***************************************************************** 05/31/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.128 ***************************************************************** 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: Russia blames US in missile row 2 UPI: Analysis: Russia bashes U.S., tests rocket 3 IPS-English POLITICS: Security Council Called Hypocritical on Nukes 4 [NYTr] UN Security Council Called Hypocritical on Nukes 5 The Telegraph - Calcutta: No G-8 favours for India over climate NUCLEAR REACTORS 6 US: GMN: Oyster Creek meeting geared to industry insiders 7 Sky News: Nuclear's Bumper Ride Continues 8 CCTV International: China opens nuclear power industry to private, f 9 The Hindu: Nuclear talks begin 10 WNN: BE capital passed from government to Nuclear Liabilities Fund 11 US: newsobserver.com: Nuclear reactor plan on hold 12 BBC NEWS: Mather attacks energy white paper 13 Earth Times: South Africa to build up to 10 more nuclear power plant 14 US: Platts: Progress Energy deferring potential nuclear construction 15 Platts: All four units at UK Hinkley, Hunterston nuclear plants back 16 Platts: UK utility Scottish and Southern in talks on new nuclear bui 17 Independent: Government cuts stake in British Energy to fund decommi 18 The Citizen: Koeberg unit out of action 19 US: APP.COM: 2 nuclear reactors shut down at Salem plant | 20 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 2 back online after shutdown 21 CNW Group: Team CANDU Participates in Nuclear Technology Review by P 22 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Assessment for James A. Fitzpatrick Nuc 23 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Vt. backs increased VY temps 24 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC paper sheds light on safety standards 25 Xinhua: China calls for consideration of all sides in DPRK funds iss 26 US: Tallahassee Democrat: Increased nuclear power urged 27 Jakarta Post: Nuclear plant seen as risky, premature 28 Economist.com: Cleaning up | 29 IAEA: Hungary's First Fifty Years Feed Nuclear Future 30 UPI: Nuclear firms angling for British boom 31 UPI: S. Africa looks to more nuclear power 32 US: Tuscaloosa News: It is time to study all nuclear risks | 33 US: Boston Today News: No need to fear nuclear power plans 34 US: Central Florida News 13: Nuclear Power The Talk Of Tallahassee - 35 CBC News: Consultant to study Ontario's nuclear options 36 SO: The Nuclear Temptation: The Perils of Pushing Atomic Energy as t 37 AU ABC: Call for councils to keep right to ban nuclear power. 38 AU ABC: PM facing fight over nuclear powers. 39 Hindustan Times: We're nearly there on nuclear deal - Burns- 40 Whitehaven News: Sellafield could get two new nuclear reactors, clai 41 Whitehaven News: BNG award new contract 42 Whitehaven News: Energy policy’s sting in the tail 43 The Australian: Emissions target cannot be rushed - PM 44 DW: Ahead of G8, US-German Tempers Fray Over Green Credentials | NUCLEAR SECURITY 45 US: UPI: NNSA boosts nuke sensor performance NUCLEAR SAFETY 46 US: ajc.com: Unique facility studies radiation | 47 Aftenposten.no: Clean-up poses dangers - 48 US: North Jersey Media Group: Radium found in drum at scrap metal re 49 US: NAS: Project: Gulf War and Health: Updated Literature Review of NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 50 US: St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Corps says site near Lambert is clear o 51 US: Platts: Spot uranium price likely to jump after two auctions thi 52 US: RIA Novosti: Russia to complete forming uranium co. by mid-2008- 53 US: RIA Novosti: Russia set to sign uranium deal with Australia soon 54 Earthtimes: Swedish nuclear waste site draws concern 55 Aftenposten.no: Kola "a nuclear bomb" - 56 US: THE PEACOCK REPORT: Retired Nuke Site to Ship Waste from Ohio to 57 Hindustan Times: Right to reprocess spent fuel major snag- 58 US: National Post: THE MYSTERY BEHIND URANIUM PRICING PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 59 DOE: DOE Prepares for the 2007 Hurricane Season 60 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Workers finish sludge removal in leaky H 61 Hanford News: Nuclear mother lode? Company plans to drill for uraniu 62 ajc.com: Savannah River lab gets 1-month reprieve | 63 Hanford News: Officials renegotiating cleanup 64 Tri-City Herald: Radioactive sludge removed from leak-prone Hanford 65 Inside Bay Area: Livermore's laser complex tops hit list of nuclear 66 Inside Bay Area: Private execs taking lab roles 67 KnoxNews: Clean, plentiful fuel must for U.S. 68 UPI: Report attacks Energy Department programs 69 KnoxNews: TVA adopts energy-efficiency strategic plan 70 lamonitor.com: LANL: Archive policies haven't changed ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 BBC NEWS: Russia blames US in missile row Last Updated: Friday, 1 June 2007, 02:52 GMT 03:52 UK Mr Putin said Russia's actions were not aggressive Russian President Vladimir Putin has said a recent ballistic missile test was in answer to US plans to create a defence shield in Central Europe. Mr Putin said it was a "response to maintain the strategic balance in the world", in what he called a "new round of the arms race". But US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was perplexed by the row. In a speech in the eastern German town of Potsdam, Ms Rice added that the US wanted to see a powerful and also democratic Russia. "We want Russia to be strong, but strong in 21st century terms - not just with a strong center, but with strong, independent institutions," she said. "Democratic institutions and an open society are not a source of weakness. Nor is freedom of speech and freedom of the press a nuisance." Disagreements over human rights and democracy are one of several factors which have led to deteriorating relations between the two countries in recent weeks. 'Not the initiators' Russia tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile, which can be armed with up to 10 warheads, on Tuesday. These actions by Russia should not be feared, they are not aggressive President Vladimir Putin Europe diary: Missile defence US-Russia divide "Our American partners have left the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty," Mr Putin told a press conference. "We have warned them then that we will come out with a response to maintain the strategic balance in the world." Mr Putin defended Russia's actions, insisting they were not the "initiators of this new round of the arms race". "(Our partners) are stuffing Eastern Europe with new weapons," he said. "A new base in Bulgaria, another in Romania, a site in Poland, radar in the Czech Republic. What are we supposed to do? We cannot just observe all this." He added: "These actions by Russia should not be feared, they are not aggressive, it's just an answer to rather tough and unjustified unilateral actions by partners." Washington wants to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to counter what it describes as a potential threat from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea. The US maintains its system is not directed at the Russians, but Moscow says its security is being threatened. Russia's test launch took place at the Plesetsk cosmodrome in northern Russia on 29 May. The missile, called RS-24, was designed to evade missile defence systems, the Russian defence ministry says. The test missile successfully struck its target 5,500km (3,400 miles) away on the far eastern Kamchatka peninsula, the Russian Strategic Missile Forces said. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 2 UPI: Analysis: Russia bashes U.S., tests rocket United Press International - International Intelligence - Analysis Published: May 30, 2007 at 9:56 PM By STEFAN NICOLA UPI Germany Correspondent BERLIN, May 30 (UPI) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin has again lashed out at the West for provoking a new arms race on the day his country tested a massive new rocket that he said can overcome any missile defense system the United States may place in Eastern Europe. Putin has long bashed Washington for its plans to place 10 bunker-protected rockets in Eastern Europe, arguing it was a threat against Russian territory and provokes a new arms race. At a joint news conference in Moscow Tuesday with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates, Putin fired another round at the United States. "We consider it harmful and dangerous to transform Europe into a powder keg and fill it with new forms of weapons," he said. "It creates new unnecessary risks for the entire system of international and European relations." Yet on the same day, Russia tested its own new weapons system, a strategic RS-24 MIRV intercontinental missile launched from the northeastern Arkhangelsk region. The multiple-warhead missile hit its target on the Kamchatka Peninsula in the Pacific more than 3,700 miles away, Moscow said. Russia may now also more explicitly portray itself as a global military power to heave Foreign Minister Sergei Ivanov into the top spot in the race for Putin's successor as Russian president, said Jan-Friedrich Kallmorgen, trans-Atlantic and security expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations, a Berlin-based think tank. On Tuesday after the successful test, Ivanov said the new missiles were immune to any missile defense system. "These complexes are capable of overcoming all existing and future missile defense systems," Ivanov was quoted by the Russian Interfax agency. "That is why, from the point of view of defense and security, Russians can look into the future calmly." Experts say the aggressive rhetoric by Moscow is not much more than a politically motivated muscle-flexing. "It has been absolutely clear that the 10 planned rockets of the U.S. ballistic missile defense system in Eastern Europe would not impede Russia's capacity to launch inter-continental missiles, whether they are old or new," Kallmorgen told United Press International in a telephone interview Wednesday. "Putin for weeks has turned up the heat in his rhetoric against the West," Kallmorgen added. "He knows that the Europeans are not united on Russia." Relations between the European Union and Russia have strongly deteriorated in recent months; Putin at a recent EU-Russia summit in Samara clashed with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who holds the rotating EU presidency, because Merkel criticized Moscow for democracy and human rights shortcomings. Diplomatic rows with Poland, Estonia and Lithuania have only exacerbated EU-Russian ties, also because Poland -- where the U.S. missiles will be stationed -- and the Czech Republic -- where the radar system will be built -- are two former Warsaw Pact countries that have turned to the United States as their man strategic and security ally. It's not that the West didn't make any mistakes dealing with Russia: "Washington did not act smart to begin with," he said. "The issue was debated at the NATO-Russian council, but the Americans could have engaged in confidential talks with Moscow before going public with their plans." On the other hand, Kallmorgen said, the United States after Russia's protests and Europe's criticism repeatedly made clear and strong offers to be integrated in the system, offers that were all denied. In the past weeks U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates have made trips to Moscow to lobby for the system -- without any success. It is now in the hands of Europe to strike a balanced note when it comes to dealing with Russia, observers say. Given the strategic importance of Russia as the main energy provider to the EU, it is clear that Moscow won't be bullied into one-sided concessions. However, observers say the West needs a firm united stance when addressing Moscow on human rights and other issues; otherwise it might be the West being bullied. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 IPS-English POLITICS: Security Council Called Hypocritical on Nukes Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:05:41 -0700 Thalif Deen UNITED NATIONS, May 31 (IPS) - The political and moral authority of the five veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to sit in judgment over nuclear non-proliferation is being challenged in a new report released Thursday. By virtue of the U.N. charter, says the study, the Security Council has broad powers to enforce disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation requirements, including the imposition of economic sanctions and authorisation of military action. But the five permanent member states (P-5), the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, all with huge nuclear arsenals, ”are showing no operational signs of intending to eliminate” the deadly weapons. ”This means that UNSC decisions regarding compliance with nuclear non-proliferation requirements are automatically suspect in the eyes of much of the world,” says the study titled ”Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security? U.S. Weapons of Terror, the Global Proliferation Crisis and Paths to Peace.” The joint study was conducted by three public interest groups: the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) of New York, the Western States Legal Foundation of California and the New York-based Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Dr John Burroughs, executive director of LCNP, said the failure of the P-5 members to take seriously their nuclear disarmament obligations ”have sapped their moral and political authority to address non-proliferation situations.” This is especially so beginning with the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998, and continuing on to the current confrontation with Iran, he added. ”It is also the case, however, that countries around the world want an effective political body at the top of the international political structure, to play a role in solving problems that undermine international peace and security,” Burroughs told IPS. So there is still a lot of support for the Security Council, despite its defects, he argued. ”The P-5 could do a lot to build the authority of the UNSC, by reforming the Council to make it more representative, accountable, and transparent.” Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow with the Centre for Peace and Security Studies and an Adjunct Full Professor in the Security Studies Programme at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in Georgetown University, said the UNSC has the legal authority to deal with nuclear weapons and proliferation issues. Unfortunately, the P-5, who are also the five original nuclear powers, have failed to live up to their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), she added. ”This has severely undermined their credibility with respect to would-be nuclear powers,” Goldring told IPS. In particular, she said, the pursuit of new nuclear weapons by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush virtually guarantees that other countries will choose similar paths. Michael Spies, programme associate at the LCNP, argued that since the end of the Cold War, the United States' hyper-militarism has increasingly allowed it to exercise its authority unilaterally through the Security Council, and also in other ways. ”If intimidation of other countries is the main mode of exerting influence, the conduct of the UNSC becomes more about the raw exercise of power, rather than the rule of law,” he told IPS. In recent months, the Security Council has adopted resolutions enforcing its nuclear non- proliferation strategy against two member states: North Korea and Iran. But both countries have challenged the double standards of the five nuclear powers whose policy, they say, is based on the principle ”do as we say, not as we do”. Currently, the possession of nuclear weapons is prohibited by the NPT, and their use is at least generally prohibited by international law as set forth by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. As of now, 188 countries are members of the NPT, with four countries, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, outside the regime, but all with nuclear weapons. The study points out that serious efforts to acquire nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT are known to have occurred only in a handful of cases: Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. The study says that since the Security Council is dominated by the five World War II victors, it is conspicuously not representative of today's world. Further, the Council by design is a political body that acts on an ad hoc and sometimes inconsistent basis. It argues that the Council should strive to develop less confrontational and more flexible techniques for authoritatively addressing compliance issues, avoiding when possible, any implication of resort to military action. In the past, Iran violated safeguards reporting requirements and is pursuing a uranium enrichment capability that would enable it to fuel nuclear reactors or, if it so chose, to produce materials for nuclear weapons. But, according to the study, the vast majority of states have complied with the obligation of non-acquisition. However, if North Korea becomes a permanent nuclear weapon-possessing state, or if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, ”their respective regions may experience additional proliferation,” the report warns. Asked about the proposal for a world summit on disarmament, Jennifer Nordstrom, project manager of ”Reaching Critical Will” of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, told IPS such an international conference or even a U.N. special session on disarmament is feasible if heads of state become involved. She said the proposed summit could be a package deal to the P-5 that would address both nuclear disarmament and other issues that are of particular concern to the P5, including nuclear proliferation and terrorist acquisition. ”A 2009 U.S. administration friendlier to multilateralism would also help,” Nordstrom added. Developing nations should work for this through like-minded, cross-regional groups because the old Cold War groupings may not suffice for this purpose, she added. The study also points out that human security cannot be brought about through nuclear weapons and military might. ”It can only be ensured through the equitable distribution of adequate food, shelter, clean water and air, health care, education, and even the arts,” it says. Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the California-based Western States Legal Foundation, told IPS the staggering disparity between military spending and spending on human needs will be addressed when ordinary citizens in every country identify with the basic human security requirements, instead of their governments' distorted view of ”national” security based on militarism. ”This process will be self-reinforcing: as resources are redirected to meet human needs, some of the root causes of conflict -- poverty and injustice -- will be reduced,” she added. Goldring of Georgetown University said the study also proposes several dozen options for improving the current situation. Although few of these recommendations are new, together, they represent an extremely useful guide to moving away from doomsday. ”Unfortunately, in recent years it has been extremely difficult to gather the political capital necessary to implement these sorts of recommendations,” she noted. She said that political change, especially in the United States, will be necessary ”if we are to make significant progress on the ambitious and useful agenda the authors have constructed.” That said, this group has also presented some proposals that can be implemented without U.S. cooperation. Goldring pointed out that the authors have highlighted the insufficient levels of foundation support currently available for groups and individuals working on these issues. Those who understand the dangers of continued possession and dispersal of nuclear weapons must support these efforts, she added. Albert Einstein identified the costs of the current approach -- a ”drift toward unparalleled catastrophe,” Goldring declared. ***** +Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security? (http://www.wmdreport.org/pages/ nucleardisorder-announce.htm) (END/IPS/WD/IP/NU/TD/KS/07) = 06010149 ORP008 NNNN ***************************************************************** 4 [NYTr] UN Security Council Called Hypocritical on Nukes Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 01:08:36 -0400 Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit IPS - June 1, 2007 http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37994 Security Council Called Hypocritical on Nukes by Thalif Deen UNITED NATIONS, May 31 (IPS) - The political and moral authority of the five veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to sit in judgment over nuclear non-proliferation is being challenged in a new report released Thursday. By virtue of the U.N. charter, says the study, the Security Council has broad powers to enforce disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation requirements, including the imposition of economic sanctions and authorisation of military action. But the five permanent member states (P-5), the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia, all with huge nuclear arsenals, "are showing no operational signs of intending to eliminate" the deadly weapons. "This means that UNSC decisions regarding compliance with nuclear non-proliferation requirements are automatically suspect in the eyes of much of the world," says the study titled "Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security? U.S. Weapons of Terror, the Global Proliferation Crisis and Paths to Peace." The joint study was conducted by three public interest groups: the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) of New York, the Western States Legal Foundation of California and the New York-based Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. Dr John Burroughs, executive director of LCNP, said the failure of the P-5 members to take seriously their nuclear disarmament obligations "have sapped their moral and political authority to address non-proliferation situations." This is especially so beginning with the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998, and continuing on to the current confrontation with Iran, he added. "It is also the case, however, that countries around the world want an effective political body at the top of the international political structure, to play a role in solving problems that undermine international peace and security," Burroughs told IPS. So there is still a lot of support for the Security Council, despite its defects, he argued. "The P-5 could do a lot to build the authority of the UNSC, by reforming the Council to make it more representative, accountable, and transparent." Dr. Natalie J. Goldring, a senior fellow with the Centre for Peace and Security Studies and an Adjunct Full Professor in the Security Studies Programme at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in Georgetown University, said the UNSC has the legal authority to deal with nuclear weapons and proliferation issues. Unfortunately, the P-5, who are also the five original nuclear powers, have failed to live up to their commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), she added. "This has severely undermined their credibility with respect to would-be nuclear powers," Goldring told IPS. In particular, she said, the pursuit of new nuclear weapons by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush virtually guarantees that other countries will choose similar paths. Michael Spies, programme associate at the LCNP, argued that since the end of the Cold War, the United States' hyper-militarism has increasingly allowed it to exercise its authority unilaterally through the Security Council, and also in other ways. "If intimidation of other countries is the main mode of exerting influence, the conduct of the UNSC becomes more about the raw exercise of power, rather than the rule of law," he told IPS. In recent months, the Security Council has adopted resolutions enforcing its nuclear non- proliferation strategy against two member states: North Korea and Iran. But both countries have challenged the double standards of the five nuclear powers whose policy, they say, is based on the principle "do as we say, not as we do". Currently, the possession of nuclear weapons is prohibited by the NPT, and their use is at least generally prohibited by international law as set forth by the International Court of Justice in The Hague. As of now, 188 countries are members of the NPT, with four countries, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, outside the regime, but all with nuclear weapons. The study points out that serious efforts to acquire nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT are known to have occurred only in a handful of cases: Iraq, Libya, and North Korea. The study says that since the Security Council is dominated by the five World War II victors, it is conspicuously not representative of today's world. Further, the Council by design is a political body that acts on an ad hoc and sometimes inconsistent basis. It argues that the Council should strive to develop less confrontational and more flexible techniques for authoritatively addressing compliance issues, avoiding when possible, any implication of resort to military action. In the past, Iran violated safeguards reporting requirements and is pursuing a uranium enrichment capability that would enable it to fuel nuclear reactors or, if it so chose, to produce materials for nuclear weapons. But, according to the study, the vast majority of states have complied with the obligation of non-acquisition. However, if North Korea becomes a permanent nuclear weapon-possessing state, or if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, "their respective regions may experience additional proliferation," the report warns. Asked about the proposal for a world summit on disarmament, Jennifer Nordstrom, project manager of "Reaching Critical Will" of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, told IPS such an international conference or even a U.N. special session on disarmament is feasible if heads of state become involved. She said the proposed summit could be a package deal to the P-5 that would address both nuclear disarmament and other issues that are of particular concern to the P5, including nuclear proliferation and terrorist acquisition. "A 2009 U.S. administration friendlier to multilateralism would also help," Nordstrom added. Developing nations should work for this through like-minded, cross-regional groups because the old Cold War groupings may not suffice for this purpose, she added. The study also points out that human security cannot be brought about through nuclear weapons and military might. "It can only be ensured through the equitable distribution of adequate food, shelter, clean water and air, health care, education, and even the arts," it says. Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the California-based Western States Legal Foundation, told IPS the staggering disparity between military spending and spending on human needs will be addressed when ordinary citizens in every country identify with the basic human security requirements, instead of their governments' distorted view of "national" security based on militarism. "This process will be self-reinforcing: as resources are redirected to meet human needs, some of the root causes of conflict -- poverty and injustice -- will be reduced," she added. Goldring of Georgetown University said the study also proposes several dozen options for improving the current situation. Although few of these recommendations are new, together, they represent an extremely useful guide to moving away from doomsday. "Unfortunately, in recent years it has been extremely difficult to gather the political capital necessary to implement these sorts of recommendations," she noted. She said that political change, especially in the United States, will be necessary "if we are to make significant progress on the ambitious and useful agenda the authors have constructed." That said, this group has also presented some proposals that can be implemented without U.S. cooperation. Goldring pointed out that the authors have highlighted the insufficient levels of foundation support currently available for groups and individuals working on these issues. Those who understand the dangers of continued possession and dispersal of nuclear weapons must support these efforts, she added. Albert Einstein identified the costs of the current approach -- a "drift toward unparalleled catastrophe," Goldring declared. (END/2007) * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 5 The Telegraph - Calcutta: No G-8 favours for India over climate | Friday, June 01, 2007 | Advertise with us OUR CHIEF DIPLOMATIC EDITOR President Bush in Washington on Thursday. (Reuters) Washington, May 31: Notwithstanding the outcome of this week?s negotiations in New Delhi over the Indo-US nuclear deal, India will not get a free pass at next week?s ?outreach? meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany, with leaders of the Group of Eight (G-8) developed nations. For the first time since former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee rubbed shoulders with G-8 leaders at their Evian summit in France six years ago, New Delhi will realise in Heiligendamm that getting into exclusive clubs of the world?s rich and mighty comes with its own pressures and responsibilities. Any hope that exemptions for India in greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol made it immune from new commitments on climate change were dashed today when President George W Bush gave in to pressures to tackle global warming. Severely criticised within his country and abroad for an ostrich-like attitude to climate change, Bush today agreed to work with 15 major nations to finalise a goal for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by the end of next year. In an effort to deflect criticism of the US at the G-8 summit Bush named India and China among the major emitters causing global warming. ?So my proposal is this: By the end of next year, America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases,? he said in a major policy speech setting the stage for his trip to Germany. ?To help develop this goal, the US will convene a series of meetings of nations that produce most greenhouse gas emissions, including nations with rapidly growing economies like India and China.? Climate change is expected to be the single biggest issue at the Heiligendamm summit and possibly in the US presidential election in 2008.In a conference call with a few members of the foreign media here, the US under secretary of state for democracy and global affairs, Paula Dobriansky, acknowledged that the issue would spill over to the summit outreach which will bring together the G-8 leaders and those of developing countries such as India, China and Brazil. Anticipating the pressure and to create the politically correct image of concern over global warming, China is drawing up a comprehensive strategy on climate change, which will be released in Beijing on Monday. There are fears that India has been caught napping and may not come out of next week?s summit smelling like roses on the issue of global warming. Making common cause with Australia and the US which have rejected Kyoto and teaming up with China and South Korea which are also exempt from caps on emissions, India joined these countries in 2005 to form an Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Copyright © 2006 The Telegraph. All rights reserved. Disclaimer | ***************************************************************** 6 GMN: Oyster Creek meeting geared to industry insiders Greater Media Newspapers Howell, NJ Patricia A. Miller Ocean View White finding. Resource loading. Cross-cutting. Action matrix. Degraded cornerstone. Welcome to the mind-numbing world of nuclear plant corporate-speak. That's what audience members heard when they attended the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) May 23 hearing on how the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey performed in 2006. They heard it over and over again. "They were talking to each other as insiders," said Blanche Krubner, of Jackson, the president of the Ocean County League of Women Voters during a break in the hearing. "They didn't explain it to the public. Too many acronyms. We are not all insiders. They were talking code." Representatives of AmerGen, the subsidiary of Exelon Corp., the plant's owners, sat on the left side of the meeting room. NRC officials, including Samuel J. Collins, the NRC's Region 1 administrator, sat on the right. The hearing began with each side reading pre-scripted speeches. AmerGen representatives sung the praises of how much money Exelon has spent on the plant and how safe things are these days. NRC officials then seemed to lob questions back to AmerGen that gave company officials more of a chance to talk about what a swell job they are doing. Janet Tauro, a founding member of the citizens group Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, compared the meeting to a Kabuki play. NRC officials offered "set-up" questions to Oyster Creek representatives, Tauro said. "It's like setting them up so they could answer so positively about the great things they are doing," she said. There was a lot of discussion about an Aug. 6, 2005, "white finding" at the plant, but no explanation about exactly what happened. For the uninitiated, meaning most of us, the NRC ranks mishaps at nuclear plants on a color scale. Green is the best, red is the worst. A white finding is characterized as an issue with "low to moderate" safety problems that may require further inspection. Oyster Creek's white finding was in the emergency preparedness "cornerstone" of the NRC's reactor oversight process. This is not comforting news for people who live within a 10-mile radius of the plant on Route 9 south, or anyone in New Jersey, for that matter. This is what happened. While Ocean County slept during the early morning hours of Aug. 6, 2005, plant operators failed to take the appropriate emergency-response action when a large amount of sea grass clogged the north side intake structure screens, which resulted in a decrease in the intake structure water level. The intake water level decreased for roughly 60 minutes, which met the NRC's values for an unusual event and alert declarations. But plant operators did not declare an event and did not activate their emergency response to help mitigate the event, according to the NRC. "The potential consequences were that the failure to declare an alert prevented the activation of both on-site and off-site emergency responders during an actual event," the NRC said. "Had the event degraded further, the on-site responders would not have been readily available to assist in the mitigation of the event." Oyster Creek flunked a subsequent NRC inspection of its own corrective action plan conducted from May 15 to June 12, 2006. The NRC has scheduled yet another inspection for the same problems for the first week in June. There was no mention at the meeting of a Feb. 13, 2006, screw-up, when a hydrogen denotation occurred in the plant's off-gas system. AmerGen initially said the problem was an equipment-related mishap, not operator error. But the NRC found that Oyster Creek control room personnel had received and reset the high hydrogen alarm SEVEN times during a two-hour period before the detonation, yet failed to comply with an alarm response procedure to determine the underlying cause. "Based on operator interviews and two actual events since August 2005, it is apparent that while corrective actions have been taken to strengthen crew procedural response, knowledge deficiencies and inconsistencies continue to exist regarding procedural use and adherence by licensed operators," the NRC said. There is no place for operator error in the oldest nuclear plant in the country. Let's hope Oyster Creek manages to get it right on the latest inspection. Most of the citizens who attended the hearing had more than passing knowledge of the problems with the oldest nuclear plant in the United States. That's because they are members of various citizen activist and environmental groups that oppose Oyster Creek's relicensing for another 20 years. Unfortunately, there were few just plain residents at the hearing. More than half a million people now call Ocean County home. It's unfathomable that so few seem to realize or care that the 38-year-old plant could get another 20 years of life very soon. Maybe Richard Webster had it right. Webster, a staff attorney for the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic, said after the meeting that residents don't really want to hear about the plant. "In some ways, if you live close to something potentially dangerous, you'd rather not think about it," Webster said. Patricia A. Miller is a managing editor with Greater Media Newspapers. ***************************************************************** 7 Sky News: Nuclear's Bumper Ride Continues sky.com By David Holding. Updated: 14:45, Wednesday May 30, 2007 You never know where you are with nuclear power. You hear one expert saying it's the ideal, clean answer to all our energy needs -- and another saying it's the ultimate unsustainable form of energy generation, creating wastes which will be dangerous for thousands of years. And both viewpoints seem perfectly plausible to the non-scientist. This only matters, of course, if you see yourself as an ethical investor. I do, but I have to say that I've traded in and out of British Energy (LSE: BGY) shares quite happily over the past couple of years, having weighed up what I can about the scientific debate. It's not difficult to see why. BGY's shares have jumped around like a yo-yo as the chart shows. Rising profits Today's final results come at a time when the share price is close to its high point for the year. BGY reported a 44% rise in pre-tax earnings before interest and other items of ÂŁ1.22 bn, with basic earnings per share of 81.5p for the year ended March 31st. Last year was something of an "annus horribilis" as the group faced what it calls "significant operational challenges," and total power output for the year was down by 15% due to "boiler issues at Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B and repairs to cast iron pipework at Hartlepool." But the company achieved improved profits on the back of higher electricity prices. And it tells us today that 2007-8 will be "a far better year in delivering output." British Energy also said it would pay a dividend of 13.6p per share and will consider paying an extra dividend next February 2008, depending on the company's "financial position at that time." The shares are slightly ahead on this generally good news and upbeat outlook to 572p, valuing the group at ÂŁ3.298 bn. Where next? Whether British Energy is a good investment today depends, to some extent, on your view of the likely future of public energy policy. And on that score, the company is bullish following the Government's White Paper, saying: "Strategically, this is an interesting and potentially significant time for the Company. The Government's Energy White Paper has highlighted the important part that nuclear generation could play in delivering a low carbon economy. We believe that British Energy is well placed to secure a valuable role in any new nuclear programme as a result of owning sites suitable for new construction ..." If this does all come to pass, then the shares look good value. The brokers have consensus forecasts of ÂŁ926m pre-tax profit for 2008, placing the shares on a relatively undemanding prospective price-to-earnings ratio of 12.7. Personally, the contrarian investor in me prefers to buy quality on weakness -- as when all seemed doom and gloom at BGY back in October after news about boilers cracking, and the shares plummeted to ÂŁ4. The one thing you do seem to be able to guarantee with BGY is that the ride will be a bumpy one. Copyright © 2007 BSkyB ***************************************************************** 8 CCTV International: China opens nuclear power industry to private, foreign investors Source: Xinhuanet 05-31-2007 17:56 Domestic and foreign companies will be allowed to invest in China's nuclear power generating projects but cannot hold a controlling stake, a senior official with the State Commission of Science and Technology for National Defense Industry said on Wednesday. China is keen to boost development of the nuclear power industry. Wang Yiren, head of the commission's No.2 system engineering department, said China is considering opening the nuclear fuel sector to foreign investors. The country's draft nuclear energy law is being revised, Wang added. According to China's longer-term development plan for the nuclear power industry, nuclear power capacity will increase to 40 million kw in 2020, with construction work beginning on at least three nuclear power generating units in each of the coming 10 years. Currently, there are 10 commercial nuclear power generating units operational in China, including the No.1 unit at Tianwan nuclear power station in east China'sJiangsuProvince, which came onstream on May 17. Their combined installed capacity stands at eight million kw. © 2005 China Central Television. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 9 The Hindu: Nuclear talks begin Friday, Jun 01, 2007 Siddharth Varadarajan New Delhi: India and the United States held one round of technical discussions on Thursday afternoon on their draft nuclear cooperation agreement but have yet to begin the hard grind towards resolving their differences on the major issues separating them. Senior officials told The Hindu that Thursday's talks were not exhaustive since India's principal negotiator, S. Jaishankar, arrived back in Delhi from Singapore only in the afternoon. One round of "political" discussion was also held between Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon and the visiting U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, and a further exchange of views between the two senior officials was slated for a "small working dinner" on Thursday night. Based on Thursday's technical interaction, the opinion on the Indian side is that their American interlocutors do not appear to have brought any new proposal on the two big obstacles standing in the way of the `123 agreement': the U.S. refusal to allow India the right to reprocess spent fuel produced by American-manufactured reactors, and the U.S. insistence on including a "right of return" over any nuclear equipment or material such as the strategic nuclear fuel reserve sold to India, in the event of an Indian nuclear test. The Indian perception is that since there is no further room for manoeuvre or compromise on their side, everything now depends on the proposals the U.S. delegation has brought with it. "Let us see what they show us on Friday," one official said. Nearly there: Burns Though neither side was prepared officially to brief the media on the agenda or course of the talks currently under way, Mr. Burns told reporters outside South Block earlier in the day that "we are nearly there although ... some work has to be done, some hard work has to be done." Mr. Burns is due to leave India on Saturday. Though Mr. Menon has taken direct charge of the nuclear talks since the end of January, Mr. Burns also met the Prime Minister's special envoy for the nuclear issue, Shyam Saran, on Thursday. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. ***************************************************************** 10 WNN: BE capital passed from government to Nuclear Liabilities Fund 31 May 2007 The UK's Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has disposed of a large part of its stake in British Energy (BE), selling shares amounting to over GBP 2 billion ($4 billion). The net proceeds will be put into the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF) to pay for the eventual dismantling of BE's nuclear power stations. British Energy is a private company which owns and operates eight nuclear power stations built under the arrangements of former national programs. Between them, BE's nuclear power plants generate about 68 TWh of electricity per year - about 20% of the country's electricity. The company was privatised in 1996 but found financial trouble as wholesale electricity prices fell. This combined with maintenance problems that reduced generation led the company to seek aid from the DTI in September 2002. The department took the view that allowing BE to fail would jeopardise the UK electricity supply and mean uncertainty over BE's regular payments into funds for nuclear clean-up. The DTI's restructuring plan was subject to European Commission approval under state aid rules. This approval was received in September 2004 and restructuring was finalised in January 2005. As part of the plan, the DTI took on about 1 billion shares in BE, some 64% of the company. On 30 May, with BE having recently posted good results, Trade and Industry minister Alistair Darling announced the DTI would reduce that to 39%. With BE shares trading at GBP5.69 on 29 May, a value of around GBP2.276 billion ($4.5 billion) would be realised. It had been noted by the National Audit Office that the NLF was "particularly exposed to BE’s future financial and operational performance." and that "This uncertainty placed a significant risk in the hands of the taxpayer." The government's decision to place the net proceeds from the share sale into the NLF therefore reduces this risk, while providing a large part of the GBP5.1 billion ($10.1 billion) calculated to be required to eventually dismantle BE's nuclear power stations. Further information British Energy WNA's Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom information paper ***************************************************************** 11 newsobserver.com: Nuclear reactor plan on hold Thursday, May 31, 2007 Promoting energy savings will come first, Progress Energy says. Expect rates to go up John Murawski, Staff Writer Progress Energy will delay building a new reactor at the Shearon Harris nuclear plant in Wake County and instead push customers to use less electricity. Robert McGehee, chief executive of the Raleigh utility, said Wednesday that the company will also observe a moratorium on proposing coal-burning power plants as it devotes the next two years to testing whether its 1.2 million customers in the state are willing to commit to energy efficiency. Progress Energy's emphasis on energy conservation comes amid growing concern over global warming and the environmental damage caused by major power plants. Under its new programs, the typical customer could cut energy use by about 10 percent to 15 percent, said Lloyd Yates, the incoming president for Progress Energy Carolinas. Progress Energy is willing to offer solutions, such as leaky duct repair, tuneups for air conditioners, home energy audits and advanced technologies to save kilowatts that are usually wasted. But the company's proposal could exact a toll on energy hogs who leave lights burning in empty rooms and chill their homes to goose-bump levels in the summer. Progress Energy officials expect to charge all customers a little extra to make up for the revenue lost from those who conserve. Progress will develop an energy efficiency program to save 2,000 megawatts of electricity, equivalent to the capacity of several power plants. "Hopefully after two years, we can set even more aggressive targets," McGehee said. Progress Energy's announcement came on the heels of Charlotte-based Duke Energy's plan to offset about 1,700 megawatts with energy efficiency. Last year Progress and Duke were among a small group of utilities leading the way to win federal licenses for the nation's first new nuclear reactors in three decades. Duke is still committed to licensing two reactors in South Carolina, and Progress is on track to seek two in Florida. About two dozen states have laws that require utilities to derive a portion of their electricity from renewables, such as solar and wind, and from efficiency programs. These programs achieve energy savings by charging customers extra to pay for alternative power sources and for efficiency options. Progress and Duke are backing similar legislation here -- provided the bill also includes provisions making it easier to recover costs for new power plants, even if the plants are not completed. Progress Energy will invest about $50 million to $60 million a year in efficiency programs in North Carolina, an investment the company would like to recover. The programs are similar to those proposed by Duke Energy and will include duct testing for leaks, home energy audits and promotion of compact fluorescent light bulbs. Some of the proposals are being tested now, such as remote-controlled thermostats to adjust settings on air conditioners and appliances. The company is also testing equipment that gives real-time readings on energy consumption and cost, to help people change their usage patterns. The state's consumer advocacy arm, known as the Public Staff, will review the company's detailed proposal when it's filed in September with the N.C. Utilities Commission. To win approval, the plan will have to include a cost-benefit analysis showing projected savings and a plan to measure and verify the savings. "We support the goal, but we have to be a little skeptical whether they can reach it," said Public Staff Director Robert Gruber. "There's not a lot of specifics in the press release." The company is looking for options to keep the juice flowing as it adds 25,000 to 30,000 new residential and business customers each year in the Carolinas. That's equivalent to adding about 250 megawatts a year to the company's electricity demand during times of peak demand. For comparison's sake, the Shearon Harris nuclear plant has a capacity of 900 megawatts. "You can take three to four years of growth out with this efficiency," said Bill Johnson, the company's chief operating officer. But company officials say that Progress will have to build power plants by 2018 to replace aging power plants and to keep up with growth. In the coming year, Progress will make a final decision on whether to add a reactor to the Shearon Harris plant. Progress Energy now saves about 1,000 megawatts a year in the Carolinas through programs that encourage energy use during off-peak times. The company has about 30,000 residential customers signed up on "time of use" rates, which charge a premium for using electricity during times of peak demand and give discounts for using power when demand is low. New programs would add 1,000 megawatts to existing savings. "These do look like significant numbers," said Michael Shore, senior air policy analyst at N.C. Environmental Defense, an advocacy group on pollution issues. "These are the types of programs that make a difference." Staff writer John Murawski can be reached at 829-8932 or john.murawski@newsobserver.com. WAYS TO CONSERVE Progress Energy will propose a detailed energy efficiency program in September. Here's an overview of some components the proposal will likely contain. * Remote-control thermostats -- will allow the utility to adjust settings of air conditioners and water heaters during times of peak demand. * In-home energy display -- gives real-time energy consumption and costs to encourage customers to save during peak demand. * HVAC service and repair -- seals duct leaks and tunes equipment to improve efficiency. © Copyright 2007, The News & Observer Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 12 BBC NEWS: Mather attacks energy white paper Last Updated: Thursday, 31 May 2007, 17:19 GMT 18:19 UK Mr Mather said Scotland should be able to export power The Scottish energy minister Jim Mather has attacked the UK government over its recent white paper on the future of Britain's electricity supplies. He told MSPs that Scotland did not want or need any new nuclear power stations. Mr Mather went on to assure parliament that he was doing everything possible to reverse BP's decision to pull out of a carbon capture project in Peterhead. Mr Mather said the paper failed on many counts. While welcoming plans to combat climate change, he described the promise of new nuclear power stations as the "hole in the middle". If an application were to be submitted for a new nuclear power station that will be for Scottish ministers to determine Jim Mather Energy minister "If an application were to be submitted for a new nuclear power station that will be for Scottish ministers to determine," Mr Mather said. "We would be obliged to look at it - but given our policy position, our generating capacity, our multiplicity of energy sources and our strong alternative strategies such an application would be unlikely to find favour with this administration." Mr Mather claimed the paper underplayed the potential of other energy options, and went as far to say that resources are so abundant the country should be planning to export electricity. He criticised the energy regulator Ofgem's approach to transmission charges which worked against this. Mr Mather said First Minister Alex Salmond was working to get a project for the world's first full-scale carbon capture power plant back on track. He said Mr Salmond had appealed directly to Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling to intervene. BP have pulled out of the Peterhead carbon capture project Oil giant BP shelved plans to build the plant at Peterhead, saying it can no longer wait for a government decision. Mr Mather said: "The first minister has spoken and written to Alistair Darling pressing for a change in UK government position. "I very much hope that he will respond to the constructive ideas we have put to him." Mr Darling has insisted that government spending on this scale required a competition to see which carbon capture scheme is worthy of support. But Mr Mather claimed the government had "fallen at the first hurdle" by letting the project be scrapped as a result of its slow response. Mr Mather came under pressure from MSPs over his party's attitude towards onshore wind farms, amid claims it wants to halt many schemes. Labour's Iain Gray asked whether the Nationalists still planned to cap the number, while Lib Dem Liam McArthur said the SNP wanted a one-year moratorium and questioned when this would come into effect. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 13 Earth Times: South Africa to build up to 10 more nuclear power plants - Eskom Posted : Thu, 31 May 2007 17:02:01GMT Cape Town - Despite problems at its Koeberg nuclear power plant near Cape Town South Africa's electricity utility Eskom on Thursday announced plans to build up to 10 more nuclear power stations. Eskom chief executive Jacob Maroga told reporters in Cape Town nuclear power was the most viable alternative to coal because of concerns over the greenhouse gases generated by burning coal, SAPA news agency reported. Eskom wanted to ratchet up the proportion of electricity generated by conventional nuclear stations to 20,000 megawatts by 2025, he said. The government is expected to give its decision on the building of the new plants in 2008. Koeberg, the country's sole nuclear power plant, currently generates 1800 megawatts from two 900 megawatt reactors. Earlier Thursday Eskom announced that a water leak in a generator at Koeberg had caused a shutdown of one of the two reactors for up to "a day or two" but said no outages were expected in the Western Cape province served by the plant. Eskom has already approved plans for a second nuclear power station, with France and Russia reportedly among the contenders to build it. South Africa is under pressure to bring new generating capacity online quickly to end the chronic power outages caused by inadequate surplus that are a feature of life in Africa's biggest economy. Eskom has budgeted 150 billion rand over the next five years towards the construction of new power plants. Koeberg is no stranger to mishaps involving generators - a misplaced bolt in a generator last year resulted in weeks-long power outages in the area. Copyright © 2007 Respective Author (c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 Platts: Progress Energy deferring potential nuclear construction 2007-05-30 Washington (Platts)--30May2007 Progress Energy said it is deferring potential nuclear construction in North Carolina while it pursues energy conservation measures. The company said in a May 30 statement that it has notified the NRC that if it moves forward with new nuclear construction at its Harris-1 site, a new unit would be online in 2018 or later. That date would put the unit online at least two years later than initial energy demand forecasts had indicated, it said. In early 2006, Progress Energy said it had picked the Harris-1 site as the location for building up to two Westinghouse AP1000 PWRs. At that time, Progress Energy said a new unit could be online in 2015. The Harris-1 site was originally planned for four reactors, but only one was built. The company said a final decision on new nuclear construction was still more than a year away. Progress Energy also said it has proposed a two-year moratorium on new coal plants while it pursues demand-side management and energy-efficiency programs. The company said it will evaluate the effectiveness of the programs over the next two years to determine their viability in reducing electricity demand. Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 15 Platts: All four units at UK Hinkley, Hunterston nuclear plants back soon 2007-05-30 London (Platts)--30May2007 All four units at the UK's Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B nuclear power plants should be back in operation soon, British Energy executives said in a conference call Wednesday morning. Boiler problems at the plants helped push down output in the latest financial year. The BE executives said that the first unit to come back at Hunterston B was now at 70% output. The first at Hinkley Point B was in start up mode now. The second at Hunterston B was in the process of start up. After that the company would move on to the second at Hinkley Point B. You did not try to restart two units at a plant at the same time, CEO Bill Coley said, but rather brought them back in sequence. Asked if all four should be back by mid-June he said that was "not unreasonable at all." They are expected to return to 70% output, rather than maximum capacity. STUDYING SITES FOR NUCLEAR NEW BUILD Asked about the timetable for possible nuclear new build BE said that the government's consultation on issues such as waste and decommissioning would run until mid-October. In parallel BE is talking to potential partners in new build and potential electricity sales customers, including industrial users hoping to hedge future costs. The government is also conducting site studies and BE is carrying out its own study of which of its existing sites would be most suitable for new build. The BE executives were asked if the government could seize BE's existing nuclear power plant sites by compulsory purchase and possibly award them to a different operator for new build. The executives said government could seize the land if BE was not exploiting it. But since BE was in talks with partners about new build, it was not leaving the sites to go fallow. The BE executives said they thought the government was "content" with the way things were going. For simliar news, request a free trial to Power in Europe at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 16 Platts: UK utility Scottish and Southern in talks on new nuclear build 2007-05-31 London (Platts)--31May2007 UK utility Scottish and Southern Energy Thursday said it is talking to generator British Energy and other companies about developing new nuclear power stations in the country. "We have to develop optionality on nuclear--optionality to buy...and optionality to invest," Ian Marchant, SSE's chief executive, said in a conference call. British Energy is the country's largest generator and operates eight nuclear power stations that have a combined capacity of almost 10 GW. The company is pushing the government to encourage nuclear development, and is courting potential partners to help support new stations on its existing sites. Marchant said any decision on SSE's role in nuclear energy would take years, but that the company wanted to maintain options to buy power from generators or partner in new construction. "Therefore we are talking to people and it would be bizarre not to talk to the largest nuclear generator in the UK. Of course we are discussing...but not only with them," Marchant said. The UK government last week said it favored private construction of new nuclear power stations but would wait until October before making a final decision on the technology's role in the country's energy mix. "We don't know how it will turn out in the next year or 18 months, but we need to be involved in the debate," Marchant said. The UK government announced Wednesday that it is to sell off a 25% stake in British Energy, reducing its interest from 64% to 39%. The share offering would raise more than GBP2.2 billion (Eur3.2 billion, $4.3 billion) at current prices. For simliar news, request a free trial to Power in Europe at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 17 Independent: Government cuts stake in British Energy to fund decommissioning - By Karen Attwood Published: 31 May 2007 The Government is selling off Ł2.56bn of shares in British Energy to pay for the cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors at the UK's biggest electrical power producer. The Department of Trade and Industry said the proceeds from the sale of up to 450 million shares will go to the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NFL). The sale will reduce the Government's holding from 64 per cent to 39 per cent, but it is not planning to cut its stake below 29.9 per cent. Some 87 per cent of the fund's assets are linked to the company and the Government wishes to make the fund less reliant on British Energy shares. It is believed to be the Government's biggest stock sale since 1993 and the largest accelerated book-building since France Telecom's $6.1bn (Ł3.1bn) placing in September 2004, according to Dealogic. The news came as British Energy announced a 44 per cent rise in underlying profits to Ł1.22bn on the back of rising prices while revenues rose to almost Ł3bn, up from Ł2.6bn the previous year. It also announced its first dividend since it was rescued from collapse by the Government in 2002. The Trade and Industry Secretary, Alistair Darling, announced last July that the Government was considering selling part of its interest in British Energy. The NFL was set up in 1996 at the time of the company's privatisation to cover clean-up costs. About 400 million shares will be sold to financial institutions with an option to sell an extra 50 million. British Energy said yesterday that problems at two of its plants continued to disrupt electricity production levels. The company, which employs 6,000 staff, warned last year that it had discovered cracked pipes in plants at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Hunterston in Ayrshire. Last week, the Government said it will support the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations, as it aims to cut carbon emissions and reduce its reliance on imports. British Energy's eight nuclear plants and one coal-fired station are capable of producing about a sixth of the country's electricity needs. © 2007 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 18 The Citizen: Koeberg unit out of action Friday June 01/ CAPE TOWN – One of the two units at the Koeberg nuclear power station near Cape Town was unexpectedly shut down on Thursday morning because of a technical problem, Eskom said. Eskom chief executive Jacob Maroga said there was no need for concern, as Eskom had enough reserve capacity to supply the Western Cape. Consumers should nevertheless be “extra vigilant” in saving electricity until it was back up, he said. “We are assessing how long it’s going to be down: maybe a day or two.” He said the technical problem was on the electrical rather than the nuclear side of the facility. The unit’s automatic safety shutdown had kicked in after a water leak into a generator, he said. Koeberg’s units each supply 900 megawatts of power. - Sapa. 31/05/2007 14:20:51 © 2004 The Citizen ***************************************************************** 19 APP.COM: 2 nuclear reactors shut down at Salem plant | Asbury Park Press Online Thursday, May 31, 2007 HOPE CREEK REACTORS OFF LINE OVER SEVERAL DAYS LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK TOWNSHIP — Two of the three reactors at the Salem nuclear power plant were off line Wednesday following two unrelated incidents over the past several days. Salem Unit 2 automatically shut down last Thursday when a porthole-style window in a steam condenser broke, and water contaminated with both hydrazine and tritium leaked into the storm drainage system. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Hydrazine is a corrosive liquid. On Tuesday, the Hope Creek unit was manually shut down after an electrical problem. The Associated Press Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point 2 back online after shutdown Thursday, May 31, 2007 By GREG CLARY BUCHANAN - Indian Point 2 returned to full power about 11 a.m. today after workers repaired a broken water valve on one of the plant's steam generators and connected the reactor back to the state electricity grid. Officials from Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates Indian Point, said the plant went back online about 3 a.m. and was brought gradually back up to full power. Control operators had safely shut down the plant on Monday after the valve compromised the generator's capacity to keep up with the reactor at full power. Entergy officials said the valve could not be fixed unless the reactor was taken down to 2 percent power. Plant staff repaired the dog-house-sized valved, which controls the flow of non-radioactive water to one of the plant's four steam generators. Fred Dacimo, Indian Point's top on-site official, commended plant workers for their efforts during the event. "Our control room operators and staff performed very well in shutting down the plant, making the repairs, and returning the unit to service," Dacimo said in a prepared statement today. "It was the correct decision to shut down the plant. Their training and commitment to safety is what Entergy is about." Indian Point 3 was unaffected by the shutdown of Indian Point 2. Reach Greg Clary at 914-696-8566 or gclary@lohud.com. Copyright © 2007 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 21 CNW Group: Team CANDU Participates in Nuclear Technology Review by Province June 1, 2007 Study will Confirm CANDU Nuclear Technology Best Choice for Ontario MISSISSAUGA, ON, May 31 /CNW/ - Team CANDU is ready to participate in the McKinsey & Company independent review of the nuclear technology options available to the Province and is confident that CANDU technology will provide Ontario with the best nuclear technology option. "Team CANDU and Ontario's nuclear industry is ready to meet Ontario's clean-air electricity needs on a very competitive basis," said Patrick Lamarre, President and CEO of SNC-Lavalin Nuclear Inc. "We are confident that the independent review will confirm that Team CANDU provides Ontario with the best price, best available technology with the lowest risk to Ontario rate payers and is a 'Made-in-Canada' solution." Team CANDU partners are ready to put their considerable combined expertise and experience at the disposal of their fellow citizens. For the past 10 years AECL and its Team CANDU partners have been continuously building new nuclear reactors on budget and on or ahead of schedule surpassing all other reactor vendors. AECL's new Advanced CANDU Reactor - ACR-1000 is currently being considered as the technology of choice for several other Canadian markets. About Team CANDU Team CANDU is a joint initiative between five of the world's leading nuclear technology and engineering companies - Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Babcock & Wilcox Canada, General Electric Canada, Hitachi Canada Ltd., and SNC-Lavalin Nuclear Inc. Together, the Team is a power-house of expertise, resources and experience positioned offering its guaranteed delivery model for building new nuclear power plants in Ontario. For further information: Dale Coffin, Director, Communications, (905) 403-7457, coffind@aecl.ca ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED - More on this organization © 2005 CNW Group Ltd. PRIVACY & TERMS OF USE / CONTACT US / SITE MAP ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2006 Assessment for James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Plant at Public Meeting Scheduled for June 5 News Release - Region I - 2007-032 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s annual assessment of safety performance at the James A. FitzPatrick nuclear power plant, in Scriba (Oswego County), N.Y., will be the subject of a public meeting on Tuesday, June 5. NRC staff will meet with representatives of plant owner Entergy Nuclear Northeast at 12:30 p.m. to discuss the assessment, which covers the period from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2006, and was documented in a March 2nd letter to the company. The session will take place at the plant’s Joint News Center, located at the Oswego County Airport, on County Route 176 in Fulton, N.Y. Before the meeting is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the performance of the FitzPatrick plant, as well as the role of the NRC in providing oversight of plant safety. “Each year we size up plant performance during the previous calendar year, with the overarching goal of ensuring that facilities are achieving the levels of safety that are essential to protecting the public and the environment,” said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins, who noted the agency also conducts mid-year assessments of performance. “At the meeting on June 5th, members of the public will receive information about how we go about that review process for FitzPatrick and other nuclear power plants across the nation. The NRC staff will also be prepared to answer questions from attendees.” Overall, the FitzPatrick plant operated safely during 2006. The NRC utilizes color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with “green” and then increase to “white,” “yellow” or “red,” commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. At the conclusion of last year, all of the performance indicators for FitzPatrick were determined to be “green.” Because all of the performance indicators for the plant were determined to be “green” and there were no inspection findings greater than “green” at the end of 2006, the facility will receive the baseline, or routine, level of inspections in 2007. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa. Among the areas of performance at FitzPatrick to be inspected this year by NRC specialists are activities associated with radiological safety, emergency preparedness and component design bases. Current performance information for the FitzPatrick plant is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FITZ/fitz_chart.html. The annual assessment letter for FitzPatrick is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/fitz_2006q4.pdf. The notice for the meeting, with agenda attached, is available in the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML071350127. ADAMS is accessible at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is available via the NRC’s Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at PDR@NRC.GOV NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Thursday, May 31, 2007 ***************************************************************** 23 Brattleboro Reformer: Vt. backs increased VY temps BRATTLEBORO, VT By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Thursday, May 31 BRATTLEBORO -- In a letter to Entergy Nuclear, the state's utility commissioner wrote he hopes Vermont's environmental court will consider the effect that limiting the temperature of Vermont Yankee cooling water discharge into the Connecticut River will have on ratepayers and the environment. The letter, addressed to Ted Sullivan, site vice president at Yankee, was a result of a study ordered by David O'Brien, the commissioner of the Vermont Department of Public Service, asking his staff to evaluate the effect of the thermal discharge stay on Vermont and the region. By not allowing the power plant to increase the temperature of its cooling waters by 1 degree, the region is losing 43 megawatts of energy during the summer when it is needed the most to meet peak demands, wrote O'Brien. "The Vermont share of the loss of 43 MW would result in an increase in costs of roughly $354,000 in the upcoming summer season," wrote O'Brien. But what happens on the regional grid doesn't affect prices in the Green Mountain State, said David Deen, D-Westminster, and the river steward for the Connecticut River Watershed Council. "The price is locked until 2012," he said. "There will be absolutely no increase in any of Vermont Yankee's environmental impact or market impacts if the stay remains in place," wrote Ray Shadis, consultant for the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, in a press release. Last year, Entergy asked the state to allow it to increase by 1 degree the temperature of the cooling water it discharges into the river. The watershed council and the coalition contested the state's approval, and the increase was put on hold in August to allow the environmental court to do its own review. Both sides gave oral arguments in front of the court last April and it is expected the court will render its opinion within the next two weeks. O'Brien's letter was submitted to the Vermont Environmental Court by an attorney for Entergy, which the New England Coalition has objected to, saying it "needlessly injects political pressure into this proceeding." Though O'Brien's department isn't taking a position on the stay, he wrote, "we believe it is important for the court to include consideration of the impacts of a stay on the electricity system, ratepayer impacts and air emissions impacts." "The impact of the stay will have a predicted derate of roughly 43 MW," he wrote. "We regard this derate as having a small but potentially consequential impact in the face of extreme weather or in the face of extreme weather such as we experienced in 2005 following Hurricanes Rita and Katrina." And then there is the pollution from fossil fuel burned for energy to make up for the loss of power, he wrote. The megawatts produced at Vermont Yankee "would displace roughly 12 tons of sulfur dioxide, 3.3 tons of nitrogen oxides and 8,195 tons of carbon dioxide." With less than two weeks to the decision, the watershed council and the coalition have no time to respond to O'Brien's contentions. "And there are responses," Deen said. To refute all of the contentions in the letter would "take a fair amount of research" that can't be conducted between now and when the court plans to release its decision. The letter is a "last minute attempt to influence the court," Deen added. "What in the world has taken the department from August to May to discover they had an interest in this case." The current stay expired April 1, but remains in place while the court reviews the case. Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273. ***************************************************************** 24 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC paper sheds light on safety standards BRATTLEBORO, VT By BOB AUDETTE, Reformer Staff Thursday, May 31 BRATTLEBORO -- A document released by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission sheds some light on how it evaluates the safety of a nuclear power plant to withstand a terrorist attack. The document, a supplement to the environmental assessment of a proposed spent fuel storage facility in San Luis Obispo, Calif., was produced after the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace and other citizen groups challenged the licensing of the fuel site on a number of contentions, including the NRC's review of the effect of a terrorist attack on the storage facility. "In this supplement ... the NRC staff has considered potential terrorist acts (concluding) that the construction and operation of the (facility) will not result in a significant effect on the human environment," NRC staff wrote. Local anti-nuclear activists have been keeping a watch on the action in California because of some of the same concerns they have for spent fuel storage at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, and the Pilgrim plant in Plymouth, Mass., and the Massachusetts Attorney General is challenging the NRC in federal court, demanding a similar review of those two plants. The NRC had contended that its generic review of the site had concluded the danger of terrorist attack on the facility was minimal. Further discussions on any actions taken to protect the site were prohibited because of national security reasons, reasoned the NRC. And under national security policy, other government agencies are responsible for protecting against terrorist attacks. But after hearing from the Mothers for Peace, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the NRC could not categorically deny the safety review, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case "After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case, the NRC developed an approach to consider what would happen if a terrorist attack on the dry cask storage facility at the Diablo Canyon plant were to occur," wrote NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, in an e-mail announcing the document release. The new review finds that even when potential terrorist attacks are considered, the construction, operation and decommissioning of the facility will not result in a "significant effect on the human environment." In its initial assessment of the proposed facility, NRC staff wrote that without the new site, the twin reactors at Diablo Canyon will have to be shut down before their licenses expire in 2021 and 2025 because the current spent fuel pool is nearing capacity. Staff also wrote that because of the construction of the storage casks, and the composition of the materials inside, radiation exposure "will be a small fraction of the 100 millirem estimated annual dose received from naturally occurring terrestrial and cosmic radiation in the vicinity." Though the NRC did consider the effects of a possible accident at the facility, "the NRC staff did not consider the potential impacts of terrorist acts on the (facility) in the initial environmental assessment." Because of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, the NRC was forced to discuss how it had reached its conclusion, and in the document, the NRC revealed some of the steps it has taken since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to protect nuclear facilities around the country. "Broad actions taken by the federal government and the specific actions taken by the NRC since Sept. 11 have helped to reduce the potential for terrorist attacks against NRC-regulated facilities," wrote NRC staff in the supplement. Those actions include a continuous evaluation of the "threat environment," increased communication with law enforcement agencies, protective measures already in place to prevent a release of radiation and the "robust design" of storage containers "which provides substantial resistance to penetration." Other measures implemented after Sept. 11 included increased security patrols, augmented security forces and weapons, additional security posts, better screening of security personnel and limitations on vehicle access. "Collectively, these measures further reduce the already low probability of a successful terrorist attack on a (spent fuel facility)." The details of security plans for each facility are confidential but the NRC requires that there be security in place to thwart a terrorist attack as "part of a multi-layered federal security strategy" designed to "identify and preempt potential terrorist attacks According to the NRC, dry cask storage systems are designed to withstand a 4,000 pound automobile hurled at 125 miles an hour by a tornado. At Diablo Canyon, the containers have inner and outer steel shells with 30 inches of concrete between them. A canister containing fuel pellets is put inside the casks. They will weigh up to 170 tons when fully loaded. Even if one of the casks was broken open, wrote the NRC, because the spent fuel is in the form of solid ceramic pellets "a large amount of the radioactive material would remain in solid form and not be dispersed beyond the immediate vicinity." Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com or 802-254-2311, ext. 273. ***************************************************************** 25 Xinhua: China calls for consideration of all sides in DPRK funds issue www.chinaview.cn 2007-05-31 20:47:28 ith consideration of all parties' concerns. Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei met with visiting U.S. representative Christopher Hill on Wednesday to discuss issues related to the six-party talks including the DPRK funds held by the Macao-based Banco Delta Asia, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said. Hill arrived in Beijing on Wednesday to exchange notes and information with the Chinese envoy to the six-party talks. Saying he had "a good exchange" with the Chinese side, Hill said the discussion touched on "where we are in the six-party talks process". Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister He Yafei also discussed with Hill Sino-U.S. relations, Jiang said, adding the two sides appraised the progress of bilateral ties which featured multi-level exchanges, effective consultation and cooperation in international and regional issues, as well as the in-depth Sino-U.S. Strategic Economic Dialogue and strategic dialogue mechanism. China and the United States wanted to continue to implement the consensus reached by both leaders to enhance cooperation, dialogue and mutual respect, and properly handle differences, especially on the Taiwan issue, Jiang said. Editor: Bi Mingxin ***************************************************************** 26 Tallahassee Democrat: Increased nuclear power urged www.tallahassee.com - Tallahassee, FL. Thursday, May 31, 2007 View our Mobile Site Former EPA chief touts benefits of nuclear energy By Bruce Ritchie DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER Nuclear energy is a clean and safe alternative that should play a greater role in Florida's energy future, Christine Todd Whitman, former administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said Wednesday. Whitman is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which describes itself as a national grass-roots organization dedicated to education on the benefits of nuclear energy. Her consulting firm is paid by the coalition, which is funded by the nuclear industry. Energy conservation and renewable energy have a place in the future, Whitman told the Economic Club of Florida. But other power generation is needed, she said, and nuclear energy is more efficient and pollutes less. For the first time since the 1970s, U.S. companies are talking about building nuclear reactors - as many as 34 nationwide, Whitman said. "The future of nuclear energy actually is very hopeful," she said. "The signs we are seeing is there are more and more who are now looking at nuclear energy as a real alternative today." Some in the audience at the Silver Slipper restaurant were receptive to the speech. But some environmentalists who did not attend said they still have questions about nuclear energy. Florida CFO Alex Sink, a member of the Economic Club of Florida, said she is interested in increasing nuclear as part of the state's energy supply mix. Sink sits on the Cabinet, which approves the siting of new power plants. "If we are going to be a growing state, we are going to have to figure out how to produce the energy that more people are going to require," she said. Former Lt. Gov. Wayne Mixson said he was joining the coalition because he's concerned that the U.S. is using fossil fuels needed in developing countries. Members of the Council for Safe and Efficient Energy include Associated Industries of Florida, former Gov. Jeb Bush, the Tampa Branch of the NAACP and the Florida Medical Society, according to Hill & Knowlton, a public-relations firm that coordinates council activities. Nuclear is on the negotiating table because of concerns about global warming from burning coal for electricity, said Susan Glickman, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. But she said concerns remain about nuclear energy's safety, waste issues and cost. "If you satisfy your energy needs by throwing up large nuclear power plants, there is less incentive to develop renewable energy and make the investments in energy efficiency," she said. Whitman said the nation has a nuclear waste solution in Yucca Mountain, Nev., but has been blocked from using the disposal site by "political science." Citing concerns about offshore oil drilling and coal mining in the U.S., Whitman said, "We say 'no' to just about everything. If we want to continue to grow and to sustain our economy and quality of life, we have got to start saying 'yes' to some things." Contact reporter Bruce Ritchie at (850) 599-2253 or britchie@tallahassee.com. Copyright ©2007 Tallahassee Democrat. ***************************************************************** 27 Jakarta Post: Nuclear plant seen as risky, premature National News June 01, 2007 Alvin Darlanika Soedarjo, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta A government plan to begin the construction of a nuclear power plant by 2016 has been labeled environmentally risky and premature, with environmental groups highlighting that feasibility studies on the dangers posed by the project have yet to be conducted. "The risk of failure of a nuclear power plant in Indonesia is high. Many energy-related regulations, such as the placement of gas stations, have not been followed closely," Nyoman Iswarayoga, program manager for environmental group Pelangi Indonesia Foundation, said Wednesday at a public discussion held to commemorate the foundation's 15th anniversary. "Many gas stations are built in close proximity to one another. There are also gas stations built next to supermarkets, which is already a violation." Although Indonesia is more or less set to make an eventual move toward nuclear energy, the 2017 deadline set by the government for producing 2,000 megawatts (Mw) of nuclear-wrought energy will likely be pushed back, Iswarayoga said. "We don't think that other energy resources, such as geothermal and micro-hydro, have been optimized in their development and use," he said, adding that the costs involved in building a nuclear plant are enormous. In France, 80 percent of energy is derived from nuclear plants because the country lacks other natural energy resources. Indonesia, on the other hand, has many options up its sleeve. Unlike other energy sources, nuclear-wrought electricity is relatively affordable for the public and nuclear plants are able to produce immense amounts of it with little manpower. Fabby Tumiwa, chairperson for the Institute for Essential Services Reform, said a breakdown in the country's nuclear waste management could be potentially devastating as radioactive waste lingers for upward of 100,000 years. "Humans can easily get cancer from radioactive exposure. Many people are not yet fully informed about the danger of a plant failure," he said, adding that Indonesia still lacked the experience to sufficiently manage large-scale energy waste. The National Atomic Energy Agency (Batan) conducted an assessment of different energy sources for electricity generation in Indonesia in 2002. It concluded that projected technological and economic growth in Indonesia could warrant the construction of a nuclear plant by 2016. However, Fabby insists Batan's research was insufficient. He suggested that state-owned electricity company PT PLN undertake a comprehensive inquiry into ways to maximize available energy sources for the medium- and long-term before Indonesia develops a nuclear plant. "The government should incorporate all important aspects, such as a roadmap for the electricity market structure, an energy mix and sources, cost and pricing mechanisms, potential investors, technology and economic and social factors," he said. "The spread of electricity consumption itself is still mainly concentrated in Java and Bali." Energy and Mineral Resources Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro has said that the contribution of nuclear energy to the local energy mix would amount to 4,000 Mw by 2025. Indonesia possesses sufficient radioactive minerals for self-supply. ***************************************************************** 28 Economist.com: Cleaning up | Thursday May 31st 2007 Business is getting down to cutting carbon, but needs more incentives to make much difference to climate change, argues Emma Duncan (interviewed here) Alamy WHEN the notion of global warming first seeped into public consciousness in the 1980s, business took a dim view of it. Admitting that human activity was changing the climate would involve accepting some responsibility, which was likely to mean coughing up cash. So, in 1989, shortly after the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body set up under UN auspices to establish a scientific consensus on the issue, the big carbon emitters set up the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). It cast doubt on the science and campaigned against greenhouse-gas reductions. The GCC folded in 2002. Its line of argument enjoyed a final flowering last year, in a startlingly inane television commercial put out by the business-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). It showed pictures of trees (breathing in carbon dioxide) and a happy little girl blowing dandelion seeds (breathing out carbon dioxide). The punchline was: “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution; we call it life.” These days very few serious businessmen will say publicly either that climate change is not happening or that it is not worth tackling. Even Exxon Mobil, bęte noire of the climate-change activists, has now withdrawn funding from the CEI and appears to accept the need for controls on carbon emissions. Businesses in every sector boast about their greenness. Annual reports elaborate on investments to offset companies' emissions. Of course the companies that do this tend to be those with few emissions, such as banks and retailers. Some oil companies do it too, but they offset only the greenhouse gases that they emit in producing petrol, not the emissions from the petrol itself. Power generators, which emit CO2 on a huge scale, do not do it. Yet the corporate world's sudden conversion to greenery is not just fluff. Big emitters are beginning to price carbon into their investment plans, and to alter them accordingly. As a result, wind and solar energy are getting an enormous boost, the price of electricity produced from renewable sources is dropping fast and a flurry of projects to sequester carbon emissions from power generation is beginning to get under way. On the transport side, money is flowing into biofuels and electric cars. Energy has become the hot new area for venture capitalists and universities. MIT's president, Susan Hockfield, has started an “energy initiative” to promote research into alternative sources, storage and cleaning up conventional sources; and student enrolment into energy-related courses has tripled over the past five years. In 2003, the most recent year for which figures are available, America's power-generation industry spent less on R&D as a proportion of turnover than did the country's pet-food industry, which suggests there is scope for more investment. What is driving this shift towards cleaner energy? First, moral pressure. Thanks to a potent combination of science, Hurricane Katrina, a heatwave in Europe, Al Gore's admonitions and starving polar bears, the fight against global warming has acquired the force of a religion enhanced by celebrity endorsement. Climate change has gone from being dull and marginal to cool and core. Businessmen, like everybody else, want to be seen to be doing the right thing, and self-interest points in the same direction. Firms that seem to be on the right side of the argument have a better chance of pulling in clever, idealistic young people to work for them. ReutersAl Gore, in the eye of the storm Second, there is economic pressure. Governments increasingly accept the need to put a price on the damage carbon does, and make polluters pay that price. Fears about energy security mostly push in the same direction as those about climate change. Many governments are keen to reduce dependence on Middle Eastern and Russian oil and gas. That means encouraging energy efficiency and promoting domestic energy sources—which, aside from coal, tend to be the clean sort, such as solar, wind and biomass. Europe already puts a price on carbon, through its Emissions-Trading System. The chances of a similar scheme being adopted in America rise with every passing hurricane. There is a plethora of subsidies on both sides of the Atlantic for clean-energy alternatives. Direct controls on emissions, for instance through vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, are being tightened around the world. Yet emissions keep on rising. If greenhouse-gas concentrations are to be stabilised, then the carbon price or the support mechanisms for clean energy, or both, will have to rise or be adopted worldwide, or both. And if that happens, the returns on clean-energy investments will increase even further and the companies that have already invested in such businesses will have a head start over those that have not. Moral and economic pressures have become intertwined, driving investors to push managers to go for cleaner investments. The Carbon Disclosure Project allows companies to report their emissions—and thus allows investors to see which companies don't. A group of investors, organised by Ceres and the Investor Network on Climate Risk, wielding $4 trillion and including powerful funds such as CalPERS, the Californian public employees' pension fund, and CalSTERS, the Californian teachers' pension fund, discriminates in favour of cleaner firms. The recent buy-out of TXU, Texas's main power-generator, led the company to abandon eight out of 11 planned coal-fired power stations because the private equity firm concerned, Texas Pacific, wanted to square the environmental movement. Yet the shift towards greenery is also driven by more positive factors. For some huge firms, such as GE, Alstom and Siemens, a move towards clean energy spells opportunity. They sell power-generation equipment and aircraft and train engines. New regulations requiring companies to adopt cleaner processes will mean that capital equipment is replaced more quickly, to the benefit of such companies. Even their customers increasingly realise that although climate change may push up their costs, it will also provide new opportunities—new markets, new technologies, new businesses and new money to be made. This could be disruptive. If carbon controls are tightened, the companies that will flourish are those that have positioned themselves well. In power generation that means companies such as Exelon and Pacific Gas & Electric, which have invested heavily in nuclear or renewable energy, whereas coal-heavy ones such as AEP will suffer. In the petroleum business, the winners will include BP, with its enthusiasm for renewables, and the losers Exxon Mobil. In the automotive industry, producers of fuel-efficient cars, such as Toyota, are more likely to do well out of carbon constraints than companies such as BMW. Technological change may also allow some parts of the energy and transport business to invade each other's turf. The power utilities hope to gain from the enthusiasm for plug-in electric cars, which could spell trouble for the oil companies. Biofuels, too, are a potential threat to them, not only because every farmer and forester may build a cellulosic ethanol plant in his backyard, but also because companies such as DuPont may prove better at making the fuels of the future. The power utilities, in turn, may suffer if fuel-cell technology turns cars into net producers, rather than consumers, of electricity. But these things will happen only if carbon constraints are tightened. This survey will examine how climate change is affecting business, and how business can affect climate change. It will concentrate on industrial emissions rather than on agriculture and deforestation (which produce lots of carbon dioxide without involving business much) but will leave out air travel, on which this newspaper will publish a survey in two weeks' time. It will examine what is driving change in the sectors responsible for most emissions, the nature and extent of that change, and its likely impact. It will argue that business has changed nothing like enough to have a chance of averting global warming—but that, given the right incentives, it can. Whether that happens or not will be largely determined in America. Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2007. All rights ***************************************************************** 29 IAEA: Hungary's First Fifty Years Feed Nuclear Future National Atomic Energy Authority Hosts Anniversary Event Staff Report 30 May 2007 The Paks nuclear power plant in central Hungary. (Photo Credit: Insight Central Europe - ICE) Hungary's first fifty years of nuclear cooperation are feeding future plans in fields of nuclear safety, safeguards, and technology. Earlier this month, the country's atomic energy authority hosted a special anniversary event saluting a half century of nuclear cooperation with the IAEA, which officially turns 50 in July this year. "Hungary was one of the first founders of the IAEA in 1957, and remains a very active member," noted Mr. Yury Sokolov, IAEA Deputy Director General for Nuclear Energy, speaking at the event in Budapest. "Today many Hungarian experts support the IAEA's work and the country hosts a great number of technical missions, scientific visits and fellowships." He pointed out that the country's Paks nuclear power plant, which started operations in the 1980s and today produces about 40% of Hungary's electricity, has hosted a number of IAEA expert review missions that are helping to guide future plant improvements and the work of the nuclear regulatory body. Ms. Márta Fekszi Horvath, Senior State Secretary of Hungary's Foreign Ministry, stressed the importance of Hungary's cooperation with the IAEA, and underlined the country's commitment to nuclear safety, safeguards, and peaceful nuclear technology. Mr. J?zsef R?naky, Chairman of the Hungarian Atomic Energy Commission., emphasized the impact that the IAEA's support has had on his country's development. The support includes helping Hungary to set up a Maintenance Training Centre to strengthen training for operating and maintenance personnel at the Paks nuclear plant, noted Mr. Byung-Koo Kim, Director of the IAEA's Division for Europe, Department of Technical Cooperation. The Centre also has benefitted other countries, including China, Russia, Ukraine and Pakistan, through expert exchanges and technical meetings. Among recent highlights stands the inauguration of the Hungarian National Food Investigation Institute as an IAEA Collaborating Centre for the Production and Characterisation of Matrix Reference Materials. Such centres are part of the IAEA global network for Analytical Quality Control Services, which involve measurements of radionuclides, trace elements, and other compounds. See Story Resources for links to additional information. Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: ***************************************************************** 30 UPI: Nuclear firms angling for British boom United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: May 31, 2007 at 3:48 PM LONDON, May 31 (UPI) -- As Britain prepares to sell a stake in its nuclear firm, it's being courted by regional nuclear companies as London reconsiders the nuclear question. Scottish and Southern Energy is looking to both British Energy and other firms to capture a potential expansion of nuclear power in Britain, the global energy information provider Platts reports. "We have to develop optionality on nuclear," said SSE Chief Executive Ian Marchant, "optionality to buy ... and optionality to invest." A new report mapping a potential energy strategy for the country has highlighted nuclear power as a large baseload-generating and low emissions-producing source. A final decision to start building new nuclear plants will be delayed until October, after Prime Minister Tony Blair steps down. "We don't know how it will turn out in the next year or 18 months, but we need to be involved in the debate," Marchant said. The government said this week it will sell a controlling interest in British Energy, from 64 percent to 39 percent. That could bring in more than $4.3 billion. BE operates eight nuclear plants, and wants the government to back an increase in nuclear power. Marchant said though no decision will be made right away, "it would be bizarre not to talk to the largest nuclear generator in the U.K." He said discussions are being conducted with other companies as well. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 UPI: S. Africa looks to more nuclear power United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: May 31, 2007 at 12:05 PM CAPE TOWN, South Africa, May 31 (UPI) -- South Africa's energy firm Eskom is looking to boost nuclear power capacity to 30 percent of total electricity supply, as demand continues to grow. The country's lone nuclear power plant in Koeberg, near Cape Town, powers 1,842 megawatts, which is 6 percent of South Africa's total electricity. But Eskom is releasing information on an environmental impact statement and calling for public comment on a planned 4,000 megawatt nuclear plant to be built at one of five potential coastal cities, reports World Nuclear News, a service of the World Nuclear Association. Eskom wants to generate 30 percent of the country's electric supply by adding 20,000 megawatts of nuclear capacity by 2037. To do so would mean an investment in the country's electricity grid. Right now it is weary just delivering power to a portion of the country; an additional 300,000 homes are connected each year. Much of the electricity comes from coal. But there are plans to double the grid's capacity by 2020. Construction of the new plant could start in two years. It would use Eskom's pressurized water reactors. South Africa is also pioneering a potential smaller reactor, the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, which allows for nuclear energy that fits into smaller electricity grids. That technology has not been fully developed yet, and is behind schedule. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 32 Tuscaloosa News: It is time to study all nuclear risks | Published Thursday, May 31, 2007 Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA executive director,/sradiation and public health project New York, N.Y. Dear Editor: The recent restart of the Browns Ferry 1 nuclear reactor (near Huntsville) after 22 years of sitting idle has been scrutinized for its $1.8 billion renovation cost. But public health is also an issue raised by restart. Nuclear reactors routinely release over 100 chemicals into the air and water. Cancer-/scausing chemicals such as Cesium-137, Iodine-131, and Strontium-90, created only in nuclear weapons and reactors, enter the body through breathing and the food chain, and are especially harmful to infants and children. Jackson, Madison, Marshall and Morgan counties, with a population of 550,000, lie east/downwind within 50 miles of the plant. They have been subjected to radioactivity for three decades (Browns Ferry has two other reactors). Its age mix, poverty rate and educational level are similar to the U.S., and it has 10 hospitals with specialized care nearby in Birmingham. Thus, there is no obvious local health risk, and death rates should not be elevated. Just after Browns Ferry began operating, the local cancer death rate was 5 percent below the U.S., but is now 8 percent higher. With over 1,100 persons in the four counties dying of cancer each year, this change equals hundreds of “excess" deaths – with no apparent reason to explain the shift from a low-cancer to a high-cancer area. The restart of Browns Ferry 1 should be a wake up call to study health risks of nuclear power more thoroughly. Other New York Times Regional Media Group Alabama sites: TimesDaily | The Gadsden Times | Tide Sports Copyright © 2007 Tuscaloosa News. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 Boston Today News: No need to fear nuclear power plans Thursday, May 31: 12.30pm - PEOPLE living in Boston should not be overly concerned about the prospect of having a nuclear power station on their doorstep. That's the message from a nuclear power expert and the co-author of a report commissioned by the Government to look into the future of such energy. Ian Jackson, one of the brains behind the Jackson Consulting Discussion Paper, told The Standard there were many more suitable sites, including at Sizewell, in Suffolk. "There are several factors which need to be taken into consideration," he added. "The main recommendation is that any new development should be at existing nuclear power station sites." Mr Jackson said if this was not possible it would then be best to look at other existing power station sites, and if this was not viable then coal stations should be explored. The potential to connect the supply to the national grid is also looked at and the 'forecast grid connection opportunity for 2005-2012' for the Boston area is considered low – up to 0.25GW. However, there is one thing Boston does have in its favour – access to a large water supply. The Wash would provide an ideal source of the water needed to cool down the steam from the nuclear reaction process. Mr Jackson, of Jackson Consulting, said despite the recommendations in his report it was still down to the individual companies where they decided to build. He said such firms often also take into account social factors, while other variables include the wishes of the banks investing in the project and economic factors. Last Updated: 30 May 2007 ***************************************************************** 34 Central Florida News 13: Nuclear Power The Talk Of Tallahassee - Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:23:37 PM Turning the Sunshine State into a mega-state can be rewarding, but as it grows, so too does power consumption. New plants have to be built to keep up with the booming demand and nuclear is a prime option. Florida already has five generators in three plants, Crystal River near the Bay area, Saint Lucie on the treasure coast, and Turkey Point near Miami. Enter former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman, who has also served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. These days, she heads up a coalition to expand America’s nuclear power industry. The message: it's cleaner and cheaper than any other option. Her stop in Tallahassee Wednesday had everything to do with timing. “The demand is coming at us, and you can't wait and it takes eight to 10 years to get a facility up, but Florida's done some very smart things as far as making it more attractive for companies to make that kind of investment in a nuclear facility,” Whitman said. In the background, like the steady hum of electricity, you can hear Whitman’s critics. Namely members of the environmental crowd, who argue that nuclear advocates are pulling the wool over your eyes. Mark Ferrulo with Environment Florida said nuclear is actually one of the most expensive ways to go, not to mention dangerous, because radioactive waste is left behind. Still, he's not surprised there's talk of expanding Crystal River. “The utilities make money when you burn energy. They don't make money when you save energy. So of course the utilities, their financial best interest is, the more wasteful we are as consumers and the more energy we consume and so they're the ones who are proposing to build nuclear plants,” he said. That's why Ferrulo's calling for a bigger focus on renewable energy, such as solar power. But, Whitman said that’s not enough. Plus, as far as she's concerned, three-eyed fish and radioactive dogs are nothing more than the stuff of cartoons. © 2006, Central Florida News 13, LLC. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 35 CBC News: Consultant to study Ontario's nuclear options Last Updated: Thursday, May 31, 2007 | 4:38 PM ET Ontario has hired a multinational company to conduct an independent study of available nuclear reactor technology worldwide. McKinsey & Company is to complete its review of the technical and economic profiles of each option by later this year, said a news release from the Ontario government issued Thursday. The government announced last June that it would likely build two new nuclear reactors. Steve Erwin, a spokesman for the Ministry of Energy, said they are intended to replace older reactors, not create new generating capacity. Erwin estimated the study will cost about $3 million. "We think it's money well spent because these are multibillion decisions," he said. "It's not meant to recommend [to] the government who we should go with. It's just to compile the information," he added. Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said in a statement that the new study follows the Ontario Power Generation Review Committee's 2004 recommendation to look internationally for the best technology. "The government has consistently stated that it prefers to use Canadian companies and technology, but that the decision will be based on the best technology offered at the best price that provides the greatest benefits and lowest risks over the lifetime of the new facilities," the release said. According to the Ontario Ministry of Energy, nuclear plants account for over 50 per cent of the province's electricity generation. Ontario nuclear plants are officially capable of producing 14,000 megawatts of electricity. However, some are currently being refurbished and 1,000 megawatts of the province's capacity cannot be brought back online for a reasonable cost, the province says. McKinsey & Company has 90 offices in 51 countries, including one in Calgary, and offers consulting services related to 18 industries, including electric power. It beat out other consultants in a competitive bidding process, the province said. Copyright © CBC 2007 ***************************************************************** 36 SO: The Nuclear Temptation: The Perils of Pushing Atomic Energy as the Climate Change Panacea - SPIEGEL ONLINE - May 31, 2007 By Philip Bethge Is nuclear power on the verge of a renaissance? Its supporters argue that atomic energy is the only way to satisfy humanity's hunger for more energy without aggravating the effects of global warming. Critics, however, regard the nuclear hype as over-simplistic optimism fueled by an industry in distress. DDP Two cooling towers at the Gundremmingen nuclear power plant in Germany: currently 435 atomic plants are online in 31 countries. The constant drizzle coming down over the Cotentin Peninsula on Normandy's coast has cloaked France's nuclear future in a fine mist. Massive electricity towers stand in the wet fog looking like identical giants with slumping shoulders. "British weather," says Philippe Leigné while looking at the dirty hulks of concrete that comprise the nuclear reactors Flamanville 1 and 2. The construction foreman for French energy titan Electricité de France then points to a pit near the foot of a small rise. "We have to move 600,000 cubic meters of granite," says Leigné. There's not much time left. He has to pour the foundation for Flamanville 3 onto the rocky Norman soil this year to keep what will become the world's most powerful reactor on schedule to deliver electricity to the grid by 2012. The construction site in Normandy is in many ways a test case for the French nuclear industry. Electricité de France operates 58 reactors across the country, generating more than 75 percent of France's electricity. But the plants have aged, and the company will probably have to take the first one offline by 2017. FROM THE MAGAZINE Their replacements are already in the works; EDF could have 10 new so-called third-generation reactors in operation by 2020. The energy giant can continue to count on political support. French parliament voted in July 2005 to keep all of the country's atomic options open, and France's new conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy has no intention of reducing the nuclear power industry's significance. France is pushing toward a new atomic age -- and the Grande Nation nucléaire is not alone. Long relegated to dark corners, the nuclear industry is working hard to develop a new, clean and green image. Convenient Optimism When Russia (more...) and natural gas supplies that normally flow through its pipelines, the nuclear energy industry certainly becomes an unexpected recipient of good PR. But more than anything, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) pessimistic forecast is causing a bout of atomic optimism. The United Nations-backed panel went so far as to recommend building new nuclear reactors as a strategy to tackle global warming in a report it published this year. DER SPIEGEL Graphic: A Radiant Future? Nuclear energy is largely carbon neutral, which allows the industry to accept and promote the worst-case climate change scenarios while simultaneously presenting itself as a potential solution to the problem of global warming. "A lot of politicians have realized that climate change is not based on the fantasies of crazy scientists, but is rather something knocking at the door," says Robert Davies, an executive for the French nuclear company Areva NP. "Suddenly nuclear technology doesn't look quite so bad anymore." The International Energy Agency, a Paris-based think-tank, supports such reasoning. Its 2006 study, "World Energy Outlook 2006" suggests that nuclear energy could contribute significantly to the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Atomic Renaissance or Wishful Thinking? For now, new (more...) are replacing old fears of a nuclear meltdown. Even in Germany, which decided in 2000 to gradually phase out nuclear power, such arguments are becoming widespread. Michael Glos, Germany's Economics Minister and a member of the conservative Christian Social Union, believes that extending the lifespan of the country's nuclear power plants is essential to meeting the country's climate protection targets. Critics, however, question the underlying nature of that argument. Nuclear power simply doesn't have the ability to influence global warming decisively, says Henrik Paulitz of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). "The effects of atomic energy on the world's climate are minimal and will remain minimal," he says, adding that electricity produced by nuclear power accounts for only 3 percent of global energy consumption. "Even a massive increase would therefore hardly have an impact." DER SPIEGEL Graphic: Radioactive Legacy Moreover, issues like plant safety, radioactive waste, the decoupling of nuclear proliferation from civilian usage, and the rapid depletion of the world's uranium deposits remain unresolved. "There are absolutely no solid indications of an atomic energy renaissance relevant to energy economics or climate policy," nuclear energy critic Klaus Traube wrote in a study for DNR, an umbrella organization for nature and environmental protection groups in Germany. Traube, who worked in the nuclear industry before becoming an outspoken detractor in the 1970s, considers enthusiasm for new reactors the wishful thinking of an industry in distress. Nuclear expert Michael Sailer from the Institute for Applied Ecology in Darmstadt, Germany, also thinks the industry's optimism is unfounded. "My prediction is that in 15 years we won't have any more nuclear power plants around the world than we do today," says Sailer. He concedes, however, that several new nuclear reactors will be built in the coming years, but he's also convinced that even more aging power plants will be shut down. "If the technology is revived at all it will be for military reasons." The Perils of Pushing Atomic Energy as the Climate Change Panacea By Philip Bethge Part 2: Meeting the Growing Demand for Power The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) expects global energy needs to surge by 53 percent by 2030. In that same time period, the demand for electricity will double, largely due to the extra gigawatts that rapidly developing countries like China and India will require. At the same time, many industrial countries will need to modernize their existing power grids. Germany alone will have to replace half of its power plant capacity in the next two decades. Just how society can satisfy its thirst for power while simultaneously combating climate change is one of the most pressing questions currently facing the international community. The nuclear industry's argument is simple: without new reactors, targets to reduce global warming are simply unattainable. A New Push With some 435 nuclear power plants in 31 countries, the sector has entered into the competition to provide a bigger piece of the future energy pie. And if its rhetoric is to be believed, that's just the beginning. China alone plans to build around 13 new reactors. Russia intends to build eight plants. India, Japan and South Korea all want new reactors. And both Britain and the United States are trying to make extremely expensive nuclear power plants more palatable to energy companies. The Bush administration, for example, is offering financial insurance against construction delays, credit guarantees and a simplified regulatory process for companies building new plants. Even atomic energy-free nations could soon give in to the nuclear temptation. Australia, which until now has only mined uranium, is making its foray into a nuclear era. A government study has recommended the country use the ore it currently ships abroad, and conservative Prime Minister John Howard hopes the first Australian reactor will go online by 2020. The "low estimate" of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) pegs the number of 1,300-megawatt reactors to be built by that same year at 40. At least on the surface, the nuclear industry's future seems bright. A short time ago, few would have guessed that global leader Areva would still be building parts for nuclear power plants at its St. Marcel facility in Chalon-sur-Sa“ne, France. "Five years back, we were about to close the factory," says Areva project manager Laurent Foechterlen, as he walks through the 34-meter high production hall. "But we've doubled our capacity since 2001." The visitors Foechterlen greets at Chalon come from China, Brazil, the United States, Britain and Sweden -- and they have apparently secured the company's future. Factory manager Pascal van Dorsselaer is expecting a "tsunami of future orders." More than a dozen steam generators are awaiting their final touches at the factory on the banks of the Sa“ne River. Eventually, the massive machines will use nuclear heat to convert water into steam, which will, in turn, rotate massive turbines to create electricity. Nearby, workers have turned their attention to reactor pressure vessels weighing tons and destined soon to hold fresh fuel elements in China. Though the factory may be bustling, it doesn't hide the fact that most Areva customers are only buying replacement parts to lengthen existing reactors' lifespans. The company rarely secures orders for new reactors. The construction of a new third-generation nuclear power plant in Finland (more...) has even turned into a PR disaster for Areva. The Olkiluoto 3 reactor was supposed to be a model of economical and catastrophe-proof nuclear technology. But its construction is already 18 months behind schedule and the ?3-billion ($4 billion) price tag isn't even expected to cover the company's costs. "Areva is going through a difficult phase," French Economics Minister Thierry Breton said recently. Indeed, the Olkiluoto fiasco might have already cost the firm an order from China worth billions. Beijing instead opted in December for four new reactors from U.S. competitor Westinghouse. "The AP1000 from Westinghouse hasn't been built yet, the design could be flawed and have risks," complains Areva manager Foechterlen. Of course, whether the company's own new reactor will prove itself under real-world conditions is equally uncertain. Betting on a Core Catcher The French are betting on the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR), jointly developed by German industrial conglomerate Siemens and an Areva unit previously called Framatome. The reactor uses less uranium, produces less waste and at the same time generates more electricity than previous models. It has a four-part safety system. A massive ceramic tub, or "core catcher," underneath the reactor pressure vessel is supposed to, in the case of a meltdown, absorb the molten core. But the underground construction is controversial. Nuclear energy opponents fear the core catcher -- or ashtray, as it is sometimes jokingly called -- could actually increase the risk of an accident. "If the melted core in the basin comes in contact with water there could be a dangerous steam explosion," warns Paulitz from the international physicians group. Scientists conducting experiments to test the issue in Karlsruhe, Germany, twice watched as "test equipment weighing tons" blew up. Paulitz also considers pressurized reactor's use of digital control technologies to be a "dangerous experiment on a mass scale," and is skeptical of just how much the reactor's double-walled safety hull can withstand. A study commissioned by utility giant Electricit‚ de France revealed that an attack with an airliner similar to those used on 9/11 would be too much for an EPR plant to withstand. When French nuclear energy opponent St‚phane Lhomme revealed the previously secret study's results, which he claims to have found "in the mailbox," he landed in jail for five days. Part 3: A German Deal in Danger The industry is hardly more transparent in Germany when detailing the risks inherent in nuclear technology, and the current debate about lengthening the lifespans of the country's reactors is only increasing misgivings about major utility providers. RWE AG, Vattenfall AB and EnBW AG are trying to keep their oldest reactors hooked up to the power grid longer than previously allowed under an agreement to phase out nuclear energy in Germany (see related sidebar below). GERMANY'S NUCLEAR PHASEOUT In Germany, 17 nuclear reactors are online in commercial use. Together they produce a total of 21,426 megawatts of electricity. The oldest reactor, Biblis A, has already been online for 33 years. In 2005, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) registered 135 incidents involving these reactors. Defective components and operating errors were among the most commonly reported problems. The last major incident happened in July 2004, when contaminated water from the Neckerwestheim II reactor leaked into the Neckar River in south- western Germany. Under a deal reached by the Social Democratic and Greens- led government of former Chancellor Gerhard Schr”der in 2000, Germany's oldest reactors from the 1970s must go offline by 2009 at the latest. All remaining reactors must be shut down by 2021. The German Environmental Ministry isn't pleased about it either. "Today these nuclear reactors wouldn't even be approved if they wanted to start operating as new ones," a ministry source said. "The older nuclear power plants have a long list of incidents that have been reported." The ministry provides a particularly unsettling example of one such incident involving a hydrogen explosion in 2001 at the Brunsbttel reactor near Hamburg: "Experts reported that had the incident taken a slightly different course it could have led to a core meltdown with radioactive contamination." German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel has steadfastly refused to extend the operating life of older plants. A member of the center-left Social Democratic Party -- which is the junior partner in conservative Angela Merkel's governing coalition -- he suspects the industry is merely waiting for any excuse it can find to roll back Germany's plans to phase out the use of nuclear energy. Still, many energy experts believe the dismantling of the German agreement is inevitable. "For me it's a political no-brainer that the lifespan of Germany's nuclear power plants will be extended," says Fritz Vahrenholt, the CEO of wind power company REpower Systems AG. "We need this extension to buy time for a conversion of our power plants to CO2-free energy sources." Of course, Vahrenholt has his reasons to praise atomic energy -- Areva owns 30 percent of REpower -- but he has no illusions about the long-term prospects of the technology. "The use of nuclear energy will not be anything more than a bridge to future energy supplies. Uranium stocks will last only a few decades longer than reserves of oil will." Stretching Uranium Supplies and Securing Waste Even though all of the known uranium deposits will be depleted in approximately 70 years, the nuclear lobby never tires of inflating estimates of how far the ore deposits will stretch. Assuming new uranium reserves can be found and future nuclear power plants will require less fuel, stocks will last for "at least 200 years," claims energy giant E.on, citing data from the German Economics Ministry. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates there will be enough fuel "for millennia" and France's Areva even goes so far as to claim resources are "practically unlimited." Areva engineers are speculating that technological advances will keep them in business. The idea of basing the industry's economy on plutonium has many dreaming of an inexhaustible supply of atomic energy. So-called fast breeder reactors would convert uranium into plutonium, which in turn could be used in new fuel elements. That would theoretically increase uranium supplies sixty-fold. But the track record of breeder reactors has been disappointing. Almost all attempts to operate such facilities have ended in fiasco. Germany gave up on the infamous Kalkar fast breeder in 1991 after 18 years of construction and an investment of almost ?4 billion. The nuclear community hopes to revive the breeder because without it atomic energy's renaissance will be impossible. Only the breeder reactor can ensure there's nuclear power for the rest of eternity. French soldiers at La Hague install a radar system to help secure the nuclear waste facility. Zoom AFP French soldiers at La Hague install a radar system to help secure the nuclear waste facility. Reprocessing facilities like France's plant in La Hague will also be necessary. Near the large construction site for the new Flamanville reactor, the facility's towering chimneys have been part of the countryside for over 30 years. Over 6,000 people work there to break down 1,600 tons of spent fuel elements each year. Technicians separate plutonium and uranium from used fuel rods and later mix the remaining highly radioactive fission product with glass to create something that looks like volcanic rock. Large canisters store the waste in cooled vertical shafts underground. All of the radioactive waste France has accumulated over the last 40 years lies under an area of land barely the size of a gymnasium. "A nuclear power plant supplies a million people with energy while creating only the equivalent of a two-euro coin of waste annually," says Eric Blanc, deputy director of the La Hague facility. "Nuclear waste can be kept at our storage facility without any problem for at least 100 years." The Areva manager fails to mention, however, that a gram of plutonium is so dangerous that if inhaled as dust it would give hundreds of people cancer. Greenpeace claims that traces of the highly toxic substance from the La Hague facility's wastewater have appeared in samples from in English Channel for years. Part 4: 'The Greatest of Destructive Forces' More than anything, it's the use of plutonium in making bombs that hinders the nuclear industry's peaceful ambitions. After America dropped the atomic bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower announced in his historic "Atoms for Peace" speech on Dec. 8, 1953 that "this greatest of destructive forces can be developed into a great boon for the benefit of all mankind." But half a century later, the nuclear disasters at Windscale, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have long since blurred Ike's grand vision. Civilian reactors and military bombs continue to be nuclear "Siamese twins," argues Rebecca Harms, a Green Party member of the European Parliament. NEWSLETTER Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In- Box everyday. The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was supposed to stem the spread of nuclear weapons, but its inadequacy is all too apparent in the wake of atomic bomb tests in Pakistan, India and North Korea-not to mention Iran's brash nuclear ambitions. In 2005 alone, the IAEA cataloged 103 cases of illegal trading or "unauthorized activities" involving nuclear materials worldwide. US President George W. Bush believes the nuclear fuel trade can still be brought under control. His administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Program aims to restrict fuel reprocessing and the plutonium industry that goes with it to the United States and select partner countries. These nations would supply other program members with fuel elements for their conventional nuclear power plants. The plan sounds great but probably isn't realistic. India, for example, was insulted when it was asked to join the GNEP as just a customer and not a reprocessing nation. An Uncertain Bet Whether nuclear energy is experiencing a renaissance or is simply benefiting from a reinvigorated public relations campaign is unclear. One thing seems certain, though: Countries like China and India will not be able to continue growing at a furious pace without new reactors to power their economies. And France and the United States, both already heavily dependent on nuclear power, will need to at least replace their aging plants and could build new reactors as well. It comes down to basic economics. Despite the extremely expensive initial investment of ?3-4 billion per power plant, nuclear energy could soon become competitive once again. According to the MIT study "The Future of Nuclear Power," the future price of carbon dioxide emissions will be critical. A further increase in the price of natural gas and oil could also give atomic energy a boost. But the nuclear renaissance remains an uncertain bet. Little has happened so far: In 1990 there were 83 reactors under construction worldwide; in 1998 that figure dropped to 36 and fell further to only 29 today. And the World Nuclear Association has pegged the number of planned reactors at 64, which isn't exactly encouraging. Whether the world is prepared to continue to accept the risks inherent in atomic energy remains in question. Around 300,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste has piled up in the 50 years of its civilian use. Some 10,000 tons are added each year, yet there is not a single permanent storage facility for radioactive waste anywhere in the world. And a truly safe reactor, which automatically stops a nuclear chain reaction during an accident, remains undeveloped. Graphic: The Power of the Atom Zoom DER SPIEGEL Graphic: The Power of the Atom The industry promises that fourth-generation nuclear reactors will be highly efficient, produce little waste and contribute minimally to nuclear proliferation. Those are the standards the US government is pursuing with its "Generation IV International Forum" initiative, which has encouraged the development of new reactors since 2000. There are plenty of ideas: reactors that use liquid salts to work at high temperatures up to 1,000 degrees Celsius and extremely fast reactors that can be cooled by gas, sodium or lead. But prototypes of such reactors won't be ready before 2030. Until then, power plants barely indistinguishable from current ones -- such as the European Pressurized Reactor -- will have to champion the atomic cause. Regardless of the industry's rosy outlook, catastrophic accidents like the one at Chernobyl (more...) in 1986 remain possible. Another meltdown could stigmatize the technology once again and raise questions about the billions already spent on its development and whether they should have gone toward newer and more environmentally safe technologies. The nuclear industry's proponents are fond of arguing that atomic energy could combat climate change, but critics say this is nothing more than a last-ditch effort by a flagging industry to save itself. Nuclear critics have actually calculated the number of new reactors necessary to enable a notable reduction in CO2 emissions. "Thousands of new nuclear reactors would have to be built to replace only 10 percent of fossil fuel energy sources," says Paulitz. "That isn't just horrifying vision for the environment, but also one for security policy." * Part 1: The Perils of Pushing Atomic Energy as the Climate Change Panacea * Part 2: Meeting the Growing Demand for Power * Part 3: A German Deal in Danger * Part 4: 'The Greatest of Destructive Forces' ***************************************************************** 37 AU ABC: Call for councils to keep right to ban nuclear power. 31/05/2007. ABC News Online The New South Wales Shires Association says it would oppose any plan from the Federal Government to override state and local government bans on nuclear power. New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria have legislation banning nuclear power plants. But the Federal Opposition says the Government is trying to overcome legal barriers which currently stop nuclear reactors being built. Shires association president Col Sullivan says councils know the needs of their communities and must keep the right to ban nuclear power in their regions. "I think in most cases ... councils are well aware of what's happening in a local area. They're well aware of the feelings of the community about these particular problems. Local councils should have the say in these matters," he said. "We'll be watching it with interest and certainly we'll be expressing our opinion about it ... should it become a reality." ***************************************************************** 38 AU ABC: PM facing fight over nuclear powers. 31/05/2007. ABC News Online The New South South Wales Premier, Morris Iemma, has reacted angrily to the Prime Minister's proposal to take over state laws which ban the development of nuclear power industry. John Howard says he is interested in knowing if the Federal Government has the constitutional power to override the States on nuclear industry issues. Mr Iemma says recent evidence given in estimates hearings shows Mr Howard wants to start his nuclear power plan in NSW. He says the Prime Minister should be more focused on today's hand-over of the carbon trading report. "You would have thought the task force report on a national emissions trading scheme, that's what they would be working on rather than on strategies to override the right of the New South Wales Government to protect its citizens," he said. "If you want to fight us on nuclear power and keeping our ban in place, bring it on, because you are only going to have a short few months to be around to think about the strategies, the way you are going." ***************************************************************** 39 Hindustan Times: We're nearly there on nuclear deal - Burns- Friday, June 01, 2007 FISSION FOR TROUBLE | MORE Fission for trouble May 28 2007 Nilova Roy Chaudhury, Hindustan Times Ahead of a key meeting next week between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and United States President George W Bush in Germany, US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns held a series of meetings on Thursday to try and seal the 123 Agreement. After eight hours of negotiations, Indian and US officials managed to considerably reduce differences between them. “It’s been a good day. There has been progress; we have managed to reduce the gaps on all issues,” said a source. However, equally tough negotiations are likely on Friday before both sides can claim the deal is sealed. Before a meeting with Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon, Burns said there had been progress on the agreement and the two countries were “almost there” but “some hard work has to be done”. After meeting Menon, Burns — with his technical advisors Richard Stratford and Ashley Tellis and the US delegation — met S Jaishankar, India’s high commissioner to Singapore; SN Grover and other representatives from the Department of Atomic Energy and Ministry of External Affairs. He also held detailed discussions with the PM’s special envoy on the Indo-US nuclear deal, Shyam Saran, and Planning Commission deputy chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia. According to sources, the discussions focused on the issue of prior consent for India to reprocess spent fuel, a key Indian concern, and on the absence of a safeguarded reprocessing facility in India, a concern the US has expressed. Burns will meet Menon again on Friday, after which he is likely to meet External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, sources said. ***************************************************************** 40 Whitehaven News: Sellafield could get two new nuclear reactors, claims MP Published on 31/05/2007 By Alan Irving SELLAFIELD could be in the running for two electricity-producing nuclear reactors, says Copeland’s MP Jamie Reed. And some of the private companies vying to take over the future operation of Sellafield are thought to be interested in financing “a new Calder Hall” on the site. The MP has categorically dismissed a consultant’s report claiming that it is not feasible to put even one new reactor on the site where, in 1956, The Queen officially opened Calder Hall, the world’s first industrial scale nuclear power station. Calder Hall supplied electricity to the national grid for half a century but is now awaiting demolition after BNFL decided it was no longer economical to continue operating the out-dated Magnox station. The need to erect new power lines over the Lake District to make connections to the national grid has cast doubts over Sellafield’s suitability for a modern nuclear reactor. But Mr Reed told The Whitehaven News: “This would be an engineering problem requiring an engineering solution and it is not insurmountable.” While there would almost certainly be objections from environmentalists, Mr Reed went on: “The British nuclear industry needs Sellafield and the government’s policy giving the green light for new build is a huge boost.” With the government looking for private sector investment, the MP revealed he was already in discussions with companies including electricity utilities who might be keen to finance new reactors at Sellafield. “Sellafield has to be high on the list. At the end of the day I think it will boil down to public acceptance and understanding of the nuclear industry. I would suggest we have more of this here in Copeland and West Cumbria than anywhere else in the country.” Energy analysts Jackson Consultants have recommended that the new generation of nuclear reactors should be built on old or existing coal and gas-fired power stations in the midlands and the south east, with only nine of the existing 19 nuclear power station sites being feasible. But although their reports was commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry, Copeland’s Labour MP said: “These are not the government’s conclusions. “The consultant’s report is not really kosher. By and large it will be up to the private sector putting up the money where the reactors should be suited. We don’t know yet what reactor design would be chosen, so anything is possible.” Nuclear insiders have told The Whitehaven News that at Sellafield the most likely location would be the site of the AGR (known as the golf ball) which pioneered the second generation of nuclear-electricity generation. Like Calder Hall, it is now being decommissioned. But Cumbrians Opposed to a Nuclear Radioactive Environment (Core) are among the anti-nuclear groups violently against Sellafield being chosen. Core campaigner Martin Forwood said: “I think it’s a shame that people in West Cumbria, most of whom seem to want a new reactor at Sellafield, are living under this death wish. “They are dependent on and dominated by the nuclear industry and just seem to want to continue down that line. Sellafield is way down the priority list and has significant infrastructure problems.” View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy ***************************************************************** 41 Whitehaven News: BNG award new contract Published on 31/05/2007 BRITISH Nuclear Group has awarded the ACKtiv Nuclear Joint Venture – consisting of Norwegian multinational Aker Kvaerner, Atkins and Carillion – a further contract to support decommissioning at the First Generation Magnox Storage Pond. ACKtiv Nuclear is to provide the systems for the removal of radioactive sludge and solid inventory from the facility for subsequent safe treatment and storage. The initial phase of the project is scheduled to run until March 2012 and this will be followed by a period of operational support, with Aker Kvaerner receiving a 40 per cent share of the JV's ÂŁ21 million contract value. View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy ***************************************************************** 42 Whitehaven News: Energy policy’s sting in the tail Published on 31/05/2007 By David Siddall THE government’s Energy White Paper had a sting in the tail for West Cumbria. The paper, which favoured the option of new nuclear power stations, also stated that if new reactors are built, the Government wants no more UK nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield. This means Thorp could have no UK business after it completes its existing contracts, scheduled for around 2010. Sellafield union leader Peter Kane said the unions would lobby against ending UK reprocessing, saying all the bidders to buy BNG had said they want to carry on reprocessing. Mr Kane said: “There are lots of potential worldwide contracts Thorp can win. “Some of the bidders already have US utilties that will need reprocessing work.” And MP Jamie Reed was dismissive of the threat to Thorp, pointing out that all the high-value reprocessing contracts were for overseas business. Bill Hamilton for the NDA said the White Paper statements were not a surprise. He said Thorp’s order books were robust and “our plants are programmed around existing contracts”. But he conceded that the White Paper confirmed that any prospects of a “son of Thorp” plant were unlikely. “Our strategy, which was agreed last March, assumes there will be no Thorp 2.” Mr Reed said: “The government is proceeding one step at a time. The fact that they have opted for a new nuclear policy is the first vital step. If they had gone for reprocessing as well the level of opposition would have been too strong. “Reprocessing in the UK doesn’t have the best of reputations at the moment after Thorp’s tribulations. It would be inconceivable for the government, at this stage, to have indicated reprocessing as government policy.” He added he would continue to fight for reprocessing to be back on the agenda in the future. The White Paper, unveiled by industry secretary Alistair Darling, states: “The Government’s current assumption is that spent fuel from any new nuclear power stations would be treated as waste. There should be on-site storage for an appropriate period, prior to placing the spent fuel in a geological repository. “The Government has concluded that any nuclear power stations that might be built in the UK should proceed on the basis that spent fuel will not be reprocessed and that accordingly waste management plans and financing should proceed on this basis.” Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Copeland, Coun Chris Whiteside, said: “It is difficult to offer a facility to other countries if Britain declares in advance that we have no interest in using it ourselves. If the Government has decided that there is no long-term future for reprocessing, then they need to spell out how the consequences of this for West Cumbria will be addressed.” View this story and the latest newspaper in full digital reproduction, just like the printed copy at www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/digitalcopy ***************************************************************** 43 The Australian: Emissions target cannot be rushed - PM * June 01, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP AUSTRALIA needs a carbon trading scheme but any target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions requires careful analysis and cannot be rushed, says Prime Minister John Howard. A much-anticipated report on emissions trading, to be released today, is understood to recommend a national scheme begin in four years' time. The Climate Institute today warned that the problem could not wait but Mr Howard said any plan to reduce carbon emissions required careful consideration of Australia's character and nature. "We do need to have an emissions trading system in this country," Mr Howard told the Liberal Party's federal women's conference today. "We do need - obviously, it's imperative that we establish a longer-term target for greenhouse emissions - that target ... to be the product of careful analysis and thought, so we know what it means before we embrace it." Mr Howard said if the wrong target was set it could greatly damage the economy and if electricity prices were increased higher than they should be it would greatly affect households. "There is a lot of stake, that's why we've taken time, that's why we've gotten everybody involved," he said. The Prime Minister's emissions trading taskforce has reportedly recommended Australia consider nuclear power and the creation of a carbon trading scheme. The taskforce report, which is yet to be released, warned against prematurely introducing an emissions trading scheme before 2012, The Australian said. Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said the problem could not wait five years. "This report is one of delay. Climate change isn't waiting and we shouldn't be either," he said. Adopting nuclear power would not solve the problem. "(Nuclear power) isn't likely to kick in before 2025. Even if you did put it in, it plays such a small part. "We think Australia should be focusing on where we have our competitive advantage, and that's in solar, wind, geothermal and even in cleaning up our fossil fuels." © The Australian ***************************************************************** 44 DW: Ahead of G8, US-German Tempers Fray Over Green Credentials | Germany | Deutsche Welle | 31.05.2007 Rice met with German foreign minister Steinmeier in Potsdam The issue of cutting greenhouse gases is set to prove divisive at the upcoming G8 summit. Sparks are already flying between US and Germany, as Washington accuses Berlin of intolerance towards other viewpoints. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice aimed a jab at Germany's environmental credentials Wednesday ahead of an expected showdown at next week's Group of Eight summit. Rice said countries like Germany, which prides itself on its green image, should respect the US policy of looking to technology to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. "One has to wonder if you're really concerned about greenhouse gas emissions why you aren't interested in nuclear power," she told reporters at the end of a meeting of G8 foreign ministers in the eastern German city of Potsdam. "We are interested in nuclear power and I know that's a controversial issue in some parts of Europe. But it just shows that there may be different solutions for different countries," she said. Nuclear phase-out Bildunterschrift: Germany is phasing out nuclear power Germany is implementing a gradual phase-out of its nuclear power plants, expected to be completed by around 2020. Chancellor Angela Merkel has staked Germany's 12-month G8 presidency on hammering out a binding agreement between the leading industrial powers on limiting the emission of greenhouse gases. But the chances of that happening at the summit of G8 leaders in Heiligendamm in northern Germany on June 6-8 look increasingly slim, with stark differences appearing between G8 nations on how to limit greenhouse gases. Washington has strong objections to the proposed global-warming declaration prepared by Germany for the summit, according to reports, saying it is furious that it has not been consulted on the wording of the text. Finding common ground Bildunterschrift: Climate change is topping the agenda at the G8 And China and India -- two fast-developing nations that are essential to efforts to reduce harmful pollution -- have stressed this week that they are opposed to binding targets on cutting carbon emissions. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier took a more conciliatory approach in Potsdam, saying that he hoped to find common ground on environmental protection in Heiligendamm. "We're seeking to achieve if not agreement then at least a closing of a gap between us. It's not an easy issue," he said. "As Europeans we are coming closer together on setting limits and benchmarks. Other people are banking on technological solutions. What is important is that in our international efforts we come closer together." Wednesday's meeting was aimed at preparing the ground for next week's summit which the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States will attend. DW staff/AFP (jp) * Merkel Expects Few US Concessions on Climate In an interview published Monday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she did not expect Washington to adopt European goals on climate protection at an EU-US summit next week. (23.04.2007) * EU Urged to Take Lead on Battling Climate Change At a summit starting Thursday, the European Union will seek to thrash out a common policy in fighting climate change, with plans to set tough targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions. (07.03.2007) * UN: Europe Needs to Increase Efforts to Fight Climate Change European countries need to lead by example to counteract the effects of global warming instead of complaining about nations that aren't pulling their weight, the head of the UN's Environment Program said Saturday. (17.02.2007) 1. © 2007 Deutsche Welle ***************************************************************** 45 UPI: NNSA boosts nuke sensor performance United Press International - Security & Terrorism - Briefing Published: May 31, 2007 at 3:44 PM WASHINGTON, May 31 (UPI) -- The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration is developing new detection devices to identify illicit nuclear and radiological material. "Scientists at the department's Brookhaven National Laboratory funded by NNSA have improved the performance of radiation detectors, making the technology more accurate and cost-effective," the NNSA, an agency of the U.S. Department of Energy, announced Thursday. "At NNSA, we work closely with our national laboratories to counter the proliferation threat posed by illicit transfers of nuclear material. This new detection technology gives us one more tool to use. It will help NNSA to do its job better around the world and could even help other agencies and private companies here in the United States," William Tobey, head of NNSA's non-proliferation programs, said in a statement. The NNSA said that the new sensors "can be operated at room temperature, making them more practical and cost-effective than existing, comparable detectors." By contrast, "current detectors with similar performance must operate at very cold temperatures using liquid nitrogen, which is expensive and difficult to use in the field," it said. "The new sensors can also more accurately detect the radiation emitted by sources, such as dirty bombs and nuclear materials. ... (They) are also able to differentiate radiological and nuclear threats from a variety of harmless materials that emit radiation, the NNSA said. "In practical terms, the improved devices will be able to detect more minute quantities of radiation, detect radioactive materials more quickly or from greater distances, better identify the source of the radiation, and distinguish illicit sources of concern from common, naturally occurring radioactive materials," said Brookhaven physicist Aleksey Bolotnikov, one of the inventors. The NNSA operates the U.S. government's only long-term research and development program to fight the proliferation of nuclear and radiological materials. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 ajc.com: Unique facility studies radiation | Near Savannah River Site, lab tracks how nuclear waste moves in the environment By STACY SHELTON The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 05/31/07 Savannah River Site, S.C. — Thomas Luhring plucked one of America's largest salamanders from the mucky water inside a cooler and plopped it on the carpet. "So little is known about them, we don't know whether we need to protect them or not," the University of Georgia graduate student said. Luhring has spent months tracking about 350 of the salamanders, which can grow to lengths of three feet, around mudholes and creek beds inside the giant weapons complex near Augusta that once produced plutonium and tritium for nuclear bombs. This month, Luhring and about 20 other graduate students learned that their home at the site — UGA's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory — is due to be shuttered after 56 years for lack of funds. In all, about 100 people, including 11 faculty members, will have to find someplace else to work and study. The problem is, there's no other place like it. The world-renowned lab, founded by the late UGA ecologist Eugene Odum, is the only one like it in the country. Set in a one-story brick building near the offices of the U.S. Department of Energy, it's an independent research facility where scientists and budding scientists study both man's absence and dominance in the environment. The Savannah River Site sits inside 198,000 acres of fenced-off, protected land with river swamps and cypress trees that is home to more than 100 species of reptiles and amphibians. It's also home to millions of gallons of radioactive waste. For four decades, the plant churned out tons of radioactive plutonium and tritium for hydrogen bombs. New defense and commercial nuclear activities are about to begin, with new accumulations of waste to follow. From this lab, scientists have studied how radioactive contaminants move through the environment, from the soil, to the grass, to the cow, to the cow's milk. Over the years the lab has published more than 3,000 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, much of it focused on radiation and how it behaves in the environment. "If there's a release [of radioactive material], we're able to predict where that release will be in the future, how long it will take to go from Point A to Point B, and what will the effects be to humans and plants and animals," research scientist Tom Hinton said. "It's really a critical science for any nation that has nuclear power or is concerned about nuclear terrorism." In the weeks since the U.S. Department of Energy announced it would no longer fund the lab, a band of supporters — including Georgia's two U.S. senators — has worked to save it. A U.S. House committee is reviewing the funding cutoff, and UGA officials met this week with DOE to discuss options. In the meantime, the National Science Foundation is funding summer research programs for eight students, and "people keep coming here to do their work," lab director Paul Bertsch said. "A lot's still up in the air." One of those who hopes the lab will survive is the director of a similar laboratory in the Ukraine, where scientists from the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory studied the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear accident. In a May 8 letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, Mikhail Bondarkov warned that shutting the lab would have "objectionable consequences both for U.S. and worldwide science." © 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ***************************************************************** 47 Aftenposten.no: Clean-up poses dangers - First published: 01 Jun 2007, 00:08 Cleaning up the nuclear danger at Andreeva Bay has a USD 1.5 billion price tag that Russia is not likely to pick up. The Andreva Bay facility is a ticking bomb. Related stories: Kola "a nuclear bomb" - 01.06.2007 "Russia will never do this, and besides, they need international assistance," said nuclear physicist and head of environmental group Bellona's Russian division Nils Břhmer. For 14 years, Břhmer and the rest of Bellona Russia have worked to map the enormous amount of radioactive waste in northwest Russia and to propose solutions for its safe disposal. The organization has pressured Norwegian authorities to support the safe dismantlement of scrapped nuclear submarines and the securing of storage areas. This effort has cost Norway about NOK 100 million (USD 16.5 million) a year recently and Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Střre has indicated that this is something that should become Russia's responsibility. "There is an enormous amount to do at Kola, even though there has not been much focus on this lately. Norway should continue to allocate funds, but instead of dismantling submarines Norway should be part of a large international cooperation to clean up Andreeva Bay. If Norway as a neighboring and pioneering nation pulls out, will countries like the USA, Great Britain, Sweden, France think - if neighbor Norway won't spend the money, why should we?" asked Břhmer. Břhmer believes that things will be even more dangerous if Russia decides to try to solve the problem alone. "They could choose known methods such as filling in with cement or trying to extract the fuel rods. The first is just hiding and postponing the problem, the second could cause an explosion," Břhmer said. "The technology needed is actually not so very advanced. It is already largely developed and used in other places around the world. Of course it needs major local adjustments. The point is that it has to start now, now when the Russians themselves have revealed how critical the situation has become," Břhmer said. Aftenposten's Norwegian reporter Ole Mathismoen Aftenposten English Web Desk Jonathan Tisdall ***************************************************************** 48 North Jersey Media Group: Radium found in drum at scrap metal recycler NorthJersey.com Thursday, May 31, 2007 By EUNNIE PARK STAFF WRITER BERGENFIELD -- The state Department of Environmental Protection is investigating a drum at a local scrap metal recycler that contains radioactive material. The 55-gallon container packed with lead shot and scrap metal at Bergen Metal Recycling on Hill Place triggered a reading for radium, a metal that is sometimes found in old industrial smoke detectors and static eliminators, said DEP spokesman Lawrence Hajna. There was no public exposure of the material, and the drum is currently in a secure area. Residents in the area do not need to worry about radiation exposure, as the radiation reading 3 feet from the drum is 0.9 millirems, with the standard at 2 millirems, Hajna said. "It really drops off fast when you move away from the drum itself," Hajna said. The radioactive container is one of three 55-gallon drums of lead shot and scrap metal that Bergen Metal Recycling acquired during the past six months, said police Capt. Rick McGarrill. Earlier this month, the containers were sent to Revere Smelting & Refining Corp of Middletown, N.Y., for recycling. It was there that the radiation was discovered. The New York Department of Environmental Protection was notified, and the drums were returned to Bergenfield last week, McGarrill said. Several agencies were contacted to investigate the incident, including the state DEP hazardous waste program and New Jersey Hazmat. Further tests confirmed that only one of the three drums contains radium. Officials are investigating to find the source of the radium. A contractor is also on site to isolate and package the radioactive container and dispose of it safely, Hajna said. Copyright © 2007 North Jersey Media Group Inc. ***************************************************************** 49 NAS: Project: Gulf War and Health: Updated Literature Review of Depleted Uranium Project Title: PIN: PHPH-H-06-01-A Major Unit: Institute of Medicine Sub Unit: Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice RSO: Mitchell, Abigail Subject/Focus Area: Project Scope A committee of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) will review, evaluate, and summarize scientific and medical literature regarding the association between exposure to depleted uranium and chronic human health effects. The study committee will focus on literature published since the IOM's 2000 report, Gulf War and Health, Volume 1: Depleted Uranium, Pyridostigmine Bromide, Sarin, and Vaccines was written. The committee will make determinations on the strength of the evidence for associations between exposure to depleted uranium and human health effects. The report might include recommendations for additional scientific studies to resolve areas of continued scientific uncertainty. The findings will not be limited to veterans of the 1991 Gulf War. They also will be applicable to veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. This project is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The start date for the project is September 18, 2006. A report will be issued at the end of the project in approximately 15 months. Project Duration: 15 months Provide FEEDBACK on this project. Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public. Committee Membership Meetings Meeting 1 - 03/22/2007 Meeting 2 - 06/28/2007 Meeting 3 - 09/27/2007 Reports Reports having no URL can be seen at the Public Access Records Office Email: info@nas.edu ***************************************************************** 50 St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Corps says site near Lambert is clear of waste THURSDAY | MAY 31, 2007 By Ken Leiser ST. LOUIS — The remaining radioactive contamination has been cleaned up from 21 acres near Lambert Field, but activists say there still is more work to do on other St. Louis-area cleanup sites. More than 600,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated from the property that once served as a dump for radioactive byproducts from nuclear fuel processing. The soil was shipped to out-of-state disposal sites. "We removed the final bucket of contamination in February," Sharon Cotner of the Army Corps of Engineers told a small gathering on Wednesday at the cleanup site, on undeveloped land just north of Lambert. The U.S. government acquired the land in the 1940s to dump waste from the Mallinckrodt Chemical plant's uranium extraction operation in St. Louis. At one point, about 50,000 contaminated drums and 3,500 tons of contaminated metal were stored there. A private company later purchased the material for recycling and moved it to a nearby storage site on Latty Avenue, which also must be cleaned up. The St. Louis airport site has been cleaned up several times during the years, but low-level radioactive waste remained when the corps took over cleanup in the late 1990s. The corps oversees other north St. Louis County cleanup sites, and the airport site still will be used to support those efforts. The field will be regraded and replanted with grass before it is returned to the St. Louis Airport Authority. Ric Cavanaugh, chairman of a resident oversight committee, said cleanup of the airport site fulfilled one of the goals established by a task force report on the radioactive waste. "That's a great success," Cavanaugh said of the cleanup. "But now we need to move quickly to get not just this site but all the rest of our sites cleaned up." Cavanaugh said cleaning up other sites contaminated with radium, thorium and uranium — including the nearby Hazelwood interim storage site on Latty Avenue — will take more funding. kleiser@post-dispatch.com | 314-340-8215 ***************************************************************** 51 Platts: Spot uranium price likely to jump after two auctions this week 2007-05-30 Washington (Platts)--30May2007 While the spot price of uranium is likely to rise sharply after two auction-like sales are completed Wednesday and Friday, the two leading price-reporting firms late Tuesday were keeping their prices at last week's levels. Ux Consulting maintained its price at $125 per pound of U3O8, while TradeTech kept its price at $122/pound U3O8. The first auction this week is by Texas-based Mestena Uranium, which is accepting bids Wednesday for delivery of 100,000 pounds of U3O8 in June. The second auction is set for Friday by Georgia-based trader American Fuel Resources, which is said to be acting on behalf of an investment fund. In this auction, AFR has told potential buyers that it has available for sale 200,000 pounds of U3O8 and 100 metric tons of uranium as UF6 (the equivalent of about 260,000 pounds of U3O8). Ux Consulting, in its weekly report, did raise its long-term price by $10 to $95/pound. But Ux Consulting said this base-escalated price was just one component of pricing mechanisms being offered by sellers. Ux also noted that its long-term price represented the "bottom end" of a range of base-escalated offers. For more news, request a free trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story or subscribe now at http://www.platts.com/infostore/product_info.php?cPath=22_41&products_id=67 Copyright © 2007 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 52 RIA Novosti: Russia to complete forming uranium co. by mid-2008-1 09:32 | 31/ 05/ 2007 KRASNOKAMENSK, May 31 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's top civilian nuclear official said Thursday the country will complete the formation of a state-owned uranium mining enterprise in mid-2008. Uranium Mining Company (UGRK) was founded by state-run nuclear fuel producer TVEL and uranium trader Techsnabexport on November 2 to develop uranium deposits inside and outside Russia, and to import uranium. "We will complete the transfer of uranium producing assets to the UGRK trust management within several months until the end of this year and to the full ownership in mid-2008," Sergei Kiriyenko said. UGRK head Alexander Shkarovsky said in December that under the company's development plan, UGRK will produce around 29,000 metric tons of uranium per year by 2020, including 18,000 in Russian enterprises. The company's plans include the construction of new uranium-producing joint ventures in former Soviet republics and other countries. During the first stage, the company will develop a strategy for uranium production in Russia and abroad, after which UGRK will take over trust management of the production assets of TVEL and Techsnabexport, including ventures in Siberia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. In the third stage, the assets will be transferred to the company's balance. Russia's uranium production accounts for around 8% of global output. Up to 90% of profits in the country's nuclear sector come from nuclear fuel, power and service exports, according to Kiriyenko, but Russia seeks to import more uranium. Russia plans to meet 60-70% of its uranium demand domestically by 2015. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 53 RIA Novosti: Russia set to sign uranium deal with Australia soon - official 11:45 | 31/ 05/ 2007 KRASNOKAMENSK (Chita Region, Far East), May 31 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has agreed on uranium production with Canadian and Japanese companies and expects to sign a similar inter-governmental deal with Australia in September, the country's top civilian nuclear official said Thursday. Sergei Kiriyenko said Russia was launching a large-scale program of uranium production inside the country and also intended to produce uranium for its needs in other countries. "We must be fully confident that Russia's nuclear energy sector will always be provided with the uranium it needs," Kiriyenko said. The country's nuclear chief also said the formation of the Uranium Mining Company (UGRK) and the transfer of the assets of state-run nuclear fuel producer TVEL and uranium trader Techsnabexport will be completed by mid-2008. "We will complete the transfer of uranium producing assets to the UGRK trust management within several months until the end of this year and to full ownership in mid-2008," Kiriyenko said. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 54 Earthtimes: Swedish nuclear waste site draws concern Posted : Thu, 31 May 2007 03:34:00GMT Author : World News Editor UPPSALA, Sweden, May 30 The Swedish Radiation Protection Authority is concerned a company has not adequately protected nuclear waste it has deposited at a national site. According to the government group, the Svensk Karnbranslehantering company has not met radiation protection standards for nuclear waste deliveries it has made to a storage facility in the Swedish village of Forsmark, The Local said Wednesday. The authority, also known as the SSI, has since ordered the company to suspend all deliveries to the site until June 21. "SSI makes very tough demands with regard to depositing waste for final storage. It has to happen in a way that is safe for humans and the environment both now and in a thousand years' time," group official Anders Wiebert said. The SSI said the company repeatedly sent in required reports late and many of those reports indicated it had used inadequate radiation protection. The Local said the nuclear waste violations did not pose an immediate danger to the area. (c) 2007 Earthtimes.org, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 55 Aftenposten.no: Kola "a nuclear bomb" - First published: 01 Jun 2007, 00:02 Nothing has been done to solve the radioactive waste problem at Andreeva Bay. PHOTO: BELLONA (ARKIV) Kola "a nuclear bomb" The vast amount of radioactive waste that is the legacy of Russia's nuclear-powered submarines has been known to be a looming environmental disaster - now it can be far worse. Related stories: Clean-up poses dangers - 01.06.2007 Defense official denied entry into Russia - 08.02.2007 Mysterious warnings pop up along Russian border - 06.10.2006 Research now indicates that the enormous tanks holding discarded submarine fuel rods in the Andreeva Bay may explode at any time, creating a nuclear nightmare for Northern Europe. Norway and other Western authorities have argued for years that the stockpile of highly radioactive nuclear waste on the Kola peninsula poses an environmental hazard to the local population and for Norway. New research A new report from Rosatom, the Russian government's highest nuclear authority, shows that there is a grave danger that the stockpile can explode. For Norway the consequences could exceed the fallout from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and no one knows how imminent the danger is - if it is a question of years - or hours. "In the best case a small, limited explosion in just one of the stored rods can lead to radioactive contamination in a five-kilometer (three-mile) radius. In the worst case, such a single explosion could cause the entire tank facility to explode. We have no calculations for what that could lead to," Aleksandr Nikitin of environmental group Bellona told Aftenposten. "It will at least, at a careful estimate, hit Northern Europe. There are enormous members of radioactivity stored in these tanks," said Nils Břhmer, nuclear physicist and head of Bellona's Russian division. Provisional storage In 1982/83 radioactive contamination began to leak from used fuel rods from the nuclear submarine reactors. These were stored in flimsy warehouses in the old navy installation at Andreeva Bay. Three large cement tanks became a hurried solution, housing a series of large metal pipes encased in concrete. The rods were carefully placed in these pipes. This measure was intended as a provisional solution for four to five years, but nothing has happened since. Norwegian authorities partially financed a study involving several of Russia's foremost experts and institutes. In the end of 2006 a conclusion was reached, but the research has not been made public until now. Nikitin came across the conclusions in the course of compiling a new Bellona report on the state of Andreeva Bay. Salt water Nikitin and Igor Kudrik translate from the reports and explain. The large tanks, each containing 21,000 rods, are near the sea. Salt water has entered the tanks and lead to the rapid disintegration of the metal pipes. The salt water has then entered the pipes, breaking down the rods, releasing small uranium particles that fall to the bottom of the metal pipes. "The conclusion of Rosatom is that when the amount of particles on the bottom reaches five to ten percent in relation to the amount of water, potentially explosive critical mass will occur," Kudrik said. Rosatom uses the term "uncontrolled chain reaction" for what will occur. Nikitin has had a prison term and a five year battle to be totally cleared of espionage charges by the Russian Supreme Court as his price for compiling Bellona's first report on radioactive contamination at Kola. "These stockpiles and what they contain have been known to the world for over 15 years. Nothing is done. But now something must be done or uncontrolled events will take place of their own accord. The consequences will be more dramatic than we can imagine. Inaction for all these years has put us on top of a large nuclear bomb. We know where the 'gunpowder' is, but we don't know how long the fuse is," Nikitin said. "Significantly greater pressure on Russia from its neighbors - and the entire world - is needed. The day it goes wrong, no one can say any longer that we did not know what would happen," Nikitin said. Aftenposten's Norwegian reporter Ole Mathismoen Aftenposten English Web Desk Jonathan Tisdall Publisher: Aftenposten Multimedia A/S, Oslo, Norway.Telephone: +47 - 22 86 30 00. All rights, including copyright and database right, are owned by or licensed to Aftenposten Multimedia.© Aftenposten Multimedia. ***************************************************************** 56 THE PEACOCK REPORT: Retired Nuke Site to Ship Waste from Ohio to Texas May 31, 2007 A former uranium-processing facility in southwestern Ohio is gearing up for the shipment of nuclear waste to destinations across the nation, with one known destination being Andrews County, Texas. The Fernald Closure Project, a multi-billion-dollar endeavor involving the environmental remediation of a tainted Dept. of Energy (DoE) site, extends until Oct. 31, 2009, previous contracts that DoE awarded to Fluor Corp. and later extended to Waste Control Specialists, LLC, (WCS) of Andrews, Texas. DOE intends to award a sole-source contract extension to WCS for the "interim storage" of byproducts that the Fernald facilty produced during the Cold War. This award also has options to "permanently dispose" waste from Fernald Silos 1 and 2 as well as to prepare and load "waste containers for transport," according to a DoE planning document that The Peacock Report has located. May 31, 2007 | Permalink ***************************************************************** 57 Hindustan Times: Right to reprocess spent fuel major snag- Friday, June 01, 2007 Manoj Joshi New Delhi, May 30, 2007 As New Delhi readies to welcome United States Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns on Thursday and resume negotiations on the 123 Agreement to make the Indo-US nuclear deal operational, reprocessing rights appear to be the principal hurdle. India’s three-stage nuclear power programme is built around the need to reprocess spent fuel into plutonium. A senior official familiar with the negotiations told the Hindustan Times that while there was agreement on 80-85 per cent of the text of the draft, a great deal of work remained to be done to finalise the other issues. He said some genuine problems and “some unreasonable demands on both sides” were holding up the final agreement. He, however, exuded optimism saying "Despite all the problems we will probably cut a deal this time.” On reprocessing, he said, “We simply cannot take chances, given the US record on this issue, and we do need to nail it down because we cannot sell the deal internally otherwise.” He said on this there was unanimity between the Ministry of External Affairs and the Department of Atomic Energy, alluding to the well publicised differences between the two on some other issues. The official said this was an area where the US could accommodate India because there was no US law prohibiting the administration from giving India the right to reprocess. Citing a precedent, he said the US had allowed Japan and Euratom (an European consortium) to reprocess spent fuel. If the US was unreasonable on this, India too was less than helpful on other issues. For example, “egged on by some domestic elements, we are demanding the sky in terms of reprocessing and enrichment technology from the US.” The senior official wondered why India needed these technologies, when its scientists claim they had mastered them anyway. India runs reprocessing facilities in Tarapur, Trombay and Kalpakkam, as well as a small uranium enrichment facility in Karnataka. While the US has given the rights to Japan and Europe to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium, it has not provided them any technology license. In fact, under the Hyde Act, India is the only country that could be entitled to such technologies, if they were run under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and dealt with proliferation-resistant technologies. Indian experts acknowledge that the Indian demand for such technology hits at the very heart of US concerns that technology could slip from the civilian part of the Indian programme to the military one. “The US is not worried that we will use the facilities for military purposes, but that we could copy enrichment and reprocessing technologies for military use,” said one retired nuclear scientist, adding “after all we have successfully cloned and improved on the CANDU Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor in the past.” On conducting a nuclear test, the senior official said that there was no way India could commit itself not to test, “But this does not mean that our position will be 'we will test and you will commit yourself not to react to our test.’” But, he felt that this was an issue where a compromise formulation was possible. Another issue that could be bridged easily was the right of return of US equipment in the event of the deal being terminated for some reason. According to another senior Ministry of External Affairs official, time was now running out on the deal. "President George W. Bush no longer has the kind of control over the Congress that he had before we lost critical momentum in 2005 and 2006," he said. Democratic front-runners Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama supported the "killer amendments" during the vote on the Hyde Act, and Indian official assessments are that the chances of getting a better deal from any Democrat successor to Bush are next to zero. manoj.joshi@hindustantimes.com ***************************************************************** 58 National Post: THE MYSTERY BEHIND URANIUM PRICING Jonathan Ratner, Financial Post Published: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 If you think those uranium sales that are often cited as the basis for recently skyrocketing prices are secretive processes, you're right. Everyone wants to know what price people are willing to pay for the nuclear fuel. While they are often referred to as auctions, these uranium sales are done via a single round of private sealed bids, according to Eric Webb, senior vice president of information services at Ux Consulting Co LLC. Market monitors like UxC and TradeTech provide commentary and develop uranium spot price indicators based on the most competitive offer price out there and other deals, but they never reveal actual bids. Unlike gold or oil, there is no formal exchange for uranium. However, the recently-established NYMEX futures market may push the showdown between traditional uranium players and a new crop of participants further. The next auction -- for 100,000 pounds of U3O8, the naturally occuring form of uranium -- has its bids due on May 30 and comes from Mestena Uranium LLC. A previous auction of the same size from the Texas-based company drove spot uranium prices to a new record of US$113 a pound in early April. Prices now stand at US$125, according to UxC. Another unidentified seller, possibly a hedge fund, reportedly has two lots up for sale with bids due by June 1. The first lot is said to be 200,000 pounds of U3O8, while the other is for 100 kilograms of an enriched version of uranium(UF6), which is equivalent to 260,000 pounds of U308. These two offerings constitute the largest amount of spot uranium into the market in many months, so it wouldn't be surprising to see price indicators move again sometime soon. When a seller is prepared to go ahead, a letter with all the bidding specifications goes out to potential buyers with accounts that can hold physical uranium. These are primarily industry participants like utilities, suppliers and those in the broader category of fuel cycle companies, as well as traders and brokers. Canada's Uranium Participation Corp. holds its uranium through management company Denison Mines Inc. for example. However, few in the financial community have direct accounts and suppliers have generally not been interested in their business, Mr. Webb said. While he doesn't see any acceleration in the number of lots put up for sale, the way transactions take place has changed somewhat in the last couple of years. Traditionally, buyers make requests and sellers respond with offers to sell. These days, Mr. Webb said, sellers are increasingly putting their material up for bid. Meanwhile, another interesting development raised by some uranium experts is that speculators may be driving up the spot price of uranium in order to boost the value of their investments in mining stocks. © National Post 2007 ***************************************************************** 59 DOE: DOE Prepares for the 2007 Hurricane Season May 30, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC – The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today outlined a number of steps that the Department is taking to strengthen its hurricane response system in the United States. Since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, DOE has made operational and administrative improvements, including coordination between federal, state and local leaders, deployment of trained staff, and improvements to modeling tools. “Bringing power back online is a critical step in recovering and rebuilding from a disaster and the Department of Energy stands ready to help coordinate fuel delivery to affected areas and remove barriers in energy recovery efforts,” Alex de Alvarez, DOE Deputy Director of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability for Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration said. To further prepare, DOE’s hurricane response system has: * Conducted regional exercises to help further prepare state and local government staff in the case of emergencies; * Hired seven new staff specifically to support the energy emergency function under the National Response Plan; * Trained over 50 technical and emergency response staff that will be available to deploy to an affected region and embed in other federal responding agencies such as Department of Homeland Security (DHS); and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). DOE has also assigned coordinators to all FEMA regions. * Instituted a “helpline” for the 2007 hurricane season to allow state/local governments and industry to communicate with DOE during emergencies; * Enhanced DOE’s modeling, analytical, and visualization capabilities by working with national laboratories, and industry; * Increased coordination with federal agencies such as DHS/FEMA, MMS, DOT, FERC, and EPA to further improve federal interagency coordination response for energy emergencies. In 2006, DOE assisted in recovery efforts from Hurricane Ernesto’s pass through Florida and North Carolina in August. In 2005, DOE deployed emergency response experts to the Gulf region and had dozens of other individuals working on the hurricane response from DOE headquarters in Washington, DC. Led by the DOE’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the Department coordinated with other federal agencies, state and local government leaders, and industry to overcome obstacles and bring power back online and bring fuel to affected regions of the country. At President Bush’s direction, the Department made crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve available for loan and sale to oil refiners to help maintain gasoline supply for the nation. Additionally, DOE ensured that high-sulfur #2 diesel was provided to utility pole companies so that poles would be ready for installation as soon as the storms passed. Media contact(s): Megan Barnett, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 60 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Workers finish sludge removal in leaky Hanford basin Last updated May 31, 2007 3:39 p.m. PT By SHANNON DININNY RICHLAND, Wash. -- Workers at the nation's most contaminated nuclear site made one final sweep Thursday to remove the last of the radioactive sludge from a leaky pool built in the 1950s to hold spent fuel from nuclear reactors. Emptying the K East Basin has been one of the cleanup priorities at south-central Washington's Hanford nuclear reservation, and sludge removal has proven one of the more difficult tasks. Much work remains at the basin, but the sludge project concluded on schedule Thursday as the federal government's top manager at the site marked his last day on the job. "This milestone is representative of so many of the challenges at Hanford. They seem impossible at times. They rarely go as originally planned," said Keith Klein, retiring manager of the Department of Energy's Richland Operations office. "It sounds so simple to the folks out there who don't understand this ... but you figured it out and you did it," Klein told workers gathered to mark the project's completion. "For a last day on the site, this is just icing on the cake for me." The federal government created Hanford in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Over 40 years, nine nuclear reactors were built alongside the Columbia River to support weapons production during World War II and the Cold War. Workers built the K East and K West basins in the 1950s to hold spent fuel from the reactors. Attached to different reactors, the 125-foot-long, 20-foot-deep pools can hold an estimated 1.3 million gallons of water. In 2004, workers completed the removal of 2,100 tons of spent nuclear fuel left in both basins after weapons production stopped - one of three Hanford cleanup tasks identified as urgent to protect public safety and the environment. Both basins sit just 400 yards from the river, and the K East basin previously leaked millions of gallons of contaminated water into the soil. But left behind was a mess of radioactive sludge, an estimated 37 cubic yards in the K East basin alone. Cleaning up the mix of dirt, sand and corroded fuel proved more difficult than originally planned. Workers began vacuuming the sludge in October 2004, deploying new technologies as sludge jammed filters and pumps stopped working. They completed the bulk of the work in October 2006. Final vacuuming finished in May, with one last sweep through the troublesome basin Thursday, the current deadline for removing the sludge. The deadline was pushed back several times in the past few years as workers encountered technical difficulties. "It's quite amazing to see the change in this facility from where we started," said Chris Lucas, project director for contractor Fluor Hanford. "We had a lot of lessons learned out of this that can be applied to K West closure." The sludge is being stored in containers in the K West basin. The deadline to begin treating the waste for long-term disposal is December 2008, though there are questions about whether that deadline will be met. In the meantime, work will continue to empty the remaining water and equipment from the leaky basin, then to tear down the building, remove the basin itself and extract the contaminated soil beneath it. Sludge removal was just one step in a long job, said Nick Ceto, the Environmental Protection Agency's program manager at Hanford. Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com Send investigative tips to iteam@seattlepi.com ©1996-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 61 Hanford News: Nuclear mother lode? Company plans to drill for uranium near Stanley This story was published Thursday, May 31st, 2007 By Matt Christensen, The Times-News, Twin Falls, Idaho May 31- STANLEY, Idaho - The Gem State has long been known for its abundance of mine-worthy minerals: silver, lead, cobalt. Now, a Canada-based company wants to add uranium to that list. Magnum Minerals USA, a subsidiary of Magnum Uranium of Vancouver, British Columbia, is seeking permission from the U.S. Forest Service to search for uranium in the Salmon-Challis National Forest. If permission is granted and an abundance of uranium is discovered, Magnum, a company hoping to profit from a renewed interest in nuclear power, could open the only operating uranium mine in Idaho. But environmental groups are already calling the plans dangerous, saying the operations could contaminate the Salmon River. "It's not a good idea to be mining uranium near the headwaters of a major river," said Dave Richmond, a medical doctor and head of environmental group Friends of the West. Magnum wants to drill about 70 exploratory holes in an area about 6 miles northeast of Stanley. The drill cores will be removed from the forest, and the holes will be plugged with clay and capped with cement, said Travis Henderson, a spokesman for Magnum. If the cores yield enough uranium, the company wants to begin mining operations. But a uranium mine is still a long way off, said Ralph Rau, district ranger of the Yankee Fork Ranger District in Challis. First, the Forest Service must complete an environmental analysis of the proposal that includes studies by experts in wildlife, hydrology and the environment. Uranium experts, however, are hard to come by nowadays, said Virginia Gillerman, an associate research geologist with the Idaho Geological Survey. Many are aging or dead because few American companies have explored uranium in the United States since about 1979, the year of the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania. But many think the U.S. is on the cusp of a nuclear renaissance, thanks to mounting concern over greenhouse gases and coal-fired power plants. An example: China, a country traditionally reliant on coal, has announced plans to build 32 nuclear plants by 2020. And a Virginia-based company is pursuing plans to build a nuclear power plant in Owyhee County. All this has driven the price of uranium from about $3 a pound to nearly $120 a pound in just a few years, Gillerman said. That's prompting companies like Magnum to search for uranium in non-traditional areas, such as south-central Idaho. The Forest Service said it could finish its analysis later this summer, and Henderson said the company plans to begin its drilling survey soon afterward. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 62 ajc.com: Savannah River lab gets 1-month reprieve | Facility studies chronic effects of low-level radiation By STACY SHELTON The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 05/31/07 The University of Georgia's Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, the nation's only academic research facility at a federal nuclear complex, will remain open at least another month while a congressional committee investigates why it's being shut down. DAVID SCOTT /Savannah River Ecology Laboratory The Savannah River Ecology Laboratory is one of the few places the greater siren, a little-known type of salamander, is being studied. There's no other lab like it. The laboratory, which had been slated to close on Wednesday, is located at the Savannah River Site near Augusta. Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, said Congress deserves "a chance to review the logic that led DOE to terminate support for a lab that has been doing world-class research since 1951. On the face of it, this is a difficult action to understand." Lampson and Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, said the lab "plays an indispensable role in tracking the environmental conditions around the Savannah River Site and providing unbiased information to the public and the government about conditions there." Rep. John Barrow, a Democrat representing the Augusta area, had requested the investigation. The lab is a world leader in studying the chronic effects of low-level radiation. From the 1950s through the 1980s, SRS produced plutonium and tritium for hydrogen bombs. The federal government is now spending billions of dollars to clean up leftover radioactive material. In recent months, nuclear operations were restarted as the plant began separating tritium again to replenish the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Later this year, SRS is slated to begin construction of a mixed-oxide fuel fabrication facility that will turn surplus bomb-grade plutonium into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. The Bush administration is also considering making the plant a demonstration site for reusing spent fuel in commercial nuclear reactors. On Wednesday, DOE spokeswoman Megan Barnett said the department would comply fully with Congress' request for documents. But she said the department does not intend to continue funding the lab at the level it has been. If the lab continues to operate, Barnett said it is expected to become self-sustaining by pursuing other research grants. The DOE might provide some money "on a study-by-study basis, for ecological and environmental studies," she said. Earlier this week, top officials from UGA and the DOE met in Washington. UGA officials refused to discuss the meeting, and Barnett would not provide any details. UGA signed a five-year cooperative agreement with the Energy Department last November, stipulating that the agency would provide $1.8 million to the lab through September of this year — much less than the $4 million the department provided in 2006, and the $7 million to $8 million granted annually from 2001 to 2005. Under the agreement, the university could continue to operate the lab at the plant, but university officials have said attempts to secure additional outside funding have failed. UGA, which contributes about $1 million annually to the lab, has said without federal money, the lab cannot stay open. The lab already attracts about $2 million a year from outside sources, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, but the grants are for specific research projects and do not cover annual salaries or pay electricity bills and other infrastructure needs, said Laura Janecek, the lab's financial director. © 2007 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ***************************************************************** 63 Hanford News: Officials renegotiating cleanup This story was published Thursday, May 31st, 2007 Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford regulators want a realistic but aggressive schedule for Hanford cleanup, they said Wednesday during a break in talks to renegotiate legally binding cleanup deadlines. "This is a defining moment for the future success of the cleanup of Hanford," said Elin Miller, regional administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. The Tri-Party Agreement, which sets legal deadlines, could undergo some of its most significant revisions since it was signed 18 years ago to regulate the cleanup of contamination from the production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program at the Hanford nuclear reservation. Key leaders of the Department of Energy and its regulators, the state of Washington and the Environmental Protection Agency, spent all day behind closed doors in Richland in a negotiating session prompted by missed deadlines. "Recent delays and projected delays are significant," said Rob McKenna, Washington attorney general. At the end of the day, they issued a joint statement saying they had "useful dialogue" and discussed common goals. Up to four additional negotiating sessions are planned with a goal of reaching agreement by the end of summer. The talks were expected to focus on two key projects that have fallen far behind schedule - emptying radioactive waste from leak-prone underground tanks and turning the waste into a stable glass form at the vitrification plant. "But no subjects are off the table," said Jay Manning, director of the Washington State Department of Ecology. The Tri-Party Agreement will remain the blueprint for cleanup, Miller said. But tough calls need to be made, she said. "Costs are spiraling upward, putting cleanup at risk," she said. Among the most significant increases is the cost of building and testing the vitrification plant, which has more than doubled to $12.2 billion. It's not expected to be operating until as late as 2019, eight years past the Tri-Party Agreement deadline. Meeting the 2011 deadline is no longer realistic, but if the state agrees to a delay to the start of operations, it will require increased progress on other work in exchange, Manning said. That could mean stepping up efforts on cleaning up ground water to protect the Columbia River, he said. The nuclear reservation has 80 square miles of ground water contaminated with radioactive and hazardous chemical waste. The state also is interested in starting discussions on a proposal to begin operating part of the vitrification plant to treat low-activity radioactive waste before the facility to treat high level waste is completed, Manning said. Emptying single shell tanks of radioactive waste also has fallen behind schedule. DOE has emptied seven of 149 of the tanks into newer double shell tanks, but had an initial deadline of emptying 16 of the tanks nearly eight months ago. The state recognizes that DOE is facing very difficult technical challenges, Manning said. "We're really up against the hard stuff now," he said. DOE also could face budget pressures if it agrees to ramp up other work in exchange for extended deadlines. DOE has not been shy about asking Congress for the money it needs to pay for Hanford cleanup, said Jim Rispoli, the DOE assistant secretary for environmental management. Although DOE has cleanup sites in 14 states, it's spending more than a third of its annual cleanup budget at Hanford, he said. In recent years, annual spending at Hanford has approached $2 billion and DOE's five-year plan calls for increasing that to $2.3 billion. "But many technical issues are not a matter of money," he said. Spending more money would not get the vitrification plant operating appreciably sooner or the tanks emptied appreciably faster, he said. Ground water cleanup also faces difficult technical issues as DOE considers ways to keep contamination from spreading, particularly contamination deep below the surface of the ground. However, Hanford workers have shown they can succeed on technically difficult projects, Rispoli said. Pumpable liquids have been removed from all single-shell tanks, reducing the risk of leaks from the mostly sludges and salts that remain. A suite of new technologies were developed to empty seven tanks of all waste. Irradiated fuel has been removed from the K Basins. At the vitrification plant, construction is 38 percent complete and the design is 74 percent complete. The state and EPA agreed that cleanup progress has been significant. But the schedule delays on such key projects as emptying the tanks and building the vitrification plant have been disappointing, Manning said. The talks to renegotiate the Tri-Party Agreement likely will be difficult and contentious, and the state still could take legal action if agreement cannot be reached, he said. But having common goals for cleanup should help DOE and its regulators reach agreement on the steps to reach those goals, Rispoli said. The talks Wednesday followed about seven months of discussion among DOE and regulator officials on the Tri-Party Agreement before the agencies decided they needed to bring leaders with decision-making authority to the table. The next round of talks is expected to be with mid-level officials who will discuss technical details. © 2007 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 64 Tri-City Herald: Radioactive sludge removed from leak-prone Hanford basin (w/video) "Cleanup of the K Basins" video Published Thursday, May 31st, 2007 By Herald staff The last of the radioactive sludge should be out of Hanford's K East Basin by this evening. "Two million people down river today can feel better about it being in a safe configuration," said Con Murphy, Fluor Hanford president. The basin, which has leaked in the past, is 400 yards from the Columbia River. Work started in October 2004 to start vacuuming the sludge into containers kept underwater to shield workers from radiation. No one anticipated how difficult the sludge would be to capture and then pump from the K East Basin to the sturdier K West Basin, said Keith Klein, manager of the Department of Energy's Hanford Richland Operations Office. "We've done it. You figured it out," he told a crowd of about 200 current and former workers on the project who gathered to celebrate today. DOE faced a legal deadline to have the sludge removed today. The K East Basin can now be cleaned and demolished to get to contaminated soil underneath it. The sludge will be held in the K West Basin until a treatment system is finished. For more information, read Friday's Herald. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 65 Inside Bay Area: Livermore's laser complex tops hit list of nuclear tools Laboratory's facility among pricey projects questioned in report to Congress By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated: 05/31/2007 02:53:56 AM PDT The giant lasers, X-ray machines and supercomputers called essential a decade ago for the upkeep of U.S. nuclear weapons have fallen behind schedule, yet even with those crippled or delayed capabilities, the weapons themselves are faring well, with little sign of falling apart. The Federation of American Scientists, a group formed by Manhattan Project scientists to advocate for arms control, argued in a report Wednesday that Congress needs to rethink some of the multibillion-dollar instruments promised to bomb scientists at the end of nuclear testing. Topping the federation's target list is a stadium-size laser complex called the National Ignition Facility, or NIF, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Livermore weapons scientists and federal nuclear-weapons managers have argued since the early 1990s that the NIF and its reach for thermonuclear fusion with 192 laser beams are critical to ensuring the operation of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Last year, for example, the head of weapons work for the U.S. Energy Department suggested that scientists might be unable to say whether the bombs would keep working if NIF's lasers fail to squeeze fusion energy out of a pea-size ball of hydrogen by 2010 or so. "Failure to achieve ignition in the 2010-2011 time frame may affect our continuing assessment and certification of low-margin systems" such as the warheads that are the most numerous in the U.S. and U.K. arsenals," then-defense programs chief Tom D'Agostino wrote to several chairmen in Congress. "Failure to achieve ignition in the long term could call into question our stockpile stewardship tools, and, therefore, the premise that the stockpile can be maintained indefinitely without nuclear testing." Likewise for purchases of the world's fastest supercomputers and construction of a huge X-ray machine to peer inside imploding bomb cores ? all were needed to say whether U.S. bombs would work. But Ivan Oelrich, a Princeton-trained chemist who heads the federation's strategic security project, says those arguments have lost their power as scientists have learned more about the reliability of existing weapons ? the Cold War-vintage bombs and warheads that were designed without big lasers, supercomputers or machines capable of making X-ray movies in two dimensions. "The things we were worried about ? the decline of (bomb) reliability without testing ? have not come to pass. Yet these enormously expensive programs persist," Oelrich said. The big fusion laser at Livermore originally was priced at less than $400 million but had risen to $1 billion by the time Congress agreed to build it. Even then, supporters low-balled the billion-dollar price tag because of a calculation that lawmakers otherwise never would pay for it. Livermore officials were forced to admit in 1999 that the laser was over budget and would not be completed by 2002 as promised. The General Accountability Office projects its cost at about $4 billion, with completion next year. "NIF should have been operating years and a billion dollars ago, and it's fair to ask whether we should go forward with this machine when the whole context around it has changed," said the federation's Oelrich. "We need to re-evaluate, and yet we haven't done that." Energy Department officials said they had not seen the federation's report but took issue with the observations about billion-dollar cost overruns and schedule breakdowns. Julianne Smith, spokeswoman for the department's National Nuclear Security Administration, said "it is important to keep in mind that all three of these facilities are unique, one-of-a-kind ? some that have never before been built in the world." Oelrich doesn't expect the department or Congress to kill off the big laser, which Smith says is 90 percent complete. At that point, he said, lawmakers are more prone to throw more money into dubious projects than to kill them. "I live in the real world, and I admit it's very, very hard to kill these types of programs," he said. Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com or (510) 208-6458. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 66 Inside Bay Area: Private execs taking lab roles Energy and Environmental Directorate subsumed under 'global security' program By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated: 05/31/2007 08:43:01 AM PDT For the first time, executives from private industry are taking places in the upper ranks of Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons lab, in some cases pushing aside career managers for the University of California. Lab director George Miller on Wednesday named Bechtel Vice President Steve Liedle as his second in command and six other executives from the San Francisco-based engineering giant and other private firms to key lab positions over business operations, safety, nuclear operations, facilities and more. To make way, high-ranking executives of the lab ? among them, nonproliferation and homeland security chief Ray Juzaitis, safety and environmental director William Bookless, associate director at large Bruce Warner, even human resources director and former lab counsel Jan Tulk ? no longer would be listed as top managers when the new UC/Bechtel-led team takes charge in October. They along with all other lab staff in good standing will be offered jobs within the next six weeks, Miller said. The lab's small yet respected Energy and Environmental Directorate disappeared altogether, subsumed under a new program called "global security" that includes everything from homeland security to nonproliferation policy and intelligence analysis on foreign weapons of mass destruction, all gathered under a former Army general and Battelle Vice President John Doesburg. Those areas and other unclassified research are expected to grow rapidly and become as much a part of the lab's bottom line as its bread-and-butter mission of designing and maintaining nuclear weapons, according to Miller. "I think our belief is that the laboratory over the next decade or so is going to become much more balanced than it currently is. It's probably two-thirds or so nuclear stuff right now," he said, predicting "much more balance, a fifty-fifty kind of a deal" with more work devoted to homeland security, climate science and developing sources of clean energy and water. "The sense of the laboratory was that many of these energy and environmental issues were going to become important to the future of the country and to the future of the globe," Miller said. "We believe all of these fall under the rubric of global security not just defense." The management shakeup makes clear, however, that nuclear weapons remain front and center at Livermore. Under Miller and Liedle are five principal associate directors, and two of them ? Bruce Goodwin over weapons and complex integration, and Ed Moses over the National Ignition Facility and Photon Science ? are funded chiefly by the National Nuclear Security Administration, the nuclear weapons arm of the U.S. Energy Department. The other principal associates include former Bell Labs physicist Cherry Murray remaining over science and technology; Bechtel Vice President Frank Russo over operations and business; and Battelle's Doesburg over global security. More changes are to come lower down the management chain. But above Miller is a board of directors much like the one overseeing Livermore's sister lab, Los Alamos, led by university regent Gerald Parsky and Bechtel President Tom Hash, with such other members as former Clinton Defense Secretary Bill Perry, Stanford physicist Sidney Drell and a former National Nuclear Security Administration head, Gen. John Gordon. Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com or 208-6458. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 67 KnoxNews: Clean, plentiful fuel must for U.S. Conference presenters drive home need to rid ourselves of foreign oil By ANDREW EDER, edera@knews.com May 31, 2007 KINGSPORT - A quintet of East Tennessee industry leaders and researchers shared ideas - from drilling for oil in Alaska to harvesting Tennessee crops for ethanol - on how to solve the energy puzzle at a conference Wednesday. But whether it's TVA's nuclear power, Eastman Chemical Co.'s coal gasification, the University of Tennessee's cellulosic ethanol, Pilot Travel Centers' transportation fuels or other energy sources, the overall challenge is the same: Meet the rising energy demand at home through cleaner technologies that lessen dependence on foreign oil. "If we can't fix that problem," said Pilot's president and CEO, Jimmy Haslam, "the U.S. will not remain the No. 1 country in the world." The panel, moderated by U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Chattanooga, was part of the two-day Tennessee Valley Corridor 2007 National Summit, held at the MeadowView Resort and Convention Center. The summit, which concluded Wednesday, drew more than 500 attendees. Panelists in the energy discussion spoke to a standing-room only crowd. Tom Kilgore, TVA's president and CEO, touted the federal utility's restoration of the Unit 1 reactor at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Ala. The reactor, which is being tested after first achieving a nuclear chain reaction last week, may begin producing electricity as early as this week, Kilgore said. He cited the low cost of nuclear fuel, along with the reliability and low emissions of nuclear power, as factors in restarting Browns Ferry 1 and potentially adding two or three more reactors to TVA's portfolio. "You can see why nuclear energy is part of our security and part of our economic development," Kilgore told the audience. Mark Costa, senior vice president of corporate strategy and marketing for Eastman Chemical Co., discussed the firm's use of coal gasification, a cleaner method than combustion for generating power with coal. Eastman has run its coal gasification plant for 23 years, Costa said, and the company benefits from having a less volatile fuel source compared to natural gas. David Millhorn, UT's executive vice president, talked about the Tennessee Biofuels Initiative, which envisions the state as a leader in production of cellulosic ethanol, a transportation fuel made from grasses and other dedicated energy crops. Most domestic ethanol is currently made from corn. "We can do this at the laboratory now," Millhorn said. "What we don't have is a demonstration at the commercial level." That demonstration is coming in the form of a biorefinery that will allow researchers to produce what the university has coined "Grassoline," a moniker that earned a hearty laugh from the audience. Also on the panel was Ronald Bailey, a professor and dean at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, who discussed research on hydrogen fuel cell technology for cars. But the most pointed comments among the panelists came from Haslam, who told audience members that in spite of multibillion-dollar profits and soaring prices at the pump, "oil companies are not the bad guys in the U.S." "We need and want the Exxons of the world to go out and find more oil," Haslam said. He called for the government to open a protected wildlife reserve in Alaska to oil drilling. The Pilot chief also criticized a tariff on imported ethanol from countries like Brazil, which produces cheap ethanol from sugarcane. Such policies show that the domestic farm industry - whose corn farmers have benefited from a spike in corn prices thanks to increased demand for ethanol - is dictating energy policy, Haslam said. "There is no need to continue to coddle the farm business," he said. The summit also included panel discussions on issues like health care and maintaining the country's technical work force. On the latter subject, George Dials, general manager at the Y-12 National Security Complex, said that more than half of his work force could retire today if they chose. The difficulty of replacing those technicians, Dials said, is "the thing that worries me most about the future." Business writer Andrew Eder may be reached at 865-342-6318. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 68 UPI: Report attacks Energy Department programs United Press International - NewsTrack - Science - Published: May 31, 2007 at 2:40 PM Report attacks Energy Department programs WASHINGTON, May 31 (UPI) -- The three major components of the U.S. Energy Department's Stockpile Stewardship Program are reportedly over budget and behind schedule. That criticism was contained in a report issued this week by the Federation of American Scientists. The paper -- "The Stockpile Stewardship Program: Fifteen Years On" -- reviews the status of the program that was developed because of concerns that, over time, a nuclear weapon's reliability could decline. "All of the expensive SSP experiments were initiated because of the cessation of nuclear testing, with the expectation that they would be essential to maintaining the nuclear stockpile," said Ivan Oelrich, the federation's vice president of strategic security. "We understand nuclear weapons much better now than we did when we were testing. "It is time to reevaluate which of these expensive experiments we still need," he added. "The (Energy Department) is even proposing to move away from stockpile stewardship to a reliable, replacement warhead, which could avoid the need for the SSP experiments altogether." The Federation of American Scientists was formed in 1945 by atomic scientists from the Manhattan Project to promote humanitarian uses of science and technology. The report is available at www.fas.org. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 69 KnoxNews: TVA adopts energy-efficiency strategic plan By ANDREW EDER, edera@knews.com May 31, 2007 TVA's board approved a strategic plan today that aims to make the agency a leader in energy-efficiency efforts in the next five years. The revised plan, which TVA amended after receiving hundreds of public comments, also includes language on global climate change and a greater focus on renewable energy. "The best thing we can do is work with our distributors and our customers and their customers to increase our conservation and efficiency of usage," TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore told directors at a board meeting in Columbus, Miss. Kilgore also said a single-digit rate increase will likely be needed in the near future. More details online and in Friday's News Sentinel. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 70 lamonitor.com: LANL: Archive policies haven't changed The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor Harvard University graduate student Alex Wellerstein is working on a dissertation on nuclear secrecy, 1939-2005. If he extends his field of study by two years to 2007, he could include some of his own recent experiences. Earlier this month Wellerstein's encounters with Los Alamos National Laboratory's archives were featured in Secrecy News, a blog and alert service sponsored by the Federation of American Scientists that focuses on government secrecy. The problem, from Wellerstein's perspective, was that the laboratory had changed its procedures in a way that would make it hard for a researcher to obtain important historical materials. A series of e-mails among University of California officials about the matter, obtained by the Monitor, suggest that they were concerned as well, at least by appearances. In looking back over events since then, laboratory spokesperson Kevin Roark said the policy had not changed and is not changed now, but there was a brief period when the laboratory had to figure out what it meant to the archives that the laboratory was no longer governed by the California Public Records Act, because it was no longer managed exclusively by UC, although the university remains one of the principal partners in the managing consortium. "In the final analysis, there is nothing different about the way we handled requests for information in May 2006 that is different than May 2007," Roark said. Wellerstein said he thought he had assurances that he could get some help from LANL officials that would make it easier to find historical information for his project. The archives were being moved at the time, so there was some delay. "I didn't hear back for awhile, but I didn't expect to hear," Wellerstein said. "My job is to get things in the works out there, so that in a year or so they become ripe." One aspect of his research already written and accepted for publication is about "patenting the bomb," the paradoxical process by which the government justified using the federal patent program to protect top-secret nuclear weapons technology coming out of the Manhattan Project during World War II. Wellerstein was also working with Peter Galison on a documentary about government secrecy with filmmaker Robb Moss. Galison is a MacArthur Fellow and prominent professor of the history of science and physics at Harvard. Then, Wellerstein said, "Suddenly out of the blue I got an e-mail from the information practices officer that was very legalistic and hard to divine what the content was meant to be." The gist, he said, was that the former information release policies (under the California law) were no longer in effect and there were no new policies to replace them, so that his requests would have to be submitted under the federal Freedom of Information Act. Wellerstein discussed the situation with his colleagues, including Priscilla McMillan, author of the book "The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer," published in 2005. McMillan is also a former Council Member of the Federation of American Scientists, which subsequently published the first of two notices about the matter. Wellerstein said he had also communicated with National Coalition for History, a Washington, D.C. based non-profit and advocate for history related issues. NCH published an item on their website on May 7. The Chronicle of Higher Education, the journal of the Council for Higher Education also made calls to lab and UC officials in Washington during a brief flap that ensued. Since then, Wellerstein said he has filed four FOIAs of differing scopes, covering different kinds of information he is looking for. He has also sought additional clarification from the laboratory on questions that he still has. In an interview Wednesday, Roark answered two of the questions. Was it possible to obtain unclassified or previously unclassified documents held in the archives? "Yes," Roark said. There is an informal process at the archives that they have practiced for years, where they do a quick review through security and classification of items that are clearly marked for public release. And if there are no mitigating circumstances, they go ahead and provide that." Secondly, are archivists able to look for relevant material and make them available to researchers, and are they able to help guide researchers through the FOIA process? Roark said, "To the degree they can, yes, they are available to help." He said there may be time constraints and many researchers do not fully appreciate the scope of the holdings. "There are millions of documents in our archives and it is not designed to be a lending library," Roark said. A final question was harder to answer: Can researchers get information in regards to the general holdings of the Los Alamos archives without the filing of a FOIA request? "I don't know that I can answer that," Roark said. "Without some level of specificity, it makes it difficult. You kind of need to know what you're looking for." In conclusion, Roark said, "What the archive did in the past it will do in the future." © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************