***************************************************************** 11/30/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.278 ***************************************************************** 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 Guardian Unlimited: Alternative methods of generating electricity 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Resume Nuclear Talks With EU 3 Guardian Unlimited: State Dept. Official Urges Iran Trade Curb 4 PRAVDA.Ru: Moscow and Washington confront over Iran's nuclear progra 5 AFP: EU, Iran struggling to restart talks: diplomats 6 Xinhua: Nuclear talks under threat meaningless: Iran 7 AFP: Washington suggests sanctions if Iran nuclear talks remain stal 8 Korea Herald: Korea to host NPT conference 9 AP: South Korean nuclear negotiator to visit China this week 10 PTI: US Cong to pass deal after separating nuke facilities 11 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Energy proposal meets with resistance 12 smh.com.au: US accuses Burma of nuclear goal - World - 13 Bellona: Bellona response to Green Paper on energy efficiency NUCLEAR REACTORS 14 Guardian Unlimited: Sceptical public could be biggest obstacle to ne 15 theage.com.au: Minister dismisses nuclear power - National - 16 theage.com.au: Blair gets taste of nuclear power ire 17 US: NRC: State of Minnesota: NRC Draft Staff Assessment of a Propose 18 US: SLO Tribune: Diablo Canyon gets OK to pack pools a little tighte 19 Bellona: 70% of nuke plants upgrade spending just to ensure complian 20 US: NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice 21 US: Portsmouth Herald: Seabrook nuke plant given ‘Dirty Dozen’ citat 22 Guardian Unlimited: Atomic hypocrisy 23 Daily Mail: Blair's Ł150-a-year nuclear power tax | 24 Independentng.com: Nigeria targets 2015 to join world nuclear power 25 US: Cape Cod Times: Pilgrim nuclear plant seeks 20-year license exte 26 Webindia123.com: Civil nuclear cooperation with US to boost high tec 27 US: EWPRI: yewitness News - NRC asked to review Vt. Yankee, Pilgrim 28 Guardian Unlimited: The power and the unglory 29 Guardian Unlimited: Wanted: a debate not a fix 30 Guardian Unlimited: Opponents square up for power struggle NUCLEAR SECURITY 31 US: Washington Times: Defense contractor held in spy case 32 US: Narragansett Times: Nuke site secure, says URI NUCLEAR SAFETY 33 US: RADIOACTIVE TANK NO. 9 COMES LIMPING HOME 34 US: NRC: NRC Issues Confirmatory Order and Reduces Fine for Radiatio 35 US: Las Vegas SUN: Reid seeks to speed payments for sick Nevada Test 36 AU ABC Asia: News - Marshall Islands raises nuclear testing issue on 37 Globe and Mail: Pembroke factory sparks nuclear concern NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 38 US: RADIOACTIVE TANK NO. 9 COMES LIMPING HOME 39 US: Bradenton Herald: Lockheed expanding testing in Tallevast 40 US: Deseret News: No nuclear waste, period 41 US: Deseret News: Nuclear power amendment tossed 42 Bellona: Tender for Radon radwaste facility reconstruction to be 43 RGJ.com: Find alternative to Yucca Mountain 44 US: Salt Lake City Weekly: Ticking Time Bomb 45 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Goshute leader is told to settle with the IRS 46 US: San Francisco Bay View: Dirty development vs. environmental prot 47 US: KLASTV.com: Toxic Tailings on the Colorado River 48 US: Deseret: News: Goshute is ordered to repay stolen funds 49 US: Deseret News: Private fuel storage case to be heard? 50 US: Deseret News: Utahns favor a tax on PFS PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 51 ContraCostaTimes.com: Plan doubles lab's amount of plutonium 52 Santa Fe New Mexican: Los Alamos County wealthiest in nation 53 New Mexican: Report claims UC had feds pay for charity donations 54 SF Chronicle: LOS ALAMOS / Plutonium could be missing from lab / 55 Tri-Valley Herald: Nuclear lab to expand storage 56 DOE: Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 57 United Press International: Plutonium missing from Los Alamos 58 Guardian Unlimited: DOE to Allow More Plutonium at Calif. Lab ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Alternative methods of generating electricity Old or new? Wednesday November 30, 2005 The Guardian Coal Still provides Britain with a source of reliable and uninterrupted energy that accounts for 33% of electricity generation. But it is a dirty fuel that produces heavy greenhouse gas emissions and indigenous sources are being run down. UK Coal, the privatised company and successor to the National Coal Board, is struggling to make profits out of a dwindling number of deep and relatively expensive mines. It is increasingly being seen as a takeover target by speculators who want to develop its land bank rather than mine coal. Domestic coal has the added problem of being heavy in CO2-producing sulphur and the public has shown itself adamantly opposed to allowing surface mining, which is relatively cheap but tough on the landscape. Article continues Any real investment in coal is going into building new import facilities. Imports from South Africa, Australia and elsewhere are plentiful but there is competition for supplies from coal-hungry nations such as China. By 2020 the Department of Trade and Industry estimates that coal's contribution to the UK energy mix will be cut in half. Clean coal Advances in technology offer a new dawn for a clean coal sector and even environmental groups are enthusiastic about some of the plants that can be built. The coal-fired integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) facility is supported by Friends of the Earth. The coal is broken up before it is used in the power station, extracting the hydrogen and therefore the carbon. The hydrogen is burned and all the carbon is "sequestered" - injected into disused North Sea oil and gas fields or buried elsewhere underground. The British mining industry, under the state-owned NCB, was a leader in clean coal technology, but research and development all but stopped on privatisation. The DTI has since funded a small programme and the energy minister will meet his Norwegian counterpart today to discuss sequestration. Nuclear Nuclear generation provides a fifth of Britain's electricity supply, behind gas and coal, but well ahead of the renewables sector. Its big advantage is that it is "always on"; the reactors generate power - providing a base load - round the clock. However, the lack of new build in the UK since the construction of Sizewell B means the reactors are getting older and in some cases have been subject to unplanned "outages" when they have to be taken out of service for maintenance work. Two issues hog the debate on the nuclear option: safety, including concerns about terrorist attacks and the disposal of waste, and economics. The mathematics are complicated; the pro and anti-nuclear campaigners are far apart on whether it is economically viable, not least if the costs of cleaning up nuclear sites and storing nuclear waste are taken into account. Gas Accounts for 40% of electricity generation. Its popularity is not hard to understand: Britain has enjoyed self-sufficiency in gas supplies from the North Sea for years, though it is now a net importer. The future of gas depends on likely standards for carbon emissions, the development of the infrastructure needed to allow Britain to import as much as it needs, and the price. Britain is installing new terminals to allow it to import liquefied natural gas as well as building new pipelines or expanding existing ones to increase the amount that can be brought in from Belgium and Norway. Some companies are also creating or seeking planning permission for additional storage capacity which will allow them to buy gas in the summer when it is cheaper, store it and then sell it at higher winter prices. The price of gas has proved volatile, rising fivefold in a month recently. It is, however, likely to remain the staple fuel. Renewables Wind, wave, solar and other renewable power sources have been at the forefront of a drive to cut carbon emissions. The government has set a target of producing 10% of the country's electricity from these "green" alternatives by 2010 and has an aspiration of achieving 20% by 2020. At the moment the figure is 4%. But progress has not been smooth, even with financial help from the state through an "obligation" requiring energy suppliers to source some of their power from renewables. Wind has taken the lead in these new energy sources in Britain, but the road to greater use of turbines has many obstacles: the costs associated with connecting them from remote places to the National Grid; planning applications have been bogged down by communities saying turbines are noisy eyesores; and spats have taken place with the RAF over turbines affecting the radar on military planes. But the future generally still looks bright for wind, while wave power and solar have been much slower to develop. Biomass, the burning of crops in place of carbon fuels such as coal, has also been progressing. And BP said earlier this week it planned to build the biggest alternative power business in the world. Special report The nuclear industry Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace HSE nuclear glossary Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Resume Nuclear Talks With EU From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday November 30, 2005 10:31 PM AP Photo ANK107 By SUZAN FRASER Associated Press Writer ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Iran's foreign minister said Wednesday that nuclear talks with the European Union would resume within the next two weeks. But Manouchehr Mottaki said discussions with the United States, which recently authorized its ambassador to Iraq to meet with Iranian officials, were out of the question. The U.S. State Department said Monday that Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad could meet with Iran over a narrow range of regional issues such as the Iran-Iraq border. The U.S. has not had regular diplomatic relations with Iran since its 1979 Islamic revolution. France, Germany and Britain have been negotiating for the EU over Iran's nuclear program, which the U.S. and its partners fear is intended to manufacture nuclear weapons. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes. It restarted uranium conversion - a step toward enrichment - in August, causing the three EU countries to break off talks with Tehran intended to ease tension over the nuclear activities. A venue for renewed discussions has not been decided but senior Iranian and EU officials will be meeting shortly to determine the agenda, Mottaki said at a joint news conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. ``Negotiations between EU and Iran will begin within two weeks,'' he said. Responding to a question about Khalilzad's permission to meet with Iranian officials, Mottaki said reports of the approval were ``rumors.'' ``Negotiating with the United States is not on our agenda,'' he said, speaking through an interpreter. Earlier this month, diplomats in Vienna said that senior French, British and German officials would make a last-ditch effort to convince Tehran to accept a compromise on its nuclear program. The United States wants the country hauled before the U.N. Security Council for violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In an interview with Turkey's private NTV television earlier Wednesday, Mottaki said that his country was against nuclear weapons but determined to ``claim its rights through negotiations'' for peaceful use of nuclear technology. ``We have no tendency of moving toward nuclear weapons,'' Mottaki said. ``It is our right to benefit from nuclear energy.'' Turkey, a NATO member neighboring Iran, said it regards the presence of nuclear weapons and their proliferation as a serious security threat. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked controversy last month by saying that Israel should be ``wiped off the map.'' Israel and Turkey, a predominantly Muslim but secular country, have close defense ties. Turkey was one of the first countries to recognize the Jewish state. Mottaki said Iran had concerns about Israel's alleged nuclear activities. Israel neither confirms nor denies its nuclear status, but is considered to be the only nation in the region with nuclear weapons. Experts say Israel continues to produce atomic weapons and already has more than 200 warheads, as well as the capability to quickly build more. ``There is uneasiness in Middle Eastern countries over nuclear warheads by the Zionist regime in the Palestinian lands,'' Mottaki told NTV television. Speaking to reporters, Mottaki said Iran believed that U.S. and other troops should withdraw from neighboring Iraq after political structures in the country were strengthened. ``Iraq's people will determine their future and the foreign forces will be able to withdraw at the end of the process,'' he said. ``Or secondly, terrorism and instability will continue.'' ``We have from the onset chosen the first option,'' he said. Mottaki has more meetings scheduled with Turkish officials Thursday. Turkey has in the past accused Iran of fueling radical Islam in Turkey and sheltering Islamic extremists. Mottaki served as ambassador to Turkey between 1985-89 and came under severe criticism from the Turkish media for his close relations with the country's Islamic movement. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: State Dept. Official Urges Iran Trade Curb From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday November 30, 2005 11:01 PM By BARRY SCHWEID AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A top State Department official suggested Wednesday that European and other nations might curb trade and investment in Iran if the next round of negotiations does not succeed in halting Iran's drive for nuclear weapons. ``All of us around the world have to think about how we can influence that government,'' said Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns. ``And that is certainly one way that many countries around the world can do that.'' In fact, he said, there is a ``widening circle of countries'' willing to use their diplomatic and economic leverage to convince the Iranians in 2006 to halt their nuclear weapons programs. Negotiations by Britain, France and Germany with Iran have been sidetracked since the summer. However, Burns said, ``We have been hearing from Russia and the Europeans there is likely to be a meeting with the Iranians sometime in the first part of January.'' In Ankara, Turkey, meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the talks would resume within the next two weeks. If diplomacy fails, Burns said, a growing number of countries is likely to consider such economic weapons as curbs on trade and investments. ``There is a growing diplomatic coalition to apply curbs, and other countries have trade and other weapons,'' Burns said, contrasting their ongoing commerce with Iran to a virtual U.S. freeze. He stressed the United States would not try to organize trade and investment cutoffs. ``It's up to the Europeans to decide. It's not up to the United States,'' he told a few reporters after a speech and news conference at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Burns cited assurances from India that it had no plans for an energy agreement with Iran as an example of growing dissatisfaction with Tehran worldwide. ``There was a time when the United States and a few other countries were a lonely voice,'' Burns said. ``That's no longer the case.'' Burns raked the government of Iran's ultraconservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his speech. He said Iran was determined to build nuclear weapons, was the most avid supporter of terror groups in the world, and had a dreadful human rights record, engaging in torture and summary executions. ``Oppressive regimes do not survive forever,'' Burns said, At the same time, he dismissed any chance that the Bush administration would pursue a policy of ``regime change'' in Iran as it did in deposing President Saddam Hussein in neighboring Iraq. ``That is clearly the job of the Iranian people,'' he said. The administration will continue to have limited contact with Iran and rely on ongoing European diplomacy to try to curb Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, he said. The State Department announced Monday that the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been authorized to meet with Iranian officials about Iraq even though the U.S. and Iran have not had regular diplomatic relations since radical fundamentalists seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Burns said no U.S. administration had taken ``a vow of complete silence'' on Iran and that among the contacts were a conversation former Secretary of State Colin Powell held with Iran's foreign minister and occasional legal discussions concerning the agreement that ended the embassy takeover in 1981. And yet, he said, he did not see an expansion of diplomatic contact ``anytime soon.'' Burns is due to travel to Russia on Thursday. The State Department said the purpose was to pursue joint efforts to counter terror. Still, Russia has played a growing role in the nuclear negotiations with the Europeans, especially with a proposal to enrich uranium outside Iran as part of a civilian Iranian program. Burns said the Bush administration had not endorsed the Russian approach. ``We continue to take a hard line'' on Iran not controlling a process that could produce nuclear weapons, he said. --- On the Net: State Department: http://www.state.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 4 PRAVDA.Ru: Moscow and Washington confront over Iran's nuclear program - 11/30/2005 11:27 Notwithstanding the belligerence of its new president, Iran made an effort to show that they were ready to continue talks on the issue Iranian nuclear program has become a headline topic of the international politics. The issue is discussed at all levels using a variety of formats e.g. multilateral forums and bilateral summits, meetings between foreign ministers. The issue holds the spotlight in the International Atomic Energy Agency, an organization set up specifically to ensure nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. By all appearances, the international community will not decide on the issue by the end of the next year. [Iran nuclear problem] Two months ago the IAEA accused Iran of "numerous violations" with regard to non-proliferation and recommended to refer the "Iranian dossier" to the UN Security Council. The move may result in sanctions to be imposed on Iran. However, Iran got a two-month grace period before the next meeting of the Board of Governors of the IAEA. Two months have passed, the grace period was over. The IAEA board convened again in Vienna only to have made the "final warning" to Iran. The referral of the case to the UN Security Council did not happen and one may wonder why, especially after the shocking statement by the new Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who called "to wipe Israel off the map." Notwithstanding the belligerence of its new president, Iran made an effort to show that they were ready to continue talks on the issue. Iran announced its readiness to resume talks with Britain, France and Germany, the key three European countries negotiating with Iran. In the mean time, Iran also threatened to deny access to its nuclear facilities for IAEA inspectors if the issue is referred to the UN Security Council. The above maneuvers of Tehran were not the only factors that led to a change of mood in the IAEA. The United States, Iran's main opponent, had realized that Russia and China were unlikely to support the demand for sanctions. That is why U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that "U.S. administration can wait a little longer" just a few hours before the board meeting went under way. The so-called Russian plan circulating through the IAEA is thought to have been the main reason why the IEAE gave another chance to Iran. According to the plan, all uranium enrichment activities should be transferred to Russia so that Iran could never complete the building of a full nuclear fuel cycle on its own territory. If accepted, the plan will ensure that no weapons-grade uranium is produced by Iran. In conjunction with the IAEA inspections, the plan will be a guarantee of peaceful purposes of Iran's nuclear activities. Given Russia's industrial capabilities, the project will be easy to carry out. All parties concerned (with the exception of Iran) have pledged their support to the plan. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov voiced his approval to the plan. Is the Russian plan really good? It is if we judge by the definition of the main contractor. Moscow's caution in claiming copyright in the project is quite understood since the concept has been circulating among the experts both in Russian and in the West. Despite the fact that Russia is reluctant to use the term, our Western partners have been persistent in telling everybody that the program was of Russian origin. In any case, Russia is undoubtedly very interested in resolving the issue. It will be possible to kill two birds with only one throw if the project is a success. First, close trade and economic cooperation between Russia and Iran will be maintained. Second, confrontation with the West, primarily with the United States, will be averted. The lack of additional incentives for Iran is strikingly obvious, especially if we compare the negotiations held between Iran and the "European troika" and the six-party negotiations on North Korea's nuclear program in Beijing. Unlike the Europeans who vaguely promised to the Iranians "access to technologies," the Western parties on the talks in Beijing promised a lot of things to the North Koreans. The list of benefits has not been finalized, though. At the moment it includes normalizations of the relationship with the United States, considerable economic aid including food supplies, assistance in the field of power engineering including construction of a nuclear power plant with a light-water nuclear reactor. The approaches differ greatly in spite of the same black list Washington has put both countries on; both of them are part of the so-called axis of evil as defined by the U.S. government, the United States has no diplomatic relations with either country. It is the United States that might make an offer to Iran, an offer Iran could not refuse. In other words, the Russian plan plus a U.S. package of incentives should be used to destroy the smallest possibility for Iran to get a hold on nuclear weapons. In light of the above, it should be noted that Russian diplomacy has done a lot in order to exert influence on Tehran with regard to the solution of issues relating to the nuclear program. Russian foreign ministry also worked hard to keep its Western partners from undoing the "Iranian knot" in a hasty and confrontational manner that could only result in a severe international crisis. Diplomats gained time thanks to Russia's efforts. The negations are still going on. U.S. "package of incentives" for Iran might include security guarantees, normalization of bilateral relations in all areas including trade and economic cooperation. U.S. President Bush could have said something important on the subject as he "okayed" the "Russian plan" during the meeting with his Russian counterpart in Thailand earlier this month. So far the Americans have been busy putting pressure on Iran in order to make it shut down the nuclear program. The Americans say that the Iranians do not have to build any nuclear power plant with all those amount of recoverable oil reserves, and therefore all the Iranians want is to build an A-bomb. The Iranian government says the United States in the past got Shah to launch a nuclear power program. The present-day authorities simply keep on developing the program, according to the Iranians. PRAVDA.Ru doesn't recommend to use Xerox products ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: EU, Iran struggling to restart talks: diplomats 30/11/2005 22h02 Two Iranians work at the zirconium production plant at Isfanhan ©AFP/File - Henghameh Fahimi VIENNA (AFP) - Talks between the European Union and Iran on winning guarantees Tehran is not making nuclear weapons may take longer to restart than expected as the two sides are bickering over substance and form, diplomats told AFP Wednesday. A first meeting was hoped for next week but "it's more likely it will be in mid-December or early January," said a Western diplomat, who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the issue. The diplomat said there is still no confirmation of a date or site for the meeting, which could be in Moscow, Geneva, Vienna or Brussels. Late Wednesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said preliminary negotiations on resuming talks would begin by mid-December. "The preliminary negotiations between Iran and the EU will start within two weeks," Mottaki told a press conference in Ankara. "Officials will have talks on the timetable for negotiations, after which the negotiations will begin at ministerial level," he said, not specifying where they would take place. Iran wants the main meeting to be at the ministerial level while EU negotiators Britain, France and Germany want it only at the level of senior foreign ministry officials. Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani "is really keen on Iran getting respect" from a high-level meeting, the diplomat said. However, the Europeans want a lower-level meeting "to talk about talks" -- to see if formal talks that were broken off in August can be resumed. In addition, the so-called EU-3 have insisted they will not "resume formal negotiations with Iran until Iran fully re-suspends uranium conversion work," another diplomat said. Two Iranians work at the plant in Isfahan ©AFP/File - Henghameh Fahimi That diplomat said EU-3 ambassadors told Iran of this last Sunday in verbal comments made when they handed over a letter on resuming talks. "The verbal demarche was reportedly quite tough," said the diplomat, who was briefed on the meeting. EU-Iran talks collapsed in August when Iran ended its suspension of uranium conversion, the first step towards making enriched uranium, which can be used to fuel nuclear reactors or as the explosive core of atom bombs. Iran has repeatedly said it will continue with conversion work. The UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency last week put off taking Iran to the UN Security Council after the EU-3 agreed then to give more time for new Russian diplomacy to work. Talks on a Russian proposal to allow Iran to conduct uranium enrichment -- in Russia, rather than Iran, so Tehran does not obtain the nuclear technology crucial to making atom bombs -- were expected to take center stage. An Iranian technician stands as camera insalled by the IAEA is seen at the Isfahan plant ©AFP/File - Behrouz Mehri Iran refuses to give up the right to enrichment on its territory, although it is currently suspending enrichment as a confidence-building measure. Last week's meeting at its Vienna headquarters of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors was to review progress since September 24, when it found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a finding requires eventual referral to the Security Council, which can impose sanctions. The European Union and the United States charge that Iran is using its drive toward atomic energy for electricity generation as a cover for developing nuclear weapons. Iran strongly denies the charges. Russia and China, which have strong economic ties to Iran, oppose referral to the Security Council, as do non-aligned states which point to Tehran's right under the NPT to work on the nuclear fuel cycle. Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki accused Western powers of imposing a form of "nuclear apartheid" by denying Tehran the right to nuclear technology, in a French newspaper column. Satellite image shows the Bushehr nuclear reactor site in Iran ©AFP/DIGITALGLOBE/File In a guest column in Le Monde newspaper, Mottaki accused Western governments of making "arbitrary and dangerous demands" by calling for Tehran to "surrender its inalienable right to fully master nuclear technology". "This is 'nuclear apartheid'," he charged. "The path followed by Iran is neither dangerous, nor illegitimate, and has purely peaceful aims," he wrote in the evening paper. "It is time to replace these outdated, rigid mentalities with a new approach based on equal rights on nuclear matters and a fair application of the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)," Mottaki argued. If it is referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme, Mottaki warned Iran would have "no choice but to fully reconsider its approach towards the IAEA, including the confidence-building measures already taken." + Ŕđŕáńęčé Copyright Disclaimer ©AFP 2005 ***************************************************************** 6 Xinhua: Nuclear talks under threat meaningless: Iran www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-11-30 16:58:24 TEHRAN, Nov. 30 (Xinhuanet) -- A top Iranian negotiator has said nuclear negotiations with the European Union (EU) will be meaningless as long as the EU threatens to refer Iran's case to the UN Security Council, the English-language daily Tehran Times reported on Wednesday. "It would be ridiculous for Iran to engage in the next round of nuclear talks with the European trio (of Britain, France and Germany) under the threat of referral to the United Nations Security Council," Javad Vaeedi, deputy secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, was quoted as saying. "As long as the Europeans keep bringing up the Sept. 24 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution, the process of negotiations is unnatural and continuing the talks would be pointless," Vaeedi added. The IAEA resolution urges Iran to re-suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment, warning a rejection could mean a referral of its case to the UN Security Council. Vaeedi indicated that providing an objective guarantee for the production of nuclear fuel in Iran would be "the main and only subject of the nuclear negotiations" with the EU. The European trio on Sunday officially informed Iran that they had agreed to resume nuclear talks in December, which have been stranded since Iran in early August resumed uranium conversion activities, a precursor to uranium enrichment. Vaeedi confirmed that the next round of negotiations would be held in December but said the exact time and location of the talks had not been decided. The IAEA's board of governors decided to postpone the referral of Iran's case last Thursday in order to offer more time for Tehran and the EU to discuss a Russian proposal, which allows Iran to conduct uranium conversion activities on condition that the enrichment stage be moved to Russia. Iran has categorically rejected the suggestion of enrichment abroad. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: Washington suggests sanctions if Iran nuclear talks remain stalled - Wed Nov 30, 3:51 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States suggested that the international community impose economic or trade sanctions on Iran" /> in case negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program fail to restart. "It might be time to consider a different approach toward the new, more radical, more intolerant Iranian regime," said Nicholas Burns, undersecretary for political affairs at the Department of State. "Through its diplomatic contacts and its trade and investment, the world does have leverage -- and that leverage should be used constructively now -- to convince the hard-liners in Tehran that there is a price for their misguided policies," Burns said at Johns Hopkins University in Washington. Speaking to journalists after his talk, Burns, the number three official in the State Department, noted that Russia, China, Japan, India, Australia and the European Union" /> were all concerned that Iran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Asked if he was proposing that the EU impose sanctions if diplomatic talks with Iran fail, Burns said "That is up to the EU to decide. It is not up to the US." "All of us around the world have to think about how we can influence that government. And it is certainly one way that many countries around the world can do that," he said. Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in Ankara earlier Wednesday that preliminary talks with the European Union over Tehran's nuclear programme will begin in mid-December. "The preliminary negotiations between Iran and the EU will start in two weeks," Mottaki told a press conference. However, diplomats in Vienna said the timing was not yet firm, noting that Iran wants the meeting to be at the ministerial level while negotiators from Britain, France and Germany want it only at the level of senior foreign ministry officials. Negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme have been bogged down recently over Tehran's resumption of uranium enrichment operations. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Korea Herald: Korea to host NPT conference The Foreign Ministry will host the fourth round of the international disarmament forum in conjunction with the U.N. Regional Center for Peace and Disarmament Asia and the Pacific in Busan from Thursday for three days. The forum, bringing together some 40 experts on disarmament, will focus on a theme "strengthening the Nonproliferation Treaty and the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery." Results of the 2005 NPT review conference, contemporary challenges, control over sensitive Nuclear Fuel Cycle and other pending issues will be discussed during the conference to be held at Nurimaru House in Haeundae, the Foreign Ministry said. (angiely@heraldm.com) 2005.11.30 ***************************************************************** 9 AP: South Korean nuclear negotiator to visit China this week (AP) Updated: 2005-11-30 14:37 South Korea's chief negotiator at international talks on North Korea's nuclear programs will visit China this week for consultations on how to advance the negotiations, Seoul's foreign minister said Wednesday. Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon will visit Beijing on Friday and Saturday for talks with his Chinese counterpart, Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said. The two will "assess the current situation" and discuss "ways to move the negotiations forward," Ban told a news briefing. The nuclear talks _ launched in 2003 _ involve China, the United States, the two Koreas, Japan and Russia. Their fifth and latest session took a recess earlier this month with no signs of progress on how the North would disarm and what it would get in return. No date has been set for when the talks will resume. www.chinadaily.com.cn ***************************************************************** 10 PTI: US Cong to pass deal after separating nuke facilities New Delhi, Nov 30 (PTI) The US Congress will approve the historic Indo-US nuclear deal if it gets "clear evidence" that there is a "marked delineation" of India's civil and military nuclear facilities, US Congressman Dan Burton said here today. "The members of Congress who recently learned of the agreement want to see a concrete evidence that there will be a marked delineation between civil use of nuclear equipment that we sell to India and military use," Burton, who lead a Congressional delegation to India, told reporters here. "If that is very clearly understood...I am confident that it (nuclear deal) will be passed by the US Congress," he said winding up the delegation's three-day visit to the country, during which they met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and other senior officials. Considered an India-baiter, Burton said there was a clear understanding between President George W Bush and Singh and between Parliamentarians from both the countries that there should be a "clear delineation" and hoped the deal will come through if that understanding is worked out. Singh and Bush had signed the pathbreaking agreement in Washington on July 18 under which the US implicitly recognised India as a nuclear weapons state and agreed to supply fuel for Tarapore reactors following a series of commitments by New Delhi, including that of separating civilian and military facilities. The delegation, comprising both Republicans and Democrats, discussed numerous issues, including Kashmir and trade relations, and felt that India and the United States should forge a long-term relationsip, he said. PTI © Copyright PTI 2003-2004 ***************************************************************** 11 Salt Lake Tribune: Energy proposal meets with resistance Article Last Updated: 11/30/2005 01:43:39 AM Framework for future: Some lawmakers want a closer look at nuclear power; the governor resists a new Cabinet-level position By Patty Henetz The Salt Lake Tribune A bill that would create a legal framework for Utah's energy future met with resistance Tuesday - from lawmakers who want the state to investigate nuclear power, and from Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., who doesn't want the Legislature to create a Cabinet-level position to oversee energy policy. Two interim committees - Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment, and Public Utilities and Technology - advanced the bipartisan draft bill crafted after hundreds of hours of meetings last summer organized by Reps. Ralph Becker, D-Salt Lake; Roger Barrus, R-Centerville, and David Ure, R-Kamas. The bill's key components include the philosophical and the practical, and would designate a state energy officer to encourage development and promotion of the state's energy resources. The energy officer would report to the governor and earn up to $115,700 per year. Huntsman, however, has his own ideas, and has appointed Laura Nelson, a former Idaho Public Utilities commissioner and former member of the state's Committee on Consumer Services, as his energy policy adviser. The governor doesn't want to expand his Cabinet, said Kevin Knight, Huntsman's energy policy coordinator. Nelson "is a key part of the governor's staff and plays a significant role in developing a state energy policy and coordinating with relevant state agencies," added Huntsman spokesman Mike Mower. "We've only had this in place for a few months. Give us a chance to let it work before you codify a new structure." The Legislature will take up the bill during its 2006 General Session. But lawmakers already are grumbling about how to balance market forces and consumer needs, the role of nuclear power and how hard to push renewable energy development versus traditional coal, oil and gas power. Sen. Tom Hatch, R-Panguitch, who sponsored last year's bill that dismantled the state Energy Office, fretted about language in the proposed legislation that would require the energy officer to promote renewable energy resources, which he said might not make economic sense. "I'm concerned we're asking this person to go out and make a fool of themself," he said. Later, Hatch said he didn't want the bill to pass at all. During discussions about how to amend the draft to also emphasize non-renewable energy, Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, said he wanted to include pro-nuclear energy language. Rep. Mike Noel agreed, brushing aside the idea that because Utah has taken a stand against importing other states' nuclear waste it would be inconsistent to support home-grown nuclear energy. "Utah has vast uranium reserves," especially in his own district, said the Kanab Republican. "Nuclear energy has come a long way from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. It's a very, very clean source of energy." But Sen. Greg Bell, R-Fruit Heights, said that the task force decided after hours of discussions not to include nuclear power in what essentially is a values statement. "I'm not ready to vote on that as part of our policy," he said. Sen. Mike Dmitrich, D-Price, argued coal power will dominate Utah's energy future for some time. "The time for nuclear power will be here. But it's not here now," he said. Huntsman believes nuclear power could be considered, "providing advances are made in reprocessing nuclear waste to ensure public safety," Mower said. After the meeting, some of the volunteers who helped craft a comprehensive energy policy report to the Legislature that provided the foundation for the bill savored its first victory. "We wanted something durable. Legislators come and go. Governors come and go," said Wasatch Clean Air Coalition spokeswoman Kathy Van Dame. "This group took this very seriously in a spirit of camaraderie," said Beverly Miller of Utah Clean Cities. "Now there is a bandwagon." © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 12 smh.com.au: US accuses Burma of nuclear goal - World - www.smh.com.au November 30, 2005 - 2:37PM The United States today accused Burma's military Government of seeking nuclear power capability and committing crimes against its ethnic minorities. US Ambassador John Bolton said in a letter to the president of the UN Security Council, Russian Ambassador Andrey Denisov, that he should demand new information from the office of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who has sent envoys to Burma in past years to discuss democratic change. Bolton said that the US and Security Council members were concerned about the deteriorating situation in Burma. "There are press reports that Burmese authorities are seeking nuclear power capabilities, diverting scarce resources better used to address the needs of the Burmese people," Bolton said. "It has destroyed villages, targeted ethnic minorities and forced relocations, leading to a large number of both internally displaced persons and refugees across international borders," he said. Bolton said that the flow of narcotics through Burma had been a "catalyst" in both the spread of diseases such as HIV/AIDS and potentially destabilising transnational crime. "The human rights situation is disconcerting due to the international security consequences of the regime's actions," he said. He accused the military Government in Rangoon of failing to initiate democratic reforms while repressing political opponents. He said that the regime was detaining more than 1100 political prisoners and last week extended the house arrest of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Suu Kyi has spent most of the last 16 years under house arrest or in detention after winning the presidential elections in 1990. She won the Nobel Peace Prize for demanding democracy in her country. | Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 19 Bellona: 70% of nuke plants upgrade spending just to ensure compliance Russian nuclear power plants operator admits that some 70% of spending during modernisation for extending a reactor's life went on bringing the reactor into line with current safety norms and rules. Rosenergoatom representatives said that technical help under international programs made up 15.3% of total spending on the modernisation of the Kola NPP. This sum takes into account only long-term assets on the balance sheet – for example, consulting services of Western experts paid with Western money are not included. Of these funds, 4% came from Norway, 2.8% from the U.S., 1.3% from Sweden, and 0.3% from Finland. Rashid Alimov, 2005-11-30 12:58 Last week's seminar on “The Future of Nuclear Energy” in Murmansk brought together civil society organisations, Russian state nuclear power plants operator, or Rosenergoatom, and representatives of the Kola nuclear power plant. Civil society organisations taking part in the meeting – Bellona, Ekozashchita!, Nature and Youth, and Gaia – took the position that extending the working life of dangerous reactors is a dangerous practice. The Kola NPP's reactor blocks nos. 1 and 2 were meant to be taken out of service in 2003 and 2004, having come to the end of their 30-year working life. Work on extending their service lives was carried out without the state environmental expert assessment mandated by law. Documents on the illegal extension were sent by the Murmansk Region Prosecutor's Office to the Prosecutor General Office in Moscow at the beginning of November. “If the General Prosecutor decides that the extension was carried out illegally, we will not contest the decision,” Arkady Khessin of Rostekhnadzor, the body that granted permission for the extension to the Kola NPP, said at the seminar. According to the Rosenergoatom report, some $201m was spent on extending the working life of reactors at Russian NPPs in 2003, $193m in 2004, with some $208m and $261m earmarked for 2005 and 2006, respectively. Kola NPP and Rosenergoatom representatives admitted that some 70% of spending during modernisation for extending the reactor's life went on bringing the reactor into line with current norms and rules. “Before the modernisation we didn't meet these rules, and kept records of malfunctions,” said Vladimir Volsky, head of the technical support service at the Kola NPP. Scientists from the Russian Energy Technology Scientific Research Institute (VNIPIET) had previously also talked about similar expenditure to bring RMBK-type reactors at the Leningrad NPP into line with current norms during modernisation and life time extension of reactors. Rosenergoatom representatives said that technical help under international programs made up 15.3% of total spending on the modernisation of the Kola NPP. This sum takes into account only long-term assets on the balance sheet – for example, consulting services of Western experts paid with Western money are not included. Of these funds, 4% came from Norway, 2.8% from the U.S., 1.3% from Sweden, and 0.3% from Finland. In the middle of the 1990s, Russia signed an agreement with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development as part of the Nuclear Safety Account programme that fixed the country's obligations regarding decommissioning of first-generation reactors. However, after the financial resources under this programme were received, the Russian authorities refused to fulfil the agreement. In 1991-1995, spending on the TACIS nuclear safety programme ran to about half a billion dollars. The decision to extend the reactors' working lives compared two groups of expenditures: “Extending the working life of the NPP reactor block”, and “Constructing replacement generating power + decommissioning the NPP reactor block.” The comparison ignored the fact that after the extension the blocks would still have to be decommissioned, which would require new expenditure. One factor in favour of the extension, according to Rosenergoatom, was the “conservatism of the accepted basic calculation of the 30-year service life of working NPPs.” “The projected service life of the reactors being extended today was fixed at the same time as the Chernobyl NPP was being planned,” Bellona representatives said. “As we know, the Chernobyl NPP blew up: therefore, we cannot consider the assessments made then to be either to harsh or too conservative.” At the seminar, Rosenergoatom's Andrei Noskov outlined one option for the Kola NPP after closure for the first time. The suggested solution is a “brown lawn”, i.e., a burial ground on the site of the plant where the Kola NPP's equipment will be buried under layers of clay for at least 300 years after it is closed. “Unfortunately, the closure of the dangerous reactors at the Kola NPP is actually being hampered by a lack of political will,” said Vitaly Servetnik, who runs the anti-nuclear programme of Nature and Youth. “Therefore, the nuclear scientists are not getting ready for the closure, and therefore wind energy is not developing in the region.” Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice FR Doc 05-23518 [Federal Register: November 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 229)] [Notices] [Page 71862-71863] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30no05-83] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Date: Weeks of November 28, December 5, 12, 19, 26, 2005, January 2, 2006. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be considered: Week of November 28, 2005 Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2). Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative). a. Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton Site) (Tentative). 9:30 a.m. Briefing on EEO Program (Public Meeting). (Contact: Corenthis Kelley, 301-415-7380). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov Week of December 5, 2005--Tentative Thursday, December 8, 2005 1 p.m. Meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). (Contact: John Larkins, 301-415-7360). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov Week of December 12, 2005--Tentative Monday, December 12, 2005 9 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Thursday, December 15, 2005 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (Closed--Ex. 1). Week of December 19, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 19, 2005. Week of December 26, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 26, 2005. Week of January 2, 2006--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 2, 2006. *The schedule for commission meetings is subject to change on short [[Page 71863]] notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll, (301) 415- 1662. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html* * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov. Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov. Dated: November 23, 2005. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-23518 Filed 11-28-05; 10:15 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 21 Portsmouth Herald: Seabrook nuke plant given ‘Dirty Dozen’ citation Wed. November 30, 2005 By Kristen Melamed kmelamed@seacoastonline.com SEABROOK - At a small presentation Tuesday just south of the Hampton Harbor bridge, another 2005 Dirty Dozen Award was issued - this time to Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. The plant, owned by FPL Energy, joined the Peirce Island sewage treatment plant as two of 12 "egregious" polluters in New England, according to Paul Schramski, community organizer for Toxics Action Center. Schramski said Seabrook Station was issued the award for "failure to inform public health hazards," citing radiation exposure and failure to install real-time radiation-monitoring equipment since the plant opened in 1991. "Residents have a right to know what they and their families are being exposed (to) when they sit in their living rooms, drive their cars to work, and make sand castles on the beach," Schramski said. "Radiation reaches us everywhere we go. We have to stop pretending it doesn’t." Jim Sconyers, representing the 1,500 members of the Seacoast group of the Sierra Club, was on hand for the ceremony. "Live free or die?" Sconyers said. "I don’t think (it) means you live in the Seacoast and freely absorb radiation." Schramski cited a report released in June 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. According to Schramski, the conclusion of The Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report was "there is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure." Alan Griffith, spokesman for FPL Energy, said he hopes "residents see this for what it is - a publicity stunt." Griffith said that Seabrook Station’s radiation regulations are "adequate." No changes are warranted, he added. "Radiation is around us, all the time," Griffith said. Griffith said that 99.99 percent of radiation comes from sources other than nuclear power plants. Griffith noted that the organizations behind the Dirty Dozen Award use words like "appear to confirm" when citing data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and childhood cancer death rates. Susan Asher, from the office of communications at the CDC, said that the CDC was not aware of any findings in Seabrook or the surrounding areas. She said the CDC will further look into this issue. This is the ninth year of Dirty Dozen Awards. The "recipients" are chosen based on nominations from residents across New England, Schramski said. This week, the other 10 Dirty Dozen awards are being issued throughout New England. the Portsmouth Herald ***************************************************************** 22 Guardian Unlimited: Atomic hypocrisy Comment Neither Bush nor Blair is in a position to take a high moral line on Iran's nuclear programme Tony Benn Wednesday November 30, 2005 The Guardian Britain has played a leading role in the negotiations with Iran about its nuclear programme and the risk that it might lead to the development of an atomic bomb, and may well seek to take the matter to the UN security council. Given that the prime minister himself is determined to upgrade Trident and appears to be committed to a new series of nuclear power stations, his position as the defender of the non-proliferation treaty is not very credible, and if we are to understand the depth of western hypocrisy on this question we should look back at the history, which has been conveniently forgotten. Thirty years ago, on January 7 1976, as secretary of state for energy I went for a long discussion with the Shah in his palace in Tehran, and much of the time was spent discussing the plans he had to develop a major nuclear-power programme in Iran. I had been well briefed on his proposals by Dr Akbar Etemad of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, who had told me that he intended to build a 24 megawatt capacity by 1994, which was bigger than the programme Britain itself had at that time, and he expressed an interest in the centrifuges that are essential for reprocessing, while assuring me that he was anxious to avoid nuclear proliferation. My diary covering my talk to the Shah about the sources of his nuclear technology reveals that he told me that he was "getting it from the French and the Germans and might even get it from the Soviets - and why not?" It was only a year later that Dr Walter Marshall of the Atomic Energy Authority, my own adviser, announced that he was also the Shah's adviser on nuclear policy, and had prepared a scheme under which the Shah would order the Westinghouse pressurised-water reactor (PWR) if Britain would do the same, and that Iran was prepared to put up the money - a plan that I was determined to fight. It was actually being suggested as part of this deal that Iran would become a 50% owner of our nuclear industry for the purpose of building the PWRs. Marshall had, without any authority from me, apparently suggested that Britain abandon our advanced gas cooled reactors and order up to 20 PWRs, and I formed the impression that he took the view, as many in the nuclear industry did, that proliferation was inevitable and there was not much you could do about it. Indeed he almost said as much. For all these reasons I was totally opposed to this whole idea, and what was most worrying to me was the virtual certainty that it would lead to nuclear proliferation and the development of atomic weapons by Iran. It was never approved. Sir Jack Rampton, my permanent secretary, who seemed to be as keen as Marshall on the adoption of the PWR, and who was directly consulted by the prime minister, was clearly pressing this approach, and Jim Callaghan himself wanted me to go along with it. At a cabinet committee meeting held on May 4 1977, Jim, while expressing his concern about nuclear proliferation, argued that we should not reject the Iranian approach since he thought that either the Germans or the French would take it up. An added complication arose when it turned out that since nuclear power was, under Euratom, seen by the Foreign Office as being within the legal competence of the European commission, the British government might be unable to take its own view. Most astonishing of all, in the light of the present discussions, is that the problem of Iran developing such a huge nuclear capacity caused no problems for the Americans because, at that time, the Shah was seen as a strong ally, and had indeed been put on the throne with American help. There could hardly be a clearer example of double standards than this, and it fits in with the arming of Saddam to attack Iran after the Shah had been toppled, and the complete silence over Israel's huge nuclear armoury, which is itself a breach of the non-proliferation treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency and its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, were recently awarded the Nobel peace prize for their work on non-proliferation, but since that treaty provided that the nuclear-weapons states should negotiate their own disarmament agreement, which has not happened, it is clear that for them the NPT does not matter. Now there is a proposal to report Iran to the UN and ElBaradei could find himself in the same position as was Hans Blix, the Iraq arms inspector who was used by Washington for its own purposes, with the US seeking a UN resolution to condemn Iran and then, if that fails, acting unilaterally using force, as in Iraq. If the problems now being discussed can be dealt with in a practical way through the IAEA, there is a real chance of an agreed solution, and that is what we should be demanding since neither Bush nor Blair is in a position to take a high moral line. As I am strongly opposed to nuclear weapons and civil nuclear power, these comments should not be taken as endorsing what Iran is doing; but Britain's past nuclear links with Iran should encourage us to be very cautious and oppose those whose arguments could be presented as justifying a case for war, which cannot be justified. · Tony Benn was the secretary of state for energy from 1975-79 tony@tbenn.fsnet.co.uk Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace HSE nuclear glossary Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 23 Daily Mail: Blair's Ł150-a-year nuclear power tax | by BECKY BARROW and JAMES CHAPMAN, Daily Mail 07:52am 30th November 2005 [Comments] Reader comments (27) [Dounreay power station] Running out of time: Dounreay power station in Scotland Families will have to pay a 'nuclear tax' for decades to help fund up to 20 new atomic power stations, it has been warned. Britain's 25million households could face a Ł150-a-year levy on their electricity bills. Tony Blair signalled yesterday that he is pushing ahead with the plans, despite doubts in his own Cabinet and the protests of a large number of Labour MPs. Opposition MPs predicted families could have to pay Ł3,000 over 20 years - or Ł150 a year - to fund the project. Building power stations - and dealing with the radioactive waste they produce - will be massively expensive and the Treasury will not want to pick up the bill. The Prime Minister's scientific adviser Sir David King - who has urged him to press ahead with nuclear energy - is said to have proposed a levy on consumers. According to reports at the weekend, the charge would encourage private nuclear operators to build plants by giving them a premium on every unit of electricity generated. Mr Blair was given a glimpse of the protests which lie ahead yesterday as he launched a major review of Britain's energy supplies. As he confirmed the review would look specifically at the prospect of bringing in a new generation of nuclear power stations, the Prime Minister's speech to about 1,000 business leaders in Islington, North London, was disrupted by environmental campaigners. Mr Blair said energy policy was "back on the agenda with a vengeance". "Energy prices have risen. Energy supply is under threat. Climate change is producing a sense of urgency," he told the Confederation of British Industry. Blair has made up his mind The Prime Minister warned that by around 2020, the UK is likely to have seen decommissioning of coal and nuclear plants that together generate over 30 per cent of today's electricity. Though Downing Street insists Mr Blair will wait for the review, most in Westminster have little doubt that he has made up his mind that nuclear power is the best route to securing energy supplies and meeting targets for reducing carbon emissions. Critics pointed out that a major Government review only two years ago concluded that the focus should be on renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power. They said there would be no point in another inquiry unless Mr Blair was determined to get a different answer. Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, warned the move could lead to a household levy. He said: "Gordon Brown won't pay so it is likely we will have a nuclear tax." According to the Lib Dems, the Ł150-a-year bill over two decades will come in if households are forced to pay the whole amount. This would be made up by the cost of nuclear clean-up, at Ł56billion - or Ł2,240 per household - and the likely cost of ten new nuclear power stations, at Ł15billion - or Ł600 per household. Ministers admitted yesterday that the cost of going nuclear would be huge - and suggested the taxpayer might have to pay some of the bill. Public subsidies needed Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said: "What is clear is that Her Majesty's Treasury is not going to write cheques." The Prime Minister's pledge again put him at odds with many of his MPs. Forty-one have already signed a Commons motion warning that a major nuclear power project would require "massive public subsidies". Many feel the money could be better spent on renewable energy sources. But Ministers are under pressure because North Sea gas is running out and they need to cut back carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050. To generate electricity without burning fossil fuels, the alternatives are nuclear and renewable energy sources. Mr Wicks insisted nothing had been ruled in or out. "This is a wide-ranging energy review. It is not a nuclear review. There is no foregone conclusion. "We will examine the evidence and the wide range of options. It is certainly not a case of nuclear versus, say, renewables." But environmental groups fear a decision has already been made. Director Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "We are deeply worried that the Prime Minister has fallen for the nuclear spin, and has already made up his mind. "Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and unnecessary. It is time to abandon this white elephant and embrace sensible and sustainable energy solutions for the 21st century." Tory trade and industry spokesman David Willetts said Labour had stalled on making crucial energy decisions. He said: "It has taken a gas supply crisis and rocketing fuel bills to force the Government finally to act." [Comment] Add your comment | View all Reader comments (27) 27 people have commented on this story so far. Tell us what you think below! Here's a sample of the latest comments published. You can click view all to read all comments that readers have sent in. Domestic problems multiply and there is the drain from the Iraq war. The thing that disgusts me is that the government is seriously non-proactive, they wait until a crisis hits them in the face. Expect the 'great statesman' Tony Blair to head abroad away from the domestic issues trying to be a 'World Leader' - Eamonn, London, UK Do they forget who puts then in power. They in fact work for us. So why not ask us what we want? - Ken Malin, Blandford England I guess here in the 'good ole' USA we have places to dump nuclear toxic waste, albeit I don't know where, somewhere in the desert? I don't think you have enough space for that. But very near Palm Springs, California there are 100's of windmills that produce a lot of power. Isn't there some nice wide open space Mr. Blair can find for that use? Last time I checked wind and air didn't cost very much. - Marni Sue Deverman, Long Beach, California View all Add your comment ©2005 Associated Newspapers Ltd · Terms & Conditions · Privacy ***************************************************************** 24 Independentng.com: Nigeria targets 2015 to join world nuclear power Nigeria LimitedThird term barbaric, illegal Atiku group Thursday 1st December, 2005 By Dennis Mernyi Special Correspondent, Abuja Minster of Science and Technology, Professor Turner Isoun, has said Nigeria hopes to generate about 15, 000 to 20,000 megawatts of electricity within the next 10 years through nuclear power generation to enable her to meet the rising energy demand in the country. He said the plan is to enable the Federal Government to get registered in the league of world nuclear powers. Isoun also noted that this is for the purpose achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MGDs) as stipulated by the National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategies (NEEDS) document. He said though the document was not backed up with nuclear electricity plant, it has become imperative for the alternative for the fears that the country may not be able to meet her energy demand. He stated this on Thursday in Abuja when he briefed journalists on the activities of the ministry for year 2005. He said, the ministry has already presented the case to President Olusegun Obasanjo last year and was also followed by the report of the Honorary Presidential Advisory Council on Science and Technology who presented similar recommendations to Mr. President. He, however, expressed hopes that with the road map for the pre-feasibility study document already produced by the Energy Commission of Nigeria (ECN) to that effect, the country needs to generate 15,000 mw to 20,000 mw of electricity within the next 10 years but with the support of the nuclear electricity power plant. Isoun also stated that government has approved the launch of Nigeria Sat-2 by 2007 before the expiration of the expected lifespan of the present micro satellite, NigeriaSat1. He explained that the proposed Nigeria Sat2 will have much improved solution pay load with 1.0 to 2.5m panchromatic resolutions and 4.5m multi-spectral pay load in six spectral bands. He explained that its specification will be a remarkable improvement on Nigeria Sat1 and as such the ministry is therefore working on having a dramatic improvement of data quality and imagery in all areas where Sat1 is currently rendering useful services and much more. Copyright© 2004. All Rights Reserved. Independent Newspapers Limited Block5, Plot 7D, Wempco Road, Ogba, P.M.B. 21777, Ikeja, Lagos State, Nigeria. ***************************************************************** 25 Cape Cod Times: Pilgrim nuclear plant seeks 20-year license extension (November 30, 2005) By KEVIN DENNEHY STAFF WRITER Buoyed by the booming cost of natural gas and oil, the owners of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station plan to apply for a license renewal to keep the Plymouth plant open another 20 years. Entergy, an energy industry giant that owns 10 nuclear reactors, will officially notify the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of its intentions during a conference call today. The federal review, which will focus primarily on environmental effects and the company's ability to maintain aging equipment, could take 22 to 30 months. The review process will take longer if the regulatory commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board grants the public a formal legal hearing. The Plymouth plant's current license expires in 2012. Nuclear critics are bracing for a legal fight, a challenge they concede would be expensive and limited by strict federal regulations. But even if Entergy is forced into a legal battle, its chances seem promising. Since March 2000, when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved its first nuclear plant license renewal, 36 other extensions have been granted. Only one license extension - for the Beaver Valley Power Station in Pennsylvania - has been denied. According to federal officials, that plant's owner, FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, did not provide enough specifics in their application, which could be reconsidered with more details. In the Pilgrim license extension, a multi-volume application will address numerous issues from impacts on local fishing to the viability of structural equipment, said David Tarantino, an Entergy spokesman. ''This isn't like renewing your driver's license,'' he said. Most of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors were built during the 1960s or 70s. While the Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations limit nuclear reactor licenses to 40 years initially, the permits can be renewed thereafter. Entergy leaders decided a year ago to pursue an extension for Pilgrim, a 34-year-old reactor capable of producing 670 megawatts of power. Pilgrim provides power for about 670,000 homes in the region, about 20 percent of which are on Cape Cod. At the same time, Entergy will seek an extension for its Vermont Yankee plant, a move company officials say reflects a continued surge in the nuclear market. During the application review, which will likely cost the company about $5 million, Entergy must address environmental effects of its operation and exhibit that it has a formal program to manage aging infrastructuresuch as plumbing. ''We need to know how they plan to deal with aging components,'' said David McIntyre, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Critics complain that the review will not include consideration of security risks or regional evacuation plans in case of nuclear catastrophe. The Plymouth plant remains vulnerable to terrorist attack, said Mary Lampert, a vocal nuclear critic from Duxbury and founder of the watchdog group Pilgrim Watch. Terrorism fears are particularly troublesome because of the population growth in southeastern Massachusetts, she said. Isolated by two narrow bridges that span the Cape Cod Canal, Lampert added Cape residents would be trapped if there was a disaster at the Plymouth plant. Lampert hopes to galvanize environmental groups and law firms to battle the renewal of the Pilgrim license but fears a costly legal fight. During public hearings, numerous advocacy groups will likely testify against the extension, she said. But she said a spirited legal challenge is less likely. ''With all the cases so far rubber-stamped, a lot of these groups just want to put the time into it,'' she said. ''They look at the process and say, 'Is it worth draining $200,000 out of our budget?''' Kevin Dennehy can be reached at kdennehy@capecodonline.com. (Published: November 30, 2005) Copyright © 2005 Cape Cod Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 26 Webindia123.com: Civil nuclear cooperation with US to boost high technology trade - Shyam Saran - New Delhi | November 30, 2005 6:10:05 PM IST Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said on Wednesday that Indo-US nuclear agreement would have wide-ranging implications on high technology trade between both the countries. Addressing the inaugural session of the Indo-US High Technology Cooperation Group's (HCTG meet in the capital today, Saran said the agreement would definitely boost trade as it was reached only on the basis of India's record of non-proliferation. "The nuclear agreement, as would be appreciated, has larger implications for high technology trade as it is premised on US recognition of India's impeccable record on non-proliferation. It not only recognises that non-proliferation is better served with India as a partner, but also sends a clear signal, that India cannot be a partner and a target at the same time of technology denial regime," he said. He further said that the decision of the two governments to resume full cooperation in civil nuclear energy had opened up new avenues in commerce and trade. The Under Secretary of US Bureau of Industry and Security, David McCormic, who was co-chairing the meet, said that US was committed to the emerging global partnership with India and both countries first required to accomplish short-term goals in various fields. "One of the elements of success for a global partnership will be to work successfully together to identify and resolve problems in the relationship. We should tap into our commonality as nations of problem solvers to develop recommendations that enable us to address short-term accomplishable goals that ultimately advance high technology trade between our two countries," said McCormic. Civil nuclear energy is one component of energy dialogue between both the countries that began earlier this year covering oil and gas, clean coal technology and non-conventional energy sources. The landmark U.S.-India accord reached on July 18 is expected to grant New Delhi access to nuclear technology it has been denied for more than two decades, but prominent critics complain it undermines non-proliferation goals and should be tightened up. In last few years, India's economic reform program, its huge market, a booming information technology industry, its military might and potential as a counterweight to China have all combined to bring New Delhi closer to Washington. (ANI) © 2000-2005 Suni System (P) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 27 EWPRI: yewitness News - NRC asked to review Vt. Yankee, Pilgrim relicensing together November 30, 2005 MONTPELIER, Vt. A company that owns nuclear plants in Massachusetts and Vermont will formally ask federal regulators to extend their licenses past current 2012 expiration dates. Entergy Nuclear -- which owns the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth and Vermont Yankee -- wants the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to review the applications together. In a presentation today, Entergy told N-R-C officials that the two plants are of similar design and age. The company also says the same team from the Louisiana-based company prepared relicensing applications for both.The N-R-C says the type of review to be used won't be determined until the applications are filed. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This All content © Copyright 2003-2005 WorldNow, WPRI, WNAC and Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. y ***************************************************************** 28 Guardian Unlimited: The power and the unglory Opinion Tom Burke Wednesday November 30, 2005 The Guardian First, a panic is whipped up. Then there are denials that a decision has been taken. The dodgy dossier comes next. Later, the long-made decision is announced. Then we discover there was no reason to panic. Then we find ourselves in a mess. No, not the Iraq war, but nuclear power. The prime minister has launched an energy review, to be completed by next summer. But it seems he and his advisers have already decided what it will discover. We know this because Blair's team have been saying so to anyone who would listen for weeks. Hence the need for the dodgy dossier - sorry, energy review - with which to confuse the public and browbeat Labour MPs. As it happens, just such an exhaustive energy review is being conducted in the open by Parliament's environmental audit committee. Its chairman, Peter Ainsworth, asks each witness what has changed since the energy white paper was published in 2003. The answer, from everyone but the nuclear industry, has been "nothing". Unfortunately, as with the Iraq war, the right answer for Blair will be the wrong answer for the country. New nuclear power stations cannot help us with either energy security or a stable climate. More than half the gas we use is for heating and cooking in our homes. Nuclear power can do nothing to meet this need. We cannot build new nuclear power stations in time to replace our existing stations without bending the safety and environmental rules by which they are approved. Never mind, the rules of the game can be changed. Nothing prevents anyone who wants to build a new nuclear power station from ordering one tomorrow. Indeed, ministers have repeatedly pointed this out. However, the private sector knows they are a very bad investment without considerable government support. Since Gordon Brown will not pay for them, the government is planning to use stealth support. This will take many forms. First, the electricity market will be rigged for the next 30 years to guarantee a return for nuclear investors. To avoid making direct subsidies, the government will force consumers to pay more than they should for their electricity. Next, the government will cap the investors' liabilities for the cost of radioactive waste management and decommissioning. The taxpayer will then be forced to make up the shortfall. There are very few things on which all protagonists agree. One is that there are no silver bullets. Another is that government is very bad at picking technology winners. So why is Blair, from the comfort of his sofa, trying to pick a winning silver bullet? · Tom Burke is a visiting professor at Imperial and University Colleges, London, and a co-founder of E3G, Third Generation Environmentalism [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 29 Guardian Unlimited: Wanted: a debate not a fix Nuclear energy Leader Wednesday November 30, 2005 This is an unusual week in politics. Two national debates are being launched - both about the extent to which the present generation should make provision for the next. Today will be about pensions with the release of the Turner report. Yesterday was nuclear power with the launch of the UK energy policy review. It is because both reviews are tainted by suspicions that the would-be chief decision-makers (Gordon Brown on pensions and Tony Blair on nuclear power) have already made up their minds that it is very important that the reviews are real. They must not add to the distressing number of reports cast aside before the ink has dried. Openness of governmental processes matters as well as nuclear dependence. The public has good reason to be very sceptical about the claim that there is no alternative to a massive increase in nuclear power station construction if our targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are to be met. In addition to the usual objections to nuclear power - that it has proved far more expensive and less safe than proponents promised - there is a new one, that they will be a prime target for terrorists. Think not just of Britain but of hundreds of nuclear stations scattered around the world from Zimbabwe to China. Nevertheless we cannot dismiss the new claim - that however unsafe or expensive the nuclear option seems to be, the risks are far less than the alternative of allowing greenhouse gases to erode the viability of the planet itself. When environmentalists such as the Guardian's columnist George Monbiot - hardly Tony Blair's spin doctor - do the sums and find that "renewable" energies cannot save the world on present evidence without consideration of nuclear, it may be time to start examining some prejudices. No one should prejudge the outcome - but several procedural points are crucial. First, the review must be flexible. It must not lock the country into a rigid programme, whether nuclear or renewable. This is because research into alternatives could become the equivalent of the internet boom of the future. A combination of rising energy prices (making alternatives more attractive) and fears about environmental degradation could usher in a golden age of research. There are already lots of fruitful avenues - including wind power, solar power, wave power, "clean coal", biofuels, engines running on alcohol. The current issue of Newsweek lists ten top companies already researching in eco-friendly areas. Second, the review should give scenarios, ranging from soft to hard, to test public opinion which, on the evidence of polls, is looking to politicians for a lead. The hard one should include draconian measures to force people to conserve energy - many of us still leave lights, heaters and computers on unnecessarily - accompanied by fierce incentives to improve energy efficiency. The object would be to make clear what needs to be done to proceed without a nuclear option. One of Angela Merkel's first policies as German chancellor was to decree that 5% of all pre-1978 German homes should be made energy efficient every year. John Prescott please take note. If, as mooted, the nuclear programme is accompanied by subsidies or a levy on bills then the government should be compelled to say what such money might produce if invested in renewables. Finally, a plan that aims to last for decades must be consensual. This means not only getting the votes of opposition parties - while watching out for an unholy nuclear alliance of Labour and Conservatives - but, more important, across Europe. Europe-wide cooperation in the area of climate change could not only produce synergies (for instance, by sharing research and maybe diverting CAP subsidies towards biofuels) but could also help restore the image of the EU itself. If Mr Blair uses the review to back a decision already made, his will not be the only credibility that will suffer. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 30 Guardian Unlimited: Opponents square up for power struggle Reaction Opponents square up for power struggle Terry Macalister and Mark Milner Wednesday November 30, 2005 The Guardian Tony Blair's decision to put the issue of nuclear energy back on the political agenda yesterday ran into a predictable mixture of outrage and support. Business, the unions and energy producers lined up behind the decision to hold a review that will consider nuclear new-build as one of the options to fill Britain's looming energy gap. But green organisations and the Liberal Democrats were quick to criticise the prime minister's stance. The party's environment spokesman, Norman Baker, said opening the door to nuclear power "would not only be bad for the environment, but also absurdly expensive for the everyday consumer. The last nuclear plant to be built in the UK generated power at twice the current market rate. The taxpayer has also had to fork out over Ł50bn to write off the industry's liabilities." The CBI and the Engineering Employers' Federation welcomed the proposal. Sir Digby Jones, CBI director general, said: "This country urgently needs a revamped and coherent energy policy which includes a clear decision on nuclear power." Martin Temple, EEF director general, said: "Energy is now right at the top of the agenda and there is no time to lose in putting in place a long-term strategy that will provide a competitive, reliable and secure supply and generate a significant reduction in emissions." The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "We welcome this energy review. Rising prices, fears for supply security and climate change make it urgent. The government should consider incentives for investment to ensure early development of new generating capacity in all lower-carbon generation technologies, including renewables, nuclear and clean coal." David Porter, chief executive of the Association of Electricity Producers, welcomed the decision to keep the review to a tight timetable, but warned that the government would have a part to play by providing a long-term commitment if it chose a nuclear power option. He said: "The problem is raising enough money to do it and persuading the people who sign the cheques that the policy will be stable enough for long enough for them to earn a return." Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace UK, attacked the decision. "Just three years ago Blair conducted the biggest energy review in 60 years - which concluded renewable energy and energy efficiency, not nuclear, is the way forward. Today's new review is simply a smokescreen for pushing his new-found enthusiasm for nuclear power." Mr Tindale said the real solution to climate change and energy security was a mix of efficient, safe and clean energy technologies such as wind, wave and solar power. Guy Thompson, a director of the Green Alliance thinktank, said the emphasis on the atomic sector was wrongheaded. Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace HSE nuclear glossary Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 31 Washington Times: Defense contractor held in spy case Bill Gertz November 30, 2005 A defense contractor charged with failing to register as a Chinese agent admitted passing data on U.S. Navy arms technology to China for 22 years, including information on next-generation destroyers, an aircraft carrier catapult and the Aegis weapons system, according to new court papers in the case. Two federal judges in Los Angeles on Monday reversed earlier rulings and ordered the contractor and his brother held without bond. The rulings followed testimony from FBI agents in the case. Court papers released Monday, including a detention motion filed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Staples, also identified the Chinese military intelligence handler who received the information from defense contractor Chi Mak and his brother Tai Mak, who also is in the Chinese military. The court documents shed new light on what U.S. intelligence officials say will be one of the most damaging cases of Chinese technology spying on U.S. weapons, even though the information compromised was not secret. According to court papers, Chi Mak, an electrical engineer who worked on more than 200 Navy contracts, told investigators two days after his Oct. 30 arrest that he had been sending sensitive but unclassified documents on weapons research to China since 1983. According to the papers, Chi Mak admitted passing to China information on: • Direct current-to-direct current (DDC) converters for submarines. • A 5,000-amp direct current hybrid circuit breaker for submarines. • Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS), a new system to launch aircraft from carriers using magnets instead of steam. • The power distribution system for the Aegis weapons system and its Spy-1 radar, used on the Navy's most advanced guided missile destroyers and cruisers. • A study that reveals the methods used by U.S. warship personnel to continue operating after being attacked. Officials said the paper is a blueprint for attacking and disabling warships. • Modifications and Additions to Reactor Facility (MARF), a nuclear reactor located at the Navy's Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory that's used for testing prototype nuclear reactors. Investigators found a detailed, hand-drawn map of that facility in Chi Mak's house. Copyright © 1999 - 2005 News World Communications, Inc. ***************************************************************** 32 Narragansett Times: Nuke site secure, says URI News - 11/30/2005 - GALEN McGOVERN 11/30/2005 Narragansett - Everyone knows what could happen if a nuclear explosion occurred, so in these dangerous times, how secure is the nuclear reactor at the Rhode Island Nuclear Science Center (RINSC) located at the University of Rhode Island Narragansett Bay Campus? Ever since an ABC news investigation on the lack of security on college campuses and fallout from the September 11 the 2001 attacks, security is all Terry Tehan, the Director, spends his time on. "I've got an alarm system you wouldn't believe," Tehan continued. "I have more security sensors that you can imagine but I can't tell you where they are." The facility has been in existence for 40 years without incident. There are external pylons surrounding the building that can withstand a truck traveling at 35 mph. These were paid for by the Federal Department of Energy and installed recently in response to the bombing in Oklahoma City. On college campuses with reactors, background checks, college police, and Federal Bureau of Investigation visits are not unusual. In fact, he said, "the FBI were down here last week," and one computer was removed after 9/11, explained Tehan. Even at URI, if one is lucky enough to get in for a private tour for educational reasons, there are a number of limitations in place. There are no backpacks, cell phones, or cameras allowed in the reactor building and you must submit your driver's license prior to the tour. One also has to wear two radiation detectors - a thermo luminescent dosimeter and a capacitor. According to Tehan, radiation is higher outside the building than inside it. Charcoal filters remove 99.7 percent of the radioactivity of the vented air that leaves the building through the outside stack, but the intake of air brings in outside radiation. As a result, there are lead bricks surrounding research instruments to keep radiation from the air out. "If Brayton Point is running and the air is blowing down the Bay this way, it sets off the detector," Tehan explained. Coal contains Uranium and it is released into the air when coal is burned. Before entering the reactor room, you must pass through a confinement room. Once inside the reactor room, there are tubes reminiscent of a bank drive up teller station, where researchers send samples to be irradiated. The RINSC reactor is heavily secured, regulated, and "inspected by more people than you can imagine," said Tehan. But he cautioned that some college reactors may be safer and more secure than others. He described some reactors as being located in the basement of college engineering departments with minimal security. The reactor is completely contained and built within a structure about as solid as they come. The building is on top of three gun mounts and Tehan said "it is a fort." The walls of the building are several feet thick and the concrete pool surrounding the reactor has eight to 10 foot walls. In addition, Tehan seems to have every security measure one could imagine. "I even have an earthquake switch." The reactor also will shut off automatically if there is any problem. Tehan called the recent national reporting on college reactors "witch hunting," and explained that in Russia and Iran "there are issues." The scrutiny of the URI facility is akin to "taking a bystander and hanging him with Jesse James." To clear up any misconceptions, Tehan said, "we don't do bombs." The 2 megawatt reactor is "basically a neutron source" used for numerous research purposes (see related story). "We do good things," said Tehan. "You couldn't make a bomb [from the materials at URI] if you tried." And if someone did try to remove one of the fuel elements from the pool, he continued, they would die quickly. ©The Narragansett Times 2005 ***************************************************************** 33 RADIOACTIVE TANK NO. 9 COMES LIMPING HOME Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:09:15 -0600 (CST) X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127 RADIOACTIVE TANK NO. 9 COMES LIMPING HOME By Bob Nichols San Francisco Bay View November 23, 2005 http://www.sfbayview.com/110905/radioactivetank110905.shtml Across the plains of Kansas, destroyed, radioactive Abrams tanks, perched on railroad flatcars, rolled towards an uncertain future. Only one thing was certain. They would be radioactive forever. This would be their everlasting death mask. The Pentagon deceptively calls it "depleted uranium." The Abrams tanks are constructed with a layer of radioactive uranium metal plates. The big tanks fire a giant uranium dart at 2,100 mph, much faster than an F-16 fighter aircraft, mach III to airplane pilots and very, very fast to the rest of us. American taxpayers paid to ship the tanks to Iraq and to return them for disposal or re-building in the United States. The tanks are 12 feet wide and weigh a stout 70 tons, or 140,000 pounds. The enduring vigorous stupidity of the U.S. military pretends that radiation is one of those things that if you can't see it, it can't hurt you. They are thoroughly delusional, of course. A National Academy of Sciences report released June 30, 2005, finds that there is no safe level of radiation. Any radiation is bad. From America to Iraq and back, these giant radioactive hulks can only sicken and kill Americans. On top of the sheer, unrelenting stupidity of playing with radiation with unsuspecting soldiers, now the neo-con government is involving everyday Americans in their radiation madness. The Pentagon can't even follow simple radiation hazard mitigation instructions. Their own rules and regulations have the force of law throughout the world. Yet they are ignored in the United States. Dr. Doug Rokke Dr. Doug Rokke is the Pentagon's former director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. When contacted on Oct. 22, he viewed Chris Bayruh's photographs and made this statement about the radioactive tanks in Kansas: "The radioactive damaged Abrams tanks that were left unsecured on a Kansas railroad track are a perfect example of exactly how not to ship damaged radioactive equipment and how not to protect our Army's Abrams tanks from possible sabotage and compromise of classified battle systems." On Oct. 10, prior to the discovery of the radioactive tanks, Dr. Rokke made the following statement. It is eerily predictive of what would happen in Kansas three days later. "U.S. Department of Defense officials continue to deny that there are any adverse health and environmental effects as a consequence of the manufacture, testing and/or use of uranium munitions to avoid liability for the willful and illegal dispersal of a radioactive toxic material - depleted uranium." Dr. Rokke continued, "They [the U.S. military] arrogantly refuse to comply with their own regulations, orders and directives that require United States Department of Defense officials to provide prompt and effective medical care to all exposed individuals." (See Note 1 below.) "They also refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive contamination of equipment as required by Army regulations." (See Note 2.) "Specifically, they are required (see Note 3) to accomplish four things: 1) Military personnel must 'identify, segregate, isolate, secure and label all RCE' (radiologically contaminated equipment). 2) 'Procedures to minimize the spread of radioactivity will be implemented as soon as possible.' 3) 'Radioactive material and waste will not be locally disposed of through burial, submersion, incineration, destruction in place, or abandonment' and 4) 'All equipment, to include captured or combat RCE, will be surveyed, packaged, retrograded, decontaminated and released.' "The past and current use of uranium weapons, the release of radioactive components in destroyed U.S. and foreign military equipment, and releases of industrial, medical and research facility radioactive materials have resulted in unacceptable exposures." Dr. Rokke added, "Therefore, decontamination must be completed as required by U.S. Army Regulation 700-48 and should include releases of all radioactive materials resulting from military operations. "The extent of adverse health and environmental effects of uranium weapons contamination is not limited to combat zones but includes facilities and sites where uranium weapons were manufactured or tested, including Vieques, Puerto Rico, Colonie, New York, and Jefferson Proving Grounds, Indiana. "Therefore, medical care must be provided by the United States Department of Defense officials to all individuals affected by the manufacturing, testing and/or use of uranium munitions. Thorough environmental remediation also must be completed without further delay. "I am amazed," exclaimed Dr. Rokke, "that 14 years after I was asked to clean up the initial DU mess from Gulf War I and almost 10 years since I finished the depleted uranium project, United States Department of Defense officials and many others still attempt to justify uranium munitions use while ignoring mandatory requirements. "But beyond the ignored mandatory actions, the willful dispersal of tons of solid radioactive and chemically toxic waste in the form of uranium munitions just does not even pass the common sense test. "Finally, continued compliance with the infamous March 1991 Los Alamos Memorandum (see Note 5) that was issued to ensure continued use of uranium munitions cannot be justified. "In conclusion," Dr. Rokke urged, "the president of the United States, George W. Bush, and the prime minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, must acknowledge and accept responsibility for willful use of illegal uranium munitions - their own "dirty bombs" - resulting in adverse health and environmental effects." "President Bush and Prime Minister Blair also should order: 1) medical care for all casualties, 2) thorough environmental remediation, 3) immediate cessation of retaliation against all of us who demand compliance with medical care and environmental remediation requirements, 4) and ban the future use of depleted uranium munitions," Dr. Rokke concluded. A little old lady in tennis shoes Leuren Moret is a world famous scientist and radiation specialist who formerly worked at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, where she became a whistleblower in 1991. She has spoken out about the danger of uranium munitions to humanity in more than 42 countries. Moret has appeared in four documentaries about uranium munitions (depleted uranium). "Beyond Treason" debuted in August 2005 and won the Grand Festival Award at the Berkeley Film Festival. The newest film, "Blowin' in the Wind," was nominated during its debut the first week of November in Australia for an Academy Award. Moret was an expert witness at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan and serves as an adviser and expert witness in court cases regarding radiation exposure. Her statement, made Oct. 24, about the dead tanks in Kansas follows: "Sally Devlin, a little old lady in tennis shoes, went to a public meeting several years ago, held by the Air Force in Pahrump, Nevada. Two officers told the citizens of the town that the Air Force would be moving 80 old target practice tanks and tons of old depleted uranium munitions through their town. "The radioactive bullets had been picked up off the Nellis gunnery ranges by order of the state of Nevada and were being transported to the Nevada Test Site [a nuclear weapons test site] to be buried as radioactive waste. "When Mrs. Devlin politely asked them how they would prevent the residents of the town from being contaminated by the radioactive dust on the tanks and bullets, the officers said, 'We're wrapping them in Saran Wrap.' She told them that would be unacceptable and stopped the Air Force dead in their tracks," Moret concluded. Whether it is Saran Wrap in Nevada or nothing at all in Kansas, the Pentagon just doesn't get it when it comes to uranium radiation dispersing weapons. It is way past time to take all their nuclear weapons and uranium munitions away from them and send them home to get real jobs. They are clearly incapable of protecting this country from all dangers, including those created by our own U.S. military. The U.S. military shows so little regard for Americans in Kansas, one wonders what on earth they have done to Iraq. The U.S. military has distributed an estimated 8 million pounds of weaponized ceramic uranium oxide gas, aerosols and dust on a practically defenseless little country of 26 million people (see Note 6), according to an estimate by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. What is this lethal radioactive weapon supposed to do? Why was it used? Ceramic uranium oxide gas is a genocidal weapon, for God's sake. It persists in the environment forever. In Leuren Moret's pithy words, "The Iraqis are uranium meat." The politicians, Pentagon staff, generals, commanding officers and others responsible for this war crime must be arrested, tried, convicted and appropriately punished for their crimes against humanity. There is another explanation Another explanation is that the U.S. Army and other branches of the military are far from stupid. They are, in fact, the most lethal and carefully planned military in the history of the world. The extensive use of weaponized uranium oxide gas, aerosols and dust is not an accident or an oversight. They did it on purpose. If this is true, they purposely used a genocidal weapon over at least a 15-year period. No, this is not a callous mistake of empire; it is a calculated act of genocide to weaken the oil- and gas-rich countries of Central Asia, including Iraq. Take your choice: they are either stupid or genocidal monsters. A British group has estimated the weaponized ceramic uranium oxide will account for an additional 25 million cancers in Iraq in the next several years. There are only 26 million Iraqis to start with, minus the nearly 1.7 million killed by war or sanctions since 1991, plus some live births. A National Academy of Sciences report released June 30, 2005, finds that there is no safe level of radiation. The committee dismissed the idea that any radiation could be harmless or beneficial. The radioactive tanks in Kansas and Iraq are the same. They are placed there at great expense by the senior American political and military leadership, with premeditated malice. The bottom line purpose of a 140,000-pound radioactive tank is to kill people. Uranium munitions a war crime Dennis Kyne, noted speaker and writer, is a former drill instructor (DI) and a 15-year veteran of the Army as well as a Gulf War vet (see . Kyne makes a point of how "hot" or radioactive the tanks in Kansas would be if they were hit by "friendly fire" to get beat up so much. They could be contaminated with as much as 30,000 times background radiation. That is what uranium munitions do to a tank, bunker or building. Karen Parker, a prominent U.S. international human rights lawyer, says there are four rules derived from humanitarian laws and conventions regarding weapons: 1. Weapons may only be used against legal enemy military targets and must not have an adverse effect elsewhere (the territorial rule). 2. Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict and must not be used or continue to act afterwards (the temporal rule). 3. Weapons may not be unduly inhumane (the "humaneness" rule). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 speak of "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" in this regard 4. Weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment (the "environmental" rule). "DU weaponry fails all four tests," Parker states. "First, DU cannot be limited to legal military targets. Second, it cannot be 'turned off' when the war is over but keeps killing. "Third, DU can kill through painful conditions such as cancers and organ damage and can also cause birth defects, such as facial deformities and missing limbs. Lastly, DU cannot be used without unduly damaging the natural environment. "In my view, use of DU weaponry violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions," Parker concluded, "and so its use constitutes a war crime, or crime against humanity." ......... Notes 1. "Medical Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium Casualties," DOD, Pentagon, 10/14/93, "Medical Management of Army Personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU)," Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Command, 4/29/04, and section 2-5 of AR 700-48 . 2. AR 700- 48: "Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities," Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002, and U.S. Army Technical Bulletin TB 9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage, and Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium," Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., July 1996, . 3. Section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation 700-48 dated Sept. 16, 2002, specifies these requirements. 4. IAW Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48. Maximum exposure limits are specified in Appendix F. 5. http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/doc1.html 6. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark's estimate: http://www.covertactionquarterly.org/demonize.html ------------ PREVIOUS NHNE NEWS LIST ARTICLES: THE RADIOACTIVE WOUNDS OF WAR (8/26/2005): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/9816 PAYING THE PRICE: THE MOUNTING COSTS OF THE IRAQ WAR (6/25/2004): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/7464 U.S. SOLDIERS GETTING SICK FROM IRAQI DEPLETED URANIUM (4/6/2004): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/7031 WHO 'SUPPRESSED' IRAQI DEPLETED URANIUM STUDY (2/24/2004): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/6812 URANIUM LEVELS IN AFGHANS' BLOOD ASTONISHINGLY HIGH (5/24/2004): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5393 FAIR: CLUSTER BOMBS & DEPLETED URANIUM (5/6/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5257 UK TO AID IRAQ DU REMOVAL (4/25/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5186 U.S. REJECTS IRAQ DU CLEAN-UP (4/14/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5115 GULF WAR SYNDROME II (4/10/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5086 THE CASE AGAINST DEPLETED URANIUM BEING DANGEROUS (4/10/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5083 CONGRESSMAN MCDERMOTT DEPLETED URANIUM BILL HR 1483 (4/10/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5082 HOW U.S VETS HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY ABUSED, IGNORED & MISTREATED (4/10/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5081 U.S. USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS IS 'ILLEGAL' (3/30/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/4967 U.S. TO USE DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS IN IRAQ (3/16/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/4762 U.S. STOCKING URANIUM-RICH BOMBS? (3/11/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/4687 URANIUM MUNITIONS: THE WAR AGAINST OURSELVES (2/18/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/4493 ANIMAL STUDY: CHEMICALS HARMED SOLDIERS IN GULF WAR (1/8/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/4213 FORCED VACCINES HAUNT GULF VETS (11/7/2002): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/3931 GI GUINEA PIGS (10/30/2002): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/3885 DEPLETED URANIUM TOXICITY IN AFGHANISTAN (& IRAQ) (12/11/2001): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/2385 DEPLETED COVERAGE OF NATO'S DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS (1/14/2001): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/1035 TESTS SHOW GULF WAR VICTIMS HAVE URANIUM POISONING (9/2/2000): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/642 ***************************************************************** 34 NRC: NRC Issues Confirmatory Order and Reduces Fine for Radiation Safety Violation at LaSalle News Release - Region III - 2005-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-05-045 November 29, 2005 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: confirming commitments made to the NRC by Exelon Generation Co. and reduced the amount of a fine as part of a settlement agreement concerning a violation of radiation safety requirements at the companys LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station. The plant, which has two reactors, is located near Seneca, Ill. The violation occurred when four employees of a contractor working at the LaSalle Station entered a high radiation area without authorization on Jan. 25, 2004. NRC investigators determined that the violation was willful in that the foreman and two of the workers were aware they were not authorized to enter the high radiation area and had not received the briefing by radiation protection personnel necessary to enter the area. The workers did not receive a significant radiation exposure. The maximum radiation exposure received was 5 millirem, which is a small fraction of the NRC limit of 5,000 millirem per year for workers at nuclear facilities. The NRC issued Exelon a Notice of Violation and proposed a $60,000 fine on May 2, 2005 (see NRC press release issued May 4, 2005). On May 12, 2005, Exelon announced its intention to appeal the NRCs enforcement action through the use of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR), a process used to help the NRC and the utility to reach agreement. As part of this process, the utility and the NRC staff met with an independent mediator and reached a settlement agreement. The utility acknowledged that the violation had occurred and committed to carrying out extensive corrective action to address the problem. The NRC reduced the fine from the proposed $60,000 to $10,000 as a result of the utilitys commitments to improve radiation safety rules, procedures and awareness at the plant. Exelon has until December 22 to pay the fine. The commitments made by the utility to make sure radiation safety rules and procedures are properly understood and enforced will help the NRC gain stronger confidence that nuclear workers are protected from excessive doses of radiation at the LaSalle plant, said James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator. The Confirmatory Order to Exelon and other documents related to this case are available from the Region III Office of Public Affairs and on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Enter docket number 05000373 as a search term. Last revised Tuesday, November 29, 2005 ***************************************************************** 35 Las Vegas SUN: Reid seeks to speed payments for sick Nevada Test Site workers Today: November 30, 2005 at 17:22:57 PST By KEN RITTER ASSOCIATED PRESS LAS VEGAS (AP) - Sen. Harry Reid called on the Bush administration Wednesday to make it easier for Nevada Test Site workers to get federal compensation for illnesses tied to their work at the vast nuclear weapons proving ground. The Democratic party leader said test site employees and contractors suffering from radiation-induced cancers and illnesses face unnecessary delays and obstacles when they seek $150,000 payments for medical costs under a program begun five years ago. "Hundreds and hundreds of these test site workers suffer from radiation-induced cancers and are eligible for compensation," Reid said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the system is working against them and these workers face delays at every turn." At a news conference at the Nevada Test Site Resource Center, Reid said he sent President Bush a letter Wednesday seeking "special exposure cohort status" for employees who worked at the test site from 1950 until the end of nuclear weapons testing in 1992. The Nevada Test Site, based 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, covers 1,375 square miles and was the location for 928 above- and below-ground nuclear detonations. Spokesmen for the White House and the Energy Department, which administers the test site, said they had not seen Reid's letter and could not immediately comment. The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 provides compensation for nuclear workers with cancers, beryllium diseases or silicosis if they can prove that at least 50 percent of their illness stems from their employment . Reid, accompanied by two former test site employees, said few Nevada workers who should qualify have had their cases reviewed or approved. In his letter to the White House, Reid said 57 percent of Nevada Test Site cancer claims were pending before the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, which has recommended compensation in about 11 percent of the cases. By comparison, he said, the institute has recommended compensation in about 25 percent of cases nationwide, which includes such Cold War-era weapons facilities as Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Portsmouth, Ohio; Paducah, Ky.; Savannah River, S.C.; and Hanford, Wash. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 36 AU ABC Asia: News - Marshall Islands raises nuclear testing issue on Israel visit President of the Marshall Islands, Kessai Note, has asked for Israel's help in persuading the United States to acknowledge the long-term effects of nuclear weapons testing on his people. Mr Note is on his first state visit to Israel. The Jerusalem Post quotes the president as saying his country experienced the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima-sized bombs every day. His remarks were made during a state luncheon hosted by the president of Israel, Moshe Katsav. The Marshall Islands was used by the US as a nuclear testing ground between 1946 and 1962. Despite huge clean up operations, the islands are still considered too dangerous and too contaminated for human habitation. Many of those exposed to radiation are still seeking compensation from the US. President Note has thanked Israel for its "continued generosity" in providing agricultural assistance and medical aid to the Marshall Islands. ABC Asia Pacific TV / Radio Australia ***************************************************************** 37 Globe and Mail: Pembroke factory sparks nuclear concern theglobeandmail.com After discovering groundwater contaminated with radioactive tritium, regulatory agency recommends shutting company By MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT Wednesday, November 30, 2005 Page A3 ENVIRONMENT REPORTER Alarmed about radioactivity levels around Pembroke, Ont., that are hundreds of times above normal, staff at Canada's nuclear regulatory agency have taken the unprecedented step of recommending the closing of a manufacturer of glow-in-the-dark signs. Staff at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission have found that emissions from the company, SRB Technologies (Canada) Inc., have created a trail of groundwater contaminated with radioactive tritium more than a kilometre long under the Ottawa River Valley community of 15,000. The most contaminated water had tritium levels 743 times normal. The CNSC staff, in a toughly worded assessment filed with the regulatory agency, recommend that SRB not be issued a new operating licence when its current one expires at the end of December -- effectively a call to close the company. The staff said they believe the company is so poorly run they don't think it "is qualified to carry on the activities that the licence will authorize [it] to carry on" and are worried that if the facility is allowed to continue operating, there is "potential that an unreasonable risk to the environment and health and safety of persons will develop." Advertisements [ /] Register The staff also fear that the company might not take adequate actions for the "maintenance of national security and measures required to implement international obligations to which Canada has agreed." CNSC spokesman Aurčle Gervais said the case is believed to be the first where the commission's staff have recommended that regulators shut a nuclear facility that has been approved to handle large amounts of radioactive material. The CNSC has a policy of refusing to answer questions about its assessments until documents are submitted at regulatory hearings, so the nature of the possible "national security" issues is not clear. Nuclear regulators are touchy about tritium because it has a military use in the manufacture of hydrogen bombs, in addition to its use in glow-in-the-dark signs. SRB Technologies said it is upset by the call that it be closed. "We're a little disappointed -- well, really disappointed -- with staff's recommendation," said company president Stephane Levesque. The hearing on the future of the SRB plant, which is located in a Pembroke strip mall, is scheduled for today, when commission regulators formally review the staff recommendation and the company's counterarguments. Other documents prepared by the commission for the hearing indicated that a calculation error had led SRB to underestimate its tritium emissions by 90 per cent. The company also has told regulators that its monitoring equipment may be faulty and might be providing incorrect figures for the amount of radioactivity released into the city. According to the CNSC staff assessment, tritium readings in a well about a kilometre from the plant were 400 becquerel per litre, while those in a well 400 metres from the plant were 2,750 Bq per litre. A becquerel is a measure of radioactivity. Staff characterized those readings as a "significant development relating to contaminated groundwater." Clean water has about 3.7 Bq per litre, so the Pembroke readings were 108 and 743 times normal. Tritium, like all radioactive substances, is considered a health risk because it may cause cancer. However, there is considerable regulatory uncertainty about what constitutes an unsafe exposure. Ontario's drinking water standard is 7,000 Bq per litre, a level that is far more lax than the European Union's standard of 100 Bq per litre or the U.S. figure of 740 Bq per litre. (California last year issued a report calling for an even tougher health protection standard of 15 Bq per litre.) The Ontario government rejected an advisory panel recommendation in the early 1990s to adopt 100 Bq per litre as the standard. The CNSC staff did not think residents are at risk because the readings are below drinking-water standards, but admitted they did not know the full extent of the radioactivity or the potential health effects. But some residents are concerned because neither the commission nor the company have accurate figures on the radioactivity to which they've been exposed. "If things are not being measured properly, then there is no control [over radiation exposures]," said Ole Hendrickson, a local resident. Other radioactivity tests in Pembroke have found that a residential swimming pool near the plant has tritium levels so high the water would not pass Ontario's drinking water standard, and vegetables with elevated tritium concentrations have been found growing in gardens more than two kilometres away, indicating tritium is widespread throughout Pembroke. Mr. Levesque said SRB, which is owned by a Dutch holding company, intends to install pollution-control equipment and hopes the device will remove enough tritium from its emissions to persuade regulators to keep the plant open. Without a licence renewal, the company, which employs 36 people, will have to shut down on Dec. 31. Documents compiled by the CNSC for the licensing hearing indicate SRB does not have an approved decommissioning plan and consequently has not posted a financial guarantee to cover cleanup costs if the plant closes. Search globeandmail.com + © Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved. Globeandmail.com: ***************************************************************** 38 RADIOACTIVE TANK NO. 9 COMES LIMPING HOME Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:09:14 -0600 (CST) RADIOACTIVE TANK NO. 9 COMES LIMPING HOME By Bob Nichols San Francisco Bay View November 23, 2005 http://www.sfbayview.com/110905/radioactivetank110905.shtml Across the plains of Kansas, destroyed, radioactive Abrams tanks, perched on railroad flatcars, rolled towards an uncertain future. Only one thing was certain. They would be radioactive forever. This would be their everlasting death mask. The Pentagon deceptively calls it "depleted uranium." The Abrams tanks are constructed with a layer of radioactive uranium metal plates. The big tanks fire a giant uranium dart at 2,100 mph, much faster than an F-16 fighter aircraft, mach III to airplane pilots and very, very fast to the rest of us. American taxpayers paid to ship the tanks to Iraq and to return them for disposal or re-building in the United States. The tanks are 12 feet wide and weigh a stout 70 tons, or 140,000 pounds. The enduring vigorous stupidity of the U.S. military pretends that radiation is one of those things that if you can't see it, it can't hurt you. They are thoroughly delusional, of course. A National Academy of Sciences report released June 30, 2005, finds that there is no safe level of radiation. Any radiation is bad. From America to Iraq and back, these giant radioactive hulks can only sicken and kill Americans. On top of the sheer, unrelenting stupidity of playing with radiation with unsuspecting soldiers, now the neo-con government is involving everyday Americans in their radiation madness. The Pentagon can't even follow simple radiation hazard mitigation instructions. Their own rules and regulations have the force of law throughout the world. Yet they are ignored in the United States. Dr. Doug Rokke Dr. Doug Rokke is the Pentagon's former director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. When contacted on Oct. 22, he viewed Chris Bayruh's photographs and made this statement about the radioactive tanks in Kansas: "The radioactive damaged Abrams tanks that were left unsecured on a Kansas railroad track are a perfect example of exactly how not to ship damaged radioactive equipment and how not to protect our Army's Abrams tanks from possible sabotage and compromise of classified battle systems." On Oct. 10, prior to the discovery of the radioactive tanks, Dr. Rokke made the following statement. It is eerily predictive of what would happen in Kansas three days later. "U.S. Department of Defense officials continue to deny that there are any adverse health and environmental effects as a consequence of the manufacture, testing and/or use of uranium munitions to avoid liability for the willful and illegal dispersal of a radioactive toxic material - depleted uranium." Dr. Rokke continued, "They [the U.S. military] arrogantly refuse to comply with their own regulations, orders and directives that require United States Department of Defense officials to provide prompt and effective medical care to all exposed individuals." (See Note 1 below.) "They also refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive contamination of equipment as required by Army regulations." (See Note 2.) "Specifically, they are required (see Note 3) to accomplish four things: 1) Military personnel must 'identify, segregate, isolate, secure and label all RCE' (radiologically contaminated equipment). 2) 'Procedures to minimize the spread of radioactivity will be implemented as soon as possible.' 3) 'Radioactive material and waste will not be locally disposed of through burial, submersion, incineration, destruction in place, or abandonment' and 4) 'All equipment, to include captured or combat RCE, will be surveyed, packaged, retrograded, decontaminated and released.' "The past and current use of uranium weapons, the release of radioactive components in destroyed U.S. and foreign military equipment, and releases of industrial, medical and research facility radioactive materials have resulted in unacceptable exposures." Dr. Rokke added, "Therefore, decontamination must be completed as required by U.S. Army Regulation 700-48 and should include releases of all radioactive materials resulting from military operations. "The extent of adverse health and environmental effects of uranium weapons contamination is not limited to combat zones but includes facilities and sites where uranium weapons were manufactured or tested, including Vieques, Puerto Rico, Colonie, New York, and Jefferson Proving Grounds, Indiana. "Therefore, medical care must be provided by the United States Department of Defense officials to all individuals affected by the manufacturing, testing and/or use of uranium munitions. Thorough environmental remediation also must be completed without further delay. "I am amazed," exclaimed Dr. Rokke, "that 14 years after I was asked to clean up the initial DU mess from Gulf War I and almost 10 years since I finished the depleted uranium project, United States Department of Defense officials and many others still attempt to justify uranium munitions use while ignoring mandatory requirements. "But beyond the ignored mandatory actions, the willful dispersal of tons of solid radioactive and chemically toxic waste in the form of uranium munitions just does not even pass the common sense test. "Finally, continued compliance with the infamous March 1991 Los Alamos Memorandum (see Note 5) that was issued to ensure continued use of uranium munitions cannot be justified. "In conclusion," Dr. Rokke urged, "the president of the United States, George W. Bush, and the prime minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, must acknowledge and accept responsibility for willful use of illegal uranium munitions - their own "dirty bombs" - resulting in adverse health and environmental effects." "President Bush and Prime Minister Blair also should order: 1) medical care for all casualties, 2) thorough environmental remediation, 3) immediate cessation of retaliation against all of us who demand compliance with medical care and environmental remediation requirements, 4) and ban the future use of depleted uranium munitions," Dr. Rokke concluded. A little old lady in tennis shoes Leuren Moret is a world famous scientist and radiation specialist who formerly worked at the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, where she became a whistleblower in 1991. She has spoken out about the danger of uranium munitions to humanity in more than 42 countries. Moret has appeared in four documentaries about uranium munitions (depleted uranium). "Beyond Treason" debuted in August 2005 and won the Grand Festival Award at the Berkeley Film Festival. The newest film, "Blowin' in the Wind," was nominated during its debut the first week of November in Australia for an Academy Award. Moret was an expert witness at the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan and serves as an adviser and expert witness in court cases regarding radiation exposure. Her statement, made Oct. 24, about the dead tanks in Kansas follows: "Sally Devlin, a little old lady in tennis shoes, went to a public meeting several years ago, held by the Air Force in Pahrump, Nevada. Two officers told the citizens of the town that the Air Force would be moving 80 old target practice tanks and tons of old depleted uranium munitions through their town. "The radioactive bullets had been picked up off the Nellis gunnery ranges by order of the state of Nevada and were being transported to the Nevada Test Site [a nuclear weapons test site] to be buried as radioactive waste. "When Mrs. Devlin politely asked them how they would prevent the residents of the town from being contaminated by the radioactive dust on the tanks and bullets, the officers said, 'We're wrapping them in Saran Wrap.' She told them that would be unacceptable and stopped the Air Force dead in their tracks," Moret concluded. Whether it is Saran Wrap in Nevada or nothing at all in Kansas, the Pentagon just doesn't get it when it comes to uranium radiation dispersing weapons. It is way past time to take all their nuclear weapons and uranium munitions away from them and send them home to get real jobs. They are clearly incapable of protecting this country from all dangers, including those created by our own U.S. military. The U.S. military shows so little regard for Americans in Kansas, one wonders what on earth they have done to Iraq. The U.S. military has distributed an estimated 8 million pounds of weaponized ceramic uranium oxide gas, aerosols and dust on a practically defenseless little country of 26 million people (see Note 6), according to an estimate by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. What is this lethal radioactive weapon supposed to do? Why was it used? Ceramic uranium oxide gas is a genocidal weapon, for God's sake. It persists in the environment forever. In Leuren Moret's pithy words, "The Iraqis are uranium meat." The politicians, Pentagon staff, generals, commanding officers and others responsible for this war crime must be arrested, tried, convicted and appropriately punished for their crimes against humanity. There is another explanation Another explanation is that the U.S. Army and other branches of the military are far from stupid. They are, in fact, the most lethal and carefully planned military in the history of the world. The extensive use of weaponized uranium oxide gas, aerosols and dust is not an accident or an oversight. They did it on purpose. If this is true, they purposely used a genocidal weapon over at least a 15-year period. No, this is not a callous mistake of empire; it is a calculated act of genocide to weaken the oil- and gas-rich countries of Central Asia, including Iraq. Take your choice: they are either stupid or genocidal monsters. A British group has estimated the weaponized ceramic uranium oxide will account for an additional 25 million cancers in Iraq in the next several years. There are only 26 million Iraqis to start with, minus the nearly 1.7 million killed by war or sanctions since 1991, plus some live births. A National Academy of Sciences report released June 30, 2005, finds that there is no safe level of radiation. The committee dismissed the idea that any radiation could be harmless or beneficial. The radioactive tanks in Kansas and Iraq are the same. They are placed there at great expense by the senior American political and military leadership, with premeditated malice. The bottom line purpose of a 140,000-pound radioactive tank is to kill people. Uranium munitions a war crime Dennis Kyne, noted speaker and writer, is a former drill instructor (DI) and a 15-year veteran of the Army as well as a Gulf War vet (see . Kyne makes a point of how "hot" or radioactive the tanks in Kansas would be if they were hit by "friendly fire" to get beat up so much. They could be contaminated with as much as 30,000 times background radiation. That is what uranium munitions do to a tank, bunker or building. Karen Parker, a prominent U.S. international human rights lawyer, says there are four rules derived from humanitarian laws and conventions regarding weapons: 1. Weapons may only be used against legal enemy military targets and must not have an adverse effect elsewhere (the territorial rule). 2. Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict and must not be used or continue to act afterwards (the temporal rule). 3. Weapons may not be unduly inhumane (the "humaneness" rule). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 speak of "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" in this regard 4. Weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment (the "environmental" rule). "DU weaponry fails all four tests," Parker states. "First, DU cannot be limited to legal military targets. Second, it cannot be 'turned off' when the war is over but keeps killing. "Third, DU can kill through painful conditions such as cancers and organ damage and can also cause birth defects, such as facial deformities and missing limbs. Lastly, DU cannot be used without unduly damaging the natural environment. "In my view, use of DU weaponry violates the grave breach provisions of the Geneva Conventions," Parker concluded, "and so its use constitutes a war crime, or crime against humanity." ......... Notes 1. "Medical Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium Casualties," DOD, Pentagon, 10/14/93, "Medical Management of Army Personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU)," Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Command, 4/29/04, and section 2-5 of AR 700-48 . 2. AR 700- 48: "Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities," Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002, and U.S. Army Technical Bulletin TB 9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage, and Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium," Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., July 1996, . 3. Section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation 700-48 dated Sept. 16, 2002, specifies these requirements. 4. IAW Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48. Maximum exposure limits are specified in Appendix F. 5. http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/du/doc1.html 6. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark's estimate: http://www.covertactionquarterly.org/demonize.html ------------ PREVIOUS NHNE NEWS LIST ARTICLES: THE RADIOACTIVE WOUNDS OF WAR (8/26/2005): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/9816 PAYING THE PRICE: THE MOUNTING COSTS OF THE IRAQ WAR (6/25/2004): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/7464 U.S. SOLDIERS GETTING SICK FROM IRAQI DEPLETED URANIUM (4/6/2004): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/7031 WHO 'SUPPRESSED' IRAQI DEPLETED URANIUM STUDY (2/24/2004): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/6812 URANIUM LEVELS IN AFGHANS' BLOOD ASTONISHINGLY HIGH (5/24/2004): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5393 FAIR: CLUSTER BOMBS & DEPLETED URANIUM (5/6/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5257 UK TO AID IRAQ DU REMOVAL (4/25/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5186 U.S. REJECTS IRAQ DU CLEAN-UP (4/14/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5115 GULF WAR SYNDROME II (4/10/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5086 THE CASE AGAINST DEPLETED URANIUM BEING DANGEROUS (4/10/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5083 CONGRESSMAN MCDERMOTT DEPLETED URANIUM BILL HR 1483 (4/10/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5082 HOW U.S VETS HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY ABUSED, IGNORED & MISTREATED (4/10/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/5081 U.S. USE OF DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS IS 'ILLEGAL' (3/30/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/4967 U.S. TO USE DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS IN IRAQ (3/16/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/4762 U.S. STOCKING URANIUM-RICH BOMBS? (3/11/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/4687 URANIUM MUNITIONS: THE WAR AGAINST OURSELVES (2/18/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/4493 ANIMAL STUDY: CHEMICALS HARMED SOLDIERS IN GULF WAR (1/8/2003): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/4213 FORCED VACCINES HAUNT GULF VETS (11/7/2002): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/3931 GI GUINEA PIGS (10/30/2002): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/3885 DEPLETED URANIUM TOXICITY IN AFGHANISTAN (& IRAQ) (12/11/2001): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/2385 DEPLETED COVERAGE OF NATO'S DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS (1/14/2001): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/1035 TESTS SHOW GULF WAR VICTIMS HAVE URANIUM POISONING (9/2/2000): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/642 ***************************************************************** 39 Bradenton Herald: Lockheed expanding testing in Tallevast 11/30/2005 | DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - A Tampa engineering firm will drill 15 additional monitoring wells on and around the property owned by Tallevast cattlewoman Heidi Boothe to try to determine the outer edges of a plume of contamination linked to an old beryllium plant. Lockheed Martin Corp. outlined the drilling plans in a Nov. 23 letter to William Kutash of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The Tampa firm of Blasland, Bouck &Lee will conduct the drilling for Lockheed. The defense giant is the former owner of the Loral American Beryllium Co. plant in Tallevast, which has been identified as the source of chemical leaks now known to have spread over 131 acres. Lockheed has assumed the responsibility of cleaning up the mess. Lockheed has asked DEP for a 90-day extension to complete the additional drilling and well sampling, the letter states. Recent independent tests performed by Michael Graves, a geologist selected by Tallevast residents to sample their drinking water and irrigation wells, revealed that Boothe's 500-foot-deep well was contaminated. Graves said those results indicate the plume is closing in on the intersection of U.S. 301 and Tallevast Road. Graves also warned at a recent community meeting that the contamination in Boothe's well may have entered the Floridan aquifer. Blasland, Bouck &Lee engineers plan to drill their first monitoring well on U.S. Post Office property at 2205 Tallevast Road. An Upper Floridan aquifer monitoring well will be installed to a depth 400 feet below land surface, which is within the Tampa Limestone of the Arcadia Formation, the Lockheed letter said. Lockheed Martin plans to meet with Tallevast residents at 6 p.m. Dec. 8 at Mount Tabor Church to review the next round of tests and plans for remediating the toxins in the plume. Donna Wright, health and social services reporter, can be reached at 745-7049 or at dwright@HeraldToday.com. HERALD WATCHDOG ***************************************************************** 40 Deseret News: No nuclear waste, period deseretnews.com] Wednesday, November 30, 2005 Deseret Morning News editorial The results of a new Dan Jones &Associates poll on Private Fuel Storage LLC placing a nuclear waste repository on Utah' West Desert are a proverbial slam dunk. Utahns overwhelmingly oppose a proposal to "temporarily" store up to 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods on tribal lands in Tooele's Skull Valley. In a poll of 400 Utahns conducted for KSL-TV and the Deseret Morning News, 84 percent of 400 people polled oppose the nuclear waste repository. Beyond that, more than two thirds of the Utahns polled favor a special tax on the operation. The Deseret Morning News opposes the Private Fuel Storage proposal and urges local, state and national leaders to remain diligent in the fight to keep nuclear waste out of Utah. As the poll, commissioned by the Deseret Morning News, indicates, it's clearly not welcome here. But the second question on the poll, which showed Utahns want to tax nuclear waste if it comes here, is fraught with problems. Now is not the time to be entertaining the notion that it is inevitable that the Skull Valley site will be established. All efforts need to be focused on keeping nuclear waste out of the state, period. For that matter, the notion of taxing one business exclusively raises constitutional problems. The land where PFS plans to establish the nuclear waste facility is owned by the Skull Valley band of the Goshute Indian Tribe. A state tax can't be applied because the plant would be built on sovereign Indian land. A tax on the use of roads or railroads on which to transport the waste would likely run afoul of the U.S. Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause. Truly, this issue boils down to a simple principle: The Intermountain West should not be viewed as a dumping ground for the nation's spent nuclear fuel. Even if the state were able to affix a tax on the operation, no financial benefit would outweigh the downside of Utah becoming a nuclear waste dump. This issue has become even more critical given the ongoing problems at Yucca Mountain. A "temporary" repository in Utah could become permanent under the present climate. "Temporary" — in the eyes of the federal government — is 40 years. Neither the PFS proposal nor Yucca Mountain should be viewed as a solution to the nation's nuclear waste disposal problem. The debate and the solutions are far more complex than storing it in an above-ground facility on Utah's West Desert or placing it underground in a facility that has been the subject of ongoing investigations regarding quality control and other issues. © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 41 Deseret News: Nuclear power amendment tossed [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, November 30, 2005 Lawmakers fear opening door to build plant sends wrong message By Dave Anderton Deseret Morning News An amendment to promote nuclear power in Utah was dropped after legislators on Tuesday expressed alarms that the provision would send the wrong message to other states seeking to store spent radioactive nuclear fuel rods here. During a joint meeting of two legislative interim committees, Rep. Bradley Daw, R-Orem, recommended adding language to a proposed energy bill that would encourage Utah to develop nuclear power to generate electricity. "At our own peril of overconsuming oil and other resources, we should not ignore nuclear energy," Daw said. "There are several countries that have been very successful in productive nuclear programs. I, myself, have toured a nuclear facility at Diablo Canyon, Calif., and found it to be an amazing facility. We should look very closely in this state at promoting nuclear energy." The Diablo Canyon Power Plant is owned by Pacific Gas &Electric Co. and is located in San Luis Obispo County. The plant provides power to 1.6 million California homes, about 20 percent of PG's total customer base, according to a company Web site. Unlike coal-fired or natural gas-fired power plants, nuclear power plants generate electricity without creating air emissions. Roughly 95 percent of Utah's generated electricity comes from coal-fired power plants. In spite of the apparent benefits of nuclear power, legislators were hesitant to adopt any language that included the "N" word. Rep. Ralph Becker, D-Salt Lake, said Utah had taken a strong position against having the state serve as a repository for high-level radioactive waste. "We are devoting a lot of resources to try to prevent that from happening," Becker said. "The signal that is sent by singling out nuclear energy I don't think is something that would get lost on the rest of the country. For us to be promoting nuclear energy particularly more than other resources in this state, I think sends a very strong signal that contradicts the position we've taken as it relates to high-level radioactive waste." But Rep. Michael E. Noel, R-Kanab, disagreed with Becker's characterization of the issue, saying that Utah's position was simply that the state should not become a depository for nuclear waste that is produced in another state. "I'm not sure the state has taken a position on taking care of our own waste," Noel said. "I'm not sure that by saying we promote the development of nuclear energy in our state would any way lessen the statement that the state has made on the storage of nuclear waste here." Still, other legislators, like Sen. Beverly Ann Evans, R-Altamont, expressed concern over adding the language without having public input. "A public policy decision like that, I think, needs to have much more study," Evans said. "That's one that has a lot of implications and a lot of strong feelings that need to be discussed in a public forum." Sen. Gregory S. Bell, R-Fruit Heights, said he was intrigued by the idea of nuclear power but was not ready to vote on the issue. Instead, an amendment promoting the "development of cost-effective energy resources, both renewable and non-renewable" was included in the bill that was passed by the Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee and the Public Utilities and Technology Interim Committee. "nuclear energy has come a long ways from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl," Noel added. "The Chinese have moved forward tremendously and made great strides in pebble-based reactors. France is two-thirds nuclear. Germany is half-nuclear. It's a very, very clean source of energy. I think it should be something in our state energy policy." E-mail: danderton@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 42 Bellona: Tender for Radon radwaste facility reconstruction to be announced in December The European Commission in the frames of TACIS program will announce a tender for the operator company to carry out the reconstruction of the radwaste storage facility Radon in Murmansk region. 2005-11-30 18:06 The agreement has been reached during the talks in Svanhovd, Norway, in the middle of November. The specialists from VNIPIET (the All-Russia Planning and Research Institute for Complex Power Technology), which developed the Radon reconstruction project, representatives of Murmansk administration and Sweden took part in the meeting, Interfax reported with the reference to the Murmansk administration economics department. The Radon director Kudrat Mahmudov, however, said to Interfax, that after the operator is chosen and the contract is signed, the preliminary financing would start and cover the project analyses, discussions and priorities selection. The reconstruction itself will start earliest in 2007, the director said. The financial problems did not allow beginning the construction of the facility checkpoint. The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development finances the project. It is expected that the operating company will sign the direct contracts with the contractors who will carry out the work on site. The Radon storage facility in Murmansk county is one of 16 national storage facilities for low and medium level waste generated by Russian industry and medical activities. More than 70 local businesses and institutions have delivered waste to the facility. The storage facility can accommodate 800 m3 of solid and 200 m3 of liquid radioactive waste. The facility was taken into use in 1965. Due to violations of Russian guidelines for the storage of radioactive waste, on June 18, 1993, the Russian radiation protection authority (GAN) ruled that the facility would no longer be permitted to accept radioactive waste. Consequently, the waste that was formerly delivered to the Radon storage facility was henceforth stored at the site of its creation. At the beginning of 1995, 350 m3 of waste with an activity of 531 TBq were stored at various user facilities. Furthermore, an additional 370 TBq is stored in 10 containers holding radioactive waste from the nuclear icebreaker Lenin. Publisher: , President: Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 43 RGJ.com: Find alternative to Yucca Mountain 775-788-6200 November 30, 2005 + RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL--> The best hope for Nevada's campaign to stop the nation's nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain always has been to find a more effective and efficient way to dispose of the radioactive material building up at nuclear power plants around the country. So it's good to see that a movement to re-evaluate the policy for getting rid of nuclear waste is beginning to take hold. Despite all of the work that has gone into it, the decades-old plan to bury the waste under a mountain 100 miles from Las Vegas remains problematic. It is grotesquely expensive, it's been riddled with problems -- possibly including fraud -- and it requires transporting the dangerous material across much of the U.S. and through major cities where an accident could be disastrous. Meanwhile, the federal government is caught between the power companies that operate the plants and a determined Nevada (joined by several states along the probable transportation routes). So far, Nevada is winning, despite the government's promise to take on the storage of the waste. Unfortunately, an alternative doesn't exist yet. Reprocessing appears to be the best option, but that's opposed by groups that tend to be anti-nuclear power anyway. What's clear, however, is that it makes more sense to spend the large sums of tax money on research on alternative means of disposing of the fuel than on a deep hole in the Nevada desert. In the meantime, the waste can safely stay where it is, under federal government ownership with upgraded security. Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign plan to introduce a bill next month requiring just that. Congress should agree to that plan and end the battle with Nevada over Yucca Mountain. That's a battle that the federal government is destined to lose. Reno Gazette- ***************************************************************** 44 Salt Lake City Weekly: Ticking Time Bomb City Week - December 1, 2005 The jury is still out on the risks of depleted uranium. That doesn’t stop Envirocare from wanting more of it here. by Katharine Biele Envirocare is waiting and watching—like a hawk. It can’t do much else now that Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. put the skids on any expansion plans. Waiting is what the company is all about, considering that even low-level radioactive wastes will take more than a lifetime—at least 100 years—to decay naturally. And the supply isn’t likely to run out. Where to put it all is just a puzzler, though. That’s why Envirocare was seeking to double its size. But don’t get them wrong; they don’t want to store those bad B and C wastes. Just the benign, 100-year-long Class A wastes. “Expansion was primarily for operational efficiency purposes as well as for additional capacity but not linked to specific isotopes,” says Envirocare Vice President Tim Barney. “Specific isotopes,” you say? Indeed, much of the debate centers around just what Envirocare might want to bring in, and that is depleted uranium (DU), the stuff left over from a process of enriching uranium so it can be used in reactors and for weapons. For the general public, the jury’s still out on just how dangerous DU is. For nuclear activists and researchers, though, it’s apparent although just short of official that DU is a deadly prospect that quietly grows more deadly with time. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is conducting hearings on how to label DU for disposal, and the outcome—expected by summer of 2006—could set the stage for Envirocare. “We’re just watching from afar, not even real closely,” says Barney. “Nobody attended the hearings. Sure, we’re interested in the outcome because we believe depleted uranium is a low-level waste.” But, he says, the outcome of the hearings was never a factor. “Some of our critics have tried to link the two, but they’re not really linked,” he says. That may depend on what you mean by linked. In June of 2004, the Envirocare site was proposed as the primary option for disposing of DU from plants at Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Paducah, Ky.; and Portsmouth, Ohio, according to two final environmental impact statements from the Department of Energy. Recently, Louisiana Energy Services is proposing—for the fourth time—to build a uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico and possibly shoot the DU from there to Utah. The common wisdom is that Envirocare would need to ramp up its capacity to get more business. Some 740,000 tons of DU are being stored at the Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio sites, according to the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), a group promoting increased public involvement in energy and environmental public-policy decisions. It wouldn’t be the first time Envirocare has accepted DU. The company has been accepting it for more than 10 years and has buried about 100,000 cubic feet of it. But it would be the first time it took so much in bulk amid cries that DU is a ticking time bomb of radioactivity. Barney disputes the notion that Envirocare is trying to bluff its way into taking more dangerous wastes. “If regulators determine that depleted uranium is a higher level of waste, we’ll abide by their decision and not receive it,” he says. “The company’s philosophy is to operate within the regulatory framework.” If IEER has its way, that means Envirocare won’t be taking any DU, which IEER claims is actually 35 times more radioactive than any Class A waste. IEER’s Arjun Makhijani has been researching the costs and risks of storing DU, and he’s not exactly a big fan, believing that Utah regulators haven’t looked at all the pertinent data. He wants them specifically to look at erosion scenarios. In other words, if you don’t bury DU really deep, it’s going to do some scary things. For instance, DU gets hotter the longer it stays around. The NRC seemed to favor disposal at the Envirocare site, even though it had not conducted further analysis, as promised earlier. In fact, it has never examined the effects of large amounts of DU. In Utah’s arid climate, erosion could expose "intruders", a term for just about anyone who wanders into the area for any reason, to high levels of radiation. “The rule is very clear; institutional control is only required for 100 years. Low-level waste has no time rule,” says Makhijani. Here’s what the final environmental impact statement says: “Several site-specific factors contribute to the acceptability of depleted uranium disposal at the Envirocare site, including highly saline groundwater that makes it unsuitable for use in irrigation and for human or animal consumption, saline soils unsuitable for agriculture, and low annual precipitation.” In other words, this is such a hell-hole that it’s OK to store radioactive wastes there. Makhijani thinks the issue should be moot now because Envirocare has vowed not to take B and C wastes, and he believes DU is in fact Class C—the most dangerous. Of course, he still has to convince the NRC board. The board has allowed him to testify since IEER is the only group that has conducted research on the subject, but they’re not interested in hearing some of his thoughts. He spoke about “intruder scenarios” and what radiation workers would receive over time. “I was not allowed to talk about recent research on the risks of uranium beyond cancer,” he says. Makhijani found that women were significantly more affected by the radiation, for instance. But his main point has been that no one—except IEER—has even begun to look at the potential problems of depleted uranium in bulk. Much of his research has been based around emerging information from the 1991 Gulf War and the 1999 NATO bombing in the former Yugoslavia “and the gradual recognition of the myriad health effects that have come to be known as Gulf War Syndrome,” a 2004 IEER report notes. Makhijani’s report notes that veterans were exposed to depleted-uranium munitions during the Gulf War. Computerized tests conducted at Baltimore’s VA Medical Center showed a correlation between the exposure and diminished cognitive abilities, similar to what happens in lead exposure. There are concerns, too, about reproductive health effects. The public—and Envirocare—will be watching to see what the NRC rules. Makhijani has already drawn his own conclusions. “I’m a fan of Ronald Reagan—trust but verify,” he says. “I came up short. A lot short.” story search slweekly.com ©1996-2005 Copperfield Publishing, Inc.. All rights offices: 248 S. Main Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801-575-7003 Salt Lake City Weekly ***************************************************************** 45 Salt Lake Tribune: Goshute leader is told to settle with the IRS Article Last Updated: 11/30/2005 01:01:59 AM By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune Leon Bear Leon D. Bear A federal judge gave Goshute leader Leon D. Bear until Feb. 10 to catch up with the Internal Revenue Service on old tax debts. U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins chastised prosecutors for tying up the three years of tax documents Bear needs in separate cases that are now wrapping up. Bear, chairman of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes, pleaded guilty in June to filing a false tax return. The judge sentenced him to 3 years probation and ordered him to repay the tribe $31,542 in duplicate travel payments and other funds - reimbursement related to some of the five counts against Bear that had been dropped in a plea bargain. As part of Bear's sentence, Jenkins also told Bear to "make peace" with the IRS for unpaid taxes on $192,316 of income, penalties and interest. Tuesday's hearing was originally intended to be a progress report on that effort. But Bear's attorney, Joseph Thibodeau, said it wasn't until Monday that his client received a notice about his IRS obligations for 2003 and 2004 taxes. Some of the 121 members of the Skull Valley Goshutes have frequently accused their leaders of corruption in the eight years since the Goshutes signed a deal with Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of utility companies that plans to build an above-ground storage site for nuclear-reactor waste. Bear's critics say they have been cut out of financial benefits that have come with the multibillion-dollar waste project and other tribal ventures. Jenkins on Tuesday chastised prosecutors for dragging their feet about making the documents available to Bear and his attorneys, who estimate it will be another few weeks before the relevant materials are copied and delivered. "Somebody, somebody needs to take an interest in what is going on," said Jenkins. © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 46 San Francisco Bay View: Dirty development vs. environmental protection National Black Newspaper of the Year 11/30/05 Mayor Newsom plans housing and playground for most radioactive parts of HP Shipyard by Ahimsa Porter Sumchai, M.D. Clearcutting at HP Shipyard: Without notice to the neighborhood, developer Lennar has recently clearcut all the trees covering 64.5 acres of the Shipyard. On Monday, Dec. 5, 1 p.m., in City Hall Room 263, Supervisors will hold a hearing on a proposed law to require due process before trees on City land can be cut. Trees are vital to our health and the beauty of our city. Tell City Hall to save ‘em all! San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced a new plan during his recent State of the City address: His “Livable City” initiative, he said, is an “environmental imperative” and a “green leap forward in the next five years” that promises to make San Francisco a leader in green building and technology and allocates funds to plant trees along major central and west side thoroughfares, Van Ness and 19th Avenue. With typical pomp and circumstance, Newsom’s excessive pride, arrogance and overconfidence thinly veil an administration policy for southeast and eastern neighborhoods that aggressively champions dirty development – building houses on land cleaned of toxic contamination not to residential standards but to lower industrial standards. The Planning Commission last week heard a presentation on the Eastern Neighborhoods Proposed Permanent Zoning Controls. The main objective of the plan, written by a private firm, is to revise zoning in eastern neighborhoods to allow housing on land currently zoned for production, distribution and repair industries. This land is almost exclusively situated in the Bayview Hunters Point, Visitacion Valley, Potrero Hill and South of Market neighborhoods – all heavily populated by people of color. It is in these neighborhoods, and especially in the Hunters Point Shipyard, where developers – with the help of City Hall – seek land that can make them a fortune. The Mayor’s Office of Economic Development recently unveiled a plan to transfer radiation-contaminated Parcel D of the Shipyard for industrial development next year. Parcel D is the “hottest” area of the former naval base. It includes a series of buildings – the 300 series – which is currently undergoing remediation for radionuclides such as Ra 226 and Cs 137, found in vents, drains and surfaces in the buildings in concentrations potentially harmful to human health. Parcel D is the site that the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory used for storage of radioactive elements and animal laboratories. Additionally, the 300 series buildings are situated in a region of radioactive soils documented in maps contained in the Navy’s Historical Radiological Assessment. A colony of artists, including women at risk of breast and thyroid cancer from exposure to low level radioactivity, has been allowed to occupy Building 366 on Parcel D with the full knowledge of the Navy’s Radiological Affairs Office, the California Department of Health Services and Dr. Mitch Katz, director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health. As founding chair of the Radiological Subcommittee of the Hunters Point Shipyard Restoration Advisory Board, I vehemently objected to this unethical practice last July, after which the Navy asked the artists to relocate. Following the Navy’s corrupt takeover of the RAB leadership and my resignation in August, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Michael Cohen, director of Base Reuse in the Mayor’s Office of Economic Development, crafted an agreement which allowed the artists to remain. This agreement was celebrated in a San Francisco Examiner article! Under the dirty development policies advanced by the Newsom administration, Parcel D can be surreptitiously transferred to the City and County of San Francisco for industrial development next year and housing built on radiation-contaminated soils. Newsom’s directives are in direct opposition to the will of the people. On Nov. 4, 2000, 87 percent of San Franciscans voted for Proposition P, a legislative measure that called for a moratorium on development of the Hunters Point Shipyard until all of it had been cleaned to residential standards. In May of 2001, Proposition P was codified into ordinance by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Falling like dominoes for dirty development of the Hunters Point Shipyard, Saul Bloom, executive director of Arc Ecology and consultant for Shipyard “master developer” Lennar, hosted a Nov. 16 meeting at Dago Mary’s Restaurant to announce the conceptual plan for a park on Parcel E of the Shipyard. The California Coastal Conservancy, a state agency, has funded Arc Ecology for the express purpose of planning and developing a children’s playground on the largest and most toxic parcel of the shipyard. According to one meeting observer, Bloom announced plans for the development of Parcel E next year. Parcel E is the site of a 46-acre industrial landfill known as one of the most toxic in the nation that still contains human excrement, irradiated animal carcasses and radioactive calibration instruments. The entire Parcel E shoreline emits radioactive particles into San Francisco Bay. Presumably, Arc Ecology, working with Literacy for Environmental Justice, Bayview Community Advocates, the U.S. Navy, Mayor Newsom and his close relative, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, plan to leave the Parcel E landfill intact. An EPA official once told Hunters Point residents demanding removal of the landfill that it was too dangerous to move. They retorted that his statement proves that the landfill is too dangerous to leave in place. Now, without regard for environmental impact, the law, or human health and safety, Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to disguise his dirty development scheme by topping off the most poisonous part of the Hunters Point Shipyard with a children’s playground! Email Ahimsa at asumchai@sfbayview.com. ***************************************************************** 47 KLASTV.com: Toxic Tailings on the Colorado River Matt Adams, Chief Photojournalist Poison River Twelve million tons of radioactive gunk spread over 140 acres will one day be riding the rails. The pile of uranium tailings will be moved to a site 30 miles from the Colorado River. George Knapp, Investigative Reporter Radioactive Toxins Contaminating Our Water BIll Hedden with the Grand Canyon Trust The Department of Energy has given the green light to a massive cleanup project that will remove a mountain of radioactive garbage that sits on the banks of the Colorado River. The Colorado is the main water supply for 28 million people, including most of Southern Nevada. However, the cleanup will take ten years, and until it's completed, toxic poisons will continue to flow into the river. Should we be worried? George Knapp of the I-Team has followed this story since the '90s and has this update. The gigantic pile of uranium tailings near Moab, Utah has been leaking up to 120,000 gallons per day into the river. For a long time, the plan was to put a cap on it and leave it there. DOE has decided to move it, in part, so that a gigantic flood doesn't wash the whole pile into the river. There was near unanimous support for moving the pile along the Colorado River, with the exception of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Twelve million tons of radioactive gunk spread over 140 acres will one day be riding the rails. The pile of uranium tailings will be moved to a site 30 miles from the Colorado River. An aerial view shows the pile is much closer to the river at present. Everyday, tens of thousands of gallons of groundwater contaminated with radioactivity, mercury, arsenic, and more pour into the river, creating a zone of death. County Councilmember Joette Langianese was part of the eclectic coalition that convinced the Department of energy to move the pile rather than the alternative, which was to put a cap over the pile and leave it on the riverbank. Environmentalists, politicians, and water officials from six states pushed for the removal of the pile but there was one glaring exception. Bill Hedden said, "We didn't mean the Southern Nevada Water Authority." Hedden of the Grand Canyon Trust says the Southern Nevada Water Authority is the only water agency on the Colorado River that did not get involved in the fight. "I guess people in Nevada feel they have their own problems about water supply and they didn't want to alarm people by mentioning there was another problem with their source water, that it would be better not to mention it at all," Hedden continued. Liangianese commented, "Surprising. I mean, we couldn't understand why they couldn't get on board with us." Pat Mulroy, Southern Nevada Water Authority chief, bristles at the suggestion her agency didn't get involved. She says the water authority closely monitored the debate but felt the decision should be made by Utah. "We watched it. We watched the science. We read every report. We know what the arguments are for moving it and for capping it, but to put a soundbite out would not have been helpful." Nevertheless, Nevada Senator Harry Reid and Governor Kenny Guinn were directly involved, according to the Utah coalition, and lent their political muscle to the fight, as did water authorities in Arizona and Southern California. Mulroy emphasizes that no measurable increases in radiation have been found in Lake Mead. Why doesn't the radiation get from there to here? The I-Team asked the same question seven years ago. The answer, in a word, is dilution. The poisons get diluted in the river. The I-Team inquired, "It's in the silt, in the rocks, where is it?" Kay Brothers, with SNWA, replied, "It's diluted." Walt Dabney, with the National Park Service, responded, "It's diluted and won't bother you. I don't know, that's not reassuring to me." Moab leaders say they've already had to fight off an attempt in Washington to divert the cleanup money and that if all goes according to schedule, the pile will be gone in about 11 years, regardless of who pitched in. Bill Hedden concludes, "In the end it wasn't necessary and the people of Nevada benefit anyway." Pat Mulroy, who previously traveled to Moab to see the pile, says radiation levels in Lake Mead are far below federal health and safety standards and that locals should not be concerned whatsoever. Contact I-Team Investigative Reporter George Knapp All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. All ***************************************************************** 48 Deseret: News: Goshute is ordered to repay stolen funds [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, November 29, 2005 She gets probation for taking money from tribal account By Geoffrey Fattah Deseret Morning News The second of three members of the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes has been ordered by a federal judge to repay funds taken from a tribal bank account with the help of an attorney and a fictitious court order. Marlinda Moon was sentenced to one year probation by U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell for her role in taking funds out of a Zions Bank account belonging to the Goshutes. Moon was also ordered to pay back $13,825 for her share of restitution to Zions Bank, which has already settled with the Goshutes in paying back the funds. Moon becomes the second out of three band members who pleaded guilty earlier this year to the theft of funds. Last August, Sammy Blackbear was ordered to pay back $17,300 to the bank. Miranda Wash, who also appeared in court Monday, is expected to be ordered to pay back $8,000 in restitution. However, Campbell postponed her sentencing for a month to allow Wash time to resolve several warrants out of justice courts in Murray and South Salt Lake. Campbell said if Wash cannot resolve the warrants by Jan. 3, she will sentence Wash to federal prison instead of probation. The group's attorney, Duncan Steadman, pleaded guilty to stealing some $11,000 from the bank. He is scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 6. Federal prosecutors say the group used a fake court order declaring them elected band officials entitled to access the account. The group did use funds for official tribal business, however, there were indications the group gave itself a monthly stipend from the funds as well. The three band members claim they took the funds out of frustration with Skull Valley Goshute Band chairman Leon Bear, who they allege was withholding their federal tribal dividends because they were political opponents. An attorney for Moon and Wash said the stipend was intended to compensate for their dividends. Bear is known for his proposal to store high-level nuclear waste on the band's reservation. The controversial chairman was sentenced in federal court himself last June to pay the IRS $13,101 in unpaid taxes and the Goshute Band $31,500 for duplicate stipends he billed the tribe. Bear was also placed on three years probation. Recently, Bear canceled tribal elections for the fourth time this year. Bear's term as chairman expired last year. Bear is expected to be back in federal court today, asking the court for more time in trying to settle his debts with the IRS. E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 49 Deseret News: Private fuel storage case to be heard? [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, November 29, 2005 Supreme Court may decide soon whether to consider an appeal By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News The U.S. Supreme Court may decide within two weeks whether to consider an appeal of a lower court ruling that threw out "a raft" of Utah laws concerning Private Fuel Storage, the high-level nuclear waste repository planned for Tooele County. But the appeal won't make it to the highest court if the U.S. solicitor general has his way. The Solicitor General's Office, part of the Justice Department, is battling against the Utah position on PFS. It is urging the Supreme Court not to hear the state's appeal. The highest court had asked for comments on the question of whether a federal court "may sweepingly invalidate, as preempted on their face by the Atomic Energy Act, a variety of state laws that have not been and may never be applied" in the matter. Attorneys for Utah and for the Solicitor General's Office responded with briefs spelling out their positions. First on the list of federal attorneys submitting the brief is Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. The Deseret Morning News obtained copies of both briefs; the federal document is dated September, while the state response is dated Nov. 14. In their brief, Clement and his team insist that only the federal government can regulate nuclear issues. The 10th Circuit of Appeals determined "that the state had legislated in a pre-empted field of federal law by enacting a series of binding and burdensome laws to protect against what the state perceived to be an unacceptable risk of radiation hazard," it says. The Solicitor General's Office conducts the federal government's case on issues before the Supreme Court. Between 1998 and 2001, the Legislature passed a series of laws aimed at PFS, regulating and taxing the facility. In his State of the State address in 1999, then-Gov. Mike Leavitt called for more state action to stop PFS. State officials were concerned about safety, both in the areas of transportation to and from the plant and at the storage site itself, which would be built on Goshute Indian land in Skull Valley. The facility would house 40,000 tons of spent radioactive nuclear fuel rods from power plants, hauled in by railroad. The Utah laws, adds the federal document, are intended "to ban or limit the storage and transportation of nuclear fuel." However, it argues, a federal law — the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 — gives the nuclear Regulatory Commission "exclusive jurisdiction to license the transfer, delivery, receipt, acquisition, possession and use of nuclear materials." In these subjects, the solicitor general added, no role is left for the states. The 1954 act "preempts state laws that have a purpose to address 'protection against radiation hazards,' " the brief adds, citing court rulings. Also pre-empted are state laws that would have a direct or substantial effect on decisions made by those who would build or operate nuclear facilities, concerning radiological safety levels, it says. The federal lawyers cite an earlier court ruling that the state laws were designed to block PFS, and that the Utah statutes would "impose a highly burdensome and costly scheme." If the laws were in place, even if PFS received federal approval it "would not construct or operate the proposed facility," they argue. "Congress has preempted the field of nuclear safety regulation. . . . Thus, the AEA (Atomic Energy Act) preempts any state legislation that falls within 'the field of nuclear safety concerns.' " The state laws were struck down twice before — in rulings by U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell, in Salt Lake City in July 2002, and by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Denver, which upheld Campbell in April 2004. The Constitution's Supremacy Clause is a focus of the action. This is the section interpreted as saying that if a conflict arises between state and federal law, federal law applies. The state's last chance is the U.S. Supreme Court, which has the discretion to hear the Utah appeal or not. After the circuit court action, Utah filed a request for certiorari, asking the court to consider the case. "The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied," concludes the solicitor general's brief. If that happens, the earlier rulings will stand and the state laws will be voided. Utah's brief says "the 10th Circuit has intruded on prerogatives left to the states in a way that warrants review." The lower court actions amount to "an incorrect wholesale presumption of a raft of state laws," the Utah attorneys argue. The action also violates the general principle that state laws can't be invalidated before they are applied. Actually, the Utahns added, quoting from the book "The Law of Presumption," the federal system has high regard for the state's power of governance. That "requires that judges not pre-empt state law lightly." Utah did not even get a chance to apply the laws before the courts struck them down, it says. "When Utah does apply its laws, those applications might . . . be subject to constitutional challenge,'" the state brief says. "At present, the 10th Circuit acted improperly when it 'preemptively imposed' its view of federal-law constraints." While the NRC has authorized issuing a license to the repository, that decision is subject to challenge in court. Also, other potential obstacles remain to building the repository, including the need for approval for building a railroad spur across Bureau of Land Management land. Since the plant would be constructed on Goshute land, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs also will be involved in the decision, according to the state's brief. "The government rightly does not predict how those processes, which may take years, will turn out," it says. Therefore, Utah argues, the issue is not ripe for a ruling about whether state laws should be preempted by the 1954 federal act. "Moreover, there is simply no evidence of hardship to respondents before obtaining the federal approvals: Respondents literally introduced no such evidence whatever." Abstract legal arguments that the uncertainty will create hardship for PFS is all that is left of the federal position, it says. And PFS is still in an uncertain situation because of the agency approvals not yet given, it notes. "This court should correct the 10th Circuit's finding of ripeness when it is genuinely uncertain whether a ruling will ever matter and there is no evidentiary showing of concrete hardship from waiting." In other words, striking down the state laws when PFS has not cleared all federal hurdles was a premature action, according to the state. The Utah brief is signed by Atty. Gen. Mark L. Shurtleff; Fred G. Nelson and Denise Chancellor, assistant attorney generals; and Richard G. Taranto, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. After it obtained the briefs, the Deseret Morning News contacted Chancellor and asked when the highest court would decide whether to take the state's appeal. "The decision should be coming out in the next couple of weeks, is our prediction," she said. If the Supreme Court does accept the case, Utah will have a chance to defend the laws. If not, the lower court rulings invalidating the state laws will stand. E-MAIL: bau@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 50 Deseret News: Utahns favor a tax on PFS [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, November 29, 2005 Private fuel storage case to be heard? But if nuclear facility is built, a fee may be unlawful Copyright 2005 Deseret Morning News By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News Year after year, Utahns have overwhelmingly opposed construction of the Private Fuel Storage nuclear waste repository. But if it's built anyway — should the state make money from it through a special tax? ['Photo'] Deseret Morning News graphic Yes, say more than two-thirds of the state's residents. However, an activist who opposes the plant says a law aimed at punitively taxing businesses that contract with nuclear utilities has already been struck down as unconstitutional. That would probably happen again if Utah tried to impose taxes aimed at PFS, he added. PFS is the nuclear waste storage plant that electrical utilities are hoping to build in Tooele County's Skull Valley. The land is owned by the Skull Valley band of the Goshute Indian Tribe. A consortium of electrical power companies hopes to temporarily store up to 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel rods at the site. While the material is termed "spent" from a technical standpoint, it remains dangerous. A poll for the Deseret Morning News and KSL-TV by Dan Jones &Associates shows 84 percent of the approximately 400 Utahns surveyed oppose the PFS proposal. The poll also shows that if the nuclear waste plant becomes inevitable for Utah, more than two-thirds of those questioned favor a special tax on the operation. Overall, 54 percent said they strongly favor the tax and 14 percent somewhat favor it, while 11 percent somewhat oppose and 16 percent strongly oppose the tax. Those who did not know or had no opinion accounted for 5 percent of the sample. One striking aspect of the new poll is a gender divide. Men were more likely to advocate a special tax on PFS than women. Sixty-one percent of men polled strongly like the taxation scheme while 48 percent of women polled strongly favor a special tax. The pro-taxation viewpoint cut across political differences. Republicans were in favor of taxing by 71 percent to 27 percent; Democrats liked the idea by 70 percent to 27 percent. Whether Utahns think a tax on PFS is a good idea or not is "a moot point, because the state won't be able to tax it," says Jason Groenewold, director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, an anti-nuclear group. First, he said, a tax can't be applied because the plant would be built on "sovereign Indian land." If a tax were passed based on use of roads or railroads used to haul the waste in, he believes it would run into trouble with the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause. Regulation of commerce crossing state lines, such as nuclear waste, is regulated only by the federal government, according to the clause. A state cannot impose levies against legal material entering it from another state. "The state previously passed a law to severely tax any business that would contract with the nuclear utility companies, and the law was reversed by the federal court as violating the Constitution," Groenewold said. If the plant were built in hopes Utahns could get something out of it, like a tax windfall, the idea won't hold up, Groenewold believes. "The liabilities of having nuclear waste stored in Utah far outweigh any potential economic gain anyone could ever hope to receive from having that waste dumped in Utah," he added. PFS officials were not immediately available to comment on the poll. The poll, carried out Nov. 10-12, has a margin error of plus or minus 5 percent. E-mail: bau@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 51 ContraCostaTimes.com: Plan doubles lab's amount of plutonium | 11/30/2005 | By Chris Metinko CONTRA COSTA TIMES LIVERMORE - The branch of the Energy Department that oversees the nuclear weapons complex has signed off on a 10-year environmental plan that will allow Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to house twice the plutonium it now handles. Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, signed off Tuesday on a plan issued in April by his agency that concluded the lab should be allowed to increase its plutonium storage from the 1,540-pound standard that has been in place for years to more than 3,080 pounds -- doubling the allowable plutonium storage at the lab. The plan also allows an increase in the amount of tritium to be used, from 30 grams to 35 grams and an increase in experiments conducted at the National Ignition Facility using fissile and fissionable materials. Lab spokeswoman Lynda Seaver said the plan does not mean the lab will immediately double the amount of plutonium on site, but it gives the facility the ability to do so if it is necessary for development and research. The official approval of the plan -- which has been the subject of public meetings and review -- comes about a month after the lab's Plutonium Facility began slowly resuming operations after more than nine months of inactivity. Concerns about safety at the facility, part of the lab's Superblock, surfaced in October 2004 during a routine visit by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Inspectors found problems with the ventilation system and glove boxes used to handle plutonium without exposure -- taped-up cracks in the ventilation system and "hot boxes" without adequate seismic restraints. The board also expressed concern about the lack of an adequate "configuration management program" to oversee the 16 safety systems designed to protect workers and the public from exposure to plutonium. In January, the NNSA agreed that the configuration management program for Superblock was inadequate and ineffective and that vulnerabilities existed. These concerns prompted the lab to order a stand down at the Plutonium Facility on Jan. 15. Marylia Kelley, of the lab watchdog group Tri-Valley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, said the lab plan is "unconscionable" and believes there is no chance the lab will not increase its amount of plutonium. "They're doubling the plutonium limit to expand their nuclear weapon activity," Kelley said. "It's obvious they are going to be expanding the amount of plutonium on site." Kelley said Tri-Valley CAREs, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other organizations are undertaking a detailed legal analysis of the final plan and may enter a lawsuit to attempt to overturn it. Tri-Valley CAREs is also launching a petition campaign, calling upon the Energy Department to not double the plutonium storage and use at Livermore Lab and asking Congress to not fund DOE's planned increases. Reach Chris Metinko at 925-847-2125 or . A new environmental plan would allow Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to double the amount of plutonium stored at the lab over the next 10 years. The lab had been allowed to keep a maximum of 1,540 pounds -- that maximum allowable standard has been increased to 3,080 pounds. The plan also allows the amount of tritium used there to be increased from 30 grams to 35 grams, and an increase in the number of experiments using fissionable materials to be conducted with the lab's super laser, at the National Ignition Facility. ***************************************************************** 52 Santa Fe New Mexican: Los Alamos County wealthiest in nation Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:13 pm By Andy Lenderman The New Mexican | Los Alamos County is the wealthiest in the country, U.S. Census data shows, while nearly a third of the states young children continue to live in poverty. The U.S. Census Bureau released new data for 2003 on Tuesday which shows dramatic differences in how New Mexicans live. The median household income in Los Alamos County, home of Los Alamos National Laboratory , was $93,089 for 2003, the highest in the country. Santa Fe Countys median income was $42,950, and Rio Arribas was $32,468. And 29.5 percent of the states children 4 years old or younger lived in poverty. What concerns me is the unevenness , said Gerry Bradley, an economist with the advocacy group New Mexico Voices For Children. You have peaks and valleys in median income throughout the state. The median income nationwide is $43,318. Around the country, 20.3 percent of children 4 years old and younger live in poverty. In New Mexico, the median income was $35,091. Luna County had the states lowest median household income at $22,449. Bradley, a former state government economist, said New Mexicos economy is growing but could be better. We dont have enough job growth, and the right kind of job growth to pull the working-class people out of poverty, Bradley said. U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N .M., represents Northern New Mexico and sits on the House Small Business Committee. Small business is the engine that drives economic development in New Mexico, he said. We need to support our small businesses, and the lab should play a cru- cial role in that. The new census data comes as the National Nuclear Security Administration is reviewing applications from two groups that want to take over management of the lab, which employs more than 15,000 University of California employees and subcontractors . No date has been set for an announcement. It seems to me (Los Alamos lab and Sandia National Laboratories ) could do a better job through their local procurement to create jobs, Udall said by telephone. Were going to focus on this as an agenda item with the team thats coming in to manage the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Procurement refers to goods and services that support the labs operation, a lab fact sheet explained. The lab spent 55.5 percent, or about $538 million of its procurement budget, in New Mexico for the 2004 fiscal year. Of that, 74 percent was spent in Northern New Mexico. We have really tried to cater our business practices so that we do have a positive impact on the regional economy and do create spinoffs, lab spokesman James Rickman said. Bradley said the lab is morally obligated to do as much local hiring and contracting as possible. It should be an engine of job growth and an improved economy in the Hispanic north, Bradley said. The president of a Los Alamos lab employee group agreed with Bradleys concerns. Manny Trujillo of the University Professional and Technical Employees Association said regional development has not yet progressed to the point where the local economy could absorb a major layoff at the lab. And Im hoping that the next contractor does focus on technology transfer, the commercialization of technology that would benefit and stay in New Mexico, Trujillo said. A spokeswoman for Los Alamos County was not surprised with Tuesdays ranking and said the county has been near the top for several years. The county also is making an effort to diversify the local economy, spokeswoman Julie Habiger said. Ideas include more retail centers, a research park and more affordable housing. Gov. Bill Richardson seized on the news to push his agenda for the 2006 Legislature. He said through a spokesman that the states child-poverty numbers have improved. In 2002, 30.4 percent of New Mexico children 4 years old and younger lived in poverty. We must do a better job of getting our kids out of poverty , covering all children with health insurance and improving our schools, Richardson said. He also called Los Alamos an economic engine for the state. No matter what the result of the contract process, I look forward to this relationship continuing long into the future, he said. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican . com. Statistics The top and bottom five New Mexico counties in median household income: TOP FIVE Los Alamos County $93,089 Sandoval County $46,485 Santa Fe County $42,950 Bernalillo County $41,062 Valencia County $35,944 BOTTOM FIVE Guadalupe County $24,161 Quay County $23,568 Sierra County $23,111 Hidalgo County $22,451 Luna County $22,449 ***************************************************************** 53 New Mexican: Report claims UC had feds pay for charity donations Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:13 pm By Andy Lenderman A draft report questions whether the University of California should have charged the federal government $6 million that the school gave to a nonprofit charity. A UC spokesman maintains the university has done nothing wrong. A copy of the incomplete report first appeared Monday on an independent Web site where Los Alamos National Laboratory employees air concerns about the lab and the pending management change. The report concerns the universitys management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory Foundation, a separate nonprofit group that gave about $3.47 million to schools, social programs and college scholarships last year in Northern New Mexico. The draft apparently found its way to the Web site LANL  The Real Story on the same day it was issued by the U.S. Department of Energys Inspector General Office. On Nov. 28, the Office of Inspector General issued a draft report on the Los Alamos National Laboratory Foundation , inspector-general spokesman Leon Hutton said Tuesday. The report reflects the results of our preliminary fact gathering. Hutton said the Inspector Generals Office is waiting for responses to the report and cant discuss it publicly when its in a draft form. The draft audit says the university inappropriately charged its yearly contributions to the foundation to the Department of Energy, instead of incurring these costs as a university expense. Since the 1998 fiscal year, the draft report said, the department reimbursed the university $6 million for unallowable contributions. Such funds could have been used for other Los Alamos mission priorities. UC spokesman Chris Harrington said the university has done nothing wrong and has provided the Inspector Generals Office with its side of the story. And we fully expect the final report will reflect the accurate information that we have provided , Harrington said Monday . Funding for the LANL Foundation was always agreed upon between (the University of California) and the (Department of Energy) to be an allowable cost of the contract. An allowable cost is something covered by the contract between the government and the university to manage the lab, Harrington said. No responses from other agencies associated with the matter were included in the draft audit. Bernie Pleau, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administrations Los Alamos Site Office, said his team is working on a response. His office provides federal oversight of the lab. Because its still in draft form, were still working it internally, Pleau said Monday. We havent even made our response to the (inspector general ) yet at this time. The foundation was established in 1997 and has investments worth more than $50 million this year. The university gave the foundation about $3.3 million in the 2005 fiscal year, director Susan Herrera said. The foundation made about $300,000 through its own fundraising efforts. A joint effort by the lab, the university, the Department of Energy and New Mexicos congressional delegation led to the creation of the foundation. The foundation has given more than $18 million to college scholarships, schools and community groups since 1998, according to a foundation news release. Examples of 2005 recipients include Agua Fría Elementary School in Santa Fe; the Boys and Girls Club of Chimayó ; and the Embudo Valley Tutoring Association. The release of the draft report comes on the verge of a major announcement about who will manage the lab. The University of California has joined Bechtel National and two other companies to form a lab-management coalition. Theyre competing with a team from the University of Texas and Lockheed Martin Corp. An announcement was scheduled for Dec. 1 but has been delayed. The NNSA had not provided a new announcement date as of Tuesday. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican . com. ***************************************************************** 54 SF Chronicle: LOS ALAMOS / Plutonium could be missing from lab / 600-plus pounds unaccounted for, activist group says Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer Wednesday, November 30, 2005 Enough plutonium to make dozens of nuclear bombs hasn't been accounted for at the UC-run Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and may be missing, an activist group says in a new report. There is no evidence that the weapons-grade plutonium has been stolen or diverted for illegal purposes, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research said. However, the amount of unaccounted-for plutonium -- more than 600 pounds, and possibly several times that -- is so great that it raises "a vast security issue," the group said in a report to be made public today. The institute, which is based in Takoma Park, Md., says it compared data from five publicly available reports and documents issued by the U.S. Energy Department and Los Alamos from 1996 to 2004 and found inconsistencies in them. It says the records aren't clear on what the lab did with the plutonium, a byproduct of nuclear bomb research at Los Alamos. A spokesman for UC, which manages the national laboratories at Los Alamos and Livermore for the Energy Department, did not address the report's specifics but said the New Mexico lab tracks nuclear material "to a minute quantity." The report says there are several possible explanations for what happened to the plutonium. They include: -- It was discarded in unsafe amounts in landfills at the Los Alamos lab. It is legal to discard weapons-grade plutonium in landfills, one of which is 40 feet deep, as long as the substance is sufficiently diluted. However, if a landfill holds too much plutonium, the material can eventually contaminate the environment -- for example by leeching into groundwater or being absorbed by the roots of plants -- study co-author Arjun Makhijani said in an interview. -- It was shipped to an Energy Department burial site in a New Mexico salt mine, without accurate records of such shipments being kept. -- It was stolen or otherwise shipped off site for unknown reasons. "If it has left the site, then it obviously has the most grievous security implications," Makhijani said. "I cannot say that it has left the site, but the government has the responsibility to ensure that it has not. "And the University (of California) obviously has a responsibility in this. It should be a grave embarrassment for the university to be sitting on numbers like this and discrepancies like this, and not have resolved them." UC spokesman Chris Harrington said Los Alamos "does an annual inventory of special nuclear materials which is overseen by (the Energy Department). These inventories have been occurring for 20-plus years. Special nuclear materials are carefully tracked to a minute quantity." The report concludes that at least 661 pounds of plutonium generated at the lab over the last half-century is not accounted for. The atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945 contained about 13 pounds of plutonium. "The security implications . . . are extremely serious, since less than 2 percent of the lowest unaccounted-for plutonium is enough to make one nuclear bomb," the report said. The problem of plutonium accounting began worrying lab critics in the mid-1990s, when Energy Department officials released lab records as part of the Clinton administration's openness initiative. Critics found they had trouble determining exactly what the lab was doing with the plutonium waste that is generated during the manufacture of spherical plutonium "pits," the fissile triggers of nuclear bombs. Makhijani said he and colleagues from two other activist groups hoped the problem would be resolved in August 2004, when they sent a letter of complaint to then-Los Alamos Director G. Peter Nanos. Nanos was trying to reform lab operations after highly publicized scandals over UC management of Los Alamos. Nanos and lab officials did not respond, though, and nine months later Nanos left for a different job. Makhijani said he and associates had decided to make their report public to dramatize federal officials' failure to resolve the puzzle of the missing plutonium. Makhijani received his engineering doctorate at UC Berkeley with specialization in plasma physics and nuclear fusion. The institute is funded by sources including the Ford Foundation and San Francisco's Ploughshares Fund. UC has joined Bechtel National and other industrial partners in a bid to retain its contract to run Los Alamos, in a competition against a consortium consisting of Lockheed-Martin, the University of Texas, several New Mexico universities and various industrial partners. Makhijani says he isn't taking sides in the competition but that he would prefer the weapons labs be run by industrial contractors rather than universities. The reason, he said, is that university connections to the weapons labs tend to lead to restraints on free inquiry and speech within the universities. E-mail the author at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com. Page B - 1 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 55 Tri-Valley Herald: Nuclear lab to expand storage Last Updated: 11/30/2005 03:02:15 AM Lawrence Livermore to double plutonium cache, boost workforce By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER As expected, the nations nuclear-weapons chief has chosen to double storage and daily work limits for plutonium at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and begin firing the worlds largest laser at targets closely mimicking H-bombs. National Nuclear Security Administration chief Linton Brooks, in a Nov. 22 letter released Tuesday, approved an environmental study that amounts to a 10-year blueprint for the nuclear weapons lab, with plans to boost its weapons research and add 500 employees to its workforce. Aspects of the plans are controversial and clash with broader, if slower movement by the federal government toward removal of plutonium from nuclear weapons sites such as Livermore that are surrounded by homes. While several Bay Area businesses and construction unions supported an expansion of the labs core nuclear weapons work, people filed about 9,000 comments in opposition. This decision basically rolls over a whole community, said Marylia Kelley, executive director of Tri-Valley CAREs, a nuclear disarmament group that organized opposition to more weapons work at Livermore. This basically says, Screw you.'" This fall, advisers to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said continued work with weapons quantities of plutonium in facilities close to residential areas posed an intolerable safety and security risk. They recommended emptying the plutonium facility at Lawrence Livermore, known as Superblock, as well as similar facilities at Los Alamos lab. Earlier this month, key Senate and House lawmakers chided the Energy Department for failing to act more quickly on this consolidation of nuclear materials into a single, highly secure and remote center, a kind of desert fortress. But Livermore officials worry the loss of plutonium work could mark the beginning of theend for the labs bread-and-butter weapons research. And National Nuclear Security Administration officials say removing plutonium from Livermore now would frustrate national security needs. Instead, Brooks, the agencys head, has approved a doubling of the regulatory ceiling for plutonium storage to more than 3,000 pounds and a doubling of day-to-day work limits in two lab rooms to 88 pounds, enough for a half dozen atomic bombs. Among other things, Superblock contains experiments to watch for changes in weapons-grade plutonium as it ages, much as the metal does in real bombs, as well as research into new methods of building plutonium fission cores for weapons with less waste. Federal officials say there also is a national security need to use standard nuclear weapons materials and shapes inside the National Ignition Facility, a stadium-size laser bringing 192 beams to bear on targets smaller than a sewing thimble. When complete in late 2008, the giant laser and its close cousin in France are expected to be the worlds only facilities capable of reaching the pressures and temperatures found in the centers of stars and detonating nuclear weapons. The plans approved by NNSA and announced Tuesday clear Livermore scientists to fire the laser at targets of plutonium, lithium deuteride and highly enriched uranium, in tiny, gram quantities but configurations that approximate modern H-bombs. Creating tiny thermonuclear explosions on such targets will release more energy and generate more radiation than more standard laser-fusion targets. But Livermore scientists say the weapons-relevant targets will allow them to tinker with the miniaturized designs and explore what kinds of changes can make bombs fail. Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman- 2005 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 56 DOE: Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act FR Doc E5-6706 [Federal Register: November 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 229)] [Notices] [Page 71815] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30no05-33] [[Page 71815]] of 2000; Revision to List of Covered Facilities AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of revision of listing of covered facilities. SUMMARY: Periodically, the Department of Energy (``Department'' or ``DOE'') publishes a list of facilities covered under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (``Act''), Title 36 of Public Law 106-398 (66 FR 4003; 66 FR 31218). This notice revises the previous lists because it has been found that some designated atomic weapons employers should not have been so designated. Previous lists were published on August 23, 2004, July 21, 2003, December 27, 2002, June 11, 2001 and January 17, 2001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Montopoli, MD, MPH, Acting Director, Office of Health Services (EH-54) 202-586-6178. ADDRESSES: The Department welcomes comments on this list. Comments should be addressed to: Michael A. Montopoli, MD, MPH, Acting Director, Office of Health Services (EH-54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (``Act''), Title 36 of Public Law 106-398, establishes a program to provide compensation to certain employees who developed illnesses as a result of their employment with the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies and certain of its contractors and subcontractors. Section 3621 defines an atomic weapons employer (AWE) as an entity, other than the United States, that (A) processed or produced, for use by the United States, material that emitted radiation and was used in the production of an atomic weapon, excluding uranium mining and milling; and (B) is designated by the Secretary of Energy as an atomic weapons employer for purposes of the compensation program. Section 3621 goes on to define an atomic weapons employer facility as a facility, owned by an atomic weapons employer, that is or was used to process or produce, for use by the United States, material that emitted radiation and was used in the production of an atomic weapon, excluding uranium mining or milling. It has recently come to the attention of the Department that a number of entities previously designated as AWE's failed the basic definitional test for an AWE because the designated entities were agencies of the United States Government. Since the definition of an AWE specifically excludes the United States, these previously-made designations are invalid. To make it clear that these entities are not covered under the Act, this notice formally removes the following entities from the list. Frankford Arsenal, previously designated as an AWE in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania National Bureau of Standards, Van Ness Street, previously designated as an AWE in the District of Columbia Seneca Army Depot, previously designated as an AWE in Romulus, New York Picatinny Arsenal, previously designated as an AWE in Dover, New Jersey Issued in Washington, DC, November 23, 2005. Steven V. Cary, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Environment, Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E5-6706 Filed 11-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 57 United Press International: Plutonium missing from Los Alamos 11/30/2005 11:00:00 AM -0500 LOS ALAMOS, N.M., Nov. 30 (UPI) -- Some 661 pounds of plutonium is unaccounted for and may be missing from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, an activist group says. There is no evidence the plutonium -- enough to make dozens of nuclear bombs -- was stolen or diverted, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research said. The Takoma Park, Md., institute said its report used documents from 1996 to 2004 to reach its conclusions, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. "The University (of California) obviously has a responsibility in this," said report co-author Arjun Makhijani. "It should be a grave embarrassment for the university to be sitting on numbers like this and discrepancies like this, and not have resolved them." A university spokesman said the lab tracks plutonium "to a minute quantity." The university has joined industrial partners including Bechtel National in a bid to keep its Los Alamos contract against a consortium that includes Lockheed-Martin and the University of Texas. The activist group said it is not taking sides in the competition. © Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights ***************************************************************** 58 Guardian Unlimited: DOE to Allow More Plutonium at Calif. Lab From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday November 30, 2005 1:31 AM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department gave clearance Tuesday to doubling the amount of plutonium that can be kept at the Livermore National Laboratory in California despite protests by some local activists that the weapons material poses a threat to adjacent residential communities. The department issued the new plutonium levels as part of an environmental review for operating the laboratory, including its defense nuclear programs, for the next decade. It said the review showed no adverse environmental impacts associated with the weapons research even if more plutonium is made available. The announcement said the maximum amount of plutonium that can be kept at the laboratory 40 miles from downtown San Francisco can be increased from the current 1,540 pounds to 3,080 pounds. It also increased the maximum amount of plutonium that can be used in a specific operation from 44 pounds to 88 pounds, thereby expanding the kinds of research activities that are possible. Plutonium, a radioactive material deadly if inhaled or ingested, is used to make so-called pits for nuclear weapons. At Livermore, it is used for research into weapons components and the reliability of existing warheads. The amount of plutonium kept at Livermore's ``Superblock'' facility - where nuclear weapons research is conducted - is classified. It doesn't necessarily mean the maximum amount of plutonium authorized will be used, or is even on site, said John Belluardo, a Livermore spokesman. Belluardo said the plutonium is needed ``to continue our work at the laboratory.'' The announcement brought a sharp response from local activists who have been fighting for years to force the Energy Department to remove all plutonium from the Livermore facility, not add to the stockpile. They argue the material is too dangerous and could become a target of terrorists. ``Today's decision puts the entire San Francisco Bay area at risk,'' said Loulena Miles, an attorney for Tri-Valley CAREs, a Livermore-based activist group. Marylia Kelley, the group's executive director, said 7 million people live within a 50-mile radius of the laboratory, which once was in open countryside but now rests in the heart of San Francisco's suburbia. ``One microscopic particle of plutonium, if lodged in the lungs, can cause cancer and other diseases,'' Kelley said. The Energy Department's environmental assessment concluded that the increased plutonium can be kept safely and out of the environment. ``The lab has been conducting experiments using plutonium and highly enriched uranium for many years, and we have an excellent safety record and safety continues to be of paramount importance,'' said Belluardo, the Livermore spokesman, in a telephone interview. He said Tri-Valley CAREs' objections are addressed point by point in the DOE decision. The Energy Department has been considering whether to consolidate plutonium kept at various weapons-related facilities so that they can be better secured from potential terrorist attacks. Plutonium at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, for example, is being moved to the Nevada Test Site. Whether Livermore's plutonium may one day be consolidated elsewhere remains an open question that likely will not be answered under the Energy Department decides how to revamp the entire weapons complex. Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, who signed the Livermore record of decision issued Tuesday, has opposed removing plutonium from the California laboratory. Lab officials worry that if the plutonium, which is used in weapons research, is taken elsewhere, its weapons programs will be forced to shut down. Kelley, the local activist, said she worries that the increase in plutonium means expanded weapons work. Doubling the amount of plutonium workers can use in a single process ``is largely to enable Livermore lab to produce prototype plutonium bomb cores, or pits,'' she maintains. The DOE also said that Livermore can expand its supply of tritium, a radioactive gas used in weapons production, and increase by nearly tenfold the amount of tritium that can be used in single experiments, from 3.5 grams to 30 grams. --- On the Net National Nuclear Security Administration: http://www.nnsa.doe.gov Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: http://www.llnl.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************