nm665

YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT "GOING FOR

BROKE" IN LAST YEAR OF BUSH PRESIDENCYFFoorr oovveerr aa yyeeaarr aanndd aa hhaallff,, tthhee BBuusshh DDeepptt.. ooff EEnneerrggyy ((DDOOEE)) hhaassvvoowweedd ttoo ffiillee iittss lloonngg-ddeellaayyeedd YYuuccccaa MMoouunnttaaiinn rreeppoossiittoorryy lliicceennsseeaapppplliiccaattiioonn ttoo tthhee UU..SS.. NNuucclleeaarr RReegguullaattoorryy CCoommmmiissssiioonn ((NNRRCC)) bbyyJJuunnee 3300,, 22000088.. IIff,, aatt tthhee eenndd ooff tthhee tthhrreeee ttoo ffoouurr yyeeaarr lloonngg pprroocceeeeddiinnggtthhaatt wwoouulldd tthheenn ffoollllooww,, NNRRCC aapppprroovveess tthhee aapppplliiccaattiioonn,, tthheenn DDOOEEccoouulldd ccoonnssttrruucctt aanndd ooppeerraattee tthhee nnaattiioonnaall dduummppssiittee ffoorr iirrrraaddiiaatteeddnnuucclleeaarr ffuueell aanndd hhiigghh-lleevveell rraaddiiooaaccttiivvee wwaassttee..

(665.5851) DOE's rush to file itsapplication this year is clearly an attemptto initiate the Yucca licensing proceedingwhile the adamantly pro-dump,Republican President George W. Bushstill occupies the White House. EveryDemocratic candidate for the Oval Officehas now expressed strong oppositionagainst the Yucca dump (perhapsbecause Nevada has an earlypresidential candidates caucus, on Jan.19), while Republican candidates, likethe departing Bush, favor the dump.Thus, pro-dump forces in governmentand industry have thrown their effortsinto high gear, hoping to steamrollopponents in 2008, before an anti-dumpDemocratic President potentially entersthe White House on Jan. 20, 2009.NRC - despite claiming it will be aneutral, unbiased, and objective judge ofthe DOE's license application - hasshown its true colors in recent months.

Most significantly, in December NRC'sAtomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB)ruled against a State of Nevada motioncalling for a delay in the proceeding.Nevada argued that DOE's documentcollection in support of its proposeddump is far from complete, as requiredby law, six months before its licenseapplication. This six month period wouldserve as discovery in this highly complextechnical-legal battle, giving Nevada andother dump opponents time to studyDOE's documents and prepare legalcontentions. But despite its data basecontaining nearly four million documents,totaling over 30 million pages, DOE haswithheld many key documents. Theseinclude the final repository design, aswell as the results of its "Total SystemPerformance Assessment," a highlycomplex computer model that showsjust how bad radiation releases to theenvironment will be over time. Alsomissing are seismic analyses concerningearthquake fault lines located directlybeneath surface facilities for handlingand storing wastes. ASLB ruled inNevada's favor in 2004 when DOEattempted to initiate the licenseproceeding by filing a half-bakeddocument submission, setting Yuccaback years. But this time, ASLB tookonly a week to return a ruling againstNevada, allowing DOE to continue ontowards its June 30 goal of submitting itsapplication.

JANUARY 17, 2008 | No. 665

Latest newsOn January 14 DOE announced thatits June 30, 2008 target date forfiling the Yucca license application toNRC will not be met. This is due tobudget cuts to the program.The DOE said that it still will try toget the license application in by theend of 2008, but missing thesummer target is clearly a big deal --DOE has put a lot of devotion into itsJune 30 target date.

YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT“GOING FOR BROKE” IN LASTYEAR OF BUSH PRESIDENCY 1

URANIUM MINING ISSUES 2007REVIEW 2

U.S. CONGRESS APPROVES $18.5BILLION IN LOAN GUARANTEESFOR NEW REACOR CONSTRUCION.DIDN’T IT? 11

IN BRIEF 13

2 NUCLEAR MONITOR 665

(665.5852) WISE Uranium Project -During the first half of the year 2007,the uranium spot price climbed further,from US$72.00/lb U3O8 to anunprecedented peak of US$136.00/lb inJune (1 dollar = 0.67 euro -15 Jan.2008). It then declined - for the firsttime in 47 months - reaching a low of

$75.00/lb in October. Towards the endof the year, it recovered to US$90.00/lb.These are the price estimates given byUx Consulting Company, LLC (UxC);the estimates provided by TradetechLLC differ slightly. In spite of the tight uranium market,world uranium production decreased by

5% to 39,655 t U in 2006, due tovarious problems at producing minesand the long timespans required for thedevelopment of new mines (2007figures are not yet available). Productioncontinued to be lower than the actualdemand, the balance being supplied byvarious stockholdings.

URANIUM MINING ISSUES 2007 REVIEWFFoorr tthhee 1100tthh ccoonnsseeccuuttiivvee yyeeaarr,, tthhee NNuucclleeaarr MMoonniittoorr iiss pprroouudd ttoo ppuubblliisshh tthhee aannnnuuaall UUrraanniiuumm MMiinniinnggIIssssuueess RReevviieeww.. TThhee rreevviieewwss aarree ccoommppiilleedd bbyy PPeetteerr DDiieehhll ffrroomm tthhee WWIISSEE UUrraanniiuumm PPrroojjeecctt.. FFiirrsstt ppuubblliisshheeddiinn tthhee llaasstt iissssuuee ooff 11999988 iitt ggiivveess aann iinn-ddeepptthh oovveerrvviieeww ooff ddeevveellooppmmeennttss rreeggaarrddiinngg aallll aassppeecctt ooff uurraanniiuummmmiinniinngg:: pprriiccee,, mmiinneess,, eexxpplloorraattiioonn,, eennvviirroonnmmeenntt iissssuueess,, iinnddiiggeennoouuss ppeeooppllee,, pprroodduuccttiioonn aanndd ssoo oonn..

In November, NRC rejected - for now -Nevada's challenge that DOE and itsprimary scientific contractor, SandiaNational Labs in New Mexico (itselfclosely affiliated with DOE), is placing arushed schedule ahead of public safety.And in October, NRC rejected - for now- Nevada's objection that DOE is noweyeing Yucca for dumping 130,000metric tons of waste, nearly twice theamount allowed in the Nuclear WastePolicy Act. That law states that nomore than 70,000 metric tons of high-level waste can be buried in the firstrepository, at least until a secondrepository is opened, this time in theeastern U.S. In fact, by 2010 DOE issupposed to report to the Presidentand Congress on the need for a secondrepository. DOE has used thisimpending report to pressure easternstates and their congressionaldelegations to support the Yuccadump, lest DOE consider their state forthe second dump. Of the 70,000 metrictons of waste initially targeted at Yucca,63,000 would be commercial waste (theother 7,000 nuclear weapons waste).Ironically, that much commercial wastewill exist by 2010. Thus, Yucca willalready be full long before it could everopen. DOE still optimistically clings to a2017 to 2021 opening date, althoughskeptics even within the nuclearestablishment think opening will bedelayed beyond 2025. This wouldcontradict the NRC's "Nuclear WasteConfidence Decision" (which holds thata dump will be open by 2025), thejustification NRC uses to reject anychallenges to old or new reactoroperating licenses that have to do withhigh-level radioactive waste having noplace to go.

Dump opponents are fighting back,however. While Nevada prepares itslegal intervention against DOE beforeNRC's ASLB, U.S. Senate MajorityLeader Harry Reid (Democrat-Nevada)managed to slash Yucca's budget byover $100 million (67 million euro) inFiscal Year 2008. The Bush DOE hadrequested $494.5 million fromCongress, but Reid cut that by 22%, to$386.5 million. DOE officials respondedby warning that this may prevent themfrom actually filing the licenseapplication during Bush's remainingpresidential term. This is significant,because Democratic presidentialcandidates have pledged to kill theYucca dump once in office. How theycould actually do that if the Yuccalicensing proceeding is already underway is unclear, hence the struggle tostart, or block, the proceeding by dumpproponents, and opponents, in 2008.

Unfortunately, the omnibusappropriations bill that slashed Yucca'sbudget also contained languageordering DOE to establish "regionalinterim storage" for commercial wastesfrom shut down reactors at selectedoperating commercial reactors, DOEfacilities, or other "volunteer" sites.Such a proposal for "parking lotdumps" and the rushed initiation oflarge-scale waste transportation byroad, rail, and waterway was beatenback by over 150 environmental andpublic interest groups in late 2006.They advocated instead "Principles forSafeguarding Nuclear Waste atReactors." ( seehttp://www.citizen.org/documents/PrinciplesSafeguardingIrradiatedFuel.pdf )The nuclear utilities continue topressure the federal government to

start hauling away the wastes fromtheir reactor sites by suing for"damages," since DOE did not begintaking the wastes away in 1998 asmandated to by the Nuclear WastePolicy Act. U.S. taxpayers could pay$500 million to a billion dollars indamages each and every year for this"breach of contract," thus making thewaste dilemma highly profitable forutilities, at taxpayer expense.

On Jan. 10, scores of groupsfiled comments with DOE opposingYucca as part of the latestEnvironmental Impact Statementproceedings. Beyond Nuclearspearheaded comments (viewable atwww.beyondnuclear.org) signed by adozen national groups, as well as 68grassroots groups from 27 differentstates. In addition, comments stronglyopposing the dump were also filed byNevada, as well as such other groupsas Alliance for Nuclear Accountability,Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force,Healing Ourselves and Mother Earth,and (California's) Alliance for NuclearResponsibility. Ian Zabarte of theWestern Shoshone National Councilcharged DOE with "environmentalracism" for targeting the Indian tribe'ssacred homeland with radioactivewaste dumping, in violation of the"Peace and Friendship" Treaty of RubyValley signed by the U.S. governmentin 1863.

Sources: Las Vegas Review Journal,http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/yuccamtn/Contact: Kevin Kamps at BeyondNuclearMail: kevin@beyondnuclear Web: www.beyondnuclear.org

3NUCLEAR MONITOR 665

The number of uranium mining andexploration companies listed on theWISE Uranium Project websiteincreased by 65% from 570 to 940during the course of the year.

Uranium exploration projects

In most cases, new exploration effortsare aimed at areas where explorationwas halted after the sharp fall of theuranium price in the early 1980s. So,these efforts are mostly looking into lowgrade deposits that did not warrantfurther exploration (not even speakingof mining) during the depression of theuranium price. Therefore, useful resultslikely will be obtained in rather shorttime, which is an important factor forthe many new start-up explorationcompanies, but the development ofthese deposits is vitally dependent onthe uranium price remaining on a highlevel, and there is only little chance forthe discovery of new deposits with thisapproach.

Moratoria

In some cases, exploration even takesplace in areas where mining is notallowed. This only makes sense, if thecompanies assume that the policies ofthe respective governments will changein the near future: · In the Canadian province of Nova

Scotia, there exists a moratoriumeven on the exploration of uranium,so any company interested inuranium has to pretend to search forsome other mineral; if it finds uraniumconcentrations of more than 100ppm, it must stop its activities.Capella Resources Ltd., with itssubsidiary Tripple Uranium ResourcesInc., is currently trying to perform thisdelicate exercise, suspiciouslywatched by government andresidents. In December, the companysaid the results were still pending for9 holes drilled in the Wentworth areain July...

· In the U.S. State of Virginia, there is amoratorium on uranium mining inexistence for 25 years. This does notdeter Virginia Uranium Inc. fromstarting exploration on the Coles Hilldeposit which is said to be "thelargest known untapped uraniumdeposit in the United States".

· In Australia, the Labor Party

scrapped its long-standing ban onnew uranium mines in April; but thestate governments of West Australiaand Queensland continue theiropposition against the permitting ofnew mines. Nevertheless, companiesare intensifying their explorationefforts in these states, assuming thattheir lobbying efforts will ultimatelyresult in the states lifting their ban onnew uranium mines. Paladin EnergyLtd, owner of one half of the Valhalladeposit in Queensland, even spentA$1 billion (US$900 million) in anattempt to acquire the other half ofthe deposit (the attempt turned out tobe not a complete success, though).

New policies

The current rush for uraniumexploration licenses has put a numberof - in particular African - countries in acomfortable position: industrializednations are lining up to compete for theaccess to their uranium resources. Inview of the current rush, severalcountries are changing their policies forgranting such licenses now: · After having granted uranium

exploration licenses to a multitude ofexploration companies, Namibia, inFebruary, placed a moratorium ongranting further licenses, until a newpolicy will be developed.

· Niger, where so far uranium wasexclusively mined by subsidiaries ofAreva (based in former colonialpower France), granted newexploration licenses to a number ofcompanies from other countries, tobreak the French monopoly.

· In Uganda, President YoweriMuseveni has ordered the Ministry ofEnergy to halt giving out concessionsfor the exploitation of the newlyfound uranium deposits in thecountry.

Indigenous people

Often, uranium exploration projectsconcern indigenous people living in thearea and/or Traditional Owners of thesites. In some cases, the communitiesare divided over the expected positiveeffects of economic development vs.the anticipated environmental and long-term impacts. Many indigenouscommunities have developed a highlycritical, or at least cautious attitude

towards the projects: · In the Northwest Territories (Canada),

the Mackenzie Valley EnvironmentalImpact Review Board opposeduranium exploration proposed by Ur-Energy Inc. at the Screech Lakeproperty in the upper Thelonwatershed for adverse culturalimpacts of a cumulative nature (incombination with otherdevelopments) to areas of very highspiritual importance to aboriginalpeoples. The Federal Minister ofIndian and Northern Affairs upheldthe contested decision of the Reviewboard.

· In eastern Ontario (Canada), theAlgonquin First Nation, along withnon-natives, occupied a proposeduranium mining site in NorthernFrontenac County in June. They leftthe site only in October, afterreceiving a court injunction. Theirstruggle continues in the courts.

· In northern Québec (Canada), Inuitand environmental organizationsopposed uranium exploration andmining near the proposed KuururjuaqPark in Nunavik.

· In northern Labrador (Canada),aboriginal groups living near theproposed Michelin uranium mine siteraised concerns about the project'simpacts; Labrador Inuit pondered aban on uranium mining.

· In Nova Scotia (Canada), a nativeleader called for a permanent ban onuranium mining, fearing that theprovincial government might lift thecurrent moratorium.

· In South Dakota (USA), an OglalaSioux Tribal judge excluded auranium company from Pine Ridgereservation. Also in South Dakota, anIndian treaty rights group challengeda uranium exploration permit toPowertech Uranium Corp. in theBlack Hills. A federal judge deniedthe challenge.

· In New Mexico (USA), the Navajoscontinued their long-standing fightagainst HRI's uranium in-situ leachmine project inChurchrock/Crownpoint, by filing apetition against the project, holdingprotests at a public hearing, anddemanding a federal moratorium onuranium mining. And, also in NewMexico, the All Indian Pueblo Counciladopted a resolution againstresumption of uranium mining in the

Mt. Taylor area for cultural andenvironmental reasons.

· In Meghalaya (India), a majority at apublic hearing said no to uraniummining in the West Khasi Hills. Later,the Indian Environmental Ministrygranted environmental clearance forthe project; the decision on thelicense now is a matter of the state.

· In Andhra Pradesh (India), a tribalorganization demanded the stop of auranium mining project in Nalgondadistrict, since the project woulddeprive the Adivasis of their rightover the local natural wealth.

· In the Northern Territory (Australia),the only one Traditional Owner saidNo to any mining of Areva'sKoongarra uranium deposit inKakadu park. And, also in theNorthern Territory, Rio Tinto pledgedto wait for Traditional Owners'consent on the mining of the Jabilukadeposit.

In a few cases, though, indigenouspeople welcomed the development ofnew uranium mines, or, want to profitfrom the expected economic boost, atleast: · In Nunavut (Canada), an Inuit

organization reversed its ban onuranium mining on Inuit-owned land,allowing for Areva's Kiggavik mineproject near Baker Lake to proceed.The Baker Lake, Rankin Inlet,Repulse Bay and Arviat hamlets haveall passed motions supportinguranium development.

· In Niger, one person was killed andseveral wounded in a raid at theImouraren uranium prospectioncamp; the gunmen called for theproper implementation of a 1995accord which ended a Tuaregrebellion by promising the tribesmenpriority in jobs with local miningcompanies.

· In Western Australia, the WesternDesert Lands Aboriginal Corporationapproved uranium exploration onAboriginal land; and, the Martuaboriginal people sought stakes inpotential uranium mining projects,including Rio Tinto's Kintyre venture.

Environmental Protest

Protest from environmentalists andresidents was voiced against variousuranium exploration projects, as for

example: · the construction of a winter road for

Cash Minerals' uranium explorationproject in the Wernecke Mountains ofYukon (Canada),

· the uranium exploration permitsissued for areas regarded as cariboucalving grounds in Nunavut (Canada),

· Powertech's Centennial project innorthern Colorado (USA),

· Virginia Uranium's Coles Hill projectin Virginia (USA), and

· various uranium exploration sites inJämtland (Sweden), among others.

Applications for uranium explorationlicenses were denied in several cases:in Donegal (Ireland), in Billingen(Sweden), and at several sites inFinland.

Uranium mine developmentprojects

Since the beginning of the new uraniumboom, there has not been enough timeyet to discover and delinate any newdeposits with the reliability required forthe initiation of a mining operation. Theoperations being started now (inaddition to long planned projects)rather involve either the revival ofhistoric mining sites, or thedevelopment of known low gradedeposits so far not feasible for mining. The current rush for uranium leads tothe development of new projects incountries that do not have an adequateregulatory regime for the uraniumindustry. This does not only concerncountries, such as Malawi, that had notseen uranium mining before, but also,for example, Namibia: after decades ofongoing uranium mining in the country,the Namibian Chamber of Mines onlynow plans to develop radiation andenvironmental standards for uraniummines; apparently, Rio Tinto's Rössingmine used to be "self-regulated", so far.Particularly disturbing is the high speedat which countries such as Namibiaand Malawi are licensing new uraniummines; a process that elsewhere takesyears is completed here within months;moreover, the public involvementprocess is conducted by the applicant,rather than the regulator. This leavesonly rudimentary opportunities forstakeholder involvement. For example,there was a comment period of just twoweeks conceded for the Draft

Environmental and Social ImpactAssessment Report for Uramin'sTrekkopje Uranium Project in Namibia.Obviously, Uramin's new parentcompany Areva had no scruples abouttaking advantage of this very specialNamibian regulatory regime.But, even in countries such as theUnited States, there are effortsunderway to fast track the licensing ofnew uranium projects: the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission (NRC)prepared a Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement (GEIS) for uraniumrecovery operations, to simplify thelicensing process for in-situ leachuranium mines and for uranium mills.This proposal provoked an outrageamong environmental NGOs, and eventhe New Mexico Governor blastedNRC's efforts and called on NRC toabandon the GEIS plans. In dry areas, access to water isbecoming a major, if not the mainfactor for the development of uraniummine projects. In Namibia, local watersupplier NamWater could provide onlythe water required for Paladin's newLanger Heinrich mine. All furtheruranium mine projects will have toinstall desalination plants at the coastto meet their freshwater demand. Thedemand of 20 million cubic meters peryear for Uramin's Trekkopje mineproject alone is higher than that of allother consumers in the area combined.Concerns were raised about theimpacts of the desalination plant onsea life, and of the impacts of thenecessary pipeline on the unique lichenfields found in the area, among others.But, while the public involvementprocess still was ongoing, Uraminalready commissioned the desalinationplant. Uramin's parent company Arevanot even sees the necessity to submitto this rudimentary regulatory regime.In South Australia, water supply isbecoming an issue for the proposedexpansion of the Olympic Damcopper/uranium mine: BHP Billiton hasbeen challenged by the fishing industry,scientists and environmentalists tojustify its selection of the shallow, tidalSpencer Gulf for the massivedesalination plant. In several cases, the development ofnew uranium mine projects is proposedin areas where legacies from thehistoric uranium boom have not beencleaned up yet, or, where, at best,

reclamation has just (more or less) beencompleted, for example in Elliot Lake,Ontario (Canada), or at the AmbrosiaLake mill site, New Mexico. At Maybellin Colorado, there even were claimstakes found on the Department ofEnergy's (DOE) uranium mill tailingsdisposal site, posted by overkeenuranium prospectors; this is particularlyembarrassing for the DOE, as thetailings pile was meant to have beenmanaged to assure safe disposal for aperiod of 1000 years.Further examples are in Pécs, Hungary,where Australian-owned WildHorseEnergy wants to restart uranium miningin a former Cold War era uraniumdistrict, and the Sierra Pintada mine atSan Rafael in Mendoza, Argentina,where stakeholders are demanding thatthe legacy of the former miningoperation is cleaned up first, before anynew mining can be allowed.

Current development projects

In Canada, the development of thefollowing mine projects is underway orbeing prepared: · In Nunavut, Areva and its joint

venture partners decided to proceedwith the feasibility study and toinitiate the approval process for theirKiggavik mine project near BakerLake.

· In Saskatchewan, the EnvironmentalAssessment process for the Midwesturanium mine project is continuing;the project partners decided toproceed with the development of theproject. The production startup datefor Cameco's Cigar Lake uraniummine was further delayed to 2011, atthe earliest, due to the flooding of themine after water inflow. Areva andUEX Corp. plan a 950 m deepexploration shaft at Shea Creek. TheCanadian Nuclear SafetyCommission (CNSC) approved theEnvironmental AssessmentGuidelines for the proposed mining ofthe new Caribou ore body at theexisting McClean Lake mine.

· In Ontario, Pele Mountain advancedthe Mine Planning Studies on itsElliot Lake mine project, and DenisonMines Inc. considers reopening of itsElliot Lake mines.

In the United States, first licenseapplications for new in-situ leachuranium mines have been filed with the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)after almost two decades: · In Wyoming, Energy Metals Corp.

submitted a license application forthe Moore Ranch in-situ leachuranium project. Ur-Energy Inc.submitted a license application forthe Lost Creek uranium in-situ leachmine. Uranerz Energy Corp.submitted a license application toconstruct and operate the NicholsRanch and Hank in-situ leachuranium facilities. COGEMA Mining,Inc. (now Areva NC Inc.) requestedthe reversal of the license for itsIrigaray/Christensen Ranch in-situleach facilities from decommissioningto operating status.

· In Texas, a subsidiary of EnergyMetals Corp. filed a licenseapplication for its La Palangana in-situ leach uranium mine. UraniumEnergy Corp. submitted a minepermit application for the Goliaduranium in-situ leach mine. Earlier,the company had received a noticeof violation for failure to reclaim itsuranium exploration drill sites.

Further plans to submit licenseapplications for uranium mines in theU.S. have already been announced: · Powertech Uranium Corp. initiated

the permitting process for itsCentennial in-situ leach and/or openpit uranium mine project (Colorado).

· Public scoping was held for EnergyFuels Resources Corp.'s proposedreopening of the Whirlwind uraniummine (Colorado). A decision on theproject is anticipated in the firstquarter of 2008.

· Strathmore filed a Notice of Intent tofile a license application for the RocaHonda uranium in-situ leach mineand/or conventional mine and millproject (New Mexico).

· Strathmore initiated the permittingactivities for the Sky in-situ leachproject (Wyoming).

· Uranium Power Corp. commissioneda preliminary feasibility study for theproposed reopening of the SheepMountain mine (Wyoming).

· Wildhorse Energy Ltd announced thereceipt of a positive Scoping Studyfor its Bison Basin uranium in situ-leach project (Wyoming).

· The U.S. NRC held a hearing onPowertech Uranium Corp.'sDewey/Burdock in-situ leach uranium

mine project (South Dakota).Powertech Uranium Corp. apparentlyplans to mine the Dewey/Burdockuranium deposit by the acid in-situleach technique. This would be thefirst commercial ISL site to be minedwith acid in the United States.Groundwater restoration after acidicin-situ leaching is even morechallenging than after carbonate in-situ leaching.

Uranium ore mined in conventionalmines has to be processed in auranium mill to extract the uranium. Atpresent, there is only one uranium millactive in the USA, Denison Mines'White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah;intermittently, it processes smallbatches of ore and of alternate feedmaterial. In view of the new uraniumboom, Denison now offered toll millingservices for smaller uranium mines, but,in spite of the high market price foruranium, the cost turned out to beprohibitive for many potentialcustomers, mainly for the hightransport cost from the remote minesto the mill. Therefore, several proposalsare now being made for the reopeningof the idle and mothballed mills still inexistence, and even for theconstruction of new uranium mills: License applications for new uraniummills filed in the U.S.: · Uranium One Inc. filed a license

application and environmental reportfor the reopening of the ShootaringCanyon (Utah) uranium mill it hadacquired from U.S. Energy Corp.earlier. Later, Uranium One Inc. evenacquired the whole Ticaboo townsitenear the idle mill.

Further plans to submit licenseapplications for uranium mills in theU.S. have been announced: · Rio Tinto has decided to withdraw

the Sweetwater (Wyoming) uraniummill from sale in order to re-evaluatewhether it should be retained anddeveloped.

· Energy Fuels Inc. announced theintention to construct the new PiñonRidge uranium mill west of Naturita(Colorado). Energy Fuels Inc. franklyhailed the fast-tracking of thelicensing process by State regulatorColorado Department of PublicHealth and Environment (CDPHE)rather than having to deal with the

federal Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC); Colorado is anAgreement State, to which NRCrelinquishes the authority to licenseuranium mills.

· Anderson Mining Company isplanning a new uranium mill for theAnderson mine in western Arizona.

· Rio Grande Resources Corp. plans anew uranium mill project in theGrants Mineral District (New Mexico).

· Uranium Resources, Inc. plans toacquire the former Ambrosia Lakeuranium mill site to construct a newuranium mill (New Mexico).

In addition, the following miningpermits have been issued in the U.S.: · An operating permit granted for the

Tony M uranium mine in Ticaboo,Utah, and

· a permit for the Reynolds Ranchuranium in-situ leach site as asatellite facility of Smith Ranch-Highland Uranium Project (Wyoming),among others.

In Mendoza, Argentina, the wineproducers of San Rafael summoned aninvestigation on the impacts of theproposed Sierra Pintada uranium mineon their product; later, a judgeprohibited works preparing productionat the mine site.Calypso Uranium Corp. filed claim toset aside an anti-mining law inMendoza Province.Thousands protested in the city ofTinogasta to protest against uraniummining projects in the west ofCatamarca province. In the Czech Republic, a demonstrationwas held against the proposed miningof the Osecná-Kotel uranium deposit inNorth Bohemia. The proposed mining of theKurišková/Jahodná uranium mineproject in Slovakia promptedGreenpeace to hold a protest action atTournigan Gold Corp.'s annual meetingin Vancouver, Canada. In Hungary, the Environment Ministryraised concern over the proposed re-opening of mines in Southern Hungary. Ukraine plans to develop theNovokonstantinovskoye uranium field. In the Central African Republic, Areva'ssubsidiary UraMin Inc. plans to buildthe Bakouma uranium mine. In Namibia, Paladin's Langer Heinrichuranium mine was officially opened in

March.Areva's subsidiary Uramin Inc. plans tomine the Trekkopje deposit by shallowopen pit mining in combination withheap leaching. A draft version of theEnvironmental and Social ImpactAssessment Report for TrekkopjeUranium Project was made available forcomment.Forsys Metals Corp. plans to mine theValencia deposit in a giant open pitmine; the mining license applicationwas lodged in November.A scoping study confirmed the viabilityof a large scale uranium mine atBannerman Resources Ltd'sGoanikontes deposit.Extract Resources Ltd. announced apositive preliminary scoping study forthe Ida Dome prospect, for which noteven a mineral resource has beendefined. In Malawi, Paladin obtained a mininglicense for the Kayelekera uraniummine project. Several NGO's filed legalaction against the mine project andcalled for a halt of the minedevelopment, until the legal challengesare concluded. Zambia plans to open a uranium minein Siavonga, Southern Province. A pre-feasibility study started on the NjameNorth uranium mine project. In Niger, a Chinese-owned miningcompany was granted a mining licensefor the Azelik uranium deposit, and anIndian company was granted a uraniumexploration and mining permit in theArlit region. In DR Congo, Brinkley Mining PLCsigned a contract for a uraniumexploitation venture. In South Africa, processing of uraniumcommenced at the Dominion Reefsproject; Areva's subsidiary Uramin Inc.plans to build the Ryst Kuil uraniummine; DRDGold formed a Joint Ventureto reopen idle gold mines to dig foruranium; production from FirstUranium's Ezulwini mine is expected tobegin in June 2008; and Harmony Goldannounced to revive uraniumproduction at the Cooke Section mine,Randfontein. In Andhra Pradesh (India), the uraniummine and mill at Tummalapalle,Cuddapah, received approval. In Jharkhand, Uranium Corporation ofIndia (UCIL) sought police help asdisplaced people disrupted work at theBandugurang open pit uranium mine

project. The Bandugurang mine and theTuramdih uranium mill wereinaugurated, and the capacity of theJaduguda uranium mill was increasedby 74%.In Meghalaya, road blockades and a36-hour general strike were heldagainst a proposed uranium mine. InDecember, the project was grantedenvironmental clearance; the finaldecision is to be issued by the state. Pakistan prepared a $600 million planfor exploring and mining uraniumdeposits. In Russia, Techsnabexport announcedto develop 8 uranium deposits in SouthYakutia; uranium mining at the Elkondeposit in Yakutia is to start in 2012-13. In Kazakhstan, pilot production was tobegin at the West Mynkuduk in-situleach uranium mine project. In South Australia, Curnamona EnergyLtd. announced a field leach trial at itsOban property; the startup of theHoneymoon in-situ leach uranium minewas delayed further; and a PreFeasibility Study and EnvironmentalImpact Study was commissioned forthe proposed Mt Gee uranium mine. In Western Australia, Rio Tinto beganwork on a new pre-feasibility study forthe Kintyre uranium mine project. In Queensland, development studies ofthe Ben Lomond mine projectcommenced; a scoping study showedthe economical viability of theWestmoreland uranium mine project; aSino-Australian company joineduranium exploration projects inQueensland.

Alternate uranium recoveryprojects

Uranium ore is not the only resourcesuitable for extraction of uranium.Another resource are various wastematerials generated by the nuclearindustry, as they continue to beprocessed by Denison Mines' WhiteMesa uranium mill in Utah (USA).Kennecott now also plans to processsuch "alternate feed material" at itscurrently idle Sweetwater mill inWyoming, but was denied the right tostore such material on site for laterprocessing, without licenseamendment. While such alternate feed processingcontinued during the depression of theuranium market, a number of other

resources are now gaining attention, asthe market price has increased: One of them is uranium contained inphosphate rock. There used to be anumber of uranium extraction plantsassociated with phosphoric acidproduction plants in the U.S. (in Floridaand Louisiana), but all of these becameunviable with the decline of the uraniumprice and have been shut down anddismantled. Meanwhile, Florida'sphosphate industry is studying thefeasibility of a resumption of uraniumextraction from phosphate rock. And,French nuclear firm Areva announcedto study the feasibility of uraniumextraction from phosphates inMorocco. Indústrias Nucleares doBrasil (INB) plans to mine the SantaQuitéria deposit in Ceará state (Brazil),for phosphate and uranium; for theproject to become viable, INB needs toget a uranium export clearance, sincethe uranium production would exceedthe domestic demand. Another resource for uraniumconsidered from time to time are thegold tailings in South Africa. Duringtimes of a high uranium price, uraniumused to be extracted as a by-product inthe South African gold mines, butduring the depression of the uraniummarket, the uranium recovery circuitswere mostly shut down. So, most ofthe uranium went to the tailings damsin the last years, but their uraniumconcentrations still are very low.Therefore, earlier assessments showedthat a uranium extraction from thosetailings would not be viable; but now,the situation has changed: AngloGoldoffered to process waste containinguranium for rivals; Mintails announcedan inferred uranium resource forrecovery from the West Rand goldtailings; DRDGold Ltd announced"encouraging" uranium concentrationsin the Blyvooruitzicht gold tailings;Harmony Gold announced to initiate re-mining of the tailings dams in theRandfontein area for uranium and gold,consolidating the tailings in a new"megatailings" dam; First UraniumCorp. announced to immediately startconstruction of a uranium recoveryplant from the Buffelsfontein tailings;and, Mintails Ltd and DRDGold Ltdannounced a Joint Venture project foruranium recovery from the East Randgold tailings. Uranium mine waste rock as a further

resource for uranium recovery is beinginvestigated by Uran Ltd at the Príbramuranium mine waste dumps in theCzech Republic. The recovery of uranium from coal ashis being tested by Sparton ResourcesInc. in China, and, in a Joint Venturewith Wildhorse Energy Ltd, in Hungary.

Issues at operating uraniummines

Life extension of operating uraniummines

In view of the high market price foruranium, further mining of low gradeores has become viable at severalexisting mines that otherwise werescheduled for shutdown for exhaustionof the ore deposit: The Czech cabinet has approved thecontinuation of uranium mining at theRo�ná mine for as long as it will beprofitable, which might be until 2012,according to the latest estimates. In Namibia, Rio Tinto extends theRössing mine life further to 2021. In Australia's Northern Territory, EnergyResources of Australia (ERA) plans toextend the mine life of the Ranger mineto 2012.

Planned production increases atoperating uranium mines

In addition, production increases areplanned at many existing mines: Cameco announced that it is targetingto increase the combined production atits Crow Butte (Nebraska) and SmithRanch-Highland (Wyoming) in-situleach operations by 70% to 1,769 t Uannually by 2011. The plannedproduction increase requires the restartof the idle Highland uranium recoveryplant. Cameco already receivedpermission for an increased plantthroughput at its existing Crow Buttein-situ leach mine. For the proposedexpansion of the same mine, however,the State denied the required aquiferexemption, and seven petitioners filedfor hearing. For a proposed in situleach satellite facility at Smith Ranch,the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) issued an EnvironmentalAssessment. Indústrias Nucleares do Brasil (INB)plans to double production from theCaetité uranium mine (Bahia) to 800 t

by 2011. Ukraine plans to achieve self-sufficiency in uranium by boostingannual uranium production from thecurrent 800 tons to 2,500 tons by 2013. Niger plans to triple its annual uraniumproduction from 3,500 to 10,500 tonnesa year in the next few years. In Namibia, Rössing raises its annualproduction target to 4,500 t U3O8(3,816 t U). Kazakhstan planned to increaseuranium production by 31% to 6,937tons in 2007 from the previous year.Cameco and Kazatomprom announcedto double the future production of theInkai in-situ leach mine to 4,000 t U "ona timeframe to be confirmed". In Russia, the Dalmatovskoye in-situleach mine plans to double the annualuranium production to 640 metric tonsby 2010. Uranium production in theKrasnokamensk area is to be raisedfrom 3160 to 5000 t/a U in 2015. In South Australia, BHP Billitonconsiders export of unsmelted OlympicDam copper/uranium concentrate toChina: In view of the huge cost of theplanned expansion of the Olympic Dammine on the one hand, and of China'sexpected serious over-capacity ofcopper processing on the other hand,BHP has asked the AustralianGovernment to approve the export ofuranium-bearing copper concentrate toChina. Export of the concentrate ratherthan copper metal would mean thatBHP would have to expand theOlympic Dam mine only, but not theon-site smelter. BHP would directlyship up to 1.2 million tons of OlympicDam copper concentrate a year, ratherthan convert the ore into metal at themine site. This concentrate wouldcontain up to 2,500 tons of uraniumeach year. It is not yet clear whetherBHP would propose, or be required, torepatriate that uranium. Any sale of theuranium to China's nuclear industrywould first require the finalization of thebilateral safeguards agreement which ispart of the Australia-China NuclearTransfer Agreement signed in April2007.

Production setbacks experienced atoperating uranium minesDue to a number of technical issues,Areva had to lower the 2007 productionestimate for the McClean Lake mine(Saskatchewan) to 692 t U, a reduction

from the previously reported level of846 - 1154 t U.In November and December, mining atRabbit Lake (Saskatchewan) had to beslowed down due to increased waterinflow. A fire at a sulfuric acid plant affecteduranium production in Kazakhstan's in-situ leach uranium mines in Novemberand December. In India, a delay in commissioning ofthe Jaduguda (Jharkhand) millexpansion lead to further fuel shortageat India's nuclear power plants. Heavy rainfall stopped uranium miningat Ranger (Northern Territory, Australia)in March.

Environmental issues at operatinguranium mines

At Cotter Corp.'s idle Cañon Cityuranium mill in Colorado (USA), thestate identified a potential leak at thetailings impoundment. An earlier stateruling to deny Cotter's bid to importwaste for direct disposal at theimpoundment was upheld by a FederalJudge.A major 751 cubic meter spill ofinjection fluid occured at Cameco'sHighland in-situ leach uranium mine(Wyoming).A 44 cubic metre spill of deep disposalwell fluid occurred at Cameco's SmithRanch in-situ leach site (Wyoming).The Texas Commission onEnvironmental Quality issued an AgreedOrder over a penalty of $2,000 toMesteña Uranium LLC for failing tosecure acceptable financial assurancefor its Alta Mesa in-situ leach uraniummine. In Niger, NGOs demanded theimmediate removal of radioactivematerial found in the streets of Akokan;the material is most likely waste rockfrom Areva/COMINAK's nearby Akoutauranium mine reused for roadconstruction. In South Africa, the National NuclearRegulator withheld a report on seriouscontamination of water and food fromgold/uranium mining activities inGauteng. A Water Research Commission reportconfirmed that South Africangold/uranium mines are causingexcessive uranium concentrations instreams and stream sediments.In December, a stormwater dam failed

at the Dominion Reefs uranium mine,spilling about 100,000 cubic meters ofwater. In the Krasnokamensk area in Russia,resettlement is planned of 2,000residents from the ecologicallyhazardous Oktyabrskoe settlementlocated right over the uranium mine ofthe Priargun enterprise uranium mine. In India, NGOs filed a petition seekingan investigation into a tailings pipelineburst that occured at the Jadugudauranium mine (Jharkhand) in December2006.In July, a Yellow Cake truck overturnedin Andhra Pradesh.

Other Issues at operating uraniummines

In Niger, uranium miner Areva cameunder fire from different sides: · Tuareg rebels attacked a power plant

in the uranium mining area; · the Head of Areva Niger was expelled

from the country; · a Niger civil society claimed US$ 640

million from Areva in damages; and, · in September, hundreds marched

against Areva.

Abandoned mines

The cleanup of abandoned uraniummine and mill sites continued at thevery familiar unbearably low pace,delayed for decades, with ridiculousbudgets, and covering only a minusculefraction of the sites in question.There was, however, one event thatmade a difference in 2007: on October23, 2007, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Committee onOversight and Government Reform helda Hearing on the Health andEnvironmental Impacts of UraniumContamination in the Navajo Nation.The Committee was utterly appalled bythe obvious incompetence of theinvolved federal agencies (EPA, DOE,NRC, IHS, BIA) to deal with the legacyleft from historic uranium mining onNavajo land, although the situation isnotorious for decades ("We do pay you,don't we?"). The Committee urged theagencies to tackle the problem withoutfurther delay and to identify any areaswhere Congressional action may berequired. In the Northwest Territories (Canada), acontract was awarded for remediation

work at the former Port Radium mine.Canada's Government and theProvince of Saskatchewan announcedthe first phase of the cleanup ofSaskatchewan's abandoned uraniummine sites. The clean-up project is toaddress the issue of "Cold War legacymines," which were small, short-termmining operations conducted in the1950s and 1960s primarily in thevicinity of Uranium City in northernSaskatchewan.The Canadian EnvironmentalAssessment Agency announced thecommencement of an environmentalassessment for the Former GunnarMine Site Rehabilitation Project inSaskatchewan. In South Dakota (USA), a one-man"occupation" of Slim Buttes protestedthe slow clean-up of old uranium minesin the area.In New Mexico, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) started theclean-up of residential propertiescontaminated from the former ChurchRock and Northeast Church Rockuranium mines. In Germany, the reclamation of theabandoned Lengenfeld uranium milltailings site in Saxony was announcedto start with a 4-year delay in 2009; thisis one of the Wismut legacy sites thatwere not covered by the major federalcleanup program of the former Wismutsites. In Kazakhstan, reclamation of twosections of the Koshkar-Ata uraniummill tailings dam was to begin inNovember and would last 20 months. NATO announced to help Kyrgyzstan inthe realization of five projects on themanagement of uranium tailingsdumps. In Zambia, a study was commissionedon environmental and health hazardsfrom waste dumps of former uraniummining in the Kitwe area. So far, 600people who were living near theuranium dumps have been resettledelsewhere. An International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) program is assisting Tajikistan toassess the impact of millions of tons ofuranium tailings in abandoned sites.The tailings sites, a potential source ofradioactive and heavy metal pollution,are the legacy that has accumulated inthe region over five decades ofoperation of uranium mines and millswithout proper environment

management programs in place. Someof the 10 abandoned uranium milltailings sites are sited near towns andvillages. All of them are in the north ofTajikistan. In Taboshar, a former centerof uranium mining and milling, a hill ofmore than one million tons of processresidue tailings lies unprotected,vulnerable to erosion by wind and rain.Animals drink from pools of water thatgather at the foot of the hill whenseasonal rains fall, and children playaround it. Some material from thetailings sites has also been used inhome construction.

Decommissioning issues

Two examples of unexpected securitybreaches at uranium mill tailingsdeposits were reported in the U.S.Though not posing an immediatehazard, they once again show thedifficulty of assuring the security of aradioactive waste deposit in the longterm, since security breaches tend tocome from unexpected directions: · At the Burrell tailings disposal site

(Pennsylvania), a beaver dam had tobe removed; the dam caused waterto back up, jeopardizing the integrityof the deposit.

· On July 2, 2007, a Washington statehelicopter fighting a wildfire nearLong Lake dumped an estimated1.67 cubic meters of water scoopedfrom Dawn Mining Co.'s unreclaimedFord uranium mill tailings pond. Thepond is "clearly marked on theground" with warning signs, saidDonn Moyer, spokesman for theWashington Department of Health.But such signs would be practicallyimpossible for a helicopter pilot toread, especially during a firefightingmission. "You wouldn't anticipate anaerial breach of security," he said.

At the Shirley Basin South uranium milltailings disposal site (Wyoming), it wasfound that Radium-228 exceeds thealternate concentration limits ingroundwater. The cause for thisoccurrence has not been determined. The Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry (ATSDR) released areport about the health hazards at theformer Midnite Mine Site (Washington).The report found no public healthhazard, unless the site use wouldchange to residential.

The never-ending story of themanagement of the Moab uranium milltailings (Utah) experienced anothertwist, when in February it becameknown that the planned relocation ofthe 10-million t tailings pile away fromthe bank of the Colorado river couldspan more than 20 years, since theU.S. Government hasn't madesufficient funds available. In addition,the U.S. Department of Energy raisedits cost estimate for the relocation tothe range of $635 - $835 million. Cameco sought approval for abioremediation test for groundwaterrestoration at its Crow Butte in-situleach mine (Nebraska). So far,bioremediation has not been used forthis purpose on a commercial scale. In Arizona, contaminated groundwaterfrom a radioactive waste dump nearTuba City was found to be migratingtowards a Hopi drinking water spring; achemical analysis has linked wastefound in the dump to byproducts of auranium mill formerly located a fewmiles from Tuba City; the Departmentof Energy had previously dismissed anysuch link. The New Mexico EnvironmentDepartment was unable to raise fundsfor well testing required to proveelevated contaminant concentrationsfound in residential wells near Grantsare attributable to former uraniummining activities in the area. In turn,residents living downstream from theHomestake Grants uranium mill tailingssite have formed the Bluewater ValleyDownstream Alliance to emphasizetheir demand for a restoration of thecontaminated groundwater in the area. A pilot study to improve groundwaterrestoration at the Church Rock uraniummill tailings site by injection of alkalinityended unsuccessful. The Texas Department of State HealthServices issued an Agreed Order toEverest Exploration Inc. imposing a$2,500 penalty on violations at theHobson in-situ leach decommissioningsite. In Argentina, the National Commissionof Atomic Energy (CNEA) began repairworks at the effluent ponds of theformer Sierra Pintada uranium mine inMendoza. In France, a so-called "pluralist expertgroup" released a first report on theuranium mill tailings deposits in theLimousin area. The group had been

appointed by the ministries of theEnvironment, Health and Industry. In itsfirst report, the group mainly looked atthe Bellezane uranium mill tailingsdeposit. The group recommends todevelop a better understanding of thesite hydraulics, to search for possiblediffuse sources of contamination, andto conduct a quantitative assessmentof the efficiency of the tailings cover,among others.An unannounced sampling of effluentsby the DRIRE agency found noexceeding of standards at formeruranium mine sites in the Limousinarea. The independent laboratory CRIIRADidentified elevated radiation levels atseveral public locations around thereclaimed site of the former open pituranium mine and uranium mill at StPierre du Cantal. In Germany, the relocation of Wismut'slandmark waste rock piles in theRonneburg area in Thuringia wascompleted. The former Wismut uraniummining area in Ronneburg became asite of the 2007 German federal gardenfestival. The almost completedreclamation effort in the area still leftsome problems unresolved, though: attimes of wet weather, contaminatedwaters from the flooded undergrounduranium mines in the Ronneburg areawere found to reach the surface andspill into surface waters. Due to varioustechnical problems, Wismut GmbHcurrently is not capable of treating thewater nor keeping the groundwaterlevel at a lower level (in order to avoidfurther spills). The NGOs SHERPA, CRIIRAD andMédecins du Monde presented theresults of an investigation into thehealth and environmental situation atAreva/COGEMA's former Mounanauranium mine in Gabon. Theydenounced the follow-up of the healthof the former miners, as well as thereclamation done at the site, asinadequate. In South Africa, windblown dust stillpresents an issue at Harmony Gold'sRandfontein gold/uranium mill tailings;the intermediate dust suppressionmeasures taken improved the situationsomewhat, but a real solution requiressome long-term measure.

Miners' and residents' healthissues

Medical reports of the RegionalGovernment of Andalusia (Spain)dismissed claims that the radiationdoses received by the former Andújaruranium mill workers were the cause oftheir diseases. A cohort mortality study conductedamong residents near the formerUravan uranium mill in Colorado (USA)found no increased mortalityattributable to environmental radiationexposures above natural backgroundassociated with the uranium milloperations. A new study found that drinking waterwith uranium below U.S. EPA waterstandard causes estrogen receptordependent responses in female mice.The authors conclude that their datasupports the conclusion that uranium isan endocrine disrupting chemical andpopulations exposed to environmentaluranium should be followed forincreased risk of fertility problems andreproductive cancers.

Uranium trade and foreigninvestment issues

Uranium supply and demand

China says its domestic uraniumdeposits are sufficient by 2020 only.Imports are needed, as China'suranium demand is to rise sixfold by2020. The fuel shortage at India's nuclearpower plants is worsening further: Fiveof the 17 nuclear power plants in thecountry had been shut down and theremaining are operating at an averageof less than 50 per cent capacity forlack of fuel.

Uranium import restrictions

The U.S. Department of Commerce(DOC) released a draft agreementallowing for limited uranium importsfrom Russia; so far, such imports hadbeen restricted to protect the U.S.uranium industry.Russia demanded the European Union(EU) to drop its policy of importing notmore than 25% of its uraniumrequirements from Russia. The EU hadintroduced this quota to ensure supplydiversification, among others.

Uranium export restrictions

Ukraine suspended uranium exportsafter failing to fill up its national reserveto the required 2,400 t. The South African governmentconsiders compelling local miners tooffer uranium first to the state to feedthe country's expanding nuclear energyprogram. Australia and China ratified agreementson nuclear cooperation and uraniumexports to China, heavily opposed byAustralian NGOs. Australia signed an agreement foruranium exports to Russia, in spite of anuclear weapons proliferation risk.Australia made further moves to selluranium to non-NPT signatory India; aformal agreement has not beenannounced yet, however. Pakistan saidthat it wants Australian uranium, too, ifIndia should get it.

Uranium trade, general

The European Union pointed out that itwants a share of Australia's futureuranium sales, rather than be closedout of the billion dollar market by Chinaand India. It is arguing that Europe, asa strong supporter of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is a reliableconsumer of uranium compared withother countries. Somalia offered export of uranium toRussia. Areva's subsidiary UraMin Inc.,developer of the Trekkopje mine inNamibia, plans to sell 35% of its futureuranium output to China.BHP Billiton considers the export ofunsmelted Olympic Damcopper/uranium concentrate to China(see above). Japan signed an agreement withKazakhstan for procurement of 30% ofits uranium demand.

Foreign mining investment andcooperation

In view of the tight uranium market,several large consumers, or potentiallarge consumers felt that it is advisableto not only buy uranium on the market,but also to invest into foreign uraniumexploration and mining projects: Russia is to help Ukraine to develop theNovokonstantinovskoye uranium field.Russia enters a uranium mining jointventure in Armenia.

Russia and Mongolia are to jointlyprospect, produce, and processuranium. Russia and Canada agreed on jointuranium prospecting.Russian firms formed a Joint Ventureand signed a memorandum to produceuranium in Namibia. Chinese-owned mining companySOMINA was granted a mining licensefor the Azelik uranium deposit in Niger. China is to get a stake in a uraniummine in Kazakhstan. Sino-Australian company DragonEnergy Ltd joined uranium explorationprojects in Queensland (Australia).China's Sinosteel Corporation wasgiven green light for investment in anAustralian uranium explorationcompany. Indian company Taurian Resources PvtLtd. was granted a uranium explorationand mining permit in Niger. India's Reliance Industries joineduranium exploration projects inAustralia. South Korea and Ukraine signed anagreement on nuclear cooperation anddevelopment of uranium deposits.Korea Electric Power Co is toparticipate in the development of theValencia uranium mine in Namibia. Russia and South Korea consider auranium production Joint Venture. Japanese Sumitomo Corp. (notoriousfor the 1999 Tokai criticality accident) isto join the development of the RocaHonda uranium mine project in NewMexico (USA).Japanese Itochu Corporation is willingto develop a uranium mine in Namibia. Japanese utilities acquired an indirectparticipation in the Kharasan uraniummine project in Kazakhstan. Furthermore, some current uraniumminers committed to assist newcomersto develop their own uranium miningindustries: Kazakhstan assists Jordan withdevelopment of uranium deposits. India is to assist Vietnam with uraniumore processing technology.

The 2007 and all other annual uraniummining reviews can be found at: http://www.wise-uranium.org/uissr07.htmlSource and contact: Peter Diehl at theWISE Uranium Project

(665.5853) NIRS - Compromiselegislation written late at night on aweekend just before a holiday break, asthe final loan guarantee language in theCongress' omnibus appropriations billwas, is rarely perfect. In this case, thelegislation as passed will raisequestions well into the new year. Andany nuclear utility expecting Uncle Samto co-sign on a blank loan check in thenext few months had better re-thinktheir plans: this battle isn't over.

Here is what Congress did do: theomnibus appropriations bill includedstatutory language allowing theDepartment of Energy (DOE) to handout loan guarantees for energy projects.Never mind that DOE probably alreadyhad that authority.

In its report accompanying thelegislation, Congress recommendedspecific dollar amounts for loanguarantees for various energytechnologies, and an implementationprocess. The report states thatCongress recommends that DOEdistribute a total of $38.5 billion in loanguarantees, broken down to include$18.5 billion for new reactorconstruction; $2 billion for the "frontend of the nuclear fuel cycle," whichmeans the proposed USEC uraniumenrichment plant in Ohio; $6 billion for"clean coal" technologies, $2 billion forcoal-to-liquid technologies, and $10billion for a grab bag of renewableenergy, energy efficiency, anddistributed energy systems.

Compare those numbers to the BushAdministration's original request, whichasked for a total of $9 billion for allenergy technologies. The nuclearindustry didn't like that number, andwanted $50 billion over two years foritself. By the end, the administrationwas happy to provide more than 4times the amount it recommended-it

probably would have gone for the full$50 billion, and Congress was happy toauthorize more than anyone consideredpossible at the beginning of the year,even while it was supposed to be avictory for environmentalists thatCongress cut the industry's request bymore than half. Out of such victories dodefeats become legendary.

But in its report, Congress also requiresthe DOE to submit a loan guaranteeimplementation plan to the Senate andHouse Appropriations Committees atleast 45 days before awarding anyguarantees, and the language requiresapproval of the plan by bothCommittees before any money can behanded out.

So there are two huge problems. One isthat the statutory language--the legallanguage signed by President Bush-doesn't specify any money for the loanguarantee program, nor how it shouldbe spent. The other is that the reportlanguage doesn't have the force of law,although it does, by precedent,establish the intent of Congress.

One view is that all this means thatDOE can co-sign loans for any amountit wants for any technology it wants.That might be literally true, althoughany DOE administrator who would trythat likely would find his/her funding cutoff pretty quickly. Another view is thatCongress' action means that DOE stillhas a lot of hoops to go through beforeit can guarantee anything. Adding tothis second view is that DOE has notyet had to "offset" loan guaranteeexpenditures. Under the Democratic-controlled Congress, new expenseshave to be "offset" by reductions inother expenses. While the loanguarantees aren't technically expenses(until a utility defaults on a loan-thenthe taxpayer has to eat the loss), thereare expenses involved in operating the

program--and those expenses have notyet been offset, meaning that DOE mayhave to cut its budget in other places ifit wants to hand out loan guarantees.

Another problem is that no utilities areyet in a position to be able to use loanguarantees for new reactorconstruction. The first licenseapplications for new reactors have onlyrecently been submitted, no hearingshave even yet been held, and noreactor construction can begin for atleast another three years and probablylonger. So any guarantees forconstruction costs are extremelypremature. Why, for example, shouldDOE co-sign a loan for a utility that forwhatever reason may not even receivea license, or may choose not to buildeven if it does receive a license? Andgiven that there is a limited amount ofguarantee authority available, whyshould DOE agree to a guaranteewithout an assurance the project willproceed, since by doing so it would betying up money that could go toanother project?

And if the Appropriations Committeesdecide they don't like DOE'simplementation plan? In that case theguarantees could be delayed bymonths-or maybe forever.

Indeed, this entire issue began last

U.S. CONGRESS APPROVES $18.5 BILLION IN LOAN

GUARANTEES FOR NEW REACTOR CONSTRUCTION. DIDN'T IT?FFoolllloowwiinngg mmoonntthhss ooff tthhee mmoosstt ccoonncceerrtteedd ggrraassssrroooottss aaccttiioonn oonn nnuucclleeaarr ppoowweerr iissssuueess ssiinnccee tthhee 22000022YYuuccccaa MMoouunnttaaiinn ddeecciissiioonn,, tthhee UU..SS.. CCoonnggrreessss vvootteedd iinn mmiidd-DDeecceemmbbeerr ttoo ggiivvee tthhee nnuucclleeaarr iinndduussttrryyaabboouutt hhaallff ooff wwhhaatt iitt wwaanntteedd aanndd aapppprroovveedd UUSS$$1188..55 bbiilllliioonn ((EEuurroo 1122..44 bbiilllliioonn)) iinn ttaaxxppaayyeerr llooaanngguuaarraanntteeeess ffoorr nneeww nnuucclleeaarr rreeaaccttoorrss.. OOrr ddiidd iitt??

WISE AMSTERDAM/NIRS

IISSSSNN:: 1570-4629

RReepprroodduuccttiioonn of this material isencouraged. Please give credit when reprinting.

EEddiittoorriiaall tteeaamm:: Dirk Bannink and Peer de Rijk.

With ccoonnttrriibbuuttiioonnss from WISE Amsterdam, NIRS,Beyond Nuclear, WISE Uranium Project, and Laka Foundation.

NNeexxtt iissssuuee of the Nuclear Monitor will be mailedout on January 25, 2008.

Where the Loan Guarantee Money Would Go$18.5 Billion is a lot of money-unless you're trying to build abunch of new nuclear reactors. In that case, $18.5 billionjust doesn't go as far as it used to. Under the DOE's loanguarantee regulations, the agency can co-sign for loans forup to 80% of the cost of a new reactor. With Wall Streetprojecting costs of $5 billion to $9 billion+ per reactor, thatmoney won't last long, if it's spent at all. In fact, it wouldonly cover four to perhaps six, at most, new reactors. Hereare the utilities first in line to try to go after that pot of gold:

*NRG Energy is clearly first in line at this early point. Thiscompany, which has never before built a nuclear plant, hassubmitted an application to build not one, but two newGeneral Electric Advanced Boiling Water Reactors at theSouth Texas Nuclear Project site. Although most of thefinancial information in its application is claimed to beproprietary (NIRS is now working on a challenge to thisassertion), the application admits that DOE loan guaranteesare a critical part of the company's plan. Texas groups havebeen gearing up to challenge the reactors. Despite theNRC's acknowledgement that the application is woefullyinadequate and that NRG cannot possibly come up with allthe data needed to make it complete for another year, theNRC went ahead and docketed the application inDecember, meaning that the Texas groups have untilFebruary 25 to intervene in the licensing process. Checknukefreetexas.org for updates on the Texas situation.Odds that NRG will ever build a reactor: 10-11. Odds areeven worse that NRG will build two reactors. Any companytrying to build two at once, without ever having built evenone, is either too egotistical to matter, or too naïve to bebelieved, or-in practical terms-is poised to lose a ton ofmoney. Wall Street won't like this project even with the loanguarantees.

*Unistar may-or may not-be second in line with itsproposed 1600 MW EPR reactor at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland.This company, composed primarily of Constellation Energyand Electricite de France, was first to file a partial licenseapplication with the NRC, last July. But they weren't first tofile a complete application, partly because the Areva EPRreactor is still undergoing design changes in Finland.Unistar also has admitted that the loan guarantees arecrucial to its plans-without them, no reactor will be built.NIRS and Maryland PIRG have petitioned to intervene inMaryland Public Service Commission proceedings on theproject, which will focus on the economic issuessurrounding the project. Unistar filed a motion January 10to try to prevent NIRS' participation in the proceeding,based upon Unistar's guesses as to the type of contentionsNIRS might file. Huh?Odds that Unistar will ever build a reactor at Calvert Cliffs:7-11. The opposition to Calvert Cliffs-3 is quite strong, andMaryland is not the most nuclear-friendly state in the Union.Unistar has some money of its own, and a $300 million taxabatement plan from Calvert County, Maryland, but the EPRis a disaster of a design, and there are cheaper, faster,safer, cleaner ways of providing electricity to Marylanders.

*NuStart Energy, representing the Tennessee ValleyAuthority, has filed an application to build two newWestinghouse AP 1000 reactors at the Bellefonte, Alabamasite on which TVA once tried unsuccessfully to build twoBabcock and Wilcox reactors. While overt opposition hasbeen slow to materialize there, the fact is that the people inthe region successfully beat back the original Bellefontereactors as well as Urenco's short-lived idea to build auranium enrichment plant on the site.Odds that NuStart will ever build a reactor: 2-11. TVA remainsdeeply in debt from its first round of reactor constructionfrom the 1970s-1990s. But as a federal agency, it doesn'tseem to care much about debt. Opponents of nuclearprojects at the site have won before, but it's going to beharder this time, and they seem slow to react this time.

*Duke Power has filed an application to build twoWestinghouse AP 1000 reactors in South Carolina-the onlyapplication for new reactors so far that would be built on a"greenfields" site.Odds that Duke Power will build a reactor at this site: 2-11. Ifit weren't Duke, we'd say the odds are 10-1 or worse forbuilding a new reactor on a greenfields site. But Duke is amajor player in the nuclear arena and this is the onlynuclear project they're considering. Plus the "William LeeNuclear Station" is named after a past Duke CEO, givingthem an added "pride"impetus. But South Carolina hasconfounded the nuke boys before (see closure of Barnwellradioactive waste dump in June 2008).

*Dominion Power has filed an application to build one newreactor at its existing North Anna, Virginia site, for which italready has obtained an early site permit (ESP, which isunder challenge from environmental groups). While the ESPmight seem to give it a leg up on the early competition,none of which applied for one, the GE ESBWR reactordesign it wants to build is a long way from being certifiedby the NRC.Odds that Dominion Power will build a new reactor at NorthAnna: 10-11. What are they thinking? A few years agoDominion's CEO was telling its stockholders in publicmeetings that he'd have to be insane to propose a newreactor. He's been replaced. So, for the moment, insanityrules at Dominion. Sanity will be restored before a newreactor is built, especially an ESBWR, which doesn't reallyeven exist on paper, much less in cool 1/32nd scale plasticmodels. A steel and concrete version? Many years away-much further than the loan guarantees will last.

Behind these are expected applications for 25 moreproposed new reactors in the U.S., according to the NRC'swebsite as of January 2, 2008. Clearly, $18.5 billion in loanguarantees isn't going to go far, and the reality is that manyof these purported nuclear projects aren't going to go veryfar either.

IN BRIEF

Finnish PM: 'nuclear power not the way to fight climate change'. On a visit in Washington, Finland's prime minister MattiVanhanen said building more nuclear power plants is not the way to fight global climate change. Reducing energyconsumption, especially from automobiles, would do more to fight climate change he said.

Meanwhile, late last year Areva-Siemens added another 6 months to their delivery estimate of Olkiluoto-3, and so nowsay that construction will take 6.5 years rather than 4 years as promised. The reactor will be completed in "summer 2011," theAreva-Siemens consortium announced on December 28. So there is now a 2,5 year delay after 2,5 year construction. "Thedelay of the project will cause additional work and costs," said Martin Landtman, project director for the Olkiluoto-3 EPR.Areva's 2007 annual results are due for release on 28 February 2008. This release usually is the best opportunity for an updateon further cost over-runs.Platts, 28 December 2007, Reuters, 14 January 2008

China contributes $1.4 billion to ITER. China will contribute 10 billion yuan ($1.4 billion or 940 million Euro) to the InternationalThermonuclear Experimental Nuclear Reactor (ITER). Chinese researchers will build components and transport them toCadarache, where construction of the nuclear fusion reactor is due to start this year. The Chinese contribution representsaround 10% of the estimated cost of ITER, which is scheduled to come online in 2016. The components to be produced byChina include heating, diagnostic and remote maintenance equipment. China joined the ITER consortium in February 2003,currently the ITER membership also includes the US, Russia, Japan, India, South Korea and the European Union.WNN, 8 January 2008

French energy consortium to offer nuclear plant to UAE. Oil giant Total has joined Areva and Suez to sign a partnershipagreement to submit a nuclear power plant project to authorities in the United Arab Emirates. The move comes just prior to avisit by the French president to the UAE, during which a nuclear cooperation agreement is expected to be signed. Total, Suezand Areva said in a joint statement that they intend to submit a proposal for a nuclear power plant in Abu Dhabi comprising two1600 MWe Evolutionary Pressurized Water Reactors (EPRs), together with the provision of nuclear fuel cycle products andservices. According to a report in French newspaper Les Echos, the companies responded to interest from the Abu DhabiWater and Electricity Authority, the ADWEA, which has outlined plans to construct the plant. The report said that a finaldecision on the plant by the ADWEA could happen "in the next few months." Christophe de Margerie, CEO of Total, recentlysaid that he expects the company to expand its activities and to enter the nuclear energy industry. WNN, 14 December 2008

The end to the "price virtually independent from fuel price" story? The electricity that nuclear power plant Belene (Bulgaria) willgenerate when finished will cost at least 4.5 euro-cents per kilowatt-hour, which is by one euro-cent (1.49 dollarcent) more thanthe price initially announced a year before by Russian builders Atomstroyexport. The consumers' price of the electricity fromBelene is still uncalculated, but will be "at least 4.5 eurocents" (kWph), according to Bulgaria's Minister of Economy and EnergyPetar Dimitrov

Thus, the prime cost of the power the future nuclear reactors will produce has gone 1 eurocent up even before the

summer, when the HouseAppropriations Subcommittee onEnergy and Water voted to provide zeroloan guarantee funds for nuclearprojects in 2008, because thesubcommittee didn't think DOE wasready to implement such a program,nor were any utilities in a position toaccept any money. Both of thosefactors remain true today.

Outgoing Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) was so upset by this vote that hetried to put language in the energy billthat would allow DOE to give outunlimited loan guarantees-presumablyto his favorite nuclear technology.

On the House side, pushed by anenormous grassroots effort and activityby nearly every Washington-based

environmental and safe energyorganization, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did an end-around Domenici andsuccessfully kept his loan guaranteelanguage out of the House version ofthe energy bill, while also passing amodest renewable energy portfoliostandard. Domenici got back bysuccessfully stripping the renewableenergy standard from the Senateversion, but in the end his loanguarantee language stayed out of theenergy bill.

Undeterred, Domenici went to work onthe Appropriations bill, and managed toget in language allowing DOE to giveout $25 billion this year for nuclearpower, without strings. Last-minutenegotiating led to the final version-thereport language of $18.5 billion for new

reactors coupled with AppropriationsCommittees approval.

About the only thing that is certain isthis: the fight over nuclear loanguarantees is far from over and willcontinue for the next several months.Continued grassroots actions can stillstop the money flow from taxpayers towealthy utilities and Wall Streetbankers. In the end, your actions arelikely to make the difference betweentaxpayer support for new reactorsversus the oh-so-sad-well, ok,absolutely inspiring--vision of nuclearutilities going to Wall Street, hat inhand, and seeing only closed doors.

Source and contact: Michael Mariotteat NIRS

nuke's construction has actually begun. It was last year that Atomexportstroy, the Russian contractor which is to build up thepower plant, won the tender for the construction of the two nuclear reactors, having offered a bid of nearly 4 billion euros andan electricity prime cost of 3.5 - 3.7 eurocents per kWph.

What is at Belene NPP remains a complete mystery. According to well-informed sources, one of the reasons for theincrease of the price of power is the growing prices of uranium. A 25% price increase in the Belene case due to uranium pricerises? That's the end to the "price virtually independent from fuel price" story!Standart news, 28 December 2007 (with thanks to Jan H.)

Zapatero vows nuclear energy cuts in Spain. Spain's prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has promised that if he isre-elected on 9 March he will reduce the country's dependence on nuclear power. Speaking at an economic forum in Madrid,he said: "My position is not to increase nuclear energy in our country but rather to progressively reduce it and to make acollective effort in favour of renewable energy. World Nuclear News, 11 January 2008

Sign petition to end the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan! The new provincial government of Saskatchewan, Canada isalready talking about plans to expand the nuclear industry in the province - very bad news. Saskatchewan is one of the majoruranium producers in the world, and the prime exporter to the U.S. This is a front-line battle that must be waged bySaskatchewan residents, with international support.

"Citizens for a Nuclear-Free Society" is a local (Regina) grass-roots group which is working towards urgently neededchanges in our provincial government's policies and plans as regards the uranium industry. We firmly believe that thegovernment must abandon proposed plans for nuclear expansion that have been in the works for some years now. With therecent change in the provincial government, there is already talk of building a nuclear reactor in the northern part of theprovince, as well as possibly fuelling the Alberta Tar Sands oil extraction project, an environmental disaster in its own right. Webelieve that there are a multitude of very strong reasons to oppose further uranium mining, export and refinement, as well asnuclear development. These arguments, which are environmental, economical and ethical, clearly prove that this industry mustnot continue to grow, but rather, should be phased out. Please have a look at the Non-nuclear petition we have created. If youare in agreement, please sign it. It will eventually be forwarded to our Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly.http://www.PetitionOnline.com/nonuc1sk/petition.html

A reactor in every apartment building? In 1958 German electronics Siemens introduced a nuclear reactor for in-home use,according to an ad in August 8, 1958 issue of 'Das Magazine der Technik'. They never sold one, fortunately. But, well, that wasthe 1950's, when everything seemed to be possible: nuclear planes, nuclear cars, nuclear trains, so why not your own nuclearreactor?

And now? Toshiba, famous for electronics products around the world, plans to build "small" (room-sized) fully-automated nuclear reactors. An apartment complex for the rich can guarantee itself steady power "for up to 40 years"according to the (optimistic) manufacturer. The cost is rumored to be about US$3.5 million., producing electricity for only 5cents per kilowatt hour. According to a company announcement, Toshiba expect to bring the first of the 200 kW new reactorsonline in 2008 in Japan, and in Europe and America in 2009. The Toshiba baby-nukes will rely on a closed-loop lithium-6primary coolant system, instead of water. The lithium-6 can also serve as a moderator to stop the reactor if necessary, themanufacturer claims.

There is no mention about what happens after those 40 years.Next Energy News, 17 December 2007

WWIISSEE AAmmsstteerrddaammP.O. Box 596361040 LC AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel: +31 20 612 6368Fax: +31 20 689 2179Email: wiseamster@antenna.nlWeb: www.antenna.nl/wise

NNIIRRSS6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 340Takoma Park, MD 20912Tel: +1 301-270-NIRS(+1 301-270-6477)Fax: +1 301-270-4291Email: nirsnet@nirs.orgWeb: www.nirs.org

NNIIRRSS SSoouutthheeaassttP.O. Box 7586Asheville, NC 28802USATel: +1 828 675 1792Email: nirs@main.nc.us

WWIISSEE AArrggeennttiinnaac/o Taller EcologistaCC 4412000 RosarioArgentinaEmail: wiseros@ciudad.com.arWeb: www.taller.org.ar

WWIISSEE AAuussttrriiaac/o Plattform gegen AtomgefahrRoland EggerLandstrasse 314020 Linz

AAuussttrriiaaTel: +43 732 774275; +43 664 2416806Fax: +43 732 785602

Email: post@atomstopp.atWeb: www.atomstopp.com

WWIISSEE CCzzeecchh RReeppuubblliiccc/o Jan BeranekChytalky 24594 55 Dolni LouckyCzech RepublicTel: +420 604 207305Email: wisebrno@ecn.czWeb: www.wisebrno.cz

WWIISSEE IInnddiiaa42/27 Esankai Mani VeethyPrakkai Road Jn.Nagercoil 629 002, Tamil NaduIndiaEmail: drspudayakumar@yahoo.com;

WWIISSEE JJaappaannP.O. Box 1, Konan Post OfficeHiroshima City 739-1491Japan

WWIISSEE RRuussssiiaaP.O. Box 1477236000 KaliningradRussiaTel/fax: +7 95 2784642Email: ecodefense@online.ruWeb: www.antiatom.ru

WWIISSEE SSlloovvaakkiiaac/o SZOPK SiriusKatarina BartovicovaGodrova 3/b811 06 BratislavaSlovak RepublicTel: +421 905 935353Email: wise@wise.skWeb: www.wise.sk

WWIISSEE SSoouutthh AAffrriiccaac/o Earthlife Africa Cape TownMaya Abermanpo Box 176Observatory 7935 Cape TownSouth AfricaTel: + 27 21 447 4912Fax: + 27 21 447 4912Email: coordinator@earthlife-ct.org.zaWeb: www.earthlife-ct.org.za

WWIISSEE SSwweeddeennc/o FMKKBarnängsgatan 23116 41 StockholmSwedenTel: +46 8 84 1490Fax: +46 8 84 5181Email: info@folkkampanjen.seWeb: www.folkkampanjen.sec/o FMKK

WWIISSEE UUkkrraaiinneeP.O. Box 73Rivne-33023UkraineTel/fax: +380 362 237024Email: ecoclub@ukrwest.netWeb: www.atominfo.org.ua

WWIISSEE UUrraanniiuummPeter DiehlAm Schwedenteich 401477 ArnsdorfGermanyTel: +49 35200 20737Email: uranium@t-online.deWeb: www.wise-uranium.org

WISE/NIRS offices and relays

On January 10, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, announced his government's support for a new generation ofnuclear power stations that will cost billions, eventually deliver only tiny cuts in carbon emissions and leave futuregenerations with a legacy of nuclear waste to clean up. The fact is, going nuclear won't solve the UK's or the world'sglobal warming problem because it can only deliver around a 4 percent cut in carbon emissions some time after 2020.That's far too little, far too late and at too high a price. The UK government have made much of their green credentialsboasting that they lead the world in tackling climate change.

In a special edition of the Nuclear Monitor, which will be published on January 24, we will look at the policy of the UKgovernment, regarding the interconnection between the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and nuclear power. TheUK government, having pushed emissions trading into the EU framework, is also behind the attempt to kill renewableenergy. The UK government needs to be exposed as the most destructive and active agent of the nuclear and carboneconomy, and therefore the main enemy of renewable energies.

The NUCLEAR MONITOR

The Nuclear Information & Resource Service wasfounded in 1978 and is based in Takoma Park,Maryland. The World Information Service onEnergy was set up the same year and is housedin Amsterdam, Netherlands. NIRS and WISEAmsterdam joined forces in 2000, creating aworldwide network of information and resourcecenters for citizens and environmentalorganizations concerned about nuclear power,radioactive waste, radiation, and sustainableenergy.

The Nuclear Monitor publishes internationalinformation in English 20 times a year. A Spanishtranslation of this newsletter is available on theWISE Amsterdam website(www.antenna.nl/wise/esp). A Russian version ispublished by WISE Russia, a Ukrainian version ispublished by WISE Ukraine (available atwww.nirs.org). Back issues are available throughthe WISE Amsterdam homepage:www.antenna.nl/wise and at www.nirs.org.

Receiving the Nuclear MonitorUS and Canadian readers should contact NIRS toobtain the Nuclear Monitor (address see page11). Subscriptions are $35/yr for individuals and$250/year for institutions.

New on NIRS Website: www.nirs.org

Transcript of the Democratic PresidentialCandidates’ debate in Las Vegas January 15,2008, on Yucca Mountain, nuclear power andenergy policy. Plus a link to a comparison chartfor all candidates--Democratic and Republican--onenergy and climate issues.

Text of a petition filed by NIRS and local groupsaround the Oyster Creek, Pilgrim, Indian Point andVermont Yankee reactors requesting asuspension of the license renewal process basedon an Inspector General’s report slamming theNRC staff’s “cut and paste” review of licenserenewal documents.

Sign the Nukes/Climate Statement!"We do not support construction of new nuclearreactors as a means of addressing the climatecrisis. Available renewable energy and energyefficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, saferand cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouseemissions than nuclear power."Sign at: http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php

nm665

Documents

puntuación paef,s

tragic heroes

fortran

bhagavad gita

acetone peroxide

improve the color quality of your monitor

do you admire leonardo da vinci?

how computer monitors work

18 tricks to teach your body

oedipus the king: the ideal tragic play

algorithms

effective parenting: establishing boundaries

barclays1

european colinization of latin america

plato - symposium

aesops fables

who killed god

расписание электричек...

minne hävisivät soneran rahat

chapter 23