***************************************************************** 05/10/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.110 ***************************************************************** 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 AFP: Japan preparing more sanctions against NKorea - 2 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Decries Putin's Power Grab 3 US: E&ETV: Energy Roundtable 4 Reuters: U.S. criticized at talks on troubled nuclear treaty | 5 US: UCS: Politics Trumps Science at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 6 UPI: Analysis: Pakistan's nukes may resurface 7 Dailyindia: Pakistan to deploy new nuclear missile as counter to NUCLEAR REACTORS 8 US: We Didn't Need It The First Time 9 US: [NukeNet] Cost of reopening U.S. nuclear reactor shows how diffi 10 WNA: Turkish lawmakers back nuclear 11 EUobserver.com: Nuclear energy fuels hot debate among MEPs 12 Earth Times: City rejects plan to sell land for nuclear reactor to G 13 US: Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Energy Northwest asks WA to delay pr 14 US: Vermont Guardian: Feds give Vermont Yankee good safety grade 15 RIA Novosti: Atomstroyexport testing Tianwan NPP 1st unit at nominal 16 RIA Novosti: Russia sets up nuclear energy corporation 17 Platts: EP voting to reform nuclear treaty 18 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance at Waterford 3 Nuclear Plan 19 US: DECATUR DAILY: Nuclear may be solution, but waste still a proble 20 US: Rutland Herald: Yankee passes annual NRC safety review 21 US: Rutland Herald: Lawmakers strike deal, but Douglas may veto meas 22 US: Rutland Herald: Taxing Yankee good for business 23 UK: Independent: Energy White Paper delayed after Chancellor's inter 24 US: Burlington Free Press: My Turn: Shumlin's desperate search for t 25 US: Burlington Free Press: Senate OKs revised Vermont Yankee tax 26 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point finds tritium in its sewers 27 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting May 22 in Piketon, Ohio, to Disc 28 US: Charlotte Business Journal: Duke pushes plans for coal, nuclear 29 People's Daily: "Atomic Town" opens to public 30 BusinessWeek: Nuke Power Spurs EU Parliament Debate 31 Reuters: Brazil environment minister attacks nuclear option 32 NewsRoom Finland: Finland's Loviisa council rejects E.ON nuclear sta 33 Scotsman.com News: Kirk urges government to avoid 'evil' of NUCLEAR SECURITY 34 UPI: NNSA signs nuke security pact with NZ 35 US: New York Times Blog: Remembering a Plutonium Scare - NUCLEAR SAFETY 36 ScienceDaily: Exposure To Depleted Uranium From Military Action May 37 US: Congressman Tom Udall: COLD WAR VETS OVERCOME MAJOR HURDLE 38 IRNA: EP wants Denmark to act over 1968 US nuclear air crash 39 Herald Sun: Children 'raped during French nuke tests' NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 40 Serbianna.com: Radiating waste returned from Bosnia to be deposited 41 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Waste dump not in plan for Piketon 42 US: reportonbusiness.com: Native concerns derail uranium project 43 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: DOE funds Carlsbad projects in 07 budget 44 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Council questions request for funds 45 US: UPI: U.S. may lift duty on Russian uranium 46 US: UPI: Russia, Kazakhstan in uranium center deal PEACE 47 US: SF Chronicle: Hunger strike against weapons US DEPT. OF ENERGY 48 Aiken Today: SREL won't receive more DOE funding 49 DOE: DOE Proposes Regulations for Loan Guarantee Program 50 DOE: SPR Awards Exchange Contract to Shell Trading 51 Tri-City Herald: House OKs HAMMER study, requires lab report 52 Tri-City Herald: Hanford regulators say proposed budgets too small 53 Tri-City Herald: Power project on back burner 54 Hanford News: Regulators say target budgets too small 55 Tri-City Herald: Richland nuclear plant to shut down Saturday 56 Reuters: US issues loan guarantee rules for energy projects 57 UPI: U.S. to fund nuclear fuel center design 58 UPI: Energy Dept. issues loan-guarantee rules ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 AFP: Japan preparing more sanctions against NKorea - Thursday May 10, 01:15 PM TOKYO (AFP) - Japan will hold talks with the United States as soon as next week on possible new sanctions against North Korea unless the communist state shuts down its nuclear reactor, officials said. Foreign Minister Taro Aso said that Japan was "discussing details on how to implement" additional sanctions. "We will soon, maybe within a week or so, talk with the United States about how we have had enough," Aso told a lower house panel Wednesday. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who is known for his tough stance on North Korea, repeated late Wednesday that Tokyo may impose further punishment on the impoverished communist state. "If North Korea does not carry out what it had promised, we will have to think about a variety of options," Abe told reporters. "We won't stay patient forever. It's not limitless." Under a landmark February 13 disarmament-for-aid agreement, North Korea pledged to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor and allow in UN inspectors by April 14. But the deadline slipped, with North Korea refusing to act until it receives 25 million dollars frozen at a Macau bank since 2005 over US allegations of money laundering and counterfeiting. Japan has already imposed sweeping sanctions against North Korea including a ban on all imports. Advocates of stronger action have suggested measures such as banning exports and blacklisting ships that travel to the communist state. Japan has taken the hardest line at the six-nation nuclear talks and has refused to fund February's US-backed deal, saying it will not help North Korea until an emotionally charged kidnapping dispute is resolved. In September 2002, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il admitted Pyongyang had kidnapped 13 Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s to train spies in Japanese language and culture. Pyongyang says eight of them are dead, but Tokyo believes more Japanese nationals were kidnapped and are still alive in the North. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo!7 Pty Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Rice Decries Putin's Power Grab From the Associated Press Thursday May 10, 2007 9:46 PM By MATTHEW LEE Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday that Russian President Vladimir Putin's moves to consolidate power are troubling. Just ahead of her departure for Moscow next week, Rice said the United States and Russia are working well together on a number of issues but that the overall ties remained ``complicated'' by a rollback in reforms and Russia's contentious relations with its neighbors. ``On many things we have done very well, but the fact is that on some others it's been a difficult period,'' she said of the U.S.-Russia relationship. Her comments, in testimony to a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, came a day after Putin delivered oblique but pointed criticism at a Victory Day parade in Red Square of perceived U.S. domination in global affairs, warning the world faces threats like those before World War II. Rice did not directly address Putin's remarks but said Russia appeared unwilling to accept close U.S. ties with former Soviet states in eastern and central Europe where Moscow has strongly criticized Washington's plans to deploy a missile defense system. ``The Russians, I think, do not accept fully that our relations with countries that are their neighbors, that were once part of the Soviet Union, are quite honestly good relations between independent states and the United States,'' she said. Strains over these countries have been exacerbated by what Rice said was a deterioration in democratic progress in Russia after an initial surge following the end of the Cold War. ``It's even more difficult when one looks at what is happening domestically in Russia where I think it's fair to say that there has been a turning back of some of the reforms that led to the decentralization of power out of the Kremlin,'' she said. ``I think everybody around the world, in Europe, in the United States, is very concerned about the internal course that Russia has taken in recent years,'' Rice said. She said ``the concentration of power in the Kremlin has been troubling'' especially since Russia is due to hold presidential and parliamentary elections next year. While relations are complicated, Rice said the two former enemies remain on speaking terms, noting that President Bush and Putin continue to have a personal friendship. ``One of the good things about President Bush's very good personal relationship with President Putin is that he can raise those issues and we can talk about them,'' she said. Relations between Russia and the U.S. have become increasingly tense amid U.S. criticism of the Kremlin for rolling back on democracy and Moscow's complaints against U.S. plans to deploy missile defense sites in Europe close to its western borders. In a state of the nation address last month, Putin called for a Russian moratorium on observance of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, which limits the number of aircraft, tanks and other non-nuclear heavy weapons around the continent, saying that NATO members' refusal to ratify an amended version of the pact hurt Russia's security interests. Putin also threatened to pull out of the treaty altogether unless talks with NATO members yielded satisfactory results, and some Russian generals warned that Moscow could also opt out of a Cold War-era treaty with the United States banning intermediate-range missiles. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 3 E&ETV: Energy Roundtable OnPoint, 05/08/2007 Search E&E's Stories & Videos: Reporters Roundtable: E&E Daily reporters discuss latest on CTL, CAFE, climate legislation, nuclear energy With just a few weeks to go before Congress heads into its Memorial Day recess, how much will the Democrats accomplish on the energy policy front before then? During today's OnPoint, E&E Daily reporters Mary O'Driscoll, Alex Kaplun and Darren Samuelsohn have an in-depth discussion about key energy policy issues. They discuss the latest on CTL as it heads to the House this week, talk about the future of CAFE and nuclear energy, and preview what the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has planned for climate legislation. watch video email video Transcript Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today for a reporters roundtable are E&E Daily reporters Mary O'Driscoll, Alex Kaplun and Darren Samuelsohn. Thanks for coming on the show guys. Darren Samuelsohn: Great to be back. Monica Trauzzi: Alex, let's start off with an interesting battle that's happening in the Senate currently. Senator Bingaman recently proposed biofuels legislation. At the same time many enviro groups came out saying they wouldn't support his legislation. Now Senator Boxer has proposed legislation. Talk about the situation there and who's going to end up winning. Alex Kaplun: Yes, I think what Boxer is trying to do is to very clearly sort of assert her jurisdiction. The last time there was a biofuels mandate she wasn't in charge of the committee, Jim Inhofe was, but that came out of EPW. And a lot of people are saying, you know, the Environment and Public Works Committee needs to play a role here. It shouldn't just be an energy committee issue. That was especially coming from environmental groups who did not like the Bingaman bill, came out against it, which is sort of an unusual step for environmental groups to come out so harshly against kind of a Democratic priority. And they wanted Boxer to introduce her bill. Sort of unclear what's going to happen when it comes to the floor, the whole schedule has been pushed back a little bit. I think people have said the Bingaman bill is not quite ready to be sort of taken up as is. There's clearly going to be some changes to it. Whether that means that it will incorporate part of the Boxer bill or the Boxer bill will sort of be the substitute, you know, it's really a little too early to tell at this point. Monica Trauzzi: A lot happening on the coals to liquid front as well. Last week we saw a battle in the Senate ENR Committee and this week CTL is hitting the House. What are you expecting in the House this week? Alex Kaplun: Yeah, Rick Boucher is going to introduce his CTL bill today. They're still a little bit a ways away from sort of crafting their big energy package in the House, but this is clearly something that has a lot of momentum in that chamber. He's very interested in acting on it. There's a few Republicans who were interested in the issue. It's hard to tell exactly where it will end up, if it will be, again, its own bill. More likely, it will be part of some kind of bigger energy legislation as it moves forward. Monica Trauzzi: And it seems like there's a lot of focus on CTL this time around. Were you expecting that much focus? What is that due to? Is it due to the big lobbying campaign? Alex Kaplun: You know, I think that's part of it, they're assuming a lot of interest, leaning on lawmakers. I think the issue's getting a lot of attention because of sort of the right people and the right places. You know, Rick Boucher is a big coal state guy. He sort of has a lot of influence over the energy bill process. A lot of it is happening in his subcommittee right now, so it's getting a lot of publicity. You have the same thing on the Senate side, on the Senate energy committee. You have quite a few sort of coal state lawmakers that are putting this issue front and center. You know, how successful it is once it ever gets to, if it ever gets to the House or Senate floor, that's a little bit harder to read because that's not an issue that's been kind of a major topic of debate the last few years. I don't think it's necessarily yet on the radar of a lot of lawmakers who are not on those few committees. Monica Trauzzi: And we're expecting some action on CAFE this week as well. It's the first time we're seeing major action in the Senate. How did the Commerce Committee finally get to the point of reaching agreement on some legislation? Alex Kaplun: You know, I think we've generally seen a lot of momentum behind CAFE. And kind of the very clear indicator of that early on was Senator Ted Stevens backing a mandated CAFE increase. You know you have this Feinstein bill that picked up the support of, I believe, the majority of the Democrats in the Commerce Committee. They changed it a little bit to kind of appease Senator Stephens and some others, kind of dealt with the heavier vehicle issue by putting a mandate on them, but not necessarily as strict of a mandate as on sort of the rest of the cars. But, again, the Commerce Committee sort of, there's a fair number of Democrats that are kind of to the left on this issue. It should get out of there fairly easily, especially with the support of both the chairman and the ranking member. You know, again, once it gets to the floor it remains to be seen. The last time there was a CAFE vote on the floor was five years ago. It only picked up 38 votes. I mean things have clearly changed. You have a more democratic Senate. There's some Republicans who have come around on the issue, whether it's at that 60 vote benchmark, quite honestly, I don't know. As far as the vote total, Carl Levin last week even said that he doesn't know exactly how many votes there are for a CAFE bill. Monica Trauzzi: Darren, IPCC report out last week saying that global warming will not bankrupt the economy. Is that enough to get the mandatory cap critics on the bandwagon? Darren Samuelsohn: Hard to say right now. I think that what you're seeing is the debate, which maybe in years past had been about the science about climate change, has now sort of shifted to the cost. And you're seeing sort of the crystallization of this issue. I think going forward, for the next two years, will be about how much is this going to cost and weighing the benefits and sort of this back-and-forth. I mean there's a hearing starting tomorrow in the Senate EPW committee where Joe Lieberman and his main goal is to try and convince the ranking member on the committee, John Warner, to support cap and trade. And John Warner has said, previously, that he would support it, but I think Lieberman is trying to just shore up support for whenever that vote may come. He's going to definitely get this one Republican. And then he's also looking at Lamar Alexander, another Republican on the Senate EPW committee who has supported caps on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants alone. He hasn't shown any interest in going through the entire economy. So he's just looking at these two Republicans. It's possible that you could see more down the line, but I think a lot more information needs to get to members of Congress. There will be a series of hearings on this issue coming up. Monica Trauzzi: So any legislative proposal that's emerging as the favorite in the Senate EPW? Darren Samuelsohn: That's a good question. There's been a little bit of a quiet time in the Senate EPW Committee on climate change from, there was a loud rush right after January, February, March. We had Al Gore come testify and that might've been the peak. Some people have been telling me that they think that might have been the peak for the entire two years, was the Al Gore appearance on Capitol Hill. And it's going to sort of fizzle out, and they're going to realize that they can't do cap and trade. They don't have the votes, that they're going to be doing for easier lift kinds of things, whether it be CAFE, whether it be green buildings. So it's possible that the EPW Committee does try and do this. I mean you have environmental groups pushing and they were very insistent at the start of this year that they wanted to see action on cap and trade. So whether or not there's a favorite vehicle, that's a good question. It seems like there were the power plant proposals that came out a couple of weeks ago, which brings up a debate of three or four years ago that happened in the Senate EPW Committee. Whether or not they can just focus on power plants is hard, because once you bring up power plants you're probably going to start to see amendments about other industries and other sectors of the economy. So it would be very difficult, I think, if they tried just to keep it to power plants. Monica Trauzzi: And there's the international issue as well. Recently C. Boyden Gray was quoted that, "U.S. global warming legislation would have to include a program for China and India." What does that say about the future of climate change legislation in this country? Is this going to be another hurdle for lawmakers to overcome? Darren Samuelsohn: This has always been a hurdle in the climate change debates. It goes back to a 1997 debate on the Senate floor when they voted 95 to 0 against, this was before Kyoto was signed by President Clinton, but they basically said China and India have to be involved, back in '97. This is going to come up again. It's an issue that that you're seeing President Bush talk about the day after the Supreme Court decision. It's an issue you're hearing from Republicans on the Hill saying that China and India have to be involved. You're seeing proposals to try and get trade barriers put in the way to try and bring them on board. And then, it's interesting, this all goes forward to the international discussions that are going to be happening later this year in Bali. And they're happening actually right now in Bonn, Germany as they're preparing for that. So the United States, the Bush administration, which is only here for two more years, has a role to play, but then the international community is also thinking post 2008. And they're thinking to whoever the next president of the United States will be is going to have a role. That could force China and India in, but, again, China and India as well are reluctant to talk about mandatory caps on their emissions. They're thinking more I think along the lines of intensity targets, kind of what the Bush administration has been using in the United States for the last six years. Monica Trauzzi: Mary, lots of attention being paid to nuclear, as always it seems. Mary O'Driscoll: The IPCC report actually did mention it and the Bush administration made a very big deal about it, really trying to make nuclear their point of contention in that race. Monica Trauzzi: And the role that it can play in the future of the U.S. energy policy. But recently the CFR came out with a report saying that nuclear wouldn't play a big role in the next 50 years. Mary O'Driscoll: Right. Monica Trauzzi: So obviously nuclear supporters say that it will play a big role. How is this back and forth affecting things? How is it affecting funding for Yucca Mountain? Mary O'Driscoll: Well, you've got a situation where, for the short term, the nuclear debate is being played out in the appropriations process. And they're all in kind of the quiet time right now, writing their appropriation bills. But they still don't need, I don't know what their allocations are, so no one is really quite sure where everything is going. There's some fear that, of course, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, opponent of Yucca Mountain, is in control of the Senate agenda and is going to be heavily influencing whatever happens to the Senate appropriations bill on Yucca. It's unclear what that means, how that's going to translate. Then you have a situation where you've got the global nuclear energy partnership. They're making a big push. The Bush administration is making a big push for money for GNEP this year. You know, this is a Democratic Congress. They've got other priorities such as energy efficiency, renewable energy programs, and things like that. And you've got Senator Dorgan, who's the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee in the Senate, who is really pushing for much more focus on energy programs at DOE, rather than DOE's kind of this hybrid of national security, nuclear, and then a little bit of energy. He's really pushing for putting more emphasis on energy there. So there likely will be some significant changes that come out of Congress this year. As you may recall, last year the House significantly cut the GNEP program funding, and so we could probably expect to see the same thing. A lot of lawmakers still are not convinced about it. But then that's the short term, that's a funding situation. What everyone is really focusing on though is a situation that's going on where we are expecting, at the end of this year, this fall, we'll be seeing probably the first of many applications for building new nuclear power plants. And so that will be the next indicator of where things are going, that you need to get these applications in. It's under the combined construction and operating license program, that they are trying to simplify the process, so you don't run into the 10, 15 year processes that happened with the end of the last nuclear cycle in the 70s. So there are a lot of things that are going on right now. The ball is being played around. You're seeing that proponents are always pointing to global warming, that this is going to be what is going to sell the world on nuclear power. Opponents are saying not so fast. It's expensive. There are other ways of doing it, that maybe we ought to start looking at a more comprehensive view. So it's good, we'll be seeing this play out for a long time, but there are both short-term and long-term debates that are going on right now. Monica Trauzzi: All right. I know you guys will all be keeping an eye on these issues in the coming weeks. Thanks for coming on the show. Alex Kaplun: Thank you. Monica Trauzzi: This is OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Thanks for watching. [End of Audio] © 1996-2007 E&E Publishing, LLC Privacy Policy Site Map ***************************************************************** 4 Reuters: U.S. criticized at talks on troubled nuclear treaty | Thu May 10, 2007 4:00PM EDT By Mark Heinrich VIENNA (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday argued that Iran and North Korea's nuclear activities could harm developing nations' access to peaceful atomic energy, but drew criticism for its own ties with nuclear-armed Israel and India. Washington and European allies said at a meeting to review the troubled nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that the right it gives members to peaceful atomic power could not be fulfilled without trust that the technology would not be diverted to covert bombmaking. "Confidence (underpinning) cooperation for a worldwide sharing of the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy can be eroded by noncompliance by states like Iran and North Korea," U.S. delegation chief Christopher Ford told the 130-nation assembly. Unless Pyongyang and Tehran were restrained, he said, it would be hard to free up transfers of civilian nuclear know-how to developing nations as the 37-year-old NPT envisages. North Korea bolted from the NPT in 2003 and test-exploded a nuclear device in 2006. Iran is under U.N. sanctions for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, which world powers suspect is meant to yield atom bombs, not electricity as Tehran says. North Korea's misuse of NPT membership to weaponise nuclear technology is undisputed. And Iran's nuclear ambitions -- marked by evasions of U.N. watchdog investigations -- disturb many fellow members in the Non-Aligned Movement of developing states. But speakers from the NAM told the meeting that disrespect for the NPT was also being bred by U.S. military ties with Israel, widely assumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal and one of just three nations outside the treaty. Some non-nuclear-armed states also cited Washington's nuclear technology accord with India, which developed nuclear firepower in secret without penalty by shunning NPT membership. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 UCS: Politics Trumps Science at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Union of Concerned Scientists to Congress: May 9, 2007 WASHINGTON (May 8, 2007)—The title of the May 9 House Resources Committee hearing poses a question: "Endangered Species Act Implementation: Science or Politics?" The unfortunate answer is all too often "politics," according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The hearing comes on the heels of a scathing Department of Interior Inspector General report that chastised former Deputy Assistant Secretary Julie MacDonald for distorting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) scientific documents to prevent the protection of several highly imperiled species. Just last week, MacDonald resigned her post. Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program, is quick to point out that MacDonald's case is just one of many. The misuse of science at Interior has been reported on issues as diverse as mountaintop removal mining, cattle grazing, and the protection of trumpeter swans. "While we welcome Ms. MacDonald's resignation," said Grifo, "Interference at Interior predates her arrival. Secretary Dirk Kempthorne must send a clear message to all Interior political appointees that substituting opinions for fact is unacceptable." Grifo will provide compelling evidence to the committee that political interference in science has become epidemic—not only at FWS, but at agencies throughout the federal government. In a 2005 survey of FWS scientists, 84 scientists reported having been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from FWS scientific documents. Furthermore, 303 scientists, or two thirds of those who responded to the survey, knew of cases where Interior Department political appointees had interfered with scientific determinations. "This is not business as usual. When hundreds of federal scientists report political interference in their work, our nation's biological diversity is at risk," said Grifo. "Political meddling in endangered species science must be driven to extinction." Grifo also deplored the fact that political appointees are making Endangered Species Act decisions "behind closed doors." She will urge Congress and the Interior Department to take concrete steps to open the Endangered Species Act decisionmaking process to more scrutiny. "Increasing openness in the decisionmaking process would allow us to hold policymakers accountable for their actions," she said. UCS also called for FWS to review all Bush administration Endangered Species Act decisions to ensure that the science behind those decisions was not altered or distorted. "At the very least, Secretary Kempthorne should require an immediate reevaluation of decisions where political interference has been documented," said Grifo. The hearing will start at 10 am in room 1324 of the Longworth House Office Building and will be available live on the committee's Web site. Grifo's written testimony will be available May 9, at 10 am. Reporters: Join our notification list to receive breaking news from UCS. For general media inquiries, please call our press office at 202-331-5420. Press Contacts: EMILY ROBINSON Press Secretary 202-331-5427 erobinson@ucsusa.org AARON HUERTAS Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-5458 ahuertas@ucsusa.org ELLIOTT NEGIN Media Director 202-331-5439 enegin@ucsusa.org © Union of Concerned Scientists Page Last Revised: 05/09/07 ***************************************************************** 6 UPI: Analysis: Pakistan's nukes may resurface United Press International - International Intelligence - Analysis Published: May. 9, 2007 at 1:57 PM By CLAUDE SALHANI UPI International Editor WASHINGTON, May. 9 (UPI) -- The black-market nuclear network established by the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, broken up in 2004, may be dormant but could resume operations in the future, according to a just-released report by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. The IISS study found no evidence to indicate that Pakistan sanctioned or encouraged the sales of nuclear technology and equipment to Iran, Libya and North Korea as a means to fund its own nuclear program. The report by Mark Fitzpatrick, a former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation, found that Khan ran a black-market operation beyond the reach of the Pakistani government. However, the truth behind Khan's activities is unlikely to ever be fully revealed. "Pakistan would never allow any foreign intelligence organization to question Dr. Khan," said Fitzpatrick. He added that the CIA had some knowledge of Khan's proliferation activities while they were in progress, yet did not pay enough attention to them. "There's no doubt that the CIA knew about some of Khan's activities at various stages of his proliferation," Fitzpatrick told a group of journalists in Washington. "There's also no doubt that the CIA didn't give enough attention to this area of private sector proliferation in looking at Iran's nuclear development program over the years." The CIA, much like other Western intelligence services, was more focused on state-to-state activities rather than on individuals, like A.Q. Khan's network, said Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick, the lead author of a dossier revealing the activities of the A.Q. Khan network, stated that Khan's sales to Libya, for example, "were almost exclusively private business transactions, beyond state control." The centrifuges that Khan's black-market operation sold to Libya were produced in Malaysia, Turkey, Europe and South Africa and shipped via Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, according to the report. But given the control Pakistan maintains over its nuclear technology it is hard to imagine that Khan did not enjoy the protection, if not the outright support of Pakistan's intelligence services -- the ISI -- who were known to be supportive of the Taliban in Afghanistan and other radical Islamist organizations, such as Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. However, Fitzpatrick's report identified some "gray areas." It remains questionable whether prior to Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan's government did not have knowledge of Khan's illicit activities or to what degree certain groups within the Pakistani government did not facilitate Khan's nuclear proliferation activities. Soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Washington communicated to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf -- in no uncertain terms -- to stop Pakistan's support of Islamist groups. In an interview with Pakistan's Dawn newspaper, Fitzpatrick said that former Pakistani army chief Gen. Aslam Beg "encouraged" the Khan network's sales to other countries. "Ego, money, nationalism and a sense of Islamic fraternity" motivated Khan and his supporters to sell nuclear technology to other Muslim countries, he said. "Different motivations in different cases." Fitzpatrick said in his report that he did not think Pakistan sold its nuclear technology in order to raise money for its nuclear program. Additionally, Fitzpatrick also found no link between Khan's network of nuclear proliferators and the terrorist group responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon just outside Washington. Although Khan was removed from Pakistan's nuclear program in January 2004 and placed under house arrest by President Musharraf, he remains a very popular and revered figure in Pakistan. However, despite an official pardon from Musharraf, Khan remains under house arrest. Following Khan's arrest, Washington declared that the network had been shut down. But according to Fitzpatrick's report published by the IISS, it is believed that some of Khan's associates have escaped law-enforcement attention and "may resume their black-market business." According to Fitzpatrick, Khan established a procurement network to keep Pakistan's nuclear program operational. Fitzpatrick said the Khan network was made up of about 50 members that included operators from Dubai, Turkey, Malaysia, Switzerland and Germany, as well as from Pakistan. Given the strong demand for nuclear technology by governments as well as from terrorist groups, the possibility of Khan reactivating his black-market network remains a distinct possibility. -- (e-mail: Claude@upi.com) © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 Dailyindia: Pakistan to deploy new nuclear missile as counter to India's nuke build-up: U.S. report From our ANI Correspondent Washington, May 10: Pakistan is preparing its next-generation of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles for deployment, a Federation of American Scientists (FAS) report has claimed. According to the Dawn, India's nuclear build-up is motivating Islamabad to modernise its nuclear armoury Authors of the FAS report estimate that Pakistan currently has 60 nuclear weapons, and add that in the last five-and-a- half-years, Islamabad has deployed two new nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, entered the final development stages of a potentially nuclear-capable cruise missile, started construction of a new plutonium production reactor, and is close to completing a second chemical separation facility. The FAS report includes a satellite image taken on June 5, 2005, showing 15 Transporter Erector Launchers (TEL) for the medium-range Shaheen 2 fitting out at the National Defence Complex near Fatehjang, approximately 30 km southwest of Islamabad. The authors say that they discovered the vehicles while preparing for the latest nuclear notebook on Pakistani nuclear forces published in the May/June issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The notebook is written by Hans M. Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists and Robert S. Norris of the Natural Resources Defence Council. According to the report, Pakistan established the National Defence Complex in 1993, which has since expanded into a centre for the development of the country's missile force. The main facilities are spread over a 6x2 km (4x1 mile) area on a ridge, and include what appear to be administrative buildings, missile assembly halls and garages. At two locations, several large six-axle vehicles are clearly visible on the satellite image, as are several smaller four-axle vehicles. Approximately 1.5 km (0.9 miles) northwest from the main building is a cluster of what appears to be five constructed garages. Parked in front or partially inside the two largest garages to the west are 11 vehicles that, the authors claim, show the characteristic six-axle design of the Shaheen 2 TEL, indicating that the launcher itself has not yet been installed. The second facility is located just south of the main building and includes what may be four large assembly halls where, the authors claim, the missile launchers are installed on the vehicles. One six-axle vehicle appears to be about to enter the hall. Outside the other end of the building are what appear to be two Shaheen 2 TELs that have completed instalment of their missile launcher, thereby obscuring the axles of the vehicles. Two four-axle vehicles are also visible, which, the authors identify as Shaheen 1 TELs awaiting assembly. Copyright © 2004-2007 DailyIndia.com ***************************************************************** 8 We Didn't Need It The First Time Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 15:33:19 -0500 (CDT) May 10, 2007 Tell the Tennessee Valley Authority: No New Nuclear Reactor Act Now: http://action.citizen.org/dia/organizationsORG/publiccitizen/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11319 Dear Energy Activists, As you know, the nuclear power industry with a boost from the Bush administration is pushing for a nuclear rival. Nuclear power poses tremendous safety and environmental risks. And its resuscitation depends on taxpayer and ratepayer subsidies. In return, we inherent more deadly radioactive waste and put less investment in truly clean sources of renewable energy. Tell the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) not to pursue building an unnecessary reactor. TVA is currently reviewing impacts of a new reactor on the environment and people. This is our opportunity to voice our concerns and participate in the process that determines where our energy comes from. Sending our comments to TVA will alert the entire nuclear power industry to the fact that we do not want our energy generated from dangerous and polluting nuclear power. Thank you for you time and commitment to clean and safe energy. Sincerely, Allison Fisher Organizer Public Citizen's Energy Program _______________________________________ Stay informed and speak out when it counts. Sign up for newsletters and alert from Public Citizen. Go to: http://action.citizen.org/signUp.jsp. This message was sent to map@PENCIL.MATH.MISSOURI.EDU, if you do not wish to receive e-mail messages from Public Citizen in the future, please go to: http://action.citizen.org/unsubscribe.jsp /*Your email ID. --*/ ***************************************************************** 9 [NukeNet] Cost of reopening U.S. nuclear reactor shows how difficult http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/09/sports/nuke.php By Matthew L. Wald Wednesday, May 9, 2007 WASHINGTON: The Tennessee Valley Authority plans to reopen its Browns Ferry 1 nuclear reactor this month - 22 years after it was shut for safety reasons and five years after extensive renovations began. The move reflects the increased interest in nuclear power as an energy source that does not contribute to global warming. But the government agency's willingness to spend $1.8 billion on the overhaul - almost as much as a new plant is supposed to cost - also shows just how difficult it is to build a new plant. While several American utilities have talked about starting a new reactor - none has been ordered since the 1970s - no company has yet applied for an operating license. Browns Ferry 1, in Athens, Alabama, enjoys the advantage of already having a license, despite being out of use for over two decades. David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists who once worked at Browns Ferry, said the decision to put so much into old technology was noteworthy. "Most people," he said, "are going to buy the new iPod rather than an 8-track tape player." The decision to refurbish rather than start from scratch also saved time, with project completion anticipated in 60 months. The industry has tried hard to shorten the time needed to plan and build a new reactor, but still projects that it will be about 12 years. Compared to starting fresh, fixing up an old plant is a simpler task from a regulatory point of view, said James Curtiss, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and now a lawyer at Winston & Strawn, which specializes in the nuclear field. "You've got many of the key regulatory decisions behind you," he said. Using an old license avoids the need for what is likely to be a drawn-out and contentious public hearing. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has made changes in its licensing procedure that it says will make the process faster and more predictable, but some utilities are nervous about being the first to try it out. Browns Ferry would be the first reactor to come into service in this decade in the United States. The last one was Watts Bar 1, also a TVA plant, in Spring City, Tennessee, in 1996. Construction had been halted at Watts Bar 1 for years. The TVA is now studying whether to finish Watts Bar 2, where most work stopped in 1988. At Browns Ferry 1, the TVA says it has installed about 150 miles, or 240 kilometers, of cable and more than 6 miles of pipes, an unprecedented effort at a completed plant. At the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is the industry's trade association, Adrian Heymer, the senior director for new plant deployment, said that one reason for the extensive replacements was so "the paper trail would be re- established," to assure that all the work was performed up to nuclear standards. Heymer said that the project at Browns Ferry was a kind of rehearsal for new plant construction, showing that the industry could still manage large projects. It may not be ready to go on the road: Any effort to build a number of new reactors, Heymer said, could run up against a national shortage of welders and other craft workers. Last week, General Electric said it was ordering parts for a new reactor that it hopes will be built at North Anna, in Virginia, adjacent to two reactors operated by Dominion. The reactor has not yet been ordered, however. Last year, Constellation Energy, of Baltimore, ordered parts for a plant it hopes to build in Calvert County, Maryland, south of Washington, and adjacent to its Calvert Cliffs reactors. As for the Browns Ferry renovation, Craig Beasley, a TVA spokesman, said that the exact cost would not be known for some months, but would probably not be much more than $1.8 billion. The reactor's power level is also being increased, and will eventually be over 1,200 megawatts if all goes as planned. The standard measure for power plants is price per kilowatt, which is roughly the amount of generating capacity needed to run one window air conditioner. It will come to about $1,500 at Browns Ferry. Two years ago, Westinghouse was saying that its AP-1000 reactor could be built from scratch for about $1,400 a kilowatt of capacity. Since that time, though, prices for stainless steel, concrete and other ingredients have gone up. The Nuclear Energy Institute predicted that after the first few had been built, the cost would be about $1,200 a kilowatt, and that the first would cost closer to $1,400. ***************************************************************** 10 WNA: Turkish lawmakers back nuclear 10 May 2007 World Nuclear Assoc Turkey has adopted a law enabling state agencies to choose where a nuclear power plant could be built, which company would build it, and guarantee the purchase of the electricity for 15 years. The law is entitled Law Concerning the Construction and Operation of Nuclear Power Plants and the Sale of Energy Generated from Nuclear Power Plants. While allowing private companies to one day bid to build up to three reactors which would provide 5000 MWe of electricity, the law requires authorities to set purchase prices for the power, based on the companies' tenders. The Turkish Atomic Energy Authority (TAEK) would determine tender specifications and evaluate bids. It is possible that public companies could build nuclear plants, but this would require cabinet approval. The law also provides that electricity distribution companies would be required to purchase a proportion of their power from the nuclear plants for a period of 15 years. In this way, officials would expect to reduce risk for both the state, which seeks reliable large-scale power, and the private companies embarking on a large nuclear project in a country with a very small nuclear sector. Turkey currently has two research reactors but no nuclear power plants. Companies producing nuclear power would pay tax-free contributions to two separate nationally-managed funds for radioactive waste management and the eventual decommissioning of nuclear facilities. The Turkish electricity sector has been gradually transformed since it was controlled by a state-owned vertically-integrated company. Changes in 1993 and 2001 have created separate companies for electricity wholesale, transmission, fossil-fired power plants and hydroelectric dams, but no company currently has the remit for nuclear power plants. Turkish electricity distribution is split into 21 regions, of which the Turkish Electricity Distribution Company (Tedas) controls 20. Plans to privatize Tedas have seen separate companies established in each region with three from larger regions earmarked for early privatization. ***************************************************************** 11 EUobserver.com: Nuclear energy fuels hot debate among MEPs 10.05.2007 - 09:27 CET | By Renata Goldirova EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – MEPs have called on EU leaders to review the union's atomic treaty, Euratom, with many claiming the European Parliament must be given power to oversee the sensitive area, and others hoping to halt what they see as a nuclear renaissance in the bloc. The moves are being debated as European legislators are set to vote today (10 May) on a report assessing the 50-year-old Euratom treaty, which paved the way to European nuclear cooperation. The draft report, prepared by Lithuanian MEP Eugenijus Maldeikis from the rightist UEN group, calls for "adjustments" to the treaty to "restore the institutional imbalance in favour of parliament, which should be accorded a co-decision power in the nuclear field." "We face the problem of democratic deficit," Mr Maldeikus said during the parliamentary debate yesterday, but he defended the 1957 legal document. Green MEPs, on the other hand, want to scrap the whole treaty. According to Austrian green MEP Johannes Voggenhuber, the Euratom treaty is "a futuristic poem, which half of the EU states are not interested in." "The consensus from 1957 is not there anymore", he said. Euratom – drawn up by Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands half a century ago – sees nuclear power as an answer to the general shortage of conventional energy and for providing energy independence. But in the Europe of today, with 27 member states, the issue has become a hot potato with strong divisions between those that support nuclear power and those that want to reduce the EU's dependence on it entirely. "We must have a Euratom conference before a new nuclear reactor is built in the EU," German green MEP Rebecca Harms said. The climate change debate Ms Harms accused proponents of nuclear fission of "trying to jump on the climate change bandwagon to resuscitate nuclear power after decades of stagnation," adding "some UN climate change strategists, as well as parts of the European Commission, have also bought into the nuclear lobby's arguments." The green MEP cited a study, stating there are thousands of incidents in nuclear installations each year. France's utility EDF annually reports up to 800 significant events to the nuclear safety authorities, while in Germany it is up to 140 events, according to the paper. "Promoting nuclear as a sustainable energy source is misleading," Ms Harms concluded. But according to Spanish conservative MEP Alejo Vidal-Quadras "ideological differences would lead us to economic and environmental suicide," as EU nuclear industry provides roughly 400,000 jobs and is a way of avoiding some 312 million tonnes of CO2 per year, amounting to 7 percent of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions. Lithuania's Mr Maldeikis, himself a strong advocate of nuclear power, added "the absence of Euratom would lead to the renationalisation of nuclear policy in Europe and cause legal uncertainty for all of the 27 member states". Currently, 15 member states have nuclear power stations, amounting to 145 nuclear power reactors operating on EU territory, while an additional five are under construction – in Finland, France, Bulgaria and Romania. In six EU countries – Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Lithuania, Slovakia and Sweden - nuclear power provides 40 percent or more of total electricity generation. Altogether, 32 percent of the bloc's electricity is of nuclear origin. EU-wide safety rules So far, safety seems to be the only aspect of the debate where MEPs across the entire political spectrum sing from the same hymnbook. "There is an urgent need to draw up robust legislation at community level in the fields of nuclear safety, the management of radioactive waste and the decommissioning of nuclear plants," Mr Maldeikis says in his report, with the parliament's main political groups claiming they are in favour of Brussels serving as an umbrella. According to Austrian conservative MEP Paul Ruebig "the safety standards should be legally binding, enforced by the European court and possibly leading to a shut-down of a nuclear power plant." The most recent attempt to set up EU-wide safety rules dates back to 2002, but this piece of legislation has not moved further since, as EU capitals are reluctant to let Brussels move into this area. Currently, the European Commission has a say only when it comes to accession countries, as was in the case of Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria - all forced to shut down Soviet-era nuclear reactors. The own-initiative report by the Lithuanian MEP - scheduled for vote later today - will have no legal consequences but Mr Maldeikis "hopes it will help overcome hesitation and open up a pragmatic EU-wide debate" on one of the bloc's touchiest issues. © 2007 EUobserver, All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 12 Earth Times: City rejects plan to sell land for nuclear reactor to German group Posted : Thu, 10 May 2007 10:02:01GMT Author : DPA Europe World News | Home Helsinki- An offer from German energy group E.ON to buy land for a nuclear reactor has been rejected by the city council of Loviisa, Finland, reports said Friday. In a vote Thursday evening, the city council voted 16 to 11 to reject the offer from E.ON Finnish subsidiary E.ON Suomi. The city board last month had approved the sale of 112 hectares near the existing Loviisa nuclear power plant for 6.5 million euros (8.8 million dollars). Inhabitants near the planned site as well as the National Board of Antiquities had expressed doubts over the planned location. E.ON Suomi Managing Director Matti Manninen said the group would carefully consider the decision. Finland operates a total of four nuclear reactors while construction on a fifth reactor began in 2005. At the end of March, two Finnish energy groups said they were interested in building a sixth nuclear reactor and were looking into two different locations. One group, Teollisuuden Voima (TVO), was interested in Olkiluoto, south-western Finland, where two other reactors are operating and construction on a fifth reactor is underway. The other group, Fortum, was eyeing Loviisa, located around 90 kilometres east of Helsinki. No political decisions have been made on building a sixth reactor, but environmental impact assessments were to be launched before formal applications could be considered. Copyright © 2007 Respective Author (c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 13 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Energy Northwest asks WA to delay proposed power plant review MySeattlePix · My account Last updated May 10, 2007 5:21 p.m. PT OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Energy Northwest has asked the state to delay its permitting review of a proposed $1.5 billion power plant in Kalama following passage of a new climate change bill. Gov. Chris Gregoire last week signed the bill into law, barring Washington utilities from signing long-term contracts with coal-fired power plants that produce excessive greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane and other gases, essentially trap energy from the sun, which warms the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere. Many scientists believe human activity that increases those gases is contributing to global warming. Energy Northwest, a public power consortium based in Richland, Wash., asked the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council in a letter Tuesday to delay its permitting process. The consortium said it wants to wait and see how regulators plan to limit heat-trapping gases. "We don't mean to signal in any way we're walking away from the project," Energy Northwest spokesman Brad Peck said. "We're as committed to this project as the day it started." The new law directs state and federal agencies, electric utilities and "public interest representatives" to write regulations limiting emissions such as carbon dioxide. The state must adopt the rules by June 30, 2008. Energy Northwest urged state regulators to try to adopt the rules by midsummer so it can decide whether to forge ahead or abandon its proposed 680-megawatt coal gasification plant. The project would use coal or petcoke, the waste product from oil refineries, that would be turned into a gas to be burned to generate power. The plant could also burn natural gas. The new law allowed projects like the proposed plant five years to "sequester" carbon dioxide emissions underground. Otherwise, emissions would have to be offset through drastic measures, such as buying a dirty power plant and shutting it down. Energy Northwest has been participating in a study to inject emissions into basalt, which is common in the region. But the utility said it isn't sure five years will be enough time to determine the feasibility of that technique. Moreover, either option for curbing greenhouse gas emissions could significantly increase the cost of power from the project. Energy Northwest wants to know how the law will be implemented before it takes the project to potential customers for financial commitments. Given the uncertainty surrounding implementation of the law and the time required to build major power generation plants, "we must immediately begin looking at alternative options for regional power supplies," Energy Northwest Vice President Jack Baker wrote in the letter. Environmentalists say the delay request could be the beginning of the end for the project. "I think it's a prudent move on their part," said Marc Krasnowsky, a spokesman for the Northwest Energy Coalition. "I think they've concluded their public utility customers are likely to be spending a lot more for the power from the proposed plant than they had expected to." Energy Northwest, which includes 20 public utilities and municipalities, operates a nuclear power plant near Richland and a hydropower project, as well as wind, solar and biomass power projects. INSIDE SEATTLEPI.COM 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com Send investigative tips to iteam@seattlepi.com ***************************************************************** 14 Vermont Guardian: Feds give Vermont Yankee good safety grade May 10, 2007 VERNON Federal nuclear officials will be in Southern Vermont Monday to talk to the public about Vermont Yankee’s most recent safety performance report. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) annual assessment of safety performance at Vermont Yankee (VY) will be the subject of a public meeting on Monday. NRC staff will meet with representatives of plant owner Entergy at 6 p.m. to discuss the assessment, which covers the period from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2006, and was documented in a March 2nd letter to the company. The session will take place at the Quality Inn, 1380 Putney Road in Brattleboro. Before the meeting is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the performance of the Vermont Yankee plant, as well as the role of the NRC in providing oversight of plant safety. “Each year we size up plant performance during the previous calendar year, with the overarching goal of ensuring that facilities are achieving the levels of safety that are essential to protecting the public and the environment,” said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins, who noted the agency also conducts mid-year assessments of performance. “At the May 14 meeting, NRC staff will talk to members of the public about how we go about evaluating Vermont Yankee and other nuclear power plants across the nation and will also answer questions from the audience.” Overall, the Vermont Yankee plant operated safely during 2006, NRC officials said. 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. At the conclusion of last year, all of the performance indicators for Vermont Yankee were determined to be “green.” With one exception, there were no inspection findings for the plant that were identified as greater than “green” at that time. There was a “white” (low to moderate safety significance) inspection finding in regards to radiation safety stemming from a shipment that went from Vermont Yankee to a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant last summer. Specifically, a package containing a radioactively contaminated control rod crusher/shearer was found to exceed U.S. Department of Transportation radiation limits upon its arrival at the Susquehanna nuclear plant on Sept. 1, 2006. The NRC claims the public was not exposed to radiation during the shipment because the package’s surface was inaccessible to members of the public. In response to the “white” finding, the NRC will conduct a supplemental inspection at the plant in 2007 to determine if the problem has been properly addressed. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, PA. Among the areas of performance at Vermont Yankee to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are activities associated with the installation of a dry cask storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, emergency planning, radiological safety and the plant’s problem identification and resolution program. The annual assessment letter for Vermont Yankee is available here. Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404 Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 603, Brattleboro, VT 05301 Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382 (toll-free) ©2007 Vermont Guardian | Visit us: www.vermontguardian.com This document can be located online: www.vermontguardian.com/dailies/052007/051007.shtml ***************************************************************** 15 RIA Novosti: Atomstroyexport testing Tianwan NPP 1st unit at nominal capacity 16:15 | 10/ 05/ 2007 MOSCOW, May 10 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's nuclear equipment export monopoly said Thursday it has started a 100-hour test of the first power unit of the Tianwan nuclear power plant in China at nominal capacity. Atomstroyexport is building the Tianwan NPP in eastern China's port city of Lianyungang. The plant, which is being built under a 1992 bilateral agreement, features improved VVER-1000 reactors and K-100-6/3000 turbo-generators. It was reported in April that the first power unit would be put into commercial operation after all tests have been conducted. The first unit of the Tianwan NPP went on line in early January, but was then suspended for maintenance work. The second power unit of the Chinese nuclear power plant was put to 12% of its nominal capacity May 8. Atomstroyexport is building seven NPP power units in China, India, Iran and Bulgaria. REDTRAM.COM RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 16 RIA Novosti: Russia sets up nuclear energy corporation Opinion & analysis - 17:50 | 10/ 05/ 2007 MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatyana Sinitsina) - The establishment of the state-owned holding Atomenergoprom under a recent presidential decree is a result of a large-scale reform of the nuclear sector, which began in 2006. It is the core asset that will carry out challenging plans aimed to raise the Russian nuclear sector to new highs. The Federal Agency for Nuclear Power (Rosatom), which proposed the idea and drafted the reform plan, admitted that it would not be implemented without government assistance. Therefore, the first step was to get the parliament's and the president's approval for the 2006 federal target program of developing the nuclear power sector. The new joint-stock company, Atomenergoprom, which is to run the country's nuclear power industry, will be entirely controlled by the state. Its charter is being drafted, and a list of assets to be incorporated into it is being compiled. Vladimir Travin, deputy head of Rosatom, said the government should make a decision on the procedure of forming Atomenergoprom in May or June, and the holding itself is to be set up by 2008. It will take over all civilian nuclear programs and integrate all civilian nuclear assets. It will take over state shares in about 30 companies, the largest of them being TVEL, Techsnabexport (Tenex) and Atomenergomash, at the fist stage, and 55 companies, at the second. The vertical structure of the holding will unite all segments of the nuclear cycle, from uranium ore mining and enrichment to the production and enrichment of nuclear fuel, and the designing and construction of nuclear power plants. This is not an original idea, as there are such giant consortiums as Areva-Siemens, General Electric-Hitachi, Westinghouse-Toshiba, which are highly competitive, reliable and stable. Atomenergoprom will become their direct rival, and possibly a partner. Experts believe the Russian holding has a major advantage in that it will consolidate the full technological cycle, from the production of raw materials to electricity generation. Other inbuilt advantages are lower intra-cooperative costs, a common management system, and a possibility to maneuver prices. Viktor Opekunov, head of the nuclear power subcommittee at the State Duma Committee on Energy, Transport and Communications, said: "The establishment of the corporation marked a new stage in the development of Russia's nuclear power industry. [It is] an effective means to revive the industry, consolidate many enterprises under single command that is sufficiently strict to ensure the fulfillment of challenging tasks facing the sector." Atomenergoprom will facilitate the building of 26 power units within the next 12 years; accelerate the construction of nuclear power plants outside Russia, the production and processing of uranium ore, exploration and development of new deposits; and promote related research and design, as well as modernization and construction of nuclear power engineering enterprises. In the past 15 years, when Russia was fighting the consequences of the collapse of the old socio-political regime and the government was encouraging new liberal values and market reforms, many sectors lost their personnel. "The problems facing the industry now should not be viewed as a reason for depression. Instead, they should become an impetus to mobilization of forces," Opekunov said. It is encouraging that the government is investing considerable funds to attain these goals. According to the official, it will appropriate 1.5 trillion rubles ($58.29 billion) until 2015, which is enough to attract and train requisite personnel. They will be trained at three major schools - in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Obninsk (near Moscow). The sector cooperates with prominent schools, such as Moscow Physical Engineering Institute, the Urals Polytechnic, and Tomsk State University. "This is a challenging task, and I assume that not everything will go without a hitch. But the development vector is directed upwards," Opekunov said. Will all of this change the functions of Rosatom? The industry will not be divided, although it comprises two major parts: nuclear weapons and nuclear energy generation. The former is a state monopoly addressing federal goals, while the latter (Atomenergoprom) is a commercial company working on the global market of nuclear technologies. Rosatom will become the link between the defense and the civilian parts of the nuclear industry. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 17 Platts: EP voting to reform nuclear treaty 2007-05-10 London (Platts)--10May2007 Hoping to revive proposals for greater EU regulation of nuclear safety matters, including power plant operation, the European Parliament today (May 10, 2007) will vote on a resolution aimed at reforming the 50-year-old European Atomic Energy Community Treaty (Euratom). Under Euratom, the elected parliament has no official say over nuclear matters, although in practice it is sometimes consulted by the European Commission and the Council. In its "own initiative" resolution, the parliament is calling, again, for it to be given "co-decision" powers over nuclear matters and for reviving legislative proposals to harmonize nuclear safety standards across the EU, which have been languishing in the EU Council since the commission's 2002 so-called nuclear package. The nuclear package includes proposals for greater regulation of nuclear waste and the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, in addition to minimum safety standards for nuclear power plants. During a debate in the parliament last night (May 9), Energy Commissioner Andris Pielbags welcomed the Maldeikis report, named for the Lithuanian MEP Eugenijus Maldeikis, who crafted the resolution. Referring to the proposed directives in the Commission's 2002 nuclear package, Pielbags said, "I believe it's time to move them forward." But like the parliament's call for co-decision authority, the nuclear package is in the hands of the council, which may be moving more slowly then either the commission or the parliament might like. The council is certainly moving more slowly than the parliament's Green Party members would like. "I'm horrified by the statement that this is a balanced debate," German MEP Rebecca Harms said last night, speaking for the Greens in parliament. The Maldeikis report doesn't go far enough, she said. The parliament has already called for reform of Euratom, she said, and the Maldeikis report is far too timid. Harms said Euratom needs a complete overhaul. Today's vote in Parliament, expected to approve the resolution, follows a recent Council "conclusions" document calling for the creation of an EU high level group of nuclear experts from member states -- a talking shop to its critics -- to take up some of the proposals for new regulation in collaboration with the commission and to forge greater EU cooperation on nuclear matters. However, the council conclusion notably falls short of calling for co-decision for the parliament. david_stellfox@platts.com Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Performance at Waterford 3 Nuclear Plant May 17 News Release - Region IV - 2007-014 - 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 17, with representatives of Entergy Operations, Inc., to discuss the agency’s assessment of safety performance last year at the Waterford 3 nuclear plant near New Orleans, La. The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to begin at 6:30 p.m. at the Entergy Education Center, 4224 Highway 3127, Killona, La. The NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the safety performance of Waterford 3, as well as the NRC’s role in ensuring safe plant operation before the end of the meeting. “The NRC continually reviews the performance of Waterford 3 and the nation’s other commercial nuclear power facilities,” NRC Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett said. “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.” 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/wat_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 Waterford 3 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 Waterford 3 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/WAT3/wat3_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. Thursday, May 10, 2007 ***************************************************************** 19 DECATUR DAILY: Nuclear may be solution, but waste still a problem THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2007 EDITORIAL Browns Ferry in Limestone County is leading an American revival in nuclear energy. While that is positive news for local residents and businesses that depend on low-cost electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority, it adds to a problem that neither scientists nor politicians have been able to solve. What do we do with all of that nuclear waste? For now, Browns Ferry and other nuclear plants are postponing a solution by stockpiling radioactive waste for later disposal. The government solution is the Yucca Mountain nuclear landfill in Nevada, but it's a shortsighted fix. By the time the controversial dump opens, the accumulated nuclear waste will fill it immediately. Then what? Despite his wartime differences with France, President Bush points to that European ally for a solution. The French recycle their spent nuclear fuel and reuse it. This leaves less highly radioactive material to be sealed in caskets and buried deep underground. "If we do reprocessing and recycle, we can increase the capacity of Yucca Mountain 100-fold," Phillip Finck, a nuclear engineer, told the IEEE Spectrum, a trade magazine for electrical engineers. Until good science catches up with good intentions, however, recycling is not yet the perfect solution. So far, it's cheaper to use new fuel than recycled fuel and, in some forms, the recycled fuel leaves a waste problem that is more dangerous than the original form. But, President Bush is right in pushing our scientists and government leaders to perfect recycling. We can benefit from an alliance with the French when it comes to nuclear waste. 201 First Ave. S.E. P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, AL 35609 (256) 353-4612 www.decaturdaily.com ***************************************************************** 20 Rutland Herald: Yankee passes annual NRC safety review Rutland Vermont News & Information May 10, 2007 The Associated Press BRATTLEBORO — The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant operated safely last year with one exception, according to an annual review by federal regulators. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting Monday in Putney to discuss the findings. "We have had very good performance for this cycle," said Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee. "That's a credit to the safety focus of those who maintain and run Vermont Yankee." The one exception was a shipment of contaminated equipment to a nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania that exceeded U.S. Department of Transportation radiation limits. "No public radiation exposure occurred during the shipment because the package's surface was inaccessible to members of the public," the NRC said. "The condition had the potential to adversely affect personnel receiving the package or responding to an incident involving the package," the NRC wrote to Entergy in a March 2 letter. The NRC has planned a follow-up inspection to make sure the plant is complying with proper packaging methods. © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 21 Rutland Herald: Lawmakers strike deal, but Douglas may veto measure Rutland Vermont News & Information May 10, 2007 By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau MONTPELIER — The state Senate voted Wednesday to increase the tax on the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant and use the money to create a new efficiency program that would reduce heating fuel use. The voice vote occurred with virtually no floor debate just moments after a joint conference committee of senators and representatives agreed to the compromise measure. Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin pledged in January to make global warming a central issue this session, and Wednesday's vote was a culmination of that effort. "This is the most comprehensive energy legislation ever considered by this body," said Rep. Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, a member of the conference committee. The House will consider the agreement next. But even if the House supports the conference committee report, as the Senate did Wednesday, Gov. James Douglas may veto the bill. "This is not the time to raise taxes," Douglas said after the Senate vote. "This is a message that is the wrong one to send to the business community, Wall Street and everyone we hope to attract to Vermont." The efficiency program would save money by reducing the use of gas and heating oil, creating jobs in industries that increase energy efficiency, and reducing Vermonters' contribution to global warming, supporters said. The program would "take advantage of jobs in a new business sector," Dostis said. Different versions of the bill passed both chambers previously, so a conference committee of three members from each body met to work out a compromise. It's the compromise measure the Senate approved Wednesday, and that the House is about to consider. Commissioner of Public Service David O'Brien gave the conference committee a two-page letter detailing his department's objections to the bill. A better way to address global warming would be to defend Vermont's tough car-emission standards, or put more money into the state's weatherization program for low-income Vermonters, Douglas said. "We could expand that program. That would make more sense," he said. But Sen. Ann Cummings, a member of the conference committee, called the compromise measure a good bill. "It will move us towards being more efficient," Cummings said. "It should make Vermont a more affordable place to live." Supporters said increasing taxes on Vermont Yankee's parent company, Entergy Nuclear, merely ensures the company pays what it owes, because the company pays no property taxes on the plant. Entergy officials, however, said the generation tax increase violates a 2003 agreement with the state that established the plant's taxes. "It was everybody's expectation that this was going to be the tax rate" until 2012, when the plant's license to operate expires, said Brian Cosgrove, spokesman for Entergy. "It's just another sign that a deal is never a deal." Entergy's generation tax payments have declined steadily over the past several years, even while the company has made investments increasing the value of the plant, Cummings said. "We are not sure what other company in Vermont is seeing their value increase and their property taxes decrease," she said. Because Vermont's utilities have power contracts with Entergy through 2012, increasing the tax will not raise electric rates, proponents said. But Douglas warned that the company will collect the money somehow. "Negotiations are under way for potential post-2012 contracts," Douglas said. "The company has got to come up with the money somehow." In addition to creating the heating fuels efficiency program, the bill encourages small hydro-electric projects and expands "net metering" through which power customers can sell self-generated electricity back to utilities, lowering their bills, Cummings said. In a sign of how rapidly the legislation moved as adjournment is approaching, the conference committee report was on the floor of the Senate within minutes of being completed. And the full Senate passed it on a voice vote and virtually no debate. The vote was so quick some members of the Senate were not in the chamber when it happened. Sen. Doug Racine, D-Chittenden, said he had some questions on the tax, but was working on another conference committee report as the vote occurred. Several members of the Senate said they expected debate or a roll call vote before the conference report passed. Because the new tax does not begin until 2009, the Legislature could take another crack at the measure before it is implemented, Racine said. Keeping the Vermont Yankee tax stable would amount to "a corporate giveaway selling the education fund and general fund short," said James Moore of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. VPIRG created a controversy this week by participating in an ad campaign supporting the Senate-passed measure. The ad failed to clearly identify who paid for and organized the effort. Rep. Steve Adams, R-Hartland, minority leader, called the ads "vicious and untruthful attack ads" that did not belong in Vermont. But Paul Burns, executive director of the organization, said the ads — to which the organization contributed about $10,000 — omitted VPIRG's name because it was a joint effort. Individuals and environmental organizations also contributed money. "If you work with a coalition, it is not good form to take full credit for it," he said. The ads do not appear to violate state law, provided that a member of the "Climate Change Group" that worked on them registers with the Secretary of State's office within 48 hours as a lobbying organization, and files disclosure reports by the July deadline. The lawmaking session is winding down and could end within days. Contact Louis Porter at louis.porter@rutlandherald.com. © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 22 Rutland Herald: Taxing Yankee good for business Rutland Vermont News & Information May 10, 2007 By PETER A. BRADFORD Let's say you're a legislator convinced of the need to reduce climate change and oil dependence but reluctant to impose costs on Vermont oil customers. How might you raise the revenues needed to start up even the most cost-effective oil reduction programs? Well, one effective answer is the proposal recently approved in the Senate to raise the initial revenues through a charge on Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee. However, this proposal has created one of the best-funded lobbying blitzes of this or any other legislative session, a blitz that many Vermont businesses have been lured into joining even though it is against their own financial interest. Some background: 1) About 80 percent of Vermont's greenhouse gas emissions (and 100 percent of our oil dependence) come from heating buildings and fueling vehicles. Any serious effort to address global warming must introduce efficiency and renewable fuels into those sectors. However, Efficiency Vermont — the state's primary purveyor of energy efficiency — is now confined by law to the relatively clean electric sector. 2) As a result solely of recent changes in government policy and rising natural gas prices, Vermont Yankee stands to earn more than $100 million in unexpected profit on sales of its uncommitted power output between now and 2012. As a result of electric restructuring, none of this extraordinary profit will flow through to customers. Indeed, Central Vermont Public Service has just announced another price increase. 3) Recognizing this, the Senate has voted to use some $35 million from Vermont Yankee to reduce Vermont's waste of oil between now and 2012, leaving some $70 million in new profits to Entergy Vermont, above and beyond what it will earn as a result of its own management decisions. Indeed, the governmentally created portion of these new profits alone is larger than the proposed tax. Originally, the funding for reducing oil waste was to have come from a small surcharge on oil that would have more than paid for itself through savings. However, Gov. Douglas opposed this surcharge, so the Senate looked elsewhere. 4) Vermont entered into a memorandum of understanding two years ago with Entergy Vermont under which the company pays some $2.5 million per year to the state's Clean Energy Development Fund, which is devoted exclusively to cleaning up the electric sector. In return, Entergy received permission to move some of its spent fuel from the nearly full pool to dry casks. Without this permission Vermont Yankee could not have expanded the plant to realize the profits described above. Because of the large amounts of money at stake for the nuclear industry in Vermont and perhaps nationally, this proposal has led to a tsunami of lobbying and misinformation deluging the Legislature and the Vermont business community. Here are a few allegations (in quotes) and some responses: First: "The proposed tax breaks the two-year-old deal surrounding the dry cask approvals." This is incorrect because the 2005 deal covered only the casks, whereas nearly all of Vermont Yankee's storage remains in the spent fuel pool, which was in no way part of the 2005 deal. Long-term storage of radioactive waste — certainly not part of Vermont's "deal" when the plant was built — is a very valuable activity in itself. Some states and towns have begun to charge large sums for this activity. In any case though, Vermont's proposed charge applies to Entergy's profits from uncommitted sales. The spent fuel storage is merely an indicator of the valuable activity going on at the plant. Second: "By taxing these profits, the Legislature threatens Vermont's reputation as a place to do business." This is silly. These unearned profits arise from Vermont's ongoing tolerance for storage of nuclear waste. No other Vermont business is exposed to such a charge because no other business stores spent fuel rods. Third: "The tax will undermine negotiations to buy Vermont Yankee power after the existing contracts expire in 2012." No. By law, the charge expires with the existing contracts, so it will not apply to any new ones. Taxes in general will have to be dealt with in any new contracts. This one does not complicate the negotiating process at all. Fourth: "The tax will raise Vermont electric rates." No. Vermont rates will not be affected, and Vermont oil bills will decline. The uncommitted electricity covered by this charge is sold in the New England power market, not into Vermont. More importantly, that market does not permit the pass-through of taxes. The payments will come from the unearned profits, not from electric customers. Given the energy waste to be avoided by this charge, given the absence of any impact on energy customers and given the lack of acceptable alternative sources of revenue, Vermont businesses — especially those adversely affected by climate change — should take a second look at where their real interests lie on this issue. Their reflexive support of Vermont Yankee's position will ultimately enrich that company at the expense of their own. Peter A. Bradford of Peru is a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and former chairman of the New York and Maine utility regulatory commissions. © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 23 UK: Independent: Energy White Paper delayed after Chancellor's intervention - By Michael Harrison, Business Editor Published: 11 May 2007 The Government's long-awaited Energy White Paper setting out plans for a new generation of nuclear power stations has been delayed for a third time after intervention by Gordon Brown, the Chancellor. Alistair Darling, the Trade and Industry Secretary, had intended to publish the document and an accompanying public consultation paper setting out the Government's nuclear plans next Thursday. However, the White Paper has been delayed until at least the following week and may even be held up until Parliament resumes in June after the Whit recess. Although Mr Brown is on record as supporting a new nuclear programme, Whitehall insiders say the Treasury has had only limited input into the White Paper. All that may change after Tony Blair's resignation announcement yesterday. The Chancellor is now said to be keen to lead the debate over Britain's future energy policy given that it will be one of the key decisions to be taken under a Brown premiership. Industry sources also said that Mr Brown appeared to have been lobbied as part of a "turf war" between Mr Darling and the Environment Secretary, David Miliband, over how much more quickly the White Paper would push the UK down the zero-carbon route. One insider said there was a "battle royal" taking place between the two departments over whether to take a more pragmatic line on carbon emissions, as the power industry is advocating, or push hard for tougher environmental targets. The White Paper was originally scheduled for publication in March. But this had to be abandoned after the High Court upheld a complaint from the environmental group Greenpeace that the Government's original consultation over plans for a new generation of nuclear reactors had been "inadequate, misleading and procedurally unfair". The publication date was then rescheduled to early May and then shifted back again to 17 May. A DTI spokesman said that it remained the department's plan to bring out the White Paper at some time in May. The last date it could publish is 24 May but Mr Darling would risk criticism if he chose to slip out such an important document on the eve of a parliamentary recess. Although the Government's nuclear plans will be the subject of a separate consultation document, the White Paper will still contain important proposals relating to areas such as energy efficiency and the renewables obligation which is due to be strengthened so that electricity retailers have to take a bigger share of their supplies from green sources such as wind, wave, solar and biomass. © 2007 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 24 Burlington Free Press: My Turn: Shumlin's desperate search for taxes Opinion burlingtonfreepress.com | Burlington, Vermont Published: Thursday, May 10, 2007 By John McClaughry A shabby, desperate attempt to find something new to tax is now playing itself out in Montpelier. The principal actor is the Senate president pro tem, Sen. Peter Shumlin. Sen. Shumlin opened this year's Legislature with two weeks of "seminars" on the menace of global warming. Following that, he planned to push through the sweeping environmental program of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, VPIRG. But things haven't worked out well. The centerpiece program was to be a new "efficiency utility" to explain to businesses and homeowners how to get by using less heating fuels. This "thermal efficiency" program was to be paid for with a new tax on heating oil, propane and natural gas. That scheme -- deceitfully labeled a "heating fuel savings charge"-- crashed when people who heat their homes and businesses found about it. By late April the senator from VPIRG was getting desperate to find new tax dollars to fund his "efficiency utility." So he turned to a favorite shakedown target that doesn't have a vote: Vermont Yankee. Recall that in November 2003, in return for Public Service Department support for its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a reactor power uprate, Entergy, the owner of Vermont Yankee, agreed to pay the state $7.8 million to clean up algae in Lake Champlain, 180 miles away, plus $2.1 million to pay for more low-income home heating assistance. (The Public Service Board later transferred the algae money to other programs.) Two years after making that deal, Entergy sought regulatory permission to store spent fuel rods in concrete casks, instead of a cooling pool. "Aha!" cried certain legislators. "Entergy needs another approval. Let's make it pay us $4 million a year from now until 2012, and we'll decline to object to how the plant stores its used rods (on its own property, at its own expense)." So, to avoid a long and uncertain political and legal battle, Entergy, the state's lowest-cost, most reliable energy producer, agreed to pay the state's new Clean Energy Development Fund as much as $28 million over the next seven years. The state is using the money to subsidize people with renewable energy projects. Now it's 2007. The senator from VPIRG, observing that he was not a party to the 2005 agreement, proposes to tax the spent fuel rods that Vermont Yankee already agreed to pay $28 million for permission to store. He also proposes to impose a special tax on any revenues the company might make by selling on the spot market the 20 percent of its power not already under a long-term contract. This dishonorable stunt would shatter the 2005 agreement that Entergy, acting in good faith, thought it had sealed with its $28 million. On April 26 that scheme collapsed from legislative opposition. So the senator from VPIRG proposed another even more far-fetched new tax: a 35 percent tax on any "unanticipated revenues" that only one particular business -- Vermont Yankee -- might earn from selling its product. On May 1, the Senate bought Shumlin's scheme on a 15-14 vote, with eight liberal Democratic senators as well as six Republicans voting against it. Both the 2003 and 2005 deals between the state and Entergy are examples of government extortion. For enough protection money, the state agreed not to strangle Entergy's plans to produce more cheap, dependable power and improve the management of its waste. This is just what any Mafia racketeer would do if he had the power. That's bad enough. But the senator from VPIRG has now persuaded the Senate to break the latest deal, and hammer Entergy again. Even the Mafia wouldn't do that. John McClaughry is president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org). Copyright ©2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 Burlington Free Press: Senate OKs revised Vermont Yankee tax burlingtonfreepress.com | Burlington, Vermont Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 2:47 pm By Terri Hallenbeck Free Press Staff Writer MONTPELIER -- Without a word of debate or even a roll call, the Senate voted Wednesday for a bill designed to encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy, along with an increase in the state's tax on Vermont Yankee to pay for it. The tax on Vermont Yankee's electric generation would claim $25 million from the nuclear power plant's owner, Entergy Corp., between 2009 and 2012. The House is expected to vote on the bill Friday, when it's likely to face debate. Though the tax is significantly less than a $37 million profits tax the Senate previously proposed, the company and the governor remain opposed to it. "This is still a case of a deal not being a deal," Entergy spokesman Brian Cosgrove said. "How do we know what's next?" David O'Brien, commissioner of the state Department of Public Service, called the tax "irresponsible," and said it would hurt utility companies' negotiations for electric rates with Entergy if the nuclear power plant is relicensed in 2012. O'Brien wouldn't say whether that means Gov. Jim Douglas would veto the bill, but he said the governor's opposition is strong. A House and Senate conference committee settled on the new tax rate at 5:25 p.m. Wednesday after a day of huddled closed-door meetings and last-minute appeals from opponents. By 5:50 p.m., copies of the 85-page bill had been distributed on the Senate floor. Within 15 minutes, the Senate had suspended rules to take up the bill, heard highlights of the conference committee and passed the committee's report by voice vote. The vote caught several senators by surprise, as they had been in and out of session during the afternoon, rifling through a number of bills. "I'm stunned," said Sen. Douglas Racine, D-Chittenden, who tried to have the vote taken again. "There's no roll call? Does anybody else have questions?" Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, D-Windham, said he, too, was surprised no one called for a roll call or asked questions, but senators had been told the vote was coming. Racine said he was looking over an unrelated conference committee report and didn't realize the vote was taking place. "I felt we should have discussion on it," he said. "It took me by surprise," said Sen. George Coppenrath, R-Caledonia. He said it probably would have passed even if there had been debate and a roll call, but he wasn't aware that the vote was happening. Racine had tried in an afternoon caucus to persuade senators to wait a day on the bill, but Shumlin was pushing for legislators to wrap up their business so they can adjourn for the year Friday. The plan would tax Vermont Yankee's power generation from a rate of $.00225 per kilowatt-hour in 2009, $.0025 in 2010 and $.003 in 2011. Wind power projects would be charged at the same rates. That's a rate wind developers sought and praised. "The wind energy property tax set in the bill is good for Vermont because it will encourage wind farm investments here, which the state needs to have a clean energy future," said Adam Necrason, lobbyist for Renewable Energy Vermont. Senate Finance Committee Chairwoman Ann Cummings, D-Washington, said complaints that the tax changes a previous deal Entergy had agreed to with the state, don't hold water. "We change tax policy all the time," she said. Supporters said the process of examining how much Vermont Yankee pays in taxes -- about $4.5 million this year -- shows the company wasn't paying its share. "They're being asked to put in their fair share of property tax, and they're still crying foul," said James Moore, energy policy coordinator for Vermont Public Interest Research Group. O'Brien said the legislation doesn't direct the money generated from the tax specifically to a fund to pay for energy efficiency, as legislators have suggested it will. Shumlin said the money won't be collected until 2009, but it will be targeted for an expanded energy-efficiency program with a goal of reducing the amount of heating fuel Vermonters use in their homes and businesses. Contact Terri Hallenbeck at 229-4126 or thallenb@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com Copyright ©2007 Burlingtonfreepress.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point finds tritium in its sewers Thursday, May 10, 2007 By GREG CLARY BUCHANAN - Indian Point officials have found traces of tritium in the nuclear plants' sewer pipes that connect to the Buchanan sewage system, the first indication that the radioactive isotope may be reaching the village. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials confirmed the report yesterday, saying they would be independently verifying the test results sent in a company e-mail to Buchanan and other elected officials and the agency. The memo, obtained by The Journal News, stated that during an April 30 test of sewage at the plant, tritium was found at a radiation concentration of 8,000 pico curies per liter - a fraction of the 10 million pico curies per liter allowed in sewage. Company and regulatory officials stressed that there was no threat to public or worker safety. Westchester County officials said the amount of radiation wasn't as much of a concern as how the radiation ended up in sewer pipes. "We were notified immediately, and from what we understand, there's no threat because it's a very, very low level," said Susan Tolchin, chief adviser to Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano. "The issue is how it got there ... and we need a full investigation to determine that." Indian Point officials have already begun their probe, they say, though the answers may take awhile. "At this point, it's too soon to even have a hypothesis," said Donald Mayer, the Entergy official in charge of investigating groundwater contamination at Indian Point. "We obtained some additional samples (Tuesday), and those will tell us where we have to go next." Mayer said the company would be testing for strontium 90 in the sewage system as well as tritium, though the strontium tests would not have results as fast because the laboratory work takes longer. Strontium 90 is a more dangerous radioactive isotope produced during a nuclear reaction. Mayer said because the tritium was found in a sewage line, the company is focusing on sewage sump pumps and the rest of the system. "There's something that's getting into one of these lines," Mayer said. "It could be a crack in a pipe." He said the company has been monitoring the sewer lines since the fall and got a couple of readings early this year showing barely detectible levels of tritium. The most recent reading was the largest by a factor of two, Mayer said. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency wanted more information about how tritium could have "gotten into the presumably closed sewage disposal system." "We have an inspector up there this week who specializes in the whole groundwater contamination issue, so we'll be following up on that," he said. The plants have been leaking tritium since at least August 2005, when workers discovered a crack at the base of a building that houses a 400,000-gallon spent-fuel storage tank at Indian Point 2. As nuclear plant officials dug wells to determine the extent of the tritium leak, they found the radioactive isotope strontium 90 leaking from Indian Point 1 - which was shut down in 1974. The two leaks do not appear to be connected, company officials have said. Hydrologists and other experts had said that whatever leaking radiation was leaving the site was likely going into the Hudson River, where it would be diluted many times over by the large volume of water. Buchanan Mayor Daniel O'Neill said he was not concerned about the findings because the levels found are so low, but was interested in seeing the results of more testing. "The sewage system is a closed one. The drainage lines go directly to the treatment plant," O'Neill said. "The fact that there have been some leaks, of course, is not good, but you have to put it into context that this is an electric power plant and there are always going to be problems when it comes to making electricity." O'Neill said he would rather live next to a nuclear plant than coal-burning plant, given the amount of pollution around other power plants in the country. He said the village drinking water would not be compromised by radioactive isotopes leaking at the plant because the water is piped in from reservoirs farther north. George Smith, a foreman at the Buchanan sewage treatment plant, said the operation handles about 350,000 gallons of sewage daily. The 23-year veteran said Indian Point's portion of that is "very little," though he didn't know an exact percentage. The sewage treatment plant is about a mile from the nuclear plant, Smith said, and the effluent from the plant takes a few days to make it from Indian Point through the treatment plant before it is released into the Hudson River at permitted levels. State Department of Environmental Conservation officials said they were aware of the tritium in the sewer lines and will track this latest development as they have the earlier sampling. "DEC is still evaluating the most recent data," agency spokeswoman Kimberly Chupa wrote in an e-mail to The Journal News. "To date, the data shows that the concentrations of strontium and tritium are below regulatory limits. The Department will conduct additional testing if it is determined to be necessary." Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. ====================================================================== The jUrinal news reports in the sidebar above that “Exposure to it (tritium) and other radiation increases the risk of developing cancer.” What is risk? When scientists talk about risk, they're referring to a probability — the chance that something may occur, but not a guarantee that it will. As an example of probability, if you flip a coin, there is a one in two chance, or a 50 percent chance, that the coin will land heads up. Risk estimates for cancer and other diseases are determined by studying large groups of people to discover the probability that any given person or category of people will develop the disease over a certain period of time, and to see what characteristics or behaviors are associated with increased or decreased risk. Risk is generally divided into two categories: Absolute risk Absolute risk refers to the actual numeric chance or probability of developing cancer during a specified time period — for example, within the year, within the next five years, by age 50, by age 70, or over the course of a lifetime. One type of absolute risk is lifetime risk, which is the probability that an individual will develop cancer over the course of a lifetime. For instance, an American man's absolute risk of developing prostate cancer in his lifetime is about 17 percent. Put another way, about 17 out of every 100 men will develop prostate cancer at some time in their lives. Keep in mind that lifetime risk isn't the risk that a person will develop cancer in the next year or next five years. An individual's cancer risk has a lot to do with other factors, such as his or her age. For instance, a woman's lifetime risk of developing colon and rectal cancer is just over 5 percent, or about 537 cases per 10,000 women. But her risk of developing colon and rectal cancer before the age of 40 is .07 percent, or about seven cases per 10,000 women. Relative risk Relative risk gives you a comparison or ratio rather than an absolute value. It shows the strength of the relationship between a risk factor and a particular type of cancer by comparing the number of cancers in a group of people who have a particular exposure trait with the number of cancers in a group of people who don't have that trait. For instance, relative risk might compare the lung cancer risk for people who smoke with the lung cancer risk in a similar group of people who don't smoke. You might hear relative risk being expressed like this: The risk of lung cancer for men who smoke is 23 times higher than the risk for men who don't smoke. So the relative risk of lung cancer for men who smoke is 23. Relative risk is also given as a percentage. For example, the risk of lung cancer for men who smoke is more than 2,000 percent higher than it is for men who don't smoke. Keep in mind that when you hear about relative risk, there's no upper limit to the percentage increase in risk. Most people think 100 percent is the highest possible risk, but that isn't true when talking about relative risk. A relative risk of 100 percent means your risk is twice as high as that of someone without that risk factor. A 200 percent relative risk means that you are three times as likely to develop that condition. Where do cancer risk statistics come from? Most information about cancer risk and risk factors come from epidemiologic studies, which are studies that focus on large, well-defined groups of people. Over the last 50 years, cancer researchers have identified many of the major environmental factors that contribute to cancer, including smoking for lung cancer and sunlight for skin cancer. But uncovering more subtle cancer risks has proved more difficult. Many studies of cancer risk factors rely on observational approaches. In these studies, researchers keep track of a group of people for several years without trying to change their lives or provide special treatment. This can help scientists find out who develops a disease, what those people have in common and how they differ from those who didn't get sick. Risk comparison The real question is: how much will radiation exposure increase my chances of cancer death over my lifetime. To answer this, we need to make a few general statements of understanding. One is that in the US, the current death rate from cancer is approximately 20 percent, so out of any group of 10,000 United States citizens, about 2,000 of them will die of cancer. Second, that contracting cancer is a random process, where given a set population, we can estimate that about 20 percent will die from cancer, but we cannot say which individuals will die. Finally, that a conservative estimate of risk from low doses of radiation is thought to be one in which the risk is linear with dose. That is, that the risk increases with a subsequent increase in dose. Most scientists believe that this is a conservative model of the risk. So, now the risk estimates. If you were to take a large population, such as 10,000 people and expose them to one rem (to their whole body), you would expect approximately eight additional deaths (0.08%*10,000*1 rem). So, instead of the 2,000 people expected to die from cancer naturally, you would now have 2,008. This small increase in the expected number of deaths would not be seen in this group, due to natural fluctuations in the rate of cancer. What needs to be remembered it is not known that 8 people will die, but that there is a risk of 8 additional deaths in a group of 10,000 people if they would all receive one rem instantaneously. If they would receive the 1 rem over a long period of time, such as a year, the risk would be less than half this (<4 expected fatal cancers). Risks can be looked at in many ways, here are a few ways to help visualize risk. One way often used is to look at the number of "days lost" out of a population due to early death from separate causes, then dividing those days lost between the population to get an "Average Life expectancy lost" due to those causes. The following is a table of life expectancy lost for several causes: Health Risk.................................. Est. life expectancy lost Smoking 20 cigs a day ................. 6 years Overweight (15%) ....................... 2 years Alcohol (US Ave) ......................... 1 year All Accidents ............................... 207 days All Natural Hazards ...................... 7 days Occupational dose (300 mrem/yr).. 15 days Occupational dose (1 rem/yr)......... 51 days You can also use the same approach to looking at risks on the job: Industry type...............................Est. life expectancy lost All Industries .............................. 60 days Agriculture ................................. 320 days Construction .............................. 227 days Mining and quarrying ....................167 days Manufacturing .............................. 40 days Occupational dose (300 mrem/yr).. 15 days Occupational dose (1 rem/yr)........ 51 days ___________________ These are estimates taken from the NRC Draft guide DG-8012 and were adapted from B.L Cohen and I.S. Lee, "Catalogue of Risks Extended and Updates", Health Physics, Vol. 61, September 1991. Posted by: nuclear environmentalist on Thu May 10, 2007 1:44 pm ====================================================================== Get yourself a test kit and find out you probably have more titium, radon, etc naturally occuring in your home than IP will ever release, if they are at all. For you radiation fobes http://www.slh.wisc.edu/wps/wcm/connect/extranet/ehd/radiochem/kits.ph p Posted by: HDTVdesignteam on Thu May 10, 2007 11:26 am ====================================================================== Okay...now there is tritium showing up outside the plant site...but still the same old song "BUT... THERE'S NO DANGER TO THE PUBLIC" Posted by: spottyd on Thu May 10, 2007 8:48 am ====================================================================== Should we really care about the presence of a naturally-occurring substance in concentrations low-enough to meet drinking-water standards -- in sewage? Is this really worthy of front-page news and screaming headlines? Talk about fear-mongering. Posted by: RPF on Thu May 10, 2007 8:42 am ====================================================================== You guys are so out of the loop! Fred Dacimo has independently decided to aggressively send out notices of even the most minute tritium finds, to "jump the gun" on any talk about investigative journalism, or what-have-you. Expect many more of these routine not-a-find letters. It is a simple reductio-ad-absurdem of the overconcern falsely nurtured by issue-riders like the clueless single-issue clone, Andy Spano. We should install electronic flushometers in the IPEC locker room, connected directly to Andy's desk in White Plains. Then he could at last be "adequately informed". Posted by: Big67 on Thu May 10, 2007 5:53 am Frank Becerra Jr./The Journal News Joe Carroll says he's not worried about the low levels of tritium that were found in the Buchanan sewers. "There are top-of-the-line safety measures there,” said Carroll, a firefighter who also runs an eatery serving local students. For more community reaction, see "Buchanan community unfazed by tritium leak." About tritium • Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, with a half-life of 12 years. It is naturally produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays strike air molecules and as a byproduct in nuclear reactors that produce electricity. Exposure to it and other radiation increases the risk of developing cancer. • Strontium 90 is a fission byproduct of uranium and plutonium, with a half-life of 29 years. Large amounts were produced in the 1950s and 1960s during atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Copyright © 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: NRC to Hold Public Meeting May 22 in Piketon, Ohio, to Discuss Licensing and Inspection Program at Uranium Enrichment Plant News Release - Region II - 2007-029 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, May 22 at Piketon, Ohio, to discuss NRC’s licensing and inspection programs related to refurbishment and construction at the USEC, Inc. American Centrifuge Plant. The meeting will be held at the Ohio State University South Centers in Training Room 160, located at 1864 Shyville Road, in Piketon. There will be an opportunity for informal discussions with the NRC staff from 7:00 p.m. until 7:30 p.m., followed by the meeting and opportunity for the public to ask questions from 7:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. 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. Thursday, May 10, 2007 ***************************************************************** 28 Charlotte Business Journal: Duke pushes plans for coal, nuclear - Charlotte Business Journal - 2:43 PM EDT Thursday, May 10, 2007 by John Downey Senior Staff Writer Chief Executive Jim Rogers says Duke Energy Corp. needs its proposed 2,200-megawatt Lee nuclear plant but won't build it if N.C. lawmakers don't allow utilities to collect some return on their construction costs while such facilities are built. And he was even more definite Thursday on going ahead with the proposed 800-megwatt coal unit at Duke's Cliffside plant, which straddles the Rutherford-Cleveland county border. The Charlotte-based company (NYSE:DUK) has been cautious about committing to build the single coal unit since February, when the N.C. Utilities Commission voted against allowing a second unit Duke had sought. Now, Rogers says, "We need to go forward with that plant." The only thing that could stop the company, he says, would be a problem with the air-quality permit Duke is seeking from the state. He also feels strongly about the need for new nuclear plants. At the company's annual meeting Thursday in Charlotte, Rogers told shareholders nuclear power is necessary to meet the nation's evolving air-quality goals. He said industry research indicates the only way to get carbon pollution down to 1990 levels by 2030 would be to build the equivalent of about 30 Lee plants nationwide. This fall, Duke will file for a federal operating license for the plant, proposed for Cherokee County, S.C. In the winter, it will file with S.C. regulators for a certificate of public necessity and convenience for the $4 billion to $6 billion project. In a press conference after the annual meeting, Rogers acknowledged several issues remain for the proposed Lee plant. Nuclear waste disposal is one, he said. But Duke's most immediate concern is the need for N.C. legislation that would enable utilities to defray some of their construction and financing costs as major plants are built. The S.C. General Assembly enacted a law last week allowing Duke to recover financing costs as plants are under construction. South Carolina had previously required utilities to complete a plant and start operating it before making a return on any of its costs. That requirement still applies in North Carolina. © 2007 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. ***************************************************************** 29 People's Daily: "Atomic Town" opens to public UPDATED: 15:18, May 10, 2007 China's first nuclear weapon research base, which goes by the name "Atomic Town" has been officially declassified and opened to the public. People can now visit this long-mysterious underground headquarters. "Atomic Town" is located in Xihai in Haibei Tibet Autonomous Prefecture, Qinghai province. Built in 1958, it was China's first nuclear weapon research, test and production facility. China's first atomic and hydrogen bombs were developed here. The headquarters are 9.3 meters below the earth's surface and the rooms are built with reinforced concrete. When nuclear weapon research and production was conducted here, the headquarters took on the base's most important function of communication guarantee and command. By People's Daily Online Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 30 BusinessWeek: Nuke Power Spurs EU Parliament Debate Europe May 10, 2007, 11:25AM EST by Renata Goldirova EPs have called on EU leaders to review the union's atomic treaty, Euratom, with many claiming the European Parliament must be given power to oversee the sensitive area, and others hoping to halt what they see as a nuclear renaissance in the bloc. The moves are being debated as European legislators are set to vote today (10 May) on a report assessing the 50-year-old Euratom treaty, which paved the way to European nuclear cooperation. The draft report, prepared by Lithuanian MEP Eugenijus Maldeikis from the rightist UEN group, calls for "adjustments" to the treaty to "restore the institutional imbalance in favour of parliament, which should be accorded a co-decision power in the nuclear field." "We face the problem of democratic deficit," Mr Maldeikus said during the parliamentary debate yesterday, but he defended the 1957 legal document. Green MEPs, on the other hand, want to scrap the whole treaty. According to Austrian green MEP Johannes Voggenhuber, the Euratom treaty is "a futuristic poem, which half of the EU states are not interested in." "The consensus from 1957 is not there anymore", he said. Euratom - drawn up by Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands half a century ago - sees nuclear power as an answer to the general shortage of conventional energy and for providing energy independence. But in the Europe of today, with 27 member states, the issue has become a hot potato with strong divisions between those that support nuclear power and those that want to reduce the EU's dependence on it entirely. "We must have a Euratom conference before a new nuclear reactor is built in the EU," German green MEP Rebecca Harms said. THE CLIMATE CHANGE DEBATE Ms Harms accused proponents of nuclear fission of "trying to jump on the climate change bandwagon to resuscitate nuclear power after decades of stagnation," adding "some UN climate change strategists, as well as parts of the European Commission, have also bought into the nuclear lobby's arguments." The green MEP cited a study, stating there are thousands of incidents in nuclear installations each year. France's utility EDF annually reports up to 800 significant events to the nuclear safety authorities, while in Germany it is up to 140 events, according to the paper. "Promoting nuclear as a sustainable energy source is misleading," Ms Harms concluded. But according to Spanish conservative MEP Alejo Vidal-Quadras "ideological differences would lead us to economic and environmental suicide," as EU nuclear industry provides roughly 400,000 jobs and is a way of avoiding some 312 million tonnes of CO2 per year, amounting to 7 percent of the EU's total greenhouse gas emissions. Lithuania's Mr Maldeikis, himself a strong advocate of nuclear power, added "the absence of Euratom would lead to the renationalisation of nuclear policy in Europe and cause legal uncertainty for all of the 27 member states". Currently, 15 member states have nuclear power stations, amounting to 145 nuclear power reactors operating on EU territory, while an additional five are under construction - in Finland, France, Bulgaria and Romania. In six EU countries - Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Lithuania, Slovakia and Sweden - nuclear power provides 40 percent or more of total electricity generation. Altogether, 32 percent of the bloc's electricity is of nuclear origin. EU-WIDE SAFETY RULES So far, safety seems to be the only aspect of the debate where MEPs across the entire political spectrum sing from the same hymnbook. "There is an urgent need to draw up robust legislation at community level in the fields of nuclear safety, the management of radioactive waste and the decommissioning of nuclear plants," Mr Maldeikis says in his report, with the parliament's main political groups claiming they are in favour of Brussels serving as an umbrella. According to Austrian conservative MEP Paul Ruebig "the safety standards should be legally binding, enforced by the European court and possibly leading to a shut-down of a nuclear power plant." The most recent attempt to set up EU-wide safety rules dates back to 2002, but this piece of legislation has not moved further since, as EU capitals are reluctant to let Brussels move into this area. Currently, the European Commission has a say only when it comes to accession countries, as was in the case of Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria - all forced to shut down Soviet-era nuclear reactors. Provided by EUobserver—For the latest EU related news Copyright 2000-2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 Reuters: Brazil environment minister attacks nuclear option 10 May 2007 19:48:59 GMT By Rodrigo Gaier RIO DE JANEIRO, May 10 (Reuters) - Brazil's environment minister attacked proposals for new nuclear power plants on Thursday, a week after the president said he would push for more reactors if enough hydroelectric plants cannot be built. Brazil now has two nuclear reactors near the coastal resort of Angra, which account for about 3 percent of all power. The long-delayed completion of a third pressurized water reactor at the site is expected to be approved by a government council. Brazil relies on hydroelectric dams for more than 80 percent of its energy needs. But to address the prospect of looming power shortages in Latin America's largest economy, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's government is weighing a plan to build at least four new reactors with a total capacity of 4,000 megawatts by 2030. Environment Minister Marina Silva defended the hydroelectric option as "clean and without risk" but said that environmental concerns should always be taken into account when authorizing new dam projects. "The ministry is against nuclear energy. We have a clean energy matrix, an advantage that no other country has," said Silva, a former activist in the Amazon rain forest. "Nuclear energy has a serious problem that is waste disposal." She advocates the use of hydroelectric, wind and biomass energy sources. The dependence on water means droughts can cause power shortages -- as in 2001 when the world's fifth-largest country was forced to impose crippling energy rationing. The National Energy Policy Council will meet next month to discuss completion of the Angra 3 nuclear plant. Many officials expect the council's approval despite Silva's objections. France's state-controlled nuclear group Areva has said it is optimistic to restart work on the reactor. Silva was weakened recently when Lula split up the environmental agency Ibama to speed the approval of energy projects. Analysts warn that power shortages could arise as soon as 2010. Silva acknowledged tensions within the government over environmental licensing of two big hydroelectric projects on the Madeira River in the Amazon, seen by many as crucial to guaranteeing normal power supplies after 2012. But she said she did not feel under pressure to give the green light to the projects and gave no estimates for when permits may be issued. Activists say the dams would hurt aquatic life. "I understand that environmental preservation has to be part of the development equation," Silva said. http://www.alertnet.org ***************************************************************** 32 NewsRoom Finland: Finland's Loviisa council rejects E.ON nuclear station land deal 10.5.2007 at 9:05 The council of the Finnish city of Loviisa on Wednesday voted against a preliminary agreement to sell land to German utility E.ON for a planned nuclear power station. The decision was a surprise to Matti Manninen, the chief executive E.ON's Finnish subsidiary, and Olavi Kaleva, the mayor of Loviisa, both of whom had calculated that the deal would be approved with a thin majority. In the vote, 16 councillors opposed the deal, outnumbering those in favour by five. Mr Manninen said safety concerns had played a role in the nullification of the deal. Up to 2,000 people of the village of Valko as well as two schools and a daycare centre would have been left inside the station's safety zone. The villagers had conducted a high-profile campaign against the deal. Also the National Board of Antiquities opposed the project because the station would have been built less than a kilometre from Svartholm sea fortress, a protected historical monument. Finnish utility Fortum operates two nuclear power stations in Loviisa. France's Areva and Germany's Siemens are building the country's fifth nuclear station in Olkiluoto for Teollisuuden Voima (TVO). Both utilities have set the ball rolling to build the sixth one. /STT/ © Copyright STT 2007 © 1995 – 2005, Virtual Finland Produced by: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland Department for Communication and Culture/Unit ***************************************************************** 33 Scotsman.com News: Kirk urges government to avoid 'evil' of new nuclear power plants Friday, 11th May 2007 JASON CUMMING AND IAN JOHNSTON THE Church of Scotland has broken its silence on nuclear power by criticising plans for a new generation of reactors. In a report to the General Assembly, the Kirk's Church and Society Council said further nuclear or fossil-fuel power plants were "not good routes to go down". The body also claimed that successive governments have "failed to deliver" on promoting energy efficiency for both individuals and industry. Setting out the Church's stance on tackling climate change, the report claimed it would be possible to meet UK energy needs through a combination of cutting use and harnessing wind, tidal and solar sources. It argues that energy supply must be treated as an "ethical issue" by government and warned that greater investment was urgently required to develop renewable technologies north of the Border. Nuclear energy currently supplies about half of Scotland's electricity. The group that authored the report included Fred Dinning, a former director of energy policy at ScottishPower who has worked at the Torness and Hunterston nuclear power plants. Other members included a high-ranking former civil servant, a professor of medicine, a senior ethicist and lay members. Mr Dinning, the convener of the Kirk's energy and environment working group, described the options of new nuclear and fossil-fuel burning plants as "two evils". But he pointed out that nuclear only provided about 7 per cent of Scotland's overall energy requirements. He said: "The government has allowed the debate to be one of technology and economics. But there are ethical and moral consequences of doing down the nuclear route. Are we happy with one or two multinational companies building nuclear facilities in Scotland that will have to be surrounded by armed guards?" The Kirk has traditionally been neutral on nuclear energy. A 1994 statement on the environment "recognised differing views within the Church on the role of nuclear power". However, the new report, which has been endorsed by the Church and Science Council, refuses to back either the burning of coal and gas or new reactors as the best option, saying: "Renewable supplies are the ethical route on which future electricity generation should be based. "If coupled with large-scale energy saving and efficiency across all sectors of society, it ought to be possible to meet our UK and Scottish electricity needs without needing to build further base-load fossil or nuclear power stations." However, the committee expressed doubt over whether this would be feasible in the short term due to "government policies and social trends". The report also calls for the government to give "substantially more priority" to energy-saving schemes - through cost incentives, grants, subsidies and tougher regulation. Mr Dinning blamed "lack of drive to educate the public and a lack of will to regulate when necessary" in government for the fact little progress had been made on cutting energy usage. The committee warned that Scotland risked losing its position at the forefront of offshore energy - such as tidal and wave power - "by a failure of government to ensure adequate investment at the right times". A DTI spokesman said: "The government has clearly demonstrated its commitment to ... renewable energy: £500 million is being invested between 2002 and 2008 in capital grants and research and development for emerging and low-carbon technologies such as wind, biomass, solar, PV wave and tidal. "In 2002, only 1.5 per cent of the UK's electricity came from renewable sources. It is now 5 per cent." A Scottish Executive spokeswoman declined to comment. 'SCOTS SHOULD NOT BE NIMBYS' SCOTS must abandon their "Not In My Back Yard" opposition to schemes such as wind farms if the battle against climate change is to be won, according to the Kirk. A report to the General Assembly acknowledges that renewable energy projects will potentially have "a profound impact on landscape". It adds: "Arguably to be reminded daily where our energy comes from is a good thing. Everyone should be prepared to accept some personal loss for the sake of the whole." But the Church of Scotland's energy and environment working group concedes that windfarms are simply not appropriate everywhere. "To put wind turbines on Ben Nevis, a pumped storage hydro scheme on Loch Lomond, or solar panels on John Knox's house would violate other important values." The report also suggests that all new buildings erected north of the Border should be equipped with solar panels which heat water. Related topic * Nuclear energy http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1343 This article: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=727512007 Last updated: 10-May-07 00:21 BST 1. Androsthenes, Edinburgh / 12:43am 11 May 2007 More drivel from the ecclesiastical windbags. Nuclear power stations are mandatory ,their infantile value judgement - "evil" - shows how far from reality these clowns operate. Report as unsuitable 2. MarkInAlpine, Alpine, Texas / 12:51am 11 May 2007 Anything you build, solar, wind, tide, nuclear, takes space, requires energy to manufacture and build, and usually ends up producing some waste. Other tha all of us committing mass suicide, which some ultra-"environmentalists" condone, we need to make wise, studied choices, not emotional ones. Nuclear seems to me to be ONE valuable option. If a nuclear reactor building can contain the process for its life cycle, why not just save up the spent fuel rods, which have to be stored anyway until they cool down, stuff them back into the reactor building when it is finished, fill the thing up with concrete, and stick a sign on the out side that this was the "Maggie Thatcher Nuclear Reactor #17, 2020-2050", and walk away. Report as unsuitable 3. Wini, Scots in England / 1:07am 11 May 2007 The "new report, which has been endorsed by the Church and Science Council" Since when has the Church worked with science? Is Science allowed to pass judgement on Biblical matters ? Because it may be tempted to ask why Jehovah needed a tent when travelling with the Egyptian slaves (Jews) A question that has plagued me since early childhood ! Report as unsuitable 4. Conan, Here / 1:11am 11 May 2007 Nuclear is the only way forward. The Kirk should stick to what it knows best - ancient hatred and stupidity. Report as unsuitable 5. Wini, Scots in England / 2:13am 11 May 2007 4. Conan, Your a brave man. Merciful Jehova could have you impaled for that. I off to sleep. God forgive and bless you. Report as unsuitable 6. Gnasher / 4:25am 11 May 2007 According to your story, 'Mr Dinning, the convener of the Kirk's energy and environment working group, described the options of new nuclear and fossil-fuel burning plants as "two evils". ' What's the betting that Mr Dinning actually referred to "the better of two evils?" The guy appears to be a retired energy industry manager, not a theologian. As a former director of energy policy at Scottish Power (two words, please!) it is unlikely that he believes that coal or gas or nuclear generators are truly "evil". He used a cliche. Your headline writer seems to have twisted his comments far, far beyond their original meanong. Why didn't he or she say that he felt that gas powered power plants were evil? Probably because he doesn't. Report as unsuitable ©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions ***************************************************************** 34 UPI: NNSA signs nuke security pact with NZ United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Briefing Published: May. 10, 2007 at 11:39 AM WASHINGTON, May. 10 (UPI) -- The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration said Wednesday it had joined forces with New Zealand to fight global nuclear terrorism. "Under an agreement signed with NNSA's Second Line of Defense program, New Zealand will provide approximately $460,000 for nuclear non-proliferation work in Ukraine," the NNSA, an agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, said in a statement. "The agreement facilitates cooperation between New Zealand and the United States as part of the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction," the NNSA said. "The international partnership was established in 2002 in Kananaskis, Canada, to support specific cooperation projects, initially in Russia, to address non-proliferation, disarmament, counter-terrorism and nuclear safety issues, including threats posed by vulnerable, high-risk nuclear and other radioactive materials," the agency said. "Originally designed as a 10 year program in which nations committed to raise up to $20 billion dollars to support such projects, the partnership is currently in its fifth year." "Nuclear terrorism is a threat to all countries," said William Tobey, NNSA's deputy administrator for defense nuclear non-proliferation. "This partnership between New Zealand, Ukraine, and the United States greatly advances the international mission to counter nuclear and radiological threats. We appreciate New Zealand's generous support and contribution." The NNSA said that New Zealand's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade would "fund radiation detection equipment on Ukraine's border with Russia to deter nuclear smuggling and fight the proliferation of nuclear and radiological material that could be used in weapons of mass destruction or for 'dirty bombs.'" The NNSA has set up its Second Line of Defense program to strengthen the resources that other governments can deploy at border crossings, airports and seaports to install specialized radiation detection equipment and train officials to detect smuggled nuclear and other radioactive materials. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 New York Times Blog: Remembering a Plutonium Scare - The Empire Zone - N.Y. / Region - May 10, 2007, 11:07 am By Sewell Chan The discovery of slightly elevated amounts of tetrachloroethylene, an industrial chemical also known as perc, in the water supply in Hollis, Queens, dredges up memories of past scares about the safety of the city’s water supply. In April 1985, as Joyce Purnick of The Times reported [TimesSelect required], Mayor Edward I. Koch stunned the city when he announced that traces of plutonium had been found in a water sample, though he declared the water “absolutely safe to drink.” The city had received a letter from someone threatening to contaminate the city’s water supply with a plutonium compound, and the authorities immediately tightened security at reservoirs in the city and upstate. Subsequent tests showed only minute, harmless levels of plutonium. It was never established whether the original test was flawed — or whether the threat was carried out, or was a hoax. In September 2000, looking back 15 years after the scare, Ms. Purnick described “a water crisis worthy of a movie.” The substance found in the water in Queens this month, tetrachloroethylene, is a manufactured chemical. High concentrations, particularly in closed, poorly ventilated areas, “can cause dizziness, headache, sleepiness, confusion, nausea, difficulty in speaking and walking, unconsciousness, and death,” according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most symptoms occur in work or hobby environments when people have been accidentally exposed or have intentionally used the chemical to get a high, according to the agency. May 10th, 2007 1:26 pm Given atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons and the long life of plutonium isotopes it is common to find trace levels of plutonium throughout the world. However it isn’t technically correct to portray any level of plutonium contamination as “absolutely safe.” In fairness to Mayor Koch, the risk to human health due to very low levels of plutonium contamination in water might be much lower than the risk to human health from stress associated with worrying about plutonium contamination at very low levels. In this sense Mayor Koch’s remarks make perfectly good sense to me. I just hope the remarks were informed by good science rather than good politics. — Posted by Martin Edelson * 2. May 10th, 2007 3:37 pm To back up Mr. Edelson’s point about plutonium, if about a billionth of a gram gets into a human’s bloodstream, they are beyond the help of medical science, with a maximum lifespan of two months. So it’s not safe in any amount. On the other hand, tetrachloroethelyene is really only dangerous because of all the reactive chlorine. Chlorine is usually somewhat dangerous (except in NaCl, or ’salt’). But this is not as bad as benzene rings, or anything radioactive, so I think this particular contamination is not too big a deal. Now, if some tons of lysergic acid were dumped in the reservoir, things would really get exciting. — Posted by Dan Stackhouse Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 36 ScienceDaily: Exposure To Depleted Uranium From Military Action May Pose Health Threats Source: American Chemical Society DU is the material remaining after removal or depletion of the U-238 isotope of uranium. With a density about twice that of lead, DU is ideal for use in military armor and munitions, John Pierce Wise, Sr., and colleagues point out in the new study. DU dust produced in combat creates potentially frequent and widespread exposure for soldiers and non-combatants, who may inhale DU dust particles, the researchers note. However, there have been few studies on the health effects of lung exposure to DU, they add. In the new study, researchers tested the effects of DU on cultures of human lung cells. "This is the first article on the cytotoxicity and clastogenicity [chromosome damaging potential] of particulate and soluble DU in human bronchial cells," the study states. "These data suggest that exposure to particulate DU may pose a significant genotoxic risk and could possibly result in lung cancer." Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Chemical Society. Copyright © 1995-2007 ScienceDaily LLC — All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 37 Congressman Tom Udall: COLD WAR VETS OVERCOME MAJOR HURDLE IN BATTLE FOR JUST COMPENSATION New Mexico Congressional Delegation FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  MAY 4, 2007  WASHINGTON –U.S. Representative Tom Udall, D-N.M., and Senators Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and Pete Domenici, R-N.M., today applauded a federal advisory panel’s approval of a petition that could pave the way for hundreds of sick Los Alamos National Laboratory workers to receive compensation for their service. The panel, called the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, approved a petition late Thursday granting “Special Exposure Cohort” (SEC) status to workers who developed radiogenic cancers after having been employed for at least 250 days in certain technical areas at LANL between March 15, 1943 through Dec. 31, 1975.  The SEC eliminates the need for claimants to undergo the arduous Dose Reconstruction process.  The decision has the potential to affect 400-600 LANL claimants. The petition now requires the approval of Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt.  If endorsed by the secretary, the SEC petition will then be sent to Congress for a 30-day review and printed in the Federal Register before taking effect.  If the SEC petition is enacted, as is now expected, those who qualify will receive a lump sum payment of $150,000 and health care coverage to treat their illnesses.  These benefits would be made through the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), which Bingaman helped write into law in 2000.  In welcoming the advisory decision, the New Mexico lawmakers credited former State Rep. Harriett Ruiz for her persistence in being an advocate for the former LANL workers. "I am pleased that we have made this significant step towards reaching closure for many of my constituents who are sick, cold-war heroes, dying while awaiting a determination on their claims,” said Udall. “I commend Harriett for her relentless efforts to move the SEC forward and thank NIOSH and the Advisory Board for recognizing the need to compensate them for their efforts on behalf of our nation. I will be urging Secretary Leavitt to promptly approve this SEC.  There has already been too long of a delay.”   “This is good news for former LANL employees who were made sick through their service during the Cold War,” Bingaman said.  “Thousands of workers took part in experiments at LANL – and only later were some of them determined to be dangerous to their health.  I strongly believe they should receive compensation and medical care for the important work they performed.  I commend Mrs. Ruiz for working so hard to help these LANL workers.” “It has been a long and arduous haul for these former Los Alamos lab workers and their families.  This decision is a major step forward toward finally getting them the compensation they deserve,” Domenici said.  “I commend Mrs. Ruiz for being so diligent in her quest to ensure that these workers are compensated.  I will ask Secretary Leavitt to push this process closer to its finish.” The SEC petition was submitted in early 2006 by Ruiz, who was acting on behalf of her late husband Ray Ruiz, who succumbed to lung cancer in May 2004.  Mr. Ruiz worked at LANL where he was exposed to harmful doses of radiation. His last wish was for Harriett to continue his advocacy on behalf of his fellow workers. “I made a promise to my husband to continue his fight for just compensation for the EEOICPA claimants,” Mrs. Ruiz said. “This SEC is a first step in fulfilling not only my promise to Ray, but the government's promise to these sick workers.  This victory could not have been realized without the tremendous support of many different individuals, including our federal representatives, Andrew Evaskovich of the International Guards Union in Los Alamos, House Speaker Ben Lujan and NM State Representative Jeanette Wallace who were co-petitioners on the SEC, and of course the encouragement and prayers from the Los Alamos EEOICPA claimants.” The National Institution for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), which is responsible for conducting research and recommendations for the compensation of work-related illnesses and radiation dose reconstruction under EEOICPA, asked Mrs. Ruiz to redraft her SEC petition three times before it was formally accepted for review. Subsequently, Mrs. Ruiz and Udall testified in Washington before the NIOSH Board in June of last year urging an expedited review and approval of the Special Cohort Status because of the increasingly high mortality rate of the early LANL workers and their survivors.  Three months ago NIOSH issued a favorable report on the Ruiz petition, making the determination that it is impossible to reconstruct radiation doses received internally in the body during the early years of the lab’s existence before reliable monitoring methods for detection had been developed.  NIOSH’s report was given to the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, which has the authority to make recommendations to the White House.  During a public hearing of the board last month, Bingaman urged that the Ruiz petition be approved.  The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health reviewed and approved the petition during this week’s series of meetings in Westminster, CO.    This is an official Web site of the United States House of Representatives. Congressman Tom Udall 1410 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 Phone 202-225-6190  Fax  202-226-1331 ***************************************************************** 38 IRNA: EP wants Denmark to act over 1968 US nuclear air crash Brussels, May 10, IRNA EU-Denmark-Nuclear The European Parliament voted by 544 votes to 29, with 40 abstentions, Thursday in favour of a resolution calling on Denmark to take belated action in relation to the alleged health consequences of the 1968 crash in Greenland of a US plane carrying nuclear bombs. On 21 January 1968, a US B-52 bomber with several nuclear weapons on board crashed near the Thule Air Base in North-Western Greenland, releasing several kilos of weapons grade plutonium. The plutonium contaminated the immediate snow and ice at the crash site and was carried by high winds and water over an extensive area. After clean-up operations - in which Danish workers volunteered to participate alongside US personnel - the US conducted regular medical monitoring of its air force staff. No similar monitoring was conducted by the Danish Government of the Danish civilian workers or the Greenlanders, many of whom continued to work at the Thule base and live in the area for several years thereafter, according to an EP statement. The issue was raised in the EP as the result of a petition sent in by a Mr Jeffrey Carswell, who was involved in arranging for the removal of contaminated debris, and later diagnosed with cancerous conditions and has undergone eight major operations. He argues that his health problems are linked to radiation contamination following the crash and that many Thule survivors developed similar radiogenic conditions. Mr Carswell complained that the Danish authorities failed to evacuate the workers from the site at the time, to warn them or to inform them about the extensive radiation, or to make the necessary follow-up medical tests and examinations. He also said Denmark has refused to allow public access to the 1968 scientific records of the case. News sent: 19:26 Thursday May 10, 2007 Print ***************************************************************** 39 Herald Sun: Children 'raped during French nuke tests' NEWS.com.au | By Xavier La Canna in Auckland May 10, 2007 02:35pm Article from: AAP FRENCH Polynesia is learning of another legacy of French nuclear testing - the alleged rape of scores of children by an army nurse at a military base. The children were allegedly raped years ago as they slept, drugged, in a military hospital on Hao Atoll, a military base for nuclear testing at nearby Mururoa Atoll. Philippe Challand, 49, who worked as an anaesthetist at the military base between 1993 and 1998, is accused of drugging and sexually abusing at least 41 children who were to undergo surgery at the facility. Those allegedly molested by Challand are believed to be aged between seven and 14 and were the children of people who worked at the base, or came from nearby islands for treatment. He was captured by French authorities in July last year, after the 17-year-old son of a woman he was living with in Auxerre, in central France, found videotapes of the alleged crimes and went to police. Raphael Pierre, from the Les Nouvelles De Tahiti newspaper, said dozens of Challand's alleged victims were being found and told what had happened. "It is delicate to go and tell someone who is now maybe 25 that they were raped 10 years ago by this man," Pierre said. "The victims don't know they are victims. Their parents don't know either," he said. Challand was sent from France to Tahiti in September and is in jail awaiting trial. Pierre said Challand was never suspected of the crimes even though the soldier had enjoyed spending time with young people. "He was a very simple ordinary guy. He was the president of the association of young snooker players while he was in France," he said. Hao Atoll is a coral atoll that forms part of the Tuamotu Archipelago in French Polynesia, a former French territory. The last French nuclear test at Mururoa Atoll was on January 27, 1996, and the military base at Hao Atoll, including the hospital, was closed down in 2002. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 40 Serbianna.com: Radiating waste returned from Bosnia to be deposited safely May 08, 2007 7:16 PM Budapest, May 7 (MTI) - The radiating metal waste returned to Budapest from the ironworks of Zenica, Bosnia-Herzegovina, two weeks ago will soon be deposited at a safe nuclear waste dump near Puspokszilagy, C Hungary, an expert of the facility told MTI on Monday. The six radiating iron rods, which were found among a 50-tonne metal waste consignment sent to Zenica from Budapest, are temporarily kept at the isotope storage facility of the National Emergency Service for Radiation Health, Janos Kasza said. Director Laszlo Ballai of the service told MTI that the isotope contaminated radiating parts, estimated to weigh 5 to 10 kilograms, would be cut off the rods and put into barrels, then delivered to the nuclear waste dump. The Puspokszilagy facility, opened in 1976, received 30 barrels of radiating hazardous materials last year, and a similar amount is expected this year, Janos Kasza said, adding that the materials pose no danger whatsoever to the environment. Copyright Serbianna.com Since 1999 ***************************************************************** 41 Chillicothe Gazette: Waste dump not in plan for Piketon www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Thursday, May 10, 2007 Jean Schmidt One of the biggest challenges public officials face is separating facts from rhetoric. A while back, handbills were distributed and phone calls made claiming I supported a nuclear waste dump at the Department of Energy's facility at Piketon. In fact, quite the opposite is true. I will be introducing legislation this week that will prevent such a thing from ever happening at the Piketon Plant. The confusion centered around a proposal for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant - more commonly known as the Piketon Plant - located in Pike County. The proposed study is part of the Department of Energy's new program known as GNEP, which stands for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. GNEP is a program that plans to recycle spent fuel rods and convert them to new fuel for our nation's nuclear power plants. GNEP holds promise for revitalizing nuclear power in the United States, increasing our national security and reducing nuclear waste in our environment. In the United States, nuclear power provides one-fifth of our electricity and reduces the annual release of millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power will continue to play a significant role in meeting our energy needs. The major drawback to nuclear power is the waste. Spent fuel rods are to be stored in Yucca Mountain, which is located in Nevada, once construction of the waste storage site is completed. The GNEP recycling program will allow us to reduce both the volume of waste at the Yucca Mountain site and the radioactivity of that waste. The Department of Energy's Piketon facility currently houses a uranium-enrichment facility - the American Centrifuge Project. Soon, all of the nuclear fuel made in America will be enriched at the Piketon Plant. The plant has a long and proud history of enriching uranium. With the full support of the local unions, local elected officials and businesses, community leaders have submitted a proposal to add the GNEP project to the Piketon facility's responsibilities. In fact, Piketon has been chosen as one of 11 sites the Department of Energy is reviewing. Billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs will go to the final site selected. Some have mischaracterized dramatically the proposed GNEP project. They use rhetoric describing the program as a plan to put a nuclear waste dump at Piketon. Yucca Mountain is the repository for nuclear waste in the Untied States and no one is trying to alter that. My legislation makes that point crystal clear. Under my legislation, it would be illegal for the government to build a so-called GNEP nuclear waste dump at Piketon. I don't know if Piketon will be selected. The GNEP competition is fierce. I do know there will be no nuclear waste dump constructed in Piketon or anywhere else in the 2nd Congressional District. I will continue to keep you updated on the proposed GNEP project. (Schmidt represents the 2nd Congressional District, which includes Pike County.) ====================================================================== Poor Jean . . . Her biggest challenge is keeping her feet out of her pie hole. Quote - Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority leader: "Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen." Opening the Yucca Mountain Repository is a political decision. Maybe Yucca Mountain will come to fruition maybe it won’t. The GNEP project, wherever it's eventually located, will require a final long term repository as all waste coming through the recycling process can't be recycled. If there is no long term repository in place when the GNEP recycling program begins where will the waste be stored? Maybe at the GNEP recycling plant? Maybe at Piketon? Maybe a nuclear waste dump at Piketon? Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 7:29 am Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 42 reportonbusiness.com: Native concerns derail uranium project LORI MCLEOD With files from Canadian Press May 10, 2007 A regulatory group comprised of nominees from the First Nations and federal and territorial governments has recommended a halt to Ur-Energy Inc.'s The decision raised concerns other junior uranium miners could face added uncertainty as they explore in the mineral-rich region that straddles the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. "It is the Review Board's opinion that this development, in combination with the cumulative effects of other present and reasonably foreseeable future developments in the Upper Thelon basin, will cause adverse cultural impacts of a cumulative nature to areas of very high spiritual importance to aboriginal peoples. These impacts are so significant that the development cannot be justified," Gabrielle Mackenzie-Scott, chair of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Review Board, said in the group's decision. As uranium prices have surged from $7 (U.S.) a pound a few years ago to more than $100 a pound now, the area has been the subject of intense staking. At least 40 companies are searching for uranium there. They have registered hundreds of prospecting permits, claims and mineral leases. In a statement yesterday, Ur-Energy said it believed its plan to drill exploration holes at its Screech Lake project had met the highest environmental standards. "We are disappointed by the Review Board's recommendation and will continue to pursue any and all approaches that will allow us to advance exploration on the project as soon as possible," Bill Boberg, Ur-Energy's president and chief executive, said in a statement. Mr. Boberg also noted that the setback does not affect the company's exploration activities in other regions, including its more developed properties in Wyoming. It is now up to federal Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice to decide whether to accept the group's recommendation, which could affect the future of hundreds of other mineral leases and claims in a large portion of the southeast Northwest Territories. Other companies exploring the area include Bayswater Uranium Corp., Uravan Minerals Inc., and Cogema Resources Inc. While it is unclear whether the recommendation regarding Ur-Energy will affect these other companies, a spokeswoman for Ur-Energy said the industry is likely bracing for bad news. "I think the industry will be affected by this, and will have to come to grips with this," she said. *** UR-ENERGY Close: $4.54, down 3 cents © Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON  Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 43 Carlsbad Current-Argus: DOE funds Carlsbad projects in 07 budget By Kyle Marksteiner Article Launched: 05/09/2007 08:05:35 PM MDT CARLSBAD ? Money for several Carlsbad projects is included in a $16.3 million Department of Energy funding package as part of the 2007 federal budget, according to a press release from the office of Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. New Mexico projects include $1 million for infrastructure improvements in Carlsbad, $2 million in funding for the disposal of remote handled waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant and $2.5 million for a WIPP records center. In previous years, Domenici has included specific earmarks for projects in New Mexico in the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill. However, the FY2007 Continuing Resolution was passed in February without earmarks. As a result, each agency and department has developed its own review process for deciding what projects to fund. "The Department (of Energy) has taken some of what were earmarks in the past, considered those and included some of those within the budget," explained Dave Moody, manager of the DOE Carlsbad Field Office. The funding amounts are generally less than the levels he was working on to secure in the FY 2007 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, Domenici said. "We're in a situation where DOE is making its own judgments on where to put the funding we've provided earlier this year," he said. "I am grateful for the resources being released by the DOE and hope they will be enough to keep these programs viable as we look to improve the situation for our labs and WIPP in the FY2008 appropriations process." Carlsbad Mayor Bob Forrest said efforts have been ongoing to secure additional funds for the community. "We appreciate the help of Senators Domenici and (Jeff) Bingaman, the Department of Energy and (Rep.) Steve Pearce," he said. "It shows you how important it is to make these trips back to Washington and get our case out to them." The $1 million will likely be used for road improvements as it has been used in the past, Forrest said. Forrest said he hopes to obtain additional WIPP acceleration funds, Department of Energy earmarks given to the city of Carlsbad because of the increased rate of shipments of transuranic waste to the nearby Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, in upcoming years. The money, Moody said, will follow the same guidelines as community impact funds in the past in terms of the city needing to request approval of the DOE to draw funds. The $2 million toward RH waste disposal is part of the budget for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Moody said. An additional $2.5 million was allotted toward the WIPP records center, according to the press release. It is similar to funds that have been used to establish the WIPP Records Archive in Carlsbad, Moody said. "We are working to look at consolidating it into one contract," Moody said. "The best way to look at it is (that) it is programmatic for the consolidated records program." Additional funding also went to Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, Los Alamos National Laboratories in Los Alamos and New Mexico Tech in Socorro. Copyright © 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 44 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Council questions request for funds By Stella Davis Article Launched: 05/09/2007 08:05:48 PM MDT CARLSBAD ? The Carlsbad City Council took no action Tuesday on a request from a local businessman seeking $1.5 million in WIPP acceleration funds to expand his asphalt business. Jerry Samaniego, owner of Affordable Asphalt, told the council he wants to add slurry seal and micro surfacing to his asphalt construction business. He said the $1.5 million would allow him to purchase the needed equipment. Councilman Brad Day said Samaniego's presentation and business plan was long on the benefits of slurry seal, but short on the economic development aspect, which WIPP acceleration funds are tied to. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant acceleration funds have been awarded to Carlsbad on a year-by-year basis from the federal government to help offset the economic impact of WIPP's anticipated early closure due to an accelerated cleanup schedule. The city of Carlsbad has received $3.5 million annually in acceleration funds for the past four years. The money has been used for a number of projects including the recruitment of the medical transcription company DTS America, a loan to help build a biodiesel facility and a partial funding of the construction of the Permian Basin Regional Training Center. "I think Mr. Samaniego's business plan needs to focus on the economic development benefits rather than why Carlsbad should slurry seal its roads. I would like to hear more about the economic development aspect," Day said. Questioned by the council why Samaniego did not go through the normal procedure of presenting his proposal to the Carlsbad Department of Development, which in turn would make a recommendation to the city, Mayor Bob Forrest interjected on Samaniego's behalf. He said Samaniego missed the deadline to make his presentation and asked that he be allowed to come before the council. "Although requests for WIPP acceleration funds go through the CDOD first, ultimately, we, the city council, make the decision on WIPP acceleration funds," Forrest said, agreeing with the council that Samaniego's request and business plan should be sent the CDOD. Valerie Murrill, CDOD board president, who was at the city council meeting on another matter, said that to her knowledge the CDOD has not seen Samaniego's business plan and proposal Forrest said the city has about $900,000 left in WIPP acceleration funds that would not be available to Samaniego. However, he said the city expects more funds in the new fiscal year that starts July 1, and that Samaniego would have an opportunity to seek those funds. Forrest told Samaniego it would be at least a month before his request and recommendation from the CDOD would be put back on the city council agenda. Reading from his business plan, Samaniego projected that since his slurry seal business would be the only one in this part of the state and only the second statewide it could bring in a potential $2.7 million this year, netting a profit of more than $600,000. Samaniego said slurry sealing roads costs just "pennies on the dollar" compared to chip sealing and laying asphalt down. He said his business could save the city a lot of money in taking care of its streets. However, he said in order to be able to provide the service he needs to purchase the equipment that costs between $400,000 and $600,000. Councilwoman Louise Tracy questioned why Samaniego is seeking the federal funds rather than getting a loan from a commercial lender. "Why don't you go to the bank for a loan?" Tracy asked. Samaniego did not supply an answer to Tracy's question, but noted that he has been approved to participate in a minority small business program that could provide him some money to go into the slurry seal business. After Samaniego's overview of slurry seal and the cheaper cost of using it compared to asphalt, Tracy said that if Samaniego considers it "such a wonderful deal" then the city should consider buying slurry seal equipment for its public works department so the city can do its own slurry sealing of city streets. Councilman Paul Aguilar said that at one time the city had owned a slurry seal machine, but got rid of it some time ago. "We had one in the street department. But that was when we had over 10 people working in that department. Now we have eight or less," he said. Forrest said that he spoke with Frank Weldon, Eddy County's road superintendent, about the use of slurry seal and was told that the county does not like to use it. City Public Works Director Luis Camero said that the city uses very little slurry seal for its roads, and if it needs it, the work is contracted out. "From what I am hearing, it is used more for preventive road maintenance. There is a place for slurry seal, but I'm not sure it could be used on our streets," Camero said. Councilman Jeff Diamond said that the council's intent is not to "spook" Samaniego from growing his business in Carlsbad, but he believes Samaniego should go before the CDOD, as have other companies that have sought and been awarded WIPP Acceleration funds. "That way they can take a look at this and then make a recommendation to us," Diamond said. Councilman Jimmie Cisneros agreed. "There is just not enough information in Mr. Samaniego's proposal for us to make a decision at this time," Cisneros said. Copyright © 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 45 UPI: U.S. may lift duty on Russian uranium United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: May. 10, 2007 at 2:02 PM MOSCOW, May. 10 (UPI) -- U.S. officials may soon lift trade restrictions on Russian uranium, a report in Moscow said Thursday. A 116 percent import duty on Russian uranium products supplied outside of a 1993 "Megatons to Megawatts" agreement could be lifted during a June visit by Russian nuclear chief Sergei Kiryenko, RIA Novosti reported. Under the 1993 agreement, highly enriched uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons is converted into nuclear fuel for U.S. commercial reactors and sold to the United States through an intermediary, Novosti reported. The U.S. International Trade Commission voted in July to maintain the 116 percent import duty, saying other Russian uranium imports would hurt the American economy, Novosti reported. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 UPI: Russia, Kazakhstan in uranium center deal United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: May. 10, 2007 at 12:22 PM ASTANA, Kazakhstan, May. 10 (UPI) -- Siberia will be home to a uranium enrichment center under the latest agreement between Kazakhstan and Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin Thursday signed a deal with his Kazakh counterpart, Nursultan Nazarbaev, during a visit to the Kazakh capital, Astana. The center will be developed through consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, and will be available for use by countries apart from Russia and Kazakhstan to process nuclear fuel for energy use. The plan will allow other nations to avoid building a similar plant themselves. In addition to working together to build the enrichment center, Nazarbaev said Kazakhstan will be committed to transporting most of its oil through Russian territory. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 47 SF Chronicle: Hunger strike against weapons Rick DelVecchio, Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, May 10, 2007 A group of more than 30 protesters at UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara and UC Santa Cruz said Wednesday that they have begun a hunger strike to oppose the University of California's role in nuclear weapons production. The group includes six UC Berkeley undergraduates who say they are prepared to fast for eight days -- until UC's governing Board of Regents takes up an emergency resolution opposing the university's management of federal weapons production at the Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories. The students, including 17 at the Santa Barbara campus and 11 at Santa Cruz, are members of a statewide group that has been demonstrating for UC to cease involvement in nuclear weapons production. The protests have been continuing for five years. "I don't think education and mass destruction should go hand in hand," said Amanda Cocking, a third-year student in conservation and resource studies at UC Berkeley. The fast is her first experience with political activism, Cocking said. Natalia Gaouke, a third-year student in peace and conflict studies at Cal, said she sees the fast as a positive experience. "It's a way to be able to put a little of your soul into something you feel strongly about," she said. "It undermines the individual enough to be able to see the greater picture." "At this point we're feeling like the current nuclear weapons situation, and the fact that the regents haven't listened to us, is calling us to take more dramatic action," said Chelsea Collogne, a 2006 UC Berkeley graduate who works for an anti-nuclear organization and is participating in the fast. "The scary thing is, this bomb design does have new capabilities so it's part of an arms race," Collogne said, adding that the protesters fear the new technologies could lead the United States into a military confrontation with Iran. Collogne said the protesters at UC Berkeley will ingest only water over the next eight days. She said they will break the fast next Thursday night or Friday morning after the regents meet at UCSF's Mission Bay campus for their regular monthly meeting. Collogne said some students at the other two campuses have pledged to continue the fast until the regents pass a resolution to sever ties with the weapons labs. The resolution is not on the agenda but Collogne said the group has sent an emergency resolution for consideration by the regents' lab oversight committee. Will Parrish, a UC Santa Cruz alumnus who is also taking part in the action, said the demonstrators' primary message is that work on new weapons at the Livermore lab and on plutonium warheads at Los Alamos violates Article VI of the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The level of involvement in the strike is a matter of personal choice for each protester, Parrish said. The protesters have created a blog to serve as their public forum. It can be seen at: nonukeshungerstrike.blogspot.com/. E-mail Rick DelVecchio at rdelvecchio@sfchronicle.com. This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle ***************************************************************** 48 Aiken Today: SREL won't receive more DOE funding AikenStandard.com Thu, May 10, 2007 By JOSH VOORHEES Staff writer The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory received official word Monday that it will receive no additional funding from the Department of Energy, a possibly fatal blow to the financially-strapped independent research facility. The laboratory had proposed more than 20 research projects to the department in what was believed by many to be the last significant opportunity for the laboratory to secure the additional funding that SREL researchers say is necessary in order to keep the facility in operation. However, after completion of the DOE scientific peer review process, it was concluded that those projects were not mission-critical ? a prerequisite for funding under the most recent cooperative agreement that essentially dictates the SREL budget. The review process decision capped DOE funding of SREL at $1.8 million for this fiscal year, an amount that laboratory officials have repeatedly stated will run out by the end of this month and likely lead to the closure of SREL. Laboratory officials also expressed frustration over the review process which they saw as drastically different from the scientific peer reviews they are accustomed to. According to SREL Director Paul Bertsch, the laboratory received neither a clear definition of what DOE considered to be mission-critical nor were they ever provided with a clear time table for the review process. Adding to the researchers' frustrations is the fact that the department seemingly judged the proposals on only a brief description ? typically running only a few hundred words in length ? of each project rather than a full research proposal that typically includes 15 to 20 pages of written description, said Bertsch. "It's a huge difference. SREL is very familiar with submitting research proposals," he said. "You can't have a peer review process without the information." According to Bertsch, SREL volunteered to make available detailed research plans for each project in order to give reviewers additional information, but department officials never requested the detailed plans. "We have also yet to receive comments from the review," said Bertsch, referring to comments made by peer reviewers explaining their decisions that are normally part of a peer review process. A DOE spokesperson contacted for comment Wednesday could not provide specific details about the DOE review process but called the process a thorough one that examined both the scientific merit of each proposal as well as the ability for the projects to further the department's goals. "The proposals were evaluated on both their scientific merits and their ability to further the department's mission of reducing high-level nuclear materials and waste at the Savannah River Site," said Megan Barnett, a DOE spokesperson. "That is the department's review process, and it is a comprehensive one." While the department recognized that SREL has provided a valuable service to DOE in its environmental stewardship at SRS, officials refuted the idea that the fate of the 56-year-old laboratory rests in the department's hands. "Moving forward we would hope that (SREL) would be available in the future, but we understand that budgetary concerns exist," said Barnett. "Ultimately, those concerns must be addressed by the University of Georgia (which SREL is a research unit of) and the laboratory." Calls to Dr. David Lee, vice president for research at UGA, were unanswered Wednesday evening. Barnett stressed that regardless of SREL's fate, DOE would continue to make ecological and environmental evaluation a priority at SRS. "The department continues to place an importance on the evaluation of human health and the environment," said Barnett. "None of that has changed." A 5-year cooperative agreement between DOE and UGA was signed late last fall. Under that agreement, both the department and the university agreed to provide $1 million in core funding to SREL. Any additional DOE funding for the laboratory was required to be approved on a task-by-task basis by a DOE review process. Since the agreement was signed, SREL proponents have voiced their concerns that without broad funding the laboratory would be unable to continue in its role as an independent steward of the environment at the Savannah River Site. For their part, DOE has said that they have encouraged SREL researchers to secure additional funding from other sources. The department has maintained that they will continue to conduct environmental oversight at SRS on a task-by-task basis by independent experts and accredited laboratories as the need arises. Contact Josh Voorhees at jvoorhees@aikenstandard.com. © 2005 The AikenStandard. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 49 DOE: DOE Proposes Regulations for Loan Guarantee Program May 10, 2007 Program to spur clean, innovative energy technologies WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for its Loan Guarantee program, which will help spur investment in projects that employ new, clean energy technologies. Projects within DOE’s Loan Guarantee program will help sustain economic growth, yield environmental benefits and allow for a more stable and secure energy supply. Under the FY’07 Continuing Resolution, Congress provided DOE with authority to issue guarantees for up to $4 billion in loans; and in the Administration’s FY’08 budget, DOE requested $9 billion in loan guarantee authority. “This demonstrates our desire to foster implementation and commercialization of new, environmentally friendly technologies that will reduce emissions and strengthen our energy and economic security,” Secretary Bodman said. “This program will support promising energy technologies that will help encourage increased use of cleaner sources of energy worldwide.” DOE’s Loan Guarantee program, authorized in Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), aims to encourage early commercial use of new or significantly improved technologies in energy projects. By providing the full faith and credit of the United States government, loan guarantees will enable DOE to share some of the financial risks of projects that employ new technologies that avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Projects supported by loan guarantees will help fulfill President Bush’s goal of reducing our reliance on imported sources of energy by diversifying our nation’s energy mix and increasing energy efficiency. DOE seeks a broad portfolio of large and small projects, from a wide variety of technologies. Within DOE’s FY’08 budget request to guarantee up to $9 billion in loans, DOE has proposed to guarantee $4 billion in loans for central power generation facilities such as nuclear facilities or carbon sequestration optimized coal power plants; $4 billion in loans for projects that promote biofuels and clean transportation fuels; and $1 billion in loans for projects using new technologies for electric transmission facilities or renewable power generation systems. Projects seeking loan guarantees will undergo disciplined and rigorous reviews, necessary to take proper account of the potential risks of a project. Ultimately, the issuance of these loan guarantees will depend on the merits and benefits of particular project proposals and their compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. The proposed regulations provide the following: * The Title XVII loan guarantee program will be implemented through a series of solicitations. The solicitations may target specific technology areas or be general; * Projects must employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the United States at the time the loan guarantee agreement is executed; * DOE may guarantee up to 90% of the amount of any loan as long as DOE does not issue guarantees for more than 80% of the total cost of a project; * In the event of a loan default, DOE will have a superior lien on all project assets pledged as collateral for the guaranteed loan; * The Secretary must determine that there is a “reasonable prospect” of repayment of the guaranteed debt; * DOE must charge and collect fees sufficient to cover applicable administrative expenses; * Borrower-paid Credit Subsidy Costs and administrative fees paid to DOE may not be included within total project costs for the purposes of determining the amount of guarantees that DOE can issue for a project; * Receipt of other governmental assistance does not disqualify a project from receiving a Title XVII loan guarantee; however, when evaluating a project’s application for a Title XVII loan guarantee, DOE will consider the extent to which a project will receive other governmental assistance, (e.g., grants, tax credits, other loan guarantees); * The guaranteed portion of a partially guaranteed loan or debt obligation may not be separated from or “stripped” from the non-guaranteed portion of the loan if the loan is participated, syndicated or otherwise resold in the secondary debt market; and * The borrower must have a significant equity stake in a project. In August 2006, DOE issued guidelines and a solicitation for pre-applications for up to $2 billion in loan guarantees. By the December 31, 2006 deadline for this solicitation, DOE received 143 pre-applications requesting more than $27 billion in loan guarantee protection (for project costs estimated at more than $51 billion). DOE continues to review and evaluate these pre-applications. Under the FY’07 Continuing Resolution, signed by President Bush in February 2007, DOE received authorization to guarantee up to $4 billion in loan guarantees. Section 20320(b) of the CR further provides that no loan guarantees may be issued under the Title XVII program until DOE issues final regulations. The NOPR will be open to public comment for 45 days once it is published in the Federal Register. Additonal information on the DOE’s NOPR and the loan guarantee program. Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 50 DOE: SPR Awards Exchange Contract to Shell Trading May 10, 2007 Deliveries to Begin in August WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today awarded a contract to Shell Trading for exchange of 8.7 million barrels of royalty oil produced from the Gulf Coast for crude oil meeting the quality specifications of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The exchange oil will be delivered to two SPR sites, West Hackberry, Louisiana and Bryan Mound, Texas. The offer submitted by Shell Trading represented the highest value of specification-grade oil for the Reserve. Deliveries are expected to begin in August 2007 at a modest rate of approximately 50,000 barrels per day for a period of six months. The contract terms apply royalty-in-kind exchange provisions that require the contractor to take delivery of oil owed to the U.S. Government from offshore Gulf Coast locations and deliver a volume of crude oil to the SPR. That volume is adjusted for transportation and quality differentials that meet the SPR’s quality specifications. This action is taken in accordance with the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which directs that the SPR fill to its authorized size of one billion barrels. The RIK program is managed by the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service and represents a means of filling the reserve in a deliberate and cost-effective manner. The RIK exchange program does not involve cash payment, but rather an exchange of product already owned by the Government. The RIK program is separate from the SPR’s recent solicitations to purchase crude to replace oil sold on an emergency basis after Hurricane Katrina. Earlier this month, DOE suspended 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 690 million barrels in inventory stored in the SPR's underground salt caverns located along the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and Texas. Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 51 Tri-City Herald: House OKs HAMMER study, requires lab report Published Thursday, May 10th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY, HERALD STAFF WRITER A potential new role for the HAMMER training facility and a reminder to the Department of Homeland Security about the need for new laboratory space in Richland were included in a U.S. House bill passed Wednesday. The Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008 was approved Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 296 to 126. The House voted earlier in the day to amend the bill to require the Department of Homeland Security to submit plans to Congress detailing how it will meet its financial commitment for new laboratory and office space at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland. The amendment was sponsored by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and co-sponsored by Reps. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., and Dave Reichert, R-Wash., both members of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Buildings now used by the national lab for homeland security research in Hanford's 300 Area just north of Richland are being torn down as part of the nuclear reservation's cleanup. The 300 Area is contaminated from the fabrication of uranium fuel and research for the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The national lab plans to replace some of the facilities being demolished with a Physical Sciences Facility to be built just north of Horn Rapids Road on the north end of the lab's Richland campus. The new facility and the refurbishing of some buildings that may be retained in the 300 Area would cost $224 million. Two other facilities would be built near the Physical Sciences Facility with private funds. The Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Nuclear Security Administration agreed in 2006 on how to split up the costs annually of the $224 million project. The Department of Homeland Security was to contribute $25 million for fiscal year 2008, but that money is not included in the budget request to Congress for 2008. "In order for the (Department of Homeland Security) to carry out its mission to protect our nation, it is critical that the department have the facilities that it needs," Hastings said on the House floor. The authorization bill also includes language requiring the Department of Homeland Security to study the feasibility of training new Border Patrol agents at federal training centers, including the HAMMER training center at Hanford. "HAMMER has one of the most extensive hands-on training facilities in the nation, making it an ideal place to provide training for our Border Patrol," Hastings said in a statement. In a program already in place, 2,500 Customs and Border Protection officers have been trained at HAMMER through a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory project that provides information and hands-on exercises to detect and intercept materials used in the production of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 52 Tri-City Herald: Hanford regulators say proposed budgets too small Published Thursday, May 10th, 2007 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The proposed 2009 target budget number for Hanford is not large enough without additional funds to meet legal requirements for cleanup, Hanford regulators believe. The initial budget target totals $1.896 billion, which is down slightly from the $1.912 billion being spent in the current year, fiscal year 2007. And even though Hanford budgets are proposed to climb to $2.349 billion by fiscal year 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency still is concerned. "If you look ahead to the budget targets for the next five years, they fall way short of what is needed," Nick Ceto, EPA Hanford project manager, said at a lightly attended meeting on the 2009 budget Wednesday night in Richland. The Department of Energy would be short $2 billion from 2009 through 2013 to accomplish what EPA would like to see done under the DOE Hanford Richland Operations Office, according to DOE. The Richland Operations Office is responsible for Hanford work other than the tank farms holding 53 million gallons of radioactive waste and the vitrification plant being built to treat the waste along with any supplemental technology that might be used. The state of Washington, which regulates Hanford with EPA, also is concerned about the 2009 budget target number. "Hanford's budget will buy a lot of work, but the cleanup is not on schedule," according to comments prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The Richland Operations Office target of $935 million for 2009 is 60 percent of the $1.5 billion needed to comply with legally binding Tri-Party Agreement requirements and other environmental regulations, according to the state. Milestones have already been missed both under DOE's Hanford Richland Operations Office and also its Office of River Protection, which oversees the tank farms and vitrification plant. The state is pleased that funding of $690 million has been restored for design and construction of the $12.2 billion vitrification plant in both 2008 and 2009. But the plant is not scheduled to open until 2019, eight years past the Tri-Party Agreement deadline, under DOE's current schedule and budget proposal. The Department of Ecology also is concerned about insufficient money to operate the tank farms and retrieve radioactive waste from leak-prone older tanks. "We do not agree that tank farm activities should slow to match the delays" at the vitrification plant, said the state. Waste retrieval is too slow to meet Tri-Party Agreement deadlines and is significantly slower than the contractor could achieve using existing technologies, according to the state. The Wednesday night meeting was held to provide information to the public and collect comments. However, the majority of the approximately 35 people at the meeting represented DOE or its regulators. However, the public can still submit comments on line at www.hanford.gov until June 13. The comments will be considered as DOE prepares budget requests for fiscal year 2009 to forward to Congress. DOE headquarters typically makes additions to the original budget targets that could increase the fiscal year 2009 budget request above the current $1.9 million target. For instance, for fiscal year 2008 about $185 million was added to the original budget target. "We urge citizens and stakeholders to press Congress and their representatives to fulfill the federal government's commitment to the people of the Northwest region for the safe and final cleanup of the Hanford Site," the state said. Budget meetings also are planned June 4 in Seattle, June 6 in Spokane, June 12 in Hood River, Ore., and June 13 in Portland. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 53 Tri-City Herald: Power project on back burner Published Thursday, May 10th, 2007 BY CHRIS MULICK, HERALD OLYMPIA BUREAU OLYMPIA -- Energy Northwest this week asked the state to put off its permitting review of the public power consortium's proposed $1.5 billion power project in Kalama, just days after the governor signed this year's climate change bill into law. Senate Bill 6001 will prevent Washington utilities from buying additional power supplies from conventional coal plants. It also would give projects like Energy Northwest's proposed Pacific Mountain Energy Center, which would run on gasified coal, petroleum coke and possibly other fuels, five years to sequester carbon dioxide emissions underground. Otherwise, emissions would have to be offset with drastic measures, such as buying a dirty power plant and shutting it down. Energy Northwest isn't sure five years will be enough time to determine the feasibility of sequestration. Moreover, either option for curbing greenhouse gas emissions could drive up the cost of power from the 680-megawatt project significantly. And before it takes the project to potential customers for financial commitments, the organization wants questions answered about how the law will be implemented and how agency rules will be written. "The intended message is we're going to need more power, whether it comes from PMEC or somewhere else," said Energy Northwest spokesman Brad Peck said. "We've got to be looking now. That should not be interpreted as we're walking away from this project." But environmentalists, who want to be sure sequestration will occur before construction starts, say it could be the beginning of the end for the project. "I think it's a prudent move on their part," said Marc Krasnowsky, a spokesman for the Northwest Energy Coalition. "I think they've concluded their public utility customers are likely to be spending a lot more for the power from the proposed plant than they had expected to." In his Tuesday letter to the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Energy Northwest Vice President Jack Baker indicated the organization will consider other power supply options for its members. "Given the uncertainty surrounding SB6001 implementation for PMEC and the time required to build major generation projects, we must immediately begin looking at alternative options for regional power supplies," he wrote. That could include nuclear power. "It's been a topic of discussion among the leadership here about what the likelihood is," Peck said. "All of that has been in the realm of forward thinking and brainstorming." But despite nuclear power's lack of greenhouse gas emissions, Krasnowsky indicated there wouldn't be environmental support for it. "Until we can really deal with the nuclear waste issue I don't see how we can go ahead with additional nuclear generation," he said. "It's a non-starter." © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 54 Hanford News: Regulators say target budgets too small This story was published Thursday, May 10th, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The proposed 2009 target budget number for Hanford is not large enough without additional funds to meet legal requirements for cleanup, Hanford regulators believe. The initial budget target totals $1.896 billion, which is down slightly from the $1.912 billion being spent in the current year, fiscal 2007. And even though Hanford budgets are proposed to climb to $2.349 billion by fiscal year 2013, the Environmental Protection Agency still is concerned. "If you look ahead to the budget targets for the next five years, they fall way short of what is needed," Nick Ceto, EPA Hanford project manager, said at a sparsely attended meeting on the 2009 budget Wednesday night in Richland. The Department of Energy would be short $2 billion from 2009 through 2013 to accomplish what EPA would like to see done under the DOE Hanford Richland Operations Office, according to DOE. The Richland Operations Office is responsible for Hanford work other than the tank farms holding 53 million gallons of radioactive waste and the vitrification plant being built to treat the waste along with any supplemental technology that might be used. The state of Washington, which regulates Hanford with EPA, also is concerned about the 2009 budget target number. "Hanford's budget will buy a lot of work, but the cleanup is not on schedule," according to comments prepared by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The Richland Operations Office target of $935 million for 2009 is 60 percent of the $1.5 billion needed to comply with legally binding Tri-Party Agreement requirements and other environmental regulations, according to the state. Milestones already have been missed under DOE's Hanford Richland Operations Office and also its Office of River Protection, which oversees the tank farms and vitrification plant. The state is pleased that funding of $690 million has been restored for design and construction of the $12.2 billion vitrification plant in both 2008 and 2009. But the plant is not scheduled to open until 2019, eight years past the Tri-Party Agreement deadline, under DOE's current schedule and budget proposal. The Department of Ecology also is concerned about insufficient money to operate the tank farms and retrieve radioactive waste from leak-prone older tanks. "We do not agree that tank farm activities should slow to match the delays" at the vitrification plant, said the state. Waste retrieval is too slow to meet Tri-Party Agreement deadlines and is significantly slower than the contractor could achieve using existing technologies, according to the state. The Wednesday night meeting was held to provide information to the public and collect comments. However, the majority of the 35 people at the meeting represented DOE or its regulators. However, the public still can submit comments on line at www.hanford.govcq until June 13. The comments will be considered as DOE prepares budget requests for fiscal year 2009 to forward to Congress. DOE headquarters typically makes additions to the original budget targets that could increase the fiscal 2009 budget request above the current$1.9 million target. For instance, for fiscal 2008 about $185 million was added to the original budget target. "We urge citizens and stakeholders to press Congress and their representatives to fulfill the federal government's commitment to the people of the Northwest region for the safe and final cleanup of the Hanford Site," the state said. Budget meetings also are planned June 4 in Seattle, June 6 in Spokane, June 12 in Hood River, Ore., and June 13 in Portland. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 55 Tri-City Herald: Richland nuclear plant to shut down Saturday Published Thursday, May 10th, 2007 Herald staff The Columbia Generating Station north of Richland is scheduled to shut down early Saturday for a refueling outage, its 18th since commencing operation in 1984. The 1,157-megawatt nuclear plant is to be down for at least 38 days while crews remove spent fuel assemblies and replace them with new ones while performing maintenance that can’t be done while the plant is running. For more of the story, see Friday's Herald. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 56 Reuters: US issues loan guarantee rules for energy projects Thu May 10, 2007 12:17PM EDT By Tom Doggett WASHINGTON, May 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. Energy Department on Thursday proposed regulations for a new program that would spur investment in clean energy by having the government repay a portion of the commercial loans, in case of default, that fund such projects. The loan guarantees would cover financing for refineries that produce ethanol made from farm waste, new nuclear power plants, electric generating plants that capture greenhouse gas emissions and other clean energy projects. Congress has already provided the Energy Department with the authority to issue up to $4 billion in loan guarantees for the current budget year, and the White House has asked for $9 billion more for the 2008 spending year that begins on Oct. 1. "This demonstrates our desire to foster implementation and commercialization of new, environmentally friendly technologies that will reduce emissions and strengthen our energy and economic security," Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said. "This program will support promising energy technologies that will help encourage increased use of cleaner sources of energy worldwide," he added. The Energy Department last August sought requests for $2 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects. By the end of the solicitation period on Dec. 31, the department received 143 requests for $27 billion in loan guarantees on projects estimated to cost more than $51 billion. Those applications are still being evaluated. The department said its $9 billion request for the 2008 budget year would cover $4 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plants or coal-burning power plants that capture greenhouse gas emissions; $4 billion in loans for projects that promote biofuels and clean transportation fuels, and $1 billion for improving the transmission of electricity or renewable power generation systems. The proposed regulations will be published in the Federal Register next week for public comment for 45 days. Until the program's regulations are finalized, the department can't issue any loan guarantees, which DOE officials said would probably occur in early 2008. Under the proposed regulations, the department said it may guarantee repayment on up to 90 percent of any loan as long as it does not guarantee more than 80 percent of the total cost of a project. The energy secretary would also have to determine that there is a "reasonable prospect" of a project's sponsor to repay the guaranteed debt. In the event of a loan default, the department would have a a right to all a project's assets pledged as collateral for the guaranteed loan. When evaluating an application, the department said it will consider what other government assistance a project will receive, such as grants, tax credits and accelerated depreciation. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 57 UPI: U.S. to fund nuclear fuel center design United Press International - NewsTrack - Science - Published: May. 10, 2007 at 10:35 AM WASHINGTON, May. 10 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Energy will provide up to $60 million for the design of a nuclear fuel recycling center and advanced recycling reactor. Studies resulting from the funding will include scope, schedule and cost information for the proposed facilities and will also identify technological needs. "Nuclear energy is a safe, environmentally sensitive and affordable way to meet the world's growing need for baseload electricity," U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Clay Sell said. "By further engaging engineering and design experts in the nuclear industry, we can spur radical development of new nuclear recycling technologies that are more proliferation-resistant and economically attractive." Sell said the funding announcement is intended to promote and develop nuclear industry expertise to provide conceptual design studies, technology roadmaps, and business and communications plans to support the design, construction and operation of an initial nuclear fuel recycling center and advanced recycling reactor. Three to six awards are expected to be determined later this year, with funding applications due by June 22. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 58 UPI: Energy Dept. issues loan-guarantee rules United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: May. 10, 2007 at 7:22 PM WASHINGTON, May. 10 (UPI) -- The U.S. Energy Department issued proposed regulations for a loan-guarantee program for new, eco-friendly energy projects, like nuclear. The money -- $13 billion between the 2007 adopted and 2008 requested fiscal years' budgets -- would give financial backing to energy projects that haven't made it to the market. Eligible projects, in part, would use new technology to "avoid, reduce or sequester" greenhouse-gas emissions, the 2005 Energy Policy Act states. The guidelines, which the department released Thursday, have to be made final before it can give federal backing to the loans. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for public comment in the Federal Register. One of the more controversial parts of the regulations has been mixed interpretation of the Act. The department's rules allows a guarantee of up to 90 percent of loans for a given project, though not more than for 80 percent of the total cost of the project. Nuclear companies, specifically, were worried they wouldn't get enough federal backing for the needed loans on the $3 billion to $4 billion price tag to build a nuclear plant. Previous government interpretation was to cover only 80 percent of the loans for the project. "Given the complexity of the financing issues for capital-intensive power projects, NEI will need to review these proposed regulations in-depth and consult with our member companies before commenting on the substance of the proposals," Richard Myers, vice president of policy development for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade arm, said in a release shortly after the department's announcement. "This demonstrates our desire to foster implementation and commercialization of new, environmentally friendly technologies that will reduce emissions and strengthen our energy and economic security," Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said. "This program will support promising energy technologies that will help encourage increased use of cleaner sources of energy worldwide." The FY2008 proposed $9 billion in backing will be apportioned among new nuclear or clean-coal plants -- $4 billion -- another $4 billion for fuels and $1 billion for transmission and power generation, according to a department statement. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************