***************************************************************** 04/29/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.100 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 US: Guardian Unlimited: Tenet Faces Backlash Over Memoir 2 washingtonpost.com: Tenet Details Efforts to Justify Invading Iraq - 3 washingtonpost.com: Tenet Tries to Shift the Blame. Don't Buy It. - 4 The Observer: Iranian tip-off may have led Americans to al-Qaeda lea 5 Guardian Unlimited: Overview of North Korea Bank Dispute 6 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Hardly a 'slam dunk' 7 Antiwar.com: Enabling Bush's Wars of Aggression - 8 Hindustan Times: ElBaradei criticised for backing Indo-US N-deal- 9 US: Comment is free: Here comes the new cold war 10 BBC NEWS: Putin steps up missiles warning 11 Xinhua: Need for an energy law overseer, says drafter NUCLEAR REACTORS 12 The Observer: UN facing a backlash on emissions action plan 13 US: Times-News: Plans for nuclear plant move forward 14 Brisbane Times: Greens lash nuke moves - 15 Sydney Morning Herald: No need for nuke power in Vic - Baillieu - 16 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard's nuclear power walk with US may split 17 Free Press: Chernobyl reminds us that nukes are NOT green 18 US: sacbee.com: Steve Wiegand: It's time to power up nuke talk - 19 US: Beacon Journal: Refueling has workers powered up 20 AU ABC: Stefaniak plays down prospect of a nuclear power station in 21 ENS: Ukraine President Wants to Renew Chernobyl Area 22 au Brisbane times: No logic to Labor's nuclear stance - govt - 23 US: New York Times: At Milepost 1 on the Hydrogen Highway - 24 Calgary Sun: TransCanada looks ahead to nuclear 25 Western Australian: Howard launches plan for nuclear future 26 AU Western Australian: Rudd attacks Howard's plan to go nuclear 27 washingtonpost.com: 'Heady Times' For India And the U.S. - 28 US: delawareonline: Talk of 4th nuclear reactor on Del. River draws 29 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point files for 20-year license renewal 30 The Australian: Nuclear strategy for Australia unveiled 31 US: PoughkeepsieJournal.com: Nuke plant sirens go off accidentally F 32 Independent: British Energy turns up heat in bid to host new reactor 33 London Times: Australia will change law to embrace nuclear option- 34 AFP: Australian PM commits to nuclear power - 35 US: APP.COM: DEP chief: Towers a must at reactor | 36 Business Standard: No nukes? 37 SABJ: STP owner hires Japanese consultant on nuclear reactor expansi 38 US: Reuters: Texas House OKs bill to cap plant ownership 39 Reuters: Experts meet on U.N. report: warming can be slowed | 40 US: Boston Globe: Nuclear reaction - 41 Kommersant Moscow: Russia to Set Up Nuclear Industry Giant - 42 The Australian: State Libs NIMBY on nuclear power 43 AFP: India, US officials to push again for nuclear deal in Washingto 44 US: enewscourier: NRC, TVA to meet prior to decision on restart of r 45 Telegraph: Cleaner fuel for nuclear power stations 46 AU ABC: Govt reveals nuclear future 47 AU ABC: Howard's nuclear future draws Greens' ire. 48 AU ABC: Labor attacks Howard's nuclear vision. 49 AU ABC: States give mixed responses to nuclear announcements. 50 au abc: Abbott stays silent on prospect of nuclear power plant in hi 51 Reuters: Main conclusions of UN climate panel's third report 52 Hindustan Times: N-deal will open up major opportunities in India - 53 Hindustan Times: Indo-US N-deal Bill introduced in US Senate- 54 Hindustan Times: Democrats win, N-deal not lost yet- 55 Hindustan Times: India should develop N-power based on thorium - Kal 56 icWales: Nuclear probe may widen 57 AFP: Military key to US-India relations - US diplomat - NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 58 US: [toeslist] Hawaii - Depleted uranium munitions cause concern nea 59 US: recordonline.com: KI pill pickup still available 60 www.uruknet.info: Depleted Uranium - Poisoning U.S. Troops And The P NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 61 US: Brisbane Times: Face-saving ballot delivers narrow uranium minin 62 US: Brisbane Times: Australia's responsibility to cash in on uranium 63 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Garrett to play ball on uranium, says Rud 64 US: deseretnews.com: Bennett rips timetable on Moab cleanup 65 Pahrump Valley Times: Mina off the table, Caliente is back on 66 US: AU ABC: Rudd gets his way on uranium mines 67 US: Aiken Today: GNEP takes the next step 68 US: The State: Woman took on nuclear waste dump and won 69 US: West Australian: Garrett to promote uranium mining - Rudd : 70 US: Western Australian: Labor scraps no new uranium mines policy 71 US: Western Australian: Rudd denies uranium policy hypocritical 72 US: Chillicothe Gazette: Report condemns nuke project 73 US: The Australian: Labor backs Rudd's uranium stance 74 US: AU ABC: ALP still digesting uranium decision. 75 US: AU ABC: Resources Council urges rethink on uranium mining. 76 US: The Australian: Uranium policy 'not hypocritical' 77 US: Herald Sun: Nuclear future 78 News & Star: MP quizzes Darling in Sellafield probe PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 79 KnoxNews: OR cleanup effort hits another milestone 80 Las Vegas SUN: McCain casts himself as Western hero 81 Tri-City Herald: Hanford B Reactor to be included in TV show on Manh 82 Tri-City Herald: 3 Hanford burial sites excavated by deadline ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Guardian Unlimited: Tenet Faces Backlash Over Memoir From the Associated Press Sunday April 29, 2007 8:01 PM By KATHERINE SHRADER Associated Press Writer NEW YORK (AP) - The backlash has built up even before the official release of former CIA Director George Tenet's memoir, with criticism about his version of the run-up to the Iraq war, interrogation techniques and other events. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday disputed Tenet's claim that the Bush administration, before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, never had a serious debate about whether Iraq posed an imminent threat or whether to tighten existing sanctions. ``The president started a discussion practically on the day that he took power about how to enhance sanctions against Iraq,'' she said. ``You may remember that in his first press conference, he said the sanctions had become Swiss cheese.'' Rice, who was Bush's national security adviser in his first term, said the administration reviewed the sanctions, went to the United Nations to strengthen them and tried to tighten the no-fly zone in northern Iraq to better police Saddam Hussein's forces. She also said the question about the imminence of the threat was not ``if somebody is going to strike tomorrow.'' ``It's whether you believe you're in a stronger position today to deal with the threat, or whether you're going to be in a stronger position tomorrow,'' she said. ``And it was the president's assessment that the situation in Iraq was getting worse.'' A Tenet associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity before the book's release Monday, said Tenet was not talking about improving the sanctions, but rather the debate about the wisdom of going to war. The associate said those debates did not happen in the presence of Tenet or other senior CIA officials, despite their participation in numerous discussions in the White House's situation room. The memoir from the second-longest serving CIA chief covers many topics - from his attempts to help negotiate peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians during the Clinton administration, to the days surrounding Sept. 11, 2001, and to the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. Looking ahead, he says, al-Qaida wants to change history and meet its top one goal of obtaining a nuclear device. Tenet highlights the errors of others during his tenure from July 1997 to July 2004, such as the extraordinary efforts by Vice President Cheney and others to connect Iraq and al-Qaida. Tenet also takes blame for other failures, such as the production of the botched National Intelligence Estimate in 2002 that was used to justify invading Iraq. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said he does not accept assertions from Tenet that the U.S. government saved lives through some of the agency's most aggressive interrogation techniques. In an interview with CBS' ``60 Minutes'' to air Sunday evening, Tenet says the intelligence gained from suspected terrorists in the CIA's covert detention program and its ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' was more valuable than all the other terrorism-related intelligence gathered by the FBI, the National Security Agency and his own agency. Yet McCain said the U.S. cannot torture people and maintain its moral superiority in the world. ``I don't care what George Tenet says. I know what's right. I know what's morally right as far as America's behavior,'' the presidential candidate and former prisoner-of-war said Sunday. McCain said he does not accept Tenet's premise that the CIA's practices save lives because torture and mistreatment historically have not worked in intelligence collection. ``We've gotten a huge amount of misinformation as well as other information from these techniques,'' McCain said. Tenet and the CIA deny using torture. But McCain's words suggest he believes the CIA's practices amounted to torture and were wrong. In his book, Tenet said McCain has engaged the country in an important moral debate ``about who we are as people and what we should stand for, even when up against an enemy so full of hate they would murder thousands of our children without a thought.'' If elected officials believe certain interrogation actions put the country in a difficult moral position, they should be stopped, according to Tenet, once the Democratic staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Writing in Sunday's Washington Post, the one-time head of Tenet's Osama bin Laden unit, Michael Scheuer, said Tenet should have told his story sooner. ``At this late date, the Bush-bashing that Tenet's book will inevitably stir up seems designed to rehabilitate Tenet in his first home, the Democratic Party. He seems to blame the war on everyone but Bush (who gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom) and former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell (who remains the Democrats' ideal Republican),'' Scheuer wrote. A half-dozen former CIA officers - including counterterrorism experts Larry Johnson and Vince Cannistraro - are urging Tenet to dedicate a significant portion of his royalties to soldiers and families of those killed or wounded in Iraq. ``We agree that the war of choice in Iraq was ill-advised and wrong headed. But your lament that you are a victim in a proIss you helped direct is self-serving, misleading and, as head of the intelligence community, an admission of failed leadership,'' they wrote. Rice appeared on CNN's ``Late Edition,'' ABC's ``This Week,'' and ``Face the Nation'' on CBS. McCain was on ``Fox News Sunday.'' --- Associated Press writer Scott Lindlaw in San Francisco contributed to this report. ^--- On the Net: CIA background on Tenet: http://tinyurl.com/29mo9a Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 2 washingtonpost.com: Tenet Details Efforts to Justify Invading Iraq - washingtonpost.com Former CIA Director Says White House Focused on the Idea Long Before 9/11 By Karen DeYoung Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, April 28, 2007; Page A01 White House and Pentagon officials, and particularly Vice President Cheney, were determined to attack Iraq from the first days of the Bush administration, long before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and repeatedly stretched available intelligence to build support for the war, according to a new book by former CIA director George J. Tenet. Although Tenet does not question the threat Saddam Hussein posed or the sincerity of administration beliefs, he recounts numerous efforts by aides to Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to insert "crap" into public justifications for the war. Tenet also describes an ongoing fear within the intelligence community of the administration's willingness to "mischaracterize complex intelligence information." "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraq threat," Tenet writes in "At the Center of the Storm," to be released Monday by HarperCollins. The debate "was not about imminence but about acting before Saddam did." White House counselor Dan Bartlett yesterday called Tenet a "true patriot" but disputed his conclusions, saying "the president did wrestle with those very serious questions." Responding to reports from the book in yesterday's New York Times, Bartlett suggested that the former CIA director might have been unaware of all the discussions. President Bush, Bartlett said on NBC's "Today Show," "weighed all the various consequences before he did make a decision." In their threat briefings for the incoming Bush administration in late 2000, Tenet writes, CIA officials did not even mention Iraq. But Cheney, he says, asked for an Iraq briefing and requested that the outgoing Clinton administration's defense secretary, William S. Cohen, provide information on Iraq for Bush. A speech by Cheney in August 2002 "went well beyond what our analysis could support," Tenet writes. The speech charged, among other things, that Hussein had restarted his nuclear program and would "acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon . . . perhaps within a year." Caught off-guard by the remarks, which had not been cleared by the CIA, Tenet says he considered confronting the vice president on the subject but did not. "Would that have changed his future approach?" he asks. "I doubt it but I should not have let silence imply an agreement." Policymakers, he writes, "have a right to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts." New details about the origins of the current terrorist threat -- and the way the Clinton and Bush White Houses dealt with it -- add to a growing body of information about the tumultuous late 1990s and the first years of the new century. For the future, Tenet describes his deepest fear as "the nuclear one." He is convinced, he writes, that this is where Osama bin Laden "and his operatives desperately want to go. They understand that bombings by cars, trucks, trains and planes will get them some headlines, to be sure. But if they manage to set off a mushroom cloud, they will make history." Despite all efforts to thwart them, he says, "I do know one thing in my gut: al-Qa'ida is here and waiting." The book breaks Tenet's long public silence since he resigned in June 2004 over what he considered White House attempts to turn him into a scapegoat, as U.S. efforts in Iraq were bogging down, for the faulty intelligence used to justify the invasion in the first place. Tenet writes that Bush talked him out of resigning in May 2003. But he decided it was time to go nine months later when a book by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward quoted him as telling Bush in December 2002 that the intelligence case against Iraq was a "slam dunk," a statement he says was taken out of context but subsequently used by the administration to blame him for faulty Iraq intelligence. "I couldn't quit immediately over something that appeared in a book," Tenet writes, "but I didn't see any way I could or should stay on much longer." Bush made no attempt to keep him when he finally resigned in June 2004. Tenet blames himself, among other things, for the hastily compiled October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, issued on the eve of a congressional vote authorizing the war. The NIE, he said, "should have been initiated earlier. I didn't think one was necessary. I was wrong." The document, he acknowledged, was "not cautious in key judgments" and at times used single sources who turned out to be wrong. A perennial problem, he writes, was a tendency by intelligence analysts to assume other people thought like they did. When judging whether Hussein was lying when he said Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, "we did not account for . . . the mind set never to show weakness in a very dangerous neighborhood." One of the "lowest moments of my seven-year tenure," Tenet recalls, was when a congressman told him in a public hearing in the spring of 2004 that "we depended on you, and you let us down." Tenet's account of his CIA years moves through explanation, accusation, defensiveness and occasional apology. When he became acting director in December 1996, Tenet writes, he found an agency "in shambles," its budget slashed, its recruiting moribund and its morale "in the basement." Analysis and clandestine operations had deteriorated, and there was "no coherent, integrated and measurable long-range plan. That's where I focused my energy from day one." Much of the first half of the book is a detailed account of what Tenet describes as efforts by himself and his lieutenants to meet the emerging al-Qaeda threat and to convince the White House to take aggressive action. Rejecting later criticism of CIA foot-dragging, Tenet writes that "after 9/11 some senior government officials contended that they were surprised at the size and nature of the attacks. Perhaps so, but they shouldn't have been. We had been warning about the threat at every opportunity." He titles one chapter of the 549-page book "Missed Opportunities," but Tenet misses few opportunities himself to settle scores with Cheney and Rumsfeld and their top aides, and with Bush's first-term national security adviser and current secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. He characterizes Rice as a "remote" figure who "knew the president's mind well but tended to stay out of policy fights." Under Rice, he says, the National Security Council failed to explore options and reach consensus. Rumsfeld, he says, refused to recognize worsening reality in Iraq and on several occasions undercut CIA efforts with cavalier treatment of secret information. By contrast, Tenet's treatment of Bush, who presented Tenet with a Medal of Freedom six months after his departure, is relatively gentle. He says he and others sometimes failed to give Bush the information he needed. "The president was not well served," he says by way of example, "because the NSC became too deferential to a postwar strategy that was not working." Tenet writes defensively about the controversial program to intercept domestic telephone calls involving terrorism suspects. The program was Cheney's idea, and the vice president briefed "the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence committees 12 times prior to its public disclosure" in late 2005. He reiterates a claim last year by Bush that the CIA's harsh interrogations of captured al-Qaeda figures "helped disrupt plots aimed at locations in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Middle East, South Asia, and Central Asia." He says the agency used "the most aggressive" techniques -- which he does not detail -- on "a handful of the worst terrorists on the planet" and that the questioning was "carefully monitored at all times to ensure the safety of the prisoner." Tenet describes as "baloney" a claim made in a book last year by journalist Ron Suskind that the agency overstated the value of intelligence collected from al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaida, whom Suskind depicted as "mentally unstable." Zubaida, Tenet says, was central to many al-Qaeda operations and shared "critical information with his interrogators." Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, he says, initially told interrogators that he would talk only after seeing a lawyer in the United States. "Had that happened," Tenet writes, "I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats against the American people." Al-Qaeda has responded to the U.S. intelligence focus on young Arab men as potential risks, he says, by recruiting "jihadists with different backgrounds. I am convinced the next major attack against the United States may well be conducted by people with Asian or African faces, not the ones that many Americans are alert to." Staff writers Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. © Copyright 1996- The Washington Post Company | User Agreement ***************************************************************** 3 washingtonpost.com: Tenet Tries to Shift the Blame. Don't Buy It. - washingtonpost.com By Michael F. Scheuer Sunday, April 29, 2007; Page B01 George Tenet has a story to tell. With his appearance tonight on "60 Minutes" and the publication of his new memoir, "At the Center of the Storm," the former director of central intelligence is out to absolve himself of the failings of 9/11 and Iraq. He'll sell a lot of books, of course, but we shouldn't buy his attempts to let himself off the hook. My experience with Tenet dates to the late 1980s, when he was the sharp, garrulous, cigar-chomping staff director of the Senate intelligence committee and I was a junior CIA officer who briefed him on covert action programs in Afghanistan. Later, I worked directly for Tenet after he took over the CIA and I became the first chief of the agency's Osama bin Laden unit. We met regularly, often daily. It's impossible to dislike Tenet, who is smart, polite, hard-working, convivial and detail-oriented. But he's also a man who never went from cheerleader to leader. At a time when clear direction and moral courage were needed, Tenet shifted course to follow the prevailing winds, under President Bill Clinton and then President Bush -- and he provided distraught officers at Langley a shoulder to cry on when his politically expedient tacking sailed the United States into disaster. At the CIA, Tenet will be remembered for some badly needed morale-building. But he will also be recalled for fudging the central role he played in the decline of America's clandestine service -- the brave field officers who run covert missions that make us all safer. The decline began in the late 1980s, when the impending end of the Cold War meant smaller budgets and fewer hires, and it continued through Sept. 11, 2001. When Tenet and his bungling operations chief, James Pavitt, described this slow-motion disaster in testimony after the terrorist attacks, they tried to blame the clandestine service's weaknesses on congressional cuts. But Tenet had helped preside over every step of the service's decline during three consecutive administrations -- Bush, Clinton, Bush -- in a series of key intelligence jobs for the Senate, the National Security Council and the CIA. Only 9/11, it seems, convinced Tenet of the importance of a large, aggressive clandestine service to U.S. security. Like self-serving earlier leaks seemingly from Tenet's circle to such reporters as Ron Suskind and Bob Woodward, "At the Center of the Storm" is similarly disingenuous about Tenet's record on al-Qaeda. In "State of Denial," Woodward paints a heroic portrait of the CIA chief warning national security adviser Condoleezza Rice of pending al-Qaeda strikes during the summer of 2001, only to have his warnings ignored. Tenet was indeed worried during the so-called summer of threat, but one wonders why he did not summon the political courage earlier to accuse Rice of negligence, most notably during his testimony under oath before the 9/11 commission. "I was talking to the national security adviser and the president and the vice president every day," Tenet told the commission during a nationally televised hearing on March 24, 2004. "I certainly didn't get a sense that anybody was not paying attention to what I was doing and what I was briefing and what my concerns were and what we were trying to do." Now a "frustrated" Tenet writes that he held an urgent meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001, to try to get "the full attention of the administration" and "finally get us on track." He can't have it both ways. But what troubles me most is Tenet's handling of the opportunities that CIA officers gave the Clinton administration to capture or kill bin Laden between May 1998 and May 1999. Each time we had intelligence about bin Laden's whereabouts, Tenet was briefed by senior CIA officers at Langley and by operatives in the field. He would nod and assure his anxious subordinates that he would stress to Clinton and his national security team that the chances of capturing bin Laden were solid and that the intelligence was not going to get better. Later, he would insist that he had kept up his end of the bargain, but that the NSC had decided not to strike. Since 2001, however, several key Clinton counterterrorism insiders (including NSC staffers Richard A. Clarke, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon) have reported that Tenet consistently denigrated the targeting data on bin Laden, causing the president and his team to lose confidence in the hard-won intelligence. "We could never get over the critical hurdle of being able to corroborate Bin Ladin's whereabouts," Tenet now writes. That of course is untrue, but it spared him from ever having to explain the awkward fallout if an attempt to get bin Laden failed. None of this excuses Clinton's disinterest in protecting Americans, but it does show Tenet's easy willingness to play for patsies the CIA officers who risked their lives to garner intelligence and then to undercut their work to avoid censure if an attack went wrong. To be fair, Tenet and I had differences about how best to act against bin Laden. (In the book, he plays down my recommendations as those of "an analyst not trained in conducting paramilitary operations.") The hard fact remains that each time we acquired actionable intelligence about bin Laden's whereabouts, I argued for preemptive action. By May 1998, after all, al-Qaeda had hit or helped to hit five U.S. targets, and bin Laden had twice declared war on America. I did not -- and do not -- care about collateral casualties in such situations, as most of the nearby civilians would be the families that bin Laden's men had brought to a war zone. But Tenet did care. "You can't kill everyone," he would say. That's an admirable humanitarian concern in the abstract, but it does nothing to protect the United States. Indeed, thousands of American families would not be mourning today had there been more ferocity and less sentimentality among the Clinton team. Then there's the Iraq war. Tenet is now protesting the use that Rice, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials have made of his notorious pre-war comment that the evidence of Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction programs amounted to a "slam dunk" case. But the only real, knowable pre-war slam dunk was that Iraq was going to turn out to be a nightmare. Tenet now paints himself as a scapegoat for an administration in which there never was "a serious consideration of the implications of a U.S. invasion," insisting that he warned Bush, Cheney and their Cabinet about the risks of occupying Iraq. Well, fine; the CIA repeatedly warned Tenet of the inevitable disaster an Iraq war would cause -- spreading bin Ladenism, spurring a bloody Sunni-Shiite war and lethally destabilizing the region. But as with Rice and the warnings in the summer of 2001: Now he tells us. At this late date, the Bush-bashing that Tenet's book will inevitably stir up seems designed to rehabilitate Tenet in his first home, the Democratic Party. He seems to blame the war on everyone but Bush (who gave Tenet the Medal of Freedom) and former secretary of state Colin L. Powell (who remains the Democrats' ideal Republican). Tenet's attacks focus instead on the walking dead, politically speaking: the glowering and unpopular Cheney; the hapless Rice; the band of irretrievably discredited bumblers who used to run the Pentagon, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith; their neoconservative acolytes such as Richard Perle; and the die-hard geopolitical fantasists at the Weekly Standard and National Review. They're all culpable, of course. But Tenet's attempts to shift the blame won't wash. At day's end, his exercise in finger-pointing is designed to disguise the central, tragic fact of his book. Tenet in effect is saying that he knew all too well why the United States should not invade Iraq, that he told his political masters and that he was ignored. But above all, he's saying that he lacked the moral courage to resign and speak out publicly to try to stop our country from striding into what he knew would be an abyss. Powell has also been blasted for being a good soldier during the march to war rather than quitting in protest. The Bush administration would have been hurt by Powell's resignation, but it might not have stopped the war. But Tenet's resignation would have destroyed the neocons' Iraq house of cards by discrediting the only glue holding it together: the intelligence that "proved" Saddam Hussein guilty of pursuing nuclear weapons and working with al-Qaeda. After all, the compelling briefing that Powell, with Tenet sitting just behind his shoulder, gave the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 could never have been delivered if Tenet had blown the whistle. Of course, it's good to finally have Tenet's side of the Iraq and 9/11 stories. But whatever his book says, he was not much of a CIA chief. Still, he may have been the ideal CIA leader for Clinton and Bush -- denigrating good intelligence to sate the former's cowardly pacifism and accepting bad intelligence to please the latter's Wilsonian militarism. Sadly but fittingly, "At the Center of the Storm" is likely to remind us that sometimes what lies at the center of a storm is a deafening silence. Michael F. Scheuer, the founding head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, is the author of "Imperial Hubris" and "Through Our Enemies' Eyes." © 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 4 The Observer: Iranian tip-off may have led Americans to al-Qaeda leader A major in Saddam's army, believed to have masterminded the London bombings, could have been betrayed in Tehran, reports Jason Burke Sunday April 29, 2007 The Observer British diplomats are checking secret reports that elements within Iran, normally hostile to the West, helped the American secret services to capture Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi, the Kurdish-born senior al-Qaeda militant who was revealed last week to have been arrested on the border between Iran and Iraq late last year. Abdul Hadi, 45, a former Iraqi army officer who speaks five languages and is a key link between the al-Qaeda leadership in western Pakistan and militants in Iraq, had 'met with al-Qaeda leaders in Iran' and had urged them to support efforts in Iraq and to cause 'problems within Iran', US military sources told The Observer Elements within the complex matrix of interest groups that make up the Iranian regime, who have co-operated with Western intelligence services before when it has served their purposes, provided crucial elements of information, possibly through intermediaries, allowing Abdul Hadi to be captured. 'They may have felt he posed an equal threat to them,' said one Paris-based Middle Eastern diplomat yesterday. 'One of Tehran's biggest fears is of an alliance between Kurdish ethnic separatists in the northwest and al-Qaeda.' Any such help would have been highly secret, given the tense relations between the Iranian regime and Western nations which came to a head with last month's detention of British naval personnel, allegations that Tehran is supporting Shia militants in Iraq and fierce recriminations over Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear technology. However, senior US intelligence officials told The Observer that the Iranian government has 'in some cases' been helpful in tracking and 'disabling' key militants crossing their national territory between Iraq and Afghanistan. The key Egyptian militant Saif al-Adel, once in charge of training al-Qaeda's new recruits, and one of Osama bin Laden's sons are both believed to be under some kind of detention in Iran. However, though such co-operation was relatively common in the years immediately following the 11 September attacks, the sources said, it had ceased more recently. Though they refused to confirm that Abdul Hadi was picked up on the frontier with Iran, Pentagon officials said that he had been attempting to return to Iraq 'to manage al-Qaeda affairs and possibly focus on operations outside Iraq against Western targets'. Regional governments have made no comment on the arrest, but Pakistan Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao described the arrest as a 'welcome development'. Senior British officials appeared unaware that Abdul Hadi had been detained by the CIA nearly six months ago, despite the militant's reported links to the London bomb plots and suspected interest in organising attacks on British soil. Intelligence services in the northern Iraqi cities of Arbil and Sulaimaniyah said Abdul Hadi, whose real name is Nashwan abd al-Razzaq abd al-Baqi, was well known to them. Born in 1961 in the northern city of Mosul, Abdul Hadi - who is being held at Guantanamo Bay - is thought to have served in the Iraqi national army in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s before becoming involved in the Islamist groups active in northern Iraq's urban areas at the time. He is believed to have travelled to Afghanistan at the end of the 1980s to fight Soviet occupiers, fighting alongside the militia group of hardline local warlord Abd al-Rab al-Rasul Sayyaf. As Afghanistan sunk into civil war in the early 1990s, Abdul Hadi is thought to have stayed in the region, based in the western Pakistan city of Peshawar, where he instructed recruits in Sayyaf's complex of training camps. One Pakistani source told The Observer he had taken at least one local wife from among the city's large population of Afghan refugees and had at least one son. Towards the end of the decade, Abdul Hadi gravitated towards bin Laden's al-Qaeda, becoming close to the Saudi-born terrorist leader and taking up a position on his ruling consultative council. In the late 1990s Abdul Hadi commanded a unit of international volunteers fighting alongside the Taliban against the Northern Alliance of Ahmad Shah Massoud in the northeastern Afghan province of Takhar. He became known to Western intelligence services during the battle of Shah-e-Kot in eastern Afghanistan in March 2002, when he is thought to have commanded the militants who inflicted heavy casualties on American troops and their Afghan auxiliaries in fierce fighting. A year later he is believed to have been appointed al-Qaeda's 'director of external operations', replacing Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 11 September attacks, who was arrested in Pakistan. 'It is the most exposed position in the al-Qaeda structure because it is the link with the outside world,' one British counter-terrorism official said. 'It's the job with the worst long-term prospects in the world.' A document prepared by the UK's Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre quoted Abdul Hadi as calling for an attack against the UK this summer, 'ideally before Tony Blair leaves office'. According to the document, he 'stressed the need to take care to ensure that the attack was successful and on a large scale'. A senior Pakistani intelligence official confirmed that Abdul Hadi had been one of the key targets of a series of bloody offensives by Islamabad's troops in the 'tribal territories' and was believed to be a direct link between al-Qaeda leaders and the Taliban and deeply implicated in organising attacks on Nato forces in Afghanistan. He had disappeared some time during mid-2005, around when the Pentagon says Abdul Hadi had been posted as a key link between bin Laden and local Iraqi militants, but surfaced in a violent recruiting video apparently filmed in Afghanistan. His capture came just weeks after the US State Department issued his photograph and offered Ł500,000 for information on his whereabouts. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Overview of North Korea Bank Dispute From the Associated Press Saturday April 28, 2007 8:31 AM By ANNE GEARAN AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - An obscure banking inquiry has hijacked a landmark nuclear disarmament deal with North Korea, to the surprise and dismay of U.S. and some foreign officials who have tried for months to resolve the mess. To try to salvage the nuclear pact, Washington first truncated and then throttled back a Treasury Department inquiry related to alleged money-laundering sanctioned by the North Korean government. Ultimately, the Bush administration agreed to help hand over money it had earlier identified as tainted. North Korea blew a mid-April deadline to begin shutting down its nuclear reactor because it wasn't satisfied, and hasn't budged much since. The February deal gave the North 60 days to shut down its main reactor and a plutonium processing plant, and allow U.N. monitors to verify the closures. In return, Pyongyang would get energy and economic assistance and a start toward normalizing relations with the U.S. and Japan. The high-level wrangling over disposition of a relatively tiny amount of money - $25 million - has been complex. The bank issue had already held up international disarmament talks for more than a year when the latest wrinkles developed. The money belongs not to Pyongyang per se, but to 52 account holders at a Macau bank blacklisted by Washington since September 2005 for alleged complicity in North Korean money laundering. U.S. sleuths flagged 17 account holders at Banco Delta Asia, accounting for about $12 million, as troublesome. As a half-measure, the U.S. at one point offered to let the North Koreans use that portion of the quarantined money for unspecified humanitarian purposes and release the rest of the money to its owners. Not good enough, North Korean negotiators said after nearly two weeks of bargaining sessions with U.S. Treasury officials last month in Beijing. They wanted the whole $25 million, period. Even after Washington decided to roll over on that point, neither the United States nor Macanese and Chinese banking authorities could simply hand the money over to the North. The account holders must come and get it, something U.S. officials had assumed would happen within hours when the freeze was lifted more than a week ago. Pyongyang has not explained the current delay in retrieving the money, but theories in the U.S. include that the North wants further concessions or that it simply took time to explain the complex transaction to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. U.S. officials say they believe the North wants to resolve the money issue and that it intends to follow through on its pledge to shut down the reactor when the matter is closed. The five nations negotiating with North Korea have set no new deadline. ``We're giving a little bit of extra berth to this because of the complications surrounding BDA,'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 6 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Hardly a 'slam dunk' Today: April 29, 2007 at 7:26:2 PDT Former CIA chief's book details how the White House has recklessly pushed ahead in Iraq Former CIA chief George Tenet is leveling damning charges at the White House in a book due out Monday, saying administration officials never held a "serious debate" on whether Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat before attacking Iraq. That, unfortunately, is not a surprise, but Tenet's account offers a detailed, troubling picture of how the White House rushed into Iraq and the misleading arguments for doing so. The New York Times obtained a copy of the book, "At the Center of the Storm," and quoted from it in a story Friday. "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat," Tenet writes. Nor, he writes, "was there ever a significant discussion" about containing Iraq without invading. Tenet does not shy from the blame, admitting that his agency provided bad intelligence on Iraq's weapons program and that he even believed Saddam had unconventional weapons. But he objects to being made the scapegoat, as the White House has sought to do, with the administration saying his faulty intelligence was the key to the decision to go to war. Administration officials leaked word that Tenet had called the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a "slam dunk," but Tenet says he was taken out of context. He says that during a December 2002 meeting in the Oval Office, when the White House was preparing to make a public case for going to war, the president wanted the CIA to "add punch" to a proposed public presentation. Tenet says strengthening the presentation would be a "slam dunk." Instead, Tenet's words were twisted, as were the facts, by the administration - and the United States went to war. This administration made a practice of relying on shaky intelligence and distorting facts to make its case to invade Iraq. The consequences have been horrific, as more than 24,000 American troops have been injured and more than 3,300 have lost their lives. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 7 Antiwar.com: Enabling Bush's Wars of Aggression - by Gordon Prather April 28, 2007 Bill Moyers introduced his widely anticipated PBS special – entitled "Buying the War " – thusly; "Four years ago this spring the Bush administration took leave of reality and plunged our country into a war so poorly planned it soon turned into a disaster. "The story of how high officials misled the country has been told. But they couldn't have done it on their own; they needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on." As we now know, the Bush-Cheney administration came to power looking for an excuse to depose Saddam Hussein. According to the then Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neil, "going after Saddam was topic "A", ten days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11." The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, gave them the excuse. On September 14, 2001, Bush issued a "Declaration of National Emergency by Reason of Certain Terrorist Attacks," on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and "the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States." The day before that Bush had presented draft legislation to Congress that would have given him "[T]he authority to use all necessary and appropriate force a) against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the attacks against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001; and b) to deter and prevent any future acts of terrorism against the United States." But Congress refused to give Bush the blanket authority he sought to use force "to deter and prevent" future acts of terrorism. The use of force had to somehow be related to the terrorist acts of 9/11. Not a problem. According the Washington Post, six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush approved a Top Secret plan for invading Afghanistan as part of a global campaign against the terrorists responsible for 9/11. Almost as a footnote, the document also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq! Next, in his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush charged that Iraq, Iran and North Korea "[C]onstitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred." Translation? Iraq, Iran and North Korea are "seeking" nukes which they intend to give to the terrorists responsible for 9/11! But, at the time Bush leveled his charge, Iraq, Iran and North Korea were non-nuclear-weapon state (NNWS) signatories to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Hence, all their NPT-proscribed nuclear materials and activities had long been subject to a Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA had accepted the responsibility for assuring all other NPT signatories that no NNWS had diverted safeguarded materials to a military purpose. All of these IAEA reports about the safeguarded nuclear programs of Iraq, Iran and North Korea were freely available to the public at the IAEA website. Nevertheless, on August 26, 2002, Cheney declared that "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from firsthand testimony from defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law." Just weeks before Moyers' PBS special aired, Amy Goodman had interviewed, Peter Eisner, co-author of the book The Italian Letter: How the Bush Administration Used a Fake Letter to Build the Case for War in Iraq, and Carlo Bonini, co-author of the book Collusion: International Espionage and the War on Terror. The Eisner and Bonini interviews focused on the "fake letter" delivered to the US Embassy in Rome on October 9, 2002, which purported to confirm that Niger had agreed in 2000 to supply up to 500 tons of "yellowcake" to Saddam Hussein. But Eisner – when asked -- had this to say about the "significance" of the "fake letter." "It comes in the context of a plan that had been hatched in the White House in the summer of 2002. The White House Iraq Group, which was basically a propaganda operation that realized that the one thing that needed to be done to sell the war in Iraq was to not deal with biological weapons, not deal with chemical weapons, but to deal with the fear and threat of a mushroom cloud – and the purveyors of language specifically said, 'Let's use and start hammering away the idea that a mushroom cloud is on the horizon, that we can't wait until we have firm information, but we have information. We've got to act now.' "And it was decided to wait specifically until September 8, 2002 to make that claim and to make it in a public relations campaign that included appearances on television, on radio, speeches around the world by Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and others, along with selling the story to the New York Times, which, in fact, they did." On Moyer's PBS documentary, Norman Solomon – author of War Made Easy – notes that; "The TV, radio, print, other media outlets are as crucial to going to war as the bombs and the bullets and the planes. They're part of the arsenal, the propaganda weaponry, if you will. And that's totally understood across the board, at the Pentagon, the White House, the State Department." All WHIG members knew that what Cheney had claimed on August 26, 2002 was a lie. Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, had told the IAEA the exact opposite of what Cheney had claimed, and the IAEA had subsequently verified that General Kamel spoke the truth. So Cheney lied. Many Congresspersons knew he lied. And on the eve of Bush's pre-emptive attack on Iraq – thanks to Scott Ritter – the mainstream media also learned that Cheney had lied. At least about what Kamel had revealed. Did Bush administration officials tell you other lies about Iraq? And did the mainstream media repeat those lies? Alas, according to Moyers, "Four years after Shock and Awe, the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush administration to go to war on false pretenses." That's probably because they're too busy "enabling" Bush's upcoming war against Iran, also based on false pretenses. Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico. Copyright 2007 Antiwar.com ***************************************************************** 8 Hindustan Times: ElBaradei criticised for backing Indo-US N-deal- No uranium for India-Australian Labor Party April 29, 2007 A dozen nuclear experts have sent a letter under the umbrella of a Washington think tank to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director-general Mohamed ElBaradei criticising his statements of support for the Indo-US nuclear deal. The experts charge that ElBaradei's promotion of the deal is "surprising and disappointing" because it requires breaking with existing US and international nuclear trade rules and undermines global efforts to stop the spread and build-up of nuclear arms, according to a press release from the Arms Control Association (ACA). "ElBaradei has been a long-time champion for nuclear disarmament and an outspoken critic of nuclear double standards, which is why his endorsement of the Indo-US deal is so puzzling and upsetting," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association and one of the letter signatories. Also signing the letter sent on Monday were several former high-level US government nuclear experts, including John Holum, former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security during the Clinton administration, and Norm Wulf, who from 1999 to 2002 served as the president's special representative for nuclear non-proliferation. ElBaradei's support for creating exceptions to established rules and practices "betrays" two principled positions he has long advocated, according to the experts. ElBaradei has argued for universal progress toward nuclear disarmament and against double standards for nuclear weapons haves and have-nots. The Indo-US deal, however, would provide India nuclear trade benefits reserved for countries that have forsworn nuclear weapons or those legally bound to give them up; neither of which is true of India. "India is moving in the opposite direction," according to the experts. Their letter notes that under the proposed US-India nuclear deal the supply of foreign nuclear fuel to India "would, in fact, add to its nuclear weapons capability by freeing up its existing and limited domestic capacity to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium exclusively for weapons". Although ElBaradei and other proponents of the deal contend it will strengthen the non-proliferation regime, the experts disagree. They write that the deal will be an "added burden on the already stretched resources" of the IAEA, while "securing no meaningful constraint on the growth of India's nuclear weapons stockpile". To help remedy the deal's shortcomings, the experts recommend that India halt the production of the key ingredients for making nuclear weapons before the deal is enacted. "The Indo-US deal is not an effective way to restructure the [nuclear non-proliferation treaty] system and would lead to the further unravelling of the basic security bargain established between the nuclear haves and have-nots," the experts conclude. ***************************************************************** 9 Comment is free: Here comes the new cold war guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Kate Hudson The latest American plans for missile defence are causing international disquiet. Kate Hudson April 29, 2007 1:00 PM | Printable version The US administration seems to have an obsession with war. It's not so many years since President Bush initiated the "war on terror". Last year this morphed into the Long War - a war unlimited in time and space, against global Islamist extremism: a war which may be fought in dozens of countries simultaneously and for years to come. But as if that's not enough, the US now looks set to initiate a new cold war. Chugging alongside the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has been pursuing the National Missile Defence programme (NMD), which is causing increasing disquiet on the global stage. Popularly termed Star Wars, NMD is part of the US military strategy to achieve "full spectrum dominance" - full military control of all land, sea, air, space and information. While the US describes it as a defensive system, because it allows the US to shoot down incoming missiles, in reality it will enable the US to attack other countries without fear of retaliation. It has already sparked international controversy and provoked a new global arms race, with the danger of nuclear weapons use. President Bush insists that the US needs missile defence in case terrorists or "rogue" states ever develop inter-continental ballistic missiles able to reach them. In fact, this is extremely unlikely, as terrorists or states without long-range missile technology could deliver nuclear weapons more easily, cheaply and with less likelihood of detection in other ways - in a truck, on board ship, or even part of an aeroplane. Thus, NMD is widely understood to be a system deployed against major state actors such as Russia or China. It is no doubt understood as such within those two countries. The Russian government has expressed strong concern about the development of the system. Recently, US defence secretary Robert Gates went to Moscow to persuade Russian leaders that the system is nothing to worry about. "The Russian position with respect to this issue remains unchanged", replied defence minister Serdyukov. "We do believe that deploying all the strategic elements of the ballistic missile defences is a destabilising factor that may have a great impact upon global and regional security." And who can be surprised at this response? The current US plan is to locate a radar base for the system in the Czech Republic, and interceptor missiles in Poland. There is considerable local opposition Shocking for us, of course, is that Britain has assumed a critical role in the programme, without parliamentary scrutiny or accountability. A recently reported offer by the prime minister to host interceptor missiles - which would shoot down enemy missiles on their way to the US - was made without any public or parliamentary consultation. In addition to contributing to global tension, these missiles would clearly place Britain on the front line: at risk of attack by anyone seeking to attack the US, and would continue the use of British soil to support the aggressive US military agenda. There are two key bases used for NMD in Britain, both in Yorkshire. Fylingdales is one of five US Ballistic Missile Early Warning Radar stations across the world. The US unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - which outlawed such systems - in 2002. In 2003 Tony Blair gave permission for the base to become part of the NMD programme. Despite major public and political opposition on the grounds of international security and local health concerns, the process continued, without planning permission, and is due to be completed this year. On paper, this US base would be able to track enemy missiles and locate their intended targets, allowing interceptor missiles to be fired from other locations to knock them off their trajectories. So far, the system has proved to be ineffective: controlled tests have had minimal success over tracking and shooting down missiles, but this has not deterred the US from pressing ahead. Menwith Hill is run by the US National Security Agency (NSA), operates outside US law and is not accountable in British law. It is part of a global network of bases used to spy on all forms of international telecommunications - including private phone calls, emails and faxes - and is crucial for the intelligence-gathering necessary for any US-led military attack. In 2002, Britain gave permission for the installation of a Space Based Infra Red System (SBIRS) at the base. SBIRS is another aspect of the Early Warning system. This upgrade of the base to advance the NMD programme appears well underway with recent Pentagon budget reports showing that over $90 million has been allocated to building projects - and all without British scrutiny or approval! But this role for Britain is not a popular one. There is significant public opposition to Britain's current commitment to the NMD programme: a 2004 Yorkshire CND/ICM poll showed that 67% of the British public are opposed to UK involvement. But no significant parliamentary debate has taken place and decisions relating to the role of Menwith Hill and Fylingdales are made behind closed doors. Following the prime minister's offer to host US interceptor missiles in Britain, the US has reiterated that its first choice for the installation of such missiles is Poland, with a new radar system located in the Czech Republic. But even without hosting the interceptor missiles, the UK is already crucial to the system, with intelligence obtained by Menwith Hill and radar support from Fylingdales. As their technological capabilities develop, so will US military dominance. The role of US bases on British soil to further the US war agenda turns Britain into little more than a military outpost for the Pentagon. Next stop, a new cold war. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007. Registered in England and Wales. No. 908396 Registered office: Number 1 Scott Place, Manchester M3 3GG ***************************************************************** 10 BBC NEWS: Putin steps up missiles warning Last Updated: Friday, 27 April 2007, 17:16 GMT 18:16 UK Mr Putin has made a series of comments against missile defence Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that US plans to build a missile defence system in eastern Europe would raise the risk of "mutual destruction". Poland and the Czech Republic are keen to allow the US to site missile bases and radars on their territory. Mr Putin spoke a day after threatening to halt involvement with a treaty limiting conventional arms in Europe. "This is not just a defence system, this is part of the US nuclear weapons system," the Itar-Tass news agency quoted him as saying after meeting Czech President Vaclav Klaus. Tough line Speaking at a press conference with Polish President Lech Kaczynski in Warsaw, British Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted the missile defence plan was not aimed at Russia. "I am absolutely sure myself that it is not in any shape or form aimed at Russia or as a consequence of issues to do with America or Europe's relations with Russia," Mr Blair said. "I think it's more to do with the concern over... those states that are trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability for the first time." Mr Putin has taken a tough line in recent months over the US plans for missile defence. Alexander Gabuyev Kommersant daily His suggestion on Thursday that Russia could suspend membership of the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty was met with "grave concern" by Nato. Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the agreement was one of the cornerstones of European security. Mr Putin has accused the US of overstepping its "natural borders" and of his concern at the apparent increase in military bases and systems close to Russia's borders. As part of the its new missile defence programme, the US now wants to station 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, with radar operations in the Czech Republic. Mr Putin's use of the term "mutual destruction" harks back to the rhetoric of the Cold War, when strategists in Russia and the US relied at least partly on the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to prevent nuclear war. The theory underpinned the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty of 1972, which limited the development of anti-missile systems. But the US withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002, calling it a "relic" from a previous age. * BBC Copyright Notice ***************************************************************** 11 Xinhua: Need for an energy law overseer, says drafter www.chinaview.cn 2007-04-28 08:20:31 BEIJING, April 28 -- It is possible for China to set up an independent energy administrative agency, which is authoritative and efficient enough to enact the proposed Energy Law, a key drafter said. "It is possible for the country's top decision-makers to set up an energy administration. I regard such an agency as necessary to execute the future Energy Law. However, it is still uncertain what the final outcome will be," Ye Rongsi, a drafter of the Energy Law, said at the International Symposium on China's Energy Law on Friday. The seminar was held to get international input on the drafting of China's Energy Law. The law will overarch existing energy laws and regulations. It will also address particular issues covered by existing energy rules, Ye said. Ma Kai, minister of the National Development and Reform Commission, China's top economic planner, said it was absolutely necessary for China to come up with an overriding Energy Law, because existing laws and regulations only address individual industrial problems. Furthermore, they were inadequate in matters relating to secure energy supply and sustainable energy development. Ye in agreeing with Ma, said the proposed Energy Law, while laying the foundation and serving as the overarching legal framework, should also be effective and efficient to "crack specific hard nuts". "Although the planned energy law is expected to have fundamental functions, it should also be applicable and maneuverable, embodying some key targets and standards for the industry to follow," Ye said. "In the drafting of the law, we should quantify the specific goals wherever possible." Ye admitted that there is debate on whether specific targets and benchmarks should be enshrined in the planned law, because many market players may fall short of the targets and standards, thereby undermining the law's authority. Currently, there are four energy laws in China on coal, electricity, energy conservation and renewable energy. There are no laws yet governing petroleum, natural gas and nuclear energy. Some sections of the existing laws are out of date and crucial issues, such as strategic crude reserves, are not covered, Zhang Qiong, deputy director of the Department of Legislation Affairs Office of the State Council, said. According to Zhang, amendments to current energy laws and regulations are being carried out along with the drafting of the Energy Law to make the country's energy industry better governed. (Source: China Daily) Editor: Chen Feng ***************************************************************** 12 The Observer: UN facing a backlash on emissions action plan Environmental groups go on the attack as world experts reveal proposals to tackle climate change Amelia Hill, Juliette Jowit and Robin McKie Sunday April 29, 2007 The world's leading climate change experts will this week outline highly controversial plans to save the world from global warming. Their proposals - which include a major expansion in nuclear power, the use of GM crops to boost biofuel production, and reliance on unproven technologies, including the underground storage of carbon dioxide - will put the UN's climate group on a collision course with a host of environmental groups. The proposals for saving the planet are outlined in a draft version of 'Mitigation of Climate Change' by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the third part of the panel's 2007 analysis of global warming. Previous reports have focused on the science of climate change and its likely impacts. The third and final report concentrates on measures that can be taken to save the Earth from the worst, most catastrophic effects of rising temperatures triggered by the pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A draft version, which has been obtained by The Observer, will be debated by UN climate experts this week, and a final version will be published on Friday. It is clear that experts now believe the situation is desperately urgent. 'Global emissions must peak,' states the draft report. 'Mitigation efforts over the next two or three decades will determine the long-term global temperature increase.' Crucially the IPCC panel insists that it is 'technically and economically' feasible to stabilise greenhouse emissions - but only if countries are prepared to pay the extra costs of transforming everything from energy supply networks to agriculture to waste. By 2030, the report estimates that the cost of stabilising greenhouse gases at levels that are considered the maximum for avoiding catastrophic climate change would cost between 0.2 and 0.6 per cent of global wealth. As well as plans for more nuclear power, genetically modified biofuels and carbon capture and storage, the report sets out a vision of the future that is a mixture of existing policies, such as energy efficiency and renewable energy from wind and wave farms, and more futuristic ideas for hydrogen car fleets and 'intelligent' buildings which can control energy use. In addition, the report makes it clear that both developed countries, including the United States, and developing nations, in particular India and China, will have to play major roles. Last night Tony Juniper, executive director of the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth, said far more fundamental lifestyle changes were needed than had been considered by the UN group. 'Simply replacing one set of technologies with another set of technologies won't work, especially when there are such big downsides with some of them,' he said. Nuclear reactors are dangerous and land clearance and chemical pesticides and fertilisers used to grow fuel crops can cause huge environmental damage, he added. 'Structural change to the economy, behaviour change and culture change - those have to be elements in a world of decarbonisation,' said Juniper. However, other groups criticised the IPCC for not being sufficiently robust in its support for technological fixes to the world's climate problems. Bruno Comby, president of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, said nuclear power should provide an even bigger proportion of energy than that envisaged by the UN scientists and politicians. 'Nuclear is not the only solution, but it's the biggest solution,' he said. The news of the IPCC's controversial plans comes as Britain continues to bask in exceptionally hot weather. Yesterday the Met Office released figures which showed this month will be the warmest April for more than 140 years. The average temperature for the past month has been 11.1C (51.9F), beating the previous record of 10.6C (51F) set in 1865. Met Office figures also indicate that the past 12 months have been the warmest in 10 years, with average figures of 11.6C. Experts at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter, Devon - which undertakes research on climate change - said this was consistent with global warming predictions. 'The effects of temperature rise are being experienced on a global scale,' said Dr Debbie Hemming. 'Many of the regions that are projected to experience the largest climate changes are already vulnerable to environmental stress from resource shortages, rapid urbanisation, population rise and industrial development.' Useful links IPCC UN framework convention on climate change Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 13 Times-News: Plans for nuclear plant move forward Magicvalley.com, Twin Falls, ID Last modified on Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:18 AM MDT No permits yet, but company says proposal still a go By Matt Christensen Times-News writer BRUNEAU - A Virginia-based company is going ahead with plans to build Idaho's first commercial nuclear power plant, even as state and regional environmental and watchdog groups oppose the project. Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. has purchased land near Bruneau, where it intends to open the Idaho Energy Complex, a compound the company says will house a 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor and ethanol plant. According to the company, that's enough energy to power three times the number of homes in Idaho. But so far, the company is receiving little support from Idaho energy and green groups. Last week, Alternate Energy sent letters to a dozen of the state and region's most prominent environmental groups - including Snake River Alliance, the Idaho Conservation League and the Northern Rockies chapter of the Sierra Club - asking the organizations to support the project. Most of the groups that received letters, however, say they oppose the company's plans. "It's hogwash," said Katie Fite, a spokeswoman for Western Watersheds Project, a Hailey-based green group. "I mean, they're incredibly dangerous, and the last thing we need is a nuclear power plant." Other groups echoed those sentiments. Of the 12 letters Alternate Energy says it sent out, seven were met with disapproval. Two groups could not be reached for this story. Two organizations said they did not receive the letter and another group said it had no position on the proposal. "These guys (at Alternate Energy) are making irresponsible and forward-thinking statements that should raise some serious concerns," said Jeremy Maxand, executive director of Snake River Alliance. He said Idaho has no need for nuclear power because other forms of power production, namely wind and geothermal, have yet to be fully tapped. Another concern the groups share involves siting regulations. This spring, the Legislature reaffirmed Idaho's general policy of local control by giving county commissioners final say to grant permission for power-plant construction. But officials in Owyhee County said they've yet to receive permit applications from Alternate Energy. Company Spokesman Martin Johncox said the company will submit applications with the county and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission - a $78 million process, he said - within a few months. He also said he's disappointed by the reaction to the Alternate Energy letters. "We think that's unfortunate for (the groups) and for the state of Idaho," he said. "Idaho needs more power, and not all power is equal. We need more base-core power." Johncox said wind and geothermal power are unreliable, and Alternate Energy's plant will provide emission-free energy and stability to a fluctuating Western market. Alternate Energy bought in February about 4,000 acres near Bruneau from farmer Jim Hilliard, who has since become a partner in the project. Two months earlier, Alternate Energy President and Chief Executive Officer Don Gillispie announced his company's plans to build the power plant, saying construction could begin in 2008. The company has since reassessed its timetable, saying the plant could be operational by 2025. The NRC said the permitting process for nuclear facilities usually takes at least five years. Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. was formed last year, and its board of directors includes several energy kingpins, including James Taylor, former head of the NRC. To find out more about the company and its Idaho proposals, visit http://www.alternateenergyholdings.com. Times-News staff writer Matt Christensen covers the environment. He welcomes comments at 735-3243 and at matt.christensen@lee.net. Copyright © 2006, Lee Publications Inc. Magicvalley.com is an on-line division of The Times-News, published daily at 132 W. Fairfield St., Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 by Lee Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises. ***************************************************************** 14 Brisbane Times: Greens lash nuke moves - - brisbanetimes.com.au April 29, 2007 THE Australian Greens have lambasted the Federal Government and Opposition for their respective plans for nuclear power and expanding the number of uranium mines. Prime Minister John Howard yesterday urged Australians to accept the need for nuclear power as a clean solution to the nation's energy needs, while Labor moved to reverse the party's 25-year policy on no new uranium mines. Greens Senator Christine Milne accused Mr Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd of "cozying up" to big business. "Today we are witnessing a new low in moral cowardice in Australia," Senator Milne said. "What Mr Rudd and the Prime Minister are doing is putting more uranium into a world market, driving the nuclear fuel cycle," she said. "History will judge them both for sending more uranium into a very dangerous world at a time when we don't need to be doing it." Source: The Sun-Herald Agreement Copyright © 2007. Brisbane Times. ***************************************************************** 15 Sydney Morning Herald: No need for nuke power in Vic - Baillieu - www.smh.com.au April 29, 2007 - 5:59PM Victorian Liberal leader Ted Baillieu says there is no need for nuclear power in Victoria despite Prime Minister John Howard's call for a national debate. Mr Baillieu spoke outside the Victorian Liberal state council where he said the state's future low-emission energy needs could be met with "clean coal" technology, and not nuclear power. "I think the prime minister is right that we have to explore each and every alternative available, but when it comes to Victoria I don't see that it is necessary," Mr Baillieu told reporters. "We have enormous fuel resources here in Victoria and I don't see a nuclear industry being needed in Victoria." Mr Baillieu then said it was "up to the other states" when asked where a nuclear power plant should operate in Australia. The comments come after Mr Howard used his address on Saturday's opening day of the state council to a call for a national debate on nuclear power, as his party's federal nuclear strategy was also released. Mr Howard told the gathering of 1,000 Liberal Party members "if we're fair dinkum on this climate change debate then we have to look at nuclear power". Climate change was discussed by those on the floor of the state council on Sunday. Delegates voted in support of two motions calling on the Liberal Party to develop its global warming-related energy policy, and also to condemn the Labor state government for failing to promote zero-emission geothermal power. Mr Baillieu also gave his first address to the council since he took over as party leader in May last year, and since Labor was returned in the November state election. He pledged to lead the party to the next state election in 2010. "I want to lead this party back to government, that is my commitment, 100 per cent, to 2010 and beyond," Mr Baillieu said. The Victorian Liberal Party saw a 3.4 per cent gain in voter support in the November 25 poll, but it made only a small dent in Labor's massive majority. © 2007 AAP ***************************************************************** 16 Sydney Morning Herald: Howard's nuclear power walk with US may split the voters - www.smh.com.au Marian Wilkinson April 30, 2007 DO YOU want a nuclear reactor in your backyard or a solar panel on your roof? Put crudely, this was the choice presented at the weekend when the Prime Minister, John Howard and Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, offered radically different solutions to global warming. At first glance, Rudd was the hands-down winner. Offering householders a cheap loan of $10,000 to help them install solar panels and rainwater tanks sounds like a no-brainer. Not only does it work at the grass roots, it picks up on the global strategy for combating greenhouse gas emissions proposed in the latest United Nations expert report, due to be released on Friday. Recent Labor polling shows about two-thirds of voters reject nuclear power as the answer to global warming, while more than 90 per cent want the Government to pursue renewable alternatives such as solar and wind energy. So is Howard's nuclear policy a bomb, as the Greens leader, Bob Brown, believes? Howard is acutely aware of Australia's love of solar panels, which is why the $4000 rebate on their installation will be retained - and probably increased - in next week's budget. But Howard believes he can wedge Labor on global warming. Each time Rudd raises it, Howard will default to the nuclear debate, arguing as he did on Channel Nine's Sunday program that renewable energy cannot provide baseload power for Australia. "There are only two ways that you can run power stations, generate baseload power in this country. You can do it on fossil fuel or ? with nuclear power." Here is the cleft stick. Both leaders know we cannot burn coal at home and export it indefinitely without the help of "clean coal" technology to eliminate its greenhouse emissions. But few believe clean coal will be commercially available before 2020, and when it is, it will drive the cost of coal-fired electricity way up. In short, it is no miracle cure. Howard is presenting a radical alternative that will divert both the debate and taxpayers' dollars into examining the hugely expensive and politically dicey nuclear alternative. But his new enthusiasm for nuclear power appears to be driven more from the White House than your house. In January, the Bush Administration launched its global nuclear energy partnership after extensive discussions with its allies. Its hope is to make the US a major beneficiary of a $US1 trillion ($1.2 trillion) plan to build nuclear reactors worldwide as energy demand grows, along with fears of greenhouse gas emissions from coal. As a former US energy regulator put it, "It has a certain intellectual appeal until you think about how it would work and what it would cost." On Thursday, shortly before Howard announced his nuclear plans, President George Bush and the Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, agreed on a joint nuclear action plan in New York. Abe had signed a nuclear power assistance program with China not long before. All four governments will push the nuclear agenda at the APEC summit hosted by Howard in September, shortly before the election. This will allow him to present his nuclear vision as vital at home, in step with our trading partners and a fabulous opportunity to export uranium. But whether Australians will buy this vision of a nuclear future, driven from Washington, when presented with the alternative, is a big gamble for the Prime Minister. Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 17 Free Press: Chernobyl reminds us that nukes are NOT green Independent News Media - Harvey Wasserman April 28, 2007 Twenty-one years ago this week, lethal radiation poured into the breezes over Europe and into the jet stream above, carrying death and disease around the planet. It could be happening again as you read this: either by error, as at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, or by terror, as could have happened on September 11, 2001. Those who now advocate a "rebirth" of this failed technology forget what happened during these "impossible" catastrophes, or refuse to face their apocalyptic reality, both ecological and financial. Radiation monitors in Sweden, hundreds of miles away, first detected the fallout from the blast at Chernobyl Unit 4. The reactor complex had just been extolled in the Soviet press as the ultimate triumph of a "new generation" in atomic technology. The Gorbachev government hushed up the accident, then reaped a whirlwind of public fury that helped bring down the Soviet Union. The initial silence in fact killed people who might otherwise have taken protective measures. In downtown Kiev, just 80 kilometers away, a parade of uninformed citizens---many of them very young---celebrated May Day amidst a hard rain of lethal fallout. It should never have happened. Ten days after the explosion, radiation monitors at Point Reyes Station, on the California coast, detected that fallout. A sixty percent drop in bird births soon followed. (The researcher who made that public was fired). Before they happened, reactor pushers said accidents like those at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were "impossible." But... To this day, no one knows how much radiation escaped from TMI, where it went or who it harmed. But 2400 central Pennsylvanians who have sued to find out have been denied their day in court for nearly thirty years. The epithet "no one died at Three Mile Island" is baseless wishful thinking. To this day also, no one knows how much radiation escaped from Chernobyl, where it went and who was harmed. Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the late President Boris Yeltsin, and president of the Center for Russian Environmental Policy, estimates the death toll at 300,000. The infant death and childhood cancer rates in the downwind areas have been horrific. Visual images of the innumerable deformed offspring make the most ghastly science fiction movies seem tame. Industry apologists have stretched the limits of common decency to explain away these disasters. Patrick Moore, who falsely claims to be a founder of Greenpeace, has called TMI a "success story." An industry doctor long ago argued that Chernobyl would somehow "lower the cancer rate." In human terms, such claims are beneath contempt. As one of the few reporters to venture into central Pennsylvania to study the health impacts of TMI, I can recall no worse experience in my lifetime than interviewing the scores of casualties. The farmers made clear, with appalling documentation, that the animal death toll alone was horrendous. But the common human symptoms, ranging from a metallic taste the day of the accident to immediate hair loss, bleeding sores, asthma and so much more, came straight out of easily available literature from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is no mystery about what happened downwind from TMI, only a conscious, well-funded corporate, media and judicial blackout. At Chernobyl, the experience was repeated a thousand-fold. More than 800,000 (that's NOT a typo) Soviet draftees were run through the radioactive ruins as "jumpers," being exposed for 90 seconds or so to do menial clean-up work before hustling out. The ensuing cancer rate has been catastrophic (this huge cohort of very angry young men subsequently played a key role in bringing down the Soviet Union). In both cases, "official" literature negating (at TMI) or minimizing (at Chernobyl) the death toll are utter nonsense. The multiple killing powers of radiation remain as much a medical mystery as how much fallout escaped in each case and where it went. The economic impacts are not so murky. Moore's assertion that TMI was a success story is literally insane. A $900 million asset became a $2 billion clean-up job in a matter of minutes. At Chernobyl, the cost of the accident in lost power, damaged earth, abandoned communities and medical nightmares has been conservatively estimated at a half-trillion dollars, and still climbing. The price of a melt-down or terror attack at an American nuke is beyond calculation. In most cases, reactors built in areas once far from population centers have now been surrounded by development, some of it bumping right up to the plant perimeters. Had the jets that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 instead hit Indian Point Units Two and Three, 45 miles north, the human and financial costs would have been unimaginable. Imagine the entire metropolitan New York area being made permanently uninhabitable, and then calculate out what happens to the US economy. There remains no way to protect any of the roughly 450 commercial reactors on this planet from either terror attack or an error on the part of plant operators. Those advocating more nukes ignore the myriad good reasons why no private insurance company has stepped forward to insure them against catastrophe. Those who say future accidents are impossible forget that exactly the same was said of TMI and Chernobyl. The commercial fuel cycle DOES emit global warming in the uranium enrichment process. Uranium mining kills miners. Milling leaves billions of tons of tailings that emit immeasurable quantities of radioactive radon. Regular reactor operations spew direct heat in to the air and water. They also pump fallout into the increasingly populated surroundings, with impacts on the infant death rate that have already been measured and proven. And, of course, there is no solution for the management of high-level waste, a problem the industry promised would be solved a half-century ago. Economically, early forays into a "new generation" of reactors have already been plagued by huge cost overruns and construction delays. At best they would take ten to fifteen years to build, by which time renewable sources and efficiency---which are already cheaper than new nukes---will have totally outstripped this failed technology. Small wonder Wall Street wants no part of this radioactive hype, which is essentially just another corporate campaign for taxpayer handouts. This past Earth Day an orgy of corporate greenwashing, aided by the always-compliant major media, tried to portray nukes as "green" energy. Nothing could be further from the truth. We will never get to Solartopia, a sustainable economy based on renewables and efficiency, as long as atomic power sucks up our resources and threatens us with extinction. Twenty-one years ago this week, Chernobyl became something far worse than a mere warning beacon. The radiation it spewed still travels our jet stream, still lodges in our bodies, still harms our children. Only by burying this failed, murderous beast can we get to a truly green future. -- Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH, A.D. 2030, is at www.solartopia.org. He is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, and writes regularly for www.freepress.org, where this article first appeared. All content © 1970-2007 The Columbus Free Press ***************************************************************** 18 sacbee.com: Steve Wiegand: It's time to power up nuke talk - By Steve Wiegand - Bee Columnist Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, April 28, 2007 One of the curious things about the debate on global warming and clean energy sources is the near-absence of the word "nuclear" in the discussion. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's head environmental cheerleader, rarely mentions it. At an April 12 appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, the guv did say that nuclear power plants currently don't fit in his plans to save the state/world. The nuclear waste generated by the plants, he said, just creates another environmental problem. But a broader discussion of nuclear power as a possible long-range component in finding a clean energy mix might be one of the few areas where California is trailing the rest of the world on the subject. There are currently more than 400 nuclear power plants around the world, and at least two dozen new plants are being discussed in other U.S. states. A recent report by an outfit called the Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) said a combination of high fossil fuel prices, energy security concerns and worries about the impact of greenhouse gases on the climate "have created good prospects for a major nuclear expansion over the coming decades." The company, which analyzes various aspects of the world energy market, noted that 28 nuke plants are under construction around the world and that 20 countries have plants under construction or in the planning stages. "Governments and businesses are taking action," the report concludes. "The 'nuclear renaissance' is real." On the other hand, we have an equally recent report from a British organization called the Oxford Research Group. The Oxford report disputes the most attractive argument put forward by the pro-nuke corner, which is that nuclear power is a clean energy source when compared with fossil fuel sources. The Oxford folks argue that when you take into account all the steps involved, from mining and processing the uranium used for fuel to storing the spent fuel rods, nuclear plants are responsible for a fair amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere. The yin-and-yangness of the issue is also reflected in California's nuclear experience. Two of its four nuclear plants are operating; two have been decommissioned. Under a state law approved in 1970, California's official policy is "to encourage the use of nuclear power wherever feasible." But under a 1976 law, no new nuke plant can be built in the state until the California Energy Commission signs off on a proven technology for reprocessing nuclear fuel rods and safely disposing of the plants' radioactive waste. A bill to repeal the 1976 law was recently introduced by a Republican assemblyman from Irvine named Chuck DeVore, and summarily squashed in its first committee hearing by majority Democrats. DeVore argues that a bill passed last year to wean California from coal-based energy (about 20 percent of current supplies) necessitates finding new sources to replace it, a point well taken. But he skates around the problem of spent fuel storage, positing that it would take at least a decade to build a nuke plant, and by that time we'll know where to stick the wastes. That could well be so much wishful thinking, particularly in light of the vow by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to stop the federal nuclear waste depository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., from ever opening. Still, it would seem prudent to at least elevate the discussion about nuclear power in California beyond a brief Assembly committee hearing. On an issue like this, no stone should be left unturned. Even the glowing ones. About the writer: * Reach Steve Wiegand at (916) 321-1076 or swiegand@sacbee.com. Back columns at www.sacbee.com/wiegand. Copyright © The Sacramento Bee, (916) 321-1000 ***************************************************************** 19 Beacon Journal: Refueling has workers powered up 04/29/2007 | By Betty Lin-Fisher Beacon Journal business writer NORTH PERRY VILLAGE - T he 1,250-megawatt Perry Nuclear Power Plant, located off Lake Erie east of Cleveland, is currently shut down for regular refueling and maintenance. The plant is operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co., a subsidiary of Akron-based First-Energy Corp. It shut down for refueling April 2. Every two years, one-third of the fuel assemblies in the nuclear reactor are replaced during a scheduled outage. FirstEnergy officials declined to say how long the plant was scheduled to be down for maintenance, but typical outages for regular maintenance last about a month. The new fuel rods will last six years. In the containment building, workers wearing protective clothing used equipment to withdraw and insert new fuel rods. During a refueling, the area surrounding the reactor is flooded with water to transport the new and used fuel, which is still radioactive. The spent fuel is transported to the ``spent fuel pool'' for storage. Employees typically only work in the containment room when the plant is offline. Workers use remote-controlled cameras to verify visually that the rods are in good condition. In the dark domed room, the water holding the fuel rods has a bright bluish and teal glow. The blue colors are emitted from the rods, spokesman Todd Schneider said. Activity at the power plant does not slow down during an outage, said Barry Allen, director of site operations. Allen will take over for Bill W. Pearce, the retiring site vice president, after the outage. The plant, which normally has about 870 employees, gets an additional 1,200 supplemental workers in various roles during an outage. In a refueling, operations are 24 hours, seven days a week. A refueling outage is usually an opportunity to perform maintenance on other parts of the plant, Allen said. In addition to replacing 284 of the 748 fuel assemblies in the reactor core, plant workers also installed a 360-degree refueling floor platform and replaced two of the three low-pressure turbine rotors. The rotors installed were two of Perry's original Unit 1 low-pressure turbine rotors, which were used for the first six years of plant operation. Last summer, they were refurbished to prepare them for installation during this outage. Each full turbine rotor weighs 365,000 pounds. Betty Lin-Fisher can be reached at 330-996-3724 or blinfisher@thebeaconjournal.com. ***************************************************************** 20 AU ABC: Stefaniak plays down prospect of a nuclear power station in ACT ABC Australian Capital Territory (ACST)Sunday, 29 April 2007. 11:36 (AWST) ACT Liberal Leader Bill Stefaniak has thrown his support behind Prime Minister John Howard's plans to expand the domestic nuclear industry. The Federal Government says it will overturn legislation that bans nuclear power generation as part of the efforts to combat climate change. Several federal Liberal backbenchers have rejected any prospect of having nuclear reactors built in their electorates. Mr Stefaniak is playing down concerns a power station - or waste dump - would be based in Canberra. "As long as it's safe and I think we've moved a long way since things like the Chernobyl disaster, I don't think many people would necessarily have a big problem with it," he said. "I doubt very much [that] the ACT is going to be much of a player in this. "My understanding is nuclear power stations are much more likely to be elsewhere on the coast, rather than in the ACT. "We're a very, very small part of Australia and I don't think anyone has suggested setting up a nuclear power station here and I don't think that would be necessarily practical." ***************************************************************** 21 ENS: Ukraine President Wants to Renew Chernobyl Area Environment News Service KIEV, Ukraine Today, on the 21st anniversary of the explosion and fire at Chernobyl that sent a radioactive cloud across Europe, the president of Ukraine urged the country to support renewal of the uninhabited, contaminated region around the closed reactor. "As chief of state," said President Viktor Yushchenko, "I insist that all executive bodies make it their priority to develop the contaminated territories, rehabilitate those affected by the accident and create favorable conditions for their activity." Yushchenko and a group of mourners prayed and lit candles before dawn to mark the precise time of the world's most devastating nuclear catastrophe, which occurred at 1:23 am on April 26, 1986. President Yushchenko addresses the nation from a school outside of Kiev. (Photo courtesy Office of the President) Speaking Wednesday at a school outside Kiev, Yushchenko said it is vital to introduce healthcare and economic reforms in that area and attract investment to revitalize it. "Chernobyl has no past tense in Ukraine. Its revival has been and will be our paramount goal," he said in an address that was broadcast live on Ukrainian television. "Our common obligation is to take care of the people touched by the Chernobyl sorrow." Twenty-one years ago, Chernobyl reactor No. 4 experienced a catastrophic steam explosion that resulted in a fire, a series of additional explosions, and a nuclear meltdown. A plume of radioactive fallout drifted over parts of the Western Soviet Union, Europe, and eastern North America. Large areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were heavily contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. A 30 kilometer (18 mile) zone around the plant remains closed to the public. It is located at Prypiat in northern Ukraine about 100 kilometers (60 miles) from Kiev. The reactor is now crumbling beside an abandoned city that once housed some 50,000 workers and their families. "This land must be revitalized," Yushchenko said. "We should look at it as having prospects, not with the feeling that this is a territory of Ukraine that has been erased from the map and which we must forget." Chernobyl reactor No. 4 after the accident showing the extensive damage to the main reactor hall (Photo credit unknown) Prypiat and the surrounding area will not be safe for human habitation for several centuries, scientists say. The radioactive isotopes caesium-137 and strontium-90 released by the accident will take 300 years to decay to one thousandth of their present level. Scientists say that after the radioactive isotopces have reached this level, the area may be used for most human activities again. A project to build a new shelter to cover reactor No. 4 will begin "in several months," Yushchenko said. Work on the US$1.1 billion (885 million euro) internationally funded project has been delayed repeatedly, although the hastily built current shelter of concrete and steel is crumbling. Yushchenko thanked the country's international partners for their assistance in dealing with the aftereffects of the blast. "We are deeply grateful for this support. We hope all the obligations assumed by the international community will be fulfilled," he said. "I am convinced we will succeed and see Ukraine prosper if we unite, particularly to resolve our Chernobyl problems. This is our obligation and our responsibility for posterity." President Viktor Yushchenko lays a wreath at a new monument commemorating those who died at Chernobyl. April 25, 2007. (Photo courtesy Office of the President) Thirty-one people died within the first two months of the Chernobyl disaster from illnesses caused by radioactivity. There is debate over the longer-term toll. The UN's World Health Organization has estimated that 9,300 people will die from cancers caused by Chernobyl's radiation. Some groups, such as Greenpeace, believe the toll could be 10 times higher. To mark the anniversary today, 30 Greenpeace activists from six European nations halted construction of the Electricite de France's proposed new European pressurized water reactor at Flamanville, France. Activists occupied cranes and used trucks to block the entrance at the construction site because they view the new type of reactor as "dangerous." "The proposed construction of such new reactors, which are likely to be the most dangerous in the world, is an insult to the memory of those who died in the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl, and the hundreds of thousands of people whose lives continue to be blighted by the disaster," said Frederic Marillier of Greenpeace France. Greenpeace activists lock themselves to a truck at the site of Electricite de France's European pressurized water reactor at Flamanville, France. (Photo © Greenpeace / Pierre Gleizes) "We're occupying the construction site to highlight the risk to all of Europe," said Marillier, "and we call upon the two candidates for France's presidential election to cancel the EPR project at Flamanville." A recent study commissioned by Greenpeace, shows that the new generation of EPR reactors have an inherently higher risk of serious radioactive contamination in the event of any accident. The study, produced by John Large Associates, found that the number of people affected and requiring evacuation following the 'most likely' of nuclear incidents at the Flamanville reactor would be about 660,000. In a worst-case scenario, the number of people requiring evacuation would increase to more than three million. Based on a nuclear industry document leaked last year, Greenpeace warns that European pressurized water reactor plants are vulnerable to terrorist attack. ***************************************************************** 22 au Brisbane times: No logic to Labor's nuclear stance - govt - brisbanetimes.com.au April 29, 2007 - 7:33PM The federal government has accused Labor of hypocrisy by voting to expand uranium mining but opposing nuclear power. State Labor governments have lined up to reject nuclear power stations in their backyards after Prime Minister John Howard announced a strong push to build them. Federal Labor on Saturday at its national conference dropped a long-held ban on new uranium mines but will not include the nuclear option in its climate change strategy. "They say that it's perfectly acceptable to mine uranium but it's not acceptable to use uranium," senior government frontbencher Tony Abbott said. "It's a logical absurdity and I think that the government's position that we should not be closed minded towards these options, particularly if we're going to be serious about cutting greenhouse gases, is an eminently sensible one," the health minister said. Mr Abbott said nuclear power plants would probably be located at the same sites as coal power stations in order to gain planning and environmental approvals. No states are offering to host nuclear plants and most rule the option out. "We will not be supporting any nuclear power regeneration or any nuclear power enrichment in this state," Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said. His view was backed by state Liberal leader Ted Baillieu. "I think the prime minister is right that we have to explore each and every alternative available, but when it comes to Victoria I don't see that it is necessary," Mr Baillieu said. Mr Howard on Sunday said the nuclear option had to be on the table. "Those big power stations which we all need to provide electricity cannot blow on wind or solar, good though those sources may be, they need either fossil fuels or, in time, nuclear," he told the Nine Network. Labor leader Kevin Rudd said Australia did not need nuclear power. "The whole question of Mr Howard's 25 nuclear reactors coming to an electorate near you, I think, just flies in the face of Australia's current energy policy reality," Mr Rudd said. "I mean this is a country with vast energy resources." Mr Rudd defended Labor's new uranium policy as recognising reality. "We are a significant exporter of uranium to the rest of the world and we have the world's largest uranium resources and we think that our conference policy reflects that continuing reality," he said. "We see this as a step forward for other economies which don't have the same rich array of energy options that Australia has." Australian Greens leader Bob Brown said the policy is dangerous. "You cannot draw a line between the peaceful use of nuclear power and the production of nuclear weapons," he told Network Ten. Senator Brown said China and India were capable of firing rockets which reach Sydney. "And we're exporting uranium to them. It is daft, it is immoral, it is unnecessary." © 2007 AAP Agreement Copyright © 2007. Brisbane Times. ***************************************************************** 23 New York Times: At Milepost 1 on the Hydrogen Highway - By DON SHERMAN Published: April 28, 2007 ANY discussion of a future generation of hydrogen cars inevitably leads to the same question: Where will I fill the tank? Justin Sullivan/Getty Images PUMPING HYDROGEN Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger fills up. More Photos Comparing Six Hydrogen Vehicles While automakers have demonstrated that they can build vehicles that produce no tailpipe pollutants, the commercial availability of hydrogen to power them remains a showstopper. There are other issues, of course — the cost of fuel cells and the methods of storing hydrogen among them — but matters like driveability and safety are no longer impediments to retail introduction. Still, hydrogen proponents promise a future of placid (and carbon-free) travel punctuated by occasional stops to replenish our tanks as conveniently as we fill them today. They champion an America laced by a hydrogen highway, dotted with service stations that offer safe, affordable refueling. Perhaps clean restrooms will be part of that future, too. Their vision is more than an idealistic pipe dream. President Bush has been talking up hydrogen for four years; the Energy Department has set a goal for hydrogen to provide 10 percent of the nation’s energy needs by 2030; and Samuel W. Bodman, the secretary of energy, recently doled out research grants worth $8.2 million aimed at expanding hydrogen storage capacity. The hydrogen movement actually began long before the recent spurt of activity. General Motors started experiments with hydrogen fuel in the 1960s, followed by BMW in the 1970s. Six years ago, Honda built a solar-powered hydrogen production facility at its Torrance, Calif., research center. Today, every major vehicle maker is studying alternatives to gasoline with the goal of supplanting hydrocarbons with hydrogen. So far, the only hydrogen fueling stations in service are prototypes like Honda’s, built to foster research. Hydrogen tankers are not an everyday sight on American highways, and the hydrogen production plants needed to slake America’s thirst for portable energy have not been built. The hydrogen highway is not yet a county byway, let alone an Interstate. But it is more than a dirt path through the woods. Hydrogen is at least a global commodity: 50 million tons of this industrial gas are produced every year around the world. More than half of that is used to make ammonia, a component of fertilizer, cleaning products and medicines. It is also a constituent of methanol, an important ingredient in paint, antifreeze and formaldehyde. The surprising slice of the global hydrogen pie is the 14 million tons — more than 25 percent of annual production — consumed by oil companies. Hydrogen is a cozy bedfellow with petroleum, both an ingredient in the refining processes used to upgrade the quality of crude oil and a byproduct of the catalytic refining process. It is collected for on-site use, but that source is not enough to meet the needs of refiners. The rising demand for gasoline is pressuring refiners to use lower quality crude oil, which requires more hydrogen. In addition, recent mandates to reduce the sulfur levels of diesel fuel have also increased demand for hydrogen. Hydrogen can be transported from centralized plants by pipeline or tank truck, but a more practical option is manufacturing it on-site by a process known as steam reforming, which separates the hydrogen from natural gas. Steam reforming is a cost-effective means of sustaining the oil business, but not a viable way to energize a hydrogen economy. The available supply of natural gas simply is not adequate to support our growing needs to use it for generating electricity, heating our homes and meeting the hydrogen demands of industry. One downside to steam reforming is the amount of carbon dioxide — the main greenhouse gas — generated when hydrogen is extracted from natural gas this way. Steam reforming, used to produce 95 percent of the hydrogen supply for the United States, according to the Energy Department, releases 350 million tons of carbon dioxide a year. One possible way to offset that undesirable addition to the atmosphere is sequestration, collecting the carbon dioxide and storing it in the ocean or the ground. This plan shows some promise, but not on the scale required to support a hydrogen-powered future. Because hydrogen is by nature hard to handle - its small molecule is able to leak out of the tiniest fissure - it does not travel or store well, which makes distribution an issue. Hydrogen pipelines already exist in California, Texas and Europe - but they total fewer than 1,000 miles, just enough to connect a few hydrogen producers to oil-refining and ammonia-making customers. While it is possible to deliver hydrogen in pipes used for natural gas, a well-known risk is hydrogen embrittlement - the tendency of hydrogen atoms to infiltrate the surface of welded or heat-treated steel, which can result in cracks and leaks. Skip to next paragraph Multimedia Comparing Six Hydrogen VehiclesSlide Show Comparing Six Hydrogen Vehicles Hydrogen proponents offer near- and long-term solutions to these concerns. Researchers at G.M. propose building pilot hydrogen-making facilities that follow the lead of electric power plants now in use, using local resources: Larry Burns, G.M.'s vice president for research and development, proposes what he calls hydrogen pathways keyed to existing natural resource locations. He envisions hydrogen produced from natural gas in Rhode Island and California, coal in West Virginia, petroleum in Hawaii and hydroelectric power in Idaho. That makes sense because hydrogen is an energy carrier, like electricity, not a fuel, like petroleum, that can be pumped out of the ground, refined and distributed for local consumption. "The refueling points necessary to support the first million hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles could be built for $10 billion to $15 billion, which is half the cost of the Alaska pipeline," Mr. Burns said. "That sum would establish a network of 11,700 stations in the nation's top 100 urban areas." Responding to the chicken-egg relationship between hydrogen infrastructure and fuel-cell cars that depend on hydrogen, G.M. has altered its aspirations - from building and selling the first million fuel-cell vehicles by 2010 to merely having the technology ready at a reasonable price by then. Meeting the Bush administration's goal of replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen will require nearly 90 million tons of the gas a year, according to the Energy Department. Coal and natural gas are possible sources only if they can be exploited with modern energy-conversion processes that do not spew greenhouse gases. Biomass - agricultural crops processed with steam reforming - also has potential if the carbon dioxide byproducts can be contained. Electricity from solar cells and wind turbines can also be used to electrolyze water to hydrogen and oxygen without undesirable byproducts, though it would be a considerable undertaking. The Energy Department estimates that meeting the country's needs would require more than 160,000 two-megawatt wind turbines. Advanced nuclear energy may be a more attractive option. In the short term, electricity from the 103 nuclear power plants now in operation can be used for electrolysis. The Energy Department is promoting a Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative aimed at demonstrating the commercial feasibility of new nuclear plants that produce hydrogen using high-temperature-electrolysis processes. Such methods are under study in national laboratories. The Energy Department expects that the most promising approaches will be ready for commercial-scale demonstrations by 2020. One proposal for vehicles - reforming gasoline or methanol on board, rather than waiting for a hydrogen supply network to be built - has been considered by DaimlerChrysler and G.M. The cost and complexity of such mobile chemical plants has, for now at least, sent them back to the research labs. Clearly, the hydrogen highway will be a toll road, not a low-cost, happy-go-lucky thoroughfare. All of these technologies, and probably others yet to be discovered, will be required to energize a hydrogen future. But Americans can take solace in this: The journey to a clean, secure and possibly more efficient future has begun. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 24 Calgary Sun: TransCanada looks ahead to nuclear Sat, April 28, 2007 By CP Natural gas pipeline and power giant TransCanada Corp. said yesterday coal is still king in Alberta, but building a nuclear power plant in Western Canada could be an option in the future. "The way we look at it, nuclear is primarily an option for supplying electricity demand in Alberta, long-term," Hal Kvisle, president and CEO, said after the firm's annual meeting. "Does it make sense? Well, we have very large coal reserves, so you would have to weigh the merits of power generation from a nuclear source versus electric power generation from a coal source." TransCanada is a partner in North America's largest nuclear power plant along the shores of Lake Huron in southwestern Ontario. Speculation has abounded about the possibility of a nuclear power plant to feed energy needs of oilsands projects. Previous story: Quick Money Sunflashes Next story: Magna leads pack in bid for Chrysler Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 Western Australian: Howard launches plan for nuclear future thewest.com.au 28th April 2007, 14:29 WST The federal government is to unchain the nuclear industry, removing all unnecessary restrictions on mining, processing and exporting uranium and opening the way for domestic nuclear power generation. The move will make nuclear energy a central issue at the election later this year. In an announcement coinciding with Labor's national conference in Sydney, Prime Minister John Howard said expert advice clearly showed Australia was missing major economic opportunities because of excessive barriers on uranium mining and export. He said Australia had a clear responsibility to develop its uranium resources in a sustainable way, irrespective of whether Australia ended up adopting nuclear power. Details of the plan were leaked to major newspapers, dominating their front pages and overshadowing reports of Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and the Labor conference. Mr Howard's actual announcement also appeared timed to pre-empt the Labor conference debate on overturning a 25-year-old ban on new uranium mines. That was expected to be carried but Labor was set to maintain opposition to domestic nuclear power. Mr Howard said nuclear energy was a fact of life and a key source of clean energy in 30 countries across Europe, Asia and North America, supplying 15 per cent of the world's electricity. "I am announcing today a new strategy for the future development of uranium mining and nuclear power in Australia," he said. "The government will implement this strategy to increase uranium exports and to prepare for a possible expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia." Under that plan, the government will move immediately to remove unnecessary constraints on expanding uranium mining, including overlapping regulation of the mining and transportation of ore. Australia will also participate in the Generation IV advanced nuclear reactor research program. Mr Howard said a regulatory regime would be developed to govern an expanded nuclear industry and any future nuclear power plants. Communications strategies will be developed to spell out what needs to be done and why - a key step in what's set to become an intense propaganda campaign. All this will be under way by election time. "Relevant ministers and their departments are to commence this work immediately and to report to Cabinet by around September this year. The work plans are to be implemented in 2008," Mr Howard said. Labor, the Australian Democrats, Greens and environment groups spoke as one in slamming the plan. Mr Rudd said Mr Howard had opted for the Montgomery Burns solution to climate change - a reference to the nuclear power plant proprietor in the Simpsons television cartoon series. "Does this represent any way of dealing with the real challenge of global greenhouse gas emissions and the answer against any level of logic is 'No'," he said. Greens leader Bob Brown said this was a bomb of a policy. "People don't want nuclear reactors in Australia, they don't want uranium enrichment and they don't want the nuclear waste dump that (Environment Minister) Malcolm Turnbull says we must be looking at," he said. Australian Democrats leader Lyn Allison said Australia did not need nuclear power to reduce greenhouse emissions. "The prime minister says we need either fossil fuels in coal or we need nuclear in order to power our baseload. The prime minister is wrong," she said. Wilderness Society campaigns director Alec Marr said this would increase unsolved problems of nuclear waste. "The prime minister has said he wants to develop a nuclear industry but what he isn't saying is that Australia is being lined up to become the world's nuclear waste dump," he said. Friends of the Earth spokesman John Hallam said Mr Howard was living in nuclear fairyland. "Nuclear power is the most expensive, complex, inefficient, and dangerous way to boil water ever devised," he said. AAP West Australian Newspapers Limited 2007. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 26 AU Western Australian: Rudd attacks Howard's plan to go nuclear : thewest.com.au 28th April 2007, 14:35 WST Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has attacked the federal government's plan to set up a nuclear power industry, saying Australia should instead be developing groundbreaking renewable energy techniques. Prime Minister John Howard outlined plans to remove all excessive restrictions on mining, processing and exporting Australian uranium as a possible step toward domestic nuclear power generation. Mr Howard said a nuclear industry was needed to help combat the challenges of climate change. But Mr Rudd said Australia should instead introduce carbon targets, a national emissions trading scheme, increase mandatory renewable energy targets, boost solar power and ratify the Kyoto protocol. "These then, are the raft of measures which any credible government of this country would have done, enacted, implemented and been active on both nationally and internationally were we serious about this challenge," Mr Rudd told Labor's national conference in Sydney. "But instead Mr Howard has gone the 25 nuclear reactor way. That's his solution for the future." Mr Rudd likened Mr Howard's plan to the schemes of cartoon character Montgomery Burns and his fictional Springfield nuclear power plant in the TV animation hit The Simpsons. "It's the Montgomery Burns solution for Australia's future climate change challenge," he said. "And if you think of the nuclear safety record out there at Smithfield (sic) with Homer Simpson in charge, be afraid, be very afraid. "Does this represent any way of dealing with the real challenge of global greenhouse gas emissions and the answer against any level of logic is no. "Because if we go through the analysis against one piece of evidence after another the logic underpinning Mr Howard's remanence policy today is ... very thin indeed." Mr Rudd said the government would have to fork out massive taxpayer funded subsidies to businesses wanting to be part of Australia's nuclear power industry. A better solution, he said, lay in alternative energy sources, particularly clean coal technologies. "Why not set for ourselves an objective, a mission, as we did in times past, to develop a Snowy Mountains Scheme enthusiasm about the country - that we can in this country develop a clean coal technology for the future?" Mr Rudd said. "The yield for us in terms of the sale of that technology would be huge but the yield for the planet would be even greater." AAP West Australian Newspapers Limited 2007. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 27 washingtonpost.com: 'Heady Times' For India And the U.S. - by Nicholas Burns Sunday, April 29, 2007; Page B07 While Iraq and Iran have dominated recent headlines, the United States and India have quietly forged the strongest relationship the two countries have enjoyed since India's independence in 1947. For most of the past 60 years, the Cold War and vastly differing ideological and governing philosophies kept us, at best, fitful partners. That all began to change a decade ago, when President Bill Clinton's efforts led to the first great opening in our relations. In 2001 President Bush launched an even more ambitious drive, culminating in impressive agreements regarding civilian nuclear power, trade, science and agriculture with India's reformist prime minister, Manmohan Singh. The pace of progress between Washington and Delhi has been so rapid, and the potential benefits to American interests so substantial, that I believe within a generation Americans may view India as one of our two or three most important strategic partners. The symbolic and public centerpiece of our new partnership, of course, has been the nuclear agreement, which Congress approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in December. When fully implemented in 2008, this initiative will permit American and international companies to begin peaceful civilian nuclear cooperation with India for the first time in more than a generation. This would bring India out of its self-imposed isolation and into the international nonproliferation mainstream. It would help alleviate the chronic power shortages that hinder India's economic growth, particularly Singh's drive to raise the quality of life of the estimated 700 million Indians still living in dire poverty. It will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We expect American companies will be among the first to invest in and profit from the opening of this gigantic energy market. We hope India will move quickly to help us complete a final bilateral agreement to make this a reality. While the civilian nuclear initiative has garnered the most attention, the U.S. and Indian governments have launched joint ventures in agriculture, space exploration, global pollution reduction, science and technology development, and efforts to combat HIV-AIDS. And there is more we should do together. Our first priority is to continue giving governmental support to the huge growth in business between the Indian and American private sectors. The United States has reduced the time it takes Indian travelers to get visas by almost three months. Led by Prime Minister Singh, India is undertaking tough reforms to its economy to sustain the country's economic boom. Singh has also challenged the United States to help launch a second "green revolution" in India's vast agricultural heartland by enlisting the help of America's great land-grant institutions. There are two more giant steps India and the United States must take to achieve a global partnership. First, India seeks U.S. assistance in helping to counter the wave of terrorist bombings of the past two years. The United States is ready. We are both victims of terrorism and need to work harder to establish the kind of trust required for effective joint work. Second, we can also do much more to create a stronger military partnership. After the 2004 tsunami devastated parts of Southeast Asia, our two militaries, along with Australia and Japan, led global efforts to help survivors. American companies had their largest presence ever at the recent Aero India air show in Bangalore. We need to build on an already impressive series of joint military exercises by improving the interoperability of our armed forces to respond to global contingencies. We also aim to complete a series of defense sales that meet India's needs and complement our overall defense relationship. Finally, I am confident the United States and India can work closely together on the key foreign policy challenges in South Asia. Indian investment and infrastructure assistance is helping Afghanistan in its hour of need. We are working with Delhi to encourage energy-rich Central Asian states such as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to establish oil and gas trade with Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, thereby reducing the lure of long-term contracts with Iran. We are working together to try to stop the increasingly bloody civil war in Sri Lanka and to bring stability and, I hope, real democracy to Nepal and Bangladesh. In some ways, our ambitious government agenda is merely playing catch-up to the recent explosion in business and cultural ties between Indians and Americans. There are more than 2 million people of Indian origin -- many of them now American citizens -- in the United States, making extraordinary contributions in academia, health care, information technology and business. It is one of the best educated and successful immigrant groups in our recent history. There are also 80,000 Indian students studying here, more than from any other country. These are heady times for India and the United States. Every day I see signs of the strategic benefits our efforts can bring our two countries. With hard work and vision, we can realize the potential of a key 21st-century partnership of two great democracies. The writer is undersecretary of state for political affairs. © 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 28 delawareonline: Talk of 4th nuclear reactor on Del. River draws criticism The News Journal, Wilmington, Del. ¦ Watchdog group calls for expanding danger zone to include all northern Del. By JEFF MONTGOMERY, The News Journal Posted Sunday, April 29, 2007 Hope Creek's cooling tower looms over the reactor, as seen across the Delaware River from Augustine Beach. PSEG wants to increase the temperature of the reactor, to the dismay of critics who point to the utility's spotty performance history. (Buy photo) The News Journal/MATTHEW JONAS Matthew F. DelPizzo, who lives across the river from Hope Creek, says a fourth reactor would be too risky.(Buy photo) The News Journal/MATTHEW JONAS The last time the federal government considered how dangerous the Salem County, N.J., nuclear complex could be, it came to this conclusion: In the unlikely case of a meltdown, 100,000 people in the region would die within one year, with 75,000 injuries and 40,000 later deaths to cancer. That was 25 years ago. While there has been nothing close to a meltdown, the complex -- the nation's second-largest -- has run erratically, with numerous problems at times earning it a federal ranking as one of the nation's most troubled nuclear installations. Now the facility's owner, PSEG Nuclear, is preparing to apply for 20-year permit extensions for all three of its reactors -- Salem Units 1 and 2 and Hope Creek -- and is considering turning up the heat at its Hope Creek reactor to produce more electricity. All that would be enough to raise the ire of neighbors who want to see the complex shut down because of its unpredictable performance. But the company is going further. PSEG officials have said the company likely will take the first step this year to add a fourth reactor, making the complex the nation's largest. "Clearly, the location in South Jersey was originally envisioned for four units. It has three. It makes sense to look at that site, which has some infrastructure advantages," said PSEG spokesman Paul Rosengren. The suggestion of building a fourth reactor comes as the nuclear industry is touting itself as a safe, environmentally friendly source of energy for a nation focused on problems linked to fossil fuel-burning power plants. "If you are going to get serious about carbon emissions, you need to take a serious look at the potential expansion of nuclear power," Rosengren said. Federal officials have said that nuclear power has a safe record, and past meltdown studies might overstate potential losses. But the PSEG plan can expect fierce opposition. "They're going to start a firestorm," said Norm Cohen, who directs the watchdog group Unplug Salem. "They have enough to do to run three old, cranky reactors. They don't need to be building a new one. I can't see the people of South Jersey going for that." Cohen has long argued that the complex has too many mechanical problems, management weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Even more important, he says, the federal emergency planning zone is inadequate. That zone, which currently spans a radius of 10 miles from the complex, takes in 11,722 households in towns as far west as Middletown. Congress sought consideration of a 20-mile zone for distribution of potassium iodine pills, used to protect against thyroid cancers caused by radioactive iodine. But federal officials subsequently found that "it would not be a prudent allocation of resources to purchase [tablets] up to 20 miles when the likelihood of any significant consequence at that range was very small," spokesman Neil Sheehan said. But opposition groups have asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to expand the zone to 20 miles to accurately reflect how many homes and residents would need to be evacuated in case of an accident. An expanded zone would encompass 187,000 households from just north of Dover to the arc of Delaware, west into Cecil County, Md. and east across a big swath of South Jersey. And that's without a fourth reactor. 5 million people at risk PSEG's reactor cluster on the Delaware River, now rated at a combined 3,400 megawatts, could become the nation's largest nuclear producer if it adds the additional unit. It also could cement its position as one of the nation's top hazards. Although only 33,400 people live within 10 miles of Salem-Hope Creek, more than 5 million live within a 50-mile radius, the region in which radiation could spread in case of an accident. Jane Nogaki, South Jersey representative for the New Jersey Environmental Federation, said her group believes the complex already is a potential target for a terrorist attack. A fourth reactor, she said, would make PSEG's operation even more tempting. "Nuclear plants are vulnerable targets. It's impossible to protect them fully. They're out there in the open, and the radioactive waste is located right there alongside," Nogaki said. "It's too great a risk for that kind of power. We would outright oppose it." New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection last week asked a federal appeals court to order a new environmental study for the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in that state, citing its vulnerability to attack by aircraft and other terror tactics. Agency spokeswoman Elaine Makatura said the department has not yet decided if it will take a similar stand on PSEG's operation. For people like Matthew F. DelPizzo, who operates a carpentry business out of a house near Delaware's Augustine Beach community, the danger outweighs the benefits of more megawatts of nuclear-produced electricity. "I don't think we need any more exposure to possible problems with a new reactor, since the ones there now have been so problematic," DelPizzo said. "I think there's certainly other alternative energy sources out there, especially the wind farm that they want to build on the ocean near Indian River Bay." But for PSEG, great forces are at work -- a changing climate. With global warming becoming a political question, the nuclear industry -- once vilified for the toxic waste it produces and the dangers it presents -- is reinventing itself as green amid the rising clamor for clean electricity. Federal incentives PSEG, Rosengren said, sees increased nuclear power capacity as part of a broad range of steps needed to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases tied to global warming and climate change. Industry analysts say the company has everything to gain from the overture to expand. A federal energy bill in 2005 offered huge tax credits, loan guarantees and risk-insurance benefits to companies that seek licenses for clean-energy projects before the end of 2007. That has led to a rush of companies applying to build new reactors. Although there are 104 licensed to operate nuclear power plants in the United States, no new facility has been built since 1996. But this year so far, about 20 companies have made proposals. Constellation Energy already has proposed building two advanced reactors at Calvert Cliffs, Md., or Nine Mile Point in New York, and at two other undetermined locations, using the same new reactor design already under construction in France and Finland. Eighteen other ventures involving dozens of sites and reactors also are under consideration. Two, in Illinois and Mississippi, already have the needed approvals. "So many others already are in that race that I wouldn't bet a lot of money on that second reactor at Hope Creek," said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer with the watchdog group the Union of Concerned Scientists. "But there are a lot of variables involved." Even the industry believes that only a fraction of the reactors proposed will be built. But advocates point to the stack of new applications, spawned in part by federal tax credits, as evidence the nation is once again interested in nuclear power. From the industry's standpoint, recent history favors a nationwide expansion. The notoriety of the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania may have been a setback, but advocates of nuclear power point to its safe record since then, both here and in Europe. In France, for instance, nuclear energy was embraced 30 years ago, when the rest of the world was dealing with an energy crisis. Today, with 58 plants, the country, with its "City of Lights," Paris, gets about 78 percent of its energy from nuclear plants. It even produces enough to export electricity to England and Germany. All that and air that's largely clear of the air pollution emitted by fossil-fuel burning plants. Critics argue that no matter the industry's record and the environmental benefits of nuclear energy, there is still the question of what to do with nuclear waste. While burying excess waste under Yucca Mountain in Nevada has created a nationwide stir, France has taken its nuclear waste and reused it, albeit at a cost of more than $1 billion a year. Spent nuclear fuel rods from French plants are sent to a sprawling plant on the coast of Normandy. There, the rods are cooled for years and used to make new fuel. Some critics caution that France might not be gaining much. Although reprocessing reduces the amount of traditional reactor waste, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research pointed out recently that the process leaves other types of wastes that still require long-term storage, leaving roughly the same overall need for a repository. Mitchell Singer, a spokesman for the industry-backed Nuclear Energy Institute, said that the United States needs to consider nuclear power as one of the methods available to meet future needs while also reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas linked to global warming and climate shifts. "When you take into account environmental goals and the talk about climate change and greenhouse gas, nuclear definitely has a role to play in our energy story going forward," Singer said. "That effort can't be accomplished without nuclear as a component." Passing grades The Salem-Hope Creek reactors already produce enough electricity to meet the needs of more than 2 million homes. Nuclear power overall accounts for more than half the electricity generated in New Jersey and 19 percent of the national total. The older Salem units are pressurized, two-step reactors that use non-radioactive steam to drive turbines. Hope Creek is a boiling water reactor that boils water inside the reactor, sending steam directly to a turbine. All three plants were recently given passing safety grades by the NRC, but local nuclear power critics charge that PSEG's performance has been uneven and, in some cases, dangerous in the past. In the mid-1990s, the NRC put Salem-Hope Creek on its "watch list" of troubled nuclear plants. Regulatory and public pressure eventually forced the company to shut down the Salem units for plant and management overhauls. Problems arose again in 2004, when mishaps and complaints prompted the NRC to put the company under special oversight. "Compared to a couple of years ago, things at Salem and Hope Creek are looking pretty good," said Lochbaum, the nuclear engineer, adding that his group is watching closely as the NRC considers a proposal to increase the output of Hope Creek by increasing the reactor core heat. The plan would hike the core water temperature in Hope Creek to about 535 degrees -- up 15 percent. Steam temperatures would rise even more, with steam pressures rising to more than 1,000 pounds per square inch. Federal regulators have closely examined and then approved virtually all such proposals in the past, despite questions about increased vibration problems in boiling-water reactors similar to Hope Creek. "The NRC is shirking its responsibility to protect the public by allowing clueless plant owners to crank up ... to see what happens," Lochbaum wrote in a 2004 briefing paper. Drawing water from river Equally controversial are company proposals to continue drawing trillions of gallons from the Delaware River each year to cool the Salem units. The plant's intakes kill the equivalent of 354 million juvenile fish each year -- a figure that environmental groups say rises into the tens of billions of organisms when counting larvae and eggs. Maya K. van Rossum, an attorney who directs the regional Delaware Riverkeeper Network conservation group, said a recent federal court ruling has undermined PSEG Nuclear claims that it can offset the effects of its cooling-water intake. The company has long financed restoration projects in surrounding wetlands as partial compensation for environmental damage.. The reactor at Hope Creek uses a cooling tower that recycles water from the river, cutting the amount of water it sucks up and the amount of aquatic life it destroys. New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection has put PSEG Nuclear's request for a new cooling-water permit on hold, pending settlement of a similar case at the smaller Oyster Creek plant. For Lois Boyles, who lives along Del. 9 just south of Augustine Beach, the Salem-Hope Creek complex has been a good neighbor. "I've lived here for four years and I don't have any complaints," Boyles said. "When my time comes, it'll come. I can see the stacks [of the plant], but I'm not concerned about living here." Contact Jeff Montgomery at 678-4277 or jmontgomery@delawareonline.com. All rights reserved. Users of this site agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights (Terms updated March 2007). Questions? ***************************************************************** 29 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point files for 20-year license renewal Saturday, April 28, 2007 By GREG CLARY Federal regulators expect to get Indian Point's application Monday to keep the nuclear reactors in Buchanan running for an additional 20 years, the first step in a license-renewal process that will take about two years to finish. Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said staff in the agency's relicensing department had been told by Indian Point officials that the application would be sent by overnight mail yesterday. He said that the application would not be officially received until the NRC opens for business Monday, but that site operator Entergy Nuclear Northeast had met its commitment to file for an extension by the end of April. A typical application can top 2,000 pages. The nuclear plants' top executive, Fred Dacimo, site vice president for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, said he signed off on the application Thursday night when he and other Indian Point officials met with the NRC to assess the company's annual performance. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets declined to comment yesterday about when the application was being mailed or might arrive. Sheehan, the NRC spokesman, said, "There's not really a deadline. We start looking through the application immediately, and if it meets all the requirements, we put it into the Federal Register. We will post it on our Web site as soon as possible so people can take a look at it." Then there is a 60-day period for interested parties to request a formal public hearing on the application. A public hearing is not granted in every case, or it can be limited in scope, Sheehan said, but he called a public hearing on Indian Point's application "likely." "There's going to be a lot of interest," he said. Entergy announced its intent to seek 20-year extensions for both plants the day before Thanksgiving last year. Company officials initially thought the application would be in by March, but altered that schedule this spring. Indian Point 2's license expires in 2013 and Indian Point 3's in 2015. The two plants together in 2006 produced 11.43 percent of the state's 148.4 million megawatt hours of electricity, according to data from the New York Independent System Operator. The NRC to date has approved license-renewal applications for 48 of the 103 working reactors in the United States. Seven applications are under review, and the industry has indicated that it expects to pursue license extensions for every operating reactor, Sheehan said. Entergy has had at least two reactors approved, both in Arkansas, NRC records show. Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. Copyright © 2006 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 30 The Australian: Nuclear strategy for Australia unveiled * April 28, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: NEWS.com.au PRIME Minister John Howard today revealed his strategy to increase uranium mining and prepare Australia for nuclear power. Mr Howard promised to remove restrictions on mining and processing uranium, to increase uranium exports and to overturn laws prohibiting nuclear activity. New nuclear power regulations would be made to govern future potential nuclear energy facilities in Australia and an information campaign would explain to the nation what needs to be done and why, he said. The Government also plans to equip workers with technical skills necessary for a nuclear energy industry and embark on enhanced research and development of nuclear reactors. "I am announcing today a new strategy for the future development of uranium mining and nuclear power in Australia," Mr Howard said. "In light of the significance of global climate, change and as the world's largest holder of uranium reserves, Australia has a clear responsibility to develop its uranium resources in a sustainable way," he said. Relevant ministers and their departments are planned to start work on the strategy immediately and report to Cabinet late this year. Mr Howard said work plans were to be implemented in 2008. "The Government's next step will be to repeal commonwealth legislation prohibiting nuclear activities, including the relevant provisions of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This will be addressed soon," he said. "Policies or political platforms that seek to constrain the development of a safe and reliable Australian uranium industry – and which rule out the possibility of climate-friendly nuclear energy – are not really serious about addressing climate change." Mr Howard said Australia had 36 per cent of the world's low cost uranium reserves. With AAP © The Australian ***************************************************************** 31 PoughkeepsieJournal.com: Nuke plant sirens go off accidentally Friday Saturday, April 28, 2007 BUCHANAN - Emergency sirens around the Indian Point nuclear plants were activated accidentally Friday afternoon, the plants' owner said. A technician was performing what was supposed to be a silent test about 3:30 p.m. when he accidentally set off sirens in the Westchester County portion of the 10-mile emergency zone, said Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast. The sirens that sounded were part of a new system that is not yet in operation, and they sound a bit different from the existing sirens. Entergy was recently fined $130,000 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for failing to meet an April 15 deadline for the new system. The sirens are meant to alert residents to turn on their radios for information about an emergency at the plant. There were no immediate signs esidents did more than that. Police: No calls Police in Buchanan said they received no calls; police in nearby Croton said there were "just a couple of calls." Westchester sent a notification of the accidental soundings to residents who had signed up to a county e-mail service, spokeswoman Victoria Hochman said. Paul Gionta, a health coordinator for West-chester, was driving in Croton when he heard the sirens. "I didn't realize what it was at first; I thought it might be my car," he said. "Then I realized it must be the new sirens, and for a second I was worried, but then they stopped." Copyright © 2007 PoughkeepsieJournal.com ***************************************************************** 32 Independent: British Energy turns up heat in bid to host new reactors - By Tim Webb Published: 29 April 2007 British Energy has told rivals wanting to use its sites to build a new generation of nuclear reactors to submit expressions of interest by the end of the month. The Government is set to publish its long-delayed energy White Paper in the middle of next month. It is expected to sanction new reactors to replace the UK's ageing plants. British Energy, in which the Government has a 65 per cent stake, owns the sites which are most suitable for development, making them hugely valuable. Once the Government gives the green light, British Energy wants to press ahead as quickly as possible with plans to be part of a new-build programme. It has been in informal talks with European rivals EDF, RWE and E.ON over the past six months about forming consortiums to carry out the work. So far, no tie-ups have been formed, but British Energy has told the trio to come up with concrete plans for how they would use the sites - and what they propose to give the nuclear generator in return for providing the land. The Government could force British Energy to sell the sites to the highest bidder. The preferred option for the company, which the Government rescued from collapse five years ago, is for it to be given part-ownership of the new reactors in return for access to the sites. The generator would also like a role in operating the reactors. Uncertainty continues to cloud the Government's energy policy, despite mounting concerns over climate change. The credibility of its energy review took a hit earlier this year when the High Court ruled that the Government had not properly consulted on proposals for the future of the nuclear industry, despite publicly announcing its preference for constructing more reactors. As a result, it will have to hold separate consultations on nuclear waste and the economics of new nuclear builds. These will be launched when the White Paper is published next month. © 2007 Independent News and Media Limited ***************************************************************** 33 London Times: Australia will change law to embrace nuclear option- April 30, 2007 Bernard Lagan in Sydney Australia is to repeal laws that prevent it establishing a nuclear industry, paving the way for the adoption of atomic power and uranium enriching ventures. John Howard, the Prime Minister, announced the move as Kevin Rudd, the opposition leader, convinced Labor’s national conference in Sydney to abandon its opposition to uranium exports and agree to new mines in the Outback. Australia has 36 per cent of the world’s low-cost uranium reserves and is expected to become the world’s largest uranium exporter once new mines are built and existing ones expanded. “Policies or political platforms that seek to constrain the development of a safe and reliable Australian uranium industry – and which rule out the possibility of climate-friendly nuclear energy – are not really serious about addressing climate change,” he said. Mr Howard, who is expected to call a general election in the autumn, has long opposed the adoption of firm targets for the reduction of greenhouse emissions in Australia. He said that he would not “adopt a European solution for an Australian problem”. The timing of the announcement was widely seen as calculated to embarrass Labor, which went through a fractious debate before lifting its opposition to uranium mines after 23 years. Opposition to the move was led by Peter Garrett, the party’s environment spokesman, a lawyer who was also the singer of the Midnight Oil rock group, whose hits included antinuclear songs. Labor’s adoption of greenhouse gas reduction targets was ridiculed by Mr Howard, who said: “We should not, as Labor has done, pluck a target developed by the Europeans for European circumstances out of the air and say we’re going to commit to that.” Mr Howard, who has in the past appeared to favour a national referendum on the building of nuclear power stations in Australia, said he believed that was no longer necessary because opinion polls had firmed in favour of the nuclear option. Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. ***************************************************************** 34 AFP: Australian PM commits to nuclear power - Sat Apr 28, 1:25 AM SYDNEY (AFP) - Australia will embrace the next generation of nuclear power plants and ease restrictions on uranium mining under a long-term plan to address climate change, Prime Minister John Howard said Saturday. Howard said Australia could not afford to ignore the nuclear option if it was serious about meeting the challenge of climate change. Howard said it was a "stark reality" that only fossil and nuclear fuels were capable of firing the power plants required to meet Australia's needs, unlike renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. He said Australia, which has abundant reserves of both coal and uranium, had to examine how to incorporate nuclear power into its long-term energy plans. "Inevitably part of the solution must be to admit, in years to come, nuclear power into this country," Howard told a Liberal Party conference in Victoria state. "That's why I'm announcing today a strategy for the future development of uranium mining and nuclear power in Australia. "I believe it to be our responsibility, if we are serious about tackling the problems of climate change, to embrace and promote clean coal technology, to put the nuclear option on the table." Australia currently has only one nuclear reactor, which is used to produce isotopes for medical research. Howard said Australia needed to start planning its nuclear future immediately, including participating in development of the fourth generation of nuclear reactors, which are not expected to be ready until 2030. "We need to take some immediate action to remove unnecessary constraints impeding the expansion of uranium mining and to make a firm commitment Australia's participation in the generation four advanced nuclear reactor research programme," he said. The prime minister said nuclear power plants were now a proven technology. "I'm not talking here about something that's revolutionary and untried," he said. "Fifteen percent of the world's electricity is generated by nuclear power, France generates 80 percent of her energy by nuclear power, California 27 percent." Howard, whose conservative government will seek a fifth term later this year, has frequently expressed scepticism about global warming but recently softened his view as opinion polls show widespread public concern on the issue. His enthusiastic championing of nuclear energy contrasts with the centre-left opposition Labor Party's cautious approach to the issue as the election looms. Labor's national party conference Saturday is expected to dump its long-standing opposition to new uranium mines in Australia. It remains opposed to nuclear power plants. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Canada Co. All Rights Reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 35 APP.COM: DEP chief: Towers a must at reactor | Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 04/29/07 BY ZACH PATBERG STAFF WRITER Post Comment TOMS RIVER — New Jersey's chief environmental officer said Saturday that a recent court ruling has left the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant with few if any alternatives to erecting large cooling towers to replace its current water discharge system. "There isn't much opportunity to get around it," said Lisa Jackson, the state's Department of Environmental Protection commissioner. "The court doesn't seem to leave that option up for litigation." Jackson, who spoke at a League of Women Voters luncheon in Toms River, was referring to a January decision by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that requires power plants to adopt the best technology possible to prevent killing marine life while operating their cooling systems. This differs from a previous interpretation of the Clean Water Act that allowed for alternative mitigation efforts to make up for loss of wildlife, such as building more wetlands or restocking waters. Jackson, who resisted taking a side on the matter, seemed to suggest that the cooling towers were the best technology and, therefore, would have to be built. The DEP has for some time been considering requiring in its permit that Oyster Creek change the way it discharges cooling water back into the natural environment. If a change is sought, the recent court ruling could act as precedent-setting muscle for the DEP. Jackson said a final draft of the renewed permit would be issued soon, though no decision has been made yet on whether it will call for cooling towers. "I see the governor being fully engaged in this," she said. "It's not a decision I expect to make in a vacuum." Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Marine Fisheries Service have recommended building the towers despite the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's stance that they were not warranted and might pollute the air. The plant is in the midst of seeking a 20-year license renewal, which could come as soon as next month. Calling the court ruling a "landmark decision" that will "affect the entire industry," Leslie Cifelli, Oyster Creek's spokeswoman, said resorting to cooling towers would actually impinge more on the environment by discharging salt in the air and causing noise pollution. Several environmental activists disagree, saying the current once-through cooling system has had a horrible impact on Barnegat Bay. "Very soon, it will be beyond repair," said Helen Henderson, project manager for Save Barnegat Bay, a nonprofit environmental group. At the luncheon, held at the Holiday Inn, Jackson spoke for 15 minutes, then took questions from the audience on topics that included Oyster Creek, sewer planning and beach replenishment. Specifically, she touched on the appeal the state filed Wednesday to include the impact of a terrorist attack in the relicensing review of the plant. In February, the NRC rejected this suggestion. Jackson called the initial ruling "an inexplicable decision that they don't have to listen to the California courts." An appeals court in that state ruled that the NRC erred in choosing not to consider terrorist attacks at nuclear facilities, and Jackson questions why that shouldn't apply to New Jersey as well. An issue one resident raised that Jackson did not expect dealt with the controversy surrounding Dennis Zannoni, the DEP's top nuclear engineer, who was reassigned away from the Lacey plant for what some see as becoming an outspoken critic of the plant. "He's their number-one expert, and they reassign him to a flunky position to get him out of the limelight," said Ted Crowley, 69, of Toms River, referring to a recent Asbury Park Press article on the issue. Jackson rejected any notion of strong-arming or a lack of transparency. "He was not the only one instrumental in inspecting the plant," she said of Zannoni. "And I challenge anyone, including the Asbury Park Press, to find one thing that he saw that didn't come out." In the end, amid Jackson's talk of making the state more environmentally friendly, some pointed to Oyster Creek as the answer, not the problem. "If it's safe, then we need more nuclear plants in this country to fight greenhouse gases," said Michael Masciale, 74, a Lacey resident who lives in Oyster Creek's shadow. "And I have faith that if it's not safe (the NRC) will close it." CARE TO COMMENT? Visit our Web site, www.app.com, and click on this story to join the online conversation about this topic in Story Chat. Zach Patberg: (609) 978-4582 or zpatberg@app.com COOLING SYSTEM Since it was built, the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant has operated with a once-through cooling system to discharge water used to cool down pipes in the reaction process back into the environment. In this model, river water is drawn in on one end and discharged out the other. In order to reduce wasted water and loss of marine life, the DEP prefers that the plant use cooling towers that recycle cooling water. RELATED ARTICLES ? DEP keeps reactor foe away from relicensing April 22, 2007 ? NRC rebuffs state on need for hearing February 27, 2007 Copyright © 2007 Asbury Park Press. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 36 Business Standard: No nukes? Business Standard / New Delhi April 30, 2007 It is clear now that only political initiative can salvage the Indo-US nuclear deal. Several rounds of negotiations at the official level have not narrowed the gap on the crucial issues, and it would seem that one of the two countries, and perhaps both, will have to shift positions if there is to be a deal. The hard reality, though, is that India has drawn a line in the sand through the Prime Minister’s clear-cut statement in Parliament last August, harking back to what was said in the joint statement at the end of Dr Singh’s visit to Washington. And the US has a new law that Congress has already passed, which does not rest fully on the joint statement, and which is unlikely to be revisited. Then there are equally knotty issues to be hammered out at the International Atomic Energy Agency for an India-specific safeguards regime, and the negotiations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group, in which many small European countries are not being very helpful—and each member of the group has a de facto veto. The easy conclusion would be that the deal is close to being dead in the water. As things stand, neither country seems ready as yet to come to that conclusion, even though it is clear that President Bush does not have the political authority to go back to a Democrat-controlled Congress and seek fresh amendments to the law; equally, Dr Singh would be committing hara-kiri if he were to depart in any way from what he committed to Parliament. In other words, if neither leader can get his country to shift positions (as diplomats on both sides may have hoped at one state that they would), then no deal is possible. The issues involved are not trivial, including as they do the right to reprocess spent fuel rods, the assurance of supplies for the life of the nuclear power plants that are to be built, and the effort to convert a unilateral decision to not conduct more tests into a bilateral commitment to which penalties are attached in the event of a breach. The differences on these issues flow from the different ways in which the deal was sold in the two countries—one only has to compare what Condoleezza Rice told the US Congress with what Dr Singh told the Lok Sabha, for this to become clear. In India, the deal was seen as a way of breaking out of a tight corner, of allowing investment in nuclear energy for power, and of ensuring proper supplies of technology and components for nuclear plants and the fuel with which to run them, while the strategic nuclear option would not be affected at all. In the US, by way of sharp contrast, the deal was sold as a way of bringing India into the non-proliferation tent the long way round, and of finding a way to put new constraints on its strategic nuclear option while allowing the nuclear power programme to go forward. The question now is how to square the circle. Over to Dr Singh and President Bush, who will have a chance to meet in June when the G-8 gets together. Updated:30-04-07 08:00 hrs IST Business Standard Ltd. Copyright & Disclaimer ***************************************************************** 37 SABJ: STP owner hires Japanese consultant on nuclear reactor expansion - San Antonio Business Journal - 4:32 PM CDT Friday, April 27, 2007 Tokyo Electric Power Co. Inc. (TEPCO) has been hired as a consultant to the South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Co.'s planned expansion of its nuclear power plant. The South Texas Project, located in Bay City, Texas, supplies power to customers in Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Corpus Christi. San Antonio's gas and electric utility, CPS Energy, is one of the equity owners in the nuclear power plant. NRG Energy Inc. (NYSE: NRG), in Princeton, N.J., another owner in the South Texas Project, has proposed building two new advanced boiling water reactor nuclear units at the site. If approved, this would give the South Texas Project the ability to generate an additional 2,700 megawatts of nuclear energy to Texas. The power plant already has two reactors in service. This new agreement with TEPCO involves allowing the Japanese company to consult on the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the new units at the South Texas Project. TEPCO officials also will provide their expertise in developing a combined construction and operation license application, which will be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission later this year. "TEPCO will be an invaluable partner in ensuring STP units 3 and 4 come online on schedule and on budget to help meet Texas' growing energy needs through nuclear power," says Steve Winn, executive vice president of strategy, environmental and new business. "Nuclear power has shown its ability to produce much needed power reliably and safely and without adding greenhouse gases or other emissions into our atmosphere." TEPCO is the largest electric power company in Japan and is one of the largest investor owned electric utilities in the world. The company supplies electricity to more than 27.7 million customers throughout the globe. © 2007 American City Business Journals, Inc. and its licensors. All ***************************************************************** 38 Reuters: Texas House OKs bill to cap plant ownership Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:17PM EDT HOUSTON, April 27 (Reuters) - The Texas House of Representatives late on Friday passed a bill to limit the amount of electric generation companies can own in the state amid concern over alleged market manipulation by TXU Corp. (TXU.N: Quote, Profile, Research, which has agreed to be bought by a group of private equity firms. The House measure is a weaker version of legislation passed last month by the Texas Senate. The House bill limits companies from owning more than 20 percent of installed generation available to Texas' primary grid, known as ERCOT, or more than 40 percent within smaller power zones, compared to a 25-percent "per zone" cap under the Senate version. Unlike the Senate bill, the House measure excludes renewable power, megawatts sold under long-term contracts to third parties and new nuclear and clean-coal generation. Those provisions mean companies could continue to own more generation under the House version than the Senate bill. The House bill also creates a regulatory "escape" process that would not force power-plant sales by either TXU, the state's largest power-plant owner, or NRG Energy Inc. (NRG.N: Quote, Profile, Research, the second-largest. The Senate bill would require companies exceeding the caps to divest power plants or auction excess power. Alleged market manipulation by Dallas-based TXU, which owns about 22 percent of generation in Texas and 44 percent in the north Texas zone, sparked debate among lawmakers even before an announcement of TXU's proposed buyout by a private equity consortium led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR.UL: Quote, Profile, Research and Texas Pacific Group (TPG.UL: Quote, Profile, Research for $32 billion. In late March, Sen. Troy Fraser, author of the Senate bill, said provisions of that version would "help alleviate the stranglehold the current electricity companies have on the market." Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 Reuters: Experts meet on U.N. report: warming can be slowed | 10:58PM EDT, Sun 29 Apr 2007 By David Fogarty BANGKOK, April 29 (Reuters) - After two gloomy United Nations reports on global warming, scientists and governments on Monday begin looking at how to fight climate change with green groups saying the time for bickering is over. As experts meet in Bangkok to review the latest U.N. report, a draft of solutions to be issued on Friday after review by more than 100 nations warns that time for inexpensive fixes is running out because of a surge in greenhouse gas emissions. The survey is the third this year by the U.N. climate panel after one in February saying it was at least 90 percent certain that mankind was to blame for warming and another on April 6 warning of more hunger, droughts, heatwaves and rising seas. "We're moving from two very sobering reports to what we can do about climate change. And we can do it," Achim Steiner, the head of the U.N. Environment Programme, told Reuters of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Having shown us the path towards greater and greater problems the IPCC raises our horizons to where the solutions lie and shows that they are within our grasp," he told Reuters. The report estimates that stabilising greenhouse gas emissions will cost between 0.2 percent and 3.0 percent of world gross domestic product by 2030, depending on the stiffness of curbs on rising emissions of greenhouse gases. Under some scenarios, GDP growth might even get a tiny net spur from less pollution and health damage from burning fossil fuels, blamed as the main cause of warming. The draft says: "There is a significant economic potential for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors over the coming decades, sufficient to offset growth of global emissions or to reduce emissions below current levels." The conclusions broadly back those by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, who estimated last year that costs of acting now to slow warming were about one percent of global output, 5 to 20 percent if the world delayed action. More than 1,000 amendments have been proposed to the draft 24-page summary for policymakers. Some countries complain that is hard to understand and too laden with scientific jargon. SOLUTIONS The report lays out solutions such as capturing and burying emissions from coal-fired power plants, a shift to renewable energies such as solar and wind power, more use of nuclear power, more efficient lighting and insulation of buildings. But it says that temperatures will rise by at least 2 to 2.4 Celsius (3.6 - 4.2F) above pre-industrial levels even under the most stringent curbs. The European Union says a 2 C rise is a threshold for "dangerous" changes to the climate system.ĂÂĂ‚ÂĂ‚¿ And the big question is whether governments will act. "I'm optimistic but I don't think it will be straightforward," Steiner said. "There are still many who don't understand the complexity of the issue and hoping that it will somehow go away." "The technologies and measures necessary to combat climate change exist already -- all we need is the courage and vision of the political decision-makers," said Stephan Singer of the WWF conservation group. A vice-chair of the IPCC said last week that it might take more disasters such as Hurricane Katrina that battered New Orleans in 2005 to spur politicians to do more. "The push for greater mitigation will come through catastrophes and other extreme events," Mohan Munasinghe told Reuters in an interview in Colombo. A senior delegate to the talks said he expected all countries to be difficult during the week-long discussions. "The IPCC cannot be policy prescriptive so there are no policy statements in the documents and governments go through and try to make sure there aren't any," said the delegate who did not want to be identified. This inevitably meant the word-by-word approval process of the final text always created controversy. Friends of the Earth hoped the report would spur governments into action. "We have no time to lose, and no excuses for further inaction," said spokeswoman Catherine Pearce. (Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Oslo and John Ruwitch in Colombo) (Editing by David Fox; Reuters messaging: rm://david.fogarty.reuters.com@reuters.net; email: david.fogarty@reuters.com, telephone: +65 6870 3815)) © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 40 Boston Globe: Nuclear reaction - In Seabrook 30 years ago, nuclear foes raised a voice still heard today By Steven Rosenberg, Globe Staff | April 29, 2007 SEABROOK, N.H. -- About a mile from the Atlantic, the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant rises up from hundreds of acres of auburn clam flats. From a distance, the 6.5-foot -thick steel-reinforced concrete dome has the look of an amphitheater, but within the gray sphere atoms are split, using uranium and in the process creating enough electricity for more than 1 million homes every year. For as long as most people in this working-class town of 8,000 can remember, they've called this place the Nuke. Tucked about a half- mile within a narrow road off Route 1, it's easy to miss. Thirty years ago, however, on April 30, 1977, the plant was hardly anonymous. With helicopters hovering overhead, h undreds of State Police and National Guard troops spread out over the 900-acre site, and then-governor Meldrim Thomson Jr. walked the grounds in army fatigues. Thomson told the news media he had expected violence from the 2,500 demonstrators who walked onto the dusty construction site to protest the plant's construction. Instead, police faced a group that practiced civil disobedience, and within 24 hours they had begun the largest mass arrest in New Hampshire history, taking 1,414 antinuclear protesters into custody. Tomorrow, there are no demonstrations planned. More than 650 full-time workers are expected at the Seabrook plant, just as on any other workday. But for the founding members of the Clamshell Alliance, which spawned more than a dozen similar organizations nationally, the day is remembered as the beginning of a shift in the country's energy policy, when public opinion turned against nuclear power plants. In the following years, 2,000 more Clamshell Alliance members would be arrested during protests at the plant. Although its owners declared bankruptcy in the 1980s, the plant was finally finished -- at a cost of $6.3 billion -- and went online in 1990. Still, Clamshell members say the protests brought a new public awareness that stopped the government's plan in the 1970s to allow hundreds of nuclear power plants to be built. Since Seabrook opened 17 years ago, just two nuclear plants have followed. "Maybe we lost this particular battle here in Seabrook, but I think we won the battle because of the impact we had on a national scale," said Kristie Conrad, who, along with her husband, Renny Cushing, helped create the Clamshell Alliance. The couple still live just 2 miles from the plant in Cushing's childhood home in Hampton. Like more than a dozen other former "Clams," Cushing went on to serve in the state Legislature and is now the executive director of Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights. Conrad works to promote literacy. Tomorrow they'll both be working, and they don't have any particular plans to commemorate the 30th year of the occupation. But the years have not softened their views on nuclear power plants. "People may want to pretend that it can't happen here, but the lesson of Chernobyl is that they should never have built an atomic plant anywhere," said Cushing. At Seabrook Station -- now owned by FPL Energy -- a plant spokesman, Alan Griffith, called Seabrook a "top-rated power plant" that has not experienced any major problems since opening. "There's absolutely no danger in terms of radiation or security. It's an extremely safe environment at Seabrook," said Griffith. But Seabrook has not been incident-free over the years. Seabrook Station has been fined twice during the last 10 years by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the plant. In 1999, the plant was fined $55,000 after the government ruled it had discriminated against an electrician for raising safety issues. In 2006, the NRC fined the plant $65,000 after identifying a security issue at the plant. NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci declined to comment on the security violations and fine. "We don't want to reveal any potential vulnerability," she said. Twenty-five people In June of 1976, about 25 people from coalitions throughout New England gathered in Rye Beach for a meeting about the proposed Seabrook plant. They included representatives from the People's Energy Project, the Granite State Alliance, the Wampanoag Tribe, and anti-nuclear groups from Cape Ann, Western Massachusetts, and Boston. At the meeting, they decided to name their group the Clamshell Alliance -- a nod to the clam flats that the nuclear plant owners had planned to flood with water from the plant. "The strength of the whole Clamshell Alliance was our organization," said Jay Gustaferro, a Gloucester lobsterman who was one of the alliance's founders. Gustaferro and Isabel Natti had created the North Shore Alternative Energy Coalition in Gloucester and held alternative energy science fairs in Cape Ann in the early 1970s. They said they joined the Clamshell Alliance because they could see Seabrook, which is 14 miles from the shores of Gloucester. On Aug 1, 1976, the first protest at the plant was held, and 18 people were arrested. On Aug. 22, another occupation was held, and 180 people were arrested. Then, on April 30, 1977, more than 2,500 people walked onto the Seabrook site from four directions; others were ferried by boat to the site by local fishermen. Most had spent the night at campgrounds provided by sympathetic area residents who opposed the plant. Surrounded by hundreds of police, the protesters pitched tents, sang no-nukes songs, and discussed the use of alternative energy such as wind and solar power. With drugs and alcohol forbidden by the alliance and the group sticking to its philosophy of civil disobedience, no major injuries were reported, and there were no scuffles with the police. "I think it was the power of nonviolence that really energized the Clamshell Alliance," said Cushing. "I think the nonviolence and civil disobedience aspect was extremely powerful because it was so peaceful," added Sam Lovejoy, who led a contingent of antinuclear protesters from an organic farm in Montague. After the group refused to disperse, protesters were arrested and held in five National Guard armories throughout the state for 13 days. Most declined to post bail, which helped their cause, said Guy Chichester of Rye, N.H., who served as a spokesman during that time and appeared on national TV. "We were getting news all over the country and all over the world. Why would we move out?" Nuclear waste The alliance's dedication to nonviolence would be short-lived. By 1980, a rift had developed with the Boston chapter, which advocated using violence. Still, over the next decade, the alliance held regular protests against the plant, and in 1989, shortly before it opened, more than 600 were arrested for trespassing. Lovejoy went on to create Musicians United for Safe Energy -- which produced concerts and a movie by Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, Bruce Springsteen, and recently elected New York Congressman John Hall, cofounder of the band Orleans. He said Seabrook served as a model for the antinuclear movement. Local protests, combined with court challenges and publicity, could effect change, said Lovejoy, who helped set up antinuclear groups based on the Clamshell's philosophy. While most of the former "Clams" have moved on to other social and political causes, several say their biggest concern now is the nuclear waste stored inside the Seabrook plant. Many said they would resume their protests if more nuclear plants are approved by the government. "If the industry starts new nukes, they're going to be surprised. I think people will come out of the woodwork," said Peter Natti, who lived on the same Montague farm with Lovejoy and other activists in the 1970s and took part in the Seabrook protests. Griffith, the Seabrook Station spokesman, said the plant's nuclear waste is stored in a pool at the plant, where spent 12-foot -long fuel assemblies containing radioactive uranium pellets are placed to cool. That pool will be filled to capacity in 2009, said Griffith. At that point, the company plans to open an onsite dry fuel storage facility where the fuel assemblies will be encased in concrete. "People may want to pretend that it can't happen here, but the lesson of Chernobyl is that they should never have built an atomic plant anywhere," said Cushing. At Seabrook Station -- now owned by FPL Energy -- a plant spokesman, Alan Griffith, called Seabrook a "top-rated power plant" that has not experienced any major problems since opening. "There's absolutely no danger in terms of radiation or security. It's an extremely safe environment at Seabrook," said Griffith. But Seabrook has not been incident-free over the years. Seabrook Station has been fined twice during the last 10 years by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the plant. In 1999, the plant was fined $55,000 after the government ruled it had discriminated against an electrician for raising safety issues. In 2006, the NRC fined the plant $65,000 after identifying a security issue at the plant. NRC spokeswoman Diane Screnci declined to comment on the security violations and fine. "We don't want to reveal any potential vulnerability," she said. Twenty-five people In June of 1976, about 25 people from coalitions throughout New England gathered in Rye Beach for a meeting about the proposed Seabrook plant. They included representatives from the People's Energy Project, the Granite State Alliance, the Wampanoag Tribe, and anti-nuclear groups from Cape Ann, Western Massachusetts, and Boston. At the meeting, they decided to name their group the Clamshell Alliance -- a nod to the clam flats that the nuclear plant owners had planned to flood with water from the plant. "The strength of the whole Clamshell Alliance was our organization," said Jay Gustaferro, a Gloucester lobsterman who was one of the alliance's founders. Gustaferro and Isabel Natti had created the North Shore Alternative Energy Coalition in Gloucester and held alternative energy science fairs in Cape Ann in the early 1970s. They said they joined the Clamshell Alliance because they could see Seabrook, which is 14 miles from the shores of Gloucester. On Aug 1, 1976, the first protest at the plant was held, and 18 people were arrested. On Aug. 22, another occupation was held, and 180 people were arrested. Then, on April 30, 1977, more than 2,500 people walked onto the Seabrook site from four directions; others were ferried by boat to the site by local fishermen. Most had spent the night at campgrounds provided by sympathetic area residents who opposed the plant. Surrounded by hundreds of police, the protesters pitched tents, sang no-nukes songs, and discussed the use of alternative energy such as wind and solar power. With drugs and alcohol forbidden by the alliance and the group sticking to its philosophy of civil disobedience, no major injuries were reported, and there were no scuffles with the police. "I think it was the power of nonviolence that really energized the Clamshell Alliance," said Cushing. "I think the nonviolence and civil disobedience aspect was extremely powerful because it was so peaceful," added Sam Lovejoy, who led a contingent of antinuclear protesters from an organic farm in Montague. After the group refused to disperse, protesters were arrested and held in five National Guard armories throughout the state for 13 days. Most declined to post bail, which helped their cause, said Guy Chichester of Rye, N.H., who served as a spokesman during that time and appeared on national TV. "We were getting news all over the country and all over the world. Why would we move out?" Nuclear waste The alliance's dedication to nonviolence would be short-lived. By 1980, a rift had developed with the Boston chapter, which advocated using violence. Still, over the next decade, the alliance held regular protests against the plant, and in 1989, shortly before it opened, more than 600 were arrested for trespassing. Lovejoy went on to create Musicians United for Safe Energy -- which produced concerts and a movie by Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, Bruce Springsteen, and recently elected New York Congressman John Hall, cofounder of the band Orleans. He said Seabrook served as a model for the antinuclear movement. Local protests, combined with court challenges and publicity, could effect change, said Lovejoy, who helped set up antinuclear groups based on the Clamshell's philosophy. While most of the former "Clams" have moved on to other social and political causes, several say their biggest concern now is the nuclear waste stored inside the Seabrook plant. Many said they would resume their protests if more nuclear plants are approved by the government. "If the industry starts new nukes, they're going to be surprised. I think people will come out of the woodwork," said Peter Natti, who lived on the same Montague farm with Lovejoy and other activists in the 1970s and took part in the Seabrook protests. Griffith, the Seabrook Station spokesman, said the plant's nuclear waste is stored in a pool at the plant, where spent 12-foot -long fuel assemblies containing radioactive uranium pellets are placed to cool. That pool will be filled to capacity in 2009, said Griffith. At that point, the company plans to open an onsite dry fuel storage facility where the fuel assemblies will be encased in concrete. Steven Rosenberg can be reached at rosenberg@globe.com. c Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company. ***************************************************************** 41 Kommersant Moscow: Russia to Set Up Nuclear Industry Giant - Apr. 28, 2007 Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday signed a bill to set up a state-owned holding to control the nation’s civilian nuclear energy industry. Atomenergoprom is to become part of a corporation which would control both civilian and military nuclear energy in Russia. Kommersant sources report that the arms exporter Rosoboronexport may also be turned into a corporation. Atomenergoprom is to be set up in July to manage Russia’s civilian nuclear energy facilities. Deputy Head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency Vladimir Travin is strongly tipped to be appointed the holding’s director. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in his state-of-the-nation address on Thursday that Russia would soon create a state corporation to unite civilian and military nuclear energy industries. The new corporation, Rosatom, is to own all nuclear military and research assets as well as the Atomenergoprom holding. The nuclear giant is to receive the assets for management in 2008. Unofficial sources reported that the corporation would be directly accountable to the Russian president who would appoint its board. Well-informed sources of Kommersant said Friday that the military arms exporter Rosoboronexport may soon follow suit and be turned into a state-run corporation. The national corporation on nanotechnology is likely to be set up following the same pattern. www.kommersant.com © 1991-2007 ZAO "Kommersant. Publishing House". All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 42 The Australian: State Libs NIMBY on nuclear power NEWS.com.au | * April 29, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP * By Danny Rose VICTORIAN Liberal Leader Ted Baillieu said today there was no need for nuclear power in Victoria despite Prime Minister John Howard's call for a national debate. Mr Baillieu spoke outside the Victorian Liberal state council today where he said the state's future low-emission energy needs could be met with “clean coal” technology, and not nuclear power. “I think the Prime Minister is right that we have to explore each and every alternative available, but when it comes to Victoria I don't see that it is necessary,” Mr Baillieu said. “We have enormous fuel resources here in Victoria and I don't see a nuclear industry being needed in Victoria.” Mr Baillieu then said it was “up to the other states” when asked where a nuclear power plant should operate in Australia. The comments come after Mr Howard used his address on yesterday's opening day of the state council to a call for a national debate on nuclear power, as his party's federal nuclear strategy was also released. Mr Howard told the gathering of 1000 Liberal Party members “if we're fair dinkum on this climate change debate then we have to look at nuclear power”. Climate change was discussed by those on the floor of the state council today. Delegates voted in support of two motions calling on the Liberal Party to develop its global warming-related energy policy, and also to condemn the Labor state government for failing to promote zero-emission geothermal power. Mr Baillieu also gave his first address to the council since he took over as party leader in May last year, and since Labor was returned in the November state election. He pledged to lead the party to the next state election in 2010. “I want to lead this party back to government, that is my commitment, 100 per cent, to 2010 and beyond,” Mr Baillieu said. The Victorian Liberal Party saw a 3.4 per cent gain in voter support in the November 25 poll, but it made only a small dent in Labor's massive majority. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 43 AFP: India, US officials to push again for nuclear deal in Washington - by Parul Gupta Sat Apr 28, 11:56 AM ET NEW DELHI (AFP) - India and the United States will try to iron out differences next week over a crucial civilian nuclear deal amid impatience by Washington over the slow pace of talks, officials said Saturday. Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon will be in Washington on Monday and Tuesday to hold negotiations with US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns to propel the dialogue forward. The talks have been stalled mainly over concerns in India that the agreement will seek to curtail the country's nuclear weapons programme. India has a "very clear approach" on the deal, Menon said in a report tabled in parliament on Thursday, even as Washington expressed its unhappiness over the dialogue last week. His comment came after US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington there was "some frustration on the part of the administration as well as Congress on the pace of these negotiations." Indian officials tried to downplay the US remarks. "When you hold talks, there are bound to be differences," said a senior government official, who did not wish to be named. The talks are to implement an accord struck in July 2005 giving India access to US nuclear fuel and technology for civilian use without requiring New Delhi to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty as required by US law. But differences persist, chiefly over a clause which states the US would withdraw civil nuclear fuel supplies and equipment if India breaches its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. India atomic scientists and critics say the agreement will put restrictions on the country's nuclear weapons programme. Ahead of the meeting, Menon sought to dispel the fears. "Whatever we do with the US will not affect our nuclear strategic programme," Menon said. Experts warned that India must act fast on the deal. "There is genuine concern about the delay. India is not the centre of the universe for them," said G. Balachandran, Visiting Fellow at security think-tank Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. "They will get preoccupied with (presidential) elections next year," he said. The nuclear policy expert said a likely outcome was a compromise on the wording of the agreement. "The differences are over the consequences of nuclear testing. The Americans can't take away the right to test. It's a matter of reaching a compromise over the wording of the deal, not a compromise of interests," he said. The nuclear energy deal is the centrepiece of India's new relationship with Washington after decades of Cold War tensions and is part of New Delhi's efforts to expand energy sources to sustain its booming economy. Under the nuclear agreement, India also wants the explicit right to reprocess nuclear fuel, in contradiction of the US law. Indian experts said New Delhi also opposes another clause which provides for US inspection of its nuclear facilities in case the International Atomic Energy Commission fails to do so. Under the deal, India has agreed to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and allow inspection of the civilian ones. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 44 enewscourier: NRC, TVA to meet prior to decision on restart of reactor at Browns Ferry plant Athens, AL - Published: April 27, 2007 10:33 pm NRC, TVA to meet prior to decision on restart of reactor at Browns Ferry plant The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is scheduled to meet with Tennessee Valley Authority officials Wednesday to discuss regulatory findings prior to an NRC decision on TVA’s requested restart of Browns Ferry Unit 1. The unit has been shut down since 1985. Two meetings will be held at the plant training center, located on the plant site at 10833 Shaw Road near Athens, and are open to the public. The first meeting will begin at 10 a.m. when NRC officials will discuss with TVA officials the results of an NRC Operational Readiness Assessment Team inspection, which has just been completed at Unit 1. The second meeting will begin at 1 p.m. when NRC officials will discuss the conclusions of an NRC Browns Ferry Unit 1 Restart Oversight Panel, which will then make a recommendation on TVA restart readiness to the NRC Region II Administrator in Atlanta. TVA has retained Browns Ferry Unit 1’s operating license during the extended shutdown but requires approval of the Region II Administrator prior to restart. That decision is expected to come as soon as feasible after Wednesday’s meetings. NRC officials will be available at the conclusion of both meetings to answer questions from the audience. Network ? CNHI News Service Associated Press content © 2007. All rights reserved. AP content may ***************************************************************** 45 Telegraph: Cleaner fuel for nuclear power stations By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 1:01am BST 29/04/2007 A cleaner and safer fuel for nuclear power stations will be available within two years, raising the prospect of the Government approving plans to build the next generation of power plants. Scientists claim it could help overcome many of the objections to nuclear energy by producing less radioactive waste. Unlike the current fuel, which harnesses the decay of enriched uranium into the plutonium used in nuclear weapons, the new material uses the heavy metal thorium which does not produce plutonium. It is hoped this will allay fears over the security of nuclear waste should it fall into the wrong hands. The waste from the thorium fuel is also less radioactive, meaning it will be safer and easier to dispose of. Researchers at Imperial College London are now working with American company Thorium Power to develop ways of exploiting thorium fuel in Britain. It is already being tested in an experimental reactor at Russia's nuclear research centre, the Kurchatov Institute, in Moscow. Seth Grae, of Thorium Power, said the company planned to use their fuel in a commercial Russian reactor by 2010. It comes as the Government prepares to publish a White Paper and an accompanying consultation next month on plans to build new nuclear power plants. The Government insists nuclear energy will play a key role in helping the country meet its carbon emission targets and increasing electricity needs over the coming decades. Scientists hope that using thorium fuel will help to soften public opposition by presenting a safer alternative to uranium-powered stations, whose waste can remain dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years. But experts warn that despite its lower radioactivity, the waste from thorium can still take several hundred years to decay to safe levels. © Copyright of Telegraph Media Group Limited 2007. | Terms ***************************************************************** 46 AU ABC: Govt reveals nuclear future AM - Saturday, 28 April , 2007 08:00:31 Reporter: Chris Uhlmann TANYA NOLAN: First though, as the Labor Party moves to dump its no new mines policy, the Prime Minister is preparing to steal some of the limelight, with a speech designed to put Australia on a path towards developing a nuclear power industry. He's expected to tell the Victorian Liberal Party conference that in order to be serious about attacking climate change the nation must consider the nuclear option. He's proposing a four-stage plan and has ordered his officials to take immediate action to clear the legal hurdles. In a bid to overcome community reluctance about nuclear, the plan will coincide with a public relations campaign. Ian Macfarlane is Industry and Resources Minister, and he's speaking to Chief Political Correspondent Chris Uhlmann. CHRIS UHLMANN: Ian Macfarlane, good morning. IAN MACFARLANE: Good morning. CHRIS UHLMANN: So what is the Government proposing to do? IAN MACFARLANE: The Government is proposing, as part of our move forward to lower emissions in Australia, to remove the impediments to establish a nuclear power station in Australia, and also remove any impediments to the export of uranium from Australia. In doing so we will need to ensure that legislation, where it overlaps between states, where it's inconsistent in relation to the mining and transport of uranium, is rectified and that that legislation is nationally consistent. We also want to make sure that we are able to mine and export uranium in a way in which the process is understood and non-politicised. As well as that, we want to remove some legislative bans which prevent the construction of nuclear power stations in Australia, and those bans are under several acts under the Commonwealth legislation. As well as that we want to put in place a series of work plans, four major work plans, mapping out the way forward for Australia in the process of considering nuclear energy, and that's to provide a factual base for the public as they debate whether or not they want Australia to use nuclear energy as part of our zero emissions electricity future. And finally, to develop a skills and technical training program to ensure that we address the gaps and needs of the nuclear energy, to ensure that our scientists are in fact the best in the world. CHRIS UHLMANN: Now, is part of this just a big PR campaign for the Government during the course of the election year? IAN MACFARLANE: This has been a program which I've been involved in now for a number of years, and what we are doing is ensuring that we are able to consider nuclear as a viable alternative to coal-fired electricity generation in Australia… CHRIS UHLMANN: But are you spending money on a PR campaign during an election campaign? IAN MACFARLANE: What we're doing is putting in place the building blocks to build a nuclear energy industry in Australia, if Australians decide, following the debate, that we need to have to build a nuclear power station, which is a zero emission nuclear power… CHRIS UHLMANN: Sure. I'm just trying to clear up, though, because it is… we are in an election year, and I'm just trying to clear up whether or not you'll be spending money on a public relations campaign during the course of an election campaign, which is, in effect, pushing the Government's line on reducing greenhouse gases. IAN MACFARLANE: Well, what we are putting in place is a factual information campaign to counter some of the absolute nonsense that's being put about, about nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is safe. It is a predominant energy source for a number of very modern countries in the world. It provides around 15 to 20 per cent of the world's energy and electricity. It has zero emissions, and on the basis that we all agree we need to lower our greenhouse gas emissions, and on the basis of the IPCC report and the Stern report, our Government accepts that we need to consider all technologies to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and to use Nicholas Stern's words, this issue is becoming urgent. So along with working on clean coal technology, along with working on renewable energy, along with looking at ways that we can lower greenhouse gas emissions, Australia must now consider nuclear energy as a solution to its emissions. CHRIS UHLMANN: I notice that the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, is saying that we're looking at expanding our exports of uranium to Russia. That country poses perhaps the greatest threat of all for nuclear proliferation. How can you be sure that any of the materials that we export won't end up coming back by way of nuclear weapons? IAN MACFARLANE: Well, that country has been a nuclear super power for decades, in fact for 50 years, and I don't agree that it poses the greatest risk to Australia in terms of our nation's security. TANYA NOLAN: Ian Macfarlane is Industry and Resources Minister. He was speaking there to Chris Uhlmann. ***************************************************************** 47 AU ABC: Howard's nuclear future draws Greens' ire. 28/04/2007. ABC News Online Bob Brown has hit back after John Howard outlined plans to develop a nuclear power industry (REUTERS) Australian Greens leader Bob Brown says the Federal Government should be exploring renewable energy resources before committing to nuclear power. In an announcement timed to coincide with the Australian Labor Party's (ALP) debate on uranium mining, Prime Minister John Howard has outlined the Government's plans to develop a nuclear power industry. Mr Howard told the Victorian Liberal Party conference that the country needs to reassess its energy production in the face of climate change, and the only feasible options are clean coal technology and nuclear power. But Greens Senator Bob Brown accused Mr Howard of not knowing what he was doing. "John Howard's going whole hog isn't he?" he said. "He can't tackle climate change without a nuclear mentality. "He's lost the plot as far as the much better energy efficiency, renewable energy resources demand management that would put Australia at the front of the pack instead of at the back." Mr Howard says nuclear and clean coal technologies are the best ways to tackle climate change. "You can not run power stations on wind or solar power," he said. "If we're fair dinkum about this climate change debate we have to open our minds to the use of nuclear power." Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane says the Government will remove legislative barriers to nuclear power. But he says nuclear power plants will not be built if nuclear power is rejected by the Australian public, and that it would take more than a decade before a nuclear power station could be up and running. "Between planning and construction, at least 10 years would expire, so we're probably talking about a debate of a few years, followed by a decision and the first electrons coming out of a power station no earlier than 2020 - but let's have the debate first," he said. "There will be no movement towards the establishment of a power station in Australia until Australia has debated where nuclear energy fits in its low emission future. "On the basis of that debate, we'll then decide whether or not a nuclear station is going to be built." Mr Macfarlane says the energy debate has moved beyond the ALP's wrangling over uranium mining. "Labor today is debating last century's policy," he said. ***************************************************************** 48 AU ABC: Labor attacks Howard's nuclear vision. 28/04/2007. ABC News Online Peter Garrett lost the argument against uranium mining and hit out at Government plans for a nuclear power industry (Getty Images) Labor has attacked Prime Minister John Howard's plans for a nuclear energy industry in Australia, after its own national conference dumped a long-standing ban on new uranium mines. Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's motion to scrap the 'no new mines' policy was passed by a slender 15 votes at the ALP national conference, with environment spokesman Peter Garret among those voting to maintain the ban. But the move was overshadowed by Mr Howard's outlining of a future nuclear energy industry for Australia. Speaking at the Victorian Liberal Party conference, Mr Howard said Australia needed to rethink its energy production in the face of climate change, and the only feasible options were clean coal technology and nuclear power. "Part of the solution must be to admit the use, in years to come, of nuclear power," he said. "If we're fair dinkum about this climate change debate we have to open our minds to the use of nuclear power." Shortly after the Labor conference vote Mr Garrett went on the offensive against Mr Howard's nuclear proposal. "He has plans for nuclear power plants to be dotted around this country," he said. "He's taking us down a road and a path which I think is very dangerous." Mr Howard said the Government would invest in research on the setting up of a nuclear power industry while Federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane said legislative barriers would be removed. And Mr Macfarlane accused Labor of debating "last century's policy" on uranium mining. Labor discontent Mr Garrett says he accepts the conference vote on uranium mines but others in the party are less happy. Some are angry with union leader and Federal candidate Bill Shorten, who linked the vote to support for Mr Rudd. "If you think that rolling the leader is a great idea then go ahead and vote for the Albanese-Garrett amendment," Mr Shorten told the debate. Critics of Mr Shorten say the tactic was immature, naive and damaging. Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says there will be no uranium mining in his state while he was in government. "I don't feel under any pressure whatsoever," he said. "The West Australian economy is powering ahead, we've got the highest economic growth figures and the lowest unemployment figures, we don't desperately need for economic reasons or any other reasons to pursue uranium mining." The ALP conference ends on Sunday after dealing with issues including climate change, forestry and preselections for New South Wales. Labor attacks John Howard's plans for nuclear energy industry in Australia, after its own national conference dumps long-standing ban on new uranium mines. Related Video John Howard has put his support forward for a new generation of nuclear power saying the fourth generation reactors will provide safe and reliable energy. [Real Broadband] [Real Dialup] [Win Broadband] [Win Dialup] John Howard has revealed his plans to embrace nuclear power and says refusal by the Labor Party to join him shows a lack of commitment to climate change. [Real Broadband] [Real Dialup] [Win Broadband] [Win Dialup] Union leaders have bowed to pressure from the Labor Party and passed the new Industrial Relations Policy outlined by Kevin Rudd at the National Labor Conference. [Real Broadband] [Real Dialup] [Win Broadband] [Win Dialup] ***************************************************************** 49 AU ABC: States give mixed responses to nuclear announcements. 29/04/2007. ABC News Online States give mixed responses to nuclear announcements The states and territories have given various reactions to the major parties' uranium and nuclear policy announcements yesterday. South Australian Premier Mike Rann says yesterday's vote by the the ALP to scrap its 'no new uranium mines' policy is a huge win for his state. The motion to scrap the policy went through by 205 votes to 190 at the Labor Party's national conference in Sydney yesterday. Mr Rann lobbied delegates ahead of the conference for a change in the policy because he said the previous policy did not make any sense. "The Labor Party's policy now looks forward rather than looking back - we have 60 companies that have exploration licences in South Australia for uranium," he said. "I expected it to be a tough decision, I expected it to be a close vote, but I'm delighted with this victory." However the parliamentary leader of the South Australian Democrats, Sandra Kanck, has slammed the ALP's decision. "I think it's going to open us up to nuclear power and to nuclear waste dumps and nuclear enrichment, all of those, because there isn't a legitimate argument that we can mount now against those pressures," she said. Yesterday Prime Minister John Howard also announced a strategy to develop the nuclear industry in Australia. The Federal Government plans to scrap legislative bans on nuclear power and has committed to more research and an advertising campaign. Nuclear industry The South Australian Opposition says it is up to business to decide whether to build nuclear power stations in Australia. Opposition leader Martin Hamilton-Smith says nuclear power needs to be part of the debate on Australia's future power needs. But he says it needs to be economically viable. "South Australia is probably one of the least likely places in Australia for a nuclear plant to be built," he said. "We have abundant supplies of gas and the busy markets for the energy are in the eastern states, however let's see what comes forward from business. "I think it's up to business to argue the case about where any possible power station should be built, whether it's nuclear burning, renewable or coal, and that needs to be based on sound business decisions about where the market is and how the business dynamics work." New South Wales The New South Wales Government says it stands behind its anti-nuclear and anti-uranium policies despite yesterday's announcements. Speaking at the ALP conference in Sydney, Premier Morris Iemma said Labor's decision to overturn its ban on uranium mines would have no effect in New South Wales. "Today's decision enables each of the states to make their own decision," he said. But Mr Iemma says the same choice may not be given to states under John Howard's plans to overturn Commonwealth legislation that bans nuclear activities. "The real issue is John Howard's determination to impose on the people of New South Wales a nuclear industry," he said. Mr Iemma says the New South Wales Government will fight the Commonwealth all the way on the issue. The Wilderness Society says it will work with the states to try to oppose the Federal Government's push towards nuclear power. But Alec Marr from the Wilderness Society says there is no guarantee that state opposition will be enough to stifle the Prime Minister's plans. Western Australia Western Australian Premier Alan Carpenter says there will be no uranium mining in his state while he is in government. "I don't feel under any pressure whatsoever," he said. "The West Australian economy is powering ahead, we've got the highest economic growth figures and the lowest unemployment figures, we don't desperately need for economic reasons or any other reasons to pursue uranium mining." Northern Territory Environmentalists in the Northern Territory are also concerned about the uranium mines policy being overturned. Northern Territory Chief Minister Clare Martin and Environment Minister Marion Scrymgour voted in favour of changing the policy. But Emma King from the NT Environment Centre was at the conference and says the decision gives the Territory Government the green light to approve uranium mining. She says there are already mining plans in progress. "One for example is the Mount Fitch deposit down near Batchelor," she said. "It's only a few kilometres from the Darwin River Dam and we have concerns about the mine's impact on Darwin's drinking water as well as the local grass and water and local environment adjacent to the mine." Ms King says Indigenous points of view on uranium mining were glossed over at yesterday's conference. "The issue of Indigenous involvement in decision making around uranium mining was raised in the debate at the Labor Party conference but obviously it wasn't something that the party felt strongly enough about to include in a policy for the future," she said. ***************************************************************** 50 au abc: Abbott stays silent on prospect of nuclear power plant in his seat. 29/04/2007. ABC News Online Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott will not say whether or not he would welcome a nuclear power plant in his seat of Warringah in Sydney. Prime Minister John Howard says nuclear energy must be considered if Australia's serious about tackling climate change. "Any plant would have to go through all the usual sorts of planning and environmental approvals," Mr Abbott said. "That means that the sort of places that currently have coal burning power stations are likely to be the sorts of places that would have in the future, should nuclear power prove to be economic, those sorts of stations as well." ***************************************************************** 51 Reuters: Main conclusions of UN climate panel's third report 29 Apr 2007 09:00:49 GMT April 29 (Reuters) - Following are some of the main findings of a draft report by the U.N. climate panel due for release in Bangkok on Friday. The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) looks at the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change and the tools available to achieve reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists and government officials are meeting from Monday to review and approve the draft, the third of four to be released this year. EMISSIONS GROWTH "Without additional climate mitigation and/or appropriate sustainable development policies global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades," it says. It adds it there needs to be immediate action to curb emissions if there is to be any significant long-term impact on limiting climate change. Yet, based on current projections, global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel combustion are predicted to rise by a minimum of more than 40 percent between 2000 to 2030. A large portion of this increase is projected to come from developing countries, the report says. Transport is a major worry with growing use of cars and planes pushing up greenhouse gas emissions. In 2004 transport energy use amounted to 26 percent of total world energy use. "Unless there is a major shift away from current patterns of energy use, projections foresee a continued growth in world transportation energy use by 2 percent per year, with energy use and carbon emissions about 80 percent above 2002 levels by 2030." Emissions from aircraft would continue to rise by 3 to 4 per cent per year despite projected improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency because these will be largely surpassed by traffic growth of around 5 percent each year. Agriculture was another concern. "Global food demands may double by 2050, leading to intensified production practices (e.g. increasing use of nitrogen fertilizer). In addition, forecast increases in consumption of livestock products will increase methane and nitrogen dioxide emissions if livestock numbers increase". TOOLS AND RESEARCH It says GHG levels can be stabilised using "a portfolio of technologies that are commercially available today and those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades, provided appropriate incentives are in place". These included fuel switching, more efficient power plants, nuclear power, renewable energy, more efficient buildings and building materials and lighting, more efficient appliances and improved agricultural practices to curb the release of methane and nitrogen oxide, two other major greenhouse gases. "A positive "price of carbon' would create incentives for producers and consumers to significantly invest in lower carbon products, technologies and processes. However, additional incentives related to direct government funding and regulations are also important." COSTS The more deep and rapid the emissions cuts, the more costly to economies, says the report, which gives a range of stabilisation levels of greenhouse gases in the future. By 2030, the costs of letting greenhouse gas concentrations rise to 650 ppmv (parts per million volume) of CO2-equivalent are 0.2 percent of global gross domestic product, it says. Greenhouse gas concentrations are now at about 430 ppmv of carbon dioxide and rising sharply. Carbon dioxide accounts is the main greenhouse gas, followed by methane and four others covered by international pacts. "For trajectories towards stabilisation levels between 445 and 535 ppmv CO2-equivalent, costs are lower than 3 percent global GDP loss." ***************************************************************** 52 Hindustan Times: N-deal will open up major opportunities in India - Business Council- Nuclear deal: India braces for crucial 123 round April 29, 2007 The US-India Business Council has welcomed the Senate approval of the US-India nuclear deal, calling it a "win" that will lay the foundation for major trade and investment opportunities in India for US companies. In a statement praising the Senate's passage of the enabling legislation, Council president Ron Somers on Friday urged the House and Senate to quickly resolve the differences in their respective bills without allowing any "poison pill" provisions that would derail this extraordinarily important initiative. In every regard, this bill presents a "win" - a win for the US-India commercial and strategic partnerships, the environment, safety, and nuclear non-proliferation, he said. It lays the foundation for major trade and investment opportunities in India for US companies. As many as 27,000 high quality jobs each year for the next ten years will be created in the US nuclear industry alone as a result of this agreement. Sharing civilian nuclear technology will provide India's fast-growing economy with an environmentally sound energy resource to continue lifting millions of Indians out of poverty, Somers said. Moreover, the safety of India's nuclear facilities will be enhanced as this agreement enables the sharing of technology as well as international best practices, he said. The United States-India Business Council (USIBC) is the premier advocacy organisation representing the largest US companies investing in India, promoting economic reforms with an aim to deepen trade relations and broaden commercial ties with India. ***************************************************************** 53 Hindustan Times: Indo-US N-deal Bill introduced in US Senate- Nuclear deal: India braces for crucial 123 round April 29, 2007 The process for Congressional approval of the Indo-US nuclear deal got underway with the introduction of the enabling legislation in the Senate. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Republican Chairman Richard Lugar had reported the Bill on Friday to the Upper House that would permit resumption of exports of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology to India after 30 years. Lugar's counterpart on the House International Committee, Henry Hyde, is expected to introduce its own version of the enabling legislation before the full House early next week. The House panel had approved a slightly different version of the Bill by an equally huge 37-5 margin. Once approved by the two Houses, the legislation will have to go to a Conference Committee to work out a common language as a Bill cannot become a law until it has been approved in identical form by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Reflecting a common intent, both suggest a two-step vote for the final Congressional approval of the nuclear deal that both agree would become a cornerstone for US-India relations. The first vote would allow the Bush administration to negotiate a formal agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation with India under conditions outlined in Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act of 1954. In the second vote, the Congress would approve the so-called '123 Agreement' itself. ***************************************************************** 54 Hindustan Times: Democrats win, N-deal not lost yet- Nuclear deal: India braces for crucial 123 round April 29, 2007 Pramit Pal Chaudhuri A NEW United States Congress was voted in on Wednesday, but it is the old Congress that will meet next Monday in the so-called lame-duck session. That is why diplomats from both the governments concerned still hope the Indo-US nuclear deal may yet get a senatorial stamp of approval. Indian officials who met US congressional leaders in September say both the Senate's chief Republican, Bill Frist, and its chief Democrat, Harry Reid, said they would try to push the nuclear legislation through. The present plan is for the legislation to be placed before the Senate on Thursday next week, then debated for two days and passed by vote on Friday. The lame-duck session will then go into its Thanksgiving break and return the first week of December. In this second period the Senate and House of Representatives versions of the bill will be reconciled and the full Houses will vote on the final bill again. Given that this tight schedule leaves no room for error, both Indian and US officials are keeping their fingers crossed. First, the politically recharged Democrats will have to stick to their promise to New Delhi that they will offer only 10 amendments to the Senate bill. The more the amendments, said a diplomatic source, the longer the debate. Second, other bills that will be tabled before the nuclear legislation should not take up too much time. "A number of appropriations bills must be passed first," said an Indian official. A Washington source noted that the White House had not helped by putting a trade pact with Vietnam at the top of the roster. A last-minute effort by both governments to try and get the nuclear bill tabled on Tuesday was still on, said US officials. But it is not expected to succeed. Said one US State Department official in Washington, "The Democratic leadership supports the deal. But the floor management may be impossible to accomplish." Most analysts agree: the problem is not party politics, but time. Said Marvin Weinbaum, a US political scientist who specialises in South Asia, "The Democrats are no less interested than the Bush administration in sustaining the gains in Indo-US relations." An Indian-American lobbyist said there was "a reasonable chance" that the legislation would pass in the lame-duck session. But if it did not, he added, the strength of bipartisan support meant that the bill still stood a good chance of passage in the new, Democrat-controlled Congress next year. ***************************************************************** 55 Hindustan Times: India should develop N-power based on thorium - Kalam- April 29, 2007 With Indo-US civil nuclear deal yet to be put into effect, President APJ Abdul Kalam on Monday said India should step up efforts for nuclear power based on thorium. Thorium is abundantly available in the country. Asked by an accompanying journalist to comment on the agreement, Kalam, who has repeatedly stressed on India's quest for energy independence, said, "You want me to get into a soup?" He said all nuclear power reactors in India are now running on uranium-based fuel but scientists were working on deriving power from thorium whose deposits are in abundance in the country. He said while two thorium deposits have been found, four are likely to be unearthed and until then fuel extraction from uranium will continue. "We are not abandoning uranium-based fuel," the President said. Kalam's remarks came a day after he said at a gathering in Manila that India, in its quest for energy independence, should look for generating power from thorium. "Nuclear power generation has been given a thrust by the use of uraninum-based fuel. However, there would be a requirement for ten-fold increase in nuclear power generation even to attain a reasonable degree of energy self-sufficiency for our country," Kalam had said. The comments assume significance in the wake of the US reportedly moving the goal post farther in negotiating with India to implement the bilateral nuclear deal. ***************************************************************** 56 icWales: Nuclear probe may widen Apr 29 2007 Marc Baker, Wales on Sunday TWO nuclear power stations in Wales may be included in a national inquiry into a major radioactive body parts scandal. Wylfa in Anglesey and Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd could form part of a government probe into whether organs were taken from deceased workers without their families' consent. An investigation has already been launched into shocking claims that organs and tissues were removed from former workers at the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria. Ministers moved quickly after feelings of "shock and outrage" were expressed over the disclosure that in 65 cases, tissue was taken from individuals which was then analysed for the radioactive content of organs. Most of the workers covered by the revelation were employed at Sellafield - one worked at the Capenhurst nuclear site in Cheshire after transferring from the Cumbria site, another two were based at Dounreay in Scotland. Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling has ordered a wider investigation into fears workers at other plants may have been affected. Michael Redfern, the QC who conducted an inquiry into the removal of organs from children at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool, will investigate. British Nuclear Fuels - which runs Wylfa and Trawsfynydd - said it would co-operate with any inquiry. Wyfla, which employs 660 workers, was the last and largest power station of its type to be built in the UK. It started electricity generation in 1971 and will cease to do so in 2010. Trawsfynydd, which employs 500 workers, ceased to generate electricity in 1991. A BNFL spokesman said: "We are not able to discuss what the investigation will cover, but we will give it our full support and co-operation. Michael Redfern will decide what the investigation will cover and what plants he looks at. It is not for us to comment on what he may choose to look at or how far reaching the investigation will be." Mr Darling said the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) had started to examine their records to see if tests on autopsy tissues were carried out on any of their sites other than Sellafield. He said: "The UKAEA tell me they believe such work was carried out possibly at other UKAEA sites, potentially involving work related to individuals who had not been employed at nuclear sites. The AWE believes there could have been additional testing on their employees." Mr Darling said the inquiry would establish whether the families of surviving relatives were informed of the results of the testing, as well as who authorised the analysis. Shadow energy minister Charles Hendry said: "This is a very disturbing development. It is now clear that the removal of tissue samples was on a much larger scale than was first thought." GMB union spokesman Gary Smith said: "It's essential the industry comes clean as to whether this has also happened at other nuclear installations." marc.baker@wme.co.uk Copyright and Trade Mark Notice ***************************************************************** 57 AFP: Military key to US-India relations - US diplomat - Sun Apr 29, 1:53 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - A top State Department official called Sunday for more military and foreign policy cooperation with India, predicting New Delhi will become a main US strategic partner in the coming generation. Nicholas Burns, US undersecretary of state for political affairs, hailed current US ties with India as "the strongest relationship the two countries have enjoyed since India's independence in 1947." The push for stronger ties comes as the United States tries to forge strategic alliances to counter China's perceived military and economic ascendancy in Asia. In his remarks, which appeared in an article in Sunday's Washington Post newspaper, Burns credited the warm relations to the work of the two most recent US presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. He praised Bush's "ambitious" efforts in particular, he said, which have yielded "impressive agreements regarding civilian nuclear power, trade, science and agriculture with India's reformist prime minister, Manmohan Singh." "The pace of progress between Washington and Delhi has been so rapid, and the potential benefits to American interests so substantial, that I believe within a generation Americans may view India as one of our two or three most important strategic partners," Burns wrote. But he said the two countries can and should go even further in their bilateral cooperation, and highlighted two promising areas: counterterrorism and the military. "First, India seeks US assistance in helping to counter the wave of terrorist bombings of the past two years," said Burns. "The United States is ready. We are both victims of terrorism and need to work harder to establish the kind of trust required for effective joint work." Secondly, said Burns, "We need to build on an already impressive series of joint military exercises by improving the interoperability of our armed forces to respond to global contingencies. "We also aim to complete a series of defense sales that meet India's needs and complement our overall defense relationship." He continued: "Every day I see signs of the strategic benefits our efforts can bring our two countries. With hard work and vision, we can realize the potential of a key 21st century partnership." His comments came as India and the United States prepare to try to iron out differences this week over the crucial civilian nuclear deal amid impatience by Washington over the slow pace of talks. Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon will be in Washington on Monday and Tuesday to hold negotiations with Burns to propel the dialogue forward. Talks have stalled mainly over concerns in India that the agreement will seek to curtail the country's nuclear weapons program. Burns noted in the daily that Washington considers the nuclear deal, which the US Congress approved overwhelmingly in December, the centerpiece of the warmer relations with New Delhi. "When fully implemented in 2008, this initiative will permit American and international companies to begin peaceful civilian nuclear cooperation with India for the first time in more than a generation. "This would bring India out of its self-imposed isolation and into the international nonproliferation mainstream," Burns wrote. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 58 [toeslist] Hawaii - Depleted uranium munitions cause concern near Oahu military base Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:12:41 -0500 (CDT) Depleted uranium munitions cause concern near Oahu military base by Bobby Command West Hawaii Today bcommand@westhawaiitoday.com Thursday, April 26, 2007 8:37 AM HST A number of Hawaii residents are calling for the governor to sign a bill that would test the soil within 500 meters of Schofield Barracks for depleted uranium. The legislation, introduced by Kailua-Kona Rep. Josh Green, calls for soil around the Army post to be tested quarterly and the results forwarded to the Legislature each year. "There's been evidence already that the Army has been using depleted uranium in Hawaii," said Cory Harden, a Mountain View resident who is backing Green's bill. "There is also evidence that the depleted uranium causes birth defects and can get into the soil, water and air." West Hawaii Today also has received a number of e-mails asking for recipients to contact Gov. Linda Lingle and urge her to sign the bill. In 2006, a company conducting clean up operations at Schofield Barracks on Oahu discovered depleted uranium in the tail assemblies of obsolete ordnance that was used in the early 1960s. Prior to that, the Army had denied any use in Hawaii of depleted uranium, which is used in armor-piercing projectiles because of its density and ability to burn spontaneously. Following the discovery, the Army said it did not intentionally mislead the public when it said the substance was not used in Hawaii. Harden said she is worried that the substance may be used at Pohakuloa. "I wouldn't be surprised, since many of the troops stationed at Schofield also train at Pohakuloa." Green said his bill originally called for testing all military installations for such radioactive substances. "But these things take a life of their own once they leave my computer," he said. "That being said, it will be a lot easier for us to expand the testing if this initial bill is passed," Green said. "And the bottom line is we just want to be sure that this is not getting into the environment, not just because it's radioactive, but also because it is a dangerous heavy metal." Kendrick Washington II, media relations officer for the U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii, said there are strict regulations regarding the use of the substance. "Army policy prohibits the use of depleted uranium ammunition in training," Washington said. He did not provide any other comment. But Harden,said she has opposed other military proposals and doubts the veracity of its statements. "They haven't told us the truth in the past, so why should we believe them now?" said Harden, who added that the Army denied any usage of depleted uranium before it was discovered at Schofield Barracks. Despite her statements, Harden said she is not necessarily against the military. "There are two sides to the issue. Some say they protect us and others say they make us a target," she said. "If they are here with the permission of the Hawaiian nation, then I think it is OK." http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2007/04/26/local/local03.txt ***************************************************************** 59 recordonline.com: KI pill pickup still available Sunday April 29, 2007 By Greg Bruno Goshen – Residents of southeastern Orange County who missed distribution of radiation protection pills yesterday should contact officials in Goshen to schedule pickup. Potassium iodide, or KI, is meant to protect the thyroid gland in the event of a release of radioactive iodine from the Indian Point nuclear power plant. They do not protect against other forms of radiation exposure; health experts say the best defense is evacuation. KI tablets are free and recommended for residents in the town of Highlands and the Village of Highland Falls, as well as portions of Cornwall, Woodbury and Tuxedo. For more information, call the county’s division of emergency management at 800-942-7136. Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, serving New York"s Hudson Valley and the Catskills. Phone: (845) 341-1100 ***************************************************************** 60 www.uruknet.info: Depleted Uranium - Poisoning U.S. Troops And The Planet Free Internet Press April 26, 2007 Lori Brim cradled her son in her arms for three months before he died at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. Dustin Brim, a 22-year-old Army specialist had collapsed three years ago in Iraq from a very aggressive cancer that attacked his kidney, caused a mass to grow over his esophagus and collapsed a lung. The problems she saw during her time at Walter Reed, including her son screaming in pain while doctors argued over medications, had nothing to do with mold and shabby conditions documented in recent news reports. What this mother saw was an unexplainable illness consuming her son. And what she has learned since her son's death is that his is not an isolated case. Lori Brim has joined other parents, hundreds of other sick soldiers, legislators, research scientists and environmental activists who say the cause of their problems results from exposure to depleted uranium, a radioactive metal used in the manufacture of U.S. tank armor and weapon casings. Health and environmental effects of depleted uranium are at the heart of scientific studies, a lawsuit in the New York courts and legislative bills in more than a dozen states (although not in Florida). News stories claiming negative signs of depleted uranium's impact, including death and birth defects, are surfacing from Australia to England to the Far East. The controversy rages within government bodies and underlies the theme of TV shows like a recent episode of the medical series "House." While the military continues to deny the connection of depleted uranium to sicknesses plaguing returning servicemen and women, a newly mandated study stemming from legislation signed by President Bush in October is just getting under way. Opposition The new study, which began in March, follows several that have been completed by the military into depleted uranium, a byproduct left when enriched uranium is separated out for use in nuclear power and atomic weapons. The Department of Energy gives it to arms makers, where its extreme density is valuable in the manufacture of armor and casings. Despite a 1996 U.N. resolution opposing its use because of discovery of health problems after the first Gulf War, the military studies have concluded there was no evidence that exposure to the metal caused illnesses. To the military, the effectiveness of weapons and armor made with depleted uranium outweighs any residual effects. Their bottom line: Depleted uranium saves soldiers' lives in combat. Robert Holloway, president of Nevada Technical Associates Inc., a firm that specializes in radiation safety training, disputes any concern over depleted uranium. "I have no financial interest in promoting depleted uranium," Holloway wrote in an e-mail to The News-Journal. "There really is no substitute for depending on the judgment of professionals in this field." Holloway and others who believe depleted uranium is safe to use say the best authority in the scientific community would be individuals connected to the Health Physics Society. Doug Craig of Ponce Inlet, a retired radiation biophysics scientist, is such a person. He doesn't believe low doses of radiation from depleted uranium are a problem. "Uranium occurs in a lot of places," Craig said, "and man has been exposed to low concentrations of uranium for a long time." Laws and Lawsuits But Brim and others think there will not be enough known until soldiers are tested for exposure. They compare the debate over depleted uranium to the controversy surrounding Agent Orange, the toxic herbicide used to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam. Speculation over its effects continued for more than two decades before the Defense Department agreed to compensate veterans who suffered from ailments linked to its use. Brim often comforts other mothers whose sons and daughters are suffering from unexplainable, aggressive cancers, like a Michigan mother Brim met on the Internet. The Michigan mom says she believes malignant tumors that resulted in removal of her Marine son's ear, ear canal and half his face may be linked to depleted uranium. But the woman asks that her name not be used because her son still is a Marine - battling cancer, not bullets. And he has not been tested for D.U. exposure, she says. In addition to consoling other mothers, Brim has tried unsuccessfully to raise awareness of the issue either through legislation or a lawsuit. She recently traveled to Tallahassee with cancer lobbyists and left plate-size booster buttons with her son's image, trying to raise the consciousness of Florida legislators. But she says she has not been able to interest anyone in creating a bill similar to one passed last year in Connecticut - the first state law in the nation aimed at helping National Guard personnel returning from Iraq to get tested for exposure to depleted uranium. Other veterans are seeking help from legislators in states around the country, like Melissa Sterry, 44, of Connecticut, who served during the Persian Gulf War and suffers from multiple symptoms, including chronic headaches, infections and multiple heart attacks. Sterry is an activist who keeps track of more than a dozen states that have introduced bills. That includes her home state, where a veterans' health registry is being created as a database for the federal government. Among the current list of states working on individual legislation, Arizona has state Rep. Albert Tom, a Democrat. For three years he introduced the issue of testing National Guardsmen, each time a bit differently. He patterned a bill after the Connecticut law this year. "Again it was heard (in committee), but it just didn't go anywhere," said Tom. Veterans might have better luck in court. Brim is closely following a trial in New York, where - despite a precedent that prevents military personnel from suing the government for injuries resulting from their service - eight National Guard veterans have won the right to be heard about their depleted uranium exposure. One veteran in that suit, Gerard Matthew, says not only is he sick, but contends his little girl's birth deformities are related to his exposure to depleted uranium. The deformity, Matthew said, is similar to many being reported within the Iraqi population since the first Gulf War. Depleted Uranium News Update Oct. 2006: President George W. Bush signed the Department of Defense Authorization legislation. The House amendment was authored and introduced by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wa.) ordering a comprehensive study - with a report due in one year - on possible adverse health effects on U.S. soldiers from the U.S. military's use of DU - Depleted Uranium. The Senate companion bill was backed by Joe Lieberman of Conn., a democrat at the time. (McDermott's Web site: http://www.house.gov/mcdermott) Feb. 6, 2007: The New York newspaper, The Post Chronicle, reported that U.S. government scientists at the Ames Laboratory in Iowa say they are close to developing nanostructured material of tungsten and metallic glass to eliminate the use of depleted uranium in ammunition. In a recent phone call by The News-Journal to senior scientist Dan Sordelet, reported to be leading the research team, he said he is "no longer working on that" and declined to give any further information. March 23, 2007: The Tico Times of San Jose, Costa Rica, reported that the U.S. and Costa Rican activists are lobbying to enlist Costa Rica's Nobel Peace Prize winner and disarmament defender to lead their uphill battle against the military use of a popular radioactive weapon. April 3, 2007: ABC News Online, Australia, reports that the Australian Veterans Affairs Minister Bruce Billson says he is concerned the group "Depleted Uranium Silent Killer," which is opposed to the use of depleted uranium weapons, is using Gulf War veterans to run an anti-uranium scare campaign. The group says overseas tests confirm two Sunshine Coast veterans from the first Gulf War - one in the Army and the other in the Navy - were exposed to the heavy metal during their service 15 years ago. April 10, 2007: Star Tribune (Minneapolis, Minnesota) reports a state Senate committee OK'd a bill providing for testing veteran national guardsmen returning from Iraq to see if dust from spent-uranium munitions has harmed them. Link: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1112856.html. Intellpuke: This article first appeared by Daytona Beach News Journal reporter Audrey Parente first appeared in that publication on Sunday, April 15, 2007. You can it in context here: www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042007B.shtml :: Article nr. 32443 sent on 27-apr-2007 04:48 ECT www.uruknet.info?p=32443 ***************************************************************** 61 Brisbane Times: Face-saving ballot delivers narrow uranium mining win - brisbanetimes.com.au Kerry-Anne Walsh | April 29, 2007 A LABOR government would expand uranium mining after leader Kevin Rudd yesterday successfully led a charge to dump its 23-year-old policy on banning new mines. After 48 hours of intense jockeying and an afternoon of heated debate at the national conference, the policy was overturned by just 15 votes, 205 to 190. An unsuccessful amendment from two of Mr Rudd's senior frontbenchers, Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett, would have maintained the ban until issues such as the safe disposal of nuclear waste were resolved. Sources said the mood among delegates and rank-and-file was to maintain the ban, but a decision was taken not to "humiliate" Mr Rudd on the conference floor. At least 20 delegates from Victoria, NSW, South Australia and Queensland sent proxy delegates in to vote on the policy. They included senior right-wing and union figures, who supported Mr Albanese's amendment but bowed to political pressure to support Mr Rudd. A Labor government would now allow the mining and exporting of uranium under "stringent conditions". These would include issues around worker safety and the effective operation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Mr Rudd told the conference that lifting the ban was not in response to climate change but to make Labor's policy more realistic. He said the Prime Minister's plans to establish 25 nuclear reactors by 2050 - announced yesterday in a mischievous bid to disrupt Labor's uranium policy debate - made no economic or environmental sense. Mr Albanese and Mr Garrett, and half-a-dozen other delegates, spoke passionately on the need for Labor to retain the policy. "This goes to the heart of what our values as a party are," Mr Albanese said. Mr Garrett, who made his pop music name with strong anti-uranium lyrics, said: "I have always been committed to us being nuclear free. I'm opposed to uranium mining . . . I'm unapologetic about it - in fact, I'm proud." Aspiring Labor candidate Bill Shorten infuriated delegates when he said it would be a bad idea to "roll" Mr Rudd before the election. Frontbencher Martin Ferguson provoked catcalls when he said Mr Rudd's policy should be supported because he was "sick and tired" of being "a Labor Party frontbencher in opposition". Mr Howard said advice to the Government showed Australia was giving up a major economic opportunity because of barriers on uranium mining and exports. "In light of the significance of global climate change and, as the world's largest holder of uranium reserves, Australia has a clear responsibility to develop its uranium resources in a sustainable way, irrespective of whether or not we end up using nuclear power," he said. Greens Senator Christine Milne accused Mr Howard and Mr Rudd of "cosying up" to big business without any thought about the dangers posed by uranium-powered nuclear plants. "We are witnessing a new low in moral cowardice in Australia," Senator Milne said. "We are seeing the Prime Minister trying to drive a wedge within the Labor Party by making climate change a political football and we are seeing Labor engage in gross hypocrisy." Source: The Sun-Herald Agreement Copyright © 2007. Brisbane Times. ***************************************************************** 62 Brisbane Times: Australia's responsibility to cash in on uranium - PM - brisbanetimes.com.au April 29, 2007 PRIME Minister John Howard has promised to remove all excessive restrictions on the mining, processing and exporting of Australian uranium as a possible step to embarking on domestic nuclear-power generation. Mr Howard, launching the new policy in Melbourne yesterday, said expert advice to the Government clearly showed Australia was giving up a major economic opportunity as a result of the excessive barriers on uranium mining and exports. He said: "In light of the significance of global climate change and as the world's largest holder of uranium reserves, Australia has a clear responsibility to develop its uranium resources in a sustainable way, irrespective of whether or not we end up using nuclear power." Mr Howard said nuclear energy was a key source of clean energy in 30 countries, supplying 15per cent of the world's electricity and this was set to grow. "I am announcing today a new strategy for the future development of uranium mining and nuclear power in Australia," he said. "The Government will implement this strategy to increase uranium exports and to prepare for a possible expansion of the nuclear industry in Australia." Mr Howard said relevant ministers and their departments were to start this work immediately and to report to the cabinet by around September. Work plans are to be implemented in 2008, he said. Source: The Sun-Herald Agreement Copyright © 2007. Brisbane Times. ***************************************************************** 63 Sydney Morning Herald: Garrett to play ball on uranium, says Rudd - www.smh.com.au April 29, 2007 - 12:00AM The federal opposition's environment spokesman Peter Garrett is a team player and will now promote the party's stance on uranium mining despite his well-known opposition, the opposition leader Kevin Rudd says. Labor voted yesterday to expand its uranium mining policy to allow the opening of more uranium mines. Mr Rudd said it was a very close vote. "This was a very narrow run thing in the national conference of the Labor Party yesterday," Mr Rudd told ABC TV today. "I think we got up in the end by just 10 or 15 votes out of many hundreds of delegates." Before the vote, Mr Garrett made a passionate plea to his colleagues not to support the policy, but did not secure enough support. Mr Rudd said the environment spokesman would now move on. "Any political party ... contains within it a whole range of views which we formalise through democratic processes at conferences like this one here," the Labor Leader said. "And guess what? Not everyone always gets their own way - I don't get my way on everything - I understand that. "Therefore it is our job, however, to take our unified message out to the Australian people. "What I really appreciate about Peter however is that he's prepared to be a team player," Mr Rudd said. Mr Rudd said the Labor Party's decision on uranium mining recognised the importance of Australia's resources to the rest of the world. "We've just got to recognise the reality that we are a significant exporter of uranium to the rest of the world and we have the world's largest uranium resources and we think that our conference policy reflects that continuing reality," he said. "We see this as a step forward for other economies which don't have the same rich array of energy options that Australia has." Mr Rudd said uranium mining had been a sensitive issue within the Labor Party for a long time, but it was time for a change. But he said Labor's approach to uranium and opposition to nuclear power was more appropriate than the current federal government's stance. Howard denies political suicide Prime Minister John Howard today said Nuclear energy must be pursued because it will help in the battle against climate change without destroying the economy. "We have to make sure that whatever we do in this country benefits Australia and doesn't damage our economy," Mr Howard told the Nine Network today. Mr Howard announced plans yesterday to open the way for nuclear power stations in Australia. "There are only two ways that you can ... generate baseload power in this country," Mr Howard said. "You can do it with fossil fuel or you can do it with nuclear power, now that's not my view, it's the view of the chief scientist of Australia and it's the view of anybody who understands this." Mr Howard said it would be more than 10 years before Australia had any nuclear power stations. He denied his decision was political suicide. "The Labor Party will run scare campaigns against the government no matter what we do. "In the end, the Australian public will appreciate candour on public policy issues and if we are really serious about climate change we have to look at everything. "We have to look at solar, we have to look at wind, we have to look at clean coal technology and we have to look at nuclear. "Those big power stations which we all need to provide electricity cannot blow on wind or solar, good though those sources may be, they need either fossil fuels or in time nuclear. "If we're fair dinkum we have to look at every option and that's what I want the Australian public to do.'' Mr Rudd said: "The whole question of Mr Howard's 25 nuclear reactors coming to an electorate near you, I think, just flies in the face of Australia's current energy policy reality. I mean this is a country with vast energy resources." Mr Rudd said there needed to be more investment in renewables such as solar power, wind and geothermal energies to fight climate change, as well as clean coal. "What Mr Howard is doing with his 25 nuclear reactor program among other things is hauling up the white flag on the future of Australia's coal exports." But, he said a real step forward on climate change is unlikely with the current government. "How can a government so full of climate change sceptics ever credibly be part of Australia's climate change solution?" Coal-miners' union backs Labor Coal miners and coal-fired power station workers believe Labor will better protect their jobs than the coalition, their union says. Prime Minister John Howard has consistently warned that a Labor government would destroy jobs in the coal industry because of its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. But as Labor adopted its environment policy at its national conference today, Tony Maher, from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) said coal workers recognised that change was crucial to protecting their jobs in the long term. "The CFMEU is very proud to support the climate change initiatives of the Labor Party,'' Mr Maher said. "Why am I confident that coal miners and power station workers will readily accept them and not be subject to the jobs wedge campaign of John Howard, I know that because they've already voted on a policy very similar to this. "he workers know that the only real job security that coal miners and power workers have is if we solve the CO2 greenhouse gas problem, not if we avoid it. "The only real threat to job security ... is John Howard's 25 nuclear reactors.'' Mr Maher said workers in the industry wanted Kyoto ratified, higher renewable energy targets and an emissions trading scheme. "The union knows and industry knows - Rio Tinto knows, BHP knows - that they need a price on carbon,'' he said. "We need a massive investment in low emission coal technology.'' AAP Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald. ***************************************************************** 64 deseretnews.com: Bennett rips timetable on Moab cleanup Saturday, April 28, 2007 He doesn't want Moab project to take 21 years By Suzanne Struglinski Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON ? The Energy Department's latest timetable for cleaning up uranium tailings from a mill site in Moab is "unacceptable," Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, told Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in a letter sent Friday. Douglas C. Pizac, Associated Press Rainwater pools atop the tailings mound from the former Atlas uranium mill outside Moab, by the Colorado River. The Energy Department initially predicted cleanup of the Atlas uranium mill site would take seven to 10 years, but more recently has estimated a 21-year time frame to complete the task. "I am concerned that the Department of Energy is unnecessarily falling behind schedule," Bennett said, adding the project is one of his "top priorities." Bodman told the House Energy and Commerce Committee in February that the tailings may not be removed until 2028, which shocked Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, who sits on the committee. Matheson also has sent a letter to Bodman about concerns that the agency is not acting fast enough on the issue. The project, as approved by Congress, is to move the 16 million tons of uranium mill tailings from a pile near the Colorado River, north of Moab, to a location near Grand Junction, Colo. James A. Rispoli, assistant secretary of energy for environmental management with the Department of Energy, told Bennett at a Senate hearing in March that he does not see the 2028 date as a delay. "It's just a planning number that we had and that's the number we gave to the secretary to use based upon what we estimate," Rispoli said in response to questions from Bennett. The department is in the process of picking a contractor to work on the site. But in his letter, Bennett asks that the selected company stick to the original seven-to-10-year plan laid out in the environmental impact statement. He also asks for a cost comparison of the original plan compared to a 21-year plan. "Removing the tailings expeditiously is critical not only for my state but also for the more than 25 million downstream water users in the Colorado River basin," Bennett wrote. E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com © 2007 Deseret News Publishing Company ***************************************************************** 65 Pahrump Valley Times: Mina off the table, Caliente is back on Apr. 27, 2007 YUCCA MOUNTAIN By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy is refocusing its plans for a Nevada railroad to Yucca Mountain after the Walker River Paiute Indians announced they no longer were interested in having nuclear waste shipped across their reservation, a DOE official said Wednesday. A Northern Nevada railroad corridor that would have crossed tribal territory in Mineral County will no longer be considered, according to Ward Sproat, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. DOE now will dedicate itself to completing studies of a rail corridor to the waste repository site that originates in eastern Nevada near Caliente, Sproat said. "I wish they would have told us sooner, but they told us now," Sproat said of the Walker River Paiutes. Following a vote by its governing council, the tribe announced April 17 that it was withdrawing from environmental studies of the Mina rail corridor, named after a site on Highway 95 northwest of Tonopah. Sproat said the Mina corridor studies essentially were done, and still would be included in an environmental impact statement that DOE expects to make public in October, along with its assessment of the Caliente corridor. But, Sproat said, the Mina route "essentially wouldn't be considered as a viable alternative. So Caliente most probably we will end up sticking with and providing in our formal record of decision." The DOE official gave a presentation to a conference organized by the U.S. Transport Council, whose members are organizations tied to nuclear materials shipping. The tribe's participation was the key element of a strategy to route nuclear waste cargo on rail through Northern Nevada, and then south to the repository through old mining districts once served by rail. Nuclear waste bound for Yucca Mountain would have used tracks that run through the middle of the Paiute community of Schurz. As a possible condition of the tribe's participation, the possibility of relocating the rail line away from the town was being studied. "I don't view this as a setback," Sproat said. "It is one less option that could have been cheaper and faster to build, but it is not something that is a major difficulty to us." Gary Lanthrum, transportation director for the Yucca program, said the tribe's decision effectively closes the door on any rail route through western Nevada. In the early days of the Yucca program, DOE identified a branch that would essentially go around the Walker River reservation. But Lanthrum said in an interview that path was "longer and more problematic. It is very rough terrain, rougher than Caliente, and it makes (the route) as long or longer than Caliente." Lanthrum also said he doubted there was time to develop other railroad options. "The tribe said no before, then they said yes, then said no again," Lanthrum said. "We have done our due diligence looking at all the viable alternatives. I might feel better if the tribe were still at the table but they may still pay close attention to how the report comes out." DOE officials and some in the nuclear shipping industry officials believed the 280-mile Mina corridor could have proved a less expensive and easier-to-build alternative to 319-mile Caliente corridor, where price projections have eclipsed $2 billion. Critics say the Mina corridor could expose more communities to waste shipments. Opposition began to build in cities like Reno and Sparks. Bob Halstead, a transportation consultant to the state of Nevada, said the Energy Department will have its hands full trying to develop the Caliente route. "The assurances that we are hearing that this is not big deal that Mina has dropped off, maybe that is good damage control, maybe that is wishful thinking," Halstead said. Halstead said DOE faces engineering challenges at several locations along the Caliente corridor, and also resistance from disgruntled ranchers and the sponsors of "City," a monumental desert art exhibit in Garden Valley. webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - ***************************************************************** 66 AU ABC: Rudd gets his way on uranium mines ABC New South Wales (ACST)Saturday, 28 April 2007. 14:29 (AWST) The Labor conference has backed Kevin Rudd on uranium miningGetty Images The Australian Labor Party national conference has narrowly supported Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's motion to scrap the "no new uranium mines" policy. Mr Rudd's proposal was backed by 205 conference delegates, while 190 supported frontbencher Anthony Albanese's motion to maintain the ban on new uranium mines. Mr Rudd's motion sparked the only heated debate of the conference so far. The Opposition Leader opposes nuclear power in Australia, but he told the conference the ban on new mines should be lifted because other countries needed uranium. "Friends, the reason we have this same amendment before us today is because other countries in the world do not have the same rich set of energy options as we do," he said. Mr Albanese led the case to keep the ban, saying: "You can guarantee that uranium will lead to nuclear waste. You can't guarantee that it won't lead to nuclear weapons. Union leader Bill Shorten called on conference to support Mr Rudd's motion. "If you think that rolling the leader is a great idea then go ahead and vote for the Albanese-Garrett amendment," he said. New party president John Faulkner was among those who voted for Mr Albanese's motion, but shortly after announced that Mr Rudd's motion was carried. The debate came as Prime Minister John Howard outlined the Government's plan to develop a nuclear power industry in Australia. Mr Howard told the Victorian Liberal Party conference that the country needed to reassess its energy production in the face of climate change. He said Australia's only feasible options were clean coal technology and nuclear power. ***************************************************************** 67 Aiken Today: GNEP takes the next step AikenStandard.com Sat, Apr 28, 2007 By MICHAEL W. GIBBONS Managing Editor The next milestone in what could ultimately bring 8,000 new jobs to the Savannah River Site has been reached. The Economic Development Partnership of Aiken and Edgefield Counties submitted a report to the Department of Energy Friday presenting its case as to why the Savannah River Site should be selected for a new nuclear materials recycling mission. Under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, an ambitious energy program brought forth by the Bush administration in 2005, the U.S. and other nuclear powers would provide selected nations with fuel rods for commercial reactors to produce electricity, then collect the spent rods before plutonium could be stockpiled for weapons. The EDP has teamed with Washington Group International (parent company of Washington Savannah River Company, which operates SRS), Areva (a French-based nuclear company) and Battelle (a technical development company) to try and draw the potential $16 billion in capital investments to the area. The program will initially build two facilities ? a nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor ? which will serve as prototypes for future facilities. Ernest Chaput, who is in charge of special projects for EDP, said that infrastructure at the SRS, work and safety performance and employee and knowledge bases make it the most logical choice. "It's like the Site was made for the projects. It meets and exceeds all the requirements," he said. Ten other sites are also vying for the missions. The Department of Energy may select a single site for both facilities or a site for each one. Chaput would like to see SRS tapped for both facilities. "We truly believe it makes sense to have them both together," he said. Jack Herrmann, vice president of communications for Washington Group, said that there are around 8,000 nuclear workers at the Savannah River Site, providing an unmatched talent pool. "Aiken has the best collection of certified, licensed and experienced nuclear technical talent of any location in the world," he said. Chaput said DOE could select a site or sites as early as next spring. Once site selection is made, operation would still be 12-15 years out. Despite being more than a decade away, Chaput feels it is important to become a player in what he calls a "nuclear renaissance," where nuclear power is being touted globally as the clean alternative for the future. Currently, there are plans on the table for about 25 commercial nuclear reactors throughout the U.S. and about 250 worldwide. "If you're going to electrify the world, nuclear is going to have to carry a large part of that," he said. The Southern Carolina Regional Development Alliance, which represents Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell and Hampton counties, is teaming with EnergySolutions to submit a GNEP proposal for Barnwell County. © 2005 The AikenStandard. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 68 The State: Woman took on nuclear waste dump and won 04/29/2007 By SAMMY FRETWELL - The (Columbia) State * http://www.thestate.com COLUMBIA, S.C. -- For Ann Timberlake, a recent campaign to close a nuclear waste dump in South Carolina was like preserving the Congaree Swamp three decades ago. "It was the right thing to do," Timberlake said on a recent walk through the national park land she helped protect in the 1970s. Timberlake, a diminutive 60-year-old with the tenacity of a pit bull, recently engineered one of the most shocking legislative victories in years for South Carolina environmentalists. She and her five-year-old conservation group stared down a team of high-powered nuclear waste lobbyists and soundly whipped them. Through hours of research, e-mails and discussions with lawmakers, conservationists persuaded a legislative panel to close Barnwell County's radioactive waste dump to the nation. On March 28, the House agriculture committee voted 16-0 to shutter the dump next year to all but three states, despite the committee's reputation of favoring business concerns over the environment. Debate is expected to resurface before next year's closure deadline, but the committee's March decision effectively killed legislation for 2007. Many credit Timberlake, director of the Conservation Voters of South Carolina, as the reason legislators voted that way. She also received credit last week for helping persuade 109 state lawmakers to sign a letter asking presidential candidates to discuss climate change in South Carolina. Feisty, charming and organized, the Georgia-born Timberlake gets high marks from conservationists and many lawmakers for her political skills. During the landfill debate, she kept the message of various environmentalists focused and relevant, observers say. "Ann was the glue to all this," said Carol Black, a Columbia resident who worked to close the landfill. "Ann is friendly and smooth and polite. She doesn't get in your face. She tries very hard to get accurate information. I can't tell you the amount of time she spent researching this issue, talking to people and making sure she understands." State Rep. Ted Vick, D-Chesterfield, said Timberlake's intense but friendly style impressed lawmakers. "Some environmental groups have been unreasonable with their requests and demands," said Vick, a committee member. "She crystallized the environmental groups together, and the tables turned" in their favor. Critics say Timberlake is a partisan attack dog, effective at pushing Democratic Party goals at any cost - a charge she has long denied. She faced withering criticism from Barnwell County leaders during this year's legislative debate. "She's a nice enough person, but I don't agree with her tactics or her organization," said Rick Quinn, a former GOP state representative who lost his seat in 2004 after Timberlake targeted him for defeat in the Republican primary. "The partisan aspects drive them, as opposed to environmental issues." Timberlake said she's glad the Legislature agreed the landfill needs closing. The Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and an interstate atomic waste commission chairman worked hard to get the word out, she said. "It was like harvesting the fruit of your labors," she said. Information from: The State, http://www.thestate.com ***************************************************************** 69 West Australian: Garrett to promote uranium mining - Rudd : thewest.com.au 29th April 2007, 8:36 WST The federal opposition's environment spokesman Peter Garrett is a team player and will now promote the party's stance on uranium mining despite his well-known opposition, Labor leader Kevin Rudd says. Labor voted on Saturday to expand its uranium mining policy to allow the opening of more uranium mines. Mr Rudd said it was a very close vote. "This was a very narrow run thing in the national conference of the Labor Party yesterday," Mr Rudd told ABC TV. "I think we got up in the end by just 10 or 15 votes out of many hundreds of delegates." Before the vote, Mr Garrett made a passionate plea to his colleagues not to support the policy, but did not secure enough support. Mr Rudd said the environment spokesman would now move on. "Any political party ... contains within it a whole range of views which we formalise through democratic processes at conferences like this one here," the Labor Leader said. "And guess what? Not everyone always gets their own way - I don't get my way on everything - I understand that. "Therefore it is our job, however, to take our unified message out to the Australian people." Mr Rudd said Mr Garrett would now move on, promoting Labor's climate change policies including uranium mining. "What I really appreciate about Peter however is that he's prepared to be a team player," Mr Rudd said. Mr Rudd said the Labor Party's decision on uranium mining recognised the importance of Australia's resources to the rest of the world. "We've just got to recognise the reality that we are a significant exporter of uranium to the rest of the world and we have the world's largest uranium resources and we think that our conference policy reflects that continuing reality," he said. "We see this as a step forward for other economies which don't have the same rich array of energy options that Australia has." Mr Rudd said uranium mining had been a sensitive issue within the Labor Party for a long time, but it was time for a change. But he said Labor's approach to uranium and opposition to nuclear power was more appropriate than the current federal government's stance. Prime Minister John Howard on Saturday flagged the government's intention to remove all unnecessary restrictions on mining, processing and exporting uranium, opening the way for domestic nuclear power generation. "The whole question of Mr Howard's 25 nuclear reactors coming to an electorate near you, I think, just flies in the face of Australia's current energy policy reality," Mr Rudd said. "I mean this is a country with vast energy resources." Mr Rudd said there needed to be more investment in renewables such as solar power, wind and geothermal energies to fight climate change, as well as clean coal. "What Mr Howard is doing with his 25 nuclear reactor program among other things is hauling up the white flag on the future of Australia's coal exports." But, he said a real step forward on climate change is unlikely with the current government. "How can a government so full of climate change sceptics ever credibly be part of Australia's climate change solution?" AAP West Australian Newspapers Limited 2007. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 70 Western Australian: Labor scraps no new uranium mines policy : thewest.com.au 28th April 2007, 14:39 WST Labor leader Kevin Rudd has won his battle to dump his party's no new uranium mines policy at the ALP national conference. After 90 minutes of passionate debate, the conference voted 205 to 190 to defeat an amendment by Labor frontbenchers Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett to keep the ban. Mr Rudd's amendment to scrap the ban, seconded by South Australian Premier Mike Rann, was then passed on the voices without a formal vote being recorded. Federal frontbencher Stephen Conroy was the only member of Labor's leadership team to vote with Mr Albanese and Mr Garrett. Two protesters were kicked out after they pulled out a flag and began shouting slogans at Mr Rudd as he left the conference floor following the vote. AAP West Australian Newspapers Limited 2007. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 71 Western Australian: Rudd denies uranium policy hypocritical : thewest.com.au 30th April 2007, 6:06 WST Labor's plan to expand uranium mining but oppose nuclear power is not hypocritical, Labor leader Kevin Rudd says. At its national conference on the weekend, Labor announced a plan to drop its long-held ban on new uranium mines and continue to oppose nuclear power. The government accused Labor of hypocrisy but Mr Rudd said that because Australia, unlike many countries, is abundant in energy resources, like solar, wind, geothermal and coal, there is no need to go nuclear. "There are a whole bunch of other countries around the world which are not so energy rich, and therefore they do need uranium," Mr Rudd told the Nine Network. "We have been selling uranium for many, many years and our policy simply recognises that new reality. "Mr Howard's plan by contrast is to forget coal, forget clean coal, turn your back on the coal industry and instead let's build 25 nuclear reactors in a suburb near you." AAP West Australian Newspapers Limited 2007. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 72 Chillicothe Gazette: Report condemns nuke project www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Sunday, April 29, 2007 Local group maintains its safety, begins support campaign By ASHLEY LYKINS Gazette Staff Writer The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is toyed with "fast and loose" by the White House, according to a group that released a report last week. The partnership proposes recycling used nuclear fuel through new facilities, which could go to Piketon. A press release from Friends of the Earth, who collaborated with Institute for Policy Studies senior scholar Robert Alvarez on a report, call the plan "shoddy." However, in the face of criticism, proponents of the partnership maintain the project has benefits and is safe. The Southern Ohio Nuclear Integration Cooperative, which is made up of Piketon-based Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative and for-profit Piketon Initiative for Nuclear Independence, was one of 11 groups around the country awarded a grant to do a detailed siting study. The study will determined the appropriateness of Piketon to host two possible GNEP facilities: an advanced nuclear fuel recycling center and an advanced recycling reactor. The recycling center would separate used nuclear fuel into its reusable and waste components; GNEP proponents state 95 percent of the fuel is still reusable. The reactor would obliterate radioactive aspects of the used fuel while generating electricity. If Piketon is chosen as the site -a decision that's slated to be released in summer 2008 -spent nuclear fuel rods would be transported there from all over the nation, and perhaps the world. Additionally, proponents maintain the process would both reduce permanent nuclear waste, as well as prevent proliferation because nuclear-capable countries, such as the U.S. and France, would provide reprocessing services to other countries that agree not to pursue the programs themselves. The opposing report states "crucial to the GNEP plan is using a new, unproven type of chemical reprocessing of spent fuel from power reactors in the United States and possibly other nations." However, Dan Minter, a member of SODI's board, said if GNEP chooses to go down a technology path already in use by plants in places such as France, it has been proven. "They have not determined a technology path as of yet," he said. "If they use something Japan or France has, it would be proven ... It's speculation on someone's part." Something else that depends on the chosen technology is the environmental reaction to GNEP, which Minter maintains would be safe. "Unlike direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel rods, reprocessing involves chemical separation of radioisotopes and creates multiple waste streams," states the report's abstract. "It also releases large volumes of radioactivity into the environment ..." Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder agreed. "If the government follows through on its plans for nuclear production and disposal, it could result in the largest, lethal source of high-heat radioactivity in the United States and possibly the world," he said in a news release. However, standards don't allow that sort of pollution, said Minter. "I would suspect the (technology) path would have to meet regulatory requirements, which don't allow you to have radioactivity in the environment," he said, noting nuclear-based energy is cleaner than other sources, such as coal, which does pollute. "It's odd that of the rest of the industrial nations, France has the cleanest water and air ... and they reprocess." Minter traveled to La Hague, a 2-mile-long recycling facility based in France, to see first-hand its reprocessing plants. Dan Moore, president of SONIC, said at a meeting last month that the facility created jobs for 6,000 people and cost about $15 billion. Furthermore, he said it proved to him that the technology could be "done safely." The institute's countering report further maintains the Department of Energy's "troubled experience with defense high-level wastes should also serve as a cautionary warning" - something Minter said has nothing to do with GNEP. "Defense materials were used for different testing processes," he said. "And you have different risks associated with that than you would nuclear fuel ... Some of the folks believe a nuclear reactor is an atomic bomb, and those are totally different technologies." Friends of the Earth, in the group's release, call the GNEP plan "risky." However, Matt Allen, another board member of SODI, has other thoughts. "If we don't recycle these nuclear fuel rods, I think that is risky," he said. "Right now, where we're going, if we don't do something to curb the use of these nuclear fuel rods, we'll have to build more Yucca Mountains in the future -and I think that's risky. (We have a) capacity to create energy in a way that doesn't harm our environment." Yucca Mountain is the proposed geological repository where the reduced permanent waste would be stored after reprocessing. Allen is the vice chair of the Ross County Community Outreach Group, a committee that formed under the SONIC umbrella about a month and a half ago. It launched a letter-writing campaign that Allen said has been successful. "(The number of letters is) in the thousands," he said. "One of the reasons why we formed the group was to try to highlight the fact that this is a community-afforded project ... The potential for the payoff for this is huge." Ross County Commissioner Frank Hirsch, also a part of the committee, said he's also trying to get letters written. "It is a very needed, environmentally safe source of energy," he said. "The clean-up part, recycling part, of it appeals to me ... The thing we have to get across to people is nuclear energy is safe, if you follow the guidelines. France has proven that." (Lykins can be reached at 772-9376 or via e-mail at anlykins@nncogannett.com) Originally published April 29, 2007 Print this article E-mail this Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 73 The Australian: Labor backs Rudd's uranium stance NEWS.com.au | * April 28, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP * By Sandra O'Malley, Belinda Tasker and Maria Hawthorne KEVIN Rudd has narrowly managed to convince Labor to cast aside a 25 year policy banning new uranium mines. After nearly two hours of debate, delegates at the Labor national conference in Sydney today backed their leader's proposal to expand uranium mining but only after an alternate plan to delay the decision was defeated by the narrowest of margins. The issue - cast as a test of Mr Rudd's leadership and Labor's fitness for government - divided the Opposition front bench and sparked a passionate debate on the conference floor. Deputy Senate leader Stephen Conroy, a member of Mr Rudd's leadership team, voted against the uranium expansion plan, backing the alternative put forward by Opposition frontbenchers Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett. Senator Conroy later refused to discuss his decision. Mr Albanese and Mr Garrett had wanted any decision on new mines deferred until stricter safeguards were put in place to deal with nuclear non-proliferation and associated radioactive waste. Their proposal was defeated by a slim 190 to 205 - a margin much closer than had been anticipated. However, they won backing for a proposal banning uranium mining in national parks and world heritage areas. As Labor grappled with its difficult policy dilemma, Prime Minister John Howard flagged the Government's intention to remove all unnecessary restrictions on mining, processing and exporting uranium, opening the way for domestic nuclear power generation. Mr Rudd derided Mr Howard's plan, calling it the “Montgomery Burns solution”, referring to the maniacal nuclear reactor boss in the cartoon series The Simpsons. He told the conference that the change in Labor policy was needed because not all countries were blessed with the energy alternatives enjoyed by Australia. “The challenge is as we debate this amendment to recognise the reality that around the world there are so many economies who do not have and possess the rich range of energy options which we in this country have at our disposal,” Mr Rudd said. “We have been supplying uranium to them for many years and this amendment seeks to recognise that reality into the years ahead.” But Mr Albanese told delegates that it wasn't a risk worth taking. “If you're cautious about further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, vote for my amendment,” he said. “If you think that it's pretty arrogant to suggest that we know what will happen to geology, climate, and importantly, political changes over the next 240,000 years, think there might be a doubt about it - vote for my amendment. “If you think it actually matters that every person in this room knows that ALP members at the rank-and-file level support my amendment, then vote for it. I think it does matter. “Let's put out a consistently clear position that says we don't want any further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. Vote for my amendment.” Mr Garrett, who campaigned for nuclear disarmament when he was the frontman of Midnight Oil, promised he still had the anti-nuclear fire in his belly. “I've long been opposed to uranium mining. I'm unapologetic about it. In fact I'm proud of it,” he said. But rising Labor star and union boss Bill Shorten, who has won preselection for the next election, said that Labor values weren't worth much if the party wasn't in power. “Not voting for change will undermine us at the next election,” he said. “For me, you can have all the Labor values in the world but they're not much good if you're in Opposition. "Winning is important to changing all of the issues.” He made it clear the party was risking government if it went against Mr Rudd. “If you think that rolling the leader is a great idea then go ahead and vote for the Albanese-Garrett amendment,” Mr Shorten said. Mr Albanese later said that he was not disappointed by the result because it was so close. “I think it's pretty hard to be disappointed with the vote when we were in a minority by only eight votes,” he said. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 74 AU ABC: ALP still digesting uranium decision. 29/04/2007. ABC News Online Peter Garrett says despite voting against the decision, he accepts it. (Getty Images) ALP still digesting uranium decision There is fallout from Labor's move to allow more uranium mines, with some in the party angry at the nature of the debate and others determined to move on to attacking the Coalition's plans for a domestic nuclear industry. Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd's push for more uranium mines led to passionate debate and only made it through by 15 votes yesterday. Mr Rudd says the division within Labor over its uranium policy will not undermine the party's ability to promote it before the next election. He has told ABC TV's Insiders program that the normal process for developing policy involves various opinions. "Not everyone gets their own way - I don't get my own way on everything in the past, I understand that," he said. "It's our job however to take our unified message out to the Australian people. "It's impossible to have, gathered in one place, several hundred delegates from one political party and for everyone to have uniform views on every item of policy, that's just not reality." Labor's Environment spokesman Peter Garrett says despite voting against the decision, he accepts it. He says Labor should now challenge Prime Minister John Howard over his plan for nuclear power plants. "He's taking us down a road and a path which I think is very dangerous," he said. "He has plans for nuclear power plants to be dotted around this country." Meanwhile some senior Labor figures are angry at union leader and federal candidate Bill Shorten, who linked the vote to support for Mr Rudd when he warned delegates not to roll the leader. Critics say it was immature, naive and damaging. Later today, the conference will deal with forestry policy and climate change, and it will refer preselection in about 20 New South Wales seats straight to the national executive, which is expected to dump several sitting MPs. Related Video The Federal Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, says despite division within his party, Labor will still be able to promote the new uranium policy prior to the election. [Real Broadband] [Real Dialup] [Win Broadband] [Win Dialup] ***************************************************************** 75 AU ABC: Resources Council urges rethink on uranium mining. 29/04/2007. ABC News Online The Resources Council is renewing its efforts to persuade the Queensland Government to allow uranium mining in the state. Delegates at the national Australian Labor Party (ALP) conference yesterday narrowly voted to end the party's "no new mines" policy, but left it up to each state to decide whether to pursue uranium mining. Premier Peter Beattie says Queensland's ban will remain. The Resource Council's Michael Roche says the state will miss out on a lucrative opportunity. "We have already identified deposits of uranium worth $20 billion," he said. "It would seem a damn shame to leave that resource unexploited and leave that market opportunity to other states like South Australia, and of course competitors like Canada." ***************************************************************** 76 The Australian: Uranium policy 'not hypocritical' NEWS.com.au | * April 30, 2007 This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AAP LABOR'S plan to expand uranium mining but oppose nuclear power is not hypocritical, Labor leader Kevin Rudd said. At its national conference on the weekend, Labor announced a plan to drop its long-held ban on new uranium mines and continue to oppose nuclear power. The Government accused Labor of hypocrisy but Mr Rudd said that because Australia, unlike many countries, is abundant in energy resources, like solar, wind, geothermal and coal, there is no need to go nuclear. "There are a whole bunch of other countries around the world which are not so energy rich, and therefore they do need uranium," Mr Rudd told Channel 9 today. "We have been selling uranium for many, many years and our policy simply recognises that new reality. "Mr Howard's plan by contrast is to forget coal, forget clean coal, turn your back on the coal industry and instead let's build 25 nuclear reactors in a suburb near you." © The Australian ***************************************************************** 77 Herald Sun: Nuclear future NEWS.com.au | April 30, 2007 12:00am IN the space of one weekend Australia's future has been tied to nuclear power. New uranium mines and the possibility of a future network of nuclear power stations are firmly on the agenda and may be the biggest issues other than the economy at the coming federal election. Prime Minister John Howard said if re-elected he would remove legislative barriers to nuclear power, open new uranium mines and allow uranium enrichment. He linked new nuclear power plants to the imperative to develop cleaner energy to combat climate change. Kevin Rudd narrowly persuaded the faithful at the Labor Party national conference that it should scrap its decades-old opposition to new uranium mines. Mr Howard's argument that climate change made redundant negative attitudes towards nuclear power appears curious given his scepticism of global warming. The political bonus for the PM in bringing the nuclear debate to the forefront is that he knows it could split the Labor Party. But nuclear power is a risky issue because no one is quite sure how the debate will play out in the electorate. That will not deter Mr Howard, who has shown he is prepared to gamble on bold policies that are unpopular -- one instance being the GST. Nuclear power has scarcely been a blip on the radar of Australian politics but the weekend's events have put it front and centre in an election year. We should not, however, become mesmerised by the politics of the issue. Most important is that Australians have a sane and comprehensive debate on whether we go down the nuclear road. From heroes to legends IT may have gone on far too long and been short of genuine sporting thrills. It may have been tragically tarnished by murder and cheapened by chronic under performances from some of its giants. But the cricket World Cup ended as it should, with the undisputed best team in the world lifting the trophy -- if in somewhat bizarre circumstances. Australia went into the World Cup as hot favourites, but with question marks over its form and the advanced age of its squad. Critics were ready to pounce at the slightest slip-up or sign of weakness. But Ricky Ponting's men, talented and battle hardened, never let their gaze stray from the main prize. From start to finish it was a superb team effort. And Ponting led his team superbly. All played their part, but special mention must be made of the efforts of veterans Glenn McGrath and Matthew Hayden. At 37 McGrath is in sporting terms almost a grandfather, but his 26 wickets are a World Cup record and a superb crescendo to his stellar career. Hayden, a batsman many said was well past his best, produced three centuries and played with a consistency that must have driven opposition bowlers to tears. A hat-trick of World Cup trophies in any sport is an astounding achievement. Australia's cricketers are officially now legends and must be regarded as one of the greatest ever international teams. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 78 News & Star: MP quizzes Darling in Sellafield probe Published on 28/04/2007 Jamie Reed: "No stone should be left unturned" By Anika Bourley Parliamentary Correspondent AN MP is demanding answers after the Government admitted organs or tissue could have been taken from non-nuclear workers as part of the Sellafield scandal. Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling this week told MPs that the inquiry into the removal of body tissue from nuclear workers at Sellafield was being extended to cover a number of other sites – and samples could have been taken from non-nuclear workers. A Department for Trade and Industry (DTI) spokesman said it was “too early” to say if any of the workers could have been from Cumbria. He said: “At this stage in the investigation it is not known where the non-nuclear workers lived or why the tissue was taken, but Mr Darling told MPs this as this was new information that has arisen since his last statement.” Mr Darling made an emergency statement to the Commons the day the claims came to light. Now Copeland MP Jamie Reed has tabled a series of parliamentary questions surrounding Mr Darling’s statement and the recently announced terms and conditions for the independent inquiry. The Labour MP wants to know whether the families of those involved will be consulted and whether an investigation team will be based at or in the communities around Sellafield. He said: “The people at the centre of this and those most important are the families who have been affected by this historic practice. There is an absolute unquestionable need for them to know the truth and no stone should be left unturned.” Mr Reed’s demands come after MPs were told key questions to be answered in the independent inquiry included who authorised the tissue to be taken, what happened to it, was permission sought, how and when was it destroyed and why did the practice end. Michael Redfern QC will head up the inquiry – the same barrister who conducted the inquiry into the scandal of organs taken from children’s bodies at Liverpool’s Alder Hey children’s hospital. Mr Reed welcomed the high profile lead and efficiency – but vowed to keep asking questions so the people of Cumbria would know the answers they deserved. He said: “If the inquiry does not provide sufficient detail, it may still be the case that a public inquiry is needed on this issue.” The controversy only came to light because NDA scientists at the Westlakes Research Institute asked to re-examine historic files as part of new studies. It was one of a number of groups within the nuclear industry which wanted to collate data on issues around epidimiology – the scientific factors affecting the health and illness of populations. A specialist was appointed, and questioned where the previous data came from. The News & Star reported last week that British Nuclear Group (BNG) says it has records confirming that the sampling of autopsy material did occur between 1962 and 1992. However it says in at least 61 of the cases there was official permission from the coroner or other legal bodies. The inquiry has now been widened to include Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Berkshire and UK Atomic Energy Agency (UKAEA) at Harwell in Oxfordshire. ***************************************************************** 79 KnoxNews: OR cleanup effort hits another milestone 48,200 tons of radioactive scrap gone from junkyard By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com April 28, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Let nuclear bygones be gone. Workers have removed 48,200 tons of radioactive scrap from one of the government's Cold War junkyards - another milestone in the decades-long cleanup effort in Oak Ridge. "The last shipment left the scrap yard on April 13, completing the scrap removal portion of the project," said Dennis Hill, a spokesman for the Bechtel Jacobs Co., the Department of Energy's environmental contractor in Oak Ridge. The work took three years, cost $16.4 million and required a seemingly endless convoy of trucks headed to the nuclear landfill a few miles away. The landfill, which was built specifically to receive wastes from DOE's cleanup missions, has multiple liners to prevent leakage and a monitoring system to protect the environment from the hazardous contents. Washington Safety Management Solutions removed the radioactive scrap as part of a subcontract to Bechtel Jacobs. Items that did not meet the disposal criteria for the Oak Ridge landfill were shipped to a commercial facility in Utah, Hill said. The next phase of the cleanup project will involve excavation of 23,000 cubic yards of soil at the K-770 scrap yard. The 30-acre site is a couple of miles west of the former K-25 uranium-enrichment plant and adjacent to the Clinch River. The soil was contaminated by years of radioactive runoff from the mountains of scrap, most of which came from K-25 during the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. Soil excavation will begin in fiscal year 2008, including a section in the river's floodplain, Hill said. The work was delayed about six months because of budget constraints, he said. A radiation survey will be conducted before the digging begins to identify particular "hot spots," Hill said. "Once the excavation is completed, sampling will be conducted to confirm all the contaminated soil has been removed," he said. DOE has hired the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education to perform an independent verification of the cleanup. Bechtel Jacobs touted the project's safety record, saying there were no lost-time injuries during the three years of scrap removal. The biggest surprise was the discovery of three casks containing thousands of curies of cesium-137 and other radioactive elements. Those casks were removed from the site last year and transported to a safe area at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where they are awaiting analysis. There are wide-ranging estimates of how much cesium is actually in the lead-lined containers. Tim Powers, the nuclear operations chief at ORNL, said the casks of cesium are still in custody of Bechtel Jacobs but soon will be turned over to UT-Battelle, the lab's contractor, for a closer evaluation of the contents. Disposition plans for the cesium are not yet clear. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 80 Las Vegas SUN: McCain casts himself as Western hero Today: April 29, 2007 at 7:25:41 PDT By Michael J. Mishak Las Vegas Sun Sen. John McCain spoke to Clark County Republicans at their annual Lincoln Day dinner this month and sold himself as a Western conservative, a presidential candidate with a unique understanding of Nevada's issues. Water: California has stolen it. Federal land: Government has mismanaged it. Growth: Infrastructure can't handle it. And, to top it all off, the Arizona Republican assailed Nevada's status as a donor state: "We need your tax dollars back in the state they came from." Unspoken, as party volunteers prepared to auction a Remington rifle, tea time with first lady Dawn Gibbons and other items, were McCain's positions on a few other important issues that have become part of a litmus test for candidates in Nevada. Front and center is Yucca Mountain, the proposed repository for the nation's nuclear waste about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "I think it's a suitable place for storage," he told reporters before his speech. Then there is his legislative record on gaming issues. McCain unsuccessfully tried to ban college sports betting here, an unpopular move in a state where gambling is an economic engine. He also pushed for creating a federal boxing commission and once called what many see as that sport's successor, Ultimate Fighting, "human cockfighting." All of this shadows McCain's candidacy as he campaigns in a state that, for the first time, will be a proving ground for presidential candidates. Nevada Democrats and Republicans will hold caucuses on Jan. 19, five days after similar contests in Iowa, which votes first in the nation. McCain visited the red-leaning city of Elko on Saturday as part of a four-day "announcement tour" of early presidential voting states. Political observers say his stances on Nevada issues are not likely to hurt his efforts here as he seeks to reinvigorate his ailing campaign. In fact, they say, President Bush supported Yucca Mountain and won the state in 2000 and 2004, a point McCain himself made during his Las Vegas visit this month. "It's not going to kill him , but it doesn't give him any boost," said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at UNR and a registered Republican. As a parochial issue, Yucca Mountain, for instance, doesn't have the fundamental impact on voters' lives as ethanol does in Iowa, giving McCain more freedom to take an unpopular position with relatively little political risk. "It's not a passion issue," said Ryan Erwin, a Republican consultant. By contrast, in 2000 McCain virtually skipped the Iowa caucuses, partly because of his opposition to federal subsidies for ethanol, the corn-growing state's cash cow. He has since softened his position, now stressing production of the alternative fuel source as part of a larger energy policy. The real challenge for McCain, Republicans say, is to recapture the maverick image that attracted so many voters to his bid in 2000 and helped him win the New Hampshire primary, all before he fell to Bush in South Carolina. "Clearly, running as the establishment candidate doesn't work for him," Herzik said. "He needs to reclaim that straight-talking Westerner, outsider image." That will be difficult. McCain has been working to court the party's conservative base since his last presidential campaign. He supported - begrudgingly - Bush's reelection in 2004, and has been the most outspoken advocate of the president's troop buildup in Iraq when polls show most Americans favor setting a timetable for withdrawal. And yet some of his Nevada supporters say his unflagging support of an unpopular war will resonate with Republican caucus-goers. "He'd rather win the war in Iraq than the nomination," said Sig Rogich, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and longtime McCain friend who is helping the senator's efforts in Nevada. "At the end of the day, people look for integrity and straightforwardness," Rogich said. "They may not agree with him on all the issues, but at least they know where he stands." Indeed, that strategy appears to be paying dividends in New Hampshire, where a recent poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, found McCain's positives had jumped about 20 points among likely Republican primary voters since February. Andrew Smith, the center's director, attributed the spike to McCain's support for the troop surge. Herzik said Sen. Harry Reid's comment that the "war is lost" could further help McCain's effort. In the end, Rogich said , the Republican caucus will not turn on local issues. If true, that's good news for McCain, who trails former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in state polls. Looking for a boost, the campaign announced Friday that McCain had earned the endorsements of state Sens. Mark Amodei and Dennis Nolan and Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury. As McCain works to get his message out in Nevada, his record as a budget hawk will win him points with conservatives, said Chuck Muth, a Carson City conservative activist. In his speech to Clark County Republicans, McCain pledged not only to veto bills with pork-barrel projects but to make examples of their authors. "We're going to regain the enthusiastic exuberance of our Republicans, the fundamental base of our party," he said. Michael J. Mishak can be reached at 259-2347 or at michael.mishak@lasvegassun.com. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 81 Tri-City Herald: Hanford B Reactor to be included in TV show on Manhattan Project Published Saturday, April 28th, 2007 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer A documentary production company is coming to the Tri-Cities in May to gather information and shoot video for a program about Hanford to air on the History Channel. The show will be one of the second-season episodes of Lost Worlds and should air before the end of the year, said Tom St. John Gray, an associate producer for Atlantic Productions. The crew's schedule includes significant time looking at sites and structures that remain from the Manhattan Project era, when the United States raced to produce an atomic bomb before Nazi Germany did during World War II. The crew will visit the Hanford town site and the White Bluffs bank, said Carrie Meyer, spokeswoman for the Department of Energy. During World War II residents of the small communities and nearby farms were ordered off their land to make way for a secret government project. The crew also will spend time inside B Reactor, the world's first full-scale production reactor, and the 800-foot-long T Plant, which chemically processed irradiated fuel from the reactor to extract the tiny amount of plutonium in each piece. A town of 45,000 sprang up in the desert during World War II to build the nuclear complex, with construction starting just six months after physicist Enrico Fermi demonstrated that a chain reaction was possible. B Reactor produced the plutonium for the first nuclear explosion in the New Mexico desert and plutonium for the atomic bomb dropped over Nagasaki, Japan, less than a month later, helping end World War II. The crew also plans to visit sites used in the Cold War and see some of the present cleanup work. In addition to filming done in Richland and Hanford, the program will use computer graphics to reconstruct what parts of the nuclear reservation and the company town that supported it looked like in earlier years, said St. John Gray. Advertisements for the past season of Lost Worlds emphasize that series gives a "you-are-there" perspective and an immediacy to history. Crews will be in town the week of May 7. The program also will include footage of some other sites with a link to the Manhattan Project or Cold War, such as the Nevada Test Site, but Hanford information will be woven through the program, St. John Gray said. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 82 Tri-City Herald: 3 Hanford burial sites excavated by deadline Published Sunday, April 29th, 2007 ANNETTE CARY HERALD STAFF WRITER Five forklifts, a flatbed trailer and a locked safe were among the 126,000 tons of contaminated material dug up by Hanford contractors in three burial grounds just north of Hanford's 300 Area buildings. Monday is the legal deadline for the Department of Energy to have the three dump sites cleaned up, but the work has been finished by Washington Closure Hanford four months ahead of schedule. The three dump sites were among those used by Hanford workers to dispose of some of the debris generated in the 300 Area just north of Richland. There they fabricated uranium fuel that would be used to produce plutonium in Hanford's reactors for the nation's nuclear weapons program during World War II and the Cold War. They also tested chemical processes to separate plutonium from the irradiated fuel before processes were deployed on the production scale in central Hanford. During World War II and the Cold War, Hanford was not only a place to produce plutonium, but its soil also was considered the permanent dump site for toxic chemical and radioactive waste produced in the process. But by modern standards the three burial grounds covered by Monday's Tri-Party Agreement milestone, were classified as a "high environmental priority," in part because they are a few hundred yards from the Columbia River. Bechtel Hanford, which held the contract to clean up the 300 Area before Washington Closure, began work on what proved to be the worst of those burial grounds, 618-2, in November 2004. "We learned to expect the unexpected at 618-2," said John Darby, a field remediation manager for Washington Closure. Before excavation began, early workers at the 300 Area were interviewed and thousands of pages of historic documents and inventories were searched. In them some materials were referred to by code for security reasons. For instance, "W" stood for Hanford. And workers know that "pure W product" meant plutonium. But records and memories often proved incomplete. Workers had expected to find mostly uranium contamination in 618-2. But just a month into work, Bechtel found one of the first surprises -- a locked safe. They guessed it might contain classified documents. But inside were several containers, one labeled "Walt's Group," and at least one containing a liquid plutonium solution. Because the inside of the safe was contaminated with plutonium, workers believe it might have been buried containers and all after a container broke or spilled inside the safe. Other plutonium contamination was found on laboratory equipment in the burial ground, and seven workers under Bechtel Hanford inhaled plutonium from a crusty beaker piled with other debris for sorting. Although one worker inhaled a dose that was above the administratively set limit, all the doses were within the legal limits set to protect workers. After Washington Closure won the river corridor cleanup contract in summer 2005, it changed the way waste was sorted in a process to make sure only acceptable items are sent to a central Hanford lined landfill for permanent disposal. "We no longer have people there," Darby said. "We move debris with equipment and check with instrumentation." Sorting is done with a backhoe and instruments mounted on heavy equipment are used to detect chemical fumes and radiological contamination. The 618-3 burial grounds had fewer surprises not hinted at in historical documents. But it did have large items such as the forklifts and trailer that had to be cut into pieces before they were sent to the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility in central Hanford for permanent disposal. Both DOE and EPA officials said closure of the three burial grounds was a good step toward cleanup of the 300 Area, although much work remains to be done there. The 618-2 burial ground was particularly difficult, said Alicia Boyd of EPA. Now, the attention is shifting to focus on another waste site, the 618-7 burial ground, said Kevin Bazzell, the DOE project director. Washington Closure is preparing to handle a significant number of drums there that have the potential to be flammable, Darby said. The burial ground is to the west of the three recently closed waste sites. Historical records show zircaloy turnings from a lathe may be buried in drums of oil or water there. Zircaloy was used in the cladding for the N Reactor fuel. Washington Closure also is prepared to find drums of uranium chips in oil there after workers excavating a similar burial site in 1998 were surprised to find 520 drums of shavings of depleted uranium there, some of them leaking the oil that was meant to keep air out. Work on the 618-7 burial ground is expected to begin in the fall. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************