***************************************************************** 03/30/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.76 ***************************************************************** 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 Annan Hails UN Security UN Call On Iran To Suspend Nuclear Activitie 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Urged to Clear Up Nuclear Suspicions 3 Guardian Unlimited: Foreign Ministers to Meet to Discuss Iran 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran remains defiant on enrichment 5 BBC: Iran given stark nuclear choice 6 Daily Ittefaq: Iran's nuclear crisis : Which way is it heading? 7 AFP: Rice meets Chirac for talks on Iran nuclear crisis 8 IRNA: Lavrov: UNSC must not play IAEA inspectors role in Iran case - 9 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Zarif: Pressure does not work on Iran 10 AFP: Iran defiant as cracks show in top powers' united front 11 IRNA: Mottaki: Iran ready to continue its cooperation with IAEA 12 AFP: World powers meet over Iran nuclear ambitions 13 IRNA: Mottaki: Iran entitled to peaceful use of nuclear technology - 14 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea ¡®Must Scrap Nukes Before Peace D 15 Xinhua: U.S. continues focusing on six-party talks: spokesman 16 Washington Post-Jimmy Carter: A Dangerous Deal With India 17 US: [NukeNet] BILLIONS SQUANDERED ON JUNK SCIENCE 18 Times of India: Saran, Rice work on N-deal implementation 19 Independent: The US propaganda machine: Oh, what a lovely war 20 AFP: Wen says India nuclear development must follow international ru 21 US: AFP: US to test 700-tonne explosive 22 AFP: India's training of Iranian military could dampen nuclear deal 23 Guardian Unlimited: Putin Says Nuke Deterrent Remains Priority 24 Xinhua: China, France discuss sustainable development 25 Scotsman.com News - UK: Nuclear plant clean-up bill hits £62.7bn NUCLEAR REACTORS 26 [NukeNet] Shika-2 ruling: NGOs demand suspension of nuclear 27 Guardian Unlimited: Government to sell British Nuclear Group 28 Guardian Unlimited: BNG given £5bn sweetener to help sale 29 Guardian Unlimited: Government to sell British Nuclear Group 30 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Palo Verde Nuclear Plant 31 US: newsobserver.com: Nuclear climate 32 BBC: Nuclear clean-up 'to cost £70bn' 33 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at St. Lucie Nuclear Power 34 BBC: The sale of Britain's nuclear giant 35 US: Platts: PSEG Nuclear to submit new Hope Creek uprate request in 36 Independent: Cost of nuclear clean-up is £9bn more than predicted 37 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Three Mile I 38 AFP: Britain's nuclear sites: clean-up may cost over 70.0 billion po 39 UK Guardian: Comment is free: Can we afford to go nuclear? (BIG) 40 Xinhua: ICBC grants loans for Guangdong nuclear power projects 41 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet April 42 US: Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans Support Use of Nuclear Energy 43 Scotsman.com Business: British Nuclear Group to be sold 44 ITAR-TASS: Radioactive radiation source found at Barnaul power plant 45 US: NRC: Keeping nuclear plant operational has ‘small’ impact 46 US: St. Petersburg Times: Progress drafts nuclear bills 47 Belfast Telegraph: Cost of nuclear clean-up is £9bn more than predic 48 US: Hudson Valley News: Shutting down Indian Point a priority for pr NUCLEAR SECURITY 49 BBC NEWS: North West Wales | Greenpeace's nuclear rail fears 50 US: Article: Retired FBI agent helped close nuclear-weapons site 51 AU ABC: : Gaping holes in uranium safeguards - Greens 52 AU ABC: Opposition wants Australian-led nuclear watchdog. NUCLEAR SAFETY 53 US: Deseret News: New weapons tests worrisome 54 US: TownOnline.com: UJP publicizes depleted uranium problem NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 55 US: [du-list] Global uranium demand is now 175 million pounds a 56 [NukeNet] DOE PREDICTS NUKE REACTIONS IN CASKS 57 Las Vegas SUN: Key senator pushes Bush administration on Yucca Mount 58 US: NEWS.com.au: Labor to spell out uranium policy - 59 Australian: Australia 'should take nuclear waste' 60 US: Sydney Morning Herald: More flak for WA's ban on uranium 61 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Military -- Water quality board orders 62 US: DOE: DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Receives EPA Recertificatio 63 US: Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Is Tallevast safety really a done deal? 64 US: Carlsbad Current Argus: WIPP site gets EPA recertification 65 Greenpeace: Nuclear waste trains - terror targets on wheels 66 Reno News and Review: United States on trial 67 Xinhua: Japan's 1st nuclear reprocessing plant to begin trial 68 US: UPI: Bacteria may convert uranium contamination 69 US: Morris Daily Herald: Exelon has plan for tritium removal 70 US: AU ABC: Martin quiet as uranium debate rages. 71 US: AU ABC: PM - ALP shifts on uranium policy 72 AU ABC: Govt has picked nuclear dump site: NT Senator. 73 Scottish National Party: Waste Costs Lay Bare Nuclear Folly SNP - 74 US: PressZoom.com: EPA Recertifies DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 75 News & Star: Cumbria backs a nuclear route 76 News & Star: Sellafield plant prepares for £1bn privatisation 77 Whitehaven News: Sellafield sell-off announced PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 78 Rocky Mountain News: Senator urges Rocky Flats settlement 79 Hanford News: Hanford Tank C-201 sucked dry 80 Hanford News: Plan in place for Hanford Reach interpretive center 81 Hanford News: Steady Hanford budget proposed 82 Hanford News: Activist groups calling for study of Hanford Reach con 83 Hanford News: Pasco meeting offers Hanford cleanup input 84 Hanford News: Tank workers may be respirator-free 85 CounterPunch: Nukes for a Profit 86 Cincinnati Business Courier: Fluor Fernald cuts employees, more ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Annan Hails UN Security UN Call On Iran To Suspend Nuclear Activities Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:00:19 -0500 ANNAN HAILS UN SECURITY COUNCIL CALL ON IRAN TO SUSPEND NUCLEAR ACTIVITIES New York, Mar 30 2006 3:00PM United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said today he hoped that Iran would heed yesterday’s Security Council statement calling upon the Tehran Government to suspend all uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities in an effort to guarantee that its nuclear programme is for exclusively peaceful purposes. In its first official action on the issue, which was referred to it by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Council adopted by consensus a <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=1968">statement that such a suspension and full and verified Iranian compliance would contribute to a diplomatic solution. The United States and other countries say Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, insisting it only seeks nuclear energy. “The Secretary-General welcomes the spirit of consensus that was demonstrated yesterday by the members of the Security Council in the Presidential Statement on non-proliferation,” Mr. Annan said in a <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=1968">statement issued by his spokesman in New York. “He hopes that Iran will heed the international community’s concerns, as reflected in the Council statement, regarding Iran’s nuclear programme and that it will cooperate fully with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and successive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolutions.” Iran’s nuclear programme has been a matter of international concern ever since the discovery in 2003 that it had concealed its nuclear activities for 18 years in breach of its NPT obligations. The latest IAEA report earlier this month said the Agency had not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, but it was not at that point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. In its statement yesterday, the Security Council asked the Agency to report in 30 days on Iranian compliance with steps outlined by the IAEA Board of Governors. In a resolution adopted in Vienna in February, the Board called for Iran to re-establish full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the Agency. It also asked Tehran to reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water. The resolution also required Iran to ratify and implement the Additional Protocol and, pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with its provisions. In December 2003, Iran signed the Additional Protocol, which grants the IAEA expanded rights of access to information and sites, as well as additional authority to use the most advanced technologies during the verification process. Iran voluntarily suspended uranium enrichment activities – which can produce material for nuclear energy or for weapons – in 2004 while negotiating with European Union (EU) nations France, Germany and Britain (the so-called EU-3) on its programme. But it resumed the process last August. 2006-03-30 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/apps/news/email/ ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Urged to Clear Up Nuclear Suspicions From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 30, 2006 8:46 AM AP Photo UNDK133 By EDITH M. LEDERER Associated Press Writer UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. Security Council gave Iran 30 days to clear up suspicions that it wants to become a nuclear power and key members are already discussing further action if Tehran refuses to suspend uranium enrichment and allow more intrusive inspections. After three weeks of intense negotiations, the 15-member council finally agreed on a statement Wednesday designed to put Iran on notice that even its closest allies - Russia and China - want answers about its nuclear program, and quickly. While the council hopes Iran will comply with demands from the board of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, foreign ministers from the five permanent council nations - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - and Germany are meeting in Berlin on Thursday to discuss next steps if Tehran refuses. France's U.N. Ambassador Jean-Marc de La Sabliere said what the council will do in a month ``will depend on Iran, and also the strategy we will discuss tomorrow - and we will be ready.'' U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said President George W. Bush's administration would like Iran to follow Libya and give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons. ``The ball is back in Iran's court and we'll be here in 30 days to see what they say,'' he said. Meanwhile, Bolton said, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be exploring with her colleagues at Thursday's meeting in Berlin how to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. ``The president has been unequivocal that it's unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and there are a whole range of steps we can take,'' Bolton said, without elaborating. ``I'm sure that's what they'll be discussing, in part, in Berlin.'' Iran's U.N. Ambassador Javad Zarif said his government would respond to the Security Council statement, but he warned that ``Iran is a country that is allergic to pressure and to threats and intimidation.'' ``Iran is committed to nonproliferation and Iran does not want to produce nuclear weapons,'' he said, but ``Iran insists on its right to have access to nuclear technology for explicitly peaceful purposes. We will not abandon that claim to our legitimate right.'' France, Britain and Germany have been leading negotiations with Iran but talks collapsed in August after Tehran rejected a package of economic and political incentives offered in return for a permanent end to uranium enrichment, which it had voluntarily suspended in 2004 under a deal with the Europeans. Its subsequent moves to develop full-blown enrichment capabilities led the IAEA's 35-nation board to send the Iran file to the Security Council. The presidential statement approved by the council was described by all council members as a first step to pressure Iran to resolve ``outstanding questions'' - first and foremost by suspending uranium enrichment, which can be used to make nuclear weapons, and reprocessing. It also calls for Iran to ratify the International Atomic Energy Agency's additional protocol, which allows unannounced inspections. The Europeans initially proposed a much stronger statement but accepted a milder one to get the support of Russia and China, who oppose sanctions and want the IAEA to remain in the lead on Iran. At their insistence, the Europeans dropped a statement that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ``constitutes a threat to international peace and security'' - language that already appears in virtually all U.N. sanctions resolutions. Bolton was asked what more the council could do if IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reports that Iran hasn't complied, given the difficulty in reaching agreement on the presidential statement. ``I'm confident that secretary Rice will be very persuasive and I'm hoping they'll make a lot of progress,'' he said. ``She's determined to do it.'' France's de La Sabliere, asked whether the presidential statement was a first building block toward sanctions or military action, replied: ``We are not talking about military action.'' ``We the Europeans want a gradual, incremental and reversible approach,'' he said. ``This is the first step of the gradual approach. Again, it is reversible. If Iran does not comply, there will be a second step.'' But whether Russia and China would agree to tough action remains to be seen. Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said Moscow has very strong suspicions about Iran's nuclear program - but no evidence - and wants Iran to comply with the IAEA demands. ``What we have done today, that is initial step - initial but very important, very strong and very clear,'' he said. Denisov said the council must move slowly. ``It is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and try not to leap,'' he said. ``That is the case.'' Denisov said one of the most important outcomes of the long and difficult negotiations on the statement was the council's unity - and ``I am convinced that the Security Council ... will be able to do it next time as well.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: Foreign Ministers to Meet to Discuss Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 30, 2006 1:31 PM AP Photo HFRA109 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer BERLIN (AP) - Foreign ministers and their deputies from the United States, Russia, China and Europe converged in Germany on Thursday to discuss what kind of pressure to bring on Iran to get it to compromise on its suspect nuclear activities. The meeting follows agreement Wednesday by the 15-member Security Council to ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium. The council statement takes into account Russian and Chinese reservations about too much toughness, while meeting U.S., French and British calls for keeping the pressure on Tehran. It ``notes with serious concern'' Iran's decision to resume activities related to uranium enrichment and limit access to IAEA inspectors. It also calls on Iran to return to ``full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related ... activities.'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the statement an ``important diplomatic step'' that showed the international community's concern about Iran. Before meeting with her counterparts, she was consulting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. ``We are very close today to taking the first major step in the Security Council to deal with Iran's nearly 20-year-old clandestine nuclear weapons program,'' John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in New York. ``It sends an unmistakable message to Iran that its efforts to deny the obvious fact of what it's doing are not going to be sufficient.'' Iran remained defiant, maintaining its right to nuclear power but insisting that it had no intention of seeking weapons of mass destruction. On Thursday, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki condemned ``unjustified propaganda'' about its peaceful nuclear program. ``Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and has never diverted towards prohibited activities,'' Mottaki told the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. But, he added, Iran is willing to continue talks with the IAEA over its nuclear program. ``We are willing to continue with negotiations and also continue with our sincere and constructive cooperation with the agency,'' Mottaki told reporters after the conference session. ``Our cooperation with the agency will continue.'' Security Council members described the statement, while not legally binding, as a first step to pressure Iran to make clear its program is for peaceful purposes. It also calls on Iran to ratify the IAEA's additional protocol, which allows unannounced inspections. The Security Council could eventually impose economic sanctions, though Russia and China say they oppose such tough measures. The Europeans initially proposed a much stronger statement but accepted a milder one to secure the support of Russia and China. Western countries agreed to drop language that proliferation ``constitutes a threat to international peace and security.'' Also gone is a mention that the council is specifically charged under the U.N. charter with addressing such threats. Russia and China had opposed that language because they wanted nothing in the statement that could automatically trigger council action after 30 days. ``For the time being we have suspicions,'' Russia's U.N. Ambassador Andrey Denisov said. ``So from that point of view, it is like a ladder. If you want to climb up, you must step on the first step, and then the second, and not try to leap.'' The West has refused to rule out sanctions, and U.S. officials have said the threat of military action must also remain on the table. Negotiations between Iran and France, Germany and Britain collapsed in August after Tehran rejected a package of incentives offered in return for a permanent end to uranium enrichment. Its moves to develop full-blown enrichment capabilities led the IAEA's board to ask for Security Council involvement. Beyond giving formal blessings for the council statement - and using it to reflect a show of unity - Rice and the ministers from France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany were not likely to accomplish much at Thursday's meeting formally set to last only 90 minutes. While the officials were expected to touch on ways to engage Iran diplomatically, major differences persist on that approach. In a confidential letter earlier this month, Britain argued for including the other permanent Security Council members in talks with Iran. In exchange, they hoped to secure Russian and Chinese support for increasing pressure on Iran through binding council resolutions that could be enforced militarily. A senior European official said on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak to the media that Britain's ``proposal is not off the table.'' But a U.S. official, who also requested anonymity for the same reason, said Washington opposed including more countries in the negotiations. ``From the beginning, our position has been that we don't think it's helpful to have other countries joining the EU-3 in the dialogue because it has the potential of diluting the Western position on Iran,'' he said. The U.S. official did not, however, rule out direct discussions between the United States and Iran, suggesting they could be a spinoff of the U.S. administration's decision earlier this month to talk to Iran about Iraq after a nearly three-decade break in diplomatic ties. The U.S. administration has publicly emphasized those talks would not touch on the nuclear issue. But the official said that ``if some understanding emerges from those discussions, then the one side or the other might say, 'Let's have some follow-up.''' --- Associated Press Writer Edith Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this story. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Iran remains defiant on enrichment Robert Booth and agencies Thursday March 30, 2006 Iran today refused to halt its uranium enrichment programme despite Britain, France, America, Russia and China presenting a united front against the move. The five permanent members of the United Nations security council, along with Germany, met today in Berlin. They agreed what US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice called a "united opposition" to Iran's decision to restart a programme that could provide material for energy and nuclear weapons. Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said Iran had "miscalculated" the response of the international community when it decided to restart uranium enrichment. "They thought the international community would be divided on this issue but in fact they have become more and more united," he said. Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, told Reuters his country would not suspend uranium enrichment work. "We will not, definitely, suspend again the enrichment," he said, adding that the decision was not reversible. In a unanimous "presidential statement" yesterday, the security council ordered the IAEA to report back in 30 days on Iran's progress in halting its enrichment programme. The council noted "with serious concern Iran's decision to resume enrichment-related activities ... and to suspend cooperation with the IAEA under the additional protocol". The protocol allows agency inspectors wide access on short notice to Iran's nuclear programme. The UN body called on Iran to return to "full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related ... activities." A Foreign Office spokesman described the statement as "an impressive show of unity". Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, today said Iran was willing "to continue with negotiations and also continue with our sincere and constructive cooperation with the agency". But he condemned "unjustified propaganda" about its nuclear programme. "Iran's nuclear program is peaceful and has never diverted towards prohibited activities," Mr Mottaki told the 65-nation conference on disarmament in Geneva. The meeting of the six nations was held to discuss ways for the international community to press Iran to stop enriching uranium, which can be used for power generation as well as weapons. According to the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the group remained intent on a "diplomatic solution". China and Russia have been the most moderate in their reaction to the standoff between Iran and the security council. China's vice-foreign minister, Dai Bingguo, today insisted "only peaceful means" must be used to change Iran's position. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said the "sole solution ... will be based on the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency". [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 5 BBC: Iran given stark nuclear choice Last Updated: Thursday, 30 March 2006 [Iranian technicians] Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful means Iran has 30 days to return to the negotiating table or face isolation, foreign ministers from the US and five other major powers have warned. The comments at talks in Berlin reinforced a deadline in a statement by the UN Security Council, which urged Iran to halt uranium enrichment. However the UN nuclear watchdog's chief said Iran was not an imminent threat and sanctions would be a "bad idea". Iran says its activities are peaceful and has rejected the Council's call. The UK's Jack Straw warned sanctions could follow if Iran remained defiant. But speaking in Qatar, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief said sanctions were "a bad idea". "We need to lower the pitch," Mohamed ElBaradei said. 'Miscalculated' The Berlin talks included the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Council - the US, China, France, Russia and the UK - as well as Germany. The foreign ministers were discussing what to do if Iran refused to drop its nuclear ambitions. Their talks came a day after the UN Security Council finally approved a non-binding call on Iran to end uranium enrichment, after weeks of wrangling. "Iran has a choice between isolation brought about through enrichment" or a return to talks, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the meeting sent "a very strong signal to Iran that the international community is united". The British foreign secretary said "the onus is on Iran to show the international community that its programme is entirely for civil purposes". When asked by reporters if the Council might pass a legally binding resolution if Iran did not comply, Mr Straw said: "It can certainly include a resolution... and the possibility of measures after that." Asked if such measures could include sanctions, he said: "It could do." However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said his country remained opposed to such a move against the Islamic Republic. The "sole solution" would come through the IAEA, he said. 'Mistrust' The 15-member Security Council unanimously approved the non-binding statement on Wednesday - one month after Iran's nuclear activities were reported to the Council by the IAEA. The Council noted with serio concern... a number of outstanding issues which could have a military nuclear dimension Security Council statement Will US use military option? The statement was the third version of a draft drawn up by France and the UK, which made significant concessions to Russia and China. Moscow and Beijing, both allies of Iran, were concerned that Security Council involvement could lead to sanctions against Iran and wanted the IAEA to take the lead. Iran was defiant. "We will not, definitely, suspend enrichment," its ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, said earlier on Thursday. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Tehran was still open to talks on the issue with the IAEA, but that there was "mistrust" over negotiations with European nations. He condemned the West's "unjustified propaganda", insisting that Iran's nuclear programme was peaceful. ***************************************************************** 6 Daily Ittefaq: Iran's nuclear crisis : Which way is it heading? src="http://nation.ittefaq.com/images/xml-icon.gif"> Last Updated (US EST): Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:38:34 nation.ittefaq.com By Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra Tehran restarted work on uranium enrichment at Natanz facility soon after the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution asking the Director General to report the progress on safeguards implementation in Iran to UN Security Council after the March Board meeting. Iran's nuclear programme is passing through a period of crisis and so is the international nonproliferation regime. To add complexity to the prevailing mistrust, between Iran on the one hand and US, France, Germany and Britain on the other. On January 10, 2006 Iran reporteedly removed seals put by IAEA at three locations, breaking the two-year old self-imposed voluntary suspension on enrichment related activities. The international community is facing difficulty in tackling the Iranian posture. Various options are being discussed starting from diplomatic solutions to making Iran a referral case for Security Council to impose sanctions and to eventually use force. On the recent moves, Iran says the intended scale of the "R" is small and will be carried out at PFEP (Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant), Natanz. On its part, the IAEA Chief has asked Tehran to provide him with clarifications on the outstanding issues by March 6, 2006 including the information on their past efforts on modification of their missiles. China and Russia have asked Tehran to maintain restraint. But they have still voted for the February 4 resolution and are quite unready to make Iran a referral case to Security Council. The EU troika, in its meeting at Berlin on January 12, 2006, called the recent acts of Iran as a challenge to the authority of the NPT and the IAEA. Meanwhile, lots of heat has been generated through western media. In fact, the IAEA in its press release had mentioned that its secretariat received a note from the Permanent Mission of Iran on January 3, 2006 informing the Agency about "the decesion to resume from January 9, 2006 those R on the peaceful nuclear energy 'programme which has been suspended as part of its expanded voluntary and non-legally binding suspension." Before the analysts could have interpreted the nature of resumption, the very next day a British newspaper leaked a classified report prepared by US and European intelligence agencies on the possibility of covert Iranian acquisition plans. The Guardian revealed a 55-page intelligence document based on the findings of British, French, German and Belgian intelligence agencies assessing the clandestine Iranian nuclear procurement plans. In the beginning of last year, it was reported that during his visit to Washington, the Prime Minister of Israel provided the American President with photographs of Iranian nuclear sites and described the status of Iranian programme as on the cusp of a 'point of no return'. In March 2005, the Wall Street Journal disclosed the US attempt to collect intelligence on Iran's efforts between 2001 and 2003 to adapt its Shahab-3 missile for delivering a "black box", interpreted as a nuclear warhead. The news report stated about an intelligence source, solicited with German help, which provided the US officials with documents related to Farsi-language computer files, diagrams and test data of Iran's missile programme. Four months later, the same newspaper disclosed that US officials shared these classified intelligence with IAEA at Vienna in July 2005 as well. The US officials must be trying hard to prove that Iran is in pursuit of a weapon development programme in the guise of seeking civil nuclear energy. The Iranian nuclear case drew renewed international attention when on August I, 2005, Iran communicated to the IAEA of its plan to resume the conversion activities at Esfahan. During the Board of Governors' meeting in September, US along with the European representatives tried to push Iran further into isolation by advancing a proposal to make Iran a referral case for UN Security Council. They could not, however, convince their major counterparts like China and Russia to agree on such proposal. Finally, the resolution was passed at the Board of Governors meeting in September 2005 cautioning Iran about the possibility of making it a referral case in future in the event of not showing appropriate flexibility and transparency with the IAEA towards resolving the contested aspects of its past nuclear activities. A series of developments have taken place at political and diplomatic fronts since the passage of September 24, 2005 resolution on Iran, which point towards the fact that Iran's declarations on nuclear programme are incomplete and overdue. The Director General of the IAEA, in his November 18, 2005 report mentioned that Iran provided the Agency with the documents related to drawings, showing a cascade layout for 6 cascades of 168 machines each and a small plant of 2000 centrifuges arranged in the same hall and also the procedural requirements for the reduction of uranium hexfluoride to metal in small quantities. The documents also contained information on casting and machining of enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into hemispherical forms. The British ambassador Peter Jenkins on behalf of the EU at the November 2006 Board of Governors' meeting in Vienna was quoted saying about the newly found documents by the IAEA as "Iran has admitted to having a document ... which describes process that has no application other than the production of nuclear weapons." IAEA. believes that substantive details are still missing. Many of the controversies revolve around the nuclear imports especially through Pakistan based A. Q. Khan network, and the associated past concealments. Following the November 2005 meeting Vienna, the international political environment witnessed considerable turmoil especially; a result of various remarks made by the Iran. President. In December, Iranian President Ahmadinejad said that the history about 'massacre of the Jews' by the Nazis during the World War II was a myth fabricated t the West and Europe. Two months earlier Ahmadinejad had warned Israel to be 'wiped off from the map'. Naturally, his remarks created wide uproar in US, Britain, Germany, France and many European countries. The western analysts viewed Ahmadinejad's oratory as reflection of Iran's anti-US and anti-West outlook, a continuing legacy of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Ahmadinejad's provocative posturing may have been aimed at the Muslim world in the neighbourhood where anti-US sentiments are brewing at the moment. The Iranian President may also be trying to influence his domestic power base by projecting himself as a strong leader, who would hardly yield to the pressures from the Americans on nuclear issues. However, it has made the task of the Bush administration and Israel easier to convince the Europeans about the aggressive motives of Iran. The spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister, said in reaction to Ahmadenijad's statement that "we hope that these extremist declarations will make the world wake up to the nature of this regime, especially the fact that Iran's nuclear programme and its support of international terrorism represents not only a danger for Israel but for the entire Western civilization." He added, "Thank God Israel has the means at its disposal to bring about the downfall of this extremist regime in Iran." All this has activated the western media to toss up speculations over the possibility of Israel joining hands with US in any preemptive attack on the nuclear facilities of Iran. Towards the end of 2005, the German media tried to collate few recent intelligence reports and come up with an investigative story that had appeared in the New Yorker in the beginning of the year forecasting Iran as the next strategic target for US after Iraq. The January report of New Yorker stated about American forces secretly entering Iran in 2005 and discussed the possibility of Israel joining hands with the Americans. By quoting the western security sources, Der Spiegel reported on December 30, 2005 of a potential NATO operation plan of air strikes against Iran sometime in 2006. Two days before, Der Tagesspiegel disclosed the case of a high ranking official of Pentagon and CIA to be working on a possible option of use of force in Iran. Another piece by the German news agency DDP on December 23, 2005 noted that countries neighboring Iran, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman, Turkey and Pakistan were also updated of the supposed plan. The reason behind such speculations is that countries like US, Britain and Israel strongly believe in the existence of a hidden nuclear programme in Iran and that they perceive nuclear Iran as a challenge to their security interests. Their suspicion is further fuelled by tough political posturing of Iran. As it is evident from the available information in the public domain, IAEA has found many gaps in the declarations by Iran on its past activities, yet the Agency inspectors have not detected any clear proof which indicates that Tehran is building nuclear weapons. Now, there is growing international pressure on Iran to honour its international obligations. The Iranian's stiffening of posture vis-a-vis US, E-3 and the IAEA has made the issue of confidence building more complex. Tehran had agreed, upon persuasions from Britain, Germany and France, to voluntarily suspend its efforts, aimed at uranium enrichment and reprocessing since October 2003. However, it restarted some centrifuge production related works for few months and committed itself again to voluntary suspension of enrichment related and reprocessing activities again in November 2004. These measures were undertaken by Iran in an attempt to build confidence with the IAEA. As of now, Iran may have gone back on its commitment again. Though the leaks of intelligence reports in the western media propel mixed reactions in the public debates, Bush sounds little cautious. He has been quoted saying as "People will say, If we're trying to make the case on Iran, well, the intelligence failed in Iraq, therefore, how can we trust the intelligence in Iran?" After all, it is once bitten twice shy. (Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra is a Nell' Delhi based Defence Analyst) © Copyright 2003 by The New Nation ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: Rice meets Chirac for talks on Iran nuclear crisis Thu Mar 30, 2:12 PM ET PARIS (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Ricemet French President Jacques Chirac" /> President Jacques Chiracin Paris as part of a lightning tour of Europe for consultations on Iran" /> Iran. Rice arrived from Berlin, where she attended a meeting with foreign ministers of the major United Nations" /> United Nationspowers on how to act on Iran's nuclear program. She spent an hour and a half with Chirac at the president's Elysee palace, and made no comments to the press before returning to Le Bourget airport outside Paris, from where she was to head to Britain. In addition to the Iranian dossier, other topics expected to have figured in their talks included the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Lebanon and Syria" /> Syria. The UN Security Council Wednesday unanimously approved a non-binding statement giving Iran 30 days to abandon its uranium enrichment activities. Rice, in the plane heading to Paris from Berlin, hailed the text as a first step in dealing with Iran. She pointed out the non-binding declaration was a compromise shaped by weeks of negotiations with fellow veto-wielding Security Council members, notably Russia. The US diplomat left Paris for Britain, where she was was to pay a visit to the northwestern cities of Liverpool and Blackburn. Blackburn is the home constituency of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 8 IRNA: Lavrov: UNSC must not play IAEA inspectors role in Iran case - Today: Friday March 31, 2006 Moscow Political Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov was quoted here on Wednesday that the UN Security Council can back up the IAEA in case of Iran's nuclear dossier, but must not shoulder the agency's responsibilities Russia-Iran-UNSC Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov was quoted here on Wednesday that the UN Security Council can back up the IAEA in case of Iran's nuclear dossier, but must not shoulder the agency's responsibilities. Speaking to Russia's Vermia Novosty newspaper, Lavrov added, "The UNSC is still busy surveying the various dimensions of the comprehensive report prepared by the UN nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear program." The Russian Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, too, stated here on Wednesday that the Russian proposal for joint uranium enrichment in Russian soil for Iran is still valid. Referring to the news issued by the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Moscow on the matter recently, Ivanov added, "Iran supports the idea of establishment of an international consortium to produce nuclear fuel in Iran's oil soil." The Vermia Novosty analyst adds, "Iran believes it cannot rely on such a strategic matter on promises made by international manufacturers of the nuclear fuel." The Russian daily also refers to the relatively fruitless Thursday session of the ministers of foreign affairs of the UNSC Big Five plus Germany in Berlin on Iran's nuclear dossier. ---> Russia.Iran.UNSC ***************************************************************** 9 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Zarif: Pressure does not work on Iran 2006/03/30 Tehran, March 30 - Permanent representative to the United Nations criticized a UN chief's statement on Iran's nuclear program, adding that the Islamic Republic is persistant about its right to use nuclear energy despite all political pressures and will not submit to rogue demands of certain countries. Mohammad-Javad Zarif was speaking to reporters following the issuance of a statement on Iran Thursday. Zarif slammed the performance of representatives of certain members of the Security Council which profess to champion global peace and security. "Fifty five years ago, they construed the nationalization of Iran's oil as a threat to global peace and security and take the issue to the Security Council; today the same thing has been repeated," Zarif said. Iran's representative asserted that ignoring the right of such country as Iran which is committed to NPT Protocol is but a blow to the WMD non-proliferation treaty and indicates an injustice in dealing with countries' rights by the council. He reaffirmed that Iran for strategic reasons considers any access to these weapons as perilous, thereby never seeking any. The envoy pointed to IAEA's numerous confirmations that no deviation has ever been watched in Iran's peaceful nuclear activities. He underlined that the wording of the UN statement is selective and has no factual basis. Answering a question, Zarif recalled that Iran during the past three year negotiation has put forward different proposals for an objective guarantee that its activities are peaceful, while the Europeans under US pressure used to rule them out without any reason. He said that if the the Security Council wants to meet its obligations towards global peace and security, it must tackle the ongoing peril posed by the United States and Israel by their violation of the principle of refraining from blackmailing or resorting to force. "We have repeatedly called on the Security Council to take on the issue which so far have fallen on deaf ears," Zarif continued. He asked the Security Council why some countries must be punished for just membering the NPT protocol, while certain others who have yet to join the treaty and shun their international committments must be awarded. "Pressure and threat does not work on Iran," Zarif stressed, declaring that the Islamic Republic is ready for cooperation and negotiation to restore its rights. Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. ***************************************************************** 10 AFP: Iran defiant as cracks show in top powers' united front Friday March 31, 7:36 AM Iran defiant as cracks show in top powers' united front Photo: AFP BERLIN (AFP) - Iran refused to comply with a UN Security Council demand to freeze uranium enrichment, defying a warning from major world powers which fear Tehran secretly wants an atomic bomb. Foreign ministers of the UN Security Council's five permanent members plus Germany warned at talks in Berlin that Iran would find itself isolated if it pursued the stand-off over its nuclear program. It followed a non-binding statement approved unanimously by the world body late Wednesday giving Iran 30 days to abandon uranium enrichment activities. But the Islamic republic swiftly hit back. "Iran's decision on enrichment, particularly research and development, is irreversible," its ambassador to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Aliasghar Soltanieh, told AFP. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, speaking in Geneva, described the UN declaration as an "angry precedent" and a "bad move". In Berlin, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the UN declaration was "a strong sign to Iran that negotiation not confrontation should be their course." "It is now up to Iran to make a choice ... between isolation brought about by its own actions or a return to the negotiating table," added German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the meeting's host. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Iran had "miscalculated" the top powers' resolve. "They thought the international community would be divided on this issue but, truthfully, it has become more and more united," he said. In New York, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan hailed the Security Council's "spirit of consensus" on the Iran issue. Annan called on Tehran to "heed the international community's concerns" and "cooperate fully with its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and successive International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolutions." But cracks appeared between the major powers here over how to act if Iran does not comply. The UN statement does not say what consequences might follow if Tehran does not halt uranium enrichment, and Russia and China insisted economic sanctions or military action did not belong on the table. "Russia does not believe that sanctions would serve the purpose of settling the various issues," Lavrov said. Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo said use of force would unleash chaos. "The Chinese side feels there has already been enough turmoil in the Middle East and we do not want to see more turmoil introduced into the region," he said. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei, speaking in Doha, discouraged international sanctions against Iran. "Sanctions are a bad idea. We are not facing an imminent threat," he said, while calling on Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA. The UN talks had been marred by differences between the United States and its Western allies on the one hand and Russia and China on the other over how to prevent Tehran from making enriched uranium, which can be nuclear reactor fuel or material for an atom bomb. The final declaration is a watered-down version of a Franco-British draft, in what was seen as a bid to placate Russia and China, which have opposed any hint of punitive measures against Iran, an ally and key trading partner. It expresses clear concern that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons secretly, demands that it comply with the IAEA governing board and calls for an IAEA report within 30 days. A senior US State Department official said the participants in Berlin all agreed on the need to keep Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons and expressed "acute concern" over recent Iranian actions. "A number" of the ministers, including Rice, argued for consideration of sanctions at some point, said the official. "I am not saying there is unanimity about this," the official said. "But what was interesting was that (the) issue was joined for the first time at a P-5 meeting." Tehran vehemently denies it has ambitions of building a nuclear bomb and says its nuclear program is purely peaceful. It is unclear what will happen if Iran refuses to buckle before the 30-day deadline is up. "We are thinking about positive steps as well as negative steps, in conjunction with Russia, with China and with all other partners, depending on Iran's response," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said. Mottaki, speaking to the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, said Iran would formally offer to set up a "regional consortium" to enrich fuel for its nuclear program, implying that it would be set up in Iran. [''] [ src=] Rice said Thursday en route from Washington after the Security Council deal, a compromise struck after weeks of haggling, notably with Russia. "When you are taking a first step, the unity of ... the Security Council is extremely important." The talks in Berlin bring together Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- the United Nations Security Council's five veto-wielding permanent members (P-5) -- plus Germany, one of three European powers that have pursued nuclear talks with Tehran. The UN talks had been marred by differences between the United States and its Western allies on the one hand and Russia and China on the other over how to coax Tehran away from sensitive nuclear research. The statement that finally prevailed is a watered-down version of a Franco-British statement that calls on Iran to meet demands from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It expresses clear concern that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear weapons secretly, demands that Iran comply with the wishes of the IAEA governing board and calls for an IAEA report within 30 days. Iran responded by formally offering to set up a "regional consortium" to enrich fuel for its nuclear programme. "One possibility to resolve the issue could be the establishment of a regional consortium on fuel cycle development," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. He said the consortium, which he implied would be based in Iran, could involve "countries which have already developed fuel cycle programmes at the national level and intend to develop further their programme for civilian purposes." Iran's UN ambassador Javad Zarif said earlier that any attempt to coerce Iran would backfire. "We have made it clear that Iran doesn't want nuclear weapons," Zarif said, but also warned: "We are allergic to pressure and intimidation and we do not respond well to that." Germany called the talks in Berlin to map out a long-term strategy on how to contend with Iran's refusal to halt uranium enrichment, which could be used to build a nuclear bomb. Besides Rice, the working lunch brings together German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Jack Straw of Britain, Philippe Douste-Blazy of France, Sergei Lavrov of Russia, Chinese deputy foreign minister Dai Bingguo and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. Douste-Blazy said he hoped the meeting would display "the unity and resolve of the international community". Washington and European powers believe Iran has ambitions of building a nuclear bomb, which they argue would destabilize the entire region. Tehran vehemently denies the charge and says its nuclear program is purely peaceful. The non-binding UN Security Council declaration was seen as a bid to placate Russia and China, which have opposed any hint of punitive measures against Iran, an ally and key trading partner. In a further concession, the co-sponsors extended the deadline to 30 days from the 14 days they had initially sought. China said Thursday a negotiated solution to the standoff was still possible. "We believe that in the current situation there is still room to solve the issue through diplomatic negotiation," foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said, repeating Beijing's long-held position. Lavrov warned Wednesday that any attempt to bring pressure to bear on Tehran would be "highly counter-productive". But in a sign that it was satisfied with the Security Council deal, the Russian foreign ministry urged Iran to heed "in the fullest way" the call to end uranium enrichment activities. Britain, France and Germany -- known as the EU-3 -- pursued three years of inconclusive negotiations to convince Tehran to stand down on its nuclear program in exchange for economic incentives. Diplomacy has reached a critical point since Tehran announced in January it was resuming sensitive research on uranium enrichment that it had suspended for two years. AFP ***************************************************************** 13 IRNA: Mottaki: Iran entitled to peaceful use of nuclear technology - Vienna, March 30, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Mottaki Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Geneva on Thursday stressed Iran's right to acquire peaceful nuclear technology. Addressing the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on Thursday, Mottaki said access to peaceful nuclear technology was the indisputable right of Iran and other NPT members. Mottaki said there was a clear intent on the part of certain countries to prevent the conference from becoming a success. Thursday's remarks of the Iranian foreign minister made just hours after the UN Security Council approved a statement on Iran's nuclear program have been deemed highly significant by foreign media circles. AFP quoted Mottaki as saying Thursday that Tehran was formally offering setting up of a regional center for enriching fuel for the Islamic republic's nuclear program. AFP said Mottaki's statements at the UN Conference on Disarmament came just hours after the UN Security Council in New York unanimously voted to give Iran 30 days to heed long-running calls to abandon its uranium enrichment activities. Iran has repeatedly announced that it will not give up its nuclear right in accordance with international law, rules and regulations and will not bow to political pressure from the US and certain European states. Meanwhile, thousands of hours of inspection and monitoring of Iran's nuclear facilities by IAEA inspectors and monitoring equipment have shown not a single deviation in Iran's peaceful nuclear activities. That finding has also been reflected in many statements issued by experts of the agency. ***************************************************************** 14 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea ¡®Must Scrap Nukes Before Peace Deal¡¯ Updated Mar.30,2006 21:27 KST Seoul hopes to ¡°jump right into¡± negotiations for a permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula, but only once visible progress has been made in talks on North Korea¡¯s nuclear weapons program, Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung said Thursday. The minister warned against putting the cart before the horse. "If negotiations on a peace framework are put before the six-party talks, it could in fact have a negative effect on a resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue,¡± he told a seminar sponsored by Korea International Defense Association. He said a peace treaty to replace the armistice that ended the Korean War and officially still prevails on the peninsula ¡°must be approached step by step with the cooperation of neighboring countries in Northeast Asia that have an interest in the matter, and only once there has been a tangible change in the threat from North Korea and improvement in South-North relations." (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 15 Xinhua: U.S. continues focusing on six-party talks: spokesman www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-31 05:16:58 WASHINGTON, March 30 (Xinhua) -- The United States will maintain its effort for the resumption of the six-party talks which was designed to solve the nuclear disputes on the Korean peninsular, the State Department said on Thursday. "We continue to make every effort to support a resumption of the six-party talks as soon as possible. That continues to be our goal, and that continues to be our focus, deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told a news briefing. "The six-party process, frankly, is the way that we've all decided is the most effective means of addressing the problem of a nuclear Korean peninsula and how to achieve the goal of a denuclearized Korean peninsula," he said. The six-party talks, launched in 2003, involves the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the United States, the Republic of Korea, China, Japan and Russia. The DPRK has said that it would not return to the six-party talks unless the United States lifts the sanctions imposed on the country. Enditem Editor: Luan Shanglin Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 16 Washington Post-Jimmy Carter: A Dangerous Deal With India Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:21:21 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Dear All, please note the statment enlarged. Is this accurate? The U.S. is producing tritium at Watts Bar for nuclear weapons. Is it not considered fissil materiall? Jeannine A Dangerous Deal With India Washington Post By Jimmy Carter Wednesday, March 29, 2006; A19 During the past five years the United States has abandoned many of the nuclear arms control agreements negotiated since the administration of Dwight Eisenhower. This change in policies has sent uncertain signals to other countries, including North Korea and Iran, and may encourage technologically capable nations to choose the nuclear option. The proposed nuclear deal with India is just one more step in opening a Pandora's box of nuclear proliferation. The only substantive commitment among nuclear-weapon states and others is the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), accepted by the five original nuclear powers and 182 other nations. Its key objective is "to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology . . . and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament." At the five-year U.N. review conference in 2005, only Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan were not participating -- three with proven arsenals. Our government has abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and spent more than $80 billion on a doubtful effort to intercept and destroy incoming intercontinental missiles, with annual costs of about $9 billion. We have also forgone compliance with the previously binding limitation on testing nuclear weapons and developing new ones, with announced plans for earth-penetrating "bunker busters," some secret new "small" bombs, and a move toward deployment of destructive weapons in space. Another long-standing policy has been publicly reversed by our threatening first use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. These decisions have aroused negative responses from NPT signatories, including China, Russia and even our nuclear allies, whose competitive alternative is to upgrade their own capabilities without regard to arms control agreements. Last year former defense secretary Robert McNamara summed up his concerns in Foreign Policy magazine: "I would characterize current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous." It must be remembered that there are no detectable efforts being made to seek confirmed reductions of almost 30,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, of which the United States possesses about 12,000, Russia 16,000, China 400, France 350, Israel 200, Britain 185, India and Pakistan 40 each -- and North Korea has sufficient enriched nuclear fuel for a half-dozen. A global holocaust is just as possible now, through mistakes or misjudgments, as it was during the depths of the Cold War. Knowing for more than three decades of Indian leaders' nuclear ambitions, I and all other presidents included them in a consistent policy: no sales of civilian nuclear technology or uncontrolled fuel to any country that refused to sign the NPT. There was some fanfare in announcing that India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012, and that U.S. companies might win two of those reactor contracts, but this is a minuscule benefit compared with the potential costs. India may be a special case, but reasonable restraints are necessary. The five original nuclear powers have all stopped producing fissile material for weapons, and India should make the same pledge to cap its stockpile of nuclear bomb ingredients. Instead, the proposal for India would allow enough fissile material for as many as 50 weapons a year, far exceeding what is believed to be its current capacity. So far India has only rudimentary technology for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing, and Congress should preclude the sale of such technology to India. Former senator Sam Nunn said that the current agreement "certainly does not curb in any way the proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear material." India should also join other nuclear powers in signing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. There is no doubt that condoning avoidance of the NPT encourages the spread of nuclear weaponry. Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Argentina and many other technologically advanced nations have chosen to abide by the NPT to gain access to foreign nuclear technology. Why should they adhere to self-restraint if India rejects the same terms? At the same time, Israel's uncontrolled and unmonitored weapons status entices neighboring leaders in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other states to seek such armaments, for status or potential use. The world has observed that among the "axis of evil," nonnuclear Iraq was invaded and a perhaps more threatening North Korea has not been attacked. The global threat of proliferation is real, and the destructive capability of irresponsible nations -- and perhaps even some terrorist groups -- will be enhanced by a lack of leadership among nuclear powers that are not willing to restrain themselves or certain chosen partners. Like it or not, the United States is at the forefront in making these crucial strategic decisions. A world armed with nuclear weapons could be a terrible legacy of the wrong choices. Former president Carter, a Democrat, is founder of the Carter Center. © 2006 The Washington Post Company ___________________________________ Dianne Saenz Director, Communications Physicians for Social Responsibility 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, #1012 Washington, DC 20009 office tel: 202.587.5215 cell: 703.362.7505 fax: 202.667.4201 www.psr.org ***************************************************************** 17 [NukeNet] BILLIONS SQUANDERED ON JUNK SCIENCE Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:21:39 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://members.cox.net/theroyprocess/the-new-york-times.html ---------------------------------------- DOE Squandered Billions on Useless Nuke Waste Technologies By Brian Hansen WASHINGTON, DC, November 13, 2000 (ENS) - The U.S. Department of Energy has "squandered hundreds of millions of dollars" since the end of the Cold War trying to develop innovative technologies for cleaning up the nation's contaminated nuclear weapons sites, concludes a Congressional report unveiled last week. The report, "Incinerating Cash," was authored by staff members of the House Commerce Committee's Republican majority. The committee's Democratic members did not participate in drafting the report. The report charges that the Department of Energy (DOE) has wasted much of the $3.4 billion that it has spent over the last decade on efforts to develop new technologies for cleaning up nuclear weapons wastes. Congress ordered the DOE in 1989 to initiate the program to address the environmental issues resulting from decades of nuclear weapons production. The committee's report concludes that the DOE has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on technologies that "have not proved useful" in the clean up mission. Moreover, the "useful" clean up technologies that the DOE has produced have not been used effectively by the agency or its private contractors, the report found. Of the 918 technologies that the DOE has funded, just 31 - less than 4 percent - have been deployed more than three times at contaminated nuclear weapons sites, the report notes. Of the technologies that have been deployed, more than half have been used only once, the report adds. The report attributes the failure of the program to an "ongoing pattern of mismanagement and lack of focus" within the DOE's Office of Science and Technology, which is implementing the initiative. Carolyn Huntoon, the DOE's assistant secretary for environmental management, was quick to dispute the findings of the Commerce Committee's report. In a written statement, Huntoon rejected claims that the technology program has not produced results. "One out of every five research and development projects have resulted in a viable technology being used by the department," Huntoon said. The DOE's nuclear waste complex consists of 113 geographic waste sites located throughout the country. The DOE recently estimated that it will cost between $151 and $195 billion over the next 70 years to clean up the complex, not including the $51 billion already spent between 1990 and 1999. The Commerce Committee's report cited a number of case studies in concluding that those costs will not be appreciably reduced by the application of technologies developed by the DOE's Office of Science and Technology (OST). Those case studies were based in large part on a survey conducted earlier this year, in which several large DOE site contractors were asked to describe their use of commercially available OST funded technologies. One DOE site analyzed in the committee's survey was the Rocky Flats facility near Denver, Colorado, where large quantities of wastes containing plutonium and other radioactive constituents must be characterized, stabilized, packaged and moved off site. The DOE's environmental management program has to date spent some $4.9 billion at Rocky Flats, and the agency plans to spend another $4.5 billion over the next five years to complete environmental cleanup activities by the year 2006. However, the Kaiser-Hill Company, the DOE's contractor at the site, has so far found use for just seven commercially available clean up technologies, the Commerce Committee's report found. The company will likely deploy no more than three of the DOE's technologies in the year 2000, the committee's survey found. "Thus, after 10 years and $3.4 billion spent to develop technologies to reduce costs and speed cleanup, few [DOE] funded technologies have been used for cleanup at Rocky Flats, and few will likely be used in the future," the report declares. The report also notes how DOE funded technologies have been ineffective in advancing remediation activities at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state, where the cleanup of 177 underground tanks containing radioactive wastes is one of the most expensive and significant long term waste management projects within the DOE complex. The report notes that Hanford's radioactive tank wastes represent a huge potential impact to human health and the environment. Hanford's Office of River Protection (ORP) spends more than $300 million each year for characterization, interim stabilization, and resolution of tank safety issues to control the approximately 200 million curies of cesium, strontium and other radioactive constituents stored in rapidly degrading underground tanks. Some 30 tanks are known to have leaked in the past. Since 1990, the DOE has spent $4 billion on this project, and the agency plans to spend $13 billion over the next 70 years on tank farm operations. To date, the DOE has funded 80 technologies and has spent hundreds of millions of dollars at Hanford. But the committee's report finds that the commercially available technologies funded by the DOE have provided "no significant use" for characterizing or stabilizing the Hanford tank wastes, nor will they do so in the future. According to the CH2M Hill Hanford Group, the DOE's contractor at the site, none of the commercially available technologies have been deployed at the Hanford tank farms. The report is also critical of the DOE's use of taxpayer funded technologies to improve operations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, where radioactive waste is interned in casks hundreds of feet below the surface of the desert. ------------------- (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107). _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 18 Times of India: Saran, Rice work on N-deal implementation [ Thursday, March 30, 2006 11:06:32 amPTI ] WASHINGTON: Implementation of the historic Indo-US civilian nuclear deal came up during discussions Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran had with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The meeting with Rice on Wednesday followed a working lunch Saran had with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, in which they discussed "all bilateral issues" with a focus on the civilian nuclear agreement specially on the kind of steps that are necessary to take it further, sources said. The Bush administration is understood to have affirmed its commitment to working with the United States Congress and the Nuclear Suppliers Group to advance the civilian nuclear energy agreement between the two countries. Senior officials of the two sides are also said to have discussed the so-called 123 Agreement, seen as a technical one that would have to be approved by Congress as well. "These senior level consultations are to advance the United States-India strategic partnership," a senior Bush administration official said. Saran is scheduled to meet several top lawmakers on Capitol Hill tomorrow, including Senator Joseph Biden, the ranking member in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, crucial lawmakers sitting on the House International Relations Committee including Chairman Henry Hyde, ranking Democrat Tom Lantos and Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans Gary Ackerman. Copyright ©2006Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. For ***************************************************************** 19 Independent: The US propaganda machine: Oh, what a lovely war The Lincoln Group was tasked with presenting the US version of events in Iraq to counter adverse media coverage. Here we present examples of its work, and the reality behind its headlines. By Andrew Buncombe Published: 30 March 2006 This is the news from Iraq according to Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. A week after the US Defence Secretary criticised the media for " exaggerating" reports of violence in Iraq, The Independent has obtained examples of newspaper reports the Bush administration want Iraqis to read. They were prepared by specially trained American "psy-ops" troops who paid thousands of dollars to Iraqi newspaper editors to run these unattributed reports in their publications. In order to hide its involvement, the Pentagon hired the Lincoln Group to act as a liaison between troops and journalists. The Lincoln Group was at the centre of controversy last year when it was revealed the company was being paid more than $100m (£58m) for various contracts, including the planting of such stories. The Pentagon - which recently announced that an internal investigation had cleared the Lincoln Group of breaching military rules by planting these stories - has claimed these new reports did not constitute propaganda because they were factually correct. But a military specialist has questioned some of the information contained within their reports while describing their rhetorical style as "comical". Furthermore, it has been alleged that quotations contained within these reports and others - attributed to anonymous Iraqi officials or citizens - were routinely made up by US troops who never went beyond the perimeter of the Green Zone. What seems clear is that, taken by themselves, these reports would provide an unbalanced picture of the situation inside Iraq where ongoing violence wreaks daily chaos and horror. Three years since US and UK troops invaded, more than 2,500 coalition troops have been killed. How many Iraqi civilians have died is unclear. The Iraqi Body Count puts the minimum at 33,773, but this figure is based on media reports and the group admits "it is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media". An extrapolation published in The Lancet 18 months ago said more than 100,000 had been killed. A former employee of the Lincoln Group, who spent last summer in Baghdad acting as a link between US troops who were part of the Information Operations Task Force and Iraqis contracted by the company to establish contact with Iraqi journalists, said his job was to ensure "there were no finger-prints". "The Iraqis did not know who was writing the stories and the US troops did not know who the Iraqis were," said the former employee, who declined to be named. It is not known whether the stories included here were ever printed or simply prepared for publication, but he said it was normal for around 10 stories a week to be printed. He said US troops routinely fabricated their quotations. The former employee said the Lincoln Group paid up to $2,000 for the publication of each article - a sum that had risen from when he started working, suggesting the Iraqi editors realised who was behind the articles and knew there was plenty of money. The Lincoln Group was paid $80,000 a week by the military to plant these stories. The former employee said the stories - which often feature phrases such as " brave warriors" and "eager troops" - were designed to bolster the image and purported efficiency of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and their involvement in operations. The Bush administration says the ability of Iraqi security forces to deal with insurgents remains the key to a withdrawal of US troops. In reality, while one article describes the ISF as a "potent fighting force", the training of Iraqi forces has been a slow and troubled process. The Pentagon recently said the only Iraqi battalion judged capable of fighting without US support had been downgraded, requiring it to fight with American troops. John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based defence think-tank, who reviewed some of the Lincoln Group stories, said he found them unconvincing. "Anybody who knows about propaganda knows the first rule of propaganda is that it should not look like propaganda," he said. "It's embarrassing enough that [the US military] got caught ... but then for their product to be so cheesy ... It's just embarrassing." He added: "Some of the vignettes are cartoonish. The ISF? Many of them are surely brave. But a potent fighting force? I think that's a little clearer than the truth. It's propaganda." Another story mentions the Iraqi oil industry and calls it "unique in that it is the only sector in which every dollar invested, either directly or indirectly, provides direct revenue to Iraq for future reconstruction" . Yet a report published last November by a group of aid agencies and NGOs claimed that production-sharing agreements (PSAs) proposed by the US State Department before the invasion and adopted by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), could see Iraqis lose $200bn in revenue if the plan comes into effect. Data collated by the Brookings Institution says oil production in Iraq remains below the estimated pre-invasion levels. At the moment, Iraq annually spends $6bn to import oil. The Lincoln Group is headed by Christian Bailey, a Briton with no experience in PR, and a former US Marine, Paige Craig. The company failed to respond to a call seeking comment yesterday. A spokesman for the US military in Iraq, Lieut-Col Barry Johnson, said last night: "The results of the investigation have not yet been made public while the report undergoes final review by Multinational Force leadership. I am unable to comment on unsubstantiated allegations." While the Lincoln Group has been cleared by one Pentagon inquiry, it remains the subject of a separate inquiry being conducted by the Pentagon's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). A spokesman, Gary Comerford, said that the OIG had been asked by the Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy to review how the company had won its contract. Criticising the media last week, Mr Rumsfeld said: "Much of the reporting in the US and abroad has exaggerated the situation... Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side.... The steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists." 'AL-QA'IDA THREATENS ALL IRAQIS' 24 October 2005 The Lincoln version The chief murderer of al-Qa'ida in Iraq has declared war against all Iraqis. They have also lamely attempted to justify the murder of civilians. Some websites featured the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's praise of his heathen deeds. The people of Iraq have had enough. "These thugs clearly hate us; they do not share in our national pride or our belief in a unified Iraq," said one Iraqi. "They only wish to kill our women, our children, our future. We must not and will not let them." Horror stories are told in homes and shops of friends and family members casually murdered while going about their daily business. These ... are simple folk trying to make the best of their lives. How many more suicide bombs have to go off before al-Qa'ida realises that there is no room for them in the land of the two rivers? In one particular attack, terrorists murdered a young boy and stuffed his body full of explosives in an attempt to lure security forces into an ambush. Is this the only future terrorism has to offer? The reality check At least 20 people were killed and 42 others injured when three suicide bombers targeted Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, used by media and contractors. A dozen construction labourers were killed in an attack on Al-Musayyab, south of Baghdad. Muhammad Ali Nu'aymi, secretary of the director-general of al-Mansur municipality, was killed by gunmen. Bodies of six Iraqi citizens were found in al-Mahmudiyah, southern Baghdad. 'IRAQI ARMY DEFEATS TERRORISM' 26 October 2005 The Lincoln version With the people's approval of the constitution, Iraq is well on its way to forming a permanent government. Meanwhile, the underhanded forces of al-Qa'ida remain bent on halting progress and inciting civil war. The honest citizens of Iraq, however, need not fear these criminals and terrorists. The brave warriors of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are hard at work stopping al-Qa'ida's attacks before they occur. On 24 October, soldiers near Taji received a report that terrorists were stockpiling dangerous weapons. The soldiers found over 150 tank and artillery rounds. These munitions are similar to the ones that al-Qa'ida bomb-makers often use to construct their deadly bombs. The troops destroyed every last round, ensuring they will never be used against the Iraqi people. Three al-Qa'ida mercenaries in Baqubah were planning to conduct a suicide vest attack. Officers of the Iraqi Police Service (IPS) spotted them as they drove towards their target. But then something happened. The would-be murderer lost his faith and leapt from the moving vehicle. One of the other suicide bombers panicked and detonated his vest while still inside the car, instantly killing himself and another accomplice. The reality check At least five Iraqis killed by suicide bomber on bus in Baqubah, north-east of Baghdad. Bodies of nine Iraqi border guards, who were shot dead, found previous day. Joint US-Iraqi convoy targeted by car bomb in al-Ma'mun area of Baghdad. 'QUICK REACTION CAPTURES BOMBER' 12 November 2005 The Lincoln version In conjunction with operation El-Sitar Elfulathi in Husaybah and Karabilah, Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are sweeping across Iraq in a series of continuous operations aimed at disrupting insurgent activity. Through diligent patrols, organised raids and searches, vehicle checkpoints and interaction with the Iraqi people, Iraqi Army (IA) units have taken down terror cells and removed dangerous criminals from Iraq's streets. In Baghdad, a quick response to a terror attack led to the arrest of the culprit. On 10 November, terrorists detonated a car bomb in eastern Baghdad wounding three Iraqi women. Immediately the ISF responded, securing the area and treating and evacuating the injured. The soldiers quickly examined the site of the bombing, discovering evidence that led them to the arrest of the suspected bomber. Because of their quick reaction, there was no loss of innocent life and another terrorist is in prison and awaiting his trial. The ISF has quickly developed into a viable fighting force capable of defending the people of Iraq against the cowards who launch their attacks on innocent people. The reality check Ten people were killed when a car bomb exploded at a market in Baghdad. Bodies of three men tortured to death discovered in Shula. Coalition troops killed four alleged insurgents in "safe house" near Ramadi. On November 10, 7 Iraqis killed 30 wounded by car bomb near Al-Shuruqi Mosque, north of Baghdad. 'TRAINING PREPARES IRAQI MARINES' 13 November 2005 The Lincoln version Terrorist attacks often result in damage to Iraq's infrastructure, but the Ministry of Defence is determined to keep that from continuing. The brave men of the Iraqi Marines are one step closer to taking charge of the security mission at the Al Basrah and Khawr Al Amaya Oil Terminals. Recently, soldiers from the 6th Platoon Iraqi Marines completed the oil platform defence training at the Al Basrah Oil Terminal. Their main focus was to acquire the necessary skills to effectively protect the oil terminals. The students trained up to three to four times a day, working closely with the instructors. The intense training they received included how to stand a proper watch, how to work and fight as a team, and how to defend against terrorist attacks on the terminals. When these soldiers assume control of security on the terminal, they will ensure the safety and stability of the maritime environment. These operations complement counter-terrorism and security efforts as well as deny international terrorists use of the waterways as an avenue of attack. The reality check Deputy health minister, Jalil al-Shammari, and his bodyguards are killed north of Baghdad. Amir Al-Saldi, Baghdad municipal official, is killed in Ghazaliya. Clashes in al-Qadiyah district of Samarra leave three dead. An Iraqi soldier is killed and six others wounded, three seriously, in a roadside bomb explosion in Kirkuk. © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 20 AFP: Wen says India nuclear development must follow international rules - Thu Mar 30, 12:32 AM ET SYDNEY (AFP) - Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said he had no objection to India cooperating with other countries to develop nuclear power, provided nuclear non-proliferation protocols were followed. Asked about a US-India agreement to share nuclear technology reached earlier this month, Wen said there was no problem provided non-proliferation signatories met their obligations. "India is a friendly neighbour of China and we do not object to its developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and cooperating with other countries in nuclear power generation," he said in an interview with The Australian newspaper. "At the same time, we take the position that relevant parties should honour their obligations they have undertaken as parties to the non-proliferation treaty." While China and the United States have signed the non-proliferation treaty, India and nuclear rival Pakistan have refused. However in a major turnaround earlier this month, Washington agreed to give India access to US nuclear technology in exchange for New Delhi separating its civil and military atomic programs and placing a majority of its reactors under international inspection. Wen said China had already cooperated with France and Russia on nuclear power development and was holding discussions with the United States about the same issue. He said nuclear power was an important way to reduce pollution. "The peaceful use of nuclear energy for power generation is an important means to develop clean energy and reduce pollution, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases," he said. "This is why many countries are going in for nuclear energy and have entered into cooperation in this field." China is planning to massively expand its nuclear power capabilities as it seeks to reduce reliance on greenhouse gas-producing fuel supplies and Wen is expected to sign an agreement to buy Australian uranium during his visit to Canberra next week. Australia, which has about 40 percent of the world's known uranium reserves, insists any uranium exports to China be used only for power generation, not for military purposes. It refuses to sell uranium to India because New Delhi has not signed the non-proliferation treaty. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 21 AFP: US to test 700-tonne explosive Thu Mar 30, 11:26 AM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US military plans to detonate a 700 tonne explosive charge in a test called "Divine Strake" that will send a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas, a senior defense official said. "I don't want to sound glib here but it is the first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons," said James Tegnelia, head of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Tegnelia said the test was part of a US effort to develop weapons capable of destroying deeply buried bunkers housing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. "We have several very large penetrators we're developing," he told defense reporters. "We also have -- are you ready for this - a 700-tonne explosively formed charge that we're going to be putting in a tunnel in Nevada," he said. "And that represents to us the largest single explosive that we could imagine doing conventionally to solve that problem," he said. The aim is to measure the effect of the blast on hard granite structures, he said. "If you want to model these weapons, you want to know from a modeling point of view what is the ideal best condition you could ever set up in a conventional weapon -- what's the best you can do. "And this gets at the best point you could get on a curve. So it allows us to predict how effective these kinds of weapons ... would be," he said. He said the Russians have been notified of the test, which is scheduled for the first week of June at the Nevada test range. "We're also making sure that Las Vegas understands," Tegnelia said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 22 AFP: India's training of Iranian military could dampen nuclear deal - US lawmaker - Friday March 31, 01:36 PM WASHINGTON (AFP) - India's alleged training of Iranian troops could dampen vital US Congress support for a bilateral landmark civilian nuclear deal, a ranking Democrat warns. Tom Lantos, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives' powerful international relations committee scrutinizing the nuclear deal, expressed concern to visiting Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran over New Delhi's training of the Iranian navy, the lawmaker's spokeswoman Lynne Weil told AFP. "Congressman Lantos pointed out that episodes of conflict in relations between US and India, such as India's early wavering in its commitment to refer Iran to the UN Security Council and more recent concerns raised about Iranian troops receiving training from India will only undermine Congressional support for the deal," she said. Reacting to the concerns, the Indian government said two Iranian naval ships with about 200 personnel were on a six-day "informal" visit to the southern Indian naval base in Kochi in March while on an annual sea training sortie in the Arabian Sea. The port call was essentially "diplomatic-goodwill" and not part of any training package, said Venu Rajamony, spokesman for the Indian embassy in Washington. He said the Iranian ships "interacted" with the Indian Navy as part of the visit, adding that activities included courtesy calls on Indian naval officers, navigational simulation and recreational activities such as yachting. Lantos and Saran discussed the US-Indian nuclear agreement in the larger context of bilateral relations "which they agreed are blossoming in many respects," Weil said. But Lantos noted that "at a time when gestures from allies are significant -- not symbolic gestures alone but substantive gestures -- the Indian government should look for opportunities to make gestures that underscore the strength of the bilateral friendship," she said. The India-US nuclear deal gives energy-starved India access to long-denied civilian nuclear technology in return for placing a majority of its nuclear reactors under international inspection. For it to be effective, the US Congress has to amend the US Atomic Energy Act, which currently prohibits nuclear sales to countries that are not signatories of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). US lawmakers are reportedly sceptical about giving their mandatory approval to the deal as India has refused to sign the NPT and has developed nuclear weapons on its own. Washington meanwhile is trying to rein in Iran's uranium enrichment activities amid suspicion that Tehran could be pursuing covert development of nuclear weapons. On Wednesday, the UN Security Council in New York unanimously voted to give Iran 30 days to fall into line with long-running calls to abandon uranium enrichment. India is treading a tightrope as it tries to firm up the civilian nuclear deal with the United States and maintain its traditionally strong ties with neighbour Iran. In February, India voted with 26 other nations to refer Iran to the UN Security Council amid charges by communists within the ruling Indian coalition that New Delhi's foreign policy was being dictated by Washington. Saran warned Thursday of a setback in US-India ties if Congress refused to ratify the nuclear deal, clinched on March 2 by US President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. "If this particular agreement does not go through, there is no doubt there will be, in terms of the expectation that has been created, in terms of the enthusiasm that has been created, there will be some falling back," Saran said when fielding questions on the deal at a Washington forum. Saran, the top civil servant in the Indian foreign ministry, said inevitably the public focus of the envisioned strategic partnership between the two nations had been on the nuclear deal even though bilateral relations covered many key areas. "If this does not go through, it does not mean that everything else will fall by the wayside but at the same time we should also recognize that for good reason or bad, there is intense focus on this particular agreement," he said. "Therefore whether we like it or not, this has become very symbolic of what we want to do with India-US relations," he said. Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 23 Guardian Unlimited: Putin Says Nuke Deterrent Remains Priority From the Associated Press [UP] Thursday March 30, 2006 10:46 PM AP Photo MOSB117 MOSCOW (AP) - Maintaining enough nuclear weapons for a strong nuclear deterrent is the top priority in Russia's security strategy, President Vladimir Putin said Thursday. Putin, in an address on Russia's nuclear weapons program, said uncertainty in the international situation made it necessary to retain a sufficient number of nuclear weapons, which he did not specify. In May 2002, Putin and President Bush signed a treaty that obliged both sides to cut their strategic nuclear arsenals by about two-thirds - to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads - by 2012. When the treaty was signed, many analysts said the number of Russian nuclear weapons could fall far below the number set by the treaty. Soaring global oil prices have brought Russia a steady flow of dollars in recent years, however, allowing the Kremlin to bolster defense spending. Putin told administration officials with reporters present Thursday the government was mulling details of its weapons program for 2007-2015. He did not give more details in his opening statement, and the meeting continued behind closed doors. Russia's relations with the United States have worsened in recent years because of differences over the war in Iraq and American concerns that the Kremlin is backtracking on democracy under Putin. Russia also is concerned about NATO's eastward expansion, and has criticized U.S. plans to deploy a national missile defense system, saying it would damage global stability by triggering a missile and nuclear weapons race. The U.S. has spent about $100 billion on missile defense since 1983, including $7.8 billion authorized for the current fiscal year. Putin repeatedly boasted Thursday that Russia has designed a new weapon capable of penetrating any missile defenses - a clear reference to the prospective of a U.S. missile shield. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 24 Xinhua: China, France discuss sustainable development www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-30 22:52:51 TIANJIN, March 30 (Xinhua) -- Chinese and French officials and entrepreneurs discussed on Thursday cooperation in energy exploitation and sustainable development in a forum held in north China's Tianjin City. The 12th China-France Economic Forum, with the theme of "energy and sustainable development", attracted about 400 government officials and company representatives from both China and France. "China and France have great potential for cooperation in energy and sustainable development," said Wan Jifei, president of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT). The forum provides a platform for bilateral exchanges and cooperation, as China boasts rich energy resources and France is experienced in resources exploration and use, Wan said at the forum. Giscard d'Estaing, former president of France, said China and France have a wide range of areas for cooperation, such as aviation and energy. China and France have cooperated in nuclear power for more than 20 years," he said, hoping for deeper cooperation in the construction of nuclear power plants. The annual economic forum, which began in 1995, has become an important event in economic and trade cooperation between China and France. Enditem Editor: Luan Shanglin Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 Scotsman.com News - UK: Nuclear plant clean-up bill hits £62.7bn [Scotsman.com News] Friday, 31st March 2006 UK Thu 30 Mar 2006 THE estimated cost of cleaning up Britain's ageing nuclear power plants has risen by £6.7 billion to £62.7 billion according to figures released today. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has revealed its strategy for cleaning up the UK's 20 civil nuclear sites, which includes Dounreay in Caithness, and Hunterston A in Ayrshire. The agency had previously estimated the bill at £56 billion but the cost of cleaning up Sellafield in Cumbira is thought to have pushed costs up. The NDA review identified a further £7.5 billion may be needed for further work but the full costs of clean-up are set to be established by 2008. The cost of decommissioning Torness Power Station near Dunbar and other private nuclear plants has still to be calculated. NDA chairman Sir Anthony Cleaver said: "We are concerned at the amount of contaminated land on some of the sites. We need to understand that in more detail." ***************************************************************** 26 [NukeNet] Shika-2 ruling: NGOs demand suspension of nuclear Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:14:19 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Media Release (Embargoed until 3:30pm Thursday 30 March 2006, Japan time) Japanese NGOs Respond to Court Ruling in Favor of Termination of Operation of Shika-2 Nuclear Reactor Demand suspension of operations at all Japanese nuclear facilities until earthquake safety reassessment is complete Seventy Japanese NGOs today submitted a letter to the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) and the Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency (NISA) demanding suspension of operations at all Japanese nuclear facilities until an earthquake safety reassessment is complete (see pages 2 and 3 of this fax). Their demands relate to the 24 March ruling by the Kanazawa District Court that Hokuriku Electric Power Company's Shika-2 reactor should not be operated. On 24 March 2006 the Kanazawa District Court upheld a suit for termination of operation of the Shika-2 reactor (ABWR 1,358 MW). The suit was filed by 135 plaintiffs from 16 prefectures in August 1999. The reasons for the verdict were that the design basis earthquake was too small, that the Ochigata fault zone was not taken into account, that the method used to predict the movement arising from earthquakes was inappropriate, and that an earthquake could cause the plaintiffs to be exposed to radiation above the allowed dose. The method used, known as the Osaki method, has been used in the safety assessments for all Japanese nuclear facilities, so the Shika-2 verdict is relevant to all these facilities. Today's program From 12:00 - Demonstration outside Ministry for Economy Trade and Industry (METI) (Annex) 15:30 - Deliver letter to NSC (House of Councilors, meeting room 2) 16:15 - Deliver letter to NISA (METI, Annex meeting room 450) 18:00-19:00 - Candlelight Action outside METI (Annex) Contact: Philip White, International Liaison Officer Office Phone: 81-3-5330-9520Candlelight Action from 6pm-7pm: 090-4422-5394 Letter to NSC and NISA follow Mr. Shojiro Matsuura Chairperson Nuclear Safety Commission Mr. Kenkichi Hirose Director General Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency Urgent Demands Concerning Court Ruling in Favor of Termination of Operation of Shika-2 Nuclear Reactor On 24 March 2006, the Kanazawa District Court ruled that Hokuriku Electric Power Company's Shika-2 reactor should not be operated. The ruling was based on the court's conclusion that an earthquake exceeding that assumed in the Nuclear Safety Commission's and the Nuclear Industrial and Safety Agency's safety assessments and reactor installment license could not be ruled out. The ruling recognized that the seismological knowledge on which the existing earthquake standards for nuclear facilities are based is out of date. The standards were established in 1978 and their inadequacy has been demonstrated by facts which have emerged from several recent earthquakes. The court criticized the safety assessment on the grounds that the movement predicted for the assumed earthquake does not correspond with reality. It made reference to specific cases, including the following: * The magnitude 7.3 Tottori Seibu Earthquake struck on 6 October 2000 in a region where no active fault had been identified, but the safety assessment for the Shimane nuclear power plant only assumed a magnitude 6.5 earthquake directly beneath the reactor. * The Miyagi-Oki Earthquake, which struck on 16 August 2005, was much smaller than the earthquake assumed in the safety assessment for the Onagawa nuclear power plant, but movement was measured at the plant which exceeded the standard. * The earthquake assumed under the reactor installment license is smaller than the earthquake predicted by the government's earthquake investigation office. The above points are relevant to all Japan's nuclear power plants and nuclear facilities. For many years we have been concerned about the ability of nuclear facilities to withstand earthquakes and we have been highlighting the above points all along. Japan is an earthquake prone archipelago. It is impossible to be sure when and where major earthquakes will occur. If a nuclear facility is once destroyed, the disaster is irreversible. Considering the court's verdict, we make the following urgent demands: 1. Promptly reassess the earthquake safety of all nuclear power plants and nuclear fuel cycle facilities. Suspend the operation of all such facilities until the reassessment is complete. 2. Freeze all operation licenses which vary from the original installment license (i.e. pluthermal etc.) until a reassessment based on current knowledge is complete. 3. Cancel the active tests at the Rokkasho reprocessing plant and promptly reassess the earthquake safety of the plant. 4. Freeze applications which are currently being assessed for installment licenses for nuclear facilities and direct the applicants to resubmit their application based on current knowledge. 30 March 2006 Signed by 70 groups, including Citizens' Nuclear Information Center Citizens' Nuclear Information Center 3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003 Phone: 81-3-5330-9520 Fax: 81-3-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ cnic@nifty.com _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Government to sell British Nuclear Group Charlotte Moore and agencies Thursday March 30, 2006 The government today said it would sell British Nuclear Group, meaning the Sellafield nuclear complex will pass into the private sector. State-run British Nuclear Fuels Ltd currently runs BNG, a specialist clean-up unit that also operates the Sellafield reprocessing plant. BNG's main customer is the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which has responsibility for all civil public sector nuclear liabilities. The NDA said BNG's new owner would be allowed to operate Sellafield, in Cumbria, until 2012. The plant was recently criticised by the European commission, who said it was failing to reach EU standards and needed to improve accounting and reporting controls. Sellafield can reprocess 5,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel a year - around one-third of annual world production. Analysts told Reuters BNFL could expect bids of around £1bn for BNG, with US companies such as Halliburton and the Washington Group possible contenders. The British engineering firm Amec has also been cited as a potential buyer. Today's announcement confirmed plans laid out in last week's budget, and the government is also likely to sell its 33% share of Urenco, a uranium-enrichment business owned jointly with the Dutch and German governments. "I firmly believe that a competitive sale is in the BNFL's best commercial interests and represents BNG's best chance of operating successfully in the commercial market," Alan Johnson, the secretary for Trade and Industry, told Reuters. The NDA said the cost of decommissioning Britain's ageing nuclear power plants could be around £70bn - around £14bn more than previously anticipated. "We have said we now estimate the cost to be about £63bn and there is potential for a further £7.5bn due issues like contaminated land," a spokesman told Reuters. 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 2006 ***************************************************************** 28 Guardian Unlimited: BNG given £5bn sweetener to help sale Terry Macalister Friday March 31, 2006 British Nuclear Group has been given a £5bn "sweetener" to manage and clean up the Sellafield site for another five years as part of plans to sell it off within 18 months, the government revealed yesterday. The move will ensure the sale of BNG would raise at least £1bn for the Treasury. The costs of continuing to operate and clean up Britain's existing nuclear facilities has soared to over £70bn - £14bn more than previously estimated. Sir Anthony Cleaver, chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), admitted the cost could be higher because plutonium has not been considered and could still be characterised as waste. "I would be foolish if I said we could not discover something that would affect the figures," he said. The numbers also do not include the cost of the long-term disposal of spent fuel and other atomic waste, which Greenpeace claimed last night could increase the bill by a further £30bn to a total of more than £100bn. Between eight and 10 companies -many of them US groups such as Fluor and Bechtel - are likely to be the main beneficiaries of the BNG sale and clean-up contract bonanza, Sir Anthony admitted. But he insisted it would still be a "truly competitive" market. Amec is one of the few British companies that has teamed up with others - including CH2M Hill of the US - in the hope of winning a contract. The trade and industry secretary, Alan Johnson, told parliament that he firmly believed a competitive sale would give BNG the best chance of operating successfully in the commercial market created by the 2004 Energy Act. "By bringing in external expertise more quickly, it also contributes to improved clean-up performance for the NDA and is therefore good for the taxpayer," he said. Lawrie Haynes, BNG's chief executive, said he expected "significant interest" from purchasers for his group, which employs more than 14,000 staff and operates Sellafield and various magnox reactor sites. "The stronger we are, the better placed we are to safely deliver what I call the 'Big V'; that is, value we can create for the taxpayer by reducing the overall bill for cleaning up," he said. But Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrats' industry spokesman, said the sell-off would not compensate the taxpayer for the cost of bailing out another nuclear operator, British Energy. And he criticised the costs of dealing with waste, which were "massive, rocketing and already spiralling out of control". The white-collar union Prospect, which has many members in the nuclear industry, said it "deplored" the decision to go for a sale rather than a public-private partnership. But Mike Graham, its national secretary, welcomed the fact that BNG's 11 magnox reactor sites and project services were being sold as a whole, rather than being fragmented and left vulnerable to an asset-stripper. "It is essential that the new owner is of the same calibre as BNG and has an established track record in the fields of health, safety, security and environmental performance," he said. The NDA confirmed in its strategy document that it would start the clean-up contract competition with the Drigg low-level waste site in Cumbria. That would be let this year with BNG being sold off with the first five-year Sellafield contract by autumn 2007 and a second round covering the plant in 2012. Sir Anthony admitted that neither the NDA nor BNG yet knew the exact nature of all the waste they would have to deal with at Sellafield, where about 10,000 staff are employed. Magnox South decommissioning contracts - including Berkeley, Bradwell and Sizewell A - would go out to tender in 2008 and Magnox North contracts - including Calder Hall, Hunterston A and Wylfa in 2009. The NDA believes competitive tendering will allow it to decommission all the magnox stations within 25 years rather than the original estimate of 80 years. Coastal warning One of the most senior figures in the nuclear industry warned yesterday that rising sea levels would rule out many sites for a new generation of reactors. Sir Anthony Cleaver, chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, said: "It is obvious looking around at sites that some ... are unsuitable ... Coastal erosion makes it unlikely that many have a life of 50 to 60 years." The NDA's strategy manager, Terry Selby, named Dungeness in Kent as one trouble spot and said the situation at Sizewell in Suffolk was only "potentially a bit less dramatic". [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 29 Guardian Unlimited: Government to sell British Nuclear Group Charlotte Moore and agencies Thursday March 30, 2006 The government today said it would sell British Nuclear Group, meaning the Sellafield nuclear complex will pass into the private sector. State-run British Nuclear Fuels Ltd currently runs BNG, a specialist clean-up unit that also operates the Sellafield reprocessing plant. BNG's main customer is the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which has responsibility for all civil public sector nuclear liabilities. The NDA said BNG's new owner would be allowed to operate Sellafield, in Cumbria, until 2012. The plant was recently criticised by the European commission, who said it was failing to reach EU standards and needed to improve accounting and reporting controls. Sellafield can reprocess 5,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel a year - around one-third of annual world production. Analysts told Reuters BNFL could expect bids of around £1bn for BNG, with US companies such as Halliburton and the Washington Group possible contenders. The British engineering firm Amec has also been cited as a potential buyer. Today's announcement confirmed plans laid out in last week's budget, and the government is also likely to sell its 33% share of Urenco, a uranium-enrichment business owned jointly with the Dutch and German governments. "I firmly believe that a competitive sale is in the BNFL's best commercial interests and represents BNG's best chance of operating successfully in the commercial market," Alan Johnson, the secretary for Trade and Industry, told Reuters. The NDA said the cost of decommissioning Britain's ageing nuclear power plants could be around £70bn - around £14bn more than previously anticipated. "We have said we now estimate the cost to be about £63bn and there is potential for a further £7.5bn due issues like contaminated land," a spokesman told Reuters. 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 2006 ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Palo Verde Nuclear Plant News Release - Region IV - 2006-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-06-003 March 29, 2006 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov annual assessment of safety performance at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station during 2005. The 6:30 p.m. meeting at Saddle Mountain Unified School District Administration Building Board Room, 38201 W. Indian School Road, in Tonopah, Az., is open to public observation. Before the session ends, NRC staff will be available to answer questions on the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe operation. Each year, the NRC assesses the performance of all of the nations commercial nuclear power plants, said Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. The meeting gives us an opportunity to discuss our findings with the company, local officials and members of the public. We look forward to meeting with members of the community and answering any questions they may have about our oversight. A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during 2005 and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/palo_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . Palo Verde has been under increased NRC scrutiny since 2004 when problems with voiding in a portion of a suction line for the plants emergency core cooling system were identified. Improvements have been noted in identifying and resolving problems and in human performance at the site, but not sufficient for the NRC to decrease our oversight in these areas, Mallett said. We plan to discuss some of these during the meeting. Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. In addition to routine inspections, the NRC plans to perform a follow-up supplemental inspection to determine that actions have been taken to correct problems regarding air trapped in portions of the emergency core cooling system at all three units. Current information for Palo Verde is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO1/palo1_chart.html. Last revised Wednesday, March 29, 2006 ***************************************************************** 31 newsobserver.com: Nuclear climate Editorials Thursday, March 30, 2006 Raleigh · Durham · Cary · Chapel Hill Progress Energy bolsters its case for new nuclear power plants by stressing their advantages against global warming Both of North Carolina's giant electric utilities now are enlisted in the fight against global warming, and that's good news. Raleigh-based Progress Energy published a report this week outlining its strategy, joining Duke Energy and a host of other U.S. power companies that have taken on the issue. This development reflects the growing confidence of science in the reality of climate change, but that's not all. Global warming also helps make the utilities' case for building the country's first new nuclear power plants in a generation. Progress Energy, for example, seeks federal permission to expand its Shearon Harris nuclear plant in Wake County. Certainly, the company's nuclear case is worth considering, along with other options to reduce the importance of fossil fuels in the nation's power generation mix. Plants that burn coal as they generate electricity are major sources of the carbon dioxide that collects in Earth's atmosphere and prevents heat from escaping. Regulations aimed at reducing carbon emissions from those plants gradually are being tightened, confronting utility companies with steadily mounting anti-pollution expenses. It's understandable that they would want to find options to heavy reliance on coal. Two scientific studies published in the respected journal Nature last week highlight what's at stake on the environmental front. The authors concluded that Arctic temperatures today are approaching the same levels that thawed Greenland's glaciers 130,000 years ago. If melting again gathers an unstoppable momentum, sea levels could rise 20 feet over several centuries, swamping North Carolina's Outer Banks, southern Louisiana and the lower quarter of Florida. Unchecked carbon emissions can be expected to accelerate the meltdown. With global warming alarms being sounded, activist investors have been lobbying Progress Energy to use renewable alternatives to coal, such as solar, as energy sources that are friendlier to the environment. Some want state regulators to require the company to tap these sources. The company's response is that such alternatives are valuable and that it intends to make more use of them. Still, it regards them as insufficient to meet projected increases in electricity demand. Population growth in its North and South Carolina service areas has outpaced national averages over the past five years, and that is likely to continue. Bigger houses, with air conditioning and ample floor space, are using more power. To meet the demand for all that juice, the utility needs plants producing major megawatts all day every day at the lowest possible cost. Progress Energy's strategy thus is to concentrate now on building small natural gas-fired plants to use strictly during times of peak demand, and to get in line for federal permits to build new nuclear units. At the same time, it is committing itself to ramped-up conservation and efficiency programs and to a greater reliance on alternative energy sources. Despite the industry's decent safety record, terrorism and incomplete plans for handling nuclear waste remain problematic. We need national leadership willing and able finally to solve that problem. When the ice caps begin to melt, it may be too late. Meanwhile, it is encouraging to see a company such as Progress Energy formulate a strategy that makes it a participant in the effort to combat global warming. That strategy could be good for business, and should be good for the environment as well if the expanded nuclear option can be pursued safely. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner. © Copyright 2006, The News & Observer Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 32 BBC: Nuclear clean-up 'to cost £70bn' Last Updated: Thursday, 30 March 2006 [Sellafield] The cost of cleaning up existing waste is higher than previously thought The UK's nuclear waste clean-up programme could cost more than £70bn, according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). The authority's previous estimate of the cost was £56bn. The news came as the government backed British Nuclear Fuels' (BNFL) plan to sell its specialist nuclear clean-up business British Nuclear Group (BNG). The sale of BNG was a "positive strategic move", said BNFL's chief executive Michael Parker. We don't think there's like to be a shortage of bidders NDA chairman Sir Anthony Cleaver The sale of Britain's nuclear giant Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson said he believed a competitive sale was in the best commercial interest for BNFL. "By bringing in external expertise more quickly, it also contributes to improved clean-up performance for the NDA and is therefore good for the taxpayer," Mr Johnson said. Commercial operations NDA chairman, Sir Anthony Cleaver, said the cost for the nuclear clean-up itself - including decommissioning, the clean-up of existing waste and the running of existing operations until their planned closure dates - was estimated to be £62.7bn. SITES FOR DECOMMISSION Berkeley Bradwel Calder Hall Capenhurst Chapelcross Culham Dounreay Dungeness A Harwell Hinkley Point A Hunterston A Oldbury Sellafield Sizewell A Springfields Trawsfynydd Windscale Winfrith Wylfa Source: NDA Sellafield awaits rebirth Investors eye nuclear future Additional costs linked to contaminated land would drive up the total to about £72bn. Much of the land contamination was "chemical, not nuclear, but it is a cost nonetheless", Sir Anthony said. Some of the operations the NDA is committed to run, such as the Mox and Thorp fuel reprocessing plants at Sellafield and some waste storage facilities, generate an income which the NDA anticipates could total £14.3bn. This income could cancel out the running costs of its commercial operations, thus reducing the overall decommissioning and clean-up cost to about £56bn, an NDA spokesman explained. However, whereas the cost of running NDA's commercial operations is fixed, the income they generate fluctuate in line with volatile energy markets. Moreover, the Thorp facility at Sellafield has been closed for a year following a leak last April. Such unpredictable occurrences threaten to disrupt NDA's revenue stream. Private sector rivalry Until now, the bulk of Britain's nuclear waste has been stored above ground at 37 sites across the UK. UK generation - you choose When measured by volume, 65% of Britain's total waste mountain is stored at Sellafield, which is owned by the NDA but operated by BNG. Finding a long-term solution to dealing with Britain's existing nuclear waste is considered essential before any decision can be made about building new nuclear power plants in the UK. Now the Government has approved the NDA's plans for the decommissioning and clean-up of its civil nuclear sites. Decommissioning will be fast-tracked where possible in its strategy of making the reduction of high hazards a "key focus." "We are confident that in light of what we know today, our approved Strategy provides the best approach - in terms of safety, cost efficiency and sustainability - to tackle the UK's historic 60-year nuclear legacy," said the NDA's chief executive Dr Ian Roxburgh. Unpopular strategy The sale of BNG has met with much opposition from workers. "Our union is opposed to the sale of the British Nuclear Group in principle," said Amicus national officer Dougie Rooney. "But we are also concerned that it could compromise the government's stated objectives of decommissioning civil nuclear sites in the UK at a reduced cost to the taxpayer and a reduced timescale while maintaining safety standards." We consider that the propos to privatise British Nuclear Group will set up a Railtrack in the nuclear industry Gary Smith, GMB The GMB union was equally critical. "We consider that the proposal to privatise British Nuclear Group will set up a Railtrack in the nuclear industry," said Gary Smith, national officer at the GMB. "Like Railtrack it will be dependent on public money, the private sector managers will look out for number one, and any corners cut could lead to a catastrophic mistake." Environmentalists were also angry. "Every time the costs of cleaning up nuclear sites are looked at, the cost for the taxpayer spirals," said Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Jean McSorley. "It's just one more reason why it would be insane to countenance building more nuclear power plants across Britain." ***************************************************************** 33 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region II - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-06-010 March 28, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov NRCs annual assessment of safety performance for 2005 at the St. Lucie nuclear power plant, located at Jensen Beach, Fla, near Ft. Pierce. The 2:00 p.m. meeting at the St. Lucie Plant Visitors Center is open to public observation. Before the meeting ends, NRC staff will be available to answer public questions on the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe operation of the facility. Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the St. Lucie plant and all of the nations other commercial nuclear power plants, NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the company, local officials and residents near the plant. Our aim is to make this information available to the public and answer any questions people may have about our oversight. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess performance. The colors start with green and increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. The NRC said the St. Lucie plant operated safely during 2005 with all inspection findings being of very low safety significance and all performance indicators indicating performance at levels requiring no additional NRC oversight. As a result, the NRC plans to conduct only routine baseline inspections at the plant during 2006. The NRC staff will also perform a non-routine inspection of a generic concern at pressurized water reactors related to possible blockage of containment building sumps. A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/stl_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by specialists from the Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Current information for the St. Lucie plant is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STL1/stl1_chart.html and www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STL2/stl2_chart.html. Last revised Wednesday, March 29, 2006 ***************************************************************** 34 BBC: The sale of Britain's nuclear giant Last Updated: Thursday, 30 March 2006 By Jorn Madslien BBC News business reporter State-owned British Nuclear Fuels' (BNFL) decision to sell its clean-up subsidiary is unlike any other commercial transaction ever undertaken. [Dounreay] Global companies will compete for contracts to clean up the waste Not only will the sale of British Nuclear Group (BNG) decimate its parent company, which will be left with just a few hundred workers. It will also fail to raise much cash. Offers in the region of £1bn ($1.7bn) are expected when the auction starts sometime early next year, analysts say. Hence the income from the actual sale will do little to bolster the Treasury's coffers. "The trick here will be to get the most appropriate contractor," says Sir Anthony Cleaver, chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency, which has just published a strategy for the decommissioning of Britain's nuclear power plants and the clean-up of existing waste. Early entrant BNG is currently operating the Sellafield site, which is owned by the NDA. Following the sale it is expected to continue to do so for at least a further five years. [Hinkley Point] The Magnox power stations will be gradually phased out In return, the NDA will pay BNG £5bn. On top of that, exceptional speed and efficient performance will be rewarded by the NDA. If BNG's first five years under a new owner are successful, the contract can be extended, Sir Anthony says. Alternatively, other industry players will be invited to bid for the contract. In other words; the people who buy BNG will not acquire a company in the conventional sense. They will not become the owner of any assets, nor will they become a permanent employer of BNG's current staff. They are basically buying a contract. "The people who actually work on the site will move to the new owner [of the contract]," explains Sir Anthony in an interview with the BBC News website. Nevertheless, there are still potentially enormous possibilities awaiting those who end up buying BNG. As an early entrant into Britain's privatised decommissioning and clean-up industry, the new BNG will get a chance to prove its mettle. This should significantly raise its chances of bidding other contracts paid for out of the NDA's money pot, which is estimated to total £72bn over the next 75 years. Some of the money - £14.1bn to be exact - will go towards running existing commercial operations until their planned closure dates, and some of these operations generate an income for the owner, the NDA. Likely bidders Operating and sorting out Sellafield is the largest single contract to be awarded by the NDA, but there are plenty of other deals up for grabs. In 2008, contracts for the clean-up of high hazard waste at Dounreay will be awarded, along with contracts to decommission a string of Magnox power plants at Berkeley, Bradwell, Hinkley Point, Dungeness and Sizewell. [Sir Anthony Cleaver, chairman of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority] Sir Anthony hopes competition will help curb costs and speed up progress The following year will see the signing of contracts to decommission further Magnox plants at Calder Hall, Chapelcross, Hunterston, Trawsfynyudd, Oldbury and Wylfa. Hwrwell and Winfrith work will also be awarded. BNG, which is expected to continue operating will no doubt be keen to take on some of this work, though it will face tough competition from its global rivals. "I hope to get the very best from around the world," insists Sir Anthony. "We're talking to the French, for example... and I had a visit this week from the Japanese." Yet most of the pitches are expected to come from US industry giants such as Halliburton, Bechtel, Fluor and the Washington Group, as well as from Britain's Amec, analysts predict. "We don't think there's likely to be a shortage of bidders," says Sir Anthony, who hopes private sector involvement in the industry could, along with future technological developments, help bring about savings while at the same time accelerate the decommissioning and clean-up process. "Once one brings in a competitive process, it is possible to get significant reductions in cost, and that's what we expect to do," he says. Anyone bidding for contracts will need a strong track record, says Sir Anthony. "You won't even get through the sieve, so to speak, unless you have a safety record that we find satisfactory," he says. Safety is paramount, as is an ability to efficiently work with the existing workforce, Sir Anthony explains. Mike Graham, national officer of Prospect, which represents 11,000 workers in the nuclear industry, agrees. "The main focus for us is to focus on the quality of the companies coming in," he says. ***************************************************************** 35 Platts: PSEG Nuclear to submit new Hope Creek uprate request in August Washington (Platts)--29Mar2006 PSEG Nuclear plans to submit a new uprate request for its Hope Creek nuclear power plant in August, company officials told Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffers at a meeting Wednesday at the agency's headquarters in Rockville, Maryland. In February, PSEG withdrew a request for a 15% "extended power uprate" after NRC indicated that some parts of the application did not contain enough information to allow the staff to proceed to a detailed technical review. The New Jersey plant has a gross capacity of 1,118 MW currently. PSEG Nuclear is the nuclear generation arm of Newark, New Jersey-based Public Service Enterprise Group, which is the midst of merging with Chicago-based Exelon Corp. For more information, take a trial to Nuclear News Flashes at http://www.nuclearnews.platts.com. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 36 Independent: Cost of nuclear clean-up is £9bn more than predicted By Andy McSmith Published: 30 March 2006 Cleaning up Britain's old nuclear power plants will cost at least £9bn more than previous estimates, the Government will announce today. Robot submarines have uncovered vast deposits of radioactive sludge that was left in underground storage tanks at Sellafield, in Cumbria, decades ago and forgotten. It has pushed up the bill now facing taxpayers to £65bn - but that could rise higher if more forgotten deposits are uncovered. The previous estimate for cleaning up after the civil nuclear industry was £56bn. The announcement will stiffen resistance to Tony Blair's plans for a new generation of nuclear power plants, which are likely to be part of the Government's review of energy policy. Speaking in Australia this week, Mr Blair included nuclear power as part of the "mix" of energy sources he claims the UK needs. Trade unionists from Britain's biggest private-sector union, Amicus, which has a large membership in the electricity industry, lobbied MPs yesterday to press the case for more nuclear plants. They are opposed by eight leading Labour MPs who will publish a pamphlet this week arguing that Britain can solve its energy problems without nuclear energy. "Even if we took a decision soon, no new power would arise for perhaps 10 years, and even then we would be no clearer about how to deal with the waste," one of the authors, the former transport minister Alan Whitehead, claimed. The former environment minister Michael Meacher asked in the same pamphlet: "Is it rational or responsible to create yet more mountains of dangerous waste until we have found a satisfactory form of long-term disposal of the gigantic quantity we've already got?" David Chaytor, another author, warned: "Cost, waste, profileration and terrorism have provided powerful arguments for rejecting the nuclear option." Today's figures will be released as part of a comprehensive strategy for demolishing and decontaminating old nuclear plants, a job given last year to the newly created Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It will show that cleaning up Britain's largest nuclear site, Sellafield, will cost about £40bn and take nearly 150 years. The figure of £69bn only applies to 20 state-owned nuclear plants, most of which are no longer producing electricity. It is does not include newer, privatised plants, or the military laboratory at Aldermaston. © 2006 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 37 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Three Mile Island 1 Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region I - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-06-018 March 29, 2006 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov representatives of AmerGen Energy Co., LLC, on Wednesday, April 5, to discuss the agencys annual assessment of safety performance at the Three Mile Island 1 nuclear power plant. The period of performance to be discussed is Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2005. AmerGen operates the plant, which is located in Middletown, Pa. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. at Middletown Borough Hall, 60 W. Emaus St., Middletown. Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe operation of the facility. As we do every year, we have carefully reviewed the safety performance of the Three Mile Island 1 nuclear power plant during the previous calendar year, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said. The meeting on April 5th will afford the public a chance to learn more about the results of our assessment and to pose any questions they might have regarding plant performance or our oversight activities. A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials addresses the performance of the plant during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/tmi_2005q4.pdf [PDF Icon] . The meeting notice, with the meeting agenda attached, is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML060750799. The NRC slides for the meeting can be found under accession number ML060750803. ADAMS is accessible via the agencys web site at: www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is available by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at PDR@NRC.GOV. Overall, Three Mile Island 1 operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance of the issues involved. All of the performance indicators for Three Mile Island 1 were green during 2005. With regard to inspection findings, they were all green with the exception of a white finding identified in the second quarter of last year. That finding involved some members of the plants emergency response organization not completing required annual classroom training. The NRC confirmed during the initial inspection that the company had begun to take actions to address the issue. NRC then conducted a supplemental inspection during the week of Feb. 27, 2006, to determine if the issue had been addressed. The results will be issued within a few weeks. The finding will remain open at least through the first quarter of this year. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by specialists from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa., and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be inspected during the next year by NRC specialists are problem identification and resolution, emergency planning and radiological safety. Current performance information for Three Mile Island 1 is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/TMI1/tmi1_chart.html. Last revised Wednesday, March 29, 2006 ***************************************************************** 38 AFP: Britain's nuclear sites: clean-up may cost over 70.0 billion pounds - Thu Mar 30, 6:42 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - The cost of withdrawing from service Britain's nuclear power sites could reach more than 70.0 billion pounds, a government body announced. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said that costs could rise by 14.2 billion pounds compared to a previous estimate of 56.0 billion pounds. The latest estimate was disclosed in the NDA's Strategy, approved by the Labour government, for the clean-up of the nation's civil nuclear facilities. As part of the Strategy the government approved a proposal to sell British Nuclear Group, its nuclear clean-up unit. BNG's main customer is the NDA, which was created in 2005. The sale of BNG, which is expected to be completed in late 2007, had been recommended by the board of the state-controlled British Nuclear Fuels, which owns BNG. Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson said in a written statement to parliament: "I firmly believe that a competitive sale is in BNFL's best commercial interest and represents British Nuclear Group's best chance of operating successfully in the commercial market." Analysts have said a sale could be worth 1.0 billion pounds. The NDA meanwhile said that costs linked to the clean-up of Britain's nuclear plants had risen to 62.7 billion pounds from 56.0 billion. It added that a potential further cost of 7.5 billion pounds had been identified. "We are targeted to establish the full costs of clean-up by 2008 and so this remains work in progress," it added. The NDA said its Strategy, which was subject to a three-month public consultation last year, sets out a comprehensive plan for the decommissioning and clean-up of the body's 20 civil nuclear sites. Key principles established in the Strategy include: prioritising safety, security and the environment by making the reduction of high hazards the key focus of the NDA. "We were pleased by the range of constructive contributions that we received from the public consultation on our draft Strategy," NDA Chairman, Sir Anthony Cleaver, said. "Hence, we are confident that, in light of what we know today, our approved Strategy provides the best approach -- in terms of safety, cost efficiency and sustainability -- to tackle the UKs historic 60-year nuclear legacy." The Strategy was published as the government awaits the findings of a sweeping review of Britain's energy needs that is specifically looking into the option of building new nuclear power stations. British Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> , who launched the review last November, is reportedly in favour of resurrecting Britain's nuclear energy programme. Blair has suggested that a combination of nuclear and renewable sources such as wind power could be the way forward. Following the review, the government was expected to publish a policy statement later this year. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 39 UK Guardian: Comment is free: Can we afford to go nuclear? (BIG) [Tony Juniper] Expect history to repeat itself if the government gives the go ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations. March 30, 2006 04:14 PM The official body charged with the clean up of Britain's nuclear sites today (pdf) that the estimated costs for dealing with the country's radioactive legacy has soared again. The Nuclear Decomissioning Authority (NDA) now says that there could be an additional £14bn of necessary expenditure, taking the total to near £70bn. That is not millions, that is 70 billions, 70 thousand million pounds. And that is just for the clean up and decommissioning costs, never mind all the money that was (and is still being) ploughed into nuclear research and development. And then there was the cost of building the reactors in the first place. Whichever way you look at it, this has got to be a crazy way of generating power. It's especially crazy if you are a taxpayer, as most of that £70bn will be paid by you. As ever, with the nuclear costs saga, this is not the end. In 2008 the NDA plans to publish a further and fuller assessment of clean up costs: "work in progress" the NDA calls it. The track record of this industry does not suggest that it will be a lower figure than the one we saw today. It seems that every time there is a review of the costs of this aspect of nuclear power, the estimated figure goes up, and up - and up. In 2008, I have no doubt that we will see an increase again. Who knows what it will be by then - £80bn, £90bn, £100bn? Nuclear power proponents are aware of the damage that announcements like this do to their cause. That is why the spin is now crafted to suggest that new nuclear technologies can avoid the cost overruns, and since the new designs produce less waste, cut costs of radioactive materials management in the future. Who says? Well the nuclear industry of course. Having not opened a reactor in Europe for decades, we are now being led to believe that somehow all of the huge expense of the past has been dealt with. When it comes to waste, yes, there might be less volume overall, if the new designs work as they should do - but the high level waste that gives us the most headaches for the long-term, well that will increase threefold. To this extent, the new reactors that are being talked up today will extend the costs of waste management well into the future, leaving future generations to pick up the tab. Rather as our society is today paying huge costs following nuclear policy decisions made in the 1950s. The other context for all of this, of course, is the impression that some are seeking to create that nuclear is the only answer we have for dealing with the far greater threat of climate change. This is not true either. The technologies needed to cut emissions, secure power supplies and provide jobs and export opportunities all exist now. We don't need to wait for a technological breakthrough - we just need to get on with creating the markets for what we've already got. Friends of the Earth recently published that can deliver up to 70% carbon dioxide emissions reductions from the electricity sector and without recourse to new nuclear power. We have the cutting edge technological base to do this, we have the entrepreneurs and companies and we have outstanding opportunities because of our islands are so rich in renewable energy sources. The investment resources needed to get this moving, however, have until now been largely sucked up by the outdated nuclear industry. The government is now conducting an energy review that could well conclude that new nuclear power stations will be built in the UK. If this is outcome, then expect history to repeat itself. Expect massive costs, expect other technologies to sit in the wings, expect a massive opportunity for the UK to lead the world in sustainable energy to go abroad, taking its 21st century business leaders and companies with it. Comments Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs. TedHerring March 30, 2006 05:21 PM Austin/usa Nuclear power is a mistake. End of story. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] tamerlane March 30, 2006 05:26 PM London/gbr Ted if it so much of a mistake how come France produced 85% of its energy by nuclear means, and has done so since the 1960s. I am not saying it is cheap - but then neither will gas, oil, or coal be in the next ten years - but it is reliable, safe and pollution free. Get wiv the programme! [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] TedHerring March 30, 2006 05:28 PM Austin/usa What needs to be harnessed is the power of the moon. And that's done by using the massive amount of energy that's stored in the oceans' tides. The rising and falling of such vast amounts of water daily is enough to power the needs of the entire planet's population easily. Just look at the power of the water that destroyed so many SE Asian property during the tsunami. That tsunami was an infinitessimally small thing compared to the vast body of water that it was a part of. Every day, the moon draws all the planet's water across it. Tap into that energy, and we'll never have to think about power again. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] tamerlane March 30, 2006 05:34 PM London/gbr Couldn't agree more mate......tidal power is the way of the future but it is still at the prototype stage and hasn't been proven...as I understand it we are looking at least 20 years before they can come up with a viable large scale tidal power station, and that is if it can be done. We need more power now - hence nuclear [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] TedHerring March 30, 2006 05:39 PM Austin/usa Tamelane Your comments about France are typical. Sure, France has had an effective nuclear industry since the 60s. Forty years, maximum. So what? Do you really think that a nuclear industry will sustain itself, accident free, for another 100 years, say? We haven't had another complete meltdown yet, since Chernobyl. And yes, the western nuclear industry is safer than the Soviet one. But it's still only a matter of time, because of the unstable nature of nuclear energy. It relies on sustaining a process that exists in unstable equilibrium, rather than stable equilibrium, and that's where the danger is. Using nuclear power is playing with odds, and odds always end up coming out not in your favour over time. Working with wave power means tapping into a resource that's stable and constant, yet with incredible momentum. It's never unstable, though. Nuclear power is cheap. That's the appeal. The problem with sheap is that it ALWAYS comes at a price. Not seeing the inevitable cost of nuclear power - meltdown, and catastrophic fallout - means wisdom has never been used at all in making such important decisions for the world's future. A nuclear meltdown WILL HAPPEN in the next few years, at some point, because one thing that can be guaranteed is that MISTAKES ALWAYS HAPPEN [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] FatboyFat March 30, 2006 05:55 PM Bletchley/gbr Imagine if we spent 70 billion on alternative energies. We could 'Greenify' every house and building in Britain, using technologies we have right now, like wind power, solar power, geo-thermal power. Instead we're going to spend that money on cleaning up after an energy program that doesn't even provide a majority of our energy needs. Let's not make the same mistake again. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] soru March 30, 2006 05:56 PM Bath/gbr The costs quoted seem to be the costs to dismantle all existing power stations and return them to greenfield sites. Surely, a continued nuclear program would imply that that was not, in fact, done? Furthermore, it is hard to imagine that the cost of a solution to the disposal of nuclear waste would increase greatly if there were a few extra tons to be disposed of. Can anyone provide a reference to a less obviously one-sided, and preferably scientifically literate, treatment of these issues? [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] carl31 March 30, 2006 06:24 PM Fife/gbr The cost of decommissioning of Hunterston B in Scotland would have bought several Scottish Parliaments. Its not cheap. These costs have to be met at some point, and they will only go up in future. The tendency of nuclear projects over time has been to underestimate the costs involved. A study of projects internationally showed that these overruns were 10% on average, and as much as 80% more costly than promised before commencement. The governments involved were usually tied in to a longterm contract by this time and had no option but to throw good money after bad. Uranium fuel and substitutes' costs will also increase over time. Putting off problems for the future and storing costly problems away for future generations to deal with is no responsible way forward. Almost all renewable technologies (which aren't perfect by any means) have the potential to come down in price if they are properly invested in. Thats the way forward for energy generation policy. Alter the markets, invigorate investment, improve the technologies and reap the cost rewards of economies of scale. Ally this with investment in energy efficiency measures to curb our demand, and there is absolutely no need for nuclear power plants. Nuclear [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] Trapper March 30, 2006 06:38 PM Hay/aus The future of nuclear power is not in the type of reactor that we have all grown up dreading. It'll take probably another 20 yrs to come to fruition, but last year France won the right (over Japan) to build the prototype of the first Nuclear Reactor to work by Fusion rather than Fission (ie it converts Hydrogen to Helium rather than Uranium to all sorts of other deadly s**t). This is a replication of what happens at the heart of the sun. So we know it's feasible. And physicists are quite confident that this process can be contained and run through magnetism. It's not quite as good as Cold Fusion, if you remember the brief elation of the '89 "discovery" of CF. It's not quite "Free Energy" But it's damn close. And it would produce no dangerous waste. And it would have no military application. If you think your kid is a Physics genius... ...tell them about it. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] MarkGriffiths March 30, 2006 07:05 PM Manchester/gbr Be careful not to confuse the costs of decommissioning the redundant nuclear facilities (The NDA's job) with the costs of running new nuclear power plant (not the NDA). A large portion of the decommissioning costs are attributed to the removal of waste from old storage ponds and silos at Sellafield. These structures were constructed in the years post World War 2, in the rush to nuclear arms, when tipping into above-ground concrete structures was seen as good enough without proper consideration of long term safe storage. The clean-up of this legacy will be expensive and it must be done whatever the outcome of the energy generation debate. Recent power station designs do make proper provision for the safe packaging and export to long term disposal sites, although the location of the repository is still not determined. Whole life costings for new nuclear power generation do allow for waste management requirements. Including the effects of pollution in the life cycle costs of fossil fuel power generation is necessary for fair comparison of options. When this is done nuclear comes out favourably. Of course, the solution to reducing CO2 emissions and ensuring security of power supplies will be a mix of all power types: mainly nuclear and renewables, plus a push to use the energy more efficiently. The government needs to push ahead with all of these, now. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] spidermonkey March 30, 2006 07:21 PM Oxford/gbr TedHerring "A nuclear meltdown WILL HAPPEN in the next few years, at some point, because one thing that can be guaranteed is that MISTAKES ALWAYS HAPPEN" No, it won't. Dude, there are zillions of nuclear stations in the western world and across the last half-century none, yes none, have melted down. None have blown up. None - bar Three Mile Island a long time ago - have really looked like doing so. Look at the 3 major nuclear accidents everyone should know about: 1. The 1957 Windscale fire. It was 1957, reactor technology was completely new. In any new technology, bad stuff happens. 2. Chernobyl, 1986. A reactor design we do not use and could never contemplate using again predictably melted down catastrophically. 3. Three Mile Island, 1979. A sequence of human errors in an old plant caused about the worst accident possible. Every concievable cock-up happened, simultaneously. How many people died, or were seriously injured? None. The new Generation IV reactors being designed draw on half a century of knowledge and experience. They don't require humans, nor complex fallible machines to shut down safely. They just require gravity. There are valid objections to nuclear power, for example 'do we really want to be increasing our plutonium stockpile at this time?' and 'is reprocessing really safe?', but reactor safety seriously isn't one of them. You could crash two 747s into an active station - hell, you could hit it pretty much dead on with a nuclear bomb - and you wouldn't breach the biological shield. Western stations do not, and will not, blow up or meltdown on their own, which sure suggests future stations won't. Now, lets answer the real question: just what the hell are we going to do with all that waste? [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] spidermonkey March 30, 2006 07:30 PM Oxford/gbr And Trapper, do not bet on fusion. I have 3 words for you: 'massive neutron flux'. Physicists are confident you can get a reaction in a magnetically contained plasma inside a torus, sure; we can do it right now. Hell, we probably ARE doing it right now, as we speak. Can we get power out of it? No. Do we have any idea how we are going to get the torus to stand up to the stupendous neutron bombardment it receives without needing to be replaced every five minutes? Not really, but I know a man who's working on that right now. Is fusion free of dangerous radionuclides? Hell no. There's so much energy and so many neutrons - those damn neutrons again - flying about inside the torus that most stuff that you put in there gets transformed by nuclear reactions into pretty deadly stuff. Tungsten is the best stuff we've got right now, but even if we use tungsten we have to combat the problem of catastrophic degradation of the crystal structure and corresponding reduction in mechanical properties under (yes you've guessed it) the neutron flux. 20 years? We might get ITER, the next-gen research reactor being built in France, working reliably in 20 years. Fusion power as a useful source? Sorry to be a party pooper, man, but 50 years. If it happens at all. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] Bagoas March 30, 2006 07:41 PM Cambridge/gbr I have to take up what Tamerlane and others are saying about nuclear energy. 'Reliable, safe and pollution free': how does that stand up? I don't know how the day-to-day reliability of nuclear power stations compares to that of conventional fossil fuel power stations but how can it be maintained that the technology is safe? I just don't believe that it's possible to build an accident- and idiot- and attack-proof nuclear facility. As to 'pollution free', not only do I understand that there is a high carbon cost in the building of the power station and the mining of uranium, but it leaves a legacy of waste which will be highly dangerous for millennia. Set against millennia, a mere fifty years of built-up technological expertise sounds like very little to be betting the futures of our descendants on. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] fairwinds March 30, 2006 07:43 PM Engineering companies recently came up with the likely cost of converting all the UKs coal fired power to clean coal i.e. 100% sequestration of CO2 emissions. That cost for 40% of UK generation was a lot lower than the 72bn just to clean up after nuclear's 10-15% never mind the cost to build replacement nuclear plant. A big advantage of clean coal is that it's a good fit with intermittent renewables technologies because it can be ramped up and down to reduce fuel consumption whereas nuclear stations continue to burn fuel even if you don't want the output. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] MaxRandor1 March 30, 2006 08:23 PM Leeds/gbr Definitely not nuclear and never nuclear. It can never be safe enough, it can never not produce radioactive waste and it will produce CO2 when being built and throughout its life. Fusion looked good and is probably still worth investing in but as stated previously 50 years is an optimistic estimate for it coming on line - and it is even more prone to melt down - if the magnetic field fails it will melt very quickly - think of the heart of the sun in an eggshell - just kept from touching the sides by a magnetic field - H bombs are much more powerful than A bombs. Therefore a fusion plant melt down will be much worse than a fission plant melt down. The future is renewables - solar, wind, wave, heat pump, tidal, geothermal, hydro, random kinetic. The sooner the better the larger the scale the better and mandatory to the greatest possible extent. Also efficiency and lots of it - efficiency increases year on year for everything possible. In the civil war on Global Warming failure is not an option. I would live to see the morrow and like living there. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] oakenfold March 30, 2006 08:30 PM You ('western' so called civilization) really are very very very dangerous arn't you. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] TedHerring March 30, 2006 08:37 PM Austin/usa Spidermonkey You're using the same argument Margaret Thatcher used for the maintenance of nuclear weapons. She said that nuclear weapons had kept the world secure for the last fifty years. That may be so, but when you have an unstable factor in any equation, it's ALWAYS only a matter of time before an accident. It doesn't matter that there's been no Western meltdown. There's just not been one YET. Principle isn't bound by precedent, after all. Nuclear energy isn't and never will be safe enough to use. It's only been luck that's prevented more catastrophes than we've had already. A basic equation is this: Human beings + time = errors. And the greater the time, the greater the magnitude and frequency of errors. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] oakenfold March 30, 2006 08:46 PM ...funnily enough nuclear weapons were always the real reason for the 'peaceful'/energy nuclear program...nuclear powers stations make plutonium from enriched uranium. A rather expensive blag you may think, but the all important national secruity remember. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] naagboy March 30, 2006 09:00 PM London/gbr I believe James Lovelock has through much reasoning become a proponent of nuclear energy. His arguments make sense to me... [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] oakenfold March 30, 2006 09:27 PM I think I'll go with the ploughshares on this one. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] FrankLittle March 30, 2006 09:55 PM Helsinki/fin 'Expect history to repeat itself if the government gives the go ahead to a new generation of nuclear power stations.' What an incredibly naive statement, the government gave the go ahead months ago, Tony (Tono Bungay)Blair is just going through his usual 'weighing of the evidence' first, and all this means is getting the timing right before he gives it the go ahead. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] pilot March 30, 2006 10:25 PM London/gbr If we all start going nuclear world uranium supplies will be depleted very quickly. Does that mean we will have uranium wars as well as oil wars? If we are to survive we will have to follow Cuba which had it's own "Peak Oil" when the Russia's disintegration cut off their cheap oil supplies. We may be better off concemtrating on learning how to grow potatos that building nuclear power stations. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] Willatts March 30, 2006 10:42 PM London/gbr Nuclear power is not cheap in termns of total life cycle costs. That is an inescapable fact, despite the various ways of disposing of nuclear waste. How much cost exactly would we put upon a safe atmosphere to live in? To put it bluntly, desireable as they doubtless are, 'green' alternatives aren't ready to use NOW. What this country need is a source of power that is ready to use now, and be into production quickly, even if it is but a stop gap for 20-30 years or so, until renewable sources become more mature. Windpower for exanple is currently capable op operating at load factors of around 25%, ie they produce power for 25% of the time - therefore they need another source of power to quickly compensate for their surges in power, ie a base load. Rebewable energy is undoubtedly the path ahead, but what is required is technology mature now to carry us through the period immediately ahead, that is when existing power stations already working are coming to the end of their lives. Technology still in development is simply not enough for now, however much the monetry cost may be. Nuclear power produces (itself) no emissions and is already mature. Through use of nuclear power a small area may be out of bounds due ot the waste storage, which to my mind is significantly better than an atmospheric problem. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] luggage March 30, 2006 10:43 PM Melbourne/aus Let's not try and compare mismatched costs. Nuclear has high upfront construction costs but low fuel costs and long useful lives for the plant facilities. Improved designs will further increase safety (for an industry that has had only one life damaging incident in 50 years) and although the decommissioning process is expensive it comes at the end of the long life, time value of money calcs take this into account in the pricing of power. Coal &Oil whilst cheaper to build plants have a more expensive cost of fuel. The main bit that people tend to forget is the huge externalities and pollution they generate and which are NOT factored into any cleanup / decommissioning. Wind &solar power are attractive but are not dependendable enough to stand alone as the backstay for a country's grid. Wave is new but shows a lot of promise, probably about as much as wind or solar in the end. Geothermal is a local solution unfortunately. In the end we will use a variety of power sources; how about something like 10% wind, 10% solar, 10% wave, 5% geothermal, 30% clean coal, 35% nuclear. That should proof us against energy price shocks to an extent anyway. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] boofwair March 30, 2006 10:45 PM Cambridge/gbr Apparently if the entire population of the world had a dynamo secured to their washing machine, this would supply the world's energy needs! [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] Willatts March 30, 2006 10:58 PM London/gbr Maxrandor1: Do some research on the failure of a fusion reactor first: it should be relatively safe, and not reult in a meltdown: loss of containment should fairly much end the reaction full stop. ITER will now be built in France, but it won't be capable of producing useful power. I would certainly support more funds for fusion technology: zero emissions, a plentiful fuel source, huge potential for power....but it needs to investment, in time and money to get there, if it does at all. We should certainly focus on increasing efficiency wherever possible, but the country needs a source of power during the period of research, and bringing the outcomes of research to commercial fruition. Clean coal is a great way to cleran up our act, we can't seriously be reliant on outside sources for gas, and as things stand the UK is already a net importer of energy: we need a power source, that is as clean as possible, and as quickly as possible, whilst continuing research into the cleanest possiblke, but as yet unattainable sources. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] Willatts March 30, 2006 11:01 PM London/gbr Boofwair: unless you have discovered a miraculous dynamo with over 100% efficiency the dynamo is not going to work. If you have I would love to market it for you. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] blueblog March 30, 2006 11:38 PM Spidermonkey - I will make it easy for you to grasp. 1) Listen well to TedHehrring and MaxRandor1. 2) Read John Vidal's " Beside the leaking tomb " Mar 23. 3) Read my follow-up (third comment)Mar 26. 4) Read and find out about,people and since-born children affected in Ukraine,Belarus and other countries. It is not conveniently going away. 5) Then if you are still confident about the future of nuclear safety I guess you,family,friends,relatives, dependants etc. will all happily go to live by or down-wind from a nuclear power plant ? Well would you ?????? [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] luggage March 31, 2006 12:02 AM Melbourne/aus Chernobyl was a disaster but there are a number of reasons not to overplay its effects: 1) We are talking about an old soviet reactor and all the baggage the system carries with it. 2) Pollution from oil and coal kills a lot more people every year but not in such conveniently mediacentric ways. 3) We tend to forget oil field fires, refinery disasters, pipeline spills etc when we count the human cost of traditional fuel sources. All power systems require care and attention. Nuclear power showcases highly visible but thankfully very very rare disasters. Oil &coal kill us slowly every day and we don't even notice. I realise this is not exactly a study but work is calling :) follow the links from here. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] spidermonkey March 31, 2006 12:18 AM Oxford/gbr TedHerring: Nuclear energy isn't and never will be safe enough to use. It's only been luck that's prevented more catastrophes than we've had already. What's 'safe enough to use'? Sure, in an absolute-worst-case all-but-impossible scenario the catastrophic meltdown of a nuclear station can have a pretty devastating effect, but I think you have to balance this against the risk of that worst case scenario. It simply is not going to happen. Safety systems on nuclear reactors are not merely duplicated for safety, they're triplicated. There are backups on backups on backups, permanently vigilant staff, childishly simple shutdown procedures that cannot be overridden, and crucially, 9 feet of concrete and 10 inches of steel protection. Is methyl isocyanate 'safe enough to use'? Spill 40 tonnes and 4600 people die, that's...let me see...more than 50 times the total death toll attributed to nuclear power, or about equal to it if you include all the deaths possibly attributable in some way to Chernobyl. In one incident. Yet we use methyl isocyanate, don't we? We make pesticides. And no-one moans about it because it's not nuclear power. You see, nuclear power is this great big ogre where you could go up to a nuclear station, turn the wrong tap, and BANG there goes England, apparently. Its something everyone loves to hate, however irrationally. And no, we haven't survived this long through luck, we've survived this long without incident because of good reactor design and decent reactor management. One last thing: in 1963, a landslide caused the water in the Vaiont reservoir to leap over the dam and down into the valley, killing 2,500 people. This was not, unlike Chernobyl, a unique incident. I guess we shouldn't be building dams, either, then? Luggage: "for an industry that has had only one life damaging incident in 50 years" not quite true they projected one death from Three Mile Island and two japanese technicians died at Tokaimura when someone screwed up amazingly, adding seven times too much uranium to a solution. blueblog: I do listen well to the good comments from those two. I disagree with them. I will read the piece you talk about and your comment and if they're significantly different from the mountains of stuff I've read over the years on this subject I may comment. I know about the victims of Chernobyl. Not nice. Neither are many other things. This is not a perfect world. I am confident about the future of nuclear safety and for the last 10 years I have lived within sight of two nuclear power stations, worked at one and visited many. I am not scared, because you know, when I came out the radiation dose on my little dosemeter was a big round ZERO. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] savvas March 31, 2006 01:04 AM Hi Friends, speaking as a resident of the country with the world's largest deposits of uranium, the crazy thing about any current debate on 'going nuclear' is simply that: - if we do it then world demand for electrical energy will lead to everyone, every where, 'going nuclear' - if this occurs (and it would do so) then the world's N-power station count would need to jump from about 450 to around 10,000 (to meet the predicted needs) - this would lead to the end of the world's affordable supplies of uranium ore in 15-20 years. I don't deny at all that Peak Oil &Gas combined with climate change combined with burgeoning populations all demand some cleaner solution to power needs. It's just that 'going nuclear' hardly seems worth the crippling dollar investment and long term environmental and health hazards. Savvas in Adelaide, Australia. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] luggage March 31, 2006 02:25 AM Melbourne/aus Savvas, I hear what you are saying about uranium usage but I think we need to look at that from two angles; 1) It is reminiscent of the "death of oil" scares that are promoted every few years (which doesn't make it wrong but let's consider the possibility and get the mining industry to give some feedback). 2) Everyone seems to assume that nuclear energy will replace ALL OTHER FORMS of energy. Not very likely is it, as I said before lets mix it up a bit - some wind, some solar, some wave, some clean coal, some natural gas, some nuclear. I was once anti-nuclear but through research on the actual costs and reliability of renewables I came to the realisation that they aren't enough on their own. Nuclear is the best option to complement renewable energy, much better than our existing polluting forms anyway. [Offensive? Unsuitable? ] Please note: In order to post a comment you need to be registered and signed in for Guardian Unlimited blogs. The latest from the blog [The latest from the blogs] Why the former Liberian leader is heading to the Hague. A new wave of veterans are trying to awaken it to its latest misguided war. V for Vendetta, a movie jam-packed with post-9/11 themes, deserved a serious response. Why has the last true keeper of the Thatcherite flame joined the 'Blair must stay' fan club? · · Today's most active 1. Surfing in the sewer (134) comments 2. Curb your enthusiasm (39) comments 3. We must rethink rape (37) comments 4. Can we afford to go nuclear? (32) comments 5. You're so predictable (19) comments Best of the web 1. - The reshuffle won't fool anyone. 2. - China's great leap backwards. 3. - Kos has a new book out. 4. - How's the president's political capital? 5. - It could be verse. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: 164 Deansgate, Manchester M60 2RR ***************************************************************** 40 Xinhua: ICBC grants loans for Guangdong nuclear power projects www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-30 20:44:30 BEIJING, March 30 (Xinhua) -- Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has promised to grant 60 billion yuan (7.5 billion U.S. dollars) in credit and loans for nuclear electricity power projects in Guangdong in the coming five years, the bank said Thursday. ICBC said in a statement it has signed a cooperative agreement with Guangdong Nuclear Power Group, which boasts a combined 10 million kilowatts in installed capacities of operational and planned nuclear power projects in the southern Chinese province. In the meantime, the Guangdong group will treat ICBC, China's biggest commercial bank by assets, as the "most important partner" for cooperation in financial activities, the agreement said. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 41 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet April 5-8 in Rockville, Maryland News Release - 2006-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: No. 06-043 March 29, 2006 Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a public meeting April 5-8 in Rockville, Md., to discuss, among other items, the Draft Final Regulatory Guide concerning Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Fire Protection for Existing Light Water Nuclear Power Plants. The committee will also discuss staff activities associated with a safety conscious work environment and safety culture at nuclear plants. The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. The Wednesday session is closed to the public. However, the public is invited to attend the other sessions on Thursday from 8:30 a.m. to 6:45 p.m. The Friday session will run from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and the Saturday session will run from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. A complete agenda is available on the NRCs Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2006/. Requests for video teleconferencing should be directed to Theron Brown, at 301-415-8066. Anyone with questions or those wanting to make public statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at 301-415-7364. The ACRS, as mandated by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, advises the Commission on licensing, the operation of nuclear power plants and related safety issues. Last revised Wednesday, March 29, 2006 ***************************************************************** 42 Gallup Poll: Majority of Americans Support Use of Nuclear Energy March 29, 2006 Majority also supports expanding use of nuclear energy in the future by Joseph Carroll The American public generally supports the use of nuclear energy as a way to provide electricity in the United States, and also endorses the expansion of nuclear energy in the future. The percentage favoring expanded use of nuclear energy is the highest Gallup has measured since 2001. Even so, Americans remain reluctant to support the construction of nuclear power plants in their local area. Republicans are more likely than Democrats to support the use of nuclear power in the country. [The Gallup Poll] The Gallup Organization, Princeton, NJ. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 43 Scotsman.com Business: British Nuclear Group to be sold Thu 30 Mar 2006 By David Cullen LONDON (Reuters) - The government said on Thursday it aimed to sell state-owned nuclear clean-up company British Nuclear Group (BNG) by autumn next year, as officials released a higher cost estimate for clearing up the country's nuclear plants. The government's Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) said the cost of cleaning up ageing nuclear power sites could be around 70 billion pounds, 14 billion pounds more than previously estimated. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry Alan Johnson said the sale of BNG would come with a new 5 billion-pound five-year contract to clean-up and operate the controversial Sellafield complex. BNG's current parent, state-owned British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL), had suggested the sale. Government officials said the Sellafield contract would be awarded to BNG's new owner. Analysts say the BNG sale could attract bids in excess of 1 billion pounds from U.S.-based companies such as Halliburton , the Washington Group , privately-owned Bechtel and Fluor . Engineering and project management firm Amec has also been tipped as a potential buyer. The 1 billion-pound price tag does not include the value of the five-year Sellafield deal, and BNG will continue to operate the 11 Magnox atomic power plants, some of which are close to the end of their life span, for the next few years. JOHNSON SEES BETTER PERFORMANCE BNG's main customer is the NDA, set up last year as part of a government plan to clean up the country's old nuclear facilities. "I firmly believe that a competitive sale is in BNFL's best commercial interest and represents British Nuclear Group's best chance of operating successfully in the commercial market," Johnson said. "By bringing in external expertise more quickly, it also contributes to improved clean-up performance for the NDA and is therefore good for the taxpayer," he added. Sellafield can reprocess around 5,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel a year, around a third of annual world production, but has suffered from a poor public image. Since a fire half a century ago that forced the closure of the Windscale I military reactor, scientists are still trying to work out how to dismantle the chimney-top filter that trapped the radioactive smoke and stopped a nuclear catastrophe. Government probes in recent years have also found that safety records were falsified by staff. BNG Chief Executive Lawrie Haynes said the sale was a positive, strategic move for the business and its 800 staff. "A strong British Nuclear Group means strong competition, and that can only be good news for the NDA and the UK taxpayer," Haynes said. The NDA plans to introduce competition for clean-up contracts in an effort to get work done more quickly and efficiently. NDA chairman Anthony Cleaver said the estimate of the overall cost of the nuclear clean-up had been raised to take account of factors such as inflation and to remove assumptions about efficiency savings, which the NDA believed were likely but not guaranteed. "We feel a lot more confident (about the cost) than we did," he said. "But I would be foolish, I think, if I said categorically ... we couldn't discover anything that could increase those figures." But environmentalists were outraged. "UK taxpayers will have to pay the spiralling bill of dealing with Britain's dangerous nuclear legacy ... and we still don't know how to safeguard it for the future," Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper said in a statement. Other than BNFL unit Westinghouse, which is already being sold, Nexia and a 33 percent stake in Urenco could also be sold under government plans to sell energy-related assets. Urenco Ltd., which operates enrichment facilities in England, the Netherlands and Germany, is a consortium of BNFL, Dutch government-owned Ultra-Centrifuge Nederland and German utilities E.ON AG and RWE AG . The government hopes the BNG sell-off can be closed by autumn 2007. (Additional reporting by Madeline Chambers and Andrew Gray) (c) Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or ©2006 Scotsman.com| contact ***************************************************************** 44 ITAR-TASS: Radioactive radiation source found at Barnaul power plant 30.03.2006, 08.50 BARNAUL, March 30 (Itar-Tass) - A radioactive radiation source has been found in the area of the rehabilitation work at the Barnaul TETS-2 heating-and-power plant, where a major breakdown occurred on March 25, the Altai Territory centre of the Russian Ministry for Emergencies (RME) announced on Thursday. "The source was found on Wednesday afternoon. According to preliminary estimates, the power of radioactive radiation near the source exceeded 8-9 fold the background radiation norms and practically dropped down to the natural background within a one-metre radius," an RME Territorial Centre official specified. The source supposedly had earlier served as an active element of a flaw-detecting device designed to check the quality of welding and had been lost under circumstances that have not been ascertained so far. An official at the AltaiEnergo Company has acknowledged the fact of discovery of the radiation source and said that the Company was prepared to make an official statement on that score later on. This, however, "will not, apparently, affect" the duration of rehabilitation work at the TETS-2 plant, the official added. Law enforcement agencies have launched an inquiry in connection with the discovery of the radiation source. © ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, 31.03.2006, 08.28 Attempts to tow barge with people from sunken boat fail so far [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] 31.03.2006, 07.03 2005 saw 235 accidents at Russia’s high-risk industrial facilities [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] 30.03.2006, 14.59 Tajik girl killers sentenced to long terms in prison [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] 30.03.2006, 12.27 Universities of G8 states, China to pool research effort in energy security [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] 30.03.2006, 10.12 Preliminary decision taken to sink telecom satellite Ekspress-AM11 [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] 30.03.2006, 08.50 Radioactive radiation source found at Barnaul power plant [ border=] 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] [ border=] PHOTO-TASS (ru, en) ['' width='1' height='24' border='0' align='absmiddle'] ARMS-TASS (ru) ['' width='1' height='24' border='0' align='absmiddle'] TASS GRAPHICS (ru) ['' width='1' height='24' border='0' align='absmiddle'] INFO-TASS (ru, en) ['' width='1' height='24' border='0' align='absmiddle'] TASS-ONLINE (ru, en) ['' width='1' height='24' border='0' align='absmiddle'] EKHO PLANETY (ru) ['' width='1' height='24' border='0' align='absmiddle'] PRIME-TASS ( ru, en) ['' width='1' height='24' border='0' align='absmiddle'] TASS-SPB (ru) ['' width='1' height='24' border='0' align='absmiddle'] TASS-URAL (ru) [ border=] Copyright © ITAR-TASS all rights reserved. Contacts Technical support [ border=] Developer info ['TASStop' border='0' width=1 height=1] [ border=] ***************************************************************** 45 NRC: Keeping nuclear plant operational has ‘small’ impact Thursday, March 30, 2006 By Eric O’Link News Editor (Times file photo by Eric O'Link) Read &comment A copy of the supplemental draft EIS is available for viewing at the Monticello Public Library. Comments on the EIS may be sent to the NRC at MonticelloEIS@nrc.gov until Thursday, May 4. That’s how Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials described the effect that continued operation of Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant would have on the environment, should the plant’s operating license be extended to 2030. But what “small” means is debatable at best, according to one critic of the nuclear industry who spoke during an NRC information meeting in Monticello last week. The NRC’s environmental review team issued a draft site-specific environmental impact statement (EIS) in January, addressing a number of issues related to 20 years of continued operation of Monticello’s nuclear plant beyond 2010. NRC officials came to Monticello Wednesday, March 22, to conduct two similar public meetings, during which they shared the findings of the draft supplement EIS and asked for comments. The decision standard kept in mind throughout the environmental review was, “simply put, is license renewal an acceptable form of environmental impact?” said Jennifer Davis, the NRC’s environmental project manager. Review process The NRC has a specific environmental review process for nuclear plants that request an operating license extension, as Monticello has. The NRC studied license renewal in the 1990s and determined that a number of issues applied generally to all nuclear plants. For those issues, the NRC prepared a generic environmental impact statement that applies to specific issues at all U.S. nuclear plants. The NRC also determined that 23 issues were too site-specific to address broadly. Thus, for every license renewal application, the NRC sends an environmental review team to the applicant power plant to study those specific issues and determine if anything addressed in the generic EIS needs a closer look. The issues are addressed in a site-specific EIS that is issued as a supplement to the generic EIS. The draft of that document has been published and the NRC is taking comments on it until Thursday, May 4. A final supplemental EIS should be complete in September. Xcel Energy filed a request to the NRC for the operating license extension about a year ago. In a separate but related process, Xcel has also asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for permission to store waste fuel rods on the plant property. The rods, which are dangerously radioactive in an open environment, would be stored in steel casks inserted into aboveground concrete vaults. Waste storage at the plant will be necessary, whether its operating license is renewed for another 20 years or not. Small, medium, large A team of scientists from national laboratories studied Monticello, covering areas like hydrology, ecology, safety, radiation protection, weather and socioeconomic and environmental justice. They categorize impacts into three levels: small, medium and large. Crystal Quinly, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher, said “small” impact means the effect is not detectable or is “too small to destabilize any important attribute” of a resource. “Medium” causes noticeable alterations to a resource, but does not destabilize it, she said. “Large,” meanwhile, denotes noticeable and destabilizing impact. Quinly said the research team’s determination was that the plant’s operational impacts were “small” in all areas. She added that radiological releases that occur during the routine operation of the plant, usually in the form of vented gas, were within acceptable levels. “There is near-consensus in the scientific community that these levels are protective of human health,” she said. Only one item covered in the supplemental EIS noted a more significant impact: decommissioning the plant and turning to alternative forms of electricity generation. Quinly said the impact was large because of the scale it would involve. She said that replacing Monticello’s 600 megawatts of base load electricity would require 8,000-21,000 acres of solar arrays, or 90,000 acres of wind turbines. That, Davis said, constitutes a moderate to large impact. “It is the staff’s preliminary recommendation that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decision makers would be unreasonable,” Davis said. John Conway, the Monticello plant’s site vice president, concurred during comments he gave during the meeting. “Continued operation of the plant will have minimal impact on the environment,” he said. He praised the plant’s safety record and noted that it had been well maintained over the course of its operating life. Aging management efforts would continue, he said; the plant is ready to operate until 2030. “It’s the safety of the public, our employees and the environment that is our highest priority,” Conway said. Sharp criticism But George Crocker, a longtime critic of the nuclear industry, took a much different view of the supplemental EIS. “What I’ve reviewed is a rationalization for a decision that’s already made,” he pointedly told the NRC officials during the comment portion of the meeting. Crocker, the executive director of the Lake Elmo-based North American Water Office, accused the NRC staff of not caring about his comments; he worried he was on “a fool’s errand.” He called the EIS findings of “small-medium-large” a “gallingly subjective” system. “Small means detectable by who? Using what?” he asked. He questioned how the EIS could find the impact of radiation releases to be “small,” when monitoring stations in the area have shown no evidence of radionucleotides. “All you have to define what happens after you release them are some calculations and some modeling that tell us nothing about where they go,” Crocker said. He also told the NRC officials that if they examined cancer rates in communities near nuclear plants, they would see a correlation between higher rates and proximity to the plants. Students take interest Most meetings regarding Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant have been sparsely attended in the past. Again last week, most of the chairs in the Monticello Community Center meeting room were empty. But there were about a dozen new faces: Some students from St. Cloud State University came to Monticello to observe and learn about the EIS process. After the meeting, the students sat down with the NRC officials for a discussion about environmental impact statements. Junior Matt Lenz said he was surprised by the lack of people at the meeting, but appreciated the opportunity to have questions answered. “Everybody was happy to talk to you, which was nice,” Lenz said. Corey Hake, another junior, said he had hoped to hear more about dry cask waste storage–a process from Wednesday’s NRC license renewal meetings. He said he had already studied dry cask storage for an assignment, and thought that, given the alternatives of likely building gas or coal plants to replace Monticello, continued operation of the nuclear plant was the best economic and environmental solution. He also commented on the EIS findings language. “The category system of small-medium-large, that’s like the terrorist (alert) system,” Hake said. Copyright 2006, Monticello Times ***************************************************************** 46 St. Petersburg Times: Progress drafts nuclear bills The utility wants to speed up passing through costs to consumers, saying it will save consumers money. By LOUIS HAU, Times Staff Writer Published March 30, 2006 Progress Energy Florida is not only mulling the construction of a new nuclear plant, it is trying to make it easier to build one. The Florida Legislature is considering bills drafted by the St. Petersburg utility that would allow the company to pass through to customers licensing fees and other preconstruction costs earlier than is possible now. The legislation would streamline getting permission to build nuclear plants and related transmission lines. Progress' push comes as it continues its search for a location to build a nuclear plant in Florida, a decision it expects to make by the end of June. The legislation reflects Progress' desire to reduce some of the risk and cost associated with building a nuclear plant, a huge project that can take about a decade to complete from the selection of a site to the generation of electricity, said Progress spokesman C.J. Drake. "This is a multibillion-dollar investment we are planning to make in Florida," Drake said. "It's not a natural gas plant. It's not a coal plant. Something like this hasn't been attempted in a generation." The legislation has been introduced in the House by state Rep. Frank Attkisson, R-Kissimmee, and in the Senate by state Sen. Carey Baker, R-Eustis. Rules now stipulate that utilities can only seek to pass through such costs to customers after a power plant begins operations. Costs that a utility could pass through to customers earlier would include licensing and review fees charged by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, equipment expenses and the cost of land, as well as interest charges once construction begins. Recovering costs in this fashion would reduce the financial risk to Progress, while translating into lower costs to customers over the long term, Drake said. That's because the costs collected upfront would not be included later in Progress' rate base. Utilities earn a rate of return on their rate base, which represents the net value of their assets, such as power plants, substations and power lines. The legislation would exempt nuclear plants from state bid rules for power plant construction. As a result, state utility regulators wouldn't consider alternative plant proposals from other power companies. In addition, Progress would not have to demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" to increase its initial cost estimate to build a nuclear plant. The legislation would reduce the ability of municipalities and counties to block the construction of transmission lines associated with a nuclear plant, including noncontiguous lines that have to be upgraded. Rather than having to contend with multiple hearings to determine whether new transmission structures conform with local land-use laws, all such concerns would be addressed in a single hearing presided over by an administrative law judge at the state Department of Environmental Protection. Attkisson said he introduced the legislation because expanding nuclear power in Florida will help diversify the fuel sources of the states' utilities. That, in turn, would reduce the state's vulnerability to increases in fossil fuel costs and foreign energy sources. "This is a statewide issue," he said. "This is not a local issue, so we're trying to treat it as a statewide issue." Louis Hau can be reached at 813 226-3404 or hau@sptimes.com[Last modified March 30, 2006, 02:15:33] © 2006 All Rights Reserved St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 Contact the Times | Privacy ***************************************************************** 47 Belfast Telegraph: Cost of nuclear clean-up is £9bn more than predicted By Andy McSmith 30 March 2006 Cleaning up Britain's old nuclear power plants will cost at least £9bn more than previous estimates, the Government will announce today. Robot submarines have uncovered vast deposits of radioactive sludge that was left in underground storage tanks at Sellafield, in Cumbria, decades ago and forgotten. It has pushed up the bill now facing taxpayers to £65bn - but that could rise higher if more forgotten deposits are uncovered. The previous estimate for cleaning up after the civil nuclear industry was £56bn. The announcement will stiffen resistance to Tony Blair's plans for a new generation of nuclear power plants, which are likely to be part of the Government's review of energy policy. Speaking in Australia this week, Mr Blair included nuclear power as part of the "mix" of energy sources he claims the UK needs. Trade unionists from Britain's biggest private-sector union, Amicus, which has a large membership in the electricity industry, lobbied MPs yesterday to press the case for more nuclear plants. They are opposed by eight leading Labour MPs who will publish a pamphlet this week arguing that Britain can solve its energy problems without nuclear energy. "Even if we took a decision soon, no new power would arise for perhaps 10 years, and even then we would be no clearer about how to deal with the waste," one of the authors, the former transport minister Alan Whitehead, claimed. The former environment minister Michael Meacher asked in the same pamphlet: "Is it rational or responsible to create yet more mountains of dangerous waste until we have found a satisfactory form of long-term disposal of the gigantic quantity we've already got?" David Chaytor, another author, warned: "Cost, waste, profileration and terrorism have provided powerful arguments for rejecting the nuclear option." Today's figures will be released as part of a comprehensive strategy for demolishing and decontaminating old nuclear plants, a job given last year to the newly created Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It will show that cleaning up Britain's largest nuclear site, Sellafield, will cost about £40bn and take nearly 150 years. The figure of £69bn only applies to 20 state-owned nuclear plants, most of which are no longer producing electricity. It is does not include newer, privatised plants, or the military laboratory at Aldermaston. © 2006 Independent News and Media (NI) ***************************************************************** 48 Hudson Valley News: Shutting down Indian Point a priority for probable State Senate candidate Thursday, March 30, 2006 Zimet, at this week's NRC session on IP The Indian Point nuclear reactors are just 25 miles from the closest points in the 42 nd State Senate District, currently represented by veteran Republican John Bonacic. Democrat Ulster County Legislator Susan Zimet is seriously considering a challenge. Indian Point could be a key issue. Zimet has taken an active interest in the debate over Indian Points future, including attending this weeks Nuclear Regulatory Commission meeting on the spent fuel pool, and apparent leaks of radioactive material. Zimet says a strategy has already evolved. The last time that I had met with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission personally, they pretty much had said that when we get a new governor, if the governor wants to close down Indian Point, Indian Point will get closed down, she said. My goal is to help get a new governor, and hopefully, if I should choose to run for Senate and be up for the Senate, to help vote to support him to close Indian Point down. A new governor is assured. Republican George Pataki is not seeking a fourth term. HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report. ***************************************************************** 49 BBC NEWS: North West Wales | Greenpeace's nuclear rail fears Last Updated: Thursday, 30 March 2006, 11:54 GMT 12:54 UK Nuclear clean-up 'to cost £70bn' A terror attack on a train carrying nuclear waste through Bangor could result in thousands of deaths, claim environment campaigners Greenpeace. Their report also looked at potential accidents, warning of evacuations and that people as far away as Flint would have to find shelter. But Direct Rail Service (DRS), which handles nuclear waste transportation, said "robust" measures were in place. It defended its safety record and said security was the number one priority. The Greenpeace report was compiled by nuclear expert John Large, who examined potential accidents and acts of terrorism which could severely damage a nuclear 'transportation flask', causing the release of radioactivity. His review concluded that transporting the flasks containing spent nuclear fuel "provide no extraordinary safeguard against terrorist attack". He said that the flasks would be at their weakest if caught in "the high and sustained temperatures involved in a tunnel fire". Stringent safety As a result a list of six UK railway tunnels, including Bangor, were identified as potential problem areas. "I was very wary of undertaking this review because of the sensitivity of the terrorist threat at this time," said Mr Large. "However my reservations were quickly surpassed at an early stage of my research when it became obvious just how vulnerable these spent fuel flasks are," he added. DRS, the company responsible for shipments of nuclear waste from Wylfa power station, said safety and security were a "number one priority". "The safety record of moving used nuclear fuel by rail is exemplary - this material has been transported in this way since 1962, travelling over eight million miles without any incident involving the release of radioactive material," said a spokesman. DRS worked within stringent safety rules, which were regulated independently added the spokesman. The 'flasks' used to transport used nuclear fuel is constructed from forged steel, more than 30cm thick, with each flask weighing more than 50 tonnes. "The flask-testing criteria - including those simulating a fully engulfing fire and a flask dropping from a bridge or similar structure - are designed to simulate very severe accident and incidents," said the DRS spokesman. The regulator, the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), said the nuclear generators and DRS made every effort to "randomise times and days of the week for movements of nuclear material by rail". A spokesman said security was stringent and under constant review. He said: "OCNS is satisfied with the thorough measures that have been taken to prevent the theft or sabotage of nuclear material in transit. It is not Government policy to disclose details of security measures or nuclear fuel movements, which may be of potential use to terrorists". ***************************************************************** 50 Article: Retired FBI agent helped close nuclear-weapons site [O C Register.com] Wednesday, March 29, 2006 Retired FBI agent, now living in Mission Viejo, no longer has to be silent about the nuclear-weapons site he helped get closed. By GREG HARDESTY The Orange County Register DIFFERENT PATH: Jon Lipsky now works as a private investigator and lobbies to keep the public off the site of the former Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons facility in Colorado. The site is slated to become a wildlife refuge. KARI RENE HALL, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER Map Location of Rocky Flats Jon Lipsky prowls the sidelines of high school football games, snapping pictures. Wearing a white visor, his face the reddish hue of a guy who spends a lot of time at outdoor sporting events, Lipsky blends into the suburban scene. Just as he prefers. Just as his more than 25 years as an FBI agent taught him. "Parents can't always be at the games," says Lipsky, 51, who volunteers as a photographer for Mission Viejo High School, where two of his three daughters went. "At least they'll have pictures to look at." Evidence, proof, documentation - the essential tools of any FBI agent. And for years, Lipsky was one of the agency's best: precise, methodical, driven. But on Dec. 31, 2004, he quit his job - an agonizing decision for the man responsible for getting a nuclear-weapons facility in Colorado shut down more than 15 years ago. For years, Lipsky couldn't talk publicly about the notorious Rocky Flats facility, near Denver. So he retired early. Now he can talk. A VERDICT During a recent interview in his hilltop home in Mission Viejo, Lipsky wore jeans, a magenta shirt and light brown, python-skin cowboy boots. He was the picture of laid back - not some hotheaded former lawman turned activist. "Why screw yourself into the ceiling with frustration," Lipsky said, "when you can do something productive?" For Lipsky, that meant going public about the U.S. government's handling of an investigation into Rocky Flats. The facility, which opened in 1951, was in the news recently when a federal jury awarded more than $500 million to thousands of residents who lived near the top-secret compound. The jury determined that sloppily handled plutonium and other hazardous material escaped from Rocky Flats onto the properties of more than 12,000 landowners, devaluing their land. Plant operator Rockwell International Corp. and previous operator Dow Chemical Corp. have maintained that only harmless, minuscule amounts of plutonium escaped from the plant. The civil verdict, in February, was vindication for Lipsky, a key witness for the residents. During the trial, Lipsky narrated infrared video footage showing illegal dumping of radioactive, hazardous and industrial waste. His testimony is at the heart of a recent book about Rocky Flats, "The Ambushed Grand Jury," which chronicles a plea agreement between the federal government and Rockwell that put an end to the special federal grand jury's investigation into the mess. Critics of the plea deal, including Lipsky, say it let plant operators - and the government agency that owned Rocky Flats, the U.S. Department of Energy - off easily. He agreed with grand jurors that several individuals - from Rockwell and the Department of Energy - should have been charged with environmental crimes. The government has defended the plea agreement. A CALLING Lipsky attended Loara High School in Anaheim. His father spent a career in the rubber industry after failing to pass an exam to become a cop in Detroit. He recalls his father saying law enforcement was a noble profession. "Something clicked" for Lipsky on a senior-class field trip to the FBI office in Los Angeles, and he went to work as a clerk there straight out of school. During six years as a clerk at the agency, Lipsky earned a degree in criminal justice from Cal State Los Angeles. Needing field experience, he then worked as a street cop in Las Vegas for six years. In 1984, he got the call he had been waiting for: The FBI hired him as a special agent in Denver. He was assigned to the new field of environmental crimes. Asked why, Lipsky quipped: "I wrote a lot of littering tickets when I was a cop." The Rocky Flats probe began after Lipsky's office obtained a high-level internal briefing memo from the Department of Energy that acknowledged illegal activities were occurring at the plant. On June 6, 1989, Lipsky led more than 100 federal agents in the raid on Rocky Flats. After the raid, the plant never operated again. The raid, dubbed "Operation Desert Glow," led to the 1992 plea agreement in which Rockwell admitted to 10 federal environmental crimes and agreed to pay $18.5 million in fines. When it was disbanded by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver, the federal grand jury already had written a report saying there was enough evidence to indict several individuals on environmental crimes. But with the plea deal, the report became moot. The report has since been released, in a redacted version, by the government. Members of the special grand jury remain under a gag order. Lipsky said the government tried to intimidate him into keeping quiet and even lying about conditions at Rocky Flats during testimony to a congressional panel that looked into the plea agreement. In January 2005, just days after resigning from the FBI, he spoke publicly for the first time about Rocky Flats, saying he had been "muzzled" since 1992. He also recounted being transferred, in 1993, to the FBI's street-gang unit in Los Angeles in what he believes was a retaliatory move to penalize him for testifying. NEW CAUSE Lipsky's work on Rocky Flats is far from over. After a $7 billion, six-year cleanup, the former nuclear-weapons site is ready to become a wildlife refuge. Lipsky is lobbying to keep the public off the site. There never was a nuclear reactor at Rocky Flats. But Lipsky believes the work being done there - making plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs - created unsafe conditions. "The government still isn't paying attention to the conditions out there," Lipsky said. "The site's not clean. People are not being properly informed that they will be in harm's way if they have access to it." He is working with groups in Colorado and national organizations to get the word out. "The cover-up is getting uncovered," he said. For the past year, Lipsky has been working as a private investigator. He advertises his business, Mission Accomplished Investigations, in high school athletic guides. He said most of his friends here are surprised to hear he's a PI. Most have no idea he is a former FBI agent. And most haven't heard of Rocky Flats. He will continue to bend their ears. "I'm a dad and a father," Lipsky said, "but also a citizen. "And in this country, citizenship should not be a spectator sport." CONTACT US: (714) 796-2286 or ghardesty@ocregister.com ***************************************************************** 51 AU ABC: : Gaping holes in uranium safeguards - Greens Transcript This is a transcript from The World Today. The program is broadcast around Australia at 12:10pm on ABC Local Radio. You can also listen to the story in REAL AUDIOand WINDOWS MEDIAand MP3formats. The World Today - Thursday, 30 March , 2006 12:32:00 Reporter: Gillian Bradford ELEANOR HALL: The Greens Party says there are gaping holes in the safeguards the Federal Government is proposing for its sale of uranium to China. The Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao is due in Australia on the weekend and he's expected to secure agreements that will not only permit Australian uranium exports to China, but also allow Chinese miners to be directly involved in exploration. But the Greens say the Federal Government has been so dazzled by the prospect of billions of dollars worth of sales, that it's left open the possibility that Australian uranium could be used in Chinese nuclear weapons. The Greens' Christine Milne has been speaking to Gillian Bradford in Canberra. CHRISTINE MILNE: China is a nuclear weapons state and there is no way that the safeguards that currently apply will stop Australian uranium ending up in nuclear weapons programs. GILLIAN BRADFORD: Well Senator Minchin is saying that Australian uranium will go for civil not military uses. What are you saying is lacking in the safeguards to actually enforce that? CHRISTINE MILNE: The problem with the safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency is that as they apply to China, they are voluntary. China has the discretion to say which of its facilities can be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency and it has the capacity to withdraw any of those facilities at any time, on the basis of national security. So whilst Senator Minchin is saying, oh the safeguards apply, they only apply as long as China chooses to have its facilities inspected. GILLIAN BRADFORD: If China did withdraw that permission though, for inspection of one of its stations, would Australia therefore not say, well our uranium won't go there anymore? CHRISTINE MILNE: Well, you'd like to think so, but we've heard nothing from Prime Minister Howard or Mr Beazley in fact on that. We know that when trade deals are set in place and companies sign contracts, it's very difficult for them to withdraw from those, but I would certainly appreciate a commitment from the Prime Minister, that should any facility be withdrawn, that Australia stop exporting uranium. But the key question here is, will the Australian Government give an assurance that every facility to which Australian yellow cake is sent, will be inspected by the International Atomic Energy Agency? GILLIAN BRADFORD: You're saying we're treating China too much like a friend, a trusted friend, when there should be a little more suspicion. CHRISTINE MILNE: The Australian Government is treating China quite clearly as if it is a trusted friend. They are talking in terms of mutual respect. How can Australia have mutual respect for a military dictatorship which has an appalling record on human rights, has an appalling record on environment and labour standards and which we know, people will be jailed if they dare to come out as whistleblowers in relation to any activities with regard to nuclear or weapons facilities. Australia ought to have a much more serious look at China, but it seems that the desires of BHP Billiton, the stock market, the whole sort of frenzy that's going on in financial circles is actually taking Australia's eye off the ball. Any country interested in global security, as Prime Minister Howard says he is, ought not to be supporting China's nuclear weapons program and that is precisely what Australia will be doing when it signs this treaty next week. ELEANOR HALL: Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne speaking to Gillian Bradford in Canberra. ***************************************************************** 52 AU ABC: Opposition wants Australian-led nuclear watchdog. 31/03/2006. The Federal Opposition says it wants to set up a world nuclear watchdog to be led by Australia. Labor's resources spokesman Martin Ferguson has proposed a diplomatic caucus of like-minded nations which would include nuclear suppliers and users. Mr Ferguson says the group could also be instrumental in strengthening the current Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "There have been a number of attempts to review it and they have failed," he said. "So we have to strengthen our leadership role as potentially the biggest exporting nation in the world, in guaranteeing it's safer than ever and that reflects the modern concerns of the 21st century not the 20th century." ***************************************************************** 53 Deseret News: New weapons tests worrisome [deseretnews.com] Thursday, March 30, 2006 Deseret Morning News editorial Gone are the days of open-air nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site. Yet news reports of an underground "subcritical test" conducted in late February give us pause. The test reportedly examined the behavior of plutonium as it was "strongly shocked by forces produced by chemical high explosives," according to a Nevada Test Site press release. That data, to be analyzed by supercomputers, will help predict how nuclear warheads will perform. All of this comes as Great Britain is secretly developing a new generation of nuclear warheads, according to press reports. British officials will say only that the development of a new weapons system is under consideration. The Bush administration says full-scale nuclear weapons testing is not currently planned at the Nevada Test Site but it is apparently keeping its options open, according to news reports. The United States has observed a moratorium on full-scale nuclear testing since 1992, but it has not signed the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Although the United States has demonstrated restraint for more than a decade, the door remains open. Cautions Steve Erickson, director of the Citizens Education Project in Utah and a longtime opponent of nuclear testing in Nevada, "We have never fielded a brand-new design for a warhead without nuclear testing it first." Linton F. Brooks, administrator of the National nuclear Security Administration, quoted in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, said only a major problem with the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile would prompt the resumption of full-scale testing at the Nevada Test Site. "You're certainly not going to see a return to testing for developing new weapons," Brooks said. The problem, of course, is the secrecy surrounding weapons development and testing. For obvious reasons of national defense, weapons development must be kept under wraps. That's understandable. But Nevadans and all of those downwind from the Nevada Test Site endured more than 1,000 nuclear detonations between 1951 and 1992. One hundred of the trials were atmospheric tests. Radiation from those tests drifted downwind, resulting in cancer. Congress later apologized and established a compensation fund for some downwind cancer victims, many of them Utahns. Because those deaths are not distant memories, Utahns are well within their rights to be skeptical about any weapons testing that occurs upwind. © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 54 TownOnline.com: UJP publicizes depleted uranium problem Lexington Minuteman > Arts &Lifestyle > RSS Feed Thursday, March 30, 2006 - Updated: 09:27 AM EST In September 2003, Army National Guard Specialist Gerard Matthew was sent home from Iraq because of a mysterious illness that came on suddenly. Every morning his face would swell and he had migraine headaches, blurred vision, blackouts and a burning sensation when urinating. Matthew tested positive for uranium contamination. Soon after he returned from Iraq, his wife became pregnant and on June 29, 2004, their daughter was born with a deformed right hand. The United States has been using depleted uranium munitions since the 1991 Gulf War and symptoms are now being reported by civilians, veterans and soldiers who may have come into contact with the uranium. Depleted uranium dust is spread from the battlefield by wind into the civilian community, seeping into the soil, contaminating ground water and the food chain. In addition to Matthews symptoms, there are reports of neurological abnormalities, kidney dysfunction, vision loss, chronic fatigue, muscle and joint pain, memory loss and more. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium enrichment process needed for nuclear plants. It has become a metal of choice for weapons manufacturers because it is cheaper to use than its counterpart, tungsten. On Thursday, March 30 at 7:30 p.m., the Lexington Justice and Peace Committee is sponsoring a community forum titled Uranium Depletion: The Effects on our Soldiers and the Iraqi People. The forum, to be held at Cary Memorial Library, 1874 Massachusetts Ave., will feature three very knowledgeable speakers. Michael Dathe and Jack Scotnicki are both Vietnam veterans and members of Veterans for Peace. Scotnicki has been involved with the depleted uranium weapons site in Concord and is a member of Citizens Research and Environmental Watch. Scotnicki and Gretel Monroe are both members of the Concord Grassroots Actions for Peace. Munroe is the author of Health Effects of Depleted Uranium and holds degrees in Demography and Human Ecology from the Harvard School of Public Health and in Human Nutrition from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. © Copyright of CNC and . ***************************************************************** 55 [du-list] Global uranium demand is now 175 million pounds a Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:20:05 -0800 The Daily Reckoning PRESENTS: Uranium's spot price has risen from US$7.10 per pound (at its absolute bottom) to a current $40.25, and Doug Casey has some thoughts on investing in the metal. Follow along as he explores the prospects of junior uranium companies... TROUBLE AHEAD FOR JUNIOR URANIUM? by Doug Casey As my readers know, I've been bullish on uranium for almost eight years now. And despite the fact that uranium has more than tripled, I continue to like it today almost as much as when I was a lone voice in the woods. Although the uranium spot price has risen from US$7.10 per pound (at its absolute bottom) to a current $40.25 - a 467% gain - I believe it has much further to run. According to Cameco, the world's largest uranium producer, global uranium demand is now 175 million pounds a year. Mine supply is only 110 million pounds yearly. This is a gaping shortfall, and insofar that it can take up to a decade for a discovery to turn into production and there are dozens of new nuclear power plants on the drawing boards all over the world, the shortfall will keep prices rising for years to come. The prospects for the metal itself are outstanding, but the best way to play uranium is through the shares of junior exploration companies because they offer leverage and therefore prospects for greater gains. The good ones, anyway. On that note, I have to say that - despite my bullishness - I'm concerned about the ever-growing number of junior uranium companies. Over the past two years, the number of companies looking for uranium has jumped over 700%. At last count, there are now about 145 such explorers. It's hard to arrive at an exact number since many companies only have uranium in their names. And others are actively exploring while still remaining primarily in other areas. This is a testament to how hot uranium is as a commodity. But it is also worrisome: with so many companies competing for the same number of investment dollars, can we as speculators still expect the same sort of gains that we've enjoyed over the past few years? Although I usually pay little mind to the short-term fluctuations of the markets, it seems worth investigating whether the junior uranium sector is sagging under the weight of so many new players. To get an idea, our resident snap technical analyst Merv Burak put together an index of 51 junior companies...all those that have been around for a year or more and that are primarily focused on uranium. The results are somewhat surprising. While the sector did cool somewhat during the last few months of 2005 - following a protracted run that began in July - the beginning of 2006 brought new life to the uraniums. Our index soared nearly 25% in the first two weeks of the year alone. That said, all resource markets were hot during that time. This in itself is not convincing evidence that the sector is still buoyant. Will the sector as a whole enjoy another up-leg of the kind we saw in mid-2005? More important, what's likely to happen over the next couple of years? While it's axiomatic that the higher stocks go, the less upside and the more risk they have, I remain extremely bullish. I suspect uranium is headed to over $100 in the next few years and, even at that level, it will only equal - in constant dollars - its peak in 1980. And the fundamentals now are much stronger than they were then. I'm concerned about the flood of new uranium companies out there, but we're looking at something comparable to what happened during the Internet boom; when the public becomes involved, the top is going to blow off this market. But as yet, the public barely even knows how to spell uranium; and they don't have a clue they can buy shares of companies that explore for it. My guess is that we're not even midway through this bull market, and when we enter the final stage, the chart above will no longer just be a gradual upward curve but a hyperbolic curve. Someplace between now and then I'll be a seller - but at the moment I remain a buyer. The question is: Which stocks to buy? I'm looking to concentrate the junior uranium portfolio for our Casey Energy Speculator on a modest handful of quality companies, the kind that have a real chance of making a discovery and creating value and aren't just relying on hype to move higher. In order for a company to make that list, they'll have to (a) have a management team with serious uranium experience; (b) own a serious property in just the right location; and (c) actually do some drilling to prove they have pounds in the ground (surprisingly, of the dozens of newly minted uranium companies now trading, less than 20 are actually undertaking any serious exploration work). If you like uranium like I like uranium and are looking to leverage your returns through investments in a junior uranium play, do yourself a favor and start getting a lot more selective in what you own. If you fail to do so, not only do you risk missing the next big leg-up, you risk throwing your portfolio into reverse. Regards, Doug Casey for The Daily Reckoning P.S. You don't have to go it on your own! I publish my favorite uranium and other junior energy stocks every month in the Casey Energy Speculator, a monthly newsletter helping subscribers looking to make 100%, 500%, even 1000% profits from early stage energy companies. For a limited time only, you can subscribe for just $79 a year and your subscription comes with a 6-month, 100% money-back guarantee. You take no risk to discover just how profitable the Casey Energy Speculator can be! Learn more now: Casey Energy Speculator http://www.caseyresearch.com/crpmkt/crpSolo.php? id=33&ppref=DRK025ED0306A Editor's Note: Doug Casey and his subscribers have made millions investing in under valued natural resource stocks. Doug is the author of Crisis Investing, which was #1 on the New York Times Best- Seller list for 26 weeks. His company, Casey Research, publishes the International Speculator - now in it's 26th year - one of the nation's most established and highly respected publications on gold, silver and other natural resource investments and the Casey Energy Speculator a monthly newsletter dedicated to energy opportunities with the very real potential of at least 100% growth within a year. To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 56 [NukeNet] DOE PREDICTS NUKE REACTIONS IN CASKS Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 14:21:47 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) November 26, 2003 DOE predicts nuke reactions in casks Nevadans worry about danger at Yucca By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com> LAS VEGAS SUN WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department predicts up to 60 uncontrolled nuclear reactions would take place inside nuclear waste casks stored at power plant sites should the casks corrode, according to a department study obtained by Nevada officials. After a review of the documents, state officials say they believe the same thing would happen at the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The state wants the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, an independent board set up by Congress to review the potential dump, to look into the matter. "We were amazed to learn, after finally obtaining some of the pertinent documents from the Department of Energy through the Freedom of Information Act, that DOE's own studies anticipate that, if the repository operates as is now planned, up to 60 nuclear criticalities may plausibly occur inside the mountain, and that (the) conditional probability of occurrence may be greater than one in 1,000 per year," Bob Loux, executive director of the state's Agency for Nuclear Projects wrote to board Chairman Michael Corradini. Criticalities are uncontrolled nuclear reactions that could occur if water -- or other liquids -- got inside the casks. It could start a mininuclear reaction inside the casks and cause a steam explosion, said Washington attorney Joe Egan, who represents the state on Yucca matters. The issue of water seepage at Yucca Mountain has been a critical point of debate over the planned nuclear waste repository. Scientists are still studying how water moves through the mountain. With or without water, the casks are eventually expected to corrode over a period of thousands of years. State officials expressed surprise that the report wasn't disclosed as part of the Yucca Mountain debate. They say Energy officials have said that the issue won't affect Yucca Mountain and state officials say this study shows that it does. But Allen Benson, a Yucca Mountain project spokesman in Nevada, said the documents the state received do not relate to Yucca Mountain but are from a 4-year-old report looking at on-site waste storage facilities at nuclear power plants. Benson said the department was glad Loux sent the letter to the board since it can now choose to review the matter, but that on-site storage and storage inside Yucca "are two different things." Benson said that since the report shows that criticalities can take place inside above-ground storage containers at the 103 nuclear power plants throughout the country, especially if water gets in them, it makes even more sense to store the waste in Yucca, which is in the desert. But state officials say the fact that the Energy Department acknowledges in this report that criticality is an issue is a huge threat. Egan and Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval filed petitions with the U.S. Court Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asking the court to include the FOIA documents in the court record. The state's major court arguments on the site will take place there on Jan. 14. Loux said the department only predicated an "extremely low probability of occurrence" of such reactions in the Final Environmental Impact Statement issued last year. He quotes the document's specific text to that effect in his letter to Corradini. State officials had Michael Thorne, a criticality expert, review the report and found that an expected 60 chain reaction events would occur throughout the lifetime of the repository since the department anticipates the waste packages will degrade over time. "A criticality occurring in the repository could severely compromise the entire facility, vastly increasing radionuclide releases and making waste packages irretrievable," Loux wrote. The department documents do not have a timeline for the events to occur, according to the letter. "These are not nuclear explosions," Egan said. "We are not trying to scare anyone ... we are not saying this is going to happen, but DOE's own analysis notes it was a nonspeculative scenario." But if the casks were to burst, the radioactive material would go with it. "It's literally a dirty bomb, a conventional explosion with radioactive materials," Egan said. "Their maximum accident scenario in transport is $18 billion in clean-up (costs) and 44 early fatalities, and that's with a small puff of radiation not an explosion -- they call it a 'violent event' which is a euphemism for explosion," Egan said. --------------- BODY BURDEN -- HUMAN CONTAMINATION http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden/es.php Human Breast Milk Toxic Study http://www.sundayherald.com/print37667 Radiation & Public Health http://www.radiation.org/index.html RADIATION BIOLOGICAL EFFECT--DR. BERTELL http://www.ratical.com/radiation/NRBE/NRadBioEffects.html ---------------- (Posted for educational and research purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107). _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 57 Las Vegas SUN: Key senator pushes Bush administration on Yucca Mountain bill By ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - A key senator said Thursday that he'll likely introduce his own bill if the Bush administration doesn't soon unveil much-anticipated legislation to smooth development of a national nuclear waste dump in Nevada. Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he's repeatedly offered to carry the administration bill, which has been promised for months. The legislation is expected to guarantee a source of funding for the Yucca Mountain project and address other problems that have hampered development of a permanent, underground repository for highly radioactive waste. "We must see what it is," Domenici said at a hearing of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water, which he chairs. "If something doesn't arrive soon, I will very likely introduce my own bill," his written testimony said. After the hearing Domenici refused to say what might be in his bill. Other proposals said to be under consideration for the administration's legislation would withdraw public land around the property to create a permanent site for the dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas and expand its capacity beyond 77,000 tons. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said in early March that the bill would be done within the month. Yucca Mountain was approved by Congress in 2002 to hold the nation's nuclear waste but has been delayed by political opposition - including from home-state Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. - controversies over quality controls and a court-ordered rewrite of radiation protection standards. It's now not expected to open until after 2012, and some lawmakers are increasingly irritated over the delays. Paul Golan, acting director of the Energy Department office that oversees Yucca Mountain, declined after the hearing to offer more details on timing or content of the bill. Domenici also said that given the delays, the administration's 2007 budget request for Yucca Mountain - $544 million - was too high. But he said he'd push to meet the administration's $250 million request for a program to resume commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing. Some House members have voiced concerns that reprocessing might shift the focus away from storage at Yucca Mountain. Reid said at the hearing that the Energy Department should accept that the dump project isn't going forward and instead focus on keeping nuclear waste in dry casks at the reactor sites where it's now collecting. He and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., have offered legislation to do that. "It is time we addressed the problem at hand - the safe storage of spent nuclear fuel - and stopped pouring taxpayers' money down the drain on a project that could endanger all of our citizens," said Reid, the top Democrat on the spending subcommittee. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 58 NEWS.com.au: Labor to spell out uranium policy - Breaking News 24/7 - From: AAP March 31, 2006 FEDERAL Labor will spell out its approach to uranium exports at a mining summit in Adelaide today. Opposition resources spokesman Martin Ferguson will address a uranium industry conference this morning as debate rages within the party over whether to scrap its long-standing three-mines policy. Three uranium mines currently operate in Australia - Ranger in the Northern Territory and Olympic Dam and Beverley in South Australia. Mr Ferguson is expected to argue Australian uranium exports are crucial to solving the energy crisis and battling climate change. But stronger safeguards and global agreements are needed to ensure uranium is only used for peaceful means. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley says he stands by the current policy but any change to Labor's limit on the number of uranium mines is a matter for next year's national conference. Prime Minister John Howard is expected to sign a deal with China next week which will open the door to future uranium sales and put pressure on Labor state governments to allow more uranium mines. The Australian Greens say any safeguards will be pointless as nations such as China will inevitably use the uranium for nuclear weapons. Search for more stories on this topic on Newstext, our news archive service. ***************************************************************** 59 Australian: Australia 'should take nuclear waste' [March 31, 2006] Source: AAP AUSTRALIA should ignore global misinformation about nuclear energy and offer to store the world's nuclear waste, an expert has told a uranium industry conference. Storing nuclear waste in the geologically stable Australian outback was the only international solution to ensure the safety of both Australia and the world, said nuclear physicist Geoff Hudson. Dr Hudson, from the University of Melbourne, said there was no sound reason for Australia "not to do the world a favour". "From our own self interest first, it is safer for Australia if we store world nuclear waste here than have it sitting somewhere else over a fault line where the risk of accident and biosphere release is high," he said. "Worldwide nuclear waste to date is 200,000 tonnes in total but it is dense and could all be stored on just a few hectares of land of around 20 metres high. "This is minuscule." Dr Hudson said there were only a handful of potential storage sites around the world and Australia outperformed all when factors of sovereign stability, geographic stability and access were taken into account. "We offer the stable geographic plates, it only needs one small calm port and the shipments would be confined to single ship visits," he said. Australia would also benefit economically with the potential to earn as much as $20 billion over the next 10 to 15 years. "The nuclear industry in the US already pays 0.1 cents per kilowatt hour to fund disposal measures, so the potential revenue stream is already being generated," Dr Hudson said. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 60 Sydney Morning Herald: More flak for WA's ban on uranium smh.com.au By Barry FitzGerald March 31, 2006 PRESSURE continues to build on the West Australian Labor Government to lift its ban on development of the state's uranium deposits. The ban locked up resources that could generate $15 billion in revenue at current boom prices, the 2006 Uranium Conference in Adelaide was told yesterday. Nova Energy's chairman, Tim Sugden, said his group's Wiluna uranium deposit in central WA could generate $1 billion in revenue at current prices. "We believe you could multiply that figure by 15 times if all the potential projects in Western Australia could be developed," Mr Sugden said. Despite the recent confirmation by WA's new Premier, Alan Carpenter, that the ban would remain, Mr Sugden predicted it would be overturned within two years. WA's ban on uranium mining, and federal Labor's three-mines policy, are at odds with the South Australian Labor Government's encouragement of the uranium industry. SA's Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Paul Holloway, told the conference the policy of preventing the development of new uranium mines should be changed. "The ALP's uranium policy is certainly an anachronism," Mr Holloway said. "The current policy has done well for South Australia in assisting the development of Olympic Dam and Beverley mines. "But now is the time for a change in policy to allow South Australia's competitive advantage in uranium to come to the fore." The Federal Resources Minister, Ian Macfarlane, has previously attacked the WA Government for locking up the state's uranium resources. Around the world uranium was coming in from the cold, said John Hartwell, the head of resources at the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, in a speech delivered on Mr Macfarlane's behalf. He said developing economies such as China were eager to buy uranium because they considered nuclear energy reliable and clean. But for many Australians, uranium remained mysterious. It was up to the industry to enter the debate and demonstrate the benefits uranium mining could bring. Next week Australia and China are to sign a bilateral uranium safeguards agreement. | | Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 61 SignOnSanDiego.com: Military -- Water quality board orders Marines to fix landfill problems By Rick Rogers UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER March 30, 2006 Late last year, water regulators suggested that Las Pulgas Landfill at Camp Pendleton was leaking high levels of pollutants due to shoddy construction. LAURA EMBRY / Union-Tribune Leachate, the liquid that filters through garbage, is being stored in bladders at the Las Pulgas Landfill at Camp Pendleton. Now the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has ordered the base to fix what one of the board's inspectors calls the worst landfill failure of its kind in county history. While repair costs for the dump are unknown, taxpayers likely will pay for what appear to be engineering errors that have forced the $3.2 million landfill to close. There has never been a cleanup order in this county that has dealt with construction deficiencies like what we've seen at Las Pulgas, said John Odermatt, a senior engineering geologist for the water board. I have never seen an engineering-related problem this large at another landfill. The most serious troubles have been the failure of a synthetic liner and the release of hundreds of thousands of gallons of contaminated leachate, the liquid that filters through garbage. The Marines are storing about 280,000 gallons of leachate in large bladders and a metal tank at the dump. Some of that liquid has concentrations of zinc and nickel high enough to qualify it as hazardous waste. Much of the leachate is also laced with tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen. Base officials have not pinpointed the origin of the tritium, but have listed road signs and smoke detectors dumped at Las Pulgas as possible sources. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is working with Camp Pendleton on ways to dispose of the tritium, which is also produced by nuclear reactors and atomic detonations. Camp Pendleton commanders acknowledge that cracks in the exposed slopes of the liner have allowed leaks to occur. But they believe the sides are sound now and hold out hope that the rest of the liner is intact. A split bottom could force the Marines to remove 40,000 tons of garbage before they can fix the problem. Pending tests will determine if the liner's bottom is ruptured. The liner is not a completely defined problem, said Tracy Sahagun, who works on environmental issues at Camp Pendleton. Edmund Rogers, facilities manager for the base, said removing the garbage would be a worst-case scenario. The 17-acre landfill opened in 1999, but closed in 2003 after leachate gushed from it during heavy rains. In a 32-page cleanup and abatement order sent to Camp Pendleton in late January, inspectors for the water board said the landfill's liner was not properly constructed. The report also listed engineering inconsistencies. The landfill was designed on paper one way but apparently built another way. For example, the builders created a liner system with rocks larger than those specified in the blueprint. These bigger rocks may have caused holes and rips in the liner, the water board said. Scrupulous attention to engineering details mattered, Odermatt said, because the landfill was built with a relatively thin liner. While this option saved construction dollars, it also made the liner more prone to holes and tears. Somewhere between design and construction, Odermatt said, things got fouled up. The water board's actions against Las Pulgas have prompted other contractors building landfills in the county to propose using thicker liners. What happened at Las Pulgas has put other contractors on notice, Odermatt said. The Navy, which contracted and supervised construction of Las Pulgas Landfill for the Marine Corps, is investigating what went wrong. It has not decided whether to seek financial damages from the builders, said Lee Saunders of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest in San Diego. Camp Pendleton has until Dec. 31 to submit its repair plan to the water board, which has insisted on daily reports and visual images of the repair work. The way the order is written, said Odermatt, (Camp Pendleton has) to fix the defects, start over or come up with another acceptable alternative. I am telling the Marine Corps they are back to square one on this project. Problems at the landfill emerged early during its construction, according to the water board's enforcement records. In the late 1990s, the Marines wanted to add a 17-acre section to the 39-acre Las Pulgas landfill. On May 24, 1999, contractors finished installing a liner to keep contaminants from seeping into the ground. The Marine Corps failed to submit an inspection report that summer. Then an incomplete report was submitted in December. In April 2003, the water board cited Camp Pendleton for not controlling erosion and runoff from the landfill. By year's end, the board's inspectors began suggesting that the Las Pulgas liner was damaged  a contention they have repeated to base officials. Since February 2005, Camp Pendleton has been cited four times over the leaking landfill. The landfill isn't the only environmental challenge facing Camp Pendleton. In September, the Marines announced that the base's southern water system was contaminated with higher-than-permitted levels of lead. Free medical screenings, bottled water and tips for minimizing exposure to lead have been offered to the system's nearly 40,000 customers. Additionally, the Corps has tested water samples from various sites on base and found no further contamination. The base is installing a system to coat the water pipes with a phosophate so lead won't leach into the drinking water. Rick Rogers: (760) 476-8212; rick.rogers@uniontrib.com ***************************************************************** 62 DOE: DOE Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Receives EPA Recertification March 29, 2006 CARLSBAD, NM  The U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) Carlsbad Field Office today reached a significant milestone when its Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) was recertified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This decision indicates that after a thorough evaluation of the physical state and performance of the facility, the WIPP meets EPA regulatory requirements for facilities that dispose of transuranic waste. The waste facility recertification process occurs every five years and is directed by Congress in the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA). EPAs recertification reinforces the important mission of WIPP to safely dispose of defense-generated transuranic waste from across the nation, said James Rispoli, DOEs Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management. We appreciate EPAs thorough review and concurrence that WIPP continues to meet all regulatory performance requirements. WIPP remains the cornerstone of DOEs waste management program. This is the first recertification decision since the first certification was issued in May 1998. EPA recertification verifies the sites continued compliance with federal disposal regulations outlined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 191 and is based on various independent technical analyses, public comments, and a thorough review of facility information submitted by DOE. The Carlsbad office submitted its compliance recertification application to EPA on March 26, 2004, exactly five years after the first waste was received at WIPP. Through technical and scientific analyses detailed in the application, DOE demonstrated that the WIPP will continue to safely isolate transuranic waste from the human environment for at least 10,000 years. The recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant falls three days after the seventh anniversary of disposal operations began, said CBFO Manager Dave Moody. EPAs decision is further evidence of the great work that WIPP does and reinforces the fact that the WIPP program is sound and operates safely, efficiently and in a compliant manner. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, located 26 miles outside of Carlsbad, N.M., is a U.S. Department of Energy repository designed to isolate defense-related transuranic waste safely from the public and the environment. Waste temporarily stored at sites around the country is shipped to WIPP and permanently disposed in rooms mined out of an ancient salt formation 2,150 feet below the surface. Media contact(s): Craig Stevens, (202) 586-4940 [ ] U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 | ***************************************************************** 63 Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Is Tallevast safety really a done deal? Regarding the recent letter from Lockheed Martin representative Gail Rymer: I am not questioning Lockheed Martin taking on the responsibility of the clean-up in Tallevast; that's an admirable gesture. However, my concern is when/how did the company and the responsible governmental agencies (alluded to in the letter) determine that the health of the Tallevast community has not been compromised or will not be compromised? How many health tests/assessments have been conducted? When were they conducted? Who was assess- ed? My family only received one test, and that was for beryllium sensitivity, which was a collaborative effort conducted by the Manatee County Health Department and the Tallevast FOCUS group. Are her claims based on that one test? It's still the same story that the Tallevast community has heard for the last three years. We have heard how Lockheed Martin has worked to provide the safest means of testing the area in order to define the plume. To my knowledge, the full extent of the plume has not yet been determined. Lockheed Martin's Web site, with information on how the soil and ground water are tested, states that responsible government agencies and Lockheed Martin have determined that the levels are well below any level that would cause concern for health risk. What about the residual and cumulative effects, and the possibility of future exposure at any level? Lockheed Martin and the Florida Department of Health should provide each community member with a certified statement that affirms that we are in no way affected by the plume and its contaminants, with explicit detail as to how this was determined, testing methodology and the names of those making the claims. Would those who are so cavalier about our health be willing to trade homes? My family can be packed and ready to move within 24 hours. Brenda Pinckney Tallevast Last modified: March 30. 2006 12:00AM ***************************************************************** 64 Carlsbad Current Argus: WIPP site gets EPA recertification By Victoria Parker-Stevens Current-Argus Staff Writer Mar 30, 2006, 06:00 am CARLSBAD -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recertified the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Wednesday, within days of the seventh anniversary of the first waste shipment. "We appreciate EPA's thorough review and concurrence that WIPP continues to meet all regulatory performance requirements," said James Rispoli, federal Energy Department assistant secretary for environmental management, in a news release. "WIPP remains the cornerstone of DOE's waste management program." The EPA certified WIPP in 1998, and that decision was not reconsidered. Instead, every five years, as required by Congress, WIPP is recertified to ensure it continues to meet federal disposal regulations. The Energy Department's Carlsbad Field Office submitted its application for recertification five years after the first waste shipment was received. The Energy Department needed to demonstrate that WIPP would continue to safely isolate transuranic waste from the human environment for at least 10,000 years. New Energy Department calculations were considered, including data from monitoring, experiments and five years of operations. After the submittal, the EPA requested additional information until the agency determined the application was complete. The EPA then had six months to use that information, independent technical analyses and public comments to decide whether to recertify the facility. "We are really pleased with this," said Dave Moody, CBFO manager. "It reflects tremendous effort on the part of our team, which involves both Sandia and Los Alamos national laboratories and the technical assistance contractor, as well as Washington TRU Solutions. "I have nothing but praise for the professionalism of all parties involved," he said. "We went through a number of technical issues that required a lot of documentation, and we also went through public meetings. All the way through that process there was a sense of purpose." The submittal ended up being 10,000 pages long, Moody said, noting that number was larger than was expected when the process began. He said while there weren't any surprises during the process, the level of detail and thus the amount of time required came close. "The nice thing is that (WIPP) was evaluated in extremely fine detail. Nothing was glossed over. It really provides a vote of confidence," he said. "It was clear we were still within (regulatory) bounds." New Mexico congressmen were also pleased with the announcement. "This recertification indicates that the WIPP program is working well. It is undoubtedly a bright spot for DOE in terms of trying to address the critical waste issues facing the country," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., in a news release. "Recertification is a credit to good management and everyone in the Carlsbad area that supports WIPP." "I congratulate WIPP for achieving this milestone," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., in a release. "I've always been a strong proponent of the view that independent oversight of WIPP strengthens the project and enhances the trust and confidence of New Mexicans that the wastes being disposed of in WIPP are being handled appropriately for the long term." "WIPP continues to set the standard for excellence for the U.S. Department of Energy's waste disposal programs," said Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., in a release. "Together with the LES (uranium enrichment) plant in Hobbs, WIPP is also helping define (southeastern) New Mexico as a center for nuclear expertise -- providing a critical engine for economic development while offering our nation a viable source of alternative energy," he said. 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 65 Greenpeace: Nuclear waste trains - terror targets on wheels Choose Clean Energy - News [Magnox nuclear flask en route to Sellafield for storage] 29-03-2006 Photograph: A Magnox nuclear flask aboard a nuclear train en route to Sellafield for storage A terrorist attack on a train carrying waste nuclear materials across Britain could spread lethal radioactivity across an area of 100 sq kilometres, and result in the deaths of up to 8,000 people, according to a new report released this week. Spent nuclear fuel is routinely transported by train from nine nuclear power stations around the country to the Sellafield storage facility in Cumbria. Typically these journeys take place once a week from each reactor - at the same time and on the same lines as regular passenger and freight trains. 'Report into the risks of nuclear transportation in the UK', published this week by nuclear engineers John Large &Associates, investigates the potential threat that a terrorist attack or serious accident might pose to one of these consignments. Their findings do not make comfortable reading either for train-travelling public, the government, or the nuclear industry. Vulnerability to terrorism The report concludes that the technology and resources needed to mount a successful attack are well within the capabilities of determined terrorists, because: + the rail network along which the spent fuel flasks travel is virtually impossible to defend with absolute certainty; + nuclear trains carry no apparent extra security, and they travel regular, timetabled routes; + the transportation flasks could easily be punctured by an armoured piercing explosive round. This kind of attack, especially if followed by a fierce fire within the confines of a tunnel, would cause a very significant radioactive release to the environment; + numerous portable anti-tank weapons, capable of being handled by one or two individuals, are capable of breaching flask walls. Inadequate testing of nuclear flasks Dr Large is also highly critical of accident simulation tests performed on the flasks, which show that not only are they unlikely to survive a serious fire or collision intact, but that none have ever been tested under sabotage scenarios: + flasks are dropped from a height of 9m onto solid floor, simulating an impact velocity of 30 miles per hour - clearly inadequate when trains routinely travel over bridges 25m high at speeds of up to 50 mph; + In 1998 it was revealed that a type of flask regularly in use had failed 3 successive drop tests earlier in that year; + flasks are fire-tested to 800 degrees C for 30 minutes, but tunnel fires can reach much higher temperatures for longer periods. In 1984 a railway petrol tanker fire in the Summit tunnel, near Manchester, burned for over 2 days reaching temperatures of 8000 degrees C. Many of the nuclear train routes travel through long tunnels close to densely populated urban areas. These include Primrose Hill and Hampstead Heath in London; Wickwar near Bristol; Craiglockhart Junction in Edinburgh, and Sevenoaks in Kent. If any of these sites were targeted then thousands of people would be exposed to dangerous radiation leaks, and as many as 8,000 people could die of radiation-induced cancers over subsequent years. To examine just one of these worst case scenarios considered by Dr Large in more detail: if a nuclear train were attacked inside London's Hampstead Heath tunnel, then the Royal Free Hospital and two primary schools (all less that 250m away) would be immediately affected; local residents from as far away as Finchley and Westminster would need to be evacuated; while across the rest of the capital hundreds of thousands of people would have to shelter indoors from the radioactive plume. In reality, there is no emergency plan in place to cope with such a large-scale evacuation. Greenpeace is currently seeking to challenge the government over the legality of this appalling state of affairs. Dr Large predicts that "The psychological, societal and economic impacts on Britain would be catastrophic - in a city like London, economic activity would cease in the area contaminated by the plume, no-go areas would be created inhibiting the movement of people and transport systems, tourism would collapse, and parts of the city could be uninhabitable for years unless effective decontamination was completed - which will almost certainly be at great cost and health detriment to the personnel involved. In London this cost is estimated at £8.5bn." These inherent potential dangers are intensified by the knowledge that the terrorists who bombed London last July had reportedly been gathering detailed information about nuclear installations and radioactive materials in the months before they struck. Given the government's own well publicised fears that we will almost certainly face further terrorist attacks, it's hard to see how they can justify transporting nuclear waste around Britain with such minimal protection. Not only that, but they are seriously considering building a new series of nuclear plants as part of the current Energy Review - plants which would produce even more intensely concentrated and dangerous radioactive wastes than those which are currently in production. The United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), who take a high-profile role in monitoring compliance with international safeguards, identify transport as the most vulnerable area of nuclear security. Can this possibly make sense? Not according to Dr Large, an independent scientist who has previously used his nuclear expertise both to advise the Royal Navy and to help Russia raise the stricken Kursk nuclear submarine. He is convinced that an urgent review of current transport procedures is necessary: "Movement of nuclear materials is inherently risky both in terms of severe accident and terrorist attack. At an early stage of my research it became obvious just how vulnerable these spent fuel flasks are. I believe that open publication of the review is fully justified because by putting this information in the open the Government must now, surely, act to protect the public. This means transportation of intensely radioactive spent fuel must cease." Click hereto download a copy of the report. Are nuclear trains passing by your back door? Take a look at our map of nuclear transport routes across the UK and find out... See a map of nuclear transport routes across London. (Adobe PDF file) Download a copy of the Large report here. The government must take bold and effective action to combat climate change, but nuclear power is not the answer. Nuclear power is expensive, unreliable, commercially unviable and vulnerable to terrorist attack. Most importantly, it will still fail to significantly cut CO2 emissions within the necessary time frame. Make your voice heard now. Write to your MP and state your opposition to nuclear power and support for renewable energy and energy efficiency as the cheapest, safest, most effective solution to climate change. ***************************************************************** 66 Reno News and Review: United States on trial March 30, 2006 Shoshone tribes hauled the United States before a United Nations panel and won By Dennis Myers Reno attorney Robert Hager argued a case for Western Shoshone tribes before a United Nations anti-racism panel in Geneva. Photo By David Robert A judicial panel of the United Nations has issued a ruling supporting the Western Shoshone against the United States government. The ruling called on the United States to freeze disputed land issues in their tracks and enter into negotiations with the tribes instead of continuing to rely on a half-century old Indian Claims Commission decision. What that ruling means is uncertain, particularly since the only way to enforce it is to rely on the government to fulfill its obligations under international law. "It's groundbreaking in terms of the relief that this committee granted," said Reno attorney Robert Hager, who argued the case in Switzerland before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.Hager represented Western Shoshone National Council, the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe (in the Death Valley region), the Winnemucca Indian Colony and the Yomba Shoshone in California. The U.S. government didn't participate in the case, telling the committee that the fast-track procedure the U.N. committee used was not appropriate and that the committee was not the proper forum for the case. The case had its roots in the arrival of whites in the West, but its more recent origins date back to the post-World War II years when the U.S. Congress, made uncomfortable by analogies between the Third Reich's treatment of the Jews and U.S. treatment of Native Americans, established the Indian Claims Commission. The commission was supposed to go back through history and satisfy the injustices that tribes had endured through U.S. history. Over a period of 33 years, it dispensed a half-billion dollars in settlements. The Western Shoshone Nation entered its claim based on the Ruby Valley Treaty signed on Oct. 1, 1863, which recognized the boundaries of Nation territory--60 million acres in four states--and limited non-tribal use of that territory. The Claims Commission, in a process that the Shoshone said failed to provide due process of law, recognized that the way of life of the tribe had been disrupted by "the acquisition, disposition or taking of their lands by the United States" and provided compensation for the tribe's loss of land instead of returning the land. More than once, the United States has tried to pay the award to tribal members, most recently through a bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, but it has met resistance from members of the tribe, some of whom declined to cash the checks. Some of the land is now heavily developed by non-native people, but a lot of it is not. The U.N. panel chose to handle the case on an expedited basis, over the objections of the U.S. government, because it believed that some of the land was threatened by "transfer to multinational extractive industries and energy developers ... reinvigorated federal efforts to open a nuclear waste repository at the Yucca Mountain; the alleged use of explosives and open pit gold mining activities on Mont [Mount] Tenabo and Horse Canyon; and the alleged issuance of geothermal energy leases at, or near, host springs, and the processing of further applications to that end." Another reason for the fast-track process, the panel said, was the "conduct and/or planning of all such activities without consultation with and despite protests of the Western Shoshone people." It also expressed concern about renewed nuclear testing on the disputed land. The Associated Press in Geneva reported that the U.N. body had "said it had evidence the U.S. government was working with industry to ride roughshod over the rights of an American Indian tribe," but that's not what the decision said. It reported such allegations and, in the absence of a defense by the U.S. government, acted on the assumption that the allegations were true. The decision read, "Under its early warning and urgent action procedure, the Committee considered the situation of the Western Shoshone indigenous peoples in the United States and urged the State party [the United States] to take immediate action to initiate a dialogue with the representatives of the Western Shoshone peoples; to freeze any plans to privatize Western Shoshone ancestral lands for transfer to multinational extractive industries and energy developer[s]; and to desist from all activities or plans concerning the ancestral lands of Western Shoshone or in relation to their natural resources, which were being carried out without consultation with and despite protests of the Western Shoshone peoples." International law is a nebulous concept that often seems to be applied only against small nations by large ones. Those large nations have a history of ignoring findings against themselves while insisting on rigid enforcement of rulings that favor them. The U.S. government, for instance, refused to abide by a 1986 World Court ruling that said the United States acted illegally by trying to overthrow the government of Nicaragua (as in the tribal case, the United States said the Court lacked jurisdiction). But the United States was quick to turn to the World Court in 1979 for an order for the release of U.S. embassy employees held by Iran. In this case, Hager says, "The United States is a party to the agreement ... guaranteeing the protection of human rights. ... And so, having made the promise to be bound by the human rights rules that are enforced by the decisions of those organizations, we would hope that the United States would fulfill its obligation, make good on its promise." © Copyright 2006 Chico Community Publishing, Inc. March 30, 2006 ***************************************************************** 67 Xinhua: Japan's 1st nuclear reprocessing plant to begin trial operation www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-03-30 11:19:03 TOKYO, March 30 (Xinhua) -- Japan's first nuclear reprocessing plant, run by the Nuclear Fuel Ltd., will begin a test run on Friday, local media report Thursday. The start of a test run of the plant, which will extract plutonium and uranium from spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing, represents a major step forward in Japan's attempt to establish a nuclear fuel reprocessing cycle centering on the so-called pluthermal method, Kyodo News said. The operator of the plant has reached a safety agreement with Aomori Prefecture and the host village, and plans to conclude similar agreements with surrounding municipalities on Friday before the trial operation begins later in the day, reports said, quoting plant operator. The plant aims to start full operations in August 2007 after about 14 years of construction. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 68 UPI: Bacteria may convert uranium contamination United Press International - NewsTrack - 3/30/2006 6:02:00 PM -0500 ATLANTA, March 30 (UPI) -- Georgia Institute of Technology scientists have discovered some bacteria found in the soil and subsurface can control uranium radiation contamination. The GIT researchers say they determined the bacteria release phosphate that converts uranium contamination into an insoluble and immobile form. The researchers report promising results using bacterial species from three genera isolated from subsurface soils collected at a U.S. Department of Energy Field Research Center site in Oak Ridge, Tenn. The scientists conducted preliminary screenings of many bacterial isolates and found several candidate strains that released inorganic phosphate after hydrolyzing an organo-phosphate provided them. Research team member Melanie Beazley, a Ph.D. student in the Georgia Tech School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, presented preliminary study findings Thursday in Atlanta during the 231st American Chemical Society's national meeting. © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 69 Morris Daily Herald: Exelon has plan for tritium removal Serving The Greater Grundy County Area Email Us at: news@morrisdailyherald.com 3/30/2006 4:06:00 PM Glasgow, Madigan reviewing program By Jo Ann Hustis Herald Writer JOLIET – Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan are reviewing a tritiated water removal plan for Braidwood Generating Station. “We have seen the plan, and there are questions as to the appropriateness and efficiency that we need to have answered,” he said today. “We are not going to go forward on any remediation plan until we are certain it is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of those people who live in that area.” Glasgow said the review was in advance of a community meeting by Exelon Nuclear, Braidwood Station’s owner, to inform the public about the utility’s recently determined program to remove tritium from groundwater near the plant. The meeting is Thursday, April 6, at Exelon’s Training Center, 36400 S. Essex Road, Wilmington. Hours are 4 to 8 p.m. Tritium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that emits a very low level of radiation, and is found in more-concentrated levels in water used in nuclear generating stations. Madigan and Glasgow filed an eight-count civil lawsuit March 16 in federal court in Chicago citing Braidwood Station for eight releases of tritium-tainted water at the plant. The tritiated plume has since spread northward from the station. Braidwood Station spokesman Neal Miller said today Exelon could begin the clean-up plan in the next two to three weeks, depending on when the construction permit is issued. The removal process could take 12 months or longer to complete, he noted in a prepared news release. The plan calls for pumping about seven feet of water from the pond adjacent to plant property near the center of the contaminated area. Lowering the water level to about half of the pond’s depth at its deepest point will let the adjacent groundwater flow toward the pond. Pumping will continue to maintain a water level in the pond that maximizes as much as possible the flow of tritiated water into the pond. Glasgow said today Exelon has applied to Will County for a permit to run a pipeline under a county road to feed tritiated groundwater into the pond. “Before anything is done to construct this pipeline, our intent is to meet with the people who live there and explain what is being done, and assure them the appropriate steps are being taken,” he said. Up to eight tritium spills have been reported at Braidwood Station since 1996. At least seven of the incidenst reportedly resulted from leaks in the 4.5-mile underground discharge pipeline from the station to the Kankakee River. About six million gallons of tritiated water seeped into the groundwater from the blow down pipe during the incidents, which began in 1996, but were not made public until December 2005. The tritiated water plume has since spread north outside the station’s boundaries. The pipe is located in the Smiley Road area where a number of homes are sited. Exelon stopped funneling tritiated water into the blow down pipe last November. Since then, outside experts fully inspected the pipe to ensure there are no breaks or leaks. In addition, each of the vacuum breaker valves was recently inspected to ensure proper sealing of the internal components to prevent leakage. Miller said in a prepared news release the tritiated water pumped from the pond will be sent down the discharge pipe to the Kankakee River. He said only very low concentrations of tritium will be put through the pipe. He also said tritiated water from the pond will quickly dilute to below the level of detectability, which is about 200 picocuries of tritium per liter of water. The U.S. EPA has said water containing up to 20,000 picocuries of tritium per liter is safe to drink. Miller said a number of steps were taken to ensure reliability of the pipe, such as stepped-up monitoring and maintenance of the system. These features include an immediate alert of any leakage from the vacuum breaker valves. Exelon would then immediately stop discharging tritiated water into the pipe until the leak is fixed. Exelon also will continue weekly sampling of selected wells, Miller said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and independent experts hired by Exelon have said the tritium in the groundwater is not impacting human health or safety. The Illinois Department of Public Health noted tritium levels in private wells were not a public health and safety hazard. Miller said one private drinking well near Braidwood Station had tritium above detectable levels, but was well within federal safe drinking water standards. Morris Daily Herald • 1804 N. Division St. • Morris, Illinois 60450 (815) 942-3221 • (800) 215-9778 Software © 1998-2006 1up! ***************************************************************** 70 AU ABC: Martin quiet as uranium debate rages. 30/03/2006. ABC News Online The Northern Territory Chief Minister has resisted pressure to indicate whether she would support a change in Labor's no new uranium mines policy. With Australia on the brink of signing a deal to supply uranium to China, the Northern Territory Opposition Leader, Jodeen Carney, says mud is clearer than Territory Labor's position on uranium. "Why is it that you support uranium exploration, but you do not support a uranium mine," she said. Clare Martin describes uranium mining as a complex issue for the Labor Party. "My sense is that at the next party conference, Labor will be looking at the no new mine policy and I think the debate will be a very vigorous one," she said. Ms Martin will not reveal if she would side with colleagues like the South Australian Premier, Mike Rann, who want the policy scrapped to make way for new uranium mines. ***************************************************************** 71 AU ABC: PM - ALP shifts on uranium policy PM - Thursday, 30 March , 2006 18:18:00 Reporter: Gillian Bradford MARK COLVIN: Opinion at the top of the Federal Labor Party appears to be swinging away from the party's long-held opposition to allowing new uranium mines. The Federal Government is poised to sign a new uranium export deal with China, a deal which could be worth billions of dollars. Tomorrow, at a Uranium Industry Conference in Adelaide, Labor's Resources Spokesman Martin Ferguson is expected to call on his party to move on from the three mines policy - a platform which he described today as "half pregnant". From Canberra, Gillian Bradford reports. GILLIAN BRADFORD: Federal Labor's policy not to allow any new uranium mines stretches back to the days of Bob Hawke. But Labor's Martin Ferguson says that policy now makes no sense, when existing mines like Olympic Dam in South Australia are allowed to increase production at a rate of knots. MARTIN FERGUSON: The Labor Party, I think, has got to front up to this issue. The existing Labor Party policy almost says we're half pregnant on uranium, we can have some mines but not others. GILLIAN BRADFORD: Still some, like the left's Senator George Campbell, are far from convinced of the need for change. GEORGE CAMPBELL: I think there's a lot of concerns about the promotion of the sale of uranium, to both China and India. It needs to be thought out much more carefully. And I don't think we have anywhere near the safeguards in place that would give us some comfort in doing that, and until such time as we do, I think we ought to leave it in the ground. GILLIAN BRADFORD: Tomorrow, Martin Ferguson will address a uranium industry conference in Adelaide. The sector is booming, and it's clear future demand from countries like China will be huge. South Australia's Labor Premier wants the Federal party to drop its no new mines policy, and Martin Ferguson is sympathetic. MARTIN FERGUSON: But under the existing policy we will, by 2013, with the expansion of Olympic Dam, be potentially the biggest uranium export nation in the world, with the biggest mine in the world. It's hard to say you cannot have another mine. The Labor Party's got to be about a policy which potentially permits more uranium mining in Australia, but also works internationally with like-minded countries to guarantee that any uranium sold from Australia or any other country is only used for peaceful purposes, such as in nuclear power. GILLIAN BRADFORD: Even the Democrats leader Lyn Allison says the debate has moved on from trying to block any new mines, and is more about how Australia manages its uranium exports. LYN ALLISON: I think the big decision was made about uranium mining when Roxby Downs was determined to be expanded fourfold. That will massively increase mining activity in uranium and production. So, in a way, whilst the Democrats are opposed to uranium mining, that is a far more significant decision than opening up, say, another small mine somewhere. GILLIAN BRADFORD: The Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao arrives in Australia this weekend, with uranium exports the top of his agenda. China currently produces most of its energy needs from coal, but is moving to build more than a dozen nuclear power stations. Australia, with 40 per cent of the world's uranium reserves, is a friend it needs, and a deal to allow China access to both exports, and the ability to invest directly in mines, is likely to be formalised next week. The Prime Minister, speaking today. JOHN HOWARD: If it were to happen it would be strictly in accordance with the safeguards rules that were established a long time ago, and I notice there was some talk about exploration, exploitation, investment in Australia, etc. Anything on that front would have to be in accordance with our existing foreign investment policy. MARK COLVIN: The Prime Minister ending Gillian Bradford's report. ***************************************************************** 72 AU ABC: Govt has picked nuclear dump site: NT Senator. 31/03/2006. ABC News Online Northern Territory Labor Senator Trish Crossin says the Federal Government has already chosen a site for its controversial radioactive waste dump. The Commonwealth is considering three territory sites for the facility, two in central Australia, and one near Katherine. Senator Crossin says she discovered yesterday that a company had been chosen to review the three proposed sites. Ms Crossin says she believes the Federal Government is trying to build the dump in secret. "I believe all along that the Government has been eyeing off Hart's Range," she said. "Senator Scullion announced some funding for the Plenty Highway out there, I also understand that that site has been fenced or is about to be fenced. "So I think all along this Government has pre-determined a site and what we're doing now is simply going through the process." ***************************************************************** 73 Scottish National Party: Waste Costs Lay Bare Nuclear Folly SNP - westminster Reacting to reports today (Thursday) that the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency now estimate that the cost of dealing with known existing nuclear waste has escalated to £65 billion following the investigation of the waste pools at Sellafield Mike Weir MP, SNP Westminster Spokesperson on Energy, said that the escalating costs "lays bare the folly of nuclear power". Commenting Mr Weir said: "The estimated cost of dealing with historic waste is escalating at an alarming rate and has now reached £65 billion. Even at that the NDA cannot be certain that they are aware of what is in the waste pools at various nuclear sites. As well as the problems at Sellafield there remains uncertainty as to exactly what is contained in the infamous shaft at Dounreay. "Frankly it is impossible to put an accurate cost on this matter and the escalating costs lays bare the stupidity of nuclear power. No one has yet come up with a realistic solution to the disposal of existing waste, never mind any waste produced from new stations. "Scotland neither wants nor needs new nuclear power stations. The obscene costs of dealing with existing problems should halt any plans to impose more stations and increasing waste problems in Scotland." ENDS Created by bob bob Contributors : Mary --> Published 30/03/2006 03:25 PM ©Copyright 2006 Scottish National Party. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 74 PressZoom.com: EPA Recertifies DOE's Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Global News Service - News and Press Release Distribution Today is March 30, 2006 EPA recertified the Department of Energy's (DOE) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) today, confirming that the facility continues to comply with the agency's radioactive waste disposal regulations. The WIPP is a deep geologic repository for the permanent disposal of radioactive waste. The WIPP site is located outside of Carlsbad, N.M., where waste is entombed in a 2,000 foot thick layer of natural salt 2,150 feet below the surface. (PressZoom) - Contact Information: John Millett, ( 202 ) 564-4355 / millett.john@epa.gov ( 3/29/06 ) EPA recertified the Department of Energy's ( DOE ) Waste Isolation Pilot Plant ( WIPP ) today, confirming that the facility continues to comply with the agency's radioactive waste disposal regulations. The WIPP is a deep geologic repository for the permanent disposal of radioactive waste. The WIPP site is located outside of Carlsbad, N.M., where waste is entombed in a 2,000 foot thick layer of natural salt 2,150 feet below the surface. This is the first recertification of WIPP since EPA's initial certification decision in 1998. Congress requires EPA to recertify that WIPP meets the agency's disposal regulations every five years, following the first receipt of waste, for the operational lifetime of the facility. The first shipment of waste was received at WIPP in March 1999. EPA will continue its inspection programs at WIPP and other DOE waste generator sites to review and verify ongoing compliance with all applicable EPA regulations. The WIPP recertification decision will be published in the Federal Register within the next two weeks. Copies of the Compliance Application Review Documents supporting today's action and all other recertification-related documentation can be found in the agency's electronic docket ( Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0025 ); in hard-copy in EPA's Air Docket A-98-49, or on EPA's WIPP Web site at: Submitted by EPA Newsroom Release Date This news item was released on 2006-03-30. Please make sure to ***************************************************************** 75 News & Star: Cumbria backs a nuclear route Published on 30/03/2006 A week after the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency announced its £18 million grant to safeguard our community hospitals the controversy continues. The green lobby and some politicians who should really know better have concocted a conspiracy theory that suggests there is something underhand in this deal. Cumbria is being bribed or buttered up, the story goes, in preparation for a new nuclear power station or waste dump. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of this issue should be able to spot the obvious flaw in that argument: Cumbria is not exactly the kind of place that needs bribing to support nuclear power. A waste dump might be a different matter altogether, but these silly murmurings still fly in the face of economic reality in this county. Cumbria’s future is nuclear and the Government’s shift in energy policy can only be good news for us. Nuclear decommissioning is being tipped as one of the key growth areas for the UK economy and beyond that new reactors are key to regeneration in west Cumbria. Taking pot shots at the NDA for its support for our hospitals then, is unwelcome and untimely. All it has done is demonstrate some of that joined up thinking we are always hearing about. The NDA realises that the nuclear industry can be nothing in Cumbria if the health and social welfare of the area are in decline. ***************************************************************** 76 News & Star: Sellafield plant prepares for £1bn privatisation Published on 30/03/2006 By Andrea Thompson SELLAFIELD is to be run by the private sector following an announcement expected by the Government today that it is selling its nuclear operator British Nuclear Group. With 10,000 workers, the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant is believed to be the UK’s biggest industrial site. The £1 billion privatisation of BNG has concerned union leaders worried about workers’ pension arrangements. The government is believed to have won their support by promising to ensure that any private sector buyer of BNG agrees to stick to the current scheme, at least for existing members. The sale of BNG follows the earlier disposal of its US arm – BNG America – and BNFL’s design and engineering group, Westinghouse, which went to Toshiba of Japan for £2.9bn. It was expected to be confirmed this morning along with plans to hand over decommissioning of atomic sites around the country to private companies, amid confirmation that clean-up costs have soared to more than £70bn from £56 bm. Trade and Industry secretary Alan Johnson was due to unveil the plans in parliament at 9.30am, confirming that he has given the green light to the clean-up strategy drawn up by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, details of which were to be revealed at its West Cumbrian headquarters at 10am. The NDA will oversee contracts going out to private companies, likely to include US giants such as Bechtel and Fluor. The first contract will be to oversee the low-level waste site at Drigg, currently looked after by BNG, which is the main operating arm of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. A tender is expected to go out soon. Tenders to run Sellafield are expected to go out in 2007 as part of the BNG privatisation. The sell-off of BNG will include a contract to operate and clean-up Sellafield as well as BNG’s 11 Magnox atomic power plants. ***************************************************************** 77 Whitehaven News: Sellafield sell-off announced Published on 30/03/2006 TOP bosses at British Nuclear Group and BNFL have been jockeying for position and any potential cash spin-offs as the government announces today that it is to attempt to sell off Sellafield. The sale of BNG, the operators of much of Sellafield, is to be announced by the government this week in the latest in a series of privatisations. US companies such as Fluor are front-runners in the bidding to take over Sellafield. But BNFL owns BNG and The Whitehaven News has learned that executives heading both state-owned firms are battling to share in any sell-off jobs and pay windfall. Copeland MP Jamie Reed has welcomed the moves towards a ‘nuclear renaissance’ but warned that the highest bidder may not necessarily be the best bidder for the community or workforce. The sale of BNG, Westinghouse and ultimately of Nexia, would leave BNFL with little to apparently manage. In 2005 BNF chairman Gordon Campbell said: “BNFL will cease to exist in five years' time.†Even in February representatives from some of the City's top fund managers and private equity houses joined company executives for breakfast at the Capital Club, an exclusive venue in the City of London. They were considering the lucrative PFI contract options that the BNG sell-off will open up. All of the BNG clean-up of Britain’s nuclear waste and older reactor sites will be bank-rolled to the tune of £56 billion by the British taxpayer. HM Treasury is already facing a potential £800m bill to protect the pensions of thousands of nuclear industry workers it plans to move into the private sector. The sell-off and awards of contracts will be run by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), who’s stra-tegy will also be announced this week. The only comment BNG would make on what cash benefits executives would gain in any sell-off was: “Remuneration packages are a private matter for the individuals involved. However, as we have always done we will publish remuneration packages of board members in the annual reports and accounts.“ The company also said there would be no shares bonuses for individual board members. The BNG sell-off is likely to take 12 to 18 months because of the political sensitivities involved and in order to give more time to the NDA to set up processes for contracting out the clean-up of the UK's 20 nuclear sites. BNFL proposed BNG's sale in September last year. The preferred buyer for BNG would be a large international engineering group, such as Fluor or Bechtel, both of the US, which could give BNG access to the huge international nuclear clean-up industry, nuclear industry insiders said. Amec, the UK company, could also be a contender. MP Mr Reed is seeking talks with the DTi. He said: "I await the publication of the sale timetable and conditions before being able to comment in detail. “However I would require assurances to be given to the workforce concerning the terms and conditions of their employment and their pension entitlements. “As always the bottom line remains the safe performance of the site and the fundamental commitment of any company operating on the site to the social, economic and environmental well being of West Cumbria.†Peter Clemments, for white-collar union Prospect, said: “We are involved in consultations over the industry wide pensions scheme. We have union representatives on board and things have gone favourably so far. “The unions have asked that if their was any profit from sell-offs such as Westinghouse then workers should see some benefit and not just a few top bosses.†***************************************************************** 78 Rocky Mountain News: Senator urges Rocky Flats settlement March 30, 2006 Colorado's senior U.S. senator urged the federal energy department today to end the long legal battle between neighbors of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant and the bomb factory's former operators. "We need to get this situation resolved as soon as possible," Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said during a meeting of the U.S. Senate Water and Energy Appropriations subcommittee, according to a press release from his office. A federal jury awarded almost $354 million last month to owners and former owners of about 12,000 parcels of land just east of Rocky Flats. The neighbors contended that former Rocky Flats operators Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell International Corp. trespassed on their property by allowing radioactive plutonium to contaminate it and interfered with their use and enjoyment of what they owned, reducing its value. Dow and Rockwell contend they safely handled all hazardous materials at the plant during its four decades of operation and that only tiny amounts of plutonium — too small to harm anyone — ever escaped from the plant. They are expected to appeal the jury's verdict in the landmark class-action lawsuit, which was filed in 1990 and came to trial last fall. Both the jury award and the lawyers' fees for both sides — totaling tens of millions of dollars so far — are supposed to be paid by the federal government. The U.S. Department of Energy owns Rocky Flats and contracted for Dow and Rockwell to operate it, indemnifying the two companies against such claims and costs. Rocky Flats, 16 miles northwest of downtown Denver in Jefferson County, has been closed and is slated to become a wildlife refuge. The jury awarded the neighbors about $176.9 million on each of two legal claims — nuisance and trespass — plus $200 million in punitive damages. Some media has reported the verdict was more than $550 million. However, amounts awarded by juries for various types of damages cannot simply be added together. The Rocky Flats neighbors can only collect one $176.9 million award, instead of two separate awards for their nuisance and trespass claims. In addition, Colorado law limits punitive damages to the amount of compensatory damages – in this case, $176.9 million. The U.S. Department of Energy so far has paid the lawyers for Dow and Rockwell about $48 million in fees and costs, but their bills still are being submitted and the government may not pay all of them. The plaintiffs' legal fees and costs will be calculated later in federal court. site map--> 2006 © The E.W. Scripps Co. ***************************************************************** 79 Hanford News: Hanford Tank C-201 sucked dry This story was published Wednesday, March 29th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford workers are seeing something new in Tank C-201: the welds on its bottom. The Department of Energy began pumping radioactive and hazardous chemical waste into the underground tank in 1947. Fifty-nine years later it appears to be essentially empty. The tank is the fourth of Hanford's 177 underground waste tanks to be declared empty by legal standards, at least under an initial assessment. Under the legally binding Tri-Party Agreement, 99 percent of wastes must be removed from Hanford's leak-prone single-shell tanks, or as much waste as technology allows. For Tank C-201, that meant getting the waste down to 225 gallons. But Hanford workers were able to remove all but 170 gallons, exceeding the 99 percent goal, said Roy Schepens, manager of DOE's Hanford Office of River Protection. The remaining waste clings in spots to the saucer-shaped floor of the 20-foot diameter tank and to the side walls and equipment. The tank, which is 30 feet high, has a 55,000-gallon capacity - or the capacity of 11 tanker trucks. "We're glad to see another tank emptied," said Laura Cusack, a manager for the Washington State Department of Ecology, which regulates Hanford. "We're moving in the right direction." The state has agreed the amount of waste that still could be vacuumed up is minimal. Because the tank is believed to have leaked waste in the past, Hanford contractor CH2M Hill Hanford Group used a vacuum technology that it adapted from the petroleum industry to empty the tank. The vacuum head inserted into the closed tank was equipped with high-pressure water nozzles called "scarifiers" to break up the hardened waste. The 30,000 gallons of water used was vacuumed from the tank almost as quickly as it was used, and no leaks were detected during the process. Liquid waste was removed from the tank in 1981. But solids had settled to the bottom in the nine years it was used, and 860 gallons of waste remained when work started on final removal in October. The tank was among four used primarily to hold waste produced by Hanford's B Plant as it chemically separated plutonium produced in Hanford's reactors for the nation's nuclear weapons program. The four tanks, each holding 55,000 gallons, were receiver tanks, holding the waste only until it could be transferred into larger underground tanks. Two of those four tanks have already been emptied and work could start on the fourth in a few months. Although one of those tanks was emptied in a few weeks, it took five months to complete work on Tank C-201. The vacuuming equipment, after being used on two other tanks, required repairs. Workers also had to maneuver around debris on the floor of the tank that included wire, hoses and a 12-inch block of concrete. It was cut from the tank's shell to create a new opening and then dropped to the bottom of the tank years ago. DOE faces a legal deadline to have all 16 tanks in the C Tank Farm emptied by October 2006. However, emptying the tanks has proved more difficult than anticipated. While the receiver tanks in C Tank Farm so far have been emptied using just the vacuum technology, other tanks will require work using two or more technologies. DOE has notified the state that the C Tank Farm deadline likely will be missed. Two more of the C tanks could be emptied this year. "We are continuing to make progress on emptying tanks in C Farm," Schepens said. "We are working toward the goal of 99 percent (retrieval) and are taking time because that criteria is important to us." The safety record also has improved at the tank farms - the fields where the tanks are buried - without a worker being off work for a day for an injury in the past seven months, he said. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 80 Hanford News: Plan in place for Hanford Reach interpretive center This story was published Monday, March 27th, 2006 By Elena Olmstead, Herald staff writer BOARDMAN, Ore. - A road map has been laid. It took nearly three days, but the group behind the Hanford Reach National Monument Heritage and Visitor Center has a plan for how to raise $18 million more to fund construction. The Richland Public Facilities District and the Hanford Reach boards met for three days at the River Lodge and Grill in Boardman to organize their efforts. The estimated cost of the retreat, which wrapped up Saturday, was $4,500. The retreat marked the first time the two entities, which both have a hand in creating the interpretive center, have held a joint meeting. The cost of the first phase of the 61,000-square-foot interpretive center, which will occupy 50 acres at Richland's Columbia Point, is estimated at $37 million. Some of the funds already have been secured. The first phase will include completion of all of the center's exhibit space, as well as the basic structure of the planned education wing and administrative offices. It also will include walking paths and landscaping around the center. Education space and offices will be completed in the second phase of the project. The boards would like to see construction begin this year. "I think we've mapped out a lot of the things that need to done in the next six months," said Gwen Leth, director of the CREHST museum. Leth is a longtime member of the Hanford Reach board. Jim Watts with the Hanford Reach board said the retreat served as a way to consolidate the efforts of both groups, and learn about fundraising opportunities. Dr. Stuart Grover with the Collins Group of Seattle, a fundraising consulting firm, told them the project has a range of appeal. He advised the board to focus on what a potential donor wants from the project, and not what the board needs. "Traditionally you won't have to ask (for a donation)," he said. "They'll talk themselves into it." But successful fundraising also depends on the determination of the people involved. "The money is never the issue," said Grover, who helped the two boards create a fundraising campaign. Rita Mazur, a Richland City Councilwoman and the city's representative on the Hanford Reach Board, said the two boards also reached an important decision. She said the Hanford Reach board agreed to accept responsibility for managing fundraising for the project. Mazur said the board also agreed to be a tenant in the interpretive center building when it is completed. Ron Hicks, project manager for the interpretive center, said the PFD board will serve as the building's "landlord" overseeing maintenance, while the Hanford Reach board will oversee the various exhibits. Hicks said it had always been assumed that was how the two boards would interact, but the joint meeting made it official. "The commitment has been made," he said. The board will spend the next six months completing the blueprint laid out during their retreat. "This showed us that it's a doable thing," Hicks said. "We can do this." © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 81 Hanford News: Steady Hanford budget proposed This story was published Tuesday, March 28th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford's budget would remain steady from the current fiscal year through the next five years under the Department of Energy's latest budget proposal. But Hanford regulators questioned whether there will be enough money in the budget in the next few years to keep cleanup work at the nuclear reservation on schedule. "We are not convinced DOE has aggressively pursued or requested adequate funding to meet its long-term schedule and commitments for cleanup at Hanford," said Nolan Curtis of the Washington State Department of Ecology. "If you apply inflation factors, the budget is not really flat, it's gradually diminishing," said Nick Ceto of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Hanford budget would move up and down between $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion annually through fiscal year 2011 under the proposal discussed Monday night by DOE at a public budget meeting in Richland. That's down from a peak of $2.1 billion in fiscal year 2005. The meeting offered the first in-depth look at what DOE is proposing for Hanford cleanup in fiscal year 2008 as it prepares its proposal to give to Congress in February. The Hanford nuclear reservation is currently operating and performing cleanup work on an $1.8 billion budget for fiscal year 2006. Congress is considering a budget of $1.9 billion for fiscal year 2007, with some congressional leaders saying that's too high. For fiscal year 2008, the initial budget proposal drops back to $1.8 billion. Some of the biggest questions continue to surround some of the most critical work at Hanford. The vitrification plant funding would drop from $690 million, the annual amount planned for construction, to $580 million. However, that number assumes the plant still is on a construction schedule that would allow a start to operations in 2011. That start could be delayed six years under the latest schedule estimates. Hanford officials will be asking that the budget amount be increased after new cost and schedules for the plant are available this summer, said Roy Schepens, manager of DOE's Hanford Office of River Protection. "Without the vit plant, there isn't cleanup," he said. The plant will be used to turn some of Hanford's worst radioactive waste into a stable glass form for permanent disposal. Now the waste is held in underground tanks, the oldest of which have leaked. To manage those tanks - including emptying the oldest tanks into double-shell tanks and building a pilot plant to test a supplemental treatment method - DOE is proposing spending $273 million in fiscal year 2008. That's the same as the 2007 proposal and down from the current budget of $326 million. It would allow tanks to be emptied at the rate of one or two a year, Schepens said. That will not meet legal deadlines, but emptying the tanks has proved more difficult and time-consuming than expected, he said. He also could ask for more money for the bulk vitrification pilot plant once its cost and schedule estimates are completed later this fall. Bulk vitrification might be used to supplement waste treatment at the main vitrification plant. The state has not agreed to release DOE from its commitment to start operating the vitrification plant in 2011, Curtis said. The state also is concerned about the slow rate at which waste is being retrieved from old, underground tanks. Elsewhere at Hanford, DOE plans to continue to ramp up cleanup in 2008 of the Hanford corridor along the Columbia River. There nine reactors once produced plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program and, just north of Richland, uranium fuel was made for the reactors. Funding for the river corridor cleanup would increase from $175 million this year to $267 million in fiscal year 2008. Once most river corridor cleanup is completed around 2012, DOE would shift its efforts to cleaning up central Hanford, where irradiated fuel rods were chemically processed to retrieve plutonium. Both EPA and the state questioned the delay in cleanup of central Hanford. The work could be done in parallel, Ceto said. DOE also plans to spend more money in 2008 retrieving waste contaminated with plutonium that was temporarily buried until it could be sent to a national repository in New Mexico. As workers start digging up transuranic waste that has been buried longer, the work is expected to get more difficult and expensive. Funding would increase from $164 million this year to $213 million in fiscal year 2008 for retrieving transuranic waste. DOE plans to begin shipping weapons-grade plutonium from Hanford next year and complete the shipments in fiscal year 2009. That will require some additional money for packaging and shipping, but will reduce security costs. Projects that will require less money in fiscal year 2008 include removing radioactive sludge from Hanford's K Basins, as that work wraps up, and maintaining Hanford's Fast Flux Test Facility, as decommissioning work concludes so the reactor can be left in a condition that requires little maintenance. DOE has posted information about its budget proposal on the Internet and also is accepting comments on the budget there. Go to www.hanford.gov and click on the box in the upper right corner. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 82 Hanford News: Activist groups calling for study of Hanford Reach contamination This story was published Tuesday, March 28th, 2006 By Les Blumenthal, Herald Washington, D.C., bureau WASHINGTON - A coalition of activist groups called Monday for Congress to authorize an independent and comprehensive study of whether the Columbia River as it flows through the Hanford reservation has been contaminated with radioactivity and other toxins. In a letter to Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., the groups said Department of Energy studies of the extent of contamination on the Hanford Reach and its effect on wildlife, particularly salmon, are suspect, and they said an outside agency needs to oversee a new effort. "Since various current reports on the contamination of the river give conflicting results, a trustworthy and impartial researcher is needed to do a complete study of the legacy of contamination in the river today, the threats for the future and the risks involved in failing to fully clean up Hanford," the letter said. Dicks is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee and has worked to provide funding to protect endangered salmon runs on the Snake and Columbia rivers and elsewhere throughout the region. The letter was signed by nine groups, including the Government Accountability Project, Heart of America Northwest, the Pacific Coast Fisherman's Association and the Washington Environmental Council. The Hanford Reach, which stretches more than 50 miles from the Vernita Bridge to Richland, was designated as a national monument several years ago. It provides a spawning ground for wild salmon. "There needs to be a credible assessment of the danger to the river and its resources," said Gerald Pollett, executive director of Heart of America Northwest. Pollett and Tom Carpenter, director of the Government Accountability Project's nuclear oversight program, were in Washington, D.C., with 80 other activists for three days of lobbying on nuclear issues. In the mid-1990s, Carpenter said, DOE appointed a team of representatives from Washington state, Oregon, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and various tribes to help determine how to proceed with a comprehensive study of the river. But after two years of work, Carpenter said, the department decided not to proceed. "DOE dropped it," Carpenter said. "DOE doesn't want to know the extent of the problem." EPA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Academy of Sciences or the University of Washington could lead a new study, he said. More than 1 million people downstream from Hanford get their drinking water from Hanford, the river supplies water for irrigation and 80 percent of the wild salmon on the Columbia River spawn in the Hanford Reach, Carpenter said. In addition, Carpenter said about 80 square miles of ground water underneath Hanford has been polluted by an estimated half a trillion gallons of radioactive and toxic liquids dumped or leaked into the soil during 50 years of nuclear weapons production at Hanford. DOE has insisted any contamination reaching the river is minimal and is quickly diluted. Barnett said the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory monitors the river and releases an annual report. But in their letter to Dicks, the groups said studies of the river done by DOE contractors have "serious flaws and are not considered credible by many Hanford stakeholders." Carpenter and Pollett are scheduled to meet with Dicks this week. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 83 Hanford News: Pasco meeting offers Hanford cleanup input This story was published Tuesday, March 28th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Money and time were on the minds of those who gave the Department of Energy advice Tuesday night as it begins work on a huge, combined environmental study for Hanford. "Recognizing the continuing pressure on the federal budget, it becomes ever more difficult to maintain momentum to clean up the most contaminated site in the Department of Energy's complex," said Gary Petersen, vice president of Hanford programs for the Tri-City Industrial Development Council. But it's important that DOE continue to work toward meeting legal deadlines at Hanford, including emptying tanks of radioactive waste at a reasonable pace, he said. About 60 people attended the Pasco meeting, the last in a series of four held in Oregon and Washington to discuss what should be included in what DOE is calling a "mega" environmental study. As part of the settlement of a suit brought by Washington state against DOE, DOE has agreed to redo a study on disposing of radioactive and hazardous chemical waste at Hanford and elsewhere. It will be rolled into a study already begun on how to treat and dispose of waste in Hanford's tanks and close the tanks. The waste is left from the past production of plutonium at Hanford for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Added to that is the study of whether and how to demolish Hanford's research reactor, the Fast Flux Test Facility, and how much waste that would create. The three projects have one thing in common: all could lead to waste being buried in central Hanford. The legal settlement "gives the opportunity for a cumulative impact analysis that allows us to understand the future impacts to human health and the environment from all of Hanford waste," said Todd Martin, chairman of the Hanford Advisory Board. The board will consider nine pages of proposed advice to DOE on the study at its April meeting. But its main message is "let's take the time to do this one right," Martin said. The current schedule calls for the study to be completed in two years. That seems too little time for good characterization of the waste at the Hanford nuclear reservation and the development of good models to analyze impacts, he said. The federal budget for Hanford was a repeated theme among those who spoke at the meeting. "There is not a budget problem, only a choice of where we put the money," said Tim Jarvis of Richland. But Jim Dukelow, who identified himself as a semi-retired risk analyst, urged looking at future use of the site in making cleanup decisions. Cleaning up the site thoroughly enough to allow people to live there would cost billions of dollars more than if it were cleaned up for other uses, he said. He suggested a wildlife park. Among TRIDEC's concerns is that DOE's projected budget in the next few years for emptying Hanford's oldest, leak-prone tanks will not be adequate to finish the work by 2018. DOE has said for now it plans to empty one or two tanks a year of the 145 single shell tanks that still need to be emptied. It faces technical problems emptying the tanks and lack of space in newer tanks for the retrieved waste. When the tank waste will be treated is in question because of delays in building the vitrification plant, which would turn some of the waste into a stable glass form. DOE needs to complete the vitrification plant and develop strategies to treat more of the waste, Petersen said. The vitrification plant as currently designed was not planned to treat all of the low-activity radioactive waste by a 2028 legal deadline. The longer waste remains untreated and in the older tanks, the greater the risk of leaks from the tanks and the greater the cleanup costs, Petersen said. DOE continues to accept comments on the environmental study. They can be called in to 1-888-829-6347. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 84 Hanford News: Tank workers may be respirator-free This story was published Thursday, March 30th, 2006 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer Hanford workers may soon go back into part of the tank farms without wearing supplied air respirators to protect them from vapors emitted from underground tanks of nuclear waste. "CH2M Hill has engaged in a very rigorous process to evaluate impacts to human health," said Russell Shearer, the Department of Energy's acting assistant secretary for environment, safety and health. He visited Hanford's tank farms Wednesday to recognize workers in the double-shell tank farm operation for improving safety performance. Two years ago CH2M Hill Hanford Group, which operates the tank farms for DOE, began requiring workers to wear supplied air respirators when they worked near the underground tanks. The tanks hold 53 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous chemical waste from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Workers feared breathing chemical vapors that vented into the air from the tanks was making them ill. State and national reports later concluded that too little was known about what was in the tanks to be sure that workers were not being harmed. "We've done a lot of work in the last couple years," said Mark Spears, CH2M Hill chief executive. The contractor sampled the head space of all the tanks to determine that 1,500 chemicals were present. Many had no established occupational exposure limits. CH2M Hill brought in experts with national reputations to help set safe exposure limits for the chemicals, Spears said. With that knowledge, CH2M Hill believes workers who remain at least five feet away from the vents should be exposed to amounts significantly below harmful levels. The contractor expects soon to begin allowing workers into the A Tank Farms - certain fields of tanks named with A prefixes - without supplied air respirators. However, supplied air in tanks that workers carry on their backs will remain optional. "We expect when we start off, a fair number of people will want respirators," Spears said. The respirators do have drawbacks. They're heavy, they can add to heat stress in summer and the masks can limit vision. Having workers on supplied air contributed to what Spears called one of the worst safety records in DOE's cleanup complex when he spoke at a Nuclear Cleanup Caucus Briefing held by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., in Washington, D.C., earlier this month. But CH2M Hill has been able to turn that record around to be awarded DOE Voluntary Protection Program "star status" in its double-shell tank department. The Waste Feed Operations department operates 28 double-shell tanks that are collecting waste from 149 older, leak-prone tanks and holding them until the waste can be treated for disposal. "Star status for Waste Feed Operations? Who would have thought of that two years ago?" asked Dave Molnaa, president of the Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council, at a ceremony Wednesday to honor the 400 workers in the department. Workers have won the designation despite the numerous health hazards at the tank farms, lack of appropriate funding and staff reductions, he said. Several speakers credited letting workers take more leadership and responsibility in the program's safety culture for a sharply reduced rate of slips, trips and soft-tissue injuries. Management teams have come and gone over the years, but the work force has been constant, Spears said. Workers have come up with changes such as a stand to help put on and take off heavy protective equipment using ergonomically correct movements. They also developed a simple device to tip 40-pound bags of protective clothing forward, eliminating the need for workers to pick them up. In addition, management became focused on improving safety, Spears said. In the first half of 2005, 34 cases were recorded of workers unable to do their regular jobs because of work-related injuries. That dropped to six in the second half of the year and none so far this year at CH2M Hill. "It's a remarkable accomplishment over a short period of time," Shearer said. DOE has recognized 25 programs across the nation with star status for excellence in safety and health. The final assessment that led to the award included interviews with 70 percent of the Waste Feed Operations workers, observations of work and reviews of safety documents and records. Shearer has been acting assistant secretary for environment, safety and health since earlier this month when John Shaw resigned. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 85 CounterPunch: Nukes for a Profit CounterPunch: "America's Best Political Newsletter" March 30, 2006 Privatizing the Apocalypse By FRIDA BERRIGAN Started as the super-secret "Project Y" in 1943, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has long been the keystone institution of the American nuclear-weapons producing complex. It was the birthplace of Fat Man and Little Boy, the two nuclear bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Last year, the University of California, which has managed the lab for the Department of Energy since its inception, decided to put Los Alamos on the auction block. In December 2005, construction giant Bechtel won a $553 million yearly management contract to run the sprawling complex, which employs more than 13,000 people and has an estimated $2.2 billion annual budget. "Privatization" has been in the news ever since George W. Bush became president. His administration has radically reduced the size of government, turning over to private companies critical governmental functions involving prisons, schools, water, welfare, Medicare, and utilities as well as war-fighting, and is always pushing for more of the same. Outside of Washington, the pitfalls of privatization are on permanent display in Iraq, where companies like Halliburton have reaped billions in contracts. Performing jobs once carried out by members of the military -- from base building and mail delivery to food service -- they have bilked the government while undermining the safety of American forces by providing substandard services and products. Halliburton has been joined by a cottage industry of military-support companies responsible for everything from transportation to interrogation. On the war front, private companies are ubiquitous, increasingly indispensable, and largely unregulated -- a lethal combination. Now, the long arm of privatization is reaching deep into an almost unimaginable place at the heart of the national security apparatus --- the laboratory where scientists learned to harness the power of the atom more than 60 years ago and created weapons of apocalyptic proportions. Profane Problem or Prolific Profit? Nuclear weapons are many things to many people -- the sword of Damocles or the guarantor of American global supremacy, the royal path to the apocalypse or atoms for peace. But in each notion, they are treated as idols -- jealously-guarded, shrouded in code, surrounded by sacred secrecy. That is changing. Private companies have long played a role in the nuclear complex, but it's been a peripheral one. For example, Kaiser-Hill, a remediation company, is cleaning up radioactive waste at Rocky Flats, the Denver, Colorado complex that manufactured nuclear weapons. At Idaho Falls, another company, CH2M, is mopping up the mess left behind after the construction of 52 nuclear reactors. BWX and Honeywell formed a new company along with Bechtel to manage and operate the Pantex Plant in Texas which assembled nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. At least ten different subcontractors are involved in managing the Hanford nuclear complex. But the famed nuclear laboratories, Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia -- where the high priests of nuclear physics are free to explore the outer realms of their craft -- have long been above prosaic bottom-line or board-room considerations. Until this year, that is. At Los Alamos, the University of California has already been replaced by a "limited liability corporation," says Tyler Przybylek of the Department of Energy's Evaluation Board; and, more generally, the writing is on the containment wall. Nuclear laboratories are no longer to be intellectual institutions devoted to science but part of a corporate-business model where research, design, and ultimately the weapons themselves will become products to be marketed. The new dress code will be suits and ties, not lab coats and safety glasses. Under Bechtel, new management will lead to a "tightly structured organization" that will "drive efficiency," predicts John Browne, who directed the lab at Los Alamos from 1997-2003. "If there is a product the government wants," he concludes, "they will necessarily be focused on that. A lot more money will be at stake." Los Alamos was the first to go. Now, the management contract for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is on the auction block as well. Bechtel's Boondoggles Many say strong corporate oversight will correct a legacy of embarrassing missteps at Los Alamos. The keystone of the nuclear complex, it has been dogged by missing classified computer disks, cost overruns on its expensive new projects, and an outspoken cadre of scientists who found their voice on LANL: The Real Story, a blog where once deferential employees blew off steam and exposed lapses in lab management. The idea is that, under private management, this legacy of money wasted and dreams deferred can do an abrupt u-turn. But the question is: Can Bechtel (or any other private military contractor) usher in a new era of nuclear responsibility? Pete Domenici, Republican Senator and Chairman of the powerful Energy and Water Committee, thinks so. In January, he claimed that "this great lab will thrive under the management team led by Bechtel." But a look at Bechtel's record might not inspire others to Domenici's confidence. The California-based construction giant has a long history of big projects, big promises, bigger budgets and even bigger failures. In Boston, Bechtel was put in charge of the "Big Dig," the reconstruction of Interstate 93 beneath the city. In 1985, the price tag for the project was estimated at about $2.5 billion. Now, it is a whopping $14.6 billion (or $1.8 billion a mile), making it the most expensive stretch of highway in the world. Near San Diego, citizens are still paying the bills for cost over-runs at a nuclear power plant where Bechtel installed one of the reactors backwards. In 2003, Bechtel took this winning track record to Baghdad, where it blew billions in a string of unfinished projects and unfathomable errors. The company reaped tens of millions of dollars in contracts to repair Iraq's schools, for example, but an independent report found that many of the schools Bechtel claimed to have completely refitted, "haven't been touched," and a number of schools remained "in shambles." One "repaired" school was found by inspectors be overflowing with "unflushed sewage." Bechtel also has a $1.03 billion contract to oversee important aspects of Iraq's infrastructure reconstruction, including water and sewage. Despite many promises, startling numbers of Iraqi families continue to lack access to clean water, according to information gathered by independent journalist Dahr Jamail. The company made providing potable water to southern Iraq one of its top priorities, promising delivery within the first 60 days of the program. One year later, rising epidemics of water-borne illnesses like cholera, kidney stones and diarrhea pointed to the failure of Bechtel's mission. Outside of its ill-fated reconstruction contracts in Iraq, Bechtel is not known as a large military contractor, but the company has been quietly moving into the nuclear arena. It helped build a missile-defense site in the South Pacific, runs the Nevada Test Site where the United States once performed hundreds of above-and underground nuclear tests. Bechtel is also the "environmental manager" at the Oak Ridge National Lab, which stores highly-enriched uranium, and is carrying out design work at the Yucca Mountain repository where the plan to store 77,000 tons of nuclear waste has environmentalists and community activists up in arms. At Washington State's Hanford Waste Treatment Plant, Bechtel is working on technology to turn nuclear waste into glass. But the estimated costs of building the facility to do that have doubled in one year to about $10 billion while the completion date slipped from 2011 to 2017. Members of Congress have proposed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission take over management of the project from Bechtel because of its cost overruns and delays. Proliferation's New Meaning Given this track record, it's hard to make the case that Bechtel assumes the helm at Los Alamos out of an altruistic, even patriotic, desire to impose clean, lean corporate management on a complacent institution long overfed at the public trough. The question remains: Why this urge to privatize the apocalypse? To answer that question, you have to begin with the post-Cold War quest of the nuclear laboratories for a new identity and raison d'être. The dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the loss of the other superpower as a nuclear twin and target, and an international shift in favor of nuclear disarmament sent Los Alamos and the whole U.S. nuclear complex into existential crisis: Who are we? What is our role? What do we do now that nuclear weapons have no obvious role in a world of, at best, medium-sized military enemies? Throughout the Clinton years, these questions multiplied while the nuclear arsenal remained relatively stable. More recently, with a lot of fancy footwork, a few friends in Congress, and the ear of a White House eager to be known for something other than the Long War on global terrorism, the labs finally came up with a winning solution that has Bechtel and other military contractors seeing dollar signs. They found their salvation in a few lines of the Nuclear Posture Review, released in January 2002, where the Bush administration asserted: "The need is clear for a revitalized nuclear weapons complex that will be able, if directed, to design, develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads in response to new national requirements; and maintain readiness to resume underground testing if required." There's gold in that there sentence. During the Cold War, spending on nuclear weapons averaged $4.2 billion a year (in current dollars). Almost two decades after the "nuclear animosity" between the two great superpowers ended, the United States is spending one-and-a-half times the Cold War average on nuclear weapons. In 2001, the weapons-activities budget of the Department of Energy, which oversees the nuclear weapons complex through its "semi-autonomous" National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), totaled $5.19 billion; and a "revitalized nuclear weapons complex," ready to "design, develop, manufacture, and certify new warheads," means a more than billion-dollar jump in spending to $6.4 billion by fiscal year 2006. And that's just the beginning. The NNSA's five-year "National Security Plan" calls for annual increases to reach $7.76 billion by 2009. David Hobson, Republican congressional representative from Ohio, calls this kind of budgeting "the ultimate white-collar welfare," saying that the weapons complex can be "viewed as a jobs program for PhDs." He's right. That's a lot of money for a few labs and a few thousand scientists. And private military contractors large and small are all over it. Entering Acronym Land To justify this huge jump in spending, the nuclear laboratories have cooked up plans for an alphabet soup of projects as part of the SSMP, scientists are pushing -- to mention just a few of the acronyms on the table right now -- ASCC, MESA, the RRWP, the ICFHY campaign and the RNEP. In the interest of not putting everyone to sleep, we can take a closer look at just a few of the Bush administration's proliferating nuclear projects. Under the umbrella of Stockpile Stewardship Management (SSMP), scientists are working to safeguard the stockpile of nuclear weapons and materials so it is not ravaged by time and neglect. The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program (RRWP) will exchange existing warheads for more "reliable" (read: more powerful) ones. There are plans underway to develop the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) and other "useable" new nuclear weapons supposedly to meet new threats by new enemies -- "rogue states" like Iran -- in future preemptive anti-proliferation wars. Under each of these programs are many other acronym-heavy, cash-rich programs that seem to lead nowhere -- except toward further nuclear proliferation. The Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield Campaign is just one of the more outlandish and expensive of these projects. It proposes using lasers to replicate what happens inside an actual nuclear explosion in weapons labs. Sounds simple enough, right? The Nuclear Ignition Facility -- where the lasers will do their work -- is the single largest project in the NNSA budget and, according to analyst Christopher Paine, "quite possibly the most expensive experimental facility ever built." The Department of Energy projects $3.5 billion in costs for this alone, but the independent environmental group, the National Resources Defense Council, puts the figure higher yet -- at $5.32 billion -- and that money will be spent before anyone can even demonstrate that the system works. The Age of Nuclear Terror? Do nuclear weapons have a role in the "Age of Terror" -- other than as potential weapons for terrorist groups? In a new and ever-shifting environment of emerging regional powers and wars that transcend national boundaries, the Bush administration is taking a have-it-both-ways approach: It is pushing aggressive non-proliferation policies for chosen enemy nations and embracing a policy of accelerated nuclear proliferation for itself. How much harder will it be in the future to dissuade other powers from building nuclear weapons when the American nuclear industry and its weapons labs have switched even more fully into private mode and the profit-motive is increasingly at stake in global nuclear planning? These and many other questions unfortunately remain unasked. Yet, a new era of nuclear weapons for profit threatens to turn Armageddon into a paying operation. During the height of the Cold War, when competition between the nuclear laboratories seemed to rival the superpower stand-off, a Lawrence Livermore scientist posted a sign that read: "Remember, the Soviets are the Competition, Los Alamos is the Enemy." In a new era of potential corporate antagonism over apocalyptic weaponry, will there be a sign at the Bechtel-run nuclear lab emblazoned with: "Remember, the Terrorists are the Competition, Lockheed Martin is the Enemy"? Frida Berrigan is a Senior Research Associate at the World Policy Institute's Arms Trade Resource Center. Her primary research areas with the project include nuclear-weapons policy, war profiteering and corporate crimes, weapons sales to areas of conflict, and military-training programs. She is the author of a number of Institute reports, most recently Weapons at War 2005: Promoting Freedom or Fueling Conflict. She can be reached at: berrigaf@newschool.edu This essay originally appeared on Tomdispatch Copyright 2006 Frida Berrigan ***************************************************************** 86 Cincinnati Business Courier: Fluor Fernald cuts employees, more layoffs planned - 2006-03-30 Cincinnati Business Courier - 12:09 PM EST Thursday Fluor Fernald Inc.laid off 185 employees Thursday, as the cleanup project at the former uranium processing facility, 18 miles northwest of Cincinnati, nears completion. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contractor expects to eliminate most of the remaining 600 jobs in the coming four months. "Fernald workers addressed the project with vigor, all the while knowing they were ultimately working themselves out of a job," said project manager Con Murphy. Fluor Fernald, part of California-based Fluor Corp., has managed the cleanup of the 1,050-acre site since 1992, receiving several government contracts valued at about $4.6 billion or more. In 2001, the DOE and Fluor Fernald developed a 2006 closure execution plan based on incentives to complete the project before 2010. © 2006 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************