***************************************************************** 05/27/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.124 ***************************************************************** 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 BBC NEWS: N Korea 'only tested one missile' 2 BBC NEWS: US fears grow over China military 3 US: SF Chronicle: The warhead worry 4 AU ABC: China hits back at US arms concerns. 5 GU: Environmental lobbyist demands action from government mired in NUCLEAR REACTORS 6 US: Yakima Herald Republic: Northwest less likely to reconsider nucl 7 AFP: APEC energy meeting begins in Australia - 8 London Times: Nuclear clean-up fund planned-Business-Industry Sector 9 IHT: India-US nuclear deal talks resume this week as top American 10 US: Wisconsin State Journal: Wineke: Warming up to nuclear power 11 US: CP: Nuclear power alternative in Alberta raising questions of ap 12 US: Decature Daily: Just how affordable is nuclear power? 13 Scotsman.com: Nuclear's regeneration hots up 14 US: JS Online: Tax times two in sale of plant 15 Guardian Unlimited: US-India Nuclear Deal Talks to Resume 16 AFP: Top US nuclear envoy arrives in Indonesia 17 Scotsman.com News: Labour MPs plot to strip Salmond of nuclear veto 18 US: New London Day: Investing In Reliability 19 US: TheDay.com: DEP Seeks 3-Month Delay In Millstone Permit Hearing 20 CWNS: Nuclear power must make green sense: Preston Manning 21 Edmonton Journal: French have atomic option for Alberta 22 US: Miami Herald News: FPL Group CEO targets pollution - 23 US: Miami Herald: Nuclear plant eyed for Dade - 24 Daily Yomiuri: China eyes up to 20-fold N-power boost by end of '30 NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 25 [DU-WATCH] The gift (of death) that keeps on giving - Dr. Miraki 26 US: deseretnews.com: Feds urged to expand fallout compensation 27 FT.com: Nuclear persuasion 28 Jakarta Post: Crisis centers to be built in risk areas with French s 29 The Herald: Cancer cluster case goes to the Lords 30 Guardian Unlimited: Polonium killing contaminated 140 people, watchd NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 31 US: The Herald: Group raises nuclear waste worries 32 Green Left: Brief: Nuke dump dangerous 33 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A dead horse rides 34 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Boom and bust at Piketon's A-plant 35 Chillicothe Gazette: Gov't desperate for nuclear dump site 36 US: Chillicothe Gazette: GNEP will endanger Pike Co. 37 US: Chillicothe Gazette: GNEP an opportunity for area development 38 Independent.ie: Dismissing nuclear concerns will not get rid of the 39 AU ABC: ANSTO reiterates nuclear waste dump safety. 40 AU ABC: Officials say Australian nuclear waste dump safe 41 The Cumberland News: Sellafield ruled out as site 42 US: La Crosse Tribune: Dairyland nuclear waste ready to ride rails t PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 43 SavannahNow.com: Senators press for funding at Savannah River lab | 44 Tri-City Herald: Bulk vit test under way to resolve issues 45 Chattanoogan.com: Wamp Says New ORNL Director Has Distinguished Reco 46 KnoxNews: Mason named director at ORNL 47 KnoxNews: TVA says future depends in part on energy source, but acti 48 Chicago Tribune: Argonne key to a new age for nuclear 49 LA Daily News: Under pressure, DOE halts field lab cleanup for 45 da 50 Times-News: Safety institute seeks INL workers sickened by radiation ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 BBC NEWS: N Korea 'only tested one missile' Last Updated: Saturday, 26 May 2007, 08:57 GMT 09:57 UK North Korea test-fired only one missile on Friday rather than the multiple launches earlier reported, according to South Korean media reports. One short-range missile was fired into the Sea of Japan, Yonhap quoted an intelligence official as saying. But there were no launches off the west coast, the official told the agency. Both South Korea and the US have sought to play down Pyongyang's missile test, which coincided with the launch of South Korea's first destroyer equipped with US-supplied high-tech Aegis radar. It comes more than a month past a deadline for North Korea to shut down its Yongbyong nuclear reactor under a deal designed to end its nuclear programme. 'Routine exercise' Initial reports from the region said that two or more anti-ship missiles were fired off North Korea's east and west coasts. But some South Korean media reports now say that only one missile was fired. Daily JoongAng Ilbo said that the missile - a land-to-ship type called the Silkworm or HY-2 - landed 100km (62 miles) from North Korea's eastern coast. The tests have drawn a muted response from the international community. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe described North Korea's actions as "extremely regrettable", but said they did not constitute a serious threat to Japan's national security. Opposition lawmakers in South Korea accused the North of piling on pressure ahead of inter-Korean talks on Tuesday where the issue of rice aid will be discussed. White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, meanwhile, said that the US viewed the action "as a routine exercise". The State Department said that it would not affect the ongoing six-party disarmament process. US officials are keen to move ahead with implementation of the landmark 13 February deal, under which North Korea agreed to begin scrapping its nuclear programme in return for economic and energy aid. But a row over North Korean funds frozen in a Macau bank has delayed progress for several weeks, with North Korea refusing to move forward until its funds have been released. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 2 BBC NEWS: US fears grow over China military Last Updated: Friday, 25 May 2007, 20:17 GMT 21:17 UK Levels of trust between the US and China are currently not very high The US has expressed concern over China's growing military might. A Pentagon report given to Congress says Beijing is spending far more on its military budget than admitted and calls for greater transparency. The report highlights China's greater ability to mount pre-emptive strikes, citing new submarines, unmanned combat aircraft and sophisticated missiles. The BBC's James Coomarasamy in Washington says the Pentagon paints a picture of a country whose growing economic and political power is being mirrored in "a comprehensive military transformation". The annual report says Beijing is moving towards a more pre-emptive defence strategy with the focus on its border areas. It would be nice to hear first-hand from the Chinese... we wish there were greater transparency, that they would talk more about what their intentions are Robert Gates US Defence Secretary It suggests that the possibility of US intervention in any crisis in the Taiwan Strait is an important factor in China's military planning. The report also describes a successful anti-satellite weapon test conducted by the Chinese in January as posing a threat to "all space-faring nations". As in previous reports, there was strong complaint about a lack of transparency in both China's military spending and its military aims. "It would be nice to hear first-hand from the Chinese... we wish there were greater transparency, that they would talk more about what their intentions are," US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday, prior to the report's release. Its publication comes at the end of a week when a high level Chinese delegation has been in Washington discussing areas of economic tension - and is a further sign that the levels of trust between Washington and Beijing are currently not very high, our correspondent says. 'Nuclear forces' The Pentagon report highlights concerns about China's preparations to deploy a mobile, land-based ballistic missile, with a range that reportedly covers the entire United States. China is adding a new class of nuclear submarine to existing stock The development of a new fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, equipped with ballistic missiles with a range of more than 8,000km (5,000 miles), is also cited. Experts say the Jin-class vessels are capable of carrying 12 missiles, with each one armed with three nuclear warheads. One of these Chinese-built submarines is currently undergoing tests, and five more are planned, says Andrew Yang of the Chinese Council for Advanced Policy Studies in Taiwan. Previously China had just one nuclear-powered submarine, which was so unreliable it rarely travelled far from its base, Mr Yang said. He added: "The Americans are concerned about whether a gradual build-up of nuclear forces implies China will change its nuclear policy of no first use." Natural consequence Over the last 15 years, China has been engaged in a massive military build-up and modernisation programme. It plans to allocate 350.9bn yuan ($45.9bn) to its military this year, although some analysts say Beijing spends double or treble this amount. However, the BBC's defence correspondent Rob Watson says US opinion is divided over the strategic challenge posed by China. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 3 SF Chronicle: The warhead worry Editorial Friday, May 25, 2007 FOR SEVERAL years, the Bush administration has pushed the notion that this country's stock of nuclear weapons is aging, outdated and a security risk. But in arguing for a new generation of bombs, there's never been a genuine debate on their use or imagined need a generation from now. This missing strategy is why a congressional committee was right to reject $89 million in planning funds for the Orwellian-titled Reliable Replacement Warhead program. The device is billed as safer, cheaper and more up-to-date, designed by computers without underground tests at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the East Bay. But two major studies since November have concluded that the current warheads were fully operable and in no need of immediate replacing. Above the readiness issue is a bigger one: Why should the nation update its nuclear weaponry? Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a Walnut Creek Democrat who chairs a House subcommittee studying nuclear arms work, wants a fuller warhead debate. She favors a "walk before you run'' approach that calls for a clear strategy on new warhead use before the juggernaut bureaucracy behind it shifts into full gear. The committee was right to veto the spending for now. The battle now shifts to the Senate. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-San Francisco, has pledged in the past to oppose new nuclear weapons. She has a chance to play an important role in curbing any new warheads through a key committee that will consider its funding. This country's nuclear armory kept the peace during the Cold War. But the landscape has changed with at least nine nuclear powers, terrorist threats and the notion of North Korea and Iran building weapons. If the White House believes a new generation of warheads is the answer, it needs to make a convincing case. This article appeared on page B - 12 of the San Francisco Chronicle © 2007 Hearst Communications Inc. | Privacy Policy | Feedback | ***************************************************************** 4 AU ABC: China hits back at US arms concerns. 27/05/2007. ABC News Online China has hit back at a US defence report that voices concerns about its military build-up, saying the document is "totally unjustified" In Beijing's first official reaction, the People's Daily says the Pentagon report propagates a "China threat" theory even though China is only covering its legitimate defence needs. An opinion piece in the Communist Party mouthpiece says the report misleads international opinion. "The report pays no attention to the actual state of affairs and in a premeditated fashion exaggerates the so-called Chinese military threat," it said. The Pentagon report, issued on Friday, expressed concern at the deployment of long-range ballistic nuclear missiles and a ballooning and non-transparent budget. It says China's pursuit of weapons strategies "is expanding from the traditional land, air and sea dimensions of the modern battlefield to include space and cyberspace". But the People's Daily has retorted that China is simply trying to cover "an objective self-defence need". "It is legitimate behaviour aimed at protecting national security and territorial integrity and will not cause a threat to any other country," it said. China's national budget has projected an increase in military spending in 2007 of 17.8 per cent to about $55 billion, although the actual size of its spending is a matter of dispute. - AFP © 2007 ABC | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 5 GU: Environmental lobbyist demands action from government mired in 'half-policies' | Special Reports | Guardian Unlimited Politics Alok Jha, science correspondent Monday May 28, 2007 Environmental policy is a hodge-podge of half-policies and will end up in a blind alley if the government does not rethink its response to climate change, a leading environmental campaigner will say today. In a debate at the Guardian Hay festival, Jeremy Leggett, a former Greenpeace campaigner and now chief executive of the environmental group Solar Century, will argue that last week's energy white paper does not go far enough to tackle climate change because the government has failed to stand up to conservative institutions in Britain. Speaking before today's debate, called Greening Britain, Dr Leggett said he would expose the gap between what the government says and the policies it is actually pursuing. The difference was exemplified last week, he said, in the government's new energy white paper, which highlighted the need for nuclear power to balance the country's future energy needs and targets to cut carbon emissions. It was a huge step backwards from the government's 2003 vision for energy, which had followed intensive consultation with industry, he said. "It's almost bewildering for someone who saw that process leading up to the 2003 energy white paper. They have managed to disconnect any meaningful policy platform from the rhetorical objectives." He said: "I'm going to present to [Mr Miliband] the story of what happened with the real energy white paper in 2003, through the strategic energy review in 2002, unprecedented consultation across the whole breadth of British industry, leading to a pretty good product." The government had "backtracked to this hodge-podge of half-policies and suggestions which don't get us anywhere close to the deep cuts that we need to be on," he said. "All you're left with is the hope that somehow nuclear power will come in in 2017 and beyond. It's a massive blind alley." Whatever the motivations and aspirations of individual politicians, he argued, "the net outcome of their ability to lead, the ability to connect their rhetoric with real, meaningful policy actions to get renewables and energy efficiency into the mainstream is failure". He blames government leaders for failing to stand up to stuffy conservative thinking within their own institutions. The core of the problem, he said, was a belief within organisations such as the Department of Trade and Industry that new energy technologies are not capable of providing a secure energy supply to the UK while keeping the economy going. "There's a culture of senior civil servants that grown-ups don't get their energy from decentralised, renewable, new ways. You get your energy from big centralised power plants. There's a certain need to pay lip service to renewables. From day one in the follow-up to the white paper of 2003, they've been half-hearted and not pulled out any stops to try and solve the problems to make renewables happen." The way government organised its response to climate change needed a rethink, he said. "It's the single biggest threat facing us. Climate change has to be a central organising principle of government. This is a natural security threat of the kind we haven't had since the 1930s. Global warming, unmitigated, is going to wash across the British economy with quite the same effect as an invading Nazi army. We should be mobilising with the same seriousness of intent." Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 6 Yakima Herald Republic: Northwest less likely to reconsider nuclear energy Yakima, Washington News, Published on Sunday, May 27, 2007 Printable Version E-mail to a By PAT MUIR YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC RICHLAND -- Inside Energy Northwest's sprawling Columbia Generating Station, hundreds of workers are laboring in one of the nuclear power plant's periodic refueling efforts. ANDY SAWYER/Yakima Herald-Republic Temporary storage tanks hold nuclear waste outside Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating Station at Hanford. Floors are stacked with disassem- bled machinery, and yellow caution tape lines many of the rooms as workers scurry about on hundreds of chores. Welcome to the Pacific Northwest's only nuclear power plant, a status unlikely to change anytime soon despite global warming fears that are increasing national support for nuclear power. "The first few will probably be in the South or in Texas," Dale Atkinson, Energy Northwest's vice president for nuclear generation, said Wednesday, the same day a reopened Alabama nuclear plant became the first to start operating in the United States since 1996. The public and political will to build more nuclear plants just doesn't exist in the Northwest, where the emphasis is on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, he said, after a media tour of Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating Station. The plant, which has produced nuclear power since 1984 at its 1,089-acre site in Richland, was shut down for refueling May 12 and is expected to restart in mid-June. Energy Northwest is a publicly owned nonprofit corporation that operates wind, hydroelectric and solar power plants as well as the nuclear plant. "We will do what the region wishes to do for a power source," Atkinson said. The region may warm to nuclear power, though, if its residents see other areas adding safe, efficient nuclear plants, he said. Global warming caused by greenhouse gases is changing the way people think about nuclear energy, which is produced without emitting them, added Steve Scammon, an Energy Northwest project manager who has been at the plant since it opened. That is what ultimately will open the door for another nuclear plant in the Northwest, he said. "I expect it will eventually," Scammon said. "But it will take time. Nuclear is not the sole answer, but I think it's part of that mix." ANDY SAWYER/Yakima Herald-Republic Reactor operators and nuclear engineers work in the control room during refueling of the power plant at Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating station Wednesday. Within the next two years, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects applications for 28 more plants, almost exclusively in the South. Nuclear's popularity is up in some corners of the environmental movement, even among some who protested nuclear power in the past. "I just came to realize that I had been overreacting," said Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace who now directs Vancouver, B.C.-based Greenspirit, an environmental consulting firm that promotes sustainable development while warning against the "scare tactics" of environmental activists. Moore, who in a 1976 Greenpeace publication called nuclear power plants "the most dangerous devices man has ever created," now co-chairs the pro-nuclear Clean and Safe Energy Coalition with former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, who was head of the Environmental Protection Agency during President Bush's first term. The "emerging concern about climate change in the 1990s" changed his mind on the matter of nuclear power, he said. He now dismisses concerns about the safety of nuclear plants and the chance they could spread nuclear weapons technology -- the very issues he helped put in the public consciousness. "In retrospect, I think that was one area in which we made a mistake in judgment," Moore said, adding that "a lot of lessons" were learned from the 1979 core meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania. Those arguments, though, have not swayed the environmental movements stalwarts including the Sierra Club and Moore's old organization, Greenpeace. "The industry is trying to dress itself up in the bow of increased concern over global warming," Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner said. "To us that's like putting lipstick on a pig." Plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada have not progressed, leaving stashes of radioactive waste at plants around the country. Concern about global warming doesn't mean the nuclear waste just goes away, Dorner said. "It's just a huge problem no one has come up with a solution for," he said. "And it's being conveniently ignored." The Energy Northwest plant, which produces enough energy to serve a city the size of Seattle, has 15 spent-fuel casks on site. The casks, each standing 19 feet with a diameter of 11 feet, contain smaller steel canisters full of spent fuel. There are plans next spring to load 12 more casks with spent fuel from the plant, Scammon said. The solution to the energy problem is not nuclear, according to the Sierra Club. Dorner said it would take 100 new nuclear plants to make a dent in global warming. Instead, the organization urges conservation and increased efforts in wind, solar and hydropower. "The combination of those things shows the way forward," Dorner said. Energy Northwest officials agree to an extent, and have established wind and solar programs. Those sources, though, will never be able to take the place of nuclear. "You can't power everything with wind turbines," Scammon said. "You just can't. You can't build enough. And then, sometimes, the wind stops blowing." * Pat Muir can be reached at 837-6111 or pmuir@yakimaherald.com. © 2007 - Yakima Herald-Republic - www.yakimaherald.com ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: APEC energy meeting begins in Australia - Sun May 27, 6:03 AM ET SYDNEY (AFP) - Senior APEC energy officials began meeting in the northern Australian city of Darwin on Sunday for talks which will focus on energy security and climate change, an official said. The three-day event will culminate with talks between the energy ministers of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation members on Tuesday. "APEC economies account for 60 percent of the world's energy demand so a meeting of this sort is a fairly crucial opportunity to nut out some of the issues," a spokeswoman for Australian Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said. Ahead of the meeting, Macfarlane said that the talks would be "an important opportunity for us to address environmental concerns and promote clean and efficient energy production and use." Australia's wealth of energy resources and technologies meant it was well placed to make a significant contribution to the APEC meeting, he said. Australia is the world's largest coal exporter, second largest uranium exporter and a major gas exporter. "APEC will also be an opportunity work with economies in the region to improve the operation of energy markets, address impediments to energy investment and trade, promote energy diversity and energy efficiency," Macfarlane said. Some 21 heads of state -- including US President George W. Bush, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe -- will attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum meeting in Sydney in September. APEC comprises 21 member economies which account for more than 40 percent of the world's population. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 8 London Times: Nuclear clean-up fund planned-Business-Industry Sectors- From The Sunday Times May 27, 2007 Nuclear clean-up fund planned Dominic O’Connell OPERATORS of Britain’s proposed new nuclear power plants will be required to make regular payments into a fund that will meet future waste-treatment and decommissioning costs. Detailed plans for the fund are being drawn up by the Department of Trade and Industry and its advisers, and are expected to be concluded before the end of the year. The government last week opened the door to new nuclear power stations in Britain in a white paper on energy policy, but said it would consult on the matter before giving the green light. It said nuclear power was attractive because it did not generate greenhouse gases, and because it would assist the diversity and security of Britain’s power supplies. Nuclear power in the past has been bedevilled by uncertainty over the cost of dealing with waste and decommissioning reactors. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, set up in 2005 to deal with the legacy of Britain’s civil nuclear power programme, is expected to spend as much as £65 billion over several decades. DTI officials plan to protect taxpayers from having to pay for the clean-up of new plants by creating an industry-funded scheme to pay for future liabilities. An outline is given in the fine print of last week’s white paper. It says the government could adopt one of three approaches: Have companies maintain their own ring-fenced funds; Require operators to make regular payments to the government; Create a separate trust body, or bodies, to which all power plant groups would pay into. “Of these broad options, the government prefers the third approach . . . [it] would be transparent and would result in a fund that is insulated against the commercial fortunes of the operator,” the white paper said. Yesterday the DTI said: “At this stage, the preferred option would require operators to make regular payments to an independent fund throughout the operational life of their station. “If as a result of the consultation, government takes the decision that new nuclear power has a role to play, we would expect to set out the financing framework through legislation at an early opportunity.” The government has appointed Tim Stone, chairman of KPMG’s global infrastructure and projects group, to advise on the financial aspects of decommissioning. It is thought that the proposed nuclear industry fund would look to invest in the long-dated assets – an approach that is similar to the one taken by the aggressive new infrastructure funds that have been buying up British ports, airports and roads. British Energy (BE), the group that runs the existing nuclear stations, is set to play a key role in the formation of a consortium to build new ones. A study on the siting of new plants recommended use of sites already used for nuclear power generation –Hinkley Point, Sizewell, Brad-well and Dungeness – all of which are operated by BE. How can you seriously establish a cost for cleaning up radiation with a half life as long as the history of human civilization? It is pure insanity. Further. We are one or two steps away from the infastructure for nuclear cold fusion. Get Mr Stone to call me with a confidentiality agreement and I will tell him how. Anyone involved in developing nuclear fission is a criminal. Zened, London, England When the figures are worked out for nuclear safety it is reckoned that we shouldn't have one three mile island or chernobyl or sellafield or whatever ...... more than once every million years or so. So why do we generally have one major disaster every decade? The fact is that all the calculations of payback, clean-ups, jobs, security of supply etc don't even begin to cover the cost of having to clear out of London for 100 years due to a chernobyl on the South coast of England or on the North coast of France. Do you think the CEOs of the companies who plan these reactors will lose out when they go horribly wrong? I see above the mention of American reactors being allowed to operate for another 60 years or so, this is correct but they are licensed to operate at much lower power outputs because of pipe cracking in their PWRs, ...... God help America with logic such as this determining their people's safety especially when most American reactor designs use radioactive steam. John, Dundee, UK If the USA, the bastion of free enterprise has established a system for over 100 nuclear reactors. They are have having their lifetimes extended to over 60 years, so there is plenty of time to build up the decommissioning fund. We must follow their lead. Paul , northwich, england The entire UK has avoided the question for a long time, due to the great luck and hard work in the North Sea. This won't last forever. Expensive gas will increase expensive electric heating and the supply must come from somewhere. At the moment and over the next few decades, decades, nuclear is the most reasonable option. If RE works then there is no need for a large scale Nuclear program, but RE is yet to produce reliability yet. If they do not work, then we need the people and skills to build lots of new plants (like France). It is not installed capacity that is important, its turning on the lights, microwave, TV, heater and computer. We need a new nuclear plant, with refurbished old ones, that are paid for properly and opens opportunities for the next generation of engineers. Not just another fly in the usual heros job and pay the bill. Its time for a new generation to be given a chance, it?ll be their century. Danielrober, London, © Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd ***************************************************************** 9 IHT: India-US nuclear deal talks resume this week as top American negotiator visits New Delhi - International Herald Tribune The Associated Press Published: May 27, 2007 NEW DELHI: India and the United States plan to resume talks on a much-touted civilian nuclear cooperation agreement when the top American negotiator visits New Delhi this week in a push to overcome obstacles that threaten to scuttle the pact, the U.S. embassy said Sunday. Word that U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns is coming to New Delhi follows reports earlier this month that he had put off a visit because the two sides were too far apart on a number of key issues. How wide a gap remains between the two sides is still an open question. The U.S. embassy in New Delhi would only say that Burns is coming Thursday for a two-day visit, and pointed to a statement he made earlier this month about the deal. "This is the right agreement for us and we need to make a final push to cement it," Burns said in a May 23 talk at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. "Like all good things, this will take time and more compromise from both countries." In the weeks since those talks ended, the optimism has given way to more neutral tones from officials on both sides. In fact, a meeting between Indian and American technical teams was set up last week in London because it looked certain that Burns would not be heading to India. Officials did not say Sunday if Burns' visit was prompted by progress at those talks. But he was coming days before U.S. President George W. Bush is expected to discuss the deal with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when the two meet next month on the sidelines of a G-8 summit in Germany. The nuclear deal, first struck by Bush and Singh in July 2005, would allow the United States to ship nuclear fuel and know-how to India in exchange for safeguards and U.N. inspections at India's 14 civilian nuclear plants. Eight military plants would be off-limits. Critics on both sides complain that too much has been given to the other for too little in return, and the countries still need to settle significant differences. Among the sticking points is India's displeasure with a clause that allows the United States to halt cooperation if New Delhi tests a nuclear weapon. Some in India also fear the deal could limit India's right to reprocess spent atomic fuel, a key step in making weapons-grade nuclear material, and thus hamper its long-standing weapons program. AudioNews: IHT.com on the go Copyright © 2007 the International Herald Tribune All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 10 Wisconsin State Journal: Wineke: Warming up to nuclear power SAT., MAY 26, 2007 - 1:19 AM BILL WINEKE 608-252-6146 bwineke@madison.com Read Wineke's blog at www.madison.com/wsj/blogs. If you're lucky enough to live long enough, sometimes the world will come around to your way of thinking. Professor Max Carbon retired from the UW-Madison nuclear engineering faculty 15 years ago and during both his working and retirement careers has been a rather lonely voice touting the virtues of nuclear power. Now that almost every scientific report on global warming warns of impending doom, Carbon's views are no longer so lonely. Indeed, the threats posed by nuclear plants may pale in comparison with the realities of present power generation fuels, he says. "Coal-burning plants contribute almost one-third of all carbon emissions the U.S. generates," Carbon says. "That's almost as much as produced by every car and truck on the road." Just one Wisconsin power plant, the Pleasant Prairie plant in Kenosha County, discharged more than 830 pounds of mercury into the atmosphere in 2005, Carbon notes. (The plant is experimenting with programs to reduce mercury emissions.) So, no matter how "clean" we try to make coal-burning power plants, they will have a negative environmental impact, Carbon argues. "A large plant will burn each year the amount of coal on a 250-mile-long train," he says. "About 10 percent of that coal becomes ash and the ash contains arsenic, chromium, lead and nickel. Do you know what we do with that ash? We put it either into landfills or into holding ponds. We don't have a clue on how to handle safely the wastes from coal plants that may threaten the planet." Yet Wisconsin law prohibits the construction of new nuclear plants until the "waste problem is resolved" and doesn't worry much about coal ash, he notes, calling the situation "strikingly illogical." Carbon's suggestion, as noted above, is a return to nuclear power. He's author of a book, "Nuclear Power: Villain or Victim," first published in 1997 and just reissued. Most of the fears associated with nuclear power are overblown, Carbon argues. The waste generated by nuclear plants is relatively small, relatively stable and can be safely stored in places like the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada and the politics that keep that from happening are ridiculous, he says. "Nevada's political leaders delay approval of the site even though hundreds of atomic and hydrogen bombs have been exploded underground just a few miles away." These arguments go on and on, of course. But what gives Carbon new standing today is global warming. Wisconsin has two nuclear plants in operation today. If coal-fired plants generated the amount of electricity provided by those plants, Carbon estimates they would add an additional 11 million tons of carbon dioxide, plus quantities of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides to the air. Carbon still may be ahead of his time. But global warming headlines are giving him new credibility. Copyright © 2007 Wisconsin State Journal For comments about this site, contact Anjuman Ali, interactive editor, aali@madison.com ***************************************************************** 11 CP: Nuclear power alternative in Alberta raising questions of appropriateness Published: Sunday, May 27, 2007 | 6:49 PM ET Canadian Press: DINA O?MEARA CALGARY (CP) - Nuclear power might be all the rage for some interested parties in Alberta's oilpatch, but others question the need for such controversial power generation in an industry that requires more steam than electricity. While the low-emission power generated from uranium poses an alternative to coal and costly natural gas, oil companies are already moving rapidly towards cheaper, more efficient technologies than those used for the past 20 years, one representative said. "Nuclear may be an option in five to 10 years from now, but in the meantime, people are already moving off of natural gas and moving on to other things," Greg Stringham, with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said. Nuclear power recently has garnered increased attention through the efforts of Energy Alberta Corp., which has been lobbying industry, government and the public in Alberta to raise awareness of its benefits for the province. The company, headed by Albertans Wayne Henuset and Hank Swartout, outgoing chief executive of Precision Drilling Trust (TSX:PD.UN), wants to invest $6.2 billion to build at least two nuclear reactors that would generate about 2,200 megawatts of electricity. The project has found supporters in a number of circles, including The University of Calgary's Institute for Sustainable Energy Environment and Economy, as an alternative to replace aging coal-fired plants which emit high levels of greenhouse gases. Opponents point out the heavily subsidized nature of nuclear power in Canada, primarily in Ontario and New Brunswick, and say the citizens of Alberta would be shouldering the costs. No oil company has publicly backed the project, including Shell Canada, which some media outlets claimed was studying the use of nuclear power in northern Alberta. Sure Northern Energy, a subsidiary of Shell, has parcels of land in an undeveloped area of the oilsands known to be in limestone. The unconventional play requires more study to learn about its geology, before hanging on any technology to produce it, spokesman Kurt Kadaz said. "That's why we are pursuing an appraisal program, and that's why it's too early to discuss the potential commercial project and any of its elements," Kadatz said. Energy Alberta, with partner Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., originally targetted the energy-hungry oilsands in its sales pitch, but has moved on to focus on Alberta in general. "The purpose of this plant is to produce electricity only," spokesman Guy Huntingford said. "Obviously hydrogen and steam are byproducts of it, but that's not why it's being built; it's being built purely for electricity, so we can place the plant anywhere." Huntingford estimates the province will need approximately 11,000 new megawatts of power by 2020 to satisfy growing demands by the oilsands and possible oilsands refineries. The replacement of aging power plants, and increasing commercial and residential demands on the grid would add another 2,000 megawatts, he said. Ensuring there would be transmission lines to move that electricity would be another regulatory hurdle, Hundingford acknowledged. Alberta already is in the midst of often bitter discussions about a needed system expansion, a 550-kilovolt line to be added to the Edmonton-Calgary industrial corridor. Energy Alberta plans to file a preliminary application for the project with the federal Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in mid-June, and select a location for the proposed reactors by mid-September. The commission said the regulatory process, including the initial environmental assessment down to the building and running licences, will take a minimum of 10 years. In the meantime, gasification of asphaltines, the dregs of the bitumen barrel, is one process being piloted in the oilsands as an alternative fuel, and underground fires fueled by oily air is another revolutionary technology being piloted to reduce costs in the oilsands, Stringham said. "All of those kinds of things are happening right now, and if those become very successful, then it will be a challenge for nuclear to break into that," he said. "But if they do, the hydrogen, the stream and the power at low cost, no one is closing the door on it. It's just that there are other more immediate options being put in place right now." © The Canadian Press, 2007 Copyright © CBC 2007 ***************************************************************** 12 Decature Daily: Just how affordable is nuclear power? SUNDAY, MAY 27, 2007 Massively expensive at $1.8 billion, the ongoing restart of Browns Ferry Unit 1 still appears to be a good financial investment for TVA and its ratepayers. New reactors, however, may be a different story. TVA expects Unit 1 to break even in as little as four years as it pumps out enough electricity to power 650,000 homes. Dave Lochbaum is director of the nuclear safety program at Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Union of Concerned Scientists. He was a reactor engineer at Unit 1 in the early 1980s. Despite his title, he does not expect safety issues to provide the answer to the simmering debate about the viability of a large-scale shift to nuclear power for U.S. energy production. “We can argue about Yucca Mountain (a proposed repository for spent nuclear fuel) as a negative and global warming as a positive, but the bottom line is cost,” Lochbaum said. “Right now, absent huge subsidies, nuclear power is just too costly.” Applications He may be right. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not granted a new-reactor license since 1978. That said, in the next three years, the NRC expects to receive 19 new-reactor applications. Does that disprove Lochbaum’s point? Not necessarily. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will pump up to $13 billion of subsidies into the nuclear power industry, including a tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour during the first six years of a new plant’s life. It also includes “risk insurance” for six new reactors and government-backed loans. Lochbaum’s point: If the only way to make nuclear power competitive is with subsidies, then nuclear power is not competitive. But nuclear power plants are not quite the widgets used in Econ 101 supply-and-demand textbooks. For one thing, nuclear power plants require enormous capital investments. They cost more than $2 billion, and much of that money is tied up during the 12-year construction process. Regulations The industry also is regulated heavily. Over 12 years those regulations can change, and almost certainly would in the event of a terrorist attack aimed at a nuclear plant or an accidental meltdown. That means investors have to weigh the possibility that their money is being poured into a plant that will never see a fuel rod, much less receive a ratepayer’s monthly utility check. So many of the costs (including safety risks) and benefits (including reduced air pollution) of nuclear power accrue not to the purchaser but to the public that the free market may not be the best measure of its viability. Arguably, subsidies are the public’s payment for costs designed to benefit the public. A heavy user of nuclear-produced electricity benefits no more than the public from the reduction of greenhouse gases, but absent subsidies he pays more for that benefit. He also has no more exposure to the inherent risk of a meltdown, but in a subsidy-free environment he pays a disproportionate amount to limit that risk. Will our grandchildren have an air conditioner powered by nuclear energy? Solar or wind power? Coal? Natural gas? Decades after the debate began, we still cannot answer the question. Contact Eric Fleischauer at eric@decaturdaily.com. Eric Fleischauer THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com www.decaturdaily.com ***************************************************************** 13 Scotsman.com: Nuclear's regeneration hots up Sun 27 May 2007 GUY DIXON BILL Coley listened to Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling deliver the findings of the government's Energy White Paper knowing the future of his company was at stake. As the head of the UK's biggest nuclear power generator, British Energy, Coley is acutely aware that nuclear power divides opinion among the British public like no other issue. BE, which operates eight nuclear power stations including two in Scotland (Torness in East Lothian and Hunterston B in Ayrshire), has called for Whitehall to commit to nuclear and in doing so, allow it to raise the billions needed to build the next generation of reactors. On Wednesday, Darling cheered the nuclear advocates when he said it would be wrong to exclude nuclear production as part of a mix of sources to meet rising demand for power. Speaking after the announcement from BE's HQ in Livingston, Coley said the White Paper demonstrated a growing acceptance that nuclear is needed to meet rising power demands. But vitally for BE, Darling said a decision on building new nuclear must be taken this year and this was an unexpected fillip for Coley and his team. "There was only one surprise," Coley says, "and it was a good one." In the run-up to the announcement, BE has been speaking to foreign and domestic companies which are interested in investing in nuclear. European players such as France's EDF and Germany's E.On have been seen as likely partners for BE, which nearly went into administration in 2004, forcing the government to step in with a £5bn rescue package. Coley said BE had spoken to a variety of companies from different sectors about investing. He said: "There are normal [power generating] companies. There are others who are looking for an investment to supply energy for their customers. "We have had interest that was a little surprising from companies ... that are very large electricity consumers, [for whom] electricity accounts for a large proportion of doing business. "And also we have had people who have a purely financial interest. I would hope by the end of the year we would have a firm indication of who we will be partnering with. We're doing a very detailed assessment of the sites which have potential for new build." The White Paper follows repeated energy policy reviews over the past few years and mounting concern that Britain will face a power shortage unless decisive action is taken soon. On Wednesday, Darling said: "If nuclear is excluded, there is every chance that its place would be taken by gas and coal generation, which of course emits carbon. I am quite clear in my mind that it is important that we have a mix of energy supply ... that we don't become overly dependent on imported gas." Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, said: "Only a combination of nuclear and renewable sources, alongside more efficient gas, coal and oil generation, can deliver the reliable energy supply we need whilst tackling carbon emissions." But not everyone was impressed and Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, called on Westminster to follow the lead of the SNP and opt for developing renewable energy sources rather than nuclear. He said: "Westminster should learn from the new Scottish Executive and set out an energy strategy to deliver energy saving, renewable power and cleaner fossil fuel technologies that can then be safely used around the world." Andrew Simms, of the New Economics Foundation, said: "The government's endorsement of expanding nuclear power is the definition of irrational policy. Like a stool with no legs, it fails on economic, energy and environmental grounds." Concerns were also expressed last week that more needs to be done more quickly if Britain is to avoid an "energy crunch". Britain's oil and gas from the North Sea are dwindling and it is keenly aware that Russia, which supplies around 25% of the European Union's gas, disrupted supplies last year. It also wants to meet its targets to cut carbon emissions. The EU aims to get 20% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 and a draft law going through the British parliament calls for the country to cut emissions of CO2 by 60% by 2050. All but one of the existing nuclear power plants are scheduled to close by 2023 and even the most optimistic pro-nuclear lobbyists reckon it will take a minimum of 10 years to build a new plant from scratch. The government also wants greater energy saving by businesses, calls for more investment in new renewable technologies such as tide and waves, and backs an extension of trading in emission permits. Darling said on Wednesday that no public money would go into new nuclear plants. But critics say there is no evidence that private sector finance will be on offer for an industry that needs huge initial investment, even if it can later generate power at relatively low cost. Coley has always insisted that the funding will be there if a clear return is evident for investors and that Wednesday's announcement means Britain can prepare for new-build nuclear plants. He said: "Government has reinforced some very clear messages about energy efficiency, security of supply, climate change objectives - we have got to get really serious if we want to achieve these." This article: http://business.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=821532007 Last updated: 26-May-07 00:44 BST Comments Add your comment 1. danielrober, London, / 1:21am 27 May 2007 An unpleasant consideration that has not been raised by the anti-nuclear grew, is what happens when we have to start importing gas. I'm not talking about power stations, but about domestic heating and cooking. Its expensive to use for a family and as a nation to import. The entire UK has avoided the question for a long time, due to the great luck and hard work in the North Sea. This won't last forever. Electric heating is expensive and the supply must come from somewhere. At the moment and over the next few decades, decades, nuclear is the most reasonable option. If RE works then there is no need for a large scale Nuclear program and RE is yet to produce reliability yet. If they do not work, then we need the people and skills to build lots of new plants (like France). It is not installed capacity that is important, its turning on the lights, microwave, TV, heater and computer. We need a new nuclear plant, with refurbished old ones, that are paid for properly and opens opportunities for the next generation of engineers. Not just another fly in the usual heros job and pay the bill. Its time for a new generation to be given a chance, it’ll be their century. Report as unsuitable 2. Eddie D, South Queensferry / 2:56am 27 May 2007 What has the UK Government squandered all the revenue from North Sea oil on. Norway set up a fund with part of their oil revenues and it now runs into billions, what have we got, NOTHING. Report as unsuitable 3. danielrober, London, Back Scotlands Engineers / 8:46am 27 May 2007 # 2 Eddie D, South Queensferry and all. The waste of oil revenue was massive in the early 1990's NASA commissioned a report, about building a moon base called the "Ride Report". One of the first attempts to put realisic costs to a moon base. The excess of UK oil revenue was widly quoted as been able to pay for the entire moon program with cash. The point been a new saying was growing in the infrastructure world "Spanish gold and British oil". Both represent just a wasted of opportunity. We have that opportunity again; Are we going to build large long term capital capcaity, that can run and be repaired over a half century. Nuclear. OR Are we going spend the money on fashionalble RE that might only last a few years of a decade. Please don't be distracted by a turff war between parties, focus on the future, by been careful in the present. Gordon Brown, could take the opportunity missed by Blair, to Back Scotlands/Britains Engineers. Report as unsuitable 4. Max F / 8:49am 27 May 2007 1. danielrober: Using electricty (whether generated by nuclear or renewable) to heat homes is terribly inefficient. However, unlike nuclear, there are renewable alterantives for space heating. For example: Biomass Ground source heat pumps Solar water heating Geothermal aquifers Energy from waste Anaerobic digestion Landfill gas Fossil-fuel fired CHP This sets out an idea of the potential in Scotland: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2006/02/07163339 Report as unsuitable 5. danielrober, London, Back Scotlands Engineers / 9:25am 27 May 2007 #4 Max F A lot of these systems work, yes and more than worth the investment. Using wastes from cities and agriculture to provide energy is great. They are issuse with thermal energy transmission, but expensive but workable. However, when it comes to blocks of flats, for homes and offices, most heating in the future will be electric. That requires a heck of a lot of energy. We need to be careful not to throw away this opportunity, as we did in the recent past. A balanced energy policy is needed fact, with RE, Coal, Gas (for the moment) and Nuclear all working together. Scotland can lead the way. Report as unsuitable 6. Colin, Glasgow / 10:52am 27 May 2007 Danielrober, I couldn't agree with you more regarding the need for a balance of energy sources. However it is increasingly unlikely that any potential nuclear operator will look at Scotland while the Scottish Executive equivocates over energy policy As the article mentions: "Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, called on Westminster to follow the lead of the SNP and opt for developing renewable energy sources rather than nuclear." This of course is nonsensical because, even if renewables could produce the 40% to replace nuclear in Scotland it wouldn't actually be saving any CO2 at all. In fact most renewable sources produce more CO2 than nuclear so emissions would go up slightly. The SNP have a marginally more sensible approach than FOE gives them credit for: as reported in the Times today, Salmond is advocating resurgence of "clean" coal in place of nuclear rather than squandering renewables. However this is hardly the lesser of two evils when it comes to carbon emissions. Even the cleanest coal power station with carbon capture still releases twenty times as much CO2 as the equivalent nuclear station. And the electricity is more expensive than nuclear. Inevitably if Scotland continues on its apparent path to phase out nuclear it will be in the same position all the other non-nuclear countries in Europe: it will have high CO2 emissions and depend on importing nuclear electricity from neighbours. How ironic that this policy is supported by greens and nationalists. Report as unsuitable 7. danielrober, London, Back Scotlands Engineers / 11:14am 27 May 2007 # 6 Colin, Glasgow Afraid so. Attracting this kind of investment is going to be hard to impossible. The best we can do is keep the pressure up, so we don't have another Blair situation. I trusted the government and civil servants too much. This time I do not intend to let "politicals" dominate the argument for new technology application. Unfortunitly i ony have few more days before i'm off again. But i'll still be reading the comments, i'll just not be able to add my own. Still i'll be back and i have not gone yet. Keep up the sensible comments. Report as unsuitable ©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions ***************************************************************** 14 JS Online: Tax times two in sale of plant If nuclear facility sells, ratepayers get hit twice By THOMAS CONTENT tcontent@journalsentinel.com Posted: May 26, 2007 Customers of We Energies would pay taxes twice on power generated at the Point Beach nuclear plant under the plan to sell the plant to FPL Energy for $1 billion. Point Beach Nuclear Plant To Voice an Opinion A public hearing on We Energies' proposal to sell its Point Beach nuclear plant is planned for June 14 in Manitowoc. The hearing will take place at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. at the Holiday Inn, 4601 Calumet Ave. Public comments are also being accepted online at comment.aspx. About Point Beach Location: Two Creeks, Manitowoc County, about 30 miles southeast of Green Bay. Size: Two reactors, 1,033 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power about 518,000 homes. That's double the size of the Kewaunee reactor, Wisconsin's other nuclear plant. Start-up: Unit 1: 1970; Unit 2: 1972. Owner: We Energies. Operator: Since 2001, Nuclear Management Co. of Hudson Buyer: FPL Energy of Juno Beach, Fla. Proposed sale price: $1 billion Other sale facts: We Energies would retain an option to build a new power plant on the Point Beach site. In addition, if Congress enacts a global warming law to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, We Energies and FPL Energy would share the credits linked to the fact that power generated at the plant produces no such gases. The deal calls for We Energies customers to pay gross receipts tax for the electricity generated at the plant not only when We Energies sells the power to its customers, but also when FPL sells the electricity to We Energies. That would result in $125.7 million in added customer costs over the next 28 years, according to the Citizens' Utility Board, a customer advocacy group fighting the sale. "It's a double whammy on ratepayers," said Charlie Higley, executive director of CUB. "They end up paying these taxes twice, the second time on behalf of an out-of-state entity." We Energies said the tax concerns are outweighed by other advantages of selling Point Beach, notably the $1 billion price that's the highest on record for a nuclear-plant. We Energies announced in December that it wanted to sell Point Beach to the Florida company. The matter is now being reviewed by state regulators. The tax issue is one of several matters being considered by the state Public Service Commission this summer when it decides whether or not to endorse the transaction. The fight over whether to sell Point Beach is more restrained than the vigorous protests that met two other state utilities when they sought to sell the Kewaunee nuclear plant. Point Beach and Kewaunee sit a few miles apart from one another on Lake Michigan southeast of Green Bay. Because the Kewaunee plant sale to Dominion Resources Inc. was endorsed by the commission, the precedent has been set that should allow Point Beach to be sold, energy industry observers say. As a result, the jockeying between customer groups, regulators and the utility amounts to how the deal is structured and whether the utility used reasonable assumptions about the future costs of owning the plant compared with selling it. "With the template and precedent from Kewaunee, all signs point to it being approved at some point," said Todd Stuart, executive director of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group. "We're trying to get the best deal that we can for the ratepayers." Savings 'wiped out' On the tax issue, the utility estimates that its long-term deal to buy power from Point Beach would save $75 million, but the double taxation paid by ratepayers "wipes out those savings," Higley said. That means the deal would cost ratepayers $51 million more than if the plant isn't sold. Under state law, utilities pay a gross-receipts tax on electricity sales in lieu of property taxes. With a conventional power plant, that tax is levied once, when the utility sells its power to customers. But in the Point Beach case, the tax would be assessed when FPL sells electricity to We Energies and then again when We Energies sells that power to its customers. As part of the power-purchase deal, FPL's taxes would be billed to We Energies and its customers. We Energies would receive the highest price paid for any of 25 nuclear plants sold since 1998, according to an analysis by Concentric Energy Advisors, the company that led the auction process for the utility. The price per megawatt being paid by FPL is nearly three times greater than the sale price for the Kewaunee nuclear plant two years ago, Concentric said. For the utility, the sale removes from We Energies the financial risks associated with running an aging nuclear plant. The utility won federal approval to keep the plant running until the 2030s, but will face higher costs to do so. Those costs would be borne by FPL, an operator of nuclear plants in Florida, New Hampshire and Iowa. Nuclear plants are being sold to national companies that can lower operating costs and retain and attract workers at a time when looming retirements in the nuclear-power industry have led to forecasts of a shortage of skilled personnel. For We Energies, the sale "removes much of the financial risk from not only shareholders but also customers in terms of continued operation by We Energies," said utility spokesman Rick White. "It's certainly a win for customers, a win for the company and a win for the state, because we'll continue to have that electricity available to our customers." Rate increase request Lurking in the background is the utility's request this month for a double-digit rate increase. The increase, which would take place in phases in 2008 and 2009, would amount to more than 15% over two years. But that sum assumes that ratepayers receive credits linked to the Point Beach sale. If the sale is rejected, rates would rise 28%, the utility said. "That's a huge concern," said Stuart, who has been vocal in criticizing what he described as the "stunning" size of the We Energies rate hike. "If that money doesn't flow back, we're going to be in a world of hurt." Beyond the extra costs for taxes, other key issues that must be resolved in the Point Beach case include the length of the power-purchase deal itself, as well as objections raised by the union representing Point Beach workers over whether FPL Energy will change their pension benefits after the sale. We Energies has proposed buying power from FPL until 2030 and 2033, when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses for the two Point Beach reactors expire. But an analysis of the proposal by the commission's staff found that costs rise sharply after 2020 - and that a shorter, 17-year power-purchase agreement could be less costly for ratepayers. From the May 27, 2007 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Journal Sentinel Inc. is a subsidiary of Journal Communications. ***************************************************************** 15 Guardian Unlimited: US-India Nuclear Deal Talks to Resume From the Associated Press Monday May 28, 2007 12:16 AM By MATTHEW ROSENBERG Associated Press Writer NEW DELHI (AP) - The United States and India plan to resume talks on a much-touted civilian nuclear cooperation agreement this week, the U.S. embassy said Sunday. Word that U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns is coming to New Delhi follows reports earlier this month that he had put off a visit because the two sides were too far apart on a number of key issues. How wide a gap remains between the two sides is still an open question. The U.S. embassy in New Delhi would only say that Burns is coming Thursday for a two-day visit, and pointed to a statement he made Wednesday about the deal. ``This is the right agreement for us and we need to make a final push to cement it,'' Burns said in a talk at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank. ``Like all good things, this will take time and more compromise from both countries.'' Still, Burns' visit was the first bit of good news for the deal since an earlier round of high-level talks ended on May 1 with an optimistic pronouncement that he would be coming to India in the last half of May to finalize the pact, heralded as the first step in an emerging strategic partnership between New Delhi and Washington. In the weeks since those talks ended, the optimism has given way to more neutral tones from officials on both sides. In fact, a meeting between Indian and American technical teams was set up last week in London because it looked certain that Burns would not be heading to India. Officials did not say Sunday if Burns' visit was prompted by progress at those talks. But he was coming days before President Bush is expected to discuss the deal with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when the two meet next month on the sidelines of a G-8 summit in Germany. The nuclear deal, agreed to by Bush and Singh in July 2005, would allow the United States to ship nuclear fuel and know-how to India in exchange for safeguards and U.N. inspections at India's 14 civilian nuclear plants. Eight military plants would be off-limits. Critics on both sides complain that too much has been given to the other for too little in return, and the countries still need to settle significant differences. Among the sticking points is India's displeasure with a clause that allows the United States to halt cooperation if New Delhi tests a nuclear weapon. Some in India also fear the deal could limit India's right to reprocess spent atomic fuel, a key step in making weapons-grade nuclear material, and thus hamper its long-standing weapons program. American critics, meanwhile, say the plan would spark a nuclear arms race in Asia by allowing India to use the extra nuclear fuel that the deal would provide to free up its domestic uranium for its weapons program. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 16 AFP: Top US nuclear envoy arrives in Indonesia Sun May 27, 8:08 PM ET JAKARTA (AFP) - Top US nuclear envoy Christopher Hill arrived in Jakarta Saturday for four days of talks with Indonesian officials, an embassy spokesman said. Hill was expected to meet Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda who has said he would be seeking a briefing from Hill on the progress of North Korea's nuclear disarmament. The US envoy would be in Indonesia until Tuesday, US embassy spokesman Max Kwak told AFP. "Hill will be meeting with government officials to talk about bilateral and global issues," said Kwak, adding that a formal agenda had not been finalised. Hill is also US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs. Indonesia, which has diplomatic ties with North Korea, has been playing an active role in trying to find a peaceful solution to the Pyongyang stand-off. The two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States are parties to the talks aimed at persuading Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Last month, North Korea's deputy foreign minister visited Indonesia to brief top government officials on progress over its nuclear disarmament. Indonesia says it plans to develop nuclear power as part of efforts to find alternative energy sources to address its growing needs. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed Indonesia's plans to build nuclear plants despite opposition from environmentalists. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Scotsman.com News: Labour MPs plot to strip Salmond of nuclear veto powers Sun 27 May 2007 Alex Salmond BRIAN BRADY AND EDDIE BARNES ALEX Salmond should be stripped of his powers to block nuclear power stations north of the Border, according to Labour MPs who want Scotland's veto over atomic energy handed back to Westminster. Leading members of the Scottish party are urging Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling to overrule Salmond, who last week said he would prevent the construction of new nuclear stations north of the Border. They claim the nation's energy supply and thousands of jobs should not be left at the mercy of an "irresponsible and prejudiced" Scottish National Party administration in Holyrood, which took power with a pledge to make Scotland nuclear-free. The SNP last night described the bid as a "desperate last throw of the dice" and vowed to prevent any attempt to snatch powers away from them. The Scottish Executive has powers to decide over major planning decisions, but Westminster can opt to take them back if it decides the need is there. The calls are being led by Scots Labour MPs with close links to Scotland's two nuclear stations at Hunterston and Torness. Michael Connarty, deputy chairman of the MPs' nuclear energy group, said: "If we have a nuclear power station at the moment and people say they want to keep it, there's no way the prejudice of an SNP administration should prevent it being replaced after it is decommissioned. We should not allow the planning rules to make us hidebound by the prejudice of the SNP." He added: "It is not a matter of taking anything away. There should be the same rules for everyone - those rules should be sensible." Labour MP Anne Moffat, whose East Lothian constituency includes Torness, added: "I don't think it [taking back the powers] should be ruled out and I am convinced it is on Darling's mind. The energy supply and the security of the supply are so fundamental that I don't think we can risk it in the hands of an irresponsible Executive in Scotland under any circumstances." John Robertson, chairman of the all-party MPs' nuclear energy group, added: "We have to have a national strategy and Scotland should be part of this. We need to try to get rules that are the same all over the country." The backlash against the SNP follows the publication of Britain's energy white paper last week which paved the way for a new generation of nuclear power stations across the UK. Salmond claims that Scotland can keep the lights burning - and export electricity - by promoting renewable energy and expanding new technologies in clean coal. But industry experts fear that without nuclear, Scotland could end up importing energy. Bill Coley, chief executive of British Energy - Britain's main producer of nuclear energy - said : "I believe that with the aggressive targets that we have established for [being] carbon neutral in the UK, there's no other way [than nuclear]." An SNP spokesman attacked the move by Labour MPs. "This sounds like a desperate last throw of the dice by Labour's pro-nuclear lobby at Westminster." A Department of Trade & Industry Spokesman said last night: "We are not planning to reopen this issue." Related topics * Scottish National Party http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=324 * Nuclear defence http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=373 This article: http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=823622007 Last updated: 26-May-07 00:44 BST , the Scottish Information Commissioner, and see his responses in SoS's Debate page on June 3 >>> scotlandonsunday.com ©2007 Scotsman.com | contact | terms & conditions ***************************************************************** 18 New London Day: Investing In Reliability TheDay.com - Monday, May 28, 2007 Millstone wins award for forward thinking in replacing equipment By Patricia Daddona Published on 5/27/2007 Five years ago, company inspectors noticed that a key piece of equipment, called a pressurizer, at one of the reactors at the Millstone nuclear complex had two minuscule flaws in metal welds. After making permanent repairs and knowing that the rest of the 144 pipes, called heater sleeves, welded to the bottom of the pressurizer would require intensive future inspections, Millstone owner Dominion opted to replace the equipment with one made of stainless steel, which is resistant to fatigue and cracking, explains Richard MacManus, Dominion's director of nuclear engineering. The pressurizer, which was installed last fall, costs more than those that use welds made of a weaker alloy, but is longer lasting, says Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the industry. “Only one other plant, St. Lucie in Florida, has taken this same approach,” says Sheehan. “Dominion's project was well organized (and) the effort to deal with the alloy issue was undertaken long before others in the industry tackled it.” This past Thursday, the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group that advocates for nuclear power, awarded Dominion a “Top Industry Practices” award called the AREVA Vendor Award, Millstone's fifth since Dominion bought the company from Northeast Utilities in 2001. Millstone beat out several other candidates for the award, says Alex Marion, executive director of nuclear operations and engineering for NEI. Among the benefits Millstone gained by replacing this pressurizer is a reduction in radiological exposure to workers of 37.4 rem over the life of the plant and cost savings of $20 million, Marion says. Improved safety and efficiency were also criteria for the award. “They won because of the challenge associated with replacing the pressurizer and the benefit in replacing it,” Marion says. “The new pressurizer is stainless steel, including the heater sleeves, so there's no material susceptible to degradation.” AREVA, the Paris-based manufacturer of the pressurizer, was one of three industry judges for the award, along with NEI experts, but was vetted by its peers, Marion says. ••••• The Unit 2 power plant is a pressurized water reactor, which by design circulates water through the reactor core at high pressure to keep it from boiling as it is heated during the fission process. The superheated water flows into a steam generator where it produces steam that turns a turbine to create electricity. Together with the Unit 3 reactor, Millstone produces 2,040 megawatts, or enough electricity to power more than 500,000 homes. The pressurizer is a large cylindrical tank like a large water heater eight feet in diameter and 32 feet high. It sits between the reactor vessel and the steam generator, and exerts 2,250 pounds of pressure to keep the water from boiling, says MacManus. Hot water sits in the bottom of the pressurizer and a steam bubble floats at the top, he said. In 2002, during a routine inspection, Dominion inspectors discovered two tiny deformities in metal alloy bonds that hold the heater sleeves in place at the bottom of the pressurizer. The heater sleeves contain electric heaters, which make this spot, like the reactor core, one of the hottest spots in the plant, at 600 degrees Fahrenheit, said Timothy Petit, a project manager. Even flaws as minimal as the ones inspectors found at Unit 2 can lead to leaks and cracks and potentially major operating problems, Petit and MacManus said. Petit and Mike Stark, a nuclear technical specialist, learned that stainless steel tested by the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., could be used in pressurizes to improve durability. Buying a new pressurizer was the route Dominion chose, and never looked back, MacManus says. Instead of 144 heater sleeves, there are only 60, and they are built into the equipment design, he says. “It becomes a business decision, what is the right path,” he says. “We see Millstone as a long-term investment, therefore it makes good business sense.” Two years ago, the nuclear complex received 20-year license extensions through 2045 for the Unit 2 and 3 reactors. “You look at that and know you've got components that are good for the life of the plant,” says Petit. •••••Despite the honors, there were some obstacles along the way for the project. For instance, AREVA was not always on schedule in delivering parts for the project, says Petit. And a two-foot thick concrete block that houses the pressurizer had to be cut away at the top and on one side to remove the old pressurizer, MacManus adds. The advantage is that the company installed steel supports and left the opening in place, which allows more heat to dissipate and the entire area to cool and be more readily accessed by workers, he said. Nearly 100 employees worked on the project, Petit says. Some of the past awards Dominion has won from the NEI relate to the problems with metal alloys, MacManus says. The five awards “demonstrate the forward thinking the folks here at Millstone have been able to achieve not only for Millstone in Connecticut,” he says, “but for what they're doing for the entire industry.” Waterford | © 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 19 TheDay.com: DEP Seeks 3-Month Delay In Millstone Permit Hearing Monday, May 28, 2007 By Patricia Daddona , Published on 5/26/2007 The state is seeking to postpone public hearings for three months on a proposed water discharge permit at the Millstone nuclear complex in Waterford so it can review a pertinent court case. The state Department of Environmental Protection is looking for a stay from the hearing officer for DEP's Office of Adjudication, a request made last week. That office decides whether permits are issued. A federal ruling made four months ago could alter the way 539 power plants, including nuclear reactors, across the country avoid killing fish while cooling their energy producing systems. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the EPA to clarify or change its laws involving whether power plants must stop fish kills by using “the best technology available” — a step that could require an expensive technological overhaul at many plants, including Millstone's two operating reactors. Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had joined the lawsuit lodged by Riverkeeper Inc. and several other environmental groups, along with the states of Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York. His attorneys provide legal counsel to DEP. “We advised (DEP officials) to take into account the Riverkeeper case, and they wisely agreed with us,” Blumenthal said Friday. “We're their lawyers. We explained the ramifications of the ruling, and they were sensitive and thoughtful in their response. So they have said, in effect, 'We need to go back to the drawing board.' ” This exercise could lead to a revision of the draft permit, Blumenthal said. At Millstone, power plants take in water from Long Island Sound to cool steam used to generate electricity. The water flows through a grate, which traps fish and other sea life alive and returns them to the Sound by way of a vertical conveyor belt. The proposed permit, which DEP had tentatively approved, incorporates some new rules to reduce the death of winter flounder larvae. DEP spokesman Dennis Schain said Friday the agency needs to fully review the court case for implications to its regulations. “That decision potentially impacts permit requirements for that type of facility,” Schain said. “We need to carefully evaluate that and determine the most appropriate way to proceed. We would like to move as quickly as possible on the matter, and we'll work to do just that.” In February, he said DEP was “carefully reviewing” the court case but intended to move forward with the renewal process for Millstone's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit, which originally expired in 1997. Former DEP Commissioner Arthur J. Rocque Jr. allowed Millstone to continue operating under an emergency authorization. Earlier this month, Connecticut Fund for the Environment and Save the Sound filed motions to become parties to the case. In a related matter, Superior Court Judge Lois Tanzer has dismissed anti-nuclear activist Nancy Burton's lawsuit against Dominion and DEP over the cooling system. Burton said Friday Tanzer ruled she had no standing. A copy of the memorandum of decision was not available. Burton said she intends to re-argue or appeal the decision. p.daddona@theday.com Regional at 1 (860) 442-2200 | New London, CT | © 1998-2007 The Day Publishing Co. 104 ***************************************************************** 20 CWNS: Nuclear power must make green sense: Preston Manning CanWest News Service Published: Saturday, May 26, 2007 EDMONTON -- Nuclear power as an alternative energy source for developing Alberta's oilsands is a good idea only if it proves to have the lowest costs, not just economically, but environmentally, says former Reform party leader Preston Manning. "I think that is the principle that should guide how you do oil extraction. It should be done by the lowest cost alternative, and that includes not just in the production of the energy, but in dealing with, and mitigating, the environmental consequences," said Manning, who was the keynote speaker at an event Thursday night marking the 25th anniversary of the Environmental Law Centre. "If you apply that principle to nuclear energy and it comes out higher on the list, than good for nuclear power," Manning said during a brief interview. While nuclear energy doesn't produce the CO2 that fossil fuels do, it does produce dangerous radioactive nuclear waste which needs to be secured for hundreds of thousands of years. Mitigating the problem of nuclear waste must be as important as finding the cheapest way to develop the oilsands, said the founder of the Reform Party of Canada and the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance. Energy Alberta Corp. and its partner, Atomic Energy Canada, announced earlier this month plans to apply to build a 2,200-megawatt nuclear power plant somewhere in northern Alberta -- potentially Whitecourt. If the plant were to go ahead, it would be the largest electrical generation source in Alberta. floyiethejournal.canwest.com Edmonton Journal © CanWest News Service 2007 © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 21 Edmonton Journal: French have atomic option for Alberta edmontonjournal.com Giant Areva firm competing with AECL Gordon Jaremko, The Edmonton Journal Published: Saturday, May 26, 2007 EDMONTON - A French candidate stepped forward Friday to usher Alberta into the atomic energy age, offering to tailor-make a nuclear power station for the province's needs. Areva, France's state-controlled global giant in the field, disclosed plans to compete with Ottawa's smaller Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for rights to build an Alberta electricity megaproject. "We have a growing realization that nuclear energy has a good chance of becoming part of the electricity mix in Alberta," Areva Canada president Armand Laferrere said in an interview. He will open a campaign to make the French firm the winner of the emerging race to add the new dimension to the Alberta grid by visiting Calgary and Edmonton next week. His schedule includes meetings with provincial cabinet members such as Energy Minister Mel Knight and undisclosed business leaders, chiefly in the oil and gas industry. "We're encountering a lot of interest," Laferrere said. His trek west from Areva Canada's Toronto head office follows a vote in favour of considering nuclear power by the annual policy convention of the Alberta Conservatives earlier this month. The party directed Knight to start a formal study. Areva is not starting from behind in the atomic power race even though AECL's Calgary marketing agency, Energy Alberta, has tentatively selected a Whitecourt site about 160 kilometres northwest of Edmonton for a generating station, Laferrere indicated. The French firm will line up customers or partners and work out service requirements for a new plant before seeking a location, he said. Energy Alberta and AECL have not announced power supply contracts or named potential users of electricity from their proposed project. The 58,000-employee French firm is about 30 times bigger than AECL. Areva built 58 reactors that generate 78 per cent of France's electricity and 40 plants in other countries. Two more stations are under construction in Finland and France. The latest projects include the first use of a new plant design, the "evolutionary power reactor" or EPR for short, that cuts costs of nuclear power by an estimated 10 per cent. The system reduces radioactive waste, eliminates total overhauls that shut down previous generation plants for a year or more, adds safety precautions and eliminates the "heavy" or radioactive water used by AECL's older CANDU technology. Areva has growing operations across Canada with about 1,100 employees at 18 locations including northern Saskatchewan, where the firm is the nation's second-biggest uranium miner after Cameco Corp. Areva also has Alberta power industry customers using computer software developed in France for managing electricity flows across transmission lines. In addition to building reactors, the French firm operates in every stage of atomic power production, including electricity transmission and nuclear waste disposal. Areva is prepared to work in partnership with AECL but so far the Canadian firm has not responded to French overtures, Lafarrere said. Lafarrere described his firm's move into Alberta as "exploration." He set no target dates for making a deal or unveiling a project. But nuclear power increasingly looks like it has a future in Alberta due to rising electricity demand, high prices of fossil fuels used by conventional generating stations, and mounting pressure on the province to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, Lafarrere said. gjaremko@thejournal.canwest.com © 2007 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks ***************************************************************** 22 Miami Herald News: FPL Group CEO targets pollution - 05/26/2007 - MiamiHerald.com ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FPL Group CEO Lewis Hay III focused on environmental issues at the company's annual meeting. BY KRISTI E. SWARTZ Palm Beach Post JUNO BEACH -- FPL Group Chief Executive Lewis Hay III spent nearly 20 minutes of the Fortune 500 company's annual meeting Friday talking about something not often discussed in the utilities industry: Global warming. ''The stakes are huge,'' Hay said to a room of about 100 people at FPL's headquarters in Juno Beach. Hay touted the ''greener'' alternative fuels of wind and solar developed by FPL Group's nonregulated energy subsidiary, FPL Energy, but said only a tax on carbon emissions will get people to change their behavior and reduce energy consumption. ''What our society needs is price signals in order to change the debate,'' Hay said. Hay referred to FPL Energy -- which brought in $3.6 billion in revenue last year -- as the ''little brother,'' to the larger utility subsidiary of Florida Power & Light, which had $12 billion in revenue last year and serves 4.4 million residential and business customers. FPL Energy was formed nine years ago and is now one of the largest providers of wind and solar power in the world, Hay said. It has operations, including nuclear plants, in 24 states. ''This younger brother is growing up very, very fast,'' Hay said. PROTESTERS Meanwhile, three environmental groups totaling 15 people were outside waving signs as they protested plans by Florida Power & Light to build a natural-gas plant in western Palm Beach County. The twin-unit West County Energy Center is set to open in 2009. The plant, which would sit off Southern Boulevard near 20-Mile Bend, has been approved by state utility regulators, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Power Plant Siting Board, which then was occupied by Gov. Jeb Bush and the Cabinet. On Friday, the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition filed suit in U.S. District Court against the state as well as the DEP, saying that they did not take carbon emissions and other pollutants into account when signing off on the plant. Attorney Barry Silver said he will give GOP Gov. Charlie Crist 10 days to review the lawsuit before formally serving his office with court papers. Crist approved the West County Energy Center as attorney general and a member of the Cabinet. Silver said he's hoping as governor that Crist ``may look at this with different eyes.'' In an April 16 letter, the DEP said it ''did not find sufficient evidence under the statute'' to revoke the plant's certification. SHAREHOLDER VOICES At the FPL Group meeting, which lasted nearly two hours, shareholders approved FPL's board, accounting firm and the stock plan for its nonemployee directors. Not everyone agreed with all the benefits that FPL's executives are receiving. ''That's a lot of green,'' Al Volpe, an FPL stockholder for 57 years, told Hay after rattling off what the CEO is receiving in bonuses -- $9.5 million in 2006, including stock awards totaling $4.7 million and a salary of $1.15 million. Hay, who addressed the remarks of each shareholder, said new coal plants have the most advanced, energy-efficient technology and said environmental advocates should go after older coal plants. ''In my mind, they should just be shut down,'' he said. Separately, Florida Power & Light said it was pleased that the primary recommendation of the Public Service Commission staff 'recognizes the utility's need to build an advanced clean-coal technology power plant to meet customers' future energy demands.'' FPL has proposed building a 1,960-megawatt coal facility in Glades County. Note: The Miami Herald has a business relationship with FPL in a program to recruit subscribers. Copyright 2007 Miami Herald Media Co. ***************************************************************** 23 Miami Herald: Nuclear plant eyed for Dade - 05/26/2007 - MiamiHerald.com FPL | TURKEY POINT FPL's search for a new nuclear power site may be over as the utility pursues plans to expand Turkey Point. BY CURTIS MORGAN, MATTHEW I. PINZUR AND ROB BARRY cmorgan@MiamiHerald.com Florida Power & Light, which has been considering about a dozen locations across the state for a new nuclear power plant, is now focusing on one site: the Turkey Point power complex in South Miami-Dade. ''We have made more commitment to Turkey Point than anywhere else,'' said FPL spokesman Tom Veenstra. ``It's our preferred site so far.'' Turkey Point is already home to Florida's oldest nuclear reactors; its twin cooling towers have been landmarks along the mangrove coastline of Biscayne Bay for 35 years. In the last month, FPL has shown sketchy site plans to county planners and environmental regulators and briefed Homestead council members, a South Miami-Dade county commissioner and the superintendent of Biscayne National Park. Last week, the utility also assembled a lobbying team. Nine lobbyists, including prominent Miami land-use lawyers Jeffrey Bercow and Michael Radell, all registered on May 17 to represent FPL for an ''unusual-use application'' at Turkey Point -- the category covering reactors. Veenstra said FPL expects to soon file for permits to expand the plant, but stressed the company had not made a final decision ''by any means'' and other locations remain an option if this one doesn't work out. County land-use review, he said, was simply one step in a lengthy process. Between scrutiny from myriad agencies and construction of facilities costing upwards of $6 billion, it can take 12 years or more to fire up a nuclear plant. ''Just because we're taking this action doesn't preclude us from looking at other spots,'' he said. `PRETTY CLEAR' But Mark Lewis, superintendent of Biscayne National Park, said FPL executives who briefed him by phone last month sounded settled on the site, which is plainly visible across a mile or so of shimmering Biscayne Bay from park headquarters. ''Although they told me they had not made any decisions, I thought it was pretty clear they were aiming toward Turkey Point,'' he said. During the conversation, he said, both sides also used GoogleEarth images to discuss the location -- a flat, grassy 450-acre site adjacent to an existing complex already bristling with two reactors, an oil-fired plant and nearly-completed natural gas-burning plant. FPL also showed basic designs to Miami-Dade environmental regulators and planning staff last month. Planning spokeswoman Marisol Triana said the designs were deliberately vague because the company cited national security concerns. If FPL moves forward, the new plant would add to the growing uranium-powered energy wave in the United States, which hasn't approved a new plant since 1973. Sixteen utilities already have filed papers with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission laying the groundwork for at least 28 new reactors that could go on line by 2020 -- including two plants in Florida. Besides FPL, Progress Energy is pursuing a nuclear facility in Levy County and is about a year ahead in the process. The ''nuclear renaissance'' -- as NRC chair Dale Klein called it Friday during an industry conference in Aventura -- has been fueled by the skyrocketing costs of oil and natural gas and growing concerns about global-warming pollution. But nuclear plants come with their own concerns, from the heightened security risks of terrorist attack to growing stockpiles of potentially lethal radioactive waste. A federal dump that's planned under a Nevada mountain is behind schedule and mired in controversy -- and FPL, like most nuclear operators, is running out of room for spent fuel rods. By next year at its St. Lucie plant and 2010 at Turkey Point, the utility intends to start moving the most depleted radioactive fuel into concrete ''dry storage'' casks stored on each site. Lewis said it was too early to comment about FPL's plan but ''there are obviously a lot of questions in our minds.'' Beyond the issues of more radioactive fuels and wastes, there are concerns that building construction and excavation for fill could potentially destroy hundreds of acres of wetlands. FRONT-RUNNER Since FPL announced last year that it intended to decide whether and where to build a new plant by 2009, executives have repeatedly hinted Turkey Point was a front-runner. The company said it needs to produce about 28 percent more energy over the next 10 years alone to serve a growing population. Turkey Point supplies up to 450,000 homes. ''It's no big secret,'' Veenstra said. ``All the steps we have taken so far have led us to Turkey Point.'' The site has obvious economic and strategic advantages, said Melanie Lyons, spokeswoman for the industry-run Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, D.C. Most new reactors are proposed for existing plants, not ''green'' locations. ''The transmission lines, the emergency response plans, all the environmental issues, they're all the same,'' she said. ``That's why you're going to see these first on existing sites.'' POLITICAL SENSE It also makes political and public relations sense for FPL. National and state environmentalists have mounted a major campaign to oppose a new coal-burning power plant the company is proposing for rural Glades County, saying the emissions will contribute to global warming and harm the Everglades. FPL's effort to extend Turkey Point's operating license for 20 years, approved by the NRC in 2002, drew only a smattering of objections from activists -- though the surrounding area has experienced a suburban boom since. Under current projections, a new plant would go on-line about the time that Turkey Point's existing reactors, by then a half-century old, would be up for a second and likely more difficult re-licensing. Miami-Dade Commissioner Dennis Moss, who represents the area and talked with FPL executives earlier this year about the probable expansion, said the plant's safety record has given residents a comfort level with nuclear power that might not be found in other places. It also provides high-paying jobs in an area hungry for economic development. ''I think the community would be receptive,'' Moss said. Miami Herald staff writer Rebecca Dellagloria contributed to this report. Copyright 2007 Miami Herald Media Co. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 24 Daily Yomiuri: China eyes up to 20-fold N-power boost by end of '30 The Chinese government plans to boost the country's nuclear power generation capability by between 15 and 20 times its current level by the end of 2030, a Chinese official close to the plan said Saturday. The National Development and Reform Commission, which administers China's energy policy, aims to increase nuclear power generation to between 120 million and 160 million kilowatts, the official said during a speech at a strategic energy forum held in Beijing, which was sponsored by the Chinese Construction Ministry. At present, China has 10 nuclear reactors, which are capable of generating 8 million kilowatts. China has previously announced that it wanted to up nuclear power output to 40 million kilowatts by the end of 2020. To attain its goal under the new plan, China would need to build in excess of 100 nuclear reactors, each capable of generating 1 million kilowatts, over 20 years. If the plan is realized, China would become the world's largest generator of nuclear power, surpassing Japan, France and the United States. However, China's plan to build multiple nuclear plants has prompted fears of intensified international competition to source uranium, which is used as fuel for nuclear power generation. It is forecast that the country, which has recently experienced annual economic growth of around 10 percent, will drastically expand its energy consumption. China has apparently concluded that it needs to up the percentage of energy generated by nuclear power, because coal-generated thermal power is causing serious environmental pollution. Officials have been on a diplomatic drive to import badly-needed energy resources. Last year, China reached an agreement with the Australian government to procure uranium on condition that it would not use the nuclear material for military purposes. China has already started stockpiling uranium for strategic purposes, and has taken other steps to secure the valuable commodity in preparation for its numerous new reactors. According to UX Consulting--a U.S. firm that publishes benchmark uranium prices--the spot price of one pound (about 454 grams) of uranium stood at 125 dollars as of Monday, about 18 times more than 7.1 dollars quoted in December 2000. It is possible that China's shift to nuclear energy will push up the price of uranium on the international market. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 25 [DU-WATCH] The gift (of death) that keeps on giving - Dr. Miraki Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 01:57:19 -0500 (CDT) campaign news. Updated 11 January 2007 The gift that keeps on giving. May 25, 2007 at 4:28 pm 7 Filed under 2007 May DU Conference Congenital Deformities: The Gift That Keeps On Giving, is the title of a chapter in Afghan- American Dr. Mohammed Daud Mirakis book, Afghanistan After Democracy, The Untold Story Through Photographic Images. Dr. Miraki was one of the presenters at the Stop-DU conference, Saturday, 19 May, 2007, attended by the Christian Peacemaker Team Depleted Uranium (DU) delegation at East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN. Dr. Miraki left Afghanistan with his family in 1982 during the Soviet occupation. He gave a scathing condemnation of the U.S. bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan soon after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. He told us that most Afghans live in abject poverty after experiencing nearly thirty years of war. Afghan civilians are still dying from thousands of mines left by the Soviet army, he said. Dr. Miraki has revisited Afghanistan several times in a personal quest for the truth about the U.S.s stated goal of bringing democracy to Afghanistan. Various reports indicate that some of the U.S. ordnance used in attempts to destroy the Taliban and Al Quaeda consisted of DU munitions. Tons of DU, from bunker buster bombs used on the caves in the eastern mountains and from rapid fire machine guns of A-10 Warthogs or Apache helicopters, have left the beautiful Afghan landscape littered with the graves of whole and extended families plus a radioactive nightmare for those left alive. The DU burns when fired or exploded, leaving fine, inhalable radioactive waste everywhere the wind blows, resulting in increased rates of cancers, childhood leukemia and other illnesses. In a silence as if people had stopped breathing, Dr. Miraki showed slides demonstrating the dramatically increased rates of birth defects - nauseating photos of Afghan newborns with swollen heads, red tumours where lips and eyes should be; frog-like babies with no brain; abdominal and head organs left outside the body; babies with one eye in the middle of the forehead; club hands and feet and more. As part of a civilization that would use such weapons on other people and the Earth, I had an urge to put on the clothing of biblical repentance sackcloth and ashes. Dr. Miraki told us, Tiny radioactive particles, inhaled by Afghan men and women of child bearing age, have altered the DNA of their sperms and eggs, resulting in a dramatic increase in birth defects. Since DNA damage is inheritable, the increased incidence of birth defects is being passed on to future generations. He also said, since the radioactive dust from DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years (the age of the Earth) this means that Afghans (and others where DU has been used Iraq and the former Yugoslavia) will be suffering for an unforeseeable time. U.S. and NATO veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who may have been exposed to DU dust also return home with fear of having babies with birth defects. Truly, the use of DU munitions is the the gift of death that keeps on giving. By Murray Lumley http://stop-du.org/blog/?p=26 Help the US become Radiation Free by 2033! www.radiation.org Cathy Garger www.mytown.ca/garger --------------------------------- Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:du-watch-digest@yahoogroups.com mailto:du-watch-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 26 deseretnews.com: Feds urged to expand fallout compensation Saturday, May 26, 2007 By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News A congressman from Utah and one from Idaho have taken the first step that may result in expansion of federal fallout compensation. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, have written to the House Judiciary Committee, requesting a hearing on possible expansion of coverage of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The measure was amended in July 2000, but they believe it may not be adequate in light of recent scientific studies. "When the original counties were set up to be eligible for radiation exposure compensation, that was an arbitrary decision," Matheson said during a telephone interview. Since then, even since the law was clarified later, "a lot of new information and data" have come out, he said. Asked what areas might be included that were not earlier, he said, "we're looking at the rest of Utah that was not in the first" act, "and southern Idaho if not all of Idaho." Also, it "merits discussion" to see if other conditions should be added to those for which compensation is available, he said. "We ought to have a hearing, and we should hear from the scientists," Matheson said. RECA provides $50,000 to people who lived or worked downwind of the Nevada Test Site during the period of open-air nuclear testing, which took place from the 1950s through the early '60s, and who developed certain types of cancer. Workers who participated in above-ground tests could receive $75,000, and uranium workers could receive $100,000. Areas that qualify as downwind sites under the act are, in Utah: Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, Piute, San Juan, Sevier, Washington and Wayne counties; in Nevada: Eureka, Lander, Lincoln, Nye and White Pine counties and part of Clark County; in Arizona: Apache, Coconino, Gila, Navajo and Yavapai counties and the area north of the Grand Canyon. Data indicate that cancers linked to fallout may have occurred in other regions than those designated, Matheson said. In some northern Utah counties "there were higher rates of cancer ... and also fallout" than in some that are on the list, he said. But residents of the northern counties are not given compensation under the law. The two representatives wrote to Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., and Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, requesting the hearing. They are the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Judiciary Committee. Eligibility for compensation under the act's present form "is limited to certain counties in just a few states," the letter says. "These geological boundaries are, quite frankly, arbitrary boundaries that do not account for the fact that radioactive fallout does not abide by lines on (the) map." J Truman, founder of the activist group Downwinders, said people across the West who lived in the fallout areas would be "delighted to see this new move toward getting discussions going to expand RECA compensation to all downwinders. ... "It is heartening to see joint work by the elected representatives of Utah and Idaho taking the lead," he said. A former resident of southwestern Utah who now lives in Idaho, Truman said the Gem State's senators "have been trying to build interest among their counterparts across the West but have not had the needed support from some states." He hopes that the letter to the House Judiciary Committee will help in the Senate effort, too. Asked when a congressional hearing might be held on the issue, Matheson said, "I'm hesitant to make a prediction for you because my crystal ball has been wrong in the past." E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 27 FT.com: Nuclear persuasion Comment & analysis / Editorial comment - Financial Times FT.com Published: May 27 2007 20:41 | Last updated: May 27 2007 20:41 The cloud of radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster dissipated fairly quickly, but the cloud of public mistrust that hangs over the nuclear industry has yet to disappear. The British government wants to build new nuclear power stations. That is the right choice but, unless public policy goes hand in hand with some public persuasion, it will not get very far. Nuclear power was the centrepiece of the energy policy paper the government published last week. Nuclear technology helps address the twin concerns of energy independence and climate change. Uranium is mined abroad and the process produces some carbon dioxide, but the quantities involved are small relative to importing and burning fossil fuels. Nuclear plants currently supply about 18 per cent of the UK’s electricity and a third of that capacity will have to be replaced by 2020. Without new reactors the country will need a huge expansion of renewables or huge cuts in industrial emissions just to stand still in its fight against climate change. Splitting atoms does have risks. While operational safety standards are much higher than in years past, Britain still has no permanent solution to the problem of storing radioactive waste. There are also economic problems. Each new nuclear plant may cost as much as £1bn to build, though that would be manageable were it not for the uncertain future costs of decommissioning and waste. If new reactors are to be built they must pay those costs themselves and, given that their operators might be tempted to declare bankruptcy when the clean-up bill comes due, the UK may want to establish a mandatory trust fund into which nuclear plants must pay a percentage of their cash flows. If no company is willing to build nuclear power stations on those terms, they should not be built. In order that the judgment be fairly made, however, there must be a price on carbon as well as on nuclear waste that reflects their relative environmental costs. One of the biggest challenges will be finding communities willing to accept a new reactor in town. Placing the first new plants on existing nuclear sites is probably the only way to avoid long delays. Nuclear is not a perfect solution: it is, after all, the ultimate non-renewable resource. But it could provide a steady flow of low-carbon electricity. The UK still has much work to do to inform the public of its merits. In the end, however, nuclear power should be a source of energy the public hates to love rather than loves to hate. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 28 Jakarta Post: Crisis centers to be built in risk areas with French support National News May 28, 2007 Syofiardi Bachyul Jb, The Jakarta Post, Padang The government has commenced the construction of crisis centers for natural disaster mitigation in Jakarta, West Sumatra and Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam with assistance from the French government. The Natural Disaster Operation Control Centers are being built by the National Disaster Mitigation Coordination Agency (Bakornas BP) at a cost of 5.1 million euro (approximately US$6.68 million). Tabrani, an official from the agency, said in an introductory meeting about the program in Padang, West Sumatra, on the weekend that the locations for the centers were selected because they are areas most at risk of disaster, especially threats of earthquakes and tsunamis. "The government wants similar facilities to be built in all provinces throughout Indonesia, which has been referred to as a disaster supermarket. However, due to the limited availability of funds, initially these facilities will be built in three provinces," Tabrani said. He said the development of the facilities was aided by a memorandum of understanding signed with the French government in July 2005. Assistance totaling 5.1 million euro was given to Indonesia by the French government in the form of equipment and management assistance for disaster prevention efforts, he said. "The equipment for the disaster centers will be ready soon and in Jakarta the construction of the facility started on May 25. In Padang (West Sumatra) construction will commence on June 18 and in Banda Aceh it will commence as soon as the center in Padang is completed," he said. In Padang, the facility will be built behind the West Sumatra governor's office. Computer facilities in the three centers will be linked online to the Bakornas BP headquarters in Jakarta. Over 35 managers have been trained to handle programs in the three provinces, and 25 operators for each province will also be trained. Bruno Maestracci, international project manager for the French government, said at least three officials to be in charge of managing the three centers had been invited to France to observe similar systems there. Maestracci said the establishment of the centers was expected to help speed up the provision of information to enable governors to take accurate and effective action in times of emergency. Governors and local administrators will be able to see incidents occurring in real time, thereby enabling them to send information to the central data collection agency, he said. Maestracci said the system was designed so as authorities would be able to more quickly anticipate disruptions. If the primary system using the internet and free telephone lines was out of order, a second system using GSM networks could be used. If both were out of order, a third system using satellite technology was available, he said. Each quake-proof facility will be equipped with five computer units and radio communication networks, he said, adding that they will be backed up by a technical room, which will be used to compile relevant data on a daily basis. "However, the most important aspect among all of this is good data coordination, so if there is a disaster, everything will be ready," Maestracci said. ***************************************************************** 29 The Herald: Cancer cluster case goes to the Lords Web Issue 2839 May 28 2007 ROBBIE DINWOODIE, Chief Scottish Political Correspondent May 28 2007 The longest-running battle since the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation is being taken all the way to the House of Lords, as the NHS in Scotland continues to resist releasing local statistics on childhood leukaemia. The decision by the Common Services Agency of the NHS in the wake of defeat in the Court of Session to continue spending public money to fight the issue all the way to the Lords has outraged Green MSPs, who first asked for the local breakdown of figures in Dumfries and Galloway in 2004. The Greens wanted the breakdown of childhood leukaemia incidence down to council ward level in order to compare this with anecdotal claims about clusters around Chapelcross nuclear power station. The MSPs' researcher, Michael Collie, lodged the first appeal under the new FoI legislation within days of it coming into force in January 2005. The Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, accepted his case and in August 2005 ordered the agency to release the statistics. Two months later CSA appealed this ruling to the Court of Session. Judges backed Mr Dunion. Robin Harper said: "It is unacceptable that the CSA should continue to drag out this process and waste taxpayers' money trying to prevent a matter of public interest being placed in the public domain. "I would urge Scottish Executive ministers to intervene on their civil servants to abide by the court ruling and release this information." © All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Posted by: megz, glasgow on 10:49pm Sun 27 May 07 the scottish parliament should force the matter to reveal the effects of the nuclear power plants, it would surely give the anti-nuclear support another argument against building more stations. the scottish parliament should force the matter to reveal the effects of the nuclear power plants, it would surely give the anti-nuclear support another argument against building more stations. Quote | Report this post Posted by: Peter Cherbi, Edinburgh on 1:53am today #megz, glasgow I completely agree with you. This case comes from the continual habit of the last two Executives, and Scottish Office Ministers before them to cover up issues to the nth degree, or resist disclosure to the bitter end, no matter the cost. Robin Harper is correct, Scottish Executive Ministers should intervene in this case and see the information is released - all of it please, no little bits left out as has been the case in some recent FOI disclosures which the Commissioner & applicants have also had to fight tooth & nail to get released through the courts. I hope Alex Salmond's Executive will banish this crooked culture of cover up and resisting disclosure just to protect industries, professions, or public bodies with things to hide. It is high time we had a bit more transparency in Scotland - please deliver it ! #megz, glasgow I completely agree with you. This case comes from the continual habit of the last two Executives, and Scottish Office Ministers before them to cover up issues to the nth degree, or resist disclosure to the bitter end, no matter the cost. Robin Harper is correct, Scottish Executive Ministers should intervene in this case and see the information is released - all of it please, no little bits left out as has been the case in some recent FOI disclosures which the Commissioner & applicants have also had to fight tooth & nail to get released through the courts. I hope Alex Salmond's Executive will banish this crooked culture of cover up and resisting disclosure just to protect industries, professions, or public bodies with things to hide. It is high time we had a bit more transparency in Scotland - please deliver it ! Copyright © 2007 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 30 Guardian Unlimited: Polonium killing contaminated 140 people, watchdog warns Ian Cobain Saturday May 26, 2007 The Guardian At least 140 people in London were contaminated with radioactivity as a result of the assassination of the former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko, according to government health advisers. Several hotel staff and guests were exposed to polonium-210, the radioactive isotope which was used to poison Mr Litvinenko, along with police officers, hospital staff, and a number of his relatives and friends. While the Health Protection Agency (HPA) says that the majority of these people will not suffer any ill health as a result, 17 people have been warned that they may face long-term health risks. Several are already claiming criminal compensation as a result of the mental trauma of being told that they have been contaminated, but have been told by lawyers that they may receive no more than £1,400 for this. Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, yesterday repeated demands for the prime suspect in the murder case to be handed over to British authorities. During face-to-face talks in Munich with Russia's chief prosecutor, Yuri Chaika, he said that Andrei Lugovoi must be extradited to stand trial in Britain. "I have spoken to the Russian prosecutor general today to stress that this was a most grave and reckless crime, which killed one man and endangered the safety of many others," he said. The chances of this happening appear remote, however, as the Russian constitution forbids the extradition of its citizens. The Russians say they would consider putting Mr Lugovoi on trial if Scotland Yard hands over its evidence. In an article for today's Guardian, Russian ambassador Yuri Fedotov writes: "The Russian prosecutor general is awaiting formal details of the case against Lugovoi before making a decision on what action to take. There is no reason why evidence against him cannot be used in a Russian court of law." Some 618 people living in the UK were tested by the HPA to see whether they had been exposed to polonium between November 1 last year, when the isotope was slipped into a pot of tea which Mr Litvinenko was drinking at the Millennium hotel in central London, and November 23, when he died at University College hospital. The tests showed that 137 had been exposed to polonium, 17 of them at levels which are not high enough to cause immediate health problems, but which could present a long-term risk to health. This group includes Mr Litvinenko's widow, Marina, and a number of people who worked in the hotel's bar. The HPA says that "any increased risk in the long term is likely to be very small". A further 673 people living in 52 different countries, many of them tourists who stayed at the Millennium or other London hotels, have also been tested. While the tests showed that five of them also suffered exposure which could result in long-term health problems, it is unclear how many were exposed to lower levels of radioactivity. Mr Lugovoi, a former KGB bodyguard who was named as prime suspect in the case this week, was also contaminated with radioactivity from polonium, along with his friend and business partner, Dmitri Kovtun. Polonium-210 appears to have been chosen as the murder weapon because it is colourless, odourless and transparent. It can be carried through airports because it emits alpha energy, and security scanners search for gamma energy. Once it was detected, however, a few hours before Mr Litvinenko died, police were able to detect traces of the radiation and quickly pieced together the killer's movements around London. The UK Polonium Victims Support Group is seeking compensation for distress and any future health complications. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 31 The Herald: Group raises nuclear waste worries Wire News Yorkcounty.com Environmentalists claim hauling radioactive materials poses threat; Duke Energy disagrees By Rebecca Sulock · The Herald Updated 05/26/07 - 12:37 AM That truck in the next lane on Interstate 77 could be carrying radioactive nuclear waste, and if a new government program gets funded, more trucks with more waste could travel local highways, local environmental groups warned this week. The Department of Energy is looking for a place to take nuclear waste from the nation's 103 reactors and recycle it as fuel. Two out of 11 possible options include South Carolina's Barnwell plant or the Savannah River Site. More trucks hauling radioactive material likely would travel I-77 if either of those sites are chosen, according to a report from Common Sense at the Nuclear Crossroads, a grass-roots group that studies the transport of nuclear materials in the Southeast. Those trucks driving under normal conditions expose people to radiation, said Louis Zeller of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. "More transports means more exposure to more people, even without so much as a flat tire," Zeller said. Trucking nuclear waste also carries disastrous risks such as a spill or a hijacking. "Every shipment of high-level nuclear waste could be turned into a dirty bomb," Zeller said. The U.S. Congress set aside money this week for the program, called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP. The program outlines a plan to build a reprocessing plant that would turn the nuclear waste into fuel, among other initiatives the energy department says would create more nuclear energy and reduce the use of fossil fuels. Local environmental groups, including the Sierra Club Henry's Knob Group and the York County Green Party, announced their opposition to the GNEP plan this week. Others think it's a strategy that makes sense. Duke Energy, which operates reactors at Lake Wylie and Lake Norman, said it supports the GNEP plan. "It's just good sound business to reduce nuclear waste as a whole," said Valerie Patterson, spokesperson for Duke Energy. While Duke has paid into a fund for a permanent storage location for nuclear waste, it also has space to store its own waste at its reactor sites, Patterson said. "It would be wonderful to see a permanent repository," she said. Duke supports having one site with set security and storage standards for the country's nuclear waste, Patterson said. Some groups are concerned the GNEP plan could result in South Carolina becoming a dumping ground for the nation's nuclear waste. The waste could be stored at Savannah River or Barnwell and if the proposed reprocessing plant didn't get built or didn't work, it could just sit. "Once it gets here, odds are, it will never leave," said Leslie Minerd of the Columbia-based Environmentalists. The GNEP plan will be making its way through congressional budget committees in the coming months. Rebecca Sulock • 329-4072 | rsulock@heraldonline.com All The Herald is owned by The McClatchy Company and is a Member of the South Carolina Press Association Copyright © 2006 The Herald, Rock Hill, South Carolina ***************************************************************** 32 Green Left: Brief: Nuke dump dangerous Kerry Smith 26 May 2007 Friends of the Earth (FoE) has expressed concern after the Northern Land Council nominated a site at Muckaty, near Tennant Creek, for a proposed nuclear waste dump. on May 25, FoE national nuclear campaigner Dr Jim Green rejected claims by John Daly from the Northern Land Council that a nuclear dump could be ?safely constructed? in the Northern territory. ?The government agency responsible for the nuclear waste dump, the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), has a track record of mismanaging nuclear projects?, Green said, noting that when the government planned to dump nuclear waste in South Australia, ?the regulator ? the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency ? agreed that DEST had insufficient expertise to safely manage the project, as did the International Atomic Energy Agency?. ?Daly is also wrong to claim that nuclear waste transportation is safe. There have been countless accidents involving nuclear waste transportation around the world?, Green argued, citing scandals in France, Germany and the US. ?The Lucas Heights nuclear agency ANSTO has acknowledged 1-2 ?incidents? each year involving the transportation of nuclear materials to and from Lucas Heights. ?Daly?s claim that ?every Australian directly benefits from radiological medical treatment ? produced at Lucas Heights? is also false. In fact, as two Senate inquiries have found, Australia does not even need a nuclear reactor, let alone a nuclear waste dump, in order to assure high-level nuclear medicine services.? From: Australian News, Green Left Weekly issue #711 30 May 2007. From: Australian News GLW issue #711 - 30 May 2007: Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW. Site by Kiwa Systems ***************************************************************** 33 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: A dead horse rides Today: May 27, 2007 at 9:9:51 PDT Attempt to revive plan to dump nuclear waste in Nevada is folly and should be abandoned Two of the nuclear industry's biggest supporters in the U.S. Senate, Republicans Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Larry Craig of Idaho, are trying to revive the foolhardy plan to dump tens of thousands of tons of high-level nuclear waste in Nevada. The senators are up to an old ruse, saying the Nevada Test Site would be a temporary location for the nation's spent nuclear fuel. The Test Site is adjacent to the government's preferred storage location - Yucca Mountain, which is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas - so the idea, of course, would be to ultimately make Nevada the nation's permanent toxic graveyard. To that end, the bill also would repeal the 77,000-ton cap in law placed on how much waste could be buried at Yucca Mountain, nearly doubling the dump's potential capacity. Nevada has fended off challenges such as this over the past two decades and will need to mount another defense. The evidence is overwhelming that putting the nation's nuclear waste in Nevada would be unsafe, but the power of the nuclear industry's lobby, especially over the Republican Party, has been able to keep this project alive in Congress. This is why it has been important to have Democrats, especially with Nevada Sen. Harry Reid as majority leader, in control of the Senate to block this project. After spending years and billions of dollars trying to make a scientific case for Yucca Mountain, the Energy Department has failed. It has also failed to support absurd claims that it is perfectly safe to cart tons of nuclear waste across the country on the nation's highways and railroads. It is time for the senators who are behind this latest attempt to remember the old Western saying: You are beating a dead horse. All contents © 1996 - 2007 Las Vegas Sun, Inc. ***************************************************************** 34 Chillicothe Gazette: Boom and bust at Piketon's A-plant www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Sunday, May 27, 2007 By Geoffrey Sea, SONG Dan Moore calls his vision for Piketon "The American Recycling Center." It's un-American, has nothing to do with recycling and won't be centered here. Two "entities" headed by Moore have finished a "study" at a cost to taxpayers of $674,000. Ignoring the unique ecology of the area, its historic and prehistoric sites and the tremendous jobs potential of cleanup and redevelopment, the document simply offers the site to the Department of Energy for any kind of vague new "facility" DOE might have in mind. The precise nature of that facility isn't stated, but DOE has been searching for a location for one big covered space, after attempts to open nuclear waste storage and disposal facilities have failed in Nevada and Utah. DOE has Piketon pegged as the centralized spent fuel storage dump for the nation and the world. In 2004, USEC, which used to employ Moore on its board and leases the Piketon site, bought NAC International, which specializes in the storage and transportation of spent nuclear fuel. More than 52 percent of Moore's contract award was inexplicably given to AREVA, the nuclear waste company owned by the government of France. AREVA runs the La Hague reprocessing plant on the French coast, where fast currents and high winds have spread plutonium contamination out across the English Channel, to the great displeasure of the English. The French program is far from economical. The French government subsidizes it heavily at a huge loss and tremendous cost to taxpayers. Resulting high-level waste is dumped in the ocean, under protest from the rest of the European community. Moore calls his "public-private partnership" to bring the French system here "The Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative" or "SONIC." It's based in Cleveland, it has nothing to do with integration, and it has bunkered itself against the public in a manner distinctly uncooperative. SONIC's application for federal funds stated: "Separate from this proposal, though integral to it, SONIC has proposed a spent nuclear fuel (SNF) storage facility at Portsmouth [i.e. Piketon]..." In other words, the idea for a "recycling center" was added on, to pad the number of promised jobs. Piketon was never a real candidate for a reprocessing plant, because we're not in an isolated place with fast winds and currents, and our site sits on top of an aquifer, which runs through Chillicothe, connected to the largest aquifer system in North America. A pilot reprocessing project for DOE is under construction in South Carolina. If the technology materializes and is funded by Congress, it will likely go there. But this week, the overall budget for the "Global Nuclear Energy Partnership" was slashed by 73 percent in the House, indicating this Congress regards American reprocessing as a pipe dream. Total costs for the program have been estimated at half a trillion dollars and even if that money were to fall out from the sky, so to speak, no GNEP production plant will open before 2025 - an awfully long time to wait for the skilled work force of southern Ohio. We will all look back on GNEP as slightly less realistic than Bush's mission to Mars. However, the demise of GNEP will leave an even greater need for a high-level waste storage dump, of the kind Moore has uniquely offered. The spent fuel storage facility proposed for Utah would not have provided 8,000 or 5,000 or 1,000 jobs. The total number of full-time employees would have been 20. Thousands of good-paying cleanup jobs would be lost in the here and now. A draft version of the SONIC application, provided by a whistleblower, stated: "In early 2006, SODI organized a meeting to explore ... what was needed to position the community for continued investment in advanced nuclear technology." No need to develop your own position. Moore's entities have done that for you, in advance! Why? Because that's how it's done in France! Community "veto power" was promised, once details were clarified. But now, before key documents have been disclosed, that offer has been withdrawn. Instead, SONIC has issued a meaningless "Statement of Principles," matched with new proposed legislation, both of which claim to bar centralized spent fuel storage at Piketon. They don't. Both the principles and the legislation only separate waste storage from GNEP, a program that is now falling apart. Contractually, according to the offers made by Moore's entities, siting decisions now rest with DOE. We have a different idea. We're the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group and, next week, we will deliver petitions with more than 3,500 signatures of area residents who do not want this farce to continue. We're not anti-nuclear; we care about truth and democracy, and real jobs in real time, the American way. Visit our booth at the Feast of the Flowering Moon, visit our Web site at www.OhioNeighbors.org and sign our petition online at www.progressohio.org/page/petition/DOEpetition. (Sea is a Pike County writer, owner of the historic Barnes home, and a co-founder of SONG - the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group) AT ISSUE: A proposed nuclear reprocessing facility at Piketon Hundreds have attended the public information sessions at the OSU Endeavor Center. Whether you call it a spent nuclear fuel recycling center, a reprocessing center, a proposed dump or a GNEP site, it's likely you have an opinion on the proposal to bring a facility to Pike County, where hundreds of our family, friends and neighbors work in the nuclear industry. We all live in this wide community full of opinions. Here are some of the local thoughts shared with the Chillicothe Gazette. Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 35 Chillicothe Gazette: Gov't desperate for nuclear dump site www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Sunday, May 27, 2007 Editor, the Gazette: I strongly oppose the siting of a high-level nuclear waste facility in Pike County. The federal government is currently paying billions of dollars in fines to the nuclear power plants. It had promised to find a spot to store the spent fuel rods, but now that Yucca Mountain is unavailable, the government has no place to put them. It is desperate for a new dumping ground. The site in Pike county became the ideal dump.Now, the federal government could save the billions of dollars in fines it is paying to the power companies and save the billions in cleanup at the plant site. If high-level nuclear waste is going to be stored there, the government can call it a "similar use" facility and dodge cleanup altogether. It is a win-win situation for them and a lose-lose situation for Ohio. We can be the winners if we say "no" to becoming a dump and "yes" to all the good jobs from a cleanup of the site.It is time for justice for Ohio. Kathleen Boutis Yellow Springs Originally published May 27, 2007 Print this article E-mail this to The deadline to tell the Department of Energy what you think about the GNEP siting proposal is Monday, June 4. See www.gnep.energy.govfor more information on how to submit your opinions. Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 36 Chillicothe Gazette: GNEP will endanger Pike Co. www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Sunday, May 27, 2007 Editor, the Gazette: I strongly oppose nuclear waste storage, processing or reprocessing - which is not "recycling" - in Pike County. I awaken each morning saddened to think what might become of "the most beautiful place in Ohio," as my grandfather always referred to this area. I can't understand how the proponents claim southern Ohio supports this, when almost nobody I've spoken with locally is aware of what is going on. The information available focuses on promises of progress and job creation, but leaves out specifics about what is being proposed and the undeniable risks. As I continue to learn and the situation unfolds, I become more concerned our most likely fate will be as nuclear waste storage facility, which would not provide jobs. I believe our best option is to clean up the existing site, which would be a huge project providing many jobs. Then, the site could be opened for other future opportunities that would employ our local people in good, safe jobs. I love living here, and it will break my heart to go, but my priority above all else is to provide a safe environment for my family - and Pike County will be the farthest thing from safe if this proceeds. Melissa Huber Waverly Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 37 Chillicothe Gazette: GNEP an opportunity for area development www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Sunday, May 27, 2007 By Greg Simonton, SODI Over the past few months, there has been a great deal of public discussion regarding the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The Department of Energy describes GNEP as "a comprehensive strategy to increase U.S. and global energy security, reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation, encourage clean development around the world, and improve the environment." The Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative became interested in GNEP when DOE requested expressions of interest to determine the interest of various communities in hosting a GNEP project. Essentially, the government is attempting to determine the feasibility of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods that are stored at many of the nuclear power plants throughout the United States. The reprocessing, by definition, will require the transportation and processing of radioactive materials. Thus, some people in our community have raised legitimate concerns about the safety of such a project. The SODI board members have uniformly recognized the need to carefully investigate all issues relating to the health and safety of workers and community members before supporting any GNEP process. To this end, SODI, along with a Cleveland company, formed the Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative to obtain a grant from the federal government to conduct a study. SONIC also sent a delegation of community members to France to visit a reprocessing facility and contact community leaders in the neighboring areas to ensure that reprocessing can be done safely. After much discussion and review of information, SODI developed a Statement of Principles that would guide its decisions. These principles can be obtained by contracting SODI at (740) 289-3654. In reliance upon these principles, SODI has received the overwhelming support of elected officials from Gov. Ted Strickland to federal, state and local officials representing Pike, Ross, Scioto and Jackson Counties and the townships, municipalities, and villages in those counties. Any future GNEP project will be judged within this framework. There has also been overwhelming labor support to pursue further explanation of GNEP projects. Certainly, the estimates of thousands of new jobs plays a great role in this support, but health and safety issues have been at the forefront of any discussion with labor. These men and women are most concerned with health and safety and, before supporting any project, have viewed the health and safety information with a critical eye. In fact, Dan Minter, local union president, was one of the individuals that traveled to France to tour the facility. Dan firmly believes the project can be done safely. In addition to SONIC, 10 other organizations received grants to study sites in several states. Each of these community-based organizations recognize the wisdom in exploring federal support for a project that would have a major economic impact throughout the geographic region. Not only direct employment, but the number of construction and secondary jobs would grow dramatically, further supporting the reasonableness of gathering additional information about the specifics of the projects. Although there are those who might suggest some sinister motive for conducting the study at Piketon, it is hard to imagine that the community leaders throughout the country who are supporting GNEP are participants in a nationwide conspiracy or are so naïve that they have all been fooled by DOE. With regard to DOE, SODI recognizes there are issues with some past operations at the site. SODI's Statement of Principles acknowledges that any GNEP facility should be regulated by an independent regulatory body. This is not because SODI is convinced of DOE's inability to regulate itself, but the recognition that true oversight must come from an independent body. Accordingly, SODI has worked closely with the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency to guarantee that the Ohio EPA is an active participant in the discussions regarding GNEP. The Ohio EPA has been particularly diligent in evaluating issues raised by the various proposed GNEP projects. Unfortunately, although SODI and SONIC have repeatedly stated that they will oppose any project that is not safe, some outsiders have tried to arouse emotions by claiming that GNEP is just a code name for a nuclear waste dump. SODI and SONIC would steadfastly oppose such a use of the site. They have advocated bringing spent fuel to the site only if a reprocessing facility is built; and only in quantities necessary to operate the facility. SODI and SONIC fully support the right of anyone to oppose GNEP projects. Such opposition is healthy when it is factually based. It is particularly disheartening, however, when the opposition is based upon unfounded character assassination, innuendo, and falsehoods. After all, anyone who wishes to call himself or herself a neighbor should realize that truly being a neighbor means respect for other's opinions. (Simonton is the executive director of the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative) Originally published May 27, 2007 Print this article E-mail this to This poll is over, but send your letters to gaznews@nncogannett.com DOE's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership site, where all the site proposals can be read: www.gnep.energy.gov/gnepSitingStudies.html Southern Ohio Neighbors Group: www.ohioneighbors.org Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative:www.sodi.org State Department:Clay Sell, deputy secretary of Energy, and Robert Joseph, under-secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in February 2006, includes audio: http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/61808.htm Federation of American Scientists:www.fas.org 41.2 percent - Yes, more jobs 41.3 percent - No, too much fear 12.4 percent - Maybe, depends on studies 4.8 percent - Don't know much about it This poll is over, but send your letters to gaznews@nncogannett.com Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 38 Independent.ie: Dismissing nuclear concerns will not get rid of the waste - BLAIR: We should not take energy supply for granted By Colum Kenny Sunday May 27 2007 THE British media have no doubts. They believe that a decision has been made, regardless of the promised public consultation. "Nuclear to play large role in Britain's future," proclaimed the Daily Telegraph's website as soon as the UK Government published its new energy plans last week. And across a political divide, the leftist Guardian agreed: "Government pushes forward nuclear plans," it shouted, while The Times rudely declared: "Minister dismisses 'daft' anti-nuclear lobby". You might not guess it from the greenish tones of the UK Government's official press release, but Britain's moratorium on building new nuclear plants is about to end. Prime Minister Tony Blair warned last week, "Flicking a switch and the lights coming on is something that we take for granted. Yet we should not be lulled into a false sense ofsecurity." The implications for Ireland have as much to do with nuclear waste as with nuclear power. That is because there are two distinct issues and both of them are important. You can be in favour of nuclear power as an energy option, but still deeply worried by Britain's failure to dispose of its heavy nuclear waste in a better fashion. Bullying supposedly "daft" opponents of nuclear power will not bury the long-term nuclear waste which remains a danger to humanity for millennia. Right now, US authorities are building a deep and relatively safe storage area for their high-risk nuclear waste, under Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. The Swedes bury theirs in rock under the Baltic Sea. And Finns are making a deep dump at Olkiluoto.But the UK Government is doing no such thing. It talks about future dumps while continuing to stack up high level nuclear waste above ground, primarily at Sellafield. It is a hazard that is potentially far more serious than anything that now seeps into the Irish Sea from that recycling and storage plant in Cumbria. The nuclear consultation document issued in London last week envisages no deep geological storage facility being opened before about 2045. Meanwhile, there are to be certain vague "interim" solutions that seem to involve continuing to stockpile hazardous material above ground. New nuclear plants are especially attractive for Britain, an island that in two world wars has found itself almost cut off and starved of resources. Its old nuclear plants are clapped out and North Sea oil is running low. The UK does not fancy becoming dependant on energy imports. But British nuclear energy is also attractive for Ireland's Government, which needs new sources of power before our lights start going out. Ireland old-style ESB stations are polluting the atmosphere. The Taoiseach and government ministers may pledge their opposition to nuclear generation but we already buy nuclear power from the United Kingdom. Just as the UK can be relied upon to do our dirty work when it comes to abortion, so too the big bad Brits generate nasty nuclear power of which we avail. Electricity generated across the Irish Sea has been arriving indirectly in the Republic, since 1996, via the Moyle interconnector between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Such electricity has been generated partly by nuclear power plants. That Northern Ireland link accounts for more than one in 12 units of all electricity consumed in the Republic. And if you must have a nuclear neighbour, then Britain is far from being the worst. Its parallel commitment to alternative forms of renewable energy seems genuine. UK Trade and Industry Secretary (minister) Alistair Darling last week promised to triple by 2015 the amount of electricity from renewable sources such as wind and sun. And UK incentives for reducing carbon dioxide emissions are being stepped up. But Darling also threw open a short period of consultation on the significant role that new nuclear power stations can play in cutting emissions and diversifying supply. He left British observers in no doubt that the UK Government wants such power stations built. When I forecast in my book on Sellafield four years ago that a Labour government would reverse the nuclear slowdown after the General Election, even some environmental activists scoffed my prediction. Asked to speak at a conference of the Green Party for England and Wales, in Lancaster, I found great resistance to my suggestion that they had not yet won their battle to consign nuclear energy to history. They were indulging in wishful thinking. Nuclear power provides a source of energy that is both efficient and usually clean, so long as the nuclear facilities do not melt down or suffer a traumatic terrorist attack. For governments genuinely committed to reducing green house gases and global warming, this makes nuclear an attractive option. Windmills and sun panels are still not seen by most governments as adequate alternatives. A spokesperson for Energy Minister Noel Dempsey told me last year that there is no way of identifying where our electricity has come from (ie. whether it is from Great Britain or not, nuclear-generated or not), "as all the electricity generated goes into one central pool". If the Government buys even more electricity directly from Britain, via a planned east-west underwater connector, it will become further implicated in the nuclear option that it so loudly opposes. But, by comparison, building conventional power plants in Ireland itself is economically unattractive. Our growing dependence on British energy should not blind us to the related dangers of nuclear waste. And there is a real danger that governments could turn a blind eye to that danger because it is politically and financially awkward. Opposition leader of the Liberal Democrats party, Sir Menzies Campbell, has accused Tony Blair of appearing to "disregard the issue of risk and cost and toxic waste". Our new Government must not do likewise. Prof Colum Kenny of DCU is the author of Fearing Sellafield (Gill & Macmillan, 2003). For the UK 'Future of Nuclear Power' consultation document see http://www.dti .gov.uk/ - Colum Kenny ©independent.ie Sitemap | Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions powered by Unison.ie ***************************************************************** 39 AU ABC: ANSTO reiterates nuclear waste dump safety. 27/05/2007. ABC News Online The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) says the nuclear waste dump proposed for Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory will be completely safe. The Northern Land Council has nominated the site, 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek, for a low- and intermediate-level repository. Traditional owners from the region visited ANSTO's Lucas Heights facility in New South Wales to see the type of waste that could be delivered to the dump. ANSTO chief of operations Dr Ron Cameron says the waste includes plastic gloves and contaminated clothing and is completely innocuous. "I think some people want to use misinformation to try and get up a scare campaign. We want to let people know the type of waste that this really is," he said. "I think that bringing traditional owners to Lucas Heights has really helped in that process." Dr Cameron says there are repositories all around the world that are environmentally safe. "At the moment, waste is stored in really hundreds of temporary stores all over Australia, and the best international practice is to designate one site to be the national repository - and that's what's happening here," he said. "Such repositories exist all over the world. In fact there's one in the Champagne district of France and it works very safely without any concern." But Friends of the Earth campaigner Dr Jim Green says there are about two incidents every year with the transportation of nuclear waste to and from the Lucas Heights reactor. He says if low and intermediate level waste did not pose a safety risk, it would be left at the current stores. "Three dumps have had to be closed in the United States because of environmental contamination," he said. "Also ANSTO is talking about a dump in the Champagne region of France and saying it hasn't had any impact on the environment. "In fact there's a cracked wall in that dump in Champagne in France and it is contaminating the local environment." ; 2007 ABC | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 40 AU ABC: Officials say Australian nuclear waste dump safe The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation says a national nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory will not damage the environment. Last Updated 28/05/2007, 08:35:09 The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation says a national nuclear waste dump at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory will not damage the environment. The Northern Land Council has nominated the site 120 kilometres north of Tennant Creek for a low and intermediate level repository. ANSTO's Chief of Operations Dr Ron Cameron says the site will be completely safe. He says there's been tens of millions of movements of low level nuclear waste around the world with no incidents. "At the moment, waste is stored in hundreds of temporary stores all over Australia, and the best international practice is to designate one site to be the national repository and that's what's happening here. "Such repository's exist all over the world. ***************************************************************** 41 The Cumberland News: Sellafield ruled out as site Published on 25/05/2007 By Matthew Legg SELLAFIELD has been ruled out by consultants as a potential location for a new nuclear power station. A secret government report, commissioned from energy analysts, has said that of the 19 existing civil nuclear power station sites, only Sizewell, in Norfolk, and Hinkley, in Somerset, are deemed suitable. The report cites ease of connection to the national grid and proximity to areas of high electricity demand as key factors in determining where new power stations should go – making the Midlands and the south east the best areas. Cumbria is said to be too remote with problems connecting it to the national grid. Chapelcross, in Dumfries and Galloway, was ruled out after Scottish Executive First Minister Alex Salmond said he would not allow any nuclear power stations in Scotland. A decision to overlook Sellafield would be a blow to the area’s nuclear-dependent economy. Local politicians and nuclear chiefs had welcomed yesterday’s government announcement that it intends to build a new generation of reactors. Chapelcross demolished: page 17 View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.cumberland-news.co.uk/digitalcopy ***************************************************************** 42 La Crosse Tribune: Dairyland nuclear waste ready to ride rails to South Carolina The reactor vessel from the Dairyland Power plant in Genoa,Wi. sits inside a container and put on a rail car for shipment to South Carolina . Dick Riniker photo Published - Saturday, May 26, 2007 By REID MAGNEY / La Crosse Tribune . GENOA, Wis. — A train carrying low-level nuclear waste is preparing to leave the Dairyland Power Cooperative site in Genoa for a disposal facility in South Carolina. Just don’t ask Dairyland Power officials when or by what route — under federal law, they can’t say. Dairyland is decommissioning the nuclear plant, which operated from 1969 to 1987. Nuclear fuel will be stored on site for now, while other parts of the facility will be moved or demolished. The biggest part to be moved is the reactor pressure vessel, a large steel tank where nuclear rods boiled water to create steam for the 50-megawatt generator. Crews removed the vessel from the reactor building this past week. Encased in cement and steel, it now weighs about 310 tons and has been placed on a special 20-axle rail car for shipment south from Genoa. Anti-nuclear activists have been watching the work from a distance, and plan to follow the train whenever it leaves, letting people along the way know what’s rolling through their towns. Genoa plant manager Roger Christians said Dairyland is waiting for the railroad to come and get the car. “It could happen anytime, from today on,” Christians said Friday. Christians said the vessel qualifies as low-level nuclear waste because it emits less than “200 millirem on contact. And ours is about a fourth of that, so it’s much less than is required.” According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average human annually is exposed to 300 millirems of naturally occurring background radiation at sea level. “Our point in drawing attention to it is it’s a very expensive thing,” said John LaForge, co-director of Nukewatch. “It’s a real good example of how expensive nuclear power really is when you add in what the industry calls externalities.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has estimated the cost of decommissioning the Dairyland plant at $79.5 million. When the plant is gone and the fuel stored in dry casks, Dairyland’s cost will be “a fraction” of what the cooperative now spends for security and maintenance at the plant, Christians said. LaForge said activists believe the train will go from Genoa to Dubuque, Iowa, and then to Chicago before heading for Barnwell, S.C. Dairyland officials said in 2005 it would go to the Quad Cities and then to Barnwell. Reid Magney can be reached at (608) 791-8211 or rmagney@lacrossetribune.com. . photographer wrote on May 26, 2007 6:19 PM: " My guess is that at f8, this photograph took about 125th of a second to take. Could a reporter find out what the half-life of the nuclear substance is, and report it? " A photograph is worth a thusand words wrote on May 26, 2007 5:55 PM: " The words that come to mind as I look at this story photo are, "this stuff has the half life to cause death, and lot's of it. This is scary stuff, and those who may die from it, despite our best plans, if not hurt now, will be hurt long after we'er gone. I wish mankind could figure out a better and a Simpler way." " to: mikeshoey wrote on May 26, 2007 5:37 PM: " And the radiation level is not counting the protection the concrete provides. This thing is more dangerous because of it weight than it is because of its radiactivity. " to: BOB wrote on May 26, 2007 5:34 PM: " It is sort of secret. The day it is to be shipped is not disclosed. The ones who will try to expose the date are the antinuclear activists. It is sort of silly anyway, because this is low level waste (radioactive metal) sealed in 300 tons of concrete, the concrete being a barrier to block the low level radiation. It is not like a terrorist is going to pick it up and put it in their pocket. About the worst thing that is could happen is that the activists will predict the path of the train and try to block it. " GW wrote on May 26, 2007 4:23 PM: " Mickey,you already have given us the normal background data on exposure. So you add additional background radiation and you create new problems. I suggest you look at the research on exposure to even slightly elevated levels..it isn't pretty. I went to the plant on an official visit several weeks ago. We took several Geiger counters with us. The radiation levels were high enough inside the bldg where the vessel was that we were told we could not enter as part of the tour. We didn't want to either. The levels outside the bldg. were at levels where pregnant women are told not to expose themselves too. I guess that pregnant women, children are not a big deal. We believe we have a right--and we do by law--to know what is going on in our backyard. Avoiding problems does not make them go away. " mikeshoey wrote on May 26, 2007 10:50 AM: " I can't believe this is even a story. Those nuclear watch groups are like little kids. They are always seeking attention, and trying to make a big deal out of nothing. Who care if some big tank goes through your town on a train car. When the average person gets exposed to more millirems of radiation going about their everyday life than coming in contact with this tank, it should not be a concern to anybody. Exept those activists that want to make you think it is a big deal. Let the little kids beg for attention somewheres else. And in the future, don't feed their fire. " BOB wrote on May 26, 2007 9:29 AM: " Im guessing the route will be along the rail. Shouldnt this have been a secret transport instead of tipping off anyone to cause trouble? " GW wrote on May 26, 2007 9:10 AM: " Amazing, but if anyone ever read or tracked the comments of John LaForge and Nukewatch, they would know that it is precisely because of the nuclear power industry that we have a nuclear weapons disaster on our hands. The material for these bombs and the depleted uranium used in places like Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc. all come from nuclear power production. Due to the incredible amount of spent high level radioactive fuel that we have sitting around at nuclear plants--that utilities do not want to take responsibility for, we have lobbyists creating and selling weapons to every country in the world. Isn't it amazing that we (US companies) are now building new nuclear reactors in the former Soviet Uniton? And they are a stable country?? The nuclear industry is responsible for the deaths of tens or thousands of people..from mining to storage..to the bombs we make and others use. " Mikey wrote on May 26, 2007 8:26 AM: " Lots of people will of course be upset at the "safety issues" associated with this. I would like those folks to stop for a moment and consider the thousands of nuclear warheads that are pointed at us right now in their silos and on their submarines. I want them to think about Irael, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and others in troubled areas who have or soon will have nuclear weapons, and to think about the ease with which dirty bombs can be sneaked into our ports of entry. This shipment is a bug on the windshield compared to the possibilities of a real catastrophe. " views of the La Crosse Tribune. Copyright © 1997 - 2007 The La Crosse Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 43 SavannahNow.com: Senators press for funding at Savannah River lab | Coastal Empire | Intown | Local News REBECCA QUIGLEY | Sunday, May 27, 2007 at 12:30 am Georgia's two U.S. senators this week publicly urged Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to continue funding the University of Georgia-run Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. The 50-year-old ecology lab in South Carolina is expected to shut down its operation that employs 120 people at the end of the month because energy department officials have vowed to cut funding for the UGA-run lab. The lab lost about 50 jobs in 2005 when the energy department, its primary funding source, cut by half its $8 million contribution to the lab's budget. Then in 2006, the department cut the lab's funding down to $1 million. UGA scientists at the lab have received international acclaim for their work studying the effects of nuclear pollution at the Savannah River Site, the U.S. Energy Department's nuclear material processing facility near Aiken, S.C., where the lab it located. "As supporters of the work and contributions that SREL has provided DOE, (the Savannah River Site), and the community, we ask you to honor DOE's commitments and continue its operation," according to the letter, signed by U.S. Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. South Carolina's U.S. senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, also signed the letter dated May 22. The House Appropriations Committee recently added $719 million to the energy department's 2008 science budget - a general budget that helps support higher education research. Though committee members have not added funding for specific projects like the lab, they have indicated they may do so before finishing the budget. The chairmen of two House subcommittees sent a letter to Bodman last week, asking him to explain why the department wants to shut down the lab and to restore its funding. Subcommittee members gave energy officials a May 30 deadline to provide the committees with copies of all communications relating to energy officials' decision to eliminate support for the lab, subcommittee chairmen Brad Miller, D-N.C., and Nick Lampson, D-Texas, stated in the letter. U.S. Rep. John Barrow, D-Savannah, wrote a similar letter to Bodman on March 28. The lab has been operating under an agreement between the energy department and UGA in which the department will continue to fund the lab on the condition the lab and UGA apply for project-specific funding from the department and grants from other sources. Chambliss, Isakson, DeMint and Graham said in their letter to Bodman that while UGA and SREL have kept their side of the agreement, the energy department failed to honor its funding promise for the 2006-07 fiscal year. "Internal issues at DOE should not force SREL to close prematurely," the senators wrote. "We would ask you honor the cooperative agreement between DOE and UGA and the commitments made by your field offices for FY07 funding. "We also highly encourage DOE to sit down with UGA to ensure there is no miscommunication between DOE and UGA going forward." © 2007 SavannahNOW and the Savannah Morning News. ***************************************************************** 44 Tri-City Herald: Bulk vit test under way to resolve issues Published Saturday, May 26th, 2007 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The bulk vitrification test plant started up this week in the first of two final runs planned to resolve issues before a pilot plant treating radioactive waste might be built. Two issues remain that the Department of Energy believes could be resolved this summer: w DOE needs to show that the components of a pilot plant would work together after testing them separately. w It also needs to show it has solved the problem of molten ionic salts carrying radioactive technetium 99, and allowing it to leak out of what's supposed to be a solid block of glass incorporating the radioactive waste after it hardens. Bulk vitrification is being considered as a technology to supplement work of the $12.2 billion vitrification plant under construction in central Hanford. The main vitrification plant would treat all of the high-level radioactive waste now being stored in underground tanks at Hanford. But it was never planned to be large enough to treat all the low-activity radioactive waste by legal deadlines. Either a supplemental technology such as bulk vitrification must be used, or the main vitrification plant will need to be expanded to treat as much as 25 million gallons of the total 53 million gallons of tank waste. The waste is left from separating plutonium from irradiated fuel to use in the nation's nuclear weapons program. Bulk vitrification would make blocks of waste-containing glass the size of land-sea shipping containers instead of the smaller glass logs produced by the main vitrification plant. In bulk vitrification, waste and glass-forming materials would be heated with electrodes inside a 24-foot-long metal box to 2,400 degrees, leaving a glass box that would be buried -- container, electrodes and all. It's been proposed as a more economical way of treating the waste. To make sure it works, a pilot plant must be built at Hanford to practice treating radioactive waste. Construction of the concrete pads for the project started on the plant in early 2005, but then work stopped amid technical questions about the project and a concern that the design should be completed before the test plant was built. Cost estimates of the project also were starting to rise. In the meantime, tests are being conducted with a nonradioactive surrogate for the waste at a test site just off the Hanford nuclear reservation. An independent review of the bulk vitrification pilot plant completed in October found no fatal flaws. But it identified 19 technical issues that needed to be resolved to make sure it would operate effectively and produce good data for a decision on whether to use bulk vitrification on a large scale. Some of the issues were operational improvements that could be fixed by changes to parts of the design, such as the treatment system for off gases and the system to transfer dried waste to the box to be melted. "We've identified improvements and completed the conceptual design on the improvements," said Ben Harp, DOE project director. The final design is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2008. Contractor CH2M Hill Hanford Group and subcontractor AMEC have tackled another of the problems, the leak of radioactive technetium 99. They have been able to eliminate leaks in small-scale tests with a change in materials. At high temperatures, molten ionic salts flow easily and carry the technetium into a refractory that surrounds the waste box forming the glass box. CH2M Hill had planned to use Hanford soil to mix with the waste to melt into glass. But it's had better luck using a commercial glass-forming material with cellulose that provides more surface area to bind waste materials. The project also needs to show that all parts of the pilot plant work well together. In a three-week test that started this week, CH2M Hill is demonstrating the operation of a mixer-dryer that would be moved to Hanford for the pilot plant there. In technology used in the drug and food processing industry, it uses heat from steam to boil off water from waste, said J.R. Biggs, AMEC operations manager. Then it's mixed with the glass former to make small pellets to be transferred to the melt box. In June, the off-Hanford test plant should have what's hoped to be its final run to prove that the technetium can be contained in the glass and that all parts of the system work together. That includes the mixer-dryer, the feed system to the melt box and the melt box. It will also test the off-gas system. In 2002, when the project was little more than a concept, the preliminary cost estimate was $45 million. But now the estimated cost of building and operating the pilot plant is around $224 million, a number that is still being validated. Congress gave the project $3 million this year after the Bush administration requested no money for the project. That's been combined with savings in other CH2M Hill projects to come up with $11.3 million this year. If CH2M Hill gets construction approval for the pilot plant in March 2008, it would need funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget for construction. That would allow the pilot play to operate in 2010. The Tri-Party Agreement called for having the pilot plant built and operating in time to assess whether bulk vitrification should be used as a supplemental technology in June 2006. No construction funding until 2009 will push out the decision on whether to expand the main vit plant or use a supplemental technology to treat about 25 million gallons of low activity radioactive waste four or five years. "Sooner is better," said Laura Cusack, section manager of tank waste treatment for the Washington State Department of Ecology. The state would like construction to be included in the 2008 budget if the tests this summer are successful. It is concerned that if proving the concept at the test pilot takes longer than expected or the process doesn't work, DOE is running out of time to go ahead with the expansion of the main vitrification plant. Ground would need to be broken in 2012 on a second low activity waste facility at the vitrification plant to have it operating with the rest of the plant in 2019. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 45 Chattanoogan.com: Wamp Says New ORNL Director Has Distinguished Record - posted May 25, 2007 Congressman Zach Wamp on Friday praised Dr. Thom Mason, who was named director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory/ Rep. Wamp said, "Thom Mason is not just an outstanding and brilliant scientist, but he has a distinguished record of achievement as the executive director of the Spallation Neutron Source, one of the most important government investments to come in on budget and on time in many years. "Thom Mason's elevation to the prestigious position of director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory resonates for all who believe in merit-based opportunity that follows diligence, effectiveness and accountability. "He made us proud at SNS and we believe he will make us proud following in the grand traditions of Jeff Wadsworth and the many outstanding directors at ORNL throughout the years." news@chattanoogan.com (423) 266-2325 © 2004 Site designed and copyrighted by HD ***************************************************************** 46 KnoxNews: Mason named director at ORNL Physicist, 42, a native of Canada and youngest to lead lab since 1974 By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com May 26, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Thom Mason, a 42-year-old physicist who guided the $1.4 billion Spallation Neutron Source to completion and directed its early research operations, will be the new director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His appointment is effective July 1. Lab staffers were informed of the decision Friday afternoon. Mason will succeed Jeff Wadsworth, the lab director since August 2003, who is leaving Oak Ridge to take a top executive position at Battelle Memorial Institute in Ohio. Battelle has managed the Oak Ridge lab, in partnership with the University of Tennessee, since April 2000. "I'm excited and a little bit overwhelmed," Mason said in a telephone interview. "I never even had the foggiest direction this was where I was headed." ORNL is well positioned at a critically important time to contribute to scientific problem-solving on issues such as the environment, energy security, national security and economic security, Mason said. "Those things are all wrapped up together," he said. After undergoing a major modernization program in recent years, the lab needs to "deliver the science" and sustain the momentum, Mason said. He is the youngest director at ORNL since Herman Postma, who took the reins in 1974 at age 40 and held that position for 14 years. A native of Canada, Mason's rise to prominence has been quick and highly visible in scientific circles. He came to Oak Ridge in 1998 as scientific director for the SNS, which was still in its early stages of development, and soon became director of experimental facilities. When SNS chief David Moncton left the project in early 2001, Mason was chosen to head the $1.4 billion project - the biggest science endeavor in the United States. Construction of the SNS was completed ahead of time and within its budget - no small accomplishment for a government project of its size and complexity - and Mason received a lot of the credit. He was named associate lab director for neutron sciences. UT President John Petersen, who co-chaired the two-month search for a lab director, said, "We are genuinely excited to have a person of Thom Mason's talent and experience to lead ORNL. As a world-class scientist who has already made his mark in the research community, Thom represents the future of ORNL." U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., called Mason a brilliant and outstanding scientist with a distinguished record of achievement. "He made us proud at SNS, and we believe he will make us proud, following in the grand traditions of Jeff Wadsworth and the many outstanding directors at ORNL throughout the years," Wamp said. The SNS, an accelerator-based research complex, produced its first neutrons in April 2006, and since then it's been ramping up power and preparing for full research usage, still a year away. As many as 2,000 scientists from around the globe are expected to visit the site annually and use neutron beams to study the structure and properties of materials. Mason said no decision has been made on his replacement as associate lab director for neutron sciences, overseeing the research at SNS and the High Flux Isotope Reactor. He said an international search would be conducted. The new lab director grew up in Nova Scotia on the coast of Halifax Harbor. His father was a geophysicist at the nearby Bedford Institute for Oceanography. He holds degrees from Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and McMaster University in Ontario, where he received his Ph.D. in physics. Before coming to Oak Ridge, he was on the faculty at the University of Toronto and conducted research at sites around the world - studying such things as the magnetic properties in superconductors. Mason became a naturalized U.S. citizen Oct. 10. Citizenship is essential to becoming director of one of the national laboratories because of the security clearances. Soon after taking his citizenship oath, Mason said it was a family decision. "We've made the decision to move here and be here. Our kids, even though they were born in Canada, have grown up here." Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 47 KnoxNews: TVA says future depends in part on energy source, but activists worry By ANDREW EDER, edera@knews.com May 27, 2007 As the Tennessee Valley leads a nationwide nuclear resurgence, environmental activists and others worry that the costs and dangers of splitting atoms for power are being lost in the nuclear industry's rhetoric. But TVA, whose Unit 1 reactor at Alabama's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant represents the country's first increase in nuclear generating capacity this century, says nuclear power is an important option in diversifying its power mix and meeting the energy needs of a growing region. With the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expecting 19 applications to build and operate 28 new reactors, the debate isn't going anywhere. TVA, which saw a successful nuclear reaction last week at Browns Ferry 1 after a five-year, $1.8 billion restoration, is considering completing the Unit 2 reactor at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City, Tenn. TVA also plans to apply with a consortium of utilities to build and operate two reactors at the idle Bellefonte Nuclear Plant site in Alabama, although it remains to be seen whether and how such a project would be executed. Jack Bailey, said the federal utility could add two or three more reactors to the six it currently operates ? three at Browns Ferry, one at Watts Bar and two at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Soddy-Daisy, Tenn. "We certainly could use more nuclear without having too much risk in the nuclear basket," Bailey said. But a former Watts Bar worker and whistleblower questioned the wisdom of the nation's "nuclear renaissance." "They are selling something that they can't produce," said Ann Harris, now southeast director for We the People, a nuclear worker advocate group. "They can't produce inexpensive nuclear power, they can't produce a clean future, they can't produce healthy workers, they can't produce clean drinking water, they can't produce clean air. What have they produced?" The cost One element driving renewed interest in nuclear power is concern over greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. Those gases ? carbon dioxide in particular ? are blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere and changing climate patterns across the globe, with potentially disastrous consequences. TVA, which is already spending billions of dollars on pollution controls at its 11 coal plants, faces the specter of spending potentially billions more if the federal government steps in to regulate carbon emissions, which TVA views as likely to happen in the next 10 years. Nuclear reactors create heat from fission ? the splitting of the nucleus of an atom ? instead of combustion, resulting in no emissions during the power production process. But Bailey said the anticipation of carbon regulations had little influence on TVA's decision to complete Browns Ferry 1 and consider the other nuclear projects. "It was competitive in our models even without CO2 (carbon dioxide), and therefore it needed to be explored as an alternative," he said. Nuclear has higher construction costs than other types of generation, but lower operating costs. Bailey said the "all-in" cost for Browns Ferry 1 ? including construction, production and decommissioning costs ? was about $27 per megawatt-hour, paid for with operating revenues. Construction costs of power plants are constantly shifting, but Bailey said the cost of new nuclear plants today would be comparable with new coal plants at $40 to $50 per megawatt-hour. New nuclear projects would likely be financed with a combination of debt, cash and other financing, he said. It was TVA's ambitious nuclear program in the 1970s that contributed to much of the agency's nearly $23 billion debt. TVA originally planned to build 17 reactors but canceled eight of them when demand for power failed to meet TVA's projections. The agency invested $10.9 billion in nuclear projects that were never completed, with a $3.3 billion "deferred nuclear generating unit" asset ? the Bellefonte site ? still on the books. The latest wave of potential nuclear construction nationwide is fueled by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which provides loan guarantees, production tax credits and insurance protection for utilities pursuing nuclear power projects. Without those government subsidies, nuclear cannot be considered an economical source of power, argues Jim Riccio, a nuclear policy analyst for Greenpeace. "The numbers don't add up," Riccio said. "Basically, these corporations are looking for a government handout to subsidize their reactors." Waste and emissions The nuclear industry is pitching atomic power as a clean way to light homes, but some environmentalists bristle at that description. "We cringe every time we hear nuclear power put out there as a 'clean' energy source," said Stephen Smith, executive director of Knoxville-based Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. Nuclear projects require a long construction time, and environmental advocates stress that global warming requires immediate action. "When you're looking down the barrel of catastrophic climate change, you really don't have the time to throw at nuclear power," Riccio said. But the obvious objection to the "clean" characterization is the fact that nuclear energy produces a waste byproduct that remains radioactive for thousands of years, and the country still has not figured out a solution to store it permanently or recycle it. The federal government contracted with utilities in the late 1970s to remove their spent nuclear fuel, but a proposed nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada hasn't materialized and may never do so. TVA still pays a fee to the Department of Energy under its contract, but it has had to sue the department to recover its costs for building aboveground-storage facilities, known independent spent-fuel storage installations, or ISFSIs, at the Browns Ferry and Sequoyah plants. TVA also plans to build a storage facility at the Watts Bar plant by 2015 if Watts Bar 2 is completed. The spent fuel is currently stored in pools of water, which helps dissipate heat from the decaying fuel assemblies. TVA's Bailey said developing a program for reprocessing spent fuel ? as other countries like France do ? would help the storage issue, but TVA still believes a permanent facility is needed. "We think Yucca Mountain is still a key part of the long-term solution," Bailey said. "But we also believe you can safely store it in these ISFSIs for an indefinite period of time." David Lochbaum, "It is probably (sustainable) for several decades, but at some point that becomes more of a threat than it should be," Lochbaum said. "Mini warehouses are for office stuff, not for spent fuel." Apart from the question of waste, some nuclear opponents take issue with what one called the "mantra" of nuclear power as an "emissions-free" source of energy. Although nuclear produces no emissions in producing power, the entire life cycle of a nuclear plant impacts the environment, in particular the energy-intensive process of mining and milling uranium ore, converting it to uranium hexafluoride gas, enriching the gas and fabricating fuel assemblies, critics say. TVA's uranium is enriched at the United States Enrichment Corp.'s facility in Paducah, Ky., which also is TVA's largest directly served industrial customer. Bailey said that in spite of ancillary energy usage, nuclear power compares favorably with other forms of generation, including renewables, in terms of emissions during the entire life cycle. He cited reports that put nuclear on par with hydropower. "The amount of emissions even from the complete life cycle of a nuclear project is way overblown by those who try to use that as a weakness of the nuclear program," Bailey said Safety With Browns Ferry 1, TVA chose to refurbish its oldest reactor after a 22-year shutdown. Watts Bar 2 would involve completing an older design that was never finished. But safety concerns aren't necessarily higher for such projects, said Lochbaum, who noted that new plants would involve a learning curve for operators, while older plants might be compromised by embrittled parts or corrosion. "There's no free lunch," he said. More concerning to Lochbaum were letters from TVA nuclear employees included in recently released public comments. At least two letters detailed difficult working conditions at the Sequoyah plant. "Managers are expected to work 60 plus hours each week; Operations is so understaffed that the TVA benefits such as AL (annual leave) and SL (sick leave) are not available to them ... material condition of the plant is at an all time low; Morale is at an all time low due to over worked Managers and reduction in staff," one letter reads. Lochbaum said an NRC rule earlier this year limited the number of hours employees can work, but the rule doesn't apply to supervisors. He said many plants are facing the types of problems detailed in the employee letters. "People who are fatigued make more errors than people who are not," Lochbaum said. TVA's response In general, Lochbaum said safety in the nuclear industry is far better today than it was 10 years ago, when he joined Union for Concerned Scientists. But nuclear power does carry one unique liability ? the chance for a serious accident and a resulting sea change in public opinion and the regulatory environment, as happened with a near meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant in 1979. "The problem will always be, and anybody in nuclear will tell you, we are all linked together in the nuclear world," Bailey said. "An accident at any one plant can affect all of us." But Bailey added that utilities have benefited from nearly 30 years of operating experience since Three Mile Island and could potentially resist the effects of an accident by showing that the industry is meeting high standards of performance and safety at its plants. Regardless of industrywide issues, the decisions made by TVA, a government-owned corporation, carry symbolic weight. "It won't be a free ride for them again," said Harris, the former Watts Bar worker. "There's a lot of people throughout the valley that are extremely unhappy about this." Bailey said nuclear is an important aspect of TVA's plans for the future. But he said the agency ? along with all utilities ? will have to cast a wide net to solve the country's energy problems. "Nuclear, we think, is a good option to deal with a lot of the issues that need to be dealt with," Bailey said. "It's not the only option, and going forward the U.S. probably has to take advantage of nearly all the options that are reasonable, because it's going to be hard to build and sustain or conserve the amount of energy we're going to need for the future." Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. Technicians at TVA?s Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Ala., work to get Unit 1 back online. The reactor was successfully restarted last week after a five-year, $1.8 billion restoration. © 2007 - Knoxville News Sentinel ***************************************************************** 48 Chicago Tribune: Argonne key to a new age for nuclear chicagotribune.com >> Business By Jon Van Tribune staff reporter Published May 26, 2007 When America's nuclear power industry descended into a deep slumber a generation ago, researchers at Argonne National Laboratory stayed wide awake, working on technologies to modernize the industry once it was ready. Now concerns about global warming and greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants have sparked hope that the country is ready to revitalize its nuclear industry and that Argonne's technology will play a leading role. Argonne's technology addresses two main nuclear power concerns: radioactive waste and the potential for terrorism. It will enable the nuclear industry to recycle and reuse spent fuel without creating plutonium that could be diverted to weapons. While the technology has been shown to work in a laboratory, it needs more development for industrial use, and officials at the Department of Energy are proposing to build facilities to accomplish that. Sites in Illinois at Argonne, located near Lemont, and at Morris have been proposed, but no matter where they are built, Argonne's technology will be at the heart of the effort to modernize America's nuclear power industry. Spent fuel becomes radioactive waste after yielding only 5 percent of its energy to generate electricity, said Monica Regalbuto, head of Argonne's nuclear fuel cycle programs. This waste includes radioactive elements known as transuranics that remain radioactive for a thousand centuries. Other countries such as France recycle and burn this fuel, but they use methods that create plutonium that might be used to make a weapon. Since the Carter administration, U.S. policy has forbidden such recycling because of terrorism fears. Argonne's new technology separates transuranic material so that plutonium is bound in a way that's far less accessible. The transuranics can be burned in a fast reactor, greatly reducing the amount of long-term radioactive material that must be managed as waste and separating it from other waste that remains radioactive only for a few centuries. "You recycle the long-lived ones into a reactor and consume them as fuel," said Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary for nuclear energy at the Department of Energy. "You don't have to provide a repository that will last 100,000 years. Argonne's technology leaves 10 percent the volume of waste and 1 percent of the radiological hazard." There are 32 nuclear plants in planning stages for the United States and 222 worldwide, Spurgeon said. The Department of Energy is working to standardize the design of reactors so they can be built more safely and cheaply and receive regulatory approval more quickly. But moving ahead with recycling and burning fuel in fast reactors is also an important component to modernizing nuclear energy, he said. The latest U.S. nuclear power initiative has met with mixed reactions from environmentalists. Some continue traditional opposition while others have softened in the face of global warming. The Sierra Club still opposes nuclear power. To address global warming, the country needs to reduce energy use and boost reliance on solar and wind energy, said Josh Dorner, a Sierra spokesman based in Washington. But global warming has caused another group, Environmental Defense, to take a new look. "Nuclear power has operated fairly safely in the United States," said Bill Chameides, chief scientist for Environmental Defense. "Climate change is the defining environmental issue of this generation, and it's disingenuous to take nuclear off the table." Still, Chameides said nuclear supporters face a huge task. There are now 103 nuclear reactors operating in the United States to produce one-fifth of the country's electrical energy. Just to maintain the status quo, there would need to be 250 plants operating by 2050 and to have a real impact on global warming, 500 new nuclear plants would be required, Chameides said. "I am willing to allow the industry to compete," Chameides said. "We want as many solutions as possible." Patrick Moore, who was among the founders of Greenpeace, an environmental group that continues to oppose nuclear power, has broken from the group to back nuclear power. "Today I'd guess that 70 percent of people support nuclear energy," Moore said. "It has a 40-year history of safety. I don't see thousands marching the streets to oppose it." Argonne officials hope that the research facility will go on its campus, said Don Joyce, deputy lab director. "It would be a research resource for the industry," Joyce said, "but not a reactor." A facility owned by General Electric and based in Morris, Ill., is also among many candidate sites for a reduced-scale fuel-recycling plant and reactor. GE would use the plant as a demonstration for nuclear power operators to see the technology at work before they committed to buying it, he said. ---------- jvan@tribune.com Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune ***************************************************************** 49 LA Daily News: Under pressure, DOE halts field lab cleanup for 45 days BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer Article Last Updated: 05/25/2007 09:19:39 PM PDT Facing increased scrutiny from legislators and state environmental regulators, the federal Department of Energy has announced that it will stop work at the Santa Susana Field Lab and consult with authorities before finishing cleanup of the former nuclear research facility. The decision to stop for 45 days, made public Thursday, comes nearly a month after a federal judge ordered the department to complete a thorough environmental survey of the site before declaring it safe and releasing it for unrestricted use. Despite the judge's ruling, some activists and state officials have been concerned that the DOE still would demolish the last two buildings at the site's old Energy Technology and Engineering Center and dump the potentially contaminated debris before conducting the environmental survey. Wednesday, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control warned the DOE in a letter that it would be inappropriate for the agency to dismantle the last buildings without the environmental study. That letter, plus pressure from federal legislators, prompted the DOE to halt work, said Department of Energy spokesman Bill Taylor. "During this time, we will continue to perform environmental monitoring activities and place operations in a safe and stable configuration while we work with state and federal regulators and evaluate all input on a path forward," the agency said in a statement. Field lab watchdog Dan Hirsch, with the Committee to Bridge the Gap, said he worries what will happen after the 45-day pause. "The Department of Energy is still not promising that it won't shoot first and analyze later," he said. The Energy Technology and Engineering Center is a 90-acre portion of the Santa Susana Field Lab where the government conducted nuclear research and built 10 nuclear reactors, including one that had a partial meltdown in 1959. The federal agency has been at odds with neighbors and environmentalists over cleanup of the site, with critics contending that the agency would leave 99 percent of the contaminated soil at the hilltop site between Simi Valley and the Chatsworth. kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com (213) 978-0390 Copyright © 2007 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 50 Times-News: Safety institute seeks INL workers sickened by radiation Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID Last modified on Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:49 PM MDT IDAHO FALLS, Idaho - Workers at Idaho National Laboratory who have been exposed to radiation may have a better chance of getting federal compensation thanks to a new group being formed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The group, called a Special Exposure Cohort, could help INL employees like Larry Wheeler navigate the red tape required to receive compensation for radiation-related illnesses under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. Wheeler, an Arco resident, worked at INL for 30 years and was diagnosed in 1999 with thyroid cancer. "I didn't even think of it until my doctor told me he'd seen the same kind of cancer in people who worked in Nevada at the test site," Wheeler told the Post Register. He filed his petition for compensation and got interviewed by the U.S. Department of Labor. Ultimately, he was told the radiation he received from his jobs could only have been 47.5 percent responsible for his cancer, and that it had to be 50 percent or more for him to qualify for compensation. Officials with the institute invited Wheeler and nearly 600 others who had been turned down for compensation to a meeting in Idaho Falls last week. If the cohort effort is successful, workers such as Wheeler could be eligible for up to $150,000 plus money for treatment. Gaylon Hanson, the local representative for the United Steelworkers' Worker Health Protection program, said he thinks the work has "taken years off these people's lives." One person told Hanson that he was rejected because his work at the INL was estimated to be 49.46 percent responsible for his skin cancer. "That's just cruel," Hanson said. "You wonder if it wouldn't have been better if they'd lied and given him a made-up number like 40 percent." If the group convinces the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to declare the site a Special Exposure Cohort, employees will be eligible for benefits if they worked at INL at least 250 days before Feb. 1, 1992, and came down with one or more of 22 specific cancers. Spouses and children of deceased employees would also be eligible for compensation. Denise Brock, an ombudsman for the national institute, said those who think they may be eligible should start collecting documents and sharing their stories. Brock's father worked in the 1940s and 1950s for Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., whose nuclear production facilities in St. Louis employed about 3,500 people who were exposed to large doses of radiation. He died of lung cancer and leukemia when she was young. In 2001, after President Bill Clinton signed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, Brock filed a claim on behalf of herself and her mother. "It was a nightmare," she said. Radiation dosage records weren't even kept in the '40s. A lot of records from the '50s had been destroyed, and others were falsified. Brock used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain boxes of documents, some she said were intriguing and disturbing. Finally, she managed to get a $150,000 settlement for her father's cancer, another $125,000 for his death and $25,000 for lost wages. But during the struggle she noticed the law's special exposure cohort provision. She decided other Mallinckrodt workers shouldn't have to go through the frustration she did to get a settlement, and the first cohort for workers employed between 1949 and 1957 was announced in 2005. Another has since been approved. Establishing a cohort at INL will take a lot of work and dedication, Brock said. The workers will have to petition the government to create the cohort. "We started calling meetings, and the workers started sharing memories," she said. "The stories were so compelling. You would hear about accidents and spills. Stories, no matter how small, may be very, very important." Information from: Post Register, http://www.postregister.com A service of the Associated Press(AP) Copyright © 2006, Lee Publications Inc. Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News, published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************