*****************************************************************
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 cant 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: whats 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
âEvolutioonary Pressurized Reactorâ 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.
âItâs clear that the EPR is turning out to be a nuclear
lemon,â said Linda Gunter of Beyond Nuclear. âThese latest
revelations confirm that the rush to expand nuclear energy is a
risky enterprise beset by safety shortcuts and motivated by haste
and profit.â
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.
âItâs 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,â 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:Â 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 Charter97 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 Charter97 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 Hanfords 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 NRCs 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
groups 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 theres 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, Raffertys 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
Citizens Texas office. The facts remain: Nuclear power is
dangerous, environmentally malignant and an uneconomical energy
source.
The Victoria Economic Development Corporation, which is hosting
Moores 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 industrys 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.
Moores 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:Â 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 Nams 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 Nams
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 â plus the
radioactive and political fallout accompanying them â 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 âHarry,â 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 âCold
Warriors,â fighting a major nuclear threat from the Soviet Union.
Others, many of whom called themselves âdownwindersâ 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 werenât 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 âStar Wars.â
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 wasnât until 1993 when President Bill Clinton and Energy
Secretary Hazel OâLeary 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: whats 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 Spainâs 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 plantâs 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 âdeadly toxins âŠ
chemicals and radiationâ that are still causing diseases in former
workers.
One of the worst of the toxins, according to Bossard, was a
mysterious chemical known as âCuring Agent Z.â
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. Theyâve gotten help from some elected officials,
Bossard said.
âWe have, like, 1,332 claims and maybe 5 percent have been paid.
Iâve had Senator [Bill] Nelson looking into it, god bless him and
his staff, theyâve taken the bull by the horns. Whereas
Congressman [Bill] Young, like I said, heâs maybe helped two or
three people, but turned his back on the rest of us. Heâs been on
TV a couple of times and heâs been just no help whatsoever and
weâre tired of it. Nuclear Workers of Florida are going to keep on
fighting until we get some satisfaction.â
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.
âThe 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,â 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 âat 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. âBut itâs gotta go through all these different
steps. ⊠Meantime the people get sicker. âŠâ
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.
âThey said, âWow, we didnât have no idea.â⊠Now you can go
back to your department ⊠and start filling some of these claims.
âŠâ
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.
âAnd I said to the Department of Labor ⊠Why canât you just
safely assume a baseline that anybody that walked into these
buildings was subject to [carcinogens] and toxics? His response was,
âYes, we may have to adjust our assumptions.â ⊠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.â
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 sheâs 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.
âItâs a tragedy. ⊠Itâs eerily similar to what our veterans
go through when theyâre told theyâre going to be taken care of
and theyâre not.â
Bossard said the process has been especially difficult for the
spouses of the nuclear workers who have passed away.
âIt was a dangerous situation, but people didnât know what they
were working with because they were concerned with the
classification of the product. It was so classified that people
werenât 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 wasnât fair
to them because they didnât 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.â
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 Floridas 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 its 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. Thats 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.
Theres 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 states 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 cant approve projects that arent 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 cant afford to waste
the resources of the state.
Clifford said the institutes role is not to monitor the companies
compliance with regulations. Thats the job of the EPA and the DEP,
he said.
FIPRs 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.
Were 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 © 19952007 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 GEHs 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 GLEs 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
Commissions (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, Wilmingtonbased Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas (GNF-A), a
joint venture of GE, Hitachi and Toshiba, is involved in the fuel
cycle. GNFs 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 worlds 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, GEs
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 â April 25, 2008
Tennesseeâs Attorney General produced a mixed opinion on the
constitutionality of bills concerning radioactive waste in the
stateâs landfills.
State Rep. Frank Buck (D-Dowelltown) requested an opinion from the
attorney generalâs 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.
Constitutionâs 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
âconstitutionally suspect.â
âThe Department of Environment and Conservation fully agrees with
the Attorney General's opinion,â 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 âlegitimate public concerns for the prohibitions.â
âThe good news is no commerce clause conflict. The bad news is we
have to show itâs in the public interest and TDEC has said it is
safe,â said Kathy Ferris from Citizens to END IT.
TDEC assured the public of BSFRâs safety when Tennessee Municipal
Solid Waste Committee decided in August 2007, the â(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.â
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 BSFRâs 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.
âWe know itâs in the public interest ⊠but TDEC doesnât see
it that way,â Ferris said.
But Tracy pointed out Allied Waste, Middle Point Landfillâs parent
company, bowed to public pressure and voluntarily agreed to atop
accepting BSFR waste.
âAllied 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,â 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.
âBasically what weâre going to do is study it and look at it
âŠâ Tracy said. âWeâre going to work on it over the summer
and see if there is anything else we can do.â
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 Britains
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 consortiums 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 consortiums 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 repositorywhich has cost $11 billion to
datewas 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 uncertaintythe Nevada desert may not
always be a desertand 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. Thats 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 âvolunteerâ
communities prepared to accept an underground repository for the
nationâs 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 Britainâs 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:
âNexia 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.
âThese 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
businessâ.
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).
âImmobilisation 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.
âFergus 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.
âWe 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.
âNexia 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.â
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: âAt 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.â
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 âsomewhere on the Oak Ridge Reservation,â
where Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 weapons plant and the
East Tennessee Technology Park are located, said Kilgore.
âItâs a long-term project,â he said, that ultimately would
âget into the billions of dollarsâ if plans come to fruition.
The plant would be a demonstration facility a â10th or 20thâ 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 agencyâs 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 Indiaâs
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, Indiaâs 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 Ă BrolchĂĄin (Green Party) said that he
would also be objecting to the plans â and he has called on the
UHG management to find an âoffsiteâ location instead.
Concerns arose when last weekâs 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 âunsuitableâ 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 Ă BrolchĂĄin pointed out that the Health Service Executive
(HSE)was obliged to take account of the âprecautionary
principleâ 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 Harpers 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.
Canadas interest in uranium enrichment is controversial because
enrichment is the critical step needed in bomb building.
Nobodys accusing Canada of having atomic arsenal aspirations, but
Irans enrichment program is being challenged for just this reason.
Some observers have suggested Canadas 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 Ministers Office or its
bureaucratic arm, the Privy Council Office.
Its 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, theres 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 governments 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 Canadas historic approach to nuclear technology and
arms proliferation.
Never mind that Stensils 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 dont 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 governments case,
which includes highlighting Canadas 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, doesnt it make sense from a business
perspective for Canada to add value to its natural uranium by doing
some enrichment? asked Ferguson.
Im not worried that material is going to fall into the wrong
hands, especially if its 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.
Canadas stance goes back directly to Washingtons 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 worlds unprocessed
uranium, would have been shut out from becoming the worlds 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 GNEPs initial principles were dropped during the course of
negotiations last fall, Canada quietly joined the partnership in
November.
So its been out there for quite a long time now, said Elston.
Its not a surprise that keeping open the option of reprocessing is
one of the (governments) strategies.
Elstons 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 Ottawas plan?
The Harper government isnt saying. Just dont 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 Russiaâs 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 totalitarianismâs 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, itâs 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, Russiaâs growth has been mostly
as a result of the resource sector, youâre 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 Russiaâs 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 donât 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 didnât 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 Iranâthese 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 countriesâbetween 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, ÂFrom Antagonism to Partnership: The
Uneasy Path of the U.S.-Russian Cooperative Threat ReductionÂ, 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 â 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.
âWith 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,â said Graham. âIâm 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.â
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 Presidentâs budget request.
Soil and ground water remediation, nuclear facility demolition and
deconstruction, and nuclear material stabilization authorized for
$573 million, $74 million above the Presidentâs request.
Tank cleanup is fully funded at the Presidentâs 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 Presidentâs 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 DOEâs 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 Russiaâs support for this program will exceed the U.S.
contribution.
âMOX is and always has been a national security issue,â said
Graham. âKeeping 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.â
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:
*****************************************************************