***************************************************************** 05/19/08 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 16.9 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Reuters: Nuclear energy heats up US presidential race | 2 US: Reuters: FACTBOX-US presidential candidates on nuclear energy 3 US: Reuters: Bush sends Russia nuclear pact to skeptical Congress 4 BN: Stop export of flawed French reactors to US Group says 5 US: www.kansascity.com: Nuclear power bill passes Kansas Legislature 6 US: Reuters: Bush sends Russia nuclear pact to skeptical Congress 7 Reuters: Russia, U.S. sign civilian nuclear pact 8 redOrbit: Russia's Tvel Could Put New Vver Reactor Fuel on Market - 9 BBC NEWS: Russia and US strike nuclear deal 10 Scotsman.com: Anti-nuclear protester to lead parade - NUCLEAR REACTORS 11 IPS-English UAE: Coming clean on nuclear energy 12 BrisbaneTimes: Chernobyl nuclear accident - 13 IHT: 22 years after disaster, Chernobyl reactor is getting new shelt 14 Star Phoenix: Nuclear power not the solution to global warming 15 US: Daily Sentinel: NRC extends intervention deadline 16 US: Jacksonville.com: New reactors to mean higher utility bills 17 Reuters: Russia, U.S. sign civilian nuclear pact 18 US: Gristmill: Nuclear pork: enough is enough 19 UPI.com: Outside View: Nuke power future -- Part 1 - 20 UPI.com: Old nuclear reactor avoids replacement - 21 Charter'97: Children weren't allowed to go out due to accident on a 22 News Wales: Chernobyl still felt in Wales 23 ITAR-TASS: Belarus opens temporary access to cemeteries in Chernobyl 24 Cyprus Mail: Greens blast plans for nuclear plant in Turkey 25 US: Tri-City Herald: NUCLEAR: FFTF reactor fuel shipped to Idaho - 26 US: Augusta Chronicle: Environmentalists speak against adding reacto 27 US: The Adobe Press: Complaint filed with NRC 28 US: PennLive.com: NRC cites TMI for security rules violations 29 CBC News: SaskPower nuclear reactor report stirs up northern debate 30 US: ajc.com: Georgia Power to pay $6.4B for new nuclear reactors | 31 US: Public Citizen: Don"t Be Fooled by Nuclear Industry 32 US: Alternet: A Nuclear Energy Renaissance Wouldn't Solve Our Proble 33 Calgary Herald: Alberta faces fight for reactor 34 US: WSJ.com: New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs - 35 Viet Nam News: Japan, Viet Nam ink nuclear power deal 36 US: MWC News: Nuclear power is undemocratic 37 Vancouver Sun: Nuclear plant proposed for drinking-water lake 38 US: BAS: The future of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission | 39 Harvey Wasserman: Making You Pay for the Next Chernobyl--in Advance! 40 US: JS Online: Task force weighs nuclear power 41 allAfrica.com: Nigeria: Electricity - Postpone Nuclear Power Project 42 Earth Times: Radioactive leak sparks Spanish debate on nuclear power 43 US: BN: Environmental leaders warn of huge and hidden nuclear subsid 44 RussiaToday: Biggest man-made disaster in history remembered 45 Moscow Times: Tears and Anger Over Chernobyl 46 Moscow Times: U.S. Administration Pushes Nuclear Pact 47 Green Left: Nuclear power and climate change 48 TheStar.com: Nuclear revival bumps against atrophy 49 US: Houston Chronicle: Costs may slow nuclear upswing in U.S. | 50 US: Charlotte Observer: Nuclear-cost secrecy fuels 2-state outcry 51 US: Charlotte Observer: Duke can keep nuclear costs secret 52 US: Charlotte Observer: 200 attend hearing on nuclear plant 53 BBC NEWS: Nuclear's CO2 cost 'will climb' 54 US: Grist: That nuclear renaissance: any day now | 55 US: WNYC: Indian Point Owner Uses its own Experts for Safety Assessm 56 US: Baltimore Examiner: Demonstrators protest Maryland's new nuclear 57 Nova Scotia News: Pickering station worries nuclear watchdog 58 AFP: Ukraine remembers Chernobyl amid anti-nuclear protests 59 US: BFP: No penalty for Vermont Yankee cooling-tower collapse | 60 US: BFP: Nuke waste move leads to mishap at Vermont Yankee  | 61 Reuters: Six European utilities back AP1000 reactor for UK 62 US: TB: Davis Besse nuclear plant engineer gets probation for hiding 63 US: Rutland Herald: NRC hits Yankee with 'noncited violation' over c 64 US: Journal News: Panel of nuclear industry experts hold meetings to 65 The Times: Nuclear plans will triple SA's power prices 66 The Observer: Tim Webb: Clean-up slows down at Britain's obsolete re 67 US: BFP: NRC: Vt. Yankee can’t raid decommissioning fund for spent f 68 CNW Group: 30KM.CA | What if Chernobyl happened here? 69 US: Times Online: Nuclear reactors will cost twice estimate, says E. 70 Times Online: EDF faces challenge over nuclear technology - 71 US: Press-Telegram: Nuclear power? Not so fast - 72 US: Redding Record: Elias: Nuclear power is no simple carbon fix NUCLEAR SECURITY 73 US: USA TODAY: Error processing SSI file 74 UN: More than 100 States review global pact on nuclear weapons contr 75 BBC NEWS: Nuclear threat sparked tea worry 76 washingtonpost.com: Spread of Nuclear Capability Is Feared - NUCLEAR SAFETY 77 Oxford Mail: I Was An Atomic Test Guinea Pig 78 New Scientist: Insects left disfigured by nuclear radiation - 79 CTV Winnipeg- Man killed in accident at nuclear laboratory - 80 UPI.com: Widow of atomic worker battles red tape - 81 US: Las Vegas Sun: Atomic testing burned its mark - 82 US: PRWEB: Cold War Patriots Launches First National Network for Nuc 83 Sunday Herald: Leukaemia and nuclear power: what’s the secret? 84 Expatica: Radioactive leak at Asco is 750 times more than disclosed 85 US: ReviewJournal.com: Area 51 workers in twilight zone 86 US: TBO.com: Ex-Nuclear Plant Workers Want Government Compensation 87 US: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Armstrong gets nuke settlement money, 88 US: UPI.com: Manhattan Project blamed for cancer - 89 AU ABC: Radiation site: MPs to probe cancer link - 90 BN: Nuclear danger in China 91 US: WMNF 88.5 FM: Nuclear workers still looking for compensation lis 92 US: Bradenton.com: Tallevast cancer study one step closer 93 RIA Novosti: Strasbourg court rules against Russia in Siberian radia 94 CNW Group: GREENPEACE | Activists play out disaster scenario of 95 US: OpEdNews: Can Fungi Really Stop the Radioactive Contamination of NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 96 US: Polk County Democrat: Mined land slightly radioactive 97 US: Daily News: Contaminated sand moving from ship to rail 98 US: ksl.com: Whistle-blower says Utah mining regulators ignored the 99 US: Casper Star-Tribune: Uranium mining problems 100 US: Ohio.com - For sale: One used but cleaner dump, includes toxic w 101 US: ACA: Key GNEP Decision Left to Next President 102 US: Deseret News: Firm pitches idea for a uranium mill 103 US: Boulder Daily Camera: Company challenges EPA ruling 104 US: AlterNet: The Pentagon Is America's Biggest Polluter 105 ReviewJournal.com: Yucca delay may spur interim storage 106 The Local: German atomic waste transport cancelled for 2009 107 US: BW: GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Selects Wilmington, N.C. as Site f 108 US: Idaho Press-Tribune: Contaminated sand slated for Idaho dump sit 109 US: globeandmail.com: Uranium ban rankles industry groups 110 US: Murfreesboro Post: AG: Radioactive waste ban 'suspect' 111 PhysOrg: DIAMOND to tackle UK nuclear waste issues 112 US: Columbus Dispatch: DOE plan for nuke waste is reshelved 113 Mother Jones: Slow Train to Yucca Mountain 114 US: LocalNews8.com: Appeals court hears challenge to uranium mine 115 US: The Telegraph: Cops choke on uranium cake 116 Whitehaven News: Tenders sought for new N-waste storage ideas 117 US: Daily Sentinel: Reprocessing nuclear waste 118 US: Boston Globe: State orders radiation tests at Weymouth Neck wast 119 US: KNS: TVA to design concept plan for nuclear waste reprocessing p 120 US: Deseret News: Board OKs $997,000 for Navajo Nation 121 US: Deseret News: Plan to store Italian nuclear waste rejected 122 US: Deseret News: Nuclear waste lawsuit to be filed again 123 US: Deseret News: Plan to store Italian nuclear waste rejected 124 Daily Yomiuri: Fuel brought into Monju nuclear plant 125 US: AU ABC: Residents voice uranium mine opposition - 126 US: AU ABC: Traditional owners urged to back solar over uranium - 127 US: timestranscript.com: N.B. won't ban uranium probes 128 US: timestranscript.com: Majority opposes uranium mining 129 US: dailygleaner.com: Letters | Reasons to fight uranium mining plan 130 US: Times of India: Govt: Uranium shortage has hit N-power plants 131 Galway News: Residents revolt over toxic waste storage 132 US: McClatchy: S.C. officials watch nuclear case 133 US: edmontonsun.com: Tories pushing to have Canada enrich uranium, b 134 AU: Herald Sun: Hospitals releasing radioactive waste | 135 US: Platts: DOE and TVA to work together on GNEP data 136 US: Platts: US senators urge "fair royalty" on federal-lands mining 137 US: Casper star tribune: Uranium company fights EPA ruling 138 US: The Coloradoan: Stop uranium mining 139 US: Washington Post: Uranium Under the Sand, Anger Above 140 US: Rutland Herald Online: Natives speaking out on uranium 141 US: Scientific American: Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than I 142 US: Daily News Journal: Landfill dumping bill hits AG snag 143 US: News Journal: Court to rule on anti-dumping duties on imports 144 US: Sudbury Star: Study of uranium mine project 145 US: RIA Novosti: Russian uranium will be directly supplied to the Un 146 US: reportonbusiness.com: B.C. shuts door on uranium projects 147 US: CNW Group: CANALASKA URANIUM LTD. | CanAlaska completes winter u 148 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Italy's waste is called too hot for Utah - 149 US: Hanford News: Southwest Idaho company making millions by accepti 150 US: SLTrib: EnergySolutions sues to stop state's bid to block Italia 151 US: SLT: Waste panel votes to ban EnergySolutions' import of Italian 152 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Tailings: Truck or track? - 153 US: DEC: West Valley cleanup short of goals - Business First of Buff 154 US: The Coloradoan: Uranium bill passes Senate on Third Reading 155 US: The Tennessean: Tennessee group fights to keep out nuclear waste PEACE 156 Project Armageddon: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities 157 World Politics Review: U.S.-Russia Accord Could Facilitate 158 Harvard Political Review - A Brave New World? 159 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Kazakhstan's nuclear ambitions 160 AU ABC: Nuclear boom prompts proliferation concerns - 161 Associated Press: UN steps up campaign against nuclear, chemical ter 162 Associated Press: A timeline of North Korea's nuclear weapons activi US DEPT. OF ENERGY 163 UCS: House Kicks Off Debate Over Future Of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Comp 164 Tri-City Herald: HANFORD: New nonprofit supports ill nuclear workers 165 The Associated Press: Grand jury documents on nuke weapons plant 166 TGN: SRS to receive more than $1 billion in federal funding 167 aikenstandard.com: SRNS to make offer to majority of workers 168 The Denver Post: Agency's purge of Flats documents triggers outcry - ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Reuters: Nuclear energy heats up US presidential race | Tue May 6, 2008 3:22pm EDT By Jeff Mason INDIANAPOLIS, May 6 (Reuters) - John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed. Nuclear power -- controversial in the United States and throughout much of the world -- is on the agenda of all three U.S. presidential candidates as they seek to diversify the country's energy mix and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Interviews with top policy advisers to the three White House hopefuls reveal a varied approach to the technology that some observers see as a necessary answer to fighting climate change and others view as expensive and dangerous. McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona who has wrapped up his party's nomination, is by far the most enthusiastic about the carbon-free fuel source, regularly calling for more nuclear power plants at campaign stops throughout the nation. "I believe we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become energy independent ... unless we use nuclear power and use it in great abundance," he said in North Carolina on Monday. McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said nuclear power faced an "uneven playing field" from years of political opposition. "Sen. McCain would eliminate the political obstacles that hinder nuclear power, allow it to compete more effectively, and likely increase its share of the U.S. energy portfolio," he said. Nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent of U.S. electricity supply, a figure that could rise if regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are imposed, making greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear plants more attractive. There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide. Obama, an Illinois senator and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, shares McCain's belief that nuclear energy is part of the solution to climate change. But he opposes new federal subsidies and would work to address concerns about safety and waste storage, senior adviser Jason Grumet said. "Because of the fact that climate change is a species-challenging dilemma, we don't have the luxury to do anything but try to solve those real problems," associated with nuclear technology, he said. Clinton, a New York senator, prefers using renewable fuels to fight climate change because of nuclear energy's risks. "Hillary has real concerns about nuclear power because of the issues around safety, waste disposal and proliferation," policy director Neera Tandem said. "She opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but would continue research focused on lowering costs and improving safety." SOME NUANCE The key roadblock to new U.S. nuclear plants has been finding a home for nuclear waste. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, 90 miles (145 km) from Las Vegas, to be the nation's waste repository, but the site is years behind schedule and may never open because of powerful opponents like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not issued a new nuclear plant license since the mid 1970s and utility companies have balked for years at constructing new sites because of concerns about plant safety and cost overruns. Despite signs that trend may be changing, environmental group Greenpeace, which opposes nuclear energy because of the serious problem with waste disposal, does not see an industry renaissance on the horizon, said Jim Riccio, the group's nuclear policy analyst in Washington. He described the Democrats' positions as nuanced. Clinton's energy platform was "better than the others" because of its focus on nonnuclear sources, though she appeared to change her stances in different states, he said. Both Democrats had received money from nuclear energy companies: Exelon -- which has the largest nuclear reactor in the United States -- to Obama and Entergy to Clinton, he said. The industry, meanwhile, welcomed McCain's support and described the Democrats' position as open-minded. "We're obviously delighted to see Sen. McCain's strong support but that is something that thankfully we've been able to enjoy throughout the Bush administration," said Steve Kerekes of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's main U.S. lobby group. "We would characterize the others as, you know, open-minded on the issue." The candidates' advisers were less generous in their description of their opponents' positions. McCain criticized both Democrats for their opposition to Yucca Mountain. "The political opposition to the Yucca Mountain storage facility is harmful to the U.S. interest and the facility should be completed, opened and utilized," McCain adviser Holtz-Eakin said. Grumet said Obama shared Clinton's concerns about waste and safety but was more committed to working out solutions. "Sen. Clinton brings attention to what we agree are big problems and says we should focus the attention elsewhere. Sen. Obama sees big challenges and says that because of climate change, we should try like heck to solve them." (Additional reporting by Chris Baltimore and Tim Gaynor; Editing by Deborah Charles and Philip Barbara) © Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 2 Reuters: FACTBOX-US presidential candidates on nuclear energy Tue May 6, 2008 7:56am EDT May 6 (Reuters) - Nuclear energy is part of each of the 2008 presidential candidates' energy platforms. Republican John McCain supports it wholeheartedly, while Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton express reservations. Below are aspects of each candidate's position on nuclear power as outlined in their energy polices. MCCAIN, an Arizona senator - believes the United States can use nuclear power more extensively to reduce its reliance on petroleum imported from unstable regions and unfriendly sources. - believes that fuel sources that are alternatives to oil should be selected by competitive markets but thinks nuclear power has faced an uneven playing field because of political opposition. - supports the Yucca Mountain storage facility and believes opposition to it is harmful to U.S. interests. - is open to advances in technology that permit greater safe reprocessing of spent fuel. He believes improvements in reactor design have reduced concerns over safe operation, but that there must be vigilance in all aspects of operation, transportation of waste, and storage of waste. OBAMA, an Illinois senator - believes it is unlikely the United States can achieve its goals to fight climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions without nuclear power. - wants four issues to be addressed in order for the nuclear energy industry to expand: the rights of the public to information, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. - Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. - says he will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the United States a top anti-terrorism priority. - aims to lead federal efforts to look for a long-term disposal solution. He opposes using Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the nation's main disposal site. CLINTON, a New York senator - believes that energy efficiency and renewable sources such as wind and solar energy are better options for addressing global warming and meeting U.S. power needs because of unresolved concerns about the cost of producing nuclear power, the safety of operating plants, waste disposal and nuclear proliferation. - opposes new subsidies for nuclear power. - aims to strengthen the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and improve safety and security at nuclear power plants. - opposes Yucca Mountain and would halt work there; would convene a panel of scientific experts to explore alternatives for disposing of nuclear waste; and continue research, with a focus on lower costs and improving safety. (Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Peter Cooney) © Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 3 Reuters: Bush sends Russia nuclear pact to skeptical Congress Tue May 13, 2008 5:53pm EDT By Susan Cornwell WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush asked Congress on Tuesday to review a civilian nuclear deal with Russia, but lawmakers warned there may be attempts to block it over Moscow's links to Iran's nuclear program. Russia and the United States signed the cooperation deal last week to allow the world's two biggest atomic powers to expand their nuclear trade. But many lawmakers say Moscow does not deserve such treatment because of its support of Iran's nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at building an atomic bomb. Bush, in pushing for the nuclear agreement with Russia, has turned "a deaf ear to a critical mass of concern in Congress," said Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, who like Bush is a Republican. "I will be working to garner the support of my colleagues in Congress to pass legislation to block this agreement until our concerns are addressed," Coleman said in a statement. He has already gathered signatures of 32 senators with doubts about the pact. In the House of Representatives, the Democratic chairman and ranking Republican member of the International Affairs Committee aired strong reservations about the deal, which takes effect unless Congress moves to stop it in 90 legislative days. "The Bush administration has not received enough support from Russia in dealing with Iran to justify moving forward with this agreement at this time," said the chairman, Rep. Howard Berman of California. He said the panel would review the agreement and consider its options. "This nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia faces strong bipartisan opposition, a fact made clear to the administration well in advance of its decision to send the agreement to Congress," said Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. Continued... ***************************************************************** 4 BN: Stop export of flawed French reactors to US Group says Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:08:41 -0400 (EDT) Beyond Nuclear Media Bulletin For Immediate Release April 1, 2008 Contact: Linda Gunter, 301.270.2209 (o), 301.455.5655 (cl) Takoma Park, MD – The experimmental French nuclear reactor – seven of which are potentially schheduled to be built in the U.S. – has already estabblished a record of construction and safety flaws that could jeopardize public safety, new documents have revealed. A letter from the French nuclear safety watchdog agency and leaked to Greenpeace France has revealed numerous technical errors and inconsistencies at the site of the first European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) to be built in France. The EPR – known as the “Evolutioonary Pressurized Reactor” in the U.S. – is an untested, experimental design underr construction at Flamanville, France and at Olkiluoto, Finland. The Finnish reactor has already earned notoriety for technical failures, long delays and enormous cost-overruns. The EPR is a product of Areva, the French nuclear giant that is more than 90 percent government-owned. “It’s clear that the EPR is turning out to be a nuclear lemon,” said Linda Gunter of Beyond Nuclear. “These latest revelations confirm that the rush to expand nuclear energy is a risky enterprise beset by safety shortcuts and motivated by haste and profit.” Beyond Nuclear recently released a scathing critique of the French nuclear industry, particularly the monumental radioactive waste problem created by its large nuclear energy infrastructure and polluting reprocessing programs. “It’s time to call a halt to nuclear expansion plans in the U.S. and stem what could be a limitless tide of American taxpayer dollars flowing to the French government,” Gunter concluded. Ironically, the latest EPR scandal was revealed just as French premier, Nicolas Sarkozy, was touting French nuclear technology to his British counterpart, U.K. prime minister, Gordon Brown. Together, the two leaders have made a pact - the "entente formidable" - to market nuclear energy around the world. The problems in France mirror those that have occurred at the only other EPR construction site - at Olkiluoto in Finland - where delays, cost over-runs and similar technical mistakes with the concrete pour have set the project back at least two years. The Finnish cost over-run is currently estimated at $1.5 billion. Who ultimately pays the bill will likely be contested in court, but French taxpayers are expected to bear the brunt of the costs. In addition, Finnish electricity users will lose billions of Euros because of the delay. -30- Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. Beyond Nuclear staff can be reached at: 301.270.2209. Or view our Web site at: www.beyondnuclear.org Linda Gunter Media and Development 301.270.2209 www.beyondnuclear.org ***************************************************************** 5 www.kansascity.com: Nuclear power bill passes Kansas Legislature | 05/07/2008 | The Associated Press TOPEKA | Legislation allowing utilities to recover the cost of planning for a nuclear generating facility from ratepayers has been sent to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. The House approved it 101-22 and the Senate endorsed it a few minutes later 29-3. Supporters say the bill is needed if utilities are going to seriously consider nuclear power. Opponents said it will mean higher bills for utility customers. It also creates an 11-member advisory committee appointed by House and Senate leaders and gives the Kansas Corporation Commission oversight over any nuclear proposal. ***************************************************************** 6 Reuters: Bush sends Russia nuclear pact to skeptical Congress Tue May 13, 2008 5:53pm EDT By Susan Cornwell WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush asked Congress on Tuesday to review a civilian nuclear deal with Russia, but lawmakers warned there may be attempts to block it over Moscow's links to Iran's nuclear program. Russia and the United States signed the cooperation deal last week to allow the world's two biggest atomic powers to expand their nuclear trade. But many lawmakers say Moscow does not deserve such treatment because of its support of Iran's nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at building an atomic bomb. Bush, in pushing for the nuclear agreement with Russia, has turned "a deaf ear to a critical mass of concern in Congress," said Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, who like Bush is a Republican. "I will be working to garner the support of my colleagues in Congress to pass legislation to block this agreement until our concerns are addressed," Coleman said in a statement. He has already gathered signatures of 32 senators with doubts about the pact. In the House of Representatives, the Democratic chairman and ranking Republican member of the International Affairs Committee aired strong reservations about the deal, which takes effect unless Congress moves to stop it in 90 legislative days. "The Bush administration has not received enough support from Russia in dealing with Iran to justify moving forward with this agreement at this time," said the chairman, Rep. Howard Berman of California. He said the panel would review the agreement and consider its options. "This nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia faces strong bipartisan opposition, a fact made clear to the administration well in advance of its decision to send the agreement to Congress," said Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. Washington believes Iran harbors ambitions to produce a nuclear weapon. Russia has delivered nuclear fuel under a $1 billion contract to build Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant. Bush says, however, that Russia has proposed a possible solution: an international nuclear fuel bank that would supply countries like Iran in a bid to discourage them from developing their own nuclear fuel cycle facilities that could be used for covert weapons programs. The civilian nuclear agreement with Russia would clear the way for Washington and U.S. companies to cooperate with Russia in setting up such a fuel bank, administration officials say. A letter from Bush to Congress did not mention Iran. It said that Bush had determined that a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia "will advance the non-proliferation and other foreign policy interests of the United States". A 123 agreement, so-called because it falls under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, is required before countries can cooperate on nuclear materials, such as storing spent fuel, or work together on advanced nuclear reactor programs. A resolution of disapproval blocking the agreement would need to pass Congress by a two-thirds vote, a steep climb. But Congress could also seek to attach conditions to the deal or block financing for its implementation, aides said. The deal could also collapse if Congress does not stay in session for 90 more legislative days in this election year, one aide said. Congress has an August recess and is scheduled to go home at the end of September, but Congress almost never goes home on its targeted adjournment date. (Edtiing by Philip Barbara) © Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved. Users may download and ***************************************************************** 7 Reuters: Russia, U.S. sign civilian nuclear pact Tue May 6, 2008 12:24pm EDT By Guy Faulconbridge MOSCOW, May 6 (Reuters) - Russia and the United States signed a pact on Tuesday allowing the world's two biggest atomic powers to boost their nuclear trade and work on new ways to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The civilian deal will open up the booming U.S. nuclear market and Russia's vast uranium fields to firms from both countries by removing Cold War restrictions that prevented bilateral trade potentially worth billions of dollars. U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns, signed the deal with the head of Russia's state nuclear corporation, Sergei Kiriyenko, on the last full day of Vladimir Putin's presidency. "The United States and Russia were once nuclear rivals -- we are today nuclear partners," said Burns. At the 2006 Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg, President George W. Bush and Putin ordered ministers to reach a deal but it has faced opposition from some U.S. congressmen because of Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran. A 123 agreement, so-called because it falls under section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, is required before countries can cooperate on nuclear materials. It is critical to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, which the United States and Russia have discussed for more than a year as a way to expand peaceful nuclear energy development and mitigate proliferation risks. "What this agreement allows us to do is to implement some very creative ideas that both Russia and the United States have put forward to deal with the growing challenge of proliferation of nuclear weapons," Burns said. He said the deal would allow Washington and Moscow to move forward on proposals for international nuclear fuel centres, which would sell developing countries access to nuclear energy but remove the need for their own enrichment programmes. NUCLEAR GIANTS Russia and the United States control the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons in the world and both have ambitious plans to build hundreds of new reactors for power production. Some U.S. politicians have said nuclear cooperation with Russia should be shunned because Moscow is helping Iran build an atomic power station, but the Bush administration is keen to have the pact approved this year. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington that now that the deal has been signed, it would be sent to Congress for lawmakers to review "in due course". When asked about speculation that Bush may not submit the deal to Congress -- possibly leaving it for the next president to do -- McCormack said: "Usually we don't sign agreements we don't intend to send to Congress for ratification." Once the agreement is sent to lawmakers, it would go into force if Congress did not pass a disapproval resolution within 90 legislative days. Russia's parliament, controlled by Putin's party, must also ratify the treaty. Russia, one of the world's biggest sellers of enrichment services, has been trying to break into the nuclear markets of the United States and European Union. "The signing of this agreement opens a gigantic field of opportunities for the economic cooperation in the large and growing businesses linked to the civilian use of nuclear energy," Kiriyenko said after the signing. Tuesday's agreement simplifies life for companies in both countries and allows them to strike deals on trade in nuclear materials directly among themselves. Putin has reformed Russia's nuclear sector to boost competition and open it up to atomic firms such as Japan's Toshiba Corp, which owns U.S.-based Westinghouse Electric. Russia has crafted a nuclear behemoth called Atomenergoprom -- which officials say is an atomic version of Russian gas giant Gazprom -- to compete with the biggest nuclear companies on the world market. (Additional reporting by Susan Cornwell in Washington; Editing by Sami Aboudi) © Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved y ***************************************************************** 8 redOrbit: Russia's Tvel Could Put New Vver Reactor Fuel on Market - Posted on: Sunday, 4 May 2008, 21:00 CDT MOSCOW. May 4 (Interfax) - Russian nuclear fuel corporation TVEL proposes to launch a new type of VVER reactor fuel. Rosatom, the state nuclear corporation, said on its website that its own specialists and specialists from TVEL would discuss the launch of TVSA-Alfa, a new version of the TVSA fuel, at a meeting on May 14. TVEL told Interfax that the new fuel would increase the uranium feed and make nuclear power plant fuel cycles more economical. Six of the new fuel assemblies are being tested at the Kalinin NPP and the plant's No. 1 generating unit should be reloaded with this fuel during the course of the year. TVEL's existing version of the TVSA fuel is used at most nuclear power plants with VVER reactors in Russia and abroad. (c) 2008 Daily News Bulletin; Moscow - English. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved. Source: Daily News Bulletin; Moscow - English © 2002-2008 redOrbit.com. All rights reserved. All other copyrights ***************************************************************** 9 BBC NEWS: Russia and US strike nuclear deal Page last updated at 14:39 GMT, Tuesday, 6 May 2008 15:39 UK US-Russian nuclear co-operation had cooled in recent years Russia and the US have signed a key agreement on civilian nuclear power that formally allows nuclear trade between US and Russian companies. It will also allow them to widen technological co-operation in areas such as storing nuclear materials. Russia's top nuclear official Sergei Kiriyenko and US ambassador William Burns signed the deal in Moscow. "The US and Russia were once nuclear rivals," Mr Burns said after the signing ceremony. "Today, we are nuclear partners with unique capabilities and unique responsibilities for global nuclear leadership." It is a deal that pales in significance beside the major strategic arms control treaties of the past, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus. But, in a minor key, it is a small reminder of the days when Washington and Moscow sat down together to grapple with the great nuclear issues of the day, our correspondent adds. Iran obstacle The US is said to be interested in developments in areas including recycling nuclear fuel, while Russia wants to establishing an international nuclear fuel storage facility and have access to the lucrative US market for nuclear materials. The agreement will allow US and Russian companies to form joint ventures in the nuclear sector and will facilitate the transfer of nuclear material between the two countries, officials said earlier. Co-operation on nuclear issues between Russia and the US has cooled in recent years because of disagreements over how to handle the perceived nuclear threat from Iran. The US has similar agreements with other major economic powers, including China. BBC ***************************************************************** 10 Scotsman.com: Anti-nuclear protester to lead parade - Monday, 5th May 2008 BRITAIN'S leading anti-nuclear protester is set to head this year's Edinburgh May Day parade tomorrow. Pat Arrowsmith has been invited to Edinburgh to mark the 50th anniversary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. She has been an active protester since the 1950s, when she led the first march to an atomic weapons factory in Aldermaston. Ms Arrowsmith will speak at the May Day rally in Princes Street Gardens. The rally will also feature Colombian trade union leader Aida Avella, who was elected into parliament in the 1990s. All those elected alongside her have since been assassinated and she currently lives in exile in Switzerland. Colin Fox, Edinburgh May Day committee leader, said Ms Arrowsmith's record over the past 50 years "is second to none in opposing Britain's nuclear missiles". Other guests include author Seamus Milne, a French trade union leader, a Palestinian representative and Catriona Grant from Save Our Old Town. The march will assemble on Market street at 11.30am. The full article contains 168 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper. * Last Updated: 02 May 2008 11:32 AM * Source: Edinburgh Evening News All rights reserved ©2008 Johnston Press Digital Publishing ***************************************************************** 11 IPS-English UAE: Coming clean on nuclear energy Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 16:00:29 -0700 Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM) ABU DHABI, May 17 (WAM) - A United Arab Emirates (UAE) newspaper today saluted the responsible way demonstrated in dealing with its planned peaceful nuclear energy programme. "It is good to be cautious," the Dubai-based English language daily 'Gulf News' commented. "And it is caution the UAE is demonstrating as it goes about developing its nascent nuclear energy programme. "Nuclear energy is seen as being a significant supplier to the UAE for domestic purposes in the future. So it is only right that the nation is approaching the installation, technology and training of nuclear power with great care," it added. The paper noted that the UAE had already signed agreements with the U.S. and France, two leading suppliers of nuclear energy, to advise it on the installations. Now an agreement has been signed with the UK, also a major supplier of nuclear energy for many years. "With the U.S., France and the UK supplying technical know-how, the UAE can be sure it is getting some of the best advice available," the paper said. "Furthermore, by disclosing who they are cooperating with, the UAE is showing full transparency of the project, as it said it would," the paper concluded. (WAM) (WAM) ***************************************************************** 12 BrisbaneTimes: Chernobyl nuclear accident - brisbanetimes.com.au Scott Casey | April 30, 2008 - 5:17AM Twenty-two years ago today the Soviet Union announced that a serious nuclear accident had occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear reactor in the Ukraine near the small town of Pripyat 100 kilometres from the capital Kiev. The explosion in reactor number four, which occurred three days before, is the world's worst reactor meltdown, spewing radioactive material across the then Soviet Union and much of northern Europe. ----------------------------- GALLERY: World's worst meltdown...Chernobyl ----------------------------- The explosion happened due to a series of unfortunate mistakes which came together during a test of the reactor's emergency systems, creating a situation where radioactive fuel rods were removed from their coolant for too long. When the reactor began to overheat the rods were reinserted into the coolant too rapidly causing an explosion which ripped apart the facility. The radiation released in the explosion contaminated the nearby village of 45,000 people and spread across the Ukraine polluting an area the size of Italy and forcing hundreds of thousands of people from their homes. Radiation from the explosion has since led directly to the death of approximately 31 people with the UN estimating another 9,300 will die of tumours over coming decades from exposure. Currently the decommissioned reactor is encased in a concrete "sarcophagus" which was constructed shortly after the incident to contain the radioactive material.   A new plan was recently unvield to rebuild the "sarcophagus" as it is suffering from serious decay. Agreement Copyright © 2008. Brisbane Times. ***************************************************************** 13 IHT: 22 years after disaster, Chernobyl reactor is getting new shelter - International Herald Tribune The Associated Press Published: April 25, 2008 KIEV, Ukraine: Twenty-two years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, work is under way on a larger, stronger shelter to cover the ruins of the exploded Soviet power plant and prevent further contamination. For years, the original iron and concrete shelter that was hastily constructed over the reactor has been leaking radiation, cracking and threatening to collapse. "After we complete this project we will reach the goal of a safe state in Chernobyl," said Vince Novak, Director of the Nuclear Safety Department with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which manages the $505 million project. The new shelter is just part of a broader $1.4 billion effort financed by international donors that began in 1997. The project involves fixing the current shelter, monitoring radiation, training experts and building a massive new steel shelter that will slide over the current structure. In the first two months after the disaster, 31 people died from exposure to radioactivity, but there is heated debate over the subsequent toll. The U.N. health agency estimates that about 9,300 people will eventually die from cancers caused by Chernobyl's radiation. Some groups, such as Greenpeace, insist the toll could be 10 times higher. The old shelter, called a "sarcophagus," was built in just six months to cover the demolished reactor. But intense radiation has weakened the shelter, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It has also been damaged by the rainwater and snow that got inside through cracks in its roof, experts say. Officials say that were a tornado or an earthquake to hit the area the shelter could collapse, releasing clouds of poisonous radioactive dust. "This installation has a low or limited safety," said Valeriy Bykov, deputy chairperson of Ukraine's State Nuclear Regulatory Committee. "Some external factors can create dangerous radioactive incidents such as the emission of dust and its spread to great distances." The first step, shoring up the sarcophagus, is almost complete, Ukrainian and EBRD officials say. Later, a 105 meter (345-foot) tall, 260 meter (853 feet) wide and 150 meter (490-foot) long arch weighing 20,000 tons will be built and slid over the old shelter using railtracks. The front side of the arch will be covered by metal, the back side will abut the wall of the adjacent reactor No.3. Construction of the arch is scheduled to begin next year and be completed in 2012, and it is designed to last 100 years. The new structure will be big enough to house the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris or the Statue of Liberty in New York. The project is designed and built by the French-led consortium Novarka, which includes the companies Bouygues SA and Vinci SA. Workers wearing protective suits and respiratory masks will build the arch at a site about 120 meters (yards) away from the reactor, to minimize exposure to radiation. Specialists who need to be closer to the reactor will work in shifts as short as several minutes. Once the arch is erected, the most unstable parts of the old shelter and the reactor will be dismantled and removed. In 50 years, the melted nuclear fuel will be extracted from the reactor, although it is unclear where it will be stored. Experts still debate how much radioactive material remains inside the reactor. The EBRD says 95 percent of the reactor's nuclear inventory remains inside the ruins, but some experts believe most of the radiation was released in the days after the accident. The new shelter has evoked mixed feelings among Ukrainians. Some are happy the reactor is finally going to be safely enclosed. Others, especially those directly affected by the disaster, accuse the government of playing up the need for a new shelter to get international aid while downplaying their health problems. Even as the project is underway, scientists continue to debate it. Some favored alternate approaches, such as embedding the reactor in concrete or dismantling it. Other experts say the government should be more concerned about the health threat from contaminated land, ground water, equipment and spent nuclear fuel. President Viktor Yushchenko has called for expanding Ukraine's nuclear power industry, but environmentalists oppose that. They point to the shelter's colossal price and say the lesson of Chernobyl is that nuclear power carries hidden costs and dangers. "Nuclear energy has shown how expensive it is," said Vladimir Chuprov, of Greenpeace Russia. Copyright © 2008 the International Herald Tribune All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 14 Star Phoenix: Nuclear power not the solution to global warming Paul Hanley, The StarPhoenix Published: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 Nuclear power appears to be making a comeback. With the emergence of global warming, the hopes of the industry have revived based on a growing sense that, nasty as it is, nuclear may be better than coal. Politicians and industry interests -- including some influential people in Saskatchewan and Alberta -- are touting uranium as the climate-change fighting fuel of the future. Nuclear power is now being advertised as green, greenhouse-gas free and sustainable. Would that it were. Unfortunately, investing in the nuclear industry is quite likely the worst thing we could do in the fight against global warming. According to an article published in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10 per cent each year from 2010 to 2050 to meet future energy demands and replace fossil fuels. The report claims this rate of growth is completely unsustainable. Nuclear is unsustainable because building all the uranium mines, mills and refineries and nuclear plants needed to replace coal would be hugely energy, resource and capital intensive. According to the author, physicist Joshua Pearce, rapidly building out the nuclear cycle would effectively "cannibalize" all the energy produced by earlier nuclear power plants. Pearce claims there are several problems that cannot be overcome if the nuclear power option is pursued in preference to conservation and renewable energy sources. In addition to the high embodied energy costs, there are also growth limits set by the grade of uranium ore. "The limit of uranium ore grade to offset greenhouse-gas emissions is significantly higher than the purely thermodynamic limit set by the energy payback time," he explains. I interject at this point that an all-out adoption of the nuclear option would amount to an environmental catastrophe for northern Saskatchewan, which would have to be pulverized to produce all the uranium needed. Pearce's analysis of the uranium production, nuclear power and waste disposal cycle indicates that nuclear power is far from the GHG emissions-free panacea claimed by the industry. Each stage of the nuclear fuel cycle, including power plant construction, mining/milling uranium ores, fuel conversion, enrichment (or de-enrichment of nuclear weapons), fabrication, operation, decommissioning, and short- and long-term waste disposal contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions. Even though emissions from nuclear are small compared to fossil fuels, Pearce says if nuclear power were pursued as the major option over the next 40 years, we would be in no better a position in terms of emissions than we are today because of the enormous amount of conventional fossil fuel energy needed to build out the nuclear power cycle. © 2005 - 2008 Canwest Digital Media, a division of Canwest ***************************************************************** 15 Daily Sentinel: NRC extends intervention deadline Friday, May 2, 2008 By Ken Bonner The Daily Sentinel Published April 29, 2008 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has extended its deadline for public comment on a proposed twin-reactor nuclear power plant at TVA's Bellefonte site near Scottsboro until June 6, 2008. The 60-day extension, announced in the Federal Register, comes in response to a request by Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team (BEST), a local group associated with BREDL (Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League). Both groups oppose the use of nuclear power and BEST had complained that TVA's application for a COL (Combined Operating License) was incomplete. BEST had originally called for the suspension of TVA's application. The organization's motion seeking the delay, which replaced its original request, was filed on April 2. "We are really pleased with this postponement," BEST member Bill Reynolds said. "It gives individuals and organizations concerned about the nuclear power plant more time to examine a complex and difficult-to-read environmental report put together by TVA as part of its application." BEST complained that seismologic information and review of potential flooding contained in TVA's application was outdated or incomplete. The organization said it needed additional time to study the information contained in the report. "The recent earthquake in southern Illinois highlights the possibility of seismic activity in the region and the possible adverse impacts earthquakes can have on the operation of the proposed Bellefonte nuclear reactors,' Dr. Ross MCluney, a BEST founding member, said. The extension clears the way for BEST, BREDL and others to file written comments in opposition to the plant with the NRC. It should not unduly delay the application review process established earlier by the NRC. BEST is scheduled to hold a membership drive at the Scottsboro Rec*Com on Tuesday, May 6 at 6 p.m. A moderated question and answer session will be held after an informational presentation about the organization. Handouts on Citizen Nuclear Energy Safety Concerns will also be available at the meeting. © 2008 The Daily Sentinel. All rights reserved. A Southern Newspapers publication. ***************************************************************** 16 Jacksonville.com: New reactors to mean higher utility bills Last modified 5/8/2008 - 6:34 am A $12 a month hike in 2018 is based on Georgia Power's share of costs. By Jake Armstrong, The Times-Union That projected increase is based on the utility's $6.4 billion share of constructing the new reactors, the company said in a news release. The utility owns 45.7 percent of Plant Vogtle, which puts the estimated cost of the reactor project at $14 billion if current partners continue their current share in the plant. "Nuclear energy would add needed diversity to Georgia Power's fuel mix at a time when fossil fuel prices are increasing significantly," Mike Garrett, the company's president and chief executive officer, said in the news release. Interest in nuclear power is growing as the nation looks for ways to offset emissions from - and the cost of - fossil fuels, which contribute to greenhouse gasses. Neil Herring, a lobbyist representing environmental groups opposed to the plant expansion, said the amount of money the expansion will take could be used in other ways to cut carbon output more efficiently. He said the process of fabricating nuclear fuels, and construction of reactors, requires use of a large amount of carbon-generating fossil fuels. Georgia shares ownership with three other utilities - Oglethorpe Power Corp., Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities. Those utilities have until July 2 to finalize their ownership percentages in the expansion. An independent evaluator will review the proposal and the company will submit its final recommendation to the Georgia Public Service Commission on Aug. 1. The company said it expects a decision in March. The $12 monthly increase would appear in the base rate portion of customers' bills in 2018, when both reactors are operational, and is expected to decline over time. Georgia Power officials have said the company is also reviewing practices in other states that allow utilities to collect from customers construction costs ahead of construction. jake.armstrong@morris.com, (404) 589-8424 © Copyright The Florida Times-Union. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Reuters: Russia, U.S. sign civilian nuclear pact Tue May 6, 2008 12:24pm EDT By Guy Faulconbridge MOSCOW, May 6 (Reuters) - Russia and the United States signed a pact on Tuesday allowing the world's two biggest atomic powers to boost their nuclear trade and work on new ways to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The civilian deal will open up the booming U.S. nuclear market and Russia's vast uranium fields to firms from both countries by removing Cold War restrictions that prevented bilateral trade potentially worth billions of dollars. U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns, signed the deal with the head of Russia's state nuclear corporation, Sergei Kiriyenko, on the last full day of Vladimir Putin's presidency. "The United States and Russia were once nuclear rivals -- we are today nuclear partners," said Burns. At the 2006 Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg, President George W. Bush and Putin ordered ministers to reach a deal but it has faced opposition from some U.S. congressmen because of Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran. A 123 agreement, so-called because it falls under section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, is required before countries can cooperate on nuclear materials. It is critical to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, which the United States and Russia have discussed for more than a year as a way to expand peaceful nuclear energy development and mitigate proliferation risks. Continued... ***************************************************************** 18 Gristmill: Nuclear pork: enough is enough The environmental news blog | Grist No more subsidies for nuclear power, McCain et al Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 2:22 PM on 10 May 2008 Once your power source has reached, say, 10 percent of the electricity grid, let alone 20 percent, it should be time to cut the cord to government funding. Yet after more than $70 billion dollars in direct subsidies, billions more in insurance subsidies, plus another $13 billion available through the energy policy act of 2005, Sen. McCain and others still feel that climate legislation must not merely create a price for carbon dioxide that would advantage all carbon-free sources of energy, but that we must also throw billions more dollars of pork at the industry. At some point, infatuation has turned to obsession. I am not against building new nuclear power plants; far from it. But when is enough enough, in terms of massive taxpayer support for a mature industry? We had such an incredible clamor for welfare reform in the 1990s, to change "government's social welfare policy with aims at reducing recipient dependence on the government." If we reduced the poor's dependence on government, why not the super-duper rich? Total subsidies to nuclear approaching $100 billion Let's start with a historical subsidies. This 1999 Congressional research service report lists the subsidies for all major sources of energy from 1948 through 1998. This October 2007 Government Accountability Office report [PDF] examined federal electricity-related subsidies from 2002 to 2007. Bottom line: From 1948 to today, nuclear energy R&D exceeded $70 billion, whereas R& D for renewables was about $10 billion. (For the record, from 2002 to 2007, fossil fuels received almost $14 billion in electricity-related tax subsides, whereas renewables received under $3 billion, but that's fodder for another post.) But that's not all. The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which caps the liability for claims arising from nuclear incidents, reduces the insurance that nukes need to buy and puts taxpayers on the hook to cover all claims in excess of the cap. The benefit of this indirect subsidy has been estimated at between $237 million and $3.5 billion a year -- suggesting it has been worth many billions of dollars to the industry. Indeed, it could be argued that the value is considerably larger than that, since the industry might not have existed at all without it: At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power -- this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability. OK, that was fine for a new, almost completely unknown technology in 1957. But now through 2025? If investors aren't willing to accept the risks of nuclear energy now, without taxpayers liable for any major catastrophe, maybe that tells you something about the technology. And then we have the staggering $13 billion in subsides and tax breaks in the Nuclear Giveaway Bill Energy Policy Act of 2005 (not even counting the value of the Price-Anderson act extension). It includes "Unlimited taxpayer-backed loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of a project"! The complete list of subsidies is worth seeing in its entirety. And yet for all this pork, Sen. McCain put into his 2007 climate bill another $3.7 billion in federal subsidies for new nukes, even though that bill creates a cap-and-trade system that would establish a price for carbon dioxide, which benefits nuclear power and all low-carbon energy sources. Enough is enough Yet last fall, when Grist asked McCain, "What's your position on subsidies for green technologies like wind and solar?" he said: I'm not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the '70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help, and we had substandard products sold to the American people, which then made them disenchanted with solar for a long time. Seriously! (Note to McCain: The American people were never disenchanted with solar or wind -- please identify a single public poll in the past quarter century to support that view. The subsidies certainly left conservatives disenchanted, which is why Reagan and Gingrich and Bush, and you have consistently opposed them. But if any form of power has left the public disenchanted for a long time, it was nuclear. And yet the subsidies go on and on.) This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 UPI.com: Outside View: Nuke power future -- Part 1 - Published: April 30, 2008 at 7:31 PM By SERGEI GOLUBCHIKOV UPI Outside View Commentator MOSCOW, April 30 (UPI) -- On April 22 in Yerevan, Russia and the former Soviet republic of Armenia signed a treaty to set up a joint venture for the exploration and mining of uranium and other minerals in Armenia. The company is being established on parity lines and will be registered within the next three months. It was signed by Vadim Zhivov, general director of the Atomredmetzoloto uranium holding, and Armenia's Environmental Protection Minister Aram Arutyunyan. ARMZ manages all of Russia's uranium assets and runs some projects in Kazakhstan. Today, AMRZ ranks second in the world for uranium reserves. This is the result of the nuclear industry's restructuring, and in particular the pooling of its core plants under one umbrella. With the focus on nuclear power, Russia is now planning its uranium future carefully to warrant the successful development of its nuclear industry. The collapse of the Soviet Union has left Russia high and dry, with many well-researched fields outside its boundaries, mainly in Central Asia in the former Soviet Republics of Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in Central Asia. For now, Russia has only one uranium-containing deposit, in the Chita Region, with its Streltsovsky mining and chemical plant. Its total reserves are estimated at 150,000 metric tons of ore. Other fields in Eastern Siberia have a further 70,000 metric tons of explored raw materials. Altogether, the proven reserves amount to 615,000 metric tons. This figure also includes 344,000 metric tons from Elkon, the largest recently explored Russian field located in the north of Yakutia-Sakha. Russia's uranium-bearing provinces present a challenge for developers. The largest of them -- the Aldanskoye deposit -- can be developed only by sinking. The ore occurs at a depth of 300 meters -- nearly 1,000 feet -- and mining is unprofitable. During authoritarian times that problem did not exist: northern uranium was obtained by the free labor of prisoners, including political ones. In Chukotka, for example, they supplied the material for the first atomic bombs. As prison camps closed down, uranium mining in the northern latitudes stopped. Now a search is on for an economically feasible way of opening up the mothballed mines. This has become economically feasible as global energy prices have soared since the 2003 Gulf War. Uranium prices are increasing throughout the world; over the past three years they have doubled, and not surprisingly. One cubic centimeter of uranium is equivalent to 60,000 liters of gasoline, 110 to 160 metric tons of coal, or 60,000 cubic meters of natural gas. -- Next: The future uses and demand for uranium -- (Sergei Golubchikov is an associate professor at Russian State Social University. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of RIA Novosti.) -- (United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.) © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 UPI.com: Old nuclear reactor avoids replacement - Published: May 16, 2008 at 4:16 PM OTTAWA, May 16 (UPI) -- The world's oldest nuclear reactor won't be replaced due to budgetary and scheduling concerns, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. says. The Canadian energy group said plans to replace the reactor in Chalk River, Ont., wouldn't move forward due to those plans being over budget and significantly behind schedule, the Canwest News Service said Friday. AECL Chief Executive Officer Hugh MacDiarmid said in a statement that "our board of directors and senior management have concluded that it is no longer feasible to complete the commissioning and start-up of the reactors." The National Research Universal reactor in Chalk River went into operation in 1957 and was the focus of a temporary shutdown last year by federal nuclear regulators. While the aged nuclear site is again producing medical isotopes, it has been the focus of replacement talks when its current license expires on Oct. 31, 2011, Canwest said. © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 Charter'97: Children weren't allowed to go out due to accident on a nuclear plant? - News from Belarus - Belarusian News - Republic of Belarus - 28 April 2008, Mon As the Charter’97 press center has learnt from parents, whose children attend the Minsk kindergarten No 111, their kids were not allowed to go out yesterday. Teachers told the parents it was an order of the director, who had received a call from a higher-level agency. The exact reason of this decision is unknown, but staff of the kindergarten says it may be connected with an accident on a nuclear plant in one of the neighbouring countries. Vialetta Kakoryna, headmaster of the Minsk kindergarten no 111, said to the Charter’97 press center, a telephone message from the Education Department of the Savetski district had been received asking not let children go out and not open windows. “We received a telephone message from the Education Department of the Savetski district saying a storm was expected. We were asked not to let children go out and not to open windows. Nothing was said about an accident on a nuclear plant. It is known, that similar instructions were given to other kindergartens,” the headmaster said. In the meantime, officers of the Ministry of Emergency of Belarus as well as administration of the Smolensk (Russian) and Ignalina (Lithuania) nuclear power plants denied in a telephone conversation with Interfax rumours about radioactivity discharge or radiation background growth, spread by a number of e-media. The office of the director of the Smolensk nuclear power plant (situated in Desnogorsk town) said to Interfax: “There was no radioactivity discharge on the plant. You are the first to say it. We work in normal mode, radiation background on the plant is 0.19 ”Sv/h at the normal rate of 2.5 ”Sv/h. The director of the Ignalina nuclear power plant said there had been no discharge and radiation background on the object is normal. “We received 9 telephone calls today,” Vital Navitski, spokesman of the Ministry of Emergency, said to Interfax. “We were asked what had happened on Ignalina nuclear plant 7 times, one time – what had happened in Sosny (United Institute of Energy and Nuclear Researches at the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus – IF), and one time – about Smolensk nuclear plant,” the spokesman said. “Radiological situation in Belarus is stable, radiation background in Minsk is within the normal range and amounts to 0.1 ”Sv/h (maximum rate is 0.2 ”Sv/h),” an officer on-duty in the Republican Center of Radiological Control said to Interfax. © 1998-2008 Charter'97. www.charter97.org ***************************************************************** 22 News Wales: Chernobyl still felt in Wales 25/4/2008 Twenty two years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, Plaid MEP Jill Evans says tomorrow's anniversary (Saturday) serves as a timely reminder of why nuclear power must be phased out. The radioactive cloud spread radiation from Chernobyl right across Europe, and more than 300 farms in the north of Wales are still affected by restrictions imposed in the aftermath of the disaster. Ms Evans visited the the site of the nuclear power plant two years ago with a group of MEPs and met local people whose lives were shattered by the disaster as well as people who are now working to secure the site. In the early hours of 26 April 1986, reactor number four in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine exploded resulting in substantial radioactive fallout whose effects were felt as far away as Wales. Speaking ahead of Chernobyl Day tomorrow, Jill Evans said: "More than twenty years have passed since the Chernobyl disaster and its effects are still being felt today. The disaster has claimed many lives and reports suggest that up to 90,000 people may die of cancer as a result of the radiation from Chernobyl. "When I visited Chernobyl two years ago I met people whose lives had been destroyed as a result of the disaster. Most of all, I was struck by the eerie calm and silence in the area around the plant with so many deserted villages. You can't see the radiation but it has meant that this area will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years. "The radioactive cloud spread radiation from Chernobyl right across Europe, and over three hundred farms in the north of Wales are still affected by restrictions imposed in the aftermath of the disaster. "What happened at Chernobyl shows us that nuclear power is not the solution to the world's energy needs. Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive. It must be phased out. Tthe world cannot afford another Chernobyl." Jill Evans MEP represents the whole of Wales in the European Parliament. She is Deputy President of Plaid Cymru the Party of Wales. News Wales is published by GoHolidays.net copyright 1999-2006 Builth Wells, Powys LD2 3EF ? enquiries@newswales.co.uk ***************************************************************** 23 ITAR-TASS: Belarus opens temporary access to cemeteries in Chernobyl exclusion zone 04.05.2008, 15.28 MINSK, May 4 (Itar-Tass) - As of Monday, May 4, the Belarussian authorities have opened temporary access to cemeteries in the Chernobyl nuclear accident exclusion zone, which embraces a number of areas in eastern and southeast parts of the country affected by radiation in the wake of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident. The exclusion zone has restricted access, and the population from there was largely resettled to other parts of the country shortly after the accident. Temporary access is now given to the cemeteries, as Eastern Orthodox believers are going to mark Radonitsa, the Tuesday of the second week after Easter on which the Eastern Orthodox Church remembers all the departed. The Belarussians have a tradition of visiting cemeteries on the eve of Radonitsa for clearing and decorating the graves of their departed relatives. This year, the cemeteries in the exclusion zone will be open for access through to May 6. Experts at the special administration supervising the exclusion zone told Itar-Tass that people get permission to go to the cemeteries only and cannot travel freely within the areas affected by the Chernobyl radioactive fallout. To prevent undesirable traveling inside the zone, the authorities have placed special patrols there. Fire precautions take on special significance these days, and Belarussian law enforcers call the attention of all the visitors to the importance of strictly observing the fire safety regulations. More than 250 cemeteries are located in the exclusion zone and about 50,000 visit them annually for remembrance purposes. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, store ***************************************************************** 24 Cyprus Mail: Greens blast plans for nuclear plant in Turkey By Anna Hassapi THE CYPRUS Green Party and the Commissioner for the Environment Charalambos Theopemtou are warning about the risks involved in the planned construction of five nuclear power stations and a nuclear technology centre in Turkey. The Greens are calling the state to intervene to prevent the operation of the nuclear plants, particularly at Akkuyu, which lies in a seismogenic area, as Cyprus would also be affected by a possible nuclear catastrophe. “The construction of a power plant at Akkuyu brings the nuclear nightmare to our doorstep,” said the Greens. “The exceptionally dangerous seismogenic area of southern Asia Minor, the problem of safety in the area, the lack of experience and expertise and more, make the plans for the construction of a nuclear power plant at Akkuyu the biggest threat to life and the safety of people in our area,” the statement continued. The Commissioner for the Environment Charalambos Theopemptou also pointed out the serious risks involved, including the lack of specialised personnel to staff the plants, the management of nuclear waste, the risk of leaks of nuclear waste, and the fact that the area where the plants will be built is seismogenic, which increases the risk of accidents. Theopemptou pointed out that plans for the construction of a nuclear technology centre were also alarming, as it could be used for the development of nuclear weapons. “It is well-known that countries with nuclear energy later get nuclear weapons with radioactive waste, particularly those countries with the type of plants Turkey is promoting. “The new trend is for low intensity nuclear weapons that destroy areas and not entire countries. So the decision to use them is easier! What will happen in our volatile oil-rich region with its chronic conflicts and guerrilla wars and the water shortage which could be a cause of war?” Theopemtou said. Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2008 ***************************************************************** 25 Tri-City Herald: NUCLEAR: FFTF reactor fuel shipped to Idaho - Tuesday, May. 13, 2008 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The last of the fuel has been removed from Hanford’s shutdown Fast Flux Test Facility and shipped to Idaho almost a year ahead of a legal deadline. The research reactor is being deactivated to allow it to be put into a long-term surveillance and maintenance mode at minimum cost by August 2009. The Department of Energy was required under the Tri-Party Agreement to have the last of the fuel removed from the reactor in March 2009. That included 375 fuel assemblies transported to central Hanford earlier for storage. They will be considered for disposal at Yucca Mountain, Nev. In addition, FFTF had 11 sodium-bonded fuel assemblies that were shipped from FFTF to the Idaho National Laboratory to have uranium extracted for possible reuse by commercial nuclear power plants. The first of 11 shipments to Idaho was made in October, with contractor Fluor Hanford receiving word the last shipment arrived May 1. For the full story, see Wednesday's Herald and hanfordnews.com © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 26 Augusta Chronicle: Environmentalists speak against adding reactors By Rob Pavey| Staff Writer Monday, April 28, 2008 A proposal to add two new reactors to Plant Vogtle drew praise from politicians and economic developers Sunday but brought renewed concerns from environmentalists over the reactors' potential impact on dwindling water supplies. Waynesboro Mayor George DeLoach, the first to speak during a hearing in Augusta in front of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, said he fully supports the project. "Georgia Power and Plant Vogtle have been great community leaders," he said, noting that rural Burke County relies heavily on Vogtle's tax revenues, which have helped build schools, a public library, a hospital and other vital facilities. Bill Mareska, an Augusta dentist, offered a different point of view, urging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to demand more studies into how much water the new reactors would remove from the Savannah River, especially during extended drought. "The Savannah River is not inexhaustible," he said. He said the addition of two reactors could double the 69 million gallons of water the existing reactors extract each day, only about one-third of which is returned to the river. Mr. Mareska said that before federal regulators decide whether to permit the project, a detailed study into the consequences of a worst-case-scenario drought should be conducted to gauge potential harm to the river and its ecosystem -- and determine whether Vogtle could be shut down if water supplies are inadequate. A.K. Hasan, the founder of the pro-nuclear group Citizens for Nuclear Energy, said additional studies aren't needed. "There are plenty of aquatic issue documents available," he said, referring to the studies conducted as part of the licensing for the existing reactors. Nuclear energy is no longer something to be feared, he said in recommending approval for Southern Nuclear Operating Co.'s permit request. Larry Kelliher, however, offered Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as evidence that nuclear energy isn't always safe. "Safety comes from shutting down plants, not adding more of them," he said, stating that such facilities invite terrorism and create a legacy of deadly waste. Nuclear facilities, he added, are also historically more costly than expected and take longer to build. "The quoted costs are more like the tip of the iceberg," he said. Sunday's hearing was one of three to be held in Augusta this week. An additional public comment meeting is scheduled for 7 tonight. There is also a 5 p.m. presentation during which the board will discuss Southern Nuclear's Early Site Permit and Combined License applications. Both meetings are at the DoubleTree Hotel on Perimeter Parkway. Southern Nuclear applied for an early site permit Aug. 15, 2006. If approved, it would give the company 20 years to decide whether to build one or more reactors at the plant, and to apply to the commission for permits to initiate construction. Plant Vogtle is in Burke County, about 26 miles south of Augusta. Reach Rob Pavey at (706) 868-1222, ext. 119, or rob.pavey@augustachronicle.com. © 2008 The Augusta Chronicle ***************************************************************** 27 The Adobe Press: Complaint filed with NRC By April Charlton/Senior Staff Writer Allegations of retaliation against workers for reporting safety concerns and violations at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant has prompted a complaint being filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Longtime Diablo watchdog group San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace sent a letter to the NRC’s regional office in Texas last week urging an investigation into the allegations. The letter, written by Morgan Rafferty, a Mothers for Peace member, cites an alleged incident where a Diablo worker received a poor performance evaluation after raising safety concerns. The complaint — a differing professional opinion (DPO) — stemmed from the recent refueling outage and steam generator replacement project at the plant that was completed earlier this month. The DPO alleges that Pacific Gas & Electric Co., which operates Diablo, once again violated safety standards at the plant by “failing to promptly correct known deficiencies in the containment fan cooler units.” Diablo workers approached Mothers for Peace with their concerns of retaliation for reporting safety violations, which prompted the group’s letter to the NRC. In the letter, Rafferty wrote, “Workers perceive that raising safety concerns carries a high likelihood of retaliation by management” and that there’s a chilling effect at the plant keeping workers from voicing such concerns. Emily Christensen, PG&E spokeswoman for Diablo Canyon, said PG&E received the Mothers for Peace letter Tuesday and is “investigating the allegations.” “We take any safety allegation very seriously,” she said, adding the electric company will fully cooperate with any future investigation by the NRC. Christensen added that PG&E has a program — Employee Concerns group — independent of plant leadership allowing workers to raise safety issues without having to go through their direct supervisor. The group reports to the chief nuclear officer. “We really do look to maintain an environment where workers can raise concerns without the fear of retaliation,” she said, adding PG&E even encourages third parties to report safety issues at Diablo. However, Rafferty’s letter alleges Diablo workers have lost trust and confidence in the Employees Concerns group, believing it conducts unfair, biased and inappropriate inquiries of workers’ concerns. acharlton@timespressrecorder.com Contact The Adobe Press Main Phone: 805-489-4206 Copyright © 2008 Lee Central Coast Newspapers. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 PennLive.com: NRC cites TMI for security rules violations by GARRY LENTON, Of The Patriot-News Friday May 16, 2008, 1:39 PM The nuclear plant at Three Mile Island will get closer scrutiny from federal regulators for the next 12 months, following a lapse in security procedures that occurred last summer. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission concluded that the security issue was of moderate to serious significance. The problem was discovered and reported by AmerGen Energy, the operator of the plant, Citing security rules, the NRC would not say how its rules were violated, except to acknowledge that the problem did not involve inattentive or sleeping security officers. Plant owner AmerGen Energy corrected the problem immediately, company officials said. Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC, said the agency will conduct more inspections of the plant's security operations as a result of the investigation. The Patriot-News | The Express-Times © 2008 PennLive LLC. All Rights Reserved. Use of this site ***************************************************************** 29 CBC News: SaskPower nuclear reactor report stirs up northern debate Last Updated: Friday, May 9, 2008 | 10:52 AM ET People in northern Saskatchewan are of two minds about a possible nuclear power station in their region. A consultant's report prepared for SaskPower and obtained by CBC earlier this week named Lac La Loche as one of two regions where a nuclear reactor might be located. The chief of the Clearwater River Dene First Nation likes the idea, because of the potential boost to the local economy. "Personally speaking, I think it's beginning to make some sense," Chief Roy Cheechum said. "If you're going to have tarsands developments which is going to need a certain amount of energy to develop and to extract, and if you're going to be going further and developing uranium mines, then wouldn't the third piece be a nuclear power plant?" However, La Loche Mayor Georgina Jolibois worries about environmental impacts on her town and the surrounding area, and says she can't support a nuclear plant. "It's such a big, big initiative," she said. "I would like to be able to preserve the land, I would like to be able to preserve the wildlife, the lakes and everything." The Lac La Loche area was considered in the report because it's near a potential oilsands development in the northwest. The nuclear reactor proposal was for a cogeneration plant that would produce electricity and steam, with the assumption that the electrical output would be half that of a Candu 6. Environment, cost, weather considered The study looked at environmental and cost factors, cooling-water requirements, exclusion zones, seismology, transmission systems, weather and geotechnical conditions. Ultimately, the Lac La Loche area was not seen as the best choice. Instead, the Stantec Consulting report identified the Lake Diefenbaker region as the preferable option. The province says that if a nuclear power plant were to be built, it would not be by SaskPower. Instead, according to Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff, the government will be working with the private sector to see "what is appropriate." * CBCNews.ca * Canadian Broadcasting Centre ***************************************************************** 30 ajc.com: Georgia Power to pay $6.4B for new nuclear reactors | By KRISTI E. SWARTZ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 05/07/08 Georgia Power will pay approximately $6.4 billion to Westinghouse Electric to build its share of two proposed 1,100-megawatt nuclear reactors at the utility's Vogtle plant south of Augusta, the utility said Wednesday. The $6.4 billion projection represents Georgia Power's 45.7 percent ownership of Vogtle. The plant's other co-owners — Oglethorpe Power, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton Utilities — will also pay for their part of the project. The other co-owners are currently negotiating how much they will each pay Westinghouse. Georgia Power officials said they did not want to speculate on the total price tag because of a number of variables. "Their costs are different than ours," said Oscar Harper, Georgia Power's vice president of resource planning. The projection comes with several caveats, Georgia Power officials said. They leave flexibility for budget overruns, adjustments for fluctuations in the prices of steel or other materials, and contractors' performance bonuses that are tied to meeting certain milestones. The company may ask the state Public Service Commission if it could start collecting money to pay for the nuclear plants before they are built. This pay-as-you-go-plan would mean consumers ultimately would pay less because they limit the effects of inflation and possible interest rate increases over the long run. Harper said the company would consider that and other financing options in August. Westinghouse would build two reactors using a new AP1000 design that is modified from previous models. Utility officials tout its simpler design and enhanced safety features. The first reactor is expected to start producing electricity in 2016. The second, in 2017. Vogtle is already home to two reactors that began operating in the late 1980s. Besides Vogtle, Georgia Power operates the Hatch nuclear plant in southeastern Georgia near Baxley. Nuclear power is making a comeback in the United States as the nation tries to lessen its dependence on natural gas and foreign oil as well as cut back on carbon emissions and other pollutants. Based on the state's expected growth, Georgia Power says it needs to add more than 7,000 megawatts of capacity and that nuclear energy is essential to achieving that goal. While several utilities have hinted at building nuclear reactors, few have actually committed to doing so. To spur the building of nuclear plants, the federal government has put in place tax breaks and is considering offering loan guarantees and other forms of insurance against regulatory delays and cost overruns. Georgia Power is considering applying for these but has not yet, Harper said. "We're well positioned for each of them," he said. Georgia Power submitted its agreement with Westinghouse to the PSC last month but did not disclose the cost figure until Wednesday. Any independent power producers that wanted to submit rival bids for plants powered by nuclear, coal or natural gas to meet Georgia's future demand, had to do so by May 1. No other bids were submitted, a PSC spokesman said. Still, an independent evaluator at the PSC must review the company's plans. They also must receive federal approvals before they are built. Neill Herring, a lobbyist for environmental groups, said there are less-expensive ways to provide large amounts of electricity and curb carbon emissions. ***************************************************************** 31 Public Citizen: Don"t Be Fooled by Nuclear Industry Shill; Environmentalists Are Not Backing New Reactors May 8, 2008  Nuclear Power Plant Proposed for Victoria Puts Region at Risk AUSTIN, Texas – While an environmental consultant brought to Victoria to tout nuclear energy is quick to claim that a new reactor proposed for the area would be “clean and safe,” he is less likely to discuss today at a private gathering of business and community leaders his ties to the industry, which is sponsoring his speaking tour. Since 2006, Patrick Moore has been a paid spokesperson for the nuclear industry. He is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which is wholly funded by the nuclear industry lobby group, the Nuclear Energy Institute. “While Moore wants people to believe that talking points crafted by the nuclear industry are the prevailing position of the environmental community, the fact is no major environmental organization promotes the expansion of nuclear power as a solution to global warming,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “The facts remain: Nuclear power is dangerous, environmentally malignant and an uneconomical energy source.” The Victoria Economic Development Corporation, which is hosting Moore’s presentation, has billed the event as a discussion on energy issues in Texas and the environmental benefits of nuclear power generation. The talk follows the announcement by Illinois-based utility Exelon Nuclear that it wants to build a new reactor in the area, breaking from the industry’s usual strategy of choosing sites where reactors already exist and where opposition is less likely. “The failure of both the Victoria Economic Development Corporation and Moore to disclose his relationship with the nuclear industry is blatantly deceptive,” Smith said. The arguments against nuclear power are overwhelming, Smith said. Nuclear plants face safety shortcomings and lack protection from terrorist attacks. Nuclear power is not a clean energy source, producing low- and high-level radioactive waste at every step of the process – from uranium mining to energy production. That waste will remain dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years. Then there is the more than $13 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies the industry receives. In fact, without huge subsidies, nuclear power companies would close their doors, Smith said. Residents and decision-makers in Victoria should demand a balanced examination of nuclear technology and the impacts it would have on their community, not a distorted view of nuclear power served up by an industry spokesperson at a meeting closed to the public, said Sandra McKenzie, a local Victoria attorney. “Before allowing an industry to make such a huge change in our way of life, the citizens of this community deserve an opportunity to have all of our questions and concerns addressed,” McKenzie said. “A closed forum does not allow for the type of dialogue that Victoria needs to engage in before making a decision on an issue that will change the face of our community for generations to come.” Moore’s claim of being an environmentalist is based on his work with Greenpeace in the early 1970s. But since the early 1990s, Moore has worked as a corporate consultant for groups looking to put an environmental spin on such things as genetically modified crops, PVCs and how to dispose of toxic mining byproducts. ***************************************************************** 32 Alternet: A Nuclear Energy Renaissance Wouldn't Solve Our Problems, But It Would Rip Us Off By Christian Parenti, The Nation. Posted May 6, 2008. Talk of a nuclear renaissance is a dangerous distraction from the real changes we need to make to wean ourselves off oil. If you listen to the rhetoric, nuclear power is back. Smashing atoms will replace burning carbon-based coal, gas and oil. In the face of a disaster movie-like future of runaway climate change -- bringing drought, floods, famine and social breakdown -- carbon-free nukes are cast as the deus ex machina to save us at the last minute. Even a few greens support nuclear power -- most famously James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory. In the popular press, discussion of nuclear energy is dominated by its boosters, thanks in part to sophisticated industry PR. In an effort to jump-start a "nuclear renaissance," the Bush Administration has pushed one package of subsidies after another. For the past two years a program of federal loan guarantees has sat waiting for utilities to build nukes. Last year's appropriations bill set the total amount on offer at $18.5 billion. And now the Lieberman-Warner climate change bill is gaining momentum and will likely accrue amendments that will offer yet more money. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects up to thirty applications to be filed to build atomic plants; five or six of those proposals are moving through the complicated multi-stage process. But no new atomic power stations have been fully licensed or have broken ground. And two newly proposed projects have just been shelved. The fact is, nuclear power has not recovered from the crisis that hit it three decades ago with the reactor fire at Browns Ferry, Alabama, in 1975 and the meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Then came what seemed to be the coup de grĂące: Chernobyl in 1986. The last nuclear power plant ordered by a U.S. utility, the TVA's Watts Bar 1, began construction in 1973 and took twenty-three years to complete. Nuclear power has been in steady decline worldwide since 1984, with almost as many plants canceled as completed since then. All of which raises the question: why is the much-storied "nuclear renaissance" so slow to get rolling? Who is holding up the show? In a nutshell, blame Warren Buffett and the banks -- they won't put up the cash. "Wall Street doesn't like nuclear power," says Arjun Makhijani of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. The fundamental fact is that nuclear power is too expensive and risky to attract the necessary commercial investors. Even with vast government subsidies, it is difficult or almost impossible to get proper financing and insurance. The massive federal subsidies on offer will cover up to 80 percent of construction costs of several nuclear power plants in addition to generous production tax credits, as well as risk insurance. But consider this: the average two-reactor nuclear power plant is estimated to cost $10 billion to $18 billion to build. That's before cost overruns, and no U.S. nuclear power plant has ever been delivered on time or on budget. As Dieter Helm, an Oxford professor and leading economic expert on energy markets, has found, there never has been and never will be a nuclear power program totally dependent on the market. Sixty years ago, the technology was swathed in manic space-age optimism -- its electricity was going to be "too cheap to meter." While that wasn't true, nuclear power did serve a key role in the cold war: spent nuclear fuel rods are refined for weapons-grade plutonium and enriched uranium. That fact aside, rarely has so much money, scientific know-how and raw state power been marshaled to achieve so little. By some estimates, an investment of several hundred billion dollars has led to a U.S. nuke industry of 104 operating plants -- about a quarter of the global total -- that produces a mere 19 percent of our electricity. In fact, the sputtering decline of nuclear power has been one of the greatest industrial failures of modern times. In 1985 Forbes called the nuke industry "the largest managerial disaster in history." Atomic optimism run amok caused the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history. In 1983 Washington Public Power Supply System abandoned three nuke plants in midconstruction. The projects were plagued by massive cost overruns -- one infamous section of piping was reinstalled seventeen times, safety inspections were blatantly ignored, incompetent contractors were allowed to continue work and on and on. When the project finally died, unfinished costs had ballooned to $24 billion, and the utility walked away from $2.25 billion worth of bonds. That project, like many others, drowned in the financial riptides of rising interest rates that were the central feature of the "Volcker recession" of the early '80s. (That was when Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker smashed inflation by jacking the Fed's interest rate from 8 percent in 1979 to more than 16 percent in 1982.) But nukes were also killed by the corruption and incompetence that so often plague large state projects, like Boston's Big Dig, the New Orleans levees, space-based weapons systems and Iraq's reconstruction. continued © 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 Calgary Herald: Alberta faces fight for reactor Saskatchewan in talks over nuclear plant Jon Harding, Calgary Herald Published: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 Alberta and Saskatchewan are competing to house Western Canada's first commercial nuclear power plant, Saskatchewan's Natural Resources Minister Bill Boyd confirmed Tuesday. The energy point man for the recently elected and decidedly pro-business Saskatchewan Party said his government has held "early" talks with Bruce Power LP, the private nuclear operator from western Ontario, which laid out plans in March for a $10-billion-plus nuclear complex near Peace River, in Alberta's northwest Peace Country, operating by 2017. "We have had early, very preliminary discussions with Bruce Power about the potential in Saskatchewan," Boyd said in an interview in Calgary, where he was speaking at a conference for energy regulators. "(Bruce Power) has indicated to us, as well, that the site selection might be more appropriate in our province, so we are interested in that and are looking at it." Bruce Power is about to embark on an environmental assessment related to the Alberta location, a process that could take up to three years. As well, the Alberta government, which for years was loathe to allow Canada's nuclear energy industry into the province, recently struck a panel to help form a formal Alberta policy on whether to allow nuclear power. Bruce Power was forthright in presentations throughout the Peace Country that other site options might be considered. Still, until the idea that Saskatchewan might offer a superior location for a plant was floated two weeks ago by Bruce Power's majority owner, TransCanada Corp., it was not known that Saskatchewan was in Bruce Power's sights. Boyd said the province, which produces a third of the world's nuclear fuel -- uranium -- would welcome the massive investment. Saskatchewan-based Cameco Corp., the world's largest producer of uranium, is a minority owner of Bruce Power. "We are comfortable with the science and we certainly believe it is something we want to take a look at at," Boyd said. "We have approximately one-third of the known uranium reserves in the world, so it certainly makes sense for us to take a look at the next stages of development, upgrading, refining and through to generation, and that certainly is what we are prepared to do. "There is a huge emerging market for electricity supply going forward both in Saskatchewan and Alberta and certainly to the south of us in the United States." Longtime anti-nuclear advocate Dave Weir of Regina, a director with the Regina Citizens for a Nuclear Free Society, said the Saskatchewan Party "doesn't have a hope" of luring Bruce Power due to significant public sentiment in Saskatchewan that remains firmly aligned against having a nuclear plant. "There is a really, really strong and latent anti-nuclear sentiment in the province," Weir said. "Now that the New Democratic Party is no longer the government, NDPers will feel free to express themselves, whereas they felt muzzled before because the provincial government was promoting and defending the uranium industry." * next page © 2005 - 2008 Canwest Digital Media, a division of Canwest ***************************************************************** 34 WSJ.com: New Wave of Nuclear Plants Faces High Costs - By REBECCA SMITH May 12, 2008; Page B1 A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. NRG Energy Inc. hopes to add two units to the South Texas Project nuclear site. Nuclear power is regaining favor as an alternative to other sources of power generation, such as coal-fired plants, which have fallen out of favor because they are major polluters. But the high cost could lead to sharply higher electricity bills for consumers and inevitably reignite debate about the nuclear industry's suitability to meet growing energy needs. Nuclear plants haven't been built in meaningful numbers in the U.S. since the 1980s. Part of the cost escalation is bad luck. Plants are being proposed in a period of skyrocketing costs for commodities such as cement, steel and copper; amid a growing shortage of skilled labor; and against the backdrop of a shrunken supplier network for the industry. The price escalation is sobering because the industry and regulators have worked hard to make development more efficient, in hopes of eliminating problems that in the past produced harrowing cost overruns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for example, has created a streamlined licensing process to make timelier, more comprehensive decisions about proposals. Nuclear vendors have developed standardized designs for plants to reduce construction and operating costs. And utility executives, with years of operating experience behind them, are more astute buyers. • The News: Estimated costs to build the next generation of nuclear power plants have soared to $5 billion to $12 billion a plant. • The Debate: Questions are emerging over the affordability of nuclear power, despite its popularity as an alternative to polluting coal-fired plants. • What to Watch: If Congress taxes greenhouse-gas emissions, nuclear plants, which aren't emitters, will become more attractive. But if coal and natural-gas prices decline, nuclear-plant economics will get worse. Now, 104 nuclear reactors are operating in the U.S. Most are highly profitable but that was not the case until fairly recently. For the 75 units built between 1966 and 1986, the average cost was $3 billion or triple early estimates, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Many plants operate profitably now because they were sold to current operators for less than their actual cost. The latest projections follow months of tough negotiations between utility companies and key suppliers, and suggest efforts to control costs are proving elusive. Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators -- NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc. -- "have blown by our highest estimate" of costs computed just eight months ago, said Jim Hempstead, a senior credit officer at Moody's Investors Service credit-rating agency in New York. Moody's worries that continued cost increases, even if partially offset by billions of dollars worth of federal subsidies, could weaken companies and expose consumers to high energy costs. On May 7, Georgia Power Co., a unit of Atlanta-based Southern, said it expects to spend $6.4 billion for a 45.7% interest in two new reactors proposed for the Vogtle nuclear plant site near Augusta, Ga. Utility officials declined to disclose total costs. A typical Georgia Power household could expect to see its power bill go up by $144 annually to pay for the plants after 2018, the utility said. Bill Edge, spokesman for the Georgia Public Service Commission, said Georgia "will look at what's best for ratepayers" and could pull support if costs balloon to frightening heights. The existing Vogtle plant, put into service in the late 1980s, cost more than 10 times its original estimate, roughly $4.5 billion for each of two reactors. FPL Group, Juno Beach, Fla., estimates it will cost $6 billion to $9 billion to build each of two reactors at its Turkey Point nuclear site in southeast Florida. It has picked a reactor design by Westinghouse Electric Co., a unit of Toshiba Corp., after concluding it could cost as much as $12 billion to build plants with reactors designed by General Electric Co. The joint venture GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy said it hasn't seen FPL's calculations but is confident its units "are cost-competitive compared with other nuclear designs." Exelon, the nation's biggest nuclear operator, is considering building two reactors on an undeveloped site in Texas, and said the cost could be $5 billion to $6.5 billion each. The plants would be operated as "merchant" plants and thus would not have utility customers on the hook to pay for them, as is the case in both Florida and Georgia. Instead, they would have to cover expenses through wholesale power sales. Several things could derail new development plans. Excessive cost is one. A second is the development of rival technologies that could again make nuclear plants look like white elephants. A drop in prices for coal and natural gas, now very expensive, also could make nuclear plants less attractive. On the other hand, if Congress decides to tax greenhouse-gas emissions, that could make electricity from nuclear plants more attractive by raising costs for generators that burn fossil fuels. Nuclear plants wouldn't have to pay the charges because they aren't emitters. Some states are clearing a path for nuclear-power development, even before costs are fully known. They are inspired by a growing fear of climate change. "The overwhelming feeling in Florida is that nuclear power is popular and that's why it's going to go ahead," said J.R. Kelly, head of the Office of Public Counsel in Tallahassee, which represents consumers. "Our main concern is the tremendous cost." In Florida, state officials are allowing utilities to collect money from customers to cover development and construction costs. In the past, regulators typically required utilities to bear the costs until plants were finished. Many utilities said they are watching with interest. Ralph Izzo, chief executive of Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. in New Jersey, said his company may not be big enough to build a nuclear plant, even though it is a nuclear operator. "We're concerned by the rise in construction costs," he said. Write to Rebecca Smith at rebecca.smith@wsj.com ***************************************************************** 35 Viet Nam News: Japan, Viet Nam ink nuclear power deal (16-05-2008) HA NOI — Viet Nam wanted Japan to help the country develop a safe nuclear programme, Deputy Prime Minister Hoang Trung Hai told visiting Japanese Deputy Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Nakano Masashi in Ha Noi yesterday. Nuclear power was new in Viet Nam, Hai said, so the country hoped to continue receiving international support in this field, especially from Japan, a country well-experienced in developing nuclear power. He said in the short term Viet Nam wanted Japan to help train human resources and build a legal basis to boost development of nuclear energy. Nakano Masashi informed Hai on the signing of the memorandum of co-operation (MoC) between the two countries pledging to jointly foster nuclear power development. Nuclear deal During the signing ceremony for the MoC yesterday, Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Do Huu Hao represented Viet Nam, and Deputy Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Masashi Nakano signed for Japan. The MoC will create a legal framework for the two countries to continue developing human resources for Viet Nam’s first nuclear power plant, slated for operation by 2020. Under the MoC, Japan will help Viet Nam implement its strategy to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes as approved by Vietnamese Government in June 2007. Japan will also help educate experts in nuclear power and aid Viet Nam in formulating safety regulations. The two countries will negotiate co-operation agreements in areas like high-level delegation and information exchanges, conferences, forums and exhibitions. The MoC would mark an obvious advance in the two ministries’ co-ordination and help create a good environment for enterprises from the two nations to co-operate on nuclear power, said Viet Nam’s Ministry of Industry and Trade. Japan has gained experience with nuclear power safety and technology in terms of construction, operations and maintenance since the first nuclear plant began operation in 1966. As many as 55 nuclear power plants are operating in Japan with a total capacity of 47.700 MW. Thirteen others are planned or under construction. Earlier, Viet Nam inked several memoranda of understanding regarding nuclear power with South Korea, France, Russia, China and Canada. Japan and Viet Nam have already worked together in researching the possibilities of using nuclear power and building the first nuclear power plant in Viet Nam. — VNS Copyright by Viet Nam News, Vietnam News Agency 11 Tran Hung Dao Street, Hanoi, Vietnam Editor in Chief: Tran Mai Huong Tel. 84-4-9332316; Fax: 84-4-9332311 E-mail: vnnews@vnagency.com.vn Publication Permit: 599/GP-INTER Granted by the Ministry of Culture and Information on April 9, 1998. ***************************************************************** 36 MWC News: Nuclear power is undemocratic May 06 2008 Political Views By Ace Hoffman The Unconstitutionality of Nuclear Power Regulation in AmericaThe Unconstitutionality of Nuclear Power Regulation in America © 2008 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 77 Oxford Mail: I Was An Atomic Test Guinea Pig By Matt Wilkinson Comment A pensioner who says he was a "guinea pig" during atomic bomb tests in the 1950s is suing the Government. Ex-serviceman Derek Connelly, of Churchill Road, Kidlington, says he was made to stand just wearing his shorts and socks to witness nuclear and hydrogen bombs being set off in the Pacific Ocean 50 years ago. The 71-year-old's grandchildren have suffered miscarriages, deafness and premature birth, which he fears are linked to his exposure to radiation from the weapons. Now he has joined forces with hundreds of other servicemen to sue the Government for damages. The Government says it will argue in court that the legal action has been lodged too late. Mr Connelly said: "We were taken out of our beds at about 2am just in our shorts and socks - no protective clothing whatsoever. We were made to stand with our backs to the blast, with fists clenched over our eyes. "When the flash came, you could see every bone and sinew in your hand. The heat on your back felt like someone was running an electric fire across your body - and that was from 30 miles away. "We didn't know much better. We were just all guinea pigs." Four bombs were tested during the nine months he served on Christmas Island - now known as Kiribati - while serving in the RAF police, guarding airfields. For three of the tests, Mr Connelly was 30 miles away from the blast, but for the fourth, he was just 12 miles away. He left the RAF soon after to became a prison officer. He and his wife Jill moved to Kidlington in the 1970s. They have been married for 45 years and have five grandchildren. Recently, Mr Connelly has suffered heart problems, while his grandson Ellis Connelly, now 18, was born prematurely, weighing just 1Ib 13oz. His seven-year-old grand-daughter Freya Connelly-Warne was born deaf. A third grandchildhe did not want to name has suffered three miscarriages. Mr Connelly said there were no tests available to prove a link between the health problems and the nuclear bomb tests. He said: "I never really thought about it until my children and their children started having health problems. I don't wish to achieve anything for me personally, but for my wife and family for after I've gone. But I'm also doing it for all those who have died since the tests. "The Government needs to accept what happened. We have all been forgotten. It happened in 1958 and now here we are in 2008 and nothing has been done." If the Government fails to persuade the courts to halt the ex-servicemen's case, it is expected to be heard in 2011. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "When compensation claims are received, they are considered on the basis of whether or not the Ministry has a legal liability to pay compensation. Where there is a proven legal liability, compensation is paid." 6:30am Thursday 1st May 2008Print  Email this Comment Privacy Policy © Copyright 2001-2008 ***************************************************************** 78 New Scientist: Insects left disfigured by nuclear radiation - earth - 24 April 2008 * Michael Marshall Watch a slideshow of Hesse-Honegger's watercolours No one wants to live too close to a source of artificial radiation, not even insects. Cornelia Hesse-Honegger has spent 20 years travelling around the world, mostly in Europe, capturing and studying over 16,000 insects, many living in the vicinity of nuclear power stations, or other artificial sources of radiation. Her conclusion, not surprisingly, is that exposure to radiation increases the chances of deformity. She made particularly detailed studies of the regions worst hit by the Chernobyl radioactive cloud: the south of Sweden and the Ticino canton in Switzerland. Drawing on her skills as a scientific illustrator, she made to-scale watercolour paintings of many of her specimens, illustrating deformities such as misshapen wings and stunted feelers. Journal reference: , vol 5, issue 4, p 499 The Nuclear Age - Learn more about all things nuclear in our explosive special report. Endangered species - Learn more about the conservation battle in our comprehensive special report. About NewScientist.com | About New Scientist magazine | Publisher ***************************************************************** 79 CTV Winnipeg- Man killed in accident at nuclear laboratory - Canadian Television Updated: Fri May. 09 2008 11:44:10 ctvwinnipeg.ca An accident killed a 46-year-old man at an Atomic Energy of Canada Limited laboratory in Pinawa, Thursday. The accident happened around 11:00 a.m. The employee was on shift when he was killed. RCMP were not releasing many details Friday, as their joint investigation with Human Resources Development Canada continued. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is a nuclear technology and services company that has nearly 5000 employees. Late last year one of their laboratories in Chalk River Ontario was shut down due to safety concerns. ***************************************************************** 80 UPI.com: Widow of atomic worker battles red tape - Published: May 19, 2008 at 4:10 PM LAS VEGAS, May 19 (UPI) -- A Nevada woman says her long-running battle for compensation for her husband's death has become a crusade to expose U.S. Department of Labor intransigence. Bonnie Mattick told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the agency has refused to authorize the $150,000 in she feels she is owed after her husband died of cancer she says was caused by his work with toxic and radioactive materials at the Nevada Test Site. "What I want to do is expose the Department of Labor and their inability to act on all the information they've been given," she said. The newspaper said a big part of the problem is that the Department of Energy hasn't provided records that fully document John Mattick's exposures at the highly classified sites. "He had access to all areas at the Nevada Test Site and Area 51," Bonnie Mattick said, contending that the Labor Department should give her and other surviving relatives the benefit of the doubt. The Review-Journal said Monday that the Labor Department declined comment on the matter. © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 81 Las Vegas Sun: Atomic testing burned its mark - May 15, 2008 Test Site employed thousands, put many more at risk By Mary Manning Predawn atomic fireballs and billowing mushroom clouds — plus the radioactive and political fallout accompanying them — are all part of Nevada's long-time association with nuclear weapons testing. The government's nuclear testing, which was at one time capitalized on by Las Vegas businesses as a super fireworks spectacle for tourists, began six years after the first atomic bomb, Trinity, exploded on July 16, 1945, in New Mexico. At that time, the government wanted a nuclear proving ground on the continent to save money after it conducted expensive atomic tests in the Pacific Ocean. It also wanted federal scientists to be able to continue their secret work far from the Korean War. That lead to President Harry Truman approving on Dec. 18, 1950, the Nevada Test Site, which was 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The barren testing range carved out of the Mojave desert would be home for the next several decades to 928 of the 1,054 above- and below-ground nuclear experiments conducted by the U.S. The testing finally ended in September 1992 when a moratorium went into effect. Over the years, up to 100,000 people have worked at the Test Site, with more than 12,000 employed there during the peak years of the late 1970s and early 1980s. The first nuclear experiment in Nevada lit up the desert sky on Jan. 27, 1951. In May 1953 the government triggered an above-ground nuclear blast code-named “Harry,” whose radioactive fallout blanketed not only the arid desert, but farm fields, homes, schools, factories and businesses across the country. The fallout even wiped out film at Kodak headquarters in Rochester, N.Y. Government agents washed cars and brushed (with whisk brooms) the clothes of residents of St. George, Utah. The government assured those residents everything was safe, but at least 4,390 sheep grazing in Utah died from radiation sickness. The government admitted nothing. Since the beginning of the Test Site, protesters have demonstrated against the tests. Included in the numerous groups were homemakers who showed up in the 1950s, wearing shirtwaist dresses and carrying parasols. The largest protest occurred in the 1980s when more than 3,000 demonstrators made their feelings known. Famous protesters included scientist Carl Sagan, actor Martin Sheen and singer/songwriter/actor Kris Kristofferson. Supporters of nuclear testing considered themselves “Cold Warriors,” fighting a major nuclear threat from the Soviet Union. Others, many of whom called themselves “downwinders” because the wind had placed them in the path of the radioactive fallout clouds, fought the secrecy and silence surrounding the U.S. nuclear testing program. In 1984 a federal judge in Salt Lake City ruled the government had been negligent by exposing thousands of downwinders to radioactive fallout. Utah, Nevada and Arizona residents described the cancers and other radioactive illnesses they or their families suffered. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate 11,000 people died from diseases directly related to nuclear test fallout. Later, Test Site workers sued the government and lost their case. The Test Site was the second largest employer in Nevada during its peak years, behind the mining industry, according to Energy Department records. The casino industry came in a distant third. Workers labored in secrecy at the remote site, which is larger than Rhode Island. Employees weren’t allowed to tell their families about nuclear activities witnessed there. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev signed a treaty that required the superpowers to conduct nuclear experiments underground. The historic treaty banned nuclear testing in the air, oceans or space. Kennedy has been the only sitting president who visited the Test Site. He toured it in 1962. From 1980 to 1984 the Test Site became an outdoor laboratory for experimenting with a nuclear defense shield envisioned by President Ronald Reagan. Critics named the project “Star Wars.” Today the Test Site offers a remote location for chemical tests and training for homeland security. In addition, researchers conduct subcritical experiments, testing radioactive components of nuclear weapons, but the explosions do not cause a nuclear chain reaction. By presidential order, the site must be ready to resume nuclear weapons tests within 18 months to three years after a presidential or congressional order. It wasn’t until 1993 when President Bill Clinton and Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary released more information to the public about how military personnel and citizens had been exposed to radioactive fallout. Still, many of the secrets of atomic testing in Nevada remain under lock and key. © Las Vegas Sun, 2008, All Rights Reserved. Job openings. Published ***************************************************************** 82 PRWEB: Cold War Patriots Launches First National Network for Nuclear Weapons Workers May 02, 2008 All Press Releases for April 29, 2008 Subscribe to this News Feed Many workers exposed to radiation and toxins while serving their country during the Cold War feel frustration and anger over challenges accessing government benefits programs. A new nonprofit aims to connect them to healthcare, support and resources. timely, uniform, and adequate compensation of covered employees and, where applicable, survivors of such employees, suffering from illnesses incurred by such employees in the performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its contractors and subcontractors. Denver, CO (PRWEB) April 29, 2008 -- There is new hope for thousands of nuclear weapons workers and uranium miners who got sick serving their country, thanks to the recent launch of a nonprofit organization created to help them cut through the red tape that prevents them from receiving government benefits. Cold War Patriots is the first national network connecting these workers and their families with the comprehensive information they need to process their claims. Organizers hope it will help them channel their anger and frustration into positive action. "We know there are thousands of workers who don't even realize they are eligible for benefits, and many others who have been denied benefits through a complicated process that drags on too long," said Dr. Maureen Merritt, founder of the New Mexico Alliance of Nuclear Worker Advocates. "These patriotic Americans served their country in a time of need but are now being forced to beg and plead for the help that Congress agreed they deserve." During the Cold War, an arsenal of nuclear weapons and atomic fuel was produced in mostly secret plants run by the U.S. government and private companies. Many employees, who believed they were serving their country as proud patriots, later became ill due to exposure to radioactive elements, including uranium and plutonium, as well as exposure to beryllium, heavy metals and toxic chemicals. Workers were confident the facilities were safe. As one Cold War Patriots advisory committee member put it, "I never thought my government would make me sick." Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act in 2000, to provide "timely, uniform, and adequate compensation of covered employees and, where applicable, survivors of such employees, suffering from illnesses incurred by such employees in the performance of duty for the Department of Energy and certain of its contractors and subcontractors." But the application and approval process proved so confusing and complex that it became a not so amusing "Catch 22" for families desperate for help before those eligible died waiting. Professional Case Management, a Denver company that provides home care services, decided to contribute to Cold War Patriots after learning what these families were going through. The first step was forming an advisory committee including workers, physicians and attorneys. A website was launched this month. Membership in Cold War Patriots is free to current and former nuclear weapons workers, uranium miners, millers, and haulers, as well as other individuals, family members or professionals that support the Cold War Patriot mission. For more information visit www.coldwarpatriots.org or call 888-903-8989. Contact: Jon Pushkin, APR 303-733-3441, Cell: 303-725-5031 Jon @ PushkinPR.com © Copyright 1997-2005, PRWeb?. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 83 Sunday Herald: Leukaemia and nuclear power: what’s the secret? May 05, 2008 Est 1999 Scotland's award-winning independent newspaper A request to publish childhood leukaemia figures has mushroomed into a landmark court case by Paul Hutcheon Scottish Political Editor THE UK government has made an 11th-hour intervention in the long-running dispute between the Scottish NHS and anti-nuclear campaigners over the release of childhood leukaemia figures. SLIDESHOW The Last Women Of Inglefield Justice secretary Jack Straw's department was given leave to intervene earlier this month when the landmark case reached the House of Lords. Whitehall said the case raised "important" issues and is challenging parts of the original decision to publish the statistics. The saga can be traced to a freedom of information request lodged in January 2005 by the Scottish Greens for a breakdown of leukaemia statistics for under-15s in Dumfries and Galloway. Michael Collie, the applicant, wanted to know whether there were cancer clusters next to the Chapelcross power station and the Dundrennan military firing range. However, the Common Services Agency (CSA), a Scottish NHS body, blocked release on the grounds of patient confidentiality. Kevin Dunion, the Scottish information commissioner, then ruled in favour of the applicant by backing publication of the data. He said the CSA could prevent identification of patients by using a method of statistical makeover called "Barnardisation". A subsequent appeal by the CSA in the court of session centred around the public body's view that Barnardisation fell outwith the scope of Collie's request. However, the judges rejected the appeal, with Lord Marnoch saying the FoI legislation "should be construed in as liberal a manner as possible I do not see why the commissioner should not be accorded the widest discretion in deciding the form and type of information which should be released." This decision prompted the NHS body to exercise its final roll of the dice - a legal challenge to the House of Lords. The CSA's appeal, which was heard in the Lords last month, was marked by the presence of the UK justice department. Whitehall officials are unhappy about the Scottish information commissioner's decision and were granted permission to intervene. It means the weight of the Scottish government, to whom the CSA is ultimately accountable, and the UK government is behind the appeal. The CSA's numerous appeals had, by August last year, cost the taxpayer Ł45,000 in legal fees. The NHS also estimates the House of Lords appeal will cost the public Ł206,000. The Lords' ruling is expected within weeks. A Ministry of Justice (MoJ) spokesman said: "The MoJ sought and was granted permission to intervene in the CSA's appeal, which was heard before the House of Lords on April 1 and 2, 2008. "The case raises important questions about freedom of information and data protection. The MoJ therefore felt it was important that the UK government's views on these matters were represented. "It would not be appropriate to comment further on the case prior to the House of Lords handing down its judgment." A spokesman for the Scottish information commissioner said: "MoJ was given leave by the House of Lords to intervene. In its submissions the MoJ disagreed with certain aspects of the Commissioner's decision, such as whether the information was actually held by the CSA and whether individuals could be identified from the data." Chris Ballance, the former Green MSP who has taken an interest in the case, said: "The Scottish government has powers over the statistics agency and has the power to make it hand over the figures. Both governments are now united in making sure local communities can't access local health statistics. The figures should be handed over." ©2008 newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 84 Expatica: Radioactive leak at Asco is 750 times more than disclosed - A new report by Spain’s nuclear watchdog says the amount of radiation emitted during the leak reached 176 becquerels. 16 May 2008 MADRID - The amount of radiation emitted by the Ascó nuclear power station in Tarragona during a leak in 2007 reached 176 becquerels, 750 times more that the plant's managers initially acknowledged, Spain's nuclear watchdog has disclosed in a new report. In responses to questions posed by Greenpeace, the Nuclear Security Council (CSN) said that initial readings at the plant had been based on an "inadequate" measurement model, hence the subsequent revision. The leak, which occurred on 27 November but went undetected until March, was classified as a level 2 incident on an ascending scale from 0 to 7, ranking it among the four most severe nuclear accidents ever to have occurred in Spain. More alarming were the apparent efforts by the directors of the plant - jointly owned by power companies Iberdrola and Endesa - to cover up the severity of the incident. Two officials were fired, although Greenpeace is calling for more serious measures. "[The CSN] admits that the plant operators acted maliciously, they manipulated readings and were irresponsible," Carlos Bravo, the head of Greenpeace's nuclear affairs division in Spain, said on Thursday. "Their actions were criminal." [El Pais / Expatica] © Copyright 2000-2008 Expatica Communications BV ***************************************************************** 85 ReviewJournal.com: Area 51 workers in twilight zone May. 19, 2008 Test site cohorts get compensation; they don't By KEITH ROGERS REVIEW-JOURNAL Fred Dunham Blames illness on Area 51 work John Funk Former test site worker is chairman of Atomic Veterans and Victims of America Inc. A former Energy Department contract employee has been denied an illness compensation claim solely because he worked at Area 51, though federal officials years ago told base contract workers they would receive the same consideration as Nevada Test Site workers who became ill. And that makes Fred Dunham think the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program should be scrapped for a more fair system that follows a course Congress intended. "I would terminate the whole lot of them and replace them with people who want to do the job at hand. Congress has tasked them with a job to do, and they have turned their back on Congress and the citizens," said Dunham, a 57-year-old Las Vegas resident. He has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that he blames on inhaling toxic, dioxin-laden fumes while he worked for EG&G Special Projects at the government's secret installation along the dry Groom Lake bed. Labor Department officials don't dispute that his disease is linked to toxic materials from his workplace. But they denied his claim because the place where he worked was outside the boundary of the Nevada Test Site, according to the Feb. 29 denial letter signed by Angelino P. Patueo, a senior claims examiner for the Labor Department in Seattle. Dunham appealed the decision on March 7, but hasn't heard back from the Labor Department. The place known as Area 51, adjacent to the test site and 90 miles north of Las Vegas, is where the nation's high-tech aircraft have been tested against foreign radar systems and where nuclear weapons safety tests have been conducted. To reach his security post there during the 1980s, Dunham wore a Department of Energy badge worked on Department of Energy land at an installation that was operated by the Department of Defense under a memorandum of understanding from the Department of Energy that dates back to 1958, when the land was withdrawn from public use by DOE's forerunner, the Atomic Energy Commission. Dunham said his paychecks came from money funneled to his employer, EG&G Special Projects, through the test site's prime contractor at the time, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co. Inc., also known as REECo. It wasn't until President Clinton signed the Military Lands Withdrawal Act of 1999 that the 38,400-acre rectangle that contains Area 51 was transferred from DOE to the Air Force. According to a "sense of Congress" document that the Labor Department is supposed to follow in awarding at least $150,000 in compensation for workers who became ill from exposure to toxic or radioactive materials, the place where Dunham worked fits the definition of an Energy Department facility. "The term 'Department of Energy facility' means any building, structure, or premise including the grounds upon which such building, structure or premise is located in which operations are, or have been, conducted by, or on behalf of, the Department of Energy," the law reads. So, are Area 51 workers covered by the compensation act or not? The Review-Journal posed that question April 23 to the Department of Labor's public affairs staff in Washington, D.C. Last week, the response from spokesman Loren Smith has been that the question was referred to the Department of Energy and was in "a holding pattern." In an e-mail Thursday regarding the Area 51 issue, Smith wrote: "We are in contact with the Department of Energy, and they have advised us that we should expect a response in the near future." Dunham doesn't understand why he has been denied and another former EG&G contract employee, Lori Marie Fox, was awarded $187,500 in compensation this year, even though she worked outside the boundaries of the test site as an Energy Department contractor. She worked at the Tonopah Test Range. "I didn't think I would ever see any money out of this," said Fox, whose bout with lung disease is linked to exposure to toxic substances including asbestos and chemicals from an inventory she monitored. Like Dunham, she too inhaled fumes from the open-pit burning of plastic materials. "The situation at Groom Lake was the same as it was at Tonopah," she said. Former test site worker John Funk, chairman of the nonprofit advocacy group Atomic Veterans and Victims of America Inc., has alerted the Labor Department to dozens of flaws in the test site's profile, on which case workers rely to assess claims. Among those he noted in an April 19 letter to John Vance, Labor Department regulations policy branch chief for the compensation division, is that the profile "fails to address employees who worked in Area 51." "All of the personnel working in Area 51 were hired by REECo and were processed through Mercury (the test site town) and they wore DOE badges. ... They came and went to Area 51 through the Mercury gate just like everyone else, their paychecks ... were funded by DOE appropriation funds," Funk's letter reads. Funk also sought compensation for various cancers, including a type of bone marrow cancer caused by exposure to benzene or radioactive materials. He has battled the Labor Department system for years and was denied, but after an appeal was recommended this year for compensation for his exposure to radionuclide-laced lithium hydride, benzene, cyanide, arsenic and mercuric chloride. Asked if he believes he will receive compensation, Funk said only when he sees the check in his hand. "I've been here before," he said. Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers @reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0308. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2008 ***************************************************************** 86 TBO.com: Ex-Nuclear Plant Workers Want Government Compensation TBO is Tampa Bay Online By STEVE ANDREWS News Channel 8 Published: May 6, 2008 TAMPA - John Pool wants to know why the U.S. Department of Labor is saying no. Pool, 79, worked at the former General Electric Plant in Largo from 1970-73. The facility produced triggers for nuclear bombs, and former employees say they may have been exposed to radiation and carcinogenic chemicals. Pool, a janitor, said he handled and disposed of classified waste. He said he worked in areas where workers used protective clothing during the day shift, although he wore no special equipment. Pool said he is now battling cancer of the throat, kidney and prostate. Although the government implemented an illness compensation program to cover former workers' medical expenses, Pool said he was denied benefits. The Department of Labor is sending an ombudsman to meet with former plant employees this week to address concerns such as Pool's. The meetings will be held Wednesday from 6 to 9 p.m. and Thursday from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Radisson Hotel and Conference Center in St. Petersburg, 12600 Roosevelt Blvd. N. Pool said he will attend the meeting to get answers. He said the Department of Labor denied his claim based on a doctor's analysis. Anne Block, who examined claims for the Department of Labor, said claimants should question denials because she found mistakes in 90 percent of the cases she examined. Block said she thinks the person who examined Pool's case mistakenly sent him to the wrong doctor. Pool was sent to a neurologist and a psychiatrist. "They should've went to an oncologist," Block said. "It's cancer. That's what they're there for." TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online ***************************************************************** 87 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Armstrong gets nuke settlement money, but little solace - By Robin Acton TRIBUNE-REVIEW Sunday, May 4, 2008 Eliza Johnson knows that all the money in the world can't raise her husband and daughter from their graves. If it could, she'd find a way to earn, beg, borrow or steal enough to see Fruitie Johnson and Deborah Lawhorn again. She'd love to know how good it would feel to talk to them once more, to laugh, to have a reason to cook a big meal and lay it out on the empty table in her wood-paneled dining room. To Johnson, that would be a victory, not a check from the companies she holds responsible for the cancers that killed them and others in Apollo, Leechburg, Vandergrift and Parks Township. "They meant more to me than if I got a million dollars," said Johnson, 85, staring at wrinkled hands folded on her lap. "My daughter ... that's one in my life that I'll never get over." Johnson and some 250 plaintiffs soon will receive payments from a $27.5 million settlement with Atlantic Richfield Co. for illnesses, deaths and property damages caused by radioactive emissions from two former nuclear fuels plants in Armstrong County started by the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. in 1959. Still, they don't feel rich. Those who are sick from brain tumors, cancer and beryllium disease say they're too weak and miserable to spend it on something fun, such as a vacation. Disheartened survivors are grappling with grief, anger and guilt. "Whatever I do, it's not going to bring them back," said Johnson, who lives in the Kiskimere neighborhood in Parks Township. Made for TV The NUMEC story is one that has been told in movies such as "Erin Brockovich" and "A Civil Action." The plot is familiar: small-town activist or beleaguered attorney discovers a dangerous environmental condition, takes on a corporate giant and eventually wins one for the downtrodden. The corporate giant, NUMEC, used deadly radioactive materials -- uranium and plutonium -- and other chemicals to process nuclear fuels under government contracts with the U.S. military during the Cold War. Atlantic Richfield took over its plants in Apollo and Parks Township, in 1967. Babcock & Wilcox Co. bought out ARCO's stock in 1971 and operated the plants until 1983. The activist is Patty Ameno, 56, a disabled Navy veteran who blames her two brain tumors on a childhood spent living across the street from the Apollo plant that created uranium fuel pellets for nuclear reactors. Ameno, a plaintiff who will share in the ARCO settlement, argues that the mishandling of radioactive materials sickened and killed her neighbors and friends. Although the state and federal government never designated the area officially as a cancer cluster, an epidemiologist hired by the plaintiffs to review data from the state health department found a cluster of cancers that "falls outside the normal range." That finding, and "a lot of hard work and advocacy," helped to prove their claims, according to plaintiffs' attorney William Caroselli of Pittsburgh. He said average settlement payouts from ARCO will total about $35,000, and a few people might get as much as $500,000. A federal lawsuit is pending against Babcock & Wilcox. Ameno won't rest until cleanup is complete at the Parks Township plutonium processing plant site, where an undetermined amount of radioactive material remains buried. In the early 1990s, NUMEC's buildings were destroyed and thousands of tons of radioactive materials and soil were removed before the cleanup at the Apollo site concluded in 1995. She wants people to be compensated for their roles as "unwitting victims of the Cold War" because the plants were regulated by the federal government. "That nuclear industry ruined this area, and the government failed miserably," Ameno said. "People in this town just assume they'll die of cancer." Indeed, there is an air of resigned acceptance throughout these blue-collar neighborhoods, where black and gold Steelers flags decorate porches and children play a few hundred yards from the former plant sites. Elaine Waldenville has lived in Kiskimere for 38 years. She said her asthma has gotten worse, and her dog, Zena, died of cancer, but she has not joined in the lawsuits. She worries about the future, though, because many of her neighbors are sick, or like Johnson's family, already gone. "But it's not like you can sell houses here, so we can't move," she said. Heavy losses Caroselli said people with the most serious illnesses who can prove a direct link to exposure to the plants are likely to receive more compensation than others. Survivors of the dead and those who are claiming only property damage will receive considerably less. Many plaintiffs plan to save the money for co-payments for doctors, prescriptions not covered by insurance and those unmerciful "rainy day" emergencies caused by aging appliances and long-neglected home repairs. Patricia Trebilcock of North Apollo said she could use a new stove and a newer used car to replace the 15-year-old clunker rusting in her garage. But what she really wants is the life she planned with her husband, Larry, before July 11, 1994, when the colorectal cancer that spread to his liver and lungs finally killed him. They were going to retire and travel, spend time at a hunting and fishing camp, and finish the house they were building. Instead, she was forced to use their savings and his pension to complete enough work on the home to make it livable. She relies on her Social Security check to survive, so any amount of money from the settlement will help. "But money can never take over for a person you loved and lost," she said. Some, like Carla Chruscik of Vandergrift, who lost her mother, Anna Mae Chruscik, to cancer, are overcome with grief. Chruscik, sobbing into the phone during a brief interview, said only that she "can't believe the companies got away with this." Her mother's case was among eight that went to trial in federal court in 1998, when jurors returned a verdict of $35 million in their favor. U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose later found that trial errors warranted a new trial and set aside the decision. "All of the verdicts were taken away," Caroselli said. Babcock & Wilcox then filed bankruptcy and the cases were not retried. Hidden dangers Frustrated plaintiffs who lived in neighborhoods near the plants say they had no reason to suspect they were in danger because they believed the government was monitoring the operations. They thought they were safe. Employees were just as confident, said Gary Walker, 67, who grew up in town and worked at the Apollo plant for 30 years. He said he was exposed to uranium "quite a few times" during a career that began in 1959. "Back then, they threw that stuff around like it was nothing," Walker said. "No one really knew what it could do to you." Walker is among thousands of former NUMEC workers from the Apollo plant who qualify for a $150,000 payment from the government under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act passed by Congress in 2000. Workers from NUMEC's Parks Township plant have been recommended for the same status, with final approval expected sometime this summer. They are not eligible to sue the companies. Walker, who suffers from beryllium disease and underwent a kidney transplant, gets up at 4:30 a.m. every Monday, Wednesday and Friday for four hours of dialysis because of a second failing kidney. His arms are riddled with lumps from the weekly treatments that zap his strength. Looking back, if he'd known then what he knows now, Walker said he never would have taken the job that paid $1.50 an hour when he started and about $13 when he left. "They never warned us. Early on, there was a taped line on the floor that divided the contaminated area from the side that wasn't contaminated," he said. "But it was in the air." From 1959 to 1963, Lawrence Frain lived on Armstrong Avenue beside the Apollo plant. He didn't worry about pollution and soot that spewed into the air and often sent a grayish-white film raining down onto his 1960 Ford. Frain and others didn't realize what they were breathing. "I remember a guy walking around with a meter. Every now and then, he'd say 'They let a lot out last night.' Neighbors thought he was a little off, but maybe he knew something," he said. Frain, 68, had melanoma. His sister and niece died of cancer. All around him, neighbors were sick and dying from various cancers. It wasn't until his wife, Helen, was diagnosed with colon cancer in the late 1990s that the couple joined in the lawsuit. "She was full of it," Frain said. "The doctor who operated on her asked me if we lived close to the plant and when I said that we did, he said, 'I thought so.'" His wife died at 61 in 2001, after three years of suffering through surgery, treatments and wearing a colostomy bag for waste removal. The retired coal miner took care of her until he needed help from hospice nurses for the last six weeks of her life, but even then he slept in a recliner in their living room because he didn't want to leave her side. "After she died, I got rid of everything in the room because I couldn't look at it," Frain said. "It's pretty bad to watch someone die." Eliza Johnson watched it twice -- first with her husband, and then with her daughter, a cancer research nurse. She took care of them when they were sick, held their hands during chemotherapy treatments, slept beside their beds. And in the end, she buried them. "I'd have rather it been me instead of them," she said. Robin Acton can be reached at racton@tribweb.com or 724-830-6295. Eliza Johnson S.C. Spangler/Tribune-Review Tribune-Review Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 88 UPI.com: Manhattan Project blamed for cancer - Published: May 4, 2008 at 7:19 PM ALBUQUERQUE, May 4 (UPI) -- Research to create the first U.S. atomic bombs has caused cancer among people who grew up near where the research was conducted, a lawsuit alleges. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Albuquerque this month, alleges children who lived Los Alamos, N.M., in the 1940s and '50s were poisoned by contaminated fish and water, and even by radiation brought into their homes on the clothes of their fathers, who worked on the research effort dubbed the Manhattan Project, The New Mexican reported Sunday. Rene Ryman, whose father died in 2005 at age 63 of multiple myeloma -- a cancer associated with plutonium -- told her as a child he had played in streams that had a chemical look to the water. Her lawsuit accuses the University of California and managers at the atomic research lab of negligence and wrongful death. "If enough people come forward, there's a chance we could do a medical-monitoring class action," said her attorney, Michael Howell. Lynne Loss, 65, who lived in Los Alamos from 1949 to 1957 but is not yet party to the suit, told the newspaper her father's death was attributable to radiation contamination and her mother also had tumors before she died. She says many old friends have died of cancer and believes there may be more victims from that era. A university spokesman said the school doesn't comment on pending litigation. © 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 89 AU ABC: Radiation site: MPs to probe cancer link - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Posted May 16, 2008 11:46:00 * Sydney 2000 The New South Wales Government is facing scrutiny over plans to sell-off contaminated land at Hunters Hill, on Sydney's north shore. An Upper House inquiry will be established into the land, which was once used for uranium processing. The Greens won support for the inquiry from the Opposition and crossbenches. The inquiry's chairman, Greens MP Ian Cohen, says concerns about links between radioactivity on the site and deaths from cancer can be part of the inquiry. "I think there will be an open public process," he said. "People will be able to make submissions and people will be able to come before the inquiry, so I would expect any ramifications of that material being on the site could well be investigated." Environment Minister Verity Firth says the Government welcomes the inquiry because it is developing a detailed plan to clean-up the site. "We're absolutely happy to have an open and transparent inquiry guide our work and we also hope that this will relieve any anxiety that residents do have," she said. © 2008 ABC Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 90 BN: Nuclear danger in China Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 14:59:20 -0400 (EDT) China earthquake and the nuclear danger: Beyond Nuclear commentary. “The news that ‘China’s main centers for designing, making and storing nuclear arms lie in the shattered earthquake zone’ as reported by the New York Times, is a chilling reminder of the deadly dangers human beings have created that can potentially make a natural disaster even worse,” said Linda Gunter, spokesperson for Beyond Nuclear. “It is unconscionable that our government and others are considering expansion of nuclear weapons – along with its ugly stepchild nuclear power – given the dangers these twin technologies represent. The victims of the China earthquake are confronting a grave enough tragedy without adding to it the specter of radiation exposure. “It’s time to call an end to the possession of nuclear weapons that serve no legitimate purpose. And, just as importantly, it is time to end the needless expansion of nuclear power plants that have the capacity, whether through accident or attack, to cause tens of thousands of immediate and lingering cancer deaths.” Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear. Beyond Nuclear: www.beyondnuclear.org Tel: 301.270.2209 Beyond Nuclear at NPRI 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Tel: 301.270.2209 Fax: 301.270.4000 Email: info@beyondnuclear.org Web: www.beyondnuclear.org ***************************************************************** 91 WMNF 88.5 FM: Nuclear workers still looking for compensation listen Tampa 05/14/08 SeĂĄn Kinane Beginning in 1957, Pinellas County was home to a plant that built triggers for nuclear weapons. Some of that Largo plant’s former workers claim that they were exposed to toxic substances and are fighting for compensation. Dave Bossard worked at the General Electric Neutron Devices plant for 34 years and eventually became a supervisor. His duties included supervising the area that contained the chemical storage building. He said the workers were exposed to 473 “deadly toxins 
 chemicals and radiation” that are still causing diseases in former workers. One of the worst of the toxins, according to Bossard, was a mysterious chemical known as “Curing Agent Z.” Bossard called a 1982 audit "26 years too late" because several workers have died. Bossard said he has had tissue removed from his ear, hands, arms and face because of several cancers caused by beryllium sensitivity. But the workers hoped for relief after passage of the Energy Employees Occupation Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, which went into effect in 2002. A group he formed, Nuclear Workers of Florida, is helping the workers fill out their claims in the hopes that they will be compensated. They’ve gotten help from some elected officials, Bossard said. “We have, like, 1,332 claims and maybe 5 percent have been paid. I’ve had Senator [Bill] Nelson looking into it, god bless him and his staff, they’ve taken the bull by the horns. Whereas Congressman [Bill] Young, like I said, he’s maybe helped two or three people, but turned his back on the rest of us. He’s been on TV a couple of times and he’s been just no help whatsoever and we’re tired of it. Nuclear Workers of Florida are going to keep on fighting until we get some satisfaction.” Young will face a challenger in the fall for his District 10 Congressional seat. Samm Simpson is one of three people running for the Democratic nomination. “The workers contacted me, maybe three or four weeks ago, when they became just so upset, that their Congressman Young was not responding to their needs,” Simpson said. According to the website of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC), will expedite compensation for claims if the employee has “at least one of 22 "specified cancers" and worked at one of the SEC work sites. Bossard said the Pinellas nuclear workers had received SEC designation. “But it’s gotta go through all these different steps. 
 Meantime the people get sicker. 
” The Nuclear Workers of Florida met Friday with the Department of Labor to explain what the workers were exposed to on a daily basis, Bossard said. “They said, ‘Wow, we didn’t have no idea.’
 Now you can go back to your department 
 and start filling some of these claims. 
” Simpson said she attended the meeting on Friday between the Nuclear Workers of Florida and the Assistant District Administrator from the Department of Labor David Miller. “And I said to the Department of Labor 
 Why can’t you just safely assume a baseline that anybody that walked into these buildings was subject to [carcinogens] and toxics? His response was, ‘Yes, we may have to adjust our assumptions.’ 
 And what that means to me is they may make a way to take the onus off the workers and put the benefit into their hands without such stringent regulation.” David Miller was not available for interview, but in an email response, the Department of Labor said it is re-examining the Pinellas County plant claims, and will process cases according to the statute. Simpson said it is ironic that the contaminated building in Largo was transformed into a mini high-tech mall, called the Young-Rainey STAR Center, named after the member of Congress she’s trying to replace. Simpson said she plans to write a letter to U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao in support of the Nuclear Workers of Florida. “It’s a tragedy. 
 It’s eerily similar to what our veterans go through when they’re told they’re going to be taken care of and they’re not.” Bossard said the process has been especially difficult for the spouses of the nuclear workers who have passed away. “It was a dangerous situation, but people didn’t know what they were working with because they were concerned with the classification of the product. It was so classified that people weren’t allowed to talk what we did out there to their spouses at home. People who worked there and they died and the burden of proof was on the spouse, whether it be man or woman, and it wasn’t fair to them because they didn’t know. So they have to try to find out what he or she did out there and lots of times they come up just about empty.” Learn more: To contact the Nuclear Workers of Florida, call (727) 391-5682 or email rbossard@tampabay.rr.com. Young-Rainey STAR Center Special Exposure Cohort Samm Simpson ***************************************************************** 92 Bradenton.com: Tallevast cancer study one step closer 04/29/2008 | By DONNA WRIGHT dwright@bradenton.com TALLEVAST -- One month after concerned community leaders asked for a cancer study, state and local health officials visited Tallevast on Monday to start preliminary plans. The state's quick response gives Tallevast hope their concerns will be heard, said Laura Ward, president of FOCUS, an advocacy group for residents. Tallevast residents believe the high numbers of cancers and neurological disorders in their community are linked to contamination traced back to a former beryllium plant. Now known to cover more than 200 acres, the toxic waste includes industrial chemicals known to cause cancer and other illnesses. Dr. Carena Blackmore and Dr. Brian Hughes from the Florida Department of Health met at Mount Tabor Church with Tallevast leaders. They were joined by Dr. Gladys Branic, of the Manatee County Health Department, and Samida Johnson, of Manatee County Rural Health. "I think it was good to sit around the table and talk about our concerns," said Wanda Washington, FOCUS vice president. "But they didn't bring a guarantee of funds. That was disappointing." While the state health assessment confirmed that residents who drank from contaminated private wells face a moderate to high risk for several types of cancer, the study team identified only four cancer cases within the community over a 20-year period. In March FOCUS leaders and their technical consultant, Tim Varney, challenged that data, revealing that the state had used the wrong zip code to pull statistics from the Florida Cancer Registry. In their own ongoing survey, FOCUS leaders have already found 88 cancers that they believe are linked to the toxic waste. Astounded by FOCUS study, state Rep. Bill Galvano in March vowed that he would find the money to survey Tallevast. Galvano took his concerns to Florida Surgeon General Ana M. Viamonte Ross. "She responded immediately," Galvano said. "It my understanding that state health department has money for the study, but they want to make sure what they do is exactly what the community wants done." Branic called Monday's meeting productive. "It's a step in the right direction." FOCUS wants the study to be retroactive, looking at past as well current cancers, using a similarly historic black community for comparison, Washington said. "I hope they are willing to put the time needed into the study," said Ward. "We have worked too hard to get to this point." * About Bradenton.com | ***************************************************************** 93 RIA Novosti: Strasbourg court rules against Russia in Siberian radiation case 21:03 | 30/ 04/ 2008 TOMSK, April 30 (RIA Novosti) -- The European Court of Human Rights has ordered Russia to pay around $95,000 in compensation to residents of a Siberian town over the length of time taken to consider claims connected to a 1990s radiation leak, a local NGO official said on Wednesday. The applicants had earlier sued the Siberian Chemical Combine over a radioactive leak in April 1993 that affected two towns, Georgiyevka and Naumovka. The residents of the two towns lodged compensation claims in 1997. In 2002, a Russian court granted the Georgiyevka claim, ruling however that Naumovka was too far removed from the epicenter of the leak to have been significantly affected. In 2003, with an appeal on the original decision still outstanding, residents of Naumovka filed a complaint with Strasbourg over the excessive length of the proceedings, demanding 50,000 euros in compensation each. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in their favor, but found their claims excessive. "The European court has ruled that Russia pay 2,000 euros to 29 residents of the town of Naumovka each in moral damages," said Alexei Toporov, director of Siberian Environmental Agency, a Tomsk-based non-governmental organization. Russia is one of the most frequent defendants at the European Court of Human Rights. The court has considered a total of 46,700 cases against Russia over the past ten years, comprising 20% of all lawsuits submitted. The court has made 397 rulings on Russia in the past 10 years, or 5% of the total number of cases during this period. A total of 23,000 cases are currently pending against Russia. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 94 CNW Group: GREENPEACE | Activists play out disaster scenario of nuclear meltdown in Toronto May 13, 2008 Attention News Editors: Toronto, May 12 /CNW Telbec/ - A group of radiation-poisoned Torontonians stricken and dying on the sidewalk. Rescue teams with Geiger counters, stretchers and gas masks. This was the scene at several locations in downtown Toronto today where Greenpeace activists staged the aftermath of an accident at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. The "street theatre" is part of Greenpeace's 30km.ca campaign, which highlights the evacuation radius of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. If a similar accident occurred at Pickering - the world's closest nuclear station to a major population centre - roughly 2.5 million people would be displaced from Yonge Street to Clarington. The campaign is aimed at putting pressure on the McGuinty government to shut down the four Pickering "B" reactors when they reach the end of their operational life in 2014 instead of spending billions to rebuild them. The McGuinty government will decide whether it extend the life of the Pickering station in early 2009. "Pickering is Canada's oldest and most dangerous nuclear station and is only 30 kilometers from downtown Toronto. It should be shut down in 2014, not rebuilt," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, an energy campaigner with Greenpeace. "Regulatory authorities would never allow Pickering to be built today given the risks evidenced by Chernobyl, so they shouldn't rebuild it either." Greenpeace is concerned that Pickering is becoming more of a threat to Toronto as it ages. At re-licensing hearings in Ajax Wednesday, the group will ask the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to increase its oversight of the nuclear station over the next five years. Recently disclosed safety studies obtained by Greenpeace show that the plant's safety margins have been reduced. "The Pickering nuclear station is an unnecessary risk when quick-to-deploy, safe renewable energy alternatives exist," said Stensil. "We should prepare for Pickering's closure by developing green power to replace it." Activists will also bring their street theatre to Scarborough Town Centre, Durham Regional Headquarters and the town halls of Pickering, Oshawa and Clarington on Tuesday before ending in Ajax at the CNSC hearing. At each stop, the public will be encouraged to visit 30km.ca, write letters of protest to McGuinty and find out if they are in "The Zone" by entering their postal code. For further information: Brian Blomme, Media and Public Relations Officer, (416) 930-9055; High resolution photos will soon be available at www.greenpeace.ca/gallery. © 2005 CNW Group Ltd. PRIVACY & TERMS OF USE / CONTACT US / SITE MAP ***************************************************************** 95 OpEdNews: Can Fungi Really Stop the Radioactive Contamination of Our Earth? May 11, 2008 at 07:35:51 Permalink Diary Entry by Cathy Garger This explores the new research about fungi being used to help de-contaminate radioactive soils from Depleted Uranium. :::::::: Just weeks after UK press coverage on citizen outrage over the continuation of firing Depleted Uranium at the Dundrennan military firing range in Scotland and the increased radioactive contamination of the environment there... http://tinyurl.com/4a3cte or www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2192940.0.radiation_a t_solway_range_hits_new_high.php immediately pops up this new fungi research out of Scotland, blasted as if some miracle cure all over the place. Convenient timing, eh? What are the purposes for this onslaught of this fungi news, being touted as some sort of magical cure for Depleted Uranium poisoning of the soil - and eventually contamination of underground water tables? Undoubtedly, the first reason is to try to take the heat off the MoD right now. In other words, the average Brit will read this and be likely to think, Whew! I am so glad they found a way to clean up the DU contamination in Scotland! Wrong. Even if it is indeed true(?) that the fungi will somewhat help the spread of Uranium through the contaminated soils, this does not make the radioactive Uranium in the soils problem magically just disappear. As Professor Geoffrey Gadd, team leader for this research, admitted: "... he cautions that the minerals probably couldn't ever be considered harmless as they still contain uranium, and this could still be toxic if eaten. Nor have the Dundee team yet worked out a practical way to collect and dispose of the trapped uranium." Soils that still contain Uranium are both toxic and radioactive - even if a mechanism such as fungi is used to help the contamination spread less readily. There is a second point here that is being made, and this is the most frightening real-life horror story I have read in quite some time. As the BBC reports with chilling optimism: "The research, published in the journal Current Biology, concludes that the discovery could lead to uranium-polluted soils eventually being brought back into use." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/738450 0.stm Goodlord, it is bad enough when they allow the radioactively soil areas to go untouched... but can you just imagine them spreading some of this fungi out in Depleted Uranium-laden soils and then trying to tell us one day that they are going to build neighborhoods and playgrounds on top of the horrendously contaminated Jefferson Proving Grounds in Indiana or the even more extensively contaminated Aberdeen Proving Grounds, where Depleted Uranium is still "tested" outdoors near Baltimore? The possible implications for use of this fungi as some sort of environmental cure are truly chilling. We can not possibly ever remediate Uranium contaminated soils that exist all over the country and many other parts of the world - unless unfathomably huge and prohibitively expensive, thorough remediation measures are taken. And while we can not un-do the massive radioactive contamination that has already taken place, we must now do whatever we can to prevent Uranium from being used for any purpose. We must stop Uranium from being used in nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs, and everyday weapons currently used by our military, such as bunker busters, missiles, DU fired out of A-10 aircraft and out of tanks used everyday in military combat now in Asia and Africa. It is also critical we stop using half-baked phrases like "No more nukes" or "Stop the Bomb" and instead replace this with simply, the more-to-the point, constant and unwavering demand to all persons who hold political power at every level of government: "Stop the Radioactive Uranium Poisoning of the US and the rest of our planet." Period. Cathy Garger Cathy Garger is a freelance writer, public speaker, activist, and a certified personal coach who specializes in Uranium weapons. Living in the shadow of the national District of Crime, Cathy is constantly nauseated by the stench emanating from the nation's capital during the Washington, DC, federal work week. What should we do? Vet and Anti-DU Activist speaks out Please read Dr. Doug Rokke's latest piece on DU - and what is our responsibility? Former Director of the U.S. Army's Depleted Uranium Project reveals toxic effects of America's Military Operations Dr. Doug Rokke, PhD. www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/04/17/02335.html by Cathy Garger (16 articles, 4 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 59 comments) on Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 7:44:02 AM DUweapons@gmail.com Bob Nichols is a Project Censored Award winner. He is a newspaper correspondent and a frequent contributor to various online publications. Nichols is completing a book based on 15 years of nuclear radiation war in Central Asia. He is a former employee at a Army Ammunition Plant and Bomb Maker. Nichols can be reached by email, and readers are encouraged to write to him at: DUweapons@gmail.com Re: Can Fungi Really Stop the Radioactive Contamination of O "Hard hitting, serious journalist / activist." Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner San Francisco by Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, May 11, 2008 at 8:11:46 PM Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008 ***************************************************************** 96 Polk County Democrat: Mined land slightly radioactive Friday, April 25, 2008 Small amounts of radioactive materials, like radium, are a natural part of Florida’s geology. As part of the phosphate rock, they are processed with it and may accumulate in or on some equipment. In this photo, radiation levels are measured with a survey meter. — (Photo provided by FIPR) Third installment of a three-part story on the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. By GREG MARTIN Staff Writer Concerns that mining exposes workers and the public to elevated levels of radioactivity have been raised since at least the early 1980s. And the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research has sponsored about a dozen studies in response. In 1986, a FIPR-funded study found that the concentrations of radioactivity in certain crops grown on mined land were “significantly higher” than the average on unmined land. However, the higher levels were “quite low and are not considered a health concern,” the study stated. FIPR hired Florida Audubon in 1986 to find out if certain animals inhabiting mined lands also had higher levels of radioactivity. Reptiles, armadillos, turtles and alligators were sampled. Only the turtles had a higher-than-normal radioactivity level, but not high enough to endanger the health of people who eat them, the study concluded. Another study found birds inhabiting mined sites had four times the level of Radium-226 in their bones than the maximum acceptable for humans. But since the birds normally had a short life span, the radium was unlikely to harm them, the study concluded. FIPR conducted another study to determine if it’s safe to eat fish taken from pits on mined lands. That study compared the levels of Radium-226, Lead 210, mercury and cadmium in fish from mine pits and natural lakes. The only notable difference between the fish was that mercury levels were higher in the natural-lake fish. That’s apparently due to the fact that natural lakes have been in existence longer, so they have absorbed more mercury from atmospheric fallout, said Brian Birky, FIPR radiological health research director. Scientists from FIPR and Department of Health scientists also tested phosphate workers for their exposure to radiation in the mid-1990s. Radiation detection “badges” were placed on hundreds of workers, including those doing the most risky task — scraping a scale laced with radium off a “filter pan” in a chemical screening device. The levels detected even on those workers were within the acceptable limit for the general public. “There’s no significant, compelling reason to conduct further study on that particular concern with radiation,” said Birky. Reclaiming the moonscape FIPR also has conducted numerous studies intended to improve the environmental quality of reclaimed mine sites. Some of those studies reached conflicting conclusions. For example, a 2001 study by environmental scientist Laurie MacDonald found that gopher tortoises actually reproduce more offspring on sandy reclamation areas than on natural landscapes. Wetlands ecologist Kevin Erwin, in another study, also found there were more waterfowl and fish, but less native wildlife, on reclaimed sites. However, he described the man-made wetland ecosystems as “fragmented.” Another set of studies, by Henry Mushinsky and others at the University of South Florida, found that a dozen species of lizards, turtles and birds found on unmined sites were “under-represented or absent” from mined sites. He attributed that to a significant change in habitat, primarily through the loss of extensive tree canopy and understory. FIPR also hired hydrologist Peter Schreuder to experiment with using mined sites as water supply projects. Schreuder stored municipal waste water in a clay settling area and filtered it through a man made wetland and a sand tailings pile to produce water that meets almost all the state’s drinking water standards. The mining company CF Industries is now planning to put that research to use. CF has proposed diverting water from the Peace River to a clay settling area near Fort Meade where it would be treated and injected into the ground. The goal is to restock a public resource, said CF Vice President Herschel Morris, who sits on the FIPR board. “I think about a lot of this in terms of how to solve problems,” said Richardson, the FIPR research director over reclamation issues. “Essentially, FIPR acts sort of as a scientific think tank regarding industry issues that come before it,” said FIPR board member Ann Paul, a Tampa Bay regional coordinator for the Florida Audubon. Paul feels the studies conducted by FIPR are scientific and appropriate. But she also encourages people who feel important issues are being neglected to suggest the institute study them. “On the one hand, we can’t approve projects that aren’t presented,” she said. “On the other hand, making the most efficient use of phosphate rock here in Florida benefits not only the companies, which would clearly benefit from using their resources more efficiently, but also the people. Because we can’t afford to waste the resources of the state.” Clifford said the institute’s role is not to monitor the companies’ compliance with regulations. That’s the job of the EPA and the DEP, he said. “FIPR’s not charged with doing everything,” he said. “We spend the funds on the highest priorities that can help the industry operate — and the government operate — in an environmental manner. “Our job is not to castigate or defend the industry” Clifford said. “We’re not involved in that debate.” ***************************************************************** 97 Daily News: Contaminated sand moving from ship to rail Monday, April 28, 2008 6:41 PM PDT By Erik Olson Longshoremen should finish unloading 6,700 tons of sand contaminated with depleted uranium and lead Tuesday afternoon, said Chad Hyslop, spokesman for the disposal company American Ecology. The BBC Alabama arrived at the port Saturday afternoon with the 306 containers carrying the contaminated sand from Camp Doha, a U.S. Army base in Kuwait. The sand was packaged in bags designed to transport hazardous waste. Half of the containers will be loaded onto 76 rail cars and transported to an American Ecology disposal site in Idaho. The other half will remain at the port until the trains return to haul them to Idaho. The containers all will be at the disposal site in Idaho within 15 to 30 days, Hyslop said. For more on this story, see Tuesday’s edition of The Daily News. Copyright © 2007, The Daily News, Longview, WA ***************************************************************** 98 ksl.com: Whistle-blower says Utah mining regulators ignored the law April 28th, 2008 @ 10:00pm John Hollenhorst reporting Some of the biggest sand and gravel companies in the state have been allowed to operate for years without mining permits, and a whistle-blower says that's against the law. We took what we found to state regulators in charge of the sand and gravel operations. A recently retired regulator says the law requires a shut-down of gravel pits, an interpretation disputed by his former boss. But the agency has shut down little guys, mom-and-pop-sized companies that don't have permits. Several big companies have been given extra time to straighten out the paperwork year after year after year. Three years ago the state went after small landscapers for digging up decorative boulders. State regulators shut them down and fined them. In September 2005, Mark Mesch of the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining said, "You have to be permitted to do that operation through the state of Utah." Mark Mesch Mesch recently retired after 19 years as a mid-level manager with the Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining. Now he's critical of his old agency. "I held the public's trust. I think they're falling down on that," he said. Many sand and gravel companies have mined without a permit for years, some for more than six years, after mining permits became mandatory. They were exempt from mining laws until rule changes and court battles in the 1990s. But in 2001 the Utah Supreme Court ruled they are not exempt if they're mining into bedrock. At some quarries that practice dates back several decades. They dynamite bedrock, extract it, crush it into gravel. The companies say they've always done what the state requires. They argue they are vital to Utah. Brent Smith, vice president of Clyde Companies/Geneva Rock, said, "We've got to have roads. We've got to have foundations. We've got to have sidewalks. Without the gravel, we don't have any of that." State regulators accepted that reasoning and didn't immediately require mining permits in 2001. Agency director John Baza says it's a transition period, different from startup landscaping companies. "It probably would not have been in the public interest at that point to say, ‘Shut down. Stop until we can fix the paperwork on this,'" he said. Instead they launched a paperwork marathon, proposing, revising, negotiating permits. Critics say it's a way to skirt the law. It continues to this day. Six years later, nine of 27 quarries still don't have permits. Staker, near Beck Street, got a permit just last year. "We could do it quicker if we had more bodies to apply to the problem," Baza said. The point of the law is to ensure that the mining plan is safe and environmentally sound before the mining is done, and to make sure the site is properly cleaned up and stabilized after the mining is finished. Utah's Administrative Code says if a company is "...without a valid permit... the Division will immediately order a cessation of mining operations." According to Mark Mesch, "The law is very clear that if you are mining without a permit, you are in violation of state law." "I know that our legal counsel has told us and instructed us that this is an appropriate course of action for the division to take," Baza said. Brent Smith said, "I'm sure it was not the intent of the Legislature to create hardship for anybody currently operating." Stan Porter, a North Salt Lake City councilman, said, "Well, I think the state should follow the law. There's a conflict of interest to some degree because the state uses a lot of gravel." Meanwhile, the paperwork goes back and forth, the companies push farther into bedrock, the cliffs and terraces get higher and higher. Mesch said, "I think the public has been exposed to serious safety hazards." But Baza said, "We are capable at any time of issuing cessation orders if they pose an imminent threat." Baza says the companies have posted reclamation bonds sufficient to insure cleanup and stabilization when mining ends. But Mesch scoffs at that. He says it's impossible to estimate reclamation costs when mining goes on, and the state is still -- after the better part of a decade -- negotiating what the mining plans will be. E-mail: hollenhorst@ksl.com hours at the KSL Broadcast House. ***************************************************************** 99 Casper Star-Tribune: Uranium mining problems By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER Star-Tribune energy reporter Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:05 AM MDT Ranchers and rural residents in northeast Wyoming say they've seen the brochure on how uranium producers perform in-situ leach mining. What they don't know is how it's going to work in their neighborhood, with the soils and aquifers under their homes. Some say they're also unsure about how reliable producers are when it comes to self-monitoring, and whether state regulators are prepared to properly oversee a pending rush on in-situ uranium mining in the state. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has fielded numerous questions in recent weeks following a recent report documenting a long history of violations at Cameco Corp.'s Smith Ranch-Highland in-situ uranium mine in Converse County. The in-situ mining process involves a series of closely spaced wells that flush uranium material through water aquifers. Wilma Tope ranches with her husband in northeastern Crook County. She said the failures at Cameco's Smith Ranch-Highland mine are cause for concern regarding both the industry itself and the agencies that are supposed to regulate it. "The water testing, the reporting, everything is self-monitored. And with Smith Ranch-Highland, it didn't work very well, so we know our concerns are founded," Tope said. Based on a high volume of interest and the potential for significant uranium activity in northeast Wyoming, DEQ officials scheduled a public meeting in Sundance. The meeting is set for 6 p.m. May 28 in the basement of the Crook County Courthouse. "It's time to get out there and talk to people," said Don McKenzie, DEQ Land Quality Division administrator. Tope and several other northeast Wyoming residents recently organized a group called Ranchers and Neighbors Protecting Our Water, in affiliation with the Powder River Basin Resource Council. She said Powertech Uranium Corp., and possibly other uranium producers, have acquired extensive lease acreages in northern Crook County, and test drilling is already under way. "Our goal is to educate people about the process of in-situ mining and possibility of leaking and other dangers," Tope said. People also want to know which water aquifers might be targeted for uranium in-situ leach mining. Based on the failures of DEQ's oversight at the Smith Ranch-Highland mine, bonding levels may need to be increased and DEQ may need to add more staff, Tope said. "These are questions we'd like answered," she said. "We need baseline (groundwater) testing -- that way if something goes awry, we have proof of what our water quality was beforehand." Violations McKenzie said that despite regulatory violations at the Smith Ranch-Highland mine, DEQ can assure the public there's been no groundwater contamination from the mine. That's based largely on monitoring information provided by Cameco itself. However, DEQ has taken its own samples from the mine's monitoring wells throughout the years, according to the agency. "There's always been monitoring," McKenzie said. He said the biggest issue at Smith Ranch-Highland was that Cameco delayed aquifer remediation in several instances -- as long as a decade in some cases. Those aquifers were not completely abandoned and ignored, but they simply were not treated and reclaimed in a prudent amount of time, he said. DEQ spokesman Keith Guille said the agency can collect dual samples from monitoring wells to be analyzed in separate labs. He said that has been done at Smith Ranch-Highland in the past, and remains an option for future monitoring efforts. In light of the Smith Ranch-Highland report, DEQ said it would ask Cameco to increase its reclamation bonding to $80 million. Cameco spokesman Gord Struthers said the company would comply and increase its bonding to that amount, but said that Cameco is still working out the details with DEQ. Cameco is in the process of meeting several requirements set forth in a notice of violation issued by DEQ in March, including the addition of staff to oversee remediation and monitoring activities at Smith Ranch-Highland. "We had two good meetings with DEQ. They were both positive and constructive," Struthers said. Energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 577-6069 or dustin.bleizeffer@trib.com. Copyright © 1995–2007 Lee Enterprises - A subsidiary of Lee Enterprises Incorporated | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact Us ***************************************************************** 100 Ohio.com - For sale: One used but cleaner dump, includes toxic waste Proposal will put Superfund site in Uniontown up for grabs soon By Bob Downing Beacon Journal staff writer Published on Friday, Apr 25, 2008 Seeking new owner: A former Uniontown toxic-waste dump that is cleaner than it once was. The Industrial Excess Landfill, a Superfund site that has been in the headlines for three decades, will soon be for sale under proposed consent decrees in U.S. District Court in Youngstown. Negotiating terms of the sale will be up to potential buyers and Industrial Excess Landfill Inc., the Akron-based company that owns the 30-acre site off Cleveland Avenue Northwest. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has imposed restrictions on what can be done with the land: No houses, apartments, excavating or wells for drinking water. One potential buyer is Lake Township, which could use the site for greenspace or a nature preserve. Township Trustee Galen Stoll said Lake's level of interest would depend on the price, the availability of funds and the use restrictions, he said. Stoll said the township's attorney, Charles Hall, is trying to arrange meetings with the federal EPA and Ohio EPA to learn more about the restrictions. Lake has been considering the former dump for use as a nature preserve or greenspace for years. In 2000, the township got a $100,000 federal grant to investigate future uses of the IEL property. The idea was to keep the site as undeveloped greenspace and put park facilities, including a trail and picnic area, on adjacent land. Paul Wolford, a spokesman for the four companies responsible for monitoring pollution at the the dump, Goodyear, Bridgestone-Firestone, B.F. Goodrich and GenCorp, said they are interested in con tinuing efforts to turn the site into a community-based nature preserve. But Chris Borello of the grass-roots organization Concerned Citizens of Lake Township called the sale of the dump ''unthinkable . . . until the truth is learned.'' Her group is pushing for hearings in Congress for what she called the ''fraudulent science'' used by the U.S. EPA in dealing with questions of whether radioactive material was buried at Uniontown. The EPA has insisted there are no radiation problems at the dump. Agreement to sell What is triggering the sale of the toxic-waste dump is a proposed settlement between the federal EPA and three parties that owned and operated the site: Hyman Budoff of Akron and two Budoff-owned companies, Hybud Equipment Co. and Industrial Excess Landfill Inc. In an agreement with the federal government, Budoff and his companies have agreed to sell the IEL site and a smaller adjacent property at 12646 Cleveland Ave. N.W. in order to help reimburse the U.S. and and Ohio EPAs for years of testing work done there. The federal government will get 95.43 percent of the net sale proceeds; Ohio will get the remaining 4.57 percent. If a sale for fair-market value cannot be arranged within six months, Budoff and his companies will have to meet with federal and state officials to determine the next step. Budoff and his companies also have been ordered to pay $210,000 under the proposed court settlement. That money will be split in the same way between the federal government and Ohio. Timothy Thurlow, an EPA attorney based in Chicago, said the government decided not to seek more because of the defendants' limited ability to pay. The agreement also bans the federal and state governments and Budoff and his companies from suing each other over the landfill. Budoff, who denies any liability in the agreement, must maintain all landfill-related corporate records. A second consent decree was negotiated with former landfill owner-operators Charles and Merle Kittinger and Kittinger Trucking Co. The Akron couple and their company are only required to pay $954 and $46, respectively, to the federal and state governments because of their limited financial resources, Thurlow said. 30 days to comment A 30-day, public-comment period on the two agreements began on April 11 with notice published in the Federal Register. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division and mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611, or e-mailed to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov. The Department of Justice case number — 90-11-3-247/2 — should be referenced in the comments. The documents are available for review at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html. The agreements must be approved by U.S. District Judge Peter C. Economus, who took over the IEL case in 2006 after the death of U.S. District Judge John Manos. The case began in 1989. Once finalized, the agreements will end the federal government's cost-recovery efforts at Uniontown, Thurlow said. On April 7, 2005, four rubber companies that had buried hazardous waste at the dump — Goodyear, Bridgestone-Firestone, B.F. Goodrich and GenCorp — agreed to implement the final $7 million site plan and repay $17.9 million to the federal government and $875,000 to Ohio. Goodyear and Bridgestone-Firestone still have Akron operations. B.F. Goodrich has moved its corporate offices to North Carolina. GenCorp is now part of Fairlawn-based Omnova Solutions Inc. The toxic waste remains buried at IEL. Under the site plan, the contaminated aquifer is being monitored and allowed to naturally cleanse itself. Methane gas was collected and burned, although that system has been turned off for a couple of years. On Oct. 2, 2007, PPG Industries Inc. and Morgan Adhesives Co. together paid nearly $1.1 million to the federal government and $15,984 to Ohio for their involvement at Uniontown. Thurlow said PPG and Morgan Adhesives did not dump as much hazardous waste at the site as the rubber companies did. The six companies can still file legal claims against other companies that dumped at IEL to share in the cleanup costs, he said. U.S. agency watching The U.S. EPA maintains oversight of the former landfill site and the groundwater monitoring. In 2006, the agency released a five-year review that said the final remedy is working and contamination is decreasing. Nine toxic chemicals were found in the aquifer in late 2005. Thurlow said the federal government purchased land around the former landfill in anticipation of putting on a cap that would have extended beyond the property lines. That cap was never installed, he said, and the federally owned land on the north, west and south sides of the landfill soon will be transferred to the state. Ohio could sell or donate the land, depending on the outcome of the landfill sale, said state EPA spokesman Larry Antonelli. While operating from 1966 until 1980, the landfill accepted both household trash and toxic waste. It took in about 780,000 tons of solid and 1 million gallons of liquid wastes. The original $32 million cleanup plan, signed in 1989, called for installing a synthetic-earthen cap, treating contaminated groundwater and expanding a system to collect and burn methane gas. The plan was revised in March 2000 and called for a simpler synthetic-earthen cap, expanding the methane-venting system and letting the groundwater cleanse itself through natural processes. Bob Downing can be reached at 330-996-3745 or bdowning@thebeaconjournal.com. Seeking new owner: A former Uniontown toxic-waste dump that is cleaner than it once was. The Industrial Excess Landfill, a Superfund site that has been in the headlines for three decades, will soon be for sale under proposed consent decrees in U.S. District Court in Youngstown. Negotiating terms of the sale will be up to potential buyers and Industrial Excess Landfill Inc., the Akron-based company that owns the 30-acre site off Cleveland Avenue Northwest. But the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has imposed restrictions on what can be done with the land: No houses, apartments, excavating or wells for drinking water. One potential buyer is Lake Township, which could use the site for greenspace or a nature preserve. Township Trustee Galen Stoll said Lake's level of interest would depend on the price, the availability of funds and the use restrictions, he said. Stoll said the township's attorney, Charles Hall, is trying to arrange meetings with the federal EPA and Ohio EPA to learn more about the restrictions. Lake has been considering the former dump for use as a nature preserve or greenspace for years. In 2000, the township got a $100,000 federal grant to investigate future uses of the IEL property. The idea was to keep the site as undeveloped greenspace and put park facilities, including a trail and picnic area, on adjacent land. Paul Wolford, a spokesman for the four companies responsible for monitoring pollution at the the dump, Goodyear, Bridgestone-Firestone, B.F. Goodrich and GenCorp, said they are interested in con tinuing efforts to turn the site into a community-based nature preserve. But Chris Borello of the grass-roots organization Concerned Citizens of Lake Township called the sale of the dump ''unthinkable . . . until the truth is learned.'' Her group is pushing for hearings in Congress for what she called the ''fraudulent science'' used by the U.S. EPA in dealing with questions of whether radioactive material was buried at Uniontown. The EPA has insisted there are no radiation problems at the dump. An ownership information sign hangs on the gate of the Industrial Excess Landfill on Cleveland Avenue N.W. in Uniontown, Ohio. (Mike Cardew/Akron Beacon Journal) Inside Ohio.com ©2008 The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio ***************************************************************** 101 ACA: Key GNEP Decision Left to Next President Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today: Arms Control Today May 2008 Miles A. Pomper With its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) already facing resistance from Congress, the Bush administration has decided to leave to the next president key decisions affecting the domestic leg of the controversial program. Administration officials have claimed that GNEP, which seeks to develop new nuclear technologies and new international nuclear fuel arrangements, will cut nuclear waste and decrease the risk that an anticipated growth in the use of nuclear energy worldwide could spur nuclear proliferation. Critics assert that the administration’s course would exacerbate the proliferation risks posed by the spread of spent fuel reprocessing technology, be prohibitively expensive, and fail to significantly ease waste disposal challenges without any certainty that the claimed technologies will ever be developed. Congress has largely sided with the critics and last year sharply cut the administration’s proposed budget for the program and restricted it to research. (See ACT, January/February 2008.) Current reprocessing technologies yield pure or nearly pure plutonium that can be used in fuel for nuclear reactors or to provide fissile material for nuclear weapons. GNEP proposes to build facilities that would retain other elements in the spent fuel along with the plutonium, making it less attractive for weapons production than pure plutonium. But critics note that this fuel would still not be as proliferation resistant as if the spent fuel were left intact. In April 10 testimony before the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee, Dennis Spurgeon, assistant secretary of energy for nuclear energy, said that Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman would put off to the next administration a key decision, previously expected for this summer. Bodman had been set to pick a “technology path forward” for the program that could lead to the construction of reprocessing-related facilities. “I would look to the end of this year and this being more of a transition document that would be the secretary’s recommendation as to ‘This is where we are and this is how I think we ought to proceed,’” Spurgeon said. “But by no means are we going to be in a position to recommend any major demonstration-scale facilities or their construction at this time.” In particular, Spurgeon said that Bodman did not plan to make a decision on whether to build a nuclear fuel reprocessing center or a prototype fast reactor. Fast reactors rely on “fast neutrons” to fission plutonium and other elements in the spent fuel. These neutrons differ from “thermal neutrons” that have been slowed down by a moderator in a reactor, such as the water used in many North American nuclear plants that rely on fresh uranium fuel. Spurgeon said that if a reactor were built, it would “very likely” be financed by an international partnership that included France and Japan. In February, the three countries signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate in the development of prototype sodium-cooled fast reactors. In the meantime, the Department of Energy is looking to gather more information about the cost, feasibility, and technical aspects of the proposed plants. A March 28 press release said that the department had awarded $18.3 million to four industry teams to further develop plans for the facilities. In addition, Spurgeon said that the department hoped to offer more definitive plans by this summer for constructing a new research and development facility for all nuclear fuels, including those that would be used in fast reactors. The Arms Control Association is a non-profit, membership-based organization. If you find our resources useful, please consider joining or making a contribution. Arms Control Today encourages reprint of its articles with permission of the Editor. © 1997-2008 Arms Control Association, 1313 L Street, NW, Suite 130 Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273 ***************************************************************** 102 Deseret News: Firm pitches idea for a uranium mill Published: Monday, May 5, 2008 12:04 a.m. MDT Mancos Resources Inc. presented the Utah Radiation Control Board in its meeting Friday with a uranium mill proposal for an "isolated" location six miles northwest of the Green River area in Emery County. Mancos is owned by Canadian-based Bluerock Resources Ltd., which has one operating mine, one nearing production and twelve "uranium properties" in Utah and Colorado. Its proposal, which was an information-only item for the board, is to mine 1,200 tons per day at a "conventional" uranium mill, using a wet crushing and solvent extraction technique. Waste from the mill would involve a dry tailings disposal method and a composite cap over the tailings. The Mancos Resources Uranium Mill would employ over 40, last for about 50 years and result in a $125 million investment in Utah. An "optimistic" start-up date for the mill would be about three years away. Part of Mancos' proposal included an assurance that it would have a comprehensive plan developed for radon sequestration for its operations. deseretnews.com ***************************************************************** 103 Boulder Daily Camera: Company challenges EPA ruling Ruling pertains to uranium mining permits Felicia Fonseca, Associated Press Sunday, May 11, 2008 ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A uranium mining company contends a U.S Environmental Protection Agency ruling is stalling its plans to begin operations in northwest New Mexico. The EPA ruled last year that a 160-acre parcel near Church Rock is part of a dependent Indian community, therefore requiring that Hydro Resources Inc. obtain an underground injection control permit with the EPA, not the state of New Mexico. New Mexico-based Hydro Resources challenged that ruling, and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver is to hear arguments in the case Monday. "The most important thing is we need to have clarity so we can move forward with our business," said Mark Pelizza, vice president of health, safety and environmental affairs for Uranium Resources Inc., HRI's parent company. The state of New Mexico granted HRI an underground injection control permit for the land in the late 1980s. The EPA has not taken any action to deny or issue a permit since its ruling in February 2007. New Mexico did not challenge the EPA ruling. Hydro Resources owns the surface and mineral rights on the 160-acre property 10 miles northeast of the Church Rock Chapter House known as Section 8. The company contends the EPA erred in determining the Indian Country status, since Section 8 never had been set aside by the federal government for use as Indian land. "That property we're talking about in Church Rock is our property," said Deborah Palowski, a spokeswoman for URI. "We own it and it has never been given to the (American) Indians." The EPA based its decision on the makeup of the Church Rock community. Over 95 percent of the land within the chapter is either trust land, tribal fee lands or used exclusively by members of the Navajo Nation, the EPA said. The agency also found that nearly 98 percent of the population in the chapter is American Indian. The EPA said the appellate court should uphold the agency's determination because Section 8 "is plainly within the Church Rock Chapter." "HRI primarily contends that one must determine the Indian Country status of the Section 8 land with blinders on, focusing solely on the Section 8 land itself," the EPA wrote in court documents. The eastern side of the Navajo Nation and the Church Rock area is commonly referred to as a checkerboard, made up of Indian and non-Indian lands. There is no uniformity of jurisdictional authority over the land within the chapter boundaries. The Section 8 land, like state or other non-Indian owned fee land, is not part of the chapter, HRI wrote in court documents. "The fact that neither the Navajo Nation nor the United States' government has jurisdiction over state-owned land or private fee lands is recognized by the Navajo Nation and should have been recognized by EPA," HRI said. The tribe wants the EPA to make the determination on permits, rather than the state, because the federal government has a trust responsibility to tribes. The EPA decision doesn't specifically state the agency would consider the ban when receiving applications for mining-related permits, but tribal officials have said they are hopeful the agency will. © 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 104 AlterNet: The Pentagon Is America's Biggest Polluter By Joshua Frank, AlterNet. Posted May 12, 2008. The nation's biggest polluter isn't a corporation. It's the Pentagon. Every year the Department of Defense churns out more than 750,000 tons of hazardous waste -- more than the top three chemical companies combined. Yet the military remains largely exempt from compliance with most federal and state environmental laws, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Pentagon's partner in crime, is working hard to keep it that way. For the past five decades the federal government, defense contractors and the chemical industry have joined forces to block public health protections against perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel that has been shown to effect children's growth and mental progress by disrupting the function of the thyroid gland which regulates brain development. Perchlorate has been leaking from literally hundreds of defense plants and military installations across the country. The EPA has reported that perchlorate is present in drinking and groundwater supplies in 35 states. Center for Disease Control and independent studies have also overwhelmingly shown that perchlorate is existent in our food supplies, cow's milk, and human breast milk. As a result virtually every American has some level of perchlorate in their body. Currently only two states, California and Massachusetts, have set a maximum allowable contaminant level for perchlorate in drinking water. But the EPA won't follow these states' lead. In the Colorado River, which provides water for over 20 million people, perchlorate levels are high. The chemical is most prevalent in the Southwest and California as a result of the large number of military operations and defense contractors in the region. In 2001 the EPA estimated that the total liability for the cleanup of toxic military sites would exceed $350 billion, or five times the Superfund Act liability of private industry. But the federal government has been complacent and allowed perchlorate to run rampant throughout our water supplies. This negligence and lack of regulatory oversight has left the Pentagon, NASA and defense contractors free to set their own levels, trimming the high, but necessary costs of restoring groundwater quality. While the situation has become dire in recent years, it was the Clinton administration that didn't do nearly enough to begin cleaning up these sites and certainly did not keep a close eye on how the Pentagon spent the money it received. During the 1990s the Defense Department spent only $3.5 billion a year cleaning up toxic military sites -- much of that on studies, not actual work. In 1998, the Defense Science Review Board, a federal advisory committee set up to provide independent advice to the secretary of defense, looked at the problem and concluded that the Pentagon had no clear environmental cleanup policy, goals or program, which led lawyer Jonathan Turley, who holds the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at George Washington University, to call the Pentagon the nation's "premier environmental villain." "If they can spend $1 million on a cruise missile, it seems kind of ridiculous they won't spend $200,000 to see if our food is contaminated with rocket fuel," says Renee Sharp, a scientist with Environmental Working Group. But if the Clinton program was chintzy, the Bush plan has been downright penurious. * 1 * 2 See more stories tagged with: perchlorate, pentagon, public health, drinking water Joshua Frank is the author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush and edits http://www.BrickBurner.org. © 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 105 ReviewJournal.com: Yucca delay may spur interim storage Apr. 26, 2008 Nuclear waste piling up at plants By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- State legislators are adding their voices to those who have grown impatient at slow progress in establishing nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain. The National Conference of State Legislatures is expected today to recommend the government identify one or two sites where used nuclear fuel can be stored temporarily until the proposed repository 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas is built and until fuel recycling can be made available. The policy change at the group's spring meeting will allow lobbyists to urge Congress to redirect a portion of the money in a $20 billion Yucca construction fund into a near-term alternative. Under the group's scenario, radioactive waste would be stored in hardened casks lined up on concrete pads for not longer than 25 years. The conference becomes the second national organization this year to recommend steering high-level waste into temporary storage while the Department of Energy attempts to overcome a decade of delay to advance the Yucca project. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners adopted a similar policy in February. The Nuclear Energy Institute is recruiting communities interested in hosting such a storage complex. Assemblywoman Kathy McClain, D-Las Vegas, said the shift toward interim storage might benefit Nevada leaders who have fought the Yucca repository. "We ought to be able to make it work for us," McClain said at the group's meeting. "I think it increases the chances that they might find an alternative in that 25 years." A subcommittee adopted the policy Friday. Since the vote was unanimous, it will be added to a fast-track agenda for approval at the final conference session, said John Heaton, a state representative from New Mexico. The new policy was propelled by legislators from New Mexico, Maryland and Maine who argued nuclear waste piling up at power plants in 35 states needs to be removed and taken somewhere if not Yucca Mountain right away. The issue is most pressing at 10 sites where reactors have been shut down but nuclear waste remains and requires costly protections, said Deborah Simpson, a Maine representative. "We can no longer sit back," said Sally Jameson, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates. "We have to try to make a path forward possible." Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760. Links powered by inform.com Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2008 ***************************************************************** 106 The Local: German atomic waste transport cancelled for 2009 Published: 29 Apr 08 13:03 CET Online: http://www.thelocal.de/11579/ Transport of radioactive waste to an interim storage facility near the German town of Gorleben from a reprocessing plant in La Hague in France has been cancelled for the coming year, German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on Tuesday. Citing anonymous government sources, the newspaper said the transport planned for 2009 would not happen because of a delay in gaining approval for a new type of radioactive waste transport container, called a castor. The 2009 transport was to be the second to last time highly radioactive waste originating in Germany is shipped from reprocessing in France to the Gorleben facility, in the German state of Lower Saxony. But now another transport will be necessary in 2011, according to the Süddeutsche. Approval for the new transport container was originally expected in summer, according to the newspaper's report, but the review is now expected to last until September. The container's manufacturer is the Association for Nuclear Service (GNS), a joint subsidiary of the German atomic power companies Eon, RWE, Vattenfall and EnBW. The German Institute for Materials Research wrote GNS in December to complain about 'deficits' in the way basic problems in the application for review of the new container had been addressed, according to the Süddeutsche. The newspaper reported that some testing models had been altered to obtain certain results. Critics of nuclear power in Germany have argued in the past that testing is insufficient to ensure the safety of the transports, the newspaper said. Although the nuclear waste in the transports originates in Germany, sending it back from treatment in France via rail has been unpopular, with activists in some cases chaining themselves to the rails to halt the transport train. Seventy-five transport containers have been shipped from La Hague to Gorleben in the past seven years, according to the newspaper report. Enough material to fill 33 more containers awaits shipping in France. A shipment is expected this fall using a French model of transport container. The Local (news@thelocal.de The Local © The Local Europe AB 2008 ***************************************************************** 107 BW: GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Selects Wilmington, N.C. as Site for Potential Commercial Uranium Enrichment Facility April 30, 2008 12:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time  Hundreds of New Jobs Expected in the Area WILMINGTON, N.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), a subsidiary of GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), has announced it has selected GEH’s Wilmington headquarters site for a potential commercial uranium enrichment facility. The planned GEH plant would result in the creation of hundreds of new technical, operational and support jobs at the site between now and 2012. “This is a key milestone in GLE’s development process,” said Tammy Orr, President and CEO of Global Laser Enrichment. “With the selection of the Wilmington site for a potential commercial facility, we can now move forward with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) licensing process.” GEH has exclusive rights to develop, commercialize and launch this third-generation uranium enrichment technology on a global basis, under a 2006 agreement with the original developer, the Australian company Silex Systems Ltd. Before moving ahead with full-scale production plans, GLE will first evaluate the results of a demonstration test loop, which is currently under construction, and obtain an NRC license to build and operate the commercial plant. Commercial licensing activities are currently underway to support a projected start-up date of 2012. The commercial GLE facility would have a target capacity of between 3.5 and six million separative work units (SWUs). GEH intends to make a final decision on the construction of the facility as early as the beginning of 2009. The cutting-edge laser enrichment isotope separation technology allows GEH to become further integrated in the nuclear fuel cycle; already, Wilmington–based Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas (GNF-A), a joint venture of GE, Hitachi and Toshiba, is involved in the fuel cycle. GNF’s site currently receives low enriched uranium, which is then used to fabricate fuel bundles for commercial nuclear power plants. The commercial GLE enrichment facility could potentially become a supplier of low enriched uranium to the Wilmington GNF fabrication facility. No new types of hazardous materials will be added to the GEH plant site. Should GEH choose to build the commercial facility, the GLE plant will take up approximately 200 acres of the approximately 1,600-acre site. About GEH Nuclear Energy Based in Wilmington, North Carolina, GEH is a world-leading provider of advanced reactors and nuclear services. Established in June 2007, GEH is a global nuclear alliance created by GE and Hitachi to serve the global nuclear industry. The new nuclear alliance executes a single, strategic vision to create a broader portfolio of solutions, expanding its capabilities for new reactor and service opportunities. The alliance offers customers around the world the technological leadership required to effectively enhance reactor performance, power output and safety. About GE Energy GE Energy (www.ge.com/energy) is one of the world’s leading suppliers of power generation and energy delivery technologies, with 2007 revenue of $22 billion. Based in Atlanta, Georgia, GE Energy works in all areas of the energy industry including coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy; renewable resources such as water, wind, solar and biogas; and other alternative fuels. Numerous GE Energy products are certified under ecomagination, GE’s corporate-wide initiative to aggressively bring to market new technologies that will help customers meet pressing environmental challenges. GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Ned Glascock +1 910 675 5729 edward.glascock@ge.com or Masto Public Relations Howard Masto or Tom Murnane +1 518 786 6488 howard.masto@ge.com tom.murnane@mastopr.com Terms of Use | ©2008 Business Wire ***************************************************************** 108 Idaho Press-Tribune: Contaminated sand slated for Idaho dump site Idahopress.com BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Nearly 80 rail cars loaded with contaminated sand from Kuwait are headed to a desert dump site in southwestern Idaho. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Director Brian Monson says the American Ecology Co. is moving about 6,700 tons of sand to a hazardous waste disposal site in the Owyhee desert 70 miles southeast of Boise. The sand is from Camp Doha, a U.S. Army Base in Kuwait. The sand absorbed depleted uranium after ammunition caught fire. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted the company permission to dispose of the sand. And Monson says the company is permitted to dispose of the materials at its Idaho site. The shipment of sand arrived at a port in Longview, Wash., this week and is being transported to Idaho by rail. idahopress.com Terms Of Use and our Privacy Policy Copyright © 2007 Idaho Press-Tribune. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 109 globeandmail.com: Uranium ban rankles industry groups But it may come as no surprise: A B.C. official says groups were told last year of the coming prohibition WENDY STUECK With a report from Jennifer Hunter in Victoria April 26, 2008 "We did have a consultation with [industry groups] last year about our intention to move in this direction," Mr. Krueger said yesterday in an interview. "The feedback from the associations was negative. But the input from the public is consistent. The Crown owns the mineral and has decided that uranium and thorium will not be for sale." B.C. announced the ban, which comes in the form of a "no registration reserve" under the Mineral Tenure Act for uranium and thorium, on Thursday. The move formalized a long-standing unofficial ban on mining uranium in B.C. (a moratorium imposed by the former Social Credit government expired in 1987) but rankled companies and industry groups. "We were totally caught off guard," said Den Jepsen, president of the Association for Mineral Exploration of B.C., which represents junior mining companies. "By making this decision, it ends all opportunities for development." The province wanted to make its position clear before companies invested heavily in uranium projects, Mr. Krueger said, adding that the ban is consistent with the no-nuclear energy provision of B.C.'s energy plan. "This says that they are listening to the minority's fears about uranium mining," said Dan Stone, president of Vancouver-based Boss Power Inc., which had been pursuing plans for the Blizzard uranium deposit near Kelowna. Mr. Stone questioned the timing of the government's announcement, saying it came less than a week after Boss filed its plans for a three-month drilling program on the Blizzard property. Several junior companies have been reviewing uranium deposits in B.C., encouraged by uranium prices that more than doubled last year before softening this year. Mr. Krueger said the ban was not triggered by a specific project or event. The uranium ban is the latest of several decisions made by the business-friendly B.C. Liberal government that have not favoured industry. Last month, the province withdrew support for a green-power project on the Upper Pitt River amid protests about the impact on salmon and other wildlife. And the government's ambitious climate-change agenda will impose caps on greenhouse gas emissions by heavy industry. Mark Jaccard, an adviser to the government on climate change and a resource economist at Simon Fraser University, said the Liberals have made a strong shift toward environmentalism in their second term. But Virginia Greene, president of the B.C. Business Council, said Premier Gordon Campbell's government is still considered pro-business. © Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON  Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 110 Murfreesboro Post: AG: Radioactive waste ban 'suspect' BY MICHELLE WILLARD, Post Staff Writer – April 25, 2008 Tennessee’s Attorney General produced a mixed opinion on the constitutionality of bills concerning radioactive waste in the state’s landfills. State Rep. Frank Buck (D-Dowelltown) requested an opinion from the attorney general’s office questioning whether bills introduced to the General Assembly by state Rep. Donna Rowland (R-Murfreesboro) and Sen. Jim Tracy (R-Murfreesboro) violate the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. House Bill 3756/Senate Bill 2733 would ban all radioactive waste from Tennessee landfills except that produced by the federal government. And House Bill 2771/Senate Bill 2836 would require public hearings in the approval process relating to Bulk Survey for Release permit applications. Attorney General Robert Cooper found none of the bills violates the Commerce Clause, which regulates interstate commerce, but the bill banning all radioactive waste from Tennessee landfills is “constitutionally suspect.” “The Department of Environment and Conservation fully agrees with the Attorney General's opinion,” said Meg Lockhart, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) deputy communications director. Cooper reasons the radioactive ban is suspect because it does not contain any “legitimate public concerns for the prohibitions.” “The good news is no commerce clause conflict. The bad news is we have to show it’s in the public interest and TDEC has said it is safe,” said Kathy Ferris from Citizens to END IT. TDEC assured the public of BSFR’s safety when Tennessee Municipal Solid Waste Committee decided in August 2007, the “(Bulk Survey for Release) program, as implemented by the Division of Radiological Health and Solid Waste Management, is protective of the public health and environment.” General Assembly mandated a study of the Bulk Survey for Release program, which regulates potentially hazardous waste and determines the level of radioactivity present. If the waste is within the acceptable range of radioactivity, it is sent to licensed commercial landfills for disposal. Middle Point landfill was a licensed facility and accepted low-level radioactive waste since the BSFR’s 1997 inception without any public disclosure. The program came to light in May 2007 after a report from our news partners at WSMV Channel 4 News. Ferris explained Carter Valley, another landfill in East Tennessee, has leaked and contaminated the local groundwater supply in Anderson County. “We know it’s in the public interest 
 but TDEC doesn’t see it that way,” Ferris said. But Tracy pointed out Allied Waste, Middle Point Landfill’s parent company, bowed to public pressure and voluntarily agreed to atop accepting BSFR waste. “Allied worked with us very hard and agreed not to take that kind of waste 
 One thing they (the public) can be assured of now is Allied cannot take this waste,” Tracy said. Tracy added he and Rep. John Hood (D-Murfreesboro) will work to pass the public hearing bill before the end of this legislative session. The other bills have been sent to summer study committees. “Basically what we’re going to do is study it and look at it 
” Tracy said. “We’re going to work on it over the summer and see if there is anything else we can do.” Michelle Willard can be contacted at 869-0816 or mwillard@murfreesboropost.com. 615-869-0800 | online@murfreesboropost.com | 630 Broadmor Blvd. Suite 120, P.O. 10008, Murfreesboro, TN 37129 ***************************************************************** 111 PhysOrg: DIAMOND to tackle UK nuclear waste issues Published: 18 hours ago, 09:45 EST, May 01, 2008 The long-term problem of how to manage and dispose of Britain’s nuclear waste is to be tackled by a UK consortium headed by the University of Leeds. Over the past 60 years, Britain has established 20 nuclear sites and facilities, as part of its civil nuclear programme. These are now managed by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). Current estimates of the cost of decommissioning the sites and handling waste management and disposal stand at around Ł70 billion. The DIAMOND (Decommissioning, Immobilisation And Management of Nuclear wastes for Disposal) consortium will draw on expertise from the universities of Manchester, Sheffield, Imperial College, Loughborough, University College London and Leeds, in a four-year programme which has received Ł4.2 million funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). Areas covered by the programme will include legacy wastes, site termination, contaminant migration and materials design and performance. A key strength of the consortium’s approach is that it will bring together skills and knowledge from a diverse range of academic disciplines, including radiochemistry, waste immobilisation, materials performance and mathematical modelling. Researchers will also work closely with the NDA and stakeholders in the nuclear industry to make sure research addresses relevant issues. At the same time, researchers will get the opportunity to experience ‘real life’ challenges in industry. Professor Simon Biggs, from the School of Process, Environmental and Materials Engineering at the University of Leeds, is leading the consortium. He said: “By challenging the status quo and seeking new and innovative solutions we believe this programme of research will generate real savings on the treatment and disposal of legacy waste, site decommissioning and remediation.” A key priority is to address a growing EU-wide skills gap in the nuclear research field, through training the next generation of nuclear waste specialists. The consortium is looking for industrial partners and is also offering PhD and postdoctoral research opportunities at all member institutions. Dr Jim Young, DIAMOND programme manager, said: “The value of the consortium’s approach is that projects will be co-supervised by academics with expertise in different fields of knowledge, which will enhance creativity and increase the potential for a step change technology breakthrough.” Source: University of Leeds * © PhysOrg.com 2003-2008 ***************************************************************** 112 Columbus Dispatch: DOE plan for nuke waste is reshelved Too many 'unknowns' for recycling at Piketon site Wednesday, May 7, 2008 3:07 AM By Jonathan Riskind WASHINGTON -- Some say a multibillion-dollar recycling center for nuclear waste would be an economic blessing for southern Ohio. Others see it as little more than a radioactive waste dump. But both sides agree on at least one thing: The Department of Energy initiative will not happen anytime soon on the grounds of the former uranium-enrichment plant in Piketon -- or perhaps anywhere else. "There are too many unknowns to call it a real project at this point," said Greg Simonton, executive director of the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative, an economic-development group that has lobbied for the project in Piketon. "From my perspective, it remains on the shelf." Gov. Ted Strickland agrees, saying he's pessimistic that the project, known as the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, will proceed in the last nine months of the Bush administration. The Department of Energy has been pushing three projects, not necessarily at the same site, dealing with used fuel rods from nuclear-power plants: a recycling plant to reuse the uranium, an advanced reactor to destroy other byproducts while generating electricity, and a fuels-research laboratory. The projects would create thousands of jobs, and Piketon has been vying for the recycling plant and the reactor. But critics say the technology needed for much of the initiative is years in the future, and the cost could spiral out of control. The recycling plant without the reactor alongside would essentially become a dump for dangerous nuclear waste materials, they say. Strickland, Simonton and other proponents say their support has always been contingent on not simply turning the site into a waste dump. And, while the Republican Bush administration has pushed the initiative, a growing chorus in the Democratic-run Congress is increasingly skeptical and has reduced funding. jriskind@dispatch.com ©2008, The Columbus Dispatch, Reproduction prohibited ***************************************************************** 113 Mother Jones: Slow Train to Yucca Mountain By Judith Lewis High-level nuclear waste, the detritus of a half-century of civilian nuclear power in the United States, was supposed to have someplace to go by now. It was supposed to have a designated hole in the ground to contain it, according to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, with infrastructure to transport and store it, staff to secure and protect it. In 2008, we were not supposed to still be debating where to put the fuel rods from nuclear reactors once they could no longer fission efficiently. But we are. In 1987, after narrowing the sites for a geological repository for nuclear waste down to three, Congress settled on a dusty stretch of Nye County, Nevada, known as Yucca Mountain. With full faith that the repository would open in 1998 as mandated by law, the Department of Energy (DOE) forged ahead, drilling a five-mile tunnel out of the mountain and building a rail line through it. It brought in scientists from the country's top nuclear laboratories to study the rock; it began conducting tours of the site for media, legislators, and scientists; it even printed up T-shirts and coffee mugs for visitors to purchase at lunchtime. But as the years went by, Yucca Mountain began to seem less like a grand public-works project than a colossal mistake. The latest opening date for the repository—which has cost $11 billion to date—was set for 2017, but as recently as February, the DOE's Ward Sproat, who oversees the agency's civilian nuclear waste program, admitted "a two- or three-year slip from that," in part due to a $108 million cut in the project's requested half-billion-dollar budget. As of April 2008, the Department of Energy had yet to apply for a license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the repository, which needs to be approved before construction can begin on the actual cubbyholes where the waste will be stored. What went wrong? Part of the problem is certainly garden-variety NIMBYism: The State of Nevada has sued several times to stop the project, saying the state has absorbed enough radiation from the nation's atomic experiments. (Yucca Mountain bumps up against the Nevada Test Site.) But another part may just be that Yucca Mountain was a really bad choice: Rock at the site, known as "tuff" and laid down by ancient volcanic explosions, proved more porous than previously claimed by the DOE, raising the possibility that water could leach into the site, erode the metal-and-concrete casks that store the waste, and transport toxic waste into the groundwater. (Nevada's largest dairy is downgradient from the mountain.) Add to that an active fault, which produced a 5.6 earthquake in 1992 and a 4.4 in 2002, and climatic uncertainty—the Nevada desert may not always be a desert—and Yucca Mountain starts to seem like a less-than-sensible place to stash your decaying plutonium for 24,100 years, which is how long it takes for plutonium to shed half its toxicity. Depleted uranium, which accounts for the bulk of the waste, stays deadly for 4.5 billion years. The DOE insists Yucca Mountain was never supposed to be a geologic repository, and that waste-containment casks, made of high-grade titanium, steel, and concrete, will do the job instead. But the casks may not last more than a few thousand years, and even if they do, the risk of exposure to the deadly isotopes inside will peak at 300,000 years. Which gets to the heart of the problem: How do we safely stow toxic materials for a period longer than the entire history of Homo sapiens? The truth is that no piece of ground seems to deserve this stuff. But without a solution to the waste problem, the nuclear renaissance is effectively dead: Few energy companies will invest further in a technology plagued by a deadly and intractable problem. And with two out of three current presidential candidates dedicated to halting the project, this could be Yucca Mountain's last chance to move forward. Which is why, some believe, Sproat suddenly announced in early March that the license application was just about ready and would go to the NRC by June 30. "Sproat knows he's leaving at the end of the year because it's the end of this administration," says Steve Frishman, technical policy coordinator for the Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects. "When he came on his job, his marching orders included getting a license application filed, and that's what he's going to do." From the filing date, the NRC has three years to approve the license application, starting with a 90-day evaluation period to determine whether it's complete. If so, the commission will accept public petitions through October 2008 for the right to intervene in the process. Prehearing panels will commence a few months later, and hearings will continue through at least 2011. But the hearings are by invitation only, and the commission generally hears only from official interveners, such as local government leaders who hope to piggyback their own starved public-works projects on the Yucca construction. The rest of the public may find itself bleating at an impenetrable bureaucracy. Says Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force: "Public involvement basically means you have the right to watch." Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you. © 2008 The Foundation for National Progress ***************************************************************** 114 LocalNews8.com: Appeals court hears challenge to uranium mine Idaho Falls, Pocatello - Associated Press - May 12, 2008 5:45 PM ET DENVER (AP) - Federal judges in Denver say they're surprised the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued permits to allow a company to leach uranium out of an aquifer that supplies drinking water to thousands of Navajos in New Mexico. A three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Monday in a case brought by opponents of the mine. The in-situ process uses chemicals to free uranium from the surrounding ore, allowing it to be pumped out of the ground with water and refined on the surface. Dozens of companies have proposed similar mines around the West. Citizens groups opposing the mine say the process threatens to pollute ground water. Hydro Resources, Inc. says the process is safe. Lawyers say it's the first-ever challenge to the NRC's approval of licenses for an in-situ uranium mining operation. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2008 WorldNow and KIFI. All Rights ***************************************************************** 115 The Telegraph: Cops choke on uranium cake Calcutta (Kolkata) | Northeast | | Tuesday , May 20 , 2008 - Toxic element prompts policemen to ‘banish’ rebel booty A STAFF REPORTER Illustration by Uday Deb Guwahati, May 19: A little learning, it is said, is a dangerous thing. That’s what happened to a policeman and his colleagues who balked at the idea of touching a sealed packet supposedly containing a cake of radioactive uranium. When the team from Shantipur police station in Karbi Anglong caught four youths with the wax-sealed box, they were certain it was a “big catch”. Otherwise why would someone take so much precaution? When an army team broke open the box and suspected it could be uranium, the jubilation vanished. So scared was one officer that he even refused to carry the substance to the forensic laboratory in Guwahati since his son, who is a student of science, had warned him about the hazards of uranium radiation. The police have kept the consignment wrapped in a thick aluminium foil and are contemplating to bury it “deep” under ground. The arrested quartet, Mohan Thapa, Biju Thapa, Kishor Thapa and Napa Thapa, revealed during interrogation that the consignment was handed over to them by two youths from Manipur a few days ago. A police officer at Santipur police station said the four were carrying the 850gm consignment containing the yellow cake in a bag and were travelling on bicycles when a police team apprehended them at Deopani near the Dhansiri river last evening. The officer said the arrested youths, all of them of Nepali origin, were instructed to sell the uranium to militant organisations at a price not less then Rs 6 lakh. Uranium is a dense, radioactive metallic element found in rocks and soil. It gives off invisible bursts of penetrating energy called “atomic radiation”. Exposure to atomic radiation can cause death within a few days or weeks. Smaller doses can cause burns, loss of hair, nausea, loss of fertility and pronounced changes in the blood. Still smaller doses, too small to cause any immediate visible damage, can result in cancer or leukaemia in the person exposed, congenital abnormalities in his or her children (including physical deformities, diseases and mental retardation), and possible genetic defects in future generations. Copyright © 2008 The Telegraph. All rights reserved. Disclaimer | ***************************************************************** 116 Whitehaven News: Tenders sought for new N-waste storage ideas By David Siddall Last updated 15:53, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 THE NDA is seeking tenders for more research into storing spent nuclear fuel in an underground repository. LARGE AREA: Again, for comparison purposes, this illustration show how much of central London would be affected by a nuclear waste repository. The new tendering comes as the government awaits ‘volunteer’ communities prepared to accept an underground repository for the nation’s nuclear waste. As revealed in The Whitehaven News, the option of storing spent fuel in underground vaults, is becoming a possible alternative to reprocessing for Britain’s expected fleet of new nuclear reactors and a graphic illustration of the mountain of spoil, as large as the Egyptian pyramids, that would be created by an underground repository has been reproduced by a Welsh council that feared such a repository coming to Wales. Nexia Solutions, which runs the Sellafield nuclear laboratories has confirmed this week that the NDA is ramping up studies into how highly radioactive spent fuel could be stored in deep caverns. Spokesman for Nexia Solutions, Peter O'Brien said: “Nexia Solutions is a nuclear technology services provider and supports the needs of a range of customers including Sellafield Ltd and the NDA. Our business covers all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle and we provide the experts and technologies to ensure the industry operates safely and cost effectively. “These services include research into future waste disposal and continued reprocessing. If a customer asks us to conduct research on any given topic, then we will consider carrying it out on appropriate commercial terms and within the constraints of our business”. He added that a collaboration with Sheffield University included an Immobilisation Science Laboratory (ISL), which is addressing the challenges associated with radioactive waste immobilisation (preventing radioactivity leaking out). “Immobilisation is not only crucial to current clean up activities but also to the new build of nuclear reactor systems. Assurance of waste form stability and durability is fundamental for longer term development of the industry. “Fergus Gibb, Professor of petrology and geochemistry at Sheffield and member of the ISL, has published some papers on borehole (rather than mined repository) disposal of high specific activity wastes such as vitrified high level waste, irradiated nuclear fuel and other materials such as plutonium. His research was carried out under contract to Nexia Solutions and funded by the NDA. Prof Gibb lists geological disposal of nuclear wastes, especially higher activity wastes and alternative disposal concepts to the mined repository for irradiated fuel and other high-level wastes among his research interests. In 2007, he was appointed to the Advisory Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Also in 2007 the NDA funding for his borehole research lapsed. “We would expect any future requests for work to come through the Radioactive Waste Management Directorate (RWMD). As you probably know, NDA created the RWMD last year to deliver a safe and environmentally sound geological disposal solution. “Nexia Solutions would expect to play a role in technically underpinning the work of the RWMD. Indeed, we're currently in the process of responding to an invitation to tender from RWMD, which includes some technical assessment of durability of spent fuel and HLW in repository environments. I would like to emphasise again that Nexia Solutions conducts research on behalf of a range of customers covering all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle.” To illustrate the impact of a nuclear repository, in terms of the amount of rock that would be excavated, Hugh Richards prepared the graphics from the 1980s, when he worked for Powys County Council, which was resisting the inclusion of Wales as a potential site. He said: “At the time they kept saying our part of Wales was remote, so we told them London was remote from our point of view so we imposed the footprint of the nuclear dump on central London.” He has updated the graphics to show the impact of coping with the spent fuel from a fleet of new nuclear reactors. ***************************************************************** 117 Daily Sentinel: Reprocessing nuclear waste Monday, April 28, 2008 By Ken Bonner The Daily Sentinel The Tennessee Valley Authority and Department of Defense reached an agreement in principle this week to cooperate on the development of new technology for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel DOE officially made the announcement Thursday afternoon. The agencies agreed to collaborate on developing and exchanging information on advanced fuel cycle technologies. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon and TVA Chief Operating Officer William McCollum. "We look forward to gaining valuable knowledge and experience in working with TVA to advance the goals of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and expand clean, safe nuclear power," Spurgeon said. "The information provided and utility perspective offered from this partnership will be vital in departmental decisions on GNEP and closing the nuclear fuel cycle in the United States." U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), a long-time supporter of TVA and nuclear power, was pleased with the announcement. "TVA is to be congratulated. It certainly is a proud day for the agency," Sessions said in an interview with The Daily Sentinel. "What TVA is saying is we are prepared to lead the world. That's great." GNEP includes key nuclear research and technology development programs to expand nuclear power and help meet growing energy demand in a safe and secure manner, according to a DOE press release. A total of 21 partner nations have joined that effort. The MOU establishes the framework for the exchange of information between TVA and the DOE. The agencies will share data and information for the advancement of nuclear technology. "TVA is in a unique position to look for ways to improve how used nuclear fuel could be managed," McCollum said. "We look forward to working with DOE to determine the best path forward." Sessions explained it simply. "Reprocessing is being used all around the world — in Japan, France, England and Russia. TVA and DOE will be working on the next generation of nuclear reprocessing to reduce the amount of waste, make it far less radioactive and shorten the period of time it has to be stored. It's breakthrough technology and TVA will be at the forefront." Nuclear power is essential to meeting America's energy needs and reducing its dependence on foreign oil, according to Sessions. He touts it as a clean and safe alternative that reduces air pollution and is less damaging to the environment than conventional fuel sources. "I urge TVA not to wait to complete Watts Bar (nuclear reactor in Tenn.) and to get started right away on Bellefonte," Sessions said. "We'd like to see it operable as soon as possible. It's critical to meeting our energy needs and environmental issues." Sessions believes TVA's groundbreaking application for two next generation reactors at Bellefonte will eventually benefit the entire country. He said it will save utilities and rate payers, reduce the time needed to build a facility and result in the safest nuclear energy program in the world. "It's absolutely the cookie cutter class. The work going on at TVA will result in a new and more efficient power plant, one that can be exactly copied at site after site." Reprocessing radioactive waste will remove the major objections to expanding nuclear power, according to Sessions. "I'm pleased TVA has obviously spent a great deal of time in researching the waste problem and developing a plan that can be followed through. It is a positive step for TVA's future." © 2008 The Daily Sentinel. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 118 Boston Globe: State orders radiation tests at Weymouth Neck waste site - WEYMOUTH + By Robert Knox Globe Correspondent / May 8, 2008 State officials have decided that the 68-acre Weymouth Neck hazardous waste site should be tested for radiation contamination. The decision marks a change in direction for Department of Environmental Protection regulators who earlier this year received a statement from ConocoPhillips, the site's previous owner, indicating that the company was satisfied that its cleanup effort was complete and the site posed no significant risk to people living or working on it. But in an April 24 letter to ConocoPhillips, one of the world's largest oil companies, a state environmental official told the company to prepare a plan to screen the site for the presence of radionuclides - unstable forms of radioactive elements such as uranium and lead that emit radiation as they decay - produced by the fertilizer factory that operated on the site for 100 years. "DEP has also learned that radioactive materials can be associated with fertilizer manufacturing sites" operated as the Weymouth Neck plant was, wrote Stephen Johnson, a deputy regional director for the state environmental agency. "In light of this," Johnson wrote, "phosphate fertilizer factories are typically screened for radionuclides as part of the assessment of the site." Johnson said screening for radiation would be prudent. The site includes Webb State Park, East Bay at Weymouthport Condominiums, Weymouthport Condominiums, Tern Harbor Marina, condo complexes on River Street, and undeveloped property. ConocoPhillips engineers had reported that only fertilizer plants that used processes introduced in the 1970s - after the Weymouth facility was closed - were at risk for radiation pollution. The DEP learned about the radiation danger from Florida resident Eric Hanick, who grew up on the Weymouth Neck site in the late 1970s and early '80s. If Hanick had not raised the radiation issue, "it wouldn't be on the radar screen," said DEP spokesman Ed Coletta. Manufacture of fertilizer on Weymouth Neck began in the 1860s by Bradley Co. and continued with American Agricultural Chemical Co. ConocoPhillips (then Conoco) acquired American Agricultural in 1963, and four years later sold the Weymouth Neck property for development. In the years before Love Canal brought national attention to hazardous waste sites and the passage of laws that require private property owners to clean up polluted sites, no thorough cleanup of polluted materials was carried out before new buildings were constructed on industrial sites. "The condominiums I grew up at were built right on top of the wastes," Hanick said in an e-mail. "The developer used remnants of the factory for retaining walls, infill, and the factory slab was left in the rear of the buildings. . . . Also, soils that were heavily contaminated were spread all around when those condos were built." From ages 8 to 14, Hanick played on the concrete slab of the fertilizer factory left behind by the redevelopment, while living with his family at 300 River St. He grew vegetables on soil that was polluted by lead and other metals left behind by fertilizer production. Fertilizer was made at Weymouth Neck from an enriched ore called potassium rock. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, "phosphate ore naturally contains radionuclides. During processing they are released from the ore and concentrated." Fluoride, a recognized disease-causing agent, is among the naturally occurring products. Other sources of contamination include arsenic, lead, chromium, benzene, zinc, copper, and others. ConocoPhillips said that in the cleanup of Weymouth Neck "highly impacted soils were treated in place or excavated and transported off-site to a licensed disposal facility." Other soils were consolidated and capped on an undeveloped area of Weymouth Neck. But company spokesman Rich Johnson said nothing found on the site indicated the manufacturing processes that would lead to radionuclide contamination. "We have done extensive research on this issue," Johnson said. Hanick contends the company's theory that radiation from phosphate rock was "carried off" fertilizer-making sites has been disproved by federal investigations of sites such as the Bayou Texar fertilizer plant in Pensacola, Fla., which Hanick called a sister site to the Weymouth Neck plant, and where radium contaminated drinking water. ConocoPhillips was sued in connection with that. ConocoPhillips has said that health issues described by Hanick are "very unlikely" to have been the result of exposure to the impacted soils. Hanick, 40, a nonsmoker, said he has serious lung damage. He said his mother developed bone deformities and became disabled at an early age. While continuing to contend that radiation contamination can be found only in factory sites that adopted "phosphogypsum stacks" (a radioactive waste product from making phosphoric acid), Johnson said ConocoPhillips would comply with the state's request to test for elevated radiation levels. Site manager Deborah LaMond said workers would go over the grounds with radioactive detection devices to conduct a gamma ray survey and also measure inside buildings for elevated radon levels, beginning in early June. The DEP's Coletta said the state has relied on ConocoPhillips determine what screening is needed on the waste site. The DEP audits information from companies when they say the cleanup is finished, and an audit might have caught the radiation issue, he said. Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com. © Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 119 KNS: TVA to design concept plan for nuclear waste reprocessing plant Knoxville News Sentinel By Larisa Brass (Contact) Originally published 03:40 p.m., May 6, 2008 The Tennessee Valley Authority has received $4 million to develop a conceptual design for a nuclear waste reprocessing plant that could end up as a demonstration facility built on the former Clinch Breeder Reactor site. TVA president and chief executive officer Tom Kilgore said today in an interview that TVA has long-term plans to use the site for development of a small scale nuclear waste reprocessing facility to demonstrate technology that the United States hopes to develop as nuclear power again rises to prominence. Another possible site for the facility would be “somewhere on the Oak Ridge Reservation,” where Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 weapons plant and the East Tennessee Technology Park are located, said Kilgore. “It’s a long-term project,” he said, that ultimately would “get into the billions of dollars” if plans come to fruition. The plant would be a demonstration facility a “10th or 20th” the size of a production-sized reprocessor, he said. The funding is part of a recent memorandum of understanding between TVA and DOE that the Energy Department announced as a collaborative effort to deal with issues of nuclear waste as part of its Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The Clinch Breeder property was the planned site of a breeder reactor under development by the Department of Energy but cancelled in 1983 after costs escalated. Now known as the Clinch River Industrial site, the property in 2006 was restricted by TVA from general industrial development as part of a policy that reserved the agency’s shoreline property for manufacturers needing water for transportation or supply. © 2008, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 120 Deseret News: Board OKs $997,000 for Navajo Nation Monday, April 28, 2008 The Utah Navajo Revitalization Fund board has approved $997,220 in grants and loans for housing and other improvements benefiting the Navajo Nation. Most of the money will help fund construction of new modular homes for 39 families living on the Utah portion of the Navajo reservation in San Juan County. Also funded: power-line upgrades, a water survey, a new road grader and other equipment. Ken Maryboy, Navajo Revitalization Fund Board member and San Juan County commissioner, said 39 homes won't meet demand for housing on the reservation. "But anything is greatly appreciated," Maryboy said. "Some of these people have been waiting years and years." He said it's not uncommon for two to three families to live together under one roof, and much of the housing in general is substandard. "Many of these homes were built in the '40s from rock obtained from area uranium mines, exposing families to dangerous radiation," he said, noting that other homes contain unsafe levels of lead and asbestos. The Navajo Revitalization Fund Board awards grants and low-interest loans to municipal and tribal agencies in San Juan County impacted by the mining and extraction of oil and gas on Utah land. The money is used to make communities more livable, including building homes and senior centers, and paying for water upgrades and youth programs. Seven Navajo chapters on the Utah strip of the reservation are eligible. The program is managed by the Division of Housing and Community Development under the Utah Department of Community and Culture. deseretnews.com: ***************************************************************** 121 Deseret News: Plan to store Italian nuclear waste rejected Interstate compact votes to stop EnergySolutions By Stephen Speckman Deseret News Published: Friday, May 9, 2008 12:27 a.m. MDT BOISE ? The EnergySolutions proposal to store radioactive waste from Italy in Utah received a unanimous thumbs down Thursday from the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management. Utah's compact committee member Bill Sinclair, picked by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., read from a "clarifying" resolution after a 90-minute closed session to discuss a federal lawsuit EnergySolutions filed this week. Representatives on the eight-state compact all voted to approve the resolution. The compact's document said EnergySolutions does not have the necessary "arrangement" with the compact to accept the Italian waste. Such an arrangement would need to be adopted by the committee prior to EnergySolutions' accepting that waste in Utah. Sinclair said the intent of the resolution was to send a "clear message" on the compact's stand on foreign waste. A short time later the committee approved a resolution amendment that states the compact will also disregard a waste classification as domestic after incineration, that is, if the waste being incinerated originated in a foreign country. The Northwest Compact is one of several throughout the country that help manage disposal of potentially dangerous waste from state to state. Utah is part of an eight-state compact that includes Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming and Oregon. Waste coming from Tennessee to Utah is under the watch of the Southeast Compact and Tennessee's own laws governing radioactive waste classification. The committee's decisions came after EnergySolutions general counsel Val John Christensen asked the compact's committee to look past the "emotional protest of 'not in my backyard.'" In an April 23 letter to compact committee members, Christensen said the company's license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has generated "political reactions, based almost entirely on misinformation." License approval would mean EnergySolutions could accept up to 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste from closed nuclear reactors in Italy. The bulk of materials would be processed and recycled at an EnergySolutions facility in Tennessee. About one-third of the materials would be metal to be recycled for "beneficial" use, EnergySolutions' Tye Rogers said. Then about 1,600 tons of Class A waste left over after processing would be transported to the company's disposal site in Clive, Tooele County. The company is not licensed to accept hotter Class D or C waste, which nuclear watchdog group Institute for Energy and Environmental Research president Arjun Makhijani recently suggested would actually be coming to Clive. EnergySolutions has denied that claim. For Christensen, the main debatable issue should be whether his company's Clive facility in Tooele County has the capacity to store the waste. Rogers told the committee there is more than enough room, with 33 years of life left at the Clive site if an additional area there is developed for expanded disposal operations. * Page: * 1 * 2 * 3 ***************************************************************** 122 Deseret News: Nuclear waste lawsuit to be filed again Ex-employees of EnergySolutions allege misdeeds By Geoffrey Fattah Deseret News Published: Sunday, May 18, 2008 12:42 a.m. MDT Those who filed a federal whistle-blower lawsuit against EnergySolutions say they hope their fourth attempt at their suit will be successful. U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins dismissed the group's last False Claims Act suit but in a ruling last month allowed the three men to modify and refile, to the protest of EnergySolutions attorneys. All three men are former employees of EnergySolutions, then Envirocare. They claim the company, which stores low-level nuclear waste, made false claims for payments under contracts with the U.S. government when it certified that it had complied with federal and state regulations for disposing hazardous wastes at its facility in Clive, Tooele County. While working at the company, the three employees say they documented numerous instances in which radioactive waste was improperly disposed of. The cells, which encase the waste, were poorly constructed and had cracks in them, the men allege. EnergySolutions has denied the allegations and points out the lawsuit has been thrown out of court three times already. In his ruling, Jenkins said the group would have to come back with more details in their suit. "I think we've been able to beef up the allegations of the complaint," said Steve Russell, attorney for the former workers. "What the judge was looking for primarily was evidence that Envirocare, now EnergySolutions, was certifying to the United States that they were doing everything according to their contracts as a prerequisite of being paid." Russell said initially the group took its information to the U.S. attorney general. "There was a series of meetings with the A.G., the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy and others," Russell said. The U.S. government declined to pursue an investigation on the allegations. After that, Russell said the three decided to pursue a whistle-blower suit, which was first filed in 2002. "We believe we run an exceptionally safe operation and are probably the most regulated private disposal facility of this type in the country," said EnergySolutions spokesman John Ward, who added his company is confident about its safety record. "The lawsuit has been dismissed three times before. We haven't had a chance to review the latest attempt so we'll just have to wait and see what it says," Ward said. Russell said the suit is important because the U.S. government is EnergySolutions' biggest client and because more than 90 percent of the country's low-level radioactive waste is stored by the company. "Now we're talking about foreign waste," he said. "What we're hoping for is to get some light shining on the Envirocare/EnergySolutions facility out there. They're very closed about their operations and their finances. We believe they need to have a bit more oversight out there," Russell said. The group points to the fact that each time Jenkins has dismissed the suit he has left the door open for the group to refine its claims the re-file. Russell said this, however, may be the group's last chance. "I think this will be the last shot at it. I doubt, if this one doesn't pass, we'll get another chance," he said. E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com deseretnews.com: Home | Subscription services | Contact us | FAQ | ***************************************************************** 123 Deseret News: Plan to store Italian nuclear waste rejected Interstate compact votes to stop EnergySolutions By Stephen Speckman Deseret News Published: May 9, 2008 BOISE ? The EnergySolutions proposal to store radioactive waste from Italy in Utah received a unanimous thumbs down Thursday from the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management. Utah's compact committee member Bill Sinclair, picked by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., read from a "clarifying" resolution after a 90-minute closed session to discuss a federal lawsuit EnergySolutions filed this week. Representatives on the eight-state compact all voted to approve the resolution. The compact's document said EnergySolutions does not have the necessary "arrangement" with the compact to accept the Italian waste. Such an arrangement would need to be adopted by the committee prior to EnergySolutions' accepting that waste in Utah. Sinclair said the intent of the resolution was to send a "clear message" on the compact's stand on foreign waste. A short time later the committee approved a resolution amendment that states the compact will also disregard a waste classification as domestic after incineration, that is, if the waste being incinerated originated in a foreign country. The Northwest Compact is one of several throughout the country that help manage disposal of potentially dangerous waste from state to state. Utah is part of an eight-state compact that includes Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming and Oregon. Waste coming from Tennessee to Utah is under the watch of the Southeast Compact and Tennessee's own laws governing radioactive waste classification. The committee's decisions came after EnergySolutions general counsel Val John Christensen asked the compact's committee to look past the "emotional protest of 'not in my backyard.'" In an April 23 letter to compact committee members, Christensen said the company's license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has generated "political reactions, based almost entirely on misinformation." License approval would mean EnergySolutions could accept up to 20,000 tons of low-level radioactive waste from closed nuclear reactors in Italy. The bulk of materials would be processed and recycled at an EnergySolutions facility in Tennessee. About one-third of the materials would be metal to be recycled for "beneficial" use, EnergySolutions' Tye Rogers said. Then about 1,600 tons of Class A waste left over after processing would be transported to the company's disposal site in Clive, Tooele County. The company is not licensed to accept hotter Class D or C waste, which nuclear watchdog group Institute for Energy and Environmental Research president Arjun Makhijani recently suggested would actually be coming to Clive. EnergySolutions has denied that claim. For Christensen, the main debatable issue should be whether his company's Clive facility in Tooele County has the capacity to store the waste. Rogers told the committee there is more than enough room, with 33 years of life left at the Clive site if an additional area there is developed for expanded disposal operations. However, waste competitor Cedar Mountain Environmental's Charles Judd told the committee that EnergySolutions, using the company's figures provided to the state, the Clive site has only about five years of life left. Judd is currently challenging several issues, including capacity, related to the company's operating license, before the state's Radiation Control Board. Judd said, as a competitor, the amount of Italian waste proposed for importing to EnergySolutions' Clive site was insignificant. He welcomed the resolution as a means of clarifying the waste marketplace. Christensen also told the committee that for EnergySolutions to play on the "world stage," it needs to be authorized to accept foreign waste at the Clive site. But the application has been met with opposition by Huntsman, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Utah's own Radiation Control Board. The NRC also took a rare step in issuing a "fact sheet" due to the number of inquiries and negative public comments it received. John Urgo of Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah urged the committee in Boise not to allow a major precedent-setting policy shift by letting EnergySolutions go after foreign waste, opening the door to more and more overseas shipments. In their defense, company officials stated in documents prepared for Thursday's meeting that some electricity produced in Italy has come from American- and British-designed nuclear reactors, with fuel for those Italian reactors coming from uranium mined in the U.S. and even in Utah. The company filed a federal lawsuit this week asking the U.S. District Court to make a declaratory judgment in the company's favor by declaring the compact lacks the authority to bar the company from storing the Italian waste in Utah. The company believes that will eventually allow them to receive the waste. "We believe the courts will uphold the position that the Northwest Compact does not have authority to interfere with interstate commerce at a private facility," EnergySolutions spokesman Mark Walker said a statement following the meeting. Sinclair asked Christensen whether EnergySolutions would drop the suit if the compact committee allowed the import of Italian waste under the condition that the amount of foreign waste coming to the Clive site in the future from foreign countries would be limited to 5 percent of the site's remaining capacity. Christensen said, in that case, the lawsuit would be dropped, but that compromise was not reached Thursday. In its lawsuit and in front of the committee, EnergySolutions outlined several reasons why the compact lacks authority to prevent the company from receiving shipments of Class A low-level radioactive waste from foreign countries. The company claims the compact, by design, has no statutory authority and that excluding the Italian waste "would amount to discrimination against foreign commerce and would therefor violate the Dormant Commerce Clause" of the U.S. Constitution. EnergySolutions also believes that a 2007 agreement would be breached between the company and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. if the compact, namely Utah's representative on the compact, ruled against the company's current state license. That license allows EnergySolutions to receive low-level radioactive waste, which the license has "never" distinguished between foreign and domestic, according to EnergySolutions. Judd asked the committee at one point what authority Huntsman has in making an agreement on radioactive waste disposal with a private company. He also asked whether that agreement would hold up under a different governor. "I don't know the answer to that question," Sinclair told Judd. EnergySolutions also said any action by the compact to exclude foreign waste shipments would be "arbitrary and capricious and therefor invalid." Committee members asked EnergySolutions officials about why no one in Europe will process or store the Italian waste or whether the company could partner with anyone overseas to handle the waste outside of the U.S. Montana committee member Roy Kemp asked if EnergySolutions has any plans to actually develop another waste site somewhere else. Christensen said his company does not have any such plans right now. Before voting on the amendment to the resolution, the committee also talked about rules that govern how EnergySolutions classifies foreign waste. Company officials told committee members that some waste from outside the U.S. is no longer considered "foreign" after it is incinerated in Tennessee. In some cases the leftovers after incineration are declared as "Tennessee" waste, not foreign, before it is shipped to Clive for disposal. E-mail: sspeckman@desnews.com © 2008 Deseret News Publishing Company | All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 124 Daily Yomiuri: Fuel brought into Monju nuclear plant FUKUI--Nuclear fuel was brought Friday into the Monju fast-breeder reactor in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, which had been shut down since a sodium leak accident in December 1995. The last time nuclear fuel was brought into the reactor was in November 1995, shortly before the accident. During the shutdown, some of the reactor's nuclear fuel was found to have deteriorated. The reactor could not resume operations until the deteriorated fuel was replaced. Friday's operation was carried out after the central and local governments approved the Japan Atomic Energy Agency's fuel replacement plan. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 125 AU ABC: Residents voice uranium mine opposition - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Posted May 2, 2008 11:14:00 * Alice Springs 0870 Opponents of a proposed uranium mine south of Alice Springs say the town could be polluted if the mine goes ahead. The Alice Springs Angela-Pamela Collective is opposing the granting of an exploration licence for a site 25 kilometres south of the town. The companies involved in the exploration say any mine would have to meet stringent environmental guidelines. But Natalie Wasley from the protest group says people should write to the Northern Territory Government opposing the mine. "People have until the end of May to actually make a comment to the minerals and mining Minister Chris Natt, what they think about this proposal and the minister must take note of those comments," she said. "So we're really encouraging as many people to come along to the public meeting, get informed about the concerns and issues and then make a comment to the Minister and really have a good input into what's happening in our region." © 2008 ABC Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 126 AU ABC: Traditional owners urged to back solar over uranium - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Posted May 14, 2008 08:32:00 * Alice Springs 0870 The chief executive officer of Alice Springs' native title body says traditional owners should not support a uranium mine south of the town. Darryl Pearce from Lhere Artepe says Aboriginal people would prefer to see solar technology projects instead of uranium mines. Lhere Artepe's brief does not cover the potential Angela-Pamela mine site and the companies applying for an exploration licence are negotiating with traditional owners through the Central Land Council. But Mr Pearce says the group is encouraging traditional owners to support renewable technologies rather than a mine. "As Lhere Artepe we're pushing people to say solar is the way to go, not necessarily uranium," he said. "Definitely in central Australia solar is the way to go, not extracting uranium for people around the world elsewhere. "Export the technology of solar, not uranium." © 2008 ABC Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 127 timestranscript.com: N.B. won't ban uranium probes Published Tuesday April 29th, 2008 Natural Resources minister says 'silent majority' of NBers support mineral exploration By Mary Moszynski Times & Transcript Staff FREDERICTON - Natural Resources Minister Donald Arseneault isn't backing down from his position that uranium exploration doesn't pose any dangers, despite British Columbia's recent decision to ban exploration of the element. "Every jurisdiction has its own premise on why they should go in a certain direction or not, and it's no different for New Brunswick," said Arseneault. The minister also stressed that part of the basis for British Columbia's decision is the province's resistance to nuclear power. "We support nuclear power here," he said. Nova Scotia recently reaffirmed its commitment to the province's ban on uranium exploration and mining. The Liberals recently defeated an Opposition motion to ban uranium exploration. Instead, the Liberals added several amendments, essentially stating government will follow all environmental regulations when considering any mining work. Meanwhile, public information sessions, hosted by the Conservation Council of New Brunswick, continue to be held in communities across southeastern New Brunswick as hundreds of residents express fears over health and environmental hazards. "I've always said there's also a silent majority who supports it as well," said Arseneault. The department recognizes it needs to do more to educate the public on uranium exploration, he said. Formal information sessions in collaboration with the province's mining association will be held in the near future, he added. Jamie Kneen of the organization Mining Watch said other provinces should look to British Columbia and Nova Scotia as an example. He also dismissed government's argument that exploration is safe and won't necessarily lead to a mine. "There's not much sense exploring if you're not going to mine," he said. That sentiment was echoed by Kent South MLA Conservative MLA Claude Williams, who criticized government for not providing enough information to homeowners. "The people that I've seen at the public meetings, they're there because they want information so I believe there's always two sides to every issue so my question is why are we not hearing from the government's point of view?" he asked. David Plante, manager of the New Brunswick Mining Association, said there are concerns among residents and the association will be doing more to address them. "Uranium is a naturally occurring metallic element and it exists in low levels in most rocks, soils and water," he said. "In its natural state it's weakly radioactive. It doesn't pose any health risks." Plante stressed exploration won't necessarily lead to mining. He also said there's likely more potential for uranium mining in New Brunswick than in Nova Scotia. N. JACOB, Moncton on 29/04/08, 8:21:38 AM ADT http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Energy/Nuclear.asp © 2008 CanadaEast Interactive, Brunswick News Inc. All rights ***************************************************************** 128 timestranscript.com: Majority opposes uranium mining Published Wednesday April 30th, 2008 The claim smacks of political desperation equalled only by the minister's arrogant contention that all that is really needed is "to educate the public." Translated, this favourite of politicians and bureaucrats (and we know they are never, ever wrong) is tantamount to saying "the public is stupid" and doesn't have a clue about what is good for itself. Education Minister Kelly Lamrock at least has some basis and evidence to claim a 'silent majority' support his reforms. Where is Minister Arseneault's evidence and how can he justify borrowing the defence? We've not heard any ordinary citizens who are not connected to the mining industry in some way defend uranium exploration or mining. To the contrary, overwhelming numbers are opposed, with town meetings across the province drawing massive crowds of extremely angry and worried residents: crowds bigger than most political rallies would draw. A handful of predictably anti-uranium environmentalists could not pull that off if they were not speaking on behalf of public sentiment in the first place. This is far different from other campaigns, including those against nuclear power we've seen, which have not found broad public support. It's telling! Why should the public trust the minister or government when it says it would not allow harmful uranium operations when it pulls a stunt like robbing the Environmental Trust Fund of $2 million just to cover bureaucratic operating expenses? The bottle deposit, which the public supported because it was funnelled to positive environmental projects by community groups and youth, is now just another tax. The public may not be expert at all the science, but it knows the crucial facts: uranium mines, to this day, pose serious problems. New Brunswickers may well support mining in general, but they know uranium is different. And the majority has been anything but silent. Given the facts, it is not Mr. Arseneault's place to try to "sell" the public something it clearly doesn't want, using a pitch few believe. © 2008 CanadaEast Interactive, Brunswick News Inc. All rights ***************************************************************** 129 dailygleaner.com: Letters | Reasons to fight uranium mining plans Published Saturday May 3rd, 2008 Is the government of New Brunswick so desperate in its pursuit of jobs that it will support any industry? Are we just another Third World region supporting any kind of development, no matter how problematic? As a farmer in the Harvey Station area, I have a personal interest in the subject. My farm has been staked for uranium exploration. How long will I be able to continue producing healthy food? When a company explores an area for minerals, it does so with the expectation that it can develop a mine. Exploration in the Turtle Creek watershed, the site of Moncton's water supply, should be a warning to every New Brunswicker. To allow exploration in a sensitive area such as this is indicative of the true nature of New Brunswick's envionmental regulations. It is probably more accurate to think of them as facilitating development, rather than protecting the environment. Anyone who lives in the vicinity of a uranium mine or potential uranium mine can expect to see a loss of property value. A potential property buyer's first choice will not be in the area of a uranium mine. I know of individuals who are reconsidering planned home renovations because of their concerns about uranium mining. It would be interesting to see how much uranium exploration would occur in New Brunswick if all of the externalized costs associated with it were assumed by the companies. When mining companies are held accountable for the return of land to its original condition upon cessation of mining, and to compensate all residents impacted by a mine for loss of property value and related health issues then, perhaps, mining can be viewed in a more positive light. Until that happens, uranium exploration and mining should be viewed with suspicion. When it comes to development, provincial policy should be based upon the "precautionary principal," that is, better safe than sorry. As projects become larger or produce more dangerous products, the enactment of this principal becomes of paramount importance. If I make a mistake in my farming practices, it will probably have a limited impact which I can hope to correct. The forest industry may create an unanticipated environmental problem much greater than I could ever make on my small farm but, again, there is the possibility and hope of remediation. An error in judgment or knowledge involving a uranium mine, which affects the health of the environment or humans, will be huge and cannot be corrected. I've had a number of conversations with New Brunswick residents - rural and urban - and with the exception of two or three people, nobody has supported uranium exploration. They seem to be able to do something that the provincial government cannot do, which is place a proper value on their communities and health, rather than short-term profit. They do not accept government propaganda that exploration is not a threat because it is not mining. They know that a company will not invest millions of dollars in exploration if the eventual goal of creating a mine cannot be realized. Many New Brunswickers are not aware of how committed their province is to the development of uranium mining. They are unaware of the large tracts of land that have been claimed for uranium exploration. If they were aware of the true nature of the situation, the voice of the "silent majority" might surprise the minister of natural resources. Ted Wiggans Harvey Station, N.B. Questioning the criteria for turnaround awards The Turnaround Achievement Award should praise and recognize students who, through no fault of their own, have encountered obstacles that demand they work harder than others to achieve their goals and the requirements set forth in our schools' curricula. As a father of three, I am familiar with the demands that children place on one's daily life and how difficult it can be to juggle all that demands your attention. But regardless of how politically incorrect this sounds, children are a result of a series of decisions one has made. They are not an uncontrollable circumstance that hinders a student's performance. Does Oromocto High School not have students who struggle with learning disabilities of some kind that, despite of their ailments, work hard, take responsibility for themselves and exceed all preconceived expectations that people have of them? If any such students do exist, which I am sure they do, these are the young people who should be praised and recognized with such an award. Teri Allaby should definitely be recognized for graduating with honours because, with or without children, it is an outstanding achievement that should not be overlooked. She should not be singled out, however, for doing this while living up to the responsibilities that she has made the decision, purposely or not, to accept. Miss Allaby is an inspiring example to all young women who find themselves in a similar situation. Nevertheless, it is our responsibility as parents, teachers and as a community to educate young people and provide them with the necessary support that will assist them in making the right decisions now and into their adult life. We are all responsible for the decisions we make and the sooner we impress this fact upon our young people, the better. Les Vail Sussex, N.B. Guardian Angels can go to Doaktown If the City of Fredericton does not want the Guardian Angels to help protect against crime, they can send them to Doaktown and surrounding areas. We'd welcome them. Nancy Veno Blissfield, N.B. Uranium issue will be Liberals' downfall SCARE NB (Support Citizens Against Radioactive Emissions in New Brunswick) is telling the government and uranium mining companies not to waste any more time and money on exploring for uranium in this province. The wave of support for a ban on uranium mining is rising faster than the floodwaters of the St. John River. Uranium mining companies and their investors should cut their losses and pack up their drilling rigs and get out of New Brunswick now. This Liberal government's arrogance and ignorance on mining will be their demise in 2010. The people of New Brunswick shall have the last word. K. Walter Moore Chairman, SCARE NB Hoyt, N.B. A modest proposal? When will the whining and complaining ever cease concerning the teaching of early French immersion? For those wannabe francophones, here is the perfect solution. Have our provincial government enter into an exchange agreement with Quebec. The English population in New Brunswick, who would prefer to live and educate their children in French, could relocate to Quebec. This would be in exchange for the English families who would very much like to move from that province because of their draconian language law, Bill 101. No doubt our provincial government would be willing to assist with moving expenses, since they routinely supply funding for francophones to move from Quebec to fill the ever-increasing jobs that are being designated bilingual. These are jobs that our English-speaking children and grandchildren fail to qualify for, even after 12 years of French immersion. This was obviously a trap set for English Canadians by the Trudeau regime, which many continue to fall for. By moving to Quebec, these English quislings would have no problem educating their children in French, since they would be forced to in accordance with that province's language laws. This would also free up millions of our education department's tax dollars desperately needed for renovating and replacing the many aging English schools. Matthew Glenn President, Anglo Society of N.B. Minto, N.B. © 2008 CanadaEast Interactive, Brunswick News Inc. All rights ***************************************************************** 130 Times of India: Govt: Uranium shortage has hit N-power plants 4 May 2008, 0221 hrs IST,TNN NEW DELHI: The government has finally admitted that India’s nuclear power plants are operating below capacity, and with declining profits. Answering a question in Parliament last week, the government said, "Currently, there is a mismatch in the demand and supply of indigenous uranium. As a result, this capacity is being operated at lower power level, matching fuel supply." This, the government said, had led to declining profits for Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL). NPCIL profits have declined from Rs 1,717 crore in 2005-06 to Rs 964 crore in 2007-08. The capacity utilization of the power plants too have reduced significantly from their previous 63% and in many cases are at 40% or less. The uranium shortage is also a real problem and with the nuclear deal increasingly facing a bleak future, India’s uranium options are severely restricted. Government sources said that once uranium shortage hits crisis point, India might be forced to do a similar deal with the rest of the world but at terms much less favourable for the country. Out of the existing 17 reactors, except for the oldest two boiled water reactors (BWR) at Tarapur, the rest are pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs), fuelled by indigenously sourced uranium. Uranium Corporation of India Ltd (UCIL) supplies the fuel to NPCIL, mainly sourced from the uranium ores in East Singbhum district of Jharkhand. Though UCIL could find some small reserves in Meghalaya and Andhra Pradesh, the mines at Singbhum are the main source. In an earlier interview, the head of NPCIL, S K Jain, was quoted as saying, "There is a growing mismatch between our demand and supply of uranium. Unless we are lucky to explore new reserves, shortage of fuel may jeopardise our nuclear energy growth plans. The government should take appropriate measures to ensure imports of the fuel," he said. Copyright © 2008 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 131 Galway News: Residents revolt over toxic waste storage www.galwaynews.ie Galway City Tribune Fri 25th April 2008 Proposal to store radioactive waste "metres" from homes Residents living next to the grounds of University Hospital Galway have vowed to oppose plans to locate a new storage facility for radioactive waste within metres of their homes. The Newcastle Park residents have expressed alarm at plans to turn a disused pumphouse, just over their backwalls, into a 17.2 square metre storage facility. Yesterday, Councillor Niall Ó BrolchĂĄin (Green Party) said that he would also be objecting to the plans — and he has called on the UHG management to find an ‘offsite’ location instead. Concerns arose when last week’s Galway City Tribune revealed that an unsuitable store was still being used, even though the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) had expressed unhappiness with it six years ago. An inspection of the existing facility, located on the fifth floor of the hospital, found that it was “unsuitable” back in February 2002. Hospital authorities were also ordered to contact the Garda National Crime Prevention Office in order to discuss security measures which needed to be put in place for the new site. Cllr Ó BrolchĂĄin pointed out that the Health Service Executive (HSE)was obliged to take account of the “precautionary principle” which was enshrined in the Connacht Waste Management Plan, the City Development Plan, and EU legislation. The Connacht Tribune Ltd. 15 Market Street, Galway, Ireland. Tel: +353-(0)91-536222 Fax: +353-(0)91-567970 Email: sales@ctribune.ie ***************************************************************** 132 McClatchy: S.C. officials watch nuclear case Posted on Sat, May. 17, 2008 Foreign waste may be allowed at dump By Sammy Fretwell - McClatchy Newspapers Nuclear waste officials are closely watching a federal court case to see if it could allow for burial of foreign radioactive garbage at South Carolina's atomic refuse dump in Barnwell County. Energy Solutions Inc., which operates landfills in South Carolina and Utah, insists it won't send Italian nuclear waste to the 37-year-old landfill west of Barnwell under a company plan to import waste to the United States. But the company has challenged eight Western states in their attempt to block disposal of the foreign waste in Utah. If Energy Solutions convinces the court that the Western states can't legally stop Italian waste shipments to Utah, it also might gain the right to use the S.C. landfill, experts say. The Barnwell County dump, one of only three of its kind in the country, is governed by the same law that led the Western states to limit nuclear waste in Utah. After years of rancorous debate, Barnwell County's landfill is scheduled to close July 1 to all states except South Carolina, Connecticut and New Jersey. The last thing South Carolina needs is foreign waste at the landfill, said Ben Johnson, who leads the Atlantic Compact, which oversees the S.C. dump. "There are a couple of issues in that suit that if adopted by higher appellate courts, would definitely impact" the Barnwell County landfill, he said. "It would be a shame ... to have that site filled up with foreign waste and rendered useless for our own needs." The Barnwell County landfill has been a source of tension in South Carolina since it opened in 1971. It has left a trail of groundwater pollution that, in some places, rivals that of the nearby Savannah River Site nuclear weapons complex. Waste sent to the landfill comes largely from nuclear power plants. Opponents of the S.C. landfill tried for years to shutter the facility until Gov. Jim Hodges brokered a deal in 2000 to limit access by mid-2008. Johnson and Atlantic Compact Commissioner Jill Lipoti said Wednesday the Energy Solutions lawsuit can't be ignored. Lipoti, who represents New Jersey on the compact, said her state reserved space for decommissioned nuclear reactors as part of the 2000 law - and she expects that space to remain available. "We don't want any action to change that," she said. Energy Solutions' plan is to import about 1 million cubic feet of low-level nuclear waste from Italy through either Charleston or New Orleans. The material then would be shipped to a processing plant in Tennessee, with leftover waste being hauled to Utah for disposal, the company has said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering an import license. * About the McClatchy Company ***************************************************************** 133 edmontonsun.com: Tories pushing to have Canada enrich uranium, but won't talk Wed, May 7, 2008 By BRUCE CHEADLE, The Canadian Press OTTAWA — Does Stephen Harper’s Conservative government have a hidden nuclear agenda? Not if you happen to live outside Canada. The Canadian government has been campaigning internationally for months to add this country to the small, tightly circumscribed club of nuclear enrichment states. But the diplomatic arm-twisting only came to light less than three weeks ago, when the United States announced it was dropping its insistence on a ban on uranium enrichment technology to non-nuclear states. Anonymous negotiators at the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in Vienna emerged to say the American demand had been shelved primarily at the insistence of Canada, which wants to build uranium enrichment plants. Who knew? As it turns out, a great many people — but few in Canada and certainly not the news media whose job is to inform the public about federal policy. Canada’s interest in uranium enrichment is controversial because enrichment is the critical step needed in bomb building. Nobody’s accusing Canada of having atomic arsenal aspirations, but Iran’s enrichment program is being challenged for just this reason. Some observers have suggested Canada’s lobbying undermines the international non-proliferation effort. In the wake of the Vienna meeting, requests by The Canadian Press for interviews with Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn or Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier were summarily rejected. Foreign Affairs said it might be able to arrange a background briefing with officials. But almost two weeks later, the request remains stalled somewhere in the Prime Minister’s Office or its bureaucratic arm, the Privy Council Office. It’s not a simple oversight. While Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has been touting his province as the “Saudi Arabia of uranium” and loudly endorsing a high-tech enrichment industry this spring, there’s been silence in Ottawa: no ministerial statements, no announcements in the Commons, no friendly questions from Tory backbenchers during question period. Nowhere in the blizzard of Conservative advertising has there been any mention of this profound nuclear policy shift. Hundreds of thousands of Tory flyers delivered to Canadian households this spring never mentioned uranium enrichment — or nuclear power, for that matter. “This is typical of the Harper government’s duck-and-cover nuclear strategy and sets a dangerous precedent on the international stage,” said Shawn Patrick Stensil, a Greenpeace researcher on energy issues. “It undermines Canada’s historic approach to nuclear technology and arms proliferation.” Never mind that Stensil’s latter point is debatable, and was contradicted by an eminent American non-proliferation expert contacted by The Canadian Press. “If you handle it effectively with nuclear diplomacy, send the right signals, I don’t think this is going to cause the non-proliferation regime to unravel,” Charles Ferguson, scientist-in-residence for the Center for Non-proliferation Studies, said in an interview. Ferguson said the Canadian embassy has been doing off-record information sessions in Washington to make the government’s case, which includes highlighting Canada’s world-leading uranium export industry, long-established domestic nuclear technology sector and track record of supporting global non-proliferation treaties. “So putting it all together, doesn’t it make sense from a business perspective for Canada to add value to its natural uranium by doing some enrichment?” asked Ferguson. “I’m not worried that material is going to fall into the wrong hands, especially if it’s just truly low-enriched uranium, not highly enriched uranium.” Yet it remains a debate the Harper government appears terrified of having with the Canadian public. Industry players say the Conservatives have been quietly and consistently pushing the enrichment strategy abroad for months. Canada’s stance goes back directly to Washington’s controversial Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The GNEP proposed a closed nuclear fuel cycle that would promote the global spread of nuclear technology while tightly controlling bomb-making — essentially enrichment and fuel reprocessing — capability. Canada, which exports about 30 per cent of the world’s unprocessed uranium, would have been shut out from becoming the world’s 13th known enrichment nation. “Certainly there were overtures made early on by the prime minister that that was not acceptable in the Canadian context,” Murray Elston, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said in an interview. As GNEP’s initial principles were dropped during the course of negotiations last fall, Canada quietly joined the partnership in November. “So it’s been out there for quite a long time now,” said Elston. “It’s not a surprise that keeping open the option of reprocessing is one of the (government’s) strategies.” Elston’s forthright knowledge of a policy the Harper government refuses to publicly discuss is made all the more startling by his casual reference to reprocessing. Lunn, the natural resources minister, floated the notion of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel in a single newspaper interview last September and has been gagged on the subject ever since. Enrichment of natural uranium is just one side of an industrial equation that could permit Canada to reprocess and reuse spent nuclear fuel. Is that Ottawa’s plan? The Harper government isn’t saying. Just don’t call it a hidden agenda. Copyright © 2008, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. Test ***************************************************************** 134 AU: Herald Sun: Hospitals releasing radioactive waste | NEWS.com.au Network By Claire Weaver May 11, 2008 06:00am FOUR major public hospitals are being ordered to stop leaking radioactive waste into the sewerage system. The waste is mainly from the radioactive iodine used to treat thyroid cancer patients. Sydney Water has demanded that the hospitals -- Royal North Shore, Liverpool, Nepean and Concord -- install decay tanks to protect workers from exposure. But confidential documents leaked to The Sunday Telegraph reveal NSW Health is fighting the demand, claiming it would cost too much and that there was not enough proof radiation levels were dangerous. It is estimated that installing the four tanks -- which hold radioactive waste for 90 days until it is rendered safe -- would cost up to $2 million. The deadline to install the tanks was three months ago but, at a meeting last month, NSW Health's nuclear medicine committee cited "prohibitive costs'' and a lack of "proper research'' as pitfalls. Sydney Water has commissioned a report from the Federal Government's radiation protection agency to support its demand for holding tanks. NSW Health, however, dismisses this report as containing "significant errors'' and supports a recommendation that "before any such requirement is legislated, there must be a properly planned and evaluated research study to look at whether there is in fact a real problem with radiation in waste water that might affect Sydney Water workers''. Until the issue is resolved, all four hospitals have been forced to limit iodine radiation treatment to one per day and suspend treatment when Sydney Water works on downstream sewerage infrastructure. Last month The Sunday Telegraph revealed an explosion in NSW thyroid cancer rates. During radioactive iodine treatment, sufferers are advised to flush two or three times after going to the toilet to dilute radiation in their waste. A NSW Health spokesman said the four hospitals would comply with Sydney Water regulations but cast doubt on radiation risks. "NSW Health is aware of advice from the NSW Radiation Advisory Council that the report Sydney Water used as the basis of its recommendation may significantly overestimate the risk,'' he said. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 135 Platts: DOE and TVA to work together on GNEP data 2008-04-24 Washington (Platts)--24Apr2008 DOE and federal utility Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA, will work together to provide Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman with the data he will need to determine a path forward by the end of the year for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, DOE said April 24. GNEP is aimed at closing the nuclear fuel cycle through the development and deployment of advanced reprocessing and fast reactor technologies. The five-page memorandum of understanding said that details on such things as specific work activities, schedules, costs and funding will be established in an interagency agreement between DOE and TVA. TVA spokesman Gil Francis said the federal utility will provide a utility perspective on the design, licensing, construction and operation of a spent fuel reprocessing/recycling facility. It also will be involved in the development of business models and analytical work on risk mitigation, Francis said. Copyright © 2008 - Platts, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 136 Platts: US senators urge "fair royalty" on federal-lands mining 2008-04-24 Washington (Platts)--24Apr2008 Companies mining minerals like gold and uranium on federal lands could find a government royalty tacked onto their operating costs if a group of US senators gets its way. But while a new mining royalty law is already gaining clout on Capitol Hill, the debate ultimately boils down to how big a fee is reasonable. A bipartisan group of senators this week sent a letter to the senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, urging that a royalty be imposed as part of the committee's update of the 1872 Mining Law. "For 136 years, valuable minerals mined on federal lands have been given to private interests for free," said the letter, signed by Sens. Russ Feingold (R-Wisconsin), John E. Sununu (R-New Hampshire), Maria Cartwell (D-Washington), and Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire). The lawmakers called on the energy committee to levy a "fair royalty" on federal-lands miners and to roll back mining-industry tax preferences to pay for abandoned-mine clean-up costs. "For too long taxpayers have gotten nothing for these valuable minerals, except the tab for costly clean-up of abandoned mine sites," Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said in a statement supporting the effort. "Taxpayers should not be forced to line the pockets of the mining industry. It is time these companies be held accountable for the profits they gain from our taxpayer-owned resources." Last year, the US House of Representatives passed Resolution No. 2262 -- The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 -- that imposed an 8% royalty on new mines and a 4% fee on existing operations. Luke Popovich, spokesman for mining-industry trade group National Mining Association, told Platts that his group's members would be willing to support a "modest" royalty based on net revenues, rather than on profits to take into account steeper energy prices and other higher input costs that he said have kept pace with the rising revenues metals and minerals fetch in the current marketplace. But NMA says an 8% federal-mining royalty exceeds what's affordable. Some miners would cede to a fee of roughly 4% for new mines only, excluding those already online, Popovich said. "Existing operations were based on business plans that did not have to consider additional fees paid to the government," he told Platts. The senators also urged the committee to repeal the tax credit known as the percentage depletion allowance, and use the money to fund what the lawmakers said is between $50 billion and $72 billion in costs for cleaning up abandoned mining operations. However, Popovich said the federal government should fund abandoned-mine clean-up with revenues from mining royalties if imposed, rather than by rolling back existing tax credits. --Laura Gilcrest, laura_gilcrest@platts.com For similar news, request a free trial to Platts Metals Week at http://www.platts.com/Request%20More%20Information/index.xml?src=story ***************************************************************** 137 Casper star tribune: Uranium company fights EPA ruling Casper, Wyoming - Tuesday, May 13, 2008 By FELICIA FONSECA Associated Press writer [oas:casperstartribune.net/news/regional:Middle1] ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- A uranium mining company contends a U.S Environmental Protection Agency ruling is stalling its plans to begin operations in northwest New Mexico. The EPA ruled last year that a 160-acre parcel near Church Rock is part of a dependent Indian community, therefore requiring that Hydro Resources Inc. obtain an underground injection control permit with the EPA, not the state of New Mexico. New Mexico-based Hydro Resources challenged that ruling, and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver is to hear arguments in the case this week. "The most important thing is we need to have clarity so we can move forward with our business," said Mark Pelizza, vice president of health, safety and environmental affairs for Uranium Resources Inc., HRI's parent company. The state of New Mexico granted HRI an underground injection control permit for the land in the late 1980s. The EPA has not taken any action to deny or issue a permit since its ruling in February 2007. New Mexico did not challenge the EPA ruling. Hydro Resources owns the surface and mineral rights on the 160-acre property 10 miles northeast of the Church Rock Chapter House known as Section 8. The company contends the EPA erred in determining the Indian Country status, since Section 8 never had been set aside by the federal government for use as Indian land. "That property we're talking about in Church Rock is our property," said Deborah Palowski, a spokeswoman for URI. "We own it and it has never been given to the (American) Indians." The EPA based its decision on the makeup of the Church Rock community. Over 95 percent of the land within the chapter is either trust land, tribal fee lands or used exclusively by members of the Navajo Nation, the EPA said. The agency also found that nearly 98 percent of the population in the chapter is American Indian. The EPA said the appellate court should uphold the agency's determination because Section 8 "is plainly within the Church Rock Chapter." "HRI primarily contends that one must determine the Indian Country status of the Section 8 land with blinders on, focusing solely on the Section 8 land itself," the EPA wrote in court documents. The eastern side of the Navajo Nation and the Church Rock area is commonly referred to as a checkerboard, made up of Indian and non-Indian lands. There is no uniformity of jurisdictional authority over the land within the chapter boundaries. The Section 8 land, like state or other non-Indian owned fee land, is not part of the chapter, HRI wrote in court documents. "The fact that neither the Navajo Nation nor the United States' government has jurisdiction over state-owned land or private fee lands is recognized by the Navajo Nation and should have been recognized by EPA," HRI said. The Navajo Nation -- an intervener in the case -- banned uranium mining on its lands in 2005. The tribe wants the EPA to make the determination on permits, rather than the state, because the federal government has a trust responsibility to tribes. The EPA decision doesn't specifically state the agency would consider the ban when receiving applications for mining-related permits, but tribal officials have said they are hopeful the agency will. Copyright © 2008 by the Casper Star-Tribune published by Lee ***************************************************************** 138 The Coloradoan: Stop uranium mining www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO. Monday, May 5, 2008 Taylor Steshyn I am in seventh grade at Boltz Junior High School in Fort Collins. I have started a petition against the uranium mining that is proposed for the Nunn area of Colorado. My petition already has 203 signatures of students that attend my school. I started this petition because uranium mining can bring many hazards to the residents and wildlife of Colorado, such as contaminated water, radioactive dirt/dust and environmental disasters. I have already mailed a letter to Gov. Ritter expressing my concerns about the mining. I wish to accomplish the cancellation and/or prevention of the uranium mining. The reason I am so concerned about uranium mining in Colorado is because I have done a lot of research about uranium and other nuclear power. In my research, I learned that nuclear power can be useful but also hazardous for humans. In my geography class, we learned about the negative health and environmental effects that occurred with a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine. Granted, it was a power plant and wasn't handled properly; however, I still worry that the mining will not be handled with care. I am happy to be given the chance to have my voice heard in the Coloradoan. Taylor Steshyn, Fort Collins Copyright ©2008 The Fort Collins Coloradoan. ***************************************************************** 139 Washington Post: Uranium Under the Sand, Anger Above By Claire Spiegel Sunday, April 27, 2008; B03 AGADEZ, Niger Most Americans have heard of Niger only because that's where the CIA dispatched former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV to find out whether Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium. But Niger's precious resource, just a footnote to the Iraq war, is the cause of monumental suffering here. In the dusty town of Agadez, at the gateway to the Sahara in northern Niger, Mohamed Abdou used to sell ornate jewelry made by nomadic Tuareg silversmiths squatting over tiny fires. His mud-brick shop, across the road from a 16th-century mosque, once employed 18 jewelers and brought in enough money for the tall, turbaned merchant to support his wife and baby, mother, nine younger siblings, aunt, two uncles and six cousins -- an excellent living in the world's fourth-poorest country. But that was before the fight over Niger's vast deposits of uranium crippled commerce in Agadez and turned the surrounding desert into a combat zone. Mining operations in Niger threaten the existence of the Tuareg people, who have inhabited Niger's uranium-rich northern desert since the 10th century, and who are now fighting to preserve their nomadic lifestyle and to share in the new wealth. This battle has erupted in a dangerous neighborhood. To the north, Libya and Algeria continue to act as breeding grounds for al-Qaeda and other extremist groups. Ethnic violence has wracked Chad and Sudan to the east. U.S. military officials say that stabilizing impoverished Muslim countries such as Niger is the best way to prevent them from becoming havens for terrorists. And if there is a lesson to be learned from recent experience in Afghanistan, it is that war and poverty create opportunities for terrorists to take hold. Two-thirds desert and 99 percent Muslim, Niger has long suffered the effects of grinding poverty, ethnic tension and regional rivalry, but soaring demand for uranium lit the powder keg. The price of uranium, which is used to fuel nuclear power plants, has skyrocketed from $9 to $75 per pound during the past decade, briefly hitting $135 last June. Niger plans to more than double its output over the next several years, and companies from Australia, Canada, China, India and France are scrambling to stake claims to the deposits, which are considered among the world's largest. Like gold, diamonds, rubber and oil elsewhere in Africa, uranium has triggered chaos and violence, with young Tuaregs taking up arms and forming the Niger Movement for Justice in February 2007 to demand some control over uranium mining and the riches that come from it. They are challenging the government's position that nomads have no legal right to the land they have occupied for centuries -- or to the resources found on it. And they are demanding the health care, education and economic opportunities that the Niger government promised in a 1995 peace accord that ended an earlier Tuareg rebellion. Last summer, Niger's government dispatched 4,000 troops to quash the latest Tuareg uprising in the country's vast northern expanses. Since then, any vestige of prosperity there has vanished. "My shop is closed now. I cannot sell a single ring. I live at the bottom of the economy," 31-year-old Abdou wrote in an e-mail from Agadez, which until a year ago was a commercial hub for nomads trading camels for grain and tourists flying in from Europe for desert sightseeing expeditions. "I live the life of a caged pigeon," Abdou continued. "Everything is blocked off, and the military do not let us leave our houses after 7 p.m. There are no cars or motorcycles here anymore. The children no longer go to school because they are so frightened." During the past year, Tuareg rebels have killed more than 50 soldiers in the Niger army, which has retaliated by killing at least as many Tuareg rebel fighters and civilians. Dozens more have been imprisoned without trial, raped or terrorized, and herds of Tuareg livestock have been slaughtered, according to a report released by Human Rights Watch in December. And the situation is getting worse. Incensed by Tuareg guerrilla attacks, soldiers last month launched a new wave of violence, according to Amnesty International. In one case, they cut off a man's ears and set his head on fire before stabbing him to death. The Tuareg, known as the "Blue Men of the Desert" because of the indigo dye in their veils and turbans that rubs off on their skin, are an insular people who practice a moderate form of Islam and speak their own language, based on an ancient Libyan alphabet. For centuries, these nomads prospered from their trans-Saharan caravan trade. But now most of them struggle to survive -- herding camels and livestock and moving camp as often as once a week in search of pasture made scarce by drought and desertification. They are scattered across five North African countries and number about 1.6 million in Niger, or 11 percent of the country's population. After summer rains, hundreds of thousands of Tuaregs and other nomads travel to Niger's salt fields, a few hundred miles from Agadez, to celebrate and to fatten their livestock on mineral-rich grass. But these ceremonial grounds are now dotted with red flags marking uranium deposits to be mined. Thousands of flags have been planted "without any of the peoples of northern Niger being consulted or even informed," said Issouf Ag Maha, a spokesman for the Niger Movement for Justice. Ag Maha says that the Tuareg "have no choice but to fight or disappear." The rebels have ambushed government convoys accompanying foreign mining personnel and have taken soldiers and a Chinese mining official hostage. Niger's president, Mamadou Tandja, has repeatedly denounced the rebels as bandits and drug traffickers and has refused to negotiate with them. He declared a state of emergency in August, banned foreign correspondents from visiting northern Niger and muzzled the country's radio and print reporters. A Radio France International reporter accused of collaborating with the rebels has been imprisoned for seven months and faces the death penalty. U.S. foreign aid to Niger is minimal, but we do support Niger's military by equipping and training their soldiers as part of the State Department's Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership. Ag Maha says that the United States should instead use its leverage to pressure Niger's government to "negotiate . . . and acknowledge the existence of democratic movements and bring peace in the region." That hasn't happened yet. The rebels say that they want peace talks, but if the United States does not help arrange them, the Tuareg will probably look elsewhere for assistance. And as we should know by now, desperate people sometimes find help in the most unsavory places. Meanwhile, Abdou is barely getting by. In February, he managed to make a trip to the capital more than 500 miles away to sell his jewelry, but landmines have since made the journey too dangerous. "Please pass our tears onto the world," he wrote. "Please help us get out of this misery." cbrian8587@earthlink.net Claire Spiegel, a freelance writer, has done humanitarian work with nomadic communities in northern Niger. © 2008 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 140 Rutland Herald Online: Natives speaking out on uranium May 18, 2008 By Susan Smallheer Staff Writer BRATTLEBORO — The recent spate of advertisements promoting the electric power generated at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant as "clean and green" doesn't tell the true story, said two Native Americans whose native lands are severely affected by the nuclear power industry. Lorraine Rekmans, of the Northern Ojibwa people from Elliot Lake, Ontario, and Ian Zabarte, from Mercury, Nev., secretary of state of the Western Shoshone National Council, spoke in Brattleboro Monday night, their last stop in a weeklong visit to Vermont organized by the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning Alliance and Citizens Awareness Network. Rekmans' home, which is located on the north shore of Lake Huron, was devastated by the pollution from 11 different uranium mines, which she said had turned 10 lakes in the area into radioactive waste sites. For every pound of uranium, she said, there is a ton of mine waste, and the waste was dumped into lakes. "People who get their power from nuclear plants should know that uranium doesn't just fall out of the sky," she said. "Do Vermonters want their prosperity based on the abuse of other people?" said Zabarte, whose tribal council has gone to the United Nations to try and settle its dispute with the U.S. government. Much of the Western Shoshone's tribal lands are now operated as the Nevada test site, and Zabarte said that it is increasingly polluted. "Safe? Clean? Reliable?" he asked. Rekmans, whose father worked for the mining companies, is a Green Party candidate for the Canadian parliament. Her father died six years ago from exposure to the radioactive waste, she said. Her family got the $30,000 survivor benefit for her father's death from the government. The uranium from the Elliot Lake mines was originally used for nuclear weapons for the United States, she said. The mines were opened in the early 1950s, and eventually closed in 1990, with an environment assessment by the government only launched in 1996. "There was a boom in the 1950s, a bust in the '60s. A boom in the 1970s, and a bust in the 1980s," she said. She said the mines were operated by Denison Mines Ltd. of Toronto, and Rio Algom, of London. Since the mines have been closed, much of the population moved away, and Elliot Lake has been turned into a low-cost retirement center. Since the health and environmental effects of uranium mining have become better known, she said, only one Canadian province — Saskatchewan — still allows uranium mining and there are five mines there. British Columbia and New Brunswick have outright bans against such mines. "Uranium mining causes cancer and silicosis," said Rekmans, who is the Green Party of Canada's aboriginal affairs critic. She now splits her time between Ottawa, the Canadian capital, and the Serpent River Reserve near Elliot Lake. She is a former news reporter and the former executive director of the Northern Aboriginal Forestry Association. The uranium mining tailings look like desert sands, she said, and were a big attraction for recreation. The tailings need to be under water, to keep from becoming airborne and contaminating a bigger area, she said. "We were never told 'don't hang out there,'" she said. As a result, her region has a high level of health problems, and Elliot Lake is a community of 11,000 people, with 10 doctors. The burden for nuclear power is falling disproportionately on native people, she said. "We're bearing a disproportionate share; small remote communities," said Rekmans. "It's environmental racism. We were not aware of the risks. We were powerless to stop it." Uranium mining was celebrated, she said. "Elliot Lake had a uranium festival. There were Radon Daughters," Rekmans said. Rekmans said that she and Zabarte, a Western Shoshone Indian, were well-received in their talks throughout Vermont. "Indigenous people are being exploited and victimized by this industry," she said. "But it was not in the forefront of their minds." Zabarte, the secretary of state for the Western Shoshone National Council in Austin, Nev., said that the national nuclear waste repository proposed for Yucca Mountain is on Shoshone land, and is not part of the United States. "It's called trespass," said Zabarte, who cited a 1850s agreement, the Ruby Valley Treaty, between the Shoshone and the U.S. government as proof that the Shoshone maintained ownership of their lands. "It's called occupation. How did Hitler do it?" he asked. "We did not cede land to the US. We did not abandon our rights. Why would be give up our sovereignty?" Zabarte said the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe of Death Valley, which is close to Yucca Mountain, has recently been certified under the Nuclear Waste Power Act as an affected party and would receive funding, the same as the state of Nevada, to investigate the Yucca Mountain proposal. "People just forget about us — out of sight," said Zabarte, who visited the Vermont Yankee reactor Monday afternoon. The Shoshone's land claim includes much of the eastern half of Nevada, and spills over into California, Utah and Wyoming. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2008 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 141 Scientific American: Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth April, 2008 Plans are afoot to reuse spent reactor fuel in the U.S. But the advantages of the scheme pale in comparison with its dangers LA HAGUE, on France's Normandy coast, hosts a large complex that reprocesses spent fuel from nuclear power plants, extracting its plutonium for fabrication into new fuel. The U.S. Depart­ment of Energy has recently proposed building a similar facility. Martin Bond: Photo Researchers, Inc. Key Concepts * Spent nuclear fuel contains plutonium, which can be extracted and used in new fuel. * To reduce the amount of long-lived radioactive waste, the U.S. Department of Energy has proposed reprocessing spent fuel in this way and then “burning” the plutonium in special reactors. * But reprocessing is very expensive. Also, spent fuel emits lethal radiation, whereas separated plutonium can be handled easily. So reprocessing invites the possibility that terrorists might steal plutonium and construct an atom bomb. * The author argues against reprocessing and for storing the waste in casks until an underground repository is ready. Although a dozen years have elapsed since any new nuclear power reactor has come online in the U.S., there are now stirrings of a nuclear renaissance. The incentives are certainly in place: the costs of natural gas and oil have skyrocketed; the public increasingly objects to the greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels; and the federal government has offered up to $8 billion in subsidies and insurance against delays in licensing (with new laws to streamline the process) and $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. What more could the moribund nuclear power industry possibly want? Just one thing: a place to ship its used reactor fuel. Indeed, the lack of a disposal site remains a dark cloud hanging over the entire enterprise. The projected opening of a federal waste storage repository in Yucca Mountain in Nevada (now anticipated for 2017 at the earliest) has already slipped by two decades, and the cooling pools holding spent fuel at the nation’s nuclear power plants are running out of space. Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks, each typically containing 10 tons of waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel to fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not all the industry is doing. U.S. nuclear utilities are suing the federal government, because they would not have incurred such expenses had the U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally planned. As a result, the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year. Under pressure to start moving the fuel off the sites, the DOE has returned to an idea that it abandoned in the 1970s—to “reprocess” the spent fuel chemically, separating the different elements so that some can be reused. Vast reprocessing plants have been running in France and the U.K. for more than a decade, and Japan began to operate its own $20-billion facility in 2006. So this strategy is not without precedent. But, as I discuss below, reprocessing is an expensive and dangerous road to take. The Element from Hell Grasping my reasons for rejecting nuclear fuel reprocessing requires nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and a dollop of common sense. Power reactors generate heat—which makes steam to turn electricity-generating turbines—by maintaining a nuclear chain reaction that splits (or “fissions”) atoms. Most of the time the fuel is uranium, artificially enriched so that 4 to 5 percent is the chain-reacting isotope uranium 235; virtually all the rest is uranium 238. At an enrichment of only 5 percent, stolen reactor fuel cannot be used to construct an illicit atom bomb. In the reactor, some of the uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and becomes plutonium 239, which is also chain-reacting and can in principle be partially “burned” if it is extracted and properly prepared. This approach has various drawbacks, however. One is that extraction and processing cost much more than the new fuel is worth. Another is that recycling the plutonium reduces the waste problem only minimally. Most important, the separated plutonium can readily serve to make nuclear bombs if it gets into the wrong hands; as a result, much effort has to be expended to keep it secure until it is once more a part of spent fuel. These drawbacks become strikingly clear when one examines the experiences of the nations that have embarked on reprocessing programs. In France, the world leader in reprocessing technology, the separated plutonium (chemically combined with oxygen to form plutonium dioxide) is mixed with uranium 238 (also as an oxide) to make a “mixed oxide,” or MOX, fuel. After being used to generate more power, the spent MOX fuel still contains about 70 percent as much plutonium as when it was manufactured; however, the addition of highly radioactive fission products created inside a reactor makes this plutonium difficult to access and make into a bomb. The used MOX fuel is shipped back to the reprocessing facility for indefinite storage. Thus, France is, in effect, using reprocessing to move its problem with spent fuel from the reactor sites to the reprocessing plant. PAGE 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next» Discuss this Article NOTE: You will be asked to sign in or register as a SciAm.com Community member upon submission of this article comment. Enter Your Comment Here. 1000 characters remaining 15 Comments | VIEW ALL * ""Spent fuel can be safely stored at the reactor sites in dry casks".
Why couldn't that have been the title? A lot of people seem to
think...[More]" Posted 7 hours ago by GRLCowan * "The proliferation issue can be dealt with through a technology known as "denaturing." By running a fuel cycle such that the spent fuel contains a few...[More]" Posted 4/30/08 by Speaker to Wolves * "I read the subject article by Dr. Frank von Hippel with interest and wanted to respond with this letter to convey my personal thoughts on the subject...[More]" Posted 4/29/08 by troutlaketom * "I think what may anger people on the article is that is offers little hope.

Also anytime you have to use "terrorists" as a point you've...[More]" Posted 4/29/08 by iconoclasm * "I felt that the article was pretty weak. The main points it made - that waste reprocessing/recycling is a bad idea because of nuclear terrorism &...[More]" Posted 4/29/08 by Barry U. Headinsand * "CANDU reactors can use other reactors' spent fuel directly, 'direct use of spent PWR fuel in CANDU' (DUPIC). A lot of 'waste' material can be...[More]" Posted 4/29/08 by ParetoJ * "All this over exhuming some ancient technology. Frankenstein in a tuxedo is still Frankenstein! R.I.P." Posted 4/29/08 by Hugh Jones * "Three major problems with the article:
1) it describes the 1960's vintage Purex recycling rather than the more modern IFR recycling. Unlike...[More]" Posted 4/29/08 by Nathan2go * "This could all be avoided by the use of a method known as Remix & Return. With this method the waste is blended with uranium ore mining waste...[More]" Posted 4/28/08 by TheArchitect * "> You could use a closed system so that the steam was condensed back into water and went back into the pool, thus avoiding...[More]" Posted 4/28/08 by John_Toradze * * * Advertisement * Congress Passes Bill Barring Genetic Discrimination8 hours ago * Charcoal in Burned Forests No Way to Store Carbon8 hours ago * Missing Link of Electronics Discovered: "Memristor"15 hours ago * Buried Prejudice: The Bigot in Your Brain17 hours ago * Volvo's 2020 vision: The injury-proof car18 hours ago * No money for food4/30/08 * The Monitor: Episode 124/30/08 * Head lice art opens in Israel4/29/08 * Real-Life Iron Man: A Robotic Suit That Magnifies Human Strength 4/30/08 * Missing Link of Electronics Discovered: "Memristor" 15 hours ago * Will the Personal Jet Pack Ever Get off the Ground? [Slideshow] 4/29/08 * 150-Year-Old Computer Brought to Life [Slideshow] 4/24/08 * Searching for an Elusive Particle, Physicists Take a Shot in the Dark 4/29/08 * Apple's iTunes sells movies on DVD release dateReuters16 hours ago * GTA 4 poised to dominate Xbox LiveReuters18 hours ago * Volvo's 2020 vision: The injury-proof carReuters18 hours ago * Grand Theft Auto IV breaks UK first day recordReuters19 hours ago * Studio films going day-and-date at iTunes StoreReuters5/1/08 * VIEW ALL Advertisement Missing Link of Electronics Discovered: Memristor Buried Prejudice: The Bigot in Your Brain Real-Life Iron Man: A Robotic Suit That Magnifies Human Strength The Monitor ep. 12--Autism and Video Games Will the Personal Jet Pack Ever Get off the Ground? [Slideshow] Why Does the Brain Need So Much Power? Information * About Us * Advertising * Privacy Policy * Terms of Use * GoingGreen Conference * Site Map * Contact Us * Products & Services * SciAm Marketplace Publications * Scientific American * Mind * Digital * Special Editions and Reports * International Editions Services * Subscribe * Renew * Subscriber Service * Gifts Subscriptions * Order Back Issues Scientific American Newsletters Get the latest science news delivered to your inbox in a few easy steps. Start by entering your e-mail address below. © 1996-2008 Scientific American Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. ***************************************************************** 142 Daily News Journal: Landfill dumping bill hits AG snag - www.dnj.com - Murfreesboro, Tenn. By TURNER HUTCHENS trhutchens@dnj.com — Turner Hutchens, 615-278-5161 A bid by some of Rutherford County's legislators to end all radioactive dumping in Tennessee has run into trouble. A bill, sponsored by state Sen. Jim Tracy, R-Shelbyville, and state Rep. Donna Rowland, R-Murfreesboro, which would prohibit the dumping of any radioactive waste in the state's landfills, is "constitutionally suspect," according to an April 21 opinion by Tennessee Attorney General Robert E. Cooper Jr. The House bill would prohibit the processing or disposal of any material greater than background radiation, except those materials accepted and processed onsite by the federal government. Background radiation is the base level of radiation found in the world. "The proposed bill does not, on its face, identify any legitimate public concerns for the prohibition against processing or disposal of radioactive waste material in any municipal or private landfills," according to the opinion. Under the state's Bulk Survey for Release Program, low-level radioactive materials have been dumped at five Tennessee landfills, including Middle Point Landfill in Rutherford County. Last year, after public outcry, scientific study and lengthy hearings, Allied Waste, the owners of the Middle Point Landfill, agreed to end a controversial program to bury low-level radioactive waste there. Kathy Ferris, a member of the Rutherford County grass-roots Citizens to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee, questions the attorney general's opinion. "That would seem strange to me to have to justify making this change in the law," Ferris said. She added that protecting local land and river water certainly is a public concern. The Middle Point Landfill on Jefferson Pike is located on the banks of the Stones River. The attorney general's opinion states that the bill would appear to prohibit "many materials in ordinary municipal garbage." Ferris said that any radioactive materials in municipal garbage should be separated and dealt with separately. Increased concerns There has been an increase in concerns about where the hazardous waste generated by nuclear power plants, hospitals, universities and research facilities will go since a waste site near Barnwell, S.C., will be closing its doors to nuclear waste July 1. Also, a Utah-based company has applied to import 20,000 tons of waste from decommissioned nuclear reactors in Italy. According to its application, EnergySolutions would process the waste in Tennessee and dispose of it at a site in Clive, Utah. U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tennessee is sponsoring federal legislation, which would prohibit the importing of radioactive materials from abroad. Tracy said that he and other legislators would be looking at the bill over the summer and communicating with the attorney generals office to determine how to change the bill so it would be acceptable. "It does need to be clarified as to what would be radioactive and what would not be," he said. Rowland added: "I wouldn't have brought the issue (up) if I didn't think it was a public concern. I believe it is a public concern. My focus now is going to be on the study committee." The attorney general also opined that a separate bill — House Bill 2771 — sponsored by Tracy and state Rep. John Hood, D-Murfreesboro, that would require there be adequate public notice and public hearings before the approval of a Bulk Survey For Release Program did not violate interstate commerce laws. The fact that Middle Point had been used for low-level radioactive dumping was widely unknown to residents and local officials until the publication of a May 2007 report by the nuclear-watchdog organization Nuclear Information and Resource Service critical of the Tennessee standards for the disposal of such waste. Tracy said that though it is late in the legislative session, there is a chance of having the bill requiring public notice passed in the coming days. Originally published April 25, 2008 Print this article Email this to Copyright ©2008 The Daily News Journal. All rights reserved. Users ***************************************************************** 143 News Journal: Court to rule on anti-dumping duties on imports | delawareonline | Monday, April 28, 2008 Case involves enriched uranium By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER ? Associated Press ? April 27, 2008 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Monday it will rule on a case that could make it harder for U.S. companies to obtain protective tariffs on low-priced foreign goods. The dispute centers on whether uranium that U.S. utilities send to France for enrichment and then import for use in nuclear power plants qualifies as a "good" or "service." The question is critical because only manufactured goods, not services, are subject to U.S. laws that can add punitive tariffs to cheap imports. Exporting goods at prices below levels charged in the producer's home market is known as "dumping," and the goods can be subject to "anti-dumping" duties. Such duties have been slapped on a wide range of goods in recent years, particularly imports from China, Vietnam and other low-cost producers. Imports of steel, shrimp, furniture and lumber have been hit with duties that can sometimes double their cost. In the case accepted by the court, a French uranium enrichment company, Eurodif SA, and a group of U.S. utilities argue that only the service of uranium enrichment is being imported, because the raw uranium was provided by the utilities. As a result, the enriched uranium shouldn't be subject to anti-dumping duties, they say. The utilities include subsidiaries of Dominion Resources Inc., Duke Energy Corp., Entergy Corp. and PPL Corp. The companies provide the majority of U.S. nuclear power. The Commerce Department, however, decided in 2002 that enriching uranium is a "manufacturing process" and not a service, and imposed a 20 percent anti-dumping duty on imports from Eurodif. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled Commerce in March 2005. After additional litigation in lower courts, the Bush administration and USEC Inc., a Bethesda, Md.-based company that is the sole U.S. uranium enricher, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Justice Department's Solicitor General, the administration's lawyer, said the appeals court's ruling "has opened a potentially gaping loophole in the nation's trade laws" by encouraging U.S. importers and foreign companies "to structure their transactions as contracts for 'services' " rather than for goods in order to avoid punitive duties. Oral arguments will be scheduled for the court's next term, which begins in October. The dispute consists of two cases, U.S. v. Eurodif, 07-1059, and USEC v. Eurodif and the Ad Hoc Utilities Group, 07-1078. Copyright ©2008 The News Journal. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 144 Sudbury Star: Study of uranium mine project Ontario, CA Monday, May 5, 2008 Pele Mountain Resources is pushing ahead with a pre-feasibility study concerning its Elliot Lake uranium mine project. "Ongoing mining, processing and waste management optimization studies at Elliot Lake are advancing the project beyond last October's scoping study, leading us to conclude that a pre-feasibility study will add significant value," stated Al Shefsky, Pele's president and chief executive officer, in a news release. "We continue to assess and pursue opportunities to maximize the project's economic, environmental and social benefits. "Our objective is to develop a safe, secure and reliable uranium mine at Elliot Lake providing sustainable, long-term growth for our shareholders and the local communities." The project site is 100 per cent owned by Pele Mountain Resources. The company has requested proposals from SRK Consulting and SNC-Lavalin Inc. to prepare the pre-feasibility study with a target completion date of year-end 2008. © 2008 , Osprey Media | ***************************************************************** 145 RIA Novosti: Russian uranium will be directly supplied to the United States Opinion & analysis - 17:51 | 07/ 05/ 2008 MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Tatyana Sinitsina) - The last day of Vladimir Putin's presidency, May 6, was crowned with an impressive achievement - Russia and the United States signed an agreement on civilian uses of nuclear energy. This is an extraordinary event - the two sides waited for it for over 18 years. Experts consider this document very important and believe that it can take bilateral energy relations from the political to the economic sphere. The agreement was signed by the head of Rosatom (Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency), Sergei Kiriyenko, on the Russian side, and by the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, William Joseph Burns, on the American side. This is a framework agreement, which creates a legal foundation for normalizing bilateral cooperation in civilian uses of nuclear energy. The Russian company Tekhsnabexport will be able to directly supply U.S. nuclear power plants with uranium produced from plutonium. Few people know that almost half of American nuclear power plants run on Russian fuel, and have already become addicted to it because of its high quality and cheap price. This practice started in Soviet times, during perestroika. Russians were not charging exorbitant prices, which was attractive to American nuclear business, but serious trouble started in 1991. It was provoked by Russia itself, which supplied a lot of uranium to the world market, thereby sharply reducing prices. This resulted in an anti-dumping campaign against Russia, which led to trade restrictions and a prohibitive 112% tax by the U.S. Department of Commerce. As a result, Russian uranium is currently being supplied to the United States only through the USEC Corporation, an American intermediary. Supplies were delivered under the Russian-U.S. HEU agreement, which is valid until 2013 (the agreement on the conversion and sale of uranium extracted from nuclear weapons). This situation was not good for either side - both Americans and Russians understood that it was better to deal with each other without intermediary agents. Two years ago, Kiriyenko started talks with the Americans in order to get direct access to Tekhsnabexport's American partners. At the same time, the matter was brought to court, which was a success - uranium conversion was recognized as a service rather than product, and could not be subject to an anti-dumping investigation. The court ruled that the 112% tax would become invalid in 2011. Obeying the verdict, USEC cancelled the anti-dumping investigation against Russian uranium supplies, which had lasted for 18 years. Credit for this goes to the two presidents - Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush. Acting in the interests of their countries, they instructed their governments after the St. Petersburg summit in 2006 to find a way out of this predicament. Yet, the Americans did not hurry too much. The way out was found only two years later, on the last day of Putin's presidency. Vladimir Zhidkikh, a member of the sub commission on nuclear energy of the Federation Council Committee on Natural Monopolies, said, "In the past, the development of mutually advantageous partnership between the United States and Russia in civilian uses of nuclear energy was inhibited by political restrictions, but now fears of the Iron Curtain no longer restrict their cooperation." The world community welcomes any agreement on cooperation between the two great powers (which are seen as rivals anyway) because this is a gesture in favor of peace. Apart from the pragmatic bilateral component, the new agreement has a global achievement - it reduces the risk of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 146 reportonbusiness.com: B.C. shuts door on uranium projects WENDY STUECK April 25, 2008 The ban, announced yesterday, makes B.C. a no-go zone for uranium and confirms a moratorium put in place in 1980 by a previous government responding to anti-nuclear sentiment in the province. That moratorium lapsed in 1987 but subsequent governments did not move to update it, as companies focused their exploration campaigns on other metals and because there was a widespread view that uranium production would be unpopular in the province. That changed in recent years, as uranium prices more than doubled and climate change concerns put emissions-free, uranium-fed nuclear power plants in the spotlight. Several companies, including Vancouver-based Boss Power Inc., dusted off uranium projects that had been explored decades ago with an eye to bringing them into production. The government's decision comes as a surprise and contradicts assurances Boss had received that it would be able to take its project to public hearings, Boss spokesman Rupert Allan said yesterday. "We did not know this was coming," Mr. Allan said, saying the decision makes the company's Blizzard deposit worthless. The company had described it as containing up to $1-billion worth of uranium. © Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. globeandmail.com and The Globe and Mail are divisions of CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., 444 Front St. W., Toronto, ON  Canada M5V 2S9 Phillip Crawley, Publisher ***************************************************************** 147 CNW Group: CANALASKA URANIUM LTD. | CanAlaska completes winter uranium drilling May 13, 2008 Attention Business Editors: Please click on the link to view maps and images attached to this release: http://www.canalaska.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=300353 VANCOUVER, May 9 /CNW/ - CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. (CVV-TSX.V) (the "Company") is pleased to announce that its winter drill programs at Cree Lake and Lake Athabasca and Key Lake Projects have now concluded. All samples for assay and trace element geochemistry are now at the laboratories and we awaiting analyses. The geochemical signatures of the intense alteration zones seen in drill cores at both the Cree Lake and Lake Athabasca projects are expected to detail the halo effect of uranium mineralization, as both programs found (small) localized zones of elevated uranium counts associated with hematite oxidation and zones of hydrothermal fluid flow. These first drill intersects are highly encouraging evidence of hydrothermal mineralizing systems coinciding with the airborne geophysical anomalies. The target areas are moderately large (500m - 1 km) in size, but are at shallow depths and well-capable of being fence-drilled to locate the central mineralizing zones. The successful winter exploration program will now be followed with additional drilling, and summer technical and physical work programs. Preparations for the summer exploration season are already underway, with field crews preparing equipment, camp supplies and undergoing safety training. Field work will commence in early June, 2008, immediately after ice-breakup. Cree Lake Project Drilling Intersects Major Hydrothermal System and Clays ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Exploration budgets for summer drilling at Cree Lake have now been delivered to the Company's partners at the Korean Consortium. On this property, only two of the seven central exploration targets were tested by drilling during the winter. On both targets, the drill holes intersected near-surface hydrothermal systems with intense clay alteration which, in places, exhibited complete disaggregation of the sandstone into sandy illitic clays. (See Photos No. 1 and No. 2 for comparisons, and Photos No. 3 and No. 4 for images of the fluid and altered clay and sands). The first of the targets drilled at Cree Lake was on land, and this, as well as four other zones, are being prepared for further drilling. The second target at Cree Lake was covered by shallow water, making it amenable to further geophysical mapping, as well as marine seismic surveying during the summer. This is a very significant target, as a step-out hole 100 metres from the main zone of alteration showed moderate alteration throughout the sandstone column, increased radioactivity in the lake bottom clays, and a zone of hematite alteration with radioactivity counts up to 250 cps in the underlying basement rocks. Four attempts were made to drill the central portion of the target, but only two holes were successful in reaching the unconformity. These holes exhibited extensive hydrothermal alteration in the top portion of the hole to 88 m and 93m, following which there was core loss in broken, fractured ground in several locations down to 122 m and 125 m. Both of these holes also showed slight increase in radioactivity near the unconformity and in the basement. Both targets drilled on the Cree East Project have confirmed the geophysical anomalies with strong alteration at shallow depth. The alteration did not persist to the unconformity, indicating an inclined structure, but slight increase in radioactivity near and below the unconformity was observed in all three holes completed into the basement. Please click on the link to view photos: http://www.canalaska.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=300353 Lake Athabasca Drilling Reveals Intrusive and Unconformity Targets ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Lake Athabasca Project is located along the northern edge of the Athabasca Basin, south of the Uranium City area. A six week drill program was carried out in proximity to Johnston Island from February to April, 2008 to test a series of geophysical targets characteristic of intrusive-style and structurally-controlled unconformity uranium mineralization. Four of the seven original targets were tested. All showed some zones of interesting alteration normally associated with uranium deposits in the area. However, the best target has provided further evidence to support detailed summer seismic surveys and further drilling. Target "E", located 1.4 km south of Stewart Island, intersected the unconformity at 106m, some 200m shallower than expected from the geophysical survey (See Figure No. 1). Based on this unconformity depth, the geophysical data has been re-interpreted as a horst-like uplift along a major E-W fault structure, instead of a sandstone-hosted alteration halo. Strong silicification and dravite alteration have been observed along strike of the structure on the shore of Grouse Island. A parallel fault has been interpreted to exist in the vicinity of the Stewart Island uranium showing, drilled by the Company in 2006. Both of these drill-holes intersected hematised basement, but one hole included a 3 metre broken, strongly fractured core, 50 metres below the unconformity. Work over the summer with seismic survey equipment will concentrate on following the edges of the block and the controlling fault structures, as it is thought that these are the most likely locations for uranium mineralization in this area. Surface mapping and drill target location will continue on land to investigate areas of the Gunnar granite, the host to the Gunnar Uranium Mine, where high radioactivity and altered granite were observed in 2007. The winter drilling only targeted one of these zones, and was too limited in extent to drill across the full width of the large alteration halo. Drill holes LAA008 and LAA010, located 200 metres apart, exhibited brecciated and silicified granites and amphibolite with extensive alteration and sulphides, but only back ground uranium counts (30-100 cps). Further step-out drilling is required to enter the zone(s) of interest. Please click on the link to view maps: http://www.canalaska.com/s/NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=300353 Key Lake Project ---------------- Winter drilling on the Key Lake project intersected hydrothermal alteration and hematization within a structure located 10 km south-west of the Key Lake Mine. Elevated radiometric counts detected by hand scintillometer and down-hole probe in drill hole KEY005 were due to thorium mineralization, and not uranium mineralization. Further drilling, which will concentrate on a previously drilled target located on a claim 8 km to the NW where drilling in 2006 intersected a wide structural corridor with 0.06% U(3)O(8) over 0.15 m in drill hole KEY001, is being discussed with Westcan Uranium Ltd., the optionee of the project. The Qualified Person for this news release is Mr. Peter Dasler, P. Geo. About CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. -- www.canalaska.com CANALASKA URANIUM LTD. (CVV -- TSX.V, CVVUF -- OTCBB, DH7 -- Frankfurt) is undertaking uranium exploration in eighteen 100%-owned and two optioned uranium projects in Canada's Athabasca Basin. Since September 2004, the Company has aggressively acquired one of the largest land positions in the region, comprising over 2,500,000 acres (10,117 sq. km or 3,906 sq. miles). CanAlaska has expended over Cdn$40 million exploring its properties and has delineated multiple uranium targets. The Company's high profile in the prominent Athabasca Basin has attracted the attention of major international strategic partners. Among others, Mitsubishi Development Pty., a subsidiary of Japanese conglomerate Mitsubishi Corporation, has undertaken to provide CanAlaska C$11 mil. in exploration funding to earn 50% of the West McArthur Project. In addition, exploration of CanAlaska's Cree East Project has commenced under a C$19 mil. agreement executed with a consortium of Korean companies led by Hanwha Corporation, and comprising Korea Electric Power Corp., Korea Resources Corp. and SK Energy Co, Ltd. On behalf of the Board of Directors (signed) Peter Dasler, M.Sc., P.Geo. President & CEO, CanAlaska Uranium Ltd. The TSX Venture has not reviewed and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release: CUSIP# 13708P 10 2. This news release contains certain "Forward-Looking Statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, included herein are forward-looking statements that involve various risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the Company's expectations are disclosed in the Company's documents filed from time to time with the British Columbia Securities Commission and the United States Securities & Exchange Commission. For further information: Emil Fung, Vice President, Corp. Dev., Tel: (604) 688-3211, Email: info@canalaska.com CANALASKA URANIUM LTD. - More on this organization Quotes & Charts News Releases (51) Photo Archive CVVUF(OTCBB) CVV.(TSX-VEN) © 2005 CNW Group Ltd. PRIVACY & TERMS OF USE / CONTACT US / SITE MAP ***************************************************************** 148 Salt Lake Tribune: Italy's waste is called too hot for Utah - Feds need more data from EnergySolutions, critics say Article Last Updated: 04/29/2008 01:10:44 AM MDT Radioactive waste that Italy wants buried in Utah might be too hot to handle here. Critics looking at technical aspects of EnergySolutions' plans to import 20,000 tons of cleanup waste from Italy's nuclear reactors say state and federal regulators need more information before signing off on the Salt Lake City company's proposal. The company's Italy waste plans have already come under fire on policy grounds, with Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. promising to use the state's vote on a regional waste panel to stop future foreign waste imports and Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah seeking federal legislation to do the same. Company spokesman John Ward said EnergySolutions will screen the waste from Italy's defunct nuclear program four times: * before sending it across the Atlantic; * prior to recycling it at the company's Tennessee treatment plant; * after usable metal is melted and recast as shielding; and * before about 1,600 tons of Class A waste is buried in Tooele County, about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. Anything too radioactive will be returned to Italy, under an export license that the company also has applied for, he added. "We won't even begin transporting any material that we can't accept at Bear Creek [Tenn.] and Clive [Utah]." But Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said the company's import application before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission suggests the material is so radioactive overall it would be Class C waste - and too hot to be permitted under state law. "It's very clear that some of this is going to be Class C," said Makhijani, criticizing the lack of details. "The burden of proof is on EnergySolutions to provide the detailed information that regulators need to make a prudent decision on this request," said Vanessa Pierce, the director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, who released Makhijani's findings on Monday. "It's appalling that the NRC and other regulators haven't asked for more" details, she said. State regulators in Utah and Tennessee have already told the NRC the shipments would be permissible. Others have raised concerns similar to HEAL's. Members of the Utah Radiation Control Board questioned EnergySolutions in March about ensuring the waste is safe for Utah. And Marty Carson, a nuclear industry consultant in South Carolina, urged the NRC in February to require more information to demonstrate that too-hot waste will not be diluted so that it can meet Utah's standards. "The application doesn't tell enough," said Carson in a telephone interview. Carson calls himself pro-industry and pro-nuclear, yet he says federal regulators have allowed too many gaps in EnergySolutions' import request. "I would be opposed to any company engaged in this work the way it's described" in the Italy waste application, he said. "We need to deal with this [waste] properly." fahys@sltrib.com * States, including Utah, generally follow federal guidelines for categorizing and disposing of low-level radioactive waste. * Class A waste must lose its radioactive punch within 100 years, regulations say. Utah's law allows nuclear waste no more radioactive than this. * Class B waste is handled more carefully and disposed of with a 300-year safety period in mind. Class C must be contained so that it cannot become a health and environmental hazard for about 500 years, according to the regulations. * In 2005, Utah lawmakers, with the backing of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and EnergySolutions, barred Class B and C waste from the state. Privacy Policy | MNG Corporate Site Map | Copyright ***************************************************************** 149 Hanford News: Southwest Idaho company making millions by accepting toxic waste This story was published Thursday May 8th 2008 By Cynthia Sewell, The Idaho Statesman Railcars loaded with 6,700 tons of radioactive waste will roll across the Treasure Valley this week, the cargo destined for a remote site south of Boise on a sagebrush-dotted plateau near the Snake River. And it won't be the first time. This scenario has occurred regularly over the past several years. The site Idaho's only public hazardous waste dump has received more than 1 million tons of radioactive materials from the federal government during the past five years. The US Ecology facility west of Grand View in Owyhee County is one of only 18 commercial facilities in the country permitted to bury radioactive or other hazardous waste. Treating and storing waste can be a financially lucrative endeavor. In 2007, the Grand View facility received 800,000 tons of government and industrial hazardous waste from 37 states, with New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Missouri topping the hazardous waste suppliers. Boise-based American Ecology, US Ecology's parent company, reported revenue last year of $165.5 million with gross profit of $45.5 million. American Ecology also owns hazardous waste disposal sites in Nevada, Texas and Washington. But company officials say the more money American Ecology makes, the more the state of Idaho benefits. According to a 2006 economic impact analysis by economist Don Reading, American Ecology's annual economic contribution in Idaho is $51 million in taxes, payroll and direct and indirect spending. The company paid $1.4 million in state taxes in 2005. The Grand View facility is Owyhee County's largest property tax payer and employer. "US Ecology Idaho currently employs 88 people between our disposal facility in Owyhee County, and our rail transfer facility in Elmore County," said Chad Hyslop, American Ecology spokesman. The operation may be lucrative, but the risks outweigh the benefits, said Andrea Shipley, director of the Snake River Alliance, a nuclear watchdog group. "Contaminated waste can no longer be cloaked as economic development," Shipley said. "It is very dangerous The only solution is prevention" dropping nuclear altogether and converting to clean, renewable energy sources. Kuwait to Idaho The shipment now en route to Idaho is from Kuwait. In 1991, a fire at the U.S. Army Camp Doha ignited military vehicles and munitions containing depleted uranium used in armor-piercing shells. The shell fragments were removed and disposed in the United States by the U.S. Army in 2005. This incoming shipment contains the remaining 6,700 tons of lightly contaminated soil the fragments were removed from. The Kuwait Ministry of Defense contracted with MKM Engineers of Texas to package and transport the waste to the United States. MKM subcontracted with American Ecology to store the waste. Hyslop would not disclose how much American Ecology was paid for the service. But he said the Idaho-bound waste has very low levels of depleted uranium. It contains 10 parts, called picocuries, per gram on average. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality has permitted US Ecology to accept depleted uranium with up to 169 parts. DEQ, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and US Ecology have been working closely since September to ensure compliant shipment and receipt of the Camp Doha waste, said Brian Monson, DEQ's hazardous waste program manager. Despite careful planning, US Ecology and DEQ learned at the last minute of a slight change in the waste's content. Just as the ship was approaching port in Longview, Wash., on April 21, the Army reported the radioactive waste also may be contaminated with lead. "At the 11th hour, the Army notified US Ecology that additional testing revealed what may be a concentration of lead in the waste," according to Monson. US Ecology is permitted to accept lead-contaminated waste, "so it is a paperwork issue, not a disposal issue," Monson said. Hyslop said the transport packaging bags inside steel shipping containers like those you see on barges and trains is appropriate for both hazardous and radioactive material, so the recent lead-contaminated classification does not change the way the material will be handled, only its labeling. The contaminated sand will be off-loaded at a rail transfer facility near Simco Road south of Boise. Containers will remain sealed until they arrive at the Grand View facility, at which time DEQ's radiation health physicist will oversee receipt of and disposal of the waste. How did the dump end up here? During the Cold War, the vast desert of Owyhee County was home to Titan intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the Soviet Union. The military built three missile sites in the early 1960s, each within 45 miles of Mountain Home Air Force Base. The silos were built for Titan missiles armed with nuclear warheads. The federal government sold the sites after they were decommissioned in the late 1960s and early 1970s. A private company purchased the Grand View missile site and began using the empty silos for waste disposal. Envirosafe bought the site in 1981. That company quickly recorded violations more than 33 between 1983 and 1994 and accumulated fines of more than $200,000. It was cited for dumping liquid hazardous waste directly into the landfill and allowing an enormous backlog of unprocessed drums to build up on the property. Envirosafe stopped using the missile silos for storage and began using lined pits. American Ecology purchased the facility in 2001 and renamed it US Ecology Idaho. The facility has had no EPA or DEQ violations since, Hyslop said. Monson did not have immediate access to all inspection records, but he said he could not recall any violations. "They have been very good to work with," Monson said. A DEQ radiation health physicist works permanently at the the Grand View facility. And DEQ hazardous waste inspectors conduct monthly compliance inspections, which include evaluating records and observing waste operations. All wastes received and disposed of at US Ecology's Grand View facility are placed in DEQ-approved triple-lined disposal cells designed to keep the waste from leaching into the soil. The facility also includes groundwater monitoring and detection systems. The 1,000-acre site is located about three miles south of the Snake River, but Monson said a geological study completed in the mid-1990s by hydrologists found that there's no danger of waste contaminating the river. "It's remote, and it has exceptional geology," Hyslop said. "There's 3,000 feet of clays and shales between the site and the aquifer. That's one of the reasons they located the missiles there, and it makes it a great place for waste disposal." Dept. Of Energy: Rattlesnake decision may hurt Benton County communications 04/11/2008 Fluor: Fluor wins $8 billion Savannah River contract 04/26/2008 Battelle/PNNL: Hanford molasses results sweet, so far 05/05/2008 CH2M Hill: Tank spill funds to stay in Mid-Columbia 04/25/2008 Washington Closure: Disposal procedure to change at Hanford 04/23/2008 Homeland Security: Jet encounter is test exercise 10/12/2007 Cleanup: Decision on nuclear waste disposal delayed 04/28/2008 Energy Northwest: Wind batters Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating Station 02/14/2008 B Reactor: Board will consider landmark status 05/08/2008 Vit Plant: Wyden raises concerns over quality control at Hanford's vit plant 04/09/2008 © 2008 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 150 SLTrib: EnergySolutions sues to stop state's bid to block Italian nuke waste - Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 05/06/2008 06:17:48 AM MDT Posted: 6:19 AM- EnergySolutions has gone to court to protect its plan to import low-level nuclear waste from Italy. The Salt Lake City nuclear waste services company filed a lawsuit Monday asking the U.S. District Court in Utah to rule that a regional organization, the Northwest Interstate Compact on Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management, has no authority over its Utah disposal site. At a meeting planned for Thursday in Boise, Idaho, the eight member states of the compact are to consider whether to give explicit approval for the importation of foreign waste to the EnergySolutions disposal facility in Tooele County. But because of a vow made last month by Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., Utah is set to use its deciding vote to block the Italy waste. Dianne Nielson, Huntsman's energy adviser and longtime director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, declined to comment late Monday, although she said the governor had been informed about the suit. But Steve Creamer, chief executive officer of EnergySolutions, defended the company's march to court and pledged to limit international waste at the Tooele County site to 5 percent of the remaining capacity at the mile-square facility. "This action is intended to clarify whether the Northwest Compact has authority to restrict or control the operations of our Clive facility, and therefore prohibit the company from undertaking an important international project," said Creamer in a news release. Under federal law, Utah is a member of the Northwest Compact. The compact is part of a nationwide system that appoints regional authorities to decide what kinds of waste are permitted in and out of its boundaries and from where the waste can come. Nearly 20 years ago, when EnergySolutions was called Envirocare of Utah, it went to the Northwest Compact seeking permission to accept low level waste. The state's top radiation official, Larry Anderson, and the company's founder, Khosrow Semnani, persuaded the compact to allow Utah to host the nation's first and only commercially owned and operated low-level waste site. Most years, the Utah site now takes up to 98 percent of low-level waste generated nationwide. The waste is significantly less radioactive than reactor fuel rods or transuranic waste. Now EnergySolutions contends that since Clive is privately owned and operated, the compact has no say over the Utah site as it does over the government-owned regional facility in Richland, Wash. The company proposed in September to take 20,000 tons from Italy's dismantled reactor program, process it at an EnergySolutions plant in Tennessee, sell some of the recycled metal as shielding and dispose of the remaining 1,600 tons in Tooele County. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been taking comments on the plan, but it will not be able to approve it unless the Northwest Compact votes to back the import. Huntsman said he would use Utah's vote to block the waste because there is no federal ban on foreign waste importation, as he says there should be. Last year, the Republican governor vowed to go to the compact to have EnergySolutions' capacity capped, but he signed a deal with the company to enact the cap without the Northwest Compact's help. "EnergySolutions offers the best technologies and facilities for the safe dismantling and decontamination of retired nuclear power plants, which is essential to the development of new nuclear power generation facilities," said Creamer. "Our services and facilities support greater global utilization of safe, clean and reliable nuclear energy - which is critical in addressing issues of energy security and global warming." ***************************************************************** 151 SLT: Waste panel votes to ban EnergySolutions' import of Italian N-waste - Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated: 05/09/2008 01:13:48 AM MDT BOISE, Idaho - Eight Western states on Thursday derailed EnergySolutions' plans to import nuclear cleanup waste from Italy and bury some of it at the company's Utah landfill. Members of the Northwest Compact on Low-level Radioactive Waste voted unanimously here to tighten the compact's contract with the Salt Lake City nuclear waste company to make it clear that foreign waste is not permitted. They also closed a loophole that has allowed past shipments of foreign waste to be buried in Utah after being processed at the company's Tennessee processing plant. "It was an appropriate step in the process," said Larry Goldstein, the compact chairman and a regulator with the Washington state Department of Ecology. Bill Sinclair, deputy director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the state's longtime top regulator over radioactive waste, pointed out that the compact simply clarified that there is no specific arrangement between the compact and the company to allow foreign waste. Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. announced two weeks ago he would use Sinclair's veto power on the panel to block the Italian waste import until a national policy can be set. "EnergySolutions can ask for anything they want," said Sinclair after the meeting. "We just said they have to come and ask for an arrangement" for foreign waste. The move comes as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering the company's request to import 20,000 tons of Italian waste, process it at a plant near Oak Ridge, Tenn., sell the recovered metal for shielding and dispose of 1,600 tons of waste at the mile-square landfill in Tooele County, about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. The company asked a judge Monday to declare that the compact does not have authority over the EnergySolutions site in Utah, which is the only one of three in the nation that is not government-owned. In other words, EnergySolutions is arguing that the compact's Thursday decision is irrelevant. "We believe the courts will uphold the position that the Northwest Compact does not have authority over our [Tooele County] facility or the authority to interfere with interstate commerce at a private facility," company spokesman Mark Walker said in a statement following Thursday's decision. Val John Christensen, general counsel for EnergySolutions, assured the eight panel members that the company has plenty of disposal capacity available to handle the five or six rail cars of waste from the Italy nuclear-program cleanup. He also restated the company's pledge to limit its foreign waste imports to five percent of the Utah site's disposal capacity. He said the company has been safely importing waste from foreign companies for years and that this time the debate has become emotional because so many people have a "not-in-my-backyard" attitude. The company also told the panel why waste from Canada, Belgium, France and other nations has gotten a new radiological pedigree after going through the Tennessee processing plant, which the company bought in 2006. In short, the company said, the ash leftover is a new waste created from batches of radioactive waste from several sources that are scientifically indistinguishable. Congress set up the regional compact system in the 1980s to encourage states to collaborate on managing the flow of low-level waste and the development of disposal sites. EnergySolutions, back when it was called Envirocare of Utah, got permission from the Northwest Compact to accept low-level waste in 1991. Since then, the company's size and scope has ballooned. Low-level waste is significantly less radioactive than spent reactor fuel or transuranic waste. Beginning in July, EnergySolutions' Utah site will be the only one available in the United States for low-level waste generated in 36 states. And just the least radioactive type of waste, dubbed "Class A," is permitted in Utah. Critics of EnergySolutions' plans have said allowing the Italian waste import would be a national policy shift with international implications. A measure introduced in Congress - co-sponsored by Utah Democrat Jim Matheson - would ban future imports, except in rare cases. John Urgo of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah thanked compact members and Huntsman on Thursday. "The actions of the compact and the influence of Gov. Huntsman today confirm that it was never the intent of state or federal law to open up Utah and the U.S. to the world's nuclear waste," he said. "We can all breathe a sigh of relief that someone was finally willing to reign in their global nuclear ambitions." fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 152 Salt Lake Tribune: Tailings: Truck or track? - Feds tour cleanup area as discussions over transport continue Article Last Updated: 05/17/2008 12:34:49 AM MDT Officials of the U.S. Energy Department toured the Atlas tailings cleanup site near Moab last week as deliberations continued on whether trucks or trains should be used to haul away the massive uranium waste pile. ?Their number one priority is the safety of our community, which we support, of course? said Joette Langianese, a Grand County Council member who met with Energy Department officials. The 130-acre, 16-million-ton pile of uranium-processing waste, called tailings, leaches ammonia, uranium and other contaminants into the Colorado River, which serves more than 30 million people downstream. The pile is located just north of Moab in eastern Utah, on U.S. Highway 191 within a mile of the Arches National Park entrance. Members of Congress tangled with the Energy Department this spring over the timing of and funding for the $300 million project. Langianese notes the Energy Department has until the end of June to report whether it can stick to the cleanup schedule Congress has set. Costs and safety are key factors in the current discussions, she said. James A. Rispoli, the assistant secretary for Energy and Environmental Management, and Cynthia Anderson, headquarters deputy chief executive officer, met with Moab and county officials. ?It sounds to me like everything is on the table,? said Langianese. Originally, the idea was to haul the tailings to the mesa-top north of the Potash Road, but problems prompted the Energy Department to ask the contractor, Salt Lake City-based EnergySolutions, to consider using trucks instead. A decision hasn't been made. Locals didn't like the prospect of hundreds of dump trucks rumbling 30 miles up U.S. Highway 191 to dump the contaminated soil and debris at Crescent Junction. Though cheaper, it might have had a higher expected safety cost because of the narrow highway, which tourists use to access Arches National Park across the way from the tailings pile. Trucking is looking more appealing, though, because the road has been improved and rail costs are up. Whatever solution is chosen, Energy Department officials agreed that the public should be involved - possibly with meetings in Salt Lake City, said Langianese. John Ward, a spokesman for EnergySolutions, said preparations continue during the deliberations. Crews are preparing the massive tailings pile for removal and finishing the disposal site at Crescent Junction. ?You've got to get the infrastructure set on both ends of the job before you can start moving material,? he said. In its quarterly report last week, EnergySolutions noted that it plans to spend about $35 million on capital investment this year, much of it for trucks and other equipment needed for the Moab cleanup. ?This is a major project," Ward said, "and we are working with the Department of Energy to meet their goals.? fahys@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 153 DEC: West Valley cleanup short of goals - Business First of Buffalo Wednesday, May 7, 2008 - 11:07 AM EDT The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation says 21 years after agreeing to remove radioactive waste at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, the federal government has not met expectations. The state agency released a report May 7, saying the U.S. Department of Energy has yet to reach the first regulatory milepost -- the completion of a final environmental impact statement at the facility, which has been closed since 1975. The DEC said to date, only one major aspect of the remediation mandate has been met, that is, the "vitrification" of liquid high level radioactive waste, or solidifying the waste into glass-like logs. The report points out that the current federal funding provision necessary to accomplish this is woefully inadequate, covering just over half the price tag for making real improvements at the site. West Valley is a 3,345-acre site located about 30 miles south of Buffalo. The site was formerly run by a private company, Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. An estimated 9,200 people live within six miles of the site in what is a largely agricultural area. Approximately 200 acres of the site contain the remains of nuclear fuel reprocessing operations, which began in the 1960s. The 1987 agreement was signed by the federal government, the Coalition on West Valley Nuclear Wastes and the Radioactive Waste Campaign. Among other requirements, it mandated completion of a final environmental impact statement to help steer the cleanup. But, the DEC said, that step has yet to be reached. The report is available at: www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/43501.html. © 2008 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. ***************************************************************** 154 The Coloradoan: Uranium bill passes Senate on Third Reading www.coloradoan.com - Ft. Collins, CO. Monday, May 5, 2008 BY JASON KOSENA JasonKosena@coloradoan.com Legislation that would require uranium mining companies to prove they can return groundwater supplies to the same condition as they found them passed the Senate today with overwhelming bipartisan support. HB 1161, sponsored by Fort Collins Democratic Reps. John Kefalas and Randy Fischer as well as Larimer County Republican Sen. Steve Johnson, passed on Third Reading this morning with a vote of 32-2. Because minor amendments were added to the legislation after it passed the House, the bill must go back to the House for approval before heading to Gov. Bill Ritter's desk for consideration. The legislation will have an impact on a proposed uranium mine northeast of Fort Collins in Nunn, Colorado. Originally published May 2, 2008 Print this article E-mail this to a Copyright ©2008 The Fort Collins Coloradoan. ***************************************************************** 155 The Tennessean: Tennessee group fights to keep out nuclear waste | www.tennessean.com | A push is on to try to stop a private firm from bringing waste from old Italian nuclear plants to Tennessee for processing. EnergySolutions of Utah has asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval to haul up to 20,000 tons of the material to Oak Ridge, and a Rutherford County group has joined the fight to keep it out. "If we don't act quickly, the application will be approved for this enormous shipment, and the doors will be open for all of Europe's nuclear waste to enter the U.S.," Kathy Ferris of Murfreesboro, with Citizens to End Nuclear Dumping in Tennessee, said in an e-mail. Company officials have said the waste would pose no threat and that the processing will allow much of the material to be recycled. Most is metals, wood, paper and plastic debris from old Italian nuclear power plants. The NRC reports that the material could have varying levels of radioactive contamination, but it would be very low amounts. A resolution in the state Senate asks the NRC to turn down the proposal. The resolution is set to be discussed Tuesday in the Senate Finance Committee. — ANNE PAINE apaine@tennessean.com Copyright © 2008 The Tennessean. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 156 Project Armageddon: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 10:38:25 -0500 (CDT) Begin forwarded message: > From: Richard Cook > Date: 8 May 2008 03:45:08 IST > Subject: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities > > This report by a U.S. Army researcher using unclassified sources > takes us to 1999 in an assessment of > Israel's nuclear capabilities. The author states that Israel's > nuclear potency is equivalent to that of > the U.S. and Russia. He also notes that by 1973 Israel had > developed the capability of a 'suitcase' > bomb. Finally he cites instances where Israeli threats of using its > nuclear arsenal have motivated U.S. > military policy in the Middle East. The report may provide useful > background as we see how events > unfold in the weeks and months ahead. ___________________________ http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/farr/farr.htm THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES: ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS by Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army THE THIRD TEMPLE'S HOLY OF HOLIES: ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army The Counterproliferation Papers Future Warfare Series No. 2 USAF Counterproliferation Center Air War College Air University Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama The Third Temple's Holy Of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army September 1999 The Counterproliferation Papers Series was established by the USAF Counterproliferation Center to provide information and analysis to U.S. national security policy-makers and USAF officers to assist them in countering the threat posed by adversaries equipped with weapons of mass destruction. Copies of papers in this series are available from the USAF Counterproliferation Center, 325 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427. The fax number is (334) 953-7538; phone (334) 953-7538. Counterproliferation Paper No. 2 USAF Counterproliferation Center Air War College Air University Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6427 The internet address for the USAF Counterproliferation Center is: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm Contents: Page Disclaimer i The Author ii Acknowledgments iii Abstract iv I. Introduction 1 II. 1948-1962: With French Cooperation 3 III. 1963-1973: Seeing the Project Through to Completion 9 IV. 1974-1999: Bringing the Bomb Up the Basement Stairs 15 Appendix: Estimates of the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal 23 Notes 25 Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those solely of the author and are not a statement of official policy or position of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, or the USAF Counterproliferation Center. The Author Colonel Warner D. bRockyb Farr, Medical Corps, Master Flight Surgeon, U.S. Army, graduated from the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama before becoming the Command Surgeon, U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He also serves as the Surgeon for the U.S. Army Special Forces Command, U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, and the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. With thirty- three years of military service, he holds an Associate of Arts from the State University of New York, Bachelor of Science from Northeast Louisiana University, Doctor of Medicine from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Masters of Public Health from the University of Texas, and has completed medical residencies in aerospace medicine, and anatomic and clinical pathology. He is the only army officer to be board certified in these three specialties. Solo qualified in the TH-55A Army helicopter, he received flight training in the T-37 and T-38 aircraft as part of his USAF School of Aerospace Medicine residency. Colonel Farr was a Master Sergeant Special Forces medic prior to receiving a direct commission to second lieutenant. He is now the senior Special Forces medical officer in the U.S. Army with prior assignments in the 5th, 7th, and 10th Special Forces Groups (Airborne), 1st Special Forces, in Vietnam, the United States, and Germany. He has advised the 12th and 20th Special Forces Groups (Airborne) in the reserves and national guard, served as Division Surgeon, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), and as the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Army Aeromedical Center, Fort Rucker, Alabama. Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge the assistance, guidance and encouragement from my Air War College (AWC) faculty research advisor, Dr. Andrew Terrill, instructor of the Air War College Arab-Israeli Wars course. Thanks are also due to the great aid of the Air University librarians. The author is also indebted to Captain J. R. Saunders, USN and Colonel Robert Sutton, USAF. Who also offered helpful suggestions. Abstract This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world's larger nuclear powers. Using bbomb in the basementb nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements. The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons Warner D. Farr I. Introduction This is the end of the Third Temple. - Attributed to Moshe Dayan during the Yom Kippur War1 As Zionists in Palestine watched World War II from their distant sideshow, what lessons were learned? The soldiers of the Empire of Japan vowed on their emperor's sacred throne to fight to the death and not face the inevitability of an American victory. Many Jews wondered if the Arabs would try to push them into the Mediterranean Sea. After the devastating American nuclear attack on Japan, the soldier leaders of the empire reevaluated their fight to the death position. Did the bomb give the Japanese permission to surrender and live? It obviously played a military role, a political role, and a peacemaking role. How close was the mindset of the Samurai culture to the Islamic culture? Did David Ben-Gurion take note and wonder if the same would work for Israel?2 Could Israel find the ultimate deterrent that would convince her opponents that they could never, ever succeed? Was Israel's ability to cause a modern holocaust the best way to guarantee never having another one? The use of unconventional weapons in the Middle East is not new. The British had used chemical artillery shells against the Turks at the second battle of Gaza in 1917. They continued chemical shelling against the Shiites in Iraq in 1920 and used aerial chemicals in the 1920s and 1930s in Iraq.3 Israel's involvement with nuclear technology starts at the founding of the state in 1948. Many talented Jewish scientists immigrated to Palestine during the thirties and forties, in particular, Ernst David Bergmann. He would become the director of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission and the founder of Israel's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bergmann, a close friend and advisor of Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, counseled that nuclear energy could compensate for Israel's poor natural resources and small pool of military manpower. He pointed out that there was just one nuclear energy, not two, suggesting nuclear weapons were part of the plan.4 As early as 1948, Israeli scientists actively explored the Negev Desert for uranium deposits on orders from the Israeli Ministry of Defense. By 1950, they found low-grade deposits near Beersheba and Sidon and worked on a low power method of heavy water production.5 The newly created Weizmann Institute of Science actively supported nuclear research by 1949, with Dr. Bergmann heading the chemistry division. Promising students went overseas to study nuclear engineering and physics at Israeli government expense. Israel secretly founded its own Atomic Energy Commission in 1952 and placed it under the control of the Defense Ministry.6 The foundations of a nuclear program were beginning to develop. II. 1948-1962: With French Cooperation It has always been our intention to develop a nuclear potential. - Ephraim Katzir7 In 1949, Francis Perrin, a member of the French Atomic Energy Commission, nuclear physicist, and friend of Dr. Bergmann visited the Weizmann Institute. He invited Israeli scientists to the new French nuclear research facility at Saclay. A joint research effort was subsequently set up between the two nations. Perrin publicly stated in 1986 that French scientists working in America on the Manhattan Project and in Canada during World War II were told they could use their knowledge in France provided they kept it a secret.8 Perrin reportedly provided nuclear data to Israel on the same basis.9 One Israeli scientist worked at the U.S. Los Alamos National Laboratory and may have directly brought expertise home.10 After the Second World War, France's nuclear research capability was quite limited. France had been a leading research center in nuclear physics before World War II, but had fallen far behind the U.S., the U.S.S.R., the United Kingdom, and even Canada. Israel and France were at a similar level of expertise after the war, and Israeli scientists could make significant contributions to the French effort. Progress in nuclear science and technology in France and Israel remained closely linked throughout the early fifties. Israeli scientists probably helped construct the G-1 plutonium production reactor and UP-1 reprocessing plant at Marcoule.11 France profited from two Israeli patents on heavy water production and low-grade uranium enrichment.12 In the 1950s and into the early 1960s, France and Israel had close relations in many areas. France was Israel's principal arms supplier, and as instability spread through French colonies in North Africa, Israel provided valuable intelligence obtained from contacts with sephardic Jews in those countries. The two nations collaborated, with the United Kingdom, in planning and staging the Suez Canal-Sinai operation against Egypt in October 1956. The Suez Crisis became the real genesis of Israel's nuclear weapons production program. With the Czech-Egyptian arms agreement in 1955, Israel became worried. When absorbed, the Soviet-bloc equipment would triple Egyptian military strength. After Egypt's President Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran in 1953, Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Gurion ordered the development of chemical munitions and other unconventional munitions, including nuclear.13 Six weeks before the Suez Canal operation, Israel felt the time was right to approach France for assistance in building a nuclear reactor. Canada had set a precedent a year earlier when it had agreed to build a 40- megawatt CIRUS reactor in India. Shimon Peres, the Director-General of the Defense Ministry and aide to Prime Minister (and Defense Minister) David Ben-Gurion, and Bergmann met with members of the CEA (France's Atomic Energy Commission). During September 1956, they reached an initial understanding to provide a research reactor. The two countries concluded final agreements at a secret meeting outside Paris where they also finalized details of the Suez Canal operation.14 For the United Kingdom and France, the Suez operation, launched on October 29, 1956, was a total disaster. Israel's part was a military success, allowing it to occupy the entire Sinai Peninsula by 4 November, but the French and British canal invasion on 6 November was a political failure. Their attempt to advance south along the Suez Canal stopped due to a cease-fire under fierce Soviet and U.S. pressure. Both nations pulled out, leaving Israel to face the pressure from the two superpowers alone. Soviet Premier Bulganin and President Khrushchev issued an implicit threat of nuclear attack if Israel did not withdraw from the Sinai. On 7 November 1956, a secret meeting was held between Israeli foreign minister Golda Meir, Shimon Peres, and French foreign and defense ministers Christian Pineau and Maurice Bourges-Manoury. The French, embarrassed by their failure to support their ally in the operation, found the Israelis deeply concerned about a Soviet threat. In this meeting, they substantially modified the initial understanding beyond a research reactor. Peres secured an agreement from France to assist Israel in developing a nuclear deterrent. After further months of negotiation, agreement was reached for an 18-megawatt (thermal) research reactor of the EL-3 type, along with plutonium separation technology. France and Israel signed the agreement in October 1957.15 Later the reactor was officially upgraded to 24 megawatts, but the actual specifications issued to engineers provided for core cooling ducts sufficient for up to three times this power level, along with a plutonium plant of similar capacity. Data from insider reports revealed in 1986 would estimate the power level at 125-150 megawatts.16 The reactor, not connected to turbines for power production, needed this increase in size only to increase its plutonium production. How this upgrade came about remains unknown, but Bourges-Maunoury, replacing Mollet as French prime minister, may have contributed to it.17 Shimon Peres, the guiding hand in the Israeli nuclear program, had a close relationship with Bourges- Maunoury and probably helped him politically.18 Why was France so eager to help Israel? DeMollet and then de Gaulle had a place for Israel within their strategic vision. A nuclear Israel could be a counterforce against Egypt in France's fight in Algeria. Egypt was openly aiding the rebel forces there. France also wanted to obtain the bomb itself. The United States had embargoed certain nuclear enabling computer technology from France. Israel could get the technology from America and pass it through to France. The U.S. furnished Israel heavy water, under the Atoms for Peace program, for the small research reactor at Soreq. France could use this heavy water. Since France was some years away from nuclear testing and success, Israeli science was an insurance policy in case of technical problems in France's own program.19 The Israeli intelligence community's knowledge of past French (especially Vichy) anti-Semitic transgressions and the continued presence of former Nazi collaborators in French intelligence provided the Israelis with some blackmail opportunities.20 The cooperation was so close that Israel worked with France on the preproduction design of early Mirage jet aircraft, designed to be capable of delivering nuclear bombs.21 French experts secretly built the Israeli reactor underground at Dimona, in the Negev desert of southern Israel near Beersheba. Hundreds of French engineers and technicians filled Beersheba, the biggest town in the Negev. Many of the same contractors who built Marcoule were involved. SON (a French firm) built the plutonium separation plants in both France and Israel. The ground was broken for the EL-102 reactor (as it was known to France) in early 1958. Israel used many subterfuges to conceal activity at Dimona. It called the plant a manganese plant, and rarely, a textile plant. The United States by the end of 1958 had taken pictures of the project from U-2 spy planes, and identified the site as a probable reactor complex. The concentration of Frenchmen was also impossible to hide from ground observers. In 1960, before the reactor was operating, France, now under the leadership of de Gaulle, reconsidered and decided to suspend the project. After several months of negotiation, they reached an agreement in November that allowed the reactor to proceed if Israel promised not to make nuclear weapons and to announce the project to the world. Work on the plutonium reprocessing plant halted. On 2 December 1960, before Israel could make announcements, the U.S. State Department issued a statement that Israel had a secret nuclear installation. By 16 December, this became public knowledge with its appearance in the New York Times. On 21 December, Ben-Gurion announced that Israel was building a 24- megawatt reactor bfor peaceful purposes.b22 Over the next year, relations between the U.S. and Israel became strained over the Dimona reactor. The U.S. accepted Israel's assertions at face value publicly, but exerted pressure privately. Although Israel allowed a cursory inspection by well known American physicists Eugene Wigner and I. I. Rabi, Prime Minister Ben-Gurion consistently refused to allow regular international inspections. The final resolution between the U.S. and Israel was a commitment from Israel to use the facility for peaceful purposes, and to admit an U.S. inspection team twice a year. These inspections began in 1962 and continued until 1969. Inspectors saw only the above ground part of the buildings, not the many levels underground and the visit frequency was never more than once a year. The above ground areas had simulated control rooms, and access to the underground areas was kept hidden while the inspectors were present. Elevators leading to the secret underground plutonium reprocessing plant were actually bricked over.23 Much of the information on these inspections and the political maneuvering around it has just been declassified.24 One interpretation of Ben-Gurion's bpeaceful purposesb pledge given to America is that he interpreted it to mean that nuclear weapon development was not excluded if used strictly for defensive, and not offensive purposes. Israel's security position in the late fifties and early sixties was far more precarious than now. After three wars, with a robust domestic arms industry and a reliable defense supply line from the U.S., Israel felt much more secure. During the fifties and early sixties a number of attempts by Israel to obtain security guarantees from the U.S. to place Israel under the U.S. nuclear umbrella like NATO or Japan, were unsuccessful. If the U.S. had conducted a forward-looking policy to restrain Israel's proliferation, along with a sure defense agreement, we could have prevented the development of Israel's nuclear arsenal. One common discussion in the literature concerns testing of Israeli nuclear devices. In the early phases, the amount of collaboration between the French and Israeli nuclear weapons design programs made testing unnecessary. In addition, although their main efforts were with plutonium, the Israelis may have amassed enough uranium for gun- assembled type bombs which, like the Hiroshima bomb, require no testing. One expert postulated, based on unnamed sources, that the French nuclear test in 1960 made two nuclear powers not onebsuch was the depth of collaboration.25 There were several Israeli observers at the French nuclear tests and the Israelis had bunrestricted access to French nuclear test explosion data.b26 Israel also supplied essential technology and hardware.27 The French reportedly shipped reprocessed plutonium back to Israel as part of their repayment for Israeli scientific help. However, this constant, decade long, French cooperation and support was soon to end and Israel would have to go it alone. III. 1963-1973: Seeing the Project to Completion To act in such a way that the Jews who died in the gas chambers would be the last Jews to die without defending themselves. - Golda Meir28 Israel would soon need its own, independent, capabilities to complete its nuclear program. Only five countries had facilities for uranium enrichment: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China. The Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, or NUMEC, in Apollo, Pennsylvania was a small fuel rod fabrication plant. In 1965, the U.S. government accused Dr. Zalman Shapiro, the corporation president, of blosingb 200 pounds of highly enriched uranium. Although investigated by the Atomic Energy Commission, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other government agencies and inquiring reporters, no answers were available in what was termed the Apollo Affair.29 Many remain convinced that the Israelis received 200 pounds of enriched uranium sometime before 1965.30 One source links Rafi Eitan, an Israeli Mossad agent and later the handler of spy Jonathan Pollard, with NUMEC.31 In the 1990s when the NUMEC plant was disassembled, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found over 100 kilograms of plutonium in the structural components of the contaminated plant, casting doubt on 200 pounds going to Israel.32 The joint venture with France gave Israel several ingredients for nuclear weapons construction: a production reactor, a factory to extract plutonium from the spent fuel, and the design. In 1962, the Dimona reactor went critical; the French resumed work on the underground plutonium reprocessing plant, and completed it in 1964 or 1965. The acquisition of this reactor and related technologies was clearly intended for military purposes from the outset (not bdual- useb), as the reactor has no other function. The security at Dimona (officially the Negev Nuclear Research Center) was particularly stringent. For straying into Dimona's airspace, the Israelis shot down one of their own Mirage fighters during the Six-Day War. The Israelis also shot down a Libyan airliner with 104 passengers, in 1973, which had strayed over the Sinai.33 There is little doubt that some time in the late sixties Israel became the sixth nation to manufacture nuclear weapons. Other things they needed were extra uranium and extra heavy water to run the reactor at a higher rate. Norway, France, and the United States provided the heavy water and bOperation Plumbatb provided the uranium. After the 1967 war, France stopped supplies of uranium to Israel. These supplies were from former French colonies of Gabon, Niger, and the Central Africa Republic.34 Israel had small amounts of uranium from Negev phosphate mines and had bought some from Argentina and South Africa, but not in the large quantities supplied by the French. Through a complicated undercover operation, the Israelis obtained uranium oxide, known as yellow cake, held in a stockpile in Antwerp. Using a West German front company and a high seas transfer from one ship to another in the Mediterranean, they obtained 200 tons of yellow cake. The smugglers labeled the 560 sealed oil drums bPlumbat,b which means lead, hence bOperation Plumbat.b35 The West German government may have been involved directly but remained undercover to avoid antagonizing the Soviets or Arabs.36 Israeli intelligence information on the Nazi past of some West German officials may have provided the motivation.37 Norway sold 20 tons of heavy water to Israel in 1959 for use in an experimental power reactor. Norway insisted on the right to inspect the heavy water for 32 years, but did so only once, in April 1961, while it was still in storage barrels at Dimona. Israel simply promised that the heavy water was for peaceful purposes. In addition, quantities much more than what would be required for the peaceful purpose reactors were imported. Norway either colluded or at the least was very slow to ask to inspect as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rules required.38 Norway and Israel concluded an agreement in 1990 for Israel to sell back 10.5 tons of the heavy water to Norway. Recent calculations reveal that Israel has used two tons and will retain eight tons more.39 Author Seymour Hersh, writing in the Samson Option says Prime Minister Levi Eshkol delayed starting weapons production even after Dimona was finished.40 The reactor operated and the plutonium collected, but remained unseparated. The first extraction of plutonium probably occurred in late 1965. By 1966, enough plutonium was on hand to develop a weapon in time for the Six-Day War in 1967. Some type of non-nuclear test, perhaps a zero yield or implosion test, occurred on November 2, 1966. After this time, considerable collaboration between Israel and South Africa developed and continued through the 1970s and 1980s. South Africa became Israel's primary supplier of uranium for Dimona. A Center for Nonproliferation Studies report lists four separate Israel-South Africa bclandestine nuclear deals.b Three concerned yellowcake and one was tritium.41 Other sources of yellowcake may have included Portugal.42 Egypt attempted unsuccessfully to obtain nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union both before and after the Six-Day War. President Nasser received from the Soviet Union a questionable nuclear guarantee instead and declared that Egypt would develop its own nuclear program. 43 His rhetoric of 1965 and 1966 about preventive war and Israeli nuclear weapons coupled with overflights of the Dimona rector contributed to the tensions that led to war. The Egyptian Air Force claims to have first overflown Dimona and recognized the existence of a nuclear reactor in 1965.44 Of the 50 American HAWK antiaircraft missiles in Israeli hands, half ringed Dimona by 1965.45 Israel considered the Egyptian overflights of May 16, 1967 as possible pre- strike reconnaissance. One source lists such Egyptian overflights, along with United Nations peacekeeper withdrawal and Egyptian troop movements into the Sinai, as one of the three btripwiresb which would drive Israel to war.46 There was an Egyptian military plan to attack Dimona at the start of any war but Nasser vetoed it.47 He believed Israel would have the bomb in 1968.48 Israel assembled two nuclear bombs and ten days later went to war.49 Nasser's plan, if he had one, may have been to gain and consolidate territorial gains before Israel had a nuclear option.50 He was two weeks too late. The Israelis aggressively pursued an aircraft delivery system from the United States. President Johnson was less emphatic about nonproliferation than President Kennedy-or perhaps had more pressing concerns, such as Vietnam. He had a long history of both Jewish friends and pressing political contributors coupled with some first hand experience of the Holocaust, having toured concentration camps at the end of World War II.51 Israel pressed him hard for aircraft (A-4E Skyhawks initially and F-4E Phantoms later) and obtained agreement in 1966 under the condition that the aircraft would not be used to deliver nuclear weapons. The State Department attempted to link the aircraft purchases to continued inspection visits. President Johnson overruled the State Department concerning Dimona inspections.52 Although denied at the time, America delivered the F-4Es, on September 5, 1969, with nuclear capable hardware intact.53 The Samson Option states that Moshe Dayan gave the go-ahead for starting weapon production in early 1968, putting the plutonium separation plant into full operation. Israel began producing three to five bombs a year. The book Critical Mass asserts that Israel had two bombs in 1967, and that Prime Minister Eshkol ordered them armed in Israel's first nuclear alert during the Six-Day War.54 Avner Cohen in his recent book, Israel and the Bomb, agrees that Israel had a deliverable nuclear capability in the 1967 war. He quotes Munya Mardor, leader of Rafael, the Armament Development Authority, and other unnamed sources, that Israel bcobbled togetherb two deliverable devices.55 Having the bomb meant articulating, even if secretly, a use doctrine. In addition to the bSamson Optionb of last resort, other triggers for nuclear use may have included successful Arab penetration of populated areas, destruction of the Israeli Air Force, massive air strikes or chemical/biological strikes on Israeli cities, and Arab use of nuclear weapons.56 In 1971, Israel began purchasing krytrons, ultra high-speed electronic switching tubes that are bdual-use," having both industrial and nuclear weapons applications as detonators. In the 1980s, the United States charged an American, Richard Smith (or Smyth), with smuggling 810 krytrons to Israel.57 He vanished before trial and reportedly lives outside Tel Aviv. The Israelis apologized for the action saying that the krytrons were for medical research.58 Israel returned 469 of the krytrons but the rest, they declared, had been destroyed in testing conventional weapons. Some believe they went to South Africa.59 Smyth has also been reported to have been involved in a 1972 smuggling operation to obtain solid rocket fuel binder compounds for the Jericho II missile and guidance component hardware.60 Observers point to the Jericho missile itself as proof of a nuclear capability as it is not suited to the delivery of conventional munitions.61 On the afternoon of 6 October 1973, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in a coordinated surprise attack, beginning the Yom Kippur War. Caught with only regular forces on duty, augmented by reservists with a low readiness level, Israeli front lines crumbled. By early afternoon on 7 October, no effective forces were in the southern Golan Heights and Syrian forces had reached the edge of the plateau, overlooking the Jordan River. This crisis brought Israel to its second nuclear alert. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, obviously not at his best at a press briefing, was, according to Time magazine, rattled enough to later tell the prime minister that bthis is the end of the third temple,b referring to an impending collapse of the state of Israel. bTempleb was also the code word for nuclear weapons. Prime Minister Golda Meir and her bkitchen cabinetb made the decision on the night of 8 October. The Israelis assembled 13 twenty- kiloton atomic bombs. The number and in fact the entire story was later leaked by the Israelis as a great psychological warfare tool. Although most probably plutonium devices, one source reports they were enriched uranium bombs. The Jericho missiles at Hirbat Zachariah and the nuclear strike F-4s at Tel Nof were armed and prepared for action against Syrian and Egyptian targets. They also targeted Damascus with nuclear capable long-range artillery although it is not certain they had nuclear artillery shells.62 U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was notified of the alert several hours later on the morning of 9 October. The U.S. decided to open an aerial resupply pipeline to Israel, and Israeli aircraft began picking up supplies that day. Although stockpile depletion remained a concern, the military situation stabilized on October 8th and 9th as Israeli reserves poured into the battle and averted disaster. Well before significant American resupply had reached Israeli forces, the Israelis counterattacked and turned the tide on both fronts. On 11 October, a counterattack on the Golan broke the back of Syria's offensive, and on 15 and 16 October, Israel launched a surprise crossing of the Suez Canal into Africa. Soon the Israelis encircled the Egyptian Third Army and it was faced with annihilation on the east bank of the Suez Canal, with no protective forces remaining between the Israeli Army and Cairo. The first U.S. flights arrived on 14 October.63 Israeli commandos flew to Fort Benning, Georgia to train with the new American TOW anti-tank missiles and return with a C-130 Hercules aircraft full of them in time for the decisive Golan battle. American commanders in Germany depleted their stocks of missiles, at that time only shared with the British and West Germans, and sent them forward to Israel.64 Thus started the subtle, opaque use of the Israeli bomb to ensure that the United States kept its pledge to maintain Israel's conventional weapons edge over its foes.65 There is significant anecdotal evidence that Henry Kissinger told President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, that the reason for the U.S. airlift was that the Israelis were close to bgoing nuclear.b66 A similar Soviet pipeline to the Arabs, equally robust, may or may not have included a ship with nuclear weapons on it, detected from nuclear trace emissions and shadowed by the Americans from the Dardanelles. The Israelis believe that the Soviets discovered Israeli nuclear preparations from COSMOS satellite photographs and decided to equalize the odds.67 The Soviet ship arrived in Alexandria on either 18 or 23 October (sources disagree), and remained, without unloading, until November 1973. The ship may have represented a Soviet guarantee to the Arab combatants to neutralize the Israeli nuclear option.68 While some others dismiss the story completely, the best-written review article concludes that the answer is bobscure.b Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev threatened, on 24 October, to airlift Soviet airborne troops to reinforce the Egyptians cut off on the eastern side of the Suez Canal and put seven Soviet airborne divisions on alert.69 Recent evidence indicates that the Soviets sent nuclear missile submarines also.70 Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine claimed that the two Soviet SCUD brigades deployed in Egypt each had a nuclear warhead. American satellite photos seemed to confirm this. The U.S. passed to Israel images of trucks, of the type used to transport nuclear warheads, parked near the launchers.71 President Nixon's response was to bring the U.S. to worldwide nuclear alert the next day, whereupon Israel went to nuclear alert a third time.72 This sudden crisis quickly faded as Prime Minister Meir agreed to a cease-fire, relieving the pressure on the Egyptian Third Army. Shimon Peres had argued for a pre-war nuclear demonstration to deter the Arabs. Arab strategies and war aims in 1967 may have been restricted because of a fear of the Israeli bbomb in the basement,b the undeclared nuclear option. The Egyptians planned to capture an eastern strip next to the Suez Canal and then hold. The Syrians did not aggressively commit more forces to battle or attempt to drive through the 1948 Jordan River border to the Israeli center. Both countries seemed not to violate Israel proper and avoided triggering one of the unstated Israeli reasons to employ nuclear weapons.73 Others discount any Arab planning based on nuclear capabilities.74 Peres also credits Dimona with bringing Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem to make peace.75 This position was seemingly confirmed by Sadat in a private conversation with Israeli Defense Minister Ezer Weizman.76 At the end of the Yom Kippur War (a nation shaking experience), Israel has her nuclear arsenal fully functional and tested by a deployment. The arsenal, still opaque and unspoken, was no longer a secret, especially to the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. IV. 1974-1999: Bringing the Bomb up the Basement Stairs Never Again! - Reportedly welded on the first Israeli nuclear bomb77 Shortly after the 1973 war, Israel allegedly fielded considerable nuclear artillery consisting of American 175 mm and 203 mm self- propelled artillery pieces, capable of firing nuclear shells. If true, this shows that Dimona had rapidly solved the problems of designing smaller weapons since the crude 1967 devices. If true, these low yield, tactical nuclear artillery rounds could reach at least 25 miles. The Israeli Defense Force did have three battalions of the 175mm artillery (36 tubes), reportedly with 108 nuclear shells and more for the 203mm tubes. Some sources describe a program to extend the range to 45 miles. They may have offered the South Africans these low yield, miniaturized, shells described as, bthe best stuff we got.b78 By 1976, according to one unclassified source, the Central Intelligence Agency believed that the Israelis were using plutonium from Dimona and had 10 to 20 nuclear weapons available.79 In 1972, two Israeli scientists, Isaiah Nebenzahl and Menacehm Levin, developed a cheaper, faster uranium enrichment process. It used a laser beam for isotope separation. It could reportedly enrich seven grams of Uranium 235 sixty percent in one day.80 Sources later reported that Israel was using both centrifuges and lasers to enrich uranium.81 Questions remained regarding full-scale nuclear weapons tests. Primitive gun assembled type devices need no testing. Researchers can test non-nuclear components of other types separately and use extensive computer simulations. Israel received data from the 1960 French tests, and one source concludes that Israel accessed information from U.S. tests conducted in the 1950s and early 1960s. This may have included both boosted and thermonuclear weapons data. 82 Underground testing in a hollowed out cavern is difficult to detect. A West Germany Army Magazine, Wehrtechnik, in June 1976, claimed that Western reports documented a 1963 underground test in the Negev. Other reports show a test at Al-Naqab, Negev in October 1966.83 A bright flash in the south Indian Ocean, observed by an American satellite on 22 September 1979, is widely believed to be a South Africa-Israel joint nuclear test. It was, according to some, the third test of a neutron bomb. The first two were hidden in clouds to fool the satellite and the third was an accidentbthe weather cleared. 84 Experts differ on these possible tests. Several writers report that the scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory believed it to have been a nuclear explosion while a presidential panel decided otherwise.85 President Carter was just entering the Iran hostage nightmare and may have easily decided not to alter 30 years of looking the other way.86 The explosion was almost certainly an Israeli bomb, tested at the invitation of the South Africans. It was more advanced than the bgun typeb bombs developed by the South Africans.87 One report claims it was a test of a nuclear artillery shell.88 A 1997 Israeli newspaper quoted South African deputy foreign minister, Aziz Pahad, as confirming it was an Israeli test with South African logistical support.89 Controversy over possible nuclear testing continues to this day. In June 1998, a Member of the Knesset accused the government of an underground test near Eilat on May 28, 1998. Egyptian bnuclear expertsb had made similar charges. The Israeli government hotly denied the claims.90 Not only were the Israelis interested in American nuclear weapons development data, they were interested in targeting data from U.S. intelligence. Israel discovered that they were on the Soviet target list. American-born Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard obtained satellite- imaging data of the Soviet Union, allowing Israel to target accurately Soviet cities. This showed Israel's intention to use its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent political lever, or retaliatory capability against the Soviet Union itself. Israel also used American satellite imagery to plan the 7 June 1981 attack on the Tammuz-1 reactor at Osiraq, Iraq. This daring attack, carried out by eight F-16s accompanied by six F-15s punched a hole in the concrete reactor dome before the reactor began operation (and just days before an Israeli election). It delivered 15 delay-fused 2000 pound bombs deep into the reactor structure (the 16th bomb hit a nearby hall). The blasts shredded the reactor and blew out the dome foundations, causing it to collapse on the rubble. This was the world's first attack on a nuclear reactor.91 Since 19 September 1988, Israel has worked on its own satellite recon- naissance system to decrease reliance on U.S. sources. On that day, they launched the Offeq-1 satellite on the Shavit booster, a system closely related to the Jericho-II missile. They launched the satellite to the west away from the Arabs and against the earth's rotation, requiring even more thrust. The Jericho-II missile is capable of sending a one ton nuclear payload 5,000 kilometers. Offeq-2 went up on 3 April 1990. The launch of the Offeq-3 failed on its first attempt on 15 September 1994, but was successful 5 April 1995.92 Mordechai Vanunu provided the best look at the Israeli nuclear arsenal in 1985 complete with photographs.93 A technician from Dimona who lost his job, Vanunu secretly took photographs, immigrated to Australia and published some of his material in the London Sunday Times. He was subsequently kidnapped by Israeli agents, tried and imprisoned. His data shows a sophisticated nuclear program, over 200 bombs, with boosted devices, neutron bombs, F-16 deliverable warheads, and Jericho warheads.94 The boosted weapons shown in the Vanunu photographs show a sophistication that inferred the requirement for testing.95 He revealed for the first time the underground plutonium separation facility where Israel was producing 40 kilograms annually, several times more than previous estimates. Photographs showed sophisticated designs which scientific experts say enabled the Israelis to build bombs with as little as 4 kilograms of plutonium. These facts have increased the estimates of total Israeli nuclear stockpiles (see Appendix A).96 In the words of one American, b[the Israelis] can do anything we or the Soviets can do.b97 Vanunu not only made the technical details of the Israeli program and stockpile public but in his wake, Israeli began veiled official acknowledgement of the potent Israeli nuclear deterrent. They began bringing the bomb up the basement stairs if not out of the basement. Israel went on full-scale nuclear alert again on the first day of Desert Storm, 18 January 1991. Seven SCUD missiles were fired against the cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa by Iraq (only two actually hit Tel Aviv and one hit Haifa). This alert lasted for the duration of the war, 43 days. Over the course of the war, Iraq launched around 40 missiles in 17 separate attacks at Israel. There was little loss of life: two killed directly, 11 indirectly, with many structures damaged and life disrupted.98 Several supposedly landed near Dimona, one of them a close miss.99 Threats of retaliation by the Shamir government if the Iraqis used chemical warheads were interpreted to mean that Israel intended to launch a nuclear strike if gas attacks occurred. One Israeli commentator recommended that Israel should signal Iraq that bany Iraqi action against Israeli civilian populations, with or without gas, may leave Iraq without Baghdad.b100 Shortly before the end of the war the Israelis tested a bnuclear capableb missile which prompted the United States into intensifying its SCUD hunting in western Iraq to prevent any Israeli response.101 The Israeli Air Force set up dummy SCUD sites in the Negev for pilots to practice onbthey found it no easy task.102 American government concessions to Israel for not attacking (in addition to Israeli Patriot missile batteries) were: Allowing Israel to designate 100 targets inside Iraq for the coalition to destroy, Satellite downlink to increase warning time on the SCUD attacks (present and future), bTechnical parity with Saudi jet fighters in perpetuity.b103 All of this validated the nuclear arsenal in the minds of the Israelis. In particular the confirmed capability of Arab states without a border with Israel, the so-called bsecond tierb states, to reach out and touch Israel with ballistic missiles confirmed Israel's need for a robust first strike capability.104 Current military contacts between Israel and India, another nuclear power, bring up questions of nuclear cooperation.105 Pakistani sources have already voiced concerns over a possible joint Israeli-Indian attack on Pakistan's nuclear facilities.106 A recent Parameters article speculated on Israel's willingness to furnish nuclear capabilities or assistance to certain states, such as Turkey.107 A retired Israeli Defense Force Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Amnon Shahak, has declared, ball methods are acceptable in withholding nuclear capabilities from an Arab state.b108 As the Israeli bomb comes out of the basement, open discussion, even in Israel, is occurring on why the Israelis feel they need an arsenal not used in at least two if not three wars. Avner Cohen states: bIt [Israel] must be in a position to threaten another Hiroshima to prevent another holocaust.b109 In July 1998 Shimon Peres was quoted in the Jordan Times as saying, bWe have built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima, but to have an Oslo,b110 referring to the peace process. One list of current reasons for an Israeli nuclear capability is: To deter a large conventional attack, To deter all levels of unconventional (chemical, biological, nuclear) attacks, To preempt enemy nuclear attacks, To support conventional preemption against enemy nuclear assets, To support conventional preemption against enemy non-nuclear (conventional, chemical, biological) assets, For nuclear warfighting, The bSamson Optionb (last resort destruction).111 The most alarming of these is the nuclear warfighting. The Israelis have developed, by several accounts, low yield neutron bombs able to destroy troops with minimal damage to property.112 In 1990, during the Second Gulf War, an Israeli reserve major general recommended to America that it buse non-contaminating tactical nuclear weaponsb against Iraq.113 Some have speculated that the Israelis will update their nuclear arsenal to bmicronukesb and btinynukesb which would be very useful to attack point targets and other tactical or barrier (mining) uses.114 These would be very useful for hardened deeply buried command and control facilities and for airfield destruction without exposing Israeli pilots to combat.115 Authors have made the point that Israeli professional military schools do not teach nuclear tactics and would not use them in the close quarters of Israel. Many Israeli officers have attended American military schools where they learned tactical use in crowded Europe.116 However, Jane's Intelligence Review has recently reported an Israeli review of nuclear strategy with a shift from tactical nuclear warheads to long range missiles.117 Israel always has favored the long reach, whether to Argentina for Adolph Eichmann, to Iraq to strike a reactor, Entebbe for hostages, Tunisia to hit the PLO, or by targeting the Soviet Union's cities. An esteemed Israeli military author has speculated that Israel is pursuing an R&D program to provide MIRVs (multiple independent reentry vehicles) on their missiles.118 The government of Israel recently ordered three German Dolphin Class 800 submarine, to be delivered in late 1999. Israel will then have a second strike capability with nuclear cruise missiles, and this capability could well change the nuclear arms race in the Middle East. 119 Israeli rhetoric on the new submarines labels them bnational deterrentb assets. Projected capabilities include a submarine- launched nuclear missile with a 350-kilometer range.120 Israel has been working on sea launch capability for missiles since the 1960s. 121 The first basing options for the new second-strike force of nuclear missile capable submarines include Oman, an Arab nation with unofficial Israeli relations, located strategically near Iran.122 A report indicates that the Israel Defense Ministry has formally gone to the government with a request to authorize a retaliatory nuclear strike if Israel was hit with first strike nuclear weapons. This report comes in the wake of a recent Iran Shihab-3 missile test and indications to Israel that Iran is two to three years from a nuclear warhead.123 Israeli statements stress that Iran's nuclear potential would be problem to all and would require bAmerican leadership, with serious participation of the G-7 . . . .b124 A recent study highlighted Israel's extreme vulnerability to a first strike and an accompanying vulnerability even to a false alarm.125 Syria's entire defense against Israel seems to rest on chemical weapons and warheads.126 One scenario involves Syria making a quick incursion into the Golan and then threatening chemical strikes, perhaps with a new, more lethal (protective-mask-penetrable) Russian nerve gas if Israel resists.127 Their use would drive Israel to nuclear use. Israeli development of an anti- missile defense, the Arrow, a fully fielded (30-50128) Jericho II ballistic missile, and the soon-to-arrive strategic submarine force, seems to have produced a coming change in defense force structure. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, quotes the Israeli Chief of Staff discussing the establishment of a bstrategic command to . . . prepare an adequate response to the long term threats. . . b129 The 1994 accord with Jordan, allowing limited Israeli military presence in Jordanian skies, could make the flying distance to several potential adversaries considerably shorter.130 Israel is concerned about Iran's desire to obtain nuclear weapons and become a regional leader, coupled with large numbers of Shiite Moslems in southern Lebanon. The Israeli Air Force commanding general issued a statement saying Israel would bconsider an attackb if any country gets bclose to achieving a nuclear capability.b131 The Israelis are obviously considering actions capable of stopping such programs and are buying aircraft such as the F-15I with sufficient operational range. At the first delivery of these 4,000 kilometer range fighters, the Israeli comment was, bthe aircraft would help counter a growing nuclear threat.b132 They consider such regional nation nuclear programs to be a sufficient cause for war. Their record of accomplishment is clear: having hit the early Iraqi nuclear effort, they feel vindicated by Desert Storm. They also feel that only the American and Israeli nuclear weapons kept Iraq's Saddam Hussein from using chemical or biological weapons against Israel.133 Israel, like Iran, has desires of regional power. The 1956 alliance with France and Britain might have been a first attempt at regional hegemony. Current debate in the Israeli press considers offering Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and perhaps Syria (after a peace agreement) an Israeli nuclear umbrella of protection.134 A nuclear Iran or Iraq might use its nuclear weapons to protect some states in the region, threaten others, and attempt to control oil prices.135 Another speculative area concerns Israeli nuclear security and possible misuse. What is the chain of decision and control of Israel's weapons? How susceptible are they to misuse or theft? With no open, frank, public debate on nuclear issues, there has accordingly been no debate or information on existing safeguards. This has led to accusations of bmonolithic views and sinister intentions.b1360 Would a right wing military government decide to employ nuclear weapons recklessly? Ariel Sharon, an outspoken proponent of bGreater Israelb was quoted as saying, bArabs may have the oil, but we have the matches.b137 Could the Gush Emunim, a right wing religious organization, or others, hijack a nuclear device to bliberateb the Temple Mount for the building of the third temple? Chances are small but could increase as radicals decry the peace process.138 A 1997 article reviewing the Israeli Defense Force repeatedly stressed the possibilities of, and the need to guard against, a religious, right wing military coup, especially as the proportion of religious in the military increases.139 Israel is a nation with a state religion, but its top leaders are not religious Jews. The intricacies of Jewish religious politics and rabbinical law do affect their politics and decision processes. In Jewish law, there are two types of war, one obligatory and mandatory (milkhemet mitzvah) and the one authorized but optional (milkhemet reshut).140 The labeling of Prime Minister Begin's bPeace for Galileeb operation as a milchemet brera (bwar of choiceb) was one of the factors causing it to lose support.141 Interpretation of Jewish law concerning nuclear weapons does not permit their use for mutual assured destruction. However, it does allow possession and threatening their use, even if actual use is not justifiable under the law. Interpretations of the law allow tactical use on the battlefield, but only after warning the enemy and attempting to make peace. How much these intricacies affect Israeli nuclear strategy decisions is unknown.142 The secret nature of the Israeli nuclear program has hidden the increasing problems of the aging Dimona reactor and adverse worker health effects. Information is only now public as former workers sue the government. This issue is now linked to continued tritium production for the boosted anti-tank and anti-missile nuclear warheads that Israeli continues to need. Israel is attempting to obtain a new, more efficient, tritium production technology developed in India.143 One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their buseb on the United States. America does not want Israel's nuclear profile raised.144 They have been used in the past to ensure America does not desert Israel under increased Arab, or oil embargo, pressure and have forced the United States to support Israeli diplomatically against the Soviet Union. Israel used their existence to guarantee a continuing supply of American conventional weapons, a policy likely to continue.145 Regardless of the true types and numbers (see Appendix A) of Israeli nuclear weapons, they have developed a sophisticated system, by myriad methods, and are a nuclear power to be reckoned with. Their nuclear ambiguity has served their purposes well but Israel is entering a different phase of visibility even as their nuclear capability is entering a new phase. This new visibility may not be in America's interest.146 Many are predicting the Israeli nuclear arsenal will become less useful bout of the basementb and possibly spur a regional arms race. If so, Israel has a 5-10 year lead time at present before mutual assured destruction, Middle East style, will set in. Would regional mutual second strike capability, easier to acquire than superpower mutual second strike capability, result in regional stability? Some think so.147 Current Israeli President Ezer Weizman has stated bthe nuclear issue is gaining momentum [and the] next war will not be conventional.148 Appendix A Estimates of the Israeli Nuclear Arsenal o?< Notes 1. Hersh, Seymour M., The Samson Option. Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy (New York: Random House, 1991), 223. 2. Aronson, Slomo and Brosh, Oded, The Politics and Strategy of Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East, the Opacity Theory, and Reality, 1960-1991-An Israeli Perspective (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 1992), 20. 3. Karsh, Efraim, Between War and Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 82. 4. Cohen, Avner, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 16. 5. Cordesman, Anthony, Perilous Prospects: The Peace Process and the Arab-Israeli Military Balance (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1996), 118. 6. Pry, Peter, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal (Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1984), 5-6. 7. Quoted in Weissman, Steve and Krosney, Herbert. The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East. (New York, New York: Times Books, 1981), 105. 8. bFormer Official Says France Helped Build Israel's Dimona Complex.b Nucleonics Week October 16, 1986, 6. 9. Milhollin, Gary, bHeavy Water Cheaters.b Foreign Policy (1987-88): 101-102. 10. Cordesman, 1991, 127. 11. Federation of American Scientists, bIsrael's Nuclear Weapons Program.b 10 December 1997, n.p. On-line. Internet, 27 October 1998. Available from http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Israel/Isrhist.html. 12. Nashif, Taysir N., Nuclear Weapons in Israel (New Delhi: S. B. Nangia Books, 1996), 3. 13. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 48-49. 14. Bennett, Jeremy, The Suez Crisis. BBC Video. n.d. Videocassette and Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi. Every Spy a Prince. The Complete History of Israel's Intelligence Community. (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990), 63-69. 15. Weissman and Krosney, 112. 16. bRevealed: The Secrets of Israel's Nuclear Arsenalb (London) Sunday Times No. 8,461, 5 October 1986, 1, 4-5. 17. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 57-59. 18. Peres, Shimon, Battling for Peace. A Memoir (New York, New York: Random House, 1995), 122. 19. Pry, 10. 20. Loftus, John and Aarons, Mark, The Secret War Against the Jews. How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People (New York, New York: St. Martin's Griffin, 1994), 287-303. 21. Green, Stephen, Taking Sides. America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1984), 152. 22. Cohen, Avner, bMost Favored Nation.b The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 51, no. 1 (January-February 1995): 44-53. 23. Hersh, The Samson Option, 196. 24. See Cohen, Avner, bIsrael's Nuclear History: The Untold Kennedy-Eshkol Dimona Correspondence.b Journal of Israeli History, 1995 16, no. 2, 159-194 and Cohen, Avner, Comp. bRecently Declassified 1963 Correspondence between President Kennedy and Prime Ministers Ben-Gurion and Eshkol.b Journal of Israeli History, 1995 16, no. 2, 195-207. Much of the documentation has been posted to http:\\www.seas.gwu.edu/nsarchive/israel. 25. Weissman and Krosney, op. cit.,114-117 26. Cohen, op. cit., Israel and the Bomb, 82-83. 27. Spector, Leonard S., The Undeclared Bomb (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishers, 1988), 387 (n.22). 28. Quoted in Stevens, Elizabeth. bIsrael's Nuclear WeaponsbA Case Study.b 14 pages. On line. Internet, 23 October 1998. Available from http://infomanage.com/nonproliferation/najournal/israelinucs.html. 29. Green, Taking Sides, 148-179 and Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, 1990, 197-198. 30. Weissman and Krosney, 119-124. 31. Black, Ian and Morris, Benny, Israel's Secret Wars. A history of Israel's Intelligence Services (New York, New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991), 418-419. 32. Hersh, 257. 33. Green, Stephen, Living by the Sword: America and Israel in the Middle East, 1968-1987 (London: Faber, 1988), 63-80. 34. Cordesman, 1991, 120. 35. Weissman and Krosney, 124-128 and Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, 1990, 198-199. 36. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, 395(n. 57).98-199 37. Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, 1990, 58. 38. Milhollin, 100-119. 39. Stanghelle, Harold, bIsrael to sell back 10.5 tons.b Arbeiderbladet, Oslo, Norway, 28 June 1990 in: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, bNuclear Developments,b 28 June 1990, 34-35; on-line, Internet 22 November 1998, available from http:// cns.miis.edu. 40. Hersh, op. cit., 139. 41. Center for Nonproliferation Studies. bIsraeli Friends,b ISIS Report, May 1994, 4; on-line, Internet 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu. 42. Abecasis, Rachel, bUranium reportedly offered to China, Israel.b Radio Renascenca, Lisbon, 9 December 1992 quoted in Center for Nonproliferation, bProliferation Issues,b 23 December, 1992, 25; on-line, Internet 22 November 1998, available from http:// cns.miis.edu. 43. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, op. cit., 231-232 and 256-257. 44. Nordeen, Lon O., Nicolle, David, Phoenix over the Nile (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1996), 192-193. 45. O'Balance, Edgar, The Third Arab-Israeli War (London: Faber and Faber, 1972), 54. 46. Brecher, Michael, Decision in Crisis. Israel, 1967 and 1973 (Berkley, California: University of California Press, 1980), 104, 230-231. 47. Cohen, Avner. bCairo, Dimona, and the June 1967 War.b Middle East Journal 50, no. 2 (Spring 1996), 190-210. 48. Creveld, Martin van. The Sword and the Olive. A Critical History of the Israeli Defense Force (New York, New York: Public Affairs, 1998), 174. 49. Burrows, William E. and Windrem, Robert, Critical Mass. The Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting World (New York, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 282-283. 50. Aronson, Shlomo, Israel's Nuclear Options, ACIS Working Paper No. 7. Los Angeles, California: University of California Center for Arms Control and International Security, 1977, 3, and Sorenson, David S., bMiddle East Regional Studies-AY99,b Air War College: Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, 542. 51. Hersh, op. cit., 126-128. 52. Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, op. cit., 210-213. 53. Spector, Leonard S., bForeign-Supplied Combat Aircraft: Will They Drop the Third World Bomb?b Journal of International Affairs 40, no. 1(1986): 145 (n. 5) and Green, Living by the Sword, op. cit., 18-19. 54. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 280. 55. Cohen, op. cit., Israel and the Bomb, 237. 56. Ibid., 273-274. 57. Milhollin, op. cit., 103-104. 58. Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, Friend in Deed: Inside the U.S.- Israel Alliance (New York New York: Hyperion, 1994), 299. 59. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 464-465 and Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, op. cit., 1990, 304-305. 60. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, op. cit., 179. 61. Dowty, Alan. bIsrael and Nuclear Weapons.b Midstream 22, no. 7 (November 1976), 8-9. 62. Hersh, op. cit., 217, 222-226, and Weissman and Krosney, op. cit., 107. 63. Green, op. cit., Living by the Sword, 90-99. 64. Loftus and Aarons, op. cit., 316-317. 65 Smith, Gerard C. and Cobban, Helena. bA Blind Eye To Nuclear Proliferation.b Foreign Affairs 68, no. 3(1989), 53-70. 66. Hersh, op. cit., 230-231. 67. O'Balance, Edgar, No Victor, No Vanquished. The Yom Kippur War (San Rafael, California: Presido Press, 1978), 175. 68. Ibid., 234-235 and Aronson, S, op. cit., 15-18. 69. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, op. cit., 396 (n. 62); Garthoff, Raymond L., DC)tente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 1994), 426, n76 and Bandmann, Yona and Cordova, Yishai. bThe Soviet Nuclear Threat Towards the Close of the Yom Kippur War.b Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 1980 5, no. 1, 107-9. 70. Cherkashin, Nikolai, bOn Moscow's Orders.b Russian Life, 39, no. 10 (October 1996), 13-15. 71. Brownlow, Cecil. bSoviets poise three-front global drive. Nuclear weapons in Egypt, artillery buildup at Guantanamo, Communist concentrations in Vietnam aimed at political gains.b Aviation Week and Space Technology 99, no. 19 (5 November 1973), 12-14; Holt, Robert. bSoviet Power Play.b Aviation Week and Space Technology 99, no. 19 (5 November 1973), 7 and Gur-Arieh, Danny, bA non- Conventional Look at Israel During '73 War.b IsraelWire Tuesday, October 6, 1998 17, 23; on-line, Internet 20 November 1998, available from http://www.israelwire.com/new/981006/9810068.html. 72. Hersh, op. cit., 321-235. 73. Creveld, 1998, op. cit., 220-221. 74. Evron, Yair, Israel's Nuclear Dilemma (Ithaca, New York: Cornell Publishing, 1994), 62-74. 75. Cohen, Avner, bPeres: Peacemaker, Nuclear Pioneer.b The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 52, no. 3 (May/June 1996), 16-17 and Aronson, S, op. cit., 11-12. 76. Karsh, op. cit., 86. 77. Quoted in Hersh, op. cit., 180 and Stevens, op. cit., 1-14. 78. Hersh, op. cit., 216, 276 and Kaku, Michio. bContingency Plans: Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War.b In Altered States: A Reader in the New World Order, Bennis, Phyllis and Moushabeck, Michel, Eds. (New York, New York: 1993), 66. 79. Weissman and Krosney, op. cit., 109. 80. Gillette, Robert, bUranium Enrichment: Rumors of Israeli Progress with Lasers.b Science 183, no. 4130 (22 March 1974), 1172-1174. 81. Barnaby, Frank, The Invisible Bomb: The Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East (London: I. B. Tauris, 1988), 25. 82. bIsrael: The Covert Connection.b Frontline, PBS Network, May 16, 1989, quoted in Spector, Leonard S., and McDonough, Mark G., with Medeiros, Evan S., Tracking Nuclear Proliferation. A Guide in Maps and Charts, 1995 (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1995). 83. Nashif, Taysir N., Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East: Dimensions and Responsibilities (Princeton, New Jersey: Kingston Press, 1984), 22-23. 84. Hersh, op. cit., 216. 85. Barnaby, Frank, bCapping Israel's Nuclear Volcano,b Between War and Peace. Dilemmas of Israeli Security, edited by Efraim Karsh (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 98. 86. Hersh, op. cit., 271-275. 87. Nashif, op. cit., 32. 88. Gaffney, Mark, Dimona: The Third Temple? The Story Behind the Vanunu Revelation (Brattleboro, Vermont: Amana Books, 1989), 100-101. 89. Pedatzur, Re'uven, bSouth African Statement On Nuclear Test Said to Serve Israel,b Ha'aretz, 29 July 1997. On line: Internet, 22 November 1998 and Kelley, Robert. bThe Iraqi and South African Nuclear WbC4Nuclear Abstracts," 1 March 1996, or on-line, Internet, 22 November 1998, both available from http://cns.miis.edu. 90. bWas there a Nuclear Test near Eilat?b IsraelWire, 16 June 1998, or on line Internet, 22 November, 1998, available from http:// www.israelwire.com and bDeputy Defense Minister Denies Israeli Nuclear Testing.b Israeli Wire, June 18, 1998, or on-line. Internet, 13 October 1998, available from http://www.israelwire.com/ New/980618/9806184.html. 91. McKinnon, Dan. Bullseye One Reactor. The Story of Israel's Bold Surprise Air Attack That Destroyed Iraqi's Nuclear Bomb Facility (Shrewsbury, England: Airlife Publishing Ltd., 1987). 92. bRussian Foreign Intelligence Service, Report on the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Moscow, 1993.b Journal of Palestine Studies XXII, no. 4 (Summer 1993): 135-140; Creveld, Martin van, Nuclear Proliferation and the Future Of Conflict (New York: The Free Press, 1993), 105; and Clark, Philip. bC4Third successful Israeli satellite launch.b Jane's Intelligence Review 7, no. 6 (June 1995), 25-26. 93. Sunday Times, London, op. cit., 1,4-5. 94. Toscano, Louis, Triple Cross: Israel, the Atomic Bomb and the Man Who Spilled the Secrets (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990). 95. Green, Living by the Sword, op. cit., 134. 96. Spector, The Undeclared Bomb, op. cit., 165-166. 97. Hersh, op. cit., 291. 98. Levran, Aharon, Israeli Strategy after Desert Storm: Lessons from the Second Gulf War (London: Frank Cass, 1997), 1-10. 99. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 278. 100. Cohen, Avner and Miller, Marvin, Nuclear Shadows in the Middle East: Prospects for Arms Control in the Wake of the Gulf Crisis (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1990), 10. 101. Aronson and Brosh, op. cit., 276. 102. Raviv and Melman, op. cit., 399. 103. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 297n and Creveld, 1998, op. cit., 321-322. 104. Levran, op. cit., 8-10. 105. Ahmar, Moonis, bPakistan and Israel: Distant Adversaries or Neighbors?b Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, 1996, 20, no.1, 43-44. 106. bNuclear proliferation didn't start in 1998 . . .and not in Pakistan nor with Islam,b Middle East Realities, or on-line, Internet, 21 September 1998, available from http://www.middleeast.org/ 1998_06_28.htm. 107. Garrity, Patrick J. bThe Next Nuclear Questions.b Parameters, XXV, no. 4 (Winter 1995-96), 92-111. 108. Cohen, Eliezer. Israel's best defense: the First Full Story of the Israeli Air Force, (New York, New York: Random House, 1993), 495. 109. Cohen and Miller, op. cit., 18. 110. bBefore Meeting with King, Peres Claims Israel's Nuclear Arsenal was built for Peace,b Jordan Times, July 14, 1998. Quoted in Sorenson, op. cit., 542. 111. Beres, Louis Rene, bIsrael's Bomb in the Basement: A revisiting of `Deliberate Ambiguity' vs. `Disclosure', Between War and Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security, edited by Efraim Harsh (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 113-133. 112. Hersh, op. cit., 319. 113. Amos, Deborah, Lines in the Sand: Desert Storm and the Remaking of the Arab World (New York, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), 105. 114. Dowler, Thomas W. and Howard II, Joseph H., bCountering the threat of the well-armed tyrant: A modest proposal for small nuclear weapons,b Strategic Review, XIX, no. 4 (Fall 1991), 34-40. 115. Beres, Louis Rene, bIsrael's bomb in the basement: A revisiting of `Deliberate Ambiguity' vs. `Disclosure.' b In Karsh, Efraim, op. cit., Editor, Between War and Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 116. 116. Cordesman, op. cit., 1996, 265. 117. Hough, Harold, bIsrael reviews its nuclear deterrent,b Jane's Intelligence Review 10, no.11 (November 1998), 11-13. 118. Creveld, op. cit., 1993, 105. 119. Burrows, and Windrem, op. cit., 311-312 and bIsrael begins test of nuclear missile submarines,b The Irish Times, July 2, 1998, or on-line, Internet, 24 December 1998, available from http:// www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1998/0702/wor13.html. 120. Melman, Yossi, bSwimming with the Dolphins,b Ha'aretz, Tuesday, June 9, 1998, and bReport: Israel to get Subs with Nuclear Strike Capability,b Jerusalem Post, I July 3, 1998, 3 and Sorenson, op. cit., 543. 121. Raviv, Dan and Melman, Yossi, op. cit., 1990, 344-345, 422-423. 122. Shahak, Israel, Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies (London: Pluto Press, 1997), 72-73. 123. Davis, Douglas, bDefense Officials Said Urging Nuclear Second- Strike Capability,b Jerusalem Post, 6 August 1998, 3; or on-line, Internet, 22 November 1998, available from http://cns.miis.edu. 124. Inbar, Efraim, bIsrael's security in a new international environment,b in Karsh, Efraim, Editor, Between War and Peace: Dilemmas of Israeli Security (London, England: Frank Cass, 1996), 41. 125. Hough, Harold, bCould Israel's Nuclear Assets Survive a First Strike?b Jane's Intelligence Review, September 1997, 407-410. 126. Terrill, W. Andrew, bThe Chemical Warfare Legacy of the Yemen War.b Comparative Strategy, 10 (1991), 109-119. 127. Boyne, Sean, bAcross the Great Divide. Will Assad go for the Golan?b Jane's Intelligence Review, 10, no. 4 (April 1998), 21-24 and Cordesman, 1996, op. cit., 254. 128. Cordesman, op. cit., 1996, 243. 129, Harel, Amos and Barzilai, Amnon, bMordechai says Arrow alone cannot protect against missiles,b Ha'aretz, 13 January 1999, or on- line, Internet, 13 January 1999, available from http:// www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/htmls/3_9.htm 130. Shahak, op. cit., 78-79. 131. Chubin, Shahram, bDoes Iran Want Nuclear Weapons?b Survival 37, no. 1 (Spring 1995), 91-93. 132. O'Sullivan, Arich, bNew F-15I Warplanes Expand Israel's Reach,b The Jerusalem Post, 19 January 1997, or on-line, Internet 22 November 1998, available from http://www.jpost.co.il. 133. Karsh, op. cit., 9. 134. Shahak, op. cit., 4-5. 135. Garrity, op. cit., 92-111. 136. Dowty, op. cit., 8. 137. Gaffney, op. cit., 165. 138. Ibid., 37-38 and Friedman, Robert I. Zealots for Zion: Inside Israel's West Bank Settlement Movement (New York, New York: Random House, 1992), 132-52. 139. Blanche, Ed, bIs the Myth Fading for the Israeli Army? b Part 1.b Jane's Intelligence Review, 8, no. 12 (December 1996), 547-550 and Blanche, Ed. bIs the myth fading for the Israeli Army? b Part 2,b Jane's Intelligence Review 9, no. 1 (January 1997), 25-28. 140. Cohen, Stuart A., The Scroll or the Sword? Dilemmas of Religion and Military Service in Israel (Amsterdam, Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997), 11-24. 141. Creveld, op. cit., 1998, 298. 142. Broyde, Michael J., bFighting the War and the Peace: Battlefield Ethics, Peace Talks, Treaties, and Pacifism in the Jewish Tradition,b or on-line, Internet, 20 November 1998, available from http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/war3.html. 143. Hough, Harold, op. cit., 1998, 11-12 and Berger, Julian, bCourt Fury At Israeli Reactor.b Guardian, 13 October 1997, in Center for Nonproliferation, bNuclear Abstracts,b 13 October 1997, or on-line, Internet, 22 November 1998, available from http:// cns.miis.edu. 144. Creveld, op. cit., 1998, 252. 145. Valry, Nicholas, bIsrael's Silent Gamble with the Bomb,b New Scientist (12 December 1974), 807-09. 146. Harden, Major James D., Israeli Nuclear Weapons and War in the Middle East, Master's Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, December 1997. 147. Dowdy, op. cit., 20. 148. Aronson, Geoffrey, bHidden Agenda: US-Israeli Relations and the Nuclear Question,b Middle East Journal, 46, no. 4 (Autumn 1992), 619-630. 149. Data from Time, 12 April 1976, quoted in Weissman and Krosney, op. cit., 107. 150. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 280 and Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, op. cit., 273-274. 151. Tahtinen, Dale R., The Arab-Israel Military Balance Today (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1973), 34. 152. bHow Israel Got the Bomb.b Time, 12 April 1976, 39. 153. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 302. 154. Kaku, op. cit., 66 and Hersh, op. cit., 216. 155. ValC)ry, op. cit., 807-09. 156. Data from CIA, quoted in Weissman and Krosney, op. cit., 109. 157. Ottenberg, Michael, bEstimating Israel's Nuclear Capabilities,b Command, 30 (October 1994), 6-8. 158. Pry, op. cit., 75. 159. Ibid., 111. 160. Data from NBC Nightly News, quoted in Milhollin, op. cit., 104 and Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 308. 161. Data from Vanunu quoted in Milhollin, op. cit., 104. 162. Harkavy, Robert E. bAfter the Gulf War: The Future of the Israeli Nuclear Strategy,b The Washington Quarterly (Summer 1991), 164. 163. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 308. 164. Albright, David, Berkhout, Frans and Walker, William, Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996. World Inventories, Capabilities, and Policies (New York: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute And Oxford University Press, 1997), 262-263. 165. Hough, Harold, bIsrael's Nuclear Infrastructure,b Jane's Intelligence Review 6, no. 11 (November 1994), 508. 166. Ibid., 262-263. 167. Spector, and McDonough, with Medeiros, op. cit., 135. 168. Burrows and Windrem, op. cit., 283-284. 169. Cordesman, op. cit., 1996, 234. 170. Ibid., 234. 171. Ibid., 230, 243. 172. Brower, Kenneth S., bA Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East,b Jane's Intelligence Review, Special Report no. 14, (February 1997), 14-15. 173. Albright, Berkhout, and Walker, op. cit., 262-263. USAF Counterproliferation Center The USAF Counterproliferation Center was established in 1998 to provide education and research to the present and future leaders of the USAF, and thereby help them better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Barry R. Schneider, Director USAF Counterproliferation Center 325 Chennault Circle Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427k (334) 953-7538 (DSN (493-7538) Email: Barry.Schneider@maxwell,af.mil ***************************************************************** 157 World Politics Review: U.S.-Russia Accord Could Facilitate Nonproliferation, Civil Nuclear Cooperation Richard Weitz | Bio | 12 May 2008 World Politics Review Exclusive On May 6, during Russian President Vladmir Putin's last day in office, the American and Russian governments finally signed their long-sought civil nuclear energy agreement. The accord facilitates the transfer of technologies, materials, equipment and other components used to conduct nuclear research and produce nuclear power. Putin and Bush originally announced their intent to negotiate a U.S.-Russia Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation (known as a "123 Agreement") at their joint news conference held on the sidelines of the July 2006 G-8 summit in St. Petersburg. Section 123 of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act requires the United States to negotiate a separate bilateral accord with each country before civilian nuclear cooperation can occur. The terms normally require Washington's approval before a recipient conducts uranium enrichment or reprocessing using U.S.-provided nuclear material and equipment furnished under the agreement or transfers these items to a third party. At present, the United States has 22 bilateral peaceful nuclear cooperation agreements, including one with the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) permitting cooperation with all 27 EU members. They allow the signatories to import U.S.-controlled spent nuclear fuel or collaborate with the United States in many other areas concerning the peaceful use of atomic energy (e.g., developing advanced nuclear technologies). These bilateral framework agreements also establish the essential legal basis for American and foreign companies to negotiate specific nuclear deals directly among themselves, including joint ventures, without requiring further government consent. Russian policymakers have eagerly sought the 123 agreement, which would facilitate their efforts to expand Russia's role as a provider of international nuclear fuel services. For example, under the accord, Tekhsnabeksport (Tenex), the Russian company that exports nuclear fuel, would be able to enrich uranium -- whether produced within Russia or purchased from other countries -- and ship the resulting fuel to U.S. nuclear power plants directly. At present, only the USEC Corporation, an American intermediary, can legally import Russian uranium into the United States under the 1993 Russian-U.S. HEU-LEU agreement (also known as the Megatons to Megawatts agreement). The Director of the State Corporation for Atomic Energy (Rosatom), Sergei Kiriyenko, noted that, for the first time, the agreement "opens opportunities for our cooperation in third countries." Rosatom managers are especially interested in encouraging the storage and possible reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel that originated in the United States and was then used in third countries for the generation of electricity. Industry experts estimate that more than 80 percent of the world's nuclear fuel originated in the United States. Although Taiwan, South Korea, and other countries have expressed interest in using such services, they have been unable to send their U.S.-origin nuclear fuel to Russia since Moscow and Washington had not yet negotiated the required 123 agreement that would establish the legal basis for such transfers. American officials also cited commercial opportunities when signing the deal. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said the 123 agreement would "benefit U.S. industry by allowing U.S. and Russian companies to partner in nuclear joint ventures, and by permitting commercial sales of nuclear materials, reactors, and major reactor components by U.S. industry to Russia." In addition, the accord would allow the administration to showcase an area of achievement in Russian-American relations. At the ceremony, the U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns, said the document symbolized the two countries' transformation from "nuclear rivals" to "nuclear partners." The 123 accord also could facilitate Russian-American efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. For example, the two countries could collaborate on developing more proliferation-resistant nuclear reactors or nuclear fuel cycles, including through some American participation at the International Center for Uranium Enrichment in Angarsk, Siberia, established by the governments of Russia and Kazakhstan in May 2007. Ambassador Burns explained that, "What this agreement allows us to do is to implement some very creative ideas that both Russia and the United States have put forward to deal with the growing challenge of proliferation of nuclear weapons." Some members of Congress have expressed opposition to the deal, citing Russia's continuing nuclear cooperation with Iran as well as other objectionable Russian government policies. Congress could block the agreement if it adopts a resolution of disapproval within 90 legislative days after the executive branch formally submits it for congressional consideration. The Russian Duma must also ratify the accord, but this is not expected to be difficult. Yet, the accord could improve Russian-American cooperation regarding Iran. Although originally opposing Russian-Iranian nuclear collaboration, President Bush and other American officials now support Moscow's position that Tehran no longer needs to develop sensitive nuclear fuel cycle technologies since Russia has committed to deliver fresh uranium fuel to -- and repatriate spent fuel from -- Iran's Russian-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr. The persistent refusal of the Iranian government to accept Moscow's offer has led even Russian policymakers to express suspicion that their Iranian interlocutors are stringing them along while they advance their nuclear research. If Russian companies had new markets in the United States and elsewhere, Russia's new president, Dmitry Medvedev, would find it easier to abandon nuclear cooperation with Iran -- especially if Tehran continues to reject Moscow's fuel-leasing arrangement. Yet, Congress could use the 123 agreement to promote other nonproliferation goals. The Russian government could earn an estimated $10-20 billion from supplying additional nuclear fuel-cycle services. Congress should support the new accord if Moscow agrees to allocate a portion of this projected revenue to support nonproliferation projects in Russia and elsewhere. Richard Weitz is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a World Politics Review contributing editor. Photo: U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns and Rosatom Director General Sergey Kiriyenko shake hands after signing the 123 Agreement in Moscow, May 6, 2008 (U.S. embassy) © 2008, World Politics Review LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use : Privacy Policy : About World Politics Review ***************************************************************** 158 Harvard Political Review - A Brave New World? President Mikhail Gorbachev on the nuclear age and Russia’s future BY NICHOLAS TATSIS As the last leader of the Soviet Union, President Mikhail Gorbachev presided over a peaceful end to the Cold War and liberated the former Eastern Bloc from totalitarianism’s iron grip. In a roundtable discussion with a group of journalists held on December 4, 2007 at the Charles Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Gorbachev, who won the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize, discussed nuclear proliferation, the results of the Russian elections, and other domestic and foreign policy issues Russia faces in the future. Questions asked by the HPR, which was present at the event, are denoted as such. Question: What was your assessment of the recent Russian Parliamentary Elections? Answer: Well, the results were as expected. We watched the campaign and it was absolutely clear. So far as I know, there were some irregularities. But, overall, it’s very important that many voters turned out to vote. And I believe they responded to Putin; the results could have been different, without this decision, to Russia. We shall now see what they [the United Russia Party] will be doing, now that they have power. The country is facing the need to modernize and the problems of modernization should affect all spheres of life. The expectations of the people are very high. So the people will be watching whether those in power will remember their demands, and their promises. So, people will be watching and the media will be helping to monitor United Russia, a party that now holds a two-thirds majority in parliament. That means that they will be assuming greater responsibility. So this is a new phase for them, a new life for them. Q: Is Russia actually developing? Because it seems most of its economic growth has come from natural resources. A: Well, real development of course should be the result of modernization. For the time being, Russia’s growth has been mostly as a result of the resource sector, you’re right, oil and gas. But, there is also the chemical sector, and we are selling chemical products throughout the world. There is steel. We are selling our steel products throughout the world. Russia is making pipes that it sells in different countries. It is developing a car-making industry, an auto industry. The Japanese have bought a whole bunch of factories near St. Petersburg, and Toyota is starting new production soon there. What we need is a total modernization of our manufacturing sector. And Russia’s approach is that old technology should be phased out. We need to have new technology, new production services. And what is particularly significant is to build up medium-size business. And this requires some support. And just about everyone, starting with the President, has committed themselves to the support of small and medium-sized business. Harvard Political Review: President Bush has said the missile defense system America plans to build in Central and Eastern Europe will guard against Iran. Do you think this shield is necessary? A: I don’t think so, particularly given what I am told the current publications and newspapers say: That in 2003-2005, the CIA had information that the Iran was not working on nuclear weapons. So it appears very similar to the war in Iraq. They started the war because they accused Iraq of developing nuclear weapons and chemical weapons. They bombed the country. They found Saddam Hussein, of course, but they didn’t find anything else. They thought they would get a more stable Middle East, but that is not the case. The situation is more complicated and more difficult than it was before. Also, Iran, I think, has been the victim of a double-standard approach. The non-proliferation treaty does not require the things that are now demanded of Iran—these are additional demands. But my impression is that there seems to be some emerging hope that this problem will be handled on the basis of reliable information, and will also take into account these new circumstances that have come to light. But there certainly is no difference between the views of the United States, Russia, and the European Union, as to the unacceptability of letting Iran develop nuclear weapons. On this score, there is one view. This makes it possible to develop cooperation on this issue. Q: Where do you see the primary threat of nuclear terrorism coming from? A: I think that when we talk about the threat of nuclear terrorism today, we should talk about it in preventive terms. We should prevent that threat from emerging. And it could become more real, if we have the proliferation of nuclear weapons. You have to bear in mind that an act of nuclear terrorism could have extremely grave consequences. Q: Given the long history between the United States and Russia, and given the fact that we are going through elections right now, do you have any advice for the next United States President about continuing good relations with Russia, and the world at large? A: Well, Russia and the United States do not have a very long history, just 200 years of diplomatic relations. There will be no problem on the part of Russia. But there is just one thing that Russia will not accept. It will not accept the position of a kid brother, the position of a person who does what someone tells it to do. This should be totally out of the question. And whenever I talk to Americans, whenever I give speeches to Americans, Americans agree with me, that is to say we need equal cooperation. We need equitable cooperation. I can tell you that I believe that there is an agenda for relations between our countries. We could shape a very positive relationship. We see that there has been very harsh rhetoric between our two countries—between our two states I would say, not necessarily between our two nations. I think we see that Americans respect Russians, just as Russians respect Americans. But while this kind of rhetoric, this kind of polemic rhetoric has been under way, many American companies have been entering Russia and doing very successful business in Russia: Ford, General Electric, John Deere, Boeing, etc. Those big corporations are working very successfully. They have 100 percent annual growth in their annual Russia operations. Boeing has a technology center, employing hundreds of Russian engineers. Russia Boeing is cooperating with the Russian Aircraft Sukhoi Corporation. So, while there is all this rhetoric, Americans are working in Russia. And there is a lot of work in Russia to be done. We need cooperation. Russia will now emphasize new technology, which requires business cooperation. So, it would be silly to ignore this kind of market, to lose this kind of market. Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 08:44PM by HPR | Post a Copyright Harvard Political Review, 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 159 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Kazakhstan's nuclear ambitions By Togzhan Kassenova | 28 April 2008 When the Soviet Union collapsed, the international community anxiously watched to see what newly independent Kazakhstan would do with the thousands of nuclear weapons left on its territory. If Kazakhstan had decided to prevent their withdrawal, it would have become the fourth largest nuclear power in the world. Thankfully, the country decided to disarm--a choice it reached due to a combination of international pressure, a desire to integrate into the international community, and assured Western assistance with dismantling its nuclear weapons and facilities. Ultimately, the Soviet weapons were either destroyed or moved to Russia; the Semipalatinsk nuclear testing site in western Kazakhstan was closed; and all intercontinental ballistic missile silos were destroyed. At the time, the country had other things to worry about--namely establishing a government and reviving its economy. Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy were not its top priority. But that was 15 years ago, and times have changed. Today, the world is re-examining nuclear power as a carbon-free energy source, and Kazakhstan, which possesses the world's second largest uranium reserves, harbors a bevy of nuclear ambitions. Ambition #1: To become the world's largest uranium producer by 2010 Currently, Kazakhstan is the world's third largest uranium exporter--after Australia and Canada. At 1.5 million metric tons, it holds roughly 19 percent of the world's uranium reserves. More than 50 percent of Kazakh reserves are suitable for extraction by in-situ leaching, a cheap and environmentally friendly method compared to extracting uranium from open pits or deep shaft mines. In 2007, the country produced 6,637 metric tons and is projected to produce 9,445 metric tons this year. The country is gearing up to produce 18,700 metric tons of uranium annually by 2015 and 27,000 metric tons by 2025. (See "Uranium Production in Kazakhstan in 2007.") Although Goldman Sachs JBWere projects that the country will become the world's second largest uranium producer by 2011, Kazatomprom, Kazakhstan's state-run energy company that oversees all uranium production, plans to become the world's largest a year earlier. Kazatomprom bases this forecast on the increased production capability that 16 new mines in southern Kazakhstan will provide.1 With world uranium consumption projected to be 117,193 metric tons by 2030, Kazakhstan is expecting quite a financial windfall (in Russian). Ambition #2: To become a significant supplier of nuclear fuel Kazakhstan plans to maintain its integrated full fuel cycle with Russia, but also does not want to depend exclusively on its northern neighbor for nuclear fuel production. As of now, all initial stages of uranium mining and milling into yellowcake are carried out in Kazakhstan; the yellowcake is then transported to Russia for gasification and enrichment. The next stage of producing fuel pellets is carried out in Kazakhstan, while the final production of fuel rods takes place in Russia. Joint projects between the two countries include construction of a gas centrifuge enrichment plant (with the first phase to be completed by 2011) next to existing Russian facilities in Angarsk, Siberia. The new enrichment facility, which Kazatomprom has a 50 percent stake in, will produce 5 million separative work units (SWU) annually by 2013 or about 757,863 kilograms of low-enriched uranium.2 It will be a technological "black box" for Kazatomprom's specialists, meaning they won't have access to enrichment technology per se but will be able to enrich uranium, adding to the value of the country's exports.3 Kazatomprom President Moukhtar Dzhakishev has said his company would continue to contract the sensitive stage of enrichment to Russia to alleviate proliferation concerns. Kazakhstan will have priority for buying SWU from the Angarsk plant, while Russia will have priority access to 6,000 metric tons of raw Kazakh uranium--enough to cover Russia's current nuclear power plants plus two new planned reactors. The International Uranium Enrichment Center (IUEC), also at Angarsk, is another important Russian-Kazakh collaboration that will provide countries without fuel-cycle capacity access to nuclear fuel. It began operating in September 2007 and currently pairs Russia's Techsnabexport, the export arm of Moscow's nuclear complex, with Kazatomprom--although Techsnabexport possesses a much larger stake (90 percent total) in IUEC. The distribution of ownership will change as new IUEC members acquire some of Russia's share. A memorandum of understanding has been signed with Ukraine; Armenia is in the process of joining; and Mongolia and South Korea have expressed strong interest, according to a statement by Rosatom, Russia's atomic energy agency. Fuel production is planned to start by late 2008. But Kazakhstan isn't relying solely on its partnership with Russia. It is actively pursuing deals with other countries. Cameco, a Canadian company, is studying the feasibility of building a uranium oxide to uranium hexafluoride conversion facility at Ust-Kamenogorsk in northeastern Kazakhstan, which, if completed, will allow one more stage of fuel fabrication (conversion into gas) to occur inside Kazakhstan. Japan's entrance into the Kazakh uranium market was solidified in October 2007 when Kazatomprom acquired 10 percent of Westinghouse Electric Corporation from Toshiba for $540 million. As a result, Westinghouse gained access to Kazakh uranium and potentially more fuel fabrication capacity; in return, Kazatomprom gained access to the world nuclear fuel market. Toshiba-Westinghouse Electric will become Kazatomprom's technical partner in the production of fuel assemblies. Construction of a fuel assembly production facility at Ust-Kamenogorsk will be completed in 2011 or 2012 and will allow Kazakhstan to produce the final product (fuel assemblies). (See April 2007 Kazatomprom press release.) It is expected to increase Kazakhstan's 1 percent share of Japan's uranium market to 30 or 40 percent by 2010, making it one of Japan's largest suppliers. According to Kazatomprom's Dzhakishev, annual uranium sales to Japan will rise to 4,000 metric tons by 2010. In April 2007, 150 Japanese government and private sector representatives visited Astana, the Kazakh capital, and signed 24 bilateral trade deals, including the purchase of a stake in a Kazatomprom uranium mine by Marubeni Corporation. In addition, Toshiba pledged to help Kazakhstan build nuclear power plants, and the Japanese delegation agreed to provide Kazakhstan with technological assistance for processing uranium fuel and building reactors.4 Kazakhstan's cooperation with China also grew last year. In May 2007, Kazatomprom and China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group (CGNPG) concluded a deal to produce nuclear fuel for China's developing nuclear power sector. Four months later, Kazatomprom, CGNPG, and the China National Nuclear Corporation agreed to establish a joint mining venture to exploit Kazakh uranium deposits. All natural uranium mined by the venture will be delivered to China in the form of nuclear fuel. According to Dzhakishev, Kazatomprom will start supplying fuel pellets and yellowcake to Beijing in two years and start selling nuclear fuel by 2013, bypassing China's traditional fuel suppliers such as Areva, a French company. Kazatomprom and China are discussing plans to work together on fuel assembly production in the future.5 But despite these attempts to expand its nuclear partners, Kazakhstan will remain dependent on Russian enrichment facilities for the foreseeable future, even after two more stages of the fuel cycle--processing uranium oxide into uranium hexafluoride and production of fuel assemblies--become possible domestically. Ambition #3: To produce domestic nuclear power More than 450 nuclear weapon tests at Semipalatinsk during the Soviet era scarred both the country's environment and its population's health, fostering a strong domestic antinuclear sentiment. For a long time, the public's antipathy toward all things nuclear prevented Kazakhstan from developing indigenous nuclear power. The country's only fast breeder reactor operated at Aktau from 1972 to 1999, and plans to build a new nuclear power plant were always met with vehement opposition from the population and various political groups. But in recent years, the government has made firm plans to build nuclear power plants in response to increased electricity demand, which is projected to grow to 19,350 megawatts by 2015. Plans exist to start building a new plant at Aktau in 2011. The plant will host two, first-of-their-kind VBER-300 reactor units, based on Russian Navy vessel reactors that will be built in partnership with Russia (See "Nuclear Power Plans for Kazakhstan Firm Up.") Total projected capacity of the plant is 600 megawatts. Aktau was chosen as the site because it already had the infrastructure associated with the earlier reactor and because the region currently relies on neighboring Uzbekistan for electricity. This is the first of many plants. The country's National Nuclear Center, which conducts research on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, has proposed building 20 low-capacity nuclear plants (50-100 megawatts each) to provide energy to small Kazakh towns.6 Currently, about 70 percent of Kazakhstan's electricity is produced from coal, 14 percent by hydroelectric, 10 percent from gas, and 5 percent from oil. Nuclear energy is expected to free up natural gas resources for export.7 Ambition #4: To sell nuclear reactors Kazatomprom's goal is to collaborate with Russia to export nuclear reactors to third-party countries. It has already established Atomnye Stantsii, a joint venture with Russia that will design, build, and sell small- and medium-sized reactors. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei has noted that most major vendors have failed to offer such reactors, which are believed to be more appropriate for countries new to nuclear energy. ElBaradei has mentioned Jordan, Thailand, and Ghana as interested in reactors at 100-400 megawatt capacities.8 Kazakhstan also believes that other Central Asian countries will also be interested in buying such new reactor technologies.9 Benefits of Kazakhstan's nuclear energy push First and foremost, Kazakhstan responsibly defends nonproliferation and export controls. It is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. And in addition to its general IAEA membership, Kazakhstan has signed the IAEA Safeguards Protocol and signed and ratified the IAEA's Additional Protocol. Adherence to the Additional Protocol subjects all of Kazakhstan's nuclear facilities to stringent IAEA oversight, including comprehensive declarations, reporting, and site-access obligations. Together with Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan established a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia in September 2006, which prohibits it from possessing or attempting to possess nuclear weapons and from assisting or encouraging other nations to acquire them. Its enthusiasm for the nuclear-weapon-free zone makes it extremely unlikely Kazakhstan will use its nuclear know-how to pursue nuclear weapons or to help another country develop them. Other reasons to support the country's nuclear plans: * As revenue generated by the uranium industry increases, money can be invested back into further improving the physical protection of domestic plants, internal control measures, the safeguarding of radioactive material, and the training of nuclear industry workers in the ethics of nonproliferation. Since the Soviet collapse, significant improvements have been achieved in all aspects of nuclear safety and security at Kazakh nuclear sites and facilities, mostly with the help of U.S.-funded nonproliferation assistance programs. Due to cooperation with the IAEA, the most sensitive facility--the Ulba Metallurgical Plant at Ust-Kamenogorsk--has the highest level of safeguards in Central Asia, which brings it close to Western standards. Although according to analysts, more resources should be channeled into nuclear security culture and nonproliferation education. * By participating in the Nuclear Threat Initiative's (NTI) proposed international fuel bank, the IUEC, and the U.S.-sponsored Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), Kazakhstan can contribute to limiting proliferation of full fuel-cycle technologies. Laura Holgate, NTI's vice president for Russia/newly independent states programs, has suggested that Kazakhstan could become a site for such a bank because of its nuclear infrastructure, strong nonproliferation record, and large Muslim population, making Kazakhstan perhaps a more appealing host from the perspective of non-Western countries.10 Russia's IUEC is complimentary to GNEP, which seeks to expand the use of nuclear energy while decreasing the risk of proliferation and addressing the challenge of nuclear waste disposal. Concerns about Kazakhstan's nuclear energy push Bearing in mind the positive impact of Kazakhstan's assertive nuclear plans, caution must also be voiced. Some challenges and risks associated with the country's quick move into the nuclear energy field: * Kazakhstan is unprepared for the environmental impact an increase in uranium mining would cause, and the country lacks adequate regulations governing the rehabilitation of land used by mining enterprises.11 Already, significant amounts of nuclear waste exist in Kazakhstan from the Soviet era. A few years ago, Kazatomprom developed a scheme where revenue generated from importing foreign radioactive waste would be used to fund the disposal of Kazakh waste. The country's environmental groups and the public severely opposed the proposal, and it never went ahead. (After joining the Central Asian nuclear-weapon-free zone, Kazakhstan committed itself to not importing foreign radioactive waste.) Still, Kazatomprom regularly pays fines for failing to follow laws regarding the storage of existing waste due to a lack of disposal sites.12 * Kazakhstan is situated in an unstable region, bordering weak Central Asian republics such as Uzbekistan and near war-torn Afghanistan. Some experts have argued that existing drug-trafficking routes from Afghanistan through Central Asia could also be used to smuggle radioactive materials--although there isn't any evidence this has ever occurred. That said, there is a record of incidents in Central Asia of illegal shipments of radioactive scrap metal; however, it's unclear whether they were a result of negligence or attempted smuggling. Even though the proliferation risks connected with mining raw uranium are small, radioactive waste would be appealing to terrorists who could use such material to construct an unsophisticated radiological device, or "dirty bomb," to cause significant public panic. * Corruption is a serious problem in Kazakhstan. And despite the fact that there's no evidence that the Kazakh nuclear industry is corrupt, the threat that crooked official could undermine the country's nonproliferation policies by making lucrative side deals with rogue countries or terrorist groups remains. Kazatomprom's monopoly over all nuclear material and exports minimizes such threats since any wrongdoing could be traced through the country's export control system, requirements for obtaining licenses for export, and Nuclear Suppliers Group obligations. And if corrupt officials wanted to smuggle nuclear material out of the country, they would need a whole chain of other corrupt people to make a deal. * Less of a concern, but certainly a big challenge is finding enough qualified workers for an expanded Kazakh nuclear industry. Even though specialists are being trained at the country's universities, Kazakhstan needs to invest considerably more money to ensure its future nuclear work force can meet the type of demand the country is anticipating. In conclusion, Kazakhstan's nuclear ambitions are likely to be realized if uranium prices stay high and Kazatomprom is successful in further expanding its international partners. Kazatomprom's most immediate task is to secure customers for its final nuclear fuel product--fuel assemblies, an extra fuel fabrication stage Kazatomprom plans to start carrying out domestically. Having a nearly complete nuclear fuel cycle--save for enrichment--will ensure a stable cash flow for Kazatomprom and limit its dependence on the fluctuating market price of raw uranium. In the meantime, though, increased uranium sales will help alleviate the country's overdependence on oil exports and help modernize its nuclear sector. If Kazakhstan does become the world's leading uranium and nuclear fuel supplier, the ramifications for the country both in terms of increased gross domestic product and status on the world stage will be profound. Nonetheless, Kazakhstan will remain heavily dependent on the export of its natural resources and on the vagaries of the commodities markets. 1Ann MacLachlan, "Kazatomprom Sets Goals Higher for U Production, Pursues Nuclear Cycle," Nuclear Fuel, September 10, 2007. 2Interview with Masha Katsva, Ux Consulting analyst, April 24, 2008. 3"Kazatomprom Sets Goals Higher for U Production, Pursues Nuclear Cycle." 4"Japan Set to Raise Kazakh Share in Uranium Imports to 30-40 Per Cent," BBC World Monitoring, April 30, 2007. 5"Kazakhstan, China Sign Nuclear Fuel Cooperation Accord," Interfax-Kazakhstan News Agency, May 24, 2007; "Kazakh, Chinese Nuclear Companies to Set Up Joint Ventures," Interfax-Kazakhstan News Agency, October 13, 2007; "Kazatomprom to Form JC With Chinese Companies for Uranium Mining," Interfax, October 2007; "Kazatomprom Will Export Uranium to China, Beginning in May," Nuclear Fuel, October 22, 2007; Judith Perera, "Kazakh Ambition," Nuclear Engineering International, September 4, 2007. 6"Kazakh Ambition." 7Expert-Kazakhstan, July 9-15, 2007 (in Russian). 8"Kazatomprom Poised to Close Westinghouse Deal," Nucleonics Week, September 11, 2007. 9Expert-Kazakhstan. 10David Horner, "Fuel-Bank Moving in Congress as IAEA Board Meeting Nears," Nuclear Fuel, May 21, 2007. 11"Program on Development of Kazakhstan's Uranium Industry for 2004-2015," Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources of the Republic of Kazakhstan, 2004. 12Ibid. Togzhan Kassenova A native of Kazakhstan, Kassenova is a postdoctoral fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Her expertise is in U.S.-Russian strategic relations, cooperative threat reduction, and WMD proliferation issues in Central Asia. Since 2006, she has served as an assistant professor of political science at the Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics, and Strategic Research. Her first book, “From Antagonism to Partnership: The Uneasy Path of the U.S.-Russian Cooperative Threat Reduction”, was published in 2007. Copyright © 2008 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. All Rights ***************************************************************** 160 AU ABC: Nuclear boom prompts proliferation concerns - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) By Ashley Hall Updated May 13, 2008 11:01:00 There are concerns the push for nuclear power will lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. (File photo) (Reuters: Christian Charisius) The massive fire at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in 1986 spread radioactive contamination as far as continental Europe and stifled demand for the commercial development of nuclear power plants for nearly 20 years. But in the past few years, the number of countries openly pursuing nuclear power has surged. The director of operations and capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Dr Andrew Davies, says the soaring cost of fossil fuels is partly to blame "When Australia had a look at nuclear power a couple of years ago when the Howard government did a report, it didn't add up economically," he said. "The cost of fossil fuel generated electricity was about $35 per megawatt and from nuclear power it was about $52 so that didn't add up. "But as fossil fuels become more expensive, the balance starts to tip the other way." At least 11 of the 40 countries starting or expanding their nuclear programs are within the Middle East, among them Kuwait, Saudia Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Each of them has abundant reserves of oil and gas, so some nuclear proliferation experts are worried that their nuclear plans may be focused more on Iran's nuclear ambitions than they are on generating domestic electricity. "Whenever a country goes down the path of acquiring the technologies required for nuclear weapons, the countries around it sit up and take notice but Iran is certainly well down that path," Dr Davies said. "The intelligence estimate that came out in the US last year said that Iran has the technology, the engineering and the industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons." Eliza Matthews is a PhD candidate in history at the University of Queensland, and a specialist in nuclear proliferation. She argues nations pursue nuclear power as a matter of prestige. And she warns that it's a thin line dividing a nuclear power program from a nuclear weapons program. "Depending on the size of the power plant, they can develop more than enough uranium weapons-grade material to develop one bomb a year in the future if they so desire," she said. "Now this isn't an immediate step. It does take quite some time to make that step but it actually starts to allow you to build up a stockpile of weapons-grade material." The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has operated since 1970, but Ms Matthews says it's failed to stifle the nuclear ambitions of some countries, because it split the world in two - one exclusive club including the existing nuclear states with everyone else left outside. And she says the treaty doesn't stop signatories from developing nuclear power plants - just weapons. "Historically, you see countries, you see India, Pakistan and Israel all say strongly initially that they were developing nuclear power purely for peaceful purposes and of course all three went on to develop nuclear weapons and none of them have signed the non-proliferation treaty," she said. "So there are examples in the past of where countries have claimed that they were developing nuclear weapons for peaceful purposes but then gone on to develop nuclear weapons. "So, of course, that is of great concern to people watching proliferation issues around the world today." © 2008 ABC Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 161 Associated Press: UN steps up campaign against nuclear, chemical terrorism By EDITH M. LEDERER – 2 days ago UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Friday urging stepped-up efforts to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists and black marketeers. It calls on all states to fully implement a council resolution approved in April 2004 requiring all 192 U.N. member states to adopt laws to prevent "non-state actors" from acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. It notes that some countries — which were not identified — haven't filed a report on their efforts that was due in October 2004. The April 2004 resolution was adopted to close a loophole in global efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While international treaties targeted weapons proliferation by governments, until Resolution 1540 was adopted there was no legal instrument to prevent terrorists, crooked scientists, black marketeers and other "non-state actors" from obtaining such weapons. The resolution requires all countries to adopt laws to prevent non-state actors from manufacturing, acquiring or trafficking in nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, the materials to make them, and the missiles and other systems to deliver them. All countries were required to submit a report within six months to a Security Council committee monitoring implementation of the resolution. The resolution adopted Friday extends the committee's mandate until April 25, 2011, and calls on states who haven't yet done so to submit a report "without delay." South Africa's U.N. Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo, the current council president, said many developing countries find the reporting requirements for this and other resolutions onerous when they are trying to provide food, health care and jobs for their people. Resolution 1540 was introduced as the International Atomic Energy Agency was investigating a vast underworld market in nuclear equipment and know-how, spurred by Pakistan's admission in 2004 that its leading nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, passed technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Also Friday, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei angrily criticized Israel for bombing an alleged Syrian nuclear facility last year, chastised the U.S. for withholding information on the site, and said the agency will look into the case. Hosted by Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 162 Associated Press: A timeline of North Korea's nuclear weapons activities By The Associated Press – 3 days ago Timeline of North Korea's nuclear weapons activities: _ 1994: North Korea and the United States sign an agreement under which the North shuts down its plutonium-based nuclear reactor in exchange for help building two "light water" nuclear reactors for producing electricity. _ Sept. 17, 1999: President Clinton agrees to first major easing of economic sanctions against North Korea since the Korean War's end in 1953. _ Jan. 29, 2002: President Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil." _ Oct. 4, 2002: North Korea tells visiting U.S. delegation it has a uranium enrichment program, Washington says. _ Nov. 21, 2002: U.S.-led consortium says it is suspending construction of light water reactors. _ Dec. 28, 2002: North Korea orders U.N. nuclear inspectors to leave the country. _ Jan. 11, 2003: North Korea withdraws from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. _ Feb. 26, 2003: North Korea is reported to have restarted Yongbyon reactor, which U.S. officials say was designed to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons but which North Korea maintains is for energy production. _ Aug. 27-29, 2003: North Korea joins first round of six-nation nuclear talks in Beijing, which include China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the U.S., which continue periodically over the next several years. _ Feb. 10, 2005: North Korea announces it has nuclear weapons. _ July 5, 2006: North Korea launches seven missiles into the Sea of Japan, prompting a U.N. Security Council resolution to condemn it. _ Oct. 9, 2006: North Korea says it has conducted its first-ever nuclear test. _ Oct. 14, 2006: U.N. Security Council unanimously adopts a resolution imposing wide-ranging economic and diplomatic sanctions on North Korea for its nuclear test. _ Feb. 13, 2007: North Korea agrees at six-nation talks on initial steps to disarmament. _ July. 14, 2007: North Korea says it has shut down its Yongbyon plutonium-reactor. IAEA inspectors arrive in Pyongyang. _ Aug. 17, 2007: The IAEA says its agents have confirmed the shutdown of four nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and an unfinished nuclear power plant at Taechon. _ Sept. 2, 2007: The U.S. says North Korea agreed during talks in Geneva to declare and disable its nuclear programs by the end of the year — the first time it has offered a timeline. _ Sept. 6, 2007: Israeli warplanes bomb a Syrian nuclear reactor site allegedly built with North Korean design help. _ Oct. 3, 2007: The six parties agree that North Korea will provide a complete list of its nuclear programs and disable its facilities and its main reactor by Dec. 31. _ Nov. 5, 2007, North Korea starts disabling the Yongbyon reactor under the watch of U.S. experts. _ Dec. 31, 2007: North Korea misses its deadline for declaring all its nuclear programs. _ Feb. 22, 2008: North Korea opens its main nuclear reactor in Yongbyon to foreign media for the first time. American researchers say North Korean officials told them they had slowed the removal of fuel rods because the United States and other nations fell behind in supplying aid promised under the disarmament deal. _ March 28, 2008: North Korea test-fires a barrage of short-range missiles in an apparent angry response to the new South Korean government's tougher stance on Pyongyang. _ April 24, 2008: The White House breaks its silence and says North Korea assisted Syria's secret nuclear program and that the nuclear reactor destroyed by Israel was not intended for "peaceful purposes." Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 163 UCS: House Kicks Off Debate Over Future Of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex May 7, 2008 New Report Calls For Halt to Production Of New Nuclear Warheads WASHINGTON (May 7, 2008) — A House Armed Services Committee subcommittee today will kick off the debate over the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, the infrastructure used to design, build and maintain the thousands of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal. The subcommittee will review a Department of Energy (DOE) revitalization plan that would dramatically increase the complex's ability to produce new nuclear weapons. The hearing, sponsored by the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, will focus on the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2009. It begins at 1 pm today in Room 2118 of the Rayburn House Office Building. Later this month, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees will take up the matter. A new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), "The Cart before the Horse: DOE's Plans for the Future of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex," critiques DOE's proposal and calls for a halt to the production of new nuclear warheads. "Now is not the time to invest billions of dollars in new factories that will lead to new nuclear weapons," said Stephen Young, a UCS senior analyst. "Congress has already required the next president to take a fresh look at U.S. nuclear policy. DOE's plan seems to ignore this fact." In its report, UCS concluded: * The United States needs a new nuclear weapons policy and a plan for the future of its nuclear arsenal, before it makes major decisions on the future of the complex. * Under its current policy, the United States does not need to produce new plutonium pits -- the essential core of nuclear warheads -- until at least 2015 and perhaps not until 2022. A new nuclear policy could eliminate the need entirely. * Until the nation decides on the makeup and size of its future nuclear arsenal, it is premature to build large industrial plants to produce new nuclear weapons, as the DOE has proposed. * Once a new nuclear policy is set, the DOE should perform a comprehensive, bottom-up review of the complex, and maintain only those programs and facilities needed to support the future arsenal. * Consolidating weapons-usable fissile material should be a higher priority for the DOE. * The DOE should examine other alternatives for the future of the complex, including options for no pit production, and for a future in which the United States leads a global effort to move toward the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Reporters: Join our notification list to receive breaking news from UCS. General media inquiries can be directed to our media office line at 202-331-5420. If you are calling about a specific issue, contact the appropriate press contact below. Press Contacts: Energy, Food, Scientific Integrity MEGHAN CROSBY Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-6943 mcrosby@ucsusa.org Climate, Global Security, Vehicles, Invasives AARON HUERTAS Assistant Press Secretary 202-331-5458 ahuertas@ucsusa.org Climate, Scientific Integrity LISA NURNBERGER Press Secretary 202-331-6959 lnurnberger@ucsusa.org Energy, Food EMILY ROBINSON Press Secretary 202-331-5427 erobinson@ucsusa.org ELLIOTT NEGIN Media Director 202-331-5439 enegin@ucsusa.org © Union of Concerned Scientists Page Last Revised: 05/07/08 ***************************************************************** 164 Tri-City Herald: HANFORD: New nonprofit supports ill nuclear workers | Posted Monday, May. 12, 2008 A nonprofit group has been formed to support ill nuclear workers who are applying for federal compensation or collecting benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. The group, Cold War Patriots, is sponsored by Professional Case Management, a company that provides home health care for Hanford and other ill nuclear workers. Those who sign up for the program will receive a periodic newsletter. It also has a Web site that includes a forum to help workers or their survivors connect with former coworkers. For more information, call 888-903-8989 or go to www.coldwarpatriots.org. For more Hanford news, go to www.hanfordnews.com. © 2008 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 165 The Associated Press: Grand jury documents on nuke weapons plant probe stay secret DENVER (AP) — A judge has refused to make public some sworn statements by former grand jurors alleging that prosecutors committed misconduct during an investigation into possible environmental crimes at the old Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant. U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch released several documents and motions from the 1989 case Monday but not the sworn statements or a list of alleged misconduct. Some former members of the grand jury have alleged the Justice Department broke the law during the probe and cut a deal with plant's operator, Rockwell International, for an $18.5 million fine. Prosecutors have denied misconduct. Matsch allowed the jurors in 1997 to create a list of alleged misconduct by prosecutors and to make sworn statements before their attorney, Jonathan Turley, now a law professor at George Washington University. Turley said compiling the list and making the sworn statements were unprecedented actions for a grand jury. "In all of our filings we said, 'These are the only two things (the list and the transcripts) we want,'" Turley said. "Those two things would inform the public and Congress what it was that prompted the jurors to take this historic stand." Rocky Flats produced more than 70,000 plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads throughout the Cold War at a site 15 miles northwest of Denver. It was raided and shuttered by federal agents for safety violations as part of the 1989 probe. The federal government has since spent $7 billion to turn the area into a wildlife refuge. Matsch ruled there is no current investigation that would justify disclosing certain documents under the strict rules that govern a grand jury. He had ruled in 2004 that grand jury secrecy rules prevented the release of documents that 18 of the 23 former grand jurors want the public to see, but the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in 2006 and sent the case back to him. Turley called Matsch's ruling "a small victory" because some documents were released. But he said his clients are considering another court appeal for the transcripts and list of allegations. He said the group plans to ask Colorado's congressional delegation to subpoena the documents. "Then they can see what motivated the grand jurors and they can make them public," Turley said. (This version corrects that grand jurors want to release their own statements about alleged prosecutorial misconduct, not testimony made by witnesses before grand jury.) Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 166 TGN: SRS to receive more than $1 billion in federal funding Posted: 4:57 PM May 1, 2008 Reporter: U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham News Release WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today said he was very pleased Savannah River Site is in line to receive increased funding under the 2008 Defense Authorization bill. Graham is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The bill passed committee unanimously and will now be sent to the full Senate. “With this budget the federal government can live up to the commitments it has made to the state of South Carolina when it comes to cleanup and new missions,” said Graham. “I’m very pleased with the work of the committee and appreciate the support of my colleagues in recognizing and rewarding the hard work done at the Site. I will work with appropriators to fund the important work being done at the Site.” Among the major Site highlights of the legislation: Overall the Site has been authorized to receive funding of $1.28 billion, $74 million above the President’s budget request. Soil and ground water remediation, nuclear facility demolition and deconstruction, and nuclear material stabilization authorized for $573 million, $74 million above the President’s request. Tank cleanup is fully funded at the President’s request of $706 million including $128 million for Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF). The MOX program at the Site is authorized to receive $487 million equal to the President’s request. Oversight of the MOX program has been returned to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is recognition of its role as a critical nuclear nonproliferation program and its strategic importance to the national security of the United States. Last year, oversight of MOX was transferred to DOE’s office of Nuclear Energy which has oversight of commercial nuclear power. The Russian fissile material program will receive an additional $10 million to continue the joint gas reactor technology demonstration program. The gas reactor is a more efficient burner of excess plutonium than conventional reactors. The committee also noted that the Russian Government and the U.S. jointly fund this effort and that Russia’s support for this program will exceed the U.S. contribution. “MOX is and always has been a national security issue,” said Graham. “Keeping MOX under the national security umbrella will help in our efforts to obtain future funding and begin operation of the MOX facility. Turning weapons grade plutonium into nuclear fuel is the ultimate example of turning swords into plowshares. This budget plan makes clear that my colleagues and I who serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee remain strongly committed to the MOX program.” Gray Television Group, Inc. - Copyright © 2002-2008 - ***************************************************************** 167 aikenstandard.com: SRNS to make offer to majority of workers 5/17/2008 12:33 AM By ROB NOVIT Senior writer Savannah River Nuclear Solutions will make job offers to about 99 percent of the current management and operations employees at the Savannah River Site, and most can expect the same pay and benefits. That was a key message from CEO Chuck Munns at a town hall meeting at USC Aiken Friday. SRNS will take over management of the site from the Washington Savannah River Company around Aug. 1. Nearly 400 people attended the informational meeting, the second of three scheduled by SRNS. Munns introduced his senior management team, including Sam Bhattacharyya, who will become the Savannah River National Laboratory director. "We recognize your long history at the site," said Munns. "We salute what you did in the Cold War and since then. We pledge to keep that going. You have the experience to continue in the site's success and we will relay on your knowledge." SRNS is a new partnership of three long-established firms - senior partner Fluor Corporation, Northop Grumman and Honeywell Corporation. The U.S. Department of Energy selected SRNS over WSRC in January, a decision upheld in April following a protest by WSRC's parent company, URS Washington Division. SRNS will function as one company with the sole purpose of operating the site, Munns said. He also pledged that the company is committed to safety and sees SRS as a continuing mission, not as a closure site. Safety, results and service to country won't change. What will change, said Munns, is that times have changed as the company moves forward. There's a nuclear renaissance under way, a potential hydrogen economy and a different government following this election year. "We will close some parts of the site," said the retired Navy admiral. "But we were going forward at a time filled with opportunities. We bring new insight, some new kinds of experiences. That's why we were selected." During the transition period, the senior managers will review current operations. The National Lab will get a thorough assessment with the goal of establishing a premier DOE program. SRNS officials said they want to tap into the experiences of the hundreds of retirees still living in the area. Acknowledging that many more employees will retire in the next decade, the company will strive to recruit young talent and find a way to keep it. They also plan to work with USC Aiken, Aiken Technical College and other higher education programs to help with that process. The corporate partners that make up SRNS have a long history of community involvement, and SRNS will continue the efforts of WSRC as a good corporate citizen. "Our vision is very much one of engagement in the community, and we'll still need coaching from you on what you do in this community," said Munns. "I personally believe education is crucial for the site, this region and our nation. We need to do everything we can to encourage more scientists and engineers." Two new senior managers have met with Dr. Whit Gibbons at the Savannah River Ecology Lab, beset by heavy budget cuts, as well as loss of support from the University of Georgia. SREL brings value to the site and has a role to play, managers said, but they don't yet know what that is. They do plan to look at community partnerships and other support vehicles for SREL. "We can't promise anything now," said Munns in response to a question. "But you believe in it and we'll work with you." Contact Rob Novit at rnovit@aikenstandard.com. copyright 2008 Aiken Standard, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 168 The Denver Post: Agency's purge of Flats documents triggers outcry - Article Last Updated: 05/11/2008 01:30:01 AM MDT The U.S. Department of Energy plans to digitally copy, then destroy 500 boxes of documents related to the former Rocky Flats nuclear- weapons plant, prompting vigorous objections from a local coalition and two Colorado congressmen. The decision is "extremely troubling," U.S. Reps. Mark Udall and Ed Perlmutter said in a recent letter to the DOE Office of Legacy Management. "These documents, which have been part of the public record for years, are critical to understanding the history of Rocky Flats and cleanup activities and should be preserved," the congressmen said. The Rocky Flats Stewardship Council, which provides local government and community oversight of Rocky Flats since the plant closed in 1989, also expressed "deep concern" about the decision. Despite repeated requests, "DOE has yet to specify in writing the legal and regulatory basis for destroying these documents," council chairwoman Lorraine Anderson wrote in a May 5 letter to the department. Phone and e-mail messages seeking comment from the Office of Legacy Management were not returned. At issue are documents not in the formal administrative record, which outlines the plant's $7 billion cleanup, completed in 2005. Until September, the documents were housed at the Front Range Community College library. Gary Morrell, librarian for the Rocky Flats Reading Room at Front Range, said the documents include community studies, state health records, geologic information, aerial radiological surveys, monitoring data, and accident and incident reports. "Some of the documents probably don't exist anywhere else," Morrell said, adding that a "great deal of the material doesn't have much to do with Rocky Flats as a nuclear-weapons plant." Visitors to the reading room have included DOE lawyers, which Morrell said could indicate that the information isn't available elsewhere; scientists investigating a fault line under the plant; and former workers trying to build cases for illness compensation. DOE officials planned to give the documents to the archives at the University of Colorado at Boulder, which has numerous Rocky Flats documents. But late last year, the department discovered personal information — including Social Security numbers — on a few documents and declared that all the boxes posed a risk of identity theft. Morrell believes the offending documents are limited and could be easily narrowed. The DOE has plans to make electronic copies available on the Internet, but archivists, the congressmen and the council argue that electronic formats change and paper files are permanent records. Keeping the documents in one Colorado location will make research more convenient for scholars, public officials and the public, said CU archivist Bruce Montgomery. The DOE's decision comes, Democrats Udall and Perlmutter noted, as former workers try to gather information needed to link illnesses with work-related exposures at the plant northwest of Denver. "Not having this information available in Colorado in a publicly accessible format will make it conceivably more difficult for workers doing research on their cases for compensation," said Jennifer Thompson, a 14-year Rocky Flats worker who led last year's effort to gain compensation and health benefits for sick former plant workers. David Abelson, executive director of the stewardship council, said that while the situation is frustrating, "I also think it's totally resolvable." What's in the boxes Documents the Department of Energy plans to remove from Colorado and destroy after making digital copies include: •Geologic and seismologic investigations for the Rocky Flats plant for U.S. Department of Energy. •Sitewide Geoscience Characterization Study, 1995. •An archaeological and historical survey of selected parcels at the plant in northern Jefferson County dated Jan. 1, 1989. •Aerial radiation surveys of the plant from 1981 and 1989. •City of Broomfield environmental- monitoring reports, 1988 to 1993. •Radiation data monthly reports (city of Westminster), 1988 to 1997. •Final report of the Governor's Rocky Flats Scientific Panel on Monitoring Systems, October 1990. •Standley Lake fish toxics-monitoring report, January 1990. •Chemical inventories. •Newspaper clippings pertaining to Rocky Flats from January 1989 through last fall. All contents Copyright 2008 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************