The Nuclear Industry Makes Its Christmas Wish List, and It's a Long One

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 29, 2009 1:14 PM

CONTACT: Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Aaron Huertas, 202-331-5458

Why is a Mature, 50-year-old Industry Still Asking for Massive Taxpayer Handouts?, Science Groups Asks

WASHINGTON - October 29 - Earlier this week the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the nuclear power industry's principal trade organization, released a proposal asking for billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and radical changes to the federal regulatory process that would shift even more risks and costs from the industry to the public.

The industry's first priority is to get a minimum of $100 billion in new federal loan guarantees on top of the $110 billion in loan guarantees already authorized by Congress. That would total nearly one third of the taxpayer bailout money the government gave Wall Street a little more than a year ago. At the heart of NEI's proposal is the implicit admission that the industry cannot compete in the private sector market without massive financial support from taxpayers and reduced liability for cost overruns and safety hazards.

"NEI essentially is saying the industry can't be competitive without massive new federal subsidies and tax breaks," said Ellen Vancko, UCS nuclear energy and climate change project manager. "It is truly staggering that an industry this big and this mature can claim to need so much government help to survive and thrive in a world in which technologies that don't emit global warming pollution will benefit."

One of the nuclear industry's top priorities is the establishment of a federal clean energy "bank," called the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA), which NEI considers to be a "permanent financing platform" for nuclear reactor construction.

Both the House and Senate versions of energy and climate legislation include a CEDA provision. NEI favors the Senate version because it would: exempt CEDA from the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), removing any limits on the amount of federal loan guarantees that could be issued for new nuclear reactors by bypassing the congressional appropriations process; not restrict the amount of financial assistance that could be given to any one technology; and not require applicants to compete on the basis of reducing carbon at the lowest cost. These three key provisions in the House version of CEDA-which are missing from the Senate version-would allow most of the financial assistance to go to the nuclear industry instead of to a diverse portfolio of least-cost clean energy investments such as renewable resources and energy efficiency.

A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (pdf) (CBO) found that without adequate taxpayer protections and strict government oversight, CEDA could allow a few risky, capital intensive industries such as nuclear power and coal-to-liquids run away with the bank. The CBO estimated that, "in the absence of any statutory limits, [the Department of Energy] would guarantee an additional $100 billion in loans for nuclear power projects over the next 10 years and close to another $30 billion in loans for fossil and other large capital projects." The CBO's analysis focused on pending loan applications and did not attempt to estimate the number of additional applications that would be filed if the program is modified and expanded.

The nuclear energy industry sees CEDA as its own personal federal financing mechanism, which is at odds with the expressed intent of the program. The bank is supposed to promote domestic development and deployment of a range of "innovative" clean energy technologies that would otherwise not have access to low-cost financing.

"This program was designed to spur innovation so we can benefit from the next big breakthrough in clean energy technologies," Vancko said. "There is nothing innovative about 50-year-old industry with a long record of massive cost overruns and plant cancellations."

In addition to virtually unlimited federal loan guarantees, NEI is asking for $3 billion to cover cost overruns and construction delays and an extension of the production tax credit through the end of 2024 (compared with 2012 for wind energy and 2013 for other renewable technologies), which could give the industry as much as $10 billion in new tax breaks. NEI alternately proposes to convert the production tax credit to an up-front investment tax credit of 30 percent for investments in new nuclear reactors or upgrades to existing reactors that could provide the industry with a $20 billion windfall. NEI further proposes expanding the manufacturing investment tax credit from $2.3 billion to $5 billion to benefit nuclear component manufacturers. And the trade association wants to see changes to the IRS tax code to help some companies write off payments to nuclear decommissioning funds more quickly.

"If the nuclear industry gets its way, Christmas will come early this year-thanks to U.S. taxpayers," Vancko said.

As alarming are NEI's proposed shortcuts to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) new reactor licensing process. The industry, for example, wants to limit the NRC's ability to verify that a new reactor was built in strict accordance with its license before it starts operating. NEI also proposes restricting the public's right to raise reactor construction safety issues by requiring the NRC to use "informal" procedures in public hearings on such issues.

"Before the NRC gives the green light to a new nuclear plant to start up, it needs the authority to ensure that each and every part of the plant will function exactly as it was intended to function," said UCS Senior Staff Scientist Edwin Lyman. "NEI's proposal could jeopardize public safety by barring the NRC from double-checking earlier findings, which could prove crucial with such a large, complex construction project as a nuclear power plant."

Dr. Lyman acknowledged that NEI offered a positive suggestion regarding nuclear security, specifically its request that Congress clarify the respective roles of the NRC and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding protecting commercial nuclear plants from terrorist attacks. However, UCS maintains that private industry should assume far more responsibility for defending nuclear plants than NRC currently requires, while NEI recommends that federal, state and local law enforcement agencies take on a greater burden, which would represent yet another substantial taxpayer subsidy.

###

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/10/29-4

State Money [for uranium study] Must Be Part of Equation

Katie's message is right-on!

Danville Register & Bee
September 29, 2009

To the editor,

The author of, “Welcome funding,” (Sept. 24, page A8) is quite right that these are hard times in Virginia, and hard times call for a wise investment in the future so that things will improve. That’s exactly why it could make sense for the legislature to invest in a thorough and unbiased study of uranium mining. If the legislature wants to consider opening the [entire] state to uranium mining and milling, it should know whether uranium mining in Virginia is sure to lead to safe and sustainable economic development or might cause harm, regional stigmatization and boom-bust economic instability.

The author repeats the assertion frequently made by Virginia Uranium Inc. that the National Academy of Science is “beyond reproach.” The NAS does not make this claim. Rather, as a matter of policy, the NAS does not do studies for private, for-profit corporations or accept money directly from them. The NAS takes the appearance of influence seriously.

While acknowledging great respect for the National Academies, the Center for Science in the Public Interest in a 2006 report “found serious deficiencies in the NAS’ committee-selection process” and instances of “blatant conflicts of interest.” CSPI doesn’t write off NAS, but rather offers constructive recommendations to improve the study committee selection process to ensure independence and objectivity. The report is available at http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/nasreport.pdf. [emphasis mine...SB]

This isn’t a matter of “reproach”; it’s a matter of accountability — accountability for avoiding influence and the appearance of influence. It is appropriate that all participants in the study process, whether legislators, citizens, or the esteemed National Academies hold themselves and each other accountable.

Accountability will be equally important in the socioeconomic study.

Virginia needn’t cover the entire cost of a uranium study; any contribution by the commonwealth would have significance. Securing any state funds would involve an approval process that would confirm that the commonwealth wants the study and increase confidence that all evidence will be weighed fairly.

KATIE WHITEHEAD
Chatham

anriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/state_money_must_be_part_of_equation/14205/

Steven Chu Provides Clear Statements About The Importance of Nuc

You sort of have to understand where A-Rod is coming from. He's major-league pro-nuke guy although his arguments sometimes fall flat at which time he changes the subject and goes in another direction, still pro-nuclear. He lives in Annapolis but works in VA. He goes on and on at times about his modest lifestyle and his deep respect for the nuclear industry. Sometimes it sounds like he hung his hat on something that didn't quite pan out for him but he's in so deep, he can't get out. Just my humble opinion, of course, having sparred with him before. Here's his latest. I do appreciate his brinigng us Steven Chu's recent statements about Virginia's eager receptiveness toward nuclear power..."clean power". Looks like we've got lots of work to do!


On the Atomic Insights Blog, Rod Adams discusses energy supplies, energy technology, and energy politics from an atomic point of view. This blog is closely associated with Atomic Insights at www.atomicinsights.com

On the Atomic Insights Blog, Rod Adams discusses energy supplies, energy technology, and energy politics from an atomic point of view. This blog is closely associated with Atomic Insights at www.atomicinsights.com

by Rod Adams [aka Atomic Rod]

Sunday, September 27, 2009

I learned a lot time ago that it can be difficult, but not impossible to change the course of a very large vessel that has momentum going in a particular direction. Even when someone determines the necessity of a course change, the safe rate of change for the turn will be dependent upon the speed of travel. If the person on the helm wants to allow his passengers to maintain their balance, he will have to be judicious in the use of rudder orders so that the turn can be made gradually.

If done correctly, the turn can be almost imperceptible to the people on board. In order to make a smooth turn at high speed, the people who have determined that the turn is necessary have to pick a spot where there is sufficient space in which to complete the turn without colliding with other ships or with underwater hazards. The people who decide how to maneuver large vessels often put themselves into protected control rooms so that their actions do not get a lot of interference or distractions from people who do not have the full picture of the overall situation.

It is with that knowledge that I am a bit less worried than some of my colleagues or even some of my regular readers and Atomic Insights contributors about the direction that America is heading with regard to effectively using nuclear energy as a primary tool in the war against pollution, poverty, and partisan politics.

A couple of days ago, I found some important words from the man who has been assigned part of the task of helping to make a big turn in direction. Those words were in a publication that would have been relatively inaccessible and probably overlooked in a less connected time in our history. You can find Chu's comments on the web site of the Lynchburg (VA) News and Advance at Virginia to receive federal funds for energy projects. Here is what Steven Chu told some people in Virginia when the Department of Energy announced some relatively minor federal block grants for energy projects (totaling just $16.1 million).

“Virginia is a perfect example of having real economic opportunities in clean energy,” Chu said. “The University of Virginia and Virginia Tech are at the forefront of clean-energy engineering,” he said.

In addition, “Virginia is a national leader in nuclear power,” and one-third of the state’s electrical energy comes from nuclear power, he said.

“We are eager to restart the nuclear program in the United States and we look forward to Virginia being part of that,” Chu said.

“We are in the final negotiations” for the federal government’s $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for the first utility companies that build new reactors, Chu said, “and I would personally like to see that loan guarantee program extended or renewed with additional money.”
(Emphasis added.)

It is certainly possible to be impatient about the length of time that it has taken to award loan guarantees. It can also be a bit discouraging to think about the amount of money now available from the federal government for nuclear energy projects compared to the amount given for home improvements, solar panels and wind turbines. That can be especially true if you happen to think that direct federal money is the prime enabler for nuclear energy deployment.

Read the rest of A-Rod's blog article here: http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2009/09/steven-chu-provides-clear-statement.html

Virginia's FY 2010 Budget Reductions

FYI...COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FY 2010 REDUCTION PLAN

http://www.pittgov.org/documents/Reductions2010.pdf

Kaine Expected to Slash Budget by $1.3 Billion

August 18, 2009

(AP) - Gov. Timothy M. Kaine will cut the state's cash-strapped budget by about $1.3 billion in an address Wednesday before legislative budget writers, legislators told The Associated Press.

His address to members of the House and Senate money committees will mark the fourth time since September that the governor has been forced by the worst economy since the 1930s to scale back state spending.

Kaine said earlier this month he would cut at least $700 million or at most $1.5 billion in comments to lawmakers forced by significant month-after-month declines in state tax collections.

Legislators from both parties and from both the House and Senate said Kaine decided after speaking to economists and his board on revenue estimates to make cuts on the higher side, reflecting lingering uncertainty that a recovery is imminent.

The lawmakers and staffers spoke on the condition of anonymity in deference to the fact that the governor had not announced the figure publicly.

Kaine's quarterly briefing to the House Appropriations and Finance committees and the Senate Finance Committee comes as the economy forms a key issue in this fall's gubernatorial and legislative elections. It's also shortly before a special legislative session Kaine called for Wednesday to address a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that prosecutors say is jeopardizing some criminal cases.

http://www.charlottesvillenewsplex.tv/news/headlines/53603772.html

$1.3 B to be Cut By Kaine

Hmmm...Don't guess we'll be seeing that $1.2M for the big U study coming from the Commonwealth. Hope the NAS continues to hold firm on its ethical stm't about not accepting funding from any entity with a vested interest in the study's outcome. We'll be watching to see who steps forward to fund the study now that the state is apparently out of the process...and hell will be raised if anyone in bed with the U industry tries to be "magnanimous".

RICHMOND(AP) -- Legislative leaders say Gov. Tim Kaine will cut the state budget by about $1.3 billion on Wednesday.

For continuing coverage on this breaking news event, please refer to http://www.wvec.com?bn

We'll try to bring you more details as they're released.

Push is on for mine cleanup funds to go to uranium sites

By Sue Major Holmes, Associated Press Writer

Updated: 08/06/200

GALLUP, N.M. » The name Poison Canyon offers a hint of what's faced by those trying to clean up abandoned uranium mines in the West.

The area north of the village of Milan contains some of the 259 abandoned uranium sites in New Mexico that need cleanup. State officials are pressuring the federal government to direct more money to those areas because of their unique hazard of radioactivity.

"In this case, a pile of rocks is more than just a pile of rocks," said New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division Director Bill Brancard.

There are hundreds of thousands of safety issues at abandoned hardrock mines in 13 western states, according to the Government Accountability Office. Thousands of sites, many dating to the 19th century, also are considered environmentally damaged.

The GAO lists about 800 abandoned hardrock mine sites in New Mexico and says at least one-fourth have environmental problems such as radioactivity or chemical contamination. Half of Wyoming's 956 sites are environmentally degraded, as are 9,900 of Arizona's 50,000 abandoned sites and 5,200 of California's 47,000-plus sites.

Exposure to uranium dust can cause kidney toxicity, which can lead to acute kidney failure; exposure to radiation from uranium increases the chances of developing cancer, according to the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois.

Until two years ago, states could use abandoned mine cleanup grants on any site considered a serious threat to public health and safety, but the Bush administration interpreted changes Congress made in the law to mean most money should go to cleaning up coal mines.

New Mexico is more interested in abandoned mines for hardrock -- such as gold, lead or uranium -- and wants Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to reverse the solicitor general's opinion.

Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Salazar, called the matter "an important issue that has many implications for the West," and said Salazar was reviewing it.

New Mexico received $3.8 million this year from an expected $20 million over the next six years for abandoned mines and mills. Only $800,000 of this year's appropriation can go to hardrock sites.

"A lot of what we're doing now is trying to get a grasp on how big the problem is, how much disturbance is there, how high are the radiological readings, and ultimately try to figure out how much work needs to be done at these mines," Brancard said.

But, he said, "The scope of concerns related to hardrock and uranium mines is pretty vast," and $20 million isn't enough.

The Navajo Nation, which lists 520 abandoned uranium sites in Navajo country, is worried about an Obama administration proposal to eliminate a $142 million program for states and tribes certified as having completed coal mine remediation.

"We can't just do away with this program. Our (Navajo) Nation, we still have concerns with abandoned uranium mine sites," said Madeline Roanhorse, department manager for the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Program and Uranium Mill Tailings Removal Action Program.

According to her agency, without the federal program no one will be closing old mines on the reservation.

Stephen Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, said the tribe was certified several years ago to use the funds for such purposes as uranium cleanup.

Etsitty said it's in the tribe's best interest to work with the state to get continued funding because of the amount of work left.

The focus of the Abandoned Mine Lands Program is reclamation, and "in a lot of instances reclamation is not the same as remediation," he said. Reclamation removes physical hazards, but remediation looks at environmental problems, such as removing contaminated soil or studying groundwater concerns.

"That's the other shoe that still hasn't dropped yet," Etsitty said. "We know now a lot more about the contaminants in the soil and the ground. But we don't know how this is now potentially impacting our groundwater resources."

Robinson Kelly, vice president of the tribe's Church Rock Chapter in New Mexico, complained at a public hearing in June about a federal government proposal to cover but leave radioactive uranium tailings at one site.

"We don't want it just covered," he said during a demonstration last month marking the 30th anniversary of a tailings spill that sent millions of gallons of acidic water into the Rio Puerco.

"How long is that cover going to last? When it deteriorates, it's going to start emitting radiation," Kelly said.

Uranium has become a focus partly because of concern that new mines are being considered when old ones have never been cleaned up.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., introduced legislation this spring that would establish a fund to reclaim abandoned hardrock mines in the West, partly supported by a fee based on the value of production.

The measure was heard by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month. A committee vote is expected this fall.

The abandoned mines were opened before 1977, when the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act required owners to put up financial assurance that an area would be reclaimed once mining ended.

New Mexico was a leading uranium producer from the 1950s to the 1980s. Until the 1970s, uranium went to defense.

That history obligates the federal government to help with reclamation, said Brancard and Democratic Rep. John Heaton of Carlsbad, vice chairman of the New Mexico Legislature's radioactive and hazardous materials committee.

"There's a national responsibility," Heaton said.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13007900

Uranium all about $ signs

As Lord Overstone said, "No warning can save a people determined to grow suddenly rich." And remember, Denison now has a stake in Coles Hill. Excellent points, Phillip.

Chatham Star-Tribune
August 5, 2009

Opinion

It saddens me to think some can only think of $$ (dollar signs) and not the contamination and sickness from uranium mining and milling.

We, the citizens, have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I would like to know when the price of uranium drops will Virginia Uranium Inc. or any other uranium mining companies handle their mining and milling operations like all the other mining companies in the world do?

Will you stop operations tempora[rily] or permanently until the price of uranium rises again?

Keep in mind, even if you are an experienced miner, these jobs could be part time; you might be laid off for months.

Can you support your family on a part-time job? Would you try and build or buy a house or buy a new vehicle knowing you might only work three to four months a year?

The only milling facility (White Mesa) in the United States has only operated a few months this year, and announced in May it would not process ore for the remainder of 2009 because its cost is higher than the spot price of uranium, according to Denison Mines president Ron Hochstein.

Let's not forget about all the part-time tax revenue for our county and state.

My understanding of the tax revenue from mining and milling operations is the company has to be running and the jobs being worked to get the tax revenue.

Our great state and county are not run on part-time taxes and jobs.

It might help, but it does not outweigh the contamination of our drinking water and land, the sickness to our families and the tax increases to clean up this mess if it ever could be cleaned up.

All I hear is we need to mine this uranium, get it out of the ground if it is so dangerous, it's a matter of national security, and we need to dig so we can power our nuclear plants now.

Well watch the price drop and you will see the mining stop.

The nuclear plants still need the uranium whether the price is high or low, but we have an excess of uranium, and the mining and milling will stop and start with the greed and costs of operations.

If dug up, the radon released with be 10,000 times more than if left in the ground.

What I feel is a matter of national security is destroying your own water and agriculture land and depending on foreign countries to feed you or provide you with drinking water.

Phillip Lovelace

Gretna

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/08/05/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

Uranium poised for another boom

By Joe Hanel
contact@rmindependent.com

Warning signs and barbed wire mark the old townsite of Uravan. Once home to a uranium mill, the entire town was removed during a Superfund cleanup that ended last year. (Photo by Joe Hanel)

The Rocky Mountain Independent is running a three-part series of environmental snapshots from the Front Range. Part two examines how some Colorado residents fear that the industry and government regulators will repeat previous safety missteps.

No one wanted the piles of gray rocks with the yellow and bright green flakes. They lay in piles outside the vanadium mills in Southwest Colorado until World War II.

The suddenly, military men arrived and claimed the piles for the Manhattan Engineering District. A mill town called Uravan became a secret military city.

The yellow flakes became fuel for the first American atomic bombs, and Colorado’s uranium boom was born. For decades, the government bought all of the uranium that miners could find. But in the 1980s, the market crashed, and uranium resumed its status as a nearly worthless rock.

Now uranium is poised for a comeback. Companies are pushing projects near Fort Collins and Cañon City and in Southwest Colorado’s remote Paradox Valley.

“Population is growing, demand is increasing, and the world is also looking for affordable energy that produces no (greenhouse) emission and is very safe,” said Stuart Sanderson, president of the Colorado Mining Association.

Uranium prices have rebounded since the early part of this decade. Although, at $50 a pound, they are below their record $138 during a speculative bubble in 2007. A U.S.-Russian program to use fuel from old Soviet weapons in American power plants will end in 2013, which could create demand for domestic uranium. Also, nuclear power might become more popular as an alternative to fuel sources that emit global-warming gases.

Uranium critics scoff at the idea that it is a safe fuel source.

“I’ve been in misery, sometimes literally hell, for 41 and a half years,” said Reed Hayes, of Paradox, who fell into a vat of uranium in 1967 at a mill in Moab.

Hayes has suffered rashes all over his body and sometimes in his mouth and eyes. Of the 26 workers who started at the mill when it opened, 23 have died, mostly of cancer. By contrast, most of his high school class is still alive, Hayes said.

He opposes a new uranium mill planned for his valley, saying that the element of human error can never be overcome.

“I don’t want to see any more people die,” he said.

In every place in Colorado where a company has proposed a uranium project, a citizens group has risen up to oppose it.

• Powertech Uranium Corp. plans to open an “in-situ” mine east of Fort Collins that would leach uranium out of the groundwater. Coloradans Against Resource Destruction is fighting
the plan.Cotter Corp. plans to reopen
• its Cañon City uranium mill by 2014. It shut down the mill in 2005, and Colorado Citizens Against Toxic Waste wants it to remain closed. The mill polluted the nearby Lincoln Park neighborhood, and residents blamed it for causing cancer in their families.
• Energy Fuels Inc. plans to build a uranium mill in the Paradox Valley. Mill backers say it would spur the region’s dormant uranium mines back into production. But opponents in the Paradox Valley, which has become a haven for organic agriculture, want the region to turn its back on mining permanently.

Both the Cañon City mill and the Uravan mill — just outside the Paradox Valley — were on the federal Superfund list for environmental cleanups. Although the Cañon City mill remains, Uravan had a different fate. The entire town — homes, church, swimming pool, soda fountain — has been wiped off the map. All that remains is an office building and a barbed-wire fence marked with red-and-yellow radiation signs.

During the last uranium boom, government regulators failed to keep people safe. The Department of Energy published an extraordinary mea culpa during the Clinton administration, admitting that health experts in the federal and Colorado governments knew about the dangers of unventilated mines but hid the danger from miners. That story and many others are chronicled in the DOE Openness Project.

Congress set up a compensation system for uranium workers in 1990. But not everyone qualifies, and payments come slowly, if at all. The Department of Labor has paid only 43,000 claims out of 165,000 filed, according to a 2008 Rocky Mountain News investigation.

State health officials say things will be different this time.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has no applications on file for uranium mills. But Powertech, Cotter and Energy Fuels all will need radiation permits before they start operating. Warren Smith, of the state health department, said he expects Powertech and Energy Fuels to apply for their permits this year. When they do, it will trigger an intense 15-month review that includes at least two public meetings.

Steve Tarlton, who is in charge of the health department’s radiation program, says times have changed.

“When I was a kid, we didn’t have seat belts. Things are different now. The same is true of the uranium industry,” Tarlton said. “We have learned a lot from past mistakes.”

Joe Hanel reports from Denver for The Durango Herald and the Cortez Journal. Watch www.durangoherald.com and www.cortezjournal.com this month for a four-part series on uranium mining in Southwest Colorado.

http://www.rockymountainindependent.com/2009/07/uranium-poised-for-another-boom/

Piketon Plant: Uranium Project May Go on Hold

Oh, great! This leaves USEC's gaseous diffusion plant in Paducah, KY still the only operational nuclear enrichment plant in the US.

Thursday, July 9, 2009 3:06 AM

By Jonathan Riskind

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

WASHINGTON -- The planned uranium-enrichment plant project in Piketon, Ohio, faces "demobilization" beginning in August unless the federal government grants a $2 billion loan guarantee, says USEC Inc.

USEC, the suburban Washington company trying to build the $3.5 billion advanced-technology plant on the same site where it ran the enrichment facility closed in 2001, has indicated for months that without the loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, the Piketon project would fail to get needed financing.

USEC has spent about $1.4 billion to build a test plant and begin work on the full-scale commercial facility, which would make fuel for nuclear power plants. The company says the enrichment plant could be operating by early 2011.

An Energy Department spokesman declined on Tuesday to discuss the status of the USEC request. However, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has made it a priority to speed up the loan guarantee process.

USEC made its application more than 10 months ago. Announcements are expected "fairly soon" for several projects, said Ebony Meeks, an Energy Department spokeswoman. But she could not say whether USEC would be the subject of one of those announcements.

Overall, the project employs 5,700 directly or indirectly; jobs range from construction of the plant in Piketon to work on the enrichment-facility components and supplies in eight states, the company says. In Piketon, more than 600 are working, and a fully operating plant would employ about 400 for years to come.

The enrichment facility is separate from the planned nuclear-power plant that a consortium of companies recently announced. The nuclear power plant could take a decade to go online even if it gains all the necessary approvals.

USEC said this week that it expects the Energy Department to make a decision by early August on whether to grant a "conditional commitment" for the loan guarantee. But if the decision is no, or there is no decision, a demobilization plan for significantly slowing down the project will be put into effect that would "involve the partial or full halt of certain American Centrifuge project activities and plant construction," the company said.

"Even if a conditional commitment is provided by early August, demobilization may be initiated if the terms of such conditional commitment are not acceptable or if subsequent progress toward achieving actual funding later this year under the loan guarantee is not maintained," the company said.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/07/09/copy/usec08.ART_ART_07-09-09_A9_3QEE0AO.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Ohio Uranium Plant at Risk Without Federal Loan

Your tax dollars at work! Again!


Updated 12:26 PM Sunday, June 21, 2009

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A company's plans to build a uranium enrichment plant in southern Ohio are in jeopardy without a $2 billion federal loan guarantee, The Columbus Dispatch reported Sunday.

USEC Inc., based in Bethesda, Md., is developing the American Centrifuge project on the site of a former gaseous diffusion plant in Piketon, about 65 miles south of Columbus.

The company applied for the loan guarantee 10 months ago under a U.S. Department of Energy program launched by former President George W. Bush.

Without the loan guarantee, USEC won't be able to obtain private financing, company officials said.

The delay is adding to the project's overall cost, which is about $3.5 billion, USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle told The Dispatch. The company has spent about $1.4 billion so far, including the construction of a new facility.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has said he intends to speed up the process of approving loan guarantees, but only one has been issued. In late March, Chu's department signed off on a $535 million loan guarantee for a solar-panel manufacturing plant to be built by California-based Solyndra.

USEC's project, announced five years ago, is supposed to open in 2011 and employ about 400. Enriched uranium from the plant would be used in generating electricity at nuclear power plants.

Work on the plant has slowed, and the prospect of mothballing it isn't far off, said Stuckle told the newspaper. She declined to specify when the project could be shut down.

"This is a serious time issue. We cannot get enough funding absent the loan guarantee," Stuckle said.

Rob Portman, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate and a former congressman from Cincinnati whose district included Piketon, recently wrote to President Barack Obama urging that the loan guarantee be granted quickly.

Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland also wrote to Obama in March, saying that "without timely approval of the loan guarantee, the many thousands of new jobs currently being created will be delayed or perhaps lost."

Obama was supportive when he campaigned in southern Ohio last year.

The Piketon site is where the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant enriched uranium during the Cold War.

Cleanup of the site is still going on, and just last week Gov. Ted Strickland and other politicians announced plans by Duke Energy and the French nuclear energy company Areva to build a $10 billion nuclear power plant there over the next 10 years.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/ohio-news/ohio-uranium-plant-at-risk-without-federal-loan-171934.html

Uranium mining could help reduce taxes

I too am retired and on a fixed income. I don't like taxes either. But in my spare time, I've looked at every resource available to me to find evidence of just one "safe" uranium mine anywhere in the world. There is none. Why would anyone be so naive as to presume that the world's very first "safe" U mine will be at Coles Hill? Wake up, Mr. Shelton...the possibility of somewhat lower taxes versus thousands of generations of contaminated air, water, wildlife, crops, etc. and cancer-ridden humans, including children. And you're choosing this gamble to save yourself a few dollars?

From the Chatham Star-Tribune

Before these noisy anti-everything folks run off this multi-billion dollar uranium project, I'd like to point out what a great development this can be for our whole region.

It can provide solutions to the multitude of troubles that have an impact on us all.

Like a lot of people, I am retired and on a fixed income.

I worked hard throughout my life, saved money, and invested it I what seemed to be stable enterprises with little risk.

It turned out that no matter how stable you thought your investments were, they took a terrible beating in the recent economic collapse.

I know I've lost a good portion of my life's savings.

I'm too old for a new job in a mining industry, but I'm not too old to have to pay these skyrocketing taxes our supervisors keep piling on us.

These uranium people are eager to pay county taxes of all sorts, and this would be the biggest corporation we've ever had.

We need to tell them to come on and get started.

That is the smart way to reduce the tax burden on us all-especially those of us on fixed incomes.

In other words, let's tax the ones who have money instead of those of us who don't have money.

And with all the new jobs, there will be more money in our local economy and the tax burden will be spread among more people.

I'm glad the state is going to study the safety issues of uranium mining, but I can guarantee you one thing: No matter how safe it is, this crowd yelling about the dangers will just keep on yelling.

My view is that if we can get a man to the moon and back safely, we can sure extract one of God's natural resources and put it to use for mankind.

Philip Shelton

Blairs
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/05/20/chatham/opinion/opinion02.txt

Gov. Kaine Declares Hurricane Preparedness Week May 24-30; Offers Sales Tax Holiday

Hurricane preparedness in VA is so vital that Gov. Kaine has designated a special "Hurricane Preparedness Week". He is also announcing the 2nd Annual "Hurricane Preparedness Sales Tax Holiday". Given the dire statistics quoted in the article below, it's no wonder that hurricane preparedness is serious business in VA.

So...how can anyone want to throw uranium tailings into this already weather-endangered state? If uranium mining becomes a reality in Virginia, hurricane preparedness will take on a whole new meaning...preparing to keep radioactive sand in place. And since no other uranium mines are in an area related, climate-wise, to Virginia, there will be no way to advise the populace on safety measures. The governor's proclamation will be for "Hurricane Preparedness /Nuclear Avoidance Experimentation Week".

By Staff Reports on May 22nd, 2009

Governor Timothy M. Kaine has recognized May 24-30 as National Hurricane Preparedness Week and today reminded Virginians that the Commonwealth will mark its second annual Hurricane Preparedness Sales Tax Holiday from Monday, May 25, through Sunday, May 31.

“Hurricane season will soon be here and now is a good time to start thinking about what you will need if one of these devastating storms affects Virginia,” Governor Kaine said. “These tax breaks should help everyone buy the items they need to see them through the difficult days that follow the storms.”

During the sales tax holiday many items that are very useful during and after a hurricane will be exempt from the 5 percent state and local sales tax. Twenty-two items will be tax exempt, including batteries, flashlights, bottled water, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, and generators that cost $1,000 or less. A complete list of tax-exempt products and frequently asked questions is available on the Tax Department’s Web site at www.tax.virginia.gov. All Virginia retailers who sell the tax-exempt products are required by law to waive the sales tax on these items during the seven-day exemption period.

“This sales tax holiday is the perfect time to go shopping and buy tax-exempt items that will help you get through a hurricane or other large storm when there are usually power outages and other problems,” said Tax Commissioner Janie Bowen.

Since 2003, Virginia has had 49 fatalities and suffered over $2 billion in damage from storms including Hurricane Isabel, Hurricane Jeanne, and Tropical Depression Gaston. This year also marks the 40th anniversary of Hurricane Camille, which left more than 100 dead and damage of more than $1 billion in Virginia.

Governor Kaine also encouraged Virginians to take advantage of the resources available on Ready Virginia to ensure that they are prepared for a hurricane, other natural disaster, or any emergency. Ready Virginia provides information to help Virginians prepare emergency kits, make emergency plans, and stay informed in the event of an emergency.

During the sales tax holiday, retailers are also permitted to pay the sales tax themselves on any non-qualifying item or items they sell and pass the 5 percent savings on to customers. Virginia will have two additional sales tax holidays this year - for school supplies and clothing from Aug. 7-9, 2009, and for Energy Star and WaterSense products will from Oct. 9- 12, 2009.

http://www.appomattoxnews.com/2009/hurricane-preparedness-week-may-24-30.html

Energy Dept. Boosts Clean up of Uranium Tailings

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

The U.S. Energy Department has allocated $108 million in economic stimulus aid for removing the 16 million ton radioactive tailings pile on the Colorado River near Moab, Utah.

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, said Tuesday the funding commitment shows that the Energy Department is trying to meet a 2019 cleanup deadline. As recently as February, the department maintained the cleanup would not be finished before 2028, he said.

The money will help remove an extra 2 million tons of tailings by 2011 — the end of the current five-year removal contract. That will be accomplished by adding more rail cars and more rail shipments from the former Atlas Mineral Corp. site near Moab to a disposal site about 30 miles away.

Shipments are set to begin in April.

The waste is part of a Cold War legacy in Moab, where rich uranium deposits were mined during the 1950s for nuclear weapons. The Atlas Minerals Corp. bought the mill in 1962. It closed in 1984 but left behind the heap of tailings on the banks of the Colorado River.

Matheson and other lawmakers worked to convince the Energy Department that the massive pile should be moved away from the river's banks, rather than capped. The final environmental impact decision adopting that action was issued in 2005.

The overall cost of the cleanup is estimated at $1 billion.

"There is overwhelming scientific evidence that this site is unstable and that the contamination already migrating under the river towards the town of Moab could, with one major flood event, be dumped into the Colorado (River)," Matheson said in a statement.

The river is a source of drinking water for 50 million people, including residents of Arizona, California and Nevada.

Despite the legacy of the Atlas tailings pile, there has been renewed interest in uranium mining and processing, driven by speculation that efforts to combat climate change will reinvigorate the nuclear power industry.

The first application since 1988 for a uranium processing facility was filed in October with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Since then, the NRC has received at least 27 applications for facilities in Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, Arizona and New Mexico. Utah, Colorado and Texas have their own oversight agencies.

More than 1,100 uranium mining claims have been filed for sites within five miles of the Grand Canyon in recent years.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/31/state/n101516D82.DTL&type=science

McAuliffe Travels to Danville to Outline Tax Relief Plan; Mum on Mine

JEFF E. SCHAPIRO, STAFF WRITER

Richmond TIMES-DISPATCH

Published: March 24, 2009

Terry McAuliffe, a Democratic candidate for governor, says job creation shouldn't be a taxing experience for business.

Traveling yesterday to Danville, where unemployment is 16.8 percent, he outlined a pilot program under which the state would provide tax relief for firms that generate new jobs in ailing areas.

McAuliffe said Virginia should help such businesses pay their federal payroll taxes for hiring more workers or raising employees' salaries.

To qualify for the aid, he said employers must provide health insurance and carve out jobs in high-growth fields, including energy. The program could be expanded statewide as the economy improves.

"This would support job creation and higher wages for Virginia workers, and connect tax relief for businesses directly to the actual creation of more, higher-paying jobs in Virginia," McAuliffe said in a position paper.

He laid out his latest proposals during a visit to Danville, a tobacco-and-textile city hit hard by the collapse of manufacturing. He later held a conference call with reporters.

McAuliffe had little to say about a possible source of future jobs: a proposed uranium mine, west of Danville in rural Pittsylvania County.

McAuliffe said he would not take a position on the mine until a study is completed on whether the radioactive ore can be extracted without, among things, threatening water supplies.

He also declined to answer questions on whether he feared the study could be considered fair and objective if paid for by mine proponents.

McAuliffe said the next governor must help businesses find investment capital; encourage regional cooperation in economic development and expand support for small and start-up firms.

McAuliffe, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a confidant of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, is incrementally announcing elements of what he calls a "Business Plan for Virginia."

McAuliffe started this month with an energy package, followed yesterday by the business-expansion plan. Four more proposals are expected.

McAuliffe is one of three candidates for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, which will be decided in a June 9 primary. His opponents are state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds of Bath County and former Del. Brian J. Moran of Alexandria.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/state_regional_govtpolitics/article/MCAU24_20090323-221253/239140/

PittCo Board of Supervisors Explore Uranium Ban, Minerals Tax

By TIM DAVIS/Star-Tribune Editor
Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:30 AM EDT

Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors' Legislative Committee met last week to explore tightening the county's zoning ordinance and a possible ban on uranium mining.

The committee, chaired by Staunton River District Supervisor Marshall Ecker, tabled the ban, but is expected to schedule a work session with the county's attorney to determine if a ban is even possible.

"I think we need to address the issue and look at it closely and not make any hasty decisions one way or the other," said Ecker.

"Right now, I don't have a strong opinion either way. I want to look at the facts," he said.

The committee also includes Banister District Supervisor William Pritchett and Chatham-Blairs District Supervisor Henry "Hank" Davis Jr.

Davis recently pushed for a stronger resolution from supervisors on uranium mining.

The resolution, adopted unanimously last month, recommends that a state study determine uranium mining will cause "no damage or harm" to the county.

The resolution was sent to the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission's Uranium Mining Subcommittee, which is conducting a comprehensive study on the dangers and benefits of uranium mining.

The Coles Hill uranium deposit about six miles northeast of Chatham is one of the largest deposits in the United States.

The subcommittee will meet Tuesday, March 24, at 2 p.m. in Richmond to receive recommendations on the scope of the study from Dr. Michael Karmis, a professor in the Department of Mining and Minerals Engineering and director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg.

The idea for a ban on uranium mining was suggested by Karen Maute of Danville, a well-known zoning and environmental advocate.

"I brought this to the board's attention because I feel like we're losing control over our own destiny," said Maute, who cautioned against rolling out a "welcome mat" for uranium mining.

"I don't think the Coal and Energy Commission has our best interest at heart," she added. "I'd like for that to come from this board."

Maute attended last week's Legislative Committee meeting along with other uranium opponents, Eloise Nenon and Gregg Vickrey, both of Chatham.

Nenon is a founding member of Southside Concerned Citizens, which began 30 years ago when the prospect of uranium mining first surfaced.

Vickrey is chairman of a new local rights-based organization called The Alliance.

Virginia Uranium Inc., which was formed more than two years ago to mine the Coles Hill deposit, was represented by Henry Hurt and the company's lawyer, Neal Keesee.

"Our company firmly believes we're on the right track with the study," said Hurt.

Even if the Coal and Energy Commission determines uranium mining can be done safely, the General Assembly would have to lift the state's moratorium, which has been in place since 1982.

"All of these steps involve public input and public participation," said Hurt. "Some people are confused that the study gives us the go-ahead."

John Light, the county's attorney, said he doesn't know if the county has the authority to ban uranium mining.

"Whether or not the county will have the authority to prohibit uranium mining if the commonwealth lifts the moratorium ultimately depends on the manner that the moratorium is lifted, and whether the county is granted that authority by the General Assembly, either expressly or by implication," he said.

The board's chairman, Westover District Supervisor Coy Harville, said it's a state issue.

"Right now all we can do is listen," he said. "The state has a moratorium and I respect that. They have more authority than we do."

The Legislative Committee also is looking at a minerals tax for the county.

Maute said the county should consider taxing undeveloped minerals deposits, like Coles Hill, which is worth between $8 billion and $10 billion.

At present, mineral deposits are assessed with real estate by the commissioner of revenue, and the county receives little if any additional revenue on what's beneath the ground.

Ecker supports a minerals tax, but said it's not likely the county will tax anything, including uranium, unless it is mined.

Hurt pointed out the uranium is worthless unless it can be taken out of the ground.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/03/11/chatham/news/news52.txt

From PittCo. Supervisor Marshall Ecker...

From Marshall Ecker's Column in the Chatham Star-Tribune:

At the Feb. 2 board meeting, one member of the board pulled the "uranium mining study" from the agenda. Many citizens were very upset at that decision, which passed in a 4-3 vote. I can't understand why one supervisor wants to pull another supervisor's item from the agenda without hearing and discussing what that issue is about. With that action, we were not able to address several items that were added to the agenda. The uranium mining study resolution was back on the Feb.17 agenda, but it was not to the specifications of Mr. Davis, who handed out his draft of the resolution, which contained more information than what was in the board packet. Even a substitute motion to combine the two resolutions was made. After much back-and-forth discussion and some comments from citizens, whom the chairman said were out of order, the substitute motion failed, and the vote on Mr. Davis' resolution passed 7-0.

Two more items about uranium and mining were presented to the board for consideration, dealing with changing the county's Zoning Ordinance Chapter 35 and to enforce and update the county's mineral tax. I tried to have this referred to the Legislative Committee. The chairman said he would take care of this and have it referred to that committee himself. So far, I haven't heard from him. I'm the chairman of the Legislative Committee. I will be holding a Legislative Committee meeting on March 2 at 3 p.m. to go over the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 35 and the Virginia Codes on Mineral Tax and Collections.

http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2009/02/25/altavista/opinion/opinion08.txt

Two More Excellent Responses/Reactions to the Recent Pittsylvania County U Mining Resolution

From the Danville Register & Bee:

http://www.godanriver.com/gdr/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/danville_letters/article/uranium_mining_and_keeping_score/9235/

Published: February 21, 2009

By Published by The Editorial Board

Shouldn’t Va. Uranium be paying some county taxes?

To the editor:
Pittsylvania County must position itself to be the final determinant as to whether or not we agree with the findings of any and all studies regarding uranium mining and milling in our region. Neither the Coal and Energy Commission nor legislators who do not represent us should decide our fate.

Pittsylvania County’s zoning ordinance — which was enacted “for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, or general welfare of the public” — states that the Code of Virginia gives the governing body of any county the authority to regulate “the excavation or mining of soil or other natural resources.” It appears that the authority exists for the governing body to ban mining and milling of uranium in the county until studies are completed and we (citizens and local representatives) decide if the benefits outweigh the risks. If we are not satisfied that the results of the studies assure community health and well-being, we can continue the ban. It does not appear that the Dillon Rule applies here. Supervisors should take the initiative to find out.

I applaud the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors for their recent resolution which states, “no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages …” — but we can do more. We are not powerless, unless we choose to be so. ENACT A BAN!

A call for a ban on uranium mining and milling is a separate issue from a revue of the mineral tax. The ban will give us an opportunity to decide if uranium mining and milling will be a detriment to health and economy. Exploring options regarding the county’s mineral tax is altogether different.

I am not a proponent of uranium mining in Pittsylvania County. However, Pittsylvania County is undergoing a reassessment. The Code of Virginia allows mineral lands to be “specially and separately assessed.” Areas in the state and around the country levy taxes on undeveloped and/or improved mineral lands, mineral reserves, excavated ore and as mineral rights. Mineral rights can be bought and sold, like your personal property, without an ounce of ore leaving the ground. Virginia Uranium Inc. sits on top of billions in assets but has not paid a penny in mineral taxes to the county. If that proves a hardship, we can allow VUI and others a free pass on taxes if we ban the mining and milling of uranium. That being said, I’m sure VUI will put a “happy spin” on this as well.

KAREN B. MAUTE

Mount Cross

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

‘King Coy’ struck out Tuesday

To the editor:
In “County to look at uranium mining ban,” (Feb. 19, page A4), Coy Harville, chairman of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors, said Supervisor Hank Davis’ authorship of a resolution without telling the board ahead of time was “sneaky.” However, Harville said he voted for it because the resolution, when given to the Coal and Energy Commission’s Uranium Mining Subcommittee, won’t make much difference.

“It’s just a piece of paper,” Harville said.

Harville, who had initially voted for the combined resolution before supporting Davis, declined to reveal his opinion of uranium mining, saying instead there’s a statewide moratorium on the practice.

This was in response to Davis’ motion to resolve that the “study commission” must find that “no damage or harm will be done to Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens by uranium mining, as opposed to a cost-benefit approach to this issue or simply accepting minimal damages … .” Supervisor Marshall Ecker seconded Davis’ motion.

In other words, the “study commission” must find that this criterion is met conclusively and absolutely before recommending that the current moratorium on uranium mining be lifted.

As a member of the audience watching this comedy of errors, I must tell you that, in my mind, this unanimous vote nearly didn’t happen. My impression, from watching Mr. Harville, was that he found himself surprised that every hand was up in favor of Davis’ resolution. It appeared to me that, this being the case, as opposed to the usual “gang of 4” block vote — Harville, William Pritchett, James Snead and Tim Barber — that he is used to, he found himself the odd man out, so he stuck his hand up and declared a “unanimous” vote.

Harville’s inane comments recorded above proves out my impression and shows, in my mind, his complete and utter disdain for Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environment and its citizens.

It is obvious that his vote was meaningless to him! One must wonder why? It is shocking that an elected “servant” of the community would react this way!

So, other than producing a “wasted” piece of paper (by the way, as much as I hate to admit it, Harville’s statements are true), what was accomplished Tuesday night?

Tuesday night proved that people, working together for a common cause, can have control of their future and take back their inherent governing authority!

King Coy and his ilk do not rule us! They represent us! They do not, and will not, work for corporations’ interests on our dime!

Davis and Ecker deserve our thanks and support. They have helped us to achieve a major — if inadequate — step.

The next step will be to codify into law protections that will forever protect “Pittsylvania County, its businesses, institutions, environments, and its citizens.”

GREGG VICKREY

Chatham

Five U.S. Nuclear Plants on DOE Loan Short List

Wed Feb 18, 2009

By Eileen O'Grady

HOUSTON, Feb 18 (Reuters) - The field of U.S. companies competing for $18.5 billion in government-backed loans to build new nuclear plants has narrowed to five from about 14 last year, company sources said.

Officials with projects in Texas, Maryland and South Carolina confirmed they were
still in the running for a piece of U.S. Energy Department loan backing, which could be crucial to spurring the first round of nuclear plant building in more than 30 years.

NRG Energy's (NRG.N) South Texas Project units 3 and 4; Unistar Nuclear's Calvert Cliffs 3 reactor in Maryland; and SCANA Corp/Santee Cooper's two-unit expansion at the Summer station in South Carolina are among five projects still under DOE consideration, company officials said.

George Vanderheyden, president of Unistar Nuclear Energy, a joint venture of Constellation Energy (CEG.N) and EDF Group (EDF.PA) of France, said the DOE notified the company this month that it was one of five projects in the running.

"We were quite excited to reach that next step," Vanderheyden said.

Last year, developers of 14 new nuclear plants requested DOE guarantees totaling $122 billion, far exceeding the program's budget, the agency said. Several companies dropped out of the running in December, leaving at least 10 projects seeking federal support.

Nuclear power generates about 20 percent of U.S. electricity and proponents say nuclear energy is attractive because it emits none of the heat-trapping carbon dioxide and other gases spewed by fossil-fuel plants, such as coal.

"We have been notified that we are still in the running," said Mollie Gore, spokeswoman for Santee Cooper, a state-owned electric and water utility, and partner in the Summer expansion with SCANA's (SCG.N) South Carolina Electric & Gas unit.

The Summer project got a boost last week when state regulators approved SCE&G's $9.8 billion plan for two reactors.

Federal loan guarantees are expected to jump-start interest in building new reactors, after massive cost overruns during the last construction boom and the 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania left utilities hesitant to build new plants.

With a cost of $5 billion to $12 billion for each new reactor, depending on size and design, the DOE program is expected to fund only a few projects, but the guarantee is seen as critical to obtaining financing.

The DOE process will determine which new reactors get built, NRG Chief Executive David Crane said last week. "Only two or three projects will qualify. We fully expect to be one," Crane said of the $8 billion South Texas expansion.

Read the entire article here: http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1838914620090218

A $50 Billion Nuke Power Bomb Is Dropping Toward Obama's Stimulus Package

The desperate, dangerous nuclear power industry has dropped a $50 billion stealth bomb meant to irradiate the Obama Stimulus Package.

It comes in the form of a mega-loan guarantee package that would build new reactors Wall Street wouldn't finance even when it had cash. It will take a healthy dose of citizen action to stop it, so start calling your Senators now.

The vaguely worded bailout-in-advance provision was snuck through the Senate Appropriations Committee in the deep night of January 27. It would provide $50 billion in loan guarantees for "eligible technologies" that would technically include renewable sources and electric transmission. But the handout is clearly directed at nukes and "clean coal."

The Stimulus Package is explicitly meant to create jobs within the next two years. But according to sources at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, no new reactors could be licensed for construction within that time. Nor could any new coal plants. And thus the funds in this rider are to "remain available until committed." That means their "stimulus" might not go into effect for many years.

But the nuclear industry does have the ability to spend large sums of money on "site preparation" and other busy work prior to being licensed. Though the guarantees could technically be used for truly green sources such as wind and solar, the provision's backers, including Senators Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Thomas Carper (D-DE), have made it clear that this money is meant to go for new reactor construction.

In late 2007, nuclear power's Congressional Godfather, then-Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), stuck a similar $50 billion loan guarantee package into that year's energy bill. A grassroots uprising, joined by virtually all national environmental organizations, helped defeat the package. Among other things, the fight inspired a music video from Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash, Keb Mo and Ben Harper (www.nukefree.org).

In late 2008 the industry came back again with a blank check package that went down in flames along with the stock market.

Still unable to get private financing, the industry is back yet again. In the interim, the projected cost of building new reactors has soared to more than $10 billion each, and continues to climb steadily. Many of the previous generation of reactors came in hugely over budget. According to the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, one DOE study places the overall average overruns at 207%. But reactor projects such as Seabrook, in New Hampshire, New York's Shoreham, Pennsylvania's Beaver Valley, California's Diablo Canyon, and many others, far exceeded that.

The Congressional Budget Office now predicts that half the nuclear utilities using such a loan program will go into default. Some $18.5 billion in loan guarantees has already been approved, apparently for such use. But its legality is being hotly disputed, and the money has not been distributed by the Department of Energy.

Washington insiders believe this latest attempt at a pre-arranged bailout has again come from Domenici, who has stayed in Washington to lobby for his radioactive benefactors after apparently retiring from the Senate in January.

This guarantee package was not part of the Stimulus Package that passed the House. Its secretive, late night inclusion on the Senate side is reminiscent of how former Vice President Dick Cheney did business for the fossil/nuclear corporations that funded much of the Bush Administration. The reappearance of this kind of back door dealing has not been well received, especially in the House.

Numerous national groups, including the Nuclear Information & Resource Service (www.nirs.org) are providing sign-ins for sending e-mails to the Senate. They also urge that you call your Senator at 202-224-3121.

Time is fast slipping by for the nuke power industry. As the popularity of renewables and efficiency escalates, the most obvious source of new jobs and prosperity has become truly green technologies. Atomic power has long since been priced out of the market. Only massive federal and ratepayer subsidies could bring it back, to the direct detriment of the revolution in renewables.

Defeating this latest money grab will help drive another nail in the coffin of the 20th century's most expensive failed technology.. It is an essential step toward a truly green-powered future.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/31-4