.

Whether or not Gillispie's dream comes true, Mark Holbrook, an
advisory engineer at the Idaho National Laboratory, said there's no
shortage of investors waiting to put money into new plants as soon
as one company successfully builds one.

"Once we get past the first plant, I think we'll see the floodgate
open," he said.

Contact reporter Ken Dey at kdey@idahostatesman.com or 672-6757.


IdahoStatesman.com

*****************************************************************
 21 toledoblade.com: NRC silence over reactor report is questioned

Article published Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Paper on Davis-Besse not backed or rejected

By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER

A federal judge. A congressman. And now one of the nuclear 
industry's most notorious watchdog groups.

All three want to know this: Why has the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission failed to either dismiss or endorse a controversial 
661-page report about the near-rupture of Davis-Besse's old 
reactor head in 2002?

The document, prepared by FirstEnergy Corp. consultants, could 
absolve the utility of negligence accusations so it can proceed 
with a $200 million insurance claim

The NRC, once accused by former U.S. Sen. John Glenn (D., Ohio) 
of being a nuclear industry "lapdog," befuddles those three the 
longer it remains mute - especially since the report contradicts 
some of the assertions NRC officials themselves have made about 
how the cavity evolved over several years.

Records show the report, prepared by Exponent Failure Analysis 
Association, of Menlo, Calif., and Altran Solutions Corp., of 
Boston, was completed Dec. 15 and has been in the agency's hands 
since March 20.

Released to the public in early April, it claims the 
deterioration of Davis-Besse's old reactor head was largely a 
fluke that occurred in the final three weeks before the plant's 
shutdown on Feb. 16, 2002.

If that's true, David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned 
Scientists wonders, then why isn't the NRC shutting down all of 
the nation's 68 other nuclear plants with Besse-like pressurized 
reactors?

In a petition he filed on Monday with Luis Reyes, the NRC's 
executive director for operations, Mr. Lochbaum said the NRC has 
two choices:

•Agree with FirstEnergy's consultants and, thereby, concede that 
the standard 18-month time-frame for offline leak inspections is 
flawed.

•Refute the claims and issue another fine against FirstEnergy 
Corp. for attempting to mislead the government.

FirstEnergy has already been fined a record $33.5 million for 
inaccurate and incomplete information stemming from the 
reactor-head debacle.

One federal prosecutor, at a news conference in Cleveland last 
year when results of the criminal investigation were announced, 
summed up the utility's actions as "brazen arrogance."

Scott Burnell, spokesman for the NRC's headquarters in suburban 
Washington, said yesterday that the agency will issue some kind 
of assessment of the FirstEnergy consultants' report within two 
weeks.

Judge David Katz of U.S. District Court in Toledo told U.S. 
Department of Justice attorneys in open court on April 20 that he 
was reluctant to proceed with the government's criminal case 
against two former Davis-Besse engineers and an outside 
contractor until he knows whether the NRC - the agency in charge 
of regulating the nuclear industry - believes the new report is 
"junk science" or not.

The judge further stated that he wants to know why the NRC 
doesn't stand behind its own findings, driven largely by research 
at the U.S. Department of Energy's highly regarded Argonne 
National Laboratory in Illinois. That facility, chartered in 
1946, is America's first national laboratory. It has ties to the 
advent of the atomic age, and is one the judge said he considers 
to be highly credible.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland) used the new 
consultants' report last month as a basis for renewing his demand 
to have the NRC revoke FirstEnergy's operating license at 
Davis-Besse.

The congressman claimed it was proof that northern Ohio was 
closer to a radioactive accident than anyone previously thought.

"If the new leak-to-hole scenario is incorrect, [FirstEnergy 
Nuclear Operating Co.] probably loses its $200 million insurance 
claim, but pads its lead as [the] corporation providing the most 
false information to the NRC," Mr. Lochbaum, a nuclear safety 
engineer and former Westinghouse employee, said in his letter on 
Monday.

"If the report is wrong, Ohioans are once again duped by a 
deceitful FENOC."

His group's petition calls for Davis-Besse to be shut down until 
the issue is sorted out. The NRC's Web site showed the plant was 
at full power yesterday.

Viktoria Mitlyng, spokesman for the NRC's regional office near 
Chicago, said the agency can't order the plant to shut down 
without technical justification. And she noted that inspection 
records, both by NRC officials and independent review teams, show 
that the plant has operated safely since its 2004 restart.

Todd Schneider, FirstEnergy spokesman, said the utility stands 
behind the report issued by its pair of consultants.

"We are providing updated information, not misleading 
information," he said.

Mr. Schneider said the consultants hired by FirstEnergy are 
"truly the experts, and we have confidence in that report."

Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.

The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , 
(419) 724-6000 To contact a specific department or an individual 
*****************************************************************
 22 recordonline.com: Nuke extension for Indian Point?

By Greg Bruno

May 02, 2007

Buchanan - 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.
In response to the lawmakers’ request for hearings, Neil Sheehan, an
NRC spokesman, promised “ample opportunity for public comment.”

Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving
New York"s Hudson Valley and the Catskills. Phone: (845) 341-1100

*****************************************************************
 23 Rutland Herald: Bad choice for energy, the economy

Rutland Vermont News & Information

May 2, 2007

By LISA VENTRISS

Here's your hat, what's your hurry?

That's the message behind Senator Shumlin's proposal to tax
Entergy/Vermont Yankee.

The Vermont Business Roundtable agrees that global climate change is
a serious problem that, individually and collectively, we must
address. And we are on record as stating that we support state
policy giving preference to investments in energy-efficiency
programs and renewable sources of generation as important and,
arguably, the first steps we must take to reduce our carbon
footprint. We also believe, however, that it is not realistic to
rely on efficiency and renewables alone when existing contracts for
Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec expire and the state will need to
procure power from conventional sources of generation.

To that end, we commend the Legislature for the important work it
has done this session to address the problem of climate change.
Funding of these programs remains the point of controversy, and Sen.
Shumlin's proposal to levy a 35 percent gross revenues tax on
Entergy/VY is not only poor energy policy, it is poor economic
development policy.

We already know that nuclear energy is clean, reliable, and
inexpensive; it represents one-third of our electricity supply; and
the most aggressive renewable energy portfolio cannot approach
replacing this base-load power. Nuclear energy is one of the reasons
we are the lowest carbon-emitting state in the union; it is the
backbone of our portfolio. To levy a new tax on one corporation,
Entergy, in effect showing them the door, is a shot across the bow
of the business community in and outside of Vermont. It says Vermont
cannot be trusted.

Thomas Friedman taught us that our world is flat, and as I talk to
business leaders around the state who tell me that they are actively
discouraging other national and international enterprises from
locating here, I can only cringe at how these new headlines are
being received.

We need Entergy/VY — and all businesses — to be profitable and
committed to staying in our communities and our state. Not only is
Entergy/VY the linchpin of the southern Vermont economy, but it
pumps $80 million into the state's coffers. If Entergy were to leave
Vermont, the new wounds we suffer will have been self-inflicted. Not
only will the reliability and cost of future energy supply be in
question, but also the state's effort to further reduce our carbon
footprint. And, most discouraging of all, our children's future
employment and quality of life choices will deteriorate.

It isn't just a bad policy alternative; it's a dangerous one. We
must work together to find an alternative funding mechanism for the
efficiency programs that is fair, predictable and sustainable over
time, one that does not adversely impact the negotiation of future
power contracts or cast a shadow over Vermont's business climate.

Lisa Ventriss is president of the Vermont Business Roundtable, which
comprises 112 Vermont CEO.

   © 2007 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance at Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant

News Release - Region IV - 2007-013 - 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, 
Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 
www.nrc.gov

CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet on May 8, with 
representatives of Entergy Operations, Inc., to discuss the 
agency&rsquo;s assessment of safety performance last year at the 
Grand Gulf nuclear plant near Port Gibson, Miss.

 The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to 
begin at 6 p.m. at the Port Gibson City Hall, 1005 College St., 
Port Gibson.

 The NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the 
public on the safety performance of Grand Gulf, as well as the 
NRC&rsquo;s role in ensuring safe plant operation.

 &ldquo;The NRC continually reviews the performance of Grand Gulf 
and the nation&rsquo;s other commercial nuclear power 
facilities,&rdquo; NRC Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett 
said. &ldquo;This meeting will provide an opportunity for a 
discussion of our annual assessment of safety performance with 
the company and with local officials and residents who live near 
the plant.&rdquo;

    A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office to plant 
officials addresses the performance of the plant during 2006 and 
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is 
available on the NRC web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/gg_2006q4.pdf.

   The NRC utilizes color-coded inspection findings and 
performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. 
The colors start with "green" and then increase to "white," 
"yellow" or "red," commensurate with the safety significance of 
the issues involved.

 The NRC said Grand Gulf operated safely during 2006 and will 
receive baseline, or routine inspections, during 2007.

   Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident 
Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists 
from the Region IV office in Arlington, Texas. Among the areas of 
plant performance to be inspected this year by NRC specialists 
are activities associated with engineering, fire protection, 
emergency preparedness, maintenance and radiological controls.

  Current performance information for Grand Gulf is available on 
the NRC web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/GG1/gg1_chart.html

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.

May 02, 2007
*****************************************************************
 25 Tallahassee Democrat: To diversify, nuclear power is the answer

www.tallahassee.com - Tallahassee, FL.

Wednesday, May 2, 2007  View our Mobile Site

By Gregory Choppin MY VIEW Print Email to a friend Subscribe

It's crystal clear that the biggest environmental threat we face 
is global climate change. Dealing with it will require a major 
shift to clean energy sources.

So a plan that would require half of new electricity in Florida 
to be generated with environmentally benign power by 2017 
deserves approval by the Legislature - but not if it excludes 
nuclear power, as some renewable energy advocates desire.

Maintaining a livable environment sounds good, but it needs to be
backed up with a realistic energy strategy. Nuclear power is safe,
clean and affordable. It is the only energy source that provides
"base-load" electricity at industrial strength, without producing
carbon dioxide, the dominant greenhouse gas.

Solar and wind energy, though useful as sources of power at times of
peak demand, cannot provide the large amounts of electricity needed
for our state's growing population and economy.

Rather than one or two energy sources alone, it's going to take a
collaborative effort of all forms of clean power generation, as well
as conservation and energy-efficiency improvements, to meet the
sizable energy needs that Florida faces.

Debunking nuclear power is foolish. Some environmental leaders claim
that nuclear power isn't economically feasible, but last year
nuclear plants in the United States supplied the second-highest
amount of electricity in the industry's history, while achieving
record-low production costs.

What's astonishing about this is that no new nuclear plants have
been built in this country in many years. Yet electricity production
at nuclear plants has increased 36 percent since 1990, adding the
equivalent of 26 large power plants to the electrical grid.
Increased efficiency made this possible. Down time for fueling and
maintenance, which once took months, is now completed in a few weeks.

Consider capacity factor, a measure of efficiency. For the 103 U.S.
nuclear plants last year, the average capacity factor was nearly 90
percent. Among the plants with consistently high capacity factors
are the Crystal River, Turkey Point and St. Lucie nuclear units in
Florida.

Average production costs for nuclear plants reached an all-time low
of 1.65 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is more than four times
cheaper than electricity produced at power plants fueled with
natural gas and even less than coal-fired plants.

Today Florida is well-positioned to enjoy the benefits of nuclear
power in years ahead. It has passed legislation supporting the
construction of new reactors. And utilities here are among the 15
companies and consortia preparing license applications for as many
as 33 new reactors that could be built during the next 10 to 20
years in the United States.

The California-based Electric Power Research Institute says that
bringing on-line a total of 64 large nuclear plants by 2030 is an
achievable goal. This additional power would enable nuclear energy
to meet 25 percent of U.S. electricity demand, up from 20 percent
now. And it would be potentially feasible for the utility sector to
first slow down the projected increase in carbon dioxide emissions,
stop the increase, and eventually decrease emissions while meeting
increasing demand for electricity.

Nuclear power is not the problem - it is part of the solution to
global climate change. It deserves strong support from the Florida
Legislature.

Gregory Choppin is a professor of chemistry at Florida State
University. Contact him at choppin@fsu.edu.  


 While I'm all for nuclear power, it's for a different reason. Get
rid of our need for Middle East oil. This garbage of doing it for
climate change is a joke.....in a few years we will be back to
global cooling again. Anything to keep the grant money flowing!!!

Posted by: fsuscotsman on Wed May 02, 2007 9:30 am

Copyright ©2007 Tallahassee Democrat.
*****************************************************************
 26 Times Daily: Reactor at Browns Ferry to be cleared for production |

TimesDaily.com | Florence, AL

By Trevor Stokes Staff Writer

Last Updated:May 02. 2007 4:27PM

The Unit 1 reactor at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant near Athens should
be cleared to begin producing electricity again by the end of the
month, federal regulators said today.

Unit 1 has been idle for the past 22 years. The unit was shut down
over safety concerns in 1985.

The unit is the Tennessee Valley Authority’s oldest nuclear powered
generator.

TVA officials said they expect to be producing electricity at full
capacity by mid-July.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials reviewed its Browns Ferry
inspection with TVA officials on Wednesday.

Regulatory inspectors have concluded “TVA has adequately prepared
Browns Ferry for a return to three unit operation.”

The NRC inspection panel found only minor, mostly administrative
issues. There were “no significant concerns with the inspections,”
according to Ryan Lantz, one of seven federal inspectors.

TVA officials say the issues cited in the report will take only days
to correct, which will clear the way for the unit to be restarted.

Units 2 and 3 at Browns were also closed temporarily in 1985, but
were returned to operation following extensive renovations.

          © Copyright 2007 TimesDaily. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 27 Star-News: Reactor deal a boon for local GE | 

StarNewsOnline.com | Wilmington, NC

Published May 02. 2007 3:30AM

By Sam Scott Staff Writer sam.scott@starnewsonline.com

GE Energy's nuclear division announced a deal Tuesday to build parts
of the core infrastructure of a new nuclear plant tentatively
planned for Virginia.

Terms of the deal with Dominion Resources were kept secret. But Andy
White, head of GE Nuclear, said the agreement was a boon for its
Wilmington headquarters, where much of the design, engineering,
procurement and budgeting for the project would be done.

"This is great for Wilmington," White said.

The deal is another sign in the re-emergence of nuclear power. The
last domestic nuclear plant was ordered in 1978, as atomic energy
fell into disfavor over safety fears that peaked with the 1986
Cherynobyl meltdown in the Ukraine.

But the passage of time and the arising of different concerns has
renewed interest in nuclear energy as a way to meet ever-growing
energy needs without worsening greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently 16 companies or consortia, including Dominion, have
announced plans to apply for licenses to build a new generation of
American nuclear plants. Dominion is considering building the plant
in Mineral, Va., where it operates two older plants.

None of the 16 would-be applicants has committed to building a
plant. But Dominion's order shows signs it is getting ready to move
if it does get permission, said Mitch Singer, media relations
manager with the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group.

White said Dominion's deal with GE for forgings, turbines,
generators and other "long-lead" items was the first instance of one
of the companies ordering the essentials of one of the plants that
he knew of.

White said he expected to make similar announcements with other
utilities in the near future. The growth in the nuclear industry
means growth for GE Nuclear, which expects to bring in 300 more
people to its Wilmington headquarters this year.

Last month, GE unveiled a new 40,000-square-foot design center that
unified more than 250 engineers from sites across the country.

The new popularity in nuclear energy is reflected in schools. Seven
years ago, there were 39 nuclear engineering majors at N.C. State
University, said Paul Turinksy, a professor of nuclear engineering
at the school. Today there are 155.

"It's demand," he said. "The kids are getting multiple job offers at
very high salaries"

According to GE, the industry standard for a beginning nuclear
engineer is $83,000.

Sam Scott: 343-2370 sam.scott@starnewsonline.com
*****************************************************************
 28 Eureka Street: Say 'no' to nuclear but not for the usual reasons - 

Home » Volume 17 No.8 > 02-May-2007 By Les Coleman

Opponents of a nuclear power industry in Australia usually justify
their position on environmental and economic grounds. Although their
conclusion is correct, the argument is fallacious. Let us first
consider the wrong reasons to oppose nuclear power then the right
one.

The economic anti-nuclear argument says that the huge costs of
nuclear plants make them uneconomic. Absent government
subsidies-which political expediency should counter-hard-nosed 
engineers and investors will decide if nuclear is a better source 
of new energy than coal, gas and a variety of less certain 
technologies. There is no more reason to intervene in this 
economic decision than any other.

The environmental argument typically cites the dangers of
radioactive waste from nuclear power plants. This threat is real,
but not much more so than that of the uranium deposits which
originally spawned the waste precursors. Quite simply geologists
discover most uranium deposits using radiation detectors: this is
because the deposits emit radiation and have done so for millennia,
and some are so radioactive that they belch superheated steam.
Removing radioactive uranium from beneath Australia's deserts,
processing and using it in a reactor, then burying radioactive waste
in a stable geological structure under the desert looks like going
full circle. Nuclear waste is a concern, but not qualitatively more
so than the damaging externalities of many industries.

The real argument against establishing a nuclear power industry is
that it is a hugely complex and dangerous technology, and Australia
has a poor record in safely managing even relatively simple
technologies. Australia&rsquo;s institutional framework is not
sufficiently robust to safely support a nuclear power industry.

The dangers from operation of nuclear power plants are made clear on
the Uranium Information Centre&rsquo;s website. It reports that
there have been ten "serious reactor accidents" at nuclear power
plants since they began commercial operations in 1952, giving a
frequency of one per 1,200 reactor years (although the rate has been
lower in the last decade).

Nuclear power is one of the modern technologies that were described
in Charles Perrow&rsquo;s seminal 1984 book Normal Accidents as so
dangerous that accidents would routinely occur: nuclear plants could
expect to be plagued by 'normal accidents'. The statistics suggest
Perrow was right, but they led to the emergence of a new management
discipline built around 'high reliability organisations'. Typical
examples are nuclear powered aircraft carriers such as the USS
Ronald Reagan, which is 333 metres long and displaces over 100,000
tonnes, and holds a crew of 6,000, 90 fighter aircraft and two
nuclear reactors that can power a medium sized city. America&rsquo;s
largest naval vessel is hugely complex but operates incident-free.

Australia, by contrast, has an unenviable record of poor management
of technologies. Consider the Royal Australian Navy which lurches
from one technology disaster to another. The worst include the fatal
1998 fire aboard HMAS Westralia; a decade of defects in the Collins
Class submarines including noise levels that simplify detection by
an enemy and a combat system that cannot then defend the vessel; and
Sea Sprite helicopters that could not be introduced into service due
to computer problems.

Other complex industries and technologies are managed little better.
In 1998 alone, Melbourne lost gas for weeks after Esso&rsquo;s
Longford plant blew up and Sydney was forced to boil its
contaminated water for months. Australia&rsquo;s uranium mines have
been plagued by leaks from their tailings dams and the
country&rsquo;s only reactor at Lucas Heights has experienced
several radiation leaks in recent years.

The lesson of high reliability organisations is that it is possible
to achieve safe operation of complex technologies, but only with
difficulty. If employees are skilled and trained, a culture of
safety is deeply ingrained, and there is effective governance and
oversight.

Quite simply Australia meets none of these requirements. There are
few technologically complex sectors that can incubate suitable
skills in workers, managers, boards and regulators. Thus there are
inadequate human resources to staff and safely manage a nuclear
plant.

This is not to point fingers or belittle Australian skills. The
competencies of Australian workers, managers and boards have built
enviable reputations in many modern industries from agribusiness and
commercial aviation to software design and tourism. But a country of
20 million people simply cannot develop skills in every activity.
For many reasons Australia has avoided nuclear power and most high
risk modern technologies whilst other nations have decades of
experience. We have no expertise in these fields. To say that
Australians have a skill disadvantage in risky technologies such as
nuclear power generation is a fact, not a criticism. To say that
redressing this gap is impractical should be obvious, not an
expression of national inferiority.

Australia has demonstrated an inability to safely operate even
simple parts of the nuclear supply chain such as uranium mines and
an experimental nuclear rector. When this experience is combined
with other evidence, the strongest argument against building a
nuclear power plant in Australia is that safe operation is unlikely
without a huge effort which probably cannot be justified. Where does
this leave Australia&rsquo;s energy supply industry?

Obviously coal and gas fired plants are operational and running
reliably, so new electricity generating capacity can employ these
proven technologies. If greenhouse gas reduction is required,
natural gas should be preferred as a fuel over coal (particularly
brown coal) because it produces electricity at similar cost but with
less carbon dioxide emissions. In the absence of a compelling case,
nuclear power remains a poor choice for Australia.

SUBMITTED COMMENTS

Les Forshaw
02-May-2007 Its a bit like the old clique` ,only experienced people
need apply..so how do you get experience? Someone has to train one,I
believe. Why not use the learning resourses of nulear powered
countries? I really dont see any other feasable way of saving our
planet.And it looks like we are running out of time,quickly!

George Emeleus
03-May-2007 Does Australia, per capita, really have a worse record
for non-nuclear safety than other industrially developed countries,
including ones with electricity generation using nuclear reactors?
Without careful comparative analysis, this argument is essentially
anecdotal and is quatitatively untested.


Dr Les Coleman lectures in finance at the University of Melbourne.
His principal research focus is on the nature and consequences of
firm risks.
*****************************************************************
 29 CourierPostOnline: PSEG might expand Salem nuke complex

South Jersey's Web Site CourierPostOnline.com

RON KARAFIN/Courier-Post file

An aerial view of the Hope Creek reactor at the Salem nuclear
complex in Lower Alloways Creek, Salem County.

AVI STEINHARDT/Courier-Post file

One of the giant cooling towers at the Salem nuclear complex in
Lower Alloways Creek dwarfs workers.

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

By JEFF MONTGOMERY Gannett News Service

The last time the federal government considered how dangerous the
Salem County nuclear complex could be, it came to this conclusion:
In the unlikely case of a meltdown, 100,000 people in the region
would die within one year, with 75,000 injuries and 40,000 later
deaths to cancer.

That was 25 years ago.

While there has been nothing close to a meltdown, the complex -- the
nation's second-largest -- has run erratically, with numerous
problems at times earning it a federal ranking as one of the
nation's most troubled nuclear installations.

Now the facility's owner, PSEG Nuclear, is preparing to apply for
20-year permit extensions for all three of its reactors -- Salem
Units 1 and 2 and Hope Creek -- and is considering turning up the
heat at its Hope Creek reactor to produce more electricity.

All that would be enough to raise the ire of neighbors who want to
see the complex shut down because of its unpredictable performance.
But the company is going further. PSEG officials have said the
company likely will take the first step this year to add a fourth
reactor, making the complex the nation's largest.

"Clearly, the location in South Jersey was originally envisioned for
four units. It has three. It makes sense to look at that site, which
has some infrastructure advantages," said PSEG spokesman Paul
Rosengren.

The suggestion of building a fourth reactor comes as the nuclear
industry is touting itself as a safe, environmentally friendly
source of energy for a nation focused on problems linked to
fossil-fuel-burning power plants.

"If you are going to get serious about carbon emissions, you need to
take a serious look at the potential expansion of nuclear power,"
Rosengren said.

Federal officials have said that nuclear power has a safe record,
and past meltdown studies might overstate potential losses.

But the PSEG plan can expect fierce opposition.

"They're going to start a firestorm," said Norm Cohen, who directs
the watchdog group Unplug Salem. "They have enough to do to run
three old, cranky reactors. They don't need to be building a new
one. I can't see the people of South Jersey going for that."

Cohen has long argued that the complex has too many mechanical
problems, management weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

Even more important, he says, the federal emergency planning zone is
inadequate. That zone, which currently spans a radius of 10 miles
from the complex, takes in 11,722 households in towns as far west as
Middletown, Del.

Congress sought consideration of a 20-mile zone for distribution of
potassium iodine pills, used to protect against thyroid cancers
caused by radioactive iodine. But federal officials subsequently
found that "it would not be a prudent allocation of resources to
purchase (tablets) up to 20 miles when the likelihood of any
significant consequence at that range was very small," spokesman
Neil Sheehan said.

But opposition groups have asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to expand the zone to 20 miles to accurately reflect how many homes
and residents would need to be evacuated in case of an accident. An
expanded zone would encompass 187,000 households from just north of
Dover, Del., to the arc of Delaware, west into Cecil County, Md.,
and east across a big swath of South Jersey.

And that's without a fourth reactor.

PSEG's reactor cluster on the Delaware River, now rated at a
combined 3,400 megawatts, could become the nation's largest nuclear
producer if it adds the additional unit. It also could cement its
position as one of the nation's top hazards.

Although only 33,400 people live within 10 miles of Salem-Hope
Creek, more than 5 million live within a 50-mile radius, the region
in which radiation could spread in case of an accident.

Jane Nogaki, South Jersey representative for the New Jersey
Environmental Federation, said her group believes the complex
already is a potential target for a terrorist attack. A fourth
reactor, she said, would make PSEG's operation even more tempting.

"Nuclear plants are vulnerable targets. It's impossible to protect
them fully. They're out there in the open, and the radioactive waste
is located right there alongside," Nogaki said. "It's too great a
risk for that kind of power. We would outright oppose it."

New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection last week asked
a federal appeals court to order a new environmental study for the
Oyster Creek nuclear plant in that state, citing its vulnerability
to attack by aircraft and other terror tactics.

Agency spokeswoman Elaine Makatura said the department has not yet
decided if it will take a similar stand on PSEG's operation.

With global warming becoming a political question, the nuclear
industry -- once vilified for the toxic waste it produces and the
dangers it presents -- is reinventing itself as green amid the
rising clamor for clean electricity.

PSEG, Rosengren said, sees increased nuclear power capacity as part
of a broad range of steps needed to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases tied to global warming and climate change.

In the mid-1990s, the NRC put Salem-Hope Creek on its "watch list"
of troubled nuclear plants. Regulatory and public pressure
eventually forced the company to shut down the Salem units for plant
and management overhauls. Problems arose again in 2004, when mishaps
and complaints prompted the NRC to put the company under special
oversight.

"Compared to a couple of years ago, things at Salem and Hope Creek
are looking pretty good," said Lochbaum, the nuclear engineer,
adding that his group is watching closely as the NRC considers a
proposal to increase the output of Hope Creek by increasing the
reactor core heat.

The plan would hike the core water temperature in Hope Creek to
about 535 degrees -- up 15 percent. Steam temperatures would rise
even more, with steam pressures rising to more than 1,000 pounds per
square inch.

Federal regulators have closely examined and then approved virtually
all such proposals in the past, despite questions about increased
vibration problems in boiling-water reactors similar to Hope Creek.

"The NRC is shirking its responsibility to protect the public by
allowing clueless plant owners to crank up . . . to see what
happens," Lochbaum wrote in a 2004 briefing paper.

Equally controversial are company proposals to continue drawing
trillions of gallons from the Delaware River each year to cool the
Salem units.

The plant's intakes kill the equivalent of 354 million juvenile fish
each year -- a figure that environmental groups say rises into the
tens of billions of organisms when counting larvae and eggs.

Maya K. van Rossum, an attorney who directs the regional Delaware
Riverkeeper Network conservation group, said a recent federal court
ruling has undermined PSEG Nuclear claims that it can offset the
effects of its cooling-water intake. The company has long financed
restoration projects in surrounding wetlands as partial compensation
for environmental damage.

The reactor at Hope Creek uses a cooling tower that recycles water
from the river, cutting the amount of water it sucks up and the
amount of aquatic life it destroys.

New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection has put PSEG
Nuclear's request for a new cooling-water permit on hold, pending
settlement of a similar case at the smaller Oyster Creek plant.


Copyright 2007 CourierPostOnline.com. All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 30 Burlington Free Press: Senate OKs tax on Vt. Yankee tax

burlingtonfreepress.com  |  Burlington, Vermont

Published: Wednesday, May 2, 2007
By Terri Hallenbeck Free Press Staff Writer

MONTPELIER -- By one thin vote, the Senate gave preliminary approval
Tuesday to taxing some of Vermont Yankee's profits to pay for an
energy-efficiency program.

Critics of the tax, which passed 15-14, took turns calling it
arbitrary, capricious, predatory and unnecessary.

The tax on the nuclear power plant's unexpected increase in profits
is the most controversial part of a larger bill that supporters say
will help Vermonters use less heating fuel and encourage development
of renewable energy.

The overall bill passed 18-11. The legislation faces another vote in
the Senate today before a conference committee will work out changes
made to the House energy bill. The Vermont Yankee tax is among the
many changes that were made.

Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, lobbied his
fellow senators hard in recent days to support a bill he called the
toughest global-warming legislation in the nation.

"I've never had an issue I feel more strongly about than this,"
Shumlin said Tuesday on the Senate floor.

Opponents of the Vermont Yankee tax worked hard to quash that piece
of the bill. "Our task was to educate people in the Senate on very
short notice about the problems this bill has," Vermont Yankee
spokesman Brian Cosgrove said. "The vote shows we did a pretty
effective job."

No senators questioned the worth of the energy-efficiency utility
that would be funded by the Vermont Yankee tax, though some House
Republicans and Gov. Jim Douglas have raised concerns about how well
the program has been planned.

Two taxes were the focus of the debate on the Senate floor -- one on
Vermont Yankee and another to determine the value of wind power
projects.

Yankee tax

Sen. Douglas Racine, D-Chittenden, spoke out against the Vermont
Yankee tax. "I don't particularly like nuclear power, but that's not
what this debate is about," Racine said. "I think it's the wrong
tax."

He said only a small amount of money is needed to get the energy
efficiency utility organized and persuade Vermonters of the
program's benefits before finding a way to fund it.

Sen. Kevin Mullin, R-Rutland, said the tax would hit one of
Vermont's cleanest sources of energy in terms of greenhouse gas
emissions. "In large part, nuclear power has played an important
role in clean energy," he said. "We're not going to be able to
replace these sources. In the long-term Vermont ratepayers will
suffer."

Shumlin disagreed. "Anyone who says this is going to affect rates in
the future I believe is being deceived."

Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange, countered the argument that the tax
would break a deal the state made with Vermont Yankee owner Entergy
Corp. over how much the company would pay for the right to store
radioactive waste at the Vernon plant. Vermont Yankee, he said, has
broken numerous deals over the years with the state including
promises of dirt-cheap power, that the federal government would take
the waste and that the plant would be decommissioned after 40 years.

"For someone who has broken deal after deal after deal after deal to
come in and tell us we're breaking a deal," MacDonald said.

Supporters applauded the Senate vote, while opponents argued it
sends a bad message.

"Despite the fact that every corporate lobbyist in the Statehouse
was twisting arms to kill this bill, the Senate passed landmark
global warming legislation," said James Moore, energy policy
coordinator for Vermont Public Interest Research Group.

"Senators who voted for this predatory tax showed no regard for the
reputation of this state, the welfare of working Vermonters or the
future cost of electricity," said William Driscoll, vice president
of the Associated Industries of Vermont representing manufacturers.

Wind tax

Senators also argued over another piece of the legislation that
would establish how to tax wind power projects. Instead of being
charged traditional state property taxes, wind projects would be
tax-free the first three years they generate power, then would be
taxed three-tenths of a cent per kilowatt-hour produced.

Senate Finance Committee Chairwoman Ann Cummings, D-Washington, said
the amount was intended to give wind developers predictability while
also enticing them to build turbines in Vermont. The rate makes
Vermont competitive with other states, she said.

Sen. George Coppenrath, R-Caledonia, objected to giving wind
developers a tax break, saying it would come at the expense of
property taxpayers. "I stand here very concerned we are trying to
have the property taxpayers of the state of Vermont ...
significantly subsidize wind developers and taking money that would
ordinarily go into the education fund," he said.

Cummings defended the tax, saying without a low enough rate, wind
developers won't come to Vermont, and the state would have nothing
to tax. She also said the rate is likely to change in negotiations
with the House, which set a rate of just over five-tenths of a cent.

Contact Terri Hallenbeck at 229-4126 or
thallenb@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com

Copyright ©2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 31 NRC: License Renewal Application for Indian Point Nuclear Plant 
Available for Public Inspection

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 announced today that an 
application for a 20-year renewal of the operating license for 
the Indian Point nuclear power plant, Units 2 and 3, is available 
for public review.

 Indian Point Units 2 and 3 are pressurized water reactors 
located in Buchanan, N.Y., about 24 miles north of New York City. 
The current operating licenses expire Sept. 28, 2013, for Unit 2 
and Dec. 12, 2015, for Unit 3. Unit 1 was shut down in 1974.

 Indian Point&rsquo;s operator, Entergy Nuclear Operations, 
submitted the license renewal application April 30. The 
application is available on the NRC Web site at this address: 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.h
                                 tml.

   The NRC staff is currently conducting its initial reviews of 
the application to determine whether it contains sufficient 
information required for the formal safety and environmental 
reviews. If the application has sufficient information, the NRC 
will formally &ldquo;docket,&rdquo; or file it and will announce 
an opportunity for the public to request an adjudicatory hearing 
on the renewal request. Additional information about the 
NRC&rsquo;s review of reactor license renewal applications is 
available on the NRC Web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html

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.

May 02, 2007
*****************************************************************
 32 CourierPostOnline: Analysts: PSEG set to gain from expansion

South Jersey's Web Site

CourierPostOnline.com Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Industry analysts say PSEG has everything to gain from the overture
to expand.

A federal energy bill in 2005 offered huge tax credits, loan
guarantees and risk-insurance benefits to companies that seek
licenses for clean-energy projects before the end of 2007. That has
led to a rush of companies applying to build new reactors.

Although there are 104 licensed to operate nuclear power plants in
the United States, no new facility has been built since 1996. But
this year so far, about 20 companies have made proposals.

Constellation Energy already has proposed building two advanced
reactors at Calvert Cliffs, Md., or Nine Mile Point in New York, and
at two other undetermined locations, using the same new reactor
design already under construction in France and Finland.

Eighteen other ventures involving dozens of sites and reactors also
are under consideration. Two, in Illinois and Mississippi, already
have the needed approvals.

"So many others already are in that race that I wouldn't bet a lot
of money on that second reactor at Hope Creek," said David Lochbaum,
a nuclear engineer with the watchdog group the Union of Concerned
Scientists. "But there are a lot of variables involved."

Even the industry believes that only a fraction of the reactors
proposed will be built. But advocates point to the stack of new
applications, spawned in part by federal tax credits, as evidence
the nation is once again interested in nuclear power.

From the industry's standpoint, recent history favors a nationwide
expansion.

The notoriety of the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in
Pennsylvania may have been a setback, but advocates of nuclear power
point to its safe record since then, both here and in Europe.

In France, for instance, nuclear energy was embraced 30 years ago,
when the rest of the world was dealing with an energy crisis.

Today, with 58 plants, the country gets about 78 percent of its
energy from nuclear plants. It even produces enough to export
electricity to England and Germany.

All that and air that's largely clear of the air pollution emitted
by fossil-fuel burning plants.

Critics argue that no matter the industry's record and the
environmental benefits of nuclear energy, there is still the
question of what to do with nuclear waste.

While burying excess waste under Yucca Mountain in Nevada has
created a nationwide stir, France has taken its nuclear waste and
reused it, albeit at a cost of more than $1 billion a year.

Spent nuclear fuel rods from French plants are sent to a sprawling
plant on the coast of Normandy. There, the rods are cooled for years
and used to make new fuel.

Some critics caution that France might not be gaining much.

Although reprocessing reduces the amount of traditional reactor
waste, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research pointed
out recently that the process leaves other types of wastes that
still require long-term storage, leaving roughly the same overall
need for a repository.

Mitchell Singer, a spokesman for the industry-backed Nuclear Energy
Institute, said that the United States needs to consider nuclear
power as one of the methods available to meet future needs while
also reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping
"greenhouse" gas linked to global warming and climate shifts.

"When you take into account environmental goals and the talk about
climate change and greenhouse gas, nuclear definitely has a role to
play in our energy story going forward," Singer said. "That effort
can't be accomplished without nuclear as a component."

-- Gannett News Service


Copyright 2007 CourierPostOnline.com. All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
 33 Brattleboro Reformer: Energy bill gets first nod

New tax on VY passes

By DAVID GRAM, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, May 2

MONTPELIER -- The Senate on Tuesday advanced a wide-ranging energy
efficiency bill that would devote about $5 million a year to helping
homeowners conserve on heating bills, despite a heated debate about
whether Vermont Yankee nuclear plant should be taxed to pay for it.

The bill, which goes up for final approval today, would provide new
funding for the statewide efficiency utility, Efficiency Vermont, to
expand its mission beyond conserving electricity and give it a new
charge of promoting efficiency in heating buildings.

The bill's language cited a recent state-commissioned study that
found that spending $150 million on efficiency measures in the next
10 years would cut Vermonters' heating bills by $486 million over
the same period.

Preliminary approval came on an 18-11 roll-call vote after lengthy
debate about where the money would come from: A new tax on Vermont
Yankee plant that was contained in an amendment to the bill, passed
15-14, with Sen. William Doyle, R-Washington, absent.

Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, said Entergy had
been making windfall profits in recent years because of the high
wholesale price of electricity and because of bonus payments to 
power producers that don't emit the greenhouse gas carbon 
dioxide.

The amendment was approved over bitter objections by Vermont Yankee
and business lobbyists, who said the plant already had agreed to
contribute $25 million to a clean energy fund in exchange for the
state allowing it to boost its power output and expand radioactive
waste storage.

In a letter to senators, Entergy Nuclear, owner of the Vernon
reactor, said Shumlin and the Senate Finance Committee "have turned
their back on this agreement and are seeking $37 million by
increasing the Vermont Yankee power station's tax burden by 35
percent."

The letter's author, Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc. President
Michael Kansler, joined representatives of Vermont's other power
companies and a range of the state's major businesses in arguing
that reneging on its earlier deals with Entergy would make Vermont
appear to be a bad place to do business.

But Sen. Mark MacDonald, D-Orange and a longtime critic of Vermont
Yankee, said the nuclear plant and industry had broken many of their
own promises over the years.

He pointed to the industry's early promises that nuclear power would
be "too cheap to meter," as well as the nuclear industry's failure
to establish a permanent disposal site for radioactive waste.

He recalled that when the plant opened in 1972, the Vermont
utilities that owned it said they would be good neighbors;
Louisiana-based Entergy bought it in 2002. And he spoke of the
original plan that the plant would run for 40 years, followed by
decommissioning and site cleanup.

Entergy is now seeking to run it for an added 20 years.

"For someone who has broken deal after deal after deal after deal,
to come into this chamber and tell us we're breaking a deal?"
MacDonald said, shaking his head.


Copyright © 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
   
*****************************************************************
 34 IAEA: Climate Change Report Looks at Nuclear Power, Other Options

Third IPCC Report Focuses on Mitigation of Climate Change

2 May 2007

China is among countries looking to produce more electricity using
nuclear power plants. (Photo: P. Pavlicek/IAEA)

The latest in a series of global meetings on climate change opens in
Bangkok this week, with the focus on technological options that can
be put into place to mitigate climate change. Among energy
technologies, nuclear power is seen as an option to cut carbon
emissions.

The meeting is organized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), a joint body of the World Meteorological Organization
and United Nations Environment Programme. The IAEA supports the
IPCC´s work in various areas, including technology options for the
mitigation of climate change. Hundreds of the world´s scientists and
political leaders are participating in sessions.

Two previous IPCC reports this year reported on greenhouse gas
emissions and their likely effects on global temperatures, which
could rise by as much as six degrees Celsius by 2100. Even a
two-degree-Celsius rise could subject up to two billion people to
water shortages by 2050 and threaten extinction for 20 percent to 30
percent of the world´s species, the IPCC said.

The latest and third report examines a range of technological
options to mitigate climate change. They include energy efficiency
measures, reducing reliance on coal and natural gas, and moving more
towards nuclear power and renewable energy such as wind. The report
specifically focuses on ways to limit or prevent greenhouse gas
emissions and to enhance activities that remove them from the
atmosphere.

Background:

The IPCC was set up in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and
socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific
basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts
and options for adaptation and mitigation.

The IAEA, through its laboratories, Department of Nuclear Science
and Applications and Department of Nuclear Energy, supports and
contributes to climate change studies. The Planning & Economic
Studies Section in the Nuclear Energy Department specifically
addresses international negotiations on climate change and
sustainable development, and contributes to the work of the IPCC.

The latest summary report on mitigation of climate change will be
presented 4 May 2007 at a press conference in Bangkok that will be
webcast on the IPCC website. It follows the release of two other
IPCC Working Group reports earlier this year - one on "Physical
Science Basis" in February 2007 and the second on "Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability" in April 2007.

Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100,
Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail:
*****************************************************************
 35 Daily Press: New N. Anna reactor more likely

Hampton Roads, Virginia - May 2, 2007

Dominion places an order for parts with GE Energy, a sign that the
third unit will be built at the plant.

BY CHRIS FLORES 247-4738

Any doubt that Dominion Resources intends to build another nuclear
reactor at North Anna Power Station should be shrinking: The utility
announced on Tuesday that it was buying reactor parts from GE Energy.

The companies wouldn't reveal terms of the contract, but they called
it "significant" and said it would allow GE to start making the
parts that take the longest to manufacture.

Dominion is in a small pack of energy firms far along in the process
to get federal approval for a site for a new reactor. A decision
from federal officials is expected later this year, when Dominion is
expected to file an application for operating the new nuclear unit.
North Anna in Louisa County has two reactors now.

Legislation that passed the Virginia General Assembly this year gave
a boost to Dominion's quest for the first nuclear reactor in
decades. The new law will allow Dominion to charge higher rates to
consumers to help attract financing to build the reactor.

Dominion Generation CEO Mark McGettrick said in a statement that the
order helped the utility reserve "large, critical components at a
time when others are also considering building new plants. We
believe the market for these components will be tight in the near
future, so getting to the head of the line makes sense."

The GE deal keeps Dominion squarely in the front pack of companies
vying to build the first new nuclear reactor in the United States
since the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

The order also confirms that Dominion wants to use the GE nuclear
design, which is a big win for GE. In January 2005, Dominion
abandoned plans for a reactor designed by a Canadian company out of
fear that it would take too long for federal approval.

GE has been working on getting the design of a reactor approved for
five years, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hopes to approve
the design by October. But GE has had some recent delays in getting
information to the NRC as part of the reactor design approval
process. This process was created so federal regulators wouldn't
need to spend time considering the reactor design when approving a
license to build and operate it.

The same philosophy drove the push for the creation of an early site
permit. That's the process Dominion is going through to get North
Anna approved as a place to build a reactor.

If Dominion gets its site approval this year, its next step is to
get a combined construction and operating license, which is expected
to take about 30 months.

The NRC warned in the fall that further delays in GE's application
could make it difficult for the regulator to stick to the 30-month
timetable for any company that used the GE design when it tried for
an operating license.

The early site permit, combined operating license and reactor
approval procedures are supposed to collectively solve one challenge
that killed off reactors during the 1980s.

Besides the safety concerns after Three Mile Island, regulators were
slowing construction and other approvals.

Delays in approving and building reactors hurt utilities that had
loans dependent on timely completion of a reactor. The industry
argued that this new process would ensure that all approvals were in
place before companies like Dominion got loans for new reactors.

Andy White, CEO of GE Energy, said the deal proved that GE was ready
to start the time-consuming process of making the large reactor
components.

Much of the design work will be done at a major new nuclear reactor
center in Wilmington, N.C.

Copyright ©2007 Daily Press
*****************************************************************
 36 Daily Press: Dominion orders nuclear parts

Hampton Roads, Virginia -May 1, 2007, 10:38 AM EDT

An order placed with GE signals that a new reactor will be build.

BY CHRIS FLORES 757-247-4738

Any doubt that Dominion Resources intends to build a new nuclear
plant at North Anna Power Station should be shrinking.

The utility announced Tuesday that it is buying reactor parts from
GE Energy. The companies would not reveal terms of the contract, but
they called it "significant" and said it would allow GE to start
making the parts that take the longest to manufacture.

Dominion is in a small pack of energy firms that are far along in
the process to get federal approval for a site for a new reactor. A
decision from federal officials is expected later this year, when
Dominion is expected to file an application for operating the new
nuclear unit.

Legislation that passed the Virginia General Assembly this year gave
a boost to Dominion's quest to build the first new nuclear plant in
decades. The new law will allow Dominion to charge higher rates to
consumers to help attract financing to build the plant.

Copyright ©2007 Daily Press
*****************************************************************
 37 ETW: Nuclear is not a dirty word

East Texas Weekly Community Newspaper

Vol.12 No.440 Thursday, May 03, 2007

by William Murchison

Yeah, we’re all thinking the same thing, right? Nukes bad, windmills
good.

Why is this so? Because that’s the message that has been beaten into
our skulls, year after year, at least since the ’70s, by
nuclearphobes in politics and the media. That’s to say, folk without
normal connections to the normal needs of normal people.

Nuclear power is supposed to make you think of duck-and-cover
exercises, and of Peter Sellers, discovering in “Dr. Strangelove
that he can hightail it with the best of them to a bomb shelter
while the nuclear holocaust commences.

Then there was Jane Fonda in “The China Syndrome,” alerting an
unwatchful nation and government to the possibility of nuclear
meltdown. (Which, by the way, is when the vogue for the word
“meltdown” began in the media.)

Before that, Gregory Peck, in “On the Beach,” stoically steered his
sub back to a devastated America as Australia awaited the
approaching nuclear cloud.: the consequence of a war merely alluded
to in the film.

Ugh.

You might observe how much of this terror and despair is
media-manufactured – nuclear power, for all its potential blessings,
being now in the minds of the communicating fraternity a horror
rather than an answer to growing concerns and worries over energy
supplies.

Well, the communicating fraternity had better get used to the idea
of nuclear power being around permanently.

In Texas, no less than in other energy-needy venues.

The TXU scrap – will the KKR buyout survive the murderous intentions
of Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) and the likewise-minded? – has
tended to drown out conversation about KKR’s and TXU’s interest in
nuclear power as one major answer to environmental and energy supply
worries.

And not just TXU. NRG Energy, Inc., Exelon Corp., and Amarillo Power
are likewise looking at the prospect of starting some nuclear plants.

Reported the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago: “If all the
plans materialize, Texas could have more reactors than any other
site in a decade’s time, built in a deregulated market where
missteps would be borne by shareholders or the federal government,
not residents and consumers…

“Texas could provide a proving ground for the expected nuclear
renaissance because developers will proceed only if the economics
appear bulletproof.”

That’s due to the marketplace conditions in which consumers choose
their power providers. As with buying a motorcycle or a package of
granola, you aren’t stuck with what the provider puts in front of
you.

Providers are in fact looking at nuclear power because it appears to
them more competitive with old, and expensive, sources like
petroleum and also thoroughly practical. Texas has had nuclear power
for some years, but political obstacles and economic costs – the
former generously feeding the latter – have militated against
widespread resort to the atom.

There’s still anti-nuclear sentiment out there in political
Wonderland, but it resonates more and more poorly, with oil supplies
less than abundant , as well as controlled, oftentimes, by foreign
nasties, e.g., Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

Another factor is nuclear’s, shall we say, greenness. You want to
replace coal plants? With what? Windmills? The sun? Some of this –
fine. But not all. You need something that doesn’t feed dreaded
carbon dioxide into the environment (notwithstanding that carbon
dioxide’s role in global warming is heatedly, so to speak, disputed,
reputable scientists contending the whole furor is overstated.) If
you can get past worrying about meltdown – a highly unlikely
prospect, diminished by intelligent regulation – you can’t help
notice nuclear power’s non-polluting properties.

Even the waste disposal problem seems overrated. The key, again, is
intelligent, scrupulous regulation of risk as distinguished from the
kind inspired by visceral fear of an important power source. A
source all the more important with the waning of oil’s role in the
provision of energy.

The New York Times reported in March that “Texas faces a big hole in
its electricity production, since the country’s second most-populous
state also happens to be one of the fastest growing because of
immigration and the rise in riches from the recent increases in oil
and gas prices…

“Unless new generation is built quickly from some source, Texas
energy production in 2009 will fall below reserves recommended by
the site operator of the power transmission grid for guaranteeing
smooth operations during peak periods of high heat.”

That’s partly in consequence of KKR’s pledge – in the event its
backers are allowed to take over TXU – to abandon plans for eight
nasty, awful coal plants, to the immense good cheer and satisfaction
of the meda-political types with which we began.

A big unanswered question is out there: If you don’t want coal, what
do you want – huh? And how fast can you get it? And how much would
it cost? And do we care in the end whether Jane Fonda’s seal of
approval is on its forehead?

Copyright © 2001-2007 East Texas Review Newspaper All Rights 
Reserved.

517 South Mobberly Longview, TX 75602 903.236.0406

*****************************************************************
 38 delawareonline: Marsh grass chokes off Salem reactor again

The News Journal, Wilmington, Del. ¦ 

Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Marsh grass choked off production at the older of two Salem nuclear
power plant reactors today, just as PSEG Nuclear was restoring the
1,150 megawatt plant to regular power after a similar incident last
week.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Neil Sheehan said the Salem
1 reactor had reached about 80 percent of full operating levels
before plant operators reversed course at about 3 p.m.

The twin Salem units at Artificial Island, on New Jersey’s shore
across the Delaware River from Augustine Beach, take trillions of
gallons of water each year for cooling.

Officials say the location, in an area surrounded by marshland, gets
periodic slugs of grass and other debris, especially after intense
storms or heavy flooding upriver.


*****************************************************************
 39 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.
*****************************************************************
 40 Shanghai Daily: Nuke energy warming issue -- 

Thursday, 3 May, 2007 

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=314755&type=World

NATIONS at a global climate change conference in Bangkok have mapped
out measures to combat global warming and neared agreement yesterday
on including nuclear energy as a way to cut emissions of greenhouse
gases, delegates and observers said.

A report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the
United Nations network of 2,000 scientists - on how the world should
cope with global warming is being debated in secret this week by
delegates from more than 120 governments. A final version is
expected by tomorrow.

The report will urge countries to deploy an array of measures -
including energy-efficient technologies, a shift away from coal, and
agricultural reforms - to keep world temperatures from rising more
than two degrees Centigrade, thereby limiting the impact of global
warming.

Delegates yesterday focused on different categories of energy use
and ways to cut emissions as they went through a draft of the report
summary, and were working into the night so negotiations could be
wrapped up today. "All the sectors are being discussed - the
building sector, industry, transport," said Surya Sethi, an Indian
delegate.

One contentious issue has been whether and how to refer to nuclear
power in the final summary. The United States, for instance, is
pushing for a strong reference to atomic energy as a clean source of
electricity, while environmentalists are arguing that other ways of
cutting carbon emissions - such as renewable energy sources - should
get priority.

A small committee working on the wording of the nuclear energy
section was including atomic reactors as an option, but also
pointing out the technology had limits, observers said.

Shanghai Daily Home | Copyright © 2001-2007 Shanghai Daily
*****************************************************************
 41 UPI: Chinese see climate draft a growth threat

United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - 

Published: May 1, 2007 at 7:02 PM

BANGKOK, May 1 (UPI) -- A U.N. draft proposed in Thailand reportedly
says global climate can still be stabilized if nations act now but
that China sees it as a threat to its growth.

The world body's draft, seen by the BBC, is designed to find ways to
control rising levels of greenhouse gases. It is being discussed
behind closed doors by delegates from 120 countries attending the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Bangkok.

The draft, a follow-up to earlier warnings that the Earth has
already warmed considerably, says the climate can be stabilized at a
reasonable cost with immediate actions such as capturing and burying
emissions from coal-fired power plants, shifting to renewable forms
of energy and more use of nuclear power, the BBC said.

The earlier warnings had noted that without immediate action there
would be severe consequences, including droughts, floods, storms,
heat waves and rising seas.

The BBC report said China's objections stem from concerns that this
year it is predicted to become the world's biggest polluter. If the
draft becomes final, the report said, it will increase pressure on
China to take steps so drastic as to seriously jeopardize its
economic growth.

© Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 42 MHNN: Indian Point license renewal application available for public inspection

May 2, 2007

Copyright © 2007 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of Statewide

Washington, DC – The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wednesday 
announced that the application for the operating license for the 
Indian Point nuclear power plant Units 2 and 3 is available for 
public review.

     The two facilities are operating on licenses that expire on 
September 28, 2012 for Unit 2 and December 12, 2015 for Unit 3. 
Unit 1 was shut down in 1974.

  Indian Point’s operator, Entergy Nuclear Operations, submitted 
the license renewal application on April 30.

           The application is available on the Internet at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.h
                                 tml.

   The NRC staff is currently conducting its initial reviews of 
the application to determine whether it contains sufficient 
information required for the formal safety and environmental 
reviews.

 If the application has sufficient information, it will be filed 
and the NRC will announce an opportunity for the public to 
request an adjudicatory hearing on the renewal request.

  HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's 
only Internet radio news report.
*****************************************************************
 43 www.bbj.hu: Japanese and Kazakh ministers sign nuclear power agreement

02 May 2007 bbj.hu

A nuclear energy cooperation agreement has been signed between 
the relevant Japanese and Kazakh authorities that will see Japan 
import 30% of uranium for its power plants from Kazakhstan.

The Kyodo news agency reports that, at present, Kazakhstan supplies
just 1% of Japan's uranium imports, but this could rise to between
30% and 40% under the proposed new deal. This will make Kazakhstan a
key contributor to Japan's nuclear stocks, possibly positioning it
ahead of current suppliers Australia and Canada.

The agreement was confirmed in a joint statement signed by Akira
Amari, Japan's economy, trade and industry minister, and Karim
Masimov, the Kazakh prime minister. The cooperation agreement, which
makes the two countries "strategic partners," has also seen a number
of deals signed between Japanese and Kazakh nuclear power companies,
including state-run Kazatomprom, which has entered into uranium mine
and power plant building alliances with Marubeni and Toshiba,
respectively. (energy-business-review.com)

*****************************************************************
 44 Birmingham News: NRC panel to recommend reactor re-start - 

Posted by rsims May 02, 2007 2:22 PM

A Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel said today it would recommend
that the Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor be allowed to restart the idle
reactor once the Tennessee Valley Authority successfully completes
about 10 days worth of work on its refurbishment and no new problems
arise.

The NRC's Browns Ferry Unit 1 Restart Oversight Panel held a public
hearing at the plant this afternoon to discuss its conclusions on
the pending restart.

Joe Shea, chairman of that panel, said that once TVA tells the panel
that the final work on the reactor is completed, the panel would
recommend to the NRC's Region II administrator that the Unit 1 be
allowed to restart. A decision by the administrator could come
within a few days of their recommendation, he said.

Kent Faulk

©2007 al.com. All Rights Reserved. RSS Feeds | Complete Index

*****************************************************************
 45 AFP: Nuclear storm gathers as climate change experts meet - 

by Charlotte McDonald-Gibson Wed May 2, 3:08 AM ET

BANGKOK (AFP) - Few issues are as divisive as nuclear power, and 
the furore over its use threatens to resurface as leading 
scientists meet in Thailand to thrash out a plan to reduce the 
impact of climate change.

Nuclear supporters hail it a "clean" energy that will help lessen
the world's dependence on the polluting fossil fuels, gas, oil and
coal, which spew damaging greenhouse gasses into the air and drive
global warming.

The potential of nuclear energy to help reduce carbon dioxide
emissions is expected to be mentioned in a report being drawn up in
Bangkok this week by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), the UN's top authority on the issue.

"There has so far been a tendency both at the IPCC and (Kyoto
Protocol talks) to duck the nuclear issue, but they will not be able
to duck it forever," said Malcolm Grimston, a nuclear policy expert
and associate fellow at London-based think tank Chatham House.

The arguments against nuclear energy have changed little since the
heyday of the anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s, with environmental
groups such as Greenpeace and WWF labelling it unsafe and unclean.

Stephan Singer, WWF's European head of climate and energy policy,
told AFP on the sidelines of the IPCC conference that his group did
not consider it a sustainable or cost effective alternative to
fossil fuels.

Greenpeace also maintains that nuclear is never an option, but
boundaries have recently blurred between nuclear friends and foes.

A number of gurus of the environmental movement, including
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore and James Lovelock, one of the
best-known figures of the green movement, have come out in favour of
nuclear power.

"There are some very important people who are now speaking
positively about nuclear energy, so I think the debate is at a
different place (from where it was) three or four years ago," said
Richard Tarasofsky, head of the energy, environment and development
programme at Chatham House.

This debate may be played out behind the closed doors of the IPCC
meeting, where scientists and diplomats are likely to argue their
governments' corners.

An early draft of the report's summary seen by AFP lists nuclear
power as one of a range of technologies available to help reduce
carbon dioxide emissions.

Greenpeace says there are currently 441 nuclear power reactors in 31
countries, and leading the pack in developing or using nuclear
energy are the United States, France and Japan -- with India and
China close behind.

China has said it plans to build as many as three nuclear power
plants a year over the next decade, while India last year reached an
initial agreement with the United States, giving it access to US
nuclear fuel and technology.

Poorer countries such as Thailand, the Philippines and Egypt are
also pondering going nuclear as the demand for energy increases, but
analysts say there remain many unresolved issues, not least the cost.

"Traditionally nuclear energy has had to receive major subsidies
from governments in order to be financially viable," said Tarasofsky.

Disposing of nuclear waste also remains a problem.

"We do not have a single depository for radioactive toxic waste
which is accepted by geologists in the world," WWF's Singer said.

The nuclear power debate is not limited to the environment.

Charles Ferguson, science and technology fellow at Washington-based
think tank the Council on Foreign Relations, said that the
administration of US president George W. Bush was pushing nuclear as
one solution to climate change.

But at the same time it denounces Iran and North Korea over claims
that they are using civilian nuclear programmes as a cover for
developing weapons, leaving the US open to accusations of double
standards.

"The White House wants to play favourites in defining some countries
as 'good guys' who are allowed the full access to nuclear
technologies... and others as 'bad guys' who are denied access to
all of those technologies," Ferguson told AFP by email.

IPCC delegates said that although nuclear power would be discussed,
they insisted it was merely one piece of the climate change puzzle.

"The message that comes out here is that there is not a silver
bullet, (but) a whole range of different methodologies and
technologies," David Warrilow, head of the UK delegation, told AFP
here.


Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 46 AFP: US, India eye nuclear breakthrough - 

by Jitendra Joshi Tue May 1, 10:09 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States and India say they are 
inching closer to a breakthrough on nuclear cooperation to seal a 
new era in relations that, during the Cold War, were chilly for 
decades.

Both sides sounded upbeat after two days of talks here between top
US State Department official Nicholas Burns and Indian Foreign
Secretary Shivshankar Menon, which were aimed at implementing a July
2005 accord on atomic energy.

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," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said after
what he termed "excellent" meetings.

"We look forward to resolving the outstanding issues in the weeks
ahead," he said in a statement, arguing that Menon's talks with
officials including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had yielded
"extensive progress."

Menon would not be tied down on a date to wrap up the landmark
nuclear pact but said ahead of Burns' visit: "As far as I'm
concerned, this is doable ... and we want to do it as quickly as
possible."

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.

"I think it's a measure really of how the relationship has been
transformed in the last few years," Menon said.

As India deepens free-market reforms and attracts billions of
dollars in investment, the United States sees the emergence of a
democratic ally and a bulwark against instability in a restive,
nuclear-armed region.

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."

Based on that strategic premise, the nuclear pact was passed
overwhelmingly by the US Congress in December despite some prior
misgivings about India's refusal to sign a global test ban treaty.

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.

Under the agreement, India also wants the explicit right to
reprocess nuclear fuel, in contradiction of US law.

India has agreed as part of the deal to separate its civilian and
military nuclear facilities and allow inspection of the civilian
ones.

But New Delhi is believed to oppose another clause which provides
for US inspection of its nuclear facilities in case the
International Atomic Energy Agency fails to do so.

"The differences are over the consequences of nuclear testing," G.
Balachandran, a visiting fellow at the Indian security think-tank
Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, said ahead of the
Washington meetings.

"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 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
 47 BBC NEWS: Pakistan downplays radioactive ad

Last Updated: Wednesday, 2 May 2007, 15:34 GMT 16:34 UK

Officials say the advert should not cause alarm

Pakistan's nuclear authority has said there is no cause for 
concern after it published press adverts for information on 
"lost" radioactive material.

The adverts urged members of the public to inform officials if 
they found any "lost or stolen" radioactive material.

They were published in major Urdu-language newspapers in 
Pakistan.

International concern over the safety of Pakistan's nuclear
programme was expressed in 2004, when the country's top nuclear
scientist, AQ Khan, confessed to leaking secrets to Iran, North
Korea and Libya.

Dr Khan was subsequently placed under virtual house arrest, and is
now suffering from pancreatic cancer.

'Cradle to the grave'

Officials on Wednesday were keen to reassure the outside world that
the latest incident in no way has the makings of another nuclear
scandal, and that no radioactive material had been stolen, lost or
gone missing.

Pakistan says its nuclear materials are in safe hands

But officials say they need to heighten public awareness of nuclear
issues to ensure that decades-old nuclear material is fully
accounted for.

"This could have been before the creation of Pakistan, and may
relate to nuclear material that could not be taken under our
charge," Zaheer Ayub Baig, information services director of
Pakistan's Nuclear Regulatory Authority, said in a letter to the BBC.

Mr Baig said that the adverts were merely a public awareness
campaign to make people aware of the dangers of radiation from
material that might have been used in hospitals and industrial
plants.

He said the advertising campaign was being expanded.

"There is nothing to worry about," Mr Baig said.

"We have a record of all the radioactive sources imported in to the
country, those that are being used and also those that have been
disposed of.

"This is according to a cradle to the grave concept where records
are kept of any radioactive source entering into the country until
its final disposal."


* BBC Copyright Notice
*****************************************************************
 48 Mail & Guardian Online: SA bid for secret nuclear trial questioned

Africa's first online newspaper. 

Mail & Guardian Online reporter and Sapa-dpa | Johannesburg, South
Africa 

02 May 2007 07:38

The secrecy that surrounded South Africa's apartheid nuclear 
weapons programme threatens to envelop the trial in Pretoria of a 
German and a Swiss engineer accused of using their know-how from 
the apartheid era to further Libya's atomic ambitions.

Gerhard Wisser (67), the German owner of Johannesburg-based 
Krisch Engineering, and Daniel Geiges (69), a Swiss former Krisch 
employee, are accused of attempting to smuggle nuclear equipment 
to Libya for its nuclear weapons programme that ended in 2003, a 
few months before they were arrested in Johannesburg.

The case has sparked media controversy in South Africa because 
prosecutors in the case have applied for a largely secret trial 
and a media ban on the proceedings.

This secrecy raises questions over how South Africa is 
confronting its own nuclear activities during the apartheid era 
that ended in 1990, critics say. The media ban was due to be 
decided on Wednesday.

"The move is portrayed as vital to prevent the dissemination of 
information that would allow rogue states to develop nuclear 
weapons, but the blackout seems as much designed to protect the 
dirty secrets of South Africa's nuclear past as to stop future 
proliferation," the Mail & Guardian reported last week.

Parts supplied
Wisser has admitted that Krisch Engineering, the company he set 
up after his arrival in Johannesburg in 1966, supplied parts to 
South Africa's state Uranium Enrichment Corporation (Ucor) during 
the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of them imported from a 
German company, Leybold Heraeus.

Parts of the uranium enriched by Ucor at its secret Pelindaba 
facility (Zulu for "no more talking") were used by the apartheid 
state at its commercial Koeberg nuclear power plant, and the rest 
in the manufacture of six-and-a-half nuclear weapons, which were 
ultimately dismantled in the early 1990s.

While admitting his role in South Africa's secret nuclear 
activities, Wisser insists that he did not know he was brokering 
a deal to supply components for Libya's nuclear programme when he 
was asked by a German contact to find a South African 
manufacturer for a "compact pipework system".

The pipework system was eventually produced by South African 
company Tradefin, according to plans provided by a close aide to 
Pakistan-based Abdul Qadeer Khan, the so-called father of the 
Pakistani atomic bomb currently under house arrest himself for 
avowedly selling nuclear secrets.

The name Khan did not trigger any alarm bells with him, Wisser 
said, adding he believed until mid-2003 that the equipment was 
planned for commercial use. He also claims that it would not have 
worked, as key parts were never delivered.

South African prosecutors, however, argue that the equipment was 
related to the production of highly enriched uranium and its 
conversion to uranium metal for the production of nuclear weapons 
in Libya, the M&G reported.

Closed chambers
The sensitive nature of the evidence involved was also the reason 
why the case should be heard in closed chambers, the prosecution 
was reported as saying by South African media.

Otherwise, the evidence could be used for a further proliferation 
of nuclear weapons technology, the prosecutors said in their 
application to ban media coverage of the case against Wisser and 
Geiges, according to the M&G.

When contacted, the National Prosecuting Authority did not 
confirm the exact charges against Wisser and Geiges.

The prosecution's application reportedly also quotes police fears 
that sources from the United States Energy Department and from 
South Africa's nuclear research body, the Nuclear Energy 
Cooperation who helped the investigation might be targeted, or 
even recruited, by terrorists.

But the M&G and media rights groups, who are challenging the ban, 
have expressed concerns that the state is also attempting to keep 
under wraps elements of its own past nuclear ambitions.

"The M&G, together with other interested parties, is taking legal 
advice on opposing the blackout. Trials behind closed doors are 
generally regarded as inimical to justice, though certain 
evidence may be heard in camera or otherwise embargoed," the 
newspaper said.

The Weekender newspaper suspected also British and American 
intelligence involvement in the case.

"The blackout seems as much designed to protect the dirty secrets 
of South Africa's nuclear past as to stop future proliferation," 
the M&G reported.

Wisser and Geiges -- who is ill with cancer -- face jail terms up 
to 15 years if convicted under the Non-Proliferation of Weapons 
of Mass Destruction Act and the Nuclear Energy Act. The men, who 
are currently under house arrest in the Johannesburg area, are 
due to go on trial in Pretoria's High Court in July.

The prosecution's application for a media ban and secret trial 
was due to be heard on Wednesday.

*****************************************************************
 49 Denver Post: Ex-Flats workers to testify tonight to health panel

Denver Post Staff Writer

Article Last Updated: 05/02/2007 01:41:54 AM MDT

Former Rocky Flats workers will testify tonight before an
independent federal panel of scientists and doctors who could speed
stalled compensation for those with cancer.

Federal authorities said all former workers at the now-demolished
nuclear-weapons plant in Jefferson County are welcome to attend a
public comment session before the 11-member Advisory Board on
Radiation and Worker Health.

Tonight's meeting starts at 5 p.m. at the Westin Westminster Hotel,
10600 Westminster Blvd. From U.S. 36, the hotel can be reached using
the 104th Avenue East exit.

The panel will weigh whether to grant Rocky Flats workers "special
exposure cohort" status, which would mean that workers with any of
22 cancers could receive $150,000 compensation, plus medical 
help.


Extras


* Visit the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health web site
  for information on filing worker claims and how to contact the
  board.



It was unclear how long it would be before workers would receive
payments, if the panel rules in their favor. A decision is expected
later this week.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt must approve
the decision, and Congress could weigh in.


All contents Copyright 2007 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
 50 AP: Train carrying shuttle rockets derails in Alabama - 6 injured

Florida AP News > Story

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

By JAY REEVES Associated Press Writer

MYRTLEWOOD, Ala. - A freight train carrying segments of the solid 
rocket boosters for the space shuttle derailed Wednesday after a 
recently repaired trestle over a boggy stretch of land collapsed, 
authorities said. Six people were reported injured, one 
critically.

NASA said it was not immediately known whether the equipment was
damaged. But space agency spokesman Allard Beutel in Washington said
the accident should not delay any shuttle launches.

The cause of the bridge collapse was under investigation.

"It appears when the train got onto the trestle, the trestle just
gave way and sank to the ground," said Mike Rudolphi of Huntsville,
an official with the boosters' manufacturer who went to the wreck
site. "It's going to be a challenge to get it out of there."

The shuttle's twin boosters are 150 feet tall and consist of four
propellant segments each. They are used during liftoff and the first
two minutes or so of flight to help the spacecraft break free of
Earth's orbit, and are then jettisoned into the sea, after which
they are recovered, refurbished and reused.

Rudolphi said eight booster segments were on the train, which
carried only the shuttle shipment. He said one booster overturned,
along with two locomotives and a car carrying six attendants who
were injured. He said the injuries were not believed to be
life-threatening.

But two of the injured were airlifted to DCH Regional Medical in
Tuscaloosa, where one was listed as critical and one fair. Their
names were not released.

Rudolphi said he expects the segments will be sent back to the
manufacturer's Utah plant to be examined.

It was a leak of burning gas between two segments of a solid booster
rocket that caused the Challenger explosion that killed seven
astronauts in 1986.

The Alabama Emergency Management Agency said the four derailed train
cars landed on their side on the ground in the woods next to the
tracks, none of the cargo spilled, and there appeared to be no fire.
The agency said the derailment occurred around 10:30 a.m.

Twelve of the rail cars remained upright. Rudolphi said it appeared
those cars didn't overturn because the trestle - about 300 to 400
feet over a boggy stretch of land - sank evenly to the ground.

The derailment was in a remote stretch of track near Myrtlewood, a
Marengo County town of about 200.

Sheriff's Deputy Kenneth Collier, stationed at a dirt road leading
to the derailment, said he was unaware of any threat posed to the
public.

"You can't get any further out in the woods than this," he said.

NASA spokesman Kyle Herring said the segments were not scheduled for
use during the next shuttle flight, the liftoff of Atlantis on June
8, but for missions in October and December. NASA's solid rocket
boosters and their parts are freely interchangeable.

It was the second time in less than a week that the train jumped the
tracks while carrying the booster segments across the country from
the manufacturer, ATK Launch Systems Group of Promontory, Utah, to
Cape Canaveral, Fla., Herring said.

Last Friday, two axles on one car came off the tracks for unknown
reasons about 60 miles west of Salina, Kan., while the train was
traveling at less than 20 mph, Herring said. The train was back on
the tracks after several hours, the spokesman said.

A spokesman for the manufacturer, Bryce Hallowell, said the rocket
company had two employees and a contractor on the train Wednesday,
and they suffered non-life-threatening injuries.

Mike Williams, a spokesman for Genesee & Wyoming Inc. of Greenwich,
Conn., said its subsidiary, Meridian and Bigbee of Meridian, Miss.,
was hauling the shuttle shipment. He also said no injuries were
life-threatening.

He said Meridian and Bigbee owns the trestle, which was closed for
repairs on Sunday night and reopened Wednesday morning. He said he
was not sure what was being repaired but that the trestle was
inspected during the repairs.

The other three apparently worked for the train company. The train
was with Union Pacific when it left Utah but was transferred to
Meridian and Bigbee of Meridian, Miss., before the derailment. A
call to the company's headquarters was not immediately returned.

"It's our understanding the motors are stable," Hallowell said.
After an inspection, he said, the company will work with the
railroad to safely remove them.

NASA officials said two locomotives, a train car behind them, and
one car with a shuttle booster overturned. The fuel in the rocket,
aluminum perchlorate, has the consistency of a rubber eraser and
there was no danger of it igniting, according to NASA.

Hallowell said the train was taking the same route to the Kennedy
Space Center that has been used for 30 years or more. The train trip
can take more than a week

The accident was the latest in a run of bad luck for the space
agency.

In February, astronaut Lisa Nowak was arrested on charges of trying
to kidnap a romantic rival. Later that month, a freak hail storm
caused thousands of dents in space shuttle Atlantis' external tank
as it sat on the launch pad, delaying the flight for months.

Last month, a worker at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston shot
a colleague to death and then killed himself.

___

Associated Press writers Garry Mitchell and Desiree Hunter
contributed to this report.

Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may

*****************************************************************
 51 PM: Dying Nuclear Workers Sue Labor Department

THE AUTHORITY ON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, HEALTH AND LOSS PREVENTION

May, 02 2007

By Katherine Torres


Sick and dying former uranium miners and nuclear weapons workers –
who helped maintain the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal during the
Cold War – filed a class-action lawsuit in Denver alleging that
the Department of Labor has taken way too long to process their
workers' compensation claims.


&#x201C;It's unconscionable for these injured Cold War veterans, who
have already qualified for this congressionally mandated care, to be
treated in this reckless and arbitrary manner,&#x201D; said Greg
Piche, an attorney with the Denver law firm Holland & Hart, who
filed the lawsuit on the workers' behalf. &#x201C;These workers and
families are not seeking monetary damages; they just want the health
care restored that their doctors have ordered as being necessary for
their conditions"

The workers ? many of whom are elderly and dying from their
work-related exposure to the toxic materials ? worked in various
capacities at factories across the country where nuclear weapons
were manufactured. At the time they weren't aware of their exposure,
but now they complain of cancer and other ailments and await
compensation from the federal government.


Care Delayed Is Care Denied

A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report completed on Dec. 5
and a Republican congressional report released on Nov. 30 concluded
that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Labor
Department were working together to limit payouts to nuclear weapons
workers.


The GAO report was prepared due to a recent memorandum from OMB to
the Department of Labor that raised concerns about potential efforts
to improperly limit the cost of benefits paid to claimants. The
memorandum also notes that the Bush administration planned to
convene a White House-led interagency work group to develop options
to limit growth in the costs of benefits provided by the program.


A memo prepared by Republican staff for the chairman of the House
Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims
stated &#x201C;there is a continuous stream of [administration]
communications &hellip; strategizing on minimizing payouts.&#x201D;


Greg Austin, president of Professional Case Management, the in-home
nursing agency that provides skilled nursing care to these former
nuclear workers, said the government's delays can be costly for sick
patients ? for whom time, in many cases, is of the essence.


&#x201C;Recently we've seen the Labor Department arbitrarily reduce
the amount of care ordered by our patients' doctors,&#x201D; Austin
said. &#x201C;At the same time the department has made patients and
their families wait for up to 7 months to have their care approved.
For many of these seriously ill and elderly patients, care delayed
is in fact care denied, with life-threatening consequences.&#x201D;


Compensation Act Passed in 2000

Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act
passed in 2000, workers or their survivors who developed cancer or
lung disease as a result of exposure to radiation, beryllium or
silica in the nuclear weapons complex are eligible to receive
medical benefits, which includes home health care.


The law was passed after the government for decades had denied that
workers had incurred health risks as a result of working at the
nuclear plants. (For more, read &#x201C;Nuclear Workers Wait, and
Wait, and Wait, for Settlements.&#x201D;)

A call made to the Labor Department for comment was not returned.
However, Assistant Deputy Labor Secretary Shelby Hallmark, who
currently oversees the program, previously has said that
&#x201C;[t]he Labor Department is not trying to deny care to ill
weapons workers, but to make sure the level of care was
appropriate.&#x201D;

Copyright © 2007 Penton Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 52 Arizona Republic: EPA agrees to clean up contaminated soil on Navajo Nation

Associated Press
May. 1, 2007 06:03 PM

ALBUQUERQUE - The U.S Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday 
announced it will clean up radium-contaminated soil at five 
residential properties on the Navajo Nation.

For nearly 25 years, rain and flash floods carried contaminated 
soils from the abandoned Northeast Church Rock Mine near Gallup 
down an arroyo and onto the properties.

"This soil removal will prevent direct human contact with the
radium-contaminated soil and make it safer for families and pets to
play in their yards," said Keith Takata, Superfund director of the
EPA's Pacific Southwest region.

United Nuclear Corp. operated the 125-acre mine shaft from 1967 to
1982. It includes two underground uranium shafts, waste piles,
several surface ponds, buried waste and sand fill areas.

Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. said the Navajo EPA has been
working since 2003 to convince the federal EPA to clean up the site.

"We stood alone up against large uranium development corporations
for the longest time, and the Navajo Nation's EPA's persistence in
advocating for our safety, our culture and our sovereignty is
finally paying off," he said.

In November, the two agencies tested radium levels in the soil at
the mine site and found elevated levels of radium in surface soils
at the site and around the homes.

Though no health studies have been conducted in the area, exposure
to elevated levels of uranium could lead to anemia, cataracts,
fractured teeth and cancer.

Stephen Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo EPA, said the
cleanup is important in addressing the issues of past mining
operations on the vast reservation. Widespread and largely
unregulated uranium mining on the reservation left the Navajos with
a legacy of disease and death.

"We want to do the best job we can in helping U.S. EPA remove these
radioactive contaminants off the Navajo Nation and sort of set the
stage for additional work we know is out there to be done," Etsitty
said. "We're going to be looking at hopefully replicating this
collaboration."

Navajo officials, along with the federal government, have identified
1,300 abandoned uranium mines across the reservation, Etsitty said.
They're now working to prioritize 40 sites for cleanup.

At Coyote Canyon, Etsitty said medicine men have conducted
ceremonies, praying for the best possible outcome in the cleanup.

Residents will be moved to Gallup-area hotels while the EPA removes
the surface soil around each of their homes and replaces it with
clean soil. The agency also will check the interior of the homes to
make sure there's no contaminated dust.

There's a possibility that if the entire 125-acre mine site is not
cleaned up, the area around the homes could again be contaminated,
Etsitty said.

Harrison Karr, assistant regional counsel for the EPA, said the
agency is aware of the possibility and said the agency hopes to have
the mine area cleaned up within a year.

"We're investigating it and we intend to clean up any risks that we
find out there," he said.

On Friday, the agency issued a unilateral order to United Nuclear,
requiring the corporation to pay $900,000 for the disposal of the
soil at Coyote Canyon to an off-reservation site. The EPA will pay
the remainder of the $2.2 million bill and seek reimbursement from
United Nuclear, Karr said.

Copyright © 2007, azcentral.com. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 53 SF Chronicle: THE MAZE MELTDOWN / SAFETY: Nuclear shipments questioned

Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Tank fire destroys portion of MacArthur Maze

Sunday's highway inferno in Oakland has sparked calls for federal
officials to take another look at the safety of their truck
shipments of nuclear waste, spent fuel and nuclear weapons, as a
guard against a future freeway mishap that would shower
cancer-causing radioactive materials over an urban area.

But federal agencies charged with the shipments said Tuesday that
there's nothing to fear.

Truck shipments of nuclear weapons are accompanied by "highly
trained federal agents. They're armed and they're ready to defend
the cargo in whatever way they have to if they were attacked," said
Al Stotts, spokesman for the U.S. National Nuclear Security
Administration.

However, one concern among nuclear critics is what would happen if a
truck carrying nuclear materials collided with a fuel tanker, either
accidentally or because of a terrorist attack.

Sunday's fire reportedly grew as hot as 3,000 degrees -- almost
one-third the surface temperature of the sun -- and burned for two
hours. Federal agencies have tested nuclear shipments in so-called
"fully engulfing" fires that last only 30 minutes and don't exceed
1,475 degrees.

"This incident raises concerns about nuclear waste and spent fuel
shipments," said Bob Loux, state director of the Agency for Nuclear
Projects in Nevada, where the Bush administration is pushing to open
the Yucca Mountain nuclear burial site near Las Vegas.

The federal regulations regarding such shipments, he said, "need to
be revisited and re-evaluated," not only in response to the
MacArthur Maze blaze but because "many of these regulations haven't
been looked at since the early 1970s."

"Things have changed in the real world," he said.

Federal officials say nuclear disasters from highway accidents are
highly unlikely.

Since 1999, the Department of Energy has made more than 5,600
shipments of transuranic nuclear waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant in New Mexico from Washington, Idaho, Colorado, South Carolina
and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, said Bill
Mackie, manager of institutional programs for the isolation plant's
field office in Carlsbad, N.M.

"We have had no radiation leakage or severe accidents," he said.

Mackie acknowledged that the nuclear containers haven't been tested
in fires lasting longer than 30 minutes and burning hotter than
about 1,475-degrees, but he was confident they could withstand
hotter blazes because they're so sturdily built.

Loux, noting nuclear power plant failures and the loss of two NASA
space shuttles, cautioned that "these 'very remote' kinds of things
have a tendency to occur."

Bob Halstead, a longtime consultant on nuclear shipments to Nevada's
Nuclear Projects Agency who has testified before Congress on such
issues, told The Chronicle that the drivers hired to ship nuclear
materials are diligently screened by the federal government and said
he's not worried about their reliability. But he is concerned that
even excellent drivers can't prevent a terrorist from deliberately
plowing a fuel tanker into a nuclear shipment.

He said a long-lasting fire like the one that occurred in the
MacArthur Maze on Sunday could unleash radioactive poisons -- in
particular, the health-threatening isotope cesium-137 -- into the
atmosphere.

Halstead accused federal agencies of "complacency."

"I try to remind them that when the Exxon Valdez (oil spill)
occurred, there had already been 8,000 successful tanker shipments
out of Alaska," he said.

E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle

*****************************************************************
 54 Salt Lake Tribune: Canadian company obtains uranium assets, 
including mothballed Utah mill

Article Last Updated: 05/01/2007 01:34:53 PM MDT

Posted: 1:35 PM- U.S. Energy Corp. says it has sold its uranium
assets, including the mothballed Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill near
Ticaboo in Garfield County.

    The new owner is sxr Uranium One Inc., a Canadian company whose
main uranium property is in South Africa.

    Uranium One is paying Riverton, Wyo.-based U.S. Energy $6.6
million in cash, along with 6.6 million shares of common stock. If
and when commercial production resumes at the uranium mill 10 miles
north of Bullfrog Marina on Lake Powell, the buyer also has pledged
to pay an additional $27.5 million, plus a 5 percent royalty from
mill production, up to $12.5 million.

    The Shootaring Mill was the last uranium mill built in the
United States but operated for only two months before the price of
uranium collapsed in 1982. Several owners have maintained it in a
standby condition ever since.

    U.S. Energy's other uranium properties included the Sage Mine in
San Juan County, near the Utah-Colorado border and, claims in the
Henry Mountains northwest of the mill.

© Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
 55 IHT: Utah uranium mill sold to Canadian company - 

International Herald Tribune

The Associated Press

Published: May 2, 2007

TICABOO, Utah: A uranium mill in southern Utah has been sold to a
Canadian company, fueling hopes that it will operate for the first
time since the early 1980s.

U.S. Energy Corp. said it sold the Shootaring Canyon uranium mill,
north of Lake Powell, along with 38,000 acres (15,400 hectares) of
mineral claims and leases, to sxr Uranium One Inc.

The mining parcels include the Sage Mine in San Juan County, near
the Utah-Colorado border, and other properties in the Lisbon Valley,
southeast of Moab, and the Henry Mountains, northwest of Ticaboo.

U.S. Energy, based in Riverton, Wyoming, said it will receive $6.6
million (€4.9 million) in cash and 6 million shares of Uranium One
common stock. Uranium One also has pledged to pay $20 million (€15
million) if the Shootaring Canyon mill returns to commercial
production and other incentives.

Shootaring Canyon, the last uranium mill built in the United States,
barely started operations in 1982 when the price of uranium
collapsed, forcing a shutdown. Today, the price is approaching $115
per pound.

The mill, however, does not have a power supply and has relied on
diesel-powered generators. Garfield County has studied how to extend
electricity to Ticaboo.

Environmental advocates are watching. Steve Bloch, an attorney with
the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said uranium mining is a
speculative venture.

Copyright © 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights
*****************************************************************
 56 AU ABC: Miners want to see the fine print

AM - Wednesday, 2 May , 2007  08:04:00

Reporter: Peter Ryan

PETER CAVE: While she's in Melbourne talking to the mining
companies, Julia Gillard is expected to offer an alternative to
Australian workplace agreements, possibly common law contracts.

The Australian Mines and Metals Association's Head of Workplace
Policy, Christopher Platt, has been speaking to our Business Editor,
Peter Ryan.

PETER RYAN: Christopher Platt, how would you describe the mood as
you go into today's meeting with Julia Gillard on industrial
relations?

CHRISTOPHER PLATT: I imagine that the meeting will be cordial, and
hopefully the ALP will provide us with some of the details in the
areas that we're missing. And also we're looking for some
information on how the compliance provisions are proposed by the
ALP, and to make sure that the rule of law will continue and we
won't return to the rule of the jungle, especially in the areas of
construction.

PETER RYAN: Well, Julia Gillard is expected to present an
alternative where non-union collective agreements could contain
individual clauses. Is that the sort of compromise you're looking
for?

CHRISTOPHER PLATT: The thing about an individual agreement is the
individual nature. It's the relationship between the employee and
the company. There's a reward based on that relationship, and
there's a responsibility. Each employee is accountable for their
actions. That's something that you can't get so easily through a
collective agreement.

PETER RYAN: But if Julia Gillard is able to present an alternative
that does provide the same flexible arrangements you have now, is
that a way around the impasse over AWAs?

CHRISTOPHER PLATT: Well, as we've said previously, you know, what
we're seeking is the replication of the new system. We're not too
hung up on the language or the terminology that's used that provides
the system. So if there is such a system that replicates AWAs,
that's a matter that we'll give serious consideration to.

PETER RYAN: But is your position that you simply want to retain the
status quo, nothing more, nothing less?

CHRISTOPHER PLATT: Our preference would be to retain the status quo.
If there is a change then, you know, essentially that's more red
tape for us to deal with, that's a distraction from the main game,
which is digging up our minerals or hydrocarbons and exporting them
overseas. But that's not to say that there might be another way of
skinning the cat.

PETER RYAN: But if there is a deal that could be tailored for your
needs, are you willing to compromise and support Labor's policy?

CHRISTOPHER PLATT: Certainly we've said on the public record that if
the ALP is able to offer us a system which preserves the essential
features of individual agreements that we've got now, then we
wouldn't have any more comment to say in respect of that part of the
IR policy.

But, now there's a whole range of other issues in the IR policy that
we also need to talk about. One of them is the matters that can be
contained within collective agreements. You know, there's no
prohibition on matters at all, which potentially means we're going
to see union preference clauses come back in, time off for trade
union training leave, we'll see non-union employees being forced to
pay union bargaining fees, for example.

PETER RYAN: But Labor says it won't be budging in any way about
abolishing Australian workplace agreements. Can you reach any
compromise on this basis?

CHRISTOPHER PLATT: Well, that's a matter that remains to be seen.

PETER RYAN: What would make the mining industry soften its position
and deal with Labor on IR?

CHRISTOPHER PLATT: Well, our focus is on the key elements and how
they meet our needs.

A couple of weeks ago we produced a document called the Workplace
Relations Scorecard. That's an objective set of criteria that we
will be using to measure both the ALP's policy and the Coalition's
policy, and basically we'll compare what they put up against the key
features in our scorecard, and rate them accordingly.

PETER CAVE: Christopher Platt from the Mines and Metals Association,
speaking there to Peter Ryan.

*****************************************************************
 57 KNDO/KNDU: TRIDEC Releases GNEP Citing Study

Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | 

KENNEWICK, Wash.- TRIDEC submits its study on a controversial plan
that could guide the area's economic future.

They just finished a million dollar citing study on their proposal
to bring the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to the area.

They propose a nuclear fuel recycling facility, research reactor and
a research facility.

The just finished study concludes Hanford's pre-existing facilities,
like FFTF and Energy Northwest's two incomplete nuclear plants, and
the fact that they're already licensed, give it a distinct advantage
over the other sites.

"A lot of the stuff that you look for infrastructure wise,
permitting wise and licensing wise is already in hanford. Plus,
we've got some of the best highly technical and highly educated
nuclear engineers, scientists and staff,' said Deanna Smith with
TRIDEC.

GNEP is part of a controversial bush administration plan to expand
energy independence and reverse global warming through expanding the
nation's nuclear energy program.

Hanford is one of eleven sites being looked at for the program.

 All content © Copyright 2000 - 2007 WorldNow and KNDO/KNDU. All
Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 58 DOE: DOE Announces up to $200 Million in Funding for Biorefineries

May 1, 2007

Small- and full-scale projects total up to $585 million to advance
President Bush’s Twenty in Ten Initiative

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W.
Bodman today announced that DOE will provide up to $200 million,
over five years (FY’07-’11) to support the development of
small-scale cellulosic biorefineries in the United States.  This
Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) seeks projects to develop
biorefineries at ten percent of commercial scale that produce liquid
transportation fuels such as ethanol, as well as bio-based chemicals
and bioproducts used in industrial applications.  This research aims
to advance President Bush’s goal of making cellulosic ethanol
cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012, and assist in reducing
America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years by
expanding the availability of alternative and renewable
transportation fuels.

“This research will provide the next necessary step toward
developing cellulosic biorefineries that can transform our
transportation sector in a clean and cost-effective manner,”
Secretary Bodman said.  “As world demand for energy continues to
grow, so too must our supply of clean, domestic sources of energy –
and cellulosic biofuels provide a promising way to meet President
Bush’s goal of displacing twenty percent of gasoline usage within
the decade.”

Today’s announcement advances DOE’s long-term strategy to reduce
dependence on imported oil by encouraging development of clean,
domestic and renewable sources of energy, including biofuels.  This
strategy includes small-scale research projects to inform long-term
development of full-scale facilities.

Small-scale projects will use novel approaches and a variety of
cellulosic feedstocks to test new refining processes.  These
projects complement DOE&#8217;s announcement earlier this year,
which makes available up to $385 million over four years for the
development of six full-scale biorefineries.  The full-scale
biorefineries focus on near-term commercial processes, while the
small-scale facilities will experiment with new feedstocks and
processing technologies.  Combined, these small- and full-scale
projects will receive up to $585 million in federal investment.

The FOA will support demonstration projects that test key refining
processes and provide operational data needed to lower the technical
hurdles sometimes associated with financing a full-size commercial
plant.  These projects are expected to be operational within three
to four years and will speed the adoption of new technologies to
produce ethanol and other biofuels from cellulosic feedstocks. 
Commercial-scale demonstrations would follow thereafter.

DOE requests applicants to design, construct and operate an
integrated biorefinery demonstration facility, employing
lignocellulosic feedstocks for the production of some combination of
liquid transportation fuel(s), biobased chemicals, and substitutes
for petroleum-based feedstocks and products.  DOE seeks projects
that can rapidly move to commercial-scale, supported by a sound
business strategy and; encourages applications that demonstrate
breakthrough technologies and collaboration between industry,
universities, and DOE’s national laboratories.

Up to $15 million is expected to be available in FY’07, with the
remaining $185 million expected to be available in FY’08-’11,
subject to appropriation from Congress.  DOE anticipates selecting
5-10 awards under this announcement.  These projects require a
minimum of 50 percent cost share from applicants.

Applications for this FOA are due August 14, 2007.  For more
information on the FOA, “Demonstration of Integrated Biorefinery
Operations for Producing Biofuels and Chemical/Materials Products” -
DE-PS36-07GO97003, visit: DOE's E-Center OR Grants.gov.

Media contact(s): Julie Ruggiero, (202) 586-4940 

 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 59 DOE: DOE Does Not Accept SPR Bids and Suspends Plans for Future Purchases

May 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil
Energy has rejected all offers received from the second solicitation
issued this spring that sought to purchase up to four million
barrels of crude oil for the United States’ crude oil reserve.  Both
solicitations resulted in no awards because the Department
determined that the bids were too high and not a reasonable value
for taxpayers.

The solicitations for the purchase of crude oil were meant to
replace oil sold on an emergency basis after Hurricane Katrina
caused significant damage to the production, distribution, and
refining capabilities of the oil industry in the Gulf Coast region. 
The Government planned to use proceeds of $584 million from the
emergency sale for the purchase of crude oil. 

The Department plans to suspend direct purchases of oil for the SPR
until at least the end of the summer driving season. 

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has a capacity of 727 million
barrels and currently holds 689 million barrels in inventory.

A separate Strategic Petroleum Reserve fill program, the
Royalty-in-Kind program, is proceeding according to schedule. DOE
earlier issued a solicitation seeking bids by May 8, 2007, for
contracts to exchange up to 9 million barrels of royalty oil from
Federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico that meets the specifications
of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Media contact(s): Anne Kolton, (202) 586-4940 

 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | 
Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403
*****************************************************************
 60 Hanford News: CH2M Hill hires new chief operating officer

This story was published Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007

the Herald staff

John Fulton will join CH2M Hill Hanford Group as executive vice 
president and chief operating officer starting June 4.

He replaces Denny Ferrera, who has been named senior project 
manager with CH2M Hill to prepare the 2012 Olympics site in 
London for the structures needed for the Olympic Games and 
Village. The work includes demolishing 600 buildings, installing 
utilities and doing the rough land contouring for the sports 
arenas on the 600-acre site.

Fulton had been the Washington Closure Hanford director of 
decontamination and demolition. He began his career at Hanford in 
1979 and has experience at B Plant, the tank farms, the Plutonium 
Finishing Plant and K Basins. He also has worked at the Rock 
Flats, Colo., and Mound, Ohio, Department of Energy sites.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.


*****************************************************************
 61 Hanford News: Home-grown nuclear energy sought in Idaho

This story was published Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007

By Ken Dey Idaho Statesman

On a rainy day, Don Gillispie looks over a remote hay field 
southwest of Mountain Home.

He has a grand plan for this field. Gillispie hopes that by 2015, 
this farmland, with its sweeping vistas of the Owyhee Mountains, 
will be home to the nation's largest nuclear power plant.

It's an ambitious plan for the president and CEO of Virginia-based
Alternative Energy Holdings, a 7-month old company with little money
and stock that trades for about the cost of a candy bar.

Gillispie estimates it would take $3 billion to complete the
1,600-megawatt plant - money the company doesn't have. Gillispie
said the market capitalization of his company is about $15 million,
and it has $20 million in assets - the value of the 4,000 acres of
Owyhee County land.

After nearly three decades without a single new permit for a nuclear
power plant, the U.S. now has a cluster of companies bidding to get
the industry moving again.

Ahead of Gillispie are 15 bigger companies well-known companies like
Duke Energy, Unistar and Entergy proposing to build plants.

All have much stronger balance sheets than Gillispie's little
start-up. Those companies have started the lengthy and complicated
process of obtaining permits from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alternate Energy hasn't. Gillispie says that's because he is still
trying to raise the $78 million he needs just to complete the
licensing process.

Gillispie says he's not daunted. Someday, he says, his plant will
make a lot of money. "I'm a very determined person and that's how
good things and new things get accomplished," he said.

Industry experts say it will be a challenge, but Gillispie's company
has a shot. Finding the funding To make the plant a reality,
Gillispie needs investors. He has none now other than James
Hilliard, who put up his land for the plant site in exchange for a
stake in the company.

Alternate Energy trades on an over-the-counter market called the
Pink Sheets under the symbol AEHI.PK. That little-known market is
for companies that don't meet the financial requirements to trade on
a larger exchange. On Tuesday the stock closed at 50 cents a share,
up 11 cents.

When it comes to financing nuclear power plants, Gillispie doesn't
think being small is a disadvantage. "The big companies don't have
the money to build them either," he said. "They don't just pull out
the checkbook. They find the funding in several different ways." He
said he has an offer for a $1 billion loan but wants to first try to
raise money from investors. "I'll be meeting with some pretty large
investors, guys who can put up $50 million to $100 million at a
whack," he said. "I'll get as many of those as I can."

After he has enough investors, Gillispie said, he will pursue a loan
and take advantage of the 2005 Energy Bill that authorizes
government loan guarantees for nuclear plants. "We concluded that we
can make $2 million to $3 million a day in operating profits," he
said. "These are cash cows, and we can do that while still selling
very reasonably priced power."

Gillispie said he would give Idaho first shot at buying power from
the plant and would sell the rest in Nevada and California.
Gillispie is banking on his experience in the industry and that of
his board to encourage investors. He has consulted and helped build
plants, and he worked for companies like Duke Energy and the
Tennessee Valley Authority.

Gillispie is a former senior vice president of nuclear assessment
programs with the Nuclear Management Co. in Hudson, Wis., which
operates seven nuclear power plants. His six board members all have
backgrounds in the industry. They include James Taylor, the former
chief operating officer of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
and Ralph Beedle, a past senior vice president of the Nuclear Energy
Institute, a Washington D.C.-based nuclear industry group.

Adrian Heymer, senior director of new plant deployment for the
institute, said his organization hasn't had a chance yet to meet
with Alternate Energy and learn more. The company has joined the
institute, he said.

Heymer said every company that wants to build nuclear plants is
looking for investors, just as Alternate Energy is. "If they
(Alternate Energy) pull the right team together, they could do it,"
he said.

A nuclear resurgence After the Three Mile Island accident in 1979,
the nuclear industry in the United States came to a virtual halt.
The last nuclear plant to begin operation was the Watts Bar reactor
owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Construction began in 1973
but operation didn't start until 1996.

David Lochbaum, director of the nuclear safety project for the Union
of Concerned Scientists, an organization critical of the industry,
said the lack of any new licenses in more than 20 years has leveled
the playing field for small companies like Alternate Energy to
compete. "It is a new company, and they have some experience, but
that doesn't necessarily mean success or failure," Lochbaum said. "I
think the challenges they face are the same as any company."

Lochbaum said Gillispie's decision to come to Idaho could be an
advantage. "Idaho has a lot of nuclear talent to draw upon and in a
sense is part of Idaho's history," he said. "Plus there is quite a
bit of acceptance for nuclear power in Idaho that you may not see in
other places."

Local support

But not everyone in Idaho is enthusiastic about Gillispie's proposal.

Jeremy Maxand, executive director of the Snake River Alliance, a
Boise-based antinuclear group, said the C.J. Strike Reservoir is too
great a resource to risk putting a nuclear plant next to it. Maxand
said nuclear power is still dangerous, and he sees no need for the
plant. "It's absolutely unnecessary for the state to build a nuclear
power plant," he said. "No one can deny that we are already awash in
this state with energy potential in areas like wind power, biomass,
geothermal and solar."

Maxand said Alternate Energy's proposal shows the need for a state
siting authority, so the decisions on where new plants are located
are not made solely at the county level. But Gillispie said the
public now accepts that nuclear is safe. He said he supports
alternative energy, too, and even proposes an adjacent plant to make
ethanol using the excess heat from the nuclear plant.

The plant won't be visible from the reservoir, he added. But before
he can go any further with the project, Gillispie first needs to get
a conditional- use permit from the county to change the land's
status from agriculture to industrial.

Owyhee County Commissioner Jerry Hoagland said the commission has
received a brief presentation from the company. He declined to say
what he thinks, saying commissioners likely will have to decide on
the permit. Gillispie said he plans a public meeting with county
residents later this month to answer questions. "I think I can say
safely that senior Idaho officials are supportive of what I'm trying
to do," he said.

Jon Hanian, a spokesman for Gov. Butch Otter, said Otter believes
there is a role for nuclear power in the country's energy portfolio,
but he doesn't know enough yet about Gillispie's proposal to take a
position.

Whether or not Gillispie's dream comes true, Mark Holbrook, an
advisory engineer at the Idaho National Laboratory, said there's no
shortage of investors waiting to put money into new plants as soon
as one company successfully builds one. "Once we get past the first
plant, I think we'll see the floodgate open," he said.


&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 62 Hanford News: CH2M Hill gifts to WSU top $2 million

This story was published Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

CH2M Hill's gifts to Washington State University Tri-Cities 
pushed above the $2 million mark Tuesday with the company's 
donation of 10 scholarships and $600,000.

It's money that will come in handy as WSU Tri-Cities expands to a 
four-year university in August.

"As we begin to admit freshmen, we've got all sorts of needs we know
about, and we also have needs we don't know about," said Vicky
Carwein, WSU Tri-Cities chancellor.

As of Tuesday morning, 68 incoming freshmen had paid their tuition
deposits, and students had until the end of the day to meet the
deadline for making a $200 deposit to hold their place for fall
semester.

Unlike junior and senior transfer students who often have been out
of high school for years or even decades, most freshman class
applicants are in their late teens and from the Tri-Cities or nearby
towns.

Although it's too late to meet the priority deposit deadline, the
university still is accepting freshmen.

"We are going to admit every single student who is qualified for
admission and wants to come to Washington State University
Tri-Cities," Carwein said. That includes freshmen and transfer
students.

The state Legislature will pay for 50 freshmen, but WSU Tri-Cities
is preparing for more.

Among its plans for CH2M Hill's $600,000 donation is covering costs
of a coordinator for internships and mentorships.

CH2M Hill's donation of 10 freshman scholarships comes with a
promise of summer internships and mentoring for each student. The
scholarships, each for $6,000, will be divided between the students'
freshman and senior years.

WSU Tri-Cities set a goal in late January of raising $300,000 to
support 50 freshman scholarships. But with CH2M Hill's donation, the
total has reached $334,000 in cash and pledges, and WSU has
increased the goal to $450,000 to provide scholarships for 75
freshmen.

In 2001, CH2M Hill pledged to donate $2 million to WSU Tri-Cities,
with the $600,000 donation completing the promise. Money so far has
been used for internships, computer science improvements, new
faculty, a math and science program for minority students, the
Business Information Center and the Advanced Management Course for
Small Business.

"Education is needed to sustain a community," said Mark Spears, CH2M
Hill president. "You can't grow a community like the Tri-Cities and
have quality of life without a well-educated work force."

WSU Tri-Cities welcomes any donation, Carwein said.

But "these unrestricted funds are the most precious of all," she
said. "These are moneys we can use as the needs arise."

WSU Tri-Cities is not likely to forget the donation anytime soon.
But just in case, the money came with an extra gift.

As Butch, the WSU mascot held up a sign saying "Freshmen Rock!"
Tuesday, CH2M Hill unveiled a large metal plaque designed by the
company and created by Richland sculptor Ted Neth, a professor
emeritus at Columbia Basin College.

It will be hung by the campus book store.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 63 Hanford News: Plans made for FFTF, unfinished reactors

This story was published Wednesday, May 2nd, 2007

Annette Cary, Herald staff writer

New uses are being proposed for the Fast Flux Test Facility and 
the unfinished nuclear power plants near the Columbia Generating 
Station in a study of recycling commercial reactor fuel at 
Hanford.

The Fast Flux Test Facility has been proposed to perform research 
for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and supporters of the 
reactor would like it to produce isotopes for new medicines.

Last month, the Department of Energy also asked if FFTF could be
used as the prototype for an advanced recycling reactor, according
to Columbia Basin Consulting Group. That would require FFTF to
generate electricity using recycled fuel.

The two partially built reactors on land leased by Energy Northwest
also might play a role in the overall project, according to the
Tri-City Development Council. The Columbia Generating Station was
the only commercial reactor finished at Hanford. Construction of two
other plants at Hanford was terminated in 1984 by the Washington
Public Power Supply System, or WPPSS.

Monday night was the deadline for TRIDEC and Columbia Basin
Consulting to submit a study to DOE considering Hanford as the site
of three facilities for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or
GNEP. TRIDEC received a $1 million grant to study Hanford's role
with some of the money going to Columbia Basin Consulting.

Columbia Basin Consulting looked at whether FFTF and other
facilities could be used to research the project.

Restarting the research reactor and using the Fuels and Materials
Examination Facility could cut a decade off the development of a
program to reuse commercial nuclear fuel that now is discarded after
a single use in the United States, the study concluded.

Reactivating the reactor would cost $500 million and take up to 51/2
years under an aggressive schedule, the study said. Adding power
production capabilities to the reactor would bring the cost to $750
million, Columbia Basin Consulting estimated. It would require four
years to be ready to generate power.

The GNEP program calls for two major production centers, with one or
both proposed for 11 sites, including Hanford, plus an additional
research center.

While Columbia Basin Consulting looked at the research center with a
possible prototype reactor, TRIDEC looked at building a nuclear fuel
recycling center that would use chemical processes to recycle spent
nuclear fuel and wastes. It also looked at building an advanced
recycling reactor that would use the recycled fuel to produce
electricity and burn up radioactive waste that would otherwise need
to be disposed of in a costly nuclear waste repository.

The 972 acres leased by Energy Northwest at Hanford would be ideally
suited for the recycling center and advanced burner reactor, TRIDEC
concluded. That would include using portions of the two unfinished
nuclear power plants, reducing total construction costs.

Other nearby Hanford facilities in the 400 Area where FFTF is
located also could be used, together saving several hundreds of
million dollars in construction costs, according to TRIDEC. That
also would allow $500 million in money for cleanup of the 400 Area
to be redirected to other Hanford cleanup work, TRIDEC said.

There also would be a more direct benefit to Hanford cleanup, it
said. The project could be used to recycle a large portion of 2,000
tons of fuel left from when Hanford was producing plutonium for the
nation's nuclear weapons program. Security for the fuel now costs
$70 million a year.

"Everything in the report showed the technical aspects are
outstanding (at Hanford)," said Gary Peterson, TRIDEC vice president
of Hanford programs.

But as TRIDEC talked with key decision makers across the state, it
heard that Hanford cleanup must come first and it heard resistance
to bringing more waste into the state for eventual recycling.

The project could produce 8,000 jobs. But critics fear what would
become of secondary radioactive and chemical wastes created in the
process and whether more waste might be stranded at Hanford.

&copy 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 64 Idaho Mountain Express: INL to begin counter-terrorism tests - 

May 2, 2007

New site will permit big bangs

By GREG MOORE Express Staff Writer

Following recent completion of an environmental assessment, the U.S.
Department of Energy will begin using a new site at the Idaho
National Laboratory to test the effectiveness of protective devices
used against explosives attacks by terrorists.

"Results from these tests will provide information to better protect
people and our nation's buildings and infrastructure," said
Elizabeth Sellers, manger of the DOE's Idaho Operations Office.

Tests conducted at the National Security Test Range will use only
conventional, and not nuclear, explosives. DOE spokesperson Brad
Bugger said the military could become a client of the test site, but
no weapons testing is done at INEL.

He said tests at the new site will begin in about a month.

Bugger said the department has been conducting a limited number of
similar tests at other locations at INL. However, he said, the new
site's more remote location will allow the use of stronger
explosives—up to 20,000 pounds, as opposed to a maximum of 500
pounds in previous tests. He said it will also permit more frequent
use—three to five days per week—though most of those tests will
involve very small explosions.

The tests will evaluate explosives countermeasures, including armor,
security devices and barriers. They will involve rocket-propelled
grenades, improvised explosive devices and car bombs.

According to the Environmental Assessment, the site will include a
900-foot-diameter mowed field, an earthen berm, a concrete test pad,
a new access road, buried data acquisition cables and protected
camera boxes.

In response to a draft EA in January, the Snake River Alliance,
Idaho's nuclear watchdog group, contended that the test explosions
could cause "catastrophic damage to both the environment and people
living nearby."

"This is exactly the wrong kind of activity for a nuclear site," the
group's executive director, Jeremy Maxand, stated.

INL's other facilities are devoted to research on nuclear power and
waste management.

The EA states that the new site was chosen to be remote enough to
avoid damaging those facilities. It is located 7 miles north of the
INL's Materials and Fuels Complex, formerly the site of
Argonne-West. The INL covers 890 square miles (569,135 acres) in the
Arco Desert, midway between Arco and Idaho Falls, with its
headquarters in Idaho Falls.

Released on April 12, the EA found that use of the site would have
no significant impact on the environment. It states that one
criterion of site selection was to minimize impacts on wildlife
habitat.

Bugger said the tests will generally not be open to viewing by the
public.

"We'd have to look at that on a case-by-case basis," he said. "But
someone would have to give us a very good reason."

   The Idaho Mountain Express is distributed free to residents 
and guests throughout the Sun Valley, Idaho resort area 
community. Subscribers to the Idaho Mountain Express will read 
these stories and others in this week's issue.
*****************************************************************
 65 Rocky Mountain News: Flats workers have chance to plead case

By Laura Frank, Rocky Mountain News

May 2, 2007

If ill workers from the dismantled Rocky Flats nuclear weapons site
get streamlined compensation for their radiation-related cancers, it
likely will be limited to specific workers during specific years,
experts working on the case say.

Today, workers will have a chance to plead for help when a
presidential advisory board meeting on the issue allows public
comment, starting at 5 p.m. at the Westin Westminster hotel, 10600
Westminster Blvd.

The workers have asked that anyone who ever worked at the plant that
produced atomic bomb cores northwest of Denver be granted
streamlined access to compensation and medical reimbursement
promised by Congress in 2000.

Members of the presidential board who have been meeting this week
are focused on Rocky Flats workers exposed to neutron radiation -
one of the most dangerous types - during the years 1952-1958, when
few records of such exposures were kept.

They also will consider whether records were reliable enough to
determine neutron doses from 1959-1970.

Former Rocky Flats workers who have questions about the compensation
program can meet with a representative of the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health during the meetings, starting today
and running through Friday at the Westin.


*****************************************************************
 66 KnoxNews: Y-12's lack of discipline again rears its ugly head

By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
May 2, 2007

Three words should forever resonate with contractors at the Y-12 
nuclear weapons plant: conduct of operations.

They are used to describe how workers carry out basic missions at 
the federal installation, including strict adherence to work 
procedures and safety guidelines.

Poor conduct of operations virtually shut down the warhead plant in
1994. A "stand-down" was ordered after an inspection raised serious
questions about the plant's ability to safely manage a huge
inventory of U-235 that's used to make nuclear weapons.

Every safety procedure was reviewed and/or revised in the months
that followed, and there's little doubt that the problems played a
role in Lockheed Martin's exit as managing contractor at Y-12.

The impacts of the stand-down are still being felt. Some
uranium-processing activities have never returned to normal
operation, at least not on a consistent basis.

That's important to remember because Y-12's conduct of operations is
again under fire.

The chairman of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board earlier
this year questioned the safety of Y-12's main production facility.

"The (board) is concerned that continued operations in the aging
9212 Complex involve significant safety risks to workers and the
public," A.J. Eggenberger wrote to Tom D'Agostino, acting
administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

In turn, the NNSA authored what's reputed to be a stern letter to
BWXT, the current contractor at Y-12, about the situation.

The safety board referenced the letter in a March 30 staff report,
saying it expressed the NNSA's "heightened concern regarding the
lack of proper conduct of operations" evident in several incidents
during the past year.

Steven Wyatt, a spokesman for NNSA in Oak Ridge, confirmed the
letter from Kevin Smith, the deputy federal manager at Y-12, to
Darrel Kohlhorst, the deputy general manager for operations at BWXT.
But Wyatt refused to release a copy of the letter, claiming some
sort of federal privilege.

"We are declining to release this internal correspondence at this
time. We consider it to be pre-decisional and related to agency
deliberations with the contractor," he wrote in an e-mail response.

Wyatt said the letter addressed NNSA's concerns about "some
deviations that have occurred recently in conduct of operations at
Y-12." Bill Wilburn of BWXT said the Oak Ridge contractor is
preparing a response to federal officials.

"Late in 2006, we initiated further steps to improve conduct of
operations performance because we weren't happy with our recent
progress, and this included focus on four specific elements,"
Wilburn said. Among those focus items were more disciplined
operations, including greater adherence to procedures, he said.

Wilburn said BWXT realizes the need to achieve and maintain an
acceptable performance level at the government plant.

Indeed, the Y-12 contractor is on the clock to get things fixed.

UT-Battelle is saying little about the search for a replacement for
Jeff Wadsworth, the director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Wadsworth is heading to Battelle headquarters in Ohio. He is
succeeding Bill Madia as Battelle's executive vice president of lab
operations. Madia, also a former ORNL director, is retiring (at
least part-time) to his new home at La Quinta, Calif., where the
golf courses beckon.

Officials have acknowledged a search committee was chosen from the
UT-Battelle board of directors.

University of Tennessee President John Petersen and Battelle CEO
Carl Kohrt are heading the search. Other members of the search team
are David Milhorn, executive VP at UT, and Martin Inglis, chief
financial officer at Battelle.

There is no definitive timetable for the search, although it's
expected to take a couple of months.

Senior writer Frank Munger covers the Department of Energy for the
News Sentinel. He may be reached at 865-342-6329 or at
munger@knews.com.



 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
*****************************************************************
 67 KnoxNews: How plan for nuclear fallout

By DAVID TEMPLETON
May 1, 2007

You know it's a bad day when a thunderous explosion is followed 
by a mushroom cloud on the horizon.

Decisions you make in the next few minutes will determine your 
family's fate.

Do you hop in the car and drive furiously in the opposite direction?
Do you have time to get your children at school and duck into a
basement shelter? Or do you head straight to the fruit cellar with
cans of SpaghettiOs and jugs of water to hunker down for days to let
nuclear fallout dissipate?

To help Americans with such lifesaving decisions, two Carnegie
Mellon University professors have outlined the science, psychology
and rationale for survival - that is, for those far enough from
ground zero to survive the initial blast.

"Individuals' Decisions Affecting Radiation Exposure After a Nuclear
Explosion," written by H. Keith Florig and Baruch Fischhoff, was
published in the May edition of Health Physics.

The paper provides radiation experts and government officials the
tools to help people survive a 10-kiloton explosion - roughly equal
to 10,000 tons of TNT or nearly the size of the 1945 blast that
devastated Hiroshima. A blast that size would erase one square mile
with fallout causing additional deaths and cancer risk 20 miles
downwind and beyond.

Detonation of a stolen or improvised nuclear device in an urban area
would pose the greatest threat, the study says.

Within 20 miles of ground zero, survival and subsequent health
impacts would depend on quick wits and sound decisions, said Florig,
a senior research engineer in the Department of Engineering and
Public Policy.

For now, he said, the Department of Homeland Security's Web site:
ready.gov/america/-downloads/nuclear.pdf provides useful but limited
information on surviving such a blast. It generally advises people
to seek shelter, limit exposure and, if possible, flee to safety.
But it leaves key questions unanswered.

"No one took the time to sit down with people and ask them what they
want to know," Florig said. "We're trying to look at the problem
from the user point of view."

Fischhoff, a psychologist who specializes in decision-making, said
government officials should use the study to develop a strategy to
help groups of people, especially those without money or
transportation, survive such catastrophic events.

"I think we should plan in advance an evacuation strategy," he said.
"I would like to see someone systematically work through the
decisions and see a planning effort that works through the decisions
of different groups who could not protect themselves, to help them
work through the hazards and provide support systems."

He said no one strategy is for all people, so strategies are
necessary for different groups.

What are the odds that your city would be hit, and if so, that the
wind would be headed in your direction, and that you would be home
and face the prospect of finding shelter in a basement?

Probability would rise for anyone living near likely targets,
including Washington, D.C., New York City or San Diego, the nation's
largest West Coast port.Here are important details to embrace:

Taking shelter in existing space with supplies available is better
than nothing. One must evaluate the options and react immediately.

One question is whether people should forsake personal safety to
help family, friends and neighbors. Such decisions have risks and
consequences, including the chance of finding a better shelter.

Other questions include whether to prepare a shelter in one's
basement in advance; whether to risk leaving one's home for safer,
more distant shelter; and how long to remain in a makeshift shelter
before evacuating.

The study does not encourage construction of nuclear shelters.
Instead, it lists supplies people should store in the most walled-in
segment of one's basement. Generally it suggests that people must
decide for themselves whether the risk is sufficient to prepare a
space in the basement and keep supplies on hand.

A key decision is whether space is available for a temporary shelter
and to store supplies. The entire project would cost several hundred
dollars a year, Florig said.

Those who decide to stock supplies should consider having food,
water, clothing, utensils, medicines, first-aid and sanitation
supplies, a battery-powered radio, a flashlight, dust masks, duct
tape, plastic sheeting, bedding, pet needs and even entertainment,
since one might be stuck there for days.

A 10-kiloton bomb would be lethal to most people within a mile from
ground zero. For those surviving the initial blast, survival depends
on radiation exposure to fallout that could cause death or pose a
serious cancer risk.

Key to that decision is learning the blast location quickly via
radio or media, if electricity is available. Those close to the
blast should secure shelter as quickly as possible. Those 2.5 miles
from ground zero can expect fatal levels of fallout in less than 15
minutes. That means one's best bet is to head to the deepest
underground shelter within minutes, if wind is blowing in their
direction.

Arrival of fallout depends on wind direction. If the wind - and
fallout - is headed straight toward you, one choice is to get into a
car and travel at a 90-degree angle from your location to avoid the
"fallout footprint." Florig said that footprint likely would be long
and narrow in the direction of the wind. So traveling out of the
footprint as fast as possible would be one way to avoid or limit
danger.

 Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
    
*****************************************************************

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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************