***************************************************************** 05/06/07 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 15.106 ***************************************************************** 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 [NYTr] Did US Use Neutron Weapons in Battle of Baghdad? 2 New York Times: U.S. Officials Meet Briefly With Iranians - 3 IRNA: Rice says US ready to end 28 years of break-off with Iran - 4 Reuters: Iran's atomic plans: fait accompli or stoppable? 5 AFP: Iran a sticking point in US-India nuclear deal - 6 AFP: Ex-Iran nuclear negotiator charged with spying - 7 YONHAP NEWS: S. Korean firm signs MOU for exploration, development o 8 US: [NYTr] McCain: Saved by the [Alleged, Iranian] Bomb 9 NYT: Climate Panel Reaches Consensus on the Need to Reduce Harmful E 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Blix slams west nuclear policy 11 Reuters: U.S. OKs '2+2' missile shield talks with Russia 12 antiwar.com: Tenet's Failures - 13 Reuters: ANALYSIS-Israel draws battle lines around nuclear monopoly 14 AFP: Russian partnership with the West in peril - NUCLEAR REACTORS 15 The Hindu: Bangladesh seeks India's help to set up nuke reactor 16 ENS: IPCC Reports Quick Action Can Avert Worst Climate Impacts 17 Daily Yomiuri: Post-Monju FBR to move into full gear 18 TheStar.com: The nuclear option 19 Herald News: Two power plants have problems 20 Calgary Sun: Nuke boss confident in safety of proposed reactor 21 US: washingtonpost.com: Amid the Applause, the Sound of Dissent - 22 US: Times Argus: Yankee needs to pay its fair share 23 US: toledoblade.com: NRC fails to address new report on reactor 24 US: Rutland Herald: Shumlin goes to same well for taxes 25 IAEA: Climate Change Report Looks at Nuclear Power, Other Options 26 Xinhua: Atomic energy has much room to play 27 Reuters: Beating global warming needn't cost the earth: U.N. 28 US: NWN: Idaho Astronomers Worried About Nuke Plant Near Bruneau Dun 29 UPI: Jordan eyes developing nuclear power 30 IRNA: Pope stresses Iran's right to use peaceful N-energy - 31 US: Newsday.com: License bid for nuclear plants north of NYC sets st 32 DNA: India - N-deal letter puts govt in a tight spot - 33 AU ABC: Govt attacked with UN report 34 Edmonton Journal: Epcor steamed over emission caps 35 Edmonton Journal: Tories will vote on nuclear future for Alta. 36 Edmonton Journal: Don't let Ottawa set Alberta's nuclear agenda 37 Edmonton Journal: Resolution adopted to study oilsands nuclear power 38 Edmonton Journal: Will Albertans go nuclear? 39 AFP: Despite perils, UN report upbeat on climate change - 40 ARAB TIMES: IAEA experts to study creation of Gulf nuclear program 41 Herald Sun: Greens say 'no' to nuclear 42 Guardian Unlimited: UN scientists warn time is running out to tackle NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 43 Summit Daily News: Landowners gear up to fight gas drilling in nucle NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 44 US: ENS: Environment News Service (ENS) 45 US: TheStar.com: Cameco blames human mistake for mine flood 46 US: Green Left: Labor opts for open slather uranium mining 47 RGJ.com: Committees still on different page when it comes to Nevada 48 US: SF Chronicle: Roads are full of trucks hauling hazardous loads 49 US: SF Chron: SIMI VALLEY / Ruling criticizes fed's nuclear cleanup 50 US: Carlsbad Current-Argus: Students learn about nuclear science fro 51 USATODAY.com: Edwards grilled on reversals on war, education and Yuc 52 Tonawanda News: DEC: Latest meeting will feature state agency's 53 Hi-Desert Star: L.A. power plan cuts swath through protected lands PEACE 54 West Australian: Hiroshima film shown at nuclear meeting : US DEPT. OF ENERGY 55 News Tribune: McChord unit aces ‘nuclear surety’ inspection | 56 SF New Mexican: LANL: Ailing workers could get money 57 Kentucky.com: Study: Potential earthquate biggest obstacle for Paduc 58 Tri-City Herald: Hanford's nuclear future tied to region's concerns 59 Hanford Site: Past Horror, Future Hope 60 Chillicothe Gazette: Work at Piketon plant brings USEC a dip in prof 61 Ventura County Star: Editorial: Sound ruling for the public 62 lamonitor.com: V-Site: Humble shack earns special recognition 63 KVII Online: Why Negotiations Went South 64 KnoxNews: Wackenhut pact renewed 65 KnoxNews: Not short on cache ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Did US Use Neutron Weapons in Battle of Baghdad? Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 18:10:32 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Workers World - May 10, 2007 issue http://www.workers.org/2007/world/neutron-bomb-0510/ Did U.S. use neutron bomb in Battle of Baghdad? By Gary Wilson The U.S. military used neutron weapons in the Battle of Baghdad, says a former commander of Iraqbs Republican Guard. And at least one retired U.S. Army officer is backing up his charge. In an April 9 interview reported by Al Jazeera, Saifeddin Fulayh Hassan Taha al-Rawi says that, bU.S. forces used neutron and phosphorus bombs during their assault on Baghdad airport before the April 9, 2003, capture of the Iraqi capital.b The bombs incinerated about 2,000 elite Republican Guard troops but left the buildings and infrastructure at the airport intact, he added. (aljazeera.net) The neutron bomb is designed to produce a minimal blast while releasing a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. (britannica.com) The bomb has been in the U.S. arsenal for decades but has never been used in combat before. While no major U.S. media have reported on the neutron bomb charge, David Hambling, author of bWeapons Grade: How Modern Warfare Gave Birth to Our High-Tech World,b says therebs something to it. Hambling notes that the U.S. has already admitted to the use of phosphorus weapons in the Iraq invasion. Writing on April 13 for the Danger Room blog at Wired, Hambling says that from the description al-Rawi gives in the Al Jazeera interview of a series of explosions that killed the occupants of buildings without destroying the structures, bInterestingly, there is a weapon in the U.S. arsenal designed to do exactly that. ... The AGM-114N.b Hambling continues, bOn May 15th, 2003, just a few weeks after the action at Baghdad airport, Donald Rumsfeld praised the new weapon. ... Although officially described as bmetal augmentedb or even bhyperbaric,b the new warhead is not distinguishable from thermobaric weapons which produce the same sort of enhanced blast with a lower overpressure and longer duration for more destructive effects. Like many thermobarics, the AGM-114N used finely powdered aluminum. The military are generally quiet about thermobarics because they have received such bad press. Human Rights Watch criticized them because they bkill and injure in a particularly brutal manner over a wide area.b b Weapons that have been described as thermobaric include flame-throwers and napalm. A BBC News article on March 4, 2002, said the U.S. was using thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan, and described how they employ a combination of heat and pressure, bdistributing a very fine cloud of explosive material throughout the target which is then ignited. The heat and pressure effects are formidablebsoldiers caught in the blast could have the air sucked from their bodies and even their internal organs catastrophically destroyed.b Too bloody to report Retired U.S. Army Captain Eric May, a former intelligence and public affairs officer, believes that the U.S. military did use neutron weapons in the Battle of Baghdad. May was one of the participants in Cindy Sheehanbs original encampment outside George Bushbs Crawford, Texas, villa. In an interview published by the Crawford, Texas, Lone Star Iconoclast (lonestaricon.com), May says, bThe biggest story of the war became a non-event when the truth of the matter was that it was simply too bloody an event to report. bThe bogus rescue of Private Lynch was merely a distraction from the truth,b said May. bAnd the staged photo-op of the pulling down of Saddam Husseinbs statue was nothing more than a way to cement into peoplebs minds that it was an easy victory.b Congressional hearings on April 24 heard testimony on bthe histories of Pfc. Jessica D. Lynch and Cpl. Pat Tillman ... as egregious examples of officialsb twisting the truth for public relations in wartime.b (bGovernment Challenged on Lynch and Tillman,b New York Times, April 24) Captain May says, bI think the Battle of Baghdad was emblematic of the whole misadventure in the Middle East. There is nothing that I thought then that I donbt think now has been validated by time. The American public still doesnbt know that there was a Battle of Baghdad because the media-military apparatus constructed the Private Jessica Lynch mess to hold attention.b May continues: bThe best evidence that I have from international sources, scientific sources, is that our position was becoming untenable at the Baghdad airport and we used a neutron warhead, at least one. That is the big secret of Baghdad airport. bIf one looks into international data, there are reportings of enhanced radiation of some livestock, and of human metabolic effectsbdeath and disease. It explains why, after the Battle of Baghdad, we got fragmentary stories of things like truckloads of dirt being moved out and moved in. It made no particular sense at the time, until one puts it into perspective, as a decontamination operation. Again, that part of the Battle of Baghdad, the fact that we went nuclear, explains a lot of things that came out afterwards and also explains why it is that it had to be covered up.b Whether it was a neutron bomb or the AGM-114N, the Pentagon used some sort of Weapon of Mass Destruction on Baghdad airport. Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011 Email: ww@workers.org Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 New York Times: U.S. Officials Meet Briefly With Iranians - Shawn Baldwin for The New York Times Representatives of 60 nations are attending a conference in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, to discuss forgiving some of Iraq?s debt and fixing its security. By HELENE COOPER and JON ELSEN Published: May 4, 2007 SHARM EL SHEIK, Egypt, May 4 — American and Iranian officials spoke briefly today at a regional conference here on the Iraq situation, in a rare direct conversation between representatives of the two antagonistic nations. Shawn Baldwin for The New York Times Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem of Syria was mobbed after his 30-minute meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday. Ryan Crocker, the United States ambassador to Iraq, said that he and David Satterfield, who is the senior adviser on Iraq to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, had an impromptu 3-minute discussion with an Iranian deputy foreign minister. Ms. Rice and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, did not participate. Iranian officials downplayed the encounter. “There was no formal meeting between Iranian experts and American experts,” Mr. Mottaki said. “If there were some exchanges and discussions, this doesn’t mean a formal meeting between experts.” Mr. Crocker would not say what was discussed, except that the conversation was limited to the situation in Iraq. Afterward, Ms. Rice said: “We have no desire to have difficult relations with anyone in Iran.” She said the United States has been very clear that “we are prepared to change 27 years of policy and engage in a broad range of issues” with Iran if Iran accepts international demands that it suspend its nuclear enrichment program. Whether American and Iranian officials would meet and talk directly here at all has been one of the major questions surrounding the international conference. On Thursday, Ms. Rice met with her Syrian counterpart, the first high-level diplomatic contact between Washington and Damascus in more than two years. The meetings with Syrian and Iranian officials appeared to signal a significant, if unstated, change in approach for the Bush White House concerning relations in the Middle East, analysts throughout the region said. Washington is asking for help, even from foes it has spurned in the past. Under pressure from its Arab allies, the Bush administration has slowly edged away from its position that direct talks can be conducted only as a reward for what it considers good behavior. Iranian-American relations have been especially tense lately, with the United States saying that Shiite militias in Iraq have used weaponry from Iran in attacks on American troops, and with the United States pressing Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program. The United States has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has sought to isolate and contain the country. In today’s opening remarks at the conference, Iran’s foreign minister, Mr. Mottaki, did not seem to have changed his country’s position toward the United States. “The terrorists claim that they are fighting the forces of occupation, while the occupiers justify their presence under the pretext of the war on terror,” he said. “Therefore, this axis of occupation-terrorism is the root of all problems in Iraq.” He said the problems in Iraq are the fault of the Americans, so they should not point the finger at others. At the conference luncheon on Thursday, attended by diplomats from 60 countries, Ms. Rice and Mr. Mottaki exchanged pleasantries. Ms. Rice had planned to approach Mr. Mottaki at dinner Thursday evening, held by Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit. But Mr. Mottaki left the dinner before Ms. Rice arrived — and apparently before eating. Iranian officials said that Mr. Mottaki was not avoiding Ms. Rice; rather, they said, he left because he considered the red dress worn by one of the event’s entertainers to be too revealing, according to news services. Today, Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, sounded dubious about that explanation. “I’m not sure which woman he was afraid of, the one in the red dress or the secretary of state,” he said. In the two-day conference here, the Bush administration has been seeking the help of Iraq’s neighbors, and countries around the world, to quell the violence there and relieve Iraq’s enormous debt. Ms. Rice’s talk here on Thursday with Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem, lasted only 30 minutes but was substantive. She asked that Syria, with its porous border with Iraq, do more to restrict the flow of foreign fighters. Bush administration officials noted afterward that it might already be happening; in the past month, they said, there had been a drop in the number of foreign fighters traveling over the Syrian border into Iraq. Ms. Rice characterized her meeting with Mr. Moallem as “professional,” adding, “I didn’t lecture him, and he didn’t lecture me.” Mr. Moallem, for his part, said he hoped that the meeting was the start of something more. He asked that the United States return its ambassador to Syria; the most recent ambassador, Margaret Scobey, was withdrawn in 2005 after the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Syria, which had troops in Lebanon at the time, has been implicated in the assassination, but has denied any involvement. What was also telling was what was not discussed. Syrian officials said that Ms. Rice did not raise the issue of the Hariri killing or the plans to form an international tribunal to hear evidence in the case, which Syria strongly opposes. "We hope the Americans are serious because we in Damascus are serious about improving relations with America," Mr. Moallem said. Ms. Rice gave him a noncommittal reply. The United States, which considers Syria a state sponsor of terrorism, has struggled to isolate Syria as a strategy to change it. The White House in April sharply criticized the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for visiting Syria's capital, Damascus, and meeting with President Bashar al-Assad, even going so far as calling the trip "bad behavior," in the words of Vice President Dick Cheney. Less than a month later, Ms. Rice walked through the cavernous hallways of a conference center in this desert resort town and into the "Sun" room to sit down with Mr. Moallem. After the meeting, Mr. Moallem was mobbed by reporters and camera crews, while Ms. Rice quickly escaped to her hotel. "This is a marked improvement in the administration's ostrich policy approach, and a tacit admission of how wrong it was last month in criticizing the speaker of the House and Congressional colleagues, including myself, for going to Damascus," Representative Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, said in a statement. "As a lifelong internationalist, Secretary Rice knows better than most the great value of face-to-face discussion, even those with whom we strongly disagree." The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, took pains to assure reporters that the meeting was not a change in United States policy. First, he called the meeting a "pull-aside conversation," then a "sidebar conversation." "That's still informal and not bilateral," Mr. Snow said, after being pressed. Finally, he concluded: "It's a conversation. Yes, it's a conversation. In fact, conversations happen. It's a good thing." There was certainly some forethought to it, though, since Ms. Rice took the time to telephone Ms. Pelosi before heading to Egypt this week, though Bush administration officials did not say whether Ms. Rice told Ms. Pelosi beforehand that she planned to follow her footsteps. "She wanted to hear from Speaker Pelosi about her discussions with the Syrian president," a senior State Department official said, adding that that the call centered on gathering information about Ms. Pelosi's trip, not further condemnation for making it. Ms. Rice, he said, "didn't want to poke her finger in her eye or anything." But the Bush administration has come under increasing pressure, internally and externally, to talk to Syria. "Sometimes it appears people in diplomacy use talk as a reward or punishment," said the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, in an interview after his own 30-minute meeting with Ms. Rice. "That seems to me very childish. We are frustrated when people don't talk together." Relations with Syria still are far from close. Besides Iraq, the issue of Lebanon - not to mention Israel - remains a huge obstacle. The Bush administration is still making plans to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing a tribunal into the Hariri assassination. American officials maintained Thursday night that they do not plan to trade away Lebanon for Syria's help in Iraq. "The Lebanese people have no better friend than the United States," said Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman. The Thursday conclave centered around trying to persuade the international community, particularly the Persian Gulf countries, to agree to a debt relief and financial aid for Iraq. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, said that donor countries, including Britain, Saudi Arabia and China, pledged to waive $30 billion in Iraqi debt. In return, Baghdad promised to enact a series of reforms, like better inclusion of the country's Sunni minority in the political process, an oil law and better legal protections for Iraqi Sunnis and Kurds. "The national unity government is committed to providing all necessary services for the deprived people, and because these services need huge finances, we call on all the friends and brothers participating in this conference to write off Iraq's debt to enable it to start reconstruction and development projects and rebuilding its infrastructure," Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq said in a speech before the group. "Your support will enable the national unity government to move forward with the political process and consolidate democracy and impose law and order." But there is a clear quid-pro-quo at play, and while conference attendees verbally pledged 80-percent debt relief and billions in aid, they left themselves room in case the Shiite-led Iraqi government did not make good on its promises to reform and reach out to minority groups. Indeed, assembled diplomats, particularly the Sunni Arab envoys, said they remained unconvinced that Mr. Maliki's government would take the necessary steps. "We don't see anything happening in Iraq in implementation," Prince Saud said in the interview. "Our American friends say there is improvement: improvement in violence, improvement in the level of understanding, improvement in disarming militias. But we donft see it." Prince Saud added that it seemed premature to produce an international agreement to help out Iraq. He said that during his meeting with Ms. Rice on Thursday, he expressed his reservations on the process and his concern that the Maliki government was not doing enough to stabilize the country. "You have to have national consensus," Prince Saud said. "If you move to improve the situation, you can't do it from the outside." American officials acknowledged that much of the help for Iraq is contingent on Baghdad. "That point is valid," said Mr. Crocker, the United States ambassador to Iraq. "If you're not moving forward on these issues, the centrifugal forces will take hold and move you back. The international compact is a good thing, it deserves support, but it's very important to move forward on the national compact." Helene Cooper reported from Sharm el Sheik, Egypt and Jon Elsen from New York. Michael Slackman contributed reporting from Sharm el Sheik. Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 3 IRNA: Rice says US ready to end 28 years of break-off with Iran - Sharm el-Sheikh, May 4, IRNA Sharm el-Sheikh- Conference-Rice US Secretary of States Condoleezza Rice said here Friday that his country is ready to end 28 years of break-off with Iran, if Iran suspends enrichment of uranium. Speaking in a press conference at the end of a conference of foreign ministers of Iraq neighboring countries, Rice said, " We were ready to negotiate with Iran, but we found no opportunity." Iran had already conditioned negotiation with the USA upon changing Washington's behavior towards Iran and the region. Rice also repeated the baseless claims of Washington on dispatching weapons from Iran to Iraq. "Are you looking for Mr. Mottaki?" a reporter asked the US secretary of states and she answered, " I am not looking for anybody." Conference of foreign ministers of Iraq neighboring countries wrapped up its works here on Friday. ***************************************************************** 4 Reuters: Iran's atomic plans: fait accompli or stoppable? 8:59PM EDT, Sun 6 May 2007 By Louis Charbonneau - Analysis BERLIN (Reuters) - World powers have failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program despite nearly four years of diplomatic efforts and are beginning to confront the ultimate choice -- accept it or stop it at all costs. The U.N. Security Council has already passed two resolutions imposing sanctions on the Islamic republic for refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment program. The West fears Iran wants to develop fuel for atomic weapons but Iran says its nuclear ambitions are limited to peacefully generating electricity and is determined to press ahead. As a result, the six world powers dealing with Iran -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia -- met this week to begin discussions on whether a third, harsher sanctions resolution might be needed. Some analysts say it is not too late to stop Iran, which is many years away from getting a bomb if it wants one, through diplomacy and without military action. "But I think we have to be much more active on both sides of the process -- working aggressively to pressure Iran over its nuclear program and showing that we are prepared to open real engagement with them if they comply," said Jon Wolfsthal at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a U.S. think tank. There is also the option of U.S. or Israeli military strikes to take out Iranian nuclear facilities, though German and other European diplomats said the EU would almost certainly oppose the use of force in favor of diplomacy and compromise. One diplomat said the EU has yet to make up its mind. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Iran a sticking point in US-India nuclear deal - by Elizabeth Roche Sat May 5, 1:24 AM ET NEW DELHI (AFP) - The passage of a landmark nuclear deal between India and the United States has hit a fresh snag with senators in Washington piling the pressure on New Delhi to keep its distance from Iran, officials said. Although the US Congress agreed in December to let talks on the energy deal move forward, Indian and US officials are still at odds over the fine print of an accord seen as the centrepiece of a new post-Cold War relationship. There was some cause for optimism after talks in Washington earlier this week, with Indian diplomats saying problem issues like the treatment of spent fuel and India's right to test nuclear weapons could be overcome. But in the aftermath of the talks on how India should get previously forbidden nuclear technology, seven US senators wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh telling him not to cosy up too much with Iran. Washington is trying to isolate Tehran over its disputed nuclear programme and alleged support for terrorism. "We are deeply concerned by India's increasing co-operation with that country," said the letter, which was widely published in the Indian media. The senators -- who still have a say over whether the nuclear accord can go through -- objected to "the exchange of visits between high-level officials, enhanced military ties, and negotiations of agreements to establish closer economic relations." The text also singled out India's hopes to buy Iranian gas via a multi-billion dollar pipeline -- a project which, like the nuclear energy deal with the US, is seen as crucial for energy-hungry India to fuel long-term economic growth. These problems, the senators said, "have a significant potential to negatively affect the relationship between the US and India." Indian officials, however, are putting on a brave face over the letter -- the second in as many months. "It is a pressure point no doubt, but I would not regard it as a deal breaker," a senior government official told AFP on condition of anonymity. But an Indian foreign ministry official said the US pressure over how his country chooses to conduct its traditional non-aligned foreign policy could leave the government exposed to more domestic criticism over the deal. "In that sense, it could have a bearing on the US-India nuclear talks," the official said. Influential opposition Hindu nationalists and even communist allies of the government already argue the deal will compromise India's nuclear weapon's programme by forcing a separation and inspection of civilian atomic facilities from military sites. In a stormy parliament session on Friday, several lawmakers were furious over a letter they saw as an "open threat" and interference in India's "internal affairs." The government has not directly commented on the letter, but has pointed to previous statements by Singh opposing the emergence of another nuclear power in the region and calling for Iran to cooperate with UN demands to limit its suspect activities. Security analyst C. Uday Bhaskar said the snag leaves India having to "follow a nuanced policy" -- prioritising its desperate need for modern atomic energy technology while being careful not to fall out with key oil and gas supplier Iran. "At this moment the nuclear deal is important and it is important to get on with it," he said. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 6 AFP: Ex-Iran nuclear negotiator charged with spying - Sun May 6, 7:09 AM ET TEHRAN (AFP) - A former Iranian nuclear official who was part of a moderate negotiating team has been charged with spying on Iran's controversial atomic programme. Tehran's judiciary has confirmed that Hossein Moussavian is being held under the auspices of the intelligence ministry at Tehran's notorious Evin prison after his arrest last week. But this is the first indication that Moussavian, who served under reformist president Mohammad Khatami until 2005 and is also close to ex-president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has been charged with espionage. "He is charged with spying on nuclear issues and therefore his case is in the hands of the revolutionary court prosecutors," the semi-official Fars news agency quoted a source as saying. "Currently he is in the section of the intelligence ministry in Evin prison (in Tehran) and the investigation is continuing," the source added. "So far, no decision on the bail has been issued and he is still under arrest." Hardline Tehran prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi confirmed Saturday that Moussavian was in custody but refused to specify the allegations against him "until the investigations are complete." Foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini declined to comment Sunday on whether he had been charged with spying. "We should not blow this out of proportion until the investigation is over." Moussavian played a central role in talks that saw Iran strike a deal with Europe under which it suspended its uranium enrichment activities, a halt which was reversed when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power. The team under then top national security official Hassan Rowhani was considered close to the centrist Rafsanjani, who was thrashed by Ahmadinejad in 2005 presidential elections. After Ahmadinejad came to power, Rafsanjani loyalists like Rowhani were removed and replaced with more hardline officials under the new national security chief Ali Larijani, a conservative ex-television boss. Since leaving the negotiating team, Moussavian has kept a relatively low profile, rarely making comments on the nuclear programme in public although he has urged moderation and flexibility in the nuclear standoff. In a seperate case, an unnamed individual who was working for parliament's research centre and accused of spying for the outlawed Iranian opposition has been jailed for three years by a court of first instance, according to Fars. It said that the accused would now appeal the verdict. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 7 YONHAP NEWS: S. Korean firm signs MOU for exploration, development of uranium in Canada 2007/05/06 13:33 KST SEOUL, May 6 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's Hanwha Corp. has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on exploration and development of uranium in Canada, the government said Sunday. It said the trading and resources developer signed the deal with the government of Saskatchewan and a Canadian firm to search for uranium in the Athabasca Basin, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy said. "The pact gives Hanwha the right to take part in the Cree-East uranium exploration project being led by CanAlaska Co.," said a ministry official. The Athabasca region accounts for roughly 28 percent of the world's uranium output. The government has been supporting overseas development of uranium in an effort to insulate the country from skyrocketing prices. A pound of uranium cost US$15 in early 2004, but the price rose 750 percent since then to $113 as of last month. South Korea has 20 nuclear generators that account for 40 percent of the country's electricity production. In addition to the MOU, the ministry said companies like Daewoo International Corp., Korea Resources Corp. and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co. are all seeking to explore for uranium in such countries as Vietnam, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Mongolia and Australia. yonngong@yna.co.kr (END) ***************************************************************** 8 [NYTr] McCain: Saved by the [Alleged, Iranian] Bomb Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 23:22:19 -0400 Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit The Guardian - May 5, 2007 http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2072989,00.html Saved by the bomb Senator McCain has hit upon a solution to all the Republican party's woes: a nuclear war with Iran by Terry Jones Campaigning in Oklahoma the other day, the Republican senator John McCain was asked what should be done about Iran. He responded by singing, "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran", to the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann. (Join the hilarity and see for yourself on YouTube.) How can any thinking person disagree? I mean, any country with a president who doesn't shave properly and never wears a tie deserves what's coming to it - a lot of American bombs, with a few British ones thrown in to ensure we don't miss out on the ensuing upsurge in terrorism. The problem is how to unload enough bombs on Iran before next year's US election to bring about enough flag-waving to get the Republican party re-elected. This is essential if we are to safeguard the revenues of companies such as Halliburton - particularly at a time when the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction is discovering what a shoddy job Halliburton has been doing. In projects at Nasiriya, Mosul and Hilla - declared successes by the US - inspectors have discovered buckled floors, crumbling concrete, failed generators and blocked sewage systems - due not to sabotage but largely to poor construction and lack of maintenance. The trouble is that the re-election of the GOP is becoming more problematic as opinion turns against George Bush's little invasion of Iraq. Even Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah recently condemned the US action as "an illegal foreign occupation"; his nephew, Prince Bandar, hasn't been returning calls for weeks. More worrying is the plummeting popularity of the party, as White House corruption becomes ever more difficult to disguise. The LA Times reports that what Representative Thomas M Davis III called a "poisonous" environment has begun to dent fundraising - an unheard-of problem for the Republicans. So the only solution is to bomb Iran, as Senator McCain so wisely and amusingly suggests. The real issue is whether to use regular weapons or do the job properly and go nuclear. Nuclear bombs have the advantage of being much bigger, and they will also pollute vast swathes of Iran and make much of the country uninhabitable for years. With a bit of luck some of the fallout will sweep into Iraq and finish off the job the US and UK have begun without incurring more costs. But the biggest advantage of nuclear weapons is that the repercussions would be so enormous, the upsurge in terrorism so overwhelming, that the world would be totally changed. A year before 9/11, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby signed a statement for the Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative thinktank. They rather hoped for "some catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor" to kickstart their dream of a world run by US military might. A nuclear war would do the trick in spades. The Republican party could expect to stay in power for the next 50 or even 100 years. Of course, a large proportion of the human race could be wiped out in the process, but that shouldn't be a problem as long as there are anti-radiation suits for White House and Pentagon staff. Such a shake-up would give the US a golden opportunity to corner what's left of the world's oil reserves. In 1955 Albert Einstein and Bertrand Russell said the world was faced by a "stark and dreadful and inescapable" choice: "Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?" Senator McCain wasn't bothered by such questions; the human race may be standing on a precipice, but the Republicans have a chance of permanent re-election. [Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python. See: Terry-jones.net] * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 9 NYT: Climate Panel Reaches Consensus on the Need to Reduce Harmful Emissions - New York Times By ANDREW C. REVKIN Published: May 4, 2007 The world needs to divert substantially from today’s main energy sources within a few decades to limit centuries of rising temperatures and seas driven by the buildup of heat-trapping emissions in the air, the top body studying climate change has concluded. In an all-night session capping four days of talks in Bangkok, economists, scientists and government officials from more than 100 countries agreed early today on the last sections of a report outlining ways to limit such emissions, led by carbon dioxide, an unavoidable byproduct of burning coal and oil. The final report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said prompt slowing of emissions could set the stage later in the century for stabilization of the concentration of carbon dioxide, which, at 380 parts per million now, has risen more than a third since the start of the industrial revolution and could easily double from the preindustrial level within decades. The report, which awaits only formal adoption this afternoon, concluded that significant progress toward that goal could be made in the next 25 years with known technologies and policy shifts, but would still need to be followed by a century-long transition to new energy sources that come with no climate impacts. Several authors, while declining to discuss specific results before the report was formally adopted, said its message was clear. “We can no longer make the excuse that we need to wait for more science, or the excuse that we need to wait for more technologies and policy knowledge,” said Adil Najam, an author of one chapter and an associate professor of international negotiation at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. “To me the big message is that we now have both and we do not need to wait any longer.” The report also made clear the risks of delay, noting that emissions of greenhouse gases have risen 70 percent since 1970 and could rise an additional 90 percent by 2030 if nothing is done. Carbon dioxide is particularly important not only because so much is produced each year — about 25 billion tons — but because much of it persists in the atmosphere, building like unpaid credit card debt. To stop the rise, report authors said, countries would need to expand adoption of existing policies that can cut emissions — like a fuel tax or the binding limits set by the Kyoto Protocol — while also increasing research seeking new energy options. This work would include pushing for advances in solar and nuclear power. The meeting ended just after dawn today in Bangkok with several authors of the report saying that there had been relatively little last-minute fighting with government officials over details. China had resisted language that implied big cuts would have to be made in fast-growing developing countries, which will soon surpass rich countries as the dominant source of greenhouse gases. According to several authors, the final version estimates that bringing global carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 to levels measured in 2000 would require a cost on released carbon dioxide of $50 to $100 a ton, roughly on a par — in terms of fossil fuel prices — with an additional 50 cents to $1.00 for a gallon of gasoline. The report projects that this shift might cause a small blunting of global economic activity, resulting in an overall reduction of perhaps one-tenth of a percentage point per year through 2100 in the world’s total economic activity, the authors said. Some of the experts and government officials involved in the final discussions said in telephone interviews and in e-mail messages that the costs could be substantially greater than that. But a variety of participants, including some from the United States, said in interviews that it was hard to argue against such an investment, given the potential costs of inaction. William Moomaw, a lead author of a chapter on energy options and a professor of international environmental policy at Tufts University, said that he saw evidence that big cuts could happen. “Here in the early years of the 21st century, we’re looking for an energy revolution that’s as comprehensive as the one that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century when we went from gaslight and horse-drawn carriages to light bulbs and automobiles,” Dr. Moomaw said. “In 1905, only 3 percent of homes had electricity. Right now, 3 percent is about the same range as the amount of renewable energy we have today. None of us can predict the future any more than we could in 1905, but that suggests to me it may not be impossible to make that kind of revolution again.” This is the third report this year from the climate panel, which was formed under the auspices of the United Nations in 1988 to brief nations periodically on risks from human and natural changes in climate and options for limiting dangers. In February, one team of experts concluded with near certainty that most warming since 1950 has been driven by the rising concentrations in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. A second working group reported last month that the warming trend was already measurably shifting weather, water and ecological patterns, and that hundreds of millions of people faced risks by mid-century ranging from lost water supplies to inundated coasts should trends persist. European officials have said the climate panel’s reports will be stressed when climate policy comes up at the next meeting of the Group of Eight industrialized powers, which takes place next month. The panel’s report on emissions options is also expected to play a role in shaping the next round of talks seeking new binding emissions restrictions after those set under the Kyoto treaty end in 2012. Those talks are scheduled to take place in Bali in December. Sphere: Related Blogs & Articles ***************************************************************** 10 IRIB PERSIAN NEWS: Blix slams west nuclear policy 2007/05/05 Former head of the UN atomic weapons inspectors, Hans Blix, said setting precondition for suspension of uranium enrichment in talks with Iran on nuclear issues is a deterrent factor to achieve a logical solution. Hans Blix added the big nuclear powers' threats against other countries, lead them towards gaining nuclear weapons. The United Nations should meddle in the issue and guarantee security of small countries against the threats. Criticizing the nuclear powers' performance in implementation of nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Blix said America and Britain with trickery and cheat, did not let basic changes in the treaty in 1995, but now by production of new generation of nuclear weapons, they have launched a new competition which threatens international peace and security. He called for the United Nations to safeguard NPT in order to prevent production of atomic weapons. Referring to Iran's talks with Group 5+1, Blix said the main issue is that Iran is eager to continue enrichment while the West has put suspention of enrichment as its precondition so Iran is not interested to continue talks. mk Copyright 2004, All Rights Reserved By Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting News Network Sponsored By IRIB News Computer Center. E-Mail: Info@IRIBNEWS.ir ***************************************************************** 11 Reuters: U.S. OKs '2+2' missile shield talks with Russia Fri May 4, 2007 5:40PM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has agreed for U.S. and Russian defense and foreign ministers to meet to try allay Russian concerns about U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, a senior U.S. official said on Friday. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried said there had been discussion of holding so-called "2+2" talks among the four ministers in September or early in the fall but no date had been set. Washington has angered Russia and unsettled some European allies with a plan to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic from 2012 to help shield Europe from possible missile attack by nations such as Iran. While European concerns about the missile shield appear to be easing, Russia has yet to be persuaded by U.S. arguments that the system is no threat to its nuclear deterrent and has so far rebuffed U.S. invitations to cooperate on the system. Russian President Vladimir Putin has frozen commitments under a post-Cold War treaty on conventional force levels in Europe in protest. Fried said he was hopeful that, over time, Russian concerns could be addressed and said one venue for doing so could be talks among the defense and foreign ministers. "We have agreed to a Russian suggestion that the secretaries of defense and state meet with their Russian counterparts," Fried told reporters, saying U.S. and Russian national security advisers might also be included. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week said it was "ludicrous" to suggest the system the United States plans to build in Poland and the Czech Republic would threaten Russia's nuclear deterrent of thousands of warheads. Fried said he did not know exactly what underpins Russian objections but suggested they may reflect a misunderstanding of the proposed system, the fear that it could be expanded to threaten Russia's nuclear deterrent or a desire to stir up misgivings in parts of Europe about the missile shield. "Whatever the explanation, and as I have said we don't know, our answer is to offer cooperation with the Russians ... and be completely transparent in everything we do," he said. © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 antiwar.com: Tenet's Failures - by Gordon Prather May 5, 2007 The National Security Act of 1947 created the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, making said DCI responsible for providing "timely, objective, independent of political considerations" intelligence, "based upon all sources available to the intelligence community" to the President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs, and – "where appropriate" – Congressional Committees. The Act also established the Central Intelligence Agency to "assist" the DCI "in carrying out the Director’s responsibilities" under the Act and established the National Intelligence Council within the Office of the DCI whose principal responsibility was to "produce national intelligence estimates for the Government, including, whenever the Council considers appropriate, alternative views held by elements of the intelligence community." George John Tenet was DCI from July 1997 to July 2004. Did Tenet, relying on all sources available to the intelligence community, always keep Congressional committees informed, when and where appropriate? Tenet was acting DCI in December 1996 when the absolutely mind-blowing mishandling and misuse of highly classified data by departing DCI John Deutch was discovered by horrified CIA investigators. For years, Deutch had been creating data files on personal computers at his homes and on portable memory cards. Many of these files were based upon "Sensitive Compartmented Information" and upon "Special Access Programs," and Deutch had reportedly shared this information – via e-mail – with various White House officials (and perhaps others) not "read in" to these highly classified programs. By law, as Acting DCI, Tenet was required to immediately notify the Justice Department and file a "crimes report." But Tenet apparently didn't file a "crimes report" until March 1998. Why not? Well, in December 1997 – a year after the Deutch crimes had been discovered – President Clinton proceeded to appoint Deutch to be Chairman of the Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction! Tenet – by then officially DCI – reportedly ignored the recommendations of his own CIA investigators and provided Deutch the high-level security clearances he would need to function as Chairman. Do you suppose Tenet informed the Vice-Chairman of that commission, Senator Arlen Specter, about the absolutely mind-blowing crimes Deutch had committed as DCI? Or Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott? Or Speaker Dennis Hastert? Apparently, Tenet didn't get around to officially telling Congress about Deutch’s mind-blowing crimes until February 2000, more than six months after the Commission had finished its work and published its report. (On his last day in office, President Clinton pardoned Deutch for those mind-blowing crimes.) Now, scroll back to 1995, when Tenet was CIA Deputy Director. General Hussein Kamal – Saddam's son-in-law – had just defected to Jordan carrying with him thousands of documents on Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" program. Kamal was extensively interrogated by the CIA, and by Rolf Ekeus of the UN Special Commission and Maurizio Zifferero of the International Atomic Energy Agency Action Team on Iraq. Zifferero's confidential interview notes were not made public – "leaked" – until December of 2002. You see, Vice President Cheney had declared on August 26, 2002, on national TV that "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from first hand testimony from defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law." Ziffereo’s notes show Kamal told the CIA and IAEA the exact opposite! Furthermore, by the time Tenet became DCI, Zifferero had verified that Kamal had told the truth in every detail. Another reason for the leak of Ziffereo’s notes was that Khirdir Hamza – who had been allowed to leave Iraq in 1995 and had never returned – had been representing himself ever since to the CIA et al. as having been in charge of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. On the eve of the 2000 election Hamza had published "Saddam’s Bombmaker," and David A. Kay – yes, that David Kay – was quoted on the book's cover thusly: "I would urge that this book be required reading for the next American president, because as Dr. Hamza makes clear, as long as Saddam remains in power, he will seek weapons of mass destruction to dominate the Middle East." And, in the fall of 2002, neo-crazy high-priest Richard Perle – then Chairman of the Defense Policy Board – was making the rounds "inside the Beltway" with Hamza in tow. Thanks to Perle, Hamza even testified before congressional committees, at least once in company with David Kay – yes, that David Kay – their testimony carried by C-SPAN. According to Hamza the Iraqis were secretly reconstituting a nuke program and would have several nukes in a matter of months, not years. But, as Ziffereo’s notes make clear, Kamal had told the CIA and the UN inspectors that all Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" and the makings thereof had been destroyed, either during the Gulf War or under his orders in the years immediately thereafter. By 1995, according to Kamal, "Nothing remained"! The UN inspectors did not make Kamal’s testimony public at the time because they wanted to keep Saddam Hussein guessing. Had Kamal really told the UN inspectors everything? By 1997 the UN inspectors were able to verify that everything Kamal had told them was the truth. So, did DCI Tenet provide this intelligence to the "appropriate" Congressional Committees? In August, 1998, Congress passed the Iraqi Breach of International Obligations Joint Resolution wherein – after finding that "Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security" – Congress "urged" the President "to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations." In December, 1998, to the horror of other Security Council members, Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a multi-day assault on Baghdad by bombers and cruise missiles "to degrade Saddam Hussein’s ability to make and use weapons of mass destruction." It should be noted that a CIA team headed by David Kay – yes, that David Kay – got access to all Saddam’s documents in the immediate aftermath of Gulf War II. The team eventually reported to Congress that as a consequence of Kamal’s defection, Saddam had ordered all agency heads to make sure that they had cooperated fully with UN inspectors, had given them every relevant document. But, back to Kamal and Hamza. In 1995 Hamza had apparently provided the CIA a document and someone had faxed the IAEA a copy. Zifferero showed Kamal the document, which purported to have been sent by a "member of the Special Committee" to General Kamal. Quoth Kamal: "It is a false document. It is full of mistakes. The author has no knowledge. The first phrase in the letter is wrong. The data in the right upper corner is wrong." Only then did Zifferero tell Kamal that the ‘false document’ was somehow related to Hamza. Quoth Kamal: "He [Hamza] is a professional liar. He worked with us, but he was useless and was always looking for promotions. He consulted with me but could not deliver anything. Yes, his original name is Khidir, but we called him Hazem. [After the war] He went [first] to Baghdad University, then left Iraq. He is very bad." So, Tenet must have known all along that Hamza was a fraud. Nevertheless, he apparently didn’t warn appropriate Congressional committees. Hence, in addition to providing Congress a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq which had been "fixed around the policy," Tenet also apparently failed to tell Congress in a timely manner about crimes he knew had been – and were being – committed within the intelligence community. 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 ***************************************************************** 13 Reuters: ANALYSIS-Israel draws battle lines around nuclear monopoly Sun May 6 21:41:51 2007 By Dan Williams JERUSALEM, May 6 (Reuters) - When Egypt and Syria launched a surprise joint offensive in 1973, many Israelis braced for a fight to the finish. But historians now agree that, for all their rhetoric about destroying the Jewish state, the attacking Arabs -- who were eventually repelled -- only intended to recapture the Sinai peninsula and Golan Heights, lands lost in a previous war. One reason posited for the restraint was belief in Cairo and Damascus that Israel could use atomic weapons if fighting spilled over from occupied territory and into home turf. For Israelis, it served as endorsement for preserving an exclusive, last-ditch nuclear defence. Today, this helps explain Israel's agitation over the prospect of arch-foe Iran busting up the monopoly with a nuclear programme of its own. Privately, Israeli officials acknowledge the immediate risk they see is not in an exchange of nuclear missiles with Iran, but in an increased chance of "classic" regional wars launched in the belief that Tehran has blunted Israel's strategic edge. "In 1973, Israel's nuclear option transformed what could have been an existential war into a contained conflict," said Israeli military historian Michael Oren. "A nuclear-armed Iran would risk transforming a contained conflict into a regional and global conflict," he said. While Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has fuelled war fears by urging Israel's elimination and questioning whether the Holocaust happened. Experts note that even if Iran gets the bomb, its primary goal may be to ward off any U.S.-led attack. It would also be many years away from achieving parity with an advanced Israeli arsenal believed to include between 80 and 200 atomic warheads. But nuclear strategising begins with the binary distinction between countries that do and don't possess the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. One bomb is enough to join this "club", and membership confers enormous latitude in non-nuclear conflicts. "Say that tomorrow Iran gets nuclear weapons, and issues the following ultimatum on Israel: Withdraw from the (Palestinian) West Bank or we will fire conventional missiles at you. Do we get into that sort of fight?" said one senior Israeli official with knowledge of nuclear affairs. "The potential for extortion and major regional instability is mind-boggling," the official said. NEIGHBOURHOOD BULLY? While supporting Western diplomatic pressure on Tehran, Israel has made clear it considers preemptive strikes -- such as its bombing in 1981 of Iraq's main nuclear reactor -- as a legitimate last resort for curbing Iranian atomic ambitions. Such unilateralism by Israel has long been denounced by its neighbours as a bullying byproduct of nuclear monopoly, though Israel does not confirm having weapons of mass destruction under an "ambiguity" policy billed as avoiding needless provocations. Some Middle East states cited Israel's arsenal in justifying their own arms races, or opted for indirect confrontation by cultivating anti-Israel proxies like Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian armed factions -- hardly recipes for stability. "There is just one country with WMDs in the Middle East -- Israel. And in that case, perhaps in the near future, other countries will try -- and it is their right -- to protect themselves against such weapons," Arab League chief Amr Moussa, who has proposed a nuclear-free region, said in 2004. Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Centre in Dubai, said this preoccupation has been eclipsed, among Sunni Arabs at least, by fears over Shi'ite Iran's ascendancy. "The rationality of their leadership is in question," Alani said. "We don't want to go back to the day when the Shah of Iran declared himself the policeman of the region." Alani said most Arabs have accepted, if grudgingly, Israel's rationale that its nuclear option is a defensive "last resort". "Israel's existence is no longer in question," he said, pointing to Israeli-Arab peace initiatives. "You can pressurise Israel to a certain point, but not to the point of destruction." Many Israelis attribute their slow rapprochement with the Arab world to their country's military superiority, proven in past wars, rather than any new ethos of coexistence. Israeli mistrust will likely grow, given several Arab states' declarations they may pursue civilian nuclear programmes. There is also concern in Israel over Islamist militants that challenge moderate leaderships in Arab states -- especially Hezbollah, which, some analysts speculate, could one day be used by Iran to deploy tactical nuclear devices on Israel's border. That being the case, Israel is in no mood to give up its nuclear monopoly, and drive to see it preserved, any time soon. "Our policies have served us well so far, and there is no reason to embrace change," the Israeli official said. ***************************************************************** 14 AFP: Russian partnership with the West in peril - Sat May 5, 10:05 PM BRUSSELS (AFP) - Russia and the West are at odds over a growing number of issues, from Kosovo to the US missile shield, and the discord may undermine their cautiously built post-Cold War partnership, NATO diplomats say. In an effort to ease bilateral strains, Moscow and Washington have reached an unusual agreement to have their foreign and defence ministers meet, particularly to address Russian concerns about the missile shield. But the differences go far beyond this one, albeit important, problem. Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, a favourite to replace President Vladimir Putin next year, said Thursday that Moscow would no longer inform partners when it moves troops across its territory. The announcement, the application of a freeze Putin made on the Soviet-era Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, was the first concrete move in what are tense and possibly changing times. In the past, the West "accepted the rhetoric when Russian leaders denounced the United States or NATO, but it's not so easy any more," said a diplomat at the military alliance. At a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Norway late last month, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, reacting to the Russian treaty freeze, said it was vital to keep relations between Moscow and Washington calm. "We must avoid an escalation," he said. But a NATO official said "the tone between the (NATO) allies and Russia has now hardened." "It seems that we've gone back to times before the NATO-Russia Council, just as we are getting ready to celebrate its fifth anniversary in Moscow and Saint Petersburg," he said, in reference to Moscow's regular talks with NATO. Indeed problems of political and military nature, which have simmered almost unnoticed for years, are now bubbling to the surface. NATO's willingness to continue expanding eastward -- into former Soviet republics and satellite states -- or the installation of US military bases in Bulgaria and Romania last year -- are perceived by Russia as threats. The Kremlin, whose rhetoric has hardened as elections approach in December and March, also sees the moves as contrary to commitments made by the West as the Soviet Union fell apart. So Washington's announcement in January that it wanted to extend its defence shield into Europe -- through 10 missile interceptors in Poland linked to a radar in the Czech Republic -- only threw fat on the fire. US offers to calm Russia's fears about the system, meant to combat "rogue states" like Iran, by sharing early warning data and boosting military cooperation have so far borne little fruit. "For the moment, Moscow has not responded to the offers of cooperation that the United States made recently, still obviously hoping to block the project," a NATO diplomat said on condition of anonymity. Russia may also go beyond its moratorium on the CFE treaty. In February, Moscow threatened to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) so that it could resume production of tactical nuclear missiles. "Russia seems to want to try to end the relationship that it built up with the United States in the 1990s and in the most theatrical way possible," experts at the Paris-based Strategic Research Foundation said last month. In this atmosphere of confrontation, some at NATO fear that Kosovo, where the alliance has some 16,000 troops and whose ethnic Albanian majority is impatient for independence, could ultimately pay the price. "A Russian veto on independence for the Serbian province followed by the US unilaterally recognising Kosovo (as independent) can no longer be ruled out," a diplomat warned. Kosovo's leaders are threatening to break away at the end of the month as Russia threatens to veto "supervised independence" at the US Security Council, increasing tensions between the Albanians and the minority Serbs there. Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Canada Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 The Hindu: Bangladesh seeks India's help to set up nuke reactor Monday, May 7, 2007 : 0310 Hrs New Delhi, May 7 (PTI): Bangladesh has sought India's help for setting up a 600 MW nuclear power plant to meet its growing energy needs. "We have approached India for help to set up a nuclear power plant," said Hamid Khan, a senior scientist in the Atomic Energy Centre run by the Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission (BAEC). The Bangladesh government had earlier approached a European nation for supplying nuclear reactors but later chose India as it was "closer to home", he said. "Talks are on at the government level," Khan said. The neighbouring country is facing a power shortfall of over 1,500 MW and hopes to meet the demand through alternative sources like atomic energy. Bangladesh's reserves of gas and coal have been its primary source of energy, but officials say these will run out within a few decades if they are used at the current rate. The BAEC hopes to generate at least 1,500 MW with nuclear plants it plans to build, Khan said. Khan, who was here to attend a conference on "Accelerator and Low Level Radiation Safety", said Bangladesh was expecting to procure 600 MW light water reactors from India. "We chose India as it is closer to Bangladesh, both culturally and geographically. We will have help at hand nearer than any European country," he said. Bangladesh has a nuclear programme that mostly caters to the requirements of the medical sector. Copyright © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the ***************************************************************** 16 ENS: IPCC Reports Quick Action Can Avert Worst Climate Impacts Environment News Service (ENS) BANGKOK, Thailand Catastropic global warming can be avoided without excessive economic cost but the world must begin to act at once, a UN climate change panel representing 2,500 international scientists said today. The world community could slow and then reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases over the next several decades by utilizing cost-effective policies and current and emerging technologies, says the new assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. "If we continue to do what we are doing now, we are in deep trouble," said Ogunlade Davidson of Sierra Leone, who served as co-chair of the IPCC Working Group that produced the report with Bert Metz from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. "This report is all about solutions to climate change," Davidson said. Co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Working Group at climate talks in Bangkok. From left: Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson. (Photo courtesy Earth Negotiations Bulletin) Based on the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed literature on emissions modeling, economics, policies and technologies, the report shows how governments, industry and the general public could together reduce the energy and carbon intensity of the global economy even with growing incomes and population levels. "Measures to reduce emissions can, in the main, be achieved at starkly low costs especially when compared with the costs of inaction," said Executive Director Achim Steiner of the UN Environment Programme, which, together with the World Meteorological Organization, established the IPCC. "Indeed some, such as reducing emissions by 30 percent from buildings by 2020, actually contribute positively to GDP," Steiner said. "It is now up to governments to introduce the mechanisms and incentives to unleash the ingenuity and creativity of the financial and technological markets in order to realize these economic, social and environmental gains," he said. According to "Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change," without additional action by governments the emissions from the basket of six greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol will rise by 25 to 90 percent by 2030 compared to 2000. The six gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, PFCs and HFCs. There is "high agreement," based on "much evidence" that global greenhouse gas emissions have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70 percent between 1970 and 2004, the report states. Still, by adopting stronger climate change policies governments could slow and reverse these emissions trends and ultimately stabilize the level of greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere. The suggested changes range from simple measures like more efficient electrical appliances and reforestation to well known solutions such as generating electricity from solar, geothermal, tidal and wave energy. But they also include advanced nuclear power, which emits litle carbon but has waste disposal and safety issues, and the storing of carbon dioxide underground instead of releasing it into the atmosphere, an undeveloped technology. The IPCC concludes that global greenhouse gas levels should peak by 2015 and then fall to 50 to 85 percent of 2000 levels by 2050. This could limit global mean temperature increases to 2 to 2.4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the point generally viewed as the threshold at which some of the most extreme impacts of climate change will begin. The report's Summary for Policymakers was finalized and adopted this week by representatives from 105 countries. The full set of underlying chapters, written by 168 authors, about 40 percent of whom are from developing and transition countries, and reviewed by hundreds of other experts, will be available shortly. Government delegates go over the text of the IPCC report one line at a time to reach agreement. (Photo courtesy ENB) Although the week-long process included a line-by-line approval from all governments at the meeting, the governments were not in complete agreement on all aspects of the report. There were objections from China, which is about to take over from the United States as the world's single largest greenhouse gas emitter. Chinese delegates argued that moves to cut emissions should be delayed so as to avoid limiting its economic development. Yet, a draft of the final report contains references to strict emissions targets, which they had opposed earlier. The U.S. delegation wanted statements inserted in the report to the effect that the cost of current available technologies to reduce emissions "could be unacceptably high," and calling for a greater emphasis on "advanced technologies," many aimed at extending the use of coal. Dr. Harlan Watson heads the U.S. delegation to the IPCC meeting in Bangkok. (Photo courtesy U.S. State Department) The United States has attempted to steer the group towards voluntary climate change actions and away from mandatory solutions such as the Kyoto Protocol, adopted by Europe and Japan. U.S. environmental groups were critical of the American approach. "It's especially troubling that the Bush administration was seeking last-minute changes to play down the report's conclusion that quick, affordable action can limit the worst effects of global warming," said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "Rather than embrace the report's window of opportunity message, the Bush administration tried to shut the window and draw the shades." "We have a window of opportunity, but it won't stay open forever," said Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at the American nonprofit group Environmental Defense. "Anyone pushing for delay is pushing for higher costs and longer odds." "There is much good news here and even reason for optimism if we listen and heed the call to action," said National Audubon Society President John Flicker. "The U.S. can start filling the scientists' prescription by rapidly adopting emissions caps, renewable electricity standards, energy conservation measures, and improving fuel efficiency." "The report makes it clear that voluntary measures have had no effect - these cannot be take 'em or leave 'em approaches. The world's best scientists are telling us that it will take serious changes backed by the force of law if we want to minimize the risk to people and wildlife," Flicker said. "Every poll confirms that the American public is clamoring for solutions to this grave threat," he said. "The clock is ticking and the White House has failed to lead the way. Now it's up to Congress to set the course that science prescribes to lead us away from the threats of global warming and toward a brighter energy future." The report addresses ways of reducing emissions from key sectors such as the energy supply sector, buildings, transport, and land use. The IPCC concludes that no single economically and technologically feasible solution would on its own be enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector. Instead, governments would need to promote a range of options. For example, they could encourage natural gas over more carbon-intensive fossil fuels as well as mature renewable energy technologies such as large hydro, biomass combustion and geothermal. The Mahanagdong geothermal power plant in the Philippines. Utilitizing steam from beneath the Earth's surface, geothermal power produces no greenhouse gases. (Photo courtesy MidAmerican Energy) Other renewable sources include solar assisted air conditioning, wave power and nanotechnology solar cells, although they all still require more technological or commercial development. Yet another option could be carbon capture and storage technology. This involves capturing carbon dioxide before it can be emitted into the atmosphere, transporting it to a secure location, and isolating it from the atmosphere, for example by storing it in a geological formation. Irrespective of climate change, over $20 trillion is expected to be invested in upgrading global energy infrastructure from now until 2030. The additional cost for altering these investments in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would range from negligible to an increase of five to 10 percent. This structure in France across the Rance River near its mouth at the Gulf of Malmo houses the world's largest tidal power plant, using tide variations of up to 13 meters. (Photo courtesy Yves Lafon) Governments can play a major role in motivating the private sector to invest in innovative technologies by providing companies with "incentives that are clear, predictable, long term and robust," the IPCC said. Government policies can be counterproductive, the report states. Direct and indirect subsidies for fossil fuel use and agriculture remain common practice, although those for coal have declined over the past decade in many OECD and in some developing countries. In addition, government funding for many energy research programs declined after the 1970s oil shocks and have remained at these lower levels. There are many ways that public policy can promote the development, deployment and diffusion of new technologies. The IPCC finds that governments are successfully using a wide range of policies and measures that address climate change, including regulations and standards, taxes and charges, tradable permits, voluntary agreements, subsidies, financial incentives, research and development programs, and information instruments. "The most effective policy mix will vary from country to country," the experts said. "If integrated with other government policies, climate change policies can contribute to sustainable development practices in both developed and developing countries." China's coal-fired Shentou-2 power plant in Shanxi. China has abundant reserves of coal. (Photo courtesy Skoda Export) For their policies to be effective, however, governments would need to pay special attention to identifying and removing barriers to innovation. These can include market prices that do not incorporate externalities such as pollution, misplaced incentives, vested interests, lack of effective regulatory agencies and imperfect information. Because no one sector or technology can address the entire mitigation challenge, the best approach is to adopt a diversified portfolio of policies and to address all major sectors. Some of the cheapest options for reducing emissions involve electricity savings in buildings, fuel savings in vehicles and increased soil carbon content in agriculture. Because energy supply is the largest contributor to emissions, policies to promote a shift to less carbon-intensive energy sources are particularly effective. Many economic models report the costs of reducing emissions in terms of losses in the Gross Domestic Product, GDP. For example, the IPCC says, by the year 2030 the global average macro-economic cost of ensuring that greenhouse gas levels eventually stabilize in the range of 445 to 710 parts per million is estimated at from less than three percent to a gain of 0.6 percent. "This translates into an annual reduction in the GDP growth rate of less than 0.12 percent to less than 0.06 percent. This small loss should be compared to projections that the global economy will likely expand dramatically over the next several decades," the report states. The Independence coal-fired power plant in Arkansas is jointly owned by a group of nine municipal, coop, investor-owned, and deregulated power companies. (Photo courtesy Entergy Arkansas) A carbon price reflecting the true cost of greenhouse gas emissions will provide signals to individual firms and households to cut emissions and stimulate the research and development of low-carbon technologies, the IPCC report concludes. Emissions trading, or cap-and-trade, systems have been a subject of particular interest to researchers and policymakers alike. The volume of allowed emissions – the "cap" – determines the carbon price and the environmental effectiveness of this instrument, while the distribution of trade allowances or permits can affect its cost effectiveness and competitiveness. Uncertainty about the actual price of carbon makes it difficult to estimate the total cost of meeting emission reduction targets in this manner. The reverse holds true for carbon taxes - the costs are clearer but the reductions less so. Carbon prices can also be created by regulations, taxes and charges. While a positive carbon price would by itself create signals for producers and consumers to invest in lower carbon products, technologies and processes, additional incentives related to direct government funding and regulations are also important. Cap-and-trade systems, then, may offer an attractive, market-based approach to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. But because the operational details are vital to the success or failure of such systems, governments would need to experiment and gain experience in order to build the most effective systems possible. The "Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers" is online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 Daily Yomiuri: Post-Monju FBR to move into full gear The government has decided to set the output capacity of the next demonstration model for a fast breeder reactor--which it aims to start operating in 2025--at between 500,000 kilowatts to 750,000 kilowatts, in a move designed to spur the reactor's development into full gear within this fiscal year, government sources said Saturday. The existing prototype FBR, Monju, has been suspended from operation since 1995 after a sodium leak. In light of agreements reached between the Japanese and U.S. governments in April to cooperate on a wide range of nuclear energy development issues, the government now believes it is necessary to fashion a clear image of its own future nuclear fuel cycle policy as early as possible, the sources explained. Officials, including those from the Education, Science and Technology Ministry, and the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry will present the policy to a meeting of the Atomic Energy Commission on Tuesday. Although it was fashioned as a national policy, the government could not develop a clear picture of the development of a demonstration FBR, due mainly to the sodium leakage accident involving Monju 12 years ago. The two ministries had earlier established a five-party panel comprising both ministries, the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, the Japan Electrical Manufacturers Association and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. The five parties agreed that 500,000 kilowatts to 750,000 kilowatts would be an appropriate capacity for a secure and reliable facility. The Japan Atomic Energy Agency previously announced a plan to create a 1.5 million-kilowatt reactor. However, there were many technical difficulties involved in realizing a one-step five-fold increase in power from Monju's 280,000 kilowatts. Therefore, the capacity of the demonstration reactor has been a pending issue. The panel believes it will be easier to construct a 1.5 million-kilowatt reactor for commercial operation, if it can first successfully develop a 750,000-kilowatt demonstration reactor. In the case of a 500,000-kilowatt reactor, it is highly likely that a further demonstration reactor, with a 1 million-kilowatt capacity, would be necessary before a commercially available model could be built, according to the sources. The panel will discuss both plans before finally selecting a capacity level three years from now. Construction costs for the demonstration reactor likely will surpass the about 590 billion yen spent on Monju. Taking the state's fiscal situation into consideration, the 750,000-kilowatt plan is now believed to be the front-runner, since only one demonstration reactor is necessary. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. has already been selected as the main manufacturer for the project. The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun © The Yomiuri Shimbun. ***************************************************************** 18 TheStar.com: The nuclear option TheStar.com - Business - The nuclear option A generation after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, nuclear power is again on the table. Some say it's the only answer to our energy woes May 06, 2007 04:30 AM Tyler Hamilton Already devastated by the steep decline in their local tobacco industry, communities across Haldimand and Norfolk counties are bracing for another economic hit. The McGuinty government is determined to close all coal plants in the province, including the massive Nanticoke Generating Station that employs 600 workers in the area. Surrounding communities, fearful of more job loss, are cautiously exploring their options as a 2014 shutdown deadline approaches. Desperate, they keep coming back to one controversial word: nuclear. "There's a lot to consider," says Bernie Solymar, one of more than 300 locals who packed a community centre in Port Dover recently for a nuclear "information" session. "I don't think the community has had time to form an opinion." But their options appear limited. Duncan Hawthorne, chairman of the Canadian Nuclear Association and chief executive of nuclear operator Bruce Power, makes this clear to the audience. He was invited by area politicians to explain the benefits of going nuclear in Nanticoke. It's an unusual invitation – with the exception of communities that already host nuclear plants, local politicians tend to close the door, not put out the welcome mat. Yet in February, Haldimand council passed a resolution declaring its interest. "One of the locations could be here," reassures Hawthorne in a witty Scottish accent, dismissing solar and wind as insufficient to fill the void left behind by the shutdown of Nanticoke. He's only telling "the facts," he repeats several times through the evening, at one point lamenting that too many people learn about nuclear power by watching The Simpsons. Sensing some reluctance from the crowd, Hawthorne later slips into passive-aggressive salesman mode. "I'm not here to sell you a nuclear plant. If you don't want a nuclear plant, I don't want to be here." But he does want to be there, and he is selling something – the idea that a nuclear renaissance is upon us, that emission-free atomic power will save local economies, keep global warming in check and pave the way to a nuclear-based hydrogen economy. The message in a nutshell: the construction of new nuclear plants in Canada is inevitable. Nuclear power, once shunned, is back on the table in Canada and around the world. Its image as a risky, expensive, dangerous technology – amplified by the Three Mile Island accident and Chernobyl disaster – is clouding. Only emission-free nuclear power, proponents say, can keep global warming in check without hindering economic growth. There's serious talk in Alberta about using nuclear power to reduce emissions during oil sands production. Behind the scenes, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has reportedly embraced the cause. And Ontario has already committed to building two new nuclear reactors totalling 1,000 megawatts in the province – just the start, industry and political sources contend. "For our environment, for our economy, for a secure energy supply and Ontario's future, we have to get going on nuclear power," provincial Conservative leader John Tory said last month in a scathing critique of the Liberal government's slow pedalling on the issue. "I'm prepared to say that we need more (reactors) than they're telling people they think we need." The province's two nuclear operators are working on the "more" assumption. Ontario Power Generation, in a filing to the nuclear regulator, has proposed the construction of new reactors totalling up to 4,800 megawatts at Darlington. Bruce Power has made similarly ambitious filings. "My sense is that OPG and Bruce are planning to do a bait-and-switch," says Greenpeace activist Shawn-Patrick Stensil, who also attended the Port Dover meeting. "The province said it would refurbish all the nukes, but I think both OPG and Bruce would prefer to just build new plants to ensure their future." In Canada, Ontario is by far the largest user of nuclear power, with three generating stations – Pickering, Darlington and Bruce – and 20 reactors. Two at Pickering are out of service and two at Bruce are currently being refurbished. Overall, nuclear accounts for roughly 50 per cent of electricity production in the province, and the McGuinty government wants to maintain that level over the next two decades. Quebec has two reactor units at its Gentilly station, while New Brunswick has one reactor at Point Lepreau. New nuclear is not on the table in Quebec, British Columbia and Manitoba. New Brunswick is a possible but unlikely exception. If a nuclear renaissance is to happen in Canada, it must happen in Ontario. But talk of renaissance or revival may be premature, says Stensil, who considers the big push toward nuclear an aggressive marketing strategy designed to give the industry the perception of momentum. "The industry is actually pushing hard to maintain its place in the global energy mix as its reactors age," he says. "Although packaged as a revival, the so-called nuclear renaissance has more to do with survival of the nuclear industry." He may be right. Even within Canadian nuclear-industry circles, talk of "uncertainty" is already making the rounds. Fred Boyd, editor of the Canadian Nuclear Society's quarterly journal, wrote in his most recent editorial that political and regulatory "dithering" and an unfinished third-generation reactor design from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. may be closing the window of opportunity for nuclear in Canada. After investing hundreds of millions of dollars in third-generation technology still three years from being complete, and with no sales of AECL's Advanced Candu Reactor imminent, observers say it's bizarre to hear the federal government already talking up the need for investment in a fourth-generation design that's more than a decade away. "The buzz of the nuclear renaissance hasn't translated into orders yet," says Stensil. And while communities in Haldimand and Norfolk are open to the idea, they're far from sold. Like many in the audience, including Nanticoke plant workers who declined to be interviewed, Solymar prefers to replace coal with renewables like wind and solar power, but isn't so sure it will be enough to save the local economy. At the same time, he's also worried about nuclear waste, and the known risks associated with the technology. "There's always that fear, even though it may be unfounded, that there's going to be a nuclear accident." The government's position is that Nanticoke is not a candidate for nuclear. But Ministry of Energy spokesperson Steven Erwin says the government is open to discussions with any community that requests it. Hawthorne warns against nightmare scenarios put forward by environmentalists such as Stensil. "He wants to scare you," he tells the crowd, admitting at the same time that nuclear isn't "the Brad Pitt of energy." Stensil, he adds, "wants to talk about birth defects and safety records, but it's not supported by the facts." When the Port Dover meeting reaches its end, Solymar walks away and the answers are no clearer. "I'm still at the point where I want to get more information." © Copyright Toronto Star online since 1996 | ***************************************************************** 19 Herald News: Two power plants have problems May 6, 2007 By KIM SMITH STAFF WRITER Both area nuclear power plants reported having problems Saturday night. A small amount of tritium-laced water leaked out of a crack in a steel storage container at the Braidwood Plant. Bob Osgood, Exelon spokesman, was not sure what time the leak occurred. "Apparently, rain water had collected inside the tank," Osgood said. "When someone tried to move it, about five gallons of water came out. The water stayed on our property and was tested as a precaution." Osgood said steel tanks are routinely used to store and ship lower levels of radioactive materials. If the container was being readied for shipping it would have been packaged and sealed. Last year, Exelon admitted leaking millions of gallons of tritium on more than one occasion after discovering the contamination of a nearby pond now owned by Exelon. Folks living around the power plant said there had been numerous leaks in and around the properties over the past decade. Tritium is a byproduct of nuclear generation. High levels are believed to increase the risk of cancer. New legislation, passed in the wake of learning about the spills, now mandates Exelon to report all spills of radioactive materials within 24 hours. At the Dresden Nuclear Power plant, a malfunctioning valve was discovered around 11 p.m. Friday during a routine maintenance check. Unit 2 was taken off-line while repairs are being made. "The plant responded as expected -- safely and without incidents," Osgood said. "There was no risk to the public and no release of radiation." There are three units at the Dresden facility. Dresden's Unit 1 has been dormant for many years. Unit 3 continues to operate at full power. Officials are reviewing the cause of the malfunction. "We have had no injuries reported from any of our workers," Osgood said. Reporter Kim Smith can be reached at (815) 729-6067 or ksmith@scn1.com Herald News: Subscribe | Online Photo Store © Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group | ***************************************************************** 20 Calgary Sun: Nuke boss confident in safety of proposed reactor Sat, May 5, 2007 UPDATED: 2007-05-05 01:36:21 MST By CP The president of a Calgary-based energy firm that's determined to bring nuclear energy to Alberta understands there may be some trepidation about the prospect. Wayne Henuset says he was a bit worried until he did his research and consulted with Albertans a couple of years ago. "People are for this and want this and understand it a lot more than I ever anticipated," said the president of Energy Alberta Corp., who would like to build a $6.2-billion, 2,200-megawatt Candu twin reactor in northern Alberta. "People are concerned about CO2 these days and they understand that nuclear has been around for 30 years," he said. "We had one or two accidents and one was crazy catastrophic, but they don't use that technology anymore and they've moved past it." A reactor meltdown at a plant in Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986 resulted in countless deaths and forced the resettlement of 336,000 people. "The Chernobyl accident? They won't even allow them to build those kind of reactors any more," Henuset said. Nuclear power is expected to be a hot topic at the annual general meeting of the provincial Tories this weekend. Energy Alberta hopes to build the plant in either Whitecourt or Peace River. Copyright © 2006, Canoe Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 washingtonpost.com: Amid the Applause, the Sound of Dissent - Calvert Reactor Has Many Fans, a Few Foes By Dan Morse Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, May 6, 2007; Page SM01 When UniStar Nuclear took another step last week toward building a reactor in Calvert County to generate electricity, the big question wasn't so much who supported the concept. "A great idea," said county Commissioner Gerald W. Clark (R-Lusby), summing up the views of many residents who are so comfortable living near two long-running reactors that some even go fishing next to them. "This country is in dire need of energy, and the nuclear stuff is a good, clean, environmentally friendly way to do it." The bigger question: Who opposed it? A partial answer could be found Thursday night inside a conference room along Main Street as dusk settled over Annapolis. Sitting around a table, munching on carrot sticks, homemade hummus, grapes and crackers were six members of a nascent group, which they decided that night would be called the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition. One each came from Baltimore, Columbia, Washington and St. Mary's County and two from Calvert. How much criticism they can bring to bear -- and they intend to bring a lot -- could play a role in shaping how the planning and review process unfolds for the proposed reactor. Last Monday, UniStar, which hopes to build at least four reactors nationwide, announced Calvert Cliffs as the site for which it will file its first construction and operating license application with federal regulators. It's a long process. Construction wouldn't begin until late 2010, at the earliest. That would give the new opposition group time to draw like-minded residents. "As an organizer, I see a lot of energy out there," said one of the six, Johanna Neumann. "I'm looking forward to the fight." Neumann, 27, is a policy advocate for Maryland Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit organization devoted to environmental, consumer protection and other issues. In March, it published "The High Cost of Nuclear Power: Why Maryland Can't Afford a New Reactor," a 28-page paper that can be found at marylandpirg.org. The not-so-subtle cover is a map, centered with a dot representing Calvert Cliffs. Concentric circles take in the Eastern Shore, the District and Baltimore, creating a sort of doomsday image of the effect should the reactor blow up. Inside, the paper makes points often raised by opponents: Nuclear power is expensive and draws government funds, plants are at risk of terrorist attacks and reactors produce radioactive spent fuel. Members of the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition think that as utilities push a resurgence of nuclear power, residents will remember the accident at Chernobyl. Bob Boxwell of Lusby was one of two Calvert residents at the Annapolis meeting. He lives eight miles from the reactor site and is an active member of the Southern Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club. Boxwell said the answer to global warming isn't nuclear power but rather conservation and the use of solar and wind energy. And he's certainly against building another big energy plant in Calvert. "You can quote me on this: We're the energy ghetto of Maryland," Boxwell said, in a reference to Calvert being home to a nuclear power plant and a major liquefied natural gas terminal. The coalition intends to launch a petition drive. Neumann hopes to collect at least 2,000 signatures, with signers becoming the recruiting base for more activist opponents. She would then try to bring pressure on local and state politicians, creating enough opposition that UniStar could be forced to consider other options. "We want to build where we are accepted," said Brian Meeley, a UniStar spokesman. UniStar is a joint venture of Constellation Energy Group, based in Baltimore and owner of Calvert Cliffs plant, and Areva Inc., a French company. Meeley said the support UniStar receives in Calvert is as strong as anywhere else in the country. Last year, citing the good safety record of Calvert Cliffs reactors and the creation of approximately 400 jobs if a new reactor were built, Calvert government offered tax breaks valued at $300 million for the proposed reactor. "Their past record has been excellent," Commissioner Barbara A. Stinnett (D-At Large) said. "I have a lot of faith that will continue." Nationwide, there appears to be a growing acceptance of nuclear power, given increasing concern over global warming, said Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog. He broke ranks with traditional environmentalists in 2005 by touting the advantages of nuclear energy in an article for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Technology Review. "I would expect Maryland residents, including environmentalists, to be more open to a nearby nuclear power plant now than 10 years ago," Brand said in an e-mail Friday from California. "And more open now than a year ago, because climate change has come on strong as a concern. ". . . How about five years from now?" he continued. "I would bet yes, because I think climate will be a still-growing concern, and more people will have become more familiar with the current state of nuclear power technology. It is mature, reliable and getting ever better." Other environmental groups continue to take a hard line against the construction of projects such as the one proposed at Calvert Cliffs. Among them are Greenpeace, which recently published a report on nuclear economics that says projects can run 300 percent over budget. Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst with Greenpeace USA, was involved in hearings on re-licensing of existing Calvert Cliffs reactors and said there was "solid public opposition" in Maryland. © 2007 The Washington Post Company ***************************************************************** 22 Times Argus: Yankee needs to pay its fair share Vermont News & Information May 6, 2007 By PETER SHUMLIN Having worked in Vermont politics for the better part of two decades, I wasn't surprised by how quickly and aggressively corporate lobbyists set out to kill the Vermont Legislature's ground-breaking climate change bill that passed the Senate by a narrow margin. From the first day of this session, I told my colleagues what they already knew but probably didn't want to hear: that the only way to make real progress on addressing global climate change is to take bold action and be willing to display political courage. Any doubt that courage is necessary to back up our words with action was erased this week. Lobbyists for Entergy, whose nuclear power plant, Vermont Yankee, is making windfall profits that exceed anything they projected, are swarming the Statehouse to plead with legislators to protect Entergy's shareholders. It's not fair, they argue, to levy a tax on Entergy's windfall profits, despite the fact that Entergy is now asking Vermont to store highly radioactive waste on the shores of the Connecticut River for the foreseeable future. It's not fair, the argument goes, for Entergy to put a fraction of its tens of millions of dollars in windfall profits into an affordable energy fund; they'd rather see every penny of this windfall profit be awarded to shareholders who are already making lots of money – a lot more than they anticipated just a few years ago – on Entergy's stock price. The corporate lobbyists are wrong. The windfall profits tax on Vermont Yankee that will fund the Legislature's global climate change is fair. With prices at an all-time high, Vermont Yankee is making millions of dollars more than its profit projections. At the same time, Entergy is asking the state to store its radioactive waste on the banks of the Connecticut River for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, energy bills for Vermont taxpayers continue to go through the roof. Vermont Yankee should pay its fair share, and it won't affect our energy rates: Those are locked in until 2012, and this tax expires that same year. And what will Vermont get in return for this legislation? We will save money for thousands of Vermonters whose heating bills keep going up. We will create jobs. We will promote renewable energy creation and electricity efficiency, and we will break new ground in helping reduce carbon emissions. By expanding on Efficiency Vermont's successful work on electricity efficiency to include all fuels, Vermont will show the world an innovative and economically beneficial method to reduce greenhouse gases. The bill expands the highly successful work of Efficiency Vermont in order to save Vermonters more money. Efficiency Vermont is a proven success and a well-managed program that will be expanded to apply to all fuels, not just electricity. That makes sense: Until now, Efficiency Vermont could only assess the electricity efficiency of businesses and homes. Now, Efficiency Vermont can help a homeowner or business save money with electricity and heating efficiency measures. I find it significant and revealing that in the debate about this bill, very few legislators or lobbyists have raised concerns about what we are trying to do with this bill. They object to the source of funding. That's understandable. Like the big oil companies, Entergy is a huge corporation with lots of friends in powerful places. It's true that the corporate executives at Entergy don't like this bill very much, but they already have great representation in Montpelier from the dozens of lobbyists who have converged on the Statehouse in the past few days. This bill stands up for the thousands of Vermonters struggling to pay their heating bills every month, and it addresses the most pressing problem facing our world today: global climate change. The price our children and our grandchildren will pay for our failure to take action today on global climate change is too horrific to even consider. The evidence of global warming is irrefutable; so is our need to take action. And that, despite the noise created by Entergy's corporate lobbyists, is exactly what this bill does. © 2007 Times Argus ***************************************************************** 23 toledoblade.com: NRC fails to address new report on reactor Article published Saturday, May 5, 2007 DAVIS-BESSE WOES The Nuclear Regulatory Commission apparently is not going to give U.S. District Court Judge David Katz a straight answer about a controversial 661-page report prepared by two FirstEnergy Corp. consultants. The report could be used to absolve the utility of liability for the near-rupture of Davis-Besse's old reactor head in 2002 and help the company process a $200 million insurance claim. The report, prepared by Exponent Failure Analysis Association of Menlo, Calif., and Altran Solutions Corp. of Boston, has huge legal implications for the government's case against two former Davis-Besse workers and a former contractor who have been indicted on charges of misleading the NRC about the plant's condition in the fall of 2001, according to defense attorneys. Judge Katz, who is presiding over that case in Toledo, told U.S. Department of Justice attorneys in open court on April 20 he needs to know if the report is "junk science" before proceeding because it contradicts government research that had been presented earlier. He gave Justice Department attorneys a directive to get an assessment from the NRC - the agency that regulates the nuclear industry - within two weeks. Last night, a spokesman for the NRC's regional office near Chicago e-mailed The Blade a copy of a letter sent earlier yesterday from Lisa B. Clark, NRC senior litigation attorney, to Richard Poole, one of three Justice Department attorneys who appeared in court before Judge Katz. Mr. Poole is a senior trial attorney for the Justice Department's environment and natural resources division. The letter recapped some actions the NRC took after getting the FirstEnergy consultants' report March 20. But there was no mention of whether the agency found the report credible. And Viktoria Mitlyng, the agency spokesman who e-mailed the correspondence to The Blade, said there would be no such assessment. The regulator intends to assess nothing other than potential safety implications for 68 of the nation's 102 other nuclear plants that have Besse-like pressurized reactors. It has concluded its inspection program is adequate and that there are no widespread implications for the industry, Ms. Mitlyng said. Its lone assessment to date "does not evaluate whether the assumptions, logic, analysis, and conclusions of the Exponent report are correct," Ms. Clark's letter stated. "If the judge does not accept it, then I don't know how the situation will unfold," Ms. Mitlyng said. "It's not a matter of tap-dancing. It's a matter of [FirstEnergy's consultants] going back and looking at something with a different set of assumptions." FirstEnergy's consultants claimed in their report the thinning of Davis-Besse's old reactor head was a fluke, primarily the result of accelerated deterioration during the last three weeks before the plant was shut down for two years on Feb. 16, 2002. The NRC itself has said in the past that the football-sized cavity in the reactor head occurred over several years as a result of known acid leaks that had been tolerated and were assumed not to be melting the head's metal. Ms. Mitlyng also revealed last night that a separate, yet related 90-page report FirstEnergy turned over to its insurance carrier, Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited, was not given to the government. She said the NRC expects to get that report soon. It details efforts the utility and the agency made to manage Davis-Besse's acid leaks in the past, she said. The agency also yesterday released FirstEnergy's own review of what its consultants had concluded. Todd Schneider, company spokesman, has said the utility stands behind the consultants' findings. But FirstEnergy said in its letter to the NRC it found no reason to redo the company's root-cause report it had filed with the government in 2002, weeks after the cavity was discovered. - TOM HENRY The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 To contact a specific department or an individual person, click here. The Toledo Times ® ***************************************************************** 24 Rutland Herald: Shumlin goes to same well for taxes Rutland Vermont News & Information May 6, 2007 By JOHN McCLAUGHRY A shabby, desperate attempt to find something new to tax is now playing itself out in Montpelier. The principal actor is the Senate president pro tem, Sen. Peter Shumlin. As every legislator who campaigned last fall well knows, the No. 1 issue afflicting Vermonters all across the state is the rising cost of public education. Those rising costs translate into rising property tax rates. The people demanded action. But Sen. Shumlin opened this year's Legislature, not with a focused effort to deal with education costs, but with two weeks of "seminars" on the menace of global warming. Once everyone was suitably indoctrinated in the urgent need for action to save the planet from Al Gore's heat death, Sen. Shumlin planned to push through the sweeping environmental program of the Vermont Public Interest Research Group. There were several key ingredients in the VPIRG anti-heat death program. One was to get people out of big, gas-consuming vehicles. That was the rationale for a $150 surtax on the purchase of minivans, SUVs and pickup trucks, coupled with a subsidy for the purchase of upscale hybrids for people who can afford $35,000 cars, plus little teeny-weeny cars for everybody else. That scheme collapsed in mid-April when even enviro Democrats were too nervous to do it. Another key ingredient was creating a permanent "efficiency utility" to explain to businesses and homeowners how to get by using less heating fuel. This "thermal efficiency" program was to be paid for with a new tax on heating oil, propane and natural gas. That scheme — deceitfully labeled a "heating fuel savings charge" – crashed when people who heat their homes and businesses found about it. By late April the senator from VPIRG was getting desperate to find new tax dollars to fund his environmental initiatives. So he turned to a favorite shakedown target that, unlike car owners and heating fuel users, doesn't have a vote: Vermont Yankee. Sen. Shumlin also represents Windham County. Hitting Vermont Yankee with a new tax is popular with that county's anti-nuclear activists who rightly view him as their favorite politician. Recall that in November 2003, in return for Public Service Department support for its application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a reactor power increase, Entergy, the owner of Vermont Yankee, agreed to pay the state $7.8 million to clean up algae in Lake Champlain, 180 miles away, plus $2.1 million to pay for more low-income home heating assistance. Two years after making that deal, Entergy sought regulatory permission to store spent fuel rods in concrete casks, instead of a cooling pool. "Aha!" cried the Legislature. "Entergy needs another approval. Let's make it pay us $4 million a year from now until 2012, and we'll decline to object to how the plant stores its used rods (on its own property, at its own expense)." So, to avoid a long and uncertain political and legal battle, Entergy, the state's lowest cost, most reliable energy producer, agreed to pay the state's new Clean Energy Fund as much as $28 million over the next seven years. The state will use the money to subsidize VPIRG's favorite renewable energy projects, chief among which are legions of already-subsidized 420-foot wind turbine towers marching along Vermont's mountain ridges. Now it's 2007. The senator from VPIRG, observing that he was not a party to the 2005 agreement, proposes to tax the spent fuel rods that Vermont Yankee already agreed to pay $28 million for permission to store. He also proposes to impose a special tax on any revenues the company might make by selling on the spot market the 20 percent of its power not already under a long-term contract. This dishonorable stunt would shatter the 2005 agreement that Entergy, acting in good faith, thought it had sealed with its $28 million. But on April 26 that scheme collapsed from legislative opposition (notably from the more conscientious Speaker of the House Gaye Symington, who had been a party to the earlier agreement). So the senator from VPIRG proposed another even more far-fetched new tax: a 35 percent tax on any "unanticipated revenues" that only one particular business — Vermont Yankee — might earn from selling its product. On May 1 the Senate bought Shumlin's scheme on a 15-14 vote, with eight liberal Democratic senators as well as six Republicans voting against it. Both the 2003 and 2005 deals between the state and Entergy are examples of government extortion. For enough protection money, the state agreed not to strangle Entergy's plans to produce cheaper, dependable power and improve the management of its waste. This is just what any Mafia racketeer would do if he had the power. That's bad enough. But the senator from VPIRG has now persuaded the Senate to break the latest deal and hammer Entergy again. Even the Mafia wouldn't do that. John McClaughry is president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org). © 2007 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 25 IAEA: Climate Change Report Looks at Nuclear Power, Other Options 2 May 2007 The latest in a series of global meetings on climate change opens in Bangkok this week, with the focus on technological options that can be put into place to mitigate climate change. Among energy technologies, nuclear power is seen as an option to cut carbon emissions. The meeting is organized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a joint body of the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme. The IAEA supports the IPCC´s work in various areas, including technology options for the mitigation of climate change. Hundreds of the world´s scientists and political leaders are participating in sessions. Two previous IPCC reports this year reported on greenhouse gas emissions and their likely effects on global temperatures, which could rise by as much as six degrees Celsius by 2100. Even a two-degree-Celsius rise could subject up to two billion people to water shortages by 2050 and threaten extinction for 20 percent to 30 percent of the world´s species, the IPCC said. The latest and third report examines a range of technological options to mitigate climate change. They include energy efficiency measures, reducing reliance on coal and natural gas, and moving more towards nuclear power and renewable energy such as wind. The report specifically focuses on ways to limit or prevent greenhouse gas emissions and to enhance activities that remove them from the atmosphere. Background: The IPCC was set up in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. The IAEA, through its laboratories, Department of Nuclear Science and Applications and Department of Nuclear Energy, supports and contributes to climate change studies. The Planning & Economic Studies Section in the Nuclear Energy Department specifically addresses international negotiations on climate change and sustainable development, and contributes to the work of the IPCC. The latest summary report on mitigation of climate change will be presented 4 May 2007 at a press conference in Bangkok that will be webcast on the IPCC website. It follows the release of two other IPCC Working Group reports earlier this year - one on "Physical Science Basis" in February 2007 and the second on "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability" in April 2007. Copyright ©, International Atomic Energy Agency, P.O. Box 100, Wagramer Strasse 5, A-1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone (+431) 2600-0; Facsimilie (+431) 2600-7; E-mail: ***************************************************************** 26 Xinhua: Atomic energy has much room to play Updated: 2007-05-05 10:32 The successful commissioning nearly 16 years ago of a 300 MW nuclear reactor in Qinshan, east China's Zhejiang Province marked the birth of the country's nuclear power industry. Development of the technology began actually earlier, dating back to the late 1970s. In the period between 1995 and 2005, China's nuclear power generation outpaced all other forms of energy in growth, by an annual average of 15.3 percent against the average 9.5 percent for total energy. In spite of that, the existing nine reactors in commercial operation, totaling 6,990 MW in capacity, account for only 1.6 percent of China's total power generating capacity. Nuclear power production stood at 54.3 billion KWH last year, 1.92 percent of the total electricity output. At an international energy forum held in May 2006 in Beijing, Zhang Guobao, a high-ranking energy official, said China would rely on domestic supply to meet its steadily growing energy demand. Commenting on the small share of nuclear power, he said, "there's much room for development." The official document for China's 11th Five-Year Development Program (2006-2010) uses the word "actively" to describe expected development of nuclear power in the period. The word used in the preceding plan was "moderately". This reflected a change of China's energy strategy. Regarded as a clean, alternative solution to growing energy demand, Beijing decided to give the nuclear sector a boost by targeting an installation of 40,000 MW by the end of 2020, which would account for 4 percent of total capacity. China developed independently the first 300 MW pressurized water reactor adopted by Qinshan Phase-1 plant. The facility enjoys a good running record and the proven technology was exported to Pakistan. Larger units, known as models CNP600 and CNP1000, have also been developed. Two 600 MW pressurized water reactors are currently operating in Qinshan Phase-2 plant. Construction is underway on two 650 MW reactors for an expansion of the same project. They are scheduled for commissioning in 2011. Site is selected at Fangjiashan, Zhejiang for the first CNP1000 nuclear reactor. The designed service period of the 1,000 MW unit reaches 60 years. "Its conditions of safeness, reliability and cost-efficiency are further improved, "said Kang Rixin, GM of China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC). A number of China's nuclear projects adopted foreign technologies. The Dayawan nuclear power plant in south China's Guangdong Province has two 1,000 MW pressurized water reactors introduced from France. Qinshan phase-3 project imported two Canadian 700 MW heavy water reactors. Tianwan in east China's Jiangsu Province is constructing two 1,060 MW AES-91 pressurized water reactors supplied by Russia. In December 2006 China announced the purchase of four 3G AP1000 reactors from US-based Westinghouse Electric Company. Work was kicked off in late 2006 for the construction of a 200 MW high temperature gas-cooled reactor in Shidaowan, Shandong. This was a demonstration project jointly developed by Huaneng Energy Group, CNNC and Tsinghua University. Featuring better safeness, higher efficiency and simple structure, the facility belongs to the fourth generation of the nuclear power family. Most nuclear reactors in operation or being constructed in China are of the 2nd generation technology. With the exception of a limited few, experts say, all new installations to be commissioned before the end of 2020 are expected to be 2G reactors or an improved version of 2G technology. China needs time to develop the 3G and more sophisticated products. Independent development and domestic manufacturing were important in cutting down on cost, which was a precondition for large-scaled, sustainable exploitation of nuclear energy, said Zhou Dadi, director of Energy Research Institute, National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC). The Chinese public is not without worry over nuclear facilities. To quite a few people, nuclear power and nuclear weapon sound similar in meaning and effect. And the disastrous accidents occurred decades ago in the United States and former Soviet Union are uneasy reminders of the threat. However, the voice of opposition against nuclear power has been weak in the country, as compared with condemnation on pollution caused by, say, the burning of coal. Proponents say some people's fear of nuclear power has stemmed from a lack of understanding of this form of energy. They argue there is no evidence to show nuclear power is more dangerous than other energies. In fact, the world sees more lives claimed every year by accidents related to hydropower and coal or gas-sourced energies. Although the opposition there is much stronger, many other countries are ahead of China in nuclear power development. The US relies on nuclear reactors for 20 percent of power consumption. France has the world's highest nuclear share of 80 percent. And worldwide the average share of nuclear power is around 16 percent. China's nuclear installation would only account for 4 percent of its total capacity when the 15-year target is hit, an analyst noted. China's existing nuclear facilities have a sound service record. The first self-developed 300 MW pressurized water reactor has operated safely for more than 15 years. The facility was designed for running 30 years. Now the operator is considering prolonging the period. Nuclear reactors give no emission of green house gas. And given the modern technology, limited amount of nuclear wastes could be disposed of properly. China's power industry was blamed for 40 percent of sulfur dioxide emission. The significance of developing nuclear power was obvious, an industry watcher said. To promote public understanding of nuclear power production, Dayawan launched in December 2006 a program allowing local residents a guided tour of the nuclear plant. The entrance was limited to 300 persons a day. Many visitors said they had a very eye-opening experience. Most new projects employ 1,000 MW scale reactors. To meet the 2020 goal, China needs to launch two or three such scaled projects in every of the following 15 years. CNNC and CGNPG (China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co. Ltd.) are two major developers of nuclear energy. CNNC has played a dominant role in domestic technology development, and is engaged diversely in nuclear projects across the country. The company recorded a profit of 1.1 billion yuan in 2005. It wishes to double the economic return in five years. CGNPG is the developer and operator of Dayawan and Ling'ao nuclear plants, which total 4,000 MW in capacity. The company has adjusted business target in accordance with the State Nuclear Power Planning. The aim is to control 34,000 MW capacity by 2020. The nuclear undertakings of the two groups, if their plans could be fulfilled, would be adequate to meet the nation's goal for 2020. But other energy players are eager to join in the game. The targeted capacity would probably be surpassed, an observer said. All existing reactors are located in coastal areas, close to water and the nation's main power load region. Now inland areas that have abundant water supply are deemed plausible for nuclear installation too. This gives local governments and companies a chance. A dozen or so inland provinces are reportedly contending for launching the country's first inland nuclear power station. Many sites have been selected, projects initiated and even fund raised. The Taohuajiang project, a 4,000 MW scenario in Hunan, has completed feasibility study in August 2006. The plan is likely to be the first to gain central government approval. The enthusiasm poses a worry to some observers, who call for strict regulation and supervision of nuclear projects to ensure safe construction and operation. Although the technology is mature, nuclear power is a highly sensitive business. Any accident of intensity would have devastating impact on the industry, an observer said. The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl cases were lessons to learn. Developers and operators must have the necessary qualification, said the observer. Presently, all new developers team up with CNNC or CGNPG. But China needs a proper mechanism to ensure strict market entry. And the lack of whole unit equipment supplier, the isolation of designers and operators, and the monopoly of nuclear fuel dealing were issues waiting to be addressed, the same observer said. An atomic law and policy incentives to encourage nuclear power development were also necessary. Talent is another weakness that hampers the nuclear boom. Shortage of supply is felt particularly in high-level managerial personnel, in addition to technical staff. According to CGNPG's Assistant to GM Zhang Weiqing, the company needs to expand the staff team from 3,000 to 12,000 people by the year 2020. That means recruiting and training 1,000 persons every year. A company dedicated to procuring uranium overseas was inaugurated on December 28, 2006 in Beijing. The company is under CNNC, which monopolizes the trading of uranium resources in China. Domestic uranium supply is sufficient for the time being. And reserves are big enough for the long run. But the boost of capacity in the medium term, between 2015 and 2025, may cause a shortage of supply. Overseas procurement is therefore necessary. Unlike oil, uranium is in abundant supply on the international market. China expects little opposition for overseas buying, said Qian Jihui, honorary director of China Nuclear Power Institute. China is one of the six signatory countries that are engaged in the 30-year International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) program. China pledged to spend US$1 billion on the program and expected to share its findings and intellectual property. As its name suggests, ITER was intended to make breakthrough in exploiting nuclear energy via atomic fusions. Experiments with the tokamak device conducted in a research center in Hefei, Anhui reported successes a number of times last year. Although the prospects of putting it to commercial use is still remote -- experts say at least 50 years ahead, the progress makes the Chinese believe they are playing the leading role in nuclear power exploitation. China Daily ***************************************************************** 27 Reuters: Beating global warming needn't cost the earth: U.N. Sat May 5, 2007 12:35AM EDT By David Fogarty BANGKOK (Reuters) - Humans must make sweeping cuts in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 50 years to keep global warming in check, but it need cost only a tiny fraction of world economic output, a major U.N. report said on Friday. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said keeping the temperature rise within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) would cost only 0.12 percent of annual gross domestic product. "It's a low premium to pay to reduce the risk of major climate damage," Bill Hare, a Greenpeace adviser who co-authored the report told Reuters after marathon talks that ran over their four-day schedule to finalize the document. The report "shows that it's economically and technically feasible to make deep emission reductions sufficient to limit warming to 2 degrees," he said. To keep within that limit, which scientists and the European Union say is needed to stave off disastrous climate changes, carbon dioxide emissions need to fall 50 to 85 percent by 2050, said the report, the third in a series. However, technological advances, particularly in more efficient energy use and production, meant such targets were within reach, it said. It stressed the use of nuclear, solar and wind power, more energy-efficient buildings and lighting, as well as capturing and storing carbon dioxide spewed from coal-fired power stations and oil and gas rigs. But A U.S. environmental official rejected some options detailed in the report for cutting emissions as too costly. Continued... © Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 28 NWN: Idaho Astronomers Worried About Nuke Plant Near Bruneau Dunes Observatory | Boise | New West Network By Irwin Horowitz, 5-05-07 A nuclear plant to be built near Bruneau, Idaho? Earlier this week, the Idaho Statesman had an article on the proposed nuclear power plant near Bruneau, Idaho. Virginia-based Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (AEH) has acquired the rights to 4,000 acres of land on the Snake River near CJ Strike Recreation Area and about 13 miles away from the state-owned astronomical observatory at Bruneau Dunes State Park. They plan to pursue licensing and construction for a 1600 MW nuclear reactor on this site, which would be the largest nuclear plant in the country, should it be built. Their current timeline, optimistic by some accounts, would be to complete licensing by 2011 and begin operating by 2015. The company is currently seeking out large investors to provide the expected capital - about $3 billion for construction costs including $78 million necessary for the licensing process. Do I support this endeavor? Despite considering myself to be politically progressive and generally pro-environment, I don’t oppose it because of some general opposition towards nuclear power. As both a scientist and an engineer, I believe that nuclear power is one of the primary tools available to minimize the impending global consequences of climate change, as it is a non-polluting source of power in this regard (no green house gas emissions). I am convinced that the effects of global warming represent a far greater threat to our planet than the localized impacts of nuclear waste. This pro-nuclear support does not address the economic viability of nuclear power, particularly in the absence of any governmental subsidies, but rather focuses strictly on the technical and environmental issues involved. However, my primary concern with the plans put forth by AEH for this particular plant are in regards to the proximity of this site to the observatory in the park, and the impact any exterior lighting may have on the quality of the dark skies. My fellow board members of the Boise Astronomical Society, who as a group, are generally supportive of nuclear power, are likewise concerned about this one issue. Will this plant require and install so much poorly designed exterior lighting that the results will effectively ruin the nighttime skies at the observatory? My hope is that the designers of this plant would be willing to consult with our members and with the observatory staff to address this concern, and to install properly shielded lighting for the plant, so as to minimize the impact of light pollution. Regarding the role of nuclear power in addressing future power needs Following the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island, the nation’s commercial nuclear power industry stalled, with no new plant construction undertaken to meet our ever growing power needs. Currently, less than 20% of all electric power nationwide is generated via nuclear plants. This is in contrast with over 70% generated via a variety of fossil-fuel burning plants (50% coal, 19% natural gas, 3% oil). With the passage of the 2005 Energy Bill, nuclear power is once again getting serious consideration as a means to address our insatiable hunger for more power, while not contributing to the ever-growing problem of climate change. Is this the best solution? Probably not. I’d rather see a growing reliance on alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar (and not just because of my own involvement with a company marketing solar power systems). However, I am not yet convinced that the alternative marketplace is able to fully provide the necessary power requirements over the next several decades, and I would rather have that power provided by sources that won’t contribute to global climate change. The most effective option as I see it is nuclear energy. Dangers associated with Nuclear power Isn’t nuclear power dangerous, you might ask? It certainly is if proper safety precautions are not followed. I absolutely insist that everyone in the nuclear industry hold safety as the NUMBER ONE priority. However, does evidence exist to suggest that if such precautions are followed, that nuclear power is not a safe alternative to fossil-fuel plants? To answer that, I look towards the decades of safe operation of nuclear plants all across Europe as well as the safety record of the United States Navy, which has operated nuclear power vessels for nearly 50 years. France gets about 80% of their electricity from nuclear power and other nations across Europe possess substantial capacity in this industry. There is now a long track record on how to safely operate these plants, and therefore, if plants are designed properly and operated according to accepted industry protocols, they should be perfectly safe in terms of radiation dispersal. What about the waste issue? Yes, the spent fuel rods are highly radioactive, and consist of a mix of both short-lived (decades) and long-lived (millennia) radioisotopes. Our nation could certainly use a geologically stable repository for these waste materials, such as been proposed at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but in the near term, on-site storage in pools of water designed to prevent seepage into the underground water table, has proven to be an effective means of dealing with the short-lived waste. In addition, reprocessing of the material is another option that should be considered. Some opponents of nuclear power point to the possibility that the plants may be targets for terrorist attacks. Certainly, any terrorist who wishes to maximize fear in the populace would look towards these plants as tempting targets. Security must be as tight as possible. But the notion that a 9/11 type of attack could result in a massive release of radiation if targeting a nuclear plant is not credible. First, it would require a large commercial aircraft to penetrate the reactor vessel (in other words, general aviation aircraft would pose no danger). If somehow a terrorist were to attempt to repeat the horrors of 9/11, either the passengers would react as those on United 93 did and overcome the terrorists, albeit at the sacrifice of their own lives, or the US Air Force would blast the plane out of the sky long before it got anywhere near a nuclear plant. What about stealing the waste material and building a “dirty” bomb? To accomplish this, the terrorists would need highly specialized equipment so as to ensure they don’t suffer the ravages of radiation poisoning while working on their plot. It is not as simple as shown on some television shows, and quite frankly a terrorist would find it much easier to steal or purchase a nuclear weapon instead of targeting a nuclear plant (not that stealing such weapons is easy). Finally, with regard to this particular plant or any built in the lightly-populated state of Idaho, there are far more tempting targets on the east coast nearer to major population centers, that if attacked would result in far greater casualties than striking a plant here. By Dean Malencik, 5-06-07 Nuclear power is ultimately a zero defect proposition. Probability plays a role in any accident and determines outcomes. Contrary to general opinion, Chernobyl is not the worst we can expect if accidents happen. If you want to know these probabilities ask an actuarial insurer to see what amount they would need to insure such a plant. The people can then decide if they want to use their state to power the glitzy lights of Las Vegas. By Rod Adams, 5-06-07 As a former engineer officer on a US nuclear submarine, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the original post. As you clearly describe, the choice of power plants and locations is a complex issues with many facets. It would be extremely shortsighted on the part of AEHI to ignore the concerns of people that might be affected by their plans, especially when there are simple ways to address them in the early stages of the project. While I understand the seductive nature of non fission alternatives to fossil fuel, those sources - wind, solar, biomass, tidal, wave and hydroelectricity - share many limitations that technology simply cannot overcome. All of them are diffuse and require massive structures in order to capture large amounts of energy. All of them are dependent upon natural cycles that do not necessarily synch up with human desires for energy and power use. All of them have been known by humans for thousands of years and unless you believe that all of the billions of people that have lived before us were stupid, you have to recognize that they have all been tried before and rejected as not sufficient for good reasons. Fission is very concentrated, very new in human experience terms and has a huge margin for improvement and additional application. We are still in the early flat part of the technology 'S' curve that Clay Christensen described in his seminal work "The Innovator's Dilemma". I think investment in nuclear fission power will be far more rewarding than investment in other alternatives. Like Mr. Horowitz, I have a bias - I am the founder and CEO of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. Without divulging commercially valuable information, I respectfully suggest to Mr. Malencik that his insurance concerns are obsolete and based on information that is nearly 50 years old. In the early days of nuclear power, there was no actuarial information available and commercial insurers did not want to take risks with the new technology. As Mr. Horowitz clearly described, however, they now have many years worth of information on which to make decisions. Even one of the most savvy insurance companies in the world (Berkshire Hathaway), led by one of the world's most famous investors (Warren Buffett) is now interested in supporting and investing in nuclear power. By Craig Moore, 5-06-07 Irwin, outstanding column. I sincerely hope that you get your input to the right people to make this venture a "win" for everyone. France has certainly set the standard for safe and cost effective nuclear power. By Craig Moore, 5-06-07 Where is the commentary here? INMHO this is a VERY important column. Dr. Horowitz has written an extremely objective assessment of nuclear power and its importance to American power needs and the enviroment and there is barely a pulse of discourse. What's up with that? Come on folks and get with it. This column should be in every important newspaper in America and he should be interviewed by all of the alphabet news outlets. By Jill Kuraitis, 5-06-07 Craig - Weekends are quiet sometimes. I see activity in this column's future..... Swami Jill By Ohadi Langis, 5-06-07 Mr. Horowitz has genuine concerns, but litttle to worry about in the near term, e.g., next five-to-ten years. http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/04/idahos-invisible-nuclear-power-plan t.html © 2007 NewWest, All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 29 UPI: Jordan eyes developing nuclear power United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Published: May 5, 2007 at 3:00 PM AMMAN, Jordan, May 5 (UPI) -- The country of Jordan is looking at the possibility of developing nuclear power as a means of generating electricity for civilian uses and water desalination. In an interview with the Petra news agency Saturday, Jordan's Energy and Mineral Resources Minister Khaled Al Shreideh said the Middle East country's heavy reliance on imported power was costing 23 percent of its gross domestic product and that it made sense to develop existing uranium resources. Jordan estimates it has at least 80,000 metric tons of uranium reserves that are considered easy to produce plus another 100,000 metric tons mixed in with its rich phosphate deposits. Al Shreideh said Jordan had a long way to go before it would be ready to launch a nuclear program. In the meantime, he said the government is negotiating for new natural gas supplies from Egypt and would soon seek bids for oil exploration in its undeveloped Al Jafr area. © Copyright 2007 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 30 IRNA: Pope stresses Iran's right to use peaceful N-energy - Rome, May 5, IRNA Iran-Nuclear-Khatami-Pope Pope Benedict XVI in Vatican on Friday stressed Iran's right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Pope Benedict was speaking in a meeting with former Iranian president and Head of the International Center of Dialogue among Cultures and Civilizations Mohammad Khatami. Like other big states, Iran should use peaceful nuclear energy, he said. He pointed to freedom of religions in Iran and added there is a peaceful coexistence and respect among divine religions in the country. He said he was informed that religious minorities have MPs in Iran's parliament and their rights are respected. Referring to escalation of tension and aggravation of political and security problems in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the occupied Palestine, the pope said Europe is well aware of Iran's power in the region. By relying on its peaceful policies, said the pope, Iran can play an important role in resolving regional problems and crises. Meanwhile, Khatami said, "Today, Muslims, Christians and followers of other divine religions should stress their commonalties and strive to maintain unity in the face of insecurity and violence." The former president regarded lack of kindness and justice as the root cause of main problems for mankind. Stressing Iran's right to acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, he said, "Execution of unfair and double standards are among realities which create problems." Pointing to problems in Palestine, the former president said, "It should be admitted that peace plans set forth for Palestine so far have not been fair. "Those who claimed they were implementing the plans were not fair and impartial," he said. Khatami also slammed continuation of Iraq's occupation by the US and its allies, and said Iraq's occupation has intensified insecurity, extremism, terrorism and caused massacre of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the country. After his meeting with Pope Benedict XVI, Khatami held talks with Vatican's Prime Minister Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone and Foreign Minister Archbishop Dominique Mamberti. The former president also met with Italy's Prime Minister Romano Prodi and President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Pierre Fernando Cassini Friday evening. News sent: 12:07 Saturday May 05, 2007 Print ***************************************************************** 31 Newsday.com: License bid for nuclear plants north of NYC sets stage for fight - By JIM FITZGERALD Associated Press Writer May 5, 2007, 1:00 PM EDT BUCHANAN, N.Y. -- On a recent day at the Indian Point nuclear power station, a truck-sized transformer, destroyed by fire, sat discarded on the edge of the property. Nearby, a young scientist headed for the Hudson River with dye-detection equipment to search for the source of a leak of radioactive isotopes. And in another part of the facility, separate computers were devoted to two problem-plagued emergency siren systems. Located 35 miles north of New York City, Indian Point is the nation's most scrutinized and least popular nuclear installation. Opponents wish that it would just go away. But the owners of the facility have a much different plan. On Monday, Indian Point's owner, Entergy Nuclear, applied for new licenses that would keep one reactor running until 2033 and the other until 2035. The 2,500-page application, and what could be a two-year relicensing process, has become the focus of Indian Point's many critics. It seems likely to spur the sharpest debate about the reactors since 2003, when a bid to shut down the reactors failed. "When Entergy declared the intention to extend for 20 years, the idea sort of came together that at least we can assure our children and our children's children that these plants aren't going to continue to operate beyond 2013 and 2015," when the current licenses expire, said Lisa Rainwater, spokeswoman for the environmental organization Riverkeeper. She said she expects the relicensing battle to become "one of the largest legal cases we have seen in a very long time." Entergy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have stressed that none of the problems are significant safety dangers, and Entergy said in its application that "we are extremely proud of these two great facilities." But the application prompted a bipartisan group in Congress to express concern, saying, "As a result of its proximity to New York City, there is no doubt that a safety failure at the plant could have catastrophic consequences for the entire nation." Expecting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deny a license _ it would be a first _ may be far-fetched, however. At a recent Senate hearing, NRC commissioner Edward McGaffigan Jr. said, "The people of New York should thank God every day" that Entergy is running Indian Point. And when the commission's regional administrator, Samuel Collins, was asked if Indian Point's performance problems could result in a denial of the license, he said, "I think the direct answer to that is no." Indian Point, at about 2,000 megawatts, produces a quarter of the electricity used in New York City and Westchester County. Arthur Kremer of the New York Affordable Reliable Electricity Alliance said relicensing is necessary because of several reasons: Electricity demand is soaring, few new plants are being built, and non-emitting facilities are needed to improve the air quality. But criticism has been building as the plants' problems persist. As Sen. Hillary Clinton recently told the NRC, "Just about every week we pick up the local newspaper and find some other problem at Indian Point." Over the past two years, those problems have included: _Leaks of radioactive tritium and strontium-90, possibly from the pools that protect spent nuclear fuel, into the groundwater beneath Indian Point and then, in tiny concentrations, into the Hudson. The source is still being sought. _Several failures of the siren system that's designed to alert people within 10 miles of the Buchanan plants to any emergency. In July 2005, the sirens stood useless for nearly six hours when power was lost and no one noticed. In March 2006, the system locked up for several hours during a test. _A missed deadline for the installation of a new siren system. Entergy was fined $130,000 by the NRC, which said the failure "reflects insufficient management attention at senior levels." _Nine unplanned shutdowns of the reactors since 2005, including two last month, the latest due to the fire in the transformer. _A finding by the NRC that some Indian Point workers were reluctant to raise safety concerns because they fear retribution. "These problems have eroded the confidence of many New Yorkers in the plant, its operators and the NRC's oversight," Clinton said last week. "Indian Point faces a very critical time with their upcoming relicensing and the NRC and Entergy need to prove to the community that their facility is safe and will remain so into the future." . Copyright Newsday Inc. ***************************************************************** 32 DNA: India - N-deal letter puts govt in a tight spot - Daily News & Analysis dnaindia.com | India | Report Seema Guha Saturday, May 05, 2007 23:59 IST NEW DELHI: As the India-US bilateral nuclear negotiations enters its last leg, the sharp letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from ranking members of the US Congress has given a fillip to all those opposed to the deal and landed the government in a soup. The letter, signed by a number of Congressman, including Chairman of the powerful committee on Foreign Affairs, Tom Lantos begins on an ominous note: “We are writing to express our grave concern regarding several recent developments that, if left unaddressed, have the potential to significantly harm prospects for the establishment of the ‘global partnership’ between the US and India …..” the letter said, and went on to list all the things the US Congress is unhappy about. Its ends with the warning; “Mr Prime Minister, we urge you to provide assurances that India will cease illicit procurement activities in the US, sever military cooperation with Iran, and terminate India’s participation in the development of Iran’s energy sector. By taking these steps you can help ensure that the positive evolution of our bilateral relationship continues.” While India’s so-called defence and energy co-operation was on top of the list, the indictment of several persons, including an employee of the embassy in Washington, for illegally procuring sensitive technology for India’s ballistic missile programme all came in for criticism. The visit of the commander of the Iranian Navy to India in March, the alleged establishment of a joint defence working group as well as the India-Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project were all mentioned, to drive home the point that New Delhi was not keeping to the spirit of the July 18 agreement between Prime Minister Singh and President George Bush. © 2005-2007 Diligent Media Corporation Ltd. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 AU ABC: Govt attacked with UN report AM - Saturday, 5 May , 2007 08:03:07 Reporter: Michael Vincent ELIZABETH JACKSON: Labor, the Greens and environment groups have seized on the latest UN report on climate change to hammer the Howard Government's policies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report says reducing greenhouse gas emissions is possible with current technology, and it's affordable. And two of Australia's leading authors of the report say Australia can adjust its economy with a "modest" cost. Labor says that puts a hole in the Government's argument that tackling climate change will destroy the economy and cost jobs. Michael Vincent reports. MICHAEL VINCENT: The detail in the United Nations report may be complex, but Chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, says its message on climate change is simple. RAJENDRA PACHAURI: It is challenging, but at the same time I don't think we have the luxury of time. We have to start doing something rather quickly. MICHAEL VINCENT: And the UN report spells out plainly to the world's governments what their options are - reduce emissions rapidly at a cost of a few per cent of GDP and, at most, temperatures will rise by two degrees; don't act and temperatures will rise to dangerous levels, and the economic costs will be much greater. Labor's environment spokesman Peter Garrett. PETER GARRETT: Mr Howard won't tell us when he's going to target greenhouse gas reductions, he won't say by how much he's going to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. And yet this authoritative report shows very clearly that you actually can address the issue of reducing emissions and do it in a way that doesn't significantly impact on economy in the long-term. MICHAEL VINCENT: But if this report means that Australia has to restructure some of its industries, won't that lead to massive job losses in those sectors? PETER GARRETT: The report makes it clear that unless we actually start to address climate change now we face dire economic consequences. The report says very clearly that climate change and actually addressing climate change can be contained at a cost of less than 0.1 per cent of the world's gross GDP. I mean, that's a very striking figure, and it identifies a number of areas that that can be done, and it includes things like coal and clearly making coal cleaner. It includes things like making sure that you get stuck into demand management, that you address transport emissions, that you've actually got a whole of government approach to climate change, something which we've never had from the sceptical, denying Howard Government. MICHAEL VINCENT: And the Greens agree that the UN report validates their arguments that reducing greenhouse gas emissions doesn't have to lead to massive job losses. Climate change spokeswoman, Senator Christine Milne. CHRISTINE MILNE: The attitude of saying, 'We're not going to address climate change because we're going to try and protect coal jobs' is in fact making the dislocation worse when it comes, as the rest of the world repudiates coal, and it's also costing us jobs in the renewable energy sector and costing us jobs in the rural sector and with tourism. So in fact there are many more jobs to be had by addressing climate change and oil depletion than there are in terms of job losses. And it's about acting soon enough to make the transition. MICHAEL VINCENT: And even though the UN report lists nuclear power as an option to reduce emissions, Senator Milne says it's not an option for Australia because the power stations won't be ready in time. CHRISTINE MILNE: We have to address this climate change in a very short timeframe, and it's saying that we need to have global emissions peaking within 15 years. That is a really strong statement. That is, 2022 we're talking about. And you are not going to have carbon capture and storage, or nuclear, proven in Australia in that time. ELIZABETH JACKSON: Greens Senator Christine Milne ending Michael Vincent's report. ***************************************************************** 34 Edmonton Journal: Epcor steamed over emission caps edmontonjournal.com Price of meeting greenhouse gas rules $25 million a year, utility boss says Paul Marck, The Edmonton Journal Published: Saturday, May 05, 2007 EDMONTON - The boss of one of Canada's biggest power generators has slammed federal proposals for greenhouse gas emissions. The price of meeting proposed federal greenhouse gas regulations is $25 million a year for Edmonton's Genesee power plant, says Don Lowry, CEO of Epcor Utilities. The CEO of the city-owned utility says that an edict that new thermal power plants, either gas- or coal-fuelled, meet the same emission standards by 2010, is unfair and unworkable. View Larger Image Epcor CEO Don Lowry rejects participation in a proposed nuclear power plant due to his company's lack of expertise in that technology. Bruce Edwards, The Journal "The winners under the proposed plan are the old generating units that have done nothing to improve their performance. This is a perverse and hopefully unintended outcome of this framework," Lowry said at the utility's annual general meeting. Genesee 3, built after 2004, must hit an emissions reduction target of 53 per cent by 2009, while older vintage units with higher emissions could potentially be hit with half that standard, said Lowry. Genesee 3 is already the cleanest coal-burning power plant in Canada, with EPCOR investing $90 million in 2005 to reduce carbon dioxide, particulate and sulphur emissions, among others, well below existing standards. "The technology we deployed is the best money could buy and you cannot significantly improve upon it. You can't further tweak and tune it," said Lowry. "Furthermore, there is no known technology today that is yet commercially viable that can hit this standard." Lowry said the price of a federal emissions tax on Genesee 3 would be about $25 million, which would be passed on to EPCOR customers, mostly residents of Edmonton. "One thing I do know for certain is prices are going up because there is no way generators can absorb those costs and if people mean what they say, then there is a bill to pay for improved emissions." Lowry said it will be 2017 to 2020 before synthetic gas derived from coal is feasible on a commercial scale, meaning that the Genesee plant could cost city taxpayers $250 million. There is also no guarantee that a technology fund based on the tax would be used to help achieve new measures that mitigate the problem, Lowry said. "The addition of taxes on top of that won't get us there any faster," Lowry said. Epcor has consulted with the government and is hopeful that whatever policies are enacted into legislation takes into account Genesee 3's position. "I remain hopeful and the government has certainly signalled that they want to be consulted as we go through this, but we have to speak up now because as you currently interpret these, there could be significant repercussions." Epcor is also reviewing its proposed 450-megawatt joint power project with TransAlta at Wabamun, Keephills 3, to examine escalation of costs and technology implications in light of Ottawa's new policies, Lowry said. Asked about a proposal by a Calgary company to build a nuclear power plant in Alberta, Lowry said Epcor has no expertise in that area and would not be involved in such a project. However, he said there is a role for thermal, hydro, wind and nuclear energy to meet growing demand for power across Canada. Epcor operates power plants, water and sewage treatment plants from B.C. to New York state, California and the Carolinas, some through a 30.5-per-cent interest in Epcor Power L.P. pmarck@thejournal.canwest.com SNAPSHOT OF A POWER COMPANY Epcor released its quarterly financial results Friday for the period ended March 31. Among the highlights: - Net income of $98 million, based on revenues of $899 million, compares to $186 million and $812 million for the same period last year. The difference is attributed to "unfavourable changes" in merchant and wholesale positions, foreign currency contracts, and contracts not designated as hedges for accounting purposes. - Investment in capital projects was $74 million, compared to $38 million. c The Edmonton Journal 2007 ***************************************************************** 35 Edmonton Journal: Tories will vote on nuclear future for Alta. edmontonjournal.com Grassroots of party carry powerful voice into annual convention Jason Markusoff, The Edmonton Journal; with files from the Calgary Herald Published: Saturday, May 05, 2007 EDMONTON - The churn of current events in Alberta has suddenly given about 1,500 provincial Conservatives the power today to shift the government's stance on rent controls and cast the first ballot for a potential nuclear future for Alberta. At their annual party convention, members will consider a policy resolution to urge the Tory government to strike a committee to study nuclear power and another to implement all recommendations from its housing task force, which included one calling for rent controls. Those resolutions were drafted long before this week, when Energy Alberta Corp. said it will file regulatory applications in June to build a twin-reactor plant somewhere in northern Alberta, and Premier Ed Stelmach expressed an openness to revisiting his government's stance on housing if the party wishes. View Larger Image Jim Edwards is reflected in a window at the provincial Progressive Conservative convention in Edmonton on Friday. Ed Kaiser, The Journal Premier Ed Stelmach has repeatedly stated his desire to take policy cues from his party's grassroots. He said Friday the two-day convention "will really set the direction of policy formulation" in Alberta. Tory members will vote on eight resolutions. Past conventions featured several dozen resolutions, which many Tories felt watered down their relevance. Treasury Board President Lloyd Snelgrove admitted members have long grumbled the members' policy wishes didn't have much value under former premier Ralph Klein. "Not as much as I'd have liked," Snelgrove said. Today's other resolutions include proposals to save a fixed amount of government surpluses into the Heritage Fund, and making sure Alberta's air and water quality are the country's best -- things the government could argue it is already doing. The party will also consider whether fundraising for its next leadership race will be policed by Elections Alberta or the Tories themselves -- a result of the widespread controversy over deep-pocketed anonymous donors and the complete lack of rules in the recent contest that Stelmach won. The party will also get the chance today to extend Peter Lougheed's dynasty. His son, 41-year-old lawyer Joe Lougheed, is running to be elected as the party's volunteer president. But insiders say he's facing tough competition from Marg Mrazek, a St. Albert lawyer and veteran party executive. But much of the convention affairs were at odds with Stelmach's attempt to brand himself as open and transparent. Reporters were barred from several party sessions, including its annual general meeting, constitutional amendments, and strategy workshops. Doug Graham, the outgoing party president, said members have argued they don't feel they can discuss issues candidly while the media is watching. While it's unclear where Tories stand on going nuclear, the public appears split. A Cameron Strategy poll of 812 Albertans earlier this year reported that 45 per cent supported nuclear power to help fuel the oilsands, while 43 per cent were against it. The rest were unsure. "If there's a huge majority that love (nuclear) and want to go forward and do it, we're going to do it," said Drayton Valley-Calmar MLA Tony Abbott. "If there's a huge majority that says no, it's too scary, let's stay away from it, I think we should listen to them." "We have to be open-minded, but on the other hand, this is one area, one discussion that all Albertans... we'll seek their input," Stelmach said, noting that it would be several years before any nuclear plant actually gets built. jmarkusoff@thejournal.canwest.com © The Edmonton Journal 2007 ***************************************************************** 36 Edmonton Journal: Don't let Ottawa set Alberta's nuclear agenda edmontonjournal.com Paula Simons, The Edmonton Journal Published: Saturday, May 05, 2007 Now, here's a radioactive news flash to ignite public debate. Energy Alberta Corp., and its partner, Atomic Energy Canada, have announced plans to apply to build a 2,200-megawatt nuclear power plant, somewhere in northern Alberta -- potentially Whitecourt. The companies intend to file a licence application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the federal agency that regulates nuclear facilities, June 15. Wayne Henuset, the president of Energy Alberta, claims the plant could be up and running by 2016. If the plant were to go ahead, it would be the largest electrical generation source in Alberta. Just to put it in perspective, Epcor's new Genesee 3 power plant produces 495 megawatts, while the province's largest plant, TransAlta's Sundance, produces 2,020 megawatts. Alberta has never had a nuclear power plant. With our natural gas and coal supplies, nuclear power was never on the radar. And nuclear power has been unfashionable for decades --there hasn't been a new plant approved in Canada for more than 25 years. But at a time when international concern about global warming is at a fever pitch, nuclear power is experiencing a PR renaissance. Reliance on nuclear power has been instrumental in helping countries like Great Britain and France lower CO2 emissions. The nuclear industry has been eager to capitalize on climate-change fears to rebrand itself as a green alternative power source. From an environmental perspective, there's something to be said in defence of nuclear power. A nuclear reactor doesn't burn fossil fuel, so it produces relatively few greenhouse gases. It doesn't pollute the air with particulate matter, or gases such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. It doesn't consume natural gas -- that's important given Alberta's depleting conventional gas reserves. Unlike a hydroelectric plant, it doesn't require river ecosystems to be dammed and disrupted. And unlike wind or solar power, it's not weather-dependent. But nuclear power is no environmental panacea. Even the best-run plant produces significant amounts of dangerous radioactive nuclear waste; approximately 85,000 waste fuel bundles are generated by Canadian reactors each year. We still haven't instituted a safe, long-term solution to storing or neutralizing such hazardous waste material, which needs to be secured for hundreds of thousands of years. Then, there's the small, but dire, threat of a serious accident. The ghosts of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl necessarily haunt any public debate about nuclear power. Of course, The China Syndrome and The Simpsons aside, the nuclear energy industry worldwide actually has a pretty decent public safety track record. Still, the consequences of something going badly wrong are so extreme. The odds of a major nuclear contamination are very slim. But when potential dangers are so lethal, so catastrophic, so long term, it's hard to do a dispassionate risk assessment. Ignore the green posturing. There's a very different agenda at play here. The federal government and Atomic Energy Canada have embarked on a major international campaign to sell Canada's Candu reactor technology. But it's hard to market our technology with any credibility, when Canadians won't use it themselves. Just think how much easier it would be for Ottawa to peddle reactors abroad, with a shiny new Candu under construction in Stephen Harper's home province. Our provincial government has surprisingly little say in all this. If you want to build a new gas or coal-fired power plant, you need approval of the provincial Energy and Utilities Board. But nuclear power is regulated federally. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission will decide whether or when this plant gets built, not Ed Stelmach. It's an ironic turn-up. For decades, we Albertans have been maitres chez nous when it comes to energy. We own our resources, we call the shots. But this vital decision about our environmental and economic future is in Ottawa's hands -- and our traditional, jealously guarded energy policy autonomy is at risk. Let it be said, this plant is far from a done deal. The CNSC's regulatory regime is strict -- the environmental impact study alone could take three years or more to conduct. And the financing of this megaproject is far from certain. It's one thing to propose a $6.2-billion power plant, it's quite another to raise the necessary investment capital. Ontario's Darlington nuclear power plant, the last one built in Canada, was originally budgeted at $4 billion. Its final cost was closer to $14 billion. In Alberta's overheated construction market, building a big reactor may simply cost too much for any investors to stomach. Even if this proposal is a longshot, it is essential that Albertans start debating our nuclear future now. Before we rush to turn Whitecourt into our own little Springfield, let's be sure we understand the long-term costs and consequences of our decision. We don't need to let Ottawa set the agenda for what happens in our backyard. We need to make our voices heard, now. psimons@thejournal.canwest.com RULE MAKERS - What is the role of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in the construction of new nuclear power plants? The CNSC is the regulator of nuclear facilities in Canada. This includes power plants and medical facilities, as well as a variety of other uses of nuclear technology. - Who determines if we need new electricity supply? The decision to increase supply is made by each province through consultations between the public, utilities and other stakeholders. The CNSC is not involved in this dynamic. - Is an environmental assessment a prerequisite for the licensing of a new nuclear power plant? Yes. Today, the completion of an environmental assessment is required under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act prior to the granting of any licence to build a new nuclear power plant. The assessment must have a positive outcome before siting and construction licences can be granted and work started on a new nuclear power plant. - Who decides where the new nuclear power plants will be built? These issues will be addressed by provincial governments through consultations between the public, utilities and other stakeholders. Ultimately, the decision is a business one that is then considered as part of the environmental assessment and subsequent licensing process. - If the CNSC receives an application to build a new nuclear power plant, what opportunities will the public have to make their views known? If there is an application to build a new power plant, stakeholders have opportunity to be heard, first via the environmental assessment process and then as part of the CNSC's public hearings on the applications for licences. - How long will the licensing process take? The process to license a new nuclear power plant is triggered by the receipt of a licence application. Separate licences must be granted for site preparation, construction and operation. These licences would be issued in sequence. The CNSC expects that it would take approximately 10 years from the receipt of an application to the commercial production of electricity. This estimate includes the time needed for the environmental assessment process to be conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the CNSC's licensing review and hearing processes under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, and the proponent's efforts with respect to the site preparation, construction and commissioning of a new nuclear power plant. Source: The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. For more information, go to www.nuclearsafety.ga.ca c The Edmonton Journal 2007 ***************************************************************** 37 Edmonton Journal: Resolution adopted to study oilsands nuclear power edmontonjournal.com The Edmonton Journal Published: Sunday, May 06, 2007 EDMONTON - The provincial government needs to examine whether nuclear power plants in Alberta should help fuel the oilsands, grassroots Tories decided Saturday. At their convention in the Shaw Conference Centre, provincial Conservatives endorsed a plan to have the government strike a committee to study and make recommendations on the issue. "We are an association divided," said Hartley Harris, who introduced the resolution on behalf of the Calgary Mountain View Progressive Conservative Association. "Our resolution is not intended to support either side of the discussion, only that the discussion take place publicly with all stakeholders." West Yellowhead MLA Ivan Strang, who is chairman of the government's cabinet policy committee on resources and the environment, said the government currently has no policy on nuclear power. Energy Minister Mel Knight will come up with a concept paper outlining what the committee will do, and this will be considered by Tory MLAs. It should take about a month to finalize the details, Strang said. "We've got to find out the advantages and disadvantages of all energy in the province of Alberta," Strang told party members. Proponents of nuclear power say it would produce cheaper and cleaner energy for oilsands development, as well as Alberta's electrical grid, than the natural gas and coal that now fuels Alberta power plants. Opponents, however, argue nuclear power plants produce dangerous radioactive nuclear waste and present a safety hazard. © The Edmonton Journal 2007 ***************************************************************** 38 Edmonton Journal: Will Albertans go nuclear? edmontonjournal.com The Edmonton Journal Published: Saturday, May 05, 2007 Fasten your seatbelts, Albertans! Unless global warming has altered the landscape of public discourse beyond all recognition, our province is on the threshold of a debate that will be hotter than a Candu fuel rod. And while the uproar won't last as long as the thousands of years it takes for nuclear-reactor waste to lose potency, it may seem that way before a final decision is made on an Energy Alberta Corp. proposal to build a $6.2-billion, 2,200-megawatt Candu station to power the oilsands industry in Northern Alberta. In principle, the idea makes sense. Nuclear power doesn't produce greenhouse gases, and the electricity a reactor generates could replace natural gas that is more easily shipped long distances to mass markets. You can almost hear Alberta politicians calculating their reduced exposure to ever harsher greenhouse gas targets if gas from the Mackenzie Delta doesn't get burned until it has left the country to become someone else's Kyoto challenge. After all, if present trends continue, Alberta's oilsands operations could be generating roughly one fifth of Canada's entire greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Coincidently -- or perhaps not -- news of the Energy Alberta scheme began circulating the same week that the International Panel on Climate Change issued a study arguing that nuclear energy must be part of the solution to the threat of global warming. Now as anti-nuclear advocates will begin reminding us shortly, nuclear power has its own considerable baggage, even if it is losing its place as the world's chief energy villain. Safety, cost and waste disposal -- and especially the last of these -- are huge issues that must be thoroughly aired before construction begins. Although the latest Candu reactors are a far cry from the technology involved in the Chornobyl catastrophe, Albertans have every right to be cautious. It may be that the chance of an accident is tiny -- but when it comes to nuclear fission, the definition of "tiny risk" needs careful thought. Cost is also a vital public question, even if the proposal calls for private financing and the memory of Ontario Hydro debts is not directly relevant. If something were to go wrong with the plant or the business running it, the taxpayer would be the inescapable backstop. And what about waste? Do Albertans wish to acquire a piece of one of the most serious environmental challenges of our time: the temporary storage of spent fuel while government struggles with the question of permanent disposal? Clearly, nuclear power is not Alberta's only alternative. The pace of development and production could be lowered, a host of alternative energy sources more thoroughly exploited, and significant cuts in consumption of energy by Albertans undertaken. But those alternatives carry their own disadvantages. White-hot controversy or no, the nuclear alternative must be at least explored. © The Edmonton Journal 2007 ***************************************************************** 39 AFP: Despite perils, UN report upbeat on climate change - by Emmanuel Angleys Sun May 6, 12:26 AM ET BANGKOK (AFP) - After two grim warnings on the impact of climate change, the world's top experts were unusually upbeat in assessing ways to protect the Earth, but said that national leaders have no time to waste. The report delivered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's top authority on the subject which met in Bangkok last week, said humanity could at least slow global warming with existing, affordable technology. But the experts warned that time was of the essence to ward off the most destructive effects of climate change. "We believe that human beings are capable of reducing the problems that we may get on climate change," Ogunlade Davidson, the co-chair of the meeting, told AFP. "The only difficulty is to get the political will to do that," he said. The report following the IPCC's Bangkok meeting was its third of the year. The first, released in Paris in February, found it highly likely that global temperatures would rise by 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius (3.2 to 7.2 Farenheit) over the next century. However, it also warned that temperatures could even climb by 6.4 degrees C (11.52 F). A second report in Brussels in April highlighted the catastrophic damage that global warming could cause, including the extinction of up to 30 percent of animal and plant life. The first two reports offered little good news, but this one is different, said Davidson. "The third assessment says there are possible solutions and you can do it at a reasonable cost," he said. The options laid out covered simple measures like switching to energy efficient light bulbs and adjusting the thermostat in the office. But they also included extremely controversial and complex techniques such as nuclear power, and the storing of carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- underground instead of letting it spew into the atmosphere. Renewable energies, such as wind, solar and biofuel, were highlighted as an important part of the mix, while the experts said putting a price on using the fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases was important. The 400 delegates from some 120 countries who met last week in Bangkok were tasked with drafting a summary of their extensive research to guide policymakers in deciding how to tackle climate change. "We will be forced to take decisions, because information about (the risks of) inaction is getting ... to many people," Davidson said. Stephan Singer, European head of climate and energy with the World Wildlife Fund, said the report showed "for the first time that stopping climate pollution in a very ambitious way does not cost a fortune." "There is no excuse for any government to argue that it is going to cause their economy to collapse," he said, adding that political leaders needed to be pressed to take action "starting Monday." According to the report, taking measures to stop global temperatures from rising more than about 2.0 degrees C (3.6 F) would shave only around 0.12 percentage points off annual global economic growth in the coming decades. Greenpeace said the report demanded a "serious political response" from world leaders. "I think that we could use many of the elements in this document" during the next round of multilateral talks on climate change, Marc Gillet, the head of the French delegation, told AFP. Climate change is expected to be among the top priorities on the agenda when leaders of the world's most industrialised countries meet at the Group of Eight Summit in Germany in June. EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas has already called for new talks on a climate change pact at a UN ministerial meeting set for December on the Indonesian holiday island of Bali. European nations hope the United States and rapidly developing countries like Brazil, India and China -- which did not join the existing Kyoto Protocol on climate change -- will agree to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases under a new accord. Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 40 ARAB TIMES: IAEA experts to study creation of Gulf nuclear program : Salema; Ties with Kuwait praised 6th May 2007 : Web Edition No:12874 Editor-in-Chief: Ahmed Jarallah VIENNA (KUNA): Director of the Asia Division of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Dr Manase Peter Salema said experts would head to the Saudi capital Riyadh in late May to hold talks at the GCC secretariat general headquarters on possible creation of a gulf nuclear program for peaceful purposes. The IAEA team will discuss the general outline of a joint study to establish a nuclear program with member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Salema told Kuwait News Agency (KUNA). He said the four-day visit is a completion of previous meetings held in Vienna and Riyadh to draw out the study and set its conditions. On the main issues to be discussed during the visit, Salema told KUNA the GCC states wish to discuss a joint civil nuclear program which will be implemented in cooperation with the IAEA. He said the agency expressed readiness to offer all technical facilities to carry out the initial feasibility study and to offer its expertise in this field. Salema noted that among the agency’s objectives is to encourage research in the field of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. He also confirmed every country’s right to use nuclear energy in peaceful means on condition that it is monitored by the agency. All member states must sign and approve the additional protocol of complementary inspection authority to that provided in underlying safeguards agreements, he added. On the worry of GCC states in general and Kuwait in particular of any direct damage as a result of the Iranian nuclear program, he said he understands such fears but in the report of the IAEA General Director there is no evidence that Iran possesses nuclear weapons in the present time or that it poses a threat to neighboring countries. On the Iranian nuclear program and the constriction of the agency’s technical assistance to Iran, the official refused to comment on this question since he has no authority on this issue and the decision was made by the Council of Governors. He said the Iranian nuclear file is a sensitive issue and that IAEA Director General Mohammed El-Baradei touched on the possibility of reaching a solution to remove all doubts and worries through dialogue and cooperation. On the IAEA’s relations with Kuwait, Salema praised the level of cooperation between both sides as well as Kuwait’s cooperation with GCC states. He said there are many joint projects between the agency and Kuwait in the field of technical cooperation. On cooperation with Afghanistan and Iraq, he said the agency is facing a number of challenges in these countries, topped by the security situation which hinders the efforts of the Agency to carry out any technical projects. In this respect, he said lately the technical division paid a visit to Kabul and carried out a number of vital projects which Afghanistan is in dire need of, but such projects are not enough and the country requires further cooperation between both sides. He concluded by highlighting the importance of the media, research centers, and non-governmental organizations in raising awareness over the dangers of the spread of nuclear weapons and the importance of implementing peaceful nuclear technologies in various fields such as agriculture, health, industries and many others to promote the individual’s life and society as a whole. GCC Secretary General Abdulrahman Al-Attiyah had urged Arab countries to carry out a joint Arab nuclear cooperation to allow Arab countries to face scientific challenges and become an additional source of energy along with oil and gas. On September 10th 2006 at the Summit on the dangers of nuclear energy in the GCC, Al-Attiyah said that the time has come to find an area free of weapons of mass destruction and called for making the Middle East and the Gulf an area free of weapons of mass destruction. Tel: + 4813566/4849144, Fax:+ 4818267 - Email: info@arabtimesonline.com ***************************************************************** 41 Herald Sun: Greens say 'no' to nuclear NEWS.com.au | Sarah Wotherspoon May 07, 2007 12:00am NUCLEAR power is not an economically viable, practical or timely solution to tackle the world's greenhouse gas emissions, a Greenpeace report says. Nuclear power plants can take more than 10 years to build and often run up to 300 per cent over budget, according to Greenpeace International's Economics of Nuclear Power report. The report found nuclear power was very expensive and required large subsidies, making it economically unviable in most countries with other power sources. Widespread concerns still remain about basic safety, waste disposal and the decommissioning of existing plants. Around the world 22 nuclear power plants are being built -- most in China, India and Russia. "Of the plants under construction, five were ordered 20 or more years ago," the report said. "Construction is reported to still be under way . . . work on another 14 units has stopped and while there are frequent reports that work may restart at these sites, it is far from clear if and when this will happen." The findings come as the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on how to slow global warming, released last Friday, suggested nuclear power could contribute to reducing the world's carbon emissions. Prime Minister John Howard sees nuclear power as an economically viable energy source in Australia. But Greenpeace Australia energy campaigner Mark Wakeham said nuclear power was not the best option for Australia. "Because we don't have a nuclear industry in Australia it would be much more expensive to get a nuclear power plant off the ground," he said. "It's pretty hard to find an investor who is interested in nuclear power, particularly with how cheap coal power is and the growth in renewables." Mr Wakeham said energy efficiency was a more cost effective option and involved less community debate. "Energy efficiency pays for itself in about three years and beyond that you are saving money. "With nuclear power you pour money into it for years and by the time it's paid for you are left with ageing reactors that could be a hazard," he said. © Herald and Weekly Times. All times AEST (GMT + 10). ***************************************************************** 42 Guardian Unlimited: UN scientists warn time is running out to tackle global warming | Climate change | David Adam, environment correspondent Saturday May 5, 2007 Governments are running out of time to address climate change and to avoid the worst effects of rising temperatures, an influential UN panel warned yesterday. Greater energy efficiency, renewable electricity sources and new technology to dump carbon dioxide underground can all help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the experts said. But there could be as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more. The warning came in a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published yesterday in Bangkok. It says most of the technology needed to stop climate change in its tracks already exists, but that governments must act quickly to force through changes across all sectors of society. Delays will make the problem more difficult, and more expensive. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC, said the report would underpin negotiations to develop a new international treaty to regulate emissions to replace the Kyoto protocol when it expires in 2012. The report said little on the best way to encourage greater take-up of cleaner technologies. A delegate present at the negotiations said the passages on international policy options had been watered down by the US, which is opposed to Kyoto-style agreements that rely on binding targets. Harlan Watson, head of the US delegation, said the report "highlights the importance of a portfolio of clean energy technologies, consistent with our approach". There were also rows about the role of nuclear power, with countries including Spain and Austria opposed to any form of words that endorsed an increase in electricity from nuclear technology. David Miliband, the environment secretary, said: "Last year, the Stern review showed that we needed to act urgently to tackle climate change and that it was economically feasible to do so. The IPCC has confirmed that finding, and that we have access to the technology we need to take that action. We simply can't afford any other option but to act. That's why we're pushing hard for negotiations to start on a new global climate deal this year, and are working through the G8 group of nations and the UN climate change conference." Yesterday's report follows two studies by the IPCC this year, which said unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions could drive global temperatures up as much as 6C by 2100, triggering a surge in ocean levels, destruction of vast numbers of species, economic devastation in tropical zones and mass human migrations. The report said global emissions must peak by 2015 for the world to have any chance of limiting the expected temperature rise to 2C, which would still leave billions of people short of water by 2050. Michael Roberts, of the Confederation of British Industry, said: "The report signals that there are barriers to realising the range of opportunities identified and that we all - consumers, businesses and governments - have a role to play in overcoming these obstacles. The debate now needs to be focused on action." Hans Verolme, director of the WWF climate change programme, said: "The IPCC has delivered a road map for keeping the planet safe. Now it's the turn of politicians to do more than pay just lip service." Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007 ***************************************************************** 43 Summit Daily News: Landowners gear up to fight gas drilling in nuclear blast zone for Breckenridge, Keystone, Copper and Frisco Colorado - By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS May 5, 2007 DENVER — Having a nuclear blast site in their front yard didn’t faze Cary and Ruth Weldon. After all, the bomb was detonated 37 years ago, more than 8,400 feet beneath the site of their log cabin among the pines and aspens in the western Colorado mountains. They began to worry when natural gas wells were being drilled closer and closer to a buffer zone around the Project Rulison site. Then an energy company applied to drill even closer, fanning fears of radiation escaping from the site — one of several where the federal government tried putting nuclear devices to peaceful use in the late 1960s and early 1970s. With Project Rulison, about 190 miles west of Denver, and another near Rio Blanco, also in western Colorado, the government triggered underground blasts to free gas trapped in the area’s tight sands. A well at Rulison produced gas, but it was too radioactive to sell. “They put a bomb in the ground three times the power that was dropped on Hiroshima to fracture the mountain to get gas out,” Ruth Weldon said. “What they don’t know is what has happened since that time.” Presco Inc., based in Houston, Texas, withdrew a state application in 2005 to drill on the Rulison site after residents objected and local county commissioners withdrew their support. But Presco, which has wells near the buffer zone, hasn’t given up. The area is in the epicenter of the energy boom in western Colorado, where vast gas reserves are an industry magnet. “We’re a very small company and this is our most important project,” said Kim Bennetts, Presco’s vice president of exploration and production. “At some point, I would expect the application to be resubmitted.” The Weldons, who live part-time in Tennessee, and two other couples who live on or near Rulison aren’t waiting for Presco’s next move. The Weldons and their neighbors, Pat and Randy Warren and Wesley and Marcia Kent, who own the surface of their land but not the minerals underneath, have hired a lawyer and a consultant, created a Web site, handed out brochures protesting drilling inside a half-mile-wide buffer zone and circulated petitions. Weldon said her biggest concern is the potential contamination of water — underground and surface. “Within rock-throwing distance of the site, there’s a little creek that runs into Battlement Creek that runs into the Colorado River,” Weldon said. Bennetts said the U.S. Department of Energy hasn’t found anything amiss during its years of monitoring wells and groundwater, and neither has Presco. He noted that DOE has said most of the radioactivity from the 1969 blast was trapped in a glass dome formed when melted and vaporized rock collected in a puddle with a diameter of about 160 feet and cooled. “There’s no chance of radioactivity leaking into the water because there isn’t any,” said Bennetts, referring to sampling that has been done. “Is the Presco Use spokesman, spokeswoman, or representative. saying that potential environmental contamination is of no concern at nuclear test sites?” asked Robert Moran, a Colorado scientist hired by the Weldons and other landowners to review the data on the Rulison site. Moran, who has studied water quality and geochemistry in industrial, mining and nuclear sites, noted that some material released by a nuclear blast doesn’t decay for thousands of years. An unknown amount of the material from the Rulison explosion likely wasn’t trapped in the glassy dome and could have migrated, he added. The U.S. Department of Energy is trying to determine whether radioactive materials spread underground since the detonation. A study of the Rulison site by an independent contractor for DOE might be released as early as mid-June. The area’s geology is quite complex, Moran said. There are all kinds of fractures — some natural, some created by the explosion. Oil and gas companies operating in the region inject water, sand or chemicals underground in a process called hydraulic fracturing to crack open the tight sands. Rulison was part of the federal government’s Plowshare Project, which sought peaceful uses for nuclear devices. The former Atomic Energy Commission detonated a 43-kiloton bomb to free gas in the Williams Fork Formation, 8,426 feet below the surface. A well drilled by DOE produced gas, but it was considered too radioactive to be sold commercially. The agency began deactivating and cleaning the area in the 1970s. Long-term management of the blast site was turned over last fall to the DOE’s Office of Legacy Management, but it’s the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which oversees the state’s oil and gas industry, that approves drilling permits. Tom Pauling, environmental team leader in the Office of Legacy Management in Grand Junction, said federal and state officials have been working closely together. “We’ve indicated to them that we think it would be prudent to give us the time to finish our study and evaluate the results,” Pauling said. The DOE prohibits drilling below 6,000 feet within a 40-acre zone around the blast site. The state oil and gas commission has set boundaries that trigger more scrutiny but no outright bans. The commission notifies the DOE when a company wants to drill within a three-mile radius of the site and requires a hearing if a company wants to drill within a half-mile. Pauling said managers will consider whether the existing restrictions at the site are enough. Critics say they’re not and complain that it’s unclear which agency is responsible for what. “The thing that upsets me the most is the DOE dumps the problem on the state and the state is dumping it on the neighbors,” said Luke Danielson of Gunnison, a lawyer representing the Weldons and other landowners. Under the application it withdrew, Presco proposed starting its well inside the half-mile buffer and drilling at an angle so the bottom of the well would have been outside the zone. Bennetts of Presco said he’s not sure any study will mollify landowners if their goal is to just stop development. Ruth Weldon, though, said she and her husband, who bought 40 acres on the mountain in 1976, don’t oppose development. “We’re not against drilling, but I don’t understand why they have to drill in this one area,” she said. “Why drill on top of a nuclear blast site?” All contents © Copyright 2007 summitdaily.com Summit Daily - 40 West Main Street - Frisco, CO 80443 P.O. Box 329 · Frisco, CO 80443-0329 E-mail: news@summitdaily.com ***************************************************************** 44 ENS: Environment News Service (ENS) AmeriScan: May 4, 2007 * State Air Pollution Officials Urge National Climate Law * New York Governor Wants Nuclear Plant Safety Assessment * New Bill Would Halt Waste Dumping in Lakes, Rivers, Streams * Thousands of New York, New Jersey Trees Treated for Asian Beetle * California Snowpack 71 Percent Below Normal * Washington State Will Rid Beach of Oil-filled Shipwreck State Air Pollution Officials Urge National Climate Law LOUISVILLE, Kentucky The professional association of state and local air pollution control officials this week took aim at global warming. At its spring membership meeting in Louisville, the National Association of Clean Air Agencies formally adopted a statement calling on Congress to "promptly enact a mandatory economy-wide greenhouse gas emission reduction program with quantifiable and enforceable limits." The goal of this legislation should be to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions substantially below current levels "to lessen dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate," the group said. The legislation should set interim milestones, including short, medium and long-term greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, and recognize the benefits of significant early reductions. The program should reduce greenhouse gases in a cost-effective manner, utilizing, among other approaches, market-based strategies, the group said. Executive Director Bill Becker said the membership supports a mandatory program "but one that is flexible enough to allow for a portfolio of strategies to be adopted in addition to such a program." The principles also support sector-specific strategies for the two largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States - electric power and motor vehicles. The principles recognize that the federal government would have the lead on an economy-wide program but that there should be a strong role for states and localities. "In particular," Becker said, "federal legislation should not preempt state or local governments from taking more stringent actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." The air pollution control officials urged Congress to seriously consider the greenhouse gas recommendations of other state and local organizations, such as the National Governors Association, the Environmental Council of States, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and The Climate Registry. * * * New York Governor Wants Nuclear Plant Safety Assessment ALBANY, New York New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has joined with much of the New York Congressional delegation in calling on Dale Klein, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to order an Independent Safety Assessment at Indian Point Energy Center before the nuclear power plant is re-licensed. On April 23, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, fined the owners of Indian Point, Entergy Nuclear Operations Inc., $130,000 for failing to meet the deadline for a new emergency siren plan. On May 2, Entergy formally filed with the NRC its application to renew for 20 years the operating licenses of the Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3 nuclear power plants in Buchanan, New York on the Hudson River. "I continue to be gravely concerned about the safety and security of Indian Point, especially given the recent operational problems at the plant," said Governor Spitzer. "Public safety must be our foremost concern and for that reason it is imperative that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission conduct an Independent Safety Assessment to fully review the facility before it is re-licensed." Entergy Indian Point Energy Center Site Vice President Fred Dacimo defended the beleaguered nuclear power plant. "We are extremely proud of these two great facilities, and look forward to operating them for many years to come for the benefit of all New Yorkers and the regional environment," he said. The filing kicks off a two year long public assessment and review process. Congressman John Hall said, "Indian Point is the nation's most problematic power plant in the nation's most densely populated corridor. With eight percent of the population of the United States within a 50 mile radius of the plant, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission needs to give this plant the special attention it requires." "Entergy's inability to install a functioning alert system and the seemingly weekly string of mishaps at Indian Point make it clearer than ever that the NRC needs to conduct an Independent Safety Assessment before allowing this plant to get re-licensed," Hall said. New York Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both Democrats, introduced legislation in February that would require an in-depth review of Indian Point's safety and mechanical systems, spent fuel pools, and radiological emergency evacuation plans. Senator Clinton said, "It's time for the NRC and Entergy to heed the call that is echoing throughout the community and only gets louder as more incidents occur. It is way past time for the NRC to undertake a detailed, independent review of the plant to answer the questions that more and more New Yorkers have about the safety of the plant." New York Deputy Secretary for Public Safety Michael Balboni said, "The state continues to work with the counties in the emergency planning zones as well as the federal government to ensure that we are doing everything possible to ensure the security of the plant during its operation." The governor has indicated that he would support the closure of Indian Point at such a time when alternative energy sources are developed and which meet the energy needs of the region. Until then, Balboni said, "we must do all that we can to make sure that the Indian Point facility complies with all federal laws and regulations and is operated as safely as possible." From its office in Tarrytown, Riverkeeper has been leading efforts to bring an Independent Safety Assessment, ISA, to Indian Point before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decides on Entergy's relicensing application. Riverkeeper President Alex Matthiessen said, "Given Indian Point's proximity to the 20 million people who live in and around New York City, and the fact that the beleaguered facility has an emergency shutdown rate six or seven times the national average among nuclear reactors, it's clearly time for a stepped up review." * * * New Bill Would Halt Waste Dumping in Lakes, Rivers, Streams WASHINGTON, DC A bi-partisan bill was introduced in the House Thursday to restore a 25 year old prohibition under the Clean Water Act that prevented mining companies and other industries from dumping masses of solid industrial wastes into the nation's waters. Representatives Frank Pallone, a New Jersey Democrat, and Chris Shays, a Connecticut Republican, introduced the Clean Water Protection Act. Already, more than 60 other members of the U.S. House of Representatives have co-sponsored the bill. The legislation overturns a 2002 rule change by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that allows coal mining companies to create enormous valley fills, burying thousands of miles of streams, to make the practice of mountaintop removal mining cheaper. That rule change also allows other industries to dump waste in waters under the guise of renaming the waste material as "fill." "I'm proud to have reintroduced this bill, which protects streams and watersheds and addresses a serious environmental justice concern," Congressman Pallone said. "The federal government should protect the environment and the people living around mountaintop mining operations, not give massive mining companies a free pass to dump fill into waterways." "It is my hope this legislation signals to the EPA that Congress will not sit silently by as our environment is destroyed," says Congressman Shays. "We cannot afford to waste another day, another hour, another minute if we want our children and our children's children to enjoy clean water. We simply won't have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways." More than 1,200 miles of streams already have been destroyed in Appalachia by the coal companies that have been flouting the Clean Water Act for years while the EPA and the Corps looked the other way. When citizens took state and federal agencies to court to ensure our environmental laws are enforced, coal companies sought and were granted a legal loophole by the Bush administration. In May 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers repealed the 25 year old ban under their regulations against allowing waste to be treated as "fill" material that is allowed to be placed in waters. The Clean Water Protection Act is supported by a large coalition of organizations that includes national groups such as Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, and Sierra Club, and regional leaders to stop mountaintop removal coal mining, such as the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. "Burying Appalachia's streams in mining waste is one of the most egregious forms of environmental destruction taking place in America," said Ed Hopkins, Sierra Club's Director of Environment Quality Program. "It is threatening communities, damaging drinking water supplies, causing flooding and ruining habitat for fish and wildlife. Congress should put a stop to it now." * * * Thousands of New York, New Jersey Trees Treated for Asian Beetle NEW YORK, New York The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is treating about 98,000 trees susceptible to the Asian longhorned beetle with the insecticide imidacloprid in New York and New Jersey this spring. These treatments, which have yielded positive results in the past, are part of an eradication program to prevent further infestation of this invasive insect pest and reduce beetle populations. Treatments will take place through May and into June. Imidacloprid is currently used in the lawn care industry to kill lawn grubs and in some domestic pet treatments to kill fleas. Contracted certified pesticide applicators, will be treating host trees by injecting insecticides in the soil around the base of trees, or by trunk injection using hand-held application devices. Treatment applications will be monitored by the Agriculture Department. The imidacloprid is dispersed through the tree's vascular system reaching adult beetles feeding on small twigs and leaves and the larvae feeding beneath the bark of host trees. In the 132 square mile quarantine area in New York, USDA will treat a total of 66,400 trees, including some 10,300 trees in Manhattan, 24,000 trees in Brooklyn and about 32,100 trees in Queens. In New Jersey's 25 mile quarantine area, treatments are taking place in Middlesex and Union counties for about 31,800 trees. USDA will treat 4,930 trees in Carteret, 6,460 in Woodbridge and 3,650 trees in Rahway. In Linden, 15,880 trees are scheduled for treatment and 880 trees are to be treated in a small portion of Roselle. USDA is currently determining whether treatments will take place on Staten Island and if so, to what extent. The larvae of the Asian longhorned beetle bore into healthy hardwood trees and feed on living tree tissue and heartwood. Later, throughout the summer, adult beetles emerge from exit holes and briefly feed on the leaves and small twigs of host trees. Asian longhorned beetles are one to 1.5 inches long, have a shiny jet black body with distinctive white spots and long antennae that are banded in black and white. The insect was first found in Brooklyn in 1996. Subsequent infestations in New Jersey were discovered in 2002 and 2004. For more information on the treatment program, call in New York 1-866-265-0301 and in New Jersey 732-815-4700. For more information about the ALB Cooperative Eradication Program visit the APHIS website at www.aphis.usda.gov/alb. * * * California Snowpack 71 Percent Below Normal SACRAMENTO, California California water officials are bracing themselves for a low water summer. After the final snowpack measurements were announced on May 1, Department of Water Resources Director Lester Snow said statewide, the percentage of normal snow water equivalent is at 29 percent. This means the snow level is 71 percent below normal. Electronic sensor readings show Northern Sierra snow water equivalents at 27 percent of normal for this date, Central Sierra at 33 percent, and Southern Sierra at 24 percent. "There is no question that these snowpack results indicate the need for conservation and more water storage," said DWR Director Lester Snow. "Now more than ever, we need to support the Governor's Strategic Growth Plan that will allow us to address this critical need for additional surface and groundwater storage, conservation and Delta preservation to cope with California's population growth." In his State of the State Address in January, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed $5.9 billion in water bonds, which includes $4.5 billion for increased water storage, $1 billion for Delta sustainability, and $450 million for conservation and restoration. Director Snow noted that the Department of Water Resources is working with local and regional agencies throughout the state to encourage and implement water conservation measures as a precaution against subsequent dry years and noted that the dismal snowpack readings reinforce the importance of the Governor's plan to address water storage and other infrastructure needs. On March 27, while visiting California's central water control facility, the governor said, "We desperately need above the ground water storage to accommodate future growth and for flood control. California's population is going to increase by approximately 30 percent over the next 20 years. That is an equivalent of adding three cities the size of Los Angeles." "We also need additional storage because scientists say that global warming will eliminate 25 percent of our snowpack by the half of this century, which will mean less snow stored in the mountains, which will mean more flooding in the winter and less drinking water in the summer." "That is why, the governor said, "it is important that we don't let that much water run off into the ocean before capturing it. We must plan ahead and build more above the ground water storage to make sure that that does not happen." "It is my responsibility as the governor to not only think one year ahead, or two years ahead, but to think 10, 20, 30, 40 years ahead. I want to make sure that by 2050 we have enough water, and we protect our people from huge floods," Schwarzenegger said. Communities throughout the state have begun voluntary rationing. Recently, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission called on their 2.4 million customers to reduce their water use by 10 percent or they could face water rationing this summer. The East Bay Municipal Utilities District has asked their customers find and fix any plumbing that leaks, to water their lawns only three days a week and never on consecutive days and to do so at night or in the morning. Santa Cruz residents have been told to not water their lawns between 10 am and 5 pm seven days a week. "With more precipitation falling as rain we face more flooding and less water in the snowpack to flow to our cities and fields in the summer," Snow said. "Obviously, this increases the need for having more sources to draw from, to ensure that our economy and communities have enough water." Snow-water content is important in determining the coming year's water supply. The measurements help hydrologists prepare water supply forecasts as well as provide others, such as hydroelectric power companies and the recreation industry, with data. * * * Washington State Will Rid Beach of Oil-filled Shipwreck OLYMPIA, Washington Work resumed this week to remove the wreck of the SS Catala from a beach at Ocean Shores. The Washington state Department of Ecology expects that all oil and any other pollutants will be removed by the end of the summer. Then the remains of the rusty, skeletal hull will be taken from the beach and recycled. The Catala came to rest on a spit at Damon Point during a New Year's storm in 1965. Beneath her decks a dark, dangerous secret lay undetected for more than 40 years - tens of thousands of gallons of unmonitored diesel oil. When a beachcomber poked a walking stick into one of the Catala's five oil tanks in April 2006, he discovered an oily, black sludge on the other end. State and federal natural resources agencies quickly organized a plan to address the pollution threat while protecting sensitive marine wildlife and habitat near the ship. From August to October 2006, contractors removed 31,000 gallons of heavy oil from the Catala's tanks; 22 cubic yards of asbestos and asbestos-contaminated materials; and 2,800 tons of sand, including 1,358 tons of oil-contaminated soil. All of these hazardous materials were hauled away for proper treatment and disposal. Workers also removed 356,000 gallons of water that had been contaminated by oil for offsite treatment. The water came from the tanks and upper portions of the ship, and included water from pressure washing and steam cleaning the tanks. "When we started work on the Catala last year, we thought we could finish by last fall," said Jim Sachet, a spill response manager with the Department of Ecology, "but several factors caused us to continue the project into a second year." "We needed to complete the fourth wall of the steel enclosure," Sachet explained. "The ship's depth and pitch in the sand meant going carefully to make sure workers could safely get into tanks at the bottom of the hull. And the unexpectedly large volume of oil meant more material to remove. With the discovery of asbestos, additional steps had to be taken to protect workers and the public." Ecology's partners in overseeing the cleanup include the Washington departments of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, Parks and Recreation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As the new work season moves into warmer months, curiosity will likely draw visitors to the work site. But beachcombers need to do more than watch the work - they need to watch where they walk. The Damon Point area is home to the snowy plover and streaked horned lark. Both are protected species. Work on the Catala is being done carefully to make sure nesting birds and habitat are unaffected. Beach visitors are advised to take special care if they walk toward the Catala work site. Signs at the Damon Point parking area indicate what visitors should look for and avoid when walking on the sand. "By the end of this project, we will have removed a major pollution threat from an environmentally sensitive area and restored the beach for the public's full enjoyment," Sachet said. As work on the Catala progresses, updates will be posted to Ecology's SS Catala webpage ====================================================================== Questions or Comments: news@ens-news.com To Subscribe Click Here ====================================================================== Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2006. All Rights Reserved. The ENS website is maintained by HKCR LLC ***************************************************************** 45 TheStar.com: Cameco blames human mistake for mine flood May 05, 2007 04:30 AM Laura Bobak Canadian Press A series of "erroneous assumptions" and "human error" caused the groundfall and flooding that shut down Cameco Corp.'s major uranium mine at Cigar Lake, Sask., last year, the company's chief executive officer says. "I'm disappointed to tell you we made mistakes," Gerald Grandey told analysts during a conference call yesterday after the release of a report on the debacle. The report said Cameco ``failed to fully appreciate the degree of risk" of working in less than ideal conditions at the mine, in northeastern Saskatchewan. "Our performance did not meet expectations. This is not acceptable to me and this is not acceptable to our employees," Grandey said, adding the company incorrectly assumed ground conditions were better than they were. "No single cause led to these events. There were a number of root causes," Grandey said. "The systems were there. They just weren't being adhered to and implemented." Cameco said it has prepared a comprehensive plan to address the report's recommendations, including separating the management and supervision of new development projects from ongoing mine operations. "We will assign clear accountability to ensure the path to safe production is well-defined," Grandey said, noting the changes being implemented now would allow workers underground to wield more decision-making power. The independent report, released yesterday by Cameco, outlined a series of mishaps, errors and procedures – including a cumbersome, bureaucratic decision-making process – that led up to the flooding, which is expected to keep the mine out of commission until about 2010. Cameco, which released an update on the operations at Cigar Lake in March, says its share of capital costs, including mill modifications, to bring Cigar Lake into production is estimated at $508 million, including $234 million spent on construction to date, leaving $274 million remaining. In addition to the capital costs, Cameco says its share of flood remediation costs is about $46 million, of which $5 million was spent and recorded in 2006. The Cigar Lake project, which was initially planned to begin operating in 2008, is a joint venture owned by Cameco, which owns 50 per cent; Areva Resources Canada Inc. with 37 per cent; Idemitsu Canada Resources Ltd. with 8 per cent; and Tepco Resources Inc. with 5 per cent. The mine was to have produced slightly less than one-fifth of the global uranium supply. © Copyright Toronto Star online since 1996 | ***************************************************************** 46 Green Left: Labor opts for open slather uranium mining Zoe Kenny 4 May 2007 Environmentalists and anti-nuclear campaigners are disappointed but not surprised by the ALP national conference decision on April 28 to drop its ?no new uranium mines? policy. This allows state Labor governments to approve new mines, a policy backed by the South Australian and Queensland premiers. Opposition leader Kevin Rudd and his deputy, Julia Gillard, used the debate to prove to the big end of town that they could push through an unpopular policy. Internal opposition to the change meant that Rudd won by only 15 votes (190 votes to retain the policy and 205 to drop it). Despite the vote against, there was little willingness within the party to conduct a concerted campaign against Rudd?s policy. Shadow environment minister Peter Garrett, who opposed changing the policy, gave up the fight before it began by pledging to accept whichever decision in the interests of being a ?team player?. Dave Sweeney, an anti-nuclear campaigner with the Australian Conservation Foundation, told Green Left Weekly that 20 delegates who didn?t want to vote in favour of the expansion of uranium mining proxied their votes to other delegates who would vote in favour of it. Holly Creenaune, an anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth (FoE) who coordinated two protest actions outside the conference, told GLW, ?The vote was narrow, unpopular and a serious mistake. Uranium mining remains highly controversial, unwanted, unsafe and unnecessary.? She added that there was lot of pressure on delegates, with Labor leaders, including SA premier Mike Rann and Australian Workers Union leader Bill Shorten ?failing to articulate coherent arguments and opting instead to pressure delegates to not ?roll? the leader?. While Western Australian premier Alan Carpenter has pledged to oppose uranium mining and obstacles remain to the development of uranium mines in Queensland, Labor?s decision has put the Northern Territory and SA at the frontline of uranium mining expansion. Immediately after the conference, Rann (who declared that his state was set up to become the ?Saudi Arabia? of uranium if the old policy was dropped) announced that he would fast-track applications for another 100 uranium exploration licenses. There are already 60 companies with 160 licenses exploring for uranium. Any new mines will be in addition to the Beverly mine, the soon-to-be-opened Honeymoon mine and BHP Billiton?s Olympic Dam mine, which is likely to receive approval for a four-fold expansion, making it the biggest uranium mine in the world. Emma King from the NT Environment Centre told GLW that Labor?s decision ?has direct implications for the [Indigenous] communities and the environment near the sites of uranium deposits?. King noted that several of the known uranium deposits in the NT are located near important water supplies which, if mined, could pose a serious threat to water security, human health and the environment. ?The Angela and Pamela deposits are just 23 kilometres south of Alice Springs, within the town?s water catchment area and only a few kilometres from the bore field that supplies the town?s water. The Mt Fitch deposit, which Compass Resources has said it wants to start mining in 2009, is only 3.5 kilometres from Darwin River Dam, which provides Darwin with drinking water. ?The Biglryi deposit is near Yuendumu in central Australia. Yuendumu already has naturally occurring high levels of uranium in its drinking water and a uranium mine in the area is likely to increase these levels. Ingestion of uranium is known to have adverse health effects including increasing the incidence of kidney disease, already a problem in many Indigenous communities. The Biglryi deposit is located in the Trueur Ranges in an area where 13 permanent springs create a unique green oasis in the desert. Traditional owners are extremely concerned about the impact a mine in the area would have on water and bush tucker.? Anti-uranium activists are gearing up for a fight against the new uranium mines. Resistance activist Simon Cunich, who helped organise the actions outside the ALP conference, told GLW that it is important now to mobilise the widespread anti-uranium sentiment. He pointed to the successful national mass movement and Indigenous resistance that stopped the Jabiluka uranium mine in Kakadu National Park, saying that such a strategy will also be the only way to stop Labor from selling out on its promise not to support nuclear power plants in Australia. ?Nuclear power is no solution to global warming ? here or overseas. It?s hypocritical for Labor to argue that while it doesn?t support nuclear power in this country, it?s happy to support it elsewhere by selling Australian uranium. This also transfers the unsolved problem of waste disposal when we could be helping other countries develop renewable energy alternatives?, Cunich said. From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #708 9 May 2007. Related Stories: Esperance lead scandal worsens... Greening Venezuela’s revo... Scorcher launch ... The dirty politics of climate ... The Murray ... BHP Billiton plans desalinatio... Environmental fi... Howard, Labor push `clean coal... Make it public, make it free! From: Comment & Analysis GLW issue #708 - 9 May 2007: A cry for help from Villawood ...Christmas Island: Howard's new...Fighting fund: The US$564 bill...John Pilger: Washington’s wa...Labor opts for open slather ur...Labor: a party for workers?Prison guard: `You activists g...The dirty politics of climate ...Letters to the...Venezuela:...Campa... Tools * Bookmark This Page * Print This Page Current paper edition Subscribe Today Home | RSS Newsfeed | Copyright Info | Contact GLW Articles posted are as they were before proofreading, and prior to any final changes in the printed version. Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW. Site by Kiwa Systems ***************************************************************** 47 RGJ.com: Committees still on different page when it comes to Nevada budget AMANDA FEHD ASSOCIATED PRESS Posted: 5/5/2007 CARSON CITY -- With a deadline to complete work a little over four weeks away, Senate and Assembly budget committees met Friday to start resolving their differences -- but didn't get very far. Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance members must resolve differences and complete work on a nearly $7 billion budget so that lawmakers can adjourn by June 4. If they don't get their work done by then, the legislators face the prospect of a special session. Clashing spending plans discussed Friday included funding to fight federal efforts to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The Assembly approved the original amount, $1.9 million a year, while the Senate proposed to cut that by about $250,000 a year as requested by Gov. Jim Gibbons. Senate Finance Chairman Bill Raggio said his committee will go back and consider a reduced cut of $136,000 now being recommended by the governor. Other topics covered by the committees on Friday included the state Department of Cultural Affairs budget. The panels delayed any action on most of the items in that budget. Special appropriations to programs for the homeless, autism research, health care and education will be under tight scrutiny as lawmakers look for ways to slice at least $110 million from original budget estimates because of a projected revenue shortfall from sales taxes. Less than a tenth of the state budget for the next two fiscal years has been approved by the full budget panels in the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democratic-controlled Assembly. However, budget subcommittees have completed about 70 percent of their work. Among the big obstacles still facing the money committees is a disagreement over education funding. Assembly Democrats on Thursday voted to cut $25.7 million more from university budgets during a meeting of a joint subcommittee covering education. The cuts came on top of $11 million in reductions ordered by the governor. Raggio complained that the lawmakers "gutted" the higher education budget, adding that he believes Democrats want to hurt higher education in order to increase K-12 funding. Assembly Ways and Means Chairman Morse Arberry, D-Las Vegas, said higher education has been treated well in past sessions while K-12 schools get "the short end of the stick." © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co. Inc. Newspaper. ***************************************************************** 48 SF Chronicle: Roads are full of trucks hauling hazardous loads Tom Chorneau, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau Sunday, May 6, 2007 (05-06) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- Chevron Corp., California's second-largest supplier of retail gasoline, operates a fleet of 80 tanker trucks and contracts with about 80 others to deliver its product to stations up and down the state. Most of the trucks operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That's close to 50,000 miles driven each day, and most of the time without incident or attention. "People have no idea the amount of hazardous material that moves around them every day," said Jack Riley, an associate director at the Rand think tank in Santa Monica who specializes in security and public safety issues. "If you look at the miles driven, the tons carried relative to the number of serious incidents -- it's pretty low," he said. "That's not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but improvement has got to be balanced against cost and other factors associated with moving this stuff." Indeed, dangerous materials are delivered almost every day to businesses and government agencies located in and around residential neighborhoods, busy commercial districts, schools and hospitals all over the nation. Not just gasoline and compressed gas, but materials such as nitroglycerin and dynamite, chlorine and ammonia, even radioactive materials. Reminder of risks Last weekend's fiery crash on the MacArthur Maze was a vivid reminder of the risks involved with transporting hazardous materials. Critics say higher standards for drivers and a better system for tracking dangerous cargo would be big improvements. Early on the morning of April 29, the driver of a tanker truck carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline lost control on the Oakland-area freeway interchange. Although the driver, James Mosqueda, escaped with second-degree burns, the ensuing inferno caused an overpass to collapse, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in damage that will tie up traffic for months before repairs can be completed. Experts say such accidents are rare and that oversight of hazardous material transport has been greatly enhanced since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Statistics from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration show there are an estimated 300 million shipments of hazardous materials nationally each year. From that total, only about 200 trucks end up in fatal crashes. Put another way -- hazardous materials trucks represent about 7 percent of the overall truck traffic on U.S. highways, but only about 4 percent of fatal truck accidents, according to the safety administration. There are no figures available for the number of hazardous shipments in California annually, but last year accidents involving rigs carrying dangerous loads numbered 154 -- with no fatalities, according to the California Highway Patrol. Federal records show that in 2006 there were 38,000 carriers registered in California that can truck hazardous materials over state lines, out of nearly 700,000 carriers nationwide. Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, said the good record on hazardous materials is not the result of aggressive government oversight. She said companies face huge liabilities when accidents happen, which forces them to be proactive. "Companies have a big incentive to make sure there are no accidents," she said. "In terms of what the federal government does, I'd call them a benign regulator." Federal statistics show that the average cost of a large truck accident -- including those carrying hazardous material -- is almost $70,000 nationwide, while the average cost of a crash involving a fatality is $3.7 million. Critics say federal regulation is lax and that no central system exists for tracking the movement of the dangerous cargo -- that is, no one knows what material is being carried where except for the delivery companies and the customers. "There's no reason for that," Claybrook said. "Everything is computerized these days. It is not like this couldn't be accomplished." The driver in last Sunday's crash, Mosqueda, 51, of Yolo County, is employed by Sabek Transportation Inc. of South San Francisco. Authorities said the accident is still under investigation but that all the evidence suggests Mosqueda was driving at an unsafe speed in a 50-mph zone when he lost control of his rig. Dave Feiglstok, general manager of Chevron's transportation division, said his company takes driving safety very seriously. Safety is 'highest priority' "Safety is our highest priority," he said. "Our trucks are out there with our brand name on them. They've got to be professional and courteous at all times." Federal law requires that drivers delivering dangerous loads pass a skills test and undergo a background check performed by the federal Transportation Security Administration. Feiglstok noted that his company typically hires drivers that already have five years experience and puts them through additional training. He said Chevron trucks are equipped with computer monitors that track a truck's location at all times and keep a record of speed, sudden decelerations, even shifting patterns. Another issue that has been raised surrounding last week's crash in Oakland is Mosqueda's criminal record, which includes a conviction for possession of heroin in 1996 that resulted in a 32-month prison sentence. Some observers have noted that a shortage of drivers has forced the transportation industry in general to seek out any applicants who might meet minimum qualifications -- which poses big questions when it comes to delivering hazardous materials. Claybrook also said restrictions should be put in place to prevent anyone with a criminal history from becoming a hazardous materials driver. "They should not be allowed to be driving these sorts of material," she said. "There's too much of a risk." E-mail Tom Chorneau at tchorneau@sfchronicle.com. This article appeared on page A - 12 of the San Francisco Chronicle 2007 Hearst Communications Inc. | ***************************************************************** 49 SF Chron: SIMI VALLEY / Ruling criticizes fed's nuclear cleanup standards / It may aid stalled state bill on lab near Los Angeles Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Saturday, May 5, 2007 A state legislator says her long-stalled bill to impose tough cleanup standards on a former nuclear testing site near Los Angeles should get a boost from a federal judge's ruling that found the Bush administration's milder decontamination plan would expose future residents to elevated risks of cancer. State Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, has failed three times to win legislative approval for a measure that would require the former Santa Susana Field Laboratory to meet the strictest federal toxic cleanup standards before the site's owner, Boeing Corp., can sell it to a developer. But Kuehl said Wednesday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in San Francisco should make it "much easier to prove to my colleagues in the Legislature, and also to the governor's staff, that it's a truly dangerous site.'' Boeing, which lobbied against previous versions of the bill, said Friday it opposes Kuehl's current measure, SB990. The company has complied with state and federal laws "to ensure the area is remediated using safe and protective cleanup standards,'' spokeswoman Blythe Jameson said. "We believe that the state should not impose further restrictions on our efforts,'' she added, noting that land use is usually regulated by local governments. The Simi Valley laboratory, in Ventura County hills that overlook the northwest San Fernando Valley, was used for federally funded nuclear and other energy research from the mid-1950s until it was closed in 1996. Citing government records, Conti said it was the site of at least nine nuclear accidents, including a partial reactor meltdown in 1959. The Department of Energy has begun cleanup work based on a study that relied on a contamination survey by Boeing's Rocketdyne division. After the cleanup, the company will be free to use the land for residential development or any other purpose. A U.S. Senate committee report, which Conti quoted in his ruling, found that the department was using standards that would result in removal of just over 1 percent of the contaminated soil. The department nonetheless concluded that the cleanup and its aftermath would have no significant environmental effects, a finding denounced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the state of California, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and the plaintiffs in the 2004 lawsuit, two environmental groups and the city of Los Angeles. Conti joined the critics Wednesday. Among other things, he said, the department had overlooked groundwater contamination, disregarded the combined effects of chemical and radioactive contamination, and set a radiation standard that would give future residents a 3-in-10,000 chance of getting cancer, far above EPA safety levels. The standard "improperly placed future residents of the site at an increased cancer risk many times higher than (the federal toxic cleanup law) allows,'' Conti said. He noted that the contaminated land is only miles from one of the world's largest population centers, and that federal law is supposed to assure that the public be told of the effects that government actions can have on the environment. "It is difficult to imagine a situation where the need for such an assurance could be greater,'' Conti said. Finding that the department committed a "clear error in judgment'' by deciding against a full environmental review, he prohibited transfer of the leased land to Boeing until a complete review is conducted. Energy Department spokesman Tom Welch said the department had not decided whether to appeal. "We're committed to steady, clean progress to levels protective of human health and the environment,'' he said. But Kuehl said the ruling underscores "how corrupt their assessment of the site has been.'' Her bill, awaiting a Senate vote, would prohibit Boeing from selling or leasing the former testing lab or any other portion of the 2,850-acre site until the state certified that it met stringent decontamination standards. Jameson, the Boeing spokeswoman, said the company believes those standards are "not technically achievable'' at the site. Dan Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, one of the plaintiff organizations, called the ruling "a significant blow against efforts by the Department of Energy to walk away from contamination at a nuclear meltdown site.'' Hirsch said the federal government promised during the 1990s to clean up the site according to the safety standards set by the toxics law. But he said the Bush administration had withdrawn that promise and recalibrated its cleanup plan to Boeing's criteria. The ruling guarantees that the cleanup will not be completed by the time President Bush leaves office, enabling the next administration to take a fresh look, Hirsch said. E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com. This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle ***************************************************************** 50 Carlsbad Current-Argus: Students learn about nuclear science from WIPP scientists From the Current-Argus Article Launched: 05/04/2007 08:57:02 PM MDT CARLSBAD ? Carlsbad High School students studied under some local experts at the second nuclear symposium this week. On Wednesday morning, local scientists affiliated with the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant gave seven lectures about nuclear science and technologies at the high school. During the afternoon, the students toured the Carlsbad Environment Monitoring and Research Center. The symposium was mostly organized by Jean-Francois Lucchini, a chemist with the Los Alamos National Laboratory's Carlsbad Office, with the support of the CHS physics and chemistry teachers and administration. This is the symposium's second year. "Considering the success we got last year from the students, we decided to make this an annual event." Lucchini said. "The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is so important in the Carlsbad community that I believe the students interested in science should know about nuclear stuff." The goal of this outreach program is to provide the students with knowledge so they can form their own opinions and help make decisions in the future. Good citizenship demands at least a basic understanding of how the world works, Lucchini noted, and today's students will be asked to pass judgment on many issues in which science literacy will help them reach intelligent, well-reasoned conclusions. The lectures were given by local scientists affiliated with Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories and the environmental center. Lucchini started the lecture session with an overview about radioactivity and nuclear science, and the presentation of Los Alamos Lab's scientific role in the WIPP project. Sandia scientist Eric Vugrin gave a talk about Sandia's role at WIPP. Later in the morning, Lucchini presented the many applications of nuclear science and technology: food irradiation, power for space shuttles and satellites, radiotherapy, sterilizing, and of course, electricity generation. "The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership Program may become a reality here in Carlsbad. So this year, we decided to put the emphasis on nuclear power," Lucchini said. Jim Conca, director of the environmental center, introduced the students to the complexity of the geopolitics of energy. He gave some keys to achieve a sustainable energy distribution between fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear power by 2040. Roger Nelson, chief scientist with the Department of Energy's Carlsbad Field Office, discussed why many Americans think nuclear power is dangerous. "This is a great talk. You know, I come from a country where 80 percent of the electricity is generated by nuclear power plants," Lucchini said. "I didn't understand why the American people are so afraid of nuclear energy. Now, I know." Another major topic discussed during the lecture session was science in education. "I attended a very interesting symposium in Santa Fe three weeks ago" Lucchini explained. "It was about how the students learn science in school, and how scientists can get together with the teachers to improve science education." A video was shown about how some students who graduate from prestigious schools like Harvard or MIT do not know some of the most basic science concepts taught in grade school. "I wanted to shock them with his video," Lucchini said. "I told them that their teachers do their best to teach them the right scientific concepts and knowledge, and they need to do their best to memorize this, to make this knowledge their own." To demonstrate that science is not at all a domain exclusively for men, three young women scientists, Kim Ui Chernaigh and Lisa Hudston, from the environmental center, and Sarah Pepper, a Los Alamos Lab post-doctorate, attended and shared their experience with the students. The students broke into groups during their afternoon tour of the environmental center. This allowed the students to better interact with the scientists from the center and the Los Alamos Lab Actinide Chemistry and Repository Science Program. Activities included videos about the environmental center's internal dosimetry program and a tour of a portion of the labs. The results of the anonymous survey given to the students at the end of the day are very encouraging, according to Lucchini. "Ninety-two percent of the students said they enjoyed the symposium: this is very good, isn't it?" Lucchini said. "According to them, the symposium was very educating, even though complicated. They say it was very informative, and better organized this year." Copyright © 2005 Carlsbad Current Argus, a MediaNews Group ***************************************************************** 51 USATODAY.com: Edwards grilled on reversals on war, education and Yucca Mountain - On Politics - Democrat John Edwards, his party's 2004 vice presidential nominee, underwent a tough grilling Sunday on ABC's This Week about his evolution from what host George Stephanopoulos called "hawkish new Democrat" to "ultra-liberal." Click here to see a video clip. Stephanopoulos said Edwards has changed his mind about a number of positions he supported when he was a senator from North Carolina -- starting with the Iraq war but also including bankruptcy reform, free trade with China, the No Child Left Behind education law and storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. A few of their exchanges: • Edwards has called his 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war a mistake. He was asked about a Boston Globe report that he urged privately in 2004 that he and nominee John Kerry stand by their votes and not admit to making a mistake. " Edwards said that when the election was over and he had time to reflect, "I thought it was my personal responsibility to be honest." • Edwards said he did not remember saying his vote for No Child Left Behind was a mistake. He said the law "needs to stay in place" but it should be changed because "the testing regimen is too intrusive." • Stephanopoulos said Edwards criticized offshore tax shelters in the 2004 election but went to work the next year for an investment group with hedge funds incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which to get tax breaks. "I learned about this after the fact. I didn't know it at the time," Edwards said. He said he remains opposed to offshore tax shelters and would try to eliminate them as president. He said his pay from the Fortress Investment Group will be on his next financial disclosure report. • Edwards did not address the trade, bankruptcy or Yucca Mountain issues on the show. Nevada has moved to the beginning of the nomination process with caucuses scheduled Jan. 19. Majorities there oppose the nuclear waste repository. Posted by Jill Lawrence at 12:07 PM/ET, May 06, 2007 in Democrats, Presidential race, 2008 | Permalink ***************************************************************** 52 Tonawanda News: DEC: Latest meeting will feature state agency's explanations of walkover tests. Published: May 05, 2007 06:10 pm Coming soon to a backyard near you — state crews testing for radioactive materials. The state’s Department of Environmental Conservation will hold a public meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Tonawanda High School auditorium to discuss the upcoming walkover tests on City of Tonawanda properties adjacent to the Town of Tonawanda landfill. The DEC testing comes after widespread concern expressed by residents about radioactive materials found within the landfill. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency investigating the site under the FUSRAP program, has found those materials to be within U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines and thus far does not plan on removing them. Two city officials said Wednesday they were pleased the DEC is doing the tests, but also that they should be a gateway to more extensive looks at the residential area near the landfill. “I plan on getting up and requesting the DEC expands the scope of gamma ray walkover tests to not only include Hackett Drive and Riverview Elementary School but also Wadsworth Court, Wadsworth, Brookside Terrace and Brookside Terrace West,” City Councilman Rick Davis said. “All the properties are adjacent to the landfill and topography shows that water flows towards Two Mile Creek, and those homes are in that pathway. “If we’re going to do it, let’s do it right and include those homes.” Mayor Ron Pilozzi said the tests are a sign of progress, but regardless of the results, more tests should look deeper into the ground. The DEC walkover tests will measure several inches down. “It’s a great first step after many requests and appeals for folks at the state and federal level,” he said. The state Department of Health will also be on hand to answer questions. Earlier on Tuesday, Erie County Legislator Michele Iannello, D-Kenmore, will hold another meeting on the Town of Tonawanda landfill in front of the Legislature’s Energy and Environment Committee. Record of that meeting will be submitted as a public comment to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “The testing is a great thing, but I still don’t know if it’s enough,” she said. Iannello, who stressed she’s more passionate about the issue than she appears as a public speaker, has also been meeting with University at Buffalo Professor Joseph Gardella, who was instrumental process in getting testing done at the Hickory Woods development in South Buffalo. © 2007, Tonawanda News 435 River Road; North Tonawanda, NY 14120 Phone: (716) 693-1000 Fax: (716) 693-0124 Email news tips and comments ***************************************************************** 53 Hi-Desert Star: L.A. power plan cuts swath through protected lands 56445 29 Palms HWY • Yucca Valley, CA 92284 ? 760-365-3315 By Mark Wheeler / Friday, May 4, 2007 11:48 PM PDT Following in the steps of a long and storied tradition of water wars and embattled land-use schemes, the City of Angels is once again advancing a proposal to further its own community interests that some worry will be at the expense of community interests elsewhere. In response to new state laws calling for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and increased energy conservation measures statewide, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in 2005 declared that 20 percent of the city’s power would be generated by alternative sources by 2010. A significant part of the mayor’s plan includes using geothermal and solar sources located near the Salton Sea. Transmission of this energy over land will require a high-tension power line, and several of the tentative alternatives hook through the Hi-Desert. All of these alternatives share a common trunk that will run from the Coachella Valley up through Big Morongo Canyon Preserve before crossing Twentynine Palms Highway just east of Little Morongo Canyon and climbing from there into the hills. Somewhere in the Sawtooth Mountains, one alternative branches off and runs east across Pioneertown Road to Old Woman Springs Road where it crosses in the vicinity of Flamingo Heights, and then proceeds north and then west through Johnson Valley and the Johnson Valley ORV Area to Hesperia. Another alternative runs straight through Pioneertown and carries the name “Green Path North.” Recently identified in an L.A. Department of Water and Power e-mail as the “preferred alignment for Green Path North,” the route appears on a map to follow between the base of the hills and the residential streets west of Pioneertown Road. From here it continues north past the Bighorn Mountain Wilderness areas and wraps around west to Hesperia. Partners in this venture are the City of Los Angeles, the Imperial Irrigation District — where geothermal energy is being produced and where production of solar energy is proposed — the Boston, Mass.-based Citizens Energy Corporation and the lead agency, the L.A. Department of Water and Power. In a Nov. 16, 2005, press release from Villaraigosa’s office, the mayor praised the project as a step forward in the city’s efforts to shift away from fossil fuel use. The release went on to state, “The project will benefit residents and businesses in Los Angeles, Imperial, San Diego and Riverside counties.” “So why do San Bernardino County residents and businesses have to suffer the blight of this transmission line?” is what many in the Morongo Basin are asking in many different ways. An answer to this question will have to come from the Department of Water and Power and so far, the utility maintains that analysis hasn’t been completed on all potential corridors and, therefore, there is no argument why any particular corridor should be better than another. When asked in a telephone interview why the Hi-Desert is even on the table as an alternative, considering the shortest route to L.A. from the Salton Sea would be along the I-10 corridor, DWP Public Affairs Representative Carol Tucker said the highway already is “built out to capacity.” DWP Commission President H. David Nahai also suggested as much, but noted, “Whatever the route will be, it is our intention to follow the path of minimum impact.” When asked what he thought should be minimally impacted, the commissioner answered that everything from the environment to project costs would be involved in the final analysis. He also agreed with the suggestion that costs for right-of-way along the I-10 might be considerably greater than costs for the Hi-Desert route, although he could not verify this as a fact. Looking at a map of the project area and its many alternatives, it’s clear that Hi-Desert routes maximize use of Bureau of Land Management lands, whereas the low desert alternatives must cross many more miles of private and Indian reservation lands. The BLM does charge rental fees for right-of-way passage over its lands per the Reasonable Right-Of-Way Fees Act Of 2001. These, however, are subject to a number of “adjustment” considerations, especially for energy and communication transmission uses. The strong suspicion of project opponents is that the rental fees for the BLM right-of-way will be significantly lower than purchase costs for right-of-way on private land. Local and regional groups already have declared their opposition, The Wildlands Conservancy among them. Pipes Canyon Preserve Manager April Sall has stated her organization’s protest in a letter to Villaraigosa, and appeared last week on the National Public Radio program “Which Way L.A.” with Green Path proponents Nahai and Greg Fishman of California Iso, which operates most of California’s high-voltage wholesale power grid. Sall sees two potential encroachments directly onto Wildlands Conservancy property. She worries even more that such a massively engineered facility near the preserve will have powerful impacts on wildlife movement and wildlife and plant migration patterns, not to mention that the construction and maintenance road built along with the powerline will provide motor-vehicle access to areas currently protected by the lack of such access. “Bringing ever more supplies over miles of undeveloped lands into urban areas to meet ever increasing needs is not the only method for meeting energy conservation goals,” Sall insisted. “What about reducing need? Minimizing waste? Locally generating and distributing power?” Mostly, Sall objects to using public lands for urban purposes, particularly when the motive is strictly monetary. “We hold open lands in the public trust for important reasons,” she said, “and to auction those lands to any special interest bidder without the public consent is a betrayal of the public trust.” In addition to geothermal and solar, the Green Path will be carrying a reported 400 megawatts of nuclear power from Arizona. Copyright © 2007 Hi Desert Star ***************************************************************** 54 West Australian: Hiroshima film shown at nuclear meeting : thewest.com.au 6th May 2007, 7:02 WST Members of international nongovernmental organisationsparticipating in the ongoing Vienna conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have watched Hadashi no Gen (Barefoot Gen), an animated movie depicting a boy who survived the US atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945. he 1983 movie, based on Keiji Nakazawa's classicautobiographical comic portraying the life of Gen before and after the horrific explosion in which he lost his father, elder sister and younger brother, was shown at the Preparatory Committee for the NPT Review Conference by the Japanese government delegation to the NPT review conference. The delegation also distributed the English edition of the 10-volume saga that depicts the struggle for survival by Gen, his mother and his younger sister. The delegation also showed the 2005 movie Hiroshima by Paul Wilmshurst which reenacted the first use of an atomic bomb through extensive use of computer graphics and special effects, and the 1994 animated movie Tsuru ni notte (Bird of Happiness) directed by Seiji Arihara about a girl exposed to the atomic blast. KYODO West Australian Newspapers Limited 2007. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 55 News Tribune: McChord unit aces ‘nuclear surety’ inspection | TheNewsTribune.com | Tacoma, WA Tribune, Tacoma, WA - Sunday, May 6th, 2007 1:27 AM The Associated Press When you transport nuclear weapons, something as simple as a traffic ticket can get you pulled off the job: There are no distractions allowed. “The 62nd Airlift Wing calls us its only ‘no fail’ mission,” said Maj. Brian Lewis, 36, a pilot and commander in the 4th Airlift Squadron at McChord Air Force Base. The squadron is the only one in the Air Force that flies nuclear weapons and their components around the world. The job commonly involves shipping nuclear weapons parts that must be replaced regularly, such as parachutes. The squadron recently aced a five-day “nuclear surety” inspection it must undergo every 18 months. A team of 25 inspectors descended to test, among other things, the oversight of the squadron’s wing leadership, the physical and psychological health of crew members, plus planes and procedures. “We had 28 people tested. Of those 28, each scored 100 percent” in five major grading areas, Maj. Rob Campbell, 32, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Transporting nuclear weapons is such a sensitive task that any potential distractions for crew members – anything from a traffic ticket to a death in the family – must be reported immediately to the squadron commander. After such a report, the crew member often is pulled temporarily from flights. “If you are worried about anything other than dealing with these items, you should not be on a mission. We want to make sure you are up to the challenge, that your head is in the mission,” said Capt. Nathan Higgins, 29, another of the squadron’s aircraft commanders. The squadron’s other duties include flying troops and equipment to war zones, taking scientists and equipment to Antarctica, and evacuating wounded troops. Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material ***************************************************************** 56 SF New Mexican: LANL: Ailing workers could get money By Andy Lenderman The New Mexican May 5, 2007 Hundreds of Cold War-era workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory soon may be eligible for government compensation for cancers they developed after being exposed to radioactive materials. A federal advisory board Thursday approved a petition by Harriet Ruiz, widow of State Rep. Ray Ruiz, D-Albuquerque, creating a class of lab employees and former employees who are not required to prove how much radiation they were exposed to or the cause of their cancer. Ray Ruiz, who died of lung cancer in 2004, was exposed to ``harmful doses of radiation'' while working at the lab, according to a news release from U.S. Rep. Tom Udall, D-N.M. ``I made a promise to my husband to continue his fight for just compensation'' by creating an easier path for lab employees who later developed cancer, Harriet Ruiz said in a news release. Her petition creates a ``special exposure cohort'' that eliminates the need for such employees to show how much radiation they were exposed to while working at the lab. The petition approved by the advisory board covers workers who developed any one of 22 specified cancers after working for at least 250 days in certain parts of the lab between March 15, 1943, and Dec. 31, 1975. An estimated 400 to 600 workers and former workers at the lab could get $150,000 payments plus coverage of medical expenses. Survivors also may be eligible for the $150,000 payments. Udall and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said they would lobby Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt for approval of the petition, which is expected. Ruiz was asked to rewrite her petition three times by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which helps administer the program. Udall and Ruiz testified before the advisory board about ``the increasingly high mortality rate of the early LANL workers,'' Udall's office said. Congress passed the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Program Act in 2000 and later amended it. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor and is intended to give current and former U.S. Department of Energy employees cash and medical payments for radiation-induced cancers and other diseases they developed as a result of working for the department. The original law required the link between illness and exposure on the job be proven to federal health officials, and the cases meet several detailed guidelines. Workers with noncancer illnesses caused by toxins get up to a $250,000 payment plus coverage of medical expenses. And their spouses and children also may qualify for some payments. A measure to establish a state office to help workers process their claims died this year in the New Mexico Legislature. House Bill 779 was carried by House Speaker Ben Lujan, D-Nambe, a former iron worker at Los Alamos. The measure would have provided $610,000 to establish a state Office of Nuclear Workers Advocacy. ``The hearing process is subject to the federal requirements, which can be burdensome, particularly to ill workers or surviving spouses,'' a fiscal impact report on the bill said. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican.com. Copyright 2007 The New Mexican, Inc. ***************************************************************** 57 Kentucky.com: Study: Potential earthquate biggest obstacle for Paducah plant 05/06/2007 | The Associated Press * http://www.paducahsun.com PADUCAH, Ky. -- Working around a fault line is the biggest obstacle to Paducah landing a nuclear fuel recycling plant, according to a study submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy. The Paducah Uranium Plant Utilization Task Force, which conducted the study, also said state law forbids building an associated advanced burner-reactor in western Kentucky until the Public Service Commission concludes that the federal government has identified and approved a way to dispose of high-level nuclear waste, the study says. The task force said the recycling plant can be made earthquake resistant and that the Public Service Commission is willing to help resolve uncertainties in the law to allow the burner-reactor's construction. The facility would generate electricity while destroying a large amount of highly radioactive waste left over from fuel rods. A group of local business and government representatives comprise the task force, with the goal of creating jobs once the 1,100-employee Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant closes starting in 2012. The group submitted a 477-page study to the Energy Department last week. It is posted on the group's Web site, http://www.paducahgnep.com. Paducah is one of 12 cities competing for the project. The Energy Department will decide by June 2008 whether and where to build one or more of the plants. U.S. Geological Survey scientists think Paducah is above the New Madrid Fault, where huge earthquakes in 1811-1812 formed Reelfoot Lake and briefly caused the Mississippi River to flow backward. Their counterparts at the state level believe Paducah may be north of the fault, meaning that strict building codes may be overstated. Extensive deep-earth testing is being done near Hickman for clarification. ***************************************************************** 58 Tri-City Herald: Hanford's nuclear future tied to region's concerns Opinions Published Sunday, May 6th, 2007 A new report on Hanford's potential role in the future of nuclear research does more than provide answers. It raises the right questions. The study -- actually a combination of separate reports from the Tri-City Development Council and the Columbia Basin Consulting Group -- was released last week. The document, produced under a grant from the Department of Energy, makes a compelling case for Hanford's selection as a demonstration site for an advanced nuclear fuel recycling program. Hanford has a lengthy list of attributes, giving it an advantage over other possible sites if the nation decides to move forward with the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. GNEP is a Bush administration initiative to develop the technology to reprocess spent nuclear fuel in a way that recycles the power-producing isotopes without producing bomb-making materials. Whether the new Democratic majority in Washington, D.C., will provide enough money to keep GNEP alive remains to be seen. The proposal deserves a fair hearing in Congress, but nothing guarantees it will get one. Under the plan, Third World nations would receive nuclear power plants and fuel from the West, then return the spent fuel for reprocessing. The vision is ambitious, providing abundant energy to the developing world without expanding the number of nations with nuclear weapons programs. The potential to take a slice out of world poverty without contributing to global warming makes GNEP worth considering, regardless of political persuasion. The same is true for Hanford's potential role. Existing infrastructure -- idled, mothballed and partially completed -- could be salvaged by GNEP, saving taxpayers hundreds of millions, the Hanford study found. And restarting the Fast Flux Test Facility and using the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility at Hanford's 400 Area would not only save money but also could cut a decade off development of the program, according to the study. Nearby, two unfinished nuclear power plants at Energy Northwest's 972-acre site could be used for fuel recycling and an advanced burner reactor, TRIDEC concluded. As part of the DOE grant, TRIDEC tried to gauge the region's concerns and questions about the program. The list is as informative as the catalog of Hanford's attributes. Several consistent themes surfaced from discussions with focus groups and during one-on-one sessions with key decision-makers across the state, TRIDEC reported. "Strongest among the messages was that cleanup of Hanford must come first," the study found. "We also heard that bringing additional nuclear waste into the state would be met with significant resistance." The fear is GNEP could make "Hanford the de-facto repository for the United States." Other issues were identified, but those were the big ones. Knee-jerk opposition is guaranteed for anything nuclear, but thoughtful people are raising legitimate concerns. Nothing appears to be a show-stopper, especially considering the time and money that could be saved at Hanford. But proponents of a nuclear future at Hanford must address the concerns of Northwesterners to have a chance of success. © 2007 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press & Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 59 Hanford Site: Past Horror, Future Hope U.S. Gov Info / Resources Historic nuclear research leads to environmental disaster This feature presents the factual history of events leading to the creation of one of the most interesting, yet least recognized of all U.S. Government agencies, and Web site, the Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, better known as the "Hanford Site." Hanford, Washington - Then and Now Several years ago, a popular country song spoke of ?making the best out of a bad situation.? That?s Hanford. In 1943, about 1,200 people lived along the Columbia River in the southeastern Washington state farming towns of Richland, White Bluffs and Hanford. Today, this Tri-Cities area is home to over 120,000 people, most of whom would almost certainly live, work, and spend money somewhere else were it not for what accumulated at the 560 square mile Hanford area from 1943 to 1991. Mainly... 56 million gallons of radioactive waste stored in 177 underground tanks, sixty-eight of which leak. 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel sitting in (and sometimes leaking from) two pools only a few hundred feet from the Columbia River. 120 square miles of contaminated ground water. 25 tons of plutonium that must be disposed of and kept under constant armed guard. And, that is what remains at Hanford after over 7 years of the most intensive environmental cleanup project in history. How did this happen? Brief Hanford History Around Christmas of 1942, far from sleepy Hanford, World War II was grinding on. Enrico Fermi and his team completed the world?s first nuclear chain reaction, and the decision was made to build the atomic bomb as a weapon to end the war with Japan. The top-secret project took the name, "Manhattan." In January of 1943, the Manhattan Project got under way at Hanford, Oak Ridge in Tennessee, and Los Alamos, New Mexico. Hanford was chosen as the site where they would make plutonium, a deadly byproduct of the nuclear reaction process and main ingredient of the atomic bomb. Just 13 months later, Hanford?s first reactor went online. And that was the end of World War II. But, it was far from the end for Hanford. "Your grandchildren will live under Communism!" -- Nikita Khrushchev, 1959 The years following the end of World War II saw a deterioration of relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. In 1949, the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb and the nuclear arms race -- the Cold War -- began. Instead of decommissioning the existing one, eight new reactors were built at Hanford. From 1956-63, Hanford produced at its peak. Things got scary. Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev, in a 1959 visit, told the American people, ?your grandchildren will live under communism.? When Russian missiles appeared in Cuba in 1962, and the world came within minutes of nuclear war, America redoubled its efforts toward nuclear deterrence. From 1960 to 1964, our nuclear arsenal tripled, and Hanford?s reactors hummed day and night. Finally, in late 1964, President Lyndon Johnson decided that our need for plutonium had decreased and ordered all but one Hanford reactor shutdown. From 1964 - 1971 eight of nine reactors were slowly shutdown and prepared for decontamination and decommissioning. The remaining reactor was converted to produce electricity, as well as plutonium. From 1972 to 1979, Hanford Site diversified. Energy research, development and technology were added to the mission. The Cold War Ends In 1990, Michail Gorbachev, Soviet President, pushed for improved relations between the superpowers and greatly reduced Russian arms development. The peaceful fall of the Berlin Wall followed shortly, and in September 27, 1991, the U.S. Congress officially declared the end of the Cold War. No more defense-related plutonium would ever be produced at Hanford. The Cleanup Begins During its defense production years, the Hanford Site was under strict military security and never subject to outside oversight. Due to improper disposal methods, like dumping 440 billion gallons of radioactive liquid directly onto the ground, Hanford?s 650 square miles is still considered one of the most toxic places on earth. The U.S. Department of Energy took over operations at Hanford from the Atomic Energy Commission in 1977 with these goals a part of its Strategic Plan: 1. Clean it up! The Environmental Mission DOE recognizes that Hanford won?t be ?like it was before? for centuries, if ever. But, they have established interim and long-term goals to the satisfaction of the impacted parties. 2. Never again! The Science & Technology Mission DOE, along with private contractors are developing technology in a wide range of clean-energy related areas. Many of the preventative and remedial environmental methods used today came from Hanford. 3. Support the people! The Tri-Party Agreement From the beginning of Hanford?s recovery era, DOE has worked to build and diversify the area?s economy, while encouraging intense involvement with and input from private citizens and the Indian Nations. So, How?s It Going? Hanford?s cleanup phase will probably continue until at least 2030, when many of DOE?s long-term environmental goals will have been met. Until then, the cleanup goes carefully on, one day at a time. Research and development of new energy-related and environmental technologies now shares an almost equal level of activity. Over the years, a total of $13.1 million has been granted to the Hanford area communities to fund projects designed to build the local economy, diversify the workforce, and prepare for coming reductions in federal involvement. Since 1942, the U.S. Government has been Hanford. As late as 1994, over 19,000 residents were federal employees, or 23 percent of the area?s total workforce. And, in a very real sense, a terrible environmental disaster became the driving force behind the growth, perhaps even the survival, of the Hanford area. Life In Hanford Today? Well, you have your good days, on which you probably forget all about the past... DOE Donates Excess Hanford Computers to Schools New Technologies Showcased at Hanford Reactor and your bad days... An Alert is Declared at Hanford Plutonium Reclamation Facility Explosion Investigation Continues Read the classic book about Hanford "On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site" - by Michele S. Gerber Compare prices and purchase online. The New York Times Company. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 Chillicothe Gazette: Work at Piketon plant brings USEC a dip in profits www.chillicothegazette.com - Chillicothe, OH Saturday, May 5, 2007 The Gazette Staff The United States Enrichment Corp. spent more on American Centrifuge this quarter as a result of work going on in Piketon. While the net income was $4.7 million higher than it was at this time last year — $39.3 million for 2007’s first quarter, which ended March 31 — the gross profit margin fell to 15.7 percent from last year’s reported 25.5 percent. According to a news release from the corporation, the higher revenue in 2007 was offset by the increasing impact of higher electric power costs and higher purchase costs from Russia. “Spending on American Centrifuge was higher, reflecting our work to prepare the Piketon facility for commercial plant construction and to assemble and install the first American Centrifuge machines that will make up the Lead Cascade,” said John Welch, president and chief executive officer of USEC. The Lead Cascade, currently being assembled and installed in Piketon, will be the first group of centrifuges working together to enrich uranium to commercial grade concentration. It’s expected to be operational in mid-2007. Capital expenditures for the corporation totaled $16.1 million for the first quarter, compared to last year’s $7.5 million, which the corporation attributes to American Centrifuge expenses. The U.S. Regulatory Commission issued a construction and operating license for the plant last month, which lasts for 30 years. The technology is modular, so plant output can be expanded. USEC is looking for an investment by a third party to raise funds for construction of the plant, which is estimated to cost $2.3 billion, including amounts already spent. An expected $340 million will be spent on the project this year. A pre-application for a loan guarantee also has been submitted by USEC, from which the company stated it won’t hear results until late 2007 or early 2008. “It is a competitive process, but we believe USEC is well-qualified for loan guarantees under criteria for both energy conservation and nuclear power,” stated the press release. Additionally, talks have been ongoing with the Department of Energy for the corporation to re-enrich uranium contained in cylinders of depleted uranium, also known as “tails.” They were generated by the U.S. government when it operated gaseous diffusion plants in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. USEC expects net income to break even for the full year, stated the release. Copyright ©2007 Chillicothe Gazette ***************************************************************** 61 Ventura County Star: Editorial: Sound ruling for the public A federal judge has brought some welcome reason and common sense to the much- debated cleanup of the Rocketdyne Santa Susana Field Laboratory by the U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti on Wednesday properly found "that the DOE has violated and continues to violate" federal law in its cleanup of nuclear and chemical contamination at the lab. He also barred any transfer of the property for residential development purposes until the DOE conducts a stringent environmental review. Boeing Corp., which owns the 2,800-acre lab near Simi Valley, and the DOE declined to comment on the ruling. But, environmentalists and activists, who brought the lawsuit against the DOE, said the judge did exactly what was needed to ensure the lab is cleaned to the highest level. When the lawsuit was filed in 2004, a DOE spokesman said the department "is following all applicable state and federal regulations regarding our cleanup at the site." If that's true, those regulations need changing. But, more likely what needs changing is the DOE continuing to thumb its nose at legitimate concerns about the thoroughness of the cleanup. For nearly a decade, environmentalists, residents, city leaders, elected state and federal officials have urged a more stringent cleanup. Most recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency re-entered the fray last month, saying it will survey the entire lab site to determine if it qualifies as a Superfund site. That means a more rigorous cleanup of the lab. The EPA has twice before denied such a designation for the site. Not content to stay silent about the latest EPA move, the DOE argued that the environmental agency was not an expert on the lab's cleanup because it didn't have jurisdiction. That is a view Judge Conti rightly called "laughable" in that "jurisdiction and expertise are two completely different things." The field lab tested rocket engines for the U.S. space program and conducted Cold War nuclear experiments for the DOE, beginning in the 1950s. That research ended at the lab in 1988. During that time, there were spills and accidents, including a partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor in 1959. It is this chemical and radioactive contamination that is the focus of the ongoing DOE cleanup. The judge's 47-page ruling can be appealed, but The Star urges the DOE to put all its energy toward guaranteeing the radioactive materials and other toxic chemicals in the soil will be completely removed. For more than a decade, this is what the public has been seeking, but unable to achieve. Judge Conti may have found a way. © 2007 Ventura County Star ***************************************************************** 62 lamonitor.com: V-Site: Humble shack earns special recognition The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS Monitor Assistant Editor The million-dollar restoration of a dilapidated building deep in the woods of Los Alamos National Laboratory was recognized by the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division this week for having rescued an important piece of the state's architectural heritage. V-Site, behind the lab's security perimeter known as "the fence" can't be seen by the typical tourist, but the lore surrounding the origins of the first nuclear bombs, is filled with deep significance. And V-Site, like the names of the founding fathers on the Declaration of Independence, stands for one of the authentic signatures on the pages of American history. Fat Man, the first plutonium weapon tested at Trinity Site in southern New Mexico, was not exactly born in a barn, but it was born in a hastily constructed shop that resembled a garage. A secret area within a top-secret project, V-Site was set apart from much of the other frantic work going on during the first two years of the Manhattan Project. The High Bay building where that work took place was one of the only salvageable buildings after the Cerro Grande Fire ripped through the western end of the laboratory in 2000. The other was the Gun Site, where ballistic tests were performed to perfect the gun-method that was used in the uranium bomb at Hiroshima. "V-Site was where the Trinity device was assembled before it got to Alamogordo," said John Isaacson, who was the cultural resource manager at LANL and one of the main champions of the preservation project. "It was where the implosion device, the lenses, the detonators, the high explosives and tampers - all came together for the test," he said. The plutonium core went in later on the eve of the big moment, July 16, 1945. "The test was the beginning. That was the big watershed event, a high-yield explosion that changed the world," said Isaacson. After the initial bombs were deployed to the Pacific and the war ended, V-Site puttered along for another decade or so, until it was abandoned in the 1950s and then slated for demolition in the late 80s. Then in the 90s as the laboratory began inventorying cultural resources, "We recognized the significance of the V-Site and we saved it," said Ellen McGehee. McGehee, a historical archaeologist in the lab's ecology group, was among the group along with Isaacson that was honored by the state. Saving the site was one thing, getting it restored was another. That took a lengthy educational campaign. "Ellen and I spent years talking to people with slide shows to raise awareness of how important these structures were," said Isaacson. Eventually, interest from the state and the federal agencies found the lab more receptive, as the advocates briefed planners, senior managers and former directors. "We had to change the mindset, from who is going to pay for it - to, if we can get the money, will you support us," said Isaacson. Another key player in the preservation saga was the Atomic Heritage Foundation, whose director Cynthia Kelly was recognized during the ceremonies especially for raising private funds. Kelly was able to match a grant from the Department of Energy under the National Park Service's Save America's Treasures Program that has financed a number of Manhattan Project heritage projects. In a telephone conversation this week, Kelly said the "S" in S-Site stands for sawmill, which is the name for the larger area in which the V-Site is located. "The retaining walls in the (V-Site) restoration were made of Douglas pine and white fir," she said. "The retaining boards were done by grandchildren of the original sawyer." Recognized for their work on the reconstruction were Crocker Ltd. of Santa Fe principals Ed Crocker and Jonah Stanford; and J.B. Henderson Construction Inc. of Los Alamos principals Paul Inglat and Fred Schneider. The Historic Preservation Division of the Department of Cultural Affairs held its awards ceremony on May 1. Other award winners included the Norman Petty Recording Studio in Clovis, where Buddy Holly's "That'll Be the Day" and "Peggy Sue" were recorded in 1957. The current owners, Kenneth and Shirley Broad, have preserved the recording studio and give tours to about 500 people a year. A highlight of the award ceremony at the Scottish Rite Temple in Santa Fe was a live performance by the Fireballs, who recorded tracks for some of Holly's posthumously released songs at the Petty Studio. The Fireballs had their own big hit, "Sugar Shack,"in 1963. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 63 KVII Online: Why Negotiations Went South Miscommunication is one of the things being blamed for the lack of progress in the Pantex Guards Union strike, said members of the Union and the National Council of Security Police. By Chris Olsen Posted: Friday, May 04, 2007 at 11:54 PM AMARILLO -- Miscommunication is one of the things being blamed for the lack of progress in the Pantex Guards Union strike,  said members of the Union and the National Council of Security Police. We found out the guards recently asked for federal benefits, and that was misconstrued as a request to be “federalized” at the local level. When negotiations started the PGU said it simply wanted benefits and career progression paths similar to federal law enforcement officers, like U.S. Marshals or FBI agents. Instead they say the proposal was misconstrued as an attempt to federalize. “There's been confusion that we tried to federalize at the table of BWXT Pantex and that’s not the case at all,” said Mike Stumbo, a Pantex Guard as well as the NCSP President. “All we attempted to do is receive federal benefits based on a letter from the Secretary [Department of Energy] that stated that these potential benefits could be achieved through the contractor [Pantex].” Stumbo told Pronews 7 that the only way the Pantex Guards could be federalized is at the national level, after legislation is passed through congress. A feat Stumbo says could happen before too long. ”Through debate, and hopefully the house and senate coming to terms on what's truly needed to serve the public, it should be achievable by October.” Stumbo also said until something like this happens it's back to negotiations. On Wednesday negotiations between the PGU and BWXT Pantex will resume.  “Hopefully we'll sit down and find that command ground that we've been trying to achieve and get the personnel that need to be in that plant back on the job.” Meanwhile back on the picket lines guards will keep holding on to what money and hope they have saved up until they feel their benefits are as close to federal as they can get. “Personally this is the longest I thought we'd be out here, but the longer it goes the more it looks like a month or so,” said Andrew Davis, a Pantex Security Police Officer. BWXT is not paying the guards while they are on strike. Many told Pronews 7 they have had to get part-time jobs to help supplement income. There is no question in any guards mind what we are willing to risk if there was a threat to the plant. The question is, what do we deserve for taking that risk? The company(Pantex) apparently does not feel that what we are willing to risk is as valuable as we think it is. What is so difficult about giving your employees who are willing to lay their lives on the line what they deserve? — david hampton, canyon I also want to Thank........ I want to thank KVII, for the media coverage on the strike. I appreciate your effort. I also appreciate these forums to openly discuss this crucial topic. So I want to just say thank-you to KVII....... — R. Bellenger, Dumas I'm very proud of the PGU All of us PGU members will be out on strike three weeks tomorrow. I must say I'm very very proud of all of you for fighting for what's right. I and my family like yours have sacrificed a lot and while we will never get the money we lost back it was worth every cent to do the right thing. I am very proud of every PGU Officer and each one of you has my full respect. I growing up in a very pro-union household of mainly auto workers questioned the guts of my union co-workers here in Texas. I'm very happy and proud to say my questions have been answered. You guys are truely my union brothers and sisters. You guys and gals are the best co-workers I have ever had. I never worked with people with such good hearts as y'all and each one of you are true Patriots. I hope our employer will finally give each one of us a fair contract that we deserve. People in other fields both at the site and other industry's in the Panhandle and in the U.S. make a lot more than we do with a lot less qualifications and don't have to put in nearly as many hours as we do to make ends meet. It would seem like common sense to give employees a fair days wage and benefits doing the work we do wouldn't it ? I want to close by saying I and my family love each and every one of you guys. Stay strong and God Bless the PGU !!!! — R. Bellenger, Dumas ***************************************************************** 64 KnoxNews: Wackenhut pact renewed OR security contractor inks new deals worth $549 million By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com May 5, 2007 OAK RIDGE - Wackenhut Services, the government's security contractor in Oak Ridge since 2000, has been awarded new contracts valued at more than $500 million. The company will retain its role providing protective services at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and other federal installations in Oak Ridge. Steven Wyatt, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the five-year contracts have a total value of $549 million. "We are absolutely delighted," Jim Rackstraw, Wackenhut's director of training and emergency management, said Friday in a telephone interview. "We felt our performance during the life of this contract was such that it made us very competitive. We feel very good about winning." Wackenhut won two contracts - one for security at Y-12, which houses the nation's stockpile of weapons-usable uranium, and the other for security at ORNL and other U.S. Department of Energy facilities in Oak Ridge. The federal procurement has been delayed for about a year while the bids were evaluated in Oak Ridge and at DOE headquarters in Washington. During the interim, Wackenhut's existing contracts were extended month-by-month to continue the security operations. In a prepared statement, Wackenhut said it earned an average performance score of 97 percent during its seven years in Oak Ridge. The company cited major improvements in training and equipment to protect the federal facilities against the growing threat of terrorism. Wackenhut employs more than 900 people in Oak Ridge. "The work under this contract is essential to the continued safe and secure protection of the Y-12 National Security Complex, a key facility responsible for ensuring the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile," Ted Sherry, the federal manager at Y-12, said in a statement. DOE Manager Gerald Boyd said security is one of the highest priorities in Oak Ridge, and he said the new contract would help provide a more secure environment for federal and contractor employees. Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** 65 KnoxNews: Not short on cache OR facilities seriously beef up security with new gear, weapons By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com May 6, 2007 OAK RIDGE - If Tennessee's Atomic City ever becomes a terrorist battleground, the protective forces will bring plenty of firepower to the fight. Grenade launchers and Gatling guns. Machine guns galore. Armored vehicles equipped for warfare. In the past few months, the government has seriously upgraded armaments and related technologies to counter the latest terrorist threats. "If the bad guys are stupid enough to hit a nuclear facility, you've got to think they'll be well-outfitted," said Jean "John" Burleson, general manager of Wackenhut Services, the security contractor at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant and other federal facilities. Oak Ridge guards are armed and ready, he said. "We'll be at least as equipped, but we'll far outnumber them, too," Burleson said during an interview at Wackenhut's central training site a couple of miles west of Y-12. "They won't bring in 1,000 people." Wackenhut learned Friday that the company had won new five-year contracts to provide security at the Oak Ridge facilities. Earlier in the week, the contractor displayed a wealth of gear available to special response teams and security police. That dwarfs the pre-9/11 weaponry that consisted mostly of .357-caliber Magnum handguns and M-16 rifles. Some of the stuff - such as the Dillon Aero Gatling gun - is so new that security personnel haven't had a chance to train with it. The Gatling guns are set up to fire 7.62-millimeter bullets at a rate of 3,000 rounds a minute. They're mounted inside turrets on Lenco Bearcat armored vehicles, and they provide an anti-aircraft capability at the Oak Ridge plants. "At 3,000 rounds per minute, it can be used for just about anything," said Sgt. Jason Morrow of Wackenhut's special operations group. "It's going to stop just about anything it comes in contact with." Burleson said the guns can blast their way through 18 inches of reinforced concrete. Grenades at the ready The preferred ammunition for the new guns is in high demand for the military missions in Iraq. Burleson said it might be another two months before the Oak Ridge forces get their supply, delaying the deployment of that equipment. "Nobody is given equipment until they've been trained on it," the Wackenhut chief said. Security squads, however, have begun driver training on the newly acquired armored vehicles that carry the Gatling guns, Burleson said. Grenades are another important part of the arms buildup. "Because of terrain and stuff that we're defending, you can throw a grenade into an area where the enemy could be hiding," Burleson said. "They're effective at getting into 'dead spots' - areas you couldn't reach otherwise." In addition to the M67 fragmentation grenade, the Oak Ridge guards have access to Bushmaster M4 rifles equipped with 40-millimeter grenade launchers. The launchers have a range of 300-350 meters, according to Lt. Robert Conner of the special operations group. The grenades have a kill radius of 5 meters and a casualty radius of 15 meters, meaning an adversary would be incapable of carrying on the fight, he said. Y-12 houses the nation's largest supply of weapons-usable uranium, and it would be a prime target for terrorists wanting to make a nuclear bomb. Oak Ridge National Laboratory also houses sensitive nuclear facilities such as the High Flux Isotope Reactor and Building 3019-A - a repository for uranium-233. Safety concerns There are obvious questions about the safety of having grenades and other explosives in proximity to strategic nuclear materials. "It's a concern having grenades anywhere because they're very lethal," Burleson said. "You have to weigh that against the threat of someone coming in and taking the stuff (enriched uranium)." Dean Sheridan, a safety officer with the National Nuclear Security Administration, said there was a detailed analysis of which weapons could be used inside the sensitive nuclear facilities. The talks involved security, safety and operations specialists. "We went through a complete list," Sheridan said. "We looked at the Carl Gustaf rocket launchers. We looked at the AT4 (anti-tank weapon)." Officials felt some weapons clearly went beyond the scope of protecting the Oak Ridge plants, Sheridan said. "We don't need to be taking out Wal-Mart," he said, referring to the store a couple of miles away. Sheridan said Oak Ridge personnel came up with protective tags and other measures to reduce the chance of grenades or other powerful weapons exploding accidentally. The grenades used in the M4 launchers are armed in flight according to the spin rate of the device, Sheridan said. "It can't go off while still in the launcher," he said. With the hand grenade, at least three different things have to be done for it to be accidentally misfired, the federal official said. In the heat of battle, however, you take weapons wherever they're needed, Burleson said. The Project On Government Oversight has been a frequent critic of security at Oak Ridge and other nuclear defense sites. Last year, POGO released a report that said Y-12 and ORNL both were vulnerable to terrorist attacks, raising the possibility of a nuclear bomb being detonated on site. Peter Stockton, senior investigator with the watchdog group, said there are strong concerns about the safety of some remotely operated weapons used at Oak Ridge. Guards have said there are "friendly fire" issues with the pop-up weapon systems, he said. Stockton also questioned the "rules of engagement" for some of the weapons being deployed, especially the possibility of Gatling guns being fired on aircraft. "POGO is not against technology," Stockton said. "However, it has got to be safe." He said security analysts believe some new weapons could be knocked out easily by well-armed terrorist assaults. Oak Ridge security police recently were outfitted with a new generation of bullet-resistant vests from PACA. Among other items in use: n AVON respirators to protect against chemical and biological agents; n thermal-based surveillance cameras; n Sig Sauer P226 semi-automatic 9 mm pistols; n distraction devices that use concussion and light effects to disorient an adversary; n ballistic helmets with night-vision devices attached; n four variations of the M4 rifle; n M249 and M240B machine guns; n a fleet of Advanced Concept Armored Vehicles, which are Ford F-350 trucks that have been armored and equipped with remotely operated weapon systems. "We're not your typical rent-a-cops," Burleson said. "We are a paramilitary organization with the same equipment, same tactics as the military." Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329. Copyright 2007, Knoxville News Sentinel Co. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************