***************************************************************** 04/23/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.95 ***************************************************************** 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 YN: Seoul to link aid to shutdown of North Korean nuclear reactor 2 YONHAP NEWS: N.K. working with bankers to resolve financial glitch t 3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Russia Hold Talks on Defense Plan 4 Guardian Unlimited: Gates Assures Moscow on Missile System 5 Guardian Unlimited: Missile base row renews cold war animosity NUCLEAR REACTORS 6 US: NRC: NRC to Hold Regulatory Conference with Hirata & Associates, 7 Herald Sun: Uranium explorer says no to French bid | 8 US: NRC: NRC Finalizes “White” Finding at Brunswick Nuclear Power Pl 9 RIA Novosti: Russia's nuclear paradox 10 US: NRC: NRC Proposes $130,000 Fine to Entergy Nuclear for Missing 11 France 24: Nuclear power not the solution for China - official 12 US: Journal News: New radioactive leak at Indian Point 13 AFP: Nuclear power not the solution for China - official - 14 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear not answer 15 US: Salt Lake Tribune: No nuclear 16 US: CBS News: FAIR Says Nukes Piece Not - (fair) 17 Financial Express: Nuclear plants to get more fuel 18 Reuters: India says won't be pressured on U.S. nuclear deal 19 US: UPI: Analysis: Report, nuke reality don't mesh 20 Prague Daily Monitor: Temelin nuke plant first unit connected to gri 21 Telegraph: 60k atomic authority chief has 30 other jobs 22 New Scientist: Chernobyl alert over birth defects - health - 23 AU ABC: Ziggy goes nuclear 24 AU ABC: Debate over nuclear future 25 US: NEI: Survey Reveals Gap in Public's Awareness of Nuclear Energy' NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 26 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Study searching out what causes some genes br NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 27 US: The Australian: Yes on uranium, says Rudd 28 US: Herald Sun: Labor fears nuclear fallout 29 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Labor treads risky path on uranium - 30 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Labor to dump uranium policy - Evans - 31 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Atomic builder misses Summit - 32 US: AU ABC: ALP change on uranium crucial, says Macfarlane 33 Daily Yomiuri: Toyocho drops bid to build radioactive waste reposito 34 US: Herald News: Nuclear waste transportation plans intensify debate 35 RIA Novosti: Armenia, Russia discuss intl. enrichment center 36 US: West Australian: Rudd offers to block uranium enrichment 37 US: West Australian: Labor to back me on uranium - Rudd 38 washingtonpost.com: U.S. Centrifuge Work Revived in Updated Form - 39 US: RGJ.com: Nuke waste shipping has a spotless record 40 RGJ.com: Cities welcome tribe voices opposing Yucca transit plan 41 US: DailyBulletin.com: Audit of cleanup costs set 42 Radio Netherlands Worldwide: No salty solution to nuclear waste - 43 US: Institute for Policy Studies: Why GNEP can't jump to the future 44 US: KM: Russia Anxious to Increase its Share in Uranium Enrichment M 45 UPI: Yucca project route nixed by tribe 46 Japan Times: Opponent of nuclear waste dump victorious in Toyo mayor 47 US: AU ABC: Labor's Environment Minister supports no new uranium min 48 US: AU ABC: Beattie wants no new mines policy to stay 49 asahi.com: Town votes down mayor pushing nuclear waste facility - 50 US: The Australian: Uranium price rise after mine floods | 51 US: The Australian: Labor clash looms over uranium policy 52 US: The Australian: ALP to block nuclear processing PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 53 DOE: DOE Designates the Idaho National Laboratory Advanced Test 54 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability: RADIOACTIVE REPORT CARD RELEASE 55 KnoxNews: Former military sites remain environmental time bombs ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 YN: Seoul to link aid to shutdown of North Korean nuclear reactor South Korea has told North Korea it is important that the North start shutting down its key nuclear facilities as agreed in the six-nation talks on its nuclear program in February before Seoul resumes rice aid shipments, Seoul's point man on the communist nation said Monday. The remarks by Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung came one day after Seoul agreed to give 400,000 tons of rice to Pyongyang in bilateral economic talks that ended in the North Korean capital on Sunday. "(We) told the North Korean side that we cannot hope for peace on the Korean Peninsula unless the February agreement is implemented, and thus we will not be able to convince our people on the need to provide rice aid" to the North, the minister said in an interview with MBC radio. Under the agreement signed on Feb. 13, North Korea was supposed to shut down and seal its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon within 60 days in exchange for 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil. The 60-day deadline, April 14, passed without any changes on ground, while Pyongyang said it would implement the initial measures only after it confirms the release of its funds frozen in a Macau bank since September 2005. The Macau financial authorities have unblocked the North's US$25 million frozen in the Banco Delta Asia for withdrawal, but the North has yet to make any known attempts to withdraw the money while keeping mum on whether it would accept the funds' release as the resolution of the banking issue. Lee said the implementation of the Feb. 13 agreement is "important" to the provision of the aid to the North, but Seoul would begin shipping rice as soon as the North starts implementing the historic energy-for-denuclearization deal. "It takes about four months to prepare before sending 400,000 tons of rice, so I believe we would be able to start sending the assistance if (North Korea) begins the phase of implementing" the first 60-day obligations, Lee said on a separate program carried by KBS radio. The divided Koreas have also agreed to conduct test runs of two cross-border railways on May 17, one of which was newly built and the other reconnected after some 50 years. "If (the test runs) are again canceled, I believe South-North relations would become fundamentally difficult," Lee said. The Koreas had agreed to test the cross-border railways on several occasions but they were all called off at the last minute, reportedly due to opposition from the North's military. Lee said the sides were again unable to win the North Korean military's concession or assurance, except to agree that the sides will "actively cooperate." Seoul is to provide about $80 million worth of raw materials for the North's light industries if the proposed railway tests take their course as agreed, according to the Unification Ministry. Seoul, April 23 (Yonhap News) Posted on : Apr.23,2007 21:06 KST © 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company. All rights reserved. copyright The Hankyoreh ***************************************************************** 2 YONHAP NEWS: N.K. working with bankers to resolve financial glitch to denuclearization Tuesday, April 24, 2007 WASHINGTON, April 23 (Yonhap) -- More than a week after North Korea missed the deadline for implementing initial steps for denuclearization, the U.S. said Monday that Pyongyang's officials are working with the bankers to resolve the financial issue that is delaying those steps. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the U.S. has yet to formally hear from the North Koreans that the issue has been resolved, but "clearly" they were working with their bankers. He said he was basing his remarks on Pyongyang's statement last week reaffirming its commitments to a six-nation deal. Later, a department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the assessment also comes "through other sources of information." South Korean envoy Chun Young-woo arrived in Washington and met his U.S. counterpart Christopher Hill later Monday, hoping to spur the six-party talks in which they serve as their governments' chief delegates. North Korea, China, Russia and Japan are the other participants. A Feb. 13 agreement signed by the six countries commits Pyongyang to shut down its key nuclear facilities and invite back inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog. Other parties would provide 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil as an incentive. These initial steps were supposed to be completed within 60 days of the agreement, which was April 14. They were delayed by a banking issue involving Macau's Banco Delta Asia, which had frozen some US$25 million of North Korea-related funds after the U.S. accused it of laundering money for Pyongyang. The U.S. and Macau agreed that the money will be released, but North Korea has yet to start withdrawals. Last week, North Korea sent a letter to the IAEA saying it will invite the inspectors back as soon as it obtains the money and said it remains committed to the Feb. 13 deal. McCormack reiterated that the latest statement is an "indicator that they (North Koreans) are working with their bankers." But there was "not an infinite amount of time" for Pyongyang to implement the required steps, he said. ldm@yna.co.kr (END) ***************************************************************** 3 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Russia Hold Talks on Defense Plan From the Associated Press Monday April 23, 2007 12:31 PM By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer MOSCOW (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday urged Russia to drop its opposition to U.S. plans to develop defenses in Europe against long-range nuclear missiles, but the Russians refused to budge. ``We face new threats that require new strategies for deterrence and defense,'' Gates said in a prepared statement delivered with Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov seated beside him. ``We invite Russia to join our defensive endeavor as a partner.'' Serdyukov, however, made clear that Moscow is opposed. ``The Russian position with respect to this issue remains unchanged,'' Serdyukov said. ``We do believe that deploying all the strategic elements of the ballistic missile defenses is a destabilizing factor that may have a great impact upon global and regional security,'' he added. The Bush administration hopes a series of high-level meetings this week will yield the first sign of a crack in Russia's opposition to a top-priority U.S. defense project - building anti-missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. The bases would be meant to provide protection in Europe from a long-range nuclear missile launched by Iran - a threat that U.S. officials say may be fast approaching but that the Russians say is exaggerated. The dispute has grown into a major irritant in U.S.-Russian relations. Gates, on his first visit to Russia since taking office last December, was meeting Monday with Serdyukov, President Vladimir Putin and other senior officials, to gauge their initial reaction to a new set of U.S. proposals designed to soften Russian objections. ``It's nice that you accepted the invitation and that President Bush sent you so quickly,'' Putin said. ``We have planned a conversation with him after our meeting.'' Russian-American relations are very important, Gates said, adding, ``There is a great deal we can accomplish together.'' The proposals, presented quietly last week in Moscow and at NATO headquarters in Belgium, include sharing data collected by U.S. sensors to provide early warning of ballistic missile launches, cooperation on missile defense research, and joint testing of the building blocks of an anti-missile system, according to an administration official traveling with Gates. Two officials on the trip from Washington discussed the proposals on condition they not be identified because the talks had not yet begun. One official acknowledged that previous U.S. proposals for such cooperation had fizzled, and that it likely would take time and multiple meetings and consultations to see if the Russians will change their mind. ``I don't think we expect to solve this problem on this trip or to get even a definitive answer from the Russians necessarily on this trip,'' one official said. ``I hope we get at least a preliminary response.'' Later this week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due to attend a NATO meeting in Norway that is scheduled to include a session with Russian officials on the missile defense controversy and other issues. The administration is consulting with Poland on hosting a U.S. base with 10 missile interceptors, and is talking to the Czech government about hosting a radar system used to track hostile missiles in flight. Russia has long objected to a U.S. military presence on its periphery; Poland and the Czech Republic were part of the old Warsaw Pact that faced off against U.S.-led NATO during the Cold War. Washington has repeatedly insisted that an anti-missile system in Europe would not threaten the viability of Russia's vast offensive nuclear missile arsenal and would offer it some protection from a potential Iranian attack. The Russians not only question the seriousness of the threat from long-range missiles, which U.S. officials say is real and growing, but also the feasibility of U.S. anti-missile technology as a response to any such threat. Last week the Russian Interfax news agency quoted Sergei Ivanov, the first deputy prime minister and formerly the defense minister, as saying he saw ``no grounds to talk about potential cooperation'' on missile defense. The Bush administration, however, sees the extension of its existing missile defense system to Europe as crucial. ``Whether Russia cooperates with us or not is really up to Russia. That's a decision that they have to make,'' one of the officials said. ``Russia doesn't get a veto over what we do'' in missile defense. Some of Russia's opposition may be rooted in the history of the U.S. missile defense program. It was famously jump-started with a 1983 ``Star Wars'' speech by President Ronald Reagan that envisioned a global shield against ballistic missiles, which Reagan hoped might one day lead to the abolishment of nuclear weapons. Leaders of the then-Soviet Union decried the Reagan idea, worked to enlarge European opposition to it and spent enormous sums building Soviet offensive missile capabilities to counter the U.S. program. Some argue that the Soviet effort hastened the collapse of the Communist regime. The U.S. missile defense effort waned in the 1990s with the demise of the Cold War, and when it was revived in 2001 by the Bush administration it shifted its focus from Russia to North Korea and Iran. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: Gates Assures Moscow on Missile System From the Associated Press Monday April 23, 2007 1:46 PM By ROBERT BURNS AP Military Writer MOSCOW (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday urged Russia to drop its opposition to U.S. plans to develop defenses in Europe against long-range nuclear missiles, but the Russians refused to budge. ``We face new threats that require new strategies for deterrence and defense,'' Gates said in a prepared statement delivered with Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov seated beside him. ``We invite Russia to join our defensive endeavor as a partner.'' Serdyukov, however, made clear that Moscow is opposed. ``The Russian position with respect to this issue remains unchanged,'' Serdyukov said. ``We do believe that deploying all the strategic elements of the ballistic missile defenses is a destabilizing factor that may have a great impact upon global and regional security,'' he added. The Bush administration hopes a series of high-level meetings this week will yield the first sign of a crack in Russia's opposition to a top-priority U.S. defense project - building anti-missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. The bases would be meant to provide protection in Europe from a long-range nuclear missile launched by Iran - a threat that U.S. officials say may be fast approaching but that the Russians say is exaggerated. The dispute has grown into a major irritant in U.S.-Russian relations. Gates, on his first visit to Russia since taking office last December, also met Monday with President Vladimir Putin and First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, who had been defense minister until Seredyukov took over in February. Gates was gauging their initial reaction to a new set of U.S. proposals designed to soften Russian objections. ``It's nice that you accepted the invitation and that President Bush sent you so quickly,'' Putin said in greeting Gates at the Kremlin. ``We have planned a conversation with him after our meeting.'' The two did not discuss substantive issues during a brief exchange before reporters were escorted from the meeting room. Russian-American relations are very important, Gates said, adding, ``There is a great deal we can accomplish together.'' The proposals, presented quietly last week in Moscow and at NATO headquarters in Belgium, include sharing data collected by U.S. sensors to provide early warning of ballistic missile launches, cooperation on missile defense research, and joint testing of the building blocks of an anti-missile system, according to an administration official traveling with Gates. Two officials on the trip from Washington discussed the proposals on condition they not be identified because the talks had not yet begun. One official acknowledged that previous U.S. proposals for such cooperation had fizzled, and that it likely would take time and multiple meetings and consultations to see if the Russians will change their mind. ``I don't think we expect to solve this problem on this trip or to get even a definitive answer from the Russians necessarily on this trip,'' one official said. ``I hope we get at least a preliminary response.'' Later this week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due to attend a NATO meeting in Norway that is scheduled to include a session with Russian officials on the missile defense controversy and other issues. The administration is consulting with Poland on hosting a U.S. base with 10 missile interceptors, and is talking to the Czech government about hosting a radar system used to track hostile missiles in flight. Russia has long objected to a U.S. military presence on its periphery; Poland and the Czech Republic were part of the old Warsaw Pact that faced off against U.S.-led NATO during the Cold War. Washington has repeatedly insisted that an anti-missile system in Europe would not threaten the viability of Russia's vast offensive nuclear missile arsenal and would offer it some protection from a potential Iranian attack. The Russians not only question the seriousness of the threat from long-range missiles, which U.S. officials say is real and growing, but also the feasibility of U.S. anti-missile technology as a response to any such threat. Last week the Russian Interfax news agency quoted Sergei Ivanov, the first deputy prime minister and formerly the defense minister, as saying he saw ``no grounds to talk about potential cooperation'' on missile defense. The Bush administration, however, sees the extension of its existing missile defense system to Europe as crucial. ``Whether Russia cooperates with us or not is really up to Russia. That's a decision that they have to make,'' one of the officials said. ``Russia doesn't get a veto over what we do'' in missile defense. Some of Russia's opposition may be rooted in the history of the U.S. missile defense program. It was famously jump-started with a 1983 ``Star Wars'' speech by President Ronald Reagan that envisioned a global shield against ballistic missiles, which Reagan hoped might one day lead to the abolishment of nuclear weapons. Leaders of the then-Soviet Union decried the Reagan idea, worked to enlarge European opposition to it and spent enormous sums building Soviet offensive missile capabilities to counter the U.S. program. Some argue that the Soviet effort hastened the collapse of the Communist regime. The U.S. missile defense effort waned in the 1990s with the demise of the Cold War, and when it was revived in 2001 by the Bush administration it shifted its focus from Russia to North Korea and Iran. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Missile base row renews cold war animosity Staff and agencies Monday April 23, 2007 The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, arrives at the Defence Ministry in Moscow. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, had a cool reception in Moscow today as he began a series of meetings aimed at calming Russian fears over plans for a Europe-based missile defence shield. US proposals to site 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and radar installations in the Czech Republic have plunged relations with Russia to their lowest since the end of the cold war. Mr Gates, who is due to meet the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, later today is assessing Kremlin reaction to a conciliatory package presented to Russian officials last week. Under the scheme, the US would share early warning data, cooperation on missile defence research, and joint testing of the building blocks of an anti-missile system. But it was clear after Mr Gates met with the Russian defence minister, Anatoly Serdyukov, that significant rifts exist. "The strategic missile defence system is a serious destabilising factor which could have significant impact on regional and global security," the Interfax news agency quoted Mr Serdyukov as saying after he met Mr Gates. The defence shield is intended to provide protection from long-range nuclear missiles launched by rogue states - a threat that US officials say may be fast approaching but that the Russians insist is exaggerated. Russian defence experts argue the anti-missile system is targeted at its nuclear forces. The Pentagon intends to move forward, whatever the response, a senior official travelling with Mr Gates told Reuters. "We're going to continue to make this effort with Russia but we're also very clear, whether Russia cooperates with us or not is really up to Russia." Later this week, the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, is due to attend a Nato meeting in Norway that is scheduled to include a session with Russian officials on missile defence. Russia has long objected to a US military presence on its periphery. Poland and the Czech Republic were part of the old Warsaw Pact. The Kremlin's chief spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, this month told the Guardian that Moscow felt betrayed by the Pentagon's move and was considering a rival defence scheme. "We were extremely concerned and disappointed. We were never informed in advance about these plans. It brings tremendous change to the strategic balance in Europe, and to the world's strategic stability," Mr Peskov said. Useful links Itar-Tass news agency Moscow Times Russia Today St Petersburg Times Caucasian Knot Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 6 NRC: NRC to Hold Regulatory Conference with Hirata & Associates, Inc. News Release - Region IV - 2007-010 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a regulatory conference with Hirata & Associates, Inc., officials on April 25 to discuss an apparent violation of NRC requirements. The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will begin at 2 p.m. in NRC’s Region IV offices in Arlington, Texas (9 a.m. HST). The public will have an opportunity to observe and ask questions of NRC staff before the meeting is adjourned. Members of the public can listen to the meeting via a special telephone line by calling 1-800-952-9677, and requesting to be transferred to the meeting. The NRC staff will discuss the results of inspections conducted last summer at a company facility in Aiea, Hawaii, and a temporary job site in Kapolei, Hawaii, which identified an apparent violation regarding the use and storage of radioactive materials. No decision will be made on the final significance, the apparent violation or any contemplated enforcement action during the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a later time. ====================================================================== NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Monday, April 23, 2007 ***************************************************************** 7 Herald Sun: Uranium explorer says no to French bid | NEWS.com.au | By AAP and staff writers April 23, 2007 10:38am URANIUM miner Summit Resources says its planned strategic alliance with French nuclear giant Areva will not go ahead, after its directors recommended a $1.23 billion takeover offer from Paladin Resources. Paladin earlier this month made a final bid of one Paladin share for every 1.67 Summit shares, equating to about $6.22 per Summit share. Summit Resources last week told its shareholders that Paladin's improved offer was fair and in their best interests to accept. Areva had previously entered a strategic alliance with Summit by agreeing to take an initial 9 per cent stake in the company for $121.1 million. Summit Resources is an exploration company primarily searching for uranium and base metals. The company's key projects include a uranium vanadium resource at Valhalla and similar styles of uranium mineralisation at Skal and Andersons in the Mount Isa region. Following the takeover, Paladin will secure full ownership of the deposits in Queensland. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 8 NRC: NRC Finalizes “White” Finding at Brunswick Nuclear Power Plant; Places Brunswick Unit 1 in the Degraded Cornerstone Column of the NRC’s Action Matrix News Release - Region II - 2007-023 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has made a final significance determination related to emergency diesel generator No. 1 performance problems at Progress Energy’s two-unit Brunswick nuclear power plant, located near Southport, N. C. This finding, combined with a separate White Mitigating Systems Performance Indicator for Emergency AC Power, places Brunswick Unit 1 in the Degraded Cornerstone column of the NRC’s Action matrix. The NRC uses a color coded system to categorize inspection findings, ranging from “green,” for a very low safety issue, to white, yellow, and finally “red” for a highly significant safety issue. In an April 20 letter to the company, the NRC said the “white” determination, of low to moderate safety significance, was made following an April 5 Regulatory Conference at which the company delineated numerous corrective actions aimed at improving emergency diesel reliability and foreign material exclusion controls. The company is being issued a Notice of Violation for failure to satisfy the requirements for a seven-day limiting condition for operation because only three of four emergency diesel generators were operable from Oct. 30 to Nov. 7 of last year. This violation was the result of the licensee taking inadequate corrective actions to prevent a repeat failure of the emergency diesel generator No. 1 bearing, failing to correctly follow a foreign material exclusion procedure during maintenance and failure to promptly identify and implement adequate actions to prevent the generator from shutting down on low lubricating oil pressure. These issues contributed to the emergency diesel generator’s shutdown and bearing failure during a loss of offsite power event on Nov. 2, 2006. As a result the NRC is preparing to conduct a supplemental inspection of risk significant performance issues, in addition to the agency’s routine, scheduled inspections. NRC officials said overall safety performance at the plant was adequate. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Monday, April 23, 2007 ***************************************************************** 9 RIA Novosti: Russia's nuclear paradox Opinion & analysis - 13:07 | 23/ 04/ 2007 MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatyana Sinitsyna) Winston Churchill famously called Russia "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." Well, here is one more enigma to add to the list: the paradox that though Russia is a great nuclear power, it is not "nuclear-intensive." Nuclear-generated electricity accounts for an average of 17.6% of its total energy output. Let's not forget, Russia built the world's first nuclear power plant in Obninsk in 1954, and 30 years later had 10 nuclear stations. The triumphal march of the Soviet "peaceful atom" was brought to an abrupt halt by the Chernobyl tragedy. Russian society has not yet fully overcome its deep-seared radiation phobia. Trying to overcome the shock, Russia suspended its entire nuclear energy program. At the same time, without batting an eyelid, the French learned from the Chernobyl disaster and moved forward. This is why France now leads the world in nuclear electricity generation, which accounts for approximately 80% of its energy production. Russia is fully determined to bridge the gap, and this is consonant with the nuclear renaissance taking place in the rest of the world. The government has just approved a master plan for the construction of energy generating facilities up to 2020. This road map embodies the plan that was initially outlined in the federal program for nuclear energy development adopted last year. Its main goal is to increase the share of nuclear-generated electricity in the total energy output. According to the road map, starting from 2009, one nuclear unit will be commissioned every year, and from 2012, two units a year; this buildup will continue until 2020. Russia's current aggregate nuclear generating capacity of 23 GW will increase by a factor of 2.3 or 2.5. The WWER-1000 (Water-Water Energetic Reactor, producing 1,000 megawatts of electric power) will be the backbone of the plan. Serial units of this type will be upgraded with the latest technology. However, Russia's Federal Agency for Nuclear Power advocates diversification and insists that these powerful reactors should be supplemented with medium-sized and even small units. Viktor Ivanov, deputy director of the Medical Radiological Research Center at the Russian Academy of Sciences, said this about the road map: "The methods used in the elaboration of the road map are correct, but it is necessary to add a 'risk analysis.' It will scientifically determine the best location for nuclear-generating capacity and calm down those people who are still mistrustful of nuclear energy." Russia is very rich in natural resources and has no reason to fear energy shortages. The government, however, is emphasizing nuclear energy because the world has no alternative in the foreseeable future if it wants a reliable source of energy. Moreover, the nuclear power industry will streamline the country's current absurd energy mix, in which 60% of thermal stations use gas. Gas must be replaced for the sake of both exports and future generations. Professor Rafael Arutyunyan, deputy director of the Nuclear Safety Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, has expressed the following opinion: "In the next 50 years, the oil and gas issue will become more and more pressing. It would not be correct to rely on dwindling sources of energy, the demand for which will be tremendous on the global market. The nuclear power industry is capable of generating enough electrical energy not only in the medium-term but also in the long-term." He believes that even when Russia increases its share of nuclear electricity to 20%-25%, it will not be nuclear-intensive enough. Nevertheless, this program is an absolute must. In 50 years, Russia will have to have a powerful nuclear industry to meet its energy needs. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 10 NRC: NRC Proposes $130,000 Fine to Entergy Nuclear for Missing Deadline To Have New Indian Point Alert and Notification System in Operation News Release - Region I - 2007-023 - U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 www.nrc.gov CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing a $130,000 civil penalty to Entergy for its failure to meet an April 15th deadline – previously extended from Jan. 30, 2007 – to achieve operability of a new alert and notification system for the Indian Point nuclear power plant. Entergy operates the plant, which is located in Buchanan (Westchester County), N.Y. “The NRC recognizes that the existing ENS (emergency notification system) is capable of alerting the general public in the vicinity of the Indian Point station if an emergency condition occurs,” NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins wrote to Entergy with regard to the enforcement action. “However, the failure to meet the terms of the order by the required due date, despite the additional time provided via our extension approval for you to ensure the system would be operable, is of significant regulatory concern to the NRC.” Under the enforcement action, Entergy is also required to respond to an NRC Demand for Information by providing its action plan for resolution of the problems involving the new system. This plan, which must be submitted it to the NRC within 30 days or prior to declaring the new alert and notification system operable, should include the following: details regarding siren sound volume test plans; system functionality and reliability test plans; and training plans and procedure enhancements to ensure, with a high degree of reliability, that the system’s sirens can be successfully activated from the counties that are part of the plant’s 10-mile-radius Emergency Planning Zone, including Westchester, Putnam, Rockland and Orange counties. The NRC, as well as the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency, will continue to monitor Entergy’s progress, with the expectation the new system will be placed into service in a timely fashion. The NRC notes that Entergy remains in non-compliance with the order until the new system, with back-up power capability, is operable within the context of the order requirements. Like other U.S. commercial nuclear power plants, Indian Point is required to have an alert and notification system within the emergency planning zone around the facility. The system is designed to promptly notify the public should a serious incident occur at the plant so that citizens can listen to emergency broadcast stations for information and instructions. As work continues on the new system, it is important to note that Indian Point’s existing alert and notification system remains in operation. The company is required to continue testing and maintaining the existing system. In response to an NRC order issued in January 2006 that implements requirements in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Entergy is replacing its current emergency notification system with a new one that features, among other things, back-up power. The order initially required Entergy to have the new system in operation by Jan. 30, 2007. However, the company was unable to meet that deadline and requested an extension to April 15. The NRC approved that request on Jan. 23. On April 13, Entergy requested a second extension, this time to Aug. 31, but the NRC rejected that request the same day after determining the company had not demonstrated “good cause” and that the factors and difficulties encountered in meeting the April 15th deadline were “reasonably within Entergy’s control.” The agency also said it would in its April 13th response to Entergy that it would consider taking enforcement action for violation of the order. Entergy is required to respond to the enforcement action in writing within 30 days. The NRC letter to the company regarding the enforcement action will be posted on this page: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/indian-point-issues.h tml. NRC news releases are available through a free list server subscription at the following Web address: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC Home Page at www.nrc.gov also offers a Subscribe to News link in the News & Information menu. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web Site. Monday, April 23, 2007 ***************************************************************** 11 France 24: Nuclear power not the solution for China - official La Chaîne de l'Actualité Internationale - Page d'accueil 23/04/07 06h35 GMT+1 Nuclear power is not the long-term answer to China's energy needs due to limited global uranium supplies and problems with nuclear waste disposal, state media on Monday quoted a top official as saying. "Nuclear power cannot save us because the world's supply of uranium and other radioactive minerals needed to generate nuclear power are very limited," Chen Mingde, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said in comments quoted by the China Daily newspaper. State media reported last week that China intended to set up a strategic uranium reserve amid plans to build as many as three new nuclear power plants annually over the next 10 years. But Chen called the expansion of China's nuclear power capacity a "transitional replacement" of the country's heavy reliance on coal and oil. He said the future for China lies in more efficient use of such fossil fuels and expanded consumption of renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro-power. Chen spoke during the international Boao Forum for Asia conference on the southern China island of Hainan at which he said the country aimed to boost its oil reserves to the equivalent of 30 days worth of imports, the paper said. China is keen to diversify its energy sources amid high oil prices and the environmental costs of coal-burning, which supplies around 70 percent of the country's power needs. But Chen said nuclear waste disposal in heavily populated China remained another check on nuclear power's growth. China's nuclear power capacity is seen growing to 40 million kilowatts in 2020 from the current less than 10 million. © 2007 AFP - Mark Ralston Power lines in Shanghai. Nuclear power is not the long-term answer to China's energy needs due to limited global uranium supplies and problems with nuclear waste disposal, state media on Monday quoted a top official as saying © 2007 AFP - Mark Ralston ***************************************************************** 12 Journal News: New radioactive leak at Indian Point Monday, April 23, 2007 Greg Clary BUCHANAN - A new leak of the radioactive isotope tritium has been discovered at Indian Point, coming from an underground steam pipe near the northwest corner of the Indian Point 3 turbine building, company officials and federal regulators confirmed today. The amount of water carrying tritium and its radioactive concentration is small, according to Don Mayer, who has been working on radiological leaks at the plant since they were first discovered nearly two years ago. Tritium was first discovered to be leaking beneath Indian Point 2 in August 2005 and an investigation of that leak led to the discovery of a strontium 90 leak near the defunct Indian Point 1 reactor. The latest leak is unconnected to the earlier leak, Mayer said this afternoon. The new leak's concentration is between 2,000 and 3,000 pico-curies/liter, about a seventh of the allowable concentrations for drinking water, according to Mayer. The amount of tritium is low as well because the pipe is used for steam, and any moisture that shows up would come from condensation during the steam's release. Mayer said there was no threat to worker or public safety and he expected the area to be excavated later today to allow workers to repair or close off the broken part of the pipe. Reach Greg Clary at 914-696-8566 or gclary@lohud.com. Copyright © 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 13 AFP: Nuclear power not the solution for China - official - Mon Apr 23, 1:34 AM ET BEIJING (AFP) - Nuclear power is not the long-term answer to China's energy needs due to limited global uranium supplies and problems with nuclear waste disposal, state media on Monday quoted a top official as saying. "Nuclear power cannot save us because the world's supply of uranium and other radioactive minerals needed to generate nuclear power are very limited," Chen Mingde, vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, said in comments quoted by the China Daily newspaper. State media reported last week that China intended to set up a strategic uranium reserve amid plans to build as many as three new nuclear power plants annually over the next 10 years. But Chen called the expansion of China's nuclear power capacity a "transitional replacement" of the country's heavy reliance on coal and oil. He said the future for China lies in more efficient use of such fossil fuels and expanded consumption of renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro-power. Chen spoke during the international Boao Forum for Asia conference on the southern China island of Hainan at which he said the country aimed to boost its oil reserves to the equivalent of 30 days worth of imports, the paper said. China is keen to diversify its energy sources amid high oil prices and the environmental costs of coal-burning, which supplies around 70 percent of the country's power needs. But Chen said nuclear waste disposal in heavily populated China remained another check on nuclear power's growth. China's nuclear power capacity is seen growing to 40 million kilowatts in 2020 from the current less than 10 million. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear not answer Article Launched: 04/23/2007 12:00:00 AM MDT The burning of fossil fuels is the main contributor to global warming; however, nuclear power is not a good alternative. Nuclear power was thought to be ?the power of the future? during the 1950s, but today only provides 6 percent of the electricity used throughout the United States. Once nuclear facilities have been built, the power is relatively cheap, but these plants cost billions of dollars, and the plants have to be decommissioned within 50 years for safety reasons. Also, nuclear power produces both high- and low-level radioactive waste that takes thousands of years until it no longer poses a serious threat to humans. There is already a huge controversy over where this waste should be stored and how it will be transported, and this problem will only grow more serious as we continue to use nuclear power. I agree that alternative energy sources need to be used to lower greenhouse gas emissions and lower our dependency on foreign oil, but I do not think that nuclear power is the answer. Aaron Wade Centerville © Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 15 Salt Lake Tribune: No nuclear Article Last Updated: 04/22/2007 11:35:33 PM MDT In response to ?Go nuclear? (Forum, April 14), Gary Sandquist is obviously a very educated man on matters of resource impact on the environment. I agree with him about the inevitability of two problems, population growth and resource depletion, but I cannot support his theory that the United States should replace current energy sources with nuclear energy. According to Living in the Environment, a book by G.T. Miller, nuclear power has only produced about 6 percent of U.S. power in the past 50 years. When the plants are finished with the uranium 235 used in the reactors it is still radioactive and dangerous. There is no place to store it, except far under the ground, and it takes hundreds of thousands of years to become safe. Nuclear power plants are hazardous to humans and animals. Catastrophic accidents can occur through machinery malfunction and possible terrorist attacks on the plant. Although fiction, the movie ?The China Syndrome? shows how this can be a potential problem. All in all, nuclear power should not be in the future of the USA. It is dangerous and very inefficient. Megan Carter Centerville © Copyright 2007, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 16 CBS News: FAIR Says Nukes Piece Not - (fair) Public Eye April 23, 2007 Previous Post Posted by Brian Montopoli Last Sunday, "60 Minutes" ran a piece "On How France Is Becoming The Model For Nuclear Energy Generation." Media watchdog group FAIR has objected to the piece on the grounds that it amounted to nuclear-power boosterism. The thrust of the objection was that "60 Minutes" did not provide a balanced argument – that "the program spoke only to nuclear power supporters (in France and elsewhere), thereby allowing their rhetoric to go unchallenged." I asked "60 Minutes" Producer Frank Devine, who produced the piece, to respond to FAIR's complaint. "We were not debating nuclear power in this piece," said Devine. "This was a piece on the French approach. It was not to look at nuclear power, pro or con. God knows we're aware of the shortcomings in nuclear power. [Correspondent] Steve [Kroft] has done two pieces from inside Chernobyl. I worked with him on a piece on security problems at U.S. power plants after Sept. 11." "You really have to look at '60' over the course of 30 whatever years it is," he continued. "We've covered nuclear power from all sides. You have to take this in context." Devine said the piece wasn't initially envisioned as one focused on nuclear power. "We set out to do a piece, years ago, on how the French approach differs from ours," he said. "It developed into a piece on how the French are influencing the U.S. government." © MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Financial Express: Nuclear plants to get more fuel Tuesday, April 24, 2007 Centre to acquire land for setting up more such power plants for Rs 75 crore OINEETOM OJAH NEW DELHI, APR 23: The Centre has decided to acquire land for setting up more nuclear power plants to cater to the growing demand for power in the country. Government estimates peg the project cost at around Rs 75 crore. The detailed project reports will be worked out soon. According to official sources, the Cabinet will soon take up a proposal for adding more nuclear plants. The need to set up more nuclear plants has been necessitated given the energy requirements of the country. Besides the US, India is also pursuing dialogues with Japan to ensure energy security. At present, the country is building at least seven nuclear reactors and plans to increase nuclear generation capacity at least five-fold to 20,000 mw by 2020. The Indo-US nuclear deal, expected to be concluded by the end of 2007, is projected to add about 40,000 mw by 2020. The capital cost per mw in the case of a nuclear plant is estimated around Rs 5 crore, which is higher than the average cost of a thermal plant (Rs 4 crore or less). However, with the fuel cost being much lower than in the case of thermal plants, nuclear power becomes an appealing option. Also, there is no carbon emission aiding in a clean environment. The only problem of a nuclear plant is the reprocessing or disposing off highly radioactive spent fuel. At present, boiling water reactors and pressurised heavy water reactors produce around 3,900 mw of nuclear power. Of the plants under construction, four are pressurised heavy water reactors, two are light water reactors and one is a fast-breeder reactor. On the Indo-US nuke agreement some progress has been made with both sides ironing out some of the contentious issues like fuel supply assurances, reprocessing of spent fuel and future nuclear testing by India. Further discussions will be held in due course to firm up the bilateral agreement. © 2007: Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Ltd. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 18 Reuters: India says won't be pressured on U.S. nuclear deal Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:17AM EDT By Y.P. Rajesh NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India will not be hurried into concluding a landmark but controversial nuclear cooperation deal with the United States, despite the latter's frustration over an impasse in negotiations, an Indian official said on Monday. While New Delhi understands Washington's urgency to clinch the deal before campaigning for the 2008 U.S. presidential election gains momentum, it could not give in to new terms in the pact and more talks were needed, he said. "Both sides would have wanted to move faster, but there are real issues which need to be resolved," said the official, who has been closely involved in negotiating the deal over the last two years. "How can we shy away from that?" "Perhaps there is a sense there that this administration is coming to its last phase and there is therefore an understandable anxiety that if this is not wrapped up soon then it might become difficult," he told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. "For us, whether there is pressure or no pressure, we have to make certain whatever are the key issues those are satisfactorily resolved." The deal, the main showpiece of a blossoming friendship between the two countries, would allow India to buy U.S. nuclear fuel and equipment and boost power production despite not having signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and tested nuclear weapons. U.S. CONGRESS CONDITIONS © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 UPI: Analysis: Report, nuke reality don't mesh United Press International - Energy - Analysis Published: April 23, 2007 at 6:55 PM By BEN LANDO UPI Energy Correspondent WASHINGTON April 23 (UPI) -- A new report by the Council on Foreign Relations makes broad characterizations about humanity as a whole and those who want to increase the amount of nuclear energy for electricity generation, purportedly as a way to halt and reverse global climate change. "According to a prevailing belief, humanity confronts two stark risks: catastrophes caused by climate change and annihilation by nuclear war," begins the report, "Nuclear Energy at a Crossroads," released last week. The climate-change issue has momentum; U.S. media, the White House and Congress all talk it up regularly. But the CFR report says proponents "advocate a major expansion of nuclear energy" that "oversells the contribution nuclear energy can make to reduce global warming and strengthen energy security while downplaying the dangers associated with this energy source." "To realistically address global warming, the nuclear industry would have to expand at such a rapid rate as to pose serious concerns for how the industry would ensure an adequate supply of reasonably inexpensive reactor-grade construction materials, well-trained technicians, and rigorous safety and security measures." That's true, the nuclear industry says. Its main goal is to maintain nuclear's electricity share. "Nuclear energy is not a silver bullet," said Mitch Singer, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. nuclear industry's trade group. Rather, Singer said, it is one piece of the overall picture, which includes renewable energy, clean-coal technology and energy conservation and efficiency. (Two top NEI officials served on the advisory committee for the CFR report, but not all of their comments were included in the final draft, the Brookings Institution's Susan Rice wrote.) While nuclear-power proponents are trying to make talk of the "nuclear renaissance" in this country a reality, after a nearly 30-year absence of new nuclear activity, the industry is merely trying to maintain. "To be able to do that, we have to build 35 new reactors by 2030," said Adrian Heymer, senior director of new plant deployment at NEI. Nuclear energy feeds about 20 percent of U.S. electricity demand and 16 percent of worldwide demand, which is expected to triple by 2050. No nuclear plant has been licensed since 1978, before a chill brought on by accidents at Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, and a move to coal and natural-gas plants, the latter which, at the time, had low fuel costs. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects applications for at least 30 new reactors in the next few years, pushed largely because of a new -- though untested -- streamlined application process and various subsidies and tax breaks in energy legislation passed in 2005. There are 103 reactors operating now. The NEI and other nuclear proponents are keen to point out nuclear's near zero carbon dioxide emissions -- "clean-air energy" -- which is true compared to standard coal, oil and natural-gas operations. Nuclear power does emit, however, if you take into account its entire cycle, which includes mining and enriching the uranium to fuel the reactor, as well as construction of the plants. Most of the climate-change-causing toxins are related to transportation. The United States imports more than 60 percent of the oil it uses, the vast majority of it being used for transportation. Nuclear power can't replace that. There is much in the CFR report that the nuclear industry echoes, and vice versa. It costs $3 billion to $4 billion to build a plant, much more than other electricity sources, though nuclear plants are big baseload generators that have, in the United States, operated at more than 90 percent capacity. An already tight supply of material and labor would squeeze further, and costs would go up if there was an all-out blitz -- either in the United States or worldwide -- to replace fossil-fuel electricity generation with nuclear. Other issues would be exacerbated as well: There is no general consensus on what to do with the nuclear waste created by nuclear plants; the additional spent fuel is a risk for weapons proliferation, as is the enrichment needed to get the fuel reactor ready; and if, in the midst of the expansion, another Chernobyl were to happen, the boom would immediately stall and possibly bust. Instead of relying on nuclear power to address global warming, the CFR report recommends the U.S. government "should shift from providing subsidies to holding all energy sectors equally accountable for their external costs. ... The costs incurred through carbon pollution are a debt unpaid." Polluters should be charged for polluting, which "would act to level the economic playing field among high-carbon emitters such as traditional coal-fired plants and no- and low-carbon emitters such as highly efficient natural gas plants, nuclear plants and wind- and solar-generated electricity." The CFR's nuclear energy report appears, rather, to be advocacy for creating a more equal footing for energy sources to compete for their place in the mix. As the report puts it: "Nuclear power will remain part of this mix for the foreseeable future." -- (e-mail: energy@upi.com) © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 Prague Daily Monitor: Temelin nuke plant first unit connected to grid again - By Prague Daily Monitor/CTK / Published 23 April 2007 Temelin, April 21 (CTK) - The first unit of the Czech nuclear power station Temelin started to supply energy to the grid after a pause of almost three months during the night today, station spokesman Milan Nebesar has told CTK. During the shutdown technicians replaced almost a quarter of fuel in the reactor with new and improved one. The unit was connected to the grid at 21:00 on Friday. "Now its output is being stabilised at 80 percent at which physical tests will be underway for two days," Nebesar said. He added that afterwards the unit will operate at full output. Temelin's second unit is operating without any limitations. The shutdown came in late January after problems occurred with fuel from Westinghouse which showed bigger deformation than expected. The first unit was scheduled to launch power production at the end of March, but a number of technical problems, including a radioactive water leak, increased humidity and a broken steel cable around the containment, put the launch off. Temelin still provokes strong criticism with Austrian opponents of the power station, who said they wanted to block ten of sixteen border crossings to the Czech Republic on Friday, April 27. This will happen unless the Austrian government takes legal action against the Czech Republic on Wednesday for its reluctance to observe the agreements on Temelin, the activists said. The most recently, Austrian activists blocked seven border crossings on April 11. This story copyright 2007 CTK Czech News Agency The Prague Daily Monitor and Monitor CE are not responsible for its content. Prague Daily Monitor/CTK | 20 April ] ***************************************************************** 21 Telegraph: 60k atomic authority chief has 30 other jobs Tuesday 24 April 2007 By Andrew Pierce Last Updated: 1:12am BST 23/04/2007 The nuclear industry was embroiled in a potential new crisis yesterday with the businesswoman running the body responsible for the clean-up of the Sellafield site facing ministerial questions over the number of other jobs she holds. Ministers have been urged to intervene after it emerged that Lady Judge, who is paid Ł60,000 by the Government for a two-day week as chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), has 30 other directorships. Last week the authority announced checks on the medical records of 20,000 deceased workers after the disclosure that the Sellafield site had secretly stored and tested body parts of some of its workers between 1962 and 1991. Lady Judge: two-day week Labour MPs are unhappy that Lady Judge, who took over at the UKAEA in 2004, holds so many posts, including directorships of companies in America and Hong Kong. Last year the UKAEA was fined Ł2 million by the nuclear industry watchdog - the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority - after 58.5 gallons of radioactive fluid spilled at Dounreay in Scotland. No employees were exposed to radiation during the incident but it led to the plant being closed. Lady Judge, 60, is on the board of the New York-based Planet Group, an adviser to Hill & Associates in Hong Kong, and chairman of the advisory board of LoSoNoCo which is based in Florida. She is also chairman of Private Equ-ity Investor, a public company, the deputy chairman of Friends Provident, and the senior independent director at Quintain Estates. In addition to more than 20 other posts, she is also the chairman of the School of Oriental & African Studies and on the board of an American and a Turkish university. Lady Judge is also deputy chairman of the Financial Report Council, which monitors whether British companies are being run properly. Although there is no suggestion that she neglects her duties, a key element of the council's code is that "non-executive directors should undertake that they will have sufficient time to meet what is expected of them". Lady Judge, a lawyer who carries out some of her other work engagements over the telephone, said: "I give considerably more than two days a week to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. I am passionate about its mission which is decommissioning the United Kingdom's nuclear power plants. I am sure the Department of Trade and Industry will tell you it is satisfied with my work." Lindsay Hoyle, a Labour MP on the Commons trade and industry select committee, is pressing for ministerial action. She said: "I am astonished. Ministers have to intervene to examine whether, because of the importance of the organisation, Barbara Judge is able to devote sufficient time to the job. It is hard to imagine how she can be with all those other interests. "The UKAEA is a major player in decommissioning of nuclear sites and other safety issues. Frankly, it is outrageous that the chair of this authority is allowed to have so many other jobs." A spokesman for the UKAEA, which employs more than 2,000 people, said: "I do not know how many days a week she does. That is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry which appointed her." A DTI spokesman said: "The department is more than satisfied that Lady Judge gives sufficient time to perform her role alongside her other duties." Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | ***************************************************************** 22 New Scientist: Chernobyl alert over birth defects - health - 23 April 2007 - Radiation or relocation? A study of birds around Chernobyl suggests that nuclear fallout, rather than stress and deteriorating living conditions, may be responsible for human birth defects in the region. People living around the site of the 1986 nuclear disaster in Ukraine have unusually high levels of physical abnormalities and birth defects. The International Atomic Energy Agency has suggested that the abnormalities are caused by the impact of relocation and stress on the population, and Timothy Mousseau, at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, wanted to put this to the test. Mousseau and his colleagues examined 7700 barn swallows from Chernobyl and compared them with birds from elsewhere. They found that Chernobyl's swallows were more likely to have tumours, misshapen toes and feather deformities than swallows from uncontaminated parts of Europe (Biology Letters, DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0136). "We don't fully understand the consequences of low doses of radiation," says Mousseau. "We should be more concerned about the human population." From issue 2600 of New Scientist magazine, 23 April 2007, page 6 * © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd. Vacancies ***************************************************************** 23 AU ABC: Ziggy goes nuclear Tonight, a man whose name has become his own personal trade mark - Ziggy Switkowski. He's gone from telephones to nuclear energy, an unlikely jump which he says goes back to his roots. He's best known as the CEO of Telstra, but Dr Switkowski is now the public face of nuclear energy in Australia, heading up ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation. He's well qualified for that role. He has a PhD in nuclear physics and he's relishing the opportunity to work in the scientific community. But nuclear power is a tough sell, though Ziggy Switkowski says we have no other choice but to embrace the technology, and he's confident Australia will eventually accept nuclear powered electricity as 31 other countries have done around the world. In Sydney for the opening of the new $400-million nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, Ziggy Switkowski tells us why our fears about nuclear power stations are largely unfounded and why we can't afford to not build them. And he reflects his tumultuous departure from Telstra and gives a frank assessment of the direction it's taken under his successor, Sol Trujillo. (to Ziggy Switkowski) In your current position with ANSTO, do you see it as your job to sell the idea of nuclear power to Australia? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: No, I mean I do have a continuing role in communicating the findings of the nuclear review, and to help ensure that the public debate in Australia is based upon facts. But ANSTO's mission is quite clear and really doesn't get it involved in the nuclear fuel cycle because the terms under which it operates are those that reflect the last 20 years, which is that Australia does not participate in the nuclear fuel cycle other than in uranium mining. So ANSTO's focus is on basic scientific research, working with industry to apply nuclear technology and techniques, and the manufacture of radioisotopes for health care. And whether it steps forward into the nuclear fuel cycle... MONICA ATTARD: Depends on government policy, doesn't it? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: It depends on government policy and maybe decisions that might be made this year. MONICA ATTARD: Mmm. Do you believe they will be made this year? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, I think some will be. I mean we've got this grand debate about climate change, global warming and clean energy and if the country then embraces nuclear power as part of the solution in the later part of this century then ANSTO is wonderfully positioned to make a contribution. MONICA ATTARD: Did you have any fixed position on nuclear power when you were appointed to the five-member panel of experts by the government? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: No. And if fact one the things that we did near the start of our review, which was about July of last year was to poll the task force members to get a view as to where they were coming from on the matter of nuclear power for Australia. And I would say that the average result had the group in the neutral position, and I was in that position as well. MONICA ATTARD: Genuinely neutral? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Genuinely neutral. Not in the sense of not being enthusiastic about the technology of nuclear reactors etc. But, for a country as a well resourced as Australia is with fossil fuels and which has so well powered our economy, the role of nuclear energy in our future was, at that time, seen to be an open issue. MONICA ATTARD: But many of said that, given the Prime Minister's preference for nuclear option, oft stated and quite publicly, that your position as chair of that inquiry was essentially a political appointment. ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well I mean I can understand why from the outside might have seen it that way. I must say the way it played out, the task force was staffed by people who were literate in technology and in some cases knowledgeable about nuclear science as I think you have to have, and the Government helped in the sense of giving us a competent group of people on the task force and wonderful resources in Canberra. But having taken those steps, there were no further guidance or no further interaction with the Government on the outcomes... MONICA ATTARD: But do you need much... do you need much further guidance on the outcomes if you appoint people to an inquiry who you think may have such an open mind that they are going to come up with a particular position at the end of the day? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: I would say in our case that people were selected because they were knowledgeable or at least literate in the field, had a number of years of experience in a number of areas, including in public policy, and therefore could be relied upon to come up with fact-based, objective outcomes. And again, the mandate for the task force was not to end up being advocates of one form of energy or another but rather to update the understanding of the Australian community of the facts of the nuclear fuel cycle in the aftermath of 20 years, really, of a moratorium on the subject. MONICA ATTARD: It's a tough sell, isn't it, nuclear power? Would you agree? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Less so now than it was. I mean, one of the things that has struck me is that a year or more ago you would not normally talk about nuclear energy in polite society in Australia. It was literally a toxic subject. When we started the review, there was the beginning of a sense of readiness on the part of the Australian community to at least think about it. And I would say now I'm really pleased with the nature of the debate. It doesn't mean that the needle has shifted in terms of community support for nuclear power but in terms of the nature of the discussion, the fact that most people now have a view and are prepared to engage. And I think the reporting, particularly by the media and, really, the comment-ariat of the debate has been balanced. Now I must say, one of the other things that has shifted a lot in the last 12 months has been an appreciation of the gravity of climate change and as soon as you have people worried about global warming and connecting that to greenhouse gas emissions, then immediately you take the step to asking the question about clean energy, and nuclear enters the debate. MONICA ATTARD: Can you put up for me the case: why do we need nuclear power stations? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well there are two reasons. Firstly, the demand for electricity in Australia will continue to grow, doubling by the year 2050. So we need to have new sources of energy and particularly of the base load of variety, steady, always on electricity, and there are only a number of alternatives. Coal, gas, perhaps hydro-electric, although that's at risk now with the water issues, and nuclear. There are no other sources of base load electricity. Secondly, if we are going to provide for continuing growth in electricity demand, and that really goes with prosperity and economic growth, and we are going to do it in an environmentally responsible way, that is moving towards low greenhouse gas emitting technologies, frankly, the only points you can go to is nuclear power. So that argues for having nuclear in the debate. Then you travel around the world and you find there are 31 countries already that are nuclear powered, another eight in the queue to put in their first reactor. In this part of the world, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, India, all have nuclear reactors. Vietnam and Indonesia are going to be next. Australia, having nearly 40 per cent of the world's uranium and making a substantial business out of that, not being part of the nuclear fuel cycle, while being concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, appears to be inconsistent. MONICA ATTARD: But even given the passage of time, how do you allay the fears that people have? The lingering doubts at what happened at Chernobyl? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, a number of countries reminded us that trying to get community awareness and then opinion shifted on this subject, takes a long time. So what I think, just a year into this debate - and it may be that this debate has to run for some time, much longer than one electoral cycle - when we started the review in the middle of last year, the major concerns that group that rejected nuclear power had were concerns about waste, worries about a repeat of a catastrophic accident like Chernobyl, and then general worries about terrorism and proliferation. Those concerns there... MONICA ATTARD: And they are all valid concerns, aren't they? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: They are all valid concerns, and they are still there, but they have actually been overtaken in the last few months, I think reflecting the nature of the debate. And now, when people challenge me in forums about the validity of nuclear power in Australia, they say things like, "well it's going to cost too much". Secondly, they say, "well if the first reactor is 15 years away, that's too far away to make a difference to our climate change challenges". And the third concern is, "well if we are going to have 20, 30 or 40 reactors, where will you put them"? MONICA ATTARD: Exactly, where would you put them? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, here are the criteria. You need to have, nuclear powers are big reactors, they are like big coal-fired power stations, you need to have them near the electricity grid, you need to have them near the markets they are going to serve, big population centres, and because they have to be water-cooled, as does coal, they need to near water. But it can be seawater. That points you to up and down the eastern seaboard. MONICA ATTARD: Gee, that'll be popular. ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: And, what other countries have done is to collocate their nuclear power stations with the coal power stations. MONICA ATTARD: Right. ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: That becomes less controversial. MONICA ATTARD: So that means we're talking about, in Sydney terms, for example? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Oh, I don't know where the first reactor might go, partly because the questions are not appropriately directed to me or the Government, because the first or the early reactors will be the reactors that the energy utilities have built a business case for and decided that this is the best location for them in terms of their greater electricity generation strategy... MONICA ATTARD: So they're the people who should make the decisions, ultimately, as to where they should be located? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: They will be the people that will present the business cases that will then be reviewed by whatever regulatory bodies are in place in terms of environmental impact and other considerations that will be put in place to oversee the industry, if we go that way. MONICA ATTARD: Right. What about the community? Should the community have a voice? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Oh absolutely. MONICA ATTARD: But in what form, if there are determinants other than what the community wishes, in relation to where these reactors should be? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: What the experience around the world has been is that, once a country or community has a nuclear power station in their environment, that their acceptance to nuclear power progressively improves, and quite quickly. And so it is that first nuclear reactor which is quite the big challenge, because the experience of the industry, which is now 50 years old, is that nuclear power is clean, it's efficient, it's not intrusive. In fact, when you tour a modern nuclear power facility, it feels like you are going to a semi-conductor fabrication plant - highly automated, very clean, relatively few people running it and with a small physical footprint into the landscape. So when people see that, in history or examples from overseas, suggest that they become comfortable with nuclear power. MONICA ATTARD: Is there are difference, though, in being comfortable with nuclear power and not wanting one in your backyard? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well absolutely. I mean, the question, when put to people about, "do you support nuclear power?" you get a certain reaction. "Would you like a reactor in your backyard?" the response is much more negative. If you then extend that, "and would you support having a long-term waste-repository in your area"? People are also resistant to that. But, if you go to countries like Finland, France, etc, and certainly the Finns, they've got a situation where, after 30 years of nuclear energy, and about half of their energy is now nuclear, they have communities contesting for the right, competing for the right to have the next reactor in their environment. MONICA ATTARD: Why? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well... MONICA ATTARD: What are the benefits? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: ...primarily because they don't have the concerns about nuclear power and then the economic incentives associated with having a nuclear industry in your environment. MONICA ATTARD: Employment. ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Employment, investment in infrastructure, certainly access to subsidised, lower cost electricity, which is what companies tend to do around the world, amounts to incentives to most of these communities have found to be compelling. MONICA ATTARD: The issue of waste. You've described it in the past as a clean energy source. But there is toxic waste that nuclear power generates, does it not? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Indeed. The, I mean, nuclear power is generated by the fission reactions in a uranium fuel cell. The uranium fuel cells typically reside in a reactor for three years. They are then removed, cooled and eventually put into long-term storage. And they are highly radioactive, and will remain that way for decades, centuries and thousands of years. MONICA ATTARD: So where do we put it? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well again, let me tell you the criteria. Most countries have now concluded that you store long-term nuclear waste deep underground in environments which are geologically stable and with no water movement and usually remote from population centres. If you say that they're the three criteria, that describes more than 90 per cent of the Australian continent. And deep underground means about 500metres underground, which frankly is not deep for a modern mine. And so there is probably a dozen countries now which are on the path to building those facilities and they'll be ready in the next 10 to 15 years. In Australia, as I say, you could pick most of the continent. Now, there will be other social and political criteria, but in terms of the geology, hydrology and distance from population, most of the continent qualifies. For Australia's needs in the middle of the century, if we were to go nuclear, you probably need one nuclear waste dump. And the nuclear waste dump would cover hectares. So in our many millions of square kilometres of inner-Australia, to find such a location, in an engineering and technical sense, is very straightforward. Socially, politically, as we have found with the low, with the waste repository for low-level medical and research waste, it's a huge issue. But, to be brutally frank, Australia has made a meal out of this debate, where other countries have had to step up to it and have resolved it quite sensibly. MONICA ATTARD: And when you say, "made a meal about it", you mean politically speaking? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well the fact that we still... MONICA ATTARD: Has it become a political football? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: ...we have now, we generate radioactive waste from medical imaging, cancer treatment and research. The radioisotopes and sources that are used are distributed over hundreds of locations in hospitals and universities, in a way that is far from satisfactory. They should all be collected and documented and stored in one location. It's low-level stuff. Frankly, it not complicated to store. And yet, we still don't haven't got an answer to something that most people would agree is a necessary step we have to take, we have to find. And the management of low-level and high-level nuclear waste is frankly less challenging than what we have to do with many of the toxic chemicals that we deal with, and we seem to do that satisfactorily. MONICA ATTARD: What's wrong with renewable sources of energy? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Nothing, and in fact most of us would applaud if we could get more renewable energy and add solar, wind, tidal, geothermal even more into the mix into the future. But they do have limitations, mainly around intermittency. MONICA ATTARD: You're in Sydney at the moment, visiting OPAL (Open Pool Australian Lightwater reactor) the new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, what benefits will that bring, that new facility? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, it's, the goals of the new facility and indeed the of the activities of Lucas Heights, are three-fold. One is to continue to do world-class basic research into subatomic phenomena. Two, to work with industry in using nuclear techniques for studying things, proteins that are important in the pharmaceuticals area, structures, defects, etc. And the third area is in the production of radioisotopes for medical imaging and cancer treatment. MONICA ATTARD: But Lucas Heights already does that, so what does this new facility bring us? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: So the new facility will do all of that, better, faster and in higher volume. Certainly the basic research can be done to a much more demanding level, high levels of resolution, smaller sample sizes, and will enable Australian scientists, I think, to converse with their counterparts overseas on the same level with facilities that are... well with the facility here at Lucas Heights, which will be a world leading one for a time until the next such facilities are built somewhere else. MONICA ATTARD: But how safe is it Ziggy? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, here we are, we've been using nuclear medicine in this country for 50 years and you struggle to find instances which have troubled people. That's not to say any of these processes are free of risk. But they are designed to minimise those risks and we've had a terrific record in Australia and the movement of these radioisotopes which are, particularly when they're short lived, it means that their radio-toxicity falls away quite quickly. The movement, the use, the delivery, in terms of the tests or the treatment etc is, I think now, a fairly well tuned set of processes. MONICA ATTARD: Now, we live in an age of terror. You've already mentioned a community fear about terrorist attacks on these kinds of facilities, and there have been instances where people in Australia have been charged, in fact, with the planning to attack installations such as Lucas Heights. How certain are you of the security of these facilities? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well it's interesting. When you travel around the world and you look at these new reactors, a new reactor might cost, for power generation, which is not Lucas Heights, but it might cost $3 billion and we were told perhaps half of that cost is on security systems and safety systems which you hope are never tested. So they are certainly designed with security and terrorism in mind. And in the Lucas Heights facility, when you see the structure, you'll find that it's in a cage which has been again engineered to withstand missile and direct aircraft impact. That's a reflection of the times that we live in. In terms of terrorism attacks on power reactors and/or the research reactor in Lucas Heights, I think for the informed terrorist, if I can say it that way, there are so many other ways to cause social disruption before you take on the difficult task of a nuclear reactor, which is, which are now, the modern reactors are designed to withstand external attack and to be very, very difficult to compromise, even if you could get inside. So my judgment in the probability, the risks here, are very low. MONICA ATTARD: Ok, let's look back a bit now. Let's leave nuclear energy behind, just for the moment. You're probably the best known to Australians as the CEO of Telstra. ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Um, is that still the case? MONICA ATTARD: I think so. It was a pretty rocky departure though, wasn't it, in 2005? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Oh, I think, no doubt. When you get to a situation where, as a CEO, you form views that are different to that of the board, certainly the last few months they were, it was not a wonderful period. You know, we had different points of view and when that happens, usually the CEO departs. MONICA ATTARD: So, when you look back on that time now, what do you think was the biggest problem that you faced? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: The most memorable aspects of that period were the sheer exhilaration of riding the upside of the dot.com boom, which started in the mid '90s and peaked in the year 2000. MONICA ATTARD: Did you get carried away with that? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: No, I don't think we got carried away and in fact, you look back then and you might of, one could think of other things that we could have done that may have positioned the company even better today than it is in terms of its participation in a range of online activities and the online infrastructure. MONICA ATTARD: So you would have done things a bit differently? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: I think inevitably you look back over periods of one's career, and you would have made some different decisions. MONICA ATTARD: Telstra, in this period, lost $2 billion under the Asian Expansion Scheme, didn't it? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Yes, we made a number of investments in Asia and then took some write downs. MONICA ATTARD: And you regret those? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Oh absolutely. I mean, in the sense that if you could make investment decisions that led to higher returns. What I would say is that you'd struggle to find a large telco in that period... MONICA ATTARD: That wasn't doing the same thing. ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: ...that wasn't doing the same thing, and in fact compromised their balance sheet and in fact the viability of the company, seriously. One thing I would say... MONICA ATTARD: Was Telstra's viability seriously compromised? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: No. No. The balance sheet was so strong that the investments that we made were minor in comparison to what could have been had we decided to move more energetically in some areas. MONICA ATTARD: In hindsight, when you look back, was it a mistake to run Telstra as a growth business? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Oh no, not at all. There's no denying that Telstra was and is on a journey, evolving away from its hundred year roots as a government-owned enterprise, to being a dynamic, competitive and fully privatised enterprise. And it's still on that journey, and still probably has a way to go. When you are in a business, with such new products coming out, as was happening in the 1990s - wireless communications, the internet had just arrived, the evolution from being a sort of pipes and cable company to being a company providing service and content - that all added up to a picture that was a growing, evolving, transforming experience. So to run it as a utility, which people often argued should have been the case, and just focused upon... MONICA ATTARD: Core business. ZIGGY SWITKOWKSI: ... on the, well, tidying the infrastructure side of things, was certainly part of the mission, but it couldn't have been the whole mission, in my opinion. And frankly, again, if I was to circle back to areas where it would have been nice to have driven a different conclusion, I think the thinking at the time about an association with a Fairfax-type of organization, or a free-to-air broadcaster, was very sound and clearly, the case didn't get up, but I think that the strategy was valid. MONICA ATTARD: A final Telstra question, and I know that you might not want to comment on your successor, Mr Trujillo, but you did say when you left the job, that the new leader would need the ability to sense the political nuances and the varied Australian expectations of this mighty organisation. Has he managed to get there? Would you say that you'd give him a tick? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: What I would say is that the current management and the board have adopted quite a different strategy, that is inconsistent with what I would have described in that quote. And they judge an alternative path to be a better path, and history will form a view on that. MONICA ATTARD: Ziggy, you said that when you left Telstra, that being the CEO was one of the demanding jobs in Australian business and it was a strange lifestyle from which you needed a break. How was it strange? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Well, I think that's a comment that can be generally applied to the life of a modern CEO, particularly in a big and somewhat complex organisation. I'm not sure that leading, I mean, that was probably a needless expression of vanity by saying that it was the most complicated job in the country. It was certainly one of the complicated jobs in the country. In order to do the job at a senior executive level, or a CEO, today, you are pretty much on call 24-7 as they say. You need to be very attentive to issues of, to media issues, to political issues. In many industries you have heavy regulatory oversight and obligations. And I think to be successful it's a near obsessive commitment to the job, which I must say I willingly devoted. MONICA ATTARD: Did it exhaust you? ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Yeah, there is no doubt at the end of an extended period, you are sleep deprived and fatigued. And you sense that only after you've away from the job for a few weeks and you both feel better and you are able to kind of lift your eyes above the horizon and look peripherally at things that are going on that typically, you don't have the luxury to be doing that when you are driving a... MONICA ATTARD: A massive organisation. ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: ...big organisation. When the nuclear review was offered to me, that came at a wonderful time. It was such an interesting exercise in a topic that I had an historic interest in, and which progressively became more relevant in terms of community interest. So, I mean, the mix I've got at the moment feels good. I must say that, where two years ago, in the morning if you pick up a newspaper, as one did, all of them, you would immediately turn to the business section. I no longer do that. It doesn't mean I don't read the business section, but you start at the front, or at least I tend to start at the front now, which is a different, for me, quite a big difference. So that sort of reflects, say, well, I don't know, maybe a restoration of balance to one's life. MONICA ATTARD: Ziggy Switkowski, thank you very much. ZIGGY SWITKOWSKI: Thanks Monica. MONICA ATTARD: And that was the head of ANSTO, Dr Ziggy Switkowski. I'm Monica Attard, and thanks for joining me on Sunday Profile. Thanks also to Sunday Profile Producer, Lorna Knowles, Local Radio Producer Dan Driscoll, and to Amanda Roberts for her research. ***************************************************************** 24 AU ABC: Debate over nuclear future PM - Monday, 23 April , 2007 18:18:57 Reporter: Daniel Hoare MARK COLVIN: Debate has already been raised a notch in the Federal Labor Party over its long-held ban on new uranium mines. As the party gears up for its national conference later this week, a new anti-nuclear group has been established - the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. The new group was launched in Melbourne today, among its members, a number of prominent Australians, including the former prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, and the neuroscientist, Fred Mendelsohn. And while the group may speak with one voice on nuclear weapons, they're not necessarily so united on Australia's place in the nuclear fuel cycle. Daniel Hoare reports. DANIEL HOARE: In his past life, before politics, it wouldn't have been hard to have imagined Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett as one of the high-profile members of the newly-established International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. The group was launched today by a string of eminent Australians from the worlds of academia, public health and international law. But Peter Garrett will instead have his hands full this week as Labor's environment spokesman, as he leads the charge against Opposition leader Kevin Rudd's proposal to scrap the party's long-held opposition to the establishment of new uranium mines. At the launch today of the group known as the ICAN, there was plenty of free advice for the Labor party as its members consider uranium policy. One member of the new group is Joseph Camilleri, a Professor of International Relations at Melbourne's La Trobe University. JOSEPH CAMILLERI: My personal advice would be to terminate all involvement with any aspect of a nuclear fuel cycle. DANIEL HOARE: Dr Camilleri's views are shared by fellow ICAN member Tilman Ruff, from the Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne. Tilman Ruff is also unequivocal about Australia's position on uranium exports. TILMAN RUFF: If you have the capacity to produce uranium to run in a nuclear power reactor, then they are Siamese twins. It's simply impossible to separate that from the capacity to enrich uranium a little bit further to use in a bomb, or to extract the plutonium that's inevitably produced in the reactor to make a bomb by a different means. DANIEL HOARE: But the view that nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons are inherently linked isn't a view shared by the most high-profile member of the new anti-nuclear group, the former prime minister, Malcolm Fraser. MALCOLM FRASER: I really believe that you've got to divorce the question of nuclear weapons from power. They are different issues. And a number of European countries now are becoming 70, 80 per cent of their total needs are supplied by nuclear power. And power for peaceful purposes is becoming critical. If you're going to try and abolish that, as well as abolish nuclear weapons, then you won't achieve anything at all. DANIEL HOARE: Another member of the panel is Professor Fred Mendelsohn - one of Australia's leading neuroscientists and the Director of Melbourne's Howard Florey Institute. Professor Mendelsohn says it is possible to simultaneously export uranium and lobby to abolish nuclear weapons. FRED MENDELSOHN: There are conditions under which we could export uranium for use in nuclear power, and the first one would be a total abolition of nuclear weapons on the planet. And the second would be the installation of a rigorous inspection system so that no more were produced, either by the current nuclear weapon states, or by nations aspiring to acquire them. DANIEL HOARE: Malcolm Fraser says the newly established international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons could make a good start to its campaign by lobbying Commonwealth nations. He thinks Britain is the only Commonwealth member which would oppose the abolition of nuclear weapons. But Malcolm Fraser is pragmatic when it comes to nuclear proliferation. MALCOLM FRASER: There will be proliferation. They will not be able to stop it. Unless the major nuclear states make up their minds that nuclear weapons must be abolished. Nobody's saying this has got to happen in 12 months or five years. To set that as a target, so long as it was done in a really binding way, over a considerable time, that would be all right - everyone would feel a lot safer. But the real benefit for that is you could then be extraordinarily tough on any other state that sought to upset the movement to abolition. MARK COLVIN: Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser ending that report by Daniel Hoare. ***************************************************************** 25 NEI: Survey Reveals Gap in Public's Awareness of Nuclear Energy's Role in Reducing Greenhouse Gases WASHINGTON, April 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Even though nuclear energy is by far the largest clean-air energy source used to generate electricity, fewer than half of Americans strongly associate nuclear energy with clean air, according to a new national survey of 1,000 adults. The survey shows that only 42 percent of Americans associate nuclear energy "a lot" with clean air. This is the case even though nuclear power plants provide 71 percent of all U.S. electricity that comes from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or any of the pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The other clean-air energy sources for electricity are hydroelectric power plants (25 percent), wind power projects (2.3 percent), geothermal projects (1.3 percent) and solar power (one-tenth of one percent). More than 100 nuclear power plants operating in 31 states provide electricity to one of every five U.S. homes and businesses. The new telephone survey was conducted March 30-April 1 by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK and has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. In similar surveys of adults conducted by the same research firms for the Nuclear Energy Institute in May 2005 and March 2006, 55 percent of Americans in both instances strongly associated nuclear energy with clean air. The new survey also shows that while 57 percent of Americans "have heard or read about" the need for nuclear energy within the past year, only 46 percent have heard or read about the clean-air benefits of nuclear energy. Thirty-nine percent have heard or read about the use of nuclear energy "as a way to fight global warming and climate change." "Amid the vast amount of media and public policy attention given to global warming concerns over just the past year, there seems to be a disconnect between awareness of the issue and the meaningful measures possible to reduce greenhouse gases," said Scott Peterson, Nuclear Energy Institute vice president. "For our nation to truly succeed in using the best mix of energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Americans should be better informed about the capabilities that each technology has. This survey shows continued solid support for nuclear energy. The task that lies ahead for our industry is to help the American people better understand that nuclear energy, which they already support, should be an important element of state and national policies to prevent greenhouse gas emissions." Another key finding of the survey is that the overwhelming majority of Americans sees nuclear energy as important to our future, but does not recognize how much electricity it supplies today. About 80 percent of those surveyed believe "nuclear energy will be important in meeting the nation's future electricity needs." When asked which sources of electricity are used most today (respondents could name more than one), only 10 percent mention nuclear energy; 32 percent mention natural gas, 31 percent mention coal, 22 percent mention oil, and 16 percent mention hydropower. When asked which sources of electricity will be used most in the United States 15 years from now, Americans cite solar energy (27 percent) and nuclear energy (24 percent) most. Fourteen percent mention coal-fired power plants, even though coal-fired plants today provide 49 percent of the nation's electricity and are likely to remain the leading source of electricity in the next 15 years. "People have a similar view of solar and nuclear energy as fuels of the future, but not major sources today," Bisconti Research President Ann Bisconti said. "That's not new. It's the same view the public has held for nearly a quarter of a century. Misperceptions about our energy supply, coupled with the fact a large segment of the public is not hearing about nuclear energy's clean-air role, result in an underestimation of the magnitude of nuclear energy's contribution right now in addressing concerns about global warming." The survey shows that 63 percent of Americans favor "the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States." Two-thirds of Americans say that, if a new power plant is needed to supply electricity, it would be acceptable to add a new reactor at the nearest existing nuclear plant site. The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's policy organization. This news release and additional information about nuclear energy are available at http://www.nei.org SOURCE Nuclear Energy Institute http://www.nei.org ***************************************************************** 26 Salt Lake Tribune: Study searching out what causes some genes bring higher breast cancer risk Article Launched: 04/23/2007 06:32:54 AM MDT Mary Ellen Strong is participating in the Sister Study, a breast cancer research project for sisters of victims and patients. Mary Ellen Strong jokes that she is the lab rat of her family. But if that's what it takes to unravel the mystery of breast cancer, she said, it's a role she'll happily take. The 66-year-old Taylorsville woman is one of 151 Utahns - and 35,460 women across the U.S. and Puerto Rico - who have enrolled in the National Institutes of Environmental Health Science's (NIEHS) Sister Study. Strong, whose mother and sister both battled breast cancer, said she wants to know why women in her family seem to be at higher risk for getting the disease. Did one or more mutated genes get passed down the family tree? Or was it caused by something in the environment? Did the nuclear bomb tests that rattled her Gunlock home in the 1950s factor into her mother and sister's diagnoses? "We thought the earth was on fire because we lived in a little valley and could see the red explosions," she said. So when Strong came across an ad in a Costco members' newsletter asking women to enroll in the Sister Study, she picked up her phone and called about it. Strong hopes more women will do the same. About 15,000 more women need to enroll this year, the study's last recruitment year, in order for NIEHS to reach its 50,000-person goal. The NIEHS is especially interested in recruiting minority women. "It's so easy and a pleasure to actually do something that will help," Strong said. "If every sister of a sister who had cancer signed up, we'd have enough to have the number we need to do a good study." The long-term observational study, which scientists began designing in October 2004, will examine how genes and the environment may interact to increase a woman's chances of getting breast cancer, said Lisa DeRoo, a staff scientist in NIEHS' epidemiology branch. Specifically, it will look at variations in genes that affect a woman's response to exposures to certain chemicals, foods and hormones. DeRoo said the study will allow different hypotheses about what causes breast cancer to be studied and will look at a multitude of potential risk factors, such as beginning periods at an early age, bearing children later in life and smoking. Women enrolled in the Sister Study will be tracked for at least 10 years and will report everything from where they've lived, to the type of beauty products they use, to their diet and exercise habits, she said. While it may sound cumbersome for the women being studied, it's not, Strong said. "It's very self-explanatory and very easy to do," she said. After filling out a detailed questionnaire, Strong said she had two, hourlong phone conversations with a representative of the study. Afterward, a technician came to her Taylorsville home to measure her height and weight, collect samples such as blood, urine and toenail clippings, and take swabs of household dust. Over the 10 years of the study, Strong said, she will be contacted once a year and asked more questions. "It's very confidential," she said. "I'm just like a number. They just keep track of me and my sisters." Strong's interest in the results of the research is high. Because her 60-year-old sister had breast cancer, her chances of getting the disease are about twice that of the general population's, according to NIEHS. Strong hopes that breast cancer, which affects one in eight women during their lives and kills more women in the U.S. than any cancer except lung cancer, will someday "be a thing of the past." She added, "If they can find the cause of this, they can find a cure." lrosetta@sltrib.com ***************************************************************** 27 The Australian: Yes on uranium, says Rudd NEWS.com.au | * April 24, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP FEDERAL Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd will offer to block a uranium enrichment industry from developing in Australia as part of a pitch to gain his party's support for an expansion of uranium ore exports, it was reported today. Mr Rudd will ask the ALP to end a 25-year-old ban on new uranium mines at Labor's national conference this weekend. The draft policy amendment to the party's 1982 platform, which banned new uranium mines, will prohibit nuclear power stations and “all other states of the nuclear fuel cycle”, The Australian newspaper reported. The move will be a blow to those in Labor who believe Australia could develop a lucrative export industry developing nuclear rods for power stations, particularly for the burgeoning economies of China and India. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 28 Herald Sun: Labor fears nuclear fallout NEWS.com.au | Ellen Whinnett April 24, 2007 12:00am A POTENTIALLY embarrassing split is looming in the Victorian Labor Party over whether to back Kevin Rudd's push for Labor's anti-uranium stance to be softened. Members of the dominant Right-wing Labor Unity faction are divided on whether to support the change, and are threatening to split instead of voting along factional lines when the issue comes up at Labor's national conference in Sydney at the weekend. But other faction members are furious and a meeting of Labor Unity delegates tomorrow night will be told the faction should support the leader. Across Australia, numbers are tight, with a large number of Left-wing members against any change to the policy not to allow any more than the three uranium mines. But Right-wing members supporting Mr Rudd say the policy is a "half-pregnant" one, and should be changed. "You either have a policy that says no mines or you have a policy for mines, you can't have it both ways," one senior Labor Unity member said. Another senior Labor Right figure said: "There isn't a political party worth its salt that would allow its leader to be rolled this far out from an election. It won't happen." Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese, who leads the anti-mining group, said the issue should be debated democratically at the conference. "Historically, the Victorian Labor Party has had strong opposition to uranium mining, across the party," he said. "And I haven't heard anyone argue yet that there is support within the Labor Party, from the ALP membership, that people want to see a change in our cautious stance on uranium mining." But another disagreed, saying: "If there was evidence it would swing votes into our column in marginal South Australia seats, well and good, but there isn't. This will give the Greens something to go after us in the inner cities." Number-crunchers within the party say the vote is so tight it could come down to how the 37 members of the Labor Unity faction in Victoria vote to decide whether the policy is changed. Others disagree, saying most people will support Mr Rudd and change the policy, despite the Left's strong opposition. "It's about discipline. You support your leader," one faction powerbroker said. Labor Unity expects that of the 86 delegates in Victoria who get a vote, 43 Left-wing or independent MPs will vote for the policy to remain unchanged. The six National Union of Workers voters, who are Right-aligned, are expected to vote with Mr Rudd, while the exact number within the 37-strong Labor Unity group is not known. Factional heavyweight Bill Shorten would not comment, but it's believed he backs Mr Rudd and the Australian Workers Union will vote to change the policy. Victorian Premier Steve Bracks, who is strongly anti-uranium, but is a member of Labor Unity, refused to outline his position yesterday. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 29 Sydney Morning Herald: Labor treads risky path on uranium - www.smh.com.au April 24, 2007 LABOR risks alienating one of its traditional backers, the environmental movement, if it dumps its uranium mining policy this weekend. The Australian Conservation Foundation will today release a paper in support of the policy, which allows expansion of the three existing mines but not the construction of new ones. "If Labor wants to be taken seriously when it stands up against nuclear power, then it must get serious about the fuel that makes nuclear power possible," said the foundation's executive director, Don Henry. But the policy looks almost certain to be overturned. The Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, said yesterday he expected the conference to vote for his changes. Fractures are appearing in the Left's traditional opposition to changes. The frontbencher Anthony Albanese said he would seek support for an amendment that would make new mines contingent on an effective international non-proliferation regime and a decision on what would happen to waste. The resources and energy spokesman, Chris Evans, said the existing policy made no sense, and the party had to attack the problems of uranium mining head-on. The former deputy leader Jenny Macklin is also considering how she will vote. A leading member of the Left, she prosecuted the case against creating new nuclear waste dumps. The Greens senator Christine Milne will today issue a discussion paper that argues Australia's economy must be reconfigured to rely less on oil and fossil fuels. When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or us. Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 30 Sydney Morning Herald: Labor to dump uranium policy - Evans - www.smh.com.au April 23, 2007 Federal Labor resources spokesman Chris Evans says he expects Labor will overturn its 25-year opposition to new Australian uranium mines. Mr Evans says he will support Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's plan to dump the ALP's uranium policy at the party's national conference which starts on Friday in Sydney. "The current Labor Party policy has failed," Mr Evans told reporters in Perth today. "During the life of the policy uranium mining has trebled, three new mines have opened and we are about to become the largest uranium miner in the world. "I think there is a mood for a change in the Labor Party ... we have been debating it for 30 years ... the policy hasn't worked." The party might be divided on uranium policy but it was united in support for strengthening international nuclear safeguards, he said. "We are very worried about (Prime Minister John) Howard's plans to sell uranium to India, outside the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but my expectation is that the conference will change the policy. "I have been wrong before but am hopeful that we will change the policy." AAP When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or us. Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 31 Sydney Morning Herald: Atomic builder misses Summit - www.smh.com.au An Areva-built nuclear power plant in France ? it's bold Queensland play has petered out. April 24, 2007 The French company wanted to lock in some of its own uranium, which gets dearer by the day. TWO weeks after swooping in as a white knight, French nuclear giant Areva has been forced to hold up a white flag. Areva has been told its $293 million alliance with Summit Resources - a bid to obtain lucrative marketing rights over Summit's share of the Valhalla-Skal project - is a no-go now that Paladin Resources looks set to succeed in its $1.2 billion scrip bid for Summit. Paladin had originally said it would vote its share of Summit in favour of the Areva deal. But at that point it looked like its own offer had hardly any chance of getting to the 90 per cent mark - and a slim chance of even reaching 50 per cent. Once Summit's board made the shock decision to accept Paladin's increased offer last week, the Areva deal no longer made sense. After all, Summit's board now wants Paladin's shares to be worth as much as possible. "It's just a natural outcome. Nothing sinister in it," Paladin managing director John Borshoff told Xchange. Summit could be forced to pay a $2.5 million break fee to Areva, although Summit managing director Alan Eggers said that may not happen if Paladin and Areva can reach an alternative agreement. For its part, Paladin has offered to talk with Areva about a different sort of alliance, which would not involve a share placement or marketing rights. "I can't go into great detail on it ? but to a degree we may need each other [outside the Valhalla-Skal area]," Borshoff said. Areva said it was "assessing its position" yesterday. Meanwhile, Paladin has achieved 18.72 per cent of Summit. Edited by Matt O'Sullivan xchange@smh.com.au When news happens: send photos, videos & tip-offs to 0424 SMS SMH (+61 424 767 764), or us. Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 32 AU ABC: ALP change on uranium crucial, says Macfarlane ABC Queensland (ACST)Monday, 23 April 2007. 10:23 (AWST) Uranium mining: Mr Macfarlane says the ALP conference will be a farce if the policy is not reversed.ABC TV Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane says he hopes a resolution on uranium mines at Labor's national conference this weekend will prompt the premiers of Queensland and Western Australia to approve mining in their states. Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd is proposing a resolution to overturn Labor's ban on new mines, but the move is facing strong opposition from some of his own frontbenchers. Mr Macfarlane says a Rudd victory on the issue would be useful. "If the Labor Party want to keep moving forward, then they will in fact come out with a policy that will allow uranium mining as of now," he said. "When they do that, they need to ensure that that policy binds state premiers like Peter Beattie and Alan Carpenter to expand the uranium mining in their states." Mr Macfarlane says Mr Rudd needs to come up with a consistent position. "He needs to have a victory whereby Alan Carpenter and Peter Beattie go back to their states and say we are now open for business, we will begin uranium mining as of today," he said. "If he doesn't achieve that outcome, if all we see is a continuation of South Australia and the Northern Territory mining uranium, then the whole weekend will be a farce." Mr Rudd's proposal is being challenged by federal frontbenchers Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett, who are proposing an amendment that would place tough measures on storing waste and prevent uranium being used for nuclear weapons. Opposition resources spokesman Chris Evans says his party's uranium policy has failed and he believes it will be overturned at the ALP's national conference. Senator Evans says the party needs a more logical policy to reflect Australia's leading role as a uranium producer. "The current Labor Party policy has failed," he said. "During the life of the policy, uranium mining has trebled, three new mines have opened and we're about to become the largest uranium producer in the world. "The current policy is not working. We need a more rational, logical policy." ***************************************************************** 33 Daily Yomiuri: Toyocho drops bid to build radioactive waste repository The Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan on Monday said it would cancel its plan to carry out a feasibility study for construction of a high-level radioactive waste repository in Toyocho, Kochi Prefecture, following a request by the town's newly elected mayor. Earlier, the new mayor, Yasutaro Sawayama, 63, told the organization the town wanted to withdraw its application. Sawayama had promised in his campaign that he would withdraw the application. The organization was to begin the first-stage of two-year-long study in the town and adjacent areas in late May. After being elected mayor, Sawayama obtained consent to withdraw the application from senior officials of the town office and six town assembly members who opposed the plan. He then contacted the organization by fax and telephone to present his proposals and later sent a letter. In line with the proposal, the organization is to apply to the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy of Japan to change the project plan for fiscal 2007. The agency is expected to agree, thus cancelling the research. === Sawayama to take pay cut Sawayama told The Yomiuri Shimbun early Monday that he would significantly cut his mayor's salary to help alleviate the town's financial problems, adding that he would set aside a sufficient budget to improve services for local residents. Pointing to the importance of 2,179 signatures submitted to the town government in protest of the waste site, he said: "Opposition to the research application has been dominant in the town throughout the election campaign. I believe a small town like ours could shake up central governmental policy." Discussing the divisive effect the election campaign had on the town's residents, he said: "It's distressing that friends and family have been at odds over the [waste site] issue. But I'll do my best to help them unite again." At a press conference on Monday, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki mentioned Sawayama's victory, saying, "If the town wants the application to be withdrawn, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan will respect that. The central government will also respect the town's intention." In response to his victory, Tokushima Gov. Kamon Iizumi said, "Behind the issues are the financial difficulties of local municipalities and disparities between local and urban areas." The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 34 Herald News: Nuclear waste transportation plans intensify debate HeraldNewsOnline.com Member of the Sun-Times News Group April 23, 2007 By BILL BIRD sun-times news group If the discussion had only stayed centered on the federal government's proposed transportation of spent nuclear reactor fuel, there might not have been quite as much commotion as there was. Brian J. Quirke, spokesman for the U.S. Department of Energy, came close to promising west suburban residents Friday that the area would be bypassed should trucks eventually begin hauling the used fuel to Argonne National Laboratory near Darien and a new nuclear waste facility in Morris, 60 miles southwest of Chicago. Electricity in northeastern Illinois is generated in large part by nuclear power plants in Braidwood, Byron, Dresden, LaSalle, Zion and the Quad Cities area. Only the Byron and Zion facilities lie north of Interstate 88. The others are closer to Interstate 80, as is Morris. "Interstate 80 will be a major (spent fuel) shipment route for trucks" bringing tons of the material to the Morris facility and ounces of it to Argonne, where it will be used in research under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Quirke said. He added it was "very unlikely" any of the used fuel would be shipped to either destination via Interstate 88. Fewer than 20 people turned out for Friday night's public hearing on the issue, held in Nichols Library near downtown Naperville. The session was organized by the Naperville-based grassroots group Nuclear Waste Containment Campaign. But those attending gave energy department officials an earful, voicing their concerns over the potential perils of the shipping plan and nuclear power in general. Differing viewpoints Quirke was joined Dave Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service, which has been highly critical of the transportation plan and related proposals. Kraft and Quirke found themselves in agreement that the spent fuel does not constitute "highly radioactive, weapons-grade plutonium," as had been characterized in some printed material. The men also concurred that burying the used fuel rods on the site of their power plant of origin -- which has been highly touted in some quarters -- was a bad idea. But disagreement sprouted throughout much of the 2 1/2-hour hearing. Quirke contended nuclear power would have to play a key role in meeting the nation's energy needs, which he said were expected to double by 2030. The Energy Department envisions construction of as many as 300 new nuclear power plants nationwide by the end of the century. Kraft gently chided Americans with the words, "We are all electricity addicts." He contended alternative energy sources and conservation should be pursued over the construction of more nuclear power plants. Health risks Federal officials, according to Quirke, also are considering construction of one or more of the following in Morris: a nuclear fuel recycling center, an advanced recycling reactor and an advanced fuel cycle research facility. Audience members noted Argonne is in the orbit of a densely populated area, and that Illinois has more nuclear reactors than any other state. One woman said Illinois residents already assume more nuclear waste-related health risks than residents of any other part of the country. Kraft conceded he and his organization "don't have a place in mind yet" that might prove acceptable for the storage of all of the nation's spent nuclear fuel, although the group is opposed to the idea of warehousing it within Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He also aimed a barb at President Bush, a proponent of nuclear fuel recycling, which is generally abhorred by environmentalists. "You guys think it's so safe?" Kraft challenged proponents of the current spent-fuel storage proposals. "Store it under Congress, or some guy's ranch in Texas." © Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | Terms of Use and Privacy ***************************************************************** 35 RIA Novosti: Armenia, Russia discuss intl. enrichment center 13:33 | 23/ 04/ 2007 YEREVAN, April 23 (RIA Novosti) - Armenia is in talks with Russia to join an international uranium enrichment center, the head of Russia's nuclear power agency said Monday. "We have already started initial consultations on Armenia's participation in an international uranium enrichment center," Sergei Kiriyenko said at a meeting with Armenia's Natural Resources Minister Vardan Aivazyan. Kiriyenko also said the relations between the two countries in the nuclear sphere are entering a new level. "Russia is ready to invest in uranium prospecting and production in Armenia," he said, adding that the country's estimated uranium reserves are "at least 30,000 [metric] tons." He also said Russia is ready to participate in building a new nuclear power plant in Armenia. "If the Armenian government decides to build a new nuclear power plant, Russian specialists will take an active part in the construction project," he said. At present, Armenia has one NPP. Russia and Kazakhstan said last month they will sign an interstate agreement on an international uranium enrichment center in East Siberia in the near future. A delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) visited the Angarsk chemical plant, the site of the uranium enrichment center. Last October, Russia and Kazakhstan, which holds 15% of the world's uranium reserves, opened their first joint venture to enrich uranium in Angarsk. The venture, which was part of Moscow's non-proliferation initiative to create a network of enrichment centers under the UN nuclear watchdog's supervision, will also be responsible for the disposal of nuclear waste. IAEA Deputy Director General Yury Sokolov said the principal condition for enriched uranium deliveries is strict "observance of all international non-proliferation rules." The center will offer uranium enrichment services to countries interested in developing nuclear energy for civilian purposes. The Angarsk plant was previously removed from the list of "national strategic installations," and there are no further legal impediments to its operation. RIA Novosti ***************************************************************** 36 West Australian: Rudd offers to block uranium enrichment thewest.com.au 24th April 2007, 4:15 WST Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd will offer to block a uranium enrichment industry from developing in Australia as part of a pitch to gain his party's support for an expansion of uranium ore exports, it was reported. Mr Rudd will ask the ALP to end a 25-year-old ban on new uranium mines at Labor's national conference this weekend. The draft policy amendment to the party's 1982 platform, which banned new uranium mines, will prohibit nuclear power stations and "all other states of the nuclear fuel cycle", The Australian newspaper reported. The move will be a blow to those in Labor who believe Australia could develop a lucrative export industry developing nuclear rods for power stations, particularly for the burgeoning economies of China and India. AAP West Australian Newspapers Limited 2007. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 37 West Australian: Labor to back me on uranium - Rudd : thewest.com.au 23rd April 2007, 14:58 WST Labor leader Kevin Rudd is confident the party's rank and file will back his plan to change the party's 25-year-old uranium mining policy. And while party powerbrokers believe he will succeed, they warn that failure to overturn the uranium ban would be fatal to his leadership and the party's electoral chances. Mr Rudd will ask the party to overturn a 25-year ban on new uranium mines at Labor's national conference this weekend, but is facing a push from the Left to defer any decision until more stringent safeguards are in place. Opposition frontbenchers Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett are leading the charge to maintain the status quo, saying there is no mandate to increase the number of uranium mines in Australia. Mr Albanese will put forward an amendment at the conference, which begins on Friday, urging the party to consider tougher non-proliferation safeguards and strategies to deal with nuclear waste, while leaving the issue of new uranium mines for later. Mr Garrett, who ran for the Senate on a nuclear disarmament platform in the 1980s, argues that Labor has gone as far as it should on uranium mining. "It's clear that there's a strong feeling amongst Labor Party members, particularly amongst the rank and file, and also frankly, amongst the public, that they don't want to see a change in this policy," he told ABC Radio. But Mr Rudd believes his proposal will succeed. "I would expect the conference to support the approach I put forward to them," he told reporters in Brisbane. His deputy, Julia Gillard, is confident Mr Rudd will win but concedes it will be a tough fight. "I believe that Kevin Rudd will prevail in this debate, but I expect it to be a vigorous debate, and that's appropriate," she told ABC Radio. Ms Gillard expects the party will fall into line with the leader, whose other main challenge this weekend will be industrial relations. "(The) conference will be very much guided by Kevin's view," she said. Advocates of a change in policy warn that a defeat for Mr Rudd could seriously damage his leadership and the party's chances at the next election. But they don't believe those supporting the status quo have any serious chance of getting their position up. "This is just about the theatre of the party, they're playing to their constituency," one Labor source said. Another predicted those against an expansion of uranium mining had "not a chance in hell" of success. South Australian Premier Mike Rann, who is expected to second Mr Rudd's motion, is urging members to use common sense and change a policy that clearly hadn't worked. "I hope that common sense prevails because being in government means making hard decisions and it means making decisions on fact, not on ideology," he said. The government is doing its best to capitalise on divisions within Labor. Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane said Mr Rudd would need to get Western Australia and Queensland on board if he wanted to claim success at the conference. "He needs to have a victory whereby Peter Beattie and Alan Carpenter go back to their states and say we are now open for business, we will begin uranium mining as of today," he said. "If he doesn't achieve that outcome and all we see is a continuation of South Australia and the Northern Territory mining uranium then the whole weekend will be a farce." Queensland premier Peter Beattie opposes a change in policy and expects even if Labor backs expanded uranium mining the states will ultimately have discretion on whether they allow new mines. AAP West Australian Newspapers Limited 2007. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 38 washingtonpost.com: U.S. Centrifuge Work Revived in Updated Form - By Dan Charles Special to The Washington Post Monday, April 23, 2007; Page A06 PIKETON, Ohio -- Inside an enormous structure here, shielded by heavy security, a U.S. company is hard at work constructing tall, slender, uranium-enriching centrifuges designed to obtain uranium-235 for nuclear fuel -- the very technology that is provoking a standoff between the United States and Iran. USEC Inc., which took over the government's uranium enrichment operations in 1993, is building the centrifuges at the Portsmouth Reservation, a Department of Energy property near Piketon. Within five years, if USEC can come up with the money, the building will hold 11,500 centrifuges and sell enriched uranium to nuclear plants around the world. These 1980s centrifuges have been demolished to make way for new ones that will produce enriched uranium more efficiently. (Usec Inc.) Graphic Inside a Uranium-Enriching Centrifuge The spinning cylindrical chamber uses centrifugal force to separate uranium atoms of different molecular weight. Many centrifuges, linked together, can yield a concentration of U-235 high enough to maintain a fission chain reaction in a nuclear reactor, or a nuclear weapon. USEC's machines are technical marvels, much larger than those of Iran or other nations in the international centrifuge club, which includes Russia, Germany, Britain, the Netherlands, Pakistan and Brazil. The most remarkable aspect of USEC's American Centrifuge project, though, is its resurrection from the dead. The basic design originated more than two decades ago at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. In the early 1980s, the DOE constructed an enormous centrifuge enrichment plant at the Portsmouth Reservation. But before it went into operation, the nuclear industry ran aground, and projected demand for nuclear fuel fell precipitously. In 1985, with 1,300 centrifuges already installed, the government canceled the program. The building near Piketon became a mausoleum of secret technology. For more than 20 years, its centrifuges stood idle in silent rows. "We had the feeling that someday those buildings would be like Stonehenge," said Houston G. Wood III, a professor at the University of Virginia who worked on the project. "People would come and wonder, 'What were they thinking?' " The United States continued to produce enriched uranium at older plants that use another technology, called gaseous diffusion. These plants were privatized along with USEC in the late 1990s. Gaseous diffusion, however, is inefficient. The one plant that USEC still operates, at Paducah, Ky., consumes huge amounts of electricity, and USEC wants to replace it. In 1999, the company elected to pursue centrifuges. It began searching for experts in the technology, many of them still working at Oak Ridge. "Frankly, I don't think we would have resurrected this, had that not been the case," said Dean Waters, a leader of the centrifuge program before it was cancelled. He now works for USEC. Waters, like others, was about to retire when company officials called. Waters helped retrieve old technical reports, computer programs and centrifuge-related equipment from a vault at Oak Ridge. "It's like reliving your youth," he said. "You almost have to pinch yourself; how can I be doing this again?" The mothballed facility at Piketon is coming back to life. USEC ripped out the 1980s-era centrifuges and hauled them off to the DOE's Nevada Test Site, where they were buried in a landfill for secret garbage. A new generation of centrifuges, more advanced than their predecessors, is arriving. The first few loom like tall white ghosts in the dimly lit centrifuge hall. These 1980s centrifuges have been demolished to make way for new ones that will produce enriched uranium more efficiently. These 1980s centrifuges have been demolished to make way for new ones that will produce enriched uranium more efficiently. (Usec Inc.) Graphic Inside a Uranium-Enriching Centrifuge The spinning cylindrical chamber uses centrifugal force to separate uranium atoms of different molecular weight. Many centrifuges, linked together, can yield a concentration of U-235 high enough to maintain a fission chain reaction in a nuclear reactor, or a nuclear weapon. Save & Share Article What's This? Digg Google del.icio.us Yahoo! Reddit Facebook Inside each one is a hollow cylinder called a rotor, more than 40 feet high and about two feet in diameter. The cylinder is made of tightly woven carbon fiber. It sits, perfectly balanced, on a needle and spins like a tall and slender top. Its speed, like many other things about it, is secret. Outside experts, however, say the velocity of the cylinder's wall probably exceeds 1,000 mph, well above the speed of sound. When uranium, in the form of uranium hexafluoride gas, is fed into the cylinder, centrifugal forces push it outward against the spinning wall. Heavier atoms of uranium-238, which make up more than 99 percent of uranium as it is mined from the Earth, push outward with greater force, separating themselves from the lighter uranium-235. Within a few months, USEC plans to have as many as 240 centrifuges at the plant spinning at full speed and linked in a small "cascade." This trial is supposed to persuade investors to help finance a full-scale plant, which USEC estimates will cost $2.3 billion. There is plenty of demand at the moment for enriched uranium, and prices have been rising. But USEC faces direct competition from a German-British-Dutch consortium called Urenco. Urenco operates centrifuge enrichment plants in Europe that are widely considered the most efficient in the world, and it is building a plant near the town of Eunice, in southeastern New Mexico. Some observers, such as Julian Steyn, president of the consulting company Energy Resources International, think USEC's unproven centrifuges will have difficulty competing with Urenco's. USEC officials, however, emphasize the size and power of their machines, which are designed to enrich uranium four times as fast as Urenco's most advanced centrifuges. The American Centrifuge design is like a Mercedes, said one USEC official, compared with the Volkswagen of its competitor's "little, short machines." USEC officials navigate a delicate path between promotion and secrecy. Reporters touring the facility are prohibited from taking pictures, carrying cellphones, or even taking notes with pen and paper. Any foreigner who wishes to visit the facility has to pass a DOE security review, which takes several months. The tight security is traceable to the colorful history of centrifuge technology and its status as a poster child for nuclear proliferation. It was invented, in its modern form, in a Soviet camp for captured German and Austrian scientists immediately after World War II. The Soviets released the leading engineer of the team, Austrian Gernot Zippe, in 1956, and Zippe shared his secrets first with U.S. officials, then with the Europeans who founded Urenco. "I saw that the West was far behind what we did in Russia, and I decided that it would be wrong to leave this to the Russians," Zippe said in 1992. He settled near Munich, but the technology kept traveling. A Pakistani employee at one of Urenco's contractors, Abdul Qadeer Khan, carried centrifuge designs back to his homeland in the 1970s and rose to fame as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb. According to Western investigators, Pakistan then provided technology to other nuclear aspirants, including Iran, Libya and North Korea. Waters, who took on the job of improving the original Zippe centrifuge when he started working at Oak Ridge in the 1960s, said USEC's technology is less likely to be disseminated: "Not many people would even attempt to tackle the kind of machine that we're building." 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 39 RGJ.com: Nuke waste shipping has a spotless record Posted: 4/22/2007 Current system is working well Funding plan must provide access for all Time to take 'Big Oil' to task for outrages Reconstruction task best left to the Iraqis Direct the outrage at rapists, not victims Painted 'flag' showed disrespect for youth The issue of transporting used nuclear fuel is being used as just another scare tactic by the political opponents of Yucca Mountain ["Nuclear waste on our rails," April 1]. The transportation of fuel has a spotless safety record, and for good reason. The containers used are designed and tested to withstand any conceivable impact on the road, fire, and immersion in water -- all in the same accident. Since 1964 there have been over 3,000 shipments of fuel covering 1.7 million miles without a single leak or container failure. And since the fuel consists of ceramic pellets in metal tubes, even a break in a container would not spread material very far. What about a terrorist attack? An attack on a nuclear waste container would be largely pointless. Because the containers have thick steel walls, breaching them would be very difficult, and then again any released material would not travel very far. Remember the nuclear fuel is solid, not liquid or gas. Not much of a terrorist target! There are many shipments of hazardous chemicals and explosive materials traveling through our area every day with much larger consequences for the population in case of a terrorist attack. Nick Tsoulfanidis, Reno Reader Comment Mon Apr 23, 2007 12:13 pm "Tell ya what, if nuke waste is so safe, why don't you get out of Nevada and go move next to a plant. You'll be safe there." It's safer than living next to a coal power plant. Just because you have an irrational fear of nuclear power, doesn't mean the country should disregard the advantages of nuclear power. The fact that there has NEVER been an accident involving the transport of nuclear waste in the U.S. is a testament to how safe the system is. Reader Comment Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:26 am Have you driven through Nevada? It pretty much is a dump out side a few cities and town. Nuclear waste needs to be stored in a single place that can be guarded and protected. Our representatives should be pushing for payment from nuclear plants for using Yucca as storage. Reader Comment Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:03 am Tell ya what, if nuke waste is so safe, why don't you get out of Nevada and go move next to a plant. You'll be safe there. Nevada does not have a nuclear plant. It does not receive any energy from nuclear power. It has already born having the test grounds and subsequent problems from them. And is only political about it because it was forced down our throats by other states who do have plants and do receive power from them but don't want their own garbage. Nevada is not a dump! © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 40 RGJ.com: Cities welcome tribe voices opposing Yucca transit plan Editorial Posted: 4/22/2007 CATHLEEN ALLISON/NEVADA APPEAL Bob Loux. executive director of Nevada’s agency for Nuclear Projects, said the north-south Mina-Schurz Rail Route “would impact more Nevada cities than any other route the Department of Energy could pick.” OUR VIEW: The U.S. Department of Energy could have predicted the state would continue to oppose its plans for Yucca Mountain. Members of the Walker River Paiute Tribe were looking out for their own best interest when they rejected a railroad route (the so-called Mina-Schurz Rail Route) that would carry spent nuclear fuel to Yucca Mountain. Residents and officials in Sparks and Reno, who also object to the Energy Department's transit plans, welcome the Tribal Council's decision. The more voices in this fight, the better. Regular updates coming from Washington show the U.S. Department of Energy is intent upon opening the repository and transporting the nation's nuclear waste for burial there, despite objections, and in any way it can. The tribal members' formal opposition to letting trains carry the waste through their reservation means the department can look elsewhere to continue its environmental impact study of the most efficient and cheapest way to transport the material. The department still can use the more expensive route through Utah and Caliente. But its cheapest and easiest plan (through Southern California to Northern California, over the Sierra and through Reno-Sparks) has been turned on its head. If state officials oppose burial of the waste on safety concerns, Energy officials might have predicted that residents would back them up and local objections to having trainloads of toxic material pass through town would reach a fever pitch, also primarily on safety concerns. Residents are right, as well, to protest that the material might decrease property values, affect tourism and endanger residents in case of an accident. It has been said before that Nevadans have reason for skepticism about the federal government's safety claims. Deliberate denials and misinformation surrounding Yucca Mountain and previous Defense and Energy projects at Nevada test sites, the health problems of so-called Downwinders after those projects, and the string of problems with the Yucca construction plans (including possible fraud) justify refusal to buy into the current plan. There were worries when it was thought the tribe would make the rail project easy. It is good to know now that most of the state's communities continue to stand in solidarity against the repository. © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 41 DailyBulletin.com: Audit of cleanup costs set Rialto efforts to clean water to get a review By Jason Pesick, Staff Writer Article Launched: 04/23/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT RIALTO - With the tab climbing to the $20million mark, the City Council has agreed to get an audit of its expenditures to clean up drinking water contaminated with perchlorate. The city's cleanup strategy has relied heavily on lawsuits against dozens of corporations and government entities it has accused of contributing to the problem, which could cost $200million to $300million to clean up. "We need to assure the public that it's being spent wisely and properly," said Councilman Ed Scott, who said he called for the audit. The audit is only intended to make sure no money is being wasted, not to question the city's legal strategy, Scott said. At a recent council meeting, Councilman Joe Baca Jr. said the warrant resolution the council was supposed to approve showed an identical payment being made twice. That turned out not to be the case, but Scott said he thinks the audit is important "to make sure billing and invoicing has been done properly." He said he also wants to make sure the attorneys are actually working the hours they say they are and that more than one attorney or consultant are not doing the same work. Baca has also complained that he doesn't know exactly where the money is going. The city does not disclose all that the law firms are paid in the warrant resolutions to keep that information from the parties it is suing, said City Attorney Bob Owen. The audit comes at a critical time during the city's efforts to clean up the chemical, which can be harmful to humans by interfering with the thyroid gland. In July, the city's legal team is scheduled to argue before the State Water Resources Control Board at hearings that could force three corporations to clean up much of the contamination. "Now is not the time to blink," said Owen. He said he is confident the audit will show the money is being spent properly. In addition to the state board hearings, in 2004 the city sued 42 entities, including the Defense Department, San Bernardino County and a number of corporations, to get them to clean up the contamination. Last year, Rialto filed an additional suit against the county in state court. Although Scott insisted that the majority of the council still supports the lawsuits and that the audit to be conducted by the firm McGladrey & Pullen LLP will have a narrow focus, Baca has used the opportunity to call into question the city's strategy. "I'm concerned about there being a blank check out there for the attorneys," Baca said. He said he wants to know exactly where the money is being spent, whether it is the wisest use of city resources and if there are other ways besides the lawsuits to clean up the perchlorate. He said he also wants to find out if city staff can do some of the work the city is paying attorneys and consultants to do. Mayor Pro Tempore Winnie Hanson agreed with Scott that the audit is narrowly intended to make sure the money is being spent properly. "It's not about the strategy," she said. The $20 million number includes the cost of the attorneys, experts to investigate the contamination, treatment systems to remove perchlorate from the drinking water and an informational campaign to keep the community informed. The number reflects the amount the city has spent since 1998, Owen said. The city's water department charges a perchlorate fee to its customers to provide funds for the effort. If the city wins its suits, it will reimburse the ratepayers for those costs. A few months ago, the council transferred $5million from the General Fund to speed up the federal lawsuit, but Scott said the lawsuits have not been sped up, and he doesn't want the city to pay an additional $5million every year. Before the audit begins, Scott and Hanson, the members of the council's perchlorate committee, will meet with the auditors on Monday to discuss the scope of the audit. The cost of the audit should be clearer at that point. Baca, who was elected to the council in November, has been critical of the city's strategy to clean up the perchlorate. He said the city should consider scaling back the lawsuits. Other members of the council and Owen have said that the litigation is necessary in order to make sure the polluters - not taxpayers - pay to clean up the perchlorate. Owen also argues that without the information the city has uncovered through the lawsuits, it would not have the evidence necessary to convince the state water board to order the polluters to clean up the perchlorate. Owen warned against "playing politics with this important public-health issue." He said he is also concerned the suspected polluters will think there is dissension on the council over whether to continue pursuing them right before the state board hearings. "It's very irresponsible for somebody to begin doing that," he said. Contact writer Jason Pesick at (909) 386-3861 or via e-mail at jason.pesick@sbsun.com. ***************************************************************** 42 Radio Netherlands Worldwide: No salty solution to nuclear waste - by Thijs Westerbeek 23-04-2007 The salt mine at Gorleben, across the border in Germany Salt domes are often seen as safe locations for the permanent storage of nuclear waste. However, recent research at Groningen University in the Netherlands has pointed out that radiation may have a catastrophic effect on the stability of these domes. For a start, the rock salt is likely to degrade. Worse could happen at a later stage, with possible explosions and probable leakage of radiation into the environment.   Russian-born researcher Anton Victorovitz Sugonyaku is the author of the thesis about salt dome radiation hazards. He questions the feasibility of the entire concept of storing radioactive waste in these underground mountains of rock salt.   Dr Sugonyaku explains that they were formed eons ago and have never changed since. This apparent immunity to change has made them a prime candidate in the search for a safe nuclear waste storage location. The idea is to drill a hole deep into the salt dome - we're talking hundreds of metres - and then lower containers with radioactive waste into the hole. Once enough containers have been stacked on top of each other, the hole will be filled with concrete, thus ensuring that no radiation ever escapes.   Not such a good idea after all Until recently, this seemed to be an excellent idea. The waste would just sit deep underground forever, slowly burning off all radiation until it posed no threat anymore. The chance that future generations would accidentally stumble upon the containers were minute; they're just too deep down. Furthermore, as salt domes were seen as among the most stable of geological formations, it seemed the perfect solution. Dr Sugonyaku's research has changed this perception.   "Radiation definitely has an effect on salt," Anton Sugonyaku explains. "It decomposes rock salt and transforms sodium chloride molecules into sodium and chlorine. Sodium is a metal, and chlorine is a vapour, and these elements are formed as small precipitates in the crystal lattice." In layman's terms, the rock salt's crystal structure loses its integrity. Then, the story gets worse: "If the radiation damage is sufficient there can be explosions, and it's even possible that radiation will leak to the surface." The experiments Conducting experiments which are supposed to mimic the exposure of rock salt to millennia of radiation will never be completely realistic. Dr Sugonyaku tried to get as close as possible, radiating salt crystals in his laboratory for several months. The radiation levels could be controlled, as well as the speed of the radiation and the temperature of the crystals. The Borssele nuclear power plant in the Netherlands All this makes the resulting data scientifically valid; the predictions stand. It leaves us with the question of whether salt domes are definitely not an option anymore when it comes to storing nuclear waste. Surprisingly, for Dr Sugonyaku, the answer is not an unequivocal 'No'.   "I think we should dig deeper, scientifically, we should search for materials that can be put in between the canisters and the natural rock salts. Natural rock salt is very sensitive to radiation, we know that, we have seen that, but we have found some materials , also sodium chloride materials, which are much less sensitive. For instance, sodium chloride doped with bromine or iodide could serve as a protective layer..."Conclusion If salt domes are to be used as storage locations for nuclear waste, monitoring will be key. Rock salts may still be a viable option, but the original idea of just putting the waste deep into the ground and then basically forgetting about it is definitely out. Copyright Radio Netherlands 2007 Disclaimer ***************************************************************** 43 Institute for Policy Studies: Why GNEP can't jump to the future Public release date: 23-Apr-2007 Contact: Denise Hughes Denise@creative-connectors.com 917-549-2621 New study highlights flaws in President's nuclear proposal WASHINGTON D.C.—April 23rd 2007 -- Congress is now considering whether to approve or zero out the $405 million that President Bush is proposing to spend in fiscal year 2008 on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP)—a program aimed at rendering plutonium inert in nuclear weapons but still useful in nuclear power plants. Nuclear experts at the National Academy of Sciences have long questioned the practicability of the technologies GNEP plans to employ. Currently, the Government Accounting Office is now reviewing the program. This, however, leaves legislators with an information gap as they struggle to decide whether to fully fund the plan, eliminate it altogether, or redirect some of its funding to the many successful energy programs whose budgets President Bush is proposing to gut in FY 2008. In particular, major questions have been raised about the magnitude and costs of radioactive wastes stemming from the GNEP program. To help legislators and the American public bridge this information gap, the Institute for Policy Studies will release a rigorous study of GNEP on April 23rd. Directed by Robert Alvarez, Senior Policy Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Energy from 1993 to 1999, the report concludes that the program is likely to squander billions in taxpayer dollars on an unproven reprocessing technology that will generate unprecedented and unmanageable amounts of highly radioactive wastes without plausible disposition paths. The potentially deadly flaws documented in Alvarez’s study include: * The amount of long-lived radioactivity disposed of into the environment at a reprocessing site could be thousands of times greater than from nuclear weapons production. Much smaller concentrations of similar wastes at the DOE’s Savannah River Site have been characterized by the National Academy of Sciences as representing "a long term safety concern." * GNEP would allow large quantities of cesium 135—a radionuclide with a half life of 2.3 million years—to be disposed in the near surface and pose serious contamination problems for many thousands of years. * More than four thousand shipments of spent nuclear reactor fuel will be transported on rails and highways through cities and farmlands to the reprocessing site, posing unprecedented emergency response and security challenges. * Despite DOE’s claims that recycling of reactor spent fuel will solve the nuclear waste disposal problem, a small fraction is likely to be recycled. Uranium constitutes more than 95 percent of the materials in spent nuclear fuel by weight. But, it will require costly treatment for reuse in reactors – estimated in the billions of dollars. As a result, DOE’s plans include the landfill disposal of tens of thousands of tons of recovered uranium. Alvarez’s study concludes that the Energy Department "lacks a credible plan for management and disposal of radioactive wastes stemming from the GNEP program, particularly regarding waste volumes, site specific impacts, regulatory requirements and life-cycle costs." Or as Alvarez has put it more bluntly in conversation, "You can’t just park some of the most highly radioactive wastes in the world at a landfill and assume that by so doing you have kept them safely removed from humans for the next 2.3 million years." ### For copies of the report or an interview with Robert Alvarez, call Denise Hughes at (917) 549-2621 or Alex Raksin at (323) 301-8205. On April 23rd at 2 p.m. Eastern, IPS will also host a press conference call and simultaneous web cast featuring Alvarez as well as Tom Carpenter of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and Brent Blackwelder from Friends of the Earth (FOE). To join the telephone press conference, calll Denise Hughes at 917-549-2621— Please RSVP to be included in the call and simultaneous web presentation. To dial in direct in the USA call: 888 343 7268—Ask for the GNEP call outside the USA, dial: 415 537 1924 —Ask for the GNEP call. ***************************************************************** 44 KM: Russia Anxious to Increase its Share in Uranium Enrichment Market - Kommersant Moscow Sergey Kirienko says that production of centrifuges at the Kovrov plant is to quadruple in the next several years. Photo: Valery Melnikov Apr. 23, 2007 Russia is set to quadruple the production of centrifuges at Kovrov Mechanical Factory, a top nuclear official said late last week. The nuclear agency is also shaping the state-run holding to control all nuclear production in the country, a move that President Vladimir Putin is likely to sign into a degree this week. President Vladimir Putin may sign a decree to create the state-owned nuclear production holding, Atomenergoprom, following his annual address, Kommersant learnt from a source in the Russian nuclear industry. Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov and Atomic Energy Agency head Sergey Kirienko visited Kovrov Mechanical Plant on Friday, discussing the creation of another giant holding that would design, produce and launch gas centrifuges. The Russian Centrifuge project is run by state-owned Tekhsnabexport, a corporation which sells uranium and uranium enrichment services. Tekhsnabexport has recently bought the plant in Kovrov, one of Russia’s two centrifuge-producing facilities. The chief of the Russian nuclear energy agency announced Friday that production of centrifuges at the Kovrov plant is to quadruple in the next several years. The plant will also host several additional productions for the nuclear energy which will increase the factory’s profitability from 6 to 17 percent, according to Mr. Kirienko. Deputy head of Tekhsnabexport Valery Govorukhin says that the total world capacity of uranium enrichment is 38 million SWU, to go up to 50 million by 2020. Russia’s share in the market is less than 40 percent. Russian top officials do not hide plans to make Russia a leader in centrifuge production. www.kommersant.com © 1991-2007 ZAO "Kommersant. Publishing House". All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 45 UPI: Yucca project route nixed by tribe United Press International - Energy - Briefing Published: April 23, 2007 at 2:55 PM SCHURZ, Nev., April 23 (UPI) -- The long-delayed nuclear-waste repository in Nevada has one less possible transportation route after a tribe withdrew permission to use its land. The Walker River Paiute Tribe adopted a resolution that it will no longer work with the U.S. Energy Department on an environmental impact study of potential routes to ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. "After considering the information we had gathered to date and discussions with our membership, the tribal council made the decision not to continue with the Department of Energy's process," Genia Williams, tribe chairwoman, said in a news release. "The tribe will not allow nuclear waste to be transported on rail through our reservation." The repository, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was supposed to open by 1998 to store nuclear waste generated by U.S. nuclear plants and military activity. Department officials say it will open by 2017, at the earliest, though Congress, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is likely to delay the project further because of ardent opposition. The Yucca Mountain Project has yet to be approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- in fact the license application hasn't been filed -- and finding a route to ship the waste hasn't been solidified. Train is the most likely method to be approved. The "Mina Route" would ship by rail through Reno and Sparks to Yucca Mountain, and cut into the 325,000-acre Walker River Paiute Tribe reservation. Another route being studied is the "Caliente" in eastern Nevada, which is supposedly more expensive and is longer than "Mina," the Reno Gazette-Journal reported. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 Japan Times: Opponent of nuclear waste dump victorious in Toyo mayoral election japantimes.co.jp Web Monday, April 23, 2007 KOCHI (Kyodo) The candidate opposed to a nuclear dump site won Sunday's mayoral election in Toyo, Kochi Prefecture, defeating the former mayor who sought voter endorsement to host the site, the town's election office said. Yasutaro Sawayama, an opponent of a proposed nuclear dump site, celebrates his victory in Sunday's mayoral election. KYODO PHOTO The race in the small coastal town was contested by Yasutaro Sawayama, a 63-year-old former assembly member of Muroto, adjacent to Toyo, and former Mayor Yasuoki Tashima, 64, and was seen as a referendum on the plan to host the site in return for massive government subsidies. The election was called after Tashima announced his resignation as mayor April 4 to seek a voter mandate for his controversial move to seek documentation research to check whether the town is suitable as a potential dump site. The central government is desperately looking for a site to accommodate a growing volume of radioactive waste from dozens of nuclear power plants throughout the nation. In an unprecedented move by any municipality in Japan, Tashima in January applied for starting document research to see if the town is fit to host the site. Documentation research alone -- the first of three stages of research -- would bring up to 2 billion yen in subsidies to the town and neighboring municipalities. Tashima's move drew protests from some town assembly members and residents who do not want to host a nuclear site, and they fielded Sawayama to run against him. Both ran as independents. Sawayama said during the campaign he would immediately rescind the application and called on voters to show that they do not want a nuclear waste facility in their town. Tashima said applying for the research alone did not necessarily mean that the town should accommodate a nuclear dump and he planned to build better infrastructure with the funds that would come with the research. The Japan Times ***************************************************************** 47 AU ABC: Labor's Environment Minister supports no new uranium mines AM - Monday, 23 April , 2007 08:04:00 Reporter: Peta Donald TONY EASTLEY: As we've heard, the debate within the Labor Party over uranium mining is heating up and it's likely to come to a head at the party's national conference at the end of the week. The Opposition leader Kevin Rudd wants Labor's ban on allowing new uranium mines to be lifted. But frontbenchers like Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett want the ban to stay. They're proposing an amendment which would place tough conditions on storing waste and on preventing the uranium being used for nuclear weapons. Labor's Spokesman on the Environment, Peter Garrett, is speaking here with Peta Donald in Canberra. PETER GARRETT: Well, my understanding is that Anthony wants to put an amendment which would see issues like proliferation and waste dealt with prior to any possible expansions taking place. It's clear that there's a strong feeling amongst Labor Party members, particularly amongst the rank and file, and also frankly, amongst the public, that they don't want to see a change in this policy. I have always said that we're into nuclear as far as we ought to be. I won't be supporting any proposals to expand uranium mining in Australia, and we'll have a discussion at the conference when these amendments come forward. PETA DONALD: Your leader Kevin Rudd is talking about safeguards that could be put in place so that uranium mining could be safely expanded in Australia. Are you not convinced by the talk of safeguards? PETER GARRETT: Well, we haven't see those details and I think we'll have a full and open discussion, you know, in the order of a good democracy as the Labor Party should have. But critically, it seems to me, that the case that was made against expanding uranium mining many years ago is still a strong case. Issues relating to proliferation, particularly in nuclear proliferation, as you will hear they, in other areas, are significant and real, they haven't gone away. And in respect of waste, there's no doubt whatsoever that up to this point in time, it's only because the Commonwealth has been able to impose things like radioactive waste dumps upon, say, for example, the Northern Territory, that they've actually been able to resolve some of those intractable issues that have been there for some time. Now, those issues haven't gone away. They are as important and as potent as they were before and they need to be highlighted in the debate. PETA DONALD: Now, Kevin Rudd has made it clear that he wants a win on this issue, he wants the Labor Party's existing ban on new uranium mines lifted. Do you think that you have the numbers on this in any way, do you have any sense that support could be growing for your position? PETER GARRETT: I'm not counting numbers. What I'm doing is saying what I've always said Peta, and that is that we're into nuclear as far as I think we ought to be. This has always been my position, it was my position before I came into the Labor Party, it's my position in the Labor Party. And we'll have that debate on the floor of the conference. PETA DONALD: Where is the logic in your position, though, when the existing uranium mines in Australia can be expanded and that Australia can produce and export more uranium that way? PETER GARRETT: Well that is the case. I mean, I wasn't in favour of uranium mining to begin with, and as you know, and as people listening know, I campaigned against in vigorously in the '80s. But any proposals to significantly expand the amount of uranium mining that can take place in Australia brings us back into a contributor to the nuclear fuel cycle overseas. And frankly, when we've got the head of the major regulatory agency saying to us repeatedly that the holes and problems and the safeguard system haven't been fixed, when we've got issues that relate to radioactive waste disposal and its safe storage over very long periods of time which still haven't satisfactorily been dealt with up to this point in time, it seems to me that there's a very, very strong case for not taking uranium mining, in terms of volumes and intensity, any further than it already is. TONY EASTLEY: Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett speaking there with Peta Donald. ***************************************************************** 48 AU ABC: Beattie wants no new mines policy to stay The World Today - Monday, 23 April , 2007 12:14:00 Reporter: Kathryn Roberts ELEANOR HALL: Even before the vote, Queensland's Labor Premier Peter Beattie has upset uranium companies in his state. Mr Beattie has written to the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union to say he'll continue the no new uranium mines policy in Queensland if he's given the choice. The Australian company, Summit Resources, is citing the Premier's position as the reason it is recommending that its shareholders accept a takeover offer from Paladin Resources. Summit Resources owns a significant uranium deposit at Mount Isa and had been resisting the hostile takeover bid until now. Meanwhile, the Queensland Resources Council says it's writing to the Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd today to urge him to show leadership on the uranium issue and ensure changes to the national Labor policy are enforced at the state level. From Queensland, Kathryn Roberts reports. KATHRYN ROBERTS: Summit Resources is an Australian mining company which owns a valuable uranium deposit at Mount Isa, worth an estimated $10-billion. The value of that asset caught the attention of Paladin Resources, which launched a hostile takeover bid. Until a few weeks ago Summit Resources was still resisting the takeover, but has now recommended its shareholders accept an increased offer. The Managing Director of Summit Resources, Alan Eggers, says the Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, had been suggesting for the past two years that he would abide by any decision by the national Labor Party to change its no new mines policy. While Mr Beattie says he will abide by the ALP's decision, he says he won't change the current policy in Queensland if he's given the choice. Alan Eggers from Summit Resources. ALAN EGGERS: Summit has been spending around $1.2-million a month in Mount Isa bringing these deposits forward, so that we could demonstrate to the Government the value of the resources and the long term nature of the mining operations that would be developed on. But once we, once again, had the Premier stating that he wouldn't permit the development of these deposits, there's obviously going to be some delays in getting approvals, it appeared to us to be prudent to share shareholder risk and for us to now accept the Paladin offer, as Paladin have uranium ventures elsewhere in world, and in the short to medium term, the investors' investments will be protected by becoming part of a much larger company with uranium interests elsewhere. KATHRYN ROBERTS: So, in your view has the Premier's decision damaged the industry here in Queensland? ALAN EGGERS: Oh without a doubt. I think we need certainty, and we need political certainty going forward. His comments are unhelpful at best. I would say that to do the back flip that he's done without consultation with industry is disappointing. We were happy to consult with him and his department and he's created a high degree of uncertainty going forward for all investors and particularly mining investments in Queensland. KATHRYN ROBERTS: Do you feel that you were misled during the process? ALAN EGGERS: No, I don't think we've been misled. I believe that the Premier's statements were quite clear, for around two years, as I've explained. What, as I say, it's unhelpful that then a 180-degree turn is made and exact opposite statements are made within seven days. KATHRYN ROBERTS: The Queensland Resources Council says the uncertainty in the industry has had commercial consequences. The Council's Chief Executive Michael Roche is writing to the Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd today to ask him to remove the blanket ban on new uranium mines at the national and state level. MICHAEL ROCHE: But we still want the normal state processes to then apply to individual project approvals. We're not looking for special rules for uranium mines. They need to be subject to the same approval processes as any other mine. But what we are asking the national conference of the ALP to do is to do away with the concept of a blanket ban on uranium mines in Australia. This is really a case where the leadership of the national ALP needs to lay it on the line. I think this is an important test of economic credibility. If we get a result from the federal ALP conference, where the federal ALP removes its ban on uranium mining but an effective ban continues in virtually every state, then we really had a Clayton's policy change. ELEANOR HALL: That's Michael Roche, the Chief Executive of the Queensland Resources Council, ending that report from Kathryn Roberts. ***************************************************************** 49 asahi.com: Town votes down mayor pushing nuclear waste facility - 04/23/2007 The Asahi Shimbun TOYO, Kochi Prefecture--The incumbent who wanted to bring nuclear waste to this town was soundly defeated in Sunday's mayoral election. Yasutaro Sawayama, 63, a former city council member of neighboring Muroto, won the mayor's post on a platform that opposed the nuclear waste plan of Yasuoki Tashima, 64. Sawayama received 1,821 votes, more than double Tashima's 761. "The outcome reflects the actions of the local people who raised their voices to protect their hometown from high-level radioactive nuclear waste," Sawayama said in a news conference Sunday evening. Sawayama said he will scrap as early as today the town's application for a central government assessment as a final burial site of high-level radioactive waste. The Toyo mayoral election was more like a referendum on whether to accept the research by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO). In March 2006, Tashima applied for the research, but did not inform residents or the town council about his decision until January this year. He argued that the research, which would provide lucrative government subsidies to Toyo, should be accepted, citing the town's financial difficulties and declining population. A town accepted as a candidate site receives between 200 million and 2 billion yen ($1.7 million and $16.8 million) in annual subsidies as long as the feasibility studies last. Tashima resigned in April to let residents decide through the election whether they wanted to host a nuclear waste facility. During the campaign, Sawayama vowed to retract Tashima's application and "protect the green mountain and rivers." Voter turnout was a staggering 89.2 percent in this town of 2,934 eligible voters. Tashima's defeat means the central government will have to find another location to dispose of its nuclear waste.(IHT/Asahi: April 23,2007) The Asahi Shimbun Asia Network ***************************************************************** 50 The Australian: Uranium price rise after mine floods | NEWS.com.au | * April 23, 2007 AT 2:11am on October 23 last year, Canadian miner Cameco announced its Cigar Lake uranium mine in northwest Canada had flooded after a "rock fall", jeopardising the world's richest undeveloped source of nuclear fuel. In the six months since, Cameco has said little about the circumstances behind a disaster that will delay production at its $US25.5 billion ($30.4 billion) claim for up to three years. The accident removed 10 per cent of anticipated supply from an already overstretched global uranium market, helping drive the ore to $113 a pound (0.454kg) today, double the October price. Canadian government records and interviews with authorities reveal that blasting by Cameco workers may have triggered the flood at Cigar Lake, and that the company couldn't control the water because it didn't fulfil pledges to regulators to install more underground pumps there. Those promises came after a similar accident at another of its Saskatchewan mines three years earlier. "We didn't have it installed quickly enough," Cameco chief executive officer Jerry Grandey said. That statement is the first acknowledgment by Cameco that it might bear some responsibility for a disaster that has jolted the global nuclear fuels market. "We'll find, I'm sure, that there was a combination of geologic factors and human error," Mr Grandey said. "It's that type of combination where you learn your lessons." Cameco's November 10 accident report to its primary regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in Ottawa, didn't mention October 11 blasting by its workers as a potential trigger for the leak. That possibility was raised by Cameco's vice-president of safety, health and environment, John Jarrell, during a December 13 commission hearing. "The first sign of instability occurred in a wedge failure which resulted from the October 11 blast sequence," he said. Bloomberg © The Australian ***************************************************************** 51 The Australian: Labor clash looms over uranium policy NEWS.com.au | * April 23, 2007 * Sid Marris LABOR's leadership will seek to improve international nuclear non-proliferation treaties in a bid to lock in support for the expansion of uranium mining. But shadow environment minister Peter Garrett, who campaigned for the Nuclear Disarmament Party in the 1980s, has joined his colleague Anthony Albanese in declaring he will oppose any increase in mining. The declarations put them on a collision course with Labor leader Kevin Rudd who is arguing for a change on the grounds it will boost jobs and exports. The Left faction is expected to meet and establish a binding position on all its members, except for frontbenchers who have said they will support the change. These include deputy leader Julia Gillard, transport shadow minister Martin Ferguson and the shadow resources minister Chris Evans. The Left's own amendment will argue that the beefing up international protections should be achieved before any overturning of existing Labor ban on no new mines. But Senator Evans said while there would be amendments put on the floor of the ALP conference in Sydney this weekend boosting the effort to improve nuclear non-proliferation, that would be separate to the other issue of expanding mining. Mr Garrett said he did not believe there was a case for a significant expansion of Australia's involvement. "It's clear that there's a strong feeling amongst Labor party members, particularly amongst the rank and file, and also frankly amongst the public, that they don't want to see a change in this policy," he said. "I have always said that we're into nuclear as far as we ought to be. I won't be supporting any proposals to expand uranium mining in Australia. "Any proposals to significantly expand the amount of uranium mining that can take place in Australia bring us back into a contributor to the nuclear fuel cycle overseas. "It seems to me that there's a very, very strong case for not taking uranium mining in terms of volumes and intensity any further than it already is." Senator Evans said he believed Labor would overturn its 25-year opposition to new Australian uranium mines. "The current Labor Party policy has failed," Mr Evans told reporters in Perth today. "During the life of the policy, uranium mining has trebled, three new mines have opened and we are about to become the largest uranium miner in the world. "I think there is a mood for a change in the Labor Party ... we have been debating it for 30 years ... the policy hasn't worked." The party might be divided on uranium policy but it was united in support for strengthening international nuclear safeguards, he said. "We are very worried about (Prime Minister John) Howard's plans to sell uranium to India, outside the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but my expectation is that the conference will change the policy.'' Prime Minister John Howard said the debate showed how backwards looking Labor was, still arguing an issue that was resolved 25 years ago. Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said if Labor turned its back on both an expansion of uranium mining and nuclear energy "it just shows that they are not really concerned with dealing with climate change". - with AAP © The Australian ***************************************************************** 52 The Australian: ALP to block nuclear processing NEWS.com.au | * Sid Marris * April 24, 2007 KEVIN Rudd will offer to block any move to develop a uranium enrichment industry in Australia as part of his pitch to win Labor Party support for an expansion of uranium ore exports. A draft policy amendment, which will be put to the weekend's Labor conference by either the Opposition Leader or resources spokesman Chris Evans, seeks to strengthen the party's position on nuclear waste and proliferation in a bid to win over waverers concerned about uranium mining. As well as seeking to revive and strengthen international nuclear non-proliferation treaties, Labor would vigorously oppose ocean dumping of waste and the importation of waste from overseas. The amendment bans nuclear power stations, in line with Mr Rudd's declared policy, but includes a ban on "all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle". The ban will be a blow to those in Labor who think Australia could develop a lucrative export industry developing nuclear rods for power stations, particularly for energy-hungry China and India. The restriction comes amid intense lobbying by factional brokers to shore up the numbers to overturn Labor's 1982 compromise platform, which banned new uranium mines. Already there have been rumblings of bullying or suggestions that known opponents will be "proxied" out of the debate. The activity suggests the numbers have been closer than the Right would have observers believe. The effort to hold the ranks on uranium will make it more difficult on other controversial issues, such as support for a free-trade deal with China or greater recognition of independent contractors. The Left, led by frontbencher Anthony Albanese, who learned the craft of gathering numbers in the cauldron of NSW state conferences, says Labor must improve protections before overturning the existing Labor ban on new mines. Mr Albanese is supported by environment spokesman Peter Garrett, who said yesterday he did not believe there was a case for a significant expansion of Australia's involvement in uranium. But Senator Evans said the Left amendment avoided the main issue: that a 25-year-old policy designed to limit uranium exports had failed. "Some say it's a balance between the practical and ideals, but it is an illogical policy that brings Labor Party policy-making into disrepute," he said. Senator Evans said there were now four mines operating in Australia - there were three in place in 1982 - and a proposed expansion of BHP's Olympic Dam would create a single mine bigger than all of Canada's industry. "The irony seems to be lost that the people who viewed the 1982 policy as a defeat are now arguing it should stay in place," he said. But Mr Albanese said he was seeking a sensible balance between existing contracts and the intractable problems of the uranium industry. He said his amendment to the party platform, which he would put up as a compromise after Mr Rudd's proposal was put forward, was ultimately practical, not ideological. "Waste is the elephant in the room," he said. "It is not a responsible thing to do to expand further when there are still problems to be dealt with." When Labor delegates begin meeting on Friday at the Sydney Convention Centre, the Right will command about 52per cent of the delegates. While there are some discrete state and union blocks, the right faction has healed many of the fractures that had weakened it over recent years, such as during Simon Crean's preselection fight. Some were concerned that members of the Victorian Right, such as former frontbencher Kelvin Thomson, might continue a long-held tradition of opposing an expansion of uranium mining. In Queensland, a small grouping of the Right, separate from the main sub-faction led by the Australian Workers Union's Bill Ludwig, had traditionally opposed an expansion of mining. This group was Mr Rudd's sub-faction and includes Queensland Premier Peter Beattie and frontbencher Arch Bevis and is now expected to support the main amendment. Powerbrokers are confident that there will only be a bleeding of support from the Right and towards keeping the ban on new mines if Mr Rudd looks set to win. The leaders' case will be bolstered by some members of the very small Centre-Left, as well as left-wing frontbenchers Julia Gillard, Senator Evans and Martin Ferguson. But they do not bring a large bloc of votes. While the leadership group seems to have locked in the uranium debate, the fight continues over conditions on any free trade agreement with China, which threatens to drag away right-wing unions to the Left's position. Led by Senate aspirant and metal workers boss Doug Cameron, amendments are expected to demand there must not be a deal until Labor and human rights standards are addressed. There is no planned insurrection over industrial relations, but leading delegates are not ruling out a debate. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 53 DOE: DOE Designates the Idaho National Laboratory Advanced Test Reactor as a National Scientific User Facility April 23, 2007 WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today designated the Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL) Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) as a National Scientific User Facility. Establishing the ATR as a National Scientific User Facility will help assert U.S. leadership in nuclear science and technology, and will attract new users – universities, laboratories and industry - to conduct research at the ATR. This facility will support basic and applied nuclear research and development (R&D), furthering President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative, which will advance the nation’s energy security needs. “Clean, safe nuclear energy must be a key component of our nation’s energy mix as our economy and demand for clean energy continues to grow,” DOE Assistant Secretary of Nuclear Energy, Dennis Spurgeon said. “By encouraging research and development at DOE’s Idaho facility, we are advancing our nation's scientific know-how - necessary to spur construction of the next generation of nuclear plants.” Designation of the ATR as a National Scientific User Facility can directly contribute to the development of improved products and processes, encourages innovative scientific research, and will increase U.S. scientific competitiveness. The ATR was originally built to improve nuclear reactor performance and to investigate problems with commercial reactors. As a National Scientific User Facility, the ATR offers unique domestic capabilities for nuclear fuel and reactor materials system development that industry, universities, and regulatory agencies will be able to utilize. The ATR is the only U.S. materials test reactor that can replicate multiple different reactor environments concurrently. Letters of support from universities, laboratories, industry, and other Federal programs provide strong evidence for the necessity of this program. For more information on the President’s Advanced Energy Initiative, visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-6.html. Media contact(s): INL: Brad Bugger (208) 526-0833 DOE: Julie Ruggiero, (202) 586-4940 U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW | Washington, DC 20585 1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 ***************************************************************** 54 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability: RADIOACTIVE REPORT CARD RELEASE - APRIL 23, 2007 ANA has issued a report card grading Department of Energy nuclear weapons and cleanup activities. -Press Release -Report Card -Background Information DC Days 2007 - THIS WEEK The 19th Annual ANA DC Days advocacy event is scheduled for April 22-25, 2007 in Washington, DC. New Nuclear Weapon Design Selected - March 2, 2007 - The Department of Energy announces the selection of the design for the first nuclear weapon to be produced after the end of the Cold War. Read ANA's press release. Department of Energy Submits FY 08 Budget to Congress - On February 5, 2007, the Department of Energy released its Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2008 spending. read more ... Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Public Hearings - The Department of Energy will be hosting public hearings across the nation from February 13-March 19, 2007 for the Bush Administration's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) program. read more ... 20 Years of Grassroots Organizing The legacy of the Cold War is a devastating one -- huge arsenals of nuclear weapons that are not needed, tons of weapons-usable fissile materials that have become security threats, an environmental legacy that has contaminated vast areas of the country and which will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to contain and manage, and an erosion of democracy due to widespread secrecy and deception practiced in the name of national security. Founded in 1987 under the name Military Production Network, the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA) is a network of 35 local, regional and national peace and environmental groups representing the concerns of communities in the shadows of the U.S. nuclear weapons sites and radioactive waste dumps. We have effectively worked to open up the operations of the U.S. Department of Energy to help shut down polluting, obsolete and unsafe facilities, and to stop nuclear weapons testing as well as the construction of many new bomb production plants. The Power is in the People. Because of its national network and, particularly, the location of ANA grassroots groups, the ANA is uniquely positioned to hold the Department of Energy accountable at its nuclear weapons facilities. Campaigns which stopped new production facilities such as reactors, reprocessing plants, and a plutonium isotope separators were anchored by ANA member groups. We have worked together with others to stop nuclear testing and to try to bring some sanity and accountability to U.S. clean up, waste management and warhead dismantlement programs. ANA's strength is in our shared experience and our collective vision. We will build upon the momentum of the past several years and continue to provide leadership both locally and nationally. Stop the Bombplex: Clean up, Don't Build Up! The Department of Energy wants to design and build a new generation of nuclear weapons in new facilities across the country. ANA is fighting DOE’s “Complex 2030” plan and working to make sure that DOE cleans up the contamination from Cold War production of nukes. read more... ANA opposes the Bush Administration's Dangerous Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) proposal seeks to restart reprocessing of nuclear waste in the U.S. after thirty years, claiming it as the solution to our nuclear waste problem. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel - extracting the plutonium and uranium from used fuel rods - produces nuclear weapon-usable materials and vast amounts of extremely dangerous waste. © 2007 Alliance for Nuclear Accountability | Citadel Hosting | ***************************************************************** 55 KnoxNews: Former military sites remain environmental time bombs By RUSSELL CAROLLO April 22, 2007 From California to Washington, D.C., time bombs lurk beneath the surface - poised to contaminate wells, pollute waterways, jeopardize property values and endanger human lives. More than 1,000 confirmed and suspected military sites, the largest number in the country, are spread across California. Many were abandoned decades ago but may still be contaminated with toxic chemicals, bombs and other munitions or even radioactive waste, a six-month examination by the Sacramento Bee found. With so many sites, encounters with military debris and even munitions are becoming commonplace. "I'm not looking for the stuff," said Yolo County (Calif.) farmer Duane Chamberlain, whose workers have found military debris about a half-dozen times during the past 15 years while plowing fields. The farm is next to the Yolo County Airport, and both sit atop a former World War II landing strip for B-25 bombers. Under current funding, it could take more than 300 years to clean up all the former U.S. military sites. That cleanup could take even longer as the military continues to battle budget problems aggravated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.The Bee, using hundreds of thousands of military records contained in seven databases obtained through the federal Freedom of Information Act, found that the majority of California's sites are potentially the most dangerous because they predated strong environmental laws and stringent record-keeping requirements. The Army Corps of Engineers' Formerly Used Defense Sites database of military sites closed before 1988 identifies 1,094 sites in California, nearly 400 more than the state with the next-largest number, Florida. San Diego, with 53 sites, is tied with Washington, D.C. as the U.S. cities with the third-most sites, following Honolulu and Seattle. And, in many cases, no one is really sure how many sites need environmental cleanup. The Army, for example, found no record that a site near Del Monte Beach in Monterey Bay, Calif., was ever owned, leased or even used by the military. But about 10 years ago, under 70 feet of water, scuba divers found more than a hundred .50-caliber cartridges and other hazardous ordnance and explosive waste. "People tended to just look the other way when old munitions or fuel was just dumped wherever they felt like it," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst and former head of the securities-studies program at Georgetown University. Cleanup of the military's former munitions ranges alone is potentially the largest environmental project in history, with 2,307 suspected munitions sites in the United States and territories. In addition, half of all U.S. sites contaminated with perchlorate, a major component of rocket fuel, are in California and Texas. America built the bulk of its military sites when fighting World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the Cold War was more important than keeping records on the waste those efforts generated. The result is that investigators looking for toxic waste and private contractors who want to build at former sites must try to fill large information gaps. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that military records on radioactively contaminated sites were so incomplete that it couldn't identify all of them. In 1992, the GAO found the military had identified 271 sites; months later it amended the number to 420. The Defense Science Board Task Force reported that unexploded military munitions cover about 1,400 sites and 10 million acres, but much of what is buried is undocumented. "Records and archives have been lost, and some munitions tests were never documented," the board wrote in a 2003 report. "(Military) experts rarely could give a specific numerical answer to any question involving these sites." "The fact that they have few answers is not totally their fault; they have inherited a messy, ill-defined situation." Environmental surprises related to former and current U.S. military bases have become commonplace across the United States and throughout the world. In 1999, workers expanding a parking lot for a San Diego hotel came across 200 3-1/2-inch practice rockets. Bob Dempsey, a civil engineer who has conducted hundreds of environmental investigations at former military sites for the Army Corps of Engineers, said he found environmental hazards at a number of sites that were supposed to be safe. "I've probably found issues at 10 to 15 percent of them," he said. The Department of Defense found that about 4,000 of the more than 9,000 sites in the United States and territories closed before 1988 did not have environmental hazards requiring further cleanup by the military. But in 2002, the GAO found the corps did "not have a sound basis" for declaring 1,468 of the sites safe. Cleanup of just munitions - considered by the Environmental Protection Agency to be potentially the largest environmental cleanup in American history - could take between 75 and 330 years, a 2003 GAO report found. That same year, the Defense Science Board found that munitions cleanup was underfunded at $200 million annually, given that there are 10 million acres involved and that the cost of digging up and disposing of a single piece of ordnance can range from $2,500 to $16,000. (Russell Carollo can be reached at rcarollo(at)sacbee.com. Bee staff writer Phillip Reese contributed to this report.) (Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.shns.com.) Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************